World Politics

[Anonymous]

Good one....

Also note that I burn the files containing my rhetorical failures pretty quickly. No reason to keep that junk around...

 

[BroDeal]

R
Early 90's recession was an economy transitioning away from defense (no more cold war) and GHWB's ridiculous tax increases, among other things.

The 90's recession was caused by Bush's tax increase? Wow, you are an idiot. The Congressional agreement that Bush made that raised taxes occured after the recession started.

The recession started in the middle of 1990. The Soviet Union did not collapse until the following year when Gorbachev took office. You fail again.

For someone who is always playing the age card and treating everyone as though they don't know history, you manage to have a remarkably poor memory of what happened during your lifetime.

Going to back up your ridiculous assertion that Carter wanted to abandon fossil fuels? How about addressing Paul Volcker's role in ending stagflation? I expect not.

 

[Anonymous]

The 90's recession was caused by Bush's tax increase? Wow, you are an idiot. The Congressional agreement that Bush made that raised taxes occured after the recession started.

The recession started in the middle of 1990. The Soviet Union did not collapse until the following year when Gorbachev took office. You fail again.

For someone who is always playing the age card and treating everyone as though they don't know history, you manage to have a remarkably poor memory of what happened during your lifetime.

Going to back up your ridiculous assertion that Carter wanted to abandon fossil fuels? How about addressing Paul Volcker's role in ending stagflation? I expect not.

You wrote this;

No one cleaned up after Carter unless by cleaning up you mean killed the alternative fuel and energy policies that would have paid huge dividends today.

To which I responded;

Had we tried to abandon fossil fuels then we would have killed our economy just as we are poised to do now.

Then you write this;

Going to back up your ridiculous assertion that Carter wanted to abandon fossil fuels?

Please explain where I suggested Carter wanted to abandon fossil fuels.




I wrote this;

Early 90's recession was an economy transitioning away from defense (no more cold war) and GHWB's ridiculous tax increases, among other things.

Then you ask this;

The 90's recession was caused by Bush's tax increase? Wow, you are an idiot.

Then you go further with this;

The Congressional agreement that Bush made that raised taxes occured after the recession started.

The recession started in the middle of 1990. The Soviet Union did not collapse until the following year when Gorbachev took office. You fail again.

All in response to this;

Early 90's recession was an economy transitioning away from defense (no more cold war) and GHWB's ridiculous tax increases, among other things.

Where did I say the recession was caused by the tax increases? Did you miss where I said the economy was transitioning away from cold war defense spending and other things? Are you aware that it's usually bad policy to raise taxes during a troubled economy? Did the GHWB tax increases help or hurt the economy at the time?

You are something else.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Take a look back at President Carter and President Reagan’s first year in office they immediately took control and put their stamps on government polices. Regardless if you agree with either one of those presidents it is clear they had a much better idea of how they wanted to run the country.

I would agree with that. Same with Clinton, and Nixon, really. However, I must say the first two years or so of Reagan's presidency the economy was in rotten shape and there were a LOT of people saying even Carter should run against him in 1984. It took time for Reagan's tax cuts to get inertia, and like him or not (or the deficits they created), the economy was really humming a year or two later, helping him win one of the biggest landslides in US history.

Carter had several good ideas, and several failures, but the biggest perhaps was that he could not get his energy policy (see his doomed "Malaise Speech") through even a Democratically controlled congress, even if in retrospect he had amazing foresight on the issue and it was probably the most significant, long-term plan he came up with.

One could argue that Obama's plan is being put into place: bailout banks, stimulate economy with spending and tax cuts for those who lobby for them, get health care plan passed. Whether these are "clear", as most would argue the bills that passed were heavily pouted with crap spending money we don't have, or that they actually will do anything more than keep is mired in the stagnant muck, the jury is somewhat still out on. But voters are so broke, I think they've become impatient. And rightfully so, as the average working person has been screwed for too long.

Speaking of that, it is no longer perception, and I think this election is showing that working people have really taken it on the chin for the last 30 years or so, while those who are connected have made themselves super rich and have gotten obscenely richer. No ideas or plans out of either party are very bottom up (direct help to tax payers or working people), but all top-down (bailouts and stimulus, TARP, SBA loans, etc.) But it's my strong opinion this is both a D and R problem, as both parties are mired in cronyism, drunk from campaign donations and fund raising, and rotten to the core. Ross Perot said it well; every election we send new people to Congress, good people, but it's the system that's corrupt, and corrupts them in the process. The same thing is happening to Obama, and the same thing will happen to whomever we send to Congress this year until the system is completely overhauled regarding campaign financing, lobbying, and privileged access to lawmakers.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Are you aware that it's usually bad policy to raise taxes during a troubled economy?

This oft repeated insistence is interesting. Mostly because Clinton made "the biggest tax increase in US history" after getting into office, with not one single GOP vote. Many in the GOP loudly made the same claim you are, and that it would destroy the economy. Then, as the economy grew, tremendously, what they were left with was doing their best to first spin the numbers in some almost comedic ways to show it wasn't really the tax increases that had to do with anything. And that failing to resonate with voters, were then left with trying to impeach him for adultery.

There's also the claims from Bush when he took office how the non-existent surplus should be "given back" in tax breaks, as that would grow the economy. Yeah, that worked really well. Though I'm sure you and your neocon friends have spin for that as well.

Edit: You did say "usually". So if you agree with my statement, if in partially, then so be it. As I said in my previous post (and about 50 more) it's corruption that's the problem with the government. Campaign financing, lobbying, etc. Taxes, cutting or raising is a much more minor issue.

 

[Anonymous]

This oft repeated insistence is interesting. Mostly because Clinton made "the biggest tax increase in US history" after getting into office, with not one single GOP vote. Many in the GOP loudly made the same claim you are, and that it would destroy the economy. Then, as the economy grew, tremendously, what they were left with was doing their best to first spin the numbers in some almost comedic ways to show it wasn't really the tax increases that had to do with anything. And that failing to resonate with voters, were then left with trying to impeach him for adultery.

There's also the claims from Bush when he took office how the non-existent surplus should be "given back" in tax breaks, as that would grow the economy. Yeah, that worked really well. Though I'm sure you and your neocon friends have spin for that as well.

Edit: You did say "usually". So if you agree with my statement, if in partially, then so be it. As I said in my previous post (and about 50 more) it's corruption that's the problem with the government. Campaign financing, lobbying, etc. Taxes, cutting or raising is a much more minor issue.

Corruption is our major problem. We agree.

I don't have any neocon friends that I am aware of.

Did you mean that comment in a snarky way.? I'm thinking you did and that's how I took it.

Clinton was not being impeached for adultery. He no longer has a law license for what he was being impeached for. I would consider perjury to be corrupt behavior, How about you?

If you want to argue tax increases increase economic activity then go for it.

 

[buckwheat]

Clinton was not being impeached for adultery.

Since when are consensual affairs criminal behavior? He was impeached for adultery and lying about stuff that's immaterial to any legal concerns you may have had.

He no longer has a law license for what he was being impeached for..

He's eligible to practice the law if he wants to. 5 year suspension.

I would consider perjury to be corrupt behavior, How about you?.

It wasn't perjury because it was immaterial to the case. Courts and judges make bad decisions all the time. See Bush v Gore, Jones v. Clinton. Plessy v Ferguson, Dred Scott.

How many consensual affairs you may have had isn't a legitimate question in a court of law.

 

[Anonymous]

Since when are consensual affairs criminal behavior? He was impeached for adultery and lying about stuff that's immaterial to any legal concerns you may have had.



He's eligible to practice the law if he wants to. 5 year suspension.



It wasn't perjury because it was immaterial to the case. Courts and judges make bad decisions all the time. See Bush v Gore, Jones v. Clinton. Plessy v Ferguson, Dred Scott.

How many consensual affairs you may have had isn't a legitimate question in a court of law.

I didn't have any legal concerns whatsoever. Clinton's dalliances were completely up to him.

Perjury isn't perjury if it's immaterial to the case? Hmmm. Perjury is lying under oath and is 100% illegal 100% of the time.

What was the 5 year suspension for? Adultery? I don't think so...

 

[rhubroma]

I didn't have any legal concerns whatsoever. Clinton's dalliances were completely up to him.

Perjury isn't perjury if it's immaterial to the case? Hmmm. Perjury is lying under oath and is 100% illegal 100% of the time.

What was the 5 year suspension for? Adultery? I don't think so...

Only in a nation as perverse, hypocritical and puritanical as the US state, all of which was deviously played-up by the American right wing for its own base political interests at the time, would have even dared to make a public, and therefore political, issue of Clinton's dalliances, which naturally were his own private affair and if anything his wife's, that led to the idiocyncratic fibs and juridical perjury.

All of which as an American in Europe was thoroughly embarassing.

Post Scriptum: All men of great power are corrupt, though the ones in power within the US body politic between 2000-2008 engaged in a type of corruption that the entire globe has suffered from since and will continue to for quite some time. This is naturally not only repulsive, but criminal. Beginning with the lies that led to the war for oil in Mesopotamia.

 

[Anonymous]

Only in a nation as perverse, hypocritical and puritanical as the US state, all of which was deviously played-up by the American right wing for its own base political interests at the time, would have even dared to make a public, and therefore political, issue of Clinton's dalliances, which naturally were his own private affair and if anything his wife's, that led to the idiocyncratic fibs and juridical perjury.

All of which as an American in Europe was thoroughly embarassing.

Post Scriptum: All men of great power are corrupt, though the ones in power within the US body politic between 2000-2008 engaged in a type of corruption that the entire globe has suffered from since and will continue to for quite some time. This is naturally not only repulsive, but criminal. Beginning with the lies that led to the war for oil in Mesopotamia.

I hear you. I was embarassed too.

To think he would perjure himself over an affair makes one wonder what else he would lie about.

Ancient (and boring) history though.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I hear you. I was embarassed too.

To think he would perjure himself over an affair makes one wonder what else he would lie about.

Ancient (and boring) history though.

Way to miss the point. Don't worry I know you did it on purpose.

 

[rhubroma]

I didn't have any legal concerns whatsoever. Clinton's dalliances were completely up to him.

Perjury isn't perjury if it's immaterial to the case? Hmmm. Perjury is lying under oath and is 100% illegal 100% of the time.

What was the 5 year suspension for? Adultery? I don't think so...

I meant what was just deleted for the subsequent response. See below.

 

[rhubroma]

I hear you. I was embarassed too.

To think he would perjure himself over an affair makes one wonder what else he would lie about.

Ancient (and boring) history though.

Well you've even topped your previous inanities and worthless statments, though we believed that to be quite impossible, which is a real virtuous demonstration as they say.

 

[Anonymous]

Well you've even topped your previous inanities and worthless statments, though we believed that to be quite impossible, which is a real virtuous demonstration as they say.

Your chain is pretty easily yanked.

Sense of humor. You need one.

 

[BroDeal]

To think he would perjure himself over an affair makes one wonder what else he would lie about.

Ross Perot: "How can the American people trust him if his own wife can't." Or something close to that.

It was never about just an affair. Clinton was being sued for sexual harrasment. The plaintiffs alleged a pattern of behavior where Clinton would use his office to take sexual advantage of government employees. Clinton, through his PR people, was making the argument that this sort of thing was in the distant past. The affair with a White House intern showed that he had continued to abuse his position. That is why he committed perjury. It was not to protect his wife from embarassment; his wife knew he was a dirtbag. It was to prevent the plaintiffs lawyers from proving a pattern of abuse of power and harrassment of femal employees.

On top of that, when Clinton was sworn into office he promised to uphold the laws of the land. As much of a myth as it may be, the country was founded on the idea that all people should be equal before the law. Clinton used the power of his office to prevent a regular citizen from obtaining justice. That is not a sexual dalliance. It is corruption.

 

[patricknd]

Ross Perot: "How can the American people trust him if his own wife can't." Or something close to that.

It was never about just an affair. Clinton was being sued for sexual harrasment. The plaintiffs alleged a pattern of behavior where Clinton would use his office to take sexual advantage of government employees. Clinton, through his PR people, was making the argument that this sort of thing was in the distant past. The affair with a White House intern showed that he had continued to abuse his position. That is why he committed perjury. It was not to protect his wife from embarassment; his wife knew he was a dirtbag. It was to prevent the plaintiffs lawyers from proving their a pattern of abuse of power and harrassment of femal employees.

On top of that, when Clinton was sworn into office he promised to uphold the laws of the land. As much of a myth as it may be, the country was founded on the idea that all people should be equal before the law. Clinton used the power of his office to prevent a regular citizen from obtaining justice. That is not a sexual dalliance. It is corruption.

well said....

 

[buckwheat]

I Perjury isn't perjury if it's immaterial to the case? Hmmm. Perjury is lying under oath and is 100% illegal 100% of the time....

NO,




The false statement must be material to the proceedings.

A prosecutor is not allowed to ask immaterial questions which he knows the answer to in order to elicit false statements. The judge erred in allowing the question and admitted it later..

Jan. 29, 1998: The judge in the Paula Jones lawsuit rules that Monica Lewinsky is "not essential to the core issues" of the Jones case, and has ordered that all evidence related to Lewinsky be excluded from the Jones proceedings.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01748.htm

Ken Starr's thugs unlawfully detained Monica Lewinsky and threatened her. She told them the affair was consensual. The crime Ken Starr committed was far greater than any crime Clinton committed.

Yet the outrageously monstrous Ken Starr (about whom longtime Manhattan district attorney Robert Morgenthau said, 'He violated every [prosecutorial] rule in the book') conducted, with federal authorization and funding no less, a seven-year, $70 million investigation of Bill Clinton's involvement in a small and losing real estate venture (Whitewater) in Arkansas fifteen years before his presidency, and finding nothing, decided to investigate Clinton's private and consensual sexual life. In the process, Starr almost destroyed the Clinton presidency, substantially incapacitated the executive branch of government, and made America a laughingstock around the world."

- Vincent Bugliosi

What was the 5 year suspension for? Adultery? I don't think so...

It was muscle flexing bs, that's what.

 

[buckwheat]

Ross Perot: "How can the American people trust him if his own wife can't." Or something close to that..

Perot's a good politician.

It was never about just an affair...

It was about putting Clinton in a Catch 22.

Clinton was being sued for sexual harrasment..

Yes, a civil suit, not a criminal action. Clinton wanted temporary immunity until his term was over.

The plaintiffs alleged a pattern of behavior where Clinton would use his office to take sexual advantage of government employees. ..

Yes, they alleged that. People allege a lot of things.

Clinton, through his PR people,..

PR people? Yes the POTUS has a Press Secretary.

was making the argument that this sort of thing was in the distant past. ....

I really don't remember him making any kinds of admissions.

The affair with a White House intern showed that he had continued to abuse his position.

The affair showed that he had a consensual affair. Ken Starr's tactics of using the FBI to threaten Lewinsky to obtain that info showed Starr abused his position.

That is why he committed perjury.

He lied about an immaterial allegation derived from a political witch hunt.

It was not to protect his wife from embarassment;

That's speculation on your part.

his wife knew he was a dirtbag.;

Maybe she wanted to believe he turned over a new leaf. You're just speculating.

It was to prevent the plaintiffs lawyers from proving a pattern of abuse of power and harrassment of femal employees..;

And how were they going to prove this pattern by revealing the consensual Lewinsky affair?

On top of that, when Clinton was sworn into office he promised to uphold the laws of the land.

Standard operating procedure, yes.

As much of a myth as it may be,

Myth? I take it very seriously.

the country was founded on the idea that all people should be equal before the law.

you're referring to the 14th Amendment, ok.

Clinton used the power of his office to prevent a regular citizen from obtaining justice.

Actually he didn't do that. This circus proceeded and the whole country was in gridlock because a person made an allegation against Clinton in civil court. Doesn't the Constitution also balance the interests of one parties rightful claims against the rightful claims of another?

I guess it was more important that Jones civil lawsuit not be delayed than America have a full time POTUS undistracted by civil matters while serving?

I wonder if the SCOTUS would have ruled the way they did if the issue at hand was a very complicated real estate deal requiring the POTUS attention?

That is not a sexual dalliance..

Actually, with Lewinsky it was a dalliance.

It is corruption.

But not criminal corruption. The case was to embarrass Clinton, plain and simple.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

The case was indeed that, yes. But he did cheat on his wife, lied about it (duh) and made the office look bad in the process. But the GOP and especially Starr turned it into a circus beyond all reason.

Maybe it was "corruption" on Clinton's part, but I'll take that corruption any day over the corruption we've had since he left office. Bribery and lobbying rule the day now. Not that it didn't exist then, but at least he made some smart, tough decisions that helped the country. I saw Bush reverse that, and Obama give little more than empty promises so far. And Congress is more polarized and corrupt than I can ever remember.

BroDeal - You said the Bush tax hike occurred after the recession of 1990, and it did, but you also said that "the Soviet Union did not collapse until the following year when Gorbachev took office." You're twisting the facts there. It is true that he became President of the USSR in 1990, but had been the General Secretary of the Soviet Union, and it's essential leader, since 1985.

Yes, Scott, I was being a bit snarky. But I would argue that there needs to be a large tax shift, giving a small cut to working people, many more SBA micro loans, and a tax increase to the top 1%, and a big tax increase to the top .1%. But I wouldn't do that until there were some sort of deficit reduction laws attached to it.

There was once a day when CEOs made 40x what their average employee made, and they were happy. Now, they make 400x more, and even though some of the super wealthy even agree this is too much, hoards of conservatives think they should make even more anyway, and workers should make less.

But nothing is going to change as long as we have people able to buy access to politicians with large amounts of campaign money. A complete and total overhaul of campaign financing is needed, and lobbying needs to be outlawed. Do that, and things will fall into place.

 

[buckwheat]

The case was indeed that, yes. But he did cheat on his wife, lied about it (duh).

Not a crime, none of our business, and the only way we knew about it was that the judge erred in admitting the depositions. The allegation was that Clinton sexually harrassed Jones. Not that he had legal yet reprehensible, affairs.

and made the office look bad in the process..

Wasn't that Ken Starr who intentionally thrust the Lewinsky affair into the limelight? The whole Whitewater investigation was a political witch hunt designed to make the opposition look bad.

But the GOP and especially Starr turned it into a circus beyond all reason.

When prosecutorial misconduct rises to the level of Starr's behavior, it is a crime.

Maybe it was "corruption" on Clinton's part, but I'll take that corruption any day over the corruption we've had since he left office. Bribery and lobbying rule the day now. Not that it didn't exist then, but at least he made some smart, tough decisions that helped the country. I saw Bush reverse that, and Obama give little more than empty promises so far. And Congress is more polarized and corrupt than I can ever remember.

BroDeal - You said the Bush tax hike occurred after the recession of 1990, and it did, but you also said that "the Soviet Union did not collapse until the following year when Gorbachev took office." You're twisting the facts there. It is true that he became President of the USSR in 1990, but had been the General Secretary of the Soviet Union, and it's essential leader, since 1985.

Yes, Scott, I was being a bit snarky. But I would argue that there needs to be a large tax shift, giving a small cut to working people, many more SBA micro loans, and a tax increase to the top 1%, and a big tax increase to the top .1%. But I wouldn't do that until there were some sort of deficit reduction laws attached to it.

There was once a day when CEOs made 40x what their average employee made, and they were happy. Now, they make 400x more, and even though some of the super wealthy even agree this is too much, hoards of conservatives think they should make even more anyway, and workers should make less.

But nothing is going to change as long as we have people able to buy access to politicians with large amounts of campaign money. A complete and total overhaul of campaign financing is needed, and lobbying needs to be outlawed. Do that, and things will fall into place.

I agree with many of the things you write, but as Jimmy Carter noted, 'we're only going to get a POTUS as good as the people he governs.'

Both Clinton and GWB as well as Obama are a reflection of the populace.

They all must be called to account. As well as the others in power.

 

[rhubroma]

What hypocritical puritanism in some of these statements about "corruption" and the so called laws of the land. I'd agree with Alpe in prefering this type of "corruption," over that of the lobbiests.

What male isn't a "dirtbag" given the chance? Especially men of great power? Go look back at Kennedy, who for many Americans was among the "best of US presidents" and who, at the time, represented all that was "wholesome" about the country, which should have been promoted as a model of virtue for the world. The reality is he transformed the White House into a bordello, though all were totally clueless about this back then. Many still are to this day. Even in the US democracy, up until a couple of decades ago, there was a tacit agreement between the US press and the politicians to not publish a politician's dalliances which had always been the order of the day since men and power got together. Now they, the dalliances, have hypocritically been exploited for the basest of political gains; and so have been transformed into weapons of mass destruction against the opposing side by making vile use of the innocent and puritanical American ethos, to scandalize everyone who is suceptable through sensationalizing sex. The private lives of people are thus turned into a beating-stick to ruin them. I have no problem with a politician being brought down, just not when it is fundamentally based upon his extra=marital affairs, which I could care less about, and hence connected to the repugnant puritanism which still thrives in a certain segment of Americana that's childish.

In regards to the so called exploited women, this too is often unjustifiably played up. Just as the men, when opportunity presents itself, become "dirtbags," so also do many women when interested in being in the sphere of power and its men, readilly become "*****s," and are actually thrilled to have slept with the president, are excited to have given the prime minister, who is natuarally a sex crazed maniac, a blow job. Which is something as old as Cleopatra and Julius Caesar. Therefore extremely mundane and thus boring.

 

[buckwheat]

Eternal conflicts

What hypocritical puritanism in some of these statements about "corruption" and the so called laws of the land. I'd agree with Alpe in prefering this type of "corruption," over that of the lobbiests.

What male isn't a "dirtbag" given the chance? Especially men of great power? Go look back at Kennedy, who for many Americans was among the "best of US presidents" and who, at the time, represented all that was "wholesome" about the country, which should have been promoted as a model of virtue for the world. The reality is he transformed the White House into a bordello, though all were totally clueless about this back then. Many still are to this day. Even in the US democracy, up until a couple of decades ago, there was a tacit agreement between the US press and the politicians to not publish a politician's dalliances which had always been the order of the day since men and power got together. Now they, the dalliances, have hypocritically been exploited for the basest of political gains; and so have been transformed into weapons of mass destruction against the opposing side by making vile use of the innocent and puritanical American ethos, to scandalize everyone who is suceptable through sensationalizing sex. The private lives of people are thus turned into a beating-stick to ruin them. I have no problem with a politician being brought down, just not when it is fundamentally based upon his extra=marital affairs, which I could care less about, and hence connected to the repugnant puritanism which still thrives in a certain segment of Americana that's childish.

In regards to the so called exploited women, this too is often unjustifiably played up. Just as the men, when opportunity presents itself, become "dirtbags," so also do many women when interested in being in the sphere of power and its men, readilly become "*****s," and are actually thrilled to have slept with the president, are excited to have given the prime minister, who is natuarally a sex crazed maniac, a blow job. Which is something as old as Cleopatra and Julius Caesar. Therefore extremely mundane and thus boring.

Almost all of our human drama's turn on the eternal conflict of desires of the flesh and aspirations of the spirit.

I understand what you're saying but I think you're missing the forest for the trees somewhat.

People will always be fascinated by "the face that launched a thousand ships" as they will always be fascinated by power and wealth and both the opportunities and pitfalls which each present.

The conflicts between the spirit and flesh will never be mundane. It is these paradoxes that make us human.

The "sin" of the right is that they believe they are above these things and the right wingers don't realize the sins which they are always railing against, rise from the heart, even their own hearts.

The problem with the left is that they see these things as mundane.

Huxley pointed out the danger of that in "Brave New World."

 

[patricknd]

so what is the difference between the athlete that cheats in sport and the fan that cheats on their spouse? is one any less than the other?

 

[Hugh Januss]

so what is the difference between the athlete that cheats in sport and the fan that cheats on their spouse? is one any less than the other?

Let me think. Cheats to make millions of dollars, has sex with a willing participant that is not his wife. No difference there, no sirree.

 

[patricknd]

Let me think. Cheats to make millions of dollars, has sex with a willing participant that is not his wife. No difference there, no sirree.

i'm not talking about the willing participant, i'm talking about the cheated on spouse. why would money really make a difference? i think cheating is cheating.