Hey Brian ,
Nice to see you have overcome your weariness LOL. Help me out here..I don't know what I said that was so amusing to you.
you said: <<Oh, that's a good one, Marco. How many republicans will actually admit to decreasing military spending? Only a true spinmeister would call the failure to stop the dem majority "assistance". My hat off to you.>>
As I recall, the Dems owned everything (house, senate, prez) in 93 and 94, but after the 94 Elections ( Contract with America), the Repubs recaptured the House. So, from Jan 95-Jan 01, the Repubs ran the House, and assisted Clinton with the downsizing of the military, which was called the Peace Dividend, at the time. Is this funny or spin?????? It seems very factual to me, UNLESS you believe that ALL the military cuts occurred in 93 and 94, which is not what happened, as best I can recall. But if all the cuts did happen exclusively in 93-94, then Clinton & the Dems are exclusively responsible for our undermanned Armed Services thru Jan 01.
An earlier post questioned whether use, or overuse, of the Guard and Reserve was a failure of leadership and planning......I would say that Clinton's downsizing of the military left us undermanned to fight the war on terrorism.....so if anyone deserves blame for this undermanning, it should be Clinton primarily, who did almost nothing to fight terrorism despite 8 separate terrorist attacks on the USA during his two terms.
thanks for the post, and keep contributing,
Marco
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
Moderator: CHGPA BOD
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
The best way to tame a deficit...is not to have one in the first
place - you may recall that Clinton left office with a large surplus
which could have been used to pay down debt so Social Security
obligations to the boomers could be met. Bush pissed it away on a
grotesquely skewed tax cut targeted at the well-off. Sure, revenue
went up during the 80's boom - but so did spending, except more so,
as deficits ballooned to historic proportions. I say again: cutting
taxes doesn't raise enough revenue to fund the government at its
historic level. Republicans fantasize that they're going to starve
government to death, but they can't find anything significant to cut
that doesn't have a strong constituency, so they just run the
printing presses. (c.f. Alfred E. Newman "What, me worry?") Wishful
thinking, on Iraq or the deficit, is not sound policy.
Bush has ample rope to hang himself on both fronts - all the
Democrats have to do is say "I told you so". They don't have the
majority in Congress to choke off funds for the war. As mentioned,
Bush is already looking for a way out. All that crap about staying
the course is just for you credulous members of the base (that's
English for "al Qa'ida"). Bush will pull out in less than two years
- mark my words. - Hugh
On 9 Sep 2005, at 14:08, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> Hush said
>
> Reply; The best way to tame the deficit is to grow the economy
> while restraining spending. A growing economy increases revenues
> to the Treasury due to an increase in taxable incomes as a result
> of a larger work force and increased GDP. The GOP in the mid and
> late 90's did a good job on restraining spending while assisting
> Clinton in cutting military spending (which is why we are forced to
> use the National Guard and Reserves so much now).
> Dems like to increase revenues by INCREASING TAX RATES (as
> Clinton did after running on a "middle class tax cut"
> platform....another lie). Hugh, Joe , and Marc appear comfortable
> with increasing taxes NOW (correct me if I am misstating your
> position) so as to spend more money on social programs.
> Repubs like to increase revenues by using tax cuts (LOWERING
> tax rates) to grow the economy, and then collecting the increased
> revenues from the larger GDP. Reagan cut taxes in the 80's, and
> tax revenues increased from 500 Billion to 940 Billion during his
> tenure (these are facts).
>
> So Bush is banking on the growing economy, and its resulting
> increase in tax revenues, to overcome the deficit. Making the tax
> cuts permanent are part of this plan. However, if spending is not
> controlled, this will be even more difficult to achieve, if not
> impossible.
>
> The greatest fear of Dems is that Bush will succeed in growing
> the economy and balancing the budget, AND succeed in bringing
> democracy to Iraq and the Middle East. The Dem Leadership (and
> many rank and file Dems) have positioned themselves politically to
> hope and wish for a "bad economy" and a "military and political"
> loss to Baathist and Terrorist murderers because it is more
> important to these Dems to defeat Bush than to have a good economy
> or defeat these thugs and terrorists. The liberal press has done
> everything they can to portray the economy and the Iraq war as
> negatively as possible. And that's why many wonder.....do you Dems
> want to leave Iraq because you really feel it is unwinnable,.... OR
> do you want to leave to guarantee a defeat and humiliation for Bush
> and the military? But this is the political position that many
> Dems have placed themselves.
>
> Conversely, Repubs fear that the economy will tank again and
> that Iraq cannot be democratized. But I feel very comfortable
> wishing for a strong, growing economy that benefits all Americans ,
> and a decisive, historic military victory in support of democracy
> in a vital region of the world.
>
> Joe,
> No repub that I know has advocated a total elimination of
> taxes.....where did you get this idea? Can you give me a quote or
> position paper that says this? We barely got enough votes to get
> that rather puny 2001 tax cut, much less enough support for total
> elimination of taxes.
>
> Christy,
> Can you help me with the CA thing. A Ballot Initiative in 2000
> made marriage between and a man and a woman.....what legislative
> "weight" does this carry if the Legislature can overturn it 5 years
> later? Also, there is a federal Defense of Marriage Act, passed
> during the Clinton years. Can a ballot initiative be overturned by
> a simple majority of the legislature? Or would it take another
> ballot initiative to do so? Or just a single judge, or group of
> judges, to find it "unconstitutional"?
> My problem with judges is when they start writing laws , rather
> than interpreting and determining the constitutionality of laws.
> Do you think it is ok for those Mass. judges to "order' the
> legislature to write a gay marriage law, or any law for that matter?
>
> gotta run,
>
> Marco
>
place - you may recall that Clinton left office with a large surplus
which could have been used to pay down debt so Social Security
obligations to the boomers could be met. Bush pissed it away on a
grotesquely skewed tax cut targeted at the well-off. Sure, revenue
went up during the 80's boom - but so did spending, except more so,
as deficits ballooned to historic proportions. I say again: cutting
taxes doesn't raise enough revenue to fund the government at its
historic level. Republicans fantasize that they're going to starve
government to death, but they can't find anything significant to cut
that doesn't have a strong constituency, so they just run the
printing presses. (c.f. Alfred E. Newman "What, me worry?") Wishful
thinking, on Iraq or the deficit, is not sound policy.
Bush has ample rope to hang himself on both fronts - all the
Democrats have to do is say "I told you so". They don't have the
majority in Congress to choke off funds for the war. As mentioned,
Bush is already looking for a way out. All that crap about staying
the course is just for you credulous members of the base (that's
English for "al Qa'ida"). Bush will pull out in less than two years
- mark my words. - Hugh
On 9 Sep 2005, at 14:08, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> Hush said
>
> Reply; The best way to tame the deficit is to grow the economy
> while restraining spending. A growing economy increases revenues
> to the Treasury due to an increase in taxable incomes as a result
> of a larger work force and increased GDP. The GOP in the mid and
> late 90's did a good job on restraining spending while assisting
> Clinton in cutting military spending (which is why we are forced to
> use the National Guard and Reserves so much now).
> Dems like to increase revenues by INCREASING TAX RATES (as
> Clinton did after running on a "middle class tax cut"
> platform....another lie). Hugh, Joe , and Marc appear comfortable
> with increasing taxes NOW (correct me if I am misstating your
> position) so as to spend more money on social programs.
> Repubs like to increase revenues by using tax cuts (LOWERING
> tax rates) to grow the economy, and then collecting the increased
> revenues from the larger GDP. Reagan cut taxes in the 80's, and
> tax revenues increased from 500 Billion to 940 Billion during his
> tenure (these are facts).
>
> So Bush is banking on the growing economy, and its resulting
> increase in tax revenues, to overcome the deficit. Making the tax
> cuts permanent are part of this plan. However, if spending is not
> controlled, this will be even more difficult to achieve, if not
> impossible.
>
> The greatest fear of Dems is that Bush will succeed in growing
> the economy and balancing the budget, AND succeed in bringing
> democracy to Iraq and the Middle East. The Dem Leadership (and
> many rank and file Dems) have positioned themselves politically to
> hope and wish for a "bad economy" and a "military and political"
> loss to Baathist and Terrorist murderers because it is more
> important to these Dems to defeat Bush than to have a good economy
> or defeat these thugs and terrorists. The liberal press has done
> everything they can to portray the economy and the Iraq war as
> negatively as possible. And that's why many wonder.....do you Dems
> want to leave Iraq because you really feel it is unwinnable,.... OR
> do you want to leave to guarantee a defeat and humiliation for Bush
> and the military? But this is the political position that many
> Dems have placed themselves.
>
> Conversely, Repubs fear that the economy will tank again and
> that Iraq cannot be democratized. But I feel very comfortable
> wishing for a strong, growing economy that benefits all Americans ,
> and a decisive, historic military victory in support of democracy
> in a vital region of the world.
>
> Joe,
> No repub that I know has advocated a total elimination of
> taxes.....where did you get this idea? Can you give me a quote or
> position paper that says this? We barely got enough votes to get
> that rather puny 2001 tax cut, much less enough support for total
> elimination of taxes.
>
> Christy,
> Can you help me with the CA thing. A Ballot Initiative in 2000
> made marriage between and a man and a woman.....what legislative
> "weight" does this carry if the Legislature can overturn it 5 years
> later? Also, there is a federal Defense of Marriage Act, passed
> during the Clinton years. Can a ballot initiative be overturned by
> a simple majority of the legislature? Or would it take another
> ballot initiative to do so? Or just a single judge, or group of
> judges, to find it "unconstitutional"?
> My problem with judges is when they start writing laws , rather
> than interpreting and determining the constitutionality of laws.
> Do you think it is ok for those Mass. judges to "order' the
> legislature to write a gay marriage law, or any law for that matter?
>
> gotta run,
>
> Marco
>
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
As a member in good standing of the Department of Defense, I can say
that although the hiring and promotion freeze was painful and we are
suffering the effects of bloc retirement (didn't hire anybody between
the age of 25 and 50), we probably should have cut more. We never
did get over the weapons systems developed for the Cold War, even
though they were not really appropriate for our new circumstances.
But we could afford at least a few of them, so we kept buying out of
habit. That is really Rumsfeld's saving grace - he was forcing long-
overdue transformation. Then came along this war which he bungled,
which is also forcing us back toward mass (numbers of soldiers) as a
part of the equation. Don't see much use for an aircraft carrier or
a submarine here... - Hugh
On 9 Sep 2005, at 15:07, Vant-Hull - Brian wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Marco Zee wrote:
>
>
>> The GOP in the mid and late 90's did a good job on restraining
>> spending
>> while assisting Clinton in cutting military spending (which is why we
>> are forced to use the National Guard and Reserves so much now).
>>
>
> HAR,HAR!,HAR...*slurp*, hehehehe...
>
> Oh, that's a good one, Marco. How many republicans will actually
> admit to
> decreasing military spending? Only a true spinmeister would call the
> failure to stop the dem majority "assistance". My hat off to you.
>
> Anyway, cutting the military was in fact a big part of the budget
> surplus,
> as was the many other belt tightening measures. It was a precarious
> trade-off between security and an economically responsible
> government, but
> I don't think most of us would give up the booming 90's for what
> was then
> an oversized cold-war style military.
>
>
>
that although the hiring and promotion freeze was painful and we are
suffering the effects of bloc retirement (didn't hire anybody between
the age of 25 and 50), we probably should have cut more. We never
did get over the weapons systems developed for the Cold War, even
though they were not really appropriate for our new circumstances.
But we could afford at least a few of them, so we kept buying out of
habit. That is really Rumsfeld's saving grace - he was forcing long-
overdue transformation. Then came along this war which he bungled,
which is also forcing us back toward mass (numbers of soldiers) as a
part of the equation. Don't see much use for an aircraft carrier or
a submarine here... - Hugh
On 9 Sep 2005, at 15:07, Vant-Hull - Brian wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Marco Zee wrote:
>
>
>> The GOP in the mid and late 90's did a good job on restraining
>> spending
>> while assisting Clinton in cutting military spending (which is why we
>> are forced to use the National Guard and Reserves so much now).
>>
>
> HAR,HAR!,HAR...*slurp*, hehehehe...
>
> Oh, that's a good one, Marco. How many republicans will actually
> admit to
> decreasing military spending? Only a true spinmeister would call the
> failure to stop the dem majority "assistance". My hat off to you.
>
> Anyway, cutting the military was in fact a big part of the budget
> surplus,
> as was the many other belt tightening measures. It was a precarious
> trade-off between security and an economically responsible
> government, but
> I don't think most of us would give up the booming 90's for what
> was then
> an oversized cold-war style military.
>
>
>
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
Seems to me Clinton had Korea under control, then Bush came along and
dissed Kim, so he's been acting up to show Bush he has to deal. It's
fun to act macho, but it's pretty clear Bush has no leverage on Kim -
shot his wad on Iraq. Social Security is only unsustainable if you
take a huge tax cut to make it so. The national debt would have been
just about paid off by now... And I didn't notice Bush being
particularly proactive on terrorism before 9/11 - he spent a lot of
time on the golf course. Clearly, we are NOT better off in Iraq
than we would have been letting it simmer, so score that as a huge
error. And Iran's going nuclear, observing that we beat up on those
who don't have them, but take a pass on those that do. So it looks
like Bush is batting 0 for 6. Wait, I'll give him a point for the
Medicare drug benefit - a big fat $500 billion social program that
you gotta love, Marco! - Hugh
On 9 Sep 2005, at 15:28, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> Joe, with regards to our earlier conversation:
>
>
>
> Joe replied:
>
> Reply: Yes, the Repubs controlled the House, but the Repubs were
> advocating FOR reform,...NOT BLOCKING REFORM. It was Clinton and
> the Dems who did NOT want to "tackle" this issue because they
> didn't have the political courage, as Bush and the Repubs have
> demonstrated, to do so.
>
> To blame the House Repubs because Clinton chickened out (or was
> AWOL) on this very important issue is a complete distortion of
> history....but nice try.
>
> Just mark it up as another Clinton failure. The Repubs were (and
> are) trying to save and reform social security. The Dems had their
> chance, and punted. Another mess he left for Bush to have to clean
> up (ie Iraq, Korea, Iran, Social Security, M/M, Terrorism.....and
> the list goes on.....).
>
> And why didn't Clinton want to reform SS? For the very reasons I
> stated earlier...it would probably mean a drastic increase in
> taxes, and/or a reduction of benefits, or some form of
> privitization....none of which he had the political courage to
> promote, especially with Gore and Hillary running for office
> (remember the Mondale effect).
>
> More to say,.just don't have the time now.
>
> have a good weekend all,
>
> Marco
>
dissed Kim, so he's been acting up to show Bush he has to deal. It's
fun to act macho, but it's pretty clear Bush has no leverage on Kim -
shot his wad on Iraq. Social Security is only unsustainable if you
take a huge tax cut to make it so. The national debt would have been
just about paid off by now... And I didn't notice Bush being
particularly proactive on terrorism before 9/11 - he spent a lot of
time on the golf course. Clearly, we are NOT better off in Iraq
than we would have been letting it simmer, so score that as a huge
error. And Iran's going nuclear, observing that we beat up on those
who don't have them, but take a pass on those that do. So it looks
like Bush is batting 0 for 6. Wait, I'll give him a point for the
Medicare drug benefit - a big fat $500 billion social program that
you gotta love, Marco! - Hugh
On 9 Sep 2005, at 15:28, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> Joe, with regards to our earlier conversation:
>
>
>
> Joe replied:
>
> Reply: Yes, the Repubs controlled the House, but the Repubs were
> advocating FOR reform,...NOT BLOCKING REFORM. It was Clinton and
> the Dems who did NOT want to "tackle" this issue because they
> didn't have the political courage, as Bush and the Repubs have
> demonstrated, to do so.
>
> To blame the House Repubs because Clinton chickened out (or was
> AWOL) on this very important issue is a complete distortion of
> history....but nice try.
>
> Just mark it up as another Clinton failure. The Repubs were (and
> are) trying to save and reform social security. The Dems had their
> chance, and punted. Another mess he left for Bush to have to clean
> up (ie Iraq, Korea, Iran, Social Security, M/M, Terrorism.....and
> the list goes on.....).
>
> And why didn't Clinton want to reform SS? For the very reasons I
> stated earlier...it would probably mean a drastic increase in
> taxes, and/or a reduction of benefits, or some form of
> privitization....none of which he had the political courage to
> promote, especially with Gore and Hillary running for office
> (remember the Mondale effect).
>
> More to say,.just don't have the time now.
>
> have a good weekend all,
>
> Marco
>
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
Rumsfeld is holding the line on manning cause he's trading salaries
for procurement of modern systems. Part of the reason the Reserves
and Guard are in such high demand is because post-Vietnam the
Pentagon put a lot of specialized units there so we could never again
fight a war without Congressional support. Had Bush/Rumsfeld
committed enough troops early on, they might have gotten control of
Iraq from the outset and the insurgency never would have gotten
started. - Hugh
On 9 Sep 2005, at 16:01, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> Hey Brian ,
>
> Nice to see you have overcome your weariness LOL. Help me out
> here..I don't know what I said that was so amusing to you.
>
> you said:
>
> As I recall, the Dems owned everything (house, senate, prez) in 93
> and 94, but after the 94 Elections ( Contract with America), the
> Repubs recaptured the House. So, from Jan 95-Jan 01, the Repubs
> ran the House, and assisted Clinton with the downsizing of the
> military, which was called the Peace Dividend, at the time. Is
> this funny or spin?????? It seems very factual to me, UNLESS you
> believe that ALL the military cuts occurred in 93 and 94, which is
> not what happened, as best I can recall. But if all the cuts did
> happen exclusively in 93-94, then Clinton & the Dems are
> exclusively responsible for our undermanned Armed Services thru Jan
> 01.
>
> An earlier post questioned whether use, or overuse, of the Guard
> and Reserve was a failure of leadership and planning......I would
> say that Clinton's downsizing of the military left us undermanned
> to fight the war on terrorism.....so if anyone deserves blame for
> this undermanning, it should be Clinton primarily, who did almost
> nothing to fight terrorism despite 8 separate terrorist attacks on
> the USA during his two terms.
>
> thanks for the post, and keep contributing,
>
> Marco
>
for procurement of modern systems. Part of the reason the Reserves
and Guard are in such high demand is because post-Vietnam the
Pentagon put a lot of specialized units there so we could never again
fight a war without Congressional support. Had Bush/Rumsfeld
committed enough troops early on, they might have gotten control of
Iraq from the outset and the insurgency never would have gotten
started. - Hugh
On 9 Sep 2005, at 16:01, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> Hey Brian ,
>
> Nice to see you have overcome your weariness LOL. Help me out
> here..I don't know what I said that was so amusing to you.
>
> you said:
>
> As I recall, the Dems owned everything (house, senate, prez) in 93
> and 94, but after the 94 Elections ( Contract with America), the
> Repubs recaptured the House. So, from Jan 95-Jan 01, the Repubs
> ran the House, and assisted Clinton with the downsizing of the
> military, which was called the Peace Dividend, at the time. Is
> this funny or spin?????? It seems very factual to me, UNLESS you
> believe that ALL the military cuts occurred in 93 and 94, which is
> not what happened, as best I can recall. But if all the cuts did
> happen exclusively in 93-94, then Clinton & the Dems are
> exclusively responsible for our undermanned Armed Services thru Jan
> 01.
>
> An earlier post questioned whether use, or overuse, of the Guard
> and Reserve was a failure of leadership and planning......I would
> say that Clinton's downsizing of the military left us undermanned
> to fight the war on terrorism.....so if anyone deserves blame for
> this undermanning, it should be Clinton primarily, who did almost
> nothing to fight terrorism despite 8 separate terrorist attacks on
> the USA during his two terms.
>
> thanks for the post, and keep contributing,
>
> Marco
>
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
I see the light!
I have finally undrestood what Marco has been arguing--and I now understand!
The Bush administration is in reality a bunch of mindless zombies who scecretly are controlled by a mind-control group of Clinton advisors who have been secretly controlling all branches of the government for decades and continue to do so. All attempts to undo their hidden agenda have been thwarted by the media and Congress who are similarly being controlled by the Al Queda and leftist groups--though as we all have come to realize they are one in the same (please note that other undesirables such as gays, blacks, hispanics, poor, unemployed of any color, Jews or just about anyone else that doesn't look like a wealthy-waspy God's choosen ones--they are all most likely Clintonoid/leftist/Al-Quedas too). The only people who are truly aware of this nefarious plot are members of the ultra-right and conservative neo-cons.
I have finally realized that there is a final solution to solve this problem once and for all. The creation of the neo-con master race!
Neo-cons over all!
Neo-cons over all!
marc
The Bush administration is in reality a bunch of mindless zombies who scecretly are controlled by a mind-control group of Clinton advisors who have been secretly controlling all branches of the government for decades and continue to do so. All attempts to undo their hidden agenda have been thwarted by the media and Congress who are similarly being controlled by the Al Queda and leftist groups--though as we all have come to realize they are one in the same (please note that other undesirables such as gays, blacks, hispanics, poor, unemployed of any color, Jews or just about anyone else that doesn't look like a wealthy-waspy God's choosen ones--they are all most likely Clintonoid/leftist/Al-Quedas too). The only people who are truly aware of this nefarious plot are members of the ultra-right and conservative neo-cons.
I have finally realized that there is a final solution to solve this problem once and for all. The creation of the neo-con master race!
Neo-cons over all!
Neo-cons over all!
marc
Great Googly-moo!
Marco You said:
Just mark it up as another Clinton failure. The Repubs were (and
> are) trying to save and reform social security.
NOT so. The republicans want to get social security killed and get the tax dollars turned to the financial instutions of the country. It is another group of business contributors who haven't seen the billion dollar payoff yet. Just look at Bush's SS proposals. It is all a FRAUD, for the suckers out there that vote for the republicans. Not to worry, once people realize they have been used, lied to and screwed financially you will see the moral house of Republicans die for years and years.
Joe
The Dems had their
> chance, and punted. Another mess he left for Bush to have to clean
> up (ie Iraq, Korea, Iran, Social Security, M/M, Terrorism.....and
> the list goes on.....).
On 9 Sep 2005, at 15:28, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> Joe, with regards to our earlier conversation:
>
>
>
> Joe replied:
>
> Reply: Yes, the Repubs controlled the House, but the Repubs were
> advocating FOR reform,...NOT BLOCKING REFORM. It was Clinton and
> the Dems who did NOT want to "tackle" this issue because they
> didn't have the political courage, as Bush and the Repubs have
> demonstrated, to do so.
>
> To blame the House Repubs because Clinton chickened out (or was
> AWOL) on this very important issue is a complete distortion of
> history....but nice try.
>
> Just mark it up as another Clinton failure. The Repubs were (and
> are) trying to save and reform social security. The Dems had their
> chance, and punted. Another mess he left for Bush to have to clean
> up (ie Iraq, Korea, Iran, Social Security, M/M, Terrorism.....and
> the list goes on.....).
>
> And why didn't Clinton want to reform SS? For the very reasons I
> stated earlier...it would probably mean a drastic increase in
> taxes, and/or a reduction of benefits, or some form of
> privitization....none of which he had the political courage to
> promote, especially with Gore and Hillary running for office
> (remember the Mondale effect).
>
> More to say,.just don't have the time now.
>
> have a good weekend all,
>
> Marco
Just mark it up as another Clinton failure. The Repubs were (and
> are) trying to save and reform social security.
NOT so. The republicans want to get social security killed and get the tax dollars turned to the financial instutions of the country. It is another group of business contributors who haven't seen the billion dollar payoff yet. Just look at Bush's SS proposals. It is all a FRAUD, for the suckers out there that vote for the republicans. Not to worry, once people realize they have been used, lied to and screwed financially you will see the moral house of Republicans die for years and years.
Joe
The Dems had their
> chance, and punted. Another mess he left for Bush to have to clean
> up (ie Iraq, Korea, Iran, Social Security, M/M, Terrorism.....and
> the list goes on.....).
On 9 Sep 2005, at 15:28, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> Joe, with regards to our earlier conversation:
>
>
>
> Joe replied:
>
> Reply: Yes, the Repubs controlled the House, but the Repubs were
> advocating FOR reform,...NOT BLOCKING REFORM. It was Clinton and
> the Dems who did NOT want to "tackle" this issue because they
> didn't have the political courage, as Bush and the Repubs have
> demonstrated, to do so.
>
> To blame the House Repubs because Clinton chickened out (or was
> AWOL) on this very important issue is a complete distortion of
> history....but nice try.
>
> Just mark it up as another Clinton failure. The Repubs were (and
> are) trying to save and reform social security. The Dems had their
> chance, and punted. Another mess he left for Bush to have to clean
> up (ie Iraq, Korea, Iran, Social Security, M/M, Terrorism.....and
> the list goes on.....).
>
> And why didn't Clinton want to reform SS? For the very reasons I
> stated earlier...it would probably mean a drastic increase in
> taxes, and/or a reduction of benefits, or some form of
> privitization....none of which he had the political courage to
> promote, especially with Gore and Hillary running for office
> (remember the Mondale effect).
>
> More to say,.just don't have the time now.
>
> have a good weekend all,
>
> Marco
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
Is GW really just Hillary in drag?? You got to give Clinton and those Dems credit for at least being persistent and ingenious!
How about that FEMA leader Brown!! He's doing a great job, so says GW! At least his qualifications are obvious--he was a deposed leader of the international association of Arabian horses. His experience of examining a case (over a year) involving the reduction of a horse's ass definitely made him emminently qualified for a top post with the administration!!
Wait--am I really Gary??
marc
How about that FEMA leader Brown!! He's doing a great job, so says GW! At least his qualifications are obvious--he was a deposed leader of the international association of Arabian horses. His experience of examining a case (over a year) involving the reduction of a horse's ass definitely made him emminently qualified for a top post with the administration!!
Wait--am I really Gary??
marc
Great Googly-moo!
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
Great Quotes
Saw this in an art gallery:
BY John Hightower:
"The opposite of conformity is not non-conformity. It is doing nothing at all. Even a dead fish goes with he flow."
BY John Hightower:
"The opposite of conformity is not non-conformity. It is doing nothing at all. Even a dead fish goes with he flow."
Great Googly-moo!
Re: Great Quotes
...thought i MISSED that HUH?!.........well i DIDN'T!!!!!!!!!!!Flying Lobster wrote:Saw this in an art gallery:
BY John Hightower:
"The opposite of conformity is not non-conformity. It is doing nothing at all. Even a dead fish goes with he flow."
it's OBVIOUS to every one that it's a THINLY VEILED CHARGE that although i may not be brain DEAD i am (to use your EXACT words - and this is a FACT - GET IT, A $%&%!! FACT!! ....f...a....c....t..) apparently ONLY brain INJURED and should therefore be institutionalized!
w e l l l - in that case...... i WOULD be marC - wouldn't I ?! or marcO ? which is it now ? ...damn...'had it straight there for a minute.....
i'm getting so confuseded.. there's just so gosh darn many WORDS being thrown around!! or ...wait a minute.....?..... maybe....it's... whoever BLIZZARDIZES with the most words WINS!!
DANG!!.... it IS a gosh darn....WONK FIGHT! WONK FIGHT! .stay clear all mere mortals...it's a WONK FIGHT! WONK FIGHT!.....WONK FIGHT! WONK FIGHT!....i know you are..but what am i !!! HAH!
'just gotta take a break from this, 'makin my head S-P-I-N. oh, yeah...almost forgot....THAT 'S the point............(just takes me a while, that injury thing again....
you guys ever think of taking up something like hang gliding? i hear they're a peculiar breed too.
enjoy yourselves ,boys
garyDevan
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
From the LWV website re CA iniatives:?
"The Legislature may amend or repeal initiative statutes by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by voters, unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their approval."
?
I don't know if this is the case with this initiative.
?
In any case, my initial comment had to do with targeting an issue like gay marriage to bring out the conservative set.?
?
Another question for you, Marco:? If the scientists?were to find to your satisfaction (I'm already convinced the proof is there)?that gay men are the result of genetic make-up (i.e., the gay men in question?have no control over being homosexual), would this change your view?? For me, I see it as no different from the olden days when the KKK would use 'your daughter might marry a black man' to bring out the conservative vote.
?
Christy
Marco Zee <marcoz757@aol.com> wrote:
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
"The Legislature may amend or repeal initiative statutes by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by voters, unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their approval."
?
I don't know if this is the case with this initiative.
?
In any case, my initial comment had to do with targeting an issue like gay marriage to bring out the conservative set.?
?
Another question for you, Marco:? If the scientists?were to find to your satisfaction (I'm already convinced the proof is there)?that gay men are the result of genetic make-up (i.e., the gay men in question?have no control over being homosexual), would this change your view?? For me, I see it as no different from the olden days when the KKK would use 'your daughter might marry a black man' to bring out the conservative vote.
?
Christy
Marco Zee <marcoz757@aol.com> wrote:
__________________________________________________Christy,
Can you help me with the CA thing. A Ballot Initiative in 2000 made marriage between and a man and a woman.....what legislative "weight" does this carry if the Legislature can overturn it 5 years later? Also, there is a federal Defense of Marriage Act, passed during the Clinton years. Can a ballot initiative be overturned by a simple majority of the legislature? Or would it take another ballot initiative to do so? Or just a single judge, or group of judges, to find it "unconstitutional"?
My problem with judges is when they start writing laws , rather than interpreting and determining the constitutionality of laws. Do you think it is ok for those Mass. judges to "order' the legislature to write a gay marriage law, or any law for that matter?
gotta run,
Marco
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
Wonky - and proud! - Hugh
P.S. Had a nice motorcycle ride to the parachute repack at Manquin
today.
On 10 Sep 2005, at 11:29, deveil wrote:
>
>
> Flying Lobster wrote:
> Saw this in an art gallery:
>
> BY John Hightower:
> "The opposite of conformity is not non-conformity. It is doing
> nothing at all. Even a dead fish goes with he flow."
> (end of quote)
>
>
> ...thought i MISSED that HUH?!.........well i DIDN'T!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> it's OBVIOUS to every one that it's a THINLY VEILED CHARGE
> that although i may not be brain DEAD i am (to use your EXACT
> words - and this is a FACT - GET IT, A $%&%!!
> FACT!! ....f...a....c....t..) apparently ONLY brain INJURED and
> should therefore be institutionalized!
>
> w e l l l - in that case...... i WOULD be marC - wouldn't
> I ?! or marcO ? which is it now ? ...damn...'had it
> straight there for a minute.....
>
> i'm getting so confuseded.. there's just so gosh darn many WORDS
> being thrown around!! or ...wait a minute.....?.....
> maybe....it's... whoever BLIZZARDIZES with the most words WINS!!
>
>
>
> DANG!!.... it IS a gosh darn....WONK FIGHT! WONK FIGHT! .stay
> clear all mere mortals...it's a WONK FIGHT! WONK FIGHT!.....WONK
> FIGHT! WONK FIGHT!....i know you are..but what am i !!! HAH!
>
> 'just gotta take a break from this, 'makin my head S-P-I-N. oh,
> yeah...almost forgot....THAT 'S the point............(just takes
> me a while, that injury thing again....
>
> you guys ever think of taking up something like hang gliding? i
> hear they're a peculiar breed too.
> enjoy yourselves ,boysgary devan
>
P.S. Had a nice motorcycle ride to the parachute repack at Manquin
today.
On 10 Sep 2005, at 11:29, deveil wrote:
>
>
> Flying Lobster wrote:
> Saw this in an art gallery:
>
> BY John Hightower:
> "The opposite of conformity is not non-conformity. It is doing
> nothing at all. Even a dead fish goes with he flow."
> (end of quote)
>
>
> ...thought i MISSED that HUH?!.........well i DIDN'T!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> it's OBVIOUS to every one that it's a THINLY VEILED CHARGE
> that although i may not be brain DEAD i am (to use your EXACT
> words - and this is a FACT - GET IT, A $%&%!!
> FACT!! ....f...a....c....t..) apparently ONLY brain INJURED and
> should therefore be institutionalized!
>
> w e l l l - in that case...... i WOULD be marC - wouldn't
> I ?! or marcO ? which is it now ? ...damn...'had it
> straight there for a minute.....
>
> i'm getting so confuseded.. there's just so gosh darn many WORDS
> being thrown around!! or ...wait a minute.....?.....
> maybe....it's... whoever BLIZZARDIZES with the most words WINS!!
>
>
>
> DANG!!.... it IS a gosh darn....WONK FIGHT! WONK FIGHT! .stay
> clear all mere mortals...it's a WONK FIGHT! WONK FIGHT!.....WONK
> FIGHT! WONK FIGHT!....i know you are..but what am i !!! HAH!
>
> 'just gotta take a break from this, 'makin my head S-P-I-N. oh,
> yeah...almost forgot....THAT 'S the point............(just takes
> me a while, that injury thing again....
>
> you guys ever think of taking up something like hang gliding? i
> hear they're a peculiar breed too.
> enjoy yourselves ,boysgary devan
>
.
an observation: a certain party to this 'conversation' employs a specific tactic over and over. keep the other team's offense off the field. use whatever means to make you go 'three and out'. the ole 'say anything' offensiveness to keep YOU worked up and YOU defending, defending ANYTHING, including your 'momma' if need be. CONTROL THE MESSAGE.
fool ya once, shame on him. fool ya twice.......
an observation: a certain party to this 'conversation' employs a specific tactic over and over. keep the other team's offense off the field. use whatever means to make you go 'three and out'. the ole 'say anything' offensiveness to keep YOU worked up and YOU defending, defending ANYTHING, including your 'momma' if need be. CONTROL THE MESSAGE.
fool ya once, shame on him. fool ya twice.......
garyDevan
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
You mean Hillary in drag backed up the Clintonoid mind control ninjas who are in turn supported by the underground Al Queda leftist media are on to us?? Yikes! I hear they have built a "Back to the future" machine and are lending it to the administration and Republican party so that they can go back in time in order to rewrite history!
I'm begging to see random patterns that are somehow connected--though I wonder if this isn't due to LSD cloud-seeding by the leftist controled air national guard. I keep having the same recurring nightmare--in which I'm in the "Back to the Future" movie in the classic night-time parking lot scene where Michael Fox arrives in the DeLorean when the crazy terrorists show up in a jeep, only this time, instead of exclaiming "Oh No! Libyans!" Fox is yelling "Oh No! Iraqis!"
Could somebody please tell me what this all means??
Marcogary
I'm begging to see random patterns that are somehow connected--though I wonder if this isn't due to LSD cloud-seeding by the leftist controled air national guard. I keep having the same recurring nightmare--in which I'm in the "Back to the Future" movie in the classic night-time parking lot scene where Michael Fox arrives in the DeLorean when the crazy terrorists show up in a jeep, only this time, instead of exclaiming "Oh No! Libyans!" Fox is yelling "Oh No! Iraqis!"
Could somebody please tell me what this all means??
Marcogary
Great Googly-moo!
. kurt vonnegut writes:
it so happens that idealism enough for anyone is not made of perfumed pink clouds. it is the law! it is the u.s. constitution.
...george bush has gathered around him...most frighteningly, psychopathic personalities, or pps, the medical term for smart, personable people who have no consciences.
to say somebody is a pp is to make a perfectly respectable diagnosis, like saying he or she has appendicitis or athlete's foot.
...congenitally defective human beings of a sort that is making this whole country and many other parts of the planet go completely haywire nowadays. these were people born without consciences, and suddenly they are taking charge of everything.
pps are presentable, they know full well the suffering their actions may cause others, but they do not care. they cannot care because they are nuts. they have a screw loose!
and what syndrome better describes so many executives at enron and worldcom and on and on, who have enriched themselves while ruining their employees and investors and country and who still feel as pure as the driven snow, no matter what anybody may so to or about them? and they are waging a war that is making billionaires or of millionaires, and trillionaires out of billionaires, and they own television, and they bankroll george bush, and not because he's against gay marriage.
so many of these heartless pps now hold big jobs in our federal government, as though they were leaders instead of sick. they have taken charge.
...they might have felt that taking our country into an endless war was simply something decisive to do. what has allowed so many pps to rise so high in corporations, and now in government, is that they are so decisive. they are going to do something every fuckin' day and they are not afraid. unlike normal people, they are never filled with doubts, for the simple reason that they don't give a fuck what happens next. simply can't. do this! do that! mobilize the reserves! privatize the public school! attack iraq! cut health care! tap everybody's telephone! cut taxes on the rich! build a trillion-dollar missile shield! fuck habeas corpus and the sierra club and In These Times, and kiss my ass!
marco,
anytime it might occur to you to direct a question off into the ether, demanding that someone answer it...well, just keep this handy....you'll already have mine. if you think you may need further clarification, well, buy the book. your cynical word-play(twisting)(and btw, i've satisfied myself that you are indeed NOT sincere) may entertain you...but i ,too, find it wearies me.
but if this is all just entertainment to you (LOL!)...well, then, please forgive my taking it so damn seriously...most 'important issues of our time' and all that.
it so happens that idealism enough for anyone is not made of perfumed pink clouds. it is the law! it is the u.s. constitution.
...george bush has gathered around him...most frighteningly, psychopathic personalities, or pps, the medical term for smart, personable people who have no consciences.
to say somebody is a pp is to make a perfectly respectable diagnosis, like saying he or she has appendicitis or athlete's foot.
...congenitally defective human beings of a sort that is making this whole country and many other parts of the planet go completely haywire nowadays. these were people born without consciences, and suddenly they are taking charge of everything.
pps are presentable, they know full well the suffering their actions may cause others, but they do not care. they cannot care because they are nuts. they have a screw loose!
and what syndrome better describes so many executives at enron and worldcom and on and on, who have enriched themselves while ruining their employees and investors and country and who still feel as pure as the driven snow, no matter what anybody may so to or about them? and they are waging a war that is making billionaires or of millionaires, and trillionaires out of billionaires, and they own television, and they bankroll george bush, and not because he's against gay marriage.
so many of these heartless pps now hold big jobs in our federal government, as though they were leaders instead of sick. they have taken charge.
...they might have felt that taking our country into an endless war was simply something decisive to do. what has allowed so many pps to rise so high in corporations, and now in government, is that they are so decisive. they are going to do something every fuckin' day and they are not afraid. unlike normal people, they are never filled with doubts, for the simple reason that they don't give a fuck what happens next. simply can't. do this! do that! mobilize the reserves! privatize the public school! attack iraq! cut health care! tap everybody's telephone! cut taxes on the rich! build a trillion-dollar missile shield! fuck habeas corpus and the sierra club and In These Times, and kiss my ass!
marco,
anytime it might occur to you to direct a question off into the ether, demanding that someone answer it...well, just keep this handy....you'll already have mine. if you think you may need further clarification, well, buy the book. your cynical word-play(twisting)(and btw, i've satisfied myself that you are indeed NOT sincere) may entertain you...but i ,too, find it wearies me.
but if this is all just entertainment to you (LOL!)...well, then, please forgive my taking it so damn seriously...most 'important issues of our time' and all that.
garyDevan
Re: Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
i quote here because of the eloquence (really) and expressiveness of this writing and for the purpose of giving credit appropriately. i loved it immediately and wondered how i might use it myself. REALLY! i'm not pulling anyone's leg, wiping anyone's chin, or setting anyone up! your just gonna hafta take my word for it.....brianvh wrote:
HAR,HAR!,HAR...*slurp*, hehehehe...
.
anyhow...i just heard bill frist say that the dems were shirking their duties (as part of the body of congress) by saying they think there should be an independent investigation into the hurricane response...........i'm not making this up either!
i don't know whether to laugh or cry, but remember that antedote about a hells angel aking a hg pilot where he stored such big things...the punch line being, no, i didn't mean the hang glider!
in any event, sometimes the purity of something, regardless of what it is, creates such awe that that alone demands respect![/i]
garyDevan
and now for someting TOTALLY new,
watch me take a rabbit outta my hat (sure hope it's the right hat this time , rockie)
WHAT?.......don't tell me i scared someone again......!
okay...how's this for a conciliatory gesture....if john mckain were to run with collin powell against anyone that the dems had put up in the last go around (or anyone new of no greater caliber)...my initial viewpoint would be that i would vote for these republicans if the character and independence they once appeared to exhibit still held. (btw, collen (sp?) is still in possession of his soul....right?)
but ONLY if Mr. marco-roni-boy vowed to take on any republicans who tried to take them down, as in the last primaries, with the same ardor he has heretofore evinced. (couldn't figure out a way to get conferereres in there).
WHAT?.......don't tell me i scared someone again......!
okay...how's this for a conciliatory gesture....if john mckain were to run with collin powell against anyone that the dems had put up in the last go around (or anyone new of no greater caliber)...my initial viewpoint would be that i would vote for these republicans if the character and independence they once appeared to exhibit still held. (btw, collen (sp?) is still in possession of his soul....right?)
but ONLY if Mr. marco-roni-boy vowed to take on any republicans who tried to take them down, as in the last primaries, with the same ardor he has heretofore evinced. (couldn't figure out a way to get conferereres in there).
garyDevan
So many posts, so little time
Gary, Hugh, Christy, Marc and others,
Haven't had the time to answer to all of these interesting posts.
I'm working nights this weekend, so may have a chance to catch up later.
Briefly, no Tet offensive is happening in Iraq....there is no nationalistic uprising of the people. But, hope springs eternal for our liberal "patriots" who would just love to see another Tet occur.
Marco
Haven't had the time to answer to all of these interesting posts.
I'm working nights this weekend, so may have a chance to catch up later.
Briefly, no Tet offensive is happening in Iraq....there is no nationalistic uprising of the people. But, hope springs eternal for our liberal "patriots" who would just love to see another Tet occur.
Marco
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
From today's Washington Post: "As deaths in the Iraqi capital
neared 200 over two days, a U.S. military official said a top
terrorist was "on the ropes"." I'm still catching up after being on
travel this week, but 200 casualties does not equal Tet - nor does it
equal "on the ropes". Probably equals "quagmire". Note that there
are two insurgencies: infiltrating foreigners perhaps led by
Zarqawi, and indigenous Sunnis. The latter will never go away; so
far, they haven't been persuaded to join the political process
either. Also note noises about draw down in U.S. troop presence in
2006. The Bush administration is pulling out, whether the Iraqi
government is self-sustaining or not. Having entered Iraq with
unrealistic expectations (culpable ignorance) and without a plan for
the occupation (mismanagement), the Bush team has been educated by
reality. Their tuition has been paid by 1500 or so post-major-combat
deaths and thousands of maimed U.S. soldiers, not to mention
thousands of Iraqi civilian dead and wounded. Bush's recent
performance with Katrina demonstrates once again that he is a prime
example of the Peter principle (people get promoted to their level of
incompetence). I don't think it is good for the republic to
criminalize policy differences and impeach presidents for anything
less than treason. Let Bush and his gang who couldn't shoot straight
slink off to the obscurity they so richly merit. It's too bad we
have to endure 2-3 more years of this gong show, but it's better to
stick to the regular election process than to start acting like a
parliamentary system with revolving door governments. Rumsfeld and
Chertoff should resign, though. - Hugh
On 16 Sep 2005, at 00:00, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> Gary, Hugh, Christy, Marc and others,
>
> Haven't had the time to answer to all of these interesting posts.
>
> I'm working nights this weekend, so may have a chance to catch up
> later.
>
> Briefly, no Tet offensive is happening in Iraq....there is no
> nationalistic uprising of the people. But, hope springs eternal
> for our liberal "patriots" who would just love to see another Tet
> occur.
>
> Marco
>
neared 200 over two days, a U.S. military official said a top
terrorist was "on the ropes"." I'm still catching up after being on
travel this week, but 200 casualties does not equal Tet - nor does it
equal "on the ropes". Probably equals "quagmire". Note that there
are two insurgencies: infiltrating foreigners perhaps led by
Zarqawi, and indigenous Sunnis. The latter will never go away; so
far, they haven't been persuaded to join the political process
either. Also note noises about draw down in U.S. troop presence in
2006. The Bush administration is pulling out, whether the Iraqi
government is self-sustaining or not. Having entered Iraq with
unrealistic expectations (culpable ignorance) and without a plan for
the occupation (mismanagement), the Bush team has been educated by
reality. Their tuition has been paid by 1500 or so post-major-combat
deaths and thousands of maimed U.S. soldiers, not to mention
thousands of Iraqi civilian dead and wounded. Bush's recent
performance with Katrina demonstrates once again that he is a prime
example of the Peter principle (people get promoted to their level of
incompetence). I don't think it is good for the republic to
criminalize policy differences and impeach presidents for anything
less than treason. Let Bush and his gang who couldn't shoot straight
slink off to the obscurity they so richly merit. It's too bad we
have to endure 2-3 more years of this gong show, but it's better to
stick to the regular election process than to start acting like a
parliamentary system with revolving door governments. Rumsfeld and
Chertoff should resign, though. - Hugh
On 16 Sep 2005, at 00:00, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> Gary, Hugh, Christy, Marc and others,
>
> Haven't had the time to answer to all of these interesting posts.
>
> I'm working nights this weekend, so may have a chance to catch up
> later.
>
> Briefly, no Tet offensive is happening in Iraq....there is no
> nationalistic uprising of the people. But, hope springs eternal
> for our liberal "patriots" who would just love to see another Tet
> occur.
>
> Marco
>
Re: So many posts, so little time
Marco Zee wrote: But, hope springs eternal for our liberal "patriots" who would just love to see another Tet occur.
Marco
deveil wrote:...
this type of dealing is as obnoxious and outrageous as i was straining to be....allow me to add the words,' obscene' and 'vulgar'.
garyDevan