The Reagans

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
That point is moot since the UN is having nothing to do with this.

As they shouldn't.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
You are absolutely correct, but the term "war" has been used so freely that I fealt it wouldn't matter in this setting and everyone would get the point. I will now use the term "conflict" instead of war.

The official conflict is over.:)

Rob:cool:

That wasn't my point though. Everyone does call this war. My point was that we shouldn't be comparing this thing to what was an honorable war. We were attacked by the Japanese. That is why we went to war.
We went to "war" in Iraq based on lies. They never attacked us. There was no uranium for the purpose of nuclear weapons, or weapons of mass destruction or 9/11 terrorists. We were in such a hurry to get there, we went without an exit strategy. Why? To shore up our position in the Middle East? What about our good friends Israel, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait? Were they no longer our Middle East allies?
So , I'd appreciate it if people would stop comparing this to WWII. It's disgraceful.
By the way, are we safer today than we were on September 12, 2001 as a result of this?
Also, the "conflict" is far from over. In fact, activity is expected to increase for at least the next couple of days.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
That wasn't my point though. Everyone does call this war. My point was that we shouldn't be comparing this thing to what was an honorable war. We were attacked by the Japanese. That is why we went to war.
We went to "war" in Iraq based on lies. They never attacked us. There was no uranium for the purpose of nuclear weapons, or weapons of mass destruction or 9/11 terrorists. We were in such a hurry to get there, we went without an exit strategy. Why? To shore up our position in the Middle East? What about our good friends Israel, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait? Were they no longer our Middle East allies?
So , I'd appreciate it if people would stop comparing this to WWII. It's disgraceful.
By the way, are we safer today than we were on September 12, 2001 as a result of this?
Also, the "conflict" is far from over. In fact, activity is expected to increase for at least the next couple of days.

I wasn't comparing the war\conflict. I was comparing the rebuilding process of the respective nations which I believe to be similar. Concerning the reasons we went to war in Iraq, see my post on the long term war on terror\stabilizing the Middle East.

The only reason I have heard anyone compare Iraq to WWII (in terms of the conflict itself) is because in both instances we were attacked. Now, I am not sure if Iraq had anything to do with it directly so I, personally, can't make that comparison. But on a similar note, I would appreciate it if people would stop comparing Bush to Hitler. It's disgraceful.

And are we safer today? It is too early to pass judgement. Again, time and history will be the judge of that. We have to see if a stable Democracy will stand in Iraq and what kind of influence it will have on the rest of the Middle East in the years to come.

Rob:cool:

[strandinthewind]

Actually, the Pres. of the U.S. can via the "War Powers Act" pretty much unilaterally engage our armed forces into any hostilities, etc. He should report to Congress, which Bush has done. The War Powers Act is a subject of many many debates. Here is a link to a site for more information http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

and another

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02021101.htm 9this is an opt-ed from Sen. Feingold)

In sum, the War Powers Act in practice if not in intent has usurped the Const.'s clear dictation that Congress declares war. but, no one has challeged it and it has worked on the past for every Pres. since its inception in 1973.

Here is an CNN article on this point an in whichit is acknowleeged that Congress gave Bush the authority to use force in Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/19/sprj.irq.bush/

So, this is properly worded a "war" in that sense and under the Act.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Actually, the Pres. of the U.S. can via the "War Powers Act" pretty much unilaterally engage our armed forces into any hostilities, etc. He should report to Congress, which Bush has done. The War Powers Act is a subject of many many debates. Here is a link to a site for more information http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

and another

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02021101.htm 9this is an opt-ed from Sen. Feingold)

In sum, the War Powers Act in practice if not in intent has usurped the Const.'s clear dictation that Congress declares war. but, no one has challeged it and it has worked on the past for every Pres. since its inception in 1973.


That is a good point, but I still don't think they refer to any engagements officially as a war unless Congress declares. Although, I may be wrong. During the coverage of both Gulf conflicts, the term "War" was used repeatedly.

Rob:cool:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Rob67
That is a good point, but I still don't think they refer to any engagements officially as a war unless Congress declares. Although, I may be wrong. During the coverage of both Gulf conflicts, the term "War" was used repeatedly.

Rob:cool:

I edited as you posted. Although it has not declared a "war," Congress has given Bush the authority to have a war with Iraq as does the War Powers Act.

IMO - no matter what you call it - it is a war to me if our soldiers are there and getting killed.

May they come home soon!

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
At this point it would be a huge mistake to leave Iraq in the turmoil that it is in now. Can you imagine what Germany or even Japan would be like if we left just a few months after the end of WWII?

There has to be a rebuilding and stabilization period. They have to get the country to a point where it is able to operate on its own. I think they are making strides towards that. Just keep in perspective that we had a presence in Japan and Germany for YEARS after the Second World War. Yes it is a different situation, but at the same time, the goals are the same. To leave now would go against everything that was fought for.

Even Bush said the attacks would continue. Fundamentalists from Jordan, Iran, Syria, and other surrounding countries with no particular affiliation to Hussein have taken the opportunity of the war to sneak into Iraq and attack US soldiers. These fighters are part of Al Quida and other militant groups. I think attacks by Suddam loyalists will go down but these other groups will stay active.

This is a big deal. Not often are genocidal dictators taken alive. The trial will be interesting.

Rob
:cool:

I never said to leave Iraq a mess; I said that the UN should take over. The US is, IMO, not the country to rebuild Iraq for obvious reasons.

It is not our country and we have no right to force anything upon the Iraqi people when it comes to their government. If Bush was a truthful man, he would've given the country back to the Iraqi's when they wanted it back. I remember months ago they wanted to install an Islamic government, which makes perfect sense when you consider that over 60% of Iraq ia populated by Shiite Muslims. But we won't do that because we have a vested monetary interest in Iraq.

And I seem to remember many of the war protesters (myself included) screaming about the effects of any action in Iraq from fundamentalist groups and surrounding countries. But no one listened, they called us nuts and screamed we should go after Saddam because of 9/11. And, sorry, I don't believe that Al Qaeda has anything to do with this in Iraq, that's just a untrue.

Bush was trying to save face when he said the attacks would continue because other dimwit government employees from his staff said that the attacks would stop outright now that they have Saddam! But, hey, at least Bush told the truth for once. :laugh:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
IMO - no matter what you call it - it is a war to me if our soldiers are there and getting killed.

And if innocent Iraqi's are being killed because of our imperialism.

:wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
And if innocent Iraqi's are being killed because of our imperialism.

:wavey:

Imperialism Shrimperialism :laugh:

I do not agree that we are imperialistic in this case, but do agree with the spirit of your statement that when people are killed in conflict, it is a war.

Also, I heard on the news yesterday where they found documents indicating M. Atta, allegely the lead organizer of the 9/11 attacks, was trained in Iraq and had connections with SH. I am uncertain if this has been verified, but the documents are there and they commend M. Atta's skills (YIPES!! ). I will try to find out more about this. Note: I heard this in passing - it could be an old story for all I know.

Also, I read where they found secret papers in Saddam Hussein's hiding place that revealed he had regular contact with the leader of the terrorists who oppose the U.S. presence in Iraq. Go here for the article
http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/13596.htm

The plot thickens. :cool:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67

The only reason I have heard anyone compare Iraq to WWII (in terms of the conflict itself) is because in both instances we were attacked. Rob:cool:

Iraq attacked us? Could you elaborate?

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Iraq attacked us? Could you elaborate?

Well, they did attack our ally (sp.?) Kuwait and the current action stems from events brought on by that.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Iraq attacked us? Could you elaborate?


...*sigh*...I have to explain everything! :rolleyes:

By "attacked" I mean 9\11. People who do compare Iraq to WWII are implicating Iraq in the 9\11 attacks. I am not one of those people who would make such a comparison because I haven't seen any direct evidence as such. Although the new Atta info will be interesting to look at.

We now resume you're regularly scheduled programming....

Rob

:cool:

[Rob67]

A humorous article relating to earlier discussions of Bush=Hitler which I happened across. Thought I would share. It gave me a chuckle.

Rob:cool:



The Extreme Sport of Insult
John Leo
Townhall.com
December 15, 2003


The hard left decided long ago that George W. Bush is Hitler. In maddened corners of the Internet and at swastika-choked antiwar marches, Bush is shown with a Nazi uniform or a Hitler mustache. But does everyone on the far left believe this? Not at all. Some think that Dick Cheney is the real Hitler (he commands America’s “storm-trooper legions,” said former right-wing crackpot and current left-wing crackpot Lyndon LaRouche). Others think Don Rumsfeld is Hitler (both men favored mountain_top retreats, the Action Coalition of Taos points out). These comparisons are still being argued. Air Force veteran Douglas Herman, writing an op-ed piece in Florida, says Rumsfeld is more like Goering, since both men were fighter pilots, while LaRouche decided that Cheney isn’t just Hitler -- he’s Lady Macbeth as well.

Many on the left believe that either Ari Fleischer or Karl Rove is Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels. Or maybe Richard Perle is related to Goebbels. The September issue of Vanity Fair suggested that Perle could be Goebbels’s twin (side by side photos, headlined “Separated at birth?”).

Another vexing question about Rove: Is he Goebbels or Josef Mengele? Goebbels is the top choice among antiwar commentators, but a writer to the MetaFilter site said: “Karl Rove made up stories about John McCain, just as Josef Mengele conducted medical experiments on children in Auschwitz.”

One Internet site referred to Tom Ridge as Heinrich Himmler; another calls him head of “Homeland Security, the new Gestapo.” Colin Powell is Nazi Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop, according to a posting on the Democratic Underground site. And Frank Rich of the New York Times managed to work a famous Nazi filmmaker into the mix. He wrote that the recent Showtime docudrama, DC 9/11: Time of Crisis, was so pro-Bush that it is “best viewed as a fitting memorial to Leni Riefenstahl.”

The common charge that Bush is Mussolini is controversial -- many leftists insist that the Mussolini role is reserved for Tony Blair, the junior partner of Bush’s Hitler. Cartoonist Aaron McGruder said on TV that Condoleezza Rice is a murderer but failed to give her any Nazi designation -- a big mistake by prevailing standards. On the same show, NAACP Chairman Julian Bond said, “I generally agree with [McGruder] 100 percent,” but he too failed to offer a good Nazi comparison.

Paul Wolfowitz is a challenge to lefty analysts, some of whom think his intellectual background is fascist (Jeffrey Steinberg in Executive Intelligence Review), while others believe he has Bolshevik roots (he is Trotsky’s ghost, according to Canadian journalist Jeet Heer).

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Well, they did attack our ally (sp.?) Kuwait and the current action stems from events brought on by that.

No hiding the ball.:laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
No hiding the ball.:laugh:

Who Me?????? :wavey: :wavey:

I am sure I do not know what you mean :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
...*sigh*...I have to explain everything! :rolleyes:

By "attacked" I mean 9\11. People who do compare Iraq to WWII are implicating Iraq in the 9\11 attacks. I am not one of those people who would make such a comparison because I haven't seen any direct evidence as such. Although the new Atta info will be interesting to look at.

We now resume you're regularly scheduled programming....

Rob

:cool:

I was just hoping that you had some factual basis for your opinion. The United States was not attacked by Iraq.

[gldstwmn]

The most frightening picture of Ann Coulter yet:

http://www.nypost.com/gossip/gossip.htm


I didn't even recognize her. Has she been eating?

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I was just hoping that you had some factual basis for your opinion. The United States was not attacked by Iraq.

I agree with you in that the US was not attacked directly by Iraq. At least there is no evidence thus far that Hussein backed the Hijackers.


And by the way, since when are facts important to Liberals??? Did I miss something?? ;) :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
I agree with you in that the US was not attacked directly by Iraq. At least there is no evidence thus far that Hussein backed the Hijackers.


And by the way, since when are facts important to Liberals??? Did I miss something?? ;) :laugh:

In case you haven't noticed, every assertion that I have made concerning my political opinions have been fact based.

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
The most frightening picture of Ann Coulter yet:

http://www.nypost.com/gossip/gossip.htm


I didn't even recognize her. Has she been eating?

:eek:

She finally earns the name Coultergeist.

[strandinthewind]

Is that Ann - it does not even look like her. I think its someone else its so different looking.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
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.

But, at the same time, look how low Mortgage rates have been the last few years. The tax cuts were a good idea. The more money I have in my pocket, the more money I can pump into the economy and the less the Govt. can waste on "pork-barrel" programs.

Rob:cool:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Rob67
But, at the same time, look how low Mortgage rates have been the last few years. The tax cuts were a good idea. The more money I have in my pocket, the more money I can pump into the economy and the less the Govt. can waste on "pork-barrel" programs.

Rob:cool:

Pork Barrel spending aside :laugh: , the mortgage rates will go up, while property taxes historically do not go down. Interestingly, I think it is mostly the low mortgage rates and the people refinancing with a cash out option that are boosting the economy. I mean in theory, somone who got their mortgage 10 years ago at 9 % or higher could have refinanced in the last three years at about 5 or 6 % and taken $100,000 out in equity. If that person later lost their job and still had some of the $$$$, they would have sort of a "false job." A somewhat silly example I know, but I am sure it has happened.

But, in the end, I think the tax cuts have played a major role.

[strandinthewind]

HMMM - 40 Billion $$$$$ seems like a good excuse to try and stop the fall of SH regime to me :laugh: Seriously, this article is an interesting read.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/12/16/sprj.irq.france.baker/index.html

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
But, at the same time, look how low Mortgage rates have been the last few years. The tax cuts were a good idea. The more money I have in my pocket, the more money I can pump into the economy and the less the Govt. can waste on "pork-barrel" programs.

Rob:cool:

The tax cuts and the interest rates have nothing to do with one another.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Pork Barrel spending aside :laugh: , the mortgage rates will go up, while property taxes historically do not go down. Interestingly, I think it is mostly the low mortgage rates and the people refinancing with a cash out option that are boosting the economy. I mean in theory, somone who got their mortgage 10 years ago at 9 % or higher could have refinanced in the last three years at about 5 or 6 % and taken $100,000 out in equity. If that person later lost their job and still had some of the $$$$, they would have sort of a "false job." A somewhat silly example I know, but I am sure it has happened.

But, in the end, I think the tax cuts have played a major role.

Interesting points....:nod:

Rob:cool:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Pork Barrel spending aside :laugh: , the mortgage rates will go up, while property taxes historically do not go down. Interestingly, I think it is mostly the low mortgage rates and the people refinancing with a cash out option that are boosting the economy. I mean in theory, somone who got their mortgage 10 years ago at 9 % or higher could have refinanced in the last three years at about 5 or 6 % and taken $100,000 out in equity. If that person later lost their job and still had some of the $$$$, they would have sort of a "false job." A somewhat silly example I know, but I am sure it has happened.

.

For a while it was some people's job. You're not that far off the mark.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
The tax cuts and the interest rates have nothing to do with one another.

OK...so can you directly link how Bush's tax cuts have directly affected the rise in Property Tax?

Not to be picky or anything...;)

Rob:cool:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
HMMM - 40 Billion $$$$$ seems like a good excuse to try and stop the fall of SH regime to me :laugh: Seriously, this article is an interesting read.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/12/16/sprj.irq.france.baker/index.html

That James Baker should be nicknamed Merlin. Now wouldn't I have liked to have been a fly on the wall at the Paris Club.:laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
OK...so can you directly link how Bush's tax cuts have directly affected the rise in Property Tax?

Not to be picky or anything...;)

Rob:cool:

I said the interest rates and the tax cuts are not related. Bush's tax cuts have put more burden on state and local governments and as a direct result, in order to manitain the flow of revenue they are no longer getting from the federal government, they have raised property taxes, among other things, to fill the void. Are you saying that they have raised property taxes for some other reason?

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I said the interest rates and the tax cuts are not related. Bush's tax cuts have put more burden on state and local governments and as a direct result, in order to manitain the flow of revenue they are no longer getting from the federal government, they have raised property taxes, among other things, to fill the void. Are you saying that they have raised property taxes for some other reason?

Pittsburgh, where I live, has had major issues with high Local wage taxes and Property assessments. Pittsburgh has been very "spend" happy and our local economy is terrible.

Here's eleven common reasons why Property tax changes, one being the most obvious:

1. The market value of a property may change

* at least once every four years, each parcel of property is assessed
* each year a sales ratio study is done to determine if the property is assessed similarly to like properties
* you may make additions or improvements to your property

2. The market value of other properties in your taxing district may change, shifting taxes from one property to another

* new construction broadens the tax base
* inflation will make the tax base larger
* in some areas the value of property is going down

3. The city budget and levy may change

4. The town budget and levy may change

5. The county budget and levy may change

* the county must review discretionary and non-discretionary spending
*discretionary spending decisions are made locally
*non-discretionary spending includes federal, state and court mandates

6. The school district’s budget and levy may change

7. A special district’s budget and levy may change

* special districts include: hospital districts, watershed districts, drainage districts, etc…

8. Special assessments may have been added to the tax bill

* water lines, curb and gutter, street overlays are common examples of special assessments


9. Voters may have approved a school, city, town or county referendum

* referendums may be held for construction projects, excess levies for schools and many other purposes
* referendum levies are usually spread on market value and not assessed value


10. The state legislature may have changed class rates for the various types of property, including Residential, Commercial/Industrial, and Agricultural

* a change in class rates will shift the proportionate share of the property taxes that each type of property pays
* a change in class rates will require a change in the tax rate to raise the same amount of money

11. Changes in law may adjust the tax base

* fiscal disparities, personal property taxes on utilities and tax increment financing are example of laws that affect property taxes


Have you seen examples of where Bush's Federal income tax cuts have affected local property tax rates???:confused:

Rob:cool:

[Rob67]

These reasons pertain to Pittsburgh, but I think they are pretty similar throughout the country.

Rob:cool:

[gldstwmn]

I'm familiar with how property taxes are levied. Reasons 3-7 could support my opinion. The budgets of some (most) local governments include federal tax dollars. And while an increase in proeprty value could increase property taxes, many municipalities have seen property values flatline or even decrease post September 11.

http://www.johnmccrory.com/wrote.asp?this=43
More on Bush's “Trickle-Down Tax Increase”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A56160-2003Jul14?language=printer
Budget Woes Trickle Down
Hard-Hit State and Local Governments Say Bush And Congress Left Them to Make Cuts, Raise Taxes
http://www.theindependent.com/stories/060303/new_schoolstaxes03.shtml
Schools considering local tax hikes

http://www.ndol.org/blueprint/2003_number_3/03_shakedown.html
Bush's Tax Shakedown
The president's reckless tax cuts are driving up state and local taxes. Many Americans are paying more than before.

http://www.ctj.org/html/statefx.htm
The Effects of the Bush Tax Cuts on State Tax Revenues

http://dynamic.washtimes.com/print_story.cfm?StoryID=20030619-120558-9253r
Bush's tax cuts add up to zero

The Advocate, Baton rouge LA
January 9, 2003, Thursday, METRO EDITION, 720 words, State, local governments fear effects of Bush's tax breaks, a0803 apsadaal6rn

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/investing/articles/0%2C15114%2C457263%2C00.html
Taxpayer, Beware!

http://www.detnews.com/2001/editorial/0104/08/a13-208162.htm
Bush's tax cut package leaves out some families

http://www.progressive.org/oct03/galb1003.html
Why Bush Likes a Bad Economy

http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/polipro/pp2003-06-06.htm
When the Sun Never Sets
The nefarious effects of Bush's latest tax cut will continue on, and on, and on

http://www.wvhc.drw.net/VoiceFeb02/BushCut.htm
Bush Wants to Cut Funds for West Virginia Rural Counties

http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/feature-commentary/20030113/202/127
Bush Plan Doesn't Add Up

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/../news/cities_squeeze.cfm
Survey: Cities feel fiscal squeeze


I suppose if you wanted to, you could call various county assessor's offices throughout the US and poll them as to why their county has raised taxes
Also, to be fair, while Bush's tax cuts have had no impact on the low interest rates, they could be impacted in the future:
http://www.ufenet.org/research/BushStimulus.html
"The dividend tax cut will raise interest rates.
As dividend-paying stocks become more attractive to investors, people will pull money out of the bond market, leading to higher interest rates. That means higher mortgage and car loan rates, and higher borrowing costs for small businesses and state and local governments."

Strandie is right. The rates are going to go up. However it is unlikely to happen until after the election.
:)

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
That James Baker should be nicknamed Merlin. Now wouldn't I have liked to have been a fly on the wall at the Paris Club.:laugh:

A well paid fly at that!!!!!!! :cool:

[CarneVaca]

Boy, how did I miss this monster?

It's too late to get into this monster, but I will say only this:

Conservatives who identify themselves with Dubya are like the Liberals who identify themselves with Clinton.

In both cases, they are misguided.

[dissention]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Boy, how did I miss this monster?

It's too late to get into this monster, but I will say only this:

Conservatives who identify themselves with Dubya are like the Liberals who identify themselves with Clinton.

In both cases, they are misguided.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

How COULD you miss it?! :confused: :laugh:

[dissention]

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:

I read their propaganda today ("A Year of Accomplishment") and that's exactly what it is: PROPAGANDA. Almost none of it is true, so he has nothing to "tout." It's just a PR realease, IMO.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I'm familiar with how property taxes are levied. Reasons 3-7 could support my opinion. The budgets of some (most) local
Schools considering local tax hikes
Strandie is right. The rates are going to go up. However it is unlikely to happen until after the election.
:)


I appreciate the well of information presented and some of the pieces make some valid points but 90% of the articles listed are Op-Ed pieces written by obviously left-wing reporters who list no references and may have a political ax to grind. And most of the articles are based on pessimistic assumptions.

So in that spirit, I found a few Op-Ed and other pieces from the right wing and other various proponents of the Bush Tax cuts, just to make things fair. I don't really have that much time to spend looking up articles, so please forgive the quantity of references.

My personal argument is based in the idea that if the local and state governments managed their money and spending better, they wouldn't need to rely on federal funding as much. And lets be serious, local financial problems (see, California and PA) have been around before the Bush Tax cuts, as well as Property Tax increases. So to blame the Bush cuts only, is simplistic and unfair. For instance, Pittsburgh has been in financial decline for over a decade and we have been having major issues with flaky assessments affecting rises in Property Taxes throughout the late 90's, '00 & '01. Blaming Property Taxes solely on federal Income Tax cuts is overly simplistic and doesn't take into account other areas such as ill-advised spending and poor budget management.

And, regarding the lost moneis from lowered taxes...what about the increase in State Sales Tax revenue as a result from the improved economy brought on by the Tax Cuts. Corporations have more money to spend which means more jobs will be created which means more taxes will be paid which means the economy will improve. I have an extra couple hundred dollars to put back into the economy this year. And sales tax is at 7% in Allegheny County....


http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.17705/article_detail.asp

* "It's the Spending, Supid!" and other realist information. This is especially true in the city of Pittsburgh where spending is out of control, and the budget has been mismanaged for years.

http://www.theinternetparty.org/commentary/c_s.php?section_type=com&td=20021121100140

* These folks have some interesting ideas about taxes.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2091196/

http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/bushtaxcut.shtml

http://www.e-thepeople.org/article/26740/

http://www.americandaily.com/item/2766

http://www.salestax.org/library/bartlett_2-26-01.html

Rob:cool:

[gldstwmn]

Have fun voting for Bush in 2004. Hope you don't lose your job again.:)

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Have fun voting for Bush in 2004. Hope you don't lose your job again.:)

Actually, getting laid off ended up being one of the best things that has happened to me. I am now with a strong and growing company. The economy is looking up and we are already seeing increased spending by our clients.

THings are looking up. Thanks for the concern!

Rob:cool:

Oh, BTW, I am not the biggest fan of Mr. Bush. I am sure there are better alternatives, but if I could only choose from the Democratic candidates, I don't see one.

[gldstwmn]

http://money.cnn.com/2003/12/17/pf/q_nomorework/index.htm?cnn=yes

Vanishing jobs

Structural change in the economy means many jobs are never going to come back.
December 18, 2003: 1:32 PM EST
Leslie Haggin Geary, CNN/Money staff writer

New York (CNN/Money) – If Smokestack America has a geographic center, it may be Kannapolis, N.C. That's where locals used to produce sheets, towels and other linens at the Pillowtex manufacturing plant.

That was before this past summer, when Pillowtex went bankrupt, shuttered 16 plants and eliminated 5,500 jobs in North Carolina.

The closing made the town of Kannapolis – a community of some 39,000 souls and birthplace of NASCAR legend Dale Earnhardt -- home to the biggest single job loss at a U.S. textile plant ever. It was also the most sweeping layoff in North Carolina history.

Kannapolis's job losses may cut wide and deep, but it's not the only community that's witnessed job losses in recent years.

Since 2001, some 2.9 million private sector jobs have been lost, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Many of those jobs won't ever return, even as the economy recovers, say experts. What's more, this isn't just true for blue-collar workers at places like Pillowtex.

"It's starting to happen in high-tech professions which we felt were 'ours,'" says Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at Global Insights, a consulting firm. "That's what's shocking people."

Automated? Outta here
An August Federal Reserve study estimates that as many as 79 percent of jobs are in industries where jobs have been lost forever, a phenomenon Fed economists call "structural change."

Another estimate by Forester Research goes into more specifics. Forrester estimates that by 2015, some 3.3 million service-sector jobs will be shipped overseas or rendered obsolete by technology. Forester analyst John McCarthy says jobs that are most at risk require fewer skills, are automated or are highly portable.

Those include computer programming and software engineer jobs, that have long been leaving the country. By 2015, 26 percent of those jobs will be gone, says McCarthy.

Clerical jobs, like accounts receivable and payable, financial research, data-entry and various administrative services also are vulnerable since their tasks are either becoming automated or can be performed by less-expensive workers somewhere else.


Even government jobs are getting farmed out, albeit far more slowly, says Gartner Group's government analyst Rashid Sood.

"Off-shoring is a political hot potato," notes Sood.

Hot, but not verboten.

In Washington, for example, the state's Health Care Authority recently awarded a $3 million job to contractor Health Access, which outsourced computer-programming jobs to India.

The HCA needed to upgrade a computer system used to track participant's in the state's insurance program. It wanted $5.4 million to get the job done but state lawmakers granted a budget of $3.6 million for the task, said agency spokesman Dave Wasser.

"They were the lowest bidder that met all the criteria," Wasser said. "Going overseas was part of what got them the bid lower."

Manufacturing still feels most pain
While things may be tougher for white-collar workers, it's still the men and women in manufacturing jobs who are most affected by structural change. Of the 2.9 million private-sector jobs that have been lost since 1991, a full 2.56 million are from manufacturing.

Robert DuPree, vice president of government relations at American Textile Manufacturers Institute, contends that inexpensive imports from China are to blame for the demise of American textiles. "We're in a fight for survival, and it's not getting better," he says.

(In fact, political pressure over jobs recently prompted the Bush administration to impose punitive tariffs on certain Chinese products. Click here to read more on that subject.)

One out of every three textile jobs, like those at Pillowtex, that were filled back in 1997 – when some 656,000 workers were employed by the industry – is now gone, according to Labor Department figures. This year alone, the industry shed 49,500 jobs.

Things aren't much better for the men and women who make clothing. Even that quintessentially American company, Levi Strauss, closed its last U.S. production plant this September.

It's not alone. Since 1994, the apparel industry has shrunk by 35 percent – from 848,800 jobs to 550,900 jobs today, Labor Department figures show.

The future doesn't look bright, either. "These apparel textile jobs aren't coming back," says Mark Levinson, chief economist at UNITE, the trade union for apparel and textile workers. "Once they're gone, they're gone."

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
The future doesn't look bright, either. "These apparel textile jobs aren't coming back," says Mark Levinson, chief economist at UNITE, the trade union for apparel and textile workers. "Once they're gone, they're gone."

Quite sad, but the fact of the matter is that labor overseas comes at a fraction of the cost. In an age where companies are making survival cuts, outsourced employment unfortunately becomes an necessary evil.

This is especially true in my industry. I am an Account Executive in the Computer Hardware industry and our software clients are increasingly looking for ways to cut costs. Hence, programming jobs are being shipped to places like India. Even Dell outsourced their phone support call centers overseas.

The working force needs to adapt much like it did with the advent of the assembly lines and automated machinery.

Rob:cool:

[Rob67]

A great article in today's paper about local economies and taxes...And how's that for a biased title to an article...


House OKs Pittsburgh oversight panel; GOP-backed bill bars new revenues for city

Friday, December 19, 2003

By Tom Barnes, Post-Gazette Harrisburg Bureau

HARRISBURG -- The state Legislature is one step closer to creating a fiscal oversight committee to try to straighten out Pittsburgh's financial mess.

After two hours of impassioned debate yesterday, House members voted 116-79 to approve "tough love" legislation that calls for a five-member, state-appointed board to recommend ways to trim city spending, including possibly merging services with Allegheny County or turning them over to private firms.

But the Republican-backed bill, strongly opposed by Mayor Tom Murphy, doesn't allow any new revenues for the city and bans the use of a commuter wage tax.

It would prohibit the city from using Act 47, a 1987 state law for financially distressed cities, which allows a city to seek court approval for a wage tax on suburbanites.

"The city is not financially distressed. It's financially irresponsible," said state Rep. Tom Stevenson, R-Mt. Lebanon.

Republican lawmakers, in the majority in the House, accused Murphy and other city officials of mismanaging city finances for years and then asking the Legislature to bail them out by opening up the possibility of a wage tax.

"A lot of legislators, including some Democrats from Allegheny and other counties, aren't enthralled about a commuter tax," said state Rep. Jeff Habay, R-Shaler.

The bill must now go back to the Senate, perhaps as early as today, because it differs slightly from an oversight bill the Senate approved last month.

The measure the House passed yesterday was authored by state Sen. Jane Orie, R-McCandless, and Senate approval is expected.

Then it would go to Gov. Ed Rendell, who has vowed to veto any bill that doesn't give Pittsburgh some sort of additional revenue-raising ability.

But Habay and state Rep. Mike Turzai, R-Bradford Woods, say they haven't given up on Rendell signing the bill.

"We're taking it one step at a time," said Turzai. "You don't draft legislation solely on what you think the governor will sign. You draft legislation because you think it's the right thing."

If the oversight board were to start its work in January, it would have 90 days to recommend ways to cut city spending.

The board could recommend new tax ideas to the Legislature, but at least four of the five board members would have to agree on that step.

Murphy has already asked the state to grant Act 47 status to the city.

Turzai said he thinks the Orie bill "trumps" that request, but said the question could end up in court if the state approves Act 47 status before the bill is signed into law.

Legislative Republicans said the city still has revenue-raising options it hasn't used, such as higher wage taxes on city residents, increased property taxes, or a new garbage collection fee, so it shouldn't look to suburban residents for revenue.

But Democrats, such as state Rep. Dan Frankel of Squirrel Hill, said the city's current tax structure is outdated and unfair and that the city cannot burden its residents with more taxes.

He said the city's population has declined from about 650,000 residents in the 1950s to about 330,000 now, and many of them are older and on limited incomes, so its tax base is narrow.

Frankel contended that many businesses are exempt from paying the business privilege tax, many nonprofit organizations don't pay any taxes, and people who work in the city pay only a $10 annual occupation tax, unchanged for 40 years.

Frankel said he didn't oppose creation of an oversight board and welcomed any cost-cutting ideas it comes up with. But he said that additional taxes on city residents "would be the death knell for the city."

"There is an umbilical cord between Pittsburgh and communities not just in Allegheny County but in other parts of southwest Pennsylvania," he said. "The city is entitled to have a fair tax system. All citizens in the city and region have a stake in the city's financial future."

State Rep. Jake Wheatley, D-Hill District, pleaded in vain to fellow legislators.

"No one wants to be for imposing taxes, but we need help," he said. "I am asking for mercy from my colleagues, to get this done in a way that's fair, in a way that we can all share this pain."

Turzai said the Legislature has helped the city out in the past, yet its financial problems have continued.

He noted the 1 percent county sales tax approved in 1994, which gives about $15 million to Pittsburgh annually, plus additional funds for city parks and libraries through the Regional Asset District.

He said the state gave the city pension aid in 1998 and then $150 million to build the new stadiums in 1999, yet the city comes back for more, asking for a 3 percent car rental tax in 2003.

"The city hasn't made efficient use of its resources and shouldn't shift taxes to the shoulders of nonresidents," Habay said.

[strandinthewind]

Lest I let this thread die . . .

Here is an article discussing Bush and how some regard him the same as Hitler.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107426,00.html

Personally, I think this is not smart of whomever is putting this ad out. I mean anyone who already thinks Bush is the next Hitler will already not vote for Bush. As we have seen in this thread, comparing Bush to Hitler and the horrors of Nazism is exxagerated although some similarities exist (if you do not know what I mean go back and read the thread :cool: ).

Food For Thought!

[gldstwmn]

I want George Soros (Moveon.org) to save his money for the actual campaign. He'll probably give them more in due time though.
Apparently Jack Rosen owns the word "Hitler" just like Fox News owns "fair and balanced."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/010704A.shtml

That Pesky Bush-Hitler Thing

" The worst has to be Newsweek's Poland bureau. The story they published titled "The Bush Family and Nazis" was completely out of left field. Who cares that the story states "The Bush family reaped the benefits of slave labor in the Auschwitz concentration camp"?"

[gldstwmn]

http://truthout.org/docs_04/010704I.shtml

White House Seeks Secrecy on Detainee


" Bellahouel, an Algerian who worked as a waiter in South Florida, came under FBI (news - web sites) scrutiny because hijackers Mohamed Atta and Marwan al Shehhi dined where he worked in the weeks before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

He was among hundreds of foreigners rounded up after the hijackings. The government has refused to release names and information about the detentions, arguing that a blanket secrecy policy is needed to protect national security."

[greatdarkwing]

Hey there...

I normally stay out of political arguments, but I had to ask a question about the candidates....

First off, I am Republican (ducks, lol)(I am Cuban-American; this might explain why I vote Republican). I was just curious and wanted to throw this question out there to get a response...

Out of all the Democratic candidates, which do you HONESTLY feel could beat Bush? It seems lke the mud-slinging going on in the primary run seems to be hurting all the candidates....I will say this....I like Lieberman, I saw him on Hardball, and I feel he is very much a great politician and a down-to-earth human being.

Now the reason I ask this is because for most politicians to get elected, they have to take the turn towards the "middle". I look at Dean, and I see anger, and it doesn't look to me like he is shifting his position to try to sway the "middle".

Now, if you look at what Hilary has done by supporting the war, and what not, she has put herself in the middle...and is setting herself up for the 2008 presidential run (which she will probably win, as Republicans don't really have a "shining star"...maybe Guiliani ).

So, back to my question....Will Howard Dean need to shift to the middle to win the voters, and if you dont like Dean, who else do you think could take the White House in '04, cause it seems the President has been picking up steam in the past few months with the economy and Saddam.

Thanks, and I hope to have a civilzed discussion...which you can't have on most boards...

~Alex

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by greatdarkwing
Hey there...

I normally stay out of political arguments, but I had to ask a question about the candidates....

First off, I am Republican (ducks, lol)(I am Cuban-American; this might explain why I vote Republican). I was just curious and wanted to throw this question out there to get a response...

Out of all the Democratic candidates, which do you HONESTLY feel could beat Bush?

~Alex

He doesn't have my vote now, but I think Clark. The public likes good-looking military men who talk peace. Actually, the public usually likes the good-looking candidates, period.
Not that I'm cynical or anything, mind you.:rolleyes:
And I don't think Lieberman has any chance.

- Jake

[strandinthewind]

Joe L. has no chance because America for the foreseeable future will never elect a Jewish President. I am not saying that is right, I am just saying that is my perception. Also, Joe L. is too associated with the last election happenings, which I think many people are loath to revisit.

The D nomination will go to either Dean (most likely at this point but much can happen between now and then) or, in order, Kerry, Clark, or Gephardt (a longer shot than the first two). IMO Dean is the best D candidate because he has stirred the D and has a large following. If he was perceived as being in the middle, he could not have done this. I base this on the centrist positions of Kerry and Gephardt, which essentially have gotten them nowhere fast.

Interestingly, Dean is not that far to the left on what people perceive as main left issues. Similar to the right, Dean is for the right to own a gun, against gay marriage (but for the more centrist "civil union" concept)," and for less taxes and less govt. (note they all say less govt. so that really is not an issue I even listen to anymore). So, I think Dean is far more centrist than he is made out to be by the right media and it is in the interest of the far right media to demonize Dean as a radical because once labelled as such, people will not stop identifying him as such.

[dissention]

Originally posted by greatdarkwing
Hey there...

I normally stay out of political arguments, but I had to ask a question about the candidates....

First off, I am Republican (ducks, lol)(I am Cuban-American; this might explain why I vote Republican). I was just curious and wanted to throw this question out there to get a response...

Out of all the Democratic candidates, which do you HONESTLY feel could beat Bush? It seems lke the mud-slinging going on in the primary run seems to be hurting all the candidates....I will say this....I like Lieberman, I saw him on Hardball, and I feel he is very much a great politician and a down-to-earth human being.

Now the reason I ask this is because for most politicians to get elected, they have to take the turn towards the "middle". I look at Dean, and I see anger, and it doesn't look to me like he is shifting his position to try to sway the "middle".

Now, if you look at what Hilary has done by supporting the war, and what not, she has put herself in the middle...and is setting herself up for the 2008 presidential run (which she will probably win, as Republicans don't really have a "shining star"...maybe Guiliani ).

So, back to my question....Will Howard Dean need to shift to the middle to win the voters, and if you dont like Dean, who else do you think could take the White House in '04, cause it seems the President has been picking up steam in the past few months with the economy and Saddam.

Thanks, and I hope to have a civilzed discussion...which you can't have on most boards...

~Alex

Howard Dean isn't liberal, he's conservative masquerading as a Democrat. He already leans to the right and so far, it's done him good. But I don't like the man one bit. When he gets the nomination, and he will, he will be *crucified*. The Republicans are just dying to get their hands on him; he's the one they want.

If presidential elections were fair to all of the candidates, I would say that Braun, Kucinich, and Sharpton would have great shots at beating Bush. They have much better ideas and views than any of the others (and they are liberals to the bone, thank the lord!), but they lack the money of the others, which puts them at a serious disadvantage. So right now, I think that the ones who have the best shot to beat Bush are Dean (ugh), Kerry, and Clark. I don't think Lieberman being Jewish has anyhting to do with the race, he just isn't a good candidate.

If a Democrat wins this election, Hillary will not run in 2008, the incumbent will win. But if Giuliani runs in 2012, I'm outta here. My ass is high-tailing it up North to Canada. I shudder to think what our country would be like after eight years of Bush and then lord know how many with Giuliani; it would be like living in hell on earth.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
The D nomination will go to either Dean (most likely at this point but much can happen between now and then) or, in order, Kerry, Clark, or Gephardt (a longer shot than the first two). IMO Dean is the best D candidate because he has stirred the D and has a large following. If he was perceived as being in the middle, he could not have done this. I base this on the centrist positions of Kerry and Gephardt, which essentially have gotten them nowhere fast.

The thing with Dean is that he's a Republican in a Democrat's clothing. Besides for his "opinion" on the war in Iraq, he's deathly conservative. He's been becoming more so since the early nineties. But what he does is trick people with his anti-war comments into thinking that he's the great white hope, the last chance at a true liberal Democrat in the White House. It ain't so, folks. He's a Republican who wants to ride the anti-war waves into office. He thinks he'll get the votes from the far-left liberals that way, but he won't. He already doesn't have my vote and I wouldn't have even voted for him in Vermont for governor.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by greatdarkwing
Hey there...


Out of all the Democratic candidates, which do you HONESTLY feel could beat Bush?
~Alex

Wesley Clark.
BTW, I'm not surprised that you are a Cuban Republican. The Pub's are quite Marxist, IMO.;) :laugh:
Also, if Pat Buchanan decides to run again and he has been making noise recently, it could hurt Bush. I think anything is possible at this point. I think he's in for a close race. I don't like what I'm reading about the Diebold voting machines they are going to use either. Diebold was a major Bush campaign contributor.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5479.htm

President Bush Served Friday With Personal 9-11 RICO Complaint

"Berg told TomFlocco.com "the multiple summonses and complaints were filed last week in Philadelphia; and they require an answer within 60 days," adding "we feel confident that we'll be successful, and that the evidence in this case is so strong, it will lead to the end of the Bush presidency."

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Wesley Clark.
BTW, I'm not surprised that you are a Cuban Republican. The Pub's are quite Marxist, IMO.;) :laugh:

Although I do not know every Cuban-American, I think many Cuban Americans became Republicans after the whole Reno v. Gonzales case.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5479.htm

President Bush Served Friday With Personal 9-11 RICO Complaint

"Berg told TomFlocco.com "the multiple summonses and complaints were filed last week in Philadelphia; and they require an answer within 60 days," adding "we feel confident that we'll be successful, and that the evidence in this case is so strong, it will lead to the end of the Bush presidency."

We shall see, Bush and his team have been highly successful at deflecting things like this and I think few actually get what went on here or care that much about it. Also, it relates to the preconceived notion many Americans have that "if Bush says it - it must be so" regarding defense.

Having said that, spin is everything - and I am sure the left will play it for what it is worth.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
We shall see, Bush and his team have been highly successful at deflecting things like this and I think few actually get what went on here or care that much about it. Also, it relates to the preconceived notion many Americans have that "if Bush says it - it must be so" regarding defense.

Having said that, spin is everything - and I am sure the left will play it for what it is worth.

The utter complacency of our society both frightens and saddens me.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
The utter complacency of our society both frightens and saddens me. :nod: :nod:

And - it comes from otherwise IMO intelligent people. :laugh:

I think war is just so unpleasant that people just do not want to think about it too much. And, people get this sort of "blind patriotism" and believe everything that comes out of the leader's mouth. Also, talk radio, which is mostly highly conservative, drums this thought pattern/process into the heads of Americans across the country everyday for like three hours a day.

Finally, I have always maintained that to be a "liberal" or, perhaps better phrased, to be one to assert that all people deserve an even playing field despite any personal hastred/prejudice/etc. you have to be willing to think past yourself, which most cannot do. A good example is gays in the military. Absolutely no empirical evidence even suggests it would be the catastrophic thing people imagine; in fact, Australia and Great Britian allow gays in the military and they fight along side of Americans as we speak. Yet, a significant number of Americans hate or are disgusted by gay people. So, they cannot get over that hatred and/or disgust to even consider the evidence that completely belies the any credibility their argument may have. :cool:

[greatdarkwing]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Although I do not know every Cuban-American, I think many Cuban Americans became Republicans after the whole Reno v. Gonzales case.

Actually, Cuban Americans are probably one of the few, if not only, minority groups who vote Republican...although the Elian case was a contributing fact in reaffirming it (the main reason why Reno was NOT elected Governor in '02)...it all started with the failed Bay of Pigs....

I recently attended a seminar sponsored by the Bush team for the '04 relection (for future law/political experiences) and they presented some pretty interesting statistics. Actually, there were many Democrats who were there as well. It was interesting to note, that the ONLY minority group the Republicans are not worrying about is the Cuban American vote, which is usually 94% Republican....not the same of other Hispanic populations...in fact, it is the opposite.

If you are interested in politics, or just to gain some insight, I suggest you attend a political meeting. The statistics can be sometimes jarring!

~Alex
~Alex

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
:nod: :nod:

And - it comes from otherwise IMO intelligent people. :laugh:

I think war is just so unpleasant that people just do not want to think about it too much. And, people get this sort of "blind patriotism" and believe everything that comes out of the leader's mouth. Also, talk radio, which is mostly highly conservative, drums this thought pattern/process into the heads of Americans across the country everyday for like three hours a day.

Finally, I have always maintained that to be a "liberal" or, perhaps better phrased, to be one to assert that all people deserve an even playing field despite any personal hastred/prejudice/etc. you have to be willing to think past yourself, which most cannot do. A good example is gays in the military. Absolutely no empirical evidence even suggests it would be the catastrophic thing people imagine; in fact, Australia and Great Britian allow gays in the military and they fight along side of Americans as we speak. Yet, a significant number of Americans hate or are disgusted by gay people. So, they cannot get over that hatred and/or disgust to even consider the evidence that completely belies the any credibility their argument may have. :cool:

If these people had thought through their hatred, they'd be sending gays off to fight & risk their lives, you'd think. (NOT that this is something I'd advocate, by any means!) It's like that comedian who said that we straight guys should be taking the gays out to dinner out of gratitude that there's less competition to get the hot women.:)
Prejudice knows no logic.

- Jake

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by greatdarkwing
Actually, Cuban Americans are probably one of the few, if not only, minority groups who vote Republican...although the Elian case was a contributing fact in reaffirming it (the main reason why Reno was NOT elected Governor in '02)...it all started with the failed Bay of Pigs....

~Alex

I have an older friend who's active in the Democratic Party. She mentioned that Houston Chinese and Arabs are increasingly Republican. I'm not sure how true this trend is outside this city, or how much is a reflection of who happens to be in the White House today.

- Jake

[greatdarkwing]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
I have an older friend who's active in the Democratic Party. She mentioned that Houston Chinese and Arabs are increasingly Republican. I'm not sure how true this trend is outside this city, or how much is a reflection of who happens to be in the White House today.

- Jake

I wouldn't doubt it....its just inetresting to see such a large percentage of Cuban-Americans vote Republican...competely opposite to every other minority group.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by greatdarkwing
Actually, Cuban Americans are probably one of the few, if not only, minority groups who vote Republican...although the Elian case was a contributing fact in reaffirming it (the main reason why Reno was NOT elected Governor in '02)...it all started with the failed Bay of Pigs....

~Alex

Personally, I never got the big deal about Elian Gonzales or at least why Cuban Americans did not want to return the minor child to his father. I mean I get that Castro is a horrible person, esp. in the eyes of Cuban-Americans, but the kid's father wanted him to come back. I know the argument that Castro was influencing the father, but the father came here and there is no reason to think America would not have granted the father and Elian the right to stay here as they do many other refugees. I also know the relatives of the father were still in Cuba, but that argument is just too attenuated for me to buy.

Then, when that Miami family defied the Fed. Govt. for several days if memory serves me correctly, it is beyond me how they were shocked when the Govt. acted to enforce the law. I mean if you defy the law - you have to be willing to accept the consequences of your actions.

I agree it was a bad scene, but I "blame" (for want of a better word :cool: ) that family in Miami for not abiding by the law, which clearly was on Reno and the INS' side (the INS rules give them plenary authority in these areas). Did they think the govt. was just going to say "Oh well, you lost in court and we won AND the kid's father wants him back, but you go ahead and keep him - no one will notice" :laugh: I mean that family was kidnapping that child according to most states' kidnapping laws.

All I know is that if that was my kid, I would expect a foreign govt. to give him back. If they did not, I would expect the U.S. to go and get him back for me.

Note: I know this is a sensitive topic. So, I proffer my comments in the spirit of friendly discussion :)

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by greatdarkwing
It was interesting to note, that the ONLY minority group the Republicans are not worrying about is the Cuban American vote, which is usually 94% Republican....not the same of other Hispanic populations...in fact, it is the opposite.


~Alex
~Alex

...which explains some of today's insane do nothing "immigration plan." :)

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
...which explains some of today's insane do nothing "immigration plan." :)

I actually like the somewhat related fingerprinting thing. I think it is a logical way to keep track of people in a way that really cfannot be altered like a passport can be fake, etc.

[greatdarkwing]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Personally, I never got the big deal about Elian Gonzales or at least why Cuban Americans did not want to return the minor child to his father. I mean I get that Castro is a horrible person, esp. in the eyes of Cuban-Americans, but the kid's father wanted him to come back. I know the argument that Castro was influencing the father, but the father came here and there is no reason to think America would not have granted the father and Elian the right to stay here as they do many other refugees. I also know the relatives of the father were still in Cuba, but that argument is just too attenuated for me to buy.

Then, when that Miami family defied the Fed. Govt. for several days if memory serves me correctly, it is beyond me how they were shocked when the Govt. acted to enforce the law. I mean if you defy the law - you have to be willing to accept the consequences of your actions.

I agree it was a bad scene, but I "blame" (for want of a better word :cool: ) that family in Miami for not abiding by the law, which clearly was on Reno and the INS' side (the INS rules give them plenary authority in these areas). Did they think the govt. was just going to say "Oh well, you lost in court and we won AND the kid's father wants him back, but you go ahead and keep him - no one will notice."

All I know is that if that was my kid, I would expect a foreign govt. to give him back. If they did not, I would expect the U.S. to go and get him back for me.

Note: I know this is a sensitive topic. So, I proffer my comments in the spirit of friendly discussion :)

Thanks for that last note...I know political discussions can get out of hand....Thank you for being poilte about it :)

About Elian.....I was 50/50 on it.....the problem is that I KNOW for a fact how terrible Fidel Castro is. Recently I had an uncle who was killed in Cuba for trying to smuggle meat off of the black market. For me, it was the most horrible news I could have ever recieved. All he was trying to do was save his family from hunger....I am teary-eyed right now even recalling this.(This happened 6 months ago). I also have an aunt who has had to have BOTH her legs amputated because she could not get proper medical attention. I KNOW the horrors of this man. Let me say that first. So, it would be no surprise of him "playing games" with Elian's Father. Interesting note....you might remember both his grandparents coming to visit Elian...they came COMPLETELY SEPERATE from his father...Wanna guess why? They could all stay, but by preventing all of them traveling together, they prevented that.

On the other hand, If I were his father, I'd be pissed. I was only 15 at the time as well....Miami errupted...I'll never forget it...everyone was so distraught...whether or not you wanted him to stay, you really felt bad for this boy..

~Alex

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by greatdarkwing

About Elian.....I was 50/50 on it.....the problem is that I KNOW for a fact how terrible Fidel Castro is. Recently I had an uncle who was killed in Cuba for trying to smuggle meat off of the black market. For me, it was the most horrible news I could have ever recieved. All he was trying to do was save his family from hunger....I am teary-eyed right now even recalling this.(This happened 6 months ago). I also have an aunt who has had to have BOTH her legs amputated because she could not get proper medical attention.
~Alex

:distress: :distress:

- Jake

[greatdarkwing]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
:distress: :distress:

- Jake

I dont think words can express my anguish and the ANGER i have towards that man....the people in that country are SICK of it....Nothing makes me sadder than to think about it...

~Alex

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I actually like the somewhat related fingerprinting thing. I think it is a logical way to keep track of people in a way that really cfannot be altered like a passport can be fake, etc.

I agree, the fingerprinting thing is a fine idea. However, the reason I am calling this "do nothing' is that I think that only a small percentage of them are actually going to submit to this.:)

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by greatdarkwing
I dont think words can express my anguish and the ANGER i have towards that man....the people in that country are SICK of it....Nothing makes me sadder than to think about it...

~Alex

How do you feel about the sanctions?

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by greatdarkwing
I dont think words can express my anguish and the ANGER i have towards that man....the people in that country are SICK of it....Nothing makes me sadder than to think about it...

~Alex

The kind of anger that comes from knowing that this man wronged you and yours, but no justice can be expected. I can't even imagine.:(

- Jake

[greatdarkwing]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
How do you feel about the sanctions?

Once again 50/50...Yes, I feel they do worsen the situation, but yet I could not imagine one more penny heading in Castro's pocket....Its just such a terrible situation...My family and I have been WAITING for the bastard to die...but he just seems to live on and on....funyn how the people who DESERVE to die never do...

~Alex

[greatdarkwing]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
The kind of anger that comes from knowing that this man wronged you and yours, but no justice can be expected. I can't even imagine.:(

- Jake

No Justice....except the fall of Communism once and for all in the Western Hemisphere after his death....might not be justice, but just as sweet.

~Alex

[greatdarkwing]

BTW, thank you for helping to keep things civilized...I know we disagree politically...and it feels good to be able to have a a great discussion...

~Alex

P.S. Your understanding has made me confident to tell my story....I never thought I would tell it. I feared people would never understand...

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by greatdarkwing
Once again 50/50...Yes, I feel they do worsen the situation, but yet I could not imagine one more penny heading in Castro's pocket....Its just such a terrible situation...My family and I have been WAITING for the bastard to die...but he just seems to live on and on....funyn how the people who DESERVE to die never do...

~Alex

I know. I think we should have overthrown Castro or paid someone to do it :cool: years ago. Or, we should have bought Cuba from Castro years ago and made it a territory like P.R. Although I am unsure whether the Cubans would have liked that, I am sure they would be better off now. I mean I know American healthcare has its problems, but certainly it is better than the Cuban system that harmed your relative.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
I don't think Lieberman being Jewish has anyhting to do with the race, he just isn't a good candidate.



You have been living on the liberal east coast for too long my friend. There are people out there in middle America who won't vote for Lieberman because he is Jewish just like they won't vote for Carol or Sharpton because they are black. Some people are completely freaked out by anyone but a white man being the president of this country.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by greatdarkwing
Once again 50/50...Yes, I feel they do worsen the situation, but yet I could not imagine one more penny heading in Castro's pocket....Its just such a terrible situation...My family and I have been WAITING for the bastard to die...but he just seems to live on and on....funyn how the people who DESERVE to die never do...

~Alex

Once again it reinforces my belief that we are in hell. That's a whole other thread, though.:)
Won't his son take over once he dies? I guess if it were me, it would piss me off that my government (US) just does nothing about it. Are they complicit in some way?

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
You have been living on the liberal east coast for too long my friend. There are people out there in middle America who won't vote for Lieberman because he is Jewish just like they won't vote for Carol or Sharpton because they are black. Some people are completely freaked out by anyone but a white man being the president of this country.
:nod: :nod:

I think you neabt a white male WASP, because, if memory serves me correctly, Kennedy was the only Catholic President. And even then, people were questioning whether a "Papist" could give his allegence to two factors. They thought the Pope would control America. Interestingly, in about 1533, i.e. about 400 years ago, people were still making this argument; in fact Henry VIII used, inter alia, it as the reason to form the Church of England of which he was head.

Also, there is the argument that as Jewish President would through the state of Israel into chaos because the Arabs could never consider a Jewish President of the U.S. as neutral (like the R and D Christians are any better :laugh: ) .

[greatdarkwing]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Once again it reinforces my belief that we are in hell. That's a whole other thread, though.:)
Won't his son take over once he dies? I guess if it were me, it would piss me off that my government (US) just does nothing about it. Are they complicit in some way?

His son will TRY to take over...There have been rumors running around since the 70's that there are plans for the day Castro dies....I guess that means we will go into the island to prevent his Son from taking over. This does make sense....it is a liability to have a communist nation like Cuba only 90 miles from our shore. (Cuban Missle Crisis) Even if we dont go in there, I am sure the government will be overthrown...the only reason you see so many people at his speeches is b/c the people in the surrounding areas are FORCED (You have to check in....if not you are considered anti-revolutionary and are sent to trial....yes folks...for not attending his rallies) to go to these speeches. The people have had it, and you can expect the government to probably fall on the pressure of the people.

~Alex

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
:nod: :nod:

I think you neabt a white male WASP, because, if memory serves me correctly, Kennedy was the only Catholic President. And even then, people were questioning whether a "Papist" could give his allegence to two factors.

Yes I should have clarified WASP. :) My mother used to tell me about the uproar Kennedy created.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by greatdarkwing
His son will TRY to take over...There have been rumors running around since the 70's that there are plans for the day Castro dies....I guess that means we will go into the island to prevent his Son from taking over. This does make sense....it is a liability to have a communist nation like Cuba only 90 miles from our shore. (Cuban Missle Crisis) Even if we dont go in there, I am sure the government will be overthrown...the only reason you see so many people at his speeches is b/c the people in the surrounding areas are FORCED (You have to check in....if not you are considered anti-revolutionary and are sent to trial....yes folks...for not attending his rallies) to go to these speeches. The people have had it, and you can expect the government to probably fall on the pressure of the people.

~Alex

I've always wondered why the US tolerates Castro, especially some of the more hawkish administrations we've had. I think in a certain way Cuba is under our thumb. It bothers me that we've got a third world dictator 90 miles off shore, yet we'll run half way around the world to "liberate" people for whatever reason. It makes me wonder what the US is getting out of it.

[greatdarkwing]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I've always wondered why the US tolerates Castro, especially some of the more hawkish administrations we've had. I think in a certain way Cuba is under our thumb. It bothers me that we've got a third world dictator 90 miles off shore, yet we'll run half way around the world to "liberate" people for whatever reason. It makes me wonder what the US is getting out of it.

I HAVE THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION! Its easy....In Iraq oil....

and in Cuba....nothing...well, unless we dont have a sugar cane shortage in the next bajillion years, lol. Seriously though, Cuba has NOTHING ELSE to offer but sugar...we have no real reason to be there except to knock communism from the western hemisphere.

Right now, I feel the U.S. has Cuba "under its thumb"...its safe to say we are looking at the last 5 years of communism in Cuba THANK GOD!!!!!!

~Alex

[strandinthewind]

Not to mention Florida and NY have more electoral votes than probably 2/3 of the rest of the states where people probably have never heard of Cuba. ;)

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by greatdarkwing
I HAVE THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION! Its easy....In Iraq oil....

and in Cuba....nothing...well, unless we dont have a sugar cane shortage in the next bajillion years, lol. Seriously though, Cuba has NOTHING ELSE to offer but sugar...we have no real reason to be there except to knock communism from the western hemisphere.
~Alex

That's a pretty "liberal" answer for a Republican.:laugh: The way Americans consume sugar a sugar shortage might not be too far off.:laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Not to mention Florida and NY have more electoral votes than probably 2/3 of the rest of the states where people probably have never heard of Cuba. ;)

Wouldn't that be a good thing though?

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Wouldn't that be a good thing though? The vote is still out - so to speak!! :laugh: It is pretty much impossible to win Florida without winning the Cuban vote. The same could be argued for NY if you lump together the hispanic vote (a stretch I know). So, the people running for election keep promising little tidbits here and there but never really address Castro in any relevant sense other than agreeing he is horrible but there to stay.

[Mad4stevie]

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. ;)

Amen, sister!! I am right there with you :D I could not have said it better myself.

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
:nod: :nod:

I think you neabt a white male WASP, because, if memory serves me correctly, Kennedy was the only Catholic President. And even then, people were questioning whether a "Papist" could give his allegence to two factors. They thought the Pope would control America. Interestingly, in about 1533, i.e. about 400 years ago, people were still making this argument; in fact Henry VIII used, inter alia, it as the reason to form the Church of England of which he was head.

Also, there is the argument that as Jewish President would through the state of Israel into chaos because the Arabs could never consider a Jewish President of the U.S. as neutral (like the R and D Christians are any better :laugh: ) .

Not just the Arabs. The Jewish community includes a great number of people who don't want a Jewish president. First, there's the feeling that a non-Jewish president would not be afraid to support Israel the way a Jew would be. Second, there's the fear that any mistakes a Jew makes will be blamed on the Jews as a group, as in, See what we get for putting a Jew in the White House? That's a biggie. Terrible as it sounds, I know some Jews who won't vote for a Jewish presidential candidate BECAUSE of his religion. Also, in regard to Leiberman himself, several Jewish organizations are criticizing him for putting so much religion into campaign speeches. Most American Jewish voters are emphatic in their support for separation of Church and State.
Please understand, I'm not promoting or defending any of these opinions --- I'll keep my opinions private. I'm just saying that these opinions are present in the community.

- Jake

[gldstwmn]

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200401070805.asp

January 07, 2004, 8:05 a.m.
Of Course They Think Bush Is a Nazi

"George Soros, the billionaire financier who is MoveOn's most generous benefactor (in November, he gave the site $2.5 million) has compared the Bush administration to the Third Reich. Soros, who was born in Hungary and grew up under both Nazi and Soviet domination, told the Washington Post last November, "When I hear Bush say, 'You're either with us or against us,' it reminds me of the Germans." He added, "My experiences under Nazi and Soviet rule have sensitized me." Soros repeated his accusations in his new book, The Bubble of American Supremacy."

[Mad4stevie]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200401070805.asp

January 07, 2004, 8:05 a.m.
Of Course They Think Bush Is a Nazi

"George Soros, the billionaire financier who is MoveOn's most generous benefactor (in November, he gave the site $2.5 million) has compared the Bush administration to the Third Reich. Soros, who was born in Hungary and grew up under both Nazi and Soviet domination, told the Washington Post last November, "When I hear Bush say, 'You're either with us or against us,' it reminds me of the Germans." He added, "My experiences under Nazi and Soviet rule have sensitized me." Soros repeated his accusations in his new book, The Bubble of American Supremacy."

Uh, "sensitized" him?!? To me, this type of an analogy is tragic and disrespectful. Not to mention "over-the-top". The difference is that at least in this country, he can express his opinion without fear of being killed or maimed.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Finally, I have always maintained that to be a "liberal" or, perhaps better phrased, to be one to assert that all people deserve an even playing field despite any personal hastred/prejudice/etc. you have to be willing to think past yourself, which most cannot do. A good example is gays in the military. Absolutely no empirical evidence even suggests it would be the catastrophic thing people imagine; in fact, Australia and Great Britian allow gays in the military and they fight along side of Americans as we speak. Yet, a significant number of Americans hate or are disgusted by gay people. So, they cannot get over that hatred and/or disgust to even consider the evidence that completely belies the any credibility their argument may have. :cool:

The answer to that is parenting and education. If I want to look at prejudice in our society and how it has changed, I simply look at my grandparents and their views, my parents and their views, and my peers and my views.

My grandfather IS Archie Bunker, he was raised in a different era and is ignorant of a lot of things. It is almost pointless to argue with him, so I don’t. He is just stuck in his ways. My parents are extremely less prejudice, but having been raised by my grandparents, some things exist. (They frown upon interracial marriages, etc.) I was raised to be tolerant of everyone and to be color blind. College and exposure to other cultures also helped.

I am not suggesting that there is no prejudice with people in my generation but I think it has gotten better over the years.

The fear of gays in the military comes from the same macho fear that guys in a football locker room have. And that's what it is, fear.

Unfortunately, stereotypes mold people's perceptions.

Education, folks...it's the cure to prejudice.

Rob:cool:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I've always wondered why the US tolerates Castro, especially some of the more hawkish administrations we've had. I think in a certain way Cuba is under our thumb. It bothers me that we've got a third world dictator 90 miles off shore, yet we'll run half way around the world to "liberate" people for whatever reason. It makes me wonder what the US is getting out of it.

Definitley not the cigars!:D

Damn things are hard to get!

Rob:cool:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by Mad4stevie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amen, sister!! I am right there with you :D I could not have said it better myself.

There are more of us out there then you realize! We, the moderate conservatives!!:wavey:

Rob:cool:

[gldstwmn]

http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-nybres043610286jan04,0,2998631.column

The New American System Of Justice

"My friend, David Greenfield, a top lawyer in Manhattan who takes on murder cases, was reading some of this over the holiday. He was saying, "This is insanity. I thought everybody knew that no matter how high the crime or the criminal, the punishment phase always must follow the trial. These people, they want off with his head and we'll see if he's fit to stand trial."

The newsmen ought to be asked, too. Story after story said that Dean had made another gaffe; he had called for the Constitution to be used. I read some temporary insanity in a column by Robert Novak that totally omitted the Constitution. He is mentioned because he is big enough. The rest are Pekingese of the Press with fleas."

Jimmy Breslin cracks me up.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Mad4stevie
Uh, "sensitized" him?!? To me, this type of an analogy is tragic and disrespectful. Not to mention "over-the-top". The difference is that at least in this country, he can express his opinion without fear of being killed or maimed.

So you're okay with Bush's family funding the Nazi's? That's not disrepesctful or tragic? But you're not okay with someone who was actually there giving their take on the situation?

[Johnny Stew]

It's funny... I was a liberal lonnng before I ever knew the term.

As a kid I would silently listen to the people around me, and their thoughts and opinions, and I just knew that I didn't agree with most of the things they said.

And not those piddly conversations about things like taxes, but more important matters like race relations, homosexuality, abortion, single parent families, etc.

So later in my high school Civics class, it was like a light-bulb going off: "Ahh, ok, so I'm a "liberal!" :laugh:

Of course, not all conservatives feel that homosexuals should be denied the right to marry, or that Affirmative Action is a bad thing... and I actually have a viewpoint on capital punishment (I'm for it), that's more in keeping with the conservative opinion on the matter... but based on the overall belief system of both groups, I'm far more comfortable being called a liberal.

It's the same thing for me with religion... I'm not about to give my
"seal of approval" to a group that has some radically different viewpoints from mine, even if I agree with other things they stand for.

That's why I always say that, even if it was for just one reason... being gay... there's no way that I could, in good conscience, be a conservative or a Republican, when their standard view on homosexuality is that, "we must love the sinner, but hate the sin."

And yes, I realize that not all conservatives/Republicans feel that way, but it is the party's overall stance on the matter, and there's no way that I could ever support a group with that narrow-minded outlook.

(Of course, Jason and I have gone around and around on this before... but like I've told him, I'm still more confident that a liberal/Democrat, or an Independent, would fight for the things that are important to our lives, than I am that a conservative/Republican ever would.)

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
So you're okay with Bush's family funding the Nazi's? That's not disrepesctful or tragic? But you're not okay with someone who was actually there giving their take on the situation? I again counter by saying in hindsight it is easy to judge. Moreover, America itself made money off of Nazi Germany. So, while I do think the Bush family has been in some shady deals, the Nazi thing is a bit of a red herring to me because most American corp.'s were doing business with them, which I am pretty sure was legal at the time. :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
It's funny... I was a liberal lonnng before I ever knew the term.

As a kid I would silently listen to the people around me, and their thoughts and opinions, and I just knew that I didn't agree with most of the things they said.

And not those piddly conversations about things like taxes, but more important matters like race relations, homosexuality, abortion, single parent families, etc.

So later in my high school Civics class, it was like a light-bulb going off: "Ahh, ok, so I'm a "liberal!" :laugh:

Of course, not all conservatives feel that homosexuals should be denied the right to marry, or that Affirmative Action is a bad thing... and I actually have a viewpoint on capital punishment (I'm for it), that's more in keeping with the conservative opinion on the matter... but based on the overall belief system of both groups, I'm far more comfortable being called a liberal.

It's the same thing for me with religion... I'm not about to give my
"seal of approval" to a group that has some radically different viewpoints from mine, even if I agree with other things they stand for.

That's why I always say that, even if it was for just one reason... being gay... there's no way that I could, in good conscience, be a conservative or a Republican, when their standard view on homosexuality is that, "we must love the sinner, but hate the sin."

And yes, I realize that not all conservatives/Republicans feel that way, but it is the party's overall stance on the matter, and there's no way that I could ever support a group with that narrow-minded outlook.

(Of course, Jason and I have gone around and around on this before... but like I've told him, I'm still more confident that a liberal/Democrat, or an Independent, would fight for the things that are important to our lives, than I am that a conservative/Republican ever would.) :nod: :nod: :nod: ;)

[Mad4stevie]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
So you're okay with Bush's family funding the Nazi's? That's not disrepesctful or tragic? But you're not okay with someone who was actually there giving their take on the situation?

No - what I am saying is that to compare Bush to Hitler is, in my opinion, disrespectful to the millions whose families were torn apart by the Holocaust. If any leader in present time can even remotely compare it would be Sadaam himself.

In my opinion, Hitler was evil. And while some on this board may have the opinion that Bush is . . . well, I just don't see the comparison in terms of "evilness".

This person can give their opinion, no matter how disrepectful, because he lives here, and not in a police state. I respect his right to give his opinion, I just don't agree with it.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by Mad4stevie
No - what I am saying is that to compare Bush to Hitler is, in my opinion, disrespectful to the millions whose families were torn apart by the Holocaust. If any leader in present time can even remotely compare it would be Sadaam himself.

In my opinion, Hitler was evil. And while some on this board may have the opinion that Bush is . . . well, I just don't see the comparison in terms of "evilness".

This person can give their opinion, no matter how disrepectful, because he lives here, and not in a police state. I respect his right to give his opinion, I just don't agree with it.

Besides, Hitler was known as one of the great orators in recent history. He was a captivating and motivating speaker who could raise a stoic room into a frenzy with the tone of his voice. He also attempted a military coup d'état, instigated the conquest and annexation of neighboring countries on the principles racial and national superiority, and, escalated, to the point of liquidation, the subjugation of an entire race of people. He had complete control over government decision-making without any checks and balances.

Uh…Bush won a close election and was handed a failing economy punctuated by one of the deadliest attacks on American soil in its history and he isn’t the best public speaker. But, at this time, the economy is realizing a complete turn-around. The US has taken a proactive stance to combat the sources of terrorism throughout the world, which was provoked by 9/11 (whether you agree or disagree with it). And, most recently, the immigration reform proposal, which is something that Hitler would NEVER have been for. (and I can’t say I agree with it)

I’m sorry, what are the comparisons again??

Rob:cool:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Rob67
Besides, Hitler was known as one of the great orators in recent history. He was a captivating and motivating speaker who could raise a stoic room into a frenzy with the tone of his voice. He also attempted a military coup d'état, instigated the conquest and annexation of neighboring countries on the principles racial and national superiority, and, escalated, to the point of liquidation, the subjugation of an entire race of people. He had complete control over government decision-making without any checks and balances.

Uh…Bush won a close election and was handed a failing economy punctuated by one of the deadliest attacks on American soil in its history and he isn’t the best public speaker. But, at this time, the economy is realizing a complete turn-around. The US has taken a proactive stance to combat the sources of terrorism throughout the world, which was provoked by 9/11 (whether you agree or disagree with it). And, most recently, the immigration reform proposal, which is something that Hitler would NEVER have been for. (and I can’t say I agree with it)

I’m sorry, what are the comparisons again??

Rob:cool:

Agreed on these points. Where I think the similarities, albeit vague IMO, exist are in the current police state in the US regarding "enemy combatants" and similar instances. American citizens are being hauled away and basically never seen again - they have no rights - no lawyer, no visitation, nothing. That is Hitleresq. Also, the "Patriot Act" does lessen the Constitutional Rights of Americans from illegal searches and seizures. On the flip side, these acts in no way approach the horrors of WWII Germany in that no one is being shot in the streets for being gay or Jewish, etc., no one is having medical testing done on them with no regard for their life, no one's skin is being made into lampshades, and no genocide is occuring.

Similarly, the invasion of Iraq could be viewed as a move of aggression by the US to dominiate and conquer the Arab world. I do not see it that way because, as I have stated before, after 9/11, America could not let SH, as he had done for 11 or so years, string the world along by not proving he had destroyed his WMD (the world through the UN unanimously agreed SH had WMD). However, the current administration's willingness to invade Iraq without the support of the UN and the false reasons for the exigency of the invasion (SH had nukes) does suggest a sort of bloodlust. Personally, I think the invasion of Iraq, though warranted by SH uncooperative attitude, was in some part meant to divert the attention of Americans from the administrations failure to find Osma BL. But, people view the invasion of Iraq as tantamount to Hitler's invasion of Poland. IMO, history suggests the two events cannot be compared. Conversly, our appeasement of SH was similar to the world's appeasement of Hitler.

Food for Thought! :cool:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I again counter by saying in hindsight it is easy to judge. Moreover, America itself made money off of Nazi Germany. So, while I do think the Bush family has been in some shady deals, the Nazi thing is a bit of a red herring to me because most American corp.'s were doing business with them, which I am pretty sure was legal at the time. :cool:

Sure it was legal. However, as you know, in 1950 Harriman and Bush each got a payout of 1.5 million dollars. The Holocaust survivors? They got zip. I don't recall hearing about them offering those people any of their war booty.
As I have said before, their wealth is in large part due to this. 1.5 million would be quite a bit in today's money.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67

Uh…Bush won a close election and was handed a failing economy punctuated by one of the deadliest attacks on American soil in its history and he isn’t the best public speaker. But, at this time, the economy is realizing a complete turn-around.

Rob:cool:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/08/business/08FUND.html?th

I.M.F. Says Rise in U.S. Debts Is Threat to World's Economy

"Prepared by a team of I.M.F. economists, the report sounded a loud alarm about the shaky fiscal foundation of the United States, questioning the wisdom of the Bush administration's tax cuts and warning that large budget deficits pose "significant risks" not just for the United States but for the rest of the world.
The report warns that the United States' net financial obligations to the rest of the world could be equal to 40 percent of its total economy within a few years — "an unprecedented level of external debt for a large industrial country," according to the fund, that could play havoc with the value of the dollar and international exchange rates."

The markets are also weak this morning on the news that initial jobless claims rose last week.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Sure it was legal. However, as you know, in 1950 Harriman and Bush each got a payout of 1.5 million dollars. The Holocaust survivors? They got zip. I don't recall hearing about them offering those people any of their war booty.
As I have said before, their wealth is in large part due to this. 1.5 million would be quite a bit in today's money.

Perhaps, but if you want to "go there" so to speak :cool: , then the entire nation of Switzerland should be divided up and given to the Jewish people whose property (and we are talking billions of dollars here) was taken by the Nazis and has never been returned to this day. Everyone knows it is there, but no one will return it due to legal technicalities like no one can confirm it was stolen because the only people who know that were gassed or cooked in a concentration camp. The whole thing just sickens me.

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200401070805.asp

January 07, 2004, 8:05 a.m.
Of Course They Think Bush Is a Nazi

"George Soros, the billionaire financier who is MoveOn's most generous benefactor (in November, he gave the site $2.5 million) has compared the Bush administration to the Third Reich. Soros, who was born in Hungary and grew up under both Nazi and Soviet domination, told the Washington Post last November, "When I hear Bush say, 'You're either with us or against us,' it reminds me of the Germans." He added, "My experiences under Nazi and Soviet rule have sensitized me." Soros repeated his accusations in his new book, The Bubble of American Supremacy."

Let's all remember one thing:

I made that comparison first, right here on this very board. :nod: :laugh: :laugh:

:wavey:

PS: You're probably right about living on the liberal east coast. In MA, you couldn't walk down the street and find more than two Republicans, and their votes are the swing votes. :nod: :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Let's all remember one thing:

I made that comparison first, right here on this very board. :nod: :laugh: :laugh:

:wavey:

and it is still incorrect and unfair spin :wavey: :wavey:

Once again, how many Jews and gays are being gassed today? How many newspapers are being forced to print propaganda? ;)

[strandinthewind]

Another view on the WMD and quite a slam. actually, on the Bush Administration if not the prior administration as well.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/08/sprj.nirq.wmd.report/index.html

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
and it is still incorrect and unfair spin :wavey: :wavey:

Once again, how many Jews and gays are being gassed today? How many newspapers are being forced to print propaganda? ;)

It depends on what you call propaganda. How about the Wall Street Journal? No one said Bush was murdering anybody. We just said there were similarities in the regimes. Other people made the Holocaust leap.:)

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Another view on the WMD and quite a slam. actually, on the Bush Administration if not the prior administration as well.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/08/sprj.nirq.wmd.report/index.html

Yes but it wasn't Clintons idea to invade, er, liberate Iraq.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
It depends on what you call propaganda. How about the Wall Street Journal? No one said Bush was murdering anybody. We just said there were similarities in the regimes. Other people made the Holocaust leap.:)

I think that most people would correctly infer that calling the leader of the free world another "Hitler" smacks of the holocaust. I mean they certainly weren't noting Bush is a dynamic speaker :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I mean they certainly weren't noting Bush is a dynamic speaker :laugh:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

"I know it''s hard for you to put food on your family."

[Mad4stevie]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
It depends on what you call propaganda. How about the Wall Street Journal? No one said Bush was murdering anybody. We just said there were similarities in the regimes. Other people made the Holocaust leap.:)

Wow - I can't think of Hitler without thinking of the Holocaust. After all, the man was one of the biggest mass murderers in history (wasn't that 6 million + Jews that were slaughtered?).

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by Mad4stevie
No - what I am saying is that to compare Bush to Hitler is, in my opinion, disrespectful to the millions whose families were torn apart by the Holocaust. If any leader in present time can even remotely compare it would be Sadaam himself.

In my opinion, Hitler was evil. And while some on this board may have the opinion that Bush is . . . well, I just don't see the comparison in terms of "evilness".

This person can give their opinion, no matter how disrepectful, because he lives here, and not in a police state. I respect his right to give his opinion, I just don't agree with it.

Thank you.:nod:

- Jake

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
and it is still incorrect and unfair spin :wavey: :wavey:

Once again, how many Jews and gays are being gassed today? How many newspapers are being forced to print propaganda? ;)

And that's how you perceive it, but I don't.

I don't believe that anyone compared him the way you have with gassing people. We've simply stated that his actions and involvements smack of the Third Reich.

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

"I know it''s hard for you to put food on your family."

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I'm sure he believes that he's a FAAAAAAAAAAABULOUS speaker. :laugh:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I'm sure he believes that he's a FAAAAAAAAAAABULOUS speaker. :laugh:

I can't mock the guy for speaking...he gets the job done. And he has great speech writers.

I would probably do a lot worse, and I'm in sales......I don't admire that part of the job at all...

Rob:cool:

[darklinensuit]

Schooled in Texas politics, what do you expect? There arre very few Ann Richards in these parts.
This is the land that gave us Gib Lewis. (Ever ead Molly Ivins piece on him?)
And this is the son of the guy who still sounded bad talking next to Dan Quayle.

- Jake

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
And that's how you perceive it, but I don't.

I don't believe that anyone compared him the way you have with gassing people. We've simply stated that his actions and involvements smack of the Third Reich.

Yea but you gotta admit when anyone compares someone to Hitler that autrocity is the first if not only one that comes to mind. :nod: I mean its not like anyone said "Bush reminds me of Hitler due to the chipping away of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of illegal searches and seizures." Just the blanket statement was made and mostly made in reference to Iraq. Hitler invaded Poland after years of appeasement during which he somewhat clandestinely built up a huge armed forces, which was forbidden unfer the Treaty of Versailles. Then Hitler sought European dominance and, with Italy and Japan, world dominance. No other justification was offered by Hitler - just world dominance and the preservation and development of the Aryan/perfect race.

Conversely, America and Britian's invasion of Iraq was at the least based in 11 years of Iraq's bad faith dealings with the UN. Moreover, no evidence exists that clearly demonstrates America and Great Britian want to call Iraq their own. Rather, our soldiers are losing their lives daily to try and give the Iraqi's a better quality of life than they had under the Hitleresq. SH (gassed his people, tortured his people, pursued dominance of other countries via force, etc. ).

[Rob67]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Conversely, America and Britian's invasion of Iraq was at the least based in 11 years of Iraq's bad faith dealings with the UN. Moreover, no evidence exists that clearly demonstrates America and Great Britian want to call Iraq their own. Rather, our soldiers are losing their lives daily to try and give the Iraqi's a better quality of life than they had under the Hitleresq. SH (gassed his people, tortured his people, pursued dominance of other countries via force, etc. ).

For the record, my cousin and my rother's best friend have been over in Iraq since the war and both of them said that life is pretty peacefull. Both are stationed in Baghdad and my cousin frequently travels around. He said that reading some papers from the US make it seem like there is wanton death and destruction and unrest everywhere which is far from the truth. He said it is actually pretty stable and the people are generally pretty cordial towards the troops and vice versa.

Rob:cool:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Rob67
For the record, my cousin and my rother's best friend have been over in Iraq since the war and both of them said that life is pretty peacefull. Both are stationed in Baghdad and my cousin frequently travels around. He said that reading some papers from the US make it seem like there is wanton death and destruction and unrest everywhere which is far from the truth. He said it is actually pretty stable and the people are generally pretty cordial towards the troops and vice versa.

Rob:cool:

EEK - I hope they come back OK.

I agree that most of Iraq is peaceful now. But, soldiers and citizens are still dying pretty much everyday. So, there must be some strife somewhere. Hopefully, it will end soon.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/terror/cst-nws-scotus06.html

Bush administration wants entire 9/11 case kept secret


"Lucy A. Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said she was disappointed by the government's request.

''The idea that there is nothing that could be filed publicly is really ridiculous,'' she said. ''It just emphasizes our point that we're living in frightening times. People can be arrested, thrown in jail and have secret court proceedings, and we know absolutely nothing about it.''

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
http://www.suntimes.com/output/terror/cst-nws-scotus06.html

Bush administration wants entire 9/11 case kept secret


"Lucy A. Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said she was disappointed by the government's request.

''The idea that there is nothing that could be filed publicly is really ridiculous,'' she said. ''It just emphasizes our point that we're living in frightening times. People can be arrested, thrown in jail and have secret court proceedings, and we know absolutely nothing about it.''

All of this will hopefully come to a head in a few months once the Sup. Ct. determines the Padillo (sp.?) case.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Another view on the WMD and quite a slam. actually, on the Bush Administration if not the prior administration as well.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/08/sprj.nirq.wmd.report/index.html

Powell's defense

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/08/sprj.nirq.wmd.report/index.html

[gldstwmn]

http://www.clamormagazine.org/features/issue14.3_feature.html

Heir To The Holocaust

(excerpts)

But while President Bush publicly embraced the community of holocaust survivors in Washington last spring, he and his family have been keeping a secret from them for over 50 years about Prescott Bush, the president's grandfather. According to classified documents from Dutch intelligence and US government archives, President George W. Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush made considerable profits off Auschwitz slave labor. In fact, President Bush himself is an heir to these profits from the holocaust which were placed in a blind trust in 1980 by his father, former president George Herbert Walker Bush.

A classified Dutch intelligence file which was leaked by a courageous Dutch intelligence officer, along with newly surfaced information from U.S. government archives, "confirms absolutely," John Loftus says, the direct links between Bush, Thyssen and genocide profits from Auschwitz.

A case can be made that the inheritors of the Prescott Bush estate could be sued by survivors of the Holocaust and slave labor communities.

By 1920, George Herbert Walker had already built a fortune in Missouri. Walker, a charismatic former heavyweight boxing champion, was a human pit bull. He lived life to the fullest, owning mansions around the east coast and one of the most extravagant apartments in Manhattan. His hobbies were golf, hunting, drinking scotch and beating his sons to a pulp. Elsie Walker, one of Walker's grandchildren described Walker as a "tough old bastard" whose children had no love "for their father." He was also a religious bigot who hated Catholics, although his parents raised him to be one. According to other sources, he also did not like Jews.

Six days after Pearl Harbor and the US declaration of war at the end of 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau and US Attorney General Francis Biddle signed the Trading With the Enemy Act, which banned any business interests with US enemies of war. Prescott Bush continued with business as usual, aiding the Nazi invasion of Europe and supplying resources for weaponry that would eventually be turned on American solders in combat against Germany.

On October 20, 1942, the U.S. government had had enough of Prescott Bush and his Nazi business arrangements with Thyssen. Over the summer, The New York Tribune had exposed Bush and Thyssen, whom the Tribune dubbed "Hitler's Angel." When the US government saw UBC's books, they found out that Bush's bank and its shareholders "are held for the benefit of ... members of the Thyssen family, [and] is property of nationals ... of a designated enemy country."

Prescott Bush received $1.5 million for his share in UBC. That money enabled Bush to help his son, George Herbert Walker Bush, to set up his first royalty firm, Overby Development Company, that same year. It was also helpful when Prescott Bush left the business world to enter the public arena in 1952 with a successful senatorial campaign in Connecticut. On October 8th, 1972, Prescott Bush died of cancer and his will was enacted soon after.

In 1980, when George H.W. Bush was elected vice president, he placed his father's family inherence in a blind trust. The trust was managed by his old friend and quail hunting partner, William "Stamps" Farish III. Bush's choice of Farish to manage the family wealth is quite revealing in that it demonstrates that the former president might know exactly where some of his inheritance originated. Farish's grandfather, William Farish Jr., on March 25th, 1942, pleaded "no contest" to conspiring with Nazi Germany while president of Standard Oil in New Jersey. He was described by Senator Harry Truman in public of approaching "treason" for profiting off the Nazi war machine. Standard Oil, invested millions in IG Farben, who opened a gasoline factory within Auschwitz in 1940. The billions "Stamps" inherited had more blood on it then Bush, so the paper trail of UBC stock would be safe during his 12 years in presidential politics.

The Bush bank helped the Thyssens make the Nazi steel that killed Allied solders. As bad as financing the Nazi war machine may seem, aiding and abetting the Holocaust was worse. Thyssen's coal mines used Jewish slaves as if they were disposable chemicals. There are six million skeletons in the Thyssen family closet, and a myriad of criminal and historical questions to be answered about the Bush family's complicity."

There is no question that the Bush family needs to donate at least $1.5 million to the proper holocaust reparation fund. Since Prescott Bush is dead, the only way to compensate is for the main inheritors of his estate to make amends with surviving slaves and the families of slaves who died in Bush and Thyssen's coal mines. If the Bush family refuses to contribute the money to compensate for Prescott Bush's involvement in the Holocaust, it is like denying the Holocaust itself and their role in one of the darkest moments in world history.

Special thanks to John Loftus, Emmy winning journalist, author and current president of the Florida Holocaust Museum.

[Mad4stevie]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Yea but you gotta admit when anyone compares someone to Hitler that autrocity is the first if not only one that comes to mind. :nod: I mean its not like anyone said "Bush reminds me of Hitler due to the chipping away of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of illegal searches and seizures." Just the blanket statement was made and mostly made in reference to Iraq. Hitler invaded Poland after years of appeasement during which he somewhat clandestinely built up a huge armed forces, which was forbidden unfer the Treaty of Versailles. Then Hitler sought European dominance and, with Italy and Japan, world dominance. No other justification was offered by Hitler - just world dominance and the preservation and development of the Aryan/perfect race.

Conversely, America and Britian's invasion of Iraq was at the least based in 11 years of Iraq's bad faith dealings with the UN. Moreover, no evidence exists that clearly demonstrates America and Great Britian want to call Iraq their own. Rather, our soldiers are losing their lives daily to try and give the Iraqi's a better quality of life than they had under the Hitleresq. SH (gassed his people, tortured his people, pursued dominance of other countries via force, etc. ).

Thank you - well said! :wavey:

[Mad4stevie]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
http://www.clamormagazine.org/features/issue14.3_feature.html

Heir To The Holocaust

(excerpts)

But while President Bush publicly embraced the community of holocaust survivors in Washington last spring, he and his family have been keeping a secret from them for over 50 years about Prescott Bush, the president's grandfather. According to classified documents from Dutch intelligence and US government archives, President George W. Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush made considerable profits off Auschwitz slave labor. In fact, President Bush himself is an heir to these profits from the holocaust which were placed in a blind trust in 1980 by his father, former president George Herbert Walker Bush.

A classified Dutch intelligence file which was leaked by a courageous Dutch intelligence officer, along with newly surfaced information from U.S. government archives, "confirms absolutely," John Loftus says, the direct links between Bush, Thyssen and genocide profits from Auschwitz.

A case can be made that the inheritors of the Prescott Bush estate could be sued by survivors of the Holocaust and slave labor communities.

By 1920, George Herbert Walker had already built a fortune in Missouri. Walker, a charismatic former heavyweight boxing champion, was a human pit bull. He lived life to the fullest, owning mansions around the east coast and one of the most extravagant apartments in Manhattan. His hobbies were golf, hunting, drinking scotch and beating his sons to a pulp. Elsie Walker, one of Walker's grandchildren described Walker as a "tough old bastard" whose children had no love "for their father." He was also a religious bigot who hated Catholics, although his parents raised him to be one. According to other sources, he also did not like Jews.

Six days after Pearl Harbor and the US declaration of war at the end of 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau and US Attorney General Francis Biddle signed the Trading With the Enemy Act, which banned any business interests with US enemies of war. Prescott Bush continued with business as usual, aiding the Nazi invasion of Europe and supplying resources for weaponry that would eventually be turned on American solders in combat against Germany.

On October 20, 1942, the U.S. government had had enough of Prescott Bush and his Nazi business arrangements with Thyssen. Over the summer, The New York Tribune had exposed Bush and Thyssen, whom the Tribune dubbed "Hitler's Angel." When the US government saw UBC's books, they found out that Bush's bank and its shareholders "are held for the benefit of ... members of the Thyssen family, [and] is property of nationals ... of a designated enemy country."

Prescott Bush received $1.5 million for his share in UBC. That money enabled Bush to help his son, George Herbert Walker Bush, to set up his first royalty firm, Overby Development Company, that same year. It was also helpful when Prescott Bush left the business world to enter the public arena in 1952 with a successful senatorial campaign in Connecticut. On October 8th, 1972, Prescott Bush died of cancer and his will was enacted soon after.

In 1980, when George H.W. Bush was elected vice president, he placed his father's family inherence in a blind trust. The trust was managed by his old friend and quail hunting partner, William "Stamps" Farish III. Bush's choice of Farish to manage the family wealth is quite revealing in that it demonstrates that the former president might know exactly where some of his inheritance originated. Farish's grandfather, William Farish Jr., on March 25th, 1942, pleaded "no contest" to conspiring with Nazi Germany while president of Standard Oil in New Jersey. He was described by Senator Harry Truman in public of approaching "treason" for profiting off the Nazi war machine. Standard Oil, invested millions in IG Farben, who opened a gasoline factory within Auschwitz in 1940. The billions "Stamps" inherited had more blood on it then Bush, so the paper trail of UBC stock would be safe during his 12 years in presidential politics.

The Bush bank helped the Thyssens make the Nazi steel that killed Allied solders. As bad as financing the Nazi war machine may seem, aiding and abetting the Holocaust was worse. Thyssen's coal mines used Jewish slaves as if they were disposable chemicals. There are six million skeletons in the Thyssen family closet, and a myriad of criminal and historical questions to be answered about the Bush family's complicity."

There is no question that the Bush family needs to donate at least $1.5 million to the proper holocaust reparation fund. Since Prescott Bush is dead, the only way to compensate is for the main inheritors of his estate to make amends with surviving slaves and the families of slaves who died in Bush and Thyssen's coal mines. If the Bush family refuses to contribute the money to compensate for Prescott Bush's involvement in the Holocaust, it is like denying the Holocaust itself and their role in one of the darkest moments in world history.

Special thanks to John Loftus, Emmy winning journalist, author and current president of the Florida Holocaust Museum.

Well, if this is the case, then give the money back to the rightful owner, whoever that is. It is easy to criticize someone's actions in hindsight. All I have to say is . . . people can't choose their parents, or their grandparents, for that matter!

I expect that everyone has some distasteful stuff that could be tied to them, no matter what the angle. Seriously, is there really anyone in a leadership role that doesn't have something in their background that could be questioned?

[Rob67]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
EEK - I hope they come back OK.

I agree that most of Iraq is peaceful now. But, soldiers and citizens are still dying pretty much everyday. So, there must be some strife somewhere. Hopefully, it will end soon.

So are people in every city in this country...the murder rate in Chicago is higher then the death rate in Iraq.

I agree, hopefully it ends soon!

Rob:cool:

[darklinensuit]

This is sad, and I thought it would fit in this thread:

Levi's Closes Last Two U.S. Sewing Plants
Fri Jan 9,12:16 AM ET Add Business - AP to My Yahoo!


By T.A. BADGER, AP Business Writer

SAN ANTONIO - Levi Strauss & Co., the California Gold Rush outfitter whose blue jeans are a globally recognized symbol of America, closed its last two U.S. sewing plants Thursday.



About 800 workers at the 26-year-old San Antonio plants lost their jobs in the move, which was announced last September.


The financially troubled company, based in San Francisco, has been shifting production to overseas contractors for years to offset drooping sales in the ultra-competitive apparel market. Only two decades ago, it had 63 U.S. manufacturing plants.


Levi Strauss spokesman Jeff Beckman said the 150-year-old company was making a delayed but unavoidable business decision.


"We tried to do our best to maintain manufacturing in the United States, but we have to be competitive to survive as a company," he said.


Sewing in San Antonio finished up around Thanksgiving and last month it ceased the laundering work done to give jeans their various finishes. Once, more than 4 million pairs of jeans were made here each year by workers earning an average of $10 to $12 per hour.


This spring Levi's will shutter its three remaining company-owned plants in Canada, completing the shift to contract production in China and other countries with far cheaper labor.


Levi Strauss, which is privately held, has weathered seven straight years of declining sales after its revenue peak of $7.1 billion in 1996.


In 2002, the company reported sales of $4.1 billion, and Beckman said the yet-to-be-released number for 2003 would be 2 percent to 3 percent below that.


The company has seen its global work force shrink from more than 37,000 in 1996 to about 12,000 as of last month, roughly half of them in the United States, said spokeswoman Kari Otto Seymore.


Along with the San Francisco headquarters, Levi's will continue to base its design and sales staffs in the United States, along with some distribution centers.


"We're still an American brand, but we're also a brand and a company whose products have been adopted by consumers around the world," Beckman said. "We have to operate as a global company."


Walter Loeb, a retail analyst in New York, says the profitability of moving production is worth more than a symbolic presence in the United States, where Levi's had made jeans since the 1870s.


"Investors are not very sentimental these days," Loeb said.


Loeb said even with overseas labor, management faces a big challenge in restoring the company's once-snug fit with consumers.


"There was a time when Levi's was the fashion garment of the day," he said. "The exclusivity of the Levi's brand is no longer as important to customers."


Seymore said Levi's severance package includes two weeks pay for every full year of employment, as well as an enhanced pension program and a period of subsidized medical coverage. In addition, she said, workers will be given up to $2,450 each.





That's better than what Viola Casares received when she and about 1,100 other Levi's employees were laid off from another San Antonio plant in 1990, but she doubts many workers are smiling.

"They would rather have a job," said Casares, who co-founded a group that protested the 1990 closure. She said that with other factories in the city also closing, workers will have trouble finding jobs that pay as well as the ones they're losing.

"For me right now, I feel like I'm in mourning," Casares said. "We used to be like a family. It's hard to believe that it's final."

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Mad4stevie
Well, if this is the case, then give the money back to the rightful owner, whoever that is. It is easy to criticize someone's actions in hindsight. All I have to say is . . . people can't choose their parents, or their grandparents, for that matter!

I expect that everyone has some distasteful stuff that could be tied to them, no matter what the angle. Seriously, is there really anyone in a leadership role that doesn't have something in their background that could be questioned?

So you want to chastise people for comparing Bush to Hitler but you'll let his family slide on this one? Nice defense, counselor.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
So are people in every city in this country...the murder rate in Chicago is higher then the death rate in Iraq.
Rob:cool:

Whew. That's a relief.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
So you want to chastise people for comparing Bush to Hitler but you'll let his family slide on this one? Nice defense, counselor. Apples and Oranges. W was never part of Prescott's antics. :shrug: :confused: Also, here is an article (one of many pulled in a google search) that demonstrates how basically all of America has profited from Nazi Germany. Do we make the heirs of the people who recieved a salary at these companies give the money back? How about the people who benefited from these salaries (butchers, stores, maids, etc.) - whould their heirs be required to give back money as well even though they had nothing to do with it, but received some benefit from these activities of their forefathers?

http://www.spx.org/faculty/holocaust/2001-2002/klein/American_corporations.html

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Whew. That's a relief.

More like a comparison...

Rob:cool:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Apples and Oranges. W was never part of Prescott's antics. :shrug: :confused: Also, here is an article (one of many pulled in a google search) that demonstrates how basically all of America has profited from Nazi Germany. Do we make the heirs of the people who recieved a salary at these companies give the money back? How about the people who benefited from these salaries (butchers, stores, maids, etc.) - whould their heirs be required to give back money as well even though they had nothing to do with it, but received some benefit from these activities of their forefathers?

http://www.spx.org/faculty/holocaust/2001-2002/klein/American_corporations.html

And out of all those corporations, only one has a family that has produced two presidents. Like I said, there are different standards for the leader of the free world.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
And out of all those corporations, only one has a family that has produced two presidents. Like I said, there are different standards for the leader of the free world. Yea - but surely those corps. have essentially hand picked or had a hand in picking every President since then. :wavey:

Again, even if all of what is asserted about Prescott Bush is true, W has never done anything like that to our knowledge. So, I say, as was said earlier, without more proof, the sins of the Grandfather (and America as a whole) should not be visited on W.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Powell's defense

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/08/sprj.nirq.wmd.report/index.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/09/politics/09POWE.html?th

Powell Admits No Hard Proof in Linking Iraq to Al Qaeda

" Secretary of State Colin L. Powell conceded Thursday that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no "smoking gun" proof of a link between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of Al Qaeda."

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/09/politics/09POWE.html?th

Powell Admits No Hard Proof in Linking Iraq to Al Qaeda

" Secretary of State Colin L. Powell conceded Thursday that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no "smoking gun" proof of a link between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of Al Qaeda."

To my knowledge, Powell never asserted a smoking gun. He asserted that the photos and other intelligence suggested SH was building up an arsenal or preparing to do so. He also asserted SH unwillingness to account for or explain away this intelligence. Thus, SH was a security threat that needed to be removed. This is why I have said and will always say, timing issues aside, SH and no one else is solely responsible for the situation in Iraq.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
W was never part of Prescott's antics. :shrug: :confused:

But he'll gladly take the money that was made because of his grandpoppy's antics...:rolleyes:

[darklinensuit]

Forgive me if this has been posted, but I thought some of you might enjoy this.

White House - AP Cabinet & State

O'Neill Calls Bush a Disengaged President
Fri Jan 9, 2:28 PM ET Add White House - AP Cabinet & State to My Yahoo!


By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON - Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, pushed out of the administration for not being a team player, says President Bush (news - web sites) was so disengaged during Cabinet meetings that he was like a "blind man in a roomful of deaf people."



O'Neill, who has kept silent about the circumstances surrounding his ouster from the Cabinet 13 months ago, is now ready to give his side of the story with a tell-all book that paints Bush as a disengaged president who didn't encourage debate either at Cabinet meetings or in one-on-one meetings with his Cabinet secretaries.


To promote the book which will be out Tuesday, O'Neill was appearing Sunday on CBS's "60 Minutes" in an interview with correspondent Lesley Stahl.


In an excerpt released by CBS, O'Neill said that a lack of real dialogue characterized the Cabinet meetings he attended during the first two years of the administration and gave O'Neill the feeling that Bush "was like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people."


O'Neill said that the atmosphere was similar during the one-on-one meetings he held with Bush.


Speaking of his first meeting with the president, O'Neill said, "I went in with a long list of things to talk about and, I thought, to engage (Bush) on. ... I was surprised it turned out me talking and the president just listening. It was mostly a monologue."


O'Neill is described as the principal source for the new book, "The Price of Loyalty," being published by Simon and Schuster, and written by Ron Suskind, a former reporter for The Wall Street Journal.


In addition to interviews with O'Neill, Suskind drew on 19,000 documents O'Neill provided, according to CBS, which said Suskind also interviewed dozens of Bush insiders to flesh out his account of the administration's first two years.


Asked about O'Neill's comment about a disengaged president, White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters Friday, "I think it's well known the way the president approaches governing and setting priorities. The president is someone that leads and acts decisively on our biggest priorities and that is exactly what he'll continue to do."


Asked about the administration's opinion of the upcoming book, McClellan said, "I don't do book reviews."


O'Neill, the former head of aluminum giant Alcoa, did not immediately respond to phone messages from The AP left at his office in Pittsburgh. But in an interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, O'Neill said he hoped his inflammatory comments did not overshadow the substantive issues he discusses in the book.


"If the 'red meat,' taken out of context, is all that people get out of this book, it will be a huge disappointment to me," he said. "Ideally, this book will cause people to stop and think about the current state of our political process and raise our expectations for what is possible."


O'Neill gained a reputation during his two years in the Bush Cabinet for frequently shooting from the lip with incendiary comments that shook up financial markets and antagonized Wall Street. O'Neill said he was just trying to discuss complicated public policy issues in greater depth than the television sound bites so often used by the typical Washington politicians.


O'Neill was fired in December 2002 when Bush shook up his economic team in search of better salesmen for a new round of tax cuts the president hoped would stimulate a sluggish economy.


O'Neill had publicly questioned the need for another round of tax cuts in light of the growing budget deficits. He was replaced by John Snow, former head of CSX Corp., who became a staunch advocate for new tax cuts, which Bush signed into law in May.

[dissention]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
Asked about O'Neill's comment about a disengaged president, White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters Friday, "I think it's well known the way the president approaches governing and setting priorities. The president is someone that leads and acts decisively on our biggest priorities and that is exactly what he'll continue to do."

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

A blind man in a roomful of deaf people? Nah, more like a one-legged man in a butt kicking contest.

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by dissention
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

A blind man in a roomful of deaf people?

That's the line that made me laugh. I guess Reagan was comatose in a room full of snorers.:)

- Jake

[Mad4stevie]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
So you want to chastise people for comparing Bush to Hitler but you'll let his family slide on this one? Nice defense, counselor.

I don't understand how you can interpret what I said to mean that I am "letting it slide". And, for the record, I think it is disrespectful for people to compare Hitler and Bush as being in the same ballpark. How can you compare them when one person was directly responsible for murdering 6 million Jews? Come on. Honestly, do you really think this is a good analogy?

As I have said before, people have the right to their opinion, but I don't have to agree with it.

I think it is a valid point regarding the sins of the grandfather not being passed on to future generations. This makes me think of all of the decendents of slaves who feel we should somehow compensate them for what their ancestors were subjected to. There is nothing that can be done about that now. Its been almost 150 years since that time, and people need to deal with their issues and get over it. It isn't like they were subjected to slavery.

[Mad4stevie]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Apples and Oranges. W was never part of Prescott's antics. :shrug: :confused: Also, here is an article (one of many pulled in a google search) that demonstrates how basically all of America has profited from Nazi Germany. Do we make the heirs of the people who recieved a salary at these companies give the money back? How about the people who benefited from these salaries (butchers, stores, maids, etc.) - whould their heirs be required to give back money as well even though they had nothing to do with it, but received some benefit from these activities of their forefathers?

http://www.spx.org/faculty/holocaust/2001-2002/klein/American_corporations.html

I agree.

[dissention]

Originally posted by Mad4stevie
I don't understand how you can interpret what I said to mean that I am "letting it slide". And, for the record, I think it is disrespectful for people to compare Hitler and Bush as being in the same ballpark. How can you compare them when one person was directly responsible for murdering 6 million Jews? Come on. Honestly, do you really think this is a good analogy?

As I have said before, people have the right to their opinion, but I don't have to agree with it.

I think it is a valid point regarding the sins of the grandfather not being passed on to future generations. This makes me think of all of the decendents of slaves who feel we should somehow compensate them for what their ancestors were subjected to. There is nothing that can be done about that now. Its been almost 150 years since that time, and people need to deal with their issues and get over it. It isn't like they were subjected to slavery.

I think it's a good analogy, but I'm a far-left liberal who's used it many, many times. ;)

I hear the excuses that the sins of Prescott haven't been passed down, but they certainly have: in the form of blood money. A ton of it is in a trust for Shrub and I'm not okay with that. If he wants to erase his grandfathers misdeeds from biting him in his self-satisfied ass, he'll distance himself from that money and do the right thing. But doing the right thing isn't Shrub's strong-suit, just as being president isn't.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
I think it's a good analogy, but I'm a far-left liberal who's used it many, many times. ;)

I hear the excuses that the sins of Prescott haven't been passed down, but they certainly have: in the form of blood money. A ton of it is in a trust for Shrub and I'm not okay with that. If he wants to erase his grandfathers misdeeds from biting him in his self-satisfied ass, he'll distance himself from that money and do the right thing. But doing the right thing isn't Shrub's strong-suit, just as being president isn't.

Yup.:)

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
[BWASHINGTON - Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, pushed out of the administration for not being a team player, says President Bush (news - web sites) was so disengaged during Cabinet meetings that he was like a "blind man in a roomful of deaf people."

[/B]

Priceless.:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: I think I'll be reading Mr. O'Neill's book.

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Priceless.:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: I think I'll be reading Mr. O'Neill's book.

It's on my list. :nod:

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
WASHINGTON - Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, pushed out of the administration for not being a team player, says President Bush (news - web sites) was so disengaged during Cabinet meetings that he was like a "blind man in a roomful of deaf people."

This reminds me of that line in The Hunchback of Notre Dame:
"There is no reason why a deaf man talking to a deaf man should ever stop."
Quasimodo in '04!!!

- Jake

[Sugar]

I was listening to a commentator on NPR that said the Bush Administration is going to start admitting that there wasn't ever conclusive evidence of a WMD program OR a link to bin Laden NOW and get ot out of the way BEFORE debates start in 2004. What they are counting on is that the American people won't care, which seems to be a safe bet at this point. I'd like to hear how the families of soldiers already killed in Iraq feel about this, but whatever...

And I frankly think Mr. Bush gives us way to much ammo in the present to worry about digging in his family's past. To go after his grandfather is a distraction and allows people (like the ones on this board) to negate the point for the reasons they have stated. It's then too easy for them to ignore the GOOD, CURRENT reasons why this guy is a danger. But that's just a tactical opinion. :wavey:

But really, if we could waste so much time trying to impeach Clinton for lying about a blow job, but NO ONE is going to hold Bush acccountable for misleading EVERYONE for reasons to go to war, methinks I'm gonna buy me some shotguns and move to the Montana hills...:nod:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
But he'll gladly take the money that was made because of his grandpoppy's antics...:rolleyes: Agreed, but I assert using your logic everyone in the U.S. whose parents and/or grandparents worked for any major U.S. company that made money off of Germany is similarly indebted. Why is it just the Bushes you are against? Is it because they have more money? That argument fails with me because blood money is blood money, whether it is $0.50 or $50,000,000.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Sugar
And I frankly think Mr. Bush gives us way to much ammo in the present to worry about digging in his family's past. To go after his grandfather is a distraction and allows people (like the ones on this board) to negate the point for the reasons they have stated. It's then too easy for them to ignore the GOOD, CURRENT reasons why this guy is a danger. But that's just a tactical opinion. :wavey:

My point exactly - I say fight the battles that will win the war and don't fart around with the nitpicky attenuated stuff that is not so clear. Lord knows W gives enough current stuff to use :cool: :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Kwiatkowski-Pentagon-Kinght-Ridder31jul03.htm

Career Officer Does Eye-Opening Stint Inside Pentagon
KAREN KWIATKOWSKI / Ohio Beacon Journal 31jul03

Karen Kwiatkowski
Recently retired Air Force Lieutenant colonel
Contact her at [email protected]

(Knight Ridder)—After eight years of Bill Clinton, many military officers breathed a sigh of relief when George W. Bush was named president. I was in that plurality. At one time, I would have believed the administration's accusations of anti-Americanism against anyone who questioned the integrity and good faith of President Bush, Vice President Cheney or Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

However, while working from May 2002 through February 2003 in the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Near East South Asia and Special Plans (USDP/NESA and SP) in the Pentagon, I observed the environment in which decisions about post-war Iraq were made.

Those observations changed everything.

What I saw was aberrant, pervasive and contrary to good order and discipline. If one is seeking the answers to why peculiar bits of ``intelligence'' found sanctity in a presidential speech, or why the post-Hussein occupation has been distinguished by confusion and false steps, one need look no further than the process inside the Office of the Secretary of Defense. I can identify three prevailing themes.

Functional isolation of the professional corps.
Civil service and active-duty military professionals assigned to the USDP/NESA and SP were noticeably uninvolved in key areas of interest to Undersecretary for Policy Douglas Feith, Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld. These included Israel, Iraq and to a lesser extent, Saudi Arabia.

When the New York Times broke the story last summer of Richard Perle's invitation of Laurent Muraviec to brief the Defense Policy Board on Saudi Arabia as the next enemy of the United States, this briefing was news to the Saudi desk officer. He even had some difficulty getting a copy of it, while receiving assignments related to it.

In terms of Israel and Iraq, all primary staff work was conducted by political appointees, in the case of Israel a desk officer appointee from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and in the case of Iraq, Abe Shulsky and several other appointees. These personnel may be exceptionally qualified; Shulsky authored a 1993 textbook Silent Warfare: Understanding the World of Intelligence.

But the human resource depth made possible through broad-based teamwork with the professional policy and intelligence corps was never established, and apparently, never wanted by the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld organization.


Cross-agency cliques:
Much has been written about the role of the founding members of the Project for a New American Century, the Center for Security Policy and the American Enterprise Institute and their new positions in the Bush administration. Certainly, appointees sharing particular viewpoints are expected to congregate, and an overwhelming number of these appointees having such organizational ties is neither conspiratorial nor unusual. What is unusual is the way this network operates solely with its membership across the various agencies -- in particular the State Department, the National Security Council and the Office of the Vice President.

Within the Central Intelligence Agency, it was less clear to me who the appointees were, if any. This might explain the level of interest in the CIA taken by the Office of the Vice President. In any case, I personally witnessed several cases of staff officers being told not to contact their counterparts at State or the National Security Council because that particular decision would be processed through a different channel. This cliquishness is cause for amusement in such movies as Never Been Kissed or The Hot Chick. In the development and implementation of war planning it is neither amusing nor beneficial for American security because opposing points of view and information that doesn't ``fit'' aren't considered.


Groupthink.
Defined as ``reasoning or decision-making by a group, often characterized by uncritical acceptance or conformity to prevailing points of view,'' groupthink was, and probably remains, the predominant characteristic of Pentagon Middle East policy development. The result of groupthink is the elevation of opinion into a kind of accepted ``fact,'' and uncritical acceptance of extremely narrow and isolated points of view.

The result of groupthink has been extensively studied in the history of American foreign policy, and it will have a prominent role when the history of the Bush administration is written. Groupthink, in this most recent case leading to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, will be found, I believe, to have caused a subversion of constitutional limits on executive power and a co-optation through deceit of a large segment of the Congress.
I am now retired. Shortly before my retirement I was allowed to return to my primary office of assignment, having served in NESA as a desk officer backfill for 10 months. The transfer was something I had sought, but my wish was granted only after I made a particular comment to my superior, in response to my reading of a February Secretary of State cable answering a long list of questions from a Middle Eastern country regarding U.S. planning for the aftermath in Iraq. The answers had been heavily crafted by the Pentagon, and to me, they were remarkably inadequate, given the late stage of the game. I suggested to my boss that if this was as good as it got, some folks on the Pentagon's E-ring may be sitting beside Hussein in the war crimes tribunals.

Hussein is not yet sitting before a war crimes tribunal. Nor have the key decision-makers in the Pentagon been forced to account for the odd set of circumstances that placed us as a long-term occupying force in the world's nastiest rat's nest, without a nation-building plan, without significant international support and without an exit plan. Neither may ever be required to answer their accusers, thanks to this administration's military as well as publicity machine, and the disgraceful political compromises already made by most of the Congress. Ironically, only Saddam Hussein, buried under tons of rubble or in hiding, has a good excuse.

[gldstwmn]

http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_2566061,00.html

Johnson: Hard truths in Iraq
January 10, 2004

All that I know is what I have seen. And heard.

People have asked, in the days since my return, about my assignment in Iraq: What was it like, how is America faring there, how long does the U.S. figure our soldiers will have to stay there? This is only some of it.

I was very fortunate to have received the assignment - contrary to what many friends and loved ones still believe. History at curbside is a hell of a thing to witness.

It gives you a perspective you cannot otherwise have. So the three weeks of fear, of dust and dirt and horrid living conditions I would not, now, ever trade.

And today what I do know with absolute certainty is that U.S. troops cannot soon leave, and likely must be there for a very long time.

Anyone, whether politician or commentator, who tells you the bulk of U.S. soldiers can be brought home by July, the workaday control of the country handed back to the Iraqis, knows nothing.

Iraq today remains a complete mess. In every way imaginable.

What we hear and see in the United States, if I might tell you, bears little resemblance to the reality that is Iraq. This was the most striking, the most surprising thing I discovered in my time there.

We focus here almost exclusively on our own young soldiers, particularly those dying daily in Iraq. And this is as it should be, heaven knows. Some of the young men with whom I slept, ate and went out on patrol have been killed in the week since I returned. This is a very sobering, disheartening reality.

Hard and unavoidable truths

But we should also question every day just what concrete measures we are taking there to stop the killing and to rebuild that conquered nation.

The answer, to me, seems obvious, at least out in the villages and along the highways where we were.

We are doing very little.

We have big-footed our way into a country that will cost us untold billions in hard cash and many, many more American lives. The Iraqis, by anyone's standard, have precious little. And they will never fully accept Americans in their midst, no matter how much they might need us.

It is a truth, when you are in the country and simply look around, that is unavoidable.

Iraq is both highly dysfunctional and extremely dangerous, a country totally incapable of securing and honestly governing itself.

Imagine living where the electricity is out at least 12 hours of any 24-hour period. Imagine pushing your car in a two-mile-long line for four hours just to get gas.

Imagine driving down, say, Interstate 25 after work and being stopped every five miles or so for a thorough search - after you've waited in the traffic backup an hour or more just for the privilege.

Imagine soldiers from a foreign country, after they have blown open the front door of your house with explosives, yelling at you to, at the same time, lie still on the floor and yet produce every firearm in your house. And yelling it in a language you do not understand.

There would be, I can assure you, anarchy and bloodshed in the streets of America under such conditions. It would never be tolerated.

That is Iraq, and just on its surface.

Simply put, there's little electricity, no gas, no stability, no security.

So why are we there, trying to save such a filthy, poor, broken-down country? There are scores of others just like it that also need saving.

It is a question you ask yourself repeatedly when you are there. You see the thousands of idle men lining the streets and alleyways. The power is off again and heaven knows who will shoot at you.

So you stand on the bridge next to one of Saddam's old presidential palaces, look out across the Tigris River and what do you see? Yes, a huge electricity plant and the massive oil refinery of Dora on the other side. Each facility has four towering smoke stacks.

Little wisps of smoke rise from the one operating stack at the electricity plant. The dark, heavy smoke that pours from all four at the oil refinery drifts for miles over the Baghdad skyline.

Maybe there is an answer somewhere in there.

We arrived in Baghdad shortly after Congress appropriated some $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan, about $19 billion of it earmarked for the rebuilding of Iraq. Quite clearly, the financial wheels of Washington spin extremely slowly. There is not a penny's worth of evidence - other than the refinery smokestacks - that any rebuilding money has reached Baghdad.

A butcher wants to paint

Walk the streets of Baghdad and imagine what you could do with but a fraction of that money. I'd immediately double - no, triple or more - the salaries of the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps and the Iraqi police, grown men who groan that they make but $40 a month American.

These are men who risk their lives and the lives of their families every day because others see them as collaborating with the occupying Americans. But even with the little bit of money I had in my pocket, I could easily have had at least three defense corps or Iraqi police officers on the take for a good, long while.

And these are the men upon whom America is gambling Iraq's security.

Attend a city council meeting in Iraq if you want to see the long road that lies ahead for democracy and stability.

Nothing, you must know, happens until American military officers arrive.

Until they do, council members stand and sip tea or chat among themselves. In Dujail, at a meeting we witnessed firsthand, the issue simply was painting the town library.

One man wanted green, another blue. And who would do the painting? One man wanted his cousin hired for the job.

"But your cousin is the town butcher," said U.S. Army Maj. Dan Olexio. "What could he possibly know about painting?"

Well, the cousin knew nothing of it, but he needed the work and the money.

This triggered an hourlong screaming match between the city council members, concluding when one councilman announced to the other that he would just kill the butcher's family.

"They are like children," the major said in frustration as he left the meeting two hours later. "I don't know how we're ever going to make this work."

We will pull out of Iraq and leave it to these councilmen and others like them - at the country's, the region's and the world's peril.

American soldiers know the fix that we're in. Not a single one I met of whatever rank didn't. They saw, as I did, the lack of electricity, the interminable gasoline lines, the lack of acceptable security.

If America, with its great wealth and determination, cannot provide such basics, what chance of success does a small-town butcher who wants to be a painter have?

Or anyone else who has lived the bulk of his life under the thumb of a heartless dictator?

Soldiers selfless, idealistic

If it is possible to miss anything, having returned from a war, I miss the U.S. troops most. They were the kindest, most selfless and helpful people I have met in some time.

They simply wanted the story of their service told, not for reasons of fame or glory, just that others might know of it, that somehow it would then have more meaning.

Of all the conversations I had over those weeks, the one I recall the most was with an infantryman, a private first class. It was his 25th birthday. I'd wanted to know why young men make this sacrifice, so willingly lead their very difficult life in horrid conditions.

He'd joined, he said, right after Sept. 11. He was a cop in Detroit. He remembered coming home from work that day and putting his 3-year-old daughter to bed. She asked him what had happened that day.

He told her there were bad people in the world, but that good people in America would find them and punch the bad people in the nose.

Aren't you good? Can't you punch them in the nose? He could still hear his daughter's questions as if she'd asked them yesterday. He enlisted before the week was out.

He spent the first year in South Korea and returned to Fort Carson last spring. He wasn't there a week before he begged to be sent to Iraq. When a sergeant and a lieutenant ignored his request, he went to a colonel, who granted it. He figures it is why he remains a private.

Iraq is his war, like World War II was his grandfather's, he said. He knows he is making a difference in the country, he said, and taking part in history.

For three days, I pestered him for his name. He refused me each time.

"Nope," he said over and over, "I'm not here for the glory, sir."

He was just one of the scores of men with whom we bunked, ate and lived, a few of whom we have learned died in the week since we returned.

Mortars a week ago hit the small, portable trailers at forward operating base Anaconda - where we had slept numerous nights - killing one soldier and wounding, they said, two others. I am still praying it wasn't trailer No. 36, where we stayed and got to know the men.

The soldiers made it all worthwhile, all of them so young and deeply believing in their mission. They revealed to us their lives and we attempted to portray them honestly and correctly.

I do not envy them. Their young hands - and by extension, America's - are extremely full.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4719-2004Jan9.html?referrer=emailarticle

For Illegal Immigrants, More Questions Than Answers
Agencies Inundated With Calls About Bush Plan

"She said she was still unsure about some of the basic elements of the plan, including whether employers would have to show that their workers were not displacing Americans. Bush administration officials have said that businesses would not have to prove this about their current employees."

[gldstwmn]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2311-2004Jan9.html

Bush Plans To Call for Settlement On Moon
Manned Mars Mission Is Longer-Term Goal

"Even advocates within the administration said the new project is sure to be a difficult sell on Capitol Hill because of the huge costs at a time when the administration is projecting mammoth deficits for years to come, and had promised to cut the shortfall in half over the next five years...
The United States currently lacks the scientific and technical foundation required to send humans to Mars, and scientists still find it daunting just to land a robot there safely, as the events of the past week have shown...
Sources involved in the discussions said Bush and his advisers view the new plans for human space travel as a way to unify the country behind a gigantic common purpose at a time when relations between the parties are strained and polls show that Americans are closely divided on many issues. .."

[gldstwmn]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml
Saddam's Ouster Planned In '01?

"(CBS) The Bush Administration began laying plans for an invasion of Iraq, including the use of American troops, within days of President Bush's inauguration in January of 2001 -- not eight months later after the 9/11 attacks as has been previously reported."

[gldstwmn]

http://www.reuters.com/financeNewsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=4MAX00DMWSR2QCRBAEOCFEY?type=businessNews&storyID=4103696

Stocks Fall on Jobs Report, Telecoms

"U.S. employers hired just 1,000 workers in December, the government said early Friday morning. That was sharply lower than Wall Street forecasts of a jump of at least 130,000. The nation's unemployment rate fell to 5.7 percent, its lowest level in over a year, but the decline was mainly because people dropped out of the work force.

The report, which suggested a gap between recent upbeat economic news and reality on Main Street, showed that the economy's recovery has yet to translate into sustained job growth. It also suggested that the economic stimulus from President Bush's tax cuts last year might be fleeting, and would fade as soon as consumers finished spending their extra cash."

[gldstwmn]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/08/opinion/meyer/main592216.shtml

No Slogan Left Behind

"After making war not peace in 2003, our president is taking advantage of the New Year and Democratic fratricide to dress up in his compassionate conservative costume again. First it was kindler, gentler immigration reforms, then an anniversary party for his favorite bill-that-became-a-law, the No Child Left Behind education program.

The NCLB (I can't use the whole, silly slogan again, I'm sorry) celebration is an especially ironic affair, and not just for the president. Bush is trying to collect the political capital from NCLB just as many states and school systems are rebelling because they don't have the real capital (or the desire) to comply with the burdensome law...

When NCLB passed, schools were told they would get some more federal dollars to help comply. But the program has not been close to fully funded, as the president essentially admitted on anniversary day when he said he fund boost his 2005 budget request by about $2.1 billion, which critics will say isn't nearly enough.

NCLB has become a dreaded "unfunded mandate" as they call it in political science seminars.

And increasingly, schools and states are looking for ways to tell the feds to take their unfunded mandates and stick them up their appropriations committees. A few schools and school districts in Vermont and Connecticut have already told the federal government to keep its money, they're not going to comply with NCLB. Some schools in Virginia are debating doing the same."

[strandinthewind]

Good Lord - did you spend all of last night doing research :laugh:

Personally, I get the whole "we need to feed our people not explore space idea," but I just do not agree with it on many levels. First, that task will create thousands of jobs. Second, history demonstrates it will unite people. Finally, its just cool to a techie like me :D :wavey:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Good Lord - did you spend all of last night doing research :laugh:

Personally, I get the whole "we need to feed our people not explore space idea," but I just do not agree with it on many levels. First, that task will create thousands of jobs. Second, history demonstrates it will unite people. Finally, its just cool to a techie like me :D :wavey:

Since some of you wanted to bring the Bush thing into the present I posted what I read from various news sources today. I can't imagine what I'd come up with if I spent 24 hours loooking. :eek: :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Since some of you wanted to bring the Bush thing into the present I posted what I read from various news sources today. I can't imagine what I'd come up with if I spent 24 hours loooking. :eek: :laugh:

I am glad you did and thanks for the due dilligence :cool: These are the types of things I think the D (Democrat - Dean :laugh: )will have to concentrate on to beat W. These are the "real" issues to me. I think if they get mired down in the stuff I deem as trivial, the D will lose whatever shot he had.

But, the mudslinging on this tripe will never end. In fact, go here to see an article from Fox News spinning Dean's perfectly legal activities into an article that suggests what he did was wrong.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107942,00.html

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I am glad you did and thanks for the due dilligence :cool: These are the types of things I think the D (Democrat - Dean :laugh: )will have to concentrate on to beat W. These are the "real" issues to me. I think if they get mired down in the stuff I deem as trivial, the D will lose whatever shot he had.



I don't think Dean is going to be the nominee. I think Wesley Clark is. I think Dean has peaked.

:shrug:

Also, it looks as though Ralph Nader is going to run again.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I don't think Dean is going to be the nominee. I think Wesley Clark is. I think Dean has peaked.

:shrug:

Time will tell. Personally, I think Clark would be a better candidate because he can shine on foreign affairs experience and he is seemingly well liked. Dean's strongsuit is he is controversial and he had a wad of cash. Dean's biggest limitation is he seemingly has no experience in not saying the wrong thing. I mean a debate between Dean and W would be one big foot in the mouth :laugh:

If Nader runs, W will most assuredly win.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind

Personally, I get the whole "we need to feed our people not explore space idea," but I just do not agree with it on many levels. First, that task will create thousands of jobs. Second, history demonstrates it will unite people. Finally, its just cool to a techie like me :D :wavey:

I'm not too sure about the job creation. I have friends that work for Lockheed Martin here in Colorado and what this may do is enable them to keep their jobs which looked uncertain in the face of the space shuttle disaster. Some of them regularly go through lay-off/rehire periods.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Time will tell. Personally, I think Clark would be a better candidate because he can shine on foreign affairs experience and he is seemingly well liked. Dean's strongsuit is he is controversial and he had a wad of cash. Dean's biggest limitation is he seemingly has no experience in not saying the wrong thing. I mean a debate between Dean and W would be one big foot in the mouth :laugh:

If Nader runs, W will most assuredly win.

Well, I think that depends on whether Pat Buchanan is going to run. Bush has already alienated a lot of his conservative base with the immigration deal. Personally, I think he's starting to sound like a man in trouble and we're not anywhere near election day yet.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I'm not too sure about the job creation. I have friends that work for Lockheed Martin here in Colorado and what this may do is enable them to keep their jobs which looked uncertain in the face of the space shuttle disaster. Some of them regularly go through lay-off/rehire periods.

Touche'

But still there will be a great need for many more scientists, engineers, laborers, raw materials, etc. to develop the required materials. So, certainly there will be some job creation.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Touche'

But still there will be a great need for many more scientists, engineers, laborers, raw materials, etc. to develop the required materials. So, certainly there will be some job creation.

I don't think this is ever going to pass. The space program was completely put on hold after the shuttle disaster. If it did pass, it will takes years to implement. So any of the effects would be way down the road.

[strandinthewind]

"Danish troops have found suspicious mortar shells in southern Iraq that officials believe contain blister agents, the United States and Denmark announced Saturday. The shells are at least 10 years old, and a U.S. Army official said he suspects the ordnance was surplus from the Iran-Iraq war in the mid-1980s. Blister agents are used in chemical weapons"

Go to Cnn's site at

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/10/sprj.irq.chemicals/index.html

[gldstwmn]

So?

[gldstwmn]

http://www.foreignaidwatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=572&newlang=eng

Iraq's Smoking Gun Discovered
In White House Holster


Only a day after the administration 'quietly' withdrew a 400 person team that was responsible for scouring Iraq for WMD's, it is apparent that someone has struck pay dirt in the hunt for those sinister weapons of mass destruction. As always, they turned up in the last place that you thought of looking for them in, the White House. According to a report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Administration systematically misrepresented the threat posed by Iraq. Furthermore, the authors of the report are cited as stating that they found no conclusive evidence of the claims that Saddam Hussein was cooperating with al-Qaeda or that he would have transferred chemical, biological or nuclear weapons to that group.

The Washington Post has reported that 'Iraq's Arsenal Was o_nly o_n Paper' while the New York Times was quoting a member of the 1,400-member Iraqi Survey Group as saying that they were "still waiting for something to dispose of." You might think that after spending $166 billion dollars o_n the project that they might have at least purchased a few paper shredders?

All along, the administration has taken the position of 'just you wait and see' as they presented stall tactics such as 'Iraq is really big country', and 'Saddam had a really long time to hide his weapons of mass destruction'. Even the David Kay report claimed that we 'knew he had weapons at o_ne time' as they stated that Iraq's weapons program spanned 'decades'. What they didn't point out is the fact that most of the weapons had usable shelf lives far shorter than the period quoted.

The Washington Post has cited three intelligence officials as claiming that David Kay may decide not to return to his position as the head of the Iraqi Survey Group when his current holiday leave has concluded. The article further quotes an interview with the President in which he was questioned why he stated that Iraq's weapons were a "hard fact" when it now appears that they were o_nly an "intent to acquire them".

The article quotes the President:

"So what's the difference?" Bush responded. "The possibility that he could acquire weapons. If he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger."

There have even been attempts to redefine weapons of mass destruction to the point of claiming that Saddam himself was a o_ne man 'weapon of mass destruction' and since we have captured him, the search is now over and hence the justification for war was vindicated when we captured him. The abuse of the definition of WMD has been so rampant that it has been included in the Lake Superior State University's list of "misused, overused and generally useless" words according an article by the BBC. It has even been claimed that small arms such as rifles should be considered to be WMD's.

The bottom line is that it doesn't take anything other than a thesaurus to convert the Carnegie assessment that the administration 'systematically misrepresented' the threat of weapons of mass destruction into that they 'thoroughly lied' about them.

This just reinforces my belief that the administration is desperate.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.freedomofthepress.net/quarantiningdissent.htm

Quarantining Dissent

How The Secret Service Protects Bush From Free Speech


by James Bovard, San Francisco Chronicle, January 4, 2003


When President Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up "free speech zones" or "protest zones," where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event.

When Bush went to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, "The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us."

The local police, at the Secret Service's behest, set up a "designated free-speech zone" on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush's speech.

The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, but folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president's path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign.

Neel later commented, "As far as I'm concerned, the whole country is a free-speech zone. If the Bush administration has its way, anyone who criticizes them will be out of sight and out of mind."

At Neel's trial, police Detective John Ianachione testified that the Secret Service told local police to confine "people that were there making a statement pretty much against the president and his views" in a so-called free- speech area.

Paul Wolf, one of the top officials in the Allegheny County Police Department, told Salon that the Secret Service "come in and do a site survey, and say, 'Here's a place where the people can be, and we'd like to have any protesters put in a place that is able to be secured.' "

Pennsylvania District Judge Shirley Rowe Trkula threw out the disorderly conduct charge against Neel, declaring, "I believe this is America. Whatever happened to 'I don't agree with you, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'?"

Similar suppressions have occurred during Bush visits to Florida. A recent St. Petersburg Times editorial noted, "At a Bush rally at Legends Field in 2001, three demonstrators -- two of whom were grandmothers -- were arrested for holding up small handwritten protest signs outside the designated zone. And last year, seven protesters were arrested when Bush came to a rally at the USF Sun Dome. They had refused to be cordoned off into a protest zone hundreds of yards from the entrance to the Dome."

One of the arrested protesters was a 62-year-old man holding up a sign, "War is good business. Invest your sons." The seven were charged with trespassing, "obstructing without violence and disorderly conduct."

Police have repressed protesters during several Bush visits to the St. Louis area as well. When Bush visited on Jan. 22, 150 people carrying signs were shunted far away from the main action and effectively quarantined.

Denise Lieberman of the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri commented, "No one could see them from the street. In addition, the media were not allowed to talk to them. The police would not allow any media inside the protest area and wouldn't allow any of the protesters out of the protest zone to talk to the media."

When Bush stopped by a Boeing plant to talk to workers, Christine Mains and her 5-year-old daughter disobeyed orders to move to a small protest area far from the action. Police arrested Mains and took her and her crying daughter away in separate squad cars.

The Justice Department is now prosecuting Brett Bursey, who was arrested for holding a "No War for Oil" sign at a Bush visit to Columbia, S.C. Local police, acting under Secret Service orders, established a "free-speech zone" half a mile from where Bush would speak. Bursey was standing amid hundreds of people carrying signs praising the president. Police told Bursey to remove himself to the "free-speech zone."

Bursey refused and was arrested. Bursey said that he asked the police officer if "it was the content of my sign, and he said, 'Yes, sir, it's the content of your sign that's the problem.' " Bursey stated that he had already moved 200 yards from where Bush was supposed to speak. Bursey later complained, "The problem was, the restricted area kept moving. It was wherever I happened to be standing."

Bursey was charged with trespassing. Five months later, the charge was dropped because South Carolina law prohibits arresting people for trespassing on public property. But the Justice Department -- in the person of U.S. Attorney Strom Thurmond Jr. -- quickly jumped in, charging Bursey with violating a rarely enforced federal law regarding "entering a restricted area around the president of the United States."

If convicted, Bursey faces a six-month trip up the river and a $5,000 fine. Federal Magistrate Bristow Marchant denied Bursey's request for a jury trial because his violation is categorized as a petty offense. Some observers believe that the feds are seeking to set a precedent in a conservative state such as South Carolina that could then be used against protesters nationwide.

Bursey's trial took place on Nov. 12 and 13. His lawyers sought the Secret Service documents they believed would lay out the official policies on restricting critical speech at presidential visits. The Bush administration sought to block all access to the documents, but Marchant ruled that the lawyers could have limited access.

Bursey sought to subpoena Attorney General John Ashcroft and presidential adviser Karl Rove to testify. Bursey lawyer Lewis Pitts declared, "We intend to find out from Mr. Ashcroft why and how the decision to prosecute Mr. Bursey was reached." The magistrate refused, however, to enforce the subpoenas. Secret Service agent Holly Abel testified at the trial that Bursey was told to move to the "free-speech zone" but refused to cooperate.

The feds have offered some bizarre rationales for hog-tying protesters. Secret Service agent Brian Marr explained to National Public Radio, "These individuals may be so involved with trying to shout their support or nonsupport that inadvertently they may walk out into the motorcade route and be injured. And that is really the reason why we set these places up, so we can make sure that they have the right of free speech, but, two, we want to be sure that they are able to go home at the end of the evening and not be injured in any way." Except for having their constitutional rights shredded.

The ACLU, along with several other organizations, is suing the Secret Service for what it charges is a pattern and practice of suppressing protesters at Bush events in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, Texas and elsewhere. The ACLU's Witold Walczak said of the protesters, "The individuals we are talking about didn't pose a security threat; they posed a political threat."

The Secret Service is duty-bound to protect the president. But it is ludicrous to presume that would-be terrorists are lunkheaded enough to carry anti-Bush signs when carrying pro-Bush signs would give them much closer access. And even a policy of removing all people carrying signs -- as has happened in some demonstrations -- is pointless because potential attackers would simply avoid carrying signs. Assuming that terrorists are as unimaginative and predictable as the average federal bureaucrat is not a recipe for presidential longevity.

The Bush administration's anti-protester bias proved embarrassing for two American allies with long traditions of raucous free speech, resulting in some of the most repressive restrictions in memory in free countries.

When Bush visited Australia in October, Sydney Morning Herald columnist Mark Riley observed, "The basic right of freedom of speech will adopt a new interpretation during the Canberra visits this week by George Bush and his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao. Protesters will be free to speak as much as they like just as long as they can't be heard."

Demonstrators were shunted to an area away from the Federal Parliament building and prohibited from using any public address system in the area.

For Bush's recent visit to London, the White House demanded that British police ban all protest marches, close down the center of the city and impose a "virtual three-day shutdown of central London in a bid to foil disruption of the visit by anti-war protesters," according to Britain's Evening Standard. But instead of a "free-speech zone," the Bush administration demanded an "exclusion zone" to protect Bush from protesters' messages.

Such unprecedented restrictions did not inhibit Bush from portraying himself as a champion of freedom during his visit. In a speech at Whitehall on Nov. 19, Bush hyped the "forward strategy of freedom" and declared, "We seek the advance of freedom and the peace that freedom brings."

Attempts to suppress protesters become more disturbing in light of the Homeland Security Department's recommendation that local police departments view critics of the war on terrorism as potential terrorists. In a May terrorist advisory, the Homeland Security Department warned local law enforcement agencies to keep an eye on anyone who "expressed dislike of attitudes and decisions of the U.S. government." If police vigorously followed this advice, millions of Americans could be added to the official lists of suspected terrorists.

Protesters have claimed that police have assaulted them during demonstrations in New York, Washington and elsewhere.

One of the most violent government responses to an antiwar protest occurred when local police and the federally funded California Anti-Terrorism Task Force fired rubber bullets and tear gas at peaceful protesters and innocent bystanders at the Port of Oakland, injuring a number of people.

When the police attack sparked a geyser of media criticism, Mike van Winkle, the spokesman for the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center told the Oakland Tribune, "You can make an easy kind of a link that, if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that's being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that protest. You can almost argue that a protest against that is a terrorist act."

Van Winkle justified classifying protesters as terrorists: "I've heard terrorism described as anything that is violent or has an economic impact, and shutting down a port certainly would have some economic impact. Terrorism isn't just bombs going off and killing people."

Such aggressive tactics become more ominous in the light of the Bush administration's advocacy, in its Patriot II draft legislation, of nullifying all judicial consent decrees restricting state and local police from spying on those groups who may oppose government policies.

On May 30, 2002, Ashcroft effectively abolished restrictions on FBI surveillance of Americans' everyday lives first imposed in 1976. One FBI internal newsletter encouraged FBI agents to conduct more interviews with antiwar activists "for plenty of reasons, chief of which it will enhance the paranoia endemic in such circles and will further service to get the point across that there is an FBI agent behind every mailbox."

The FBI took a shotgun approach toward protesters partly because of the FBI's "belief that dissident speech and association should be prevented because they were incipient steps toward the possible ultimate commission of act which might be criminal," according to a Senate report.

On Nov. 23 news broke that the FBI is actively conducting surveillance of antiwar demonstrators, supposedly to "blunt potential violence by extremist elements," according to a Reuters interview with a federal law enforcement official.

Given the FBI's expansive definition of "potential violence" in the past, this is a net that could catch almost any group or individual who falls into official disfavor.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
So? The "so" is I think these are WMD and they were buried and, therefore, hidden from inspectors. This begs the question of how many more such things are buried. From what I read, and I will admit to not understanding exactly what a "blistering agenct" is, this goes a long way toward making the case that SH had chemical WMD directly in violation of his agreement with the UN. That is huge in my book :cool:

[gldstwmn]

They were old weapons left over from the Iran-Iraq war buried in a shallow marsh in leaking plastic bags. Most likely they were forgotten about. There was a whopping 36 of them. :)

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
They were old weapons left over from the Iran-Iraq war buried in a shallow marsh in leaking plastic bags. Most likely they were forgotten about. There was a whopping 36 of them. :)

All the more reason to worry, sweetie: that's another 36 votes in the bag for Shrub. ;)

:(

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
All the more reason to worry, sweetie: that's another 36 votes in the bag for Shrub. ;)

:(

Between that and the 5 extra Latinos that are going to vote for him because of the immigration plan...woo. :laugh:

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Between that and the 5 extra Latinos that are going to vote for him because of the immigration plan...woo. :laugh:

He's hoping to get the votes of many liberals because of his new plan. Excuse while I :laugh: .

Seems like he's only a compassionate conservative when the elections are right around the corner. And just think, he'll still be wasting our money long after he's kicked out of office: the Shrub Presidential Library. :laugh: It'll double as a portal to hell, ya know...

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
He's hoping to get the votes of many liberals because of his new plan. Excuse while I :laugh: .

Seems like he's only a compassionate conservative when the elections are right around the corner. And just think, he'll still be wasting our money long after he's kicked out of office:

That's because he's already spent it for years to come.;)

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
That's because he's already spent it for years to come.;)

Decades, not years. The combined efforts of Kennedy and Roosevelt himself couldn't fix this mess. We're f*cked for mnay, many years to come. :nod:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
They were old weapons left over from the Iran-Iraq war buried in a shallow marsh in leaking plastic bags. Most likely they were forgotten about. There was a whopping 36 of them. :)

Yes, but I do not want to hear anymore of "there were no WMD." From now on, please footnote that statement with "They were old weapons left over from the Iran-Iraq war buried in a shallow marsh in leaking plastic bags. Most likely they were forgotten about. There was a whopping 36 of them. :) " (I am joking BTW :cool: )

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Yes, but I do not want to hear anymore of "there were no WMD." From now on, please footnote that statement with "They were old weapons left over from the Iran-Iraq war buried in a shallow marsh in leaking plastic bags. Most likely they were forgotten about. There was a whopping 36 of them. :) " (I am joking BTW :cool: )

Okay, you asked for it.:)

[gldstwmn]

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0113-10.htm

Can PM Appease Bush?
by Thomas Walkom

Some refer to George W. Bush as another Hitler. This is a gross exaggeration. He has constructed no death camps and only one concentration camp — at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

While it does seem, in Nuremberg terms, that Bush could be called a war criminal (invading other countries on the flimsiest of pretexts), he has not engaged in genocide. Nor, unlike Volkswagen supporter Hitler, does he promote the production of small, cheap cars.

True, both came to power constitutionally (although under dubious circumstances and with the support of only a minority of voters). True, both masterfully used traumatic events at home (the 1933 Reichstag fire for Hitler; 9/11 for Bush) to make a frightened and resentful populace accept restrictions on civil liberties.

True, also, that the U.S. leader shares Hitler's taste for military costumes — although to be fair to the German dictator, he did serve on active duty in wartime.

But overall, the comparison is far from exact, lending credence to Karl Marx's famous comment that when history repeats itself, the first time is tragedy, the second, farce.

Still, for Canada and novice Prime Minister Paul Martin — currently trying to engage Bush in Monterrey, Mexico — there are certain similarities. Like central European nations of the 1930s, Canada finds itself next door to a powerful nation led by an unusually aggressive and perhaps slightly unhinged man. What to do?

It's generally forgotten now, but in the mid-'30s Hitler was not universally condemned as evil personified. Indeed, he had many admirers in Europe and North America — people who lauded his "leadership," who lionized his moral certainty (no namby-pamby moral relativism there) and who either forgave, or actively applauded, what was then called anti-Semitism and today would be labeled racial profiling.

World leaders were wary and respectful. Canada's then-prime minister, Mackenzie King, confided in his diary after meeting Hitler in 1937 that the dictator was "one who truly loves his fellow men and his country and would make any sacrifice for their good ... a man of deep sincerity and a genuine patriot ... a teetotaller."

Yet even King, an ocean away from Germany, recognized that Hitler's ambitions could cause trouble. Consider the difficulties of Germany's small neighbors. Should they stay resolutely neutral and hope for the best (Belgium, Switzerland), sign onto Hitler's security agenda (Austria, Hungary, Romania) or rely on agreements with other nations (Poland, Czechoslovakia)?

These are the choices Canada faces with Bush's America. Former prime minister Jean Chrétien attempted the Swiss solution — stay out of the aggressor's wars but continue to sell him whatever he needs. Hitler was comfortable with that level of tacit support. Bush appears to want more.

Martin seems to be veering to the Romanian model of more active support for Bush's military aims. I say "seems" because, as usual, Martin's actions to date have been rhetorical and procedural — setting up new committees, making vague promises.

Indeed, those far more familiar with Paul Martin's thinking than I whisper that, at heart, the new Prime Minister is no different from Chrétien here. If so, rhetoric will dominate — plus one or two substantive measures.

Like Chrétien, Martin will offer up the Canadian navy and special commando units to the U.S. (those interested in the level to which Canadian maritime forces are already under U.S. command should read Kelly Toughill's masterful piece in last Saturday's Star).

Like Chrétien, Martin will almost certainly sign onto Bush's missile defense scheme. Canada's hope, like that of Russia and Europe, is that missile defense will be harmless (it doesn't work), will provide juicy contracts for industry, and will focus Bush's attention away from invading small nations.

Will Martin go further? Leftish Liberals hope he will simply be a politer Chrétien: Don't join the aggressor's wars but don't call him a moron either.

Those on the right, including many of Martin's business supporters, want a version of the Austrian model: Anschluss (annexation) in everything but name. However, the U.S. has little interest in this so it's unlikely to happen.

Martin has vowed to keep the Canada-U.S. border open to commerce. This is an easy promise to keep since the Americans want that too. He said he would persuade the Americans to "respect" the Canadian passport. He won't get that. He may get an agreement on softwood lumber (which isn't up to Bush; even Hitler wasn't all-powerful). But Martin will get a lumber deal only if he gives the Americans everything they want.

My guess is that if Martin wants the U.S. president to like him, if he wants those coveted invitations to the ranch so useful for winning votes in Alberta, he will have to offer something more — that Canada will have to be a little more Romania and a little less Switzerland.

Switzerland, of course, survived World War II intact. Romania did not.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
[url]Some refer to George W. Bush as another Hitler. This is a gross exaggeration. He has constructed no death camps and only one concentration camp — at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

By all accounts, the camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba is a far cry from the Jewish and gay killing field concentration camps used by Hitler. I mean the Jews and gays were picked up off of the street for doing nothing and then tortured, experimented upon, and/or slaughtered in the name of promoting the Aryan race. In stark contrast, the prisoners at the camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba lost a war and were caught fighting for a rogue terrorist group that attacked the U.S. Moreover, by all accounts, although they are not at a Ritz Carlton, they have acceptable surroundings and are fed three times a day and sheltered. I mean even Bill Maher has no problem with their treatment :laugh:

Interestingly, I think we should have send them to some sort of international court and have treated them like POW's even though they do not fall under that definition in the Geneva Convention because, inter alia, Al-Q was not part of an official army or militia of a country (Afganistan vehemently denied Al-Q was even in Afganistan much less part of the Afgan army). I think this would have made America look better and more compassionate in the eyes of the world. Moreover, I do not want to pay to hold them forever.

Originally posted by gldstwmn
True, both came to power constitutionally (although under dubious circumstances and with the support of only a minority of voters). True, both masterfully used traumatic events at home (the 1933 Reichstag fire for Hitler; 9/11 for Bush) to make a frightened and resentful populace accept restrictions on civil liberties.

Shhebus - Bush won the election by the way elections are won :laugh: I hate it when people use the red herring of "he didn't win the popular vote!" Who cares - the New York Times has admitted W won Florida and, therefore, the electoral vote which is all that matters! :laugh:

Also, does anyone really think that W should not have used 9/11 to invade Afganistan (Iraq nothwithstanding for some). Moreover, while I agree the Patriot Act goes too far, does anyone but the ACLU really think that tighter security measures are not warranted in airports after 9/11.

Originally posted by gldstwmn
True, also, that the U.S. leader shares Hitler's taste for military costumes — although to be fair to the German dictator, he did serve on active duty in wartime.


While I agree on some level that W landing on a ship in a fighter plane under a banner that said mission accomplished was in bad taste, I do love how the far left cannot stand that W was a fighter pilot. It just throws off their whole "W is an idiot" argument. I submit that even with the arguments that W was never there, you cannot have been both an idiot and a fighter pilot. :cool: As an aside, I never got why people were so hoorified W visited the troops over Thanksgiving. I mean that is his right as the Pres. and the Commander in Chief. But, I know people just can't get over the fact that W did it and will never see it as anything but a photo op.

Originally posted by gldstwmn
It's generally forgotten now, but in the mid-'30s Hitler was not universally condemned as evil personified. Indeed, he had many admirers in Europe and North America — people who lauded his "leadership," who lionized his moral certainty (no namby-pamby moral relativism there) and who either forgave, or actively applauded, what was then called anti-Semitism and today would be labeled racial profiling.

Hmm - this appears to support, albeit a little, my argument that the world did business with Nazi Germany on a regular basis until they were brought into the war.

Finally, as for Canada, I say, like Mexico and Cuba, we should buy it and make it part of the USA.

[strandinthewind]

My point ealier about charitable donations being made for tax purposes, etc. The alt. minimum tax needs to be ousted. along with the entire progressive tax system IMO :laugh:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108431,00.html

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
While I agree on some level that W landing on a ship in a fighter plane under a banner that said mission accomplished was in bad taste, I do love how the far left cannot stand that W was a fighter pilot. It just throws off their whole "W is an idiot" argument. I submit that even with the arguments that W was never there, you cannot have been both an idiot and a fighter pilot. :cool: As an aside, I never got why people were so hoorified W visited the troops over Thanksgiving. I mean that is his right as the Pres. and the Commander in Chief. But, I know people just can't get over the fact that W did it and will never see it as anything but a photo op.

Beacause both PR moves smacked of desperation a la Madge and Britney's kiss. Everything he does is in bad taste, bud. I especially love how this new space bull**** is taking precedent over Iraq. We've got weapons of mass distraction right here in this country.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Beacause both PR moves smacked of desperation a la Madge and Britney's kiss. Everything he does is in bad taste, bud. I especially love how this new space bull**** is taking precedent over Iraq. We've got weapons of mass distraction right here in this country.

I did not find the Thanksgiving trip in bad taste and thought it was a good thing, but understand you always will and won't :laugh: I mean the vast majority of the troops' morale was boosted by that visit- remember the vast majority of the troops like W, even if others do not. That is why I say it was a good thing. Also, I get that the photo op is perhaps what is objected to, but all politician get the photo op. Hillary certainly did.

But, you do agree the Pres. has the right to visit the troops?


"We've got weapons of mass distraction right here in this country. : :laugh: ITA, even though I am for space exporation.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I mean the vast majority of the troops' morale was boosted by that visit

That's why the suicide rate in Iraq has soared in the past six weeks?

He had the right to go over there, I just question his reasons for doing so; I thought it was in really bad taste. Then the admin comes back to the states and starts spouting these tall tales about their visit over there and photos of Bush and his fake turkey are being blasted across every newspaper; it left a very bad taste in my mouth.

:wavey:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
[B]. In stark contrast, the prisoners at the camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba lost a war and were caught fighting for a rogue terrorist group that attacked the U.S. B]

Maybe. How do we know since they have never been given the opportunity to have a hearing in open court and as it stands now they won't get that opportunity?

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind

But, you do agree the Pres. has the right to visit the troops?




He can fly all the way to Iraq, cameras a blazin' but he can't go to one funeral here? No cameras there.

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
He can fly all the way to Iraq, cameras a blazin' but he can't go to one funeral here? No cameras there.

Good point. :nod: :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
He can fly all the way to Iraq, cameras a blazin' but he can't go to one funeral here? No cameras there.

I agree - but Presidents do not if my memory is correct ever go to the funerals of KIA's.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Maybe. How do we know since they have never been given the opportunity to have a hearing in open court and as it stands now they won't get that opportunity?

Agreed, but they were captured in battle. Also and interestingly, because they are not U.S. citizens, no Const. right to counsel attaches. Rather, that right would have to come from the Geneva convention, which they also do not qualify under.

I say let them have the counsel and see where it goes.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Agreed, but they were captured in battle.

My understanding was that some, but not all of them were captured in battle.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
My understanding was that some, but not all of them were captured in battle.

:shrug: :shrug:

On a related topic, I know some of the detainees have been let go, returned, etc. I wonder what will happen with the others. I mean in theory once the Afgan govt. is set (is it set yet?), they should go there to be tried.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.fair.org/activism/hitler-ads.html

When Are Nazi Comparisons Deplorable?
For Fox News, only when Republicans are the target

January 16, 2004

The controversy over comparisons between George W. Bush and Adolf Hitler in two ads submitted to the anti-Bush ad contest run by the online activist group MoveOn.org says less about the state of left discourse than it does about the double standards at Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.

News Corp's Fox News Channel started the controversy on January 4, airing Republican National Committee chair Ed Gillespie's complaint about the Bush/Hitler comparison. "That's the kind of tactics we're seeing on the left today in support of these Democratic presidential candidates," Gillespie charged, calling such tactics "despicable."

The whole next day (1/5/04), this was a major story on Fox News Channel. John Gibson asked, "What about the hating Bush movement, the MoveOn.org and George Soros sponsoring these ads that compare Bush to Hitler?"--before being corrected that the ads were not sponsored by MoveOn (or Soros, a funder of the group), and were taken down in response to complaints.

Sean Hannity accused a guest: "You guys on the left are going so far over the cliff. You're making comparisons to the president and Adolf Hitler." Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway said on Hannity's show, "This is the hateful, vitriolic rhetoric that has become the Howard Dean Democratic Party." Bill O'Reilly cited the ads as evidence that "right now in America the Democratic party is being held captive by the far, far left."

It should be noted that however hyperbolic, comparisons to Hitler and fascism are not unknown in the American political debate. Rush Limbaugh has routinely called women's rights advocates "femi-Nazis," and references to "Hitlery Clinton" are a staple of right-wing talk radio. Republican power-broker Grover Norquist on NPR (10/2/03) compared inheritance taxes to the Holocaust.

Closer to home for Fox News, on the very same day that Gibson, Hannity and O'Reilly were talking about the Hitler/Bush comparison as evidence of the left's extremism, a column ran in the New York Post that described Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean as a follower of Josef Goebbels, referred to him as "Herr Howie," accused him of "looking for his Leni Riefenstahl," called his supporters "the Internet Gestapo" and compared them to "Hitler's brownshirts."

The New York Post, like Fox News Channel, is part of News Corporation, Rupert Murdoch's conservative media empire. And this piece wasn't just put up on the Post's website as part of a contest--it was written by a right-wing commentator who frequently appears in the Post's pages, Ralph Peters, and selected for the op-ed page by the Post's own editors. So it's more than a little embarrassing that these blatant Nazi comparisons were being made in the Post while the paper's corporate sibling was denouncing such comparisons as a sign of derangement.

So what did the Murdoch organization do? Fox appears to have completely ignored the Post's own Nazi analogies--there's no reference to the column whatsoever in the cable channel's transcripts. And the New York Post seems to have sent the column down the memory hole--clicking on a link that used to go to Peters' story gives you a "page not found" message, and the text isn't found in the Nexis media database. (Ironically, in light of this Orwellian disappearing act, the column also compared Dean to Big Brother.)

In the interview that started the brouhaha, the RNC's Gillespie was asked if he would oppose similar attacks on Democrats. He replied: "If they stoop to the kind of despicable tactic like morphing a candidate into Adolf Hitler, yes, absolutely, I will tell you right here on the air. Have me back if any organization does that, I would repudiate it."

The same organization that interviewed him did that, through another of its branches, the very next day. So far, Fox News hasn't had him back on to condemn the New York Post.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ACTION: Please ask the New York Post whether it stands by the column it published describing Howard Dean as a Nazi, or if it owes Dean an apology. And ask Fox News Channel why they didn't criticize that column, even though its hosts repeatedly condemned such analogies that same day--when they involved George W. Bush.

CONTACT:
Fox News Channel
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Phone: 1-888-369-4762
[email protected]


New York Post
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 100036
Phone: 1-212-930-8000
[email protected]

[dissention]

I'm writing a letter right now. :D That should be all of the confirmation y'all need that I'm an extreme left-loony. :laugh:

It's is hypocritical for the right to chastize us for making the comparison, when they did the same with Clinton. Of course, it's carried over to the Democratic candidates, but when it's said of Bush, we're supposedly pigs and loonies.

PS: What do you think of Pickering's appointment? He's a pig if I've ever seen one and Bush should be ashamed.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
I'm writing a letter right now. :D That should be all of the confirmation y'all need that I'm an extreme left-loony. :laugh:

It's is hypocritical for the right to chastize us for making the comparison, when they did the same with Clinton. Of course, it's carried over to the Democratic candidates, but when it's said of Bush, we're supposedly pigs and loonies.

PS: What do you think of Pickering's appointment? He's a pig if I've ever seen one and Bush should be ashamed.

Segragationist. Don't even get me started on the MLK thing. He should have just laid a plastic turkey down. What's it gonna take for people to wake up and realize how dangerous Bush is?

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Segragationist. Don't even get me started on the MLK thing. He should have just laid a plastic turkey down. What's it gonna take for people to wake up and realize how dangerous Bush is?

I think unless they are killing millions in a concentration camp and seeking to establish one race as the dominant race, it is wrong and factually incorrect to make the comparison even in hyperbole to Hitler no matter who makes it or about whom it is made :cool:

Pickering is interesting to me. Yes, he has a history of racial badness. However, all indicators reflect that the really bad stuff was awhile ago, which most Southern politicians of that age also can claim. Can people change? Who knows? Many people around him indicate he is not a racist. But, I still stretch for the definition of that word as so many have a different one, e.g., as I have mentioned, I think Affirmative Action is racist :cool: Also, I think many people call him anti-pro choice, but that also is a subjective term. I mean I think if we want parents to be accountable for their kids, then an underage girl in almost all instances should be required to get parental consent before having an abortion - or at least her parents should be told about the abortion and take consent out of the picture. That in many peoples' opinions is the very definition of anti pro choice and I am the anti-Christ for saying it :laugh:

Personally, from what I have read Pickering is not that bad considering the other extremist ones out there they could have picked. But, the Fith Cir. historically is a very, very significant court for new civil rights and Con. Law cases.

So, I guess we have a year to see if the leopard has changed his spots. As for W's appointment of him - it was perfectly legal from what I understand and I am pretty sure other Presidents have done it (although I am too lazy to look it up :laugh: ).

[strandinthewind]

Here is an IMO fair and balanced article from Fox news on the Pickering recess appointment.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108734,00.html

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Segragationist. Don't even get me started on the MLK thing. He should have just laid a plastic turkey down. What's it gonna take for people to wake up and realize how dangerous Bush is?

He's just trying to get the black vote. The whole MLK visit was a joke and an excuse for a photo-op, IMO. I think it's a salp in the face to African Americans to visit MLK grave and a day later, appoint a segregationist to a high power job. Jess Jackson was livid on TV last night about it.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
He's just trying to get the black vote. The whole MLK visit was a joke and an excuse for a photo-op, IMO. I think it's a salp in the face to African Americans to visit MLK grave and a day later, appoint a segregationist to a high power job. Jess Jackson was livid on TV last night about it.

He just happened to pick up a few mil in campaign contributions later in the day at a fundraiser, all at the taxpayers expense of course. What a guy.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
As for W's appointment of him - it was perfectly legal from what I understand and I am pretty sure other Presidents have done it (although I am too lazy to look it up :laugh: ).

Yes it is legal but when you put it with all of Bush's other sneaky moves, it smells. What about when he appointed 12 people while Congress was out during Christmas and when he snuck through Patriot II while no one was looking on the same day Saddam wasn't captured and...and... Where are the checks and balances? He's misusuing the power of the presidency.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20040116.html

The U.S. Supreme Court and The Imperial Presidency
How President Bush Is Testing the Limits of His Presidential Powers
By JOHN W. DEAN

[gldstwmn]

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17540

Green Party "Terrorist" Not Allowed to Fly

By Frederick Sweet, Intervention Magazine
January 12, 2004

Art dealer Doug Stuber, who ran Ralph Nader's Green Party presidential campaign in North Carolina in 2000, was pulled out of an airline boarding line and grounded this past holiday season. He was about to make an important trip to Prague to gather artists for Henry James Art in Raleigh, N.C., when he was told (with ticket in hand) that he was not allowed to fly out that day.


When he asked why not, he was told at Raleigh-Durham airport that because of the sniper attacks, no Greens were allowed to fly overseas on that day. The next morning he returned, and instead of paying $670 round trip, was forced into a $2,600 "same day" air fare. But it's what happened to Stuber during the next 24 hours that is even more disturbing.


Stuber arrived at the airport at 6 a.m. and his first flight wasn't due out until nearly six hours later. He had plenty of time. At exactly 10:52 in the morning, just before boarding was to begin, he was approached by police officer Stanley (the same policeman who ushered him out of the airport the day before), who said that he "wanted to talk" to him. Stuber went with the police officer, but reminded him that no one had said he couldn't fly, and that his flight was about to leave.


Officer Stanley took Stuber into a room and questioned him for an hour. Around noon, Stanley had introduced him to two Secret Service agents. The agents took full eye-open pictures of Stuber with a digital camera. Then they asked him details about his family, where he lived, who he ever knew, what the Greens are up to, and other questions.


At one point during his interrogation, Stuber asked if they really believed the Greens were equal to al Qaeda. Then they showed him a Justice Department document that actually shows the Greens as likely terrorists – just as likely as al Qaeda members. Stuber was released just before 1 PM, so he still had time to catch the later flight.


The agents walked Stuber to the Delta counter and asked that he be given tickets for the flight so that he could make his connections. The airline official promptly printed tickets, which relieved Stuber, who assumed that the Secret Service hadn't stopped him from flying. Wrong! By the time Stuber was about to board, officer Stanley once again ushered him out the door and told him: "Just go to Greensboro, where they don't know you, and be totally quiet about politics, and you can make it to Europe that way."


In Greensboro, after Stuber showed his passport he was told that he could not fly overseas or domestically. Undeterred, he next traveled an hour-and-a-half to Charlotte. In Charlotte, the same thing happened. Then Stuber drove three hours to his home after 43 hours of trying to catch a flight.


Stuber said he could only conclude that the Greens, whose values include nonviolence, social justice, etc., are now labeled terrorists by the Ashcroft-led Justice Department.


Questions about how one gets on a no-fly list creates questions about how to get off it. This is a classic Catch-22 situation. The Transportation Security Agency says it compiles the list from names provided by other agencies, but it has no procedure for correcting a problem. Aggrieved parties would have to go to the agency that first reported their names. But for security reasons, the TSA won't disclose which agency put someone on the no-fly list.

[dissention]

:mad:

Words fail me, darling. Words fail me.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
I'm writing a letter right now. :D That should be all of the confirmation y'all need that I'm an extreme left-loony. :laugh:

It's is hypocritical for the right to chastize us for making the comparison, when they did the same with Clinton. Of course, it's carried over to the Democratic candidates, but when it's said of Bush, we're supposedly pigs and loonies.


Your right, it is hypocritical. But anyone who makes that comparison about any of our current politicians loses any credibility in my mind...left or right. I completely agree with Bill Maher:eek: ....I caught his show last night. He had a "New Rule" about the idiotic comparisons to Hitler...pretty amusing. Ron Silver went toe to toe with Sharpton...good stuff. The good Rev. is politically immature and this was really apparent on Maher's show last night.

Rob
:cool:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by Rob67
Your right, it is hypocritical. But anyone who makes that comparison about any of our current politicians loses credibility in my mind...left or right. I completely agree with Bill Maher:eek: ....I caught his show last night. He had a "New Rule" about the idiotic comparisons to Hitler...pretty amusing. Ron Silver went toe to toe with Sharpton...good stuff. The good Rev. is politically immature and this was really apparent on Maher's show last night.

Rob
:cool:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
Beacause both PR moves smacked of desperation a la Madge and Britney's kiss. Everything he does is in bad taste, bud.

Everything appearence that every politician has ever made can be looked at as a PR move. And???:)

Rob:cool:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
He just happened to pick up a few mil in campaign contributions later in the day at a fundraiser, all at the taxpayers expense of course. What a guy.

Well - all Presidents use AF1 this way. There is some payback by the campaign, but it never is enough to compensate. So, its not like W is doing anything new by campaigning while doing official duties.

Personally, I think the PRes. should lay a wreath at MLK's tomb no matter who the Pres. is. But, I get why people do not want him to do that. :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
He's misusuing the power of the presidency.

Misusing implies he is doing something illegal, which he is not. I mean I do not like everything W has done, but I do know that he has not broken any law to do it. I mean the Patriot Act and other acts may be rules unconstitutional (hopefully :laugh: ) - but they are not illegal per se. Moreover, all Presidents do crap like this. Personally, I think the whole judicial appointee confirmation process needs to be revamped. Although I have no clue how they should change it. Yet, despite this clear IMO Const. crisis (courts are not functioning because BOTH sides are behaving like a$$holes and have been doing so since Bush I), the most important Const. consideration is the definition of marriage. :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Rob67
Your right, it is hypocritical. But anyone who makes that comparison about any of our current politicians loses any credibility in my mind...left or right. I completely agree with Bill Maher:eek: ....I caught his show last night. He had a "New Rule" about the idiotic comparisons to Hitler...pretty amusing. Ron Silver went toe to toe with Sharpton...good stuff. The good Rev. is politically immature and this was really apparent on Maher's show last night.

Rob
:cool:

I did not find Al Sharpton immature. I just thought that Silver guy was not the brightest bulb and Al was just over that :laugh:

I mean I think everyone gets that SH was a jerk, which was basically Silver's only point. Then, Silver just refused to see why people like me are pissed that although they were for the removal of SH, the Bush Admin. blatantly lied about the nuclear stuff to get further support for the regime change. Then, after the fact its "Well awe shucks - we knew that wasn't true, but what the hell, now that we are there, let's just ignore that - we won;t do it again really - I swear." I mean that is some serious lying to ignore in my book.

In the end, I think it is frightening when Issa comes out as the moderate at the table :laugh:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I did not find Al Sharpton immature. I just thought that Silver guy was not the brightest bulb. I mean I think everyone gets that SH was a jerk, which was basically his only point. TGhen, he just refuses to see why people are pissed that although they were for the removal of SH, the Bush Admin. blatantly lied about the nuclear stuff to get further support for the regime change.

In the end, I think it is frightening when Issa comes out as the moderate at the table :laugh:

I found Sharpton to be very intellectual and approachable, where as Silver came across as a self-righteous ass (as always). But I'm a Sharpton whore; the man can do no wrong. :laugh:

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
Everything appearence that every politician has ever made can be looked at as a PR move. And???:)

Rob:cool:

No doubt. However, I don't believe I've ever seen a president go to such lengths as Shrub; it continues to amaze me what that wet fart of a human turd will do for votes.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Well - all Presidents use AF1 this way. There is some payback by the campaign, but it never is enough to compensate. So, its not like W is doing anything new by campaigning while doing official duties.

Personally, I think the PRes. should lay a wreath at MLK's tomb no matter who the Pres. is. But, I get why people do not want him to do that. :cool:

Well we are in debt more than ever before so I guess I'd like to see the belt tightening measures start at the top.

I don't have a problem with Bush visiting MLK's grave as long as people are allowed to freely protest his visit as opposed to blocking them off behind city buses.:)

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I did not find Al Sharpton immature. I just thought that Silver guy was not the brightest bulb and Al was just over that :laugh:

I mean I think everyone gets that SH was a jerk, which was basically Silver's only point. Then, Silver just refused to see why people like me are pissed that although they were for the removal of SH, the Bush Admin. blatantly lied about the nuclear stuff to get further support for the regime change. Then, after the fact its "Well awe shucks - we knew that wasn't true, but what the hell, now that we are there, let's just ignore that - we won;t do it again really - I swear." I mean that is some serious lying to ignore in my book.

In the end, I think it is frightening when Issa comes out as the moderate at the table :laugh:

Ron Silver acted like a rabid pitbull. IMO his agenda was quite clear.:)
Sharpton had valid questions which were never answered by Issa or Silver. Sharpton tried to answer the Brawley question but Silver wouldn't stop attacking him long enough to let him answer. I'd be surprised if Silver was invited back on the show.

[gldstwmn]

In a poll released by The New york Times this morning, President Bush has a 45% disapproval rating. By contrast, Jimmy Carter's was only 37% at the time of his run for reelection. It is the highest diasapproval rating of any of the presidents in the poll.:)

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Ron Silver acted like a rabid pitbull. IMO his agenda was quite clear.:)
Sharpton had valid questions which were never answered by Issa or Silver. Sharpton tried to answer the Brawley question but Silver wouldn't stop attacking him long enough to let him answer. I'd be surprised if Silver was invited back on the show.

Silver had what I see all of the time when people are asked to speak publicly on a topic they feel strongly about. His voice was shaking like an amateur. Its okay to be an amateur, but do not be surprised when the pros try to devour you. i mean if you step up to the plate, you better be ready top swing at the ball :laugh: In this case, Silver was not and was ineffective. As for Sharpton, he is a card, and I think he enjoyed the fodder for his rehtoric that Silver was just feeding him over and over again. Notice Issa did not do it. Why? Issa is a pro. His answers, regardless of point of view, were well thought out and his voice was clear and confident.

[strandinthewind]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108757,00.html

Cheney and Scalia duck hunting while the Court was considering Cheney's case. Smacks of fraud to me! :nod:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108757,00.html

Cheney and Scalia duck hunting while the Court was considering Cheney's case. Smacks of fraud to me! :nod:

Fraud it is!

:wavey:

[strandinthewind]

I think he should recuse himself.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108757,00.html

Cheney and Scalia duck hunting while the Court was considering Cheney's case. Smacks of fraud to me! :nod:

They're talking about how they are going to steal the next election.:)

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
They're talking about how they are going to steal the next election.:)

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

PS: Your package went out! I forgot to email ya. :)

[strandinthewind]

Don't you think W should have used the word Republic a la America instead of Democracy?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108824,00.html

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Don't you think W should have used the word Republic a la America instead of Democracy?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108824,00.html

Reminds me when he said that when it came to faith-based intitiatives, he wanted Washington to be a "dictatorship."

:wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Reminds me when he said that when it came to faith-based intitiatives, he wanted Washington to be a "dictatorship."

:wavey:

He really should get a tutor for the English language or stick to mono-syllabic words. :laugh:

And you know the saddest thing about the faith based initiative thing to me is that he is correct, these organizations seemingly do this type of activity with far more efficiency than the govt. But, I just think that is not the real reason behind it. I think the real reason is to pay off the far right religious conservatives for getting him into office. For example, I want to see the Fed. Govt. and W. give money to the Wiccan Sisters of the Poor or the Sons of Satan Goat Roast for the Needy. :laugh:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
He really should get a tutor for the English language or stick to mono-syllabic words. :laugh:

That is the kicker, my man:

It doesn't even sound like he speaks our language. :laugh:

"I like to come up with new words for the embetterment of my vocabulary."

:wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
That is the kicker, my man:

It doesn't even sound like he speaks our language. :laugh:

"I like to come up with new words for the embetterment of my vocabulary."

:wavey:

Yet - people from all walks of life find those "Bushisms" quaint and cute. For the life of - I just do not get it.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Yet - people from all walks of life find those "Bushisms" quaint and cute. For the life of - I just do not get it.

Me neither.

In one of my sociology classes, this one woman said she voted for Bush just because she thought he was a cute, little man. He's many things, but cute ain't one of 'em. And she shouldn't be allowed the right to vote.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Me neither.

In one of my sociology classes, this one woman said she voted for Bush just because she thought he was a cute, little man. He's many things, but cute ain't one of 'em. And she shouldn't be allowed the right to vote. I know I know :laugh:

So many people just think W is the most trustworthy looking guy. I just don't see it. We hit on this awhile back, but I think Clinton played on this same "Bubba-esq." theme. Although unlike W, Clinton's English was perfect, Clinton had that Bubbaness around him when he uttered such classics as "Well gosh darn and shucks - I did not inhale" or "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Many people just on the spot believed him solely by the way he said it and I was like "Are you kidding me - he is lying his ass off" :laugh: Oh the unwahed masses and their ability to be deceived :cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Oh the unwahed masses and their ability to be deceived :cool:

They aren't enlightened like we are! :D

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Don't you think W should have used the word Republic a la America instead of Democracy?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108824,00.html

I can't wait for tomorrow night. We should have plenty to talk about.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
Me neither.

In one of my sociology classes, this one woman said she voted for Bush just because she thought he was a cute, little man. He's many things, but cute ain't one of 'em. And she shouldn't be allowed the right to vote.

He ain't little either. But his brother Jeb is a big guy. His head is the size of a basektball. I saw a picture of the two of them standing together and Jeb dwarfs Shrub.

[strandinthewind]

Ever since about 1985 or so, I just hate and I mean HATE the SOTU addresses. They might as well have cheerleaders as far as I am concerned :laugh: The last one I watched was the Jan. 2002 one becuase of the 9/11 stuff. That is how I know W was trying to scare us into a war with Iraq by using exxageration for emphasis when IMO he did not need to.

But - I always read the text the next day!!!!!

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I can't wait for tomorrow night. We should have plenty to talk about.

I'm getting ready for an intense night of conversation over here. :laugh:

:wavey:

The Ledge chatroom would be good for tomorrow night, actually.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Ever since about 1985 or so, I just hate and I mean HATE the SOTU addresses. They might as well have cheerleaders as far as I am concerned :laugh: The last one I watched was the Jan. 2002 one becuase of the 9/11 stuff. That is how I know W was trying to scare us into a war with Iraq by using exxageration for emphasis when IMO he did not need to.

But - I always read the text the next day!!!!!

A few of my friends at the Kerry campaign headquarters phoned me last night and said they heard some rumblings about Bush introducing a universal health care plan tomorrow night...

We'll just have to wait and see!

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
I'm getting ready for an intense night of conversation over here. :laugh:

:wavey:

The Ledge chatroom would be good for tomorrow night, actually.

It would - but I want you crazy liberals' comments immortalized for future reference :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
A few of my friends at the Kerry campaign headquarters phoned me last night and said they heard some rumblings about Bush introducing a universal health care plan tomorrow night...

We'll just have to wait and see!

Well, while I am for that - I highly doubt W's universal health case is the same as my idea of it AND his last health care initiative, while better than enything before it, certainly made little sense to me and also certainly did not help the really poor. :laugh:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Well, while I am for that - I highly doubt W's universal health case is the same as my idea of it AND his last health care initiative, while better than enything before it, certainly made little sense to me and also certainly did not help the really poor. :laugh:

Well, if it's anything like his Medicare bill, we should all be afraid. :nod:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Well, if it's anything like his Medicare bill, we should all be afraid. :nod: And they had such a great chance to do good for scoiety. But, both sides just get taken over by the lobbiest. Even though this law is better than nothing, it just turns my stomach that for the most part people still cannot get the medical services and supplies they need in the richest and freest country in the world.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
A few of my friends at the Kerry campaign headquarters phoned me last night and said they heard some rumblings about Bush introducing a universal health care plan tomorrow night...

We'll just have to wait and see!

No way.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
Well, if it's anything like his Medicare bill, we should all be afraid. :nod:

What ever happened to the investigation into congressional bribes? Did it just go away?

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
No way. There is an article about it on www.foxnews.com

[gldstwmn]

Pat Buchanan's column should be good this week.:laugh: Georgie's in trouble and he knows it. :nod:

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
No way.

Yup. :nod:

However, if it isn't socialized medicine, Shrub can kiss my ass. It's just going to be another half-baked idea that will not come to fuition and is mainly just a ploy to boost popularity.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Yup. :nod:

However, if it isn't socialized medicine, Shrub can kiss my ass. It's just going to be another half-baked idea that will not come to fuition and is mainly just a ploy to boost popularity.

You will always be disappointed because socialized medicine will never happen. Thus, the middle ground must be reached. I say that medical pricing sfor the uninsured hould be based on income levels and other demonstrated need. That seems fair to me. I mean if you have no money, you don't pay. If you have a little money, you pay your share. Then, the people who have insurance (the majority of Americans) go with their individual plans. Simple I know - but it would be better than what we have now. Also, I think the states perhqaps should get out of the medical business and let the feds do it all.

These are just random thoughts and by no way final. :cool:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
Yup. :nod:

However, if it isn't socialized medicine, Shrub can kiss my ass. .

He can kiss my ass anyway.:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :wavey:

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
He can kiss my ass anyway.:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :wavey:

My ass is too good for him, IMO. :laugh: :wavey:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
My ass is too good for him, IMO. :laugh: :wavey:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/21/sprj.nirq.main/index.html

Congressman: Details of Iraqi WMD 'years away'



Bull****. If that was the case, we should have been "years away" from going to war. BTW, the congressman? Is from Florida.

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/21/sprj.nirq.main/index.html

Congressman: Details of Iraqi WMD 'years away'



Bull****. If that was the case, we should have been "years away" from going to war. BTW, the congressman? Is from Florida.

SPIN. CONTROL.

:wavey:

[gldstwmn]

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/22/news/companies/kodak.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes

Kodak to cut 20% of staff

Photo company to take $1.3B-$1.7B charge as it eliminates up to 15,000 jobs.
January 22, 2004: 6:12 AM EST



NEW YORK (Reuters) - Eastman Kodak Co. said Thursday it will slash its work force by 20 percent and take up to $1.7 billion in charges over the next three years as the company accelerates a painful shift away from the waning film photography market.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/22/news/companies/kodak.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes

Kodak to cut 20% of staff

Photo company to take $1.3B-$1.7B charge as it eliminates up to 15,000 jobs.
January 22, 2004: 6:12 AM EST



NEW YORK (Reuters) - Eastman Kodak Co. said Thursday it will slash its work force by 20 percent and take up to $1.7 billion in charges over the next three years as the company accelerates a painful shift away from the waning film photography market.

I know - I saw that and think it is horrible. It remings me of IBM in the 80's when IBM missed the beginning of the PC/operating system boom. IMB had OS2 which many considered to be a better operating system than MS' Windows overlay on DOS. IBM thought no one wanted a PC with an independamt operating system on every desk and in every home. So, IBM pretty much concentrated on mainframe stuff in the 80's. What a mistake. It almost ruined the company. Similarly, Kodak just refused to "see the light" that film and paper pictures that needed to be developed were on there way out. They should have jumped on that train years ago but did not. Bad Bad management!!! :mad:

[gldstwmn]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/22/politics/22INTE.html?th

Ex-C.I.A. Aides Ask for Leak Inquiry by Congress

"The disclosure of Ms. Plame's name was an unprecedented and shameful event in American history and, in our professional judgment, has damaged U.S. national security, specifically the effectiveness of U.S. intelligence-gathering using human sources," the group wrote in the two-page letter..."

[gldstwmn]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/22/national/22DIXO.html?th

Student Sex Case in Georgia Stirs Claims of Old South Justice

By ANDREW JACOBS

Published: January 22, 2004

Associated Press
The comfortable world of Marcus Dixon, a high school football star, fell apart when he was charged at 18 with raping a 15-year-old girl.

ATLANTA, Jan. 21 — Marcus Dixon had it all. A 3.96 grade-point average, a football scholarship to Vanderbilt University and the adoration of many teachers and students at Pepperell High School in Rome, a largely white community in the northwest corner of the state. In a place where racial matters still provoke strong emotions, it was no small thing that Mr. Dixon, who is black, was being reared by a white family.

These days the former star of the Pepperell Dragons is serving a minimum 10-year sentence for having sex with a fellow student last February. Mr. Dixon, then one course shy of graduation, was 18. The girl, who sat in front of him in a class, was three months short of her 16th birthday. In the trial, Mr. Dixon's accuser, who is white, said she had been raped. The defense said the girl had willingly engaged in intercourse.

"I never thought I would get 10 years for having consensual sex with a classmate," Mr. Dixon said, in a telephone interview on Wednesday from prison. "I thought I was going to get convicted of statutory rape and go home that day."

Mr. Dixon's lawyers argued an appeal on Wednesday before the Georgia Supreme Court, in which they presented Mr. Dixon's prosecution as faulty and his punishment as unusually cruel. Under state law, they argued, Mr. Dixon should have been sentenced under the lesser charge of statutory rape, which carries a maximum one-year sentence.

"This man should be pursuing his education instead of sitting in jail," said his lawyer, David Balser.

Since his trial last March, Mr. Dixon's plight has drawn growing attention from the news media, from opponents of mandatory sentencing and from civil rights advocates who see Mr. Dixon as a victim of Old South-style injustice. Mr. Balser, a commercial litigator with one of the city's biggest law firms, donated his services after reading a newspaper account of the trial. So, too, did a prominent public relations company that does work for the law firm.

On the eve of Wednesday's hearing, nearly 100 people gathered outside the state Supreme Court here, holding candles and singing, "We Shall Overcome." Speaking to the crowd, Dr. Joseph Lowery, a founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Council, did not mince words.

"If the young lady was black and Marcus Dixon was white, I don't think we would be here," he said, his voice breaking with emotion.

The authorities in Floyd County say they were simply doing their jobs and following state law.

"We believe her story, we believe she was raped," said District Attorney Leigh E. Patterson. Mr. Dixon, she said, had been reprimanded twice before for inappropriate sexual behavior — once, for exposing himself in class and once for putting his hands down the pants of a female student. In both cases, Mr. Dixon said, he was goofing around.

"This is not about race," Ms. Patterson said. "This is about a sexual predator."

Nearly a year after the two students' encounter at the high school, most details remain in dispute. The girl, who worked as a part-time custodian, said Mr. Dixon attacked her as she cleaned an empty classroom trailer. According to the girl's testimony, Mr. Dixon restrained her, bruising her arms and cutting her lip. The student, a sophomore, told investigators she had been a virgin.

In the trial, defense lawyers presented three classmates who said they had seen the bruises days before the reported attack. The defense described the cut lip as a case of chapped lips, and although a medical examination confirmed vaginal bruises, both sides used the findings to bolster their arguments. Prosecutors said it showed Mr. Dixon had injured the girl, and the defense said such injuries were consistent with someone having sex for the first time.

In the interview, Mr. Dixon said the girl had initiated the encounter.

"I said we should go to my house, that there was no one there," he said, "but she said she was afraid someone would see us leaving together." "She said that her daddy was a racist and that he would kill both of us if he knew she was with a black man."

Although a jury acquitted Mr. Dixon of rape, sexual battery, aggravated assault and false imprisonment, they found him guilty of statutory rape, a misdemeanor, and because of the girl's injuries, the more serious charge of aggravated child molestation. Bound by Georgia's sentencing laws, the judge gave Mr. Dixon the minimum 10 years. After learning of the sentence, five of the jurors said they would not have voted to convict Mr. Dixon if they had known he would spend so much time in prison.

Georgia's legislators toughened sentencing guidelines in 1995, when they categorized child molestation as one of the "seven deadly sins." Since Mr. Dixon's conviction, many of those who voted for the more stringent codes have said they did not realize aggravated child molestation could be applied to consensual sex among teenagers.

Until his brush with the courts, Mr. Dixon's was a classic tale of triumph over adversity. When the couple rearing him, Kenneth and Peri Jones, first met 9-year-old Marcus, his mother was in jail, his father had vanished and the boy was being reared by his grandmother. Mr. Jones, the boy's Little League coach, said he was taken with his performance on the field and his zeal for a better life. After spending a summer at the Jones home and becoming fast friends with their own son, the boy asked if he could move in.

"With his grandmother's blessing, he became family," said Mr. Jones, 45, a maintenance manager at Pepperell High. "He never gave us a lick of trouble." The decision to become the boy's legal guardian, however, drove a wedge in the Jones family. Mr. Jones's mother moved out of the house, and he stopped speaking to a brother who refused to accept the boy.

The Joneses, who spent their savings on Mr. Dixon's defense, say they have no regrets. Ms. Jones, an elementary school teacher, said Mr. Dixon had always made them proud. "Marcus would never hurt a fly," she said. "He may have committed a sin. But he never committed a crime."