Ah Larry!

Jason O'Rourke wrote about President Bush:

"As I stated elsewhere, regardless of the fact that WMD was a propoganda smokescreen..."

Jason O'Rourke wrote about President Clinton:

charge isn't serious whenever it appears to come from an opportunist?"

In one case, lies are referred to euphamistically as a propaganda smokescreen. In the other case,
they are called what they are, lies. Why the difference? Both came from opportunists. In one case,
the result was the deaths of thousands of people (so far) and the loss of many tens of billions of
dollars (so far). In the other case, nobody died, but there was an impeachment that wasted millions
of dollars. The one that is hard to accept is the one we refer to euphamistically.

martin

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 03:24:14 +0000, Jason O'Rourke wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

no barriers to entry. If Larry decided he'd like to sell classes about Total Loping, he can do
it...unless Terry tries to enforce a trademark for total. (Thus giving Larry great publicity for a
new name)

<snip>

Haha - not to pull an OT thread further so, but 'total loping' delivered a much needed giggle 😉

--Mike

Bill Geiser said:

Totalswimm said:

Quoted message said:

First, to imply that WalMart got to be a dominant as they are simply by underpaying people is a
gross oversimplification.

Are you suggesting they should be forgiven for their well-documented exploitation of those who
are relatively powerless -- simply because it's only part of the picture. No one but no one
disputes that their pay and benefit policies keep the average Walmart employee in the ranks of
the working poor. I frankly don't care a whit about the rest of it. I will personally boycott
Walmarts and speak out against them for their failures in simple human dignity for workers.

No, I'm not suggesting that they be forgiven - if laws were broken - as you've suggested. If
that's the case, I say throw them in jail. Fast and without mercy.

<snip>

You can search out a few of the walmart employee standards suits and read of the fines. There's a
problem when a legal fiction can enjoy much of the privileges of a 'person' and suffer few of the
responsibilities.

--Mike

Jason O'Rourke said:

Bill Geiser wpgeiser@nospam said:

Jason O'Rourke said:

Costco is a very different business, with much more focus on groceries.

Well, you've got me really confused....this discussion centered around CA Grocery workers going on
strike because WalMart was entering the market. How come they don't [censored] about Costco if, as you
say, WalMart can't compete with them?

Forgive me, I live in NorCal, but I thought they were striking over medical copays, nothing to do
with WalMart save that their employees probably have no medical plan at all. Larry?

I don't know about the grocery deal, I can only dream of beaches in December, but I'd imagine one
factor might include Walmarts market cap that's nearly 14 times Costco's. Just sayin'.

--Mike

I hate to play this game but I've just got too mentioned (again) the difference in the
circumstances. Clinton lied about something personal that should never have become a public matter.
Well, not a public concern anyway. Bush lied about something that resulting in the (non UN
sanctioned) invasion of a foreign nation. Perspective is a marvelous thing.

--Mike

M.W. Smith said:

Jason O'Rourke wrote about President Bush:

"As I stated elsewhere, regardless of the fact that WMD was a propoganda smokescreen..."

Jason O'Rourke wrote about President Clinton:

Quoted message said:

think such a charge isn't serious whenever it appears to come from an opportunist?"

In one case, lies are referred to euphamistically as a propaganda smokescreen. In the other case,
they are called what they are, lies. Why the difference? Both came from opportunists. In one case,
the result was the deaths of thousands of people (so far) and the loss of many tens of billions of
dollars (so far). In the other case, nobody died, but there was an impeachment that wasted
millions of dollars. The one that is hard to accept is the one we refer to euphamistically.

martin

Mike Edey said:

I hate to play this game but I've just got too mentioned (again) the difference in the
circumstances. Clinton lied about something personal that should never have become a public
matter. Well, not a public concern anyway. Bush lied about something that resulting in the (non UN
sanctioned) invasion of a foreign nation. Perspective is a marvelous thing.

Yes, and note your re-use here of the concept of sanctioning. We have an international institution
(FINA) for sanctioning all swimming events, and all swim clubs and swimmers must abide by the rules.
We also have international institutions for sanctioning the use of war (the UN, the Geneva
Conventions, and the ICC), and all nations must abide by the rules, except when the US doesn't want
the rules to apply. Despite this loophole that Arnold could drive his Hummer through, the US claims
to be a nation of laws and to abide by the rule of law.

Quoted message said:

--Mike

M.W. Smith said:

Jason O'Rourke wrote about President Bush:

"As I stated elsewhere, regardless of the fact that WMD was a propoganda smokescreen..."

Jason O'Rourke wrote about President Clinton:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

think such a charge isn't serious whenever it appears to come from an opportunist?"

In one case, lies are referred to euphamistically as a propaganda smokescreen. In the other case,
they are called what they are, lies. Why the difference? Both came from opportunists. In one case,
the result was the deaths of thousands of people (so far) and the loss of many tens of billions of
dollars (so far). In the other case, nobody died, but there was an impeachment that wasted
millions of dollars. The one that is hard to accept is the one we refer to euphamistically.

martin

M.W. Smith said:

Mike Edey said:

I hate to play this game but I've just got too mentioned (again) the difference in the
circumstances. Clinton lied about something personal that should never have become a public
matter. Well, not a public concern anyway. Bush lied about something that resulting in the (non
UN sanctioned) invasion of a foreign nation. Perspective is a marvelous thing.

Yes, and note your re-use here of the concept of sanctioning. We have an international institution
(FINA) for sanctioning all swimming events, and all swim clubs and swimmers must abide by the
rules. We also have international institutions for sanctioning the use of war (the UN, the Geneva
Conventions, and the ICC), and all nations must abide by the rules, except when the US doesn't
want the rules to apply. Despite this loophole that Arnold could drive his Hummer through, the US
claims to be a nation of laws and to abide by the rule of law.

I agree - you can't have it both ways. Either you play the game, and attend to due process, or you
forsake all the rights, responsibilities & privileges of membership & setup your competing system.
How many boxing 'World heavy Weight Titles' are there now?

--Mike

M.W. Smith said:

Jason O'Rourke said:

Quoted message said:

Jason, for christ sake, what major conflict would you expect a nation the size of France to win?

Some of them.

That's not an answer. Your claim is that France is populated by cheese eating surrender monkeys,
because they didn't win any major conflicts in the 20th century. Which major conflicts in the 20th
century would you expect France to win?

Vietnam or Algeria. These were conflicts that France chose to engage in, versus an inferior
opponent. Yes, the colonial era was ending, but if you're going to discount all of its wars in the
20th Century as unwinnable, how far back are we going to have to look to see its war making prowess?

And it should have lasted a bit longer in 1940. 5 weeks? It took the Nazis a full month to finish
off Poland and occupy Warsaw.

--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

chris said:

Quoted message said:

We have a law - it's the Constitution. It's older than nearly any other established nation on the
planet, or any 'international law.'

No, you don't get to invoke the CoftUS to defend any of His Dubiousness' actions or intents. He and
Mr Ashcroft have made it clear exactly what they think of that particular once-honorable piece of
parchment.

You mean the same sentiments held by Clinton, Reno, and Feinstein? Washington politicians are pretty
universal in their comtempt for the individuals rights.

Nonetheless, I'll take that over anything put out by the UN.

--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

M.W. Smith said:

Jason O'Rourke wrote about President Bush: "As I stated elsewhere, regardless of the fact that WMD
was a propoganda smokescreen..."

Jason O'Rourke wrote about President Clinton:

Quoted message said:

charge isn't serious whenever it appears to come from an opportunist?"

In one case, lies are referred to euphamistically as a propaganda smokescreen. In the other case,
they are called what they are, lies. Why the difference? Both came from opportunists. In one case,
the result was the deaths of thousands of people (so far) and the loss of many tens of billions of
dollars (so far). In the other case, nobody died, but there was an impeachment that wasted millions
of dollars. The one that is hard to accept is the one we refer to euphamistically.

The differences, of course, are that one is a crime and the other isn't. Anyone observing knew why
BushCo was promoting the WMD theme and could easily read between the lines. This wasn't remotely
close to the Gulf of Tonkin. Also implicit in your argumwnt is that these deaths would not have
occurred otherwise. This war was inevitable.

And then you get back to notions of war = bad. Nice, but not terribly valid in the real world.

--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

Jason O'Rourke said:

M.W. Smith said:

Jason O'Rourke said:

>Jason, for christ sake, what major conflict would you expect a nation the size of France to win?

Some of them.

That's not an answer. Your claim is that France is populated by cheese eating surrender monkeys,
because they didn't win any major conflicts in the 20th century. Which major conflicts in the 20th
century would you expect France to win?

Vietnam or Algeria. These were conflicts that France chose to engage in, versus an inferior
opponent. Yes, the colonial era was ending, but if you're going to discount all of its wars in the
20th Century as unwinnable, how far back are we going to have to look to see its war making
prowess?

Both were wars for independence. Look a little closer at Algeria. You claim France should have won
that war, not that it should never have been fought. It was a very bloody war. Estimates of the dead
range from 350,000 to 1.5 million. But the war ended when a referendum was held in Algeria, and the
Algerian people voted for independence. That's not good enough of an outcome for you? You would
rather that the French had kept slaughtering more hundreds of thousands of Algerians?

And you can't be serious about Vietnam either. Most people would say the French had the good sense
to get out of that one before it bacame an even worse bloodbath than Algeria. Recall that this war
in Vietnam that you claim the French should have won, the mighty USA actually lost.

Quoted message said:

And it should have lasted a bit longer in 1940. 5 weeks? It took the Nazis a full month to finish
off Poland and occupy Warsaw.

You are really ignoring history here. France had not re-armed after WWI. Recall that the US had been
caught the same way in WWII, with an obsolete navy and an undermanned army. Remember Pearl Harbor?
Most of the ships that were sunk there were obsolete.

Germany had spent the last ten years building a military machine. France and Britain and the Russia
had not. Recall that Germany nearly defeated Russia. What purpose would have been served by the
French lasting a bit longer? The French did continue to fight, by the way, right through the war.

martin

Jason O'Rourke said:

M.W. Smith said:

Jason O'Rourke said:

hard to keep track of whatever issue you are promoting, Martin.

All you have to do is read the original post in the subthread you entered without reading it. I am
promoting General Clark for President:

"If you get the choice to vote for [George Bush] or for General Clark, why would you force your
wife to vote for George Bush instead of General Clark?"

How many days and posts ago what *that*? If you want to declare thread drift illegal, then you'll
have to post that context in every posting you do.

I didn't declare anything illegal. You said it is hard for you to keep track of what I am promoting,
so I clariefied what I am promoting in this case: Wesley Clark for President of the United States.

Quoted message said:

Do you read your postings on google, or some GUI reader? That's not how USENET was built -
threading works to a minor degree, but should not be relied upon.

USENET wasn't built on google. I read the newsgroups from the news server. The news server maintains
the threading for as long as your server keeps the messages. Netscape 7.1 is a good client for
reading newsgroups. There are many others.

martin

Jason O'Rourke said:

chris said:

Quoted message said:

We have a law - it's the Constitution. It's older than nearly any other established nation on the
planet, or any 'international law.'

No, you don't get to invoke the CoftUS to defend any of His Dubiousness' actions or intents. He
and Mr Ashcroft have made it clear exactly what they think of that particular once-honorable piece
of parchment.

You mean the same sentiments held by Clinton, Reno, and Feinstein? Washington politicians are
pretty universal in their comtempt for the individuals rights.

Nonetheless, I'll take that over anything put out by the UN.

But the US has no legal or constitutional, and now not even any moral, authority in international
matters. It must always cooperate with others. That's what international means.

martin

Jason O'Rourke said:

M.W. Smith said:

Jason O'Rourke wrote about President Bush: "As I stated elsewhere, regardless of the fact that WMD
was a propoganda smokescreen..."

Jason O'Rourke wrote about President Clinton:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

charge isn't serious whenever it appears to come from an opportunist?"

In one case, lies are referred to euphamistically as a propaganda smokescreen. In the other case,
they are called what they are, lies. Why the difference? Both came from opportunists. In one case,
the result was the deaths of thousands of people (so far) and the loss of many tens of billions of
dollars (so far). In the other case, nobody died, but there was an impeachment that wasted
millions of dollars. The one that is hard to accept is the one we refer to euphamistically.

The differences, of course, are that one is a crime and the other isn't. Anyone observing knew why
BushCo was promoting the WMD theme and could easily read between the lines.

First you said what President Bush did was a propaganda smokescreen; now you are saying it wasn't.
That's underhanded arguing, Jason. You are supposed to take your stand, stick with it, and argue
consistently. This is an example of why I stressed the point about consistently arguing the purity
issue in swimming. If you argue that drug use degrades the purity of swimming, then you must also
argue that goggles, caps, and body-suits also degrade the purity of swimming. If you don't, it
indicates you are not concerned with consistency in your belief system, and it leads you to make
breathtaking statements like the following...

Quoted message said:

This wasn't remotely close to the Gulf of Tonkin. Also implicit in your argumwnt is that these
deaths would not have occurred otherwise. This war was inevitable.

...and you believe them. All three statments are false, and stridently so, but you can convince
yourself they are true because you don't require consistency in your own thinking. So you never lose
an argument, and you rarely change your mind.

Quoted message said:

And then you get back to notions of war = bad. Nice, but not terribly valid in the real world.

...and that is the inevitable result, denying war = bad.

martin

M.W. Smith said:

Quoted message said:

And it should have lasted a bit longer in 1940. 5 weeks? It took the Nazis a full month to finish
off Poland and occupy Warsaw.

You are really ignoring history here. France had not re-armed after WWI. Recall that the US had
been caught the

Yes, that is the mark of a military patsy all right. Certainly not that of a nation with a vaunted
history, as Larry's cite tried to claim otherwise.

It's not like the war was a surprise, but they chose to stick their heads in the sand and pray
the Germans wouldn't take the Belgium option. This same sort of thinking nearly made half the
Middle East the land of Saddam. Would have been good for him and his family, bad for just about
everyone else.

The argument you'd like this to be is should France have won any wars. But that's not the one being
presented. But in any event, yes, they should have scored some points sometime in recent history.

--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

M.W. Smith said:

But the US has no legal or constitutional, and now not even any moral, authority in international
matters. It must always cooperate with others. That's what international means.

In what dictionary?

Every nation acts within its own self interest. I don't see very many actors out there doing
anything beyond that. Not the US, not the French, certainly not the Russians.

--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

M.W. Smith said:

Quoted message said:

The differences, of course, are that one is a crime and the other isn't. Anyone observing knew
why BushCo was promoting the WMD theme and could easily read between the lines.

First you said what President Bush did was a propaganda smokescreen; now you are saying it wasn't.
That's underhanded arguing, Jason. You are supposed to take your

As I reread my words, I don't see any change. Propaganda, political spin, it's all the same. This is
a new low in strawmen for you.

Quoted message said:

example of why I stressed the point about consistently arguing the purity issue in swimming. If you
argue that drug use degrades the purity of swimming, then you must also argue that goggles, caps,
and body-suits also degrade the purity of swimming. If you don't, it indicates you are not
concerned with consistency in your belief system, and it

These aren't consistent. Goggles and caps are cheaply available and do not have negative effects.
Body suits are sufficiently expensive that they put an unequal burden on the participants. Drugs
offer short term performance gains at the expense of longer term health. Athletes shouldn't be
forced to risk a heart attack or cancer in 5-20 years to compete at this artificial level. Or...you
have an "open" division where anything goes.

Quoted message said:

So you never lose an argument, and you rarely change your mind.

hey, look! A kettle!

--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

M.W. Smith said:

Quoted message said:

It's not like the war was a surprise, but they chose to stick their heads in the sand and pray
the Germans wouldn't take the Belgium option.

Again you are showing ignorance. By your reasoning, the US was even more of a patsy then, because
the French actually did build some defenses against Germany. The US hadn't built

The US has two oceans. It wasn't living next door to the latest Napolean. Until nukes and ICBMs came
into play, it had no reason to fear invasion. And the people knew it, making a Pearl Harbor level
event necessary to get US involvement in the war.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This same sort of thinking nearly made half the Middle East the land of Saddam.

That is a silly remark. Iraq has never been a military power. A military power must have its own
heavy industry. It

Another curious redefinition. Its million men and loads of tanks had no trouble at all grabbing
Kuwait, and it scared the [censored] out of the Saudis. Before each of the Gulf Wars the pacifists here
were crying about how it was going to be another Vietnam for the US troops.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The argument you'd like this to be is should France have won any wars. But that's not the one
being presented. But in any event, yes, they should have scored some points sometime in recent
history.

And so they have, many times, most recently in the DRC and in the Ivory Coast. How did you
miss those?

No Grenadas.

--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

M.W. Smith said:

Quoted message said:

I don't see very many actors out there doing anything beyond that. Not the US, not the French,
certainly not the Russians.

That's your justification for being an outlaw? Ah, mom! All the other guys are doing it!

Consider it an invitation to show illustrations of behavior otherwise. Not from pissant countries
who have no choice but to play nice, but from the big boys.

--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

Jason O'Rourke said:

M.W. Smith said:

Quoted message said:

And it should have lasted a bit longer in 1940. 5 weeks? It took the Nazis a full month to finish
off Poland and occupy Warsaw.

You are really ignoring history here. France had not re-armed after WWI. Recall that the US had
been caught the

Yes, that is the mark of a military patsy all right. Certainly not that of a nation with a vaunted
history, as Larry's cite tried to claim otherwise.

I didn't say it was the mark of a patsy. WWI was thought of as the war to end all wars. The League
of Nations came out of it.

Quoted message said:

It's not like the war was a surprise, but they chose to stick their heads in the sand and pray the
Germans wouldn't take the Belgium option.

Again you are showing ignorance. By your reasoning, the US was even more of a patsy then, because
the French actually did build some defenses against Germany. The US hadn't built anything since WWI.
The entire US arsenal was WWI vintage, when it entered WWII. The US entered WWII years late.

Quoted message said:

This same sort of thinking nearly made half the Middle East the land of Saddam.

That is a silly remark. Iraq has never been a military power. A military power must have its own
heavy industry. It must be able to arm itself. Iraq was armed by, guess who: The French, Germans,
Russians, AND the USA. Its bio and chemical weapons materials came mainly from the USA *with* US
government approval. In fact, some of the people who approved those deals are in the Bush
administration right now. Iraq never had the reach to take over the middle east or any part of it.

Quoted message said:

Would have been good for him and his family, bad for just about everyone else.

The argument you'd like this to be is should France have won any wars. But that's not the one
being presented. But in any event, yes, they should have scored some points sometime in recent
history.

And so they have, many times, most recently in the DRC and in the Ivory Coast. How did you
miss those?

martin