Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 130

Thread: What have the Republicans brought to the United States during their rule?

  1. #61
    Tiassa,

    You've outdone yourself!

    Muhammad would have embraced Jesus; I'm not so sure about reciprocation, though. Jesus had a thing about false prophets, and we could probably argue for a century about how he would have regarded Muhammad without achieving a firm conclusion.
    Well, consider this: Jesus never claimed to be God's final prophet, and he could probably recognize Muhammad's sincerity and genuinness by the end of a five-minute conversation. Jesus's main priority was with the Pharisees - not false prophets. Either way, it's difficult to see a significant difference in the way they foresaw a "utopian" (I hate that word!) society. I suppose it's an inconclusive discussion altogether, although it's fair to say that they had similar visions. If we were forced to pinpoint a difference, I'd have to say they had unique methods of execution.

    But Newton and Byron? Newton was a bitterly obsessive, buggering alchemist. Byron was a serial adulterer who abandoned his daughter. Although I admit it would be absolutely fascinating to listen to Jesus and Byron get drunk and argue about Napoleon.
    These are their unique personalities, Tiassa; if you ask me, their misjudgments and such don't quite reflect their political standings. Conservatives and liberals alike can be serial adulterers, which is why it's irrelevant to mention such a trait in a discussion like this. However, I will concede to you this: most of the large-scale adultery cases in the U.S. as of late have been practiced by self-described champions of morality and "conservative" crusaders. Of course, liberals have been known to accept a blowjob or two, haven't they? From a Jewess, no less!

    It is my opinion that liberalism changes more slowly. Liberal aspirations have yet to be realized; conservative ambitions look back to former conditions. And while their core philosophies remain fairly stable, the interpretations and manifestations of those perspectives evolve differently. Liberal notions of equality and justice, being abstract, can find much in common with their former expressions. You can find in Wollstonecroft, Beethoven, Byron, Shelly, and the aforementioned Luddites, at least, ideas that still have great sympathy in the twenty-first century. Their contemporary conservatives are—at least in the United States—largely extinct. To the other, though, the Golden Ages to which conservatives aspire change at the very least with each generation. Very few "true conservatives" would admit to yearning for black slavery. Indeed, I doubt such sympathizers exist in any significant numbers.
    The traditional conservative yearns for the days of old, yes; however, the notion of returning to the "glory days" doesn't necessarily mean emulating every practice and belief present therein. I think the overwhelming majority of people today, irrespective of their political leanings, would emphatically state that slavery is wrong, and has no business in modern society. The idea of conservatism and traditionalism is simple: the people before us had the right ideas; however, we know where they went wrong, meaning we can evade such problematic scenarios today. Liberalism seems to focus too strongly on the events to come, which can be risky because those who are too caught up in the future, lose grasp of the present. You raise an interesting point about the non-existence of such contemporary conservatives in today's society. Perhaps there is no such audience today to admire such works (in America, at least). Your knowledge of American politics easily triumphs mine, although I will take a stab in the dark here and say that both liberalism and conservatism are misapplied in America (conservatism, more so). In Canada, "liberal" politicians are almost always pro-choice and for gay marriage, and make no qualms or negotiations when it comes to such issues; the American liberals, on the other hand, seem fearful to announce a stern verdict on such issues. It seems the convenient "get out of jail free" card reads, "we'll let the states decide; such matters do not warrant federal jurisdiction". What kind of an inefficient method is that? To me, American politicians running for presidency use this convenient escape route far too often. The conservatives are spineless, too: they constantly overlook the glaring problems and predicaments facing their country, focusing entirely on ticky-tacky issues. They claim to be champions of morality, vowing to protect the sanctity of marriage, and to reiterate the Second Amendment's power; of course, the constitution is never a formidable barrier when it comes to oil wars, or when the gun lobby is funneling cash into their campaigns.

    Personally, I'm a conservative, although I highly prefer the term "traditionalist"; regardless, I would vote Democrat in America, given the opportunity, every single time (except in rare circumstances, such as Ron Paul). Why? It's because I think American conservatism is corrupt, and lies to itself far too often. I think American liberalism is docile and lacks grit, which is readily apparent when one observes their inaction following scandals such as the 2000 Bush election. It's difficult to succinctly explain the problem with American liberalism: most of the time, the critical damage is dealt by and to themselves. The Obama/Clinton war indisputably divided the Democratic voters; the choice of Biden over Clinton simply added fuel to the fire, renewing the distilled rivalry. The Republicans are clever, and seem to be well-trained in the art of ass-kissing. What I mean is, they recuperate well from a loss, and "unite" quickly. Here's a concrete example: I remember watching McCain and Romney attack each other like a pair of rabid wolves on television, hearing both discredit the other's credentials. Lo and behold, we have Romney on television a month or two later, proclaiming McCain's greatness, and campaigning on his behalf. Seriously ...

    Sex and drugs? Conservatives have been as intrusive as liberals, and for reasons I consider more sinister. While a liberal might foolishly believe that a war on drugs will benefit society in general, conservatives are motivated by the greed of commerce.
    I agree. However, I must add: the "neoconservatives" in charge of administering such a "war" are probably thankful to the fact that it destroys Black communities and puts minorities in jail. Either/or.

    Killing two birds with one stone.

    The strange union of sociomoral and economic conservatives is a tremendous example of the effects of compromise in its more profane context. How is it that American Christians came to so vigorously oppose a philosophy (Communism) that took up a motto from the Acts of the Apostles? Indeed, our money reads, "In God We Trust," as a direct response to the perceived godlessness of Soviet Communism.
    The Godlessness of Soviet Communism can be argued, Tiassa. Before you roll your eyes, hear me out: the architects of Soviet communism were atheistic Jews (they had Jewish lineage, but no religious beliefs whatsoever). The evidence is ample and accessible: look at the biographies of the headmen - from Trostky to Lenin - and you'll notice an unmistakable pattern. Much of communism's role was to destroy and undermine religion, which would mainly be Christianity (because we're discussing Russia). If the idea of Soviet Communism was brainstormed and built by atheists, and its functioning required the widespread persecution of religion, then one could professionally allude to its "Godlesness". Whether or not adding "In God We Trust" to one's currency helps counter such a philosophy, I'd say "no".

    And, frankly, the moral intrusions into people's bedrooms are part of the undoing of the alleged libertarian streak among conservatives. While they vociferously oppose commercial regulation as invasive, conservatives have long and enthusiastically sought regulation of consenting sexual behavior.
    It's certainly difficult to argue with you here, Tiassa.

    The Fourth Amendment suffered greatly during the Drug War, and continues to endure a disgraceful siege during the so-called War on Terror.
    Follow the money. The only people who benefit from these "wars" are the people who demand they be fought. The people who have suffered the most due to the War on Drugs are Black people. There is no way around this fact. It's so predictable, really: the CIA brings Columbian drugs into Black communities, funding worldwide military campaigns with the proceeds they make. Afterwards, they take Black individuals from these communities and throw them into jail; meanwhile, these once jubilant communities rot, and become havens for criminals. As one of my favorite rappers, Ice Cube, once said:

    I thought they was buggin',
    'cause to us Uncle Sam, is Hitler without an oven.
    Burning our black skin,
    buy my neighbourhood - then push the crack in.


    The War on Terror is similar. The purpose seems noble, but as Muhammad once said, "every action should be judged by the motive prompting it." These wars have been waged for resources, and they've enabled the ruling Republican administration to destroy individual liberties and privacy, without so much as a whimper in retaliation. I could write pages worth of information regarding the sham that is the War or Terror, but I'll have to elaborate another time.

    The willpower issue is an interesting theory; don't let me stop you from expounding on it. And, certainly, an oligarchic economy is problematic. But a wholesale reconstruction of our monetary system that does not account for the $48 trillion in American debt will bring disaster. While there might be some romantic appeal about the notion of hard money, practical details present certain challenges.
    Well, it seems as if you're proposing a cyclic scenario which offers no solution. Under the current monetary system, America will never pay off its debts; however, you also say reconstructing such a system would prove to be disastrous. Is there any way out, according to you? Or are we merely chasing our figurative tails at this point?

    Richard Lawrence was so ill that he was acquitted according to an insanity defense. The jury deliberated for all of five minutes before returning their verdict. Among his apparent claims were that he was an heir to the British throne, that Jackson had thwarted his attempt to claim the Crown, and that Jackson had murdered his father.
    Richard Lawrence allegedly told several friends that wealthy people in Europe had promised to get him released should he be caught. Considering Andrew Jackson single-handedly destroyed the Central Banks in America of his time (such banks which flourished in Europe), we clearly have a spicy conspiracy cooking up. About Andrew Jackson and his "hard money" policies: I read that Andrew Jackson was the first and only American president to ever pay off the national debt. That's incredible!

    And while prior years might have suppressed the hard money angle of the Lincoln assassination, I confess that I'm struck by the relative dearth of discussion about this theory in the internet age.
    Whenever an American president acts against the interests of the bankers, he gets in deep trouble. Lincoln's greenbacks threatened the bankers' monopoly over America's economy. Kennedy's silverbacks threatened to do the same. Both were shot dead. Is it such an unrealistic proposal? If wealthy bankers and their fortunes are threatened by a few vulnerable politicians, why wouldn't they see to their assassinations? Quite frankly, it would be surprising if nobody claimed the lives of these former presidents. Regarding its dearth, you can never trust the public perception of reality to be even mildly accurate. The information is there, to those who search for it.

    That someone may have thought of shooting Ron Paul for whatever reason would not surprise me anymore than the idea that alleged meth-heads wanted to kill Barack Obama for being black.
    Let me briefly explain to you the difference: one assassination attempt would be carried out by rogues - regular people, in terms of wealth and power. Compare this to the Ron Paul scenario, where we have a fabulously rich society of men conspiring to kill a politician because he favors a monetary reform in America. Such an assassination would invoke a cover up story as well - a convenience the racist members in the Obama scenario would not have. One is a fringe group of individuals; the other is a powerful group of men who outwardly claim to be righteous and fair.

    I will note that privatization is a conservative plank. But while there is no question that the Federal Reserve is a mess, the question of its theory—that is, what it is supposed to do—is now so integral to American function that a complete vacuum would cause tremendous harm.
    Yes, I understand your concerns. But still, who else is talking about this issue? See, the fact that Ron Paul even raises such a taboo issue proves his uniqueness and specialness. Well, to me, anyway.

    ∏ does not equal 3.0.
    Pi does not equal 3.14 either, Tiassa; how many digits are you willing to include? Regardless of your answer, your version of pi still won't be exactly what it's supposed to be. A childish argument, I know, but still ...

    A Democrat will tell you he can make you richer, smarter, more handsome, and get the chickweed out of your lawn. A Republican will tell you what's wrong with government, get elected, and then prove it.
    Many a truth is spoken in jest.

    But back to education. The purpose of educational standards is one of equal opportunity. Consider two students with high school diplomas. One can spell, the other can't. The one can work the scientific method; the other refuses, on customary principle, the idea of a testable hypothesis. Which one will get into the better college? Which one will perform better? Which will get a better job? Whatever the federal government's role in education might be, it certainly is not to encourage such disparate results.
    Ignoring your scenario's impracticality and inherent bias, the former student is more qualified. In my opinion, the federal government's sole role in education is to provide adequate funding; the material in schools should be decided by some other entity (or entities).

    Harmonious balance? There is something to that. But for all the contentious debate about equal opportunity, students should have reasonable access to proper information and method. Otherwise, they find themselves at a gross disadvantage.
    I'll drink to that!

    Well, maybe in terms of banging interns, or whatever. But he had no compunctions about lending his name and credibility to racists until it became politically problematic.
    Just who are these "racists" you refer to? Please, Tiassa, tell me you aren't referring to David Duke and his brethren. I thought they were racist separatists at one point, too, but they're most definitely not. The notions of "White Pride" and "White Power" are worlds about, despite similar semantics. In this day and age, it seems rare to have a scandal-free politician who has been married to the same woman for decades. If people you deem to be "racist" support him, then Ron Paul is certainly not at fault. In fact, the "guilty by association" rhetoric seems to be loudly echoed by conservatives and their unappealing, low-blow attacks against Barack Obama.

    (1) I'm liberal to the point of being leftist, although I tend to disagree with many of my fellows. I have both Marxist and Anarchist sympathies, and find myself well to the left of the Democratic Party. In voting for Obama, for instance, I will be making a substantial concession to the right wing. It's important enough this year. If Gore hadn't won my state in 2000, I would have felt very badly about voting third-party.
    Ah, I see. Like I said, I vociferously disharmonize with American "conservatism", and find the current ideals of the Republican party to be highly unpalatable and dangerous. Although I'm not a liberal (surprise, surprise), I would vote for so-called "liberal" candidates in America in a heartbeat, if I were a U.S. citizen. Reason being, the Republicans have shown how incompetent they can be, given extended periods of governance. For better or for worse, a "change" of some sort is drastically needed. I was an Obama supporter, too, until that gloomy day where he destroyed all of my confidence in him: the AIPAC convention. He completely sold out in that speech, in the true fashion of a vote-hungry politician. I seriously dislike this saying, but I suppose it all boils down to voting for the lesser of two evils.

    (2) Actually, I seem to have missed Griffin's book. The reviews I just read on Amazon, suggest an interesting book. The book exists in my local library system; but is currently on hold. I'll add myself to the list and give it a look. Thanks.
    You won't shouldn't regret it.

    nirakar,

    Quote Originally Posted by nirakar View Post
    It does not matter how many times this conspiracy theory is repeated on the internet; this conspiracy theory is pathetic and easily disproved.
    If it's "pathetic" and "easily disprovable", then why don't you simply tear my argument to ribbons rather than incredulously beating around the bush?


    Kadark
    Last edited by Kadark; 08-27-08 at 11:11 PM.

  2. #62
    troaty mouth best song ever pjdude1219's Avatar
    Posts
    14,758
    http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp

    ? this links says such a claim is bullshit.

  3. #63
    Registered Senior Member Buffalo Roam's Avatar
    Posts
    16,931
    Quote Originally Posted by pjdude1219 View Post
    http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp

    ? this links says such a claim is bullshit.

    http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...819.shtml?s=ic

    On Tape, Clinton Admits Passing Up bin Laden Capture; Lewinsky Played Role

    Bill Clinton denies it now, but he once admitted he passed up an opportunity to extradite Osama bin Laden.

    And NewsMax has the former President making the claim on audiotape. [You can listen to the tape yourself] -- Click Here

    During a February 2002 speech, Clinton explained that he turned down an offer from Sudan for bin Laden's extradition to the U.S., saying, "At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him."

    But that wasn't exactly true. By 1996, the 9/11 mastermind had already been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing by prosecutors in New York.
    In the tape Clinton states, it was the Saudis, who had offered up Bin Laden.



    Clinton's comments and his actions relating to American efforts to capture bin Laden have taken on renewed interest because of claims made in a new ABC movie, the "Path to 9/11," that suggests Clinton dropped the ball during his presidency. Clinton has also angrily denied claims the Monica Lewinsky scandal drew his attention away from dealing with national security matters like capturing bin Laden.

  4. #64
    troaty mouth best song ever pjdude1219's Avatar
    Posts
    14,758
    Quote Originally Posted by Buffalo Roam View Post
    http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...819.shtml?s=ic

    On Tape, Clinton Admits Passing Up bin Laden Capture; Lewinsky Played Role

    Bill Clinton denies it now, but he once admitted he passed up an opportunity to extradite Osama bin Laden.

    And NewsMax has the former President making the claim on audiotape. [You can listen to the tape yourself] -- Click Here





    Clinton's comments and his actions relating to American efforts to capture bin Laden have taken on renewed interest because of claims made in a new ABC movie, the "Path to 9/11," that suggests Clinton dropped the ball during his presidency. Clinton has also angrily denied claims the Monica Lewinsky scandal drew his attention away from dealing with national security matters like capturing bin Laden.
    No he said he didn't extradite him because he had no legal justifaction for doing so. Yet another bold faced lie for you buff. Maybe if your lucky someday one of the smart righties here will teach you how to debate and evalute sources.

  5. #65
    Registered Senior Member Buffalo Roam's Avatar
    Posts
    16,931
    Quote Originally Posted by pjdude1219 View Post
    No he said he didn't extradite him because he had no legal justifaction for doing so. Yet another bold faced lie for you buff. Maybe if your lucky someday one of the smart righties here will teach you how to debate and evalute sources.
    Wrong again, Osama Bin Laden was wanted in connection with the first WTC bombing on February 26, 1993.

    But that wasn't exactly true. By 1996, the 9/11 mastermind had already been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing by prosecutors in New York.

  6. #66
    Back from the dead Mr.Spock's Avatar
    Posts
    6,938


    am I the only one getting pissed off by Kadark's avatar?

  7. #67
    No Mr spock your not.

    however as much as i dislike it there isnt a thing i can do about it, aparently the fredom to hold up a mass murder as a hero is what is concidered free speach here

    think i should change my avatar to ted bundy, i mean he only killed yanks after all

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by Asguard View Post
    think i should change my avatar to ted bundy, i mean he only killed yanks after all
    Good idea! Think I'll change mine to Martin Bryant, as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Spock View Post


    am I the only one getting pissed off by Kadark's avatar?
    Spock, for better or worse, if we start regulating Avatars that aren't overtly profane or pornographic, then we'll be opening a box that is best left closed. What if he had Stalin or Mao as his avatars? Those two killed significantly more than Hitler. What about a leader who killed only a few hundred thousand? What about one who killed only a few thousand, a few hundred or only 50? What's the dividing line between what's acceptable and what's not? You want Hitler banned because it personally offends you, but then we'll have to start being prissy little nannies (which is what some want) by regulating avatars. While it would appear from various posts I've read that some believe that the only true freedom of speech is the freedom to say what is politically correct (and all else should be regulated if not outright banned), I would challenge you to look past the emotional connection you have to the avatar and see that there are, at once, bigger issues worthy of your attention and that any attention you pay to the avatar is precisely what people like Kadark want.

    There is no freedom from being annoyed or offended. If there were, then there would be no freedom.

    ~String
    Last edited by superstring01; 08-28-08 at 06:55 AM.

  9. #69
    Agreed, the avatar is offensive. But if Kardack wants to display the quality of his character for all to see it is his right.

    As for Clinton and Osama Bin Laden, the following is taken from a right wing whacko news service. It is Clinton himself explaining why when Sudan offered him Bin Laden he refused...he had no legal right to hold him. Now I understand that right wing whackos are more than willing to surrender their civil rights to the state. But I am not...I like the right of Heabus Corpus. We are supposed to be a nation of laws, and we were untill the Republicans came to power.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wvo2lQe81xk

  10. #70
    Registered Senior Member Buffalo Roam's Avatar
    Posts
    16,931
    Quote Originally Posted by joepistole View Post
    Agreed, the avatar is offensive. But if Kardack wants to display the quality of his character for all to see it is his right.

    As for Clinton and Osama Bin Laden, the following is taken from a right wing whacko news service. It is Clinton himself explaining why when Sudan offered him Bin Laden he refused...he had no legal right to hold him. Now I understand that right wing whackos are more than willing to surrender their civil rights to the state. But I am not...I like the right of Heabus Corpus. We are supposed to be a nation of laws, and we were untill the Republicans came to power.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wvo2lQe81xk

    By 1996, the 9/11 mastermind ( READ Osama Bin Laden) had already been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing by prosecutors in New York.
    A lot of research, there was a Warrent, and:

    in 1995 Osama bin
    Laden had already been named by the U.S. government as a wanted
    co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing:

    In 1996, the Sudan government offered to arrest
    Osama bin Laden and place him in U.S. custody but then-President
    Clinton refused the offer, despite the fact that in 1995 Osama bin
    Laden had already been named by the U.S. government as a wanted
    co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing:

    "U.S. Was Foiled Multiple Times in Efforts To Capture Bin Laden or
    Have Him Killed--Sudan's Offer to Arrest Militant Fell Through After
    Saudis Said No," Barton Gellman, Washington Post, October 3, 2001;
    Page A01
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac3/Co...61251-2001Oct2

  11. #71
    Registered Senior Member Buffalo Roam's Avatar
    Posts
    16,931
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Spock View Post


    am I the only one getting pissed off by Kadark's avatar?
    Why get pissed, it just show what I have been posting for a long time, the connection between Hitler---Nazis---and Moslems.


    Quote Originally Posted by Buffalo Roam View Post
    Yes, from a man who uses Hitler as his Avatar, and Mike Tyson to model his life after.

    Biography:
    I love conquering people. I love eating people's souls.
    Interests:
    Working out, martial arts. I love hearing the crack people's necks make when I break them.
    Occupation:
    Revolutionary.

  12. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Buffalo Roam View Post
    A lot of research, there was a Warrent, and:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac3/Co...61251-2001Oct2

    I looked at your url and there was nothing there. The first attack on the Trade Tower occured in 2003. Bin Laden was offered up by Sudan in 2006. Was there an arrest warrant issued for Bin Laden by the United States in this period? I can find no record of such a warrant and arrest without an arrest warrant violates a small thing called the consitution. So before you go telling everyone that Clinton passed up an opportunity to nail Bin Laden, you need to show that the United States government had enough evidence to tie Bin Laden to the attack or other crimes against the United States and that there were grounds for an arrest warrant and prosecution.

    Members of the Clinton administration have clearly said on numerous occasions that was not the case.

  13. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by joepistole View Post
    What have the Republicans and their cheerleaders (Hannity, Limbaugh, Fox News, etc) brought to us during their reign? A doubling of the national debt, moving from a budget surplus to a half trillion dollar annual deficit. What else have the Limbaughs, and the Hannities brought us? And since they were so generous in brining us these things, why should we continue listening to them?
    Back on topic.
    It seems you have a missunderstanding how the American financial system works, or for that modern world markets. "Debt" doesn't mean anything if your commodity you're trading is securities. America has notoriously been the location to purchase monetary securities, it's a good hedge because generally (not recently) America is the most secure location. It has very little fluctuation, and it has sustainable returns. Peoples investments in American securities inherently give the dollar value in other nations (Depending on how other countries are investing). The debt really doesn't mean anything as to the value of the country, the entire world KNOWS that if the 'debt' was ever called in the entire world market would collapse. Since this debt is held by only a few people (Namely a couple Monetary handlers associated with Israel, Great Britain and Saudi Arabia), it's unlikely this will ever happen. The current goal of many of the Arabic countries is to seize the power of the banking debts by acquiring them, while they can legally afford them there's no requirement for them to be sold. Since the holders wield the power of the world markets it's unlikely it would be of any benefit to call the debts. Thus the debts mean nothing, unless Arab nations get them. In which case they will potentially use them as a tool of warfare in their Jihad. This was the ROOT of the controversy surrounding Dubai wanting to purchase American ports.

  14. #74
    uniquely dreadful S.A.M.'s Avatar
    Posts
    72,822
    Clearly whatever the Republicans have brought to the US, it was not enough

    McCain '08!

  15. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by S.A.M. View Post
    Clearly whatever the Republicans have brought to the US, it was not enough

    McCain '08!
    Well, Lincoln was a true Republican. Reagan was a republican. There's been good presidents on both camps. The partys don't much define the quality of the president, only the kind of change they want to bring.

  16. #76
    Registered Senior Member Buffalo Roam's Avatar
    Posts
    16,931
    Quote Originally Posted by joepistole View Post
    I looked at your url and there was nothing there. The first attack on the Trade Tower occured in 2003. Bin Laden was offered up by Sudan in 2006. Was there an arrest warrant issued for Bin Laden by the United States in this period? I can find no record of such a warrant and arrest without an arrest warrant violates a small thing called the consitution. So before you go telling everyone that Clinton passed up an opportunity to nail Bin Laden, you need to show that the United States government had enough evidence to tie Bin Laden to the attack or other crimes against the United States and that there were grounds for an arrest warrant and prosecution.

    Members of the Clinton administration have clearly said on numerous occasions that was not the case.
    Can't do the research that I did, well:

    In 1995 Osama bin
    Laden had already been named by the U.S. government as a wanted
    co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing:
    Now for some other facts:

    Why did Clinton treat the attack as a law-enforcement matter? Several reasons. In the first few days, Clinton refused to believe that the towers had been bombed at all — even though the FBI made that determination within hours. He speculated a electrical transformer had exploded or a bank heist went bad.

    More importantly, treating the bombing as a criminal matter was politically advantageous. A criminal matter is a relatively tidy process. It has the political benefit of insulating Clinton from consequences; after all, he was only following the law. He is not to blame if the terrorists were released on a "technicality" or if foreign nations refuse to honor our extradition requests. Oh well, he tried.

    By contrast, if Clinton treated the bombing as the act of terrorism that it was, he would be assuming personal responsibility for a series of politically risky moves. Should he deploy the CIA or special forces to hunt down the perpetrators? What happens if the agents or soldiers die? What if they try to capture the terrorists and fail? One misstep and the media, Congress, and even the public might blame the president. So Clinton took the easy, safe way out, and called it a crime.

    Lopez: Bill Clinton was actually offered bin Laden? Could you set the scene a little and clue us in on why, for heavens sakes, he would not take advantage of such opportunities?

    Miniter: On March 3, 1996, U.S. ambassador to Sudan, Tim Carney, Director of East African Affairs at the State Department, David Shinn, and a member of the CIA's directorate of operations' Africa division met with Sudan's then-Minister of State for Defense Elfatih Erwa in a Rosslyn, Virginia hotel room. Item number two on the CIA's list of demands was to provide information about Osama bin Laden. Five days later, Erwa met with the CIA officer and offered more than information. He offered to arrest and turn over bin Laden himself. Two years earlier, the Sudan had turned over the infamous terrorist, Carlos the Jackal to the French. He now sits in a French prison. Sudan wanted to repeat that scenario with bin Laden in the starring role.

    Clinton administration officials have offered various explanations for not taking the Sudanese offer. One argument is that an offer was never made. But the same officials are on the record as saying the offer was "not serious." Even a supposedly non-serious offer is an offer. Another argument is that the Sudanese had not come through on a prior request so this offer could not be trusted. But, as Ambassador Tim Carney had argued at the time, even if you believe that, why not call their bluff and ask for bin Laden?

    The Clinton administration simply did not want the responsibility of taking Osama bin Laden into custody. Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger is on the record as saying: "The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States." Even if that was true — and it wasn't — the U.S. could have turned bin Laden over to Yemen or Libya, both of which had valid warrants for his arrest stemming from terrorist activities in those countries.

  17. #77
    Be kind to yourself always. cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Posts
    30,698
    WASHINGTON - The economy shifted to a higher gear in the spring, growing at its fastest pace in nearly a year as foreign buyers snapped up U.S. exports and tax rebates spurred shoppers at home.

    The Commerce Department reported Thursday that gross domestic product, or GDP, increased at a 3.3 percent annual rate in the April-June quarter. The revised reading was much better than the government’s initial estimate of a 1.9 percent pace and exceeded economists’ expectations for a 2.7 percent growth rate.

    The rebound comes after two dismal quarters. The economy actually shrank in the final three months of 2007 and limped into the first quarter at a feeble 0.9 percent pace. The 3.3 percent growth in the spring was the best performance since the third quarter of last year, when the economy was chugging along at a brisk 4.8 percent pace


    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26436824

  18. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by CheskiChips View Post
    Back on topic.
    It seems you have a missunderstanding how the American financial system works, or for that modern world markets. "Debt" doesn't mean anything if your commodity you're trading is securities. America has notoriously been the location to purchase monetary securities, it's a good hedge because generally (not recently) America is the most secure location. It has very little fluctuation, and it has sustainable returns. Peoples investments in American securities inherently give the dollar value in other nations (Depending on how other countries are investing). The debt really doesn't mean anything as to the value of the country, the entire world KNOWS that if the 'debt' was ever called in the entire world market would collapse. Since this debt is held by only a few people (Namely a couple Monetary handlers associated with Israel, Great Britain and Saudi Arabia), it's unlikely this will ever happen. The current goal of many of the Arabic countries is to seize the power of the banking debts by acquiring them, while they can legally afford them there's no requirement for them to be sold. Since the holders wield the power of the world markets it's unlikely it would be of any benefit to call the debts. Thus the debts mean nothing, unless Arab nations get them. In which case they will potentially use them as a tool of warfare in their Jihad. This was the ROOT of the controversy surrounding Dubai wanting to purchase American ports.
    Chekichips it is you who knows nothing about finance nor economics. I have degrees in each.

    "Debt" doesn't mean anything if your commodity you're trading is securities"

    On what planet to you live? Why should we even bother paying back debt if it does not matter? There has long been a demand for the dollar and the dollar has function as the international reserve currency. But that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The interest on the debt has to be paid. That occurs through one of two ways, increased taxes or printing more money. It is an expense...period. Printing money is inflationary, taxing is deflationary. So how can you say, it does not matter?

    Get your head our of your rectum. And because the dollar has historically been the reserve currency, it does not mean it will always be the reserve currency. Reserve currency status came with the conclusion of WW II when the United States was the only major industrial power left intact. That is no longer the case. Most notably, the biggest competitor to the dollar is the Euro. When the Euro was first issued, it traded for something less than a dollar...today it trades in excess of 1.50 dollars per Euro. The dollar has falled in value for a number of reasons. But essentially means just one thing, international investors have less demand for the dollar today than they did a year ago or even a few months ago.

    Israel is a chief beneficiary of American government largess. If you are from Israel don't lie to Americans. And you are not entitled to bring our country down in order to support your poltical and religious ambitions. The economic problems currently faced by the United States have nothing to do with the Middle East other than it is huge source of American expenditures. And that has to stop!

  19. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by S.A.M. View Post
    Clearly whatever the Republicans have brought to the US, it was not enough

    McCain '08!
    Thanks SAM, we all know you are a loyal American.

  20. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by Buffalo Roam View Post
    Can't do the research that I did, well:
    Now for some other facts:

    Why did Clinton treat the attack as a law-enforcement matter? Several reasons. In the first few days, Clinton refused to believe that the towers had been bombed at all — even though the FBI made that determination within hours. He speculated a electrical transformer had exploded or a bank heist went bad.

    More importantly, treating the bombing as a criminal matter was politically advantageous. A criminal matter is a relatively tidy process. It has the political benefit of insulating Clinton from consequences; after all, he was only following the law. He is not to blame if the terrorists were released on a "technicality" or if foreign nations refuse to honor our extradition requests. Oh well, he tried.

    By contrast, if Clinton treated the bombing as the act of terrorism that it was, he would be assuming personal responsibility for a series of politically risky moves. Should he deploy the CIA or special forces to hunt down the perpetrators? What happens if the agents or soldiers die? What if they try to capture the terrorists and fail? One misstep and the media, Congress, and even the public might blame the president. So Clinton took the easy, safe way out, and called it a crime.

    Lopez: Bill Clinton was actually offered bin Laden? Could you set the scene a little and clue us in on why, for heavens sakes, he would not take advantage of such opportunities?

    Miniter: On March 3, 1996, U.S. ambassador to Sudan, Tim Carney, Director of East African Affairs at the State Department, David Shinn, and a member of the CIA's directorate of operations' Africa division met with Sudan's then-Minister of State for Defense Elfatih Erwa in a Rosslyn, Virginia hotel room. Item number two on the CIA's list of demands was to provide information about Osama bin Laden. Five days later, Erwa met with the CIA officer and offered more than information. He offered to arrest and turn over bin Laden himself. Two years earlier, the Sudan had turned over the infamous terrorist, Carlos the Jackal to the French. He now sits in a French prison. Sudan wanted to repeat that scenario with bin Laden in the starring role.

    Clinton administration officials have offered various explanations for not taking the Sudanese offer. One argument is that an offer was never made. But the same officials are on the record as saying the offer was "not serious." Even a supposedly non-serious offer is an offer. Another argument is that the Sudanese had not come through on a prior request so this offer could not be trusted. But, as Ambassador Tim Carney had argued at the time, even if you believe that, why not call their bluff and ask for bin Laden?

    The Clinton administration simply did not want the responsibility of taking Osama bin Laden into custody. Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger is on the record as saying: "The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States." Even if that was true — and it wasn't — the U.S. could have turned bin Laden over to Yemen or Libya, both of which had valid warrants for his arrest stemming from terrorist activities in those countries.
    Now for some facts, where was your first fact? Everything you have posted just supports what I have said. The Clinton administration said it did not have enough to indict Bin Ladin. And you have failed again to produce said facts. For the last time, show where Clinton had a legal basis to arrest and prosecute Bin Lading in 2006?

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. By tim840 in forum Politics
    Last Post: 08-22-08, 03:09 PM
    Replies: 36
  2. By Thomas in forum Politics
    Last Post: 12-18-06, 08:04 PM
    Replies: 19
  3. By Jaster Mereel in forum Politics
    Last Post: 09-16-06, 12:26 AM
    Replies: 20
  4. By Brian Foley in forum History
    Last Post: 09-05-05, 05:08 PM
    Replies: 265
  5. By ghost7584 in forum Religion Archives
    Last Post: 06-20-05, 09:59 AM
    Replies: 73

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •