DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: MissusDe on October 31, 2008, 01:24:31 AM
-
John Hood - The Corner (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzY5NTAxM2RlOWExMjBmNjlmYjM5NWNiMzI1MDQwNTY=)
Speaking in front of a huge audience at downtown Raleigh rally yesterday, Barack Obama threw off a humorous line about John McCain's accusation that the Obama tax plan is redistributionist:
McCain has ?called me a socialist for wanting to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can finally give tax relief to the middle class,? Obama said. ?I don?t know what?s next. By the end of the week he'll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten.?
Ha ha.
Only, in this passage Obama revealed precisely why he is vulnerable to such charges: he can't seem to tell the difference between a gift and a theft. There is nothing remotely socialistic or communistic about sharing. If you have a toy that someone else wants, you have three choices in a free society. You can offer to trade it for something you value that is owned by the other. You can give the toy freely, as a sign of friendship or compassion. Or you can choose to do neither.
Collectivism in all its forms is about taking away your choice. Whether you wish to or not, the government compels you to surrender the toy, which it then redistributes to someone that government officials deem to be a more worthy owner. It won't even be someone you could ever know, in most cases. That's what makes the political philosophy unjust (by stripping you of control over yourself and the fruits of your labor) as well as counterproductive (by failing to give the recipient sufficient incentive to learn and work hard so he can earn his own toys in the future).
Government is not charity. It is not persuasion, or cooperation, or sharing. Government is a fist, a shove, a gun. Obama either doesn't understand this, or doesn't want voters to understand it.
-
Oh ... good point!
-
<<Government is not charity. It is not persuasion, or cooperation, or sharing. Government is a fist, a shove, a gun.>>
A sick, twisted and perverted view of government. Sad that there are those who actually believe in this garbage. Again I think it comes down to some kind of tragic failing in the American educational system that allows views like this, which would normally be laughed or booed right off the stage, to be misperceived as "wisdom" and thus bring the day that much closer when disrespect for democratic government and institutions will reach levels that make a fascist coup d'etat possible.
-
<<Government is not charity. It is not persuasion, or cooperation, or sharing. Government is a fist, a shove, a gun.>>
A sick, twisted and perverted view of government.
If you do something the government does not like, it does not send armed men around to correct your ways?
-
<<If you do something the government does not like, it does not send armed men around to correct your ways?>>
Normally they use no more force than is necessary to repress anti-social elements or enemies of the people. Every government needs enforcement mechanisms but that bit that I quoted made it sound like repression for its own sake were the sole raison d’être of the government.
-
<<If you do something the government does not like, it does not send armed men around to correct your ways?>>
Normally they use no more force than is necessary to repress anti-social elements or enemies of the people. Every government needs enforcement mechanisms but that bit that I quoted made it sound like repression for its own sake were the sole raison d’être of the government.
The statement preceding - "Collectivism in all its forms is about taking away your choice. Whether you wish to or not, the government compels you to surrender the toy, which it then redistributes to someone that government officials deem to be a more worthy owner." - is true. And it's not a "polite request," rather a threat (veiled or not) at the point of a gun. They use "no more force than is necessary" - but it is force, nonetheless.
-
This would be relevant if Obama were proposing collectivisation.
He is not.
He is proposing a policy change that would remove the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and decrease taxes for the middle income Americans.
That is nothing near socialism, would that it were - I'd love to have a real socialist party in this country, but that isn't likely right now.
This charge of socialism is a falsehood. The charge of collectivization a lie. The article sets up a strawman.
-
The statement preceding - "Collectivism in all its forms is about taking away your choice. Whether you wish to or not, the government compels you to surrender the toy, which it then redistributes to someone that government officials deem to be a more worthy owner." - is true. And it's not a "polite request," rather a threat (veiled or not) at the point of a gun. They use "no more force than is necessary" - but it is force, nonetheless.
=====================================================================
But what's the alternative to government? Anarchy? That has its own problems. The basic political philosophies that we studied in university all seem to start from some depiction of man in his natural state and then some kind of formula, as in Hobbes or Rousseau, where man agrees to surrender some of his own sovereignty over himself in order to partake of the benefits of a governed society. It seemed pretty clear to me that while everyone recognized the irksomeness of government intervention and control, it was universally recognized as superior overall to the anarchy which preceded it.
-
What I find fascinating about this argument is that it is not in the least bit believable.
If it were coming from a true libertarian, such as Prince, I would most certainly take it to heart. Yet, this argument sprang from conservatives. Even more hypocritical - conservatives supporting Senator McCain.
They speak of government metaphorically holding a gun to a citizen's head to pay taxes, but what of the government literally holding a gun to individual's heads in the form of the Iraq War, police brutality, or the war on drugs?
These are individuals whose political creed supports "separate but equal" (or not even that) for individuals with same sex partners. They typically support the most brutal of all state-held powers: capital punishment.
I don't buy it. The conservatives use libertarianism when it suits them, then turn and look the other way when it does not. At least be man enough not to don the disguise.
-
He is proposing a policy change that would remove the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and decrease taxes for the middle income Americans.
He'll raise taxes on both. The alternative is to cut spending and that goes against his redistribution of wealth mantra.
-
Government ownership of everything would be socialism , a very high tax rate would accomplish this .
Private ownership of everything and government controll of nothing would be Anarchy.
Neither being the desired state, the amount of government controll and priviate personal controll can be adjusted to have the adequate amount of government involvement and the adequite amount of priviate controll .
A true conservative would disagree little with a Libertrian about the government governing best that governs least, the elder meaning of "Liberal" would have also agreed that limiting the government as much as possible was a good idea.
A paternalistic government involved in the lives of the people to the maximum amount tolerable seems like the modern "Liberal" want. The modern conservative seems tobe quite lost in real politic and compromise , both liberal and conservative governments too concerned with continuance in power and forgetting too much the confidence in the wisdom of the people that seaparated us from the Monarchists eight generations ago.
Power bought by rented loyalty and paid off votes is slow death to our freedoms , we vote for the petty rewards that forge our chains.
-
And what's truely insidious is the tactic. Make the people who generate the jobs, generate the money, make them more and more of a minority, by way of tax cuts for the vast majority, who would have no compelling interest not to continue to tax "the rich"
And while we're at it, get Government more and more involved with all reamls of livelyhood, be it increasing regulations, increasing entitlements, increasing the Government footprint, and as more and more of the economy and businesses can't deal with the madness and increased mandates placed upon them.......enter the Government to do it for them
And the viscious cycle deepens
-
And what's truely insidious is the tactic. Make the people who generate the jobs, generate the money, make them more and more of a minority, by way of tax cuts for the vast majority, who would have no compelling interest not to continue to tax "the rich"
And while we're at it, get Government more and more involved with all reamls of livelyhood, be it increasing regulations, increasing entitlements, increasing the Government footprint, and as more and more of the economy and businesses can't deal with the madness and increased mandates placed upon them.......enter the Government to do it for them
And the viscious cycle deepens
A sort of genius .
A small part of the population becomes the owner of a large amount of the wealth , pays more tax and becomes indespensible to the government. The feedback to this system is to make the government depend more on an even smaller number?
When the government depends on 5% of our peoiple to pay 85% of governments cost , it will behoove the government well to ensure that this small fraction has plenty of wealth to tax.
-
When the government depends on 5% of our peoiple to pay 85% of governments cost , it will behoove the government well to ensure that this small fraction has plenty of wealth to tax.
Apparently that function pays well.
Observe the obscene amount of funds needed to be raised just to lease the franchise of the executive branch.
-
When the government depends on 5% of our peoiple to pay 85% of governments cost , it will behoove the government well to ensure that this small fraction has plenty of wealth to tax.
Apparently that function pays well.
Observe the obscene amount of funds needed to be raised just to lease the franchise of the executive branch.
I note that BHO presidential campaign has spent more so far than both Bush and Kerry spent together through the whole campaign in 2004.
And the record setting money collection is entirely from the middle and lower class during a period when the lower rungs of earners is in severe distress , or so the myth goes.
Could it be that the distress is exaggerated , or that the donations of the rich and powerfull are showing up in the mix?
Or both?
-
Very possible, especially with prepaid credit cards and Obama's lax authentication rules.
-
This is supposed to be a tongue in cheek joke. Question is do all of your tight fisted, let the government support everyone but not with my money liberals think so?
Redistribution of Wealth
"In the restaurant my waiter had on a 'Obama 08' tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence.
When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.
I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.
At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.
I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application. "
-
Especially when its other people's money
-
It proves only what a skinflint you are. (in the joke, of course)
I tip the waiter AND if I have a quarter or dollar coin ("loonie,") I give it to anyone outside who asks for it.
Incidentally, the tip to the waiter is given in the knowledge that he or she is working for minimum wage and provides cheerful and efficient service in the expectation that it will be rewarded with a tip. Not to tip is to participate in the waiter's exploitation by his or her boss. If the service is substandard, there is no tip.
-
It proves only what a skinflint you are. (in the joke, of course)
I tip the waiter AND if I have a quarter or dollar coin ("loonie,") I give it to anyone outside who asks for it.
Incidentally, the tip to the waiter is given in the knowledge that he or she is working for minimum wage and provides cheerful and efficient service in the expectation that it will be rewarded with a tip. Not to tip is to participate in the waiter's exploitation by his or her boss. If the service is substandard, there is no tip.
I am no skinflint. I am probably more generous than most.... both as a tipper and one that gives to people in need. The joke was about the reality of someone else deciding how they were going to spend "HIS (waiters) money." After all the person eating the meal was ready willing and able to do both (if he made the decision to do so). While you are all for taking the patron's money and giving it to both without his consent. Yet.... you respond with angst when the patron puts the shoe on the other foot.
-
Incidentally, the tip to the waiter is given in the knowledge that he or she is working for minimum wage and provides cheerful and efficient service in the expectation that it will be rewarded with a tip
The terms of his or her employment never enter into my calculations of whether their service deserves a reward and the size of said reward.
-
The terms of his or her employment never enter into my calculations of whether their service deserves a reward and the size of said reward.
=====================
If the service is mediocre but not really bad, I do have to remind myself that the guy's probably on minimum wage.
-
The terms of his or her employment never enter into my calculations of whether their service deserves a reward and the size of said reward.
=====================
If the service is mediocre but not really bad, I do have to remind myself that the guy's probably on minimum wage.
So not only do you figure that he should be well paid, he doesn't necessarily have to do a good job? Why not just have two homeless guys out there? I can stay home and cook my own dinner and then get in my car and share between the two the money I have saved on not eating out.
Yeah, that will fix it. Kill all the birds with one stone. Bankrupt the greedy bastard restaurant owner, make an able bodied person see da light and cease to try and work for a living and deny me the opportunity after work 10 hours to have a nice meal were I don't have to clean up after myself. Oh, and let's not forget homeless Joe, who you have now doubled the competition for a corner and an appliance box.
-
The terms of his or her employment never enter into my calculations of whether their service deserves a reward and the size of said reward.
=====================
If the service is mediocre but not really bad, I do have to remind myself that the guy's probably on minimum wage.
So not only do you figure that he should be well paid, he doesn't necessarily have to do a good job? Why not just have two homeless guys out there? I can stay home and cook my own dinner and then get in my car and share between the two the money I have saved on not eating out.
Yeah, that will fix it. Kill all the birds with one stone. Bankrupt the greedy bastard restaurant owner, make an able bodied person see da light and cease to try and work for a living and deny me the opportunity after work 10 hours to have a nice meal were I don't have to clean up after myself. Oh, and let's not forget homeless Joe, who you have now doubled the competition for a corner and an appliance box.
Hohohahahahaha!
-
<<So not only do you figure that he should be well paid, he doesn't necessarily have to do a good job? Why not just have two homeless guys out there? I can stay home and cook my own dinner and then get in my car and share between the two the money I have saved on not eating out.
<<Yeah, that will fix it. Kill all the birds with one stone. Bankrupt the greedy bastard restaurant owner, make an able bodied person see da light and cease to try and work for a living and deny me the opportunity after work 10 hours to have a nice meal were I don't have to clean up after myself. Oh, and let's not forget homeless Joe, who you have now doubled the competition for a corner and an appliance box.>>
================================================
The guy did a mediocre job for below-mediocre wages. I don't want to reward him for his mediocrity, but I don't want to participate in his economic exploitation either. As I believe I said previously, if the guy's performance had been really sub-par, I wouldn't have tipped at all.
The one course of action you never seemed to consider was eating your mediocre meal in the mediocre place that YOU chose to dine in, rightly or wrongly, and going out next time to a (hopefully) better place. But of course that would involve accepting some personal responsibility for the poor choice you made in the first place, for not doing your homework or for listening to people whose judgment was off.
-
<<So not only do you figure that he should be well paid, he doesn't necessarily have to do a good job? Why not just have two homeless guys out there? I can stay home and cook my own dinner and then get in my car and share between the two the money I have saved on not eating out.
<<Yeah, that will fix it. Kill all the birds with one stone. Bankrupt the greedy bastard restaurant owner, make an able bodied person see da light and cease to try and work for a living and deny me the opportunity after work 10 hours to have a nice meal were I don't have to clean up after myself. Oh, and let's not forget homeless Joe, who you have now doubled the competition for a corner and an appliance box.>>
================================================
The guy did a mediocre job for below-mediocre wages. I don't want to reward him for his mediocrity, but I don't want to participate in his economic exploitation either. As I believe I said previously, if the guy's performance had been really sub-par, I wouldn't have tipped at all.
The one course of action you never seemed to consider was eating your mediocre meal in the mediocre place that YOU chose to dine in, rightly or wrongly, and going out next time to a (hopefully) better place. But of course that would involve accepting some personal responsibility for the poor choice you made in the first place, for not doing your homework or for listening to people whose judgment was off.
sheesh, Michael.... how do you know that I am eating in a medicore place? How do you know that it isn't a nice neighborhood restaurant with an excellent menu a fine chef/cook and just some poor schlep waiter having a bad night. (This equates to your analogy of government run programs... you know good programs with some bums and some crooks) By the way a $10.00 tip implies a $50.00 meal on my budget for two people... that is a lot of money...nearly an hours pay for me. Consider that he probably has at least 8 table tops in that hour and that has had the opportunity to make $ between 60 to 80. Not too bad for medicore.
-
IMHO, it's a mediocre place if you get mediocre service. It's up to the boss to motivate workers to give 100% service 100% of the time to 100% of the diners, regardless of "good night/bad night" personal life considerations. A well-run place doesn't have mediocre service, won't tolerate it, and if they're on the ball, they'll catch it and nip it in the bud by coming around and asking if everything's OK.
However, what if it IS really <<a nice neighborhood restaurant with an excellent menu a fine chef/cook and just some poor schlep waiter having a bad night?>>
In that case, I'd call over the owner (or the manager if the owner is not around) and let him or her know that the service was a bit off that night. Tell him exactly how, just so there are no misunderstandings and he doesn't over-react on the waiter. Odds are, they'll make it up to you. As long as they acknowledge the beef and are prepared to take some steps to make it up to you, that's good enough for me. The owner gets a chance to correct falling standards, which benefits us all, even the mediocre waiter, I get my concerns addressed in a tangible and satisfying way, the waiter gets his mediocre tip for his mediocre service, and we're all friends.
-
IMHO, it's a mediocre place if you get mediocre service. It's up to the boss to motivate workers to give 100% service 100% of the time to 100% of the diners, regardless of "good night/bad night" personal life considerations. A well-run place doesn't have mediocre service, won't tolerate it, and if they're on the ball, they'll catch it and nip it in the bud by coming around and asking if everything's OK.
However, what if it IS really <<a nice neighborhood restaurant with an excellent menu a fine chef/cook and just some poor schlep waiter having a bad night?>>
In that case, I'd call over the owner (or the manager if the owner is not around) and let him or her know that the service was a bit off that night. Tell him exactly how, just so there are no misunderstandings and he doesn't over-react on the waiter. Odds are, they'll make it up to you. As long as they acknowledge the beef and are prepared to take some steps to make it up to you, that's good enough for me. The owner gets a chance to correct falling standards, which benefits us all, even the mediocre waiter, I get my concerns addressed in a tangible and satisfying way, the waiter gets his mediocre tip for his mediocre service, and we're all friends.
You are making black and white judgements here. First of all, while you are anxious for me to support someone that has slipped through the proverbial cracks... you also want me to have some poor bastard having a bad night fired. Second of all good places do support bad service, I have eaten out in many gourmet restaurants and have watch many of them driven into the ground by bad management. So whilst you are patting yourself on the back for your logic here... you are culling many points of the debate to prop up your bias.
-
Cro wrote:
>>I can stay home and cook my own dinner and then get in my car and share between the two the money I have saved on not eating out.<<
I suggest that staying home rather than going out to dinner will be the wiae thing to do if Barry is elected. I'd hang on to that old car too. Weekend vacations if any. The Gang of Three is getting ramped up to go after your 401K so we had better hang on to what we've got until we get the all's clear.
-
I suggest that staying home rather than going out to dinner will be the wiae thing to do if Barry is elected. I'd hang on to that old car too. Weekend vacations if any. The Gang of Three is getting ramped up to go after your 401K so we had better hang on to what we've got until we get the all's clear.
my worry is that I don't have the extra four years to recover from these tax and spend assholes.
-
cro wrote:
>>my worry is that I don't have the extra four years to recover from these tax and spend assholes.<<
I understand. I should have also mentioned charitable donations. We'll have to do the liberal thing and let the government handle that for us. Squirrel it away.
-
The guy did a mediocre job for below-mediocre wages. I don't want to reward him for his mediocrity, but I don't want to participate in his economic exploitation either.
What economic exploitation? A waiter or waitress in the end is nothing more than a commissioned salesperson. Their earnings are directly related to their performance. If the food is substandard they fix the problem, if the table was not clean they fix the problem. They control their own destiny.
The more pleasant the "experience" the more they make. The less pleasant the "experience" the less they make.
-
The guy did a mediocre job for below-mediocre wages. I don't want to reward him for his mediocrity, but I don't want to participate in his economic exploitation either.
What economic exploitation? A waiter or waitress in the end is nothing more than a commissioned salesperson. Their earnings are directly related to their performance. If the food is substandard they fix the problem, if the table was not clean they fix the problem. They control their own destiny.
The more pleasant the "experience" the more they make. The less pleasant the "experience" the less they make.
I would like to know more about how it came to be so , this is one of the few jobs specially fixed in the minimum wage law.
-
I would like to know more about how it came to be so , this is one of the few jobs specially fixed in the minimum wage law.
I think it came about from the IRS and regulations that stated that all wait staff must be paid at least minimum wage and that taxes and fica be deducted from that. Credit cards hastened the change. Cash tips are notoriously under reported and the IRS was looking for a way to get their hands on at least some of that cash.
-
I would like to know more about how it came to be so , this is one of the few jobs specially fixed in the minimum wage law.
I think it came about from the IRS and regulations that stated that all wait staff must be paid at least minimum wage and that taxes and fica be deducted from that. Credit cards hastened the change. Cash tips are notoriously under reported and the IRS was looking for a way to get their hands on at least some of that cash.
Does the IRS assume that they make 8% of their income in tips?
-
<<my worry is that I don't have the extra four years to recover from these tax and spend assholes.>>
This after eight years of Republican government turned a healthy surplus into a half-trillion dollar deficit and saddled the nation with a total of $3 trillion dollars in expenses for a completely unnecessary war, still consuming $10 billion a month with no end in sight.
Hilarious
-
<<You are making black and white judgements here. First of all, while you are anxious for me to support someone that has slipped through the proverbial cracks... you also want me to have some poor bastard having a bad night fired. >>
Uhh, if you recall, I recommended that you tell the manager exactly what your complaint was, so that it wouldn't prejudice the waiter. Remember, we're just talking mediocre, not really bad, service. There's no real reason to anticipate that an owner or manager will file a good waiter for having a bad day but if it happens, it's an unexpected example of poor management judgment which could not have been anticipated and therefore which is the fault of management, not your fault.
It would be crazy to refrain from doing the right thing simply because it might have consequences that could not be anticipated because they are irrational and uncommon. It would be like failing to stop at a stop sign because someone might surge out of the bushes and attempt to attack you in your car.
<<Second of all good places do support bad service, I have eaten out in many gourmet restaurants and have watch many of them driven into the ground by bad management. >>
Then by definition, those are not good places. A restaurant is more than just the cooking. It's the total or overall experience that it represents. So if the service is bad, the overall experience is bad and you need to find another place.
<< So whilst you are patting yourself on the back for your logic here... you are culling many points of the debate to prop up your bias.>>
Sorry, cro, my "bias" ("POV" is a better description) stands on its own two feet.
-
<<my worry is that I don't have the extra four years to recover from these tax and spend assholes.>>
This after eight years of Republican government turned a healthy surplus into a half-trillion dollar deficit and saddled the nation with a total of $3 trillion dollars in expenses for a completely unnecessary war, still consuming $10 billion a month with no end in sight.
Hilarious
"Surplus"? The national debt hasn't been paid to nothing since Andrew Jackson retired.
-
Does the IRS assume that they make 8% of their income in tips?
They assume they make much more than 8% of their income on tips. They just have a hard time proving it.
How much cash does a good pole dancer make at a strip club? How much do you think she reports?
-
"Tipped" jobs are required to report the cash earned in tips as well. Before clocking out, the manager is supposed to get the total of tips in cash and it's entered into the computer, along with the tips entered via CC. Then the pay is calculated based on the total; if it's less than minimum wage, the employer must pay out the difference (so it's in the employer's best interest to get an accurate cash total). Total tip income is reported to the IRS, as well as earned pay. I assume there are penalties imposed on the employers as well if they don't accurately report tips. Typically, tips paid via CC are also cashed out of the drawer nightly - makes book keeping easier, as ONLY the total of the actual sales then ends up in the drawer, and they then don't have to pay the CC tips in the weekly payroll.
-
<<"Surplus"? The national debt hasn't been paid to nothing since Andrew Jackson retired.>>
Let's put it another way: The increase in the public debt of the U.S. from the end of fiscal year 2000 to the end of fiscal year 2008, corresponding roughly to the eight years of the G.W. Bush administration, was from $5.674 trillion to $10,024 trillion, or $4.350 trillion.
The increase in the public debt for the ten years from the end of fiscal year 1990 to the end of fiscal year 2000 (from $3.233 trillion to $5.674 trillion) was $2.441 trillion, and if we want to convert that to an eight-year figure representing the eight years of the preceding administration, a rough way of doing this would be to reduce the ten-year figure to 80% of its value, or $1.953 trillion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt)
Any way you want to look at it, cro is concerned about having to repay the excesses of a "tax and spend" Democratic "asshole" administration, notwithstanding the fact that the Bush administration increased the national debt by about $4.350 trillion in eight years as compared to only $1.953 trillion more or less in the eight years of the preceding Democratic administration.
Does this make any sense to anyone?
-
It does when the previous Democrat administration had a GOP House that actually kept the President's feet to the fire in the way of being fiscally responsible
-
<<"Surplus"? The national debt hasn't been paid to nothing since Andrew Jackson retired.>>
Let's put it another way: The increase in the public debt of the U.S. from the end of fiscal year 2000 to the end of fiscal year 2008, corresponding roughly to the eight years of the G.W. Bush administration, was from $5.674 trillion to $10,024 trillion, or $4.350 trillion.
The increase in the public debt for the ten years from the end of fiscal year 1990 to the end of fiscal year 2000 (from $3.233 trillion to $5.674 trillion) was $2.441 trillion, and if we want to convert that to an eight-year figure representing the eight years of the preceding administration, a rough way of doing this would be to reduce the ten-year figure to 80% of its value, or $1.953 trillion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt)
Any way you want to look at it, cro is concerned about having to repay the excesses of a "tax and spend" Democratic "asshole" administration, notwithstanding the fact that the Bush administration increased the national debt by about $4.350 trillion in eight years as compared to only $1.953 trillion more or less in the eight years of the preceding Democratic administration.
Does this make any sense to anyone?
So Clinton had the best business climate the world has ever seen and our debt rose during his "surplusses" "only" two trillion?
At the end of the Clinton term he hands over a ship of state with a hole in the bottom because a bubble was bursting , then our financial centers get burned down by terrorists , and the diffrence is only two trillian more than the growth of the debt during the "good times"?
What is the diffrence supposed to be between peacetimes with a burgioning new industry ,and wartime with an attack on the capitolist corps?
Next correct for inflation, the diffrence shrinks a little.
Then account for the overall growth of the economy , so that the comparison of debts is purportional to the overall size of the sorce of payments and resorces availible. The Contental Congress had a debt load that was pitifull and outsized compared to their tax base , even though the total amount of debt seems rediculously small compared to todays debt , it was a worse debt then than now.
-
<<So Clinton had the best business climate the world has ever seen . . . >>
I really don't know what that means. And even if I did know what it meant, how could the "business climate" affect the national debt? The business "climate" is good or bad for businessmen, the national debt is a measure of the prudence or imprudence of the government of the day.
<< . . .and our debt rose during his "surplusses" "only" two trillion?>>
in accordance with your earlier observation about surplus, I approached the absurdity of cro's statement with a different set of parameters not relying upon the concept of surplus, so I'm not sure why you are reinserting the term into the argument at this stage.
<<At the end of the Clinton term he hands over a ship of state with a hole in the bottom because a bubble was bursting . . . >>
So apparently a Republican administration which has eight years to fix a hole in the bottom of the ship of state is totally incapable of doing so, and yet cro is still more concerned with the potential debts to be run up by "tax and spend asshole Democrats" than by an administration which ran up more than TWICE the debt of its predecessor, blaming a "hole in the bottom" which in eight years they were unable to fix.
And also, you will have to explain to me - - since the Democrats are "socialists" but the Republicans are not - - how is it that a bursting bubble, which affects equities held by private interests exclusively, not by the U.S. government - - is going to affect the debt owed by the U.S. government to its creditors?? This has to be one of the wildest stretches of political fantasy even for you to attempt.
<< . . . then our financial centers get burned down by terrorists >>
Oh, were they government property too? Did it cost the U.S. government $4.350 trillion dollars to replace "its" two buildings?
<< . . . and the diffrence is only two trillian more than the growth of the debt during the "good times"?>>
Uh, excuse me, since the "non-socialist" Republican-controlled government of the U.S.A. did not own the business sector, which remained in private hands, how on earth did the misadventures and misfortunes of the business community force the stewards of the public purse to incur roughly $2.4 TRILLION more dollars of debt than their Democratic predecessors?
<<What is the diffrence supposed to be between peacetimes with a burgioning new industry ,and wartime with an attack on the capitolist corps?>>
If you remember, it was the Republicans who chose to make a "war" of this attack by nineteen men, first on the entire nation of Afghanistan and then - - incomprehensibly, in the view of most observers today - - on the nation of Iraq. The choice they made - - to go to war with TWO countries over an attack by 19 nationals of a third country - - was an initiative taken and pursued by Republican leaders, yet it is the "tax and spend asshole Democrats" that has cro in fear of her financial viability???
<<Next correct for inflation, the diffrence shrinks a little.>>
Not by any amount that would make cro's fears any less ridiculous, though.
<<Then account for the overall growth of the economy , so that the comparison of debts is purportional to the overall size of the sorce of payments and resorces availible. The Contental Congress had a debt load that was pitifull and outsized compared to their tax base , even though the total amount of debt seems rediculously small compared to todays debt , it was a worse debt then than now.>>
Sorry, but I am NOT going to get into a discussion with you about the finances and tax base of the Continental Congress, a little bit before my own time, believe it or not, and something about which I know absolutely jack-shit. Nor am I going to get into discussions about the nebulous "growth" of the economy, especially now when it appears that GDP is actually shrinking. How on earth an economy could have been deemed "growing" during the Bush years, when the trade deficit was perpetually expanding, the dollar shrinking and good jobs fleeing non-stop in every direction but home, is one of life's little mysteries to me, comparable perhaps to John Insane's fatuous declaration that "the fundamentals of the economy are strong." That the public debt was INCREASED by $4.350 TRILLION during a time when the economy was so clearly in the toilet is one of the grossest signs of the total incompetence of the Republican administration imaginable, and one more reason to scratch one's head in wonderment at the idea that one could be concerned about the ability to pay the debts of a "tax and spend asshole Democratic" administration. I mean, WHAT PLANET do these people live on?
-
I really don't know what that means. And even if I did know what it meant, how could the "business climate" affect the national debt? The business "climate" is good or bad for businessmen, the national debt is a measure of the prudence or imprudence of the government of the day.
A good business climate also means that tax revenues are generally higher than in a bad business climate.
-
During Clinton's tenure, the economy was good in many areas. That said it was earth shatteringly bad in others. If you all recall back then we all debated about that very thing. Manufacturing in the height of Clinton's term was at a 6 year low. Many in here said that the 'economy' was changing that people in manufacturing should 'retrain' themselves. I argued that if manufacturing failed that the rest of the economy was not far behind. Here we are.
Another thing to remember, many Presidents inherit the economic path from the prior President. Look how long it took Reagan to pull out of Carters mess.
-
<<A good business climate also means that tax revenues are generally higher than in a bad business climate.>>
Thanks, Ami. I think I get it now. Sorta like, when the head of the household is gainfully employed and bringing home a healthy paycheque every week, the family's disposable income is generally higher than when the guy's been standing in the unemployment lines waiting for his pogey for the last six months.
So maybe I should ask cro what she thinks of a head of a very large family who, when he's been unemployed for most of the past six years, maxes out all his credit cards buying more guns and ammo for his weapons collection, more Hummers for his car collection, more premium gas for the Hummers and various ludicrous, pointless, useless contraptions and extravagances, and paying for an army of hired thugs to burn down his neighbours' houses, while he saves on medical bills by not taking his wife and kids to the doctor and allows their health to deteriorate all to shit?
OTOH, why bother? She's probably too focused on worrying about what debts will be run up for her by an incoming "tax and spend asshole Democratic" government to concern herself with silly hypothetical speculations spun out of thin air and having no connection at all to her own life.
Mashiggeneh velt.
-
I really don't know what that means. And even if I did know what it meant, how could the "business climate" affect the national debt? The business "climate" is good or bad for businessmen, the national debt is a measure of the prudence or imprudence of the government of the day.
A good business climate also means that tax revenues are generally higher than in a bad business climate.
Yes , business is the feild on which the value of the money is grown , the harvesters include the businesses , the people , and the government .
-
<<A good business climate also means that tax revenues are generally higher than in a bad business climate.>>
Thanks, Ami. I think I get it now. Sorta like, when the head of the household is gainfully employed and bringing home a healthy paycheque every week, the family's disposable income is generally higher than when the guy's been standing in the unemployment lines waiting for his pogey for the last six months.
So maybe I should ask cro what she thinks of a head of a very large family who, when he's been unemployed for most of the past six years, maxes out all his credit cards buying more guns and ammo for his weapons collection, more Hummers for his car collection, more premium gas for the Hummers and various ludicrous, pointless, useless contraptions and extravagances, and paying for an army of hired thugs to burn down his neighbours' houses, while he saves on medical bills by not taking his wife and kids to the doctor and allows their health to deteriorate all to shit?
OTOH, why bother? She's probably too focused on worrying about what debts will be run up for her by an incoming "tax and spend asshole Democratic" government to concern herself with silly hypothetical speculations spun out of thin air and having no connection at all to her own life.
Mashiggeneh velt.
This is about the 3rd post that I have read today with you disparaging me in regards to my opinion, Michael. I might add that I have been more than cautious in my responses not to alienate nor personally disparge you in my responses. So suffice it to say... fuck you. I am not worried about one fucking thing because I make sure that I do the best of my ability to look after my future and that I do the best of my ability to give money to places that really need it. I don't need a fuckin mother government to tell me how to spend my money. While we are at it, Michael..... why is it that you need to come in here and disparage the United States? Why not just have a fucking lovefest with Canada
-
<<This is about the 3rd post that I have read today with you disparaging me in regards to my opinion, Michael. I might add that I have been more than cautious in my responses not to alienate nor personally disparge you in my responses. So suffice it to say... fuck you. >>
??? ? ? ? Sorry, cro. Next time, I'll agree with every word you say. I was polite, if sarcastic. I meant no offense, but IMHO your views are 180 degrees WRONG, and there is no way to say so that will meet with your approval. (Well, there is, but it's stilted, formal and kind of old-fashioned. Sometimes it suits what I have to say and sometimes not.) At least the sarcasm was funny, I thought. If it bothers you that much, I'll try to tone it down.
<<While we are at it, Michael..... why is it that you need to come in here and disparage the United States? Why not just have a fucking lovefest with Canada>>
I've criticized Canada too. We're not a perfect country and I never said we were. A lot of my disparagement of "the United States" is disparagement of the current gang of right-wing fascist criminals that have taken over the reins of government by lying, cheating and stealing, with the active compliance of a lot of right-wing partisans, of which there is no shortage in this group. I go overboard sometimes and seem to slam the whole fucking country. I know that ain't right and nobody is stopping you from calling me out on it. I actually appreciate being told when I'm being a jerk and letting my disgust at the "conservatives" (crypto-fascists is more like it) spill over onto the entire country.
Anyway if you have a specific beef with any specific thing I said about the U.S., that's one thing, but to come out with a non-specific complaint that I "disparaged the Unites States" with no specifics? Fuck that, why should I backtrack through a hundred posts trying to figure out which one pissed you off? Call me out at the time or let it go.
P.S. - I made what I thought were some pretty good points in the last post I made, which were directed to you if not actually addressed to you. I was looking forward to seeing what you had to say in direct response to them, but instead all I got was this fucking tirade. I apologize for the sarcasm and I'll try to tone it down. How's that?
-
?? ? ? ? Sorry, cro. Next time, I'll agree with every word you say. I was polite, if sarcastic. I meant no offense, but IMHO your views are 180 degrees WRONG, and there is no way to say so that will meet with your approval. (Well, there is, but it's stilted, formal and kind of old-fashioned. Sometimes it suits what I have to say and sometimes not.) At least the sarcasm was funny, I thought. If it bothers you that much, I'll try to tone it down.
I happen back on a few posts today at work and lo and behold... there you were answering someone else's post and then using me as some blind imbecile. You don't have to tone it down, Michael. But if you have something to say to me or about me... make sure it is in response to my post. I don't give a shit if you think my posts or views are 180 degrees WRONG unlike you I don't need some one to 'yes' me. You take yourself way to seriously if you think for one minute you upset me. Today, however, when I read your ass sucking post to AMI and that started on your diatribe about cro this and cro that... it did piss me off but also made me understand one thing... my comments worry you. as Martha would say, and that's a good thing.
-
<<I happen back on a few posts today at work and lo and behold... there you were answering someone else's post and then using me as some blind imbecile. You don't have to tone it down, Michael. But if you have something to say to me or about me... make sure it is in response to my post. >>
It was easier to kill two birds with one post. These aren't private one-on-one communications here in this thread, everything's publicly posted and there was very little chance of what I said sneaking past you. I didn't expect it to go past you. You got your knickers in a twist all about nothing. When I dealt with Ami's point, there was also something relevant to that that furthered a conversation you and I had been having. It was pretty obvious to me that you, Ami, plane and I were all reading the same posts in the thread and jumping in as and where we each saw fit.
You had been making some asinine point about your fears of being impoverished past the point of no recovery by "asshole tax and spend Democrats" or some equally ludicrous phrase.
I had tried to point out how nonsensical your concerns were in the face of the absolutely appalling mismanagement of the Treasury by eight years of Republican borrowing and spending that had increased the public debt by over twice as much as the Democrats had done in their two terms.
plane tried to defend the Republican record, making the usual pathetic excuses for them, in this case that the business climate had turned sour during the Republicans' two Presidential terms.
I told plane that there was no way to link the business decline to the poor financial housekeeping of the Republicans charged with stewardship of the public purse, the private sector being privately owned, the government not being amongst the owners.
Ami then attempted to buttress plane's argument by pointing out that there was a link from the private sector misfortunes to the huge increase in the public debt under the Republicans - - that when business is down, government revenues are also down. This brought us to the point where I committed the unspeakably horrendous crime of answering Ami and dealing with your argument in the same post. Oy. Never again, cro, never again.
I answered Ami by politely thanking him for the information he had offered - - the sarcasm was subtle, and obviously flew right over your head. The polite thanks, not usually offered in this thread, were earned by Ami's having produced a fact which is not really relevant to the subject (since it doesn't in any way excuse the Republicans' mismanagement of the public purse) and which was probably known anyway to all of the participants in the discussion. I then proceeded to my next point, which was a detailed explanation of WHY the fact he had brought out did not excuse the Republican mismanagement, and at that point figured, since the actual details of their mismanagement had now been specified in detail, I would indirectly ask if you still felt that it was the "asshole tax and spend Democrats" who constituted the greater threat to your fiscal well-being. BIG mistake. Obviously.
<<I don't give a shit if you think my posts or views are 180 degrees WRONG unlike you I don't need some one to 'yes' me. You take yourself way to seriously if you think for one minute you upset me. >>
And in the very next sentence I will be told just how, and why I HAVE in fact upset you. Go figure.
<<Today, however, when I read your ass sucking post to AMI . . . >>
Missed the sarcasm completely. Oh, well, no surprises there. Can't win 'em all.
<< . . . and that started on your diatribe about cro this and cro that... it did piss me off but also made me understand one thing... my comments worry you . . . >>
Well I'm not gonna pretend they don't. I respect you and I take care NOT to offend you. It does bother me to think that you are pissed off at me. There aren't too many posters in this group that I would say that about. But I think you're pissed off for no reason at all.
-
It is not persuasion, or cooperation, or sharing. Government is a fist, a shove, a gun. Obama either doesn't understand this, or doesn't want voters to understand it.
==================================================
Government is a necessity. It is ridiculous to say that all government is nothing but coercion.
Government CAN be a solution to many societal problems. It is never a solution to anything when it is in the hands of fools who think that it is the problem.
-
<<It [government] is never a solution to anything when it is in the hands of fools who think that it is the problem.>>
Hear, hear !!
-
<<It [government] is never a solution to anything when it is in the hands of fools who think that it is the problem.>>
Hear, hear !!
It also doesn't solve everything when in the hands of fools who think it can.
There are only a few things that government can do better than privite effort , why use the government as the first choice?
-
BO wrote:
>>Government CAN be a solution to many societal problems.<<
Reminds me of a movie.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4rBDUJTnNU[/youtube]
-
Another thing to remember, many Presidents inherit the economic path from the prior President. Look how long it took Reagan to pull out of Carters mess.
======================
Ratwing rot.
Reagan did little but borrow, borrow, squander and spend.
Carter's zero-based budgeting was the one thibg that enabled him to do this.
-
Another thing to remember, many Presidents inherit the economic path from the prior President. Look how long it took Reagan to pull out of Carters mess.
======================
Ratwing rot.
Reagan did little but borrow, borrow, squander and spend.
Carter's zero-based budgeting was the one thibg that enabled him to do this.
I was a member of Carters Navy and Reagans , Carters Navy really was Hollow.
-
I was a member of Carters Navy and Reagans , Carters Navy really was Hollow.
And yet, no one attempted a naval invasion of the US in all the Carter years, did they?
We needed no navy at all, not evben a hollow one. And at least Carter's navy was cheap.
You could think of it as costume jewelry.
No jewelry is especially useful, but if you are going to piss away money on decorations, at least choose cheap ones.
Reagan saved us from ... what was that again? Something in Beirut, no, that ended in disaster.
Ah, yes, Reagan defended us from GRENADA. We can be thankful for that. Had it not been for Raygun, we'd all be speaking patois and eating far too many nutmegs.
-
I was a member of Carters Navy and Reagan's , Carters Navy really was Hollow.
And yet, no one attempted a naval invasion of the US in all the Carter years, did they?
We needed no navy at all, not even a hollow one. And at least Carter's navy was cheap.
You could think of it as costume jewelry.
No jewelry is especially useful, but if you are going to piss away money on decorations, at least choose cheap ones.
Reagan saved us from ... what was that again? Something in Beirut, no, that ended in disaster.
Ah, yes, Reagan defended us from GRENADA. We can be thankful for that. Had it not been for Raygun, we'd all be speaking patois and eating far too many nutmegs.
I saw the Soviet Fleet at sea in those years, their ships were newer and bristling with missiles , a fight with them would have been very sharp. They were building for some reason I wonder what it could have been?
Why was the Soviet Union building a lot in the Late Seventys and early eightys?
-
<<Why was the Soviet Union building a lot in the Late Seventys and early eightys?>>
Self-defence?
Helping Central American rebels against attack by U.S.-sponsored death squads? Helping the Sandinistas against the U.S.-sponsored contras? Supporting People's Revolution in Latin America?
-
The Russians were just playing keep-up-with-the Joneses.
The US, on the other hand, had the mission of keeping things buzzing at Pascagoula and Newport News to make Harry Byrd, and Senators Eastland, Stennis and later, Lott happy.
-
A strong US Navy has been US policy since John Paul Jones.
If we want to influence the world positively , we must first have hte ability to influence the world , and with the worlds first Navy we can block cross water invasions .
Since WWII how many such invasions have we allowed?
-
Since WWII how many such invasions have we allowed?
Certainly, the US allowed the French to invade Mexico.
They cooperated with France and England in an invasion of Venezuela in the 1920's.
Indonesia invaded the West part of New Guinea and they did nothing.
How many have been attempted?
-
Since WWII how many such invasions have we allowed?
Certainly, the US allowed the French to invade Mexico.
They cooperated with France and England in an invasion of Venezuela in the 1920's.
Indonesia invaded the West part of New Guinea and they did nothing.
How many have been attempted?
Less and less, the stronger the US has gotten the less chance there has been for Imperialism.
-
<< . . . the stronger the US has gotten the less chance there has been for Imperialism.>>
Of course, plane is not referring to U.S. imperialism. Just the other kind, the bad kind.
XO, the U.S. also "permitted" its fascist ally, Argentina, to invade the Falkland Islands of its non-fascist ally, Great Britain.
-
XO, the U.S. also "permitted" its fascist ally, Argentina, to invade the Falkland Islands of its non-fascist ally, Great Britain.
============================
So much for the Monroe Doctrine, hunh.
In the long history over the Malvinas (Falklands), the US position was that they belonged to no one. They declared that in the 1850's, after the US Navy freed some whalers from some gauchos who were sort of affiliated with the government of las Provincias Undidas de Buenos Aires. They captured all the gauchos they could catch and deposited them on the mainland.
The US is an imperialist power, as we have seen in Iraq. The Argentine claim to the Malvinas is at least as convincing as those of the UK.
It is a common sight in Argentina to see signs along the highway that state "Las Malvinas son Argentinas".
In an Argentine film I saw a couple of weeks ago, they showed one of those signs, but the word 'Argentinas' was cropssed out and the words "de los pingüinos" were scribbled in.
Las Malvinas son de los pingüinos" = The Falklands belong to the penguins.
Lots of Argentines seem to have this position. Of course, it is not wise to ask people you don;t know pretty well about this, because it is like Vietnam for Americans, a shameful defeat in a useless war.
-
<<The Argentine claim to the Malvinas is at least as convincing as those of the UK.>>
The major problem with the Argentinian claim is that most of the islanders are of British descent and will never consent to living under Argentinian rule. Nor are the British people prepared to abandon their brothers and sisters.
-
The major problem with the Argentinian claim is that most of the islanders are of British descent and will never consent to living under Argentinian rule. Nor are the British people prepared to abandon their brothers and sisters.
================================================
There are very few native Falkland Islanders. Those who work for the shepherding company are hired and sent there and it is the only game around. It's not like we were talking about a real country with a real nationality here. There are only around 3000 people, all of them British citizens that live there. By Argentine law, they are also Argentine citizens. Relocating those who really liked the Queen more than the Falklands delightful climate, say, the Scottish Hebrides, would not be a problem.
There was very little reason for Argentina's junta to start this war, as the Falklands just aren't worth dying over. There was even less reason for the Brits to retake the islands, since there is even less reason to launch a huge invasion force to go there are die over.
The junta started the war to win favor with the people, who have been taught in school since the 1940's that the Falklands are Argentine. Maggie Thatcher was glad to have a cause to get her subjects to rally around, since by 1980 she was slipping in the polls.
The last surviving ship at Pearl Harbor, renamed the General Belgrano, was sunk by the Brits in the Falklands War.
-
Ironic that Maggie, who never met a fascist dictator she didn't like, was instrumental in the overthrow of the Argentine junta, as was the fascist-loving Reagan, who didn't want to take sides and demand a halt to the invasion. Sort of bolstered my idea that if a fascist is given enough rope, he will eventually manage to hang himself because of his natural arrogance and stupidity. Reagan gave the bastards the rope and Maggie was forced into tying it around their necks and springing the trapdoor.
-
Ironic that Maggie, who never met a fascist dictator she didn't like, was instrumental in the overthrow of the Argentine junta, as was the fascist-loving Reagan, who didn't want to take sides and demand a halt to the invasion. Sort of bolstered my idea that if a fascist is given enough rope, he will eventually manage to hang himself because of his natural arrogance and stupidity. Reagan gave the bastards the rope and Maggie was forced into tying it around their necks and springing the trapdoor.
You cannot part with a compliment for Reagan or Thatcher even in these circumstances?
-
<< . . . the stronger the US has gotten the less chance there has been for Imperialism.>>
Of course, plane is not referring to U.S. imperialism. Just the other kind, the bad kind.
XO, the U.S. also "permitted" its fascist ally, Argentina, to invade the Falkland Islands of its non-fascist ally, Great Britain.
That is right , American governments practice a backwards imperialism.
The old fashioned imperalists conquered a land , subjugated its population and stripped it of rescorces.
Americans conquer a land , improve the condition of the people , give them gifts of huge size , empower the people and leave. I don't feel like apologiseing for stepping on the necks of tyrants even if we are big enough to make the tyrant seem like David.
-
Americans conquer a land , improve the condition of the people , give them gifts of huge size , empower the people and leave. I don't feel like apologiseing for stepping on the necks of tyrants even if we are big enough to make the tyrant seem like David.
Americans invade, install a puppet government and economic controls that favor US companies, get the government addicted to the US market, then use it as a tool for extracting money. This is what they have done and are doing in Mexico and Central America. The percentage of middle class Mexicans has not changed upwards in thirty years, although in the 80's it plummeted.
US products like Marlboro, Coca-Cola, Burger King, McDonald's, etc. are hawked through all manner of advertising and sold at near US prices. Shops are offered a huge discount to stop selling non-Coke and non-Pepsi locally made products. Once the locals are run out of business, they collaborate to form monopolies. If the US gives "huge gifts", these are given to a few of the elite.
And the US does not give a sh*t about empowerment of the people. Go anywhere that the US has taken over-- Korea, the Dominican Republic, Salvador, Panama, Grenada, and ask the people if they feel "empowered". The US has installed far more tyrants than they have overthrown.
-
then use it as a tool for extracting money.
Wow , I wish that were true.
Iraq is just about to make a lot of money , but I don't get the feeling that they are going to feel like shareing it with us.
-
<<You cannot part with a compliment for Reagan or Thatcher even in these circumstances?>>
Sure, Maggie did the right thing and smacked down the fascist junta, causing their ultimate downfall.
Reagan, as usual, was totally despicable. He held a lot of financial leverage over the junta but didn't want to alienate anyone who ran such a fine bunch of torture chambers and murder factories and kept their population so admirably terrorized.
-
then use it as a tool for extracting money.
Wow , I wish that were true.
Iraq is just about to make a lot of money , but I don't get the feeling that they are going to feel like shareing it with us.
===================
US? they aren't going to share it with YOU or ME. They will be forced to transfer it via bank draft from their account to Mellon Bank, Chase, JP Morgan. Not right away, but once the hooks are set, they will pay forever. It will be money that has been looted from you at the gas pump.
Don't expect to see any evidence of this happening publicly. It's more like when your Visa account sticks you with a $29 fee for paying a $10 payment one day late.
-
LOL....gotta love it. U.S. will be bilking Iraq for all kinds of $$$, but don't expect to see any evidence or proof of it. How convenient, for the accuser :D
-
<<You cannot part with a compliment for Reagan or Thatcher even in these circumstances?>>
Sure, Maggie did the right thing and smacked down the fascist junta, causing their ultimate downfall.
Reagan, as usual, was totally despicable. He held a lot of financial leverage over the junta but didn't want to alienate anyone who ran such a fine bunch of torture chambers and murder factories and kept their population so admirably terrorized.
You don't like Reagan because he prefereerd Jaw jaw to war war?
-
Reagan, Thatcher, Galtieri were all despicable. Galtieri was more so, I will admit, because he did torture his people and start a useless war.
But any life lost taking the Falklands for either side was lost in vain.
I have no more respect for Thatcher than for Reagan or Galtieri. All ordered people to die for no useful purpose.
If the Falklands belonged to the penguins, really, would anyone be much worse off?
-
<<Americans conquer a land , improve the condition of the people , give them gifts of huge size , empower the people and leave. I don't feel like apologiseing for stepping on the necks of tyrants even if we are big enough to make the tyrant seem like David.>>
Please, plane, you GOTTA tell us what you bin smoking.
-
It's more like when your Visa account sticks you with a $29 fee for paying a $10 payment one day late.
So, they're going to use the orbital mind-control lasers to force you to violate your credit card agreements? Pure genius!
-
<<You don't like Reagan because he prefereerd Jaw jaw to war war?>>
Don't you get it? He didn't need to jaw-jaw with anyone, all he had to tell the Argentinians was that there would be economic war if they didn't get out of the Falklands. He held their purse strings.
-
<<Why was the Soviet Union building a lot in the Late Seventys and early eightys?>>
Self-defence?
At sea?
Helping Central American rebels against attack by U.S.-sponsored death squads? Helping the Sandinistas against the U.S.-sponsored contras? Supporting People's Revolution in Latin America?
None of that ever happened , although I did follow a three ship flotilla all the way around the Carribbian once , got to examine the Kresta and Krivack class ship .
Their decks were tightly crouded with missle launchers , launchers that mostly could not be reloaded at sea. Their evident strategyu was a high volume of fire to win a short engaguement.
My ship was not carrying missles , our evident strategy was to not seem too threatening as we followed them around.;
-
What Reagan did during the Falklands was pressure the junta and pretend to support it at the same time he was giving US satellite and other intel to the Brits. I have heard he also gave bad intel to the Argentines, and I am sure that this is in a book somewhere, but I have not researched it. He didn't jaw jaw, and he didn't need to war war. He made nice with the junta and stabbed them in the back. Not that they deserved to be actually treated as humans, by the way.
Galtieri, Thatcher, Reagan. Despicable all, and in that order.
Reagan was less so, because he didn't send anyone to get shot at over penguin habitat.
-
<<You don't like Reagan because he prefereerd Jaw jaw to war war?>>
Don't you get it? He didn't need to jaw-jaw with anyone, all he had to tell the Argentinians was that there would be economic war if they didn't get out of the Falklands. He held their purse strings.
That doesn't seem to be true does it?
He spent the time that the British fleet took crossing the Atlantic trying to talk the Argentines out of a fight he saw no purpose for , he tried to avoid takeing sides untill the shooting started .
The Argentines had a creditable force , it might possibly have sunk the British fleet , I know Reagan did not want that.
-
What Reagan did during the Falklands was pressure the junta and pretend to support it at the same time he was giving US satellite and other intel to the Brits. I have heard he also gave bad intel to the Argentines, and I am sure that this is in a book somewhere, but I have not researched it. He didn't jaw jaw, and he didn't need to war war. He made nice with the junta and stabbed them in the back. Not that they deserved to be actually treated as humans, by the way.
Galtieri, Thatcher, Reagan. Despicable all, and in that order.
Reagan was less so, because he didn't send anyone to get shot at over penguin habitat.
I did not know he did that much to undercut the Junta, do you suppose their loss was really what he wanted?
-
<<You don't like Reagan because he prefereerd Jaw jaw to war war?>>
Don't you get it? He didn't need to jaw-jaw with anyone, all he had to tell the Argentinians was that there would be economic war if they didn't get out of the Falklands. He held their purse strings.
The British depend on us too , could he have used such a threat to turn Thatcher?
I don't think this idea is realistic .
-
The British depend on us too , could he have used such a threat to turn Thatcher?
I don't think this idea is realistic .
=======================================
What made the Argentines leave the Falklands was abject, total defeat. Reagan may or may not have pressured them, but the Argentines fought until they had no more to fight with. Their troops were captured, their ships were sunk or disabled. They were routed totally.
They fought hard and as well as they could, but they were crushed.
-
<<LOL....gotta love it. U.S. will be bilking Iraq for all kinds of $$$, but don't expect to see any evidence or proof of it. How convenient, for the accuser >>
sirs, when you see ad campaigns claiming that [shoplifting/pirating/insurance fraud/drug abuse/whatever] is costing the American economy x billion dollars a year, do you demand to see evidence or proof of it?
Do you think that fraudsters or con artists obligingly leave detailed paper trails for guys like you to follow so that you may be all the more easily convinced of their skullduggery? Or do you think it's possible, just barely possible, that a con artist will try his damndest to cover his tracks?
This is kind of like your continued scoffing at claims of the stolen 2000 election, "without a shred of evidence," when the entire case is made in detail in the Vanity Fair article that I referred to and that Lanya found and posted here; when your similar "without a shred of evidence" rebuttals are offered to the "Bush Lied, They Died" claims, notwithstanding the multiple accounts of Bush insiders, published documents, etc. that litter these threads.
Actually a lot of the rip-offs are explained and detailed in the Iraq Oil Report - -
http://www.iraqoilreport.com/ (http://www.iraqoilreport.com/) - -
and other sources, but it makes no difference. Your M.O. remains the same - - claim (with some faked horse-laughs) that there is not even a shred of evidence, and ignore all the evidence that is produced.
What else is new?
-
<<LOL....gotta love it. U.S. will be bilking Iraq for all kinds of $$$, but don't expect to see any evidence or proof of it. How convenient, for the accuser >>
sirs, when you see ad campaigns claiming that [shoplifting/pirating/insurance fraud/drug abuse/whatever] is costing the American economy x billion dollars a year, do you demand to see evidence or proof of it?
YES......and there IS evidence.... of all of the above. The ones that get caught are the ones prosecuted. The ones who haven't been caught, you KEEP looking for evidence of their illegal act, and then prosecute. You don't just perseverate that Bush stole the election, Bush lied us into war, we're bilking the Iraqis for billions, as if that's all that's necessary. Evidence, that you so sorely lack in so many of yours & Xo's accusations, is required It's not rocket science, but given the source of the accusations, not surprising in the least
This is kind of like your continued scoffing at claims of the stolen 2000 election, "without a shred of evidence," when the entire case is made in detail in the Vanity Fair article that I referred to and that Lanya found and posted here
1 article that's refuted by all the evidence, investigations, and articles, to the contrary, of course.
-
This is kind of like your continued scoffing at claims of the stolen 2000 election, "without a shred of evidence," when the entire case is made in detail in the Vanity Fair article that I referred to and that Lanya found and posted here; when your similar "without a shred of evidence" rebuttals are offered to the "Bush Lied, They Died" claims, notwithstanding the multiple accounts of Bush insiders, published documents, etc. that litter these threads.
It is easy to be a sceptic , I don't know why I should respect Vanity Fair when they publish fiction more than any other rag, if the accusations were true it would be actionable with actions that no one seems interested in takeing. Are there no Lawyers in the Democratic party?
You may love it, but it is a lie.
Get some scepticism it is good for you.
-
<<It is easy to be a sceptic , I don't know why I should respect Vanity Fair when they publish fiction more than any other rag . . . >>
I don't know if that's true or not, lots of magazines publish fiction AND investigative reporting, why single out Vanity Fair? The article should stand or fall on its own, not on whether the zine publishes fiction. Would you be so quick to write off a New Yorker or an Esquire article? Playboy prints fiction AND nekkid wimmin with its investigative reporting, it doesn't seem to have an adverse effect on the veracity of the reports. I think you're just grasping at straws, that argument sounds desperate, as most shoot-the-messenger arguments are. You're just attacking a painstakingly researched article by three investigative reporters, none of whom have any taint of scandal attached to them, on a purely ad hominem basis.
<<if the accusations were true it would be actionable with actions that no one seems interested in takeing. Are there no Lawyers in the Democratic party?>>
That's at least a more credible line of attack. There are several answers to that. There may be interests that are so powerful in the U.S.A. that they will stop at nothing in certain instances to preserve a certain balance of power in the control of the country. That at least would account for the lack of real differentiation in the policies of Republicans and Democrats, why for example BOTH parties' health-care plans avoid the obvious single-payer format so common in the rest of the industrialized world, why wars begun by Republicans are continued by Democrats and vice versa and why the oil depletion allowance continued for so many years. As an indication of how far these interests are prepared to go when there is no realistic alternative, I give you the assassinations of JFK, Bobby and Martin Luther King. And others.
In the case of the stolen 2000 election, a line may have been drawn in the sand. I think any Senator can propose a challenge to election results and needs a seconder - - I believe that such a challenge was proposed but no seconder found. The candidates themselves may have standing to pursue a legal challenge. Gore chose not to pursue the matter. It was considered the "patriotic" thing to do, but what were his real motivations? We'll never know.
The other answer lies in the difficulty of proof - - it's hard to make a conspiracy case. It could be a combination of both - - death threats and the likelihood of failure anyway.
Bottom line is, I don't KNOW why no legal action (after Bush v. Gore) was pursued, but I don't take the failure to pursue legal action as proof either way. It is a factor to be pondered, however.
-
<<It is easy to be a sceptic , I don't know why I should respect Vanity Fair when they publish fiction more than any other rag . . . >>
I don't know if that's true or not, lots of magazines publish fiction AND investigative reporting, why single out Vanity Fair? The article should stand or fall on its own, not on whether the zine publishes fiction. Would you be so quick to write off a New Yorker or an Esquire article? Playboy prints fiction AND nekkid wimmin with its investigative reporting, it doesn't seem to have an adverse effect on the veracity of the reports. I think you're just grasping at straws, that argument sounds desperate, as most shoot-the-messenger arguments are. You're just attacking a painstakingly researched article by three investigative reporters, none of whom have any taint of scandal attached to them, on a purely ad hominem basis.
<<if the accusations were true it would be actionable with actions that no one seems interested in takeing. Are there no Lawyers in the Democratic party?>>
That's at least a more credible line of attack. There are several answers to that. There may be interests that are so powerful in the U.S.A. that they will stop at nothing in certain instances to preserve a certain balance of power in the control of the country. That at least would account for the lack of real differentiation in the policies of Republicans and Democrats, why for example BOTH parties' health-care plans avoid the obvious single-payer format so common in the rest of the industrialized world, why wars begun by Republicans are continued by Democrats and vice versa and why the oil depletion allowance continued for so many years. As an indication of how far these interests are prepared to go when there is no realistic alternative, I give you the assassinations of JFK, Bobby and Martin Luther King. And others.
In the case of the stolen 2000 election, a line may have been drawn in the sand. I think any Senator can propose a challenge to election results and needs a seconder - - I believe that such a challenge was proposed but no seconder found. The candidates themselves may have standing to pursue a legal challenge. Gore chose not to pursue the matter. It was considered the "patriotic" thing to do, but what were his real motivations? We'll never know.
The other answer lies in the difficulty of proof - - it's hard to make a conspiracy case. It could be a combination of both - - death threats and the likelihood of failure anyway.
Bottom line is, I don't KNOW why no legal action (after Bush v. Gore) was pursued, but I don't take the failure to pursue legal action as proof either way. It is a factor to be pondered, however.
Gore did persue the matter and was highly motivated , if he had found as few as five hundred hidden votes he would have been President Gore.
-
<<Gore did persue the matter and was highly motivated , if he had found as few as five hundred hidden votes he would have been President Gore.>>
I believe that what Gore took to the Supreme Court was the issue of the voting irregularities but not the deliberate suppression of the black votes through the purging of the electoral rolls. He took that as far as he could, and the court decided on ideological lines 5/4 to hand it to Bush.
As far as I know the issue of the suppression of the black vote was never addressed in the courts. Or in the Senate, although one Senator did make the challenge, but no seconder could be found.
There are several possible explanations for this, but I don't believe the failure to prosecute this in the courts or the Senate is a real answer to the charge that the election was stolen.
-
<<Gore did persue the matter and was highly motivated , if he had found as few as five hundred hidden votes he would have been President Gore.>>
I believe that what Gore took to the Supreme Court was the issue of the voting irregularities but not the deliberate suppression of the black votes through the purging of the electoral rolls. He took that as far as he could, and the court decided on ideological lines 5/4 to hand it to Bush.
As far as I know the issue of the suppression of the black vote was never addressed in the courts. Or in the Senate, although one Senator did make the challenge, but no seconder could be found.
There are several possible explanations for this, but I don't believe the failure to prosecute this in the courts or the Senate is a real answer to the charge that the election was stolen.
Gore searched for some way to snatch the win , if he could have found some evidence of fraud he would have used it and this is quite certain , he did use everything he really had .
The fantasy of voter supression is belied also by the fact that each district that had a problem was run by a Democratic comission.
So yes Gore being unable to find such evidence with the resorces at his command and the motivation he had represents a thourough search , in detail, of the accusation and a non finding in reality of something that would be easy to find if it were real.
-
<<Gore searched for some way to snatch the win , if he could have found some evidence of fraud he would have used it and this is quite certain , he did use everything he really had .>>
100% pure Grade-A speculation on your part and nothing but. Probative value: zero
<<The fantasy of voter supression is belied also by the fact that each district that had a problem was run by a Democratic comission.>>
Not so at all. The bulk of black voter suppression was accomplished by the "purging" of the voter rolls by a private, Republican owned corporation, a job outsourced by the State of Florida (Jeb Bush, Guv'nor) without being let out for tenders. Also by "spontaneous" fake-document checks launched "randomly" at motorists who happened to be in their cars on election day who happened to be black. Imagine, by some incredible coincidence, the State Police picked the day of the election as the SAME DAY out of all 365 in the year to launch this "spot-check" campaign. Both these actions were taken at the state level.
<<So yes Gore being unable to find such evidence with the resorces at his command and the motivation he had represents a thourough search , in detail, of the accusation and a non finding in reality of something that would be easy to find if it were real.>>
Proving nothing. Gore could have seen, or been made to see, that there were certain limits beyond which the water would no longer be safe. Alternatively, Gore could easily have fallen short in his resources - - the resources he had in ferreting out the truth would have been necessarily inferior to the Governments' (Florida and Fed) resources to suppress it.
-
Not so at all. The bulk of black voter suppression was accomplished by the "purging" of the voter rolls by a private, Republican owned corporation, a job outsourced by the State of Florida (Jeb Bush, Guv'nor) without being let out for tenders.
You might want to fact check that statement. You have been corrected on that misstatement numerous times.
-
<<Gore searched for some way to snatch the win , if he could have found some evidence of fraud he would have used it and this is quite certain , he did use everything he really had .>>
100% pure Grade-A speculation on your part and nothing but. Probative value: zero
No ,Gore really did go to court , Florida really is full of Lawyers, the state supreme court of Florida was sympathetic to Gore , the Federal Government was on his side and the Democratic party was willing to spend money on the project.
What is supposed to be the speculation?
With no proof at all you are willing to beleive that the state patroll stopped thousands of prospexctive voters on the road with state troopers (many of whom are democrats themselves), how would this be hidden if it were true?
You are doing the speculateing , I am doing the reality based thinking and Gore did the hard work of proveing that a good search turns up nothing.
-
<<No ,Gore really did go to court , Florida really is full of Lawyers, the state supreme court of Florida was sympathetic to Gore , the Federal Government was on his side and the Democratic party was willing to spend money on the project.
<<What is supposed to be the speculation?>>
The speculation is this: <<Gore searched for some way to snatch the win , if he could have found some evidence of fraud he would have used it and this is quite certain , he did use everything he really had .
<<With no proof at all you are willing to beleive that the state patroll stopped thousands of prospexctive voters on the road with state troopers (many of whom are democrats themselves), how would this be hidden if it were true?>>
The Vanity Fair article had the proof and even the excuse (random stops coincidentally scheduled for Election Day, coincidentally underway in black areas but not white ones)
<<You are doing the speculateing , I am doing the reality based thinking . . . >>
That is demonstrably false, and I just demonstrated that.
<< . . . and Gore did the hard work of proveing that a good search turns up nothing.>>
Gore missed some of the best evidence that the election was rigged. Maybe it's his lawyers' fault. He never considered black voter suppression that resulted from purging the rolls and he probably never knew about the "random" traffic stops of black voters because it took time for someone to connect all the dots. Gore was focused on the hanging chads, defective machines, lack of paper trail stuff and it's quite natural that he missed the Big Story, black voter suppression. Happens all the time - - lawyers focus on the most obvious issues, and somewhere lurking or sleeping is the Mother of All Issues, which, maybe because of distraction and misguided focus, seems to escape all the investigators' notice.
-
That it appears in "Vanity Fair " is not proof.
If it happened in the real world what would have hidden it from the well motivated and litigious Gore?
What prevents it from being litigated now ?
Other than its totaly ficticious nature?
There isn't a reason for Gore to ignore any such fraud in his court appeals , he would have if he could have.
Suppose I found a donkey starved to death on a trail , I might consider that to be pretty good proof that that bit of trail was short of donkey food could I not?
-
<<That it appears in "Vanity Fair " is not proof.>>
If I see an article by three investigative reporters alleging certain facts in Vanity Fair, I believe what I read initially if the story is plausible, makes sense to me and does not contain assumptions (such as, if Saddam had the weapons, he would attack the U.S.A.) that are laughable and ridiculous. If the article is refuted by other articles, if the reporters who wrote it are shown up as frauds, liars, fabricators or otherwise discredited, I may stop believing in the story. We're at the stage now where I read the story, found nothing ridiculous or inconsistent with it, it fits what I know of Bush's character (he has lied repeatedly on a variety of subjects, from the war to his own insider trading) which means that his associates and confidantes would in all likelihood be the same kind of lying, lowlife scum as he himself is, and most importantly, none of the allegations in the article have ever been refuted. Furthermore, if absence of lawsuits is proof of anything, why weren't the three investigative reporters and the publishers of Vanity Fair sued for libel?
On balance, that is why I believe the Vanity Fair story.
<<If it happened in the real world what would have hidden it from the well motivated and litigious Gore?>>
The "well-motivated" Gore might have been well motivated by more basic needs like survival and a good, healthy and soundly based fear of "lone nut" assassins "acting alone" than by the need to park his ass in the Oval Office for four years. The "litigious" Gore? You must be smoking that locoweed again, plane. Remember, it was "Bush v. Gore," not "Gore v. Bush" that Bush and not Gore took all the way to the Supreme Court of the U.S.A.
<<What prevents it from being litigated now ?>>
"Patriotism" for official reasons, a.k.a. good healthy fear of covert operations by rogue security officers, lack of solid evidence, water under the bridge - - your guess is as good as mine.
<<Other than its totaly ficticious nature?>>
It has no "totally fictitious nature." It's a good description of what actually happened.
<<There isn't a reason for Gore to ignore any such fraud in his court appeals , he would have if he could have.>>
Sure there is. He can read the Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore, count the votes, figure out that five is more than four, and make an educated guess as to the ultimate result of any further litigation he wants to engage in over the election, if he should live long enough to hear the Supreme Court's views on the subject.
<<Suppose I found a donkey starved to death on a trail , I might consider that to be pretty good proof that that bit of trail was short of donkey food could I not?>>
or that the donkey starved to death somewhere else and was dumped there. Or suffered from some GI tract obstruction. Or metabolic disorder. But we're not really talking about dead donkeys in a dead horse saloon are we?
-
<<That it appears in "Vanity Fair " is not proof.>>
If I see an article by three investigative reporters alleging certain facts in Vanity Fair, I believe what I read initially if the story is plausible, makes sense to me and does not contain assumptions (such as, if Saddam had the weapons, he would attack the U.S.A.) that are laughable and ridiculous. If the article is refuted by other articles, if the reporters who wrote it are shown up as frauds, liars, fabricators or otherwise discredited, I may stop believing in the story. We're at the stage now where I read the story, found nothing ridiculous or inconsistent with it, it fits what I know of Bush's character (he has lied repeatedly on a variety of subjects, from the war to his own insider trading) which means that his associates and confidantes would in all likelihood be the same kind of lying, lowlife scum as he himself is, and most importantly, none of the allegations in the article have ever been refuted. Furthermore, if absence of lawsuits is proof of anything, why weren't the three investigative reporters and the publishers of Vanity Fair sued for libel?
On balance, that is why I believe the Vanity Fair story.
<<If it happened in the real world what would have hidden it from the well motivated and litigious Gore?>>
The "well-motivated" Gore might have been well motivated by more basic needs like survival and a good, healthy and soundly based fear of "lone nut" assassins "acting alone" than by the need to park his ass in the Oval Office for four years. The "litigious" Gore? You must be smoking that locoweed again, plane. Remember, it was "Bush v. Gore," not "Gore v. Bush" that Bush and not Gore took all the way to the Supreme Court of the U.S.A.
<<What prevents it from being litigated now ?>>
"Patriotism" for official reasons, a.k.a. good healthy fear of covert operations by rogue security officers, lack of solid evidence, water under the bridge - - your guess is as good as mine.
<<Other than its totaly ficticious nature?>>
It has no "totally fictitious nature." It's a good description of what actually happened.
<<There isn't a reason for Gore to ignore any such fraud in his court appeals , he would have if he could have.>>
Sure there is. He can read the Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore, count the votes, figure out that five is more than four, and make an educated guess as to the ultimate result of any further litigation he wants to engage in over the election, if he should live long enough to hear the Supreme Court's views on the subject.
<<Suppose I found a donkey starved to death on a trail , I might consider that to be pretty good proof that that bit of trail was short of donkey food could I not?>>
or that the donkey starved to death somewhere else and was dumped there. Or suffered from some GI tract obstruction. Or metabolic disorder. But we're not really talking about dead donkeys in a dead horse saloon are we?
Gore first went to court , there is no reason to think he feared assination when he went to the court and he brought with him a team of lawyers to make the best case he could , we are talking about a big team of Democrats who were on the scene , the really did go to the sites and turn over the rocks , finding nothing that was usefull to them in court.
Your supposition of Gores cowardace is belied by the fact that Gore went to court with all that he had and won in the state court, the US Supreme court was appealed to by Bush because the Florida Supreme court was ignoreing the law and attempting to appoint Gore contrary to law.
It went up and down the State and federal supreme courts twice with everyone getting exasperated , but to suggest that Gore was holding back even a little is rediculous.
Lets talk about the Sasquatch , he is basd on stronger evidence than the Vanity fair article , at least with the Sasquatch there are supposed to be a small number of Sasqui so that their hideing is not so hard , the mythical Suppressd Florida voter is supposedly numerous yet still impossible to find.
To my mind it is a sort of meaness that preserves these lies in the face of extremely strong disproof .
-
Lets talk about the Sasquatch , he is basd on stronger evidence than the Vanity fair article , at least with the Sasquatch there are supposed to be a small number of Sasqui so that their hideing is not so hard , the mythical Suppressd Florida voter is supposedly numerous yet still impossible to find.
===================================
Why don't you tell us what evidence there is of sasquatch? At most, there is one grainy ten-second shot of what could be a guy in an apesuit.
-
<<You might want to fact check that statement. You have been corrected on that misstatement numerous times.>>
That the purging was outsourced by the Jeb Bush administration to a Republican-controlled corporation that purged many blacks but few Hispanics erroneously? IIRC the only "correction" of that "misstatement" was that the firm was originally contracted out by a Democratic administration. However the "errors" complained of were complained of at the time of the 2000 Florida elections and the contract could have been pulled any time by the Jeb Bush administration for reckless purging. My theory is that the firm behaved itself initially but in concert with the Bush family went rogue at the time of the 2000 election and stole the election for Bush.
-
The bulk of black voter suppression was accomplished by the "purging" of the voter rolls by a private, Republican owned corporation, a job outsourced by the State of Florida (Jeb Bush, Guv'nor) without being let out for tenders.
That was your original statement.
We see now that a dem controlled state legislature passed a law requiring the dem governor to put out for bid the project. The contract was awarded by the dem gov. Lawton Chiles I believe. The ACT was in response to the City of Miami elections.
The company awarded the contract was publicly traded. How does that translate to Republican owned?
The purging was done according to the contract specifications set at the time of bid. Written by a dem administration. There was a remedy built into the purging to allow those who were erroneously purged to be reinstated.
What part of your original statement withstands examination.
Your source is Greg Pallast. He was published in Vanity Fair. Which is why the author and the magazine have fallen into disrepute.
-
<<Gore first went to court , there is no reason to think he feared assination when he went to the court . . . >>
Of course not. Assassination is a measure of last resort when the target can't be brought down in any other way. They'd have to be nuts to threaten him as long as the matter was before the courts and when the Supreme Court threw the case to Bush, it was kind of a signal to Gore that he was not going to get anywhere with the law, because he'd ultimately wind up before the same nine judges.
<< . . . and he brought with him a team of lawyers to make the best case he could , we are talking about a big team of Democrats who were on the scene , the really did go to the sites and turn over the rocks , finding nothing that was usefull to them in court.>>
With all due respect to you, plane, you have no idea WHAT they found or what factors were at play in their decisions to bring it up or to let it lie.
<<Your supposition of Gores cowardace is belied by the fact that Gore went to court with all that he had . . . >>
Again you're speculating. You don't really know WHAT Gore went to court with, that is PURE speculation. Neither have you any way of knowing whether Gore had all that there was. You are foolishly making the assumption that whatever dirt there was to be found, Gore's team had found it. I am not sure that Gore even had the phony purges of the voters rolls or the fake "search for fake documents" tactics of the state police before him going into court. Why on earth would you assume that everything the Republicans had taken great care to hide would immediately be found by the Gore team and in time for the case to be argued in the courts? That makes no sense whatsoever.
<< . . . and [Gore] won in the state court, the US Supreme court was appealed to by Bush because the Florida Supreme court was ignoreing the law and attempting to appoint Gore contrary to law.>>
In your own considered legal opinion, that is. Did you ever stop to consider that if Gore won handily in the state court and lost in the Supreme Court by only a narrow 5/4 majority, then the total number of judges who ruled on the case considered the law to be on Gore's side, as it in fact was, and that Gore was robbed of his legitimate victory only by four black-robed prostitutes who voted against their own "conservative" beliefs in letting the states decide their own procedures to hand the stolen victory to Bush?
<<It went up and down the State and federal supreme courts twice with everyone getting exasperated , but to suggest that Gore was holding back even a little is rediculous.>>
I don't know what or if Gore held back during Bush v. Gore. It's not my point that he did, but it's a distinct possibility. Why no Senator could be found to second a Senatorial motion attacking the validity of the election procedures has never been clear to me, and intimidation is one possibility to consider.
<<Lets talk about the Sasquatch , he is basd on stronger evidence than the Vanity fair article , at least with the Sasquatch there are supposed to be a small number of Sasqui so that their hideing is not so hard , the mythical Suppressd Florida voter is supposedly numerous yet still impossible to find.>>
I can fully understand and sympathize with your desire to discuss the Sasquatch, a truly mythical being, as opposed to the hard reality of the election which your party actually and demonstrably stole. You always did seem to be delivering your opinions from a fantasy world of impossibilities and total divorce from reality, and your new-found Sasquatch interest actually comes as no surprise.
<<To my mind it is a sort of meaness that preserves these lies in the face of extremely strong disproof .>>
Well, in the first place, they are definitely not lies and the meanness lies in accusing others of lying, not in someone asserting the truth in the face of heavily partisan, biased and irrational attacks against it. The ad hominem attack not only reflects poorly on you, but it's ineffective and weak, since I've been called so many worse things in this group. In the second place, it's ludicrous to speak as you did of "extremely strong disproof." In actual fact, there is no disproof at all, strong, extremely strong or otherwise.
-
Lets talk about the Sasquatch , he is basd on stronger evidence than the Vanity fair article , at least with the Sasquatch there are supposed to be a small number of Sasqui so that their hideing is not so hard , the mythical Suppressd Florida voter is supposedly numerous yet still impossible to find.
===================================
Why don't you tell us what evidence there is of sasquatch? At most, there is one grainy ten-second shot of what could be a guy in an apesuit.
Got a photo of even less quality for the supressed voters?
Ther are supposed to be tens of thousands and they are all better at hideing than bigfoot , at least for Sasquatch there is one photo.
-
Again you're speculating. You don't really know WHAT Gore went to court with, that is PURE speculation.
You should look up speculation , yo0u are speculateing and I am not.
Gore went to court, he brought with him the evidence he had.
You are accuseing Gore of Cowardace , incompetance as a lawyer himself , and you are accuseing his leagal team of gross incompetance .
(I have never been as hard on Gore as you are being , and I don't even like him much.)
And all based on your speulation that he must have been in fear of assination .
Must I remind you that Gore had the same Secret Service Men around him he had had for eight years or more , and that he was a member of the party in power , how cowardly do you really think Gore was?
If "Vanity Fair " proclaims Sasquatch real I will still want to see the evidence, if "Vanity Fair " declairs the moon landings a fraud I will want to know how the evidence I have seen is refuted . The accusation of vote supression is rediculous reguardless that there are a lot of true beleivers who have low standards of proof.
-
Well, in the first place, they are definitely not lies and the meanness lies in accusing others of lying, not in someone asserting the truth in the face of heavily partisan, biased and irrational attacks against it. The ad hominem attack not only reflects poorly on you, but it's ineffective and weak, since I've been called so many worse things in this group. In the second place, it's ludicrous to speak as you did of "extremely strong disproof." In actual fact, there is no disproof at all, strong, extremely strong or otherwise.
WHO on earth is better motivated to find and display these "proofs" than Al Gore?
Al Gore in fact did gather all of the proofs he could and went to court, he did not include the "Vanity Fair " proofs because they were useless in court .
What makes a fact useless in court other than that it is unproveable , perhaps not a fact at all.
Let me tell you right now that in Qubec the police are stopping people in Anglo neighborhoods and harassing them if they don't speak French, I just made that up , but could you prove to me it isn't so?
The voter Fraud that you beleive proved so well are just unsupported statements , they are disproved as well as any such statement can be disproved by the absense of the nessacery consequence to the truth of the statement.
The Florida State Patroll has not a few Democrats included also not a few black individual officers , could you expect to use this entity for voter supression and never produce a witness ?
All of the districts in which problems occured are run by Democratic comissions , who paradoxicly are supposed to have been working against their own party.
The Florida Supreme court was about to allow Gore to recount only in districts he would choose, this is supposed to be a good idea ?It isn't the law and Bush was forced to go to the Supreme Court US or just watch Gore pick out votes selecting them out from whole. Please don't tell me after this that Gore wanted every vote counted .
I think Gore is a liar and a cheat , but you think him a craven coward , which of us is being hard on him?
-
Why don't you tell us what evidence there is of sasquatch? At most, there is one grainy ten-second shot of what could be a guy in an apesuit.
Got a photo of even less quality for the supressed voters? Ther are supposed to be tens of thousands and they are all better at hideing than bigfoot , at least for Sasquatch there is one photo.
LOL....touche', Plane :D
-
<<Got a photo of even less quality for the supressed voters?
<<Ther are supposed to be tens of thousands and they are all better at hideing than bigfoot , at least for Sasquatch there is one photo.>>
If three investigative reporters write up that it happened, it probably happened unless they're all frauds and have been revealed as such, the way Judith Miller or Jayson Blair were. So far nobody's accused them of faking anything.
Magazines usually insist on the reporters producing their sources - - original notes of interviews, with names, dates, places, original tapes of the interviews, all given to fact-checkers, then the reporters are interviewed by the fact-checkers and then the researchers research for factual errors or impossibilities.
Given the ludicrous factual errors that creep into posts in this group, my own included, I would take the word of Vanity Fair's article over the word of any poster in this group, yourself included. Your facts aren't checked, theirs are rigorously checked.
You have nothing but pure speculation and ridicule to counter the facts of the Vanity Fair article. Hands down, you lose.
-
Tee's in the ritualistic habit of confusing accusations with actual evidence of misconduct/illegal activity. In other words, the evidence here would be in the actual "pictures of sasquatch", not on Vanity's Fair say they saw it
-
sirs of course is in the habit of denying circumstantial evidence, when the criminal activity is meant to be clandestine and no real evidence exists. The bulk of the case for the stolen election is circumstantial evidence, and it's very well documented in the Vanity Fair article. I don't intend to re-hash it, we've all been through that way too many times, but only will point out: circumstantial evidence is all too often the ONLY evidence that exists of a crime having been committed, particularly if the crime is premeditated and evidence deliberately covered up or destroyed. It's harder to make a case on circumstantial evidence but it is done all the time, every day or every week.
So when the circumstances add up to election fraud (and read the Vanity Fair article yourselves to see if they do or they don't) then the verdict must be election fraud. Don't be fooled by the phony argument that circustantial evidence is no evidence at all. It's powerful and it's sometimes the only evidence there's gonna be, especially if the crooks are smart and have smart lawyers backing them up.
-
Yea, that Gore, such a dunce & idiot, and not 1 smart laywer within the entire democrat party to pull out the fiction from the non-fiction. So sad
-
Yea, that Gore, such a dunce & idiot, and not 1 smart laywer within the entire democrat party to pull out the fiction from the non-fiction. So sad
Are you devising a plan for snagging your own Nobel Prize?
-
No, too busy trying to rehab patients vs a politician rehabing one's apparent idiocy. Why do you ask?
-
Sorry, didn't know you were into "rehapping".
-
Oooo, the spelling nazi strikes again
-
I figured that if it was your career you might know how to spell it better than I. Sorry.
-
Good think it's knot part of my carer to look over other peeple's showlders and criticise any speling or gramatical eror, while throuing a hissy fit when it's dun to himself
-
Good think it's knot part of my carer to look over other peeple's showlders and criticise any speling or gramatical eror, while throuing a hissy fit when it's dun to himself
wot da fok.... ya knod dat id the fust ting to go?
-
<<Got a photo of even less quality for the supressed voters?
<<Ther are supposed to be tens of thousands and they are all better at hideing than bigfoot , at least for Sasquatch there is one photo.>>
If three investigative reporters write up that it happened, it probably happened unless they're all frauds and have been revealed as such, the way Judith Miller or Jayson Blair were. So far nobody's accused them of faking anything.
Magazines usually insist on the reporters producing their sources - - original notes of interviews, with names, dates, places, original tapes of the interviews, all given to fact-checkers, then the reporters are interviewed by the fact-checkers and then the researchers research for factual errors or impossibilities.
Given the ludicrous factual errors that creep into posts in this group, my own included, I would take the word of Vanity Fair's article over the word of any poster in this group, yourself included. Your facts aren't checked, theirs are rigorously checked.
You have nothing but pure speculation and ridicule to counter the facts of the Vanity Fair article. Hands down, you lose.
Here you are claiming that Gore can't read Vanity Fair ?
NO one on earth was more motivated to find the "truth" about a stolen election than Al Gore , to claim that three Vanity fair reporters have better resorces is very weak.
-
Good think it's knot part of my carer to look over other peeple's showlders and criticise any speling or gramatical eror, while throuing a hissy fit when it's dun to himself
wot da fok.... ya knod dat id the fust ting to go?
oh'D