clinton faces music

[NorthSideSox72]

Speaking of warrantless wiretapping, it looks like Congress won't be giving Bush the armament he wants in order to beat the courts...

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060926/ap_on_...ss_surveillance

 

[Rex Kickass]

Levi's Jeans had twice as much to do with causing the collapse of the Soviet Union than anything any president did...

Actually, the Berlin wall fell because of bananas.

[NorthSideSox72]

Actually, the Berlin wall fell because of bananas.

This schnitzel... is bananas.... B... A-N-A-N-A-S!!

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Levi's Jeans had twice as much to do with causing the collapse of the Soviet Union than anything any president did...

 

 

...............uhh............

 

no.

[longshot7]

 

Now that I have paid proper respect to the Gipper........

Appeaser? Was he the one that said the Soviets couldn't be defeated? Was he the one that said we should try to co-exist with communisim instead of trying to defeat it?

........

...........not going to hold my breath waiting for an answer.

 

 

while we're at it, what's wrong with co-existing with communism?

 

Reagan spent like a drunken sailor for no good reason and f***ed our economy for years afterward.

[NorthSideSox72]

while we're at it, what's wrong with co-existing with communism?

 

Reagan spent like a drunken sailor for no good reason and f***ed our economy for years afterward.

Communism had nothing to do with it. If the USSR were just a communist state who left its neighbors alone, all would have been fine.

[mr_genius]

while we're at it, what's wrong with co-existing with communism?

 

Reagan spent like a drunken sailor for no good reason and f***ed our economy for years afterward.

 

 

yea, reagans ecenomic plans sure did ruin the 90's.

 

Clinton was lucky to inherit a strong economy built by Reagan and Bush I.

 

 

...

[AbeFroman]

...............uhh............

 

no.

 

 

Sigh... I really shouldn't do this. Nobody's going to read a post this long. I find your response so smug I feel I have no choice.

 

The availability of premium quality goods in capitalist countries greatly exceed that of the soviet union because free markets controlled the exchange of investment and trade against international borders. With the diversity of investment and production inputs (including labor inputs), the West was able to finance greater strides in quality of life than the Soviets. With economic diversity came stability to overcome large governmental outlays, a stock market crash in 1987, in interest rate crisis in the 1970's and again (much worse) in the early 80's.

 

Meanwhile, the Soviet principal of centralization had faltered. The basic theory of the soviet economy (that a strong central government could most efficiently control resources) was failing. The soviet union, cut off from international capital markets, received no foreign direct investment. The Soviet Economy was like a car that came with a full tank of gas but no place to re-fuel it. Once it ran out of fuel, it can't move anymore.

 

The end result is that the west's economy was stablizing. Competition drive prices lower. Companies in the west had to compete, constantly looked for leaner ways to operate, and developed a knack for obtaining the investment necessary to 1) lower prices and 2) increase profits (and transitively GDP) With that, the western consumer was able to purchase luxury items easier. The west enjoyed a much better quality of life than the soviets virtually from day one. Levi's Jeans were the embodimend of western efficiency and wealth.

 

In the Soviet Union, Levi's jeans were the symbol of the wealth created by the west. Everybody wanted them. Indeed when Gorbachev enacted perestroika, soviets could finally get the coveted Levi's. They cost $300... a rediculous sum of money (even by today's standards).... even more rediculous considering it was 1) 1989 and 2) it was the soviet union for christ sakes; it took weeks to make $300.

 

Whats the point I make to NukeCleveland about Levi's jeans? It's one republicans should be familiar with by now:

 

It's the economy stupid.

 

The Soviet economy was draconian from the early 50's. It was doomed to fail from the get go. Western goods became more affordable and life improved in the West because of capitalism. Its true that the military outlays helped bankrupt the soviets, but that was going to happen eventually anyway. Actually, I'd bet that most Russians were more envious of the Western Europe than Americans! They had Levi's, McDonalds, and all the other western luxuries and free health and dental care. Western Europe, parked right alongside the Iron Curtain was a virtual Utopia compared with

 

My point: Economics caused the fall of the Soviet Union... Not Reagan. Reagon contributed, but not nearly as much as the efficiency of capitalism and international markets.

 

Or at least thats what they taught me at Harvard.... What did you learn from those right-wing commercials on TV?

[Rex Kickass]

That's about right actually. Although Reagan's arm race accelerated the decline by at least 5-10 years IMO by forcing the Soviets to spend precious resources on defense.

 

Ultimately the problem lay within the thinking of the Soviet itself. It felt like it needed to compete on every level with the US. As the gap grew between economic reality for each of the ways, so did the ability to maintain a legitimate separate way.

[Balta1701]

Abe...if we want to talk about presidents who's policies had a singular effect on the Soviet Union...I don't think you can possibly ignore the gigantic contributions of the Truman administration.

 

Harry Truman's decision to contain the Soviet Union rather than to invade, to support Democracy as an alternative to communism with force when necessary (but not excessive) and allow the Soviet System to work itself towards its own economic collapse? All of these form the fundamental basis for the reality which allowed the collapse to happen.

 

There was a communist insurrection in Greece after WWII? We're going to support the anti-communist forces. Western Europe is in chaos and Communists are starting to gain traction? Spend a bunch of U.S. dollars on rebuilding. North Korea is invading the South? Send in the U.N. forces. Chinese forces entered on the other side? No, we're not going to invade China, we're going to stop here, and go away Mr. Macarthur.

 

Several Presidents had impacts. Reagan cleary did...Ike, Kennedy, etc., but the whole reason that you get to say that the Soviet System was unstable and was going to eventually collapse is that the Truman Administration basically planned for exactly that.

[southsider2k5]

Sigh... I really shouldn't do this. Nobody's going to read a post this long. I find your response so smug I feel I have no choice.

 

The availability of premium quality goods in capitalist countries greatly exceed that of the soviet union because free markets controlled the exchange of investment and trade against international borders. With the diversity of investment and production inputs (including labor inputs), the West was able to finance greater strides in quality of life than the Soviets. With economic diversity came stability to overcome large governmental outlays, a stock market crash in 1987, in interest rate crisis in the 1970's and again (much worse) in the early 80's.

 

Meanwhile, the Soviet principal of centralization had faltered. The basic theory of the soviet economy (that a strong central government could most efficiently control resources) was failing. The soviet union, cut off from international capital markets, received no foreign direct investment. The Soviet Economy was like a car that came with a full tank of gas but no place to re-fuel it. Once it ran out of fuel, it can't move anymore.

 

The end result is that the west's economy was stablizing. Competition drive prices lower. Companies in the west had to compete, constantly looked for leaner ways to operate, and developed a knack for obtaining the investment necessary to 1) lower prices and 2) increase profits (and transitively GDP) With that, the western consumer was able to purchase luxury items easier. The west enjoyed a much better quality of life than the soviets virtually from day one. Levi's Jeans were the embodimend of western efficiency and wealth.

 

In the Soviet Union, Levi's jeans were the symbol of the wealth created by the west. Everybody wanted them. Indeed when Gorbachev enacted perestroika, soviets could finally get the coveted Levi's. They cost $300... a rediculous sum of money (even by today's standards).... even more rediculous considering it was 1) 1989 and 2) it was the soviet union for christ sakes; it took weeks to make $300.

 

Whats the point I make to NukeCleveland about Levi's jeans? It's one republicans should be familiar with by now:

 

It's the economy stupid.

 

The Soviet economy was draconian from the early 50's. It was doomed to fail from the get go. Western goods became more affordable and life improved in the West because of capitalism. Its true that the military outlays helped bankrupt the soviets, but that was going to happen eventually anyway. Actually, I'd bet that most Russians were more envious of the Western Europe than Americans! They had Levi's, McDonalds, and all the other western luxuries and free health and dental care. Western Europe, parked right alongside the Iron Curtain was a virtual Utopia compared with

 

My point: Economics caused the fall of the Soviet Union... Not Reagan. Reagon contributed, but not nearly as much as the efficiency of capitalism and international markets.

 

Or at least thats what they taught me at Harvard.... What did you learn from those right-wing commercials on TV?

 

Out of curiousity, what did they teach you about the price of capital goods, the failure of the Soviets to be able to feed themselves, and Reagans push towards using this markets to undermine the Soviet system?

[Rex Kickass]

Abe...if we want to talk about presidents who's policies had a singular effect on the Soviet Union...I don't think you can possibly ignore the gigantic contributions of the Truman administration.

 

Harry Truman's decision to contain the Soviet Union rather than to invade, to support Democracy as an alternative to communism with force when necessary (but not excessive) and allow the Soviet System to work itself towards its own economic collapse? All of these form the fundamental basis for the reality which allowed the collapse to happen.

 

There was a communist insurrection in Greece after WWII? We're going to support the anti-communist forces. Western Europe is in chaos and Communists are starting to gain traction? Spend a bunch of U.S. dollars on rebuilding. North Korea is invading the South? Send in the U.N. forces. Chinese forces entered on the other side? No, we're not going to invade China, we're going to stop here, and go away Mr. Macarthur.

 

Several Presidents had impacts. Reagan cleary did...Ike, Kennedy, etc., but the whole reason that you get to say that the Soviet System was unstable and was going to eventually collapse is that the Truman Administration basically planned for exactly that.

 

Truman also prevented a democratically elected communist government in France after liberation, btw.

[Balta1701]

Truman also prevented a democratically elected communist government in France after liberation, btw.

I only have so much time during the day man...can't list all of the great stuff Truman did.

[kapkomet]

Here's one for you Reaganite lovers...

 

Personally, I think HE was the one who started the notion of terrorism against the United States, because one of the earliest "cut and run" deals was the Betruit bombings.

 

Now sure, he blew Libya back to the stone ages because of PanAm 103, but Beruit was DEFINITELY a mistake. He should have bombed the s*** out of who did it right there and then, and that would have set the stage for these jackass Islamists today to not mess with us. But alas... MMQB.

[AbeFroman]

Out of curiousity, what did they teach you about the price of capital goods, the failure of the Soviets to be able to feed themselves, and Reagans push towards using this markets to undermine the Soviet system?

 

Hey, its a post on a message board. Millions of pages have been written on the fall of the soviet union. I didn't write anything about cripling soviet beaurcracy either... doesn't mean it didn't have an effect (which it obviously did). Moreover, I'd say I covered the price of capital goods transitively in my section on open competition's effect on consumer prices and the rewards of innovation. As for the Soviet's inability to feed themselves, thats a bit of a stretch.... It wasn't Ethiopia. What the Russian market craved was US and Western consumer goods; like Levi's, McDonalds, etc. And that was my point to begin with.

 

and I would dispute you that Reagan used "markets to undermine the Soviet system." Markets were already in place. The west was booming and would have boomed with or without Reagan. Capitalism will always defeat Communism. It's economic capacity was growing exponentially while the USSR was probably decreasing its national economic output. (As an aside, I'd love to discuss the effects of the Reagan Tax cuts of 81 and 86... There's much to be discussed, and I would probably surprise you with my opinions... but that's for a different thread).

 

I will agree that Reagan's policy of dumping money into the military in an effort to force the Soviets to do the same probably accelerated the fall of the soviet union... so did the tax cuts of 81 and 86. (And btw, the Soviets were incredibly stupid to try and keep up with us militarily... talk about ego) But at what cost? Today we have massive national debt. The USSR was going to fail anyway... It was inevitable. So why mortgage our whole future building a military for the sake of causing the Russians to build up theirs?

 

It is HIGHLY disengenious to say that one person or one policy cause the soviets to collapse. East vs. West was a battle of Capitalism v. Communism. Its institutional...

Edited September 27, 2006 by AbeFroman

[NorthSideSox72]

Here's one for you Reaganite lovers...

 

Personally, I think HE was the one who started the notion of terrorism against the United States, because one of the earliest "cut and run" deals was the Betruit bombings.

 

Now sure, he blew Libya back to the stone ages because of PanAm 103, but Beruit was DEFINITELY a mistake. He should have bombed the s*** out of who did it right there and then, and that would have set the stage for these jackass Islamists today to not mess with us. But alas... MMQB.

Have you read See No Evil by Robert Baer? I'd recommend you do, if you have not. There is a lot of complexity there, in Beirut and around that incident.

 

But ultimately, I agree with you, and in fact said something similar in an earlier thread - this terror thing is not new, nor did it start under Clinton, either Bush, or even Reagan. But it swelled to something worse on all their watches.

[kapkomet]

Have you read See No Evil by Robert Baer? I'd recommend you do, if you have not. There is a lot of complexity there, in Beirut and around that incident.

 

But ultimately, I agree with you, and in fact said something similar in an earlier thread - this terror thing is not new, nor did it start under Clinton, either Bush, or even Reagan. But it swelled to something worse on all their watches.

I don't have a lot of free time, unfortunately. Do you have a paragraph synopsis?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Hey, its a post on a message board. Millions of pages have been written on the fall of the soviet union. I didn't write anything about cripling soviet beaurcracy either... doesn't mean it didn't have an effect (which it obviously did). Moreover, I'd say I covered the price of capital goods transitively in my section on open competition's effect on consumer prices and the rewards of innovation. As for the Soviet's inability to feed themselves, thats a bit of a stretch.... It wasn't Ethiopia. What the Russian market craved was US and Western consumer goods; like Levi's, McDonalds, etc. And that was my point to begin with.

 

and I would dispute you that Reagan used "markets to undermine the Soviet system." Markets were already in place. The west was booming and would have boomed with or without Reagan. Capitalism will always defeat Communism. It's economic capacity was growing exponentially while the USSR was probably decreasing its national economic output. (As an aside, I'd love to discuss the effects of the Reagan Tax cuts of 81 and 86... There's much to be discussed, and I would probably surprise you with my opinions... but that's for a different thread).

 

I will agree that Reagan's policy of dumping money into the military in an effort to force the Soviets to do the same probably accelerated the fall of the soviet union... so did the tax cuts of 81 and 86. (And btw, the Soviets were incredibly stupid to try and keep up with us militarily... talk about ego) But at what cost? Today we have massive national debt. The USSR was going to fail anyway... It was inevitable. So why mortgage our whole future building a military for the sake of causing the Russians to build up theirs?

 

It is HIGHLY disengenious to say that one person or one policy cause the soviets to collapse. East vs. West was a battle of Capitalism v. Communism. Its institutional...

 

So then Lech Walesa was "HIGHLY" disingenuous? He seems to think Poland owes their freedom to Reagan. Is he just another right wing idiot?

 

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110005204

 

Or Czech dissidents behind the Iron Curtain? Aww what the hell do they know, they only spent decades under the thumb of the Soviets.

 

http://www.radio.cz/en/article/54699

 

The Reagan military buildup, combined with the bleeding the CIA gave them in Afghanistan, combined with colluding with the Saudis to tank the price of oil and drive down that source of revenue for them eliminated the greatest threat to our safety that ever existed.

 

To sit there and assert, from pure conjecture and theory's, that "oh they were going to fall apart anyway" is naive at best. Even if it were true, what is another 10 years or so of Soviet terror dominating Eastern Europe? What's another 10 years living with tens of thousands of nukes targeted at our country?

Edited September 27, 2006 by NUKE_CLEVELAND

[Rex Kickass]

What's another 10 years living with tens of thousands of nukes targeted at our country?

 

Not much of a bother when we know that they aren't very likely to be used.

[Mplssoxfan]

It's an exception to the right of privacy, in that, everyone has a right to privacy UNLESS you can obtain a warrant (or the extreme circumstances you mention). If you're a cop and you obtain a warrant and bust into someones home, they haven't given up their right to privacy. The exception that the Court has granted (the warrant) simply overrides that right. So yeah, it's an exception to the general rule that everyone has a right to privacy at all times.

I'm OK with it in the narrow situation we're talking about: people that pose a national security risk.

 

They could search you or your home but they don't convict you on the spot and throw you in jail. They have to go through the judicial process of charging someone, introducing evidence (which in these cases they would be thrown out) and then getting a conviction. You're still innocent with respect to the law and the legal system.

I could be reading your posts incorrectly, but it seems to me that you're confusing a right to privacy with basic Fourth Amendment rights.

 

Amendment IV

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

Our Fourth Amendment rights are not the same thing as a right to privacy. You mentioned that privacy was formed as a "penumbra", and you're correct. The argument ofer warrentless wiretaps is distinct from any argument over any right to privacy.

[NorthSideSox72]

I could be reading your posts incorrectly, but it seems to me that you're confusing a right to privacy with basic Fourth Amendment rights.

Our Fourth Amendment rights are not the same thing as a right to privacy. You mentioned that privacy was formed as a "penumbra", and you're correct. The argument ofer warrentless wiretaps is distinct from any argument over any right to privacy.

Thanks for clarifying. That was the point I was trying to make.

[Soxy]

Giuliani defends Clinton

 

Giuliani defends Clinton on anti-terror

 

By MATT SEDENSKY, Associated Press Writer Thu Sep 28, 7:14 AM ET

 

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. - Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani defended

Bill Clinton on Wednesday over the former president's counterterrorism efforts, saying recent criticism on preventing the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks is wrong.

 

Political bickering over which president — Clinton or George W. Bush — missed more opportunities to prevent the attacks has been escalating since Clinton gave a combative interview on "Fox News Sunday" in which he defended his efforts to kill

Osama bin Laden.

 

"The idea of trying to cast blame on

President Clinton is just wrong for many, many reasons, not the least of which is I don't think he deserves it," Giuliani said in response to a question after an appearance with fellow Republican Charlie Crist, who is running for governor. "I don't think

President Bush deserves it. The people who deserve blame for Sept. 11, I think we should remind ourselves, are the terrorists — the Islamic fanatics — who came here and killed us and want to come here again and do it."

 

Secretary of State

Condoleezza Rice challenged Clinton's claim that he did more than many of his conservative critics to pursue bin Laden, and she accused the Democrat of leaving no comprehensive plan to fight al-Qaida.

 

Giuliani said he believed Clinton, like his successor, did everything he could with the information he was provided.

 

"Every American president I've known would have given his life to prevent an attack like that. That includes President Clinton, President Bush," the former mayor said. "They did the best they could with the information they had at the time."

 

Giuliani also said a recently declassified report that said the

Iraq war had become a "cause celebre" for Islamic extremists demonstrated the need to continue the fight there.

 

"The jihadists very much want a victory in Iraq. They feel that if they could defeat us in Iraq they will have a great victory for terrorism," Giuliani said. "What that should do is organize us to say if they want a big victory in Iraq then we have to deprive them of that victory."

 

Giuliani said he was "very interested in considering" a run for president but would not make a decision until after the November election.

[Jenksismyhero]

I could be reading your posts incorrectly, but it seems to me that you're confusing a right to privacy with basic Fourth Amendment rights.

Our Fourth Amendment rights are not the same thing as a right to privacy. You mentioned that privacy was formed as a "penumbra", and you're correct. The argument ofer warrentless wiretaps is distinct from any argument over any right to privacy.

 

 

They're not distinct. A good lawyer would argue both. The ACLU argued 1st amendment/privacy rights. The district court considered both:

 

 

"Warrantless wiretapping by NSA ruled unconstitutional--

On August 17, 2006 U.S. District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled in ACLU v. NSA that the warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered that it be stopped immediately, on the grounds that such activities are violations of the rights to free speech and privacy. [84] In her ruling,[85] she wrote:

 

'The President of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these Amendments, has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders as required by FISA, and accordingly has violated the First Amendment Rights of these Plaintiffs as well. '

 

The Justice Department responded to the ruling by saying they would appeal."

 

 

 

Here's a good article I found about the subject, written by an ex-Clintonite

 

http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/...ris/092606.html

Edited September 28, 2006 by Jenksismybitch

[Texsox]

The Top 7 Things That Tick Bill Clinton Off

 

 

7> What's eating Bill Clinton? I don't know, but the Republicans

already have Kenneth Starr looking into it.

 

6> McDonald's refuses to bring back the McRib sandwich.

 

5> Rosie got the job he wanted on "The View."

 

4> Chubby teen girls who don't know who he is.

 

3> Failing to get the lead role in "Supersize Me."

 

2> He was rejected for "Dancing with the Stars."

 

 

and the Number 1 Thing That Ticks Bill Clinton Off...

 

 

1> Monica recently gave up "smoking."

 

 

 

[ Copyright 2006 by Chris White ]

[ http://www.topfive.com ]

[EvilMonkey]

The Top 7 Things That Tick Bill Clinton Off

7> What's eating Bill Clinton? I don't know, but the Republicans

already have Kenneth Starr looking into it.

 

6> McDonald's refuses to bring back the McRib sandwich.

 

5> Rosie got the job he wanted on "The View."

 

4> Chubby teen girls who don't know who he is.

 

3> Failing to get the lead role in "Supersize Me."

 

2> He was rejected for "Dancing with the Stars."

and the Number 1 Thing That Ticks Bill Clinton Off...

1> Monica recently gave up "smoking."

[ Copyright 2006 by Chris White ]

[ http://www.topfive.com ]

Mmmmmmmmmmmm. McRib.