PB Lit in a nutshell

[Hel_Books]

That makes no sense at all.

What part of Elon Musk being investigated so he has Donald Trump fire the investigators don't you understand?

Do you understand the idea of conflict of interest?

 

[YDB95]

President Clinton can't take any credit for that. It was the Republicans who tamed inflation, cleaned up the budget, set the economy free and ended the cold war so you could all waste the "peace dividend"!

Wrong. Clinton's first budget cut the deficit massively, and it was passed without a single Republican vote (not to mention they spent years predicting it would trigger an economic disaster. It didn't.) All the Republicans did was whine about the deficits they created. And I note without surprise that you ignored my query about Reagan, so let's try again: are you, or are you not, aware that he ran up more red ink than all previous presidents combined?

President Clinton enjoyed his teenage pussy and saxophone jamming while the various real-estate, banking and internet bubbles were forming and the 11 September terrorists were taking flight lessons in Florida. He was a veritable Zaphod Beeblebrox, that one!

1. There's no evidence he messed around with anyone who wasn't of age.
2. He was not the president who blithely ignored a security briefing headlined "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US". That would be George W.M.D. Bush

 

[Rotadom]

No, this is the PB in a nutshell.

 

[UltraChad]

I hard work for a living and I don’t want my tax dollars stolen by a king to give to the richest man in the world.

It's ok when they have a (D) next to their name!!!

 

[Hel_Books]

Wrong. Clinton's first budget cut the deficit massively, and it was passed without a single Republican vote (not to mention they spent years predicting it would trigger an economic disaster. It didn't.) All the Republicans did was whine about the deficits they created. And I note without surprise that you ignored my query about Reagan, so let's try again: are you, or are you not, aware that he ran up more red ink than all previous presidents combined?



1. There's no evidence he messed around with anyone who wasn't of age.
2. He was not the president who blithely ignored a security briefing headlined "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US". That would be George W.M.D. Bush

Sigh. Blaming Reagan for that is like giving President Truman credit for the Manhattan Project. The USA economy was screwed up by President Johnson's Guns & Butter, not to mention the failures of the next three of his successors. If President Clinton had been a manager at any institution (public or private) at which he did NOT have political pull and had been caught with his hand up the dress of a female subordinate half his age he would have been gone as soon as the scandal broke. Sure, "Bin Laden was determined to strike"! Where? How? When? Does he have a stolen Pakistani nuke? Is he going to kidnap Cat Stevens and hold him for ransom? Is there another truck bomb planted in the World Trade Center? Are they planning on releasing nerve gas? This is all so silly because even if the 11 September hijackers had been arrested by the security forces on the orders of President Bush, their lawyers would have had them out of gaol in plenty of time to catch their flights, with accompanying news stories about harassment of dark-skinned immigrants by jackbooted imperialist fascist thugs. I suppose if the USA had ordered all cockpit doors to be armoured and locked like the Israelis did after all those hijackings decades earlier . . . but you can hardly blame President Bush for that, at least, not any more than any of his predecessors!

 

[Politruk]

President Clinton can't take any credit for that. It was the Republicans who tamed inflation, cleaned up the budget, set the economy free and ended the cold war so you could all waste the "peace dividend"!

No American ended the Cold War. The USSR collapsed mainly because of declining oil prices, not because they were trying to keep up with U.S. defense spending.

 

[YDB95]

Sigh. Blaming Reagan for that is like giving President Truman credit for the Manhattan Project. The USA economy was screwed up by President Johnson's Guns & Butter, not to mention the failures of the next three of his successors.

The same President Johnson who oversaw the last balanced budget before Clinton? And whatever you think of any other president's economic policies, the fact is that Reagan ran up more red ink than all prior presidents combined. That simply is not compatible with your claim that he set us on the road to peace and prosperity. (We haven't even touched on the "peace" half of that, where Reagan spent his entire term playing Rambo all over the place.)

If President Clinton had been a manager at any institution (public or private) at which he did NOT have political pull and had been caught with his hand up the dress of a female subordinate half his age he would have been gone as soon as the scandal broke.

True, but not what you accused him of before.

Sure, "Bin Laden was determined to strike"! Where? How? When? Does he have a stolen Pakistani nuke? Is he going to kidnap Cat Stevens and hold him for ransom? Is there another truck bomb planted in the World Trade Center? Are they planning on releasing nerve gas? This is all so silly because even if the 11 September hijackers had been arrested by the security forces on the orders of President Bush, their lawyers would have had them out of gaol in plenty of time to catch their flights, with accompanying news stories about harassment of dark-skinned immigrants by jackbooted imperialist fascist thugs.

First of all, you have no way of knowing any of that would have happened. Second and more to the point, I was responding to your implying that Clinton was somehow responsible for 9/11 (although like a good Southern strategy adherent, you were careful to not quite say that). The bottom line is that Bush was warned and didn't even bother to read the security briefing. If he had read it, could the attacks have been avoided? We don't and can't know, but that's no excuse for the way he let the ball drop.

 

[Hel_Books]

No American ended the Cold War. The USSR collapsed mainly because of declining oil prices, not because they were trying to keep up with U.S. defense spending.

We'll never know the counterfactual of President Carter being re-elected and leaders like President Reagan and Margaret Thatcher never being in office. Just remember that at the time the mood was quite gloomy, with the free world in retreat, the economies of the democracies stagnating, insurgencies everywhere. The statists had the upper hand. Everyone remembered the words of your Lincoln Steffens, "I have been over into the future, and it works."

Yes, perhaps it was the price of a commodity . . .

 

[Hel_Books]

The same President Johnson who oversaw the last balanced budget before Clinton? And whatever you think of any other president's economic policies, the fact is that Reagan ran up more red ink than all prior presidents combined. That simply is not compatible with your claim that he set us on the road to peace and prosperity. (We haven't even touched on the "peace" half of that, where Reagan spent his entire term playing Rambo all over the place.)

True, but not what you accused him of before.


First of all, you have no way of knowing any of that would have happened. Second and more to the point, I was responding to your implying that Clinton was somehow responsible for 9/11 (although like a good Southern strategy adherent, you were careful to not quite say that). The bottom line is that Bush was warned and didn't even bother to read the security briefing. If he had read it, could the attacks have been avoided? We don't and can't know, but that's no excuse for the way he let the ball drop.

If you hire a new manager for a company in dire straits and that manager has to borrow money to get the company back on track, you can complain about the debt, sure, but ignoring the fact that the company is back on track is disengenuous. As for the 11 September attacks, of course no one could have known (well, the Israelis knew how to protect cockpits of airplanes, but nobody else seemed to have listened). If you want to apportion blame, though, as you seem to, remember how many years President Clinton had in the saddle and how many months President Bush had. For fucks sake, the FIRST attack on the World Trade Center was in 1993 during President Clinton's administration, and they learned nothing from that! Possibly because the President was distracted by other matters . . .

 

[YDB95]

If you hire a new manager for a company in dire straits and that manager has to borrow money to get the company back on track, you can complain about the debt, sure, but ignoring the fact that the company is back on track is disengenuous.

So is arguing that Reagan got the country back on track. What he did do was start the trend - which continues to this day - of massive income inequalities, sending factory jobs overseas, and not giving a shit about the disenfranchised. And he also ran up massive deficits.

As for the 11 September attacks, of course no one could have known (well, the Israelis knew how to protect cockpits of airplanes, but nobody else seemed to have listened).

Oh yes they could. Heck, Tom Clancy even wrote a novel with a similar plot.

If you want to apportion blame, though, as you seem to, remember how many years President Clinton had in the saddle and how many months President Bush had. For fucks sake, the FIRST attack on the World Trade Center was in 1993 during President Clinton's administration, and they learned nothing from that! Possibly because the President was distracted by other matters . . .

Glad you brought that up. It gives me an excuse to remind you that at the time of the first WTC attack, Clinton had been president for all of five weeks. On 9/11, Bush had been president for over seven months. But in both cases, people like you put everything at Clinton's feet. Interesting indeed.
Not to mention Clinton came closer than anyone before or since to a peace treaty in the Middle East. But you knew that, right?

 

[Hel_Books]

So is arguing that Reagan got the country back on track. What he did do was start the trend - which continues to this day - of massive income inequalities, sending factory jobs overseas, and not giving a shit about the disenfranchised. And he also ran up massive deficits.

Oh yes they could. Heck, Tom Clancy even wrote a novel with a similar plot.

Glad you brought that up. It gives me an excuse to remind you that at the time of the first WTC attack, Clinton had been president for all of five weeks. On 9/11, Bush had been president for over seven months. But in both cases, people like you put everything at Clinton's feet. Interesting indeed.
Not to mention Clinton came closer than anyone before or since to a peace treaty in the Middle East. But you knew that, right?

I wasn't implying (you'd have know this if you'd really read my comment) that President Clinton could have done anything about the first WTC attack, but after that attack his administration had quite a few years to prepare for the NEXT ONE, didn't they? They knew Bin Laden was determined to strike the USA because he actually HAD. But President Clinton was the ultimate "do nothing and party hard" politician (until your Mr Trump came on the scene, of course!).

As for "sending jobs overseas" that was a worldwide phenomenon dating back to the beginning of the post-WWII period: first cheap Japanese manufacturers, then Taiwanese, then Chinese, Bangladeshi, etc. etc. The shift to higher value-added is why places like Germany got and stayed prosperous, not crackpot trade policies like the current Trumpy tariff madness.

 

[YDB95]

I wasn't implying (you'd have know this if you'd really read my comment) that President Clinton could have done anything about the first WTC attack, but after that attack his administration had quite a few years to prepare for the NEXT ONE, didn't they?

There was no next one on Clinton's watch, was there?

 

[Politruk]

The statists had the upper hand.

Libertarians are statists. Everyone is a statist who is not an anarchist.

 

[Hel_Books]

There was no next one on Clinton's watch, was there?

So then if the Clinton Administration had years to observe while suspicious muslim immigrants took flight lessons and the Clinton Administration didn't catch on, how the devil can you suggest the Bush Administration should be blamed for missing an attack that was planned and set in motion before the 2000 election?

 

[Hel_Books]

Libertarians are statists. Everyone is a statist who is not an anarchist.

That doesn't sit so well with definition of a "statist." Statist refers to one who prefers a political system where the state has very strong, centralized control over the economy and society. There are varying degrees of centralization and/or societal control possible.

 

[YDB95]

So then if the Clinton Administration had years to observe while suspicious muslim immigrants took flight lessons and the Clinton Administration didn't catch on, how the devil can you suggest the Bush Administration should be blamed for missing an attack that was planned and set in motion before the 2000 election?

Because first of all, we don't know for a fact that "the Clinton administration didn't catch on". We DO know during the transition, Clinton's team tried to impress upon the Bush team that the threat was there, and that Bush's lackeys ignored it because their whole game plan was to do the opposite of everything Clinton had done. We DO know there was a memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" and Bush didn't even bother to read it. That's how the devil I can suggest the Bush Administration should be blamed. Next outrage of the day?

 

[Lazaran]

So then if the Clinton Administration had years to observe while suspicious muslim immigrants took flight lessons and the Clinton Administration didn't catch on, how the devil can you suggest the Bush Administration should be blamed for missing an attack that was planned and set in motion before the 2000 election?

Adversaries often take advantage of the turmoil and confusion of a transition from one Party’s control of the White House to the opposing Party: Like the turmoil and confusion in the 2000 election / transition. (And Shrub-Cheney prioritized tax cuts, deregulation, and adventurism over actually building up America’s domestic security, so…)



Also:

There is NO evidence to suggest a continuation of the Clinton - Gore administration, under President Al Gore, would NOT have interdicted the 9/11 attack. (and going on the Clinton - Gore record of foiling all subsequent terror attacks once the threat was made apparent, I truly believe a President Gore administration WOULD have foiled 9/11.)

Ultimately:

I believe a smooth continuation of Democratic leadership in 2000 could have led to the foiling of the 9/11 plot (while also avoiding the Iraq & Afghanistan debacles - not to mention, the 2008 financial crisis).

And what is going on now only strengthens my belief that Democratic leadership is exponentially better than republican leadership.





Also:

We. Told. Them. So.

 

[Hel_Books]

Because first of all, we don't know for a fact that "the Clinton administration didn't catch on". We DO know during the transition, Clinton's team tried to impress upon the Bush team that the threat was there, and that Bush's lackeys ignored it because their whole game plan was to do the opposite of everything Clinton had done. We DO know there was a memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" and Bush didn't even bother to read it. That's how the devil I can suggest the Bush Administration should be blamed. Next outrage of the day?

Gosh, you're being silly. Anyone could have said "determined to strike"! Anything they managed to find out, in particular, during all those years of being very attentive? If the Clinton Administration had anything other than just vague notions of concern . . .

By the way, have the contents of that memo been made public, in whole or in part?

And why are you so outraged about all this? I've got no brief for the Bush Administration (that is, the 2nd one; the 1st one was headed by the kind of knowledgeable, experienced chief executive that you Americans used to be in the habit of, occasionally, electing!) especially considering things like the Iraq invasion. But all this senseless finger-pointing . . .

 

[YDB95]

Gosh, you're being silly.

A classic retort of someone who's just been argued under the table. Don't worry, it happens all the time.

Anyone could have said "determined to strike"!

"Anyone" hadn't already struck once before. And you can dance around it all you like, but there is no excuse at all for the president of the United States to not even read a memo with that heading, and you know it.

Anything they managed to find out, in particular, during all those years of being very attentive? If the Clinton Administration had anything other than just vague notions of concern . . .

Yes, there was, and it was shared - and ignored - during the transition. As I already said.

And why are you so outraged about all this?

Because I care about the truth, and because I'm not fooled by your gosh-by-golly-gee tone here when you started this by falsely accusing Clinton of sleeping with underage girls (something Trump has been plausibly accused of, incidentally).

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Gosh, you're being silly. Anyone could have said "determined to strike"! Anything they managed to find out, in particular, during all those years of being very attentive? If the Clinton Administration had anything other than just vague notions of concern . . .

By the way, have the contents of that memo been made public, in whole or in part?

And why are you so outraged about all this? I've got no brief for the Bush Administration (that is, the 2nd one; the 1st one was headed by the kind of knowledgeable, experienced chief executive that you Americans used to be in the habit of, occasionally, electing!) especially considering things like the Iraq invasion. But all this senseless finger-pointing . . .

When Bill Clinton attacked a chemical plant in response to evidence that it was being used to produce nerve gas for Al-Qaeda, he was derided for trying to "wag the dog".

The Republicans never took national security serious and we paid the price on 9-11.

 

[Hel_Books]

When Bill Clinton attacked a chemical plant in response to evidence that it was being used to produce nerve gas for Al-Qaeda, he was derided for trying to "wag the dog".

The Republicans never took national security serious and we paid the price on 9-11.

Well, there you go! The Al-Shifa plant manufactured pharmaceuticals, it wasn't a weapons facility. If that indicates the level of the Clinton Administrations intelligence capability, it might explain why they weren't able to discover the 11 September plot!