HAHAHAHAHA

Genius.

Coulter says that staying out of environments disproportionately inhabited by scum will reduce your chances of encountering scum. If the scandal means more stripper services will hire bouncers, that means more protectionn against both the abuse of strippers and against false charges against customers. (Hypothetically, a bouncer could be a part of a false testimony scheme, but he's have to explain how the customers got past him.)

If raising the cost of stripper services is a result, then the environment will be disproportionately inhabited by rich scum - at least as the customer base is concerned; the ethical quality of the dancers will be unaffected.

Posner, Becker . . . Wendling?

... our industrial classifications (NAICS), to my knowledge, do not have a separate industry for adult entertainment or services. Most of that would probably be in NAICS 812990 All Other Personal Services, which includes a variety of personal services.

I think I've found a new euphemism.

"All other personal services?"

"Not tonight, I've got a headache."

One test of elasticity of supply is to snap their panties to see how elastic they are.

Screw Ann Coulter. She oughta know about questionable ways to make a living. Here's what I "wonder about." How the f*ck do Bush and his cronies at Homeland Security get away with endangering NYC and DC in order to spread $$$ around in swing districts?

I can't wait for '06. Revenge will be sweet. D*ckwads.

"How the f*ck do Bush and his cronies at Homeland Security get away with endangering NYC and DC in order to spread $$$ around in swing districts?"

Not that I agree with your characterization, but ... the same way Clinton and his cronies sold the country out during his administration.

In case you've forgotten, the influx of cash into Moscow was mainly obtained through Iraqi oil sold by the U.N. and distributed through Russian suppliers. The cash paid for the Russian war and a new round of rampant corruption, centered on the former Soviet GAZPROM state oil company.

The oil sales helped Saddam Hussein re-arm his military with a brand new Chinese-built air defense system. The move is also now seen as a major blunder that triggered the 2001 recession.

Shortly after taking office, Clinton cooperated with OPEC by destroying domestic production, using the propaganda of "green" policies of radical environmentalism with his trusty side-kick Al "Mr. Film Director, Sir" Gore. As a result, the United States is now more dependent on foreign energy than ever before.

And what about Clinton's signing of national security waivers to allow four U.S. commercial satellites to be launched in China, despite evidence that China was exporting nuclear and missile technology to Pakistan and Iran, among other nations. One of these satellites belonged to Loral. Nine days later a Chinese Long March rocket carrying a $200 million satellite belonging to Loral failed in mid-flight.

I guess you really *do* reap what you sow, but if you sow it, you have to be prepared to swallow the "harvest."

Yawn. When will certain people realize that parroting worn-out slogans from their respective party line constitutes self-caricature?

I don't know or care what the hell you are referring to, lawyerchik1, but if my mayor and city officials are to be believed, money to protect my city and our nation's capitol has been diverted for political reasons. So much for Bush's "War on Terror." And Chuck, if that makes you sleepy, go take a f*cking nap.

Holy thread hijack Batman.

:) Zip! Blam! Zowie!

Whatever.

Sorry, lawyerchik1, but it took me awhile to get back to this and your load of misinfo, upthread.

* "...the influx of cash into Moscow was mainly obtained through Iraqi oil sold by the U.N. and distributed through Russian suppliers." *

I can't find any other citings than the one you cut and pasted above from "
ONE MORE ATTEMPT TO EDUCATE THE LIBERALS March 4" on a sketchy website called republicanandproud.com.

* "...Shortly after taking office, Clinton cooperated with OPEC by destroying domestic production, using the propaganda of "green" policies of radical environmentalism..." *

The Clinton/Gore team did not destroy domestic oil production in the '90s, because by that time, there was no US production to speak of! Our domestic oil production peaked back in 1971, just as Saudi Arabian oil production was taking off so they were able take our place. In addition, during the last 3 years of the 1960s, we discovered the last big sources of brand new oil when we found oil in Alaska in 1967,68; we found oil in Siberia about the same period of time; they all peaked in the 1990s.

It was Lyndon Johnson who relaxed the import quota system that Eisenhower instated to protect domestic US oil production. Nixon abolished quotas altogether in 1973.

We handled the OPEC induced oil crisis in the mid 1970s by setting up agreements with the Saudis to support the pricing of OPEC oil in dollars.

* "And what about Clinton's signing of national security waivers to allow four U.S. commercial satellites to be launched in China..." *

What about 'em? The Clinton White House released hundreds pages of declassified documents saying the presidential waiver was consistent with U.S. policy. They waivers were recommended by the president's national security adviser, the State Department and the Pentagon.

Just so you know, there had been bipartisan support for such launches. President Ronald Reagan was the one who had initiated the policy 10 years earlier! President Bush I approved nine to Clinton's 11.

"I can't find any other citings than the one you cut and pasted above from "
ONE MORE ATTEMPT TO EDUCATE THE LIBERALS March 4" on a sketchy website called republicanandproud.com."

Hm. I had never read anything on republicanandproud.com, but I actually checked the article you claimed I "cut and pasted" from, just to see what it said. a) I had never seen that article before, and b) the article did not include what I had written, which BTW was not "cut" or "pasted" from anywhere except my own writings, based on footnoted information I obtained from my research on the subject.

When I went back to my actual source, rather than the one you erroneously attributed to me, I found references to the fact that “President Clinton has decided to waive sanctions against the Russian gas monopoly Gazprom and its French and Malaysian partners in a $2 billion gas field investment in Iran. The policy shift, which effectively guts the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act aimed at curbing international terrorism, "came after U.S. negotiators received assurances that the E.U. and Russia will cooperate more vigorously in frustrating Iran's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction and to support terrorist groups," according to the Washington Post.” [From the American Foreign Policy Council, Washington, D.C., May 28, 1998].

OPEC/Oil:

On October 16th, 1973, as part of the political strategy that included the Yom Kippur War, OPEC cut production of oil, and placed an embargo on shipments of crude oil to the West, with the United States and the Netherlands specifically targeted. Nixon's actions were in direct response to the war and the OPEC actions. [wikipedia.org.]

Then there's this from a 2003 presentation by Dr. Herman Franssen, the President of International Energy Associates: "Clinton de-emphasized drilling for oil and gas but favored funding of energy conservation and renewable energy R&D. ... Implementation was largely left to the private sector."

This is from a U.S. Department of Commerce report on the effect of imports of crude oil and refined petroleum products on national security: net U.S. imports grew from 8.1 MMB/D in 1994 to 9.7 MMB/D in 1998 and at the time of the report accounted for 51 percent of domestic consumption compared to 45 percent in 1994. Imports from Persian Gulf countries, which increased from 1.7 MMB/D in 1994 to 2.1 MMB/D in 1998, accounted for 22 percent of all U.S. petroleum imports. The majority of U.S. imports, over 50 percent, are sourced from reliable Western Hemispheric countries such as Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela.

However, the United States and other countries’ ability to offset a major oil supply disruption has not improved since 1994. We’re still vulnerable because most of the spare production capacity is still in the Persian Gulf region; the U.S. and other countries’ government oil stocks provide less protection from an interruption than was the case in 1988 or 1994; and there is no substitute for liquid transportation fuels – fuels which account for approximately two-thirds of all oil consumption in the United States. "During a major oil supply disruption, there could be substantial economic austerity as a result of the decreased availability of oil. This, in turn, could pose a hardship for the U.S. economy." Hm. Y'think?

The real issues for the Clinton Administration were cost – it was not cost-effective to continue to produce petroleum products at the same rate because it would cost more than to continue to obtain petroleum products from outside sources – and diminished return from, i.e., Article 605 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which purportedly provided reciprocal benefits including energy security in the event of a supply interruption.

Plus, the Administration was more concerned about allies’ and trading partners’ dependence on potentially insecure sources of oil that might affect their willingness to cooperate with the United States during a major supply disruption.

The Clinton Administration’s proposal thought that the nations of the IEA could inject into the market approximately 4 to 5 MMB/D of oil from their reserves into the market while the individual governments take other actions to address the cause of the disruption.

However, there was no provision at all for what to do when the objectives of those “individual governments” varied with the safety and security objectives of the United States – like after 9/11.

"What about 'em? The Clinton White House released hundreds pages of declassified documents saying the presidential waiver was consistent with U.S. policy. They waivers were recommended by the president's national security adviser, the State Department and the Pentagon."

Nice try to blur the distinctions on the waivers for satellites, but the reality is that the Reagan and Bush I waivers were a direct result of the 1986 Challenger disaster. There was serious concern that the loss of U.S. launch capability resulting from the a moratorium on shuttle flights after Challenger would jeopardize America's pre-eminence in space.

The Reagan administration adopted a policy that opened the way for U.S. commercial satellites to be launched on Chinese space boosters on a case-by-case basis. The sanctions imposed by the Bush administration following the Tiananmen Square massacre in June 1989 blocked satellite launches by the Chinese but included a provision for case-by-case presidential waivers.

President Clinton approved a waiver to allow a commercial communications satellite built by Loral to be launched into orbit by a Chinese booster. This was the eighth waiver -- covering eleven launches -- approved by the Clinton administration. Previously, the Bush administration approved three waivers covering the launch of nine satellites.

However, after the Clinton waivers, there was an unauthorized transfer of information to China by Loral and Hughes in connection with a 1996 review of the explosion of a Long March rocket launching a U.S. satellite. As a result, a Pentagon agency determined that the information transferred by Loral and Hughes to the Chinese caused harm to U.S. national security. That did not happen with any of the Reagan or Bush I waivers.

During the investigation of this fiasco, it was discovered that Bernard Schwartz, Loral's chairman and CEO, was the largest single contributor to the Democratic Party, and the problem arose because of the impropriety of such a huge benefit to a financial contributor of the Democratic Party. Name one instance in which a satellite waiver was granted to a huge Republican supporter.

Since February 1996, U.S. intelligence reported that China had targeted 13 of its 18 CSS-4 long-range missiles against U.S. cities. The CIA said that China's targeting was made more accurate by Loral's unauthorized help.

Coincidence? I think not.

Before you start tossing accusations of cutting and pasting without fact-checking, JohnS, you'd better do your own homework. And by that, I mean not just reading and regurgitating some anti-critical-thinking, liberal-sanctioned clap-trap.

Sorry, but "the influx of cash into Moscow was mainly obtained through Iraqi oil sold by the U.N. and distributed through Russian suppliers. The cash paid for the Russian war and a new round of rampant corruption, centered on the former Soviet GAZPROM state oil company" is lifted, word for word, from here.

I am unfamiliar with this particular Clinton "scandal" and can't find anything other than the partisan site I've linked to, so I'm not going to comment on it.

I would absolutely agree that Clinton did nothing to start us on a road to energy independance. The political will was not there and America wasn't yet willing to listen to his VP, who was effectively, and shamefully, silenced by his boss's administration.

But to say that Clinton cooperated with OPEC to destroy domestic oil production is total BS. We reached peak in 1971. There was no domestic oil left to produce, we were dry for all intents and purposes by the time Clinton got in, except for Alaska. Alaska, and the North Atlantic oil discoverd also in the late 60s, both helped fuel us on the cheap, and both peaked in the 90s, leaving us more or less with the with the ME by the late 1990s. But we were joined at the hip with the Saudis and OPEC in the mid 1970s, not during the Clinton years. That's when our pact with the devil was made and if anybody is overly friendly with the Saudis, it's... oh, never mind.

Finally, in addition to it's beyond horrible Whitewater and Wen Ho Lee reporting, the NY Times, also managed to embarrass itself with that long since debunked Loral story suggesting that Clinton gave away weapons secrets to the Chinese in exchange for campaign contributions. Clinton signed off on Loral improving the Chinese missiles. The unauthorized action was taken by a team from Loral after one of their satellites was blown up on a Chinese missile. And again, the waivers were recommended by the president's national security adviser, the State Department and the Pentagon.

What's with all the dwelling on the Clinton years? There's more than enough to criticize about our current administration.

It's practically a full time job keeping up with all there is to criticize about the current administration. Why you decided to reach back to the Clinton years is truly beyond me. Unless you're just regurgitating some anti-critical-thinking, right wing-sanctioned clap-trap.

"Sorry, but "the influx of cash into Moscow was mainly obtained through Iraqi oil sold by the U.N. and distributed through Russian suppliers. The cash paid for the Russian war and a new round of rampant corruption, centered on the former Soviet GAZPROM state oil company" is lifted, word for word, from here."

Maybe they lifted it from the source I used, too, but I had never heard of the article you linked until you posted it.

As far as the state of U.S. oil availability, if you would read the actual reports about U.S. oil, you would learn that it isn't that the U.S. is out of oil, but that accessing it is more expensive than buying it from outside sources. Until now, when the political assumptions on which the Clinton administration based its deals with those outside sources fell apart.

"What's with all the dwelling on the Clinton years? There's more than enough to criticize about our current administration."

That's if your sole purpose is to criticize any administration. Mudslinging for mudslinging's sake gets dirt on everyone. If, however, your purpose is truth, then you take a different view of reviewing reports - and vetting them - regardless of the administration. You actually read those reports and do that research to learn more about how the country works, about various factors in policy-making and about practical solutions to significant problems. And I've already gone on record as saying that the Republican party of today is just a recast of the Democratic party 50 years ago, as well as that the Democratic party of today is just a recast of the Socialist/Communist parties of 50 years ago, so in your reading, be sure you read all of my comments, not just the ones you don't like.

Frankly, if your objective is just to sling mud, then it really doesn't matter what happened in the past; it's only what you believe about it and the present (factually based or not) that becomes relevant. If that's how you want to spend your time, knock yourself out.

The real reason references to the Clinton administration's record are relevant is because a) the former President can't seem to just fade off into the sunset and build houses but has to maintain an active practice of criticizing the efforts to undo what he helped create, and b) his wife (who, in many ways, could also be referred to as the former president Clinton) is viewed as one of the chief candidates for the 2008 Presidential election.

Hillary's husband's record (in light of her own contributions to policy and other activities during that administration) are relevant to predictions of what to expect if she runs and if she's successful.

Geez. I know we're not out of oil domestically. I wrote we PEAKED in 71, which means that oil production has slowly but increasingly been tapering off since then, hence our reliance post '71 on Alaska, the North Atlantic, and the ME for cheaper crude. So, chalk your remarks about Clinton cooperating "with OPEC by destroying domestic production" up to another paranoid right-wing "Clinton Scandal."

As for the rest of your last post (I'm just gonna ignore the part about the Democratic Party today just being a recast of the Communist Party 50 years ago), thanks for the condescending lecture. Lets see if I've got the drill straight now: attacks on the Clinton Administration = critical-thinking. Attacks on the current Administration = mudslinging. I'll repeat as necessary.

Mmmmmm'K. Let me know when your medication kicks in and you can be rational, JohnS.

And BTW, the difference between critical thinking and mudslinging is the difference between the facts I've provided you with and this: "Screw Ann Coulter. She oughta know about questionable ways to make a living. Here's what I "wonder about." How the f*ck do Bush and his cronies at Homeland Security get away with endangering NYC and DC in order to spread $$$ around in swing districts? I can't wait for '06. Revenge will be sweet. D*ckwads."

Have a nice day.

Facts from http://www.republicanandproud.com/libeducation2.htm. Excellent! Thanks! And thanks for the continuing lecture series, too! I'm really paying attention. Really!

Don't suppose it occurred to you that perhaps the site you keep touting may have copied it from another source, did it?

Like, maybe, here? http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/20/190717.shtml

In case you've forgotten, the influx of cash into Moscow was mainly obtained through Iraqi oil sold by the U.N. and distributed through Russian suppliers. The cash paid for the Russian war and a new round of rampant corruption, centered on the former Soviet GAZPROM state oil company.
-lawyerchik1

The influx of cash into Moscow was mainly obtained through Iraqi oil sold by the U.N. and distributed through Russian suppliers. The cash paid for the Russian war and a new round of rampant corruption, centered on the former Soviet GAZPROM state oil company.
-http://www.republicanandproud.com/

Oh, they cut and pasted it from YOU! That must be it!

Before you start tossing accusations of cutting and pasting without fact-checking, JohnS, you'd better do your own homework. And by that, I mean not just reading and regurgitating some anti-critical-thinking, liberal-sanctioned clap-trap.

Do your own homework, indeed!

And by all means, continue with your exciting lecture series!!!

Thanks for pointing out that I missed a source - I will certainly incorporate into my next work, whatever that is.

Frankly, though, if that's the high-point of your day, which it seems to be, then you, my friend, have sooooo many more problems than can be adequately addressed in a lecture setting. You might want to set up a personal appointment. With someone else.

And you still haven't addressed the real issue, which goes to fact-checking, rather than cutting/pasting. But, I understand that might be a little beyond your abilities, so class over. Enjoy the summer!

Aha! You sure told me! You didn't cut and paste your "facts" from http://www.republicanandproud.com/, you cut and pasted from the reliably non-partisan gold standard of objective journalism, NewsMax...Wait I'm gettin' dizzy! I thought you said "the article did not include what I had written, which BTW was not "cut" or "pasted" from anywhere except my own writings, based on footnoted information I obtained from my research on the subject."

Well. Footnoted information painstakingly cut and pasted from Newsmax? Or maybe, they cut and pasted from you!

Before you start tossing accusations of cutting and pasting without fact-checking, JohnS, you'd better do your own homework. And by that, I mean not just reading and regurgitating some anti-critical-thinking, liberal-sanctioned clap-trap.
-lawyerchick1 on critical thinkin' and mudslingin'

Lecture series over... but more helpful advice. Take meds, see "someone." The caring never ends!

"Footnoted information painstakingly cut and pasted from Newsmax? Or maybe, they cut and pasted from you!"

I guess you also missed the "Thanks for pointing out that I missed a source - I will certainly incorporate into my next work, whatever that is." (Sigh!)

In case the previous explanation was in any way unclear, Johns, I did my research, copied any quotes into a document that I maintain on my computer for just such discussions, and cut and pasted it from that source in this thread. My missing a source in my original work was a mistake, which I *think* I've already admitted. If, for any reason, you feel the need to drool and slobber over it again, though, be my guest.

My original challenge to you, though, was that you didn't do any research in your own ramblings. You seem to know how, since you found at least one source which apparently got its information from the same place I did, but you can't seem to locate any of the other documents from which the actual data was taken? Either you don't understand what you've found, or you've dismissed it because it's from a "conservative" site/source, which apparently doesn't matter to you in the slightest.

Caring aside, I'm not sure medication or treatment would help such a narrow-minded, blindly bigoted person after all. Better advice would seem to be "Grow up," but alas, I think even that would fall on deaf ears.

That is all.

I posted that before I saw your rebuttal.

I'm fine with the inane 5th grade "insults" like "see a doctor" and "take meds" or whatever, but I don't think you want to start tossing around "blindly bigoted." You've been warned.