What does fishing have to do with Hillary?  She oozes experience, her knowledgeable capabilities are well known and profound in the Hillary crowd, You know the losers win idea may have some merit, I hope that does not happen again, but you know the Supremo Court they do what they are told.

Yeah, that’s why...sure.  It can’t be because you have no refutation for Bill Clinton calling himself a Republican.

How many times have i stated that i’m not an Obama supporter?  How many times have i stated that i didn’t vote for him in my primary...nor would i have had he been on the ballot?  And i’ve stated on numerous occasions that i generally don’t vote major party for president anyhow (unless i’m voting against Bush).

Personally, i like guns.  And i would rather have one if/when the powers that be decide to clamp down.  There are strong arguments from the framers’ outside writings on why they wrote the second amendment.  That is, that it provides the penultimate check/balance on government power.

I’m a centrist libertarian, who leans somewhat left because the nation leans so far to the right. (My political compass.org score - when working from a point of not correcting for current imbalances - places me dead center and squarely libertarian...as opposed to statist.)

In other words, i don’t go for your ideology or the Republicans’ ideology...i’m not a big fan of ideology.

Why all the carping about Hillary’s campaign?

She is, by her own admission, the ‘experienced’, ‘knowledgable’, candidate. And she has based her campaign on sound historical precedent: Based on the last two presidential campaigns, Losers Win!

So she is right on track.

Some backround on Mark Penn and his company.

“…political incest?

More interesting is that “Democrat” Penn’s Burson-Marsteller Worldwide owns BKSH & Associates, a major political lobbying firm run by Charles R. Black, Jr. counsellor to Republican Presidents. Black now works full time for the campaign of Republican John McCain. In other words, Black heads a firm whose boss is “Democrat” Clinton top strategist, at the same time Black is Republican opponent John McCain’s top strategist.

In turn, Penn’s firm, Burson-Marsteller is owned by British advertising and Public Relations giant, WPP Group which employs as lobbyists a former Republican National Committee chairman, Ed Gillespie; a former House of Representatives Republican leader, Robert S. Walker, top Republican fundraiser, Wayne L. Berman and the former media adviser to George W. Bush, Mark McKinnon.

In the wake of the resignation of Mark Penn, reports in Washington are that James Carville, former 1992 campaign adviser to Bill Clinton, to Tony Blair and Israel’s Ehud Barak, will assume the role of campaign strategist. It is worth noting that Carville is also deep in Washington political incest. While Carville was running the 1992 Clinton strategy, Carville’s fiancee, Mary Matalin was running the campaign strategy of President George Herbert Walker Bush. As the old expression goes, US politics at least, has indeed strange bedfellows.”

full article:  http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va& aid=8595

I never denied or claimed there were not military actions and/or strikes in Clinton’s administration. I never claimed that terrible things did not occur.

But that is a toyally different matter and issue than what you wrote and claimed about numbers of military deaths.

I responded to that one email that stated as fact that there were more military deaths during Clinton’s administration that Bush II’s.

Your facts were wrong and I called you on it.

Want to debate the relative merits of Clinton’s military strikes ?, that is a different issue all together.

You write:  “...all of our problems will be magically solved once that happens. ...”

I have never said that. I know Maani never has neve said that either. In fact, she has stated just the opposite.

I don’t for a second believe if Hilary is elected all our proplems will go away. Whoever is elected this time will face one of the most severe set of problems this nation has ever faced.

Nevertheless, I do not believe that. I just think that Hillary would be better than McCain and better at selecting Supremes.

Obama would be too IF he could win. And here is where I part company with Obama supporters. I honestly and sincerely believe that he cannot win against McCain.

Let me ask Obama supporters here a couple of questions.

Isn’t one of the reasons you support Obama becasue he says he can usher in a new era and rid D.C. of partisianship by working with the other side of the aisle?

Doesn’t Obama often say that he has worked with those across the aisle (Republicans) to pass legislation?

Doesn’t Obama take or have several ‘Republican’ positions on various issues, such as gun control?

I believe the answer to all those questions is, yes.

That being true, then why the fixation on and anger over the Clinton’s alleged TRIANGILATION?

Some here at TD toss the word ‘triangulation’ around as if it was a four letter word or something evil.

According the Anneburg.org/Fact Check in politics triangulation is simply a Democrat advocating a Republican position or vice versa.

How then can you be logical and complain that when the Clinton’s reached out to the other side of the aisle it is wrong, bad, evil and then support Obama becasue that is what he wants to do?

Oh, I get it. All things Clinton, de facto bad, All things Obama de facto good.

Sometimnes silence is the best reply,especially when you are dealing with nonsense and when dealing with a angry petulent child throwing a temper tamtrum.

Occasionally, I like to watch MSNBC, only because Bert pointed out found MSNBC composedly pro Obama. Normaly I do not watch TV.  Bert, what I watched on Countdown, did seem to be slightly more pro Obama and what they said about Hillary was uncomfortable, I suppose to the Hillary folks. 

According to Countdown, it seems the Hillary camp is in a tizzy because they really thought the Wright alleged (not alleged to Hillary camp) controversy this perfect fantod would sink Obama and take Obama out of the race. Hillary camp cannot understand or comprehend how Obama is still in the race with this Wright thing hanging in the wind. (I know an allegory of sorts) Hillary and camp cannot understand why Obama did not abandon his friend of 20 years, jettison him like garbage off a Luxury Liner.  This black racist, anti American saying all those horrible things for 20 years a pastor, maybe even once a Muslim pastor of Obama, who lives in a white neighborhood pastor.  Seems like Obama has something called integrity to me? 

One other thing MSNBC said about Hillary, it seems her only other plan is to attack the rules of the Democratic party, in effect the Hillary camp tactic is to continue arguing with refs.

Now those were two selective facts I witnessed on Countdown with Keith O on MSNBC.

One can say the MSNBC comments do not bode well for Hillary, but are they wrong? Not facts?  Anti Hillary?  Dost not Hillary seem to bring this stuff on herself?

Us others make claims that are backed up, and we provide it, but anything you can’t triangulate you ignore.  You wait for a mistake (or a perceived mistake) and then pounce...which is fair.  But if the claim is solid, you stick your fingers in your ear and run around in circles yelling “lalalalalala...i can’t hear you.”

Aw shucks, bert, you didn’t reply to tell me that all those “opinions” i posted don’t matter, nor did you give any lectures on how they’re wrong.  What, you don’t have the “facts” at your fingertips to dispute Bill Clinton calling himself a “Republican” and admitting to selling out the people who voted for him?

I was really, really looking forward to you showing us all why you’re right and a Nobel prize winner is wrong.

Of course, it does continue a trend of the compadres only dealing with information selectively.  Rule number 1 of compadre debate: if you can’t spin it, ignore it...maybe it will go away.

There’s only one important thing, Cyrena, electing Hillary Clinton...all of our problems will be magically solved once that happens.  Come that blessed inauguration day, we will be magically transported back to the 90’s when everything was just swell and we all lived in gingerbread houses on gumdrop lanes.  You remember that, right?  When America was spelled Elysian.

Bert, I didn’t post the original figures, on this. Outraged did, and I admit that I didn’t check them myself, before responding to whomever it was that I responded to. (It wasn’t YOU). I didn’t double check for a number of reasons. The FIRST, (which you wouldn’t know or even comprehend) is that Outraged has been posting on this site for as long or longer than I have, and so by now, I know and trust her work. I have utilized many of the same resources that she uses, and I know them to be trustworthy.

That doesn’t mean that any one of us might not come across bad info from time to time. It is a fact of life in a society that has made it a number one priority to manufacture and market DISINFORMATION. It’s been making its way through the Internet, usually in the form of e-mail, formerly known as ‘urban legends’, and I’ve spent the past several years analyzing it. For the most part, it is IMMEDIATELY recognizable, but I do still occasionally receive the stuff, and always from the same people..OLDER extended family members, or those who are not otherwise exposed to the changing times or anything beyond MSM.

In this particular case, I did NOT verify it when I responded to someone other than YOU, and AT THAT POINT, you had NOT posted anything to the contrary, and so I’m just now seeing this. The OTHER reason that I did not double check on these specifics posted by Outraged, is because this is only one of MANY of the ‘non-peaceable’ issues of the Clinton presidency, and THAT was the topic of the thread at the time. Her post on these particular statistics was NOT offered in a ‘vacuum’ but rather as a series of informational posts, and in the larger picture, is not (by itself) significant.

Now I HAVE done an exceedingly thorough work-up on Clinton’s ILLEGAL military interference in the Balkans, (he too attacked without approval/permission/resolution from the UN Security Council), and much of the motivation for his attack has only RECENTLY come to light, like so many other things. So if you really wanted to get into something like that, (and believe me, it will be re-visited if Hillary manages to steal the nomination) then we most certainly can.

HOWEVER, because it is actually YOU who does the cherry picking of propaganda to spread on this particular website/forum, and since it is also YOU who refuses to deal with the reality of truth and facts, YOU aren’t likely to be the least bit interested, and so I’m not likely to waste my time.

I don’t use ‘snopes’ as a determination for verifying ANYTHING. There was a time, (about a decade ago) when snopes was valuable to the average vulnerable new PC user, for decoding urban myths/HOAXES/stupid virus warnings and other such stuff. Like I said, OLDER people with limited exposure to the rapid changes in technology, and long removed from the ‘way things are now’ still use it to site stuff that doesn’t matter to anybody. (or at least not me) I generally use my academic access to periodicals/journals/etc, etc, to get the information that I need for my own work, and there are multiple other websites that have come on line and gradually evolved into excellent sources as well. Snopes is old school, and not helpful to me. It deals with trivia.
Pretty much the SAME can be said of all the rest of the links that you post, which I recognize as such as soon as I see them, which is why I don’t generally bother.

Another reason (for why I don’t bother with most of your stuff) is that you’ve proven yourself to be less interested in sharing or gaining useful, objective, or analytical information within a public forum context, and far MORE determined to ‘be right’ and to shove what you consider to ‘be right’ down our collective throats. From DAY ONE, your posts have been insulting, aggressive, demeaning, disrespectful, mean-spirited, and condescending. I know a few others like you. (humm, former school teachers…

TBC

Your stuff is petty, nit-picky, and never, contains even a whiff of objectivity. Consequently, aside from refuting your most OBVIOUS lies and propaganda, there isn’t a whole lot of reason to bother with the stuff that you put out there.

I’ve discovered that you don’t even bother reading or commenting on any thread that doesn’t involve your zealotry in the current election, and getting Hillary elected. The other issues (that ARE interconnected) you simply dismiss, such as the War on Iraq. Based on that, you operate from a very limited capacity to really engage in, or otherwise provide any substance to the conversation. You repeat the same petty stuff over and over, and for the most part, you’re a bore.

So, when I have the time or inclination to respond to your stuff, I do. Otherwise, I dismiss it. Too many other posters have explained this to you, (and you still don’t get it) with far more diplomacy than I’ve been able to extend, since I can generally start out with that, but my patience is limited with what I see as fundamental, or WILLFUL ignorance. There IS a difference you know, between what we don’t know, just because we don’t know it, or have never been ‘exposed’ for whatever the reason, and what we can never LEARN, just because we’re too stuck on being ‘right’ than actually learning something that might be contrary to what we’ve either assumed or incorrectly perceived from past stereotypes or socialization.

You CHOOSE to stay stuck on ‘being right’ even when you aren’t and even when valid and concrete ‘proof’ can be submitted to indicate that. It’s like weather once said long ago, in one of her/his posts about Zionists, (and Israel). “They’d rather be ‘right’ than happy.” (since they’re usually wrong) It’s some sort of psychological state of dysfunction. There is a mania of sorts to your myopia on these current political issues. You passionately claim this is the MOST IMPOTANT ELECTION OF YOU LIFE! (over 60 year old life)

Few people the least bit ‘tuned-in’ would argue that it is an important election. In hindsight, I’d say that it is not ‘the’ most important for most of us, because the Dick Bush/Neocon Coup of 2000 was the disaster that brought this particular election into focus. You seem totally divorced from the overall realities of the damage this regime has done, and while that doesn’t make the upcoming election any LESS important, there is no ONE person that can undo all of this damage single-handedly, in the form of a president. Yes, McCain could and would CONTINUE the disaster, but Hillary Clinton is NOT the only candidate that can best avoid the continued disasters of this repug mob rule, or even be able to undo some of the disaster.

My own sense is that you are of the type that can only continue the division and polarization that plagues us. Having discovered that you are less likely to engage on the other threads, it’s easy enough to avoid your combative negativity, just by avoiding your favored ‘hang-outs.” So, I’ll just move along now.  I can always ‘scroll past’, if you pop-up elsewhere.

Last but not least, if you honestly WOULD like to ‘catch-up with the times’, I highly recommend truthout.org. It’s an excellent site with a variety of information on the issues of TODAY, from a variety of sources, and as they become available.

Try the links I’ve posted and read my other more recent posts, as well as the links provided there also.  You could also try “googling” the Clinton administration.  I think I tried 1998, but whatever works.  Peace.

Outraged:

“In addition, it is a very well established FACT that the Clinton administration had some very creative ways to skew the numbers and the facts.”

Really?  “Very well established” by whom, exactly?

“FACT?” You have provided none.

This is exactly what bert, myself and others have been saying about you (and others) ad nauseam: you make these wild, generalized, broad-brush claims, but provide ZERO support for them.

So, please...enlighten us.  WHO, exactly, “established” ("very well,” no less) the “FACT” you claim?

Peace.

In addition, it is a very well established FACT that the Clinton administration had some very creative ways to skew the numbers and the facts.

I stand partially corrected.  Your post completely ignores the fact that during B. Clinton’s there were military strikes and people died.  From Wikipedia:

“NATO’s bombing campaign lasted from March 24 to June 11, 1999, involving up to 1,000 aircraft operating mainly from bases in Italy and aircraft carriers stationed in the Adriatic. At dusk, F-18 Hornets of the Spanish Air Force were the first NATO planes to take off and bomb Belgrade. Tomahawk cruise missiles were also extensively used, fired from ships and submarines. The United States was, inevitably, the dominant member of the coalition against Serbia, although all of the NATO members were involved to some degree — even Greece, despite publicly opposing the war. Over the ten weeks of the conflict, NATO aircraft flew over 38,000 combat missions.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_NATO_bombing_of_the_ Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia

Then there was this:

“In 1998, Richard Holbrooke, representing the Clinton Administration, came to Kosovo and appeared in public ceremonies with the KLA, sending a clear signal that the US was backing them.  Exploiting the tensions between the KLA and the Serbs in Kosovo, the US used staged ethnic protests and conflicts to justify military intervention.  In March 1999, in Rambouille, France, the United States demanded that Yugoslavia accept NATO occupation of Kosovo and the expulsion of all Yugoslav forces.  Milosevic refused, and the United States used this as a pretext for war.

On March 27th, 1999, the Clinton administration initiated heavy bombing of Yugoslavia.  These attacks on a sovereign country were never approved by the United Nations or the US Congress, violating both international law and the War Powers Act.

(con’t)
“Hashim Thaci, Kosovo’s current Prime Minister, was formerly the political head of the KLA.  The KLA is widely regarded as a terrorist organization and is supported in large part by drug dealing and human trafficking, making particular use of Eastern European women.  The US had begun training KLA forces well in advance of the bombing of Yugoslavia.”

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va& aid=7941

And this:
“The links of the KLA to organized crime have been documented by Interpol and the US Congress. The Washington Times in an article published in May 1999 describes the KLA and its links to the Clinton administration as follows:

Some members of the Kosovo Liberation Army [headed by the current Kosovo Prime minister Hashim Thaci] , which has financed its war effort through the sale of heroin, were trained in terrorist camps run by international fugitive Osama bin Laden—who is wanted in the 1998 bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa that killed 224 persons, including 12 Americans.

The KLA members, embraced by the Clinton administration in NATO’s 41-day bombing campaign to bring Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic to the bargaining table, were trained in secret camps in Afghanistan, Bosnia-Herzegovina and elsewhere, according to newly obtained intelligence reports. 

The reports also show that the KLA has enlisted Islamic terrorists—members of the Mujahideen --as soldiers in its ongoing conflict against Serbia, and that many already have been smuggled into Kosovo to join the fight.  ....

The intelligence reports document what is described as a “link” between bin Laden, the fugitive Saudi millionaire, and the KLA --including a common staging area in Tropoje, Albania, a center for Islamic terrorists. The reports said bin Laden’s organization, known as al-Qaeda, has both trained and financially supported the KLA. (Washington Times, May 4, 1999,”

full article:  http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va& aid=8055

Outrageous, “For the record Lib in Texas if people with your perspective don’t like me, I consider that a complement and a job well done.” You consider your posting false information a job well done???  What are you 5 years old???  What a sniveling post, like or dislike has nothing to do with anything.  Get a Grip!!!
You don’t even KNOW what my perspective is!!!

You write:  “but that doesn’t change that there were at LEAST 4,417 [military deaths] in 4 of the 8 years of Clinton’s PEACE Admin.”

WRONG WRONG WRONG again cyrena. 

But then why would I expect different. You have stated you don’t even open and read the links I and others provide. For an educated woman that is pretty amazing and very illuminating. Seems your modus operendi is to close yourself off to all new learning - don’t confuse cyrena with the facts, she already has her mind made up.

These figures were found to be totally false and misleading by snopes.com, and other fact check sites.

Statistics are published by Congressional Research Service, and they may be confirmed by anyone at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

In fact, military were the lowest under Clinton than they were under any other president since 1980.

A quick look at the relevant table on page 11 of the linked PDF file shows that the figures in Outraged post have been clearly altered to make Clinton’s numbers higher and Dubya’s lower.

I am not in any way claiming Outraged doctored the figures. he was merely reporting what he found. But I do fault him for not checking before posting becasue plain good old common sense would/should tip one off those figures are funny.

The real numbers show the following: in total deaths, average per year:
Reagan: 2150
Bush 41: 1556
Clinton: 938
Bush 43: 1465

In accidental deaths, average per year:
Reagan: 1332
Bush 41: 872
Clinton: 494
Bush 43: 521

And in hostile deaths, in combat, average per year:
Reagan: 7
Bush 41: 43
Clinton: 0*
Bush 43: 433
*Clinton’s zero figure comes from the fact that while he was president, only one soldier died from hostile fire–despite harsh Republican criticism that Clinton was putting U.S. soldiers in harm’s way in the Balkans.

In fact, counting by almost any category–homicide, suicide, illness, accident, or hostile fire–fewer soldiers died under Clinton than did under either Bush or Reagan. The only exception is in the category of terrorist attacks, in which fewer died under Bush Sr. But that’s it.

Sorry MM, didn’t mean to leave you out of my earlier post. Guess 4 of us now have debunked those damn bogus figures. Make me want to doubt just about everything they write. If they can’t even get that straight.............. and I loved your CAPS!!!!! 

I should learn to read further and see if someone has posted ot not before I jump in. LOL I just posted a long reply to these military death figures before I saw and read yours. I include some background and texture plus sats and a link to the government’s records. Great minds......

You write:  “Clinton style “centrism” brought us the extremes of the NeoCons. Considering how we have spiralled downward--why would we want more of the same?”

How amazingly wrong and just plain stupid. You may disagree with centrism and triangulation - that is your belief and opinion and right.

However, thr Clintons did not bring us the neocons. That was totally and completely 100% George Bush II.

Name me one neocon in Clinton’s administration.

RE: Number of military deaths during Clinton years.

This is a shortened version of a right-wing e-mail (are you a republican right winger, Outraged???) that made the rounds a while back. However, you do not provide the figures for Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2 from that same email. WOW!! You really cherry-picked. Surprise ! Surprise !  I WONDER WHY?

The e-mail these figures come from was found to be totally false and misleading by snopes.com.

The basic claim was that more soldiers died while Clinton was president than did under Bush–the obvious implication being that Bush is not costing soldier’s lives with his botched con-job in Iraq.

Do these figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East (Afghanistan and Iraq) are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Mr. Clinton’s presidency; when America wasn’t even involved in a war?

Statistics are published by Congressional Research Service, and they may be confirmed by anyone at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

The funny thing about this is that whoever it was who wrote the original email included the URL for the actual data on military casualties–a report which shows the numbers claimed are not just wrong, but clearly faked.

As you might expect, military deaths under Clinton were not higher than they are under Bush.

In fact, they were the lowest under Clinton than they were under any other president since 1980. Furthermore, the data cited is flawed in another fundamental way.

Before getting into that, however, one wonders at the idea that hundreds of right-wing bloggers and forum-goers would repeatedly post the fake data, right along with the URL to the proof the data was fake, and never bother to check it out.

Is there that little capacity to self check, that great a desire to believe what they want to believe that so many would do something so lame-brained?

A quick look at the relevant table on page 11 of the linked PDF file shows that the figures in the right-wing rant have been clearly altered to make Clinton’s numbers higher and Dubya’s lower. The number of deaths on both lists remains mostly consistent up until 1994… after which Clinton’s numbers are fictionalized as being higher, and Bush 43’s numbers are artificially lowered. 

The real numbers show the following: in total deaths, average per year:
Reagan: 2150
Bush 41: 1556
Clinton: 938
Bush 43: 1465

In accidental deaths, average per year:
Reagan: 1332
Bush 41: 872
Clinton: 494
Bush 43: 521

And in hostile deaths, in combat, average per year:
Reagan: 7
Bush 41: 43
Clinton: 0*
Bush 43: 433
*Clinton’s zero figure comes from the fact that while he was president, only one soldier died from hostile fire–despite harsh Republican criticism that Clinton was putting U.S. soldiers in harm’s way in the Balkans.

In fact, counting by almost any category–homicide, suicide, illness, accident, or hostile fire–fewer soldiers died under Clinton than did under either Bush or Reagan. The only exception is in the category of terrorist attacks, in which fewer died under Bush Sr. But that’s it.

Even if the creator of the original forged polemic had been honest in reporting the numbers, the basic premise is still flawed–as it counts not just casualties from fighting, but all casualties. The idea being that a president is going to be held responsible for all servicemen who died in accidents of any kind, for example.

But the obvious gist of the article is that Bush is not being irresponsible with the troops, with the natural assumption being that the Iraq War is not as hard on soldiers as was duty under Clinton–and this is patently false, under any pretense, but especially under the only reasonable comparison, which is counting deaths under HOSTILE circumstances.

Some good points, Pack Leader.

Unless You work at Wal-Mart.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/clintonwalmart/index.htm

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/cin _mccainfiles.htm

For the record “lib in Texas”, if people with your perspective don’t like me, I consider that a complement and a job well done.  Thanks.

OMG leefeller, you sink lower and lower pretty soon no one will know WHAT you are talking about.  You ramble on and on.  You and cyrena, Louise, Outrageous, purple girl, savage.

your welcome, normally I wouldn’t point it out but ya’ll think your so damn smart, can’t help myself.

Think BAARRAACK Hussein OOBBAMA sounds good too IN
IRAQ !!!!!!

Rev Wright was a muslim also.  Have not checked it out but heard it on the radio!!

Your candidate has nothing positive about him.  Thats why you want Hillary to drop out before all of the rest of the crab about Obama comes out. CAUSE THERE IS MORE TO COME.

mensa member:

“THE ELEVATION HAS ME CONFUSED THOUGH, IS IT SOMETHING A LITTLE BLUE PILL MIGHT HELP ??????”

***

The elevation confuses you.
Why does that not surprise me?

When are you going to ELEVATE Hillary, your alleged candidate? As opposed to trying to make Hillary [your alleged candidate] look better by trying to make EVERYBODY else look worse. Which is easy, lazy, and oh so very republican. And eventually makes her and her alleged supporters look worst of all.

Maybe you need to cut back on all those carbs. You’ll find it’s easier to avoid confusion. Amazing how a good diet can keep you off those little pills, blue or otherwise. But then suggesting a drug does not surprise me. There’s far to many folks out there who believe the right drug will cure everything. I don’t happen to be one of them.

Another tip. Start thinking positive and you might actually find something about your candidate to elevate.

Might also find it easier to avoid eating to many carbs, since often the bad diet goes hand in glove with seeking the negative. Or is it feeding the starving beast who absent a positive attitude always feels empty?

lib in texas:

Thanks for pointing out that “redunancy” thing.

Whatever would I do without you English majors helping me out?

Actually, I’d have to go somewhere else for a good chuckle.

You guys are such a hoot! Thanks for lighting up my day ... and President Barack Hussein Obama still sounds better.

Outraged:

As noted by others, this has been debunked by Snopes, Hoaxbusters, and a variety of other similar websites.  Here is the Snopes link:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/deaths.asp

Peace.

No problem on the codes jackpine...got it. And, thanks for the links. Some I’d read, others were new.

ALL DO state the realities of those times, whether we all could recognize them or not.

Pay back is ALWAYS a bitch. The least we can do is acknowledge that it IS gonna come around someday. The worst we can do is ingnore it at the time, and then continue to deny it when it actually slaps us in the face.

That is unless one long ago committed themselves to an external existence in some alternative reality and parallel existence.

Must be nice. I wonder what kind of drugs ones needs for that ‘ability’ to exist down there with Alice and all of the others in “Wonderland”?

Facts or opinion, it does not really matter, because things will not change.  The wealthy, the elite, special interests, select for us who we vote for and probably who wins, we live in a plutocracy.

All the facts, all the kings men will not put Humpty together again, except in my opinion he was never all together before.

Why would anyone of sane mind want to pick and choose from facts, which can be manipulated to direct thought in any direction wanted by the giver of said facts, my opinion again. 

Truth may be a fact, but we will never know for truth is so will hidden, we the little people like Shultz know nothing.

Apologies for not breaking the code correctly above.

In short, Clinton’s policies continued the upward redistribution of income and wealth, and punishment for the poor, that were the hallmarks of the Reagan era. It was not until 1999 that the median real wage reached its pre-1990 level, and it remains anchored today at about where it was 27 years ago. ~Mark Weisbrot, Co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0109-04.htm

Finally, the significant, albeit limited and uneven, economic expansion that occurred under Clinton was purchased against the future.  It was fueled primarily by an inherently tenuous, debt-financed stock market bubble that fueled primarily upper class consumption and which inevitably burst, with recessionary consequences passed on to the presidency of Bush II. ~Paul Street
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Sept05/Street0929.htm

In short, during the 1990s, the rationales of free trade and capitalist economics were used to disguise America’s hegemonic power and make it seem benign — or, at least, natural and unavoidable. ~Chalmers Johnson
http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=3856

Americans should face up to the fact that in the very boom were planted some of the seeds of destruction, seeds which would not yield their noxious fruit for several years... ~Joseph E. Stiglitz; 2001 Nobel winner in “economic science” and Chairman of Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors, 93-97.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A00E4D 81231F935A15753C1A9659C8B63&sec;=&spon;=&pagewanted=1

“We have a great Republican president now.” ~A.B. Krongard, Chairman of the Securities Industry Association.  From the WSJ: 11/7/1996, via:
http://www.kellysite.net/modrep.html

Bert, Leefeller, Cyrena, Outrageous as you said are just finding stuff to quote and never check whether
it is true.  The soldiers death thing is on snopes as a bogus e-mail. Why now they are trying to put Bill Clinton down is beyond me I guess they think Obama is just the bestest thing EVER so we put down any thing good before him. What a bunch of losers.

“We’re Eisenhower Republicans here.  We stand for lower deficits, free trade, and the bond market. Isn’t that great?” Clinton further conceded during this same time period that with his new policy focus “we help the bond market and we hurt the people who voted us in.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/pollin10182003.html

The US has the highest rate of inequality of any industrialised country, and that inequality increased during Mr Clinton’s years in office.

Mr Clinton was unable, or unwilling, to do much to combat that inequality. ~The BBC

The US trade deficit - the gap between the goods the US sells to the rest of the world and the amount it buys - has ballooned to over $400bn, financed by foreign buyers of US stocks, bonds and companies. ~ibid
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1110165.stm

I AGREE that McCain has been far too traumatized to be fully sane. But I DISAGREE with your contention that BECAUSE John “survived a Vietnamese prison camp he should be admired and lauded as a hero.” Not so! His self-acclaimed hero, Rambo, would have never surrendered in the first place. And second, and more important, his military conduct has been called into question by his bibliographer, Mr. Eyear.

According to Roland C. Eyear:

“JOHN McCAIN [IS] THE MOST FLAWED PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN HISTORY”

EVENT ON THE FORRESTAL

“McCain"s most horrendous loss occurred in 1967 on the USS Forrestal. Well, not horrendous for him. The starter motor switch on the A4E Skyhawk allowed fuel to pool in the engine. When the aircraft was “wet-started,” an impressive flame would shoot from the tail. It was one of the ways young hot-shots got their jollies. Investigators and survivors took the position that McCain deliberately wet-started to harass the F4 pilot directly behind him. The cook off launched an M34 Zuni rocket that tore through the Skyhawk"s fuel tank, released a thousand pound bomb, and ignited a fire that killed the pilot plus 167 men. Before the tally of dead and dying was complete, the son and grandson of admirals had been transferred to the USS Oriskany. “

This is Bogus Bogus Bogus!!!! We all know you love bogus stuff though.
Leefeller, Outrageous, cyrena this was in a made up e=mail and debunked years ago.  See how dumb you three are,love to put out false stuff.

Outrageous, cyrena, leefeller all breath the same fumes quit making up shi*.  You three are the only ones who believe each other.  you are all proven liars.

has nothing to do with why folks won’t vote for her. They may respect her more though if she bows out.
Clinton style “centrism” brought us the extremes of the NeoCons. Considering how we have spiralled downward--why would we want more of the same?

Louise,

The only reason you didn’t know that bert was actually a woman was because you DO have that life and the job, and your family and all of those very important things.

Like, paying the bills and all. Like most of us have needed to do all of our adult lives.

And yeah, there’s a catch there. On the one hand, it’s a crying shame that anyone needs to keep working beyond a certain point in this American Dream and all, UNLESS THEY WANT TO! (and, some people do).

On the other hand, it’s ALSO a blessing that you are of sound mind and body that you CAN. (work). So you’re right, IT COULD BE WORSE, because it can ALWAYS be worse. (At least that’s the philosophy that I’ve pretty much always lived by)

(That was just a response to an earlier from you on another thread, that I didn’t get to).

Anyway, that’s part of the reason why you probably didn’t know that bert was a woman, (well that and the fact that the CHOSEN ‘handle’ doesn’t generally lead us to that standard conclusion).

But, if you read enough of the drivel, you’d have figured it out. I found out several weeks ago, by making the same (and now we know WRONG) assumption.

And, yours aren’t the only words that Maani has taken ownership of. Sometimes all he does is substitute a name in the midst of the EXACT same language/text of someone else. (same with lib).But, there isn’t much one can say or do about it, unless he tries to publish it somewhere else (without citation.) Even then, he’d probably still not be ‘liable’. It’s a blog. Besides, I think everything posted here is technically the ‘property’ of the publisher/editors, though I haven’t read the fine print.

Still, it’s like you said, ‘we know who they are’. It only annoys (at least me) in the respect that there is so DAMN MUCH PROGANDA! Even with the alleged ‘citations’ that bert prides herself on, she’s only citing bullshit propaganda, and tries to attach some legitimacy to it, just because there’s a website attached. I think she even cited “The New Republic” one time, (Or might it have been The Weekly Standard? Same difference.) If we wanted to read that, it’s damn sure easy enough to find elsewhere.

The thing that amazes me more than anything with Maani and bert, is that they are admittedly so passionately committed to getting Hillary elected, that bert has even claimed just recently, that this has to be accomplished ‘like a business’ because that’s how the repugs do it. Humm, we know that. What is more difficult to understand though, is why –after these months of getting mostly negative feedback to all of the opinion/propaganda- from anyone other than each other, they wouldn’t decide to ‘do business’ on any one of many other websites/blogs, that might be more inclined to be “taken in” or otherwise persuaded/fooled by it. (and yes, there ARE so many others).

I remember years ago when my brother-in-law and his partner were looking to set-up their medical practice, (yeah, a business) they did a few demographics studies first, just to find out where there might be fewer of their own fellow sub-specialists, (like how many of one type specialty does a population need in a 10 or so mile radius) and where there was actually a market for their specialty. I guess most businesses do.

Seems like the same would apply here when one is trying to shove propaganda and ideology down the throats of a crowd that, for the most part, isn’t having it. It seems like it would make more sense to grab ‘fence sitter democrats’ or even, in their case…REPUGS, to shove the Hillary brand, since the Clinton brand has always been the closest thing to repugs anyway. THAT’S where the action would be. Repugs that are fed up with the Repugs, but still want the repug brand in the White House, in more subdued colors.

But, they won’t. (or at least they won’t leave here). I think there must be something more to it. (the ‘business’ that is.)

Oh please…

Who the hell is the MORON here? The figures show that there were 4,417 military deaths in the FOUR years between 1993 and 1996, and we don’t know what they were for 1996-2000.

How does that have anything to do with the OBVIOUS, which is that there have been far more in the Bush Admin, that aren’t even counted properly, because they don’t include the suicides, or the wounds that are bascially the same as being dead, and would have resulted in death in earlier conflicts.

OF COURSE there have been more military deaths under Bush, but that doesn’t change that there were at LEAST 4,417 in 4 of the 8 years of Clinton’s PEACE Admin.

MORON!

I think it was YOU he missed incarcerating.

“...(WFI EDITOR: Anyone with half a wit would realize that the only way an institution as mammoth as the Federal Government could go from deficits to surpluses, was by employing dubious accounting methods…

OK, I DID figure this out long ago, so at least I’ve got half a wit.

Outraged...I had no idea about this. (never claimed any expertise in the CPI, and sure didn’t know that there are analysts who now compute Pre and Post Clinton CPI indexes).

Dang!! You are soooo smart. And, I’m always largely grateful for this info.

Thanks!

The CPI and the Clinton Administration manipulation of an already manipulated number.

“During the first Bush Republican Administration, Chief economist Michael Boskin and Federal Reserve chair Alan Greenspan lobbied for a change in this methodology. They believed that when consumers could no longer afford a particular item, they would purchase a cheaper substitute. If steak, for example, became unaffordable, the consumer would switch to hamburger. If cars with V8 engines became too expensive, the consumer could purchase a car with a smaller engine. And so on.

The CPI, they argued, should reflect actual purchase decisions, rather than a fixed basket of goods that would gradually become irrelevant as consumers continued to substitute cheaper products for those on a fixed list of goods. In effect, they wanted the BLS to find ways to decrease the reported rate of inflation by tracking consumer buying habits as they struggled to find cheaper goods and services.

They got their wish. During the Clinton administration the BLS initiated a long and complex process to measure the rate of inflation based on “value” rather than “price”. It works this way. If the BLS believes the value of an item has increased from one period to the next, it decreases the item’s new price point by the value of the improvement. Thus if the car you buy this year has more features than the one you could have purchased last year, the price point is deflated to account for the added value of the new features. If this year’s health care is presumed to be superior to last year’s available health care, the added value is deducted from the CPI health care price point. Since this year’s personal computer has more power and features than last year’s PC, the added “value” is deducted from its new price point. And so on. Product after product. The adjusted cost of an item, as measured by the CPI, may go down even though the actual cash you pay for the item is going up. The technical term for this highly subjective data manipulation is called hedonic regression. It guarantees the actual cash you pay for goods and services is more than the phony price the federal government claims you paid for these goods and services.

Entire article:
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article3135.html

By David Stanowski, a economist from Galveston.

“Like nearly all government-created economic indicators, the CPI is largely fictional! It was never devised to provide an accurate measurement of inflation. On the contrary, the government manipulates their indicators to make the economy appear to be doing much better than it really is. Distorting the CPI also allows the government to under pay entitlements, like Social Security, whose cost-of-living increases are based on this index.

Studying the formulation for the CPI, reveals a variety of insidious ways that are used to greatly understate inflation. Every administration since WWII has manipulated these economic indicators to their advantage, but the CPI was modified so drastically, by the Clinton administration, that some financial analysts now compute the Pre-Clinton CPI and Post-Clinton CPI. This, and other changes to the government’s economic indicators, allowed the Clinton administration to grossly overstate the performance of the economy, during those years!”

http://www.thefinancialhelpcenter.com/Economy/Inflatio n-the-Big-Lie.html

That booming economy and surplus:

(excerpt)
“Clinton and the Democrats are ready to pounce. The White House estimates, for example, that one spending bill would have to slash many labor, health and education programs as much as 18%. (It’s ironic that the Democrats and the Republicans are willing to “play politics” with the most important issues effecting American nationals, without any sense of moral compunction, after all, the slashes in programs will be the result of an agreement the President entered into with Congress. The self-serving agendas of each party is little more than a source of national shame. WFI Editor) “I do not believe there is a consensus in this Congress or in this country to make the kind of draconian reductions that would be required,” said Rep. David R. Obey of Wisconsin, the senior Democrat on the Appropriations Committee.

SOURCE: Excerpted from the 11 July, 1999, issue of the Los Angeles Times, Orange County Edition, from an article entitled, “Heaping Surplus Built on Mountain of Assumptions.” Reprinted in the public service of the national interest of the American people.

(WFI EDITOR: Anyone with half a wit would realize that the only way an institution as mammoth as the Federal Government could go from deficits to surpluses, was by employing dubious accounting methods. Along with the statistics that support the PR hype that we are in the middle of a “boom” because some people have made profits from the stock market bubble, it is conventional wisdom that the “wise” men running the country have inflation under control too. The reality that there is no boom, that there is no surplus, is as lost as the truth about Bill Clinton’s honesty. His most recent travesty, the Cross Country Poverty Tour, is another example of his superficial means of addressing significant social issues. The president is a photo-op waiting to happen.)

http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/news/nws174.htm

A portion of Ralph Naders statement(1996) on The Freedom of Information Act:

“The only modern President who has actively supported the Public’s right to know was Jimmy Carter, who took steps to reduce official secrecy, and to improve the administration of the FOIA. The Clinton Administration raised expectations about the access under the federal FOIA, talking the talk, but has failed to walk the walk.

There is the problem of failing to “oil the machinery.” The Clinton administration hasn’t come close to the statutory time limits for processing FOIA requests, and has done little to address the serious problems of sealing records with overbroad and unjustified secrecy classifications. And when faced with the new issues presented by electronic communications, the Clinton Administration has been a disaster.

Consider the issue of Scott Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President. This is a case which involves access to the electronic mail messages from While House employees. As this audience will recall, much of what we know about the Iran-Contra scandal we learned from the electronic mail records of Oliver North and others. At the end of the Reagan Administration, Scott Armstrong, the journalist, the National Security Archives, the American Library Association, the American Historical Association, the Center for Strategic Studies, and Eddie Becker, an individual, sought and received an injunction which prevented the White House from destroying its email records. Through a number of subsequent actions, these parties, who are represented by Public Citizen’s litigation group, have sought to have White House email records subject to the Federal Records Act (FRA) and the FOIA. In addition to the injunction over the Reagan records, there is an injunction over the Bush Administration records, and there are efforts to preserve and provide access to the Clinton Administration records. The case is popularly called the White House email case.

Not surprisingly, the Bush administration mounted a huge challenge to the Armstrong case. Perhaps more surprising has been the effort by President Clinton, who has also fought the Armstrong case with a vengeance. In fiscal year 1993, government lawyers spent 8,793 hours opposing this suit. In fiscal year 1994 they spend 8,594 hours opposing the suit. In fiscal year 1995 they spent 5,704 hours opposing the suit, and we don’t have the figures for fiscal year 1996.

One of the disputes concerned the status of the National Security Council (NSC), under the Federal Records Act (FRA) and FOIA. For years the NSC has considered itself subject to FOIA. Indeed, the Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush Administrations did not claim that the NSC was exempt from FOIA. But in March 1994, the Clinton Administration declared that all NSC documents would be exempt from FOIA and the FRA, a claim that the past three Republican presidents did not dare to make.”

http://www.cptech.org/govinfo/foindiana.html

Another Bill Clinton “legacy”:

“When President Clinton Stole the “Get Tough on Crime” Show

When President Bill Clinton included “the war on crime” as a major tenet in both his 1992 and 1996 presidential campaigns, the past ten years had already witnessed the largest incarceration increase in the nation’s history. During his 1992 campaign, to illustrate his resolve, President Clinton actually interrupted his campaigning to return to his home state of Arkansas to oversee the execution of mentally retarded death row inmate Ricky Ray Rector.

Throughout its tenure, the Clinton administration consistently supported increased penalties and additional prison construction. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 provided state and municipal governments with $30 billion to add 100,000 new police officers, to build more prisons, and to employ more prison guards, as well as funding for crime prevention programs.
*****

Incarceration Outstrips Education

President Clinton consistently touted education as a priority for his administration but he enacted laws that increased prison funding and had the consequence of reducing higher education funding.”