the latest "rant"
Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2002 11:52 pm
Some quick lessons that should have been learned in school.
The President has little to do with the economy. That is actually controlled by Congress, who make the laws, resolutions, and bills that drive how the economy works. The singular reason the economy was so good doing the Clinton years was that there was a Republican congress, who kept Clinton and his pack from screwing with the economy (most of the time by focusing on Clinton's illegal activites, buts that another story)
The main reason we are having economic problems now is that the Democrats are back in control of Congress. Ever notice when taking Economics that in the US when the Democrats control Congress the economy goes down, but when the Republicans control it, the economy goes up, reguardless of what party the sitting President Belongs to. This is simply a part of the cycle that has been known, quite literally, for centuries, reguardless of the names attached to the political parties, and in what country they are in. (ehem, Russia if you want to argue)
The ideologies that drive the US Democrats force them to drive the economy to theoritcal models that simply do not work in real life (communism, socialism)
The ideologies that drive the US Republicans drive them to work the economy to a model that should fail in theory, but works (capatilsm)
Catching the corporations however, is indicative of the sitting president. The President is the one who chooses and gets Judges into offices. The fact that the Corporations are being caught now shows what kind of President Bill Clinton had been. In his 8 years the judicial department became lax, unable to even bring down Microsoft whose done more economic harm than Enron could even dream of. Now that Bush, a Republican is back in office, the Judicial system is getting itself back in line. The Judges at the top of the judicial system realize that if they are not doing their jobs now, they can be replaced with someone who will. Thus the "rush" on corporations. That is simply the Judicial system trying to save its hide after 8 years of lax duty.
Bin Laden is another matter entirely. People, it isn't like we didn't know he was a threat. I have ragzine clips going back beyond 1999 that mention Bin Laden as a threat to the U.S.
And unless you have forgetten, less than 10 years ago the U.S. was in a flat ALL OUT WAR with Saddam H. The thing was, we won that, because of a Bush. In Operation Desert Sheild and Operation Desert Storm George Bush Sn. defined a set of goals needed to win the war, and those goals were met. Bill Clinton who also made military operations, did no such thing. (like another President in the Vietnam War) No clear goals for victory. No clear defined operations. Did we win any conflict Clinton went into? No.
Bush Jr. has not forgetten these lessons. When facing either Bin Laden or Saddam he's trying to give a focus to the mission. But when your enemey won't show his face that makes it kind of hard. The U.S. death penality isn't helping either. We (the U.S.) could already be done with Bin Laden if other countries would simply hand over the captured terrorists they do have. But they don't because the US does support the death penalty. Being forstalled on an operation because an Ally isn't an ally is nothing to blame on Bush, and he's doing the best he can with what he has. Bill Clinton also did the sort of the same thing, switching to Fidel Castro as the greatest threat to the US when his military plans were failing (and look whose still in Cuba...)
Don't even bother trying to argue that. I've been in the Army, I still do some contract work for the Army. I have about 10 friends who work in Military Intelligence as well.
You say your going to move to Ireland if that Klutz is elected again? Do you know anything of the electoral system? You don't? I thought so. You should've gotten this one in school too, but obviously, you didn't.
The U.S. electoral system is built to ensure that the person elected to the U.S. office is truely the person who represents the entire country. Because of this, the scales for the votes are weighted by land and population. Heavy population centers carry less weight than low population centers. The singular reason for this is to prevent politicians from representing there "own" narrow interests.
You see, policies that may be good for a city or town, may not be good for the rural areas and farmers. And policies that could generously benift a farmer could destroy an inner city business. US state distcricts are often drawn so that they contain a hopeful balance of the various types of people living in them. Or they are drawn so that some are totally dominating one type of population, but equel each other out in the representation. (or they are gerrymandered, but that's another topic to be dealt with using Rockets and a map of the local congress building)
In the case of the last Presidental Election, Al Gore lost more than you think. Take a look at how America voted by land. Al Gore didn't even carry 1/4 of America by land. What he did carry was densely packed cities. He didn't even take his own state. Had Al Gore been elected President, he would not have represented America. He would have actually have been the Anti-American by Land votes. His resulting policies would probably quite literally destroy the areas that didn't vote for him, because he would no interest in them.
George Bush Jr won fair and square, carrying over 3/4 of America by land. I don't know about you, but that's a hell of a lot more closer to a representation than less than 1/4. The electoral system was responsible for that. Ensuring that the candidate who did not represent the country was the candidate who did not win.
Your almost as bad as Gav over at Nukees going off over stuff that should have been learned in the school house. (and this was just part of the letter that got sent his way... never got a response from it)
The U.S. was founded by Christians for Christians (Declaration of Independance) for the Spread of Christianity (Mayflower Compact) And people are trying to now tell me God doesn't belong in schools? God doens't belong in Government? That's B.S.
You threatened to move to Ireland. Well, get out. We don't want you, and we don't need you.
The President has little to do with the economy. That is actually controlled by Congress, who make the laws, resolutions, and bills that drive how the economy works. The singular reason the economy was so good doing the Clinton years was that there was a Republican congress, who kept Clinton and his pack from screwing with the economy (most of the time by focusing on Clinton's illegal activites, buts that another story)
The main reason we are having economic problems now is that the Democrats are back in control of Congress. Ever notice when taking Economics that in the US when the Democrats control Congress the economy goes down, but when the Republicans control it, the economy goes up, reguardless of what party the sitting President Belongs to. This is simply a part of the cycle that has been known, quite literally, for centuries, reguardless of the names attached to the political parties, and in what country they are in. (ehem, Russia if you want to argue)
The ideologies that drive the US Democrats force them to drive the economy to theoritcal models that simply do not work in real life (communism, socialism)
The ideologies that drive the US Republicans drive them to work the economy to a model that should fail in theory, but works (capatilsm)
Catching the corporations however, is indicative of the sitting president. The President is the one who chooses and gets Judges into offices. The fact that the Corporations are being caught now shows what kind of President Bill Clinton had been. In his 8 years the judicial department became lax, unable to even bring down Microsoft whose done more economic harm than Enron could even dream of. Now that Bush, a Republican is back in office, the Judicial system is getting itself back in line. The Judges at the top of the judicial system realize that if they are not doing their jobs now, they can be replaced with someone who will. Thus the "rush" on corporations. That is simply the Judicial system trying to save its hide after 8 years of lax duty.
Bin Laden is another matter entirely. People, it isn't like we didn't know he was a threat. I have ragzine clips going back beyond 1999 that mention Bin Laden as a threat to the U.S.
And unless you have forgetten, less than 10 years ago the U.S. was in a flat ALL OUT WAR with Saddam H. The thing was, we won that, because of a Bush. In Operation Desert Sheild and Operation Desert Storm George Bush Sn. defined a set of goals needed to win the war, and those goals were met. Bill Clinton who also made military operations, did no such thing. (like another President in the Vietnam War) No clear goals for victory. No clear defined operations. Did we win any conflict Clinton went into? No.
Bush Jr. has not forgetten these lessons. When facing either Bin Laden or Saddam he's trying to give a focus to the mission. But when your enemey won't show his face that makes it kind of hard. The U.S. death penality isn't helping either. We (the U.S.) could already be done with Bin Laden if other countries would simply hand over the captured terrorists they do have. But they don't because the US does support the death penalty. Being forstalled on an operation because an Ally isn't an ally is nothing to blame on Bush, and he's doing the best he can with what he has. Bill Clinton also did the sort of the same thing, switching to Fidel Castro as the greatest threat to the US when his military plans were failing (and look whose still in Cuba...)
Don't even bother trying to argue that. I've been in the Army, I still do some contract work for the Army. I have about 10 friends who work in Military Intelligence as well.
You say your going to move to Ireland if that Klutz is elected again? Do you know anything of the electoral system? You don't? I thought so. You should've gotten this one in school too, but obviously, you didn't.
The U.S. electoral system is built to ensure that the person elected to the U.S. office is truely the person who represents the entire country. Because of this, the scales for the votes are weighted by land and population. Heavy population centers carry less weight than low population centers. The singular reason for this is to prevent politicians from representing there "own" narrow interests.
You see, policies that may be good for a city or town, may not be good for the rural areas and farmers. And policies that could generously benift a farmer could destroy an inner city business. US state distcricts are often drawn so that they contain a hopeful balance of the various types of people living in them. Or they are drawn so that some are totally dominating one type of population, but equel each other out in the representation. (or they are gerrymandered, but that's another topic to be dealt with using Rockets and a map of the local congress building)
In the case of the last Presidental Election, Al Gore lost more than you think. Take a look at how America voted by land. Al Gore didn't even carry 1/4 of America by land. What he did carry was densely packed cities. He didn't even take his own state. Had Al Gore been elected President, he would not have represented America. He would have actually have been the Anti-American by Land votes. His resulting policies would probably quite literally destroy the areas that didn't vote for him, because he would no interest in them.
George Bush Jr won fair and square, carrying over 3/4 of America by land. I don't know about you, but that's a hell of a lot more closer to a representation than less than 1/4. The electoral system was responsible for that. Ensuring that the candidate who did not represent the country was the candidate who did not win.
Your almost as bad as Gav over at Nukees going off over stuff that should have been learned in the school house. (and this was just part of the letter that got sent his way... never got a response from it)
The U.S. was founded by Christians for Christians (Declaration of Independance) for the Spread of Christianity (Mayflower Compact) And people are trying to now tell me God doesn't belong in schools? God doens't belong in Government? That's B.S.
You threatened to move to Ireland. Well, get out. We don't want you, and we don't need you.
.
