John H wrote:
Clinton - a real winner as far as terrorism goes.


Clinton BAD! Clinton BAD! AArrk!

Polly wanna cracker?

If you bothered your little head with facts, you'd be aware that the
Clinton Administration... meaning mostly the professional counterspooks
in the NSA, along with the Justice Dept... put more terrorists behind
bars for life than the Bush Administration has even caught.

Or were you under the impression that Sept 11th happened on Clinton's
watch, and that Clinton is the one who removed US troops from the hunt
for Osama Bin Laden?



Is making Social Security more fiscally sound "impossible"?


No, Bush has started the job.

Really? How? By running up a huge deficit, reducing the tax base, and
proposing a plan which *increases* the SS income/payout split and makes
the system go bust sooner? Bush's plan is a great scheme for funneling
money to Bush/Rove affiliated political campaign chests (gotta keep the
cash out of enemy hands, like McCains or Whitmans).




Is an energy-independent America "impossible"


In the near term? Yes. If we build a lot of nuclear plants? Maybe.
If we owned Iraq and Saudi Arabia? Probably.

Are you under the impression that oil lasts forever? Do you think we've
done well at gaining control of Iraq's oil fields so far?


To prevent you going in to your name-calling, put-down routine, we'll stop now.


Is stating facts and asking for some intelligent reply "name-calling"?

DSK

That's funny, they reduced the deficit under Clinton *and* had NO
terrorist attacks on US soil...


Nice editing there, NOBBY. Almost makes it look like you're about to
make a point...

NOYB wrote:
...except for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing,

The perpetrators of which are all behind bars for life, after due process.

... the 1995 OKC bombing

The perpetrators of which have either been exectued or in jail for a
really long time, again after due process...

(Nichols had numerous pre-attack contacts with terrorist elements in the
Philippines)

Sure, just like Iraq's imaginary WMD's were shipped to Syria.

... and the 1996 downing of TWA 800.

Did that happen in the U.S.?

BTW would you like to mention the U.S. response (along with our former
European allies) to the Lockerbie airplane bombing, which is one of the
big reasons why Libya is backing off from sponsoring terrorism? Dubya
had a *lot* to do with that, din't he, huh?


Nawww. No domestic terrorist attacks there, right?


None that were not taken care of, including due process of law...
something that the Bushies seem uneasy with...

DSK

That's funny, they reduced the deficit


NOYB wrote:
"They" being the Republican-controlled House and Senate.


Thank you for making my point...

How come they are doing so much worse under President Bush?

DSK

Is making Social Security more fiscally sound "impossible"?

Jeff Rigby wrote:
It is as long as it's being made a political football.


Agreed, to a large extent.

Is an energy-independent America "impossible"

Yes unless we go from 25% nuclear to at least 75% nuclear.

That's hilarious... I guess decentralized solar & fuel-cell power won't
return enough money to the big corporations, and they're the ones that
make big political contribution$... so yeah, we won't be seeing any of
that for a long long time... do some research on "off-grid powered
housing." I used to call 'em 'survivalists' but it's a different attitude.



Would it have been impossible to put together a *real* coalition to invade
Iraq, like say for example the one that President George Bush Sr put
together?

YES, remember the bribes that FRENCH and RUSSIAN polititions were getting.

Oh yeah, park that fantasy right next to NOBBY's ongoing daydreams about
Iraqi WMDs getting shipped to Syria.

Did you know that American pals of Cheneys were getting more money from
the oil-for-food scams than the Russians and the French put together?

Like I said, if it was impossible then how come Bush's daddy managed it?


Is it "impossible" to increase manufacturing jobs?

When we have restrictions on our companys that foreign countrys don't, yes.

Gee, let's get rid of all pollution laws and let's start hiring subteens
and chaining them factory benches. Heck with that, let's just force
prisoners to work for free... BTW remember that parking ticket you got
years ago...



Is it "impossible" to gain the respect of, and cooperation with, other
nations?

All countries act in their own short term interest.

Agreed. OTOH if we don't insult & trample other countries needlessly,
they might be more cooperative on the anti-terror thing.

After Sept 11th the whole world was on our side... except for the very
few Muslim radicals who openly sided with Al-Queda.

The Bush Administration has squandered that good will and lost the
chance to forge a meaningful alliance against terrorism.



Is influencing North Korea to not build "nookular" weapons totally
impossible, when it had been done for years before President Bush Jr took
office?

see below

Is it "impossible" to protect the environment?

No, just difficult.


Clinton made an effort to do all of the above but you need a good faith
effort on the part of all involved before anything is accomplished. From
the failures that Clinton had with both N Korea and the Palestinians, Bush
had learned that they DON'T act in good faith. The N. Koreans took the
money we gave them for fuel oil and invested it in nuclear breeder reactors
and gas diffusion enriching equipment so we took the hard line with them.

Really? We sold them that stuff long before... and the Koreans knew more
than you did about Clinton's planning to raid their nuclear facilities
if they didn't dance right. The pros at the State Dept managed the show
under Clinton, not the suck-up right-wing whackos that the Bushies have
put in charge.

The Clinton Administration... or at least, the pros at State... offered
the N Koreans a carrot & a stick, and had credible intelligence about
what was going on. The Bush Administration offers no carrot, threatens
with a stick it doesn't have, and believes it's own daydreams.

The results speak for themselves.



Bush refused to meet with the Palestinians until they had new management and
Arafat their leader suddenly died, new management.


Are you insinuating that perhaps Arafat had a little 'accident?'

I resent our leaders giving money away when they KNOW that all they get is
some positive world press because we tried while the people we are trying to
help laugh at our system of government. "Look we got 20 million dollars
from the stupid Americans. We know how to play the game now too."


Yep, that's why President Bush has had such a marvelous success in
foreign policy, I guess.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
That's funny, they reduced the deficit


NOYB wrote:
"They" being the Republican-controlled House and Senate.

Thank you for making my point...

How come they are doing so much worse under President Bush?

DSK


I wonder if it could have anything to do with the fact that under Clinton,
they were working with a coherent president. And, I really wonder how much
more they could have accomplished together if they hadn't wasted so much
time chasing a blowjob.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 13:19:59 -0400, DSK wrote:


If you want to see the *real* difference between the two, compare how the
two's children speak in public, and behave in general. But hey, if
'family
values' matter most to you, then you probably won't care about raising
intelligent, well balanced, well-spoken, professional, and high-achieving
kids... at least, if you claim you care about family values and voted for
Bush anyway...


"Family values" like hypocrisy. Google on "Jennifer Fitzgerald" to see
Bush I's "family values".

She's hot...for a farmgirl.
http://www.progresspr.ie/images/award.gif

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
John H wrote:
As to several of your questions, "Why hasn't the Republican
controlled...?", I
would say, for many of these, because it's impossible.


That's funny, they reduced the deficit under Clinton *and* had NO
terrorist attacks on US soil...

...except for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1995 OKC bombing
(Nichols had numerous pre-attack contacts with terrorist elements in the
Philippines), and the 1996 downing of TWA 800.

Nawww. No domestic terrorist attacks there, right?



Al Qaeda has known contact with FARQ and the IRA. So what? They probably
use each other to network for weapons, same way people come here for help
finding decent boat accessories.

They use each other to network for weapons, and you're response is "so
what?"? I'm glad you're not running this war on terror.

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
That's funny, they reduced the deficit under Clinton *and* had NO
terrorist attacks on US soil...


Nice editing there, NOBBY. Almost makes it look like you're about to make
a point...

NOYB wrote:
...except for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing,

The perpetrators of which are all behind bars for life, after due process.

For what? I thought you said there were no terrorist attacks on our soil
under Clinton?


... the 1995 OKC bombing

The perpetrators of which have either been exectued or in jail for a
really long time, again after due process...

(Nichols had numerous pre-attack contacts with terrorist elements in the
Philippines)

Sure, just like Iraq's imaginary WMD's were shipped to Syria.

They *were* shipped to Syria. The UN weapons inspection group just admitted
the other day that their satellite info showed that the weapons and/or
weapons-making equipment were moved before the war. What the satellites did
not show is where they were moved to.


... and the 1996 downing of TWA 800.

Did that happen in the U.S.?

BTW would you like to mention the U.S. response (along with our former
European allies) to the Lockerbie airplane bombing, which is one of the
big reasons why Libya is backing off from sponsoring terrorism? Dubya had
a *lot* to do with that, din't he, huh?



Nawww. No domestic terrorist attacks there, right?


None that were not taken care of, including due process of law...
something that the Bushies seem uneasy with...

Arresting the mercenaries has very little affect. It's the equivalent of
arresting the "soldiers" when the FBI goes after the mob. It did very
little good until they nabbed the bosses.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
That's funny, they reduced the deficit


NOYB wrote:
"They" being the Republican-controlled House and Senate.

Thank you for making my point...

How come they are doing so much worse under President Bush?

Bush inherited an economy that saw sizable layoffs and a huge drop in the
stock market in 2000...clearly indicating a shrinking economy. Tax revenues
are a function of GDP...which was not growing at a rate large enough to pay
for the increased spending necessary to support a war that was started in
our backyard.

...except for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing,

The perpetrators of which are all behind bars for life, after due process.


NOYB wrote:
For what? I thought you said there were no terrorist attacks on our soil
under Clinton?



That's not what I said, NOBBY. That's what you *wish* I'd said.



(Nichols had numerous pre-attack contacts with terrorist elements in the
Philippines)

Sure, just like Iraq's imaginary WMD's were shipped to Syria.


They *were* shipped to Syria.

Yeah yeah yeah

... The UN weapons inspection group just admitted
the other day that their satellite info showed that the weapons and/or
weapons-making equipment were moved before the war.

Oh the UN says so? Didn't you claim the UN was corrupt and ineffective?

Please also note that the UN weapons inspectors did *not* say that WMDs
were moved, only that "something which could have been" was moved. Is
that the same thing?

And if they know so much, why don't they know where?

You can keep chasing this fantasy, I'm sure it's very comforting to you.
But don't confuse it with facts.

FACT- Iraq had no WMDs... even the Bush Administration says so now,
after spending millions looking for them (and worse, frittering away
extremely valuable counter-intel resources during a time when it could
have meant saving American lives)

FACT- Iraq had *no* connection with Sept 11th or Al-Queda.

Maybe someday you'll be strong enough to face the truth.

DSK


What the satellites did
not show is where they were moved to.


... and the 1996 downing of TWA 800.

Did that happen in the U.S.?

BTW would you like to mention the U.S. response (along with our former
European allies) to the Lockerbie airplane bombing, which is one of the
big reasons why Libya is backing off from sponsoring terrorism? Dubya had
a *lot* to do with that, din't he, huh?


Nawww. No domestic terrorist attacks there, right?


None that were not taken care of, including due process of law...
something that the Bushies seem uneasy with...


Arresting the mercenaries has very little affect. It's the equivalent of
arresting the "soldiers" when the FBI goes after the mob. It did very
little good until they nabbed the bosses.