George W Bush : A Day In The Life [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

Cyrus

12-09-2003, 03:57 AM

This is all from today&#8217;s CNN.com :

The U.S. Dollar (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/BUSINESS/12/08/us.dollar.low.ap/index.html) hits a multi-year low, at $1.238 tio the Euro and other major currencies. Analysts and institutions around the world are worried about the U.S. Economy. (What's the matter with those people? The US Economy is booming! Are they all reading The Nation?..)

Operation Avalanche begins in Afghanistan by the American military there, engaging upto 11,000 American troops plus their local allies. This operations begins as Operation Mountain Resolve, carried out in the snowy peaks of eastern Afghanistan, ends. (The military persists in engaging the enemy with large-scale operations carrying grand-sounding names. We learn nothing of how those operations go, of course. They learn nothing from the lessons of History, of course.) ---This just in : Nine Afghani children (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/central/12/07/afghan.strike/index.html) accidentally killed during the initial phase of the new Operation!---

China Premier's visit (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/12/08/china.chinoy/index.html) begins as tensions between China and Taiwan grow. "The President doesn't need any other crisis in his in box at this stage of the game", says Kenneth Lieberthal, former National Security Council Asia expert. "We simply don't need another area of tension in this part of the world, at this time." (Sorry, boys, these things have a tendency to arrive unannounced and without following the script. You just have to deal with 'em -- and your past proclamations and commitments, unfortunately, at some point in time!)

And this tidbit, to show y'all that it's not just the Prez who has worries, but also the Gov) A Hollywood stuntwoman who claims she was sexually harassed by actor Arnold Schwarzenneger (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/08/schwarzenegger.suit/index.html) filed a lawsuit yesterday alleging defamation by the governor and his campaign staff. Allegedly the Gov had many times engaged in fondling her breasts, lifted her T-shirt, photographed her breasts and then hanged the picture in a men's trailer.

andyfox

12-09-2003, 02:46 PM

"Allegedly the Gov had many times engaged in fondling her breasts, lifted her T-shirt, photographed her breasts and then hanged the picture in a men's trailer."

Gray Davis did that? Who would have thunk it . . .

Gamblor

12-09-2003, 03:17 PM

. (The military persists in engaging the enemy with large-scale operations carrying grand-sounding names. We learn nothing of how those operations go, of course. They learn nothing from the lessons of History, of course.)

If I'm not mistaken, this engagement began on Sept 11, 2001.

Zeno

12-09-2003, 03:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
They learn nothing from the lessons of History, of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who are "They"?

What "lessons of History" are you referring to?

-Zeno

andyfox

12-09-2003, 03:43 PM

You are mistaken. What did 9/11 have to do with large-scale operastions carrying grand-sounding names?

Gamblor

12-09-2003, 03:46 PM

What did 9/11 have to do with large-scale operastions carrying grand-sounding names

It might have something to do with the shelter the then-Afghani government provided to the stars of the day. Now, it might have something to do with said government's attempts at re-organization and conquest of the new government.

I don't think Bush is brilliant, but I sincerely doubt think he wantonly sends American soldiers out for no real purpose other than to flex his muscles.

andyfox

12-09-2003, 04:07 PM

I have no doubt flexing his muscles is an important part of the Bush doctrine. The Clinton administration said that its basic foreign policy goal was to remain #1 in the world. The Bush administration had the same goal, but now has 9/11 with which to justify military efforts to achieve that goal. Bush may have been grandstanding when he said "bring 'em on," but there's no question such an attitude is a part of our current policy.

Large-scale operations with grand-sounding names do very little to prevent 9/11s. There is a good argument to be made that they increase the likelihood of more 9/11s. After all, it was large-scale operations with grand-sounding names that created Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden to begin with.

And speaking of those two, where are they?

andyfox

12-09-2003, 04:22 PM

Bush had this to say about the China/Taiwan situation.

"We oppose any unilateral decision by either China or Taiwan to change the status quo," Bush said, "and the comments and actions made by the leader of Taiwan indicate that he may be willing to make decisions unilaterally, to change the status quo, which we oppose."

Bush was referring to Taiwan's plan to conduct a referendum on March 20 on whether the Taiwanese people want to demand that China withdraw hundreds of missiles aimed at Taiwan and renounce the use of force against the island.

So Bush is opposed to the Taiwanese people expressing their opinion on whether they want the Chinese missles aimed at them and whether they want China to use force in any dispute with them. And he is opposed to those missiles not being pointed at them and opposed to China not renouncing the use of force in a dispute. This is what he said; he is opposed to any change in the status quo that China doesn't like.

Meanwhile, the democrat who runs China said, "The Chinese government respects the desire of people in Taiwan for democracy, but we must point out that the [Taiwanese leaders] are only using democracy as an excuse and attempt to resort to defensive referendums to split Taiwan away from China," he said. "Such separatist activities are what the Chinese side can absolutely not accept."

So democracy is OK for the people of Taiwan provided what they decide is not something we don't want. A very strange definition of democracy.

China has allowed democracy to flourish in Taiwan because it's been good for business. Ditto for Hong Kong and areas of southeast coastal China. But both the United States and China will not allow changes in the status quo that are only "excuses" and "attempts" to use democracy. It is things like this that cause us curmudgeons to take government statements that it is fighting for freedom and democracy in the world with a few grains of salt.

My calendar says 2003, not 1984.

Gamblor

12-09-2003, 04:24 PM

And speaking of those two, where are they?

What, you're not aware of how simple it is to find two individuals, likely disguised by thousands of supporters, however immobile they may be, in 7 million square miles (18,686,071 sq. km)[1] of desert in the great "Pan-Arabian peninsula"?

[1] Microsoft ENCARTA

Kurn, son of Mogh

12-09-2003, 04:31 PM

And speaking of those two, where are they?

Sitting on the beach in Bora Bora sipping Pina Coladas.

andyfox

12-09-2003, 04:48 PM

It was the president, not me, who made the capture of Bin Laden such a big deal. "Dead or Alive" he told us in his best John Wayne voice.

Capturing Hussein would be the coup d'grace for the administration. They could put him on trial for the 61,000 or however many people he executed and Howard Dean would become Michael Dukakis quicker than you could say Al Gore's completely irrelevant.

Why not just look for the 6'5" Saudi guy attached to the dialysis machine? How many of 'em can there be? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Gamblor

12-09-2003, 04:53 PM

I don't recall the President saying at any point that they'd have him within "a year" or "two years" or any amount of time like that.

Of course, my 6'8" Arab buddy Farhad refuses to grow a beard now, because he was getting a lot of dirty looks from cops up here.

Kurn, son of Mogh

12-09-2003, 04:57 PM

quicker than you could say Al Gore's completely irrelevant.

Gore irrelevant?? He endorses Dean and Clark's poll numbers shoot up!

brad

12-09-2003, 08:29 PM

'It might have something to do with the shelter the then-Afghani government provided to the stars of the day. '

not true the taliban said they would turn over bin laden no problem.

but they asked for some evidence linnking him to 911. thats all.

btw, what evidence is there? seriously.

Utah

12-09-2003, 09:06 PM

You forgot:
1) Dow Jones crosses 10,000 (one of the best reads on the state of the world, U.S. economy, and world economy)
2) Interest rates at 45 year low
3) Economy adds 100,000s of new jobs
4) Economy growing at torid rate
5) President signs historic health care bill
6) Oh yeah, another day passes where no planes crashed into U.S. Buildings.

ACPlayer

12-09-2003, 10:38 PM

Excuse me, what health care bill.

Or are you talking about the medicare bill which is stealing from the young to pay for my drugs. Ha Ha!

Cyrus

12-10-2003, 04:00 AM

"1) Dow Jones crosses 10,000"

The Dow Jones, huh? I'm sure they're dancing in the streets of Utah.

"2) Interest rates at 45 year low"

We are pretty much near the end of the means to jump start the damn thing.

"3) Economy adds 100,000s of new jobs"

Dubya is the biggest destroyer of American jobs after Reagan. Those same fellows that cheer the rise of the goddamned Dow Jones, cheer whenever a "no-nonsense" new CEO "trims the fat" from a company. That fat is people like you and me, they are raising a family, working hard and trying to make a living. Cheer on.

"4) Economy growing at torid rate"

Forgive me if I'm not impressed with GDP growth figures alone.

"5) President signs historic health care bill"

Funny how all the insurance and pharmaceutical companies rejoiced more than anyone else.

"6) Oh yeah, another day passes where no planes crashed into U.S. Buildings."

I will take or lay any odds to you and wager you the maximum amount of money that I can possibly raise (it's more than $20) that no planes will hit U.S. Buildings (is that a company? the caps confuse me) tomorrow either. We can have a bet for the day of your choice, alternatively. Say the 24th? another one? If you get an uncomfortable feeling about that bet, I will let Mason Malmuth suggest the fair and balanced odds.

(Tell me, please tell me that you believe that the reason "planes are not crashing" into American buildings has to do with ...Bush invading Afghanistan or Iraq.)

Utah

12-10-2003, 10:33 AM

Just curious, do hang out at the same coffee shop as Alger? The biggger point I was making is that you took a play write out of the Alger half-truth playbook. You want to see only what you want to see and you want to ignore the positive. Worse, you tried to skew the truth for others.

The Dow Jones, huh? I'm sure they're dancing in the streets of Utah

Don't like the Dow, huh? What do you prefer, number of liberal coffee shops open per capita? There simply is no better single indicator of both the state of the US economy and the state of the war of terrorism.

We are pretty much near the end of the means to jump start the damn thing.

Don't like low interest rates either? I am guessing then that you are a big fan of hyper-inflation or stagflation. I can hear you now, "oh please, bring back Jimmy Carter!"

Dubya is the biggest destroyer of American jobs after Reagan. Those same fellows that cheer the rise of the goddamned Dow Jones, cheer whenever a "no-nonsense" new CEO "trims the fat" from a company. That fat is people like you and me, they are raising a family, working hard and trying to make a living. Cheer on.

Who do you think owns the majority of the stock market? You need to get away from the anti-war crowd and actually take a course in finance (and maybe throw one in on the economy for good measure).

No, in historical percentage terms, Dubya is not even close to the biggest destroyer of jobs. Also, to deny the effects of 9/11 is to simply deny reality. One might argue that given that disaster (fostered in the Clinton era), Bush has done one of the greatest jobs in history with the economy.

The way Democrats and liberals think is astounding when it comes to economic principles. Imagine that Gray Davis had lost the general election, liberals would be talking about how the Republican governor destroyed California after the incredible state of affairs during Gray Davis' term. Do you doubt that? When it has turned out, it was all a house of cards and he got caught.

Yes, the destruction of jobs is a good thing when it leads to productivity. This is a very basic principle. Companies are owned by people and the SINGLE purpose of any public company is to make money. Companies don't exist to supply jobs to people when those jobs are not needed. If you owned stock, how would you respond to this comment by the CEO at the annual meeting, "We are very excites as we are going to add 20,000 jobs to the company this year. Of course, none of these jobs are needed and they and going to sink the company into the red and it will destroy at least half of the stock price. However, we feel it is the right thing to do". Would you be happy if you owned that stock? Would you scream, "Yes. Score one for the working stiffs!".

Also, I am curious, how many people do you employee around your house/apartment that are not needed simply for the sake of driving the economy? for example, do you have the TV repairman stop by and fix your TV even when it isn't broken so he can feed his family?

Forgive me if I'm not impressed with GDP growth figures alone

No, I shall not. You should be extremely impressed with GDP growth figures.

Funny how all the insurance and pharmaceutical companies rejoiced more than anyone else.

Your right, AARP didn't support the measure and they didn't spend millions promoting it.

will take or lay any odds to you and wager you the maximum amount of money that I can possibly raise (it's more than $20) that no planes will hit U.S. Buildings (is that a company? the caps confuse me) tomorrow either.

What is your point?

Tell me, please tell me that you believe that the reason "planes are not crashing" into American buildings has to do with ...Bush invading Afghanistan or Iraq.

I certainly leave open that possibility. How can you deny Bush the fact that there have been no terrorist attacks since then? And I definately think it is better than any liberal, "Hug a Terrorist Today" campaign. Tell me, why do you think those planes crashed into those buildings? The plan was planned mostly during the Clinton years. His soft on terrorism, take no action, mutli-lateral approach practically begged the terrorists to attack.

As I said before, I am not a Republican and I am not a big supporter of Bush. However, I hate the lies, half-truths, propoganda, and false realities of the liberals.

andyfox

12-10-2003, 01:17 PM

What's a liberal coffee shop? I'd like to try one. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

MMMMMM

12-10-2003, 02:29 PM

"What's a liberal coffee shop? I'd like to try one./images/graemlins/grin.gif"

Liberal Coffee Shop:

All cups of coffee are priced according to ability to pay, and no gourmet coffees are available. You must first fill out a ten-page financial statement in order to determine your personal coffee pricing scale, after which you will receive notice by mail within 18 months. In this mailing will also be your magnetically-read card which must be used for all purchases at the coffee shop, and which will beep you anywhere in the shop, lounge or reading area when it is time for you to approach the serving counter.

All patrons are advised that they may expedite their service by using the automated telephone menu system for placing coffee orders prior to their arrival, and that you may select coffees of the Standard, New & Improved, or Classic grades.

We at Liberal Coffee are consistently working hard to ensure a pleasant and relaxing experience for all at our Liberal Coffee Shops, and in keeping with this policy, no offensive behaviors or expressions of any kind will be tolerated (please see your monthly Liberal Coffee newsletter for a listing of currently disallowed behaviors and expressions).

Many thanks to you, our valued patrons; and we at Liberal Coffee sincerely hope that you will find our continued relationship to be rewarding, fulfilling, and uplifting. Please fill out the enclosed survey form (no offensive language in the Comments section, please) and return it with your next order for a scaled percentage discount on your entire order. Thanks again, and have a beautiful and understanding day!

P.S. After this went to print, it was called to our editor's attention that wishing our patrons a "beautiful" day might, in fact, be construed as being discriminatory or demeaning to ugly people. Therefore we offer a blanket apology, and instead wish to wish our patrons a--good--day.

Utah

12-10-2003, 03:57 PM

Pretty much any coffee shop, if Minnesota is any indication.

What I meant was that coffee shops are usually filled with liberals who have nothing better to do. Conservatives usually have jobs and they are too busy being productive to have tine to hang out at coffee shops.

However, I like MMMMMMMs answer better.

Cyrus

12-10-2003, 04:23 PM

"Just curious, do [you] hang out at the same coffee shop as Alger?"

I don't think Chris Alger actually exists. I think he's just an invention by Mason Malmuth to keep the forum going. Without Alger you'd have threads consisting of a post praising Bush (or Israel or Limbaugh or Machine Guns For Toddlers) followed by five or six "replies" all mumbling Right On.

"I am not a Republican and I am not a big supporter of Bush."

I will cautiously take this as a sign of intelligence.

"However, I hate the lies, half-truths, propoganda, and false realities of the liberals."

No matter how excessive the criticism of the Right's doings (and undoings) by the so-called liberals, the overkil doesn't even belong to the same league as the monstrous, colossal, gigantic lies daily and shamelessly propagated by the Right. It's not the same ball park, it's not the same planet, it's not the same galaxy. It's not the same same, that's what it is.

"Don't like the Dow, huh? There simply is no better single indicator of both the state of the US economy and the state of the war of terrorism."

Sorry but the DJIA is not measuring the progress in fighting terror. What is does measure is how a changing and non-randomly selected bunch of large corporations' shares fares in the open market. It's a measure of Wall Street's confidence, generally speaking.

"Don't like low interest rates either? I am guessing then that you are a big fan of hyper-inflation or stagflation."

Actually, I'm a very big fan of comparatively low interest rates -- provided they are not coupled with such high rates of personal and corporate defaults, and personal borrowing. If low interest rates lead more the consumption side than the production side, you're usually in trouble.

"In historical percentage terms, Dubya is not even close to the biggest destroyer of jobs."

We are not arguing. I already said it was probably Reagan.

"One might argue that given [the 9/11] disaster (fostered in the Clinton era), Bush has done one of the greatest jobs in history with the [U.S.] economy."

One -- the Clinton administration's record in fighting terrorism is and will be unsurpassed. I have the figures and I have the facts. (Notice that it is the Clinton military that is now fighting your wars!) The strategy and the tactics, alone, that were used during Clinton's watch put to shame the ongoing Dubya foolishness -- which has utterly failed and in fact made the world more dangerous than it was before the foolishness began.

But I guess some folks feel safer in their homes when six more children are killed by the American military (http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,1103868,00.html) in Afghanistan. (Guess whose children's father will be strapping himself with explosives next month to avenge their death... Can you blame him? I can't.)

"What is your point?"

I challenged you to a wager that no "large planes will hit large American buildings" tomorrow or any other day you may choose. I will lay or take any odds on any amount of money that I can get my hands on, on that wager!

The point ? You said you don't see any large planes hitting large American buildings any more and you credited George W Bush for that. Which is silly. It's like crediting Bush for the sun rising up tomorrow -- as it did so many times before. Wake up call : the 9/11 event was not like the submarine battle of World War II ! It wasn't a daily event. Crediting Bush Jr for such irrelevancies puts the lie to your claim that you don't like Bush. (But perhaps you are way to the Right of the GOP /images/graemlins/smirk.gif so I shouldn't be to hasty.)

--Cyrus

Cyrus

12-10-2003, 04:36 PM

"Coffee shop liberals" is a euphemism for loafing, heaped upon liberals by conservatives (broadly speaking). You should know that conversation, interaction and discourse are essential ingredients in the recipe for advancing human knowledge, in practicaly every discipline. In fact, in the morally upstanding and righteous times of our ancient progeny (if you discount those naughty vases), philosophers behaved rather like those coffee shop patrons you so despise!

Minus the bad coffee, of course.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Zeno

12-10-2003, 05:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
...or Machine Guns For Toddlers

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice Jab! Only us gun nuts can really appreciate your humor. I have no comments (other than the ones below) on the other aspects of the thread or posts; too much politics leaves me queasy.

The hypothesis that Chris is made up (or even better, a mosaic), is a good one. But I don’t want to dig any further least the truth set me free.

I plan on voting for Bush and you can bash me all you want for that, all I ask is that if you do, do it in a separate post - these long threads get tedious.

-Zeno

Kurn, son of Mogh

12-10-2003, 05:31 PM

I plan on voting for Bush and you can bash me all you want for that

hey, Cyrus and Chris bash me all the time, and I didn't vote for Bush in '00 and won't vote for him in '04. Go figure? /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

ACPlayer

12-10-2003, 05:36 PM

You are hanging out in one when you visit this forum.

Utah

12-10-2003, 07:10 PM

No matter how excessive the criticism of the Right's doings (and undoings) by the so-called liberals, the overkil doesn't even belong to the same league as the monstrous, colossal, gigantic lies daily and shamelessly propagated by the Right. It's not the same ball park, it's not the same planet, it's not the same galaxy. It's not the same same, that's what it is.

Name one or two. I have yet to see any evidence of any big lies. WMD - nope, Clinton even thought he had them. Iraq ties to AQ - looks like that might be true.

Sorry but the DJIA is not measuring the progress in fighting terror.

No! No! No! It is measuring it and it is measuring it in a HUGE way. DJIA is without a doubt the absolute best read on the fight against terror. Every time there is a terrorist threat I first check the Dow to see any changes - because if the threat is real then stocks will drop undoubtedly. For example, look at the Dow after 9/11. Explain, why did it drop? Additionally, why did the stocks change when the fate of the war (or whether their was going to be a war) changed.

What is does measure is how a changing and non-randomly selected bunch of large corporations' shares fares in the open market. It's a measure of Wall Street's confidence, generally speaking. Take any group of corporations if you like S&P, Dow 100, etc. However, the beta between the DJIA is very high with any of these.

It is not a measure of confidence, it is a valuation on future cash flows. Which, as it obviously turns out, are heavily effected by acts or terrorism, war, etc.

Okay, you are pretty sane up to this point although I disagree with you mostly - except for your comments on interest rates. However, when you get to the war of terror you jump right off the Alger.

One -- the Clinton administration's record in fighting terrorism is and will be unsurpassed. I have the figures and I have the facts. (Notice that it is the Clinton military that is now fighting your wars!) The strategy and the tactics, alone, that were used during Clinton's watch put to shame the ongoing Dubya foolishness -- which has utterly failed and in fact made the world more dangerous than it was before the foolishness began.

Bring on those facts and figures!!

Would you like us to skip over those little events that seem to dispute your facts. Yes, I will agree, Clintons record is unsurpassed in its fight on terrorism if you pretend that none of the following happened : 9/11, World Trade Center Bombing, Cole Bombing, Embassy Bombing, North Korea break Pact and developed nulclear weapons, global infrastructure of terror developed, safe havens for terrorists around the world developed, Chinese stealing Nuclear Secrets, Israel/Palestine situation exploding, dismantling the human intelligence network, driving military readiness to an all-time low, etc. etc. etc.

Wow!!! Looking at the world through the blinding glasses of liberal reality does make the Clintons fight on terrorism look outstanding. One needs to only take key facts and events and pretend they didn't happen. So that's the trick!

But I guess some folks feel safer in their homes when six more children are killed by the American military in Afghanistan. (Guess whose children's father will be strapping himself with explosives next month to avenge their death... Can you blame him? I can't.)

Non significant event. How many people died in car crashes in the US that day? Should we ban driving as well? How many people around the world were tortured, killed in fighting, or starved on that day?

The point? You said you don't see any large planes hitting large American buildings any more and you credited George W Bush for that. Which is silly

Not silly at all. Of course, planes hitting building was meant to encompass any attack on America.

Oh, wait, time to put on the blinding glasses of liberal reality again. Wow!!! Cool!!! Looks like were safe. George, call the boys home - the war is over and were safe. I guess 9/11 was a mirage and nothing like that could ever happen. Hell, dismantle the CIA and call off the FBI in their search for terrorists. There are none to be found! I guess the ones you caught weren't terrorists after all.

God, these glasses rock!

andyfox

12-11-2003, 01:45 PM

John Cole notwithstanding, you still might make that poetry career work.

Cyrus

12-11-2003, 04:24 PM

"I plan on voting for Bush and you can bash me all you want for that."

Bah. Voting for Bush is punishment enough for ya.

Cyrus

12-11-2003, 04:27 PM

I think I read you well. You're quite possibly far, far to the Right of Bushy-boy. Oh well.

"DJIA is without a doubt the absolute best read on the fight against terror."

It's an indicator of nervousness. Case in point, the DJIA rise when the America military started the invasion of Iraq. But if Osama bin Laden pulls off yet another crime tomorrow, the state of the DJIA doesn't tell us shit about that probability.

"Every time there is a terrorist threat I first check the Dow to see any changes - because if the threat is real then stocks will drop undoubtedly. For example, look at the Dow after 9/11. Explain, why did it drop?"

Nervousness and extreme uncertainty.

"Additionally, why did the stocks change when the fate of the war changed?"

The day the American military invaded Iraq and hostilities began, the DJIA rose sharply. But I won't tell you why!

"[The DJIA] is not a measure of confidence, it is a valuation on future cash flows."

Hmmm. The confidence one places in actually receiving those future cash inflows is what's measured by the DJIA.

"Clinton's record is unsurpassed in its fight on terrorism if you pretend that none of the following happened : 9/11, World Trade Center Bombing, Cole Bombing, Embassy Bombing, North Korea break Pact and developed nulclear weapons, global infrastructure of terror developed, safe havens for terrorists around the world developed, Chinese stealing Nuclear Secrets, Israel/Palestine situation exploding, dismantling the human intelligence network, driving military readiness to an all-time low, etc. etc. etc."

Now who's wearing the tinted glasses ?

9/11 happened during Dubya's watch. Clinton apprehended the World Trade Center bombers; they're behind bars doing time; care to tell me in which Federal prison is bin Laden being held?

Clinton methodically organised a network of intelligence and alliances, which assisted the U.S. with valuable info and actions. (Your claim that Clinton "dismantled the human intelligence network" is completely baseless.) And all your verbiage about "world terror developping" during Clinton's presidency, ignores the fact that Clinton tried to strike at the very cause of modern Muslim terrorism, which is the Israeli/Palestinian conflict : he came closer than any other American President before him to make a breakthrough, something which both sides recognized.

I noticed your deafening silence about the matter of Bill Clinton's military -- which is the military that Dubya called upon when he needed them. Prudent fellow, you. Only rash idiots, such as Ruch Limbo, dare to lie so much as to accuse Clinton of "crippling the military".

I get a kick from Clinton haters! Yeah, he screwed girls in the Oval Office, used his cigar most inappropriately, lied in his personal life, had some shady financial deals in Arkansas, smoked pot, was a draft dodger. All the things that rile up conservatives. They somehow look endearing.

"Hell, dismantle the CIA and call off the FBI in their search for terrorists."

You are confused. It's precisely organisations such as the FBI and the CIA that should have been at the forefront of the "war on terror", and not an air carrier fleet. Typical of the war's cheerleaders to prefer grand-scale operations with impressive-sounding names. Quick, how many such Ops were they in Vietnam? Off the top of your head? (No pun intended.)

"Name one or two [lies by the conservatives]. I have yet to see any evidence of any big lies."

Where do I begin? Reagan created more jobs than he destroyed : LIE. Republican Congressmen are proponents of Family Values : LIE. Clinton and Hilarry were involved in murders of Whitewater key witnesses : LIE. Conservatives would gladly volunteer to fight for their country in war : LIE, chickenhawks. Medicare is a total waste and should be abolished : LIE. The crime rate rose during Clinton's Presidency : LIE. Conservatives would never aid and finance Muslim terrorists or the Iranian Muslim fundamendalists : LIE. The Buch tax plan actually gives to the poor more than it gives to the rich : LIE. In Eisenhower's time, the top tax bracket was lower than ever (hence, a booming Economy) : LIE. Jesus Christ is our one and only Savior : PASS!

--Cyrus

PS : I see that the killing of six more Afghani children by the American militarys is, according to you, a "non significant event", huh? You ask "How many people died in car crashes in the US that day?" You are really gone.

Utah

12-11-2003, 11:10 PM

Oh my god, this was really really fun reading. I can almost hear you saying to yourself, "I am going to be so insane that I am going to make Alger look like a moderate" and "No time for real facts, lets skim through an Al Frankin book".

Good for you!

I think I read you well. You're quite possibly far, far to the Right of Bushy-boy. Oh well.

I am hardly to the right. As I have said, I am neither a republican or a Bush supporter. I am pro gay marriage, pro gun control, etc. etc. Hardly far to the right. However, I do really dislike moronic liberals who simply ignore the facts in front of them (as I dislike moronic conservatives who do the same thing).

I'll skip over your rantings about the stock market. All I can say is take a class on the stock market and learn something about it before you speak about it. You'll sound a lot smarter. Then, you might even be able to answer the questions you ignored on who owns stock and whether you would want a CEO to add 20,000 that weren't needed.

9/11 happened during Dubya's watch. Clinton apprehended the World Trade Center bombers; they're behind bars doing time; care to tell me in which Federal prison is bin Laden being held?

Simply beautiful. Time to take out the blinding glasses of liberal reality again.....one sec.....okay....there we go. Yes, I see! 9/11 wasn't planned and organized during the Clinton years. Heck, it wouldn't even have happened if it wasn't for George Bush taking office. Yep, I see now. The trade center bombings happened by low level terrorists with no support for Al Qaeda, terrorist governments, or other organizations. Oh yes, perfectly clear now. If Clinton was in office we would have Bin Laden by now. Bin Laden didn't target and capture Bin Laden during his presidency because he had very good reason not to.

Clinton methodically organised a network of intelligence and alliances, which assisted the U.S. with valuable info and actions. (Your claim that Clinton "dismantled the human intelligence network" is completely baseless.) And all your verbiage about "world terror developping" during Clinton's presidency, ignores the fact that Clinton tried to strike at the very cause of modern Muslim terrorism, which is the Israeli/Palestinian conflict : he came closer than any other American President before him to make a breakthrough, something which both sides recognized.

Okay, even the glasses can't cover up this bulls#$t. What exact intelligence network did Clinton build up? How did Al Qaeda grow to such prominence during Clinton? How did 9/11 happen with no warning? How come there was no cordination between CIA and FBI? How come there are precious few resources that speak arabic? How did North Korea break its promises on nulcear weapons and we didn't know? How come the intelligence apparatus was so weak in Iraq, Afganistan, and North Korea?

Just a couple of questions to ponder when you think about Clinton's great apparatus.

To Israel/Palestinian conflict - He accomplished absolutely nothing. Zero. Zilch. In fact, one can argue that his half-ass attempts and his failure to address Arafat as a terrorist led to the current mess. Of course, there are no terrorists in your world, only peace loving freedom fighters.

I noticed your deafening silence about the matter of Bill Clinton's military -- which is the military that Dubya called upon when he needed them. Prudent fellow, you. Only rash idiots, such as Ruch Limbo, dare to lie so much as to accuse Clinton of "crippling the military".

Okay, I accept your challenge. Under Clinton, military spending dropped, force readiness deteriorated, troop size dropped by a third, 3 aircraft carriers were decommissioned, and morale declined.

The U.S. is currently having huge problems because of the Clinton's military - both seen and unseen. We don't have nearly enough troops for Iraq, and we can't leverage our strength to effectively challenge Iran, Korea, etc. because they know we can't handle another conflict.

So young fella - what did Clinton, who detested the military (except when he needed to "wag the dog"), actually do for it.

You are confused. It's precisely organisations such as the FBI and the CIA that should have been at the forefront of the "war on terror"

Yes - you must mean like the way they coordinated to thwart 9/11 when they had Moussoui? Beautiful piece of work. Billy really had those groups in sync. till Dubya screwed it up.

To your list of lies - still waiting....all you listed were a bunch of opinions. Can't find any? I guess I am not surprised.

Also, who do you think actually pays the bulk of taxes? You are other liberals are just retarded or disingenuous when it comes to taxes and the poor. Lets say you pay $100 in taxes (10% of your pay) and I pay $200,000 in taxes (35%). Now, lets say the government gives a 10% tax break, so you get $10 and I get $20,000. You clowns scream - look! another break for the rich! When, the reality is of course, that the rich put the money into the pot in the first place.

PS : I see that the killing of six more Afghani children by the American militarys is, according to you, a "non significant event", huh? You ask "How many people died in car crashes in the US that day?" You are really gone.

Okay wiseguy....How is it significant in the context of world affairs?

Stu Pidasso

12-12-2003, 01:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
btw, what evidence is there? seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

A video was captured that showed Osama at a party describing some of the details of the 9-11 mission. Osama found it quite funny that some of the 19 hi-jackers did not know they were on a suicide mission. The worthless piece of [censored] doesn't even give a rats ass about his own men.

Stu

Cyrus

12-12-2003, 02:33 AM

"This was really really fun reading."

I didn't understand you get a kick out of getting your arguments demolished. Masochism in Utah? Who'd have thought.

"All I can say is take a class on the stock market and learn something about it before you speak about it."

If you knew how silly that advice is, directed to me, in the real world, you would probably change handles from the embarassment. I'll have you in mind today when I go through some stuff.

"Answer the questions you ignored on who owns stock and whether you would want a CEO to add 20,000 that weren't needed."

About stock ownership, what exactly do you think I am ignoring here? The pension and trust funds' participation? The Belgian dentist's? The widows and orphans'? The odd-lot index? The shampoo?

As to that CEO who's "trimming the fat" by firing 20,000 working stiffs, you are confused. I made it very clear that what the CEO does is according to the rules of the game. Totally kosher. (I could ask you here how many people have you fired, in person, but that would be unfair. I have, lots, so I can tell you that it's no fun.) What I suggested is that instead of the "moronic conservative" mindset that cheers such actions without too much thinking, we should all begin by realizing that we are talking about human beings that are trying to make a living there. That was all that I suggested but perhaps it was too simple and basic a concept for your complex brainwaves. Apologies.

"Heck, [9/11] wouldn't even have happened if it wasn't for George Bush taking office. Yep, I see now."

No, you don't see much. Maybe it's those "glasses" you go on about. What I wrote is that 9/11 simply happened during Dubya's watch, that's all. You, like most conservatives that are way out there, have a tendency to be fast & loose with fatcs. You credit your boys with everything "good" you can think of, with total disregard for accuracy or timeframes. My remark was simply a reminder that not all of us here are asleep or without access to facts. It was Bush to whom 9/11 happened and it was Clinton's military that was called into action (however inappropriate that action was, IMO). Simple as that.

"What exact intelligence network did Clinton build up? How did Al Qaeda grow to such prominence during Clinton? How did 9/11 happen with no warning? How come there was no cordination between CIA and FBI?"

You have your facts backwards. Delve a bit inside the news left to World Net Daily and you will see that, beyond inserting cigars in inappropriate places, Clinton performed well in the intelligence front.

You're serious about the American intelligence community not being up to the task?? If you are, you are insulting the efforts of the myriads of lowly spooks trying their damnedest and going against stupid political pressure. You confuse, obviously, the work of the intellignece community with the pre-cooked, microwaved bunch of sh*t that Washington orders. You seem to prefer the routine practice of Rummie, Wolfowitz et al who insist on having access to raw intelligence before it's been vetted for accuracy by the pros, right? That practice, currently prevalent in the administration (called stovepiping) is completely irresponsible and can lead to disastrously wrong decisions. Ask someone related to or knowledgeable about intelligence.

"How is [the killing of six Afghani children by the American military] significant in the context of world affairs?"

Leaving aside the moral implications of your side in this argument (on which I will let Mason Malmuth elaborate), I will only point out to you the disproportionate effect that individuals or isolated effects had in the denouement of History. I could point out to you dozens of examples whereby, without any moral consideration whatsoever, leaders have changed course because of their people's or allies'/enemies'/the world's opinion/morale/loyalties have been affected by, say, a lone hero or a lone hunger striker or an accident.

(I understand that such concepts are probably beyond your grasp but I have to respond as simply as a I can and hope for the best.)

"Under Clinton, military spending dropped, force readiness deteriorated, troop size dropped by a third, 3 aircraft carriers were decommissioned, and morale declined."

The shift in strategy and military posture that became necessary after the end of the Cold War never materialized, despite Clinton's effort. (I remind you that Bill Clinton's administration went after the very core of Muslim disconent, ie the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, in a more efficient and strong manner than anyone before or since. I claimed that this was formally and repeatedly acknowledged by both Israelis and Arabs, but you dispute even that.)

Being able to wage wars against another superpower diminished as priorities go, as opposed to the growing threat of small-scale wars (threatening to escalate), peripheral challenges to American interests (discuss), nuclear weapons' dissemination, and other such. The whole setup of the American military is currently completely inadequate to meet the post-Cold War challenge -- hence the dumb response of ...sending aircraft carriers after terrorists! Twice!...

There are a lot, if I may understate my case, of interests that are against the scaling down of the American military and its reconfiguration into a force that can address the current dangers. (Diplomacy under Dubya hasn't exactly brought to the U.S. a lot of friends, either. You must be proud about Juniors' achievements in that front.)

As to the complete mess that Bush created in the North Korea situation, any time you feel frisky, I'm out behind the barn, ready to rumble. Hee haw. Say the word.

"To your list of [conservative] lies - still waiting....all you listed were a bunch of opinions."

A "bunch of opinions"?! I was careful to throw in your face statements of fact that should be easily debunked if you could come up with different figures! No opinions about figures, baby. So, once more, with feeling and at random : The top tax bracket during Eisenhower was lower than ever since and that's why the Economy prospered. TRUE OR FALSE? (What? You don't have the data?) Should be easy to crush me, on that "opinion" alone. Go ahead.

Bonus "opinion" : Ronald Reagan lowered the deficit, TRUE OR FALSE? Another "opinion" that can be settled easy as Utah pie. And when we settle [/i]that[/i] 'un and you've whipped me, we will move on to Dubya's budgets and the Big & Shameless Conservative LIE About Cutting Down Government Spending.

C'mon, lemme have it! Have a go at it. Or anything from the rest of the conservative loonie lies that I randomly sampled from.

--Cyrus

PS : If my "liberal tinted glasses" prevent you from socking me one, here. I take 'em off for a minute.

Utah

12-12-2003, 11:06 AM

If you knew how silly that advice is, directed to me, in the real world, you would probably change handles from the embarassment. I'll have you in mind today when I go through some stuff.

Pretty please - can you tell us about your supermodel girlfriend in Niagra Falls as well?

Also, regardless of the job you have it is completely obvious that you fundementally don't understand how the market works. Because if you did, you would realize that the market is making predictions about the chances of a terrorist attack tomorrow. In fact, huge amounts of people are betting money on it. It is one factor that goes into the valuation of a stock. People could be wrong, and a suprise attack could occur. However, it is the best indicator of events. Far better that any conservative or liberal pundit spouting off. If you disagree, give me a better measure.

What I suggested is that instead of the "moronic conservative" mindset that cheers such actions without too much thinking, we should all begin by realizing that we are talking about human beings that are trying to make a living there.

This phrase was simply beautiful. Pure liberalism. So, what you are saying is that the conservatives are correct in that the jobs should be trimmed. However, you mystically know that the conservatives don't care about those people. Somehow, only liberals care about people. Conservatives are all connected to the big non-feeling machine (we will forget for the moment the fact that conservatives give way more money to charities and causes that liberals ever will).

No, you don't see much. Maybe it's those "glasses" you go on about. What I wrote is that 9/11 simply happened during Dubya's watch, that's all. You, like most conservatives that are way out there, have a tendency to be fast & loose with fatcs. You credit your boys with everything "good" you can think of, with total disregard for accuracy or timeframes. My remark was simply a reminder that not all of us here are asleep or without access to facts. It was Bush to whom 9/11 happened and it was Clinton's military that was called into action (however inappropriate that action was, IMO). Simple as that.

Ummm....how many times do I need to tell you that I am not a supporter of Bush? I guess you see what you want to see.

Yes, 9/11 happened during Bush's term. However, you were clearly insinuating that it was Bush's fault. When we know that it would have happened with any president in office. Which of course, is a result of the "fight" on terrorism during Clinton.

I don't think the Dubya would have been any stronger on terrorism than Clinton if 9/11 didn't happen. However, I think that changed during 9/11 and I think the efforts since then have been strong.

Terrorists are like weeds and snatching a few will do nothing. Your comment about Clinton capturing the Trade Center bombers is a joke. That is like snatching some street corner drug dealers and saying your handing it to the drug lords.

You have your facts backwards. Delve a bit inside the news left to World Net Daily and you will see that, beyond inserting cigars in inappropriate places, Clinton performed well in the intelligence front.

Obviously not. Reconcile that statement with 9/11, the embassy bombings, the Cole attack, Noth Korea and Iran secretly building a nuclaer program, the belief in WMDs in Iraq, etc.

You seem to prefer the routine practice of Rummie, Wolfowitz et al who insist on having access to raw intelligence before it's been vetted for accuracy by the pros, right? That practice, currently prevalent in the administration (called stovepiping) is completely irresponsible and can lead to disastrously wrong decisions. Ask someone related to or knowledgeable about intelligence

Is you Niagra Falls girlfriend also in the CIA?

There are pros and cons both ways is there not? Too many layers distorts facts - even simple facts (play a game of telephone if you dont believe me).

Funny how the liberals seem to want the intelligence vetted before it reaches the top but then slam Bush for having the news vetted by Rice and company before he sees it.

Leaving aside the moral implications of your side in this argument

{Cyrus' mind} - "Quick! think Cyrus think. Your moral argument got trashed. You better come up with something new quick. There it is! Lets say its strategically significant. You've done it again ole' boy!"

Lets adresss the strategic/tactical significances. Please point out the effects. I don't see any protests, demands for us to leave, etc. In fact, Karzai even said that he still supports the military.

Its already yesterday's news.

went after the very core of Muslim disconent, ie the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, in a more efficient and strong manner than anyone before or since

I dont believe I said he didn't try. I said he accomplished zilch or made matters worse because he refused to see arafat for what he is.

The whole setup of the American military is currently completely inadequate to meet the post-Cold War challenge -- hence the dumb response of ...sending aircraft carriers after terrorists! Twice!...

Wait. Is this a complete 180 degree change in direction?

under Dubya hasn't exactly brought to the U.S. a lot of friends, either. You must be proud about Juniors' achievements in that front

I like his approach. What has all the B.S. diplomacy brought over the last 100 years. Something like 100 million killed in armed conflict? Old school diplomacy has never work and it never will. I like the simplistic approach of Bush. Can't be any worse that the old approach.

Still waiting for a lie. Do you know what one is? You are still stating opinions Rephrase as a lie and I will answer.

Answer - George Bush said xxxxx. He new it to be false.

Even if you could rephrase those statements into lies, they are hardly the colassal lies that you make them out to be.

Cyrus

12-12-2003, 08:09 PM

"What has all the B.S. diplomacy brought over the last 100 years. Something like 100 million killed in armed conflict? Old school diplomacy has never work [sic] and it never will. I like the simplistic approach of Bush. Can't be any worse that the old approach."

You are mistaking ephemeral American power for omnipotence; you are projecting delusions of grandeur onto world History; you are playing cowboys and injuns. But world affairs is not a playground. It's a business for adults.

"You mystically know that the conservatives don't care about ... people. Somehow, only liberals care about people. Conservatives are all connected to the big non-feeling machine."

Well, seeing as you were so compassionate and so affected by the killing of those children, I'd say that, yes, you are well and truly connected to the "non-feeling machine". (The "non-feeling machine" ?!? Whazzat, another Rush Limbaugh "key word"?)

"There are pros and cons both ways [to stovepiping] is there not? Too many layers distorts facts - even simple facts (play a game of telephone if you dont believe me)."

What a wonderfully and conveniently simplistic view of the world you have, my Utah! World affairs as ...kindergarden. Brilliant! (On a more serious note ...your remarks about intelligence analysis are a joke. Ask, I advise you, ask someone who knows something about that stuff before you spout more inanities.)

"Lets adresss the strategic/tactical significances [of the killing of children by the American military]. Please point out the effects. I don't see any protests, demands for us to leave [Iraq], etc. Its already yesterday's news."

Obviously, you are communicating more comfortably in the realm of toys. You will go then to the library; you will pick up dad's Dictionary; you will go to the letter C (it's after A and B); you will look for the word c-u-m-u-l-a-t-i-v-e; found it? Good kid. Read the definition a few times. Now sit on that word for awhile, while the Dow Jones strokes your hair.

"[Bil Clinton] accomplished zilch or made matters worse [during the Israeli/Palestinian negotiations] because he refused to see Arafat for what he is."

Yes, it's as simple as that. No, its' no use trying to be nice! Actually, the reason is complicated. To the point where you wouldn't understand. Let's get back to Lil' Red Ridin' Hood, where were we?

"Still waiting for a lie [by conservatives]. Do you know what one is? You are still stating opinions."

You are not getting off that one so easily, my little Utah chickadee! What I stated were claims to facts, and not opinions. When you claim that Clinton was a jerk, that's an opinion. When I claim that the top tax bracket during Ike's time was much, much higher than what it is today, I'm claiming a fact, spelled f-u-c-k-i-n-g Aye F-a-c-t. Which I challenge your poor, whipped, conservative tush to demolish ...by simply quoting the right figure! It's only a number. No opinions. No diff'rent strokes fer diff'rent folks. Quote the damn figure and silence me. (You know I got loadsa more of 'em conservative lies coming belly up if you dare, doncha?)

"George Bush said xxxxx. He knew it to be false."

Two fer the price of one, my man.

George Bush said "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." - Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address. The claim about Niger was a lie and Bush knew that it was a lie because the CIA had already informed him and the rest of the gang that the Niger story was a hoax. (Dubya plyaed possum with "The British said ..." but his endorsement of the story was unqualified -- when he knew it was a lie and a hoax.)

George Bush claimed that the banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished" was the aircraft carrier's crew idea, while CNN's report (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/05/16/nyt.bumiller/) put the lie on that claim by showing how detailed and careful was the orchestration of the whole show by Dubya's staff.

Lemme know when you're hungry for more.

"Can you tell us about your supermodel girlfriend in Niagra Falls as well?"

It's spelled Niagara. (That other stuff you're thinking about is over the counter.)

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Utah

12-12-2003, 10:04 PM

Touch a nerve did I?

Cyrus: {crying} "Dad, the smart kids are picking on me again!"
Dad: "How many times have I told you to stay away from those forums. You know the smart kids are going to make you look stupid every time"
Cyrus "I know"
Dad: "Here is a nice box of crayons. Why do you go draw some nice pictures. And for heaven's sake, don't eat the crayons this time!"
Cyrus: {munching on a crayon} "I won't"

Now, on to the thrashing....

You are mistaking ephemeral American power for omnipotence; you are projecting delusions of grandeur onto world History; you are playing cowboys and injuns. But world affairs is not a playground. It's a business for adults.

So, you like staying the course that killed 100 million and that has led to endless wars, endless suffering, endless death, and endless disharmony in the world? Talk about unfeeling!!!

You have a nasty little habit of projecting my statement into some other meaning. I never said Bush had the correct course or that he was doing the right thing. I simply said I like the approach because it was something different from a policy that has failed for 100 years. But hey, if you like death and mayhem.......

Well, seeing as you were so compassionate and so affected by the killing of those children, I'd say that, yes, you are well and truly connected to the "non-feeling machine". (The "non-feeling machine" ?!? Whazzat, another Rush Limbaugh "key word"?)

There you are again - projecting. I never said anything about how I felt. I only said the event was not significant. Just to throw some ballpark figures at you, 2,700 people die daily on average from war and homicide. 20,000 average daily deaths from Aids, Tuberculosis, etc., 14,000 from smoking...and on and on and on.

While the the childrens deaths were tragic, they are no more tragic than any other of the thousands of dead children each day. Being on the news does not make it more tragic.

What a wonderfully and conveniently simplistic view of the world you have, my Utah! World affairs as ...kindergarden. Brilliant! (On a more serious note ...your remarks about intelligence analysis are a joke. Ask, I advise you, ask someone who knows something about that stuff before you spout more inanities.)

I simply said it a was complex issue. As anyone who has analyzed anything complex (which, given your comments, you haven't) simplistic models are extremely valuable. Hell, simplistic models have won Nobel Prizes. Gosh, I would think even a nut job liberal would know that. But hey, if you are incapable of making your own judgements and if you need people to review information for you to tell you what it means - more power to ya.

Yes, it's as simple as that. No, its' no use trying to be nice! Actually, the reason is complicated. To the point where you wouldn't understand. Let's get back to Lil' Red Ridin' Hood, where were we?

Lets try the same old world approach over and over and over and over. But judging from your comments above you like trying things that have zero chance of success. However, I am guessing Billy giving it the old college try is on little consequence to all those dead.

{Cryus' mind - damn Cyrus. You gotta be sharper than that. so, he called us out on the lie crap....what to do....I got it again! Lets switch it to an argument about facts and hope he forgets it was an argument about lies. Lets swear as well and then he will really forget!}

When I claim that the top tax bracket during Ike's time was much, much higher than what it is today, I'm claiming a fact, spelled f-u-c-k-i-n-g Aye F-a-c-t. Which I challenge your poor, whipped, conservative tush to demolish

First, lets roll back the tape shall we and see what you actually said. "The top tax bracket during Eisenhower was lower than ever since and that's why the Economy prospered" Hm...different statement isn't it.

Second, you are not getting off so easily. You have switched from opinions to facts, but where is the lie here? Who said it and when and how do you know that they knew it was a lie?

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." - Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address. The claim about Niger was a lie and Bush knew that it was a lie because the CIA had already informed him and the rest of the gang that the Niger story was a hoax. (Dubya plyaed possum with "The British said ..." but his endorsement of the story was unqualified -- when he knew it was a lie and a hoax.)

I'm sorry. What part of Dubya's statement was false? Did the British government not believe that Saddam tried to buy the Uranium? Have they come out and said that? Did they come out and say that they informed the CIA prior to the speech. If that is even true, has it been proven Bush knew?

Where's your facts son proving this a lie?

George Bush claimed that the banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished" was the aircraft carrier's crew idea, while CNN's report put the lie on that claim by showing how detailed and careful was the orchestration of the whole show by Dubya's staff.

Yep, he lied and I called him out it on this forum (and again I am not a Bush supporter). However...that is....as you put it......monstrous, colossal, gigantic lies daily and shamelessly propagated by the Right?

Wow, your pretty tough on the conservatives. I supposed some b.s. lie to a grand jury by a sitting president isn't in the same league as this whopper.

It's spelled Niagara. (That other stuff you're thinking about is over the counter.)

Hey, I could mock your spelling mistakes but I have more clever shots to take. But I suppose for the simplier mind that you need to fight with the tools you have. But I got to tell you, making fun of my spelling is really really hurtful.

Oppps....one more.

I have noticed that you have gone silent on the Clinton military since you stated that it wasn't up to the challenges of the new world. Good, I am glad we both agree and that we can put that one to rest.

Cyrus

12-13-2003, 06:58 AM

I notice that you have accepted that Bush & The Gang were LYING about the banner on the aircraft carrier. Good, I am glad we both agree and that we can put that one to rest. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

"Touch a nerve did I?"

Your only chance of you doing that is if you're a dentist. And even then that is not currently a good bet.

"On to the thrashing! So, you like staying the course [of diplomacy] that has caused endless suffering, endless death, and endless disharmony in the world [in the last 100 years]?"

That's not thrashing, that's self-flaggelation!

So, you are recommending that we switch off diplomacy and revert to the norms of Cro-Magnon, whereby Might Makes Right, coupled with Onwards Christian Soldiers. I guess I'm too liberal to be swayed by your wisdom. So go ahead! By all means, elaborate further on that brilliancy. I never stopped a man from throwing good money after bad in a pot.

"I never said anything about how I felt. I only said the event [of the American military killing six more children in Afghanistan] was not significant. 2,700 people die daily on average from war and homicide."

Yeah, that's right, what's the big fuss about six more deaths when there're so much death about, huh? Putting the event into such "perspective" is what precisely demonstrates how morally corrupt your mindset is. And "how you feel" about it.

"While the the childrens' deaths were tragic, they are no more tragic than any other of the thousands of dead children each day. Being on the news does not make it more tragic."

Not only is your morality corrupt, if any, but your understanding of proportion and circumstance is quite suspect, to put it politely. You think the killing of one man, one alone, is always equal to the death of another man --or even ten thousand men-- in terms of impact?? You wanna be talking strategy and yet you post inanities like that?? You dare talk about what's "on the front page" when you show such obvious cluelessness about what's newsworthy and what's not? FYI, six children killed in Afghanistan by Americans is more newsworthy than six children killed dying in a Utah hospital. (It's amusing seeing you switch from a moral stance to a "results-oriented" stance and back again when the issue keeps backfiring on your kisser.)

"I simply said [intelligence analysis] was [a] complex issue."

And that is exactly why using info (as the current administration does) that has not been vetted and processed for accuracy by the expert pros, is detrimental to national security (and sometimes sanity) and is good only for political exploitation. You're the one who treats intelligence analysis as a kid's game ("..try playing broken telephone.." LOL). The CIA and the FBI do not, not at the levels that are below the political appointments.

"As anyone who has analyzed anything complex [knows], simplistic models are extremely valuable. Hell, simplistic models have won Nobel Prizes."

If you were to look up the dictionary definition of the word "simplistic" which you used twice in your argument (no typo excuse then), you'd realize how silly what you wrote is. (Suffice to say, my Utah, that you have utterly and woefully confused your shaving gear for Occam's razor. Careful there, baby... /images/graemlins/smile.gif)

"Lets roll back the tape shall we and see what you actually said. "The top tax bracket during Eisenhower was lower than ever since and that's why the Economy prospered" Hm...different statement isn't it?"

It's merely a rephrasing. But enough about my desperate efforts to avoid your laser-like intelligence! You may respond to either way of the phrasing my claim. Which, I remind you, is one of the myriad of standard conservative lies about ..just about everything!

Go ahead, what are ya waitin' fer? You promised me a good thrashing (or phrasing to that effect) if I'd dare post a conservative lie. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

"What part of Dubya's statement was false? Did the British government not believe that Saddam tried to buy the Uranium?"

The British PM was lying as well (pun intended). And Bush knew it. And Tony Blair knew that Bush knew. And we know that they both knew.

"Has it been proven Bush knew?"

You like to see them rockets at the showdown, don't ya? Keep calling.

"I supposed some b.s. lie to a grand jury by a sitting president isn't in the same league as this whopper."

You are supposing correct. (Even though unintentionally!) Lying to a grand jury about a b.j. isn't nearly as significant as lying to the nation about the Economy, Iraq, and other important things, and sending young men to die on the back of those lies. It ain't even close.

"Hey, I could mock your spelling mistakes but I have more clever shots to take."

You don't, as a matter of fact, but go ahead and mock 'em! Typos are funny when they have or reveal a second meaning. Your spelling (twice) of Niagara like Viagra tickled hugely.

"I have noticed that you have gone silent on the Clinton military since you stated that it wasn't up to the challenges of the new world."

No, I didn't state that --- and if you're a conservative, that's one more conservative lie! I stated that Clinton had prepared the American military well, as the military's combat-worthiness was proven in the (ill-advised) campaigns against Afghanistan and Iraq. My argument was that the American military as a whole was well supported and prepared by Clinton's administration, as was proven on your TV screen. The second and equally important part of my argument is that the American military is used incorrectly by Bush & The Gang : even though the American military will prevail in any battle anywhere, this is NOT the way to fight the war against terror. I could elaborate more about "disproportion" and "the kamikaze factor" (which alters the picture totally) but this too would go over yer head.

By the way, Utah baby: you can check out the figures of the Clinton and Bush military budgets at your leisure, here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2003/pdf/hist.pdf). Make sure you consult someone about Constant Dollars, though..

"I'm sorry."

Try sitting on a pillow.