Home > Archive > Cobol > March 2008 > Eliot Spitzer, antismoking leader, self-destructs
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Eliot Spitzer, antismoking leader, self-destructs
|
|
| Robert 2008-03-10, 9:56 pm |
| Zero tolerance, no compromise, no mercy.
Bye bye, hypocrite.
| |
| Robert 2008-03-10, 9:56 pm |
| On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:42:49 -0600, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>Zero tolerance, no compromise, no mercy.
>
>Bye bye, hypocrite.
Posted to the wrong newsgroup by mistake. My apologies.
| |
|
| On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:09:18 -0600, Robert wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:42:49 -0600, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>
>
> Posted to the wrong newsgroup by mistake. My apologies.
Still, without knowing anything about this case, it's always good fun to
see a hypocrite go down.
Tim
| |
| HeyBub 2008-03-10, 9:56 pm |
| tim wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:09:18 -0600, Robert wrote:
>
>
> Still, without knowing anything about this case, it's always good fun
> to see a hypocrite go down.
>
I dunno. Hypocrisy gets a bad rap.
The sign that says: "This way to Chicago" doesn't actually GO to Chicago
itself (thereby demonstrating the sign's superior intellect).
90% of gynecologists are male.
Virtually every parent says their 13-year old should not have sex.
There're other examples.
| |
| Robert 2008-03-11, 3:55 am |
| On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 21:51:06 -0500, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>tim wrote:
>
>I dunno. Hypocrisy gets a bad rap.
>
>The sign that says: "This way to Chicago" doesn't actually GO to Chicago
>itself (thereby demonstrating the sign's superior intellect).
Dickens' description of Sam Pecksniff (Martin Chuzzlewit): "Some people likened him to a
direction-post, which is always telling the way to a place, and never goes there".
>There're other examples.
Here's one:
Paterson compared Spitzer’s leadership style with that of Ronald Reagan. “He’s very
directed. Very decision-oriented.” A Spitzer spokeswoman says the Reagan analogy “hits the
nail on the head,” adding that Spitzer “knows when to be hands on, knows when to be hands
off.”
http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/23491/
Whoops. Strike that last remark.
| |
| Michael Mattias 2008-03-11, 7:55 am |
| "Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message
news:03lbt3pivhlcl8o3ccdq9u5iqhg33rkhaf@
4ax.com...
> Zero tolerance, no compromise, no mercy.
>
> Bye bye, hypocrite.
Well, he *has* been working tirelessly for twenty-plus years to keep his
name at the center of public attention....
| |
| Howard Brazee 2008-03-11, 6:56 pm |
| On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 21:51:06 -0500, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>I dunno. Hypocrisy gets a bad rap.
>
>The sign that says: "This way to Chicago" doesn't actually GO to Chicago
>itself (thereby demonstrating the sign's superior intellect).
The sign doesn't go?
>90% of gynecologists are male.
90% of computer programmers are made out of flesh.
>Virtually every parent says their 13-year old should not have sex.
Nor full-time jobs.
>There're other examples.
What makes these examples of hypocrisy?
| |
|
| On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:27:02 -0500, Michael Mattias wrote:
> "Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message
> news:03lbt3pivhlcl8o3ccdq9u5iqhg33rkhaf@
4ax.com...
>
> Well, he *has* been working tirelessly for twenty-plus years to keep his
> name at the center of public attention....
This saga prompts a thought...
I was wondering why the Democratic majority in congress has been so tame
and has basically gone along with just about everything George W. Bush has
wanted for the past year. This case may actually offer a clue.
With the massive expansion of monitoring of emails, financial
transactions, credit card records, phone calls, Internet accesses and s
forth by the government since the 9/11 attack, there must
be a huge amount of material available to the administration.
They could then use that material to pressure all sorts of people to do
their bidding. This sort of thing is not without precedent. J. Edgar
Hoover was able to stay in charge of the FBI for many years when he
should have gone, reportedly in large measure because he had a dossier on
most of the decision makers in government. Similarly Richard Nixon used the
IRS to put pressure on his enemies.
There are so many laws and they are so complex that it is just about
physically impossible to avoid some infractions.
Tim
| |
| Michael Mattias 2008-03-15, 6:56 pm |
| "tim" <TimJ@internet.com> wrote in message
news:13tm9o3r09to21f@corp.supernews.com...
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:27:02 -0500, Michael Mattias wrote:
>
>
> This saga prompts a thought...
> With the massive expansion of monitoring of emails, financial
> transactions, credit card records, phone calls, Internet accesses and s
> forth by the government since the 9/11 attack, there must
> be a huge amount of material available to the administration.
>
> They could then use that material to pressure all sorts of people to do
> their bidding...
When you brought up the late Mr. Hoover a little later in your title I was
reminded of a story about the President often associated with him, Lyndon
Johnson. Johnson once 'leaked' a news story that Hoover was about to be
fired, allowed the paper print it, then later that day announced Hoover
would be director essentially forever. (later coarsely suggesting the
newpaper engage in an intimate act with itself).
Anyway, the point is you don't really need a lot of documentation to
'influence' others...
When LBJ was Senate majority leader, a member of his party was in a tough
re-election campaign and came to Johnson for advice. After reviewing the
campaign and the numbers, Johnson said, "What you have to do is leak to the
newpapers that your opponent is cheating on his wife."
The candidate quickly protested: "But sir, we have no evidence he's doing
that; we could never prove it."
Johnson replied, "Hell, you don't have to prove it; you just have to get
him denying it on the record!"
MCM
This
| |
| HeyBub 2008-03-15, 6:56 pm |
| tim wrote:
>
> This saga prompts a thought...
>
> I was wondering why the Democratic majority in congress has been so
> tame and has basically gone along with just about everything George
> W. Bush has wanted for the past year. This case may actually offer a
> clue.
I wouldn't say they've been "tame." In the past year, there have been
seventeen resolutions, bills, and whatnot introduced, debated, and voted
upon requiring the U.S. to leave Iraq. All have failed. On the other hand,
prior to the Democrats taking over the Congress, there were 24 consecutive
quarters of economic growth. This, in spite of 9-11, Katrina, the war, and
other significant events. It took the Democrats less than a year to XXXX it
all up.
>
> With the massive expansion of monitoring of emails, financial
> transactions, credit card records, phone calls, Internet accesses and
> s forth by the government since the 9/11 attack, there must
> be a huge amount of material available to the administration.
Republicans don't do that sort of thing.
| |
|
| On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 08:12:37 -0500, Michael Mattias wrote:
> When LBJ was Senate majority leader, a member of his party was in a tough
> re-election campaign and came to Johnson for advice. After reviewing the
> campaign and the numbers, Johnson said, "What you have to do is leak to the
> newpapers that your opponent is cheating on his wife."
>
> The candidate quickly protested: "But sir, we have no evidence he's doing
> that; we could never prove it."
>
> Johnson replied, "Hell, you don't have to prove it; you just have to get
> him denying it on the record!"
>
> MCM
It's a dirty business. I've been following the US campaign so far but
revulsion has almost overtaken curiosity as a motivating factor so it's
likely I'll be turning off soon.
A close relative was a campaign manager in a political campaign many years
ago. He came across some very damaging information about a high-level
figure on the other side. He contacted party HQ and gave them the
information but heard nothing more about it, which surprised him greatly.
After the campaign, he went to HQ for a debrief. He asked them about the
information he had provided. They said, thank you very much, it was very
valuable, wonderful. But we never heard anything about it - so how was it
useful? Well, it was very useful - we "traded" it. That is, someone on the
other side had something on one of "our people" so we traded the
information, and neither story got out there. As a result two crooked
politicians stayed in the game.
Tim
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-03-15, 9:58 pm |
| "Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
Just imagine what Hillary or Obama would do, if elected. Shudder.
[color=darkred]
> Sin and misuse of prosecutorial power are both bi-partisan and
> bi-ideological.
The Republican electorate is far less tolerant of many character flaws
than the Democratic electorate. Every Democratic president since FDR,
with the single exception of Carter, was a serious womanizer. AFAIK,
the only Republican president in that timeframe who had *ever* had an
affair was Eisenhower with his jeep driver when he was in England during
WWII, before his presidency. A Republican president who did what Clinton
did would have zero chance at re-election.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| HeyBub 2008-03-15, 9:58 pm |
| Clark F Morris wrote:
> Sin and misuse of prosecutorial power are both bi-partisan and
> bi-ideological.
You're right. I misspoke.
Let me rephrase:
Republicans, as a general rule, don't do that sort of thing. Democrats, as a
general rule, don't follow the rules.
Republicans and conservatives generally believe that no good can come from
an immoral or illegal act. The process determines the result, the rule of
law is all.
Democrats and liberals generally believe that the end justifies the means,
that there are no moral, ethical, or legal contraints if the result is
desirable. The result determines the legality of the process.
| |
| Robert 2008-03-16, 4:03 am |
| On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 20:42:39 -0500, "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>"Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>Just imagine what Hillary or Obama would do, if elected. Shudder.
>
>
>The Republican electorate is far less tolerant of many character flaws
>than the Democratic electorate. Every Democratic president since FDR,
>with the single exception of Carter, was a serious womanizer. AFAIK,
>the only Republican president in that timeframe who had *ever* had an
>affair was Eisenhower with his jeep driver when he was in England during
>WWII, before his presidency. A Republican president who did what Clinton
>did would have zero chance at re-election.
You are saying Republicans have no sex drive. Is that good or bad? Why is it good to have
frigid people in charge?
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-03-16, 6:55 pm |
| "Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> You are saying Republicans have no sex drive. Is that good or bad?
> Why is it good to have frigid people in charge?
Do you have a sex drive? Do you therefore rape every woman in sight?
It's not about having or not having natural desires; it's about restraint.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Cobol_Blues 2008-03-16, 6:55 pm |
| gOn Mar 10, 7:42=A0pm, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
> Zero tolerance, no compromise, no mercy.
>
> Bye bye, hypocrite.
One thing I've noticed that often happens in these situations where
Politician X gets into trouble, we usually hear their party
affiliation, assuming they are a Republican. It will be REPUBLICAN
Governor X is accused of molesting 6 nuns and kicking a puppy. Whereas
if the politican is a Democrat, the mention of their party affilation
is not always as regularly, if ever, mentioned.
In this case, Gov. Spitzer, I was not sure of his party affilation
until I just now did a Google search. It's been big news and I haven't
yet heard which party he is affiliated with. I haven't been obsessed
with the story, but since I had never heard the word 'Republican'
mentioned, I was assuming he was a Democrat. And in this case, that
was true.
Now I'm not saying this is always the case because it isn't, but it
does seem that when party affilation is NOT mentioned in these sorts
of scandals, the person involved is more than likely, more often than
not, a Democrat.
Is this bias?
I don't think that this sort of selective behavior (if it is such)
really benefits all of our interests in the long run. But I don't
expect it to change either. This sort of thing makes the 'press' look
biased at least, I would say. It doesn't seem I have to Google a
Republican who gets into trouble to check their party affilation, so
that alone gives me an uncomfortable feeling in my stomach, but I've
gotten used to it over the years. Maybe some Kool Aid would settle my
stomach?
My 2 cents anyway. And very off topic.
RG
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-03-16, 6:55 pm |
| "Cobol_Blues" <ranking.groin@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
Anyone who doubts, or is unsure, about media bias should read the book
"Bias" by Bernard Goldberg, long time CBS newsman, who claims never to
have voted for a republican president in his life. Himself a liberal,
Goldberg insists that liberal bias runs deep in the media, which is
obvious to anyone not already leaning seriously to the left. Note that
Goldbers tends to agree with the media's political opinion, he just
objects to their extremely biased reporting, and clearly documents it.
http://www.amazon.com/Bias-Insider-...t/dp/0895261901
The surveys I've seen show the media is about 98% liberal, whereas the
population as a whole is somewhat more conservative than than liberal,
and has been growing more so for decades.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| SkippyPB 2008-03-16, 6:55 pm |
| On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 20:42:39 -0500, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>"Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>Just imagine what Hillary or Obama would do, if elected. Shudder.
>
Yeah just think. The middle and lower class might actually get a
break rather than the top 1% of the population. You know those $4.00
a gallon prices you are paying or will be paying at the pump? Those
oil companies are subsidized to the tune of billions of dollars by the
US government. Thank you republicans. That's really fair.
And the Dems didn't screw up anything. The economy has been on a
downward slid ever since Bush took office. They just changed the
numbers to make it look good. The real unemployment rate is way over
5% when you take into account those who are unemployed and don't file
for unemployment insurance any longer because their benefits ran out.
The job growth that Bush likes to tout is almost all in the service
industry. Those are jobs that barely pay minimum wage. What he never
talks about are the thousands of manufacturing and technical jobs that
have been lost.
But you go ahead and delude yourself into thinking the Democrats did
that and the Republicans are your savior.
>
The democrats voted to hold the telecom companies liable for Bush's
warrentless telephone taps. The Republicans blocked it and Bush would
veto it anyway.
>The Republican electorate is far less tolerant of many character flaws
>than the Democratic electorate. Every Democratic president since FDR,
>with the single exception of Carter, was a serious womanizer. AFAIK,
>the only Republican president in that timeframe who had *ever* had an
>affair was Eisenhower with his jeep driver when he was in England during
>WWII, before his presidency. A Republican president who did what Clinton
>did would have zero chance at re-election.
You're talking about the far right wing of the Republican party. The
party centralists and moderates are not as picky.
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"With global warming, somebody's baby is going to have to burst into
flames to make people do the right thing."
-- Chris Rock
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
| |
| SkippyPB 2008-03-16, 6:55 pm |
| On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 21:38:10 -0500, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>Clark F Morris wrote:
>
>You're right. I misspoke.
>
>Let me rephrase:
>
>Republicans, as a general rule, don't do that sort of thing. Democrats, as a
>general rule, don't follow the rules.
>
>Republicans and conservatives generally believe that no good can come from
>an immoral or illegal act. The process determines the result, the rule of
>law is all.
>
>Democrats and liberals generally believe that the end justifies the means,
>that there are no moral, ethical, or legal contraints if the result is
>desirable. The result determines the legality of the process.
>
Once again another blasphemous and totally incorrect usage of the word
"liberal" or "liberals" or "liberalism". The meaning of liberalism is
a political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the
autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties,
government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection
from arbitrary authority. The meaning of Republican is just the exact
opposite. I'll take liberalism any day over the tyrannical,
unamerican, unconstitutional leadership we've had for nearly 8 years.
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"With global warming, somebody's baby is going to have to burst into
flames to make people do the right thing."
-- Chris Rock
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
| |
| tlmfru 2008-03-16, 6:55 pm |
|
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:kW_Cj.19501$dT.19166@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
> The Republican electorate is far less tolerant of many character flaws
> than the Democratic electorate. Every Democratic president since FDR,
> with the single exception of Carter, was a serious womanizer. AFAIK,
> the only Republican president in that timeframe who had *ever* had an
> affair was Eisenhower with his jeep driver when he was in England during
> WWII, before his presidency. A Republican president who did what Clinton
> did would have zero chance at re-election.
> --
While your take on presidential history may well be accurate, I'd be very
wary about generalizations concerning Republicans. I have never found a
need to revise my opinion about ANY group of human beings: said group has no
more saints and no fewer villains than any other group. Therefore if the
need is urgent enough even Republicans will overlook unacceptable behaviour.
PL
| |
| tlmfru 2008-03-16, 6:55 pm |
|
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:8HbDj.19258$Er2.16586@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> The surveys I've seen show the media is about 98% liberal, whereas the>
population as a whole is somewhat more conservative than than liberal,
> and has been growing more so for decades.
That is a very peculiar combination. I would have to conclude from what you
say that less than half of the population of the US consumes 98% of the
media output. That is, unless the US isn't a free market where people can
buy what they want to.
PL
| |
| HeyBub 2008-03-16, 6:56 pm |
| SkippyPB wrote:
>
>
> Yeah just think. The middle and lower class might actually get a
> break rather than the top 1% of the population. You know those $4.00
> a gallon prices you are paying or will be paying at the pump? Those
> oil companies are subsidized to the tune of billions of dollars by the
> US government. Thank you republicans. That's really fair.
Gas is $5.20/gallon in some parts of California. Still, that's not the most
its ever been nor is that price anywhere NEAR the historical maximum in
terms of hours worked per gallong. As for the middle and lower classes
getting a tax break, well, they ought to get the same break as everyone
else.
>
> And the Dems didn't screw up anything. The economy has been on a
> downward slid ever since Bush took office. They just changed the
> numbers to make it look good. The real unemployment rate is way over
> 5% when you take into account those who are unemployed and don't file
> for unemployment insurance any longer because their benefits ran out.
Downward slide? Surely you jest. The unemployment rate is NOT based on the
number of people who file for unemployment - that's a completely separate
figure, as is the Household Unemployment rate.
The very first thing the Democrats started muttering about when they took
over the legislative branch was not extending the Bush tax cuts. Businesses,
faced with the prospect of a significant tax increase in two or three years
started making plans to address it. They cut back on planned expansions,
enlarging their facilities, hiring and training workers. They started
off-shore entities and incorporated subsidiaries in more tax-friendly
jurisdictions.
Just this past w , the Democrats passed a budget authorization bill which,
for the first time, included repeal of the Bush tax cuts in two years.
Expect more businesses and individuals to take protective steps.
>
> The job growth that Bush likes to tout is almost all in the service
> industry. Those are jobs that barely pay minimum wage. What he never
> talks about are the thousands of manufacturing and technical jobs that
> have been lost.
Jesus! Adam Smith put this notion to rest over 200 years ago. It is GOOD
that the U.S. lose manufacturing jobs that can be done better elsewhere. You
really should keep up.
>
> The democrats voted to hold the telecom companies liable for Bush's
> warrentless telephone taps. The Republicans blocked it and Bush would
> veto it anyway.
Right. Democrats are on the side of the terrorists (and the trial lawyers -
which is pretty much the same thing).
| |
| HeyBub 2008-03-16, 6:56 pm |
| SkippyPB wrote:
>
> Once again another blasphemous and totally incorrect usage of the word
> "liberal" or "liberals" or "liberalism". The meaning of liberalism is
> a political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the
> autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties,
> government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection
> from arbitrary authority. The meaning of Republican is just the exact
> opposite. I'll take liberalism any day over the tyrannical,
> unamerican, unconstitutional leadership we've had for nearly 8 years.
>
You're probably right about the classic definition of "liberal."
I suppose that's why the Democrats have started calling themselves
"progressives."
| |
|
| On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 10:17:05 -0500, Judson McClendon wrote:
> Do you have a sex drive? Do you therefore rape every woman in sight?
> It's not about having or not having natural desires; it's about restraint.
As I understand it, all of these activities were entirely consensual.
Tim
| |
| HeyBub 2008-03-16, 9:56 pm |
| Cobol_Blues wrote:
> gOn Mar 10, 7:42 pm, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
>
> One thing I've noticed that often happens in these situations where
> Politician X gets into trouble, we usually hear their party
> affiliation, assuming they are a Republican. It will be REPUBLICAN
> Governor X is accused of molesting 6 nuns and kicking a puppy. Whereas
> if the politican is a Democrat, the mention of their party affilation
> is not always as regularly, if ever, mentioned.
You never hear a story about a barking dog or a crying baby. News is seldom
about the normal.
When a Republican gets in trouble, the fact that he IS a Republican is
newsworthy. When a Democrat does something nasty, his party affiliation is
not remarkable at all.
| |
| tlmfru 2008-03-17, 3:56 am |
|
HeyBub <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:13tp208mdqlvhed@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Republicans, as a general rule, don't do that sort of thing. Democrats, as
a
> general rule, don't follow the rules.
>
> Republicans and conservatives generally believe that no good can come from
> an immoral or illegal act. The process determines the result, the rule of
> law is all.
>
> Democrats and liberals generally believe that the end justifies the means,
> that there are no moral, ethical, or legal contraints if the result is
> desirable. The result determines the legality of the process.
>
Judging by this - Republicans and conservatives generally are impossibly
smug, judgemental, generalizing, closed-minded people.
Both "immoral" and "illegal" are situation-dependent concepts. The "rule"
of law is no more immutable than than its basic assumptions - which vary
from society to society.
PL
| |
| HeyBub 2008-03-17, 6:56 pm |
| tlmfru wrote:
> HeyBub <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:13tp208mdqlvhed@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Judging by this - Republicans and conservatives generally are
> impossibly smug, judgemental, generalizing, closed-minded people.
Not that there's anything wrong with that...
>
> Both "immoral" and "illegal" are situation-dependent concepts. The
> "rule" of law is no more immutable than than its basic assumptions -
> which vary from society to society.
>
Republicans, conservatives, and religious folk tend to believe that morality
is absolute.
Secular progressives, atheists, and Democrats are convinced that morality is
situational. Depending on the desired outcome, it is moral to murder, steal,
lie, or watch re-runs of Gilligan's Island.
| |
| HeyBub 2008-03-17, 6:56 pm |
| tlmfru wrote:
> Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
> news:8HbDj.19258$Er2.16586@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> population as a whole is somewhat more conservative than than liberal,
>
> That is a very peculiar combination. I would have to conclude from
> what you say that less than half of the population of the US consumes
> 98% of the media output. That is, unless the US isn't a free market
> where people can buy what they want to.
>
I don't think it's 98%. A study by some worthy group in recent years put the
number of liberals in newsrooms at 87%.
Peculiar, but true. The Fox cable network has seven of the top ten cable
network news and opinion shows.
Many people don't get a chance. There are less than a dozen cities in the
U.S. with more than one (major) daily newspaper.
Murdoch was brilliant. He concluded that the American news outlest were left
of center but 40% of the country was conservative. If he could start a
network that was right of center, or even in the middle, he could get that
40% and leave the others to divvy up the remaining 60%.
He was right.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2008-03-17, 6:56 pm |
| On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 20:42:39 -0500, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
>Just imagine what Hillary or Obama would do, if elected. Shudder.
My guess is that the Democrats will be as successful at doing what the
people are electing them to do as the Republicans were at doing what
the people who elected them to do.
The fiscal conservatives got a huge deficit.
The anti-abortionists got no change.
The Constitutional conservatives got Big Brother.
The isolationists got a world economy with legal and illegal aliens
and Americans who don't look and talk the way we do.
I don't see that the Democrats are going to be more competent,
especially during the recession caused by paying for the War in Iraq
(which was paid for by a deficit - which is a tax that more than
countered Bush's tax cuts).
Spend the money here, not there.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2008-03-17, 6:56 pm |
| On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 20:42:39 -0500, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>The Republican electorate is far less tolerant of many character flaws
>than the Democratic electorate. Every Democratic president since FDR,
>with the single exception of Carter, was a serious womanizer. AFAIK,
>the only Republican president in that timeframe who had *ever* had an
>affair was Eisenhower with his jeep driver when he was in England during
>WWII, before his presidency. A Republican president who did what Clinton
>did would have zero chance at re-election.
I didn't know about Truman's affairs, if he had them. But I'd
rather have a president who abused his power for sex than one who
abused his power for money.
| |
| SkippyPB 2008-03-17, 6:56 pm |
| On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 16:49:25 -0500, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>SkippyPB wrote:
>
>Gas is $5.20/gallon in some parts of California. Still, that's not the most
>its ever been nor is that price anywhere NEAR the historical maximum in
>terms of hours worked per gallong. As for the middle and lower classes
>getting a tax break, well, they ought to get the same break as everyone
>else.
>
It's higher in California because the state taxes are higher as are
the anti-pollution standards. With crude oil selling today at over
$110 a barrel and with the summer blends about to be refined, I can
see $4.50 or more a gallon in states other than California or Hawaii
which generally have the highest rates per gallon.
And I'm not talking about tax breaks. There are other areas that need
to be addressed that would help the middle and lower classes. Getting
the deficit under control would help everyone, e.g.
>
>Downward slide? Surely you jest. The unemployment rate is NOT based on the
>number of people who file for unemployment - that's a completely separate
>figure, as is the Household Unemployment rate.
>
That is just not true. The insured unemployment rate or jobless rate
is calculated by dividing the number of insured unemployed by the
number of employees that are considered covered or eligible for
unemployment insurance. Covered employees represent those working as
well as those receiving unemployment benefits.
Once you quit receiving benefits, you are not part of this rate. This
is acutally entitled the insured unemployment rate, aka jobless rate.
The unemployment rate that is reported monthly by the US Labor
Department is calculated by doing two surveys.
First, you have the the establishment survey which is based on a
sample of 400,000 business establishments. Notable statistics include
nonfarm payrolls, hours, and earnings.
Secondly, you have the household survey which covers nearly 60,000
households, and is mostly known for producing the unemployment rate
and other data related to the labor force.
Neither will give you the actual unemployment rate which is, in
reality, higher than what is reported.
The two surveys independently tally the number employed. While the
surveys tend to track each other over time, they can vary widely from
month to month. According to the BLS, the establishment survey's
nonfarm payroll results carry more weight. Yet the BLS also maintains
that both surveys are needed to obtain a more complete picture of the
overall labor market.
Each survey attempts to mend the other's shortfalls. While the
establishment survey can be more comprehensive because it covers a
larger sample, it doesn't include agricultural, private-household and
self-employed workers. These are counted in the household survey. Soft
employment conditions tend to increase the number of self-employed,
because many people who were laid off eventually start their own
businesses. Since the household survey includes the self-employed and
has a better chance of counting new hires at newly formed small
businesses, it can be the more useful survey when the economy is
exiting a period of soft conditions.
In addition to watching nonfarm payrolls, economists and analysts use
the labor report to gauge disposable income, wage inflation and
employment by industry.
>The very first thing the Democrats started muttering about when they took
>over the legislative branch was not extending the Bush tax cuts. Businesses,
>faced with the prospect of a significant tax increase in two or three years
>started making plans to address it. They cut back on planned expansions,
>enlarging their facilities, hiring and training workers. They started
>off-shore entities and incorporated subsidiaries in more tax-friendly
>jurisdictions.
>
>Just this past w, the Democrats passed a budget authorization bill which,
>for the first time, included repeal of the Bush tax cuts in two years.
>Expect more businesses and individuals to take protective steps.
>
>
That is just ridiculous. The main thrust behind the Bush tax cuts was
to spur economic growth. Well it just didn't happen. The draining of
resources to overseas workers was going on before Bush gave the tax
cuts. It was supposed to stem the tide. It didn't.
Besides, that budget bill you are talking about hasn't been passed
yet, so it, therefore, has had no effect and it probably won't pass in
its present form.
>
>Jesus! Adam Smith put this notion to rest over 200 years ago. It is GOOD
>that the U.S. lose manufacturing jobs that can be done better elsewhere. You
>really should keep up.
>
Adam Smith's economics were great for the 1700's not the 2000's. Tell
Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania among others that losing those
manufacturing jobs was a good thing. I would argue that, in some
respects, losing those jobs was a good thing if it had forced
companies to retrain their work force to provide more technically
advanced jobs and services. But it didn't because there was no
incentive to do so. The only people who benefited from this loss were
the CEO's and Board Members, the mainstay of the Republican party. The
workers who were left out in the cold, the mainstay of the Democratic
party, have not benefited.
>
>Right. Democrats are on the side of the terrorists (and the trial lawyers -
>which is pretty much the same thing).
>
>
>
And The Republicans think the constitution is just a suggestion.
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"I wan' all dem kids to do what I do, to look up to me. I wan' all the kids to
copulate me."
-- ex-Chicago Cubs outfielder Andre Dawson on being a role model
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
| |
| SkippyPB 2008-03-17, 6:56 pm |
| On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:03:58 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
wrote:
>On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 20:42:39 -0500, "Judson McClendon"
><judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
>
>I didn't know about Truman's affairs, if he had them. But I'd
>rather have a president who abused his power for sex than one who
>abused his power for money.
Or control like Nixon.
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"I wan' all dem kids to do what I do, to look up to me. I wan' all the kids to
copulate me."
-- ex-Chicago Cubs outfielder Andre Dawson on being a role model
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
| |
| SkippyPB 2008-03-17, 6:56 pm |
| On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:41:44 -0500, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>[color=darkred]
>Secular progressives, atheists, and Democrats are convinced that morality is
>situational. Depending on the desired outcome, it is moral to murder, steal,
>lie, or watch re-runs of Gilligan's Island.
>
But Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew were Republicans!
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"I wan' all dem kids to do what I do, to look up to me. I wan' all the kids to
copulate me."
-- ex-Chicago Cubs outfielder Andre Dawson on being a role model
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
| |
| SkippyPB 2008-03-17, 6:56 pm |
| On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 11:13:56 -0500, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>"Cobol_Blues" <ranking.groin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Anyone who doubts, or is unsure, about media bias should read the book
>"Bias" by Bernard Goldberg, long time CBS newsman, who claims never to
>have voted for a republican president in his life. Himself a liberal,
>Goldberg insists that liberal bias runs deep in the media, which is
>obvious to anyone not already leaning seriously to the left. Note that
>Goldbers tends to agree with the media's political opinion, he just
>objects to their extremely biased reporting, and clearly documents it.
>
>http://www.amazon.com/Bias-Insider-...t/dp/0895261901
>
>The surveys I've seen show the media is about 98% liberal, whereas the
>population as a whole is somewhat more conservative than than liberal,
>and has been growing more so for decades.
And why do you think that is Judson? Do you think it might have
something to do with the way Nixon and other Republican
administrations, including Bush's - both of them, tried to supress the
news?
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"I wan' all dem kids to do what I do, to look up to me. I wan' all the kids to
copulate me."
-- ex-Chicago Cubs outfielder Andre Dawson on being a role model
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
| |
| SkippyPB 2008-03-17, 6:56 pm |
| On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:49:48 -0500, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>tlmfru wrote:
>
>I don't think it's 98%. A study by some worthy group in recent years put the
>number of liberals in newsrooms at 87%.
>
> Peculiar, but true. The Fox cable network has seven of the top ten cable
>network news and opinion shows.
>
>Many people don't get a chance. There are less than a dozen cities in the
>U.S. with more than one (major) daily newspaper.
>
>Murdoch was brilliant. He concluded that the American news outlest were left
>of center but 40% of the country was conservative. If he could start a
>network that was right of center, or even in the middle, he could get that
>40% and leave the others to divvy up the remaining 60%.
>
>He was right.
>
Yeah so far right, he's nearly off the edge.
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"I wan' all dem kids to do what I do, to look up to me. I wan' all the kids to
copulate me."
-- ex-Chicago Cubs outfielder Andre Dawson on being a role model
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
| |
| tlmfru 2008-03-17, 6:56 pm |
|
HeyBub <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:13tst8n5rmnia62@corp.supernews.com...
> tlmfru wrote:
>
> Secular progressives, atheists, and Democrats are convinced that morality
is
> situational. Depending on the desired outcome, it is moral to murder,
steal,
> lie, or watch re-runs of Gilligan's Island.
>
>
Without prejudice to the other points - I concede the immorality of watching
re-runs of Gilligan's Island!
PL
| |
| Howard Brazee 2008-03-17, 6:56 pm |
| On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:41:44 -0500, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>Republicans, conservatives, and religious folk tend to believe that morality
>is absolute.
Such as "Thou Shalt Not Kill" except when the state tells us to. (Or
when we decide that the Bible really means what my copy says except in
this case).
Or "You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of
anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or
that is in the water under the earth.", unless, unless, ... I suppose
this one gets ignored completely.
Or "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." unless my job requires
me working.
Or even "Abortion should be illegal - except in the case of rape or
incest (or to save the Mother's life)".
Or "Borrowing from the next generation is bad - unless we are in power
and want to spend the money".
Or "The Constitution is absolute - except when we decide people might
be dangerous".
>Secular progressives, atheists, and Democrats are convinced that morality is
>situational. Depending on the desired outcome, it is moral to murder, steal,
>lie, or watch re-runs of Gilligan's Island.
Give me an example of situational stealing that the Democrats believe
is moral but which the Republicans eschew.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2008-03-17, 6:56 pm |
| On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:09:23 -0400, SkippyPB
<swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
>That is just ridiculous. The main thrust behind the Bush tax cuts was
>to spur economic growth. Well it just didn't happen. The draining of
>resources to overseas workers was going on before Bush gave the tax
>cuts. It was supposed to stem the tide. It didn't.
A deficit budget is a tax. That tax is much greater than the tax
cuts, meaning the nation had a tax increase.
And spending money overseas does not help the domestic economy.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2008-03-17, 6:56 pm |
| On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:15:53 -0400, SkippyPB
<swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
>And why do you think that is Judson? Do you think it might have
>something to do with the way Nixon and other Republican
>administrations, including Bush's - both of them, tried to supress the
>news?
Myself, I doubt it. In general, newsmen and educators do better when
open to new ideas. Conservatives prefer old ideas.
| |
| Clark F Morris 2008-03-17, 6:56 pm |
| On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:55:27 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:15:53 -0400, SkippyPB
><swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>Myself, I doubt it. In general, newsmen and educators do better when
>open to new ideas. Conservatives prefer old ideas.
Conservatives have new ideas and are open to them within a context
that makes the new ideas they accept readily different from the new
ideas accepted or rejected by liberals. In both cases some good ideas
are rejected and bad ones accepted. Of course there is overlap of
ideas acceptable (or not) common to both groups.
Clark Morris
| |
| Howard Brazee 2008-03-17, 6:56 pm |
| On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:15:12 -0300, Clark F Morris
<cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>Conservatives have new ideas and are open to them within a context
>that makes the new ideas they accept readily different from the new
>ideas accepted or rejected by liberals. In both cases some good ideas
>are rejected and bad ones accepted. Of course there is overlap of
>ideas acceptable (or not) common to both groups.
Sounds like an oxymoron - but words change in meaning. What are
examples of New Idea conservatism?
| |
| HeyBub 2008-03-18, 6:56 pm |
| Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:09:23 -0400, SkippyPB
> <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
"It didn't happen?" Twenty-four consecutive quarters of growth? Bah.
[color=darkred]
>
> A deficit budget is a tax. That tax is much greater than the tax
> cuts, meaning the nation had a tax increase.
A budget deficit is NOT a tax until the money is collected. At best, it is a
"future" tax. However, it could be paid for in cheaper dollars - due to
inflation - and not as great as it seems. Further, if the tax cut yields
greater wealth than the deficit, it can be thought of more as a profitable
investment, than a tax.
Suppose the government delays taking $1 from me for five years. In that
time, the $1 multiplies into $10 due to increased wealth. It seems to me the
economy is $9 wealthier than had the delay not taken place.
The difference in thinking is this: Some believe the amount of wealth is
fixed and just needs to be better distributed. Others, like me, hold that
wealth can be created. The government doesn't create wealth; it just moves
money around (in some cases the government actually destroys wealth).
>
> And spending money overseas does not help the domestic economy.
I just can't believe what I'm reading. This is madness.
If my company buys raw materials from overseas for $1 and turn it into
something that we then sell overseas for $5, that seems to be a net of
$4.00. That is, $4 of wealth has been created.
Let's take an extreme example: Bauxite.
There isn't much easily available Bauxite in the U.S. In the interests of
"helping the domestic economy," we could demand that only domestic Bauxite
be used in the manufacture of Aluminum. But then a beer can would be more
valuable than the equivalent weight of gold!
Does anyone seriously want to plop down a $500 deposit on a six-pack of suds
in pursuit of "helping the domestic economy"?
| |
| Howard Brazee 2008-03-18, 6:56 pm |
| On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:14:49 -0500, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>A budget deficit is NOT a tax until the money is collected. At best, it is a
>"future" tax. However, it could be paid for in cheaper dollars - due to
>inflation - and not as great as it seems. Further, if the tax cut yields
>greater wealth than the deficit, it can be thought of more as a profitable
>investment, than a tax.
Inflation is a tax. I used to be able to buy more than I can after
the feds took that money.
The economy isn't helped by paying interest to China and to Saudi
Arabia.
The Republicans were absolutely right when they preached that we
shouldn't tax the future to pay for the present.
>Suppose the government delays taking $1 from me for five years. In that
>time, the $1 multiplies into $10 due to increased wealth. It seems to me the
>economy is $9 wealthier than had the delay not taken place.
The Government is not good at investing my money. The Republicans
have been preaching that for decades, and they were right.
>The difference in thinking is this: Some believe the amount of wealth is
>fixed and just needs to be better distributed. Others, like me, hold that
>wealth can be created. The government doesn't create wealth; it just moves
>money around (in some cases the government actually destroys wealth).
If we invested our money now instead of having the government spend
it, our future would be much brighter.
>
>I just can't believe what I'm reading. This is madness.
>
>If my company buys raw materials from overseas for $1 and turn it into
>something that we then sell overseas for $5, that seems to be a net of
>$4.00. That is, $4 of wealth has been created.
Point taken - Let me re-phrase: "Money spent on trying to convert
Iraqis to Democracy does not help the domestic economy nearly as much
as if the people had spent that money on consumer items".
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-03-18, 6:56 pm |
| "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> Point taken - Let me re-phrase: "Money spent on trying to convert
> Iraqis to Democracy does not help the domestic economy nearly as much
> as if the people had spent that money on consumer items".
On the other hand, how much wealth was destroyed on 9/11? There is
no way to know for sure how valuable dealing with terrorism will be,
but one thing is clear: not dealing with it will be an unmitigated disaster.
Working to build a successful democracy in Iraq seems a better use of
wealth than simply bombing the terrorists and potential terrorists out of
existence, no?
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Howard Brazee 2008-03-18, 6:56 pm |
| On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:09:56 -0500, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
>On the other hand, how much wealth was destroyed on 9/11? There is
>no way to know for sure how valuable dealing with terrorism will be,
>but one thing is clear: not dealing with it will be an unmitigated disaster.
The big assumption is that what we're doing is making things safer.
Some people say it is working, others say it is making things worse.
At any rate, it is a huge cost to our economy - whether or not it is
worthwhile.
>Working to build a successful democracy in Iraq seems a better use of
>wealth than simply bombing the terrorists and potential terrorists out of
>existence, no?
Or bombing the people out of existence and giving the terrorists
reason to rank us above their neighbors as enemies.
But talking business - let's determine our goals and evaluate how we
will know when we have accomplished our goals. Determine what we are
willing to pay, and develop a plan where we can measure our progress
against our objectives. You know, the things we should do when we
have any important project.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2008-03-18, 6:56 pm |
| On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:56:02 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
wrote:
>The big assumption is that what we're doing is making things safer.
>Some people say it is working, others say it is making things worse.
This appears to be a difference in faith, not in anything measurable.
If the President is good, then what he does is good. If he's bad,
then what he does is bad.
Treat it like a business with measurable objectives.
Even though we can argue about coding styles - at least we can
determine whether a program actually works.
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-03-18, 9:55 pm |
| "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> Not necessarily.
>
> IMPOSING Democracy on anyone is simply...undemocratic.
>
> Some countries may not work well under Democracy. It is not a perfect form of Government, simply better than the alternatives. For
> Democracy to work you need responsible, thinking citizens who can separate Church and State.
>
> If a country is living in the Middle Ages, riddled with superstition and fanatical religious zeal, it may well be simply UNABLE to
> adopt a workable democracy. Religious states are not Democracies; they are subject to the dictates of God, as perceived by the
> population at large. The more extreme that perception, the less room for Democracy. The God of most major religions is not known
> for being democratic; one reason people adopt religion in the first place is because they want leadership.
>
> You don't think for one minute that, if everyone in the USA (or even the vast majority) held the beliefs you do, it would be a
> Democracy, do you? :-)
>
> (Me, and people like me would be first against the wall...hardly a democratic process...)
>
> The answer is education, not coercion.
>
> And some respect for the rights of others to be what they want to be (provided they do no harm) would not be out of place, either.
>
> But, until then, "simply bombing the terrorists" may be a good course of action... (provided you can definitively identify "the
> terrorists" of course...)
I'm not saying it would be easy. It may not even be possible. Look at
how much trouble Russia is having, and they chose democracy themselves.
But world terrorism presents a desperate situation, requiring desperate
measures. This is not a school picnic here. Many people in civilized
countries are spoiled into thinking that every problem can be solved
neatly. Some problems do not have solutions, and others have only messy,
expensive and difficult solutions ones. This is not a problem that will
just go away if we just ignore it.
As you say, I'm all for killing the terrorists, when they can be found.
But part of the "education" process is to provide a social environment
in which that can take place. As Bush pointed out, democracies are not
prone to starting wars with innocent neighbors. I do not think it is
the population of Iraq that is so opposed to democracy; the problem is
being imported from other countries, like Iran.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Howard Brazee 2008-03-19, 6:55 pm |
| On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:34:18 -0000, tim <TimJ@internet.com> wrote:
>
>Directly, a hundred billion dollars or so.
>
>By far the greatest cost has been due to the response to 9/11:
>
>* The cost of the massive and inefficient Department of Homeland Security,
>all the "security theater" at airports etc.
>
>* The loss of civil liberties, and other restrictions, resulting from the
>legislation and actions taken in the wake of 9/11.
Also we bribed the victims' relatives by paying huge amounts to the
rich ones. And we are now spending a fortune on airport security -
and slowing down travel for those who aren't rich enough to buy the
cards that let them bypass it. We reorganized a great deal of
bureaucracy at great cost (FEMA wasn't considered adequate to handle
disasters, so it got replaced in time for Katrina).
And, I don't know if this should be considered a cost by itself - but
the terrorists were rewarded by getting the response they wanted.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2008-03-19, 6:55 pm |
| On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:14:24 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>IMPOSING Democracy on anyone is simply...undemocratic.
Agreed. But Democracy should not be an end in itself - it should be
a tool to achieve better life for the people with fewer risks that the
State will do harm to the people. As such it has a better track
record than many other forms of government, at least when it is
limited by a powerful constitution.
But it can be corrupted.
>Some countries may not work well under Democracy. It is not a perfect form
>of Government, simply better than the alternatives. For Democracy to work
>you need responsible, thinking citizens who can separate Church and State.
I'm interested in the new China. It has built up a non-hereditary
class of rulers that get support from the previous generation's
rulers. I suspect it can't keep this up without getting another Mao,
but it might. Trouble is with governments, we can't roll back time
to test how different the people would be with democracy or with
traditional despots.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2008-03-19, 6:55 pm |
| On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 19:09:24 -0500, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>As you say, I'm all for killing the terrorists, when they can be found.
>But part of the "education" process is to provide a social environment
>in which that can take place. As Bush pointed out, democracies are not
>prone to starting wars with innocent neighbors. I do not think it is
>the population of Iraq that is so opposed to democracy; the problem is
>being imported from other countries, like Iran.
When democracies (and other states) start wars, they define the enemy
as guilty. And every state is guilty of stuff. If we don't find
weapons of mass destruction, we change our excuse.
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-03-19, 6:55 pm |
| "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> And, I don't know if this should be considered a cost by itself - but
> the terrorists were rewarded by getting the response they wanted.
Remind me again. What part of U.S. Troops occupying Afghanistan
and Iraq, and Osama bin Laden in hiding and fear of his life did the
terrorists want? :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-03-19, 6:55 pm |
| "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
>
> When democracies (and other states) start wars, they define the enemy
> as guilty. And every state is guilty of stuff. If we don't find
> weapons of mass destruction, we change our excuse.
Anyone who thinks Sadam Hussein wasn't interested in WMD is ignorant
of recent history and clueless about human nature. If we did not find
them, it was because he had moved them elsewhere, and/or not yet
developed what he wanted. What would have been better, to have waged
WWII in Europe, or taken Hitler out when he first started violating
the Armistice agreement? The latter would have saved some 50 million
lives and the devastation of Europe. Sadam Hussein, like Joseph Stalin,
is one of the few men in history who have fair claim to being more evil
than Hitler. Even Hitler had friends and people he cared about, but
Saddam Hussein, like Stalin, had no such human emotion and was more
like a reptile than a human. Hussein was a serious danger to anyone on
the planet, and I for one will gladly pay my share of taxes to take him
out. But people clueless about human nature, like Neville Chamberlain,
never understand true evil until it bites their heads off, and then it
is too late, unfortunately, usually for many others.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Howard Brazee 2008-03-19, 6:55 pm |
| On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:57:37 -0500, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
>Remind me again. What part of U.S. Troops occupying Afghanistan
>and Iraq, and Osama bin Laden in hiding and fear of his life did the
>terrorists want? :-)
He didn't get everything - his #1 goal was to have us attack Saudi
Arabia, but our president is buddies with the Saudis. He figured
he'd have to hide and was willing to pay that cost. But he wanted a
religious war, & he wanted to overthrow the secular Iraqi state. I
don't know what he thought about the Taliban, but usually religious
fanatics hate their competition. He did want a lot of people
willing to become martyrs for his cause.
All in all, I don't think he regrets the attack one bit.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2008-03-19, 6:55 pm |
| On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:16:04 -0500, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
>Anyone who thinks Sadam Hussein wasn't interested in WMD is ignorant
>of recent history and clueless about human nature. If we did not find
>them, it was because he had moved them elsewhere, and/or not yet
>developed what he wanted. What would have been better, to have waged
>WWII in Europe, or taken Hitler out when he first started violating
>the Armistice agreement? The latter would have saved some 50 million
>lives and the devastation of Europe. Sadam Hussein, like Joseph Stalin,
>is one of the few men in history who have fair claim to being more evil
>than Hitler. Even Hitler had friends and people he cared about, but
>Saddam Hussein, like Stalin, had no such human emotion and was more
>like a reptile than a human. Hussein was a serious danger to anyone on
>the planet, and I for one will gladly pay my share of taxes to take him
>out. But people clueless about human nature, like Neville Chamberlain,
>never understand true evil until it bites their heads off, and then it
>is too late, unfortunately, usually for many others.
I rest my case.
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-03-19, 6:55 pm |
| "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> He didn't get everything - his #1 goal was to have us attack Saudi
> Arabia, but our president is buddies with the Saudis. He figured
> he'd have to hide and was willing to pay that cost. But he wanted a
> religious war, & he wanted to overthrow the secular Iraqi state. I
> don't know what he thought about the Taliban, but usually religious
> fanatics hate their competition. He did want a lot of people
> willing to become martyrs for his cause.
>
> All in all, I don't think he regrets the attack one bit.
Perhaps not. But one day, probably not very long, but unless he dies
of kidney failure first, bin Laden will face U.S. justice. I don't really
care about how he feels about that. :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| SkippyPB 2008-03-19, 6:55 pm |
| On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:22:44 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:57:37 -0500, "Judson McClendon"
><judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
>
>He didn't get everything - his #1 goal was to have us attack Saudi
>Arabia, but our president is buddies with the Saudis. He figured
>he'd have to hide and was willing to pay that cost. But he wanted a
>religious war, & he wanted to overthrow the secular Iraqi state. I
>don't know what he thought about the Taliban, but usually religious
>fanatics hate their competition. He did want a lot of people
>willing to become martyrs for his cause.
>
>All in all, I don't think he regrets the attack one bit.
In fact, according to testimony from some of those captured that were
close to Bin Laden, Bin Laden had no intention of taking out the
Pentagon or three of the World Trade Center towers. The original plot
was to fly one plane into the WTC and the others were suicide missions
and supposed to crash into populated areas. The highjcakcer changed
the mission somewhat on their own. But the goal of Bin Laden was to
lure the United States into a long, drawn-out war with Islamic
mujahadeen, the same way he did with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
The Soviets were there for 10 years and suffered a humiliating defeat.
Even though most of the damage was done by Afghan resistance fighters,
Bin Laden was a leading figure in the fight and he was sponsored by
the US. His hope was that radical Muslims, including the Taliban,
would humiliate another world power and thus his standing the Muslim
world would increase. This would help him to overthrow the Saudi
Arabia monarchy and the Sunni government in Iraq.
So things have not turned out exactly the way Bin Laden had hoped
other than he did get the US involved in the morass that is Iraq. I'm
sure he has no problem living, hiding where he is as that has been his
life for many years now.
In another thread I and others have been extremely critical of Fox
News and rightly so. However, the following story really rakes George
Bush over the coals for the Iraq war and it is posted on Fox News. It
is a great read. See it here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296349,00.html
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"I wan' all dem kids to do what I do, to look up to me. I wan' all the kids to
copulate me."
-- ex-Chicago Cubs outfielder Andre Dawson on being a role model
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
| |
| SkippyPB 2008-03-19, 6:55 pm |
| On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 19:09:24 -0500, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>I'm not saying it would be easy. It may not even be possible. Look at
>how much trouble Russia is having, and they chose democracy themselves.
>But world terrorism presents a desperate situation, requiring desperate
>measures. This is not a school picnic here. Many people in civilized
>countries are spoiled into thinking that every problem can be solved
>neatly. Some problems do not have solutions, and others have only messy,
>expensive and difficult solutions ones. This is not a problem that will
>just go away if we just ignore it.
>
>As you say, I'm all for killing the terrorists, when they can be found.
>But part of the "education" process is to provide a social environment
>in which that can take place. As Bush pointed out, democracies are not
>prone to starting wars with innocent neighbors. I do not think it is
>the population of Iraq that is so opposed to democracy; the problem is
>being imported from other countries, like Iran.
Really? Seria says hello.
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"I wan' all dem kids to do what I do, to look up to me. I wan' all the kids to
copulate me."
-- ex-Chicago Cubs outfielder Andre Dawson on being a role model
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
| |
| Howard Brazee 2008-03-19, 6:55 pm |
| On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:01:58 -0500, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>Perhaps not. But one day, probably not very long, but unless he dies
>of kidney failure first, bin Laden will face U.S. justice. I don't really
>care about how he feels about that. :-)
Maybe I've been fooled by too many spy movies - but there's no way I
would have predicted our failure to get him. (He would choose dead or
alive, depending on which suited his goals).
I suppose that's not that a bad thing - if our spies find such a task
doable - our enemies wouldn't be far behind in ability.
| |
| SkippyPB 2008-03-19, 6:55 pm |
| On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:16:04 -0500, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>Anyone who thinks Sadam Hussein wasn't interested in WMD is ignorant
>of recent history and clueless about human nature. If we did not find
>them, it was because he had moved them elsewhere, and/or not yet
>developed what he wanted. What would have been better, to have waged
>WWII in Europe, or taken Hitler out when he first started violating
>the Armistice agreement? The latter would have saved some 50 million
>lives and the devastation of Europe. Sadam Hussein, like Joseph Stalin,
>is one of the few men in history who have fair claim to being more evil
>than Hitler. Even Hitler had friends and people he cared about, but
>Saddam Hussein, like Stalin, had no such human emotion and was more
>like a reptile than a human. Hussein was a serious danger to anyone on
>the planet, and I for one will gladly pay my share of taxes to take him
>out. But people clueless about human nature, like Neville Chamberlain,
>never understand true evil until it bites their heads off, and then it
>is too late, unfortunately, usually for many others.
But that's not the point. Bush SAID before the UN and the American
people one of the reason's for invading Iraq was because Sadam HAD
WMD's. The fact is, and there is almost no doubt that Bush knew this,
he hadn't had any for nearly 10 years having disposed of them after
the Gulf War. Bush also said before the UN and the American people
that Sadam was linked to Al Qaeda. Again, something he knew not to be
true, but was used as another reason to invade Iraq. And how about the
way he humiliated Colen Powell with the neuclear Milk Factory or
nuclear train to nowhere or the attempt (untrue) to buy radioactive
material from Niger? Lies, upon lies, upon lies.
Just because Sadam was "interested" in WMDs is no reason to invade.
Fidel Castro has been "interested" in WMDs for over 30 years and Bush
didn't invade him. Hell, Hugo Chavez is probably interested in WMDs
and we're not invading him.
You compare Sadam to Stalin (not even close) as what? A reason to
assuage your guilt for supporting Bush and his invasion of Iraq? If
being inhuman to your people is the criteria, then why haven't we
bombed China for their treatment of Tibet? Why haven't we invaded
Burma for their suppression of democracy in that country? Or invaded
North Korea whose people are slowly starving and have a demigod for a
ruler? Why haven't we put a substantial force in Darfur to help end
the genocide there? Bottom line is, your support for Bush and his
Iraq invasion is illogical.
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"I wan' all dem kids to do what I do, to look up to me. I wan' all the kids to
copulate me."
-- ex-Chicago Cubs outfielder Andre Dawson on being a role model
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
| |
| Howard Brazee 2008-03-19, 6:55 pm |
| On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:24:18 -0400, SkippyPB
<swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
>In another thread I and others have been extremely critical of Fox
>News and rightly so. However, the following story really rakes George
>Bush over the coals for the Iraq war and it is posted on Fox News. It
>is a great read. See it here:
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296349,00.html
I also agree with that Fox article.
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-03-19, 6:55 pm |
| "SkippyPB" <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> But that's not the point. Bush SAID before the UN and the American
> people one of the reason's for invading Iraq was because Sadam HAD
> WMD's. The fact is, and there is almost no doubt that Bush knew this,
> he hadn't had any for nearly 10 years having disposed of them after
> the Gulf War. Bush also said before the UN and the American people
> that Sadam was linked to Al Qaeda. Again, something he knew not to be
> true, but was used as another reason to invade Iraq. And how about the
> way he humiliated Colen Powell with the neuclear Milk Factory or
> nuclear train to nowhere or the attempt (untrue) to buy radioactive
> material from Niger? Lies, upon lies, upon lies.
>
> Just because Sadam was "interested" in WMDs is no reason to invade.
> Fidel Castro has been "interested" in WMDs for over 30 years and Bush
> didn't invade him. Hell, Hugo Chavez is probably interested in WMDs
> and we're not invading him.
Ahem. Saddam actually *used* WMD on the Kurds, people in his
own country. I think that demonstrates far more than mere *interest*.
> You compare Sadam to Stalin (not even close) as what? A reason to
> assuage your guilt for supporting Bush and his invasion of Iraq? If
> being inhuman to your people is the criteria, then why haven't we
> bombed China for their treatment of Tibet? Why haven't we invaded
> Burma for their suppression of democracy in that country? Or invaded
> North Korea whose people are slowly starving and have a demigod for a
> ruler? Why haven't we put a substantial force in Darfur to help end
> the genocide there? Bottom line is, your support for Bush and his
> Iraq invasion is illogical.
I'm not saying Saddam Hussein was equal to Hitler or Stalin in the
amount of damage he did, but in the evil of nature. Given the same
opportunities, Saddam would have been just as evil and ruthless as
either of them.
Saddam was in a position to capture the oil fields of Saudi Arabia.
You think 9/11 was damaging to the U.S.? That would be *nothing*
compared to the damage caused to all industrialized countries if he
had done so. Look what he did in Kuwait. I would prefer to have troops
stationed in Iraq to prevent that from happening, than to have troops
stationed in Saudi Arabia *after* it happened. Iraq would certainly
have been nuked in such an eventuality. Jimmy Carter made that
official U.S. policy. Anyone think that would have been better than
this?
I don't know how honest or dishonest George Bush was about Iraq. But
I know with certainty that I am very glad Saddam Hussein is gone, and
I think we are better off today than we would have been had we not
invaded Iraq, whatever his reasons were. I also know that it's easy
to criticize in hindsight, and much harder to know what's the best
strategy beforehand. It's also easy to *say* worse things would not
have happened, when it isn't your neck on the line having to make the
decisions. George Bush's primary responsibility is to protect American
lives and property, and that applies to *probable* threats as well as
formally proven and documented threats. Intelligence is a complex and
difficult business; you almost *never* know anything with certainty.
Your objections remind me of the people harping that Y2K turned out
not to be so bad. Well, only idiots expected their cars and microwaves
to explode. But the reason why Y2K wasn't bad was because millions of
programmers worked their brains out fixing the problems in time. I was
one of them, and damaged my health in the process. It's easy to harp
and complain, after the problem has been fixed. Terrorism isn't fixed,
but Saddam Hussein is fixed, permanently, and terrorism has been held
back, at least to a degree. As George Bush said from the beginning, we
may not live to see the end of this war with terrorism. Our children,
and maybe even our grandchildren, may be fighting it. Some problems
are just not easily or quickly solved; that's life.
Just hope and pray that the liberals don't get their way and pull the
U.S. out of Iraq too soon. I can think of nothing that would encourage
and embolden the terrorists more. Regardless of whether or not the Iraq
war was a good idea, pulling out too early would be a disaster, and the
stupidest thing we could possibly do, at this point.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Alistair 2008-03-19, 6:55 pm |
| On 19 Mar, 14:57, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> "Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>
> Remind me again. What part of U.S. Troops occupying Afghanistan
> and Iraq, and Osama bin Laden in hiding and fear of his life did the
> terrorists want? :-)
How about the bits that say:
1. An over-stretched USA unable to impose its' will upon the world as
it once did.
2. A fractured and nonfunctioning NATO which is incapable of acting as
a cohesive force in world politics.
3. A Europe shown to be powerless and unwilling to lead.
4. An emasculated western hemisphere unable to act in the islamic
world.
5. engendering antiAmerican and antiEuropean hatred in the islamic
world.
6. An amazing propaganda coup that the worls will never forget?
Need we go on?
The icing on the cake would have been to kill OBL outright and turn
him into a martyr.
| |
| Alistair 2008-03-19, 6:55 pm |
| On 19 Mar, 15:16, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> "Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>
nd[color=darkred]
>
> Anyone who thinks Sadam Hussein wasn't interested in WMD is ignorant
> of recent history and clueless about human nature. If we did not find
> them, it was because he had moved them elsewhere, and/or not yet
> developed what he wanted. What would have been better, to have waged
> WWII in Europe, or taken Hitler out when he first started violating
> the Armistice agreement? The latter would have saved some 50 million
> lives and the devastation of Europe. Sadam Hussein, like Joseph Stalin,
> is one of the few men in history who have fair claim to being more evil
> than Hitler. Even Hitler had friends and people he cared about,
Such as Eva Braun and his niece (who committed suicide after suffering
years of hitlers' domineering patronage).
> but
> Saddam Hussein, like Stalin, had no such human emotion
Both Saddam and Stalin cared about some people. Saddam cared about the
members of his extended family until certain members (son-in-laws) did
the dirty on him and fled Iraq> He murdered them after luring them
back to Iraq with promises that all was forgiven. He still loved his
two daughters, two sons and wife until the sons were killed and the
father hung.
and was more
> like a reptile than a human. Hussein was a serious danger to anyone on
> the planet, and I for one will gladly pay my share of taxes to take him
> out. But people clueless about human nature, like Neville Chamberlain,
> never understand true evil until it bites their heads off, and then it
> is too late, unfortunately, usually for many others.
Beware of criticising Neville Chamberlain. He knew that the UK was
weak and unfit to fight a war against Germany. By waving the piece of
paper and declaring peace in our time he bought the UK valuable time
to prepare for war.
| |
| Alistair 2008-03-19, 6:55 pm |
| On 19 Mar, 16:01, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> "Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Perhaps not. But one day, probably not very long, but unless he dies
> of kidney failure first, bin Laden will face U.S. justice. I don't really
> care about how he feels about that. :-)
> --
So you are going to bomb every house and cave in Pakistan until you
kill him or are you going to invade another country that you won't be
able to successfully occupy? In case you haven't noticed, you are
already overstretched and incapable of occupying Iraq and Afghanistan
without Nato help.
| |
| Alistair 2008-03-19, 6:55 pm |
| On 19 Mar, 18:22, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> George Bush's primary responsibility is to protect American
> lives and property, and that applies to *probable* threats as well as
> formally proven and documented threats. Intelligence is a complex and
> difficult business; you almost *never* know anything with certainty.
>
There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein had developed and possessed
weapons of mass destruction (WMD being chemical, biological and
nuclear weapons systems and in Saddams case both chemical and
biological weapons had been developed) and the means to deliver them
(rockets and artillery shells).
It was said that these weapons could be made ready at 45 minutes
notice and that they were a threat to the west (a nebulous statement
which permits any threat to Israel or our military forces stationed in
the Gulf to be interpreted as a direct threat to the UK).
I am not aware of any statement that he had nuclear weaponry nor that
he was able to deliver any weapon to targets outside of the middle
east.
However, some people (the media as I recall) took the view that the
threat to the UK was by nuclear weapons delivered by (in development
but not proven) ballistic missiles. Such interpretations were
unfounded in fact.
Further, any such interpretation was not denied by the government of
the UK despite their knowing that it was not true and that the
intelligence upon which it had been based was from one unreliable
source, was unsubstantiated, was contradicted by known reliable
intelligence and was probably falsehoods provided by a former refugee
from Saddam's justice.
The approach to justifying the war was botched by the UK government
and by the US government. In reality they did not need the WMD
argument to support them and, as we now know for certainty, beyond
some aging examples of chemical and biological weapons the programs
for WMDs did not exist.
What was wrong with using the humanitarian argument to remove Saddam?
Sanctions were not working and all it would have taken was just one
infraction of the peace treaty from the first Gulf war to start the
second.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2008-03-19, 6:55 pm |
| On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:30:36 -0700 (PDT), Alistair
<alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I am not aware of any statement that he had nuclear weaponry nor that
>he was able to deliver any weapon to targets outside of the middle
>east.
The "evidence" provided was of nuclear nature.
....
>What was wrong with using the humanitarian argument to remove Saddam?
This sub-thread started when I said:
>When democracies (and other states) start wars, they define the enemy
>as guilty. And every state is guilty of stuff. If we don't find
>weapons of mass destruction, we change our excuse.
And you immediately responded with our current reasons for the war,
demonstrating my point very effectively.
But to answer your question - because we don't seem to be able to do
everything, and capturing Saddam should have been the priority. Or
maybe stopping the genocide in Rwanda.
But not turning a secular state into a Religious battlefield.
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-03-19, 6:56 pm |
| "Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> How about the bits that say:
>
> 1. An over-stretched USA unable to impose its' will upon the world as
> it once did.
The U.S. was in a peculiar position after WWI in that it's industrial
base was intact, while most of the rest of the world had been bombed
into rubble. The rest of the world caught up, and this would have
inevitably happened anyway. Osama bin Laden wasn't responsible.
> 2. A fractured and nonfunctioning NATO which is incapable of acting as
> a cohesive force in world politics.
Europe accomplished this all by itself, as witnessed by events since the
breakup of former Yugoslovia.
> 3. A Europe shown to be powerless and unwilling to lead.
See #2.
> 4. An emasculated western hemisphere unable to act in the islamic
> world.
Yes, the rest of the world has castigated the U.S. for so long, the
population of the U.S. has begun to believe it as well. Good job.
> 5. engendering antiAmerican and antiEuropean hatred in the islamic
> world.
Didn't need Osama for that. See #4.
> The icing on the cake would have been to kill OBL outright and turn
> him into a martyr.
My preference would be to see him rot in prison. I'm not sure he
would survive long in a U.S. prison. Certainly he would have to be
kept in solitary.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-03-19, 6:56 pm |
| "Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>"Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> "Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>So you are going to bomb every house and cave in Pakistan until you
>kill him or are you going to invade another country that you won't be
>able to successfully occupy? In case you haven't noticed, you are
>already overstretched and incapable of occupying Iraq and Afghanistan
>without Nato help.
Well, at least if we are that overstretched, you won't have to worry
about us dragging your sorry butts out of the fire as we have done
a number of times in the last century. Then you can depend on your
Neville Chaimberlands instead. No doubt that's a positive turn. :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
|
| On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:24:18 -0400, SkippyPB wrote:
> ... But the goal of Bin Laden was to
> lure the United States into a long, drawn-out war with Islamic
> mujahadeen, the same way he did with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
> The Soviets were there for 10 years and suffered a humiliating defeat.
> Even though most of the damage was done by Afghan resistance fighters,
> Bin Laden was a leading figure in the fight and he was sponsored by
> the US. His hope was that radical Muslims, including the Taliban,
> would humiliate another world power and thus his standing the Muslim
> world would increase. This would help him to overthrow the Saudi
> Arabia monarchy and the Sunni government in Iraq.
>
> So things have not turned out exactly the way Bin Laden had hoped
> other than he did get the US involved in the morass that is Iraq. I'm
> sure he has no problem living, hiding where he is as that has been his
> life for many years now.
>
Absolutely correct. The 9/11 attacks were successful beyond the wildest
dreams of those responsible, because of the inept and clueless
performance by GWB.
As a long term investor, it has never ceased to amazed me how quickly and
thoroughly an incompetent CEO can wreck a company. GBW is the same thing,
in politics. This at a time when the US faces unprecedented threats and
challenges.
One small example: "We are going to have a *cru e* against terrorism". A
really smart term to use - not! The last time the "cruers" reached the
middle East they slaughtered tens of thousands of innocent civilians - Jew
and Moslem alike.
Tim
| |
|
| On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:01:58 -0500, Judson McClendon wrote:
> Perhaps not. But one day, probably not very long, but unless he dies
> of kidney failure first, bin Laden will face U.S. justice. I don't really
> care about how he feels about that. :-)
One of the problems of US thinking about this whole issue, as shown in the
above quote, is a lack of understanding of the mentality of their
opponents. The notion that bin Laden would feel he has failed if he died
or if he were caught is nonsense.
He has imposed enormous costs on the US financially and militarily,
significantly weakening it.
He has caused a massive drop in support and sympathy and support for the
US worldwide.
He has caused a massive increase in Islamic radicalism which continues to
surge to this day.
Don't get me wrong - I don't think this is a good thing, at all. It is
important to see what is really happening and not just drink the Fox News
Kool-Aid.
If/when the US is forced out of Iraq, then Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are
both very vulnerable. If they fall, say hello to $10 a gallon gasoline.
The US economy is totally based on cheap energy and enormous disruption
and hardship will follow.
The US needs a competent president - fast.
Tim
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2008-03-19, 9:55 pm |
|
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:KRcEj.21483$Er2.16748@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> "SkippyPB" <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
> Ahem. Saddam actually *used* WMD on the Kurds, people in his
> own country. I think that demonstrates far more than mere *interest*.
>
Excellent questions. It is ridicuolous to claim the moral high ground in one
area, and not in all. You're either moral and good or you're not.
Being moral when it suits you is not being moral.
[color=darkred]
Not so much illogical as simply political. Logic and politics seldom mix
well.[color=darkred]
>
> I'm not saying Saddam Hussein was equal to Hitler or Stalin in the
> amount of damage he did, but in the evil of nature. Given the same
> opportunities, Saddam would have been just as evil and ruthless as
> either of them.
Since when was being ruthless an indication of evil? When OUR generals do it
is "stregth of purpose" and "tenacity", when the opposition do it , they are
"ruthess". In neither case is it an indication of "evil".
And what are the criteria for measuring "evil of nature"?
Is it the degree to which someone disagrees with us?
I don't believe people are "evil of nature". I reckon people are basically
good. Shit happens to them or they get corrupted by greed or power or
whatever, and that makes them behave badly. Saddam was no better or worse a
person than anybody else. Neither was Hitler, Attila the Hun | | |