Dave Bugg wrote:

CJT wrote:

Why not? "If you keep the hostages and I'm elected partly as a
result ..."

Prove it.

"Proof" is a politically . . . "tricky" kinda thing but the history is
pretty persuasive.

Check out a summary entitled "The Original October Surprise" at:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0610/S00412.htm

Dave Bugg wrote:

CJT wrote:

The deal was along the lines of "hang onto our guys until after the
election and I'll make it worth your while."

Prove it.

"Proof" is a politically . . . "tricky" kinda thing but the history is
pretty persuasive.

Check out a summary entitled "The Original October Surprise" at:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0610/S00412.htm

CJT wrote:

October Surprise

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October...ise_conspiracy

OMG!!!! Bwahahahahahaha!!! Wikipedia? Too bad you can't prove the baloney.

Erma1ina wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:

CJT wrote:

But Reagan DID have his hand in the scheme
to hang onto our guys until after the election.

Prove it.

"Proof" is a politically . . . "tricky" kinda thing but the history is
pretty persuasive.

Check out a summary entitled "The Original October Surprise" at:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0610/S00412.htm

Puh-leez. I said proof, not conspiracy allegations. This is on the same
level as the current 9-11 'Truthers'.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Erma1ina wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:

CJT wrote:

But Reagan DID have his hand in the scheme
to hang onto our guys until after the election.

Prove it.

"Proof" is a politically . . . "tricky" kinda thing but the history is
pretty persuasive.

Check out a summary entitled "The Original October Surprise" at:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0610/S00412.htm

Puh-leez. I said proof, not conspiracy allegations. This is on the same
level as the current 9-11 'Truthers'.

Erma1ina wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:

CJT wrote:

Why not? "If you keep the hostages and I'm elected partly as a
result ..."

Prove it.

"Proof" is a politically . . . "tricky" kinda thing but the history is
pretty persuasive.

Check out a summary entitled "The Original October Surprise" at:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0610/S00412.htm

Puh-leez. I said proof, not conspiracy allegations. This is on the same
level as the current 9-11 'Truthers'.

Erma1ina wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:

CJT wrote:

The deal was along the lines of "hang onto our guys until after the
election and I'll make it worth your while."

Prove it.

"Proof" is a politically . . . "tricky" kinda thing but the history is
pretty persuasive.

Check out a summary entitled "The Original October Surprise" at:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0610/S00412.htm

Puh-leez. I said proof, not conspiracy allegations. This is on the same
level as the current 9-11 'Truthers'.

In article , CJT wrote:
BobR wrote:

Now that is the most idiotic thing I have seen yet. Just how did he
make it worth their while? They knew that once Reagan was in office
the full power of our military would come down on them without
hesitation. They knew that Carter would never take any military
action but just the opposite was true from Reagan.

There was no military action by Reagan.

There didn't need to be. A credible threat was sufficient.

In article , CJT
wrote:


Carter wasn't the operational guy out in the desert in charge of keeping
choppers apart. But Reagan DID have his hand in the scheme to hang
onto our guys until after the election.

Of course no one has actually been able to find any indication of any
deal, other than RR managed to do it so it HAS to be tainted in some
way.

In article , CJT
wrote:


We had a surplus under Clinton.

Not really. Clinton was the beneficiary of the outcome of a
long-standing accounting fraud, one he inherited in all fairness. It was
all SS "Surplus", but the SS "surplus" is all money that goes
immediately, by law, into bonds that are non-marketable. So only in
Washington can a long-term liability (those bonds have to paid off
sometime) be turned into a short-term asset. If you back out the SS
bonds, the deficit goes down but doesn't anywere near disappear.
Also, the surplus had already peaked and was on its way down
before the elections.

In article , CJT
wrote:


And how does consensual sex with an adult constitute a "high crime?"

Lying about it under oath. None of the articles of impeachment
mentioned adultery or an affair or anything else.

In article 9Xckj.28$4b6.24@trndny08,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:

CJT wrote:

We had a surplus under Clinton.

Two different items. A budget surplus is not the same as the national debt.
There was a national debt under Clinton.

There wasn't any surplus by the time you backed out the SS and
Medicare "surpluses"

In article , CJT
wrote:


There was no military action by Reagan.

The hostages were returned. So it wasn't needed. Let me get this
straight, you are now chastising Reagan because he did NOT nuke Iran.

In article , CJT
wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October...ise_conspiracy

Like the part that says" After 12 years of news reports looking into the
alleged conspiracy, both houses of the US Congress held separate
inquiries into the issue, and journalists from sources such as Newsweek
and The New Republic looked into the charges. Both Congressional
inquires, as well as the majority of investigative reports, found the
evidence to be insufficient."

In article ddjkj.80$XI6.38@trndny04,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:

Erma1ina wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:

CJT wrote:

But Reagan DID have his hand in the scheme
to hang onto our guys until after the election.

Prove it.

"Proof" is a politically . . . "tricky" kinda thing but the history is
pretty persuasive.

Check out a summary entitled "The Original October Surprise" at:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0610/S00412.htm

Puh-leez. I said proof, not conspiracy allegations. This is on the same
level as the current 9-11 'Truthers'.

I actually went and read the entry. States in numerous places how
most major news agencies and both houses of Congress said nothin'
happened.

On Jan 18, 11:39*pm, CJT wrote:
BobR wrote:
On Jan 18, 8:02 pm, CJT wrote:

BobR wrote:

CJT wrote:

BobR wrote:

On Jan 17, 8:25 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

BobR wrote:

Hell, things were so bad during the Carter fiasco that we measured
life with a misery index. *Some people were either too young to really
remember how bad it was or they simply choose to forget because it
doesn't fit their desire to put down Bush. *Bush is by no measure a
GREAT President but he is far from the worst. *I can name at least
three during my lifetime who were worse. *Carter was by far the worse,
Nixon ran a distant second and Johnson followed Nixon.

I suggest that the country was so disgusted with the seemingly corrupt, but
competent, Nixon that they picked a righteous, though incompetent,
replacement.

Can't argue that. *As a man, I have always thought highly of Carter..
He really cared and I think he tried his best but that is not enough
to be a good president. *Ultimately, his incompetence led to his
downfall. *He was the poster boy for the Peter Principle.

It didn't help that Reagan was cutting secret deals with the Iranians
while Carter was trying to get our guys out.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. *Our true address is of the form .

I have long suspected that there was a secret deal but I have also
long suspected that the deal was rather simple too...You turn our
people loose or we turn Iran into a glass factory.

The deal was along the lines of "hang onto our guys until after the
election and I'll make it worth your while."

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. *Our true address is of the form .- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now that is the most idiotic thing I have seen yet. *Just how did he
make it worth their while? *They knew that once Reagan was in office
the full power of our military would come down on them without
hesitation. *They knew that Carter would never take any military
action but just the opposite was true from Reagan.

There was no military action by Reagan.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. *Our true address is of the form .- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There didn't have to be if they were convinced that there would be and
on a massive scale. The iranians knew that Carter was a panzy ass who
wasn't going to do anything. Reagan had made it more than clear
during the election that he held a totally different view and would
not hesitate to take full military action. It was an issue of
credibility...Carter had none and Reagan did.

On Jan 19, 6:36*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , CJT
wrote:



There was no military action by Reagan.

* *The hostages were returned. So it wasn't needed. Let me get this
straight, you are now chastising Reagan because he did NOT nuke Iran.

In retrospect, considering what has transpired since then I almost
wish he had.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ddjkj.80$XI6.38@trndny04,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:

Erma1ina wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:

CJT wrote:

But Reagan DID have his hand in the scheme
to hang onto our guys until after the election.

Prove it.

"Proof" is a politically . . . "tricky" kinda thing but the history
is pretty persuasive.

Check out a summary entitled "The Original October Surprise" at:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0610/S00412.htm

Puh-leez. I said proof, not conspiracy allegations. This is on the
same level as the current 9-11 'Truthers'.

I actually went and read the entry. States in numerous places how
most major news agencies and both houses of Congress said nothin'
happened.

And let's not forget who the primary author and proponent of this conspiracy
was: Lyndon LaRouche.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Dave Bugg wrote:

CJT wrote:


October Surprise

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October...ise_conspiracy


OMG!!!! Bwahahahahahaha!!! Wikipedia? Too bad you can't prove the baloney.



There was credible evidence, but apparently the decision was made that
there was not enough to go forward, particularly given the political
climate of the time.

You can't disprove it, either.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

Dave Bugg wrote:

Erma1ina wrote:

Dave Bugg wrote:

CJT wrote:


But Reagan DID have his hand in the scheme
to hang onto our guys until after the election.

Prove it.

"Proof" is a politically . . . "tricky" kinda thing but the history is
pretty persuasive.

Check out a summary entitled "The Original October Surprise" at:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0610/S00412.htm


Puh-leez. I said proof, not conspiracy allegations. This is on the same
level as the current 9-11 'Truthers'.


If you want to see unfounded allegations, consider the "swift-boaters."

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article , CJT
wrote:


There was no military action by Reagan.


The hostages were returned. So it wasn't needed. Let me get this
straight, you are now chastising Reagan because he did NOT nuke Iran.

No, it's the deal he and his made with Iran to postpone the return of
the hostages until after the election that steams me.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article , CJT
wrote:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October...ise_conspiracy


Like the part that says" After 12 years of news reports looking into the
alleged conspiracy, both houses of the US Congress held separate
inquiries into the issue, and journalists from sources such as Newsweek
and The New Republic looked into the charges. Both Congressional
inquires, as well as the majority of investigative reports, found the
evidence to be insufficient."

"majority" means others found it sufficient

and "insufficient" doesn't mean "none"

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ddjkj.80$XI6.38@trndny04,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:


Erma1ina wrote:

Dave Bugg wrote:

CJT wrote:


But Reagan DID have his hand in the scheme
to hang onto our guys until after the election.

Prove it.

"Proof" is a politically . . . "tricky" kinda thing but the history is
pretty persuasive.

Check out a summary entitled "The Original October Surprise" at:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0610/S00412.htm

Puh-leez. I said proof, not conspiracy allegations. This is on the same
level as the current 9-11 'Truthers'.


I actually went and read the entry. States in numerous places how
most major news agencies and both houses of Congress said nothin'
happened.

no, it doesn't

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

In article , CJT
wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article , CJT
wrote:


There was no military action by Reagan.


The hostages were returned. So it wasn't needed. Let me get this
straight, you are now chastising Reagan because he did NOT nuke Iran.

No, it's the deal he and his made with Iran to postpone the return of
the hostages until after the election that steams me.

As well it should... since it seems to be largely in your
imagination. Heck even the wiki entry you were using as "support" notes
that mainstream places that looked at it and found nothing.

On Jan 19, 6:24*pm, CJT wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:
CJT wrote:

October Surprise

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October...ise_conspiracy

OMG!!!! Bwahahahahahaha!!! Wikipedia? Too bad you can't prove the baloney.

There was credible evidence, but apparently the decision was made that
there was not enough to go forward, particularly given the political
climate of the time.

You can't disprove it, either.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. *Our true address is of the form .

As far as I am concerned and as far as law in concerned, it is not the
responsibility of the accused to prove it but of the accuser to
provide proof. You have failed at that as have many others.
Hopefully, we still live in a country where the rule is innocent until
proven guilty. If that has changed, I will be finding somewhere else
to live.

BobR wrote:

On Jan 19, 6:24 pm, CJT wrote:

Dave Bugg wrote:

CJT wrote:

October Surprise

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October...ise_conspiracy

OMG!!!! Bwahahahahahaha!!! Wikipedia? Too bad you can't prove the baloney.

There was credible evidence, but apparently the decision was made that
there was not enough to go forward, particularly given the political
climate of the time.

You can't disprove it, either.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .


As far as I am concerned and as far as law in concerned, it is not the
responsibility of the accused to prove it but of the accuser to
provide proof. You have failed at that as have many others.
Hopefully, we still live in a country where the rule is innocent until
proven guilty. If that has changed, I will be finding somewhere else
to live.

It hasn't changed, nor should it. The O.J.'s of the world will continue
to benefit. You can sleep easy.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

CJT wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:

CJT wrote:


October Surprise

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October...ise_conspiracy


OMG!!!! Bwahahahahahaha!!! Wikipedia? Too bad you can't prove the
baloney.
There was credible evidence,

No, there wasn't. There were scam artists, lunatics, discredited
'witnesses', lies, daisy-chain story-telling, fabrications, and the ever
present k00k-factor.
http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id53.htm
http://hnn.us/articles/4249.html
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1991...12-october.htm

but apparently the decision was made that
there was not enough to go forward, particularly given the political
climate of the time.

BS. The whole conspiracy, which was initially fathered by Lyndon LaRouche
and his followers, was torn to pieces, thoroughly rebutted with 'witnesses'
discredited.

You can't disprove it, either.

Disprove what? A made up storyline? That rhetoric and logic falls under the
same heading as flat-earther supporters, moon-landing deniers, and 9-11
truthers. Aside from that, pray tell us how one goes about proving a
negative? It is up to YOU to prove that October Surprise happened, not for
me to prove it didn't.

CJT wrote:
It didn't help that Reagan was cutting secret deals with the
Iranians while Carter was trying to get our guys out.


Whatever. Reagan's plan worked; Carter's didn't.


And, as we learned with Iran Contra, once a crook, always a crook.

Hey, that worked too. Nicaragua didn't turn communist.

God bless Oliver North.

CJT wrote:


Surely you jest. "Small time break-in??"

Well, it was. Two guys break into an office to copy (not steal) information.
Just a prank.


And how does consensual sex with an adult constitute a "high crime?"

"Thou shalt not commit adultry!"

They don't get any higher than that.

CJT wrote:

We had a surplus under Clinton.

And higher taxes. Crushing, debilitating, life-sucking, family destroying,
orphan making, abusive taxes.
Taxes to right of us,
Taxes to left of us,
Taxes in front of us,
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the democrats.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , CJT
wrote:


We had a surplus under Clinton.

Not really. Clinton was the beneficiary of the outcome of a
long-standing accounting fraud, one he inherited in all fairness. It
was all SS "Surplus", but the SS "surplus" is all money that goes
immediately, by law, into bonds that are non-marketable. So only in
Washington can a long-term liability (those bonds have to paid off
sometime) be turned into a short-term asset. If you back out the SS
bonds, the deficit goes down but doesn't anywere near disappear.
Also, the surplus had already peaked and was on its way down
before the elections.

Don't forget the "defense windfall" - the slashing of the DoD by 40% in
response to Reagan winning the cold war.

Heck, if military spending had remained the same as it was in the previous
administration, there would not have been a "surplus," in spite of the
higher taxes. No, the "surplus" under Clinton was a direct result of
policies undertaken by the previous administrations.

HeyBub wrote:

CJT wrote:

We had a surplus under Clinton.


And higher taxes. Crushing, debilitating, life-sucking, family destroying,
orphan making, abusive taxes.
Taxes to right of us,
Taxes to left of us,
Taxes in front of us,
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the democrats.



nonsense

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

HeyBub wrote:

CJT wrote:


Surely you jest. "Small time break-in??"


Well, it was. Two guys break into an office to copy (not steal) information.
Just a prank.


And how does consensual sex with an adult constitute a "high crime?"


"Thou shalt not commit adultry!"

They don't get any higher than that.


now you're just being silly

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

CJT wrote:

BobR wrote:

On Jan 19, 6:24 pm, CJT wrote:

Dave Bugg wrote:

CJT wrote:


October Surprise


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October...ise_conspiracy


OMG!!!! Bwahahahahahaha!!! Wikipedia? Too bad you can't prove the
baloney.


There was credible evidence, but apparently the decision was made that
there was not enough to go forward, particularly given the political
climate of the time.

You can't disprove it, either.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .



As far as I am concerned and as far as law in concerned, it is not the
responsibility of the accused to prove it but of the accuser to
provide proof. You have failed at that as have many others.
Hopefully, we still live in a country where the rule is innocent until
proven guilty. If that has changed, I will be finding somewhere else
to live.


It hasn't changed, nor should it. The O.J.'s of the world will continue
to benefit. You can sleep easy.

I should add that the Bush administration is doing everything it can to
remove those protections. And that "innocent until proven guilty"
applies only in the context of criminal prosecution -- a failure to
convict does NOT necessarily mean the suspect didn't do the crime, and
does not even mean he won't be punished for the act under civil penalties.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


Heck, if military spending had remained the same as it was in the previous
administration, there would not have been a "surplus," in spite of the
higher taxes. No, the "surplus" under Clinton was a direct result of
policies undertaken by the previous administrations.

I'd have to disagree (respectively, of course). The "surplus" was
related to the Greenspan/Gates Expansion. Greenspan for aggressively low
interest rates and expansive monetary policy. Gates (as in Bill) as a
surrogate for the staggering increases in productivity brought about by
computers.
The Clinton surplus was the result of an economy that was so
breathtakingly overheated that money came in faster than the combined
efforts of both parties could spend it. The politicians just managed to
stay enough out of the way to not muck things up.

In article , CJT
wrote:


remove those protections. And that "innocent until proven guilty"
applies only in the context of criminal prosecution -- a failure to
convict does NOT necessarily mean the suspect didn't do the crime, and
does not even mean he won't be punished for the act under civil penalties.

This is hardly new. There has always been a lower level of evidence
needed in civil court. Heck if you are going to take umbrage at that
then you need to start a petition to free Al Capone. The feds only
nailed him through civil charges of tax evasion.

CJT wrote:

We had a surplus under Clinton.


And higher taxes. Crushing, debilitating, life-sucking, family
destroying, orphan making, abusive taxes.
Taxes to right of us,
Taxes to left of us,
Taxes in front of us,
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the democrats.



nonsense

That's it. Be dismissive. Don't even offer a poem to support your position.

CJT wrote:
clifto wrote:
CJT wrote:
clifto wrote:
snip

Huckabee is a pro-life tax-and-spend Democrat in Republican Party clothing.


If you can be honest for a moment, you will realize that the "tax and
spend" stereotype has not fit the Democrats in a long time (if it ever
did) and that it in fact better fits the Republicans (although they
often modify it slightly to "borrow and spend").


Just look at the party affiliation of the person who is responsible for
the recent doubling of the national debt.


Which of the 535 people do you mean?

the one in the White House -- you know, the one who proposes, and signs,
the budget

Ah, the one with no authority to spend money.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

CJT wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:
CJT wrote:


We had a surplus under Clinton.


Two different items. A budget surplus is not the same as the national debt.
There was a national debt under Clinton.


Of course there was. But it didn't double on _his_ watch.

We managed to get a Republican-controlled Congress in.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

HeyBub wrote:
CJT wrote:


Surely you jest. "Small time break-in??"

Well, it was. Two guys break into an office to copy (not steal) information.
Just a prank.


And how does consensual sex with an adult constitute a "high crime?"

"Thou shalt not commit adultry!"

They don't get any higher than that.

Not to point out his straw man or anything, but I didn't have a problem with
Clinton getting blowjobs. I had a problem with him doing it on company time
on company premises and then lying about it under oath.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.