Cody O'Connor

Wait wait wait. So America is against doing humanitarian work in other countries? But "freeing a country from genocide and an evil dictator," that sounds mighty familiar. The thing that most people fail to realize is that the War in Iraq had absolutely nothing at all to do with the 9/11 attacks. Now it is said that there is a connection between the two, but just like the whole humanitarian effort excuse, only after the original justification failed. It's all too contradictory for me. And you'll probably pull out that whole spiel about all the reasons there were for going to war, but give me a break. If the administration wanted this to be a justifiable war that the American people united to stand behind, they wouldn't have lied about why we went there and they would have released all those other wonderful reasons. Does that not make sense? Seems pretty simple to me.

Also, do you know what type of magic Bill Clinton is currently working? He is uniting people of all different backgrounds and political standings and currently doing more good for the world than anyone who's actually in power. And he still gets shoved aside and criticized for defending himself. Give respect where respect is due.
 

Allisoni Balloni said...
"Wait wait wait. So America is against doing humanitarian work in other countries? But "freeing a country from genocide and an evil dictator," that sounds mighty familiar."

First and foremost, those aren't my words. Honestly, I could give a rip about the Iraqi people. This isn't about them. It's military strategy. We've invaded two countries that were filled with terrorists so we can get to the head of the snake, plus we've eliminated a lot of dangerous terrorists that could be or are a threat to us in the process.

Somalia on the other hand didn't have any kind of relation to the welfare of our country by any means. Directly, indirectly, nothing.

"The thing that most people fail to realize is that the War in Iraq had absolutely nothing at all to do with the 9/11 attacks. Now it is said that there is a connection between the two, but just like the whole humanitarian effort excuse, only after the original justification failed."

Of course they didn't pull off 9/11. Iraq was a whole different deal. A whole different threat, that conveniently wasn't too far away from two other threats.

"It's all too contradictory for me. And you'll probably pull out that whole spiel about all the reasons there were for going to war, but give me a break."

Are you kidding? Of course the WMD thing was a mistake, and the humanitarian thing was just a quick cover-up. So I'm not sure if Bush's reasoning and my reasoning for going into Iraq are at odds or not, but I think we'll be glad we were there soon enough. If only Bush was a better communicator I would know if this was about Iran and Al-qaeda, but since he's not I have to guess. And my guess is that he's just being a politician and feeding the people what he at least thinks they want.

"Also, do you know what type of magic Bill Clinton is currently working? He is uniting people of all different backgrounds and political standings and currently doing more good for the world than anyone who's actually in power. And he still gets shoved aside and criticized for defending himself. Give respect where respect is due."

Umm, usually uniters don't yell at their opponents.
 

I think there comes a point where yelling is necessary.
 

First of all Cody, I like the look of your new blog. Kudos!

Secondly, I like your post. You said: "Cut it off and a few babies will come out but they'll die of starvation because they're too young to get their own food." I agree, and I pray that we are right!

Thirdly, I see you're still arguing with allsoni balloni... er... aren't you getting a bit bored with that by now? I sure would be! You are extremely patient, my friend! :)
 

Usually people who stick to their guns do have the guts to argue with people who have different opinions. That's admirable about Cody, but someone people just block those they don't agree with. So much for the conversational aspect of blogs.
 

"Usually people who stick to their guns do have the guts to argue with people who have different opinions. That's admirable about Cody"

Yes, and standing up for what you believe in is admirable, but I don't think that makes you a uniter. If Clinton was being a uniter he may be negotiating with his opponent or just trying to get along. In fact, it was one of the things I liked about Clinton, but as we can see now, the true Clinton is a bit different.

But don't be mistaken. There's a difference between passion and anger. I love a politician with passion, but I believe this interview was just showing anger. That's what I got out of it anyways.
 

Can one interview say it all, though? He is constantly targeted and criticized and his good efforts are ignored--I would be angry too. I think that his current efforts speak multitudes about his true convinctions.
 

I don't know if it's me or blogger but something is seriously up and I'm quite angry.
 

oh now it works when I make a short comment. Bastards.
 

Bill Clinton is really a wierd choice for the Democratic poster boy. Lies to the country, can't catch a terrorist then complains about it AFTER he's out of office. I'm sorry if I don't understand why he's being held up as this great hero. He's finished, done and he needs to just retire somewhere. Staying in politics is a mistake for him I think. Also I'd like to bring up allosoni's comment.

Can one interview say it all, though? He is constantly targeted and criticized and his good efforts are ignored

Man that sounds familer. That's exactly what happens to Bush all the time.
 

Clinton has been one of the best presidents in American history. When Bush goes down as the same, then maybe you'll have an argument. Clinton lied about something totally unrelated to his presidency. Bush lied and thousand of people of have died. Close, but no cigar.
 

"Clinton has been one of the best presidents in American history."

You're just right on allisoni! Forget Jefferson, forget Lincoln, forget FDR, forget JFK! Clinton was the best! He should get a statue right next to lady liberty!

sarcasm off.

Come on, you really think that? And you also think that I think Bush is one of the best? I disagree with him on nearly everything but the war, and he could do a better job there. I disagree with him on social issues, I think he's a statist on the economy for the most part, and he's not a great communicator. But the war on terror is something he did right.

"Clinton lied about something totally unrelated to his presidency. Bush lied and thousand of people of have died."

Again you presume that I'm some kind of neocon that will bring up the Lewinsky scandal at every chance. His personal life is his personal life and if he lies in a court about it then he knows the consequences and that's that. I'm more worried about his other mistakes, like the ones I actually talk about. Like Somalia, the topic you've done a good job avoiding so far. And about the Bush lied people died thing, I really don't think this discussion is needed again. I've talked about the WMD's, I've talked about Saddam, I've talked about the UN and so on. I'm sick of it. I'm sick of wondering why American deaths are okay when they die in Somalia, but not a country full of Islamic fundamentalists plotting to kill you to you Liberals. It's not just hypocracy, it's disgusting party politics and I'm tired of it. And don't tell me I'm doing the same thing because I just told you I disagree with a ton of what Bush is doing in office, but I agree with him on the war on terror because I think it's right. Not because he's a Republican.
 

I was responding to something that Robert M. said, not something that you said, so you can stop being defensive.

I also said ONE of the best, not THE best.
 

Clinton has been one of the best presidents in American history. When Bush goes down as the same, then maybe you'll have an argument.

Um I'm sorry but Bill Clinton has not been recognized as such either. Except in your mind. Actually I'd be willing to bet serious money that Bush will be considered better than Clinton in about 30 years. But I'm not going to lie and say that he is regarded as such now.

Clinton lied about something totally unrelated to his presidency. Bush lied and thousand of people of have died. Close, but no cigar.

I think you're missing the point. Clinton BROKE THE LAW by lying UNDER OATH. Bush did not. There's a rather large difference legally.
 

Do you know anything that Clinton did during his presidency, other than Monica Lewinsky? I would assume you were alive during those years but maybe you were living in a cave. Although I don't support extramarital affairs and will leave my husband if he ever has one, I think it's unfortunate that the accomplishments of his presidency are overshadowed by that incident. He did lie under oath, and then he admitted it and apologized and carried out the legal consequences for it. If you look in almost any encyclopedia source, Encarta, Wikipedia, even the official White House website, they all rave about his accomplishments and approval ratings. Again, come out of that cave of yours and look at the facts.
 

Also, Bush isn't getting in trouble for what he's doing because he's creating exemptions for himself within legislation that he signs. Interesting how that works.
 

"If you look in almost any encyclopedia source, Encarta, Wikipedia, even the official White House website, they all rave about his accomplishments and approval ratings."

If president Clinton did so much good in the white house as you say, then you shouldn't have a hard time giving me specific examples. Right?
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_clinton

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564341/Bill_Clinton.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html

Read for yourself.
 

Do you know anything that Clinton did during his presidency, other than Monica Lewinsky?

Oh yeah sure. The '93 WTC bombing which he did nothing about, the Somalian thing, that was fun. The part where he had the oppertunity to bomb Osama and didn't. Yep. Good times. Good times.

He did lie under oath, and then he admitted it and apologized and carried out the legal consequences for it.

Ok so you admit it. Legally Clinton is more guilty than Bush. Are you saying that because he's a Democrat it's okay to commit perjury?

Also, Bush isn't getting in trouble for what he's doing because he's creating exemptions for himself within legislation that he signs. Interesting how that works.

Such as?

"If you look in almost any encyclopedia source, Encarta, Wikipedia, even the official White House website, they all rave about his accomplishments and approval ratings."

Approval ratings? So what? Aren't you forgetting that Lincoln was barely elected his second term? Would you say that he was a bad president? Approval ratings really don't make a difference in history.
 

Do you know anything that Clinton did during his presidency, other than Monica Lewinsky?

Oh yeah sure. The '93 WTC bombing which he did nothing about, the Somalian thing, that was fun. The part where he had the oppertunity to bomb Osama and didn't. Yep. Good times. Good times.

He did lie under oath, and then he admitted it and apologized and carried out the legal consequences for it.

Ok so you admit it. Legally Clinton is more guilty than Bush. Are you saying that because he's a Democrat it's okay to commit perjury?

Also, Bush isn't getting in trouble for what he's doing because he's creating exemptions for himself within legislation that he signs. Interesting how that works.

Such as?

"If you look in almost any encyclopedia source, Encarta, Wikipedia, even the official White House website, they all rave about his accomplishments and approval ratings."

Approval ratings? So what? Aren't you forgetting that Lincoln was barely elected his second term? Would you say that he was a bad president? Approval ratings really don't make a difference in history.
 

I actually said nothing about approval ratings. And the articles in those sources I listed said more than just approval ratings. The economy? Does the word surplus ring a bell?
Unless you'll continue to blatantly ignore facts, this argument is probably over. The magnitude of Clinton's bad decisions and policies have had nowhere near the negative impact as those of Bush's. To deny that you would have to deny nearly all of Bush's presidency.
 

I actually said nothing about approval ratings.

Allosoni said... "If you look in almost any encyclopedia source, Encarta, Wikipedia, even the official White House website, they all rave about his accomplishments and approval ratings."

The economy? Does the word surplus ring a bell?

Reagan helped the economy ten times as much WHILE building the military, why don't liberals like him?

Unless you'll continue to blatantly ignore facts, this argument is probably over. The magnitude of Clinton's bad decisions and policies have had nowhere near the negative impact as those of Bush's. To deny that you would have to deny nearly all of Bush's presidency.

Negative impact? Um how about 9/11? Clinton could have killed Osama and did nothing. I'd say that had a very bad impact.
 

I'll give Clinton "props" on the surplus, but that's about it.

Yes, even in Maine you pick up gangster speak...haha
 

I understand there was a surplus but there wasn't a war going on then either so you have to take it in context. Plus again why can't liberals like Reagan? He helped the economy but they won't even admit that.
 

There wasn't a war going on because HE DIDN'T START ONE.
 

Nor Bush. Or don't you remember 9/11. Wouldn't surprise be if you'd forgotten already.
 

We did not invade Iraq because of 9/11. Of course I remember. I also remember Osama bin Laden, who's...not in Iraq....and who we haven't captured yet.
 

Oh well obviously you're smarter than I. Where pray is Osama, since Bush is so dumb and you so smart why don't you tell me where he is? Also unless you've been hiding from the truth you should have seen all those stories linking Saddam to Al-Queda. You don't seem to get how fluid the countries in the Mid-East are. They're not like us and Canada or Mexico. The whole Middle East is rife with the kinds of people who perpatrated 9/11 and going into Iraq gives us a platform where we can fight the war. It's tactics. The problem with liberals is that they fail to understand tactics because they hate war so much. It's a dangerous way to live.
 

"There wasn't a war going on because HE DIDN'T START ONE."

That has to be some of the worst lying I've ever seen. How many times must I bring up somalia, you haven't even acknowledged the wars existance as of yet, let alone admit it was a waste of time money and lives.
 

Somalia was not a war. It was a failed humanitarian effort that was actually recognized and initiated by his predecessor. It resulted in a certain degree of civil war, and obviously there's nothing good about that, but there was a legitimate reason to help there and we did not end up occupying their country.

Don't get me started about hating the wat, Robert. If you weren't a FOX News guzzling robot it would be obvious to you, too. It's easy to say now that "Oh, clearly there are links between Sadaam and al-Quaida." Sure. That's not that unlikely, but that's NOT WHY WE INVADED IRAQ. I watched on TV as Bush declared war and he said nothing at all about September 11th or al-Quaida. We only went there because it looked like we might be in danger, not because of the tragedy that had just occured. No, I don't know where Osama is. But that's probably because I'm not someone in the armed forces who is SUPPOSED to be looking for him.
 

war, not wat*
 

Cody, I would personally rather fight terrorists in Baghdad than Baltimore, and that's what we accomplished in Iraq. It set up a battle front with a previously invisible enemy.

As for Clinton's rant. As someone with a medical background I can say that I've seen this type of behavior before from people in the beginning stages of Alzheimer's Disease. I'm not saying that's what is going on with Clinton, but anytime you see uncharacteristic bursts of anger from an elderly person, it's something worth thinking about. Either that, or he has something to hide.
 

They were previously invisible and now they are visible AND multiplying. How fun.
 

Thanks for the comment John, and yes he was quite out of character. A lot of things could have tipped him over, my guess was that he remembered who he was married to...
 

They were previously invisible and now they are visible AND multiplying. How fun.

Multiplying? We killed several of thier leaders as I recall.

As for Clinton's rant. As someone with a medical background I can say that I've seen this type of behavior before from people in the beginning stages of Alzheimer's Disease. I'm not saying that's what is going on with Clinton, but anytime you see uncharacteristic bursts of anger from an elderly person, it's something worth thinking about. Either that, or he has something to hide.

I dunno that I'd go that far. I just think that he's angry that he's no longer president and this leads to his wierd rants.
 

Do you know how much support there currently is for the insurgency, versus what it was before the war started? Look it up. The threat is not decreasing.
 

Cody O. Said... First and foremost, those aren't my words. Honestly, I could give a rip about the Iraqi people. This isn't about them. It's military strategy.

Military strategy?! Are you serious?! bush's strategy is to incompetently pursue al Qaeda in Iraq -- even though Saddam was never an ally of al Qaeda, and al Qaeda never had a large presence in Iraq prior to our invasion? His strategy involves making terrorism worse?? A TERRIBLE strategy, IMO. Clearly it has failed. But bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld will never admit it. Their egos will not allow them to admit they were wrong. So US soldiers will continue to die and be maimed because of their lies. All three of these traitors belong in prison!

You DON'T CARE that the Iraqi people are dying by the tens of thousands?! So, you're in agreement with Bill O'Reilly?

From Media Matters for America: On the September 25 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Bill O'Reilly declared: "I don't care what Iraq was, I don't care what it will be. I just don't want them killing anybody or helping Al Qaeda". O'Reilly added that he "couldn't care less" about Iraq. But in the past, O'Reilly has criticized those who didn't "care" about Iraq becoming a democracy. For example, on the January 24, 2005, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, while criticizing war critics, O'Reilly stated: "Now, you would think everyone in the world who values freedom would be rooting for the Iraqis to have them, but they are not". (9/28/2006)

Personally, I think Mr. O'Reilly is a horrible excuse for a human being.

Cody O. Said... usually uniters don't yell at their opponents.

Mr. Clinton defended himself by speaking the truth -- that is what has got your side so upset. And I wasn't aware that he yelled. There was some finger pointing that I thought was perhaps a little over the top... if he was angry I think it was completely justified. Anyway, you have to talk loudly and forcefully when a right wing pundit asks you a question and then doesn't want to hear the answer.

The truth is that bush and company didn't consider terrorism or bin Laden a serious threat until after 9/11. And they have the audacity to say it's Clinton's fault, because he didn't do enough?

Fox News Sunday, Interview With President Bill Clinton (excerpt) Clinton: And I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans, who now say I didn’t do enough, claimed that I was too obsessed with bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden. They had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months after I left office. All the right-wingers who now say I didn’t do enough said I did too much -- same people. (9/22/2006)

He's worked with Bush Sr, and Laura -- so I don't understand how you can disagree with Allisoni.

Cody O. Said... So I'm not sure if Bush's reasoning and my reasoning for going into Iraq are at odds or not, but I think we'll be glad we were there soon enough.

I think most of the populance of the US is waking up to the fact that this is a HUGE debacle which will prove extremely difficult to extradit ourselves from. My prediction is that this war will go down as our nation's greatest blunder. History will not be kind to W. I think he very well could be remembered as the president who ended the United State's reign as a superpower.

Cody O. Said... Of course they didn't pull off 9/11. Iraq was a whole different deal. A whole different threat, that conveniently wasn't too far away from two other threats.

What was the "deal"? What was the threat? Their Geographic location -- in relationship to Afghanistan -- has something to do with the "threat" they posed? Nonsense! They were no more a threat then any other of the world's dictatorships which we HAVEN'T invaded!

Robert M. Said... I just think that he's angry that he's no longer president and this leads to his wierd rants.

A Conservative finds telling the truth weird... no surprise there. Personally I am glad that he finally let loose with some harsh words of criticism for this seriously incompetent administration. BTW everything Clinton said was the absolute truth.

My respect for Mr. Clinton has increased significantly. Although, I already had a great deal of respect for him. He truly was a great president and IS a great man.

Robert M. Said... Multiplying? We killed several of thier leaders as I recall.

Ok. What's your point? It couldn't possibly be that the war in Iraq is making us safer...

From MSNBC: The war in Iraq has become a "cause célèbre" for Islamic extremists, breeding deep resentment of the U.S. that probably will get worse before it gets better, federal intelligence analysts conclude in a report at odds with President Bush's contention of a world growing safer.

In the bleak report, declassified and released Tuesday on Bush's orders, the nation's most veteran analysts conclude that despite serious damage to the leadership of al-Qaida, the threat from Islamic extremists has spread both in numbers and in geographic reach.

If this trend continues, threats to U.S. interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide, the document says. The confluence of shared purpose and dispersed actors will make it harder to find and undermine jihadist groups. (9/26/2006. The Associated Press)

The bush administration is trying to create the illusion that the war in Iraq is the "central front in the war on terror", when, in fact, the war in Iraq has made terrorism considerably worse. Most people now realize this, except for those extremely deluded saps who believe this propaganda.

John The Patriot said... Cody, I would personally rather fight terrorists in Baghdad than Baltimore, and that's what we accomplished in Iraq.

No, actually that is not one of the accomplishments of the war in Iraq. Notice that the article I quoted from says, "threats to U.S. interests at home and abroad will become more diverse".

Robert M. Said... Reagan helped the economy ten times as much WHILE building the military, why don't liberals like him?

Because that's complete nonsense. Reagan helped the Wealthy at the expense of the middle class and the poor. W is doing an even better job then Regan in the Conservative war on the middle class.

Robert M. Said... Also unless you've been hiding from the truth you should have seen all those stories linking Saddam to Al-Queda.

Debunked nonsense.

Robert M. Said... Oh yeah sure. The '93 WTC bombing which he did nothing about.

Mr. Clinton promisted that the perpetrators of the first WTC bombing would be brought to justice. They were.

From Wikipedia: In October 1995, the militant Islamist and blind cleric Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, who preached at mosques in Brooklyn and Jersey City, was sentenced to life imprisonment for masterminding the bombing. Rahman, whose Islamic Group organization is believed to have had links to Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, was later convicted with a number of others of conspiracy charges to bomb several New York City landmarks (see New York City landmark bomb plot). In 1998, Ramzi Yousef, said by some to have been the real mastermind, was convicted of "seditious conspiracy" to bomb the towers. One of the other men tried alongside Yousef for the bombing was Eyad Ismail. In all, ten militant Islamist conspirators were convicted for their part in the bombing and were given prison sentences of a maximum of 240 years each. (end wikipedia excerpt)

Robert M. Said... The part where he had the oppertunity to bomb Osama and didn't. Yep. Good times. Good times.

What opportunity are you referring to? The one portrayed in the ABC Fakeumentary? Problem is, that opportunity was a complete fabrication by the fakeudrama's right wing author. What about when bush LET bin Laden get away at Tora Bora? And didn't bush say "I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him". Then he closed the unit focused on bin Laden's capture. Yea, good times.

Robert M. Said... Ok so you admit it. Legally Clinton is more guilty than Bush. Are you saying that because he's a Democrat it's okay to commit perjury?

He may have danced around the truth -- which was not to the liking of the Arkansas bar -- but he never admitted to lying. He was never convicted of perjury or any other crime. Your claim that "Legally Clinton is more guilty than Bush" is baloney. As I have pointed out to you before, what the Republicans pulled is called a "perjury trap".

The Perjury Trap Defense: In the case of United States vs. Chen, 933 F.2d 793, 796-97, A perjury trap is created when the government calls a witness before the grand jury for the primary purpose of obtaining testimony from him in order to prosecute him later for perjury. United States v. Simone, 627 F. Supp. 1264, 1268 (D. N.J. 1986) (perjury trap involves "the deliberate use of a judicial proceeding to secure perjured testimony, a concept in itself abhorrent"). It involves the government's use of its investigatory powers to secure a perjury indictment on matters which are neither material nor germane to a legitimate ongoing investigation of the grand jury. See United States v. Crisconi, 520 F. Supp. 915, 920 (D. Del. 1981). Such governmental conduct might violate a defendant's fifth amendment right to due process, Simone, 627 F. Supp. at 1267-72, or be an abuse of grand jury proceedings, Crisconi, 520 F. Supp. at 920. See generally Gershman, The "Perjury Trap", 129 U. Pa. L. Rev. 624, 683 (1981). The Chen case goes on to say, "If a court divines that the purpose of repetitious questioning is to coax a witness into the commission of perjury... such conduct would be an abuse of the grand jury process". (by Marc Perkel)

Robert M. Said... the Somalian thing, that was fun.

The first president bush was the one who sent our military to Somalia! Oh, and BTW, our intervention in Somolia saved lives. But we already know that the lives of non-Americans mean nothing to you. What, exactly, do you believe Clinton did wrong? If you think Clinton made bad decisions, then what about Bush Sr.?

Robert M. Said... (In response to Allisoni saying, "Bush isn't getting in trouble for what he's doing because he's creating exemptions for himself within legislation that he signs. Interesting how that works".) Such as?

I believe this is what Allisoni was referring to: Torture Bill Gives Bush Retroactive War Crimes Immunity.

Allisoni Said... If the administration wanted this to be a justifiable war that the American people united to stand behind, they wouldn't have lied about why we went there and they would have released all those other wonderful reasons. Does that not make sense? Seems pretty simple to me.

I agree.

Allisoni Said... Usually people who stick to their guns do have the guts to argue with people who have different opinions. That's admirable about Cody, but someone people just block those they don't agree with.

Again, I agree... to a certain extent. As I recall at least one person he disagreed with was banned from "The Better Wing".

Allisoni Said... Can one interview say it all, though? He is constantly targeted and criticized and his good efforts are ignored--I would be angry too. I think that his current efforts speak multitudes about his true convinctions.

It's surprising to me that he can work with the likes of Bush Sr. and Laura. I'd be much to bitter. But I guess that shows how big a person he is. He is willing to do what he has to in order to help as many people as he can. I agree that respect should be given where it most certainly is due -- but I have no doubt that the irrational right-winger hatred for Mr. Clinton will continue no matter what he does.
 

oh geez. I'll read your online book tomorrow, I've got too much work right now.
 

What the hell? Dervish, get a life or a job or something. No one's gonna read all that.
 

There were already 36 comments when I joined the conversation. I believe I responded to most of your baloney -- which took awhile because there was a lot of it.

BTW you asked why liberals don't like Reagan TWICE. I believe that your implication was that the only reason liberals have for not liking him is because he was a Republican -- otherwise he was a great president.

WRONG. Reagan was a TERRIBLE president who helped the wealthy at the expense of the middle class and the poor. W is doing an even better job then Regan in the Conservative war on the middle class. I'd place him at the number 2 spot on the "worst presidents" list.
 

There were already 36 comments when I joined the conversation. I believe I responded to most of your baloney -- which took awhile because there was a lot of it.

Shorten it then. I for one am not taking the time to read it all.

BTW you asked why liberals don't like Reagan TWICE. I believe that your implication was that the only reason liberals have for not liking him is because he was a Republican -- otherwise he was a great president.

WRONG. Reagan was a TERRIBLE president who helped the wealthy at the expense of the middle class and the poor. W is doing an even better job then Regan in the Conservative war on the middle class. I'd place him at the number 2 spot on the "worst presidents" list.

Yeah yeah, I guess the economic boom of the '80's was just a "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy."
 

Short Version: Everything you said was wrong.

Reganomics is a proven failure.

Reagan (and now W) kept the economy afloat through massive military spending (and running up the National debt). There will be consequences to pay, eventually. I predict that we're headed for a disaster worse than the great depression -- all thanks to the suicidally insane "borrow and spend" policies of your Republican heroes.
 

Eventually eventually. You're working on assumptions here. The economy hasn't crashed yet and you're all still saying "eventually." Sad really.
 

I'm not making any assumptions. The US cannot continue to borrow money, and be able to afford ever increasing interest payments indefinitely.

From MSNBC: The national debt now stands at about $8.5 trillion — or about $540 billion bigger than it was a year ago. Nearly a third of the current national debt has been added since 2000. While Congress and the White House have been busy sulking about increased dependence on foreign oil, they've also been busy increasing our dependence on foreign capital. In December 1984, about 13.5 percent of U.S. Treasuries on the open market were held by foreign governments and investors. As of June 2005, foreigners held more than half our debt -- or 51.7 percent. Every time the Treasury offers up more debt, it's counting on those foreign buyers to keep coming back for more.

Even if they do, and even if, by magic, Congress could get its act together tomorrow and balance the federal budget, the problem will continue to grow. With 78 million baby boomers ready to start collecting Social Security and Medicare in less than a decade, Uncle Sam's minimum monthly payment is going to get a lot bigger.

In August, Uncle Sam's minimum monthly payment -- just the interest on that debt -- came to $24 billion. Interest payments alone are now about $400 billion a year (John W. Schoen, MSNBC)

We aren't paying this off. We're increasing it. What's sad is your stubborn denial of reality.
 

Usually after three posts have topped an article, the discussion moves on to the new topics.
 

If you have a life they do. SOME people though find the need to rant on with really long boring articles LONG after everyone (including the owner of the blog itself) has tuned out...
 

I'm sure that would work in a actual debate...

moderator: And for your rebuttal, robert?

robert m: What he said was boring. I wasn't listening.

moderator: I declare robert the winner of the debate!

Seeing as you're basically giving up I'll interperet your last post as a concession -- which makes me the winner!
 

That's nice. Go pat yourself on the back now and get yourself an ice cream. The rest of us will move on to more current matters.
 

I had to laugh at both comments, but seriously, the Bill Clinton thing is over now. I have no motivation to discuss it any longer, none. I've made my points, you've made yours, now lets move on.
 

Dervish,

Your background on economics is lacking. The deficit is shrinking, the stock is breaking records daily, the unemployment rate is lower than it was with Clinton, and yet you say "reaganomics is a proven failure". Really? What proof do you have? The economic boom of the 80s and the current economic boom? Is THAT your proof. OR how about Clinton's economic failure and the receding economy Bush inherited? Which one of those proves reaganomics is a failure? You need to stop listening to AL Franken. He's misleading you.
 

John The Patriot said... Your background on economics is lacking. The deficit is shrinking.

That is a lie. That you truly believe this makes it clear that your knowledge of reality is lacking.

The Bush Deficit Shell Game, 2006 Edition (excerpt) Since President Bush came into office in 2001, his reckless policies have created the largest deficits in American history. Yesterday, the White House announced that the deficit would increase in 2006, "erasing the brief improvement last year and complicating President Bush's vow to cut the deficit in half by 2009". President Bush has played an intricate shell game with the deficit: underestimating projected deficits in 2001 and 2002 in order to gain support for his fiscally irresponsible tax cuts, and then underestimating future deficits every year since 2003 in order to lower expectations and paper over his out-of-control spending. (1/13/2006. Democrats.org, using information from the Office of Management and Budget, 2/04, 7/30/04; The New York Times, 7/31/04; Washington Post, 7/31/04; CBO, and The Budget And Economic Outlook: An Update, 9/04)

John The Patriot said... the stock is breaking records daily

The economy is what it is due to the enormous amount of money bush is pumping into the ecomomy through military spending. All of which is borrowed. This can continue indefinitely? Clearly the answer is no. There will be consequences for bush's borrow and spend policies.

Deeper and Deeper (excerpt) There is fresh evidence, if any more were needed, that excessive borrowing during the Bush years will make the nation poorer.

For most of the past 5.5 years, interest rates have been low, allowing the gov. to borrow more & more -- to cut taxes while fighting two expensive wars -- without having to shoulder higher interest payments.

That's over now. For the first time during Pres Bush's tenure, the gov.'s interest bill is expected to rise in 2006, from $184b in 2005 to $220b this year, up nearly 20%. That increase -- $36b -- makes interest the fastest-growing component of federal spending, and continued brisk growth is likely. ...the interest bill will grow to $249b in 2007, and $270b in 2008.

All of that is money the gov. won't have available to spend on other needs and priorities. And much of it won't even be recycled back into the United States economy -- because borrowing from foreign countries has exploded during the Bush years. In 2005, the government paid about $77b in interest to foreign creditors in China, Japan & elsewhere. (10/5/2006. The New York Times.)

John The Patriot said... the unemployment rate is lower than it was with Clinton.

That is another outright lie.

From Media Matters: The Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports: the annual average unemployment rate rose to 7.5 percent in 1992, the last full year of President George H.W. Bush's term. The unemployment rate declined every year during Bill Clinton's presidency, falling to 4.5 percent in 1998 and 4.2 percent in 1999 -- both lower than current unemployment rate. The unemployment rate fell to 4.0 percent in 2000 -- Clinton's last full year in office. (3/24/2006. Media Matters for America, "Hannity misleadingly claimed unemployment lower than the '70s, '80s, and '90s")

Also, there is a fair amount of deception involved in your claim, as the salaries of those people who are employed is NOT even keeping pace with inflation.

Where's the Wage Growth? (excperpt) Most people, however, have been lucky to keep up with inflation. Look at a new set of wage numbers buried deep in the Web site of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. These data report fourth-quarter median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers for different occupations (median means that half earn more, and half earn less).

The first thing that jumps out is that both the 3.2% yearly wage gain for managers and the 2.4% gain for professionals fell short of the 3.5% increase in the consumer price index. That goes a long way to explain why people are so sour about the economy. Strong growth and low unemployment don't mean much if your buying power is declining. (1/17/2006. Michael Mandel, Business Week)

If we look only at the base unemployment figures are we are missing the big picture -- namely how workers are really doing, and who is benefiting in bush's ecomomy.

Most Americans' wages are not keeping pace with inflation, yet corporate profits are the highest they've been in 40 years. Workers across the country are forced to swallow constant cuts in healthcare and other benefits, yet CEO's continue to get multimillion dollar platinum handshakes. Work more hours! Earn less money! Might not make its way to the want ads, but it does have a note of truth in it. (9/2/2006. The Diane Farrell for Congress Campaign Updates Blog)

Those at the top are doing incredibly well, while everybody else's wages are not even keeping pace with inflation! While you may consider this a success, I do not.

John The Patriot said... and yet you say "reaganomics is a proven failure". Really? What proof do you have?

A Fool's Economic Paradise (excerpt) American families saw their real incomes fall 2.3 percent from 2001, according to [a recent] Federal Reserve survey of consumer finances.

Simply put, Bushonomics has been the most destructive set of economic policies to hit Americans since Herbert Hoover. Thanks to this administration we are all now stuck in a race between two looming catastrophes: an economic collapse or an ecological collapse. "This is a tremendously detailed, comprehensive look at the American family's balance sheet and it ain't pretty", said Jared Bernstein, senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute.

...I believe we are living in the final months of a fool's economic paradise. The last time we teetered on such a precipice was at the end of the Reagan presidency. Conservatives like to point to the Reagan years as golden times, and for the wealthy and unscrupulous, they were. But Reaganomics, like Bushonomics, was fueled, not by genuine worker productivity and healthy consumer spending, but hot money -- credit.

...like Bush's tax cuts, Reagan's tax cuts did not, as promised, increase real economic activity resulting in higher tax revenues. They did just the opposite, they gutted the treasury, just as Bush's tax cuts have done today.

It was just lucky for us that Reagan's term in office ended before all his deficit chickens came home to roost at once. This time [we may not be so lucky]. By the time the next president is sworn into office he/she may have to take a crash course in Franklin Roosevelt's first years in office. (2/28/2006. Stephen Pizzo, Bushwatch.com)

John The Patriot said... You need to stop listening to AL Franken. He's misleading you.

You need to stop listening to Fox News. They're LYING to you.

Debunking right wing lies is fun. Thank you for making it so easy!
 

Speaking of 9/11 and the truth...

One thing that struck me as odd in the days after 9/11 was Bush saying "We will not tolerate conspiracy theories [regarding 9/11]". Sure enough there have been some wacky conspiracy theories surrounding the events of that day. The most far-fetched and patently ridiculous one that I've ever heard goes like this: Nineteen hijackers who claimed to be devout Muslims but yet were so un-Muslim as to be getting drunk all the time, doing cocaine and frequenting strip clubs decided to hijack four airliners and fly them into buildings in the northeastern U.S., the area of the country that is the most thick with fighter bases. After leaving a Koran on a barstool at a strip bar after getting shitfaced drunk on the night before, then writing a suicide note/inspirational letter that sounded like it was written by someone with next to no knowledge of Islam, they went to bed and got up the next morning hung over and carried out their devious plan. Nevermind the fact that of the four "pilots" among them there was not a one that could handle a Cessna or a Piper Cub let alone fly a jumbo jet, and the one assigned the most difficult task of all, Hani Hanjour, was so laughably incompetent that he was the worst fake "pilot" of the bunch. Nevermind the fact that they received very rudimentary flight training at Pensacola Naval Air Station, making them more likely to have been C.I.A. assets than Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. So on to the airports. These "hijackers" somehow managed to board all four airliners with their tickets, yet not even ONE got his name on any of the flight manifests. So they hijack all four airliners and at this time passengers on United 93 start making a bunch of cell phone calls from 35,000 feet in the air to tell people what was going on. Nevermind the fact that cell phones wouldn't work very well above 4,000 feet, and wouldn't work at ALL above 8,000 feet. But the conspiracy theorists won't let that fact get in the way of a good fantasy. That is one of the little things you "aren't supposed to think about". Nevermind that one of the callers called his mom and said his first and last name, more like he was reading from a list than calling his own mom. Anyway, when these airliners each deviated from their flight plan and didn't respond to ground control, NORAD would any other time have followed standard operating procedure (and did NOT have to be told by F.A.A. that there were hijackings because they were watching the same events unfold on their own radar) which means fighter jets would be scrambled from the nearest base where they were available on standby within a few minutes, just like every other time when airliners stray off course. But of course on 9/11 this didn't happen, not even close. Somehow these "hijackers" must have used magical powers to cause NORAD to stand down, as ridiculous as this sounds because total inaction from the most high-tech and professional Air Force in the world would be necessary to carry out their tasks. So on the most important day in its history the Air Force was totally worthless. Then they had to make one of the airliners look like a smaller plane, because unknown to them the Naudet brothers had a videocamera to capture the only known footage of the North Tower crash, and this footage shows something that is not at all like a jumbo jet, but didn't have to bother with the South Tower jet disguising itself because that was the one we were "supposed to see". Anyway, as for the Pentagon they had to have Hani Hanjour fly his airliner like it was a fighter plane, making a high G-force corkscrew turn that no real airliner can do, in making its descent to strike the Pentagon. But these "hijackers" wanted to make sure Rumsfeld survived so they went out of their way to hit the farthest point in the building from where Rumsfeld and the top brass are located. And this worked out rather well for the military personnel in the Pentagon, since the side that was hit was the part that was under renovation at the time with few military personnel present compared to construction workers. Still more fortuitous for the Pentagon, the side that was hit had just before 9/11 been structurally reinforced to prevent a large fire there from spreading elsewhere in the building. Awful nice of them to pick that part to hit, huh? Then the airliner vaporized itself into nothing but tiny unidentifiable pieces no bigger than a fist, unlike the crash of a real airliner when you will be able to see at least some identifiable parts, like crumpled wings, broken tail section etc. Why, Hani Hanjour the terrible pilot flew that airliner so good that even though he hit the Pentagon on the ground floor the engines didn't even drag the ground!! Imagine that!! Though the airliner vaporized itself on impact it only made a tiny 16 foot hole in the building. Amazing. Meanwhile, though the planes hitting the Twin Towers caused fires small enough for the firefighters to be heard on their radios saying "We just need 2 hoses and we can knock this fire down" attesting to the small size of it, somehow they must have used magical powers from beyond the grave to make this morph into a raging inferno capable of making the steel on all forty-seven main support columns (not to mention the over 100 smaller support columns) soften and buckle, then all fail at once. Hmmm. Then still more magic was used to make the building totally defy physics as well as common sense in having the uppermost floors pass through the remainder of the building as quickly, meaning as effortlessly, as falling through air, a feat that without magic could only be done with explosives. Then exactly 30 minutes later the North Tower collapses in precisely the same freefall physics-defying manner. Incredible. Not to mention the fact that both collapsed at a uniform rate too, not slowing down, which also defies physics because as the uppermost floors crash into and through each successive floor beneath them they would shed more and more energy each time, thus slowing itself down. Common sense tells you this is not possible without either the hijackers' magical powers or explosives. To emphasize their telekinetic prowess, later in the day they made a third building, WTC # 7, collapse also at freefall rate though no plane or any major debris hit it. Amazing guys these magical hijackers. But we know it had to be "Muslim hijackers" the conspiracy theorist will tell you because (now don't laugh) one of their passports was "found" a couple days later near Ground Zero, miraculously "surviving" the fire that we were told incinerated planes, passengers and black boxes, and also "survived" the collapse of the building it was in. When common sense tells you if that were true then they should start making buildings and airliners out of heavy paper and plastic so as to be "indestructable" like that magic passport. The hijackers even used their magical powers to bring at least seven of their number back to life, to appear at american embassies outraged at being blamed for 9/11!! BBC reported on that and it is still online. Nevertheless, they also used magical powers to make the american government look like it was covering something up in the aftermath of this, what with the hasty removal of the steel debris and having it driven to ports in trucks with GPS locators on them, to be shipped overseas to China and India to be melted down. When common sense again tells you that this is paradoxical in that if the steel was so unimportant that they didn't bother saving some for analysis but so important as to require GPS locators on the trucks with one driver losing his job because he stopped to get lunch. Hmmmm. Further making themselves look guilty, the Bush administration steadfastly refused for over a year to allow a commission to investigate 9/11 to even be formed, only agreeing to it on the conditions that they get to dictate its scope, meaning it was based on the false pretense of the "official story" being true with no other alternatives allowed to be considered, handpicked all its members making sure the ones picked had vested interests in the truth remaining buried, and with Bush and Cheney only "testifying" together, only for an hour, behind closed doors, with their attorneys present and with their "testimonies" not being recorded by tape or even written down in notes. Yes, this whole story smacks of the utmost idiocy and fantastic far-fetched lying, but it is amazingly enough what some people believe. Even now, five years later, the provably false fairy tale of the "nineteen hijackers" is heard repeated again and again, and is accepted without question by so many Americans. Which is itself a testament to the innate psychological cowardice of the American sheeple, i mean people, and their abject willingness to believe something, ANYTHING, no matter how ridiculous in order to avoid facing a scary uncomfortable truth. Time to wake up America.