Dave Hall wrote:

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:34:45 -0400, thunder
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:23:16 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:


As smart and as compassionate as Carter was, his biggest problem was that
he was politically weak. Our enemies knew it, which is why the Iran
hostage situation lasted as long as it did.

Is that why the hostage situation lasted so long?


http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile.html

http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0591/9105011.htm


And you believe that crap? I have copies of "documents" which are
supposedly from top military officials which confirm the existence of
aliens. Does it mean that it's true?

One thing that is true though that if this scheme occurred as reported
in those links, then the guys responsible are/were guilty of a major
crime (possibly Treason). Since none of the participants were ever
brought to trial much less convicted of anything, I would have to say
that the evidence was not enough to make a case, and that what you
read there is pure bunk, and most likely a left wing smear campaign.

Dave


Uh, there was enough evidence on hand to take George H.W. Bush over the
coals and worse because of his involvement in Iran-Contra, but the
Democrats decided the country would be better served if Bush I got a
pass. So he got one.

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:54:07 -0400, DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
His whole administration was a failure. He managed to do a few
domestically good things, and he paid lip service to the concepts of
peace to a segment of the world which laughed at him behind his back.
But otherwise, he presided over a recessionary economy, as well as at
least one oil "crisis".

What a tiny memory you have, Dave... not that it's surprising.

And you fall for it every time........


The oil crises was brought on under Nixon (think "wage & price freezes")
and made worse under Ford... Carter was doing much to get out of it,
although baulked at every turn by profiteers in both parties.

Much like our current recession is not the fault of Bush, but of
Clinton, while Bush is doing as much as he can to get out of it?

Funny how people change their train of logic to support their favorite
political icons......

And you're forgetting the second oil crisis in 1979, where we first
saw gasoline hit $1.00 a gallon and many places were rationing gas.


As for the
"recessionary economy" you have been telling us how the boom of the '90s
wasn't Clinton's doing and the recession of the '00s isn't Bush's
doing... isn't it handy to be able to blame Carter for the economy though?

Well then which is it? Is Carter to blame for not being able to pull
out of a recession which may or may not have begun under Nixon/Ford?
If not, then you can hardly blame Bush for our current predicament,
especially considering the recession was underway before he took
office.



So, with no specifics except what you got wrong, you condemn Carter's
"whole administration" as a "failure." You have no real facts, no solid
basis for saying so... just what the hate-radio voices have been telling
you...

I have plenty of specifics. I just like baiting you left wingers (and
guys who claim to be "conservatives" yet parrot the left wing agenda),
into revealing your own duplicity.

Dave

As for the
"recessionary economy" you have been telling us how the boom of the '90s
wasn't Clinton's doing and the recession of the '00s isn't Bush's
doing... isn't it handy to be able to blame Carter for the economy though?



Dave Hall wrote:
Well then which is it?

You don't know, do you?

It's kind of funny to see you running around in circles trying to
justify your stupid opinions & prejudices. It's not funny to see how
many voters in this country aren't any smarter.

In any case, *if* you blame Carter for the late 1970s recession then you
have to blame Bush for the mess we're in now. And for all your vitriol
against Carter, that's the only thing you seem able to pin on him...
other than your right-wing hate radio malarkey..

DSK

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 13:08:10 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:


http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile.html

http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0591/9105011.htm


And you believe that crap? I have copies of "documents" which are
supposedly from top military officials which confirm the existence of
aliens. Does it mean that it's true?

Yup, I believe it happened. I can't *prove* it happened, but I believe it
happened. The hostages were released *15* minutes after Reagan was
inaugurated and two months later arms flowed to Iran with Reagan's
approval. There is considerable circumstantial evidence it happened.
Remember Casey was a spook. It's just the way his mind worked.


One thing that is true though that if this scheme occurred as reported in
those links, then the guys responsible are/were guilty of a major crime
(possibly Treason). Since none of the participants were ever brought to
trial much less convicted of anything, I would have to say that the
evidence was not enough to make a case, and that what you read there is
pure bunk, and most likely a left wing smear campaign.

As I have said, I can't prove it, but the Congressional investigation was
a white-wash. *It* was pure bunk. By the by, it would be treason.

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 13:10:10 -0400, Harry Krause wrote:


Uh, there was enough evidence on hand to take George H.W. Bush over the
coals and worse because of his involvement in Iran-Contra, but the
Democrats decided the country would be better served if Bush I got a pass.
So he got one.

Oh, and don't forget Bush's pardons.

http://www.fas.org/news/iran/1992/921224-260039.htm

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 13:10:10 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:34:45 -0400, thunder
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:23:16 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:


As smart and as compassionate as Carter was, his biggest problem was that
he was politically weak. Our enemies knew it, which is why the Iran
hostage situation lasted as long as it did.

Is that why the hostage situation lasted so long?


http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile.html

http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0591/9105011.htm


And you believe that crap? I have copies of "documents" which are
supposedly from top military officials which confirm the existence of
aliens. Does it mean that it's true?

One thing that is true though that if this scheme occurred as reported
in those links, then the guys responsible are/were guilty of a major
crime (possibly Treason). Since none of the participants were ever
brought to trial much less convicted of anything, I would have to say
that the evidence was not enough to make a case, and that what you
read there is pure bunk, and most likely a left wing smear campaign.

Dave


Uh, there was enough evidence on hand to take George H.W. Bush over the
coals and worse because of his involvement in Iran-Contra, but the
Democrats decided the country would be better served if Bush I got a
pass. So he got one.


Right.......

And the tooth fairy and santa claus are doing the jitterbug on my roof
right now......

Dave

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 16:34:44 -0400, DSK wrote:

As for the
"recessionary economy" you have been telling us how the boom of the '90s
wasn't Clinton's doing and the recession of the '00s isn't Bush's
doing... isn't it handy to be able to blame Carter for the economy though?



Dave Hall wrote:
Well then which is it?

You don't know, do you?

It's kind of funny to see you running around in circles trying to
justify your stupid opinions & prejudices. It's not funny to see how
many voters in this country aren't any smarter.

What's even more funny is catching you guys on the left (and their
sycophants) in their blatant hypocritical mindsets, who flip flop on
their opinions (just like Kerry) depending on whether the sitting
president was a republican or democrat.


In any case, *if* you blame Carter for the late 1970s recession then you
have to blame Bush for the mess we're in now.

Carter's policies were unable to correct the situation. Coincidentally
not too long after Reagan took office, the economy improved
significantly. Was Carter a victim of poor timing, or just a lousy
CEO? Was Reagan in the right place at the right time, or was he a more
savvy businessman? The same questions can be made of Clinton and Bush.

What does this all mean? I've always asserted that the economy follows
a sort of roller coaster cyclic trend governed by market conditions,
and pretty much beyond the ability for any sitting president to
influence. That doesn't stop them from attempting to claim credit for
the good times, or having the blame placed on them when times are
tough. Government can help things to some degree by improving public
perception, which can translate to improvements or declines. More
recently the mass media can have a greater effect on perception. When
we are constantly barraged by all sorts of economic bad news, it's
tough to look positive and take the steps necessary to jump start the
next up phase.


And for all your vitriol
against Carter, that's the only thing you seem able to pin on him...

Vitriol? Hardly. History is my witness.


other than your right-wing hate radio malarkey..

As compared to left wing hate propaganda?

When will the clue of truth finally hit you? You are the flip side of
the same coin you attack so vehemently.

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:
What's even more funny is catching you guys on the left

???


In any case, *if* you blame Carter for the late 1970s recession then you
have to blame Bush for the mess we're in now.


Carter's policies were unable to correct the situation. Coincidentally
not too long after Reagan took office, the economy improved
significantly.

Yeah, about 3 years after Reagan took office.

So, in blaming Carter for the late 1970s economy, you also accept that
Bush Jr has totally screwed up the economy since 2000?



And for all your vitriol
against Carter, that's the only thing you seem able to pin on him...


Vitriol? Hardly. History is my witness.

Funny, you don't seem to have a single fact in your "history."

DSK

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 07:52:53 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:


You assume that they are. There is no proof that the recent threats were
politically motivated. If the people start taking a cynical view of the
threat system, then its effectiveness will be severely compromised.

A picture is worth a thousand words. Notice a trend? Notice the Terror
Alerts becoming more prevalent? Linkage?

http://img69.exs.cx/img69/7638/aprov...lert_chart.gif

Dave Hall wrote in message
1. People other than GWB were saying the exact same things about
Saddam's WMD program, including Clinton, Kerry, and even Teddy Kennedy
in this country, along with the Brits, the Germans, the Russians and
other foreign countries.

Pure spin. IF you would really take the time to see what each has
said, IN IT'S ENTIRETY, you'd see that there were qualifying
statements involved, but of course you don't see anything other than
the spin.

2. Saddam could have come clean at any time, yet he chose to play
shell games with the inspectors for the 12 years following the gulf
war. He finally kicked them out in 1998. Why would anyone who had
nothing to hide, be so evasive and uncooperative with the inspectors?
Do you think that during the time between the ejection of the
inspectors in 98, and when they came back years later, could not give
Saddam ample time to hide them?

Jeez, you may be on to something there, seeing how GWB was also
uncooperative with inspectors. He's not let the U.N. do a thing, that
is, until he screwed up foreign relations so bad, that now he WANTS
the United Nations' help.

3. Absence of proof to the positive does not, by itself, indicate
proof of the negative. The remaining WMD could very well be in Syria.
There has been intel which supports this theory.

Uh, yeah, okay. The right wing lies are getting more and more far
fetched. You guys are looking for ANY excuse.