OFF TOPIC - Re: MONICA'S TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS

" The News Guy(Mike)" writes: >

Another reason not to annex Canada, eh?

Here, here. Of course all people have lied at one time or another, but not under oath. And NOT the systematic pattern of deceitful discourse that Bubba has proven is his modus operandi.

[email] wrote in message ...

liars.

Clinton

his

him.

Starting with "I never broke the laws..." and "I didn't inhale".

In alt.tv.road-rules [email] wrote:

Canada's safe until we run out of trees.

Dave writes:

Sorry, the tax and spend liberal was around long before Rush.

Are you aware that the Soviet leadership has admitted that the downfall of their empire was greatly related to the overburdening of their economy in trying to keep up with Western defense and Reagan's strategic defense initiative? Sounds like a reasonable trade-off to me. The cold war was won due to Reagan, his policies, and "massive defense contractors."

[email] wrote:

Fantastic. So we're the main reason for the millions of Russian men, women and children living in poverty. I guess we win, huh? Reagan was a piece of shit on so many different levels, not just because he lied about his arms deals.

Dave wrote in message ...

Dave, what do you base this on? What proof? If you believe Reagan knew what north was up to, then why oh why don't you believe in: Cattlegate, Whitewater, FBI Files, Vince Foster, Travel Gate, Rose law firm billing records, Chinese campaign fund fraud/miliary tech sale....

There is no smoking gun, per se, on Reagan or these issues with Clinton. Why the selectivity?

I believe Clinton is at least reasonably guilty on most of the above. i base this on him being caught lying to protect himself in the past (monica, flowers, didn't inhale) and his reputation & credibility in general (though nothing I can "PROVE").

Reagan was never a liar, I believe. He was never caught. Ever. And there was never any indication he lied. I am pro-Reagan, so I do have a bias here, but I just do not believe he was dishonest. I would like to believe that I call 'em like I see 'em--that's my goal. And I smell a major rat with Clinton. I can only hope the truth will eventually come out.

BTW, whatever happened to those 115 newspapers that called for his resignation? What is happening to this country? We don't seem to stand for anything good any more.

"DAVIDHERO�" wrote:

Yep, these are all probably true too. But notice I said too. Reagan was guilty of a lot of things that sold out the American public. That is the problem people see there. No president can president without bending the rules. Probably the last president that you had that did not break any rules was Carter - and you know how ineffective he was.

When are people going to wake up to the fact that the *I didn't inhale* line is a JOKE. There was a comedian in the 70's who talked about smoking marijana - but then said as if to excuse it - I didn't inhale. It got a lot of laughs. The point is no one cares if he smoked some dope in college. The ones that scare me are the ones that didn't. (oops that's me too - But I was before all that drug revolution).

Tooth fairy, Santa Clause, Elvis will be back - they are all as likely.

That is closer to the truth.

Yes you do, (as an outsider) I say stand for important things not unimportant ones (the world does not care a whit if he got his pipe cleaned) They care about Mid East peace plans, the handling of Iraq, global economy, etc... And in these cases the US is taking good leadership.

The News Guy(Mike) wrote in message ...

knew

guilty

What rule did Carter bend? (yes, i know he was ineffective, but that doesn't change it). What was Reagan guilty of?

Carter

But his honesty wasn't related to his ineffectiveness. He just couldn't make decisions, still can't.

(monica,

line is

marijana -

laughs.

It was no joke. He has told this story in many interviews, in detail, of how he didn't inhale.

That's true, but if he LIES about it, it could indicate a character flaw, which has pretty much been proven.

Show me one lie. Just ONE. (of substance).

unimportant

about

these

Good leadership? Iraq is pulling the strings, the global economy is on the fritz, and the mid east peace just blew up. You must be kidding me.

Howabout "I do not recall."

He used that lie many many times.  And in a cruelly ironic twist of
fate, he is now enfeebled with Alzheimer's disease.  The man who
selectively couldn't recall, now truly cannot recall.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
            [email]  replace EYE with I
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Dave wrote in message ...

Well if he has alzheimers then he really couldn't recall, so you just contradicted yourself--it wouldn't be a lie. Plus, there is nothing to indicate, alzheimers or not, that he ever knew anything north was doing.

If he really didn't know what North was doing, (which I find very difficult to believe) that's almost as damning as if he were directing the operation himself. Reagan not being aware that his subordinates were running what was essentially a shadow government--with the White House basement as it's headquarters--strikes me as criminally incompetent.

Mike

kmsimmons wrote in message ...

It was secretive, no way for him to know. Unfortunately this *can* happen to any president. If we as a people establish with our votes that any dishonesty in intolerable, we will be decreasing the odds on repeats of this or Clinton.

FBI files, cattlegate, whitewater, rose billing records, illegal campaign donations, 15 friends/associates going to jail. If guilt by association is the criteria then Clinton should be in jail.

Could we maybe have a priority list of negative qualities in a president or other elected officials? Lying about sex, subornation of destruction of the middle class :), serving as President of the US while under the influence of Alzheimer's, selling arms to foreign power, marital infidelity among presidents and senators, Aligning with big business at the expense of citizens on such issues as HMO reform, environmental protection, etc etc etc.

BTW, no, subornation of perjury has not been proven. WE are still a land of law, tho some seem to not care about this any more. Those who scream the loudest about how Clinton is corrupting the legal system by lying are the quickest to deny him his own legal rights, and innocence until PROVEN guilty.

I think one problem I see in these discussions is black and white thinking, failure to recognize complexity of issues, wanting to reduce issues simplistically. These are the people who say "a lie is a lie", without looking at the context.

Dave writes:

It was never proven that Reagan had any knowledge of the deal or that he directed it to be done.

The national deficit was run up under a democratic Congress. Reagan submitted a balanced budget to Congress each year of his office.

In actuality, there was not a true budget surplus this year. Clinton decided to factor in the surplus made by social security. Slick Willy is using future retirement dollars to claim a surplus.

A democrat in the White House? Ever hear of tax and spend liberals? Democrats are the biggest offenders of big government spending. If it were up to the democrats even more of our paychecks would be confiscated by government and then doled out as a bloated bureaucracy sees fit. Democrats are the one that catalyzed and continued the social welfare programs which keep the impoverished unemployed (and voting democrat).

[email] wrote:

"Tax and spend liberals". Got that phrase from the Rep. handbook or the Rush Limbaugh show?

Still, sounds better than "tax and hand over to massive defense
contractors" doesn't it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
            [email]  replace EYE with I
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Dave wrote in message ...

That's what has fueled the economy--putting gov't $$ in the right places.

[email] wrote:

LOL 300 billion $ a year goes towards America's armed forces - we spend 18 cents out of every taxpayer dollar on defense.

All that money, and we STILL can't do a damned thing about terrorism.

Dave wrote in message ...

With a socialist-draftdodger in the White House, what do you expect? Look how he keeps finding excuses to let Saddam off the hook.

Reagan couldn't completely stop it, but he came DAMN close.

Whether you like Clinton or not, it's childish calling him a socialist-draftdodger. Reagan couldn't completely stop it --> Saddam? Ever heard of IraqGate?

The facts about "Iraqgate," one of the most complicated and least understood foreign policy scandals in American history, have gradually emerged since the triumph of U.S.-led forces in the 1991 Gulf War. During the tense months before the war began, President George Bush denounced Saddam Hussein as the "Butcher of Baghdad" and "worse than Hitler." But according to investigative reporters, former officials and congressional investigators, Bush and other high-ranking U.S. officials had given secret support to the Iraqi dictator for years prior to Operation Desert Storm. In fact, the Iraqi military machine that Bush sent half a million troops to confront was partly armed and financed by the United States.

The Iraqgate saga stretches across a decade. The early 1980s set the stage: Ronald Reagan was in the White House, and covert operations were the rage in Washington. Among the dozens of shady foreign policy initiatives launched during Reagan's first term in office was a clandestine effort to reinforce Iraq, which had invaded its neighbor Iran in 1980 and was locked into a vicious and costly war. The Iran-Iraq conflict, the "First Gulf War," would consume a million lives before the cease-fire in 1988.

At the advice of CIA Director William Casey, in 1982 President Reagan ordered the Defense Department and the CIA to contribute to the carnage by supplying the Iraqi military with intelligence information, advice, and hardware for battle. Former Reagan National Security official Howard Teicher recalls that Casey "personally spearheaded the effort to insure that Iraq had sufficient military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to avoid losing the Iran-Iraq war."

Driven by a desire to contain and punish revolutionary Iran, the Reagan administration "tilted" toward Iraq and buddied up to Saddam. The CIA and Pentagon became deeply involved in efforts to channel war materiel to Iraq. After interviewing high-ranking national security officials, journalist Murray Waas reported that "among the weapons made available to Saddam, with White House approval, were top-of-the-line HAWK anti-aircraft missiles, originally sent to Jordan's King Hussein and quietly passed along to Iraq." U.S.-made helicopters and high-tech computers were also added to Saddam's arsenal.

In addition to greasing the skids for the transfer of U.S. armaments to Iraq, the White House promoted sales from third countries. According to one former official quoted by Waas, "shipments from Europe [to Iraq] would not have been possible without the approval and acquiescence of the Reagan administration."

In addition to opening the flow of weapons to Iraq, the United States provided valuable intelligence data to Iraqi military leaders. Declassified White House e-mail messages indicate that Reagan administration officials also engaged in "battlefield management" -- offering strategic advice to the Iraqi military, such as suggestions for which Iranian assets to target.

The effort to support Saddam extended beyond the realm of covert action. During the 1980s the United States publicly granted billions of dollars of credit guarantees to Iraq under the Department of Agriculture's Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) program. The guarantees committed the United States to pay off banks that loaned money to Iraq to purchase U.S. agricultural goods, should the Iraqis default. This move bolstered Iraq's war-bled economy and freed up capital for Saddam to purchase more weapons. Some of the loans were themselves used to procure arms.

This CCC support for Iraq continued well after the Iran-Iraq war; on October 2, 1989, more than a year after the cease-fire, President Bush signed a secret authorization to extend an additional $1 billion in credits. Bush ordered the gift to Saddam in spite of late-1988 reports that the Iraqi military had gassed Kurdish villages. Baghdad's "butcher" was still Bush's beneficiary.

The fact that the Reagan administration supported Saddam during the 80's is a nail in the eye, huh?

Nine Mile wrote in message ...

During the 80's, supporting Iraq was a good idea. No regrets. Of course, now, he has to go. Clinton dodged the draft and lead an anti-American protest in England. His free health care is nothing less than an attempt at socialism. These are facts, but you can call me childish for these facts all you want.

"The friendship is a fog, that disappears when the wind redirects."

His anti-Vietnam protest? Well YOU defy that dirty war as American, I'm sure millions of other americans didn't. I think Clinton should be honoured for NOT accepting the war in Vietnam.

Ah geez, give me a break!! You know what.. cutting down on military budget and increasing free health care should be honoured as well. Guns and bombs decrease humanity, free healthcare increases it.

Nine Mile wrote in message ...

sure

Not if you want to one day be the leader of that same military you have gone on the record as hating. Big difference.

Fine, then you pay for it. Guns and bombs also protect people..

gone

The military itself is just a tool for the politicians that run forces. What the protests were about was the politics ran at that time. They're the ones that ordered the military presence in Vietnam at the first place.

Why do charity? I mean, after all it doesn't give you any profit at all. Why donate blood, you're the only one who looses anything. You'd gladly pay tax to the military, but not as gladly to healthcare. I find that egoistic and greedy.

So who are you going to protect with your guns and bombs, and against what power?

Nine Mile wrote in message ...

What

Morale means a lot. The US armed forces morale has sunk to historic lows under clinton. The protest was against the war, killing...

Why

I pay for my own health insurance, I do not want to pay for deadbeats' insurance. Furthermore, the government has only proven that it messes up what it gets involved in (military overspending, IRS, social security robbed to cover Clinton's deficits). Are you suggesting the US government gets such a ringing endorsement it deserves to control one fifth of the largest economy in the world (healthcare)?

Me, against anything that threatens me (terrorism, chinese icbm's, national interests, SOL democracies, world thugs).

I don't believe everything with government involvement is a failure. Law enforcement, the military, rural electrification, and the interstate highway system are good examples of this.

Kevin Richard Gowen wrote in message ...

285.....BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!111

"Nine Mile" wrote:

Ah geez, give me a break!! You know what.. although Clinton has cut down on the military budget, military deployments have actually INCREASED dramatically under the Clinton administration. The Army has been assigned 26 non-routine ''operational events'' since 1991. There had been only 10 in the preceding 31 years. The Air Force has undertaken 500 humanitarian missions to former Soviet states alone since 1992.

Guns and bombs decrease humanity.... tell that to Clinton

"Nine Mile" wrote:

Well if the shoe fits...

At the time, Iraq was our ally - we secretly armed them to keep Gulf shipping lanes free from Iranian terrorism.

(snip)

monday morning quarterbacking... maybe Reagan should have had Nancy be a little more thorough with her astrology readings

"what doesn't kill me makes me stronger" - Nietzsche

Nine Mile wrote:

Amazing how Clinton, after allegedly committing perjury over an embarrassing sexual indiscretion, should somehow be considered guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors" while Reagan and Bush deliberately and willfully lying to Congress about arms sales to our opponents was seen as just part of being a president.

You see, Clinton told his story and STUCK BY IT.

Contrast this to Reagan swearing he knew about the arms sales, then testifying he did not recall. Under oath, Reagan told two different mutually exclusive stories.

Then consider Bush testifying that he was central to "White House matters", then, again under oath, stating that he was "out of the loop".

Bottom line. Go ahead and impeach Clinton, but if you do then make sure the *real* liars are punished accordingly.

I wonder how many Americans have died as a direct result of Reagan's
policies.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
            [email]  replace EYE with I
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Dave wrote in message ...

understood

months

the

investigative

other

dictator

You say alleged, but it's obvious he did.

Never any rumor of proof they lied, but there is sufficient evidence Clinton lied AND obstructed justice. Big difference

No, remember the "apology" for lying. He changed his story because of the dna.

No he didn't. Please show what you are talking about. He couldn't remember something different.

And it was proven he was not at the meetings. If you consider Bush saying he was central a smoking gun, then please put Bill & Hillary in jail now for: files, rose, whitewater, vince foster, travel office fraud, sicking i.r.s. on enemies (including travel office people), monica gate, cattle gate, cia training in arkansas for central america, tyson kickbacks, murder of private investigato hillary hired before election because if bill didn't run she would divorce him and wanted evidence of his adultury, Roger Clinton saying Bill took coke and had a nose like a vacuum cleaner, Monica said she THINKS he was on drugs, and Bill has herpes (not a crime, just threw that one it).

They are the biggest liars in American history. Nixon looks more and more like a boy scout.

is

Terrorist deaths in the 90s under Clinton > Reagan in the 80s.

Close but no...... (sorry, can;t bring myself to write it)

In article , "DAVID" wrote:

Sure.  So close.  And Bush too.  Oh, so close.  But nothing either of
them did had an effect and the last time I checked, Hussein still ran
his country.  So who let who off the hook?  I'm tired of your double
standard.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
            [email]  replace EYE with I
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Evidently, Reagan was an avid horse shoe player. Thus, to him and his followers, close means something.

In article , [email] wrote:

[email] wrote in message ...

When you see the current president screw things up so bad, it's easy to long for the days when we had just a few little bombs every now and then.

HTH

Dave wrote in message ...

Look

Uh, Reagan and Bush did much better jobs than Cliton. If you are suggesting that they should have completely done away with terrorism, then are you anti-Zionist? Because that's the main gripe most terrorists have: US is satan for supporting israel (along with other generic gripes). Reagan silenced terrorism for a very long time, you may recall, with his bombings of Libya. He wasn't perfect but he did a damn good job. He definitely wouldn't be playing right into Saddam's hands like Clinton is. (Reagan, you might recall, was for dialog with Iran, cleaning up Carter's mess).

Hussein is in power because of Clinton's ineffectiveness.

There is no double standard. Clinton is letting Saddam off easy by playing his game. Everything that Reagan and Bush had accomplished was destroyed by Clinton and his weak presidency that is his own fault.

And we are stuck with him for 2 more years. I'm hoping for another Bush-Dole ticket (George Jr and Elizabeth) to clean up Clinton's mess.

Seinfeldologist:

Philip: >It was never proven that Reagan had any knowledge of the deal or that he directed it to be done.

Me: I dont think he had any memory of anything. Alzheimers develops slowly over time. In any case, it's might be worse to say he had NO knowledge of what his administration was doing.

Philip

This nickname seems to imply there's something slicker about Clinton than any other politician. They are ALL slick.

c

Dave writes:

Uh, no. A repressive authoritarian regime which lasted for half a century is the reason for the millions of Russian men, women and children living in poverty.

Yes.

Wow...pretty vigorous reaction. A piece of shit? That's some epithet. I will not take the time to address this except to say that historiography is already starting to bear Reagan out as a much more successful president than he was portrayed to be during his time in office and shortly thereafter. (Anyone flown out of the Ronald Reagan Airport yet? What a great sight to see that sign!)

[email] wrote in message ...

Recently the biography of him on PBS supports what you say. From watching it, I also got a good idea of how Clinton's historical bio (if they do one) will be: pttthhhhhhh!

"Just remember, Jerry. It's not a lie if YOU believe it" George Costanza

Thanks, I needed a good laugh. Happy Thanksgiving to all you moral perfectionists, street sign snipers, chain yankers and Seinfeldologists

Rainie

In article , wrote:

You make a pretty good arguement ( and I'm no Reagan fan) until you mention the renaming of an Airport for him. What the helll does that have to do with his success?

[email] wrote:

Uh, no, but we like to shoot holes in the "Ronald Reagan Turnpike" signs
here in Florida.  We each get five shots, and whoever can remove more of
Reagan's name for a sign wins the round.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
            [email]  replace EYE with I
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[email] writes:

The renaming of the airport has nothing to do with providing proof of his success. I simply mentioned it as an afterthought to my comments (notice the parenthetical) because I think it was a great change.

Who the hell cares what the name of an airport is and how much money did we waste on this? I seem to recall that Congress debated this for days.

In article , wrote:

[email] (Raining900) writes:

The U.S. census bears out that Reaganomics did decrease the middle class as people *rose* in class. There were also less poor people than prior.

I just read a book by Beth Fischer, "The Reagan Reversal: Foreign Policy and the End of the Cold War", which describes RR's presidential involvement of a level not typically acknowledged him. His personal involvement and direction is not as you purport in your comments.

[email] (Raining900) writes:

Philip:

and the End of the Cold War", which describes RR's presidential involvement of a level not typically acknowledged him. His personal involvement and direction is not as you purport in your comments.>

Appeal to authority. Logical phallacy. (sorry, couldnt resist that)

And I thought we had seen a "kinder, gentler ratboy."

[email] wrote:

Hey, aiming a shotgun at a piece of metal is sure gentler than blowing
some defenseless animal's brains out, dontcha think?  It's a good way to
blow off steam, and it serves a purpose.  Nothing wrong with that.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
            [email]  replace EYE with I
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Dave writes:

Right, right....we are in the capitalist stage right now, but pretty soon the proletariat will lead the revolution into the socialist phase as a prerequisite for the final stage of complete communism.

soon the proletariat will lead the revolution into the socialist phase as a prerequisite for the final stage of complete communism.>

Philip, really this seems truly bizarre. Where do you get this? The McCarthy era is over.

[email] (Raining900) writes:

Sorry, I thought I was dealing with people educated enough to absorb the nuances of such humor. Explanation: Dave made a statement referring to the shrinkage of the middle class and the outbreak of revolution. I found it humorous that his statement sounded similar to communist rhetoric (for example, the Bolshevik-lead revolution in 1917). I decided to play off that statement by posting communist rhetoric about the coming of the revolution.

[email] wrote:

It was a cute response.  I smirked.  But really, setting rhetoric
aside;  all Empires, from Roman to Byzantine to Ottoman, collapsed
shortly after the middle class was eliminated.  It's sort of a "World
History Factoid".
-----------------------------------------------------------------
            [email]  replace EYE with I
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[email] writes:

Typical lazy response to something that is found disagreeable. Actually a lot of people care, Downsey. Too bad your insignificant "who the hell cares" doesn't matter. Easy on the turkey today...

I don't find it disagreeable that they named an airport after him. I disagree that so much of Congresses time and effort went into it. Maybe some day, our Congress will know how to set priorities. At best, it was a partisan waste of time.

In article , wrote:

[email] writes:

Yes, it is too bad that some dems decided to waste our time by trying to debate something that should have been a foregone conclusion.

Yep.

We seem to agree here but one more point. Why the fuck is Congress dealing with such petty issues as naming of airports?

In article , wrote:

[email] wrote:

I like how you've boiled it down.   It's as if they've already taken
care of all the really important issues, and now have time for petty BS
like this.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
            [email]  replace EYE with I
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Dave wrote in message ...

dealing

BS

Well, duhhhh. It's because they own and operate it. Washington "National" Airport. Kinda like the Sam Rayborn Office Building.. they built it, they operate it.. they can name it.

homerr

[Where would we be without Congress?? HAHAHAHA]

OK, let me re-phrase. WHat the fuck is the government doing owning and operating an airport?

In article , "homerr" wrote:

District of Columbia.. operated by the Government.. owned by the government.. managed by the Government.. not a State. Residents don't vote, no representation but taxed.. go figure.

homerr

[email] wrote in message ...

and

Congress

taken

petty

they

"Nine Mile" writes:

That's one of the more ridiculous characterizations of linguistics that I have heard. It is not childish, it is true. Clinton is not a moderate as he tries to purport. He is for big government and heavy-handed control. Overall, his actions, rhetoric, and history indicate he would prefer to move towards socialism. And he did dodge the draft--though color it whatever you please. The statement was true.

Regards, Philip

Uttered just before Hitler walked across Europe...

[email] wrote:

Sorry Phil. The Hitler card's already been played by DAVIDH.

According to Usenet convention, Hitler can be used as a poor example
only ONCE in any given thread.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
            [email]  replace EYE with I
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Dave wrote in message ...

NO SOUP FOR RATBOY!

Dave writes:

Sorry Da. Give me a mulligan on the usenet convention. And Hitler can only be as poor an example as the idea that preparing for war leads to a decrease in humanity (war?).

[email] wrote:

Kay, you got your Mulligan.

Far as I'm concerned, all that stockpiling of weapons for all those years was a mistake so costly, that we will never truly understand what we lost as a result.

"We gots more bombs than the Russkies! Whoopie-woo!"

[email] wrote:

That would explain why in 1997 the Clinton Administration elected to purchase Russian missles over US ones...maybe he was trying to balance the weapon stockpile.

"what doesn't kill me makes me stronger" - Nietzsche

Soulds like a creative solution to a problem he didn't create.  Russia
desperately needs money, and we desperately need to eliminate the
world's stockpile of nuclear weapons.  What would you have done
differently?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
            [email]  replace EYE with I
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Dave wrote in message ...

the

That's what I'd like to know about you.

I probably would have done whatever my advisors said was the right course of action.

I would have done the same thing obut I would only pay for the fissionable material. let them go through the trouble of disarming their own weapons and send us the dangerous parts in exchange for the money they need to feed, clothe, and shelter their citizens.

Human beings get to survive, and many weapons of mass descruction would
no longer exist.  It's a win/win situation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
            [email]  replace EYE with I
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Dave wrote in message ...

I, being the open-minded type, have always thought Bush made a big mistake by not implementing some sort of Marshall Plan for the former Soviets. I could be wrong--this is just me guessing again. Granted we have deficits, but we could still spare a few billion here and there, stragtegically invested, to ensure their survival. Some experts anticipate they will return to their communist roots if things don't get better for them.

In article , "DAVID" wrote:

] Highly unlikely. The country is broke and the IMF is their only hope. A return to their old ways will mean the loans get cut off.

[email] wrote in message ...

wrote:

mistake

deficits,

Are you saying the IMF won't make loans to communist states?

I'm saying the US underwrites a very high percentage of IMF loans. We have quite a bit to say where it will go. I'm also not saying that we will let the Russian peole starve but we won''t just hand the money over to the commies.

In article , "DAVID" wrote:

rdowns:

quite a bit to say where it will go. I'm also not saying that we will let the Russian peole starve but we won''t just hand the money over to the commies.>

Leaders do not always make policies to suit their starving citizens. e.g. Iraq.

Your plan for extracting the fissile material is ridiculous. Please see my post in this thread which discusses Russian disarmament in further detail.

Dave wrote:

Drop then on Iran.

Dave wrote in message ...

Not the little strategic ones.

Oh, please. Are you talking about cobalt bombs? They are fictional. Hiroshima and Nagasaki have shown us that fallout is local in its scope. I ate Italian ice cream at ground zero of the Hiroshima blast, and I've yet to suffer ill effect.

Kevin Richard Gowen wrote in message ...

RITE DINTIE NO ILL EFFECKSTS HEAR ETHER!!!!11

That was the 40's. Back then, how many countries had "the bomb". Howbout today? We drop bombs on Iran today and within one year, the Earth's surface is no longer habitable.

No?  Howbout your kids?  And theirs?
There may just be a history of third limbs in your family before long.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
            [email]  replace EYE with I
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Dave wrote in message ...

Depends on how many are dropped.

In alt.tv.road-rules DAVID wrote:

Even then, Ratboy is wrong. He's displayed a clear ignorance of nuclear policy as well as the general workings of nuclear weapons.

Nine. The USA, the UK, Russia, France, China, South Africa, Israel, India, and Pakistan. I fail to see how this refutes the fact that fallout of nuclear exchanges is local.

That is ridiculous. Again, you are speaking of fictional cobalt bombs. The workings of nuclear weapons are the same as they were in the 1940s. Namely, fissile material such as U-235, Pu-239, and U-233, or fusion fuels such as deuterium and tritium. These isotopes do not have the fallout hazard you suggest for the following reasons:

1.) many isotopes resulting from the fission explosion have very short half lives, and therefore decay before the fallout settles and can also be guarded against by short-term occupancy of fallout shelters.

2.) other isotopes produced by the fission explosion have extremely long half lives and thus do not produce intense radiation.

3.) other products of the fission explosion are not radioactive

Again, the effects of a fission explosion result in intense, local fallout readily avoidable by short-term refuge in fallout shelters.

The large yield multimegaton weapons of the US and Soviet arsenals have been largely retired, and now strategic low-yield weapons of several hundred kilotons are the order of the day. Climate models have shown that detonation of these warheads result in the fallout being deposited in the lower atmosphere, resulting in a much faster, intense, and local deposition of fallout. I should for a moment address the issue of cobalt bombs. The cobalt bomb was first proposed by Leo Szilard, not as a proposal for a weapon but merelt to point out that it is possible to build a bomb which could kill everyone on the planet. The cobalt bomb works by using cobalt-60, an isotope which with a half life of 5.26 years could be spread throughout the earth before it decays. This half-life is long enough that it could be dispersed worldwide before decay and thus making escape to fallout shelters nigh impossible, but the half-life is short enough that intense radiation does occur. However, no cobalt or other salted bomb has ever been constructed, and it is very unlikely such will be done at any point in the future.

I ate my gelato with the grandchildren of the survivors of Hiroshima. There was nary a third limb to be found. The populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki seem to fly in the face of your "third limb" argument. Several million Japanese can't be wrong.

Sigh I wasn't going to reply to this thing anymore but i've just about gnawed my tongue off.

We have clean bombs.

Duh.

Dave wrote in article ...

Russia

Dave wrote in message ...

Let me educate you: We lost communism, Soviet style. Even if they return to it, they are severly weakened and we can pay more attention to other problems. (just think how the Gulf War would have played out if the Soviets, full-strength, stepped in to support Iraq.).

Read more books.

What we lost was the possibility of a nation without a deficit. In other words, a prosperous economy the likes of which we can now only dream about.

Imagine what it would have been like if the last two presidents worked to mminimize the deficit rather than to triple it.

BTW, last I heard, not only were we spending monstrous amounts of money
to disarm our own nuclear weapons, we're actually sending truckloads of
money to Russia so they can disarm their bombs too.  Boy, it's a good
thing we built so many, otherwise all that cash would have to be spent
elsew
-----------------------------------------------------------------
            [email]  replace EYE with I
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Dave wrote in message ...

Uh, you said 2 weeks ago the economy was so good that you didn't care that Clinton was a perjurer and we should move on. You have just contradicted yourself, and I couldn't be happier about it. :-) And you can thank Reagan's policies for this great economy too.

We would have inflation and unemployment that would make you feel so bad you would want Clinton impeached.

That was the plan all along, and it worked. I read Nixon's memoirs a while back, and he had the same idea: Their economy would burn out before ours in an arms race, and it is worth the chance to end the Cold War and the risks it provided.

It's either this or the Soviets would control Saudi oil fields and you'd be paying $10 a gallon.....and only THEN would you want Clinton impeached. I have the good judgement to call for his head now before any more serious harm is done.

Alleged perjurer, thank you. It seems you've already impeached the man.

Ignorance is bliss? <g> I most certainly did not contradict myself. Just because I'm pleased with the current state of the economy doesn't mean there's no room for improvement. Let me boil it down for you. If I had $1000 in my pocket right now I'd be happy. But maybe, if not for the mistakes of a few prior presidents, I could have had $10,000. That would have made me much happier. Where's the contradiction?

Gotcha! So it really has nothing to do with whether he lied to Congress or not, by your account it's got more to do my feelings about the economy and the state of the nation? Now who's being contradictory?

Sure, and all it would take to help rebuild. I guess the aftermath of WWII didn't teach us anything? Boy, it's a good thing we spent all that money to build Japan back up or else people might have to drive around in, gulp, Fords and Chryslers and we wouldn't have any decent stereo components to listen to either.

Again, you're saying Clinton should be impeached, not for anything he actually did wrong, but because people are bitter about their lot in life or their opinions about the direction the country is headed?

I've said all along that all of this impeachment bullshit is simply an
anti-Clinton witch hunt.  Thanks for backing me up.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
            [email]  replace EYE with I
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Dave wrote in message ...

that

The evidence is there. You do not have to use the word alleged unless that's just wishful thinking.

This great economy you brag about was Clinton's inheritance from Reagan and Bush. It started in the 80's. I do credit Clinton for maintaining their success. That is Bill's biggest accomplishment.

How much better do you think things can get, in terms of unemployment, inflation, and interest rates? You complain about the debt, yet you do not give it credit for the economy.

You are. It has EVERYTHING to do with his lies and obstructions of justice. When I said "...make you feel so bad you would want Clinton impeached" I was sarcastically talking to YOU, because you said a few weeks ago that you didn't care that Clinton broke the law because economically things have been great for you. I was reinterating your words. I think you misunderstood my sentence. I will try to be more careful.

while

in

risks

Building up Japan, Germany, et al., after WWII was one of the greatest things this country has ever done. It really put in perspective who we are (were) and what we stood for. All 67% of Americans seem to care about now is how well they are doing financially.

The risks and dangers of the Cold War quite possibly exceeded the threats of WWII.

be

I

No, he should be impeached only on the merits of the laws he has broken. I was referring to that 67% ( morons) who think Clinton's criminal activities are ok if they have good jobs and more money. I was insinuating that if things were bad they would have done the right thing (albeit for the wrong reason).

I didn't back you up, I directly contradicted you. I find it interesting that you find this confusing.

Wishful thinking means nothing. If it meant something, Clinton would have been impeached already and Gingrich wouldn't be a laughing stock.

No, there is still no conclusive evidence that Clinton perjured himself. Go back and listen to the testimony. Unless Kenneth Torquemada Starr can come up with anything more, perjury hasn't been proven, and Clinton did nothing that warrants an impeachment.

Unfortunately, Starr isn't through wasting money, so this will drag on
further before they finally relent and censure the president.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
            [email]  replace EYE with I
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

In article , [email] wrote:

Speaking of wasting $$, the govt just finished spending $17 million to investigate Espy and he was acquitted. He was accused of accepting $33,000 worth of gifts. Will the madness never end.

[email] wrote in message ...

And the OJ Jury Award for 1998 goes to: the Espy Trial.

Another massive waste. Still, I guess when it's not actually YOUR money, you don't give a shit how it gets spent.

Dave wrote in message ...

Are you talking about the kickbacks or the trial cost? The trial cost is my money.

Dave wrote in message ...

You misspelled "slither away again".

In alt.tv.road-rules DAVID wrote:

The people who deserve the credit are Mr. Greenspan and Mr. Rubin..especially Mr. Greenspan.

Absolutely.  Alan Greenspan doesn't get near the credit he deserves,
especially from the Reagan/Bush folks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
            [email]  replace EYE with I
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin Richard Gowen wrote in message ...

Anyone who looks like Larry King deserves NO credit. NONE. (besides he was just following the lead set by Volker, no?).

I thought the current state of economic prosperity in this country was the main reason for keeping Clinton in office? Of course, we know this is a disingenuous argument as the two people directly responsible for the state of our economy are Mr. Greenspan and Mr. Rubin.

I'm trying. Considering the fact that there is now *no* unemployment in this nation, I can't imagine a better economy. Wait a minute....lower taxes. What do you feel is currently missing from our booming economy?

Our support of disarming Russian nukes is strategically unwise. It is much better to let the Russian missiles deteriorate in their underground silos. The tritium triggers will deteriorate after a month of disuse. The current process of removing the fissile material from the weapons is very unwise as the fissile could then be used by third parties. If I were a terrorist in Eurasia, I would much rather have fissile material than a broken weapon. It is much better to let the missile rot in their silos.

"DAVID" writes: >

A good start would be "Soviet Military Policy Since World War II" by William T. Lee and Richard F. Starr published out of Stanford Univ.

Dave writes:

Oh, brother...I hope you said this in jest. I'm unsure since you've shown your fallibility with this topic. Which countries are going to detonate enough nuclear weapons to make the earth uninhabitable? U.S., Russia, UK, France, China, Israel, Japan (virtual nuclear power), India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iraq, or Iran? All of the mentioned are well grounded and secure except for NK, Iraq, and Iran. NK has, at most, enough material for a couple weapons. Iraq may have the same tucked away. Iran is probably a couple years away (Libya much further). Any Russian materials stolen would not be enough to destroy the globe.

Oh, well...you *are* still the little "l" lord of things Seinfeld.

I think I remember Kevin saying something about having a third leg. Maybe that's how he got his advantage.

In alt.tv.road-rules DAVID wrote:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

[email] wrote:

You're right Phil. I'm in waaaa-ha-ha-ha-haaay over my head here, so I'm bailing out right here and now.

Besides, I've gotten some e-mails from some robotech folks asking me to stop contributing the the non-ng related stuff that's proliferating their group, and it's no longer a topic I'm interested in. As a social experiment, this thread was a success. Beat a subject to death for a long enough time and nobody cares anymore.

Dave wrote in message ...

I still care. I always care. Well, mostly always.

I believe South Africa gave up its capability and has no operable device, although I could be mistaken.

Not quite. Russia's newest ICBM, the Topol-M (SS-27 to us in the West), has a yield probably in the one MT range. (I enjoyed your other nuclear- related writing.)

In alt.tv.road-rules [email] wrote:

That is correct. South Africa destroyed its arsenal before 10 July 1991. The mistake is mine.

True, megaton weapons are still in the arsenals, but are largely retired. Tactical nukes are the order of the day, but the megaton weapons still exist. For example, the US' B53 Mod-1 bomb has a yield of 9 MT. However, only 50 remain in the active stockpile and they comprise but a small percentage of our arsenal. The large yield weapons are still active, but have largely been retired in favor of lower yield weapons.

Thanks. I always enjoy talking shop.