George Bush the iPod Salesman
Juan Hobenaro
WASHINGTON, DC帰mid growing anti-war protests and polls indicating
eroding public support for an invasion of Iraq, President Bush is
offering U.S. taxpayers a rebate in the amount of $300 if we go to war.
paragraph 6:
"Which reminds me, have you seen these new iPods?" added Bush, pulling
an Apple-brand MP3 player from his pocket and holding it up to the
crowd. "It costs $299 for one of these little buggers, but it holds a
thousand songs. They're amazing."
:^)
http://www.theonion.com/onion3908/bush_offers_taxpayers.html
flip
<hobenaro-436AA1...@clmboh1-nws2.columbus.rr.com>,
Juan Hobenaro <hobe...@somewhere.com> wrote:
If that story is an accurate representation, it's scary.
$300 for each taxpayer if and only if they support a first strike
against Iraq?
What's next? $300 if they support deportation of blacks to Africa? $300
if they support dropping environmental laws? $300 if they support
cancellation of the 2004 election?
Very, very scary.
flip
> <hobenaro-436AA1...@clmboh1-nws2.columbus.rr.com>,
> Juan Hobenaro <hobe...@somewhere.com> wrote:
>
> > Bush Offers Taxpayers Another $300 If We Go To War
> >
> > WASHINGTON, DC帰mid growing anti-war protests and polls indicating
> > eroding public support for an invasion of Iraq, President Bush is
> > offering U.S. taxpayers a rebate in the amount of $300 if we go to war.
> >
> > paragraph 6:
> > "Which reminds me, have you seen these new iPods?" added Bush, pulling
> > an Apple-brand MP3 player from his pocket and holding it up to the
> > crowd. "It costs $299 for one of these little buggers, but it holds a
> > thousand songs. They're amazing."
> >
> > :^)
> >
> > http://www.theonion.com/onion3908/bush_offers_taxpayers.html
>
>
That's got to be a joke, right? The part about the rebate? Please tell
me it's a joke.
Mike Dee
news:flippo-47ABC2....@news.central.cox.net:
>> > paragraph 6:
>> > "Which reminds me, have you seen these new iPods?" added Bush,
>> > pulling an Apple-brand MP3 player from his pocket and holding it up
>> > to the crowd. "It costs $299 for one of these little buggers, but
>> > it holds a thousand songs. They're amazing."
>> >
>> > :^)
>> >
>> > http://www.theonion.com/onion3908/bush_offers_taxpayers.html
>>
>>
>
> That's got to be a joke, right? The part about the rebate? Please tell
> me it's a joke.
>
Your President isn't this inept, surely?
"I'll throw in another $20 per dependent if we invade by the end of next
week."
"I get the green light from the American people, and they get 300
smackeroos,"
"... I can't think of a better way to show the citizens of this nation that
war truly pays."
"buggers"?
"smackeroos"?
Please, someone tell he doesn't actually speak like this (in public).
D.
Nicolas
No, but it's pretty damned close.
Nicolas
C Lund
flip <fli...@mac.com> wrote:
>That's got to be a joke, right? The part about the rebate? Please tell
>me it's a joke.
It's a joke. theonion.com is a satire site.
--
C Lund, Oslo
http://www.notam02.no/~clund/
Flip
<christopher.lund-B5...@amstwist00.chello.com>,
C Lund <christop...@NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
> In article <flippo-47ABC2....@news.central.cox.net>,
> flip <fli...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >That's got to be a joke, right? The part about the rebate? Please tell
> >me it's a joke.
>
> It's a joke. theonion.com is a satire site.
Thank goodness.
They did a good job. It was just plausible enough to be good satire.
In fact, I believed it at first and posted a response, then thought
about it and cancelled that response before posting the above.
Nice to see that satire's still alive.
C Lund
Flip <fli...@mac.com> wrote:
>> >That's got to be a joke, right? The part about the rebate? Please tell
>> >me it's a joke.
>> It's a joke. theonion.com is a satire site.
>Thank goodness.
>They did a good job. It was just plausible enough to be good satire.
>In fact, I believed it at first and posted a response, then thought
>about it and cancelled that response before posting the above.
>Nice to see that satire's still alive.
You should visit their main page. Lots of other good stuff there as well,
such as the "White History Year Resumes" story and the "Kuwait Deploys
Troop" jibe. B)
Patrick Nihill
I liked one of the lines from a "man-in-the-street" about the Great
White fire disaster:
"How many more people must die before no-one ever dies again?"
--
Pa Nihill
Mark Weaver
> In article <flippo-47ABC2....@news.central.cox.net>,
> flip <fli...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> That's got to be a joke, right? The part about the rebate? Please
>> tell me it's a joke.
>
> It's a joke. theonion.com is a satire site.
Yes it is satire, but they do have a track record of fooling the gullible
into believing their articles are actual news, like this:
John C. Randolph
flip wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <hobenaro-436AA1...@clmboh1-nws2.columbus.rr.com>,
> > Juan Hobenaro <hobe...@somewhere.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Bush Offers Taxpayers Another $300 If We Go To War
> > >
> > > WASHINGTON, DCĐAmid growing anti-war protests and polls indicating
> > > eroding public support for an invasion of Iraq, President Bush is
> > > offering U.S. taxpayers a rebate in the amount of $300 if we go to war.
> > >
> > > paragraph 6:
> > > "Which reminds me, have you seen these new iPods?" added Bush, pulling
> > > an Apple-brand MP3 player from his pocket and holding it up to the
> > > crowd. "It costs $299 for one of these little buggers, but it holds a
> > > thousand songs. They're amazing."
> > >
> > > :^)
> > >
> > > http://www.theonion.com/onion3908/bush_offers_taxpayers.html
> >
> >
>
> That's got to be a joke, right? The part about the rebate? Please tell
> me it's a joke.
Yes, it's a joke.
-jcr
George Graves
flip <fli...@mac.com> wrote:
I'm as conservative as they come, and Bush scares me too. BUT
characterizing him as someone who wants blacks deproted to Africa is
going a bit too far, and is unfair, in my opinion. Bush wants those
balcks to VOTE for him! And luckily for all of us, his power is very
limited and he can do none of the things mentioned above. Hopefully, the
Democrats will have someone, in 2004, who can defeat him. Of course I
couldn't vote for any Democrat, but the rest of urban America could and
defeat Bush (I'll just write-in Pat Buchanan's name like I always do).
--
George Graves
George Graves
Enough <eno...@idontcare.com> wrote:
> In article <flippo-47ABC2....@news.central.cox.net>,
> flip <fli...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> The only joke in the article is George W. Bush.
You may laugh, but he's the most powerful man on earth, at the moment.
That thought should wipe the smile off your face, it sure has mine.
--
George Graves
Steve Mackay
"George Graves" <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:gmgraves-BBDFAB...@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <7MH9a.3081$ge3.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
> Enough <eno...@idontcare.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <flippo-47ABC2....@news.central.cox.net>,
> > flip <fli...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > In article
> > > > <hobenaro-436AA1...@clmboh1-nws2.columbus.rr.com>,
> > > > Juan Hobenaro <hobe...@somewhere.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Bush Offers Taxpayers Another $300 If We Go To War
> > > > >
Iraq, President Bush is
> > > > > offering U.S. taxpayers a rebate in the amount of $300 if we go to
war.
> > > > >
> > > > > paragraph 6:
> > > > > "Which reminds me, have you seen these new iPods?" added Bush,
pulling
> > > > > an Apple-brand MP3 player from his pocket and holding it up to the
> > > > > crowd. "It costs $299 for one of these little buggers, but it
holds a
> > > > > thousand songs. They're amazing."
> > > > >
> > > > > :^)
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.theonion.com/onion3908/bush_offers_taxpayers.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > That's got to be a joke, right? The part about the rebate? Please tell
> > > me it's a joke.
> >
> > The only joke in the article is George W. Bush.
>
> You may laugh, but he's the most powerful man on earth, at the moment.
> That thought should wipe the smile off your face, it sure has mine.
The scarier thought was that we COULD have had Gore in office.
jjens
> "George Graves" <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:gmgraves-BBDFAB...@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com...
>> > > That's got to be a joke, right? The part about the rebate? Please
>> > > tell me it's a joke.
>> >
>> > The only joke in the article is George W. Bush.
>>
>> You may laugh, but he's the most powerful man on earth, at the moment.
>> That thought should wipe the smile off your face, it sure has mine.
> The scarier thought was that we COULD have had Gore in office.
And what, I'd be forced to use an environmentally friendly detergent?
Somehow, I'd take that version of the future.
(mark me as another disgruntled conservative)
George Graves
"Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'm not so sure any more although I certainly was sure that Bush was the
"lesser of the two evils" when the election was on. After 2 years of
Bush, I'd be ready to even try Algore.
--
George Graves
George Graves
jjens <jj...@adelphia.net> wrote:
Don't I know it!
--
George Graves
Steve Mackay
"jjens" <jj...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:b48fts$4lhi$1...@node21.cwnet.roc.gblx.net...
I'm not quite so sure of that. As George said, I also thought, and still
think Bush is the lesser of two evils. Neither were a good choice for either
party IMHO. Gore was just too stupid to stop telling overly obvious lies,
and well, Bush definately needs some work on public speaking, amoung other
things. The one thing in Bush's favor, was he picked a very good cabinet.
> (mark me as another disgruntled conservative)
As I am also.
Mike Dee
news:3LP9a.65274$Ge.12...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com:
> The one thing in Bush's favor, was he picked a very good cabinet.
>
Gee, and here I was, thinking that his cabinet had chosen him!
D.
C Lund
"Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> You may laugh, but he's the most powerful man on earth, at the moment.
>> That thought should wipe the smile off your face, it sure has mine.
>
>The scarier thought was that we COULD have had Gore in office.
I'd rather see a dull beaurocrat as president of the US than a puppet like
bush. The current US regime is an extremely dangerous one. Apart from
stripping away the rights of US citizens, they also seem intent on enforcing
some sort of "Pax Americana" on the world - which seems to be primarily
motivated by the US need for natural resources and by their newfound
paranoia.
Juan Hobenaro
And in another thread here, you're calling me "clueless" & an "idiot".
You just need to shut up for a while.
Hobenaro
Elizabot
Gee, and here I was thinking that his daddy picked his cabinet for him...
Heywood Mogroot
Hey, either you're with us or you're for the terrorists.
This Pax America thing could work out well if you join up early.
We've got Spain, Italy, and Bulgaria on board already...
don't be late, 'cuz our carrot's getting smaller and our stick's getting bigger.
=Heywood=
Flip
imout...@mac.com (Heywood Mogroot) wrote:
> C Lund <christop...@NOSPAMchello.no> wrote in message
> news:<christopher.lund-D1...@amstwist00.chello.com>...
> > In article <zdP9a.65122$Ge.12...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
> > "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> You may laugh, but he's the most powerful man on earth, at the moment.
> > >> That thought should wipe the smile off your face, it sure has mine.
> > >
> > >The scarier thought was that we COULD have had Gore in office.
> >
> > I'd rather see a dull beaurocrat as president of the US than a puppet like
> > bush. The current US regime is an extremely dangerous one. Apart from
> > stripping away the rights of US citizens, they also seem intent on
> > enforcing
> > some sort of "Pax Americana" on the world - which seems to be primarily
> > motivated by the US need for natural resources and by their newfound
> > paranoia.
>
> Hey, either you're with us or you're for the terrorists.
That's ridicululous.
C Lund
>Hey, either you're with us or you're for the terrorists.
>
>This Pax America thing could work out well if you join up early.
>We've got Spain, Italy, and Bulgaria on board already...
>
>don't be late, 'cuz our carrot's getting smaller and our stick's getting
>bigger.
Umm.. you're being sarcastic, right? Binary arguments don't fit very well in
the real world. In this particular case, I'm neither for the US nor for
Saddan Hussein. I wish the whole issue could be settled in a real-life
deathmatch between Hussein and bush. That would make pretty good TV too.
>=Heywood=
Jason S.
>I'm as conservative as they come, and Bush scares me too. BUT
>characterizing him as someone who wants blacks deproted to Africa is
>going a bit too far, and is unfair, in my opinion. Bush wants those
>balcks to VOTE for him! And luckily for all of us, his power is very
>limited and he can do none of the things mentioned above. Hopefully, the
>Democrats will have someone, in 2004, who can defeat him. Of course I
>couldn't vote for any Democrat, but the rest of urban America could and
>defeat Bush (I'll just write-in Pat Buchanan's name like I always do).
One problem is that many, many people seems to actually believe the
nonsense coming from W's mouth regarding Iraq and WMD. I expect that
relatively few are familiar with the non-propaganda account:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.blix/
After W's press conference last night, the local conservative talk
radio station had an hour or so of call-in, with a hard-right hawkish
host leading the "Go W!" cheers. I think they all believe that the
Al Samoud 2 missile is some sort of ICBM that Iraq has been hiding for
years. Of course, it was only a few weeks ago that a panel concluded
that these missiles had a range a whopping 22% in excess of the
permissible range!
http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/transcripts/2003/feb/030225.siegel.html
Following this determination, Iraq began destroying the missiles.
According to Bush, though:
"Iraq's dictator has made a public show of producing and destroying a
few missiles, missiles that violate the restrictions set out more than
10 years ago."
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/bush_newsconf_transcript030306.html
The implication is that Iraq has known for more than 10 years that
these missiles were in violation, a truly baseless assertion by
Bush.
During this conference, Bush also called for "total disarmament" of
Iraq, purportedly approved by the Securoty Council (a lie: Saddam does
not have to "totally" disarm!) He also claims "Saddam Hussein is not
disarming," another lie (Blix cannot find /anything/ except the Al
Samoud 2, which only recently was declared to be proscribed).
Also without proof, Bush claims:
"And I've got good evidence to believe that. He has weapons of mass
destruction, and he has used weapons of mass destruction in his
neighborhood and on his own people. He's invaded countries in his
neighborhood. He tortures his own people. He's a murderer. He has
trained and financed Al Qaida-type organizations before -- Al Qaida
and other terrorist organizations."
Where is the proof that Saddam has trained members of Al Qaeda? Osama
bin Laden /hates/ Saddam and the Ba'athist government!
Of course, Saddam's invasion of Iran was /at least/ as justified as
Bush's invasion of Afghanistan (the basis in both cases being
state-sponsored terrorism; Saddam also had genuine concerns about
an Iranian invasion of Iraq). Saddam's treatment of insurgents in
Iraq is hardly any different than Israel's treatment of Palestinians.
Blix also stated:
"As I noted on the 14th of February, intelligence authorities have
claimed that weapons of mass destruction are moved around Iraq by
trucks, in particular that there are mobile production units for
biological weapons. The Iraqi side states that such activities do not
exist.
"Several inspections have taken place at declared and undeclared sites
in relation to mobile production facilities. Food-testing mobile
laboratories and mobile workshops have been seen as well as large
containers with seed-processing equipment. No evidence of proscribed
activities have so far been found."
and (perhaps a shot at the U.S. "intelligence"?):
"I should add that, both for the monitoring of ground transportation
and for the inspection of underground facilities, we would need to
increase our staff in Iraq. I'm not talking about a doubling of the
staff. I would rather have twice the amount of high-quality
information about sites to inspect than twice the number of expert
inspectors to send. "
Despite the fact that many thinking conservatives have abandoned
support for Bush, the ignorance of the public combined with pervasive
propaganda from the administration may allow him to maintain his
popular support.
And that's scary.
katie star
saturday night li\ve? Anxiously waiting for that new "Fat Gap" store
to open up near you?
The onion is a satire site.
flip <fli...@mac.com> wrote in message news:<flippo-0B402A....@news.central.cox.net>...
> In article
> <hobenaro-436AA1...@clmboh1-nws2.columbus.rr.com>,
> Juan Hobenaro <hobe...@somewhere.com> wrote:
>
> > Bush Offers Taxpayers Another $300 If We Go To War
> >
> > WASHINGTON, DC?Amid growing anti-war protests and polls indicating
Mike Dee
news:3E6863C3...@grayREMOVErock.org:
I suspect you're probably closer to the truth here, than most :-(
D.
Heywood Mogroot
> In article <dd5de929.03030...@posting.google.com>,
> imout...@mac.com (Heywood Mogroot) wrote:
>
> >Hey, either you're with us or you're for the terrorists.
> >
> >This Pax America thing could work out well if you join up early.
> >We've got Spain, Italy, and Bulgaria on board already...
> >
> >don't be late, 'cuz our carrot's getting smaller and our stick's getting
> >bigger.
>
> Umm.. you're being sarcastic, right?
What, you don't like the New American Century?
Our Dear Leader and his administration may have been asleep at the
wheel prior to 9/11, but he's going to make up for it now!
I for one am looking forward to the discount crude oil we'll be
getting for installing American(TM) brand democracies in the Persian
Gulf. Look how well the Pax Americana working in Afghanistan, Turkey,
and Pakistan.
Make No Mistake (R), this administration will pull every string to
secure for the future its National Security interests, until it is
booted from office late next year.
In the meantime, disregard that man behind the curtain & enjoy the
show.
=Heywood=
Steve Mackay
"Elizabot" <booR...@grayREMOVErock.org> wrote in message
news:3E6863C3...@grayREMOVErock.org...
Hmm, ya know, don't get me wrong. I am no fan of GW, but I hear the
'daddy' thing quite often. Yet no one can come up with any proof that George
SR helped him do much of anything during, or after the election. And with
all the major media being overly liberal, they would have had a field day
with any evidence to support this popular theory.
Steve Mackay
"C Lund" <christop...@NOSPAMchello.no> wrote in message
You really think that Gore was, or is bright enough to run this country
without someone else pulling the strings? He had a hard time keeping his
lies straight, much less our country. It wasn't the 'boring part', or the
fact that he chuckled every time he told a lie, or the fact that he normally
looked like he had a fresh dose of formaldahyde. It was his obvious
stupidity. He couldn't even stop telling overly obvious lies, even after his
supporters told him to stop.
Now don't get me wrong, I am far from being a fan of GW.
Elizabot
I wasn't refering to the election.
Cheney. Iran-Contra. Poindexter. Convictions. Pardons. Skull and Bones.
I don't mean to be insulting, but what decade were you born in? If you
were to say 70's, I'd understand.
Steve Mackay
"Elizabot" <booR...@grayREMOVErock.org> wrote:
No, it was before the 70s. But what does Iran-Contra, and all the rest
really have any proof that George SR helped JR?
Andrew J. Brehm
> In article <zdP9a.65122$Ge.12...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> You may laugh, but he's the most powerful man on earth, at the moment.
> >> That thought should wipe the smile off your face, it sure has mine.
> >
> >The scarier thought was that we COULD have had Gore in office.
>
> I'd rather see a dull beaurocrat as president of the US than a puppet like
> bush.
A puppet of whom?
> The current US regime is an extremely dangerous one.
Why? It seems to be the first American "regime" in ages that actually
does something about the evils in the world and refrains from supporting
dictators like so many previous American administrations did.
> Apart from stripping away the rights of US citizens, they also seem intent
> on enforcing some sort of "Pax Americana" on the world
Now they've done it. And what's so bad about a pax americana?
> - which seems to be primarily motivated by the US need for natural
> resources
Everybody needs natural resources. But some people use them to produce
more wealth (like America, Europe, China, and Japan), and some people
just sit on them and get angry watching the rest of the world become
more powerful.
> and by their newfound paranoia.
While you probably won't view Arab fundamentalism as a threat, the
people who suffer from it in Israel and in New York City in 2001
certainly do.
For you it's paranoia, for them it's dead family members.
I can understand American anger and I hope they get through with it and
remove the threat, because I know the Europe (except Britain) can't do
it.
And as long as people you like you are around, I am also confident that
Europe won't try.
--
Andrew J. Brehm
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
Andrew J. Brehm
> Gore was just too stupid to stop telling overly obvious lies,
Now you got me interested.
What lies?
Heywood Mogroot
>
>
> Now don't get me wrong, I am far from being a fan of GW.
glad to hear. Thanks for voting in this mess of an administration.
=Heywood=
Lars Träger
> Umm.. you're being sarcastic, right? Binary arguments don't fit very well in
> the real world. In this particular case, I'm neither for the US nor for
> Saddan Hussein. I wish the whole issue could be settled in a real-life
> deathmatch between Hussein and bush. That would make pretty good TV too.
That match would be over in no time, Shrubya wouldn't have a chance -
unless he's allowed help by others.
Lars T.
ed
Elizabot <booR...@grayREMOVErock.org> jotted:
of course the more interesting question may be, why *shouldn't* GW use his
dad's help if available? being president is a very unique and stressful
job to say the least, and it'd be stupid not to seek out help, especially
from those you know and trust who are familiar with the job!
--
-ed
Heywood Mogroot
> Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Gore was just too stupid to stop telling overly obvious lies,
>
> Now you got me interested.
>
> What lies?
What, you in a coma during the Smear Gore Campaign of 1999-2000?
http://www.nationalreview.com/gorelies/gorelies.shtml
vs.
http://commons.somewhere.com/rre/2000/RRE.The.New.Science.of.C.html
Evidence that the media has been playing pattycake with Bush is as
fresh as last night's "press conference".
=Heywood=
Heywood Mogroot
> "Elizabot" <booR...@grayREMOVErock.org> wrote in message
> news:3E6863C3...@grayREMOVErock.org...
> > Mike Dee wrote:
> > >
> Hmm, ya know, don't get me wrong. I am no fan of GW, but I hear the
> 'daddy' thing quite often. Yet no one can come up with any proof that George
> SR helped him do much of anything during, or after the election.
Then who the was that man who resembling James A. Baker III running
around in Florida?
> And with
> all the major media being overly liberal
oh, that's a good one. Where was this so-called liberal media Thursday
night?
=Heywood=
Steve Mackay
"Heywood Mogroot" <imout...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:dd5de929.03030...@posting.google.com...
You're denying ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN are liberal?
Steve Mackay
"Andrew J. Brehm" <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote in message
news:1fri4zi.mq2n9gov85csN%and...@netneurotic.de...
> Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Gore was just too stupid to stop telling overly obvious lies,
>
> Now you got me interested.
>
> What lies?
Umm, this jar your memory a tad?
"I took the initiative in creating the Internet"
David C. Fritzinger
Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Andrew J. Brehm" <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote in message
> news:1fri4zi.mq2n9gov85csN%and...@netneurotic.de...
> > Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Gore was just too stupid to stop telling overly obvious lies,
> >
> > Now you got me interested.
> >
> > What lies?
>
> Umm, this jar your memory a tad?
>
> "I took the initiative in creating the Internet"
How about Bush's lies? Promising a "humble" foreign policy, for one,
and calling himself a "compassionate" conservative for another.
Dave Fritzinger
Heywood Mogroot
> C Lund <christop...@NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
>
> > In article <zdP9a.65122$Ge.12...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
> > "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> You may laugh, but he's the most powerful man on earth, at the moment.
> > >> That thought should wipe the smile off your face, it sure has mine.
> > >
> > >The scarier thought was that we COULD have had Gore in office.
> >
> > I'd rather see a dull beaurocrat as president of the US than a puppet like
> > bush.
>
> A puppet of whom?
PNAC. Enron. Heritage Foundation. CCA. Carlyle Group.
> > The current US regime is an extremely dangerous one.
>
> Why? It seems to be the first American "regime" in ages that actually
> does something about the evils in the world and refrains from supporting
> dictators like so many previous American administrations did.
You mean like the Sauds and the Pakis? The 9/11 hit was a Saudi
operation with Paki support, to refresh your memory.
While I recognize this Iraq thing is just a preliminary to the big
show against Iran and Saudi Arabia, please excuse me for saying I
think this Indochina-in-reverse military intervention is fucking
insane?
> > Apart from stripping away the rights of US citizens, they also seem intent
> > on enforcing some sort of "Pax Americana" on the world
>
> Now they've done it. And what's so bad about a pax americana?
These 'pax' campaigns for suzereignity don't end up to well when they
come undone.
> > - which seems to be primarily motivated by the US need for natural
> > resources
>
> Everybody needs natural resources. But some people use them to produce
> more wealth (like America, Europe, China, and Japan), and some people
> just sit on them and get angry watching the rest of the world become
> more powerful.
Oh these bad people! A few less SUV's and a few more hydrogen fuel
cells and we can tell these bad people to go hump a camel.
> While you probably won't view Arab fundamentalism as a threat, the
> people who suffer from it in Israel and in New York City in 2001
> certainly do.
>
> For you it's paranoia, for them it's dead family members.
I'm no Gandhi, but I just don't see how trading bombs with these
assholes is going to improve the situation.
At some point a modus vivendi will need to be found. Let's hope
there's people still vivendi'ing to mode.
=Heywood=
Andrew J. Brehm
I certainly remember that. I only thought that maybe they have found
some "lies" that have not been later found to have been correct all the
time.
Andrew J. Brehm
> "Andrew J. Brehm" <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote in message
> news:1fri4zi.mq2n9gov85csN%and...@netneurotic.de...
> > Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Gore was just too stupid to stop telling overly obvious lies,
> >
> > Now you got me interested.
> >
> > What lies?
>
> Umm, this jar your memory a tad?
>
> "I took the initiative in creating the Internet"
>
So who did take the initiative in creating what we now know as the
Internet? I remember Gore was involved in the discussions regarding
government support for the Internet during the time it started for most
people.
Maybe your memory is different or you really didn't know that Gore was
talking about today's Internet as opposed to the net as it was before
massive governmental support?
Andrew J. Brehm
> and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote in message
news:<1fri519.15jb7pgx39hj4N%and...@netneurotic.de>...
> > C Lund <christop...@NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <zdP9a.65122$Ge.12...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
> > > "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> You may laugh, but he's the most powerful man on earth, at the moment.
> > > >> That thought should wipe the smile off your face, it sure has mine.
> > > >
> > > >The scarier thought was that we COULD have had Gore in office.
> > >
> > > I'd rather see a dull beaurocrat as president of the US than a puppet like
> > > bush.
> >
> > A puppet of whom?
>
> PNAC. Enron. Heritage Foundation. CCA. Carlyle Group.
And the Ameirican people voted for Republican congressmen because the
Amercan voters are also puppets or how do you want me to understand
that?
> > > The current US regime is an extremely dangerous one.
> >
> > Why? It seems to be the first American "regime" in ages that actually
> > does something about the evils in the world and refrains from supporting
> > dictators like so many previous American administrations did.
>
> You mean like the Sauds and the Pakis?
Yes, like them.
> The 9/11 hit was a Saudi operation with Paki support, to refresh your
> memory.
Please don't "refresh" my memory with false data.
9/11 was neither a Saudi operation (in fact Bin Laden was expatriated
for treason long ago) nor was their "Paki" support.
> While I recognize this Iraq thing is just a preliminary to the big show
> against Iran and Saudi Arabia,
Good.
> please excuse me for saying I think this Indochina-in-reverse military
> intervention is fucking insane?
You can say it, but the point is whether you have any data to back up
your position. I see many differences to Vietnam (Indochina), including
a missing super power to support the enemy or the problem that one
cannot actually invade because of that super power.
I see it more of a repeat of the victory in 1991, unless one argued that
it will be even easier because Iraq has much less military power now
than then.
> > > Apart from stripping away the rights of US citizens, they also seem intent
> > > on enforcing some sort of "Pax Americana" on the world
> >
> > Now they've done it. And what's so bad about a pax americana?
>
> These 'pax' campaigns for suzereignity don't end up to well when they
> come undone.
I have seen Pax Americana. In fact, I have been born and raised in
West-Berlin. I have seen what the American opressors do after they have
invaded your country and removed the ruling dictatorship.
And I am thus rather impervious to that kind of "argument".
I know that Pax Americana works and that Americans are not (on the
whole) "evil".
> > > - which seems to be primarily motivated by the US need for natural
> > > resources
> >
> > Everybody needs natural resources. But some people use them to produce
> > more wealth (like America, Europe, China, and Japan), and some people
> > just sit on them and get angry watching the rest of the world become
> > more powerful.
>
> Oh these bad people!
It depends. They can sit there and let us use the oil. There is no
reason for us paying them for sitting there. But the problem is that
they not only nationalize oil companies every now and then, they also
attack people and peoples at random.
Can you name even one place in the world that is pre-dominantly muslim,
borders to a region that is not and where there is no violence?
Can you name even one accomplishment of the Arab culture in the last 400
years?
Do you know how many people who were born in Arab countries want to
leave these countries?
And do you know how many people who have been born elsewhere want to
live in Arabia instead?
> A few less SUV's and a few more hydrogen fuel cells and we can tell these
> bad people to go hump a camel.
That would be possible if they stopped attacking people at random.
(I'll ignore the blatant attempt to link this discussion to opinions
about SUVs from now on.)
> > While you probably won't view Arab fundamentalism as a threat, the
> > people who suffer from it in Israel and in New York City in 2001
> > certainly do.
> >
> > For you it's paranoia, for them it's dead family members.
>
> I'm no Gandhi, but I just don't see how trading bombs with these assholes
> is going to improve the situation.
It worked with Germany and Japan. And good riddance to their previous
regimes.
> At some point a modus vivendi will need to be found. Let's hope there's
> people still vivendi'ing to mode.
The modus vivendi must be democracy and secular governments. There is no
other guarantee for peace. There never has been.
But there has never been a war between democratic countries.
Mayor of R'lyeh
Brehm) chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Andrew J. Brehm" <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote in message
>> news:1fri4zi.mq2n9gov85csN%and...@netneurotic.de...
>> > Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Gore was just too stupid to stop telling overly obvious lies,
>> >
>> > Now you got me interested.
>> >
>> > What lies?
>>
>> Umm, this jar your memory a tad?
>>
>> "I took the initiative in creating the Internet"
>>
>
>So who did take the initiative in creating what we now know as the
>Internet?
The US military.
>I remember Gore was involved in the discussions regarding
>government support for the Internet during the time it started for most
>people.
The Internet has its origins in the late 60s. Gore wasn't elected to
Congress until 1977.
>
>Maybe your memory is different or you really didn't know that Gore was
>talking about today's Internet as opposed to the net as it was before
>massive governmental support?
The Internet started with massive government support. Its only
recently that it was cut loose.
--
"We in the Green movement, aspire to a cultural model
in which the killing of a forest will be considered
more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of
6-year-old children to Asian brothels."
Carl Amery, German Green Party.
Quote certified as true by our own Lars Träger.
Andrew J. Brehm
> On Sun, 9 Mar 2003 02:05:30 +0100, and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J.
> Brehm) chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>
> >Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Andrew J. Brehm" <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote in message
> >> news:1fri4zi.mq2n9gov85csN%and...@netneurotic.de...
> >> > Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Gore was just too stupid to stop telling overly obvious lies,
> >> >
> >> > Now you got me interested.
> >> >
> >> > What lies?
> >>
> >> Umm, this jar your memory a tad?
> >>
> >> "I took the initiative in creating the Internet"
> >>
> >
> >So who did take the initiative in creating what we now know as the
> >Internet?
>
> The US military.
So you actually believe that the original Internet was much the same as
the AOL and Web interfaces people use today?
I am sorry, but I don't.
> >I remember Gore was involved in the discussions regarding
> >government support for the Internet during the time it started for most
> >people.
>
> The Internet has its origins in the late 60s. Gore wasn't elected to
> Congress until 1977.
What does this have to do with what I was talking about? Do you actually
believe that most people started using the Internet in the 70s? Most
people never heard of the Internet before the late 80s and it was only
becoming more popular in the late 90s.
> >
> >Maybe your memory is different or you really didn't know that Gore was
> >talking about today's Internet as opposed to the net as it was before
> >massive governmental support?
>
> The Internet started with massive government support. Its only
> recently that it was cut loose.
That's a rather summarized account of what has happened.
Mayor of R'lyeh
Brehm) chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 9 Mar 2003 02:05:30 +0100, and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J.
>> Brehm) chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>>
>> >Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Andrew J. Brehm" <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote in message
>> >> news:1fri4zi.mq2n9gov85csN%and...@netneurotic.de...
>> >> > Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Gore was just too stupid to stop telling overly obvious lies,
>> >> >
>> >> > Now you got me interested.
>> >> >
>> >> > What lies?
>> >>
>> >> Umm, this jar your memory a tad?
>> >>
>> >> "I took the initiative in creating the Internet"
>> >>
>> >
>> >So who did take the initiative in creating what we now know as the
>> >Internet?
>>
>> The US military.
>
>So you actually believe that the original Internet was much the same as
>the AOL and Web interfaces people use today?
>
>I am sorry, but I don't.
Non-sequitur. I never said any such thing.Just because the original
Internet wasn't like it is today doesn't mean it was the Internet
>> >I remember Gore was involved in the discussions regarding
>> >government support for the Internet during the time it started for most
>> >people.
>>
>> The Internet has its origins in the late 60s. Gore wasn't elected to
>> Congress until 1977.
>
>What does this have to do with what I was talking about?
You seem to be shifting between two different things. You're trying to
defend Al Gore's lie about being the creative force behind the
Internet but you want to define the Internet as the Web. Sorry but
the Internet existed before the Web. Al Gore's lie isn't 'I invented
the Web'. Its 'I invented the Internet.'.
> Do you actually believe that most people started using the Internet in the 70s?
How many people need to be using something before it exists? How did
the people using it before this critical number of users is reached
use it before it existed?
> Most people never heard of the Internet before the late 80s and it was only
>becoming more popular in the late 90s.
And this affects the fact that it existed before then how?
>> >
>> >Maybe your memory is different or you really didn't know that Gore was
>> >talking about today's Internet as opposed to the net as it was before
>> >massive governmental support?
>>
>> The Internet started with massive government support. Its only
>> recently that it was cut loose.
>
>That's a rather summarized account of what has happened.
As opposed to your pulling 'Al Gore was talking about inventing the
Web instead of the Internet'? I'm always amazed by the way Gore
supporters will twist anything in order to not admit that their hero
is a moron and a liar.
Mayor of R'lyeh
<ev5...@hotmail.com> chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>On Sun, 9 Mar 2003 03:28:56 +0100, and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J.
>Brehm) chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>
>>Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 9 Mar 2003 02:05:30 +0100, and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J.
>>> Brehm) chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>>>
>>> >Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> "Andrew J. Brehm" <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote in message
>>> >> news:1fri4zi.mq2n9gov85csN%and...@netneurotic.de...
>>> >> > Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > > Gore was just too stupid to stop telling overly obvious lies,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Now you got me interested.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > What lies?
>>> >>
>>> >> Umm, this jar your memory a tad?
>>> >>
>>> >> "I took the initiative in creating the Internet"
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >So who did take the initiative in creating what we now know as the
>>> >Internet?
>>>
>>> The US military.
>>
>>So you actually believe that the original Internet was much the same as
>>the AOL and Web interfaces people use today?
>>
>>I am sorry, but I don't.
>
>Non-sequitur. I never said any such thing.Just because the original
>Internet wasn't like it is today doesn't mean it was the Internet
Oops. That's supposed to be:
Non-sequitur. I never said any such thing.Just because the original
Internet wasn't like it is today doesn't mean it wasn't the Internet
flip
and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Andrew J. Brehm" <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote in message
> > news:1fri4zi.mq2n9gov85csN%and...@netneurotic.de...
> > > Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Gore was just too stupid to stop telling overly obvious lies,
> > >
> > > Now you got me interested.
> > >
> > > What lies?
> >
> > Umm, this jar your memory a tad?
> >
> > "I took the initiative in creating the Internet"
> >
>
> So who did take the initiative in creating what we now know as the
> Internet? I remember Gore was involved in the discussions regarding
> government support for the Internet during the time it started for most
> people.
So? I was using the Internet long before the date Al Gore claimed to
have invented it.
If his position is that he fostered it or subsidized it or whatever,
that's what he should have said. Putting money into an existing Internet
is not the same as his claim to have invented it.
Heywood Mogroot
> "Andrew J. Brehm" <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote in message
> news:1fri4zi.mq2n9gov85csN%and...@netneurotic.de...
> > Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Gore was just too stupid to stop telling overly obvious lies,
> >
> > Now you got me interested.
> >
> > What lies?
>
> Umm, this jar your memory a tad?
>
> "I took the initiative in creating the Internet"
What Gore actually said in an interview:
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the
initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving
forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important
to our country's economic growth and environmental protection,
improvements in our educational system."
The Smear:
"This is a man who has great numbers -- I'm beginning to think not
only did he invent the Internet, he invented the calculator."
--George W. Bush referring to Al Gore at an October 2000 Presidential
Debate
http://www.shiftyeye.com/Articles.asp?ArticleID=70
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.htm
For reasonably objective evaluations of what really happened:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,18390-2,00.html
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/goreinternet.htm
Heywood Mogroot
Follow the money, my friend.
Who's the corporate owners of these media outlets?
AOL/TIME WARNER (CNN)
GENERAL ELECTRIC (NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, 13 TV stations)
VIACOM (CBS, 41 TV stations, 184 radio)
WALT DISNEY CORP (ABC, 10 TV stations, 50 radio)
NEWS CORP (Fox News Channel, 33 TV stations)
Will these owners gain more viewers by offering NEWS or ENTERTAINMENT?
Do the people signing the paychecks make OVER or UNDER $150,000/year.
That's about the pivot point for receiving (long-term) benefits from
the Bush tax plan.
Do the above owners have MORE or LESS to gain from Bush's wingnut
agenda?
Why are the prominent news media establishment, outside of Helen
Thomas, in bed with Bush? Thursday's news conference was something out
of an old episode of Start Trek:
http://www.startrek.com/library/media_tos.asp?id=115024
Which is more important to the established news media nomenklatura:
their paycheck, their professional life, and access to the halls of
power... OR reporting the unspun truth?
But the proof is who is on the airwaves...
Let's look at tonight on MSNBC, shall we:
5:00PM Michael Savage. Yeah, he's "liberal"
6:00PM COUNTDOWN: IRAQ (got war?)
7:00PM Chris Matthews. Somewhere off to the right, but has his
moments.
8:00PM Joe Scarborough. Lifelong democrat, he.
9:00PM COUNTDOWN: IRAQ (not yet?)
10:00PM Chris Matthews.
11:00PM Joe Scarborough.
But in summary, let me argue via HTTP:
http://www.whatliberalmedia.com/
=Heywood=
Heywood Mogroot
> of course the more interesting question may be, why *shouldn't* GW use his
> dad's help if available?
I wish he fucking would. If Bush Sr. were running things, instead of
Rove & the PNAC wingnuts, a rational middle-course of UN-mandated
inspection regime, with a global coalition behind it, would be in
place now.
Well, I guess the people of Bulgaria's support counts for something.
=Heywood=
Andrew J. Brehm
> On Sun, 9 Mar 2003 03:28:56 +0100, and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J.
> Brehm) chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>
> >> >
> >> >So who did take the initiative in creating what we now know as the
> >> >Internet?
> >>
> >> The US military.
> >
> >So you actually believe that the original Internet was much the same as
> >the AOL and Web interfaces people use today?
> >
> >I am sorry, but I don't.
>
> Non-sequitur. I never said any such thing.
Yes, you did.
When Al Gore refered to the creation of the Internet he was obviously
talking about what we now know as the Internet, which is a fairly
different beast. (I say "obviously" because everybody noticed the
Internet was there before Gore created it. But depending on the
character one can read this differently.)
> Just because the original Internet wasn't like it is today doesn't mean it
> wasn't the Internet.
But that's exactly what it means in today's context. The Internet in the
70s and 80s and the Internet in the 90s had almost nothing in common but
the name. (Spare me the tidbits about software and protocols, many
networks use them, but they alone don't define what is the "Internet".)
> >> >I remember Gore was involved in the discussions regarding
> >> >government support for the Internet during the time it started for most
> >> >people.
> >>
> >> The Internet has its origins in the late 60s. Gore wasn't elected to
> >> Congress until 1977.
> >
> >What does this have to do with what I was talking about?
>
> You seem to be shifting between two different things. You're trying to
> defend Al Gore's lie about being the creative force behind the Internet
> but you want to define the Internet as the Web.
I have tried to tell you that what we call the Internet today is fairly
different from the earlier Internet. You apparently agree. But you seem
to be unable to accept that Al Gore might have been talking about what
we know as the Internet today. Why?
> Sorry but the Internet existed before the Web.
Yes. And?
> Al Gore's lie isn't 'I invented the Web'. Its 'I invented the Internet.'.
He never said "invented". I don't know why so many people are keen on
replacing the word "create" with "invent".
> > Do you actually believe that most people started using the Internet in
> > the 70s?
>
> How many people need to be using something before it exists?
That depends on the context. The Internet as we know it today simply
didn't exist before so many people started using it. An Internet with
500 users doesn't require one million users to exist. But an Internet
with a million users does.
> How did the people using it before this critical number of users is
> reached use it before it existed?
What are you talking about?
Are you _really_ unable to understand the simple concept of _time_?
I'll try to explain.
1. In the 70s and 80s there was a beast called "Internet".
2. In the second half of the Nineties there was such a beast too.
3. The two are different in many ways.
4. Al Gore claims to have created the Internet.
5. For the Internet as described in #2 the claim is justifiable.
Where exactly lies your problem?
> > Most people never heard of the Internet before the late 80s and it was
> >only becoming more popular in the late 90s.
>
> And this affects the fact that it existed before then how?
Why should it have? I am not talking about the Internet of the 80s. But
I have made that clear. You simply refuse to acknowledge that. It
doesn't mean you have an argument. It means you ignore something I have
said.
But I can make it a quotable paragraph if you like:
When Al Gore claimed that he created the Internet, he was refering to
the Internet as we know it today. He was NOT talking about the Internet
as it was known in earlier times.
Please keep that statement in mind when you reply. It answers all the
questions you keep coming up with.
Assuming Al Gore was right about the importance of his work (which is
debateable, but not the subject of this discussion), he was certainly
right to have claimed to have created what we now know as the Internet.
It didn't exist like that before.
> >> >Maybe your memory is different or you really didn't know that Gore was
> >> >talking about today's Internet as opposed to the net as it was before
> >> >massive governmental support?
> >>
> >> The Internet started with massive government support. Its only
> >> recently that it was cut loose.
> >
> >That's a rather summarized account of what has happened.
>
> As opposed to your pulling 'Al Gore was talking about inventing the
> Web instead of the Internet'?
I don't like it when Josh or Rick misquote me and I don't like it when
you do it. I assume you are not going to do it more often than this
once.
> I'm always amazed by the way Gore supporters will twist anything in order
> to not admit that their hero is a moron and a liar.
Let me try to understand your point of view.
You actually believe that Al Gore didn't know the Internet existed
before his "created" it and cannot possibly have refered to today's
Internet?
Or do you believe that he wanted to help Republicans by telling
something he knew to be false and apparently easily called?
I assume that you have completely ruled out "Al Gore was refering to the
Internet as we know it today" for some reason?
Heywood Mogroot
> If his position is that he fostered it or subsidized it or whatever,
> that's what he should have said. Putting money into an existing Internet
> is not the same as his claim to have invented it.
The "invention" claim was an invention of the Bush campaign. Worked
pretty well, didn't it? See my other post.
=Heywood=
Heywood Mogroot
> Heywood Mogroot <imout...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> I certainly remember that. I only thought that maybe they have found
> some "lies" that have not been later found to have been correct all the
> time.
?
=Heywood=
Heywood Mogroot
> How about Bush's lies? Promising a "humble" foreign policy, for one,
Hey, he's humble! Just looked how he begged china for our spy plane
back, and is in the process of building a regional coalition to
address the festering mess in N Korea, and how he humbly offered the
Turks $30B to pretty-pleeeze allow us to stage from the N.
> and calling himself a "compassionate" conservative for another.
It's all relative, given, say, the Coulter, Rush, & Savage
"conservative" wingnutland.
=Heywood=
Mayor of R'lyeh
Brehm) chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 9 Mar 2003 03:28:56 +0100, and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J.
>> Brehm) chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>>
>> >> >
>> >> >So who did take the initiative in creating what we now know as the
>> >> >Internet?
>> >>
>> >> The US military.
>> >
>> >So you actually believe that the original Internet was much the same as
>> >the AOL and Web interfaces people use today?
>> >
>> >I am sorry, but I don't.
>>
>> Non-sequitur. I never said any such thing.
>
>Yes, you did.
>
>When Al Gore refered to the creation of the Internet he was obviously
>talking about what we now know as the Internet,
This is just your assumption. You are not deriving this from his
statement.
> which is a fairly
>different beast. (I say "obviously" because everybody noticed the
>Internet was there before Gore created it. But depending on the
>character one can read this differently.)
Gore has told many lies that were obvious. Why you think this one is
somehow different is beyond me.
>
>> Just because the original Internet wasn't like it is today doesn't mean it
>> wasn't the Internet.
>
>But that's exactly what it means in today's context.
No, its what you need it to mean to justify your defense of Algore.
> The Internet in the
>70s and 80s and the Internet in the 90s had almost nothing in common but
>the name. (Spare me the tidbits about software and protocols, many
>networks use them, but they alone don't define what is the "Internet".)
Well then what is the difference? You seem to be using some unique
definition of the Interent.
>
>> >> >I remember Gore was involved in the discussions regarding
>> >> >government support for the Internet during the time it started for most
>> >> >people.
>> >>
>> >> The Internet has its origins in the late 60s. Gore wasn't elected to
>> >> Congress until 1977.
>> >
>> >What does this have to do with what I was talking about?
>>
>> You seem to be shifting between two different things. You're trying to
>> defend Al Gore's lie about being the creative force behind the Internet
>> but you want to define the Internet as the Web.
>
>I have tried to tell you that what we call the Internet today is fairly
>different from the earlier Internet. You apparently agree.
Sure. It would be stupid to try and pretend that the Internet hasn't
changed with use. But that doesn't make the earlier days somehow
non-Internet.
Is a 1937 Chevy somehow not a Chevy just because the 2003 Chevys sell
in larger numbers?
> But you seem
>to be unable to accept that Al Gore might have been talking about what
>we know as the Internet today. Why?
Because there's no evidence that's what he was talking about beyond
your insistence.
>
>> Sorry but the Internet existed before the Web.
>
>Yes. And?
>
>> Al Gore's lie isn't 'I invented the Web'. Its 'I invented the Internet.'.
>
>He never said "invented". I don't know why so many people are keen on
>replacing the word "create" with "invent".
Because they are synonyms and frequently interchanged.
>
>> > Do you actually believe that most people started using the Internet in
>> > the 70s?
>>
>> How many people need to be using something before it exists?
>
>That depends on the context. The Internet as we know it today simply
>didn't exist before so many people started using it. An Internet with
>500 users doesn't require one million users to exist. But an Internet
>with a million users does.
But how many does it need to be the Internet?
>
>> How did the people using it before this critical number of users is
>> reached use it before it existed?
>
>What are you talking about?
>
>Are you _really_ unable to understand the simple concept of _time_?
Time didn't change the the fact that the Internet was invented in the
late 60s.
>
>I'll try to explain.
>
>1. In the 70s and 80s there was a beast called "Internet".
Which Algore claims to have invented.
>
>2. In the second half of the Nineties there was such a beast too.
It was the same 'beast'.
>
>3. The two are different in many ways.
No they aren't. They're the same thing.
>
>4. Al Gore claims to have created the Internet.
>
>5. For the Internet as described in #2 the claim is justifiable.
No it isn't.
>Where exactly lies your problem?
Algore told a big fat lie and for some reason you're willing to twist,
turn and jump through hoops to say that he didn't.
>
>> > Most people never heard of the Internet before the late 80s and it was
>> >only becoming more popular in the late 90s.
>>
>> And this affects the fact that it existed before then how?
>
>Why should it have? I am not talking about the Internet of the 80s. But
>I have made that clear. You simply refuse to acknowledge that. It
>doesn't mean you have an argument. It means you ignore something I have
>said.
Whatr you have said is nonsense.
+
>But I can make it a quotable paragraph if you like:
>
>When Al Gore claimed that he created the Internet, he was refering to
>the Internet as we know it today. He was NOT talking about the Internet
>as it was known in earlier times.
Please show me where in Algore's statement that's indicated. You're
pushing your generous to Al spin as fact when it isn't.
>
>Please keep that statement in mind when you reply. It answers all the
>questions you keep coming up with.
Too bad its hogwash.
>
>Assuming Al Gore was right about the importance of his work (which is
>debateable, but not the subject of this discussion), he was certainly
>right to have claimed to have created what we now know as the Internet.
Where did you get this big boner for Algore from? What Algore has
later claimed was that he sponsored a bill that provided money to pay
for handing over to private interests. He was one of ~60 co-sponsors
of the bill. Algore didn't even write or submit the bill. No matter
how you look at it his claim is naught but a lie. Why you refuse to
see that is beyond me.
>
>It didn't exist like that before.
Which doesn't mean that it wasn't the Internet before.
>
>> >> >Maybe your memory is different or you really didn't know that Gore was
>> >> >talking about today's Internet as opposed to the net as it was before
>> >> >massive governmental support?
>> >>
>> >> The Internet started with massive government support. Its only
>> >> recently that it was cut loose.
>> >
>> >That's a rather summarized account of what has happened.
>>
>> As opposed to your pulling 'Al Gore was talking about inventing the
>> Web instead of the Internet'?
>
>I don't like it when Josh or Rick misquote me and I don't like it when
>you do it. I assume you are not going to do it more often than this
>once.
Actually its more of an assumption. You seem to be pegging this not
Internet/Interent transformation at about the time the Web became
popular.
>
>> I'm always amazed by the way Gore supporters will twist anything in order
>> to not admit that their hero is a moron and a liar.
>
>Let me try to understand your point of view.
>
>You actually believe that Al Gore didn't know the Internet existed
>before his "created" it and cannot possibly have refered to today's
>Internet?
I don't think that Algore thought about it for ten seconds. He just
opened his mouth and stupidity fell out. He has a long history of that
sort of thing.
>
>Or do you believe that he wanted to help Republicans by telling
>something he knew to be false and apparently easily called?
Did you look at the pages you were given links to about his history?
Among other things he's boasted about was discovering Love Canal two
years after it was declared an emergency by the government and they'd
started buying out the people living there.
>
>I assume that you have completely ruled out "Al Gore was refering to the
>Internet as we know it today" for some reason?
Because its not supported by anything beyond your specualtion.
Heywood Mogroot
> > > > I'd rather see a dull beaurocrat as president of the US than a puppet like
> > > > bush.
> > >
> > > A puppet of whom?
> >
> > PNAC. Enron. Heritage Foundation. CCA. Carlyle Group.
>
> And the Ameirican people voted for Republican congressmen because the
> Amercan voters are also puppets or how do you want me to understand
> that?
Unfortunately the democrats failed to distinguish themselves
sufficiently in the run-up prior to the midterm elections, allowing
Bush's handlers to set the driving issue of the election: Iraq.
Putting Iraq in the spotlight before the midterms was a brilliant
political move, a real lose-lose situation for the Democrats.
[saudi & paki involvement in 9/11 snipped]
(I don't have time to educate you on the realities of the world)
> > please excuse me for saying I think this Indochina-in-reverse military
> > intervention is fucking insane?
>
> You can say it, but the point is whether you have any data to back up
> your position.
"An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardise, if not
destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken," Mr
Scowcroft wrote.
"It's obviously not a black-and-white situation over there" in the
Mideast, [Schwarzkopf] says. "I would just think that whatever path we
take, we have to take it with a bit of prudence."
Personally, I'm in favor of an inspection regime so severe Mr Hussein
can't take a shit without 2 Green Berets in the next room. But for
some reason, this pragmatic middle course never got put on the table.
It's always been "regime change" or "be pussies".
> I see many differences to Vietnam (Indochina), including
> a missing super power to support the enemy or the problem that one
> cannot actually invade because of that super power.
You think Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, China & Russia
don't want us to get bogged down on our little way to empire? You
think they can't read English, or don't watch FOXNews?
> I see it more of a repeat of the victory in 1991, unless one argued that
> it will be even easier because Iraq has much less military power now
> than then.
Sure, we'll bomb the same crap we bombed in 1991, secure the same
empty desert we secured in 1991. What follows will be the
"interesting" bit.
I think chances are reasonable that Baghdad will go over to our side
without too much hubbub, fwiw.
But just like on one level we were winning the Vietnam war in 1969,
the parallels are that we are pursuing a tactical-offensive within a
strategic-defensive policy.
Harry G Summers' _On Strategy_ is an excellent summary of the
difficulties this poses:
Results therefrom: "Complete Absence of Decision"
We can't even garrison Lebanon & Saudi Arabia without getting our
asses car-bombed.
For us to move to the strategic offensive in the region will involve a
de facto declaration of war on Islam.
All the bombing we did in Indochina couldn't convince the N Vietnamese
*people* that they were in the wrong for wanting to "liberate" S
Vietnam. Even without Chinese intervention, any occupation of Hanoi
would have eventually failed (or we'd still be there today, hunting
down commie terrorists like in the Phillippines).
60% of the people of the US, something like 90% of the people of the
world are against unilateral US intervention in Iraq. The longer an
occupation-by-force continues, the more precarious our position will
become.
Where are we going to find compliant Iraqis who will be our friends?
Who's going to protect their throats from being slit by extremists in
the middle of the night?
The best this Iraq thing is going to turn out will be like
Afghanistan, where we have a friendly bunch of quasi-friendly folks
ensconced in the capital, but who can't go out at night.
> > > > Apart from stripping away the rights of US citizens, they also seem intent
> > > > on enforcing some sort of "Pax Americana" on the world
> > >
> > > Now they've done it. And what's so bad about a pax americana?
> >
> > These 'pax' campaigns for suzereignity don't end up to well when they
> > come undone.
>
> I have seen Pax Americana. In fact, I have been born and raised in
> West-Berlin. I have seen what the American opressors do after they have
> invaded your country and removed the ruling dictatorship.
>
> And I am thus rather impervious to that kind of "argument".
Denazifying Germany and protecting it from the Red Army wasn't a fight
over theology.
> I know that Pax Americana works and that Americans are not (on the
> whole) "evil".
Military force, in the end, can only be applied where the populace on
the ground welcome it *and* the enemy loses its collective will to
fight.
> > > Everybody needs natural resources. But some people use them to produce
> > > more wealth (like America, Europe, China, and Japan), and some people
> > > just sit on them and get angry watching the rest of the world become
> > > more powerful.
> >
> > Oh these bad people!
>
> It depends. They can sit there and let us use the oil. There is no
> reason for us paying them for sitting there. But the problem is that
> they not only nationalize oil companies every now and then
? You talking a half a century ago, in then-Persia? The Pax response
to THAT sure turned out swell.
> they also attack people and peoples at random.
No, not at random.
> Can you name even one place in the world that is pre-dominantly muslim,
> borders to a region that is not and where there is no violence?
>
> Can you name even one accomplishment of the Arab culture in the last 400
> years?
>
> Do you know how many people who were born in Arab countries want to
> leave these countries?
>
> And do you know how many people who have been born elsewhere want to
> live in Arabia instead?
I say we kill these subhuman ragheads then. Problem solved!
> > A few less SUV's and a few more hydrogen fuel cells and we can tell these
> > bad people to go hump a camel.
>
> That would be possible if they stopped attacking people at random.
No, it's possible now. The Saudis need us ("us" being the
industrialized states) much more than we need them. Too bad our energy
companies kinda like this $2.00/gal world we're in now.
> (I'll ignore the blatant attempt to link this discussion to opinions
> about SUVs from now on.)
The point was 30% conservation would remove our need for Saudi crude,
entirely.
> > > While you probably won't view Arab fundamentalism as a threat, the
> > > people who suffer from it in Israel and in New York City in 2001
> > > certainly do.
> > >
> > > For you it's paranoia, for them it's dead family members.
> >
> > I'm no Gandhi, but I just don't see how trading bombs with these assholes
> > is going to improve the situation.
>
> It worked with Germany and Japan. And good riddance to their previous
> regimes.
I lived in Japan for 8 years, and I agree.
We were able to defeat the Japanese in WW2 by killing only a million
or so civilians because in the end they could come to the conclusion
they were in the wrong.
(we wouldn't have been to put two dry feet on Continental Europe if
the Germans weren't losing whole army groups on the eastern edge of
their little empire).
The central danger to this new Bush Doctrine of pre-emption is the
loss of domestic support for the killing, and the willingness to
sustain US casualties & public expenditure in the fight. Things are
bad now, and only dozens of innocents have been killed, and we're only
spending $200M a day or so.
The only way our area bombing campaigns in WW2 were remotely
justifiable was that the Germans and Japanese *peoples* supported
whacked evil, *and* they declared war on us first.
With no Pearl Harbor raid, if FDR had preemptively started bombing IJN
troop transports heading out of Saigon in 1941, the history of WW2
would likely have been a lot bloodier, for us & the Japs, than it
already was.
> > At some point a modus vivendi will need to be found. Let's hope
there's
> > people still vivendi'ing to mode.
>
> The modus vivendi must be democracy and secular governments. There is no
> other guarantee for peace. There never has been.
>
> But there has never been a war between democratic countries.
There's never been democracy in SW Asia, either. I personally would
love to see more Jordans in the region and less Syrias. Looks to be
quite a tough slog to get there, though.
=Heywood=
Andrew J. Brehm
> On Sun, 9 Mar 2003 07:26:29 +0100, and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J.
> Brehm) chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>
> >Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 9 Mar 2003 03:28:56 +0100, and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J.
> >> Brehm) chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >So who did take the initiative in creating what we now know as the
> >> >> >Internet?
> >> >>
> >> >> The US military.
> >> >
> >> >So you actually believe that the original Internet was much the same as
> >> >the AOL and Web interfaces people use today?
> >> >
> >> >I am sorry, but I don't.
> >>
> >> Non-sequitur. I never said any such thing.
> >
> >Yes, you did.
> >
> >When Al Gore refered to the creation of the Internet he was obviously
> >talking about what we now know as the Internet,
>
> This is just your assumption. You are not deriving this from his
> statement.
And it is your assumption that it was not like this. But why would he
have meant the word in that other context?
> > which is a fairly
> >different beast. (I say "obviously" because everybody noticed the
> >Internet was there before Gore created it. But depending on the
> >character one can read this differently.)
>
> Gore has told many lies that were obvious.
I sure hope you are not refering to the urban legends that have been
uncovered before, including the famous list of Gore quotes?
> Why you think this one is somehow different is beyond me.
I don't think it's different at all. Find all these Gore "lies" is easy,
as is looking up the facts. Some people stop after step 1, others don't.
> >
> >> Just because the original Internet wasn't like it is today doesn't mean it
> >> wasn't the Internet.
> >
> >But that's exactly what it means in today's context.
>
> No, its what you need it to mean to justify your defense of Algore.
So you believe that many people would actually think that the Internet
of the 80s and today was the same thing?
I don't think many people even know what it all looked like before the
mid-90s.
> > The Internet in the
> >70s and 80s and the Internet in the 90s had almost nothing in common but
> >the name. (Spare me the tidbits about software and protocols, many
> >networks use them, but they alone don't define what is the "Internet".)
>
> Well then what is the difference?
The most notable differences are of course the number of users, the
accessibility and the commercial applications.
> You seem to be using some unique definition of the Internet.
So when Al Gore uses the word, he uses it wrong and is thus lying. And
when some people understand what he meant, they also have it wrong.
And you simply don't get that there is a remote chance that he actually
wanted to say what I thought he meant?
Ask the average Internet user what the Internet is, and they will tell
you it's the Web and a few other modern applications. We both know that
the Web is not the Internet, but we also know that the Web is a part of
today's Internet but was not of the early Internet. So apparently they
are not the same things.
> >> >> >I remember Gore was involved in the discussions regarding
> >> >> >government support for the Internet during the time it started for most
> >> >> >people.
> >> >>
> >> >> The Internet has its origins in the late 60s. Gore wasn't elected to
> >> >> Congress until 1977.
> >> >
> >> >What does this have to do with what I was talking about?
> >>
> >> You seem to be shifting between two different things. You're trying to
> >> defend Al Gore's lie about being the creative force behind the Internet
> >> but you want to define the Internet as the Web.
> >
> >I have tried to tell you that what we call the Internet today is fairly
> >different from the earlier Internet. You apparently agree.
>
> Sure. It would be stupid to try and pretend that the Internet hasn't
> changed with use. But that doesn't make the earlier days somehow
> non-Internet.
They don't have to. But when Gore claimed he created the Internet he was
obviously refering to these changes, or at least this is how I
understood it. You can claim that it is not how you understood it, but
you cannot pretend that you haven't been told what he probably meant.
> Is a 1937 Chevy somehow not a Chevy just because the 2003 Chevys sell in
> larger numbers?
When the 2003 Chevy becomes so popular that when people say "Chevy" they
refer to only it and not to earlier models, would it be totally false
for the creator of the 2003 Chevy to claim that he created the "Chevy"?
(And again, it is debateable whether Gore's involvement is comparable to
that of the creator in this analogy.)
> > But you seem
> >to be unable to accept that Al Gore might have been talking about what
> >we know as the Internet today. Why?
>
> Because there's no evidence that's what he was talking about beyond
> your insistence.
There is no evidence to the contrary either. In fact there's no evidence
at all. We only know what he said, but we both cannot be sure what he
meant.
But you claim that he lied and base that claim on the assumption that
Gore either didn't know the Internet already existed (which is unlikely)
or assumed that nobody else would know (which is even more unlikely).
Do you believe that Al Gore didn't know the Internet already existed?
Or do you believe that Al Gore believed that nobody else would know?
Because unless one believes in either of these assumptions I don't see
how one can believe that he lied.
> >> Al Gore's lie isn't 'I invented the Web'. Its 'I invented the Internet.'.
> >
> >He never said "invented". I don't know why so many people are keen on
> >replacing the word "create" with "invent".
>
> Because they are synonyms and frequently interchanged.
They are not synonyms. If they were, there would be no reason to
interchange the words since it is, on the net, easier to simply quote
the original text rather than type it again.
> >> > Do you actually believe that most people started using the Internet in
> >> > the 70s?
> >>
> >> How many people need to be using something before it exists?
> >
> >That depends on the context. The Internet as we know it today simply
> >didn't exist before so many people started using it. An Internet with
> >500 users doesn't require one million users to exist. But an Internet
> >with a million users does.
>
> But how many does it need to be the Internet?
To be _which_ Internet? The Internet of the 70s or the Internet of the
90s?
I have to ask. When somebody, say 18 years old, moves to a desert for a
year and then comes back, aged 19, claiming that he was now "a new man",
do you call him a liar (since he is obviously the same man as before,
only later), or do you understand that he wanted to express that he has
changed dramatically over the months?
And when some wise man who lives in the desert comes to town and claims
that he has created that man, do you call him a liar because the man
existed before the wise men has had anything to do with him, or do you
know that he is refering to the man after the changes, the "new man"?
What if the actual parents of the "new man" say something along the
lines of "Our son would not be where it is inow without the strong
support given to him and others like him by the funny old man in his
current role and his earlier role as wise man of the desert."?
> >> How did the people using it before this critical number of users is
> >> reached use it before it existed?
> >
> >What are you talking about?
> >
> >Are you _really_ unable to understand the simple concept of _time_?
>
> Time didn't change the the fact that the Internet was invented in the
> late 60s.
>
But time did change what the Internet is and what people refer to when
they say "Internet".
> >
> >I'll try to explain.
> >
> >1. In the 70s and 80s there was a beast called "Internet".
>
> Which Algore claims to have invented.
No.
> >2. In the second half of the Nineties there was such a beast too.
>
> It was the same 'beast'.
No.
> >3. The two are different in many ways.
>
> No they aren't. They're the same thing.
No.
Compare the two and you will find some minor differences, like number of
users, applications, commercial support, accessibility etc..
> >4. Al Gore claims to have created the Internet.
> >
> >5. For the Internet as described in #2 the claim is justifiable.
>
> No it isn't.
Yes, it is. Al Gore was instrumental in making the Internet what it is
today.
> >Where exactly lies your problem?
>
> Algore told a big fat lie and for some reason you're willing to twist,
> turn and jump through hoops to say that he didn't.
No twisting at all. I just want you to accept the reality that the
Internet is now completely different from what it was in the 1980s.
> >
> >> > Most people never heard of the Internet before the late 80s and it was
> >> >only becoming more popular in the late 90s.
> >>
> >> And this affects the fact that it existed before then how?
> >
> >Why should it have? I am not talking about the Internet of the 80s. But
> >I have made that clear. You simply refuse to acknowledge that. It
> >doesn't mean you have an argument. It means you ignore something I have
> >said.
>
> What you have said is nonsense.
What exactly is nonsense?
> >But I can make it a quotable paragraph if you like:
> >
> >When Al Gore claimed that he created the Internet, he was refering to
> >the Internet as we know it today. He was NOT talking about the Internet
> >as it was known in earlier times.
>
> Please show me where in Algore's statement that's indicated.
Please show me where in Al Gore's statement it's indicated that he could
not possibly have talked about the Internet as it was known in the late
90s.
> You're pushing your generous to Al spin as fact when it isn't.
I don't know if it's a fact. But I do find it a lot more likely than
your story.
> >Please keep that statement in mind when you reply. It answers all the
> >questions you keep coming up with.
>
> Too bad its hogwash.
You don't have to agree with it. I am only telling you. You can continue
to claim that Al Gore lied and that nobody ever told you what he meant
and how it was true.
>
> >Assuming Al Gore was right about the importance of his work (which is
> >debateable, but not the subject of this discussion), he was certainly
> >right to have claimed to have created what we now know as the Internet.
>
> Where did you get this big boner for Algore from?
I don't know. I don't find myself defending him so often, except when it
comes to this. When I first read about the quote I didn't understand how
anybody could seriously believe that Al Gore was refering to anything
but the Internet of the 90s.
> What Algore has later claimed was that he sponsored a bill that provided
> money to pay for handing over to private interests. He was one of ~60
> co-sponsors of the bill. Algore didn't even write or submit the bill.
I already said that his involvement is debateable. My claim is that his
words were not at all a lie, since he obviously assumes his work was
very important and since he obviously was talking about the 90s Internet
rather than the Internet of the 70s.
> No matter how you look at it his claim is naught but a lie. Why you refuse
> to see that is beyond me.
I don't "refuse" to see it, I simply find it a bit too weird to assume
that Al Gore would knowingly say something which was obviously a lie
unless what he wanted to say was what I understood when I read the
quote.
>
> >It didn't exist like that before.
>
> Which doesn't mean that it wasn't the Internet before.
That's exactly what it means. It wasn't _the_ Internet. Not _that_
Internet. Not the Internet as we know it today. It was something else.
It was used by a different selection of people, it had almost no
commercial applications, there was no Web (which is not the face of the
Internet for most people). It didn't resemble today's Internet at all.
> >> >> >Maybe your memory is different or you really didn't know that Gore was
> >> >> >talking about today's Internet as opposed to the net as it was before
> >> >> >massive governmental support?
> >> >>
> >> >> The Internet started with massive government support. Its only
> >> >> recently that it was cut loose.
> >> >
> >> >That's a rather summarized account of what has happened.
> >>
> >> As opposed to your pulling 'Al Gore was talking about inventing the
> >> Web instead of the Internet'?
> >
> >I don't like it when Josh or Rick misquote me and I don't like it when
> >you do it. I assume you are not going to do it more often than this
> >once.
>
> Actually its more of an assumption. You seem to be pegging this not
> Internet/Internet transformation at about the time the Web became
> popular.
I didn't say anything about a "not Internet/Internet transformation".
But since the Web is the Internet's most visible application today, I
think it is safe to say that the advent of the Web is about the time
today's Internet was born.
> >
> >> I'm always amazed by the way Gore supporters will twist anything in order
> >> to not admit that their hero is a moron and a liar.
> >
> >Let me try to understand your point of view.
> >
> >You actually believe that Al Gore didn't know the Internet existed
> >before his "created" it and cannot possibly have refered to today's
> >Internet?
>
> I don't think that Algore thought about it for ten seconds. He just
> opened his mouth and stupidity fell out. He has a long history of that
> sort of thing.
If it was stupidity, it was not a lie. A lie requires an intention.
And what is that history of stupidity? I do hope (again) that you are
not refering to the urban legends?
> >
> >Or do you believe that he wanted to help Republicans by telling
> >something he knew to be false and apparently easily called?
>
> Did you look at the pages you were given links to about his history?
Yes.
> Among other things he's boasted about was discovering Love Canal two years
> after it was declared an emergency by the government and they'd started
> buying out the people living there.
>
And what the page I was given says about the issue is this:
"Gore told some students in New Hampshire the story of a Tennessee
community activist who brought his attention to a toxic dump, whereupon
he looked for other examples, found Love Canal, and held the first
hearings on the issue. "Journalists" first misquoted him as having
claimed to to have started the issue, when in fact he was giving credit
to the activists. Even when the misquotation was grudgingly corrected,
they continued to distort his words, as if he were claiming to have
discovered the toxic pollution at Love Canal."
You see what I mean? This is one of the urban legends I was refering to.
Al Gore didn't claim he discovered the Love Canal issue first, he
claimed that he found Love Canal when he was looking for "examples".
Guess what, when I look for examples of, say, deserts, and I look at a
map and find the Sahara, and I claim to have found the Sahara when I was
looking for examples for deserts, it doesn't mean that I took credit for
discovering the Sahara.
And it seems as if every single issue brought up about Gore always ends
like this. One looks up the actual occurence and finds that he didn't
actually say what was caimed he said or that the context was different.
(The Internet story is very often presented as a story about technology
rather than congress-related work, for example.)
> >
> >I assume that you have completely ruled out "Al Gore was refering to the
> >Internet as we know it today" for some reason?
>
> Because its not supported by anything beyond your specualtion.
It's supported by the fact that the other option is very unlikely.
I don't believe that Al Gore didn't know the Internet existed in the 80s
and I thus cannot believe that he was refering to anything but the
Internet in the 90s.
Andrew J. Brehm
> and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote in message
> news:<1frj75r.u64l6bcjj2k6N%and...@netneurotic.de>...
>
> > > > > I'd rather see a dull beaurocrat as president of the US than a
> > > > > puppet like bush.
> > > >
> > > > A puppet of whom?
> > >
> > > PNAC. Enron. Heritage Foundation. CCA. Carlyle Group.
> >
> > And the Ameirican people voted for Republican congressmen because the
> > Amercan voters are also puppets or how do you want me to understand
> > that?
>
> Unfortunately the democrats failed to distinguish themselves
> sufficiently in the run-up prior to the midterm elections, allowing
> Bush's handlers to set the driving issue of the election: Iraq.
> Putting Iraq in the spotlight before the midterms was a brilliant
> political move, a real lose-lose situation for the Democrats.
So he put Iraq into the spotlight and people supported him. How does
this change the fact that the voters supported him?
> [saudi & paki involvement in 9/11 snipped]
>
> (I don't have time to educate you on the realities of the world)
The realities of what world?
Are you refering to the same world, where Bin Laden was a Saudi
expatriate and not a Saudi official? Because that's the world I would
want to learn about. Your other world is of no interest to me.
> > > please excuse me for saying I think this Indochina-in-reverse military
> > > intervention is fucking insane?
> >
> > You can say it, but the point is whether you have any data to back up
> > your position.
>
> "An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardise, if not
> destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken," Mr
> Scowcroft wrote.
And?
> "It's obviously not a black-and-white situation over there" in the
> Mideast, [Schwarzkopf] says. "I would just think that whatever path we
> take, we have to take it with a bit of prudence."
And?
> Personally, I'm in favor of an inspection regime so severe Mr Hussein
> can't take a shit without 2 Green Berets in the next room. But for some
> reason, this pragmatic middle course never got put on the table. It's
> always been "regime change" or "be pussies".
We have had 12 years of trying the other way. It turned out that it was
the same as "be pussies".
> > I see many differences to Vietnam (Indochina), including a missing super
> > power to support the enemy or the problem that one cannot actually
> > invade because of that super power.
>
> You think Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, China & Russia
> don't want us to get bogged down on our little way to empire?
What does this have to do with whether Iraq is similar to Vietnam???
> You think they can't read English, or don't watch FOXNews?
I sure hope they do. I hope they realize that they must either stop
supporting their terrorists or be conquered.
I do not know why you brought in Turkey, China, and Russia though. I
don't see how attacking them would in any way help the US, since they
are neither supporting Muslim fundamentalism, nor are they attacking the
US. Furthermore, all three are more powerful than the Arab countries and
Iran and at least Russia and China are perfecntly capable of defending
themselves against the US.
There is neither a reason for the US nor a possible way to attack China
or Russia, so why bring them up?
The Russians, btw, also fight Muslim fundamentalists in their own
country and so does China.
And Turkey has been a fight against fundamentalism ever since it was
created from the Osman empire.
> > I see it more of a repeat of the victory in 1991, unless one argued that
> > it will be even easier because Iraq has much less military power now
> > than then.
>
> Sure, we'll bomb the same crap we bombed in 1991, secure the same empty
> desert we secured in 1991. What follows will be the "interesting" bit.
Yes, because this time the desert will not be given back to a brutal
dictator.
> I think chances are reasonable that Baghdad will go over to our side
> without too much hubbub, fwiw.
Yes.
> But just like on one level we were winning the Vietnam war in 1969, the
> parallels are that we are pursuing a tactical-offensive within a
> strategic-defensive policy.
What makes you think that a strategic-defensive policy would be a good
plan?
> Harry G Summers' _On Strategy_ is an excellent summary of the
> difficulties this poses:
>
> Results therefrom: "Complete Absence of Decision"
>
> We can't even garrison Lebanon & Saudi Arabia without getting our
> asses car-bombed.
So I guess we better wait until they are even stronger and attack us
again?
> For us to move to the strategic offensive in the region will involve a
> de facto declaration of war on Islam.
And?
> All the bombing we did in Indochina couldn't convince the N Vietnamese
> *people* that they were in the wrong for wanting to "liberate" S Vietnam.
I guess the fact that the Soviet Union supported the North could have
been another factor.
> Even without Chinese intervention, any occupation of Hanoi would have
> eventually failed (or we'd still be there today, hunting down commie
> terrorists like in the Phillippines).
Ask the Vietnamese today and you will find that they have switched
sides. They, as most of the eastern block, have long given up what they
once fought for and are becoming more like us.
> 60% of the people of the US, something like 90% of the people of the world
> are against unilateral US intervention in Iraq. The longer an
> occupation-by-force continues, the more precarious our position will
> become.
If this was true, Germany and Japan would have been a real danger to the
US in the 1950s.
> Where are we going to find compliant Iraqis who will be our friends?
Everywhere. Most people would rather live in a secular democracy if
given the choice. The Arabs are not actually happy with their countries.
> Who's going to protect their throats from being slit by extremists in the
> middle of the night?
Who's going to protect them now?
> The best this Iraq thing is going to turn out will be like Afghanistan,
> where we have a friendly bunch of quasi-friendly folks ensconced in the
> capital, but who can't go out at night.
Not yet. But things change. We have seen that the plan works. 50 years
ago. You are trying to explain that history could not possibly have
worked that way.
> > > > > Apart from stripping away the rights of US citizens, they also
> > > > > seem intent on enforcing some sort of "Pax Americana" on the world
> > > >
> > > > Now they've done it. And what's so bad about a pax americana?
> > >
> > > These 'pax' campaigns for suzereignity don't end up to well when they
> > > come undone.
> >
> > I have seen Pax Americana. In fact, I have been born and raised in
> > West-Berlin. I have seen what the American opressors do after they have
> > invaded your country and removed the ruling dictatorship.
> >
> > And I am thus rather impervious to that kind of "argument".
>
> Denazifying Germany and protecting it from the Red Army wasn't a fight
> over theology.
I am sorry, but the belief in what the Nazis said was no different from
any other religious belief.
And that doesn't even address the Japanese situation.
> > I know that Pax Americana works and that Americans are not (on the
> > whole) "evil".
>
> Military force, in the end, can only be applied where the populace on the
> ground welcome it *and* the enemy loses its collective will to fight.
And you have reason to assume that the Iraqis would rather live under
Saddam than under the benevolent military rule of the Americans and then
in a democracy after that?
> > > > Everybody needs natural resources. But some people use them to produce
> > > > more wealth (like America, Europe, China, and Japan), and some people
> > > > just sit on them and get angry watching the rest of the world become
> > > > more powerful.
> > >
> > > Oh these bad people!
> >
> > It depends. They can sit there and let us use the oil. There is no
> > reason for us paying them for sitting there. But the problem is that
> > they not only nationalize oil companies every now and then
>
> ? You talking a half a century ago, in then-Persia? The Pax response
> to THAT sure turned out swell.
I am neither talking about half a century ago nor about Iran (Persia).
> > they also attack people and peoples at random.
>
> No, not at random.
Yes, at random.
Unless you want to claim that palestinian terrorists have specific
reasons to kill sleeping children.
But I don't think they are that evil.
> > Can you name even one place in the world that is pre-dominantly muslim,
> > borders to a region that is not and where there is no violence?
> >
> > Can you name even one accomplishment of the Arab culture in the last 400
> > years?
> >
> > Do you know how many people who were born in Arab countries want to
> > leave these countries?
> >
> > And do you know how many people who have been born elsewhere want to
> > live in Arabia instead?
>
> I say we kill these subhuman ragheads then. Problem solved!
So what do you propose? Should we let them continue killing us?
> > > A few less SUV's and a few more hydrogen fuel cells and we can tell these
> > > bad people to go hump a camel.
> >
> > That would be possible if they stopped attacking people at random.
>
> No, it's possible now. The Saudis need us ("us" being the
> industrialized states) much more than we need them.
Yes.
> Too bad our energy companies kinda like this $2.00/gal world we're in now.
...
> > (I'll ignore the blatant attempt to link this discussion to opinions
> > about SUVs from now on.)
>
> The point was 30% conservation would remove our need for Saudi crude,
> entirely.
So how would a country like Germany (where I live) reduce its
consumption to 70%? I don't remember that there are so many SUVs in
Germany.
> > > > While you probably won't view Arab fundamentalism as a threat, the
> > > > people who suffer from it in Israel and in New York City in 2001
> > > > certainly do.
> > > >
> > > > For you it's paranoia, for them it's dead family members.
> > >
> > > I'm no Gandhi, but I just don't see how trading bombs with these assholes
> > > is going to improve the situation.
> >
> > It worked with Germany and Japan. And good riddance to their previous
> > regimes.
>
> I lived in Japan for 8 years, and I agree.
>
> We were able to defeat the Japanese in WW2 by killing only a million
> or so civilians because in the end they could come to the conclusion
> they were in the wrong.
Yes.
> (we wouldn't have been to put two dry feet on Continental Europe if
> the Germans weren't losing whole army groups on the eastern edge of
> their little empire).
Yes.
> The central danger to this new Bush Doctrine of pre-emption is the loss of
> domestic support for the killing, and the willingness to sustain US
> casualties & public expenditure in the fight.
If this was true, the weaponry they intend to use would be different.
The last few wars the US and the UK fought have not caused that many
casualties. The greater the quality difference between two armies, the
less victims will there be.
And the point of ideal quality advantage for the US forces against Arab
countires is _now_, not decades ago when they fought in Vietnam, not in
10 years when Saddam has managed to produce nukes, but exactly _now_.
> Things are bad now, and only dozens of innocents have been killed, and
> we're only spending $200M a day or so.
Well, then hurry up.
> The only way our area bombing campaigns in WW2 were remotely justifiable
> was that the Germans and Japanese *peoples* supported whacked evil, *and*
> they declared war on us first.
But the Arab fundamentalists and dictators are evil and did support war
on us first.
That's exactly our current situation.
> With no Pearl Harbor raid, if FDR had preemptively started bombing IJN
> troop transports heading out of Saigon in 1941, the history of WW2 would
> likely have been a lot bloodier, for us & the Japs, than it already was.
I think Pearl Harbour was the best thing that happened to Germany in the
last century.
It made American enter the war, support the British against the Nazis,
yet directed American wrath at Japan rather than Germany. The result was
that America was prepared to defeat Germany (the Russians then managed
to do that).
> > > At some point a modus vivendi will need to be found. Let's hope
> > >there's people still vivendi'ing to mode.
> >
> > The modus vivendi must be democracy and secular governments. There is no
> > other guarantee for peace. There never has been.
> >
> > But there has never been a war between democratic countries.
>
> There's never been democracy in SW Asia, either.
In all the places where we now have democracies have never been
democracies before democracy was first implemented.
> I personally would love to see more Jordans in the region and less Syrias.
> Looks to be quite a tough slog to get there, though.
In order to reach such a situation, people like Saddam will have to go
and people like the Jordan king will have to appear.
We cannot make Jordan kings appear, but we can remove Saddams.
flip
imout...@mac.com (Heywood Mogroot) wrote:
[snip]
>
> Do the people signing the paychecks make OVER or UNDER $150,000/year.
> That's about the pivot point for receiving (long-term) benefits from
> the Bush tax plan.
I get really tired of this crap.
You have to make over $30 K to pay much of any Federal taxes in this
country. Anyone making less than that is paying little or no taxes. Just
how much of a tax break do they need?
Even if you use the median family income ($43 K, IIRC), someone at the
median is paying (on average) just a couple percent of their income in
taxes. How much more of a break can you give them - other than simply
making it a welfare state where you just give everyone below $40 K extra
cash? (Yes, I'm aware of earned income credit and think it's a bad idea.
Expanding it to include more people - like those near the median income
level - would be ludicrous).
C Lund
and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
>> I'd rather see a dull beaurocrat as president of the US than a puppet like
>> bush.
>A puppet of whom?
Ashcroft, Cheney, Rumsfeld, papa Bush, and not to forget Big US Oil.
>> The current US regime is an extremely dangerous one.
>Why? It seems to be the first American "regime" in ages that actually
>does something about the evils in the world and refrains from supporting
>dictators like so many previous American administrations did.
Yeah, it's "doing something all right". A singleminded charge into the Arab
world while completely oblivious to the side- and after effects of their
actions. You removed the Taliban? Great. Cheers. To bad you didn't bother to
clean up the mess afterwards (what happened to the mentality that gave us
the Marshall Plan?). You want to remove Saddan Hussein? Good - especially
since the US more or less put him in power anyway. Too bad you're not
concidering the long term effects of your actions (hint: Kurdistan, Turkey,
South Iraq, Iran), not to mention the effects of bush's stupid, stupid
choise of words when this "War on Terror" started. The Arab world sees this
as a War on Islam, and they're now wondering who's next.
Oh well. The fallout won't be headed my way. What do I care.
>> Apart from stripping away the rights of US citizens, they also seem intent
>> on enforcing some sort of "Pax Americana" on the world
>Now they've done it.
?
> And what's so bad about a pax americana?
Are you serious? You don't see anything wrong with making the entire Arab
world a US protectorate/colony?
>> - which seems to be primarily motivated by the US need for natural
>> resources
>Everybody needs natural resources. But some people use them to produce
>more wealth (like America, Europe, China, and Japan), and some people
>just sit on them and get angry watching the rest of the world become
>more powerful.
So this somehow gives the US the right to take control over the natural
resources of other countries?
>> and by their newfound paranoia.
>While you probably won't view Arab fundamentalism as a threat, the
>people who suffer from it in Israel and in New York City in 2001
>certainly do.
The Israelis aren't suffering from Arab fundamentalism. They're suffering
from the side effects of their occupation and cleansing of Palestine. (ready
for another round of this discussion?)
>For you it's paranoia, for them it's dead family members.
During the Cold War, the US paranoia was directed at the "commies". During
the nineties, the US was searching for a new target for it's paranoia. Bin
Laden gave them that target. This is the same mentality the ruled the US
during the Cold War. It's just found a new focus.
>I can understand American anger and I hope they get through with it and
>remove the threat, because I know the Europe (except Britain) can't do
>it.
Or won't because they've weighed the consequences.
>And as long as people you like you are around, I am also confident that
>Europe won't try.
Europe doesn't see the point.
--
C Lund, Oslo
http://www.notam02.no/~clund/
C Lund
>> Everybody needs natural resources. But some people use them to produce
>> more wealth (like America, Europe, China, and Japan), and some people
>> just sit on them and get angry watching the rest of the world become
>> more powerful.
Take note! Words of wisdom follow:
>Oh these bad people! A few less SUV's and a few more hydrogen fuel
>cells and we can tell these bad people to go hump a camel.
--
C Lund
and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
>Heywood Mogroot <imout...@mac.com> wrote:
>> > > I'd rather see a dull beaurocrat as president of the US than a puppet
>> > > like bush.
>> > A puppet of whom?
>> PNAC. Enron. Heritage Foundation. CCA. Carlyle Group.
>And the Ameirican people voted for Republican congressmen because the
>Amercan voters are also puppets or how do you want me to understand
>that?
Want to explain to me why that particular vote was settled by LAWYERS? Not
that it really matters whom the US public votes for; all the options (that I
know of anyway) are bought and paid for by the big corporations and lobbies.
(you've heard of fund-raising campaigns, right?)
>> > > The current US regime is an extremely dangerous one.
>> > Why? It seems to be the first American "regime" in ages that actually
>> > does something about the evils in the world and refrains from supporting
>> > dictators like so many previous American administrations did.
>> You mean like the Sauds and the Pakis?
>Yes, like them.
So you're in favor of the US invading those countries as well?
>> The 9/11 hit was a Saudi operation with Paki support, to refresh your
>> memory.
>Please don't "refresh" my memory with false data.
Data has it that most of the people involved were Saudis.
>9/11 was neither a Saudi operation (in fact Bin Laden was expatriated
>for treason long ago) nor was their "Paki" support.
And how does Iraq fit into this picture?
>> While I recognize this Iraq thing is just a preliminary to the big show
>> against Iran and Saudi Arabia,
>Good.
You want the US to invade Iran? That would be really REALLY stupid.
>> please excuse me for saying I think this Indochina-in-reverse military
>> intervention is fucking insane?
>You can say it, but the point is whether you have any data to back up
>your position. I see many differences to Vietnam (Indochina), including
>a missing super power to support the enemy or the problem that one
>cannot actually invade because of that super power.
>I see it more of a repeat of the victory in 1991, unless one argued that
>it will be even easier because Iraq has much less military power now
>than then.
Umm.. did the US enter Iraqi cities in 1991? I can very easily see a
scenario where Saddam Hussein, backed into a corner in a Bagdad overrun by
US troops, decides to gas the entire city (assuming he has any of that stuff
left by then) US troops, Iraqis, and all. That alone would turn the invasion
into a major long-term disaster.
>> > > Apart from stripping away the rights of US citizens, they also seem
>> > > intent
>> > > on enforcing some sort of "Pax Americana" on the world
>> > Now they've done it. And what's so bad about a pax americana?
>> These 'pax' campaigns for suzereignity don't end up to well when they
>> come undone.
>I have seen Pax Americana. In fact, I have been born and raised in
>West-Berlin. I have seen what the American opressors do after they have
>invaded your country and removed the ruling dictatorship.
Really. Want to tell that to the people who grew up in Chile after the US
replaced their democracy with Pinochet?
>And I am thus rather impervious to that kind of "argument".
>I know that Pax Americana works and that Americans are not (on the
>whole) "evil".
The US Americans don't know what their government does in their name.
>> > > - which seems to be primarily motivated by the US need for natural
>> > > resources
>> >
>> > Everybody needs natural resources. But some people use them to produce
>> > more wealth (like America, Europe, China, and Japan), and some people
>> > just sit on them and get angry watching the rest of the world become
>> > more powerful.
>>
>> Oh these bad people!
>
>It depends. They can sit there and let us use the oil. There is no
>reason for us paying them for sitting there. But the problem is that
>they not only nationalize oil companies every now and then, they also
>attack people and peoples at random.
Nationalizing oil companies is not a bad thing. Why should a country not
have control over it's own resources?
As for attacking people at random... why was it bush decided to go to War on
Iraq again?
>Can you name even one place in the world that is pre-dominantly muslim,
>borders to a region that is not and where there is no violence?
Can you name even one place in the world where there is no violence full
stop?
>Can you name even one accomplishment of the Arab culture in the last 400
>years?
This is bordering on racism. Want to explain to my why this is relevant?
Other than as an attempt to portray the Arab culture as somehow inferiour?
>Do you know how many people who were born in Arab countries want to
>leave these countries?
Do you know how many people who have been born in poor countries who want to
live in other countries?
>And do you know how many people who have been born elsewhere want to
>live in Arabia instead?
Want to explain why you're saying these things? I'm not going to call you a
racist - yet. I'd like to hear you explain the point you're trying to make
first. Hopefully you've just chosen a really poor way to word your point.
>> A few less SUV's and a few more hydrogen fuel cells and we can tell these
>> bad people to go hump a camel.
>That would be possible if they stopped attacking people at random.
?
>(I'll ignore the blatant attempt to link this discussion to opinions
>about SUVs from now on.)
Seems to me she was voicing an opinion about US fondness of gas hogs.
>> > While you probably won't view Arab fundamentalism as a threat, the
>> > people who suffer from it in Israel and in New York City in 2001
>> > certainly do.
>> > For you it's paranoia, for them it's dead family members.
>> I'm no Gandhi, but I just don't see how trading bombs with these assholes
>> is going to improve the situation.
>It worked with Germany and Japan. And good riddance to their previous
>regimes.
Do you know why it worked? Why the Empire didn't return or new Hitlers pop
up by the dozens? It wasn't the bombs that made the solution a permanent one.
>> At some point a modus vivendi will need to be found. Let's hope there's
>> people still vivendi'ing to mode.
>The modus vivendi must be democracy and secular governments. There is no
>other guarantee for peace. There never has been.
That didn't stop the US from overturning the democracy of Chile.
>But there has never been a war between democratic countries.
--
C Lund, Oslo
http://www.notam02.no/~clund/
C Lund
>> Umm.. you're being sarcastic, right?
>
>What, you don't like the New American Century?
>
>Our Dear Leader and his administration may have been asleep at the
>wheel prior to 9/11, but he's going to make up for it now!
>
>I for one am looking forward to the discount crude oil we'll be
>getting for installing American(TM) brand democracies in the Persian
>Gulf. Look how well the Pax Americana working in Afghanistan, Turkey,
>and Pakistan.
>
>Make No Mistake (R), this administration will pull every string to
>secure for the future its National Security interests, until it is
>booted from office late next year.
>
>In the meantime, disregard that man behind the curtain & enjoy the
>show.
I think the answer to my question is "yes"... ;)
Ignoring the fact that you're being sarcastic; I don't think this is going
to be a "New American Century". I think this century will see the arrival of
two new superpowers; the EU (sometime before 2030) and China (2050 maybe?).
The US will be eclipsed by both.
And I somehow doubt the current US regime will be booted at the next
election - unless the Iraqi war turns out to be a real stinker. B(
>=Heywood=
Heywood Mogroot
> Despite the fact that many thinking conservatives have abandoned
> support for Bush, the ignorance of the public combined with pervasive
> propaganda from the administration may allow him to maintain his
> popular support.
>
> And that's scary.
I was watching Fox new last night, and saw their model of a
prop-powered cruise missile (sorta resembling a V-1), painted in Iraqi
camo. The close-up showed their model had f*cking rubber bands
securing the engine.
Chances are there'll be one more shoe, a piece-d'resistance if you
will, to drop from Bush's handlers soon. Rove is too crafty not to
save the best for last.
Just remember we have always been at war with Eurasia.
=Heywood=
Elizabot
>
> On 3/8/03 3:49 AM, in article 3E69BC96...@grayREMOVErock.org,
> "Elizabot" <booR...@grayREMOVErock.org> wrote:
>
> > Steve Mackay wrote:
> >>
> >> "Elizabot" <booR...@grayREMOVErock.org> wrote in message
> >> news:3E6863C3...@grayREMOVErock.org...
> >>> Mike Dee wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >>>>
> >>>>> The one thing in Bush's favor, was he picked a very good cabinet.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Gee, and here I was, thinking that his cabinet had chosen him!
> >>>>
> >>>> D.
> >>>
> >>> Gee, and here I was thinking that his daddy picked his cabinet for him...
> >>
> >> Hmm, ya know, don't get me wrong. I am no fan of GW, but I hear the
> >> 'daddy' thing quite often. Yet no one can come up with any proof that George
> >> all the major media being overly liberal, they would have had a field day
> >> with any evidence to support this popular theory.
> >
> > I wasn't refering to the election.
> >
> > Cheney. Iran-Contra. Poindexter. Convictions. Pardons. Skull and Bones.
> >
> > I don't mean to be insulting, but what decade were you born in? If you
> > were to say 70's, I'd understand.
>
> No, it was before the 70s. But what does Iran-Contra, and all the rest
> really have any proof that George SR helped JR?
Proof? You're not going to find any "proof."
Do you think Jr. got into Yale on his own merit? (SAT was 1206) Do you
know what "Skull and Bones" is? What the goal of that society is? Do you
really think someone (Sr.) who was director of the CIA and President of
the U.S. would now be just sitting on his ass writing books watching the
world go by? He's a busy man. He just bought a tobacco plant in Italy!
(Carlyle Group)
Here's an interessting link concerning the Carlyle Group:
http://www.bankindex.com/read.asp?ID=1326
Maybe you're right. Jr.'s been screwing up too badly. He's even got
Turkey upset with us.
Heywood Mogroot
> But just like on one level we were winning the Vietnam war in 1969,
> the parallels are that we are pursuing a tactical-offensive within a
> strategic-defensive policy.
>
> Harry G Summers' _On Strategy_ is an excellent summary of the
> difficulties this poses:
>
> Results therefrom: "Complete Absence of Decision"
Actually that's the result from tactical-defensive &
strategic-defensive.
The results from pursuing a tactical-offensive within a strategic
defensive is "victory on field without general results".
=Heywood=
flip
<christopher.lund-ED...@amstwist00.chello.com>,
C Lund <christop...@NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
> In article <1frj75r.u64l6bcjj2k6N%and...@netneurotic.de>,
> and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> >Heywood Mogroot <imout...@mac.com> wrote:
> >> > > I'd rather see a dull beaurocrat as president of the US than a puppet
> >> > > like bush.
> >> > A puppet of whom?
> >> PNAC. Enron. Heritage Foundation. CCA. Carlyle Group.
> >And the Ameirican people voted for Republican congressmen because the
> >Amercan voters are also puppets or how do you want me to understand
> >that?
>
> Want to explain to me why that particular vote was settled by LAWYERS?
[snip irrelevancies]
That particular argument is one of the stupidest ever to come from the
Democrats.
How else would you settle it besides the legal system?
Should we have a shouting match and declare the winner to be the one who
shouts the loudest?
Or maybe a pie eating contest.
Perhaps a race. Whichever one can physically get to the White House
first wins.
Mayor of R'lyeh
us with this bit of wisdom:
>In article
I'm constantly amazed that people seem to think that its silly to have
a method in place to settle disputed elections.
Its a shame that the Supreme Court had to order Florida to follow its
own laws but that's a shame on the corrupt Democrat Florida Supreme
Court and corrupt Democrat election officials not on anyone else.
Heywood Mogroot
> Ignoring the fact that you're being sarcastic; I don't think this is going
> to be a "New American Century". I think this century will see the arrival of
> two new superpowers; the EU (sometime before 2030) and China (2050 maybe?).
Closer to 2003 & 2005...
> The US will be eclipsed by both.
Yes, this is in the cards. 2/3 of Americans are rather retarded,
unfortunately. Too much TV and believing our own mythology I think.
> And I somehow doubt the current US regime will be booted at the next
> election - unless the Iraqi war turns out to be a real stinker. B(
There are indications the Democrats are growing a spine. Pelosi & Dean
are beginning to set an aggressive tone. Dashcle and his pink neckties
aren't going to beat Karl Rove.
=Heywood=
Heywood Mogroot
> In article <dd5de929.03030...@posting.google.com>,
> imout...@mac.com (Heywood Mogroot) wrote:
>
> > Do the people signing the paychecks make OVER or UNDER $150,000/year.
> > That's about the pivot point for receiving (long-term) benefits from
> > the Bush tax plan.
>
> I get really tired of this crap.
>
> You have to make over $30 K to pay much of any Federal taxes in this
> country. Anyone making less than that is paying little or no taxes. Just
> how much of a tax break do they need?
None. And under the Bush structure they've already got most of their
reductions.
http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm
The Bush plan should really be called the "millionaire tax cut",
because that's what it was designed to be. Everything else was peanuts
for the peanut galleries.
> Even if you use the median family income ($43 K, IIRC), someone at the
> median is paying (on average) just a couple percent of their income in
> taxes.
for tax year 2001, 43000 gross, 2 children:
Fed Inc: 2370 (5.5%)
FICA : 6580 (15.3%)
CA/local: 4558 (10.6%)
Total tax: 31%
fwiw, I think the 2002 table is an equitable distribution of the
burden:
Base 10%
$6,001+ 15%
$27,950+27% (25% in 2010)
$67,701+ 30% (28% in 2010)
$141,251+ 35% (33% in 2010)
$307,051+ 38.6% (35% in 2010)
http://taxes.yahoo.com/rates.html
http://www.axaonline.com/rs/3p/sp/tax_relief_act.html
> How much more of a break can you give them - other than simply
> making it a welfare state where you just give everyone below $40 K extra
> cash? (Yes, I'm aware of earned income credit and think it's a bad idea.
> Expanding it to include more people - like those near the median income
> level - would be ludicrous).
I've paid a shedload of taxes since coming back to the US in 2000, so
I'm all in favor of tax relief. All I ask is the relief plans indicate
what spending they want to cut to pay for it.
=Heywood=
flip
That's exactly what I said. Your Federal tax burden is 5.5%. Just a few
percent.
FICA is an insurance program, not a tax.
CA/local is not Federal.
> fwiw, I think the 2002 table is an equitable distribution of the
> burden:
>
> Base 10%
> $6,001+ 15%
> $27,950+27% (25% in 2010)
> $67,701+ 30% (28% in 2010)
> $141,251+ 35% (33% in 2010)
> $307,051+ 38.6% (35% in 2010)
>
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/rates.html
> http://www.axaonline.com/rs/3p/sp/tax_relief_act.html
>
> > How much more of a break can you give them - other than simply
> > making it a welfare state where you just give everyone below $40 K extra
> > cash? (Yes, I'm aware of earned income credit and think it's a bad idea.
> > Expanding it to include more people - like those near the median income
> > level - would be ludicrous).
>
> I've paid a shedload of taxes since coming back to the US in 2000, so
> I'm all in favor of tax relief. All I ask is the relief plans indicate
> what spending they want to cut to pay for it.
> \
Looks like you're already paying fairly low (5.5%) Federal tax.
David C. Fritzinger
<fli...@mac.com> wrote:
Except, of course, that the FICA that is paid essentially goes into the
general fund. It is a regressive tax, since, as you earn over a certain
amount (I believe it is about $87,000 now), you pay less and less FICA,
while someone who makes less than this amount pays the full amount.
And, the federal government for years would use social security
surpluses to mask general fund shortfalls. Now, however, things are
going to get bad because, within the next couple of decades, the
Boomers will be retiring, and actually using the social security. The
budget crisis the Bush administration is leaving us and our children
will not be pretty.
>
> CA/local is not Federal.
Let's also realize that state/local taxes are going to have to go up as
the federal government cuts back on what it pays the states for such
programs as medicaid. Not to mention the fact that the Bush
administration is giving the states more unfunded mandates, such as
homeland security and the Bush Education program, which is nice, as far
as it goes. However, now Bush is refusing federal funds to pay for it.
Dave Fritzinger
[snip]
Heywood Mogroot
> Heywood Mogroot <imout...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote in message
> > news:<1frj75r.u64l6bcjj2k6N%and...@netneurotic.de>...
> >
> > > > > > I'd rather see a dull beaurocrat as president of the US than a
> > > > > > puppet like bush.
> > > > >
> > > > > A puppet of whom?
> > > >
> > > > PNAC. Enron. Heritage Foundation. CCA. Carlyle Group.
> > >
> > > And the Ameirican people voted for Republican congressmen because the
> > > Amercan voters are also puppets or how do you want me to understand
> > > that?
> >
> > Unfortunately the democrats failed to distinguish themselves
> > sufficiently in the run-up prior to the midterm elections, allowing
> > Bush's handlers to set the driving issue of the election: Iraq.
> > Putting Iraq in the spotlight before the midterms was a brilliant
> > political move, a real lose-lose situation for the Democrats.
>
> So he put Iraq into the spotlight and people supported him. How does
> this change the fact that the voters supported him?
The republicans picked up 2 seats in the Senate, none in the House.
Given that half of the population are idiots (eg. not knowing most of
the hijackers were Saudi), this lack of Democrat resurgence was
unavoidable, given the sudden focus on Iraq.
> > [saudi & paki involvement in 9/11 snipped]
> >
> > (I don't have time to educate you on the realities of the world)
>
> The realities of what world?
>
> Are you refering to the same world, where Bin Laden was a Saudi
> expatriate and not a Saudi official? Because that's the world I would
> want to learn about. Your other world is of no interest to me.
The world where not everything is black and white. The world where
people say one thing while do another. The world where we allowed the
Pakis & their Taliban friends to quietly slip out of our net in
Afghanistan.
> > > > please excuse me for saying I think this Indochina-in-reverse military
> > > > intervention is fucking insane?
> > >
> > > You can say it, but the point is whether you have any data to back up
> > > your position.
> >
> > "An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardise, if not
> > destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken," Mr
> > Scowcroft wrote.
>
> And?
I trust his political judgement.
> > "It's obviously not a black-and-white situation over there" in the
> > Mideast, [Schwarzkopf] says. "I would just think that whatever path we
> > take, we have to take it with a bit of prudence."
>
> And?
I trust his military judgement.
> > Personally, I'm in favor of an inspection regime so severe Mr Hussein
> > can't take a shit without 2 Green Berets in the next room. But for some
> > reason, this pragmatic middle course never got put on the table. It's
> > always been "regime change" or "be pussies".
>
> We have had 12 years of trying the other way. It turned out that it was
> the same as "be pussies".
There's that excluded middle road again. There are viable alternatives
between not inspecting and invading. I'd personally like to see the
inspectors driving HUMV's with Delta Force riding shotgun. "Don't have
the key for that door? ... stand aside, please"
> > > I see many differences to Vietnam (Indochina), including a missing super
> > > power to support the enemy or the problem that one cannot actually
> > > invade because of that super power.
> >
> > You think Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, China & Russia
> > don't want us to get bogged down on our little way to empire?
>
> What does this have to do with whether Iraq is similar to Vietnam???
We couldn't isolate the battlefield in S. Vietnam. While there is less
jungle canopy in Iraq, de-arming our enemies there will be no picnic.
> > You think they can't read English, or don't watch FOXNews?
>
> I sure hope they do. I hope they realize that they must either stop
> supporting their terrorists or be conquered.
An eye for an eye will leave the world blind.
> I do not know why you brought in Turkey, China, and Russia though. I
> don't see how attacking them would in any way help the US, since they
> are neither supporting Muslim fundamentalism, nor are they attacking the
> US.
The Chinese and Russians weren't attacking the US during Vietnam,
either. Ever hear of proxy wars?
> Furthermore, all three are more powerful than the Arab countries and
> Iran and at least Russia and China are perfecntly capable of defending
> themselves against the US.
> There is neither a reason for the US nor a possible way to attack China
> or Russia, so why bring them up?
China and Russia are not necessarily our friends. They have
significant powers to influence events in the region should their
interests be threatened.
> The Russians, btw, also fight Muslim fundamentalists in their own
> country and so does China.
>
> And Turkey has been a fight against fundamentalism ever since it was
> created from the Osman empire.
You must learn to distinguish a nation's intelligence services from
its government.
The Russians & Chinese love Arab nationalists like Saddam, and don't
want to see US lackeys control the wealth of the region. Our enemies
there won't have any problems securing support for low-intensity
guerilla warfare.
> > But just like on one level we were winning the Vietnam war in 1969, the
> > parallels are that we are pursuing a tactical-offensive within a
> > strategic-defensive policy.
>
> What makes you think that a strategic-defensive policy would be a good
> plan?
Because the strategic offensive is armageddon, with people who firmly
believe they'll go to a very pleasant place by killing us.
Not being a committed christian, I don't want to die next year,
thanks.
> > Harry G Summers' _On Strategy_ is an excellent summary of the
> > difficulties this poses:
> >
> > Results therefrom: "Complete Absence of Decision"
> >
> > We can't even garrison Lebanon & Saudi Arabia without getting our
> > asses car-bombed.
>
> So I guess we better wait until they are even stronger and attack us
> again?
No, we look for avenues away from conflict. Like reducing our presence
in the region to support of Israel.
> > For us to move to the strategic offensive in the region will involve a
> > de facto declaration of war on Islam.
>
> And?
I generally find it prudent not to fuck with a major religion.
> > All the bombing we did in Indochina couldn't convince the N Vietnamese
> > *people* that they were in the wrong for wanting to "liberate" S Vietnam.
>
> I guess the fact that the Soviet Union supported the North could have
> been another factor.
Not really. They were fighting for "independence", not Communism per
se. They controlled the pace of events from day 1.
> > Even without Chinese intervention, any occupation of Hanoi would have
> > eventually failed (or we'd still be there today, hunting down commie
> > terrorists like in the Phillippines).
>
> Ask the Vietnamese today and you will find that they have switched
> sides. They, as most of the eastern block, have long given up what they
> once fought for and are becoming more like us.
Of course. Note that this victory wasn't achieved by US occupation. I
expect similar dynamics will work with the populations in the mideast,
over a long time.
> > 60% of the people of the US, something like 90% of the people of the world
> > are against unilateral US intervention in Iraq. The longer an
> > occupation-by-force continues, the more precarious our position will
> > become.
>
> If this was true, Germany and Japan would have been a real danger to the
> US in the 1950s.
We had returned control of the countries to total, independent
civilian control, which both had had some experience with prior to the
Great Depression. Our conflict was with the empire builders of those
nations, not the people. Once that was made clear, normalcy returned.
The difference with Iraq will come if we don't support true national
independence for the Iraqis. It's odd, but true "democracy" in the
region now basically means the inmates run the asylum.
> > Where are we going to find compliant Iraqis who will be our friends?
>
> Everywhere. Most people would rather live in a secular democracy if
> given the choice. The Arabs are not actually happy with their countries.
This has some truth. Unfortunately, overt US military presence in the
region is something of a destabilizing force. 500,000 troops in
Vietnam weren't enough to support a US-friendly government that could
not maintain its own internal security.
Just like Turkey, a legitimate government in Iraq will not necessarily
be "friendly" to US interests. That's the price of being the
superpower.
> > Who's going to protect their throats from being slit by extremists in the
> > middle of the night?
>
> Who's going to protect them now?
I would hope not US armed forces.
> > The best this Iraq thing is going to turn out will be like Afghanistan,
> > where we have a friendly bunch of quasi-friendly folks ensconced in the
> > capital, but who can't go out at night.
>
> Not yet. But things change. We have seen that the plan works. 50 years
> ago. You are trying to explain that history could not possibly have
> worked that way.
If we support true arab nationalists like Nasser, we will find the
situation stabilizing, if not improving. This is, apparently, not our
wingnut plan for the mideast, however. It's hard to know because Bush
hasn't really publicized details of his master plan.
> > > I have seen Pax Americana. In fact, I have been born and raised in
> > > West-Berlin. I have seen what the American opressors do after they have
> > > invaded your country and removed the ruling dictatorship.
> > >
> > > And I am thus rather impervious to that kind of "argument".
> >
> > Denazifying Germany and protecting it from the Red Army wasn't a fight
> > over theology.
>
> I am sorry, but the belief in what the Nazis said was no different from
> any other religious belief.
The Nazi ideology was not a religion, and was only imprinted on one
generation by a secret police state, in the 30's and 40's. Islamic
ideology has been rooted in their culture for ~65 generations.
> And that doesn't even address the Japanese situation.
The Japanese kokutai ideology was also a modern introduction by a
secret police state.
> > > I know that Pax Americana works and that Americans are not (on the
> > > whole) "evil".
> >
> > Military force, in the end, can only be applied where the populace on the
> > ground welcome it *and* the enemy loses its collective will to fight.
>
> And you have reason to assume that the Iraqis would rather live under
> Saddam than under the benevolent military rule of the Americans and then
> in a democracy after that?
Depends how benevolent this rule is. How's it working in Afghanistan?
Democracy isn't a magic panacea that makes problems go away.
Warlordism and factionalism are driven by poverty, strife, poor
education, and terrorism.
Nation building is not a yellow brick road, and so far Bush hasn't
said Jack about the costs this process is going to entail. Johnson
made a similar mistake in Vietnam.
> > > It depends. They can sit there and let us use the oil. There is no
> > > reason for us paying them for sitting there. But the problem is that
> > > they not only nationalize oil companies every now and then
> >
> > ? You talking a half a century ago, in then-Persia? The Pax response
> > to THAT sure turned out swell.
>
> I am neither talking about half a century ago nor about Iran (Persia).
What are you talking about, then? It *is* their oil, after all. Naked
western imperialism (UK) and political intervention (US) in the region
have left their marks.
> > > they also attack people and peoples at random.
> >
> > No, not at random.
>
> Yes, at random.
>
> Unless you want to claim that palestinian terrorists have specific
> reasons to kill sleeping children.
>
> But I don't think they are that evil.
I do. Eye for an eye and all.
> > > And do you know how many people who have been born elsewhere want to
> > > live in Arabia instead?
> >
> > I say we kill these subhuman ragheads then. Problem solved!
>
> So what do you propose? Should we let them continue killing us?
Ad-hoc war will get us nowhere.
I say we declare war on oil first. This nation should be able to cut
its economic dependence on the Persian Gulf to zero before Bush's term
is out.
Then regional political issues become Europe's problem. They fucked up
the region politcally, they can fix it. Japan & China can help out, as
they will need that oil too.
Second, we need a recommitment to security agreements. SWATO or
whatever, nonaggression backed by both regional forces (ie Israeli and
Saudi F-16's) and of course US strategic air power. US Marines and
infantry are just ducks in a shooting gallery over there.
This addresses of what passes for understandable Arab grievances
against the US. The War on Terror can continue as it can. Further
terror killings outside the region will be met with Afghanistan-style
house cleanings.
> > > (I'll ignore the blatant attempt to link this discussion to opinions
> > > about SUVs from now on.)
> >
> > The point was 30% conservation would remove our need for Saudi crude,
> > entirely.
>
> So how would a country like Germany (where I live) reduce its
> consumption to 70%? I don't remember that there are so many SUVs in
> Germany.
I'm talking about the US, but Mercedes Benz is pursuing hydrogen
power, no? The energy for this has to come from somewhere, I know.
Iraqi sweet crude is pretty cheap at $1/bbl production cost, so
hopefully you can continue buying it from them.
They don't mind selling it to you, that's for sure.
> > The central danger to this new Bush Doctrine of pre-emption is the loss of
> > domestic support for the killing, and the willingness to sustain US
> > casualties & public expenditure in the fight.
>
> If this was true, the weaponry they intend to use would be different.
> The last few wars the US and the UK fought have not caused that many
> casualties. The greater the quality difference between two armies, the
> less victims will there be.
>
> And the point of ideal quality advantage for the US forces against Arab
> countires is _now_, not decades ago when they fought in Vietnam, not in
> 10 years when Saddam has managed to produce nukes, but exactly _now_.
We'll see. War is more than a series of battles. To be honest, I don't
know how this intervention is going to play out. I don't think the
islamic radicals are overplaying their hands, though. They've got the
bodies, the money, and the commitment to bog anybody down if they play
their terror cards right.
> > The only way our area bombing campaigns in WW2 were remotely justifiable
> > was that the Germans and Japanese *peoples* supported whacked evil, *and*
> > they declared war on us first.
>
> But the Arab fundamentalists and dictators are evil and did support war
> on us first.
>
> That's exactly our current situation.
Yes, 9/11 was a Pearl Harbor in a lot of ways. The problem is it's
terrorism wrapped in a cloak of nationalism, self-determination, and
islamic fundamentalism.
I fear that the more we intervene militarily the more enemies we will
make.
> > > > At some point a modus vivendi will need to be found. Let's hope
> > > >there's people still vivendi'ing to mode.
> > >
> > > The modus vivendi must be democracy and secular governments. There is no
> > > other guarantee for peace. There never has been.
> > >
> > > But there has never been a war between democratic countries.
> >
> > There's never been democracy in SW Asia, either.
>
> In all the places where we now have democracies have never been
> democracies before democracy was first implemented.
by whom? Democracy is part and parcel with self-determination. To be
Churchillian, it is a fragile flower that only grows in soft, warm
soil. It can be argued that even in the US democracy isn't
flourishing.
The only democracy in the region was transplanted from Europe.
> > I personally would love to see more Jordans in the region and less Syrias.
> > Looks to be quite a tough slog to get there, though.
>
> In order to reach such a situation, people like Saddam will have to go
> and people like the Jordan king will have to appear.
>
> We cannot make Jordan kings appear, but we can remove Saddams.
Problem is even our friends like the King of Jordan lack political
legitimacy. Removing Saddam is the easy part.
=Heywood=
flip
None of that changes the fact that FICA is an insurance program.
> >
> > CA/local is not Federal.
>
> Let's also realize that state/local taxes are going to have to go up as
> the federal government cuts back on what it pays the states for such
> programs as medicaid. Not to mention the fact that the Bush
> administration is giving the states more unfunded mandates, such as
> homeland security and the Bush Education program, which is nice, as far
> as it goes. However, now Bush is refusing federal funds to pay for it.
That may be. That doesn't change the fact that the federal tax for
someone making median income or lower is no more than a few percent.
David C. Fritzinger
<fli...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <090320031504384210%dfri...@nospam.hotmail.nospam.com>,
> "David C. Fritzinger" <dfri...@nospam.hotmail.nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <flippo-BD88A2....@news.central.cox.net>, flip
> > <fli...@mac.com> wrote:
[snip]
> > > >
> > > > for tax year 2001, 43000 gross, 2 children:
> > > >
> > > > Fed Inc: 2370 (5.5%)
> > > > FICA : 6580 (15.3%)
> > > > CA/local: 4558 (10.6%)
> > > >
> > > > Total tax: 31%
> > > >
> > >
> > > That's exactly what I said. Your Federal tax burden is 5.5%. Just a few
> > > percent.
> > >
> > > FICA is an insurance program, not a tax.
> >
> > Except, of course, that the FICA that is paid essentially goes into the
> > general fund. It is a regressive tax, since, as you earn over a certain
> > amount (I believe it is about $87,000 now), you pay less and less FICA,
> > while someone who makes less than this amount pays the full amount.
> > And, the federal government for years would use social security
> > surpluses to mask general fund shortfalls. Now, however, things are
> > going to get bad because, within the next couple of decades, the
> > Boomers will be retiring, and actually using the social security. The
> > budget crisis the Bush administration is leaving us and our children
> > will not be pretty.
>
> None of that changes the fact that FICA is an insurance program.
Except, it isn't being used as such. It is a tax, since most of the
money goes into the General Fund. And, as a tax, it is a very
regressive one.
>
> > >
> > > CA/local is not Federal.
> >
> > Let's also realize that state/local taxes are going to have to go up as
> > the federal government cuts back on what it pays the states for such
> > programs as medicaid. Not to mention the fact that the Bush
> > administration is giving the states more unfunded mandates, such as
> > homeland security and the Bush Education program, which is nice, as far
> > as it goes. However, now Bush is refusing federal funds to pay for it.
>
> That may be. That doesn't change the fact that the federal tax for
> someone making median income or lower is no more than a few percent.
So, let's have the Federal Government stop all taxes, and say
everything has to be paid by the states. Would you then say that there
was no tax burden?
8^)
Dave Fritzinger
flip
Since it's not a tax, that's irrelevant.
> >
> > > >
> > > > CA/local is not Federal.
> > >
> > > Let's also realize that state/local taxes are going to have to go up as
> > > the federal government cuts back on what it pays the states for such
> > > programs as medicaid. Not to mention the fact that the Bush
> > > administration is giving the states more unfunded mandates, such as
> > > homeland security and the Bush Education program, which is nice, as far
> > > as it goes. However, now Bush is refusing federal funds to pay for it.
> >
> > That may be. That doesn't change the fact that the federal tax for
> > someone making median income or lower is no more than a few percent.
>
> So, let's have the Federal Government stop all taxes, and say
> everything has to be paid by the states. Would you then say that there
> was no tax burden?
>
No. But I _would_ say that there was no Federal Tax burden. Which was
the topic being discussed.
Jason McNorton
fli...@mac.com says...
Are you for real? If it walks and quacks like a tax..
As an employer (sure) you should know that FICA is a double tax as well.
The employee gets their 5.5%, and the employer pays the same for each
employee too.
I don't care if it's regressive or whatever.. Penalties on making more
money is BS.
FICA's a tax though. Unless you consider it somehow optional hahahah
Heywood Mogroot
> So, let's have the Federal Government stop all taxes, and say
> everything has to be paid by the states. Would you then say that there
> was no tax burden?
As a Federalist, sounds good to me.
The thin blue strip on the Pacific in this map:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2002/pages/maps/full.html
would make a very fine Republic of the Pacific or something.
That plus Hawaii for the beaches.
"Bush Country" can continue to go to hell for what I care.
=Heywood=
Heywood Mogroot
> Maybe you're right. Jr.'s been screwing up too badly. He's even got
> Turkey upset with us.
Don't forget that the Bulgarians are our most solid allies now. This could work...
=Heywood=
Heywood Mogroot
> Looks like you're already paying fairly low (5.5%) Federal tax.
I wish.
I was watching a show on Egypt, and sorta laughed at the thought of
having to slave away during the dry season on a pyramid or something.
Then I remembered what chunk of my salary is being pissed away by the
Feds.
=Heywood=
C Lund
flip <fli...@mac.com> wrote:
>> >And the Ameirican people voted for Republican congressmen because the
>> >Amercan voters are also puppets or how do you want me to understand
>> >that?
>> Want to explain to me why that particular vote was settled by LAWYERS?
>Democrats.
I'm not a Democrat.
>How else would you settle it besides the legal system?
It shouldn't have been necessary to begin with. This shows a serious flaw in
the US political system. In other countries, the Republicans and Democrats
would have formed coalitions with other parties and the whole mess would
never have occurred.
>Should we have a shouting match and declare the winner to be the one who
>shouts the loudest?
>Or maybe a pie eating contest.
>Perhaps a race. Whichever one can physically get to the White House
>first wins.
How about counting the votes? The guy with the most votes wins?
C Lund
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I'm constantly amazed that people seem to think that its silly to have
>a method in place to settle disputed elections.
I don't concider a series of lawsuits to be a "method".
> Its a shame that the Supreme Court had to order Florida to follow its
>own laws but that's a shame on the corrupt Democrat Florida Supreme
>Court and corrupt Democrat election officials not on anyone else.
Oh? Not on bush's big brother or on misleading ballots?
C Lund
>its economic dependence on the Persian Gulf to zero before Bush's term
>is out.
I don't think the US would be able to do that while bush & Co run the US.
Another issue is that according to Cheney the US energy needs will increase
by 50% by 2020 (I posted a link to this in some previous post on csma).
Cutting dependancy on ME oil is probably the last thing the bush regime
would do. In fact, I'm pretty sure oil is one of the motivating factors
behind the War on Iraq.
>Then regional political issues become Europe's problem. They fucked up
>the region politcally, they can fix it.
Well... We screwed it up first by colonizing the place. The mess in Algeria
is a result of French colonialism, for example. But the US has to take most
of the blame for the current situation in Iraq, Iran, and Israel/Palestine.
C Lund
imout...@mac.com (Heywood Mogroot) wrote:
>C Lund <christop...@NOSPAMchello.no> wrote in message
>news:<christopher.lund-CC...@amstwist00.chello.com>...
>> In article <dd5de929.03030...@posting.google.com>,
>> imout...@mac.com (Heywood Mogroot) wrote:
>> Ignoring the fact that you're being sarcastic; I don't think this is going
>> to be a "New American Century". I think this century will see the arrival of
>> two new superpowers; the EU (sometime before 2030) and China (2050 maybe?).
>Closer to 2003 & 2005...
Well.. the EU is already a larger market than the US, but the EU does not
yet speak with a coherent voice, and an EU army that counts for anything is
at least a decade away. China has some serious poverty issues to deal with
first. Otoh, it's quite possible all China needs to do to become a
superpower is to decide to be one. There is a reason why the country is
often called the "sleeping giant".
It will be interesting to see the outcome of the upcoming space race between
China and the US.
>> The US will be eclipsed by both.
>Yes, this is in the cards. 2/3 of Americans are rather retarded,
>unfortunately. Too much TV and believing our own mythology I think.
Methinks you're being too harsh on your fellow citizens. ;)
Seems to me the problem is the general US public is too self-centered and
unaware of the things going on outside the US borders.
C Lund
Lars.T...@epost.de (Lars Träger) wrote:
>C Lund <christop...@NOSPAMchello.no> wrote in message
>news:<christopher.lund-46...@amstwist00.chello.com>...
>> Umm.. you're being sarcastic, right? Binary arguments don't fit very well in
>> the real world. In this particular case, I'm neither for the US nor for
>> Saddan Hussein. I wish the whole issue could be settled in a real-life
>> deathmatch between Hussein and bush. That would make pretty good TV too.
>That match would be over in no time, Shrubya wouldn't have a chance -
>unless he's allowed help by others.
It would still be good TV. B)
>Lars T.
flip
<christopher.lund-60...@amstwist00.chello.com>,
C Lund <christop...@NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
> In article <fu9n6v0of90k5h64f...@4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm constantly amazed that people seem to think that its silly to have
> >a method in place to settle disputed elections.
>
> I don't concider a series of lawsuits to be a "method".
Then why don't you answer the question.
What other method would you consider reasonable to settle a disputed
election?
Fist fight? Last one standing wins?
Shouting match? The one with the loudest mouth wins?
Perhaps a race? The first one to get to the White House wins?
flip
You gave the figures. You're roughly at the median family income and
you're paying 5.5% of your income in Federal income tax.
In return, you get innumerable benefits.
If you want to consider yourself a slave to the Federal government, feel
free. It just has no bearing on reality.
flip
<christopher.lund-6F...@amstwist00.chello.com>,
C Lund <christop...@NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
> In article <flippo-DCB31D....@news.central.cox.net>,
> flip <fli...@mac.com> wrote:
> >> >And the Ameirican people voted for Republican congressmen because the
> >> >Amercan voters are also puppets or how do you want me to understand
> >> >that?
> >> Want to explain to me why that particular vote was settled by LAWYERS?
> >That particular argument is one of the stupidest ever to come from the
> >Democrats.
>
> I'm not a Democrat.
I didn't say you were. The argument was first presented by the Democrats.
>
> >How else would you settle it besides the legal system?
>
> It shouldn't have been necessary to begin with. This shows a serious flaw in
> the US political system. In other countries, the Republicans and Democrats
> would have formed coalitions with other parties and the whole mess would
> never have occurred.
NO system is perfect. I hate to break it to you, but even in Norway,
there will be disagreements on how things should be done.
When there's a disagreement, the courts settle it.
>
> >Should we have a shouting match and declare the winner to be the one who
> >shouts the loudest?
>
> >Or maybe a pie eating contest.
>
> >Perhaps a race. Whichever one can physically get to the White House
> >first wins.
>
> How about counting the votes? The guy with the most votes wins?
That's precisely what they did.
Unfortunately for your argument, the word 'vote' is subject to
interpretation. And the courts had to determine that.
Systems have bugs. When you're talking about millions and millions of
votes, things like people who are too stupid to enter their vote
correctly have to be considered.
C Lund
flip <fli...@mac.com> wrote:
>In article
><christopher.lund-60...@amstwist00.chello.com>,
> C Lund <christop...@NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
>> In article <fu9n6v0of90k5h64f...@4ax.com>,
>> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >I'm constantly amazed that people seem to think that its silly to have
>> >a method in place to settle disputed elections.
>> I don't concider a series of lawsuits to be a "method".
>Then why don't you answer the question.
I did. See my post in reply to your question.
>What other method would you consider reasonable to settle a disputed
>election?
>Fist fight? Last one standing wins?
>Shouting match? The one with the loudest mouth wins?
>Perhaps a race? The first one to get to the White House wins?
To quote myself:
"How about counting the votes? The guy with the most votes wins?"
And if that doesn't work, toss out the votes and have a re-election - this
time using the same kind of voting ballots all over the nation.
Mind you, the fact that the election could get so very screwed up in the
first place makes it very obvious that your political system is seriously
flawed.
flip
<christopher.lund-27...@amstwist00.chello.com>,
C Lund <christop...@NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
Unfortunately, your naivete is showing. What's a 'vote'?
The voting instructions provide certain rules. If the voter doesn't
follow the rules, is it a vote? Which of the rules are essential and
which ones are not? When the instructions say 'punch out a hole', how
many of the corners must be removed for that hole to be considered
punched out?
And so on.
It's not as easy as simply counting the votes. What the court decided
was exactly how the votes should be counted.
There may be a way to make a completely foolproof system, but until that
has been done (if it's possible at all), there will be a need for legal
interpretation - at least in closely contested races.
Jason McNorton
@amstwist00.chello.com>, christop...@NOSPAMchello.no says...
> In article <flippo-DFD733....@news.central.cox.net>,
> flip <fli...@mac.com> wrote:
> >In article
> ><christopher.lund-60...@amstwist00.chello.com>,
> > C Lund <christop...@NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
> >> In article <fu9n6v0of90k5h64f...@4ax.com>,
> >> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >I'm constantly amazed that people seem to think that its silly to have
> >> >a method in place to settle disputed elections.
> >> I don't concider a series of lawsuits to be a "method".
> >Then why don't you answer the question.
>
> I did. See my post in reply to your question.
>
> >What other method would you consider reasonable to settle a disputed
> >election?
> >Fist fight? Last one standing wins?
> >Shouting match? The one with the loudest mouth wins?
> >Perhaps a race? The first one to get to the White House wins?
>
> To quote myself:
>
> "How about counting the votes? The guy with the most votes wins?"
They did. Bush won Florida on all the official and most non-official
counts.
Sorry you don't like that, but tough cookies. Even democrats, of all
idiots, have given up on this dead horse.
> And if that doesn't work, toss out the votes and have a re-election - this
> time using the same kind of voting ballots all over the nation.
What a load... re-elections never happen. Turnovers on recounts never
happen either BTW..
> Mind you, the fact that the election could get so very screwed up in the
> first place makes it very obvious that your political system is seriously
> flawed.
It pains me, but I have to side with ragosta on this. Yer nuts. Worry
about your own damn country and not ours.
The constitution worked in the 2000 election..
Steve Mackay
"Heywood Mogroot" <imout...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:dd5de929.03030...@posting.google.com...
Since you seem to be against the tax cuts and such, have you sent back the
'tax rebate' of last year? You can always over pay the IRS as much as you
like.
Steve Mackay
news:<Mysaa.66338$xb.15...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
> > "Heywood Mogroot" <imout...@mac.com> wrote in message
> > news:dd5de929.03030...@posting.google.com...
> > news:<r8haa.63844$xb.15...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
> > > > "Elizabot" <booR...@grayREMOVErock.org> wrote in message
> > > > > Mike Dee wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > Hmm, ya know, don't get me wrong. I am no fan of GW, but I hear
the
> > > > 'daddy' thing quite often. Yet no one can come up with any proof
that
> > George
> > > > SR helped him do much of anything during, or after the election.
> > >
> > > Then who the was that man who resembling James A. Baker III running
> > > around in Florida?
> > >
> > > > And with
> > > > all the major media being overly liberal
> > >
> > > oh, that's a good one. Where was this so-called liberal media Thursday
> > > night?
> >
> > You're denying ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN are liberal?
>
> Follow the money, my friend.
>
> Who's the corporate owners of these media outlets?
>
> AOL/TIME WARNER (CNN)
> GENERAL ELECTRIC (NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, 13 TV stations)
> VIACOM (CBS, 41 TV stations, 184 radio)
> WALT DISNEY CORP (ABC, 10 TV stations, 50 radio)
> NEWS CORP (Fox News Channel, 33 TV stations)
>
> Will these owners gain more viewers by offering NEWS or ENTERTAINMENT?
>
> Do the people signing the paychecks make OVER or UNDER $150,000/year.
> That's about the pivot point for receiving (long-term) benefits from
> the Bush tax plan.
>
> agenda?
>
> Why are the prominent news media establishment, outside of Helen
> Thomas, in bed with Bush? Thursday's news conference was something out
> of an old episode of Start Trek:
> http://www.startrek.com/library/media_tos.asp?id=115024
>
> Which is more important to the established news media nomenklatura:
> their paycheck, their professional life, and access to the halls of
> power... OR reporting the unspun truth?
>
> But the proof is who is on the airwaves...
>
> Let's look at tonight on MSNBC, shall we:
>
> 5:00PM Michael Savage. Yeah, he's "liberal"
> 6:00PM COUNTDOWN: IRAQ (got war?)
> 7:00PM Chris Matthews. Somewhere off to the right, but has his
> moments.
> 8:00PM Joe Scarborough. Lifelong democrat, he.
> 9:00PM COUNTDOWN: IRAQ (not yet?)
> 10:00PM Chris Matthews.
> 11:00PM Joe Scarborough.
>
>
> But in summary, let me argue via HTTP:
>
> http://www.whatliberalmedia.com/
Oh, please... Spare me the bullshit. That is nothing but propaganda.
Jason McNorton
steve_...@hotmail.com says...
Quoting John Alterman about this subject is as biased as you can
possibly get.
Think arafat discussing Israel..
Flip
<christopher.lund-27...@amstwist00.chello.com>,
C Lund <christop...@NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
> In article <flippo-DFD733....@news.central.cox.net>,
> flip <fli...@mac.com> wrote:
> >In article
> ><christopher.lund-60...@amstwist00.chello.com>,
> > C Lund <christop...@NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
> >> In article <fu9n6v0of90k5h64f...@4ax.com>,
> >> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >I'm constantly amazed that people seem to think that its silly to have
> >> >a method in place to settle disputed elections.
> >> I don't concider a series of lawsuits to be a "method".
> >Then why don't you answer the question.
>
> I did. See my post in reply to your question.
>
> >What other method would you consider reasonable to settle a disputed
> >election?
> >Fist fight? Last one standing wins?
> >Shouting match? The one with the loudest mouth wins?
> >Perhaps a race? The first one to get to the White House wins?
>
> To quote myself:
>
> "How about counting the votes? The guy with the most votes wins?"
That's what the court suggested, too.
Unfortunately for your argument, there's some interpretation involved.
>
> And if that doesn't work, toss out the votes and have a re-election - this
> time using the same kind of voting ballots all over the nation.
I see. So if someone doesn't like the results of the election, you just
have a new one? Do you have any idea what the repurcussions of that
would be?
>
> Mind you, the fact that the election could get so very screwed up in the
> first place makes it very obvious that your political system is seriously
> flawed.
I see. So your position is that the system must be screwed up if there's
a race so closely contested that the difference is close to (or less
than) the margin of error?
So we should create a system where one party always has 90% of the votes
so that there are no disputed elections? Would that make more sense?