The Reagans [Archive]

Rob67

12-06-2003, 12:08 PM

I am a moderate conservative (a realist, if you will) and I have to agree that the miniseries is definitly slanted. If you step back and take an unbiased look at the Reagan presidency, you will see some flaws but also some great moments. I agree with with this editorial from the Washington Times...

Smearing Reagan's legacy

Ronald Reagan's legacy is under attack. For years, liberal academics have tried to explain how the Soviet Union collapsed without giving credit to the U.S. president who challenged communism head on and won. Now Hollywood is opening up another front. Next month, Mr. Reagan will be tarred and feathered in a made-for-TV docudrama by CBS. It is a transparent attempt to obscure historical fact with Tinsel Town glitz.
The anti-Reagan bias of the mini-series isn't hidden. In a Tuesday article focusing on the controversy surrounding the movie, the New York Times noted "growing concern that this deconstruction of his presidency is shot through a liberal lens, exaggerating his foibles and giving short thrift to his accomplishments." In the evidence department, Exhibit No. 1 is that the 40th president is played by Mr. Barbra Streisand, James Brolin. The actor and his wife are longtime activists for far-left causes. In the last month alone, as reported by Matt Drudge, Miss Streisand has labeled the California recall a right-wing "attempted hijacking of the democratic process," attacked "the myth of Big Government" and demanded an independent probe into White House leaks.
On "Hardball with Chris Matthews" two days ago, the host asked Mr. Reagan's campaign manager and two of the president's biographers if they were contacted by CBS to verify the historical authenticity of the film. Strategist Ed Rollins and biographers Lou Cannon and Martin Anderson all stated that they had not been consulted. On the program, these authorities of the Reagan presidency debunked the movie's depiction of Ronald Reagan as callous to AIDS, oversimplistic in labeling people "commies" and accommodating to his wife's alleged consultations with an astrologer. These experts and other articles point out that the movie does not give him due credit for reversing the ascendancy of the Soviet Union, stimulating an economic recovery and making Americans proud again after the defeat in Vietnam and the discombobulation of the Carter administration.
As Mr. Reagan struggles with the last stages of Alzheimer's disease, "The Reagans" mini-series is certainly in bad taste. But its dishonesty is worse. Of course, distorting history is nothing new in Hollywood. On his Tuesday show, Chris Matthews, a forthright liberal, criticized the Oliver Stone productions "Nixon" and "JFK" for playing fast and loose with the truth. "People with the baseball hats on, regular kids in their 20s, they sit there [in the theater] and they suck this stuff up, and they come out of there thinking, 'You know, Nixon had something to do with killing Kennedy.' " Mr. Matthews shows that the Reagan smear does not have to be a partisan issue. All those who respect truth should come out against this latest example of Hollywood revisionism.

jwd

12-06-2003, 12:35 PM

Posted by Rob67:

I am a moderate conservative (a realist, if you will)

WELCOME TO THE ROOM!!...and I agree with your post COMPLETELY!! :nod:

Joe

strandinthewind

12-06-2003, 01:18 PM

The whole Reagan bashing issue aside, it was just an awful production. I couldn't watch it for that reason.

sodascouts

12-06-2003, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I'm not a Nancy fan either.

Hey! lol

Seriously though, whatever programmer thought it would be a great idea to air a miniseries mocking a dying man should be fired. I think most conservatives and liberals can agree that it was poorly timed, to say the least.

Johnny Stew

12-06-2003, 02:54 PM

Nancy (sodascouts) and I talked about this before, and we both felt that the timing was off, and very insensitive towards his family.

But beyond any made-for-TV movie, all I know is that during the years Ronald Reagan was in the White House, my father lost his job because of a crippled economy, was forced to work any job he could find in order to just scrape by, and we had to go on food stamps.
Meanwhile, the rich got richer (and richer and richer).

So credit him all you want for the fall of the Soviet Union and for helping Upper-Class folks... but for me, the struggle of my family and thousands of familes in our area alone, always will be Reagan's true legacy as a President, and I will never forget the hell my dad went thru in order to keep a roof over our heads during that time.

End of story. Fade to black.

dissention

12-06-2003, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
The whole Reagan bashing issue aside, it was just an awful production. I couldn't watch it for that reason.

That's due in part to the fact that they chopped it up worse than Leatherface would to non-virginal teenagers.

Originally posted by Rob67
I am a moderate conservative (a realist, if you will) and I have to agree that the miniseries is definitly slanted. If you step back and take an unbiased look at the Reagan presidency, you will see some flaws but also some great moments.

Of course it is slanted. I think everyone would be preaching to the choir if they tried to say it wasn't. However, it is no more slanted than Fox News, it is no more slanted than the recent Jessica Lynch movie, and it would be no more slanted than a miniseries about Bill Clinton. The same thing that you said about the Reagan presidency having flaws but also great moments would certainly apply to Bill Clinton, but no conservative would ever admit it. If Fox television ever produces a Clinton movie, I'd bet my life that the costumes would mainly consist Devil costumes and they would try to recruit Osama for the lead role.

Let's face it: Reagan some okay things, but he certainly did NOT perform s well as Republicans would have you believe. He wasn't the brightest crayon in the Crayola box and I think it's painfully obvious. He made many remarks that made no sense and many that completely disregarded facts. He took actions that were, in my mind, absolutely ridiculous, yet he is considered one of the greatest presidents. I don't agree, but that's just part of my "liberal agenda."

Originally posted by Rob67
On the program, these authorities of the Reagan presidency debunked the movie's depiction of Ronald Reagan as callous to AIDS, oversimplistic in labeling people "commies"

Sorry, but both of those facts are true. I refuse to believe that Reagan was just "slow" in reacting to the AIDs epidemic, I feel no need to whitewash his actions (or lack thereof) in Republican baloney. As for labeling people as commies, that's common liberal knowledge that the Republicans won't acknowledge.

Originally posted by Rob67
As Mr. Reagan struggles with the last stages of Alzheimer's disease, "The Reagans" mini-series is certainly in bad taste.

:rolleyes:

And if Bill Clinton was in the last stages of cancer or even Altzheimer's, the conservative-ruled media would hold restraint in a biopic?

:laugh:

Sorry, all of this just proves that the Republicans and conservatives of our country are hypocrites with no grasp on reality. I'm actually surprised that they stopped taking away health benefits from struggling, single parents to fit this Reagan uprising into their schedule. Excuse me while I go chastise homeless people for not paying taxes and propose new laws that would take away Medicare benefits from the poor and elderly who suffer from Altzheimer's. Ah, but first I must propose my vigorous beliefs on why Reagan should replace that crippled devil Roosevelt on dimes.

dissention

12-06-2003, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Nancy (sodascouts) and I talked about this before, and we both felt that the timing was off, and very insensitive towards his family.

But beyond any made-for-TV movie, all I know is that during the years Ronald Reagan was in the White House, my father lost his job because of a crippled economy, was forced to work any job he could find in order to just scrape by, and we had to go on food stamps.
Meanwhile, the rich got richer (and richer and richer).

So credit him all you want for the fall of the Soviet Union and for helping Upper-Class folks... but for me, the struggle of my family and thousands of familes in our area alone, always will be Reagan's true legacy as a President, and I will never forget the hell my dad went thru in order to keep a roof over our heads during that time.

End of story. Fade to black.

Amen, Johnny.

:wavey:

strandinthewind

12-06-2003, 03:19 PM

I know what you mean Jonny Stew. The Reagan years were hard for many people. But, in all fairness, Reagan was handed an already weak if not failing economy with 21 or higher percent interest rates, etc. Moreover, during any two term Presidency there have been severe ups and downs in the economy. For example, Bill Clinton's Presidency ended with an economy fast approaching a recession.

So, I think I have come to the conclusion that the economies have historically been cyclical and will always be that way no matter what any political body does. I mean economic theory dictates that tax cuts (at whatever level(s)) must and will stimulate the economy to some degree as will lowering interst rates. But, I think even with these tools, it still boils down to the inventiveness of man (the internet boom in Pres. Clinton's economy, etc.) to promote any real stimulation.

Just food for thought and not meaning to be antagonistic or promoting of one political party over another :cool:

strandinthewind

12-06-2003, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by dissention
Ah, but first I must propose my vigorous beliefs on why Reagan should replace that crippled devil Roosevelt on dimes.

I know - that they are proposing to place the Gipper on the dime is just an outrage. But, people just have no taste when promoting an agenda.

Interesrtingly, a similar thing recently happened here in Atlanta. Our airport (the second largest in the country) was named "Hartsfield" after a local prominent white aviation figure. Then, Maynard Jackson, a very well liked and prominent African Amercian mayor of Atlanta, died. Just about the entire group of African American political movers and shakers determined the airport should be renamed the Maynard Jackson airport and the hell with ole Hartsfield. The fight got so ugly here that you were branded a racist if you dared question why Mr. Hartsfield's name should be removed. The promoters of the name change even had candlelight vigils against the obvious racism that they felt was going on. In the end, it became the "Hartsfield-Jackson" airport - a suitable compromise in my book. Yet, there are still cries of racist when in my book the African American politicos wrongly used the false threat of racism to achieve their goals - which I find disgusting.

So, I think the conservative right wing will similarly scream liberal bias when the sides go to war on the dime. Sad - but very true

dissention

12-06-2003, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I know - that they are proposing to place the Gipper on the dime is just an outrage. But, people just have no taste when promoting an agenda.

Interesrtingly, a similar thing recently happened here in Atlanta. Our airport (the second largest in the country) was named "Hartsfield" after a local prominent white aviation figure. Then, Maynard Jackson, a very well liked and prominent African Amercian mayor of Atlanta, died. Just about the entire African American political movers and shakers determined the airport should be renamed the Maynard Jackson airport and the hell with ole Hartsfield. The fight got so ugly here that you were branded a racist if you dared question why Mr. Hartsfield's name should be removed. The promoters of the name change even had candle light vigils against the obvious racism that they felt was going on. In the end, it became the "Hartsfield-Jackson" airport - a suitable compromise in my book. Yet, there are still cries of racis when 9n my book the African American politicos used the threat of racism to achieve their goals - which I find disgusting.

So, I think the conservative right wing will sililarly scream liberal bias when the sides go to war on the dime. Sad - but very true

:laugh:

How ridiculous. However, race (that is, if it exists...) will continue to factor into everything n our lives.

I read an article the other day where a woman argued that if a white woman gives birth to a baby from an African-American father, the mother should then be considered black.

:rolleyes:

Johnny Stew

12-06-2003, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I know what you mean Jonny Stew. The Reagan years were hard for many people. But, in all fairness, Reagan was handed an already weak if not failing economy with 21 or higher percent interest rates, etc. Moreover, during any two term Presidency there have been severe ups and downs in the economy.Fair enough... though the lean years continued thru Bush Sr.'s four years in office. If Reagan had done such a great job, I think his eight years should have been long enough to get things turned around for those of us not lucky enough to already be rich.

And our current Republican President has also pushed tax-cuts, etc., that benefit the upper-class (which include his family and associates), while "blue-collar" workers continue to struggle.

Currently these tax-cuts are going to cost the public library where I work, to lose HALF of their budget... which will mean less hours, less books, less computers, less research materials, and possibly less employees (and we only have five).

Then there are the many ways in which the Republican party has worked to block and deny various rights to homosexuals. They're against civil unions, they're against allowing a same-sex partner to be covered under your medical insurance, they're against laws that would protect homosexual victims of hate crimes, etc., etc.
Hell, many in the Republican party are even against striking down sodomy and oral sex laws involving same-sex partners!

Don't get me wrong, Jason... I don't at all think that the Democratic party is perfect. They're far from it. But I do feel they're most definitely more favorable in regards to a good number of very important issues.

But hey, we're all entitled to our opinions, and I'm glad we can have these types of debates here on the Ledge. :)

dissention

12-06-2003, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Hell, many in the Republican party are even against striking down sodomy and oral sex laws involving same-sex partners!

Ha!

So much for Coultergeist touting that ultra-conservatives in the bible belt have better sex than liberals.

gldstwmn

12-06-2003, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by sodascouts
Hey! lol

Seriously though, whatever programmer thought it would be a great idea to air a miniseries mocking a dying man should be fired. I think most conservatives and liberals can agree that it was poorly timed, to say the least.

It's about as well timed as some Republicans effort to get him on the dime instead of FDR. Now that's tactless.

gldstwmn

12-06-2003, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by Rob67
In the evidence department, Exhibit No. 1 is that the 40th president is played by Mr. Barbra Streisand, James Brolin. The actor and his wife are longtime activists for far-left causes. In the last month alone, as reported by Matt Drudge,

Yeah. Matt Drudge has no ax to grind.

[QUOTE]Miss Streisand has labeled the California recall a right-wing "attempted hijacking of the democratic process," attacked "the myth of Big Government" and demanded an independent probe into White House leaks.[QUOTE]

And it's not?

gldstwmn

12-06-2003, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
For example, Bill Clinton's Presidency ended with an economy fast approaching a recession.

The stock market only went to sh*t about three days after the supreme court ruling.;)

[/QUOTE] I mean economic theory dictates that tax cuts (at whatever level(s)) must and will stimulate the economy to some degree as will lowering interst rates. [/QUOTE]

Yes but these tax cuts aren't real. Bush's tax cuts have mainly shifted the burdens onto state and local governments. Ask anyone you know how much their property taxes have gone up in the last couple of years.

jwd

12-06-2003, 04:55 PM

Lets not forget that there are three branches of government. To give TOTAL credit or discredit to a presidency or president would be a little short sighted imo. And quite frankly I'm sick of the partisan politics going on. It's one of the most divisive things in this country. To categorize Republicans or Democrats as this or that is just bs. There are varying degrees in each party.

A special thank you to strandinthewind(Jason) for your unbiased and open minded comments, and not just in this thread!

Joe

sodascouts

12-06-2003, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by dissention

:rolleyes:

And if Bill Clinton was in the last stages of cancer or even Altzheimer's, the conservative-ruled media would hold restraint in a biopic?

:laugh:

Well, I would certainly hope they would show restraint. But if they didn't, I wouldn't be laughing about it, telling everyone "Remember that Reagan TV-movie..."

I think we have to be careful about justifying current behavior that might be deemed questionable by saying "Well, in the future, the other side would probably do something just as bad."

strandinthewind

12-06-2003, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I mean economic theory dictates that tax cuts (at whatever level(s)) must and will stimulate the economy to some degree as will lowering interst rates.

Yes but these tax cuts aren't real. Bush's tax cuts have mainly shifted the burdens onto state and local governments. Ask anyone you know how much their property taxes have gone up in the last couple of years. [/B][/QUOTE]

I know. The Bush Administration economic policies certainly leave a lot to be desired if you are in a lower income tax bracket or a state trying to pay for the Bush policies (which for the most part have been widely supported by the Demo.'s when it came time to vote). Although every tax bracket got a reduction, IMO, the bracket whose spending will best effect the manufacturing product (and therefore the entire economy) is the $40,000 a year and below people and that percentage was not cut enough. Personally, I think there ought to be a flat income tax of 20 percent; that way the "class warfare" arguments used in tax cut arguments is greatly lessoned. But, that will never happen so we have to deal with what we have, which unfortunately is special interest driven.

On the bright side, the economic indicators indicate that while it has a long way to go, the economy is picking up on almost all fronts. Hopefully, this will mean the big companies will begin hiring again to increase output. Interestingly, I truly believe the low interest rates along with the refinancing boom has been sort of a jump start to the economy. I mean I know people who have refinanced several times and too cash out to pay for things their lower paying jobs would not allow them to buy without the payment for it over 30 years at 5%.

Finally, Johnny, I, too, love this type of debate and love even more that, for the most part, we Ledgies respect other people opinions and present ideas without vitrol - now if we all could only be that way in a Stevie v. L.B. debate :laugh:.

strandinthewind

12-06-2003, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by jwd
Lets not forget that there are three branches of government. To give TOTAL credit or discredit to a presidency or president would be a little short sighted imo. And quite frankly I'm sick of the partisan politics going on. It's one of the most divisive things in this country. To categorize Republicans or Democrats as this or that is just bs. There are varying degrees in each party.

A special thank you to strandinthewind(Jason) for your unbiased and open minded comments, and not just in this thread!

Joe

I am blushing - thank you for the compliment.

I, too, just hate the hate everyone seems to have more of these days regarding partisan politics. I wish Bush could have or would have been the uniter he claimed. But, I think the way the election in 2000 turned out and his choice of Ashcroft as payback to the far right (which I do not think Bush is - I think Bush is a moderate) made that impossible. To his credit, he has been able to get huge support from all sides for most of his policies notwithstanding the 9/11 "there's terrorists out there and to speak against Bush is to be a traitor" that some in Republican party promote or at least tolerate.

Why can't we all just get along :( :confused:

sodascouts

12-06-2003, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
It's about as well timed as some Republicans effort to get him on the dime instead of FDR. Now that's tactless.

I'm not sure I get the analogy. I was saying that they could have at least waited until after Reagan was dead to do this. Roosevelt IS dead.

That being said, they should leave the dime alone! Roosevelt was a great man and deserves it. Let them do some kind of special commerative quarter or something like they did for Kennedy.

jwd

12-06-2003, 05:18 PM

Posted by strandinthewind:

I am blushing - thank you for the compliment.

Why can't we all just get along

You're very welcome!

I agree, and if I could, I'd buy you a drink!! :nod:

CHEERS!

Joe:wavey:

Johnny Stew

12-06-2003, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by jwd
And quite frankly I'm sick of the partisan politics going on. It's one of the most divisive things in this country.Unfortunately, any time one "side" feels they're completely right and the other is completely wrong, you're going to come to an impasse, and unfortunately that's the way it's been in politics for a good long time. I wish it weren't so, but I see no change in sight.Originally posted by jwd
To categorize Republicans or Democrats as this or that is just bs. There are varying degrees in each party.I agree... which is why I always try to say "some Republicans" or "most Democrats," etc.

I prefer to see people as individuals, not as some label.
Even after these types of discussions, I couldn't sit down and tell you necessarily which Ledgies are conservatives and which are liberals.

As I said, I don't think the Democratic party is the be-all and end-all... but I'm much more confident giving them my support, than I would be the Republican party. For all the reasons I mentioned earlier.

But I definitely don't think anyone who disagrees with me is the enemy. :)

dissention

12-06-2003, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Even after these types of discussions, I couldn't sit down and tell you necessarily which Ledgies are conservatives and which are liberals.

Could you tell what I am? :laugh:

Originally posted by sodascouts
Well, I would certainly hope they would show restraint.

We can hope all we want, but they sure as hell woudn't show any restraint; they'd be out for blood. Then, in turn, us far-left liberals would cry foul and the right would say we're censoring them.

I don't know who watches shows like O'Reilly, Scarborough, Hannity or listens to any other public conservative, but they look at Clinton as the anti-christ. So, I don't have to speculate on how they would make a movie concerning Clinton; we all know how they would go about it.

As for the Reagan dime, they are taking advantage of the supposed "public outcry" over the miniseries. In essence, it wasn't a public outcry, it was an outcry from dyed-in-the-wool conservatives who fought like soldiers to get the mini pulled. The sudden boom in everything Reagan is giving them the ammo to get a famous liberal Democrat pushed towards the backburner and a famous Republican towards the forefront again.

The movie has been in the can for almost three years; it's a tad late for everyone to be crying about the timing.

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Why can't we all just get along

Because our country has fostered an intolerant society for three years.

We can't get along because ignorant folks believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, because patriotism is just the latest fad, because holding office is all about what can be done for the individual, because the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, because benefits are being taken away from those who need them most, because people are dying every day for bullshit reasons, because the President is more concerned with photo-ops than human beings, and because he had the BALLS to go to Iraq on Thanksgiving and pose for photos holding a plastic turkey. And his approval rating spiked, furthing showing how ignorant and stupid the people of this country have become.

We don't get along because our country is the butt of every joke made in foreign countries. We don't get along because we invade foreign countries and steamroll over the cars of people who steal wood to burn for their freezing families for punishment. Because we are the leading imperialists in this world.

gldstwmn

12-06-2003, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
On the bright side, the economic indicators indicate that while it has a long way to go, the economy is picking up on almost all fronts. Hopefully, this will mean the big companies will begin hiring again to increase output. :laugh:.

...except that yesterday a weaker than expected jobs report shows that the trickle down economic theory isn't working all that well. While unemployemnt is low, no new jobs are being created. How is this possible? One theory is that more people are becoming self employed. President Bush and his administration have not created one new job in their tenure. in fact they've lost about 2.5 million. The second largest one day drop in the stock market occured during Shrub's presidency. I would have voted for John McCain but they(Bush's special interests) bought the nomination out from under him. So jwd, if you're sick of the partisan politics what's your plan? Because we're stuck with it. It's the lesser of two evils type thing. I think there are some good people running for president, however they'll never get elected because they can't raise 200 million dollars for their campaign war chest and two, most people are too easily led or they just don't give a damn.
I think it would be nice if we could "all get along" with the people of Iraq. How do you like them apples?:laugh: :wavey:

gldstwmn

12-06-2003, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by sodascouts
I'm not sure I get the analogy. I was saying that they could have at least waited until after Reagan was dead to do this. Roosevelt IS dead.
.

That was my point. FDR doesn't deserve to be kicked off the dime either.;)

strandinthewind

12-06-2003, 08:33 PM

EEK - I cannot believe you really think it is that bad. If you do and you are right, we are all doomed :laugh:

Interestingly, I went overseas to Europe several times last year and found the opinions of the people I spoke with (at all levels of life) to be split fairly evenly about the same as it is here. Also, many people had misconceptions based on no facts I know or knew. For example, someone in London supported the Iraqi conflict but then told me CNN was Bush's lapdog and was a conservative network. I was like CNN is many things but conservative probably would not be one of them :laugh:

Moreover, although it is easy to say and sounds great to make a point, most of the economic indicators do not indicate the rich are getting richer and the poor getting poorer despite everyones use of that term. In fact, over the last decade (you have to use a significant period of time to measure this as it is an argument that presumes a long term trend not a particular few months), more wealth was created in this country and it was spilt more evenly than ever. I mean how many stories did we all hear about people starting some company and making millions and paying their staffs very well. I heard a bunch. In fact, I know a bunch. My favorite was the Microsoft millionaire secretaries club (why the hell wasn't I one :laugh: ). Although the internet created wealth bubble burst and a lot of that wealth evaporated essentially overnight (this would be the rich getting poorer :cool: ), this sustained period of wealth (about three years) had a positive impact on the economy that created wealth in many different levels of people - just think of all of the jobs created from the buildings built in that time period. So, while yes, right now the economy is picking up and we are still feeling the effects of the recession (which again all economic indicators suggest is over (not that it can't come back)), the trend over the last ten or so years has been the creation of wealth within all socioeconomic backgrounds. Also, I had a friend complain and complain because her stock portfolio (401K) lost about 45 % in 2000 to 2001. I was like well, you have no one to blame but yourself because you could have sold half and pocketed a bunch of cash like I and your investment person told you, but you did not. Moreover, your loss of 45 % is still a 100 + % gain from your initial investment and now two years later that 45 % loss has been cut in half because almost all markets are up significantly. In other words, she is still way ahead of where she would have been if she had invested in Treasuries at about 2%

Seriously, I cannot ever believe anything is that bad. But then again to me the glass is always half full and everyoine has their own outlook of things - this is mine. :cool:

sparky

12-06-2003, 08:39 PM

I thought the show was lame, but for a network miniseries, it was okay. Ultimately, I didn't find it all that disrespectful. The Iran Contra thing was actually softballed. Considering the gravity of that situation, it was a tempest in a teapot compared to the world media event that was Lewinsky. But, there was no sex involved in Iran Contra.
The vile legacy of Reagan, IMO, was his absolute disinterest in the AIDS crisis. He said nothing, he did nothing. For years. It took Elizabeth Taylor to get anyone to care about it, and in the interim, scores of people died, and scores got infected. His indifference set the tone, and gave people the go ahead to punish the people with the disease and allowed ignorance and intolerance against gay people to flower, thrive and metastasize throughout the country. He could have been a leader on the issue and could have been a decent human being. But, he couldn't risk alienating the religious extremists who put him in office. I don't particularly care what party he was in. His inactions on this issue were heinous and destructive on an EPIC level. For this, and this alone, I will dance on his grave.

Poor taste to be airing it as his family suffers through his illness. They had nothing to do with the damage he caused to so many.
Nonetheless, I will be dancing, dancing, dancing. Hope he's buried next to Jesse Helms so I have twice the size dance floor.

strandinthewind

12-06-2003, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
... So jwd, if you're sick of the partisan politics what's your plan? Because we're stuck with it. It's the lesser of two evils type thing. I think there are some good people running for president, however they'll never get elected because they can't raise 200 million dollars for their campaign war chest and two, most people are too easily led or they just don't give a damn.
I think it would be nice if we could "all get along" with the people of Iraq. How do you like them apples?:laugh: :wavey:

I have to say I agree with you, it has always been the conservative v. liberal thing at least in my lifetime. I mean, I can remember politicians in the late 60's calling people "liberal" for wanting to get rid of the laws that allowed blacks and whites to EEEEKKKKK marry. The Christian far right said it was against God's laws and would foster heathens and a Godless and lawless society - none of this happened, but the far Christian right sure made a lot of money off of it and the so called liberal politicians taksed a good game but voted with the conseratives. Note: these are the same arguments the far Christian right is using against allowing homosexuals any rights at all to express what they feel and do on a consenual basis and the so called liberals are still talking a good game but still are voting with the conservatives (see the Defense of Marriage Act). So, apparently the beat goes on. That is sad to me. My way of trying to change it is ti judge everyone on their past acts and not their rhetoric or their political party. I think Bush thought he could change things, but it has not turned out that way for the most part, alhough and again, he certainly seems to be able to get a significant majority to pass his legislation.

As for getting along with Iraq, by all reports we are trying to do just that. IMO - we could have done it a whole lot better had we had a plan that worked instead of the one in place now, which despite the advances made in Iraq, clearly is not working as fast as people would like and is making the US and her allies look silly and incompetent.

dissention

12-06-2003, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
EEK - I cannot believe you really think it is that bad. If you do and you are right, we are all doomed :laugh:

Interestingly, I went overseas to Europe several times last year and found the opinions of the people I spoke with (at all levels of life) to be split fairly evenly about the same as it is here. Also, many people had misconceptions based on no facts I know or knew. For example, someone in London supported the Iraqi conflict but then told me CNN was Bush's lapdog and was a conservative network. I was like CNN is many things but conservative probably would not be one of them :laugh:

Moreover, although it is easy to say and sounds great to make a point, most of the economic indicators do not indicate the rich are getting richer and the poor getting poorer despite everyones use of that term. In fact, over the last decade (you have to use a significant period of time to measure this as it is an argument that presumes a long term trend not a particular few months), more wealth was created in this country and it was spilt more evenly than ever. I mean how many stories did we all hear about people starting some company and making millions and paying their staffs very well. I heard a bunch. In fact, I know a bunch. My favorite was the Microsoft millionaire secretaries club (why the hell wasn't I one :laugh: ). Although the internet created wealth bubble burst and a lot of that wealth evaporated essentially overnight (this would be the rich getting poorer :cool: ), this sustained period of wealth (about three years) had a positive impact on the economy that created wealth in many different levels of people - just think of all of the jobs created from the buildings built in that time period. So, while yes, right now the economy is picking up and we are still feeling the effects of the recession (which again all economic indicators suggest is over (not that it can't come back)), the trend over the last ten or so years has been the creation of wealth within all socioeconomic backgrounds. Also, I had a friend complain and complain because her stock portfolio (401K) lost about 45 % in 2000 to 2001. I was like well, you have no one to blame but yourself because you could have sold half and pocketed a bunch of cash like I and your investment person told you, but you did not. Moreover, your loss of 45 % is still a 100 + % gain from your initial investment and now two years later that 45 % loss has been cut in half because almost all markets are up significantly. In other words, she is still way ahead of where she would have been if she had invested in Treasuries at about 2%

Seriously, I cannot ever believe anything is that bad. But then again to me the glass is always half full and everyoine has their own outlook of things - this is mine. :cool:

I can't agree that opinions about this presidency from the American people is 50/50. There's no way it is. Half of the people in this country don't know a thing about politics or current events and a lot of people don't even care to vote. They take what they see on TV as gospel and base everything on that. That's ignorance in my book and it's inexcusable.

As for Europe, the people you may have talken to may have had evenly spilt opinions, but they don't necessarily represent the population of Europe. Read their papers and see what they think of us; I would recommend the Economist.

Also, when you look at what is being done and when you look at the rich and the poor, look at it sociologically. Don't always look at the facts because they're sometimes misleading.

You don't have to believe that things are that bad, but they certainly are. When you take every little thing and add them all up, it will make your jaw drop. Our current government has made such a mess of things that it is going to take decades upon decades to fix (if it can be fixed).

I will just ask a question and hopefully someone will respond, because I don't have an answer:

What has Bush done to make things better for us?

dissention

12-06-2003, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
As for getting along with Iraq, by all reports we are trying to do just that. IMO - we could have done it a whole lot better had we had a plan that worked instead of the one in place now, which despite the advances made in Iraq, clearly is not working as fast as people would like and is making the US and her allies look silly and incompetent.

We didn't even have a plan to begin with, nevermind one that worked! :laugh:

If Bush stuck by what he said would happen (giving complete control of government over to the Iraqi's), we wouldn't be there right now and an Islamic government run by the Shiite's would be in place.

gldstwmn

12-06-2003, 08:56 PM

Well Jason I have to agree with you. I don't think Bush ever wanted unity though. You could be right about that though. The guy is definitely not the sharpest knife in the drawer and he could have been operating under some kind of delusion. His original intent in life was to be baseball commissioner. I always thought he was the puppet while Rumsfeld and Cheney pulled the strings.
Also, I seriously doubt the Iraqi people feel we're there to make friends with them. I could be wrong about that too. "Democracy, Whiskey, Sexy."
;)

dissention

12-06-2003, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I always thought he was the puppet while Rumsfeld and Cheney pulled the strings.

Hey-

That reminds me of the joke Kerry made about the "Almighty."

:laugh:

strandinthewind

12-06-2003, 09:10 PM

Bush's economic policies are working and are helping lead us out of the recession that started at the end of the prior administration. Again, we have a long way to go, but all indicators suggest the economy is in a recovery mode. So, his policies are working enough on some level. That, to me, is remarkable considering the effects of 9/11 on the already crippled economy.

Bush has done the best with the terrorist problems that he could do in my opinion. Granted he has not caught OBL, but his organization clearly is weaker than it was when it blew up our buildings and killed our people; it also has no state that "officially" sponsors it. Interestingly, I can remember people I know bitching and complaining about us invading Afganistan saying there was no clear link with OBL, etc. It turned out they were wrong, esp. when OBL and one of the heads of the Taliban appeared together after the Taliban lied and said OBN was not there and he could never have committed the acts on 9/11. then there was the video tape of OBL laughing about the attacks as he heard of them and saying wait there is more. In the end, though, we need to capture him and kill everyone in that organization, a goal I submit no President from any political party will be able to achieve.

Iraq - still in the air for me. As we have discussed before, I think it was the right thing to do the oust S.H. because 11 years of his b.s. was just too much in todays world of terrorism on American soil (I am not equating S.H. with O.B.L. ) and the world via the U.N. consistently and unanimously found for 11 years that S.H. had WMD, but would not cooperate with the inspectors. They also voted S.H. must face serious consequences for not cooperating with the inspectors. So, the defiance Iraq's leader showed the world, in my opinion, was the sole cause of this war. I do not agree with the policies of the police state currently there. I do not know why we are not working faster if that is even possible.

The new medicare bill, while not perfect, is far better than anything passed to date. Short of state owned drug companies and socialized medicine which no party will ever advocate, I know of no better bill that could have had a chance of passing. Bush even managed to get the AARP to support it, a feat not thought possible a few years ago. This is a major victory for him and it will help many Americans, although not as much as I would have liked but what I wanted was not obtainable and will never be obtainable untilt he govt. controls the doctors and the drugs.

There are the biggies I can think of now. Again, I am not saying Bush is perfect. I am just saying he has had successes and these are some I think were that.

Interestingly, go here to see a Fox News poll suggesting Bush has less than half of a chance of being reelected. Yes, this is on FOX news and they give the raw data. How about them apples!!!! http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105000,00.html

strandinthewind

12-06-2003, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Also, I seriously doubt the Iraqi people feel we're there to make friends with them. I could be wrong about that too. "Democracy, Whiskey, Sexy."
;)

There was that poll released by a reputable company (Zogby perhaps) a few months ago that suggested that although the iraq's did not like Bush (surprise there :cool: ) , something like 60 % of them were thankful of the removal of S.H. and a similar percentage felt they would be better off in the next year. So, that is something.

sodascouts

12-06-2003, 09:27 PM

I for one can get along with just about anyone, because I don't let my party affiliation define who I should like and dislike, or even what I should believe. I actually can be critical of my own party, and don't automatically press the button beside the "R." I actually have my OWN principles and think for MYSELF. I don't think Bill Clinton is an anti-Christ because some conservative talk show psycho like Ann Coulter does.

And I have made the decision to be a conservative. Guess that makes me a bad person in some people's eyes. I still think pretty highly of myself regardless. ;)

dissention

12-06-2003, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Bush's economic policies are working and are helping lead us out of the recession that started at the end of the prior administration. Again, we have a long way to go, but all indicators suggest the economy is in a recovery mode. So, his policies are working enough on some level. That, to me, is remarkable considering the effects of 9/11 on the already crippled economy.

Bush has done the best with the terrorist problems that he could do in my opinion. Granted he has not caught OBL, but his organization clearly is weaker than it was when it blew up our buildings and killed our people; it also has no state that "officially" sponsors it. Interestingly, I can remember people I know bitching and complaining about us invading Afganistan saying there was no clear link with OBL, etc. It turned out they were wrong, esp. when OBL and one of the heads of the Taliban appeared together after the Taliban lied and said OBN was not there and he could never have committed the acts on 9/11. then there was the video tape of OBL laughing about the attacks as he heard of them and saying wait there is more. In the end, though, we need to capture him and kill everyone in that organization, a goal I submit no President from any political party will be able to achieve.

Iraq - still in the air for me. As we have discussed before, I think it was the right thing to do the oust S.H. because 11 years of his b.s. was just too much in todays world of terrorism on American soil (I am not equating S.H. with O.B.L. ) and the world via the U.N. consistently and unanimously found for 11 years that S.H. had WMD, but would not cooperate with the inspectors. They also voted S.H. must face serious consequences for not cooperating with the inspectors. So, the defiance Iraq's leader showed the world, in my opinion, was the sole cause of this war. I do not agree with the policies of the police state currently there. I do not know why we are not working faster if that is even possible.

The new medicare bill, while not perfect, is far better than anything passed to date. Short of state owned drug companies and socialized medicine which no party will ever advocate, I know of no better bill that could have had a chance of passing. Bush even managed to get the AARP to support it, a feat not thought possible a few years ago. This is a major victory for him and it will help many Americans, although not as much as I would have liked but what I wanted was not obtainable and will never be obtainable untilt he govt. controls the doctors and the drugs.

There are the biggies I can think of now. Again, I am not saying Bush is perfect. I am just saying he has had successes and these are some I think were that.

Interestingly, go here to see a Fox News poll suggesting Bush has less than half of a chance of being reelected. Yes, this is one FOX news and they give the raw data. How about them apples!!!! http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105000,00.html

Even analysts say it's too early to tell if the economy will perk up much more, but here's to hoping. I'm not putting any faith into it. I just find some of the things he's doing to boost the economy rather funny. For example, lifting the steel tariffs. Betcha that'll cost him some states in the next election and I can't wait to see the effect it will have on global trading. Also, I just think that for any of his economic policies to be called successful, jobs need to be created.

The Medicare bill is nothing to write home about: it has the interests of the drug companies and the insurers in mind, not the tens of millions who need it. The Alliance for Retired Americans was appalled with it and called it for what it is: privatized medicare. And now, because of this new bill the federal government is throwing a hissy fit about folks buying drugs in Canada and are calling them unsafe! Before, the FDA just looked the other way. The bill is as muddled as anything ever proposed, IMO.

As for the rest of the points you made, let's just agree to disagree...as we always do. :laugh:

dissention

12-06-2003, 09:42 PM

Originally posted by sodascouts
I for one can get along with just about anyone, because I don't let my party affiliation define who I should like and dislike, or even what I should believe. I actually can be critical of my own party, and don't automatically press the button beside the "R." I actually have my OWN principles and think for MYSELF. I don't think Bill Clinton is an anti-Christ because some conservative talk show psycho like Ann Coulter does.

I never said that you may have thought Clinton was the anti-christ, I said that the high-profile conservatives did.

I can get along with anyone, I just don't agree with most Republicans on the issues.

I'm sure you think for yourself very well (you have clearly demonstrated it), but many of the conservatives in our country follow these big-name conservatives as if they're gods.

:)

strandinthewind

12-06-2003, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by dissention
As for the rest of the points you made, let's just agree to disagree...as we always do. :laugh:

Who us ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!??!?! :laugh: :cool:

P.S. Carne must be changing diapers this evening because you would have had an ally had he been reading!!!!! :laugh:

dissention

12-06-2003, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Who us ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!??!?! :laugh: :cool:

P.S. Carne must be changing diapers this evening because you would have had an ally had he been reading!!!!! :laugh:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Ah, Carne...someone who knows what they're talking about! :laugh: :D

gldstwmn

12-06-2003, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by sodascouts
I for one can get along with just about anyone, because I don't let my party affiliation define who I should like and dislike, or even what I should believe. I actually can be critical of my own party, and don't automatically press the button beside the "R." I actually have my OWN principles and think for MYSELF. I don't think Bill Clinton is an anti-Christ because some conservative talk show psycho like Ann Coulter does.

And I have made the decision to be a conservative. Guess that makes me a bad person in some people's eyes. I still think pretty highly of myself regardless. ;)

I don't think anyone here feels you are a bad person for your conservatism, that is your right. Stand, dissention, myself and some others have friendly discusssions like this a lot here and they truly are just friendly discussions.

gldstwmn

12-06-2003, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind

Interestingly, go here to see a Fox News poll suggesting Bush has less than half of a chance of being reelected. Yes, this is on FOX news and they give the raw data. How about them apples!!!! http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105000,00.html

:eek:

strandinthewind

12-06-2003, 10:03 PM

Also, Nancy, if it helps, I am about the most fiscally conservative person around. If fact, I am so fiscally conservative in my politics, many so called fiscally conservative politicos would call me a liberal :laugh: I am, after all for one flat income tax to help lessen the strength of the special interest lobbies, which is fighting words to almost all politicians :laugh:

Socially, however, I probably make Dissention look like Pat Robertson (I am just joking and could not resist :laugh: ). Seriously, I think the govt. has no business telling anyone what they can and cannot do as long as the act you are doing is not hurting anyone else. In other words, smoke pot, be gay, commit suicide if you are too ill to live, marry ten people if you want - I could care a less and think the govt. should have no say for or against - that is for people and their individual faiths - which the govt. has no business supporting one over the other. But, those are fighting words to politicians who knows that branding one group as evil fills the coffers with $$$$ and lots of it :laugh:

Stick around Nancy - I think you will find all opinions offered in a friendly way (as your's are) are respected. If not, just call someone on it and say - look I meant that in a respectful way.

Cheers!!!!!

gldstwmn

12-06-2003, 10:06 PM

strandinthewind

12-06-2003, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
:eek:

I know - I cannot figure if Fox posted this as a battle cry to rally the troops or what :laugh: All I know is for FOX - FFOOXXX - to publish this is significant in my eyes.

Yes, I pretty much am a Liberitarian.

dissention

12-06-2003, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Socially, however, I probably make Dissention look like Pat Robertson (I am just joking and could not resist :laugh: ). Seriously, I think the govt. has no business telling anyone what they can and cannot do as long as the act you are doing is not hurting anyone else. In other words, smoke pot, be gay, commit suicide if you are too ill to live, marry ten people if you want - I could care a less and think the govt. should have no say for or against - that is for people and their individual faiths - which the govt. has no business supporting one over the other. But, those are fighting words to politicians who knows that branding one group as evil fills the coffers with $$$$ and lots of it :laugh:

:eek: :laugh:

:wavey:

Nancy--

I completely agree with gldstwmn and Strandie, we mean no harm or offense when we talk politics. That's pretty much the biggest thing we talk about 'round these here parts and we all stand by our opinions. Hopefully you'll be just as loud with yours as we are with ours! I think everyone here loves a good debate and we'll argue back and forth about it until we're blue in the face...but in a nice manner. :D

dissention

12-06-2003, 10:12 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Yes, I pretty much am a Liberitarian.

Check out some of these, maybe you could add one to your sig (same for you Goldie!):

http://www.internetbumperstickers.com/politic.html

Faux News must be trying to get more traffic from the liberals! :nod: :laugh:

jwd

12-07-2003, 09:50 AM

Johnny Stew:

But I definitely don't think anyone who disagrees with me is the enemy.

Well hell bud, I'll buy you a drink then too...or maybe a cup of coffee at this time of the day! :) Of course I agree with you on that sentiment.

Joe

jwd

12-07-2003, 10:06 AM

gldstwmn:

I would have voted for John McCain but they(Bush's special interests) bought the nomination out from under him. So jwd, if you're sick of the partisan politics what's your plan? Because we're stuck with it. It's the lesser of two evils type thing.

I agree with your choice of McCain, although our lesser of two evils, I do believe were different. :) My plan basically is to vote for the best candidate, regardless of party affiliation. There have been times where I couldn't cast a vote for either(any) of the candidates. We're only stuck with IT because of apathy and people not voicing their opinion. Quite a tragedy that it's happening/happened in this country. What some people in the world would give to have freedom of speech! I'd like to see more people get involved with what's going on in government, not just on a national level, but also at state and local levels too. I do believe the rise of a STRONG third party is something else needed to turn things around with all the bs partisan politics going on. SO MUCH TO DO , SO LITTLE TIME! :distress:

Joe

jwd

12-07-2003, 10:16 AM

strandinthewind:

Bush's economic policies are working and are helping lead us out of the recession that started at the end of the prior administration. Again, we have a long way to go, but all indicators suggest the economy is in a recovery mode. So, his policies are working enough on some level. That, to me, is remarkable considering the effects of 9/11 on the already crippled economy.

Bush has done the best with the terrorist problems that he could do in my opinion. Granted he has not caught OBL, but his organization clearly is weaker than it was when it blew up our buildings and killed our people; it also has no state that "officially" sponsors it. Interestingly, I can remember people I know bitching and complaining about us invading Afganistan saying there was no clear link with OBL, etc. It turned out they were wrong, esp. when OBL and one of the heads of the Taliban appeared together after the Taliban lied and said OBN was not there and he could never have committed the acts on 9/11. then there was the video tape of OBL laughing about the attacks as he heard of them and saying wait there is more. In the end, though, we need to capture him and kill everyone in that organization, a goal I submit no President from any political party will be able to achieve.

Iraq - still in the air for me. As we have discussed before, I think it was the right thing to do the oust S.H. because 11 years of his b.s. was just too much in todays world of terrorism on American soil (I am not equating S.H. with O.B.L. ) and the world via the U.N. consistently and unanimously found for 11 years that S.H. had WMD, but would not cooperate with the inspectors. They also voted S.H. must face serious consequences for not cooperating with the inspectors. So, the defiance Iraq's leader showed the world, in my opinion, was the sole cause of this war. I do not agree with the policies of the police state currently there. I do not know why we are not working faster if that is even possible.

The new medicare bill, while not perfect, is far better than anything passed to date. Short of state owned drug companies and socialized medicine which no party will ever advocate, I know of no better bill that could have had a chance of passing. Bush even managed to get the AARP to support it, a feat not thought possible a few years ago. This is a major victory for him and it will help many Americans, although not as much as I would have liked but what I wanted was not obtainable and will never be obtainable untilt he govt. controls the doctors and the drugs.

There are the biggies I can think of now. Again, I am not saying Bush is perfect. I am just saying he has had successes and these are some I think were that.

Jason, I couldn't agree more with your post. Bravo!

Joe

dissention

12-07-2003, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by jwd
My plan basically is to vote for the best candidate, regardless of party affiliation. There have been times where I couldn't cast a vote for either(any) of the candidates. We're only stuck with IT because of apathy and people not voicing their opinion. Quite a tragedy that it's happening/happened in this country. What some people in the world would give to have freedom of speech! I'd like to see more people get involved with what's going on in government, not just on a national level, but also at state and local levels too. I do believe the rise of a STRONG third party is something else needed to turn things around with all the bs partisan politics going on. SO MUCH TO DO , SO LITTLE TIME!

I try to vote that way, but it only lasts so long with me because the Republicans are never the best candidates. :laugh: I also look at it as how is it going to affect the the other branches of government. I fit will effect it so much as to give the Republicans more power, I certainly won't vote for a Republican. I just don't like what the party stands for (believes) and I pretty much never like the things they do. :)

dissention

12-07-2003, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Bush has done the best with the terrorist problems that he could do in my opinion.

In the end, though, we need to capture him and kill everyone in that organization, a goal I submit no President from any political party will be able to achieve.

I just can't agree with those two statements. I don't believe Bush has done the a good job at all with handling terrorism and I firmly believe that he has made things worse since he got involved. He should've stuck to sports, not politics.

And once we capture people from those groups, we shouldn't kill them. Imprison them and do whatever, but nothing condones more violence and barbarism. Killing them would make us no better than them, we'd be just a sick.

jwd

12-07-2003, 10:24 AM

something like 60 % of them were thankful of the removal of S.H. and a similar percentage felt they would be better off in the next year. So, that is something.

How could they possibly be better off with him in power? With the exception of the elite who beckoned to his every wish and demand, or believed what he did; they were oppressed, raped, murdered, tortured, and basically stripped of all their freedoms. If they don't realize it now, they will come to believe and know that they are in a much better place without the ruthless dictator we know as Saddam H. in power.

Joe

dissention

12-07-2003, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by jwd
How could they possibly be better off with him in power? With the exception of the elite who beckoned to his every wish and demand, or believed what he did; they were oppressed, raped, murdered, tortured, and basically stripped of all their freedoms. If they don't realize it now, they will come to believe and know that they are in a much better place without the ruthless dictator we know as Saddam H. in power.

Of course they are glad Saddam is gone. He was an awful man whose people despised him for his atrocities. But those polls do not reflect their attitudes towards us. They are beginning to see us as just as bad and want us out of their country. They see us as making things worse for them and I can't say I disagree. They see our invasion of their country as the US flexing its muscles and using them for its own agenda. But, even though I didn't support the war (and I still don't), I am glad Saddam is gone. :)

jwd

12-07-2003, 10:34 AM

dissention:

I try to vote that way, but it only lasts so long with me because the Republicans are never the best candidates. I also look at it as how is it going to affect the the other branches of government. I fit will effect it so much as to give the Republicans more power, I certainly won't vote for a Republican. I just don't like what the party stands for (believes) and I pretty much never like the things they do.

And that is your right. I'm glad you exercise it. If more people were concerned with what was going on around them, we'd be better off! :)

Joe

dissention

12-07-2003, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by jwd
And that is your right. I'm glad you exercise it. If more people were concerned with what was going on around them, we'd be better off! :)

Joe

Amen. :nod:

strandinthewind

12-07-2003, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by dissention
I just can't agree with those two statements. I don't believe Bush has done the a good job at all with handling terrorism and I firmly believe that he has made things worse since he got involved. He should've stuck to sports, not politics.

I guess I just do not see what else Bush, or any other President for that matter, could have done that would have been significantly better in Afganistan.

On the home front, the Homeland Security Act has some good points, but so many cannot, and validly so IMO, get over the fact that "the evil politicians and law enforcement" will use it to spy on ordinary American citizens who have nothing to do with terrorism. I mean, I am not that against them montoring what people check out in libraries if I truly thought they were going to use it to monitor people who check out books like "how to make a dirty bomb." The problem is I know in my gut that they are going to also see who is looking at communism or, egads, who is reading that elitist foreign media rag "The Economist" (although clearly elitist, one of my fav. magazines in the world BTW !!!!). Yet, the Homeland Security Act passed by an overwhelming majority.

In the end, I am just unsure what else any other President would or could do other than what is being done. Personally, I think we should focus on making the Muslims our allies in the world. I think that would go a lot further. But, that is not a real world solution for a variety of reasons including American hatred of Muslims and vice versa prior to 9/11.

Originally posted by dissention
And once we capture people from those groups, we shouldn't kill them. Imprison them and do whatever, but nothing condones more violence and barbarism. Killing them would make us no better than them, we'd be just a sick.

I was some what not being serious. But, I do think if they are imprisoned, it will lead to more violence and hostage situations to free them.

Rob67

12-07-2003, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by dissention
Of course they are glad Saddam is gone. He was an awful man whose people despised him for his atrocities. But those polls do not reflect their attitudes towards us. They are beginning to see us as just as bad and want us out of their country. They see us as making things worse for them and I can't say I disagree. They see our invasion of their country as the US flexing its muscles and using them for its own agenda. But, even though I didn't support the war (and I still don't), I am glad Saddam is gone. :)

As I said, I'm a moderate conservative (Note I don't use the term "Republican"). I look at the extreme left AND the extreme right the same way...Completely ignorant to the realities of life and history.

It is rather humorous to see how mad some extreme liberals are at Bush. The man can do no right! There have been a few good articles I have read regarding the "Bush Derangement Syndrome" (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/ck20031205.shtml)

And yes there was the same kind of anger directed at Clinton from the far right. Silly. I wish people would release their anger and realize that there are real enemies out there. People are sometimes more worried about their own president then other nations and terrorists.

If you step back and take a look at how the economy has acted and reacted over the last 50 years, you will see a rollercoaster trend. It is high for a while, then drops, then goes back up. I find it silly to keep pinning the state of the economy on a president who only has 4-8 years in office. Bush inherited an already declining economy which was made worse by the events of 9/11. Hell, I lost my job the following December. But you know what? I worked my ass off to find another job and didn't cry and wine that life was unfair and that I was "owed" a job. I worked two part time jobs to stay afloat and eventually landed another full time position. I have relatives and friends who have done the same.

When I was laid off, I remember being at my local grocery store. Granted, I was clipping coupons being careful with what I spent. The woman ahead of me in the checkout line had a cart full of name brand food, steaks, and some of the more expensive food items. Stuff I couldn't afford at the time. She had about 8 kids with her and paid with food stamps. On top of that, she bought two cartons of cigarettes. If that doesn't make a hard working person angry, I don't know what would. (I quit smoking when I got laid off for financial reasons.)

People blame the precieved economy and others for their misfortunes way too often in this country. Some people expect everything to be handed to them by the government. People expect us to be nice to everyone in the world and that everything will just be just fine.

I think a flat tax is more then fair. If I make $20,000, then I pay 25%. If I make $2,000,000 then I pay 25%. What's the big deal. The rich are still paying way more taxes. Why punish success?:confused:

Sorry about the rant....I got motivated!

Rob:cool:

strandinthewind

12-07-2003, 11:34 AM

Rock on Rob - and you got to quit smoking - see there is a bright side to everything!!!!!!! :laugh: Now just don't go back once you get a great job if you haven't gotten one already!!! :cool:

gldstwmn

12-07-2003, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by jwd
I agree with your choice of McCain, although our lesser of two evils, I do believe were different. :) My plan basically is to vote for the best candidate, regardless of party affiliation. There have been times where I couldn't cast a vote for either(any) of the candidates. We're only stuck with IT because of apathy and people not voicing their opinion. Quite a tragedy that it's happening/happened in this country. What some people in the world would give to have freedom of speech! I'd like to see more people get involved with what's going on in government, not just on a national level, but also at state and local levels too. I do believe the rise of a STRONG third party is something else needed to turn things around with all the bs partisan politics going on. SO MUCH TO DO , SO LITTLE TIME! :distress:

Joe

Agreed.:nod:

gldstwmn

12-07-2003, 11:46 AM

dissention

12-07-2003, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I mean, I am not that against them montoring what people check out in libraries if I truly thought they were going to use it to monitor people who check out books like "how to make a dirty bomb." The problem is I know in my gut that they are going to also see who is looking at communism or, egads, who is reading that elitist foreign media rag "The Economist" (although clearly elitist, one of my fav. magazines in the world BTW !!!!). Yet, the Homeland Security Act passed by an overwhelming majority.

I was some what not being serious. But, I do think if they are imprisoned, it will lead to more violence and hostage situations to free them.

I think what you need to be worrying about is why a government-funded library stocks a book on their shelf about making dirty bombs. ;)

If you were serious, that's fine. More power to you. :D It is your opinion and you're entitled to it, I just don't agree (but that seems to be the norm! lol). :)

BTW, The Economist is my *FAVORITE*!!!!! I luv it!

PS:

Rob67-

I must suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome. :laugh:

dissention

12-07-2003, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Is he gone though? Where's the body?

Oh, he's not GONE gone. He surely isn't dead. I just meant that they're happy that he isn't in power right now. :) He'll be back, though, mark my words!

strandinthewind

12-07-2003, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by dissention
I think what you need to be worrying about is why a government-funded library stocks a book on their shelf about making dirty bombs. ;)

Amen - I was leaning toward hyperbole as I tend to do!!!! :laugh:

But, that was one of the main reasons proffered for monitoring libraries. As an aside, I love the fact that the librarians have pretty much refused the govt.'s wishes. Notwithstanding the handsome and talented Johnny Stew (our resident librarian Ledgie), I have this mental image of grannies in flower print dresses marching on Washington :laugh:

Somewhat along the same lines, a friend of mine was complaining the other day about how she got caught running a red light and speeding by a city placed camera in an intersection. She was like that is so "Big Brother." It made me so mad because I think it is indicative of our society's mindset that the rules don't apply to me and it is only illegal if I get caught. The fact of the matter was she was speeding and she ran a red light regardless of whether she got caught. So, don't then blame the cameras when you are the one who broke the law. AARRGGHHHHH!!!!!!!! Well that was cathartic :cool:

strandinthewind

12-07-2003, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Is he gone though? Where's the body?

Now THAT fiasco was a glaring and huge error by the Bush administration - one of many I submit. I mean how hard could it have been to capture him. I refuse to believe it was that hard. I mean I know he moved around alot. But, money speks loudly and we have alot of it. Surely we could have bribed someone somewhere or sold some terrorist state arms on the side (did I just say that :cool: ) for accurate info.

:cool:

dissention

12-07-2003, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
But, that was one of the main reasons proffered for monitoring libraries. As an aside, I love the fact that the librarians have pretty much refused the govt.'s wishes. Notwithstanding the handsome and talented Johnny Stew (our resident librarian Ledgie), I have this mental image of grannies in flower print dresses marching on Washington :laugh:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Quite a vivid image!

I just think, though, that if they didn't stock books about bombs and stuff that tax money wouldn't have to be wasted on pointless bull. I mean, lordy, are that many people going to take out Mein Kampf? :confused:

My word, what if someone took out the Kama Sutra AND a book on how to gut fish? That woudl set off some alarms, eh? :laugh:

gldstwmn

12-07-2003, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Now THAT fiasco was a glaring and huge error by the Bush administration - one of many I submit. I mean how hard could it have been to capture him. I refuse to believe it was that hard. I mean I know he moved around alot. But, money speks loudly and we have alot of it. Surely we could have bribed someone somewhere or sold some terrorist state arms on the side (did I just say that :cool: ) for accurate info.

:cool:

There was a report that about a week, maybe a little less, before the invasion that armored trucks rolled up and cleared out the banks. He's got plenty of money too. Maybe he's in Syria or hey, North Korea. Birds of a feather...

Rob67

12-07-2003, 12:16 PM

"If you are 20 and are a conservative, you have no heart. If you are 50 and are a liberal, you have no mind."
-Winston Churchill

He made a great point. A lot of my views on life have changed since college. Being in the real world definitly affects your outlook on life and reality. College is such an idealistic and protected place that it is hard to understand how the real world looks.

THought I'd share...had this conversation with a friend this morning.

Take it easy.:cool:

Rob67

12-07-2003, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Rock on Rob - and you got to quit smoking - see there is a bright side to everything!!!!!!! :laugh: Now just don't go back once you get a great job if you haven't gotten one already!!! :cool:

Actually I found a great job and I am in a better position then before. (And this was at the low point last year)

I haven't started smoking again, either.

Take it easy!

Rob:cool:

strandinthewind

12-07-2003, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
There was a report that about a week, maybe a little less, before the invasion that armored trucks rolled up and cleared out the banks. He's got plenty of money too. Maybe he's in Syria or hey, North Korea. Birds of a feather...

I think he is in Syria as well. I have no facts to support this, I just feel it. And - his sons were still in Iraq - so who knows if he would have left without them. Aren't a few of his wives in Jordan?

gldstwmn

12-07-2003, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by Rob67
"If you are 20 and are a conservative, you have no heart. If you are 50 and are a liberal, you have no mind."
-Winston Churchill

He made a great point. A lot of my views on life have changed since college. Being in the real world definitly affects your outlook on life and reality. College is such an idealistic and protected place that it is hard to understand how the real world looks.

THought I'd share...had this conversation with a friend this morning.

Take it easy.:cool:

For the record, I'm not in college. Not sure if that is what you meant though.

jwd

12-07-2003, 12:27 PM

Rob67:

As I said, I'm a moderate conservative (Note I don't use the term "Republican"). I look at the extreme left AND the extreme right the same way...Completely ignorant to the realities of life and history.

It is rather humorous to see how mad some extreme liberals are at Bush. The man can do no right! There have been a few good articles I have read regarding the "Bush Derangement Syndrome"

And yes there was the same kind of anger directed at Clinton from the far right. Silly. I wish people would release their anger and realize that there are real enemies out there. People are sometimes more worried about their own president then other nations and terrorists.

If you step back and take a look at how the economy has acted and reacted over the last 50 years, you will see a rollercoaster trend. It is high for a while, then drops, then goes back up. I find it silly to keep pinning the state of the economy on a president who only has 4-8 years in office. Bush inherited an already declining economy which was made worse by the events of 9/11. Hell, I lost my job the following December. But you know what? I worked my ass off to find another job and didn't cry and wine that life was unfair and that I was "owed" a job. I worked two part time jobs to stay afloat and eventually landed another full time position. I have relatives and friends who have done the same.

When I was laid off, I remember being at my local grocery store. Granted, I was clipping coupons being careful with what I spent. The woman ahead of me in the checkout line had a cart full of name brand food, steaks, and some of the more expensive food items. Stuff I couldn't afford at the time. She had about 8 kids with her and paid with food stamps. On top of that, she bought two cartons of cigarettes. If that doesn't make a hard working person angry, I don't know what would. (I quit smoking when I got laid off for financial reasons.)

People blame the precieved economy and others for their misfortunes way too often in this country. Some people expect everything to be handed to them by the government. People expect us to be nice to everyone in the world and that everything will just be just fine.

AMEN BROTHER!! AMEN !!!!!!!!

Joe

sodascouts

12-07-2003, 12:49 PM

I hope I didn't sound whiney in my previous post! I just see this kind of conservative v. liberal rhetoric very negative and destructive and it's hard not to take such vitrol personally when one IS a conservative! If you can differentiate between people as individuals and their political party on here, why not everywhere?

Most of my friends here at Purdue are liberal, so maybe I have a persecution complex, lol. I've noticed they all, without exception, base their liberal affiliation on social issues and when I start talking fiscal issues with them, they basically just go along with whatever the Democrats say. I sneakily told one of my friends that Democrats believe that there should be a flat tax rate, but I think it's a bad idea, and he didn't know any better and tried to justify it to me! He was pretty mad when I said, "Oops, I meant they're AGAINST a flat tax rate." Hehe. Admittedly, he was an exception. Kind of out of touch with reality, that one, not really aware of anything outside of Chaucer. Those midievalists :: shaking head :: lol. Still, on economic indicators, I've found the attitude that anything bad that happens is because of Bush. Anything good that happens is in spite of Bush.

With regard to Saddam, I often get the impresson that many liberals on some level would almost be glad Saddam is still alive, just because that would embarrass Bush and make him less likely to be elected (and validate their own criticisms)! "Oh, yes, he's alive! Coming back any day now! And then all hell will break lose! Just you wait and see!" Rubbing their hands together, so to speak, lol. Not because they love Saddam (you would be hard-pressed to find anyone that does "love" that sadist), but because, if the day that happens causes Bush to be voted out of office, it's something to look forward to. And, if Saddam's dead body were found, the resulting crow wouldn't go down too easily.

I do not believe all liberals are traitors however. In fact some conservatives tossing around that word so lightly really angers me. Their knee-jerk use of the word renders it meaningless. But I have noticed only super-extreme conservatives spout this, yet it is becoming a stereotype!

Has anyone else noticed that one side often stereotypes the other according to its extremists, knowing that those crazy people make the whole party look bad? Purdue places a column by Ann Coulter in its paper once a week and says it's "giving conservatives a voice to be fair." However, I think it's part of their insidious liberal agenda to make conservatives look ignorant. ;)

gldstwmn

12-07-2003, 02:35 PM

It's too bad Ann Coulter gets the press she does. Who the hell buys her books anyway?
As for the vitriol, I don't sense a bitterness in our discussions. I mean if we don't have them, how are we going to get anything resolved? As far as the partisan thing, it's hard for me to agree with the entire Republican platform, especially as a woman. I don't feel they have our best interests at heart.

dissention

12-07-2003, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
It's too bad Ann Coulter gets the press she does. Who the hell buys her books anyway?

People buy her books to see what she'll say next. She's so out there and nuts that she's become a human train-wreck: people have to see what she'll do or say next. No one takes her serusly and if they do, I hope they get help immediately. The woman idolizes McCarthy and says he one of the heroes of the 20th century!

She's the woman who, after 9/11, said we should invade middle Eastern countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity. She believes God meant for us to "rape" the earth and its creatures. She goes on talk shows claiming Clinton "masturbates in sinks." When talking about wounded Vietnam vets, she says they caused us to "lose that war."

She's deeply disturbed.

strandinthewind

12-07-2003, 04:05 PM

She also wears a halter top while preaching, has stripper hair, and is hot by some definition of the word (read bubba in the trailor). Having said that, I love it when she is on Bill Maher's show and just bet those two party all night and then shag every chance they get. :cool:

dissention

12-07-2003, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
She also wears a halter top while preaching, has stripper hair, and is hot by some definition of the word (read bubba in the trailor). Having said that, I love it when she is on Bill Maher's show and just bet those two party all night and then shag every chance they get. :cool:

She's so frigid that she probably pees in cubes. :nod:

I, too, love when she's on Maher! He lusts after her so much! I betcha they do shag like minks. :laugh:

dissention

12-07-2003, 04:19 PM

Here's the best page for Coultergeist quotes:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0111.coulterwisdom.html

Enjoy peeing your pants! :wavey:

gldstwmn

12-07-2003, 04:21 PM

dissention

12-07-2003, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Yeah. Bill likes it freaky.:laugh:

Freaky are the streetwalkers on the LA strip. Just plain horrifying is Coultergeist. ;)

sodascouts

12-07-2003, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
She also wears a halter top while preaching, has stripper hair, and is hot by some definition of the word

EXACTLY. THAT'S why she gets on all these shows - not because she has anything intelligent to say. GRRRR.

Male programmers are so predictable. ;)

Rob67

12-07-2003, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by sodascouts
I hope I didn't sound whiney in my previous post! I just see this kind of conservative v. liberal rhetoric very negative and destructive and it's hard not to take such vitrol personally when one IS a conservative! If you can differentiate between people as individuals and their political party on here, why not everywhere?

Most of my friends here at Purdue are liberal, so maybe I have a persecution complex, lol. I've noticed they all, without exception, base their liberal affiliation on social issues and when I start talking fiscal issues with them, they basically just go along with whatever the Democrats say. I sneakily told one of my friends that Democrats believe that there should be a flat tax rate, but I think it's a bad idea, and he didn't know any better and tried to justify it to me! He was pretty mad when I said, "Oops, I meant they're AGAINST a flat tax rate." Hehe. Admittedly, he was an exception. Kind of out of touch with reality, that one, not really aware of anything outside of Chaucer. Those midievalists :: shaking head :: lol. Still, on economic indicators, I've found the attitude that anything bad that happens is because of Bush. Anything good that happens is in spite of Bush.

With regard to Saddam, I often get the impresson that many liberals on some level would almost be glad Saddam is still alive, just because that would embarrass Bush and make him less likely to be elected (and validate their own criticisms)! "Oh, yes, he's alive! Coming back any day now! And then all hell will break lose! Just you wait and see!" Rubbing their hands together, so to speak, lol. Not because they love Saddam (you would be hard-pressed to find anyone that does "love" that sadist), but because, if the day that happens causes Bush to be voted out of office, it's something to look forward to. And, if Saddam's dead body were found, the resulting crow wouldn't go down too easily.

I do not believe all liberals are traitors however. In fact some conservatives tossing around that word so lightly really angers me. Their knee-jerk use of the word renders it meaningless. But I have noticed only super-extreme conservatives spout this, yet it is becoming a stereotype!

Has anyone else noticed that one side often stereotypes the other according to its extremists, knowing that those crazy people make the whole party look bad? Purdue places a column by Ann Coulter in its paper once a week and says it's "giving conservatives a voice to be fair." However, I think it's part of their insidious liberal agenda to make conservatives look ignorant. ;)

Too true, too true. There was definitely a liberal bias at Penn State. Especially amongst my professors. I had a few who still had not let go of the 60's!

Some of my friends at that time were liberal thinking on various issues. I was as well, although I have always been moderate. When I graduated and actually had to earn a living and pay taxes, etc. I started to realize that the "idealistic" beliefs I had in college were just that. It definitly had nothing to do with reality and how the world works. Especially with economics and foriegn policy.

Take it easy,

Rob:cool:

Johnny Stew

12-07-2003, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by Rob67
If you step back and take a look at how the economy has acted and reacted over the last 50 years, you will see a rollercoaster trend. It is high for a while, then drops, then goes back up. I find it silly to keep pinning the state of the economy on a president who only has 4-8 years in office. Bush inherited an already declining economy which was made worse by the events of 9/11. Hell, I lost my job the following December. But you know what? I worked my ass off to find another job and didn't cry and wine that life was unfair and that I was "owed" a job. I worked two part time jobs to stay afloat and eventually landed another full time position. I have relatives and friends who have done the same.

When I was laid off, I remember being at my local grocery store. Granted, I was clipping coupons being careful with what I spent. The woman ahead of me in the checkout line had a cart full of name brand food, steaks, and some of the more expensive food items. Stuff I couldn't afford at the time. She had about 8 kids with her and paid with food stamps. On top of that, she bought two cartons of cigarettes. If that doesn't make a hard working person angry, I don't know what would. (I quit smoking when I got laid off for financial reasons.)

People blame the precieved economy and others for their misfortunes way too often in this country. Some people expect everything to be handed to them by the government. People expect us to be nice to everyone in the world and that everything will just be just fine.

I think a flat tax is more then fair. If I make $20,000, then I pay 25%. If I make $2,000,000 then I pay 25%. What's the big deal. The rich are still paying way more taxes. Why punish success?:confused:I don't think your comments were meant directly towards me... but given that they touch upon some of the things I said, perhaps they were.

Don't get me wrong, I... nor anyone in my family... have ever expected things to be "handed" to us. That's not what this is about.
My father's work ethic has always been "do your job and do it right," and that was handed down to my brother and myself.

But you can't do a job if you can't FIND a job. And when the economy was in the pits during the Reagan administration, you couldn't find work. At least not if you were "blue collar."
All of those tax cuts that benefit the upper-class take jobs away from those in the lower class.

So, as I said, my dad worked whatever measly job he could find.
And yes, we were on food stamps, but unlike the woman in front of you in the checkout line, my parents did not take advantage of the situation.
There was a time when I didn't even know food items came in colorful boxes. I thought they all came in white boxes with black lettering on them.
We didn't eat brand-food, and we didn't buy anything and everything we wanted. My parents bought the essentials.
And neither of them smoked or bought any kind of luxury items for themselves. They scrimped and saved to make sure we had food on our table and clothes on our backs.

But you know it's not easy when you work so hard for so little, and you sacrifice so much just to get buy, while you see people in a different tax-bracket living the good life.

You asked "why punish success," but it sure looks to me like "the little guy" is the one constantly getting screwed-over.
And like it or not, that fosters bitterness.

So no, I don't think people should be handed anything. That's a ridiculous notion. If you want something out of life, you should work for it.
But don't tell me that I can't get angry with a government that makes it damn-near impossible for those in the lower classes to ever get their head above the water, no matter how hard they're working.

Johnny Stew

12-07-2003, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by Rob67
Too true, too true. There was definitely a liberal bias at Penn State.Should have gone to Pitt then. They're proudly conservative in their views.

Rob67

12-07-2003, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
For the record, I'm not in college. Not sure if that is what you meant though.

Absolutely not...I just thought it was an interesting discussion that was related to some of our posts and I thought I would share...

By the way...when are we gonna get the Mirage tour video on DVD?

Rob

strandinthewind

12-07-2003, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
You asked "why punish success," but it sure looks to me like "the little guy" is the one constantly getting screwed-over.
And like it or not, that fosters bitterness.

I hear this all of the time, but then I look back at the recent tax cut and wonder exactly how cutting everyones' taxes screws over anyone, including the little guy. I mean his or her taxes were cut as well. Moreover, I just cannot fathom the argument that some assert that says if you make over $50,000 or $100,000 a year you deserve no tax break whatsoever, but everyone else below you gets one. In that scenario, why is it okay for the little guy to get the break and not the "big guy" - and a lot of those "big guys" used to be little guys. Imagine if you got a raise from $45,000 a year to $55,000 a year and you took home less money after taxes. I'd be pissed. It just seems like it is okay for everyone to be for the little guy, but when one of the big guys says, hey wait a minute what sis I do to deserve this, there is this immediate wall that goes up and people are like "look - you make a lot of $$$ and should, therefore just pay and shut up!" That is so unfair and wrong.

In the end, this is why I truly believe in a flat tax. No one gets screwed that way.

P.S. Johnny Stew - this entire post is not directed at you - I was just picking up on somehting you said and added a broader meaning to it. Also, did you like the librarian scenario earlier in the thread!!! ;)

Rob67

12-07-2003, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
I don't think your comments were meant directly towards me... but given that they touch upon some of the things I said, perhaps they were.
...

You asked "why punish success," but it sure looks to me like "the little guy" is the one constantly getting screwed-over.
And like it or not, that fosters bitterness.

So no, I don't think people should be handed anything. That's a ridiculous notion. If you want something out of life, you should work for it.
But don't tell me that I can't get angry with a government that makes it damn-near impossible for those in the lower classes to ever get their head above the water, no matter how hard they're working.

I am sorry if you took my rant that way. I was just sharing an example from my experiences. I live in Pittsburgh which is a blue-collar, unionized, steel town. There is blue collar history all through my family (Steel mill formen, auto mechanics, etc.) We lived through the Mill closings. So I can understand the plight that some people go through. I just hate it when people start blaming everyone else for their problems. Everybody gets dealt a shit hand from time to time. I did, my parents did. Hell, my mother was a housewife with three young kids (oldest was 5 years old, me.) when my father died. She could have easily rolled over and become dependent on Government assistance or family members. What did she do? Took over my father's business, learned how to run it and went back to night school while raising three kids on her own. She got a college degree and is now a corporate executive. She's the prime example of facing adversity and not giving up.

I have read too many stories of people coming to this country and making a fortune out of pennies because they busted their ass and made smart decisions in life. There are a lot of people who bitch about life in this country but have never seen how other countries and cultures exist. THere isn't a country in the world with a better opportunity to make a life for yourself then the US. To think otherwise is foolish. Try living in Germany, France, even China. See what kind of life you could make for yourself. We have the strongest economy in the world, the best standard of living, and the best opportunity to make something of yourself.

Does that mean everyone can succeed? Probably not....in every society there will always be Rich and Poor. Why? Because a fee, capitalist society dictates that it is up to the individual to make it in the world.

Life ain't that bad in the US, folks.

Rob:cool:

PS...Sorry I realized I had another Rant.

gldstwmn

12-07-2003, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by Rob67
Absolutely not...I just thought it was an interesting discussion that was related to some of our posts and I thought I would share...

By the way...when are we gonna get the Mirage tour video on DVD?

Rob

I already ordered the Brazilian version from ebay. Haven't received it yet though.

strandinthewind

12-07-2003, 08:17 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I already ordered the Brazilian version from ebay. Haven't received it yet though.

When you get it, let me know if it is "cleaned up." I am sure it is the same set list as the VHS one I have, but my VHS one is 20 years old and was dubbed on a 2 headtop loading VCR (hey it was like 1982 :laugh: ).

Peace :cool:

gldstwmn

12-07-2003, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
But you can't do a job if you can't FIND a job. And when the economy was in the pits during the Reagan administration, you couldn't find work. At least not if you were "blue collar."
All of those tax cuts that benefit the upper-class take jobs away from those in the lower class.

Yes Johnny there were industrial parts of this country ( and there still are for that matter) where there was literally no work in those days. Nothing. If you could afford to, you moved away. Case in point-the automobile industry.

Johnny Stew

12-07-2003, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I hear this all of the time, but then I look back at the recent tax cut and wonder exactly how cutting everyones' taxes screws over anyone, including the little guy. I mean his or her taxes were cut as well.Well, at the moment, these tax cuts are causing budget problems for local and state governments, because the government is giving them less money to work with, because they're getting less money from the taxes we pay.
So budget cuts have to be made across the board. And they raise local taxes to pick up the slack.

And what gets cut? Jobs. And not management jobs either.
So bye-bye sanitation department workers. Bye-bye trash-collectors. Bye-bye public school teachers. :(

So you get a governmental tax-cut, but you then have to pay higher local taxes, and quite possibly also have to deal with losing your job or taking a pay-cut.

So as they are, they're just not a feasible way to stimulate the economy, because it only comes back to bite people on the tush.

And at the moment they're really just looking for a quick economic "fix" to help our current President get a second term in office anyway.Originally posted by strandinthewind
P.S. Johnny Stew - did you like the librarian scenario earlier in the thread!!! ;) Yes, I did!
I especially liked the part about me being handsome. ;) :)

Rob67

12-07-2003, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I already ordered the Brazilian version from ebay. Haven't received it yet though.

Really?? I wonder what the quality is like. I would imagine they mastered it from a copy of the VHS tape. I would love a DTS 5.1 remix....

Johnny Stew

12-07-2003, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by Rob67
I am sorry if you took my rant that way. I was just sharing an example from my experiences. I live in Pittsburgh which is a blue-collar, unionized, steel town. There is blue collar history all through my family (Steel mill formen, auto mechanics, etc.) We lived through the Mill closings. So I can understand the plight that some people go through. I just hate it when people start blaming everyone else for their problems. Everybody gets dealt a shit hand from time to time. I did, my parents did. Hell, my mother was a housewife with three young kids (oldest was 5 years old, me.) when my father died. She could have easily rolled over and become dependent on Government assistance or family members. What did she do? Took over my father's business, learned how to run it and went back to night school while raising three kids on her own. She got a college degree and is now a corporate executive. She's the prime example of facing adversity and not giving up.I'm only about 60 minutes from Pittsburgh, so we were in the same situation with steel-mill closings, etc.
Which is where my father, and just about every man in this town, worked.

So thousands of guys all suddenly looking for employment definitely made it nearly impossible to find work.
Luckily my dad always did, but a lot of other guys weren't that lucky. And, as I said before, my dad worked some pretty crappy jobs just to get-by.

I'm sorry that your father passed away when you were so young, but I'm glad your mother was able to take over his business and keep it going.
Not saying that the situation was any less tough for her, but it's good she didn't have to depend on finding work elsewhere, so she could have employment.

I agree with you... we do have it pretty darn good here in the US, but I do think it's pretty naive to think that it's simply up to each individual whether or not they "make it."
If that were so, anybody who's willing to work hard would be rich. And that's definitely not the case, as I've witnessed countless times.

gldstwmn

12-07-2003, 08:38 PM

I'm sure it's from VHS but I will let you know.:)

Rob67

12-07-2003, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
I agree with you... we do have it pretty darn good here in the US, but I do think it's pretty naive to think that it's simply up to each individual whether or not they "make it."
If that were so, anybody who's willing to work hard would be rich. And that's definitely not the case, as I've witnessed countless times.

Absolutely it's hard...and nobody told me that life was fair. It does take work, as well as timing and a bit of luck. But you have a better shot here then anywhere else in the world.

Life just keeps rolling on....

Rob

dissention

12-09-2003, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by Rob67
I just hate it when people start blaming everyone else for their problems.

Everybody gets dealt a shit hand from time to time. I did, my parents did.

Hell, my mother was a housewife with three young kids (oldest was 5 years old, me.) when my father died. She could have easily rolled over and become dependent on Government assistance or family members. What did she do? Took over my father's business, learned how to run it and went back to night school while raising three kids on her own. She got a college degree and is now a corporate executive. She's the prime example of facing adversity and not giving up.

Does that mean everyone can succeed? Probably not....in every society there will always be Rich and Poor. Why? Because a fee, capitalist society dictates that it is up to the individual to make it in the world.

Life ain't that bad in the US, folks.

It's not??? :confused:

Until three months ago, I had a job in a welfare office. So, please don't try to say that life isn't that bad in the US. Surround yourself with the poor people of this country and you will see how bad it is.

On one of my last days at the office, a woman came in and started crying. She sat there, in the waiting room with 20 others, and just sobbed. When it was her turn to come into the office, she was hysterical. For almost an hour, this woman released everything that was on her mind. Her husband had died from cancer, she had three kids to raise, no family, no insurance, no means of transporation, she had been laid off three weeks after her husband died, she couldn't afford her mortgage payments, etc. The way our system works, you cannot have a job where you work more than ten hours and still collect welfare assistance. So, she was collecting welfare but couldn't afford anything on those meager checks. If she worked, she'd have to put the kids in daycare but she couldn't afford it and three of our local Head Starts had closed down. She was in misery. Try telling me that her life wasn't that bad.

Life in the US is bad for MANY people, it just doesn't get the publicity that Bush's by-invitation-only Thanksgiving dinner in Iraq with a fake turkey.

Sorry, but once the Republican-ruled government starts taking away monetary aid from the poor people fo this coutnry, when they take away financial aid for education, when they jack up the taxes to pay for mind-numbingly stupid things like Bush's plane landing, after all of that is done, then they have every right to place the blame on the government. Everyone was not born with a silver spoon in their mouth like Bush and not everyone can live like he does.

The notion that in a free, capitalist society it is up to the individual to make it is PROPOSTEROUS. The benefits of our country accrue to the powerful and the rich. The super-rich own 80% of the corporate wealth in this country, 2 percent of the population own 85% of the stock, 99% of all state and municipal bonds, and the lsit just goes on. You will only make it if they let you and that's a fact. The wealth in this goddam country is not in the hands of the middle-class or the lower-class. However, the government still spouts the insidious notion that the economy is all about the "independent producers." Well, hey! Where are those rich producers I've been hearing about? They certainly aren't here in Massachusetts, the state commonly referred to as Taxachusetts.

So, yes, in every society there will be the rich and the poor. But in THIS society, the rich do everything in their power to keep the poor poor.

strandinthewind

12-09-2003, 08:28 AM

Does anyone else find it strange that after I made my Patriot Act comment, I could not log onto The Ledge for most of yesterday!

Doo Doo Doo Doo - Doo Doo Doo Doo :eek: :wavey:

strandinthewind

12-09-2003, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by dissention
So, yes, in every society there will be the rich and the poor. But in THIS society, the rich do everything in their power to keep the poor poor.

I cry foul :wavey:

Lumping all rich together in that boat is like saying all poor people just do not want to work and are content on the govt. tit. While certainly some rich could care a less about the poor, certainly many rich out there give millions away to charity each year. Moreover, most major corporations have vast charity programs. So, while I agree it ain't easy to be poor, the rich similarly are not so generically bad. :cool:

Originally posted by dissention
They certainly aren't here in Massachusetts, the state commonly referred to as Taxachusetts.

Well, it is Ted Kennedy's home state!!! :cool:

dissention

12-09-2003, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I cry foul :wavey:

Lumping all rich together in that boat is like saying all poor people just do not want to work and are content on the govt. tit. While certainly some rich could care a less about the poor, certainly many rich out there give millions away to charity each year. Moreover, most major corporations have vast charity programs. So, while I agree it ain't easy to be poor, the rich similarly are not so generically bad. :cool:

Well, it is Ted Kennedy's home state!!! :cool:

As I knew you would! :eek: :laugh:

I think you misinterpreted my comment. I was not generalizing the rich as in anyone who makes over $80,000. I stated in the previous paragraph that I was speaking about the upper-upper class (the super-rich). There is no denying, IMO, that they run this country and keep the wealth for themselves and try to keep everyone else below them.

:wavey:

PS: I *heart* Ted Kennedy! Luv him!

strandinthewind

12-09-2003, 08:44 AM

I have to say although I am still troubled by the whole Chapaquidick (sp.?) thing, I also love ole Teddy. He sort of is the far left's version of the far right's Strom (RIP) - or would that be that hedonist Pelosi or that crazy ACLU loving Diane (love them both)? :laugh:

I was not talking about the just rich either. I know a few people here in Atlanta and elsewhere who are worth from "just" one million ( :rolleyes: ) to over a billion $$$ (at least before the market fell - now they have only about $800 million :laugh: ) who give millions away each year to medical charities (AID Atlanta, Northside Hospital, etc.). So, think that while yes, they will only get richer IMO mostly by the mathematical certainty of interest on 10,000,000 is about $500,000 a year (about $42,000 a month - sheebus) after taxes before they get out of bed in the morning (oh the life - why the hell don't I have it? :cool: ), they are still very philanthropic and many of the poor and/or poor and sick benefit from it.

Also, you are correct, the very, very wealthy rule not only here, but the world - can you say the Rothchild family who used to loan money to nations. I wish "they" would do more good with their money.

gldstwmn

12-09-2003, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Does anyone else find it strange that after I made my Patriot Act comment, I could not log onto The Ledge for most of yesterday!

Doo Doo Doo Doo - Doo Doo Doo Doo :eek: :wavey:

Yes that flipped me out.

gldstwmn

12-09-2003, 11:15 AM

gldstwmn

12-09-2003, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by strandinthewind

Also, you are correct, the very, very wealthy rule not only here, but the world - can you say the Rothchild family who used to loan money to nations. I wish "they" would do more good with their money.

On a side note, the Rothschilds just merged two of their largest European banks. I'm not sure what to make of that.

dissention

12-09-2003, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I was not talking about the just rich either. I know a few people here in Atlanta and elsewhere who are worth from "just" one million ( :rolleyes: ) to over a billion $$$ (at least before the market fell - now they have only about $800 million :laugh: ) who give millions away each year to medical charities (AID Atlanta, Northside Hospital, etc.). So, think that while yes, they will only get richer IMO mostly by the mathematical certainty of interest on 10,000,000 is about $500,000 a year (about $42,000 a month - sheebus) after taxes before they get out of bed in the morning (oh the life - why the hell don't I have it? :cool: ), they are still very philanthropic and many of the poor and/or poor and sick benefit from it.

As Goldie pointed out, it's a tax write-off. Also, it reflects on them better when it comes to PR. The charity contributions of the wealthy certainly don't disguise the "law" of society when it comes to the rich and they when compared to our population, the contributions benefit the few.

strandinthewind

12-09-2003, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by dissention
As Goldie pointed out, it's a tax write-off. Also, it reflects on them better when it comes to PR. The charity contributions of the wealthy certainly don't disguise the "law" of society when it comes to the rich and they when compared to our population, the contributions benefit the few.

Well, it is and it isn't a tax right off. Personal donations can be written off as a small percentage of the actual donation only up to the point the alternate minimum tax (AMT) is reached. The super rich clearly give more than this as the (AMT) is fairly easily reached with a mortgage and other deductions at about $150,000 in taxable income.

A good example of the super rich donating is the Bill and Melinda Gates AIDS research and help program. Aside from anyone's personal feelings about Bill Gates (there are many believe me and I am not bringing them up), his wife and his donation of a billion dollars did not get him a billion dollar tax break. Granted he probably donated stock which saved him some tax, but nowhere near a billion dollars and he no longer owns the stock. Ted Turner is another example. The Marcus (Home Depot) family here in Atlanta is another example.

I suggest jst these three donators of over 5 billion dollars have helped countless numbers of people.

Also, of course they want to feel good about donating and get P.R. What is wrong with that?

gldstwmn

12-09-2003, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind

Also, of course they want to feel good about donating and get P.R. What is wrong with that?

Nothing.:)

strandinthewind

12-09-2003, 01:19 PM

This showed a lot of class and grace & I give her credit for (hopefully) nipping this shameless bit of pandering in the bud. The article also gives an interesting history of why FDR is on the dime:

GOP: Get off the dime
Nancy Reagan blasts proposal to put Ronald on FDR's ten-cent piece

You've got to love Nancy Reagan for the steadfast way she guards her husband's legacy against opportunistic political poachers. The most recent example being her quick rejection of the boneheaded partisan move by nearly 90 congressional Republicans who signed on to a bill to have Reagan replace Franklin Delano Roosevelt's profile on the dime. "I do not support this proposal, and I'm certain Ronnie would not," was her no-nonsense reply.

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=16116
_______________________________________
Happy Reading!!!!!!

dissention

12-09-2003, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Also, of course they want to feel good about donating and get P.R. What is wrong with that?

Well, hopefully anyone who donates to a charity feels good about what they're doing. But as for getting good PR because of it, I find that wrong. Using your donation to a charity to get good publicity? I think it's wrong, but that's just me. Do it because you want to and have a heart, don't do it because you want to AND you know it'll give you a good image.

I have more respect for the people who *privately* do charity work than I do for people who go public with it (i.e. donating a million and then informing the papers, going on talk shows, etc). It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

strandinthewind

12-09-2003, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by dissention
Well, hopefully anyone who donates to a charity feels good about what they're doing. But as for getting good PR because of it, I find that wrong. Using your donation to a charity to get good publicity? I think it's wrong, but that's just me. Do it because you want to and have a heart, don't do it because you want to AND you know it'll give you a good image.

I have more respect for the people who *privately* do charity work than I do for people who go public with it (i.e. donating a million and then informing the papers, going on talk shows, etc). It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I agree with you that it would be great if everyone donated without fanfare. But, charities rely of prominent donors to get more money. In essence, they use the name of a prominent person to solicit donations, be it through a concert funcraiser by a big star, or a mailing that annouces a large donation by a well-known person.

Interestingly, the Atlanta AIDS Walk a few years ago hired a company to "produce" the walk. The company took like 25% from the gross donations. But, the gross donations rose far in excess of that fee. I had mixed feelings about it. AID Atlanta on the other hand did not. They readily paid it to get the extra money.

strandinthewind

12-09-2003, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
On a side note, the Rothschilds just merged two of their largest European banks. I'm not sure what to make of that.

Jason says in his best dead pan voice "Did Bush's family underwrite the merger loan" :cool:

I know I saw something about that. By everything I have read, the Rothchild family just lives in another world. So, who knows what they are up to. As an interesting aside, I was with my family in Monaco when we say this well heeled guy playing Baccarat (sp.?) and then dice. He was gambling millions of francs at a time. I noticed his signature on the marker - it looked like Baron Blah Blah Blah Rothchild. That was kind of interesting to see - for me at least.

jwd

12-09-2003, 09:07 PM

dissention:
On one of my last days at the office, a woman came in and started crying. She sat there, in the waiting room with 20 others, and just sobbed. When it was her turn to come into the office, she was hysterical. For almost an hour, this woman released everything that was on her mind. Her husband had died from cancer, she had three kids to raise, no family, no insurance, no means of transporation, she had been laid off three weeks after her husband died, she couldn't afford her mortgage payments, etc. The way our system works, you cannot have a job where you work more than ten hours and still collect welfare assistance. So, she was collecting welfare but couldn't afford anything on those meager checks. If she worked, she'd have to put the kids in daycare but she couldn't afford it and three of our local Head Starts had closed down. She was in misery. Try telling me that her life wasn't that bad.

Her life was bad no doubt. Although some of these things could not be avoided, I would think that if she and her husband had only purchased a life insurance policy it would have a least given her and her children a little reprieve from the financial burden she was facing. People need to think of what could happen in their lives like this and to be ready for them. Even mortgage insurance would have helped in this particular situation. And I'm not sure about this, but wouldn't Social Security benefits kick in for something like this? No doubt, life can be cruel sometimes, but you can't rely on the government to take care of you. Head Start Programs and the like are all great, but I would rather have them supported more from the private sector than the public one.

Joe

gldstwmn

12-09-2003, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Jason says in his best dead pan voice "Did Bush's family underwrite the merger loan" :cool:

No but there were photos of one of the Rothschilds with little Arnie Schwarzenegger just prior to or during his run for governor.:shrug:

gldstwmn

12-09-2003, 09:18 PM

Originally posted by jwd
Her life was bad no doubt. Although some of these things could not be avoided, I would think that if she and her husband had only purchased a life insurance policy it would have a least given her and her children a little reprieve from the financial burden she was facing. People need to think of what could happen in their lives like this and to be ready for them. Even mortgage insurance would have helped in this particular situation. And I'm not sure about this, but wouldn't Social Security benefits kick in for something like this? No doubt, life can be cruel sometimes, but you can't rely on the government to take care of you. Head Start Programs and the like are all great, but I would rather have them supported more from the private sector than the public one.

Joe
MI doesn't make your monthly payment, just covers the investor if the borrower defaults on the mortgage. She'd still lose the house. Since I'm self employed, I pay my own life insurance. It's $65 a month and if you don't pay for a month, just like car insurance, they'll cancel you. No one should depend on the government but if you're down and out they shouldn't tell you to go f**k yourself either.

strandinthewind

12-09-2003, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
No but there were photos of one of the Rothschilds with little Arnie Schwarzenegger just prior to or during his run for governor.:shrug:

:eek: :eek: :eek:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

strandinthewind

12-09-2003, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
MI doesn't make your monthly payment, just covers the investor if the borrower defaults on the mortgage. She'd still lose the house. Sicne I'm self employed, I pay my own life insurance. It's $65 a month and if you don't pay for a month, just like car insurance, they'll cancel you. No one should depend on the government but if you're down and out they shouldn't tell you to go f**k yourself either.

I agree - most people cannot afford self insurance, but if you can get it even if you have to scrimp and save to do it because you never know.

Also, the govt. (state and fed.) do have programs to help the poor. They are, however complicated and most people would not even know where to go unless someone told them. I just think it ought to be easier. Then again, these programs administer to millions of people, so a system must be in place. I just think the waiting for BOTH public aid and private insurance money (usually at least 90 days from receipt of proof death, which could take the state a month to create) could be lessened somehow. :mad:

Rob67

12-10-2003, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by jwd
Her life was bad no doubt. Although some of these things could not be avoided, I would think that if she and her husband had only purchased a life insurance policy it would have a least given her and her children a little reprieve from the financial burden she was facing. People need to think of what could happen in their lives like this and to be ready for them. Even mortgage insurance would have helped in this particular situation. And I'm not sure about this, but wouldn't Social Security benefits kick in for something like this? No doubt, life can be cruel sometimes, but you can't rely on the government to take care of you. Head Start Programs and the like are all great, but I would rather have them supported more from the private sector than the public one.

Joe

She would get Social Security payments for all three children until they are 18.

And I agree. Bad things happen to us all and we have to do our best to be prepared. Government assistance is fine in certain circumstances but there definitly needs to be more reform in welfare and Social Security.

Rob:cool:

dissention

12-10-2003, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I agree with you that it would be great if everyone donated without fanfare. But, charities rely of prominent donors to get more money. In essence, they use the name of a prominent person to solicit donations, be it through a concert funcraiser by a big star, or a mailing that annouces a large donation by a well-known person.

I think what you're forgetting is that the charity needs permission to do so. ;)

dissention

12-10-2003, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by jwd
People need to think of what could happen in their lives like this and to be ready for them.

No doubt, life can be cruel sometimes, but you can't rely on the government to take care of you. Head Start Programs and the like are all great, but I would rather have them supported more from the private sector than the public one.

Joe

In order to be ready, you have to be able to afford it. :)

Spoken like a true Republican. Private sector paying for things that should be public. Less government money, more "personal responsibility." Sorry, I was always under the impression that the government should look out for the best interests of it's citizens. Head Start and such programs have always been public, why shouldn't they be? Maybe we should spend more tax dollars for Bush to fly around in his jet instead of such valuable and important programs?

strandinthewind

12-10-2003, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by dissention
I think what you're forgetting is that the charity needs permission to do so. ;)

I know, but my point was many lend their names to charitable things because without their names, the charity would not get as much money from other people. In other words, if everyone donated annonymously, the charities would not get as much money. So, while I agree many people donate to charity pretty much just to say "hey look at how great I am" ( :rolleyes: to them I might add :laugh: ) , the charity's use of the names of these same people no matter their intent, is a good thing in the end.

Of course, when the person's motive is true, it is even better a la Jerry Lewis and the M.D. telethons.

dissention

12-10-2003, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I know, but my point was many lend their names to charitable things because without their names, the charity would not get as much money from other people. In other words, if everyone donated annonymously, the charities would not get as much money. So, while I agree many people donate to charity pretty much just to say "hey look at how great I am" ( :rolleyes: to them I might add :laugh: ) , the charity's use of the names of these same people no matter their intent, is a good thing in the end.

Of course, when the person's motive is true, it is even better a la Jerry Lewis and the M.D. telethons.

Well, that's whole new problem altogether if that's true.

But, for some reason, I don't think the American public is prosperous enough to donate to a cause just because a certain celebrity does. I'll never forget all of the celebs who refused to donate a mil to the 9/11 fund. That was something, huh?

I just don't like it and I never will.

strandinthewind

12-10-2003, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by dissention
In order to be ready, you have to be able to afford it. :)

Spoken like a true Republican. Private sector paying for things that should be public. Less government money, more "personal responsibility." Sorry, I was always under the impression that the government should look out for the best interests of it's citizens. Head Start and such programs have always been public, why shouldn't they be? Maybe we should spend more tax dollars for Bush to fly around in his jet instead of such valuable and important programs?

Well, a point of order is in order :laugh:

The Fed. Govt. was not initially made to help the poor and did not to any significant degree for well over 100 years. That it does now, however, is a good thing - thank you FDR. The problem is people see the abuse in the system which causes them to hate it.

Interestingly, I think I read somewhere that a significant portion of the assisstance to the poor or needy (medically, etc.) comes from private sources such as the Red Cross, individual doctors/hospitals cutting their fees in accordance with individual income (believe it or not, it does happen and often), and, without meaning to open a can of worms, faith based charities such as The Covenant House.

I used to be a volunteer after school teacher for The Covenant House ( http://www.covenanthouse.org/ ), a faith based charity. My free services provided after school tutoring/care for these kids and allowed their parents to work until up to about 7:00 p.m. We never taught religion, just the basics (reading writing, and arithmetic) as we really sort of just helped the kids do their homework from the public schools. I probably had anywhere from 15 to 50 inner city kids aged anywhere from 6 to 15 or 16 (the reality was that anyone over 16 was working); they also had pre-six day care but I was not qualified to do that (believe me I had to go through the hellacious security check and other screening I have ever been to - they even called my high school teachers .:eek: ). The Covenant House also takes in any (and I mean any) under age 18 kid off the street and, if the kid wants it, The Covenant House will provide guidance and counseling 9usually spiritual but not always). If they do not want it (and they pretty much always wind up in the end wanting it because they see how it works on the other kids), they are still free to stay. I tell ya - those parents were some of the best people I have ever met. They were so grateful, it was almost embarrasing to me.

I know that is just one such organization, but many many more exist. I think that if there was some way for the Fed. Govt. programs to work like that, we would all be better off for it. But, I agree complete privatization probably is not the best answer; nor is blind payment to faith based charities. Maybe there is a happy medium that can be reached. I hope so because IMO the private organizations work a whole lot better than the Fed. or State ones, their is significantly less red tape, and Congress can't screw with the funding of a private org. as much (although give them a chance and they can screw anything up :laugh: ).

jwd

12-10-2003, 08:36 AM

dissention:
Spoken like a true Republican. Private sector paying for things that should be public. Less government money, more "personal responsibility." Sorry, I was always under the impression that the government should look out for the best interests of it's citizens. Head Start and such programs have always been public, why shouldn't they be? Maybe we should spend more tax dollars for Bush to fly around in his jet instead of such valuable and important programs?

There you go again....;) :D I never said the government should abandon social programs altogether, and there are plenty of them still out there to take care of the needy. Some needing more reform like SS and Welfare. What's wrong with voluntarily donating money to charities? IT SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED!! Seems like the right way to do it in a CAPITALIST society. Bottom line is I'm sick of the government picking my pockets clean. I look at my check every week and what I pay in taxes is just outrageous. There has to be a limit, unless of course you want to live in a socialist society...I don't. And there's plenty of waste/pork in government and the dollars for Bush flying around in his plane are a drop in the bucket in comparison.

Joe

dissention

12-10-2003, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by jwd
There you go again....;) :D I never said the government should abandon social programs altogether, and there are plenty of them still out there to take care of the needy. Some needing more reform like SS and Welfare. What's wrong with voluntarily donating money to charities? IT SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED!! Seems like the right way to do it in a CAPITALIST society. Bottom line is I'm sick of the government picking my pockets clean. I look at my check every week and what I pay in taxes is just outrageous. There has to be a limit, unless of course you want to live in a socialist society...I don't. And there's plenty of waste/pork in government and the dollars for Bush flying around in his plane are a drop in the bucket in comparison.

Joe

I suggest looking at the ways the government wastes your money on silly little things, not the ways they actually allocate funds for public services that are needed. Don't look at your check and think 'Get rid of the welfare programs!" Look at it and say "Stop trying to get Reagan on the dime, stop wasting time by delivering fake turkeys in Iraq, and such..." And our Republican government is the one taking all those taxes, honey. "We see no change in sight..." :laugh:

strandinthewind

12-10-2003, 08:47 AM

dissention

12-10-2003, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Strand gets on his high horse and says "At least the Republicans do it with less taxes!" I am getting off the horse now and preparing to duck :laugh:

Actually, W is the biggest spender we have had in years Demo. or R. And, those silly little thing considered together are a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to a 100 billion dollar to programs like Medicare, Social Security, SSI, etc.

I know, that Medicare bill is going to suck BIG TIME. But don't listen to me, I'm just a Democrat! :laugh:

PS: Did you watch the debate last night? They slaughtered Dean!!

jwd

12-10-2003, 08:56 AM

dissention:
I suggest looking at the ways the government wastes your money on silly little things, not the ways they actually allocate funds for public services that are needed. Don't look at your check and think 'Get rid of the welfare programs!" Look at it and say "Stop trying to get Reagan on the dime, stop wasting time by delivering fake turkeys in Iraq, and such..." And our Republican government is the one taking all those taxes, honey. "We see no change in sight..."

That's why everyone needs to be proactive in government and pay attention to what goes on around them. I don't say get rid of the welfare program, I say reform it. I've been paying taxes for 25 years now. Unless you'd say we've had Republican government for all those years, I think to say that the Republican government is the one taking my taxes is inaccurate. "We see no change in sight"...I'm more optimistic than that.

Joe

strandinthewind

12-10-2003, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by dissention
I know, that Medicare bill is going to suck BIG TIME. But don't listen to me, I'm just a Democrat! :laugh:

PS: Did you watch the debate last night? They slaughtered Dean!!

I rarely listen to you :cool:

No, I got home too late. I watched Law and Order at 10:00 and fell asleep halfway through it. I must say though I really hate these early on the campaign debates. I usually just watch the final ones.

dissention

12-10-2003, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I rarely listen to you :cool:

No, I got home too late. I watched Law and Order at 10:00 and fell asleep halfway through it. I must say though I really hate these early on the campaign debates. I usually just watch the final ones.

I think they're mahvelous. Watching all of the candidates get catty with each other and watching Sharpton perform stand-up; priceless! :D

Rob67

12-10-2003, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by dissention
I suggest looking at the ways the government wastes your money on silly little things, not the ways they actually allocate funds for public services that are needed. Don't look at your check and think 'Get rid of the welfare programs!" Look at it and say "Stop trying to get Reagan on the dime, stop wasting time by delivering fake turkeys in Iraq, and such..." And our Republican government is the one taking all those taxes, honey. "We see no change in sight..." :laugh:

I disagree. I think we SHOULD worry about where all of our funds go. Especially the ones that go to overfunded and poorly run government agencies. Compalining about the Pres flying to Iraq to eat with the military unnanounced is nonsense. The moral boost outweighs the cost of a flight tenfold.

Here's a quote from the Washington Post that should lay "Turkeygate" to rest:

"Officials said they did not know the turkey would be there or that Bush would pick it up. A contractor had roasted and primped the turkey to adorn the buffet line, while the 600 soldiers were served from cafeteria-style steam trays, the officials said. They said the bird was not placed there in anticipation of Bush's stealthy visit, and military sources said a trophy turkey is a standard feature of holiday chow lines."

Rob :cool:

dissention

12-10-2003, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by Rob67
"Officials said they did not know the turkey would be there or that Bush would pick it up. A contractor had roasted and primped the turkey to adorn the buffet line, while the 600 soldiers were served from cafeteria-style steam trays, the officials said. They said the bird was not placed there in anticipation of Bush's stealthy visit, and military sources said a trophy turkey is a standard feature of holiday chow lines."

I've been to many "chow lines" and have never seen a fake turkey. They forgot to mention that the dinner was invitation only, i.e. they chose which soldiers attended. Also, they brought along two Fox News cameramen with them IN THE AIRCRAFT. Republican, conservative, or liberal, it stinks like a PR move.

Rob67

12-10-2003, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by dissention
I've been to many "chow lines" and have never seen a fake turkey. They forgot to mention that the dinner was invitation only, i.e. they chose which soldiers attended. Also, they brought along two Fox News cameramen with them IN THE AIRCRAFT. Republican, conservative, or liberal, it stinks like a PR move.

I wonder why this picture isn't the focus? Hillary's was invitation only as well. So what?

USA Today article (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-11-28-troops-reaction_x.htm)

But...I forgot, Bush can do no right. He's mean. You can spin anything any politician says or does to make them look bad.

The only opinion that really matters is that of the troops he visited.

Rob

:cool:

gldstwmn

12-10-2003, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by Rob67
I think we SHOULD worry about where all of our funds go. Especially the ones that go to overfunded and poorly run government agencies.

I agree. Let's start with this one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/10/international/middleeast/10GAS.html?th

High Payments to Halliburton for Fuel in Iraq
By DON VAN NATTA Jr.

Published: December 10, 2003

he United States government is paying the Halliburton Company an average of $2.64 a gallon to import gasoline and other fuel to Iraq from Kuwait, more than twice what others are paying to truck in Kuwaiti fuel, government documents show.

Halliburton, which has the exclusive United States contract to import fuel into Iraq, subcontracts the work to a Kuwaiti firm, government officials said. But Halliburton gets 26 cents a gallon for its overhead and fee, according to documents from the Army Corps of Engineers.

The cost of the imported fuel first came to public attention in October when two senior Democrats in Congress criticized Halliburton, the huge Houston-based oil-field services company, for "inflating gasoline prices at a great cost to American taxpayers." At the time, it was estimated that Halliburton was charging the United States government and Iraq's oil-for-food program an average of about $1.60 a gallon for fuel available for 71 cents wholesale.

But a breakdown of fuel costs, contained in Army Corps documents recently provided to Democratic Congressional investigators and shared with The New York Times, shows that Halliburton is charging $2.64 for a gallon of fuel it imports from Kuwait and $1.24 per gallon for fuel from Turkey.

A spokeswoman for Halliburton, Wendy Hall, defended the company's pricing. "It is expensive to purchase, ship, and deliver fuel into a wartime situation, especially when you are limited by short-duration contracting," she said. She said the company's Kellogg Brown & Root unit, which administers the contract, must work in a "hazardous" and "hostile environment," and that its profit on the contract is small.

The price of fuel sold in Iraq, set by the government, is 5 cents to 15 cents a gallon. The price is a political issue, and has not been raised to avoid another hardship for Iraqis.

The Iraqi state oil company and the Pentagon's Defense Energy Support Center import fuel from Kuwait for less than half of Halliburton's price, the records show.

Ms. Hall said Halliburton's subcontractor had had more than 20 trucks damaged or stolen, nine drivers injured and one driver killed when making fuel runs into Iraq.

She said the contract was also expensive because it was hard to find a company with the trucks necessary to move the fuel, and because Halliburton is only able to negotiate a 30-day contract for fuel. "It is not as simple as dropping by a service station for a fill-up," she said.

A spokesman for the Army Corps of Engineers, Bob Faletti, also defended the price of imported fuel.

"Everyone is talking about high costs, but no one is talking about the dangers, or the number of fuel trucks that have been blown up," Mr. Faletti said. "That's the reason it is so expensive." He said recent government audits had found no improprieties in the Halliburton contract.

Gasoline imports are one of the largest costs of Iraqi reconstruction efforts so far. Although Iraq sits on the third-largest oil reserves in the world, production has been hampered by pipeline sabotage, power failures and an antiquated infrastructure that was hurt by 11 years of United Nations sanctions.

Nearly $500 million has already been spent to bring gas, benzene and other fuels into Iraq, according to the corps. And as part of the $87 billion package for Iraq and Afghanistan that President Bush signed last month, $18.6 billion will be spent on reconstruction projects, including $690 million for gasoline and other fuel imports in 2004.

From May to late October, Halliburton imported about 61 million gallons of fuel from Kuwait and about 179 million from Turkey, at a total cost of more than $383 million.

A company's profits on the transport and sale of gasoline are usually razor-thin, with companies losing contracts if they overbid by half a penny a gallon. Independent experts who reviewed Halliburton's percentage of its gas importation contract said the company's 26-cent charge per gallon of gas from Kuwait appeared to be extremely high.

"I have never seen anything like this in my life," said Phil Verleger, a California oil economist and the president of the consulting firm PK Verleger LLC. "That's a monopoly premium — that's the only term to describe it. Every logistical firm or oil subsidiary in the United States and Europe would salivate to have that sort of contract."

In March, Halliburton was awarded a no-competition contract to repair Iraq's oil industry, and it has already received more than $1.4 billion in work. That award has been the focus of Congressional scrutiny in part because Vice President Dick Cheney is Halliburton's former chief executive officer. As part of its contract, Halliburton began importing fuel in the spring when gasoline was in short supply in large Iraqi cities.

The government's accounting shows that Halliburton paid its Kuwait subcontractor $1.17 a gallon, when it was selling for 71 cents a gallon wholesale in the Middle East.

In addition, Halliburton is paying $1.21 a gallon to transport the fuel an estimated 400 miles from Kuwait to Iraq, the documents show. It is paying 22 cents a gallon to transport gas into Iraq from Turkey.

The 26 cents a gallon it keeps includes a 2-cent fee and 24 cents for "mark-up costs," the documents show. The mark-up portion is intended to cover the overhead for administering the contract.

Ms. Hall of Halliburton said it was "misleading" for the corps to call it a mark-up. "This simply means overhead costs, which includes the general and administrative costs like light bulbs, paper and employees," she said. "These costs are specifically allowable under the contract with the Corps of Engineers, are defined by detailed regulations, and are scrutinized and approved by U.S. government auditors."

In recent weeks, the costs of importing fuel from Kuwait have risen. Figures provided recently to Congressional investigators by the corps show that Halliburton was charging as much as $3.06 per gallon for fuel from Kuwait in late November.

If the corps concludes that Halliburton has successfully administered the gas contract, it could be paid an additional 5 percent of the total value of the gas it imported.

Halliburton's Kuwait subcontractor was hired in May. Halliburton and the Army Corps of Engineers refused to identify the company, citing security reasons. Aides to Representative Henry A. Waxman, the California Democrat who has been a critic of the fuel contract, said government officials had identified it as the Altanmia Commercial Marketing Company. Several independent petroleum experts in the Middle East and the United States said they had not heard of Altanmia.

Copies of the Army Corps documents were given to Mr. Waxman's office, which provided them to The Times.

Iraqi's state oil company, SOMO, pays 96 cents a gallon to bring in gas, which includes the cost of gasoline and transportation costs, the aides to Mr. Waxman said. The gasoline transported by SOMO — and by Halliburton's subcontractor — are delivered to the same depots in Iraq and often use the same military escorts.

The Pentagon's Defense Energy Support Center pays $1.08 to $1.19 per gallon for the gas it imports from Kuwait, Congressional aides said. That includes the price of the gas and its transportation costs.

The money for Halliburton's gas contract has come principally from the United Nations oil-for-food program, though some of the costs have been borne by American taxpayers. In the appropriations bill signed by Mr. Bush last month, taxpayers will subsidize all gas importation costs beginning early next year.

In an interview on Tuesday, Mr. Waxman responded to the latest information on to costs of the Halliburton contract. "It's inexcusable that Americans are being charged absurdly high prices to buy gasoline for Iraqis and outrageous that the White House is letting it happen," he said.

Rob67

12-10-2003, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by Rob67
I wonder why this picture isn't the focus? Hillary's was invitation only as well. So what?

USA Today article (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-11-28-troops-reaction_x.htm)

But...I forgot, Bush can do no right. He's mean. You can spin anything any politician says or does to make them look bad.

The only opinion that really matters is that of the troops he visited.

Rob

:cool:

I can't believe I engaged in a political discussion over a picture of a man holding a turkey.:rolleyes:

Rob:cool:

gldstwmn

12-10-2003, 12:13 PM

http://www.michaelmoore.com/

Turkeys on the Moon... from Michael Moore

Monday, December 8th, 2003

Dear Mr. Bush,

Well, it's going on two weeks now since your surprise visit to one of the two countries you now run and, I have to say, I'm still warmed by the gesture. Man, take me along next time! I understand only 13 members of the media went with you -- and it turns out only ONE of them was an actual reporter for a newspaper. But you did take along FIVE photographers (hey, I get it, screw the words, it's all about the pictures!), a couple wire service guys, and a crew from the Fox News Channel (fair and balanced!).

Then, I read in the paper this weekend that that big turkey you were holding in Baghdad (you know, the picture that's supposed to replace the now-embarrassing footage of you on that aircraft carrier with the sign "Mission Accomplished") -- well, it turns out that big, beautiful turkey of yours was never eaten by the troops! It wasn't eaten by anyone! That's because it wasn't real! It was a STUNT turkey, brought in to look like a real edible turkey for all those great camera angles.

Now I know some people will say you are into props (like the one in the lower extremities of your flyboy suit), but hey, I get it, this is theater! So what if it was a bogus turkey? The whole trip was bogus, all staged to look like "news." The fake honey glaze on that bird wasn't much different from the fake honey glaze that covers this war. And the fake stuffing in the fake bird was just the right symbol for our country during these times. America loves fake honey glaze, it loves to be stuffed, and, dammit, YOU knew that -- that's what makes you so in touch with the people you lead!

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

It was also a good idea that you made the "press" on that trip to Baghdad pull the shades down on the plane. No one in the media entourage complained. They like the shades pulled and they like to be kept in the dark. It's more fun that way. And, when you made them take the batteries out of their cell phones so they wouldn't be able to call anyone, and they dutifully complied -- that was genius! I think if you had told them to put their hands on their heads and touch their noses with their tongues, they would have done that, too! That's how much they like you. You could have played "Simon Says" the whole way over there. It wouldn't have been that much different from "Karl Says," a game they LOVE to play every day with Mr. Rove.

Well, if you're planning any surprises for Christmas, don't forget to include me. When I heard last week that you wanted to send a man back to the moon, I thought, get the fake goose ready -- that's where ol' George is going for the holidays! I don't blame you, what with nearly 3 million jobs disappeared, and a $281 billion surplus disappeared, and the USA stuck in a war that will never end -- who wouldn't want to go to the moon! This time, take ALL the media with you! Embed them on the moon! They'll love it there! It looks just like Crawford! You can golf on the moon, too. You'll have so much fun up there, you might not want to come back. Better take Cheney with you, too. Pretend it's a medical experiment or something. "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for every American who's sick and tired of all this crap."

Yours,

Michael Moore

mmflint@aol.com

strandinthewind

12-10-2003, 12:27 PM

*sighs*

I knew the "far left" would slam Bush for the visit, just as the "far right" slammed Hillary for her visit to Afganistan. I think that as the Commander in Chief, he has the right if not the obligation to visit the troops. While I disagreed with the "Mission Accomplished" trip because I thought it was pandering, I did not feel this Iraqi visit was such. Morale there is low. His visit helped that. So, I do not begrudge him the trip. But, I know many will and that is their right even though I think they are incorrect. I know if my child was there, I would be happy the President (any President) went. But that is just me :cool:

gldstwmn

12-10-2003, 12:30 PM

gldstwmn

12-10-2003, 12:35 PM

This is interesting.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/10/nixon.tapes.ap/index.html

Nixon on Reagan: Not 'pleasant to be around'
National Archive releases new Nixon White House tapes
Wednesday, December 10, 2003 Posted: 12:50 PM EST (1750 GMT)

COLLEGE PARK, Maryland (AP) -- President Nixon didn't think much of fellow Californian and Republican icon Ronald Reagan, calling him "strange" and not "pleasant to be around," newly released White House tapes show.

Talking politics with White House Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman at Camp David in August 1972, Nixon switched the conversation to two Republican governors, Reagan of California and Nelson Rockefeller of New York. Both men unsuccessfully sought the 1968 Republican presidential nomination that Nixon received.

"Reagan is not one that wears well," Nixon said.

"I know," Haldeman agreed.

"On a personal basis, Rockefeller is a pretty nice guy," Nixon said. "Reagan on a personal basis, is terrible. He just isn't pleasant to be around."

"No, he isn't," Haldeman said.

"Maybe he's different with others," Nixon said.

"No," Haldeman said.

"No, he's just an uncomfortable man to be around," Nixon said, "strange."

The conversations are part of the 240 hours of White House tape recordings from the Nixon administration released Wednesday by the National Archives. Covering the period July through October 1972, the tapes are the 10th batch of Nixon recordings, totaling 2,109 hours, that the Archives has released since 1980. In all, there are about 3,700 hours of Nixon White House tapes.

Nixon installed a secret taping system in the White House. Some of those tapes later showed a White House cover-up in connection with the 1972 break-in at Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate office building.

The release of those tapes, which Nixon fought all the way to the Supreme Court, eventually led to his resignation in 1974 rather than face almost-certain impeachment and conviction.

The popular Reagan later served two terms as president. But like Nixon, Reagan had a scandal of his own, involving trading arms to Iran for hostages and illegally aiding anti-government forces in Nicaragua.

In 1980, Nixon told Parade magazine that he had several good talks with Reagan. "I think he values my foreign policy advice," the magazine quoted Nixon as saying. "I will be available for any assistance or advice."

Nixon's advice
Reagan had corresponded with Nixon for years. When Reagan was elected president, he sought Nixon's advice.

The disgraced former president offered some suggestions for Cabinet posts and a strategy for Reagan's first few months in office, urging him not to travel abroad for the first six months of his administration so he could concentrate on the economy rather than foreign policy. Nixon also pushed for his former chief of staff, Gen. Alexander Haig Jr., as Reagan's secretary of state.

Later, Nixon said Reagan's economic policies were unduly harsh and cautioned against giving him too much credit for winning the Cold War. "Communism would have collapsed anyway," he told Monica Crowley, a Nixon aide in his last years, according to her 1996 book, "Nixon Off the Record."

sodascouts

12-10-2003, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by Rob67

But...I forgot, Bush can do no right. He's mean. You can spin anything any politician says or does to make them look bad.

The only opinion that really matters is that of the troops he visited.

Rob

:cool:

Amen. And it's true that if someone is good enough at spinning, Satan can look like Santa and vice versa. ;)

sodascouts

12-10-2003, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
This showed a lot of class and grace & I give her credit for (hopefully) nipping this shameless bit of pandering in the bud. The article also gives an interesting history of why FDR is on the dime:

GOP: Get off the dime
Nancy Reagan blasts proposal to put Ronald on FDR's ten-cent piece

You've got to love Nancy Reagan for the steadfast way she guards her husband's legacy against opportunistic political poachers. The most recent example being her quick rejection of the boneheaded partisan move by nearly 90 congressional Republicans who signed on to a bill to have Reagan replace Franklin Delano Roosevelt's profile on the dime. "I do not support this proposal, and I'm certain Ronnie would not," was her no-nonsense reply.

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=16116
_______________________________________
Happy Reading!!!!!!

Any new Nancy fans in the house? lol

dissention

12-10-2003, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
http://www.michaelmoore.com/

Turkeys on the Moon... from Michael Moore

Monday, December 8th, 2003

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Fabulous letter! Gawd, I love Michael Moore. I'm dying for his new doc!!

dissention

12-10-2003, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by sodascouts
Any new Nancy fans in the house? lol

No, but I agree with her on this one. :D

dissention

12-10-2003, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Nixon on Reagan: Not 'pleasant to be around'
National Archive releases new Nixon White House tapes

:eek:

But what about the timing?! The man is on his death bed, he doesn't need to be called STRANGE!!!

:rolleyes:

strandinthewind

12-10-2003, 12:46 PM

gldstwmn - LOL - I thought of you when I read that article this morning. I think it is a perfect example of slant and spin. I think we need to see Halliburton's cost analysis sheets, their profit to cost ratios, their risk assessment to delivery ratios, their analysis of why if is cheaper in all areas concerned for them to buy more expensive gas in the south than in the north and ship it to the south. Are they restricted from travelling through the highly combative Sunni triangle with highly explosive gasoline? Did the military ask them to do it this way? I think we need to know these things before an accurate judgement can me made. Yet, the NY Times, which BTW I love :cool: , somehow seems to neglect that info and focuses instead on the numbers which on their face are inciting.

Moreover, does anyone expect Halliburton or anyone else to do it for free and does anyone really think that had there been open bidding it would have had any meaningful winner for about a year (it is the govt.) or that the winner would not be doing the same thing as Halliburton?

Food for Thought before Halliburton gets slammed.

gldstwmn

12-10-2003, 12:59 PM

Jason your point is well taken and valid. For me here are the two paragraphs that don't sit well with me:

"Iraqi's state oil company, SOMO, pays 96 cents a gallon to bring in gas, which includes the cost of gasoline and transportation costs, the aides to Mr. Waxman said. The gasoline transported by SOMO — and by Halliburton's subcontractor — are delivered to the same depots in Iraq and often use the same military escorts."

"The money for Halliburton's gas contract has come principally from the United Nations oil-for-food program, though some of the costs have been borne by American taxpayers. In the appropriations bill signed by Mr. Bush last month, taxpayers will subsidize all gas importation costs beginning early next year."

gldstwmn

12-10-2003, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by dissention
:eek:

But what about the timing?! The man is on his death bed, he doesn't need to be called STRANGE!!!

:rolleyes:

I love how we get these little snippets of tape. Nixon often spoke in code. What the hell was he talking about?

Rob67

12-10-2003, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Rob, I can't find any mention of Hillary Clinton in that article you posted.:confused:

Your correct. :confused:

The article was showing the OTHER picture of Bush during the visit...you know, the one of him serving the troops. As well as their reactions. THis from a paper that has been known to have a liberal bias.

Rob:cool:

strandinthewind

12-10-2003, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by dissention
No, but I agree with her on this one. :D

Alrighty Ijust cannot resist this even though I know its not true:

Dissention's a Nancy Fan, Dissention's a Nancy Fan !!!!!!!!

:cool:

strandinthewind

12-10-2003, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Jason your point is well taken and valid. For me here are the two paragraphs that don't sit well with me:

"Iraqi's state oil company, SOMO, pays 96 cents a gallon to bring in gas, which includes the cost of gasoline and transportation costs, the aides to Mr. Waxman said. The gasoline transported by SOMO — and by Halliburton's subcontractor — are delivered to the same depots in Iraq and often use the same military escorts."

"The money for Halliburton's gas contract has come principally from the United Nations oil-for-food program, though some of the costs have been borne by American taxpayers. In the appropriations bill signed by Mr. Bush last month, taxpayers will subsidize all gas importation costs beginning early next year."

I know - I know

The whole thing about Halliburton for me is that they are highly respected in that industry. Yet, Cheney was their VP and Bush is tied even more so than every other politician to Big Oil. So, I can see why many, including me at times, just go WTF - this whole thing is just a big profiteering racket. But, then I think the press would slam them to the wall if it was that overt.

I think sometimes I think I think too much :cool:

dissention

12-10-2003, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I love how we get these little snippets of tape. Nixon often spoke in code. What the hell was he talking about?

We already know that he was hiding Bush's involvement in the JFK assasination...

gldstwmn

12-10-2003, 01:13 PM

:laugh:

I found the picture of Arnie and the Rothschilds. I'm going to send you the link, my fellow conspiracy theorist.

dissention

12-10-2003, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Alrighty Ijust cannot resist this even though I know its not true:

Dissention's a Nancy Fan, Dissention's a Nancy Fan !!!!!!!!

:cool:

Good lord, I should just register as Republican and get it over with, huh?!

dissention

12-10-2003, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
:laugh:

I found the picture of Arnie and the Rothschilds. I'm going to send you the link, my fellow conspiracy theorist.

I'm a-waitin'. :laugh:

This will be one for the annals.

gldstwmn

12-10-2003, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by dissention
We already know that he was hiding Bush's involvement in the JFK assasination...

:laugh: :wavey:

gldstwmn

12-10-2003, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by dissention
I'm a-waitin'. :laugh:

This will be one for the annals.

Okay for both of you:

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=2&contentid=961

dissention

12-10-2003, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
But, then I think the press would slam them to the wall if it was that overt.

Really?

I remember back when Clinton was accused of smoking a joint that it was a huge *scandal*, but when Bush's past involving drunk driving (a youthful indiscretion, as he claims? No my friends, it occurred in his late thirties) and cocaine was brought up, the press went silent. The media is conservative, not liberal, on the whole.

strandinthewind

12-10-2003, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by dissention
Really?

I remember back when Clinton was accused of smoking a joint that it was a huge *scandal*, but when Bush's past involving drunk driving (a youthful indiscretion, as he claims? No my friends, it occurred in his late thirties) and cocaine was brought up, the press went silent. The media is conservative, not liberal, on the whole.

I agree.

But, I always remind myself that Bill Clinton in a lot of ways was the first "new generation" President we had. I mean Reagan, Bush, Carter, Nixon, Ford, etc., were all too old to have experimented in the 60's while in college. So, I think that is why Clinton got so much flak.

It also could be that Bush admitted (yes I know he belatedlty admitted the drunk driving, but when confronted he fessed up and he was not really asked the question before) his indiscretions and problems and has reformed. Clinton on the other hand gave that cockamamie (sp.?) story and actually expected people to believe it regardless of its veracity. no wonder the press pounced on it. So, the two are a little different to me.

dissention

12-10-2003, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
It also could be that Bush admitted (yes I know he belatedlty admitted the drunk driving, but when confronted he fessed up and he was not really asked the question before) his indiscretions and problems and has reformed. Clinton on the other hand gave that cockamamie (sp.?) story and actually expected people to believe it regardless of its veracity. no wonder the press pounced on it. So, the two are a little different to me.

Yet when asked about the cocaine, he got furious, clammed up, and refused to answer. And when he answered about the drunk driving, he came up with the cockamamie excuse of it being a youthful indiscretion...even though he was almost forty.

Rob67

12-10-2003, 02:11 PM

dissention

12-10-2003, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by Rob67
;) Check this out... (http://www.mediaresearch.org/)

Rob:cool:

Sorry, but that one page doesn't change my view that there is a conservative bias in the media. Anyone else on this board think it's conservatively bias? To say that there is a liberal bias is to disregard reality.

PS: Dean isn't liberal, he's in a category all his own. And I won't be voting for him, but if he beats Bush, I'll be happier than a pig in shit. :wavey:

Rob67

12-10-2003, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by dissention
Sorry, but that one page doesn't change my view that there is a conservative bias in the media. Anyone else on this board think it's conservatively bias? To say that there is a liberal bias is to disregard reality.

PS: Dean isn't liberal, he's in a category all his own. And I won't be voting for him, but if he beats Bush, I'll be happier than a pig in shit. :wavey:

Look closer....that isn't the only article on that site. Liberals complain about Fox but they forget that ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN & NPR all have bias. Not to mention the LA Times, NY Times, USA Today, even Rolling Stone!

And besides, if Fox is so conservative, why do they employ Geraldo, Alan Combs and Greta Van Susteren?

Rob:cool:

gldstwmn

12-10-2003, 02:56 PM

gldstwmn

12-10-2003, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by dissention

PS: Dean isn't liberal, he's in a category all his own.

Frick. The conservatives have finally found out about Howard Dean. Told ya.:laugh: :rolleyes: Since a lot of his supporters are Republican, I'm sure his campaign manager is pleased as punch with this press. Did you see him flinch last night at Ted Koppel when asked about foreign policy? I just groaned.

gldstwmn

12-10-2003, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by Rob67

And besides, if Fox is so conservative, why do they employ Geraldo, Alan Combs and Greta Van Susteren?

Rob:cool:

Geraldo has already been employed by everyone else. Who else wants him?
Do you ever notice how little Alan talks?
Free plastic surgery.:laugh:

strandinthewind

12-10-2003, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Frick. The conservatives have finally found out about Howard Dean. Told ya.:laugh: :rolleyes: Since a lot of his supporters are Republican, I'm sure his campaign manager is pleased as punch with this press. Did you see him flinch last night at Ted Koppel when asked about foreign policy? I just groaned.

Well, I am going to a luncheon with Dean on Sat. So, I will let you know what it is like.

:cool:

gldstwmn

12-10-2003, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Well, I am going to a luncheon with Dean on Sat. So, I will let you know what it is like.

:cool:

I look forward to your report. As you know, I'm not a HoDe fan. I'm curious to know what he's like in person.

strandinthewind

12-10-2003, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
No one's discussing the Bush rape suit, Ellen Mariani's 9/11 lawsuit or the Bush family Nazi links very much either.

I submit if the "press" smells blood, they devour. Perhaps that is why. ;)

strandinthewind

12-10-2003, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
. . . Free plastic surgery.:laugh:

Hell - I'd put up with spoiled brat Hannity and his obnoxious hand gesture for that :cool:

dissention

12-10-2003, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Well, I am going to a luncheon with Dean on Sat. So, I will let you know what it is like.

:cool:

He can't compare to Kerry and his clan. They are good folk! I'll never forget when Teresa asked me how her haircolor looked...:laugh:

dissention

12-10-2003, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Geraldo has already been employed by everyone else. Who else wants him?
Do you ever notice how little Alan talks?
Free plastic surgery.:laugh:

Geraldo's also had sex with everybody else, doll.

LMAO at the surgery barb! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Rob67

12-10-2003, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Geraldo has already been employed by everyone else. Who else wants him?
Do you ever notice how little Alan talks?
Free plastic surgery.:laugh:

Be that what it may, you still can't consider Fox biased if there are Liberal shows and comentators as well as conservative.

O'Reilly is down the middle.

Rob:cool:

gldstwmn

12-10-2003, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by dissention
He can't compare to Kerry and his clan. They are good folk! I'll never forget when Teresa asked me how her haircolor looked...:laugh:

The only presidential candidate I ever met in the flesh was Pat Buchanan. Can you believe it? It wasn't on purpose.

sodascouts

12-10-2003, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by dissention
We already know that he was hiding Bush's involvement in the JFK assasination...

:: calling White House :: Hello, Mr. President? Dissention knows our secret and must be terminated immediately. Call Arnold.

sodascouts

12-10-2003, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by dissention

I remember back when Clinton was accused of smoking a joint that it was a huge *scandal*

Times sure have changed, huh? The democratic candidates for President were falling all over each other at the MTV "Rock the Vote" special to look "cool" by admitting they'd smoked weed. It was really rather sad.

gldstwmn

12-10-2003, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by sodascouts
Times sure have changed, huh? The democratic candidates for President were falling all over each other at the MTV "Rock the Vote" special to look "cool" by admitting they'd smoked weed. It was really rather sad.

Leiberman, Gephardt, Sharpton and Kucinich all said they had never used drugs. Carol Moseley Braun declined to answer.

strandinthewind

12-11-2003, 05:36 AM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Leiberman, Gephardt, Sharpton and Kucinich all said they had never used drugs. Carol Moseley Braun declined to answer.

I do not believe for one minute Al Sharpton has never been high. In mean how else could he possibly have come up with one of my fav. lines of all times - AMERICA - STAY OUT THE BUSHES!! :laugh:

dissention

12-11-2003, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I do not believe for one minute Al Sharpton has never been high. In mean how else could he possibly have come up with one of my fav. lines of all times - AMERICA - STAY OUT THE BUSHES!! :laugh:

Strandie--

He sure was high...high on the LORD!

:nod: :wavey:

strandinthewind

12-11-2003, 09:29 AM

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Can I get and Do I FEEEEEEEYYYYAAAAAAAALLLLLLLL an AMEN!

sodascouts

12-11-2003, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Leiberman, Gephardt, Sharpton and Kucinich all said they had never used drugs. Carol Moseley Braun declined to answer.

Ack! I remember Leiberman, and CMB, but had forgotten about Gephardt, Sharpton, and Kucinich. Oops! :: embarrassed ::

Rob67

12-11-2003, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by dissention
I remember back when Clinton was accused of smoking a joint that it was a huge *scandal

That was rather goofy. He probably could have avoided that whole mess if he didn't use the "I did not inhale" line and just admitted to smoking.:nod:

Rob:cool:

gldstwmn

12-11-2003, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by sodascouts
Ack! I remember Leiberman, and CMB, but had forgotten about Gephardt, Sharpton, and Kucinich. Oops! :: embarrassed ::

Just tryin' to keep you honest girl. :laugh: :wavey:

dissention

12-11-2003, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by Rob67
just admitted to smoking.:nod:

Like my man John Kerry! :laugh:

KERRY 2004!!!!

:wavey:

gldstwmn

12-11-2003, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
gldstwmn - LOL - I thought of you when I read that article this morning. I think it is a perfect example of slant and spin. I think we need to see Halliburton's cost analysis sheets, their profit to cost ratios, their risk assessment to delivery ratios, their analysis of why if is cheaper in all areas concerned for them to buy more expensive gas in the south than in the north and ship it to the south. Are they restricted from travelling through the highly combative Sunni triangle with highly explosive gasoline? Did the military ask them to do it this way? I think we need to know these things before an accurate judgement can me made. Yet, the NY Times, which BTW I love :cool: , somehow seems to neglect that info and focuses instead on the numbers which on their face are inciting.

Moreover, does anyone expect Halliburton or anyone else to do it for free and does anyone really think that had there been open bidding it would have had any meaningful winner for about a year (it is the govt.) or that the winner would not be doing the same thing as Halliburton?

Food for Thought before Halliburton gets slammed.

Ahem:

http://money.cnn.com/2003/12/11/news/companies/halliburton_fuel.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes

Halliburton gouging on fuel: Pentagon

Oil services firm once run by Cheney overcharged for fuel it brought into Kuwait: military sources.
December 11, 2003: 5:26 PM EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Pentagon audit of Halliburton, the oil services company once run by Vice President Dick Cheney, has found it overcharged for fuel it brought into Iraq from Kuwait, military sources said Thursday.

The sources told Reuters that Kellogg Brown and Root, a Halliburton unit which got a no-bid U.S. government contract to rebuild Iraq's oil industry, had been notified by the Pentagon's Defense Contract Audit Agency. So far the company has clocked up $2 billion in business from the March contract.

Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall said the company had not overcharged and that the company was confident its responses would satisfy the agency.

"KBR is confident its processes will continue to stand against the rigorous audits conducted by the Defense Contract Audit Agency," Hall said.

She added in an e-mail response, "It would not be appropriate to discuss the specifics of the questions until our conversations with DCAA are complete."

One military source said KBR was seeking "voluntary refunds" from the Kuwait National Petroleum Co. over the import of fuel into Iraq.

The company has been bringing fuel into Iraq either from Turkey or via Kuwait and has justified its pricing because of the high cost of security and a shortage of trucks which had driven up prices.

KBR won a no-bid contract last March to help restore Iraq's oil industry. So far, it has been allocated more than $2 billion in business. It also has another contract to provide logistical support to U.S. troops there, from delivering mail to building barracks.

Democratic lawmakers had raised questions over KBR's prices for fuel being trucked from Kuwait into Iraq, an oil-rich country that is suffering a fuel shortage until its oil refineries are working at full capacity.

Of the $2 billion allocated to KBR so far, about $1.2 billion has gone into paying for oil supplies for the Iraqi people. Of that amount, $90 million has been paid out of seized Iraqi assets and $825 million has come from the Development Fund for Iraq, which was established by the United Nations.

An Army Corps of Engineers spokesman said funds to pay for fuel had intentionally come from Iraqi coffers rather than paid for by appropriated funds from Congress, where criticism has been strongest over Halliburton's work in Iraq.

Several government agencies are closely monitoring Halliburton's performance in Iraq and the General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress, is set to release a report next month on U.S. government contracts in Iraq.

Earlier, the U.S. military said it was trimming funds allocated to KBR for its work in Iraq but said this was not linked to price gouging claims. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers spokesman Bob Faletti said about $1 million would be cut from one of seven work orders given to KBR.

"This is not in response to criticism. It is just being fiscally responsible," said Faletti of the small reduction.

dissention

12-11-2003, 06:16 PM

Goldie--

Guess what the latest rumours are behind the scenes? Hillary is going to be Dean's running mate. Yup. Just remember, you heard it here first. :laugh: I can't wait to see if this comes to fruition. If it does, I'll be very shocked.

gldstwmn

12-11-2003, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by dissention
Goldie--

Guess what the latest rumours are behind the scenes? Hillary is going to be Dean's running mate. Yup. Just remember, you heard it here first. :laugh: I can't wait to see if this comes to fruition. If it does, I'll be very shocked.

Oh my stars. This just keeps getting better and better. If there's one person who can keep Howard Dean's ass in check it will be Hillary. You can bet she'll be no passive VP.

strandinthewind

12-12-2003, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Ahem:

http://money.cnn.com/2003/12/11/news/companies/halliburton_fuel.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes

Halliburton gouging on fuel: Pentagon

Oil services firm once run by Cheney overcharged for fuel it brought into Kuwait: military sources.
December 11, 2003: 5:26 PM EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Pentagon audit of Halliburton, the oil services company once run by Vice President Dick Cheney, has found it overcharged for fuel it brought into Iraq from Kuwait, military sources said Thursday.

The sources told Reuters that Kellogg Brown and Root, a Halliburton unit which got a no-bid U.S. government contract to rebuild Iraq's oil industry, had been notified by the Pentagon's Defense Contract Audit Agency. So far the company has clocked up $2 billion in business from the March contract.

Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall said the company had not overcharged and that the company was confident its responses would satisfy the agency.

"KBR is confident its processes will continue to stand against the rigorous audits conducted by the Defense Contract Audit Agency," Hall said.

She added in an e-mail response, "It would not be appropriate to discuss the specifics of the questions until our conversations with DCAA are complete."

One military source said KBR was seeking "voluntary refunds" from the Kuwait National Petroleum Co. over the import of fuel into Iraq.

The company has been bringing fuel into Iraq either from Turkey or via Kuwait and has justified its pricing because of the high cost of security and a shortage of trucks which had driven up prices.

KBR won a no-bid contract last March to help restore Iraq's oil industry. So far, it has been allocated more than $2 billion in business. It also has another contract to provide logistical support to U.S. troops there, from delivering mail to building barracks.

Democratic lawmakers had raised questions over KBR's prices for fuel being trucked from Kuwait into Iraq, an oil-rich country that is suffering a fuel shortage until its oil refineries are working at full capacity.

Of the $2 billion allocated to KBR so far, about $1.2 billion has gone into paying for oil supplies for the Iraqi people. Of that amount, $90 million has been paid out of seized Iraqi assets and $825 million has come from the Development Fund for Iraq, which was established by the United Nations.

An Army Corps of Engineers spokesman said funds to pay for fuel had intentionally come from Iraqi coffers rather than paid for by appropriated funds from Congress, where criticism has been strongest over Halliburton's work in Iraq.

Several government agencies are closely monitoring Halliburton's performance in Iraq and the General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress, is set to release a report next month on U.S. government contracts in Iraq.

Earlier, the U.S. military said it was trimming funds allocated to KBR for its work in Iraq but said this was not linked to price gouging claims. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers spokesman Bob Faletti said about $1 million would be cut from one of seven work orders given to KBR.

"This is not in response to criticism. It is just being fiscally responsible," said Faletti of the small reduction.

Unlike the NY Times articel, this article is presented in a straight forward fashion.

I say if Halliburton and/or their subcontractors or for that matter any other contractor, etc., screws the govt. in this, they ought to hang the CEO's by their balls while whipping them. Note: they ought to have done this with Ken Lay (sp.?) of Enron - but nooooooooo he has not even been indicted. :mad:

sodascouts

12-12-2003, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by dissention
Goldie--

Guess what the latest rumours are behind the scenes? Hillary is going to be Dean's running mate. Yup. Just remember, you heard it here first. :laugh: I can't wait to see if this comes to fruition. If it does, I'll be very shocked.

I don't think Gore would've given Dean his endorsement if that were the case. Gore and H. Clinton are competing for power in the Democratic party and this would basically be Al saying "Go ahead, I give up" lol.

gldstwmn

12-12-2003, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Unlike the NY Times articel, this article is presented in a straight forward fashion.

I say if Halliburton and/or their subcontractors or for that matter any other contractor, etc., screws the govt. in this, they ought to hang the CEO's by their balls while whipping them. Note: they ought to have done this with Ken Lay (sp.?) of Enron - but nooooooooo he has not even been indicted. :mad:

Since this came out the day after the NYT article, I was wondering if they knew but weren't comfortable to print this yet. Wasn't Enron the second largest contributor to the Bush election campaign?

strandinthewind

12-12-2003, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Since this came out the day after the NYT article, I was wondering if they knew but weren't comfortable to print this yet. Wasn't Enron the second largest contributor to the Bush election campaign?

Enron was a significant donor to just about everyone in Wash. and Texas. I think that and that alone is why that a$$hole (sorry - that is the lightest word I know to use :mad: ) Lay is still walking around as a free man as I type. I mean you'd have to be a horse's ass not to be able to make a case out against him. Moreover, just about everyone in America infirectly or directly lost money from their conscious swindle. I mean think about not only the sotckholders, but also think about all of the small businesses like coffe stands, restaurants, etc., that built or leased space around their offices. I am sure they are out of work. I say off with his head!

dissention

12-12-2003, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by sodascouts
I don't think Gore would've given Dean his endorsement if that were the case. Gore and H. Clinton are competing for power in the Democratic party and this would basically be Al saying "Go ahead, I give up" lol.

Well, Gore isn't the brightest crayon in the Crayola box, so who knows what he would do. lol I don't think either are competing for power, though. Hillary has more than Gore could ever dream of having. But, alas, the whole endorsement is blowing up in both their faces (and rightfully so). :D

strandinthewind

12-12-2003, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by dissention
But, alas, the whole endorsement is blowing up in both their faces (and rightfully so). :D

Other than the fact that Gore probably should have had the courtesy to call JL before endorsing Dean, I am unsure how this is backfiring? Explain.

gldstwmn

12-12-2003, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Other than the fact that Gore probably should have had the courtesy to call JL before endorsing Dean

That really surprised me. Guess that wasn't a match made in heaven.

dissention

12-12-2003, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Other than the fact that Gore probably should have had the courtesy to call JL before endorsing Dean, I am unsure how this is backfiring? Explain.

There has been drop-off in donations to the Dean campaign, whereas there has been huge spike in donations to the Lieberman camp.

Iowans are mighty put off by the way the endorsement was handled. Many community action groups have come and publicly said that they thought Lieberman got a raw deal and that a lot of their members felt the same.

I say we should wait another week and see how else it's affecting the Dean campaign. As of now, there is quite a lot of resentment towards them for the way the endorsement was made.

I volunteer at one of the Kerry campaign offices when I have spare time (and money for gas for the trek towards Boston!), and many of the volunteers who had spoken with undecided Democrat voters (MA is always votes Democratic!! Thank the lord!! :laugh: ) said that many of them had mentioned the endorsement and how they felt for Lieberman. So, I think it is going to affect the campaign just enough to put a sour look on Dean's face.

PS: I think the sealed records of Dean's are going to effect his campaign, too. Some of the comments he's made about those records have been very suspicious and jaw-dropping. OH, and the fact that he turned his home state into a tax shelter for Enron, all the while criticizing Bush about the smae company.

ShamHy89

12-12-2003, 04:32 PM

Check out some of these, maybe you could add one to your sig (same for you Goldie!):

Those bumper stickers are hilarious!!! I can't wait until I can vote, or drive for that matter...:nod: Growing up here in MA, I've been heavily influenced by Democrats and Democratic ideas, and I just joined our Debate Team this year so I have learned SO much about politics. It's amazing and fascinating how many different opinions people have!

Shamus :)

strandinthewind

12-12-2003, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by dissention
There has been drop-off in donations to the Dean campaign, whereas there has been huge spike in donations to the Lieberman camp.

Iowans are mighty put off by the way the endorsement was handled. Many community action groups have come and publicly said that they thought Lieberman got a raw deal and that a lot of their members felt the same.

I say we should wait another week and see how else it's affecting the Dean campaign. As of now, there is quite a lot of resentment towards them for the way the endorsement was made.

I volunteer at one of the Kerry campaign offices when I have spare time (and money for gas for the trek towards Boston!), and many of the volunteers who had spoken with undecided Democrat voters (MA is always votes Democratic!! Thank the lord!! :laugh: ) said that many of them had mentioned the endorsement and how they felt for Lieberman. So, I think it is going to affect the campaign just enough to put a sour look on Dean's face.

PS: I think the sealed records of Dean's are going to effect his campaign, too. Some of the comments he's made about those records have been very suspicious and jaw-dropping. OH, and the fact that he turned his home state into a tax shelter for Enron, all the while criticizing Bush about the smae company.

Thanks - I did not know that.

I know - I do not know what the politicians are going to do about Enron. They all took money from them and, again, Lay is still a free man and multi-millionaire while Americans lost about $50 billion in stock alone and not counting the ripple effects.

P.S. I just reread my post and thought I sounded snippy, which was not my intent. I was just curious because I had not really heard anything, etc. So, sorry if I sounded snippy. :(

dissention

12-12-2003, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
P.S. I just reread my post and thought I sounded snippy, which was not my intent. I was just curious because I had not really heard anything, etc. So, sorry if I sounded snippy. :(

Not to worry. I think we both know each others politics enough to knwo that we aren't intentionally snippy towards each other. :laugh:

strandinthewind

12-12-2003, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by dissention
Not to worry. I think we both know each others politics enough to knwo that we aren't intentionally snippy towards each other. :laugh:

Amen! :cool:

gldstwmn

12-13-2003, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by dissention

PS: I think the sealed records of Dean's are going to effect his campaign, too.

Bet on it. That's why the Republicans can't wait for a shot at him. They know what's in there.

gldstwmn

12-13-2003, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by ShamHy89
Those bumper stickers are hilarious!!! I can't wait until I can vote, or drive for that matter...:nod: Growing up here in MA, I've been heavily influenced by Democrats and Democratic ideas, and I just joined our Debate Team this year so I have learned SO much about politics. It's amazing and fascinating how many different opinions people have!

Shamus :)

Isn't it though? I grew up in Rhode Island and was also heavily influenced by Democratic politics. I still can't believe the state went to Bush in 2000.
Kudos to you on joining the debate team.:)

sodascouts

12-13-2003, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by dissention

PS: I think the sealed records of Dean's are going to effect his campaign, too. Some of the comments he's made about those records have been very suspicious and jaw-dropping. OH, and the fact that he turned his home state into a tax shelter for Enron, all the while criticizing Bush about the smae company.

Careful! He might win the nomination and be the best you've got!

BTW, how tacky was that "raise your hand if you think Howard Dean can win" question of Ted Koppel's at the debate?! What was that supposed to accomplish?!

dissention

12-13-2003, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by sodascouts
BTW, how tacky was that "raise your hand if you think Howard Dean can win" question of Ted Koppel's at the debate?! What was that supposed to accomplish?!

It was meant to embarass Dean. And it succeeded. :nod: :D

gldstwmn

12-13-2003, 02:26 PM

Just a question. Where is Howard Dean getting all this money from anyway?

strandinthewind

12-13-2003, 02:43 PM

Well, I just got back from the luncheon. E. Cummings (sp.?) head of the black Congrssional caucas (sp.?) indicated they were going to endorse Dean later today or tommorow at another speech. Impressive.

Dean is very short. He spoke well and went after the Bush Admin failure to prosecute Ken Lay of Enron which pleased me greatly. I also briefly spoke with Dean. He seemed like a nice enough guy but you could tell he was exhausted (who ouldn't be). He looked me in the eye and was forthright. So, I can say I liked him.

But, we shall see about the vote!!! :cool:

Feel free to ask questions.

strandinthewind

12-13-2003, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Just a question. Where is Howard Dean getting all this money from anyway?

The majority of Howard Dean's money has come from like $100 or smaller donations from people on the iternet. Hence, his popularity. In other words, it is very hard to raise as much money as he has gotten with just these relatively small donations. He also has raised wth dinner, luncheons, etc. But, from what I have read it at least in the beginning was via the net.

strandinthewind

12-13-2003, 02:51 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/13/bush.radio.ap/index.html

Fire Away from both sides - those of us in the middle will take cover :laugh:

strandinthewind

12-13-2003, 05:22 PM

Another article. This one addresses what I was saying about Kerry not looking like he has any passion!!

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/profiles/1214kerry.html

dissention

12-13-2003, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/13/bush.radio.ap/index.html

Fire Away from both sides - those of us in the middle will take cover :laugh:

He seems to be the only "touting" the accomplishments this year. :rolleyes:

Words fail me when it comes to what he said in that address. Words fail me.

He actually seems to wholeheartedly believe that the war in Iraq was a war on terror. Excuse me while I :laugh:.

dissention

12-13-2003, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Well, I just got back from the luncheon. E. Cummings (sp.?) head of the black Congrssional caucas (sp.?) indicated they were going to endorse Dean later today or tommorow at another speech. Impressive.

Dean is very short. He spoke well and went after the Bush Admin failure to prosecute Ken Lay of Enron which pleased me greatly. I also briefly spoke with Dean. He seemed like a nice enough guy but you could tell he was exhausted (who ouldn't be). He looked me in the eye and was forthright. So, I can say I liked him.

But, we shall see about the vote!!! :cool:

Feel free to ask questions.

See, he is inviting the Republicans to eat him alive. He's incredibly stupid if he thinks he can speak about Ken Lay/Enron and not have it brought up that he turned his state into a tax shelter for them.

Did he make any comments about his sealed records, Strandie?

Glad you had a good time, though. But...go to a Kerry fundraiser and you'll have an even better time. :laugh:

strandinthewind

12-13-2003, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by dissention
Words fail me.

Let us hope this is a recurring event :cool:

:laugh:

No - Dean did not discuss the records. He was a good speaker. We shall see what happens in the next few months. Whatever the outcome, it at least will be interesting.

dissention

12-13-2003, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Let us hope this is a recurring event :cool:

:laugh:

:laugh:

What has Bush done, though? He hasn't done anything except makes situations worse and it all started the day he took office. What has he done? He's opposed an increase of $6,000 in benefits to the families whose relatives die in combat, he's gone from having $127 billion in budget surplus to having $374 billion in budget deficit, has worked to downgrade 200 health laws, nine of his Defense Board members sit on the board of a defense contractor, has done nothing to help the 43 million without insurance, cut $300 from federal programs that provide heat to the poor, andhe ignored the Geneva Convention on warfare. Who can say that the "good" outweighs the bad???

And yes, it will be very interesting to see what happens with Dean. :nod:

strandinthewind

12-13-2003, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by dissention
:laugh:

What has Bush done, though? He hasn't done anything except makes situations worse and it all started the day he took office. What has he done? He's opposed an increase of $6,000 in benefits to the families whose relatives die in combat, he's gone from having $127 billion in budget surplus to having $374 billion in budget deficit, has worked to downgrade 200 health laws, nine of his Defense Board members sit on the board of a defense contractor, has done nothing to help the 43 million without insurance, cut $300 from federal programs that provide heat to the poor, andhe ignored the Geneva Convention on warfare. Who can say that the "good" outweighs the bad???

And yes, it will be very interesting to see what happens with Dean. :nod:

I disagree they ignored the Geneva Convention regarding POW's because Al-Q did not really fall under most of the provisions, unless you consider Al-Q as the official army of Afganistan, which Afganistan denied, which changes the situation drastically. In any event, the distinction is without a difference to me because we are the "good guys" and should rise above any situation like Gitmo. But, we did not.

Also, Dean said an interesting thing, that was something to the effect of the new Medicare plan is so good and thought out, it makes you pay like 1,200 before costing you $1,500" or something like that. It was pretty jarring.

Rob67

12-14-2003, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by dissention
He seems to be the only "touting" the accomplishments this year. :rolleyes:

Uh...has any president acted any differently?

Words fail me when it comes to what he said in that address. Words fail me.

He actually seems to wholeheartedly believe that the war in Iraq was a war on terror. Excuse me while I :laugh:.

That would be the difference of ideologies of the parties. Bush and the Republicans feel they are combating terrorism by liberating Iraq. By removing one of the most oppressive regimes in the heartland of terror, they are hoping that the resulting economic and media freedoms will allow a democratic state to prosper there. These freedoms counter the very foundation on which terrorism is based. Hopefully, the resulting prosperity will put pressure on the surrounding nations to follow suit. Much like what happened in Eastern Europe after the Soviet Union collapsed.

This is at least a new policy. Appeasing and coexisting with the regimes in this region was not working as we have seen with both WTC attacks in '93 and '01 along with the hundreds of attacks around the world. At least this administration is trying to do something different and stabalize the region.

So while you are entitled to disagree with those efforts, I haven't heard or seen a better alternative to dealing with terrorism in the long run. I hope it leads to peace. Only history will tell if they were correct.

Rob:cool:

gldstwmn

12-14-2003, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by dissention
:laugh:

And yes, it will be very interesting to see what happens with Dean. :nod:

Especially now.

gldstwmn

12-14-2003, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by Rob67

. Bush and the Republicans feel they are combating terrorism by liberating Iraq. Rob:cool:

That's a lie. Maybe now that they have Mr. Hussein in custody they can ask him where the weapons of mass destruction are hidden and also about his alleged attempt to purchase uranium from Niger. Meanwhile, all we have is a fallen powerless dictator and the guy who killed 3000 of our citizens is still running around out there and his organization is regrouping and growing stronger by the day. You'll forgive me if I don't jump up and down about this recent development. How many people will die in Iraq today? Tomorrow? Next week?

Rob67

12-14-2003, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
That's a lie.

That's an opinion.

Are all Liberals gloom and doom?:confused:

Rob67

12-14-2003, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
How many people will die in Iraq today? Tomorrow? Next week?

Hopefully not that many. But the ones that do will hopefully be sacrificing themselves for the greater good of humanity and the stability of the region. You have to look at this in regards to the long term effects. Again, no better plan to combat terrorism has been presented, only naysaying, so I support the present one as the best answer so far.

Rob:cool:

strandinthewind

12-14-2003, 04:17 PM

I have to agree that post 9/11 and IMO, it was too dangerous to leave SH as the leader of Iraq. Here is why I think that.

SH had had WMD and had used them un the past on other countries as well as his own people. As I mentioned before, the world gave him 11 years to prove he did not have the WMD the world thought he had. The burden was on him, not us. I think it is important to remember SH had to present the inspectors with the evidence of the destroyed WMD. For 11 years he never did. Instead, he sent us on an 11 year cat and mouse game, which was in clear violation with the many mandates and resolutions of the UN over an 11 year perios. Also, all US intelligence and intelligence from pther countries (excluding the nuclear stuff that is false) indicated for the last 11 years that SH had WMD. So, I think once we knew that people who hate us (which SH clearly was) were willing to come over here and blow us up, I think that was enough to say to SH after 11 years enough is enough. The world via the UN said that and SH still did nothing and continued his games of come over here and inspect, but in defiance of the UN, I will show you nothing you ask for. So, the world and we had two choices, let SH stay in power and take a chance on whether he had these WMD or remove him. I think the risk of leaving him in power was too great. So, I say we did the right thing by removing him and SH has no one to blame but himself because he defied the world for 11 years.

Having said that, I think the Bush adminsitration blatantly lied to us to make their case of exigent circumstances (nuclear weapons) and they have made a post-war mess (although capturing SH is a great happening).

My $0.02

gldstwmn

12-14-2003, 04:44 PM

Strand, did you watch Tim Russert this morning? If so what was all the hullabaloo concerning Rumsfeld and Tenet?

gldstwmn

12-14-2003, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by Rob67
That's an opinion.

Are all Liberals gloom and doom?:confused:

Yes it is my opinion and yes death kinda makes me gloomy.

strandinthewind

12-14-2003, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Strand, did you watch Tim Russert this morning? If so what was all the hullabaloo concerning Rumsfeld and Tenet?

Sadly, I missed it. I am going to try and watch the repeat later on tonight. Don't these two hate each other according to rumor?

dissention

12-14-2003, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by Rob67
Are all Liberals gloom and doom?:confused:

They must be. ;)

I find it disheartening to read that some actually think Saddam was a threat to the world or even a specific country. No other country had been under such scrutiny as Iraq and they wouldn't have been able to wipe their asses without us knowing. The fact of the matter is that while they may have had WMDs, they don't anymore. Of course, the Bush administration would have you believe that all of the weapons were detroyed a day prior to the invasion (just as the admin. has said), but you would have to a be fool to believe that. The uranium charge was proven to be a lie, too. So, to save face, the admin. pipes in and says that the war was really about saving the people of Iraq. Yeah...okay. Why now? And why under Shrub? The admin. didn't get support from the UN because they didn't believe in Bush's reasons for war and, IMO, because he used their treaties to sway the minds of the American people (for example, claiming that the US had UN authority to shoot down anything that entered the "no-fly zone." That was a lie.) We can onyl speculate on Bush's true motives for this war, but they certainly weren't for humanitarian reasons or to fight terror. He used 9/11 to push his war on us and, sadly, the US ate it up. Christ, half of our country believes that Saddam was responsible for 9/11! Bush suggested that Saddam was, too.

This is his war, not ours. And has forever tarnished the image of the US.

Edited to Add: I really thought that after 9/11, the US would stop and pause to reflect on what it's done, its way of life, and its actions. Sadly, that didn't happen. Everyone jumped on the bandwagon of "patriotism" and immediately went back to doing everything the same way. It's quite sad, IMO.

Johnny Stew

12-14-2003, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by Rob67
Are all Liberals gloom and doom?:confused: Certainly not me. I'm rather liberal (with a few "conservative" opinions here and there), and I'm probably the most optimistic guy you could hope to meet! :D

Though I'm not one to turn a blind-eye to anything. ;)

Rob67

12-15-2003, 06:15 AM

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Certainly not me. I'm rather liberal (with a few "conservative" opinions here and there), and I'm probably the most optimistic guy you could hope to meet! :D

Though I'm not one to turn a blind-eye to anything. ;)

I think optimism is the road by which things are accomplished. Always watch out for the BS from both sides!

Rob:cool:

Rob67

12-15-2003, 06:26 AM

Originally posted by dissention
They must be. ;)

I find it disheartening to read that some actually think Saddam was a threat to the world or even a specific country. No other country had been under such scrutiny as Iraq and they wouldn't have been able to wipe their asses without us knowing. The fact of the matter is that while they may have had WMDs, they don't anymore. Of course, the Bush administration would have you believe that all of the weapons were detroyed a day prior to the invasion (just as the admin. has said), but you would have to a be fool to believe that. The uranium charge was proven to be a lie, too. So, to save face, the admin. pipes in and says that the war was really about saving the people of Iraq. Yeah...okay. Why now? And why under Shrub? The admin. didn't get support from the UN because they didn't believe in Bush's reasons for war and, IMO, because he used their treaties to sway the minds of the American people (for example, claiming that the US had UN authority to shoot down anything that entered the "no-fly zone." That was a lie.) We can onyl speculate on Bush's true motives for this war, but they certainly weren't for humanitarian reasons or to fight terror. He used 9/11 to push his war on us and, sadly, the US ate it up. Christ, half of our country believes that Saddam was responsible for 9/11! Bush suggested that Saddam was, too.

This is his war, not ours. And has forever tarnished the image of the US.

Edited to Add: I really thought that after 9/11, the US would stop and pause to reflect on what it's done, its way of life, and its actions. Sadly, that didn't happen. Everyone jumped on the bandwagon of "patriotism" and immediately went back to doing everything the same way. It's quite sad, IMO.

Questioning our administration's decisions and policies is every American's right. I think the Bush administration had felt that if the UN wasn't going to enforce its resolutions then somebody should. I am not the biggest fan of how they tried to convince the American people that it was just. They should have just stated their main intent from the beginning, which was to oust Hussein and implement a Democratic state in the Middle East as a way to combat terror in the region, in the long run.

But what are you implying by saying the US should stop and reflect on what it has done?

Are you insinuating that we are at fault for making Islamic Fundamentalists angry and causing them to kill innocent people?

Rob:cool:

strandinthewind

12-15-2003, 06:57 AM

Originally posted by dissention
They must be. ;)

I find it disheartening to read that some actually think Saddam was a threat to the world or even a specific country. No other country had been under such scrutiny as Iraq and they wouldn't have been able to wipe their asses without us knowing. The fact of the matter is that while they may have had WMDs, they don't anymore. Of course, the Bush administration would have you believe that all of the weapons were detroyed a day prior to the invasion (just as the admin. has said), but you would have to a be fool to believe that. The uranium charge was proven to be a lie, too. So, to save face, the admin. pipes in and says that the war was really about saving the people of Iraq. Yeah...okay. Why now? And why under Shrub? The admin. didn't get support from the UN because they didn't believe in Bush's reasons for war and, IMO, because he used their treaties to sway the minds of the American people (for example, claiming that the US had UN authority to shoot down anything that entered the "no-fly zone." That was a lie.) We can onyl speculate on Bush's true motives for this war, but they certainly weren't for humanitarian reasons or to fight terror. He used 9/11 to push his war on us and, sadly, the US ate it up. Christ, half of our country believes that Saddam was responsible for 9/11! Bush suggested that Saddam was, too.

This is his war, not ours. And has forever tarnished the image of the US.

Edited to Add: I really thought that after 9/11, the US would stop and pause to reflect on what it's done, its way of life, and its actions. Sadly, that didn't happen. Everyone jumped on the bandwagon of "patriotism" and immediately went back to doing everything the same way. It's quite sad, IMO.

It wasn't "some" - It was the world through their UN representatives for 11 years as well as the last U.S. administration, which used essentially the same intelligence as the current administration. That France, Russia, and Germany acted on financial reasons to block the war (they wanted to keep their contracts and loans with Iraq intact) was significant and, IMO, caused more bloodshed.

I also disagree and think Bush's reasons were mostly humanitarian for both the Iraqi people and the U.S. citizens. Otherwise why go to such an extreme. One could argue it was to to give Halliburton and Bechtel money. But, certainly money and alot of it could have been given to them via defense contracts, etc., without all of the bloodshed, scrutiny, and drama. So, I have to conclude, the Bush administration sees this as an opportunity to put a democracy in the Middle East. If it works, it will make the U.S. be seen in a better light and perhaps stop the U.S. hatred in the Middle East. I will agree the U.S. and, more importantly, Christianity have caused the Middle East not to like the West. But, the Middle East certainly has done its part to perpetuate that hatred, probably for financial gain just like the far right demonizes gays, liberals, etc., to fill the coffers here in America.

Finally, the U.S. may have a tarnished image to some in the world, but that has not effected our status with the world in many significant areas. For example, there have been no significant embargos on U.S. goods. In fact, quite the contrary has occured. I also wonder if the majority of the people who now hate America did not do so already prior to Iraq conflict.

Food for thought!

Rob67

12-15-2003, 07:50 AM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
It wasn't "some" - It was the world through their UN representatives for 11 years as well as the last U.S. administration, which used essentially the same intelligence as the current administration. That France, Russia, and Germany acted on financial reasons to block the war (they wanted to keep their contracts and loans with Iraq intact) was significant and, IMO, caused more bloodshed.

I also disagree and think Bush's reasons were mostly humanitarian for both the Iraqi people and the U.S. citizens. Otherwise why go to such an extreme. One could argue it was to to give Halliburton and Bechtel money. But, certainly money and alot of it could have been given to them via defense contracts, etc., without all of the bloodshed, scrutiny, and drama. So, I have to conclude, the Bush administration sees this as an opportunity to put a democracy in the Middle East. If it works, it will make the U.S. be seen in a better light and perhaps stop the U.S. hatred in the Middle East. I will agree the U.S. and, more importantly, Christianity have caused the Middle East not to like the West. But, the Middle East certainly has done its part to perpetuate that hatred, probably for financial gain just like the far right demonizes gays, liberals, etc., to fill the coffers here in America.

Finally, the U.S. may have a tarnished image to some in the world, but that has not effected our status with the world in many significant areas. For example, there have been no significant embargos on U.S. goods. In fact, quite the contrary has occured. I also wonder if the majority of the people who now hate America did not do so already prior to Iraq conflict.

Food for thought!

Well said...:nod:

Rob:cool:

dissention

12-15-2003, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by Rob67
But what are you implying by saying the US should stop and reflect on what it has done?

Are you insinuating that we are at fault for making Islamic Fundamentalists angry and causing them to kill innocent people?

Certainly not. I must be guilty of using the wrong wording.

What I meant was that I had hoped that our country would stop and reflect on some of its actions and be more sensitive and understanding of other people. Maybe become more educated on people of other countries, realize how their actions towards people affect that person, and/or not be so ignorant towards the world in general. Instead, there was a week of prayers and talk about how devastating it was, then it turned into a fad where everyone had to have an American flag on their car and everyone was talking about killing all of the "towelheads" and making them suffer. I was appalled at this and, in my eyes, no matter how shook up a person is, they shouldn't be saying stuff like that. It turned into this big revenge-type thing and no one stopped to look at how they were acting or how their country conducted itself in foreign affairs. No one stopped to realize that while the majority of the world prayed for us, a good deal of it still looked down on us. No one educated themselves about why something like the attack happened or why the world had such views about us.

That's what I meant and hopefully it wasn't offensive. :)

Rob67

12-15-2003, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by dissention
Certainly not. I must be guilty of using the wrong wording.

What I meant was that I had hoped that our country would stop and reflect on some of its actions and be more sensitive and understanding of other people. Maybe become more educated on people of other countries, realize how their actions towards people affect that person, and/or not be so ignorant towards the world in general. Instead, there was a week of prayers and talk about how devastating it was, then it turned into a fad where everyone had to have an American flag on their car and everyone was talking about killing all of the "towelheads" and making them suffer. I was appalled at this and, in my eyes, no matter how shook up a person is, they shouldn't be saying stuff like that. It turned into this big revenge-type thing and no one stopped to look at how they were acting or how their country conducted itself in foreign affairs. No one stopped to realize that while the majority of the world prayed for us, a good deal of it still looked down on us. No one educated themselves about why something like the attack happened or why the world had such views about us.

That's what I meant and hopefully it wasn't offensive. :)

You are absolutely right in the fact that the flag waving became a bit silly. And, of course, the "towelhead" jokes and rants were thrown out there by some of the unenlightened.

But, I don't really believe that there is a major ignorance by us towards other people. At least not more then any other country has for us.
Just take a look at the countries where terrorism is rampant. Usually these are poorer countries which have strong dictatorships that control all facets of the economy and media. These regimes are extremely rich (hell, with all the oil in the region, these nations should be the most prosperous on earth!) but the people are kept in check by misinformation ("The evil West is the root of all your problems"). These people live in poverty conditions and are raised to think that their economic plight and culture is the result of US and other western policies. And this is the only information they are allowed to recieve via government controlled media. All the while, their rulers live in huge palaces and live extravagant lives.

You hear this from people who have defected from some of these nations. I knew a kid in college who's family defected from Iran. He said coming here was like a revelation. He couldn't believe that you could publically disagree with the government in this country. Anti-Americanism and anti-West rhetoric is preached from birth. He said those governments want the people to hate the west. I mean, we send billions of dollars in aid to these countries and for what? To pay for new presidential palaces?

Regardless of whether or not you agree or disagree with US foriegn policy, there are people in the world who want to kill you simply because you are American. Perhaps they are the ones who need to learn about other cultures and not be so ignorant.

My two cents, anyway...

Take it easy,

Rob:cool: