Since the topic has crept (severely) it has been relocated here. Please feel free to continue in its new home.
station cuts for january
- Thread starter sabre
- Start date
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/18/2002 7:32:02 PM KCFlyer wrote:
I seem to have misplaced my aviation history books, but what was the presidents name who signed the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978?
----------------
[/blockquote]
Yeah, uh, that guy...he just won some award or medal or something...
----------------
On 10/18/2002 7:32:02 PM KCFlyer wrote:
I seem to have misplaced my aviation history books, but what was the presidents name who signed the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978?
----------------
[/blockquote]
Yeah, uh, that guy...he just won some award or medal or something...
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/18/2002 11:43:17 PM mga707 wrote:
Yeah, uh, that guy...he just won some award or medal or something...
----------------
[/blockquote]
I think it was for bringing peace to the middle east!!
----------------
On 10/18/2002 11:43:17 PM mga707 wrote:
Yeah, uh, that guy...he just won some award or medal or something...
----------------
[/blockquote]
I think it was for bringing peace to the middle east!!
Oh yes, I almost forgot-With regards to W “starting†a war with Iraq. Iraq has never signed a surrender document. They signed a cease-fire agreement. They agreed to abide by the terms of the cease-fire. Included in the agreement was Iraq’s agreement/requirement to destroy their entire chemical, biological, and nuclear arsenal. After this and other steps were complied with then and only then would sanctions be lifted. Inspectors were to insure this was complied with. One problem though, in 1998, under Bill’s watch, Saddam kicked out the inspectors. Because of this act they are in direct breach of this agreement.
No right-minded person “wants†to go to war. The best way to avoid war is to insure your enemy will realize his total destruction if such a war is waged. Keep saying that Saddam hasn’t done anything to us in ten years and maybe your dream will come true. Are we to wait till he does attack? If you had known Hitler’s plans in the mid 30’s would you have agreed with Neville and his appeasers? Study the past; it is a great tool one can use to avoid repeating mistakes made by our predecessors.
No right-minded person “wants†to go to war. The best way to avoid war is to insure your enemy will realize his total destruction if such a war is waged. Keep saying that Saddam hasn’t done anything to us in ten years and maybe your dream will come true. Are we to wait till he does attack? If you had known Hitler’s plans in the mid 30’s would you have agreed with Neville and his appeasers? Study the past; it is a great tool one can use to avoid repeating mistakes made by our predecessors.
This is my first post to the board. After reading a number of posts I had to chime in. Sorry for the retread-I’ll try to stay on subject in the future.
I am fascinated by the incessant mantra spewed forth by some Democrats. I have read numerous requests for facts to back up statements made about the glorious one, Bill Clinton. Yet, up till now I have seen no attempt to fulfill these requests. Why is this always the case? What piece of legislation has W signed that “caused†this latest economic down cycle? I am not alone in waiting for your answers.
I hate to bring up a sore (not Gore) subject, but Al was not the only candidate to lose a Presidential election after receiving a majority of the popular votes. In 1888 Grover Cleveland lost to Benjamin Harrison even though Harrison received a minority of the popular vote. In 1824 Andrew Jackson lost to John Quincy Adams even though after the initial tally showed Jackson received the most popular and electoral votes. He did not receive the required majority of electoral votes though and lost the election in congress. All Al had to do was one simple thing; win his home state of Tennessee. The same state represented by both Gore Senior and Junior. What do the citizens of Tennessee know that we do not? Oh yeah, Al also lost Arkansas, the home state of the Democratic Party poster child-Bill C.
I am fascinated by the incessant mantra spewed forth by some Democrats. I have read numerous requests for facts to back up statements made about the glorious one, Bill Clinton. Yet, up till now I have seen no attempt to fulfill these requests. Why is this always the case? What piece of legislation has W signed that “caused†this latest economic down cycle? I am not alone in waiting for your answers.
I hate to bring up a sore (not Gore) subject, but Al was not the only candidate to lose a Presidential election after receiving a majority of the popular votes. In 1888 Grover Cleveland lost to Benjamin Harrison even though Harrison received a minority of the popular vote. In 1824 Andrew Jackson lost to John Quincy Adams even though after the initial tally showed Jackson received the most popular and electoral votes. He did not receive the required majority of electoral votes though and lost the election in congress. All Al had to do was one simple thing; win his home state of Tennessee. The same state represented by both Gore Senior and Junior. What do the citizens of Tennessee know that we do not? Oh yeah, Al also lost Arkansas, the home state of the Democratic Party poster child-Bill C.
The Fact remains,
Reps make their Millionaires-Billionaires
and their Billionaires-Multi Billionaires
and the Dems have and always be for the working man...
Its that simply..
It is just like the reps to blame everything happening now
on Clinton..Why would they start excepting blame for anything,they never do...Must be all those Harvard degrees
kicking in...
Rest assured, what is happening now is Bushs fault
and history will record it...
Ie: Tax Cut, That really worked didnt it!!!!!
And the fact remains..The big Airlines were in trouble as soon as the internet bubble burst.that was most of their High Yield traffic..They should of been downsizing then!!!
U is the only one ahead of the curve at the moment..
Remember the Titanic started its turn one mile before it hit
and they still didnt avoid the berg..
Reps make their Millionaires-Billionaires
and their Billionaires-Multi Billionaires
and the Dems have and always be for the working man...
Its that simply..
It is just like the reps to blame everything happening now
on Clinton..Why would they start excepting blame for anything,they never do...Must be all those Harvard degrees
kicking in...
Rest assured, what is happening now is Bushs fault
and history will record it...
Ie: Tax Cut, That really worked didnt it!!!!!
And the fact remains..The big Airlines were in trouble as soon as the internet bubble burst.that was most of their High Yield traffic..They should of been downsizing then!!!
U is the only one ahead of the curve at the moment..
Remember the Titanic started its turn one mile before it hit
and they still didnt avoid the berg..
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/20/2002 3:01:20 AM ata36 wrote:
No right-minded person “wants” to go to war. The best way to avoid war is to insure your enemy will realize his total destruction if such a war is waged. Keep saying that Saddam hasn’t done anything to us in ten years and maybe your dream will come true. Are we to wait till he does attack? If you had known Hitler’s plans in the mid 30’s would you have agreed with Neville and his appeasers? Study the past; it is a great tool one can use to avoid repeating mistakes made by our predecessors.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I wonder what the anti-war folks who seem to trust Saddam so much will say if we do nothing and wake up one morning in 2004 to find that a nuclear bomb stored in a shipping container has exploded on the East River/Hampton Roads, Va/Baltimore/you-name-the-port and killed hundreds of thousands of Americans? Oops, guess we were wrong! The true knee-jerk liberals will claim there's no 100% proof it was an Iraqi A-bomb, so we would have been wrong (i.e. politically incorrect) to have gone after Iraq in 2002. People like that, even if they had signed confessions from the radical Islamists involved, would claim Americans brought it on themselves because of their way of life, support of Middle East despotic rulers (have there EVER been any Arab rulers in the Middle East since time began who haven't been dictators?), etc...you know Blame America First. These are the same kind of fools who believed Neville Chamberlain when he was waving the peace agreement BS in '38 and claiming Peace In Our Time. Some folks just never learn. Just like Clinton's '94 agreement with NK. That was obviously not worth the paper it was printed on but I'm sure it went over big with Barbra Streisand and her limousine liberal friends.
The distorted view of the World by the Clinton supporters never ceases to amaze me. In their parallel universe, the corporate skullduggery began the day GWB was sworn in. I can see it now...at Enron, Global Crossing, etc, the corporate bigwigs were abiding by the law 100%. They were morally perfect. But on Jan 20, 2001 at 1200 hrs, they had massive celebrations and rubbed their hands in glee because now they realized they could screw Americans out of their life savings while further enriching themselves at the same time. Of course, to have this unique perspective, you must ignore the fact that these corporate thieves donated almost as much money in political contributions to Dems as they did to Republicans. Or ignore the fact that the DNC Chairman made hundreds of thousands of dollars by following the insider advice of the Global Crossing Chairman. Regarding the economy, you have to believe that economics is an exact science and only Democrats know how to operate the economy so Americans can prosper. Also ignore the fact that the current recession began under Clinton and the '92-'00 prosperity began under the previous Bush Administration. Also ignore the fact that the main reason for the elimination of the deficit, lowering of interest rates and stock market boom was lowering Defense spending thanks to the end of the Cold War, which was thanks to Reagan. Regarding ethics (you Clinton supporters better look that term up in the dictionary) Clinton's selling pardons, lying under oath, obstructing justice, rape of Juanita Broderick (a Democrat btw), was all part of a vast right wing conspiracy. He didn't really do any of that. And even if he did, it was just sex. So if any of you ever have to raise your right hand and swear to tell the whole truth, rest assured that if any part of the matter is even remotely related to sex and/or infidelity, you can just lie through your teeth and not have to worry about being charged with perjury. If any judgemental, right wing creeps try to pass judgement on you, just distract attention by firing some million dollar Cruise Missiles into some empty 10 dollar tents in the middle East to show them how tough you are on international terrorism. But don't bother with doing something more meaningful, like taking custody of UBL when Sudan offers him to you on a silver platter.
The most pathetic part of all this is the constant support of the moral leper Clinton. What does it say about the Dems that they refuse to condemn him. I think all politicians are crooks to some extent, but at least when the Republicans have a crook in their midst, and the truth is revealed, the bum either resigns or is forced out, like Nixon and Livingston (the La congressman who was to be Speaker of the House, and resigned when his infidelity was revealed. I'm not saying that infidelity by itself is horrible and should be used as a measure of whether a politician is fit for office. But Clinton had a heck of alot more wrong with his character. He was perhaps the most morally unfit person to ever hold the office. If you think character doesn't count in being elected to office, then there's no reason ex-convicts shouldn't be allowed to serve.
----------------
On 10/20/2002 3:01:20 AM ata36 wrote:
No right-minded person “wants” to go to war. The best way to avoid war is to insure your enemy will realize his total destruction if such a war is waged. Keep saying that Saddam hasn’t done anything to us in ten years and maybe your dream will come true. Are we to wait till he does attack? If you had known Hitler’s plans in the mid 30’s would you have agreed with Neville and his appeasers? Study the past; it is a great tool one can use to avoid repeating mistakes made by our predecessors.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I wonder what the anti-war folks who seem to trust Saddam so much will say if we do nothing and wake up one morning in 2004 to find that a nuclear bomb stored in a shipping container has exploded on the East River/Hampton Roads, Va/Baltimore/you-name-the-port and killed hundreds of thousands of Americans? Oops, guess we were wrong! The true knee-jerk liberals will claim there's no 100% proof it was an Iraqi A-bomb, so we would have been wrong (i.e. politically incorrect) to have gone after Iraq in 2002. People like that, even if they had signed confessions from the radical Islamists involved, would claim Americans brought it on themselves because of their way of life, support of Middle East despotic rulers (have there EVER been any Arab rulers in the Middle East since time began who haven't been dictators?), etc...you know Blame America First. These are the same kind of fools who believed Neville Chamberlain when he was waving the peace agreement BS in '38 and claiming Peace In Our Time. Some folks just never learn. Just like Clinton's '94 agreement with NK. That was obviously not worth the paper it was printed on but I'm sure it went over big with Barbra Streisand and her limousine liberal friends.
The distorted view of the World by the Clinton supporters never ceases to amaze me. In their parallel universe, the corporate skullduggery began the day GWB was sworn in. I can see it now...at Enron, Global Crossing, etc, the corporate bigwigs were abiding by the law 100%. They were morally perfect. But on Jan 20, 2001 at 1200 hrs, they had massive celebrations and rubbed their hands in glee because now they realized they could screw Americans out of their life savings while further enriching themselves at the same time. Of course, to have this unique perspective, you must ignore the fact that these corporate thieves donated almost as much money in political contributions to Dems as they did to Republicans. Or ignore the fact that the DNC Chairman made hundreds of thousands of dollars by following the insider advice of the Global Crossing Chairman. Regarding the economy, you have to believe that economics is an exact science and only Democrats know how to operate the economy so Americans can prosper. Also ignore the fact that the current recession began under Clinton and the '92-'00 prosperity began under the previous Bush Administration. Also ignore the fact that the main reason for the elimination of the deficit, lowering of interest rates and stock market boom was lowering Defense spending thanks to the end of the Cold War, which was thanks to Reagan. Regarding ethics (you Clinton supporters better look that term up in the dictionary) Clinton's selling pardons, lying under oath, obstructing justice, rape of Juanita Broderick (a Democrat btw), was all part of a vast right wing conspiracy. He didn't really do any of that. And even if he did, it was just sex. So if any of you ever have to raise your right hand and swear to tell the whole truth, rest assured that if any part of the matter is even remotely related to sex and/or infidelity, you can just lie through your teeth and not have to worry about being charged with perjury. If any judgemental, right wing creeps try to pass judgement on you, just distract attention by firing some million dollar Cruise Missiles into some empty 10 dollar tents in the middle East to show them how tough you are on international terrorism. But don't bother with doing something more meaningful, like taking custody of UBL when Sudan offers him to you on a silver platter.
The most pathetic part of all this is the constant support of the moral leper Clinton. What does it say about the Dems that they refuse to condemn him. I think all politicians are crooks to some extent, but at least when the Republicans have a crook in their midst, and the truth is revealed, the bum either resigns or is forced out, like Nixon and Livingston (the La congressman who was to be Speaker of the House, and resigned when his infidelity was revealed. I'm not saying that infidelity by itself is horrible and should be used as a measure of whether a politician is fit for office. But Clinton had a heck of alot more wrong with his character. He was perhaps the most morally unfit person to ever hold the office. If you think character doesn't count in being elected to office, then there's no reason ex-convicts shouldn't be allowed to serve.
Some questions to ponder…
-What agreement made in 1993 is considered by most Democrats to be the end of the workingman in America? (hint it has to do with North America and free trade)
-Which party controlled the House of Representatives in 1993?
-Which President signed the legislation in 1993?
-Did you spend the money you received due to the 2001 tax reform?
-What agreement made in 1993 is considered by most Democrats to be the end of the workingman in America? (hint it has to do with North America and free trade)
-Which party controlled the House of Representatives in 1993?
-Which President signed the legislation in 1993?
-Did you spend the money you received due to the 2001 tax reform?
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/20/2002 2:33:48 AM ata36 wrote:
I hate to bring up a sore (not Gore) subject, but Al was not the only candidate to lose a Presidential election after receiving a majority of the popular votes. In 1888 Grover Cleveland lost to Benjamin Harrison even though Harrison received a minority of the popular vote. In 1824 Andrew Jackson lost to John Quincy Adams even though after the initial tally showed Jackson received the most popular and electoral votes. He did not receive the required majority of electoral votes though and lost the election in congress. [/blockquote]
You missed one: 1876, Samuel Tilden (Dem) won the popular vote, but Rutherford Hayes (Rep) became President.
...just for the sake of full historical accuracy.
----------------
On 10/20/2002 2:33:48 AM ata36 wrote:
I hate to bring up a sore (not Gore) subject, but Al was not the only candidate to lose a Presidential election after receiving a majority of the popular votes. In 1888 Grover Cleveland lost to Benjamin Harrison even though Harrison received a minority of the popular vote. In 1824 Andrew Jackson lost to John Quincy Adams even though after the initial tally showed Jackson received the most popular and electoral votes. He did not receive the required majority of electoral votes though and lost the election in congress. [/blockquote]
You missed one: 1876, Samuel Tilden (Dem) won the popular vote, but Rutherford Hayes (Rep) became President.
...just for the sake of full historical accuracy.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/20/2002 10:43:25 AM grndproxwarning wrote:
The Fact remains,
Reps make their Millionaires-Billionaires
and their Billionaires-Multi Billionaires
and the Dems have and always be for the working man...
Its that simply..
----------------
[/blockquote]
Isn't it ironic that the richest folks in the Senate are Dems?
From the june 2002 Roll Call
The average net worth of a Senate Republican was about $2.9 million, whereas the average Democrat's net worth was nearly $11 million.
The 4 richest and 5 of the 6 richest senators are DEMOCRATS!!!
----------------
On 10/20/2002 10:43:25 AM grndproxwarning wrote:
The Fact remains,
Reps make their Millionaires-Billionaires
and their Billionaires-Multi Billionaires
and the Dems have and always be for the working man...
Its that simply..
----------------
[/blockquote]
Isn't it ironic that the richest folks in the Senate are Dems?
From the june 2002 Roll Call
The average net worth of a Senate Republican was about $2.9 million, whereas the average Democrat's net worth was nearly $11 million.
The 4 richest and 5 of the 6 richest senators are DEMOCRATS!!!
KCFlyer
Veteran
Ya but they all earned the money..
All Bushs buddys are Billionaires..
IE:Oil fields in Alaska,Texas,I could go on all night,but you know who they are...
Oh I forgot Enron,But they never talked business!!!!!!
I would rather hear
I never had sexual relations with that womam,
which is worse..ask all the former Employees of Enron
and see what they would tell you...
All Bushs buddys are Billionaires..
IE:Oil fields in Alaska,Texas,I could go on all night,but you know who they are...
Oh I forgot Enron,But they never talked business!!!!!!
I would rather hear
I never had sexual relations with that womam,
which is worse..ask all the former Employees of Enron
and see what they would tell you...
KCFlyer
Veteran
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 10/22/2002 10:38:47 PM grndproxwarning wrote:
[P]No,[BR]They go all the way back to Daddy[/P]
[P]----------------[/P]
[P]So you're telling me that for 8 years, President Clinton did nothing to discourage these types of deals?[/P][/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 10/22/2002 10:38:47 PM grndproxwarning wrote:
[P]No,[BR]They go all the way back to Daddy[/P]
[P]----------------[/P]
[P]So you're telling me that for 8 years, President Clinton did nothing to discourage these types of deals?[/P][/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P]
Similar threads
