OT - to non USA folks

[Edwin van der Vaart]

Without quill or qualm, Edwin van der Vaart quothed:

From what I've heard, Duende's *always* on holiday. He's had an easy
life, not like us working stiffs.

Now a know.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Here's two in fairly recent history:
http://www.watergate.info/nixon/resignation-speech.shtml

Did not admit he made a mistake while in office. This is a resignation
speech.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/08/17/speech/transcript.html

A blowjob. Right.

 

[Neal]

Did not admit he made a mistake while in office. This is a resignation
speech.

Technicality. Owned up to an error and did the only proper thing.

A blowjob. Right.

Oh my goodness, according to the GOP it was a major breach of trust and
made him unfit for holding office! According to them, it was a really big
deal - bigger than any error Bush has committed, as they haven't attempted
to impeach him for anything.

Oh, but Bush says he never made a mistake. I guess it's easier when God
himself has put you in the Oval Office.

No, that can't be true either, Bush kept on saying how hard the work is.

I'm confused, and want a vodka drink already.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Oh my goodness, according to the GOP it was a major breach of trust and
made him unfit for holding office! According to them, it was a really big
deal - bigger than any error Bush has committed, as they haven't attempted
to impeach him for anything.

Just because I support Bush does not mean I did not support Clinton. I
so much wanted the Star report to have anything in the world other than
a blowjob. But it didn't. The correct thing to do would have been to
say, "hey, keep it in your pants." then just move on.

I mean of course he lied. He got a bj from someone other than his wife.
Everyone would lie. Think about it. What would have happened if at a
press conference Clinton was asked if he got a bj and he said "Alright,
you got me on that one Bernie, Yea, popped it on her dress. Ok, next
Question..."

What the GOP did to him for getting a bj was wrong, and I think the
American people made the republicans pay for it in their hate of Bush.
Sadly if they had someone more likable than Gore on the ticket they
probably would have won the first time.

Oh, but Bush says he never made a mistake. I guess it's easier when God
himself has put you in the Oval Office.

What mistake do you think Bush has made? I mean specifically what do you
consider a mistake. Why was it a mistake, and how do you think he
should have handled it.

I'm confused, and want a vodka drink already.

I'm way ahead of you...

 

[Leonard Blaisdell]

Gentlemen, the pure and simple truth, obfuscated by partisan spin, is that
Bill Clinton as Chief Executive of the United States, of his own volition,
lied to a Federal judge under oath. He testified of his own accord and
lied when the prosecutor attempted to establish a pattern of behaviour
which is a legitimate strategy under US law. Every woman that had
previously come forth to assert that Bill Clinton had had "relations" with
her was unmercifully characterized as a "trailer trash whore with an
agenda". So was Monica Lewinsky until she produced the dress. At that
point, Bill Clinton was proven a liar. Not for his affair but for lying to
a Federal judge as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States.
Common people rot in prison for commiting the same offence to a far lesser
degree. The offence was grounds for impeachment.
When your chief executive can get away with perjury, shouldn't you be able
to? After all, each person in the US is equal under our law. His action
has damaged the country in ways that history will surely reflect.

leo

 

[Neredbojias]

Without quill or qualm, Duende quothed:

While sitting in a puddle Neredbojias scribbled in the mud:


Find anything good?

Tasty. But fast food gives me constipation.

 

[Joel Shepherd]

Technicality. Owned up to an error and did the only proper thing.

Well, yeah, after it was clear that the axe was about to fall, and it
wasn't going to miss. It would have been "proper" if he had owned up
shortly after the break-in, rather than waste who-knows-how-much
taxpayer money on hearings (as entertaining as they were) and such.

Oh my goodness, according to the GOP it was a major breach of trust and
made him unfit for holding office!

Blowjob == impeachment.
Misconceived war == re-election.

I'm confused, and want a vodka drink already.

Yeah, man, and I'm buying... ;-)

 

[Joel Shepherd]

What mistake do you think Bush has made? I mean specifically what do you
consider a mistake. Why was it a mistake, and how do you think he
should have handled it.

I would consider declaring and acting on the policy of pre-emptive war
was a mistake.

I would say not formally declaring war against Iraq and allowing the
Patriot Act to become law was a mistake (yes, that's singular).

Here's why. Diplomacy and international law are largely based on
precedent. When a country with the stature of the United States declares
that preemptive war is legitimate and then establishes the precedent by
waging preemptive war, then the same policy becomes acceptable for any
other power. Twenty years from now, if China decides Japan poses an
"imminent threat", it has precedent to wage preemptive war on Japan, and
the rest of the world can scarcely object or act in response. It is an
extremely dangerous precedent, and I'm quite sure our faces will be
rubbed in it more than once. It will cost us dearly.

A better approach would have been (A) Avoiding the subject altogether,
(B) Focusing those billions of dollars on securing our borders and
ports, and (C) Making states like Iraq and North Korea aware that we
were still fully committed to MAD.

On to the war and the Patriot Act. The bad thing about formally declared
wars is that they give the President emergency power to withhold certain
rights that are normally guaranteed by the Constitution. The good thing
about formally declared wars is that they are essentially acts of
diplomacy with well-defined legalities, and the cessation of hostilities
is also an act of diplomacy, etc. There is no question as to whether
hostilities -- and a national emergency -- exists or not. They exist
right up to the moment that hostilities cease due to the signing of a
truce or surrender agreement. At that moment, the President's power to
withhold Constitutionally-guaranteed rights ceases.

So, if war had been formally declared -- by Congress -- on Afghanistan
or Iraq, Bush would have been well within his rights to enact the
measures in the Patriot Act (such as revoking the right to a speedy
trial). However, when the state of war ended, those rights would have
been returned to the people, immediately. Instead, the Patriot Act was
passed into law, revoking those same long-standing rights, but because
the Patriot Act is law with an expiration date, those rights have been
all but _permanently_ revoked, state of war or not. That is a huge cost
to pay for very little benefit (not to mention Ben Franklin's
observation on the matter).

--
Best Regard -- Joel.

http://www.cv6.org/
"May she also say with just pride:
I have done the State some service."

 

[Travis Newbury]

Gentlemen, the pure and simple truth, obfuscated by partisan spin, is that
Bill Clinton as Chief Executive of the United States, of his own volition,
lied to a Federal judge under oath.

He lied about a hand/blowjob. You would have done the same thing.

When your chief executive can get away with perjury, shouldn't you be able
to? After all, each person in the US is equal under our law. His action
has damaged the country in ways that history will surely reflect.

I think the Star report (witch hunt) has damaged us even more.

 

[Travis Newbury]

I would consider declaring and acting on the policy of pre-emptive war
was a mistake....

<snip>

See, I see it differently. I think a preemptive strike is exactly what
is needed to fight terrorist. I see a direct connection between Iraq
(an a few others) and terrorism. (Not a direct link to 9-11)

I would say not formally declaring war against Iraq and allowing the
Patriot Act to become law was a mistake (yes, that's singular).

I am all for the patriot act, and for profiling people. If you are
looking for a serial killer, you profile white males between he ages of
25-35. Chances are if when you find the killer you find a white guy.

If you are looking for a terrorist, then chances are, when you find
one,they will be a Arab guy. Not accepting that is putting blinders on.

A better approach would have been (A) Avoiding the subject altogether

Read that as covering your eyes and not admitting there is a problem.

(B) Focusing those billions of dollars on securing our borders and
ports

Hiding again. This does not eliminate terrorist, it allows it to breed
and grow. We need to remove it from the face of the earth.

(C) Making states like Iraq and North Korea aware that we
were still fully committed to MAD.

Yea, lets give them a stern talking to.... that will work...

See the things you feel are mistakes, I feel are the right direction.
History will eventually tell who was right.

 

[Leonard Blaisdell]

He lied about a hand/blowjob. You would have done the same thing.

No. He lied about a pattern of behaviour in the Paula Jones trial in order
to escape judgement. Frankly, I would have never put myself in that
position.

I think the Star report (witch hunt) has damaged us even more.

Not even close. Bill Clinton will be judged prominently by history. After
all, he was a president. Ken Starr is a minor character in the scheme of
things.

leo

 

[Karl Core]

<snip>

See, I see it differently. I think a preemptive strike is exactly what
is needed to fight terrorist. I see a direct connection between Iraq
(an a few others) and terrorism. (Not a direct link to 9-11)

Martin Luther used to blame Satan for his flatulence. That doesn't make it
true.

-Karl

 

[Joel Shepherd]

<snip>

See, I see it differently. I think a preemptive strike is exactly what
is needed to fight terrorist. I see a direct connection between Iraq
(an a few others) and terrorism. (Not a direct link to 9-11)

What exactly is that direct connection? And please focus your attention
on the time *before* we invaded.

I am all for the patriot act, and for profiling people.

Are you all for the government pointing a finger at any arbitrary
citizen, labelling them as a 'terrorist', and locking them up without
legal representation, formal charges or a right to a speedy trial (or,
for that matter, any trial at all)? That's what else the Patriot Act
brought you.

If you are looking for a terrorist, then chances are, when you find
one,they will be a Arab guy. Not accepting that is putting blinders on.

I have no problem with intelligent profiling. I do have a real problem
with not allowing citizens legal representation and a fast and fair
trial afterwards.

Read that as covering your eyes and not admitting there is a problem.

No. Nice snip. In context now, read that as "The thought of making
pre-emptive war as a matter of policy should never have come up."

Hiding again. This does not eliminate terrorist, it allows it to breed
and grow. We need to remove it from the face of the earth.

"Removing them" is one thing. Ensuring that they don't set off a dirty
nuke or simply a shipping container full of fertilizer and motor oil in
your harbor is another. Unless you've been hiding, you know that very
little has been done to secure our harbors and ports of entry.
Personally, I expect to see that fact exploited long before the last
terrorist fades away.

Yea, lets give them a stern talking to.... that will work...

It seemed to work quite well with the Soviet Union, or was that before
your time? If we honestly believe those countries to be supporting
attacks against us, then let's not BS around. Make the threat and stick
to it if the need arises. That's not a stern talking-to any more than,
say, the Potsdam Declaration was a stern talking-to.

Or are you saying that you think we lack resolve to follow through on
the threat? Well, that's awful _soft_ of you. ;-)

History will eventually tell who was right.

Or who won, which is not necessarily the same thing.

 

[Toby Inkster]

Every woman that had previously come forth to assert that Bill Clinton
had had "relations" with her was unmercifully characterized as a
"trailer trash whore with an agenda".

Well, if that's what floats his boat...

 

[Travis Newbury]

Martin Luther used to blame Satan for his flatulence. That doesn't make it
true.

But Einstein would not hire an assistant that would salt their food
before tasting it. But it doesn't mean they were a bad lab assistant.

 

[Travis Newbury]

What exactly is that direct connection? And please focus your attention
on the time *before* we invaded.

Saddam was openly harboring and financing terrorism. That is a direct
connection. The same could not be said for him and 911.

Are you all for the government pointing a finger at any arbitrary
citizen, labelling them as a 'terrorist', and locking them up without
legal representation, formal charges or a right to a speedy trial (or,
for that matter, any trial at all)? That's what else the Patriot Act
brought you.
Yes.


I have no problem with intelligent profiling. I do have a real problem
with not allowing citizens legal representation and a fast and fair
trial afterwards.

I don't have the same issues.

No. Nice snip. In context now, read that as "The thought of making
pre-emptive war as a matter of policy should never have come up."

You are still covering your eyes. Having the option of and moving ahead
with a preemptive war is exactly the right way to fight terrorism.

"Removing them" is one thing. Ensuring that they don't set off a dirty
nuke or simply a shipping container full of fertilizer and motor oil in
your harbor is another. Unless you've been hiding, you know that very
little has been done to secure our harbors and ports of entry.
Personally, I expect to see that fact exploited long before the last
terrorist fades away.

I agree we have not done enough to secure them. Absolutely. And when
we do secure them, I am sure I will be able to find another hole which
will need repairing. It's not like a light switch, you can't just say
"There, we have now filled every hole". We have to secure our selves as
well as fight terrorism in it's home. Not in my home.

If we honestly believe those countries to be supporting
attacks against us, then let's not BS around. Make the threat and stick
to it if the need arises. That's not a stern talking-to any more than,
say, the Potsdam Declaration was a stern talking-to.

Absolutely. We can start with cutting off all aid to those governments.
But we won't because "it's not nice". We still spend millions on aid to
countries that support terrorism. That needs to be the first step. It
would also allow us to spend the money here at home on education, or
health care.

Or who won, which is not necessarily the same thing.

I agree

 

[Mark Parnell]

I don't have the same issues.

So you want to live in a dictatorship? Each to their own, I guess...

 

[Joel Shepherd]

Saddam was openly harboring and financing terrorism. That is a direct
connection. The same could not be said for him and 911.

That's news to me. What terrorists was Saddam openly harboring and
financing, and what was the imminent threat that they posed to us?
Saddam and his cronies were, I'm sure, a terror within Iraq and an
occasional large-scale annoyance to his neighbors. What other trouble
did they cause, or were imminently prepared to cause?

I don't have the same issues.

Cool. We'll be expecting no complaints then, when a slight book-keeping
error results in the iron finger being pointed at you.

You are still covering your eyes. Having the option of and moving ahead
with a preemptive war is exactly the right way to fight terrorism.

It's a short-term, convenient way. In the long term, it is opening up
the door to any other country to claim "imminent threat" and wage war on
anyone they care to. That, to me, does not sound like a recipe for world
peace and security. It sounds like a significant step backwards.

I agree we have not done enough to secure them. Absolutely. And when
we do secure them, I am sure I will be able to find another hole which
will need repairing. It's not like a light switch, you can't just say
"There, we have now filled every hole". We have to secure our selves as
well as fight terrorism in it's home. Not in my home.

Great. Then have Congress formally declare war on the countries we feel
are harboring and supporting truly dangerous terrorists, have the
President declare a state on national emergency and -- if necessary --
temporarily revoke rights as needed to secure against the emergency,
deal with the threat(s) and call it done.

That seems reasonable, right? I might even go along with that, because
I'd be inclined to believe the government was acting in good faith with
regards to my rights. And I sincerely believe doing things that way
would not be a significant imposition on the President.

But things haven't happened that way. They've happened in a way that has
established a dangerous diplomatic precedent, and resulted in the
permanent revocation of individual rights and protections. It didn't
*have* to be that way. So it was a mistake to *let* things happen that
way.

Absolutely. We can start with cutting off all aid to those governments.
But we won't because "it's not nice". We still spend millions on aid to
countries that support terrorism. That needs to be the first step. It
would also allow us to spend the money here at home on education, or
health care.

Works for me.

 

[brucie]

In alt.html Joel Shepherd said:

That's news to me. What terrorists was Saddam openly harboring and
financing, and what was the imminent threat that they posed to us?
Saddam and his cronies were, I'm sure, a terror within Iraq and an
occasional large-scale annoyance to his neighbors. What other trouble
did they cause, or were imminently prepared to cause?

don't start trying to cloud the issue with facts

 

[Toby Inkster]

Saddam was openly harboring and financing terrorism.

Name three terrorists he harboured and/or financed. Please.