BS: Bush--A little credit please?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: kendall
Date: 12 Apr 01 - 07:40 PM

Doug, I went back and re read my post, but, I fail to see how you concluded that I was apologizing for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.They had their reasons, thats all I said.I did not say they were justified according to OUR way of thinking. I dont recall that they, or anyone else complained when we declared war on Spain so we could grab its bases around the world.We had our time of imperialism too.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: DougR
Date: 12 Apr 01 - 07:48 PM

Guest P&P, I do not believe that the aforesaid Chinese former restaurant owner from Arkansas was exonorated as you suggest. Seems to me he struck a plea bargain, and sang his little heart out. Or do I have him mixed up with another of Clinton's cronies? If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will inform me. I think his name was Charlie Tree or something like that.

Bush is damned whatever he does by the Sharks on the Mudcat. Even if he did something extradordinarily outstanding, they would never give him credit for it. I'm sure it worries him mightly.

Whatever, the troops are back on U. S. soil and the sky did not fall on us.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: Naemanson
Date: 12 Apr 01 - 08:05 PM

Well, as I see it the colision was an accident. I refuse to speculate on who might have been at fault but I can guarantee a pilot does not ram another plane in mid air on purpose!

I grant the Shrub enough credit to recognize that Colin Powell and the permanent civil servants that make up the State department pulled his butt out of the fire.

I grant the Shrub's handlers enough credit that they managed to stay out of the way while the career diplomats got the job done. And they managed to keep the Resident of the White House from stuumbling all over himself.

And any credit I grant him is revoked in the light of his budget and the reduction of funding for some of the most important programs we have going, such as the alternative energy research, and the foolish attack on the education system.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: MAV
Date: 12 Apr 01 - 08:55 PM

Uncle Jerque, would it be TOO hard to just be polite?

There you go again, NAMECALLING and lecturing others on.... "Politeness"?

All the conservatives must be reading people like you and thinking, "Please stop being on my side!"

Yeah, he said almost the same exact thing to me.

1. It is not a "spy plane" and it drives me nuts when the press has been calling it such. If they can't tell the difference between spying and surveillance, they should get jobs at the local Cinemaplex or something.

What?

2. The final non-apologetic apology that secured the release of our boys and girl was a masterful piece of diplomatic baloney. Three cheers to whoever in the Bush administration thought it up.

HUH?

3. I'm not sure it could have been done TOO much earlier. The whole thing needed to cool off a bit, and the Chinese needed to calm down enough to see exactly what they stood to lose (hint: where does the lion's share of dollars fleeing the USA go? hint2: it isn't Europe) before they could accept the non-apologetic apology without feeling they were losing face.

Unbelievable.

4. What all this has to do with Bush, however, is beyond me. None of this has his handwriting. Sure, he put in place a competent State Department. But how much of that was Daddy's doing? The world will never know. Just being who he is, Bush Lite will never really get credit for stuff he deserves credit for. You may say it's not fair; I say he made his bed and must lie in it.

Of course he will, it happened under his watch. He put in place a competent everything.

5. Was the tail wagging the dog? Well, it's true Bush has been doing the best he can, in the short time he's had, to put the thumbscrews on the environmentalists. He really didn't need a crisis like this to do it, though. Who is standing up to him at home? The democrats are rolling over and playing lame.

You don't suppose he "very sorried" the democRATs too, do you?

If we have any wild space left in this country in 4 years, it certainly won't be because Bush hasn't tried to (allow his Corporate sponsors to) rape, pave, or drill it.

Looks like most of the raping and drilling in the last eight years has been in the White House. I think if you check, most of the paving can be found in the BLUE AREAS of the 2000 election map!!!

There's my 2 bits' worth. Flame away.

What are you doing agreeing with us? Trying to "Spaw" us? Maybe you should re-think this one.

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: Troll
Date: 12 Apr 01 - 09:18 PM

Greg, the idea that the whole thing was staged to give Bush some kind of undefinable advantage is a little far out, even for a confirmed Clintonista like you.
I do not believe that the pilot exists who could engineer a mid-air collision with such precision that his own plane was not too badly damaged to make a safe landing. While it's fun (I guess) to speculate on such things, actually POSTING them is another matter.
But, a good laugh is always in order, so thanks for that at least. Sean So Clinton kept the economy aloft during his administration? But the Liberals claim that he was unable to get many of his programs passed because of a Republican dominated Congress.
Amazing that he could do the one but not the other.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Apr 01 - 09:31 PM

Troll, I didn't say I BELIEVED it, only that it was no more far-fetched than some of the right-wing garbage that's actually been bandied about.  :-)  I'm actually no fan of Clinton's or of the "New Democrats" a.k.a. moderate Republicans.

As far as the benefit being "undefinable", have you missed the reports that since the "incident" congressmen are falling over one another in the rush to support the sale to Taiwan?- seems pretty concrete ta me.

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: catspaw49
Date: 12 Apr 01 - 09:35 PM

Why not play the game here differently? I know this is impossible and the rationalizations will fly fast and furiously, but, uh.................

Suppose........just for laughs you understand,......that this incident took place last year and had been handled in the same way by the Clinton administration. Would we be hearing the same things from both parties that we are now? Would Trent Lott give Willie a call and say, "Nice job" or would he be calling for hearings?

Just curious........................................

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: JedMarum
Date: 12 Apr 01 - 09:46 PM

Spaw - I think you would have heard the same thing, had the Clinton admin handled the matter in the same way. Both Dems and Repubs have been pretty positive about the results. There is bitching going on, only at the extremes.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: Troll
Date: 12 Apr 01 - 09:46 PM

Greg, I believe it's called a colatteral benefit. I would be greatly surprised if Bush and Co. did NOT take advantage of it.
When fortune drops a windfall in your lap,you are a fool if you don't take advantage of it.
Thats a good rule for politicians, businessmen and anyone else whose eyes dialate.
As far as whether Clinton and crew were guilty of all that they were accused of,I don't want to go there. That horse has been flogged to death.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Apr 01 - 10:25 PM

True, you won't find a politician- or at least a moderatly successful one- of any political stripe who isn't an opportunist.

I don't think that horse is quite dead yet, but OK, let's not go there.;-)
Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: Naemanson
Date: 12 Apr 01 - 10:43 PM

This just in! Our diligent reporters have uncovered a secret document from the Republican Party headquarters. It provides details showing that the whole Chinese-Spy plane collision incident is linked to the Clinton administration. The pilot was hired by the same Asian organization that provided funds to the 1996 Democratic campaign.

The note with the document shows that the Republican Party does not intend to release it because of the outcome of the incident.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: GUEST,Its a telegram, from Canada!
Date: 12 Apr 01 - 11:00 PM

Man oh man,you silly silly amercans. Why, if you could tell me again, didn't you chose Gore? he was too much of a Smartiepants? Oh well, at least 47% of your country knows what its doing!

You'll rue this day! Love, Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: DougR
Date: 13 Apr 01 - 12:11 AM

Naemanson: I have an idea! Why don't YOU share the "secret document" with us? I'd really like to read it. I'm fairly confident that if such a document existed, Tom Brokow, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings et al,would all agree to keep it secret, right?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: mousethief
Date: 13 Apr 01 - 02:14 AM

What are you doing agreeing with us? Trying to "Spaw" us? Maybe you should re-think this one.

Truth of the matter, MAV, is that you really don't know what I believe. I tried to tell you this once but you rudely told me I was wrong.

I believe what I believe on a number of issues. On some things I am considered by those left-of-center to be a flaming Fascist. On others I am considered by those right-of-center to be a marxist, or worse. In fact I don't believe in the platform of any party in this country, nor am I a member of any party. I don't march to any party line.

Your use of the term "us" here makes me think you do.

There you go again, NAMECALLING and lecturing others on.... "Politeness"?

We can both play the "imagine YOU telling someone they're being rude!" game until the cows came home. Fact is you have alienated a huge number of people on this list by your brusque manner and rudeness. I have not. In the few cases where I really got under somebody's collar, I have done what I could to find out where I goofed up, and apologized.

On the other hand I have given up ever expecting you to apologize for the things you have done which I found unspeakably rude and offensive, even though I have pointed them out and asked for an apology.

You continue to be rude to me at every turn, even in threads where you are talking about treating me with respect and expecting the same in return and all that rot. Apparently a leopard CAN'T change its spots. Don't expect me to hold my heart in my hands waiting for you to be nice. I wipe my feet.

It is not a "spy plane" and it drives me nuts when the press has been calling it such. If they can't tell the difference between spying and surveillance, they should get jobs at the local Cinemaplex or something.

What?

Which word here is bothering you? I could define them all for you, but that's a horrible waste of time for me, and quite dull. I suggest you go to an online dictionary like www.m-w.com and look them up yourself.

. The final non-apologetic apology that secured the release of our boys and girl was a masterful piece of diplomatic baloney. Three cheers to whoever in the Bush administration thought it up.

HUH?

These words are even smaller. Where did you go to school?

Oh, by the way, I stand corrected; I had somewhere picked up the idea it was 23 men and 1 woman, whereas it was 21 men and 3 women. Thus the above should read "boys and girls".

If we have any wild space left in this country in 4 years, it certainly won't be because Bush hasn't tried to (allow his Corporate sponsors to) rape, pave, or drill it.

Looks like most of the raping and drilling in the last eight years has been in the White House.

Again your usual (boring) tactic of not answering the issue, but dragging in something totally unrelated.

Apparently my going through your posts point-by-point impresses you (you said I was getting less offensive and more argumentative); but it's all the same old shinola so it hardly seems worth the time to go through it point-by-point. Still, if that's what it takes, I'll do my part.

You arch-conservatives are too funny. You want to lump everybody to your left into a huge cesspool, and complain if we don't give your side any credit, while all the while not giving our side any credit at all, and saying asinine things like "anything the democrats do must be wrong." So much so that when we (the people to your left) agree with you on ANYTHING it takes your vocabulary away. We're obviously not as narrow-minded as you are, and it nearly blows you away to discover it.

Bonus question: How many Democrats broke ranks in the last vote in the Senate? How many Republicans? Answer: far more D's than R's. Who's following the party line? Who has marching orders? Bush's getting anything passed in a 50-50 Senate is proof positive that the Democrats are less party-conscious than the Republicans. Spin that.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 13 Apr 01 - 02:20 AM

The EP-3A is most definitely a spy plane. The very reason it was there was to spy on the Chinese Navy, etc. (not to mention why we were so bent out of shape when they decided to examine our little piece of spying equipment).

My sentiments here are that the Chinese really shouldn't be so upset that we were over there skirting their borders to get some military intelligence (if you'll pardon the oxymoron). After all, if we don't do this type of intelligence gathering, how can they expect us to be be able to bomb the right embassy next time?

Cheers,

-- Arne Langsetmo

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: texastoolman
Date: 13 Apr 01 - 02:26 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: mousethief
Date: 13 Apr 01 - 02:36 AM

Sorry, I must disagree, Arne. The U2 is a spy plane. The EP-3A is a surveillance plane. Sending one on a true spy mission would be suicide.

Hint: "overt" and "covert" -- what a difference a "c" makes!

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: Troll
Date: 13 Apr 01 - 08:06 AM

Thanks Alex. You beat me to it.
But spy plane sounds so much better in a sound-bite on the six o'lock news than survalence aircrafe so spy plane it is in the media.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: Naemanson
Date: 13 Apr 01 - 08:21 AM

Maybe we need to agree on terms. A spy plane is one on a secret flight into another's airspace with the intent of gathering information the other would rather keep secret. A surveillance plane is one that is operating openly in international airspace gathering whatever information comes its way.

Can we agree on those terms and get on with the basic discussion?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: kendall
Date: 13 Apr 01 - 08:50 AM

HEROIC DOGFIGHT

In an heroic dogfight, fought over international waters off mainland China, a 60's era American built Lockheed electra propeller airliner with 24 US Navy passenger/observers aboard chewed up one of Chinas best state of the art supersonic jet fighter aircraft. The American, using the infrequently seen combat tactic of straight and level flight, often relying on auto pilot, engaged the unfortunate single seat combat jet, and, knocked it out of the air, using only one of its formidable rotating propellers. After the action, the crew and passengers/observers dropped in on Chinas Hainan Island resort for some much deserved R&R as guests of the Chinese government.

reprinted from the Taiwan daily Gazette by staff writer, One wing Lo

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: sledge
Date: 13 Apr 01 - 09:07 AM

Kendall,

Thanks for setting it out so that even I could understand it.LOL

:)

Stuart

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: kendall
Date: 13 Apr 01 - 12:04 PM

No charge!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 13 Apr 01 - 04:47 PM

It was interesting to note that the Washington Post (a liberal paper) and the Washington Times (conservative), as well as Newsweek (liberal) and Time (conservative), all agreed that Bush made his bones on this one, by using his first statements to calm the right wing hawks, then using the diplomats of the State department to work the crisis.

The articles point out that Bush used similar techniques during the Florida situation. Recently the Post published a five day series on the Florida election runout, and frankly, Bush is given a lot of personal credit by a newspaper that hates him.

When asked to choose the legal strategy that will ultimately determine the election, he picks one that only one lawyer out of some twenty recommends; the unconstitutionality of the recount, and lo and behold, it was the winner. Al Gore on the other hand is depicted as swinging back and forth while becoming convinced that the Hispanic politicians in Miami are out to get him, and ends up calling them traitors.

Say what you will, at least we're not paying for a baby food factory that we bombed during a presidential blow-job.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: DougR
Date: 13 Apr 01 - 07:07 PM

Kendall, that reprint is hilarous! DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: kendall
Date: 13 Apr 01 - 07:23 PM

Hey Claymore, lets not forget when the Actor had Kaddafis child bombed.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: MAV
Date: 13 Apr 01 - 08:24 PM

Dear Mousie,

Truth of the matter, MAV, is that you really don't know what I believe. I tried to tell you this once but you rudely told me I was wrong

No, (I'm sorry) I told you I knew what you felt.(I know how you're feeling about this comment).

I believe what I believe on a number of issues. On some things I am considered by those left-of-center to be a flaming Fascist.

As far as we (American conservatives)are concerned, fascist, marxist, stalinist, whatever, all authoritarianism is the domain of the left.

On others I am considered by those right-of-center to be a marxist, or worse

Like I said, all authoritarianism is of the left.

In fact I don't believe in the platform of any party in this country, nor am I a member of any party. I don't march to any party line

Well ain't you sumthin'. You may have a few patriotic brain cells, but my guess is that you are waaaaaay over there <-!!!!

Well, I know what my principles are and they are always the same. By now I should think you would know too.

Your use of the term "us" here makes me think you do

Yeah, I guess you could say I'm pro-life libertarian-type Republican(I'm sorry)

We can both play the "imagine YOU telling someone they're being rude!" game until the cows came home. Fact is you have alienated a huge number of people on this list by your brusque manner and rudeness

Look, except in my salutations, calling you specifically Thief, Ratnapper, Abductor of diseased laboratory rodents and other silly tortured versions of your screen name, I HAVE NOT CALLED YOU OR ANYONE ELSE, A MORON, IDIOT OR ANY VULGAR NAME OR USED "SCATOLOGICAL" REFERENCES LIKE YOU HAVE!

If those people have been bashing conservatives they deserve to be "alienated", if they are self professed enemies of the Constitution....I'm sorry.

I'm so sorry I call it like I see it and if referring to political activist groups in terms which may be less than flattering...TOO BLEEPING BAD!......GET OVER IT!

How do you explain all the PMs I've gotten from people thanking me for standing up for them and defending their point of view??????(sorry)

I have not. In the few cases where I really got under somebody's collar, I have done what I could to find out where I goofed up, and apologized

Oh, really? What do you think is the reason for my coming here in the first place? The (fascist) demonization and vilification of conservatives and their ideology (as though they don't have the right to live) was going on long before I got here and still is.(sorry for living)

On the other hand I have given up ever expecting you to apologize for the things you have done which I found unspeakably rude and offensive

If I speak my mind you will surely find everything I (and many other conservatives) say to be offensive. That indicates to me I'm right on target.

even though I have pointed them out and asked for an apology

You and I both agree the Chinese don't deserve an apology. I submit to you in kind that it is you who should be apologizing to me and others for your nefarious namecalling, perpetual putdowns and (sorry) cocky condescension.

You continue to be rude to me at every turn, even in threads where you are talking about treating me with respect and expecting the same in return and all that rot. Apparently a leopard CAN'T change its spots. Don't expect me to hold my heart in my hands waiting for you to be nice. I wipe my feet.

OH QUIT YOUR BLEEPING WHINING!!!.........GOOD GRIEF!!!

You don't deserve an apology. You're a vulgar, petty little man (I assume). You can dish it out but you can't take it. Can you???

It is not a "spy plane" and it drives me nuts when the press has been calling it such. If they can't tell the difference between spying and surveillance, they should get jobs at the local Cinemaplex or something.

What?

Which word here is bothering you?

NONE!...The fact that YOU wrote them at all leaves me speechless.

I could define them all for you, but that's a horrible waste of time for me, and quite dull. I suggest you go to an online dictionary like www.m-w.com and look them up yourself

ad hominem suggesting my stupidity (sorry for all stupidity).

"HUH?"

These words are even smaller. Where did you go to school?

Nebraska. Do you want to demonize the whole state? (no blue spots there incidently)

Oh, by the way, I stand corrected; I had somewhere picked up the idea it was 23 men and 1 woman, whereas it was 21 men and 3 women. Thus the above should read "boys and girls"

Whatever, I think "heroic men and women" would be more appropriate.

If we have any wild space left in this country in 4 years, it certainly won't be because Bush hasn't tried to (allow his Corporate sponsors to) rape, pave, or drill it.

"Looks like most of the raping and drilling in the last eight years has been in the White House"(that was a good one you have to admit)

Again your usual (boring) tactic of not answering the issue, but dragging in something totally unrelated

Ok, I'll address your stupid comments, not that you are stupid , just the premise of your multiple negative stupid (sorry) incorrect assertions (lies) that:

A.Bush was supported mostly by big business.
You can look at his full disclosure on the internet and see that his support came mostly from private individuals averaging around $500.

B. He plans to destroy the interior of the US.

If we as a nation demand a certain level of energy consumption, then we should be willing to obtain it from our own resources in the newest cleanest technology methods available to us. The hypocrisy of letting third world, lower tech. nations ruin their environment (out of sight, out of mind) for our benefit is just unfathomable. Besides, many of them hate our guts, they can keep their oil.

Most of your environmental damage comes not from drilling and pipelines, but from the environmentalist's favorite vehicle...SUPERTANKERS

We will have an energy policy soon, something we have not had for at least eight years.

Apparently my going through your posts point-by-point impresses you (you said I was getting less offensive and more argumentative)

Well yeah. It sure beats your backstabbing me while posting to another mudcatter.

but it's all the same old shinola so it hardly seems worth the time to go through it point-by-point

Well maybe you should check the chronological sequence of the posts, perhaps I felt more generous as the evening went on. I still don't like being called names.

Still, if that's what it takes, I'll do my part

Good, at least that way we can engage in the same manner as skeptic and I do.

You arch-conservatives are too funny. You want to lump everybody to your left into a huge cesspool, and complain if we don't give your side any credit, while all the while not giving our side any credit at all

You put yourselves in that "cesspool" when you defended the perjurous pervert (complete with Larry Flynt)

Give them credit for what? I have said the democrats' environmental progress in clean rivers and air was commendable. Are you saying all Republicans always voted against every enviro-bill?

The main reason cLINTON got good job approval poll numbers was because he signed GOP initiatives and took credit for it. (The Contract With America etc.)

The only thing the lefties have done in the last eight years is drag their feet and "practice the politics of personal destruction". Oh yeah, the democRATS defended the criminal x42 to the very end where he DEFECATED on them ONE LAST TIME!

saying asinine things like "anything the democrats do must be wrong."

Well, given that they've been in power for the last 40 years, consider that they caused the power shortage mess in California and that our petroleum production and refining capability is largely dependent on offshore facilities thanks to them. We are totally vulnerable in this respect.

Jesse, Maxine and Queasey (all democRATs) get a big thank you for the race baiting mess in Cincinatti and other cities in the upcoming hot horro-summer.

The fact that the schools are not producing intelligent students despite the zillions of dollars thrown at them and the amount stolen by the Dept of Education (a Carter {notice I capitalized it} giveaway to the teacher's unions)

The current cLINTON Recession, which can be largely attributed to the cLINTON administration's unrelenting attack on the private sector (MS etc).

The sale of the complete nuclear top secret and missile launching and guidance technology, advancing COMMUNIST China 35 years beyond where they were just eight short years ago, coupled with cLINTON and algor both taking money from your buddies Red China.

I can go on, I KNOW HOW YOU FEEL so I won't(sorry).

So much so that when we (the people to your left)

AHA!!! WE????? GOTCHA!!!!!!

The term "democRAT" is only a shroud, a catch-all title for all the LSCs and other thinly veiled anti-Constitutional and anti-family groups reveling in the freedom they would deny others and completely destroy if left unchecked.

(when we) agree with you on ANYTHING it takes your vocabulary away

Yeah, I have to admit that it does, but I could get used to it(see tax cut).

We're obviously not as narrow-minded as you are

There you go again with another attack. Our believing in the Constitutionally LIMITED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT does not make us narrow minded, just able to read the founding documents

Bonus question: How many Democrats broke ranks in the last vote in the Senate?

Assuming you're talking about the Tax Cut vote, I don't know, quite a few I guess.

How many Republicans?

Probably 3, Jeffords, Chaffee and Specter. I'd rather have Jiang, Castro and Gorbechev than those three (sorry)bastards, see what you can do for us.

Answer: far more D's than R's. Who's following the party line?

Thank God we are, it's about time. If we can't agree on this one we might as well just kill ourselves.

Who has marching orders?

Well, "The Boss" DID run on a tax cut, what the hell do you expect?

Bush's getting anything passed in a 50-50 Senate is proof positive that the Democrats are less party-conscious than the Republicans. Spin that.

I don't spin, we don't have to lie and I resent your implication that W does. Just because your side does it with impunity doesn't mean "everyone does it" (one of your childish self justifying tenents).

What "Bush's getting anything passed in a 50-50 Senate" demonstrates; is that despite his detractors, the GOP lieberals (including the above, Snowe and Collins) the democRATs realize the cLINTON legacy is the loss of both houses of Congress, the Presidency and a majority of state governments.(sorry)

It also bears out the truth of Robert Reich's assertion that "THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS DEAD!...bereft of ideas.

The congressional democRATs can read the opinion polls too, realizing that the GOP is offering the public what they want. They know that if they want to get re-elected, they had better "get with the program".

I can see why you would distance yourself from the discredited democRATs because you know I'm right about corrupt criminal cLINTON and the memory of the house democRATs defending him tooth and nail, refusing to view evidence, fingers in ears going NA, NA, NA, just so they wouldn't have to hear the truth, standing on the White House lawn after impeachment....well, you know I get it.

YOU HAVE NO WHERE ELSE TO GO!!!

If you are a Naderite, thanks for the help.

If you are a Brigadeer, thanks for the help.

If you want to be buddies, stop calling names. We'll probably never agree , but Hey!...this is the USA!

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: mousethief
Date: 13 Apr 01 - 09:00 PM

No, (I'm sorry) I told you I knew what you felt.(I know how you're feeling about this comment).

No, you don't. And it is rude to suggest you do.

As far as we (American conservatives)are concerned, fascist, marxist, stalinist, whatever, all authoritarianism is the domain of the left.

Of course, because you can't see anything negative on the right, so if it's bad, it must be on the left. Makes perfect sense, from a blinders-on point of view, such as you have shown yourself to have on this forum.

In fact I don't believe in the platform of any party in this country, nor am I a member of any party. I don't march to any party line

Well ain't you sumthin'. You may have a few patriotic brain cells, but my guess is that you are waaaaaay over there <-!!!!

The wise do not speak where they are ignorant.

Your use of the term "us" here makes me think you do

Yeah, I guess you could say I'm pro-life libertarian-type Republican(I'm sorry)

I'd rather you were a thinker. But it's your choice.

Look, except in my salutations, calling you specifically Thief, Ratnapper, Abductor of diseased laboratory rodents and other silly tortured versions of your screen name, I HAVE NOT CALLED YOU OR ANYONE ELSE, A MORON, IDIOT OR ANY VULGAR NAME OR USED "SCATOLOGICAL" REFERENCES LIKE YOU HAVE!

Yes, and I still seem to have more people rooting for me. Fact is, and listen closely, you can be rude, and nasty, and completely obnoxious WITHOUT EVER USING SUCH WORDS. The fact that somebody uses such words may mean they're just easily excitable (guilty as charged). You appear to be pretty cool-headed. Oh well, guess you got the better genes. Congratulations. That and $4 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbuck's.

If those people have been bashing conservatives they deserve to be "alienated", if they are self professed enemies of the Constitution....I'm sorry.

We have absolutely NO self-professed enemies of the constitution on Mudcat. Unless you're using "self-professed" to mean something other than what it literally means (e.g. it's obvious they're enemies of the contitution from the positions they hold, even if they didn't really say "I am an enemy of the constitution").

I'll have to finish this later; time to go to church.

ciao for now,

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: Big Mick
Date: 13 Apr 01 - 09:03 PM

I know I fly off from time to time, but you guys are fecking ridiculous. GET A FECKING ROOM AND GIVE US A BREAK!!!

Rant over. Use the personal messages to carry it on, the rest of us are bored.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: Margo
Date: 13 Apr 01 - 10:27 PM

I got this via email and enjoyed it very much...

AMERICAN APOLOGY TO THE CHINESE
Dear China,

We're sorry that you don't train your fighter pilots better. As a token of our apology, here's a copy of Microsoft Flight Simulator 2000. (Please take note of the Copyright )

We're sorry that you're front-line fighter planes can't outmaneuver a 35 year old prop-driven airliner. Perhaps you'd like to consider purchasing some surplus 1950's era Lockheed Starfighters from Taiwan. (We just replaced all theirs with shiny new F-16's)

We're sorry that you believe your territorial waters extend all the way to Australia. For future reference, here's an American 6th grade geography textbook. (Please take note of the Copyright information printed inside the cover.)

We're sorry that you can't seem to see your part of this incident. We know that it may seem easier to blame others than to take responsibility. Consider this fact while we build several new Aegis destroyers for our friends in the Republic of China (Taiwan).

We're especially sorry for treating you with such respect for the last 20 years. We will definitely rethink this policy and probably go back to treating you like a common, untrustworthy street gang very soon.

We're very sorry for ever granting you Most-Favored-Nation trading status and supporting your entrance into the World Trade Organization. This will be rectified at the soonest possible opportunity.

Yeah, sorry!!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: Sorcha
Date: 13 Apr 01 - 10:35 PM

Credit is only given where credit is due. Whatever the US gov't did, Shrubya did not think it up. He simply couldn't have. At least the kids are coming home alive.

Since MAV is in here, I am out of here.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: MAV
Date: 13 Apr 01 - 10:44 PM

Dear Mick,

Use the personal messages to carry it on, the rest of us are bored

If you have nothing to contribute to a political discussion I can see why you would be bored.

There seems to be about a hundred other threads dealing with everything under the sun EXCEPT POLITICS.

Perhaps in your boredom you could even start your own.

I think we try to confine ourselves to one or two.

OK?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: Big Mick
Date: 13 Apr 01 - 11:40 PM

Well, MAV old boy, you are right. I am probably out of my depth in a political discussion. I probably don't have your breadth and depth of experience in these matters. Forgive me for dipping in something for which I am ill suited. But even in my simple, happy condition, I can recognize an idiot. Maybe it takes one to know one. Play on, children and us simps will leave you to it.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: kendall
Date: 14 Apr 01 - 07:03 AM

I must give the devil his due. Bush did something right, he appointed Colin Powell. When FDR took office, he did not have a clue how to deal with the depression. What he did know, was to call in a gang of people who DID know.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: Naemanson
Date: 14 Apr 01 - 08:47 AM

This is very interesting and I am probably going to regret this but what the hell...

MAV wrote: "As far as we (American conservatives)are concerned, fascist, marxist, stalinist, whatever, all authoritarianism is the domain of the left."

Well, actually, the fascists and the Nazi's were conservative movements. The communists were radicals and liberal at the beginning but once they had their hands on the controls they became very conservative. How you sort that one out is subject to interpretation.

"Like I said, all authoritarianism is of the left."

Except when it comes to telling women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.

At one point the Clinton campaign came up in the discussion and there was a comment about Clinton signing the GOP initiatives. Well, that is the truth, kinda. He was fulfilling a campaign promise. Think way back to 1992. His major campaign promise was to break the deadlock in Congress and get the Government working again. And he did it. He took the GOP agenda as his own, humanized it and got it passed. Then the GOP decided they needed to hate him and blew the Whitewater thing all out of proportion and jumped on Monica (sorry, I couldn't resist the pun), and the rest is history. The Republican side is still ravening after the Clintons proving that they are a party of hate and unable to forget and forgive. The result of 8 years of the Clinton administration (if any party can take credit for the economy) has been the best and strongest economy in years. I believe the economy started to slump when the reality of either Gore or Bush coming into the White House hit home. Or maybe it was a matter of just being cautious.

MAV wrote: "If those people have been bashing conservatives they deserve to be "alienated", if they are self professed enemies of the Constitution....I'm sorry."

But the Republicans are the only party that has repeatedly shown itself to be an enemy of the Constitution. Remember that our president and the members of congress swear an oath to uphold The Constitution. They do not swear to support the president or any other institution. Yet Nixon and Reagan both took active steps to avoid constitutional restrictions, bending and even breaking the checks placed on the office of the president.

Democrats, on the other hand believe in the freedoms granted to the people of this country, upholding the spirit and the letter of the basis of all law in this land.

Sure there are individuals on one side or the other who screw up and let their personal foibles get in the way of their oath. Unfortunately the Republican party seems to be made up of people who march, in lock step, to the drums beaten by their leaders. As a result that magnifies the mistake of the leader.

The Democrats seem to be willing to question their leaders and argue with them. That is why they seem to be "rolling over" in the face of the Republican party these days. The Democrats have never been able to agree and come up with a consensus.

Now then, MAV, before we end up rolling on the ground, tearing at each other, let's agree on a basic principle in any argument. Only attack the arguments. Do not attack your opponent. I have tried very hard in the above paragraphs to keep the statements pointed at the Republican party in general. The degree to which you take them personally is up to you BUT THEY ARE NOT INTENDED AS A PERSONAL ATTACK.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: kendall
Date: 14 Apr 01 - 10:53 AM

BRAVO!!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: mousethief
Date: 14 Apr 01 - 11:45 AM

Sorcha, if someone is forcing you to read this thread, I'm very sorry. If not, maybe you shouldn't. Just a thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: mousethief
Date: 14 Apr 01 - 12:23 PM

Continuing where we left off....

I'm so sorry I call it like I see it and if referring to political activist groups in terms which may be less than flattering...TOO BLEEPING BAD!......GET OVER IT!

In other words you have no wish to be civil. Just checking.

How do you explain all the PMs I've gotten from people thanking me for standing up for them and defending their point of view??????(sorry)

You have changed the subject. I wasn't talking about your point of view, but your method of stating and defending it. It's a form-versus-content thing. They clearly (from your above comment) were responding to your CONTENT, but not necessarily to your FORM. It may be that they also said "but I wish you could be more polite" and you failed to pass that point along. It could be that they don't care how rude you are as long as their POV is being aired. Or it could be that they enjoy nastiness on behalf of their cause as much as you seem to.

What do you think is the reason for my coming here in the first place? The (fascist) demonization and vilification of conservatives and their ideology (as though they don't have the right to live) was going on long before I got here and still is.(sorry for living)

So? Again, we were talking about FORM and not CONTENT. You can and should defend your POV, and more power to you. You ought not to be rude or unnecessarily offensive or otherwise unpleasant while doing so.

I submit to you that it is you who should be apologizing to me and others for your nefarious namecalling, perpetual putdowns and (sorry) cocky condescension.

I have, and do, and will. You don't, and haven't, and presumably won't apologize for your rudeness, arrogant assumption of knowledge of others' internal states, and any other number of offenses against human kindness.

OH QUIT YOUR BLEEPING WHINING!!!.........GOOD GRIEF!!!

Let me make sure I have you correctly. If you are upset because I call you a name, that's NOT whining, but if I am upset by your incessant rudness, that IS whining. Just checking.

You don't deserve an apology. You're a vulgar, petty little man (I assume).

There he is, ladies and gentlemen, in all his finest array. This is how the honorable gentleman MAV treats other human beings. Take note. You may be next.

You can dish it out but you can't take it. Can you???

You started the dishing. I responded in kind (of course I shouldn't have), and you flew off the handle. Who can dish it out but can't take it?

It is not a "spy plane"

What?

Which word here is bothering you?

NONE!...The fact that YOU wrote them at all leaves me speechless.

Which could only be the case if you arrogantly assumed you knew what I thought about this subject. The prosecution rests.

ad hominem suggesting my stupidity (sorry for all stupidity).

As I pointed out in another thread, improper use of "ad hominem."

And who needs to suggest anything? You convict yourself every time you pull one of your little stunts.

Oh, by the way, I stand corrected; I had somewhere picked up the idea it was 23 men and 1 woman, whereas it was 21 men and 3 women. Thus the above should read "boys and girls"

Whatever, I think "heroic men and women" would be more appropriate.

Apparently you are unaware of the long, time-honored custom of calling servicemen "boys" in this country.

Ok, I'll address your stupid comments, not that you are stupid , just the premise of your multiple negative stupid (sorry) incorrect assertions (lies) that:

Um, saying "sorry" immediately after being rude is hardly polite. You were better off just being your usual self than trying to look like you're being polite when it rather makes you look even more unpleasant.

Bush was supported mostly by big business. You can look at his full disclosure on the internet and see that his support came mostly from private individuals averaging around $500.

This proves nothing. Who were they? What do they support? How will they want him to behave in office?

If we as a nation demand a certain level of energy consumption, then we should be willing to obtain it from our own resources in the newest cleanest technology methods available to us.

Is this why he cut funding for alternative energy research-and-development? His actions and your words here don't add up.

Most of your environmental damage comes not from drilling and pipelines, but from the environmentalist's favorite vehicle...SUPERTANKERS

I have never met an environmentalist who liked supertankers. You are hanging out with some rather twisted environmentalists.

I still don't like being called names.

Then don't do it to others, and it will be far less likely to happen to you. We were having a fairly name-free political discussion, with the conservative POV being ably represented by DougR and Troll and other Mudcat oldtimers, before you arrived. Your arrival marked the beginning of the real name-calling, because you started doing it as soon as you got here. For you to whine now about being called names is a little --what's the right word?-- disingenuous? At the very least if you were to treat others the way you wish to be treated, you might have the moral standing to complain.

You put yourselves in that "cesspool" when you defended the perjurous pervert (complete with Larry Flynt)

I defended Clinton? When was that?

The main reason cLINTON got good job approval poll numbers was because he signed GOP initiatives and took credit for it. (The Contract With America etc.)

Ah, bipartisanship at its best. Wasn't it nice while it lasted? I thought so, anyway.

saying asinine things like "anything the democrats do must be wrong."

Well, given that they've been in power for the last 40 years,

You seem to forget that we have a 3-ring government, and that controlling the legislature is not equivalent to being in power, the way it would be in a parliamentary system.

The fact that the schools are not producing intelligent students despite the zillions of dollars thrown at them and the amount stolen by the Dept of Education (a Carter {notice I capitalized it} giveaway to the teacher's unions)

Nicely capitalized.

The schools are forced to do a thousand and one federally-mandated things, but without federally-supplied funding. Case in point: IDEA. That they might be having a hard time of it, especially with taxophobic "I don't have any kids in school why should I pay for them?" Republican local politics coming into play, is hardly surprising.

Note that I think property taxes are abhorrent. The only tax I would have, if I ran the zoo, is income tax. Heavily progressive, of course.

The current cLINTON Recession, which can be largely attributed to the cLINTON administration's unrelenting attack on the private sector (MS etc).

Gee, Clinton didn't create anti-monopoly laws. If MS broke them, and Clinton enforced them, more power to him.

We're obviously not as narrow-minded as you are

There you go again with another attack.

No attack about it. Comparing two different groups of people vis-a-vis one certain property, and determining which of them has it to a greater extent. Obviously you can call people RATS and other unplesantries and that's okay, but if I make an observation, based on facts I bring up, then it's an attack. I fear I don't see the parity here.

Our believing in the Constitutionally LIMITED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT does not make us narrow minded, just able to read the founding documents

We were talking about the limitations on the federal government? I thought we were talking about the ability of one side to see good in the other. Here you have once again changed the subject. Wonder I'm not getting dizzy.

Who's following the party line?

Thank God we are, it's about time. If we can't agree on this one we might as well just kill ourselves.

I thought following the party line was bad, evil, and otherwise ungood? You've flipped your flop. You're becoming a Clinton.

Who has marching orders?

Well, "The Boss" DID run on a tax cut, what the hell do you expect?

Again, "marching orders" followed by Republicans are okay, "marching orders" followed by Democrats are evil. You still aren't really THINKING, but just judging the issues by a "we good -- you bad" template.

Bush's getting anything passed in a 50-50 Senate is proof positive that the Democrats are less party-conscious than the Republicans. Spin that.

I don't spin, we don't have to lie and I resent your implication that W does.

All politicians lie. Get over it. Sheesh.

Just because your side does it with impunity doesn't mean "everyone does it" (one of your childish self justifying tenents).

Self-justifying? I don't lie. This makes no sense at all.

What "Bush's getting anything passed in a 50-50 Senate" demonstrates; is that despite his detractors, the GOP lieberals (including the above, Snowe and Collins) the democRATs realize the cLINTON legacy is the loss of both houses of Congress, the Presidency and a majority of state governments.(sorry)

Ah. So if democrats follow "marching orders" they're evil, and if they break ranks, it's because they realize they're evil (or have been in the past). Again, you're not really thinking.

I can see why you would distance yourself from the discredited democRATs because you know I'm right about corrupt criminal cLINTON and the memory of the house democRATs defending him tooth and nail, refusing to view evidence, fingers in ears going NA, NA, NA, just so they wouldn't have to hear the truth, standing on the White House lawn after impeachment....well, you know I get it.

I distance myself from both parties because neither are interested in serving ME, and neither have my vision of what is best for this country. Again, you only make yourself look a fool when you try to read others' minds.

YOU HAVE NO WHERE ELSE TO GO!!!

Why go anywhere? I am not moving. I was not a Republicrat before this election, and will not be a Republicrat after Bush is a bitter and ugly yet distant memory.

alex

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: MAV
Date: 14 Apr 01 - 07:32 PM

Naemanson,

Well, actually, the fascists and the Nazi's were conservative movements

You mean they were strict followers of the US Constitution?

Except when it comes to telling women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies

All I'm saying is it should be an individual state decision. Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution and R v.Wade should be reversed.

Yet Nixon and Reagan both took active steps to avoid constitutional restrictions, bending and even breaking the checks placed on the office of the president

Nixon resigned and we helped him pack. He did nothing compared to the hatchet job cLINTON did. At least he had the dignity to resign.

What did Reagan do to violate the Constitution?

Democrats, on the other hand believe in the freedoms granted to the people of this country, upholding the spirit and the letter of the basis of all law in this land

Yeah they do, except for one thing....

FREEDOM ISN'T GRANTED TO THE PEOPLE

People give permission to the state to regulate them.

Democrats believe that government is the answer to every problem. They want you be dependent on them for your every need and to have you shirk responsibility for your own needs and actions.

They don't give a damn about law and order and love protecting a criminal's rights over yours.

Your own Maine speaker of the House said "I don't give a damn what it says in the Constitution".

This is really representative of spirit and letter, ya think?

the Republican party seems to be made up of people who march, in lock step, to the drums beaten by their leaders

You're kidding right? Ever heard of "The Big Tent"? This implies we can include everything from Bible thumpers to murder/borts.

We have "Country Club Republicans", "Christian Conservatives", "Social Conservatives", "Fiscal Conservatives", "Moderates (Liberals)", "RINOs", "Libertarians" etc.

Are you telling me there is no difference between Christine Ron Paul, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Christine Todd Whitman and John Ashcroft?

We argue about everything all the time, and I say the tent is too damn big.

The Democrats seem to be willing to question their leaders and argue with them. That is why they seem to be "rolling over" in the face of the Republican party these days. The Democrats have never been able to agree and come up with a consensus

I think you have it backwards. I know several defectors (elected) who have told me the reason they left the democrat party was because of the forceful coersion in the House. If you did not vote as told, there would be no committee assignments for you and you would be opposed in a primary in your next election.

Now then, MAV, before we end up rolling on the ground, tearing at each other, let's agree on a basic principle in any argument. Only attack the arguments. Do not attack your opponent. I have tried very hard in the above paragraphs to keep the statements pointed at the Republican party in general. The degree to which you take them personally is up to you BUT THEY ARE NOT INTENDED AS A PERSONAL ATTACK.

Geeesh, take it easy. I'm not going to attack you.

I think you've seen my complaints referring to vulgarities and fecal comparisons.....You haven't done anything like that

I've heard you are a very nice guy.

I'd rather have you as an arguing buddy, not an enemy.

regards,

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: Naemanson
Date: 14 Apr 01 - 07:43 PM

Arguing buddy is fine with me. I am processing your rebuttal and will get back to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: MAV
Date: 14 Apr 01 - 08:37 PM

Hey Mouse,

I think we broke the html thingies. I noticed both yours and my posts bold and italics are wierding out.

Well, I know mine are not doing what I put in there.

Look, we disagree and have different styles, I don't like being called names and you don't like being power insulted.

I have, and do, and will. You don't, and haven't, and presumably won't apologize for your rudeness, arrogant assumption of knowledge of others' internal states

Ok, we'll call a truce.

and any other number of offenses against human kindness

Let's not get crazy here. I don't remember doing that.

I will cease and desist

You are none of the things I allegedly called you.

You however need to reciprocate and tell me what I did call you.

I do, however, intend to continue debating with you unless you insist on posting things I agree with, which really p!$$e$ me off.

Alright, back to work Ralph.

This proves nothing. Who were they? What do they support? How will they want him to behave in office?

They are Republican voters solicited for hard money contributions from all over the US. The fact that they gave him money shows that they agreed with his campaign positions which were published in paperback form.

Um, saying "sorry" immediately after being rude is hardly polite

I was trying to use that "apology" trick that worked on the Chinese...didn't fool you huh?

Who's following the party line?

We don't have a history of it. We don't have a party of conservatives as I tried to point out to Naemonson.

I think it's a miracle when it does happen.

The democrats have diversity, but very few or no conservatives among their ranks. If they are there, you'll never know about it.(except of course Traficant)

All politicians lie

Please don't paint things with the broad brush. That can't be a true statement.

They may not paint PRO-LIFE on their foreheads, but not vomiting their every personal belief on the often dispassionate voters is not lying.

I defended Clinton? When was that?

Well, you identified yourself with the left. The democrats are most of the left. There's the Green Party and a few others, but the democrats pretty much saturated with those on the left.

Nicely capitalized.

Thank you. (go ahead and say it)

If MS broke them, and Clinton enforced them, more power to him

That's a big "if", I think the government schools and post office fit the "monopoly" moniker much better.

The schools are forced to do a thousand and one federally-mandated things, but without federally-supplied funding.

An excellent argument against the Dept of Ed.

Note that I think property taxes are abhorrent

There you go again...stating something I agree with....stop it now.

The only tax I would have, if I ran the zoo, is income tax. Heavily progressive, of course

Well that's more like it. I have two much better ideas on taxation. Would you like to argue them?

I was not a Republicrat before this election

Sounds kinda Libertarian in here at the moment.

Your turn

mav out

PS. If you don't tell me what I allegedly called you, I will go back to calling you that.(if I can figure out what it was).

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: mousethief
Date: 14 Apr 01 - 08:50 PM

Again, Mav, you have this bleary-eyed notion that the only way to raise hackles or be rude is by using vulgarities. Which conveniently lets you off the hook because your favorite way of being nasty doesn't involve same.

But if you want specifics, somebody posting with your login did call me a vulgar, petty little man

I certainly am vulgar, but I am neither petty nor little. But even being true doesn't justify rudeness.

the democrats pretty much saturated with those on the left

This clause makes no sense to me. Did you leave out a verb? Anyway, there are LOTS of people on the left who aren't Democrats. They're INDEPENDENT. Because, like me, they don't feel "represented" by either of the big parties.

Oh, you also called my grandfather a thug. For which I shall not forgive you (unless of course you ask for it).

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: MAV
Date: 14 Apr 01 - 08:52 PM

Whidbey Island Naval Base- MAV newswire

This just in......

AIR CREW REPORTS F-8 STRUCK PROP

The crew of the ill fated EP-3 forced down by the communist Chinese having been debriefed are now holding a press conference and answering questions for reporters.

The Pilot Lieutenant Osborn reported that the Chinese fighter jet, in a harrassment manuver, accidentally struck one of the propellers of the slow moving surveillance craft designed in the middle of the last century.

I told you the MOE-RON flew through the propeller!

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: Naemanson
Date: 14 Apr 01 - 11:44 PM

ME: Well, actually, the fascists and the Nazi's were conservative movements MAV: You mean they were strict followers of the US Constitution?

We need to agree on definitions. I think I have a rather different view of conservatives than you. For me the term conservative doesn't apply to a party in the USA but to a way of thinking. I believe conservatives are more focused on the status quo, not rocking the boat, a strict and restrictive interpretation of the rule of law. If we keep our argument strictly within the borders of this country then I would be willing to label parties this way but the topic at the time was political movements overseas. Thus the Nazi's and the fascists were, at the start, conservative movements. Once past their liberal pro labor beginnings and established in power the "communists" became the model for conservative thinking.

ME: Except when it comes to telling women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies MAV: All I'm saying is it should be an individual state decision. Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution and R v.Wade should be reversed.

Well, here we are once again at cross purposes. I am not talking about what MAV has said. I am talking about the parties. Abortion is a hot button topic and seems to drive to some extent at times, the Republican agenda. We have two completely different views of the topic. For conservatives in the USA abortion is the killing of a person. For the liberals it is a matter of freedom of choice. The two sides will never be reconciled because they are arguing apples and oranges.

MAV: Nixon resigned and we helped him pack. He did nothing compared to the hatchet job cLINTON did. At least he had the dignity to resign. What did Reagan do to violate the Constitution?

Reagan, or maybe it was Bush Sr., authorized the Iran-Contra trade in order to side step the constitutional checks placed on the Presidency. Oliver North, in direct conflict with his oath to protect the Constitution, carried out their orders. I will always believe that Reagan knew what was going on and lied about it when deposed.

I am unaware of anything that Clinton did that violated the Constitutional limits of his office. There is no law against having sex in the White House. Lying about it was poor judgment and showed a decided lack of character but it wasn't against the law. He may have violated the civil rights of the other women but nothing has been proven yet and the law of the land is that he is innocent until proven guilty. His actions have offended a large number of people in this country but not enough to give GB Jr. a sweeping mandate to do what he wants with the office to clean up the actions of his predecessor.

ME: Democrats, on the other hand believe in the freedoms granted to the people of this country, upholding the spirit and the letter of the basis of all law in this land MAV: Yeah they do, except for one thing.... FREEDOM ISN'T GRANTED TO THE PEOPLE

Well, I would argue that one. I have worked as an immigration officer and I know that the Constitution grants certain rights to each person in the United States. That is the way it is worded. There are no words in the Constitution about those freedoms belonging to citizens. If a person can set foot on this land s/he is instantly accorded full protection under the Constitution. With that comes all the rights we take for granted.

As far as "People give permission to the state to regulate them." I didn't vote for ratification of the Constitution. I didn't have anything to do with the creation of this State. I was born here and at my birth I was granted certain unalienable rights. Eisenhower didn't give me those and I didn't go looking for them (though I have defended them). But Thomas Jefferson through the Constitution granted me those rights.

Look to foreign lands where the people are oppressed. Have those people given their permission to their governments to torture them in prison cells and shoot them at midnight? No! And if they manage to throw off the yoke of oppression and settle the mantle of democracy about their shoulders they will have granted freedom to their descendants through their actions.

"Democrats believe that government is the answer to every problem. They want you be dependent on them for your every need and to have you shirk responsibility for your own needs and actions."

I work for the Government and I KNOW it isn't the answer. But we already tried working without the Government regulating things and it was a dismal failure. Look at the lives of the common folk through the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th Centuries. Look at how people suffered during the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl Years. There was nobody to support them.

"They don't give a damn about law and order and love protecting a criminal's rights over yours."

I sometimes have a problem with this too when I see a criminal walking free while his victim's family still suffers. But that is the price for our system of Government. If he has served the sentence for his crime then he has paid the price and the score has been settled. It may not seem so to the victim or that family but that is the case.

Now it is possible you are talking about the restrictions placed on police in their investigations. Please remember that we are, each of us, assumed innocent until proven guilty. Thus the full protection of the Constitution hangs over us and must be enforced. Nothing should be done to the suspect that is a violation of the Constitution. As you have already stated that would be abhorrent to conservatives. So what is the problem?

MAV: Your own Maine speaker of the House said "I don't give a damn what it says in the Constitution".

Yeah, we all have our crosses to bear.

Me: "the Republican party seems to be made up of people who march, in lock step, to the drums beaten by their leaders"

I'm gonna have to stand by that statement based on my experience with the conservatives I have worked with (a lot of them) and the actions in Congress.

There is a reason why the Republican party is so popular with the military. It is because it is a party that knows the meaning of leadership and loyalty (paraphrasing various politicians during various campaigns). It is because the military members don't have to worry about who is truly in charge and because the conservatives brook no nonsense. No questions are allowed. Every man is expected to do his duty.

And in Congress, where you can pretty much expect votes to fall out along party lines, crossing over to vote against the party line is generally not seen in the Republican party, But it happens all the time for the Democrats. "Question Authority" is a Democrat's slogan but could never be used by a Republican.

My other big problem with conservatives in general but not specific or focused on them alone is that they seem to be creating another aristocracy in this country. We fought a protracted and bloody revolution to get rid of one set of aristocrats and now we have more. Generally I have noticed that it is the conservatives that are impressed with high office and money. We seem to have lost the idea that the president is just the human being we have hired to do a job. He is not a god. He is not a king. We do not have to kow-tow to him because he is in the room.

But that is my own rant and not one I am necessarily blaming your side on. People in general (liberals and conservatives) seem to need to depend on a leader. Ugh!

MAV: I've heard you are a very nice guy.

Hmmm, who's been talking behind my back? Have you heard of the stamp collector who met a beautiful girl. He looked her up and down and said, "You are more beautiful than any stamp in my collection." She replied, "Philately will get you nowhere." *BG*

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: Naemanson
Date: 15 Apr 01 - 08:17 AM

I need to do this thing when I am wide awake. I just re-read my post and realized it doesn't quite make sense in some places.

"I believe conservatives are more focused on the status quo, not rocking the boat, a strict and restrictive interpretation of the rule of law."

That is a limited version of my definition. Conservatives, in my mind, tend to concentrate too much on patriotic fervor. Thus, the Nazi's were outraged at what Germany had become after WWI. They focused on "improving" their country using nationalism as the rallying call. Fascists too were overly concerned with "protecting" their countries. Communists too, worked to maintain the status quo once they were in charge.

In this country conservatives are also horrified at how this country has changed and are rallying to protect it. There is no way to convince them that the changes are for the better (and I know some of those changes aren't). Our conservatives also use nationalism as the rallying call. Anyone who disagrees is not a patriot.

I'm getting off track. My intention with this is to clearly define my view of conservatism using positive words, I've used plenty of negative words in the past but those do not belong here.

So, my picture of a conservative is a person who finds fault with any easing of restrictions on the people, cannot abide what he sees as laziness, longs for the good old days (hazily defined as the '50's), expects to see respect paid to authority, focuses much of his life on the pursuit of financial gain (seeing that as the ultimate definition of "success"), expects people to toe the line, is generally religious but not spiritual, expects others to agree with his views and brooks no argument, and generally (and here I speak from experience) is prejudiced against most non white races. I repeat, this is MY picture.

You are welcome to be a conservative who does not fit some or many of these points. Many conservatives do not necessarily fit into this mold. But this is the way I see them based on years of exposure.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 15 Apr 01 - 11:34 AM

To those who smugly scorn China's relative poverty (eg a spoof apology that China is a third-world economy, another apology for America taking China seriously for the past 20 years), and who think a solution is to boycott Chinese exports:

In my own travelling in the states (California, Oregon, Illinois, Alaska) I was sometimes in stores where it was impossible to find goods that had not been made in China. In other words, cheap Chinese labour is funding the American way of life. I am delighted that this is so. It means the Chinese economy is expanding at a phenomenal rate, while the US economy is languishing at best. This is good, because in its own tiny way it will help reduce the disparity between a rich nation and a poor nation. And for all that Mousethief and others think America can pull China into line just by exerting economic pressure, it ain't so any more. America's trade with China is massive, and the benefits go both ways. It can't be turned off at will.

Someone questioned the value of apologies by citing (inter alia) British appeasement of Hitler. That line itself is open to question. Although my heart is nearer communism than fascism, I am aware with hindsight that the Soviet Union was not communism, and I am coming to think (again with hindsight) that Britain might have appeased Hitler further, even joining forces with Hitler against the USSR. Under that scenario there would be millions of Jews in Madagascar now, but at least they would not have been gassed. Europe would have been spared much devastation, America would not have become the pre-eminent world power, and would not have reaped the benefit of European science in weapons research etc. And of course, many millions of Russians would not have died at Stalingrad etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: Justa Picker
Date: 15 Apr 01 - 12:53 PM

He should also get credit for being tough on drugs.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: Naemanson
Date: 15 Apr 01 - 01:00 PM

Fionn, you are right. The difficulty is separating the imports for which the Chinese people get paid and those from the Government prison sweat shops.

Fortunately there are civil rights watch dog organizations to watch out for those things.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: kendall
Date: 15 Apr 01 - 01:37 PM

Your concern for the Chinese economy is valid, but, my main concern is for the poor American worker who has a $100,000 mortgage and no job to pay it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: Naemanson
Date: 15 Apr 01 - 03:00 PM

Kendall! You sound like a bush sympathiser... Oh wait a minute, you said WORKER not INVESTOR. My mistake!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please?
From: kendall
Date: 15 Apr 01 - 04:33 PM

In a way, I AM a Bush sympathizer... have alaways had comassion for the handicapped.