The results from the test are -3 and change and -1 and change, I saved the chart but I went back to look at it and I cant open it.


<B>I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy</B>

I do too, but I thought that WJC's Monica problem was just rumor until it really got some attention. Up until that time I had heard that he was everything from an alien to the anti-christ.
No matter where you stand on the outcome, I think it could be said that the prior rumors of conspiracy were laughed at. After the facts came out it didnt seem so silly.

This government has lost a great deal of credibility from the coverups. I dont know how we can get some trust back, even committee investigations are political.

This is for Hermit22
 

<B>COMMUNIST LINKS TO CLINTON</B>

Maybe. Depends on who you ask. I have seen Clinton spelled with a "K" more times than I can remember. Why would we do that besides just to look like asses? It has been my understanding that WJC was quite cozy with the Soviets, Chinese, and the North Koreans. This was alleged to have been well before the fall of the wall and the change in communism to a more capitalistic brand.

The most recent and seemingly clear ties to communist China that WJC had was in the Wen Ho Lee case. The last I remember hearing about this was actually a few years ago, but it has stuck with me. The allegation I heard went something like WHL gave the Chinese secret weapons technology and then soon after, WJC recieved campaign money from China. A lot of it, and in a way that was considered borderline illegal, if not outright. A review of the whole case reveals no clear ties to WJC, or even that WHL was actually a spy.

That's my mistake and I apologize.

While WHL did actually plead guilty to some felony in the handling secret weapons videos, the ties to WJC were not there. It does seem suspicious that he would not voluntarily account for the videos, and at the same time the Chinese have technically similar nukes, the case has apparantly been put to rest.

As for any other possible links of WJC to communists, if I come across something , I will post it.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/05/19/lee5_19.a.tm/

http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/02/03/cia.deutch.02/

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2000/09/aj091000.html

Hey slang, thanks for responding in a concise, coherent manner with citations. It's refreshing, even if the format can get confusing.

My mind is absolutely mush right now; too much time reading and writing papers this weekend. In fact, I looked at that last post of yours and thought you were saying that there was unequivocable proof that Clinton was somehow tied to Wen Ho Lee. I think I need a break.

I haven't really bothered to read the rest of your posts yet, but I will get back to you. Since you seem to be changing your opinion on the Clinton-Communism connection, maybe you'll shift opinion on other matters as well? It's never good to base your ideologies on hearsay (which isn't to say that we don't all do it, or that you do it with each of your beliefs). A little research and understanding goes a long way.

While I'm at it, I did see one other thing I wanted to comment on. I saw that court case where a gun company was held liable for a murder, and I don't think it will hold water on appeal, nor do I think I should. I talked about it more in my blog the other day.

and from your blog ...

You really ought to consider going to law school. I don't know if you have the prerequisites, but I think you're more than ready.

<B>And another thing , while I'm at it</B>

After posting the OKC bombing info I continued looking for the committee that is conducting the investigation. I found it , although have not confirmed it through a independant source.
We are still not to the point of revealling the smoking gun but the FBI seems to have lied about some key information, looking more and more suspicious.

The FBI originally denied the existence of some surveillance videotape from the buildings around the Murrah building shortly before and after the blast. A FOIA suit shows that there are some to be seen. They<B> may</B> show something relevant to the case. They may also just show something totally irrellevant to the case but embarrassing to the FBI. Either way I believe that the evidence needs to be reviewed by the GRC. This shell game is pissing me off.

http://www.indystar.com/print/articl...-8709-021.html

I'm also firing off an e-mail to Specter to tell him that we <B>are</B> watching (OK, me, I am watching) and that we think it's important to resolve this, Iraqi involvement or not.

I dont expect we'd see OBL or Saddam on those tapes, but I <B>sure</B> would like to know what <B>is</B>.

Given the length of the overall post, I think Slang made the right decision in terms of both posting links in addition to directly quoting the relevant bits of the supporting articles.

If you have something to say about his posts, address the CONTENT not the format.

In short, stop whining.

<h4>Chefranden</h4>

(Slang falls to the floor, bumps head )What!? Let me take another look at your post.

Yes, thats what you meant. <B>I totally agree with that statement</B>, but rarely hear anyone say that. Maybe because people fear we are getting close to the edge of revolution. I'm not crazy about the idea myself, however, I strongly believe that we need sweeping changes in this country that are unlikely to happen through the process of voting. My voting finger is twitching now, lets hope we dont get to the point where our trigger fingers need to twitch as well.

It's also important to say that the firearms are of no value to any revolution if they just hang on the wall or collect dust in the closet. In the past 5 years, in response to the percieved threat of confiscation of guns, the shooting sports have expanded but I dont have any hard data on how much. Here in rural Pa., there is a new pistol range being built in this TINY town and the membership of the high power rifle shooting league is growing. Any way you look at it, I see this as a good thing. People need to know how to shoot. It doesn't help anyone to have firearm related accidents.

Another point that I've heard more than a few times is that we dont need firearms in civilian hands for the purpose of resistance to tyrrany . That line of thinking says that the modern weapons of the military are so high tech, small arms couldnt defeat them, or even be effective. They may not. That's not the point. <B>The volume of small arms makes them effective, not their power or their technology</B>

Anyway, I looked on your profile and see you're a Nam vet. On behalf of the country I'd like thank you for your service. We appreciate your sacrafice. Some of us still see Veteran's day as something other than an excuse to buy a recliner with zero % interest .

<h4>hermit22</h4>

http://<a href="http://www.epic.org/...r3162.html</a>

I'd like to state for the record that I am not leaning in favor of the patriot act. There are some specific new provisions that are of concern to me. These are just a few that popped out at me. I dont speak "legalese" but these seem suspicious without digging in.

Sec. 104. Requests for military assistance to enforce prohibition in certain emergencies.

Sec. 201. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism.

Sec. 351. Amendments relating to reporting of (banking) suspicious activities. (This one really bugs me)

Sec. 356. Reporting of suspicious activities by securities brokers and dealers; investment company study. (This one too)

Sec. 359. Reporting of suspicious activities by underground banking systems.

It seems pretty silly that the patriot act was needed to make these changes, but just scanning the text, they seem pretty reasonable.

Sec. 205. Employment of translators by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Sec. 403. Access by the Department of State and the INS to certain identifying information in the criminal history records of visa applicants and applicants for admission to the United States.

Sec. 405. Report on the integrated automated fingerprint identification system for ports of entry and overseas consular posts.

And let me keep my comments for the "Homeland Security" re-org to a minimum by listing these quotes.

http://www.cato.org/dispatch/11-08-02d.html

According to Ivan Eland, Cato's director of defense policy studies,<B> "even before the September attacks, the U.S. government had sufficient bureaucratic machinery to deal with terrorist attacks on the homeland without adding a new department."</B> He added,<B> "the real problem revealed by the terrorist attacks is too much bureaucracy - causing too many communication and coordination problems - not too little."</B> In his commentary, "Bush Plan is Just 'Do Something'", Eland outlines the flaws that could render a new homeland security department ineffective.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=28400

Meanwhile, despite evidence of an increased threat to U.S. security from such Islamic terrorist groups, former FBI Director Louis Freeh and his former deputy, Robert "Bear" Bryant, were shifting the bureau's counter-terrorism efforts to combatting threats from anti-government militia groups, violent white supremacists, anti-abortion groups and other "right-wing extremists."

http://europe.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITI...urity/?related

Bush's proposal calls for all or parts of 22 government agencies to be pulled together under the umbrella of a single department committed to protecting the nation from terrorist attacks. The proposed department would have nearly<B> 170,000 employees,</B> and a budget of $37.4 billion.


I agree. He was just bringing up Goldberg's report though. I had to dig to find it and I dont remember seeing CNN giving it much coverage. It must not have been credible or was irrellevant. It didnt seem to be, but it hasnt recieved a lot of attention.

Your welcome. Its much easier to, at the very least, follow my thought process by looking over the supporting text.

Now wait a second Hermit. Let me clarify. I have found on a couple issues that have been distorted by some news sources and not followed up. As for WJC. I'm not finding the cold hard facts that supposedly indict him on <B>many</b> issues. It seems likely that I need to re-evaluate some positions here. That doesn't mean I have dissmissed the other allegations prior to my own research, I'm just letting up on the grip I have on his neck a bit. The list of WJC scandals is long. I still think Dem politicians suck , I just dont say it as often out of respect.


You may very well be someone I have been looking to talk to. You may be able to provide some books or articles on some security related issues . That would be appreciated.

<h4>Nic Name</h4>

Wow, this is funny! I wasnt expecting to see that on your page.

"Want a BIG Penis?"

Thanks for the support Wolf but you missed the point. If posting as I have been keeps Jag from pestering me.....WHY CHANGE IT?

Yeah, who says I don't like tasteless humor, when it's done intelligently. ;)

Slang, as much of an incredibly-left clamorer as jag can be, he can provide some great insight at times...you two can spend many hours debating the polar ends of the spectrum. :)

Nah...fuck that...I want a battle royale. Hermit and Jag vs. Slang and Urbane Guerilla...that sounds like a real treat! ;)

Now Slang, I read the Freeh report. Could you kindly explain your stance on the UN?

As far as Clinton and Communism...as I see it, the US has been trying to break open the communist world pretty much since the Bolshevik revolution. Trying to do business with countries such as North Korea and China is not only noble in nature, but just makes good business sense. I don't doubt that there are some secrets the Chinese have obtained...but it works both ways.

You know what's funny? In my travels both in the real world and online, I've found that foreigners seem to take a great interest in our country...its history and political structure. Moreso than maybe some Americans. Of course, it usually helps if they've spent some time here, but I rarely see or hear of Americans doing such research into other countries, beyond "scholars."

(Come on Jag...fuck Britain...come to the States. Come to Philadelphia...you know you want to. :) )

I'm not farmiliar with the specifics of how the UN works. The goals of the UN seem pretty reasonable, but they require some changes in the US that I find threatening. I'll throw some examples together to illustrate some key points without writing 20 pages. This might take some time though. Look for something in the next day or so, I'll have something for you.

Again, slang, I apologise that I can't address all of your concerns. I'm in the middle of writing a 45 page paper (stupid grad school!) and I'm just taking a break. If you want any information on national security, terrorism, or any such concept, just send me an e-mail; I'll be happy to respond as soon as I can.

Let's see...what did I want to address? Oh yeah, the UN. I'm a fan of the UN; I think it has served its purpose (provide a forum in which governments can express their grievances with each other instead of going to war) well. I'll actually be at the UN building for a few days this Spring, but that's a different story. Check out the UN Charter. The Basic Facts about the UN is another good place to start.

I just want to make sure... were you quoting the Patriot Act or Homeland Secuity? I think that the basic idea of the Homeland Security Department isn't bad. However, I don't like a lot of the riders that have been tacked onto it by the house any more than William Safire
does. I also think the attempt to de-unionize a good portion of the federal government in one fell swoop is disturbing. It basically says that any President can hire or fire any worker in that department as they see fit, and to me, that gives the President too much power. The banking tracking stuff was in a previous bill, but I believe it got struck down as unconstitutional. It's unsurprising that they would try it again.

Sycamore, it will be live on ppv next month.

"Morituri te salutamus!"
 

Yep, I'm sure none of us four would mind getting arena sand sticking to our sweaty faces, all to entertain Sycamore Imperator!

:p ... Ave!

I understand you are in favor of the UN . It may help you personally to understand why everyone isnt though. There is a side to the UN that you may not have seen. You are in Cali. The country does not see life as all of you there do. I am attempting to gather some key points with some of my personal experiences to give you perspective.

The quoted sections from the prior post were from the patriot act, which is inaccurately named by the way. A closer look shows it makes relatively small changes to existing laws and procedures.

IMO the homeland security act is not needed. This is my opinion as an engineer that has never worked in nor has experience with huge government bureaucracy. It concentrates too much enforcement and intelligence power into one agency.

As for the unions, I have witnessed first hand how fucking useless union work is. Though I do not believe people should be fired summarily, it is important for a business to shed the dead wood to remain competetive. A job does not exisit only to give a person an income, the position is created from a need of the company. From my experience, the unions are a bad thing. I understand you disagree.

Wolf: I prefer people to post content, not articles. When people write their arguements in the own words its far more useful. If i wanted to read a collection of news articles i'd read a newspaper.

Slang: Yea i know you'd prefer i didn't, pull bullshit, like DPRK reactors and comunist clinton links or whatever, people are going to call bullshit round here myself included. I"m really interested to see what you're on about with the UN, should be entertaining.

I still don't buy the Iraqi/OKC thing, its still a very long way from making sense. On the other hand its interesting nad i wouldn't be too shocked if there was something in it.