PDA

View Full Version : See even being a former President doesn't get you out of Jury duty



Peebs
03-01-2003, 08:31 PM
http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/brooklyn/nyc-prez0302,0,783082.story?coll=nyc%2Dtopheadlines%2Dleft

:lol:

baccarat
03-01-2003, 08:47 PM
This is strange because usually well known people are excused from jury duty.

ohall
03-01-2003, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by booyeah_
This is strange because usually well known people are excused from jury duty.

It's a publicity ploy, he's a smart guy you have to give him that.

Oliver...

t2thejz
03-01-2003, 10:20 PM
jesus. he will probly let someone get away with someone

Kamikaze
03-01-2003, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by godblessAmerica
jesus. he will probly let someone get away with someone

Get away with someone eh? Work on your English, son. Also, tell me, why the hell would you say that Clinton would let someone get away with committing a crime?

ohall
03-01-2003, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by chicagodolphan
Get away with someone eh? Work on your English, son. Also, tell me, why the hell would you say that Clinton would let someone get away with committing a crime?

Maybe because he got away with commiting quite a few?

Oliver...

Kamikaze
03-01-2003, 11:11 PM
Maybe because he got away with commiting quite a few?

Did I ask you? I want this godblessamerica kid to answer for himself for once.

Also, tell me Oliver, what President DOESN'T pardon people? I can't imagine that our good friend Dubya isn't going to pardon anyone when his term is up.

ohall
03-01-2003, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by chicagodolphan
Did I ask you? I want this godblessamerica kid to answer for himself for once.

Also, tell me Oliver, what President DOESN'T pardon people? I can't imagine that our good friend Dubya isn't going to pardon anyone when his term is up.

LOL dude you can save your "did I ask you" attitude. It's a public MBoard and if you haven't figured out anyone will answer any question asked then I suggest you learn it like yesterday.

I don't care who Clinton pardoned, I was referring to the things he got away with. It would only make sense he may feel sorry for the guilty seeing as how he knows 1st hand what it is to be judged and to be guilty at the same time.

Oliver...

t2thejz
03-01-2003, 11:17 PM
clinton was a scumbag he let so many people off the hook as a president. he lied to the american people and that cuban kid who came here he sent him back after all the trouble it took him to get here because he didnt want to deal with cuba. he is a *****

Kamikaze
03-01-2003, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by godblessAmerica
[B]clinton was a scumbag he let so many people off the hook as a president.

So does every President. Want me to dig up the Presidential pardons of Bush Sr. and Reagan? What about Ken Lay? He ruined the lives of thousands and hasn't gotten so much as a slap on the wrist. Your hypocricy is so foul I can smell it even when I'm not online.


he lied to the american people and that cuban kid who came here he sent him back after all the trouble it took him to get here because he didnt want to deal with cuba.

So you say President Bush has NEVER lied to the American people? Oh ho ho, I'll gladly dig up a few examples for you if you don't believe me. BTW, what does Cuba have to do with this? I thought we were just talking about how Clinton let people off (like every ****ing president)/


he is a *****

And finally, when you can't think of a valid attack on someone, you resort to insults. You're still a kid, so I'll let you off the hook for this total idiocy, but please friggin learn how to write. If you want your opinions to be taken seriously at all, you better learn how to communicate in your native language pretty damn quickly.

Sniper
03-01-2003, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by chicagodolphan
If you want your opinions to be taken seriously at all, you better learn how to communicate in your native language pretty damn quickly.

Is this why GWB isn't taken seriously? :D

Sabre Ally
03-01-2003, 11:33 PM
:lol: Good one Sniper. Of course, his complete lack of ability when it comes to foreign policy doesn't help him, either.

ohall
03-01-2003, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
Is this why GWB isn't taken seriously? :D

He's not taken seriously by ppl who never took him seriously top begin with. Some ppl let the popular culture determine what they think, it ain;t easy being a sheep. Reagan had the same reputation before entering office and he left considered by most as one the BEST Presidents ever. Don't be shocked and upset the same thing happens here here with W.


A high I.Q. is not what makes a President, never has and never will. Personal skills and a good E.Q. will get you much further, no?

Oliver...

Sabre Ally
03-01-2003, 11:37 PM
What fantasy world are you living in? Reagan and best in the same sentence? Not a chance. The gulf between rich and poor widened exponentially because of his laissez faire policies!

ohall
03-01-2003, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by Sabre Ally
:lol: Good one Sniper. Of course, his complete lack of ability when it comes to foreign policy doesn't help him, either.

Good idea to judge his foreign policy when he hasn't really even begun to get that ball rolling in that department. They said the same crap before his father went into Kuwait. Why don't you wait until he screws up before you nail him for something that hasn't happened as of yet. A lot of ppl looked foolish after the success of the Gulf War.

Foreign policy is widely known as his strength because like any other GOOD President he surrounds himself with the BEST ppl to help him make the tough the decisions with facts and the benefit of their personal past experiences in foreign policy.

Oliver...

ohall
03-01-2003, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by Sabre Ally
What fantasy world are you living in? Reagan and best in the same sentence? Not a chance. The gulf between rich and poor widened exponentially because of his laissez faire policies!

Sister you're lost!

You can ignore the deep hole Reagan helped to dig this country out of, not to mention putting the slam dunk on Russia! But sorry most ppl understand what's realy going on.

Oliver...

Kamikaze
03-01-2003, 11:41 PM
I hope some of you take the bottom quote in my signature seriously...

dolfan06
03-01-2003, 11:43 PM
Originally posted by Sabre Ally
:lol: Good one Sniper. Of course, his complete lack of ability when it comes to foreign policy doesn't help him, either. he sure has a unique method of talking on the phone though!:D

Sniper
03-01-2003, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by Oliver
He's not taken seriously by ppl who never took him seriously top begin with. Some ppl let the popular culture determine what they think, it ain;t easy being a sheep. Reagan had the same reputation before entering office and he left considered by most as one the BEST Presidents ever. Don't be shocked and upset the same thing happens here here with W.


A high I.Q. is not what makes a President, never has and never will. Personal skills and a good E.Q. will get you much further, no?

Oliver...

Personal skills and a good E.Q. makes a good President?

I think Bush is too far out of touch with the needs of the working class and poor. This is a man who has had everything handed to him from day one. Emotional intelligence won't help anybody if they can't identify with someone else's problems.

dolfan06
03-01-2003, 11:49 PM
also i don't want anybody to come unglued here, but i read an article that when carter was still in office, reagan and his vice president made a deal with the iranians to hold the hostages until after the elections so it would look like the republicans were the heroes. then with all the contra crap, it just kinda went away. has anybody else heard this!:confused:

Sniper
03-01-2003, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by dolfan06
also i don't want anybody to come unglued here, but i read an article that when carter was still in office, reagan and his vice president made a deal with the iranians to hold the hostages until after the elections so it would look like the republicans were the heroes. then with all the contra crap, it just kinda went away. has anybody else heard this!:confused:

I've heard that before. The timing of when they were released always bothered me.

ohall
03-01-2003, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by dolfan06
also i don't want anybody to come unglued here, but i read an article that when carter was still in office, reagan and his vice president made a deal with the iranians to hold the hostages until after the elections so it would look like the republicans were the heroes. then with all the contra crap, it just kinda went away. has anybody else heard this!:confused:

Actually it was the ppl who took the hosatages who didn't want Carter to have any of the credit. After Reagan had won the election they would no longer talk to Carter, they only talked to Reagan and his ppl.

Basically they didn't trust Carter, because he was caught with his pants down when those Delta force guys died when they were on their way to try and save the hostages.

Oliver...

ohall
03-01-2003, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
Personal skills and a good E.Q. makes a good President?

I think Bush is too far out of touch with the needs of the working class and poor. This is a man who has had everything handed to him from day one. Emotional intelligence won't help anybody if they can't identify with someone else's problems.

Honestly I don't think too many politicians are in touch with working class ppl. I agree, but Bush IMO is no different. If you are a Liberal you have to pay back big Liberal businesses that got you the Presidency, same as if you are a Conservative.

Not one politician is guilt free IMO, and if they aren’t they aren’t very successful.

And no doubt E.Q. is more important than having a high I.Q, when it comes to being a successful President. As it turns out Clinton was not exactly the most in tuned person to be President, now was he?

Oliver...

iceblizzard69
03-02-2003, 12:01 AM
Originally posted by godblessAmerica
clinton was a scumbag he let so many people off the hook as a president. he lied to the american people and that cuban kid who came here he sent him back after all the trouble it took him to get here because he didnt want to deal with cuba. he is a *****

Wow, you hurt the argument. Elian Gonzalez should be with his DAD, and if his DAD wants to live in Cuba, there shouldn't be a problem with that. He shouldn't live with his uncle if he can live with his DAD and his DAD wants him.

dolfan06
03-02-2003, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by Oliver
As it turns out Clinton was not exactly the most in tuned person to be President, now was he?

Oliver... my son lives in arkansas, so i go back there quite often. they don't even claim clinton!:D

ohall
03-02-2003, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by iceblizzard69
Wow, you hurt the argument. Elian Gonzalez should be with his DAD, and if his DAD wants to live in Cuba, there shouldn't be a problem with that. He shouldn't live with his uncle if he can live with his DAD and his DAD wants him.

Most conservatives are real hard core on this issue, especially with Cuba. If it was a Mexican they wouldn't care. It's one thing I'm not proud about. Being a conservative it's nothing to be proud of.

I agreed with Clinton on that one, the kid should be with his dad. It's not our place as a nation to rip families a part.

Oliver...

ohall
03-02-2003, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by dolfan06
my son lives in arkansas, so i go back there quite often. they don't even claim clinton!:D

Did Clinton even win Arkansas in both of his Presidential campaigns?

I know Gore didn't win Tennesse. That's got to suck, you know you're in trouble when you can't even win your home state! :(

Oliver...

dolfan06
03-02-2003, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by Oliver
Did Clinton even win Arkansas in both of his Presidential campaigns?

I know Gore didn't win Tennesse. That's got to suck, you know you're in trouble when you can't even win your home state! :(

Oliver... he did the first, but not the second! you should listen to how some of the locals talk about him!:rolleyes:

Sniper
03-02-2003, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by Oliver
Honestly I don't think too many politicians are in touch with working class ppl. I agree, but Bush IMO is no different. If you are a Liberal you have to pay back big Liberal businesses that got you the Presidency, same as if you are a Conservative.

Not one politician is guilt free IMO, and if they aren’t they aren’t very successful.

And no doubt E.Q. is more important than having a high I.Q, when it comes to being a successful President. As it turns out Clinton was not exactly the most in tuned person to be President, now was he?

Oliver...

I'd agree that most politicians are out of touch. Al Gore was a case in point. He couldn't connect with many people and that is probably why he lost to GWB.

E.Q. is important in politics, but I'd say intelligence is equally important.

dolfan06
03-02-2003, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by dolfan06
he did the first, but not the second! you should listen to how some of the locals talk about him!:rolleyes: i'm southern baptist and there was really a big stink at our church. they actually had a convention over some of the movies that disney was backing!:rolleyes:

Peebs
03-02-2003, 03:58 AM
Wo. I put the link to the article to show that EVERYONE has a civic duty to serve on a jury...cops, lawyers, judges and even past presidents....nothing gets you out of jury duty these days....

and this turns into a "Bush is god" and "Clinton sucks" debate??? COME ON people!
Now with that said....



Actually it was the ppl who took the hosatages who didn't want Carter to have any of the credit. After Reagan had won the election they would no longer talk to Carter, they only talked to Reagan and his ppl.
WRONG! The hostages were released the DAY after Ronnie baby was sworn in. Iran did that on purpose to make Carter look stupid. Reagan had as much "negotiating" involved as I did :rolleyes:




You can ignore the deep hole Reagan helped to dig this country out of, not to mention putting the slam dunk on Russia! But sorry most ppl understand what's realy going on.

And then finish the "fairy tale"...then Reagan proceeded to help this country have one of the two "blackest" days in the stock market history....
AND WHEN exactly was the "fall of communism"? As of 1989 the Soviets were JUST pulling their troops from Afghanistan so it couldn't have been while Ronnie Boy was putting on his show in the White House.
USSR didn't start breaking up into separate states until 1991...Reagan wasn't in office and Bush Sr. was just about putting the last nail in his political coffin around that time.
Oliver, where exactly do you get your history from? "The Conservative's guide to not telling the whole story"? Because you makes statements without ACTUALLY telling the whole story...


clinton was a scumbag he let so many people off the hook as a president. he lied to the american people and that cuban kid who came here he sent him back after all the trouble it took him to get here because he didnt want to deal with cuba. he is a *****
Let's not get into "liars" because the republicans claim the grand daddy of all liars.
and Elan Gonzalez was a PARENTAL RIGHTS issue NOT a Political issue! Elan did nothing to "get here" his Mother did and without consent from his Father. The child BELONGED with his surviving parent.
Wanna talk "*****"? We'll just see who's a "*****" in 2004. Seems Dubahs numbers are BELOW 50% for a re-election:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/27/bush.poll/index.html
Let him have his war in Iraq, it was politcal suicide for his Daddy. You can't get your spin doctors to play "wag the dog" just to divert attention away from the fact you put the economy in the crapper!

Happy day's just might be here again!

ohall
03-02-2003, 04:08 AM
Originally posted by Peebs
WRONG! The hostages were released the DAY after Ronnie baby was sworn in. Iran did that on purpose to make Carter look stupid. Reagan had as much "negotiating" involved as I did


Well Peebs you see the election is held in late November and the new administration takes over the next year in late January. I'm sure you knew that! Right back at you. :rolleyes:


Originally posted by Peebs
WRONG! And then finish the "fairy tale"...then Reagan proceeded to help this country have one of the two "blackest" days in the stock market history....
AND WHEN exactly was the "fall of communism"? As of 1989 the Soviets were JUST pulling their troops from Afghanistan so it couldn't have been while Ronnie Boy was putting on his show in the White House.
USSR didn't start breaking up into separate states until 1991...Reagan wasn't in office and Bush Sr. was just about nailing the last nail in his political coffin around that time.


Umm ya everything bad is the Presidents fault with you if that President is a Conservative. And everything good when a Conservative is President is someone elses doing according you. At least you are consistent!

==

And no doubt what your intentions are and were whenever it has anything to do with Clinton and you are posting it. It's just another snow job you want some of use to take. Keep thinking Clinton will be remember outside of anything that doesn't have to do with something negative or him taking advantage of women. The man is what he is and ppl like you are doing your best to change history because your man turned out to be as low as they come, he embarrased this entire nation and you aren't willing to handle the truth you'd rather spin it and try and change it. Good luck.

Oliver...

Peebs
03-02-2003, 04:14 AM
Darlin...
Check your history books AGAIN.

On Jan. 20, 1981, the day of President Reagan's inauguration, the United States released almost $8 billion in Iranian assets and the hostages were freed after 444 days in Iranian detention.
Your not President UNTIL your sworn in. Right? Don't matter when your elected...You don't elect your cabinet until your IN office. Right? Ok then....

And you have a consistant history in these politcal debates of saying (for example) "Reagan got the economy going" without adding "And then the stock market took the biggest CRASH since the depression while he was in office". If you make a statement, FINISH IT. Don't tell half a tale. Back it up.

Peebs
03-02-2003, 04:22 AM
For example, we have the world wide web at our finger tips. All i have to do is type in "Stock market crash" and I get the 411 on both the 1929 crash and the 1987 crash in all it's detail

http://www.ncpa.org/pd/economy/pdeco/oct97jj.html

Bad Policies Triggered 1987 Stock Market Crash
Yesterday, October 19, was the 10th anniversary of the stock market crash of 1987, which saw the Dow Jones Industrial Average drop 508 points in one day -- a 23 percent fall equivalent to an 1,800 point drop today . Next to the crash of 1929, the crash of 1987, dubbed Black Monday, has been one of the most thoroughly studied events in financial history. The lessons learned may be one reason why the market has risen almost continually ever since (see figure).

Initial blame for the 1987 crash centered on the interplay between stock markets and index options and futures markets. In the former people buy actual shares of stock; in the latter they are only purchasing rights to buy or sell stocks at particular prices. Thus options and futures are known as derivatives, because their value derives from changes in stock prices even though no actual shares are owned. The Brady Commission concluded that the failure of stock markets and derivatives markets to operate in sync was the major factor behind the crash.

While structural problems within markets may have played a role in the magnitude of the market crash, they could not have caused it. That would require some action outside the market that caused traders to dramatically lower their estimates of stock market values. The main culprit here seems to have been legislation that passed the House Ways & Means Committee on October 15 eliminating the deductibility of interest on debt used for corporate takeovers.

Two economists from the Securities and Exchange Commission, Mark Mitchell and Jeffry Netter, published a study in 1989 concluding that the anti-takeover legislation did trigger the crash. They note that as the legislation began to move through Congress, the market reacted almost instantaneously to news of its progress. Between Tuesday, October 13, when the legislation was first introduced, and Friday, October 16, when the market closed for the weekend, stock prices fell more than 10 percent -- the largest 3-day drop in almost 50 years. In addition, those stocks that led the market downward were precisely those most affected by the legislation.

Another important trigger in the market crash was the announcement of a large U.S. trade deficit on October 14, which led Treasury Secretary James Baker to suggest the need for a fall in the dollar on foreign exchange markets. Fears of a lower dollar led foreigners to pull out of dollar-denominated assets, causing a sharp rise in interest rates.

What the 1987 crash ultimately accomplished was to teach politicians that markets heed their words and actions carefully, reacting immediately when threatened. Thus the crash initiated a new era of market discipline on bad economic policy.

Source: Bruce Bartlett, senior fellow, National Center for Policy Analysis, October 20, 1997.


Bad policies? During Reagan's Admin?? Say it ain't so! :rolleyes:

ohall
03-02-2003, 04:22 AM
Originally posted by Peebs
Darlin...
Check your history books AGAIN.

Your not President UNTIL your sworn in. Right? Don't matter when your elected...You don't elect your cabinet until your IN office. Right? Ok then....

And you have a consistant history in these politcal debates of saying (for example) "Reagan got the economy going" without adding "And then the stock market took the biggest CRASH since the depression while he was in office". If you make a statement, FINISH IT. Don't tell half a tale. Back it up.

Correct Peebs, but that doesn't change the FACT that they only wanted to talk to Reagan after he won the election in November. That's why what he had worked out with them couldn't take place until he was President. Again they did not trust Carter, because he was caught with his pants down lying to them when he tried to rescue the hostages with the Delta force and when those Delta force soldiers died.

Sorry just because you get the ecnomy going there's no promise it will stay that way. There are too many factors involved for one man to get blamed for it. But I do know one man deserves credit for inspiring the entire nation in getting us out of that dark hole and for whopping the Russians azz!

Do have any idea what political party had control of the Congress and Senate then Peebs? No I don't think you want to go there, because the real truth will come out. Now won't it?

Oliver...

ohall
03-02-2003, 04:24 AM
Originally posted by Peebs
For example, we have the world wide web at our finger tips. All i have to do is type in "Stock market crash" and I get the 411 on both the 1929 crash and the 1987 crash in all it's detail

http://www.ncpa.org/pd/economy/pdeco/oct97jj.html

Bad Policies Triggered 1987 Stock Market Crash
Yesterday, October 19, was the 10th anniversary of the stock market crash of 1987, which saw the Dow Jones Industrial Average drop 508 points in one day -- a 23 percent fall equivalent to an 1,800 point drop today . Next to the crash of 1929, the crash of 1987, dubbed Black Monday, has been one of the most thoroughly studied events in financial history. The lessons learned may be one reason why the market has risen almost continually ever since (see figure).

Initial blame for the 1987 crash centered on the interplay between stock markets and index options and futures markets. In the former people buy actual shares of stock; in the latter they are only purchasing rights to buy or sell stocks at particular prices. Thus options and futures are known as derivatives, because their value derives from changes in stock prices even though no actual shares are owned. The Brady Commission concluded that the failure of stock markets and derivatives markets to operate in sync was the major factor behind the crash.

While structural problems within markets may have played a role in the magnitude of the market crash, they could not have caused it. That would require some action outside the market that caused traders to dramatically lower their estimates of stock market values. The main culprit here seems to have been legislation that passed the House Ways & Means Committee on October 15 eliminating the deductibility of interest on debt used for corporate takeovers.

Two economists from the Securities and Exchange Commission, Mark Mitchell and Jeffry Netter, published a study in 1989 concluding that the anti-takeover legislation did trigger the crash. They note that as the legislation began to move through Congress, the market reacted almost instantaneously to news of its progress. Between Tuesday, October 13, when the legislation was first introduced, and Friday, October 16, when the market closed for the weekend, stock prices fell more than 10 percent -- the largest 3-day drop in almost 50 years. In addition, those stocks that led the market downward were precisely those most affected by the legislation.

Another important trigger in the market crash was the announcement of a large U.S. trade deficit on October 14, which led Treasury Secretary James Baker to suggest the need for a fall in the dollar on foreign exchange markets. Fears of a lower dollar led foreigners to pull out of dollar-denominated assets, causing a sharp rise in interest rates.

What the 1987 crash ultimately accomplished was to teach politicians that markets heed their words and actions carefully, reacting immediately when threatened. Thus the crash initiated a new era of market discipline on bad economic policy.

Source: Bruce Bartlett, senior fellow, National Center for Policy Analysis, October 20, 1997.


Bad policies? During Reagan's Admin?? Say it ain't so! :rolleyes:

One persons opinion, it means as much as yours and mine. Or didn't they teach you that in know it all school?

Oliver...

Peebs
03-02-2003, 04:32 AM
AGAIN...you can't "negotiate" ANYTHING until your sworn in. You are only "President Elect" and have no policy making power et al UNTIL YOU ARE SWORN IN AS PRESIDENT. Nothing, Nada, Zilch...EVEN had someone assinated Carter guess who would have taken over the White House until January....Not the "President Elect" but Vice President Mondale.
Reagan nor "Bonzo" his movie co star chimp had anything to do with getting the hostages from Iran....
Nothing.

And you do know who has veto power over the house don't you?

Peebs
03-02-2003, 04:38 AM
Originally posted by Oliver
One persons opinion, it means as much as yours and mine. Or didn't they teach you that in know it all school?

Oliver...

One persons opinion? You are kidding me right?
That website is the "National Center for Political Analysis" not Joe Schmoe. The National Center of Policy Analysis is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization, established in 1983.
They have no political agenda.
Why just because they don't wear the same rose colored glasses you do?

ohall
03-02-2003, 05:18 AM
Originally posted by Peebs
One persons opinion? You are kidding me right?
That website is the "National Center for Political Analysis" not Joe Schmoe. The National Center of Policy Analysis is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization, established in 1983.
They have no political agenda.
Why just because they don't wear the same rose colored glasses you do?

Yeah I see your point, they wouldn't have a biased, they are funded right out of the thin air.

Oliver...

t2thejz
03-02-2003, 10:14 AM
Just to tell you all. it doesnt hurt me that some liberals dont respect me on the internet. i am respected where it counts and where i want to be respected.

Peebs
03-02-2003, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by Oliver
Yeah I see your point, they wouldn't have a biased, they are funded right out of the thin air.

Oliver...

Do you understand the term non-profit?
Do you realize they receive grants and federal funding set aside for RESEARCH? And because they receive grants and funding they must have a mission statement stating they are non-partisan. AND like all non-profit groups that receive federal grants and have a mission statement are audited on a regular basis to make sure they are abiding to the mission statement?
And those who donate to such an organization also believe in "fair and impartial" reporting without an agenda?

Sniper
03-02-2003, 02:10 PM
Although, it is probably impossible to get totally unbiased inforamtion, I'd have to say that nonprofit, nonpartisan think tanks come the closest to achieving this.

The conclusion from this particular group looks very reasonable and it is apparant that these were the conclusions of many other people.

Sniper
03-02-2003, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by Peebs
For example, we have the world wide web at our finger tips. All i have to do is type in "Stock market crash" and I get the 411 on both the 1929 crash and the 1987 crash in all it's detail

http://www.ncpa.org/pd/economy/pdeco/oct97jj.html

Bad Policies Triggered 1987 Stock Market Crash
Yesterday, October 19, was the 10th anniversary of the stock market crash of 1987, which saw the Dow Jones Industrial Average drop 508 points in one day -- a 23 percent fall equivalent to an 1,800 point drop today . Next to the crash of 1929, the crash of 1987, dubbed Black Monday, has been one of the most thoroughly studied events in financial history. The lessons learned may be one reason why the market has risen almost continually ever since (see figure).

Initial blame for the 1987 crash centered on the interplay between stock markets and index options and futures markets. In the former people buy actual shares of stock; in the latter they are only purchasing rights to buy or sell stocks at particular prices. Thus options and futures are known as derivatives, because their value derives from changes in stock prices even though no actual shares are owned. The Brady Commission concluded that the failure of stock markets and derivatives markets to operate in sync was the major factor behind the crash.

While structural problems within markets may have played a role in the magnitude of the market crash, they could not have caused it. That would require some action outside the market that caused traders to dramatically lower their estimates of stock market values. The main culprit here seems to have been legislation that passed the House Ways & Means Committee on October 15 eliminating the deductibility of interest on debt used for corporate takeovers.

Two economists from the Securities and Exchange Commission, Mark Mitchell and Jeffry Netter, published a study in 1989 concluding that the anti-takeover legislation did trigger the crash. They note that as the legislation began to move through Congress, the market reacted almost instantaneously to news of its progress. Between Tuesday, October 13, when the legislation was first introduced, and Friday, October 16, when the market closed for the weekend, stock prices fell more than 10 percent -- the largest 3-day drop in almost 50 years. In addition, those stocks that led the market downward were precisely those most affected by the legislation.

Another important trigger in the market crash was the announcement of a large U.S. trade deficit on October 14, which led Treasury Secretary James Baker to suggest the need for a fall in the dollar on foreign exchange markets. Fears of a lower dollar led foreigners to pull out of dollar-denominated assets, causing a sharp rise in interest rates.

What the 1987 crash ultimately accomplished was to teach politicians that markets heed their words and actions carefully, reacting immediately when threatened. Thus the crash initiated a new era of market discipline on bad economic policy.

Source: Bruce Bartlett, senior fellow, National Center for Policy Analysis, October 20, 1997.


Bad policies? During Reagan's Admin?? Say it ain't so! :rolleyes:


I'd say bad policy combined with too little regulation caused the '87 crash.


Ultimately, both Stock Market crashes were the result of too little market regulation. In this day and age, when billions of dollars in assets can be sold at the click of a mouse, more regulation makes sense.

Dolfan984
03-02-2003, 03:16 PM
Actually, I don't remember the last time a conservative perseident did antything good for this country, :P

Chicago, I love the last quote you have on your sig, totally represents Bush, then again, the Bush family did cooperate with the Nazi's in WW2.

Bush has done his share of 'illegal activity' just like Clinton. Clinton was a much superior president compared to "Dubya"

Sniper
03-02-2003, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by Dolfan984
Actually, I don't remember the last time a conservative perseident did antything good for this country, :P

Chicago, I love the last quote you have on your sig, totally represents Bush, then again, the Bush family did cooperate with the Nazi's in WW2.

I've also heard the Bush family fortune was initially built on their alleged business dealings with the Nazi's.

t2thejz
03-02-2003, 06:35 PM
where did you hear that

t2thejz
03-02-2003, 06:36 PM
Bush sr was a hero in wwII

Kamikaze
03-02-2003, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by godblessAmerica
where did you hear that

http://www.americanfreedomnews.com/afn_articles/bushsecrets.htm

t2thejz
03-02-2003, 06:48 PM
so does this mean bush is a nazi and so is his father?

Kamikaze
03-02-2003, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by godblessAmerica
so does this mean bush is a nazi and so is his father?

No, it means that his family collaborated and had strong financial ties to the Nazi regime. But it is important to know how his family made their fortunes, and they made that fortune with the help of a man who killed 6 million Jews.

t2thejz
03-02-2003, 06:52 PM
O why is this so important to know. are you saying bush had a part in killing jews now?

Kamikaze
03-02-2003, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by godblessAmerica
O why is this so important to know. are you saying bush had a part in killing jews now?

HIS FAMILY'S MONEY CAME FROM THE MOST ****ING TYRANNICAL REGIME IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND! Sheesh, how small is your goddamn brain kid? BTW, did I say that Bush had a part in killing Jews? **** NO. Stop cramming words into my mouth.

Kamikaze
03-02-2003, 06:59 PM
If this doesn't open your mind even an inch, there is no hope for you.

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/bushnonazi.html

t2thejz
03-02-2003, 06:59 PM
How much money did they make doing this. I think most of his money is from oil.

t2thejz
03-02-2003, 07:00 PM
o yea and take a pill enscribed chill. your getting into this way to much. i just do it for fun and your about to have a hernia.

Kamikaze
03-02-2003, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by godblessAmerica
i just do it for fun

Then your opinion will never again be taken seriously here. Thank you for finally admitting that your own opinion is crap.

Dolfan984
03-02-2003, 07:09 PM
Bush never killed Jews, but he did work with the Nazi's and many of his policies follow Nazi policies. His money was started with help of the Nazi's back in WW2 times, and the oil came later.

iceblizzard69
03-02-2003, 07:30 PM
This is getting ridiculous. 984 and chicago were never suggesting that our president was a Nazi, because we know he isn't, and although I think it was a little off topic and not necessary to mention, godblessamerica comes up with the dumbest arguments.

Sniper
03-02-2003, 07:34 PM
I understand that they had already amassed quite a fortune before rolling it into the oil industry. It was in the hundreds of millions of dollars and all of it was blood money. :nono:

baccarat
03-02-2003, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by Dolfan984


Bush has done his share of 'illegal activity' just like Clinton. Clinton was a much superior president compared to "Dubya"

So because G.W. Bush may have done illegal activity, that pardons Clinton? Maybe I'm misinterperting you but I think you're trying to say is corruptive behavior is OK because other corruption exists.

baccarat
03-02-2003, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by Dolfan984
Bush never killed Jews, but he did work with the Nazi's and many of his policies follow Nazi policies.

How could Bush work with the Nazi's when he's 49(I think.)? Are you suggesting he follows nazism?

"So where is the real terrorist?
In the Middle East or the U.S.?
So who is the real terrorist?
Is it Saddam Hussein or your own president?"

Are you suggesting that Bush is a terrorist whose as evil as the Butcher of Baghdad?

Kamikaze
03-02-2003, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by booyeah_
How could Bush work with the Nazi's when he's 49(I think.)? Are you suggesting he follows nazism?


He was talking about Prescott Bush, Bush Sr's dad if I'm not mistaken. I might call Prescott Bush a Nazi, since he helped fund their massive war machine and concentration camps.



"So where is the real terrorist?
In the Middle East or the U.S.?
So who is the real terrorist?
Is it Saddam Hussein or your own president?"

Are you suggesting that Bush is a terrorist whose as evil as the Butcher of Baghdad?

Thanks for ignoring the fact those lyrics were written in 1999. PRESIDENT CLINTON.

Sniper
03-02-2003, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by chicagodolphan
He was talking about Prescott Bush, Bush Sr's dad if I'm not mistaken. I might call Prescott Bush a Nazi, since he helped fund their massive war machine and concentration camps..

It is sickening. :nono:

ohall
03-03-2003, 12:34 AM
Originally posted by Sniper
I've also heard the Bush family fortune was initially built on their alleged business dealings with the Nazi's.

Their family was rich before the NAZI's were ever around!

My God this is getting crazy!

Oliver...

ohall
03-03-2003, 12:37 AM
Originally posted by godblessAmerica
so does this mean bush is a nazi and so is his father?

Dude relax it's an out right lie, some ppl just want to believe this, because it makes them sleep better at night. Sad but true. There is a reason that the mainstream media won't get near this.

It's a LIE!

Oliver...

Marino1983
03-03-2003, 12:53 AM
Originally posted by Sniper
I've also heard the Bush family fortune was initially built on their alleged business dealings with the Nazi's.


That IS very interesting sniper !!! Seriously I have never read or heard this before,, hum ..... But it would not surprise me if this was fact ..... :eek: :( Marino1983

ohall
03-03-2003, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by chicagodolphan
If this doesn't open your mind even an inch, there is no hope for you.

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/bushnonazi.html

By the way if you believe this garbage then you have to blame the government of America as well, not to mention England as well. We supplied Germany with many loans. What happened was Hitler lied, for that no one else is to blame but Hitler.

I'm not surprised you believe this crap Sniper and Chi.

Oliver...

Kamikaze
03-03-2003, 01:00 AM
Oliver, you are ignoring outright facts because you're afraid they'll shatter your notion that Governor Bush is the most capable man to lead this country. You're also ignoring pertinent facts of his family background, cause God forbid his family dealt with the free world's greatest enemy.

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/bushnonazi.html
http://www.hereinreality.com/familyvalues.html

If you aren't going to believe the truth, fine. But if you wish to deny the truth, just realize very few people are going to take you seriously.

Kamikaze
03-03-2003, 01:02 AM
Originally posted by Oliver
By the way if you believe this garbage then you have to blame the government of America as well, not to mention England as well. We supplied Germany with many loans. What happened was Hitler lied, for that no one else is to blame but Hitler.

I'm not surprised you believe this crap Sniper and Chi.

Oliver...

Hey Oliver, why not actually try and bring up VALID criticisms against my sources? You have NOT YET ONCE did this. Either you are not looking at them at all, or you have no ****ing idea how to argue against the FACTS they present.

Sabre Ally
03-03-2003, 01:11 AM
Originally posted by Oliver
By the way if you believe this garbage then you have to blame the government of America as well, not to mention England as well. We supplied Germany with many loans. What happened was Hitler lied, for that no one else is to blame but Hitler.

I'm not surprised you believe this crap Sniper and Chi.

Oliver...

Actually, what Oliver says here is true. The actions of Britain and France between the wars, as well as the billions of American dollars that helped Germany rebuild, made WWII possible. As for Hitler's lies, well....the Western leaders assumed that Hitler was a gentleman and that he would observe peace treaties, alliances, the League of Nations, etc. We all know what happens when you assume, don't we?

ohall
03-03-2003, 01:31 AM
Originally posted by chicagodolphan
Hey Oliver, why not actually try and bring up VALID criticisms against my sources? You have NOT YET ONCE did this. Either you are not looking at them at all, or you have no ****ing idea how to argue against the FACTS they present.

Chi that's not a source, that's just a web site. Just because Bush was apart of a board of a bank that loaned Hitler's Germany $ does not mean they are Nazi's or they were doing anything different than the majority of the civilized world in that time when it concerned Germany.

With your rational any Jews that shared a bank with Hitler's $ they must also be a Nazi!

It defies logic, it's bias and it's inflammatory to say the least.

Oliver...

ohall
03-03-2003, 01:34 AM
Originally posted by chicagodolphan
Hey Oliver, why not actually try and bring up VALID criticisms against my sources? You have NOT YET ONCE did this. Either you are not looking at them at all, or you have no ****ing idea how to argue against the FACTS they present.

Also with your logic Enlgand must be Communist because they gave Russia 25 Rolls Royce Jet engines after WW2.

Please just stop this, your true colors are being revealed, and I don't think they are very good colors.

Oliver...

Sniper
03-03-2003, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by Oliver
By the way if you believe this garbage then you have to blame the government of America as well, not to mention England as well. We supplied Germany with many loans. What happened was Hitler lied, for that no one else is to blame but Hitler.

I'm not surprised you believe this crap Sniper and Chi.

Oliver...

Exactly, we supplied loans and materials. Specifically, Prescott Bush and Harriman supplied the Nazi's with loans and supplies even though we had declared war on them at this point.

"In 1942, Bush/Harriman companies were seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act: the Union Banking Corporation, the Holland-American Trading Corporation, the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation and Silesian-American Corporation. "

As for your arguement about Hitler lying. To the best of my knowledge Hitler committed suicide. What do you think happened, he was called to testify against PB? How do you explain away the violation of Trading with the Enemy?

PhinPhan1227
03-03-2003, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by godblessAmerica
clinton was a scumbag he let so many people off the hook as a president. he lied to the american people and that cuban kid who came here he sent him back after all the trouble it took him to get here because he didnt want to deal with cuba. he is a *****


Just to put my two cents in as an American of Cuban descent, sending Elian Gonzalez back to his father was the right thing to do. America had ZERO legal justification for keeping that child seperated from his sole surviving parent.

PhinPhan1227
03-03-2003, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by Sniper
Exactly, we supplied loans and materials. Specifically, Prescott Bush and Harriman supplied the Nazi's with loans and supplies even though we had declared war on them at this point.

"In 1942, Bush/Harriman companies were seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act: the Union Banking Corporation, the Holland-American Trading Corporation, the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation and Silesian-American Corporation. "

As for your arguement about Hitler lying. To the best of my knowledge Hitler committed suicide. What do you think happened, he was called to testify against PB? How do you explain away the violation of Trading with the Enemy?


Lol..."Sins of the fathers"? I never knew you were a religious zealot Sniper. Quite honestly, who gives a flying flock what GW's grandfather, or great grandfather did? Chelsea Clintons dad was getting his pole waxed in the Oval Office, does that mean that Chelsea is a bad person? The progenitor of the Kennedy clan was a first rate scumbag, but nobody is peeing on JFK's grave(although that whole family IS an argument for there being a "jerk gene"). Of all the lame arguments to bring out against a persons performance as a President, whatever his ancestors may or may not have done has got to be the worst. Heck, I suppose that those Jews whose grandparents/great grandparents supported Hitlers early rise to power should consider themselves tainted, and surrender themselves as potential war criminals? While we're at it, the Sioux Nation will be filing suit against the descendents of all the US Cavalry officers that were ordered to drive them off their land. Sheesh people, talk about grasping at threads.

Peebs
03-03-2003, 03:11 PM
So your comparing a "bootlegger" (Joe Kennedy) and someone who received a blow job from an intern to someone who aided a regime that killed 6 million Jews?

Are you serious?

Sniper
03-03-2003, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Lol..."Sins of the fathers"? I never knew you were a religious zealot Sniper. Quite honestly, who gives a flying flock what GW's grandfather, or great grandfather did? Chelsea Clintons dad was getting his pole waxed in the Oval Office, does that mean that Chelsea is a bad person? The progenitor of the Kennedy clan was a first rate scumbag, but nobody is peeing on JFK's grave(although that whole family IS an argument for there being a "jerk gene"). Of all the lame arguments to bring out against a persons performance as a President, whatever his ancestors may or may not have done has got to be the worst. Heck, I suppose that those Jews whose grandparents/great grandparents supported Hitlers early rise to power should consider themselves tainted, and surrender themselves as potential war criminals? While we're at it, the Sioux Nation will be filing suit against the descendents of all the US Cavalry officers that were ordered to drive them off their land. Sheesh people, talk about grasping at threads.

In no way did I imply that GWB was or sympathized with the Nazi's just because his grandfather may have. Maybe you need to relax and actually read the material that's in front of you without projecting into it.

I happen to think that the Sioux do have a legitimate gripe and it should be addressed in court. The Native Americans are one of the most oppressed people in history.

ohall
03-03-2003, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
In no way did I imply that GWB was or sympathized with the Nazi's just because his grandfather may have. Maybe you need to relax and actually read the material that's in front of you without projecting into it.

I happen to think that the Sioux do have a legitimate gripe and it should be addressed in court. The Native Americans are one of the most oppressed people in history.

All I have to say is some of you have some serious issues with this country. I'm not exactly sure what you are even doing here to be honest.

If I hated this country as much as some of you do I would stay, but hey I guess that's just me.

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
03-03-2003, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by Peebs
So your comparing a "bootlegger" (Joe Kennedy) and someone who received a blow job from an intern to someone who aided a regime that killed 6 million Jews?

Are you serious?



Considering the mob ties that those "bootleggers" had, I'd say that someone who was a direct associate of characters like Capone, and someone who did business with a legitimate government are probably on the same level morally. Bear in mind that I highly doubt that Grandpa Bush knew anything about the ongoing genocide. The odds are overwhelming that his only knowledge was that he was still doing business with a government that was hostile to US interests. Still makes him a scumbag, but really no worse than someone who's doing business with people who murdered innocent Americans on a daily basis. As for Clinton, I wouldn't put him on quite the same level. But the comparison is still sound. Does it really matter WHAT an individuals ancestors did? Is any of that in any way impactful on what their grandkids will be like? Again, I didn't realize we had such religious zealots here.

ohall
03-03-2003, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Considering the mob ties that those "bootleggers" had, I'd say that someone who was a direct associate of characters like Capone, and someone who did business with a legitimate government are probably on the same level morally. Bear in mind that I highly doubt that Grandpa Bush knew anything about the ongoing genocide. The odds are overwhelming that his only knowledge was that he was still doing business with a government that was hostile to US interests. Still makes him a scumbag, but really no worse than someone who's doing business with people who murdered innocent Americans on a daily basis. As for Clinton, I wouldn't put him on quite the same level. But the comparison is still sound. Does it really matter WHAT an individuals ancestors did? Is any of that in any way impactful on what their grandkids will be like? Again, I didn't realize we had such religious zealots here.

The majority of the world and their governments had no idea they were killing the Jews as they were. That's not why anyone went to war with Hitler. People can sit here on their morally high soap box, but deep down they know this is true.

England wouldn't take Jewish refugees, America wouldn't no one would. So all this "everyone knew" about what Hitler was doing is total BS. No one knew how exactly insane he was until after the war, and when the evidence was there for anyone to see. After it was no longer being hidden from the world.

Oliver...

ohall
03-03-2003, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Considering the mob ties that those "bootleggers" had, I'd say that someone who was a direct associate of characters like Capone, and someone who did business with a legitimate government are probably on the same level morally. Bear in mind that I highly doubt that Grandpa Bush knew anything about the ongoing genocide. The odds are overwhelming that his only knowledge was that he was still doing business with a government that was hostile to US interests. Still makes him a scumbag, but really no worse than someone who's doing business with people who murdered innocent Americans on a daily basis. As for Clinton, I wouldn't put him on quite the same level. But the comparison is still sound. Does it really matter WHAT an individuals ancestors did? Is any of that in any way impactful on what their grandkids will be like? Again, I didn't realize we had such religious zealots here.

The majority of the world and their governments had no idea they were killing the Jews as they were. That's not why anyone went to war with Hitler. People can sit here on their morally high soap box, but deep down they know this is true.

England wouldn't take Jewish refugees, America wouldn't no one would. So all this "everyone knew" about what Hitler was doing is total BS. No one knew how exactly insane he was until after the war, and when the evidence was there for anyone to see. After it was no longer being hidden from the world.

Oliver...

Sniper
03-03-2003, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by Oliver
All I have to say is some of you have some serious issues with this country. I'm not exactly sure what you are even doing here to be honest.

If I hated this country as much as some of you do I would stay, but hey I guess that's just me.

Oliver...

You don't think the Native Americans have the right to be heard in court?

PhinPhan1227
03-03-2003, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
In no way did I imply that GWB was or sympathized with the Nazi's just because his grandfather may have. Maybe you need to relax and actually read the material that's in front of you without projecting into it.

I happen to think that the Sioux do have a legitimate gripe and it should be addressed in court. The Native Americans are one of the most oppressed people in history.

Then why did you bring it up except to cast aspersions on the man for things done by his ancestors? If those actions have no bearing on him, what was the motivation for thrwoing them out there? As for the Sioux, I fully agree that Native Americans have actionable gripes. That doesn't mean they should be able to sue the descendents of those who harmed them for reparations however. I find it laughable when some black leaders talk about reparations, and say they want the government to pay. It apparently dawns on them that the government has nothing to pay WITH. All it has is MY money which will not go to reparations unless it's over my dead body. I'm a first generation American on my fathers side, and 2nd on the other. I feel badly for living on land that was once owned by Native Americans, but I feel no guilt whatsoever for slavery(especially considering my background).

Sniper
03-03-2003, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Then why did you bring it up except to cast aspersions on the man for things done by his ancestors? If those actions have no bearing on him, what was the motivation for thrwoing them out there? As for the Sioux, I fully agree that Native Americans have actionable gripes. That doesn't mean they should be able to sue the descendents of those who harmed them for reparations however. I find it laughable when some black leaders talk about reparations, and say they want the government to pay. It apparently dawns on them that the government has nothing to pay WITH. All it has is MY money which will not go to reparations unless it's over my dead body. I'm a first generation American on my fathers side, and 2nd on the other. I feel badly for living on land that was once owned by Native Americans, but I feel no guilt whatsoever for slavery(especially considering my background).

I clearly did not "cast aspirations" on GWB. If you think so, then it is something you are reading into. When I criticize GWB, I do it directly so that there is no room for doubt. For instance, I believe that GWB is a borderline idiot.:D

I too believe the Sioux and Native Americans should have their day in court. I also happen to believe African Americans should have their day in court for slavery reparations. Let the courts decide the merits of their case. This is what America is about.

PhinPhan1227
03-03-2003, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
I clearly did not "cast aspirations" on GWB. If you think so, then it is something you are reading into. When I criticize GWB, I do it directly so that there is no room for doubt. For instance, I believe that GWB is a borderline idiot.:D

I too believe the Sioux and Native Americans should have their day in court. I also happen to believe African Americans should have their day in court for slavery reparations. Let the courts decide the merits of their case. This is what America is about.

Hey, everyone has the right to take anything to court, and will. But no way do they get a bill signed authorizing the money(for slavery reparations). as to GWB, you haven't answered the question. If the comment wasn't an attempt to slur him, why did you comment on it? What WAS the purpose of bringing up his grandfathers possible past misdeeds?

Sniper
03-03-2003, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
What WAS the purpose of bringing up his grandfathers possible past misdeeds?

I didn't bring it up. Someone before me posted something about the Bush family dealings with the Nazi's. After that, I said something along the lines that I "heard about that" and then it turned into a debate.

PhinPhan1227
03-03-2003, 06:30 PM
What you said was..."I've also heard the Bush family fortune was initially built on their alleged business dealings with the Nazi's.", which is a little more than "I heard about that". For you to assert that you would say that without any motive to slander GW assumes a level of idiocy here that borders on insulting.

Sniper
03-03-2003, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
What you said was..."I've also heard the Bush family fortune was initially built on their alleged business dealings with the Nazi's.", which is a little more than "I heard about that". For you to assert that you would say that without any motive to slander GW assumes a level of idiocy here that borders on insulting.

What you asked me was why did you bring this up? My answer to you was I did not bring this up, someone else did. I thought a brief description of this would suffice and did not know that I had to go back and repeat it verbatim in order to satisfy your "lofty" standards.

Now why did I comment on it?

I commented on it because it was a relevant part of the conversation. I was clearly talking about GW's grandfather, Prescott Bush, and no one else. Never once did I mention that GW was part of this nor did I imply that the "apple never falls far from the tree." Even in my above quote, I clearly qualified that this was ALLEGED. Quite frankly, if you still think I was "casting aspirations" on GW then so be it, I really could care less.

PhinPhan1227
03-04-2003, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by Sniper
What you asked me was why did you bring this up? My answer to you was I did not bring this up, someone else did. I thought a brief description of this would suffice and did not know that I had to go back and repeat it verbatim in order to satisfy your "lofty" standards.

Now why did I comment on it?

I commented on it because it was a relevant part of the conversation. I was clearly talking about GW's grandfather, Prescott Bush, and no one else. Never once did I mention that GW was part of this nor did I imply that the "apple never falls far from the tree." Even in my above quote, I clearly qualified that this was ALLEGED. Quite frankly, if you still think I was "casting aspirations" on GW then so be it, I really could care less.


It was never a relevant part of the conversation, it was a stupid comment brought up by 984, and you jumped in with both feet. I've checked again, and I still don't see the threads title as reading "Misdeeds of Presidential ancestors". The topic IS not even Presidents can get out of jury duty. How in the HECK is GW's granfather relevant to THAT discussion?

Peebs
03-04-2003, 10:48 AM
Excuse me but you've NEVER seen a political thread go "off topic"???
It starts out with a Democrat (or Republican) making a statement about something the republicans (or a Democrat) did....then a conservative comes on and has to point out a wrong by a democrat....then back and forth it goes...

Whether Grandpa Bush cohorted with the Nazi's may NOT be relevant in THIS thread...it is RELEVANT. How someone emassed their fortune is relevant. Just as someone pointed out the dirty dealings Joe Kennedy did to make his money (though STILL not as horrible as financing the extermination of 6 million Jews) the Bush family money is relevant information.

Sniper
03-04-2003, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
It was never a relevant part of the conversation, it was a stupid comment brought up by 984, and you jumped in with both feet. I've checked again, and I still don't see the threads title as reading "Misdeeds of Presidential ancestors". The topic IS not even Presidents can get out of jury duty. How in the HECK is GW's granfather relevant to THAT discussion?

Who gives a ****? I'm free to comment in anyway I want because I am not bound by the anal retentive rules that govern your personal universe. Maybe you don't realize that conversation evolves into other topics? The idiocy on your part is truly amazing.

PhinPhan1227
03-04-2003, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by Peebs
Excuse me but you've NEVER seen a political thread go "off topic"???
It starts out with a Democrat (or Republican) making a statement about something the republicans (or a Democrat) did....then a conservative comes on and has to point out a wrong by a democrat....then back and forth it goes...

Whether Grandpa Bush cohorted with the Nazi's may NOT be relevant in THIS thread...it is RELEVANT. How someone emassed their fortune is relevant. Just as someone pointed out the dirty dealings Joe Kennedy did to make his money (though STILL not as horrible as financing the extermination of 6 million Jews) the Bush family money is relevant information.


The Kennedy comment was ONLY relevent in relation to the Bush comment, but in NO way was it relevent in and of itself. It's ENTIRELY academic how someones FAMILY ammassed their wealth. If someone wants to erect a monument to Joe Kennedy or Grandpa Bush, THEN it would be relevent. But in a discussion of modern politics, it's tabloid crap. Bringing up (or expounding on) something which occured before the man was born has NO bearing on this or any other discussion I've ever seen on this board. That would be like excusing Trent Lotts actions by pointing out that the Republican Party is the one that fought for the rights of blacks to vote. It has NO bearing on the discussion, and is presented ONLY for it's emotional impact. Again, it's tabloid material. And bringing up "How someone emassed their fortune" is ONLY relevent if THAT person ammassed it. You want to know how GW Bush ammassed HIS fortune? He inherited it. You want to attack him for being born into money, knock yourself out. Otherwise, you're resorting to mudslinging, and you're doing it with crappy aim to boot.

PhinPhan1227
03-04-2003, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by Sniper
Who gives a ****? I'm free to comment in anyway I want because I am not bound by the anal retentive rules that govern your personal universe. Maybe you don't realize that conversation evolves into other topics? The idiocy on your part is truly amazing.


You're free to comment any way you like. You're also free to sound like an idiot when you claim relevancy for expounding on a topic which was brought up for purely licentious reasons. And resorting to "I'm free to post anything I want" is the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?". Not exactly a ringing endorsement of your forensic skills.

Sniper
03-04-2003, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
You're free to comment any way you like. You're also free to sound like an idiot when you claim relevancy for expounding on a topic which was brought up for purely licentious reasons. And resorting to "I'm free to post anything I want" is the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?". Not exactly a ringing endorsement of your forensic skills.

Clear, complete, lucid thoughts are not exactly a strong point of yours.

Peebs
03-04-2003, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
The Kennedy comment was ONLY relevent in relation to the Bush comment, but in NO way was it relevent in and of itself. It's ENTIRELY academic how someones FAMILY ammassed their wealth. If someone wants to erect a monument to Joe Kennedy or Grandpa Bush, THEN it would be relevent. But in a discussion of modern politics, it's tabloid crap. Bringing up (or expounding on) something which occured before the man was born has NO bearing on this or any other discussion I've ever seen on this board. That would be like excusing Trent Lotts actions by pointing out that the Republican Party is the one that fought for the rights of blacks to vote. It has NO bearing on the discussion, and is presented ONLY for it's emotional impact. Again, it's tabloid material. And bringing up "How someone emassed their fortune" is ONLY relevent if THAT person ammassed it. You want to know how GW Bush ammassed HIS fortune? He inherited it. You want to attack him for being born into money, knock yourself out. Otherwise, you're resorting to mudslinging, and you're doing it with crappy aim to boot.

Ah like Enron huh?
And how someone finances themselves and their politcal ambitions is very relevant. It would be like if my Daddy was a big time Drug Cartel, made millions and I use my inherited financial fortune to back my run for the presidency....


Is that relevant?

PhinPhan1227
03-04-2003, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by Peebs
Ah like Enron huh?
And how someone finances themselves and their politcal ambitions is very relevant. It would be like if my Daddy was a big time Drug Cartel, made millions and I use my inherited financial fortune to back my run for the presidency....


Is that relevant?


Actually, no it isn't. Certainly not in and of itself. Now, if you knew about it and participated in it, sure. But if your GRANDFATHER sold drugs, and all you ever did was be BORN, than no. Perhaps you'd like to pick on someone for being born black or hispanic while you're at it? And if you'd like to throw "Enron" out there, perhaps you could back that up? The entire DNC looked for ANY wrongdoing on the part of GW, and couldn't find any. Heck, we're just spraying mud everywhere today in some hope that some of it sticks.

PhinPhan1227
03-04-2003, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by Sniper
Clear, complete, lucid thoughts are not exactly a strong point of yours.


Lol...wow, that was impressive! Are you now going straight to the "yo mamma" jokes, or are you going to actually deal with any of the points presented?

Peebs
03-04-2003, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Actually, no it isn't. Certainly not in and of itself. Now, if you knew about it and participated in it, sure. But if your GRANDFATHER sold drugs, and all you ever did was be BORN, than no. Perhaps you'd like to pick on someone for being born black or hispanic while you're at it? And if you'd like to throw "Enron" out there, perhaps you could back that up? The entire DNC looked for ANY wrongdoing on the part of GW, and couldn't find any. Heck, we're just spraying mud everywhere today in some hope that some of it sticks.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight...Dubya had no involvement in Enron? And I believe in the Easter bunny.
Maybe the Democrats are smart enough not to waste BILLIONS of tax payers dollars on a "independent counsel". But then again Republicans have no problem wasting money that's not theirs.





Perhaps you'd like to pick on someone for being born black or hispanic while you're at it?
WTF are you TALKING about?


Ok folks...I say we support one of Victoria Gotti Kids for NYS Senate...I mean according to this ignoramus it shouldn't matter that her Father and GrandFather gained fortune from any illicit dealings....

PhinPhan1227
03-04-2003, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by Peebs
Riiiiiiiiiiiight...Dubya had no involvement in Enron? And I believe in the Easter bunny.
Maybe the Democrats are smart enough not to waste BILLIONS of tax payers dollars on a "independent counsel". But then again Republicans have no problem wasting money that's not theirs.

WTF are you TALKING about?

Ok folks...I say we support one of Victoria Gotti Kids for NYS Senate...I mean according to this ignoramus it shouldn't matter that her Father and GrandFather gained fortune from any illicit dealings....



What you choose to do with rabbits in the privacy of your home is your business, but....if you'd bothered to read something, you'd know that GW refused to bail Enron out, and that Clinton actually had a lot more involvment in the company than GW did. Not to mention that GW was only President for a couple of months before they fell. Perhaps you think the scam was put in place over a time frame of a month and a half? Oh yeah, I'M the ignoramus. Then again, if you're willing to condemn people for the actions for thier ancestors, I shouldn't be surprised that you would condemn someone without evidence. As for the rest, apparently it was ok for Kennedy to be elected President while his dad was in bed with the John Gotti of his time. Care to comment on THAT bright boy? Again, if you're going to denounce someone for something their GRANDFATHER did, you're attacking them for the circumstances of their birth. Quite honestly, if you can show me that Victoria Gotti's kids had no dealings with their grandparents criminal activities, and that they're QUALIFIED to hold public office, I have no problem with them running. What kind of bigoted Nazi would condemn a person for something their grandparent did? How is that in ANY way that persons fault? Again, that was the excuse used by racists no that long ago..."well, you're father was a slave, therefore, you're a slave". Jesus, do you actually consider yourself to be a LIBERAL? You sound more like someone who learned to think at the knee of David Duke. You're willing to condemn someone for the circumstances of their birth, and you're willing to convict without evidence. No membership in the ACLU for you buddy.

Peebs
03-04-2003, 01:54 PM
Ahahahahahahahaha first off you make me laugh! Second...look again jerky, I'm not a BOY. Niiiice assumption.

Third your whole tirade made absolutely no sense what so ever...

Dubya was an invester in Enron who magically lost no money and wasn't caught out there like everyone else when they went belly up. But you know what, your right he is as innocent as Gary Condit is :lol: :lol: You are funny...




What kind of bigoted Nazi would condemn a person for something their grandparent did? How is that in ANY way that persons fault? Again, that was the excuse used by racists no that long ago..."well, you're father was a slave, therefore, you're a slave". Jesus, do you actually consider yourself to be a LIBERAL? You sound more like someone who learned to think at the knee of David Duke. You're willing to condemn someone for the circumstances of their birth, and you're willing to convict without evidence. No membership in the ACLU for you buddy.

AND YOU better WATCH IT in what you call me....for one you do NOT know my racial/religous backround. You throw anymore terms such as racist et al at me I will contact the Moderator and or Admin for action. Got it? Good.

Sniper
03-04-2003, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Lol...wow, that was impressive! Are you now going straight to the "yo mamma" jokes

It was uncalled for. My apologies.

,
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
or are you going to actually deal with any of the points presented?

Which points would those be?

Sniper
03-04-2003, 02:00 PM
There are some memos on the www.thesmokinggun.com that shows a very cozy of a relationhship Enron and GW. I will dig them up after lunch.

Sniper
03-04-2003, 02:04 PM
I'd say GW's and Mr. Lays relationship was pretty close if GW called him "Kenny Boy."

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushlay1.shtml

PhinPhan1227
03-04-2003, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by Peebs
Ahahahahahahahaha first off you make me laugh! Second...look again jerky, I'm not a BOY. Niiiice assumption.

Third your whole tirade made absolutely no sense what so ever...

Dubya was an invester in Enron who magically lost no money and wasn't caught out there like everyone else when they went belly up. But you know what, your right he is as innocent as Gary Condit is :lol: :lol: You are funny...





AND YOU better WATCH IT in what you call me....for one you do NOT know my racial/religous backround. You throw anymore terms such as racist et al at me I will contact the Moderator and or Admin for action. Got it? Good.


I couldn't care less about your racial/religious background, but I do apoligise for calling you a boy...should have said "bright girl". What I DO care about is the persecution of a person based on their birth, and unfounded accusations. Those are the exact same concepts that are behind groups like the Nazi's. I didn't call you a Nazi, I just said you used the same methodology, and I'll happily back that up with examples if you feel like bringing the moderator in on this. If you'd like to take it back to reality however, I'll ask you again, why was it ok for JFK to run for and occupy the Presidency with his families criminal background, but it's somehow a problem for GW. And secondly, I'll ask you to demonstrate some PROOF of wrongdoing on GW's part in Enron, when the DNC was unable to do so. Simple enough, I'd like to ask you to deal with facts, rather than innuendo. Is that too terribly difficult?

PhinPhan1227
03-04-2003, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
I'd say GW's and Mr. Lays relationship was pretty close if GW called him "Kenny Boy."

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushlay1.shtml


They may very well have been drinking buddies for all I know. Does that mean that one day over beers Ken leaned over and said "Hey George, let me tell you about this little scam we've got going..."? Again, if there was any wrong-doing, why wasn't the DNC able to show it? God knows, they did their best to find ANY evidence, but weren't able to do so. Are we ditching the concept of innocent until proven guilty? Heck, maybe the GOP made a deal with the DNC...don't go after GW for Enron, and we won't go after Clinton for Global Crossing?:lol:

PhinPhan1227
03-04-2003, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
It was uncalled for. My apologies.

,

Which points would those be?

Apology again accepted. The point I was referring to was the justification for expounding on an issue who's only purpose is an attack on GW's character for something done by his grandfather. Heck, I've been guilty of it myself. I made jokes about Billy Carter when I knew full well that Billy was no reflection on Jimmys ability(or lack thereof) to be President of the United States. It's just a cheap shot, and I took it on occasion. But I'm willing to admit that I took that shot.

Peebs
03-04-2003, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
I couldn't care less about your racial/religious background, but I do apoligise for calling you a boy...should have said "bright girl". What I DO care about is the persecution of a person based on their birth, and unfounded accusations. Those are the exact same concepts that are behind groups like the Nazi's. I didn't call you a Nazi, I just said you used the same methodology, and I'll happily back that up with examples if you feel like bringing the moderator in on this. If you'd like to take it back to reality however, I'll ask you again, why was it ok for JFK to run for and occupy the Presidency with his families criminal background, but it's somehow a problem for GW. And secondly, I'll ask you to demonstrate some PROOF of wrongdoing on GW's part in Enron, when the DNC was unable to do so. Simple enough, I'd like to ask you to deal with facts, rather than innuendo. Is that too terribly difficult?

You want facts? The FACTS are that he's a spoiled wealthy man who's Papa had to buy him into Yale because his grades were so poor he couldn't get accepted to the University of Texas. His Papa bought him into the no-show National Guard gig to avoid Nam. Who had a alcohol and cocaine problem....
Thems the facts jack.

He never has press confrences because they won't let him speak unless it's off a teleprompter, afraid of what kind of blabber will come out of his mouth. He incorrectly pronounces words, makes this country look like blood thirsty cowboys because someone "Shot at my Daddy"??? What kind of shizzle is that?
PULEEEEZE.

The US has about as much respect right now as Rodney Dangerfield.

THOSE are the facts!

Sniper
03-04-2003, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
They may very well have been drinking buddies for all I know. Does that mean that one day over beers Ken leaned over and said "Hey George, let me tell you about this little scam we've got going..."? Again, if there was any wrong-doing, why wasn't the DNC able to show it? God knows, they did their best to find ANY evidence, but weren't able to do so. Are we ditching the concept of innocent until proven guilty? Heck, maybe the GOP made a deal with the DNC...don't go after GW for Enron, and we won't go after Clinton for Global Crossing?:lol:

It is possible. I believe that the powerful do protect each other at times.

Sniper
03-04-2003, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by Peebs
You want facts? The FACTS are that he's a spoiled wealthy man who's Papa had to buy him into Yale because his grades were so poor he couldn't get accepted to the University of Texas. His Papa bought him into the no-show National Guard gig to avoid Nam. Who had a alcohol and cocaine problem....
Thems the facts jack.

He never has press confrences because they won't let him speak unless it's off a teleprompter, afraid of what kind of blabber will come out of his mouth. He incorrectly pronounces words, makes this country look like blood thirsty cowboys because someone "Shot at my Daddy"??? What kind of shizzle is that?
PULEEEEZE.

The US has about as much respect right now as Rodney Dangerfield.

THOSE are the facts!


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Peebs
03-04-2003, 04:43 PM
Sorry, I just HAD to say it ;) You know I'm usually a little more eloquent in my responses!

PhinPhan1227
03-04-2003, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by Peebs
You want facts? The FACTS are that he's a spoiled wealthy man who's Papa had to buy him into Yale because his grades were so poor he couldn't get accepted to the University of Texas. His Papa bought him into the no-show National Guard gig to avoid Nam. Who had a alcohol and cocaine problem....
Thems the facts jack.

He never has press confrences because they won't let him speak unless it's off a teleprompter, afraid of what kind of blabber will come out of his mouth. He incorrectly pronounces words, makes this country look like blood thirsty cowboys because someone "Shot at my Daddy"??? What kind of shizzle is that?
PULEEEEZE.

The US has about as much respect right now as Rodney Dangerfield.

THOSE are the facts!

Now see...THOSE are legitimate points to bring up. They're only half facts, but they ARE at least facts. Of course, you still haven't addressed why it was ok for JFK to have a gangster for a father, but GW couldn't have one for a Grandfather, but I'll take what I can get. Now, dealing with the valid points you DID bring up...


"The FACTS are that he's a spoiled wealthy man who's Papa had to buy him into Yale because his grades were so poor he couldn't get accepted to the University of Texas."

Congrats, you've just described most politicians. In GW's defense, I WILL point out that once he got there he earned an MBA which Dad's money did NOT buy him, so maybe GW is an example of Rich Man's Affirmative Action at work?

"His Papa bought him into the no-show National Guard gig to avoid Nam."

True, seems he was following in Clintons footsteps who avoided the whole issue by staying in school.

"Who had a alcohol and cocaine problem...."

...which he has been clean and sober from for over 2 decades. This as compared to Bill Clinton who apparently felt that it was appropraite behavior to get his pole waxed in the Oval office. I'd say it points out a weakness in GW's character that he was an addict, but I think it's to his credit that he cleaned that addiction up befor running for the highest office in the land.

"Thems the facts jack."

And there's the rest of those facts Jill...

"He never has press confrences because they won't let him speak unless it's off a teleprompter, afraid of what kind of blabber will come out of his mouth. He incorrectly pronounces words, makes this country look like blood thirsty cowboys because someone "Shot at my Daddy"??? What kind of shizzle is that?
PULEEEEZE."

Yeah, I cringe whenever he says "Nuculer". But after living in Texas for 5 years, I can say without reservation, that they DO actually teach that kind of syntax in the public schools there. You'd need to spend some time down there to fully appreciate it...but then again, I don't think I've ever heard the english language butchered as badly as it is up in Mass, so what can you do?

"The US has about as much respect right now as Rodney Dangerfield."

If you're worried about respect, you should realize that many of the political cartoons you've seen about GW actually originated with Teddy Roosevelt. He was considered a wild cowboy loose cannon by the world community. Abd Ronald Reagan was considered a blithering idiot by most of the world as well. I'll try not to bring up Jimmy Carter, because, well, we DESERVED the image the world had of us when he was in office.

See, was that so difficult? And you didn't have to resort to innuendo or anything!!:cool:

Peebs
03-04-2003, 05:45 PM
In many previous threads on such subject my friend I have given PLENTY of links and articles to substantiate ANY remark I have made for the current of any past politicans that have grace the White house with their presence. Your a little late.

WHAT you have not pointed out, which I have IS HOW could you compare "bootlegging" bath tub gin to the NAZI'S? There's a BIG difference in supplying illegal alcohol during prohibition to helping one of the most sinister regimes in history...marching into countries trying to take them over, trying to "purify" the races by exterminating millions of Jews. YOU THINK that's a fair comparison? IF YOU do then you have some serious issues my friend.
WAIT aren't we about to march into Iraq, change their regime to suit Dubya cause he shot at his Daddy.....sounds waaaay to familar. We're about to lose service men and women over a personal vendetta because there hasn't bee sufficient proof by the UN inspectors.

Speaking and pronouncing properly by a public figure is soemthing that's just a given....has nothing to do with where you grew up. That's one big cop out. There is a HUGE difference between "dialect" and just not pronouncing words correctly.

AND WOW! He got MBA....so do have half my friends, the others have juris doctorates. Anyone who fufills the requirements and gets C's can graduate. As in the case with Dubya. A "C" President. I'm soooo proud.

And oh while we are talking "links" This one make me happy.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS...poll/index.html

Support for Bush's re-election falls below 50 percent
President still enjoys advantage over Democrats
From Keating Holland
CNN Washington Bureau
Thursday, February 27, 2003 Posted: 5:35 PM EST (2235 GMT)

Worries about the economy appear to be hurting President Bush's poll numbers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The percentage of registered voters who say they would support President Bush in 2004 fell below 50 percent for the first time, according to a new CNN/USA TODAY/Gallup poll, which finds more Americans concerned about the economy.

Two-thirds of those who responded to the poll, released Thursday, describe current economic conditions as poor, a 10-point increase since December. Optimism about the future of the economy also dropped 10 points during that time.

Asked their choice for president, 47 percent of the registered voters polled said they would support Bush in 2004 -- compared with 51 percent in December. About 39 percent said they would support the Democratic candidate, compared with 37 percent in December.

Still, a majority of those polled, 57 percent, said they approved of the way Bush is handling the job of president. That Bush approval rating is the lowest since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

The poll -- based on telephone interviews with 1,004 adult Americans between February 24 and 26 -- also found that support for sending U.S. troops to Iraq remains steady at 59 percent. Public attitudes, however, are likely to be shaped by the events of the next week or so as indicated by the respondents' answers to other questions. Nearly half of all Americans say they may change their minds on Iraq; about a third said they are committed to war.

The poll comes as Bush continues to lobby the U.N. Security Council to pass another resolution declaring that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has missed his last chance to disarm. And the president has made several speeches in recent weeks, emphasizing his concern about the economy and his administration's determination to strengthen it.

The poll numbers suggest Bush has further to go in convincing Americans that he can turn the economy around. About 45 percent of those polled said they favor Bush's economic plan, while 40 percent said they oppose it, and 15 percent described themselves as unsure.

On Iraq, the support for invading that country seemed to hinge on several factors. One example: Forty percent of those polled said they would support an invasion of Iraq with U.S. forces only if the United Nations approves another U.S. resolution against Iraq. And support for an invasion drops significantly if Saddam destroys missiles cited by U.N. weapons inspectors, falling from 71 percent to 33 percent.

As for Saddam's recent challenge to Bush to join him in a debate, poll respondents left no doubt about who they thought would win. Three-quarters of respondents said Bush would win a debate.

The poll has a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

PhinPhan1227
03-04-2003, 06:14 PM
Joe Kennedy wasn't making booze in his bathtub to sell to ma and pa kettle. He was in bed with the mob who happenned to be killing people on a daily basis. Is Al Capone on a par with Hitler?Probably not, but then again, Joe Kennedy KNEW that the people he was delaing with were killing people. The truth about Hitler didn't come out until after the war, and well after the actions taken by Grandpa Bush. I will thank you however for painting yourself into a corner here. Apparently it isn't ok for John Gotti's grandchild to run for office, but Joe Kennedys kid could run for President. The mobsters grandkid is a problem, but the son of the guy that worked with the mob is ok? I guess the problem with Gotti's grandchild would disapear if he ran under the umbrella of the DNC?

Sniper
03-04-2003, 06:17 PM
At this point, I don't see how we can go into Iraq. It apears as if Saddam is complying.

As for GW getting his MBA... I would bet his professors pushed him along. I'm sure they knew full well that he came from a powerful family who probably donated heavily. They knew you don't bite the hand that feeds you.

PhinPhan1227
03-04-2003, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
At this point, I don't see how we can go into Iraq. It apears as if Saddam is complying.

As for GW getting his MBA... I would bet his professors pushed him along. I'm sure they knew full well that he came from a powerful family who probably donated heavily. They knew you don't bite the hand that feeds you.


That's an assumption which I would hope you could give some backing to? If not, than it's another baseless accusation which you could then apply to any President who has ever served. As for Iraq, Saddam has increased his level of compliance, but it still seems like too little too late. Again, the burden of proof was on HIM, not the UN.

Sniper
03-04-2003, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
That's an assumption which I would hope you could give some backing to? If not, than it's another baseless accusation which you could then apply to any President who has ever served. As for Iraq, Saddam has increased his level of compliance, but it still seems like too little too late. Again, the burden of proof was on HIM, not the UN.

I said that I would bet that's what happened. In other words, that's my opinion of what happened. I'm not trying to pass it off as fact.

I'd love to see some of the papers GW wrote as a college student. I'll bet they'd provide us with a few laughs. :D

PhinPhan1227
03-05-2003, 09:53 AM
And you're more than entitled to your opinion. But you're also convicting someone without proof, which isn't exactly the most liberal of actions.

ohall
03-05-2003, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
At this point, I don't see how we can go into Iraq. It apears as if Saddam is complying.

As for GW getting his MBA... I would bet his professors pushed him along. I'm sure they knew full well that he came from a powerful family who probably donated heavily. They knew you don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Destroying 18 missles out of 2,000 is complying? Not to mention the 10's of thosands tons of chemicle weapons that have been documented that he has.

Complying, right!

Oliver...

Sniper
03-05-2003, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
And you're more than entitled to your opinion. But you're also convicting someone without proof, which isn't exactly the most liberal of actions.

I don't understand why you are giving me a lecture about this. It isn't like you backed up some of the claims you have made with facts, so you better look at yourself before you cast that stone.

That being said, it is very reasonable to wonder how he got his MBA considering how competitive Harvard is and GW's apparant lack of cognitive abilities. To me, it is obvious that he is not an intelligent man. If you think he is then all I can say is our perceptions about him must be relative to our abilities (j/k that was meant to be a joke)

I'm pretty much free to express my opinions on any public figure. By holding public office, a public figure is offering to put himself or herself up for public scrutiny. So scrutinize him I will.

PhinPhan1227
03-06-2003, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by Sniper
I don't understand why you are giving me a lecture about this. It isn't like you backed up some of the claims you have made with facts, so you better look at yourself before you cast that stone.

That being said, it is very reasonable to wonder how he got his MBA considering how competitive Harvard is and GW's apparant lack of cognitive abilities. To me, it is obvious that he is not an intelligent man. If you think he is then all I can say is our perceptions about him must be relative to our abilities (j/k that was meant to be a joke)

I'm pretty much free to express my opinions on any public figure. By holding public office, a public figure is offering to put himself or herself up for public scrutiny. So scrutinize him I will.


And I reiterate, that's your right. However, it also ignores the concept of innocent until proven guilty, which is something I personally try to avoid. If you can point to a quote of mine in which I accuse an individual without any tangible proof, please provide it, and I'll happily apologize, and post a retraction. To my knowledge, the only personal attacks against anyones character I've made on this board have been again Joe Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Saddam Hussein, and Adolf Hilter. In reverse order, the Nuremberg trials convicted Hilter, the UN convicted Saddam, Clinton came clean on national television, and it's well documented that Joe Kennedy was a bootlegger, and that his liquor was distributed by the mob. Oh, I also mentioned Clinton in regards to Global Crossing, but only in the sense that he has a lot more ties to Global Crossing than Bush had with Enron, which is again, well documented. If there are any instances of my stating that Joe Whomever cheated on his LCAT's, without any proof other than the fact that "I think he's an idiot", kindly point them out to me. Otherwise, you're once again making accusations without proof.