OT: That means NOT woodworking related.

On Mar 23, 11:16 pm, "JimR" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
> > Back when this all started, I insisted that Iraq had no WMD. I promised
> > to publicly apologize if I was wrong and suggested that those on the other
> > side do the same. It's possible I missed it, but I haven't seen a single
> > apology from any of them. Funny, that :-).
>
> You can start a new thread labelled "Apology". No WMD? Poison gas
> artillery shells were found, but not in an armory or in large number. Or
> maybe your "No" means "Not very many" --
>
> Apparently a review of history is in order --
>
> 1. We know Iraq had WMD, because it was used against the Kurds and Iran,
> and probably against the U.S. in DS 1
> 2. The U.N. inspectors couldn't find proof or evidence that the WMD had
> been destroyed.
> 3. There was credible intelligence evidence of their existence, supported
> by MI-5, other European intel services and both the Democratic and
> Republican leadership
> 4. Some outdated WMD arty was found, but not in unit-sized quantities.
>
> Given these facts -- especially the inspectors' inability to find evidence
> of the destruction of the known WMD -- it's an unsupported leap-of-faith
> that no WMD exists. National security policy is not something which should
> be based on wishful thinking.

Of course not. The fact that it is NOT there, doesn't mean it ISN'T
there.

As to the outdated, and essentially useless, artillery ammo, there was
no gainsaying the fact that Saddass did have chemical weapons earlier.
Nobody ever claimed he didn't. What he didn't have in '01 was anything
close to usable, any way to manufacture them, or any means to deliver
them far outside his own country. Add to that no connection with 9/11,
and you have a very, very weak case for tipping his apple cart over,
primarily because he was a mean SOB. In which case, why didn't Bush go
after the Demented Dwarf in N. Korea, or the Chinese or...they are all
mean SOBs, and much more dangerous. Oh, wait. Dangerous. Bush and
Buddies didn't see any real danger in Iraq. Sort of like stomping an
ant hill and spraying those who leave.

Yup. Great intel. Brilliant deductions. Superb planning.

Pardon me while I puke. I just read that U.S. losses have hit 4,000.

Uh, sure.

On Mar 23, 11:16 pm, "JimR" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
> > Back when this all started, I insisted that Iraq had no WMD. I promised
> > to publicly apologize if I was wrong and suggested that those on the other
> > side do the same. It's possible I missed it, but I haven't seen a single
> > apology from any of them. Funny, that :-).
>
> You can start a new thread labelled "Apology". No WMD? Poison gas
> artillery shells were found, but not in an armory or in large number. Or
> maybe your "No" means "Not very many" --
>
> Apparently a review of history is in order --
>
> 1. We know Iraq had WMD, because it was used against the Kurds and Iran,
> and probably against the U.S. in DS 1

Iraq's pre-1991 arsenal does NOT provide evidence of its violation of
UNSC Resolution 687.

> 2. The U.N. inspectors couldn't find proof or evidence that the WMD had
> been destroyed.

In 2002, UN Inspector Scott Ritter had this to say: "While we were
never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition
of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level
of *verified* disarmament. This figure takes into account the
destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with
prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production
equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agent produced by
Iraq." [emphasis added]

Hussein's public utterances were little more than posturing. It
doesn't take a brain surgeon to understand that he was slinging dick
at Tehran. My feeling is the Administration wanted war and hoped a
sliver of unverified compliance would provide justification. They
gambled and lost. The American people returned them to office.
Somebody in this thread called Bush an idiot. *We're* the idiots.
Well, us and the liberal media who repeated the Administration's
talking points without independent verification. The media bear some
responsibility with one noteable exception: Knight-Ridder. That agency
never swallowed the Kool-Aid. Bush's War is probably the low point in
American democracy. On the bright side we can only improve. I like to
think we'll be more skeptical but probably not. If a bumpling,
stuttering rube like Bush could sell us snake oil, imagine what a
silver-togued orator could do...


> 3. There was credible intelligence evidence of their existence, supported
> by MI-5, other European intel services and both the Democratic and
> Republican leadership

Show me the credible evidence. To the contrary, the Downing Street
memos demonstrate that MI5 was *skeptical* of American claims. They
said evidence was sexied to support the policy.

> 4. Some outdated WMD arty was found, but not in unit-sized quantities.

I'm starting to think Faux News is your preferred source of
information. That organization continues to lay this claim despite
evidence. If the press sans Knight-Ridder were lazy in the run up to
war, Faux has been manipulative and deceitful in the aftermath. The
missiles discovered by the Poles were tested by the US and found to
contain no traces of sarin or mustard gas as originally reported. The
claim was discredited in 2004.

> Given these facts -- especially the inspectors' inability to find evidence
> of the destruction of the known WMD -- it's an unsupported leap-of-faith
> that no WMD exists. National security policy is not something which should
> be based on wishful thinking.

You mean, given these "facts" ... The premise of your argument rests
on a house of cards.

>
> Regardless -- having entered the fray, it is important to U.S. national
> security that we not quit until we can legitimately declare victory, with an
> operating viable peaceful Iraq state. If a Democrat-controlled Presidency
> and Congress arbitrarily start to pull out forces without considering the
> ground situation they
>

Victory was declared in 2003 by President Bush. It's time to leave....

Jeff wrote:

> On Mar 19, 9:49 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mar 19, 8:22 pm, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Man, my head's exploding. Based on many of your earlier comments, I
>> > had you pegged on the liberal side. I must not have seen all your
>> > comments...
>>
>> I believe that when my bank account gets low, I roll up my sleeves and
>> get to work.
>> When I do that, I should be able to keep most of what I work for.
>> I do realise that we have to have an infrastructure of roads and
>> utilities and policing and health care.
>> I'm willing to pay my fair share.
>>
>> I also am aware that not everybody has the same resources and
>> connections that I have built up over the last 40 years.
>> I can borrow money from my bank today, and I will sign the documents a
>> few days later.
>> I was raised in a Christian home, went to hard-core religious schools
>> and learned that any form of fanaticism is dangerous.
>> There are assholes among us and they can be Jewish, black, Dutch and/
>> or Italian.
>> I insist on being well armed with a variety of weapons to protect me
>> and mine.
>> I also believe that it is a good idea to protect essential resources,
>> including oil. If those resources are in a land where the locals don't
>> know how to assure the security of those resources, they are open to
>> getting their 'security forces' replaced by those of us who do a
>> better job of it.
>>
>> To take money from a special interest group and then having to pay
>> back the favour, fall under the category of those having sold their
>> soul. Own up to it. Do not expect your fellow country-men and women to
>> pay that bill for you. At least be honest enough to admit you're a
>> whore.... and most of all... don't go puffing your chest pretending
>> you talk to God.
>>
>> Arrogance and hypocrisy are the foulest of all sins. Lately there
>> seems to be more of that on the side where I used to be more
>> comfortable. The right.
>>
>> Right now, the North American people need to heal. If that takes a
>> democratic president to make that happen, so be it.
>> After all, the conservatives have nobody to offer.... here or in the
>> USA.
>
> Taxes are a hot-button issue here, but I never get that worked up over
> them. My wife and I paid Uncle Sam a boatload of money but our bill
> pales compared with our counterparts in the rest of the Western world.
> I'm concerned with how that money is spent. My hot button is the Iraq
> war. The politician I believe on this issue is John McCain. He thinks
> we might be there for a 100 years. He's probably right. Of course, I'm
> not going to vote for the douchebag who advocates an endless war. I'll
> vote for one of the other douchebags who lie and say they'll end it
> soon.
>
> Generally, I tend to favor Democrats. They're concerned about jobs.
> Republicans are concerned about the stock market. I depend heavily on
> the former and have little of the latter. Foreclosures are at an all
> time high, but my god if the Feds didn't come running to the aid of
> Bear-Stearn at the first sign of trouble. Should I amass enough assets
> to sustain me, I may consider switching allegiances but don't hold
> your breath...

You really don't understand economics and how the economy works, do you?
Explains your party preference pretty well.

/don't bother, everybody's hashed this over tons of times, nobody's going to
convince anybody else

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Lew Hodgett wrote:

>
> "CM" wrote:
>
>> Osama's preacher is a hateful hurting person This will be a tough
>> election for me.
>
> Think you are talking about Obama's preacher; however, that said, the old
> expression about walking a mile in a man's shoes before you judge him
> probably fits here.
>
> I know I hold some opinions that wouldn't fit others, but they haven't had
> my life's experiences.

That may be the case, but seems to be a bit of (mega-understatement) a
double standard here. There is no doubt that Rev J-Wright's "sermons" are
anti-American, racially divisive, bigoted, and racist. Further, this was
not just one single statement taken out of context, but a whole pattern of
diatribes that have occurred over many years. Yet Obama's been a member of
the congregation for almost 20 years and is only now speaking out against
that? You don't remain a member of a church that preaches that kind of
hatred without at least giving the appearance of your agreement with such
extreme views. OTOH, look at how the same crowd covering and spinning for
Obama went after Imus with a vengeance (Obama himself threw Imus under the
bus). Look at how the same crowd that screamed loud enough to get Trent
Lott to give up his Senate leadership position over a relatively mild by
comparison comment made at a 90 year-old man's birthday party are now
hailing how Obama has overcome the problem with his association with a
racial separatist and are willing to let by-gones be by-gones and declare
that this man is totally fit to be president of the US. Yet the same
crowd, for statements not even approaching the bile spewed by
this "reverend" have been declared unfit for their positions: Jimmy the
Greek, Howard Cosell, that NBC sports reporterette, or Rush Limbaugh on
ESPN. Every one of them was required to at a minimum, make public apology,
grovel to the gods of the race game (Jesse and Rev. Al), and at worst, lost
their positions.

So either Obama knew about the Rev's positions and was OK with it to the
extent of remaining in that fellowship and actively supporting it which
makes it a serious concern that he can lead all of this country or he was
ignorant of those positions which means that he is so uninformed and
unaware of what is going on around him that he is similarly unfit for that
office.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Jeff wrote:
> Unfortunately, it takes a fiasco to remind people why we regulate
> markets in the first place. Regulatory agencies were better funded in
> the 1990s and we experienced a sustained period of prosperity.

So the Dot.com bust, the Enron & Electric deregulation fiasco and the
telecommunication melt down/corruption were not fruits of the 90's
"prosperity"? Incidentally recessions happen every 7 to 10 years, almost
like clockwork and have for over a century......politicians come and go but
get credit when the economy is good and blame when bad but realistically
have little to do with it. Certain legislation may impact niche products or
industries i.e the 1993 luxury tax killed big boats or the 1996
telecommunication bill gave us the telecommunication corruption or the 1979
saving & loan deregulation gave us the late 1980's bailout but the aggregate
economic whole is bigger and more powerful than any politician can ever
aspire to...... Rod

Jeff wrote:
>My hot button is the Iraq
> war. The politician I believe on this issue is John McCain. He thinks
> we might be there for a 100 years. He's probably right. Of course, I'm
> not going to vote for the douchebag who advocates an endless war.

It may be worth noting that we've had troops in Germany and Japan 65 plus
years...and yet last I heard the hostilities have ceased. It serves our
strategic and security interests to place troops and bases around the world,
Iraq would simply be another of those places....understanding often requires
context. Incidentally while such a world wide presence is expensive in both
coin and often world opinion, power detests a vacuum, if we withdrew from
the world stage the world wide defense or military build-up would be
staggering and ever increasingly unstable and violent. Rod











I'll
> vote for one of the other douchebags who lie and say they'll end it
> soon.
>
> Generally, I tend to favor Democrats. They're concerned about jobs.
> Republicans are concerned about the stock market. I depend heavily on
> the former and have little of the latter. Foreclosures are at an all
> time high, but my god if the Feds didn't come running to the aid of
> Bear-Stearn at the first sign of trouble. Should I amass enough assets
> to sustain me, I may consider switching allegiances but don't hold
> your breath...

"Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:6b832df1-0f6f-4adf-a7bd->
Man, my head's exploding. Based on many of your earlier comments, I
> had you pegged on the liberal side. I must not have seen all your
> comments...
>


Where he comes from, Robert Scheer is an ultra-conservative. He's just
trolling again anyway.

--
********
Bill Pounds
http://www.billpounds.com

Robatoy wrote:
> If McCain is the top of the heap in republican terms, the party is
> toast.

Obviously within current political realities it is up to the Democrats to
lose this election.....and not to be disappointed they are trying their best
to do so. They not only could not run a proper primary election (Florida and
Michigan among other snafus) but they have settled on two very damaged
and/or lightweight candidates whom biggest claim to fame is race &
gender.....neither actual record speaks very loudly nor does their judgment
show much promise. For McCain to win it still requires a upset but each day
that upset looms ever more possible.




> So he got his ass shot down and had tea with his captors. HOW does
> that make him presidential material...or even a hero?

How does one determine whom has Presidential material? Is it simply guys (or
gals) you like? As one whom seems to be a equal opportunity(left or right)
"hater" is there anyone whom could ever pass your muster?

McCains claim to fame would seem to be his honorable military service, his
long successful Senate career, obviously his popularity in his home state,
his recognized independent beholden to no one spirit, his perceived
independence of the Bush legacy, a reasonable certainty that he'll appoint
conservative judges, that he'll stick around to finish the Iraq march toward
freedom and not make this great sacrifice in blood and coin for naught.
Lastly winning the primaries makes anyone qualified to run for
President<g>.... Rod

Jeff wrote:

> On Mar 20, 12:39 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Jeff wrote:
>> > On Mar 19, 9:49 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> On Mar 19, 8:22 pm, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
... snip

>> > Taxes are a hot-button issue here, but I never get that worked up over
>> > them. My wife and I paid Uncle Sam a boatload of money but our bill
>> > pales compared with our counterparts in the rest of the Western world.

So that makes it all better? Since the rest of the world is taxing the
bejeebers out of its citizens, we should follow along?

>> > I'm concerned with how that money is spent. My hot button is the Iraq
>> > war. The politician I believe on this issue is John McCain. He thinks
>> > we might be there for a 100 years. He's probably right. Of course, I'm
>> > not going to vote for the douchebag who advocates an endless war. I'll
>> > vote for one of the other douchebags who lie and say they'll end it
>> > soon.
>>
>> > Generally, I tend to favor Democrats. They're concerned about jobs.
>> > Republicans are concerned about the stock market. I depend heavily on
>> > the former and have little of the latter. Foreclosures are at an all
>> > time high, but my god if the Feds didn't come running to the aid of
>> > Bear-Stearn at the first sign of trouble. Should I amass enough assets
>> > to sustain me, I may consider switching allegiances but don't hold
>> > your breath...
>>


A little clarification here. I think the fed bailout of Bear-Stearns is
equally as bad as bailing out people who took out home loans they knew they
couldn't afford. Both actions promote irresponsibility. There is nothing
written anywhere that says people have to be successful all the time.

My comment was more in line with your comment relative to stocks vs. jobs.
Yeah, the dems talk a good game about jobs, but in the end, who really
provides the jobs? It's the businesses, the corporations, the
entrepreneurs who are creating jobs and wealth. Many of those businesses
are publicly traded on the stock market. The government only taxes wealth
and the dems especially could be considered anti-job with their strong
emphasis on penalizing those who create jobs through higher taxes, more
regulation, and other anti-business policies. You don't promote prosperity
by piling more and more weights on the elements of society contributing to
that prosperity.

I'm sure the next comment will be the exorbitant salaries of the CEO's vs.
the workers. Guess what? I agree that there is a problem here, but the
solution is not more government oversight,but stockholders, particularly
the institutional investors exerting their weight on the boards.

>> You really don't understand economics and how the economy works, do
>> you?
>> Explains your party preference pretty well.
>
> My majoral concentration was economics but feel free to enlighten
> me....

What flavor of economics was in favor at the time of your major? Those I
knew when I was in school were equally divided between Marxism and
Keynesian economic theory. Adam Smith capitalism was in short supply.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

LRod wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 04:00:20 -0700 (PDT), Jeff <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>On Mar 20, 12:39 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> You really don't understand economics and how the economy works, do
>>> you?
>>> Explains your party preference pretty well.
>>
>>My majoral concentration was economics but feel free to enlighten
>>me....
>
> Funny how quickly that exchange ended.
>
>

funny how quickly a day goes and there isn't time to respond to
everything; some of us have to get up the next day and go to work.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Charlie Self wrote:

> On Mar 20, 11:37 am, [email protected] (Larry W) wrote:
>> In article
>> <4fea31d4-139d-4942-92ab-d85200174...@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,Jeff
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> <...snipped...>
>>
>> >Generally, I tend to favor Democrats. They're concerned about jobs.
>> >Republicans are concerned about the stock market. I depend heavily on
>> >the former and have little of the latter.
>>
>> <...snipped...>
>>
>> Along those same lines, something from Molly Ivins, I think: When a
>> Republican president visits a factory of for instance a furniture
>> producer, he thanks the president or owner of the company for supplying
>> our country with the fine funiture the company produces. When a
>> Democratic president visits the same factory, he thanks the employees.
>>
>
> Yes, close to true. But when an independent visits that factory, he/
> she thanks both the owners and workers for the furniture, for without
> both, there would be no furniture.
>
> And this is a little feature that the goddamned idiots in both parties
> have forgotten. Owners are essential. Workers are essential. Some sort
> of sensible and at least semi-polite relationship between the two is
> also essential. Politicians who work to widen the natural split
> created by money need to have their tongues ripped out.

Wow, I actually agree with Charlie. That's one of the problems we have
right now -- the promotion of class warfare to promote that split.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Larry W wrote:

> In article
> <4fea31d4-139d-4942-92ab-d85200174ca8@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
> <...snipped...>
>>Generally, I tend to favor Democrats. They're concerned about jobs.
>>Republicans are concerned about the stock market. I depend heavily on
>>the former and have little of the latter.
>
> <...snipped...>
>
> Along those same lines, something from Molly Ivins, I think: When a
> Republican president visits a factory of for instance a furniture
> producer, he thanks the president or owner of the company for supplying
> our country with the fine funiture the company produces. When a
> Democratic president visits the same factory, he thanks the employees.
>
Very nice, succinct vehement statement from Ms Ivins, it helps her promote
her class-envy, class-warfare world view and makes a nice, terse vingette.
Of course the problem is that it's wrong. Please provide a cite where this
is the case. Take a look at when Bush (or frankly any politician of either
side) visits a factory: he may thank the CEO or other executive for
inviting him (after all, that's most likely where the invitation
originated), but he will then go on to praise the workers of the business
for the "fine products they produce and how they are showing how America
works".

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Lee Michaels wrote:

>
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> Yet Obama's been a member of
>> the congregation for almost 20 years and is only now speaking out against
>> that?
>
> I read an interesting article yesterday. It alluded to the fact that Obama
> is such a phenonena that both Clinton and the republicans don't know what
> to
> do with him. The republicans wanted Hillary. Because they know that she
> is
> easy to hate and demonize. But the are worried that Obama may win and
> there is no clear cut strategy to defeat him.
>
> This whole thing about Obama's minster being such a hateful, racist old
> fart is giving the republicans material they can use. They will portray
> Obama as one who tolerates racism, and therefore is a big hypocrite.
>
> Talk about the ultimate irony. The republicans accusing a democrat of
> being (or at least tolerating) a racist. We live in interesting times.

Umm, you do realize who was responsible for getting the civil rights bill
passed, don't you?

[Hint, it *wasn't* the dems]


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Robatoy wrote:

> On Mar 20, 4:45 pm, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mar 20, 1:52 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
... snip
>
> If McCain is the top of the heap in republican terms, the party is
> toast.
> So he got his ass shot down and had tea with his captors. HOW does
> that make him presidential material...or even a hero?
>
> http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/mccain_bush_hug.jpg

McCain made it to the top of the heap because of a combination of media
infatuation (and desire to push a candidate they thought would be beatable)
during the early primaries and cross-over voting. It's really funny that
the dems are getting so worked up now over the cross-over votes now
screwing with *their* candidate selections. Sounds like chickens coming
home to roost to me.

However, although McCain is not my choice, at least some anecdotal
information I received indicates he does have a certain amount of integrity
and sense of fair play. I was exposed to a comment from someone with whom
I work who related that he was in attendance at a celebration in Phoenix
for which McCain was the guest of honor. A number of congresscritters and
other people of high standing were there as well. After the celebration
was over and people were getting their cars, the congresscritters and
people of high standing cut to the front of the line, having the valets
fetch their cars first. McCain stood in line with the rest of the guests;
when he was urged to move to the front, since, after all, he was the guest
of honor, he said, "No, I'll wait my turn like everyone else." I have no
reason to doubt the story from the person who told it, and this did raise
my opinion of McCain a bit.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Robatoy wrote:
> You almost had me fooled into thinking that your contributions were
> worth consideration, but alas you have failed yet once again.
>
> Calling people haters, will reap what you no favours from me.
>
> I therefore suggest that from here-on you go and fuck yourself.
>
> r

I'd rather not but will readily concede I used a very poor choice of
words....Even worse I failed to communicate my actual point. I used
parenthesis for want of a better term. On many issues or about various
politicians I've heard you rant, on occasion sometimes rather bluntly but my
intent here was a honest question and I did not mean nor intend to call you
names or impugn your opinion. Rod

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Ohhh it's YOU! (Kinda thought so... nothing to contribute, just loose
diatribe when you don't have a clue what's being discussed.... )

It's bad enough that you've reduced yourself to nothing but trolling in
recent times. But if you must spend all your time OT maybe you could spend
it criticizing your own government instead of ours. Your opinion of our
politics is of no importance. Regardless which party I may hold to, as an
outsider your criticisms are an insult.

So, F_CK Y_ _
Would you like to buy a vowel?

--
********
Bill Pounds
http://www.billpounds.com

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
[snip]
I'd vote for a yellow dog to end the
> Iraq war.
>
I don't know of anyone who doesn't want the war to end. The question is, is
there anyone who doesn't want to see it end with a U.S.-led victory??

"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
> Please extend your characterizations to the current White House clique as
> well. Granting, as Congress in their stupidity did, war powers to the
> President still does not give him carte blanche to twist the truth and
> the facts.


The odd thing about such accusations is the administration said nothing
appreciably different than the previous administration, who frankly would
rather talk about regime change instead of doing regime change. During the
1998 4 day Baghdad punishment bombing the rhetoric from the DEMS was pretty
extreme. One as well would be very hard pressed to find any international
support for Saddam, any defenders of Saddam or anyone appreciably sorry that
Saddam is and was no longer. His clear violations of the 1991 cease fire
were well known, as were his atrocities against his own people and
neighboring countries. No one seemed to think that we should have stopped
the multi-billion dollar Saddam containment effort with thousands of nearby
troops, enforced no fly zones and Navy enforced embargoes. The apparent
false albeit believed WMD fears were less a argument to topple his regime
but rather a argument for now instead of later. Rod

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...


[snip]
>
> Back when this all started, I insisted that Iraq had no WMD. I promised
> to publicly apologize if I was wrong and suggested that those on the other
> side do the same. It's possible I missed it, but I haven't seen a single
> apology from any of them. Funny, that :-).
>

You can start a new thread labelled "Apology". No WMD? Poison gas
artillery shells were found, but not in an armory or in large number. Or
maybe your "No" means "Not very many" --

Apparently a review of history is in order --

1. We know Iraq had WMD, because it was used against the Kurds and Iran,
and probably against the U.S. in DS 1
2. The U.N. inspectors couldn't find proof or evidence that the WMD had
been destroyed.
3. There was credible intelligence evidence of their existence, supported
by MI-5, other European intel services and both the Democratic and
Republican leadership
4. Some outdated WMD arty was found, but not in unit-sized quantities.

Given these facts -- especially the inspectors' inability to find evidence
of the destruction of the known WMD -- it's an unsupported leap-of-faith
that no WMD exists. National security policy is not something which should
be based on wishful thinking.

Regardless -- having entered the fray, it is important to U.S. national
security that we not quit until we can legitimately declare victory, with an
operating viable peaceful Iraq state. If a Democrat-controlled Presidency
and Congress arbitrarily start to pull out forces without considering the
ground situation they

-- put our remaining forces at risk,
-- confirm the Democrats' reputation as being uncaring and inept on
national security policy, and
-- will suffer losses at the hands of the American electorate for many
elections to come.

On Mar 20, 3:55 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:

> If McCain is the top of the heap in republican terms, the party is
> toast.
> So he got his ass shot down and had tea with his captors. HOW does
> that make him presidential material...or even a hero?

McCain wouldn't be my first choice for president, and personally,
while he may have claimed to be a hero, I haven't heard him say that.
In keeping with the popular opinion of this thread, I wouldn't want to
paint him one way or another because of what someone else said.

As far as tea party goes, the one he went to really sucked.
I had seen much of this a few years ago on a special about POWs from
the Vietnam War, but had forgotten most of it. Interestingly, his own
accounts seem to play down what was written by others that were in the
camp with him.

This was written after his return in '73 after 5 1/2 years as a POW,
maybe before the disease of politics took hold.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1084711/posts

But they did give him a lot of sugar on Sundays! It was just for
soup, though. Guess you can't have everything.

Robert

"CM" wrote:

> Osama's preacher is a hateful hurting person This will be a tough election
> for me.

Think you are talking about Obama's preacher; however, that said, the old
expression about walking a mile in a man's shoes before you judge him
probably fits here.

I know I hold some opinions that wouldn't fit others, but they haven't had
my life's experiences.



Lew

On Mar 21, 9:19 am, "George" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:373bf300-09b9-4b78-aac1-5845164f95aa@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > We can't get out immediately, for sure, but a deadline is essential,
> > with definite steps to the deadline--to be met by the Iraqis, in that,
> > "We're moving xxx troops out of this province and sending them to the
> > U.S. on such and such a date. Be ready to take over or suffer the
> > consequences, 'cause we ain't comin' back." Then do it.
>
> In line with this philosopy, I'm sure that you tell all the thieves and
> gangs in your area the day you intend to go on vacation, and where the spare
> key is hidden?

Uh, George...the Iraqis are then supposed to be able to handle it, pee
without us holding their dicks, ya know?

On Mar 20, 7:47=A0am, "efgh" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:24303bdb-9718-47c7-9c49-
>
> >After all, the conservatives have nobody to offer.... here or in the
> >USA.
>
> And here I pictured you licking St. Harper's boots.

Yea right. We have the same problem here. The conservatives seem to be
bent on fielding the most useless tits these days.
Harper is a snake, a power hungry sanctimonious snake.
After a quiet January (planned) and quiet February (not planned),
we're suddenly going nuts. With current staffing and CNC support,
we're booking well into June now. So, as far as the housing starts go,
we're doing fine. For that, we can be thankful, but no credit to
Harper.

On Mar 20, 4:45=A0pm, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 1:52 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 20, 12:42 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > >news:87bb8fc0-c135-4e1e-a326-81df41d04988@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com.=
..
>
> > > > I hold the opinion that hold another man's opinion against me, even =
if
> > > > he's a good friend, makes no sense at all.
>
> > > Exactly. =A0It's guilt by association.
>
> > If guilt by association is anybody's cup of tea (I'm not suggesting
> > it's yours, Leon) than read the following:
>
> >http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hillaryjorge.php
>
> For those who wish to continue playing this meaningless, irksome and
> silly-assed game:http://www.realchange.org/mccain.htm
>
> Like all the rest, it is badly slanted, taking a series of slight
> events (except that the Keating deal bothers the hell out of me),
> farts around with the emphasis, and sends the bomb on its way.

If McCain is the top of the heap in republican terms, the party is
toast.
So he got his ass shot down and had tea with his captors. HOW does
that make him presidential material...or even a hero?

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/mccain_bush_hug.jpg

On Mar 21, 12:11 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
> > On Mar 20, 12:39 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Jeff wrote:
> >> > On Mar 19, 9:49 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> On Mar 19, 8:22 pm, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ... snip
>
> >> > Taxes are a hot-button issue here, but I never get that worked up over
> >> > them. My wife and I paid Uncle Sam a boatload of money but our bill
> >> > pales compared with our counterparts in the rest of the Western world.
>
> So that makes it all better? Since the rest of the world is taxing the
> bejeebers out of its citizens, we should follow along?
>
> A little clarification here. I think the fed bailout of Bear-Stearns is
> equally as bad as bailing out people who took out home loans they knew they
> couldn't afford. Both actions promote irresponsibility. There is nothing
> written anywhere that says people have to be successful all the time.
>
> My comment was more in line with your comment relative to stocks vs. jobs.
> Yeah, the dems talk a good game about jobs, but in the end, who really
> provides the jobs? It's the businesses, the corporations, the
> entrepreneurs who are creating jobs and wealth. Many of those businesses
> are publicly traded on the stock market. The government only taxes wealth
> and the dems especially could be considered anti-job with their strong
> emphasis on penalizing those who create jobs through higher taxes, more
> regulation, and other anti-business policies. You don't promote prosperity
> by piling more and more weights on the elements of society contributing to
> that prosperity.

Market cap measures the value of companies. Its indexes aren't even
considered when determining stages of the business cycle. Businesses
respond to demand which is powered by consumer confidence. That
indicator rises in a robust labor market. To answer your question:
Consumers create jobs.

Republicans are not adverse to assisting business cronies, but
consumer confidence is better provided by policies designed to
strengthen the labor market. For example, overseas profit centers are
taxed at lower rates. This is good for cronies. They can sack a
business unit and bring it up in China. Or they can ship form
processing to India and charge back to the company so that it's taxed
at the lower rate. You may applaud this type of activity. I don't.

You picked a strange time to argue in favor of de-regulation. The
current crises was made possible by the formation of a shadow banking
industry that existed outside of Federal regulatory control. Savings
were moved from banks to funds that bought asset backed commercial
paper from investment houses that bought collateralized debt from
securitized mortgages. Now we have an old fashioned bank run with no
FDIC support. The cycles between these fiascoes are exactly as long as
people's memories. This shadow industry was allow to thrive at a time
when the 1980s savings and loan crisis became a distant memory. The
greatest period of prosperity and innovation in this country came at a
time of greatest regulation so I don't buy the argument that it
stifles progress. Sustained growth requires a stable financial
environment.

>
> I'm sure the next comment will be the exorbitant salaries of the CEO's vs.
> the workers. Guess what? I agree that there is a problem here, but the
> solution is not more government oversight,but stockholders, particularly
> the institutional investors exerting their weight on the boards.

Where I work, the CEO sits on the Board with whom he enjoys a cozy
relationship. It's reflected in his salary and bonuses. I doubt the
average stock holder considers his multi-million dollar bonuses in
their best interest. How do you suggest they exert their weight?

>
> >> You really don't understand economics and how the economy works, do
> >> you?
> >> Explains your party preference pretty well.
>
> > My majoral concentration was economics but feel free to enlighten
> > me....
>
> What flavor of economics was in favor at the time of your major? Those I
> knew when I was in school were equally divided between Marxism and
> Keynesian economic theory. Adam Smith capitalism was in short supply.
>

If Adam Smith was in short supply, then there probably little demand.
Funny how that works ;-) IMO Alfred Marshall provided a much better
theoretical foundation for his flavor of thought. In their day, Smith,
Marx, Marshall and Keynes each asked the right questions. Each in
response to the conditions of his time. Personally, I think Schumpeter
is a better guide through current conditions but I'm just a hack
arguing economics on the Internets...

Cheers,
Jeff

In article <[email protected]>, Renata
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:54:14 -0700, Mark & Juanita
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Lew Hodgett wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "CM" wrote:
> >>
> >>> Osama's preacher is a hateful hurting person This will be a tough
> >>> election for me.
> >>
> >> Think you are talking about Obama's preacher; however, that said, the old
> >> expression about walking a mile in a man's shoes before you judge him
> >> probably fits here.
> >>
> >> I know I hold some opinions that wouldn't fit others, but they haven't had
> >> my life's experiences.
> >
> > That may be the case, but seems to be a bit of (mega-understatement) a
> >double standard here.
> -snip-
>
> Yup.

-snip-

"My best advice to anyone who wants to raise a happy, mentally healthy
child is: Keep him or her as far away from a church as you can." --
Frank Zappa

--
Help improve usenet. Kill-file Google Groups.
http://improve-usenet.org/

On Mar 19, 8:22=A0pm, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Man, my head's exploding. Based on many of your earlier comments, I
> had you pegged on the liberal side. I must not have seen all your
> comments...
>


I believe that when my bank account gets low, I roll up my sleeves and
get to work.
When I do that, I should be able to keep most of what I work for.
I do realise that we have to have an infrastructure of roads and
utilities and policing and health care.
I'm willing to pay my fair share.

I also am aware that not everybody has the same resources and
connections that I have built up over the last 40 years.
I can borrow money from my bank today, and I will sign the documents a
few days later.
I was raised in a Christian home, went to hard-core religious schools
and learned that any form of fanaticism is dangerous.
There are assholes among us and they can be Jewish, black, Dutch and/
or Italian.
I insist on being well armed with a variety of weapons to protect me
and mine.
I also believe that it is a good idea to protect essential resources,
including oil. If those resources are in a land where the locals don't
know how to assure the security of those resources, they are open to
getting their 'security forces' replaced by those of us who do a
better job of it.

To take money from a special interest group and then having to pay
back the favour, fall under the category of those having sold their
soul. Own up to it. Do not expect your fellow country-men and women to
pay that bill for you. At least be honest enough to admit you're a
whore.... and most of all... don't go puffing your chest pretending
you talk to God.

Arrogance and hypocrisy are the foulest of all sins. Lately there
seems to be more of that on the side where I used to be more
comfortable. The right.

Right now, the North American people need to heal. If that takes a
democratic president to make that happen, so be it.
After all, the conservatives have nobody to offer.... here or in the
USA.

On Mar 23, 12:16 pm, "Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > Please extend your characterizations to the current White House clique as
> > well. Granting, as Congress in their stupidity did, war powers to the
> > President still does not give him carte blanche to twist the truth and
> > the facts.
>
> The odd thing about such accusations is the administration said nothing
> appreciably different than the previous administration, who frankly would
> rather talk about regime change instead of doing regime change. During the
> 1998 4 day Baghdad punishment bombing the rhetoric from the DEMS was pretty
> extreme. One as well would be very hard pressed to find any international
> support for Saddam, any defenders of Saddam or anyone appreciably sorry that
> Saddam is and was no longer. His clear violations of the 1991 cease fire
> were well known, as were his atrocities against his own people and
> neighboring countries. No one seemed to think that we should have stopped
> the multi-billion dollar Saddam containment effort with thousands of nearby
> troops, enforced no fly zones and Navy enforced embargoes. The apparent
> false albeit believed WMD fears were less a argument to topple his regime
> but rather a argument for now instead of later. Rod

At the very least, that multi-billion containment policy cost was
borne by others, as well as the U.S.

Regardless of the lack of esteem for Saddam around the world, the fact
is, he had no hand in the Towers massacre. Most of the participants
were Saudi, in fact, which should have left GWB leaning against a very
badly mortared brick will at the outset. Being the artful dodger that
he is, Rove had a plan for that, and it worked for a bit.
Unfortunately, the total lack of any sort of longer planning, beyond
Bush's moronic "Mission Accomplaished" nonsense, was totally lacking.
Instead of "Slam, bang, thank you ma'am" this became an extension of a
holy war that the advisers should have seen sitting there waiting.

"Now instead of later" doesn't wash, either. The substance simply was
NOT there.

Bush and his crew are, IMO, criminally responsible for the deaths of
nearly 4,000 U.S. service men and women, and God alone knows how many
Iraqis. The toll increases daily and the exit cannot be seen...maybe
we need someone to find the "light at the end of the tunnel" for us,
as William Westmoreland was unable to do in 'Nam.

In the process of his political and power ploy bullshit, Bush and his
underlings have, for the second time in three decades (though, of
course, not on his watch in the '60s and '70s), taken the finest
military outfits in the world, and proceeded to do his best to grind
them up.

If we face a true emergency, a threat from any country much more
powerful than Haiti, we're very close to being screwed, blued and
tattoed.

On Mar 26, 9:57 pm, "Patrick" <pfischerATATATATWavecable.com> wrote:
> Jeff, (and Mark),
>
> Jeff, In one thread you mentioned the S&L bailout of the 80's where you
> seemed to infer that the cause was greedy officers and directors of those
> banks. Certainly there were some instances of that (keating, Silverado etc=
)
> but the primary reason was a shift in economic policy that caught most of
> these banks in the position of having lent long (30 year fixed home loans
> made up the bulk of portfolios) while they borrowed short. (Meaning they
> loaned out money in savings accounts and short CD's). There was a huge
> duration mismatch. Didn't matter when the spreads hadn't moved much. Sprea=
d
> was profit and life was good. The real problem came when rates and inflati=
on
> soared in the late seventies and early 80's. To keep the deposits, banks h=
ad
> to pay more interest, ultimately way more than they were receiving on the
> loans. That was the spawn of the crisis. Crooks in the process? sure, a fe=
w.
> Not enough to bring down the system.

Could you show me where I infer that it was caused by greedy officers?
As you mention, there were some who fit that category, but the problem
resulted from institutional changes that occurred in the wake of
deregulation. Certainly wide swings in commodity prices, in general
prices and in interest rates played a role. The Fed was trying to get
inflation under control and kept interest rates high. As a result of
Volcker's policies, we seem to have lived up to the promise of Gerald
Ford's dubious WIN buttons. Better late than never.

I tend to agree with William Seidman, the former head of the FDIC. He
claims the banking problems of the 80s and 90s resulted primarily from
unsound real estate lending. After de-regulation, banks were no longer
required to have follow-on =93"take out"=94 backed by a long-term lender.
Prior to the 80s, real-estate comprised about 10% of a bank's
portfolio, by the mid-80s that figured had increased five-fold. And so
did pain when the bubble burst.

> The second thing you seemed to intimate was that the taxpayers ultimately
> paid the price. Some lost deposits that weren't insured but no depositor
> lost money in an insured account. Congress essentially recapitalized the
> industry by making loans available and by setting up the Refinance
> Corporation (refcorp) to pay the insurance claims that were beyond the
> ability of the insurer to pay (then FSLIC now FDIC). Refcorp sold bonds in=

> the market to raise the cash. Bond holders were and still are being paid
> from a 10% levy on the profits of the Federal Home Loan Bank System. (fed
> charter but wholly owned by the member banks) Essentially the industry foo=
ts
> the bill not the taxpayer. Sure one could argue that the consumer who uses=

> banks ultimately pays but that's true of anything.

Yes. I claim taxpayers ultimately paid the price:

http://www.fdic.gov/bank/analytical/banking/2000dec/brv13n2_2.pdf

"The savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and early
1990s produced the greatest collapse of U.S. financial
institutions since the Great Depression. Over the
1986-1995 period, 1,043 thrifts with total assets of over
$500 billion failed. The large number of failures overwhelmed
the resources of the FSLIC, so U.S. taxpayers
were required to back up the commitment
extended to insured depositors of the failed institutions.
As of December 31, 1999, the thrift crisis had
cost taxpayers approximately $124 billion and the
thrift industry another $29 billion, for an estimated
total loss of approximately $153 billion. The losses
were higher than those predicted in the late 1980s,
when the RTC was established, but below those forecasted
during the early to mid-1990s, at the height of
the crisis."


> Anyway, I usually avoid these discussions simply because they usually
> degenerate into useless name calling pretty fast. I respect reasoned
> arguments, especially opposing ones, but hate to see a good one diminished=

> by a misunderstanding of facts. Facts have no position on the political
> spectrum. The are what they are. Distortion of facts, intentional or not, =
is
> why these discussions fall apart. I concede that I may be misreading your
> intent so feel free to correct me if you wish. In fact you may well be awa=
re
> of all of the above. If so, then using the
> bailout/Reagan/republican/crook/Bush doing it again kind of connection
> would, in my opinion be a cheap shot.
>

I wonder who misunderstood the facts, especially those associated with
the cleanup cost...

On Mar 20, 6:42=A0pm, "Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> How does one determine whom has Presidential material? Is it simply guys (=
or
> gals) you like? As one whom seems to be a equal opportunity(left or right)=

> "hater" is there anyone whom could ever pass your muster?

As a concerned neighbour with almost 90% of his friends and family in
the US, I have an educated interest in what happens down there. For
you to classify me as a 'hater' might make it easier for you to deal
with your inadequacies in regards to your inability to understand and
appreciate the true problems that lie before us, but I assure you that
I prefer to deal in 'non-hate' dialogue, so you're disqualified to
participate.

You almost had me fooled into thinking that your contributions were
worth consideration, but alas you have failed yet once again.

Calling people haters, will reap what you no favours from me.

I therefore suggest that from here-on you go and fuck yourself.

r

On Mar 20, 10:09 pm, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 4:03 pm, "Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Jeff wrote:
> > >My hot button is the Iraq
> > > war. The politician I believe on this issue is John McCain. He thinks
> > > we might be there for a 100 years. He's probably right. Of course, I'm
> > > not going to vote for the douchebag who advocates an endless war.
>
> > It may be worth noting that we've had troops in Germany and Japan 65 plus
> > years...and yet last I heard the hostilities have ceased. It serves our
> > strategic and security interests to place troops and bases around the world,
> > Iraq would simply be another of those places....understanding often requires
> > context. Incidentally while such a world wide presence is expensive in both
> > coin and often world opinion, power detests a vacuum, if we withdrew from
> > the world stage the world wide defense or military build-up would be
> > staggering and ever increasingly unstable and violent. Rod
>
> You'll note that I said I didn't believe Clinton and Obama. They won't
> be able to leave on short order. But I want US civilian leadership
> with that mindset. We can't allow the Iraqis to string us along.
>
> The experience in Germany and Japan is not really comparable to Iraq.
> Both countries were pretty homogeneous. In Iraq we have three large
> groups that refuse to reconcile differences. US troops have done a
> fine job but their mission relies on people who operate outside the US
> chain of command. In order to achieve political stability, the Iraqis
> must achieve political compromise. The US army can blow the shit out
> of anything the civilian leadership asks it to, but it can't make the
> Shia, Sunni and Kurds get along.

It pays to remember when the U.S. entered WWII, in December 1941, and
when it emerged, victorious, before the end of 1945, actually just a
shade under four years later. Now, check the dates of the Iraqi mess.
Check the readiness of the Iraqi troops. Check the readiness of the
Iraqi political system.

We had the advantage of starting WWII with a sane political system,
something the Iraqis don't (and probably will never) have, but they
are now five years into a U.S. supported war with virtually no
territory under true Iraqi control.

I know damned well our troops can train their troops if the troops are
told, by their Iraqi leaders, to pay attention. These youngsters in
our military are quite probably the best soldiers we've ever fielded.
But they are still doing 99% of the fighting, when most should be
packing their bags and getting ready to leave forever.

It is not going to happen. The Iraqis themselves have an expressed
interest in democracy, but no experience and no cultural conditioning
to make it truly acceptable on a long term basis. What they do have is
more than 1,000 years of hate, for each other (Shia, Sunni, Kurds),
for anyone who differs from them culturally or religiously, and a host
of ignorant leaders (Sadr, et al) leading a horde of ignorant
followers in any way that increases the power of the leader. Tribalism
is rampant.

We can't get out immediately, for sure, but a deadline is essential,
with definite steps to the deadline--to be met by the Iraqis, in that,
"We're moving xxx troops out of this province and sending them to the
U.S. on such and such a date. Be ready to take over or suffer the
consequences, 'cause we ain't comin' back." Then do it.

Let them wipe their own asses, even if they keep doing it with their
bare hands.

All GWB has done, other than waste U.S. lives and money, is step up
the date for a massive dissolution in the Middle East. What might have
teetered along for another 20 or or 25 years, or even 50, is now going
to erupt within a decade. Personally, I think the eruption is going to
break the entire area up on ancient tribal lines, with, unfortunately,
almost all having access to modern weaponry.

Effectively, we're almost certainly training these people to kill more
of us later, just as we did in Afghanistan when supplying guerillas
with weapons to fight the Soviets.

On Mar 20, 12:39 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
> > On Mar 19, 9:49 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Mar 19, 8:22 pm, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > Man, my head's exploding. Based on many of your earlier comments, I
> >> > had you pegged on the liberal side. I must not have seen all your
> >> > comments...
>
> >> I believe that when my bank account gets low, I roll up my sleeves and
> >> get to work.
> >> When I do that, I should be able to keep most of what I work for.
> >> I do realise that we have to have an infrastructure of roads and
> >> utilities and policing and health care.
> >> I'm willing to pay my fair share.
>
> >> I also am aware that not everybody has the same resources and
> >> connections that I have built up over the last 40 years.
> >> I can borrow money from my bank today, and I will sign the documents a
> >> few days later.
> >> I was raised in a Christian home, went to hard-core religious schools
> >> and learned that any form of fanaticism is dangerous.
> >> There are assholes among us and they can be Jewish, black, Dutch and/
> >> or Italian.
> >> I insist on being well armed with a variety of weapons to protect me
> >> and mine.
> >> I also believe that it is a good idea to protect essential resources,
> >> including oil. If those resources are in a land where the locals don't
> >> know how to assure the security of those resources, they are open to
> >> getting their 'security forces' replaced by those of us who do a
> >> better job of it.
>
> >> To take money from a special interest group and then having to pay
> >> back the favour, fall under the category of those having sold their
> >> soul. Own up to it. Do not expect your fellow country-men and women to
> >> pay that bill for you. At least be honest enough to admit you're a
> >> whore.... and most of all... don't go puffing your chest pretending
> >> you talk to God.
>
> >> Arrogance and hypocrisy are the foulest of all sins. Lately there
> >> seems to be more of that on the side where I used to be more
> >> comfortable. The right.
>
> >> Right now, the North American people need to heal. If that takes a
> >> democratic president to make that happen, so be it.
> >> After all, the conservatives have nobody to offer.... here or in the
> >> USA.
>
> > Taxes are a hot-button issue here, but I never get that worked up over
> > them. My wife and I paid Uncle Sam a boatload of money but our bill
> > pales compared with our counterparts in the rest of the Western world.
> > I'm concerned with how that money is spent. My hot button is the Iraq
> > war. The politician I believe on this issue is John McCain. He thinks
> > we might be there for a 100 years. He's probably right. Of course, I'm
> > not going to vote for the douchebag who advocates an endless war. I'll
> > vote for one of the other douchebags who lie and say they'll end it
> > soon.
>
> > Generally, I tend to favor Democrats. They're concerned about jobs.
> > Republicans are concerned about the stock market. I depend heavily on
> > the former and have little of the latter. Foreclosures are at an all
> > time high, but my god if the Feds didn't come running to the aid of
> > Bear-Stearn at the first sign of trouble. Should I amass enough assets
> > to sustain me, I may consider switching allegiances but don't hold
> > your breath...
>
> You really don't understand economics and how the economy works, do you?
> Explains your party preference pretty well.

My majoral concentration was economics but feel free to enlighten
me....

Robert, contact me off list.

Lew

On Mar 20, 11:37 am, [email protected] (Larry W) wrote:
> In article <4fea31d4-139d-4942-92ab-d85200174...@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> <...snipped...>
>
> >Generally, I tend to favor Democrats. They're concerned about jobs.
> >Republicans are concerned about the stock market. I depend heavily on
> >the former and have little of the latter.
>
> <...snipped...>
>
> Along those same lines, something from Molly Ivins, I think: When a
> Republican president visits a factory of for instance a furniture
> producer, he thanks the president or owner of the company for supplying
> our country with the fine funiture the company produces. When a
> Democratic president visits the same factory, he thanks the employees.
>

Yes, close to true. But when an independent visits that factory, he/
she thanks both the owners and workers for the furniture, for without
both, there would be no furniture.

And this is a little feature that the goddamned idiots in both parties
have forgotten. Owners are essential. Workers are essential. Some sort
of sensible and at least semi-polite relationship between the two is
also essential. Politicians who work to widen the natural split
created by money need to have their tongues ripped out.

On Mar 19, 9:49 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 19, 8:22 pm, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Man, my head's exploding. Based on many of your earlier comments, I
> > had you pegged on the liberal side. I must not have seen all your
> > comments...
>
> I believe that when my bank account gets low, I roll up my sleeves and
> get to work.
> When I do that, I should be able to keep most of what I work for.
> I do realise that we have to have an infrastructure of roads and
> utilities and policing and health care.
> I'm willing to pay my fair share.
>
> I also am aware that not everybody has the same resources and
> connections that I have built up over the last 40 years.
> I can borrow money from my bank today, and I will sign the documents a
> few days later.
> I was raised in a Christian home, went to hard-core religious schools
> and learned that any form of fanaticism is dangerous.
> There are assholes among us and they can be Jewish, black, Dutch and/
> or Italian.
> I insist on being well armed with a variety of weapons to protect me
> and mine.
> I also believe that it is a good idea to protect essential resources,
> including oil. If those resources are in a land where the locals don't
> know how to assure the security of those resources, they are open to
> getting their 'security forces' replaced by those of us who do a
> better job of it.
>
> To take money from a special interest group and then having to pay
> back the favour, fall under the category of those having sold their
> soul. Own up to it. Do not expect your fellow country-men and women to
> pay that bill for you. At least be honest enough to admit you're a
> whore.... and most of all... don't go puffing your chest pretending
> you talk to God.
>
> Arrogance and hypocrisy are the foulest of all sins. Lately there
> seems to be more of that on the side where I used to be more
> comfortable. The right.
>
> Right now, the North American people need to heal. If that takes a
> democratic president to make that happen, so be it.
> After all, the conservatives have nobody to offer.... here or in the
> USA.

Taxes are a hot-button issue here, but I never get that worked up over
them. My wife and I paid Uncle Sam a boatload of money but our bill
pales compared with our counterparts in the rest of the Western world.
I'm concerned with how that money is spent. My hot button is the Iraq
war. The politician I believe on this issue is John McCain. He thinks
we might be there for a 100 years. He's probably right. Of course, I'm
not going to vote for the douchebag who advocates an endless war. I'll
vote for one of the other douchebags who lie and say they'll end it
soon.

Generally, I tend to favor Democrats. They're concerned about jobs.
Republicans are concerned about the stock market. I depend heavily on
the former and have little of the latter. Foreclosures are at an all
time high, but my god if the Feds didn't come running to the aid of
Bear-Stearn at the first sign of trouble. Should I amass enough assets
to sustain me, I may consider switching allegiances but don't hold
your breath...

Mark & Juanita wrote:

> Yet Obama's been a member of
> the congregation for almost 20 years and is only now speaking out against
> that?

I read an interesting article yesterday. It alluded to the fact that Obama
is such a phenonena that both Clinton and the republicans don't know what to
do with him. The republicans wanted Hillary. Because they know that she is
easy to hate and demonize. But the are worried that Obama may win and there
is no clear cut strategy to defeat him.

This whole thing about Obama's minster being such a hateful, racist old fart
is giving the republicans material they can use. They will portray Obama as
one who tolerates racism, and therefore is a big hypocrite.

Talk about the ultimate irony. The republicans accusing a democrat of being
(or at least tolerating) a racist. We live in interesting times.

On Mar 20, 11:50 am, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Obamas preacher bothers me too, but I see polls that say McCain beats
> Clinton, but Obama beats McCain. I'd vote for a yellow dog to end the
> Iraq war.

Did you see Barry's speech on the matter? It was rhetorical
brilliance.

On Mar 19, 6:31 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> Obama dropped a whack of lead he had in the polls. But it wasn't him,
> was it?
> Just how dirty do things get down there?
>
> I don't like the guy much, but compared to Bush-Light, I think I'd
> rather have Obama as my neighbour than McCain.
>
> My roots are conservative, but considering the giant clusterfuck we
> have enjoyed, I'm not so sure we want to go this way.
>
> rrrrrr

Man, my head's exploding. Based on many of your earlier comments, I
had you pegged on the liberal side. I must not have seen all your
comments...

I'm not particularly thrilled with any of the candidates but I would
like an antidote to Bush. This era feels like Reagan redux. We've
replaced replaced junk bonds with subprime mortgages, Michael Milken
with Angelo Mozilo. The savings and loan bail out will soon be
replaced with a mortgage buy out. In both cases, a few cronies got
rich and the public paid the price. Disaster could have been avoided
with regulatory enforcement.

Unfortunately, it takes a fiasco to remind people why we regulate
markets in the first place. Regulatory agencies were better funded in
the 1990s and we experienced a sustained period of prosperity. That
doesn't serve well for those who argue they deter growth. If nothing
else, Reagan was better than Bush in one regard. On the eve of the
1990 recession, income was high. Only a few reaped the benefits of
stellar turn of the century productivity gains. Now we face a 2008
recession with 1999 paychecks....

Jeff

On Mar 21, 3:33 pm, "George" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:1a8e0db6-b524-4d34-bac5-b5af71b5edc9@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Mar 21, 9:19 am, "George" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news:373bf300-09b9-4b78-aac1-5845164f95aa@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > We can't get out immediately, for sure, but a deadline is essential,
> >> > with definite steps to the deadline--to be met by the Iraqis, in that,
> >> > "We're moving xxx troops out of this province and sending them to the
> >> > U.S. on such and such a date. Be ready to take over or suffer the
> >> > consequences, 'cause we ain't comin' back." Then do it.
>
> >> In line with this philosopy, I'm sure that you tell all the thieves and
> >> gangs in your area the day you intend to go on vacation, and where the
> >> spare
> >> key is hidden?
>
> > Uh, George...the Iraqis are then supposed to be able to handle it, pee
> > without us holding their dicks, ya know?
>
> What does that have to do with it? By that, we should leave any regime,
> regardless their animosity toward us or their brutality toward their own in
> power, right?
>
> Nice try at avoiding the question, though.

No, George, it doesn't say that, but you seem totally incapable of
digesting a thought, so I'm not going to keep responding after this.

The concept, presumably one we've been working toward for some time,
is to place a democratic regime, train the troops to defend it and get
the hell out. It's called Vietnamizatio...oops, Iraqization, I guess.

You and McCain evidently believe we should stay there, with our troops
getting shot at, for the 100 years it MIGHT take to teach these people
that they don't have to live as they've always lived, but given their
history, I'm willing to bet that unless we stayed there a minimum of
500 years, it would take them less than five to regress to the stage
Iran is in now, or to another Saddam.

This is NOT Europe.

On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:54:14 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
>>
>> "CM" wrote:
>>
>>> Osama's preacher is a hateful hurting person This will be a tough
>>> election for me.
>>
>> Think you are talking about Obama's preacher; however, that said, the old
>> expression about walking a mile in a man's shoes before you judge him
>> probably fits here.
>>
>> I know I hold some opinions that wouldn't fit others, but they haven't had
>> my life's experiences.
>
> That may be the case, but seems to be a bit of (mega-understatement) a
>double standard here.
-snip-

Yup.


"Rudy Giuliani's priest has been accused in grand jury proceedings of
molesting several children and covering up the molestation of others.
Giuliani would not disavow him on the campaign trail and still works
with him.

Mitt Romney was part of a church that did not view black Americans as
equals and actively discriminated against them. He stayed with that
church all the way into his early thirties, until they were finally
forced to change their policies to come into compliance with civil
rights legislation. Romney never disavowed his church back then or
now. He said he was proud of the faith of his fathers.

Jerry Falwell said America had 9/11 coming because we tolerated gays,
feminists and liberals. It was our fault. Our chickens had come home
to roost, if you will. John McCain proudly received his support and
even spoke at his university's commencement.

Reverend John Hagee has called the Catholic Church the "Great Whore."
He has said that the Anti-Christ will rise out of the European Union
(of course, the Anti-Christ will also be Jewish). He has said all
Muslims are trained to kill and will be part of the devil's army when
Armageddon comes (which he hopes is soon). John McCain continues to
say he is proud of Reverend Hagee's endorsement.

Reverend Rod Parsley believes America was founded to destroy Islam.
Since this is such an outlandish claim, I have to add for the record,
that he is not kidding. Reverend Parsley says Islam is an "anti-Christ
religion" brought down from a "demon spirit." Of course, we are in a
war against all Muslims, including presumably Muslim-Americans. Buts
since Parsley believes this is a Christian nation and that it should
be run as a theocracy, he is not very concerned what Muslim-Americans
think.

John McCain says Reverend Rod Parsley is his "spiritual guide." "

On Mar 20, 1:50=A0pm, BDBConstruction <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 11:58=A0am, LRod <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Funny how quickly that exchange ended.
>
> Thats usually how it goes with party liners. May be able to hit a
> slowball right over the plate, anything else usually stops em dead in
> their tracks. If it aint scripted repetition its over.
>
> Mark

Surely nobody is surprised by the sudden milking of a dead cow like
this. Obama had an exposed weak flank...it is now for all to see. Now
it is Hitlery's turn to become exposed:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hillaryjorge.php

A relationship with an opinionated (albeit nasty) preacher, or a coke
dealer? Take your pick.

McCain is getting all the benefit from all this. But he's an old
senile codger... I think my friends in the USA are going to be voting
for McCain's running mate..VERY important...and it best not be that
turncoat Lieberman.

On Mar 20, 1:52 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 12:42 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:87bb8fc0-c135-4e1e-a326-81df41d04988@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > I hold the opinion that hold another man's opinion against me, even if
> > > he's a good friend, makes no sense at all.
>
> > Exactly. It's guilt by association.
>
> If guilt by association is anybody's cup of tea (I'm not suggesting
> it's yours, Leon) than read the following:
>
> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hillaryjorge.php

For those who wish to continue playing this meaningless, irksome and
silly-assed game: http://www.realchange.org/mccain.htm

Like all the rest, it is badly slanted, taking a series of slight
events (except that the Keating deal bothers the hell out of me),
farts around with the emphasis, and sends the bomb on its way.

On Mar 19, 11:36 pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "CM" wrote:
> > Osama's preacher is a hateful hurting person This will be a tough election
> > for me.
>
> Think you are talking about Obama's preacher; however, that said, the old
> expression about walking a mile in a man's shoes before you judge him
> probably fits here.
>
> I know I hold some opinions that wouldn't fit others, but they haven't had
> my life's experiences.
>
> Lew

I hold the opinion that hold another man's opinion against me, even if
he's a good friend, makes no sense at all.

On Mar 20, 12:42=A0pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:87bb8fc0-c135-4e1e-a326-81df41d04988@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > I hold the opinion that hold another man's opinion against me, even if
> > he's a good friend, makes no sense at all.
>
> Exactly. =A0It's guilt by association.

If guilt by association is anybody's cup of tea (I'm not suggesting
it's yours, Leon) than read the following:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hillaryjorge.php

On Mar 20, 5:51=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 4:10=A0pm, "Pounds on Wood" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > "Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:6b832df1-0f6f-4adf-a7b=
d->
>
> > Man, my head's exploding. Based on many of your earlier comments, I
>
> > > had you pegged on the liberal side. I must not have seen all your
> > > comments...
>
> > Where he comes from, Robert Scheer is an ultra-conservative. =A0He's jus=
t
> > trolling again anyway.
>
> > --
> > ********
> > Bill Poundshttp://www.billpounds.com
>
> Ohhh it's YOU! (Kinda thought so... nothing to contribute, just loose
> diatribe when you don't have a clue what's being discussed.... )

PS.. I'm sorry I didn't get back to you earlier... I was busy signing
pay-cheques for my crews. I realize how important you are Bill, but I
got back to you as soon as I could. I hope it is not too late.

On Mar 20, 4:03 pm, "Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
> >My hot button is the Iraq
> > war. The politician I believe on this issue is John McCain. He thinks
> > we might be there for a 100 years. He's probably right. Of course, I'm
> > not going to vote for the douchebag who advocates an endless war.
>
> It may be worth noting that we've had troops in Germany and Japan 65 plus
> years...and yet last I heard the hostilities have ceased. It serves our
> strategic and security interests to place troops and bases around the world,
> Iraq would simply be another of those places....understanding often requires
> context. Incidentally while such a world wide presence is expensive in both
> coin and often world opinion, power detests a vacuum, if we withdrew from
> the world stage the world wide defense or military build-up would be
> staggering and ever increasingly unstable and violent. Rod
>

You'll note that I said I didn't believe Clinton and Obama. They won't
be able to leave on short order. But I want US civilian leadership
with that mindset. We can't allow the Iraqis to string us along.

The experience in Germany and Japan is not really comparable to Iraq.
Both countries were pretty homogeneous. In Iraq we have three large
groups that refuse to reconcile differences. US troops have done a
fine job but their mission relies on people who operate outside the US
chain of command. In order to achieve political stability, the Iraqis
must achieve political compromise. The US army can blow the shit out
of anything the civilian leadership asks it to, but it can't make the
Shia, Sunni and Kurds get along.

On Mar 20, 12:37 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:3ad53d67-9cd9-453c-b074-ca789a95d548@x30g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > My majoral concentration was economics but feel free to enlighten
> > me....
>
> What do you do now?

This is hard to answer without boring the socks off you. Right after
college, I worked in accounts receivable. From there I became the AS/
400 guru. Then into IT. Now I design enterprise UNIX solutions. I
want to be clear: economics wasn't my major. It was my concentration
within my major. We were required to take 24 credits in a related
discipline. I still do a lot of statistical analysis so I suppose it
wasn't a complete waste of money. In fact Mason and Lind sit on my
desk as we speak...

Cheers,
Jeff

On Mar 20, 12:54=A0am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:

> Yet Obama's been a member of
> the congregation for almost 20 years and is only now speaking out against
> that? =A0

I cant say that I agree with many of your viewpoints and I have not,
and still dont agree with the media conspiracy though I see clearly
how it looks. The unfortunate fact is conservatives, especially hard
right, are viewed and judged through a completely different lens with
regards to issues like racism, worker rights, economics, and rightly
so. Their overal reputation is well deserved and supported to this
day.

That said, before I logged on this morning my wife and I sat and had a
conversation that basically mirrored your post. I couldnt agree with
you more and think you are right on point. While I wasnt considering
Obama as I feel it is still too early, these facts really shoot a huge
hole in his sails. You would think Obama, at any age, being the
supposed phenom they make him out to be, would have sat with the
preacher privately to express his disagreement with these sermons. I
do this on an almost weekly basis talking with old farmers who are
born and bread conservative and racist and I make it a point to
clearly let them know that I dont support those positions. I dont try
to change their view, I still consider them friends, but I at least
let them know each and every time, that they are not my views and they
offend me.

Its no news to anyone that our political system is rife with
corruption, adultery, bigotry, and scandal. Left or right, I dont
think we can recall a time in history when so many in the process,
politicians and leaders, have fallen to stupid statement and scandal.
Sure, in the past they were not looked into as deeply, investigated,
media wasnt so prevalent. I just wonder when Americans, not both
sides, Americans, are going to get fed up with it all and move.

I keep hoping someone is going to come out of the woodwork and turn
this whole thing upside down. Hate to dig up the Ross Perot thing but
something like that movement but a real tidal wave. A tsunami. Hell,
even if they get in there and f8ck the whole thing up and just turn it
on its head. Something like Pacino saying "I oughta take a flame
thrower to this place". Ya Ya, dat's the ticket.

Mark

"JimR" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I don't know of anyone who doesn't want the war to end. The question is,
> is there anyone who doesn't want to see it end with a U.S.-led victory??
>

It may go on for years trying to determine what a victory means over there.
I doubt anyone has an answer as to when or how to pull out. That entire
part of the world has always been at war of some sort.

"Jeff" wrote

> time high, but my god if the Feds didn't come running to the aid of
> Bear-Stearn at the first sign of trouble.

Hell, son ... someone has to pay for those big Christmas bonuses!

<Damn, did I say "Christmas"?? ... mea culpa.>

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/8/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:a77af0cb-0135-4a7a-9cde-9d184ea1ce85@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 23, 12:37 pm, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Bush and his crew are, IMO, criminally responsible for the deaths of
> nearly 4,000 U.S. service men and women, and God alone knows how many
> Iraqis.

And that is what the rest of the people on this planet see and talk
about.
One member of a forum i attend, has tossed out an interesting
possibility:
Bush can't pardon himself, but can pardon Cheney, then step down and
have Cheney pardon him.
I, however, think Bush is arrogant to the extent that he is sure
nobody will try to convict him.

Personally, I am a firm believer in 'what goes around comes around'
and Bush will get his.

Bush is an idiot and I cannot give him [not the] least bit of credit
for any of the [presidential] decisions made since [all the way back to]
his first inauguration. Shitfuck, most states won't even execute a
murderer with an IQ as low as Bush's. Christ, he has to be scripted in
order to appear presidential. And when he's not, I have a 365 day
calendar of some of those times when he wasn't.
He was delectable because he locked in the right-wing religious
rednecks who saw the return of prayer in school, the ten commandments on
every courthouse square, and, of course, the grand prize, overturning
Roe v. Wade. And that still didn't give him a majority of the popular
vote. I don't think I'm alone when I say that he won by one vote, 5-4.

Dave in Houston

>> > On Mar 19, 6:31 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> Obama dropped a whack of lead he had in the polls. But it wasn't him,
>> >> was it?
and so forth

Sir Robatoy you need to take it a little easier...you sound like your headed
for a heart attack . Hate to loose your knowledge and wisdom here just
because we have a bunch of political first class assholes running president.
Chop some wood or something OK?

"Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:4fea31d4-139d-4942-92ab-d85200174ca8@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

>
> Generally, I tend to favor Democrats. They're concerned about jobs.
> Republicans are concerned about the stock market. I depend heavily on
> the former and have little of the latter.

Yeah. uh, jobs are heavily dependent on the stock market.

"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:373bf300-09b9-4b78-aac1-5845164f95aa@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

> We can't get out immediately, for sure, but a deadline is essential,
> with definite steps to the deadline--to be met by the Iraqis, in that,
> "We're moving xxx troops out of this province and sending them to the
> U.S. on such and such a date. Be ready to take over or suffer the
> consequences, 'cause we ain't comin' back." Then do it.
>

In line with this philosopy, I'm sure that you tell all the thieves and
gangs in your area the day you intend to go on vacation, and where the spare
key is hidden?

"Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:11636ac6-3125-4794-b73f-29b65424d76c@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

> You mean, given these "facts" ... The premise of your argument rests
> on a house of cards.

Isn't this where Dick Cheney says, "So?"

Dave in Houston

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Talking about "victory" in Iraq is like talking about "victory" in NY
> or Los Angeles or DC. Right now the US forces are the cops on the
> beat keeping the lid on until the Iraqi cops are ready to take over
> the job.

I agree with you here, but the Iraqi's and other Middle Eastern cultures
have different value sets than we do. Honor, family honor, and religious
and tribal affiliation are over there (often) much more important than
values like fairness etc which we regard higher than family. This is a
very important concept to deal with for us and for them. Are we really
so presumptious to value our value set higher than theirs, or is it vice
versa?

> The people they are fighting are criminals, not soldiers,
> and there will never be an end to criminals.

I think that religious and tribal fanatics might be a better way to
"classify" them than calling them criminals. Again, it is a question of
value set in the context of a different culture.

> I don't know why so many people have trouble understanding this.

I wish that it was so simple ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote in
news:c8c0eb03-e07a-47cf-9656-89ac77229b84@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com:

<snip previous>

> Han, IMO, they are thugs, creeps and worse. If what they do is not
> criminal in their own minds, it is consensually criminal in the minds
> of the civilized world. While their values may be different, mine
> aren't. I apply the same standards to them I did to the IRA: thugs,
> creeps and criminals. Religious fanaticism is not an excuse for
> torture and murder, nor is tribalism (for that matter, neither is
> patriotism, probably the second most quoted rationale after religion).
> They are often the most evident of the reasons, but they cannot
> whitewash the deeds in the minds of people who come close to being
> civilized.

I truly agree with you Charlie! But we did enter their world with the
Iraq invasion, under the flimsiest pretenses, probably falsified at that,
and with the poorest strategy of almost any war we (the US) have ever
entered into, and possibly now the longest war ever as well. Entering
their world should mean taking their values into account, and they do not
have to conflict all that much with our values, if we are true, and don't
shift alliances as easily as they do. (Easier said than done).

> The onus, though, truly falls on the powerful who lead the ignorant.
> There is a plethora of each kind in Iraq, and throughout the Middle
> East, and has been for as long as the area has existed. To think we
> were going to change that was possibly the ultimate in hubris.
>
Please extend your characterizations to the current White House clique as
well. Granting, as Congress in their stupidity did, war powers to the
President still does not give him carte blanche to twist the truth and
the facts.

We as a nation are now saddled not only with a war that will not end
soon, but also with the deaths and trauma that have and will result. To
me it seems that the greatest tragedy is the physical and mental trauma
to the soldiers, their families and communities resulting from the war.
The wounded (physically or otherwise) still have some 60 years of
lifetime to look forward to. During that time they, their families and
communities will need care, both physically and mentally, and it will be
very costly, both financially and (I can't find the right word) mentally.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> "Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>> Please extend your characterizations to the current White House
>> clique as well. Granting, as Congress in their stupidity did, war
>> powers to the President still does not give him carte blanche to
>> twist the truth and the facts.
>
>
> The odd thing about such accusations is the administration said
> nothing appreciably different than the previous administration, who
> frankly would rather talk about regime change instead of doing regime
> change. During the 1998 4 day Baghdad punishment bombing the rhetoric
> from the DEMS was pretty extreme. One as well would be very hard
> pressed to find any international support for Saddam, any defenders of
> Saddam or anyone appreciably sorry that Saddam is and was no longer.
> His clear violations of the 1991 cease fire were well known, as were
> his atrocities against his own people and neighboring countries. No
> one seemed to think that we should have stopped the multi-billion
> dollar Saddam containment effort with thousands of nearby troops,
> enforced no fly zones and Navy enforced embargoes. The apparent false
> albeit believed WMD fears were less a argument to topple his regime
> but rather a argument for now instead of later. Rod
>
Those are indeed all good arguments supporting the current Iraq war.
However, it was a clear danger signal that the Iraqi exiles couldn't
agree on a government structure. In addition, the refusal of the Turkey
government to have the "allies" use Turkish territory for the planned 2-
prong attack was an indication of the volatility of the strife between
the rather diverse groups of people in Iraq and neighboring countries.
Combine that with the disastrous decisions not to guard ammunition dumps,
civil infrastructure (including much of the oil industry), and last but
certainly not least, the decisions to disband the security services
inside Iraq when there was no effective government (thank you Mr.
Bremer!), and you have the recipe indeed for the crrent situation. Oh
yeah, I forgot, there was a war ongoing in Afhanistan wherein it was
already being shown to be very difficult to contain Al Quaeda and its
operatives. Now you are going to assist lawlessness in a country used to
internecine strife?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Mark & Juanita" wrote

> is the case. Take a look at when Bush (or frankly any politician of
either
> side) visits a factory: he may thank the CEO or other executive for
> inviting him (after all, that's most likely where the invitation
> originated), but he will then go on to praise the workers of the business
> for the "fine products they produce and how they are showing how America
> works".

Which proves that politicians will lie to both money (CEO), and votes
(workers), in equal measure.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/8/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Jeff, (and Mark),

Arguing/debating the relative merits of economic theory is probably futile.
Face-to-face we'd at least be more civil. With civility as the theme here, I
want to point out a couple of apparent assumptions that may not be accurate.

Jeff, In one thread you mentioned the S&L bailout of the 80's where you
seemed to infer that the cause was greedy officers and directors of those
banks. Certainly there were some instances of that (keating, Silverado etc)
but the primary reason was a shift in economic policy that caught most of
these banks in the position of having lent long (30 year fixed home loans
made up the bulk of portfolios) while they borrowed short. (Meaning they
loaned out money in savings accounts and short CD's). There was a huge
duration mismatch. Didn't matter when the spreads hadn't moved much. Spread
was profit and life was good. The real problem came when rates and inflation
soared in the late seventies and early 80's. To keep the deposits, banks had
to pay more interest, ultimately way more than they were receiving on the
loans. That was the spawn of the crisis. Crooks in the process? sure, a few.
Not enough to bring down the system.

The second thing you seemed to intimate was that the taxpayers ultimately
paid the price. Some lost deposits that weren't insured but no depositor
lost money in an insured account. Congress essentially recapitalized the
industry by making loans available and by setting up the Refinance
Corporation (refcorp) to pay the insurance claims that were beyond the
ability of the insurer to pay (then FSLIC now FDIC). Refcorp sold bonds in
the market to raise the cash. Bond holders were and still are being paid
from a 10% levy on the profits of the Federal Home Loan Bank System. (fed
charter but wholly owned by the member banks) Essentially the industry foots
the bill not the taxpayer. Sure one could argue that the consumer who uses
banks ultimately pays but that's true of anything.

Anyway, I usually avoid these discussions simply because they usually
degenerate into useless name calling pretty fast. I respect reasoned
arguments, especially opposing ones, but hate to see a good one diminished
by a misunderstanding of facts. Facts have no position on the political
spectrum. The are what they are. Distortion of facts, intentional or not, is
why these discussions fall apart. I concede that I may be misreading your
intent so feel free to correct me if you wish. In fact you may well be aware
of all of the above. If so, then using the
bailout/Reagan/republican/crook/Bush doing it again kind of connection
would, in my opinion be a cheap shot.


--
Patrick Fischer
Olalla, WA


"Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1fe2f09e-dcb6-4e08-90bf-a8a8edf4b91f@z38g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 21, 12:11 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Jeff wrote:
>> > On Mar 20, 12:39 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> Jeff wrote:
>> >> > On Mar 19, 9:49 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> On Mar 19, 8:22 pm, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> ... snip
>>
>> >> > Taxes are a hot-button issue here, but I never get that worked up
>> >> > over
>> >> > them. My wife and I paid Uncle Sam a boatload of money but our bill
>> >> > pales compared with our counterparts in the rest of the Western
>> >> > world.
>>
>> So that makes it all better? Since the rest of the world is taxing the
>> bejeebers out of its citizens, we should follow along?
>>
>> A little clarification here. I think the fed bailout of Bear-Stearns
>> is
>> equally as bad as bailing out people who took out home loans they knew
>> they
>> couldn't afford. Both actions promote irresponsibility. There is
>> nothing
>> written anywhere that says people have to be successful all the time.
>>
>> My comment was more in line with your comment relative to stocks vs.
>> jobs.
>> Yeah, the dems talk a good game about jobs, but in the end, who really
>> provides the jobs? It's the businesses, the corporations, the
>> entrepreneurs who are creating jobs and wealth. Many of those businesses
>> are publicly traded on the stock market. The government only taxes wealth
>> and the dems especially could be considered anti-job with their strong
>> emphasis on penalizing those who create jobs through higher taxes, more
>> regulation, and other anti-business policies. You don't promote
>> prosperity
>> by piling more and more weights on the elements of society contributing
>> to
>> that prosperity.
>
> Market cap measures the value of companies. Its indexes aren't even
> considered when determining stages of the business cycle. Businesses
> respond to demand which is powered by consumer confidence. That
> indicator rises in a robust labor market. To answer your question:
> Consumers create jobs.
>
> Republicans are not adverse to assisting business cronies, but
> consumer confidence is better provided by policies designed to
> strengthen the labor market. For example, overseas profit centers are
> taxed at lower rates. This is good for cronies. They can sack a
> business unit and bring it up in China. Or they can ship form
> processing to India and charge back to the company so that it's taxed
> at the lower rate. You may applaud this type of activity. I don't.
>
> You picked a strange time to argue in favor of de-regulation. The
> current crises was made possible by the formation of a shadow banking
> industry that existed outside of Federal regulatory control. Savings
> were moved from banks to funds that bought asset backed commercial
> paper from investment houses that bought collateralized debt from
> securitized mortgages. Now we have an old fashioned bank run with no
> FDIC support. The cycles between these fiascoes are exactly as long as
> people's memories. This shadow industry was allow to thrive at a time
> when the 1980s savings and loan crisis became a distant memory. The
> greatest period of prosperity and innovation in this country came at a
> time of greatest regulation so I don't buy the argument that it
> stifles progress. Sustained growth requires a stable financial
> environment.
>
>>
>> I'm sure the next comment will be the exorbitant salaries of the CEO's
>> vs.
>> the workers. Guess what? I agree that there is a problem here, but the
>> solution is not more government oversight,but stockholders, particularly
>> the institutional investors exerting their weight on the boards.
>
> Where I work, the CEO sits on the Board with whom he enjoys a cozy
> relationship. It's reflected in his salary and bonuses. I doubt the
> average stock holder considers his multi-million dollar bonuses in
> their best interest. How do you suggest they exert their weight?
>
>>
>> >> You really don't understand economics and how the economy works, do
>> >> you?
>> >> Explains your party preference pretty well.
>>
>> > My majoral concentration was economics but feel free to enlighten
>> > me....
>>
>> What flavor of economics was in favor at the time of your major? Those
>> I
>> knew when I was in school were equally divided between Marxism and
>> Keynesian economic theory. Adam Smith capitalism was in short supply.
>>
>
> If Adam Smith was in short supply, then there probably little demand.
> Funny how that works ;-) IMO Alfred Marshall provided a much better
> theoretical foundation for his flavor of thought. In their day, Smith,
> Marx, Marshall and Keynes each asked the right questions. Each in
> response to the conditions of his time. Personally, I think Schumpeter
> is a better guide through current conditions but I'm just a hack
> arguing economics on the Internets...
>
> Cheers,
> Jeff

On Mar 23, 12:37=A0pm, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Bush and his crew are, IMO, criminally responsible for the deaths of
> nearly 4,000 U.S. service men and women, and God alone knows how many
> Iraqis.

And that is what the rest of the people on this planet see and talk
about.
One member of a forum i attend, has tossed out an interesting
possibility:
Bush can't pardon himself, but can pardon Cheney, then step down and
have Cheney pardon him.
I, however, think Bush is arrogant to the extent that he is sure
nobody will try to convict him.

Personally, I am a firm believer in 'what goes around comes around'
and Bush will get his.

On Mar 20, 12:36 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:4fea31d4-139d-4942-92ab-d85200174ca8@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Generally, I tend to favor Democrats. They're concerned about jobs.
> > Republicans are concerned about the stock market. I depend heavily on
> > the former and have little of the latter.
>
> Yeah. uh, jobs are heavily dependent on the stock market.

And companies are heavily dependent on consumers. Guess what happens
to your beloved stocks when consumer confidence plummets? Why should
politicians stimulate some markets at the expense of the labor market?
For example, overseas profit centers are taxed at a lower rate. Do you
really need to provide companies with incentives to purchase labor
overseas?

On Mar 23, 8:01=A0pm, "todd" <[email protected]> wrote:


>. =A0I'm not sure I'm
> prepared for the whining when the Dems lose the next presidential election=
.
>

Not that unlikely. But depends a lot on McCains running mate. Could be
the Liebermann Whisperer....

On Mar 20, 11:37 am, [email protected] (Larry W) wrote:
> In article <4fea31d4-139d-4942-92ab-d85200174...@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> <...snipped...>
>
> >Generally, I tend to favor Democrats. They're concerned about jobs.
> >Republicans are concerned about the stock market. I depend heavily on
> >the former and have little of the latter.
>
> <...snipped...>
>
> Along those same lines, something from Molly Ivins, I think: When a
> Republican president visits a factory of for instance a furniture
> producer, he thanks the president or owner of the company for supplying
> our country with the fine funiture the company produces. When a
> Democratic president visits the same factory, he thanks the employees.
>
> --
> The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation
> with the average voter. (Winston Churchill)
>
> Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

On Mar 24, 9:53 am, "NuWave Dave" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:0732eefc-00f7-477e-b969-ea5c940b2f2b@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Pardon me while I puke. I just read that U.S. losses have hit 4,000.
>
> Isn't this where Dick Cheney says, "So?"
>
> Dave in Houston

I guess. That was his response to a reporter saying nearly 2/3 of the
American public felt the war was a mistake.

Incredible man. Savage as hell as long as he's not in the line of
fire, or even taking a chance on being in the line of fire.

On Mar 21, 4:49=A0pm, "Pounds on Wood" <[email protected]>
wrote:


> =A0But if you must spend all your time OT

What part of OT don't you understand, Willy?

We woodworkers have all kinds of common interests and there are all
kinds of level-headed thinkers in here. People who have opinions which
I appreciate on all kinds of levels.
Ohhh, waitasec... you think this is a USA only news group??? You
somehow feel compelled to throw your rather significant weight around
in a world-wide news group? Last time I checked, there were
participants from all over the planet.
Too bad you're too fucking shallow to participate. I'm soooo sick of
whiners...

Two suggestions:

1) If you see a post with Robatoy's name attached. Don't fucking read
it.

2) If you see a post with the letter O and T.. don't fucking read it.

IF, for some reason you do not have the self control to do either of
those two simple things, plonk me.

You know... <plonk>

On Mar 20, 11:58=A0am, LRod <[email protected]> wrote:

> Funny how quickly that exchange ended.


Thats usually how it goes with party liners. May be able to hit a
slowball right over the plate, anything else usually stops em dead in
their tracks. If it aint scripted repetition its over.

Mark

On Mar 20, 4:10=A0pm, "Pounds on Wood" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:6b832df1-0f6f-4adf-a7bd-=
>
>
> Man, my head's exploding. Based on many of your earlier comments, I
>
> > had you pegged on the liberal side. I must not have seen all your
> > comments...
>
> Where he comes from, Robert Scheer is an ultra-conservative. =A0He's just
> trolling again anyway.
>
> --
> ********
> Bill Poundshttp://www.billpounds.com

Ohhh it's YOU! (Kinda thought so... nothing to contribute, just loose
diatribe when you don't have a clue what's being discussed.... )

On Mar 23, 7:59 am, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote innews:[email protected]:
>

> > The people they are fighting are criminals, not soldiers,
> > and there will never be an end to criminals.
>
> I think that religious and tribal fanatics might be a better way to
> "classify" them than calling them criminals. Again, it is a question of
> value set in the context of a different culture.
>
> > I don't know why so many people have trouble understanding this.
>
> I wish that it was so simple ...
>

Han, IMO, they are thugs, creeps and worse. If what they do is not
criminal in their own minds, it is consensually criminal in the minds
of the civilized world. While their values may be different, mine
aren't. I apply the same standards to them I did to the IRA: thugs,
creeps and criminals. Religious fanaticism is not an excuse for
torture and murder, nor is tribalism (for that matter, neither is
patriotism, probably the second most quoted rationale after religion).
They are often the most evident of the reasons, but they cannot
whitewash the deeds in the minds of people who come close to being
civilized.

The onus, though, truly falls on the powerful who lead the ignorant.
There is a plethora of each kind in Iraq, and throughout the Middle
East, and has been for as long as the area has existed. To think we
were going to change that was possibly the ultimate in hubris.

On Mar 21, 1:28=A0pm, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:

> but I'm just a hack
> arguing economics on the Internets...
>
These here Intarweb tubes are going to assplode!

On Mar 19, 6:34=A0pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > ...I think I'd rather have Obama as my neighbour ...
>
> Fortunately, it isn't your call... :)
>
Live with the calls of those who YOU live with.
You display that famous arrogance I talk about.

Charlie Self wrote:
> On Mar 20, 11:37 am, [email protected] (Larry W) wrote:
>> In article <4fea31d4-139d-4942-92ab-d85200174...@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> <...snipped...>
>>
>>> Generally, I tend to favor Democrats. They're concerned about jobs.
>>> Republicans are concerned about the stock market. I depend heavily on
>>> the former and have little of the latter.
>> <...snipped...>
>>
>> Along those same lines, something from Molly Ivins, I think: When a
>> Republican president visits a factory of for instance a furniture
>> producer, he thanks the president or owner of the company for supplying
>> our country with the fine funiture the company produces. When a
>> Democratic president visits the same factory, he thanks the employees.
>>
>
> Yes, close to true. But when an independent visits that factory, he/
> she thanks both the owners and workers for the furniture, for without
> both, there would be no furniture.
>
> And this is a little feature that the goddamned idiots in both parties
> have forgotten. Owners are essential. Workers are essential. Some sort
> of sensible and at least semi-polite relationship between the two is
> also essential. Politicians who work to widen the natural split
> created by money need to have their tongues ripped out.
>

100% agreed - but you missed the flip side:

Politicians who think they have *any* role in the employer/employee
relationship need to ... well, what you said.

Employment (other than government employment) is a private matter.
Short of fraud, force, or threat, there ought be no government
involvement at all, certainly not by the Feds.

Having been both a boss and a worker bee in my career, my observation
is that doing either job well is difficult, but the challenges are
different. Employees tend to think of the boss as useless driftwood.
When I have seen promising employees grumping about the "idiots in
management", I try to find opportunities for them to lead a project
or group. It tends to radically improve their context and appreciation
for how hard the job of "boss" really is.

Despite what you see in the slurpy media, most bosses - at least the
successful ones - actually do have a pretty fair appreciation of their
people. Most of them were once individual contributors themselves.
The media tends to resort to the "The Man" kind of characterizations,
because precious few people in media (or government for that matter)
have ever had to make payroll, listen to the personal woes of their
reports, handle interpersonal strife, coach people to be their best,
maintain profitability, do the endless paperwork, and all that goes
with leadership.

It's been said before, but bears repeating:

Children are Dependent
Adolescents are fiercly Independent
Mature adults are Interdependent

Sadly, in this culture that values feelings above facts, we have
a depressing number of nominal adults whose behavior is stuck in
childhood or adolescence.

P.S. The most valuable lessons I ever learned about leadership
came not from a book, a class, or even a great boss. They
came from *lousy* bosses who demonstrated vividly just what
NOT to do. I've been really fortunate in not having many
of them, but the ones I did have were walking encyclopedias
of leadership malfunction. It is also interesting to me
that the same people who rail about stupid bosses, overpaid
CEOs, and dishonest corporations, are often the exact same
ones who think nothing of padding an expense report, stealing
assets from work, goofing off instead of finding ways to be
useful, and generally acting like spoiled children. Go figure.

P.P.S I have also been incredibly lucky to have had uniformly superb
folks reporting to me when I've been the boss. Good leaders
understand that this is a gift - your people give you permission
to lead and you must be a steward of that gift.



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Mar 19, 6:34=A0pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > ...I think I'd rather have Obama as my neighbour ...
>
> Fortunately, it isn't your call... :)
>
> --

BTW... here you go, asshole:
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/president/16809706.html

On Mar 19, 8:41 pm, Tanus <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
> > On Mar 19, 6:31 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Obama dropped a whack of lead he had in the polls. But it wasn't him,
> >> was it?
> >> Just how dirty do things get down there?
>
> >> I don't like the guy much, but compared to Bush-Light, I think I'd
> >> rather have Obama as my neighbour than McCain.
>
> >> My roots are conservative, but considering the giant clusterfuck we
> >> have enjoyed, I'm not so sure we want to go this way.
>
> >> rrrrrr
>
> > Man, my head's exploding. Based on many of your earlier comments, I
> > had you pegged on the liberal side. I must not have seen all your
> > comments...
>
> From a Canadian perspective, I'd say
> that Rob is right of centre by a fairly
> wide margin. From a US POV, he's still
> right but not as far.
>
> It's interesting how those two above
> statements are almost at odds with each
> other....
>
> Tanus

I live in the Northeast and to many of my friends I'm not left enough.
(If you say *anything* positive in this political climate, you're
considered a Bushie) But Southerners will see my defense of
regulation and call me a commie. Until they find out I'm pretty much
godless, then they'll want to lynch me or something. To both I say,
"meh."

On Mar 20, 11:48 am, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:

> And this is a little feature that the goddamned idiots in both parties
> have forgotten. Owners are essential. Workers are essential. Some sort
> of sensible and at least semi-polite relationship between the two is
> also essential. Politicians who work to widen the natural split
> created by money need to have their tongues ripped out.

If I was around you now I would buy you a beer and cigar. How could
that have been said better.

I am sick of all this crap generated by politicians that pretend to,
but don't care about us at all. All of them and their armchair army
of expert talking heads can bite my ass.

It constantly floors me to see that so many morons still believe there
are huge differences between the parties and what they ACTUALLY do.
Key word: Actually - NOT "promise" to do.

Robert

Robatoy wrote:
...
> ...I think I'd rather have Obama as my neighbour ...

Fortunately, it isn't your call... :)

--

Jeff wrote:
> On Mar 19, 6:31 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Obama dropped a whack of lead he had in the polls. But it wasn't him,
>> was it?
>> Just how dirty do things get down there?
>>
>> I don't like the guy much, but compared to Bush-Light, I think I'd
>> rather have Obama as my neighbour than McCain.
>>
>> My roots are conservative, but considering the giant clusterfuck we
>> have enjoyed, I'm not so sure we want to go this way.
>>
>> rrrrrr
>
> Man, my head's exploding. Based on many of your earlier comments, I
> had you pegged on the liberal side. I must not have seen all your
> comments...

From a Canadian perspective, I'd say
that Rob is right of centre by a fairly
wide margin. From a US POV, he's still
right but not as far.

It's interesting how those two above
statements are almost at odds with each
other....

Tanus

In article <4fea31d4-139d-4942-92ab-d85200174ca8@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
<...snipped...>
>Generally, I tend to favor Democrats. They're concerned about jobs.
>Republicans are concerned about the stock market. I depend heavily on
>the former and have little of the latter.

<...snipped...>

Along those same lines, something from Molly Ivins, I think: When a
Republican president visits a factory of for instance a furniture
producer, he thanks the president or owner of the company for supplying
our country with the fine funiture the company produces. When a
Democratic president visits the same factory, he thanks the employees.




--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation
with the average voter. (Winston Churchill)

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "JimR" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> I don't know of anyone who doesn't want the war to end. The
>> question is, is there anyone who doesn't want to see it end with a
>> U.S.-led victory??
>>
>
> It may go on for years trying to determine what a victory means over
> there. I doubt anyone has an answer as to when or how to pull out.
> That entire part of the world has always been at war of some sort.

Talking about "victory" in Iraq is like talking about "victory" in NY
or Los Angeles or DC. Right now the US forces are the cops on the
beat keeping the lid on until the Iraqi cops are ready to take over
the job. The people they are fighting are criminals, not soldiers,
and there will never be an end to criminals.

I don't know why so many people have trouble understanding this.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)