Bill, I think you're overreacting to my post. I only mentioned his Arab heritage to show that as individuals it's not all black and white. Not all Arabs are evil. That's all. He's not a Lebanese-American, he's Lebanese - yet he loves America and would fight for it. Your comment about never sharing a foxhole with a Lebanese man does smack of biggotry, which is surprising and not consistant with what I would expect from you. I'll chalk it up to emotions running high.

By the way, he doesn't have American heritage. He's not an American citizen. So it isn't aplicable to talk about his American heritage.

I believe as you do that all of the citizens of this country are Americans. It's those who require the differentiation of "African-American" or "Hispanic-American" etc. that perpetuate the divisions between us. America was supposed to be a melting pot, but people have forgotten that.

So if I misunderstood you, I apologize. I think emotions are running too high for many people in this thread for rational thought to prevail.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: So if I misunderstood you, I apologize. I think emotions are running too high for many people in this thread for rational thought to prevail.

Totally understandable. I may have misunderstood you as well and I apologize to you and your friend.

I like you alot because you really hit me with a good one on July 3rd. I thank you again for that.

I have respect for all people in this world. Arab, Muslim, Jewish, Russian, Canadian, French, Etc. etc.

Without them I am nothing but buttered milktoast and the world would be very boring. Color is the spice of life, if vanghou only used two colors we would not have wonderfull paintings to look at. If an orchestra only has two instruments it would sonud like Milli Vanilli.

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 07-16-2004).]

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: To a TRUE liberal, any and all criticism of a president no matter how factual or hyperbolic (including comparing him to Hitler) is "legitimate political dissent" and a time honored patriotic DUTY.

That's not the way it's working out with Democrats today, Bill. I assume you are talking about the so-called "classic liberal", the person who believes in free speech and honest dissent...but those are not really liberals any more.

Many people I admire started out as Democrats but left the party after a while. No, that's wrong. They didn't leave the party; they stayed where they were and the Democrat party moved left. Kennedy, for example, practiced supply-side economics (otherwise known as "Reaganomics").

Ronald Reagan was one. Robert Heinlein was another.

I don't think it's wrong to be critical of any president. The problem is, certain people on the left have done their damndest to see to it that any critcism of them and theirs is "hate speech" and any criticism of a Republican is, in your words, "a patriotic DUTY."

Bill Clinton lied to a grand jury, commiting the crime of perjury...and the Dems insisted that people were getting all worked up over a private sexual matter. He then went on television and told the country "I did not have sex with that woman"--a lie.

The Bush administration has said that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was funding terrorism (which is TRUE); hearing that, the Dems insist that Bush lied about Iraq's role in 9/11. He did not, at least not as far as I can tell.

Why was it okay for Bill Clinton to lie to us? Because he's a Democrat. Why is it not okay for Bush to supposedly lie to us? Because he's a Republican. (I say "supposedly" because unlike with Clinton, I can find no hard evidence that the administration misled the American people.)

It has nothing to do with legitimate political dissent; it has everything to do with the liberal Democrats hating Republicans. And that's what I was chiding Toddster about--as an obvious conservative he ought to know better. Liberals believe that anything negative you say about Clinton (eg "He committed perjury.") is hate speech, and that anything negative they say about Bush is the gospel truth.

Ed

Clinton lied, Bush "supposedly" lied, two wrongs make a right.

I know you guys absolutely hate Michael Moore so don't go and see his movie.

So here's a suggestion, why don't you read the book that has been out for some time called "House of the Bush, House of the Saud."

Here's a link to the book, you'll probably find it at your bookstore.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/074325337X/qid=1090017338/sr=2-1/ ref=sr_2_1/103-5948211-9519811

Here's a link to some commentary direct from the author of this book.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2103239/entry/2103433

quote Originally posted by Tigger: A double standard for the war on terror. It's ok to pre-emptivly strike Iraq on the questionable basis of WMD's but ok to let countries like Saudi Arabia who currently harbor terrorists (well they deperately search like mad at the last minute when they have a hostage held to be killed in their country), fund terrorists, and grant amnesty to terrorists. That double standard. And the security of our nation is affected by it.

Well, I'm still not sure what you mean by double standard because EVERY terrorist is a target and the MANNER in which we target them must vary with the circumstances. Clearly Iraq posed an immediate danger based onthe intel and needed drastic action. As far as I am aware the Saudis don't have a WMD program so why should we send in the 1st Armoured Division? It would cost too much and we can achieve the same results through diplomacy at this point in time.

It's not a double standard it's just taking the first step before taking the last one. The Saudis will give up the terrorist one way or the other. Hopefully, the easy way. Saddam had 12 years to get with the program, his time ran out. I don't think the Suadis have failed to notice American resolve.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Well, I'm still not sure what you mean by double standard because EVERY terrorist is a target and the MANNER in which we target them must vary with the circumstances. Clearly Iraq posed an immediate danger based onthe intel and needed drastic action. As far as I am aware the Saudis don't have a WMD program so why should we send in the 1st Armoured Division? It would cost too much and we can achieve the same results through diplomacy at this point in time. It's not a double standard it's just taking the first step before taking the last one. The Saudis will give up the terrorist one way or the other. Hopefully, the easy way. Saddam had 12 years to get with the program, his time ran out. I don't think the Suadis have failed to notice American resolve.

Iraq didn't pose an immediate danger, you want me or someone to post our reports and from the British that confirm this? The intel presented before us was based on barely credible intel and the President is accountable for telling us the credibility of it. He didn't. If it was questionable intel, ok tell us, he didn't, he hasn't, therefore he isn't being honest.

Saudi's don't have to have a WMD program to be dangerous. Saudi's have flown airliners into our buildings.

Double standard.

[This message has been edited by Tigger (edited 07-16-2004).]

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Ed, the Libs only called it Reaganomics in a disparaging manner. when it actually started WORKING they didn't want him to have the credit so they started calling it "trickle-down" economics. That one kills me to thsi day!!!!

You're right. In fact, we noticed that back in the '80s. I just didn't want to bog down my post with more parenthetical statements than were absolutely necessary...

Ed

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Ed, the Libs only called it Reaganomics in a disparaging manner. when it actually started WORKING they didn't want him to have the credit so they started calling it "trickle-down" economics. That one kills me to thsi day!!!!

BuSh1 called it VOODOO [and he was correct]
no matter what you call it now
it didNOT work under reagan
remember reaganrecessions??
it doesnot work now
and it will not work in the future
except to make the very very rich, RICHER
and the more of the workers POORER
while putting the goverment in the red

REMEMBER "IT IS THE ECONOIMY STUPID"
now does that sound like the reagan'nomic plan
"WORKING" or FAILING?????
as after 12 years of this BS people voted with their wallets

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 07-17-2004).]

I hear ya rayb. And to think our government had a sound fiscal policy 4 years ago.

Tax breaks are ok, but somethings gotta give, you can't increase spending and increase spending and not do anything about it.

Hey if we need to increase taxes for the war on terror, I'd be for it.

The way things are going I know they'll have to. I'm not a dumb schmuck. Don't promise me something during an election year and then do something else. George H. was good at that trick and I'm certain the apple won't fall far from the tree.

[This message has been edited by Tigger (edited 07-17-2004).]

quote Originally posted by Tigger: the President is accountable for telling us the credibility of it. He didn't. If it was questionable intel, ok tell us, he didn't, he hasn't, therefore he isn't being honest.

The President is not going to give the public intelligence that would undermine the government's ability to do it's job. Hell, most of Saddam Hussein's "intelligence" was gathered from CNN!

It is not any president's job to fully disclose national security intelligence to the people. There are many things that go on behind closed doors that we don't know about. That's not necessarily corruption. That's national security. It's the President's job to get the intel from his people and make a decision based on that intel. It is not his job to research the intel. A President doesn't have time to do that. That's what his intelligence officers are for. Staffs of people do this for a living. There simply aren't enough hours in the day for the President to micromanage everything. He surrounds himself with people who are knowledgeable in their fields, he listens to their advice and info, and then he makes the call.

Did Bush act on faulty intelligence? Possibly. But given that he didn't know the accuracy of the intel at the time, he had to assume it was accurate. Errors in the intel are failures of the intelligence community, and not the Executive branch.

That was even true when Clinton was in office.

quote Originally posted by edhering: That's not the way it's working out with Democrats today, Bill. I assume you are talking about the so-called "classic liberal", the person who believes in free speech and honest dissent...but those are not really liberals any more. Many people I admire started out as Democrats but left the party after a while. No, that's wrong. They didn't leave the party; they stayed where they were and the Democrat party moved left. Kennedy, for example, practiced supply-side economics (otherwise known as "Reaganomics"). Ronald Reagan was one. Robert Heinlein was another. I don't think it's wrong to be critical of any president. The problem is, certain people on the left have done their damndest to see to it that any critcism of them and theirs is "hate speech" and any criticism of a Republican is, in your words, "a patriotic DUTY." Bill Clinton lied to a grand jury, commiting the crime of perjury...and the Dems insisted that people were getting all worked up over a private sexual matter. He then went on television and told the country "I did not have sex with that woman"--a lie. The Bush administration has said that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was funding terrorism (which is TRUE); hearing that, the Dems insist that Bush lied about Iraq's role in 9/11. He did not, at least not as far as I can tell. Why was it okay for Bill Clinton to lie to us? Because he's a Democrat. Why is it not okay for Bush to supposedly lie to us? Because he's a Republican. (I say "supposedly" because unlike with Clinton, I can find no hard evidence that the administration misled the American people.) It has nothing to do with legitimate political dissent; it has everything to do with the liberal Democrats hating Republicans. And that's what I was chiding Toddster about--as an obvious conservative he ought to know better. Liberals believe that anything negative you say about Clinton (eg "He committed perjury.") is hate speech, and that anything negative they say about Bush is the gospel truth. Ed

Humm. That's was very interesting. I feel I am a "classic liberal" but I am inept when it comes to this political label stuff. No wonder I get names hurled at me from left field, it has nothing to do with my party affiliation but everything to do with the party some are asserting I am aligned with.

I don't like labels, they suck.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Did Bush act on faulty intelligence? Possibly. But given that he didn't know the accuracy of the intel at the time, he had to assume it was accurate. Errors in the intel are failures of the intelligence community, and not the Executive branch. That was even true when Clinton was in office.

Don't give me that crap. He knew the accuracy of that intelligence. It was his choice to assume it was accurate and present it as such.

The buck stops at the oval office not the intelligence agency.

Those reports confirm there was no wrong doing in the intelligence, no manipulation.

If our President fails to look at the sources of our intelligence, that thought is scary.

[This message has been edited by Tigger (edited 07-17-2004).]

quote Originally posted by Tigger: Don't give me that crap. He knew the accuracy of that intelligence. It was his choice to assume it was accurate and present it as such. The buck stops at the oval office not the intelligence agency.

Didn't you hear? The Bush administration changed that policy too. From now on its anybody's fault but theirs. Paul O'neil, Richard Clarke, George Tenet, and the lady that put up the "wall" between information sharing, hell its still Bill Clintons fault.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: Didn't you hear? The Bush administration changed that policy too. From now on its anybody's fault but theirs. Paul O'neil, Richard Clarke, George Tenet, and the lady that put up the "wall" between information sharing, hell its still Bill Clintons fault.

Yeap.

quote Originally posted by Tigger: Don't give me that crap. He knew the accuracy of that intelligence. It was his choice to assume it was accurate and present it as such. The buck stops at the oval office not the intelligence agency. Those reports confirm there was no wrong doing in the intelligence, no manipulation. If our President fails to look at the sources of our intelligence, that thought is scary.

OK.. so using that rule.. he was still good to go with the Iraq invasion. (Please don't make me dig up all the Clinton/Kerry/Kennedy statements on Iraq being a rogue nation).. there are many.
As far as intelligence.. Sorry I'm sick of this argument entirely.. If we had had solid intel that middlestern males were going to do something stupid and had decided to detain and question males of middle eastern decent the ACLU and others like Pelosi would have been screaming discrimination..
Sorry but Bush was screwed either way, yes he could have avoided 9/11 but acting on the intel would have painted him as a racist, nazi ect ect..
I know you leftist types wont bother to read the intel reports because it will ruin your view of Bush is a Nazi but they were increddibly vague. Bin Laden had declared war/jihad on the US on at least 4 previous occasions (under the Clinton admin) and done nothing move than attack foreign targets. Bush hears the same alerts.. puts deployed/foreign citizens on alert but there was nothing to indicate that an attack on US soil was immintent.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: Didn't you hear? The Bush administration changed that policy too. From now on its anybody's fault but theirs. Paul O'neil, Richard Clarke, George Tenet, and the lady that put up the "wall" between information sharing, hell its still Bill Clintons fault.

Sounds like 99% of the American public.

Blame the drugs
Blame the alcohol
Blame the TV show
Blame the mega killer rock band
Blame the teletubbies
Blame the gun
Blame the car
Blame the blame
Blame free sex
Blame the government but DONT ever hold it responsible by blameing the government and above all else don't blame it on the stupid adults, instead blame the future on the kids.

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 07-17-2004).]

quote Originally posted by Uaana: OK.. so using that rule.. he was still good to go with the Iraq invasion. (Please don't make me dig up all the Clinton/Kerry/Kennedy statements on Iraq being a rogue nation).. there are many. As far as intelligence.. Sorry I'm sick of this argument entirely.. If we had had solid intel that middlestern males were going to do something stupid and had decided to detain and question males of middle eastern decent the ACLU and others like Pelosi would have been screaming discrimination.. Sorry but Bush was screwed either way, yes he could have avoided 9/11 but acting on the intel would have painted him as a racist, nazi ect ect.. I know you leftist types wont bother to read the intel reports because it will ruin your view of Bush is a Nazi but they were increddibly vague. Bin Laden had declared war/jihad on the US on at least 4 previous occasions (under the Clinton admin) and done nothing move than attack foreign targets. Bush hears the same alerts.. puts deployed/foreign citizens on alert but there was nothing to indicate that an attack on US soil was immintent.

leftist types, Nazi.

Yeah, I'm playing those cards.

I knew it wouldn't take long for the name callers to start posting.

quote Originally posted by Tigger: I knew it wouldn't take long for the name callers to start posting.

How many pages?

Hot damn... I'd never have guessed that I would ever agree with something you said from reading in your other posts, Bill, but this is the damn most concise description of the problems in this country I have ever heard. If people would just get over their self appointed entitlements and just be Americans it would be a much productive country.

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: Sounds like 99% of the American public. Blame the drugs Blame the alcohol Blame the TV show Blame the mega killer rock band Blame the teletubbies Blame the gun Blame the car Blame the blame Blame free sex Blame the government but DONT ever hold it responsible by blameing the government and above all else don't blame it on the stupid adults, instead blame the future on the kids.

quote I am very surprised at your assertions and I must say that it has my ire up. However since you have demonstrated respect for me in the past I will restrain the need to berate you for dishonoring me with such accusations of perposterous nonsense. No, not hatred. I'm getting "tired".. "irritated" if you will about putting ones heritage ABOVE their American heritage. If you were to read about our flag you will see that NO other flag shall be placed above it. When you take the oath of citizenship you pledge you aligence to this flag. You swear that America comes first and all others come second. As American childeren it is (was at one time for me anyway) engrained into our heads that America comes first. When someone says I am an "African American" I automatically assume they are from Lyberia and are transient Americans. If that is not the case then I view them as shape shifting camilions that will choose the color that will best suit the moment at hand. He is only my EQUAL if it serves him then is my master when it does not. If they insist that I call them "African Americans" then I consider them insurgent invaiders with ill intent and will not trust a word they say. They are in effect an elite group that is militnt and has forsaken the very flag that they CLAIM to call theirs when in reality it is OURS and choose not to share ALL benifits and privilages EQUALLY with everyone. However, if that same black individual were to tell me "I am an American Citizen" I can immidiatly identify them as friendly, that they UNDERSTAND the values and importance of placing first the United States of America and forsakeing all others. He is my EQUAL and I treat him as such. I honor all, of any race, color, creed, or religious denomination EQUALLY. So you see, the United States of America is full of "Americans" but some choose to be elitist and more pure than any other American by virtue of placing Africa or XXXXX before the United States of America. There was once an elite group of people in Germany, we defeated them. Jessie Owens was not just a hero of the mement he is a hero now. The Tuskigi Airmen are my heros, to me they do not need to be African American to get my recognition or respect, American Hero or just American is fine with me and I would not TAINT the title with "African American" to make that distinction... To me they are Americans who served with distinction and Honor, there is no color to their skin but the red white and blue, it is the same color as mine. If ALL Americans were to see it the way I do there would be no need for this crap of placing XXXXXX before American because it would not matter. So judge me as you wish but I warn you in advance I will not take lightly to assertions of being a "hatefull" biggot or a racsist.. If I hate am amn it is because he has forsaken this country for his own. I harbor not hate but for the enemy of this country who places his own above mine and FORCES me to bow before one that is SUPPOSED to be my equal. I am not a slave to any man and I do not take orders from anyone in how I am supposed to treat an elite... Ask me for respect and I will give it if warranted, demand it and I will tell you to fornicate off! There are no elitists in my country, we are all the same. That is how it is written in the Constitution of the United States of America. I swore to uphold it with my life if need be, so that makes me a VERY dangerous person in the eyes of my enemies.

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: How many pages?

I almost forgot about the kick you while you're down compassionate conservatives as well.

I'll just say that Kerry has talked several times now about how it is wrong for Americans to be packing up the very machines they used at work and to be training their replacements of their outsourced jobs.

I know someone who was put in that situation. It's not "pessimism" it's happening to people like it or not.

One of the fundamentals in solving a problem is recognizing it.

[This message has been edited by Tigger (edited 07-17-2004).]

quote Originally posted by Toddster: And the Libs can't figure out why no one votes for them any more with this attitude?

it's not an attitude, it's an observation...and everyday I go out into the world and see people it becomes even more reinforced

quote Originally posted by Tigger: Iraq didn't pose an immediate danger, you want me or someone to post our reports and from the British that confirm this? The intel presented before us was based on barely credible intel and the President is accountable for telling us the credibility of it. He didn't. If it was questionable intel, ok tell us, he didn't, he hasn't, therefore he isn't being honest. Saudi's don't have to have a WMD program to be dangerous. Saudi's have flown airliners into our buildings. Double standard.

Jeez, Tigger this is getting annoying. Do you EVER read my entire post before going off half cocked?

"BASED ON THE INTEL" - Toddster's LAST post on the subject.

And yes, the Saudi's don't have to have a WMD program to be dangerous. But they DO need one to be invaded. Get the difference NOW!?!?!?!

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Jeez, Tigger this is getting annoying. Do you EVER read my entire post before going off half cocked? "BASED ON THE INTEL" - Toddster's LAST post on the subject. And yes, the Saudi's don't have to have a WMD program to be dangerous. But they DO need one to be invaded. Get the difference NOW!?!?!?!

Huh? Thats funny, we invaded Iraq and they didn't have any WMD.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Like "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"??

Or Hillary Care?"

"B-A-S-E-D...........O-N...............T-H-E................I-N-T-E-L" THAT .......................WAS.......................A.....................LIE.............AND.......................NOW.......................GEORGE TENET.....................IS..........................THE...................FALL............................GUY.

quote Originally posted by ray b: BuSh1 called it VOODOO

...in 1980 when he was running AGAINST Reagan. In 1984 when it had begun to change the direction of the economy he conceded he was wrong. Do I really need to post about a THOUSAND quotes to that affect?

quote no matter what you call it now it didNOT work under reagan remember reaganrecessions??

uh... ....No, actually I don't. I remember that he inherited the Carter Recession which officially began in Jan 1980 (a year before Reagan took office) and ended in November 1982. And I remember we had another "mild" recession in July 1990-March-1991 (2 years after he left office). So when did we have a recession under Reagan when it was his policies that dragged us OUT of one of the most severe recessions on record?

quote it doesnot work now and it will not work in the future except to make the very very rich, RICHER and the more of the workers POORER while putting the goverment in the red

Ah, the old tired clishe rears it's ugly head again...despite the fact that the POOR in this country have it bette than the MIDDLE Class of my Grandfather's generation and the CURRENT Middle-class of almost every other country on Earth. Yup, it's a dismal failure alright.

quote REMEMBER "IT IS THE ECONOIMY STUPID"

Uh yeah, didn't Gore use that arguement in 2000? Didn't work for him and it won't work for Kerry. People are smart enough to look out there windows and see that the economy in booming! saying it is a disaster doesn't make it true. Stop listening to political pundit's descriptions and pick up a copy of the Wall Street Journal.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: You need to move to a new part of town.

LOL , you may be right

I got some extra room in my igloo if your interested

quote Originally posted by Toddster: uh... ....No, actually I don't. I remember that he inherited the Carter Recession which officially began in Jan 1980 (a year before Reagan took office) and ended in November 1982. And I remember we had another "mild" recession in July 1990-March-1991 (2 years after he left office). So when did we have a recession under Reagan when it was his policies that dragged us OUT of one of the most severe recessions on record? Uh yeah, didn't Gore use that arguement in 2000? Didn't work for him and it won't work for Kerry. People are smart enough to look out there windows and see that the economy in booming! saying it is a disaster doesn't make it true. Stop listening to political pundit's descriptions and pick up a copy of the Wall Street Journal.

do you ever use a search???
I just typed in reagan recession
and got
"Late eighties recession - 1987 to early 1990s, collapse of junk bonds and a sharp stock crash in the United States leads to a recession in much of the west"

so you forgot the 87 stockmarket CRASH??
the S&L's going bankrupt and some banks toooo??
and the republicans charged [like neal bush] with looting them???
it was ONLY the BIGGEST RECESSION between the GREAT DEPPRESSION and the post 2000 BuSh disaster
ever notice EVERY MAJOR DEPRESSION / RECESSION has been under the REPUBLICANS??
and saint RON of VOODOO plan has never "WORKED"
""PART TWO: Why the Reagan tax cut reduced tax revenues and caused the deficit
"The [1981 Reagan] tax cut did not cause tax revenue to rise... tax revenue fell... the government began a long period of deficit spending... the largest peacetime increase in the government debt in U.S. history. Fads can make experts seem less united than they actually are." N. Gregory Mankiw, now head of George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, in his 1998 book Principles of Economics (New York: Dryden. pp. 29-30, in the section "Thinking Like an Economist: Why Economists Disagree: Charlatans and Cranks")""

REMEMBER "IT IS THE ECONOIMY STUPID"

didnot "work" for Gore only because the COURT stold the election that he "WON" by 500,000 votes
and the econ was still good UNLIKE NOW

this election like BuSh1 in 1992 will be all about
" REMEMBER "IT IS THE ECONOIMY STUPID " AGAIN

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

http://www.americanpolitics.com/20001017MoreDubyaVoodoo.html
http://www.bsherman.org/rushmore.html

[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 07-17-2004).]

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: Sounds like 99% of the American public. Blame the drugs Blame the alcohol Blame the TV show Blame the mega killer rock band Blame the teletubbies Blame the gun Blame the car Blame the blame Blame free sex Blame the government but DONT ever hold it responsible by blameing the government and above all else don't blame it on the stupid adults, instead blame the future on the kids.

YEAH, BILL! (see: Bill COSBY) It applies to all races equally IMHO.
Thank you.
Back to Tech.

quote Originally posted by ditch: it's not an attitude, it's an observation...and everyday I go out into the world and see people it becomes even more reinforced

You see dead people too?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 87GTSleeper:

If Bush were to sue everyone who slandered or libeled him, he would never stay out of court.

You can bet that everything Mr. Moore included in his docudrama was vetted by a team of lawyers, not only his but also the companies that ran the movie. Before the film was released and knowing that it would cause an uproar by republicans, teams of lawyers from Miramax tried to find lies in the movie.They couldn't find one. Moore wouldnt take a chance at getting sued. Besides when one tells the truth as Moore has he has nothing to worry about. Moore's movie has probably been dissected by right wing lawyers and scholars (does the right wing have scholars), freezing any frame that can stand the light of a lawsuit.

I love seeing the neocons whine about this movie. Watching O'Reilly and Hannity become apoplectic about Moore is just as much fun as watching the indignity of republican congressmen talking to an empty chamber about the how lowly an individual Moore is.
Only goodness can stand the light of truth and justice, that is why everything about this regime in office is done in secret.The silence from Bush and Cheney in regards to the movie can only be taken as an endorsement of the accuracy of F 911.

[This message has been edited by Erik (edited 07-17-2004).]

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Ed, the Libs only called it Reaganomics in a disparaging manner. when it actually started WORKING they didn't want him to have the credit so they started calling it "trickle-down" economics. That one kills me to thsi day!!!!

Reaganomics was a temporary measure that was allowed to "lapse". One good thing about Reaganomics is the fact that it got rich people to "unshelter" their money and ACTUALLY spend it!!!

But like I said.. it was temporary and it injected enough money into the system to cause the computer boom of the 80's and the ensuing "dot com" boom of the 90's they went BUST when Clinton left office (pissed off about the impeachment and gave us NAFTA as a FU present) then DUHbya got into office and has NO FREAKING CLUE what to do about it...

So what does DUHbya's party do? Why draft SAFTA of course!!

Duhhhh my name is Duhhhbya and I am duhhh presiduhdent of DUHhhhh uniduhdid states..... Duhhhh.....

quote Originally posted by ray b: do you ever use a search???

No. I didn't need to. I am an economics student. I have the start an end date of every "OFFICIAL" recession committed to memory. The stock Market crash of 1987 was a short-term disaster that rebounded quickly and did NOT result in a recession.

Reagan dragged us out of the only official recession of the 80's in 1982.