Prosperity or Huge Deficit....

[ki4bgo]

...how many Hams here are in favor of this "administration" and all the wasted tax dollars/record job losses (in true republican fashion) and how many wish we still had a SURPLUS and more jobs??? Flame Away if you must...(3sy) you must be in the top 1% income bracket to speak the way you do!...but it was the same s**t with the last Bush! Someday people will learn from their (voting) mistakes! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[K6UEY]

Well I for one support our president and I think GW is the right man for the job. As any intelligent person I would not expect the republican party or GW to reverse the shambles left by the 8 years of taxing and spending that the previous adminstration left the country in just a few months or years. If it took 8 years to ruin the economy it will take time to repair it, maybe some are just beginning to see what a disaster the economy was left in, some people just never get the word on time.
As to voting mistakes it looks like the people are starting to wake up both on the National level and here in Kalifornia. The progressive left should take note the people are fed up and they are not going to take it any more, Kalifornia being the 5th largest economy in the world,as CA. goes, so goes the nation ...... 73, # ORV
#http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

I vote for me, but then I am not too bright http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Tom K8ERV

[ke4pjw]

Let's see, even before Sept. 11,2001 the economy was taking a nose dive. Maybe I am a fool, but I really doubt that Bush caused the economy to go into a tailspin in the first 10 months of his presidency. My reasoning for this is 1) Clinton taxed the economy to the point it was about to choke. 2) Clinton's SEC was doing nothing it investigate the fraud that was being played in the stock market.

About the time the economy started to choke was about the same time Bush took office. When the SEC pulled their head out of their butt, the problems were so big that it caused corprate America to freeze like deer in headlights. I know, because the number one answer I got when I asked my customers about purchasing more services was "We are not spending any more money for the rest of the year".

Couple that with the attacks on New York and Washington, I am surprised we are doing as well as we are. Bush is doing better that I expected.

I will be voting for Dean in the primary and Bush during the election ;)

[ky5u]

bgo, lil pud,

Mother Theresa could have been President when the planes hit the Trade Center and the economy STILL would be in the toilet. #I didn't like Bill Clinton but I would never post this baiting doo-doo on a HAM RADIO forum. #

EVERY President does/did things I don't agree with but the incessant whining is a little much. #The economy, waaaaa; the war, waaaaaaa; Bush, waaaaaaa; Republicans, waaaaaaa; da Democrats, waaaaa; BUSH STOLE THE ELECTION, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

You seem a bit disenfranchised. Was your "chad" left hangin' dood?

[ae4fa]

I'm thinking of applying for a grant to study "trickle up economics." Here's the working hypothesis:

If a ham maxes out on the latest, greatest Techno-Whiz tranceivers, amplifiers, logging programs, and such - and the five 175' towers with stacked monobanders, etc. for a complete contest station, what would be the effect on the economy, as depicted in the microcosm of amateur radio electronic and peripheral suppliers?

I postulate that this stimulus would prompt suppliers to increase their inventories, which would prompt manufacturers to both step up their production and invest more in research and development. In turn, the boost in revenues by advertising media would spur interest among the general public, thereby boosting sales of study materials, and ramping up test fee revenues. It follows, then, that membership in a certain national organization would swell, providing it with the resources to affect legislation and regulation activities in Washington.

All of this activity would naturally provide incentive for other hams to invest in setting up state-of-the-art contest stations, which of course, would magnify the trickle up effect of the original grant program, thus renewing the cycle once again.

Obviously, the surge of activity in this sector would ripple out, promoting growth first in closely related economic ares, then in those further removed.

At great self sacrifice, I am willing to undertake this study. I will be calling on my fellow hams for letters of recommendation when the grant proposal is in final form. I estimate it will require no more than $1.5 million in federal funding, but that figure is dependent on what the preparatory research reveals.

Can I count on you for support?

[KD7WHQ]

I think the current adminstration is doing about as well as can be expected under the circumstances.

As was said, the economy was already in a dive, and deficit? Consider the national debt, and the best that has been done so far on that was a "balanced budget." It's here to stay.

On the other hand, consider the bills passed that benefit you and everyone else, and those looking to pass that will even more so.

Time to check on S-1034 et al again.. I think at least one is slipping..

[KG6JTB]

Giving credit where credit is due, this administration did a great job of engineering a "soft landing" for all the "irrational exuberance" that fueled the growth in the 1990's. The tax cuts, the lower interest rates, and relative slight growth in unemployment made for a "touch and go" instead of a crash. 6.2% unemployment is nothing compared to 10% in Japan, or 15% in Germany for the past decade.

Bush has got to keep the momentum going to win in 2004. I'd like to see less emphasis on foreign policy, and more on domestic reengineering. Our standard of living is jeopardized by the loss of high-paying jobs and manufacturing moving over-seas. I'm all for global trade, but if we don't maintain an industrialized base of some degree in the U.S., we could be vulnerable in a large global conflict.

We can't sustain ourselves as a services-only economy in the future. There are some democrats already addressing the issue. I can't wait to see who the front-runner is after the primary.

I’d like to set aside all the dumb social issues too.

Dave
KG6JTB

[kb9wgx]

Why is this posted on QRZ.com? Argue politics at work, with your yl, or with your self, but not here.

Josh

P.S. Politics - Root words: poly (many) and ticks (blood sucking creatures) = many blood sucking creatures.

The right wing conservative media is quickly spreading the word that the economy is getting better. The only problem is the working people in this country know better. As for bush, did we expect anything different?? 9-11 was an easy out for the failing economy. Bottom line.. the past 3 repub Presidents produced failed economys, wars and hatred for America... In the middle there was a Pres who presided over an economic boom, jobs creation, and peace time. Again, did we expect anything else?

[kb9ax]

Brianc; When could you discuss politics in ANY country. This is next to discussing religion, with no possible real answers from either side.

Its the debate and disagreements that lead to good answers not agreeing with each other.

good grief, just enjoy the fact we can do this.

Dan KB9AX

[K3UD]

In 1999 Alan Greenspan warns of "irrational exhuberance in the stock market". March of 2000, my 401K begins to take hits that in 4 months reduces the value to about 50% of what it was, all the time many, if not most "experts" are calling it a "correction" and telling people to sit tight. Fortunately I get out after losing just 50% and get it stabliized. Know people who sat tight and lost over 75%, ruining retirement plans. Shortly after we hear rumors of inflated earnings, manipulation, and malfeasense.

Tech stocks touted by every major brokerage house and most individual stock brokers. It s the "new economy"...... one in which profits did not seem to matter as much as venture capital investment, optimistic growth curves (still without profits) and hyped IPO's. The NASDAQ (what was it's slogan back then?.... something like the 'the market for todays economy'http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif soaring to 5,000 with 'no end in sight'. Venture capitalists pleading with promising high tech companies to take their money.

Stock market and mutual funds returning tremendous returns allowing communities and states to reap and astonishing amount of revenue and fund a myriad of new services, and now, without that return, leaning on the taxpayer for more, much more, taxes to keep these new services funded. In some cases almost bankrupting some communities, school districts and states (California... need I say more?)

Then we begin to hear about crooked CEOs inflated profits, spurious growth forcasts and maybe worst of all, holding whole states hostage to price fixing of electricity.

All of this had roots dating back to the 90s with the tech boom. The impact was felt in early 2000. The presidential election was in late 2000. Mayors, Governors, School Boards, City Councils, and Presidents elected after that time period are the ones who have to deal with the consequences. By and large, they did not cause it.

73
George
K3UD

[w3sy]

First of all, I have no complaint about the subject matter. Off-topic (non-ham) discussions seem to be permitted here, as long as the ground rules are observed. In fact, ANYTHING beats another code/no-code discussion...

On the other hand, if you'll notice, most off-topic rants have been on amusing subjects, and not on political topics that are likely to get people jumping down each other's throats. Still, as it is with all message threads, if we're interested, we'll talk about it. If not, or of the thread runs out of gas, it'll die a natural Thread Death.

Having said that...

Aw, gimmeafriggin' break, Bingo. Without totally rehashing the well-spoken replies before this one, I'll simply remind you that the economic and global political situations now staring us squarely in the eye were WELL on their way during Hill 'n' Bill's eight years in the White House. To place all the blame on the current administration is sheer propaganda.

Sorry to bust so hard on you, Bingo, but you told me all I needed to know when you made that reference to your belief that GW Bush was not fairly and legally elected according to the laws of our land.

Rather than blame Bush, the Republicans, conservatives, and anyone ELSE you want to moan about, why not produce a Democratic candidate worth voting for? (Hint: Not Al Bore or Hillary Hairdo or Al Not-So-Sharpton or Howard Weenie.) If the Dummycrap party wants to continue its trend of pushing itself further and further to the LEFT, hey, it's THEIR funeral.

Isn't there a Howard Dean "meetup" you should be attending right about now?

Haw....

And good day to YOU, sir.

Lets remember a few things... The person who first started commenting on the failing economy in 2000 was none other then gwb. He was campaigning all over the country trying to make the point that the economy was not as good as people thought. After taking office...Instead of waiting to see what was going to happen with the economy he gives away the expected surplus to the people who need it least. So any cushion we have for a rainy day is gone... Then 9-11..... A perfect alibi for a faltering gwb economic plan. The economy takes another beating in Afghanistan during the war to get the people responsible for 9-11. Bin Laden escapes us so gwb attacks Iraq for some reason and tries to tie it to 9-11. Most people are too smart for that. The economy is still failing and in hopes of creating jobs gwb proposes another tax cut while allowing companies to take jobs overseas. It is amusing reading all the arguments for failure,,, a tech bubble, false economic growth, 9-11, winning 2 wars ( won 0 so far), conservative congress ( we still have this, but without Clinton to control them)... So basically what we are getting from thi s admin is bad financial management, excuses, excuses, ....

[K6UEY]

KC,
Does all this mean you are mad as Hell with the way Congress has acted and are going to not take it any more and vote the Republician Ticket just like most will do ?
And thank you about the joke of clinton controling the congress, he was so wishy washy the democratic party almost abandoned him, every Republician plan that was accepted by the people, clinton would cross the road to back it, drove the democratic party nuts ...... # #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

I am just glad your opinion is in the monority.. Many think that the conservative congress is responsible for slashing the deficit. We still have a conservative congress and the only missing factor now is Clinton. I am hearing some good things about the election next year. Many are leaving gwb for ANY dem maninly because of the mishandling of the economy. That is going to be a major focus.. Just like 92.. Its the economy stupid.. I cant wait for the repubs to be in hiding once again....

I am just glad your opinion is in the minority.. Many think that the conservative congress is responsible for slashing the deficit. We still have a conservative congress and the only missing factor now is Clinton. I am hearing some good things about the election next year. Many are leaving gwb for ANY dem maninly because of the mishandling of the economy. That is going to be a major focus.. Just like 92.. Its the economy stupid.. I cant wait for the repubs to be in hiding once again....

KiloCharlie makes the same, old, shopworn,and threadbare attacks that many like to do.

No facts.. No hard data.. no examples..no sourcing, no information.

Just the TYPICAL phrases that trigger emotions but don't add any value to the discussion/debate. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

I read these posts and I smile (sadly) and skim onward looking for other things to read.

I may NOT agree with the 'other side' but AT LEAST.. if they provide some sourcing or references I can consider it and deal with from that venue.

KC and others who hold views (as well as those who are rabid on the other side) MANY TIMES respond on the emotoinal level with lots of vitriol and venom but VERY LITTLE substance to support what they say.

The economy runs in cycles. That is a fact.

The changes ONE adminstration makes to the system which drives the economy (tax law changes, regulations, trade policy, military action) tend to have a 'spike' effect as the immediate impact occurs BUT if it's law/regulation changes then it takes some time for the economic cycle to adjust to the changes.

Bush inherited an economy that was FINALLY adjusted to the changes that the Clinton folks allowed to be enacted into law. Couple that with the impact tothe travel business and transportation business from 11 Sep 01 as well as the sea change in attitude that resulted from that.. and you can see it was NOT anything that Bush did but rather things that happened before he was able to truly institute things.

(The economy had not yet adjusted to the impacts of the tax cuts, becusae the tax cuts had not fully been implemented yet)

The necessary military response to the attacks also drove things too - Hopefully, KC, you are NOT suggesting that our military response to an OVERT attack upon this country was a 'WAG THE DOG' scenario? If you are.. you need to STOP sniffing the Testor's Glue!

The Economy was just recovering from the crash in the 90's.
It was beginning to recover and then we have the scandals on Wall Street. Then we had 11 Sep 01 all in QUICK successioin.

I also trust you are not going to blame ALL of these on Bush, are you? Please note that many of the changes in the rules governing the accounting practicies that occured were BEFORE the current adminstration's watch.

[w3sy]

&quot;Kilocharlie&quot; sez: <span style='color:blue'>I am hearing some good things about the election next year. Many are leaving gwb for ANY dem maninly because of the mishandling of the economy.</span>

Really? Where are you hearing this? In a Doonesbury cartoon? At a Howard Dean &quot;meetup?&quot; In your dreams?? Where? I've heard no such thing.

The most ludicrous thing you said was &quot;ANY dem.&quot; Hilarious... I would agree that many moderates like myself (and I AM a moderate) would be willing to at least consider a worthwhile Democrat, but these days that seems to be quite the oxymoron. There's NO ONE in the current crop of Dummycrap bozos that any Republican I know would consider.

No, I don't worship GW Bush, but I think he was our best available alternative last election. I think he has done a decent job, given the hand he was dealt.

And may I say, good day to YOU, sir.

Facts are facts.. Under Clinton jobs were created.. Almost the same number as jobs lost under all the Pres named bush... Here is a fact for you.. Most economists claim this was the carylist for the economic expansion in the 90s.. The economic recovery act of 1993 that was supported by ZERO repubs... passed... Immediate impact was felt for the middle class as could be seen by job creations.. again with ZERO support by the repubs.. It is laughable the lengths that people will go to defend a failed Pres... The great thing is.. even those who did not support Clinton gained benefits from him, but instead of giving him credit, they defend another failed bush Pres.......

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w3sy @ Oct. 14 2003,12:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">&quot;Kilocharlie&quot; sez: <span style='color:blue'>I am hearing some good things about the election next year. #Many are leaving gwb for ANY dem maninly because of the mishandling of the economy.</span>

Really? Where are you hearing this? In a Doonesbury cartoon? At a Howard Dean &quot;meetup?&quot; In your dreams?? Where? I've heard no such thing.

The most ludicrous thing you said was &quot;ANY dem.&quot; Hilarious... I would agree that many moderates like myself (and I AM a moderate) would be willing to at least consider a worthwhile Democrat, but these days that seems to be quite the oxymoron. There's NO ONE in the current crop of Dummycrap bozos that any Republican I know would consider.

No, I don't worship GW Bush, but I think he was our best available alternative last election. I think he has done a decent job, given the hand he was dealt.

And may I say, good day to YOU, sir.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
We will never know about who was the best choice.. I think we are finding out that maybe gwb was not the best choice. During the election in 2000 I was reading lots of editorials about gwb in the tx newspapers.. funny how what is happeneing to us now is what they complained about...

[N0KLT]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kilocharlie @ Oct. 14 2003,14:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">&lt;snip&gt;

#During the election in 2000 I was reading lots of editorials about gwb in the tx newspapers.. #funny how what is happeneing to us now is what they complained about...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Lord help us, we have a Molly Givens reader and believer amongst us. There is a reliable source http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

73

Gary NØKLT

[K6UEY]

KC,
If the TX newspapers were so good at fortune telling why didn't they warn us about Clinton, we could have saved 8 years of collapse.
BTW
Go back and look at the headlines in the newspaper before Bush you will see where large companys were laying off 4 to 5000 each week, and it wasn't because they believed the TX newspapers.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K6UEY @ Oct. 14 2003,13:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">KC,
If the TX newspapers were so good at fortune telling why didn't they warn us about Clinton, we could have saved 8 years of collapse.
BTW
Go back and look at the headlines in the newspaper before Bush you will see where large companys were laying off 4 to 5000 each week, and it wasn't because they believed the TX newspapers.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Where were you during 1993-2000? 8 years of collapse?? Plain laughable!! I do agree there are economic cycles.. good and bad... if gwb believed the economy was in such a downturn why was he handing money out like he was Santa Claus?? It would seem to me he would want to be prepared for the collapse. You dont have to go far in history to see what happens with economic policies such as we have now. Just go back to the &quot;other&quot; bush. History will show that the gretest economic expansion in our history was bookended by the failed policies of men named bush.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w3sy @ Oct. 14 2003,12:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">&quot;Kilocharlie&quot; sez: <span style='color:blue'>I am hearing some good things about the election next year. #Many are leaving gwb for ANY dem maninly because of the mishandling of the economy.</span>

Really? Where are you hearing this? In a Doonesbury cartoon? At a Howard Dean &quot;meetup?&quot; In your dreams?? Where? I've heard no such thing.

The most ludicrous thing you said was &quot;ANY dem.&quot; Hilarious... I would agree that many moderates like myself (and I AM a moderate) would be willing to at least consider a worthwhile Democrat, but these days that seems to be quite the oxymoron. There's NO ONE in the current crop of Dummycrap bozos that any Republican I know would consider.

No, I don't worship GW Bush, but I think he was our best available alternative last election. I think he has done a decent job, given the hand he was dealt.

And may I say, good day to YOU, sir.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Just curious, what has happened the past 3 years that you find remarkable from this &quot;leader&quot;? #Do you find it helpful that the anticipated surplus is gone?? #Do you find it curious that after we are attacked by a group of radicals from Afghanistan the pres says we need to attack Iraq?? #Do you find it uplifting that thousands of jobs have been lost?? #Is it stabilizing that the number of police officers and funding for the first wave of homeland defense is being cut instead of increased? #What is better??

[w5alt]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kilocharlie @ Oct. 14 2003,16:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">..... The great thing is.. even those who did not support Clinton gained benefits from him, .....[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Refresh my memory. What benefits were those?

I ran my own businesses from the mid-Bush years all through the Clinton years. The economic turn-around started before Clinton took office. And the best thing Clinton did was keep his hands off the economy. Maybe we should have thanked Ms. Lewinski for keeping his hands else where. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

Oh, I know. Clinton made sure that Enron and Worldcom handled things correctly and they only turned sour the day after he left office, right? And the Tech bubble burst because Clinton wasn't there to prop it up, right? And Clinton did his best to avert the 9/11 disaster, but the nasty Republicans wouldn't listen, right?

What I saw was an economy that soared as a result of what was in place before Clinton. It worked because he didn't interfere. More inspite of him rather than because of him.

Interesting that you are so proud of Clinton, but won't even sign your name or call sign. Yep, sure I believe you.

73,

[KG6JTB]

The best person for the economy for the past decade was/is Alan Greenspan.

Presidential administrations have little to do with economic cycles. It just happens that Clinton was president during the technological &quot;gold rush&quot;. Greed and corruption fueled this boom. I know all to well, I worked for a CMGI-backed dot.bomb, and saw $80 million dollars pissed away in 24 months with nothing to show for it.

If you want to give Clinton credit for the good that came out of the tech boom (and there was some good), then you must also assign him the bad. Thankfully, Greenspan has remained at the helm of the Federal Reserve during these turbulent times.

I'm stating to feel as euphoric about the future today as I did back in 1999 when I was granted thousands of stock options for the dot.bomb.

I am sizing up the Democratic contenders because I am a moderate Republican. I though Clark might have a chance, but he's a bumbling idiot who can't remember who he voted for. The young senator from N.C. doesn't know much about world affairs, and was a trial lawyer! No thanks! Cuchinik? Did you hear him today announce his candidacy? What the F***, over? I'd vote for Sharpton before I'd vote for any of these guys because at least I'd know what I was getting!

Well, I wanted John McCain in 2000, not GWB. I wanted McClintock before Arnold, and I voted for Clinton in 92' because I lost confidence in Bush Sr- and he was a great president.

Keep an open mind.

Dave
KG6JTB

We must bear in mind that the economy has its cycles, and goes in the toilet for a few years every decade or so.

I've said that I don't blame Bush for the bad economy, it was just a coincidence that the thing tanked right after he got elected (with help from his daddy's supreme court judges).

What I can say about Bush is that he is a traitor, he has overturned several fundmantal rights we had under the constitution, he has established a policy of attacking other countries without provocation, his boy Rumsfeld was the one (under daddy Bush) who gave Saddam the anthrax, and that he is an illiterate idiot who can't even speak English and a disgrace to this country, and I would love to see him hung by the neck until dead.

But I don't blame him for the economy.

[KG6JTB]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What I can say about Bush is that he is a traitor, he has overturned several fundamental rights we had under the constitution, he has established a policy of attacking other countries without provocation, his boy Rumsfeld was the one (under daddy Bush) who gave Saddam the anthrax, and that he is an illiterate idiot who can't even speak English and a disgrace to this country, and I would love to see him hung by the neck until dead.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

A traitor? There was a time when we sided with Saddam because we feared Islamic fundamentalism would spread from Iran. You using 20-20 hindsight, and that is not fair.

We have all learned from the past. The games we played and the lives lost during conflicts in the cold war are evidence of how bad policies can come back to bite us.

Sure, Iraq evidence was &quot;sexed up&quot;, but 12 years of sanctions was murderous on the Iraqi population. Saddam had to go, and there wasn't anyone else up to the task. He was funding terrorists in Israel and abroad.

Wait a few years, see what happens in Iraq, then pass judgment. The Iraqis support their liberation by 67%. They don't love us, but who cares. Neither do the French, and we bailed them out twice.

I do agree that we need to be vigilant about our consitutional rights. The patriot act was a bit heavy-handed and unwarranted. All we need to do is be more alert and keep those cockpit doors locked! Al Quaida shot it's wad on 9/11. I wouldn't hesitate to fly again.

I'm sure much of this legislation will be struck down by the courts in coming years.

Dave
KG6JTB

[n7wsb]

I'm curious how conservatives typically justify GW's somewhat liberal stance on the rest of the world. Yes pre-emptive strikes are a very very liberal notion - the the hard left government of the Soviet Union knew it well. They practiced it very well since the end of WW2.

Its an historically conservative notion to be isolationist. This was reflected when we went to drop bombs on Kosovo. The vast majority of republicans were against the action (rightly so I might add) and it was reflected when Roosevelt pushed for WW2 (and actually in that case house/senate democrats also opposed war).

I want to know how conservatives justify the mis-management in Iraq. Face it - begging for help 3 times in the UN is bad (today marking the 3rd draft resolution). Some of the things they want to spend in the 87+ billions dollars is rediculous. Especially considering the situation at home (unemployment, financial crisis in the states etc). Mind you we've already sunk 166 billion into Iraq.

87 Billion dollars is more than the combined debt all the states face in next fiscal year.

Here's a good list http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8857

My favorite one - 87 billion dollars is enough to give everyone in the US (including kids) 300$.

Mind you in the first 166 billion there is no clear accounting of what all the money was spent on. What kind of people don't balance their checkbook? Oh yeah - liberal pinkos right?

The state budget issue could actually be bigger than you think. Especially when several states are doing things like letting prisoners out early, and cutting after school programs which can keep kids off the street.

Here's a funny cartoon http://www.markfiore.com/animation/dissent.html

[n7wsb]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG6JTB @ Oct. 14 2003,21:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A traitor? There was a time when we sided with Saddam because we feared Islamic fundamentalism would spread from Iran. You using 20-20 hindsight, and that is not fair.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Ahh the irony. Ever read about how Islamic fundamentalism took over in Iran?

[KG6JTB]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ahh the irony. Ever read about how Islamic fundamentalism took over in Iran? [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, I know it too well. My father served in the U.S. Army in, Iran! That was 1959, and he was training the Shaw's troops.

The Shaw, interestingly, came to power because the west put him there. Iran tried to nationalize it's oil production, and that would have meant that the free-market would have controlled the price of oil. With a &quot;feudal system&quot;, under the Shaw, the monarchy would sell oil cheaply to the west.

Feudal systems work for a while until the peasants reach a boiling point. What unites Muslims is their religion. If you know the story of Muhummad, then you understand why radical Islam is so powerful. Throw in impoverished masses, and you have a revolution.

Problem is the entire mid-east was carved up by British and U.S. oil interests a hundred years ago. Kingdoms were set up all over to control the masses, and pump cheap oil. All the oil in the region today isn't enough to sustain a middle-class economy above the poverty level.

That is the biggest long-term problem in Iraq. When all the U.S. money runs out, can the Iraqi government still float a sustainable GDP? I doubt it. Things will probably get worse again. A democracy may survive, but not the kind that you and I know and love here in the USA.

When I buy my new hydrogen-celled car in a couple years, I'll get a good laugh!

Dave
KG6JTB

The CIA, under daddy Bush, supplied Osama with the shoulder launched missiles eveyone is so worried about now.

It's not just an issue of hindsight being 20-20, it's an issue of backing people who are the scum of the Earth, and of trying to manipulate the affairs of foreign countries by using them as pawns...

I don't like hearing Bush insist that he will fight to the last drop of our troops blood, as he sits back with his rich buddies eating a t-bone steak in his air-conditioned office...

The idiot can't even say &quot;nuclear&quot;....

And while North Korea needs to be nailed hard, he says we can find a &quot;diplomatic solution&quot; to that... guess he doesn't really care about defending America against a serious nuclear threat, his priority is finishing daddy's job and getting control of the oil fields of Iraq...

For all his flaws, Clinton was a saint compared to this little inbred mutant scumbag...

[ki4bgo]

My other thoughts are this: WHY...(no matter WHO is president) is all the problems, of these pissy little 3rd world countries always something the United States has to try and fix??? If this country doesn't quit trying to be the world's &quot;babysitter&quot; and take care of our OWN problems, we'll all be saluting a different flag! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[K3XR]

president bush inherited the clinton-gore recession. #as he lied his way through 8 years, while doing interns in the oval office, giving (selling) secrets to china and obstructing justice, clinton's commerce department was &quot;cooking the books&quot; giving inflated figures on how good the economy was doing.

thanks, in large part, to president bush's tax cut the economy is making a come back....you need to stop watching and reading the left wing main stream media and start gathering some facts
dan,k3xr

[KG6JTB]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't like hearing Bush insist that he will fight to the last drop of our troops blood, as he sits back with his rich buddies eating a t-bone steak in his air-conditioned office...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Bush never said this is his policy.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And while North Korea needs to be nailed hard, he says we can find a &quot;diplomatic solution&quot; to that... guess he doesn't really care about defending America against a serious nuclear threat, his priority is finishing daddy's job and getting control of the oil fields of Iraq...
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Do you see how hypocritical your logic is? You're against losing lives in Iraq in a viable attempt to set up a democracy, but willing to sacrifice millions in the Koreas and possibly destroy 1/4th of the world's economy. China, Japan, S.Korea, they all have a say in this. N.Korea is their neighbor, not ours. There are many diplomatic steps that have yet to be taken.

As for &quot;control of the oil fields&quot;, that is 13 year old rhetoric that is flatly untrue. If we wanted control of the oil, we would have kept a strongman in charge of Iraq, and got our oil cheap by supporting his regime. What we are doing is the complete opposite to what we have done before. We are pushing a democracy, and nationalizing oil to support all Iraqis. This will drive oil prices up, not down.

But of course, you get your information from some media outlet like NPR that makes your mind up for you so you don't have to think.

Dave
KG6JTB

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w5alt @ Oct. 14 2003,19:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kilocharlie @ Oct. 14 2003,16:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">..... The great thing is.. even those who did not support Clinton gained benefits from him, .....[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Refresh my memory. What benefits were those?

I ran my own businesses from the mid-Bush years all through the Clinton years. The economic turn-around started before Clinton took office. And the best thing Clinton did was keep his hands off the economy. Maybe we should have thanked Ms. Lewinski for keeping his hands else where. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

Oh, I know. Clinton made sure that Enron and Worldcom handled things correctly and they only turned sour the day after he left office, right? And the Tech bubble burst because Clinton wasn't there to prop it up, right? And Clinton did his best to avert the 9/11 disaster, but the nasty Republicans wouldn't listen, right?

What I saw was an economy that soared as a result of what was in place before Clinton. It worked because he didn't interfere. More inspite of him rather than because of him.

Interesting that you are so proud of Clinton, but won't even sign your name or call sign. Yep, sure I believe you.

73,[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Doesnt make any difference if you believe me or not... The facts are quite simple.. Under Clinton the economy flourished and under all pres named bush it was in the toilet.

[K3UD]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n7wsb @ Oct. 14 2003,23:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm curious how conservatives typically justify GW's somewhat liberal stance on the rest of the world. Yes pre-emptive strikes are a very very liberal notion - the the hard left government of the Soviet Union knew it well. They practiced it very well since the end of WW2.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Sometimes the left comes full circle to meet the right. These titles sometimes get jumbled. Was Stalin really a leftist? He probably did not fit into any category as we know them today. As far as pre-emptive strikes are concerned, I don't think that anyone has mentioned Vietnam. Remember the Domino Theory? That whole war was based on the theory of pre-emption. Based on the the prevailing wisdom of the times, Kennedy and Johnson felt they had no choice. Were they hard leftists? The problem with interpeting history is that we tend to use our contempory values and belief systems as determining factors to measure the morality, wisdom, and outcomes of historical events.


73
George
K3UD

[w3sy]

In a Howard Dean / Hillary Clinton ticket, who should be the Presidential candidate, and who should run for VP?

If you find yourself giving serious consideration to the above question, please pick up your keyboard and smack yourself upside your head as hard as you can for a full five minutes.

Thank you. Drive through, please.

[ki4bgo]

For anyone considering GWB for re-election...GIVE your keyboard to SOMEONE ELSE, and let THEM give you a GOOD keys-a-flyin' hit right upside your brainless cranium! One...maybe two hits should to the trick!!! ...thank YOU drive AWAY! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

[K6UEY]

I would not want the Liberal Left to fall into the same trap that the no-coders have and build a false sense of confidence thinking their warped values represent the majority of the voting public, so this would probably be as good a time as any to state;
I support the President of the United States and the policies he is trying to put forth to bring peace to the troubled middle East. I voted for GWB the first time and the good job he is doing will get my vote for the second term, to finish the work. # # # # # #73, # ORV # # # #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[KG4RYT]

My opinion President Bush (note i did not say Mr. Bush) is doing as good a job as any one else can under the same situations.
Sept. 11, 2001 change our world. Even before he took office the econmy was heading toward a down turn. If you add the down time for the airlines and the destruction of the World Trade Center wouldn't this cost also be a factor in our present trend.
Also look who many jobs we have lost to the fine NAFTA agreement. Who signed that into law?
How long does it take for policy to affect the economy? I think Bill Clinton, the Congress, and President Bush must all take some of the blame, but not all of it!!!

[w5alt]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG4RYT @ Oct. 15 2003,13:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also look who many jobs we have lost to the fine NAFTA agreement.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
OK, I'll bite. How many jobs have been lost due to NAFTA?

When I worked in Mexico, I didn't see any new jobs created as a result of NAFTA that I or my family wanted. I'm really curious, which of those jobs is it that you want?

73,

[KG4RYT]

It comes down to 3 out of 4 plant closings in North Carolina are really relocations, most to Mexico. 2500 workers in pillowtex alone. One plant closed here and stated it would be cheaper to operate in Mexico because of all the regulations here in the states. Furniture and Textiles are just about gone! Soon it will be the auto industry and steel industry and it will be to late for America.

[K6UEY]

I think you might be just a little behind the curve,yes manufacturing industries are MOVING their operations to Mexico,China ,South Korea,and other places where they can get labor costs that allows them to compete on a World market. As to being behind the curve the Labor Unions have already killed the Steel industry, the Carpet industry,the furniture industry, and most of the textile mills,they are presently working on the auto industry and what few electronics that are left in this country.Maytag Appliance just shut down a large manufacturing plant, and there will be others it is just a matter of time.
Here in Kalifornia our Liberal goverment has the distinction of offering higher welfare benefits than any state in the country,this acts as a magnet to all those who the Unions put out of work the cry now is &quot;Go west young man Go west &quot;.That is partially why we are changing the administration out here &quot;we are mad as Hell and am not going to take it any more &quot;.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[w7act]

The way I see it the reason our Social Security and Medicare Systems are missing some Seven Trillion Dollars is not because of George W. Bush or the Republicans who now control both Housed of Congress. It is the result of 45 years of Democratic Control of both houses and the Democrats stealing these Funds to pay for each and every one of their Pork Barrel Projects during that time.

It wasn't the Republicans that got us to the point we are today it's Democrats who got us here and they just can't seem to get a grip on the fact that the American Voter is tired of the Democrat's trip out into La La Land.

[w5alt]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG4RYT @ Oct. 15 2003,16:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It comes down to 3 out of 4 plant closings in North Carolina are really relocations, most to Mexico. 2500 workers in pillowtex alone. One plant closed here and stated it would be cheaper to operate in Mexico because of all the regulations here in the states. Furniture and Textiles are just about gone! Soon it will be the auto industry and steel industry and it will be to late for America.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
How much time have you spent in Mexico?

Personally I find it pretty sad when the USA, supposedly the best country in the world, can't compete with Mexico on an even, head-to-head, economic basis and the US workers complain about it.

And I don't fault Mexico or NAFTA.

73,

[KD7WHQ]

To compete, we would have to drop wages to some $2.25/hr, have no benefits, and work 18 hour days.

The logic does not compute..

[w5alt]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KD7WHQ @ Oct. 15 2003,21:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">To compete, we would have to drop wages to some $2.25/hr, have no benefits, and work 18 hour days.

The logic does not compute..[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No, your logic does not compute. We do compete. Our economy is much stronger than Mexico's by most measures. Most would also agree that our standard of living is also higher. And many citizens of many foreign countries would love to raise their wages to $2.25 per hour. That is a ridiculous argument.

Competing with Mexico has never scared me. I compete quite well there - and they know it. In fact, I don't know of a single American who has worked in Latin America that is afraid to compete with them.

Many liberal politicians love to feed off of the uninformed, especially if they can create feelings of insecurity. I'm guessing that you haven't spent much time in Latin America and don't know how their economies work. Hence the misconceptions and the willingness to accept hearsay.

73,

[KD7WHQ]

I'll clarify;

There are two different catagories the competition runs in; labor, and product.
We beat them hands down for product, but they have us beat for labor.
NAFTA was a mistake, and as has been pointed out, companies are relocating, leaving their prior employees, well at least the laboring ones, behind..

[w5alt]

Hmmmm, I guess my understanding of economics needs to be revised. If labor doesn't produce a profitable product or service they aren't needed, so only one of your categories is really important. Are there really people who believe that anything other than a government subsidized program is going to keep labor around just for the sake of labor? Are you advocating socialism?

Some people seem to live in a dream world where they can do as they please and everyone accepts it. Unfortunately for them the world isn't like that. Business goes where business makes sense. Factories relocate when it is not profitable to operate where they are. Labor groups that want to earn more for doing the same thing bring about their own problems.

If NAFTA is so bad and such a terrible mistake, tell me how the US economy and standard of living has declined since NAFTA?

Have you gone shopping in Latin America lately? American products abound and are highly sought after. Producing and exporting those products apparently has benefited the US. Are you aware of our balance of trade figures for everything excluding oil?

When the products manufactured across the border are sold at cheaper prices back in the US, has anyone complained? If everyone complained and refused to buy the products, the companies would be forced to move back to the US and everyone could pay higher prices. I wonder if there might be a correlation between NAFTA and inflation?

As I said, I compete very well in Latin America. But I don't do the things the same way I did 20 or 10 or even 5 years ago. The world catches up and it always will.

But you never answered my other question. How much time have you spent in Latin America? Or are you buying hearsay?

73,

[KD7WHQ]

I'll try again;
Labor, as in less expensive. Labor is a market, just as goods are. They interact, but you know that http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
I've never been to Latin America, and one near suicidal 20 minute trip to Tiajuana was my Mexican experience.
Nearly 5 accidents in less than 10 minutes rather dissuaded me.
And, I'm drawing on anecdotal evidence, news reports, and statistics as to the movement of goods.

I'll ask you; the jobs are going south, what's coming back?
Are prices lowered as a result of the drastically reduced labor costs?

And, where does Canada fit in? They are in North America as well, but just try to do anything between this country and our brothers up north.. Mexico is far easier, and this I know from a shipping aspect personally.

NAFTA was a lopsided proposition, and as far as I can tell, the only people benefiting are the few people employed by the gone-south business', and those business' themselves..

My opinion..

And no, I do not advocate socialism. It could never exist in it's true form as long as people would be involved, therefore it is unworkable.
I think the evidence of that is clear enough in this last century..

[KG4RYT]

It isn't just the wage difference it is also the goverment regulations (EPA). In America right now the waste disposal companies are doing very well, while our manufacturing is going down the tubes.


Goverment is also growing! They need all those extra people to keep up with the paper work.

We can have fair trade with Canada, same standard of living, but with Mexico, until they match our min. wage and put in place some enviromental protection it is pointless http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[K3UD]

The labor issue is an interesting one. Median wages have been stagnant since the 1960s when the CPI is figured in. Household income has grown primarily because of the large increase in two earner households, sometimes where the earners hold down more than one job. Increased household spending can be somewhat accounted for by the proliferation of easy to get credit via a number of avenues.

We keep hearing about staggering consumer debt and the increasing number of personal bankruptcies. We are also in a situation where basic consumer items such as health care and housing have spiraled almost out of control, topping the CPI index by large percentages with more and more companies passing along larger part of the costs their fringe benefit packages to employees.

Sometimes though, labor is its own worst enemy. We had a situation here involving a large Phelps Dodge wire plant and the union in the plant. The workers at Phelps Dodge had the highest industrial wages of any local plant and one of the best fringe benefit plans in the area. Phelps Dodge wanted to put more automation in the plant to make it more competitive. The union did not like that for a variety of reasons.

There was an unofficial decrease of plant productivity to such an extent that the executives from Phelps Dodge in Indianapolis flew down several times to meet with the employees. Their message was pretty clear. The plant was not competitive and if it could not get competitive then the automation equipment planned for the plant would go to a new plant being built in Mexico.

The union kind of laughed at this. Phelps Dodge then replaced some of the plants top management in order to attempt to get the plant up to the standard they wanted. The slow down continued with one union member being quoted in the local newspaper that, yes, there was a slow down going on and it would stay that way until Phelps Dodge agreed to not place more automation at the plant.

In the end, The equipment went to Mexico and in time the local plant was shut down with the town taking a huge hit with lost jobs and tax revenue. The former plant is now up for sale for $6,250,000. I guess the union made its point.

Disclosure:

For almost 5 years I served variously as a union local VP, Chapel Chairman, and Contract Negotiator. What I saw and did there ultimately caused me to take a management job in the same company.

73
George
K3UD

What MANY labor unions AND management FAIL to realize that without BOTH parties, the company goes belly up and EVERYONE loses.


It is a Pyyrhic victory. You WIN the battle,you lose the WAR.

As in the Phelps-Dodge story... Yep, the UNION made it's points (and the members agreed with them or the Union could not have continued doing what it did) and PHELPS took the business to Mexico and NOW all the folks are out of a job and looking! A Pyyrhic victory to be sure!

When Management decides to put up a 'my way or the highway' attitude the result is good people leave and the company falters and the result is the same. Pyyrhic victory! Won the battle.. lost the war.

ONLY when UNIONS realize that the owners of a business aer in it to MAKE A PROFIT and the owners realize that without their labor they can't MAKE A PROFIT.. will it become feasible to deal with it.

Shortsightedness on both parties parts leads to movement of jobs, loss of facilities, and a drain of talent.

[K0YNE]

I thought I was the only one who noticed that Bush was creating a huge debt, the only President who railed for war in every speech, every day. Iraq never presented an immediate threat then and &quot;W&quot; was pushed into the war by Israel. Of course George isn't too bright as most of us can conclude. I don't think many of us could tolerate another Bush term...Besides, Our boys over there don't deserve to die under these circumstances he and his administration dreamed up. More democrates please....

[kb9lor]

All I will say, is that all politictions and all lawyers ARE crooks and they all go hand in hand! so there!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif



Brian
kb9lor

[K6UEY]

Brian KB9LOR,
That is a pretty broad claim that you make, are you speaking from personal experience ? Are you an Attorney ? # #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[W5HTW]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w5alt @ Oct. 15 2003,12:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG4RYT @ Oct. 15 2003,13:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also look who many jobs we have lost to the fine NAFTA agreement.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
OK, I'll bite. How many jobs have been lost due to NAFTA?

When I worked in Mexico, I didn't see any new jobs created as a result of NAFTA that I or my family wanted. I'm really curious, which of those jobs is it that you want?

73,[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I worked for a NAFTA company. We supplied complex systems to many companies in Mexico, in Chihuahua, Guadalajara, Juarez, Monterrey and other places. Some of the companies were AT&amp;T, Chrysler, Ford, RCA, Philips, etc.
(We also supplied companies - American companies - in Singapore, China, the Philippines and Korea.)

The problem with the NAFTA idea is American companies move their assembly/manufacturing to Mexico. This causes them to hire Mexican workers, at usually about 1/4 the pay of American workers and sometimes less. That is supposed to supply jobs for the Mexicans, and so it does. In the long range it would reduce illegal aliens crossing into our nation as they would have good jobs in their own.

But it doesn't work that way. Just for example: We supplied systems to AT&amp;T for their plant that built answering machines in Guadalajara. The poor Mexican working in the plant was certainly a lot better off at 6 bucks a day than he had been at zero to 1 buck a day. But he still couldn't afford one of the answering machines he helped build, and even if he could, he didn't have a phone to put it on. Meanwhile the profits from the company don't go to Mexico; they wind up in New York City, in the pockets of the stockholders.

Consequently the Mexican gets a tiny bit better, but not much. The American lost his job. The stockholders got richer, but the trickle-down economy idea behind that plan doesn't work, as they don't expand their business and hire more workers - at least, not in America! They may hire more workers, but in Mexico.

So the small percentage of Mexicans that got jobs with American companies did indeed fare a bit better. And the stockholders in NYC fared a LOT better. And the women on the assembly line in Oklahoma City went on to the unemployment line.

Exporting jobs is not a solution for a great American economy. We can not be just a consumer nation. If we become the world's consumer, we will stop consuming anything, for we will have no jobs to pay for it.

Which of those jobs would I want? Not one of them - in Mexico. But in the USA they were good paying jobs with good benefits (the main reason they aren't here anymore) and I HAD one of them, and liked it.

By the way, the 'media' has long been noted as liberal. Until, of course, some liberal calls it the right wing media! A matter of convenience.

I loved Clinton! As soon as he was in office good he made a retroactive tax increase that put me in the hole for the next two years! Yeah, buddy.

Al Gore invented ham radio.

Jimmy Carter couldn't say &quot;nuclear&quot; either.

Lyndon Johnson took us to Vietnam. Richard Nixon got us out of it. Way, way late.

Clinton took us to Kosovo. We're still there.

Clinton took us to Somalia. We're not still there.

Clinton bombed Iraq. Bush invaded it.

Hussein invaded Kuwait, starting the whole process that took us 12 more years to decide to actually do something about this idiot.

And, yes, NAFTA needs to be repealed. A huge mistake for American workers. But it's probably too late.

Ed

[kb9lor]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K6UEY @ Oct. 16 2003,15:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Brian KB9LOR,
That is a pretty broad claim that you make, are you speaking from personal experience ? Are you an Attorney ? # #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Pretty broad claim? #Don't think so, and all of them are liars too, as for Georgie Boy, he is an oil man, who do you bush lovers think he backs? hmmmmm....you can bet the oil companies,big business, and if you don't believe that you have a twisted view of reality. what about Haliburton? they got the contract on rebuilding the oil fields, and Bush wants to give Iraq 87 billion? not a loan fellas, but a grant which they NEVER pay back. So where does haliburton get the money for fixing Iraq? I say let the Iraqi's pay for it with the oil exports. I am a union man fellas and you can bet your bottom dollar 'ol bushy could give a rats hindend about the working man. like I said before, they are crooks and liars...PERIOD!

Brian
Kb9lor

BTW- Yes I do vote! I back our troops, just not the sorry Commander-in-Chief!

[n7wsb]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w5alt @ Oct. 15 2003,16:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How much time have you spent in Mexico?

Personally I find it pretty sad when the USA, supposedly the best country in the world, can't compete with Mexico on an even, head-to-head, economic basis and the US workers complain about it.

And I don't fault Mexico or NAFTA.

73,[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
None myself - but as far as competing goes... They compete because they can pay people a dollar an hour. There are conservatives (my last boss for instance) who think they should do that here in the US. That might help.

Its like outsourcing companies. Many Indian firms are complaining that Eastern European countries are undercutting the competition.

Next time you call Dell techsupport (TS) keep in mind you're talking to someone in India who may make 350$ a month.

I can't imagine someone surviving on less than that.

[KD7WHQ]

Thanks guys, for proving I wasn't out in left field http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Ought make the run for the presidency, eh? lol

Back to topic.

Jobs are leaving here for other countries because the labor costs are cheaper.
NAFTA was a mistake (never mind the WTO, I won't even discuss that one without going off; more of the same).

But, and remember, outsourcing to other countries can backfire.
The Japanese made a slight redesign in the transistor radios that were jobbed out to them, creating their own patentable design, and they then made their own. Millions of them.
And, ever single LCD display made for any product in the world is made in Japan, for exactly the same reason. A change is design to a certain level creates a newly patentable device, even if it does exactly the same thing.

We taught them too well after WWII, but the fact remains that if we are to remain TRUELY competitive, the jobs need to stay here.
No slight to the Japanese; They used the knowledge we provided, and busted butt to better things we gave them as projects, and continue to do so.
It's only our fault for jobbing out projects that belonged here.

NAFTA is doing exactly that; jobbing out work that should be here, or outright moving operations to a foreign country.

And the above points it all out as fact.

I never did buy the &quot;new world order&quot; line, and still don't.
Help them yes, hand them a platter, no..

[w5alt]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W5HTW @ Oct. 16 2003,19:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But it doesn't work that way. #Just for example: #We supplied systems to AT&amp;T for their plant that built answering machines in Guadalajara. #The poor Mexican working in the plant was certainly a lot better off at 6 bucks a day than he had been at zero to 1 buck a day. #But he still couldn't afford one of the answering machines he helped build, and even if he could, he didn't have a phone to put it on. # Meanwhile the profits from the company don't go to Mexico; they wind up in New York City, in the pockets of the stockholders. #

Consequently the Mexican gets a tiny bit better, but not much. #The American lost his job. #The stockholders got richer, but the trickle-down economy idea behind that plan doesn't work, as they don't expand their business and hire more workers - at least, not in America! #They may hire more workers, but in Mexico. #[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
So you blame NAFTA for people not investing in their companies? Who do you think owns stocks in companies? The majority, either directly or indirectly through funds, is owned by normal people. I don't live in NYC but I do own stocks. And I've always owned stock in the companies I've worked for - it only makes sense to me.

It also can be very disturbing when someone finds out what their work is really worth in a world market place. That realization certainly made me change my strategy! But I don't blame that on NAFTA.

73,

I really enjoy KB9LOR's posts. They make me smile.. the make me chuckle, and that releases endorphins. Those endorphins are a natural 'high inducing' chemical the body produces and it brings a sense of pleasant comfort to the mind.

They make me smile and chuckle because his use of hyperbole, outright 'blanket condemnations without facts' and the strident emotional appeals for agreement based on emotions, not reality, just remind me of listening to the great unwashed demonstrators back during the 1966-1973 years when ANYTHING Governmental was 'BAD AND EVIL'.

Where 'everyone over 30 was not to be trusted!', where Utopia was just around the corner in the 'dawning of the Age of Aquairius' and ANYTHING that smacked of 'old fashioned traditional &lt; meaning proven to work over time&gt; values was denigrated, persecuted, and reviled as being 'restrictive, discrimnatory, unfair, and JUST PLAIN OUT OF STEP WITH THE MODERN day and times we were living within'.


Then a STRANGE thing happened... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Those great unwashed grew older.. found out that LIFE and REALITY was N OT the UTOPIA that they had been led to believe it should be.

Rude awakenings occured and they blinked once... twice.. and even three times at the confusion that now reigned.

So... KB9LOR et al, THANK YOU SO MUCH for the much -needed shot of endorphins! Please continue!

K3FT
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[kb9lor]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K3FT @ Oct. 17 2003,08:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I really enjoy KB9LOR's posts. They make me smile.. the make me chuckle, and that releases endorphins. Those endorphins are a natural 'high inducing' chemical the body produces and it brings a sense of pleasant comfort to the mind.

They make me smile and chuckle because his use of hyperbole, outright 'blanket condemnations without facts' and the strident emotional appeals for agreement based on emotions, not reality, just remind me of listening to the great unwashed demonstrators back during the 1966-1973 years when ANYTHING Governmental was 'BAD AND EVIL'.

Where 'everyone over 30 was #not to be trusted!', where Utopia was just around the corner in the 'dawning of the Age of Aquairius' and ANYTHING that smacked of 'old fashioned traditional &lt; meaning proven to work over time&gt; values was denigrated, persecuted, and reviled as being 'restrictive, discrimnatory, unfair, and JUST PLAIN OUT OF STEP WITH THE MODERN day and times we were living within'.


Then a STRANGE thing happened... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Those great unwashed grew older.. found out that LIFE and REALITY was N OT the UTOPIA #that they had been led to believe it should be. #

Rude awakenings occured and they blinked once... twice.. and even three times at the confusion that now reigned.

So... KB9LOR et al, THANK YOU SO MUCH for the much -needed shot of endorphins! Please continue!

K3FT
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
K3FT, They are posted to make you smile! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif And I don't believe &quot;anything&quot; government is bad and evil, I just stated how I felt about Bushy, and still do! and what I posted about him is true, I don't know about endorphins and such,or whatever they are called, what I do know is that he is wanting to give something of mine and yours to the Iraqi's and I feel that is wrong. But anyways I know I can't change the world, but I can voice my opinion, and/or write my so called elected officials but there again, they are all crooks and liars so pretty much you are back to square one, viscious cycle eh?

Well guess I will step off the stump for awhile, nice chatting with everyone! good day!


Brian

kb9lor

[ki4bgo]

The most interesting part is when Bush went ahead with the war, as if to thumb his nose at the U.N. after they said &quot;not yet&quot;, now he goes back and (with EGG all over his face) says,&quot;pleeeeeease help me&quot;....takes a brass pair, if you ask me! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif ...we need to quit being the world's babysitter and look after our OWN!

[KG4RYT]

The UN is useless all they can do is talk about peace and stability, and they do nothing!!!!
America is still the greatest military power in the world, and if we sit back and do nothing it will be worse than what happen 60 years ago with Nazi germany. Remember (Peace in our time). It did not happen.
How many sanctions does it take too get rid of a dictator? Now the world may never know!

[ki4bgo]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG4RYT @ Oct. 17 2003,15:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How many sanctions does it take to get rid of a dictator? Now the world may never know![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Very true....

[KL1MX]

I will vote for anyone but Bush in 2004. But chances are that his daddy and friends will buy the election for him again.

kb7pht Posted on Oct. 17 2003,07:40
------------------------------------------------------------I will vote for anyone but Bush in 2004. But chances are that his daddy and friends will buy the election for him again.


So tell me, please..

JUST how much did they spend on those checks that they wrote to the Supreme Court?? Seems I just can't find any records of cancelled checks OR payments made to the 9 Justices on the US Supreme Court.

Since THEY were the ones that ruled on the petition that settled the election.. then I gather your comment means that SOMEHOW.. the Bush camp 'bought' the Supreme Court and thereby bought the election.

AS Arte Johnson used to say on 'Laugh-In' when he played the German soldier.

&quot;VEELLLLLLLLY INTELLLLESTINGGG!!!!!&quot;

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[kb9lor]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG4RYT @ Oct. 17 2003,12:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The UN is useless all they can do is talk about peace and stability, and they do nothing!!!!
America is still the greatest military power in the world, and if we sit back and do nothing it will be worse than what happen 60 years ago with Nazi germany. Remember #(Peace in our time). It did not happen.
How many sanctions does it take too get rid of a dictator? Now the world may never know![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I agree on the UN part, but here is my gripe when the subject of the UN comes up. When I enlisted in the Navy in 81' I took and oath to uphold the constitution. NOWHERE does it say I am to be under any other command UN or otherwise, then why was a soldier court-martialed for refusing to put a UN flag on his uniform in place of the U.S.A.'s? and he refused to be under anyone other than a US officer? I say get the hell out of the UN! worry about everyone here! maybe if we would stop GIVING money away we might be able to turn our country around. ...oh man I could go on and on...but won't!


Brian
kb9lor

[KL1MX]

This web site http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html might shed some light on why i think bush bought the 2000 election. Not the whole election but he bought florida.

[K3UD]

Was it John Kennedy's father who bragged about how much it cost him per voter to buy the West Virginia vote in the 1960 election? And how about all those dead people in Chicago and Cook County IL. who voted in the same election? Both parties do whatever they need to in order to get the edge.

73
George
K3UD

[KL1MX]

K3FT I was wondering where you get the records of checks writen to the supreme court. Could you provide me with the web address?

thanks for your help.

Whether or not anyone 'bought' the election in Florida is - as the Borg say - IRRELEVANT!

The State of Florida MAY have been a problem in thier election counting process = here a chad, there a chad, every where a chad, chad!..

Lets also not bother to look at going into the aspect of the election where valid and properly submitted and completed ballots from THOUSANDS of United States Military servicemebers that voted by mail from 'outside CONUS' had thier votes discarded, disregarded, and denied due to some shoddy attempt to disenfranchise them..

THE POINT YOU MADE WAS THAT somone BOUGHT the election for Bush.

My response was PLEASE show me how ANYONE 'BOUGHT' the election when the US Supreme Court had to decide the outcome - just as the Constitution directed that they do in such cases, BTW http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

I never heard of any allegations of payoffs, payments, or fees being given to the 9 Justices of the Supreme Court, have you?

Therefore, NO ONE BOUGHT the election. It was decided, in accordance with the duly enacted laws in place at the time the case came up, by the body which was duly charged with upholding the law as it existed at the time (and still does, to this very day)

BTW.. I noted you were quite silent on the topic of JFK's Daddy buying votes for his son when JFK ran for office.

Hmm... a bit more difficult to deal with it when it's a member of YOUR own party, isn't it! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

(you know what they say about that.. If the foo..err.. shoe fits...) http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

BTW.. just to make it clear for you.. the comment about te checks was with a bit of tongue-in-cheek humor. Thought you would have picked up on that. Guess not.

[KL1MX]

k3ft i didn't comment on the kennedy election because i don't know about the kennedy election. Also i am not a democrat please don't assume just because i don't like bush that i like the democratic party.

[KG6JTB]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote (KG4RYT @ Oct. 17 2003,15:33)
How many sanctions does it take to get rid of a dictator? Now the world may never know!

Very true.... [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Gee, Castro is 44 years and counting. N.Korea is 53 years and counting.

I think we now know that sanctions don't work.

Dave
KG6JTB

[KD7WHQ]

I think we knew in 1939 that sanctions didn't work.

Consider the Versailles treaty. It destroyed the economy utterly in Germany. Four quintillion Marks to the dollar in 1929, and I am not making that up. A wheelbarrow load of 100,000 Mark notes to buy bread. I have one here, and it's value now at $8.50, is far higher than when it was printed.
A shoe salesman ran for office, guaranteeing he could turn the country around, and we all know what happened from there; undercover production of small arms, using letter codes for manufacturers, so they couldn't be traced, and serial number kept low enough through letter blocks, that it appeared compliant to the &quot;treaty.&quot;
And then, invasions, and all else that made WWII what it was.
Sanctions don't work; they only play on the people NOT in power who are supposedly being targeted. Carried too far, the election of 1935 in Germany could well be repeated, possibly with the same net effect. Not to the same scale in this age, but...

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kb9lor @ Oct. 16 2003,14:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">All I will say, is that all politictions and all lawyers ARE crooks and they all go hand in hand! so there!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif



Brian
kb9lor[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The sheer ignorance of this statement takes my breath away.

But then, I have an advantage over you, since my sister is a public defender, making about a tenth what she could make in corporate practice; and since I knew Mike Mansfield.

Not that I expect you to know who Mike was.

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Meanwhile the profits from the company don't go to Mexico; they wind up in New York City, in the pockets of the stockholders. #
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

And this is different from when the companies only made things in Oklahoma in what way?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Exporting jobs is not a solution for a great American economy. #We can not be just a consumer nation. #If we become the world's consumer, we will stop consuming anything, for we will have no jobs to pay for it.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Never the less, exporting jobs is going to happen with or without NAFTA. How much do you think NAFTA matters to all the software companies that have finally figured out how to export their jobs to India, rather than bring Indians to the US to do them?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Al Gore invented ham radio.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Poor Gore. He said a lot of dumb things, but he never said the one that everybody makes fun of him for.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Jimmy Carter couldn't say &quot;nuclear&quot; either. #
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Funny, his pronunciation is in my dictionary.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Lyndon Johnson took us to Vietnam. #Richard Nixon got us out of it. #Way, way late. #
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Eisenhower took us to Vietnam. Johnson made the mistake of making it a big war, but not big enough.

Nixon, on the other hand, crooked as he was, is my hero, because he ended the draft the year my lottery number was 18.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Clinton bombed Iraq. #Bush invaded it.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Don't forget to mention that the senior Bush never finished the job he started.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Hussein invaded Kuwait, starting the whole process that took us 12 more years to decide to actually do something about this idiot. #
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Don't forget that Hussein invaded Kuwait after a Bush Sr. diplomat told him that the US would &quot;not interfer in local matters.&quot;

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
And, yes, NAFTA needs to be repealed. #A huge mistake for American workers. # But it's probably too late. #
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Hmm... let me think. did NAFTA have anything to do with the decline of the US automobile industry? No. Did NAFTA have anything to do with the decline of the US steel industry? No. Did NAFTA have anything to do with the decline of the US consumer electronics industry? No. Is NAFTA having anything to do with the decline of the US Software industry? No.

Looks to me like you're going after a symptom and not the underlying disease.

[AE6IP]

d00dZ, I got some bad news for y'all. Mexico is sooo last millenium. Today's economic problem is Asia, primarily China and to a lesser extent India. I dunno if any of you have noticed, but Chinese goods are now of competitive quality with US goods at a tiny fraction of the cost of labor.

[w5alt]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Oct. 19 2003,01:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kb9lor @ Oct. 16 2003,14:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">All I will say, is that all politictions and all lawyers ARE crooks and they all go hand in hand! so there!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

Brian
kb9lor[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The sheer ignorance of this statement takes my breath away.

But then, I have an advantage over you, since my sister is a public defender, making about a tenth what she could make in corporate practice; and since I knew Mike Mansfield.

Not that I expect you to know who Mike was.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That's what I like ... A guy that can see the humor right off the bat and treat it as such.

[kb9lor]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Oct. 18 2003,22:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kb9lor @ Oct. 16 2003,14:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">All I will say, is that all politictions and all lawyers ARE crooks and they all go hand in hand! so there!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif



Brian
kb9lor[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The sheer ignorance of this statement takes my breath away.

But then, I have an advantage over you, since my sister is a public defender, making about a tenth what she could make in corporate practice; and since I knew Mike Mansfield.

Not that I expect you to know who Mike was.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Well watcha know, YOU have a sister that is a public defender...My sister is a lawyer, and yeah she has to defend all sorts of people guilty or not. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif So yeah she probably IS a crook so what, I take my frustration out on the people who can MAKE the decisions to stop the bleeding of the ARS and not make it personal. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif And the reason lawyers was thrown in is because they actually WRITE the laws, Politicians ENACT laws. Besides I believe in common sense, of which I know the FFC has none. And they care about nothing but the almighty dollar? My question is why in the heck don't they have any ARS people on the FCC? anyone have an answer for that question? I did join the ARRL last week, to help out. believe me it was a TOUGH decision. anyways I guess I better get down again. Have a Nice day! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif


Brian
kb9lor

BTW- you really shouldn't take things so serious, and No you don't have an advantage over me, of course, I just made you think you did! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[K6UEY]

And dare they say that kalifornia is the land of fruits and nuts !!!
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[K3UD]

AE6IP

If my memory serves me right, Mike Mansfield was Senate Majority Leader of the Democratic controlled senate at a time when Lyndon Johnson and Bob McNamara (of the Best and the Brightest and body count fame) were massing troops in Vietnam, fueling a conflict that would, in the end take the lives of over 50,000 American servicemen and cost such a huge amount of money that we were a decade digging out from under it.

To his credit, Mansfield later came out against the war. (I could be a cynic and say it was because Nixon was elected in 68.... and Mansfield as Majority Leader in the senate could have made it rough for LBJ to continue with the war…. but I won't) but he was right there up with the hawks until about 1966 or 67 adding fuel to that particular fire. Of course his support was based on the idea of the Domino Theory and he was, like Nixon, Eisenhower, Truman and Kennedy, a cold warrior, anti communist, and a Patriot, based on how it was defined back then. By almost all accounts, Mansfield was a man of honor who had a change of heart when all the facts and Johnson's and McNamar's deceit became known to him.

Would you accept that some of us think there are some within the current administration who are in fact honorable, and Patriots, and doing what they are doing based on the best information available and not how they will profit from it?

73
George
K3UD

[n7wsb]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K3FT @ Oct. 17 2003,13:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So tell me, please..

JUST how much did they spend on those checks that they wrote to the Supreme Court?? #Seems I just can't find any records of cancelled checks OR payments made to the 9 Justices on the US Supreme Court.

Since THEY were the ones that ruled on the petition that settled the election.. then I gather your comment means that SOMEHOW.. the Bush camp 'bought' the Supreme Court and thereby bought the election.

AS Arte Johnson used to say on 'Laugh-In' when he played the German soldier.

&quot;VEELLLLLLLLY INTELLLLESTINGGG!!!!!&quot;

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
It was a gross violation of state rights (ironically - being that conservatives are always &quot;states rights&quot; people). It was up to the state to run a recount and the supreme court stopped it.

GW's election was paid for, but not directly to the supreme court. They were just puppets in an elaborate game.

Check it out,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/newsnight/1174115.stm

Very interesting?

[K6UEY]

Liberals were never very good losers, that is why they make such good street fighters, they are willing to get down in the gutter and wrestle for the last glimmer of hope to win. Some things in this world never change !!
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[n7wsb]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K6UEY @ Oct. 19 2003,13:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Liberals were never very good losers, that is why they make such good street fighters, they are willing to get down in the gutter and wrestle for the last glimmer of hope to win. Some things in this world never change !!
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I'm not actually all that liberal. I'm very conservative. Bush is one of the most liberal presidents this country has ever seen. You should look the word conservative up in the dictionary. After you do you might question all the things bush does.

[KL1MX]

I thought this country was all about fighting to your last breath for what you believe in. So sad that most now just give up, and if they don't the rest tell them that they should.

[kb9lor]

Ah...so now per the above posts, liberal Bushy is a good street fighter? puuuuuuhhhhhlllleeeezzzeeee, he would have as much chance as a One legged person in a ass kicking contest! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif My goodness next your gonna be saying we should thank him for all he has done for us! Nope don't think so, I still say he isn't woth a plug nickel, watches out for no-one but Big Business, oh and his oil buddies. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif


Brian
kb9lor

[K6UEY]

PERFECT Example that some things never change !!
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[w5zzq]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kb9wgx @ Oct. 13 2003,22:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why is this posted on QRZ.com? #Argue politics at work, with your yl, or with your self, but not here.

Josh

P.S. Politics - Root words: poly (many) and ticks (blood sucking creatures) = many blood sucking creatures.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I agree. This will never, never end. Wrong place for this.......

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K3UD @ Oct. 19 2003,13:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">AE6IP

If my memory serves me right, Mike Mansfield was Senate Majority Leader of the Democratic controlled senate at a time when Lyndon Johnson and Bob McNamara (of the Best and the Brightest and body count fame) were massing troops in Vietnam, fueling a conflict that would, in the end take the lives of over 50,000 American servicemen and cost such a huge amount of money that we were a decade digging out from under it.

To his credit, Mansfield later came out against the war. (I could be a cynic and say it was because Nixon was elected in 68.... and Mansfield as Majority Leader in the senate could have made it rough for LBJ to continue with the war…. but I won't) but he was right there up with the hawks until about 1966 or 67 adding fuel to that particular fire. Of course his support was based on the idea of the Domino Theory and he was, like Nixon, Eisenhower, Truman and Kennedy, a cold warrior, anti communist, and a Patriot, based on how it was defined back then. By almost all accounts, Mansfield was a man of honor who had a change of heart when all the facts and Johnson's and McNamar's deceit became known to him.

Would you accept that some of us think there are some within the current administration who are in fact honorable, and Patriots, and doing what they are doing based on the best information available and not how they will profit from it?

73
George
K3UD[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Mike was a man of high integrity, but even the highest integrity won't always protect you from making mistakes when you're being deliberately deceived. Not mentioned below was his effort in preventing Watergate from becoming a constitutional crisis, nor that a Republican president appointed him as ambassador to Japan.

It's funny, but I remember that the Senate was full of honorable men and women, on both sides of the aisle in Mansfield's day. I've often thought that people behave as they are led, and we could do with more leaders like Mansfield.

From an online biography:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Mike Mansfield’s political career was launched in 1942 when he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. He served five terms from Montana’s 1st District. In 1952, he was elected to the U.S. Senate and re-elected in 1958, 1964 and 1970. His selection as Democratic Assistant Majority Leader in 1957 was followed by election in 1961 as Senate Majority Leader. He served in that capacity until his retirement from the Senate in 1977, longer than any other Majority Leader in history.

It has been said that Mike Mansfield shaped the character of the modern Senate more than any other leader in its history by allowing a Senate of equals to emerge and giving voice and a role to younger Senators. Respected by Senators on both sides of the aisle, he led the Senate during a period of great achievement as the “Great Society” legislation of the 1960s was passed. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w5alt @ Oct. 18 2003,23:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Oct. 19 2003,01:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kb9lor @ Oct. 16 2003,14:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">All I will say, is that all politictions and all lawyers ARE crooks and they all go hand in hand! so there!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

Brian
kb9lor[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The sheer ignorance of this statement takes my breath away.

But then, I have an advantage over you, since my sister is a public defender, making about a tenth what she could make in corporate practice; and since I knew Mike Mansfield.

Not that I expect you to know who Mike was.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That's what I like ... A guy that can see the humor right off the bat and treat it as such.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
jeez d00d, i saw the smiley. i think i've been around the net long enough to recognize a chain being pulled when i see one.

None the less, some provocations require sober responses. Making the remark in jest makes it no less ignorant.

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K6UEY @ Oct. 19 2003,13:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Liberals were never very good losers, that is why they make such good street fighters, they are willing to get down in the gutter and wrestle for the last glimmer of hope to win. Some things in this world never change !!
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Liberals aren't good losers because they have convictions. It's far easier to concede gracefully when you don't believe in what you claim to stand for.

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kb9lor @ Oct. 19 2003,10:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">#And the reason lawyers was thrown in is because they actually WRITE the laws, Politicians ENACT laws. Besides I believe in common sense, of which I know the FFC has none. And they care about nothing but the almighty dollar? My question is why in the heck don't they have any ARS people on the FCC? anyone have an answer for that question? #[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I'm guessing, off the top of my head, that you've never actually participated in writing laws.

It always amuses me when people simplify the world to &quot;they're evil, because they don't agree with me.&quot;

Anyway, the FCC does have amateur radio operators on staff, or were you trying to suggest that there be a ham on the commission itself?

fish on, orvis

[w5alt]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Oct. 20 2003,01:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">None the less, some provocations require sober responses. #Making the remark in jest makes it no less ignorant.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Just what we need on QRZ.COM ---- Humor Police.

[K2ACX]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K6UEY @ Oct. 19 2003,13:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Liberals were never very good losers, that is why they make such good street fighters, they are willing to get down in the gutter and wrestle for the last glimmer of hope to win. Some things in this world never change !!
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
What's a good loser anyway?

Conservatives lost in 1992 and 1996. They spent eight bitter years vilifying President Clinton.

This crap goes both ways.

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w5alt @ Oct. 20 2003,04:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Oct. 20 2003,01:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">None the less, some provocations require sober responses. #Making the remark in jest makes it no less ignorant.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Just what we need on QRZ.COM #---- #Humor Police.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
There's humor on QRZ? I haven't encountered more than a pale imitation. Could you point us at an example?

[w5alt]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Oct. 20 2003,12:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There's humor on QRZ? I haven't encountered more than a pale imitation. #Could you point us at an example?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'> LOL

[n3ijw]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Oct. 20 2003,01:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Liberals aren't good losers because they have convictions.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Convictions such as bribery, fraud, DUI, misdemeanor assault, perjury, adultery, etc...etc..

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[w3sy]

AE6IP quips: <span style='color:blue'>&quot;There's humor on QRZ? I haven't encountered more than a pale imitation. Could you point us at an example?&quot;</span>

How 'bout any post by AE6IP. &lt;snicker&gt;

Buh bye.

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w3sy @ Oct. 20 2003,15:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">AE6IP quips: <span style='color:blue'>&quot;There's humor on QRZ? I haven't encountered more than a pale imitation. #Could you point us at an example?&quot;</span>

How 'bout any post by AE6IP. #&lt;snicker&gt;

Buh bye.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
sar·don·ic
adj.
Scornfully or cynically mocking.

[kn6z]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Oct. 20 2003,09:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There's humor on QRZ? I haven't encountered more than a pale imitation. Could you point us at an example?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Dracula sucks up to women. I can't help it if he's pale.

[n7wsb]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Oct. 20 2003,09:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There's humor on QRZ? I haven't encountered more than a pale imitation. #Could you point us at an example?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
A long time ago I made a post about how most all amateur radio sites have to have 24 point fonts, 30 megs of animated gifs (btw www.k1man.com is the worst violation of this I think). It was titled &quot;how to make your own amateur radio related web site&quot; and it had a style sheet to make sure it had cyan background, yellow type, and lots of animated gifs. I thought it was quite humorous http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif.

Oh yeah - USA flags, and quotes from the bible are a nice addon.