In article <3965eb5d.0408302046.51937b5d@posting.google.com>,
caddyshack_al@my-deja.com (Al) wrote:

news:<ch044o$bqk$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>...

In article <3965eb5d.0408300836.2eb2b0b8@posting.google.com>,
caddyshack_al@my-deja.com (Al) wrote:

usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote in message

news:<1gjb6lj.cozkao1mwhynoN%usenet@mile23.c0m>...

Al <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:

usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote in message
news:<1gj8bcf.7vq9v1nwjytyN%usenet@mile23.c0m>...

Al <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:

[..]

So you aren't interested at all in presenting an opinion why

someone

other than Bush is a better canidate? Maybe then you can just

tell
me

how Bush fucked up the country for you?

Well, just a few posts ago, I said this:

<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1gj30g9.11xsmzvxwmnc6N%25usenet%40

mile23.c0m&output=gplain>

Too bad you're unable to follow a conversation.

My experience so far has been when the points you bring up are

directly

addressed -1) Diplomatic Ties, 2) Bad Economy, 3) Bad War - their
complaints fall flat.

1) How have diplomatic ties been hurt?

You're kidding, right?

Our non-allies in the war are France, Germany and Russia.

And pretty much the rest of the world.

Great Brittain and Japan are good friends.

And how many countries are there in the world?

New Europe is emerging as
ones who appreciate freedom.

After living with the threat of Soviet invasion, they should not support
anyone invading another country.

These are
countries we have never been able to depend upon.

Whereas the handful of Podunk countries we cajoled, threatened, and

bribed

to join us are so dependable?

They are reasonably dependable.

Yeah, sure. How many have pulled out? Gee, maybe El Salvador withdrawing
is why we aren't winning!

We should avoid going so far as havng
something similar to a "triple alliance."

So no, I'm not
kidding. Could you tell me how we've hurt our non-allies by going to
war in Afghanistan and Iraq? We didn't force them to participate. I
can see where *we* wouldn't help France next time they want to impose
their will on Cote d'Ivoire.

2) How is the economy messed up when it is comparable to the one

Clinton

had in 1996 when he was re-elected?

Are you fucking blind? Bush got elected, tried to stimulate the

economy,

failed.

In between "Bush got elected" (thanks for conceding that) and "tried
to stimulate the economy" we had possibly the worse disaster in
American history. Do you remember what that was?

Sure. So?

That was the start of some bad economic times.

I thought you right-wingers blamed Clinton for them.

We took an enormous hit economically. The Dow went down 2000 points.
Did we fall into a depression? No, we swiftly recovered due to putting
lots of money back into the economy.

And tax cuts for the rich helped how?

It put more money in the economy.

Prove it. It sure hasn't helped the economy much.

The question to you is how could
taxing the rich benefit the economy?

Reduce the deficit, which puts lots more money in the economy.

Bush was pushing them before 9/11.
Then they were the "cure" for an economy doing too well. After they were
the cure for an economy not doing well.

It was the right thing to do based on the tax structure. It would help
the economy at any time,

Sorry, going into debt just to benefit a few is not the right thing to do.

Then there's that whole
hand-out-$300-but-make-everyone-pay-$1600-back-over-time thing.

If you own a home, you would understand how putting yourself in debt
is great for your (personal) economy. It's better to get the economy
humming, get people back to work so they can pay taxes in this case
the $1600 (whatever) as quickly as possible. If we to slow the economy
further we may never get ahead.

Bush's tax cuts have done nothing but added to the debt.

I believe the recession was abreviated.

Then you're a fool. The stock market is still way down,

we're still down
over a million jobs compared to when Bush took office,

real wages are down,
more employees don't have health insurance, companies are cancelling pension
plans...

3) The two wars prosecuted by Bush have been the fastest, most
successful, with the least amount of casualties in the history of

the

world. How is that bad?

They're still on-going.

We established the necessary regime changes. That was our first goal
and it was done in an unprecedented fashion.

Yet when the Soviets tried to do the same thing in Afghanistan,
Czechoslovakia, etc., we criticized them.

Of course. Communism isn't a free society.

So it's OK if we do bad things because we're a free society? What kind of
twisted morality is that?

They're not over. They'll keep going past the
forseeable future.

We are still in Germany; we are still in Japan - 60 years later. I'm
happy for it. We don't have to worry about Germany and Japan attacking
anyone anymore.

So that's the cause?

That's the result. We oust a dictator, we scuffle for a couple of 5
years, then we babysit for a generation.

Isn't 60 years a little long for a generation?

And note Vietnam hasn't attacked us either. Nor Mexico, Canada, Britain...

Was Bush's alleged service in Alabama the cause of it
never being attacked?

That's a frustrated answer. You should have a beer.

From the Bush administration forward, there will
*always* be a war the US is fighting in the mid-east.

We (the US) have always been fighting Moslem countries.

Oh BS. Since when?

Since George Washington. Are you ignorant of history?

Which Moslem countries did we fight then?

The difference
now from 1797 is that we have clear military superiority and modern
technology allows us to communicate directly or almost directly with
Mid-East Moslems. We can use these advantages now or we can force our
children to deal with them.

What Moslem country have we always been fighting?

At one time or another, almost all of them.

Cite them then.

On 30 Aug 2004 21:46:14 -0700,

Great Brittain and Japan are good friends. New Europe is emerging as
ones who appreciate freedom.

[It's "Britain", by the way]

... and we most certainly are *not* "good friends". Our sycophantic
government is, temporarily, sucking up to your government's arse in
the vague hope of getting some of the spoils of your little Middle
East adventure, but that does not make us by any stroke of the
imagination your "good friends". What the UK Government say and what
the people of this country think are frequently widely at odds.

In a recent newspaper poll, of the nearly 100,000 replies, 65% of the
people voted the US as the biggest threat to world peace - way ahead
of both Iraq and North Korea.

Having you where we can keep an eye on you should not be confused with
friendship.

And it doesn't matter how many standing ovations your joint session
gave Tony Bliar [sic].

Paul.

raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:ft67j0l6150j5ol3ijl6j3mrec1n6f1il5@4ax.com...

On 30 Aug 2004 09:36:03 -0700,

In between "Bush got elected" (thanks for conceding that) and "tried
to stimulate the economy" we had possibly the worse disaster in
American history. Do you remember what that was?

I'm thinking Bush's election, myself,

but that's not IN BETWEEN the two events.

If you will re-read the article you will see that the Post requested
these records from the military through the Freedom of Information
Act. That was their source.

They also mentioned interviewing several of the officers involved AND
gave reasons for being unable to interview the others. I'm not saying

It is the function of the press in a free society to investigate and fully
enlighten the public on such important issues. The Washington Post has done
a great service by uncovering these new records, but is greviously lapsing
by failing to source these records, interview the other officers present
(who offered to be interviewed for this story), or otherwise uncovering the
other details in question. This was a nice start, but the job is not
complete. The ombudsman should take attention and correct the lapses at
WashPost.

If you will re-read the article you will see that the Post requested
these records from the military through the Freedom of Information
Act. That was their source.