|
That's right, Bryant - I am obviously just a happy,carefree kind of
guy who likes to have a little harmless fun once in awhile at no one's expense but my own. Hence my amusingly ficticious identity. It is as simple as that - no more, no less. Why are you so judgmental as to misconstrue mere levity for a telling indication of my character? Precisely, what is it that compels you to decipher hidden meanings in a simple anonymous screen name that does not meet your puritanical standards of acceptability, then second guess my intentions by responding flippantly with innuendo and character assassination? Perhaps a bit of introspective meditation would do you well. I fail to comprehend exactly how you have gained such notoriety in this newsgroup as a skillful master of debate. In a debate,it is commonly known that the point where a party resorts to name calling is the point where that person has lost the debate. You, Bryant, the master debater that you reputedly are, do not even "resort" to name calling; it is the brilliant centerpiece of your modus operandi. It seems you are simply unable to post anything whatsoever that does not include it. Your reputation is an unearned and undeserved gift. I will wrap this up on a positive note, for fairness' sake. You are quite expert on the subject of shortwave radio, and you do unselfishly offer what you know to others who ask for help. I proudly admit that I hold you in esteem in that regard, and that I have personally benefited from your sage advice on more than one occasion. For that, you have my sincere thanks. -Happy New Year and God bless you all- UJ ojunk (Michael Bryant) wrote in message ... From: "Uncle Jizzie" If anyone posting a message in this or any other newsgroup is "hiding" their true identities by using a fictious or non-existent email address, it is most likely because they very wisely choose not to have their inbox flooded with unwanted spam - NOT because they are "losers". Grow up Bryant, for chrissakes. UJ I do't but it. I've had this address on Usenet for over a decade. I'm not buried in spam. It's a covenient excuse for people that don't want to stand behind what they choose to say. I think your choice of an anonymous screen name clearly tells a lot about what type of person you are. Bryant Bryant |
Michael Bryant wrote:
snip ...My style is mild compared to most conservative talk-show hosts. Kind of makes a point, doesn't it? Perhaps the point would be you haven't listened to enough conservative talk show hosts? |
|
BB,
The First Rule of Politics is . . . It's Not Who Did the Work - That Gets the Credit or the Blame. It's Who Signs the Bill (Act of Congress) into LAW [.] So Give that US Congress and President the Credit or the Blame. One of Your American Freedoms = Freedom of Choice ! [ ] The President (The Man) [ ] The US Congress (House and Senate) [ ] "Both" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Concerning: Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Public Law 100-526 enacted by the 100th US Congress, 2nd Session, 1988 NOTE: In 1988 the President was R. Reagan " The original base-closing law was designed to minimize political interference. The statute established a bipartisan commission to make recommendations to Congress and the Secretary of Defense on closures and realignments. Lawmakers had to accept or reject the commission´s report in its entirety. On December 28, 1988, the commission issued its report, recommending closure of 86 installations, partial closure of 5, and realignment of 54 others. The Secretary of Defense approved its recommendation on January 5, 1989." http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ility/brac.htm Public Law 101-510 enacted by the 101th US Congress, 2nd Session, 1990 NOTE: In 1990 the President was GH Bush. " Since the commission approach adopted by Congress was successful, new base closure legislation was introduced which also relied on the services of an independent commission. Congress refined the process in 1990 with another law (PL 101-510) that charged the Defense Department with drawing up an initial list of bases for consideration by the commission. This commission, in accordance with a statutory provision, met in 1991, 1993, and 1995. The Defense Base Closure and Realignment of 1990 (1990 Base Closure Act), Public Law 101-510 established the process by which Department of Defense (DOD) installations would be closed and/or realigned." Please Note that there were Four (4) BRAC Events: http://www.defenselink.mil/brac/army.htm * BRAC 1988 was Accepted by the US Congress and Signed by President Reagan * BRAC 1991 was Accepted by the US Congress and Signed by President GH Bush * BRAC 1993 was Accepted by the US Congress and Signed by President Clinton * BRAC 1995 was Accepted by the US Congress and Signed by President Clinton Next BRAC will be 2005 ? http://www.defenselink.mil/brac/ bwdik ~ RHF = = = But, What Do I Know. .. .. = = = (Brian) = = = wrote in message . com... (RHF) wrote in message . com... NOTE: The "Down Sizing" (Peace Dividend) of the US Military in the 1990's was not the sole single act of the then President Clinton. It was an ACT of Congress. Daddy Bush got that one rolling, not Clinton. I was there. BB - And Where Was There ? .. |
|
"Michael Bryant" wrote in message ... From: (RHF) The First Rule of Politics is . . . It's Not Who Did the Work - That Gets the Credit or the Blame. It's Who Signs the Bill (Act of Congress) into LAW [.] So Give that US Congress and President the Credit or the Blame. That's just silly thinking, RHF! If GH Bush did the bulk of NAFTA negotiations, blaming NAFTA on Clinton is just downright deceptive. The Republicans were the ones that initiated NAFTA and negotiated it. But many Americans are too blinded by political partisanship to see that their heroes were the ones that were responsible. You seem to have somewhat moderated your earlier post above on this same issue to which I responded--the one in which you incorrectly claimed that Clinton had signed NAFTA and made me wonder if you knew what you were talking about. But since you still seem bent on incorrectly making this an exclusively Republican issue, I'll repeat what I wrote: "The implication that NAFTA was entirely Bush's baby is equally incorrect. In fact, Clinton expended political capital and -actively- campaigned for its passage in Congress throughout the early part of his presidency, leading to the passage in November, '93--10 months into Clinton's first term. He was not in the least a passive participant in its Congressional approval, and, again contrary to implication above, was the most active of the past several presidents in supporting free trade. This is evidenced by his total support for GATT in 1994 and the creation of the WTO." In short, the passage of NAFTA was bipartisan. It likely would not have happened without Bush's negotiations; it likely would not have happened without Clinton actively campaigning for it's passage. Those whom who criticize for not seeing it as a "Bush issue" are no more wrong than those who are unable to see it as a "Clinton issue." |
From: "T. Early" fenwick_island@yahoo.
In short, the passage of NAFTA was bipartisan. It likely would not have happened without Bush's negotiations; it likely would not have happened without Clinton actively campaigning for it's passage. Those whom who criticize for not seeing it as a "Bush issue" are no more wrong than those who are unable to see it as a "Clinton issue." Well, here's an interesting test: Would have NAFTA been passed if Bill Clinton had lost to GH Bush? Certainly, it had bipartisan support, as you so clearly pointed out. Remember, Clinton kept the Bush negotiating team, so we would've had the same treaty with either President. Based on the points you have clarified, it seems that you agree that anyone blaming NAFTA on Clinton simply doesn't understand the strong Republican support for neoliberal economic policies. Even GW Bush is striving the Western Hem Free Trade Zone, right? I used to support the vague notion of free trade. I used to believe that countries trading with each other were less likely to go to war. But the evolution of neoliberal trade policies as exemplified by recent free trade agreements seems like a race to the bottom, maximizing international corporate profits over environmental concerns, human rights, national employment foundations and livable wages. In this light, I think Clinton and both Bushes are guilty of placing trade concerns above other legitimate concerns. Bryant |
Thing of it is - there's nothing wrong with NAFTA. We just have to
compete better. It's not a fair playing field - I'll grant you that. But I bet you that we'll get do just fine. My faith is in free trade. On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:43:50 -0500, "T. Early" wrote: "Michael Bryant" wrote in message ... From: (RHF) The First Rule of Politics is . . . It's Not Who Did the Work - That Gets the Credit or the Blame. It's Who Signs the Bill (Act of Congress) into LAW [.] So Give that US Congress and President the Credit or the Blame. That's just silly thinking, RHF! If GH Bush did the bulk of NAFTA negotiations, blaming NAFTA on Clinton is just downright deceptive. The Republicans were the ones that initiated NAFTA and negotiated it. But many Americans are too blinded by political partisanship to see that their heroes were the ones that were responsible. You seem to have somewhat moderated your earlier post above on this same issue to which I responded--the one in which you incorrectly claimed that Clinton had signed NAFTA and made me wonder if you knew what you were talking about. But since you still seem bent on incorrectly making this an exclusively Republican issue, I'll repeat what I wrote: "The implication that NAFTA was entirely Bush's baby is equally incorrect. In fact, Clinton expended political capital and -actively- campaigned for its passage in Congress throughout the early part of his presidency, leading to the passage in November, '93--10 months into Clinton's first term. He was not in the least a passive participant in its Congressional approval, and, again contrary to implication above, was the most active of the past several presidents in supporting free trade. This is evidenced by his total support for GATT in 1994 and the creation of the WTO." In short, the passage of NAFTA was bipartisan. It likely would not have happened without Bush's negotiations; it likely would not have happened without Clinton actively campaigning for it's passage. Those whom who criticize for not seeing it as a "Bush issue" are no more wrong than those who are unable to see it as a "Clinton issue." |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:12 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com