Re: OT: Rating the President
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Geoschmo, how many individuals were given the capability of deleting 14 or 15 pages of Posts.

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

According to the forum main page, Geo, Mephisto, SJ, and Atrocities are Moderators. ISTR that Instar is also SpecOps, though. Maybe there are more unlisted Moderators that I can't remember.

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, I don't know if they will find this helpful or relevent, but it happened in a 18 minute period between 16:00 and 16:18 of Jan 26th.

I was accessing the posted Messages to prepare my post and made the post at 16:18.

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

I know the answer:

It was the C.I.Eh

The Canadian Intelligence service, they were trying to quash any anti-Americanism before U.S. drug companies get mad and stop selling their products in Canada, where we sell them back to Americans over the internet. Quite lucrative.

[ January 27, 2003, 05:41: Message edited by: Captain Kwok ]

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

If the reason for deleting the posting was because they were not on topic about the president of the U.S. of A., the perpetrator certainly did not succeed.

The postings since the deletion have been on anything but the president.

And if the intention was to delete 14 or 15 pages of postings unrelated to the topic of the president, it should be noted that in doing so, the perpetrator also deleted insightful and pertinent observations and opinions about the president.

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

Hi folks,
just wanted to say I did not delete a single post in this topic. I wonder what happend. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif It was a good thread!

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I can vouch for that.

Well, in the sense that Mephisto contributed to the thread with a "Hear, hear" to a quote of a posting I made which was not on topic. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Incidentally, that particular posting of Mephisto and which was later edited by him, was the one that prompted my post which discovered the 14 to 15 page deletion.

So, Mephisto, in my mind you are in the clear (along with the other Moderators who have disavowed any involvement).

And the fact that you had contributed to the thread with a post which was not on topic, (and which was deleted) doubly confirms in my mind the truth of what you say.

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

Hey why is america slowly becoming a monarchy ???

I mean... a few select families are running that country now... and have been for the Last 30 years...

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

Hmmm, I get the feeling it wasn't one of the Moderators, and shrapnel would have said sometyihng, so that leaves only one possibole explanation:

The Government did it, with their shadowy secret services and wierd alien technology from area 51.

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Umm... not really. Just because one person happened to be elected who had a father that was president doesn't mean the country is turning into a monarchy.

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Umm... not really. Just because one person happened to be elected who had a father that was president doesn't mean the country is turning into a monarchy.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Without debating whether they deserve it or not -1% of the people owning 70% of the wealth arguably constitutes an oligarchy if not a monarchy.

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

I am specops, but for the RA forum I believe. I couldnt delete anything, if I tried. (or maybe I can, but I doubt it)
Edit:
Ill probably regret this but...
As for the president, I must say that overall, he is not too bad, but he is definately good at bungling along. I mean, he is trying his best to allow religion into the government, which although well intentioned, not right. Once you let government and religion mix, who knows when the next zealot crusader will come out and start going bananas?
The tax cuts I feel are doing more harm to the national deficet than helping the US economy. Nearly every "Economic assistance or reform bill" in the past either had no effect or took so long to be passed that the economy had already recovered.
I read recently that Bush is saying that industry self regulation will help control pollution, which is just pure crap. Pollution controls are an added expense to business, and without much forcing them (public opinion is a factor, but public opinion is hardly the best tool Ill assure you) they won't do much. Ford Motor Co. though is doing a fairly good job at it, from what Ive heard.
As for the war on Iraq, I have no real opinion. I see the benefits of taking out Saddam, but we have totally wrecked any chance of help from our friends, other than like the UK and possibly Canada. However, we are already stretched out around the world, in Afghanistan, Bosnia (I think) and other places. The cost of a war is another deficet inducing problem, so it may end up hurting the economy more.

[ January 27, 2003, 22:08: Message edited by: Instar ]

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

Hey my post has disappeared too!!
I can't understand...was a very soft one http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif
The only thing I said was: <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Someone should explain what happened with this thread.

BTW Spain is a kingdom with a King, but power is only between 2 political parties, the PP and the PSOE. Simply pathetic (Spain suffered a fascist government more time than any other nation in the world, 1.939-1.975).

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Umm... not really. Just because one person happened to be elected who had a father that was president doesn't mean the country is turning into a monarchy.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Without debating whether they deserve it or not -1% of the people owning 70% of the wealth arguably constitutes an oligarchy if not a monarchy.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I always regarded it as more of a Plutocracy.
In Australia we're sort of a Neo-Colonial MeTooist.

Did I miss anything good before the delete? Anyone call me names? Bloody ISP went down with the SQL virus and didn't get up til an hour ago.

Askan

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Umm... not really. Just because one person happened to be elected who had a father that was president doesn't mean the country is turning into a monarchy.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Without debating whether they deserve it or not -1% of the people owning 70% of the wealth arguably constitutes an oligarchy if not a monarchy.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, I don't think it was that high. Do you still have that link to the IRS report?

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, I don't think it was that high. Do you still have that link to the IRS report?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sorry it's top 10% own 70% of the wealth.

http://www.ufenet.org/research/wealth_charts.html

You guys have sold me all those poor people aren't paying there fair share. Since everyone who earns less than 50k a year gets a free ride (according to the chart below) we should find a way to have them pay off all the free stuff they are getting like (police, use of roads, education, cheap food, fire department, etc.)

This is the tax chart.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/00in01rt.xls

[ January 28, 2003, 06:02: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I never said that. I said that middle class and above pay too much taxes. Too much money is collected in taxes as it is.

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

I agree with you a 100%! We should privitize everything. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ January 28, 2003, 06:30: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Eh?

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

Huh... I finally looked at this thread to see if there was anything interesting. Looks like there was one interesting thing, now there's another. A bit of a whodunnit. I would like to reply to the most recent comment by Instar on the president's performance. You can stop wondering why the prez keeps proposing stuff that's bad for the economy. We've seen it all before as Reagonomics. The plan is, you cut taxes, especially to the wealthiest (funny coincidence there). Then you explode defense spending. At this point a strange phenomenon called "no money for domestic spending" occurs. This has the "unintended" consequence of crashing social programs like welfare, education, civil rights monitoring, environmental regulation, etc., etc., etc. And there you have it! Calling your opponents names makes it all go down easier.

Oh, yeah, about the distribution of wealth thingy, 70 percent controlling ten percent sounds bad, but when you look at global wealth distribution, it doesn't seem like any big deal. And that's just dollars. There's no way to measure political control, but from where I sit, I'd guess that the distribution of political influence in America is a lot worse than the 70% for 10% split in money. Kinda creepy.

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

Anyone happen to have saved a Version of the thread before it was slashed? We could easily pick up from there. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

Yeh! I was enjoying this one.
I do recall thinking about where I was gonna park my yacht but can't remember much after that.

But I can get back on the president track.
Now without much debate I'm sure we can all agree that America is
1. The strongest military power in the world
2. The strongest economic power in the world.

Most people would agree that America does claim to be
3. A democratic nation of sorts
4. Leaders of the Free World.

Most non-Americans would probabaly agree that (I'm getting to the point so hold on)
5. Their/our leaders seem to be doing alot of brown tonguing when George W. is in the room.

Now considering all those points doesn't it make sense that in the next presidential elections the entire world gets to vote (or at the least those who at least pretend to have a democratic system). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
After all, the american president has huge influence in the world economy, world stability and who will be the bad guys in the next 20 hollywood blockbusters. That affects all of us, not just you guys with the funny spelling.

Askan

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

Now with following the news this week.... What did they find....

Some major players have changed their tune over night on Iraq...

Time will tell I guess, but I am guessing it's not good.

Powell changing his tune was a shocker!!!

My guess is perhaps Feb 16th to 26th. As you don't wanna get involved in a ground war when the heat kicks in.

So far they have been right about everything.

When I first heard the Axis of Evil line I laughed on North Korea... But.....

Perhaps it is the deliverly of the message , or lack there of that bothers me.

P.S.
Now that I do not have to pay a dividend tax on my Us stocks...Like all of you I thought i would take that extra cash and buy a coffee...

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, the Last thing I remember posting (or seeing, 'cause I think it was posted during the Crunch) was a missive rife with atrocious wordplay based on Mutually Assured Destruction and Nuclear Use Theorists. All told, the death of that post might well be counted a blessing, given the popular opinion of plays on words...

I'm half-tempted to resume where I'd left off, but I'll be good. No gas on the fire.

E. Albright

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

It would seem that the US still has friends in Europe, despite news reports to the contrary.

London Times Editorial

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, I don't know if they will find this helpful or relevent, but it happened in a 18 minute period between 16:00 and 16:18 of Jan 26th.

I was accessing the posted Messages to prepare my post and made the post at 16:18.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Could the slammer worm be responsible for the missing Posts?

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

my post is gone where i stated that i don't want to participate in this thread any more, so i'm free again http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It was never in question wether the us has friends in europe or not, they have, but friendship is not that we always are your opinion. i am from germany, i do not like bush, i often do not like his politics and i certainly am not for a war without a resolution by the un, but that means not that i do not like americans! i hope you see the differences.

the same probably goes for much of europe, and your london times aticle does not state that around 70% of the brits and about 80% of the polish people... are against a war without the un.

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

Do you expect the media to ever give a fair account of anything? They leave facts out of all stories that conflict with what they want to report.

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

"the same probably goes for much of europe, and your london times aticle does not state that around 70% of the brits and about 80% of the polish people... are against a war without the un. "

If you read the article, you might notice it never mentions going it alone. According to that, Iraq is in violation of the UN accords and should be invaded because of that.

And if anyone says "give him another chance" if and when these inspections fail..how -many- "another chances" are we talking about here? This isn't the first time this has happened.

Phoenix-D

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

The problem here is that Irag does not have an underclared weapons of mass destruction. At least, there is no any proof of it. What we have is Bush' rhetoric and empty accusations. Prove me that I am wrong.

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

At stake here is not whether the US will invade Iraq, but whether the UN will be relevant to world politics and opinion. Seventeen times now, they have told Saddam, "You stop that or else!" Some of these "or elses" have enumerated the consequences of not stopping. If they fail to enforce their Chapter VI (i.e., binding) resolutions, then they no longer have any authority. They will be like a parent who nags his child rather than disciplines him. (Apologies to you PC types who don't like the use of the masculine gender for the neuter gender, the way English is meant to be. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

Not at all a side note, but rather the crucial (and conveniently neglected) fact of the latest resolution: the inspectors aren't there to find WMDs. They're there for Iraq to prove they longer have them. They haven't found any evidence of the destruction of previous stockpiles; they have found unreported weapons; and previously reported/found weapons have been moved from their locations. That alone is "material breach" according to UN Sec. Council Res. 1441, which demands military repercussions.

The inspectors can't be there to hunt down WMDs, and it's ridiculous to expect them to. I get ~10 years to hide stuff in California. You get to pick 108 people to look for it. World opinion demands that you find at least 15% of it to prove that I have it (and even them some won't believe you).

Also interesting: Nancy Pelosi (Senate minority leader) claimed Iraq doesn't have any WMDs, but later said we shouldn't go into Iraq "because Saddam will use chemical and biological weapons on our troops." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif I guess when truth is negotiable, anything goes. Ironically, as minority leader, she receives more classified information than all but 3 other members of Congress, so she knows more of the truth than almost anyone (although she can't discuss it in public).

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Again, the onus of proof is on Iraq. That is the 15-0 consensus of the Security Council. They haven't even left what was previously found sealed and in the same places. We have found some undeclared weapons. We can't even find the vast majority (~98%) of what was previously declared or found. Iraq continues testing/production of liquid-fueled missiles with range sufficient to strike anywhere in the Mideast and parts of Europe (far in excess of the UN-required 90km). What more do we want? Saddam to give us a hand-written list of all facilities, along with the keys and launch codes? I have a bridge to sell you, then, too.

[ February 01, 2003, 02:19: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

When you accuse somebody of murder, the burden of proof lies on you. Why is it different here ? Because Bush is prosecuter, judge and jury. As to UN relevance, it is a joke. How many times Israel violated UN resolutions and so what ? I have a nugging feeling that in fact it does not matter if Saddam has WMD, Bush wants Saddam' blood and he will get it, UN or no UN.

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

"When you accuse somebody of murder, the burden of proof lies on you. Why is it different here ?"

Because this isn't a murder trial. If you want a comparison, try a probation violation. Iraq lost a war and signed a treaty or two dealing with WMDs to end it. It hasn't been living up to that deal. By my logic, that means the treaty is null and the war is still on.

Phoenix-D

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Argh, I can't let this go! It's not an editorial, or an article. Check the bottom of the page - it's a letter from eight European heads of state. Mind, it's interesting that they've put it in the editorial section and not the letters page (maybe it was too big).

I'll admit that whatever happens, various sections of the media will push their own agenda... "Discovered chemical warhead was 'planted by American spy'", "Saddam officially 'worse than Hitler' says scientific report" etc.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">He's not being accused of murder (well, he is but that's a separate thorny issue [how many world leaders are responsible for gratuitously killing members of their populace? - sadly all too many to use it as a casus belli]). The analogy to law is that he's already been found guilty of a crime (being caught with an illegal weapons program), and could be guilty of violating his parole (by not dismantling said weapons program in an open and verifiable manner).

In Northern Ireland, the Unionists don't like the fact that although the IRA are decommisioning weapons under the eyes of an independent third party, there's no real way of telling how many weapons they obtained in the first place. If my understanding of what Blix said is correct, Iraq appears to have fairly complete records of weapons built, but incomplete records of them being dismantled. To continue the analogy, this would be enough to get a search warrant and arrest (but probably not yet charge) the suspect.

Like a lot of people, I don't want a war, but if we do invade, I want it to be under the auspices of the UN. Acting alone could cause more problems than it solves - to strain the analogy past breaking point, we don't want the pair of policemen (who initially don't get on but by the end of the film have formed a Lasting bond) to have their badges taken off them and told they're off the case, leaving one to mutter "I'm getting too old for this s**t" and the other to become suicidally paranoid http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif .

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

Presidential poll .
The Democratic National Committee is currently polling Americans through the Internet to determine the electability of Hillary Clinton for the presidency of the United States in 2004. If you would like to show your support for Hillary and encourage her to run for President of the United States in 2004 please click the link below.

http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~kinho/youare.swf

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

She would be a worse president than her husband was...

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So then I suppose the UN needs to follow up military action against Iraq with military action against Isreal? As another person pointed out, they've been glibly ignoring numerous UN resolutions for years. Or perhaps one can establish one's authority through non-military means, hmm?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As to whether or not this constitutes a material breach can be (and is being) argued. And furthermore, I don't remember anything about material breaches demanding military repercussions. IIRC, the word was that a material breach would have "grave consequences". Bush takes this to mean "We get to bLast 'em, an' right now!", whereas the "old" Europeans take this as "We shall pass another resolution saying that we get to bLast them, should we see fit". This double interpretation was to my knowledge generally acknowledged as the reason why the US and OE were able to agree on 1441, as it "gave" them both what they wanted...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Um, no. No, no, no. English isn't meant to be anything in particular, other than whatever Anglophones make it into. There is no fixed "standard" of what English should be (no, not even the OED http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif ), and to claim otherwise is pushing an agenda. Yes, English traditionaly used the masculine as the default gender (but not the neuter gender, mind; one can and must make a distinction 'twixt the two), but that doesn't mean that Anglophones ought to continue to speak thusly (argumentum ad antiquitatem). I'll spare you examples of analogous reasoning, but I reiterate: smiley or no, language can change, will change, and must change, and to demand that it oughtn't is naught but to jam one's finger into one of the multitude holes in the dike whilst ignoring all others...

As an aside (and likely a rant, but still), I'm annoyed by the lack of a generally recognized neuter gender in English. Yes, you can use "one", but if you speak to an average Anglophone, they'll think you're rather odd. And you can refer to people in the third-person plural, but again, if an average speaker is addressed, one will regard you strangely. And I'll admit, neither of the preceding solutions really sound "right" to my ear, tho' I personaly tend towards they-ing.

Eh, 'tis naught but the whimsy of the current structure of the language clashing with my worldview; for comparison, French has a nice, common neuter gender (tho' yes, it also has a masculine default, but word gender has slightly different implications en français), but I'm maddened by the lack of an equivalent to "Ms.". What it comes down to is that language is formed by consensus, so I either need to find a language tied to a culture that matches my worldview very tightly, bend my own langauge to my worldview, or get over it and accept that people will use and change language in ways that might trouble me...

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Try as I might, I just can't picture Kofi Annan as the grizzeled veteran police lieutenant popping antacids and shouting obcenities at his hotshot detective team. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geoschmo

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The UN has two different chapters in its charter regarding resolutions: Chapter V and Chapter VI. Chapter VI resolutions are binding. They require enforcement when breached. The resolutions on Iraq have all been Chapter VI resolutions. Chapter V resolutions are non-binding. They are equivalent to saying, "We think you should _______, but we aren't going to enforce that." The majority (if not all) of the resolutions RE: Israel have been Chapter V resolutions. No one seems to be mentioning that difference (especially Arafat and Hussein). If the UN really wants someone to do something, they should 1) pass a Chapter VI resolution, and 2) actually enforce it when it broken. "If you do that again, I'm going to tell you what's going to happen if you do that again after I talk about what I should tell you I'll tell you if it happens again..." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

RE: the English thingy: It was a joke. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif That's why it had a http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif . Maybe it needed another smiley. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ February 03, 2003, 18:49: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Your numbers are off. Taking a quick look at the UN Charter, we can note that the relevant Chapters are IV and V. And let's see what they say re: resolutions:

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">One must note something you've failed to mention: the difference is General Assembly v. Security Council decisions. And actually, plenty of people (outside of the mainstream American media, anyway) have commented on the fact that the GA passes resolutions against Israel, but the SC never seems to. See, there's a very simple reason for this: to pass a SC resolution against Israel, the US veto would have to be evaded. And that's NOT gonna happen. This does bring up another interesting double standard, however. The media made noise Last fall about how the French or Russian veto threats that were stalling the proposal of anti-Iraqi SC resolutions represented naught but special-interest efforts to benefit a client state. Now, why doesn't the (US mainstream) media talk mention the obvious parallel to a lack of pro-Palestinien SC resolutions?

(Aside from the fact that the mainstream US media prefers to forget that the Palestiniens exist, of course...)

[Edit: script cleanup, typos]

[ February 04, 2003, 10:57: Message edited by: E. Albright ]

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oops. *prepares to be sued* http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">1) You don't win if you don't try; 2) You're not going to get a country to pass a SC resolution demanding things unacceptable to its ally. Great Britain's not going to demand that we return Hawaii to the natives, either, although there's a movement for that.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm not a mind-reader, but it's not for any supposed symapthy for the Israelis on the part of the media. They lean more toward headlines like "Israelis Attack Settlement; 25 Palestinian Children Die." Then, near the end of the article, they bury a half-sentence or so stating that the intended target was the group of gunmen hiding in the middle of the children. I can't seem to find too many articles which "forget" the existence of the Palestinians. The NY Times, for example, seems quite aware of them. The AP and Reuters articles printed in the Orlando Sentinel and its parent, the Chicago Tribune, are also frequently pro-Palestinian.

This brings up a point which always irks me. Papers always defend themselves against claims of bias by pointing to their editorials. No one's complaining of bias on the opinion page; it's the slant of the news that matters. It's like a cattle farmer claiming to run a zoo because he keeps a dog on his porch. "See? We don't just have cows!"

[ February 04, 2003, 15:44: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

All right, from my perspective the OT: RtP thread is right back where it was before the Crunch. We've people with radically different outlooks squabling about what it is to be biased, with no hope of reaching a consensus. On the other hand, things have advanced beyond that point, 'cause I seem to recall having made some lofty statements claiming I wouldn't "throw gas on the fire" or somesuch. So...

E. Albright,

Recalling his resolution of 30 January 2003 to cease and desist in the posting of argumentantive replies to the OT: Rating the President thread,

Recognizing his failure to abide by his 30 January 2003 resolution,

Taking note that he really has better things to do with his time,

Reaffirming the potential discourtesy involved in argumentative political discussion,

Reaffirming also the futility of arguing about subjective perceptions of subjectivity,

Recognizing the need to not waste Shrapnel server space on wildly off-topic debate,

</font>

1. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Decides to unilaterally withdraw from the OT: Rating the President thread;</font>
2. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Urges other Members to refrain from doing likewise;</font>
3. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Urges all Members to remain seized of the subjectivity of bias perception in the meanwhile;</font>
4. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Decides to shut up and be done with it.
   </font>

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

EVEN MORE ON TOPIC:

WASHINGTON (AP) - A Bush administration overhaul of decades-old labor regulations could force many Americans to work longer hours without overtime pay.

STORY: http://news.findlaw.com/ap_stories/a...64503_065.html

On the Net:

Overtime exemptions fact sheet: http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/whdfs17.htm

Overtime requirements fact sheet: http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/whdfs23.htm

*** SO NOW HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT BUSH? ***
*** Don't worry, Australia or Canada is not so bad. ***

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's odd, I can not connect with WWW.DOL.GOV from the coporate server???
OOPS, gotta go, my phone is ringing.....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ February 04, 2003, 19:09: Message edited by: Wardad ]

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

With the deficit budget currently proposed by the resident thing are kind of scary. The fed will eventually need to raise interest rates to prevent inflation. Unfortunately - the proposals put out are counting on growth to make up for the deficit which raising interest rates will have hamper.

Something is going to have to give. I still don't understand how some people in this forum can endorse W's Voodoo economics.

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

I see nothing bad in that article. The article even states that more low-income employees will be eligible for forced overtime pay.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Probably because we understand it's not voodoo, but sound economic policy that realizes the economy isn't a zero sum game, encourages entrepreneurship and economic growth instead of incentivising counter productive behaiviors. The governments job isn't to decide who gets how much of the pie. The government's job is to stay out of the way so the pie can get bigger. GWB get's that. You don't obviously.

Geoschmo

[ February 05, 2003, 01:05: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You know who had that very same philosophy?

Herbert Hoover.

[ February 05, 2003, 01:39: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Who was he?

But I must say about George W....when the Enron scandal broke out he was up to his eyeballs in it. How could anyone ever trust him to produce sound fiscal policy after that?

Askan

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You know who had that very same philosophy?

Herbert Hoover.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And he was right. What's your point? Oh, I forgot. You don't have a point. You have soundbites.

Geoschmo

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Who was he?

But I must say about George W....when the Enron scandal broke out he was up to his eyeballs in it. How could anyone ever trust him to produce sound fiscal policy after that?

Askan</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Uh no. The only thing Bush had to do with Enron was they gave some campaign donations. Enron gave loads of cash to both sides. That's one of the dirty little secrets of American politics. It's not a republican or democratic problem, it's a rot the whole process.

Clinton policies were actually much mroe favorable to Enrons way of doing business. FOr example Ken Lay was a huge supporter of the Kyoto agreement, which Bush has all but scrapped.

Who was president while Enron was doing all it's shenanigans? Not Bush.

Geoschmo