# Former VP Al Gore on Apple board of directors



## substrate (Mar 19, 2003)

Former Vice President Al Gore has been elected to Apple's board of directors. I had heard rumors that a new board member was going to be elected, but I'm suprised at who it turned out to be.

<http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030319/sfw088_1.html>


----------



## btoneill (Mar 19, 2003)

I was about to post this, but you beat me to it, ofcourse my subject would have been: "Internet creator joins Apple Board" 

Brian


----------



## ScottW (Mar 19, 2003)

Well, I think it's time to shut down the board and call it a day.


----------



## ScottW (Mar 19, 2003)

I suppose this means the iMac won't flex anymore in the neck like it does now?


----------



## ScottW (Mar 19, 2003)

At least we have the guy who invented the internet on our board....


----------



## ScottW (Mar 19, 2003)

I feel dirty.


----------



## ScottW (Mar 19, 2003)

<checking calander>

Damn, it's not April 1st.


----------



## Urbansory (Mar 19, 2003)

I can see the SNL cheap shots at Apple coming now.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ScottW _
> *I feel dirty.  *



Now you know how we feel having Bush as president.


----------



## kendall (Mar 19, 2003)

i thought Macs were supposed to have personality?!


----------



## ScottW (Mar 19, 2003)

Well, I'd rather see Gore on Apple's Board than as President... cause at least Steve is still running the show.


----------



## ScottW (Mar 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kendall _
> *i thought Macs were supposed to have personality?! *



hahaha


----------



## dave17lax (Mar 19, 2003)

Bearded AL Gore wearing a taught turtle neck and ipod ski jacket while riding a segway. I just puked myself.


----------



## wtmcgee (Mar 19, 2003)

LOL!!!!




> _Originally posted by ScottW _
> *I suppose these means that iMac won't flex anymore in the neck like it does now? *


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 19, 2003)

> l is also an avid Mac user and does his own video editing in Final Cut Pro," said Steve Jobs



An out and out lie. Al *used* to be a Mac user, but late in the 90's he ditched it for a PC. There was a question posed to him during the 2000 campaign about it, where he him and himmers about it, then finally confesses (and I'm paraphrasing cause I can't find the original article"... "Yeah, I had to finally switch to a PC due to there being no applications for the Mac anymore... But I really like the new xxxxx" (xxx - I can't remember which Mac he praised, either the iMac or the iBook). Typical poltical answer. Translation. "Yeah, I used to use a Mac, but I was pressured in to switching because my campaign manager said it's better to identify with the 95% who use PCs than the 5% who use Macs"...

I don't know how this really affects anything though. Everybody knows Steve Jobs runs the show at Apple. The Board there is usually just a bunch of yes men anyway...


----------



## ScottW (Mar 19, 2003)

The funny part about the story I read is Steve saying that Gore brings so much to the table, after all he has been part of running the government.

My thoughts are.. "Damn, and what a fine tuned machine the government is."



Now all we need is Bill Gates on the board. I am not sure who is worse?


----------



## ScottW (Mar 19, 2003)

Hmm... Bill Gates or Al Gore...

One makes lots of money, one spends lots of money...

Hmmm..... tough decision.


----------



## mightyjlr (Mar 19, 2003)

I can see Al Gore in 5 years claiming to have invented the iMac.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 19, 2003)

OK, a little more searching and I found the article...

http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0002/10.gore.shtml

I guess once Al didn't have the White House IT Pros to help him keep his PC running he finally went back to the Mac. I wonder how he's getting along without all that software he claims he needed that wasn't coming to Mac, back in 2000.


----------



## banjo_boy (Mar 19, 2003)

Please, Apple! Please do NOT let Al do a switcher commercial. Just think about what that would be like. America will be asleep in less than 30 seconds.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ScottW _
> *Hmm... Bill Gates or Al Gore...
> 
> One makes lots of money, one spends lots of money...
> ...



There you go mistaking Bush for Gore. Remember that Bush is the one who is for big government and spending money which isn't there. Must be all that good business sense that he and Cheney are applying to the government... 



How are those companies of theirs doing again?


----------



## ScottW (Mar 19, 2003)

How is the fact we are kicking ass in Iraq, or will be very soon?

Yep, last I checked... they took the highest bidder for a army. Something I wouldn't want to skimp on for my troops.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 19, 2003)

Good to see you displaying those wonderful Christian values Scott.

Peace, love and _kicking ass_. Jesus would be proud.


----------



## ScottW (Mar 19, 2003)

Damn, Right!


----------



## davez (Mar 19, 2003)

Bummer!!!  I'm a former pc user that switched.  My Mac is great.  Al Gore on the board of directors.  Almost makes me want to go back to pc's.  Let's see, Al Gore, Bill Gate, Al Gore, Bill Gates...I'm traped.  Sometimes life is not fair.


----------



## Decado (Mar 19, 2003)

i think al gore seems nice.
Will he not be running for president next election? if he wins i think he should ban microsoft windows.
That was all.


----------



## ScottW (Mar 19, 2003)

No, he did the country a favor, he isn't running.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 19, 2003)

Peace, love and kicking ass... I love it!

ScottW - may I have permission to use that as my tag tine?


----------



## ScottW (Mar 19, 2003)

Yea, be my guest. I might adopt it as well.


----------



## Decado (Mar 19, 2003)

What is a "tag tine"? in plain school english, please


----------



## macridah (Mar 19, 2003)

This guy is pretty smart and I bet he could get more business for us.


" As a member of the U.S. Congress 25 years ago, he popularized the term Information Superhighway, and was instrumental in fighting for federal funds to assist in building what later became the Internet. He has remained an active leader in technologylaunching a public/private effort to wire every classroom and library in America to the Internet.

Mr. Gore serves as a Senior Advisor to Google, Inc. He is also a visiting professor at the University of California Los Angeles, Fisk University and Middle Tennessee State University.

Mr. Gore received his B.A. in Government with honors from Harvard University in 1969, and attended the Vanderbilt University School of Religion and the Vanderbilt University School of Law. "


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 19, 2003)

This is a tag line...


----------



## Ugg (Mar 19, 2003)

Err, I have a monkey, she's a doll. is one

Who else is on Apple's board?  That is a great idea Decado, get up a petition for the next president to ban M$.  Unfortunately it won't be Al.  But at least we know that it will be a democrat, huh, Scott


----------



## zerorex (Mar 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *Everybody knows Steve Jobs runs the show at Apple. The Board there is usually just a bunch of yes men anyway... *



Then I would think eco-nut-boy Gore will fit right in.  Perhaps we can kidnap him and set a tall tree stump in his chair... no that wouldnt work, the stump would have more personnality, people would get suspisious.


----------



## Ugg (Mar 19, 2003)

Hey, he's a good guy, a little short on the personality thingie, but he did some good things in office.  At least he could add 2 to 2 and come up with an acceptable answer.  Something his predecessor never quite got the handle of.  We could talk about his successor but , well we all know the company he represents.


----------



## gwynarion (Mar 19, 2003)

Well for one I would hazard that Al Gore can offer his great intelligence.  He may be short on sense of humour and popularly understood charisma, but he is enormously thoughtful and has a keen intellect.  Sound like his bloody press secretary, don't I?  But seriously, Al Gore takes a fanatical interest in complicated matters that are important to whatever position he holds.  While Bill Clinton managed to attend most of his national security and foreign policy briefings he was never very interested in them, but Al Gore was and he ended up shaping a lot more of the administration's policy than a VP usually does.  For this reason he earned the respect of the intelligence and defense communities.  While not specifically related to the computer industry I think this all indicates that Al Gore can be a valuable addition to whatever corporate team he joins.


----------



## Matrix Agent (Mar 19, 2003)

I find it hard to believe that the whole "I invented the internet" comment necessarily translates into intelligence. At least we know he's trying to be innovative.

I just can't believe this.


----------



## marz (Mar 19, 2003)

Totally Excellent!  Maybe this will make some Republican's switch to Windows


----------



## wiz (Mar 19, 2003)

signature


----------



## substrate (Mar 19, 2003)

ScottW, whine much?


----------



## edX (Mar 19, 2003)

I personally think this is great. 2 of the men in today's world that i most admire are working side by side now. 

Having been born in Tennessee, i have probably been aware of Gore long before most of you here. i was aware of what a powerful and positive man his father was before him. I wasn't really all that fond of Clinton - he was just 'ok' as far i was concerned. But i voted for him twice for one reason - Al Gore was his VP. i haven't liked a politician so much in a long time. primarily because of his views on the environment and the challenges facing us in preserving it. in fact, i am really disappointed he isn't going to run for president again. i really don't think bush could beat him twice.

(on the other hand, the concept of his wife Tipper as first lady is pretty scary  )


----------



## lckylasvegas (Mar 19, 2003)

Time to sell my mac and go with OpenBSD.  

I'll wait and give the guy a chance though.  If he  continues to use his thinkpad, then I give up all hope for Apple.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by lckylasvegas _
> *If he  continues to use his thinkpad, then I give up all hope for Apple. *



He uses a ThinkPad? I have a ThinkPad  . Steve used a ThinkPad for a few years after returning to Apple (it was replace with a Wallstreet as I recall... I have a Wallstreet  ).

Gore also used a PowerBook Duo while in Office with a nice Dock and 17" monitor in his office. I have a PowerBook Duo  .


----------



## kendall (Mar 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> *There you go mistaking Bush for Gore. Remember that Bush is the one who is for big government and spending money which isn't there. Must be all that good business sense that he and Cheney are applying to the government...
> 
> 
> ...



Cheney is damn near a billionaire so if he can transform his great business sense into saving/making money for the US government, im all for it.

the US government is not an NPO.  you've got to spend it to make it.  also, war stimulates the economy.  if we can go over to iraq and kick some serious ass, it'll likely be the shot in the arm the US economy needs.

like it or not, BUSH is getting reelected.


----------



## Jason (Mar 20, 2003)

.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kendall _
> *Cheney is damn near a billionaire so if he can transform his great business sense into saving/making money for the US government, im all for it.*



Wouldn't it be great if he started already. 



> *the US government is not an NPO.  you've got to spend it to make it.  also, war stimulates the economy.  if we can go over to iraq and kick some serious ass, it'll likely be the shot in the arm the US economy needs.*



Now this _shot in the arm_, would this be like the first Gulf War (which didn't help us) or the war against Afghanistan_ (which also didn't help us)?



> *like it or not, BUSH is getting reelected.  *



Maybe this time he'll actuall get the votes needed, but time should tell. His father was America's most popular president at this point in his term (about 72% approval as I recall), maybe Bush's second term is going to look very much like his father's.


----------



## bolindilly (Mar 20, 2003)

how did this post become an argument over the war on iraq and not a discussion of apple's change in the board?


----------



## marz (Mar 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kendall _
> *like it or not, BUSH is getting reelected.  *



Bwaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha  .... That's the funniest thing I've heard all week!


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 20, 2003)

> Maybe this time he'll actuall get the votes needed



Actually, he did... The 500 something votes he got more than Gore in Florida gave him all of Florida's electoral votes. Now I know you're an intelligent guy RacerX , but do you need a lesson in how our elections work and precisely what the electoral college is for?

And, getting back to the first Gulf War - it was a shot in the arm for the US Economy. Look at the statistics - we started moving out of recession a few months after the war was over. We were in an upswing by 92 that continued on for about 3 years. Of course, the media continued to play up the recession, thanks in part to the politcal genius of Bill Clinton and Carville's "it's the economy stupid" attack. Give them credit - it worked.

I'm a Bush fan, but I'd be living in a fake reality if I thought his chances for reelection were 100%. Right now, his chances for reelection are no better than they were for his father in 1991. If the war goes well, they will be better. If the war goes well and he gets his tax package through (which will stimulate the economy), his chances will be even better. But a sure thing it is not.

Getting back to what Gore can offer as a board member at Apple. Well, look at the other board members, and what they've brought to the table...

Larry Ellison... Hmm. I can't think of anything positive he brought to the company. Maybe a golf partner for Steve. Who knows.

Bill Campbell from Intuit... I'm sure QuickBooks return on the Mac is partly due to Campbell being on Apple's board. That's not to say the sales figures aren't there to support the appliction, but I doubt it would've happened without some arm twising by Steve...

That guy from the Gap... He had a big influence on the Apple Store implementation. Ever noticed how much the Apple Store looks and feels like a Gap?

Levinson got Genetech to buy over 1000 flat screen iMacs to run BLAST. That's not too bad...

Drexler, who's day job is JCrew...  Again, his experience in retail was probably value to the Apple Retail Store initiative.

And finally, Jerry York, from Microwarehouse... Well, his company is probably the biggest mail order Mac dealer. 

So what will Gore contribute? My guess - environmental initiatives. Don't be surprised to see new power saving features become a priority, along with boxes made from recycled carboard, etc. Maybe Tipper can get the iTunes team to filter out music that parents feel isn't appropriate for their kids.

Seriously though. As "smart" as Gore might be... He has ZERO experience in the private sector. He's never held a job in business, and his poltical connections (most of which are irrelevent now) will not be a factor. Other than name recognition, I don't see what he can offer the company, outside a few extra sales from liberal fans who love the guy (offset of course by the right wing Mac users who hate the guy).


----------



## kalantna (Mar 20, 2003)

"I (apple logo) Al Gore" tee shirts and hats. $20.. a piece. Any buyers?


----------



## banjo_boy (Mar 20, 2003)

What will Al Gore bring to the Board of Directors for Apple? Like someone has already said, this is his first venture in the public sector. What experience can he give to that committee? What in his limited background will he contribute? I can not stand the man in his current political stance, but I am ready and willing to see what he can do in the private sector.


----------



## substrate (Mar 20, 2003)

At least at the company where I work a persons skills aren't the only thing that is looked at when searching for members of the board. At least some of the people on our board were chosen because they could help us sell into certain markets. They're highly skilled people in some manner, but not in a manner that would allow them to influence the design of our products.

That might be why Al Gore was chosen, though I don't understand where he could help penetrate new markets.


----------



## edX (Mar 20, 2003)

perhaps al is going to help with negotiating overseas apple stores. at least one presidential candidate had a sense of diplomacy.


----------



## banjo_boy (Mar 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by edX _
> *at least one presidential candidate had a sense of diplomacy.  *



You must be from S. Dakota! Where gambling is the main governmental income!


----------



## mindbend (Mar 20, 2003)

I'm just trying to figure out what each party has to gain. I really don't know. Other than name recognition, I don't see what Apple has to gain.

As for Al, what he can he possibly gain from being on that board?

Kind of interesting.


----------



## banjo_boy (Mar 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by mindbend _
> *As for Al, what he can he possibly gain from being on that board? *



There is nothing. Apple already has the name recognition. They must think Al can really contribute something. I am willing to see it come true.


----------



## Ugg (Mar 20, 2003)

I agree with edX.  Apple has some serious problems with its international user base and Al has great name recognition outside the US.


----------



## banjo_boy (Mar 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ugg _
> *I agree with edX.  Apple has some serious problems with its international user base and Al has great name recognition outside the US. *



Ditto here.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 20, 2003)

> Apple has some serious problems with its international user base and Al has great name recognition outside the US



Oh yeah. We can expect the Buddhist Monks to buy Macs in droves now...

Sorry, I couldn't resist....


----------



## Ugg (Mar 20, 2003)

They already have

http://www.apple.com/hotnews/articles/2001/06/dalailama/


----------



## C-Fu (Mar 20, 2003)

> Al has great name recognition outside the US.



Hahaha, not in Malaysia thou. We don't actually like him. In fact, we hate him!


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 20, 2003)

http://www.apple.com/hotnews/

This is what worried me. Apple, even if this was meant as humor, is going to piss off people who don't agree with Gore's (or Steve's) ideology with statements (or postings) like this...


----------



## edX (Mar 20, 2003)

LOL


----------



## RacerX (Mar 20, 2003)

> _ by serpicolugnut :_
> Actually, he did... The 500 something votes he got more than Gore in Florida gave him all of Florida's electoral votes. Now I know you're an intelligent guy RacerX , but do you need a lesson in how our elections work and precisely what the electoral college is for?



Actually I could give you a very complete lesson on the US Electoral College, why it is there and how it works. 

On that day more than 25,000 more citizens of Florida went to the polls to vote for Gore. The fact that those people's votes where not counted is one of the reasons why we had to have international election monitors present for the 2002 election in Florida.

Would you like to test just how deeply I've studied this issue?



> And, getting back to the first Gulf War - it was a shot in the arm for the US Economy. Look at the statistics - we started moving out of recession a few months after the war was over. We were in an upswing by 92 that continued on for about 3 years. Of course, the media continued to play up the recession, thanks in part to the politcal genius of Bill Clinton and Carville's "it's the economy stupid" attack. Give them credit - it worked.



Look more carefully, the up swing from wars is from _war time production_, not from watching CNN. People getting jobs to support the war effort is where you get an economic boost from. We are getting no new jobs from this war. 

The Gulf War had no effect on the economy (other than bad), but if you want to credit Bush for anything (as I do) it is for reversing Reagan's policy of _VooDoo economics_ by making the hard choice to raise taxes.



> I'm a Bush fan, but I'd be living in a fake reality if I thought his chances for reelection were 100%. Right now, his chances for reelection are no better than they were for his father in 1991. If the war goes well, they will be better. If the war goes well and he gets his tax package through (which will stimulate the economy), his chances will be even better. But a sure thing it is not.



Yes, tax breaks for the rich... oh, I'm sorry, I mean middle class. Of course the Republican version of what is middle class starts with families making $250,000 a year.

And why didn't the first tax cut make any difference? Oh, wait, could it be that people out of work don't need a tax cut. Bush has taken a historic surplus that should have lasted 8 to 10 years and turned it into deficits the like this country has never seen before. He did this in less than three years!

The damage that Bush has done to this country and our world is staggering.



> So what will Gore contribute? My guess - environmental initiatives.



Maybe you need to learn the truth behind the jokes that people post here. You know the one, people saying that Gore said that he "invented the Internet". What was it that he really said?



> *by Al Gore:*
> During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.



Which he did. Before Gore there was a network created and used by the DOD, NSF and NCSA that was also being used by some Universities. This was a communication and research tool for people in these fields, but with no access for the general public. Gore was the person who first put the vision forward that this would be of great benefit to the general public. He lead all the major pushes for funding and creation of what we all take for granted today. 

While making those pushes in Congress he was also writing a semi-regular column with Byte magazine. He talked about what he thought the internet could be used for beyond it's most sterile technical uses at the time. This person whose vision that became the Internet that we know today (maybe not exactly as he had thought it would be, but his core ideas and funding laid it's foundation) has more than enough qualifications for sitting on Apple's (and many other computer and software company's) board.


----------



## Decado (Mar 20, 2003)

Thought the article was funny... or rather, it was funny cuz apple had noticed it and showed it to us.
It's good to see they have some distance.


----------



## fryke (Mar 20, 2003)

Yep. Love that article. I also love Apple for presenting Al Gore as member of the board of directors a few hours after Bush started the war. Quite a nice statement, actually.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 20, 2003)

RacerX, you are so wrong about so many things I don't know where to start. But since this is a forum on OS X, I leave the debate to a private one if you care to continue...


----------



## ksv (Mar 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *RacerX, you are so wrong about so many things I don't know where to start. But since this is a forum on OS X, I leave the debate to a private one if you care to continue... *



...says the person who talks about _US economy_ while thousands of iraqi civilians are going to be killed by the war...  

(trolltrolltroll )


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 20, 2003)

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been murdered over the last 24 years by their leader. 

I love how you libs justify getting involved in Somalia, Kosovo, etc, and completely bypass Saddams murderous ways...

Funny, when Clinton lobbed 450 tomahawk missles in 1998 at Iraq, none of you batted an eyelash. And what did that achieve? Nothing.

We're going to liberate a country from a murderous tyrant. You really want to get on the side against such an action? Be my guest.


----------



## ksv (Mar 20, 2003)

Read the parts of your post I left out once more and try to find the facts 



> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *
> We're going to liberate a country from a murderous tyrant. You really want to get on the side against such an action? Be my guest. *



Ookay. So how did it just become so extremely important to free the people of Iraq from Saddam?
Saddam gassed 60000 kurds in the Gulf war. Bush killed how many when he bombed Afghanistan?
Yes, Saddam is a murderous tyrant. What is Bush? Clinton?

Do you have any idea how much 900 billion US$ is? 14 Norwegian State year budgets. USA could _buy_ the whole of Iraq. Saddams own army could be bought to capture him, send him to Haag and leave the country with a big smile.

Where's the logic? Oil? Economy?
Disgusting.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 20, 2003)

The best estimates of innocent Afghani's killed in Operation Anaconda are between 1000/3000. While any loss of life is regrettable, that country did harbor the terrorists responsible for many more deaths than that (add up WTC 93, both Embassies bombed, USS Cole WTC 2001, etc).


The US has become quite adept at waging a surgical war. War sucks, that's a given. But it is necessary from time to time.

Why would I care how much 900billion is in Norwegian terms? How is that relevant to anything? If it were possible to pay an Iraqi to kill/capture Saddam, don't you think the US would have tried it? We've got a $25 million dollar price on bin Ladens head, and look what that's achieved. Dozens of countries urged him to go in to exile, and even promised he would be protected from prosecution. No dice.

If you are even trying to equate two presidents of the US with Saddam then I guess there's little point getting through to you.

The logic is this. There's a hole in the ground in lower Manhattan where the lives of almost 3000 people ended on Sept. 11. We no longer live in a world where we can assume terrorists can't strike us here at home. While there may not be a direct link to Saddam and Al Qaeda, there is a strong link to Saddam and other terrorists. Knowing what we know about him, it's only a matter of time before he is involved in, either directly/or indirectly, a terrorist attack on the US. Couple this with his violations of the 1991 cease fire terms, his continued violation of over 15 UN Resolutions, and his violation of UN Resolution 1441, and you have a much stronger case for this war than just about any other war fought in the last 20 years.

You know, I think it basically comes down to there being two kinds of people these days.

Type A people were changed by Sept. 11 forever. They refuse to sit back and wait for another attack, instead identifying the largest threats and putting in plans of action to remove those threats.

Type B people believe the world is the same place now as it was before Sept. 11. They believe we shouldn't do anything to provoke another attack (like we did anything to provoke the first one). They believe we can't act on a threat until we are hit again. The smoking gun they are waiting for, unfortunately, will come in the form of a smoldering city.

But I love your logic there-

"Yes, Saddam is a murderous tyrant. But he only kills his own people. It's none of our business".

I imagine that's about the same argument Neville Chamberlin gave in the late 30's regarding Germany...

Back to Gore though (which is what this post was about right?)... Can anybody here give me 3 useful qualities he can bring to the board?


----------



## Ugg (Mar 20, 2003)

1.   Gore was very instrumental in encouraging the development of the internet in the US. 

2.  He has widespread name recognition outside the US and in order to maintain its longterm viability Apple needs to expand its foreign sales.

3.  He is a very good diplomat, something that every American company that sells their goods abroad will need in the aftermath of war in Iraq.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 20, 2003)

> _by serpicolugnut :_
> RacerX, you are so wrong about so many things I don't know where to start. But since this is a forum on OS X, I leave the debate to a private one if you care to continue...



I'm sorry, but I can not except private debates. These are things that should be talked about in the light of day and not behind closed doors. We, both you and I, owe it to everyone here to make the truth known. Hiding that truth means that we don't feel that others are up to the task of knowing the truth. I feel they are up to the task.

For the sake of everyone who thinks I'm right, you owe it to them to set the record straight. You are doing them an incredible disservice by leaving them believing what I have posted.

The truth is for everyone.


----------



## ScottW (Mar 20, 2003)

> For the sake of everyone who thinks I'm right, you owe it to them to set the record straight. You are doing them an incredible disservice by leaving them believing what I have posted.



Interesting philosophy my dear friend, RacerX.

I have always taken the philosophy that sometimes it's just best to leave the clueless, clueless.

Scott


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 20, 2003)

> Yes, tax breaks for the rich... oh, I'm sorry, I mean middle class. Of course the Republican version of what is middle class starts with families making $250,000 a year.



Funny, after running my figures through the proposed Bush Tax Cut calculator (visit intuit's website to run it), my family income of approx $80K/year, hardly rich evil republican levels, would see around $5K in tax reduction. But hey, I must be rich and evil, so I guess my wife, child and I don't really deserve to keep the money that I worked my ass off for. Thank god for democrats here to decide who is deserving of tax cuts and who isn't.



> And why didn't the first tax cut make any difference? Oh, wait, could it be that people out of work don't need a tax cut. Bush has taken a historic surplus that should have lasted 8 to 10 years and turned it into deficits the like this country has never seen before. He did this in less than three years!



The first tax cut didn't make a difference because of Sept. 11! Have you forgotten about that?!?!?! That effectively threw cold water on the short term stimulus derrived from the tax cut. And due to concessions made to appease the democrats, most of the tax cut was backloaded, and to be phased in over the next 10 years. What the current proposed tax cut would do is speed up those costs and make them permanent. As a small business owner, I could really use the relief now, not 8 years from now.



> On that day more than 25,000 more citizens of Florida went to the polls to vote for Gore. The fact that those people's votes where not counted is one of the reasons why we had to have international election monitors present for the 2002 election in Florida.



More complete and utter BS. Next thing you'll say is that Black Helicopters (funded by republicans, of course) armed with cigarette smoking aliens kept people of color away from the poles in Nov. 2002. Several independent left leaning newspapers had the opportunity to reaxamine the Florida results, and all came to the same conclusion, Bush still won the vote with a couple of hundred votes. The only way Gore could win was to change the standing rules for counting votes, and change the rules only in Counties where there was a democratic majority. And that is still just hypothetical. The votes were counted, counted again, and counted yet again, and Bush won each time. Get over it man, it's been 2 years!



> The damage that Bush has done to this country and our world is staggering.



Yeah, right. This is a perfect example of the left leaning mind. Terrorists kill 3000 people, Dictators give the UN the finger, and you want to charge Bush with doing staggering damage to this country and our world? Can you even hear yourself utter such ridiculous statements?

Let's review a couple of facts:
1) The WTC was attacked in 1993. This should have been our wake up call, but the Clinton administration didn't quite get the message. Apparenlty lobbing a couple of missles at an Aspirin factory in the Sudan was a sufficient response.

2) Two of our embassies were attacked simultaneously. Again, Clinton's response is a joke. We don't want to offend anybody!

3) the USS Cole is attacked, and Clinton doesn't do a single thing about it. 

Had Clinton acted at some point to the Al Qaeda threat after 3 attacks, maybe they would have thought twice before attempting to attack the WTC in 2001. Never mind the fact that the Sudanese were willing to turn over bin Laden in 1996, and Clinton turned them down.

I'm sorry, from where I'm standing, Bush is finally righting the wrongs of the Clinton/Albright foreign policy, which (with the exception of Kosovo) was to let terrorists and small insignifcant countries (Somalia) slap us around, and hope we don't anger them any further. 

Oh, and Clinton did some good work with North Korea, too. "So, you want us to give you humanitarian relief? OK, but you have to promise not to develop any nuclear weapons, OK?". Yeah, that was a smart move. 

Please, Clinton/Gore passed the foreign policy buck for 8 years, and Bush has to now clean up their mess (and the mess of Bush 41 not finishing GulfWar1, thanks to the UN).

You know what - the rest of the world may resent us, but they damn well will respect us, something they didn't do during 1992-2000.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 21, 2003)

I love these _facts_. Lets take a closer look at these.



> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut: _
> 1) The WTC was attacked in 1993. This should have been our wake up call, but the Clinton administration didn't quite get the message. Apparenlty lobbing a couple of missles at an Aspirin factory in the Sudan was a sufficient response.
> 
> 2) Two of our embassies were attacked simultaneously. Again, Clinton's response is a joke. We don't want to offend anybody!
> ...



With regards to _fact 1_, during the first WTC case and trial al Qaeda was not named, and bin Laden's links were not strong enough to bring him into the trial as a name conspirator. Also we did not fire missiles because of that incident, but because of the incident sited in _fact 2_.

As pointed out, our response to the embassy bombings was a missile attack. Clinton was not getting support for further action from the House and Senate (though I can't for the life of me figure out why... do you want to take a guess at that one?). As for  offending anyone outside the US, Clinton didn't have the problems with getting support that Bush seems to be plagued with.

Now to my favorite _fact_ of your list, the attack on the Cole. When did the attack occur? October of 2000. When did we first suspect that al Qaeda was involved? Mid December 2000. When did we have evidence of al Qaeda's involvement? The end of January 2001. When did Bush take office? January 22, 2001.

*Who didn't do a single thing about al Qaeda's attack on the USS Cole with full knowledge of who was responsible?* At least Clinton tried to respond to the embassies with _some_ show of force. Bush did... what?


> This is a perfect example of the left leaning mind. Terrorists kill 3000 people, Dictators give the UN the finger, and you want to charge Bush with doing staggering damage to this country and our world? Can you even hear yourself utter such ridiculous statements?



Leaning left or right, facts are facts. Dates don't lie. The Clinton administration had al Qaeda very high on it's priority list, and the Bush administration (even in light of the bombing of the USS Cole) put it very low. Bush sleep walked through his first 8 months in office leading up to September 11, 2001. Maybe those 3000 people didn't need to die, Gore would not have treated policies by the Clinton administration as low priority just because they were "Clinton" policies.

Let me repeat that, 3000 people didn't need to die. That alone, without any other action/non-action by Bush is staggering enough.



> Oh, and Clinton did some good work with North Korea, too. "So, you want us to give you humanitarian relief? OK, but you have to promise not to develop any nuclear weapons, OK?". Yeah, that was a smart move.



And the fact that many Bush administration officials were part of the arming of Iraq in past administrations *was* a _smart move_? The fact that Clinton was doing what South Korea wanted in the way of a diplomatic solution should not be held against him. Personally, the idea of relaxing our stance in South Korea sounds like a better idea at this point. Let them remember why we are there and let them ask for our help. They are currently taking us for granted anyway. Japan and China are as much at risk as South Korea, we should step back and wait for South Korea to feel a need for our help.



> You know what - the rest of the world may resent us, but they damn well will respect us, something they didn't do during 1992-2000.



Hardly. Respect is earned, and we haven't earned any respect. We have generated fear and distrust. To the rest of the world 5% of the population is telling the other 95% how to do their business. That is as far from democracy as I think you can get.



> Funny, after running my figures through the proposed Bush Tax Cut calculator (visit intuit's website to run it), my family income of approx $80K/year, hardly rich evil republican levels, would see around $5K in tax reduction. But hey, I must be rich and evil, so I guess my wife, child and I don't really deserve to keep the money that I worked my ass off for. Thank god for democrats here to decide who is deserving of tax cuts and who isn't.



Wow, that is more than most the families I know make in a year (special the ones who lost jobs after Bush took office).

Before we jump into this, lets take a look at the term _evil_. I didn't apply that, you did. Why? We should stick to facts, figures, dates, places, people and events. It makes both of us look bad when you can't stick to the strengths of your arguments. We don't need that.

So you get to save $5K on $80K earned, Cheney is going to save $300+K if the next tax cut goes through. I would not call either of you hurting. I do find it funny that you don't support the United States though. I have no problem paying my taxes, and I make less than you. On the other hand I feel lucky, because there are people doing much worse than myself out there and the social services that were there to help people in times of need (like a recession) are now missing because of a massive tax cut and ever increasing deficits. 

Do you care about this country? Do you care about your fellow citizens? Is that $.06 per dollar earned to high a price for the health of the United States? Are your self interests that much more important then our collective interests?

Do tax cuts help the poor/working poor? No, they don't see any real changes either way. Do people who are doing fine (better than average... $17-25K per year) need the additional help when the country is having problems? No. Would the services that are being closed off by the ever increasing deficits created by the tax cuts help those in need? Yes.

Self interest are the heart of Republican ideals. The problem is that they are usually the interests of the people who have the money to fund Republicans. The greater national good means very little to many Republicans (I would again, remove George H. W. Bush from that group as he was a true public servant).



> As a small business owner, I could really use the relief now, not 8 years from now.



As a small business owner I would love to see people both back at work and feeling comfortable that they are going to still have a job a month from now. People spend when they feel that they are in a good position. When jobs are being cut and government services are disappearing at the same time to help those people if they do need them, people don't spend money. This war is uncertainty, which means people don't spend money.

As I said before, if this was a war that required the government to rev up production to support it, we would have a boost. This war is more like a video game, even a football game. There is nothing for us to do but watch. And when it is over, nothing is going to have changed.

The Government needs to return to pre-Bush taxation and start investing in internal job creating projects. We can't do that with histories largest known deficits. Bush, like his father before him, needs to make the choice. His father was a public servant, so the choice was easy, but Bush only serves his self interests.


----------



## solrac (Mar 21, 2003)

OH MY GOD OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG Al Gore... LOLOLOL

This got to be more of a publicity stunt than anything.

This is the funniest quote:
(On why, among other things,  Al Gore is a good candidate to be on Apple's Board)


> Al is also an avid Mac user and does his own video editing in Final Cut Pro, said Steve Jobs, Apples CEO



HAHAHAHHAAH
They didn't mention that he also is the inventor of the Internet!!!
HAHAHAHAH

Wooh, they should make him the board clown!!! GRRRAAHHH AHAHHAHA LOL


----------



## solrac (Mar 21, 2003)

At least it wasn't Dan Quayle!!! HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA


----------



## symphonix (Mar 21, 2003)

Check out http://www.crazyapplerumors.com/

They are reporting that George W Bush is demanding a recount. It is a funny story, worth a read.


----------



## solrac (Mar 21, 2003)

i thought of those guys as soon as i heard the news.. I knew they'd have some joke about it. They are like theonion.com


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 21, 2003)

> With regards to fact 1, during the first WTC case and trial al Qaeda was not named, and bin Laden's links were not strong enough to bring him into the trial as a name conspirator.



Yes, Al Qaeda wasn't name in the trial, but the CIA had fingered them as the culprits almost immediately. It's funny though - Terrorists attack us and attempt to bring down the twin towers the first time, and all the Clinton admin. does is handle it through the courts. 



> Now to my favorite fact of your list, the attack on the Cole. When did the attack occur? October of 2000. When did we first suspect that al Qaeda was involved? Mid December 2000. When did we have evidence of al Qaeda's involvement? The end of January 2001. When did Bush take office? January 22, 2001.



Actually, no. We knew within DAYS that Al Qaeda was responsible for the Cole. There was no doubt. But nice try on dumping it on Bush.



> The Clinton administration had al Qaeda very high on it's priority list, and the Bush administration (even in light of the bombing of the USS Cole) put it very low



Really. So the Clinton admin had Al Qaeda "high on their priority list", yet their only action towards neutralizing that threat was to throw a few cruise missles at an Aspirin factory. What an effective leader! And Clinton didn't need any support in the House or Senate. He had the power at any time to launch whatever force he deemed appropriate to take care of Al Qaeda. The problem is Clinton couldn't even buy a dog without a focus group or a poll taken, so doing something politcally risky, while clearly the right thing to do, was never an option.



> Bush sleep walked through his first 8 months in office leading up to September 11, 2001. Maybe those 3000 people didn't need to die, Gore would not have treated policies by the Clinton administration as low priority just because they were "Clinton" policies.



I love it! So your assertion is that if Gore were elected, he would have immediately addressed the Al Qaeda threat and prevented 9-11? That's the funniest thing I've heard all year. Even close friends of Gore were _relieved_ after 9-11 that Gore didn't get elected, because they knew he was not the right man to deal with the crisis at hand. But that's a good one - I'll have to remember that for my next party.



> Who didn't do a single thing about al Qaeda's attack on the USS Cole with full knowledge of who was responsible? At least Clinton tried to respond to the embassies with some show of force. Bush did... what?



Hmmm. Let's see. Number of Al Qaeda operatives captured/killed during Clinton admin = 1 (93 WTC conspirator). Again, remember that the Sudan offered bin Laden on a SILVER PLATTER in 1996, and he refused. Nice call. State of Al Qaeda under Bush administration = Over a dozen high level ops. killed/captured. #2/3 leader captured. Al Qaeda is decimated, and now spends more time looking over their shoulder in fear of reprisals than able to plan attacks. But sure, <sarcasm>Clinton did a great job dealing with them </sarcasm>



> And the fact that many Bush administration officials were part of the arming of Iraq in past administrations was a smart move?



Actually, yes. You see, it was the Reagan admin. that were part of arming the Iraqis during the Iranian war. At that time, Iran was a much larger threat. That admin obviously didn't know what a threat Hussein would become on his own. But it's not like Reagan gave Hussein guided missle tech or Nuclear capability, which is what Clinton gave to the North Koreans (Nuclear) and China (guided missle tech).



> So you get to save $5K on $80K earned, Cheney is going to save $300+K if the next tax cut goes through. I would not call either of you hurting.



OK, I hate to resort to name calling, but _*personal attack deleted*_ You really think a family of 3 can live comfortably on $80K/year - which after taxes really works out to around $50k/year? Not here in Atlanta pal. But regardless, it's not the Governments job to decide who gets to keep their money and who has to fork it over to the Govt. Cheney, or any other multimillinaire has the right to keep as much of his money just as much as I do, or you do, regardless of how much he has. Who are you (or the gov't) to decide who deserves to keep how much of their money? I work hard for it. I'm sure people who make millions work hard for theirs too. Nice way to encourage success - work your ass off all your life so the Gov't can take more of your money! What a motivational slogan!



> Are your self interests that much more important then our collective interests?



Actually, yes they are. You see, America was founded upon capitalistic principles, not, as you put it *collective*-ist principles. Now the shroud has fallen and your true, heart felt interests are shown. Sounds a lot to me like you're either a communist, collectivist or socialist. If you are not, I apologize for the allegation, but your above statement frames your argument in that manner.



> The Government needs to return to pre-Bush taxation and start investing in internal job creating projects.



The best "job creating project" any government can take part in is to give the small business owner more of their own money, and reduce their tax burden. But that's where we differ - I believe this country works because of the people, you seem to think it works because of the government.



> Hardly. Respect is earned, and we haven't earned any respect. We have generated fear and distrust. To the rest of the world 5% of the population is telling the other 95% how to do their business. That is as far from democracy as I think you can get.



Bullsh!t. I think you've got a different view on respect than I do. You probably view respect as "Do these countries beileve we are right? Do they understand why we do what we do?". I view respect from these countries as their understanding that when push comes to shove, we get the job done. If France were attacked, do you think they are going to head to the UN to get permission to fight back? Do you think they are going to enlist help from Belgium? Hell no. They are going to ask for military assistance from the US because they respect US.

Like it or not, we are the world's lone superpower. Certain smaller, insignificant countries (you know who I mean) feel a great resentment towards us because of that. So what? As I've said, when crunch time comes, these countries know who is fair, just, and strong enough to help them out. The left cries that this war is for oil. Yet, we aren't the country with $60 USbillion in oil contacts with the Iraqis. They claim that we are imperilaists. Yet, in every conflict that we have taken part in, we do our job, setup a democracy, and leave. Hardly sounds imperialistic to me. 

Next?


----------



## ksv (Mar 21, 2003)

Yes, there is a whole lot of cold and unemphatic people out there.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 21, 2003)

> Yes, there is a whole lot of cold and unemphatic people out there.



Well, if it makes you feel better, I'll espouse some PC mantras...

End Racism Now! No Blood for Oil! Stop Global Warming!

Don't worry KSV, _I feel your pain..._


----------



## Randman (Mar 21, 2003)

Does anyone know if the rumors are true that VP Dick Cheney (who didn't invent the Internet, but has reportedly used it) was also elected to the Apple board, but it's just that most people in the company don't expect him to make many public appearances on Apple's behalf.


----------



## ksv (Mar 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *End Racism Now! No Blood for Oil! Stop Global Warming!
> 
> Don't worry KSV, I feel your pain... *



Nice to hear I was wrong. I'm sorry 
But I don't believe you feel my pain - I don't have any. Feel with the innocent people of Iraq and brainwashed American soliders


----------



## banjo_boy (Mar 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ksv _
> *Feel with the innocent people of Iraq... *



Yeah. Me too. All the innocent men women AND children who have been tortured just because Saddam can. Those who were place on metal bed frames that were hooked up to electric wall outlets. Those women who have been hung upside down throughout their full menstration cycle or hung by their hair. The innocent who have been thrown into industrial brush mulchers. Most of this is done in front of their family. The same thing Hitler did to his people didn't follow him or even slightly disagreed. The same thing Stalin did to his own people. All of this to keep their ideology alive. Saddam has taken to an all time low by involving children unlike any other sadist. Hitler tortured and killed children but only Jewish ones. Anyone who would do this should be wipe from this earth.  

So let's all oppose getting rid of someone who would do something like this. Let's all support killing people for killing sake.

Bush is condemned for attacking with a purpose and Clinton got applauded for bombing the Serbs   for no reason and bombing an asprin factory in Iraq for no reason but "maybe it's a bomb factory". What! There was a reason for the latter. Move the news of his impeachment to something else.

Serpicolugnut, I guess we would be considered "Mean People". And if the bumpersticker "Mean People Suck" means us, hand me a straw. I would rather fight evil people than let them continue on with their insanity.


----------



## banjo_boy (Mar 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ksv _
> *...and brainwashed American soliders  *



American Soldiers brainwashed? I guess defending our country and other countries is brainwashing. Having terrorists blowing up the towers means we should do nothing.

The military is not the ones I am worried about being brainwashed...


----------



## RacerX (Mar 21, 2003)

> _by serpicolugnut :_
> OK, I hate to resort to name calling, but _*personal attack removed*_



If you hate to resort to name calling, and it is against the board's policy, why do it? All it does is show that you don't have what it takes to actually debate the facts. I feel no need to resort to such tactics because I have the facts on my side.

It is sad that you have fallen in this way. You seemed like you thought you had something important to say. I guess you really didn't.

At any rate, maybe you can reply to this without name calling.



> Yes, Al Qaeda wasn't name in the trial, but the CIA had fingered them as the culprits almost immediately. It's funny though - Terrorists attack us and attempt to bring down the twin towers the first time, and all the Clinton admin. does is handle it through the courts.



Not true. If this were the case it would have been part of the states case against the people charged. I have the court documents to back up my statement, what do you have?



> Actually, no. We knew within DAYS that Al Qaeda was responsible for the Cole. There was no doubt. But nice try on dumping it on Bush.



This is incorrect again. Actual dates:
 October 12, 2000: USS Cole attacked
 December 8, 2000: first links to al Qaeda in Cole bombing
 January 22, 2001: Bush becomes the 43rd president of the US
 January 27, 2001: al Qaeda links to Cole bombing confirmed
 September 11, 2001: World Trade Center and Pentagon attacked with over 3000 people lost
Please show us where Bush did anything... *at all*, about al Qaeda after taking office and before September 11, 2001. Even if we assume that Clinton _could have_ done something, that doesn't mean Bush should have done *nothing*.



> I love it! So your assertion is that if Gore were elected, he would have immediately addressed the Al Qaeda threat and prevented 9-11? That's the funniest thing I've heard all year. Even close friends of Gore were relieved after 9-11 that Gore didn't get elected, because they knew he was not the right man to deal with the crisis at hand. But that's a good one - I'll have to remember that for my next party.



Make sure you print this out completely for that party, we wouldn't want you missing any of the facts.

Also, please name the _close friends of Gore_ of which you speak. You must have a list of them, right? That is not just something you made up or are repeating without checking your facts, right? We would hate for you to have the facts wrong.



> Hmmm. Let's see. Number of Al Qaeda operatives captured/killed during Clinton admin = 1 (93 WTC conspirator). Again, remember that the Sudan offered bin Laden on a SILVER PLATTER in 1996, and he refused. Nice call. State of Al Qaeda under Bush administration = Over a dozen high level ops. killed/captured. #2/3 leader captured. Al Qaeda is decimated, and now spends more time looking over their shoulder in fear of reprisals than able to plan attacks. But sure, Clinton did a great job dealing with them



Five people were convicted in the the WTC bombing of 93, three more were convicted in later terrorist attempts, an additional two people involved in the embassy bombing were caught, in 98 three more are caught, and the 2000 attempt on LAX was stopped when yet another was taken into custody coming across the Canadian boarder.

Bush had only one al Qaeda terrorist caught between the time he took office and September 11, 2001. The person was one of the people who was supposed to be part of the attacks, but this was not found out until afterwards because evidence was not allowed to be collected while he was in custody.



> Actually, yes. You see, it was the Reagan admin. that were part of arming the Iraqis during the Iranian war. At that time, Iran was a much larger threat. That admin obviously didn't know what a threat Hussein would become on his own. But it's not like Reagan gave Hussein guided missle tech or Nuclear capability, which is what Clinton gave to the North Koreans (Nuclear) and China (guided missle tech).



So wait a second here. You are saying that it was a good thing to help Iraq even though it later turned out very badly. Further you are saying that it was not a good thing to help out North Korea (at South Korea's request) even though that has *not* turned out nearly as bad. So if a Republican administration does something it is always right, while when a Democratic administration does something it is always wrong.

Also Clinton didn't give North Korea any nuclear technology. But I'm sure you have facts that must show this, right? You must because making a statement like that without them would be completely irresponsible. And missing the fact that North Korea had nuclear weapons before the Clinton administration would be just down right embarrassing.

Interesting, and you called me left leaning? You have no perspective at all. At least I take all sides into account. You dismiss anything that doesn't meet with your propaganda.



> You really think a family of 3 can live comfortably on $80K/year - which after taxes really works out to around $50k/year?



Most Americans have to make do with far less. But you don't care about other Americans.



> Actually, yes they are. You see, America was founded upon capitalistic principles, not, as you put it collective -ist principles. Now the shroud has fallen and your true, heart felt interests are shown. Sounds a lot to me like you're either a communist, collectivist or socialist. If you are not, I apologize for the allegation, but your above statement frames your argument in that manner.



I am not a communist, collectivist or socialist. I'm an American. I have sworn an oath to uphold the laws of this country and protect it citizens. The people of which I speak are citizens of the United States of America. The services of which I speak have been part of this country for most of it's history.

And don't apologize to me, I frame my statements in the manner of which the government of the US has operated for most of it's existence. I would never turn my back on my country to add to my comfort level (specially if it was as far above what others have to survive on as yours is).

Call me what ever you want, but I help out people when ever I can. I am an American, and I stand for what made this country great (and for the things that it is actually respected for).



> Like it or not, we are the world's lone superpower.



I have no problems with that. I do have problems with power drunk leaders who forget that being the biggest and most powerful means that we should be humble with our place. We were never the bullies of the world before Bush. No other president had treated the rest of the world with such disrespect as he has. Being the most powerful means taking the responsibility to act with others in mind (something I know you don't understand).


Your turn. Maybe this time you could stick to actual facts and leave out the name calling (unless you find that you really don't have a leg to stand on, then call me what ever you want  ).


----------



## bolindilly (Mar 21, 2003)

> Do you care about this country? Do you care about your fellow citizens? Is that $.06 per dollar earned to high a price for the health of the United States? Are your self interests that much more important then our collective interests?
> 
> ...As a small business owner I would love to see people both back at work and feeling comfortable that they are going to still have a job a month from now. People spend when they feel that they are in a good position. When jobs are being cut and government services are disappearing at the same time to help those people if they do need them, people don't spend money.



RacerX, that is the most socialist thing i've ever heard. i guess the government should just control the economy and force companies to pay for jobs they don't need right now. heck, the government should just nationalize all industry and make the minimum wage $40, and then everybody would pull in $80,000 a year, no?

and the thing that's even funnier, you're whining about unemployment, but the tax cut to business owners is what creates employment. it's that simple. giving money to joe shmoe won't get him a job, but giving money to his potential boss will make the boss want to hire more people...

c'mon...

"who is john galt?": that phrase has gotten dated. what i wanna know is: "where is john galt?"


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 21, 2003)

Name calling? Hardly. A certain moderator got a little trigger happy with a non-lethal insult. But I am back again to further highlight your communist ways...



> Further you are saying that it was not a good thing to help out North Korea (at South Korea's request) even though that has not turned out nearly as bad.



Sending humanitarian aid to N. Korea was one thing. Giving them the means to achieve nuclear weapons is another. Clinton allowed US companies to work with the N. Koreans to put in to production a 5MW reactor. The defense dept. told him a reactor this size would be of little to no benefit in producing electricity, but it would give them the means to develop the spent fuel rods in to nuclear weapons. At the behest of Jimmy Carter, he went ahead with the deal. 

We all know about Clinton and the Chinese, but if you need a refresher, let me know.



> Even if we assume that Clinton could have done something, that doesn't mean Bush should have done nothing.



No need to assume, we *know* Clinton did nothing. Former Clinton presidential advisor Dick Morris has stated that Clinton, at odds with the Pentagon, would not put serious resources in to attacking Al Qaeda because he thought it wouldn't resonate with the American public. 

We know that the Sudan, acting through their liason Monsoor Ijaz, offered Clinton bin Laden - no strings attached. Clinton declined!

On to your assertion that Bush didn't do anything about Al Qaeda. *You are right*. The man had been in office about 8 months, had his transition seriously delayed due to the Florida 2000 debacle and Clinton not turning over the transition resources until well in to Dec, and he didn't automatically go in and invade Afghanistan. Yeah, the communist peace niks who are marching now and can't see the righteousness of libertaing Iraq would have really loved that. 

While I'm not making excuses for Bush, the fact remains that Clinton had 7 years to seriously pursue Al Qaeda, and instead spent more resources on attacking the Branch Davidians than he did Al Qaeda.  

I'll give Clinton credit though - he didn't waste his time with the UN when it came to Kosovo. I'm still not really sure where our national interests were in that conflict, but the peaceniks must have felt it was a just war. After all, there weren't any protests during that conflict.

Yours, and other anti-Iraq libertation supporters, colors are quite easy to read. You hate Bush. Plain and simple. The man speaks plainly, is wildly popular, and keeps out-foxing the opposition at every turn. I thought my disdain for Clinton was bad, but man - you Bush haters have me beat by a mile.

Come next week at this time, Iraq will be liberated, and the people of that country will be externally grateful. The stock market will have risen another 500-750 points (it's already risen close to 1000 in 8 days - the biggest 8 day jump in 20 years), oil prices will be in the low-30's a barrel and dropping, and Bush's popularlty will have surged another 10 pts. to around 80%. God - it must make you *sick*. (But, hey I'm a realist and realize that his reelection is still very much in doubt).



> Also, please name the close friends of Gore of which you speak.



http://www.uiuc.edu/ro/observer/archive/vol11/issue2/obiter.html

This is just one source. Hit google and find many others...



> Most Americans have to make do with far less. But you don't care about other Americans.



Ah, but I do. You socialists love to to bandy about this class warfare. Where in the constitution does it say that the Government has the right to rob Peter to pay Paul? It doesn't. Income redistribution is one of man's most evil concepts. Republicans are quite guilty of this too. But it's the Democrats who act like they are entitled to it, and constantly wage class warfare to state their case. Luckily, I believe most Americans see through this now. Hell, it's easy to buy in to it. When I was 22, I bought it hook, line and sinker. I even <gasp>voted for Clinton in 1992</gasp>. So what happened? Well, as I started to become more successful and make more money, I realized how much more of the it the gov't takes. The dems constantly cite rich people who will get a disproportionate amount back. But they consider someone who makes $75K a rich person! It's amazing. 

But since you are such a compassionate person, and feel you aren't taxed enough, why don't you send some of your money my way? We could really use it right now, and you seem to have some guilt built up, so send it my way. I'll be sure to put it to good use.


----------



## edX (Mar 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> Name calling? Hardly. A certain moderator got a little trigger happy with a non-lethal insult. But I am back again to further highlight your communist ways...
> 
> ... Yeah, the communist peace niks who are marching now and can't see the righteousness of libertaing Iraq would have really loved that.
> ...



you seem to really like calling names and labeling people. i wish you would just learn to get them right and to understand a bit of what they mean since you seem to throw them about as if they were insults. people who subscribe to these philosophies would obviously not get dinner invitations from you.

1st - i am an Administrator, not a moderator. i put that little description under my name to make it easy for you to distinguish. and continue to call anyone an idiot an you'll be moving your free speech somewhere else.

2nd - communism and socialism are 2 different things. one cannot be both. so why don't you toss a coin and decide which one to use for some consistency at least.

you should be aware that these are economic systems, not forms of govt. - just like capitolism. very few pure forms of these exist. america is not a true capitolistic system, although i'm sure you would like it that way. we are a very socialized form of capitolism. Chances are that if we weren't, we would have been defeated by civil war between the haves and have nots long ago. the decison to move that direction has been the choice of our people and their elected leaders. that was done under a govt system known as a republic which uses democratic processes.



> Where in the constitution does it say that the Government has the right to rob Peter to pay Paul? It doesn't.



well, what it says is that ther will be no taxation without representation. since the system of economics we have chosen is predominantly captiolististic, it stands to follow that there will always be more have nots than haves. thus there are more of them being represented. 



> Income redistribution is one of man's most evil concepts.



LOL   war is evil. torture and oppression are evil. i'd like to know how making sure everybody got enough to eat and proper medical care got to be evil. 

gee, with people who think like you in the world, i can't imagine how Robin Hood ever got to be so popular of a story 



> Luckily, I believe most Americans see through this now. Hell, it's easy to buy in to it. When I was 22, I bought it hook, line and sinker. ....So what happened? Well, as I started to become more successful and make more money, I realized how much more of the it the gov't takes. The dems constantly cite rich people who will get a disproportionate amount back. But they consider someone who makes $75K a rich person! It's amazing.



actually , i think most americans still live under the dellusion that they can make the american dream come true. look at you. you got just a little taste of it and now you're ruthless in the pursuit of it. hope you enjoy every bit of you manage to grab.




> But since you are such a compassionate person, and feel you aren't taxed enough, why don't you send some of your money my way? We could really use it right now, and you seem to have some guilt built up, so send it my way. I'll be sure to put it to good use.



so, are you saying here that you aren't compassionate? sure sounds like that's what you want to communicate. but it sounds like you neither want nor give charity. charity isn't about being forced to give. it's about doing so because of your concern for others. it's about humanity. 

btw - from your rhetoric - i would picture you as an 70-80 yo man with close ties to Jerry Falwell.


----------



## bolindilly (Mar 21, 2003)

edx: read "atlas shrugged," it explains very well how evil robin hood is:
"rob the rich to feed the poor." i don't even want to get into how unjust that is.

and your whole income redistribution and free medical care thing: any system of income redistribution ensures that people go hungry and ensures that medical care is terrible. in canada, sure, everyone has health care, but look at the quality. the point is, in your whole crusade for the working man to make sure he eats, you wage war on the productive, the man that actually produces the food, the man that actually provides the medical care. if you rob the rich to feed and treat the poor, the rich won't want to do it anymore. let those who know how to create wealth create it, and everybody will be richer, more full, and healthier in the process...

oh, and:


> charity isn't about being forced to give. it's about doing so because of your concern for others. it's about humanity.



if that's true, why force income redistribution on people? if you don't want to force anyone, why not let people decide how much charity to give? why tax the rich more (percentage-wise) than the poor if, in your own words, they shouldn't be forced to pay?


----------



## edX (Mar 21, 2003)

greed


----------



## Ugg (Mar 21, 2003)

The founding fathers were adamant that the US not be like England and France, where titles, government postitions, property and wealth were passed down from father to son.  Therefore, they created an inheritance tax so that this wealth would be "partially" redistributed.  

We could spend hours debating the validity of how it is being redistributed today, but if we look back in history we see some pretty amazing effects.  

Compulsory free education allowed many of the working class immigrants a chance out of the poverty they were forced into by the Industrial Revolution.  Social Security brought hundreds of thousands of elderly Americans out of the poorhouse.  The Eisenhower Interstate system did more to break the monopoly of the railroad and lower transportation costs than the Supreme Court ever could.  The GI bill was without a doubt the greatest social equalizer of the last century.   

So rather than say that you don't want to pay taxes, why don't you say what you don't want to pay for.  All income redistribution is not bad.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 21, 2003)

> btw - from your rhetoric - i would picture you as an 70-80 yo man with close ties to Jerry Falwell.



Nice attempt at name calling EdX. I prefer the direct approach. But I'm sorry to disappoint. 32 year old handsome young atheist here. From your age, rhetoric and geographic location, I would picture you as an aging "no-nukes" hippie with a picture of Karl Marx hanging above your bed. Who knows. Maybe I'm wrong.



> communism and socialism are 2 different things. one cannot be both. so why don't you toss a coin and decide which one to use for some consistency at least.



From the statement Mr. X made, it was impossible to determine which of the above philosophies he subscribed to. But both have at their heart the collectivist ideology that he espoused. Obviously they are two different things. Did I say they weren't?



> gee, with people who think like you in the world, i can't imagine how Robin Hood ever got to be so popular of a story



And with people like you, it's no wonder "the Little Red Hen" (the childrens story) got to be so popular. Touche.



> i think most americans still live under the dellusion that they can make the american dream come true. look at you. you got just a little taste of it and now you're ruthless in the pursuit of it. hope you enjoy every bit of you manage to grab.



The DELLUSION? Hello, the American dream is alive and well brotha. The only problem is most Americans are too fat, lazy and apathetic to realize it. They'd rather blame their ills on someone else, instead of their own bad decisions they've made in life. The ironic part is that the largest segment of the US population who still believe in the American dream are immigrants who have come here from under priviliged countries. They have no problem working 60 hours a week in pursuit of the American dream.

All I'm hearing from you and Mr. X is how bad America is, how bad Bush is, how it's so bad that we don't pay enough taxes to take care of our poor. And then you have the gaul to accuse me (and others here) of being greedy and uncompassionate because we feel we deserve a tax cut. Nice attitude.

You know, this whole thread started over the topic of Al Gore joining Apple's board. This thread (and the deep divisiveness it's exhibited) makes it pretty clear that it's going to create some real animosity.


----------



## edX (Mar 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> Nice attempt at name calling EdX. I prefer the direct approach. But I'm sorry to disappoint. 32 year old handsome young atheist here. From your age, rhetoric and geographic location, I would picture you as an aging "no-nukes" hippie with a picture of Karl Marx hanging above your bed. Who knows. Maybe I'm wrong.



i just said you sound like that from the words you choose. i don't think describing what you appear to be, as being any different than your attempts to label people based upon beliefs. at least i didn't pressume that what was what you are. btw - i'm not a hippie. i feel more comfortable in an armani suit than tie dyes and jeans, but i own both. i don't espouse marxism nor admire him. i'm more of a Jungian. I actually have a sword hanging over my bed. but i do subscribe to "no nukes".




> From the statement Mr. X made, it was impossible to determine which of the above philosophies he subscribed to. But both have at their heart the collectivist ideology that he espoused. Obviously they are two different things. Did I say they weren't?



well, then why not just use collectivist. again i'll point out that you mean to demean people who subscribe to any type of collectivist philosopie by using these terms in the way you do. actually, RacerX has espoused no communistic nor socialist philosophies. Communism would presume that there is no one with any more than anyone else to take from and give to. Socialism attempts to create that system from a pre-existing embalance with the recognition that some people do suffer more hard ships than others in a specialized industrial society. he is actually just in line with what has been american economics since you were born - a socialized form of capitalism. i would be the last to argue that it doesn't need work, but the first to say we shouldn't revert to some reactionary pure form of capitalism.




> And with people like you, it's no wonder "the Little Red Hen" (the childrens story) got to be so popular. Touche.



this is a popular story? you'll have to excuse my ignorance, i've honestly never heard of it i don't think. was this a recent book?




> The DELLUSION? Hello, the American dream is alive and well brotha. The only problem is most Americans are too fat, lazy and apathetic to realize it. They'd rather blame their ills on someone else, instead of their own bad decisions they've made in life. The ironic part is that the largest segment of the US population who still believe in the American dream are immigrants who have come here from under priviliged countries. They have no problem working 60 hours a week in pursuit of the American dream.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## edX (Mar 22, 2003)

oh, just one little irony about this that occurred to me serpico - you're pro war and complaining about taxes. without a good solid tax base, there would be no war. we wouldn't be a military power. the war is probably the biggest reason a tax cut didn't go thru. it takes money, lots of it.

RacerX and I are against the war. against having our money spent to finance this action. we should be screaming about not having taxes lowered. 

of course, i'm sure we like to think our share is going into social programs. 


so yea, i think Gore will add a lot of diplomacy in overseas negotiations. i think he'll be making lots of govt. oriented 'switch commercials' after this was announced. 

hey, he might even get Bush to invest more of our govt's money into macs & os x . now wouldn't you be even happier if you knew your tax dollars were being spent on macs?


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 22, 2003)

> of course, i'm sure we like to think our share is going into social programs.



Yeah, that Liberty Tattoo removal program in SF was a real example of tax dollars being used badly. 

Are you really anti-war? Were you just as vocal about your opposition during the Somalia conflict, the Kosovo conflict, or Operation Desert Fox in 1998?

This is what bothers me. It is complete hipocrisy, in my view, when the vast majority of antiwar people never batted an eyelash when Clinton sent troops in to harms way. Their main opposition to this conflict is that there is a Republican in the White House.

As for your assertion that $80K /year is enough to live on in Atlanta. Phooey. 

First of all, that $80K was a combined family income *before* taxes. That's $80K for a family of three. Second, with that combined income, we are in a tax bracket that is close to 40%. Add in property taxes, sales taxes, small business taxes, etc., and the reality is that my wife and I have to work from Jan. 1 through June 10 just to pay the tax burden. It is very near 50%. That is borderline slavery. When you exist to support the state, it's getting real close.

And yes, I am aware that taxes go to fund the military. The Bush 2003 tax cut isn't finished yet. Actually, the House passed a version of it this week. It's going to be tougher in the Senate, but my guess is about 75% of it will get passed.

Another misconception - I'm not pro war. I hate  war, but realize that the only way to neutralize a threat from a murderous dictator is to remove him by force. This mission, at least to me, seems a heck of a lot more legitimate than Kosovo, or even Op Desert Fox. But as I said, since a Republican is in the WH, the antiwar crowd (who are being funded by serveral American Communist outfits, btw) are against it.



> hey, he might even get Bush to invest more of our govt's money into macs & os x . now wouldn't you be even happier if you knew your tax dollars were being spent on macs?



Not gonna happen, and I'm glad. I love Macs, and want Apple to succeed and capture a larger chunk of market share. But I really don't want my tax dollars being spent on buying Macs for the Gov't, unless they are appropriate for a specific task. 

Gore will have little to do with day to day stuff at Apple. Look at what the other board members have done for Apple, other than sit in on meetings... Not much. The last thing Apple wants to do is use Gore as a visible "face" for Apple. I would guess, judging from the makeup of this country, that 50% of Mac users are right leaning, and do not have a favorable opinion of him. If Apple is crazy enough to alienate these users, then they deserve their fate.

Don't worry Ed, next time *you* have a Mac OS X question, I'll be here for you too.  

Finally, the Little Red Hen is a popular childrens story. You can refresh your memory here-  http://www.ri.net/schools/Central_Falls/ch/heazak/hen/hen.html

Ed, it's always a pleasure...


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 22, 2003)

This will be my last post on this thread. I want anyone who thinks this war isn't just to read the below story courtesy of UPI.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030321-023627-5923r

Keep in mind this is from someone who was so antiwar that they packed their bags and went to Badhdad to be a human shield.

Vive le Iraq!


----------



## Sirtovin (Mar 22, 2003)

Um... I support the War on Terror etc... but What does this have to do with Al gore and Apple?


----------



## edX (Mar 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> Yeah, that Liberty Tattoo removal program in SF was a real example of tax dollars being used badly.
> 
> Are you really anti-war? Were you just as vocal about your opposition during the Somalia conflict, the Kosovo conflict, or Operation Desert Fox in 1998?
> ...



actually i was somewhat vocal about being against war in all these conflicts. i certainly didn't have a public medium like a forum in which to voice my opinions and thus only friends and family heard them. on the other hand i could understand these other conflicts in terms of war already having broken out and our getting involved to stop it. i still didn't like or support the idea of war and was very much against those who had started it in the first place. and i was probably as disappointed as anyone when saddam wasn't removed from power during the gulf war. if things had been handled properly, then we wouldn't be in this mess today. and yes, i voiced that opinion then. 

also, while i tend to lean towards democratic leaders, that is hardly my beef. if a democrat were in office and doing the same thing, i would have to take the same stance. I've seen lots of republicans i like and admire. i even have close friends and family members who are republican. Gerald Ford is on my list of the great presidents of my lifetime. why - because he didn't screw anything up. he may not have done much, but he didn't mess with anything either. he just played golf and let the country run itself for the most part. on the other hand, LBJ will always be one of my most hated presidents. Vietnam was his fault. as much as i dislike nixon for so many things, i will always like and respect him for ending vietnam and for opening diplomacy to to other nations in unprecedented ways. i could go on with a long list of examples like this.



> As for your assertion that $80K /year is enough to live on in Atlanta. Phooey.
> 
> First of all, that $80K was a combined family income *before* taxes. That's $80K for a family of three. Second, with that combined income, we are in a tax bracket that is close to 40%. Add in property taxes, sales taxes, small business taxes, etc., and the reality is that my wife and I have to work from Jan. 1 through June 10 just to pay the tax burden. It is very near 50%. That is borderline slavery. When you exist to support the state, it's getting real close.



you're right, it's presumptious of me to know what your real financial situation is. for a 2 income family that really isn't a lot. but it certainly is more than a lot of people have. as for your taxes, i would certainly hope that you are making some charitable tax deductable contributions to causes that you believe in, thus at least taking some control in the redistribution of your income.



> And yes, I am aware that taxes go to fund the military. The Bush 2003 tax cut isn't finished yet. Actually, the House passed a version of it this week. It's going to be tougher in the Senate, but my guess is about 75% of it will get passed.



we'll see. depends a lot on how much this war and the aftermath are going to cost i guess.



> Another misconception - I'm not pro war. I hate  war, but realize that the only way to neutralize a threat from a murderous dictator is to remove him by force. This mission, at least to me, seems a heck of a lot more legitimate than Kosovo, or even Op Desert Fox. But as I said, since a Republican is in the WH, the antiwar crowd (who are being funded by serveral American Communist outfits, btw) are against it.



i've said again and again - the big difference is that here we are the ones striking first. all the 'pre-emptive' rhetoric. and while saddam's attrocities are being used as justification for the war, they are npt the reason for the war. if they were, we should have invaded Iraq back in the Reagan years or earlier. also, by that reasoning, are you ready for us to start full out campaigns against all the places in the world where these kinds of attrocites take place? saddam and iraq are hardly unique examples. just how much of what goes on in the world are we to be the ones to control? one could certainly point back to our own years of institutionalized slavery and decimation of the native americans as proof that we haven't been all goody 2 shoes either. i'm not implying we should have any guilt over this, merely asking "where do we draw the lines?"





> Not gonna happen, and I'm glad. I love Macs, and want Apple to succeed and capture a larger chunk of market share. But I really don't want my tax dollars being spent on buying Macs for the Gov't, unless they are appropriate for a specific task.



yea, but there are plenty of tasks for which they would be appropriate and in the long run they are a better deal. economically, environmentally, shelf life, etc. 



> Gore will have little to do with day to day stuff at Apple. Look at what the other board members have done for Apple, other than sit in on meetings... Not much. The last thing Apple wants to do is use Gore as a visible "face" for Apple. I would guess, judging from the makeup of this country, that 50% of Mac users are right leaning, and do not have a favorable opinion of him. If Apple is crazy enough to alienate these users, then they deserve their fate.



actually, i think you'll find that most mac users are bit to the left. probably more middle of the road. it just goes with the whole 'think different' thing. and you're right of course, Al won't have a whole lot to do being on the board. but i would guess he was brought in for a reason. it will be interesting to see what it is. 



> Don't worry Ed, next time *you* have a Mac OS X question, I'll be here for you too.



good to hear. i'm still trying to figure out this issue with my external drive. it stalls while writing large numbers of small files. i know this is a know issue with os x, but my other drive doens't do it, so there's got to be something more going on. 



> Finally, the Little Red Hen is a popular childrens story. You can refresh your memory here-  http://www.ri.net/schools/Central_Falls/ch/heazak/hen/hen.html



still not sure i know this one, but the basic premise is nothing new. nor anything i disagree with. in reality, this could just as easily be used to support collectivism as it is an important concept that all those who can contribute do so. it's actually capitalism that sets up a condition where this kind of non cooperation is allowed. the problem with this kind of simplification at the moment is that there aren't always enough jobs for people who are willing to pitch in and work. and with some things, having too many helpers actually slows the process down. better to take turns baking the bread than to never get the bread baked.



> Ed, it's always a pleasure...



i don't know if it's really 'a pleasure', but it's always informative and educational. in short - a good thing.  

take care.


----------



## Arden (Mar 22, 2003)

In some respects, I'm glad serpicolugnut will not be returning here to continue his mudslinging, but I did find them amusing.  I tend to side with Racer X and edX on the issues spat back and forth.  I believe Bush and his administration have done more harm than good for this country and the world (maybe 65%-35%) but I don't have the time to put all my arguments into typing.

I believe Al Gore will be an excellent addition to the Apple Board.  He's plenty smart, he helped run this country in prosperity for eight years, he got the Internet going (Vinton Cerf and Tim Berner-Lee actually invented the networking basis of the Internet), and he's not as stiff-necked and boring as people make him out to be.  I think anyone who saw him on Letterman will agree with me.

edX, what exactly is the difference between a moderator and an administrator?  Does a moderator merely manage a category while an administrator runs the behind-the-scenes and offline part of the web site?


----------



## edX (Mar 22, 2003)

arden - we have moderators who are volunteers who watch over a forum, or even a few, and help maintain site policy. each forum but the classifieds, has at least 2 of these. some of these are also super moderators, which means their moderation powers are enabled in all forums so that if they run across anything first while surfing the site, they can just deal with it. then we have 3 admins - one who does all the offline work of maintaining the site. that would be ScottW, also the site owner. themacko and i are co-admins of the day to day stuff. essentially it comes down to us how policy will be interpretted and enforced, who the moderators are, etc. themacko handles mail from members who are experiencing trouble with the site while i spend more energy on managing the moderators.

all of us work together 'behind the scenes' to discuss issues and keep things running as smoothly as possible. we all worked together as a team to bring you the new forum organization for instance. but the mods are hardly a bunch who sit around and nod their heads for us, nor do we expect them to be. we have our debates about how to make this site the best, just as we debate out here about how to make the world the best. in the end, we make a decision and work together to implement it as best we can. but when push comes to shove and we can't agree as a group, then the admins get final say. admins are also the only ones with the power to access the control panels for the site and do things like ban a person.  a mod has the power to police and enforce, and bannings are made from their recomendations, but they need an admin to physically do the ban. you pretty much have to be trying to piss us off to get banned though. we're fairly tolerant of mistakes and the occasional emotional response from an other wise responsible contributing member.

i also think it says alot about the adminstration of this site that scottw and i have almost opposite political views. yet we work together with respect. i even consider him a friend. but we both know how to agree to disagree at a certain point and to be ok with someone being different than us. and we apply that same philosophy to discussions like this. 

uh, does that answer your question or did i give you way too much information about something else?


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 22, 2003)

> In some respects, I'm glad serpicolugnut will not be returning here to continue his mudslinging, but I did find them amusing.



Don't soil your panties just yet arden. Your favorite hexagonal irritant never said he was leaving macosx.com. He said he was done pontificating on this thread. I'm staying put, if for no other reason than to spread my infinite wisdom to those lacking such areas.

Yes, that is sarcasm.


----------



## Arden (Mar 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *He said he was done pontificating on this thread.*


That's exactly what I was referring to.  Was I unclear?


----------



## RacerX (Mar 28, 2003)

> _serpicolugnut, 03-22-2003 0119 GMT:_
> Come next week at this time, Iraq will be liberated, and the people of that country will be externally grateful. The stock market will have risen another 500-750 points (it's already risen close to 1000 in 8 days - the biggest 8 day jump in 20 years), oil prices will be in the low-30's a barrel and dropping, and Bush's popularlty will have surged another 10 pts. to around 80%. God - it must make you sick . (But, hey I'm a realist and realize that his reelection is still very much in doubt).




It has been a full week, lets look at how these predictions have held up.
 Iraq has not been liberated, the people are not extremely grateful, and in some parts of the country things are far worse than before. Most notably, the lack of food and water in some of the southern cities and the threat of Turkey invading from the north if the Kurds look like they may try to form a separate Kurdish state.

 the last I checked, the stock market wasn't up _500-750 points_ from it's close last week. Actually it has dropped about 400 points in this period.

 I don't know how oil prices are doing, but that rarely translates into gas prices. As I recall one of the biggest drops in oil prices happened within a week of September 11, 2001. It dropped to the low $20's as I recall (though I don't seem to remember where it started from).

 Bush is not _surged_ on the polls another 10 points. The last I saw he had dropped to below 70%.

And then there was the _God - it must make you *sick*_ comment. People I care for have been effected in this war already, and yes I have had a sick feeling thanks to that.

Another thing that has made me sick is the ultra nationalism that has been displayed by supporters of the war. I'm personally embarrassed that they are Americans. They reflect badly on the principles that have always made this country great. 

I find it sad that so many people feel such a need to hate others. Some would say _hate_ is too strong a word. Actually it doesn't even come close to what some people have been displaying. 

Something for those who remember and want to learn from history. Germany between World War I and World War II started generating a strong feeling of nationalism in it's people. They started to direct their fears and hardships that the people were feeling into hate. That country felt that it was right to invade others, and the people who spoke out against those acts were (very much like now) persecuted by others for their feelings. Later they would be rounded up with other _enemies of the state_.

I don't want us to be that type of country. I would hate to think that we, as a people, are that little in spirit.


----------



## nickn (Mar 28, 2003)

Can you say off topic? Mods? I actually honestly brought this post up from the recent posts...to realize it had 0 , nada, absolutely NOTHING to do with apple news or rumors.

I'm not even going to comment on the post itself.


----------



## edX (Mar 28, 2003)

nick - check the site rules. staying on topic is not one of them. good threads often come from tangential material. this is one case of that. read enough threads around here and you'll find others as well. despite all the claims otherwise, we aren't facists around here. we have a few forbidden topics, for good reasons in our way of thinking, but outside of that, people can feel free to speak their mind.


----------



## nickn (Mar 28, 2003)

Hm..

I'm not saying the topic is wrong by any means, and I believe removing posts is wrong, however it makes no sense to have a topic on war in the apple news and rumors section.

You say read others..all the ones I've read (notably not as many as others) I've had very few where I've clicked it and had a 100% different topic then what the post says.

You jump to the conclusion that I didn't support what RacerX was saying..it wasn't that at all. however why have different forums if threads are going to get that far off? I guess this being one of a few threads I havent' followed if I read it all I'll realize how it got THIS far off track.

Live and learn I guess....


----------



## edX (Mar 28, 2003)

no, i didn't assume anything about how you felt about RacerX's views. but if you did follow the whole thread, you would see that it started out with apple news (as per the thread title) and that led to a political discussion - not that big of a tangent considering who Gore is and the current climate in the world. now, hopefully those of us on the pro Gore side will be just as right about what Gore will add to apple as we were about this war being something more than a quick police action. Hell, saddam might have glady given up all his weapons if we'd offered him macs in exchange. 

ps - forums with topic police are a pet peeve of mine   we try our best to put the original post in the forum it belongs and after that it can have a life of its own.


----------



## Arden (Mar 29, 2003)

I'm 18 today, and I'm all comfortable wrapped up in this blanket, sitting in front of the computer at 1:30 a.m. (er, excuse me0130 hours).

How's that for off topic? 

I support Al Gore, and I would have voted for him had I been old enough in the last election.  Just look at what Bush has done for this country, especially our economy.  In today's (yesterday's, now) Modesto Bee's Opinions section, someone had an article about the fact that low-income programs like Medicaid are undergoing massive cuts to satisfy the federal budget, just so Bush can give money back to the rich corporations and fat cats in this country.  Disgusting.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 29, 2003)

> Iraq has not been liberated, the people are not extremely grateful, and in some parts of the country things are far worse than before. Most notably, the lack of food and water in some of the southern cities and the threat of Turkey invading from the north if the Kurds look like they may try to form a separate Kurdish state.
> 
> 
> the last I checked, the stock market wasn't up 500-750 points from it's close last week. Actually it has dropped about 400 points in this period.
> ...



Nearly 50% of Iraq has been liberated. We've not taken Baghdad or Basra yet, but we've advanced more in a week than any other army ever has.

As for the stock market, well all it takes is one piece of news good or bad, and it surges 200-300 points. It's at approx 8150 now, up about 650 points from when the war stated. It could dip again, but when all is said and done, it will be back in the 9000's.

Oil prices translate directly into Gas Prices. They started going up before the war on fears that it could affect the US supply. It started dropping right after the war began because OPEC pledged to increase production during the war.

You think that people displaying their national pride makes you *sick*. I'll tell you what makes me sick:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82395,00.html
http://www.whittierdailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,207~12026~1234836,00.html

It's funny how anti-war protests can be some of the most violent displays of freedom of speech...

Nice attempt at comparing the present US admin. to that of Germany between WWI and II. I love it when people twist history to fit their agenda. Please, tell me - where we have stated we hate the Iraqi people? Please tell me where we have stated our superiority over the Iraqi people? Please tell me where we have rounded up Iraqis and sent them to concentration camps? We haven't, and your comparison is full of liberal hot air.

But, let's learn from history for a moment, and since you are fond of using Germany, lets use them as an example. In the 1930's, Germany was involved in all the acts you stated. They were invading neighbors, and spreading through Europe quite fast. However, some appeasers, namely Neville Chamberlain thought he could make a deal with them and spare the UK. Stalin thought he could make a deal with them and avoid direct conflict. Hitler renigged on both of those deals and the rest is history.

After the war, even Neville Chamerblain himself admitted he was wrong, and should have addressed the Hitler threat before it got to big. 

Once again, my favorite quote from Albert Einstein...
*The World is not dangerous because of those who do harm but because of those who look at it without doing anything.*

And finally, arden...
It's no surprise you are 18 and would've voted for Gore had you been old enough. When I was 22 I voted for Clinton. I thought I knew everything, as you probably do too (I didn't), and his class warfare speeches rang loudly in my just over minimum wage life. The funny thing is, as I became older, and more successful, and started making more money - I realized the "evil rich people" they were referring to was me - even though in my eyes I was hardly rich. Take my advice -be suspicious when a politician demonizes a certain segment of the population for their political gain (as Hitler did with the Jews, Democrats do with people who make more than $35K/year).


----------



## nickn (Mar 29, 2003)

To add to things taht make me sick...how about this link :

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/03/28/sprj.irq.professor.somalia.ap/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82532,00.html

And I posted both links so you saw it from what is considered both liberal and conservative media...(at least by most..)


----------



## RacerX (Mar 29, 2003)

> _by serpicolugnut:_
> be suspicious when a politician demonizes a certain segment of the population for their political gain



Actually you should be suspicious of *anyone* who demonizes anyone else. To date, serpicolugnut is the only person to engage in personal attacks within this discussion. This should not be a surprise as he has had a hard time making his facts (or predictions) hold water.



> You think that people displaying their national pride makes you sick.
> 
> _and_
> 
> It's funny how anti-war protests can be some of the most violent displays of freedom of speech...



I'm not one of those people so I can't speak on their actions. On the other hand your actions within the confines of this forum qualify not as _national pride_ but of venomous anger and hate. Again, it should be noted who is the only person to engage in personal attacks.



> But, let's learn from history for a moment, and since you are fond of using Germany, lets use them as an example. In the 1930's, Germany was involved in all the acts you stated. They were invading neighbors, and spreading through Europe quite fast. However, some appeasers, namely Neville Chamberlain thought he could make a deal with them and spare the UK. Stalin thought he could make a deal with them and avoid direct conflict. Hitler renigged on both of those deals and the rest is history.



Germany was not a contained state, Iraq was. Libya, a state which is known to have terrorist links is a contained state and has been for quite some time. Why hasn't Bush finished what Reagan started with Libya? Why are we not working towards regime change there? Iraq is not the threat that Germany was.

_My_ favorite quote from Albert Einstein... 
*Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.*

As we are back to the point about how much you make, it is not hard for me to understand why someone who's family income is within the top 25% of US house holds would feel as you do. 

I got an idea! Why don't you stop using the things which your tax dollars pay for as a protest to the massive amounts of taxation which you seem to be burden with. You know, streets and roads, police and fire departments, schools and libraries, etc. Why even the internet in the US was built mainly on US government funds paid for by your tax dollars.

If you are unwilling to pay for the privileges of being part of this country, *stop pretending to have any pride in it.*


----------



## edX (Mar 29, 2003)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> Nearly 50% of Iraq has been liberated. We've not taken Baghdad or Basra yet, but we've advanced more in a week than any other army ever has.



so far the advancement has been across miles of open desert. we've 'liberated' people who aren't close enough to anything else to be oppressed. in the process we've even attacked innocent farmers and killed them. in other words we've taken what saddam has given. we've found it a bit tougher where he deploys troops to oppose us.



> As for the stock market, well all it takes is one piece of news good or bad, and it surges 200-300 points. It's at approx 8150 now, up about 650 points from when the war stated. It could dip again, but when all is said and done, it will be back in the 9000's.



i agree with this for the most part. the market is going to flucuate. but in general it seems to be creeping down, not up. i am hopeful that it will rebound as well, but certainly more time is needed to grasp what influence any of this has.



> Oil prices translate directly into Gas Prices. They started going up before the war on fears that it could affect the US supply. It started dropping right after the war began because OPEC pledged to increase production during the war.



funny, prices at the pump briefly dropped for a few days and now they are back up to the max they have been in my area. $2.22 at the cheap places for regular unleaded. YIKES!!



> You think that people displaying their national pride makes you *sick*. I'll tell you what makes me sick:
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82395,00.html
> http://www.whittierdailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,207~12026~1234836,00.html
> 
> It's funny how anti-war protests can be some of the most violent displays of freedom of speech...



i actually agree with you here. these people are an embarassement to the concept of peace. i don't think many of them have a strong grasp on exactly what it is they are supposed to be standing for. most are simply youth getting swept up in alot of mixed emotions. i'd just as soon they stayed at home.

on the other hand, judging all who protest for peace upon these examles is very unfair. i would never judge all our soldiers based upon comments from a few that they are excited about getting to go to war and kill some 'camel jockeys'. i know that most of our soldiers have more sense of humanity than this.



> Nice attempt at comparing the present US admin. to that of Germany between WWI and II. I love it when people twist history to fit their agenda. Please, tell me - where we have stated we hate the Iraqi people? Please tell me where we have stated our superiority over the Iraqi people? Please tell me where we have rounded up Iraqis and sent them to concentration camps? We haven't, and your comparison is full of liberal hot air.



why is that whenever anyone mentions specific parralels between bush/america and hitler/germany, that the only defense is to bring in other examples that don't correlate. if i were to draw parralels between apples and oranges and why they are both fruits, would you argue that they can't be fruits because one is red and the other orange, one has a smooth eatable skin and the other a rough, peelable skin? 



> But, let's learn from history for a moment, and since you are fond of using Germany, lets use them as an example. In the 1930's, Germany was involved in all the acts you stated. They were invading neighbors, and spreading through Europe quite fast. However, some appeasers, namely Neville Chamberlain thought he could make a deal with them and spare the UK. Stalin thought he could make a deal with them and avoid direct conflict. Hitler renigged on both of those deals and the rest is history.



just exactly where is iraq spreading to? last time they tried that, they got their fannies whooped. stopping the spread of aggresion is an entirely different animal than we are dealing with here. and unfortunately, it is Bush who is doing all the renigging on deals that have been made with other countries. no doubt that the future will eventually become an important lesson in history as well.



> After the war, even Neville Chamerblain himself admitted he was wrong, and should have addressed the Hitler threat before it got to big.
> 
> Once again, my favorite quote from Albert Einstein...
> *The World is not dangerous because of those who do harm but because of those who look at it without doing anything.*



i really don't think that nayone is disputing this. it's just that we believe there is still plenty to be done short of war.



> And finally, arden...
> It's no surprise you are 18 and would've voted for Gore had you been old enough. When I was 22 I voted for Clinton. I thought I knew everything, as you probably do too (I didn't), and his class warfare speeches rang loudly in my just over minimum wage life. The funny thing is, as I became older, and more successful, and started making more money - I realized the "evil rich people" they were referring to was me - even though in my eyes I was hardly rich. Take my advice -be suspicious when a politician demonizes a certain segment of the population for their political gain (as Hitler did with the Jews, Democrats do with people who make more than $35K/year).



i don't think anyone considers you and your 80k income to be part of the 'evil rich'. i certainly look forward to making something close to that when i get thru with school. democrats aren't just those living in poverty. personally i don't believe much in the concept of 'evil' and thus find it frightening when anyone attempts to do anything under the banner of fighting it. if there is evil - war is a manifestation of it. but we can fight our enemies in many ways without making it about morality. morality is always relative to oneself.


----------



## edX (Mar 29, 2003)

oh, nickn - that stuff makes me sick as well. i don't care which side of this anyone is on - wanting people to die is very wrong in my mind. i don't want our soldiers to die. i don't want them to be victims of Bush's agenda nor of the hate it is inspiring for us in people's around the world. it's all just sad.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 29, 2003)

Strong words to bandy about RacerX... But I've never said I hated anyone, nor do I. I have much love and empathy for everyone here, especially politically misguided souls such as yourself.



> funny, prices at the pump briefly dropped for a few days and now they are back up to the max they have been in my area. $2.22 at the cheap places for regular unleaded. YIKES!!



Here in NE Georgia... The day before the war started gas was $1.58/gallon for unleaded. Today, it's $1.38/gallon for unleaded. I'm sure this will only enforce the uninformed opinion that this war is only for oil somehow...

To answer Ed:





> so far the advancement has been across miles of open desert. we've 'liberated' people who aren't close enough to anything else to be oppressed. in the process we've even attacked innocent farmers and killed them. in other words we've taken what saddam has given. we've found it a bit tougher where he deploys troops to oppose us.



Actually, several smaller cities like Um Qasar have been liberated. As for it being tougher where troops are deployed, that's false. When matched up with their troops, our troops are cutting through them pretty easily. When matched up against the Fedayeen Saddam, who fake surrenders, and use innocent children as human shields, then the fight is much harder. But that's only because our troops are following an edict of liberation, and not of conquest. If conquest was the goal, we'd level all of Baghdad in an hour with a few MOABs. That's not the goal, and it's going to take longer to achieve than most people, even myself, thought at first. Doesn't change the inevitable in any way shape or form.



> just exactly where is iraq spreading to? last time they tried that, they got their fannies whooped. stopping the spread of aggresion is an entirely different animal than we are dealing with here. and unfortunately, it is Bush who is doing all the renigging on deals that have been made with other countries. no doubt that the future will eventually become an important lesson in history as well.



Iraq doesn't have to invade another country now to wreak havoc on them. Through their direct connection to terrorist groups (Al Qaeda and others), all they have to do is supply these thugs with the WMD we know they have, and we could have Sept. 11 on a much grander scale. 



> personally i don't believe much in the concept of 'evil' and thus find it frightening when anyone attempts to do anything under the banner of fighting it.



I guess that goes to the heart of position. Hitler. Genghis Kahn. Pol Pot. Stalin. Sept. 11 hijackers. These people don't qualify as evil to you?



> Why hasn't Bush finished what Reagan started with Libya? Why are we not working towards regime change there? Iraq is not the threat that Germany was.



Because Reagan finished the job with Libya. After Reagan put out an assasination attempt on Khadafi, and his daughter was killed in the assult, Khadfi was neutralized as a threat. We haven't had any problems with him since then.



> My favorite quote from Albert Einstein...
> Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.



Good quote, and actually it's true. Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieve through understanding...understanding that if you set out to provoke us, you're going to get your ass kicked. Peace can only be achieved when victory has been achieved. This is why we will never have peace in Israel until either Israelies/Palestinians have a decisive victory over the other. This is why we never would have had peace in Europe in the 40's had Hitler not been stopped. Your problem is you look at peace as this utopian state. I look at peace through the eyes of reality, in that the world is full of evil that will from time to time threaten that peace, and the only way to get it back is through war and victory. I wish that man was sophisticated enough to find a way to achieve that utopian state of yours, but here, in 2003, he is not.



> If you are unwilling to pay for the privileges of being part of this country, stop pretending to have any pride in it.



Nice assumption, RacerX. Show me where I've said I'm unwilling to pay for privileges of being part of this country (roads, fire stations, military, etc). You can't because I haven't. Just because I'm against the level I'm being taxed doesn't mean that I believe in no taxation. Taxes are a necessary evil to be sure. But when that taxation reaches close to 50%, we are no longer talking about paying for some privileges... we are talking about state sponsored slavery. 

Also, please get your facts right when you quote stats I've thrown out. My "$80K income", is actually for a family of 3, as I've stated. That's also before taxes. While $80/year might be alot for a family of 3 in some areas of the country, here in the Atlanta area, it is not.

RacerX...tell me sir, how have I demonized you? You made some statements that reflected your collectivist views, and I simply made a reference to it, while also apologizing if you were not in fact a collectivst. That's hardly demonizing.


----------



## chevy (Mar 29, 2003)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *...
> Good quote, and actually it's true. Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieve through understanding...understanding that if you set out to provoke us, you're going to get your ass kicked. ... *



What are we speaking about ? Children playing in the field and being too noisy ? Monsters in a video game ? This is ok to "kick ass".

War is not a video game. They are human beings below the bombs, in front of the bullets. And they suffer, they die. Soldiers (both sides, and civilians, and local observers) do not sit in front of the TV watching CNN. They are not virtual models.
It is not a happy kick-assing session.

One can discuss the reasons for that war. One can have reasons to think we have to do or not to do it. But war is not a kick-ass party !


----------



## nickn (Mar 29, 2003)

Nobody wants war, however, as much as you'd (anyone who opposes war) would like to believe, sometimes it's needed. That's as much as I wish to comment on it,.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 29, 2003)

No one said it was a "happy kick-assing session". Please do not inflame the discussion by throwing out mis-quotes. 

Yes, war is not a video game. It is not a reality tv show. People die, innocent and not so innocent. We know this. Nobody has stated otherwise, so to post as if someone did is complete disengenous. If you can't argue with facts, please don't bother arguing at all.


----------



## Arden (Mar 29, 2003)

I'm going to laugh if RacerX and serpicolugnut are actually good friends in real life.

I do not believe anybody should be called "evil" if they are rich.  They should reserve that term for sadists who desire the death of innocent people for political or social reasons.  I think the Republicans should stop catering to the demands of the "upper crust" of this country by giving back to the 1% of people who control something like 80% of this nations wealth at the expense of the 99% who actually need that money.

Why do athletes go on strike unless they get $30 million/year contracts?
Why do corporations do everything they legally can to screw over their customers and other corporations?
Why do CEO's get to buy 8, 10, or 12 "vacation homes" when they each cost more than a few city blocks in an "average," suburban, middle-class neighborhood, which they won't even use?
Why do HMO's dictate what a patient gets and what he has to live without, even if he won't live without it?

The answer:


----------



## Arden (Mar 29, 2003)

*GREED.*


----------



## nickn (Mar 29, 2003)

Why do you allow the media to influence your thoughts?
Why do you believe everything your liberal friends (I'd actually assume, parents, or else just what you hear) tell you?

I want to go on with this post, however I fear, it's better to stop now...


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 29, 2003)

> I think the Republicans should stop catering to the demands of the "upper crust" of this country by giving back to the 1% of people who control something like 80% of this nations wealth at the expense of the 99% who actually need that money.



Here's some statistics for you (from fiscal year 2000)...

Incomes of $200,000-plus pay 47.5% of the $2.025 trillion in taxes.  What's the percentage of families who earn more than $200,000? They're paying half of the total tax burden at $1 trillion. The $100,000 to $200,000 bracket pays 23.6% of the taxes, which means the taxpayers making over $100,000 are paying 71.1% of the total tax burden.  The $75 to $100,000 bracket pays 11.8%, giving us a grand total of 82.9% of all taxes being paid by those making over $75,000 a year.

Nobody "controls" wealth. Wealth is produced, not controlled. The 1% of people you cite are the people creating jobs and prosperity in this country. Think about it. If you are so against rich people, go try getting your job from a poor person. It's not gonna happen.

As for Republicans "catering to the demands of the upper crust...". Lets examine who the Democrats cater to the demands of by looking at their biggest donors.

Trial Lawyers Assoc.... One of the richest, most powerful lobbies in the country. Labor Unions, another powerful lobby. Hollywood Elite... These are hardly the poor downtrodden masses. 

The truth is both Democrats and Republics (and even the hypocritical Green party) are beholden to the organizations who make it possible for them to obtain and hold power. It's always been that way, and it probably will stay that way.



> Why do athletes go on strike unless they get $30 million/year contracts?  Why do corporations do everything they legally can to screw over their customers and other corporations?  Why do CEO's get to buy 8, 10, or 12 "vacation homes" when they each cost more than a few city blocks in an "average," suburban, middle-class neighborhood, which they won't even use? Why do HMO's dictate what a patient gets and what he has to live without, even if he won't live without it?



Careful there arden... You are questioning a persons right to determine what their personal worth is. This starts the slippery slope down to communism. Let's face it - my services are not as valuable as someone like Steve Jobs are (at least in todays world), so I'm not going to be able to demand as much money as he does. So long as he obtains his wealth in accordance with the law, I have no moral right to question what he does with it. So what if he buys 8, 10, or 12 vacation homes that he doesn't even use? Those 12 vacation homes had to be built. The building of those 12 vacation homes generated jobs for hundreds of people. Once the house was built, the home had to be sold, again giving a job to someone. 

Your heart is in the right place, and I'm sure once you start earning a living, you'll quickly understand not only the principles of capitalism, but also the practice of it.


----------



## nickn (Mar 29, 2003)

I don't think it could have been said better.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 29, 2003)

> _by serpicolugnut:_
> Iraq doesn't have to invade another country now to wreak havoc on them. Through their direct connection to terrorist groups (Al Qaeda and others), all they have to do is supply these thugs with the WMD we know they have, and we could have Sept. 11 on a much grander scale.



To date there have been no connections with al Qaeda and the government of Iraq. Actually they are enemies as the government of Iraq has been actively suppressing many of the groups al Qaeda says they are fighting for and because Iraq poses a threat to Saudi Arabia.

You would do us all a favor by learning what it is that motivates all of the parties in this conflict. Many of the civilian leaders in the military have ties to profit making ventures, including Cheney, who's company (Haliburton) was the *only* company considered in the reconstruction of the Iraqi oil fields (what happen to the bid process there?).



> Because Reagan finished the job with Libya. After Reagan put out an assasination attempt on Khadafi, and his daughter was killed in the assult, Khadfi was neutralized as a threat. We haven't had any problems with him since then.



Why has *that* neutralized Khadafi? He is still there, still the same person. Reagan was helping Hussein when he was bombing Libya, maybe Reagan's old friend could be _neutralized_ without war the same way that Khadafi was.

Of course, Khadafi isn't sitting on one of the largest oil fields left in the world, but that shouldn't be a factor... should it?



> Also, please get your facts right when you quote stats I've thrown out. My "$80K income", is actually for a family of 3, as I've stated. That's also before taxes. While $80/year might be alot for a family of 3 in some areas of the country, here in the Atlanta area, it is not.



In the US, a family is generally thought of as having 2.2 children. Your family income in is the upper 25% of all families, and considering that you have less than the average number of children, that means that it is supporting fewer people with the same amount. My numbers assume that you have a family income supporting 4.2 people, not the 3 you actually have. If you are in an income bracket that most Americans can only dream about (specially those who loss their jobs since Bush came into office), I don't think you should be whining about your financial state.



> RacerX...tell me sir, how have I demonized you? You made some statements that reflected your collectivist views, and I simply made a reference to it, while also apologizing if you were not in fact a collectivst. That's hardly demonizing.



Collectivist? Tell us all what you originally said about me before your posts were edited.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 29, 2003)

> _by serpicolugnut _
> Careful there arden... You are questioning a persons right to determine what their personal worth is. This starts the slippery slope down to communism. Let's face it - my services are not as valuable as someone like Steve Jobs are (at least in todays world), so I'm not going to be able to demand as much money as he does. So long as he obtains his wealth in accordance with the law, I have no moral right to question what he does with it. So what if he buys 8, 10, or 12 vacation homes that he doesn't even use? Those 12 vacation homes had to be built. The building of those 12 vacation homes generated jobs for hundreds of people. Once the house was built, the home had to be sold, again giving a job to someone.



There is no _slippery slope to communism_, but there is one to hyper inflation. It is fine to pay what people are worth, but that worth should be kept in perspective. When studying the economy and watching how different areas spin out of control with regard to the rest of the economy, yes, regulation should be brought in to check those areas. Some areas of note: college tuition, sports salaries, CEO salaries. All of those examples are unchecked and are not increasing at the same rate as the rest of the economy.

Don't let the *RED SCARE* trick you into thinking that regulation is communism. This country works best when there are balances. Unchecked capitalism leads to sweat shops. Money for money's sake is in fact the heart of most evil in the world. People die in this country because the people at the top put the safety of the people at the bottom second to profits. Capitalism without regulation is *greed*, plane and simple.

But lets take this a step further. Hussein builds a ton of palaces that he most likely is never going to use. The building of those palaces generated jobs for hundreds of people. Once the palace was built, the place would be destroyed by bombing, again giving a job to someone to rebuild it. Aren't we doing capitalism in Iraq a major disservice by bringing democracy there?


----------



## nickn (Mar 29, 2003)

Firstly, you assume that Hussein pays these people, they could be working off punishment, or they could be working because he said so. 

Secondly, College tuition is a bad example, in many many states in the US college can be more or less free. Georgia and Texas are two I know for sure. I go to a good sized school, other than paying my house note, utilities, and food, I don't pay a dime for college, I can take anywhere from 6 hours to 19 hours, and not pay a dime, other than for books.

So college tuition is a bad example....


----------



## nickn (Mar 29, 2003)

Also, in response to $80k not being a lot of money in Atlanta..which you commented on but really didn't approach that fact.

I was raised in Atlanta (actually northwest of it, but more or less atlanta) I had (have) a 3 bedroom 2 bath apartment in Paulding County, which is a ways outside of atlanta..We pay $1200 a month for it, nothing nice, just a basic 3 bedroom 2 bath apartment.

Now I am living in south georgia, 3 hours south of atlanta, nice town...Valdosta...I pay $500 a month for a 4 bedroom house, nice house, great part of town, high demand for the house...

So to say that $80k is not a lot in atlanta is quite true. You can't base how "rich" someone is by how much they make without having consideration of where they live...

People who make $80k here in valdosta are very rare...and i'd say most families in atlanta make $80k+


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 29, 2003)

nickn seems to be making all of my points for me... thanks nickn!

 



> There is no slippery slope to communism, but there is one to hyper inflation. It is fine to pay what people are worth, but that worth should be kept in perspective. When studying the economy and watching how different areas spin out of control with regard to the rest of the economy, yes, regulation should be brought in to check those areas.



So, where would YOU start? How about the cast of NBC TV show Friends? Surely they can't be worth $1million each per episode? That's ridiculous! Or how about Mets pitcher Tom Glavine. Surely his $35million for 3 years of work is outrageous! Or what about Steve Jobs. A $140 million Jet, plus over $100milliion in stock options is over the top, right?

Please. As much as my head spins by all of the above examples, they were able to obtain it under fair market value. If NBC wasn't making a gaggle of cash from Friends, they wouldn't have even considered the $6million+ cost of each episode. If Tom Glavine wasn't worth nearly $12million/year to the Mets in ticket sales, TV revenues, etc., they wouldn't have paid for it. And if Steve Jobs service to Apple didn't warrrant his compensation, he wouldn't get it.

So, who are you going to appoint to this government position that will determine what each and every person is worth and what they are entitled to? Congress? The President? What will you do, if this person(s) determines that your job doesn't warrant what you make? Hows he going to enforce it? Hows it going to be regulated? There is your slipper slope.

Letting the free market decide what a person is worth is at the very heart of a capitalist society. 

Letting the government decide (through regulation) what a person is worth is at the very heart of communism.

Communism assumes no one is worth any more than any one else, and it's the governments job to make sure everyone is equal.

Now, don't get all worked up. As much as the Libertarian in me would like it, I'm not saying the government should be completely free of regulation in all areas. Obviously, regulation in some areas can be good (monopolies should be regulated, health and safety industries, environmental hazards, etc).



> But lets take this a step further. Hussein builds a ton of palaces that he most likely is never going to use. The building of those palaces generated jobs for hundreds of people. Once the palace was built, the place would be destroyed by bombing, again giving a job to someone to rebuild it. Aren't we doing capitalism in Iraq a major disservice by bringing democracy there



Your argument doesn't hold water because Iraq is a dictatorship. The workers creating his palaces most likely were forced to work for next to nothing, and were threatened with death if they didn't. 

RacerX, you really could benefit from reading Ayn Rands _Atlas Shrugged_. Or even her first book _We The Living_. I'd be willing to send you my copy if you like.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> So, where would YOU start?



I, personally, wouldn't need to start anywhere. We do have a system that does have checks and balances. But as long as you brought these examples up, lets take a closer look at them. 



> ...how about Mets pitcher Tom Glavine. Surely his $35million for 3 years of work is outrageous!
> 
> ...If Tom Glavine wasn't worth nearly $12million/year to the Mets in ticket sales, TV revenues, etc., they wouldn't have paid for it.



My question is this, _Is he a New Yorker?_ Is that his chosen home? Or is that just where he works?

I'm from San Diego, so I have a somewhat distorted view of baseball. You see we had this player named Tony Gwynn (maybe you've heard of him, he was the best player the game has ever seen), and he *is* a San Diegian. How do I quantify that? He started playing baseball while at SDSU (even though he was there to play basketball), was drafted into the Padre organization (and the San Diego Clippers) right out of college. He played for 20 seasons with the Padres. In those 20 seasons he earned under $50 million with the Padres.

Surely he could have asked for more. Surely any team in baseball would have paid more for him than the Padres could afford. Why stay? He is a San Diegian.

Now that he is out of major league baseball, where has he gone? He is the head coach at SDSU. And that was after a season of being a volunteer assistant coach under his original coach at SDSU before he retired.

I don't know what the Mets are hoping to get for their $35 million over 3 years, but they aren't going to get someone who is really part of the team. Yes it is a waste of money. No, Glavine isn't worth it. Yes, the game is hurt by this type of price gouging.

Second example? The Minnesota Twins. Last season the Twins showed that a team with heart at the bottom of the salary scale could hold their own with the best that money could buy.

I've been in sports most of my life as both athlete (high school, college and open) and coach (college and open), and now doing work for a sports magazine, and the one thing I can tell you is that greed can never replace sportsmanship or team work.



> How about the cast of NBC TV show Friends? Surely they can't be worth $1million each per episode? That's ridiculous!
> 
> Please. As much as my head spins by all of the above examples, they were able to obtain it under fair market value. If NBC wasn't making a gaggle of cash from Friends, they wouldn't have even considered the $6million+ cost of each episode.



But at this point are their hearts really in the show? I haven't watched any of the episodes after the early seasons, so I really don't know. But assuming it is the biggest thing on TV these days is it worth it?

Was Cheers worth that much in the 80's? If so, why were they not paid like that? If not what makes Friends so much better today than Cheers some 15 years ago?

Actually that could be applied to all actors, directors, music artists and the like. Why should they be making so much more than those that came before them relative to the state of the economy at those times?

More important, where is the money really coming from? In the case of NBC, are they paying this to keep the advertisers? I wouldn't think so. Are they doing it for the audience? Most likely. Thursday nights have been *the* night for NBC going back to the Cosby Show. It is more likely that this extension of the series is actually to buy (literally) time until a suitable show can take it's place. Is that amount of money worth keeping viewers to the Thursday night habit? Actually I would have to say both Yes and No for that one. They have now opened themselves and others (like HBO) to being asked incredible salaries from lead actors who thing they can blackmail studios and networks for more money.



> ...what about Steve Jobs. A $140 million Jet, plus over $100milliion in stock options is over the top, right?
> 
> ...And if Steve Jobs service to Apple didn't warrrant his compensation, he wouldn't get it.




That is easy. No. This actually is very much along the lines of what is happening with actors. Corporate officers all know what everyone else is getting. Most boards want their officers to stay and most officers want to be in at least the upper half of the salary range. Lets look at a hypothetical example for a moment:

Company A wants to keep their executives in the top 50% of salaries. So they  look and see what those salaries are and adjust their salaries to keep their people in that range.

Now, all companies like Company A are part of a group called Company A', the salary range is determined by the salaries of this group. When ever a member of this group realizes that they are part of the bottom 50% they increase their salaries to be part of the top 50%.

The actions of the group generate a raisein overall salaries that has nothing to do with the actual performance of the executives. They worth is not the point of the increase, not being perceived as being part of the bottom 50% of salaries for executives is the driving force, and no matter what any of them do, 50% are always going to be at the bottom.

This has nothing to do with the worth of company officers. This needs regulation. Why? Because unlike in other areas were consumers can create a backlash to stop that type of inflation, they are removed from this situation.

When other measures have been tried, we have ended up with situations like ENRON where the officers created profits for themselves where there wasn't any. Or worse, manipulated markets to provide optimum profits at the expense of everyone else (ENRON again and how it controlled energy prices and flow to California).

Sadly, regulation already existed to stop those types of abuses. But when companies have the ear of the President and Vice President and can even set things like the nations energy policy, regulation becomes ineffective.

If there is something that is more horrifying than the fact that we have been brought to war, it is the fact that the government has stopped regulating friends of the White House. 

My prediction (which is more likely to happen then serpicolugnut's was): Our economy is going to continue to sink until Bush is out of power and a pre-Bush economic style plane is put forward (think Bush I/Clinton).


----------



## RacerX (Mar 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> Your argument doesn't hold water because Iraq is a dictatorship. The workers creating his palaces most likely were forced to work for next to nothing, and were threatened with death if they didn't.



Actually it does... more water than you would ever want to see in real life I imagine. Capitalism works better in dictatorships than democracies. With democracies even people with little or no money can have an effect. In dictatorships bribery is common place (again capitalism at it's finest). Cheney had no problem as CEO of Haliburton working with Iraq when it came to capitalist ideals (making money at all cost, morality be dammed), just before taking office.

Pure capitalism is harsh. The _have_s don't care about the _have not_s. Cheep labor is the best labor... unless you have slavery which is even better than cheep labor. Capitalism doesn't care about anything beyond the acquisition of wealth. Money for money's sake. Power for power's sake. Control for control's sake. Microsoft is a true capitalist company. They thumb their collective noses at regulation and put tons of money into campaigns for officials who can bypass those regulations (Bush/Ashcroft). They know better than to compete, things are so much easier without competitors. Specially when it comes to pricing.

As I said in the beginning, you really aren't part of the group that is being helped by this. You are one of the ones being hurt, but you think that being a card carrying member of the Party is going to get you some where. How wrong you are. They don't care unless you make enough to give to them to help push their causes. True capitalism at it's best.


----------



## Cat (Mar 30, 2003)

Just making a few observations out of context:

1) This is funny: 'liberal' is a designation used in Europe mostly for Right Wing Politicians, while in America it seems to be an insult for Left Wing Politicians. This leads me to assume that the whole political spectrum in Europe is more 'left' than in the US. A right wing party here would be considered left wing in the US, and a right wing party in the US would be considered extremely right wing here ...

2) War supporters tend to accuse war opposers of "wanting to do nothing". IMHO this is not true. War opposers simply wanted to approach the situation in another way, not sitting idly about. Dr. Blix made it quite clear that, while Iraq in the begining was uncooperative, thanks to international pressure (not only of the military kind) it was slowly beginning to cooperate more and more. War opposers were willing to go on  with this road and see where it leads.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 30, 2003)

> Cheney had no problem as CEO of Haliburton working with Iraq when it came to capitalist ideals (making money at all cost, morality be dammed), just before taking office.



I'm supposing you have proof of this allegation? Other than posts from Black Helicopter conspiracy theorists? If not, then please stop dispensing your drive by attacks.



> As I said in the beginning, you really aren't part of the group that is being helped by this. You are one of the ones being hurt, but you think that being a card carrying member of the Party is going to get you some where. How wrong you are. They don't care unless you make enough to give to them to help push their causes. True capitalism at it's best.



Card carrying member of what party my dear friend? Republican? Nope. Democrat? Not since 1993. Green? Not in this lifetime pal. 

The last time I heard that drivel spewed it was while talking to an actual card carrying member of the Communist party at a "peace" rally (funded by, you guessed it - the American Communist party).


----------



## chevy (Mar 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *No one said it was a "happy kick-assing session". Please do not inflame the discussion by throwing out mis-quotes.
> 
> Yes, war is not a video game. It is not a reality tv show. People die, innocent and not so innocent. We know this. Nobody has stated otherwise, so to post as if someone did is complete disengenous. If you can't argue with facts, please don't bother arguing at all. *



If this was not the meaning of your sentence,  "if you (we ?) set out to provoke us, you're going to get your ass kicked", what was its meaning ? Or didn't you write it ? Or didn't you mean it ?

I'm not arguing here for or against the war (this is by the way not the subject of the thread). I was reading your arguments, trying to understand each one (yours and the ones of the others). But I did not understand why you spoke about the war the way you did.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *RacerX...tell me sir, how have I demonized you? You made some statements that reflected your collectivist views, and I simply made a reference to it, while also apologizing if you were not in fact a collectivst. That's hardly demonizing.*




and then later when he is unable to argue a point...



> *The last time I heard that drivel spewed it was while talking to an actual card carrying member of the Communist party at a "peace" rally (funded by, you guessed it - the American Communist party). *



Didn't someone already talk to you about throwing the term _Communist_ around? Funny how through out all this I have yet to try and paint you in such a way. Maybe you just aren't up to the debate.

I can only guess that slipping to attacks of this nature means that you are running out of ideas. Specially when you keep falling back to the Red Scare tactic from the 50's.

And here I thought McCarthyism was out of style... you seem to ware it so well.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *I'm supposing you have proof of this allegation? Other than posts from Black Helicopter conspiracy theorists? If not, then please stop dispensing your drive by attacks. *



I suggest you ask Dick about it. Of course he won't deny that it happened, only that he didn't know about the transactions (with both Iraq and Iran).

Strange, I guess that would answer my earlier question as to why Haliburton was given the contracts to restore oil production in Iraq without those contracts being bid on first. Who would be better to repair the Iraqi oil equipment than the people who sold it to them.



I seem to recall I asked you about proof of your allegations about Gore, your answer was: a Google search. What I ask for was names which you have yet to provide. 

My _attacks_ are actually just the facts (okay, I made the link between Haliburton's current contracts with the US to rebuild Iraqi oil fields and the equipment sales when Cheney was CEO, but I don't think that was very far fetched).


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 30, 2003)

> I seem to recall I asked you about proof of your allegations about Gore, your answer was: a Google search. What I ask for was names which you have yet to provide.



I actually provided a link to an actual article. I stated that if you wanted more, you could do a google search for them. Here it is again. You'll have to scroll a little to get to the blurb.
http://www2.uiuc.edu/ro/observer/archive/vol11/issue2/obiter.html



> I suggest you ask Dick about it. Of course he won't deny that it happened, only that he didn't know about the transactions (with both Iraq and Iran).



I'll be sure to do that next time I see him. You know, all of us greedy, evil conservatives get together at least once a week plotting ways we can rape the environment and steal from poor people.



> Didn't someone already talk to you about throwing the term Communist around? Funny how through out all this I have yet to try and paint you in such a way. Maybe you just aren't up to the debate.



What, the word "communist" is a four letter word now? Read the post, I didn't call you a communist, I simply stated the last time I heard that same argument, it was from a person (a communist, I presume) working at the booth for the American Communist Party. Now, just because you and he have the same point of view, that doesn't make both of you communists. Nor did I say you were, so get off your "McCarthy" attacks.

I'm simply taking your arguments and labelling them what they are. Anti-capitalist. Whether or not you are arguing them for the sake of getting the last word in or if you really truly feel that capitalism is evil is of no relevance to me. 

You still didn't answer any of my questions posed about Friends, Tom Glavine or Steve Jobs. The fact that Tony Gwynn (of course I've heard of him) chose to play his entire career in SD for less money than what he could have received is irrelevent. It worked for him, and that's great. That doesn't mean that when another player decides to test the free market and find that his services will be greatly rewarded in another city that he's greedy. If a team can increase revenues in tickets, in TV advertisements and merchandising through the addition of one player, than whatever they feel is fair to pay him is pefectly alright. 

Man, I sense a lot of jealousy and resentment in you over what other people make. It's none of your business what other people make and whether or not they deserve it. Who are you to judge? So long as they make their money legally, it should make no difference to you. Maybe if you paid more attention to your career and less on successful people who get paid large sums of money to do stuff you deem unworthy, you might actually start to get ahead in this world.

Of course, it is easier to sit back and blame everybody else because they don't deserve their fortune, right? What a dim view of life.

BTW - Green party, right?


----------



## RacerX (Mar 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> ...I didn't call you a communist...
> 
> ... Nor did I say you were, so get off your "McCarthy" attacks.



Actually you did call me a Communist, is your memory that short?



> I actually provided a link to an actual article.



Okay, there is a difference between a blog and an article. That is not a source. Would you try harder this time? *An actual source of names please.*



> ...evil conservatives, ...capitalism is evil, ..."evil rich people", ...evil, ...evil, ...evil.



Wow, there is a lot of evil in your life. You talk about it constantly. If you weren't an atheist I would swear you were a Bible thumping Christian. _Evil_ this and _evil_ that, no wonder you hate the facts, Cheney and Bush having anything less than the highest moral values must make them _evil_ in your world.

Sorry, but in the real world, we deal with shades of gray. I don't thing that Bush is all bad, or Cheney for that matter. I question some of their actions and the motivations behind them, but I would never assign the term evil to anyone unless I was absolutely sure that they had only their own self interest at heart.

So Cheney likes to make money. Fine. He also likes to make war. Fine, but strange... maybe even sick, but not evil. Cheney and many other of this administration have been planning this war for a great many years. It is not that Iraq was a threat as much as Iraq was a good testing ground for their philosophy of how America should rule the world.

Let me guess, you want proof of that too. Fine, this site should really be your home page: The Project for the New American Century.

I'm sure you love that site, and Cheney, Bennett, Quayle, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and even Jeb Bush  are some of the founding members. Their ideas predate September 11, 2001, so they aren't reacting to anything. They feel the US should use it's power to control the world for US interests. They feel the US should be able to move throughout the world without having to answer to anyone else for their actions.

Pretty scary stuff... you'll love it I'm sure.



> You still didn't answer any of my questions posed about Friends, Tom Glavine or Steve Jobs.



I answered fully and completely. If it wasn't the answer you wanted, that is not my concern.



> Man, I sense a lot of jealousy and resentment in you over what other people make. It's none of your business what other people make and whether or not they deserve it. Who are you to judge? So long as they make their money legally, it should make no difference to you. Maybe if you paid more attention to your career and less on successful people who get paid large sums of money to do stuff you deem unworthy, you might actually start to get ahead in this world.



Not at all. What you are sensing may be your own jealousy (as you were the one who brought up those people, some of whom I didn't even know what they made until you produced it for us.

Why did *you* produce those figures here? It's none of *your* business what other people make and whether or not they deserve it. Who are *you* to judge or even bring up what they make?

And who are *you* to bring up these things and act like I was the one who brought them up? That makes for a pretty bad argument, don't you think?

I make as much as I want. Again it should be noted that you are the only one who has shared his income. You are the only one to say he isn't making enough. You are the one who asked me for a hand out. Compared to you I must be the wealthiest man alive as I live happily within my means.

Please work on these arguments of yours. They are getting quite sad.

BTW, I'm still registered as a Republican, have been since 1986.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 30, 2003)

> BTW, I'm still registered as a Republican, have been since 1986



From the utter confused statements you make, that doesn't surprise me in the least.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 30, 2003)

From Newsweek.com (now archieved requiring registration and payment to view entire article, if you are interested)...



> October 3, 2001
> Newsweek_- Living Politics- Gore Loyalists are Relieved That Bush is the Man  by Howard Fineman
> 
> It's not merely that they want to rally 'round our leader - though they do. It's not that they think their man wasn't up to the job - they think he was. But with almost audible sighs of relief, some top people who worked for Al Gore privately tell me they are glad (relieved might be a better word) that George Bush - not Bill Clinton's veep - is in the White House now.



Another quote..


> The Democratic strategists also have realized that Bush has far more political room to maneuver at home than Al Gore would have had. With his reasonably good ties to the conservative, pro-military wing of his party, the president has been able to both talk tough and take his time. Bush can issue threats, and then wait while the world helps us by other means?financial, diplomatic, investigative?to prepare the ground for whatever, presumably surgical, use of force he orders. Gore may not have had the time to execute a waiting game. ?The Republican Right would have been all over us,? said one Gorean



Exact names? No, but Howard Fineman stakes his reputation on the story...

Your link however, still offers no *proof* of the Haliburton/Cheney/Iraq connection.

From your profile...


> I was born, and it was down hill from there._



Indeed!


----------



## RacerX (Mar 30, 2003)

> Your link however, still offers no proof of the Haliburton/Cheney/Iraq connection.



Reading impaired? I didn't offer a link. Cheney has commented on the connection saying that he didn't know it was being done... why didn't he say it didn't happen. There are more than enough references on the internet (that don't require a substription and provide more details than your hidden _proof_ which has no proof).

I leave it to you to find proof. If you can find a hidden reference out on the web, this should be much easier.

From your profile...



> chicks, Macs, chicks, Macs, SciFi, chicks, Macs



Family man... Indeed!

Any other personal swipes you'd like to make? Or do you want to stay on topic? Remember my posts have yet to need moderation in this discussion, yours have required it (doesn't say much about you and your arguments if you ask me).


----------



## edX (Mar 30, 2003)

Alright!! BOTH of you, CHILL OUT on the slanders and personal shots. you're both walking a fine line here and i've only let it go this far because you're the only 2 playing the game. But you are not setting good examples for other members - especially younger ones who are quick to pick up on this kind of behavior and mimick it. 

i think there is alot to be gained from this discussion - as far off from the original topic as it might be. But there is nothing to be gained by questioning each others' intelligence, motives and morals. nothing to be gained by belittling each other.

don't either of you start claiming innocence on this because i can find at least 2 instances on each side of this type of behavior. 

this is my _ever so friendly_ reminder. please pay attention to it my friends.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 30, 2003)

> Any other personal swipes you'd like to make? Or do you want to stay on topic?



Regarding the first sentence...Reciting a line from *your* profile is a personal swipe now? Jeesh. I didn't get all bent out of shape when you cited mine. Nor would I get bent out of shape for being labelled the capitalist pig that I am (I love that phrase!).

And regarding the latter...Stay on topic? Which topic was that? Al Gore joining Apples board? The outrageousness of your statements about GWB? Your antiwar views? Your belief in a collectivist system? Various conspiracy theories? What Micahel Moore eats that keeps him so svelte? Wait - the last topic never came up (at least not yet)...

BTW - you never answered my question re: Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged or We The Living. Both books are here for you whenever you're ready...Seriously, no joke. 

Nighty night...













Don't let the bed bugs bite!


----------



## RacerX (Mar 31, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ed _
> *Alright!! BOTH of you, CHILL OUT on the slanders and personal shots. you're both walking a fine line here and i've only let it go this far because you're the only 2 playing the game. But you are not setting good examples for other members - especially younger ones who are quick to pick up on this kind of behavior and mimick it.  *



Your right, things seemed to of gotten out of hand here. I think I've said my peace and made all my points very clear. And the discussion of the issues seems to have taken a back seat lately to some ungentlemanly like behavior, which was not my intension.


----------



## kendall (Mar 31, 2003)

bwahahahaha


----------

