OT Bush hatred
 

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
-


My comment stands. Your Little Business group is full of glowing
references to Saint Dubya the Dumb. Naturally, it would have an
opposite
opinion of the Democratic front-runner.

No, not naturally. You're making stupid-ass assumptions again...without
checking the facts. NFIB asks its 600,000 members to vote on what
issues
are most important to small businesses. It then takes the results of
those
surveys and lobbies Congress to pass legislation that would help small
business. Each member of Congress then votes on the issues...and NFIB
keeps
track of who votes for what.

There are plenty of Democrats with positive (50% or better)
ratings...meaning they agree with NFIB.

Dianne Feinstein scored a 50%
Zell Miller score a 75%
John Breaux scored a 63%
Mary Landrieu scored a 75%
Max Baucus scored a 75%
Ben Nelson scored a 63%
Tim Johnson scored a 50%
James Jeffords (I) scored a 63% (scored an 83% in the 106th Congress
before
he left the Republican party)

NFIB's "glowing references" are only given when a government official
acts/votes in a way that supports small business...and that simply
doesn't
describe the vast majority of democrats.


It doesn't mean "they" agreed with your group. It means your group
agreed with their positions.

No, actually you're wrong. Lobbying groups have a pretty strong effect on
what gets passed in Congress. Fortune rated NFIB the nation's most powerful
business lobbying group...and the third most powerful lobbying group
overall...second only to the NRA, and AARP, respectively.

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/power25

The Top 15:
1) NRA
2) AARP
3) NFIB
4) American Israel Public Affairs Committee
5) Assoc. of Trial Lawyers of America
6) AFL-CIO
7) Chamber of Commerce of the USA
8) National Beer Wholesalers Association
9) Nat'l Assn. of Realtors
10)National Assn. of Manufacturers
11)National Assn. of Home Builders of the US
12)American Medical Association
13)American Hospital Association (formerly ranked 31st)
14)NEA
15)American Farm Bureau Federation


I've seen Fortune's lists, and I've seen others. I've never even
encountered anyone else who has mentioned your group of Small
Businessmen, probably because your interests and mine don't cover much
of the same ground, legislatively. The NRA, for example, doesn't factor
into much of what interests me on the Hill. The Pharmaceutical Research
and Manufacturers Association does. The AARP certainly whored itself
recently for the drug manufacturers.

Ahh...the beer wholesalers. Now thete's a group worth knowing.
--
Email sent to is never read.

OT Bush hatred
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:



NFIB and small business make the difference in Washington, D.C.


NFIB comes out fighting every time lawmakers and regulators try
to
take another bite out of your business or your pocketbook. NFIB
members
from
all over the country make their voices heard, and Congress listens --
and
those victories translate into money in your pocket.


Hehehe. They sho' got their hooks into you.



Obstacles Cleared for Overtime Reform

You mean elimination.


Small Business Scores Health-Care Option With HSAs

President Bush signed legislation in December 2003, authorizing
the
creation of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Taking effect Jan. 1,
2004,
HSAs
are tax-free savings accounts for medical expenses that will allow
more
small-business owners to obtain affordable health coverage for
themselves
and their employees.

This is one of the biggest and saddest laughs of all. An HSA is no
substitute for a strong health insurance plan. Can you tell us why?




Any taxpayer with a high-deductible insurance plan can
contribute
up
to $2,600 a year ($5,150 for families) into an HSA account.

Well, that ought to cover two days at the hospital...or removal of a
hangnail.

Doh! The "high-deductible insurance plan" pays the big bills. The $2600
pays the routine trips to the doc. I pay almost $11,000 for a family of
four (with an 80/20 plan and $500 deductible). I bet my premium would
drop
by 75% if I had a very high deductible plan. If nobody gets sick in a
given
year, then I would save mega-bucks...which is money that would be lining
the
pockets of some insurance executive if it weren't for HSA's. If we *do*
get
sick, then it's virtually a wash.

The other issue NFIB is strongly lobbying for are AHP's. Until an
Association Health Plan bill is passed, we small business guys don't get
the
same special privileges as is afforded government workers and union
members.
You guys lobbied for AHP's and got 'em (in principle, if not in
name)...and
now it's our turn.




Indeed, AHP's are promising. A really serious problem these days is that
the cost of pharmaceuticals for covered employees now costs health plans
about the same as hopsitalization. This is leading to caps and higher
co-pays for some.

I figure that once AHP legislation passes, it'll force to the table two of
the larger profit-makers in the pharmaceutical industry...namely,
manufacturers and pharmacies. I would hope to see the individual
associations (with memberships sometimes exceeding several hundred thousand
people) negotiating directly with the manufacturers and the pharmacies.

Of course, the biggest opponent of AHP's is the insurance industry. AHP's
give associations bargaining power against the insurance companies...and
could give associations enough clout to completely bypass the insurance
companies.

Wanna know who the key opponents are?

Blue Cross/Blue Shield
State insurance commissioners
AFL-CIO and other unions
Mental Health Groups
Health insurance agent associations
Senator Edward Kennedy
Senator Richard Durbin
(source:
http://www.cropusainsurance.com/legi..._opponents.asp)


In light of your strong allegiances to the aforementioned groups and
individuals, I'm surprised that you've broken ranks
and described AHP's as "promising". I guess there's some hope for you yet.
;-)

OT Bush hatred
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...



Indeed, AHP's are promising.

PROS & CONS - SUPPORTERS AND OPPONENTS
Association Health Plan Legislation

Pro

a.. Supporters of the plan include small businesses, Farm Bureau, chambers
of commerce, and associations of self-employeds such as engineers,
construction firms, farm associations and those who have not been allowed to
purchase health insurance through associations
Con

a.. Opponents of the plan are Blue Cross/Blue Shield, who fear that they
would lose business to AHPs and fear that they would lose the ability to set
rates for individuals and small businesses based upon company-wide expense
b.. Senator Kennedy and other liberal Senators oppose the legislation
because it would lessen the need for national health care
c.. State insurance departments oppose the plan as they fear losing their
regulatory authority and insurance premium taxes
d.. AFL/CIO, American Federal of State & County Municipal Employees,
American Federation of Teachers and other unions oppose the plan because
they support universal health care
e.. Health insurance agents fear loss of commissions

OT Bush hatred
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
-


My comment stands. Your Little Business group is full of glowing
references to Saint Dubya the Dumb. Naturally, it would have an
opposite
opinion of the Democratic front-runner.

No, not naturally. You're making stupid-ass assumptions
again...without
checking the facts. NFIB asks its 600,000 members to vote on what
issues
are most important to small businesses. It then takes the results of
those
surveys and lobbies Congress to pass legislation that would help
small
business. Each member of Congress then votes on the issues...and
NFIB
keeps
track of who votes for what.

There are plenty of Democrats with positive (50% or better)
ratings...meaning they agree with NFIB.

Dianne Feinstein scored a 50%
Zell Miller score a 75%
John Breaux scored a 63%
Mary Landrieu scored a 75%
Max Baucus scored a 75%
Ben Nelson scored a 63%
Tim Johnson scored a 50%
James Jeffords (I) scored a 63% (scored an 83% in the 106th Congress
before
he left the Republican party)

NFIB's "glowing references" are only given when a government official
acts/votes in a way that supports small business...and that simply
doesn't
describe the vast majority of democrats.


It doesn't mean "they" agreed with your group. It means your group
agreed with their positions.

No, actually you're wrong. Lobbying groups have a pretty strong effect
on
what gets passed in Congress. Fortune rated NFIB the nation's most
powerful
business lobbying group...and the third most powerful lobbying group
overall...second only to the NRA, and AARP, respectively.

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/power25

The Top 15:
1) NRA
2) AARP
3) NFIB
4) American Israel Public Affairs Committee
5) Assoc. of Trial Lawyers of America
6) AFL-CIO
7) Chamber of Commerce of the USA
8) National Beer Wholesalers Association
9) Nat'l Assn. of Realtors
10)National Assn. of Manufacturers
11)National Assn. of Home Builders of the US
12)American Medical Association
13)American Hospital Association (formerly ranked 31st)
14)NEA
15)American Farm Bureau Federation


I've seen Fortune's lists, and I've seen others. I've never even
encountered anyone else who has mentioned your group of Small
Businessmen, probably because your interests and mine don't cover much
of the same ground, legislatively.

Sure they do. You own a business with employees, right? Then the NFIB has
lobbied for a lot of the favorable legislation you've received.

The NRA, for example, doesn't factor
into much of what interests me on the Hill.

Me neither...but I know they're a pretty powerful group.

The Pharmaceutical Research
and Manufacturers Association does.

Of course.

The AARP certainly whored itself
recently for the drug manufacturers.

I don't agree here. Half a loaf is better than no loaf. Now that the
government is paying the bill, there'll be additional legislation to attempt
to fix what's broken. The current prescription drug bill is just a start.


Ahh...the beer wholesalers. Now thete's a group worth knowing.

Pretty large part of our economy, unfortunately.

OT Bush hatred
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Don White" wrote in message
...
What this usually means is that the small business wants gov't handouts
or
a
reduced tax rate.
Pay your fair share...the unionized working class sure are.

Why must you always be such a dim bulb? The "unionized working class"
would
not have jobs if not for small businesses. Here's some stats for you:


Actually, you have it backwards. If it weren't for workers, there
wouldn't be any small businesses, or large businesses, for that matter.

I knew you'd make this point...and I really can't argue against it, except
for the exceptions you made below. However, I'd add one caveat to your
statement: businesses *can* operate without *unionized* working class.

You can have a society in which every man or woman is his or her own
producer (a farmer, a sawyer, a cobbler, et cetera, who trades with
others for sustenance, and without anything but the smallest family
businesses, but you cannot have most small or any medium or large
businesses without workers.

Agreed.

We had such a business-less society when
this country was first settled.

So it can work...but we'd be living in the dark ages.


Capital is subservient to labor.

And vice-versa.

OT Bush hatred
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message

......Besides your beer, I'm especially fond of all the
cashiers who can make change without looking at the digits on the
register.

Now that would be a nice touch..... :-)

OT Bush hatred
 

NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:



NFIB and small business make the difference in Washington, D.C.


NFIB comes out fighting every time lawmakers and regulators try
to
take another bite out of your business or your pocketbook. NFIB
members
from
all over the country make their voices heard, and Congress listens --
and
those victories translate into money in your pocket.


Hehehe. They sho' got their hooks into you.



Obstacles Cleared for Overtime Reform

You mean elimination.


Small Business Scores Health-Care Option With HSAs

President Bush signed legislation in December 2003, authorizing
the
creation of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Taking effect Jan. 1,
2004,
HSAs
are tax-free savings accounts for medical expenses that will allow
more
small-business owners to obtain affordable health coverage for
themselves
and their employees.

This is one of the biggest and saddest laughs of all. An HSA is no
substitute for a strong health insurance plan. Can you tell us why?




Any taxpayer with a high-deductible insurance plan can
contribute
up
to $2,600 a year ($5,150 for families) into an HSA account.

Well, that ought to cover two days at the hospital...or removal of a
hangnail.

Doh! The "high-deductible insurance plan" pays the big bills. The $2600
pays the routine trips to the doc. I pay almost $11,000 for a family of
four (with an 80/20 plan and $500 deductible). I bet my premium would
drop
by 75% if I had a very high deductible plan. If nobody gets sick in a
given
year, then I would save mega-bucks...which is money that would be lining
the
pockets of some insurance executive if it weren't for HSA's. If we *do*
get
sick, then it's virtually a wash.

The other issue NFIB is strongly lobbying for are AHP's. Until an
Association Health Plan bill is passed, we small business guys don't get
the
same special privileges as is afforded government workers and union
members.
You guys lobbied for AHP's and got 'em (in principle, if not in
name)...and
now it's our turn.




Indeed, AHP's are promising. A really serious problem these days is that
the cost of pharmaceuticals for covered employees now costs health plans
about the same as hopsitalization. This is leading to caps and higher
co-pays for some.

I figure that once AHP legislation passes, it'll force to the table two of
the larger profit-makers in the pharmaceutical industry...namely,
manufacturers and pharmacies. I would hope to see the individual
associations (with memberships sometimes exceeding several hundred thousand
people) negotiating directly with the manufacturers and the pharmacies.

Of course, the biggest opponent of AHP's is the insurance industry. AHP's
give associations bargaining power against the insurance companies...and
could give associations enough clout to completely bypass the insurance
companies.

Wanna know who the key opponents are?

Blue Cross/Blue Shield
State insurance commissioners
AFL-CIO and other unions
Mental Health Groups
Health insurance agent associations
Senator Edward Kennedy
Senator Richard Durbin
(source:
http://www.cropusainsurance.com/legi..._opponents.asp)


In light of your strong allegiances to the aforementioned groups and
individuals, I'm surprised that you've broken ranks
and described AHP's as "promising". I guess there's some hope for you yet.
;-)


More bull****. I'm directly involved with several of the largest unions
affiliated with the AFL, and the AFL itself, all deeply involved in
health care associations set up for the very purpose you are discussing
here.

You need to expand your lists of sources, fella.
--
Email sent to is never read.

OT Bush hatred
 

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...



Indeed, AHP's are promising.

PROS & CONS - SUPPORTERS AND OPPONENTS
Association Health Plan Legislation

Pro

a.. Supporters of the plan include small businesses, Farm Bureau, chambers
of commerce, and associations of self-employeds such as engineers,
construction firms, farm associations and those who have not been allowed to
purchase health insurance through associations
Con

a.. Opponents of the plan are Blue Cross/Blue Shield, who fear that they
would lose business to AHPs and fear that they would lose the ability to set
rates for individuals and small businesses based upon company-wide expense
b.. Senator Kennedy and other liberal Senators oppose the legislation
because it would lessen the need for national health care
c.. State insurance departments oppose the plan as they fear losing their
regulatory authority and insurance premium taxes
d.. AFL/CIO, American Federal of State & County Municipal Employees,
American Federation of Teachers and other unions oppose the plan because
they support universal health care
e.. Health insurance agents fear loss of commissions



Your source's interpretation is wrong. Certainly the labor movement
supports universal care, and huge elements of movement who support that
also support health care associations, and participate in them.

--
Email sent to is never read.

OT Bush hatred
 

"NOYB" wrote in message news:DIvUb.12070
Huh? I thought he was a Vietnam vet. In fact, he was a lieutenant, right?
Which means that he ordered men into combat...and some of those men did not
make it back. That makes him no different from the
Commander-in-Chief...except that he had control over fewer men.

Are you really saying that, as a lieutenant, Kerry had the power to
order a premptive war on another country? I did not know!
Kerry was doing his duty in Vietnam, following orders. Nothing more,
nothing less.

OT Bush hatred
 

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message

......Besides your beer, I'm especially fond of all the
cashiers who can make change without looking at the digits on the
register.

Now that would be a nice touch..... :-)



Here's a nice touch. My car broke down while visiting Ottawa. The hotel
manager found out about the mess and gave me a $25.00 tab for the bar. I
needed it by the time it was over. Not THAT'S service.

OT Bush hatred
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message

...broke down while visiting Ottawa. The hotel
manager found out about the mess and gave me a $25.00 tab for the bar.

That IS impressive.

OT Bush hatred
 

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message

...broke down while visiting Ottawa. The hotel
manager found out about the mess and gave me a $25.00 tab for the bar.

That IS impressive.



Hotel: Delta Ottawa. Visited 3 times. Service was consistently spectacular.
Of course, it's probably just a facade. They want our dollars to finance the
country's enormous cache of WMDs.

OT Bush hatred
 

Yada...yada..
Same line we hear in this area..
Small business provide all the jobs so gov't should reduce/kill taxes...give
incentives to attract.. help to train employees,
give grants on and on..all at working taxoayer exoense...
After all those workers are 'lucky to have a job'...don't ya know?

NOYB wrote in message
hlink.net...

snip
Why must you always be such a dim bulb? The "unionized working class"
would
not have jobs if not for small businesses. Here's some stats for you:

Small firms (less than 500 employees)


snip

OT Bush hatred
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message news:DIvUb.12070
Huh? I thought he was a Vietnam vet. In fact, he was a lieutenant,
right?
Which means that he ordered men into combat...and some of those men did
not
make it back. That makes him no different from the
Commander-in-Chief...except that he had control over fewer men.

Are you really saying that, as a lieutenant, Kerry had the power to
order a premptive war on another country? I did not know!
Kerry was doing his duty in Vietnam, following orders. Nothing more,
nothing less.

As a Lieutenant, Kerry had the authority to use info supplied to him by
military intel in order to make on the spot decisions that may have risked
the life of the men under his control. Not much different from Bush, eh?

OT Bush hatred
 

NOYB wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message news:DIvUb.12070
Huh? I thought he was a Vietnam vet. In fact, he was a lieutenant,
right?
Which means that he ordered men into combat...and some of those men did
not
make it back. That makes him no different from the
Commander-in-Chief...except that he had control over fewer men.

Are you really saying that, as a lieutenant, Kerry had the power to
order a premptive war on another country? I did not know!
Kerry was doing his duty in Vietnam, following orders. Nothing more,
nothing less.

As a Lieutenant, Kerry had the authority to use info supplied to him by
military intel in order to make on the spot decisions that may have risked
the life of the men under his control. Not much different from Bush, eh?


One minor difference: Bush has the authority to ask lots of questions,
ask for more data, tell his advisors to take a hike...Bush has options a
lieutenant can't even dream of.

All that...and Bush made the wrong choices.

--
Email sent to is never read.

OT Bush hatred
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message news:DIvUb.12070
Huh? I thought he was a Vietnam vet. In fact, he was a lieutenant,
right?
Which means that he ordered men into combat...and some of those men
did
not
make it back. That makes him no different from the
Commander-in-Chief...except that he had control over fewer men.

Are you really saying that, as a lieutenant, Kerry had the power to
order a premptive war on another country? I did not know!
Kerry was doing his duty in Vietnam, following orders. Nothing more,
nothing less.

As a Lieutenant, Kerry had the authority to use info supplied to him by
military intel in order to make on the spot decisions that may have
risked
the life of the men under his control. Not much different from Bush,
eh?


One minor difference: Bush has the authority to ask lots of questions,
ask for more data, tell his advisors to take a hike...Bush has options a
lieutenant can't even dream of.

All that...and Bush made the wrong choices.


Kerry had responsibilities similar to Bush's, but on a micro scale.

OT Bush hatred
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

Kerry had responsibilities similar to Bush's, but on a micro scale.

With the exception of the top brass who have breakfast at the White House,
no soldier makes policy. And, plenty of soldiers join the armed forces
knowing full well that they may or may not agree with the war they are sent
to fight.

OT Bush hatred
 

NOYB wrote:
As a Lieutenant, Kerry had the authority to use info supplied to him by
military intel in order to make on the spot decisions that may have risked
the life of the men under his control. Not much different from Bush, eh?

No, not much different, except that Bush ordered men under his control
into combat so that his father's and his Vice President's companies
could roll up tremendous profits. And he deliberately mis stated his
reasons and the backing intel for it.

Did Lt Kerry make a dime off his Viet Nam service?

Yeah, they're pretty much the same all right.

DSK

OT Bush hatred
 

DSK wrote:
NOYB wrote:
As a Lieutenant, Kerry had the authority to use info supplied to him by
military intel in order to make on the spot decisions that may have risked
the life of the men under his control. Not much different from Bush, eh?

No, not much different, except that Bush ordered men under his control
into combat so that his father's and his Vice President's companies
could roll up tremendous profits. And he deliberately mis stated his
reasons and the backing intel for it.

Did Lt Kerry make a dime off his Viet Nam service?

Yeah, they're pretty much the same all right.

DSK


Plus another minor difference. Intel should almost always be taken with
a grain of salt, and one shouldn't dismiss the intel one dislikes and
pay attention only to the intel that fits one's agenda. In this case,
the Bush-ites found intel that fit their plans, ignored the intel that
indicated other possibilities, and started a war. For pure political
reasons.



--
Email sent to is never read.

OT Bush hatred
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
As a Lieutenant, Kerry had the authority to use info supplied to him by
military intel in order to make on the spot decisions that may have
risked
the life of the men under his control. Not much different from Bush,
eh?

No, not much different, except that Bush ordered men under his control
into combat so that his father's and his Vice President's companies
could roll up tremendous profits

This is precisely the point where DSK has lost all credibility. There are
several reasons why we went to war with Iraq. DSK's conspiracy theory isn't
one of 'em.

Did Clinton stand to make a tremendous profit when he signed the Iraqi
Regime Change Act in 1998?

OT Bush hatred
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
DSK wrote:
NOYB wrote:
As a Lieutenant, Kerry had the authority to use info supplied to him by
military intel in order to make on the spot decisions that may have
risked
the life of the men under his control. Not much different from Bush,
eh?

No, not much different, except that Bush ordered men under his control
into combat so that his father's and his Vice President's companies
could roll up tremendous profits. And he deliberately mis stated his
reasons and the backing intel for it.

Did Lt Kerry make a dime off his Viet Nam service?

Yeah, they're pretty much the same all right.

DSK


Plus another minor difference. Intel should almost always be taken with
a grain of salt, and one shouldn't dismiss the intel one dislikes and
pay attention only to the intel that fits one's agenda. In this case,
the Bush-ites found intel that fit their plans, ignored the intel that
indicated other possibilities, and started a war. For pure political
reasons.


There is no difference in the conclusions reached by the Clinton
administration in 1998, and the conclusions reached by the Bush
administration in March, 2003. The only difference that exists is how each
administration decided to deal with the threat that all sides believed
existed. Clinton signed the Iraqi Regime Change Act and fired several
hundred crusie missiles at Iraq...and Bush finished the job with a
coordinated air campaign and ground assault.

OT Bush hatred
 

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 04:52:58 +0000, NOYB wrote:


There is no difference in the conclusions reached by the Clinton
administration in 1998, and the conclusions reached by the Bush
administration in March, 2003. The only difference that exists is how each
administration decided to deal with the threat that all sides believed
existed. Clinton signed the Iraqi Regime Change Act and fired several
hundred crusie missiles at Iraq...and Bush finished the job with a
coordinated air campaign and ground assault.

Oh, come on, Clinton never signed an Iraqi Regime Change Act. He did sign
an Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998. It's scope and funding was quite
limited. Revising history isn't that easy when there is a public paper
trail.

http://www.fcnl.org/issues/int/sup/iraq_liberation.htm

OT Bush hatred
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 04:52:58 +0000, NOYB wrote:


There is no difference in the conclusions reached by the Clinton
administration in 1998, and the conclusions reached by the Bush
administration in March, 2003. The only difference that exists is how
each
administration decided to deal with the threat that all sides believed
existed. Clinton signed the Iraqi Regime Change Act and fired several
hundred crusie missiles at Iraq...and Bush finished the job with a
coordinated air campaign and ground assault.

Oh, come on, Clinton never signed an Iraqi Regime Change Act. He did sign
an Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998. It's scope and funding was quite
limited. Revising history isn't that easy when there is a public paper
trail.

http://www.fcnl.org/issues/int/sup/iraq_liberation.htm

Let's not split hairs about my capitalizing "Iraqi Regime Change Act". The
Iraqi Liberation Act called for regime change...and thus became known to
many as the "Iraqi regime change act". From Section 3:

SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove
the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the
emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

OT Bush hatred
 

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
DSK wrote:
NOYB wrote:
As a Lieutenant, Kerry had the authority to use info supplied to him by
military intel in order to make on the spot decisions that may have
risked
the life of the men under his control. Not much different from Bush,
eh?

No, not much different, except that Bush ordered men under his control
into combat so that his father's and his Vice President's companies
could roll up tremendous profits. And he deliberately mis stated his
reasons and the backing intel for it.

Did Lt Kerry make a dime off his Viet Nam service?

Yeah, they're pretty much the same all right.

DSK


Plus another minor difference. Intel should almost always be taken with
a grain of salt, and one shouldn't dismiss the intel one dislikes and
pay attention only to the intel that fits one's agenda. In this case,
the Bush-ites found intel that fit their plans, ignored the intel that
indicated other possibilities, and started a war. For pure political
reasons.


There is no difference in the conclusions reached by the Clinton
administration in 1998, and the conclusions reached by the Bush
administration in March, 2003. The only difference that exists is how each
administration decided to deal with the threat that all sides believed
existed. Clinton signed the Iraqi Regime Change Act and fired several
hundred crusie missiles at Iraq...and Bush finished the job with a
coordinated air campaign and ground assault.




Nice rationalization. Really. But that is all it is. Firing missiles is
a lot different than an invasion.

--
Email sent to is never read.

OT Bush hatred
 

NOYB wrote:
This is precisely the point where DSK has lost all credibility. There are
several reasons why we went to war with Iraq. DSK's conspiracy theory isn't
one of 'em.



"Conspiracy" ?? Hardly. It is common knowledge, and easy for the public
(if they care) to verify. Check the quarterly reports for Halliburton
and Carlyle.

It makes sense to attack another country *IF* that country poses a great
danger to us in the near future.... an overused phrase is "imminent
threat." According to various intelligence sources, Iraq posed a
possible threat, according to others, not so much. BushCo ignored the
more conservative threat estimates and exaggerated the one that said
there was a threat, all to try and justify going to war. He even siezed
the fabricated story about buying yellowcake uranium in Africa. Now over
500 American soldiers are dead, around 10,000 wounded... and over 10,000
Iraqis are dead.

And we are stuck in another bloody quagmire.

But hey, if you get a nice stock option package, it's worth it, right?


Did Clinton stand to make a tremendous profit when he signed the Iraqi
Regime Change Act in 1998?

No, but after spending $60 million dollars investigating Whitewater, the
same gang of chickenhawks that brought us Gulf War 2 decided that a
blowjob was more important.

If Clinton had removed Saddam Hussein from Iraq, he would *only* have
done so with a broad international consensus and coopoeration of the UN.
Instead, BushCo has been a lone wolf and has gotten most of the rest of
the world angry at us.

Yeah, we're a lot safer now. A lot...

DSK

OT Bush hatred
 

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:30:00 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Let's not split hairs about my capitalizing "Iraqi Regime Change Act". The
Iraqi Liberation Act called for regime change...and thus became known to
many as the "Iraqi regime change act". From Section 3:

SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove
the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the
emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Iraq Liberation Act of 1998'.

OK, it may be splitting hairs, but there is a lot of that going around.
Did GWB use the phrase "imminent threat"? Maybe not, but he used many
similar terms, "grave threat", "urgent danger", etc. Did GWB link Iraq
with 9/11? Perhaps not, but he did use Iraq and 9/11 together on
countless occasions. Was it about WMDs, WMD programs, WMD program
activities?

The Liberation Act was to support dissident Iraqi groups in bringing about
democracy in Iraq. It's scope *and* funding was quite limited. Nowhere
did it refer to invading and overthrowing Saddam, SOB that he was.

OT Bush hatred
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:30:00 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Let's not split hairs about my capitalizing "Iraqi Regime Change Act".
The
Iraqi Liberation Act called for regime change...and thus became known to
many as the "Iraqi regime change act". From Section 3:

SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD
IRAQ.

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to
remove
the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote
the
emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Iraq Liberation Act of 1998'.

OK, it may be splitting hairs, but there is a lot of that going around.
Did GWB use the phrase "imminent threat"? Maybe not, but he used many
similar terms, "grave threat", "urgent danger", etc. Did GWB link Iraq
with 9/11? Perhaps not, but he did use Iraq and 9/11 together on
countless occasions. Was it about WMDs, WMD programs, WMD program
activities?

The Liberation Act was to support dissident Iraqi groups in bringing about
democracy in Iraq. It's scope *and* funding was quite limited. Nowhere
did it refer to invading and overthrowing Saddam, SOB that he was.

It also didn't call for launching several hundred cruise missiles at Iraq
either. Did you have a problem with Clinton's decision to do so?

OT Bush hatred
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
DSK wrote:
NOYB wrote:
As a Lieutenant, Kerry had the authority to use info supplied to him
by
military intel in order to make on the spot decisions that may have
risked
the life of the men under his control. Not much different from
Bush,
eh?

No, not much different, except that Bush ordered men under his
control
into combat so that his father's and his Vice President's companies
could roll up tremendous profits. And he deliberately mis stated his
reasons and the backing intel for it.

Did Lt Kerry make a dime off his Viet Nam service?

Yeah, they're pretty much the same all right.

DSK


Plus another minor difference. Intel should almost always be taken with
a grain of salt, and one shouldn't dismiss the intel one dislikes and
pay attention only to the intel that fits one's agenda. In this case,
the Bush-ites found intel that fit their plans, ignored the intel that
indicated other possibilities, and started a war. For pure political
reasons.


There is no difference in the conclusions reached by the Clinton
administration in 1998, and the conclusions reached by the Bush
administration in March, 2003. The only difference that exists is how
each
administration decided to deal with the threat that all sides believed
existed. Clinton signed the Iraqi Regime Change Act and fired several
hundred crusie missiles at Iraq...and Bush finished the job with a
coordinated air campaign and ground assault.




Nice rationalization. Really. But that is all it is. Firing missiles is
a lot different than an invasion.

Not to the people on the receiving end.

OT Bush hatred
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
This is precisely the point where DSK has lost all credibility. There
are
several reasons why we went to war with Iraq. DSK's conspiracy theory
isn't
one of 'em.



"Conspiracy" ?? Hardly. It is common knowledge, and easy for the public
(if they care) to verify. Check the quarterly reports for Halliburton
and Carlyle.

It makes sense to attack another country *IF* that country poses a great
danger to us in the near future.... an overused phrase is "imminent
threat." According to various intelligence sources, Iraq posed a
possible threat, according to others, not so much. BushCo ignored the
more conservative threat estimates and exaggerated the one that said
there was a threat, all to try and justify going to war. He even siezed
the fabricated story about buying yellowcake uranium in Africa. Now over
500 American soldiers are dead, around 10,000 wounded... and over 10,000
Iraqis are dead.

And we are stuck in another bloody quagmire.

But hey, if you get a nice stock option package, it's worth it, right?


Did Clinton stand to make a tremendous profit when he signed the Iraqi
Regime Change Act in 1998?

No, but after spending $60 million dollars investigating Whitewater, the
same gang of chickenhawks that brought us Gulf War 2 decided that a
blowjob was more important.

Whoa. Hold on a minute. I thought you claimed to be a lifelong Republican
who just changed his stripes because you didn't like Bush? Your true colors
are showing here.


If Clinton had removed Saddam Hussein from Iraq, he would *only* have
done so with a broad international consensus and coopoeration of the UN.

Like that would have happened. China, France and Russia stood to gain
billions of dollars from contracts that they had with Saddam once UN
sanctions were lifted. All three countries were clandestinely violating the
UN sanctions by supplying military hardware and technology to Saddam. Do
you really believe Clinton could have gotten those three members on board?


Instead, BushCo has been a lone wolf and has gotten most of the rest of
the world angry at us.


Too ****ing bad for the rest of the world. We learned who our friends were
when Bush made the decision to act. China and Russia can't be trusted...and
apparently Chirac is no better. I'd rather be right than be liked.

Many liberals have said that our actions in Iraq has turned many "moderate"
Islamics against us. Well guess what? They've *always* been against us.
The war just flushed them out of hiding a little sooner.



Yeah, we're a lot safer now. A lot...

We are...'cause at least now we know who our enemies are. Were you aware
that Pakistani scientists were selling nuclear secrets to at least 7 or 8
other Arab nations while Clinton was President? Were you aware that N.
Korea had a clandestine nuclear program that was in full motion while
Clinton was President (despite the $4 billion that Clinton gave them)? Were
you aware that terrorists were already planning the attack on the WTC while
Clinton was President?

Sometimes, your enemy doesn't reveal his hand until it's too late for you to
do something about. And sometimes you have to do something to provoke him
to know where he truly stands.

OT Bush hatred
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...


Like that would have happened. China, France and Russia stood to gain
billions of dollars from contracts that they had with Saddam once UN
sanctions were lifted. All three countries were clandestinely violating
the
UN sanctions by supplying military hardware and technology to Saddam. Do
you really believe Clinton could have gotten those three members on board?

You're a real piece of work, kid. You find it convenient to pretend that
anything we did more than perhaps 2 years ago is water under the bridge, and
had no connection with the events we're seeing today. Here's some help:

Reagan somehow managed help the Soviet Union go bankrupt. That ended up
being a good thing, on the whole. But, one of the results was that Russia
was unable to come up with enough payroll to keep its nuclear stockpiles
safe. Although there must've been hundreds of news programs and articles
about it, you may have missed it. Although we've provided some aid to Russia
to solve this problem, the situation still exists. Example: Some nuclear
materials were guarded by people who hadn't been paid in months. There were
(and still are) fears that terrorists with pockets full of cash would have
little or no problem buying these materials.

Cut to a year ago: Russia is finally getting back on its feet, and needs all
the business it can get. Do you seriously think they'd let years' of
progress go down the drain, in order to be a cowboy's best buddy? We
certainly wouldn't do that. Why should they?

OT Bush hatred
 

NOYB wrote:

Whoa. Hold on a minute. I thought you claimed to be a lifelong Republican
who just changed his stripes because you didn't like Bush? Your true colors
are showing here.

Your bad memory (or your penchant for telling outright lies) is showing here.

When did I ever claim to be a Republican at all, much less "lifelong?" I am a
conservative... an old fashioned ie *real* conservative. I have occasionally
voted Republican though.



Instead, BushCo has been a lone wolf and has gotten most of the rest of
the world angry at us.

Too ****ing bad for the rest of the world.

Yep, let's just nuke all the dirty little non-Americans and hole up in our
bunkers for a couple of generations. Wouldn't be much of a change for you,
you've already got your head in the sand.

The United States could inflict a military defeat on the combined forces of the
rest of the world, but we cannot fight several continents of dedicated
terrorists & suicide bombers. Nor would it be smart to try. The United States
cannot maintain it's economic position as a superpower without good trade
relations with most of the rest of the world. In short, telling the rest of the
world to go **** itself is a very stupid and short sighted tactic.

But hey, Republicans are supposed to be so great at foreign policy, I guess this
is just a sample...

DSK

OT Bush hatred
 

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:12:03 +0000, NOYB wrote:


It also didn't call for launching several hundred cruise missiles at Iraq
either. Did you have a problem with Clinton's decision to do so?

I honestly don't know. It could be argued that in the absence of WMDs,
his policies worked, but I'm of the school that military intervention is
the *last* resort. I'm also of the opinion that Bush 1 sufficiently
defanged the *******, and that sanctions were keeping Saddam bottled up.

OT Bush hatred
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

Whoa. Hold on a minute. I thought you claimed to be a lifelong
Republican
who just changed his stripes because you didn't like Bush? Your true
colors
are showing here.

Your bad memory (or your penchant for telling outright lies) is showing
here.

When did I ever claim to be a Republican at all, much less "lifelong?" I
am a
conservative... an old fashioned ie *real* conservative. I have
occasionally
voted Republican though.

Oh no. Now you've gone and done it. You've pointed out that there are
conservatives who are not necessarily Republicans. You'd better offer NOYB a
chair and smelling salts.

OT Bush hatred
 

Doug Kanter wrote:


Oh no. Now you've gone and done it. You've pointed out that there are
conservatives who are not necessarily Republicans. You'd better offer NOYB a
chair and smelling salts.

NOBBY is either a knee-jerk fascist, or a far left winger pretending to be one
(is anybody that good an actor?). Not surprising either way, his knowledge has
some serious gaps.

In the rural South that I grew up in, there were no Republicans. Yet it was a
very conservative and old fashioned environment. When I got a little older, and
the South switched almost overnight, it was because of the Republicans flaunting
an inhuman level of bigotry and racism... a policy that Bush is adept with...
and which accounts for most of the blue collar Republicans out there IMHO. The
Democratic Party disavowed attitudes like Lester Maddox's while the Republicans
embraced them.

I hope this answers the question "Why would anybody that isn't a millionaire
vote for G.W. Bush?"

DSK

OT Bush hatred
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:


Oh no. Now you've gone and done it. You've pointed out that there are
conservatives who are not necessarily Republicans. You'd better offer
NOYB a
chair and smelling salts.

NOBBY is either a knee-jerk fascist, or a far left winger pretending to be
one
(is anybody that good an actor?). Not surprising either way, his knowledge
has
some serious gaps.

In the rural South that I grew up in, there were no Republicans. Yet it
was a
very conservative and old fashioned environment. When I got a little
older, and
the South switched almost overnight, it was because of the Republicans
flaunting
an inhuman level of bigotry and racism... a policy that Bush is adept
with...
and which accounts for most of the blue collar Republicans out there IMHO.
The
Democratic Party disavowed attitudes like Lester Maddox's while the
Republicans
embraced them.

I hope this answers the question "Why would anybody that isn't a
millionaire
vote for G.W. Bush?"

DSK

Political party: A club with a mailing list for fund raising.

OT Bush hatred
 

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:33:38 -0500, DSK wrote:

NOYB wrote:
As a Lieutenant, Kerry had the authority to use info supplied to him by
military intel in order to make on the spot decisions that may have risked
the life of the men under his control. Not much different from Bush, eh?

No, not much different, except that Bush ordered men under his control
into combat so that his father's and his Vice President's companies
could roll up tremendous profits. And he deliberately mis stated his
reasons and the backing intel for it.

Did Lt Kerry make a dime off his Viet Nam service?

Yeah, they're pretty much the same all right.

DSK

I don't believe you really believe what you just said.

John H

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

OT Bush hatred
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:33:38 -0500, DSK wrote:

NOYB wrote:
As a Lieutenant, Kerry had the authority to use info supplied to him by
military intel in order to make on the spot decisions that may have
risked
the life of the men under his control. Not much different from Bush,
eh?

No, not much different, except that Bush ordered men under his control
into combat so that his father's and his Vice President's companies
could roll up tremendous profits. And he deliberately mis stated his
reasons and the backing intel for it.

Did Lt Kerry make a dime off his Viet Nam service?

Yeah, they're pretty much the same all right.

DSK

I don't believe you really believe what you just said.

John H

If you're referring to his "pretty much the same" comment, he was being
sarcastic, John. I think you've missed obvious sarcasm before. We're gonna
have to agree on some sort of little symbol, just for you. :-)

OT Bush hatred
 

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 21:43:13 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:33:38 -0500, DSK wrote:

NOYB wrote:
As a Lieutenant, Kerry had the authority to use info supplied to him by
military intel in order to make on the spot decisions that may have
risked
the life of the men under his control. Not much different from Bush,
eh?

No, not much different, except that Bush ordered men under his control
into combat so that his father's and his Vice President's companies
could roll up tremendous profits. And he deliberately mis stated his
reasons and the backing intel for it.

Did Lt Kerry make a dime off his Viet Nam service?

Yeah, they're pretty much the same all right.

DSK

I don't believe you really believe what you just said.

John H

If you're referring to his "pretty much the same" comment, he was being
sarcastic, John. I think you've missed obvious sarcasm before. We're gonna
have to agree on some sort of little symbol, just for you. :-)


No, I was referring specifically to, "...Bush ordered men under his
control into combat so that his father's and his Vice President's
companies could roll up tremendous profits."

Sounds like 'hate talk' to me. If their were an iota of truth in the
accusation, Clark, Dean, Kerry, et al (especially Sharpton) would have
already used it.

John H

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

OT Bush hatred
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

Whoa. Hold on a minute. I thought you claimed to be a lifelong
Republican
who just changed his stripes because you didn't like Bush? Your true
colors
are showing here.

Your bad memory (or your penchant for telling outright lies) is showing
here.

When did I ever claim to be a Republican at all, much less "lifelong?" I
am a
conservative... an old fashioned ie *real* conservative. I have
occasionally
voted Republican though.



Instead, BushCo has been a lone wolf and has gotten most of the rest
of
the world angry at us.

Too ****ing bad for the rest of the world.

Yep, let's just nuke all the dirty little non-Americans

I never said "non-Americans".

and hole up in our
bunkers for a couple of generations. Wouldn't be much of a change for you,
you've already got your head in the sand.



The United States could inflict a military defeat on the combined forces
of the
rest of the world, but we cannot fight several continents of dedicated
terrorists & suicide bombers.

We can drive them from each country one by one, however...and make sure we
replace any terrorist-friendly regimes with leaders who will wipe out the
terrorist cells for us. If you read today's NY Times article about
al-Zarqawi's plea for help to the al Qaeda's leaders, you'll see that our
plan is working. Al Qaeda realizes that once a new government and military
is created out of the friends and relatives of a country's citizens, then it
becomes harder to remove that government through violence...because it only
builds hatred among the population.


Nor would it be smart to try. The United States
cannot maintain it's economic position as a superpower without good trade
relations with most of the rest of the world. In short, telling the rest
of the
world to go **** itself is a very stupid and short sighted tactic.

The non-U.S. economies depend more on us than we do them. We're making it
clear that to do business with us economically, countries must be on board
with us as we fight the war on terror. Great Britain, Italy, Australia,
Spain, and a handful of other countries understand it...and will reap the
rewards. China has been helping us defuse the N. Korean crisis, and will
reap the rewards. The hell with France and Russia. Putin is starting to
make them look like the old Soviet Union...he's running old nuclear scenario
war games again, and his political adversary just disappeared off the face
of the Earth.



But hey, Republicans are supposed to be so great at foreign policy, I
guess this
is just a sample...

Republicans have a spine.

OT Bush hatred
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

Whoa. Hold on a minute. I thought you claimed to be a lifelong
Republican
who just changed his stripes because you didn't like Bush? Your true
colors
are showing here.

Your bad memory (or your penchant for telling outright lies) is showing
here.

When did I ever claim to be a Republican at all, much less "lifelong?" I
am a
conservative... an old fashioned ie *real* conservative. I have
occasionally
voted Republican though.

Oh no. Now you've gone and done it. You've pointed out that there are
conservatives who are not necessarily Republicans.

Only the uniformed ones. How else can you be conservative on the issues,
but support the party that promotes the exact opposite principles?