On 23 Dec 2004 01:49:01 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Let me guess, Chuck...you're picking up a quote from one of the mindless
rightwing idiots I filter...Fritz? Hertvik?



I wouldn't characterize the party as a mindless idiot, but I'm flabbergasted
that anybody seriously believes Clinton's sex life was a factor in whether Al
Qaida attacked us on 9-11.

Even if they were attacking us based on moral outrage over the whole Lewinski
affair, they should have called it off in 2001 when Bush took office. It's a
well accepted fact that Republicans never have sex outside of marriage, and
even intramarital sex is for purposes of procreation only. :-)

If Clinton's mind had not been focused on his sex life, and the
repercussions therefrom, do you suppose he may have done more to bring
Bin Laden down while he had the chance(s)?

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

"Calif Bill" wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote:
Who was POTUS when the WTC was destroyed, Bungling Bill? Who? Your
favorite POTUS, Dumbfoch Dubya, friend of Nuclear Zell.

Who was in charge when all the planning was done? Who was in charge when
the first WTC attack happened? Who was in charge when we had a couple of
embassy attacked? When the USS Cole was attacked? What is your cure for
terrorism? They seem to understand extreme violence. Maybe we ought to
be
more extreme. If the rebels take over a town, inform the town to turn
over
the bad guys or we level the town. They goodguys can leave, but the town
still gets leveled. According to you we make more enemies. But according
to you they all hate us now. So what is to lose?


Don't ask such difficult questions. Hanoi Harry can only spout the party
line.

Jack

They were upset about American sexual habits. Maybe the blow job pushed OBL
over the edge.

I'm sure he would have felt like morality was restored when GWB was elected.

"So, if Clinton hadn't been blown in the Oval Office, Al Qaida would never
have
planned to attack the US??"

I said:

"Possibly. Can you prove otherwise? "

So how does that now translate into "seriously believes Clinton's sex life
was a factor in whether Al Qaida attacked us on 9-11"?

Quite a leap you made there Chuck.

You seriously believe that it is a possibility, and challenge others to provide
proof that bin Ladin would never have attacked the US if Clinton wasn't
fiddling around with Monica.

That's not a leap, it's a short step.

If Clinton's mind had not been focused on his sex life, and the
repercussions therefrom, do you suppose he may have done more to bring
Bin Laden down while he had the chance(s)?


Close, butt no cigar....(Clinton joke)

Clinton attacked bin Ladin a few times during his term, launching cruise
missles into his training camps, etc.

However, since the Republican witch hunters in congress had *their* minds on
using Clinton's sex life to try to hound him from office, he met with
resistance every step of the way.

He was accused of "wagging the dog" when he launched missles against Al Qaida,
- trying to divert the nation's attention from more important matters like
lying under oath about an extra marital sexcapede. When he listened to faulty
intelligence and clobbered an aspirin factory in the Sudan, he was reviled as
the dumbest piece of crap ever to set foot in the oval office. (A rather
different response than when a Republican got us into the current
mess.....supposedly as the result of faulty intelligence).

One could counter with the observation that if your witch hunters had let the
man alone to do his job, he might have been more effective at it.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
"So, if Clinton hadn't been blown in the Oval Office, Al Qaida would
never
have
planned to attack the US??"

I said:

"Possibly. Can you prove otherwise? "

So how does that now translate into "seriously believes Clinton's sex life
was a factor in whether Al Qaida attacked us on 9-11"?

Quite a leap you made there Chuck.

You seriously believe that it is a possibility, and challenge others to
provide
proof that bin Ladin would never have attacked the US if Clinton wasn't
fiddling around with Monica.

That's not a leap, it's a short step.

I never said I believe it. I said it was possible.

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
m...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:1103770958.4f42aaf2bb531d7c58c7431201b27f94@t eranews...
Jack Goff wrote:
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...

I wouldn't characterize the party as a mindless idiot, but I'm

flabbergasted

that anybody seriously believes Clinton's sex life was a factor in
whether

Al

Qaida attacked us on 9-11.



But Harry is blaming Bush for the 9/11 attacks. I'm flabbergasted that
you
would believe that. Bush had nothing to do with it, but I don't see
your
indignation over Harry's remarks.

Typical two-faced liberal you are, Chuck.

Jack



I know you righties want to give your boy Dubya a pass, but the fact
remains that Bush was captain of the ship on 9-11, and therefore 9-11
happened on his watch and was his responsibility. Perhaps if he had
taken a shorter vacation that summer or had the IQ to pay more attention
to the warnings, he might have done something -anything- to mitigate
what happened in 9-11.

OK, let's run with that. It is a fact that those two planes were flown
into
the twin towers while Bush was in office.

By the same logic, the downturn in the economy happened on Clinton's
watch.
He was asleep at the wheel, and allowed the stock market to get wildly
overvalued. The crash was inevitable and happened on his watch, but
Clinton
did nothing. Bitter pill to swallow, eh?

Actually, Clinton directly caused it..........by limiting CEO salary
deductibility

http://www.chilit.org/Barnh6.htm

A poriton of the article

" Fortune magazine, in its survey of 1992 executive pay reported, "The
explosion of stock option grants - the main CEO pay trend of the 1980s - may
finally be slowing. Salary and bonuses grew faster than stock awards" in
1992. Your chart indicates the decline of stock option awards continued for
another year. Options declined absolutely and as a percentage of total CEO
compensation from 1992 to 1993. That was when the Clinton CEO pay cap was
enacted.

Let me pause for some definitions. Employee stock options grant to the
holder of the option the right to buy shares of the company at a specified
price during a specified period. If you hold an option to buy shares at $10
and the stock doubles to $20, you can exercise your option by paying the
company $10 and then claim a 100 percent profit, not counting taxes and
transaction costs. You never have to own the stock for more than a moment.
But President Clinton's reform of CEO pay specifically excluded stock option
awards. Options were billed as a way to align the interests of executives
with the interests of ordinary stockholders.

As Roger Lowenstein points out in his new book, Origins of the Crash,
options fail as an incentive for corporate performance because they carry no
risk. If a company's operations decline and its stock price drops, or if
the stock price falls for any reason, the options expire worthless and the
CEO simply collects a fresh batch of options at the reduced price. As we
learned in the 1990s, short-term stock price movements frequently bear no
relation to the intrinsic value of a company or its operating performance.
Rolling over a series of option grants, which are free to the executive,
virtually guaranteed millions of dollars with no effort at all, especially
in a bull market. It was much simpler to appear on CNBC and tout your stock
than actually manage the company efficiently to generate legitimate profits.
Indeed, generating profits was a waste of time. Companies with strong
balance sheets and steady profits lagged the market in the late 1990s, a
condition that persists today."

Nonetheless, the House Ways and Means Committee said in 1993, "Stock
options.generally are to be treated as meeting the exception for
performance-based compensation.because the amount of the compensation paid
to the executive is based on an increase in the corporation's stock price."
More than one hundred years ago, the acerbic newspaper columnist Ambrose
Bierce, a veteran of the Civil War, began publishing cryptic definitions of
words. These were later compiled into a book, The Devil's Dictionary.
Bierce defined a corporation as "an ingenious device for obtaining
individual profit without individual responsibility."

I suspect Bierce had never heard of stock options. But when President
Clinton's compensation deduction cap took effect 10 years ago, individual
CEOs and their consultants quickly recognized the windfall that had befallen
them. Obviously, it would be poor business practice to collect more than $1
million in cash salary and bonus, thereby losing the tax deduction on the
excess business expense. Stock options, on the other hand, were not only
excluded from the new law. They were not even counted as a business
expense, no matter what amount was awarded. They were a "device for
obtaining individual profit," as Bierce put it, that was free of
responsibility and financially free to the corporation, even though employee
options dilute the ownership stake of other shareholders.

Stock options as the solution to outrageous executive pay had been
validated in 1990 by professors Michael Jensen of Harvard University and
Kevin Murphy of the University of Rochester. Their article in the Harvard
Business Review was titled "CEO Incentives - It's Not How Much You Pay, But
How." They advocated greater stock ownership by CEOs. But the professors
made a fatal error by failing to distinguish fully between stock options and
the outright stock ownership, in which stockholders face the risk of loss.
They also equated company performance with the market value of its shares, a
remarkably naïve assumption in the short-term world of option grants.

Jensen has acknowledged his mistake. In 2001, he published an article
titled "How Stock Options Reward Managers for Destroying Value." Today, he
says options are like heroin in the executive suite. They induce CEOs to
lie, cheat and steal to keep inflating their share prices. Kenneth Lay, the
former chairman of Enron Corp., cashed in $145 million on stock options from
2000 to 2001, just before the company collapsed. Recently Jensen told a
Chicago audience that the best solution to corporate governance scandals was
lower stock prices. Academics and others are now calling for the repeal of
the cap on executive compensation as an urgently needed reform."





Bush was asleep at the wheel before, on, and after 9-11. He still is
clueless about fighting terrorism. He thinks the military is the answer.

It is part of the answer. No more attacks here in the US in over three
years is a pretty good record. I suppose we could have pacified them with
free ketchup...

Right, Hanoi Harry?

Jack

Harry

If you hate your country so much,, why did you work in it your entire
career? I mean obviously someone as smart as yourself (kidding now) could
have had any job globally and didn't need a union to protect their job,,
lol,,

Nope,, you stuck around in America and simply criticized its management,,
lol,,, Funny think about union brothers,,, always against management,, even
when they do not understand a thing about it,,, lol,,,

Come on there Harry,,, will you **** off already,, your one ignorant pain in
the ass,,












"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:1103771009.dee6283948de4a41aeabb06b7872195b@t eranews...
~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:
clinton's mind was on his dick, not running the country...as he
was hired to do......what other president discusses troop movements
w/his military seniors while getting blow jobs?...and gets caught lying
about it?...sheeze.....true trailer trash......


There was more going on in Clinton's brain while he was out during his
heart surgery than has ever gone on in Bush's brain.

Tuuk,,,,

Do they use multiple commas in Bangkok? Or is it your personal preference for
flaming and wasting people's time??????????????????????????????????

Just wondering,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Dan

Tuuk wrote:
Harry

If you hate your country so much,, why did you work in it your entire
career? I mean obviously someone as smart as yourself (kidding now) could
have had any job globally and didn't need a union to protect their job,,
lol,,

Nope,, you stuck around in America and simply criticized its management,,
lol,,, Funny think about union brothers,,, always against management,, even
when they do not understand a thing about it,,, lol,,,

Come on there Harry,,, will you **** off already,, your one ignorant pain in
the ass,,












"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:1103771009.dee6283948de4a41aeabb06b7872195b@t eranews...

~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:

clinton's mind was on his dick, not running the country...as he
was hired to do......what other president discusses troop movements
w/his military seniors while getting blow jobs?...and gets caught lying
about it?...sheeze.....true trailer trash......


There was more going on in Clinton's brain while he was out during his
heart surgery than has ever gone on in Bush's brain.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
Tuuk is some piece of work...he raves about the Pacific Rim, but can't
get a job there, so he wetbacked his way into Canada, and his parents
are impoverished there, so he sends money home.

All the while insulting North American culture and workers.