jimbo2150
join:2004-05-10
Youngstown, OH | reply to biochemistry
Re: I am not surprised
Wow, calm down, it was probably a simple spelling error, or
else he was implying that "wall-mart" was putting up a wall between itself and competition.
Lighten up.
--
- "Techie" Jim |
|
TheAutoDSL
@verizon.net
| reply to Shack
Why use honda?
I find it funny the quoted used Honda as an example.
YOU CAN NOT GET A HONDA WITH ALL THE TRIMMINGS OR MADE TO ORDER!
Honda forces items onto the consumer, ex. if you don't want a sunroof with your V6 and air bags TOO BAD. They don't even have packages.
Good for honda bad for the consumer! |
|
damnthat
@optonline.net | reply to Shack
Re: I am not surprised
Dam that Janet Jackson! She ruined DSL for all of us! |
|
DirtyMic
join:2003-11-19
Pompano Beach, FL | reply to ncredible
Yeah try to start a small company making an O/S for home PCs. Then tell me how the whole big business thing is insane. |
|
History-101
@pacbell.n | reply to tbeckner
Yes we agree and your reply is well said. Have a great post-Easter Monday. I am signing off for now. |
|
History-101
@pacbell.n
| reply to tbeckner
You have made some interesting points in your replies. At least I see how you arrive at some of your viewpoints. This kind of logical debate is much better than throwing the "canned" generic political responses that are tossed around so often.
I do believe your experience in Vietnam has jaded your opinion on the Iraq war. The left wingers have tapped into that anti-Vietnam war fever that still resides in many Americans. Why wasn't this outcry happening when we were bombing the Kosavo ? We still have troops there in Kosavo yet no one is screaming about Clinton's war anymore. What do you want to be that we get a majority of our troops out of Iraq before the rest of our troops leave Kosavo. I don't think that the initial reason for going into Vietnam was a bad one but the war was so poorly executed that it was doomed for failure. I think that we learned many things from Vietnam and some questioning of any President's war policies is healthy for our country.
I am finished posting for the night. It was a good debate although very off topic for BBR. I will come back to read any more replies later. Everybody rest well and have a happy post-Easter Monday. |
|
tbeckner
join:2004-03-20
Bend, OR
| reply to History-101
said by History-101:
Yes, I do think we can agree here... It seems like the U.S. political economic policy in going in circles like a dog chasing its tail. I think we can agree.
US economic policy is in shreds, worldwide. We are actually on the edge of a cliff looking down. Greenspan was right about the BUBBLE (during the Clinton administration) and now he is right about our position in the WORLD ECONOMIC picture, and he is RIGHT that cannot keep running these deficits. At some point, Asia will stop buying our bonds, and then we are really going to be in a bad situation.
Time will tell, but when everyone wakes up to the problem it will likely be too late. |
|
History-101
@pacbell.n
| reply to tbeckner
Yes, I do think we can agree here and don't think that I am entirely on Bush's side either. Unfortunately, I voted Perot in protest to both Dems and Repubs twice myself. Just for the record I even voted for Ralph Nader in protest in 2000 because after Clinton I wanted someone outside the system with integrity. No Nader was not the answer and he would not have worked (although I really like his ideas about energy efficiency and conservation and he sure looks like a genius in hindsight after all the Enron type of scandals) but Bush 1 went against his "no new taxes pledge and he did not finish the job in Iraq". I am with Bush 2 on the war against terror and I defend him in these posts because I get so tired of the excessive harsh the anti-war propaganda.
I don't see the current so called conservative Republicans going out of their way to reel in the spending. It seems like the U.S. political economic policy in going in circles like a dog chasing its tail. But I also don't seeing myself voting anything but Republican until I see someone from another party (not a Perot clone) rising up through the ranks. In California except for a few knucklehead decisions I mostly like Arnold's policies. |
|
tbeckner
join:2004-03-20
Bend, OR
4 edits | reply to History-101
said by History-101:
Wasn't the Vietnam War started under Democratic President Kennedy? Actually, President Kennedy was planning on withdrawing his advisers from Vietnam, but then someone assassinated him in November 1963.
LBJ (a Texan, if that makes any difference) expanded the advisers roles and the war and because of his folly he did not run for President in 1968. President Nixon did run on ending the war and won in 1968, but that was pure fools folly, because he expanded the air war and the war went on for another 7 years and finally ended in Saigon on April 30, 1975.
As a side note: The North Vietnamese are great fighters and they even kicked the Chinese's butts in the late 1970's, I believe in 1978. The Chinese lost almost 20,000 troops in just one three day battle in 1978, with the North Vietnamese. You need to remember, the North Vietanmese have been kicking butt in INDOCHINA since the 1940's. If we where fighting the Vietnamese in Iraq, I am afraid we could be getting our butts kicked.
said by History-101:
Sure, you can be against the war in Iraq and yet be for the troops. From my perspective though it does seem contradictory. Nobody hates war more than soldiers and soldiers hate war that is not justified. There have only been a couple of wars in US history since World War II, that I believe could be justified. Vietnam and Iraq are in that select group of NOT BEING JUSTIFIED. And just so you understand, I am not Anti-War, but then again I am not for War either. Like I said before, nobody hates war more than a Soldier. I support the troops and at the same time I feel sorry for them, and I dislike the administration that put them there, needlessly.
Yet, I am for our involvement in Afghanistan, which I believe was fully justified. The problem I see, we drained resources from Afghanistan to commit troops to an unjustified war in Iraq and that act allowed the terrorists to hide and keep on plotting future troubles for us around the world. Just remember, in an ideal world for the Terrorists, it took 8 years for them to launch the second attack on the twin towers.
said by History-101:
So if you are against the Iraqi War that had the end result of freeing the Iraqi people from twenty plus years of dictatorial tyranny, war with neighboring countries, fear of torture, and mass murder then by all means you can be an American and still have your anti-war views. If you believe that is the real reason we are in Iraq, then you really have no idea what is up. In fact, if that was the reason, then we would have been and will be in endless wars for the next two centuries. War for us would never end.
I am not swayed by PROPAGANDA from either side, either the LEFT or the RIGHT, and that includes the current and past administration. Freeing the Iraq people is NOT the reason we are there! And finding WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) and PAT (Protecting America from Terrorists) are NOT reasons we are there. Go beyond the political agendas of both sides and make your own judgement.
In situations like we have today, there is a lot of FOG. The phrase is called "The FOG of WAR". |
|
History-101
@pacbell.n
| reply to tbeckner
I did not say "you" were stupid. I said that you are entitled to your "stupidity". It is my viewpoint that your statements regarding Bush are stupid and simply wrong. I correct my emotionally charged statement implying something about your I.Q. level by stating that I really cannot know your overall intelligence on other subjects. Neverless, although Bush bashing has become a popular sport among many people, I am offended when I hear the usual cheap shots against our popularly elected U.S. President. I also deserve a say in defending President Bush just as you have the right in this country to verbally bash him.
I am sorry if I offended you personally on a level outside this political topic. That was not my intent and I appreciate that you posted your views. It's just that that the hearing the same left wing crap for several decades and having that politically left mantra historically be wrong so many times has made some of us on the conservative side more than a little pissed off. |
|
History-101
@pacbell.n
| reply to tbeckner
First of all I do commend you for your years of honorary service in the U.S. Military. Many would agree that Vietnam was a ill conceived and poorly orchestrated, and planned war even though the soldiers who served there did very bravely under severe conditions.
I ask these questions... Wasn't the Vietnam War started under Democratic President Kennedy ? Accelerated under liberal Democratic President Johnson ? and ended by Republican President Nixon who ran and won his election on an "end the war platform"?
Next regarding your views. Sure, you can be against the war in Iraq and yet be for the troops. From my perspective though it does seem contradictory. Just for comparison, during the U.S. civil war there were many Americans that we considered patriotic to there cause in being against President Lincoln and the North even if one end result of what Lincoln wanted was to "free the slaves in the southern U.S. states." So if you are against the Iraqi War that had the end result of freeing the Iraqi people from twenty plus years of dictatorial tyranny, war with neighboring countries, fear of torture, and mass murder then by all means you can be an American and still have your anti-war views. I personally really do not understand what you morally stand for regarding your anti-war views, if you are simply confused with leftist media propaganda like so many in this country are, or why anyone would be against freeing the Iraqi people but then again I don't quite understand why Americans supported slavery during the civil war. I guess its all part of being on a different side of history and part of being free to believe anything you want. |
|
tbeckner
join:2004-03-20
Bend, OR
3 edits | reply to History-101
said by History-101:
You are entitled to your stupidity. We heard the same leftist propaganda B.S. about Reagan in the 1980s..."He's stupid, a simpleton, not compassionate, a right wing fanatic, a cowboy, a fake, a war monger, calling the communist Soviet Union an "Evil Empire" would ruin our fragile relationship with them, he will worsen the Cold War with the Soviet Union by building up our military, telling Gorbachev to "Tear down the East Berlin Wall" was lunacy ...blah...blah...blah!" For you to post the same incorrect, boring, politically leftist mantra we have been hearing for 25 years reveals something about your I.Q. level. I am unsure who you are talking to, but it isn't me. I am not a PROGRESSIVE/LEFTIST. I am a moderate Republican, a Reagan Republican, a sad supported of Ross, and I am in Mensa, so I am not perfect, but not dumb either.
You might be getting a little too emotional to be responding. |
|
History-101
@pacbell.n
| reply to tbeckner
You are entitled to your stupidity. We heard the same leftist propaganda B.S. about Reagan in the 1980s..."He's stupid, a simpleton, not compassionate, a right wing fanatic, a cowboy, a fake, a war monger, calling the communist Soviet Union an "Evil Empire" would ruin our fragile relationship with them, he will worsen the Cold War with the Soviet Union by building up our military, telling Gorbachev to "Tear down the East Berlin Wall" was lunacy ...blah...blah...blah!" For you to post the same incorrect, boring, politically leftist mantra we have been hearing for 25 years reveals something about your I.Q. level. |
|
tbeckner
join:2004-03-20
Bend, OR
| reply to History-101
said by History-101:
Furthermore, this current crop of supposedly Republicans and Bush better cut back the spending, cut taxes, and wake up or the real conservatives along with the sleeping conservative Democrats will join forces and shake up this political charade like Ross Perot did in the 1990's. I agree completely, if Ross hadn't been such a PANSY, maybe everything would have been different, too bad. |
|
tbeckner
join:2004-03-20
Bend, OR
1 edit | reply to History-101
said by History-101:
as a patriotic U.S. citizen I had to remind us all of some things regarding this topic. One doesn't have to remind me about being patriotic, I was a Sergeant in the US Marine Corp from 1968 to 1972 in Vietnam and I volunteered. Patriotism isn't the current argument. In fact, you can be critical of the war in Iraq and still support the troops and be patriotic. The argument should be, was Bush doing his job in 2001, when everyone was warned time after time that something BIG was up and he was taking the longest Presidential vacation in US history. Agreed we can't put all of the blame on Bush, but as President Truman said "The Buck Stops Here!".
What I was mad about, was that someone was blaming Clinton for the final failure of the Bush administration to recognize what was about to happen on 9/11. And if you where to blame Bill for that problem, then you should blame Bush Sr., because there was 8 years between the first attack on the twin towers and the second attack, so should we blame Bush Sr. for the first attack, if we blame Clinton for the second attack.
And one last clink in your argument, I have been a registered Republican since 1980, I would classify myself as a moderate (neither RADICAL RIGHT or LEFT, thank God), and I really believe that Mr Reagan is rolling over in his grave. I don't believe that the RADICAL RIGHT or LEFT are actually SANE people! |
|
History-101
@pacbell.n
| reply to PDXPLT
I wouldn't call Clinton's Y2K technology bubble and year 2000 recession a success. It was Clinton's federal policies and his failed oversight and that gave rise to "era of the rich" that created the bubble of corrupt fake wealth companies like ENRON, MCI-WORLDCOM, etc. along with all those thousands internet start-ups that stole peoples investments. Much of that wealth in the late 1990s was built on lies and cooking financial books. Bush inherited Clinton's tech bubble recession and has been trying to put integrity back into the American big business investment since he took office in 2001. |
|
History-101
@pacbell.n
| reply to zizis
The BEST ECONOMIC TIMES of the last 50 Years occurred AFTER Reagan and Bush ended the economically burdensome 50 year Cold War with the former Soviet Union, Clinton was able to balance the federal budget by cutting back spending for our post-Cold War military, and after the 1994 elections when the Contract With America REPUBLICANS took control of the U.S. House of Representatives for the first time in more than three decades!
Unfortunately the amnesia inflicted Dems are too busy pandering to their politically correct leftist supporters, jealous America haters, and European-socialists than to understand that Clinton was one of the most economically conservative Democratic Party presidents in the past 100 years.
Furthermore, this current crop of supposedly Republicans and Bush better cut back the spending, cut taxes, and wake up or the real conservatives along with the sleeping conservative Democrats will join forces and shake up this political charade like Ross Perot did in the 1990's. |
|
History-101
@pacbell.n
| reply to tbeckner
I really didn't want to join the political bickering but as a patriotic U.S. citizen I had to remind us all of some things regarding this topic. The hypocrisy on the left is staggering. Amnesia has been the Dems greatest political play. You seem to be forgetting that the almighty President Clinton was in office when the first WTC bombing took place. Remember? The first group of WTC bombers who drove a rental truck full of explosives into the underground parking lot of the WTC were fanatics cut from the same mold, there were several deaths, many injured, and the then President and the Dems in control of Congress treated it (and still act) like this terrorist act was simply a Federal crime. We had eight years of bombings from basically the same cast of fanatical terrorists as they bombed and attacked U.S. interests all over the world year after year after year... our African embassy bombed, the U.S.S, Cole bombed, the U.S. military and U.N. militia attacked in the "Black Hawk Down" incident, and many more that I could go on for paragraphs about, on and on for eight years straight under Clinton's watch. Then seven months after Bush walking into the White House we had 9/11 and all we heard from the leftists was how terrible Bush has been by going after these terrorists and their supporters, how the Patriot Act has taken away our freedom, the human rights of the terrorists are being violated in GITMO, how bad our military has been acting in Iraq by dropping bombs on Saddam's forces and then later what happened at Abu Ghraib. Oh and of course can we forget all those Hollywood actors and communist party sponsored anti-war marches in the U.S. with the "Bush is Hitler" signs waving in the air. So now its pushing almost four years of hearing this mantra from the "religious left" (they follow their political beliefs like it was a religion) and yet the fact is that we have had very few incidents against the U.S. abroad ( except in the war zones of course) and no major ones here at home. Even after President Bush has been re-elected by a majority of the vote in last years election Amnesia is rampant among the left. However the truth is that most Americans including Dems should thank God that Bush has been running the show for four years and even if you are a leftist atheist communist you still can simply thank both Bush and the U.S. Military for securing your freedom to be blind to the truth ! |
|
lm5449
Premium
join:2001-03-31
Knoxville, TN
 ·Comcast
| reply to Zverina
said by Zverina  :That's because Bush is a village idiot. 
Not to the majority that voted for him.:) |
|
SpitefulCrow
Insert Witty Tag Here
Premium
join:2003-06-04
Berkeley, CA
| reply to Transmaster
said by Transmaster :Most all of the crap your hear about Walmart is put out by the Unions would want to organise it. And you think that letting the poor people working at Walmart shouldn't be allowed to unionize to get better working conditions and pay? |
|
