Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

OT:Strom Thurmond is older than the old guy who invented dirt


Recommended Posts

[quote] Jimmy is cool. Anybody who was president during those times was gonna get his ass kicked. Things sucked then and you can't blame Carter for all of it...much of it at all IMHO. [/quote]If this holds true, then how can we blame the Prez. for the current economy? You give Jimmy a 4 year pass and it has only been a year and 1/2 since 9/11 kicked our ass. (CHECKMATE).
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply
[quote]Originally posted by C.M.: [b] [quote] Jimmy is cool. Anybody who was president during those times was gonna get his ass kicked. Things sucked then and you can't blame Carter for all of it...much of it at all IMHO. [/quote]If this holds true, then how can we blame the Prez. for the current economy? You give Jimmy a 4 year pass and it has only been a year and 1/2 since 9/11 kicked our ass. (CHECKMATE).[/b][/quote]I don't hold Dubya responsible for the state of the economy. I may not agree with where he is going with it, but I understand that the economy takes years to make effective change.
Heeeeeere kitty kitty kitty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Merry Cereal Ho Ho Ho: [b]pwesident ewect jimmy carter gave away our canal. stupid dork :mad: [/b][/quote]That deal was in the works long before the peanut farmer got into office. Blaming him for that is like giving Reagan credit for ending the cold war. The economy being bad is not Dubya's fault, that he has done nothing about it is another issue.

Jotown:)

 

"It's all good: Except when it's Great"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by midispaceho: [b] I may not agree with where he is going with it, but I understand that the economy takes years to make effective change.[/b][/quote]no there is more to it than that the economy runs on expectation the leadership of the country determines the economic outlook as much as anything else under clinton we were assured that there was a degree of competancy involved with bush that is non existent plus we get the added uncertainty of not knowing if we are going to war combined with the addition of spending the budget into a deficit not to mention the ever present possibility that he will do something outright idiotic all combined makes the economic outlook dim for the future which has a lot to do with how a company decides what to with its money whether to invest it in a new business venture or sit on it in a safe manner reign in expansion or risk it that is just one aspect to it so you get more than just not having an economic plan with the current president you also get an indefinite speculative future
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's this to do with Strom being old? And did someone say he's been dead since the 50's? I believe it! Actually, the Republicans STILL won't admit that Ron Reagan is dead, and has been since 1985. He was replaced by actor Don DeFore, and nobody noticed... Whitefang
I started out with NOTHING...and I still have most of it left!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

with where he is going with it, but I understand that the economy takes years to make effective change. Thanks Midispaceho. I'm glad some folk have a clue about how the econ works. The economy was heading down before W was in office, and Clinton is not responsible for the good economy of the '90's (he didn't mess it up either, thankfully). If any one person can effect the market/economy, its Allen Greenspan (hes not much younger looken' than strom). Also keep in mind that the economy and stock market are 2 different things, and they can head in opposite directions at the smae time. As for W's intelligence, he is not a stupid man. He has a southern accent and a stutter, but he did graduate from Yale (more than most people can claim).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BNC, [quote] no there is more to it than that the economy runs on expectation the leadership of the country determines the economic outlook as much as anything else under clinton we were assured that there was a degree of competancy involved [/quote]Under clinton, were could be reassured that he would pay some people off(north korea), or that he would cover it up in another way. clinton had a good way of putting stuff off. Fang, [quote]Actually, the Republicans STILL won't admit that Ron Reagan is dead, and has been since 1985. He was replaced by actor Don DeFore, and nobody noticed... [/quote]Are you serious on this one?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[QUOTE]Originally posted by C.M.: Under clinton, were could be reassured that he would pay some people off(north korea), or that he would cover it up in another way. clinton had a good way of putting stuff off. QUOTE] Actually I find it odd, with all due respect, that you have a hard time finding ANY fault in the current administration. I just wish someone would be objective, regardless who their hero worship falls on, or whom they demonize in an effort to lift up their "guy". If Bush were a Dem I would STILL decry the perception of deception his administration spews. My question is how long will references to Clinton have teeth with rational thinking Americans when a Republican ally has to defend his or her position? Again, all due respect, but bringing up Clinton to bolster your defense of your guy is weak.
Down like a dollar comin up against a yen, doin pretty good for the shape I'm in
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Actually I find it odd, with all due respect, that you have a hard time finding ANY fault in the current administration. I just wish someone would be objective, regardless who their hero worship falls on, or whom they demonize in an effort to lift up their "guy". If Bush were a Dem I would STILL decry the perception of deception his administration spews. My question is how long will references to Clinton have teeth with rational thinking Americans when a Republican ally has to defend his or her position? Again, all due respect, but bringing up Clinton to bolster your defense of your guy is weak. [/quote]BNC brought clinton into the conversation. Look at the quote above my post. Now, if you are going to bring the former administration into the conversation, then I must be aloud to point out the FACTS when Mr. clinton is being made the "BAR" that must be met. As far is me being in love or what ever with Bush, I Must say , it feels pretty good to have a Prez. that is not lying EVERYTIME he opens his mouth. I was 22 when clinton went into office. I started to seriously follow politics at about the same time. So after 8 years of bullshit and lies, it feels pretty good to at least believe 1/2 of what is coming out of the Prez. mouth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by C.M.: [b][QUOTE]As far is me being in love or what ever with Bush, I Must say , it feels pretty good to have a Prez. that is not lying EVERYTIME he opens his mouth. I was 22 when clinton went into office. I started to seriously follow politics at about the same time. So after 8 years of bullshit and lies, it feels pretty good to at least believe 1/2 of what is coming out of the Prez. mouth.[/b][/quote]CM, you and I are roughly the same story ( I've got a couple of years on you..damn I'm gettin' old... )and politically "awakened" about the same time. What events make you think that integrity in the executive branch of government has in any way changed? I'm serious! The only difference I see is that Bush lies about more serious shit, and wears his corporate leash a little more obviously.
Woof!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by C.M.: [b] [quote]Actually I find it odd, with all due respect, that you have a hard time finding ANY fault in the current administration. I just wish someone would be objective, regardless who their hero worship falls on, or whom they demonize in an effort to lift up their "guy". If Bush were a Dem I would STILL decry the perception of deception his administration spews. My question is how long will references to Clinton have teeth with rational thinking Americans when a Republican ally has to defend his or her position? Again, all due respect, but bringing up Clinton to bolster your defense of your guy is weak. [/quote]BNC brought clinton into the conversation. Look at the quote above my post. Now, if you are going to bring the former administration into the conversation, then I must be aloud to point out the FACTS when Mr. clinton is being made the "BAR" that must be met. As far is me being in love or what ever with Bush, I Must say , it feels pretty good to have a Prez. that is not lying EVERYTIME he opens his mouth. I was 22 when clinton went into office. I started to seriously follow politics at about the same time. So after 8 years of bullshit and lies, it feels pretty good to at least believe 1/2 of what is coming out of the Prez. mouth.[/b][/quote]What about the other half....any nuggets of objectivity that you can shed on us? :)
Down like a dollar comin up against a yen, doin pretty good for the shape I'm in
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote] What about the other half....any nuggets of objectivity that you can shed on us? [/quote]I'll keep it a secret, just like I know about that shit out in the desert. I know what they have out there. :rolleyes:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fang, [quote]Actually, the Republicans STILL won't admit that Ron Reagan is dead, and has been since 1985. He was replaced by actor Don DeFore, and nobody noticed... [/quote]Are you serious on this one?[/QB][/QUOTE] ???????? Are YOU serious in wondering if I was serious? Damn, boy! If you can't recognize a shuck so obvious, what credibility can be lent to any of the "information" you submit as "fact?" :confused: Whitefang
I started out with NOTHING...and I still have most of it left!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote] Damn, boy! If you can't recognize a shuck so obvious, what credibility can be lent to any of the "information" you submit as "fact?" [/quote]WHY , WHY , WHY , here we go. First , nobody is your boy.(I cant believe I am having to say this). You question my "information" because I ask you a question. I was wondering if your old ass really believed that shit. You shoot pretty straight most of the time but , Hell you could be a wacko , how the hell do I know. Dont post false shit and then questions another persons integrity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, the Don Defore gag was an old one I used to pass around back in the days Ronnie was still in office. Both Reagan and Defore made flicks in which they were the "second banana", or the sidekick of the leading man. That there is a similarity in both their acting styles and somewhat in their respective physical appearences, plus the fact of their similar movie characters is why I picked Defore for this joke. My mistake was in thinking the joke was so obvious, that anyone that believed it or in the possibility of someone else believing it, surely must have been living under a rock! Was that a safe assumption, or not? Whitefang
I started out with NOTHING...and I still have most of it left!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the last century (20th) humans killed close to 100 million (no, not a typo) of their own kind. Not to mention the extinction of a large number of other species. Now GW wants to make sure that the 21st century gets going on the same note. With him, you can add OBL, Jew haters and Arab haters, Irish haters and British haters, Communist haters and Capitalist haters and a few more haters who hate haters. Oh, and I forgot Muslim haters and Christian haters and Monarchy haters in Nepal and a few more haters who hate haters. Well, I guess it's a more acceptable form of birth control. Hope everyone enjoys the holidays with their loved ones. Peace. :wave:

Yorik

Stone In A Pond

 

 

"Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't you think there should eb a law prohibiting anyone from holding any public ofice past the age of say 70-75? Isn't the normal retirement age 65? It's just plain wrong.

IMDB Credit list

President George Washington: "The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian Religion."

President Abraham Lincoln: "The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my religion."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by C.M.: [QB]Under clinton, were could be reassured that he would pay some people off(north korea), or [/qb[][/quote]... and the proof of this is where?

Guitar Lessons in Augusta Georgia: www.chipmcdonald.com

Eccentric blog: https://chipmcdonaldblog.blogspot.com/

 

/ "big ass windbag" - Bruce Swedien

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The entire 1994 deal that Carter worked out and clinton took it to avoid a conflict is the proof. This is pretty common knowledge that N.K. was given money and oil in 94. In return they were going to stop their nuke program. I dont know if they ever did. Its the same program that they are talking about today. So, instead of solving the problem , he gave money and oil so they would calm down or whatever. That is a payoff. The problem has now come full circle and they have their hands out again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote] That is a payoff. The problem has now come full circle and they have their hands out again. [/quote]Wrong. They are basically shit scared of the US bombing the shit out of them after watching the US go into Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Panama, Granada, Kosovo, Serbia, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan.... Then you get that cretin Rumsfeld proclaiming we can fight two wars with one hand tied behind our backs. I'd be f***** scared. But you're right about the oil deal. Clinton wanted to bomb them back them, and cooler heads prevailed and a deal was brokered. Do I trust them over there? No. Will threats of invasion help the situation? Ask the South Koreans, the Japanese, and the Chinese. You know, this planet is not our exclusive playground.

Yorik

Stone In A Pond

 

 

"Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by C.M.: [b]The entire 1994 deal that Carter worked out and clinton took it to avoid a conflict is the proof. [/b][/quote]Giving them oil to offset their nuclear program is "paying someone off"? That's considerably a better deal than what we've got now, isn't it? [b]This is pretty common knowledge that N.K. was given money and oil in 94. In return they were [/b] That's not "paying them off". [b]going to stop their nuke program. I dont know if they ever did. Its the same program that they [/b] Carter is the one that got them to accept the oil for monitoring - WHICH WAS WORKING UNTIL LAST WEEK. Now we're looking at possible war involving who knows how many thousands of deaths, or NK proliferating nuclear weapons throughout the same terrorist network that we're supposedly fighting against in Iraq. [b]the problem , he gave money and oil so they would calm down or whatever. That is a payoff. [/b] That is an agreement. A payoff would be if they threatened to do this UNLESS we gave them oil. Regardless, it is better than anarchy. [b]The problem has now come full circle and they have their hands out again.[/b] Consider this: what has changed? With a persident who is behaving seemingly as a war-hawk, what motivation do they have to change now? Remember the little missile incident last month? What happened? Not a whole lot, huh? Do you think that is the first time we've caught them shipping missiles to wherever and whom ever? You think the CIA doesn't know what they're doing, where Al Qaeda is, who France is selling radar systems to, Britain avionics, India battle management systems, and whoever else is in the weapons industry on the planet? The U.S. government knows a lot more than is politically correct to know. The world is too big to micromanage. The real truth is we've been looking the other way while they ship weapons to "neutral" states - states that then redistribute said systems to very non-neutral states - in exchange for NK playing nice with South Korea. The U.S. made public the missle shipment incident; that probably violated some tacit agreement we had. That was probably an inept political bungling by the current admin that likewise ticked off the NK's. Note that the NK have made no issues about conciliatory action or any other kind of deal making with their actions - there doesn't have to be, because *there already was*. They were making money on the back end with weapons deals. That was becoming to hot of a thing for the current admin to handle with the current Homeland Security War, and toes were stepped on. This is what happens will all nations that are semi-civilized that has some sort of weapons industry the U.S. wants to control, it's really obvious when it happens: said country starts making politically irritating actions, and then a month or so later they suddenly quiet down. There's a reason for that. NK will back off in a few weeks. It will be forgotten; a deal will have been made for NK; China appears to want in on it, probably in exchange for making some trade law even more lax than it already is. You'll never know exactly what took place, it will just fade away. OR we'll have a war many times worse than the last Korean war. Whichever happens, things were cool until *now*. The point though, is that it is a *know thing* that NK has been exporting weapons systems to questionable areas since before the Clinton admin, and nothing has been done about it. That means the *current* administration kow towed to the same pressure - the pressure to not rock the boat. That makes the current admin just as culpable, if not MORE so since the 9/11 attack. Bringing up Jimmy Carter has no relevance to what is important going on NOW, and who is "supposedly" running the show.

Guitar Lessons in Augusta Georgia: www.chipmcdonald.com

Eccentric blog: https://chipmcdonaldblog.blogspot.com/

 

/ "big ass windbag" - Bruce Swedien

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by StoneinaPond: [b]But you're right about the oil deal. Clinton wanted to bomb them back them, and cooler heads prevailed and a deal was brokered. [/b][/quote]The point is that the U.S. doesn't rule the planet directly. NK is among a few countries that proliferate weapons around the world; UNITED STATES INDUSTRY HELPS PROLIFERATE WEAPONS AROUND THE WORLD, and the current admin has many people in it that profits from the whole industry. It is a *business*! If it was about trying to make the world safer, the U.S. would be placing trade embargos on France and whoever else that is shipping weapons systems all over - and for that matter curtailing all of the U.S. companies making money in the same industry. So there is no over riding coherent policy to the current admin, because there *can't* be - it would mean a trade war, and the outing of hundreds of people in politics right now who have their hands in the pot. INSTEAD, it's about trying to control elements on the planet that are rocking the boat. NK are still playing the game; note how "normal" things are proceeding with them, no sabers being rattled at them. Iraq - DESPITE SHOOTING AT OUR AIRCRAFT DAILY - are being scapegoated on grounds that allegedly there could possibly be weapons of mass destruction being built and distributed from there. Which is exactly what NK has up it's sleeve. The point being, politics is a dirty business and those that rise to the top had to wade through a bunch of crap to get there. That includes King George and Co.. If we're going to continue with WWIII there should be a coherent point to it - a rigorous and CONSISTENT course of action placed across the board, not just where it suits the politics of the current admin.

Guitar Lessons in Augusta Georgia: www.chipmcdonald.com

Eccentric blog: https://chipmcdonaldblog.blogspot.com/

 

/ "big ass windbag" - Bruce Swedien

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chip, If you dont see what the US did in 94 as a payoff, I dont know what to say. What is your definition of a payoff? In my book, that qualifies as one. Its not a good idea to let States extort money from us. It will never end. [quote] If we're going to continue with WWIII there should be a coherent point to it - a rigorous and CONSISTENT course of action placed across the board, not just where it suits the politics of the current admin[/quote]I guess you are referring to the different treatment that NK and Iraq are currently getting. Why would you treat all states the same in a war? There is no one answer to every state. Not that I know of, do you? What was the point of WW2 and how does it differ from WW3?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by C.M.: [b]If you dont see what the US did in 94 as a payoff, I dont know what to say. What is your definition of a payoff? [/b][/quote]In global politics, no. NK is in a position where they can realistically argue that they *have* to have X number of nuclear plants to support their country. They're also in a pseudo-combative state with a neighboring country. That presents two reasons to them to make potentially bomb-producing nuclear facilities. There's no reason they shouldn't. There's also no reason they shouldn't alter their relations with the rest of the world if it means they get economic supports. We give money to all sorts of countries - we are the welfare providing nation of the world. You can call it a payoff, but it's reality; NK is going to have a nuclear weapons program without intervention. It's in our best interests to try to keep them from doing so. [b]In my book, that qualifies as one. Its not a good idea to let States extort money from us. It will never end. [/b] The point is that at some point *it will* end. The only way to establish lasting peace is to keep warring factions in a cool state for a few generations. That's what we got out of the Cold War with Russia. You support Korea until they "mature" as a nation; at some point they become too democratized and too economically interwoven to not play ball with the rest of the world. That's the New World Order in a nutshell. It's what we're doing with China - and it appears to be working. At some point in their future, it will occur to the leaders that if they *really* want to take over the world, it will be a lot easier through trade than stuffing a ton of money into a war machine. That's how Japan has managed to get so far; now South Korea. It's a realistic approach that takes a lot of time, but it works. [b]I guess you are referring to the different treatment that NK and Iraq are currently getting. Why would you treat all states the same in a war? [/b] Because on the one hand we're about to blow up a country because it *might* be making weapons of mass destruction, while we have another that ARE making weapons of mass destruction (and spreading the technology around, which is worse)....? [b]There is no one answer to every state. Not that I know of, do you? What was the point of WW2 and how does it differ from WW3?[/b] We don't have a Hitler advancing into Poland here. We have isolated build ups in economically poor nations, which is totally unlike Germany. We also have a stronger global government and economy. Everything is totally different top to bottom. The only *real* problem we have is with antiquated political systems of some of these countries; which is why you try to maintain a cool state until they mature as a society. That is the *only* way you can do it, if the real goal is peace: you can't bomb an entire populace into "seeing your point of view", you can't control everyone on the planet through exerting force. You *can* make a system where everyone can participate and find a niche, which is always going to be preferable to tyranny. You will still have tyrants attempt to get into power, but if you raise the standard of living and education of a nation they're not as likely to support one. It's no random occurence that the middle east countries that are our friends - make that "were"- are well off. Be glad NK doesn't have a strong muslim uprising like what's happening in Kenya and with the Chechans - then we're really have a bad problem. You know we can't accomplish anything by bombing Iraq again, and it's going to be enormously costly to invade - we might "win" in the end, but it's going to be a tremendously costly venture. What then? You don't invade countries that don't want to be "liberated"; look at vietnam. We set up a puppet government that none of the populace wants?

Guitar Lessons in Augusta Georgia: www.chipmcdonald.com

Eccentric blog: https://chipmcdonaldblog.blogspot.com/

 

/ "big ass windbag" - Bruce Swedien

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...