ampage Tube Amps / Music Electronics	For current discussions, please visit Music Electronics Forum.

ampage archive

Vintage threads from the first ten years

Re: Comments Please...

10/14/2004 4:02 PM
Darin	Re: Comments Please... Deficit reduction is a good thing that neither candidate will make much ground on. Bush doesn't see the deficit as a problem, and Kerry will have to deal with a republican majority congress that will play partisan games to prevent any real action. Clinton was able to work bipartisanly to get things done. But with the past four years under Bush, this country is very much divided along party lines. I don't think that congress will get over this partisan fog any time soon. Remember that under the Bush administration's policies, he took a huge budget surplus and turned it into record budget deficit. He is running amuck with our tax dollars and has nothing to show for it. He has already proven that he can't run a business effectively (all of his business ventures have lost money). Why should we allow him to run the country into the ground? Agreeably so, neither candidate is a great choice, but who is ultimately better suited to run this country? A failed business man or a senior senator?

10/14/2004 4:02 PM

Darin

Re: Comments Please...

Deficit reduction is a good thing that neither candidate will make much ground on. Bush doesn't see the deficit as a problem, and Kerry will have to deal with a republican majority congress that will play partisan games to prevent any real action. Clinton was able to work bipartisanly to get things done. But with the past four years under Bush, this country is very much divided along party lines. I don't think that congress will get over this partisan fog any time soon.

Remember that under the Bush administration's policies, he took a huge budget surplus and turned it into record budget deficit. He is running amuck with our tax dollars and has nothing to show for it. He has already proven that he can't run a business effectively (all of his business ventures have lost money). Why should we allow him to run the country into the ground?

Agreeably so, neither candidate is a great choice, but who is ultimately better suited to run this country? A failed business man or a senior senator?

10/14/2004 4:25 PM
Undecided	A failed business man or a senior senator? Ted Kennedy??

10/13/2004 9:27 PM
Mark Hammer	It's a little simplistic, and a bit like a country and western song where the content of the story has to be modified to fit the rhyming structure. "Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good...Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad..." Huh? When did that happen? How many months was I asleep for? When was "regime change" imposed on Yugoslavia, or any of the former Soviet Bloc countries for that matter? The collapse of Yugoslavia and the power grab by the various leaders and groups that tried to wrestle their own overblown share in the chaos that ensued is somewhat different from the impatient urge that the Bush administration felt to go in and create collapse. Was "regime change" imposed on Iraq? Absolutely. There was little sign that a regime other than the one that had been in place for the preceding 20 years and more would assume power UNLESS an external overwhelming shove took place. The Bush administration explicitly instigated the overthrow of a foreign power unilaterally with what, in retrospect, appears to be insufficient justification for acting unilaterally. I don't know of any other western democracy that has done that in the last 50 years. I do know of dictatorships and quasi-dictatorships that have, however. "Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good... Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad... "Was the Clinton administration duped by the same sloppy intelligence and intelligence infrastructure that the Bush administration was? Yep. Should the next administration in line (Bush) be held MORE blameless because they were merely following the precedent set by the administration before them, or LESS blameless because they should have known better after all this time? Couldn't tell ya, but painting Bush categorically lillywhite strikes me as unjustifiably partisan. If you're gonna declare yourself as better and smarter, then you better back it up. They haven't. "No mass graves found in Serbia - good... No WMD found Iraq - bad..." There have been lots of mass graves found. Not perhaps as many as some anecdotal reports suggested, but found, yes. There are plenty of U.N. and other teams busily unearthing graves and identifying remains. It is not the absence of finding WMD's that is "bad", but rather the fact that a multi-billion dollar, multi-million life commitment was undertaken on the premise that WMD's existed in usable form, without waiting for the authorities who were hard at work and would later confirm that none existed. "World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad..." Since when was the WTC tragedy blamed on Bush? I think the guy's a boob, but how on earth could he be connected to such an event that occurred so soon into his term? "Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...Economy on upswing under Bush - bad..." There are many who would dispute that the economy has been on an upswing since Bush took office. If anything, it was the upswing in the economy under Clinton that forced his Republican opposition to make such a big deal out of a messy blowjob. They didn't have much else to work with. "Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad..." I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Even the most ardent opposers of the Iraq invasion (and I count myself among them) have little objection to the Afghan invasion. Not even Robert Mugabe had turned a nation into such a rapidly accelerating downward moral spiral as the Taliban had. (Mugabe is probably as much a threat to the stability of Africa as Saddam was to the Mid-East, but apparently Africa isn't worth our concern) The bombing of the Chinese embassy was a stupid error, far more easily and appropriately attributed to the same sort of errors that have created a legacy of "friendly-fire" deaths among American soldiers when high-speed jet-combat with "intelligent" weapons are used. How on earth has ANYONE even come close to conceptualizing the Chinese embassy tragedy as "good"? "Milosevic not yet convicted - good... Saddam turned over for trial - bad... " Exactly who is opposed to Saddam standing trial, other than Baathists or those who just want the guy dead right now? As for Milosevic, I also can't think of anyone other than his supporters who is pleased with his capacity to stall the court. It pisses off everyone involved that attempts to prosecute someone for the rights he systematically trod on could be stymied by living up to those very rights. In general, the list attributes many things to both Bush and Clinton which, although happened under their "watch", were not at all their call. A few things, though, such as the White House insistence to procede with certain decisions, is undeniably attributable to Bush's assent, whether he dreamt it up or not. As for the Haliburton thing, it stinks no matter whose watch it happens under. As near as I can gather, though, presidents do not sign off on such matters. What I think are clear thoughts, with appropriate reservations. I wish I could say the same for the jingoism that much of the list you posted contains. I don't consider bumper stickers to be deep thought. They make me laugh, to be sure, but they don't sub for cogent analysis.

10/13/2004 9:27 PM

Mark Hammer

It's a little simplistic, and a bit like a country and western song where the content of the story has to be modified to fit the rhyming structure.

"Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good...Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad..." Huh? When did that happen? How many months was I asleep for? When was "regime change" imposed on Yugoslavia, or any of the former Soviet Bloc countries for that matter? The collapse of Yugoslavia and the power grab by the various leaders and groups that tried to wrestle their own overblown share in the chaos that ensued is somewhat different from the impatient urge that the Bush administration felt to go in and *create* collapse. Was "regime change" imposed on Iraq? Absolutely. There was little sign that a regime other than the one that had been in place for the preceding 20 years and more would assume power UNLESS an external overwhelming shove took place. The Bush administration explicitly instigated the overthrow of a foreign power unilaterally with what, in retrospect, appears to be insufficient justification for acting unilaterally. I don't know of any other western democracy that has done that in the last 50 years. I *do* know of dictatorships and quasi-dictatorships that have, however.

"Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good... Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad... "Was the Clinton administration duped by the same sloppy intelligence and intelligence infrastructure that the Bush administration was? Yep. Should the next administration in line (Bush) be held MORE blameless because they were merely following the precedent set by the administration before them, or LESS blameless because they should have known better after all this time? Couldn't tell ya, but painting Bush categorically lillywhite strikes me as unjustifiably partisan. If you're gonna declare yourself as better and smarter, then you better back it up. They haven't.

"No mass graves found in Serbia - good... No WMD found Iraq - bad..." There have been lots of mass graves found. Not perhaps as many as some anecdotal reports suggested, but found, yes. There are plenty of U.N. and other teams busily unearthing graves and identifying remains. It is not the absence of finding WMD's that is "bad", but rather the fact that a multi-billion dollar, multi-million life commitment was undertaken on the premise that WMD's existed in usable form, without waiting for the authorities who were hard at work and would later confirm that none existed.

"World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad..." Since when was the WTC tragedy blamed on Bush? I think the guy's a boob, but how on earth could he be connected to such an event that occurred so soon into his term?

"Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...Economy on upswing under Bush - bad..." There are many who would dispute that the economy has been on an upswing since Bush took office. If anything, it was the upswing in the economy under Clinton that forced his Republican opposition to make such a big deal out of a messy blowjob. They didn't have much else to work with.

"Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad..." I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Even the most ardent opposers of the Iraq invasion (and I count myself among them) have little objection to the Afghan invasion. Not even Robert Mugabe had turned a nation into such a rapidly accelerating downward moral spiral as the Taliban had. (Mugabe is probably as much a threat to the stability of Africa as Saddam was to the Mid-East, but apparently Africa isn't worth our concern) The bombing of the Chinese embassy was a stupid error, far more easily and appropriately attributed to the same sort of errors that have created a legacy of "friendly-fire" deaths among American soldiers when high-speed jet-combat with "intelligent" weapons are used. How on earth has ANYONE even come close to conceptualizing the Chinese embassy tragedy as "good"?

"Milosevic not yet convicted - good... Saddam turned over for trial - bad... " Exactly who is opposed to Saddam standing trial, other than Baathists or those who just want the guy dead right now? As for Milosevic, I also can't think of anyone other than his supporters who is pleased with his capacity to stall the court. It pisses off everyone involved that attempts to prosecute someone for the rights he systematically trod on could be stymied by living up to those very rights.

In general, the list attributes many things to both Bush and Clinton which, although happened under their "watch", were not at all their call. A few things, though, such as the White House insistence to procede with certain decisions, is undeniably attributable to Bush's assent, whether he dreamt it up or not. As for the Haliburton thing, it stinks no matter whose watch it happens under. As near as I can gather, though, presidents do not sign off on such matters.

What I think are clear thoughts, with appropriate reservations. I wish I could say the same for the jingoism that much of the list you posted contains. I don't consider bumper stickers to be deep thought. They make me laugh, to be sure, but they don't sub for cogent analysis.

10/14/2004 3:39 AM
Justin Thomas	Mark: "I think the guy's a boob, but..." So what's wrong with boobs? Sorry, couldn't help it.

10/14/2004 4:59 PM
Mark Hammer	I like them in pairs. One on its own, though, is another matter. On the other hand, maybe that's why the Bush/Cheney combination is so appealing to so many.

10/14/2004 8:40 PM

Dutch

quote:
"On the other hand, maybe that's why the Bush/Cheney combination is so appealing to so many.

That would be a boob and a dick, not a pair of boobs, Mark....

}:^D>

C ya,
Dutch

10/14/2004 9:02 PM
Mark Hammer	Oh. Um, not exactly my scene. I, uh, sorta like girls. That's sorta like why I married one. I'll leave the partial transsexuals to others, thanks.

Page 2 of 3