OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

golf-forums.net
Promoting golf discussion.

Main

Date: 11 Oct 2006 07:41:54
From: multi
Subject: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

In light of this week's nuclear test, and the very heroic but very
stupid John McCain's attempt to once again blame everything on
Clinton, here's an article from May 2004 that does a good job of
reviewing our recent history with N Korea.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.kaplan.html

I don't plan to debate it; I'm just posting the URL as a resource for
Dems. Reps are welcome to read it as well, but since it's fairly long
and has no pictures, why would they?

Date: 11 Oct 2006 09:16:58
From: John B.
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

Tex wrote:
> multi wrote:
> > In light of this week's nuclear test, and the very heroic but very
> > stupid John McCain's attempt to once again blame everything on
> > Clinton, here's an article from May 2004 that does a good job of
> > reviewing our recent history with N Korea.
> > http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.kaplan.html
> >
> > I don't plan to debate it; I'm just posting the URL as a resource for
> > Dems. Reps are welcome to read it as well, but since it's fairly long
> > and has no pictures, why would they?
>
> While you are at it...explain to the world how they got the rods in
> first place.
> I'll tell you, your butt buddy Clinton gave them the reactors on a
> "promise" they wouldn't use them for weapons. DOH!
>
> What a maroon!
>
> Tex

He did not. He didn't give them anything. The plan was to build light
water reactors for them, but they were never built because the Koreans
reneged on their end of the bargain.

Date: 11 Oct 2006 12:53:01
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160583418.752690.212370@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Tex wrote:
>> multi wrote:
>> > In light of this week's nuclear test, and the very heroic but very
>> > stupid John McCain's attempt to once again blame everything on
>> > Clinton, here's an article from May 2004 that does a good job of
>> > reviewing our recent history with N Korea.
>> > http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.kaplan.html
>> >
>> > I don't plan to debate it; I'm just posting the URL as a resource for
>> > Dems. Reps are welcome to read it as well, but since it's fairly long
>> > and has no pictures, why would they?
>>
>> While you are at it...explain to the world how they got the rods in
>> first place.
>> I'll tell you, your butt buddy Clinton gave them the reactors on a
>> "promise" they wouldn't use them for weapons. DOH!
>>
>> What a maroon!
>>
>> Tex
>
> He did not. He didn't give them anything. The plan was to build light
> water reactors for them, but they were never built because the Koreans
> reneged on their end of the bargain.
>
Umm, wouldnt that make it the KOREANS fault then? Clinton supplied the fuel
rods and the KOREANS kicked out the people in charge of guarding said rods.
That article is nothing but spin.

Date: 11 Oct 2006 11:25:14
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

In article <1160583418.752690.212370@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com >,
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

> Tex wrote:
> > multi wrote:
> > > In light of this week's nuclear test, and the very heroic but very
> > > stupid John McCain's attempt to once again blame everything on
> > > Clinton, here's an article from May 2004 that does a good job of
> > > reviewing our recent history with N Korea.
> > > http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.kaplan.html
> > >
> > > I don't plan to debate it; I'm just posting the URL as a resource for
> > > Dems. Reps are welcome to read it as well, but since it's fairly long
> > > and has no pictures, why would they?
> >
> > While you are at it...explain to the world how they got the rods in
> > first place.
> > I'll tell you, your butt buddy Clinton gave them the reactors on a
> > "promise" they wouldn't use them for weapons. DOH!
> >
> > What a maroon!
> >
> > Tex
>
> He did not. He didn't give them anything. The plan was to build light
> water reactors for them, but they were never built because the Koreans
> reneged on their end of the bargain.

It appears you are correct, we didn't give them to them. But it does
appear that Rumsfeld was involved in the company that DID sell them to
N. Korea.

Here's the link:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/09/1052280441337.html

Kind of strange that this isn't hitting the US press, isn't it?

Date: 12 Oct 2006 02:21:28
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-55EC0D.11251411102006@individual.net...
> In article <1160583418.752690.212370@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Tex wrote:
>> > multi wrote:
>> > > In light of this week's nuclear test, and the very heroic but very
>> > > stupid John McCain's attempt to once again blame everything on
>> > > Clinton, here's an article from May 2004 that does a good job of
>> > > reviewing our recent history with N Korea.
>> > > http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.kaplan.html
>> > >
>> > > I don't plan to debate it; I'm just posting the URL as a resource for
>> > > Dems. Reps are welcome to read it as well, but since it's fairly
>> > > long
>> > > and has no pictures, why would they?
>> >
>> > While you are at it...explain to the world how they got the rods in
>> > first place.
>> > I'll tell you, your butt buddy Clinton gave them the reactors on a
>> > "promise" they wouldn't use them for weapons. DOH!
>> >
>> > What a maroon!
>> >
>> > Tex
>>
>> He did not. He didn't give them anything. The plan was to build light
>> water reactors for them, but they were never built because the Koreans
>> reneged on their end of the bargain.
>
> It appears you are correct, we didn't give them to them. But it does
> appear that Rumsfeld was involved in the company that DID sell them to
> N. Korea.
>
> Here's the link:
> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/09/1052280441337.html
>
> Kind of strange that this isn't hitting the US press, isn't it?

Your post kind of quited things down. I wonder why.

Date: 12 Oct 2006 11:21:41
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

In article <AWnXg.3294$v43.748@fed1read02 >,
"AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:

> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:lloydparsons-55EC0D.11251411102006@individual.net...
> > In article <1160583418.752690.212370@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Tex wrote:
> >> > multi wrote:
> >> > > In light of this week's nuclear test, and the very heroic but very
> >> > > stupid John McCain's attempt to once again blame everything on
> >> > > Clinton, here's an article from May 2004 that does a good job of
> >> > > reviewing our recent history with N Korea.
> >> > > http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.kaplan.html
> >> > >
> >> > > I don't plan to debate it; I'm just posting the URL as a resource for
> >> > > Dems. Reps are welcome to read it as well, but since it's fairly
> >> > > long
> >> > > and has no pictures, why would they?
> >> >
> >> > While you are at it...explain to the world how they got the rods in
> >> > first place.
> >> > I'll tell you, your butt buddy Clinton gave them the reactors on a
> >> > "promise" they wouldn't use them for weapons. DOH!
> >> >
> >> > What a maroon!
> >> >
> >> > Tex
> >>
> >> He did not. He didn't give them anything. The plan was to build light
> >> water reactors for them, but they were never built because the Koreans
> >> reneged on their end of the bargain.
> >
> > It appears you are correct, we didn't give them to them. But it does
> > appear that Rumsfeld was involved in the company that DID sell them to
> > N. Korea.
> >
> > Here's the link:
> > http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/09/1052280441337.html
> >
> > Kind of strange that this isn't hitting the US press, isn't it?
>
> Your post kind of quited things down. I wonder why.

You don't think that just because it shows one of their 'heroes' in a
bad light would cause that to happen, do you? ;-)

Date: 12 Oct 2006 12:01:55
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-9C9A10.11214112102006@individual.net...
> In article <AWnXg.3294$v43.748@fed1read02>,
> "AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
>
>> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in message
>> news:lloydparsons-55EC0D.11251411102006@individual.net...
>> > In article <1160583418.752690.212370@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
>> > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Tex wrote:
>> >> > multi wrote:
>> >> > > In light of this week's nuclear test, and the very heroic but very
>> >> > > stupid John McCain's attempt to once again blame everything on
>> >> > > Clinton, here's an article from May 2004 that does a good job of
>> >> > > reviewing our recent history with N Korea.
>> >> > > http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.kaplan.html
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I don't plan to debate it; I'm just posting the URL as a resource
>> >> > > for
>> >> > > Dems. Reps are welcome to read it as well, but since it's fairly
>> >> > > long
>> >> > > and has no pictures, why would they?
>> >> >
>> >> > While you are at it...explain to the world how they got the rods in
>> >> > first place.
>> >> > I'll tell you, your butt buddy Clinton gave them the reactors on a
>> >> > "promise" they wouldn't use them for weapons. DOH!
>> >> >
>> >> > What a maroon!
>> >> >
>> >> > Tex
>> >>
>> >> He did not. He didn't give them anything. The plan was to build light
>> >> water reactors for them, but they were never built because the Koreans
>> >> reneged on their end of the bargain.
>> >
>> > It appears you are correct, we didn't give them to them. But it does
>> > appear that Rumsfeld was involved in the company that DID sell them to
>> > N. Korea.
>> >
>> > Here's the link:
>> > http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/09/1052280441337.html
>> >
>> > Kind of strange that this isn't hitting the US press, isn't it?
>>
>> Your post kind of quited things down. I wonder why.
>
> You don't think that just because it shows one of their 'heroes' in a
> bad light would cause that to happen, do you? ;-)

"The US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, sat on the board of a company
that three years ago sold two light water nuclear reactors to North Korea "

Are these the same light water reactors that cant be used to create
plutonium?

Date: 12 Oct 2006 13:19:24
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote in message
news:4p7ao4FhigfgU1@individual.net...
>
> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:lloydparsons-9C9A10.11214112102006@individual.net...
>> In article <AWnXg.3294$v43.748@fed1read02>,
>> "AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in message
>>> news:lloydparsons-55EC0D.11251411102006@individual.net...
>>> > In article <1160583418.752690.212370@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
>>> > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Tex wrote:
>>> >> > multi wrote:
>>> >> > > In light of this week's nuclear test, and the very heroic but
>>> >> > > very
>>> >> > > stupid John McCain's attempt to once again blame everything on
>>> >> > > Clinton, here's an article from May 2004 that does a good job of
>>> >> > > reviewing our recent history with N Korea.
>>> >> > > http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.kaplan.html
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > I don't plan to debate it; I'm just posting the URL as a resource
>>> >> > > for
>>> >> > > Dems. Reps are welcome to read it as well, but since it's fairly
>>> >> > > long
>>> >> > > and has no pictures, why would they?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > While you are at it...explain to the world how they got the rods in
>>> >> > first place.
>>> >> > I'll tell you, your butt buddy Clinton gave them the reactors on a
>>> >> > "promise" they wouldn't use them for weapons. DOH!
>>> >> >
>>> >> > What a maroon!
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Tex
>>> >>
>>> >> He did not. He didn't give them anything. The plan was to build light
>>> >> water reactors for them, but they were never built because the
>>> >> Koreans
>>> >> reneged on their end of the bargain.
>>> >
>>> > It appears you are correct, we didn't give them to them. But it does
>>> > appear that Rumsfeld was involved in the company that DID sell them to
>>> > N. Korea.
>>> >
>>> > Here's the link:
>>> > http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/09/1052280441337.html
>>> >
>>> > Kind of strange that this isn't hitting the US press, isn't it?
>>>
>>> Your post kind of quited things down. I wonder why.
>>
>> You don't think that just because it shows one of their 'heroes' in a
>> bad light would cause that to happen, do you? ;-)
>
> "The US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, sat on the board of a company
> that three years ago sold two light water nuclear reactors to North Korea
> "
>
> Are these the same light water reactors that cant be used to create
> plutonium?

It's bad enough that he sat on a board that sold nuclear grade material, if
that happened, but it seems he was not on the board at the time. Just like
Cheney wasn't with Haliburton when they got the contract. I guess nobody
would be blatant enough to do it while on the board.

Date: 11 Oct 2006 08:11:27
From: Tex
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

multi wrote:
> In light of this week's nuclear test, and the very heroic but very
> stupid John McCain's attempt to once again blame everything on
> Clinton, here's an article from May 2004 that does a good job of
> reviewing our recent history with N Korea.
> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.kaplan.html
>
> I don't plan to debate it; I'm just posting the URL as a resource for
> Dems. Reps are welcome to read it as well, but since it's fairly long
> and has no pictures, why would they?

While you are at it...explain to the world how they got the rods in
first place.
I'll tell you, your butt buddy Clinton gave them the reactors on a
"promise" they wouldn't use them for weapons. DOH!

What a maroon!

Tex

Date: 11 Oct 2006 09:36:36
From: multi
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

On 11 2006 08:11:27 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:

>
>multi wrote:
>> In light of this week's nuclear test, and the very heroic but very
>> stupid John McCain's attempt to once again blame everything on
>> Clinton, here's an article from May 2004 that does a good job of
>> reviewing our recent history with N Korea.
>> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.kaplan.html
>>
>> I don't plan to debate it; I'm just posting the URL as a resource for
>> Dems. Reps are welcome to read it as well, but since it's fairly long
>> and has no pictures, why would they?
>
>While you are at it...explain to the world how they got the rods in
>first place.
>I'll tell you, your butt buddy Clinton gave them the reactors on a
>"promise" they wouldn't use them for weapons. DOH!
>
>What a maroon!

I knew you wouldn't read an article that didn't have pictures to
color. If you had, you would know that Clinton's deal involved two
reactors of a type unsuitable for producing weapons-grade material,
but they were never delivered. The rods came from a reactor that went
online in 1986, during St. Ronnie's administration. DOH! Another
mess that Clinton inherited from Reagan-Bush, made great strides in
solving, and turned over to Baby Bush, only to have him completely
bungle it.

The chronology, adapted to your short attention span, is this: N
Korea began producing fuel rods at Yongbyon in 1986; neither Reagan
nor Bush I did anything effective to stop it. Clinton shut them down
in 1994, a little over a year into his presidency. N. Korea stopped
producing plutonium, and turned what they had over to the UN
inspectors. They started up again in 2003, and kicked the UN
inspectors out. Another great result of our invasion of Iraq, and
just like his dad, Baby Bush did nothing about it, even though they
publicly announced almost every checkpoint in their assembly of the
bomb. Now they have nukes. Heckuva job, George. And this is past
the third paragraph, so you'll never see it, but since they have
nukes, Japan will want them, which will make China increase theirs,
which will make India increase theirs, which will make Pakistan
increase theirs. George W. Bush, makin' us safer.

It takes an intellect like yours, or McCain's, to blame this on
Clinton.

Date: 11 Oct 2006 12:56:41
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:hr5qi2hu2mt0qse1m1qnjrvrunruk1ae7n@4ax.com...
> On 11 2006 08:11:27 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>multi wrote:
>>> In light of this week's nuclear test, and the very heroic but very
>>> stupid John McCain's attempt to once again blame everything on
>>> Clinton, here's an article from May 2004 that does a good job of
>>> reviewing our recent history with N Korea.
>>> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.kaplan.html
>>>
>>> I don't plan to debate it; I'm just posting the URL as a resource for
>>> Dems. Reps are welcome to read it as well, but since it's fairly long
>>> and has no pictures, why would they?
>>
>>While you are at it...explain to the world how they got the rods in
>>first place.
>>I'll tell you, your butt buddy Clinton gave them the reactors on a
>>"promise" they wouldn't use them for weapons. DOH!
>>
>>What a maroon!
>
> I knew you wouldn't read an article that didn't have pictures to
> color. If you had, you would know that Clinton's deal involved two
> reactors of a type unsuitable for producing weapons-grade material,
> but they were never delivered. The rods came from a reactor that went
> online in 1986, during St. Ronnie's administration. DOH! Another
> mess that Clinton inherited from Reagan-Bush, made great strides in
> solving, and turned over to Baby Bush, only to have him completely
> bungle it.
>
> The chronology, adapted to your short attention span, is this: N
> Korea began producing fuel rods at Yongbyon in 1986; neither Reagan
> nor Bush I did anything effective to stop it. Clinton shut them down
> in 1994, a little over a year into his presidency. N. Korea stopped
> producing plutonium, and turned what they had over to the UN
> inspectors. They started up again in 2003, and kicked the UN
> inspectors out. Another great result of our invasion of Iraq, and
> just like his dad, Baby Bush did nothing about it, even though they
> publicly announced almost every checkpoint in their assembly of the
> bomb. Now they have nukes. Heckuva job, George. And this is past
> the third paragraph, so you'll never see it, but since they have
> nukes, Japan will want them, which will make China increase theirs,
> which will make India increase theirs, which will make Pakistan
> increase theirs. George W. Bush, makin' us safer.
>
> It takes an intellect like yours, or McCain's, to blame this on
> Clinton.
>
And it takes a real idiot to not blame NK.

Date: 11 Oct 2006 18:39:35
From: multi
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

On Wed, 11 2006 12:56:41 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:
>> It takes an intellect like yours, or McCain's, to blame this on
>> Clinton.
>>
>And it takes a real idiot to not blame NK.

The world has lots of bad people; that's why the President is supposed
to be smarter than the average guy on the street. This one,
unfortunately, is dumber. I'd say he's in the bottom 33%, which is
why only idiots (and some millionaires) still support him.

Sometimes, even with the best intellects and efforts, things still go
wrong. But offering nothing but belligerent name-calling, which is a
fair summary of Bush's policy toward N. Korea, is almost guaranteed to
make things go wrong. Worst president ever.

Date: 12 Oct 2006 04:14:42
From: JJK
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

"multi" wrote:
> The world has lots of bad people; that's why the President is supposed
> to be smarter than the average guy on the street. This one,
> unfortunately, is dumber. I'd say he's in the bottom 33%, which is
> why only idiots (and some millionaires) still support him.
>
> Sometimes, even with the best intellects and efforts, things still go
> wrong. But offering nothing but belligerent name-calling, which is a
> fair summary of Bush's policy toward N. Korea, is almost guaranteed to
> make things go wrong. Worst president ever.

IIRC, his IQ is ~ 98, close to average.

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 11 Oct 2006 23:27:44
From: multi
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

On Thu, 12 2006 04:14:42 GMT, "JJK" <surpher@verizon.net > wrote:

>"multi" wrote:
>> The world has lots of bad people; that's why the President is supposed
>> to be smarter than the average guy on the street. This one,
>> unfortunately, is dumber. I'd say he's in the bottom 33%, which is
>> why only idiots (and some millionaires) still support him.
>>
>> Sometimes, even with the best intellects and efforts, things still go
>> wrong. But offering nothing but belligerent name-calling, which is a
>> fair summary of Bush's policy toward N. Korea, is almost guaranteed to
>> make things go wrong. Worst president ever.
>
>
>IIRC, his IQ is ~ 98, close to average.

Assuming, of course, he took his own SAT. The Air Force -test he
took, which would have been a lot harder to cheat on, showed him in
the bottom 25%. And both of those were taken before he burned his
brain out on coke and booze. Today, he's a moron, just like any
non-millionaire who still supports him.

Date: 11 Oct 2006 15:09:43
From: FredK
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote in message
news:4p4piqFh1qrvU1@individual.net...
>
> "multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message
> news:hr5qi2hu2mt0qse1m1qnjrvrunruk1ae7n@4ax.com...
> > On 11 2006 08:11:27 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>multi wrote:
> >>> In light of this week's nuclear test, and the very heroic but very
> >>> stupid John McCain's attempt to once again blame everything on
> >>> Clinton, here's an article from May 2004 that does a good job of
> >>> reviewing our recent history with N Korea.
> >>> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.kaplan.html
> >>>
> >>> I don't plan to debate it; I'm just posting the URL as a resource for
> >>> Dems. Reps are welcome to read it as well, but since it's fairly long
> >>> and has no pictures, why would they?
> >>
> >>While you are at it...explain to the world how they got the rods in
> >>first place.
> >>I'll tell you, your butt buddy Clinton gave them the reactors on a
> >>"promise" they wouldn't use them for weapons. DOH!
> >>
> >>What a maroon!
> >
> > I knew you wouldn't read an article that didn't have pictures to
> > color. If you had, you would know that Clinton's deal involved two
> > reactors of a type unsuitable for producing weapons-grade material,
> > but they were never delivered. The rods came from a reactor that went
> > online in 1986, during St. Ronnie's administration. DOH! Another
> > mess that Clinton inherited from Reagan-Bush, made great strides in
> > solving, and turned over to Baby Bush, only to have him completely
> > bungle it.
> >
> > The chronology, adapted to your short attention span, is this: N
> > Korea began producing fuel rods at Yongbyon in 1986; neither Reagan
> > nor Bush I did anything effective to stop it. Clinton shut them down
> > in 1994, a little over a year into his presidency. N. Korea stopped
> > producing plutonium, and turned what they had over to the UN
> > inspectors. They started up again in 2003, and kicked the UN
> > inspectors out. Another great result of our invasion of Iraq, and
> > just like his dad, Baby Bush did nothing about it, even though they
> > publicly announced almost every checkpoint in their assembly of the
> > bomb. Now they have nukes. Heckuva job, George. And this is past
> > the third paragraph, so you'll never see it, but since they have
> > nukes, Japan will want them, which will make China increase theirs,
> > which will make India increase theirs, which will make Pakistan
> > increase theirs. George W. Bush, makin' us safer.
> >
> > It takes an intellect like yours, or McCain's, to blame this on
> > Clinton.
> >
> And it takes a real idiot to not blame NK.
>

Brilliant response. Let's refine it down to the nitty gritty. Under GWB's
watch, a madman has acquired nukes - at least in part because GWB won't deal
with him directly diplomatically (on pricipal) - and won't deal with him
militarily because unlike Iraq - it might just start WW-III. He keeps
talking about how "his job is to make us all safer" - I don't feel a lot
safer.

Date: 12 Oct 2006 00:11:40
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush

Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:

: IIRC, the SS actuaries prepare three forecasts each year:
: optimistic, pessimistic, and (essentially) median. The 2042
: date comes from the pessimistic forecast (again IIRC) in which
: birth rate craters, immigration craters, and the economy
: craters. The median forecast has the exhaustion date in the
: 2080s sometime (again getting pushed further back each year).
: The optimistic forecast has SS running at a surplus forever.

OK, IDQRC. Pessimistic was 2032, 'median' 2042, and optimistic
"solvent forever."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_12/005280.php

Note that the "optimistic" forecast is that GDP growth will
be 2.6% per year. Current growth is 3.0%; during the Clinton
years, it was 4.0%; during the GHW Bush years it was 2.8%.
So even with a modest 2.6% GDP growth, Social Security stays
solvent indefinitely. For the 2042 date to be accurate, the
economy will have to grow at the positively anemic 1.8% per
year.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 12 Oct 2006 02:25:37
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

"FredK" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com > wrote in message
news:452d4178$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
>
> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:4p4piqFh1qrvU1@individual.net...
>>
>> "multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message
>> news:hr5qi2hu2mt0qse1m1qnjrvrunruk1ae7n@4ax.com...
>> > On 11 2006 08:11:27 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>multi wrote:
>> >>> In light of this week's nuclear test, and the very heroic but very
>> >>> stupid John McCain's attempt to once again blame everything on
>> >>> Clinton, here's an article from May 2004 that does a good job of
>> >>> reviewing our recent history with N Korea.
>> >>> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.kaplan.html
>> >>>
>> >>> I don't plan to debate it; I'm just posting the URL as a resource for
>> >>> Dems. Reps are welcome to read it as well, but since it's fairly
>> >>> long
>> >>> and has no pictures, why would they?
>> >>
>> >>While you are at it...explain to the world how they got the rods in
>> >>first place.
>> >>I'll tell you, your butt buddy Clinton gave them the reactors on a
>> >>"promise" they wouldn't use them for weapons. DOH!
>> >>
>> >>What a maroon!
>> >
>> > I knew you wouldn't read an article that didn't have pictures to
>> > color. If you had, you would know that Clinton's deal involved two
>> > reactors of a type unsuitable for producing weapons-grade material,
>> > but they were never delivered. The rods came from a reactor that went
>> > online in 1986, during St. Ronnie's administration. DOH! Another
>> > mess that Clinton inherited from Reagan-Bush, made great strides in
>> > solving, and turned over to Baby Bush, only to have him completely
>> > bungle it.
>> >
>> > The chronology, adapted to your short attention span, is this: N
>> > Korea began producing fuel rods at Yongbyon in 1986; neither Reagan
>> > nor Bush I did anything effective to stop it. Clinton shut them down
>> > in 1994, a little over a year into his presidency. N. Korea stopped
>> > producing plutonium, and turned what they had over to the UN
>> > inspectors. They started up again in 2003, and kicked the UN
>> > inspectors out. Another great result of our invasion of Iraq, and
>> > just like his dad, Baby Bush did nothing about it, even though they
>> > publicly announced almost every checkpoint in their assembly of the
>> > bomb. Now they have nukes. Heckuva job, George. And this is past
>> > the third paragraph, so you'll never see it, but since they have
>> > nukes, Japan will want them, which will make China increase theirs,
>> > which will make India increase theirs, which will make Pakistan
>> > increase theirs. George W. Bush, makin' us safer.
>> >
>> > It takes an intellect like yours, or McCain's, to blame this on
>> > Clinton.
>> >
>> And it takes a real idiot to not blame NK.
>>
>
> Brilliant response. Let's refine it down to the nitty gritty. Under
> GWB's
> watch, a madman has acquired nukes - at least in part because GWB won't
> deal
> with him directly diplomatically (on pricipal) - and won't deal with him
> militarily because unlike Iraq - it might just start WW-III. He keeps
> talking about how "his job is to make us all safer" - I don't feel a lot
> safer.

Seems like Bush has undone everything Pope John Paul II, Leke Walesa, and
Ronald Reagan did save us from the threat of nucelar from the Russians.

Is it kind of true that most manufacturing jobs are leaving the country,
except for nuclear weapons? Or is that a bad guess? Maybe helicopters and
tanks, too.

Date: 11 Oct 2006 22:42:18
From: Frank Ketchum
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:hr5qi2hu2mt0qse1m1qnjrvrunruk1ae7n@4ax.com...
> On 11 2006 08:11:27 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It takes an intellect like yours, or McCain's, to blame this on
> Clinton.
>

Blame what on Clinton? I would think these developments with North Korea
would make you happy. After all, we are lectured about how it isn't fair
that we are such a superpower in comparison to the rest of the world and it
is unfair that we have nukes and the most powerful military.

You are of the political persuasion of those who stand in the way of ever
doing anything to ever prevent another nation from developing nuclear
weapons. Take Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea etc. All I ever hear from you
guys is bitching when something is actually done about preventing a foriegn
nation from going nuclear. The truth is you think anything can be handled
diplomatically and that tough talk and saber rattling is what causes
problems, not fixes them.

What we are seeing unfold in both North Korea and Iran before our very eyes
is the failure of policies of the diplomacy with countries that do not
embrace feedom and liberty for their citizens. Negotiate with despots and
this is what you get every time.

You can try and blame this on Bush, just as you do everything else but it is
only a reflection on yourself and further damages any credibility you may
have left.

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 11 Oct 2006 14:51:46
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

"Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160579487.313114.128140@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> multi wrote:
>> In light of this week's nuclear test, and the very heroic but very
>> stupid John McCain's attempt to once again blame everything on
>> Clinton, here's an article from May 2004 that does a good job of
>> reviewing our recent history with N Korea.
>> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.kaplan.html
>>
>> I don't plan to debate it; I'm just posting the URL as a resource for
>> Dems. Reps are welcome to read it as well, but since it's fairly long
>> and has no pictures, why would they?
>
> While you are at it...explain to the world how they got the rods in
> first place.
> I'll tell you, your butt buddy Clinton gave them the reactors on a
> "promise" they wouldn't use them for weapons. DOH!
>
> What a maroon!
>
> Tex

And guess who sat on the Board of Directors of the company that sold N Korea
the reactors.

Some guy named Donald Rumsfeld.

DOH!!!

Randy

Date: 12 Oct 2006 09:27:32
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

Date: 12 Oct 2006 12:03:45
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:u4ksi2h27ep8ojrb0vdtnf7j91hggf8dqp@4ax.com...
> On 11 2006 08:11:27 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>multi wrote:
>>> In light of this week's nuclear test, and the very heroic but very
>>> stupid John McCain's attempt to once again blame everything on
>>> Clinton, here's an article from May 2004 that does a good job of
>>> reviewing our recent history with N Korea.
>>> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.kaplan.html
>>>
>>> I don't plan to debate it; I'm just posting the URL as a resource for
>>> Dems. Reps are welcome to read it as well, but since it's fairly long
>>> and has no pictures, why would they?
>>
>>While you are at it...explain to the world how they got the rods in
>>first place.
>>I'll tell you, your butt buddy Clinton gave them the reactors on a
>>"promise" they wouldn't use them for weapons. DOH!
>>
>>What a maroon!
>>
>>Tex
> As much a maroon as Donald Rumsfield, who was on the board of
> directors of the private company that sold those parts to North Korea?

Wrong reactors.

Date: 12 Oct 2006 12:29:41
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

On Thu, 12 2006 12:03:45 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:

>
>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:u4ksi2h27ep8ojrb0vdtnf7j91hggf8dqp@4ax.com...
>> On 11 2006 08:11:27 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>I'll tell you, your butt buddy Clinton gave them the reactors on a
>>>"promise" they wouldn't use them for weapons. DOH!
>>>
>>>What a maroon!
>>>
>>>Tex
>> As much a maroon as Donald Rumsfield, who was on the board of
>> directors of the private company that sold those parts to North Korea?
>
>Wrong reactors.

What difference does it make? He still was a director of a company
that sold reactors to NK...who he said two years later was a terrorist
state, and part of the "axis of evil".

From The Guardian Unlimited
August 2003
Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, sat on the board of a
company which three years ago sold two light water nuclear reactors to
North Korea - a country he now regards as part of the "axis of evil"
and which has been targeted for regime change by Washington because of
its efforts to build nuclear weapons.
Mr Rumsfeld was a non-executive director of ABB, a European
engineering giant based in Zurich, when it won a $200m (�125m)
contract to provide the design and key components for the reactors.
The current defence secretary sat on the board from 1990 to 2001,
earning $190,000 a year. He left to join the Bush administration.

The reactor deal was part of President Bill Clinton's policy of
persuading the North Korean regime to positively engage with the west.

Date: 12 Oct 2006 14:35:32
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:eiusi2d4n1fqdtsomoscb9igcss37daml8@4ax.com...
The reactor deal was part of President Bill Clinton's policy of
persuading the North Korean regime to positively engage with the west.engage
with the west.

Pretty much sums it up. Appeasement with this clown wont work. Didnt then,
wont now. NK didnt get their nukes from these reactors.

Date: 12 Oct 2006 14:43:26
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

On Thu, 12 2006 14:35:32 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:

>
>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:eiusi2d4n1fqdtsomoscb9igcss37daml8@4ax.com...
>The reactor deal was part of President Bill Clinton's policy of
>persuading the North Korean regime to positively engage with the west.engage
>with the west.
>
>Pretty much sums it up. Appeasement with this clown wont work. Didnt then,
>wont now. NK didnt get their nukes from these reactors.
>
>
That wasn't the point Mike. The article was about Rumsfeld's actions,
and his about face.
___,
\o

Date: 12 Oct 2006 15:21:50
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:kl6ti2tt991njl173tpoqtciae98ru3cmk@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 12 2006 14:35:32 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>news:eiusi2d4n1fqdtsomoscb9igcss37daml8@4ax.com...
>>The reactor deal was part of President Bill Clinton's policy of
>>persuading the North Korean regime to positively engage with the
>>west.engage
>>with the west.
>>
>>Pretty much sums it up. Appeasement with this clown wont work. Didnt then,
>>wont now. NK didnt get their nukes from these reactors.
>>
>>
> That wasn't the point Mike. The article was about Rumsfeld's actions,
> and his about face.

Rumsfeld have very little, if anything to do with it. He was a non-executive
board member on a foreign owned business.

Date: 12 Oct 2006 15:44:16
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

On Thu, 12 2006 15:21:50 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:

>
>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:kl6ti2tt991njl173tpoqtciae98ru3cmk@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 12 2006 14:35:32 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>>news:eiusi2d4n1fqdtsomoscb9igcss37daml8@4ax.com...
>>>The reactor deal was part of President Bill Clinton's policy of
>>>persuading the North Korean regime to positively engage with the
>>>west.engage
>>>with the west.
>>>
>>>Pretty much sums it up. Appeasement with this clown wont work. Didnt then,
>>>wont now. NK didnt get their nukes from these reactors.
>>>
>>>
>> That wasn't the point Mike. The article was about Rumsfeld's actions,
>> and his about face.
>
>Rumsfeld have very little, if anything to do with it. He was a non-executive
>board member on a foreign owned business.
>
And you are sure of that because........?
___,
\o

Date: 12 Oct 2006 15:54:12
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:f8ati29pa0f3radmmi6kv922v4jjeq4nkn@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 12 2006 15:21:50 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>news:kl6ti2tt991njl173tpoqtciae98ru3cmk@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 12 2006 14:35:32 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:eiusi2d4n1fqdtsomoscb9igcss37daml8@4ax.com...
>>>>The reactor deal was part of President Bill Clinton's policy of
>>>>persuading the North Korean regime to positively engage with the
>>>>west.engage
>>>>with the west.
>>>>
>>>>Pretty much sums it up. Appeasement with this clown wont work. Didnt
>>>>then,
>>>>wont now. NK didnt get their nukes from these reactors.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> That wasn't the point Mike. The article was about Rumsfeld's actions,
>>> and his about face.
>>
>>Rumsfeld have very little, if anything to do with it. He was a
>>non-executive
>>board member on a foreign owned business.
>>
> And you are sure of that because........?
>
Because my hat isnt made of tinfoil. Just how are you so sure?

Date: 12 Oct 2006 16:03:14
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

On Thu, 12 2006 15:54:12 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:

>
>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:f8ati29pa0f3radmmi6kv922v4jjeq4nkn@4ax.com...

>>>Rumsfeld have very little, if anything to do with it. He was a
>>>non-executive
>>>board member on a foreign owned business.
>>>
>> And you are sure of that because........?
>>
>Because my hat isnt made of tinfoil. Just how are you so sure?
>
Because anyone with a scintilla of integrity that knew about the
sale...before or after...(and you KNOW that he would've known
sometime) ...would stand up and say that he thought it wrong. But
Rummy waited until being part of GW's administration. I didn't like
Clinton doing business with them either.

So, your hat is made of rubber?
___,
\o

Date: 12 Oct 2006 16:15:27
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:66bti2pphu480foe3k702gcm46o7u0lp84@4ax.com...
>>
> Because anyone with a scintilla of integrity that knew about the
> sale...before or after...(and you KNOW that he would've known
> sometime) ...would stand up and say that he thought it wrong.

And how do you know he didnt stand up and say it was wrong? He was a
non-exec board member, how much say could he have had?

But
> Rummy waited until being part of GW's administration. I didn't like
> Clinton doing business with them either.
>
Trying to pin this on Rumsfeld is ridiculous. All administrations begining
with Reagan have tried to appease this loony lil runt and not a single time
has it worked, NEVER. Thinking that talking now will suddenly work is even
more ridiculous.

Date: 12 Oct 2006 16:35:25
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

On Thu, 12 2006 16:15:27 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:

>
>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:66bti2pphu480foe3k702gcm46o7u0lp84@4ax.com...
>>>
>> Because anyone with a scintilla of integrity that knew about the
>> sale...before or after...(and you KNOW that he would've known
>> sometime) ...would stand up and say that he thought it wrong.
>
>And how do you know he didnt stand up and say it was wrong? He was a
>non-exec board member, how much say could he have had?
>
>
> But
>> Rummy waited until being part of GW's administration. I didn't like
>> Clinton doing business with them either.
>>
>Trying to pin this on Rumsfeld is ridiculous. All administrations begining
>with Reagan have tried to appease this loony lil runt and not a single time
>has it worked, NEVER. Thinking that talking now will suddenly work is even
>more ridiculous.
>
>
Rumsfeld isn't to blame. I'm just pointing out what a schmuck he is,
and how he fits well with this administration.

Date: 12 Oct 2006 14:10:17
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote in message
news:4p7pjfFhplsmU1@individual.net...
>
> "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
> news:66bti2pphu480foe3k702gcm46o7u0lp84@4ax.com...
>>>
>> Because anyone with a scintilla of integrity that knew about the
>> sale...before or after...(and you KNOW that he would've known
>> sometime) ...would stand up and say that he thought it wrong.
>
> And how do you know he didnt stand up and say it was wrong? He was a
> non-exec board member, how much say could he have had?
>
>
> But
>> Rummy waited until being part of GW's administration. I didn't like
>> Clinton doing business with them either.
>>
> Trying to pin this on Rumsfeld is ridiculous. All administrations begining
> with Reagan have tried to appease this loony lil runt and not a single
> time has it worked, NEVER. Thinking that talking now will suddenly work is
> even more ridiculous.

So talking in with China and South Korea involved would work, but private
talks wouldn't? Is Bush afraid that he's goig to hear some gossip that he
doesn't want to know about? Maybe Kim what's his name will make up stories
about what went on or maybe Bush is afraid of being hypnotized. If he was
hypnotized he couldn't look any goofier than John Edwards in his debate
against Cheney.

Date: 12 Oct 2006 14:52:21
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

On Thu, 12 2006 12:29:41 -0500, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:

>The reactor deal was part of President Bill Clinton's policy of
>persuading the North Korean regime to positively engage with the west.

So everything was legal and above board then. So what's the point?

Date: 12 Oct 2006 14:42:01
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

On Thu, 12 2006 14:52:21 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:

>On Thu, 12 2006 12:29:41 -0500, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
>wrote:
>
>>The reactor deal was part of President Bill Clinton's policy of
>>persuading the North Korean regime to positively engage with the west.
>
>So everything was legal and above board then. So what's the point?

Nice editing. Maybe this time you can actually read this without
moving your lips.

From The Guardian Unlimited
August 2003
Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, sat on the board of a
company which three years ago sold two light water nuclear reactors to
North Korea - a country he now regards as part of the "axis of evil"
and which has been targeted for regime change by Washington because of
its efforts to build nuclear weapons.

Do you get the point now? Rumsfeld is a two-faced asshole. Clear?
___,
\o

Date: 12 Oct 2006 15:51:24
From: sfb
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

Do you get the point? Rumsfeld's company was doing business with North Korea
with the full and complete blessing of the Clinton administration.

"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:oi6ti2lu1jr2lo62jd6jkdu2lkcd9d3s75@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 12 2006 14:52:21 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 12 2006 12:29:41 -0500, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>The reactor deal was part of President Bill Clinton's policy of
>>>persuading the North Korean regime to positively engage with the west.
>>
>>So everything was legal and above board then. So what's the point?
>
> Nice editing. Maybe this time you can actually read this without
> moving your lips.
>
> From The Guardian Unlimited
> August 2003
> Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, sat on the board of a
> company which three years ago sold two light water nuclear reactors to
> North Korea - a country he now regards as part of the "axis of evil"
> and which has been targeted for regime change by Washington because of
> its efforts to build nuclear weapons.
>
> Do you get the point now? Rumsfeld is a two-faced asshole. Clear?
> ___,
> \o
>

Date: 12 Oct 2006 15:39:27
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

On Thu, 12 2006 15:51:24 -0400, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote:

>Do you get the point? Rumsfeld's company was doing business with North Korea
>with the full and complete blessing of the Clinton administration.
>
Obviously you don't. Less than two years after Rumsfeld's company
made a sale, and he joined the Bush administration, North Korea became
a terrorist state, and part of the "axis of evil". They weren't such
when a profit was to be made.

Now, do YOU get it?
___,
\o

Date: 12 Oct 2006 15:50:00
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:1t9ti29vq6mocunha8nf3416gh2kb4o68g@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 12 2006 15:51:24 -0400, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
>
>>Do you get the point? Rumsfeld's company was doing business with North
>>Korea
>>with the full and complete blessing of the Clinton administration.
>>
> Obviously you don't. Less than two years after Rumsfeld's company
> made a sale, and he joined the Bush administration, North Korea became
> a terrorist state, and part of the "axis of evil". They weren't such
> when a profit was to be made.
>
It was NOT Rumsfelds company, sheese.

Date: 12 Oct 2006 15:59:37
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

On Thu, 12 2006 15:50:00 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:

>
>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:1t9ti29vq6mocunha8nf3416gh2kb4o68g@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 12 2006 15:51:24 -0400, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Do you get the point? Rumsfeld's company was doing business with North
>>>Korea
>>>with the full and complete blessing of the Clinton administration.
>>>
>> Obviously you don't. Less than two years after Rumsfeld's company
>> made a sale, and he joined the Bush administration, North Korea became
>> a terrorist state, and part of the "axis of evil". They weren't such
>> when a profit was to be made.
>>
>It was NOT Rumsfelds company, sheese.
>
Mike, if you were on the BOD of a company that you thought was a
terrorist state, or part of the "axis of evil" wouldn't you have
something to say about a selling it anything , much less dangerous
equipment, or substances? I don't think so.
___,
\o

Date: 12 Oct 2006 16:10:54
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:kvati2df9idcvh77rn4n989f1m3481isdq@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 12 2006 15:50:00 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>news:1t9ti29vq6mocunha8nf3416gh2kb4o68g@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 12 2006 15:51:24 -0400, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Do you get the point? Rumsfeld's company was doing business with North
>>>>Korea
>>>>with the full and complete blessing of the Clinton administration.
>>>>
>>> Obviously you don't. Less than two years after Rumsfeld's company
>>> made a sale, and he joined the Bush administration, North Korea became
>>> a terrorist state, and part of the "axis of evil". They weren't such
>>> when a profit was to be made.
>>>
>>It was NOT Rumsfelds company, sheese.
>>
> Mike, if you were on the BOD of a company that you thought was a
> terrorist state, or part of the "axis of evil" wouldn't you have
> something to say about a selling it anything , much less dangerous
> equipment, or substances? I don't think so.
>
Didnt Bush coin the phrase Axis of Evil and not Rumsfeld?

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 12 Oct 2006 16:06:02
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

In article <E4GdnXb4Da0mAbPYnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@comcast.com >,
"sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote:

> Do you get the point? Rumsfeld's company was doing business with North Korea
> with the full and complete blessing of the Clinton administration.
>
> "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
> news:oi6ti2lu1jr2lo62jd6jkdu2lkcd9d3s75@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 12 2006 14:52:21 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 12 2006 12:29:41 -0500, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>The reactor deal was part of President Bill Clinton's policy of
> >>>persuading the North Korean regime to positively engage with the west.
> >>
> >>So everything was legal and above board then. So what's the point?
> >
> > Nice editing. Maybe this time you can actually read this without
> > moving your lips.
> >
> > From The Guardian Unlimited
> > August 2003
> > Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, sat on the board of a
> > company which three years ago sold two light water nuclear reactors to
> > North Korea - a country he now regards as part of the "axis of evil"
> > and which has been targeted for regime change by Washington because of
> > its efforts to build nuclear weapons.
> >
> > Do you get the point now? Rumsfeld is a two-faced asshole. Clear?
> > ___,
> > \o
> >

Date: 15 Oct 2006 07:12:10
From: John B.
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

multi wrote:
> On Sat, 14 2006 14:40:35 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
> wrote:
> >On Fri, 13 2006 14:07:27 +0100, "Alan Murphy"
> ><afmccl@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> >>All I
> >>would like to know is how a 47 storey building
> >>collapsed at free-fall speed, unassisted, on 9-11.
> >
> >hye building sustained severe damage from the collapse of the twin
> >towers and then was on fire for seven hours. That's why it collapsed.
>
> You don't have to believe in conspiracies to find it strange. We have
> all seen shows about the care and skill it takes for a demolition team
> to cause a building to fall straight down, without tipping over. To
> have three different buildings, damaged in three different ways, do it
> "naturally" would make anyone with scientific curiosity wonder how it
> could happen.
>
> You had one tower that was hit by a plane almost perfectly square,
> right in the middle of an upper floor. It makes sense that the impact
> damage, and the burning jet fuel, would be concentrated at the
> building's core, so that one isn't too hard for a layman to accept.
>
> You had another tower that was hit by a plane at a diagonal, near a
> corner. You can plainly see that most of the damage is far from the
> center, and that most of the jet fuel was blown out the adjacent side
> near the same corner. A layman would expect that building not to
> collapse, and if it did, not to fall straight down.
>
> And then you had WTC 7, which wasn't hit at all, except perhaps by odd
> pieces of the other buildings as they fell straight down. One would
> expect any damage to be relatively minor, and confined to the roof and
> one side. Yet it too collapsed at free-fall speed, straight down, as
> if the foundation just suddenly disappeared. The difficulty of
> explaining this can be seen by the fact that the official report on
> how it happened is *scheduled* to be published next year, almost six
> years after the event.
>
> The fact that a guy in this group who works next door didn't even know
> it collapsed pretty much proves that there would be no propaganda
> value for anyone to deliberately bring WTC 7 down, but it's still an
> interesting physics problem.

I didn't work there until 2004. so, maybe i'm wrong about it's having
collapsed, but the conspiracy theory that it was a terrorist act and
the entire world media is united in refusing to report it is, well, i
cant come up with an adjective to describe it.

Date: 15 Oct 2006 19:08:49
From: Alan Murphy
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160921530.044104.86770@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> multi wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 2006 14:40:35 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Fri, 13 2006 14:07:27 +0100, "Alan Murphy"
>> ><afmccl@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>All I
>> >>would like to know is how a 47 storey building
>> >>collapsed at free-fall speed, unassisted, on 9-11.
>> >
>> >hye building sustained severe damage from the collapse of the twin
>> >towers and then was on fire for seven hours. That's why it collapsed.
>>
>> You don't have to believe in conspiracies to find it strange. We have
>> all seen shows about the care and skill it takes for a demolition team
>> to cause a building to fall straight down, without tipping over. To
>> have three different buildings, damaged in three different ways, do it
>> "naturally" would make anyone with scientific curiosity wonder how it
>> could happen.
>>
>> You had one tower that was hit by a plane almost perfectly square,
>> right in the middle of an upper floor. It makes sense that the impact
>> damage, and the burning jet fuel, would be concentrated at the
>> building's core, so that one isn't too hard for a layman to accept.
>>
>> You had another tower that was hit by a plane at a diagonal, near a
>> corner. You can plainly see that most of the damage is far from the
>> center, and that most of the jet fuel was blown out the adjacent side
>> near the same corner. A layman would expect that building not to
>> collapse, and if it did, not to fall straight down.
>>
>> And then you had WTC 7, which wasn't hit at all, except perhaps by odd
>> pieces of the other buildings as they fell straight down. One would
>> expect any damage to be relatively minor, and confined to the roof and
>> one side. Yet it too collapsed at free-fall speed, straight down, as
>> if the foundation just suddenly disappeared. The difficulty of
>> explaining this can be seen by the fact that the official report on
>> how it happened is *scheduled* to be published next year, almost six
>> years after the event.
>>
>> The fact that a guy in this group who works next door didn't even know
>> it collapsed pretty much proves that there would be no propaganda
>> value for anyone to deliberately bring WTC 7 down, but it's still an
>> interesting physics problem.
>
>
> I didn't work there until 2004. so, maybe i'm wrong about it's having
> collapsed, but the conspiracy theory that it was a terrorist act and
> the entire world media is united in refusing to report it is, well, i
> cant come up with an adjective to describe it.
>

JohnB, You really should re-read these posts. At no
time was there a suggestion that it was a conspiracy
or that it was a terrorist act. Something of a mystery
and an interesting physics problem, which even NIST
is finding difficult to explain, would be nearer the truth.

Alan

Date: 15 Oct 2006 17:25:58
From: John B.
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

Alan Murphy wrote:
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1160921530.044104.86770@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > multi wrote:
> >> On Sat, 14 2006 14:40:35 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Fri, 13 2006 14:07:27 +0100, "Alan Murphy"
> >> ><afmccl@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>All I
> >> >>would like to know is how a 47 storey building
> >> >>collapsed at free-fall speed, unassisted, on 9-11.
> >> >
> >> >hye building sustained severe damage from the collapse of the twin
> >> >towers and then was on fire for seven hours. That's why it collapsed.
> >>
> >> You don't have to believe in conspiracies to find it strange. We have
> >> all seen shows about the care and skill it takes for a demolition team
> >> to cause a building to fall straight down, without tipping over. To
> >> have three different buildings, damaged in three different ways, do it
> >> "naturally" would make anyone with scientific curiosity wonder how it
> >> could happen.
> >>
> >> You had one tower that was hit by a plane almost perfectly square,
> >> right in the middle of an upper floor. It makes sense that the impact
> >> damage, and the burning jet fuel, would be concentrated at the
> >> building's core, so that one isn't too hard for a layman to accept.
> >>
> >> You had another tower that was hit by a plane at a diagonal, near a
> >> corner. You can plainly see that most of the damage is far from the
> >> center, and that most of the jet fuel was blown out the adjacent side
> >> near the same corner. A layman would expect that building not to
> >> collapse, and if it did, not to fall straight down.
> >>
> >> And then you had WTC 7, which wasn't hit at all, except perhaps by odd
> >> pieces of the other buildings as they fell straight down. One would
> >> expect any damage to be relatively minor, and confined to the roof and
> >> one side. Yet it too collapsed at free-fall speed, straight down, as
> >> if the foundation just suddenly disappeared. The difficulty of
> >> explaining this can be seen by the fact that the official report on
> >> how it happened is *scheduled* to be published next year, almost six
> >> years after the event.
> >>
> >> The fact that a guy in this group who works next door didn't even know
> >> it collapsed pretty much proves that there would be no propaganda
> >> value for anyone to deliberately bring WTC 7 down, but it's still an
> >> interesting physics problem.
> >
> >
> > I didn't work there until 2004. so, maybe i'm wrong about it's having
> > collapsed, but the conspiracy theory that it was a terrorist act and
> > the entire world media is united in refusing to report it is, well, i
> > cant come up with an adjective to describe it.
> >
>
> JohnB, You really should re-read these posts. At no
> time was there a suggestion that it was a conspiracy
> or that it was a terrorist act. Something of a mystery
> and an interesting physics problem, which even NIST
> is finding difficult to explain, would be nearer the truth.
>
> Alan

And the international press black-out? Was that a physics problem, too?

Date: 16 Oct 2006 09:33:25
From: Alan Murphy
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160958358.102451.296470@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Alan Murphy wrote:
>> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1160921530.044104.86770@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > multi wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 14 2006 14:40:35 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >On Fri, 13 2006 14:07:27 +0100, "Alan Murphy"
>> >> ><afmccl@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>All I
>> >> >>would like to know is how a 47 storey building
>> >> >>collapsed at free-fall speed, unassisted, on 9-11.
>> >> >
>> >> >hye building sustained severe damage from the collapse of the twin
>> >> >towers and then was on fire for seven hours. That's why it
>> >> >collapsed.
>> >>
>> >> You don't have to believe in conspiracies to find it strange. We
>> >> have
>> >> all seen shows about the care and skill it takes for a demolition
>> >> team
>> >> to cause a building to fall straight down, without tipping over. To
>> >> have three different buildings, damaged in three different ways, do
>> >> it
>> >> "naturally" would make anyone with scientific curiosity wonder how it
>> >> could happen.
>> >>
>> >> You had one tower that was hit by a plane almost perfectly square,
>> >> right in the middle of an upper floor. It makes sense that the
>> >> impact
>> >> damage, and the burning jet fuel, would be concentrated at the
>> >> building's core, so that one isn't too hard for a layman to accept.
>> >>
>> >> You had another tower that was hit by a plane at a diagonal, near a
>> >> corner. You can plainly see that most of the damage is far from the
>> >> center, and that most of the jet fuel was blown out the adjacent side
>> >> near the same corner. A layman would expect that building not to
>> >> collapse, and if it did, not to fall straight down.
>> >>
>> >> And then you had WTC 7, which wasn't hit at all, except perhaps by
>> >> odd
>> >> pieces of the other buildings as they fell straight down. One would
>> >> expect any damage to be relatively minor, and confined to the roof
>> >> and
>> >> one side. Yet it too collapsed at free-fall speed, straight down, as
>> >> if the foundation just suddenly disappeared. The difficulty of
>> >> explaining this can be seen by the fact that the official report on
>> >> how it happened is *scheduled* to be published next year, almost six
>> >> years after the event.
>> >>
>> >> The fact that a guy in this group who works next door didn't even
>> >> know
>> >> it collapsed pretty much proves that there would be no propaganda
>> >> value for anyone to deliberately bring WTC 7 down, but it's still an
>> >> interesting physics problem.
>> >
>> >
>> > I didn't work there until 2004. so, maybe i'm wrong about it's having
>> > collapsed, but the conspiracy theory that it was a terrorist act and
>> > the entire world media is united in refusing to report it is, well, i
>> > cant come up with an adjective to describe it.
>> >
>>
>> JohnB, You really should re-read these posts. At no
>> time was there a suggestion that it was a conspiracy
>> or that it was a terrorist act. Something of a mystery
>> and an interesting physics problem, which even NIST
>> is finding difficult to explain, would be nearer the truth.
>>
>> Alan
>
> And the international press black-out? Was that a physics problem, too?
>

You have worked at 1, Liberty Plaza, next door to the WTC
site, since 2004 and were not aware that a 47 storey building
collapsed, a few hundred yards away from your workplace, at
free-fall speed, 3 years earlier, without being hit by a plane.

Either you pay no attention to the media or the media pays no
attention to the incident.

Does that sound like a communications problem to you?

Alan

Date: 16 Oct 2006 07:27:32
From: John B.
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

Alan Murphy wrote:
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1160958358.102451.296470@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Alan Murphy wrote:
> >> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1160921530.044104.86770@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > multi wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 14 2006 14:40:35 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >On Fri, 13 2006 14:07:27 +0100, "Alan Murphy"
> >> >> ><afmccl@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>All I
> >> >> >>would like to know is how a 47 storey building
> >> >> >>collapsed at free-fall speed, unassisted, on 9-11.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >hye building sustained severe damage from the collapse of the twin
> >> >> >towers and then was on fire for seven hours. That's why it
> >> >> >collapsed.
> >> >>
> >> >> You don't have to believe in conspiracies to find it strange. We
> >> >> have
> >> >> all seen shows about the care and skill it takes for a demolition
> >> >> team
> >> >> to cause a building to fall straight down, without tipping over. To
> >> >> have three different buildings, damaged in three different ways, do
> >> >> it
> >> >> "naturally" would make anyone with scientific curiosity wonder how it
> >> >> could happen.
> >> >>
> >> >> You had one tower that was hit by a plane almost perfectly square,
> >> >> right in the middle of an upper floor. It makes sense that the
> >> >> impact
> >> >> damage, and the burning jet fuel, would be concentrated at the
> >> >> building's core, so that one isn't too hard for a layman to accept.
> >> >>
> >> >> You had another tower that was hit by a plane at a diagonal, near a
> >> >> corner. You can plainly see that most of the damage is far from the
> >> >> center, and that most of the jet fuel was blown out the adjacent side
> >> >> near the same corner. A layman would expect that building not to
> >> >> collapse, and if it did, not to fall straight down.
> >> >>
> >> >> And then you had WTC 7, which wasn't hit at all, except perhaps by
> >> >> odd
> >> >> pieces of the other buildings as they fell straight down. One would
> >> >> expect any damage to be relatively minor, and confined to the roof
> >> >> and
> >> >> one side. Yet it too collapsed at free-fall speed, straight down, as
> >> >> if the foundation just suddenly disappeared. The difficulty of
> >> >> explaining this can be seen by the fact that the official report on
> >> >> how it happened is *scheduled* to be published next year, almost six
> >> >> years after the event.
> >> >>
> >> >> The fact that a guy in this group who works next door didn't even
> >> >> know
> >> >> it collapsed pretty much proves that there would be no propaganda
> >> >> value for anyone to deliberately bring WTC 7 down, but it's still an
> >> >> interesting physics problem.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I didn't work there until 2004. so, maybe i'm wrong about it's having
> >> > collapsed, but the conspiracy theory that it was a terrorist act and
> >> > the entire world media is united in refusing to report it is, well, i
> >> > cant come up with an adjective to describe it.
> >> >
> >>
> >> JohnB, You really should re-read these posts. At no
> >> time was there a suggestion that it was a conspiracy
> >> or that it was a terrorist act. Something of a mystery
> >> and an interesting physics problem, which even NIST
> >> is finding difficult to explain, would be nearer the truth.
> >>
> >> Alan
> >
> > And the international press black-out? Was that a physics problem, too?
> >
>
> You have worked at 1, Liberty Plaza, next door to the WTC
> site, since 2004 and were not aware that a 47 storey building
> collapsed, a few hundred yards away from your workplace, at
> free-fall speed, 3 years earlier, without being hit by a plane.
>
> Either you pay no attention to the media or the media pays no
> attention to the incident.
>
> Does that sound like a communications problem to you?
>
> Alan

Look, Alan - buildings are demolished in New York almost every day.
Having spent most of my life in the media, I pay more attention to it
than most people. The media pays no attention to "the incident" because
the demolition of a bldg. in lower Manhattan is not news.

Date: 16 Oct 2006 12:04:33
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

On 16 2006 07:27:32 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>The media pays no attention to "the incident" because
>the demolition of a bldg. in lower Manhattan is not news.

It's also somewhat of a side issue because there was no direct attack
on the building and no one died in the building.

Like most conspiracy theories, this is a case where people come to a
conclusion and then look for evidence to back it up and that
"evidence" is not evidence at all.

It's like the people who think a cruise missile hit the Pentagon.
There is a picture of the Pentagon lawn that shows no pieces of a
destroyed aircraft and then asks where is the debris of the plane. Of
course, there are lots of other pictures that do show aircraft debris,
in fact some of it is easily identifiable as being from a Boeing 757,
but they ignore that.

Date: 17 Oct 2006 08:22:09
From: Alan Murphy
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1161008852.297207.23720@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Alan Murphy wrote:
>> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>
>> You have worked at 1, Liberty Plaza, next door to the WTC
>> site, since 2004 and were not aware that a 47 storey building
>> collapsed, a few hundred yards away from your workplace, at
>> free-fall speed, 3 years earlier, without being hit by a plane.
>>
>> Either you pay no attention to the media or the media pays no
>> attention to the incident.
>>
>> Does that sound like a communications problem to you?
>>
>> Alan
>
> Look, Alan - buildings are demolished in New York almost every day.
> Having spent most of my life in the media, I pay more attention to it
> than most people. The media pays no attention to "the incident" because
> the demolition of a bldg. in lower Manhattan is not news.
>
I agree entirely that low tech and implosion demolitions
are not news. They happen every day as you say. But
a 47 storey building falling down, unassisted, in downtown
Manhattan, is to say the least noteworthy, if not newsworthy.
That most people are unaware of this a source of wonder
and amazement. Hopefully NIST will tell us how it happened
next year.

Incidentally, they have started to carry out implosions at
night in the UK. The reason for this escapes me but it's
an amusing watch all the same. Note that this demolition,
carried out under cover of darkness, did not elude the
media's beady eye.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/5362716.stm

Alan

Date: 11 Oct 2006 11:37:22
From: John B.
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

MnMikew wrote:
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1160583418.752690.212370@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Tex wrote:
> >> multi wrote:
> >> > In light of this week's nuclear test, and the very heroic but very
> >> > stupid John McCain's attempt to once again blame everything on
> >> > Clinton, here's an article from May 2004 that does a good job of
> >> > reviewing our recent history with N Korea.
> >> > http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.kaplan.html
> >> >
> >> > I don't plan to debate it; I'm just posting the URL as a resource for
> >> > Dems. Reps are welcome to read it as well, but since it's fairly long
> >> > and has no pictures, why would they?
> >>
> >> While you are at it...explain to the world how they got the rods in
> >> first place.
> >> I'll tell you, your butt buddy Clinton gave them the reactors on a
> >> "promise" they wouldn't use them for weapons. DOH!
> >>
> >> What a maroon!
> >>
> >> Tex
> >
> > He did not. He didn't give them anything. The plan was to build light
> > water reactors for them, but they were never built because the Koreans
> > reneged on their end of the bargain.
> >
> Umm, wouldnt that make it the KOREANS fault then? Clinton supplied the fuel
> rods and the KOREANS kicked out the people in charge of guarding said rods.
> That article is nothing but spin.

As I said, Clinton didn't supply any fuel rods. Why would we do that
before ground was even broken for the reactors? I don't know what
article you're referring to, but my recollection is that nuclear fuel
for light-water reactors is not useable as weapons-grade fuel.

Date: 12 Oct 2006 07:35:49
From: John B.
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

Frank Ketchum wrote:
> "multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message
> news:hr5qi2hu2mt0qse1m1qnjrvrunruk1ae7n@4ax.com...
> > On 11 2006 08:11:27 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > It takes an intellect like yours, or McCain's, to blame this on
> > Clinton.
> >
>
> Blame what on Clinton? I would think these developments with North Korea
> would make you happy. After all, we are lectured about how it isn't fair
> that we are such a superpower in comparison to the rest of the world and it
> is unfair that we have nukes and the most powerful military.
>
> You are of the political persuasion of those who stand in the way of ever
> doing anything to ever prevent another nation from developing nuclear
> weapons. Take Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea etc. All I ever hear from you
> guys is bitching when something is actually done about preventing a foriegn
> nation from going nuclear. The truth is you think anything can be handled
> diplomatically and that tough talk and saber rattling is what causes
> problems, not fixes them.
>
> What we are seeing unfold in both North Korea and Iran before our very eyes
> is the failure of policies of the diplomacy with countries that do not
> embrace feedom and liberty for their citizens. Negotiate with despots and
> this is what you get every time.
>
> You can try and blame this on Bush, just as you do everything else but it is
> only a reflection on yourself and further damages any credibility you may
> have left.

Can you provide even one example of what you allege in this totally
inane post?

Date: 12 Oct 2006 16:08:03
From: Frank Ketchum
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160663749.020560.236300@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Can you provide even one example of what you allege in this totally
> inane post?
>

1) Iraq- Action is taken to prevent acquisition of nuclear weapons. The is
success, but need I discuss the fallout of our actions there?
2) Iran- No action taken, rather diplomacy relied upon. The result is
failure.
3) North Korea- Ditto

Are you asking for examples of things blamed on Bush that aren't his fault?

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 16 Oct 2006 21:06:11
From: snakehawk
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 16 2006 14:56:47 -0700, "snakehawk" <snakehawk@MailAndNews.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The body count before the study came from either the Bush
> >administration or the puppet regime in Iraq set up by the Bush
> >administration. Which would you consider more objective and reliable.
>
> IBC has nothing to do with the Bush Administration. They're an
> anti-war group who know more about what's happening in Iraq than
> anyone who administered a few surveys to a few Iraqis.
>
> You are obviously so blinded by political ideology that you wont see
> the truth. The Lancet study is basically crap. Luckily the IBC
> people are not so blinded by political ideology (because they are
> anti-war activists) to disregard the truth because they're scientists
> with integrity.

Yeah, the IBC consists of scientists who used media press releases as
the basis for their study of the number of Iraqi civilians who died as
a result of Bush's aggression. Some scientists. But at least they
admitted at the time that an on-the-ground survey would be more
accurate, which exactly what the JH people did using a substantial
random sample and applying accepted statistical formula to reach their
results. Their results show that the casualty count could range from a
low of 400,000 to a high of 700,000. But there is no serious doubt
that the true total lies somewhere in between.

Date: 17 Oct 2006 11:27:25
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

On 16 2006 21:06:11 -0700, "snakehawk" <snakehawk@MailAndNews.com >
wrote:

>But at least they
>admitted at the time that an on-the-ground survey would be more
>accurate, which exactly what the JH people did using a substantial
>random sample and applying accepted statistical formula to reach their
>results.

I think that the IBC people have expressed their opinion of the Lancet
study quite clearly and they totally discredit it.

IBC are correct, it's totally bogus and they have no reason to
discredit it other than the fact that they know it bullshit.

Date: 17 Oct 2006 14:06:06
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

Lets see. Johns Hopkins School of Public Health vs IBC (who?) A group that
gets its information from online news stories, as they state on their
website. They get their information for other sources. They have as much
right to comment as anyone else, but I don't see what credentials or
resources or anything else gives them any credibility. Anyone can get online
and compile news stories.

"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:fet9j25rl01rlotqmmgv476qfhb3qcnvqa@4ax.com...
> On 16 2006 21:06:11 -0700, "snakehawk" <snakehawk@MailAndNews.com>
> wrote:
>
>>But at least they
>>admitted at the time that an on-the-ground survey would be more
>>accurate, which exactly what the JH people did using a substantial
>>random sample and applying accepted statistical formula to reach their
>>results.
>
> I think that the IBC people have expressed their opinion of the Lancet
> study quite clearly and they totally discredit it.
>
> IBC are correct, it's totally bogus and they have no reason to
> discredit it other than the fact that they know it bullshit.

Date: 17 Oct 2006 23:14:03
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

On Tue, 17 2006 14:06:06 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
<goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:

>Anyone can get online
>and compile news stories.

You misunderstand. They go out and follow up on every incident that
is reported. If it's made up, they would know it. Every person they
list as a casualty is identified.

Their estimate is probably on the low side. They correct for this
with their maximum count, but the UN estimate, based on morgue and
Ministry of Health data is higher than their maximum.

Date: 17 Oct 2006 22:50:24
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

Jack, I'm starting to understand, I think, that you are sincere, but this is
a quote from there website ... (maybe I do still misunderstand about them
but I don't think so)

"We are not a news organization ourselves and like everyone else can only
base our information on what has been reported so far. What we are
attempting to provide is a credible compilation of civilian deaths that have
been reported by recognized sources. Our maximum therefore refers to
reported deaths - which can only be a sample of true deaths unless one
assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many
if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the
sad nature of war."

They list the sources from which they gather reports and apparently do no
actual follow up. Some of their sources are newspapers like either The
Washington Post or The Washington Times (I can't find the link right now)
and The Chicago Sun Times or maybe the Boston Globe ... a lot of their
sources are very obscure and I doubt that anyone here and few in America
have heard of them.

Their two listed co-founders are a professor of psychology at at the
University of Keele, in the UK, and the other is a freelance researcher with
no listed degrees. His highligted item is that he has written for
"Counterpunch". Ok. He has also done research for Greenpeace. OK. And has
been chair of "Kalayaan". OK, but none of that impresses me. Couldn't they
find one famous or well educated, in the field, to join their team? Their
head researcher "is a recently retired librarian, who worked most recently
as Head of Acquisitions in Keele University Library."

Not exactly medical dors and researchers for Johns Hopkins.

Their assistant researcher is the co-founder of "Musicians Opposing War"....
"... He is also co-author of "Rock and Roll: Its History and Stylistic
Development".

18 members:
freelance researcher
psychologist
retired librarian
professor of music
student in computer science (doral program)
guitarist with Masters in Jazz Studies
guy with dorate for his critique of Mozart
professor of music
lecturer in music
senior research fellow in neuroscience at Oxford
retired attorney
post graduate student, School of Politics, Keele University
PhD in "nationalism in Bosnia"

consultants:
Senior Lecturer in International Relations at Keele University
Associate Professor of Economic Development, International Affairs, and
Women's Studies
lecturer in politics at Cambridge and other universities
author of Javascript

"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:nb6bj21jil0sh1sal541qvo5ibnu1fo22m@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 2006 14:06:06 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
> <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
>
>>Anyone can get online
>>and compile news stories.
>
> You misunderstand. They go out and follow up on every incident that
> is reported. If it's made up, they would know it. Every person they
> list as a casualty is identified.
>
> Their estimate is probably on the low side. They correct for this
> with their maximum count, but the UN estimate, based on morgue and
> Ministry of Health data is higher than their maximum.

Date: 18 Oct 2006 15:14:42
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

On Tue, 17 2006 22:50:24 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
<goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:

>Not exactly medical dors and researchers for Johns Hopkins.

IBC is a credible source of information and they have real data not
extrapolations. Their methodology is sound.

The problem is that you can't address their criticisms, which point
out the impossibility of the Lancet finding, so you attack them. It
wont work.

If I were you, I'd ignore the Lancet study, everybody else is.

BTW, what with the top posting?

Date: 18 Oct 2006 12:15:55
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:83vcj25djpk37440ve29rk6tc0h3le4pqo@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 2006 22:50:24 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
> <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
>
>>Not exactly medical dors and researchers for Johns Hopkins.
>
> IBC is a credible source of information and they have real data not
> extrapolations. Their methodology is sound.
>
> The problem is that you can't address their criticisms, which point
> out the impossibility of the Lancet finding, so you attack them. It
> wont work.
>
> If I were you, I'd ignore the Lancet study, everybody else is.
>
> BTW, what with the top posting?

They don't have a methodology. They just compile news stories. If that is
not the case then please show where that is wrong.

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 12 Oct 2006 07:32:24
From: John B.
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

FredK wrote:
> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:4p4piqFh1qrvU1@individual.net...
> >
> > "multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message
> > news:hr5qi2hu2mt0qse1m1qnjrvrunruk1ae7n@4ax.com...
> > > On 11 2006 08:11:27 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>multi wrote:
> > >>> In light of this week's nuclear test, and the very heroic but very
> > >>> stupid John McCain's attempt to once again blame everything on
> > >>> Clinton, here's an article from May 2004 that does a good job of
> > >>> reviewing our recent history with N Korea.
> > >>> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.kaplan.html
> > >>>
> > >>> I don't plan to debate it; I'm just posting the URL as a resource for
> > >>> Dems. Reps are welcome to read it as well, but since it's fairly long
> > >>> and has no pictures, why would they?
> > >>
> > >>While you are at it...explain to the world how they got the rods in
> > >>first place.
> > >>I'll tell you, your butt buddy Clinton gave them the reactors on a
> > >>"promise" they wouldn't use them for weapons. DOH!
> > >>
> > >>What a maroon!
> > >
> > > I knew you wouldn't read an article that didn't have pictures to
> > > color. If you had, you would know that Clinton's deal involved two
> > > reactors of a type unsuitable for producing weapons-grade material,
> > > but they were never delivered. The rods came from a reactor that went
> > > online in 1986, during St. Ronnie's administration. DOH! Another
> > > mess that Clinton inherited from Reagan-Bush, made great strides in
> > > solving, and turned over to Baby Bush, only to have him completely
> > > bungle it.
> > >
> > > The chronology, adapted to your short attention span, is this: N
> > > Korea began producing fuel rods at Yongbyon in 1986; neither Reagan
> > > nor Bush I did anything effective to stop it. Clinton shut them down
> > > in 1994, a little over a year into his presidency. N. Korea stopped
> > > producing plutonium, and turned what they had over to the UN
> > > inspectors. They started up again in 2003, and kicked the UN
> > > inspectors out. Another great result of our invasion of Iraq, and
> > > just like his dad, Baby Bush did nothing about it, even though they
> > > publicly announced almost every checkpoint in their assembly of the
> > > bomb. Now they have nukes. Heckuva job, George. And this is past
> > > the third paragraph, so you'll never see it, but since they have
> > > nukes, Japan will want them, which will make China increase theirs,
> > > which will make India increase theirs, which will make Pakistan
> > > increase theirs. George W. Bush, makin' us safer.
> > >
> > > It takes an intellect like yours, or McCain's, to blame this on
> > > Clinton.
> > >
> > And it takes a real idiot to not blame NK.
> >
>
> Brilliant response. Let's refine it down to the nitty gritty. Under GWB's
> watch, a madman has acquired nukes - at least in part because GWB won't deal
> with him directly diplomatically (on pricipal) - and won't deal with him
> militarily because unlike Iraq - it might just start WW-III. He keeps
> talking about how "his job is to make us all safer" - I don't feel a lot
> safer.

I'm not defending Bush's N. Korea policy, which obviously is a failure,
but I do think he's right not to negotiate directly w/Kim Song Il. The
guy is a fucking psycho who would only use bi-lateral talks as an
opportunity to try to blackmail the U.S.

Date: 12 Oct 2006 12:05:00
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160663544.891330.154690@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> FredK wrote:
>> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:4p4piqFh1qrvU1@individual.net...
>> >
>> > "multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message
>> > news:hr5qi2hu2mt0qse1m1qnjrvrunruk1ae7n@4ax.com...
>> > > On 11 2006 08:11:27 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >>multi wrote:
>> > >>> In light of this week's nuclear test, and the very heroic but very
>> > >>> stupid John McCain's attempt to once again blame everything on
>> > >>> Clinton, here's an article from May 2004 that does a good job of
>> > >>> reviewing our recent history with N Korea.
>> > >>> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.kaplan.html
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I don't plan to debate it; I'm just posting the URL as a resource
>> > >>> for
>> > >>> Dems. Reps are welcome to read it as well, but since it's fairly
>> > >>> long
>> > >>> and has no pictures, why would they?
>> > >>
>> > >>While you are at it...explain to the world how they got the rods in
>> > >>first place.
>> > >>I'll tell you, your butt buddy Clinton gave them the reactors on a
>> > >>"promise" they wouldn't use them for weapons. DOH!
>> > >>
>> > >>What a maroon!
>> > >
>> > > I knew you wouldn't read an article that didn't have pictures to
>> > > color. If you had, you would know that Clinton's deal involved two
>> > > reactors of a type unsuitable for producing weapons-grade material,
>> > > but they were never delivered. The rods came from a reactor that
>> > > went
>> > > online in 1986, during St. Ronnie's administration. DOH! Another
>> > > mess that Clinton inherited from Reagan-Bush, made great strides in
>> > > solving, and turned over to Baby Bush, only to have him completely
>> > > bungle it.
>> > >
>> > > The chronology, adapted to your short attention span, is this: N
>> > > Korea began producing fuel rods at Yongbyon in 1986; neither Reagan
>> > > nor Bush I did anything effective to stop it. Clinton shut them down
>> > > in 1994, a little over a year into his presidency. N. Korea stopped
>> > > producing plutonium, and turned what they had over to the UN
>> > > inspectors. They started up again in 2003, and kicked the UN
>> > > inspectors out. Another great result of our invasion of Iraq, and
>> > > just like his dad, Baby Bush did nothing about it, even though they
>> > > publicly announced almost every checkpoint in their assembly of the
>> > > bomb. Now they have nukes. Heckuva job, George. And this is past
>> > > the third paragraph, so you'll never see it, but since they have
>> > > nukes, Japan will want them, which will make China increase theirs,
>> > > which will make India increase theirs, which will make Pakistan
>> > > increase theirs. George W. Bush, makin' us safer.
>> > >
>> > > It takes an intellect like yours, or McCain's, to blame this on
>> > > Clinton.
>> > >
>> > And it takes a real idiot to not blame NK.
>> >
>>
>> Brilliant response. Let's refine it down to the nitty gritty. Under
>> GWB's
>> watch, a madman has acquired nukes - at least in part because GWB won't
>> deal
>> with him directly diplomatically (on pricipal) - and won't deal with him
>> militarily because unlike Iraq - it might just start WW-III. He keeps
>> talking about how "his job is to make us all safer" - I don't feel a lot
>> safer.
>
> I'm not defending Bush's N. Korea policy, which obviously is a failure,
> but I do think he's right not to negotiate directly w/Kim Song Il. The
> guy is a fucking psycho who would only use bi-lateral talks as an
> opportunity to try to blackmail the U.S.
>
Yes, just as he did with Clinton and Carter. Time to get some drones up in
the air.

Date: 12 Oct 2006 16:13:57
From: multi
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

On Thu, 12 2006 12:05:00 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:

>> I'm not defending Bush's N. Korea policy, which obviously is a failure,
>> but I do think he's right not to negotiate directly w/Kim Song Il. The
>> guy is a fucking psycho who would only use bi-lateral talks as an
>> opportunity to try to blackmail the U.S.
>>
>Yes, just as he did with Clinton and Carter. Time to get some drones up in
>the air.

So let me get this straight. It's rather unfortunate that a psycho
who hates the US now has nukes, but the alternative would have been to
TALK to him, and that would have been totally unacceptable. Why
didn't I see that before?

By the way, that bumbler Carter is just about the only man in the
history of the world who negotiated a permanent Middle Eastern peace
settlement. I know this will be news to those who get their facts
from Rush, but before Carter, Egypt was Israel's worst enemy, and led
every war on Israel. After Carter, even with all the crap that has
gone down in the Middle East in the last 30 years, there has not been
one hostile act or treaty violation between Israel and Egypt.

Date: 12 Oct 2006 20:24:24
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:4giti21rmua3oqabq9ajg8m93ijg40n54h@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 12 2006 12:05:00 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> I'm not defending Bush's N. Korea policy, which obviously is a failure,
>>> but I do think he's right not to negotiate directly w/Kim Song Il. The
>>> guy is a fucking psycho who would only use bi-lateral talks as an
>>> opportunity to try to blackmail the U.S.
>>>
>>Yes, just as he did with Clinton and Carter. Time to get some drones up in
>>the air.
>
> So let me get this straight. It's rather unfortunate that a psycho
> who hates the US now has nukes, but the alternative would have been to
> TALK to him, and that would have been totally unacceptable. Why
> didn't I see that before?
>
> By the way, that bumbler Carter is just about the only man in the
> history of the world who negotiated a permanent Middle Eastern peace
> settlement. I know this will be news to those who get their facts
> from Rush, but before Carter, Egypt was Israel's worst enemy, and led
> every war on Israel. After Carter, even with all the crap that has
> gone down in the Middle East in the last 30 years, there has not been
> one hostile act or treaty violation between Israel and Egypt.

Thanks for that reminder. Didn't a couple of world leaders lose their lives
in the pursuit of that peace?

Date: 12 Oct 2006 21:45:46
From: multi
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

On Thu, 12 2006 20:24:24 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
<goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:

>
>"multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message
>news:4giti21rmua3oqabq9ajg8m93ijg40n54h@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 12 2006 12:05:00 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> I'm not defending Bush's N. Korea policy, which obviously is a failure,
>>>> but I do think he's right not to negotiate directly w/Kim Song Il. The
>>>> guy is a fucking psycho who would only use bi-lateral talks as an
>>>> opportunity to try to blackmail the U.S.
>>>>
>>>Yes, just as he did with Clinton and Carter. Time to get some drones up in
>>>the air.
>>
>> So let me get this straight. It's rather unfortunate that a psycho
>> who hates the US now has nukes, but the alternative would have been to
>> TALK to him, and that would have been totally unacceptable. Why
>> didn't I see that before?
>>
>> By the way, that bumbler Carter is just about the only man in the
>> history of the world who negotiated a permanent Middle Eastern peace
>> settlement. I know this will be news to those who get their facts
>> from Rush, but before Carter, Egypt was Israel's worst enemy, and led
>> every war on Israel. After Carter, even with all the crap that has
>> gone down in the Middle East in the last 30 years, there has not been
>> one hostile act or treaty violation between Israel and Egypt.
>
>Thanks for that reminder. Didn't a couple of world leaders lose their lives
>in the pursuit of that peace?

I suspect that you are thinking of Sadat and Rabin. Sadat was indeed
killed for pursuing peace with Israel, but Rabin was killed after
peace with Egypt had already been established, for pursuing peace with
the Palestinians. What they had in common, besides their pursuit of
peace, was that their assassins were religious hard-liners from their
own side --- Sadat was killed by a Muslim, Rabin was killed by a Jew.

Date: 12 Oct 2006 23:48:30
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:n06ui2t0iknasek2pn1allc83sp3kf9ed1@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 12 2006 20:24:24 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
> <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message
>>news:4giti21rmua3oqabq9ajg8m93ijg40n54h@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 12 2006 12:05:00 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I'm not defending Bush's N. Korea policy, which obviously is a
>>>>> failure,
>>>>> but I do think he's right not to negotiate directly w/Kim Song Il. The
>>>>> guy is a fucking psycho who would only use bi-lateral talks as an
>>>>> opportunity to try to blackmail the U.S.
>>>>>
>>>>Yes, just as he did with Clinton and Carter. Time to get some drones up
>>>>in
>>>>the air.
>>>
>>> So let me get this straight. It's rather unfortunate that a psycho
>>> who hates the US now has nukes, but the alternative would have been to
>>> TALK to him, and that would have been totally unacceptable. Why
>>> didn't I see that before?
>>>
>>> By the way, that bumbler Carter is just about the only man in the
>>> history of the world who negotiated a permanent Middle Eastern peace
>>> settlement. I know this will be news to those who get their facts
>>> from Rush, but before Carter, Egypt was Israel's worst enemy, and led
>>> every war on Israel. After Carter, even with all the crap that has
>>> gone down in the Middle East in the last 30 years, there has not been
>>> one hostile act or treaty violation between Israel and Egypt.
>>
>>Thanks for that reminder. Didn't a couple of world leaders lose their
>>lives
>>in the pursuit of that peace?
>
> I suspect that you are thinking of Sadat and Rabin. Sadat was indeed
> killed for pursuing peace with Israel, but Rabin was killed after
> peace with Egypt had already been established, for pursuing peace with
> the Palestinians. What they had in common, besides their pursuit of
> peace, was that their assassins were religious hard-liners from their
> own side --- Sadat was killed by a Muslim, Rabin was killed by a Jew.

Yep. Sadat and Rabin. I've got a picture of my mom's golfing buddy sitting
next to Sadat at a Country Club. I'm not sure of the circumstances. That
kind of sticks in my mind. He looked like a pleasant guy.

Date: 16 Oct 2006 13:16:25
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:4giti21rmua3oqabq9ajg8m93ijg40n54h@4ax.com...
>
> By the way, that bumbler Carter is just about the only man in the
> history of the world who negotiated a permanent Middle Eastern peace
> settlement.

Have you been in a coma for the past year or what? So Israel and Egypt are
the only countries that make up the Middle East?

Date: 12 Oct 2006 02:20:19
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:l30qi2hjaaiuqdfia9t17qvckti6ll4h0a@4ax.com...
> In light of this week's nuclear test, and the very heroic but very
> stupid John McCain's attempt to once again blame everything on
> Clinton, here's an article from May 2004 that does a good job of
> reviewing our recent history with N Korea.
> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.kaplan.html
>
> I don't plan to debate it; I'm just posting the URL as a resource for
> Dems. Reps are welcome to read it as well, but since it's fairly long
> and has no pictures, why would they?

I like McCain. But yesterday George Bush said that the reason he didn't do
one on one talks with North Korea was because they didn't work before. "They
didn't work." I can hardly believe he's stupid enough to say that the talks
didn't work a few days after North Korea set off a nuclear bomb test. If
that's not diplomacy not working, then what is? Nevermind, I don't need
facts, just a good drug to get me through the 'last days' which George Bush
semms to think is his goal ... to hasten the return of Jesus, as in
Armageddon.

I don't know who wrote "Revalations" but it doesn't seem to be much like
Jesus message of mercy and His sacrafice atoning for the sins of the world
... I guess he left out the part about everyone, or everyone but those who
believe in Bush, I mean the angry Jesus, will be burned to death and
subjected to pestilence ... and the horsemen of the Apocolipse, whatever
that is.

Date: 12 Oct 2006 12:08:08
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

"AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote in message
news:vVnXg.3293$v43.563@fed1read02...
> one on one talks with North Korea was because they didn't work before.
> "They didn't work."

They worked well for Clinton and Carter now didnt they.

Date: 12 Oct 2006 02:28:44
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

I wonder if any newsperson will ever ask Rumsfield his feelings about being
on the Board of Directors of a company that sold nuclear crap to N. Korea.
If that's even the truth. It sounds kind of far out, even for an
adminstration who has family members finanec, in busines, by Bin Laden's
family.

Date: 12 Oct 2006 07:38:19
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

Rumsfeld not Rumsfield.

The so called breaking news story is but a tiny fraction of the truth. In
1994, the Clinton administration made a deal with North Korea to help them
build nuclear power reactors for electric power generation if the North
Koreans would abandon their nuclear weapons development program. ABB whose
board Secretary Rumsfeld was on won the engineering contract for the power
reactors. To say that Secretary Rumsfeld had any hand in the Clinton
administration's policy making is a big stretch.

PS: Bin Laden's family renounced him years ago.

"AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote in message
news:p1oXg.3296$v43.191@fed1read02...
>
> I wonder if any newsperson will ever ask Rumsfield his feelings about
> being on the Board of Directors of a company that sold nuclear crap to N.
> Korea. If that's even the truth. It sounds kind of far out, even for an
> adminstration who has family members finanec, in busines, by Bin Laden's
> family.
>
>
>

Date: 12 Oct 2006 13:23:45
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

"sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote in message
news:ys2dnWdQJvG3tLPYnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Rumsfeld not Rumsfield.
>
> The so called breaking news story is but a tiny fraction of the truth. In
> 1994, the Clinton administration made a deal with North Korea to help them
> build nuclear power reactors for electric power generation if the North
> Koreans would abandon their nuclear weapons development program. ABB
> whose board Secretary Rumsfeld was on won the engineering contract for the
> power reactors. To say that Secretary Rumsfeld had any hand in the
> Clinton administration's policy making is a big stretch.
>
> PS: Bin Laden's family renounced him years ago.
>
> "AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
> news:p1oXg.3296$v43.191@fed1read02...
>>
>> I wonder if any newsperson will ever ask Rumsfield his feelings about
>> being on the Board of Directors of a company that sold nuclear crap to N.
>> Korea. If that's even the truth. It sounds kind of far out, even for an
>> adminstration who has family members finanec, in busines, by Bin Laden's
>> family.

And you believe that Bin Laden's family disowning him is good enough? Isn't
the appearance of inappropriate money enough to stop an honorable man from
taking money from a foreign interest enough? If you were president would you
allow your son to take money from the Saudis? It's inconceivable.

Date: 12 Oct 2006 15:50:15
From: multi
Subject: Re: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

On Thu, 12 2006 02:20:19 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
<goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
>I like McCain. But yesterday George Bush said that the reason he didn't do
>one on one talks with North Korea was because they didn't work before. "They
>didn't work." I can hardly believe he's stupid enough to say that the talks
>didn't work a few days after North Korea set off a nuclear bomb test.

I like McCain, too. He seems like a decent guy, and I'd love to have
a beer with him. But he is not very bright, and he will do absolutely
anything to become president. Go back and look at his actual votes in
the Senate, as opposed to the warm fuzzy stuff he says on talk shows.

Date: 12 Oct 2006 19:35:07
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

Bobby Knight wrote:
> Less than two years after Rumsfeld's company
> made a sale, and he joined the Bush administration, North Korea became
> a terrorist state, and part of the "axis of evil". They weren't such
> when a profit was to be made.
>

And when Rumsfeld was over there shaking hands with his friend, Saddam
Hussein, Saddam wasn't such a bad guy either.
Let's see ... Rumsfeld/Korea .... Rumsfeld/Saddam ....
Maybe now we know where the center of the axis of evil is located.

Date: 12 Oct 2006 20:19:37
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1160706907.232326.245780@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Bobby Knight wrote:
>> Less than two years after Rumsfeld's company
>> made a sale, and he joined the Bush administration, North Korea became
>> a terrorist state, and part of the "axis of evil". They weren't such
>> when a profit was to be made.
>>
>
> And when Rumsfeld was over there shaking hands with his friend, Saddam
> Hussein, Saddam wasn't such a bad guy either.
> Let's see ... Rumsfeld/Korea .... Rumsfeld/Saddam ....
> Maybe now we know where the center of the axis of evil is located.

I guess Rumsfeld had better have an alibi for the time spend in Mark Foley's
district. CYA, oops. That was a cheap shot. I guess it would be protected
from by cheap body armor.

Date: 13 Oct 2006 03:06:08
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
:
: Bobby Knight wrote:
: > Less than two years after Rumsfeld's company
: > made a sale, and he joined the Bush administration, North Korea became
: > a terrorist state, and part of the "axis of evil". They weren't such
: > when a profit was to be made.
: >
:
: And when Rumsfeld was over there shaking hands with his friend, Saddam
: Hussein, Saddam wasn't such a bad guy either.
: Let's see ... Rumsfeld/Korea .... Rumsfeld/Saddam ....
: Maybe now we know where the center of the axis of evil is located.

What's that third AoE country? I don't know that Rummy was
involved doing arms-for-hostages deals with them, but others
in this administration were.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 12 Oct 2006 18:35:22
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

multi wrote:
> On Thu, 12 2006 02:20:19 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
> <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
> >I like McCain. But yesterday George Bush said that the reason he didn't do
> >one on one talks with North Korea was because they didn't work before. "They
> >didn't work." I can hardly believe he's stupid enough to say that the talks
> >didn't work a few days after North Korea set off a nuclear bomb test.
>
> I like McCain, too. He seems like a decent guy, and I'd love to have
> a beer with him. But he is not very bright, and he will do absolutely
> anything to become president. Go back and look at his actual votes in
> the Senate, as opposed to the warm fuzzy stuff he says on talk shows.

McCain has some very attractive populist positions, but he's actually a
very conservative guy. I think he's a very decent and admirable guy,
but I wouldn't vote for him.

Date: 12 Oct 2006 20:17:46
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160703322.190617.183330@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> multi wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 2006 02:20:19 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
>> <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
>> >I like McCain. But yesterday George Bush said that the reason he didn't
>> >do
>> >one on one talks with North Korea was because they didn't work before.
>> >"They
>> >didn't work." I can hardly believe he's stupid enough to say that the
>> >talks
>> >didn't work a few days after North Korea set off a nuclear bomb test.
>>
>> I like McCain, too. He seems like a decent guy, and I'd love to have
>> a beer with him. But he is not very bright, and he will do absolutely
>> anything to become president. Go back and look at his actual votes in
>> the Senate, as opposed to the warm fuzzy stuff he says on talk shows.
>
> McCain has some very attractive populist positions, but he's actually a
> very conservative guy. I think he's a very decent and admirable guy,
> but I wouldn't vote for him.

You wouldn't vote for him against Hillary? Jeb Bush? Mark Foley?

Date: 12 Oct 2006 18:25:36
From: John B.
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

multi wrote:
> On Thu, 12 2006 12:05:00 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> I'm not defending Bush's N. Korea policy, which obviously is a failure,
> >> but I do think he's right not to negotiate directly w/Kim Song Il. The
> >> guy is a fucking psycho who would only use bi-lateral talks as an
> >> opportunity to try to blackmail the U.S.
> >>
> >Yes, just as he did with Clinton and Carter. Time to get some drones up in
> >the air.
>
> So let me get this straight. It's rather unfortunate that a psycho
> who hates the US now has nukes, but the alternative would have been to
> TALK to him, and that would have been totally unacceptable. Why
> didn't I see that before?

My point was that talking to him directly would not yield any good
result in my view. All he wants is money. What do you think would come
of direct negotiations?
>
> By the way, that bumbler Carter is just about the only man in the
> history of the world who negotiated a permanent Middle Eastern peace
> settlement. I know this will be news to those who get their facts
> from Rush, but before Carter, Egypt was Israel's worst enemy, and led
> every war on Israel. After Carter, even with all the crap that has
> gone down in the Middle East in the last 30 years, there has not been
> one hostile act or treaty violation between Israel and Egypt.

Date: 12 Oct 2006 21:32:18
From: multi
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

On 12 2006 18:25:36 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>> So let me get this straight. It's rather unfortunate that a psycho
>> who hates the US now has nukes, but the alternative would have been to
>> TALK to him, and that would have been totally unacceptable. Why
>> didn't I see that before?
>
>My point was that talking to him directly would not yield any good
>result in my view. All he wants is money. What do you think would come
>of direct negotiations?

If the worst thing that came from negotiations is that we gave him
some money, I'd call that a win. We're pouring $5 billion a month
down a rathole in Iraq, and getting nothing but body bags in return.
If a couple billion a year could have prevented N Korea from getting
nukes, that would have been money well spent.

Date: 12 Oct 2006 20:22:52
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

[snip]

> My point was that talking to him directly would not yield any good
> result in my view. All he wants is money. What do you think would come
> of direct negotiations?

[snip]

Isn't it a good question to ask what harm would have come out of private
talks? I can't believe I'm wishing that his dad was still in the Oval
Office. Someone said that JR and his father don't talk politics. Is that
accurate? I mean is that a true quote. Who knows what really goes on.

Date: 12 Oct 2006 21:37:14
From: multi
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

On Thu, 12 2006 20:22:52 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
<goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:

> I can't believe I'm wishing that his dad was still in the Oval
>Office. Someone said that JR and his father don't talk politics.

Why do you call him JR? His name is Fredo.

"That's the way Pop wanted it."
"It ain't the way I wanted it! I can handle things! I'm smart! Not
like everybody says... like dumb... I'm smart and I want respect!"

Date: 12 Oct 2006 13:01:23
From: John B.
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

Bobby Knight wrote:
> On Thu, 12 2006 14:35:32 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
> >news:eiusi2d4n1fqdtsomoscb9igcss37daml8@4ax.com...
> >The reactor deal was part of President Bill Clinton's policy of
> >persuading the North Korean regime to positively engage with the west.engage
> >with the west.
> >
> >Pretty much sums it up. Appeasement with this clown wont work. Didnt then,
> >wont now. NK didnt get their nukes from these reactors.
> >
> >
> That wasn't the point Mike. The article was about Rumsfeld's actions,
> and his about face.

I never thought I'd be defending Rumsfeld, but I think this argument is
a bit of a stretch. He was on the board, he wasn't the CEO. A board
member doesn't have unitaleral authority to to aceept or reject a
business deal. He can vote on it and for all we know he voted no. Also,
the light water reactors that the N. Koreans got have nothing to do
with the plutonium they used to make their nuclear bomb. I don't think
Bill Clinton was so dumb that he would sell them weapons-grade nuclear
material.

Date: 13 Oct 2006 06:37:11
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1160703322.190617.183330@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > multi wrote:
> >> On Thu, 12 2006 02:20:19 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
> >> <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
> >> >I like McCain. But yesterday George Bush said that the reason he didn't
> >> >do
> >> >one on one talks with North Korea was because they didn't work before.
> >> >"They
> >> >didn't work." I can hardly believe he's stupid enough to say that the
> >> >talks
> >> >didn't work a few days after North Korea set off a nuclear bomb test.
> >>
> >> I like McCain, too. He seems like a decent guy, and I'd love to have
> >> a beer with him. But he is not very bright, and he will do absolutely
> >> anything to become president. Go back and look at his actual votes in
> >> the Senate, as opposed to the warm fuzzy stuff he says on talk shows.
> >
> > McCain has some very attractive populist positions, but he's actually a
> > very conservative guy. I think he's a very decent and admirable guy,
> > but I wouldn't vote for him.
>
> You wouldn't vote for him against Hillary? Jeb Bush? Mark Foley?

Assuming she gets the nomination, I'll vote for Hillary in 2008, no
matter who she runs against.

Date: 13 Oct 2006 13:57:07
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160746631.699854.261620@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
>> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1160703322.190617.183330@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > multi wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 12 2006 02:20:19 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
>> >> <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
>> >> >I like McCain. But yesterday George Bush said that the reason he
>> >> >didn't
>> >> >do
>> >> >one on one talks with North Korea was because they didn't work
>> >> >before.
>> >> >"They
>> >> >didn't work." I can hardly believe he's stupid enough to say that the
>> >> >talks
>> >> >didn't work a few days after North Korea set off a nuclear bomb test.
>> >>
>> >> I like McCain, too. He seems like a decent guy, and I'd love to have
>> >> a beer with him. But he is not very bright, and he will do absolutely
>> >> anything to become president. Go back and look at his actual votes in
>> >> the Senate, as opposed to the warm fuzzy stuff he says on talk shows.
>> >
>> > McCain has some very attractive populist positions, but he's actually a
>> > very conservative guy. I think he's a very decent and admirable guy,
>> > but I wouldn't vote for him.
>>
>> You wouldn't vote for him against Hillary? Jeb Bush? Mark Foley?
>
> Assuming she gets the nomination, I'll vote for Hillary in 2008, no
> matter who she runs against.

I might too. I would like to see Colin Powell run, though. Do you agree that
Hillary got illegal money fromt he futures stock sale though? I dropped my
esteem of her just a little because of that.

Date: 13 Oct 2006 21:37:40
From: rcoy27
Subject: Re: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

.
"AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote in message
news:QcTXg.3398$v43.2680@fed1read02...
>
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1160746631.699854.261620@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
>>> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1160703322.190617.183330@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>> >
>>> > multi wrote:
>>> >> On Thu, 12 2006 02:20:19 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
>>> >> <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
>>> >> >I like McCain. But yesterday George Bush said that the reason he
>>> >> >didn't
>>> >> >do
>>> >> >one on one talks with North Korea was because they didn't work
>>> >> >before.
>>> >> >"They
>>> >> >didn't work." I can hardly believe he's stupid enough to say that
>>> >> >the
>>> >> >talks
>>> >> >didn't work a few days after North Korea set off a nuclear bomb
>>> >> >test.
>>> >>
>>> >> I like McCain, too. He seems like a decent guy, and I'd love to have
>>> >> a beer with him. But he is not very bright, and he will do
>>> >> absolutely
>>> >> anything to become president. Go back and look at his actual votes
>>> >> in
>>> >> the Senate, as opposed to the warm fuzzy stuff he says on talk shows.
>>> >
>>> > McCain has some very attractive populist positions, but he's actually
>>> > a
>>> > very conservative guy. I think he's a very decent and admirable guy,
>>> > but I wouldn't vote for him.
>>>
>>> You wouldn't vote for him against Hillary? Jeb Bush? Mark Foley?
>>
>> Assuming she gets the nomination, I'll vote for Hillary in 2008, no
>> matter who she runs against.
>
> I might too. I would like to see Colin Powell run, though. Do you agree
> that Hillary got illegal money fromt he futures stock sale though? I
> dropped my esteem of her just a little because of that.
>
>
Golfers sure love the Great Leader of NK. I guess it is
because he got all those hole in ones a few years ago.

Date: 13 Oct 2006 06:34:56
From: John B.
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

Alan Murphy wrote:
> "AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
> news:nbKXg.3385$v43.2161@fed1read02...
> >
> > Putting the Johns Hopkins report in the same message as a claim that a
> > building falling down proves some kind of conspiracy isn't wise unless
> > the goal is to discredit the JH report.
>
> I didn't mention a conspiracy, you did. All I
> would like to know is how a 47 storey building
> collapsed at free-fall speed, unassisted, on 9-11.
> Who did it and why they did it is not my primary
> concern. How they did it is my concern because
> that building didn't fall down on its own unless the
> laws of physics were suspended for the day and
> we're not going to get the answer anytime soon
> from this government. You owe it to yourself and
> your country to get acquainted with the facts and
> judge them fairly and objectively and not just
> dismiss them offhand as conspiracy theory. You're
> a good man AKA and I'm sorry for what may look
> like an attack on you but the media silence and
> public apathy is kind of getting to me at the
> moment. In the meantime the death toll grows
> and by the time its finished it may just make WW2
> a walk in the park.
>
> Alan

I don't know where you got the idea that a 47-story bldg. collapsed on
9-11 in addtion to the twin towers, but it's false.

Date: 13 Oct 2006 21:14:26
From: Alan Murphy
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160746496.639162.85240@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Alan Murphy wrote:
>> "AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
>> news:nbKXg.3385$v43.2161@fed1read02...
>> >
>> > Putting the Johns Hopkins report in the same message as a claim that a
>> > building falling down proves some kind of conspiracy isn't wise unless
>> > the goal is to discredit the JH report.
>>
>> I didn't mention a conspiracy, you did. All I
>> would like to know is how a 47 storey building
>> collapsed at free-fall speed, unassisted, on 9-11.
>> Who did it and why they did it is not my primary
>> concern. How they did it is my concern because
>> that building didn't fall down on its own unless the
>> laws of physics were suspended for the day and
>> we're not going to get the answer anytime soon
>> from this government. You owe it to yourself and
>> your country to get acquainted with the facts and
>> judge them fairly and objectively and not just
>> dismiss them offhand as conspiracy theory. You're
>> a good man AKA and I'm sorry for what may look
>> like an attack on you but the media silence and
>> public apathy is kind of getting to me at the
>> moment. In the meantime the death toll grows
>> and by the time its finished it may just make WW2
>> a walk in the park.
>>
>> Alan
>
> I don't know where you got the idea that a 47-story bldg. collapsed on
> 9-11 in addtion to the twin towers, but it's false.
>

JohnB, You are not aware of the collapse of this building
on 9-11 because there is an almost total media blackout
on the subject and because the American public seems to
be in total denial over the matter.

In late August, 2006,NIST, the National Institute for
Standards and Technology issued a faq dealing with the
issues surrounding the events of September 11th 2001.
Go here
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
to read this faq. Below is part of the relevant portion of
the faq dealing with the collapse of WTC7.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story
office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers)
taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being
considered to explain the collapse?

When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire
new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report
on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped
working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to
complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and
dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in ober 2005, the
investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been
made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new
documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical
approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the
selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the
analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early
2007.

NIST is an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department's Technology
Administration.
Last updated: August 30, 2006
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There are numerous videos available on the net
showing the fall of WTC7 and a good site to gain
further information is here:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

I look forward to hearing your comments after you
have reviewed these references.

Alan

Date: 13 Oct 2006 06:30:25
From: John B.
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

multi wrote:
> On 12 2006 18:25:36 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> So let me get this straight. It's rather unfortunate that a psycho
> >> who hates the US now has nukes, but the alternative would have been to
> >> TALK to him, and that would have been totally unacceptable. Why
> >> didn't I see that before?
> >
> >My point was that talking to him directly would not yield any good
> >result in my view. All he wants is money. What do you think would come
> >of direct negotiations?
>
> If the worst thing that came from negotiations is that we gave him
> some money, I'd call that a win. We're pouring $5 billion a month
> down a rathole in Iraq, and getting nothing but body bags in return.
> If a couple billion a year could have prevented N Korea from getting
> nukes, that would have been money well spent.

I don't think giving Kim Jong Il a few billion dollars would turn him
into a nice guy or compel him to decommission his nukes. He's a lunatic
and can't be expected to respond to concessions the way a rational
person would. And anyway, there are ways to negotiate with his regime
without putting him in a room w/Bush, who is not mentally competent to
negotiate with a foreign head of state.

Date: 13 Oct 2006 09:01:37
From: multi
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

On 13 2006 06:30:25 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>
>multi wrote:
>> On 12 2006 18:25:36 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> So let me get this straight. It's rather unfortunate that a psycho
>> >> who hates the US now has nukes, but the alternative would have been to
>> >> TALK to him, and that would have been totally unacceptable. Why
>> >> didn't I see that before?
>> >
>> >My point was that talking to him directly would not yield any good
>> >result in my view. All he wants is money. What do you think would come
>> >of direct negotiations?
>>
>> If the worst thing that came from negotiations is that we gave him
>> some money, I'd call that a win. We're pouring $5 billion a month
>> down a rathole in Iraq, and getting nothing but body bags in return.
>> If a couple billion a year could have prevented N Korea from getting
>> nukes, that would have been money well spent.
>
>I don't think giving Kim Jong Il a few billion dollars would turn him
>into a nice guy

Correct.

> or compel him to decommission his nukes.

It worked before. He did not renege on the Clinton deal for eight
years --- until after Bush left him no other option. He did cheat on
an international treaty w/regard to enriched uranium, but that had
nothing to do with the Clinton deal, would have taken much longer to
become a danger to anyone, and could also have been negotiated away
once we found out.

And in case it actually needs to be pointed out, ANY agreement that
delays the aquisition of nukes by a lunatic is ALWAYS a good thing,
even if you have to go back and shore it up every couple of years. It
sure as hell beats the alternative, and you never know, he might die
in the meantime.

> He's a lunatic
>and can't be expected to respond to concessions the way a rational
>person would.

True, but concessions are not all we have. We can also do sanctions
if his cheating is too blatant. It worked with Saddam, after all. I
guess people need to be reminded that the UN sanctions DID work; his
nuclear programs had been shut down for years when we invaded.

Only a complete idiot would offer no concessions, no sanctions, and no
action, while simultaneously forcing N Korea to acquire nukes by
calling them part of the Axis of Evil, and invading another country on
that list. Kim may be a lunatic, but ANY national leader would have
taken the obvious step to protect his country under those conditions.

Date: 13 Oct 2006 13:52:07
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

I put mult's name in consideration for "alternative cabinet" position of
secretary of defense.

"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:pucvi2t8umj5m9nbhm372cn74jvvmqs9ad@4ax.com...
> On 13 2006 06:30:25 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>multi wrote:
>>> On 12 2006 18:25:36 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> So let me get this straight. It's rather unfortunate that a psycho
>>> >> who hates the US now has nukes, but the alternative would have been
>>> >> to
>>> >> TALK to him, and that would have been totally unacceptable. Why
>>> >> didn't I see that before?
>>> >
>>> >My point was that talking to him directly would not yield any good
>>> >result in my view. All he wants is money. What do you think would come
>>> >of direct negotiations?
>>>
>>> If the worst thing that came from negotiations is that we gave him
>>> some money, I'd call that a win. We're pouring $5 billion a month
>>> down a rathole in Iraq, and getting nothing but body bags in return.
>>> If a couple billion a year could have prevented N Korea from getting
>>> nukes, that would have been money well spent.
>>
>>I don't think giving Kim Jong Il a few billion dollars would turn him
>>into a nice guy
>
> Correct.
>
>> or compel him to decommission his nukes.
>
> It worked before. He did not renege on the Clinton deal for eight
> years --- until after Bush left him no other option. He did cheat on
> an international treaty w/regard to enriched uranium, but that had
> nothing to do with the Clinton deal, would have taken much longer to
> become a danger to anyone, and could also have been negotiated away
> once we found out.
>
> And in case it actually needs to be pointed out, ANY agreement that
> delays the aquisition of nukes by a lunatic is ALWAYS a good thing,
> even if you have to go back and shore it up every couple of years. It
> sure as hell beats the alternative, and you never know, he might die
> in the meantime.
>
>> He's a lunatic
>>and can't be expected to respond to concessions the way a rational
>>person would.
>
> True, but concessions are not all we have. We can also do sanctions
> if his cheating is too blatant. It worked with Saddam, after all. I
> guess people need to be reminded that the UN sanctions DID work; his
> nuclear programs had been shut down for years when we invaded.
>
> Only a complete idiot would offer no concessions, no sanctions, and no
> action, while simultaneously forcing N Korea to acquire nukes by
> calling them part of the Axis of Evil, and invading another country on
> that list. Kim may be a lunatic, but ANY national leader would have
> taken the obvious step to protect his country under those conditions.

Date: 13 Oct 2006 15:38:23
From: multi
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

On Fri, 13 2006 13:52:07 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
<goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
>I put mult's name in consideration for "alternative cabinet" position of
>secretary of defense.

Sorry, I'm busy. But you know that guy who said he killed Jon
Benet-Ramsey? All charges against him were dropped, so he's not busy.
And even he would be better than Donald Bumstead.

As for Bush --- oh hell, what's the point? Here's his latest attempt
at math:
"These budget numbers are not just estimates; these are the actual
results for the fiscal year that ended February the 30th."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061011-7.html

Date: 13 Oct 2006 17:14:31
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:hf40j2d3k3eubu29cufdalctf6umj71sn7@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 13 2006 13:52:07 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
> <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
>>I put mult's name in consideration for "alternative cabinet" position of
>>secretary of defense.
>
> Sorry, I'm busy. But you know that guy who said he killed Jon
> Benet-Ramsey? All charges against him were dropped, so he's not busy.
> And even he would be better than Donald Bumstead.
>
> As for Bush --- oh hell, what's the point? Here's his latest attempt
> at math:
> "These budget numbers are not just estimates; these are the actual
> results for the fiscal year that ended February the 30th."
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061011-7.html

You could be considered for puppet president ... no actual duties other than
to demonstrate your internal struggle between your wish to be a good
Christian and the evil that your job requires. You can do this by speaking
in garbled sentences, which will give anyone who is listening a subtle but
clear message that there is a big big problem.

Date: 14 Oct 2006 14:44:57
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

On Fri, 13 2006 09:01:37 -0700, multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:

>It worked before. He did not renege on the Clinton deal for eight
>years --- until after Bush left him no other option. He did cheat on
>an international treaty w/regard to enriched uranium, but that had
>nothing to do with the Clinton deal, would have taken much longer to
>become a danger to anyone, and could also have been negotiated away
>once we found out.

Absolutly wrong:

"Under the Agreed Framework, North Korea agreed to halt activities at
its plutonium producing nuclear reactors in Pyongyang in exchange for
a relaxation of economic sanctions, a gradual move toward
normalization of diplomatic relations, fuel oil deliveries, and
construction of a light-water reactor to replace the
graphite-moderated reactor shut down at Pyongyang. Plutonium from
light water reactors is harder to use for nuclear weapons than the
plutonium procured by graphite-moderated reactors. 16 IAEA
inspectors monitored North Korea's compliance. Upon completion of the
light-water reactors, originally scheduled for 2003 but subsequently
indefinitely delayed, North Korea was to dismantle its graphite
reactors and ship its 8,000 remaining fuel rods out of the country. 17
Shortly after signing the agreement, North Korea began seeking nuclear
weapons fuel through uranium enrichment. In the late 1990s, the United
States began to receive scattered intelligence reports revealing a
North Korean uranium enrichment program. Some evidence points to the
existence of this program as early as 1987. 18 This program
apparently received new life in 1997 when Pakistan, strapped for cash
by U.S. sanctions, began paying for its North Korean missile imports
with uranium enrichment technology.

An unclassified CIA report from early 2002 reported that "[North
Korea] has been seeking centrifuge-related materials in large
quantities to support a uranium enrichment program. It also obtained
equipment suitable for use in uranium feed and withdrawal systems." 19
Last January, U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton accused North
Korea of continuing its nuclear weapons program, and in February
members of Congress expressed concern to the president about North
Korea's uranium enrichment program. 20 According to the New Yorker
Magazine, the CIA delivered a secret report to top Bush administration
officials in June, which found that Pakistan had provided centrifuge
technology to North Korea. 21 Centrifuges are essential in enriching
uranium. A.Q. Khan, known as the father of the Pakistani nuclear bomb,
has reportedly visited North Korea frequently in the last decade. 22
U.S. intelligence apparently found definitive evidence of North
Korea's uranium program by tracing an attempt to purchase a large
amount of high-strength uranium, a substance essential to equipment
used to enrich uranium, to North Korea. Some North uranium enrichment
facilities are likely located in the Hagap region, near the Chinese
border. 23"

http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/nk-fact-sheet.cfm

Date: 13 Oct 2006 14:06:12
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

In article <1160746225.544086.234080@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

> multi wrote:
> > On 12 2006 18:25:36 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> So let me get this straight. It's rather unfortunate that a psycho
> > >> who hates the US now has nukes, but the alternative would have been to
> > >> TALK to him, and that would have been totally unacceptable. Why
> > >> didn't I see that before?
> > >
> > >My point was that talking to him directly would not yield any good
> > >result in my view. All he wants is money. What do you think would come
> > >of direct negotiations?
> >
> > If the worst thing that came from negotiations is that we gave him
> > some money, I'd call that a win. We're pouring $5 billion a month
> > down a rathole in Iraq, and getting nothing but body bags in return.
> > If a couple billion a year could have prevented N Korea from getting
> > nukes, that would have been money well spent.
>
> I don't think giving Kim Jong Il a few billion dollars would turn him
> into a nice guy or compel him to decommission his nukes. He's a lunatic
> and can't be expected to respond to concessions the way a rational
> person would. And anyway, there are ways to negotiate with his regime
> without putting him in a room w/Bush, who is not mentally competent to
> negotiate with a foreign head of state

He's actually not competent to negotiate with my beagle (who is not very
bright). However, it seems to me that the prospect of being locked in a
room with Dubya for several hours might well be enough to have Kim Jong
Il on his knees begging for mercy.

William Clark

Date: 13 Oct 2006 02:39:18
From: Andrew
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

The NK simply wants the US to lift financial sactions before the
six-party talks.
They claim that NK government is wrongly accused of counterfeit
activities. Even South Korea admits that the Bush administration is
not able to present a clear proof of this.

There is no dispute that NK is a failed state and the leader is
oppressive, but to many people around the world (especially South
Koreans) the current US government is not sincerely seeking to solve
the problem peacefully. There is a saying in Korean that "if you want
to corner a mouse make sure to leave some opening so it can run into
the direction you want..." The US is cornering NK without providing
an opening... Perhaps another regime change rather than nuke-free
Korea is their ultimate goal... If so, how can you blame North Korea
after seeing what had happened to Iraq ?...

To you Iraq was freed (by Democracy) but to others Iraq was unjustfully
invaded and brutally raped. To you NK is blackmailing the US but to
others the US is the one that is doing blackmailing.

>
> I'm not defending Bush's N. Korea policy, which obviously is a failure,
> but I do think he's right not to negotiate directly w/Kim Song Il. The
> guy is a fucking psycho who would only use bi-lateral talks as an
> opportunity to try to blackmail the U.S.

Date: 13 Oct 2006 13:22:32
From: John B.
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

Alan Murphy wrote:
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1160746496.639162.85240@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Alan Murphy wrote:
> >> "AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
> >> news:nbKXg.3385$v43.2161@fed1read02...
> >> >
> >> > Putting the Johns Hopkins report in the same message as a claim that a
> >> > building falling down proves some kind of conspiracy isn't wise unless
> >> > the goal is to discredit the JH report.
> >>
> >> I didn't mention a conspiracy, you did. All I
> >> would like to know is how a 47 storey building
> >> collapsed at free-fall speed, unassisted, on 9-11.
> >> Who did it and why they did it is not my primary
> >> concern. How they did it is my concern because
> >> that building didn't fall down on its own unless the
> >> laws of physics were suspended for the day and
> >> we're not going to get the answer anytime soon
> >> from this government. You owe it to yourself and
> >> your country to get acquainted with the facts and
> >> judge them fairly and objectively and not just
> >> dismiss them offhand as conspiracy theory. You're
> >> a good man AKA and I'm sorry for what may look
> >> like an attack on you but the media silence and
> >> public apathy is kind of getting to me at the
> >> moment. In the meantime the death toll grows
> >> and by the time its finished it may just make WW2
> >> a walk in the park.
> >>
> >> Alan
> >
> > I don't know where you got the idea that a 47-story bldg. collapsed on
> > 9-11 in addtion to the twin towers, but it's false.
> >
>
> JohnB, You are not aware of the collapse of this building
> on 9-11 because there is an almost total media blackout
> on the subject and because the American public seems to
> be in total denial over the matter.
>
> In late August, 2006,NIST, the National Institute for
> Standards and Technology issued a faq dealing with the
> issues surrounding the events of September 11th 2001.
> Go here
> http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
> to read this faq. Below is part of the relevant portion of
> the faq dealing with the collapse of WTC7.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story
> office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers)
> taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being
> considered to explain the collapse?
>
> When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire
> new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report
> on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped
> working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to
> complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and
> dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in ober 2005, the
> investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been
> made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new
> documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical
> approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the
> selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the
> analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early
> 2007.
>
> NIST is an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department's Technology
> Administration.
> Last updated: August 30, 2006
> http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> There are numerous videos available on the net
> showing the fall of WTC7 and a good site to gain
> further information is here:
> http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/
>
> I look forward to hearing your comments after you
> have reviewed these references.
>
> Alan

I'm not going to review any of them. I work at 1 Liberty Plaza, New
York, NY, which is literally NEXT DOOR to the World Trade Center site.
If another building had come down, I think I - and many others - would
have noticed, even in spite of a "total media blackout." I also spent
17 yrs. in journalism and I can tell you there is no such thing as a
"total media blackout." How in the hell could anyone cause every news
organization in the world to refrain from reporting a major story? Your
assertion is absolutely insane.

Date: 13 Oct 2006 16:14:58
From: multi
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

On 13 2006 13:22:32 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>I'm not going to review any of them. I work at 1 Liberty Plaza, New
>York, NY, which is literally NEXT DOOR to the World Trade Center site.
>If another building had come down, I think I - and many others - would
>have noticed, even in spite of a "total media blackout."

Jesus.

The only thing I can think of is when this lady kept calling me by
mistake. I would tell her she had dialed the wrong number, and she
would say, in an indignant tone, "No I didn't." I would ask her
whether I was more likely to be mistaken about which house I was in
than she was about which number she had dialed, but I don't think it
did much good.

Oh, wait. There was that time when they wouldn't bother looking
through Galileo's telescope, because they KNEW that Jupiter couldn't
have moons.

WTC7 was a very large building by most standards, but it was not a
spectacular skyscraper like the twin towers, and after it collapsed,
it was just part of the wreckage. Being literally NEXT DOOR to a site
that encompasses several blocks is not like being next door to your
neighbor's house. If WTC7 was on the other side of the towers from
you, it's entirely possible that you never noticed it, either before
or after it collapsed.

>I also spent
>17 yrs. in journalism and I can tell you there is no such thing as a
>"total media blackout." How in the hell could anyone cause every news
>organization in the world to refrain from reporting a major story? Your
>assertion is absolutely insane.

For what it's worth, which I'm guessing won't be much, when he says
"media blackout" he doesn't mean that someone is controlling the
media, and he doesn't mean it wasn't reported. It was widely
reported, and was shown on the evening news of every major network.
It's just that it wasn't as tall or as famous as the towers, and it
had already been evacuated, hence no lives were lost. So the media
stopped talking about it, and in the US, if it hasn't been on TV in
the last 48 hours, it might as well have never happened.

It would take you five seconds to Google "WTC7 collapse." If you want
to weed out most of the cranks, do "WTC7 collapse site:.edu" or "WTC7
collapse site:.gov"

I solemnly assure you, it collapsed.

Date: 13 Oct 2006 21:38:45
From: Alan Murphy
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160770952.132679.184590@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Alan Murphy wrote:
>> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1160746496.639162.85240@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Alan Murphy wrote:
>> >> "AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:nbKXg.3385$v43.2161@fed1read02...
>> >> >
>> >> > Putting the Johns Hopkins report in the same message as a claim
>> >> > that a
>> >> > building falling down proves some kind of conspiracy isn't wise
>> >> > unless
>> >> > the goal is to discredit the JH report.
>> >>
>> >> I didn't mention a conspiracy, you did. All I
>> >> would like to know is how a 47 storey building
>> >> collapsed at free-fall speed, unassisted, on 9-11.
>> >> Who did it and why they did it is not my primary
>> >> concern. How they did it is my concern because
>> >> that building didn't fall down on its own unless the
>> >> laws of physics were suspended for the day and
>> >> we're not going to get the answer anytime soon
>> >> from this government. You owe it to yourself and
>> >> your country to get acquainted with the facts and
>> >> judge them fairly and objectively and not just
>> >> dismiss them offhand as conspiracy theory. You're
>> >> a good man AKA and I'm sorry for what may look
>> >> like an attack on you but the media silence and
>> >> public apathy is kind of getting to me at the
>> >> moment. In the meantime the death toll grows
>> >> and by the time its finished it may just make WW2
>> >> a walk in the park.
>> >>
>> >> Alan
>> >
>> > I don't know where you got the idea that a 47-story bldg. collapsed on
>> > 9-11 in addtion to the twin towers, but it's false.
>> >
>>
>> JohnB, You are not aware of the collapse of this building
>> on 9-11 because there is an almost total media blackout
>> on the subject and because the American public seems to
>> be in total denial over the matter.
>>
>> In late August, 2006,NIST, the National Institute for
>> Standards and Technology issued a faq dealing with the
>> issues surrounding the events of September 11th 2001.
>> Go here
>> http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
>> to read this faq. Below is part of the relevant portion of
>> the faq dealing with the collapse of WTC7.
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> 14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the
>> 47-story
>> office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the
>> towers)
>> taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being
>> considered to explain the collapse?
>>
>> When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to
>> hire
>> new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress
>> report
>> on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped
>> working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to
>> complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and
>> dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in ober 2005, the
>> investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has
>> been
>> made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new
>> documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical
>> approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and
>> the
>> selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the
>> analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by
>> early
>> 2007.
>>
>> NIST is an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department's Technology
>> Administration.
>> Last updated: August 30, 2006
>> http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> There are numerous videos available on the net
>> showing the fall of WTC7 and a good site to gain
>> further information is here:
>> http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/
>>
>> I look forward to hearing your comments after you
>> have reviewed these references.
>>
>> Alan
>
> I'm not going to review any of them. I work at 1 Liberty Plaza, New
> York, NY, which is literally NEXT DOOR to the World Trade Center site.
> If another building had come down, I think I - and many others - would
> have noticed, even in spite of a "total media blackout." I also spent
> 17 yrs. in journalism and I can tell you there is no such thing as a
> "total media blackout." How in the hell could anyone cause every news
> organization in the world to refrain from reporting a major story? Your
> assertion is absolutely insane.
>
LOL. You really can't be serious. NIST is a US
government organisation. Read their report FFS.
Denial is not a river in Egypt, it is the mental state
that you and millions of your fellow citizens are
suffering from at this moment. Wake up and read
about it and think about it. Oh, wait a minute, I know,
you're just doing this to bring it everyones attention,
right! Thanks for that.

Alan.
"It's the free-fall speed, stupid."

Date: 13 Oct 2006 17:35:30
From: Two Buddha
Subject: Re: Alan Baker's Eternal Shame

"VtSkier" <VtSkier@nospam.net > wrote in message
news:4pajbsFi32h7U1@individual.net...
> Richard Henry wrote:
>> sbm2006@shaw.ca wrote:
>>> Richard Henry wrote:
>>>> Siobhan Medeiros wrote:
>>>>> Richard Henry wrote:
>>>>>> Two Buddha wrote:
>>>>>>> "Richard Henry" <pomerado@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:1160635991.304202.46890@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>> Freeways in this part of the country have a number (like Highway
>>>>>>>> 94) or
>>>>>>>> a name (like Martin Luther King Jr. Freeway). What was the name
>>>>>>>> and/or
>>>>>>>> number of the freeway through Poway on your alleged map?
>>>>>>> You just can't give up, can you? You're so desperate to catch me in
>>>>>>> a lie
>>>>>>> you beat this to death......while lying and ignoring discussion of
>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>> pathological lying. How ridiculous. How contemptible. How Richard
>>>>>>> Henry.
>>>>>>> You really are pathetic, freak.
>>>>>> Let's change the subject and talk about your Rand McNally book then.
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> have a recent Thomas Guide California Road Atlas 22nd Edition,
>>>>>> published by Rand McNally, that I bought at WalMart a couple of years
>>>>>> ago. Probably similar to yours. On the back cover is an ISBN
>>>>>> number,
>>>>>> which uniquely identifies the book. The number on my book is
>>>>>> 0-528-99571-5. What's the number on yours?
>>>>>
>>>>> Wtf is that supposed to prove, moron?
>>>> If you check the google records, you will notice a pattern to Scott's
>>>> stories. Whenever he is challenged to provide a checkable fact (such
>>>> as the name of a highway, a book ID number, an actual example of a
>>>> "lie" told about him, etc.) he will attempts to change the subject or
>>>> divert into obscenities. It's pathetic, predictable, and laughable.
>>>>
>>>> In this case, Scott claimed years ago to having visited my home town,
>>>> Poway, CA, in a veiled attempt to intimidate me (Poway is out of the
>>>> traffic mainstream, and the only logical reason for being here would
>>>> have been physical harrassment). His attempts to defend that story
>>>> included an explanation that he was passing through on his way from
>>>> Palm Springs to Coronado. Anyone familiar with this part of the
>>>> country was already laughing. He later attempted to rescue the story
>>>> (why he doesn't just drop these threads when he is being so thoroughly
>>>> made to look like a fool I'll never understand, but he soldiers on,
>>>> adding onr laughable lie after another) by saying that he had been
>>>> fooled by highway signs, and that he had just passed through town on a
>>>> freeway. The problem with that? there are no freeways through Poway.
>>>
>>> Oh really? Because I just checked on Google Earth and it shows I-15
>>> passing right through your town, when it's called the Escondido
>>> Freeway.
>>>
>>>> Then he blamed his mythical book of highway maps, which show such a
>>>> road.
>>> Google Maps also shows a road. Seems that you're the liar, asshole.
>>
>> Here's a better map source for the geographically-challenged posters
>> among us:
>>
>> http://www.ci.poway.ca.us/trails/poway_trails_map.pdf
>
> You might also try
> http://tinyurl.com/ylupg3

One pathological liar and real life stalker supporting another stalking
psychopath. Amazing how the freaks band together to lie and lie and lie and
lie.......

Date: 13 Oct 2006 21:10:34
From: VtSkier
Subject: Re: Alan Baker's Eternal Shame

Two Buddha wrote:
> "VtSkier" <VtSkier@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:4pajbsFi32h7U1@individual.net...
>> Richard Henry wrote:
>>> sbm2006@shaw.ca wrote:
>>>> Richard Henry wrote:
>>>>> Siobhan Medeiros wrote:
>>>>>> Richard Henry wrote:
>>>>>>> Two Buddha wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Richard Henry" <pomerado@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:1160635991.304202.46890@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>> Freeways in this part of the country have a number (like Highway
>>>>>>>>> 94) or
>>>>>>>>> a name (like Martin Luther King Jr. Freeway). What was the name
>>>>>>>>> and/or
>>>>>>>>> number of the freeway through Poway on your alleged map?
>>>>>>>> You just can't give up, can you? You're so desperate to catch me in
>>>>>>>> a lie
>>>>>>>> you beat this to death......while lying and ignoring discussion of
>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>> pathological lying. How ridiculous. How contemptible. How Richard
>>>>>>>> Henry.
>>>>>>>> You really are pathetic, freak.
>>>>>>> Let's change the subject and talk about your Rand McNally book then.
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> have a recent Thomas Guide California Road Atlas 22nd Edition,
>>>>>>> published by Rand McNally, that I bought at WalMart a couple of years
>>>>>>> ago. Probably similar to yours. On the back cover is an ISBN
>>>>>>> number,
>>>>>>> which uniquely identifies the book. The number on my book is
>>>>>>> 0-528-99571-5. What's the number on yours?
>>>>>> Wtf is that supposed to prove, moron?
>>>>> If you check the google records, you will notice a pattern to Scott's
>>>>> stories. Whenever he is challenged to provide a checkable fact (such
>>>>> as the name of a highway, a book ID number, an actual example of a
>>>>> "lie" told about him, etc.) he will attempts to change the subject or
>>>>> divert into obscenities. It's pathetic, predictable, and laughable.
>>>>>
>>>>> In this case, Scott claimed years ago to having visited my home town,
>>>>> Poway, CA, in a veiled attempt to intimidate me (Poway is out of the
>>>>> traffic mainstream, and the only logical reason for being here would
>>>>> have been physical harrassment). His attempts to defend that story
>>>>> included an explanation that he was passing through on his way from
>>>>> Palm Springs to Coronado. Anyone familiar with this part of the
>>>>> country was already laughing. He later attempted to rescue the story
>>>>> (why he doesn't just drop these threads when he is being so thoroughly
>>>>> made to look like a fool I'll never understand, but he soldiers on,
>>>>> adding onr laughable lie after another) by saying that he had been
>>>>> fooled by highway signs, and that he had just passed through town on a
>>>>> freeway. The problem with that? there are no freeways through Poway.
>>>> Oh really? Because I just checked on Google Earth and it shows I-15
>>>> passing right through your town, when it's called the Escondido
>>>> Freeway.
>>>>
>>>>> Then he blamed his mythical book of highway maps, which show such a
>>>>> road.
>>>> Google Maps also shows a road. Seems that you're the liar, asshole.
>>> Here's a better map source for the geographically-challenged posters
>>> among us:
>>>
>>> http://www.ci.poway.ca.us/trails/poway_trails_map.pdf
>> You might also try
>> http://tinyurl.com/ylupg3
>
> One pathological liar and real life stalker supporting another stalking
> psychopath. Amazing how the freaks band together to lie and lie and lie and
> lie.......

Hey shithead, the road is where it is and it ain't in Poway.

Date: 13 Oct 2006 18:23:25
From: Two Buddha
Subject: Re: Alan Baker's Eternal Shame

"VtSkier" <VtSkier@nospam.net > wrote in message
news:4parocFi4gaqU1@individual.net...
> Two Buddha wrote:
>> "VtSkier" <VtSkier@nospam.net> wrote in message
>> news:4pajbsFi32h7U1@individual.net...
>>> Richard Henry wrote:
>>>> sbm2006@shaw.ca wrote:
>>>>> Richard Henry wrote:
>>>>>> Siobhan Medeiros wrote:
>>>>>>> Richard Henry wrote:
>>>>>>>> Two Buddha wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Richard Henry" <pomerado@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:1160635991.304202.46890@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>>> Freeways in this part of the country have a number (like Highway
>>>>>>>>>> 94) or
>>>>>>>>>> a name (like Martin Luther King Jr. Freeway). What was the name
>>>>>>>>>> and/or
>>>>>>>>>> number of the freeway through Poway on your alleged map?
>>>>>>>>> You just can't give up, can you? You're so desperate to catch me
>>>>>>>>> in a lie
>>>>>>>>> you beat this to death......while lying and ignoring discussion of
>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>> pathological lying. How ridiculous. How contemptible. How
>>>>>>>>> Richard Henry.
>>>>>>>>> You really are pathetic, freak.
>>>>>>>> Let's change the subject and talk about your Rand McNally book
>>>>>>>> then. I
>>>>>>>> have a recent Thomas Guide California Road Atlas 22nd Edition,
>>>>>>>> published by Rand McNally, that I bought at WalMart a couple of
>>>>>>>> years
>>>>>>>> ago. Probably similar to yours. On the back cover is an ISBN
>>>>>>>> number,
>>>>>>>> which uniquely identifies the book. The number on my book is
>>>>>>>> 0-528-99571-5. What's the number on yours?
>>>>>>> Wtf is that supposed to prove, moron?
>>>>>> If you check the google records, you will notice a pattern to Scott's
>>>>>> stories. Whenever he is challenged to provide a checkable fact (such
>>>>>> as the name of a highway, a book ID number, an actual example of a
>>>>>> "lie" told about him, etc.) he will attempts to change the subject or
>>>>>> divert into obscenities. It's pathetic, predictable, and laughable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In this case, Scott claimed years ago to having visited my home town,
>>>>>> Poway, CA, in a veiled attempt to intimidate me (Poway is out of the
>>>>>> traffic mainstream, and the only logical reason for being here would
>>>>>> have been physical harrassment). His attempts to defend that story
>>>>>> included an explanation that he was passing through on his way from
>>>>>> Palm Springs to Coronado. Anyone familiar with this part of the
>>>>>> country was already laughing. He later attempted to rescue the story
>>>>>> (why he doesn't just drop these threads when he is being so
>>>>>> thoroughly
>>>>>> made to look like a fool I'll never understand, but he soldiers on,
>>>>>> adding onr laughable lie after another) by saying that he had been
>>>>>> fooled by highway signs, and that he had just passed through town on
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> freeway. The problem with that? there are no freeways through
>>>>>> Poway.
>>>>> Oh really? Because I just checked on Google Earth and it shows I-15
>>>>> passing right through your town, when it's called the Escondido
>>>>> Freeway.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Then he blamed his mythical book of highway maps, which show such a
>>>>>> road.
>>>>> Google Maps also shows a road. Seems that you're the liar, asshole.
>>>> Here's a better map source for the geographically-challenged posters
>>>> among us:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ci.poway.ca.us/trails/poway_trails_map.pdf
>>> You might also try
>>> http://tinyurl.com/ylupg3
>>
>> One pathological liar and real life stalker supporting another stalking
>> psychopath. Amazing how the freaks band together to lie and lie and lie
>> and lie.......
>
> Hey shithead, the road is where it is and it ain't in Poway.

Is on my map. Which is what I've always said. Is on Google maps. Why is
it that you ignore that reality?
Hey, shithead, got the balls to find ME on a map, in person? Happy to give
you directions....like you gave to a freak who threatened my life.
What a despicable coward you are. As I said, one pathological liar and real
life stalker supporting another stalking psychopath.
Fuck yourself again, freak.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Date: 15 Oct 2006 21:50:17
From: Sven Golly
Subject: Re: Alan Baker's Eternal Shame

"Two Buddha" <scottabe@hotmail.com > wrote in
news:1160789084_13015@sp6iad.superfeed.net:

> Is on my map. Which is what I've always said. Is on Google maps.

Is what on Google Maps? 15 runs just west of Poway's city boundaries. Going
"through" Poway, you'd need to move it about 6 miles east. It's pretty much
quibbling but technically Richard's right and you're wrong.

> Hey, shithead, got the balls to find ME on a map, in person? Happy to
> give you directions....like you gave to a freak who threatened my
> life.

It's great you're so willing to give people directions to come find you.
Sort of makes that whole "no duty to retreat" excuse of yours absurd.

--
Sven Golly
Yah sure by gosh by yumpin' yiminy
Trolling as usual
Change the "_" to "." to reply by email

Date: 16 Oct 2006 19:49:00
From: Two Buddha
Subject: Re: Alan Baker's Eternal Shame

"Sven Golly" <sven_medelsvensson@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:Xns985D9703C7586svengolly@66.75.164.120...
> "Two Buddha" <scottabe@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:1160789084_13015@sp6iad.superfeed.net:
>
>> Is on my map. Which is what I've always said. Is on Google maps.
>
> Is what on Google Maps? 15 runs just west of Poway's city boundaries.
> Going
> "through" Poway, you'd need to move it about 6 miles east. It's pretty
> much
> quibbling but technically Richard's right and you're wrong.

Not on the map I looked at when I went through, and Henry knows it.
Quibbling is right. Long way from a lie....and Henry keeps claiming he
caught me in a lie. Truly desperate. Pathetic.
>
>> Hey, shithead, got the balls to find ME on a map, in person? Happy to
>> give you directions....like you gave to a freak who threatened my
>> life.
>
> It's great you're so willing to give people directions to come find you.
> Sort of makes that whole "no duty to retreat" excuse of yours absurd.

Come find out, coward. You ain't even got the balls to use a verifiable
identity. Which makes YOUR entire arguement absurd, freak.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Date: 17 Oct 2006 07:52:37
From: Olaf Timandahaff
Subject: Re: Alan Baker's Eternal Shame

On Mon, 16 2006 19:49:00 -0700, Two Buddha wrote:
> "Sven Golly" <sven_medelsvensson@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns985D9703C7586svengolly@66.75.164.120...
>> "Two Buddha" <scottabe@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:1160789084_13015@sp6iad.superfeed.net:
>>
>>> Is on my map. Which is what I've always said. Is on Google maps.
>>
>> Is what on Google Maps? 15 runs just west of Poway's city boundaries.
>> Going
>> "through" Poway, you'd need to move it about 6 miles east. It's pretty
>> much
>> quibbling but technically Richard's right and you're wrong.
>
> Not on the map I looked at when I went through, and Henry knows it.
> Quibbling is right. Long way from a lie....and Henry keeps claiming he
> caught me in a lie. Truly desperate. Pathetic.
>>
>>> Hey, shithead, got the balls to find ME on a map, in person? Happy to
>>> give you directions....like you gave to a freak who threatened my life.
>>
>> It's great you're so willing to give people directions to come find you.
>> Sort of makes that whole "no duty to retreat" excuse of yours absurd.
>
> Come find out, coward. You ain't even got the balls to use a verifiable
> identity. Which makes YOUR entire arguement absurd, freak.
>
Please don't Xp0ast into comp.sys.mac.advocacy, Sp0ck!

and don't wipe your nose on your sleeve, it ain't genteel.

#317

Date: 14 Oct 2006 01:07:44
From: Dave Cartman
Subject: Re: Alan Baker's Eternal Shame

In article <1160786209_12997@sp6iad.superfeed.net >,
"Two Buddha" <scottabe@hotmail.com > wrote:

> >> Here's a better map source for the geographically-challenged posters
> >> among us:
> >>
> >> http://www.ci.poway.ca.us/trails/poway_trails_map.pdf
> >
> > You might also try
> > http://tinyurl.com/ylupg3
>
> One pathological liar and real life stalker supporting another stalking
> psychopath. Amazing how the freaks band together to lie and lie and lie and
> lie.......

Apparently, Google is in on it too. You should add them to to your
"known enemy list." HTH.

Dave

Date: 13 Oct 2006 18:21:52
From: Two Buddha
Subject: Re: Alan Baker's Eternal Shame

"Dave Cartman" <vern93@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:vern93-755A9D.15074313102006@news-server.hawaii.rr.com...
> In article <1160786209_12997@sp6iad.superfeed.net>,
> "Two Buddha" <scottabe@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Here's a better map source for the geographically-challenged posters
>> >> among us:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.ci.poway.ca.us/trails/poway_trails_map.pdf
>> >
>> > You might also try
>> > http://tinyurl.com/ylupg3
>>
>> One pathological liar and real life stalker supporting another stalking
>> psychopath. Amazing how the freaks band together to lie and lie and lie
>> and
>> lie.......
>
> Apparently, Google is in on it too. You should add them to to your
> "known enemy list." HTH.

Not in on it at all. You freaks just latch onto anything that even remotely
resembles an inconsistency and then exploit it: when exposed as a liar, you
just lie more. No comment, of course, on the liars getting caught lying and
lying and lying.
One thing for sure: You've been on my known assholes list for a long time.
Also on the known cowards, known pathological liars, known stalkers.....
Fuck yourself again, freak.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Date: 14 Oct 2006 01:48:06
From: Dave Cartman
Subject: Re: Alan Baker's Eternal Shame

In article <1160788991_13013@sp6iad.superfeed.net >,
"Two Buddha" <scottabe@hotmail.com > wrote:

> > Apparently, Google is in on it too. You should add them to to your
> > "known enemy list." HTH.
>
>
> Not in on it at all. You freaks just latch onto anything that even remotely
> resembles an inconsistency and then exploit it: when exposed as a liar, you
> just lie more. No comment, of course, on the liars getting caught lying and
> lying and lying.
> One thing for sure: You've been on my known assholes list for a long time.
> Also on the known cowards, known pathological liars, known stalkers.....
> Fuck yourself again, freak.

Out of curiosity, how do have me listed?

Date: 15 Oct 2006 07:15:37
From: John B.
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:fp63j21a1t4t8nv35cb2lg0l6kqc4e2l4h@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 13 2006 03:41:11 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
> > <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
> >
> >>The JH report was the second one in the
> >>last couple of years and was detailed on public radio back about a year
> >>ago,
> >>maybe
> >
> > There was a similar study published in the Lancet. The trouble is
> > that it said the number was 100,000 deaths. Now this study says the
> > number is six and a half times as much in only a year. Variability
> > like that does not give you confidence in the methodology. In
> > addition, the number of deaths is almost 3% of the population.
> >
> > The Iraqi body count group, which actually tries to count bodies or
> > verify that someone had died has the count at 48,000. If the 655K
> > figure is real them around 92% of the bodies are unaccounted for.
> >
> > I'd say this study is speculative at best. In addition, the media
> > doesn't seem to be paying much attention to it. It's already
> > yesterday's news.
>
> John's Hopkins did a similar study a while ago and reported about it on
> public radio. There methods seemed sound then and there methods now,
> apparently have met the muster of all of the scientific boards or whatever,
> that do that kind of validation. Hearing the guys talk about how they
> collected the information was pretty intense ... and believable. Does
> someone have a suspected motive for JH to make an unscientific study?
> Would'nt it hurt their reputation to a great degree and bring them no
> advantage? Is John Hopkins known as a partisan school?

Not at all. JH is a highly regarded university with one of the best
schools of foreign affairs in the country.

Date: 16 Oct 2006 10:38:01
From: snakehawk
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:fp63j21a1t4t8nv35cb2lg0l6kqc4e2l4h@4ax.com...

> >
> > I'd say this study is speculative at best. In addition, the media
> > doesn't seem to be paying much attention to it. It's already
> > yesterday's news.
>
> John's Hopkins did a similar study a while ago and reported about it on
> public radio. There methods seemed sound then and there methods now,
> apparently have met the muster of all of the scientific boards or whatever,
> that do that kind of validation. Hearing the guys talk about how they
> collected the information was pretty intense ... and believable. Does
> someone have a suspected motive for JH to make an unscientific study?
> Would'nt it hurt their reputation to a great degree and bring them no
> advantage? Is John Hopkins known as a partisan school?

Well, yeah, but as Hollis points out, the U.S. media isn't paying any
attention to the study. How can the study possibly be valid? Would you
pit the integrity of John Hopkins against the U.S. media?

Date: 16 Oct 2006 22:55:44
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

Date: 16 Oct 2006 22:03:43
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:74h8j2dgqrc9njt3bmvqhlrsc73vog872k@4ax.com...
> On 16 2006 10:38:01 -0700, "snakehawk" <snakehawk@MailAndNews.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Well, yeah, but as Hollis points out, the U.S. media isn't paying any
>>attention to the study. How can the study possibly be valid? Would you
>>pit the integrity of John Hopkins against the U.S. media?
>
> One of the reasons that the media don't spend too much time on studies
> like this is because most of them are too dumb to understand anything
> more than the headline. They also know that their audience isn't
> interested in a discussion of representative sampling techniques and
> the 95% confidence level.
>
> In any case, the 665K figure will live on in the minds of the anti-war
> people who, like the media, don't understand that the study is
> seriously flawed.

This is one time when I believe online betting serves a purpose. I have to
admit that I would dig a lot deeper before putting up real money, but I
would be doing just that, if there were a chance of actually cashing in on
the Bush supporters. International Red Cross bad, Amnesty International Bad,
Johns Hopkins bad, George Bush good.

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 16 Oct 2006 14:57:35
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea

On 16 2006 10:38:01 -0700, "snakehawk" <snakehawk@MailAndNews.com >
wrote:

>Well, yeah, but as Hollis points out, the U.S. media isn't paying any
>attention to the study. How can the study possibly be valid? Would you
>pit the integrity of John Hopkins against the U.S. media?

If you read the Iraqi Body Count response to the article, it becomes
clear that the study is bogus. And this is coming from an anti-war
group.

"Iraq Body Count Press Release 16 ober 2006

Reality checks: some responses to the latest Lancet estimates

Hamit Dardagan, John Sloboda, and Josh Dougherty

Summary

A new study has been released by the Lancet medical journal estimating
over 650,000 excess deaths in Iraq. The Iraqi mortality estimates
published in the Lancet in ober 2006 imply, among other things,
that:

1. On average, a thousand Iraqis have been violently killed every
single day in the first half of 2006, with less than a tenth of them
being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms;
2. Some 800,000 or more Iraqis suffered blast wounds and other
serious conflict-related injuries in the past two years, but less than
a tenth of them received any kind of hospital treatment;
3. Over 7% of the entire adult male population of Iraq has already
been killed in violence, with no less than 10% in the worst affected
areas covering most of central Iraq;
4. Half a million death certificates were received by families
which were never officially recorded as having been issued;
5. The Coalition has killed far more Iraqis in the last year than
in earlier years containing the initial massive "Shock and Awe"
invasion and the major assaults on Falluja.

If these assertions are true, they further imply:

* incompetence and/or fraud on a truly massive scale by Iraqi
officials in hospitals and ministries, on a local, regional and
national level, perfectly coordinated from the moment the occupation
began;
* bizarre and self-destructive behaviour on the part of all but a
small minority of 800,000 injured, mostly non-combatant, Iraqis;
* the utter failure of local or external agencies to notice and
respond to a decimation of the adult male population in key urban
areas;
* an abject failure of the media, Iraqi as well as international,
to observe that Coalition-caused events of the scale they reported
during the three-week invasion in 2003 have been occurring every month
for over a year.

In the light of such extreme and improbable implications, a rational
alternative conclusion to be considered is that the authors have drawn
conclusions from unrepresentative data. In addition, totals of the
magnitude generated by this study are unnecessary to brand the
invasion and occupation of Iraq a human and strategic tragedy."

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php