Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Not sure that my being too young infers that I can't have a grasp on the situation. My age has nothing more to do with it than your unfailing belief that the Clintons had a hand in their deaths. We obviously see it different ways, and we're approaching it from those places. Age doesn't necessarily preclude one from having a grasp on history. Matter of fact, for quite awhile in college I was extremely well-versed in Chinese history, including dynasties and the incredible changes the country went through during the last several hundred years. I was also too young to know about that (as were all of us on the forum), but I managed to figure that out. History is history. Spin is spin. Having someone (who was exposed in a later post in the thread as more or less a complete whackjob) compile a list of people who knew the President (reminder: the most powerful, influential, well-known person in the nation) that died doesn't really serve to tell us anything at all, except that the President knows a lot of people.



Well if someone would say something about the Clintons that were actually factual and not just wild, partisan speculation, it might be a bit different....:D

As for criticizing or being skeptical of DTS' posts...do I really need to comment on that? Trust me, I'm wildly skeptical, but there are not enough hours in a day to comment back to all of them and reminding everyone about their source and subsequent veracity. I doubt you'd find many places on this forum where I responded directly to a link DTS posted and took it as unfailingly true.....because they're not. I love reading The Nation...but I hardly consider everything they say to be true, because they obviously have a partisan agenda. It's no secret and I'm smart enough to know that people spin things the way they want them spun. (Example: Bill O'Reilly can say all he wants that he's not a Republican or a Democrat and that he's not partisan and that he doesn't spin things...but one week of watching shows otherwise [i still enjoy his show], and so can DTS, say he's not partisan. It doesn't make it true.)

Using DTS' posts as an example is faulty logic in showing that either of us jumps at everything like that....because I'm not sure very many people take those links seriously to begin with. I don't at least....for the record

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

GR/Brian: Let's wrap this thing up....Liz Michael does sound like a whackjob! But it was a list. As I said, there are others. McDougal wasn't finished testifying with Starr, having being visited last by Susan McDougal before his death. You may blithely disregard these happenings as revengeful political rantings, but I assure that's not the situation with me. The probability of all these things happening around the Clintons' is astronomical,but doesn't make that irreffutable, it draws a circle around the actions of a political machine that won't stop for 2nd place. The recent attacks on Obama,Kerry and others point to the sublety of actions(at whatever price) and her rushed announcement of her candidacy(?)is Modus operandi for this group. But, heh, I just won't vote for her! Pardon my Interruption...I'm just tired of the whole scene right now. btw...Brian: I wasn't denigrating your youth...just the time frame of your reference. Cheers!

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

And may I say, the Colbert/O'Reilly face-off was about as lame as could be. Very disappointed. I much preferred Colbert's skewering of Dinesh D'Souza who is an insult to the word, "idiot."

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

(I agree with the position, by the way, that more troops were needed, not fewer, but I think the time was back in 2003 and I'm not sure if it would make any difference now. I wonder if the Dems are sitting back and watching the thing implode because they really have no idea how to fix this mess. I don't.)

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I watched both face-offs off my DVR last night. I didn't particularly enjoy either. I wondered though (and my goodness, this is not an intelligence accusation, before anyone jumps at my throat) what percentage of Bill O' Reilly's viewers "got" it. With all the Stewart-bashing that Colbert did on the show, and thinking about how many Factor viewers had ever seen it, there was likely a good percentage of his viewership that didn't even understand that it was a spoof and that Colbert was basically making fun of O'Reilly the whole time. It became a heck of a lot funnier when you thought about it that way



I agree 100%. It gets frustrating when Bush and others point out that the Dems don't have a plan. No kidding they don't, because there is NO plan that is going to "fix" Iraq the way Americans understand the words 'fix' and 'victory.' It has been so bumbled that there is no way out that is going to work. So while he escalates the situation and nobody agrees, he is able to pass most of the blame because he can point out that nobody else is offering any other plans. Well, besides troop withdrawal, but that just scores him more points because he can use the phrase "cut and run" again, which nobody likes to hear. If it weren't so royally f-ed up to begin with, there might still be a plan that would work.

I worry, like many others about the fact that it may just bea case of maintaining the status quo for two years until it can be passed onto someone else. The good thing is that the American public is too smart to think that the next President is at fault for inheriting the mess he made.

Though, being called a child prodigy (tongue in cheek or not) by Tim, is going in my profile as of right now :)

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

From your list, Timm:
JAMES MCDOUGAL - Clinton's convicted Whitewater partner died of an apparent heart attack, while in solitary confinement. McDougal was a key witness in Kenneth Starr's investigation.

So, under logic like this, GW Bush MUST be responsible for Ken Lays' death, right? I mean, he was chock full of Bush info (chartered him for free on the Enron jet during the '00 campaign and Bush called him "Kenny Boy") so therefore Bush must have had him killed, since he died of an apparent heart attack.

I did some googling on Liz Michael (the owner of the website you posted), and boy, she's an interesting case- wants, apparently, a new Confederacy, founded as a theocracy:

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/062916.htm

And here's her lovely comments on the "Million Mom March"

"The so-called "Million Mom March" represents a clear and present danger to every woman in this nation, especially every teenage girl in this nation. Every woman participating in this march is particpating in an act that may very well lead to her own death, assault, or rape, as well as the death, assault or rape of any woman or young girl in her family."

Lovely. I would certainly want to listen to a woman who seems to think there's an armed rapist/pedophile behind every tree.

Holy cow, how much more culture of fear can these people drum up?

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

It's a fair point about the Dems and Iraq, pgardn, and while I'm sure there's a great deal of schadenfreude, watching Bush, after all his nasty, divisive campaigns, imploding in on his own incompetency, it sure isn't helping the situation over there.

If you were a Dem, (or a Repub, for that matter, in this hypothetical it doesn't matter) with a great interest in keeping your job, what would you do in this situation? A majority of Americans want the troops out now, and the situation over there be damned. Any sort of increase in troops is a hugely unpopular decision. So, how would you go about stating your case that what is needed is more young men and women over there? I don't mean this as an accusation, so no throwing insults, Bababooyee (teasing wink). It's a real question.

(I agree with the position, by the way, that more troops were needed, not fewer, but I think the time was back in 2003 and I'm not sure if it would make any difference now. I wonder if the Dems are sitting back and watching the thing implode because they really have no idea how to fix this mess. I don't.)

Originally Posted by pgardn

I think the decision for more troops makes sense, especially with the must cooperate clause. The extra troops will be used to free up more troops for Baghdad. The explaination of clearing key neighborhoods of weapons and then staying and not allowing insurgents back in(they have another fancy name for it) sounds very reasonable.

However, I think it will fail because "we" are too far down the hill now to climb back. The Iraqi government is clearly pro Shiite and is showing signs of not cooperating (this is our out) which will lead to the eventual pullout within 2-3 years based on what I have read. Saudi Arabi and othe pro Sunni governments will make sure the Shiites dont get complete control via bloodshed. The Iraqis will have to suffer much more until the Shiites realize they must come to the table because of immense suffering. The Sunnis will suffer greatly with the Shiite gov. in power allowing death squads to take out neighborhoods that are Sunni dominated and will spill the blood via their own insurgent groups supplied by the aforementioned governments, and possibly our government after we get clear.
The Arabs and Iranians will have to get this solved eventually.

My take.

Now if the Shiites in power decide to get rid of Sadr somehow and have had enough and do cooperate with us in trying to form a coalition government that splits oil revenue fairly and agrees to fairly crack down on the insurgent groups from both religious factions we will be in for longer than 2-3 years no matter who is elected. ONe cannot pullout if the situation actually starts to improve. But... I dont think the people in power have suffered enough directly to cooperate for peace.

So in conclusion: Give it a try, assess cooperation, leave because I dont think their will be cooperation. A total pullout will not allow the outside parties mentioned to solve the situation. It will be in the interest of both the Arab States and Iranians, to get the problem solved after we leave.

Originally Posted by Danzig188

the only thing that really jumped out at me in this thread is this stuff about the women marching...how would this lead to a death, assault, etc? who is that woman, and where did she get these ideas??

Originally Posted by Danzig188

welll, i looked up that person, and read the entire article that she wrote. glad i did, since the brief line that was quoted made her sound nuts.

not so nutty sounding when you read the rest. i'm against gun control myself.

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Danzig,
This might amaze you...I'll just say that I own 68 "guns". Flintlocks to shotguns, sniper rifles and pellet poppers.
Guns are good.
It's the people that own the other ones that scare me.
I don't have a need for assault weapons nor machine guns though.
Heck, didn't David kill a guy with a sling and a round river stone once?
Just my take...if someone really wanted to kill others, it could be done with a knife, a polonium popper, or maybe some fertilizer bought at the farm supply.
Ask Terry Nichols.

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

Indeed!


:p

:D

Originally Posted by Danzig188

but somer, i could use the same logic to attack the right to free speech. i mean, what use is hate speech? shoudldn't the govt regulate hate speech--after all, it might inflame someone to do something illegal...

owning a gun is a right. it is regulated in that a felon can no longer own one. much like a convicted felon has no right to freedom--he must spend time in jail.
but gun control affects those of us who are law abiding. after all, a law breaker isn't going to suddenly feel compunction about breaking a gun law--laws against thievery don't stop him from robbing someone. you think he would hesitate over a gun law?
and you might not want to own an automatic, but someone else may. just like i may not feel the need to march in a protest, while someone else does.

i read once about a country on the african continent who banned guns. they still had a high murder rate--everyone offed each other with machetes.

Originally Posted by somerfrost

That's all true but owning a gun just makes it easier than say using a knife or rock. This is not an issue that will be solved by government regulation, but America's "love affair" with the gun is troubling and related to a similar view of violence in general...showing some dude killing five people on TV is cool but showing a naked woman is porn...that logic always escapes me! The issue can only be resolved, as with poverty, bigotry and the like, by fundamental change in the collective mindset. Still, I think government has a responsibility to keep weapons under control...I mean, does the average house need an automatic weapon for "self-defense", I'd sorta like a flame thrower or rocket launcher myself...and tanks are cool! My own personal nuke...there is an idea!

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Somerfrost,
I hear you.
Government regulation will be about as successful with imposing morality as it has been with imposing "democracy".
And, to put you mind at ease, I use mine for food gathering and plinking at cans on fenceposts.
Gun control is not the answer. There are too many threats for those that see them as such, and too many ways to murder others, however that might be justified.
In my next life, I'll be sure to ask Jim Jones, Adolph H, and G Dub what they were thinking...if I end up in the same place.
Maybe you can answer this one....what's the difference between an RPG, an IED, or "smart bombs" from thirty thousand feet up, or a cruise missle coming from a ship twenty miles off the coast?
I really don't know.
Some goverments talk against one and condone another. Very confusing to me. Dead is dead.

ps...the other guy is on my ignore...not much he has to say to me makes sense. Tell him if you can. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Pgardn,
So, are the lives that we continue to throw into that firestorm buying time before there's an admission? And, what IS the "mission da jour"?

Originally Posted by somerfrost

That's why I said that government can't solve this problem! Hate speech is regulated to a point as if it leads directly to violence, it is excluded. Holmes' example of yelling fire in a crowded theater etc. In the end, it really doesn't matter if you own a gun (or I get my rocket launcher)...what matters is what we do with them...what we feel we have the right to do! Government will never take the place of personal responsibility...I'm not an existentialist but Sartre was right that we are each responsible for our actions (called free will)...still some common sense controls are not the end of freedom...unless you like the idea of me having that rocket launcher!