Isn't this getting ridiculious?

[Timebuilder]

Nor am I Jack Kennedy, but we digress.

I just want a suggestion about a great Clinton policy accomplishment.

No one has suggested one, and I don't recall any off the top of my head.

 

[Timebuilder]

And I DO regard myself as a centrist.

Some of the GW policies border on being leftist, but I think his reasoning is to suck the life out of the democrats by co-opting what they have seen as being "their" issues.

The wisdom of this has yet to be seen.

Letting Ted Kennedy author an education package still makes my head spin.

 

[Timebuilder]

Oops. I missed this post at the top of the page:

It's not paranoid and just plain common sense to have cops knocking on your door when you want to go buy a flight simulator for your computer? I have a problem with that.

I have a problem with the Staples clerk setting this into motion. That's where the blame lies, nowhere else.

Once the police receive a report like this they MUST exercise "due dilligence" in investigating the report. THAT is the "common sense" of this, not the paranoia of a clerk.

And I still have a problem with specifically targeting Iraq as "world terrorist headquarters" whan there is STILL no direct proof that they had anything to do with 9/11.

No one needs "direct proof" of that to prosecute Iraq. we know more than enough about the regime and the actions they took under Sadaam to warrant action.

Sometimes the world's best intelligence gathering branch can come to incorrect conclusions. While we have not found the "smoking gun" of WMD, we also know that it is too early, WAY too early, to reach conclusions about whether they actually existed or if they were destroyed, were hidden, or were moved.

We DO know that our intelligence gather capability was substantially hampered by the idea that we could simply rely on electronic intercepts and satellites instead of basic human intelligence. We are ramping back up on this basic tool right now, but it will take another three years to fully flesh that out once again.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Timebuilder, did you like any of this:

--FMLA.
--Deomcracy in Haiti.
--Six-million new jobs between '92 and '96.
--The Deficit Reduction Act...and smaller government.
--Pretty-good sax playing. (Still needs practice, though...)

See, if you asked me the same thing about W, I'd be honest with you and tell you that I'm pleased with his attempts to revitalize the military. Also, his visit to the troops in Iraq--whether or not it was a stunt--was exactly what the Army needed at exactly the right time.

(On a more cynical note, W clearly spent just enough time defending Austin from the Commies to learn how service members think. )

 

[rettofly]

--The Deficit Reduction Act...and smaller government.

How to shrink government: Decimate the military.

 

[Typhoon1244]

How to shrink government: Decimate the military.

You're preachin' to the choir, my friend. (Let me tell you about my WOFT slot that evaporated...)

But I also know there was more to it than that.

 

[Timebuilder]

--FMLA

This should be a part of the negotiated compensation package, a benefit that could be placed on the plate when a business could afford to lose people on short notice whithout harming the profitablity, and in turn, the other employees.

This is a bone for the NOW gang, to help women have a "right to return" to the workplace if they decide to leave for any number of situations. It is an unfunded mandate that forces companies to increase their CODB while losing productivity.

You can bet that they don't have FMLA in the country you speak to when you want to buy a Dell computer (South America) or AOL tech support (India) or any of the 50 or so other countries to which we have driven off our businesses. It sure did make people feel better, though. Now, some of those people have a permanent family leave.

--Democracy in Haiti

I don't think they have a democracy in Haiti. I agree that it is a worthwhile effort, but I have trouble believeing that this didn't happen because of the results of a focus group. Even so, it is far better than Somalia, and along with the work to end ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, these actions may be the best legacy of the Clinton administration.

--Six-million new jobs between '92 and '96

Respectfully, I don't recall a Clinton policy that I can associate with the creation of those jobs. The job creation was a natural offshoot of the Reagan tax cuts from just a few years earlier, which stimulated business and kept going in the longest bull market in history, fed by the growth of the internet, and later, ending with the internet bubble. None of that was due to any Clinton policy, neither the good nor the bad, just as loss of jobs cannot be ascribed to Bush.

--The Deficit Reduction Act...and smaller government

I found several references to the deficit reduction act. It appears the original was signed by Reagan in 1984. Certainly, it is a good thing, generally speaking, to reduce deficits. Right now, we are borrowing to rebuild the military and ensure our security, and a host of other smaller tasks, in the face of reduced revenue thanks to the recession. Since we have stimulated the economy with tax reductions, we will soon have a great deal more tax money coming into the treasury, which will help to reduce deficits again.

--Pretty-good sax playing. (Still needs practice, though...).

...but not bad for a guy that probably no longer plays on a regular basis

 

[Swass]

Timebuilder and Typhoon,
At this rate you guys will be waaaaayyyyy ahead of Bobby in posts. The thing is is that Bobby doesn't post on political threads.

Iknow, Iknow, my New Year's resolution was to not post on political threads but I just can't seem to help myself.

 

[Typhoon1244]

I know, I know, my New Year's resolution was to not post on political threads but I just can't seem to help myself.

Like moths to a lightbulb.

On the other hand, I try not to post on PFT threads. So between me and Bobby, everything's covered.

 

[BornAgainPagan]

Is is done so by people who know full well that this isn't true, and they are the "lying liars" of politics. Al Franken knew this when he tried to shift the blame for this behavior. He has a lot of rhetoric and no facts, which is the basis of liberal politics. No surprises there.

Oh PUHLEEZE! If you actually think that conservatism has some kind of exclusive claim to non-rhetoric and facts, you ar PITIFULLY mistaken....no matter how you much you bask in your own glory.

And I DO regard myself as a centrist.

Not in my book...you're so far to the right, I see the curvature of space.

I just want a suggestion about a great Clinton policy accomplishment.

Tell ya what, if you stopped (with such misplaced arrogance) trying to portray your opinion as fact, perhaps someone might engage in intelligent debate with you. Until such time, you'll sound like some pseudo-intellectual armchair radio talk-show host.

 

[Timebuilder]

Tell ya what, if you stopped (with such misplaced arrogance) trying to portray your opinion as fact, perhaps someone might engage in intelligent debate with you. Until such time, you'll sound like some pseudo-intellectual armchair radio talk-show host.

Al? Al Franken? Is that you? I haven't seen you since my days at NBC. How ya been?


Seriously, Mr Pagan, you are a lot of hot air. How have you challenged anything I said? You haven't. Have you experienced both sides of the political fence? Do you have broadcasting and newspaper experience?


Your attitiude is pitiable.

All you can do to "argue" is to try and attack me.

I used to do that as my ONLY defense of my BS when I was a liberal. I find it far more more satisfying to argue facts as a conservative.

And I'm not an "armchair" talk show host. I spent over ten years AS a talk show host. Have you? C'mon. Is this your best shot?

I was a LIBERAL talk show host.

And I deal in far more fact than I did then.

pseudo-intellectual

Man, I haven't heard that kind of crap since the sixties. Guess you showed me.

 

[Timebuilder]

Maybe I was a little harsh with you.

The truth is, just a little over a decade ago, I myself might have chosen a screen name like "born again pagan". Maybe not that far out, but I definitely wasn't a believer.

Call me anything you want. I've been called worse, believe that.

 

[BornAgainPagan]

Seriously, Mr Pagan, you are a lot of hot air. How have you challenged anything I said? You haven't. Have you experienced both sides of the political fence? Do you have broadcasting and newspaper experience?

Have I challenged anything you said? Yes, whenever your statements warranted a response. One problem, not much substance coming from your end. You selectively ignore actual facts to fit your agenda. Then you stereotype all of liberalism and fit it into one neat little package. Perhaps it makes it easier for you....i don't know. You seem to think that you have some patent on public policy because you were in broadcasting. ??? I hope that I don't have to point out how preposterous that sounds. Have I been on both sides of the fence? Yes. I was once a conservative. *PERSONALLY, I have grown out of that. Also, I was once a devout Christian.

*not saying that all conservatives and/or Christians are not grown-up. For ME, fortunately, I grew out of that phase.

I used to do that as my ONLY defense of my BS when I was a liberal. I find it far more more satisfying to argue facts as a conservative.

Your flawed argument tactics (when you were liberal) is certainly no testimony to liberalism. It sounds like, once again, you think that facts are exclusive to conservatism. This thinking is abject nonsense.

Man, I haven't heard that kind of crap since the sixties. Guess you showed me.

Oh, I see. You think that language and ideas are only specific to small epochs? This indicates that you have an inclination to going with what is trendy. Do you actually think that label (or any other) has somehow expired? Your response to this reinforces the applicability of the label. Sorry.

See, this is why you have so little credibility. Someone doesn't agree with your opinions, you pigeonhole them, they point that out and you accuse folks of attacking you yet you make personal attacks. You're just better at masking the fact.

And I'm not an "armchair" talk show host. I spent over ten years AS a talk show host. Have you? C'mon. Is this your best shot?

My mistake. To me, most talk show hosts (on both sides) are arm-chair by default. Goes hand in hand.

LOL, I can't believe that even you used the "is that the best you got?" question

I'll just leave it at that. maybe.

 

[BornAgainPagan]

Timebuilder,

Okay, me too. I was snapping back. Sorry.

Anyway, I have long since stopped believing that all repub conservatives were evil people, mostly, ya'll are just simply wrong.

 

[kevdog]

Anyway, I have long since stopped believing that all repub conservatives were evil people, mostly, ya'll are just simply wrong.

and remember, Rush Limbaugh is a drug addict.

 

[Timebuilder]

One problem, not much substance coming from your end. You selectively ignore actual facts to fit your agenda. Then you stereotype all of liberalism and fit it into one neat little package. Perhaps it makes it easier for you....i don't know. You seem to think that you have some patent on public policy because you were in broadcasting. ??? I hope that I don't have to point out how preposterous that sounds. Have I been on both sides of the fence? Yes. I was once a conservative. *PERSONALLY, I have grown out of that. Also, I was once a devout Christian.

Please, show me some facts that I have ignored.

I don't "sterotype" liberalism. I have lived it, been a proponent of it, and as a broadcaster influenced thousands of others to embrace and accept it.

While being a broadcaster does not give me a "patent on public policy", I did have to be more deeply involved in politics than the average bear as a consequence of my job. There was no need to take a "balanced" approach to broadcasting, as we all thought we were centrists, as I explained before. If you are a "centrist" on NBC, what need do you have to be "fair and balanced?"

You were once a conservative. How long? At what age? You say you were a devout Christian. Really? What caused this apostacy?

You see, I have done more than simply say "I was a liberal", or "I was a non-believer." I was a "professional" liberal, one who belonged to a guild of individuals who have been the mainstays of misleading the public since the 1960's. I even regularly covered the "New Age" movement, and was one of the first to give it a wide airing on the East Coast. Do I know a little bit about what I'm talking about? I'd say, yes, I know "a little."

Speaking as objectively as I can, I'd say that gives me a unique insight into the basic values of liberalism, such as it is practiced in America. If that sounds stereotypical to you, it is because it is a truth. If you doubt me, fine. Get yourself a copy of Senator Zell Miller's book: A National Party No More.

Zell Miller's Book

Make sure you check out the "customers who bought this book also bought" list. Read Mr. Goldberg's account of his time at CBS, if you still doubt what I am saying.

Your flawed argument tactics (when you were liberal) is certainly no testimony to liberalism. It sounds like, once again, you think that facts are exclusive to conservatism. This thinking is abject nonsense.

Let's examine that idea.

As a liberal, I took my lead from other more prominent writers and broadcasters, along with Democrat politicians. I can tell you historically, like it or not, a "fact" was rarely a part of the agenda.

So, what was the agenda?

It was to sway people emotionally, rather than by fact, because the facts usually went against the arguments and the agenda we were pursuing: more regulation of citizens, the dictation of rules involving workplace operation, and the restraint of speech by certain persons and the type of speech that we didn't like. This has actually come to pass as "hate speech", and "harassing speech".

First Amendment?, Naw, not in our liberal nirvana.

We were also abject pacifists, and loathed the military just as Bill Clinton wrote in his famous letter.

Those are facts about liberalism in America, from one who lived the agenda for 23 years.

If you have more question, barbs, or insults, I'll be happy to deal as calmy and clearly as possible with you.

Oh, I see. You think that language and ideas are only specific to small epochs? This indicates that you have an inclination to going with what is trendy. Do you actually think that label (or any other) has somehow expired? Your response to this reinforces the applicability of the label. Sorry.

Only in your own mind, my friend. To a liberal, everyone else is a "pseudo-intellectual" because they don't reach the same conclusions. They must therefore be somehow flawed, and not "worthy to lead with superior ideas."

I actually heard that at a conference once. Horse pucks.

See, this is why you have so little credibility. Someone doesn't agree with your opinions, you pigeonhole them, they point that out and you accuse folks of attacking you yet you make personal attacks. You're just better at masking the fact.

I'm saying that no one knows the sins of a liberal better than one who was a liberal sinner. I pigeonhole myself as having been a proponent of this empty "feel good" thinking. I attack myself, willingly saying that "this is what I believed", and I am telling you that this thinking is counter to the values and ideas that are the founding icons of the United States. If you now share the ideas that I found to be vacuous after over two decades, then you are as misled as I was.

If you have something better, to show that we should all embrace the ideas of Europe, which they can only now have because we saved their sorry butts, then I'm more than happy to entertain your repartee.

 

[kevdog]

If you have something better, to show that we should all embrace the ideas of Europe, which they can only now have because we saved their sorry butts, then I'm more than happy to entertain your repartee.

TB, not to start a debate with you, but you seemed to forget the fact that the Soviets also played a big part with the current state of Europe, with many more casualties suffered than the U.S. due to their longer duration in the war and the fact that Hitler invaded their country.

To say that the U.S. saved Europe from Hitler all by ourselves is rather arrogant and also extremely ignorant. Historians would say that Germany attacking Russia was the main reason Hitler lost the war.

Currently, Europe is divided by the populations and respective governments, probably out of fear of the U.S. If you are a supporter of Democracy, you would then accept what the people of a country think and also respect if the government supports the people's ideas - comparable to say a vote. Ironically, you are very anti-French from your previous threads, even saying that France is our enemy. The French people were actually the most supportive of our recent aggression in Iraq, with about 25% in support from gallop poll results. The rest of European countries people showed about 5% - 20% support. And with no suprise the majority of the world supported us with around the same numbers. Since this is true, would you then say that you and the U.S. are at war with the world? Possibly to the same degree as the world at war with Hitler during WWII?

Just curious to hear what your once liberal and now conservative/centralist mind has to say about this. Your idealogy sounds just as reactionary as a militant Muslim and far from centralist - something that Europe is.