Dell sued for "bait and switch" and false promises

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

You are correct and in the reply to Dave, I apologized to you.

Again, I mis-read your post and apologize.

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news😛an.2005.03.03.23.20.34.972971@nowhere.lan...
> On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 14:44:06 -0800, Irene wrote:
>>
>> Strange. You feel safer when Clinton was in, but the Quick Reaction
>> Forces had a chance to take out Bin Laden well before 9/11 and it was
>> Clinton that gave the order preventing the action.
>
> I specifically said: I can only say that I feel safer than when Clinton
> was in.... Which means I feel safer NOW than when Clinton WAS in office.
>
> In case you miss the intent of the above - I feel safer with Bush in
> office than I have with any other president during my lifetime.
>
>> I can only guess that this is one of those cases where what you do not
>> know makes you feel safer. >g<
>
> I've been around the world, in places where they threw stuff at us for
> being American, in places where they praised us for being American. I've
> been in places I felt safe and places I felt unsafe in groups.
>
> I left my post below so you could reference it for the part you misread.
>
>
>
>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>> news😛an.2005.03.03.22.29.55.533173@nowhere.lan...
>>> On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 11:12:34 -0500, Sparky wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I do not admire people who stand on their beliefs when their beliefs
>>>> are wrong & detrimental to the strategic interests of the US. We're
>>>> certainly no safer now from a terrorist attack than we were 3 1/2 half
>>>> years ago, in spite of the billions spent on "homeland security".
>>>
>>> I clipped the rest because this summarizes your beliefs enough for me.
>>> As a former military service member, family man, been around the world,
>>> teach shooting sports to kids groups, and business owner - I can only
>>> say that I feel safer than when Clinton was in, and that my business
>>> has grown during the Bush terms.
>>>
>>> --
>>> spam999free@rrohio.com
>>> remove 999 in order to email me
>>>
>>>
>
> --
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 15:51:15 -0800, Irene wrote:
>
> You are absolute correct and I apologize to Leythos.

No need to apologize, people make honest mistakes all the time, and I even
thought I typo'd it at first


> "Dave Friedenberg" <davefr@iname.com> wrote in message
> news😱MMVd.19077$VD5.17751@twister.socal.rr.com...
>> Irene wrote:
>>> Strange. You feel safer when Clinton was in, but the Quick Reaction
>>> Forces had a chance to take out Bin Laden well before 9/11 and it was
>>> Clinton that gave the order preventing the action.
>>>
>>> I can only guess that this is one of those cases where what you do not
>>> know makes you feel safer. >g<
>>>
>>>
>>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>>> news😛an.2005.03.03.22.29.55.533173@nowhere.lan...
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 11:12:34 -0500, Sparky wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I do not admire people who stand on their beliefs when their beliefs are
>>>>>wrong & detrimental to the strategic interests of the US. We're
>>>>>certainly no safer now from a terrorist attack than we were 3 1/2 half
>>>>>years ago, in spite of the billions spent on "homeland security".
>>>>
>>>>I clipped the rest because this summarizes your beliefs enough for me. As
>>>>a former military service member, family man, been around the world,
>>>>teach
>>>>shooting sports to kids groups, and business owner - I can only say that
>>>>I
>>>>feel safer than when Clinton was in, and that my business has grown
>>>>during
>>>>the Bush terms.
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>spam999free@rrohio.com
>>>>remove 999 in order to email me
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You missed a word Irene. <grin>. He said: "I feel safer than when Clinton
>> was in . . . ."
>>
>> Dave


--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

 

[dogface]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

All the politicians failed to take the threat seriously until it hit where
it could not be ignored, at home. Nobody was screaming for actions and
heads when they took out two embassy's killing hundreds (that's right many
of those were Africans so they didn't really count because they weren't
Amercians), bombing a warship, bombing the garage at the WTC, etc. They
knew for YEARS the U.S. and other countries were being infiltrated by
sleeper groups.

At least Bush has taken the fight to them like it should have been done
years ago, BEFORE they had a chance to setup an army right under our noses.
It's still a nasty world out there. The rules of the jungle apply all too
many times, kill or be killed. Too many "civilized" people can't grasp the
reality of the situation. We haven't arrived at Utopia yet!


"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news😛an.2005.03.03.22.29.55.533173@nowhere.lan...
> On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 11:12:34 -0500, Sparky wrote:
> >
> > I do not admire people who stand on their beliefs when their beliefs are
> > wrong & detrimental to the strategic interests of the US. We're
> > certainly no safer now from a terrorist attack than we were 3 1/2 half
> > years ago, in spite of the billions spent on "homeland security".
>
> I clipped the rest because this summarizes your beliefs enough for me. As
> a former military service member, family man, been around the world, teach
> shooting sports to kids groups, and business owner - I can only say that I
> feel safer than when Clinton was in, and that my business has grown during
> the Bush terms.
>
> --
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Christopher Muto" wrote:
> irene, i don't believe that there is any dispute over the fact that the wmds
> simply did not exist. not from either side of the isle. it is largely now
> believed that sadam projected the idea that he had wmds in a hope to either
> keep iran or the usa out of iraq. you seem to believe otherwise. please
> explain the facts that you might base this on. thank you.


No, DON'T explain the "facts". This thread has gone to far off
topic, already. CUT IT!

*TimDaniels*

 

[dogface]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Sparky" <nemo@moon.sun.edu> wrote in message
news:u2uVd.6696$tI7.4320@fe11.lga...
> Jerry Park wrote:
> > Timothy Daniels wrote:
> >
> >> "Jerry Park" wrote:
> >>
> >>> Timothy Daniels wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Jerry Park" wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Where the 'keep them in line' attitude is does have
> >>>>> an effect is on good companies who do want to do
> >>>>> a good job at a reasonable cost. The lawsuit mentality forces them
> >>>>> to charge more for their product
> >>>>> than they otherwise would, just to pay for frivolous lawsuits.
> >>>>
> >>>> And who is to decide for us which lawsuits are "frivolous"
> >>>> and which are "non-frivolous"? You base your argument on
> >>>> the implied assumption that all class action law suits are
> >>>> "frivolous" and not with the effect of curbing unfair corporate
> >>>> practices.
> >>>>
> >>>> *TimDaniels*
> >>>
> >>> No. I know many do have merit. My point is that no one benefits from
> >>> class action law suits except the lawyers. This is the case when the
> >>> lawsuit is frivolous and when it has merit. It is still the case when
> >>> the complaintant wins and when the complaintant loses.
> >>>
> >>> To be fair, there is some benefit when a bad company is forced out of
> >>> business with a class action lawsuit. Unfortunately, that small
> >>> benefit is well offset by the good companies which are forced out of
> >>> business by class action.
> >>
> >> While it's mostly attorneys who benefit *directly* from class
> >> action suits,
> >> we all benefit indirectly as consumers because the threat of law suit
is
> >> one of the few things that keep corporations in check. The government
> >> is *supposed* to do that for us, but, well... you know how that goes.
> >> Whenever a class action suit is slapped on a publicly-owned company,
> >> its stock price goes down because every analyst knows what a drain they
> >> frequently are on the corporate officers' time and attention. They
> >> can drag
> >> on for years and sap a company's strength and vitality. That is why
> >> they are
> >> frequently settled out of court. The attorneys reap a wad of fees,
> >> and the
> >> company goes on, but a bit chastised. Corporations may set aside funds
> >> for unforeseen law suits, but those funds come out of company profits,
> >> and
> >> companies try to avoid law suits to keep their profit margins up. I
> >> agree that
> >> class action suits are an inefficient way to police corporations, but
> >> in the
> >> absence of effective government agencies, what other mechanism is
there?
> >>
> >> *TimDaniels*
> >
> > Free market forces?
>
> What's that mean?

I guess it means the average consumer is supposed to be able to take on the
multi-national mega-conglomerate that shares the market with the other
multi-national mega-conglomerate in a cozy relationship while the government
stands idly by the wayside complaining they don't have enough resources to
do anything.

and the beat goes on... (usually on the top of the consumer's head)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 18:06:31 +0000, Christopher Muto wrote:
>
> irene, i don't believe that there is any dispute over the fact that the wmds
> simply did not exist. not from either side of the isle. it is largely now
> believed that sadam projected the idea that he had wmds in a hope to either
> keep iran or the usa out of iraq. you seem to believe otherwise. please
> explain the facts that you might base this on. thank you.

I agree with this at this point - when we went into Iraq there were no
WMD's. At the same time, until the EXACT time that we started the Assault,
I believe that there WERE WMD and that they were removed during the first
weeks of our ultimatum before the action started.

--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 19:19:41 +0000, Dan Sgambelluri wrote:
>
>> Get real - there was nothing that could have politically been done, it
>> would have been stopped by the political BS that can't take action unless
>> it is going to look good doing it.
>
> I was not saying that there should have something in place but Bush and the
> govt could have gotten something rolling but he chose to put the memo aside.

Before that "Memo" there were other memo's about such actions, and before
that too, and with all the left-wing morons, the green-peace idiots, the
people that want freedom at the cost of security, etc... there was no way
the masses of sheep in this country would have let them take care of it
properly.

There was a time when I was being stopped at every terminal as I flew
around the country, and then one day I asked "Why do I get searched at
every gate?" and you no something - they told me and I've been able to
change my schedule to avoid it almost completely (not at the terminal, at
the gate before entering the plane).... Here's the thing, being old
Military I didn't object to being incorrectly identified, searched at
every gate, delayed in getting my seat, but there were many that did.
After 9/11 many people accepted it as a fact of safety....

While the US was limited by it's politicians and bleeding hearts screaming
about being searched or monitored, they (those same groups) let out
country be compromised. Now, we're stronger, more aware, less tolerant of
it, better able to understand that there is a threat.

--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

I agree but Bush could have at least started something, and even if it
didn't get passed, at least he tried.



"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news😛an.2005.03.04.21.54.13.184538@nowhere.lan...
> On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 19:19:41 +0000, Dan Sgambelluri wrote:
>>
>>> Get real - there was nothing that could have politically been done, it
>>> would have been stopped by the political BS that can't take action
>>> unless
>>> it is going to look good doing it.
>>
>> I was not saying that there should have something in place but Bush and
>> the
>> govt could have gotten something rolling but he chose to put the memo
>> aside.
>
> Before that "Memo" there were other memo's about such actions, and before
> that too, and with all the left-wing morons, the green-peace idiots, the
> people that want freedom at the cost of security, etc... there was no way
> the masses of sheep in this country would have let them take care of it
> properly.
>
> There was a time when I was being stopped at every terminal as I flew
> around the country, and then one day I asked "Why do I get searched at
> every gate?" and you no something - they told me and I've been able to
> change my schedule to avoid it almost completely (not at the terminal, at
> the gate before entering the plane).... Here's the thing, being old
> Military I didn't object to being incorrectly identified, searched at
> every gate, delayed in getting my seat, but there were many that did.
> After 9/11 many people accepted it as a fact of safety....
>
> While the US was limited by it's politicians and bleeding hearts screaming
> about being searched or monitored, they (those same groups) let out
> country be compromised. Now, we're stronger, more aware, less tolerant of
> it, better able to understand that there is a threat.
>
> --
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 18:03:39 -0500, Dogface wrote:
>
> Let's see...
>
> 1. Every intelligence agency of ours AND EVERY OTHER FOREIGN COUNTRY
> believed Iraq had WMD.
>
> now why would that be... hmmmmm... could it be... that
>
> 2. He USED them to kill THOUSANDS, no, TENS OF THOUSANDS of Iraqis and
> IRANIANS during their war.
>
> or maybe that...
>
> 3. He played every game in the book to deceive and obstruct U.N. inspectors
> (could some of have been bought off like the rest of the U.N. was?).
>
> but not to leave it there...
>
> 4. Now why the hell would an Iraqi scientist be burying WMD machinery in
> his rose garden? Glow in the dark roses maybe???!!!
>
>
> Freakin' Monday morning quarterbacks around here that can't rememebr
> ANYTHING that doesn't suit their purpose....

You said it so well that I wanted to quote it again. It's amazing at all
the Intel that indicates he did have WMD before we went in, and that
during the warning period that all sorts of LARGE trucks left the country
from factory/medical/military locations and entered Syria. People don't
want to understand that - I wonder if it scares them that Syria has that
stuff now and that's why they (those people you mention) are denying it -
so that they don't have to be "As" afraid?

--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

 

[dogface]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

In all likelyhood many more than 122 innocent people were killed across the
United States today, and the day before and the day before....yet life goes
on. We don't all just close up our clam shell and live in fear (but some
do). And the Iraqi people are not clamming up. They all know the dangers,
they are not idiots. They are CHOSING to go out and defy the animals that
would terrorize and intimidate them. They did it in the last election and
will continue to do it if given the chance and some help. Chose a chance
for freedom instead of oppression? What sane human being would not do the
same?

So the real question is NOT are the Iraqis courageous enough to help
themselves, but are WE courageous enough to help them beat back oppression?
They have showed they ARE courageous enough. I fear too many here and
especially in parts of Europe lack the courage and fortitude to fight what
they know to be evil. Yes, they will TALK against it but that is where
their support ends. Unfortunately that approach leaves "innocent people"
dying in much greater numbers and in a much worse way.

"Christopher Muto" <muto@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:0O2Vd.38197$ya6.36610@trndny01...
> well said. and least we forget the defective thinking that got us into
the
> iraq mess where another 122 innocent people died earlier today. i also
can
> not help wondering why new york city, the place that suffered (and still
> suffers from) the greatest loss from the 9/11 attacks, and a place that
> remains to be the most likely target for future attacks, voted
> overwhelmingly against bush. bush won, but the country lost.
>
> 11/2004 presidential election results for nyc were 16% for bush, 78% for
> kerry
> http://www.miata.net/faq/wheel_weights.html
>
> <ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
> news:42249c68.13612464@nntp.charter.net...
> > Honesty and complete presentation of the facts were not part of the last
> > presidential campaign. BOTH candidates were full of fog and
obfuscation.
> > I
> > don't hate Bush, but because I am not in the top 1% of wage earners, the
> > Bush
> > regimes policies have hit me in the pocketbook, time and again and
again.
> > When
> > well over half of the people in this country take an economic hit, even
> > those
> > who voted for Bushie, can we call this government of the people, by the
> > people
> > and for the people? Heck no!!!
> >
> > You and I and all our children will pay and pay dearly for what can only
> > be
> > characterized as the reckless economic policy of the last four years.
> > We've
> > gone from a healthy budgetary surplus to horrific budget deficits and
> > equally
> > horrific balance of payment issues in just over four years. Yes, 9/11
and
> > the
> > dot-com implosion helped. So did Enron, Arthur Anderson, Health South,
> > AIG and
> > all the other corporate thieves. But the bottom line is that cutting
> > taxes and
> > increasing spending results in deficits. Duh! Doesn't anyone in
> > Washington do
> > the math? ... Ben Myers
> >
> > On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:13:51 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:05:52 +0000, Ben Myers wrote:
> >>
> >>> And, of course, the people voted based on all the facts presented
> >>> objectively to
> >>> the public by the Bush regime. Getting back on topic, talk about your
> >>> bait and
> >>> switch! ... Ben Myers
> >>
> >>Sheesh, and I suppose that you believe the Kerry camp just presented
facts
> >>and other information that was completely honest and correct all the
time?
> >>
> >>The only bait and switch was Kerry, he would bait people into attending
> >>his SHOWS and then change his position for the next SHOW, at least Bush
> >>always had the same stance on his positions.
> >>
> >>So, instead of whining about it until Hillaryious becomes president,
just
> >>get over it, accept it, and be happy that you don't have a two faced,
> >>dishonorable, gumby looking, double talker, idiot in the office now.
> >>
> >>Dell is about as guilty of Bait-Switch as this thread is - they present
> >>you with options and if you want something else it's not B&S by Dell.
I'm
> >>sure that if they only offered two products someone would still complain
> >>about it.
> >>
> >>--
> >>spam999free@rrohio.com
> >>remove 999 in order to email me
> >>
> >
>
>

 

[dogface]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Sparky" <nemo@moon.sun.edu> wrote in message
news:cc5Vd.5656$Pg1.735@fe12.lga...
> Leythos wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:05:52 +0000, Ben Myers wrote:
> >
> >>And, of course, the people voted based on all the facts presented
objectively to
> >>the public by the Bush regime. Getting back on topic, talk about your
bait and
> >>switch! ... Ben Myers
> >
> > Sheesh, and I suppose that you believe the Kerry camp just presented
facts
> > and other information that was completely honest and correct all the
time?
> >
> > The only bait and switch was Kerry, he would bait people into attending
> > his SHOWS and then change his position for the next SHOW, at least Bush
> > always had the same stance on his positions.
> >
> > So, instead of whining about it until Hillaryious becomes president
>
> You've just established yourself as a Rush lapdog & have lost all
> credibility whatsoever.
>
> Social Security ain't broke, don't fix it!!!

You mean the "Social Security Trust Fund"? You mean the 3.7 TRILLION
dollars that the government has looted from the people and spent instead of
wisely investing it for the benefit of those people? The "Trust Fund" is
3.7 TRILLION dollars of government IOUs that will start coming due in 13-20
years. First, 50 billion a year then climbing to over 200 billion over a
few years! Yup, nothing broke about this "system"! Funny how the Democrats
were talking about fixing Social Security when Clinton was President but now
it isn't broken. STOP PLAYING POLITICS WITH PEOPLES LIVES! The
demographics and world is NOT what is was when Social Security was started.
To survive at all, it MUST change. All the theivery and lies of the
politicians is coming home to roost. The day of reckoning is here. And we
will all learn that, indeed, there is no free lunch!

But don't worry about government workers and the politicians because they
weren't stupid enough the include themselves in this wonderful "Social
Security Trust Fund"!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 07:01:43 +0000, Christopher Muto wrote:
>
> of course you realize that you didn't answer my question as to what evidence
> you know of regarding sadam moving his weapons. i am sure that is because
> you have none. no one with credibility has put forth this argument. there
> was an exhaustive unfettered search for weapons and evidence of where
> weapons may have once been manufactured or stored but nothing was found.
> there simply were no wmds to be found. it is quite amazing why some people
> remains confused about this point.

While many people are confused, or just ignorant, there are also many that
watched the trucks leaving Iraq for Syria during the 10 days before the US
entered Iraq, trucks leaving those facilities, truck traffic that was not
seen before those last 10 days. It's quite amazing at how many people
choose to ignore the fact that he was given plenty of time to ship those
WMD's to other countries and that other countries welcomed them.

--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 16:06:00 +0000, Ben Myers wrote:
>
> Today, I see the US government rolling up massive debts to fight a war,
> justified or not, essentially all by itself.

You missed the big picture - we went in to remove the massive oppressive
government that sponsored terrorism and other things. Our goal is not to
run the country, but to install a government of the respectable people
with their own ability to govern and protect themselves. The Russians
didn't have that intent and were not trying to do the same.

--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

I DO see the big picture. I do not dispute that Russia had different goals in
Afghanistan that the US has in Iraq.

*** The big picture issue here is the massive deficit spending by the US
government. ***

If someone had been able to look at the Russian govt budget and actual spending
back then, I'm sure it would have equated to massive deficit spending.
Regardless of the goals, the deficit spending for a war by both governments is
not healthy in an economic sense. Pointing out the different goals of Russia
and the US simply deflects the real issue I raised. The US government is trying
real hard to sweep the war deficit issue under the carpet, which is one reason
why it has lost its credibility in my household... Ben Myers

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 16:40:03 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 16:06:00 +0000, Ben Myers wrote:
>>
>> Today, I see the US government rolling up massive debts to fight a war,
>> justified or not, essentially all by itself.
>
>You missed the big picture - we went in to remove the massive oppressive
>government that sponsored terrorism and other things. Our goal is not to
>run the country, but to install a government of the respectable people
>with their own ability to govern and protect themselves. The Russians
>didn't have that intent and were not trying to do the same.
>
>--
>spam999free@rrohio.com
>remove 999 in order to email me
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
news:422de7db.13799647@nntp.charter.net...

> *** The big picture issue here is the massive deficit spending by the US
> government. ***

I don't completely disagree with you. But the majority of the deficit is
being caused by foreign aid that we give to countries that neither deserve
nor need it and wasteful government bureaucracies.




<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
news:422de7db.13799647@nntp.charter.net...
>I DO see the big picture. I do not dispute that Russia had different goals
>in
> Afghanistan that the US has in Iraq.
>
> *** The big picture issue here is the massive deficit spending by the US
> government. ***
>
> If someone had been able to look at the Russian govt budget and actual
> spending
> back then, I'm sure it would have equated to massive deficit spending.
> Regardless of the goals, the deficit spending for a war by both
> governments is
> not healthy in an economic sense. Pointing out the different goals of
> Russia
> and the US simply deflects the real issue I raised. The US government is
> trying
> real hard to sweep the war deficit issue under the carpet, which is one
> reason
> why it has lost its credibility in my household... Ben Myers
>
> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 16:40:03 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 16:06:00 +0000, Ben Myers wrote:
>>>
>>> Today, I see the US government rolling up massive debts to fight a war,
>>> justified or not, essentially all by itself.
>>
>>You missed the big picture - we went in to remove the massive oppressive
>>government that sponsored terrorism and other things. Our goal is not to
>>run the country, but to install a government of the respectable people
>>with their own ability to govern and protect themselves. The Russians
>>didn't have that intent and were not trying to do the same.
>>
>>--
>>spam999free@rrohio.com
>>remove 999 in order to email me
>>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 18:05:25 +0000, Ben Myers wrote:
>
> If someone had been able to look at the Russian govt budget and actual spending
> back then, I'm sure it would have equated to massive deficit spending.
> Regardless of the goals, the deficit spending for a war by both governments is
> not healthy in an economic sense. Pointing out the different goals of Russia

You're wrong Ben, I've not seen anyone or party try to hide the deficit or
even spending on the war. In fact, it's been very public.

> and the US simply deflects the real issue I raised. The US government

No, I addressed the issues that were raised in your prior post, maybe you
didn't state your real issue. This war is nothing like anything else, and
it's not a conventional war with a single target, it's fluid and has no
fixed country to target.

> is trying real hard to sweep the war deficit issue under the carpet,
> which is one reason why it has lost its credibility in my household...
> Ben Myers

This is one of the first governments to actually have any credibility
since Nixon in my opinion.


--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Oh, yeah. Nixon was so marvelously credible that he is the only President in
the history of our country to resign in disgrace. Apt comparison between Nixon
and Bush!

.... Ben Myers

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 19:15:43 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 18:05:25 +0000, Ben Myers wrote:
>>
>> If someone had been able to look at the Russian govt budget and actual spending
>> back then, I'm sure it would have equated to massive deficit spending.
>> Regardless of the goals, the deficit spending for a war by both governments is
>> not healthy in an economic sense. Pointing out the different goals of Russia
>
>You're wrong Ben, I've not seen anyone or party try to hide the deficit or
>even spending on the war. In fact, it's been very public.
>
>> and the US simply deflects the real issue I raised. The US government
>
>No, I addressed the issues that were raised in your prior post, maybe you
>didn't state your real issue. This war is nothing like anything else, and
>it's not a conventional war with a single target, it's fluid and has no
>fixed country to target.
>
>> is trying real hard to sweep the war deficit issue under the carpet,
>> which is one reason why it has lost its credibility in my household...
>> Ben Myers
>
>This is one of the first governments to actually have any credibility
>since Nixon in my opinion.
>
>
>--
>spam999free@rrohio.com
>remove 999 in order to email me
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Yes. It was George Santayana who came up with that pearl. And it applies well
to the history of the Russian debacle in Afghanistan... Ben Myers

On , "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote:

>NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 17:16:28 MST
>Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 16:07:38 -0800
>Xref: Hurricane-Charley alt.sys.pc-clone.dell:30431
>
>Every heard the saying: Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of
>history are doomed to repeat them?
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
news:422e67fd.2645485@nntp.charter.net...
And it applies well
> to the history of the Russian debacle in Afghanistan

On that we agree. but I hope you don't equate the United State's mission in
Iraq to that of Russia's in Afghanistan.

Learning lessons from history, with regard to Iraq, more closely parallels
Germany's threat to Europe and Japans threat to Asia. I would think.



<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
news:422e67fd.2645485@nntp.charter.net...
> Yes. It was George Santayana who came up with that pearl. And it applies
> well
> to the history of the Russian debacle in Afghanistan... Ben Myers
>
> On , "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 17:16:28 MST
>>Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 16:07:38 -0800
>>Xref: Hurricane-Charley alt.sys.pc-clone.dell:30431
>>
>>Every heard the saying: Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of
>>history are doomed to repeat them?
>>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

By foreign aid? Heavens no. Foreign aid is miniscule compared to the $$$ spent
on Iraq... Ben Myers

On , "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote:

>NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 17:23:12 MST
>Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 16:14:25 -0800
>Xref: Hurricane-Charley alt.sys.pc-clone.dell:30432
>
><ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
>news:422de7db.13799647@nntp.charter.net...
>
>> *** The big picture issue here is the massive deficit spending by the US
>> government. ***
>
>I don't completely disagree with you. But the majority of the deficit is
>being caused by foreign aid that we give to countries that neither deserve
>nor need it and wasteful government bureaucracies.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Sam Irwin & Co proved conclusively that Nixon knew that the Watergate break-in
was going to take place. He also knew it was illegal. He did not stop it. The
burglers were tracked down. It happened on his watch. In the memorable words
of Harry S. Truman, never a shirker of responsibility: "The buck stops here."

Nixon was compulsive enough that he very well could have micromanaged the
break-in. People in high places have done wierder things. He never told us.
The other parties to the caper have not been forthcoming on the details to date.

.... Ben Myers

On , "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote:

>NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 17:30:31 MST
>Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 16:21:43 -0800
>Xref: Hurricane-Charley alt.sys.pc-clone.dell:30433
>
>"masterminding". You don't honestly believe that Nixon planned that mess do
>you? I am not a big fan of Nixon, but I am intelligent enough to know that
>things like that are left up to "underlings".
>As to the stealing of elections. If you want a class A example of a stolen
>election, it was JFK and his bootlegger of a father using the Mafia to steal
>that election. The only class that Nixon ever showed was his decision to not
>challenge it in court. The same class that Gore clearly demonstrated he did
>not possess.
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

There is a major difference between "knowing" and "masterminding". But that
is how knee jerk left wing liberal treat history.
Funny that you should sight President Truman as an example. That is the
same President Truman who lied to the American people when he told us that
Japan had "unconditionally surrendered". Is it not? The same President
Truman who didn't have the courage to tell the American people the truth
about the Japanese Surrender. Any student of history will tell you that the
Japanese Surrender was anything but "unconditional".

<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
news:422e7567.6079900@nntp.charter.net...
> Sam Irwin & Co proved conclusively that Nixon knew that the Watergate
> break-in
> was going to take place. He also knew it was illegal. He did not stop
> it. The
> burglers were tracked down. It happened on his watch. In the memorable
> words
> of Harry S. Truman, never a shirker of responsibility: "The buck stops
> here."
>
> Nixon was compulsive enough that he very well could have micromanaged the
> break-in. People in high places have done wierder things. He never told
> us.
> The other parties to the caper have not been forthcoming on the details to
> date.
>
> ... Ben Myers
>
> On , "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 17:30:31 MST
>>Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 16:21:43 -0800
>>Xref: Hurricane-Charley alt.sys.pc-clone.dell:30433
>>
>>"masterminding". You don't honestly believe that Nixon planned that mess
>>do
>>you? I am not a big fan of Nixon, but I am intelligent enough to know
>>that
>>things like that are left up to "underlings".
>>As to the stealing of elections. If you want a class A example of a stolen
>>election, it was JFK and his bootlegger of a father using the Mafia to
>>steal
>>that election. The only class that Nixon ever showed was his decision to
>>not
>>challenge it in court. The same class that Gore clearly demonstrated he
>>did
>>not possess.
>>
>>
>>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 23:37:43 -0800, Irene wrote:
?
> On that we agree. but I hope you don't equate the United State's mission in
> Iraq to that of Russia's in Afghanistan.
>
> Learning lessons from history, with regard to Iraq, more closely parallels
> Germany's threat to Europe and Japans threat to Asia. I would think.

In those examples, the invading countries had no intention of allowing the
invaded countries to self rule their peoples. The part you seem to be
missing is that we're giving the country back to the people and only
sticking around long enough to make sure they terrorists don't take over
before the country has a chance to build it's own security.

--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

I think maybe you are missing my point. I am agreeing with you about the
U.S. mission in Iraq. Where we disagree is your comparison of Iraq to
Afghanistan. I said Germany and Japan would be better comparisons. Iraq was
a well demonstrated threat to it's neighbors, just like Germany and Japan.
And like the situation with Germany and Japan, many of the worlds leaders
stood back and watched, refusing to condemn Iraq and take decisive action
Afghanistan was not a major threat to it's neighbors or the rest of the
world. Russian's intent was to take over and occupy. That is clear.
The intent of the U.S. is totally opposite of that.
Therefore, I said that Germany and Japan would be better examples than that
of Russia and Afghanistan. Not because of U.S. intensions, but because of
the threat Iraq posed to it's neighbors and the world----much the same as
Germany and Japan.during the very earliest stages of WWII.


"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news😛an.2005.03.09.11.53.40.264958@nowhere.lan...
> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 23:37:43 -0800, Irene wrote:
> ?
>> On that we agree. but I hope you don't equate the United State's mission
>> in
>> Iraq to that of Russia's in Afghanistan.
>>
>> Learning lessons from history, with regard to Iraq, more closely
>> parallels
>> Germany's threat to Europe and Japans threat to Asia. I would think.
>
> In those examples, the invading countries had no intention of allowing the
> invaded countries to self rule their peoples. The part you seem to be
> missing is that we're giving the country back to the people and only
> sticking around long enough to make sure they terrorists don't take over
> before the country has a chance to build it's own security.
>
> --
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

I never did state that I equated the US mission in Iraq with that of Russia in
Afghanistan. I never did. I never will. I never made that sort of statement
in this thread. I may be perceived as blue, but I am not stupid... Ben Myers

On , "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote:

>NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 00:46:47 MST
>Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 23:37:43 -0800
>Xref: Hurricane-Charley alt.sys.pc-clone.dell:30519
>
><ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
>news:422e67fd.2645485@nntp.charter.net...
>And it applies well
>> to the history of the Russian debacle in Afghanistan
>
>On that we agree. but I hope you don't equate the United State's mission in
>Iraq to that of Russia's in Afghanistan.
>
>Learning lessons from history, with regard to Iraq, more closely parallels
>Germany's threat to Europe and Japans threat to Asia. I would think.
>
>
>