Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 84
  1. #41  
    You guys are really amazing.

    WMDs were found..several times. You really need to read the news reports. People like saying "No WMDs" as in "No ready to launch nukes" as a way to discredit the effort. Bottom line - they were found - lots of biological ones.

    As for Japan, they were a viscious nation (ever read the history of their wars with China - they threw babies in the air and bayonetted them.) Japan got pulverized and we rebuilt them. Now they are a different nation. (somewhat).

    Ever see the "Fog of War"? Should be required viewing, IMHO.

    Shock and awe Iran? No, I don't believe in Shock and Awe. I believe that if you go to war, you do so devastatingly (that is why it is a last resort). We are so civilized in our approach to war it's almost like patty-cake.

    Again, you want to discuss specific historical items, go ahead. Calling me delusional is just a cop-out for not having a reasonable argument.

    And what does Fox News have to do with Rather? Fox News is infotainment, just as NBC,CBS and ABC are. But I don't recall them inventing false documents to discredit anyone...
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikec View Post
    When Iran sells a dirty bomb to someone, who sets it off in a major US city, maybe people will wake up. But I sadly fear it will take a couple of them.
    Problem with your premise is that the US quagmire in Iraq has done more to destabilize the middle east than any civil war between Sunni and Shiite has the potential for. Then again, that's only the assessment of every independent body who is, or has been studying the effects of invading that sovereign nation without provocation.

    No evidence of viable WMD was found. None. Nada. Zilch. The only 'findings' were examples which had long outlived their shelf-life, having been produced prior to the last war for oil [GHWB's words] rendering them completely harmless. Much like your arguments.
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikec View Post
    WMDs were found..several times. You really need to read the news reports. People like saying "No WMDs" as in "No ready to launch nukes" as a way to discredit the effort. Bottom line - they were found - lots of biological ones.
    Sources. Post em'

    As for Japan, they were a viscious nation (ever read the history of their wars with China - they threw babies in the air and bayonetted them.) Japan got pulverized and we rebuilt them. Now they are a different nation. (somewhat).
    I'm OK with the war against Japan. They were the aggressors and whether we let them walk into Pearl Harbor or not (as some historians have theorized) they were part of a real axis of evil that clearly imposed a clear and present danger.

    Ever see the "Fog of War"? Should be required viewing, IMHO.
    And your point is?

    Shock and awe Iran? No, I don't believe in Shock and Awe. I believe that if you go to war, you do so devastatingly (that is why it is a last resort). We are so civilized in our approach to war it's almost like patty-cake.
    Tell that to the 3,500 familes of our troops that died. War is not patty cake and the fact that you've said that tells me you've never served.....and playing PS2 video war games don't count.

    Again, you want to discuss specific historical items, go ahead. Calling me delusional is just a cop-out for not having a reasonable argument.
    You just keep posting more and more baseless and rhetorical crap. I'm not sure anyone here cares to debate someone so out of touch.

    And what does Fox News have to do with Rather? Fox News is infotainment, just as NBC,CBS and ABC are. But I don't recall them inventing false documents to discredit anyone...
    Fox News claims they are fair and balanced. Fox News considers itself a real news channel....and most of it's foaming-at-the-mouth viewers think that too. Fox News lies on a daily basis....no papers needed.
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikec View Post
    WMDs were found..several times. You really need to read the news reports.
    Maybe you should Mike. I left you a couple of fairly obvious news reports, and in particular, if you are trying to bring up the BS Santorum was trying to fling on us last year, please refer to the fourth reference. I threw the video in at the end for your enjoyment. Anyway, thanks for your contributions, people were complaining that it was not lively enough around here and you are helping to fix that. Cheers
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...0-06-wmd_x.htm
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062101837.html
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0
  5. #45  
    <<Greenspan accuses the Republicans who presided over the party's majority in the House until last year of being too eager to tolerate excessive federal spending in exchange for political opportunity..."They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither."...>>

    So the problem is that the Repubs were not conservative enough? Not that their conservative philosophy was wrong, just that they wandered away from it?


    "Everybody Palm!"

    Palm III/IIIC, Palm Vx, Verizon: Treo 650, Centro, Pre+.
    Leo killed my future Pre 3 & Opal, dagnabitt!
    Should I buy a Handspring Visor instead?
    Got a Pre2! "It eats iPhones for Breakfast"!
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by duanedude1 View Post
    <<Greenspan accuses the Republicans who presided over the party's majority in the House until last year of being too eager to tolerate excessive federal spending in exchange for political opportunity..."They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither."...>>

    So the problem is that the Repubs were not conservative enough? Not that their conservative philosophy was wrong, just that they wandered away from it?


    They weren't fiscally conservative at all but somehow that hasn't made front page news in the "liberal" media either. If that were Clinton that ran up such debt you can be assured there would be endless 24 hour coverage about that "tax and spend" liberal bubba that bankrupted our country.

    But back to Greenspan's comments - he is saying that the GOP put politics and gaining more seats in the house/senate ahead of sound conservative fiscal responsibility.

    If only the "base" would wake up to the fact that they were duped - the GOP has become morally corrupt and has fiscally bankrupted this nation. How anybody who is either (or both) fiscally or morally conservative can continue to support this crop of lying crooks is beyond me.
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    They weren't fiscally conservative at all but somehow that hasn't made front page news in the "liberal" media either. If that were Clinton that ran up such debt you can be assured there would be endless 24 hour coverage about that "tax and spend" liberal bubba that bankrupted our country.
    Right on! As Greenspan said: ""The hard truth was that Reagan had borrowed from Clinton, and Clinton was having to pay it back". Rather than 'tax' [meaning=pay-as-you-go], this brand of Republican clearly believes in borrow and spend, just as Reagan did. It's the children of those who place these monkeys into power who are left to foot the astronomical bill. Nothing, by any stretch of the imagination, 'conservative' about that. Nor was there anything 'conservative' about the Republican congress who rubberstamped everything Bush wanted.
  8.    #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Right on! As Greenspan said: ""The hard truth was that Reagan had borrowed from Clinton, and Clinton was having to pay it back". Rather than 'tax' [meaning=pay-as-you-go], this brand of Republican clearly believes in borrow and spend, just as Reagan did. It's the children of those who place these monkeys into power who are left to foot the astronomical bill. Nothing, by any stretch of the imagination, 'conservative' about that. Nor was there anything 'conservative' about the Republican congress who rubberstamped everything Bush wanted.
    you had me until the gratuitous inter-specie slur.

    We are no longer friends...
    Last edited by BARYE; 09/16/2007 at 11:31 PM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  9.    #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Right on! As Greenspan said: ""The hard truth was that Reagan had borrowed from Clinton, and Clinton was having to pay it back". Rather than 'tax' [meaning=pay-as-you-go], this brand of Republican clearly believes in borrow and spend, just as Reagan did. It's the children of those who place these monkeys into power who are left to foot the astronomical bill. Nothing, by any stretch of the imagination, 'conservative' about that. Nor was there anything 'conservative' about the Republican congress who rubberstamped everything Bush wanted.

    unfortunately this history is being repeated again -- only much much worse this time.

    Not only have they cut the taxes of the wealthy and corporations; not only have they enacted unfunded boondogles like the billion dollar big pharma subsidy (elderly RX); and projects like bridges to nowhere; but they have sucked us into the bottomless blackhole of an unfunded iraq war, while not accounting for the trillions that will be required to reconstruct the military that they've wasted on those bloody arab sands...

    The next President -- assuming its a democrat (and a Clinton), will again need to clean up the mess that those patriotic GOP "conservatives" have left ...
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    you had me until the gratuitous inter-specie slur.

    We are no longer friends...
    My sincerest apologies to simians everywhere for the thoughtless slur. Simians Rule!

    More appropriately, I've scraped higher lifeforms from the souls of my boots than BushCo.
  11. #51  
    It Seems Greenspan has done some clarification...

    http://www.reuters.com/article/newsO...27504220070917



    And he is no fan of the current Democratic party either... and may not vote at all!

    <<How anybody who is either (or both) fiscally or morally conservative can continue to support this crop of lying crooks is beyond me.>>

    Because they are a tad bit better (just a tad) than the other crop of lying crooks on the other side of the aisle?? The old "lesser of two evils" argument. You still get an evil, but at least it's a smaller one.
    "Everybody Palm!"

    Palm III/IIIC, Palm Vx, Verizon: Treo 650, Centro, Pre+.
    Leo killed my future Pre 3 & Opal, dagnabitt!
    Should I buy a Handspring Visor instead?
    Got a Pre2! "It eats iPhones for Breakfast"!
  12. gatorray's Avatar
    Posts
    12 Posts
    Global Posts
    13 Global Posts
    #52  
    Man...I hate getting sucked into these them vs. us discussions. Ok, no I don't. I am truly middle of the road politically. I voted for Clinton (one of the best presidents ever) and voted for Bush. I voted with my gut. When I watch Fox or CNN, read the WSJ or USA Today, I do so with the understanding that what I am reading IS biased. I don't think humans have the ability to remove all bias from news/commentary. We have emotions that affect every part of our lives. We need to take ALL of the input and PROCESS it and not just regurgitate it.

    I don't want religion in my schools or government and I don't want to pander to every special interest out there. I want my taxes to help those in need, but I don't want the government to be an enabler. A hard balance to achieve, but should still strive for.

    There is a common ground that we can all enjoy. We get it for that brief moment in time that the pendulum is at the mid-point of swinging from one extreme (politically) to the other. A previous poster mentioned that Clinton was in the right place at the right time. You forgot to add that he was the right man also.
  13. #53  
    Personally, I'm curious as to what criteria people citing Clinton as 'best' and Bushie as 'worst' are using. I think both value judgements are far too much of a stretch other than in the context of 'the last two presidents'. I'm of the opinion that history will judge the Bush/Clinton/Bush(/Clinton?) years as being far more alike than dissimilar.

    That being said, I'm not under the impression that Greenspan is nearly as hyperbolous as is suggested. I've not read the book yet, but the Newsweek interview I read had him comparing Clinton to Nixon (great in IQ, but mean in character).
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  14. #54  
    Greenspan is on Fresh Air with Terry Gross (an hour long interview program on NPR) tomorrow.

    You can also stream the program the same day or download a mp3 podcast the next day. The web site for the program is

    http://www.npr.org/templates/rundown...n.php?prgId=13
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Personally, I'm curious as to what criteria people citing Clinton as 'best' and Bushie as 'worst' are using. I think both value judgements are far too much of a stretch other than in the context of 'the last two presidents'. I'm of the opinion that history will judge the Bush/Clinton/Bush(/Clinton?) years as being far more alike than dissimilar.

    That being said, I'm not under the impression that Greenspan is nearly as hyperbolous as is suggested. I've not read the book yet, but the Newsweek interview I read had him comparing Clinton to Nixon (great in IQ, but mean in character).
    I don't know if Clinton was the best. I just know that he was better than Bush on every level (other than not cheating on his wife). I am just stuck finding one single thing Bush has done better in office than Clinton other than control the press better. So I'll politely disagree with your opinion they'll somehow look the same in the rear view mirror and look forward to seeing you up here 20 years from now admitting that you were wrong.
  16. #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I don't know if Clinton was the best. I just know that he was better than Bush on every level (other than not cheating on his wife). I am just stuck finding one single thing Bush has done better in office than Clinton other than control the press better. So I'll politely disagree with your opinion they'll somehow look the same in the rear view mirror and look forward to seeing you up here 20 years from now admitting that you were wrong.
    I'm not judging them on personality or public perception. Clinton has it all over Bush on that front. I think from a policy standpoint, though, the Clinton with Bush bookends era has been more alike than dissimilar. What did Clinton do differently on Iraq than the elder Bush? Not much. He basically maintained the status quo. Did Clinton make any more progress on Middle East peace than elder Bush did? Not really. The junior Bush basically followed through on that policy with a new outlook due to what could potentially happen if a rogue nation decided to assist others in striking at us. Sure, we more or less know now that Iraq either didn't have (or managed to export) any WMDs before we invaded, but prior to that, even Clinton believed that they were a potential threat.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  17.    #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    ...I think from a policy standpoint, though, the Clinton with Bush bookends era has been more alike than dissimilar. What did Clinton do differently on Iraq than the elder Bush? ...The junior Bush basically followed through on that policy with a new outlook due to what could potentially happen if a rogue nation decided to assist others in striking at us...
    most of what you wrote was regarding daddy --- and true, Clinton's international policies were not that different. They both sought accommodation, cooperation, and friendship ahead of confrontation.

    Neither sought enemies or war unless circumstances presented no other alternative.

    When those situations arose (Iraq 1 w/daddy; Serbia w Clinton), they both had the enthusiastic help of the international community which saw them as intelligent and wise leaders; as well as partners and friends.

    Neither did any more than allow Sadamm to maintain the status quo -- neither would have gone to war in iraq. Both had enough wisdom, knowledge, and humility to realize that making a war is much easier than making a peace.

    Clinton did much much more in working for peace and conciliation
    in the Middle East, Bosnia, and Korea. (junior ended up taking Clinton's deal w/Korea, but only after wasting billions and billions on a useless star wars fiasco.)

    junior was the least qualified president in memory -- someone without any positive qualification for the vast power that he attained. To list the specifics of all that junior has done to harm america would take pages.

    Germane to this thread though, is how he took an inherited nest egg received from a wise predecessor -- and drank and gambled it way in vegas -- and then maxed out on his 20 % credit cards so that he could stay and continue to play roulette.

    His philosophy was to live for today -- and let the kids figure how to pay it back.

    BTW -- Greenspan was on with John Stewart's Daily Show tonight -- it was FAR and away the best interview done with Greenspan so far.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  18. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    When those situations arose (Iraq 1 w/daddy; Serbia w Clinton),
    Don't forget that Clinton had his Iraq issues as well. Iraq never really left the stage.
    Neither did any more than allow Sadamm to maintain the status quo -- neither would have gone to war in iraq. Both had enough wisdom, knowledge, and humility to realize that making a war is much easier than making a peace.
    If one is being intellectually honest, one must also acknowledge that neither had to deal with the circumstances that the junior Bush did. We have no real way to know how either of them would have dealt with it.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  19.    #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Don't forget that Clinton had his Iraq issues as well. Iraq never really left the stage.

    If one is being intellectually honest, one must also acknowledge that neither had to deal with the circumstances that the junior Bush did. We have no real way to know how either of them would have dealt with it.
    What "circumstances" did junior have that were specifically different ????

    What he had was a prostrate Sadamm who was begging for a deal -- someone who had finally opened his cape to reveal to the UN inspectors, the world, and to Iran, that he'd been spaded.

    junior's little war can only be described as a criminal enterprise.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    What "circumstances" did junior have that were specifically different ????
    An attack that succeeded.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions