Republican or Democrat

Brokers are Republicans, planners are Dummycraps.

Republicans seek their own success, Dummycraps try to legislate success.

Repulican here.  Located in a blue state, but the county that I live in always votes 80% + republican.  I don't talk polictics with my clients, however.   Just to be on the safe side.

Here is an interesting test you might want to take.  I ended up right near Mitlon Friedman

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

I, also, do not make a point to discuss politics with my clients. However, if they ask, I tell them I'm Libertarian.

Here is another political quiz:

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

I ended up near George W. Bush.

Wasn't there a Money magazine article before the election saying that Democrats normally have higher returns on the s&p 500 compared to republicans.  Something like 10% more.   Not sure - but I did remember reading it because the numbers where a surprise since Republicans like to claim that they are better for business etc.

Anywho I vote for the better candidate - I never cared for W because of what he did against McCane back in 2000 primaries.

So I voted democrat in both 2000 and 2004 - but being from chicago area - voting republican would have been pointless anyway.

[quote=Juiced6]

Wasn’t there a Money magazine article before the
election saying that Democrats normally have higher returns on the
s&p 500 compared to republicans.  Something like 10%
more.   Not sure - but I did remember reading it because the
numbers where a surprise since Republicans like to claim that they
are better for business etc.

Anywho I vote for the better candidate - I never cared for W because of what he did against McCane back in 2000 primaries.

So I voted democrat in both 2000 and 2004 - but being from chicago area - voting republican would have been pointless anyway.

Just to add to what put trader said…McCain is a traitor to his party and is not to be trusted.

I am a Repub in a Demo city which sucks. To be safe I also try avoid talking politics with clients.

I think most brokers/planners are more interested in economics, than politics. Who has not felt the thrill of the 90’s, depression in 2000, pain after 9/11? I just took a trip to ground zero, looked down at the site from the offices at Oppenheimer. Look how the world economy was devastated, rebounded, and what might happen, good or bad, and how that affects our clients. It’s not about red or blue, but I have a pretty good idea on who I trust to keep the world economy alive!

How any financial advisor can reconcile his career of trying to make
people more money with the Democratic Party’s never-ending attempts to
steal money from the people who earn it is beyond me.  It makes no
sense at all.



Democrats are morons.



All during the economic slowdown of 2001 and 2002 Democrats wanted to
RAISE taxes.  At every step they fought to RAISE taxes–our taxes.



I like to ask Democrat voters, “how does raising taxes help stimulate
the economy and create needed jobs?”  Typically, they don’t have
an answer.  They are flustered, and their deficiency of brain
cells shows.  The few who do have an answer say stuff like, “well,
we only want to raise taxes on the RICH.”  Uh huh.  There
aren’t that many rich people to begin with–not nearly enough for the
Democrat fools to create cradle-to-grave welfare benefits so no one
will ever have to work.  And the money that would have been spent
on “yachts”, like most Democrat morons insist, would have actually
created jobs.  Yachts don’t magically appear out of thin air, you
know. 



Have you ever noticed that the very first place Democrats go when they
do their vote drives are the housing projects?  It’s true. 
You’ll find no shortage of Democratic voters in a welfare housing
project (of those who aren’t too lazy to actually vote).  “If the
Republicans get elected, you’ll have to get a job,” they’ll tell the
welfare parasites.  Oh my!  Imagine the horror on the face of
the 19-year-old welfare momma who is counting on the Democrats to give
her free cash and free housing–in a luxury town house, no less–for
the next 18 years.  Imagine the horror on the face of the
60-year-old welfare grandma who has never worked a day in her miserable
life.



Liberal kooks, welfare parasites, and lazy union workers–that is what
comprises the modern Democratic Party.  If you look at the red
states-blue states map, you’ll see that in most of the red AND blue
states, the urban cores voted Democrat while most of the rest of the
area voted Republican.  (One main exception being MA.)



And to no surprise, the inner-cities–which are most heavily
Democrat–are nothing but crime-ridden, poverty-laden hellholes of
violence, crime, urban decay, grafitti, and garbage-strewn
streets.  What?  Welfare momma can’t get off her lazy ass and
pull herself away from taxpayer-provided cable TV and pick up some
trash in her neighborhood?



Both crime and taxes are highest in the Democrat-controlled
cities.  Makes sense, huh?  Invite the welfare parasites
in–who vote for Democrats–and then tax the working class out–who
vote for Republicans.  What a way to stack the deck in your favor!



Take a drive through the most loyally Democratic areas sometime.  It’s a different world…  It really is.



If I had to guess, I’d say that 75%-90% of the people who work in this
industry are Conservative.  With the exception, of course, of the
"elites" in management. 



http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/electoral.c ollege/

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/



Thank god that childish a-hole John Kerry didn’t get elected!  How
can anyone vote for someone who attained wealth by marrying it–TWICE?

[quote=fargo] It’s not about red or blue, but I have a pretty good
idea on who I trust to keep the world economy alive![/quote]



Stock markets all over the world were up after Bush was
re-elected,  including here in the USA.  And I do mean all
over the world.



9/11, massive corporate fraud (mostly committed during the Clinton
years), bursting of the tech bubble, it has been a challenging 4 years
for President Bush.  Hopefully, he’ll be able to enjoy the fruits
of his labor this term.  Unfortunately, Democrats will try to
derail that any chance they get.  (Americans are Nazis, didn’t you
know?  We shut off the air conditioning in Guantanamo–oh
no!  How cruel!)



And as for Iraq, Bush did NOT lie.  The only people lying are the
Democrats.  Clinton said that Iraq had WMDs and was trying to
obtain nukes back in 1998.  Too bad the leftist media doesn’t ever
mention that.



http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/



How come Democrats never discuss Clinton’s statements on Iraq from
December of 1998–2 YEARS before Bush was even elected???  Oh, but
Bush lied–he fabricated the entire thing.  Right, Democrats?



By the way, folks, Bush won Florida 2000 fair and square, too.  It
was the Democrats who tried to steal the 2000 election.  And they
did nothing but spread lies of “voting irregularities” in 2004,
too.  Voting irregularities?  Kind of vague, isn’t it? 



Oh, they mean that minorities had to wait in line to vote. 



Well guess what.  I live in a 90% white area, and I had to wait in
a long line to vote, too.  That’s what happens when everybody
tries to get in before work.  Good thing the polls are open until
8 PM, huh?



http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/m ain.html



By the way, why is it that ONLY Democrat voters are too stupid to vote properly?

Inquistive- Come on man, Bush didn’t lie???  I don’t even want to take the time to blow that up… It’s pretty obvious that you are as oblivious as you accuse the Democrats of being…

[quote=noggin]Inquistive- Come on man, Bush didn’t lie???  I don’t
even want to take the time to blow that up… It’s pretty obvious
that you are as oblivious as you accuse the Democrats of
being…[/quote]



What did Bush say?  Ah yes, he said that Iraq had WMDs and was
seeking nukes.  Where oh where did he ever get that idea
from?  Maybe from the previous administration???



http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/



Dec. 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton said:



“Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the
world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.”

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces."

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

Now, what did BUSH say that Clinton did not say years prior?

There isn't a thing that Bush said that Clinton didn't say.  Further, no President, nor any mortal man, can look into the future and decide what to do today.  You work with what you've got.  Whether the intelligence is flawed or not, you must decide whether or not to act upon it.

I don't think the intelligence was flawed.  Why not?  Because much of the UN believed that Saddam was in possession of chemical weapons.  OTHER nations like Great Britain and Germany believed that Saddam was in possession of WMDs, and the UN believed that Saddam was seeking nuclear weapons.

Let's compare Bush to Clinton, shall we?

* Clinton gave the Chinese critical missile guidance technology so they could aim their nuclear warheads against us in exchange for campaign contributions

* Clinton gave the North Koreans a nuclear reactor so they could make material for nuclear bombs--which they promised not to do

* Clinton treated terrorist attacks like the 1993 World Trade Center bombing as simple, criminal acts instead of the acts of war that they are, enabling the terrorists to become more brazen

By the way, back in the summer of 2004, Clinton defended Bush's invasion of Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

Now, go ahead.  Try to persuade us that Bush lied.  It's your turn.

C’mon, guys!  Aren’t you any more cynical than that?  They’re all scum…Democrat and Republican.  ANY of them would come out in favor of cancer if they thought there was a vote in it.  Having the citizenry snipe at each other simply allows the two parties to cut up the pie without us!

Starka, I don’t believe that.



There are still some honest, decent people out there.  I consider
myself one of them.  I’ve also flirted with the idea of running
for local government because I don’t like some of the crap I see.



Would I take a position contrary to my beliefs because someone made some contributions to my campaign?  NO. 



Would I listen to what other people had to say, whether they be a corporation, lobbyist, or just a regular citizen?  YES.



(Would I knowingly recommend an unsuitable investment because it paid me more?  HELL NO!)



Politicians aren’t experts at everything.  Part of what they have
to do is listen to people.  So a lobbyist talks to a
politician.  So what?  Proves nothing.  I’m more than
willing to listen to what someone has to say, even if I initially
disagree with them.  Who knows.  Maybe they’ll have a
convincing argument.



By the way, folks, those CNN cites I provided I found by doing a quick
Google.  Search for Clinton + Iraq and you’ll find plenty. 
It’s amazing how some people pretend that things that were said a few
years back were never said.  Fortunately, CNN has archived their
old news stories for us.

Inquisitive, I’m not impugning your honor.  But consider…if you’re the one honest person in a tainted field like politics, how far do you think you’ll get?  Further, one doesn’t rise to national politics without compromising his/her values to the point that they can’t recognize them anymore.  This is certainly not what Washington, Jefferson, Adams et al had in mind.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

There you go - a nice video of Powell in Feb 2001 and Rice in July 2001 saying Iraq has no WMD or is capable of making them.

Bush did not lie?  His own team said Iraq did not have them in 2001 - that was after Clinton.

Now Tony Blair has said the Downing Street Memo is an authentic memo - I think if democrats get control of congress in 2006 - Bush is looking at impeachment.

I also would like to know how McCain is a traitor? 

Hey ladies and gents.. Amazes me that educated people do not accept the professional Bull Sh.t that others who are educated by Hollywood want to hear ......(Reid, Boxer, Kerry and Kennedy).

We won and are ahead in every aspect of government. I guess integrity goes a long way..

I always question if a thousand extreme muslims with guns are a WMD? I mean two DC snipers had 40 million Americans scared to death.

As for me I live in CT and work in DC. Both are the center of the bs..

In 2002 the dems pushed hard to sign a bill supporting IRAQ war once again..

Three reasons stated in bill were:
1. Terrorists in IRAQ

2. WMD in IRAQ

3.

Now they all play stupid to play to the welfare/state/federal/ union workers who believe every word they and hollywood state.

WATCH FAHERHYPE 9/11... Its amazing what a dis justice skum of the earth Michael Moore did to this country.. Those who want to believe will find a way...

http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686

I am almost positive this is the bill that was passed by the dems.. They wanted to show that they were strong on defense.

I love the whole BUSH lied.. Or Cheenys oil.. 10000's of troops will die as we march into bagdad... Iraq's leader is a liar (Kerry), they will not have elections in January.. He is after all the owner of Haliburton.. Remember we should have sent over 20000 Joe's pizza workers to feed and take care of the troops.. Since that contract was bought.. I mean these people who believe this crap go from one statement to the next... 

We tried the sit back and try to be delicate (Kerry) in the 90's.. As the FBI, CIA and other intel was being crushed... During these years we allowed terrorists to breed... They attacked World Trade Center twice, scoped out half of America, bombed Kobar Towers (my eglin dorm mates died)... The bombed numerous american embassies in multiple countries... The US cole.. The list is long and there is a pattern.. At the same time Saddam paid 25k to terrorists who would plant nails in back packs and blow up women and children in Isreal busses. Then he lets in his pal Zakarie after he was injured in Afganistan..

http://www.christophercoutu.com/Vision/VISION.html

I made this up over the past few years...  Sorry for spelling it is late and I get passionate on this issue..

One good thing is that these terrorists are so extreme they are attacking their allies in Turkey, Syria, Palastine, Iraq and Saudi.. I think this is the best thing that could have happened.. Dont worry about IRAQ's according to their leaders who I saw on interviews they state they have never fought one another in a thousand years..

ATTENTION

THE TRUE POINT OF AN ARGUMENT IS TO GET THE OTHER PERSON TO SEE YOUR SIDE THROUGH THOUGHT PROVOKING COMMENTS.  MOST OF THE PEOPLE ON THIS TOPIC ARE TAKING SHOTS AT EACH OTHER. THIS ONLY PUTS PEOPLE ON DEFENSE AND MAKES THIER MIND CLOSE UP EVEN MORE.

ME BEING A DEMOCRAT WOULD TRY TO POINT OUT THAT IN TRUE ECONOMIC THEORY THE TAXES SHOULD HAVE DECREASED.  BUT MAYBE THEY COULD HAVE BEEN SPENT ON SOMETHING SUCH AS EDUCATION THAT WOULD MAKE OUR CONTRY STRONGER IN THE FUTURE RATHER THAN GOING INTO IRAQ.  TO ME, SURE ITS WITH HINDSITE, THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH SMARTER. 

THEN A REBUPLICAN WILL TELL ME THAT CLINTON SAID THE SAME THING AND BLAIR AND RUSSIA ETC.  MY RESPONSE WOULD BE THAT AFTER 9-11 THINGS CHANGED.  WE NO LONGER HAD SUDAM AS OUR #1 MAN BUT NOW BIN LADEN.  WE STILL DO NOT KNOW WHERE HE IS, BUT WE ENDED UP WITH A GUY WHO DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING THAT WE ACCUSED HIM OF.

THEN THE OLD "WE ARE SAFER W/O SUDAM" LINE.  NOW THIS IS TRUE, BUT NOT REALLY THE POINT.  IF WE WERE TO GO AFTER EVERYPERSON THAT WOULD MAKE US SAFER I THINK THAT KIM JONG YIEL*(I KNOW THAT I AM MISPELLING THESE NAMES) WOULD HAVE BEEN A BETTER TARGET.  JUST BASED ON THE FACT THAT HE TELLS US WITH NO FEAR THAT HE HAS WMD'S.  SO REALLY THIS LINE DOES NOT WORK.

BOTTOM LINE BUSH, IMO, WILL NOT BE REMEMBERED FOR GREATNESS.  WITH IRAQ AND SOCIAL SECURITY GOING POORLY, WHICH ARE THE TWO THINGS THAT HE WILL BE KNOW FOR THE BEST, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT HE WILL NOT BE ANOTHER REAGAN FOR THE REPUBLICANS.

NOW I FIND IT HARD TO REASONABLY ARGUE WITH MOST PEOPLE ON THIS FORUM....JUST READ MOST THE COMMENTS ABOVE, TOTALY BASHING AND NOT REALLY CONCERED WITH ISSUES JUST TALKING POINTS FROM DEMS AND REPLYING WITH TALKING POINTS OF REPS. IN THE END THAT IS WHAT IS MISSING IN POLOTICS.  BOTH PARTIES HAVE DISCOVERED THAT TALKING POINTS AND BASHING WORK SO WELL THAT THEY STOPED ACTUALLY TALKING.  I AM NOT TRYING TO BASH BUSH BUT CAN HE COMPARE INTULLECTUALY WITH PAST PRESIDENTS LIKE CLINTON, REAGAN, CARTER, OR EVEN HIS FATHER.  WETHER YOU WERE A DEM OR REP YOU STILL HAD RESPECT FOR THEM.  WHERE DID THAT GO?  WHERE DID THE UNITY AFTER 9-11 GO?

IF I WERE TO SEE A PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE WHERE THEY WERE FREE TO ACTUALLY DEBATE, LIKE A COLLEGE OR H.S., I WOULD THINK THAT WE WOULD SEE THAT OUR PRESIDENTS BEGAN TO BE GREATER LIKE THEY WERE IN THE PAST.  POLITICS ARE BAD FOR AMERICA BUT THE WAY THE SYSTEM IS RIGHT NOW THAT WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT.

[quote=Juiced6]

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

There you go - a nice video of Powell in Feb 2001 and Rice in July 2001 saying Iraq has no WMD or is capable of making them.

Bush did not lie?  His own team said Iraq did not have them in 2001 - that was after Clinton.

Now Tony Blair has said the Downing Street Memo is an authentic memo - I think if democrats get control of congress in 2006 - Bush is looking at impeachment.

I also would like to know how McCain is a traitor? 

[/quote]

You're delusional....

[quote=Mario]

ATTENTION

THE TRUE POINT OF AN ARGUMENT IS TO GET THE OTHER PERSON TO SEE YOUR SIDE THROUGH THOUGHT PROVOKING COMMENTS.  MOST OF THE PEOPLE ON THIS TOPIC ARE TAKING SHOTS AT EACH OTHER. THIS ONLY PUTS PEOPLE ON DEFENSE AND MAKES THIER MIND CLOSE UP EVEN MORE.

[/quote]

Attention, writing your post in all caps does nothing to give it substance, improve your grammar or correct your spelling. The vacant nature of your line of reasoning shines through AND the all caps thing (which amounts to shouting) simply serves to annoy others.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Is it possible to lie about something that you don’t know about?



From where I sit it is possilbe to be mistaken about something rather than lying about something.



For example.  Suppose you have a college degree, and you asked me, "Putnam, do I have a college degree?"



Suppose I were to respond, "Based on the intellect being displayed in
your writings I conclude that you do not have a college degree."



Did I lie, or did I make a mistake?

Ahh is a crazy topic, but fun.. I am down in DC and I see first hand politics is a joke. There is a lot of talk on the hill...

As for BUSH I am amazed that people dont look at him as a man who said what he was going to do and has committed every second of his day to accomplish the mission.

As a military member who served in IRAQ this is the way it should be.. FLIP FLOP is BS. Integrity, character, vision and doing what is right (although it may not be popular) impresses me.

Deep down I like Bill Clinton.. I think he did his best and meant well. Unfortunatly the shi. hit the fan as Reno was trying to protect his butt. The market crumbled with corruption. Maybe Bush has nothing to do with reform, but obviously SEC/Attorney General Spitzer (under the president) kicked some butt.

As for the military aspect there was no reform during the 90s. The fact that no bombs have went off in America is AMAZING!! Thank you patriot act, thank you Homeland security, thank you Rumsfield/Cheeny/Powel/BUSH and thank you allies & reforming countries (Pakistan, Saudi, Lybia, Iraq, Palistine, Lebannon and Yugoslavia).

I look back and wonder what did happen during the CLINTON years that was such a big deal?

Has anyone seen Fahernhype 9/11..?

[quote=executivejock]

but obviously SEC/Attorney General Spitzer (under the president) kicked some butt.

ClerkBoy, there are Attorneys General for each of the 50 States, and there is an Attorney General for the Federal Government.  Mr. Spitzer is the AG for New York (the State and not the City), and Mr. Gonzales is the US Attorney General.

You were just a little confused there ClerkBoy (as usual).  Fortunately, one of us was here to clear things up for you (as usual)!

I meant the NY State Attorney General.. I suppose the top dog is BUSH.. So if you work for the govn you are under him.. I suspect Gonzales is over Spitzer? 

Clerkboy what is that suppose to mean..?  I am still young enough to not know everything like your self. :)

[quote=executivejock]

I meant the NY State Attorney General… I
suppose the top dog is BUSH… So if you work for the govn you are under
him… I suspect Gonzales is over Spitzer? 

Clerkboy what is that suppose to mean…?  I am still young enough to not know everything like your self.

Okay.. Thanks for clearing that up... Spitzer is elected? I know CT attorney General is picked.. No wonder all of our elected officials are on their way to jail.

[quote=Put Trader]Is it possible to lie about something that you don't know about?


[/quote]

Yes.  That is called an omission of a material fact.  Thus, why you and I have E & O insurance.

Next...

I make it a point to just agree with my clients when they start talking politics.  However I think I am one of the few liberals among my immediate peers.

Annoy a conservative, think for yourself!

[quote=Cruiser]

I make it a point to just agree with my clients when they start talking politics.  However I think I am one of the few liberals among my immediate peers.

Annoy a conservative, think for yourself!

[/quote]

Annoy a liberal, use facts....

[quote=menotellname]

[quote=Put Trader]Is it possible to lie about something that you don't know about?


[/quote]

Yes.  That is called an omission of a material fact.  Thus, why you and I have E & O insurance.

Next...

[/quote]

You may want to ask the people you send that E&O policy check to if they consider the intentional omission of a material fact an insured item. I think you'll find they don't since it's fraud.

To Put's point, you can't be lying if you leave out a "material fact" you're unaware of.

[quote=stanwbrown][quote=Cruiser]

I make it a point to just agree with my clients when they start talking politics.  However I think I am one of the few liberals among my immediate peers.

Annoy a conservative, think for yourself!

[/quote]

Annoy a liberal, use twisted facts....

[quote=Juiced6][quote=stanwbrown][quote=Cruiser]

I make it a point to just agree with my clients when they start talking politics.  However I think I am one of the few liberals among my immediate peers.

Annoy a conservative, think for yourself!

[/quote]

Annoy a liberal, use twisted facts....

[/quote]

Yeah, that would piss them off by stealing their routine

Annoy a conservative. Kill yourself.

[quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname]

[quote=Put Trader]Is it possible to lie about something that you don't know about?


[/quote]

Yes.  That is called an omission of a material fact.  Thus, why you and I have E & O insurance.

Next...

[/quote]

You may want to ask the people you send that E&O policy check to if they consider the intentional omission of a material fact an insured item. I think you'll find they don't since it's fraud.

To Put's point, you can't be lying if you leave out a "material fact" you're unaware of.

[/quote]

Stan,

You are wrong.

Try to claim that you are unaware or "ignorant" of a material fact in the court room after your client sues you and see what the judge says:  "Ignorance of the law (or of the product you are touting) (or of the faulty "intelligence" that you are claiming as personal knowledge)" is lying by omission.

Main Entry: omis·sion
Pronunciation: O-'mi-sh&n, &-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English omissioun, from Late Latin omission-, omissio, from Latin omittere
1 a : something neglected or left undone b : apathy toward or neglect of duty
2 : the act of omitting : the state of being omitted

[quote=annuity guy]

Brokers are Republicans, planners are Dummycraps.

Republicans seek their own success, Dummycraps try to legislate success.

[/quote]

I agree. 

[quote=executivejock]

Has anyone seen Fahernhype 9/11..?

[/quote]

I bought several copies, and give extras to people that need some remedial education. 

Fortunately, I live in a red state, so there aren't that many that need help.

[quote=babbling looney]

Repulican here.  Located in a blue state, but the county that I live in always votes 80% + republican.  I don't talk polictics with my clients, however.   Just to be on the safe side.

Here is an interesting test you might want to take.  I ended up right near Mitlon Friedman

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

[/quote]

Looney--

Thanks for the link.  I enjoyed it.  I am about as much of a centrist as is possible.  I am slightly to the right economically, just slightly to the left socially.

[quote=menotellname][quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname]

[quote=Put Trader]Is it possible to lie about something that you don't know about?


[/quote]

Yes.  That is called an omission of a material fact.  Thus, why you and I have E & O insurance.

Next...

[/quote]

You may want to ask the people you send that E&O policy check to if they consider the intentional omission of a material fact an insured item. I think you'll find they don't since it's fraud.

To Put's point, you can't be lying if you leave out a "material fact" you're unaware of.

[/quote]

Stan,

You are wrong.

Try to claim that you are unaware or "ignorant" of a material fact in the court room after your client sues you and see what the judge says:  "Ignorance of the law (or of the product you are touting) (or of the faulty "intelligence" that you are claiming as personal knowledge)" is lying by omission.

Main Entry: omis·sion
Pronunciation: O-'mi-sh&n, &-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English omissioun, from Late Latin omission-, omissio, from Latin omittere
1 a : something neglected or left undone b : apathy toward or neglect of duty
2 : the act of omitting : the state of being omitted

[/quote]

What a twisted world you live in if being mistaken is the same as lying. Your view of what happens in a courtroom is even more twsited still. "Ignorance of the law" and being dependent on information that proves to be faulty are as different as night and day.

[quote=menotellname][quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname]

[quote=Put Trader]Is it possible to lie about something that you don't know about?


[/quote]

Yes.  That is called an omission of a material fact.  Thus, why you and I have E & O insurance.

Next...

[/quote]

You may want to ask the people you send that E&O policy check to if they consider the intentional omission of a material fact an insured item. I think you'll find they don't since it's fraud.

To Put's point, you can't be lying if you leave out a "material fact" you're unaware of.

[/quote]

Stan,

You are wrong.

Try to claim that you are unaware or "ignorant" of a material fact in the court room after your client sues you and see what the judge says:  "Ignorance of the law (or of the product you are touting) (or of the faulty "intelligence" that you are claiming as personal knowledge)" is lying by omission.

Main Entry: omis·sion
Pronunciation: O-'mi-sh&n, &-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English omissioun, from Late Latin omission-, omissio, from Latin omittere
1 a : something neglected or left undone b : apathy toward or neglect of duty
2 : the act of omitting : the state of being omitted

[/quote]

On further consideration of your "logic", I'm confident you employed the same thought process with clients of yours that owned common stock, preferreds or bonds from GlobalCrossing, Enron, Sunbeam, or any number of other companies that hid internal fraud from you, and you wrote said clients large checks, right?

After all, it didn't matter that you relied on information generally available to you and the public at large, you ommitted "material facts", and so your clients are due large settlements from you.

In fact, if you have any clients with negative returns, or returns below a given index, whether there was fraud involved at the companies they owned in their accounts or not, I assume you've called them all and offered them checks to cover their losses, right?

[quote=stanwbrown][quote=Cruiser]

I make it a point to just agree with my clients when they start talking politics.  However I think I am one of the few liberals among my immediate peers.

Annoy a conservative, think for yourself!

[/quote]

Annoy a liberal, use facts....

[quote=Roger Thornhill][quote=annuity guy]

Brokers are Republicans, planners are Dummycraps.

Republicans seek their own success, Dummycraps try to legislate success.

[/quote]

I agree. 

[quote=Put Trader]Is it possible to lie about something that you don’t know about?

[/quote]

No, it is not.



If you raise a child to believe that the earth is flat, and he says the earth is flat, is that child a liar?



To lie you must be consciously aware that what you are saying is not true.  Lying is purposeful.  Intentional. 



For example, when Bill Clinton says he loves his wife–that is a
lie.  Or when he tells his wife that she is pretty–that is a
lie.  Or when Bill Clinton says that he isn’t cheating on his
wife–that is a lie.

[quote=Starka]

ClerkBoy, there are Attorneys General for each of
the 50 States, and there is an Attorney General for the Federal
Government.  Mr. Spitzer is the AG for New York (the State and not
the City), and Mr. Gonzales is the US Attorney General.

You were just a little confused there ClerkBoy (as usual).  Fortunately, one of us was here to clear things up for you (as usual)!

[quote=Juiced6]

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

There you go - a nice video of Powell in Feb 2001 and Rice in July 2001 saying Iraq has no WMD or is capable of making them.

Bush did not lie?  His own team said Iraq did not have them in 2001 - that was after Clinton.

Now Tony Blair has said the Downing Street Memo is an authentic memo - I think if democrats get control of congress in 2006 - Bush is looking at impeachment.

I also would like to know how McCain is a traitor? 

Inq - I agree with a lot of what you say, but Spitzer is a Piker. He needs to go.

A broker finally put up his dukes, and sent Piker Spitzer slithering back into his hole, with 30....count 'em! ...THIRTY not guilty verdicts!

That's his one and only enforcement trial, and he got spanked. They interviewed the jurors, and they all said "Where's the evidence of wrongdoing?"

Spitzer would be worse than LBJ.

[quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname][quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname]

[quote=Put Trader]Is it possible to lie about something that you don't know about?


[/quote]

Yes.  That is called an omission of a material fact.  Thus, why you and I have E & O insurance.

Next...

[/quote]

You may want to ask the people you send that E&O policy check to if they consider the intentional omission of a material fact an insured item. I think you'll find they don't since it's fraud.

To Put's point, you can't be lying if you leave out a "material fact" you're unaware of.

[/quote]

Stan,

You are wrong.

Try to claim that you are unaware or "ignorant" of a material fact in the court room after your client sues you and see what the judge says:  "Ignorance of the law (or of the product you are touting) (or of the faulty "intelligence" that you are claiming as personal knowledge)" is lying by omission.

Main Entry: omis·sion
Pronunciation: O-'mi-sh&n, &-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English omissioun, from Late Latin omission-, omissio, from Latin omittere
1 a : something neglected or left undone b : apathy toward or neglect of duty
2 : the act of omitting : the state of being omitted

[/quote]

What a twisted world you live in if being mistaken is the same as lying. Your view of what happens in a courtroom is even more twsited still. "Ignorance of the law" and being dependent on information that proves to be faulty are as different as night and day.

[/quote]

You lose a lot of legal battles.  Don't you?  Or you misinterpret a lot of documents with difficult wording.  Right?

Ask any detective, attorney, or polygraph examiner...you might be surprised.

[quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname][quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname]

[quote=Put Trader]Is it possible to lie about something that you don't know about?


[/quote]

Yes.  That is called an omission of a material fact.  Thus, why you and I have E & O insurance.

Next...

[/quote]

You may want to ask the people you send that E&O policy check to if they consider the intentional omission of a material fact an insured item. I think you'll find they don't since it's fraud.

To Put's point, you can't be lying if you leave out a "material fact" you're unaware of.

[/quote]

Stan,

You are wrong.

Try to claim that you are unaware or "ignorant" of a material fact in the court room after your client sues you and see what the judge says:  "Ignorance of the law (or of the product you are touting) (or of the faulty "intelligence" that you are claiming as personal knowledge)" is lying by omission.

Main Entry: omis·sion
Pronunciation: O-'mi-sh&n, &-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English omissioun, from Late Latin omission-, omissio, from Latin omittere
1 a : something neglected or left undone b : apathy toward or neglect of duty
2 : the act of omitting : the state of being omitted

[/quote]

On further consideration of your "logic", I'm confident you employed the same thought process with clients of yours that owned common stock, preferreds or bonds from GlobalCrossing, Enron, Sunbeam, or any number of other companies that hid internal fraud from you, and you wrote said clients large checks, right?

After all, it didn't matter that you relied on information generally available to you and the public at large, you ommitted "material facts", and so your clients are due large settlements from you.

In fact, if you have any clients with negative returns, or returns below a given index, whether there was fraud involved at the companies they owned in their accounts or not, I assume you've called them all and offered them checks to cover their losses, right?

[/quote]

Um...wrong again.

Stan,

Fortunately I was intelligent enough not to have clients invested in those companies.  Further, what the senior executives of those companies did is fraud.  That is why they are in jail or have pending litigation.

There is a subtle yet distinct different between being deliberately deceived and being deliberately deceptive.

Just so you understand...

If you invested in the companies that you named you are guilty of one of the above statements (you did nothing wrong).  The leaders of the companies you named did the other, along with George Bush (you are guilty of fraud and are a felon).

Signed,

The Resident Mensan

[quote=inquisitive] [quote=stanwbrown][quote=Cruiser]

I make it a point to just agree with my clients when they start talking politics.  However I think I am one of the few liberals among my immediate peers.

Annoy a conservative, think for yourself!

[/quote]

Annoy a liberal, use facts....

[/quote]

That's 100% correct!  The way to get to a liberal is to use facts.  Statistics and hard data are the worst enemy of the liberal.  Every position they have is based on knee-jerk emotion.  Nothing they believe is based on fact.

I love discussing politics with liberals and watching them get all frustrated when you keep countering everything they say with facts.  Typically, they become angry and then sink to name-calling.  Racist, fascist, homophobe, etc.

The problem is that liberals DON'T think for themselves.  It's amazing that every single position they take they take AFTER it has been publicized the by the liberal leadership.

Take gay marriage for example.  All of a sudden they all start saying, "why do heterosexuals feel threatened by gay marriage."  They are repeating talking points, nothing more.  They never said anything like that years ago, then all of a sudden they all say the same thing at the same time. 

Logic is the enemy of the liberal.
[/quote]

What I thought was the funniest part of the gay marriage debate from the last election was the fact that the liberal's candidate said he agreed with te conservative candidate and opposed it (although they disagreed on the need for a constitutional amendment).

If you asked a liberal why they attacked Bush on gay marriage and not Kerry they'd either give you a strange look until you explained that Kerry had said he, too opposed it OR they'd say they knew he said he opposed it, but they didn't believe him.

[quote=menotellname][quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname][quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname]

[quote=Put Trader]Is it possible to lie about something that you don't know about?


[/quote]

Yes.  That is called an omission of a material fact.  Thus, why you and I have E & O insurance.

Next...

[/quote]

You may want to ask the people you send that E&O policy check to if they consider the intentional omission of a material fact an insured item. I think you'll find they don't since it's fraud.

To Put's point, you can't be lying if you leave out a "material fact" you're unaware of.

[/quote]

Stan,

You are wrong.

Try to claim that you are unaware or "ignorant" of a material fact in the court room after your client sues you and see what the judge says:  "Ignorance of the law (or of the product you are touting) (or of the faulty "intelligence" that you are claiming as personal knowledge)" is lying by omission.

Main Entry: omis·sion
Pronunciation: O-'mi-sh&n, &-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English omissioun, from Late Latin omission-, omissio, from Latin omittere
1 a : something neglected or left undone b : apathy toward or neglect of duty
2 : the act of omitting : the state of being omitted

[/quote]

What a twisted world you live in if being mistaken is the same as lying. Your view of what happens in a courtroom is even more twsited still. "Ignorance of the law" and being dependent on information that proves to be faulty are as different as night and day.

[/quote]

You lose a lot of legal battles.  Don't you?  Or you misinterpret a lot of documents with difficult wording.  Right?

Ask any detective, attorney, or polygraph examiner...you might be surprised.

[/quote]

Wow, I just don't know how to respond to such a well written, highly organized and fully supported argument as that.

BAWWAAAAAAAA 

[quote=menotellname][quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname][quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname]

[quote=Put Trader]Is it possible to lie about something that you don't know about?


[/quote]

Yes.  That is called an omission of a material fact.  Thus, why you and I have E & O insurance.

Next...

[/quote]

You may want to ask the people you send that E&O policy check to if they consider the intentional omission of a material fact an insured item. I think you'll find they don't since it's fraud.

To Put's point, you can't be lying if you leave out a "material fact" you're unaware of.

[/quote]

Stan,

You are wrong.

Try to claim that you are unaware or "ignorant" of a material fact in the court room after your client sues you and see what the judge says:  "Ignorance of the law (or of the product you are touting) (or of the faulty "intelligence" that you are claiming as personal knowledge)" is lying by omission.

Main Entry: omis·sion
Pronunciation: O-'mi-sh&n, &-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English omissioun, from Late Latin omission-, omissio, from Latin omittere
1 a : something neglected or left undone b : apathy toward or neglect of duty
2 : the act of omitting : the state of being omitted

[/quote]

On further consideration of your "logic", I'm confident you employed the same thought process with clients of yours that owned common stock, preferreds or bonds from GlobalCrossing, Enron, Sunbeam, or any number of other companies that hid internal fraud from you, and you wrote said clients large checks, right?

After all, it didn't matter that you relied on information generally available to you and the public at large, you ommitted "material facts", and so your clients are due large settlements from you.

In fact, if you have any clients with negative returns, or returns below a given index, whether there was fraud involved at the companies they owned in their accounts or not, I assume you've called them all and offered them checks to cover their losses, right?

[/quote]

Um...wrong again.

Stan,

Fortunately I was intelligent enough not to have clients invested in those companies. 

[/quote]

Sure you were   And you don't have a single client that's every experienced negative returns....

[quote=menotellname]

Further, what the senior executives of those companies did is fraud.  That is why they are in jail or have pending litigation.

[/quote]

Obviously you misunderstood the point. The question wasn't about the CEO and what he may or may not have done. The point was what liability might a broker who relied on the information they provided have.

Ask someone in your office to explain that to you...

[quote=menotellname]

There is a subtle yet distinct different between being deliberately deceived and being deliberately deceptive.

[/quote]

Oh, so you're back to asserting, without a shred of evidence, that Bush was one of the above? LOL

[quote=menotellname][

Just so you understand...

If you invested in the companies that you named you are guilty of one of the above statements (you did nothing wrong).  The leaders of the companies you named did the other, along with George Bush (you are guilty of fraud and are a felon).

[/quote]

Just so you understand, you haven't produced a shred of evidence to prove that Bush OR the intelligence people (who told Clinton the same things, btw) were dishonest in their assessments.

[quote=menotellname]

Signed,

The Resident Mensan

[/quote]

ROFLMAO, why do I see and hear the "comic book store guy" on te Simpsons when I read the above?

Anyone else ? 

[quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname][quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname][quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname]

[quote=Put Trader]Is it possible to lie about something that you don't know about?


[/quote]

Yes.  That is called an omission of a material fact.  Thus, why you and I have E & O insurance.

Next...

[/quote]

You may want to ask the people you send that E&O policy check to if they consider the intentional omission of a material fact an insured item. I think you'll find they don't since it's fraud.

To Put's point, you can't be lying if you leave out a "material fact" you're unaware of.

[/quote]

Stan,

You are wrong.

Try to claim that you are unaware or "ignorant" of a material fact in the court room after your client sues you and see what the judge says:  "Ignorance of the law (or of the product you are touting) (or of the faulty "intelligence" that you are claiming as personal knowledge)" is lying by omission.

Main Entry: omis·sion
Pronunciation: O-'mi-sh&n, &-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English omissioun, from Late Latin omission-, omissio, from Latin omittere
1 a : something neglected or left undone b : apathy toward or neglect of duty
2 : the act of omitting : the state of being omitted

[/quote]

On further consideration of your "logic", I'm confident you employed the same thought process with clients of yours that owned common stock, preferreds or bonds from GlobalCrossing, Enron, Sunbeam, or any number of other companies that hid internal fraud from you, and you wrote said clients large checks, right?

After all, it didn't matter that you relied on information generally available to you and the public at large, you ommitted "material facts", and so your clients are due large settlements from you.

In fact, if you have any clients with negative returns, or returns below a given index, whether there was fraud involved at the companies they owned in their accounts or not, I assume you've called them all and offered them checks to cover their losses, right?

[/quote]

Um...wrong again.

Stan,

Fortunately I was intelligent enough not to have clients invested in those companies. 

[/quote]

Sure you were   And you don't have a single client that's every experienced negative returns....

[quote=menotellname]

Further, what the senior executives of those companies did is fraud.  That is why they are in jail or have pending litigation.

[/quote]

Obviously you misunderstood the point. The question wasn't about the CEO and what he may or may not have done. The point was what liability might a broker who relied on the information they provided have.

Ask someone in your office to explain that to you...

[quote=menotellname]

There is a subtle yet distinct different between being deliberately deceived and being deliberately deceptive.

[/quote]

Oh, so you're back to asserting, without a shred of evidence, that Bush was one of the above? LOL

[quote=menotellname][

Just so you understand...

If you invested in the companies that you named you are guilty of one of the above statements (you did nothing wrong).  The leaders of the companies you named did the other, along with George Bush (you are guilty of fraud and are a felon).

[/quote]

Just so you understand, you haven't produced a shred of evidence to prove that Bush OR the intelligence people (who told Clinton the same things, btw) were dishonest in their assessments.

[quote=menotellname]

Signed,

The Resident Mensan

[/quote]

ROFLMAO, why do I see and hear the "comic book store guy" on te Simpsons when I read the above?

Anyone else ? 

[/quote]

Hmmmmmmmmmm...

So Bush never said that the Iraqis have WMDs and went to war on that theory which was never confirmed by his intelligence staff but was simply assumed?  Bush never claimed that Iraq is the country behind 9-11?

I beg to differ.  Bush has misled you and the rest of the American public that defends him.  Please take the blinders off.

For you stan...from White House press releases:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.h tml

Just in case you are too lazy:

President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly
Remarks by the President in Address to the United Nations General Assembly
New York, New York

view
listen

     Fact Sheet: U.S. Rejoins UNESCO
     A Decade of Deception and Defiance

10:39 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Secretary General, Mr. President, distinguished delegates, and ladies and gentlemen: We meet one year and one day after a terrorist attack brought grief to my country, and brought grief to many citizens of our world. Yesterday, we remembered the innocent lives taken that terrible morning. Today, we turn to the urgent duty of protecting other lives, without illusion and without fear.

We've accomplished much in the last year -- in Afghanistan and beyond. We have much yet to do -- in Afghanistan and beyond. Many nations represented here have joined in the fight against global terror, and the people of the United States are grateful.

The United Nations was born in the hope that survived a world war -- the hope of a world moving toward justice, escaping old patterns of conflict and fear. The founding members resolved that the peace of the world must never again be destroyed by the will and wickedness of any man. We created the United Nations Security Council, so that, unlike the League of Nations, our deliberations would be more than talk, our resolutions would be more than wishes. After generations of deceitful dictators and broken treaties and squandered lives, we dedicated ourselves to standards of human dignity shared by all, and to a system of security defended by all.

Today, these standards, and this security, are challenged. Our commitment to human dignity is challenged by persistent poverty and raging disease. The suffering is great, and our responsibilities are clear. The United States is joining with the world to supply aid where it reaches people and lifts up lives, to extend trade and the prosperity it brings, and to bring medical care where it is desperately needed.

As a symbol of our commitment to human dignity, the United States will return to UNESCO. (Applause.) This organization has been reformed and America will participate fully in its mission to advance human rights and tolerance and learning.

Our common security is challenged by regional conflicts -- ethnic and religious strife that is ancient, but not inevitable. In the Middle East, there can be no peace for either side without freedom for both sides. America stands committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living side by side with Israel in peace and security. Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves their interests and listens to their voices. My nation will continue to encourage all parties to step up to their responsibilities as we seek a just and comprehensive settlement to the conflict.

Above all, our principles and our security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that accept no law of morality and have no limit to their violent ambitions. In the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies. This threat hides within many nations, including my own. In cells and camps, terrorists are plotting further destruction, and building new bases for their war against civilization. And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale.

In one place -- in one regime -- we find all these dangers, in their most lethal and aggressive forms, exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront.

Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped -- by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations.

To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.

He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -- by his deceptions, and by his cruelties -- Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.

In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.

Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for -- more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq.

In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

United Nations' inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.

And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program -- weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.

Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that it can inflict mass death throughout the region.

In 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime's compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and to buy arms for his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens.

In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading, and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, condemning Iraq's serious violations of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994, and twice more in 1996, deploring Iraq's clear violations of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing flagrant violations; and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behavior totally unacceptable. And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again.

As we meet today, it's been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq, four years for the Iraqi regime to plan, and to build, and to test behind the cloak of secrecy.

We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.

Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than patient. We've tried sanctions. We've tried the carrot of oil for food, and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has a -- nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming.

The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?

The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.

The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

We can harbor no illusions -- and that's important today to remember. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. He's fired ballistic missiles at Iran and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians, and 40 Iraqi villages.

My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.

Events can turn in one of two ways: If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully and dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The regime will remain unstable -- the region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom, and isolated from the progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.

If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time.

Neither of these outcomes is certain. Both have been set before us. We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress. We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and the hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. And, delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand, as well.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

END 11:04 A.M. EDT

****************************************************

Seems to me that Mr. Bush assumes involvement in 9-11 because of Iraq's praise of the events.  Further, he assumes that there are WMDs even though none were ever found.  Then in the last highlighted paragraph he mentions "oil".  Now, isn't that really what this is all about for that little man from Texas?

[quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname][quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname][quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname]

Wow, I just don't know how to respond to such a well written, highly organized and fully supported argument as that.

BAWWAAAAAAAA 

[/quote]

Please see the last post.

Your serve.

The whiners have great difficulty in coming to grips with several realities.



1.  The Clinton administration formulated a policy requiring the
US to overthrow the Hussein regime.  President Clinton failed at
his own policy, yet when President Bush completed the task he was wrong
for having done so.  When asked why they condemn President Bush
for accomplishing what President Clinton wanted to do but did not the
whiners respond, "Idonnoknow."



2.  Nobody on earth believed that the Hussein regime did not have
weapons of mass destruction–not a single soul on earth.  Even
Hussein himself believed that they were in his arsenal.  And they
were, he had used them several times.  That they were missing when
our troops arrived does not mean that they were never there or that
they are not there to this day–what he had could be hidden in a space
about the size of an average garage.  That space could be buried
in the desert–where it may never be found.  Nonetheless it’s
nonsensical to declare that the weapons were not available for
Hussein’s use.  When asked where they think the weapons that had
been used in the past went the whiners respond with "Idonnoknow."



3.  The planning for September 11th appears to have taken place in
Indonesia.  Immigration records prove that most of the hijackers
left there and came straight to the United States.  Those same
records prove that a key Hussein lieutenant arrived from Iraq when the
hijackers arrived from their homelands, and left Indonesia when the
hijackers left.  When asked why they think this lieutenant was in
Indonesia all that the whiners can muster is "idunnoknow."



4.  The fact is that Hussein himself was a weapon of mass
destruction.  If you don’t believe that you  have your head
up your butt–look at the rape rooms, the torture chambers, the mass
graves, the gassed Kurds.  When asked why they consider him to be
little more than an eccentric grandfather they respond, "Idonnoknow."



5.  Most of the whiners could not point to Iraq on a map, so the
chances that they could understand the strategic imporantance of
disrupting the movement within the middle east.  The fact is that
it was very important to disable the free movement of materials between
Afghanistan and Iran to the east and Syria to the west.  A good
analogy is that Iraq was a land bridge connecting terrorist nations,
removing bridges is basic when it comes to fighting a war.  If you
ask the mental midget whiners the best they can come up with is,
"Idonnoknow."



The reality is that pussies like those who are whining on this board
are simply too wimpish to appreciate strength.  I am aware of a
woman whose entire attitude is summed up with "I didn’t know anybody
who was killed in the attacks of September 11th so that it happened is
irrelevant to me."



Others have said that the buildings were ugly so it’s good that they’re
gone, and since the names of the dead mean nothing the entire incident
is unimportant.



Tell me, whiners, what is worth fighting for in your sad little world?

[quote=Put Trader]The whiners have great difficulty in coming to grips with several realities.



1.  The Clinton administration formulated a policy requiring the
US to overthrow the Hussein regime.  President Clinton failed at
his own policy, yet when President Bush completed the task he was wrong
for having done so.  When asked why they condemn President Bush
for accomplishing what President Clinton wanted to do but did not the
whiners respond, "Idonnoknow."



2.  Nobody on earth believed that the Hussein regime did not have
weapons of mass destruction–not a single soul on earth.  Even
Hussein himself believed that they were in his arsenal.  And they
were, he had used them several times.  That they were missing when
our troops arrived does not mean that they were never there or that
they are not there to this day–what he had could be hidden in a space
about the size of an average garage.  That space could be buried
in the desert–where it may never be found.  Nonetheless it’s
nonsensical to declare that the weapons were not available for
Hussein’s use.  When asked where they think the weapons that had
been used in the past went the whiners respond with "Idonnoknow."



3.  The planning for September 11th appears to have taken place in
Indonesia.  Immigration records prove that most of the hijackers
left there and came straight to the United States.  Those same
records prove that a key Hussein lieutenant arrived from Iraq when the
hijackers arrived from their homelands, and left Indonesia when the
hijackers left.  When asked why they think this lieutenant was in
Indonesia all that the whiners can muster is "idunnoknow."



4.  The fact is that Hussein himself was a weapon of mass
destruction.  If you don’t believe that you  have your head
up your butt–look at the rape rooms, the torture chambers, the mass
graves, the gassed Kurds.  When asked why they consider him to be
little more than an eccentric grandfather they respond, "Idonnoknow."



5.  Most of the whiners could not point to Iraq on a map, so the
chances that they could understand the strategic imporantance of
disrupting the movement within the middle east.  The fact is that
it was very important to disable the free movement of materials between
Afghanistan and Iran to the east and Syria to the west.  A good
analogy is that Iraq was a land bridge connecting terrorist nations,
removing bridges is basic when it comes to fighting a war.  If you
ask the mental midget whiners the best they can come up with is,
"Idonnoknow."



The reality is that pussies like those who are whining on this board
are simply too wimpish to appreciate strength.  I am aware of a
woman whose entire attitude is summed up with "I didn’t know anybody
who was killed in the attacks of September 11th so that it happened is
irrelevant to me."



Others have said that the buildings were ugly so it’s good that they’re
gone, and since the names of the dead mean nothing the entire incident
is unimportant.



Tell me, whiners, what is worth fighting for in your sad little world?

[/quote]



Mr. Putman Trader, I salute you.



While most of these fools debate “truths” the rest of the islamic world
is fortifying its means for making war. A holy or idealogical war
doesn’t need the consent of the majority to conduct forward operations
in preparation of future assaults. A small faction of radical extremist
need little to draw a line in the sand where sides must be ultimately
chosen or forced. Don’t wait for an Uncle Ali Achbed recruitment poster
for the Sacred Sands Army at your local bus stop, on a billboard, or
accompanied by a catchy jingle on the radio (be Allah, you can be).
Good luck with the western nimby dreamlands that the local mullah is
using to leverage the next generation of seeds for destruction and
salvation…scary stuff.



All tug-of-wars aside, great post Put.

Learn how to cut and paste . There is no need to repeat over and over the same replies to each other.  Also, a link to the url you are referring to is more than sufficient. 

On second thought, why don't you all just take it outside and agree that you will never agree.

PS. Good post Put. I agree entirely. Lib weiners have their heads so far up their butts that they can't hear you.  (fingers in ears...la.la.la.la)

Put- logic apparently is as foreign to you as being a producer.

1.I am confused are you talking about Bush nr 2 doing what Bush nr 1 couldn't?

2.If I give reason for an invasion as WMD, by God there ought to be some found somewhere.....

3.The fact that the hijackers are from Saudi Arabia is nullified by the fact that they met in another country??? You can't be serious....

4.You are saying a sniveling guy found living in a hole is a weapon of mass destruction????  i guess your wife wears the pants after all.

5.Now you want us to invade countries because they form a land bridge?  The world is just a big risk game , i guess. let's take out Canada and then blow thru Mexico and south america, then we'll have all of north and South america to ourselves.

And so on and so on....

[quote=noggin]

Put- logic apparently is as foreign to you as being a producer.

1.I am confused are you talking about Bush nr 2 doing what Bush nr 1 couldn't?

[/quote]
Nope.  Bush Sr. had no authority granted by Congress to remove Saddam from power.  Bush Jr. did.

All Bush Sr. could do was drive Saddam out of Kuwait and contain him.

[quote=noggin]

2.If I give reason for an invasion as WMD, by God there ought to be some found somewhere.....
[/quote]
WMDs were a reason.  So was the fact that Saddam FAILED to comply with UN resolutions time and time again that he give weapons inspectors full access. 

Read UN Resolution 1441.  It references several similar resolutions passed earlier and promises "serious consequences" if Saddam failed to comply.  He failed to comply.

[quote=noggin]

3.The fact that the hijackers are from Saudi Arabia is nullified by the fact that they met in another country??? You can't be serious....
[/quote]
The fact that the hijackers were born in one land provides no proof that it was an official act of that nation.

If a person is born in China, travels to Japan, then conducts terrorist attacks against Malaysia, does that mean it's an official act of China?

Newsflash:  Bin Laden and Al Qaeda want to overthrow the Saudi royal family and kill them.
[quote=noggin]

4.You are saying a sniveling guy found living in a hole is a weapon of mass destruction????  i guess your wife wears the pants after all.
[/quote]
What could have happened during the time that the Democrats were stonewalling Bush?  Could they have been hidden?  Removed?  Destroyed?

You see, Saddam was supposed to provide PROOF to the UN inspectors that he destroyed his WMDs.  He never provided that proof.

[quote=noggin]

5.Now you want us to invade countries because they form a land bridge?  The world is just a big risk game , i guess. let's take out Canada and then blow thru Mexico and south america, then we'll have all of north and South america to ourselves.

And so on and so on....

Still trying to figure out why Put, Stan, Mojo, and Looney are still stateside.  Shouldn’t you be putting on fatigues and going overseas to fight for your ideals…oops…I forgot that Republicans are all rhetoric.  Please forgive the previous rhetorical statement.

[quote=menotellname]Still trying to figure out why Put, Stan, Mojo, and Looney are still stateside.  Shouldn't you be putting on fatigues and going overseas to fight for your ideals...oops...I forgot that Republicans are all rhetoric.  Please forgive the previous rhetorical statement.[/quote]

That's funny, since most...the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY...of our soldiers are REPUBLICANS.

[quote=menotellname]Still trying to figure out why Put, Stan, Mojo,
and Looney are still stateside.  Shouldn’t you be putting on
fatigues and going overseas to fight for your ideals…oops…I
forgot that Republicans are all rhetoric.  Please forgive the
previous rhetorical statement.[/quote]



I wont speak for the other usual suspects…I can only answer for myself.



Sr. Hombre-sin-nombre, I can’t explain in short bumpersticker
simplicity why I chose to voluntarily join the military. I’ll happily
admit that I was young, dumb and full of c.um…but that’s only a facet
of the truth. What I can say is that my experience exposed me to all
the risks associated with maintaining freedom. Looking back on time,
I’d like to believe that a shared sense of duty and a belief in a cause
higher then self is what most combat soldiers hold close to their
hearts.



Because of the time, when I happened to serve, I was dealt a set of
lousy cards in quick succession. I played my hands honorably and acted
parts upon two different stages, in theatres with names like The Balboa
and The Babel. The first was as romantic and exciting as Butch Cassidy
and the Sundance Kid…the second was quietly unforgettable as Heaven’s
Gate.



Trying to ridicule someone takes style you seem to hunger for Sr.
Sin-nombre. I think at heart I am a disenfranchised democrat. My main
problem is that I can’t seem to find candidates that can explain 70
years of welfare wihich give the poor only enough to keep them poor,
planned parenthoods that systematically target poor people of color
(ethnic women make lousy feminist is my only guess) and anything to do
with unions (here you could keep me up all night - educator,
correctional worker or tradesmen - dealers choice).



Boy, it’s late…I came in from a night game where my team lost and know
I find myself addressing a loser whose team can’t seem to decide if a
uniform, let alone which color, is appropriate.



Menotelllname, you get excited about ridiculing people for their
convictions, yet you lack the confidence to use your own voice in any
competent way to draw up an arguement or point of view that is owned
and can be originally your’s. Please make an honest effort to insult me
the next time you decide to collectively add my name to a tired and
immature attempt at being clever.



Good night.

Boy, it’s late…I came in from a night game where my team lost and know
I find myself addressing a loser whose team can’t seem to decide if a
uniform, let alone which color, is appropriate.<<<Mojo



Should I hold my breath waiting for a mental midget to comment on how
pathetic Mojo’s life must be since he was reading this forum in the
middle of the night?

Still trying to figure out why Put, Stan, Mojo, and Looney are still stateside.  Shouldn't you be putting on fatigues and going overseas to fight for your ideals

Well, since I am a woman, and as Put has pointed out old   (no point in denying the obvious) your suggestion is, as is the rest of your thinking in this topic, ludicrous.   This doesn't mean that I don't fight for my ideals.  My venue is political not physical.  My enemies are those who would distort and prevert the Constitutional processes that have maintained our freedoms by covertly introducing Socialism and even Communism into our political mainstream by overturning the laws that have been voted on by the populace and passed by our elected officials through the use of the Courts.  My enemies are those who would subvert and destroy our country in a desperate attempt to regain the power and past glory that they see slipping away from them  Pitting class against class and race against race in a self serving power grab. My enemies are those who would relish a defeat for this current administration, that they hate to a rabid and unhinged level, even if it means a defeat for the country as a whole and a further erosion of our ability to protect our way of life.  My enemies are those who would abrogate to themselves our abilities to determine our own fates, choose our own way of raising our families, indoctrinate our children, tell us how we can or cannot not express our views on religion and so on, They will try to controll all aspects of our daily lives, even to the extent of what we should eat. (Read this as Nanny State).  My enemies are also those morons who smoke and throw their cigarette butts on the ground.  Do they think they just disappear? ......oh....wait.... that is a bit off topic

All my enemies are not necessarily Democrat or Liberal, some are Republican as well.   The difference is that I can discriminate on what and where I put my political efforts and don't tar everyone with one label. Since I recall our discussions on discrimination in the industry, tarring everyone as the same and labeling people should be something that I should think you would be sensitive to.

Babbling looney- Put Stan and the like all talk about their political ideals but i would even doubt that they have voted in all elections since they have been eligible. They are like all too many in this country who rail constantly about the shortcomings yet provide nothing as far as progress. If you can't make your neighborhood a better place for yourself, your family and your neighbors then don't complain about the greatest nation on the face of the earth.

[quote=noggin]

Babbling looney- Put Stan and the like all talk
about their political ideals but i would even doubt that they have
voted in all elections since they have been eligible. They are like all
too many in this country who rail constantly about the shortcomings yet
provide nothing as far as progress. If you can’t make your neighborhood
a better place for yourself, your family and your neighbors then don’t
complain about the greatest nation on the face of the earth.

[quote=babbling looney]

Well, since I am a woman, and as Put has pointed out old   (no point in denying the obvious) your suggestion is, as is the rest of your thinking in this topic, ludicrous.   This doesn't mean that I don't fight for my ideals.  My venue is political not physical.  My enemies are those who would distort and prevert the Constitutional processes that have maintained our freedoms by covertly introducing Socialism and even Communism into our political mainstream by overturning the laws that have been voted on by the populace and passed by our elected officials through the use of the Courts.  My enemies are those who would subvert and destroy our country in a desperate attempt to regain the power and past glory that they see slipping away from them  Pitting class against class and race against race in a self serving power grab. My enemies are those who would relish a defeat for this current administration, that they hate to a rabid and unhinged level, even if it means a defeat for the country as a whole and a further erosion of our ability to protect our way of life.  My enemies are those who would abrogate to themselves our abilities to determine our own fates, choose our own way of raising our families, indoctrinate our children, tell us how we can or cannot not express our views on religion and so on, They will try to controll all aspects of our daily lives, even to the extent of what we should eat. (Read this as Nanny State).  My enemies are also those morons who smoke and throw their cigarette butts on the ground.  Do they think they just disappear? ......oh....wait.... that is a bit off topic

All my enemies are not necessarily Democrat or Liberal, some are Republican as well.   The difference is that I can discriminate on what and where I put my political efforts and don't tar everyone with one label. Since I recall our discussions on discrimination in the industry, tarring everyone as the same and labeling people should be something that I should think you would be sensitive to.

[/quote]

I'm getting turned on.

I just love intelligent women.

[quote=Put Trader]
What do you see as being great about the United States?
[/quote]

I'd say just about everything, except taxes, of course.

And pink-pantied, yellow-bellied, lilly-livered egalitarian wack job commie fascists *cough*, I mean, liberal democrats.

"What do you see as being great about the United States?"

                                              ---Put Trader
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

From your perspective, if nothing else, there are laws here in the United States which prevent decent people like us from beating scum like you and your ilk to death with our shoes.

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

[quote=menotellname]Still trying to figure out why Put, Stan, Mojo, and Looney are still stateside.  Shouldn't you be putting on fatigues and going overseas to fight for your ideals...oops...I forgot that Republicans are all rhetoric.  Please forgive the previous rhetorical statement.[/quote]

That's funny, since most...the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY...of our soldiers are REPUBLICANS.

[/quote]

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

[quote=menotellname]You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.[/quote]

Sure I could. I could just agree with you. Then I'd be more wrong, and that would take effort. QED

Being right is easy.

[quote=Starka]

"What do you see as being great about the United States?"

                                              ---Put Trader
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

From your perspective, if nothing else, there are laws here in the United States which prevent decent people like us from beating scum like you and your ilk to death with our shoes.

[/quote]

This reminds me of a quote I saw yesterday:

Some men are alive only because it is against the law to kill them. - Ed Howe

[quote=Mojo] [quote=menotellname]Still trying to figure out why Put, Stan, Mojo, and Looney are still stateside.  Shouldn't you be putting on fatigues and going overseas to fight for your ideals...oops...I forgot that Republicans are all rhetoric.  Please forgive the previous rhetorical statement.[/quote]

I wont speak for the other usual suspects...I can only answer for myself.

Sr. Hombre-sin-nombre, I can't explain in short bumpersticker simplicity why I chose to voluntarily join the military. I'll happily admit that I was young, dumb and full of c.um...but that's only a facet of the truth. What I can say is that my experience exposed me to all the risks associated with maintaining freedom. Looking back on time, I'd like to believe that a shared sense of duty and a belief in a cause higher then self is what most combat soldiers hold close to their hearts.

Because of the time, when I happened to serve, I was dealt a set of lousy cards in quick succession. I played my hands honorably and acted parts upon two different stages, in theatres with names like The Balboa and The Babel. The first was as romantic and exciting as Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid...the second was quietly unforgettable as Heaven's Gate.

Trying to ridicule someone takes style you seem to hunger for Sr. Sin-nombre. I think at heart I am a disenfranchised democrat. My main problem is that I can't seem to find candidates that can explain 70 years of welfare wihich give the poor only enough to keep them poor, planned parenthoods that systematically target poor people of color (ethnic women make lousy feminist is my only guess) and anything to do with unions (here you could keep me up all night - educator, correctional worker or tradesmen - dealers choice).

Boy, it's late..I came in from a night game where my team lost and know I find myself addressing a loser whose team can't seem to decide if a uniform, let alone which color, is appropriate.

Menotelllname, you get excited about ridiculing people for their convictions, yet you lack the confidence to use your own voice in any competent way to draw up an arguement or point of view that is owned and can be originally your's. Please make an honest effort to insult me the next time you decide to collectively add my name to a tired and immature attempt at being clever.

Good night.
[/quote]

Just so you know...genius...I was in the military too.

Please search for all of my previous postings to gain more insight.

"..tired and immature attempt at being clever."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

"Hi pot, it's me kettle."

A la your posts directed at Put, right?  Or you do you mean your current lame attempt directed at me, right?

(Mojo, please insert your next long winded pointless diatribe here.)

[quote=menotellname]

(Mojo, please insert your next long winded pointless diatribe here.)

[/quote]

I enjoy reading Mojo's diatribes. He exhibits a mastery of English composition with soulful wit and repartee that you simply cannot hope to match.

His posts are a mode of expression intended to arouse amusement. They possess the power to evoke laughter through his remarks showing felicity or ingenuity and swift perception especially of the incongruous.

Mojo has an ability to perceive the ludicrous, the comical, and the absurd in human life and to express these usually without bitterness - something you singularly fail at.

[quote=menotellname][

Seems to me that Mr. Bush assumes involvement in 9-11 because of Iraq's praise of the events.  Further, he assumes that there are WMDs even though none were ever found.  Then in the last highlighted paragraph he mentions "oil".  Now, isn't that really what this is all about for that little man from Texas?

[/quote]

Clueless is too kind a word for you. Bush NEVER said Iraq was involved in 9/11. In act he's said many, many time there's no evidence to suggest that Iraq was involved with 9/11. That claim of yours is just foolish.

He "assumes" there were WMD because every intelligence agency on the planet thought Saddam had them because we KNEW he had them at one point, had failed to comply with the UN inspections he had agreed to AND he hadn't accounted for those WMDs. It was the CIA director, appointed by Clinton who said it was a "lay up" to prove Saddam had them. Bush didn't say anything different in 2002 and 2003 about Saddam and WMD than Clinton and most every Democrat said in 1998 when they made "regime change in Iraq" US policy.

Finally, you wack-jobs said the FIRST Gulf War was "all about oil" and you've yet to apologize for being wrong about that. You ARE aware we didn't holdKuwait's oil fields after that war, aren't you? If we wanted Iraq's oil we could have simply continued to buy it as we were under the UN food for oil program OR we could have been like France and Germany and have made under thetable deals to help get sanctions dropped.

[quote=inquisitive] [quote=noggin]

Put- logic apparently is as foreign to you as being a producer.

1.I am confused are you talking about Bush nr 2 doing what Bush nr 1 couldn't?

[/quote]
Nope.  Bush Sr. had no authority granted by Congress to remove Saddam from power.  Bush Jr. did.

All Bush Sr. could do was drive Saddam out of Kuwait and contain him.
[quote=noggin]

2.If I give reason for an invasion as WMD, by God there ought to be some found somewhere.....
[/quote]
WMDs were a reason.  So was the fact that Saddam FAILED to comply with UN resolutions time and time again that he give weapons inspectors full access. 

Read UN Resolution 1441.  It references several similar resolutions passed earlier and promises "serious consequences" if Saddam failed to comply.  He failed to comply.
[quote=noggin]

3.The fact that the hijackers are from Saudi Arabia is nullified by the fact that they met in another country??? You can't be serious....
[/quote]
The fact that the hijackers were born in one land provides no proof that it was an official act of that nation.

If a person is born in China, travels to Japan, then conducts terrorist attacks against Malaysia, does that mean it's an official act of China?

Newsflash:  Bin Laden and Al Qaeda want to overthrow the Saudi royal family and kill them.
[quote=noggin]

4.You are saying a sniveling guy found living in a hole is a weapon of mass destruction????  i guess your wife wears the pants after all.
[/quote]
What could have happened during the time that the Democrats were stonewalling Bush?  Could they have been hidden?  Removed?  Destroyed?

You see, Saddam was supposed to provide PROOF to the UN inspectors that he destroyed his WMDs.  He never provided that proof.
[quote=noggin]

5.Now you want us to invade countries because they form a land bridge?  The world is just a big risk game , i guess. let's take out Canada and then blow thru Mexico and south america, then we'll have all of north and South america to ourselves.

And so on and so on....

[/quote]
 Is there oil there?  You see, we only invade countries with oil.  So Bush can make all his oil buddies rich, you see.
[/quote]

Well said.

[quote=menotellname]Still trying to figure out why Put, Stan, Mojo, and Looney are still stateside.  Shouldn't you be putting on fatigues and going overseas to fight for your ideals...oops...I forgot that Republicans are all rhetoric.  Please forgive the previous rhetorical statement.[/quote]

Let me see if I understand this...we can't support the war unless we volunteer to fight it (let's put aside that fact that I, and I'm sure many others here, other than metellnotruth have ALREADY served in uniform)? Then can you be for law and order w/o joining the police? Can you be in favor of fire prevention w/o joining the fire department?

The foolishness of liberals never ceases to amaze....

[quote=Roger Thornhill][quote=menotellname]

(Mojo, please insert your next long winded pointless diatribe here.)

[/quote]

I enjoy reading Mojo's diatribes. He exhibits a mastery of English composition with soulful wit and repartee that you simply cannot hope to match.

His posts are a mode of expression intended to arouse amusement. They possess the power to evoke laughter through his remarks showing felicity or ingenuity and swift perception especially of the incongruous.

Mojo has an ability to perceive the ludicrous, the comical, and the absurd in human life and to express these usually without bitterness - something you singularly fail at.

[/quote]

Good writing and good reading material = yes.  However, you are wrong again.  Mojo's writing style reeks of bitterness and it is still long winded and self-serving thereby making his posts pointless.  Much like Put Trader.  As a matter of fact these two individuals are quite similar.

Oh, Roger...did you end your last sentence with a preposition?  For shame.

[quote=noggin]

Babbling looney- Put Stan and the like all talk about their political ideals but i would even doubt that they have voted in all elections since they have been eligible. They are like all too many in this country who rail constantly about the shortcomings yet provide nothing as far as progress. [/quote]

I hope you don't practice this habit of foolish generalizations in other parts of your life.

[quote=Roger Thornhill][quote=babbling looney]

Well, since I am a woman, and as Put has pointed out old   (no point in denying the obvious) your suggestion is, as is the rest of your thinking in this topic, ludicrous.   This doesn't mean that I don't fight for my ideals.  My venue is political not physical.  My enemies are those who would distort and prevert the Constitutional processes that have maintained our freedoms by covertly introducing Socialism and even Communism into our political mainstream by overturning the laws that have been voted on by the populace and passed by our elected officials through the use of the Courts.  My enemies are those who would subvert and destroy our country in a desperate attempt to regain the power and past glory that they see slipping away from them  Pitting class against class and race against race in a self serving power grab. My enemies are those who would relish a defeat for this current administration, that they hate to a rabid and unhinged level, even if it means a defeat for the country as a whole and a further erosion of our ability to protect our way of life.  My enemies are those who would abrogate to themselves our abilities to determine our own fates, choose our own way of raising our families, indoctrinate our children, tell us how we can or cannot not express our views on religion and so on, They will try to controll all aspects of our daily lives, even to the extent of what we should eat. (Read this as Nanny State).  My enemies are also those morons who smoke and throw their cigarette butts on the ground.  Do they think they just disappear? ......oh....wait.... that is a bit off topic

All my enemies are not necessarily Democrat or Liberal, some are Republican as well.   The difference is that I can discriminate on what and where I put my political efforts and don't tar everyone with one label. Since I recall our discussions on discrimination in the industry, tarring everyone as the same and labeling people should be something that I should think you would be sensitive to.

[/quote]

I'm getting turned on.

I just love intelligent women.

[/quote]

She's had my attention since she once mentioned she was in need of a G&T. In this last conversation her politics have convinced me her SO is one lucky guy. 

[quote=stanwbrown]

[quote=menotellname]Still trying to figure out why Put, Stan, Mojo, and Looney are still stateside.  Shouldn't you be putting on fatigues and going overseas to fight for your ideals...oops...I forgot that Republicans are all rhetoric.  Please forgive the previous rhetorical statement.[/quote]

Let me see if I understand this...we can't support the war unless we volunteer to fight it (let's put aside that fact that I, and I'm sure many others here, other than metellnotruth have ALREADY served in uniform)? Then can you be for law and order w/o joining the police? Can you be in favor of fire prevention w/o joining the fire department?

The foolishness of liberals never ceases to amaze....

[/quote]

Can you be a vegan by eating meat?

Can you be a pacifist by being an ultimate fighter?

Yadda, yadda, yadda...

Were you trying to make a point?

Surprisingly enough I have been a police officer and a paid firefighter too.  I don't just say it.  I do it.

Next.

[quote=menotellname][quote=Roger Thornhill]

[quote=menotellname]Still trying to figure out why Put, Stan, Mojo, and Looney are still stateside.  Shouldn't you be putting on fatigues and going overseas to fight for your ideals...oops...I forgot that Republicans are all rhetoric.  Please forgive the previous rhetorical statement.[/quote]

That's funny, since most...the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY...of our soldiers are REPUBLICANS.

[/quote]

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

[/quote]

Clearly you haven't a clue. I doubt you even know two people on active duty and I doubt you ever served yourself.

I suggest you ask anyone in uniform how they felt about the last two Commanders in Chief. Then draw your own conclusions about what party they favor.

Here's a hint, it isn't yours.

[quote=menotellname]

[quote=Mojo] [quote=menotellname]Still trying to figure out why Put, Stan, Mojo, and Looney are still stateside.  Shouldn't you be putting on fatigues and going overseas to fight for your ideals...oops...I forgot that Republicans are all rhetoric.  Please forgive the previous rhetorical statement.[/quote]

I wont speak for the other usual suspects...I can only answer for myself.

Sr. Hombre-sin-nombre, I can't explain in short bumpersticker simplicity why I chose to voluntarily join the military. I'll happily admit that I was young, dumb and full of c.um...but that's only a facet of the truth. What I can say is that my experience exposed me to all the risks associated with maintaining freedom. Looking back on time, I'd like to believe that a shared sense of duty and a belief in a cause higher then self is what most combat soldiers hold close to their hearts.

Because of the time, when I happened to serve, I was dealt a set of lousy cards in quick succession. I played my hands honorably and acted parts upon two different stages, in theatres with names like The Balboa and The Babel. The first was as romantic and exciting as Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid...the second was quietly unforgettable as Heaven's Gate.

Trying to ridicule someone takes style you seem to hunger for Sr. Sin-nombre. I think at heart I am a disenfranchised democrat. My main problem is that I can't seem to find candidates that can explain 70 years of welfare wihich give the poor only enough to keep them poor, planned parenthoods that systematically target poor people of color (ethnic women make lousy feminist is my only guess) and anything to do with unions (here you could keep me up all night - educator, correctional worker or tradesmen - dealers choice).

Boy, it's late..I came in from a night game where my team lost and know I find myself addressing a loser whose team can't seem to decide if a uniform, let alone which color, is appropriate.

Menotelllname, you get excited about ridiculing people for their convictions, yet you lack the confidence to use your own voice in any competent way to draw up an arguement or point of view that is owned and can be originally your's. Please make an honest effort to insult me the next time you decide to collectively add my name to a tired and immature attempt at being clever.

Good night.
[/quote]

Just so you know...genius...I was in the military too.

[/quote]

ROFLMAO, I'd love to hear the details on this one....

[quote=menotellname][quote=stanwbrown]

[quote=menotellname]Still trying to figure out why Put, Stan, Mojo, and Looney are still stateside.  Shouldn't you be putting on fatigues and going overseas to fight for your ideals...oops...I forgot that Republicans are all rhetoric.  Please forgive the previous rhetorical statement.[/quote]

Let me see if I understand this...we can't support the war unless we volunteer to fight it (let's put aside that fact that I, and I'm sure many others here, other than metellnotruth have ALREADY served in uniform)? Then can you be for law and order w/o joining the police? Can you be in favor of fire prevention w/o joining the fire department?

The foolishness of liberals never ceases to amaze....

[/quote]

Can you be a vegan by eating meat?

Can you be a pacifist by being an ultimate fighter?

Yadda, yadda, yadda...

Were you trying to make a point?

Surprisingly enough I have been a police officer and a paid firefighter too.  I don't just say it.  I do it.

Next.

[/quote]

I saw your off-topic babbling, and noted the fact you failed to answer, so I'll give you another chance.

Can you be in favor of law and order w/o being a cop?

Can you be in favor of fire prevention w/o becoming a fireman?

And here's another for you; who put liberals in charge of who was allowed to say what?

Amazes me that most LIBS are so pathetic to defend Saddam..

Lib reply: Sadam did not have WMD?
He admited before we entered he had WMD. He broke 14 UN resolutions over 12 years for the UN to look into his programs. If 2 people (DC snipers) caused 20 million to freak out. Can you imagine the thousands of extreme sunni's that Saddam was breeding. I have a good artile at the bottom of thread about this.. HE WAS A WMD!!

http://www.christophercoutu.com/Vision/IRAQ/FREE_IRAQ.html

Lib reply: He never was a threat for the US?
The only way for him to stay in power is to push for instablility in the middle east. So he paid marters 25k to blow them selves up. He owned all IRAQ news papers and stated jihad should continue against the west. 

You listen to Kerry, Hollywood, Liberal media, Michael Moore and Kennedy one would think Saddam and the terrorists are good people. 

Most of the BS these people say are slaps in the face of our American troops. If anyone of these guys went to IRAQ our troops would curse them up and down.  

GREAT ARTICLE BELOW SHOWING SADDAM'S EVIL AT THE END>>!

By SCHEHEREZADE FARAMARZI, Associated Press Writer

LONDON - Internationally isolated and fearful of losing power, Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) made an astonishing move in the last years of his secular rule: He invited into Iraq (news - web sites) clerics who preached an austere form of Islam that's prevalent in Saudi Arabia.

He also let extremely religious Iraqis join his ruling Baath Socialist Party. Saddam's bid to win over devout Muslims planted the seeds of the insurgency behind some of the deadliest attacks against U.S. and Iraqi forces today, say Saudi dissidents and U.S. officials.

"Saddam invited Muslim scholars and preachers to Iraq for his own survival," said Saad Fagih, a London-based Saudi dissident. "He convinced them that Shiites are the danger."

Shiite Muslims make up about 60 percent of Iraq's 26 million people and they strongly support planned Jan. 30 elections, hoping to reverse the longtime domination of Iraq's Sunni minority. The insurgency is thought to be run mostly by Sunnis who fear losing power.

Saudi Arabia's Wahhabi — or Salafi — brand of Sunni Islam began trickling into Iraq in the mid-1990s, at the height of punishing international sanctions for Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. They came from Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries, including some returning Iraqis who adopted the Salafi ideology in exile.

A Wahhabi mosque was even built in the Shiite holy city of Karbala at a time when Shiites were banned from worshipping their religion freely. Signs of strict Islamic codes also began appearing, such as a growing number of women wearing veils.

The words "God is great" were added to the Iraqi flag after Saddam's defeat in the 1991 U.S.-led Gulf War (news - web sites). He closed bars and nightclubs to appease Muslims.

Around the same time, several militant Islamic groups, including Jund al-Islam (Islam's Soldier), started taking root in the mountains of northern Iraq along the Iranian border.

After the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, these Salafi groups reorganized under Ansar al-Islam, which had ties with Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s al-Qaida and with Jordanian militant leader Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi, a leader of the current insurgency.

Ansar al-Islam, which adhered to a rigid Salafi ideology, seems to have been destroyed during the initial days of the U.S.-led invasion when its bases were attacked by American forces in March 2003. Hundreds of fighters were killed or scattered, many reportedly fleeing to Iran.

But the Ansar al-Sunnah Army — believed to be an outgrowth of Ansar al-Islam — then surfaced. The group recently claimed responsibility for the December suicide bombing at a U.S. base in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, killing 22 people, mostly American troops. Thought to be the deadliest Iraqi-run group, it also has been behind a string of beheadings and the twin suicide bombings of Kurdish party headquarters in Irbil last February.

Al-Zarqawi formed his own group, which is suspected of being behind a campaign of beheadings, kidnappings, mortar attacks and car bombings, including one that hit the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad in August 2003, killing 22 people.

On Tuesday, al-Zarqawi's group claimed responsibility for assassinating the governor of Baghdad province and six of his bodyguards.

Al-Zarqawi recently announced he was merging his Tawhid and Jihad group with al-Qaida, and changed its name to al-Qaida in Iraq. Bin Laden may have taken him up on the offer, according to an audiotape broadcast in December in which a speaker the CIA (news - web sites) believes was bin Laden called al-Zarqawi his lieutenant in Iraq and said Muslims there should "listen to him."

"Thanks to American propaganda, this group has achieved the glory and fame that it lacked and always strived for," said Yasir al-Sirri, an Egyptian and strict Muslim in London.

But he dismissed American claims that al-Qaida and Saddam were linked.

"From the start, al-Zarqawi wasn't part of al-Qaida. Not everyone who was in Afghanistan (news - web sites) was affiliated to al-Qaida," said al-Sirri, who supports the Iraqi insurgency.

There's no question, however, that Saddam invited Islamic extremists into Iraq.

The core insurgency is Iraqi Sunni Muslims — a volatile mix of groups and freelancers who include loyalists of the former Baath Party, Fedayeen militiamen, former Republican Guard and intelligence agents, Islamic extremists, paid common criminals and disaffected Iraqis.

The Sunni resistance at first wanted to use al-Zarqawi as a tool to draw support for their cause, according to Fagih, who maintains contacts in Saudi Arabia.

"Foreigners came and were ready to kill themselves," he said, but the Sunni resistance discovered it couldn't control al-Zarqawi. "He's like an unguided missile."

Now, U.S. officials say it is local insurgents — essentially former regime elements and Islamic extremists, and not foreign fighters — who are proving difficult to defeat.

"If in Iraq there were only al-Zarqawi or al-Qaida, the situation would be manageable," a U.S. government official based in Iraq said on condition of anonymity. "It would be just like any country with terrorist problems. Al-Zarqawi and al-Qaida wouldn't have the effect of what we are seeing now."

He said most of the suicide car bombings, which usually kill Iraqi civilians, police and national guardsmen, are carried out by foreign fighters, while the former regime elements have been largely involved in planting bombs to attack U.S. convoys.

The Iraqi extremists who joined the Baath Party under Saddam and are now engaged in the insurgency are not necessarily tied to al-Qaida, the U.S. official said.

"Exactly who they are tied to or what — like other international terrorists — is very fluid," the official said. "Foreign fighters have ties to al-Qaida. They all help each other one way or another — whether it's financial, logistical planning. ... They share training camps used by differing groups at different times."

The camps, the official alleged, were financed mostly by rich former Baathists who fled to Syria just before the war — charges the Syrian government has denied.

Iraq's Sunni neighbors such as Syria, Saudi Arabia and Jordan were against the war that toppled Saddam — partly because they feared it could result in Shiite domination.

"They didn't want the Sunni hegemony uprooted. They wanted to keep the status quo," said Hamza al-Hassan, a Shiite Saudi dissident writer in London. "Now, some Arab fighters might be joining the insurgency to protect Sunni power."

[quote=menotellname]Good writing and good reading material = yes.  However, you are wrong again.  Mojo’s writing style reeks of bitterness and it is still long winded and self-serving thereby making his posts pointless.  Much like Put Trader.  As a matter of fact these two individuals are quite similar.

[/quote]

It is apparent that the browneye just likes to disagree. That's a definite symptom of a failed planner.

They are such a bitter group, and browneye is a bitter boy.

Did your Mom make you wear highwaters to school?

[quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname][quote=Roger Thornhill]

[quote=menotellname]Still trying to figure out why Put, Stan, Mojo, and Looney are still stateside.  Shouldn't you be putting on fatigues and going overseas to fight for your ideals...oops...I forgot that Republicans are all rhetoric.  Please forgive the previous rhetorical statement.[/quote]

That's funny, since most...the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY...of our soldiers are REPUBLICANS.

[/quote]

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

[/quote]

Clearly you haven't a clue. I doubt you even know two people on active duty and I doubt you ever served yourself.

I suggest you ask anyone in uniform how they felt about the last two Commanders in Chief. Then draw your own conclusions about what party they favor.

Here's a hint, it isn't yours.

[/quote]

There is a huge difference between the demographics of the political affiliations of officers and enlisted personnel.  Their feelings about any past, present, or future President are a different subject.  I suggest you educate yourself on the subtle yet distinct differences. 

[quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname][quote=stanwbrown]

[quote=menotellname]Still trying to figure out why Put, Stan, Mojo, and Looney are still stateside.  Shouldn't you be putting on fatigues and going overseas to fight for your ideals...oops...I forgot that Republicans are all rhetoric.  Please forgive the previous rhetorical statement.[/quote]

Let me see if I understand this...we can't support the war unless we volunteer to fight it (let's put aside that fact that I, and I'm sure many others here, other than metellnotruth have ALREADY served in uniform)? Then can you be for law and order w/o joining the police? Can you be in favor of fire prevention w/o joining the fire department?

The foolishness of liberals never ceases to amaze....

[/quote]

Can you be a vegan by eating meat?

Can you be a pacifist by being an ultimate fighter?

Yadda, yadda, yadda...

Were you trying to make a point?

Surprisingly enough I have been a police officer and a paid firefighter too.  I don't just say it.  I do it.

Next.

[/quote]

I saw your off-topic babbling, and noted the fact you failed to answer, so I'll give you another chance.

Can you be in favor of law and order w/o being a cop?

Can you be in favor of fire prevention w/o becoming a fireman?

And here's another for you; who put liberals in charge of who was allowed to say what?

[/quote]

Speaking of off topic...

Seems like your entire post is off topic.  My previous post answered your post in a similar manner by rambling and asking aimless questions.  Your pointless questions were answered with like minded pointless questions.  Notice the irony?

To answer your last question:  I didn't know that anyone was appointed.

Anyway...who labeled me liberal?  I am moderate and rational.  I have lived, seen, and experienced both sides of the fence.  Fought and served, done blue collar and white collar work, been poor and wealthy.  I hold very balanced views.  You tend to be rather extreme.  But I wouldn't expect less of a racist (oh look...another label).

For what it's worth, I make it a habit to ask every service person, enlisted or commissioned, who they'd rather have in at NCA.

Here's their choices:

1. Bush
2. Kerry
3. Gore
4. Clinton

Nobody in uniform chooses anyone other than Bush. I'm not talking about a dozen or so soliders, either. I'm talking hundreds (my firm has given lectures, gratis, on various financial subjects at several Army and Air Force installations since 1991, so I see quite a few of them).

I wish I could spell out the numerous reasons why on this forum, but I simply do not have that much time. My girl is calling as I type, so I have to jet.

[quote=Roger Thornhill][quote=menotellname]Good writing and good reading material = yes.  However, you are wrong again.  Mojo’s writing style reeks of bitterness and it is still long winded and self-serving thereby making his posts pointless.  Much like Put Trader.  As a matter of fact these two individuals are quite similar.

[/quote]

It is apparent that the browneye just likes to disagree. That's a definite symptom of a failed planner.

They are such a bitter group, and browneye is a bitter boy.

Did your Mom make you wear highwaters to school?

[/quote]

?????

Talk about off topic remarks.

I just call a spade a spade.  If you don't like it...tough.

Highwaters?

I guess you attempted to make another weak point. 

Speaking of failing...you failed.  Again.

There we go....He DID wear highwaters in school!!!

How funny! 

I feel that Godwin's Law is going to kick in soon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

The Dems have already lost any pretense at logical argument long ago.

[quote=babbling looney]I feel that Godwin’s Law is going to kick in soon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

The Dems have already lost any pretense at logical argument long ago.[/quote]

I think you're right.

[quote=menotellname][quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname][quote=Roger Thornhill]

[quote=menotellname]Still trying to figure out why Put, Stan, Mojo, and Looney are still stateside.  Shouldn't you be putting on fatigues and going overseas to fight for your ideals...oops...I forgot that Republicans are all rhetoric.  Please forgive the previous rhetorical statement.[/quote]

That's funny, since most...the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY...of our soldiers are REPUBLICANS.

[/quote]

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

[/quote]

Clearly you haven't a clue. I doubt you even know two people on active duty and I doubt you ever served yourself.

I suggest you ask anyone in uniform how they felt about the last two Commanders in Chief. Then draw your own conclusions about what party they favor.

Here's a hint, it isn't yours.

[/quote]

There is a huge difference between the demographics of the political affiliations of officers and enlisted personnel.  Their feelings about any past, present, or future President are a different subject.  I suggest you educate yourself on the subtle yet distinct differences. 

[/quote]

Once again you prove you haven't a clue. It's not to say there are no liberals in the military,  it's to say they are a rare, rare breed. rarer in the military than they are on Wall Street.

I'd be happy to measure my experience on both sides of the officer/enlisted demographic, and I'll tell you again, you haven't a clue.

[quote=menotellname][quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname][quote=stanwbrown]

[quote=menotellname]Still trying to figure out why Put, Stan, Mojo, and Looney are still stateside.  Shouldn't you be putting on fatigues and going overseas to fight for your ideals...oops...I forgot that Republicans are all rhetoric.  Please forgive the previous rhetorical statement.[/quote]

Let me see if I understand this...we can't support the war unless we volunteer to fight it (let's put aside that fact that I, and I'm sure many others here, other than metellnotruth have ALREADY served in uniform)? Then can you be for law and order w/o joining the police? Can you be in favor of fire prevention w/o joining the fire department?

The foolishness of liberals never ceases to amaze....

[/quote]

Can you be a vegan by eating meat?

Can you be a pacifist by being an ultimate fighter?

Yadda, yadda, yadda...

Were you trying to make a point?

Surprisingly enough I have been a police officer and a paid firefighter too.  I don't just say it.  I do it.

Next.

[/quote]

I saw your off-topic babbling, and noted the fact you failed to answer, so I'll give you another chance.

Can you be in favor of law and order w/o being a cop?

Can you be in favor of fire prevention w/o becoming a fireman?

And here's another for you; who put liberals in charge of who was allowed to say what?

[/quote]

Speaking of off topic...

Seems like your entire post is off topic.  My previous post answered your post in a similar manner by rambling and asking aimless questions.  Your pointless questions were answered with like minded pointless questions.  Notice the irony?

To answer your last question:  I didn't know that anyone was appointed.

Anyway...who labeled me liberal?  I am moderate and rational.  I have lived, seen, and experienced both sides of the fence.  Fought and served, done blue collar and white collar work, been poor and wealthy.  I hold very balanced views.  You tend to be rather extreme.  But I wouldn't expect less of a racist (oh look...another label).

[/quote]

Sorry, pal, but if you claim without a shred of evidence that Bush lied by saying the same thing Democrats said about Saddam in 1998, if you claim he lied while relying on the opinion of every intelligence agency on the planet, if you claim troops in our Armed Forces aren't overwhelmingly conservative and supportive of the president, if you claim one must be a hypocrite to support the war in Iraq and not enlist to fight it, you're not a moderate and you’re certainly not rational. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

You’re a liberal repeating every liberal talking point.

Sorry, pal, but if you claim without a shred of evidence that Bush lied by saying the same thing Democrats said about Saddam in 1998, if you claim he lied while relying on the opinion of every intelligence agency on the planet, if you claim troops in our Armed Forces aren't overwhelmingly conservative and supportive of the president, if you claim one must be a hypocrite to support the war in Iraq and not enlist to fight it, you're not a moderate and you’re certainly not rational.

You’re a liberal repeating every liberal talking point.

Furthermore, if you toss in the racist accusation, you've proven yourself to be nothing more than a desperate liberal, trapped in a obviously ridiculous position, looking for anything, anything to distract others while you try to toss in the race card to escape. Despicable.

gee, I wish we had an edit button  

What you were supposed to say is:

gee, I wish we had an edit button  

gee, I wish we had an edit button  

I have to agree, Put, you're right

I have to agree, Put, you're right

Say tellmenotruth, to your "Bush lied" theory, who said;

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."

I have noticed that Put makes the most assinine statements and the forum generally agrees that he is an idiot.  Then he makes the most assinine statement ever and the forum tends to agree.

At least Put is consistent.  The rest of you pretend to be balanced and then Put exposes you for extremists idiots that you are.

[quote=Dewey Cheatham]

I have noticed that Put makes the most assinine statements and the forum generally agrees that he is an idiot.  Then he makes the most assinine statement ever and the forum tends to agree.

At least Put is consistent.  The rest of you pretend to be balanced and then Put exposes you for extremists idiots that you are.

[/quote]

Put's like the proverbial broken clock. OTOH, your belief that anyone could possibly be wrong on everything calls for some recalibration. Either that, or you could come out from behind the oh-yeah-well-Put-agrees-with-you-and-therefore-you’re-wrong costume and take issue with specifics.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

   Bush went out on a limb and the limb broke. I had hoped for his sake that there was some WMD's over there. He put alot out there basing an invasion of another country on assumptions. Here we are a few years down the road and still have not justified as to why we are over there in the first place. I am just glad that he can only be in office for a few more years. I hope he doesn't get any other hair brained ideas in the mean time. Someone is going to have to come along and clean up his mess, just like Clinton had to do with his daddy!

[quote=Cruiser]<>

Bush went out on a limb and the limb broke. I had hoped for his sake
that there was some WMD’s over there. He put alot out there basing an
invasion of another country on assumptions. Here we are a few years
down the road and still have not justified as to why we are over there
in the first place. I am just glad that he can only be in office for a
few more years. I hope he doesn’t get any other hair brained ideas in
the mean time. Someone is going to have to come along and clean up his
mess, just like Clinton had to do with his daddy!</>

[/quote]



What’s even better than the fact that President Bush can only serve
three more years is that fools like you are in such a minority that
your ilk will be extinct within a generation.



It’s all about red states and blue states and states are becoming more red as younger people mature and begin to think.



What was it Churchill–or somebody said?  "When I was young I was
liberal to prove to myself that I had a heart, but as I matured I
became a conservative to prove to myself that I have a brain."



I recently had the pleasure of buying dinner for a young couple. 
The conversation turned to politics as it will when I’m around and the
young woman had a great point.



She said, "What drives me crazy with my idiotic friends is their
politics.  I tell them that I"m a Republican and they all act like
I said I was a child molester.  So, I ask why they dont’ consider
themselves to be a Republican too since they have jobs, are not gay or
on welfare and they say the dumbest things…like, “Well, I’m not for
the war in Iraq” or “Well, I’m against poverty” as if I am for war and
poverty!"



It would be fun to read what some of the nimrods who vote for Democrats
think they stand for that somebody like that young woman does not.

[quote=Put Trader] It would be fun to read what some of the nimrods who vote for Democrats
think they stand for that somebody like that young woman does not.

[/quote]



When you all meet at the “Apartment-Hotel” later this month, perhaps
after a rousing round of boondocking (tiddlywinks talk) and exchanging
advice on rules of thumb and forefinger (more winx talk), you could
muster the bravery to call for transforming the Put-pal-pad into a
Gotham’s Bohemian Grove-like Shaneg-ri-la. You could all take turns
playing the part of that young, young,  pointedly memorable woman,
and her likely responses to differing positions. Gee, wouldn’t that be
the funnest fun-time spent, ever, moving your groove-things.

[quote=Mojo]


Gee, wouldn’t that be
the funnest fun-time spent, ever, moving your groove-things.

[/quote]



If anybody can ever figure out what Mojo is saying would you please send it to me via PM.

?

[quote=Put Trader]  
If anybody can ever figure out what Mojo is saying would you please send it to me via PM.

[/quote]



That’s encrypted Put-code for "our PM’s have been compromised."



Case management would call for a predetermined back up meeting location
in situations like this. Putsy, will now use all his training in
counter(coffee-shop)surveillance("why’s does that old guy keeping
looking at me mom?) trade-craft and an assortment of cut-outs and drops
necessary to  protect the identity of his innner circle of
admirers. Good show, chap.

Put,

  You think most young people would vote Republican? Only if...

A) It was in our parents best interest.

B) The Preacher (AKA Snake Handler) at church claims you are headed to hell if you vote Democrat

C) Did not get an education.

 If you think that young people are going to magically turn blue states into red states, that just shows your age. As old conservative farts, such as yourself age and move on, it opens the doors for young thinkers who actually care about other people, the deficit and how the rest of the world perceives us.

[quote=Cruiser]

Put,

  You think most young people would vote Republican? Only if...

A) It was in our parents best interest.

B) The Preacher (AKA Snake Handler) at church claims you are headed to hell if you vote Democrat

C) Did not get an education.

 If you think that young people are going to magically turn blue states into red states, that just shows your age. As old conservative farts, such as yourself age and move on, it opens the doors for young thinkers who actually care about other people, the deficit and how the rest of the world perceives us.

[quote=Cruiser]If you think that young people are going to magically turn blue states into red states, that just shows your age. As old conservative farts, such as yourself age and move on, it opens the doors for young thinkers who actually care about other people, the deficit and how the rest of the world perceives us. [/quote]

Who cares about what the world perceives? That's the lamest line of thinking I've ever heard. Talk about shallow!

"We'd better do this so we are respected by the bosche and the frogs!"

What hogwash. Or frogwash.

If you care so much, give your own time and money. That's charity. Nothing wrong with that.

If you care, but want me to pay for it, that's not charity, that's liberalism, which is a fancy name for wack job communism and egalitarian socialism. Marx would be proud of ya.

Since Putsy was born (before V,D Day? whichever) the Democratic Party
representation at the state gubernatorial and federal level (all three
branches) have been in a steady decline.



It’s becoming more then just a game to catch the hearts of some swing
voters with some good eyeballs and sound-bites in the final minutes.
For the last 25 years the Dems have lost 8% of their base, compared to
2% for the GOP. During the same years the swing voters have increased
from 16% to 25%. Simple math. Troubling 1% reality for the Dems.



With the possibility of not one, but instead two, Supreme Court
Justices in play…the chances of legislating powers via the courts
seems limited.



Unifying the base of the Dem Party will only get more confusing. Do you
think Howard Dean was brought into the party to stump for gay marraige?
I’d like to see the legs of the party platform in March of 2K8. 

Howard Dean is there so that Hillary Clinton seems sane and moderate by comparision.



Regardless, the party is on its way to the trash heap of history, like
the Whigs.  What they have as their core beliefs does not make
sense–nothing, but nothing, makes sense.



As for the Court.  President Bush will be in office unitil January
2009–there’s a better than even chance that he not only will replace
Justices O’Connor and Rehnquist, but also Justices Kennedy and Ginsburg.



That would leave a court with four W appointees, plus Justices Thomas
and Scalia.  Under such a court, coupled with a conservative House
and Senate the country can be reclaimed by the decent people.



The glass is certainly more than half full–and the GOP victory last
November is looming as one of the largest historical events in the last
fifty years.



The whiners took over in 1932 and held the House until 1994.  It
is going to take sixty years or so to undo the damage they caused.



How’s this for an original idea.



I will take care of myself and my family, and you take care of yourself and your family and we can trash Social Security.



Why in the world are yo willing to pay for my retirement?

[quote=Put Trader] 


Why in the world are yo willing to pay for my retirement?

[/quote]



Brass is cheap. It’s the cost of the those briefs that has me worried.
I can almost hear Brookie  “Do you know what the costs of caring
for an adult are these days. Diapers, formula, dsl, batterries for his
toys, adult daycare, and the way he mixes his meds since the med sup
kicked in, well -he’s hornier then a bichon habanero on 24 hour shore
leave. And he keeps saying , Come here my little Dolcinea, P-daddy has
some candy for you.”

Brass is cheap. It's the cost of the those briefs that has me worried. I can almost hear Brookie  "Do you know what the costs of caring for an adult are these days. Diapers, formula, dsl, batterries for his toys, adult daycare, and the way he mixes his meds since the med sup kicked in, well -he's hornier then a bichon habanero on 24 hour shore leave. And he keeps saying , Come here my little Dolcinea, P-daddy has some candy for you."

Wow, that was really insightful.  The power and logic of your arguments has persuaded me to become a Democrat, support gay marriage, march for abortions, shred the Constitution and give away all your money to the next worthless bum I see on the streets.  I'm impressed.

Put Wrote.

How's this for an original idea.

"I will take care of myself and my family, and you take care of yourself and your family and we can trash Social Security."

  Not very original. Bush beat you to it. I can see why you vote Republican.

[quote=Cruiser]

Put Wrote.

How’s this for an original idea.

“I will take care of myself and my family, and you take care of yourself and your family and we can trash Social Security.”

  Not very original. Bush beat you to it. I can see why you vote Republican.

 Put,

  I am the last person that would hand my change to a bum like you camped outside of a liquor store begging for change. I would hand you a Mcdonalds application, and tell you that I have to work for my money, so should you. I just would rather my tax dollars, which someone took out of my pocket, to go to something worth while. Spending billions on invading other countries when we have people that can't even get by sounds pretty stupid to me. If you are so opposed to getting taxed to help other people, then why would you support Bush? He is taking our tax dollars and supposably helping the poor Iraqi people, that could not make it without our help. Or at least thats how he has spun it so far.

You really have no feelings Cruiser. If a bum needs a drink…give the
guy some mercy. We don’t hand you an application to the shoestore
because you extend and expend ideas based upon irresponsible
consumption or class and rank insecurities. You really should read
"Horton Hatches the Egg" by Theodore Geisel. It’s message is timeless.

[quote=Cruiser]<>

Put,</>

  I am the last person that would hand my change to a bum like you camped outside of a liquor store begging for change. I would hand you a Mcdonalds application, and tell you that I have to work for my money, so should you. I just would rather my tax dollars, which someone took out of my pocket, to go to something worth while. Spending billions on invading other countries when we have people that can't even get by sounds pretty stupid to me. If you are so opposed to getting taxed to help other people, then why would you support Bush? He is taking our tax dollars and supposably helping the poor Iraqi people, that could not make it without our help. Or at least thats how he has spun it so far.

 Do you think it is fair that the government bail out troubled industries such as the airlines? Or should they just say "not my problem". Everyone has to take care of themselves. But every now and again some justified help is needed.

[quote=Cruiser] 
<>

Do you think it is fair that the government bail out troubled
industries such as the airlines? Or should they just say “not my
problem”. Everyone has to take care of themselves. But every now and
again some justified help is needed.

</>[/quote]



I do not favor bailing out troubled industries–this is America and if
you’re going to be free to succeed you must also be free to fail.



That said I do believe that companies such as Delta Air Lines should be
granted extra time to cotribute the funding necessary to their pension
plan.

What companies has the govt. bailed out? And what do they have in common?

[quote=Cruiser]

 Put,

  I am the last person that would hand my change to a bum like you camped outside of a liquor store begging for change. I would hand you a Mcdonalds application, and tell you that I have to work for my money, so should you. I just would rather my tax dollars, which someone took out of my pocket, to go to something worth while. Spending billions on invading other countries when we have people that can't even get by sounds pretty stupid to me. If you are so opposed to getting taxed to help other people, then why would you support Bush? He is taking our tax dollars and supposably helping the poor Iraqi people, that could not make it without our help. Or at least thats how he has spun it so far.

[/quote]

"Supposably"?  Put, I'm surprised you let that one get by you.  He wrote "supposably".  Back to your point about the new generation's level of education and personal presentation................

[quote=Soothsayer]"Supposably"?  Put, I'm surprised you let that one get by you.  He wrote "supposably".  Back to your point about the new generation's level of education and personal presentation................[/quote]

That word was in a script for an episode of "Friends" several years ago. If you listen to young people talk, especially those who watch that particular sitcom, you'll hear them say it often.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Supposably

Interestingly enough, it is in the dictionary:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va =Supposably&x=10&y=12

Cruiser--

Can you cover that part again exactly why I am supposed to give a rat's ass as to why it is important what someone in France, Germany, Poland, Syria, Ecuador, or any other country "thinks" of the United States?

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

[quote=Soothsayer]"Supposably"?  Put, I'm surprised you let that one get by you.  He wrote "supposably".  Back to your point about the new generation's level of education and personal presentation................[/quote]

That word was in a script for an episode of "Friends" several years ago. If you listen to young people talk, especially those who watch that particular sitcom, you'll hear them say it often.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Supposably

Interestingly enough, it is in the dictionary:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va =Supposably&x=10&y=12

[/quote]

Roger--

My bad.  But, I have to proudly admit that I have never watched so much as single episode of Friends.  Drivel.

[quote=Soothsayer]My bad.  But, I have to proudly admit that I have never watched so much as single episode of Friends.  Drivel.[/quote]

The only times I've watched it was when I was over at my girlfriend's house. The girls in my office used to talk about that show all the time. These days, they talk more about reality TV.

From a gentleman who was in KUWAIT on 9/11 and still in the Air Guard. I would say at least 80% support the war. On top of that the troops are far more educated then most Americans on the war.

I work with 1500 CT troops and the ratio is at least 4 to 1 in support. This is a liberal state and everyone is from CT. Most just feel that enough is enough. Evil people like Saddam who was a terrorist (paying 25k to marters who killed innocent people), was a eco-terrorist behind the oil fires and the draining of the eastern IRAQ marshes, is a mass murderer (killed more muslims then anyone on earth), threat to America (threatened us in numerous papers he owned) and in general a very evil man who was promoting evil!!

On top of that the troops knew we would kick his as. The only problem was the French, Germans and Russians who were paid off, but now they all support IRAQ.

It seams the more extreme these terrorists get the more support they lose from the poor and iggnorant.

I guess this topic gets everyone fired up!! Go BUSH. A man who who says what he means and follows up with actions.

Roger--

I didn't know you watched TV, too.  I would have guessed you to be busy tapping arse.  Did you tap and watch at the same time?  You naughty little multi-tasker........

[quote=Soothsayer]

Roger--

I didn't know you watched TV, too.  I would have guessed you to be busy tapping arse.  Did you tap and watch at the same time?  You naughty little multi-tasker........

[/quote]

Where Roger's from they only do it doggy-style so they don't have to miss any wraslin' on the TV

[quote=Soothsayer]Roger–

I didn't know you watched TV, too.  I would have guessed you to be busy tapping arse.  Did you tap and watch at the same time?  You naughty little multi-tasker........[/quote]

A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do. 

[quote=stanwbrown]Where Roger's from they only do it doggy-style so they don't have to miss any wraslin' on the TV [/quote]

More neurotic projection, form stanwbrowneye.

[quote=Soothsayer]

Roger–

I didn't know you watched TV, too.  I would have guessed you to be busy tapping arse.  Did you tap and watch at the same time?  You naughty little multi-tasker........

[quote=Put Trader]
As a veteran of some of the best message boarding ever on the internet ...[/quote]

Best? Message boarding?

One false claim combined with one poorly worded phrase = the end result of a life of crack smokin'! 

[quote=Put Trader] [quote=Soothsayer]

Roger--

I didn't know you watched TV, too.  I would have guessed you to be busy tapping arse.  Did you tap and watch at the same time?  You naughty little multi-tasker........

[/quote]

As a veteran of some of the best message boarding ever on the internet I find it very curious that Roger and Soothsayer are the only personnas who use the phrase "tapping arse."

A sure sign that a message boarder has gone to another dimension is when they use multiple personnas to cast each other in a light that they think is positive.

Personna A tells Personna B that Personna B is the smartest, cutest, most impressive--whatever.  In this pathetic case personna A uses "sexual humor" to flatter personna B.

It's always curious to the older, more intelligent, readers when the nimrods do things like that.  Life is so much more enjoyable when you finally realize how idiotic you were when you too thought that sexual innuendo was clever.
[/quote]

Lighten up, Put.  I was making light of Rog's earlier "tapping arse" comment.  I was also a little surprised to hear him admit that he had a "girlfriend" (does that mean a steady?) who lived in an apartment.  I was a little disappointed.  I thought Roger was the most swinging dick on this forum, and I would have never expected him to be slumming it with some girl who can't even afford her own home.  Hell, why didn't Roger just buy her a freakin' house.  Afterall, what's a couple-hun-large to a "Top Gun"?  I was just poking a little good-natured fun at our new, obnoxious, but quite clever newest member.  BTW Put, Roger corrected me on the whole thing with the word "supposably".  And, he's not lying.  I checked it out dictionary.com.  You seem to have a pretty good grasp of the English language.  Could you use "supposably" in a sentence correctly for me?  I'm serious.   

[quote=Soothsayer]Lighten up, Put.  I was making light of Rog's earlier "tapping arse" comment.  I was also a little surprised to hear him admit that he had a "girlfriend" (does that mean a steady?) who lived in an apartment.  I was a little disappointed.  I thought Roger was the most swinging dick on this forum, and I would have never expected him to be slumming it with some girl who can't even afford her own home.  Hell, why didn't Roger just buy her a freakin' house.  Afterall, what's a couple-hun-large to a "Top Gun"?  I was just poking a little good-natured fun at our new, obnoxious, but quite clever newest member.  BTW Put, Roger corrected me on the whole thing with the word "supposably".  And, he's not lying.  I checked it out dictionary.com.  You seem to have a pretty good grasp of the English language.  Could you use "supposably" in a sentence correctly for me?  I'm serious.   [/quote]

I have to admit, I've learned from some true veterans of the game.

One lesson is never to buy real property for a girl, just because she's fun to roll in the hay with. A local guy did that. He was a Top Gun, by every measure. Married, and had no less than 6 kept women in houses he bought. Now he's divorced and he's paying rent to his ex to keep his girls housed. That's a sucker play, IMO.

It's better to put them on the payroll, and let them pay for their own stuff.

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

[quote=Soothsayer]Lighten up, Put.  I
was making light of Rog’s earlier “tapping arse” comment.  I was
also a little surprised to hear him admit that he had a “girlfriend”
(does that mean a steady?) who lived in an apartment.  I was a
little disappointed.  I thought Roger was the most swinging dick
on this forum, and I would have never expected him to be slumming it
with some girl who can’t even afford her own home.  Hell, why
didn’t Roger just buy her a freakin’
house.  Afterall, what’s a couple-hun-large to a “Top
Gun”?  I was just poking a little good-natured fun at our new,
obnoxious, but quite clever newest member.  BTW Put, Roger
corrected me on the whole thing with the word “supposably”.  And,
he’s not lying.  I checked it out dictionary.com.  You
seem to have a pretty good grasp of the English language.  Could
you use “supposably” in a sentence correctly for me?  I’m
serious.   [/quote]

I have to admit, I've learned from some true veterans of the game.

One lesson is never to buy real property for a girl, just because she's fun to roll in the hay with. A local guy did that. He was a Top Gun, by every measure. Married, and had no less than 6 kept women in houses he bought. Now he's divorced and he's paying rent to his ex to keep his girls housed. That's a sucker play, IMO.

It's better to put them on the payroll, and let them pay for their own stuff.

How many of the ladies appreciate the term "Tapping Arse?"



How about Fudgepacker?



Is it your experience that men who talk like that are mature, stable, individuals?

Its summer vacation time, and the kiddies are out of school with nothing to do but post juvenile (and really lame) posts on the net.  This too shall pass.

[quote=Put Trader]How many of the ladies appreciate the term "Tapping Arse?"



How about Fudgepacker?



Is it your experience that men who talk like that are mature, stable, individuals?

[/quote]



(cue some crazy synthesizer music in the background)



I wonder what women think of a man who thinks about what women
would  think of men who use naughty words and have potty mouths
and how attractive that makes you…no wait…umm - me…them. Yes
them. (Somebody dim the lights and start the strobe lights) - Putsy are
you sure you didn’t leave your heart in SF?

Dagnamit, what does that make me if I’m thinking about what~shnitzel~ I
better check my sock drawer for argyle again when I get
home…something aint right.

Sorry  to be at Odds with Anyone,But i Must take Offence at Juiced!

You read the So called Details about the Economy, without Understanding, Just what the Economy Is !  First, it is Democrats that Lie to you,telling you that They do This for ya and That for ya!

Where the Heck do you Think a Democrat would Get the Cash to Pay for what you Think they're Giving you ?

i Can't Help but Wonder why a Citizen of the Good ol U.S. of A., Can't Think for Themselves ?

Republicans are Bashed for Easing Regulations, so Business can Make a dime so it Can pay the Taxes that Dems claim as Their's, and Then Give to Voters and say: Look what We Did for You !!

As for the Numbers you Site,Juice:

the market went Down,Not because of Anything Other than the Fact that All the So called High Returns which the DEMS were Claiming, NEVER materialised and Bond Holders, Simply dumped em !

As for who's Better for an Economy?

Why do you Compare an Economy which Benefited from Republican Congressional Action under a Dem President, to our Current situation which Anyone with a Brain in their Head, would Know is Due to Terrorism,War,Fear of Flight and Loss of Life ?

but then again: i Forgot, you're a Democrat ! Nuff said!

Peaple are the Economy,Not Dems,so Get er Done !

Mr. or Ms. Clause,

Have you read a paper lately?

Check out the average American's personal savings rate.

Check out the average gas prices.

Check out the budget deficit.

Find something in the paper about an ill advised war.

Then go back 10 years...notice a difference?

Mojo,

Waaay off topic here but do you think you could find your way back to Andy Roddick? It just isn't the same without you.

"Check out the average American's personal savings rate."

And that has what to do with politics?

"Check out the average gas prices."

And that has what to do with politics?

"Check out the budget deficit."

Good thing the GOP kept the Democrats from spending even more, isn't it?

"Find something in the paper about an ill advised war."

A personal opinion not shared by millions in Iraq now free from a dictator and planning their own, free government.

"Then go back 10 years...notice a difference?"

You mean aside from the fact that we just ignored terrorists then?

I'd comment on Santee's post, if I could only understand it.

[quote=Sniper]

"Check out the average American's personal savings rate."

And that has what to do with politics?

"Check out the average gas prices."

And that has what to do with politics?

"Check out the budget deficit."

Good thing the GOP kept the Democrats from spending even more, isn't it?

"Find something in the paper about an ill advised war."

A personal opinion not shared by millions in Iraq now free from a dictator and planning their own, free government.

"Then go back 10 years...notice a difference?"

You mean aside from the fact that we just ignored terrorists then?

I'd comment on Santee's post, if I could only understand it.

[/quote]

Apparently there is a lot that you don't understand.

[quote=menotellname][quote=Sniper]

"Check out the average American's personal savings rate."

And that has what to do with politics?

"Check out the average gas prices."

And that has what to do with politics?

"Check out the budget deficit."

Good thing the GOP kept the Democrats from spending even more, isn't it?

"Find something in the paper about an ill advised war."

A personal opinion not shared by millions in Iraq now free from a dictator and planning their own, free government.

"Then go back 10 years...notice a difference?"

You mean aside from the fact that we just ignored terrorists then?

I'd comment on Santee's post, if I could only understand it.

[/quote]

Apparently there is a lot that you don't understand.

[/quote]

Oh, I understand just fine. You made some comments that don't stand up to examination, and now you're looking for a way out. 

How do you figure?

Budget surplus = Clinton;  Budget deficit = Bush

War = Bush 1 and Bush 2;  Peace = Clinton

Prosperity and booming market = Clinton;  Poverty and booming buildings = Bush

Keep going back Reagan, Carter, Nixon, Johnson...FDR...

The story looks much the same.  Republicans are all talk and no substance.  You preach being "fiscally conservative" and know nothing of the meaning.

Go figure...

Clinton=Buy the vote of the most ignorant of selected minorities.

Game, set, match.

"Budget surplus = Clinton;"

Correction, Budget surplus = GOP Congress forcing Clinton's hand even AFTER he shut down the gov't.

"  Budget deficit = Bush"

"Correction; Clinton handed Bush a recession, that plus 9/11 = deficit, wish would only have been worse if Democrats had had their way.

War = Bush 1 and Bush 2;  Peace = Clinton"

LOL, you mean Asleep at the switch while terrorists declared war on us = Clinton, Left to handle the mess = Bush.

"Prosperity and booming market = Clinton;"

Sounds like somene was asleep in 2000 when the market tanked.

"  Poverty and booming buildings = Bush"

Economy growing, unemployment at 4.9%, two year old proverty stats used to change the subject.

"Keep going back Reagan, Carter, Nixon, Johnson...FDR..."

You really don't want to talk about how Reagn had to save us from Carter and how Nixon had to end LBJ's war, do you?

" You preach being "fiscally conservative" and know nothing of the meaning."

Bad as they may be, the Republicans are far, far better than Democrats on the subject.

[quote=Sniper]"Correction; Clinton handed Bush a recession, that plus
9/11 = deficit, wish would only have been worse if Democrats had had
their way.[/quote]



You would expect an investment professional to know that, wouldn’t you?



The fact is job cuts skyrocketed during 2000, a prelude to the recession destined to follow.



www.bls.gov



If you want to dig, you can see how job losses rose during 2000. 
I don’t remember the figure, but I think something like 25% job cuts
rose–not a good sign–and during Clinton’s final term.



We won’t mention the bursting of the tech bubble in March of
2000…menotellname can’t digest that much factual information in a
single day.

I must say gentlemen...the "actual factuals" clearly show just how wrong you are...

http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp87.pdf

[quote=Starka]

Clinton=Buy the vote of the most ignorant of selected minorities.

Game, set, match.

[/quote]

I love how the ignorant, alpha, anglo-saxon male rears his head with the most ignorant of trite phrases.

[quote=menotellname][quote=Starka]

Clinton=Buy the vote of the most ignorant of selected minorities.

Game, set, match.

[/quote]

I love how the ignorant, alpha, anglo-saxon male rears his head with the most ignorant of trite phrases.

[/quote]

And I love how the most ignorant of people can't respond to it, other than to attempt to ridicule.  Clearly the hubris of the inferior.

[quote=menotellname]

I must say gentlemen...the "actual factuals" clearly show just how wrong you are...

http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp87.pdf

[/quote]

Is that how we play the debate game here? You deny that Republicans are better than Democrats on spending by providing a link that says that Republicans, bad as they are, are better than Democrats on the subject?

When was the last time you heard a Democrat that complained that a Republican spent too much on an issue (other than defense, which Democrats can't seem to cut enough) ? Please, come back when you can be serious.

Regardless of affiliation, anyone would have to admit that W. has not had an easy presidency. It makes me want to vomit when Dems. associate Clinton with the prosperity of the 90's. Since Bush got into office he has been plagued with difficult circumstances and issues. Clinton's biggest problems were ones he created. The guy was defending infidelity and a history of corruption the whole eight years.

[quote=Starka]

And I love how the most ignorant of people can't respond to it, other than to attempt to ridicule.  Clearly the hubris of the inferior.

What you're describing, Inquisitive, is debate.  What menotellname does is argue...."Yes I am, no you're not" kind of nonsense.  His motto seems to be, "If you can't debate, obfuscate."

Indeed, this seems to be the mantra of the less intelligent liberals.

[quote=moneyadvisor]

Regardless of affiliation, anyone would have to admit that W. has not had an easy presidency. [/quote]

Quite true.  9/11, rampant corporate fraud, recession, never-ending liberal lies and attacks from the left. 

Anti-Bush movies, CDs, concert tours, fake new stories...yet Bush still got re-elected!  And with a majority vote--something Clinton never accomplished.

[quote=moneyadvisor]

It makes me want to vomit when Dems. associate Clinton with the prosperity of the 90's.

[/quote]

The internet was the driver of the 90s economy.  Not Bill Clinton.

There is not one single policy that Bill Clinton spearheaded that was responsible for the economic activity of the 1990s.  Not one.

[quote=moneyadvisor]

Since Bush got into office he has been plagued with difficult circumstances and issues. Clinton's biggest problems were ones he created. The guy was defending infidelity and a history of corruption the whole eight years.
[/quote]

Well, to be honest, Clinton did have the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993.  His administration's response?  Build a wall between intelligence and law enforcement and prevent them from sharing information.

Bill Clinton, Dec. 1998:

"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons...

[quote=Starka]

What you’re describing, Inquisitive, is
debate.  What menotellname does is argue…“Yes I am, no you’re
not” kind of nonsense.  His motto seems to be, “If you can’t
debate, obfuscate.”

Indeed, this seems to be the mantra of the less intelligent liberals.

[quote=inquisitive] [quote=Starka]

What you're describing, Inquisitive, is debate.  What menotellname does is argue...."Yes I am, no you're not" kind of nonsense.  His motto seems to be, "If you can't debate, obfuscate."

Indeed, this seems to be the mantra of the less intelligent liberals.

[/quote]

Well, as far as what I've said the past few days:

If you disagree with my comments, challenge them.  But don't start throwing around the label "racist" or anything else.  Because if you can't challenge the points I, or anyone else, make, then you are tacitly admitting I'm correct.


[/quote]

Hmmmmmmmmm...your friend Sniper called you a bigot.  Not me.  I just happen to agree.

Beyond that, you have shown that you know nothing.  Just like your alter ego, Starka.  All I have seen you do is make a fool of yourself (again...just like your friend Starka).

"Some people, however, are afraid of the truth.  And there are some that resort to personal attacks because they can't refute what you've put forth."

I don't agree with this menotellname guy at all, BUT ascribing to race what can be explained by economic circumstances or religious belief or lack of educational opportunity is, imho, racism. That's what you did with your "can't escape genetics" comment on the other thread, and I feel no need to apologize for saying so.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Hey hey.. Bill Clinton had a lot to do with the 90's econemy. Remember how great Janet Reno was protecting his ass. Well while this was happening the corporate crooks and accountants were cooking the books, analysts were beefing up prices and brokers/dealers/funds were stealing from the customers. Ohh yeah then to show it was no big deal gave a pardon to a guy who stole 50+ million form the people.

Now more then ever I know BUSH is bad. Since he controls every military action he secretly attacked Katrina. When he did this he made the storm focus on the blacks in New Orleans. Then when the sugar hit the fan Cheeny and Bush delayed the 1000 tons of water, food and supplies to Mobile, Beloxi, Pascagula, Slydel and New Orleans..

Damn him for being so slow. He should have raised taxes 10% to cover the levies, started the draft and for every hurricane make sure 100,000 troops and convoys of troops, food and supplies are ready to go in a 2 hour notice.

Good thing is we have some wonderful people in Hollywood who know the truth. After all the media and 2 Pac Shakur know more about managing a war or the worst disaster in the past 100 years on American soil. 

How can anyone in this country like a racist man named Bush? How did he get 70% of hispanic vote in TEXAS? The Washington DC media based polls show people are mad and only 40% support Bush. On top of this we all know everyone loves Cindy Sheehan. She is a patriot with Michael Moore and moveon.org. 

I wonder how many of these people who bitch about our country have spent one minute on something productive?

Ohh yeah George Bush makes tens of millions on oil and forces the poor to buy expensive oil. I work with different people in DC and CT and it is amazing what these people tell me.

Melotonin I am going to read that budget article.. Thanks

Who ever posted the note saying debating makes one think, do research and learn is 100% right! Nice post.

Anyone who has a GED knows fact from fiction.

Social Security will fail and we need a change. http://www.socialsecuritychoice.org/archives/2005/01/democra ts_on_pe.php

Saddam the eco, bio and general terrorist: http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mostert/040816  

The one issue that ticked me off was the who Shivo case. The republicans used her and Frist is a dumb ass.

The problem is 50% of the country hates Bush since he stole election with Gore. These people know Bush is the problem, everything was great under Clinton, Michael Moore knows everything and everyone likes and supports Cindy Sheehan.  It seems these people are so close minded they dont even want to hear the truth.

The fact is BUSH won the ELECTIONS!! He is a straight shooter! He is religious and does not sleep with other women. During his terms freedom is on the move in Lybia, Pakistan, Palistine, Lebannon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Yugoslavia and Afganistan. The UN has some serious issues. Social Security will fail if nothing is done. Judges should not set the law from the bench. The Democratic party has three leaders who cant stand one another (Howard Dean -- Michael Moore/Moveon.org -- Clintons)!

[quote=Sniper]

"Some people, however, are afraid of the truth.  And there are some that resort to personal attacks because they can't refute what you've put forth."

I don't agree with this menotellname guy at all, BUT ascribing to race what can be explained by economic circumstances or religious belief or lack of educational opportunity is, imho, racism. That's what you did with your "can't escape genetics" comment on the other thread, and I feel no need to apologize for saying so.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[/quote]

Perhaps you should read this book ( http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684818868/qid =1125806987/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-0899413-5203957?v=glance &s=books&n=507846) and find out the truth about the "economic circumstances" and how they can into being.

Sonny, your point is well taken, and not without merit.  However, do you suppose that when and if the revolution comes, that fact that you’re a rich liberal will give you any shelter?

I see.  So your advice is to ignore what is fair to all and just pay the tribute so the bad man won't burn down my house.

" Keeping the people engaged in common cause as opposed to dividing in order to conquer. Long term not short term."

Isn't it a shame that current black "leaders" as well as the Democrat party does the exact opposite?

" Now what we see in the guise of conservatism is something that resembles the communism of the evil empire. "

All I can say to taht is, "huh?".

"Exportation of naive idealism is an affront to capitalistic pragmatism and the American Ideal. "

I say again, "huh?".

I" come from St. Louis. A place where the most infamously dangerous projects were so far beyond repair in the seventies that they were blown up, Pruitt Igoe. The danger that emmanated from this place was due to neglect and indiference. "

No, it was due to failed liberal policies. We can discuss the details, if you want.

" The days of managing this by pitting the poor against one another based on race and competing interests is over. "

If it were the above mentioned black "leaders" and most of Democrat party would be out of jobs.

"In the words of Andre 3000... "marinate on that for a minute."

Interesting source of insight you have there. This decade's version of Abba....

Sniper,

You seem to say "huh" a lot.  Any reason why you fail to understand logic?

One reason for Sniper's inability to understand it is that it is meaningless jibberish, and not logic.

[quote=menotellname]

Sniper,

You seem to say "huh" a lot.  Any reason why you fail to understand logic?

[/quote]

I understand logic completely. I also know there was no logic in the sentences I reponded to with "huh?".  (In fact, that made them much like your posts.)

However, if YOU found logic in those two sentences, how about pointing it out. We could all use a laugh.

huh.

I better start reading the bible.

Looks like 10,000 may have been a high number from the doom and gloom or libs.

[quote=Starka]

One reason for Sniper's inability to understand it is that it is meaningless jibberish, and not logic.

[/quote]

???????

The same reason baby's tend to understand each other's babble is the same reason that you and sniper understand each other.  Of course, also like babies, you and sniper don't have fully developed cognitive skills.

   I bet that hillary clinton could beat up george bush

I wonder if the buses in New Orleans were running during the election?

I am sure that the best friend of the minority (which led the state for 60 years), democrats took care of the voters on that day.

“First, The GOP has apologized for the "southern strategy." <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Who brought up the “southern strategy” and what place does the party with Robert “Klansman” Byrd as its Senate Leader have lecturing anyone on race relations?

“The Democrats had nothing to do with this. “

You mean other than the fact that solid Democrats like Fullbright voted against civil rights and were forever welcome in the Democrat folds?

”Sniper. Do you even know how to handle a weapon. Just a personal question.”

Yes. Could you get any further  from the subject without the use of drugs? Just a personal question.

”As far as the communist stuff. Don't talk about those issues you no f**k all about. The father of the Neo Con Ideal, Irving Krystol, famously adapted Trotskyite strategy to his newly found consevative politics after their conversion.”

LOL, “Trotskyite strategy”. I just love it….. such lunacy. Another goofy, he-must-be-high line to defend a pervious WTF comment….

”Capitalist Pragmatism, or what Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan call objectivism.”

ROFLMAO, please do detail Greenspan’s comments on Rand and objectivism…..

“ Lets quit f**king around and decide that we are going to do what we're good at and thats make money and markets and let the people of the world decide for themselves whether they want Revolution.”

Interesting, a liberal defending a philosophy of “screw them, let’s make some money”…

“ Then when they do send them guns not young Americans to get their asses shot off in a ill conceived policing mission.”

Hmmm, so people under the thumb of a tyrant should assemble, take a vote, ask the US for weapons and then overthrow the tyrant.  Yeah, there’s a plan.

“ We need to reserve these troops for where they can do the most good, here at home. “

This is probably news to you, but aside from infrequent natural disasters, we don’t use US troops on US soil.

“Because the Revolution you start may be your own.”

Oh, the “revolution” is still coming. (It came in 1980 when Reagan was elected, but I’m sure you missed that).

“ See I still have my sense of humor.”

Yes, you do. I see humor throughout your post.

”As far as the projects being a liberal idea, hell we can just say that we libs learn from our mistakes….”

Doesn’t look like you’ve learned much since 40 years later you’re still pushing the same failed policies….

 while Babs and the Bush bunch still wonder why the poor just don't eat some cake.

”As far as the black "leaders" and Democrats that your talking about well have you ever heard of the term strawman.”

You figure Jesse “I fly first class” Jackson. Al “I got people killed at the race riot I started” Sharpton aren’t real?

“ Your defining us sure makes it alot easier to build your pathetically ill constructed arguement.”

I haven’t defined you, I’ve simply noticed you.

”And Outkast as Abba. Stop listening to top forty radio playa.”

“Outkast has been around for fifteen years,…”<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Madonna’s been around longer. Neither of them have real importance. They're both self-important, empty-headed celebs worshiped by fools.

“I had a friend like you that laughed in '87 when I said the Beastie's were the next Beatles. Well You know who won that bet.”

Yeah. How much did he take you for? I bet you had to work a couple of extra Taco Bell shifts to pay him off, didn’t you?

“As far as my other assertions you still seem to have pointed out exceptions to prove your rule. Stop trying to address the marginal and make a real and substantial claim.”

As I see I pointed out that you’re either drinking the bong water or you’re a random sentence generating program.

“ Ken Mehlman is the apologist who drew attention to the GOP southern strategy when he apologized to the NAACP. “

The question remains, how did that subject come up and what right does the party of Robert KKK Byrd have to lecture anyone on the issue of race?

”Jackson and Sharpton? What about Julian Bond? Do you Know who he is?”

Sure, and I know he never ran for president as a Democrat. Then again, lately the NAACP has been as partisan Democrat as the DNC itself. It's a shame, too.

”Greenspan and Rand.? You show serious gaps in your knowledge, look here.”

You’re just too funny. I asked you to relay Greenspan’s comment’s on Rand and you link me to a book not written by either.

Here’s a hint; you fell in a trap. There are loads of liberals like you who think that since they were close that they agreed on economics. They didn’t. Now, if you’d like to get back to your original “point” where you were trying to explain who capitalism is like Stalinism, if I recall….

”As far as my philosophy, I would suggest a little light reading.”

So since you can’t defend what you said before AND you can’t explain your own philosophy, you’re going to give me a freshman philosophy reading list? No thanks, been there, done that and unlike you, I actually read the books assigned.

“Start with trying to wrap your mind around the concept of enlightened self interest. “

Imagine someone working in finance and economics who doesn’t understand the basics of how markets work. Perhaps you can, but I can’t.

“….and come up with your own unique perspective instead of parroting the same tired flim flam you here from your friends and favorite radio personalities.”

Awww, can’t I just quote a rapper and give you a reading list? After all, you seem to think you can get away with it. 

”What I am trying to get at is that you need to read a few books before you debate the big boys ..”

ROFLMAO, you’re a joke. “The big boys”… oh that’s just too rich.

“Maybe I should devolve into baseless personal attacks, I guess I already have.”

As my kids would say “DUH”….

“ I would think a dink who gives his handle as Sniper would be able to handle a god damn rifle on the range at least. Your not answering that question which makes me think it is more GOP chickenhawkesque rhetoric than reality.”

Gee, you can’t even read, can you? Take another look at my response to your question on that front. The one word sentence should have made it clear even to the lies of you. It said “Yes”. BTW, parrot, nice working in of the famous weenie lib “chickenhawk” line.

Say, menotellname, why use another handle?

"Why did you change your handle chickenhawk?"<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I believe the administrators found it objectionable. I changed it, and lest there be any confusion, I mentioned on the signature line what the old screen name was. I hope it meets your approval....

" Why is chickenhawk weenie?"

"Chickenhawk" is what liberals with no argument call people who support the war (before it was <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Afghanistan, now it's Iraq they object to) and haven't been in the military. It's childish name calling and it begs the question, if only those who have been in the military have a right to support the war, what other subjects are there that one isn't allowed to speak about without some prerequist experience. Personally, since I was in the military, I find it funny.

" On the other hand I don't see where you've brought anything new to the table ..."

I figured pointing out how empty your rethoric was was contribution enough.

" I bet your wife has to wipe your weenie baby chickenhawk slobber off yer weenie chin. "

There's just nothing quite as penetrating as liberal wit. You've cut me to the quick. Quarter, quarter I beg of you....

"Tell me something about markets butler. "

OK, but based on your limited knowledge on the subject, we should start with the basics. See, the person with something to sell is the "seller"....

" I wonder if you feel if the entirety of the GOP should be painted with the same brush say in terms of Nixon, Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, and George W. Bush. "

"In terms" LOL, I move the misuse of the phrase. I guess this is your way of trying to excuse away the fact that Robert "Sheets" Byrd is the number one Democrat in the Senate while you attempt to lecture Republicans on the issue of race.

FYI, Buchanan left the GOP.

“Oh and lets not forget the LaHaye family…”

Why would we forget them? Why, everyone remembers his run for the White House, or his Senate term. Then there’s his important role in the RNC. In fact, if he keeps up the good work he may someday achieve the high status that Michael Moore has earned in his party.

“Good lord buddy I could go on all day, …”

I don’t doubt that. Whatever drug you’re using not only makes you speak in mindless pablum, it also seems to give you energy. I’m guessing it’s a mix of some narcotic and Red Bull…

“ Sure you can throw out a few excentrics like Jackson and Sharpton.”

You mean guys who actually ran for your party’s nomination for the president and are granted a form of moral relevancy they couldn’t possibly deserve? You figure they’re the Democrat equivalents of the minor (if that) players you mentioned above in the GOP? You can’t be serious.

“ I mean f**k I remember Tawana Brawley …”

Sure I do, and I remember the race riots he caused that killed a man at Freddies. It’s a shame no one in your party remembered.

Say, how many times do you figure Hilary had to shower after kissing is his ring (prior to her run for the Senate) before she felt clean again?

“Which I am supposing this little slice of alphabet soup belongs too. "Say, menotellname, why use another handle?"”

Because it’s obvious who you are.

“Did you change yours from Sniper1 to Mike Butler222 so you could write this.”

Of course. I had to change my screen name so that I could attack you anonymously. Then I added the “was sniper” for fun.

“After this one I don't like myself so much any more and I am going to give up and cede the debate so I can stop this vindictivness and go on with my life.”

Don’t feel bad, you’re not the first lib to get his head figuratively crushed after spouting off the meme…

“ I wish you all the best and I hope the GOP has a better future than it looks like they have right now.”

Haven’t you guys been predicting doom for the GOP forever at this point? How much of a minority party do you need to become before to snap to?

I don't know Sonny but I like his style.  Nice to see "sniper" getting abused again.  Amazing that the admin found you objectionable (I guess I'm not alone). 

Anyway...I've been here for a while...seen a lot of people come and go...things are getting busier and better at work so I don't have as much time to play online.

Sniper...much like many in this profession and in this forum...I was here when you got here and I'll be here when you're gone.

P.S. - Even a mental midget like you should notice the distinct difference in the posting styles, diction, and phraseology of myself and Sonny.

“I'm not making the prediction Christie Todd Whitman, John Danforth and David Brooks are, amongst others.”<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

LOL, and which one said the majority party status of the GOP is over? Have they said it since the moonbats took over the DNC? Yeah, I thought not…

“ As far as me being menotellname, I'm not.”

Sure you aren’t…

”Why would we go into Iraq before we consolidated our victory in Afganistan?”

Same reason we didn’t defeat Japan before we went after Germany.

“ Being involved in an insurgency in Iraq is a fools game. “

The military strategist steps forward…. I’m betting the ranch you were among those who cried “quagmire” on day three of the invasion and often pontificated about the “harsh Afghan winter”. Defeatists all…

“If nothing else we should with draw from the central part of the country secure the oil in the north and south and draw out the opposition so that they fight on our terms.”

You mean allow them to consolidate in those areas that you would run from in the hope that they’d adapt conventional warfare tactics in the areas you didn’t run from? That’s insanity. Stick to the bong water…

”Or as Shinseki had asserted that we begin with a perimeter around Baghdad…”

Why don’t you find us a quote where Shinseki (never the commander on the ground, btw) said we should give up all the terrain we’d captured on our way to Baghdad. Hint: he never said anything of the sort.

“…..a strategy developed after others had failed in Algiers, Vietnam, Malaysia and Afganistan.”

Let’s see… no such thing ever happened in Vietnam or Afghanistan, and don't care to be dragged into some foolish conversation on the other two.

“If you were in the military as you say then the lack of sound military strategy that has characterized the plan in Iraq should concern you.”

You’re simply talking out of your, well, wrong end. You’ve now embarrassed yourself on the subjects of philosophy and economics, it’s probably only right that you would do the same on the subject of military strategy.

Say, have you called Franks or Shelton to ask what they thought of your ideas? After all, they’re retired now and have time to laugh at you.

“ Indeed the same General that was a concern for his impotence to act in the first Iraq war by Gen. Schwartzkopf…”

I’m sure you have a quote somewhere from Schwartskopf about the ADC of the First Team? I can hardly wait…

“… was given command of the operations in Iraq after Shinseki would not play ball.”

Just making stuff up as you go along, aren’t you? Shinseki was Army Chief of Staff. He was already scheduled for retirement and was never scheduled to be the CENTCOM commander.

“As far as the origins of the chickenhawk label here again you create a strawman. You characterize those who use the term as critisizing pro war Republicans who have no military service when in fact it means pro war Republicans who dodged the draft in Vietnam.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenhawk_%28politics%29

Chickenhawk is an epithet used in United States politics to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who votes for war, supports war, commands a war, or develops war policy, but has not personally served in the military, especially one who opted out of a previous war on dubious grounds. Generally, it is not a label applied to essentially "dovish" leaders who support defensive wars, "humanitarian interventions," or UN operations.

The term is generally used in the ad hominem circumstantial context: since a supposed "chickenhawk" has not served in war, the implication is that the person is morally ill-equipped to support a war. On the contrary, implication is that any person who has served in a war is morally better-equipped to make decisions about war.

Perhaps you learn what a term means before you lecture others on it. BTW, when you called me a chickenhawk, you figured I was of age to have served in Vietnam? Yeah, right….

“ My father was killed in Vietnam ….”

Sure he was. Hey, if you’re going to make up a persona, menotellname, why not one who has a father that died in Vietnam? Sure sounds like a useful political prop…

“I hope that someday you realize how horrible it is to leave our troops in the lurch in Iraq…”

Seriously, save yourself some embarrassment and leave the lectures on military strategy to others. You sound like a guy who once say an airplane from a distance talking on and on to a airline pilot about the difficulties of landing a jumbo jet in a crosswind.

“I'm not against war per se, I am against fighting with no clear strategy.”

If you’re unclear about the strategy it’s your own fault for not listening…

“ From what I have heard from my friend who is an Aide De Camp to a General to those military leaders who are no longer under W's command is that we are fighting in Iraq on an ad Hoc basis which you know as well as I is a recipe for failure.”

ROFLMAO…… have another hit…. BTW, my friends on the ground at various levels of command say you're lying.

Your search - Santino Clipinsiero - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:

- Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
- Try different keywords.
- Try more general keywords.
- Try fewer keywords.

I tried, man...apparently Google thinks you're a nobody...

"The wikilechtual shows himself. Did you post that so that you could then quote it."

Face it, you missed used the term and I pointed it out.

" As far as the strategy goes my reference was the columnist David Brooks who pointed out that Shinseki,..."

More talking in circles.... I simply asked you to provide a quote where Shinseki endorsed your foolish "tactic" of giving up ground to the terrorists. Just as you had every other military detail wrong in your post, you had that on wrong.

"My name is Sonny Clips, or more correctly Santino Clipinsiero."

Sure, menotellname...

" Google my name if you don't believe it. "

Did, you don't exist 

" You can email me at [email protected] if you would like confirmation."

Oh, well knowing how closely yahoo controls the names they allow for mail accounts, you have me there...

"I would also like to reiterate that you need to do some reading because you've done little to argue against any of my claims. "

Menotellname goes back to his usual routine of mentioning books he probably hasn't even read when he gets his lunch eating over silly things he's said here.

BTW, you remind me the the knight in Holy Grail who continues to calim he's ready for a fight after his arms and legs have been severed...

"Same reason we didn't defeat Japan before we went to Germany."

Of course we had the will at the time to completely destroy cities in order to break our enemy.

That sidesteps the fact that we defeat completely defeat Japan before we went after Germany.

"We go house to house, leave and the pissed off people we leave in our wake become more and more simpathetic with the insurgents. "

So we leave the citizens more pissed off by going door to door than the terrorists do when they blow up hundres of people in suicide bombings....

" This, however simplistic and wrong headed view, causes the populace to identify more and more with the agitator and side with him against control. "

Oh great military strategist, I could be wrong but I suspect the terrorists by cutting off kidnapped people's heads and bombing market places is making far more enemies than we are going house to house. My friends on the ground there tell me the same.

[quote=mikebutler222]

"My name is Sonny Clips, or more correctly Santino Clipinsiero."

Sure, menotellname...

Menotellname goes back to his usual routine of mentioning books he probably hasn't even read when he gets his lunch eating over silly things he's said here.

[/quote]

???

You are a paranoid little bitch aren't you?

[quote=SonnyClips]blah blah blah. Guess you didn't read the Krepinevich article. Too bad.

Cheers,
Sonny
[/quote]

blah blah blah.. I read it and I read his book on Vietnam a few years back. Golly, you found a retired LTC who claims a new, grand strategy that by his own words would take over a decade and would cost more lives at least in the short term.

Now, tell me again why he's a better source than people who advanced far further in the military career than he did? BTW, I'm shocked, shocked to find a critic of the current administration collecting a check at the CFR....

[quote=menotellname][quote=mikebutler222]

"My name is Sonny Clips, or more correctly Santino Clipinsiero."

Sure, menotellname...

Menotellname goes back to his usual routine of mentioning books he probably hasn't even read when he gets his lunch eating over silly things he's said here.

[/quote]

???

You are a paranoid little bitch aren't you?

[/quote]

Don't get so excited litte fella', there probably wasn't more than two people here fooled with your multiple screen anems and conversations with yourself. What are the odds that two different people on the same board, completely unrelated to politics would ;

1) spout the same rap nonsense

2) spout the same political nonsense

3) react exactly the same way when they were corrected

4) make a habit of dodging debate by referring people off to books they clearly hadn't read themselves 

Sonny,  Re the photo, you do know that Reuters has admitted that it was “photoshopped”?  That means it is about as real as Dan Rather’s fake memo.  The MSM will stop at nothing to try to discredit a President who isn’t even running for anything anymore.

<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

The Democrats and the MSM would have more credibility if they were to concentrate on creating positive outcomes instead of fabricating facts and twisting those facts that are available.  They are becoming more and more like “the boy who cried wolf”.  Someday they may actually have something of value to say, but no one will pay any attention.

All the hysteria over New Orleans.!!! 10,000 people will die…..waaaaah…. Blacks are cannibalizing each other in the city…waaaah….25,000 people are starving at the Superdome…..waaaaah…….George Bush controls the weather by not voting on a treaty a few years ago…..waaaaah……Oh wait… only 710 people so far have died in 5 States (how disappointing for the MSM)….oh wait …no cannibals (well there goes that stereotype)…oh wait….no one starved in 5 days, as if you could.(and given the size of some of those asses that I saw on the television, I bet they couldn’t starve in a month if they tried)….oh wait….. the hurricanes have been hitting the gulf area for thousands of years, hence the mound builders, so maybe a treaty a few years ago wouldn’t have changed the weather…. And so on and so on.

Everything according to the left is the fault of George Bush and the evil genius Satan..oops I mean Carl Rove.  The whining that there were no supplies delivered to the starving began within 2 days of the disaster. A disaster the size of <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />England or most of France, larger than any natural disaster ever in American history.  Since I doubt you have any practical life experience in long haul transportation, let me explain why there where no supplies delivered (Never minding  that there were no supplies provided by the local authorities when they KNEW that the Superdome would be the last chance refuge.)   A loaded semi weighs 80,000 lb.  Coming from outside the devastated area, say from Chicago, in the best of conditions it takes a day or so.  When the interstate is flooded, bridges down or the road blocked by trees and debris of houses, the truckers who don’t know the area must weave around the back roads to find a passable road and a bridge that can support their weight.  The miracle is that the goods were delivered when they were at all.  So qwitcherbtchn.

Sure the response to this HUGE disaster was not adequate, but when you have incompetence and corruption on the local level and a distance between the federal level and a snarl of bureaucrats in-between it is no wonder the whole thing is FUBAR.  They need to get their acts together and soon.  However we need to realize that we must depend on our own selves to save our butts.  No white charger is coming to save my bacon when the feces hits the oscillating mechanism.  I am depending on myself, my spouse and friends. (and my 12 gauge scatter gun among other weapons of moderate destruction I have at my hands.)

This post is long  and off topic because you piss me off.

(sorry about the font I did cut and paste and this is what I got)

"Why would someone with the handle menotellname invent another persona, Dumbass. "<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Because he (you) has no credibility and no gravitas here. He (you) was hoping, vainly, that he could have a fresh start at pumping old ideas with a new name.

"If you had read my post I refered to two articles, one the David Brooks NYT article and Krepinevich in his piece on the foreign policy website. "

David Brooks writes op-ed pieces for the Times which I read regularly. Krepinevich is a house writer for CFR, which is where Democrats go when they're out of office. It's the Kennedy School of Government of foreign policy, but I'm sure that's news to you.

Providing links to other opinion writers does nothing to change the fact that you can't carry your side of a debate. There's nothing especially insightful about someone else's opinion. They don't have exclusive rights to the correct policies. It's even worse when you link us to someone like Krepinevich who is all alone in his policie suggestions AND who calls for a much longer commitment to Iraq. Is his opinion interesting? Sure. It is some sort of revealed text that would should bow to? No. Is it a tiny minority opinion. Oh, yes it is. Would it be better if you could form your argument rather than providing a link and whining “go read this, I agree with this guy”. You bet.

”Brooks is a big supporter of Bush,….”

That shows how little you know of Brooks. I suggest you learn a bit about him before you speak further. I like Brooks, but he’s much more of an establishment, Northeastern, Rockefeller sort of Republican. He only looks like a “big supporter” of Bush because he’s on the same page as moonbats like Mo Dowd, Paul Krugman  and  Frank Rich.

“Why do you feel the need to fall in lockstep with Bush.”

Speaking of a strawman……

“Here is a photo of W writing a note to Condi Rice asking for permission to go to the potty,..”

This is why you loons have no credibility. Even if this WASN’T a Reuter’s photoshop job (The French owned news agency that won’t use the word “terrorist” and just the other day said “"The United States holds al Qaeda responsible for many attacks, including the suicide hijack assaults on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001." As if there was any doubt about it) it isn’t anyone “asking permission”, it’s a boss telling an underling that he’ll be needing a break. You DO know the difference, don’t you?

“You should really look in to the Toulmin stuff I recomended. I used to use it when I taught a course on Argument…”

ROFLMAO, I bet that cost you more in refunds than that foolish “The Beastie Boys are the next Beetles” bet…..

"So what? That still means Bush blew it."

Of course, after all, any failure at any level of Federal government is the direct fault of the president. It doesn't matter at all the the royal screw-ups that the local level created hell on Earth for FEMA to clean up. I say we impeach Bush now.

"The NO and LA officials seem to be taking on the chin while the MS officials like Haley Barbor (sic?) are getting lauded."

As are local and state officials in Alabama. My guess it's because they weren't abject failures who made a giant mess and waited for the Feds to save them. It's interesting that MS, AL and FL all seemed to have worked well with FEMA and this  director/White House and  the NO/LA  official couldn't.

What happened to personal responsibilty.

According to you there IS no such thing. Bush is responsible for everything including the failures of the NO/LA officials.

Come on menotellname, you're a hyper-partisan and all this pretending to be otherwise is a lame joke...

[quote=SonnyClips]Butler you didn't read the Krepinevich book.  [/quote]

Wrong, gasbag, I read "The Army and Vietnam" right after it came out in the late 80's.

Hey ladies and gents this is a good story.

As for huricane response... I have been through about 5 hurricanes and OPAL was the worse. On a military base in 1995 it took about 2 days for help. When I say this I mean there was a few hundred of us in dorms and the military left us food and water. Can you imagine about 30 of my friends with MRE's, water and a bunch of alcohol.

The worst of it was the fact the alarm systems went off for about 40 hours. After a while you learn how to sleep, eat and drink with that alarm.

Did you know in New Orleans (2004) there was a cat 5 disaster preperation test. All of the top leaders at the state, federal and local level were there (including previous mayors of major cities). They expected about 100k people to stay in the city.

The plan is pretty straight forward.. Use all means available to get the people out. This was not done when there was 10-25k at center for days... Now if these people are there its only common sense to have protection, food and water for at least a few days. 500 national guard troops with guns would have helped alot (LA has about 5k in state now).

One could say "the military should have entered on Tuesday." Well the active duty military can not enter a city until local/state requests assistance (unless mutiny or something). This happened on Wednesday.  

It seems there was problems at all levels, but the first few days fall on the shoulders of local and state.

The Perfect Storm will beat the Perfect Plan.

true dattttttt…

Bottomline is this - New Orleans is the biggest trash in the country and always has been.  The city government and police are the biggest bunch of corrupt theives. For a lot of the locals it’s ‘payback.’ This is the harsh reality but you won’t hear this from the media outlets. NBC, CNN, CBS and continue to spin the story.

President Declares Major Disaster For Louisiana

Release Date: August 29, 2005
Release Number: HQ-05-179

» More Information on Louisiana Hurricane Katrina

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The head of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) announced today that federal disaster aid has been made available to the state of Louisiana to help residents and communities recover from the damages and losses incurred from the onslaught of Hurricane Katrina.

Michael D. Brown, Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Emergency Preparedness and Response, said the assistance was authorized under a major disaster declaration issued for the state by President Bush. The declaration covers damage to private and public property from Hurricane Katrina that occurred beginning August 29, 2005 and continuing.

The action follows the President's emergency declaration of August 27 that released federal resources to help meet immediate life-saving and life-sustaining human needs and protecting property in addition to other emergency protective measures. Debris removal and emergency services to assist law enforcement with evacuations and establishment of shelters are also eligible costs covered by the federal funding.

****************************************************

Yes...Mr. Bush f**ked up...

He declared a disaster on August 27th...and still couldn't rally the troops...

Only Republican sympathizers make up weak excuses for their even weaker leader.

 I am sure another clinton is going to have to come in and clean up after W's mistakes. Just like a clinton did after W's daddy was president. However I would not put too much blame on old W for the hurracane tragedy. Even somebody who actually knew what they were doing could not have done much better under the circumstances.

[quote=menotellname]

Yes...Mr. Bush f**ked up...

He declared a disaster on August 27th...and still couldn't rally the troops...

Only Republican sympathizers make up weak excuses for their even weaker leader.

[/quote]

It's hard to believe that someone could be so ill-informed as to believe that the declaration of emergency (which simply begins the funding process) means the Feds come in immediately and take charge with local requests.

I can only assume it's being that ill-informed that makes you the perfect Democrat,,,, 

[quote=Cruiser]

 I am sure another clinton is going to have to come in and clean up after W's mistakes. Just like a clinton did after W's daddy was president.

[/quote]

Anyone else laugh so hard at that that they ended up with tears in their eyes? That was priceless 

  I know, funny. I laugh almost every time I see W trying to give a speech.

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=menotellname]

Yes...Mr. Bush f**ked up...

He declared a disaster on August 27th...and still couldn't rally the troops...

Only Republican sympathizers make up weak excuses for their even weaker leader.

[/quote]

It's hard to believe that someone could be so ill-informed as to believe that the declaration of emergency (which simply begins the funding process) means the Feds come in immediately and take charge with local requests.

I can only assume it's being that ill-informed that makes you the perfect Democrat,,,, 

[/quote]

Emergency declared on 8/27

Disaster declared on 8/29

Did you read the link?

Perhaps you are too stupid to understand that the feds have jurisdiction over federally declared disasters.  That means any missteps are directly attributable to those in charge (read: the feds).  Or for you:  George W. Bush and his inept cohorts.

None of you seem to get it.

Government in our country has as it's highest goal self-service, and not service to the people.  Democrats or Republicans...it makes no difference.  Whomever is in power at a given time is intent upon creating greater and more grandiose bureaucracies whose main underlying purpose seems to be to keep the "ins" in.  And the more we as citizens fight amongst ourselves, the less likely we will be to hold these bandits accountable for their actions. 

Admit it to yourselves...there wasn't a hair's breadth of difference between Bush and Kerry.  Between Bush and Gore.  Between Dole and Clinton.  Between Bush 1 and Clinton.  All we get anymore is higher taxes, less service, bigger government and worst of all in my humble opinion, troops in the field.

[quote=Starka]

Admit it to yourselves...there wasn't a hair's breadth of difference between Bush and Kerry.  Between Bush and Gore.  Between Dole and Clinton.  Between Bush 1 and Clinton.  All we get anymore is higher taxes, less service, bigger government and worst of all in my humble opinion, troops in the field.

[/quote]

I agree that all we get are higher taxes.  However, there is a subtle yet distinct difference in the philosophy behind the tax increases and the uses of the money.  Hence, the larger differences in the individuals that you named.  Yes; both parties pander to the wealth.  Unfortunately, one party completely ignores AND abuses the poor.  Can you guess which one?

It's BOTH of the major parties.  One believes in trickle down economics, and the other, redistribution of wealth, with a healthy chunk for the middleman for both. 

Neither one does me any good.

[quote=menotellname][quote=mikebutler222][quote=menotellname]

Yes...Mr. Bush f**ked up...

He declared a disaster on August 27th...and still couldn't rally the troops...

Only Republican sympathizers make up weak excuses for their even weaker leader.

[/quote]

It's hard to believe that someone could be so ill-informed as to believe that the declaration of emergency (which simply begins the funding process) means the Feds come in immediately and take charge with local requests.

I can only assume it's being that ill-informed that makes you the perfect Democrat,,,, 

[/quote]

Emergency declared on 8/27

Disaster declared on 8/29

Did you read the link?

Perhaps you are too stupid to understand that the feds have jurisdiction over federally declared disasters.  That means any missteps are directly attributable to those in charge (read: the feds).  Or for you:  George W. Bush and his inept cohorts.

[/quote]

Read your own link. It says NOTHING of the sort. All declaring and emergency does is make it possible to local officials to apply for federal financial assistance. The Feds do not, I say again, do NOT have the right to march in and take over the situation without specific requests from the locals. We have a FEDERAL system of government.

[quote=SonnyClips]Starka has the last word and the question is moot.

Best,
Sonny[/quote]

ROFLMAO Menotellname, er "Sonny" has spoken... 

[quote=mikebutler222]

Read your own link. It says NOTHING of the sort. All declaring and emergency does is make it possible to local officials to apply for federal financial assistance. The Feds do not, I say again, do NOT have the right to march in and take over the situation without specific requests from the locals. We have a FEDERAL system of government.[/quote]

Wrong again, Mike.

In addition to what you stated (which is actually correct).  A federal emergency and a federal disaster make the federal agency that covers the incident the primary agency of the entire incident.

Think about a bank robbery.  Federal crime.  Federal jurisdiction (FBI).

Counterfeit money?  Federal crime.  Federal jurisdiction (Secret Service).

Similarly a federal disaster or federal emergency has FEMA as the primary agency.  The locals just support the feds.

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=SonnyClips]Starka has the last word and the question is moot.

Best,
Sonny[/quote]

ROFLMAO Menotellname, er "Sonny" has spoken... 

[/quote]

I repeat...

"You are a paranoid little bitch...aren't you?"

Menotellname, your analogies don't hold any water.

The first two that you mentioned involved US currency, and thus fall under the purview of the enumerated powers listed in the US Constitution (Article 1, Section 8), while the third does not.   My understanding is that absent a violation of Constitutional guarantees, Federal Authorities cannot intervene (such as nationalizing the States Militia) without the direct and specific request of the governor.  Governor Blanco has said that she did not request nationalization because, "good people would go to jail".  Whatever that means.

This being said, I think there's plenty of blame to go around at all levels, and I have every confidence that the Congress will have hearings ad nauseum, at least as long as they can get their names in the papers.

No Sonny, I don't think what "is" is has anything to do with it.  I believe that the request must be both specific and formal.

I don't know if the President acted in a timely enough manner or not.  One thing I do know...it won't be settled here.

[quote=Starka]

Menotellname, your analogies don't hold any water.

The first two that you mentioned involved US currency, and thus fall under the purview of the enumerated powers listed in the US Constitution (Article 1, Section 8), while the third does not.   My understanding is that absent a violation of Constitutional guarantees, Federal Authorities cannot intervene (such as nationalizing the States Militia) without the direct and specific request of the governor.  Governor Blanco has said that she did not request nationalization because, "good people would go to jail".  Whatever that means.

This being said, I think there's plenty of blame to go around at all levels, and I have every confidence that the Congress will have hearings ad nauseum, at least as long as they can get their names in the papers.

[/quote]

Wrong again "captain".

The analogies are perfectly valid when comparing state and federal jurisdiction in matters that seemingly fall to the locale where the incident occurs but are subject to federal authority.

You might want to read the posts and supporting documentation again.

Ah, but Sonny, you’re jumping to conclusions that may or may not be valid.  You see, I never posted that I thought your charges were wrong.  The fact is, I don’t know.

Lets give a hell yeah to the NO police department. They only had about 300 police officers take off. Some took the cars and drove a few hundred miles.

Know that the state police did not have one man or woman walk off the job. I know our military does not have 25% take off.

Did you know in 96 governor for LA was David Duke (KKK), Woody Jenkins (Amway emerald) and some other corupt person.  The election was really close between Jenkins and Blanko. Everyone knew there was a lot of coruption.

A trail of great LA leaders http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/04/25/edwards.trial/

[quote=Starka]

I don't know if the President acted in a timely enough manner or not.  One thing I do know...it won't be settled here.

[/quote]

Agreed. However, what's not in doubt is the incorrect nature of menotellname's claim that a declaration of emergency means the Feds have assumed control in the case of a disaster.

[quote=mikebutler222]

 However, what's not in doubt is the incorrect nature of menotellname's claim that a declaration of emergency means the Feds have assumed control in the case of a disaster. [/quote]

Obviously you fail to understand parallelism.

Federal emergency = feds are in charge

Federal disaster = feds are in charge

Why would the locals be in charge of a "federally declared disaster"?

[quote=menotellname]

[quote=mikebutler222]

 However, what's not in doubt is the incorrect nature of menotellname's claim that a declaration of emergency means the Feds have assumed control in the case of a disaster. [/quote]

Obviously you fail to understand parallelism.

Federal emergency = feds are in charge

Federal disaster = feds are in charge

Why would the locals be in charge of a "federally declared disaster"?

[/quote]

Because, as you've been told many, many times FEDERAL FUNDS become available to the state when a FEDERAL disaster has been declared. The law says specifically that As part of such request, and as a prerequisite to major disaster assistance under this Act, "...the Governor shall take appropriate response action under State law and direct execution of the State's emergency plan.

Need any more help?

Here Mike...take a look...

The entire National Response Plan...all 426 pages:

http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/NRP_FullText.pdf

I like Section III, Roles and Responsibilities, under the heading Federal Government.  Under the subsections; Department of Homeland Security, Secretary of Homeland Security...item 4.

Which clearly states:

"Pursuant to HSPD-5, the Secretary of Homeland Security is responsible for coordinating Federal operations within the United States to prepare for, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies.  HSPD-5 further designates the Secretary of Homeland Security as the "principal Federal official" for domestic incident management.

In this role, the Secretary is also responsible for coordinating Federal resources utilized in response to or recovery from terrorist attacks, major disasters, or other emergencies if and when any of the following four conditions applies:

(1)  a Federal department or agency acting under its own authority has requested DHS assistance;

(2)  the resources of State and local authorities are overwhelmed and Federal assistance is requested;

(3)  more than one Federal department or agency has become substantially involved in responding to the incident; or

(4)  the Secretary has been directed to assume incident management responsibilities by the President."

****************************************************

You are Starka keep harping on #2.  Keep in mind that the exact verbage states "or" (see number 3) not "and".

Also, #4 applied from 8/29 at the absolute lastest when the President declared a Federal disaster and sent in Mike Brown.

Any questions?

Mike, I am sure that you will post some useless diatribe after reading page 8...

*sighs*

[quote=menotellname]

Here Mike...take a look...

The entire National Response Plan...all 426 pages:

http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/NRP_FullText.pdf

I like Section III, Roles and Responsibilities, under the heading Federal Government.  Under the subsections; Department of Homeland Security, Secretary of Homeland Security...item 4.

Which clearly states:

"Pursuant to HSPD-5, the Secretary of Homeland Security is responsible for coordinating Federal operations within the United States to prepare for, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies.  HSPD-5 further designates the Secretary of Homeland Security as the "principal Federal official" for domestic incident management.

In this role, the Secretary is also responsible for coordinating Federal resources utilized in response to or recovery from terrorist attacks, major disasters, or other emergencies if and when any of the following four conditions applies:

(1)  a Federal department or agency acting under its own authority has requested DHS assistance;

(2)  the resources of State and local authorities are overwhelmed and Federal assistance is requested;

(3)  more than one Federal department or agency has become substantially involved in responding to the incident; or

(4)  the Secretary has been directed to assume incident management responsibilities by the President."

****************************************************

You are Starka keep harping on #2.  Keep in mind that the exact verbage states "or" (see number 3) not "and".

Also, #4 applied from 8/29 at the absolute lastest when the President declared a Federal disaster and sent in Mike Brown.

Any questions?

Mike, I am sure that you will post some useless diatribe after reading page 8...

*sighs*

[/quote]

You continue to be wrong.... it's really a shame. Declaring an emergency does NOT mean the Feds are in charge, it simply means Federal funds become available. FURTHER assistance comes to the state and local leaders WHEN REQUESTED. Nothing in your post changes that fact.

You are incorrect my browbeaten friend.

My last post is clearly correct.

This is not an "overwhelmed AND requested assistance" choice.  This is an "overwhelmed and requested assistance" OR "appointed by the President" choice.  This is EITHER (2) or (4).  Obviously (4) applies since 8/29.

Any questions?

[quote=menotellname]

You are incorrect my browbeaten friend.

My last post is clearly correct.

This is not an "overwhelmed AND requested assistance" choice.  This is an "overwhelmed and requested assistance" OR "appointed by the President" choice.  This is EITHER (2) or (4).  Obviously (4) applies since 8/29.

Any questions?

[/quote]

The only question is whether or not you're beyond help. It's obvious to any thinking person that your claim that the president, by declaring a state of emergency, has assumed control of a disaster. You've had that fact pointed out to you several times, including the segement of the law that says the governor WILL DIRECT the state plan.

To your latest claim, about the NRP.

#2 requires that the state request assistance BEYOND the declaration of emergency, which ONLY serves to make Fed funds available. Obviously #2 had NOT been done on the 4/29.

#4 DID NOT HAPPEN as a result of a declaration of emergency, which again, SIMPLY MAKES FED funds available to the state. To suggest that Bush had directed the Fed take over even PRIOR to the hurricane even striking and long before the locals asked for assistence beyond Fed funding is just foolish.

The law is clear, it's been highlighted in bold letters for you several times. The fact that you continue to argue your losing point says a great deal about you.

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=menotellname]

You are incorrect my browbeaten friend.

My last post is clearly correct.

This is not an "overwhelmed AND requested assistance" choice.  This is an "overwhelmed and requested assistance" OR "appointed by the President" choice.  This is EITHER (2) or (4).  Obviously (4) applies since 8/29.

Any questions?

[/quote]

The only question is whether or not you're beyond help. It's obvious to any thinking person that your claim that the president, by declaring a state of emergency, has assumed control of a disaster. You've had that fact pointed out to you several times, including the segement of the law that says the governor WILL DIRECT the state plan.

To your latest claim, about the NRP.

#2 requires that the state request assistance BEYOND the declaration of emergency, which ONLY serves to make Fed funds available. Obviously #2 had NOT been done on the 4/29.

#4 DID NOT HAPPEN as a result of a declaration of emergency, which again, SIMPLY MAKES FED funds available to the state. To suggest that Bush had directed the Fed take over even PRIOR to the hurricane even striking and long before the locals asked for assistence beyond Fed funding is just foolish.

The law is clear, it's been highlighted in bold letters for you several times. The fact that you continue to argue your losing point says a great deal about you.

[/quote]

It is obvious that you still don't get it.  This is not a state issue.  I goes way beyond that.  This is a federal issue.  The state plays a small role in the federal plan.  The federal plan is what has jurisdiction.

Are you telling me that Louisiana is responsible for integrating with Mississippi?  Are you telling me that New Orleans is responsible for Biloxi or upstate Louisiana?  Is the governor of Louisiana responsible for Mississippi?

Of course not.  Each person has a responsibility for themselves (and what they can reasonably control).  Each entity (or municipality) has responsibility for themselves up to what they can control.  Who has control over the entire situation?  The feds.  Who controls Mississippi (Biloxi) and Louisiana (New Orleans)?  The feds. 

One can reasonably argue multiple jurisdiction over New Orleans by the city itself, the state, and the feds.  You could even break it down smaller to the parish (or district) representatives within each city.  But that is like saying the shareholders are responsible for running a company.  It is the board of directors, chief executive, and president that are responsible.  They are held accountable by the shareholders (or city residents; for the purpose of this argument).  Who goes to jail when a company falsifies the accounting...the shareholders?  No.  The executives.  Who is accountable for the failures of this disaster?  The people?  No.  The city officials?  No.  The state officials? No. Think bigger...not smaller.

Seriously.  Blaming the residents of the city, city officials, or the state officials for the failures during this disaster is like blaming the shareholders for the failure of Enron.  This goes to the top.

Any questions?

[quote=menotellname][quote=mikebutler222][quote=menotellname]

You are incorrect my browbeaten friend.

My last post is clearly correct.

This is not an "overwhelmed AND requested assistance" choice.  This is an "overwhelmed and requested assistance" OR "appointed by the President" choice.  This is EITHER (2) or (4).  Obviously (4) applies since 8/29.

Any questions?

[/quote]

The only question is whether or not you're beyond help. It's obvious to any thinking person that your claim that the president, by declaring a state of emergency, has assumed control of a disaster. You've had that fact pointed out to you several times, including the segement of the law that says the governor WILL DIRECT the state plan.

To your latest claim, about the NRP.

#2 requires that the state request assistance BEYOND the declaration of emergency, which ONLY serves to make Fed funds available. Obviously #2 had NOT been done on the 4/29.

#4 DID NOT HAPPEN as a result of a declaration of emergency, which again, SIMPLY MAKES FED funds available to the state. To suggest that Bush had directed the Fed take over even PRIOR to the hurricane even striking and long before the locals asked for assistence beyond Fed funding is just foolish.

The law is clear, it's been highlighted in bold letters for you several times. The fact that you continue to argue your losing point says a great deal about you.

[/quote]

"Are you telling me that Louisiana is responsible for integrating with Mississippi? "

[/quote]

No, I'm telling you that your claim that the president declaring a state of emergency means the Feds have assumed control of the recovery of the disaster is wrong, wrong, wrong. It couldn't be clearler and you've been told over and over.

[quote=menotellname]

 Seriously.  Blaming the residents of the city, city officials, or the state officials for the failures during this disaster is like blaming the shareholders for the failure of Enron.  This goes to the top.

Any questions?

[/quote]

Yeah, do you ever tire of being wrong or been proved wrong?

The city and state officials are responsible for their failures to execute their plans and for any delays they had in requesting Fed assistance on the ground. That would include the mayor's decision to send people to the Superdome w/o food, water or security. That would include the mayor's failure to declare a mandatory evacuation sooner than he did and his failure to use the buses he had to take people out of the city. It would include the governor's failure to use her own NG units earlier and her refusal to allow the Red Cross in the Superdome to provide people there with food and water.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

The Feds are responsible for their failure to respond to calls for assistance as quickly as humanly possible. The locals know the plan tells them to expect to be on their own the first 24 to 72 after a disaster occurs AND they know they have to request assistance as the Feds can't march in and take over. The Feds should have been on the ground NLT Thursday AM.

If that doesn't help you, nothing will. As far as I'm concerned, I'm finished explaining the obvious to you. Feel free to live in ignorance of the facts.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm finished explaining the obvious to you. Feel free to live in ignorance of the facts.

Thank God!!!  Please let this thread die a quick death.

So you think the president should just declare military rule and law.

Until TUESDAY no one knew there was a major disaster in New Orleans.

The mayor (Mr. return - retreet) did not use the buses (500 of them) and sent people to shelters with no food or water. The governor did not bring in the guard to help control the city.

With a pathetic police force (25% disertion.. some drove police cars to as far as Atlanta).... *NOTE not one sherrif left their post...

Finally or two days after request the feds beat the state guard to the scean. They killed 50+ thugs and the city was in control. Gen Horne (kick a.. black general) came to town and did exactly what melotonin told him to do.

Ohh yeah while nothing was being done by Bush and the feds... 3000+ people were saved from the Coast Guard, Fish & Wildlife and other volunteers who rushed to the scean. If only the president listened to Kionie West, Melotonin, Jessy Jackson and Abdul Farakon (Mr. white man blew up wall) the world would be a better place.

For 30 years everyone knew the walll could only hold at Cat 3. During the last 30 years an two acers a minute were being eatin up (maybe the state should have thought ahead instead of instant tax gratification). So year after year nothing was done (everyone is at fault)..

In the end blame the system and hurricane Katrina.

NO is a melting pot of overweight slobs who don’t want to work. If this happenened in NY City or Boston it would be a different story.

I love all people..

I am a bible loving american. :) Just like my pals Jessy Jackson, Sharpton and Farakon (did I misspell ohhh well).. I think they all have a purpus, but when one uses race to make money..

[quote=executivejock]

I love all people..

I am a bible loving american. :) Just like my pals Jessy Jackson, Sharpton and Farakon (did I misspell ohhh well).. I think they all have a purpus, but when one uses race to make money..

[/quote]

Yeah white people NEVER used race to make money.

According to you slavery was a choice...it wasn't about race.

Executivejock...YOU'RE A DUMBASS.

Like Sonny said.  Your southern white ancestors should have been prosecuted as traitors.  They ceded from the union (the United States of America).  Formed their own country (the Confederate States of America).  The country was made up of FORMER states from the United States of America, it had:  its own president, its own currency and monetary system, its own branches of government, and its own national flag.  This country conspicuously modeled themselves after the United States of America but they most definitely were not part of "the union".  All of this for a country that tried to OVERTHROW THE UNITED STATES and got their asses beaten like the Japanese, Germans, and Italians in WWII.  They should have been treated as war criminals and disposed of properly.

[quote=menotellname]

Yeah white people NEVER used race to make money.

[/quote]

Oh, there are whites that use race-baiting ala Sharpton and Jackson (and loony Louis) to create and further careers. It's just that (thankfully)  David Duke isn't afforded any equal sort of respectability.

But the difference is that I am funny and your a dick.

Funny, but I don't see much of a difference in the spelling OR humor departments...

[quote=mikebutler222]

David Duke isn't afforded any equal sort of respectability.[/quote]

??????

I don't see why not.  David Duke is at least as respectible as you. 

[quote=menotellname][quote=executivejock]

I love all people..

I am a bible loving american. :) Just like my pals Jessy Jackson, Sharpton and Farakon (did I misspell ohhh well).. I think they all have a purpus, but when one uses race to make money..

[/quote]

Yeah white people NEVER used race to make money.

According to you slavery was a choice...it wasn't about race.

Executivejock...YOU'RE A DUMBASS.

Like Sonny said.  Your southern white ancestors should have been prosecuted as traitors.  They ceded from the union (the United States of America).  Formed their own country (the Confederate States of America).  The country was made up of FORMER states from the United States of America, it had:  its own president, its own currency and monetary system, its own branches of government, and its own national flag.  This country conspicuously modeled themselves after the United States of America but they most definitely were not part of "the union".  All of this for a country that tried to OVERTHROW THE UNITED STATES and got their asses beaten like the Japanese, Germans, and Italians in WWII.  They should have been treated as war criminals and disposed of properly.

[/quote]

They were prosecuted and disposed of their property, you idiot.

Arlington National Cemetery was the estate of Robert E. Lee, to mention one high profile example.

[quote=menotellname]

[quote=mikebutler222]

David Duke isn't afforded any equal sort of respectability.[/quote]

??????

I don't see why not.  David Duke is at least as respectible as you. 

[/quote]

And here I was thinking that you couldn't possibly become a bigger parody than you were. Keep shooting for the stars...

Could some one just please call some one a Nazi and mention Hitler so we can end this pointless and never ending thread?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law 

[quote=babbling looney]

Could some one just please call some one a Nazi and mention Hitler so we can end this pointless and never ending thread?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law 

[/quote]

Okay.

Your toothbrush moustache makes you look like Hitler, so you must be a Nazi.

May I will say a prayer for you two loving Americans.

Wow. I love all types of people. My best friend is much darker then myself (is that politically correct). I love Colin Powell (great leader) and I like Larry Elders. Listen to him he might enlighten you two angry Americans.

It seems pointing out the facts really hurts you 2 Gore loving hateful Americans (?Frenchman?).

Like we say in the south "pour some grits on your head."

[quote=SonnyClips]Oh and it wasn't Lee's family estate it was his wifes who was a decendent of Washington. 



Best,
Sonny[/quote]

Which, of course, made it Lee's.

[quote=SonnyClips]So you are a Southerner! It seems the most righteous and merciful Lord is kicking ass down in Jesusland right now. Sonny[/quote]

People die, Meno/Sonny makes a joke. What a pathetic excuse for a human being....

Just a few observations.

First: Sonny must have way too much time on his hands.  If he is truly a financial adviser/investment rep/whatever.....get back to work! All these posts and you are never going to persuade anyone to come to your "side" by calling names and being a bigot.

Second: Your generalization that the North West is "blue" is also another stereotype.  You need to get out of town occasionally.  I live in the North West and the county that I am in consistantly votes 87% Republican.  You will find that outside of the urban areas in the West Coast so called Blue States we are extremely RED.  See the map.  If you want to be a minority, be a bleeding heart liberal tree hugger in my "neck of the woods"

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/coun tymap.htm

How many Blacks and Latinos do y'all have as customers? Friends sure, but how many ethnic minorities have the readers of this forum gone out and tried to win business from?

I don't know about the others, but I target people who have money to invest and need financial advice.  If they turn out to be of any particular ethnicity, that is just demographics.  As a matter of fact, I have quite a few Hispanics as clients, because I speak Spanish (somewhat) and they are great savers and very goal oriented.

Hey dude, I am from the north and just playing with you.. On top of that I go to church three times a year (Christmas, Easter and one other sunday).   

Chill man this whole thread is a joke. I just throw out the bait here and there to get a kick out of life and your responses.

As for customers....

I dont break any segment of my life down to races, religions or sexes. I count each American as a customer. If they need financial advice or consulting I will serve them.

The bottom line is I respect all Americans and foreigners until they do me or the country wrong. Jessy Jackson has the ability to influence so many in a positive way, but he is corrupt. He uses his power to stir up racial issues to make money. Look at the Burger King issues in NYC. Look at the tens of millions of dollars in consulting kickbacks he gets.

Since this issue is so big in America I think he does the country wrong. Maybe we are not united on certain issues including abortion and why we went to IRAQ, but every month I see millions of American flags flying high. Every month we have millions of people celebrating AMERICA and our freedoms. Think about it.. New Years, Christmas, St Patricks day, Labor day, Veterans day, Memorial Day and everything else to July 4th.

People from other countries tell me how surprised they are to see so many people in America wearing the flag logo on their shirts. Every day I see a lot of people with patriotic stuff. America is an awesome place to live in. As Americans we are lucky.

I need to be a professor. Maybe my doctorate will come in handy some day. I just need to master this spelling thing. Well thats why I have my secretary and she is awesome!

There is no place but urban centers. It's the numbers that make the difference.

Tsk Tsk.  You are deluded my friend.  Lots and lots of mildly qualifed prospects with a few weathly thrown in in the cities= a ton of prospecting, wasted time and smaller results for the amount of energy expended.   Lots and lots of very highly qualified prospects in the rural areas (mine at least!) = means I get more from less.  Prospecting people who don't know you from squat and who are overwhelmed with people trying to get them to give a few bucks v.s. prospecting people who know your name in the grocery store and whose children went to school with yours.

The (again) stereotype is that all the rural people are nose-picking religious-fanatic type rubes that have just now gotten indoor plumbing and are kicking the dirt clods from their boots.  Far from the truth here. Many of my clients are millionares if not multi,multi millionares but you wouldn't know it by their lifestyles, clothing or old pickup trucks. (OK so they are classic old pickup trucks worth more than a new truck  ) They have retired and sold their businesses in the urban centers to be able to get away from the cities and have bought brand new mini ranches.  The "old guard" of ranchers and farmers, own everything outright including those million dollar ranches and they have plenty of discretionary income to invest.  The large number of self employed small business owners lends very nicely to Simple IRAs and Owner 401K plans.    I'll take my clients and prospects over those in the city any day!

And it isn't as if I don't have a basis of comparison.....I am from the SF Bay Area and all my family still lives there.

alan who? What did he do?

With Rita coming the president (at the request of the governors involved) has declared a state of emergency in the areas Rita seems to be headed towards. It was metellnonames theory that THAT meant the Feds had taken over the evacuation and relief efforts.

Since that's obviously NOT the case, can we all agree menotellnames was blowing smoke?

[quote=mikebutler222]

With Rita coming the president (at the request of the governors involved) has declared a state of emergency in the areas Rita seems to be headed towards. It was metellnonames theory that THAT meant the Feds had taken over the evacuation and relief efforts.

Since that's obviously NOT the case, can we all agree menotellnames was blowing smoke?

[/quote]

Sorry dude...federal emergency much like federal crime and federal disaster means the feds have authority and jurisdiction.

It is not often that you get a second chance to get it right so soon.  Mr. Bush shall consider himself lucky.  Of course it is Texas and he has greater ties to Texas and Florida than to Lousiana or Mississippi.

[quote=menotellname][quote=mikebutler222]

With Rita coming the president (at the request of the governors involved) has declared a state of emergency in the areas Rita seems to be headed towards. It was metellnonames theory that THAT meant the Feds had taken over the evacuation and relief efforts.

Since that's obviously NOT the case, can we all agree menotellnames was blowing smoke?

[/quote]

Sorry dude...federal emergency much like federal crime and federal disaster means the feds have authority and jurisdiction.

[/quote]

Ask me if I'm surprised that you're still wrong. The Feds have NOT assumed control. Buy a newspaper. 

[quote=SonnyClips]Hypothetical conversation between me and Butler.

me- "Yet the feds are still able to help out?"

Butler- "I believe there has to be a (insert weenie bit of half understood minutiae here) before any federal assistance could be justfied under the ennumerated powers of the constitution and also in the 15~c-84b*1654^37@999 section under the department of transportation's origination document given the National Security Agencies prohibition of domestic engangement and the 15-64p0010-9 section of the National Mandate for Federal intervention."



me- "Oh you mean that they just can't go around helping people willy nilly."

butler- "Yes that is exactly what I mean."

me- "what about the Coast Guard."

Butler- "States don't have Coast Guards so this group of rules and laws lets them help."

me- "I thought it was the spirit as much as the letter of the law that was important how can intervening with the enourmous resources of the Federal Government in such a desperate situation be wrong, especially when the Coast Guard can do it? Oh and couldn't we find a way around any rule that stood in the way of helping people, kind of like how we found a way of waging war without actually declaring war as the Constitution requires?"

How's that for a Strawman?

[/quote]

That's better than a strawman, that's a completely fictional conversation.

You seemed to have missed the point of my last post on Katrina/Rita to your alter ego; which was to point out that his series of posts claiming the a presidential declaration of emergency means that the Feds have taken control of the situation from state and local officials was wildly inaccurate.

[quote=SonnyClips]I didn't miss it I think I was just trying to show you what runs through my mind when I read the posts. Do you see what I'm getting at all joking aside?

Best,
Jason[/quote]

Well, in all seriousness what I see is that you didn't notice the fact I was correcting menotellnames on his silly claims that the Feds take over after the president declares a state of emergency (an attempt to absolve every level of government of responsibility aside from Bush).<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

It also happens to me that you think it would "help" to have the Feds march in with limited local knowledge and take over from locals with or without their request or that you think it might "help" somehow to have the Feds move in and without speaking to anyone simply begin a search and rescue process. You seem to not have an appreciation for the confusion and duplication of effort that sort of approach would cause. The Feds job isn’t to get in the way of people who know the area best, it’s to give them whatever support they deem necessary.

Even if you want to completely ignore the law (and the Governor of Louisiana sure doesn’t, she’s STILL refused to put her National Guard units in a unified command with the Federal troops in her state) it’s one thing for the Coast Guard to continue to do their day to day mission of protecting life in water ways, etc, and to have the 82nd Airborne descend on New Orleans and begin to round up looters and force people to evacuate. In fact, after the storm the Mayor of New Orleans refused to have US troops involved in forced evaluations. Mayor and Governors have legal powers that can’t simply be taken from them for undue cause.

It just isn’t as simple an issue as you seem to think.

"If that would have happened under a better President, say Reagan, arms would have been twisted and consensus would have been made."

Sure, and your partisanship has nothing to do with the fact that you don't care what the facts are or what the law says, you simply blame Bush.

50% of the country hated BUSH in 2000. He won the election and they wanted Al Gore. So they hated him from the start. They blame him for Sept 11 (in office for 8 months), Katrina, unemployment 5%, jobs sent to China, high oil prices and the increase in terrorism around the world. One must forget that the freedom is running wild in Pakistan, Lybia, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Yugoslavia, Lebanon, Afganistan and IRAQ (Clinton was close in North Korea and Palestine :).

Of course the media does not help when they stated GORE won Florida before the election in Florida was complete. Then they have spent the last 5 years doing everything possible to slam BUSH. Remember Dan Rather he straight up lied.

Who here watched Farenhype 9-11 or Farenhype? If one were open minded they would watch both. I think they are examples of the current political situation.

Amazing Bush is not such a conservative. He is spending and not vetoing anything like the pork filled highway bill.

The fact is he is pumping a ton of money into the economy to keep it a float after 9-11. The fed cut the rates to keep us a float. Tax cuts, more power to the local government and the no tax on dividends is what the conservative approach is about. 

• September  21, 2005 | 11: 30 a.m. ET

Real world Vs. Bush's world (Mike Barnicle)

I am in aisle three of the supermarket, watching a woman choose between a box of store brand Frosted Flakes and the real deal sold by Kellogg. She is holding a child, maybe four years old, with one hand and a cereal box with her left.  And she is about to do something that Bush the president is either incapable of doing or figures isn’t necessary: make a budget decision based on common sense and economics.

The President clearly believes everything is possible. We can hemorrhage billions in Iraq, spend billions more to rebuild New Orleans and resurrect our very own Gulf, trim taxes and throw it all on a credit card someone else – our kids – will pay in the decades ahead. This guy, smiling in his rolled up shirtsleeves, has obviously never had to sweat while signing a check for college tuition, sneakers, groceries or to bail out a basement filled with water.

His fiftyish face is nearly wrinkle free because he has been blessed with a fortunate life and a “thanks dad” existence. He is charming and friendly, isolated and uncurious about the world that has come crashing down around him - not the political world. The real one; the universe filled with disasters large and small that ordinary folks navigate on a daily basis.

So, Katrina might be to George W. Bush what Tet was to the last president from Texas, Lyndon Johnson. In February 1968, the pictures from Vietnam resulted in LBJ’s administration joining the casualty list despite the fact that the North Vietnamese suffered a true military defeat. Yet it reality didn’t matter. Impressions won the day.

And the technology of television in the 21st Century brought something into living rooms that has long been ignored: poor people and bureaucratic incompetence. That combination, seen clearly on MSNBC and other venues, shocked and embarrassed Americans who have been fed a steady electronic diet of car chases and celebrity.

The TV shots were like a national MRI, exposing cultural symptoms – poverty, race and class – that have been pushed to our back pages by terrorism and affluence and the desire by both networks and newspapers alike to reach the home delivery, I-Pod listening, cable-ready, suburban living, disposable income spending set.

And the event itself – a hurricane – was something that not even Karl Rove could spin. The White House couldn’t dodge and weave behind information leaked from intelligence briefings because everyone is familiar with rain, wind and storm damage.

And anyone who works for a living, pays taxes, has kids, a mortgage or rent due at the end of each month knows with a solid certainty that a broken or bloated budget means potential family disaster. You don’t have to be Alan Greenspan to figure out that – in the real world where George W. Bush does not live – even the future can be foreclosed by a few wrong choices.

Maybe that’s why the woman in aisle three went for the store brand Frosted Flakes at a savings of .89 cents. It all adds up and choices have to be made.

Questions/Comments?  Email < =text/>document.write(""); < =text/> document.write("Hardblogger"+"@"+"msnbc.com"); Hardblog [email protected] < =text/>document.write('');

Watch Hardball each weeknight at 5 and 7 p.m. ET

• September  20, 2005 | 8:30 a.m. ET

Bush:  Ideology and incompetence (Bob Shrum)

Pat and I both believe in the power of speeches because, after all, we’ve each written so many of them. But sometimes speeches are of little avail against the tide of events. In 1968, Lyndon Johnson couldn’t overcome the reality of a deepening quagmire in Vietnam no matter what he said or how well he said it; what were Americans going to believe – Lyndon Johnson’s words or what they were seeing with their own eyes every night on television? So it was with Richard Nixon and Watergate; we heard the tapes, and it didn’t matter that he said: “I’m not a crook.” (Pat, did you write that line?) No speech could undo the damage.

So it is with George W. Bush now.  What Pat in effect describes as “not a great speech” but an adequate one, was eerily lit by White House Advance men who got their giant generators to New Orleans far faster than FEMA delivered food, water and rescue to those trapped in the disaster. The Bush tableau couldn’t erase or make up for the images – and the reality—that shocked the nation and the world. Katrina blew away the facade of compassionate conservatism and the false front of the Bush Administration’s competence.

First in Iraq and now in New Orleans and along the Gulf Coast, the Bushies have manifested a lethal combination of ideology and incompetence. Ideology led them to fight the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Incompetence led to failures in diplomacy, planning, and provision for our troops that have left us stuck chin deep in the big muddy of the Tigris and the Euphrates. Ideology led the Bush Administration to downgrade FEMA and turn it into a parking lot for political hacks.

The President was right, but not in the way he meant it, when he said, in a line that will probably make it into the next edition of Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations: “Brownie, you’re doing a  heck of a job.” The truth is it was a hell of a job, bungled on a historic scale, proving that those who are ideologically anti-government don’t do very well at running government.  Look at the unforgettable images, day after day, of the carnage in New Orleans, much of it due to the incompetence of our own government. The Bush Administration promised to bring democracy to Baghdad and succeeded in bringing Baghdad to the United States.

The President offered a solution in his night-time sermonette –massive federal spending
He also gave people in need a hotline number to call; when they dialed it, it was jammed. The Bush Administration couldn’t even answer the phone. A lot of the spending Bush wants reflects an impulse to use Katrina as an excuse to advance right-wing rostrums like school vouchers. But they’ll spend on public works on a scale we haven’t seen since the New Deal. George W. Bush is desperate to salvage something, not just of New Orleans but of his water-logged Presidency; even with Karl Rove overseeing the effort (what has he ever run but campaigns?), public relations won’t be enough. In desperation, the Administration has been driven to big, federal programs and investment in infrastructure –previously reserved for Iraq.

Ironically, under George W. Bush, the era of small government is over.

What Pat obviously hopes to salvage is a Supreme Court that will roll back fundamental rights and overturn Roe v. Wade. If that happens, red states will turn blue and the era of Republican competitiveness in national politics will be over.

Compounding Bush’s problems, as Pat acknowledges, is that other area of ideology and incompetence – Iraq. It could, as he admits, destroy this Presidency and generate a Category 5 defeat for the Republicans in the 2006 election. So Pat, isn’t it time for George W. Bush to do what he finally and grudgingly did after Katrina: admit he was wrong, take responsibility, and change course?

Questions/Comments?  Email < =text/>document.write(""); < =text/> document.write("Hardblogger"+"@"+"msnbc.com"); Hardblog [email protected] < =text/>document.write('');

Watch Hardball each weeknight at 5 and 7 p.m. ET

And if Bush did make the true budgetary correct corporate decisions, we would not pour billions of dollars into a doomed and sinking New Orleans. We would turn it into an industrial park and adult Disneyland for Mardi Gras and forget it being a residential city every again.  Just let him try to do that and watch the cries of racism fly!!!  He is in a damned if you do and damned if you don't position in almost every decision he tries to make.  If you stick to the rules that people who CHOSE not to buy flood insurance get coverage anyway, we are discriminating against the poor/read racism again.  If you cover everyone's losses we are bankrupting the country and future generations will be yoked to this plow forever.  Which way do you want it to be.  It can't be both. You have to choose.  Money now for all this bull##t and pay later. Or be tough and make the hard choices now and hear the never never ending whining from the left.  I like the latter.

If the Republicans insist on small government (as we should) and cut the budget to the bare bones, they are starving the cheeeelreeen and are cold heartless bastards.  If the Republicans decide to promote a prescription plan for Medicare they are giving away the store.  If they cut Medicare fraud by tightening the eligiblity they are dooming Ma and Pa Fricket to an early death.  If we try to make it mandatory that children, oops excuse me, the cheeeeldreeen, actually learn something in schools before becoming usless drags on society, then the Repbulicans are destroying the Teacher's Union, bankrupting school districts and forcing the teachers to "teach to the test". (As if they didn't always do that. Remember when the teacher would say......take notes this is going to be on the test?).  If we don't fix the schools then the Republicans are not interested in the inner city poor who are mostly ethnic minorities and are again racist. If we propose vouchers so parents can use their own tax money to decide where to send their kids to school, then we are ruining the "so called" separation of governement and religion.

Sheesh. You just can't win.

Very well said, Looney.  And to think that we recently had Ted Kennedy questioning John Roberts’ character.  And, once again, how come we are hearing so little about people who really lost something of value from these horrible hurricanes?  A group of Mailboxes, Etc. stores, a tire store, a service station, whatever.  I’m so damn tired of hearing from people who lived in public housing and collected a welfare check for the last decade complaining how they lost “everything.”  “Everything” can be a real relative word.

Did menotellnames REALLY quote Bob Shrum as a source? Does he even know who Bob Shrum IS?

[quote=SonnyClips]I think the Republican Jimmy Carter is a bunch worse than the original. [/quote]

It's probably only because you're not old enough to remember the first one. 

[quote=babbling looney]

 He is in a damned if you do and damned if you don't position in almost every decision he tries to make.  [/quote]

Yep, it's true. It's because of the we-have-nothing-to-offer-but-Bush-hatred party of weakness.

BTW, for those like sonny and menotell, still deeply confused about how disaster recovery works and who's responsible when, I offer;

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050927-121122-3262r.ht m

By Bill Sammon
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
September 27, 2005

President Bush yesterday sought to federalize hurricane-relief efforts, removing governors from the decision-making process. 
    "It wouldn't be necessary to get a request from the governor or take other action," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said yesterday.
    "This would be," he added, "more of an automatic trigger."

  Mr. McClellan was referring to a new, direct line of authority that would allow the president to place the Pentagon in charge of responding to natural disasters, terrorist attacks and outbreaks of disease.
    "It may require change of law," Mr. Bush said yesterday. "It's very important for us as we look at the lessons of Katrina to think about other scenarios that might require a well-planned, significant federal response -- right off the bat -- to provide stability."

If you recall, menotell was claiming it already WAS an automatic trigger as soon as the president (at the Governbor's requiest, btw) declared a state of emergency.

And, just as Babbling Loony pointed out, as soon as Bush said this who would come along to criticize it but the usual suspects.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) accused Mr. Bush of attempting a power grab in the wake of fierce criticism that he responded too slowly to Hurricane Katrina a month ago.
    "Using the military in domestic law enforcement is generally a very bad idea," said Timothy Edgar, national security policy counsel for the ACLU. "I'm afraid that it will have unforeseen consequences for civil liberties."

Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour declined the president's offer to federalize the state's National Guard troops in the aftermath of Katrina. So Mr. Bush wants Congress to consider empowering the Pentagon with automatic control.

The ACLU cautioned against such a change of law.
    "The Posse Comitatus Act is sometimes criticized as some sort of obscure, centuries-old law," Mr. Edgar said. "But you know, most of our liberties are centuries old. So that would be like saying the Bill of Rights is obscure and old.
    "Our strict separation between military and civilian power is one of the things that separates us from Latin America, for example," he added. "Changing that would put us on a huge slippery slope."

Can we bury this topic- geeeeez!!!

[quote=SonnyClips]Lets just say I wish I wasn't old enough to remember either of them. [/quote]

How about we say that if you were old enough to remmber anything about the first one (misery index, Iran hostages, Desert 1, sweaters, 78% aircondition, 22% prime rate, malaise, killer bunny, gas lines, being taken for a ride by North Korea VS sub-5% unemployment, low interest rates, record minority home ownership, free elections in Iraq and Afghanistan, progress in six party talks w/ NK) you wouldn't suggest they have anything in common.

[quote=moneyadvisor]Can we bury this topic- geeeeez!!![/quote]

Is someone forcing you to read it?

[quote=SonnyClips]This is like when y'all conservatives make us Liberals out to be p@##ies then we fight back which means we're not being fair?

[/Quote]

"Unfair"? No, just dishonest, illogical, childish and, as always, irrelevant. 

[quote=SonnyClips]
And Butler, you agree with the ACLU?
[/quote]

I see that critical ability to comprehend the written word is one you don’t possess. I didn’t say anywhere that I agreed with the ACLU, I simply pointed out the error in your assertion that Bush had some magical extra-constitutional power that not only does he not possess, but that the ACLU warns against giving him.

[quote=SonnyClips]So he never sent federal troops down to the Big NO? Or he did? <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[/quote]

Of course he did, after they were requested. The article makes that and the law clear. Try reading it.

[quote=SonnyClips]

Your right I just do not logically understand what went on. BECAUSE there are federal troops down there, they were asked for and then it took like four goddam days to show up.

[/quote]

Your [sic] right that you don't understand, and in no small part it's because you're simply factually challenged. For example; you say it took the military four days to show up but the USS Bantan was on-site and helping within 24 hours. The 82nd Airborne had troops there in less than 48 hours.

The state OWNS the LA National Guard. THEY should have been there immediately. The federal troops could be there 24-48 hours after they were requested. If there’s any error on the Feds part it was in not being there in 24 hours instead of the 72 hours it took them. Then again, trucking supplies around floods and missing bridges isn’t easy.

The fact is if the locals hadn’t screwed up by the numbers the nightmare of Katrina would never have been what we saw on our TV screens.

[quote=SonnyClips]The next thing I know you all are talking about Posse Comitatus and you don't even know what it is called.

[/quote]

I can only assume you misread the article I provided and you think it was me speaking, and not the writer.

[quote=SonnyClips] I've always heard that there were two types of people those who run at the fire and those who run away. If your busy looking at the rule book It seems like you wind up letting the house burn down.

[/quote]

Bad metaphor. The Feds don't even have a right to be there watching the fire in your story. What you fail to realize (and purely for partisan reasons) is that the locals ARE the fire department.

[quote=SonnyClips]
Now when it comes to riots and sh*t you can talk till your blue in the face about Posse Com and all that sh*t but come on <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Butler get with the goddam program here.

[/quote]

Wow, who'd have thought you'd unravel so completely when the facts were explained to you. “Get with the program” seems to me to mean “Don’t confuse me with facts, BUSH IS THE DEVIL!!!!!!!

[quote=SonnyClips]

Your pissant excuses for these people is pathetic [/quote]

I agree. Your refusal to open your eyes to the damage the Mayor of NO and the Governor of LA created and the mess they wanted the Feds to clean up with the sweep of a magic wand is just astounding.

[quote=SonnyClips]

ps shouldn't you be working? Me, I'm studying.[/quote]

Hey, when all else fails you can always try to end the discussion by volunteering to be my living daytimer.  Don't worry about me menotell/Sonny, I've passed my exams and my production's just fine. That's two things you can't say....

[quote=mikebutler222]<O:P></O:P>

Hey, when all else fails you can always try to end the discussion by volunteering to be my living daytimer.  Don't worry about me menotell/Sonny, I've passed my exams and my production's just fine. That's two things you can't say....

[/quote]

Mike,

You're an anal MF aren't you?

I am licensed and have been licensed for a few years.  I am much too busy nowadays to play on here as much as I did in the past.

How about a socialist's point of view?

Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

This statement is available as a PDF leaflet to download and distribute

The catastrophe that is unfolding in New Orleans and on the Gulf coast of Mississippi has been transformed into a national humiliation without parallel in the history of the United States.

The scenes of intense human suffering, hopelessness, squalor, and neglect amidst the wreckage of what was once New Orleans have exposed the rotten core of American capitalist society before the eyes of the entire world—and, most significantly, before those of its own stunned people.

The reactionary mythology of America as the “Greatest Country in the World” has suffered a shattering blow.

Hurricane Katrina has laid bare the awful truths of contemporary America—a country torn by the most intense class divisions, ruled by a corrupt plutocracy that possesses no sense either of social reality or public responsibility, in which millions of its citizens are deemed expendable and cannot depend on any social safety net or public assistance if disaster, in whatever form, strikes.

Washington’s response to this human tragedy has been one of gross incompetence and criminal indifference. People have been left to literally die in the streets of a major American city without any assistance for four days. Images of suffering and degradation that resemble the conditions in the most impoverished Third World countries are broadcast daily with virtually no visible response from the government of a country that concentrates the greatest share of wealth in the world.

The storm that breached the levees of New Orleans has also revealed all of the horrific implications of 25 years’ worth of uninterrupted social and political reaction. The real results of the destruction of essential social services, the dismantling of government agencies entrusted with alleviating poverty and coping with disasters, and the ceaseless nostrums about the “free market” magically resolving the problems of modern society have been exposed before millions.

With at least 100,000 people trapped in a city without power, water or food and threatened with the spread of disease and death, the government has proven incapable of establishing the most elementary framework of logistical organization. It has failed to even evacuate the critically ill from public hospitals, much less provide basic medical assistance to the many thousands placed in harm’s way by the disaster.

What was the government’s response to the natural catastrophe that threatened New Orleans? It amounted to betting that the storm would go the other way, followed by a policy of “every man for himself.” Residents of the city were told to evacuate, while the tens of thousands without transportation or too poor to travel were left to their fate.

Now crowds of thousands of hungry and homeless people have been reduced to chanting “we need help” as bodies accumulate in the streets. Washington’s inability to mount and coordinate basic rescue operations will unquestionably add to a death toll that is already estimated in the thousands.

The government’s callous disregard for the human suffering, its negligence in failing to prepare for this disaster and, above all, its utter incompetence have staggered even the compliant American media.

Patriotic blather about the country coming together to deal with the crisis combined with efforts to poison public opinion by vilifying those without food or water for “looting” have fallen flat in face of the undeniable and monumental debacle that constitutes the official response to the disaster.

Reporters sent into the devastated region have been reduced to tears by the masses of people crying out for help with no response. Television announcers cannot help but wonder aloud why the authorities have failed so miserably to alleviate such massive human suffering.

The presidency, the Congress and both the Republican and Democratic parties—all have displayed an astounding lack of concern for the hundreds of thousands of people whose lives have been shattered and who face the most daunting and uncertain future, not to mention the tens of millions more who will be hard hit by the economic aftershocks of Katrina.

In the figure of the president, George W. Bush, the incompetence, stupidity, and sheer inhumanity that characterize so much of America’s money-mad corporate elite find their quintessentially repulsive expression.

As the hurricane developed over two weeks in the Caribbean and slowly approached the coast of New Orleans and Mississippi, Bush amused himself at his ranch retreat in Crawford, Texas. It is now clear that his administration made no serious preparations to deal with the dangers posed by the approaching storm.

In an interview Thursday on the “Good Morning America” television program, Bush reprised his miserable performance of the previous day, adding to Wednesday’s banalities the declaration that there would be “zero tolerance” for looters.

The president blanched when ABC interviewer Dianne Sawyer asked about a suggestion that the major oil companies be forced to cede a share of the immense windfall profits they have reaped from rising prices over the past six months to fund disaster relief. He responded by counseling the American people to “send cash” to charitable organizations.

In other words, there will be no serious financial commitment from the government to save lives, care for the sick and needy, and help the displaced and bereft restore their lives. Nor will there be any national, centrally financed and organized program to rebuild one of the country’s most important cities—a city that is uniquely associated with some of the most critical cultural achievements in music and the arts of the American people.

Above all, the suffering of millions will not be allowed to impinge on the profit interests of a tiny elite of multi-millionaires whose interests the government defends.

Later in the day, Bush described the aftermath of the flood as a “temporary disturbance.”

The ruthless attitude of those in power toward the average poor and working class residents of New Orleans was summed up Thursday by Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who declared “it doesn’t make sense” to spend tax dollars to rebuild New Orleans. “It looks like a lot of that place could be bulldozed,” he said.

While Hastert was forced to backtrack from these chilling remarks, they have a definite political logic. To rebuild the lives that have been ravaged by Hurricane Katrina would require mounting a massive government effort that would run counter to the entire thrust of a national policy based upon privatization and the transfer of wealth to the rich that has for decades been pursued by both major parties.

Can anyone truly believe that the current administration and its Democratic accomplices in Congress are going to launch a serious program to construct low-cost housing, rebuild schools and provide jobs for the hundreds of thousands left unemployed by the destruction?

Congress has been virtually silent on the catastrophe in the south. It has nothing to say, having voted to support Bush’s extreme right-wing agenda of massive tax cuts for the rich, huge outlays for war in Iraq and Afghanistan and an ever-expanding Pentagon budget, and billions to finance the Homeland Security Department.

The millionaires club in the Capitol is well aware that it voted to slash funding for elementary infrastructure needs—including urgently recommended improvements in outmoded and inadequate Gulf Coast anti-hurricane and anti-flood systems.

The Democratic Party has, as always, offered no opposition. Indeed, the president was gratified to be able to announce that former Democratic president Bill Clinton would resume his road show with the president’s father, the former Republican president, touring the stricken regions and drumming up support for charitable donations. In this way the Democratic Party has signaled its solidarity with the White House and the Republican policy against any serious federal financial commitment to help the victims and rebuild the devastated regions.

The decisive components of the present tragedy are social and political, not natural. The American ruling elite has for the past three decades been dismantling whatever forms of government regulation and social welfare had been instituted in the preceding period. The present catastrophe is the terrible product of this social and political retrogression.

The lessons derived from past natural and economic calamities—from the deadly floods of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, to the dust bowl and Depression of the 1930s—have been repudiated and derided by a ruling elite driven by the crisis of its profit system to subordinate ever more ruthlessly all social concerns to the extraction of profit and accumulation of personal wealth.

Franklin Roosevelt—an astute and relatively far-sighted representative of his class—had to drag the American ruling elite as a whole kicking and screaming behind a program of social reforms whose basic purpose was to save the capitalist system from the threat of social revolution. Even during his presidency, the large-scale projects in government-funded and controlled social development, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, never became a model for broader measures to alleviate poverty and social inequality. The contradictions and requirements of an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and production for profit resulted in any further projects being shelved.

From the 1970s onward, as the crisis of American capitalism has deepened, the US ruling elite has attacked the entire concept of social reform and dismantled the previously established restrictions on corporate activities.

The result has been a non-stop process of social plunder, producing an unprecedented concentration of wealth at the apex of society and a level of social inequality exceeding that which prevailed in the days of the Robber Barons.

Fraud, the worst forms of speculation and criminality have become pervasive within the upper echelons of American society. This is the underlying reality that has suddenly revealed itself, precipitated by a hurricane, in the form of a collapse of the most elementary forms of social life.

The political establishment and the corporate elite have been exposed as bankrupt, together with their ceaseless insistence that the unfettered development of capitalism is the solution to all of society’s problems.

The catastrophe unleashed by Katrina has unmistakably revealed that America is two countries, one for the wealthy and privileged and another in which the vast majority of working people stand on the edge of a social precipice.

All of the claims that the war on Iraq, the “global war on terrorism” and the supposed concern for “homeland security” are aimed at protecting the American people stand revealed as lies. The utter failure to protect the residents of New Orleans exposes all of these claims as propaganda designed to mask the criminality of the American ruling elite and the diversion of resources away from the most essential needs of the people.

The central lesson of New Orleans is that the elementary requirements of mass society are incompatible with a system that subordinates everything to the enrichment of a financial oligarchy.

This lesson must become the new point of departure in the political orientation of the struggles of American working people. Only the development of a new independent political movement, fighting for the reorganization of economic life on the basis of a socialist program, can provide a way out of the chaos of which the events in New Orleans are a terrible omen.

See Also:
Hurricane's victims left to die on New Orleans streets
[2 September 2005]
Bush rules out significant federal aid to hurricane victims
[1 September 2005]
Crackdown on looting: New Orleans police ordered to stop saving lives and start saving property
[1 September 2005]
Letter from New Orleans: tragedy at stranded hospital
[1 September 2005]

Top of page

The WSWS invites your comments.

[quote=menotellname]

How fitting of you to use this source.

The ICFI rests on the proud heritage of the movement founded by Leon Trotsky, co-leader with Lenin of the Russian Revolution. For more information on the history and program see the further reading list.

First you quote Bob Shrum, now you quote the Trotskites..... 

[quote=SonnyClips]You've been talking about Posse Com for a while the word didn't show up in your post until you found it in an article about it and the ACLU. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[/quote]

As usual, you're confused. The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits federal troops from fulfilling a law enforcement role. I haven't been talking about that until the article mentioned it. My point has been the principle of Federalism and how the Feds don't have the right under law to insert themselves without the request of the local authorities without some very specific caveats. Reread my posts, you may recognize the difference.

 [quote=SonnyClips]

Really I just like to see how creative you can get in defending Master Disaster.

[/quote]

Any rational person can see that the multiple failures of local “leaders” created a situation that the Feds, as if by magic, were held responsible for. The horrific pictures were saw of the situation in NO were ALL created by local authorities. The Feds are guilty of not correcting the situation quicker. They were there in large numbers on Friday, Thursday would have been a better and realistic standard. Now, that’s what a rational person would notice, your failure to do so comes from your hyperpartisanship.

[quote=SonnyClips]

As far as the meno/Sonny convergence theory, it just makes you see like a wantonly ignorant boob.

[/quote]

Yeah, it’s fooled many of us how menotell created an alter-ego that just happens to say the same things, uses the same talking points and the same MO but instead of being black guy who’s a “manager” in the Southeast just happens to be a newbie white guy living in the Northwest….

[[quote=SonnyClips]

"My productions fine," throwing your dick on the table so quickly to such a small jibe? It makes you seem weak. It makes me wonder how your really producing?

[/quote]

[quote=SonnyClips]This is crap. You gotta be pretending now because no one could be as stupid as all of this. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[/quote]

I explained to you what I hold the Feds responsible for. If you want to pretend there are no laws limiting what Brown and/or the Feds can do and that the local authorities can simply be sidestepped, that's your problem. Despite many, many posts on the subject you've yet to detail what Brown should have done that doesn't lean heavily on fantasies about the authority and power he had.

I said the ugly pictures we all saw of NO were the specific falut of bad decisions by local authorities. If you disagree please explain your reasoning, or admit you got nothing...

[quote=SonnyClips]

They had M. Brown in the hot seat getting grilled by Republicans ....

[/quote]

Shameless political grandstanding. One Congresscritter even had the stupidity to say he held Brown responsible for NOT sending in the 82nd Airborne ON HIS OWN to provide security.

[quote=SonnyClips]
You were refering to the Posse Com sh*t back when you were talking about <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Detroit and LBJ you ding dong.

[/quote]

It's obvious you not only can't keep subjects straight, you can't keep posters straight. My point all along has been what powers do the Feds have. The issue of the military functioning as law enforcement (which is what the Posse Comitatus Act covers) was a side issue and Detroit and the riots were part of that side issue. The reason the article mentions the Act is that Bush has suggested giving the Pentagon immediate authority is a disaster, something I've never suggested.

[quote=SonnyClips]
Trotsky had friends among the elitist that run your party, not mine cupcake.

[/quote]

Name them.

[quote=SonnyClips]

As far as Hyperpartisan, I think not.

[/quote]

You wouldn't exactely be the person to ask about your own hyper-partisanship....

 [quote=SonnyClips]
Do you think I am a black person posing as a white guy just because I like Rap.

[/quote]

Could you quote me where I said that or are you simply imagining things?

After these most recent revelations about Tom Delay, does anyone still harbor any illusions as to professional politicians of any description or party being worth a shlt?

[quote=SonnyClips]Here is where you claim I am an African American from the southeast. I may very well find out that I have African ancestry in the future but I am currently a rookie in Oregon of Dutch ancestry.

Yeah, it’s fooled many of us how menotell created an alter-ego that just happens to say the same things, uses the same talking points and the same MO but instead of being black guy who’s a “manager” in the Southeast just happens to be a newbie white guy living in the Northwest….

[/quote]

I'm aware that I said menotell, a black guy "manager"  from the Southeast, created you, a white newbie from the Northeast as an alter-ego. Now, tell me where I said I thought you were black because you liked rap.

[quote=SonnyClips]
Your so fond of wiki look here dummy.Trotsky's Republican Friend

[/quote]

So "your" saying that since Kristol Sr. was a Trotskite in the 1940s in his twenties as a college student, that means Trotsky had "friends" among Republican elites? ROFLMAO....

[quote=SonnyClips]

You are an ass. Make up some sh*t to cover yourself on the Irving Kristol, City College and Trotsky sh*t you dissembling bumpkin.

[/quote]

That's some amazing "logic" "your" using there. Say, by that theory Reagan was a "friend" of organized labor as president. 

[quote=Starka]After these most recent revelations about Tom Delay, does anyone still harbor any illusions as to professional politicians of any description or party being worth a shlt?[/quote]

I must have missed the "revelations". All I see so far is an indictment from a political hack DA who also indicted Kay Bailey Hutchenson. Pardon me while I wait for evidence, then, if he's guilty, I'll help you hang him.

[quote=SonnyClips]All of the nicknames in the following page [/quote] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Wow, an entire post that looks like the result of an allergic drug reaction.....

Let's see if I can make heads or tails of it....

So you admit I never said I thought you were black because you like rap. Fine. You could have saved a great deal of time simply saying so earlier.

The fact that the same DA indicted Hutchenson during an election season and then failed to go to trial says something about his partisanship. The fact the same guy (and elected Democrat) spoke at a Democrat fundraiser where he called Delay a crook says something about his judgment. The fact the Texas Democrat party is in a state of hysteria because the GOP, long the major party in Texas FINALLY undid the Democrat gerrymandering that kept them in office and that Delay did that work, says something about the entire situation. Does that mean Delay's innocent? Not by a mile. Does that mean there are reasonable suspicions about the nature of the indictment? You bet.

So Irv Kristol was a Trotskite in his youth in the 1940s. BFD. That doesn't mean he was a "friend of Trotsky" 40 years later, you nutjob. As to menotell (funny how you hyperventilate to defend him) quoting the ICFI NOW, it's clear THEY'RE a group that didn't learn and move away for him. Quoting that loony bin today is just embarrassing. Need a further explanation? Sorry, your educational privileges have run out.

"Oh and the deal that Bush Brokered with the No Ko's is virtually the same as the one he grenaded that was Brokered by the Clinton admin, Grommet"

 ROFLMAO. This one's just comical. JImmah inserted himself in a diplomatic role between Clinton and NK. He signed a laughable deal with zero verification that led to NK taking the multi-million dollar bribe AND then STILL building nukes. The NK's came clean a decade later and Bush was left to clean up the mess. How you can call that "grenading" is beyond reason.

The Democrats harangued the poor guy for five years trying to get him to go the unilateral route (I thought they opposed unilateral measures?) and meet with NK alone, as Carter did. He refused and worked the six party angle. Even during the 2004 campaign TerAZZZZAAA's empty suit of a husband pontificated about how Bush had failed in this because he refused to meet one on one with NK. Obviously the six-party talks were a far better plan.

The rest of your blather simply didn't meet even the low standards we accept here, I'll let it pass...

BTW, Carter’s presidency was an unmitigated disaster and his forays into diplomacy since have been just as bad. The guy should shut up and build houses. After all, he can continue to bask in the glory of “inventing” Habitat for Humanity, something he didn’t do.

[quote=Starka]I'll be busy all day tomorrow, so I'd just as soon lynch 'em all tonight.[/quote]

If you found a large group of people completely free of fraud or corruption and/or have found a reasonable alternative to political parties, I'm dying to hear about it.

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=Starka]I'll be busy all day tomorrow, so I'd just as soon lynch 'em all tonight.[/quote]

If you found a large group of people completely free of fraud or corruption and/or have found a reasonable alternative to political parties, I'm dying to hear about it.

[/quote]

By the very nature of politics in our time, people who are "free of fraud or corruption" shy away from public office.  That doesn't mean that we must tolerate this behavior in our public officials.

[quote=Starka]

By the very nature of politics in our time, people who are "free of fraud or corruption" shy away from public office. 

[/quote]

I wouldn't paint with so wide a brush. I'm sure there are plenty of ethical people on both sides of the aisle.

[quote=Starka]

That doesn't mean that we must tolerate this behavior in our public officials.

[/quote]

I never said we should tolerate anything of the sort. I was simply responding to your comment  "... does anyone still harbor any illusions as to professional politicians of any description or party being worth a shlt?" and asking what alternative you had in mind.

The alternative would be to pillory those who abuse the public trust.

I wasn't clear enough?

[quote=Starka]

The alternative would be to pillory those who abuse the public trust.

I wasn't clear enough?

[/quote]

Of course we should pillory those that abuse the public trust. Remember, I offered to help you dispense the justice after the facts come out.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Now, if you could tell me how possible abuse on the part of Delay damns all politicians and both parties or how is it that the "current nature of our politics" keeps honest people out, I'd say you were plenty clear on your larger point.

I'm not trying to be needlessly argumentative with you, just trying to understand your "hang them all" point of view. I hope people never take that attitude with us when some broker behaves like a thug…

Yours is an apples-and-oranges argument, Mike.

I will apply the same standards to brokers when we as a group can increase our pay without any input from those who pay the bills, when all kinds of unrelated fees and expenses can be added to our transactions, when we can retire after one "term" as a broker and be guaranteed COLAs from the public trough, and so on ad nauseum.

[quote=Starka]

Yours is an apples-and-oranges argument, Mike.

I will apply the same standards to brokers when we as a group can increase our pay without any input from those who pay the bills, when all kinds of unrelated fees and expenses can be added to our transactions, when we can retire after one "term" as a broker and be guaranteed COLAs from the public trough, and so on ad nauseum.

[/quote]

Having a complaint about their pay or retirement syetm is one thing, "hang them all", damning all members of both parties or saying honest people stay away from politics is another. It's easy to be deeply cynical, I'd be interested in hearing an alternative.

I'm not trying to be needlessly argumentative with you, just trying to understand your "hang them all" point of view. I hope people never take that attitude with us when some broker behaves like a thug….

Is this more of what you believe to be logical and objective argument? <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

You don't rate the sort of response Starka does. Note those words for  him, not you....

If you look at my long and rather detailed post..

You mean long, boring and disjointed.....

  Like you respond as if I defended Carter or Clinton when I simply stated that the Bush deal was the same.

And you were wrong, it isn't the same deal and it wasn't reached in the same manner.

Bush is at the same point now and with the same deal that Clinton was with NK when he left office.

Hardly. Clinton had been taken for a ride by the NKs. They took his money and with his non-verifiable deal, they built nukes anyway. You might want to ignore the fact that Bush proceeded, over Democrat hysteria, with six-party talks, but that's your problem, not mine.

"Oh and all the list of reasons you gave for your mistrust of Ronnie Earle do not add up to an impeaching of his credibilty. "

If you figure indicting the Senate candidate during an election season and then not following through with a trial and his making of rabid partisan speeches at Democrat fund raisers where he named Delay explicitly, doesn't make him suspect, again, that's your problem.  As I said in the post, it doesn’t make Delay innocent, but it sure gives a legitimate reason to be suspicious of Earl.

You continually offer up arguments that have no warrant.

If that were the case you'd be able to point them out, but you fail to.

And when someone like Starka tries to ....

Don't try to hang your lame arguments on Starka. He's an adult I respect, you're a  child. This will fly right over your little head, but Starka has made negative comments about political parties in general in the past and I tried to further the conversation on the subject.

In short, be quiet when adults are speaking.

Oh and what was the stuff about a drug something or other. I think the word you were looking for is litany or rant.

Thanks, but I prefer allergic drug reaction. "Your" constantly having trouble framing your own posts, don't bother me about mine.

I'll boil down the rest of your piffle;

 He will probably be exonerated in the long term, but that is a long time."

 "one Republican strategist, who asked not to be identified because of his work with Republicans on Capitol Hill" in the New York Times

ROFLMAO.... even if we were to believe the NY Times, the Democrats are in such shambles that they won't be able to take advantage of it all.....

I’ve been lurking in this forum for a while now and I think that this Sonny guy and MikeButler are really a couple of assholes.

[quote=sethllanford]I've been lurking in this forum for a while now and I think that this Sonny guy and MikeButler are really a couple of assholes. [/quote]

Why?  Because they both feel strongly about their points of view?

Just read past the digs, and this is an interesting discussion, with valid points from both posters.

[quote=SonnyClips] You offer no source for your claims and then you fail to make a case for why idicting Huthinson was unfounded. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[/quote]

Please try to be serious. He had her indicted during a political campaign season and failed to bring her to trial. You do the math. That’s’ enough to make any rational person (that would be most everyone but you and Molly Ivins) suspicious.

[quote=SonnyClips]

I know none of this to be true other than from your assertions.

[/quote]

I'm not really interested in providing you with a basic education with the facts. If you're unaware of Ronnie Earl's past, of his indictment of, and failure to bring to trial, KB Hutchenson, I simply don't care to bring you up to speed. Perhaps your side can bring a better informed spokesperson.

[quote=SonnyClips] 

I find this to be the case in your posts. No citation and no argument.

[/quote]

Spare me. Again, providing you with a basic education on the facts isn't my job. A simple Google on your part will provide you with the details of the Hutchenson issue. What I'm telling you isn't facts in dispute, they're common, unchallenged information.

You, otoh, link to an op-ed piece where a retired LTC makes the case (unconvincingly, I would add) that every strategist on the ground in Iraq is wrong, and you pretend this is some weighty assertion.

[quote=SonnyClips]

 Why should anyone be swayed by your suspicion especially if you offer no explanation how they were arrived upon?

[/quote]

I detailed Earl's past. Prove me wrong.

[quote=SonnyClips]
Like the NK deal. Where did you find your explanation? Stating your case as if you believe it is common knowledge does not make it so.

[/quote]

It IS common knowledge that NK violated the agreement Carter made with them. The fact that you're unaware doesn't change that.

[quote=SonnyClips]

 I pointed to experts that are in your camp who disagree with your position on the NK deal.

[/quote]

You claimed so, you didn't support your claim.

You STILL have yet to face the fact that an agreement was made in the six party format Bush worked over Democrat objections, and you've yet to defend their claims that unilateral talks were a better idea.

[quote=SonnyClips]

I have offered ennumerable and credible reasons why I believe that the GOP is imploding.

[/quote]

ROFLMAO, you used various quotes from "unnamed GOP strategists" and a quote from a GOP Congressman who said he believed Delay would be eventually exonerated. Somehow you tried to parlay this momentary ethics cloud with Delay and Frist to am "implosion" based on every policy difference, large and small you have with the administration coupled with today's Democrat talking point about "competence" (as if THEY'VE ever demonstrated any).

 Let me help you out here; Delay and Frist will, or will not be exonerated. Either way, neither are a serious loss of a much larger movement. They’re foot soldiers, and while their problems will give Democrats and their friends in the media something to talk about, it would do lasting damage to the GOP. The Democrats simply have nothing to say. They have no agenda other than rabid Bush hatred. That party is currently in the hands of deeply unserious people. People who take Michael Moore seriously. People who take Howard Dean seriously. People who take Al Franken seriously.

The Kerry campaign is a perfect metaphor for the current Democrat party with his “I voted for it before I voted against it” and “You bet we might have” (when asked if he would have taken military action against Saddam). They stand for zero aside from “I’m not Bush”. And as long as that’s all they have, Delay and Frist mean nothing but a passing sideshow.

 [quote=SonnyClips]
Now say something about drugs or some other quaint country truism that you think should impeach my credibility.

[/quote]

Nah, I pretty much leave the job of impeaching your credibility to you. You're much better at it than I am.

[quote=SonnyClips]Bush's nominee for the O'Connor seat is one more indication of that the GOP is flailing in a pit of its own arrogance and rapaciousness. Here is what the conservative pundits have to say.

Republicans Condemn Miers Pick…

October 9, 2005 at 11:06 AM

Sen. Arlen Specter: "She needs a crash course in constitutional law."

Sen. Trent Lott: "Is she the most qualified person? Clearly, the answer to that is 'no'."

Rush Limbaugh: "It seems to me from the outset that this is a pick that was made from weakness.”

Charles Krauthammer: "To nominate someone whose adult life reveals no record of even participation in debates about constitutional interpretation is an insult to the institution and to that vision of the institution."

Ann Coulter: "This shows stunning arrogance by the president and it is absurd."

George Will: "The president's 'argument' for her amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several reasons."

Jason Garrett Hitzert: "I think it is the latest in a stream of disappointments that have left Conservative activists like myself disgusted with the president."

Best,
Sonny[/quote]

Hmmm, failed to mention how many Democrats support her. The dynamic here, Sonny, is that some on the right wanted an in-you-face fight with a clearly conservative nominee, and Bush didn't give it to them. You can't please everyone....

[quote=SonnyClips]

Spare me. Again, providing you with a basic education on the facts isn't my job. A simple Google on your part will provide you with the details of the Hutchenson issue. What I'm telling you isn't facts in dispute, they're common, unchallenged information.

Some how it eludes me why any educated person would present an argument with facts they can provide no reference for.

[/quote]

If you're in need of the basic, not-in-dispute facts, you're not up to speed enough to be worth the time to chat with. It as if you've walking into a conversation about baseball and you want me to give to a cite that proves that the Yankees really are home based in NYC....

[quote=SonnyClips]
You, otoh, link to an op-ed piece where a retired LTC makes the case (unconvincingly, I would add) that every strategist on the ground in Iraq is wrong, and you pretend this is some weighty assertion.

Here is an example of your pseudosylogistic style that pains me so much. [/quote]

You're young, you'll get over it. You found a critic, wow, there's a real feat. What you fail to grasp is that every expert on the ground disagrees witth him. It's easy to find a critic. The woods are full of critics with theories that don't hold water.

BTW, his "oil spot" theory sounds a great deal like the Vietnam era "pacisifaction" program that moved civilians to villages build behind chain-link fences designed to exclude the VC. The problem was the VC were good at melting into the populace. It's as if they saw themselves as fishes that could blend in with the schools of other fish.

Secondly, the belief that you could even maintain "oil spots" perfectly free of terrorists isn't realistic when you consider the fact that terrorists have been able to sneak into coalition forces mess halls. If that's not a perfectly sealed area, nothing is.

[quote=SonnyClips]You still haven't supported your claim of "every expert on the ground."<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[/quote]

Silly me. I assumed that the reference to the chain of command on the ground currently in <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Iraq would have been clear enough.

 [quote=SonnyClips]

Furthermore I would submit that the critics within the command structure have either been removed or contrary speech has been chilled to the extent that they keep their oppinions to themselves.

[/quote]

In the absence of any proof, you can submit whatever you like. (Do tell us who's been "removed", this should be worth a laugh) I have no doubt in a large command structure you'll find differences of opinion. In the military we don't call it "contrary speech", we call it not knowing enough to stfu when the boss makes a decision you don't like.

[quote=SonnyClips]

I think that your metaphor for why you shouldn't have to back your statements about the Delay indictment shows the level at which you wish to discuss the topic.

[/quote]

See above comment about baseball and the Yankees. What I've said about Earl's comments at a Democrat fundraiser and his indictment of Hutchenson during a political season and then failure to charge her aren't facts in dispute. Oh, and the sky is blue, and I won't be linking you to a source about that either.

[quote=SonnyClips]

I mean Delay may be the proverbial ham sandwich but simply refering to what you believe to be the prosecutors frivolous past performance is not really proving your point.

[/quote]

When the point is the prosecutor's past might not make Delay innocent but it surely does make the indictment questionable, it sure does.

Revelations that have come since we first discussed this, how Earl had to drop the first indictment because he charged Delay with something that wasn't even a crime at the time, how he went back to the GJ that indicted Delay and they refused his second indictment(a fact he withheld) and how he got his latest indictment from a GJ that had only been in session for 3 hours make Earl's conduct even more suspicious.

The rest of your post simply isn’t worth comment…..

[quote=SonnyClips].What I am saying is that f**king with Kay Bailey has about as much to do with Delay being innocent as .....[/quote]

Gee, if only you were really 1/5 as smart as you think you are you'd have properly read my first comment on Earl and Delay and it would have sunk in that I took pains to say Earl's past DOESN'T MEAN DELAY IS INNOCENT, it simply means Earl and his indictment are suspect. Earl's conduct since we started this has proved my point.

[quote=SonnyClips]Hmmm, failed to mention how many Democrats support her. The dynamic here, Sonny, is that some on the right wanted an in-you-face fight with a clearly conservative nominee, and Bush didn't give it to them. You can't please everyone....

I can see now you're starting to get it. Now here is is the question, Why won't Bush go for the in your face fight given that the only supporters he can find is that anemic Democrat Reid. .[/quote]

Let's start with your false assertion that her only Democrat supporter is Reid (who is, btw, hardly weak as he serves as the Democrat LEADER in the Senate.

Senate Dems defend Miers on top court nod

.More unusual is the outright praise from some Democrats for the person who would replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a critical moderate vote on abortion, affirmative action and other close rulings.

"I like what I hear so far," said Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark.

Now, to your question "why". It should be obvious given Bush's history of working with Democrats (and thereby driving more conservative types mad with rage) with NCL and a  Medicare Drug benefit. In fact, if you remember the campaigns, Bush enraged some on the right with his "compassionate conservative" label. He saw a chance to push through someone that Democrats had suggested that wouldn't raise a big fight, and at least in his estimation, got the kind of person on the court he wanted. He's simply not as conservative (and he never has been) as Will, Coulter and the others.

BTW, notice how Pat Bucanhan, the guy who ditched the GOP years ago has been adopted by the MSM as a "Republican critic"?   

[quote=SonnyClips]Yea, Reid is about as anemic as David Dreir who lost out on getting Delays post because he is gay. [/quote]<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

It just never ends with you moonbats, does it?

[quote=SonnyClips]

I can tell that since you never referenced the actual words within Earle's speech ...

[/quote]

I can tell since you had to settle for whimper about me not giving you a link that you Googled it yourself (a quick search of the Houston Chronicle would suffice) and found I was right. Earl DID speak at a Democrat fund raiser, he DID mention an open investigation and Delay BY NAME and he likened him to  a “bully”. Hardly something you’d expect of a prosecutor who’s serious about his job and not just a political hack. You’re also forced to run away from the details of Earl’s attacks on Hutchenson AND his most recent foolishness with indictments and GJs. Most importantly of all you’ve had to back away from the claim that I ever said Earl’s behavior meant Delay was innocent.

[quote=SonnyClips]

Most arguments should teach an individual something this has maybe brought up that some arkie demo supports Meir too.

Best,
Sonny[/quote]

If that’s how you read the article I gave you, fine. Wallow in your delusion….

[quote=SonnyClips]

I'll have to pass on furthering this discussion.

[/quote]

Yeah, go put some ice on that eye, it’s bruising up badly.  You know, getting whipped in these exchanges as often as you have, I would have expected you to learn some humility and perhaps how to lose with grace….

[quote=SonnyClips]You're not going to get me back in you rhetorical hayseed.

Best,
Sonny "left eye" Clips[/quote]

Nobody called you back in, you little puffin jay. Now, go do something for that eye... 

Keeps going and going and going...... This thread..

Hey I think our military should listen to the Democrats on how to run the war.. You know Puff Daddie O, Shawn Penn, Patty Sheehan, Michael Moore and Dan Rather. All of these people know much more then anyone in our government/military.

God bless democracy...

Today I was working as usual with a bunch of high paid anti Bush government employees. I guess they dont like the 3.5% annual raises or something since they work so hard. Well anyways they were talking about how their right for a revolution has been removed. I stated now that we are a civilized society, unlike some African nations where they take axes to womens and childrens heads, we can move forward with political reform.

This person went on to state "political reform is impossible when one party is so powerful." I then stated "from the 80's to the present the Democrats were removed." The guy was aggrivated with my clear and truthful answer, but everyone in the room supported my comment.

It seems to me there are some passionate sides on every issue, but the 50/50 split in support ties to the 01 election. Those who voted for Gore think they were screwed so they hate Bush.

Just thought I would post this. That Scooter Libby is something else. Have at it Gentlemen.

Oh and this is a good one too. Lynne Cheney was a saucy one too.

Hey Seth are you a anti Bush guy?

Either way its kewl… Just today I was listening to a few people who are going to testify that Joe Wilson told many people his wife was a CIA operative. This is such a joke. Joe Wilson is an idiot from the 60s who smoked to much week. The fact that millions went into this case is pathetic. He went to Africa and straight up lied according to the CIA and FBI. Not once was this guy under oath during this investigation.

Maybe all of DC are skum, but MOORE AND WILSON are skum that lie!

I just think that the Republicans write good sex books.

Yeah I hear this book is a bit weird, but I must remember the quote came from the media so its BS. I think I am going to start an ANTI CNN and NBC campaign.

No man you can read the stuff on Amazon. I’m a big L Libertarian by the
way. Used to vote for some Republican until they grew the govnmt to
big. Police state stuff is a little out of control. 

I was a Libertarian until they ran Howard Stern on their ticket.  Just a tad too “fringe element” for my tastes/

no more fringe than the two I mentioned earlier.

Respectfully, it’s rather more bizarre than anything that the other two parties have tried, and that’s saying something.

Sure enough. But those books are saucy for a couple of social conservatives.

What the second libs believe in? Less govn and less taxes?

[quote=SonnyClips]Hate to beat a dead horse but...

When I was arguing that Krepinevich was a well connected insider ....[/quote]

I'm well aware of who Krepinevich is. I'm well aware that he's a critic of the current administration. The Pentagon hired a known critic for an outsider's view, nothing more. They should get a pat on the back for that.

[quote=SonnyClips]

You said the dude was some bumpkin colonel that didn't know what he was talking about, more or less.

[/quote]

I said nothing of the sort. I said I was familar with his book, The Army and Vietnam". I also said he's not on the ground there and you can't assume he speaks for anyone who is. I also pointed out that they tried his "oil spot" plan (it wasn't him at the time), but they called it "Strategic Hamlets" and they were an abject failure.

that should read "wasn't his at the time".....

The guy's well known in military circles. Among his ideas in the past was that we don't need armored forces (opps, then came the first Gulf War where we needed, you guessed it, armored forces) that the NTC (National Training Center) in Death Valley should be shut down. He never advanced beyond LTC and never commanded troops in Iraq. He's also connected to Democrat leaning think tanks like CFR and advised the Kerry camp.

None of those things make him a fool or evil, but they don't make him an expert w/o an agenda, either.

Having an agenda means that you are working with a preconceived ideology.  Nothing wrong with having a plan.  What is wrong is having an agenda which blinds you to the flaws in your plan and the idea that just possibly perhaps there might be another way to look at things.  Having an "agenda" means that you are also not willing to concede that other people may have valid point.

Going into a project or experiment or conducting a poll with the idea that you are going to get X results come hell or high water is having an agenda. Doing the same and being willing to accept that the outcome wasn't exactly what you preconceived is having an open mind.

The reason that agenda has become an epithet to be cast at the left is because most (pay attention I said most......not all) liberals and especially those on the far tin foil hat left have not got open minds and are there to push an agenda.

[quote=SonnyClips]Hey question, what is the conservative facination with the word agenda? It is as if having an agenda is synonmous with being liberal. I would hope that conservatives have an agenda too. Otherwise whats the point?

You don't seem to be spitting the word with the kind of indignation that is characteristic of most. I hoped you could give some insight on this. [/quote]

It's not something exclusive to the left or the right, it simply means you have to consider the underlying bias of a given person when they speak on a topic. Especially when they’re being critical of the opposition.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

For example, if I gave you the name and views of a person otherwise unknown to you, and said you should consider what this person has to say on, say, a Democrat backed proposal, and it turned out he was a member of the Swift Boat Veterans (just to use an inflammatory example), you might consider that person’s bias or agenda. Right? It would only be fair.

He’s not a bad guy, he has a history, and it should be part of the math when you go to consider his opinion. That’s all I’m saying.

Now, tell me, Sonny, who loves you?  Ain’t it great being pals? 

Let me bounce this off of you. I think conservatives have rather astutely adopted the word, and its negative conotation, knowing that it will ring as such in the ears of what might otherwise be left leaning journalists. Journalists that foolishly accept the false notion of objectivity would necessarily recoil at the thought of someone reporting (which can include making documentaries and working as a pundit) might give their own perspective.

This is not a bash on conservatives, its a smart thing to do which is in no way underhanded, so much as an observation. What do you think?

Sure, it is smart marketing of your product or your "agenda".  We should know this since it is what we do all day long.  The fact that the Republicans (leave out the fringe groups on both sides here, since I think they both go to the same tinfoil hat factory) are better at it is probably because many Repubs are business oriented and result oriented. While many Dems are idealists who while they may mean well don't have a real grounded view on the cause and effect of their ideals or even on how the world works 

In college, on debate team, (that sounded so much like....one time...at band camp.. lol...anyway) we learned to first of all be able to argue from your opponent's side so you can be ready to counter every possible argument.  Isn't that also what we do as sales people?  Anticipate all the objections and be ready with a counter.  This is where the Dems seem to be unable to counter.  They only seem to be able to see their own side and unable to even concieve that others can think differently without being "stooopid". We also learned that he who frames the argument gets to win.  Semantics is everything in persuasive arguing. Persuasive arguing is much different than just calling names (chimpymchitler, rednecks, christofacists etc.) and talking in a shriller voice than your opponent.

The lines between objective reporting and opinion pieces has been blurred for some time now.  So much so that it is even questionable if there remains such a thing as objective journalism.  When the majority of the "journalists" approach their stories with an "agenda", whether they knowingly do so or just can't help themselves, the result is a fiasco such as Dan Rather and the fake but accurate memos.  It used to be, before the internet, when we had only three channels on television, only a few newspapers and no talk radio, that they could get away with distorting the truth to suit the agenda they wanted.  No more.  Bloggers and the ability instantly fact check a story that is printed in the NY Times, which used to be the last word, can show the bias, faulty facts and just plain untruths in a matter of minutes.   I love it.

The thread of the century!

Nice to have a leader who does what he says... No bombs in America, 50 of top 55 terrorists dead or captured, freedom movement in Afganistan, Iraq, Saudi, Yugoslavia, Egypt, Pakistan and Libya and the highest military retention in our history. Do the troops believe in our leadership I think so... Are these troops forced to battle with a draft, NO! Highest home ownership in our history. Low unemployment and interest rates.

Yet the left jumps up and down saying the sky will fall like "we will lose 50,000 marching into Bagdad" or "Social Security is fine" or "We will lose the war." I refuse to listen to leaders who obstruct or state these and many more terrible positions.

In the end I leave you with this happy note... GO UCONN & FIRM LEADERSHIP!

Libs just stated their position. Did you hear it?

[quote=SonnyClips]Objective reporting was a myth that came out of the eighteen eighties and the consolidation of news bureaus. Prior to this most newspapers had a huge and admitted bias. When the Pulitzers and the Hearsts conglomerated they streamlined the operations. I think that objectivity has gone the way of the dodo because it was synthetic in the first place.

Although both sides now can manipulate the perception of objectivity being the norm in order to paint the other with the agenda brush. I think in many ways you miss the mark though when you discount the left in their manipulation. No the big media org's aren't the tools of the left any more than the Carlisle Group is running the world. Sloppy maybe but conspiritorial in any guided fashion or through systemic design not so much.

This is a good point. The media has really never been objective... they just pretend to be while using their communication lines to put forward an agenda.   I don't mean each individual reporter. I mean the organization as a whole.

On the other hand mainstream alternatives such as Air America, The Nation, The New Republic, Rush Limbaugh or Fox News(which in many ways is now mainstream) do distinctly have an agenda and have made themselves more appealing to audiences in the process. The ironic thing is that they have come out of the New Journalism(or Hunter Thompson's Gonzo Journalism) and having had roots on the left it seems years of refinement on the Right has given them the edge.

The talk radio alternatives which are mostly right of center arose due to the perceived liberal bias of the main stream media and catered to people who wanted to hear alternatives.  When you listen to someone like Rush Limbaugh you know where he is coming from, just the same as when you listen to Air America.  The problem is that many people tend to listen to what makes them feel comfortable.  That is: some one echoing back to them their own views.  This is very dangerous.  We can't live in an echo chamber and NEED to hear other viewpoints even those we don't agree with.   I think this echo chamber effect is most obvious in the Hollywood culture and hence the declining revenues in movie sales

Don't be so quick to paint us Libs as pie-in-the-sky idealists. In doing so you show a incredible myopia given that so many libs do so goddam well in business. It is like saying that their is no Right wing intelligentsia even though the strategies at work in American Foriegn policy were born of a group of very astute Conservative thinkers. As far as business goes we should not forget all of the organizations that are not only effciently run by libs but started by them. How many Democrats have come out of Goldman Sachs? Lets also look at Intel, Berkshire Hathaway, Soros Fund Management, Microsoft, Occidental Petroleum, etc.

I think you are on to something but it might be a little different than how you have characterized the situation. I don't think that conservatives are across the board endowed with better discipline than libs although discipline is a factor. I think years of being the minority party and having to forge an organization to overcome these obstacles have created a set of best practices that in many ways translates as disciplined.

This is much the same as other movements. Take civil rights for example as successes were achieved message discipline and loyalty to leadership declined. The movement became a victim of its own success. Hundreds of years of group cohesion disipated in less than a generation.

Now look at the Conservatives years of groundwork done by Barry Goldwater and his small plane flights around the country to organize Republicans in rural areas. Ralph Reed contiuing this work by going right to the cilia on the grassroots organizing not only Republican town office holders but Republican school board members as well. William F. Buckley engaging Catholics and challenging their beliefs and whether they were at odds with the politics of the Democrats. All while the liberal politicos got fat off of their influence and power conservatives were pumping iron and getting lean for the fight.

We began to see the results with Nixon somewhat although he was a liberal appologist passing legislation for food stamps(written by Bob Dole), affirmative action(vehemently fought by Goldwater) and Title Nine. It wasn't until Reagan comes along that we see the power of the Conservative movement and the work done by its activists. But the charisma of Reagan outshined the movement of which he was but a charter member, given that Reagan was a force unto himself.

No it would not be until the election of W that we see the full power of the movement. (Although one has to conceed somewhat to the manipulation of the movement by Lee Atwater in the election of the elder Bush) W though is the pinacle of the movement a technocrat that would not have been possible without forty years of diligent hard work by underdogs. But the conservative movement like the Civil Rights movement in the sixties looks at its most powerful when it is at its weakest. The infighting and jockeying for position has started.

Now all that is left is to see if the libs will rise to the challenge. The peril for the country though is that without a cohesive movement on either side who will fill the void?

I don't believe that the Democrats as they are functioning now in catering to the extreme left wing of the party are going to survive as a viable party.  Read Dailykos sometime to see the vitriol and sheer moonbattyness of the left.  These people are supposed to be representing the party of liberalism????  I have never read more hateful bigoted remarks. 

You already see many disillusioned centrist Dems looking for other alternatives.  The same goes for the Republicans.  Having been the party in power for a while, they have drifted far from the goals that got them in power (Contract with America).  Its like that song from the Who, "Won't Get Fooled Again"  Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.   What I expect will happen in the next 5 to 10 years is that new centrist party made up of left of center Dems and right of center Repubs will come about, jettisoning the extremes of both ends of the spectrum.   This happens all the time......shifting of the parties.  

I personally like some of the current administrations fiscal proposals and business friendly attitude, but am not happy with others such as out of control illegal immigration and huge government spending that hasn't been vetoed once.  Entitlement programs (socialism, unfunded Social Security) will bring this country to its knees.  Both parties need to get control of the graft and corruption going on and take some of the Senators and Representatives to the woodshed for a good beating. On the other hand if the Dems get in to power (God help us) over regulation of businesses, excessive environmental controls that are community and business killers and further increases in the feel good entitlement mentality will also bring us down.

Most ordinary people have no grasp of economics or the ability to look at the long term effects of their actions.  Unfortunately we have elected  boobs and ethical pigmies to Congress.[/quote]

Plain ol' democrat...not ashamed but I don't bash people with it either way.

[quote=7GOD63]

The thread of the century!

Nice to have a leader who does what he says... No bombs in America, 50 of top 55 terrorists dead or captured, freedom movement in Afganistan, Iraq, Saudi, Yugoslavia, Egypt, Pakistan and Libya and the highest military retention in our history. Do the troops believe in our leadership I think so... Are these troops forced to battle with a draft, NO! Highest home ownership in our history. Low unemployment and interest rates.

Yet the left jumps up and down saying the sky will fall like "we will lose 50,000 marching into Bagdad" or "Social Security is fine" or "We will lose the war." I refuse to listen to leaders who obstruct or state these and many more terrible positions.

In the end I leave you with this happy note... GO UCONN & FIRM LEADERSHIP!

[/quote]

Yeah, let's go kill people who have done nothing to us (there is still no clear and definable link between Saddam and Al Qeada, no WMD etc...), lie to the American public about our motives, generate greater animosity among the Islamic world and sacrifice the lives of our children.  You probably thought that the Vietnam War was a great idea too.

Afghanistan was fine and understandable.  For Iraq Bush should be impeached, for one of two reasons:

either

1) Extreme incompetence and lack of understanding of how to use intelligence (not using it to justify an already made decision, but to inform for better decisions)

Or.....

2) Plain 'ol lies and deciet

Yeah, let's go kill people who have done nothing to us

Aside from giving financial aid, places to plan and train, and a retirement haven for terrorists, shoot at our planes, plot to kill a foemer president, refused to comply with a cease-fire agreement he'd signed...

(there is still no clear and definable link between Saddam and Al Qeada, no WMD etc...),

There are in fact very clear and definable links between Saddam and Al Qeada. No less a source that Richard Clarke pointed them out. As did the 911 Commission. Saddam had 12 years to prove he didn't have WMDs. He led every intel agency in the world to believe he had them. Perhaps because HE thought he did.

 lie to the American public about our motives,

Let me guess, there's a "IT"S FOR OIL, MAN" sign there somewhere...

".. generate greater animosity among the Islamic world ..."

Because everyone knows the people no longer living under that Taliban and Saddam just hate us, (they used to love us) and that the terrorists would have all pulled down their tents and gone off to a peaceful life had we just not gone to Afghanistan and Iraq. Oh, wait, they had been attacking us for better than a decade before that...

"...and sacrifice the lives of our children. "

You mean our volunteers who see the truth closer than you and I do and re-enlist at amazing rates to continue to press the fight? Why would you call those people "children", except in an attempt to downplay how they disagree with you?

Afghanistan was fine and understandable. 

Another fine example of success having many fathers. There was an awful lot of "NO WAR FOR OIL" and "THIS IS ALL ABOUT A PIPELINE" ranting on the left before we toppled the Taliban.

For Iraq Bush should be impeached, for one of two reasons:

I hope the Democrats follow your advice and go down that path...

1) Extreme incompetence and lack of understanding of how to use intelligence

I think what you mean to say is "for believeing what the prior administration and every intel agency on the planet believed"

Or.....

2) Plain 'ol lies and deciet

Well, when you have nothing else, when you have no alternatives to advance, when you have no facts on your side, when every quote from the prior Democratic administration contradicts you, you can always claim "BUSH LIED!!!!"

Just a point...Most Democrats do not want Bush impeached.  The words President Cheney scare the heck out of us!

Secondly, I would say that the previous poster has been listening to news through only Rush Limbaugh...(Who is by the way no better than the Michael Moore of the Right...same antics...same amount of b.s.)

"Saddam had 12 years to prove he didn't have WMDs. He led every intel agency in the world to believe he had them. Perhaps because HE thought he did."

Funniest line of the thing.  Anyone remember our impetus for going to war?  We asked Saddam's government to report to us about their WMDs and as it has turned out everything in that report has been proven true.  Yet now we are seeing Republicans tell us how he 'led us to believe he had them???"  Um...cough cough...hack hack...um...sorry...choking on the b.s.

[quote=go_rascals]

Just a point...Most Democrats do not want Bush impeached.  The words President Cheney scare the heck out of us!

Secondly, I would say that the previous poster has been listening to news through only Rush Limbaugh...(Who is by the way no better than the Michael Moore of the Right...same antics...same amount of b.s.)

"Saddam had 12 years to prove he didn't have WMDs. He led every intel agency in the world to believe he had them. Perhaps because HE thought he did."

Funniest line of the thing.  Anyone remember our impetus for going to war?  We asked Saddam's government to report to us about their WMDs and as it has turned out everything in that report has been proven true.  Yet now we are seeing Republicans tell us how he 'led us to believe he had them???"  Um...cough cough...hack hack...um...sorry...choking on the b.s.

[/quote]

Go go_rascals

I used to love Bush, until I started to really pay attention.  In fact I sounded just like MikeB. 

Although I'm no Michael Moore fan, I applauded his movie Farenheight 911 (even though there were some of the expected biases).  Why??  Well I knew early on about how the Bush Admin help the Bin Laden family leave the country while all air traffic was grounded (this was when I started to question Bush), and thought it was cool to make that info known to the world.  Yet how come nothing has really been done about it?  NO ONE could get even a domestic flight (transplant patients lost organs etc....) yet the only people who might truly be able to help us locate Bin Laden were shuttled out of the country?  Where's Bush's interests?  Are they in line with the American publics interests?

MikeB,  would you have let the Bin Laden family out of the country right after 911?