[geeks] One of the things I love about America
ajwdsp at cloud9.net
Thu May 2 14:54:02 CDT 2002
On Thursday, May 2, 2002, at 03:00 PM, Chris Byrne wrote:
>> Assessment: maybe; total womanizer, however... and not in a good way.
> Thats what a satyriac is. its the male version of nymphomanias with
> misogynistic undertones.
I was contrasting between getting nookie often, and "being a chauvinist
in addition to getting nookie" In some ways I see Kennedy as far more
of the latter and Clinton as the former... (from reported accounts of
how Kennedy's treated women)
> Bullshit. THere was no collusion between the Mullahs and the
Maybe not in this case... but I often find myself wondering about either
party and their secret deals with other nations. I think there is a lot
of collusion going on everywhere... and we will probably never know it.
> Not true. The gulf war was very much necessary. Had the US not
> in the gulf war then Saddam Hussein would control Iraq, Saudi Arabia,
> Kuwait, and most of the other contiguous contries. Saddam is EXTREMELY
> hostile to america, and 53% of the oil america uses comes from those
You actually think Saddam would have taken over Saudi Arabia? I would
have thought they were way to strong and proud to let that happen.
Kuwait was tiny. We've always got the new Russian oil.
> I honestly dont see how you can call him great. He didnt actually do
> anything great. All of the major things he started failed. Some of them
> spectacularly (Haiti, Somalia, Palestine, North Korea) The only
> thing he did at home was welfare reform and a compromise budget. That
> is not
> the stuff of Great presidents.
This is just a disagreement of terms. I really don't give a rats ass
personally about foreign policy. All those examples are waffled foreign
policy. As long as you don't start a war, and as long as you can
reasonably keep invaders off our soil and protect our interests where
necessary (i.e. our ships and other things aren't being seized)...
that's enough for me. As a newly unemployed person in a tight market I
am far more concerned with health care, education, and domestic policy.
If we were on track to paying our country's debt, that's a good thing.
Taking all the [extra or not] money and throwing it up in the air via
tax stimulus packages, tax cuts, excess military spending, and pork
barrel projects is a very bad thing especially after an economic
downturn (whether or not one believes it to be a recession). And yes I
think Gore's foreign policy would have stunk bad enough I'd care about
it in hindsight.
"When you have no money, you see government policy by the affluent as
aimed at taking money away from you."
--conversely if corrupted...
"When you have money, you see government policy on issues you don't care
about as a waste of your money."
I see it as money or no, you can take my money if you spend it
responsibly and/or the way I choose....
You live there, you fight for it. That's how it goes. It was the law, it
> never consitutionally challenged. THat's what conscientious objector
> is for.
You can't be a conscientious objector for either political or
self-preservation reasons... kind of defeats the point.
> all very bad things. He isnt however an idiot, nor is he a puppet of
Heh...hehehe perhaps not... after all idiots are innocent generally.
Clumsy evil person might fit better.
> Yes all of his businesses failed, though Id say hes a bit better than a
> meatloaf. He appointed some very good people to handle economics,
> becaues he
> knows that he doesnt know.
He should therefore cut tax policy and economic policy entirely out of
his platform since he's royally screwing it up. It's like the guy who
goes and buys a boat on his credit card and then never pays for it
meanwhile he has his portion of the shared rent to pay and doesn't pay
it sticking others (future generations) with the bill.
>> <snip agreements>
Nobody can win this as a battle ... of course I don't see it as a
battle. I am quite bitter at the political behavior of this country in
the last two years.
More information about the geeks