OT....given the tenor of threads on this board...

[Art]

Burgold,

The Republican tendency toward support of business is, as you've said, supportive of the "little guy" on a different spectrum. If I'm not mistaken, the Republican party president, Lincoln, is the one who freed the slaves to begin with, though, I'm sure a radical will jump up with he did no such thing.

But, regardless of what the left may have once been, the left is now something entirely different and far too easily fit into how I've described it. But, no matter, let's talk important things.

Reganonomics, for example, and the splendid policy that it was that is directly responsible for the better economic environment we enjoyed throughout the 90s . We have, of course, had this discussion previously and as it has been demonstrated through the few tax cuts we've enjoyed in this country, each time we've so cut, government intake of revenue spiked. As the following link and conversation will show, under Reagan, with the tax cut, government revenue went from $500 billion to $1.1 trillion. Reagan was right. It's not his fault that Congress wouldn't stop spending.

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=75&perpage=15&display=&highlight=tax%20cut&pagenumber=2

[Burgold]

Art, the Republicans who freed the slaves were hardly taking a conservative approach They were fairly radical. Plus, as someone said today, conservatism is not wholly owned by the Republicans, just as liberalism is not owned fully by the Democrats.

On Reagonomics... yeesh, maybe it's that I tie in the S&L crisis with him. The hangover of the Bush years, not to mention the last few years of the Reagan administration, but under his program and for a few years afterwards the country didn't prosper. In fact, I remember homelessness and joblessness being at its worst during the latter Reagan and Bush years.

Side note: I enjoy discussing issues with you (and many of you). Though you are very confident in your opinion, at least with me I believe your logic has been fair. Who knows, maybe I have missed several sly insults, probably have... goes along with my liberalistic idealism . I wonder how dissimilar we are in reality. In truth, I don't know that I am a liberal, at least in modern context. Heck, I've already admitted I don't know what that term fully means anymore. I think the closest I can get to my philosophy if we need a short cut is an idealistic cynic. I do worry about the comaraderie on this board though. Maybe I haven't followed enough in past off seasons, but there seem to great and angry divides forming. I hope that doesn't happen as I've truly enjoyed the mix of personalities that form this community.

[Art]

I don't think you have to worry about people getting run off due to these conversations. Though heated at times, people who are participating in these chats know it's part of the reason they are here. At least I hope so. It's fun to argue and fuss sometimes. When the season starts, we all go back to being the unified Redskin fan. I'm not overly concerned with people taking this stuff too personally. Perhaps that's just because I view it a bit differently than others and I take each thread as a new conversation and perhaps I'm a bit naive there. But, to me, this is all fun stuff .

[Brave]

"When the trade centers were built, they were designed to take a hit from a smaller plane since the current size didn't exist yet." - Bufford

Actually, what I've heard (sorry ... can't remember where) is that they were in fact built to withstand a hit from the larger planes but they didn't take massive amounts of burning jet fuel into consideration. The fuel and fire from the impact were the cause for the larger part of the catastrophe as opposed to the actual impact itself.

[Romo]

Brave,

I heard the same thing about the jet fuel. But I also heard that the biggest plane at the time was a 727 and they accounted for the fuel load for a domestic flight of that plane not a fully loaded cross-country 747.

[PCS]

Brave, Romo sits to pee, here you go guys. The official report from the Post released May 1. By the way. 707.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A11614-2002Apr30?language=printer

There's a rather large number of engineers who have been throwing in on this as well. One from MIT who was on that Nova special on "Why the Towers Fell". Of course there's another engineer who says the MIT engineers were "incomptetent. Either way, there's the report.

Sigh. I should have been more specific, (Bufford ). Before 9/11, I don't recall there being an incident where a group of terrorists hijacked one, much less 3 passenger jets and crashed them into a or several buildings in a major city. (at least not in the U.S.) JackC, who has not clarified what he meant by:

"Are you saying because some believe a terrorist could "blow up a atomic bomb in a city", although it has never happened before, we should let our government take "any" steps they deem necessary? "

Apparently the above should have been my response, though apparently Jack missed that point. Point being is just becaus it hasn't happened, or doen't necessarly seem realistic, (hmmm maybe wrong word), doen't meen it can't or won't happen. It would appear Jack, that it has to happen before it's possible. Interesting. Just for the record books, here's a little info on the risk of an atomic bomb and or a dirty bomb,(which,gee,apparently hasn't happened either but according to all the news these days, it certainly is a possiblity).

U.N.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/11/02/gen.un.atomic/

Short article, covering same subject from BBC. Check out the last thing said in the article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1634000/1634464.stm

Graham Allison, an assistant secretary of defense under President Clinton

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/allison_binladen_bomb_wp_111801.htm

Sorry for all the reading, but it's somewhat chilling.

To answer for myself Jack. Yep. You bet. If a few rules have to be bent. A few liberties played with some, (which I really don't see as a major threat), and some new laws made up, in order to save maybe just a few or maybe a couple hundred thousand Americans from being victims in any terrorist attack, I think it's worth the "risk" to let the government take any steps they deem necessary. I mean, the government is supposed to protect it's citizens as well as their liberties.

[Brave]

Good reads all, Park City, if unsettling.

It seems that are determination not to let terrorists "change our way of life" is not possible. We have to. We must have tighter borders and more security within them. More and better examination of imports, which could lead to higher prices. Better intelligence and the resolve to take action quicker overseas to prevent these @ssholes from making good on their threats.

The possibility of what could happen if we don't is unthinkable.

[Glenn X]

NM

[PCS]

Couple of more news items of interest.

From Newsweek October last year dealing with dirty as well as actual nuclear bombs. Building or stealing. There's also one on bio-threats.

http://www.miis.edu/offsite_press/Newsweek%20Oct%208,%202001.html#BODY

This article is one on the cyber threat. Chilling indeed. Warning. This article in 6 pages long.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A50765-2002Jun26