BS: Bushwacked - FIVE

Subject: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Skeptic
Date: 05 Feb 01 - 09:32 PM

The old thread is here If I did blue clicky right.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Skeptic
Date: 05 Feb 01 - 09:50 PM

Oh well, the click from BW Four worked anyway.

The corporations are busily working on lobbying for tax cuts. But consider:

According to Citizens for Tax Justice, during the 1950s and '60s, business paid about one-fourth of the taxes. Its share is now down to one-10th. That leaves you-know-who to pay the rest.

You'd think that since we're paying so much of the tax, we'd have more say in governemnt. Silly me.

And to put a little historical spin on it, Regans tax cut proposals originally targeted individuals. But as then Budget Director Stockman commented after the lobbyist got involved ""The hogs were really feeding. The greed level, the level of opportunism just got out of control." Pretty harsh words for a supply-sider.

It'll be interesting to see just how much of a cut all those campaign contributions bought.

Regards

John

Note to mav and friends: Yes, you are being baited.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Skeptic
Date: 05 Feb 01 - 10:07 PM

And this from "Judicial Watch"

Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest law firm that investigates an prosecutes government corruption, said today that the U.S. Senate's unanimous voice vote on January 29th in favor of Ms. Elaine Chao as the Bush Administration's Labor Secretary sends the wrong message to the American public.

Judicial Watch provided each of the senators on the Senate Labor Committee with a letter detailing how Labor Secretary-designate Elaine Chao not only had asked Chinese agent John Huang for campaign contributions for former Senator Alfonse D''Amato, but that her husband, Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), had also received contributions from John Huang and his company, Lippo Group, which comprises mega-banking and other interests. In a deposition of November 6, 2000, one day before the Presidential election, John Huang revealed that the money which he donated to McConnell, D'Amato and others was illegally laundered from overseas bank accounts. When asked if he had donated more than $2,000 to McConnell during the 1990's, John Huang took the Fifth Amendment and was held in contempt by the Magistrate Judge. He could face significant jail time for this and 139 other contempt citations. Not a single senator had the courage to ask Ms. Chao a question concerning her ties to convicted felon Huang.

"That the U.S. Senate would unanimously approve a cabinet secretary without examining her relationship with a felonious fundraiser and influence peddler is a national disgrace," declared Judicial Watch Chairman Larry Klayman.

Which didn't get a lot of covergae in the press, liberal or otherwise, apparaently.

Regards,

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: cowboypoet
Date: 06 Feb 01 - 12:55 AM

I probably should stay out of this -- my wife says when I get to talking politics I become argumentative. I have, however, two things to say about John Ashcroft as Attorney General:

He has never caused a bunch of people to be burned to death bacause their theology was unconventional, or a woman to be murdered with her child in her arms bacause due process was taking too long.

He supports the Second Amendment because, he says, the people must have the means to defend themselves against a tyrannical government.

He may be a RWE, but he scares me a lot less than his predecessor. I am profoundly grateful that she no longer has a private army.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: cowboypoet
Date: 06 Feb 01 - 12:58 AM

Dang! How did I do that?

Sometimes the system is slow and stutters and you get 2 for 1;
no problem, duplicate posting deleted by
- la joeclone -

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: GUEST,re:the burnings an shootings and the FBI etc
Date: 06 Feb 01 - 02:11 AM

You know, Cowboypoet, as well as I that it is not 'that' simple and given Ashcroft the same plate the result would not be any different.

David Koresh, AKA Vinny Howell had already long before the Waco disaster been charged with Murder 1. He and some accomplices had shotgunned to death the son of one of his future wives. By the way how many underage girls did he impregnate?

The Atty General had very good reasons to act! More power to her long arm of the law. I recall hearing an FBI coordinator on the phone with Vinny who was complaining about G_d talking to HIM at the same time on another line the voice of a DYING United States Law Officer shot by Vinny and his crazy friends.

They had plenty of time to allow ATF to inspect their cache of weapons but they declined the offer. You know what if I had a daughter being laid by this animal I would be thinking BLAM, but of course that is why Vinny needed all those guns. And that is why he would not, nor could not let the ATF take them away.

Ruby Ridge. Well that one is very suspect, since all the man had to do was allow a Sherrif to inspect his weapons and papers. There has to be some control on the insanity that seems to be so accepted these days. Yes one has a right to own a Gun but that does not include the right to murder innocent people with it. There must be some control, amend the Constitution what ever it takes.

Ashcroft scares the bejeebers outa me, and here is why. In his state I have seen drugged Cross bearing Hoodwearing Folk around so called Blugrass Festivals and what they were talking about was not the second amendment! Take care my friend who you praise lest they think you one of them!

Mixican Drug dealers and TV Evangelists that is what the Bush Clique are all about, Cocaine and broken promisises.

Clinton and morality. It seems to me very, very few males in modern America have any right to criticise him. 30 % of families are single parent= some one is sleeping in two beds LOL, of the remaining 70 less than 15% are life long Monogamous. They all have been with several women, so what was is Lott and the other old bores complaining about. (Course they had their time living high on the hog 40m years ago now they don't want anyone else to do it!) Of the females - the same applies and by the way who did what to who? If it really ever happened, I somehow doubt it.

The kind of folk who I meet with the Bush disease are not very bright imho. They think he is a good charicter, yeah tell that to his drinking, snorting buddies.

Nuff said. fer now

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: wdyat12
Date: 06 Feb 01 - 02:29 AM

Right On! Skeptic I beleive "every word you say." Wdyat12

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Sorcha
Date: 06 Feb 01 - 02:36 AM

Guest,re:the burnings...........I suspect that you are not really a Guest, and Max knows who you are if he cares enough to investigate........so knock off the crap and come clean, if you have the guts to do that.I doubt it though.

Since you are a Nonny Mouse, you too are wearing a pointy hooded robe......BTW, "charicter" is spelt "character". That is only one of your mistakes, you could get an education, and it wouldn't hurt you a bit. If you dropped out of High School, GED's are real cheap, and might actually teach you something.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: GUEST,ChicagoJohn
Date: 06 Feb 01 - 02:47 AM

"The founding fathers stated purpose was to create a government of law, not men."

Please give me your source for this.

"Difficult as I'm not a big fan of pure socialism."

Then give me your definition of impure socialism. Your Britannica definition implies government control.

"I don't do "ideal governments" as such seems and oxymoron."

You can't get what you want if you can't define it.

"I prefer to look at what my values and goals are(which I've stated fairly clearly on this and other threads)., and how to best accomplish them practically. (Based on how people do act, not how I want them to act)."

Another words, you want the public to do what you think is best for them?

"I am interested in values. Personal values."

So am I. But I've never argued that the government enforce my personal values.

"If I have a basic value that says it is wrong for people to be hungry, I need to figure out ways to make that happen."

Then feed them. That's your value. But that's not what you're saying. You're saying that YOU'RE value is to REQUIRE OTHERS to feed the hungry also.

"It starts with individual values, not with some external dogma."

I agree. If every individual followed their stated values, we would be better off.

"What are your values?.... Family, integrity, charity, respect are values, the individuallity is a value."

I don't understand how you can say that "family" is a value. Family isn't a personality trait that I can improve upon. Family is a state of having relatives.

My number one value is honesty. Right up there with honesty is freedom and tolerence. Tolerence being defined as letting one do what they want... not the absence of complaint. From there, I aim for the basic concept of "first, do no harm". I think that most problems are covered in that basic premise. I never considered respect a value. I believe that people either earn it or throw it away. I consider volunteering more important then charity. Charity is easy, and I think that most people do it out of guilt. Volunteering is giving what is most important to me... my time here on earth.

"If I understand my values, then whatever system I propose has to be consistent (if I value integrity)."

I couldn't disagree more. My values are very personal to me. I do not expect everyone to be honest. I wish they were... I really do. But I do not wish to outlaw lying.

"Again, it starts with the individual and builds up."

That's socialism. i.e.-'I believe in this, therefor, you must do it too'

"The thrust of what you propose is to build from some assumed-to-be-right theoretical structure down, rejecting any fact that doesn't fit and belittling anyone who doesn't agree."

I have no idea what you mean. "The thrust of what you propose"??? What did I propose?

"Claims of fraud have to be addressed, not ignored."

See... this is the problem though: In all of the US, the ONLY place where the problem of fraud seemed important this year was Florida. Hmmmm. Why?

"Who cares who was targeted? Claiming that the exclusions were deliberately based on race isn't here nor there."

I jumped into this discussion on Florida voters because a poster claimed that blacks had been targeted. I corrected them, and explained how they were wrong.

"I didn't see you argue for a stadium and you see that don't like it... I brought it up as an example of using tax-payers money and political influence for personal gain (which is related to Clinton) and in answer to early posts."

Let me try this again. I argued that Clinton was spending too much money on his apartment. You answered with a sports stadium. Why? It had nothing to do with Clinton. Neither you nor I are for sports stadiums. Now I can either assume that you are okay with Clinton spending $650,000 a year on his apartment, or you can join me in protest. Which is it?

"You replied 'Given that, I have a strong suspicion that I wouldn't like you' I'm devastated."

I guess internet dating is out for us then.

"And the statement may be too general as I've only read biographies of 6 or 7 of them. I don't disparage what was finally produced, just that looking at their lives, they don't deserve to be canonized."

Great. Tell me why you wouldn't like them. Tell me why your current friends are superior.

"Did you every study it?"

The Constitution itself? No. Books on it? Yes.

"Have you read "The Federalist's Papers"."

Tiny chunks in different reference sources, but not in bulk.

"Hamilton's Essay's?"

Nope. From the little I've read of Hamilton, I can't stand him as a writer.

"Any of Jefferson's commentaries?"

I believe a book on his letters and notes, but commentaries? Define.

"Read any of the minutes of the Constitutional Conventions?"

A book on the Constitutional Convention, yes. The minutes, no.

"Any collections of editorials from the various colonial newspapers of the time?"

I think Common Sense is the only one that I've read in it's entirety.

"If so, then we have interpreted things differently and I'd be interested in discussing your views off-forum."

If you've read half of what you claim to have read, I'd be shocked.

"If not, your opinions are based on hearsay, the opinion/analysis of others who support your preconceived opinions, and urban legend."

I like how you claim that YOUR references are ***THE*** references that one should read when forming an opinion on the Constitution. Just when I thought that I was a Constitution snob, I find a bigger one.

I never picked up a book on the Constitution because it would "support my preconcieved notions". Indeed, most of what I've read is too thick to pick up in a bookstore just based on a quick read. I started reading up on the Constitution mainly because I found that there were so many people like yourself who claimed to KNOW.

As in every piece of history, there are many shades of what people consider the truth. But I've found that the best way to find the truth is to read different accounts of what happened, to read the bio's of the people involved, and figure out who you can trust.

For instance, Pauline Maier points out in American Scripture that Jefferson actually got some of his facts wrong in recounting the Constitutional Conventions later in life.

"I was getting at the Constitution as a framework and set of rules under which the legislature passes laws to accomplish its purposes. They interpret how far they are allowed to go."

They interpret? No they don't! They are LIMITED by the Constitution, and certainly, not willingly. When they break the bounds, the SC pulls them back.

"All nice but I hope you have more of a personal value system than that."

You didn't ask me what my personal value system was. You asked me what success was.

"I think you may find that all those things (which we all want), are merely satisfying. And fairly superficial."

Success in life is multi-layered. We were talking business. I gave you the business answer of success. My personal success has little to do with by business success...with one exception. If I am unsuccessful in one, it most definitely hurts the other.

"Have you been poor working 40 (or more) hours a week? Or know people who are?"

You're going to have to give me a "poor" scale for that. Are we talking about the federal guidelines for being poor?

"Of course, it's a matter of intent. Are they interested in actually producing something or just making the six figures? And, yes, I think it matters."

Pardon, but we were talking about whether a smart person can make a ton of bucks in a dot com. Their intent has nothing to do with it. You said that smart people do not work for companies that go under in 6 months. I disagree.

>>>If general employees list salary as 4th or 6th on their list, is it that surprising that they aren't getting paid more?>>> "Since the employee is the one doing the work, yes I am."

Ahhh... I get your thinking now. Management doesn't work. Only the people on the line do. And even if the people who work on the line put salary as their 4th or 6th most important thing, you STILL think that they should get paid more.

"And if salary is what its all about, its not surprising that companies have major productivity, turnover and customer service issues."

ummm... we live in a nation that has the number one productivity of any nation (outside of nations that employ sweat shops). How can you say that we have productivity problems?

"On almost any type of management that views money as the primary motivator."

Most modern management schemes reject money as the prime motivator of employees.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: kimmers
Date: 06 Feb 01 - 12:00 PM

I will try to stick to subjects that I feel I know something about. Ashcroft is just a name in the paper to me, so I can't comment on that whole issue. I've got lots of opinions about Janet Reno and Waco and all that, but little real knowledge.

Now, the idea of supporting the poor and needy through faith-based charities only... that, I feel as if I know a little bit about. First of all, I would say that we've tried that it in this country already; it was called the 19th Century. Read: Industrial Revolution, sweatshops, child labor, poorhouses, TB, orphanages, high infant mortality... you get the picture. And life was no bed of roses on the farm, either; farmers and sharecroppers came to town in the first place because of crop failures. Either work in the factories, or starve; that was their choice. I think that the churches tried, but I wouldn't have wanted to live in that time.

Several years ago, our perennially poor friends were at the end of the rope. He worked hard at a low-paying job for the housing authority; she stayed home with the two kids (sound familiar?) and occasionally took a substitute teaching job. They were living in a 600 square foot apartment, and intermittently on food stamps. They were slowly going insane and knew the anxiety of being perpetually poor. She had mood swings and occasional despair; he had bouts of anger. They are both Christians, members of a large suburban Pentecostal church.

We couldn't stand it any longer. My husband remodels old houses, so we bought the old bungalow up the street and moved our friends into it. They lived there for three years, with a yard to play in and with plenty of elbow room, and a relief from the fear of homelessness. We did not charge them rent. They finally got their feet under them and moved out into a rental a few miles away.

We did this because Jesus commanded us to care for the poor, and we took that literally. We did it to follow the example of the early Christians, who pooled their resources and lived in community.

My point? Both their original church, and the one they attended later, knew of their poverty. This couple tithed whenever they had an income. Faithfully, even before working on their debts. When they went to their church for help, they were given $25. Once.

If a church will not help its members in distress, how can we hope it will help the homeless, the mentally ill, the seriously down-and-outers? I believe that my own parish does better with acts of charity, but part of that is our location in the poorer part of town.

If others have been on either end of better church-charity experiences, I'd be relieved and happy to hear them.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: cowboypoet
Date: 06 Feb 01 - 12:53 PM

Dear Guest,

"You know, Cowboypoet, as well as I that it is not 'that' simple and given Ashcroft the same plate the result would not be any different. "

I *don't* know that, and unless you are intimately acquainted with John Ashcroft neither do you.

Vinny, or David, or whatever you want to call him, was reprehensible in every way I can think of. However, so far as I know none of the other people who were incinerated was officially charged with any kind of crime. Some charges may have arisen from the shooting of the over-zealous "officers of the law", but we'll never know, and the Branch Davidians who died will never be able to tell their side of it to a jury of their peers, will they?

"The Atty General had very good reasons to act! More power to her long arm of the law. "

Spoken like a true fascist.

"Ruby Ridge. Well that one is very suspect, since all the man had to do was allow a Sherrif to inspect his weapons and papers."

He didn't have the opportunity to do so. They shot first and served the warrants later.

"There has to be some control on the insanity that seems to be so accepted these days."

Especially that perpetrated by the jack-booted thugs in the former Attorney General's employ.

"Yes one has a right to own a Gun but that does not include the right to murder innocent people with it."

True. Tell me, whom did Randy Weaver's wife murder? Or his 14-year-old son? Does associating with an alleged malefactor make you subject to a spontaneous sentence of death without any kind of due process of law? If so, you might want to make sure none of your friends has attracted the attention of the BATF or the FBI.

"There must be some control, amend the Constitution what ever it takes."

Whatever it takes? That was Janet Reno's philosophy, and look what happened to people who ran afoul of her and her trigger-happy minions. Ashcroft has historically shown himself to be a strict constitutionalist. Maybe that's what scares the left-wingers so much.

"Clinton and morality."

Now there's an oxymoron. If you don't hold "President" Clinton to a higher moral standard, why hold President Bush to one?

In the interests of full disclosure, I had little use for either of the candidates in the recent election. But if I have to choose between riding a dumb horse and a mean one, I know which I'll put my saddle on.

Pray continue this thread without me. I have happier things to think about.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 06 Feb 01 - 04:00 PM

Just a couple of things:

There is a documentary called "Waco: Rules of Engagement" that provides more information on the Branch Davidians and on what happened in Waco than I ever got through the media at the time. There was a lot more to that situation than most people were led to believe. And both the Waco and Ruby Ridge actions leave me deeply disturbed about the actions and intent of our government. I am glad Janet Reno is gone but I don't think John Ashcroft is the best choice to replace her. He appears to be even more inclined to fascism (at least intellectual fascism) and enforced conformity than she was.

I believe it was Chicago John who defined socialism as "I believe in this, therefore, you must do it too". I think that would be a better description of fascism. Remember that socialism is an economic system and not political. You can be a democratic socialist or a fascist capitalist.

I have no problem providing government money to social organizations that are faith based, as long as the sponsoring organization pays the same taxes as any secular organization. If they are a not for profit organization, fine. I do, however, have a problem with tax exempt religious organizations looking for subsidies for fulfilling their mission - providing service to their community.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: mousethief
Date: 06 Feb 01 - 04:40 PM

jack-booted thugs? Now THERE is an open-minded fellow.

But that's not what I wanted to talk about.

I wanted to ask where the "bipartisanship" was that we were promised? So far, what I've seen is very far-right cabinet appointments, and very far-right actions (e.g. overturning the abortion thing, the roads-in-the-woods thing, etc.), and NO change in either rhetoric or numbers on his tax-cut.

I suppose by "bipartisanship" Bush means that if the Democrats don't fall into line, they aren't "team players"? Or am I just missing something really obvious? (Like he's a filthy liar?)

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Feb 01 - 05:03 PM

Alex, these are just rhetorical questions, I trust. I've too much faith in in your common sense to think you actually believed Prince George's drivel about "bi-partisanship". Or did you believe Tricky Dick was "not a crook", too?    ;-)

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 06 Feb 01 - 05:15 PM

But Greg F., weren't we supposed to be consoled by the fact that, although Dubbya wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed, he could bring even the most flatulent gasbags together to arrive at consensus? Isn't that how he achieved the "Texas Miracle"?

I'm so horribly disillusioned. . .

Oh yeah - Tax cuts anyone? Next recession's on good ole' lonesome George!

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: mousethief
Date: 06 Feb 01 - 05:19 PM

No, the congress will pass something a fraction of the size of his tax cut, and then he will blame the recession on not cutting taxes ENOUGH, pointing his bipartisan finger right at the Democrats.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Skeptic
Date: 06 Feb 01 - 09:28 PM

ChicagoJohn,

I said The founding fathers stated purpose was to create a government of law, not men." and you replied Please give me your source for this.

Article VI seems fairly clear on the subject. I probably first came across the idea in a biography on Hamilton. McDonald's maybe.

Then give me your definition of impure socialism. Your Britannica definition implies government control

Yes, it does. I'm talking about our complex society (economical, culturally and socially)btw, not limited scale models. I believe (for reasons both rational and not) that any society has certain responsibilities to its members as a matter of enlightened self interest (if nothing else). Raising children to be responsible adults, educating them, insuring the health of the members of the group (health care, food, shelter, education, individual rights). Preserving dignity. Preserving itself, protecting its members, to hit some of the red flag issues.( Note: I believe). If enough others agree, then it becomes both culturally and legally a legitimate goal. If not, then not.

Providing these services should begin with the individual, then the family, then voluntary organizations, then business, then the government. When one fails or cannot provide the services, the next takes over. Ideally, the first three should be enough. The problem starts when any of these groups begin to accumulate too many resources (physical, social or political) and impairs these goals. Assuming the checks and balances of the political system work, the government becomes involved (hopefully with some reluctance), in reverse order. Interfering with business is less a "wrong" than interfering with voluntary groups and so on.

I think there's some evidence that the traditional market forces are no longer working as theorized.. The problem seems to be that, as complexity has increased, the self-correcting feedback loops (free market forces) have stopped working. In a smaller (social and geographic) areas, these controls do function a lot better (as pure market forces seem moderated by social pressures). As society and geographic area grow, the feedback starts to become less functional or even to interfere with each other . This seems to be fairly common occurrence in complex, non-linear systems. In this case I think it was because there was no immediacy to the social feedback that does exist and due to delays in traveling through the system, the various market forces either magnified, damped or simply never really connected.. Note: The application of chaos theory to economic and social forces is a relatively new idea. It seems to apply but empirical evidence is only slowly being developed

You can't get what you want if you can't define it Facetiously, love. At best, government is a necessary evil. "Ideal"? Enlightened Despotism? Anarchy? Pick your utopian model. Reality is more fun. Another words, you want the public to do what you think is best for them?

Like, yes! Want (as in require)? No. Do you?

So am I. But I've never argued that the government enforce my personal values

The government should support our right to have personal values. The community (with safeguards such as the Constitution) can moderate them. In our society, through the vote. The idea of rugged individualism is, IMO, utopian.

Then feed them. That's your value. But that's not what you're saying. You're saying that YOU'RE value is to REQUIRE OTHERS to feed the hungry also.

It's very rude to shout. I said that's what I believe. If I can convince enough people I have a good idea, we can elect representatives to carry out our wishes And yes, that means a balancing of beliefs.(Under the umbrella of the Constitution) And those who think otherwise have the same right. If a law is enacted I don't like, I either work to have it changed within the system, leave or plot rebellion.

I agree. If every individual followed their stated values, we would be better off.

I agree but as a cynic have to add that a lot of people don't have values, just ideas.

I don't understand how you can say that "family" is a value. Family isn't a personality trait that I can improve upon. Family is a state of having relatives.

Please! As in the family (nuclear or extended) as a good thing. (Versus communal nurseries, android nannies or whatever). I promise to try to avoid cheap semantics if you will. (Emphasis on Try

My number one value is honesty. Right up there with honesty is freedom and tolerence. Tolerence being defined as letting one do what they want... not the absence of complaint. From there, I aim for the basic concept of "first, do no harm". I think that most problems are covered in that basic premise. I never considered respect a value. I believe that people either earn it or throw it away. I consider volunteering more important then charity. Charity is easy, and I think that most people do it out of guilt. Volunteering is giving what is most important to me... my time here on earth

Large areas of agreement. Respect as in valuing the idea of the individual as a person. (Until proven otherwise). Believing they have the same inalienable rights as I do. Letting people do what they want without moderating social/ethical/legal controls is utopian. "Do no harm" is laudable (not sarcasm). What is what you think and do cause me harm and to not cause me harm, you have change what you believe? It sounds great in theory. In practice its not doable.

I couldn't disagree more. My values are very personal to me. I do not expect everyone to be honest. I wish they were... I really do. But I do not wish to outlaw lying.

All values are personal. I don't think you can outlaw, or require them. You have them or you don't. I wish more people did. And while I might like them to agree with mine, I'll settle for people just having them. And yes, I think our government (among other institutions) has moved too far in trying to outlaw "bad" values and mandate "good" ones.

That's socialism. i.e.-'I believe in this, therefor, you must do it too'

Not exactly and that isn't what I said. "I believe in this and I'd like you to agree" Socialism doesn't demand orthodoxy of belief. There are systems that do, including communism, theorcracy and fascism.

"I have no idea what you mean. "The thrust of what you propose"??? What did I propose?"

Mostly Original Intent From there I made assumptions. As did you. Being human's a real bitch sometimes.

See... this is the problem though: In all of the US, the ONLY place where the problem of fraud seemed important this year was Florida. Hmmmm. Why?

Important to who? The newspapers? LWE, RWE, LSC?. It should be investigated and dealt with wherever it occurred as detrimental to our society and way of government. Florida is in the spotlight because it was the lynchpin. Lots of people have their own agendas.

I jumped into this discussion on Florida voters because a poster claimed that blacks had been targeted. I corrected them, and explained how they were wrong.

And I agree.

Let me try this again. I argued that Clinton was spending too much money on his apartment. You answered with a sports stadium. Why? It had nothing to do with Clinton. Neither you nor I are for sports stadiums. Now I can either assume that you are okay with Clinton spending $650,000 a year on his apartment, or you can join me in protest. Which is it?

I join you in protest at both. You only mentioned being against Clinton. And argued to justify the other.

I guess internet dating is out for us then.

I'm afraid so. Time will heal the wounds.

I said "And the statement may be too general as I've only read biographies of 6 or 7 of them. I don't disparage what was finally produced, just that looking at their lives, they don't deserve to be canonized. and you replied Great. Tell me why you wouldn't like them. Tell me why your current friends are superior.

My current friend didn't own slaves or have indentured servants, don't believe that ownership of property should be the basis for voting, don't think that Native Americans are sub-humans and that lying, cheating and stealing their land is just fine. I can't say some of them wouldn't use their positions in government (such as they are) to preserve their own wealth. If they did, I'd have to reevaluate how I felt about them, I suppose.

And then we swapped reading lists and you said If you've read half of what you claim to have read, I'd be shocked

Sorry. Hope you have an ammonia capsule handy. I've always like to read and get on reading jags. As I started reading fairly young and have eclectic interests, I've read a lot on a lot of subjects. Then I said If not (referring to readings on the constitution) your opinions are based on hearsay, the opinion/analysis of others who support your preconceived opinions, and urban legend." and you replied I like how you claim that YOUR references are ***THE*** references that one should read when forming an opinion on the Constitution. Just when I thought that I was a Constitution snob, I find a bigger one I don't claim they're superior. I claimed they were my opinion. I did say "If you haven't studied..." .and went on to add that otherwise we have a difference of opinion. I wasn't trying for snobbery but sarcasm. Touchy Touchy Touchy.

I never picked up a book on the Constitution because it would "support my preconcieved notions". Indeed, most of what I've read is too thick to pick up in a bookstore just based on a quick read. I started reading up on the Constitution mainly because I found that there were so many people like yourself who claimed to KNOW. You imply something not true. I cry constitutional snobbery right back at you. And apologize in part for my earlier, over-hasty stereotype. In part because one interpretation of your statement can be that you didn't like the point of view of what people claimed to "know" and looked for counter-arguments. That may well not be the case.

As in every piece of history, there are many shades of what people consider the truth. But I've found that the best way to find the truth is to read different accounts of what happened, to read the bio's of the people involved, and figure out who you can trust. For instance, Pauline Maier points out in American Scripture that Jefferson actually got some of his facts wrong in recounting the Constitutional Conventions later in life.

Which is why I try to read a couple of versions, interpretations and opinions.

Exactly. And "who to trust" is very subjective. Thus we disagree.

They interpret? No they don't! They are LIMITED by the Constitution, and certainly, not willingly. When they break the bounds, the SC pulls them back.

Interpret as in determine what "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" means. Certainly they are limited to those rights enumerated. The argument rages over strict versus liberal interpretation. Over original intent versus the living document ideas (as extremes) In Federalists Papers I found this (among others) in support of the "living document idea." Madison said (#35): "It is a matter both of wonder and regret, that those who raise so many objections against the new Constitution, should never call to mind the defects of that which is to be exchanged for it. It is not necessary that the former should be perfect; it is sufficient that the latter is more imperfect." In Federalist 85, Hamilton added, "Time must bring it to perfection."

Success in life is multi-layered. We were talking business. I gave you the business answer of success. My personal success has little to do with by business success...with one exception. If I am unsuccessful in one, it most definitely hurts the other.

Which may be true for you. And probably for me. But isn't necessarily so for everyone.

You're going to have to give me a "poor" scale for that. Are we talking about the federal guidelines for being poor?

Which guidelines? You used the word. The Federal Guidelines are arbitrary and have a lot of agendas. That and they keep coming up with multipliers for qualification under this program or the other. Use your definition.

Pardon, but we were talking about whether a smart person can make a ton of bucks in a dot com. Their intent has nothing to do with it. You said that smart people do not work for companies that go under in 6 months. I disagree

I think I said that people who have values beyond money don't.

Ahhh... I get your thinking now. Management doesn't work. Only the people on the line do. And even if the people who work on the line put salary as their 4th or 6th most important thing, you STILL think that they should get paid more.

None of which I said. Of course managers do work. Necessary work. One element of which is to motivate my employees. The studies indicate that it's mid to upper management that has the misunderstanding of motivations. My job, as a manager, is to motivate my employees to work harder, faster, smarter, better. If I think that throwing money at the problem will work because I think that's my employees primary motivation, I'm probably going to be disappointed.

The prototypical example is Ford and the original Model T line. At the time, he paid his line worker's extremely well. He had to. They kept leaving. He assumed that money was all that people cared about.

ummm... we live in a nation that has the number one productivity of any nation (outside of nations that employ sweat shops). How can you say that we have productivity problems?

Anecdotally, based on the number, frequency and amount of recalls on American vehicles versus foreign ones. Production in terms of economic value is half the battle and quality is the other. And Department of Labor Statistics that show falling rates of productivity.

Most modern management schemes reject money as the prime motivator of employees

Replace "schemes" with "theories and I'll agree. Either way, it's all in the application and measured outcomes, not in theories and schemes,

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Skeptic
Date: 06 Feb 01 - 09:48 PM

Apologies for messing up on some of the italics is my prior post. Thought I'd caught all the mistakes.

Bartholomew said I have no problem providing government money to social organizations that are faith based, as long as the sponsoring organization pays the same taxes as any secular organization. If they are a not for profit organization, fine. I do, however, have a problem with tax exempt religious organizations looking for subsidies for fulfilling their mission - providing service to their community.

I have a problem because I think that the consequence of the initiative is going to be to secularize these faith-based groups. I think that the silly stuff (pray as the cure for drug addiction) is going to be used to attack faith-based programs in general.

I also think the proposed tax-cut, coupled with the faith-based initiative is going to erode private donations. Why donate to the charity when they can get money from the government?

Cynically, I suspect ulterior motives.

I think time will put another perspective on Koresh, Ruby Ridge and the like. As it has on the '68 convention, Kent State and a list of all the other overreactions, cover-ups and killings.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 06 Feb 01 - 10:11 PM

I would think that if I was a faith based organization I would be extremely leary of accepting money from GWB's administration. Normally, an organization that receives funds from a source like the government grows dependent on it. Private funding would tend to be seen as less necessary. If that is the case, and faith based organizations become dependent on government funds, what will happen to them when a new administration decides to cut them off, perhaps for advocating ideas not acceptable to the administration. Like GWB did with foreign clinics that include abortion counseling.

Government funds always come at a price. Even business subsidies. Even "welfare".

Keep the discussion going guys. You're doing great.
Regards,
Bart

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: GUEST,re:whoiswho
Date: 06 Feb 01 - 10:11 PM

IP. Address. and the Law.

You'd need a Court Order to obtain an IP's identity just like I have woulod have to get one to nail some slimeball. Max is in the same boat LOL.

What I want to know is why would the truth cause Max or anyone else for that matter to want to get a court order for an IP?

If you are who I think Mr Poet I rather suspect Max would be high on your list of unamerican people to err ..... need I say more, BTW Hi Max.

Me and Jackboots and the ATF etc., hohoho - geesh not this bear. You know what is wrong here, you are looking at the Waco thing like the Davidians were innocents, well I disagree. They pointed loaded weapons at Law Officers. What does that tell you?

Like I said before they had plenty of time to allow the Law Enforcement agencies to do their job without any shooting, and like I said Vinny the 'hump'Howell had no intention of ever doing that. He was the person responsible for the deaths of all adults in the incident, and they and he were each and all responsible for the deaths of the minors NOT the United States Government. They did after all start shooting after refusing for several MONTHS to allow a routine inspections of weapons.

Therfore what are we becomming that we will try do defend criminals to the point of ignoring the facts and painting the Law Agencies with blame no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary? Geesh.

Rubyridge, well go read the news again! Mr Weaver was approached several times and refused to cooperate. It was a small incident by comparison to Waco, however it was Mr Weaver who decided to use a Gun to settle his differences with the local Law Agency and what followed however lamentable would have been obvious to him. He could early on have called a United States Marshall who would then have been able to PEACEFULLY resolve all the problems involved but he like all the other 'seperatist' types would or could and did not do that. He was and is responsible for the deaths of all the victims. Again and why are you defending these people?

The comments about spellings etc, so what you know well what I mean, that is enough, besides it is not my spelling that is at fault but my bad tywpign LOL.

Ashcroft. I have been in a lot of Countries around the world and besides some of the more insane societies in the Far east and Africa, the former USSR, etc, I have never been among people so screwed up as in the Ex Governor Ashcroft's state. In fact one can almost feel the tension(hatred?).

BTW Did not Quantrell's Raiders originate here and the lynchmob that burned to death Men Women and Children of the Mormon Church way back in the 1850's whenever, also Jesse James and his friends. I don't need to know the man personaly, I know the people who support him and they are as scary as he. Look at his views on Womens Rights, and what he wants to do! Nuff of Mr Ashcraft LOL. He and his friends are the ones with the hoods etc NOT ME.

The Bush Dynasty. Shame on it!

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Feb 01 - 11:21 PM

"Clinton and morality. It seems to me very, very few males in modern America have any right to criticise him."

I always have, and I always will criticize him. You don't have to be morally perfect to criticize Clinton. You just have to be at least one level above weasel on the evolution chart.

"...of the remaining 70 less than 15% are life long Monogamous."

I understood 10% of that phrase.

"They all have been with several women, so what was is Lott and the other old bores complaining about."

Bill Clinton committing perjury.

"Of the females - the same applies and by the way who did what to who?"

Bill Clinton exposed himself to Paula Jones. That was after he raped Juanita Broaddrick, but before he committed perjury before a grand jury.

"If it really ever happened, I somehow doubt it."

Which part? The perjury?

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: cowboypoet
Date: 06 Feb 01 - 11:24 PM

"If you are who I think Mr Poet I rather suspect Max would be high on your list of unamerican people to err ..... need I say more."

Yes, you do -- you need to apologize for ascribing sentiments to me that I don't hold. I don't know who you think I am, but I have never suggested that anyone participating in this discussion is un-American. Not even you. In my opinion some are misguided, but that's what it is -- my opinion. Some of the people I've referred to have proven to my satisfaction that they're evil, but I named the names, or at least the organizational affiliations, of the malefactors.

"You know what is wrong here, you are looking at the Waco thing like the Davidians were innocents, well I disagree."

As is your privilege.

"They pointed loaded weapons at Law Officers. What does that tell you?"

It tells me that they believed they were defending themselves. In light of subsequent events they had every reason to believe so. Lest you put words in my mouth, most people who point loaded weapons at officers of the law deserve to be shot. In the case of Waco, time was on the side of the true officers of the *law*, the local and state law enforcement officials, and they were willing to take as long as it took to bring the standoff to a peaceful conclusion. It was the feds who precipitated the deaths of the innocent (if deluded, but in America that's not a crime) as well as the guilty. If they were in the right, why was there such a scramble by the federal "authorities" to cover up starting about the time the first flames burst from the compound?

"Rubyridge, well go read the news again!"

You believe what you read in the news? Not a good idea. I read the trial transcript, as a result of which testimony Randy Weaver was awarded substantial monetary damages because the feds were found to be in the wrong. I'm sure he'd rather have had his family back -- in my opinion he should have at least been given five minutes alone with the cowardly FBI sniper who murdered his wife.

"Again and why are you defending these people? "

It's my sort-of-old-testament concept of justice. You defend the innocent and expose and punish the guilty.

You do make one fundamental error, GUEST. You seem to think that the United States and the people who happen to be running it at any point in time are interchangeable. I think it's at least foolish and perhaps dangerous to do that. The United States, a government of the *people*, by the *people*, and for the *people*, is one of the most glorious institutions in the history of mankind and must be defended and preserved *at all costs*. When it's run by evil men and women crimes committed in its name are often laid at its feet, but not by me. If any laws in this country need to be changed, it is those which protect criminals who hold office (like Janet Reno) from prosecution. At the very least she's a conspirator to obstruct justice and an accessory after the fact to murder in the second degree.

Now I really am out of here. Feel free to have the last word, only please let my words speak without your interpretation.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Feb 01 - 11:37 PM

Kimmers wrote: "Now, the idea of supporting the poor and needy through faith-based charities only... that, I feel as if I know a little bit about. First of all, I would say that we've tried that it in this country already; it was called the 19th Century. Read: Industrial Revolution, sweatshops, child labor, poorhouses, TB, orphanages, high infant mortality... you get the picture."

Kimmers, I believe that you are getting work and charity confused. When talking about faith-based charities, you listed sweatshops and child labor. Those things were not encouraged by faith based charities. Furthermore, the current absence of those things has nothing to do with welfare as we know it. If anything, the absence of sweatshops and child labor can be attributed to labor laws. TB was eliminated (almost) through technology.

And I cannot understand for the life of me why you think our present system of foster homes is better then orphanages! Have you spoken to a single person from a foster home who WASN'T sexually abused in that home???

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: GUEST,ChicagoJohn (Sorry, keep forgetting to enter
Date: 06 Feb 01 - 11:44 PM

"I believe it was Chicago John who defined socialism as "I believe in this, therefore, you must do it too". I think that would be a better description of fascism. Remember that socialism is an economic system and not political."

Maybe I can help out here by clearing up what I mean. When the public defines how I spend my money on other people (though taxes) they are dictating my behaviour.

An economic system and a political system are entertwined in a system where it's possible for people to make their own paycheck.

"You can be a democratic socialist or a fascist capitalist."

How can someone be a facist capitalist? Give me an example of how this works.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Uncle Jaque
Date: 06 Feb 01 - 11:55 PM

Aside from some of the unfortunate "flaming" that has gone on from time to time here - and even some of that has been pretty sophisticated, I must admit - the sort of dialouge we've got going on between "Skeptic" and "Chicago John" is providing me with a crash course on Civics; not only is it thought-provoking, but educational ; and I do get a kick out of learning things!

Another thing which I was trying to accomplish when I threw the skunk into the tea party way back in the original "Conservative Cavalry" thread was to stimulate sufficient dialouge in which we all (or perhaps more realisticly "some of us") might serindipitously discover just how much we have in common in spite of our ideological, theological, intellectual or political differences.

It has been my experience not only on this forum but along the course of my life's experiences and relationships, that there are lots of folks with beautiful hearts and sweet, gentle Spirits.. who love their children, are kind to their dogs, and have compassion on their fellow human beings of the most laudable and examplary sort. But let one of us slip some idle commentary regarding some political ideology, personage, or practice and our opinion thereof, and the other is just as apt as not to go off like a roman candle!

For example: there are those who would take considerable umberage and alarm if we met on the streets of Portland, and they were to discover that I was packing a loaded semi-automatic pistol under my coat. Never mind that I am within the bounds of the law, having a valid concealed weapons carry permit duly issued by the Authorities... it's the idea of the thing, you know. Then I find out that my friend is in town having delivered his lover to a local "family planning" clinic to have an abortion. Perfectly legal, don't we know; excersizing "free choice" and all that... but now I'm the one with the bee under my bonnet. Pity, too, because we essentially like the same kind of music, brand of beer, and maybe root for the same soccer team. We should be getting along swimmingly, don't you see, and no doubt would, were it not for all this polarized passion and negatively charged political particles.

Which brings me to another musing; it has been asked what all this has to do with music in general, folk music in particular... and I think that some contributors have addressed that pretty well. Folk musicians (and I presume to include myself in this colorful company) tend to sense a certain "calling", I think, to be bearers of the community pathos, tellers of the tribal story. We seem to have a way of expressing communal outrage and indignation in response to percieved atrocities to or exploitations of... well, for lack of a better term... "the Folks". Our music is a form of outcry that seems to travel, and permeate, and even to some extent be heard and accepted from the subway tunnels to the palace halls in a way that eloquent verbage seldom does. So I don't think that it's any idle coincidence that (at the risk of being blatently stereotypical) Folkies tend to be a rather socially connected, aware, and passionate lot. And political ideologies and agendas are quite likely to be taken up as media of the idealisim with which our ilk seems to be similarly predisposed, and clung to and espoused with passionate ferocity.

"Passionate ferocity"... just writing that put me immediately in mind of "Kat/Katlaughing". Anybody else get that association? But I digress...

I have learned, usually the hard way, that altough passion and idealism are not all that bad by themselves, they are apt to expose those of us possessed by them (we seldom manage to posess THEM, it seems) to a certain vunerability. Some might call it "gullibility".

A quick study of history seems to reveal a pattern of social exploitation and abuse, eventually fomenting an uprising of the downtrodden masses and occasional "liberation". In a majority of the cases, it seems, the brave, idealistic revolutionaries end up getting duped by their own cunning "Leadership" into facilitating the "Hero of the Revolution" ending up in the position of power, and in turn inflicting a despotism in some cases more oppressive than that which had been overthrown. I think the Russian Revolution went sort of along those lines as had the French before it and the Cuban under Fidel Castro afterwards.

What I'm getting at (in case you were wondering, as no doubt a few are by now), is that I have to be careful which horse i'm hanging on to when I go tilting those darn windmills, as I am wont to do. So I need to be a little accountable to those with whom I ride, and be open to rational indicators from credible sources that a course correction or bail-the-hell-out should be seriously considered. By the same token, I'm not the only Don Quioxe(?) running around out here with a pisspot on his head and a quest for honor and glory. I figure if I'm on the right track, (truth, if you will) that it can withstand and abide criticisim, question, and examination. And If a Comrade is in my perception running amock, I do him/her a disservice to withold the same.

I personally think that a lot of really good people are getting sucked in to an attractive illusion perpetrated in our society by people not unlike "Uncle Joe" Stalin, whose proposals and theories seem all goodness and light, but whose sinister, covert agendas are the sort that ultimately spill innocent blood and fill remote pit-graves with the corpses of those who learn too late. I see guys like Clinton and Reno fitting that description pretty well; others seem to identify BUSH and Ashcroft as the boogey-men for some reason.

I suppose they have their reasons, although I don't hear a lot of them all that coherently articulated. Sure, I'd be interested in these allegations of the GOP China/Hwang connection, the Texas "sports arena" thing, or whatever.. but details seem a little thin.

At any rate.. like I keep suggesting to my reenacting buddies who wear the gray and wave those dreaded "Stars & Bars" around; We're ALL AMERICANS NOW... Is that all that bad a thing?

Can we talk?

Apparantly... some of us, some of the time anyway... here in the Mudcat pond. Its' a start... and therein lieth Hope, methinks. Keep it up, me Hearties!

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Feb 01 - 12:03 AM

Actually, fascists are to be found in all common political and economic systems, as are non-fascists. The fascist can be a zealot of either the left or the right, with equal facility. Or he can be a religious fanatic or a scientific reductionist. Or an Ivy league elitist or a redneck or a minority group advocate or a ku klux klan member or a CEO. Whatever.

A healthy society makes good use of the strong points of both capitalism and socialism...and avoids extreme fanaticism on either end of the scale.

- LH

p.s. Just had to finally look and see what all the beating around the "Bush" was about...believe me, I don't have time to read all of it, nor do I intend to.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Feb 01 - 01:05 AM

Skeptic wrote: "The founding fathers stated purpose was to create a government of law, not men." and you replied Please give me your source for this. Article VI seems fairly clear on the subject."

And once again, I ask for your source. I'll copy article VI for you here, and you can pick it out for me. "All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

>>>Your Britannica definition [of socialism] implies government control

"...I believe (for reasons both rational and not) that any society has certain responsibilities to its members as a matter of enlightened self interest (if nothing else). Raising children to be responsible adults,..."

You believe that raising children is the responsibility of SOCIETY???

"...educating them, insuring the health of the members of the group (health care, food, shelter, education, individual rights)."

I must admit... I've under-estimated how socialist you are. You continue...

"Preserving dignity. Preserving itself, protecting its members, to hit some of the red flag issues.( Note: I believe). If enough others agree, then it becomes both culturally and legally a legitimate goal."

Assuming, of course, that our Constitution does not restrict it from happening.

"The problem starts when any of these groups [individuals, government, etc.] begin to accumulate too many resources (physical, social or political) and impairs these goals."

When government "provides", it is really the individual paying the bill. The resources are still drained from the individual, only with less efficiency.

"I think there's some evidence that the traditional market forces are no longer working as theorized."

I agree, but for completely ddifferent reasons.

"The problem seems to be that, as complexity has increased, the self-correcting feedback loops (free market forces) have stopped working."

The problem is that government is interfering. In trying to restrict "unhealthy" companies, the government passes taxes and regulations aimed at them. By doing so, the companies start playing the loopholes. The companies who are better at lobbying win.

""Ideal"? Enlightened Despotism? Anarchy? Pick your utopian model."

Capitalism.

"Reality is more fun."

Pretend is loads more fun then reality.

>>>>Another words, you want the public to do what you think is best for them? "Like, yes! Want (as in require)? No. Do you?"

Nope. In the first 30 years of my life, I spent a lot of time trying to tell people what to do. Then I realized that THEY were intelligent people also, and that free will is one of the best gifts I've been given.

>>>So am I. But I've never argued that the government enforce my personal values <<< "The government should support our right to have personal values. The community (with safeguards such as the Constitution) can moderate them."

You want the community to have the ability to "moderate" your PERSONAL values???

"The idea of rugged individualism is, IMO, utopian."

Sir / Mam; The idea of rugged individualism is AMERICAN. Remember how Americans came here and braved harsh winters and a strange freaky land? Remember how they traveled west across deserted plains? They craved individualism more then creature comforts. So do I. I weep every time I watch "Dances With Wolves", realizing that I'll never be able to live with that kind of freedom ever again.

>>>You're saying that YOU'RE value is to REQUIRE OTHERS to feed the hungry also.<<<

"It's very rude to shout."

I'm still new to HTML, and I can't remember the command for bold. I needed to add emphasis on those words. Caps was my only choice.

"I said that's what I believe. If I can convince enough people I have a good idea, we can elect representatives to carry out our wishes And yes, that means a balancing of beliefs.(Under the umbrella of the Constitution)"

Which is the catch. The Constitution has special emphasis on the freedom of the individual.

"I agree but as a cynic have to add that a lot of people don't have values, just ideas."

And that is perfectly within their RIGHTS (sorry, don't know the HTML) to not have values.

>>>I don't understand how you can say that "family" is a value.<<<

"Please! As in the family (nuclear or extended) as a good thing. (Versus communal nurseries, android nannies or whatever)."

Once again, while a family can be a good thing, I don't see how you can consider it a value. A value is something that I can improve in myself. I don't see how I can improve the "family" in myself.

"I promise to try to avoid cheap semantics if you will."

I consider cheap semantics arguing over the definition of "is".

You called "family" a value. I don't understand how an individual can have "family" as a value.

"Respect as in valuing the idea of the individual as a person. (Until proven otherwise). Believing they have the same inalienable rights as I do."

That's a belief, not a value. A value is something that you can improve upon. Under your definition of respect, you either have it or you don't.

"Letting people do what they want without moderating social/ethical/legal controls is utopian."

Yes, and it should be our goal.

""Do no harm" is laudable (not sarcasm). What is what you think and do cause me harm and to not cause me harm, you have change what you believe?"

Please reword that past sentence. It makes no sense to me as written. Maybe it's just missing a punctuation.

"All values are personal. I don't think you can outlaw, or require them."

Pardon me, but you can. Where do you think "Hate Crimes" come from?

>>>That's socialism. i.e.-'I believe in this, therefor, you must do it too'<<<

"Not exactly and that isn't what I said. "I believe in this and I'd like you to agree""

Pardon me, but when you REQUIRE someone to pay taxes for YOUR ideas of what is right, then you are making them do what you believe.

>>>In all of the US, the ONLY place where the problem of fraud seemed important this year was Florida. Hmmmm. Why?

"Important to who? The newspapers? LWE, RWE, LSC?."

Yes. Mainly the Democratic politicians.

"It should be investigated and dealt with wherever it occurred as detrimental to our society and way of government."

If that's so, then it should be dealth with everywhere it occurred. We had more irregularities in Chicago, and yet, no one is complaining. ('cept me)

>>>Now I can either assume that you are okay with Clinton spending $650,000 a year on his apartment, or you can join me in protest. Which is it?<<<

"I join you in protest at both. You only mentioned being against Clinton."

I argue what is happening now. It just so happens that Clinton was being a butthead *again*. (Better emphasis with the asterisks?)

"My current friend didn't own slaves or have indentured servants,"

Your current friends weren't born in 1750. Point: True or false- Jefferson tried to get rid of slavery in writing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which was unheard of at the time?

"...don't believe that ownership of property should be the basis for voting,"

Again, the idea that non-property owners could be allowed to vote was a radical idea in the late 1700s. Yet, they proposed such ideas in the late 1700s.

"...don't think that Native Americans are sub-humans and that lying, cheating and stealing their land is just fine."

Which founding fathers do you believe did that? Jefferson? Lincoln?

"I can't say some of them wouldn't use their positions in government (such as they are) to preserve their own wealth. If they did, I'd have to reevaluate how I felt about them, I suppose."

What do you feel about the pledge that ends in "Our Sacred Honor"? "Sorry. Hope you have an ammonia capsule handy."

The best I have is menthol lozenges.

"I did say "If you haven't studied..." .and went on to add that otherwise we have a difference of opinion. I wasn't trying for snobbery but sarcasm. Touchy Touchy Touchy."

Guilty, Guilty, Guilty. I can't stand when people claim to have ALL of the information. Though I admit to arguing that I know more then most people when it comes to Paula Jones and Bill Clinton.

"I cry constitutional snobbery right back at you."

Okay, then, I apoligize. I will make a note of it and try to back off.

"The argument rages over strict versus liberal interpretation."

I am aware. Which is why, whenever someone argues liberal interpretation, I wonder if they have ever read about the founding fathers and their intent.

Madison said (#35): "It is a matter both of wonder and regret, that those who raise so many objections against the new Constitution, should never call to mind the defects of that which is to be exchanged for it. It is not necessary that the former should be perfect; it is sufficient that the latter is more imperfect."

All that says is that the document is not perfect. It does not argue for interpretation, liberal or otherwise.

In Federalist 85, Hamilton added, "Time must bring it to perfection."

I'd like to see that context. I'll have to visit the GPO on the web and look up the Federalist papers sometime soon.

"Use your definition."

In that case, I don't know anyone who works more then 40 hours a week who is poor.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: GUEST,re:courtordersetc..
Date: 07 Feb 01 - 01:36 AM

Well CowboyPoet I paused reading when I seen the remark about IPs - that says it all.

You can dish out the tripe you call the truth and cannot even consider any other account - if it is offered you need the IP, and to do what?

You keep going back to the Government IS to blame, to Clinton did x, BTW he was setup by the freaking Republican Old Bores - Lott and the Ministry of Send you Money to Us TV Evangelists, HE DID NOT COMMIT ANY CRIME. The Court was manipulated by the Replosickos. The *Star Chamber* framed the President of the USA. That is the Crime Sir. Geesh, King Freakin George The Turd would be in Jail by now if the *Star Chmamber* Puritans got him, LQQK Texas =DESTRUCTION OF GOVERNMENT RECORDS=:
Colorado =MEDDLING WITH COUNTY RECORDS=:

Who IS the Criminal now

All to hide serious charIcter!

How the Republisickos DO IT

Rule 1 Sex is bad - therefore- illegal - etc., Rule 2 Democrats are Liars Rule 3 Expose All Democrats Rule 4 To Hell With Common Law 4 Republicans are always right Rule 5 Bushites are clean and good Rule 6 Do not allow anyone to talk about Cocaine Snorting Bushes Rule 7 Reward the Mexican and Cuban errant boys WELL Rule 8 Bankrupt all Upstart Companies ASAP

BTW Have you read the Financials lately?

READ THE NEWS AND WAKEN UP!

Morality and William Clinton, living in the Midwest as long as I have been, cannot avoid hearing many domestic disputes, what can I say. He said she said he did she did??? Lawdy:0)

The Limbaugh Ladies
I suspect the kind of people you are so quick to cite are not the kind of people you would associate with, and with good reason. These various ladies were in it for what they could get and get they did. Good luck to them, that is America $$$$ If he was not President then there would never have been a word about it in the Press.

Were these ladies aware of the marital status of the then Bill Clinton? HOW IN THE H???? COULD THEY NOT KNOW IT!!

We can snort, the President can snort as much as we or he pleases but HE MAY NOT HAVE SEX, what in the ???lll is WRONG WITH YOU, are you a Puritan? If so what about the Constitution?

The Bushites and their Moral CharIcter. Dealing in Dry oil Wells, Cocaine, Illegal Mexican Emigrants, you need some more?

The Bushites and the Law. Denial of the right to Vote in the State of Florida, case already filed.

The Bushites and Truth are Mutually Exclusive

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Skeptic
Date: 07 Feb 01 - 07:02 AM

Chicago John

Maybe I can help out here by clearing up what I mean. When the public defines how I spend my money on other people (though taxes) they are dictating my behaviour

An economic system and a political system are entertwined in a system where it's possible for people to make their own paycheck.

I'm not entirely sure about your full meaning here. Do think the public has any kind of right to 'dictate' your behavior? Under no cirumstances? Under any circumstances? If so, what are they.

Regards,

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Feb 01 - 09:30 AM

It always comes back to the US Constitution, doesn't it?

Okay, but why? Is the US Constitution the final word on all that matters in human existence? Did it spring from the throne of God? No. It was created by a group of men at a certain moment in history with certain things in mind. Like other human institutions it is not perfect, and it is in a sense arbitrary.

It might make very little sense to any number of people in any number of times and places, depending on what culture they grew up in.

Consider the above...and then recognize this: You are engaging in a form of secular religion. Your holy books are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Well, guys, they are holy to you (Americans), but not to people in every other country on the surface of this Earth, who have institutions of their own (which are equally arbitrary but often just as useful as yours).

So take a deep breath, and instead of running to the Bible, or Mao's Little Red Book, or the US Constitution to do your thinking for you...why not take a really huge leap in perception and start thinking independently for yourself!

This could lead to some real breakthroughs in understanding. It might lead to some major amendments to your Constitution...or it might lead to a whole new system entirely. You might find you could live without that particular Constitution. I do (in Canada), and it hasn't caused me one sleepless night yet, nor has it deprived me of democracy or freedom.

"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows". And you don't need a constitution to understand basic human values.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: mousethief
Date: 07 Feb 01 - 11:31 AM

During WW2, the German corporation Braun was fascist capitalist. Nuff said.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Scotsbard
Date: 07 Feb 01 - 11:53 AM

... handing Little Hawk a gold star ...

Excellent. Political "science" is just as hampered by its history as are all other forms of academia. It has taken centuries for the "experts" to convince themselves and most people that earth is no longer flat, nor the center of the universe, and that fire, earth, water and air are no longer the basic elements. Unfortunately, there are many people today who consider themselves "experts" on politics, and who are just as dogmatic or expedient as the inquisitors of a few centuries past. Getting a significant fraction of them onto the same page might take millenia at the current rate of progress.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 07 Feb 01 - 12:01 PM

Cowboypoet - well said and right on the money, specifically regarding Chicago John's comments about fascism.

Guest - I'm afraid you've digested a lot of bad information; and swallowed it whole, at that. You have some valid points to make, but you're getting them all cobbled together. In my opinion, it's not the poet that's being naive.

Chicago John - Ideally, we as citizens pay the taxes that our elected representatives enact. They then spend the money as they see fit and if we don't like it we vote them out. They are our representatives. They speak for us. Again, the key word hear is "ideally". But even though we do not live in an ideal world, the principles are the same.

Let me suggest something that you can all take some shots at. Our federal government grew in response to a desire to become more involved on the world stage and as a counter balance to perceived excesses by big business and individual states. On the domestic side specifically, the federal government has served as a counter weight against power and influence that has been usurped by local elites and used against individuals or less powerful groups. Examples of this would be the breaking up of trusts, desegregation of schools and support for the rights of laborers to organize.

It appears to me that those who would "shrink" the federal government are those who would benefit most from the withdrawal of that counterweight. The arguments may be for "more accountability", "less tax burden", etc. but to me it all just adds up to another grab for power. That is not to say that the federal bureaucracy doesn't need fixing; it is - without question - a cobbled together aggregation of good ideas, bad planning, shabby thinking, poorly written laws and pork barrel projects and shameless log rolling. But I stand with those who would try to re-form it, i.e., change its form. I think Clinton accomplished more in that area than either Reagan or Bush the elder did, or lil' Bush will.

Have fun. Catch you later.
Bart

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: GUEST,re:bartholomewpom
Date: 07 Feb 01 - 02:06 PM

Hi, cor blimey if you were realy here I would be worried buy you isn't. Mind yer own damm bizzness - we have to live with the Mexican Drug Dealers you don't.

Our information is accurate, yours is not. Go figure and goodbye.

Subject: Lyr Add: THE KENNEBUNKPORT HILLBILLY
From: GUEST,Singin....
Date: 07 Feb 01 - 02:42 PM

THE KENNEBUNKPORT HILLBILLY
Sung to the tune of "The Beverly Hillbillies" theme

Come and listen to my story 'bout a boy named Bush.
His IQ was zero and his head was up his tush.
He drank like a fish while he drove all about,
But that didn't matter 'cuz his daddy bailed him out.
DUI, that is. Criminal record. Cover-up.

Well, the first thing you know, little Georgie goes to Yale.
He can't spell his name but they never let him fail.
He spends all his time hangin' out with student folk,
And that's when he learns how to snort a line of coke.
Blow, that is. White gold. Nose candy.

The next thing you know there's a war in Vietnam.
Kin folks say, "George, stay at home with Mom.
Let the common people get maimed and scarred.
We'll buy you a spot in the Texas Air Guard."
Cushy, that is. Country clubs. Nose candy.

Twenty years later, George gets a little bored.
He trades in the booze, says that Jesus is his Lord.
He said, "Now the White House is the place I wanna be."
So he called his daddy's friends and they called the GOP.
Gun owners, that is. Falwell. Jesse Helms.

Come November 7, the election ran late.
Kin folks said, "Jeb, give the boy your state!
Don't let those colored folks get into the polls."
So they put up barricades so they couldn't punch their holes.
Chads, that is. Duval County. Miami-Dade.

Before the votes were counted, five Supremes stepped in,
Told all the voters, "Hey, we want George to win.
Stop counting votes!" was their solemn invocation,
And that's how George finally got his coronation.
Rigged, that is. Illegitimate. No moral authority.

Y'all come vote now, ya hear?

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Skeptic
Date: 07 Feb 01 - 02:55 PM

This is a repeat as I screwed up the italics tags. But the blue clicky's worked this time. If the first is gone, it's becasue I asked joe/joe clone to fix it. Unless I screwed it up again.

Chicago John

And once again, I ask for your source. I'll copy article VI for you here, and you can pick it out for me

That seems a fairly clear statement. The alternative would be to give some person, King, Pope, or the Oracle at Delphi, superior authority to make laws. In that case, men, not Law would be supreme. Or are we defining the original "government of laws, not men differently?

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land You believe that raising children is the responsibility of SOCIETY??? " and added I must admit... I've under-estimated how socialist you are. You continue...

Please re-read all of what I said. Quoting out of context leads nowhere. For example, I could interpret your single statement as "See, he's a socialists so that means he believes this and so and socialism is wrong, therefore I don't have to respond to what is said, just what I want to have been said. Reading the gestalt tells me that itsn't what you're about.

Restating, then, Out of self-interest, society plays a role in raising children. I think I defined my hierarchy of responsibility a little later in the post. The family is the first line of defense, and up from there. The responsibility (ideally), is with the family. If they don't, or can't, what's the next step? Who steps in and what are the rules (formal and informal).

Assuming, of course, that our Constitution does not restrict it from happening.

Of course.

When government "provides", it is really the individual paying the bill. The resources are still drained from the individual, only with less efficiency.

Perhaps less efficiently, if that is the goal. (As opposed to effectiveness). And yes, the individual pays the bill. Because a bunch of individuals elected representatives who mandated the bills to be paid, and how. You, I or anyone else may not like it, but we have the mechanism to change it.

I agree, but for completely different reasons.

So I've gathered. The problem that I see is that the capitalist model assumes linear relationships with the market forces. If those forces are non-linear, then the effect of pure market forces, or government interference based on a similar linear theory, will only work some of the time. It also appears that in many cases the traditional market forces that (sort of) served to moderate capitalism, don't make their way through the system in time to have the effect theorized. "The problem seems to be that, as complexity has increased, the self-correcting feedback loops (free market forces) have stopped working. Had stopped working before government interference began. All that interference did is add more unpredictable linear inputs to a non-linear system that was already exhibiting instability.

The problem is that government is interfering. In trying to restrict "unhealthy" companies, the government passes taxes and regulations aimed at them. By doing so, the companies start playing the loopholes. The companies who are better at lobbying win

Define "unhealthy" companies? I think you give the government much more credit for intelligent intervention than is warranted. And for some level on insight beyond the superficial. Are tariff's wrong? What effect do subsidies play in this? Are so called tax incentives any better (or worse) than regulatory taxes. Given the history of self regulation (the infamous meat packing plants being the best known, probably), should government interfere? If not, how do you stop the excesses? The primary value of Capitalism is the accumulation of wealth. Is using actuarial tables to decide whether to correct a defect in a car something that should be ignored by the government? As they are the ones who reformed tort laws to make holding companies responsible for their own harmful acts harder to litigate, what role should government play? In the real world.

I said "Ideal"? Enlightened Despotism? Anarchy? Pick your utopian model. and you responded with Capitalism

I was looking for a political answer. Capitalism is an economic model.

Pretend is loads more fun then reality

Pretend is limited self gratification. Reality is more fun.IMO. And has a really nasty way of slapping you in the face if you ignore it.

Nope. In the first 30 years of my life, I spent a lot of time trying to tell people what to do. Then I realized that THEY were intelligent people also, and that free will is one of the best gifts I've been given.

How do you mediate your free will and mine and everyone else's with the need to live with others, to function as a society.

You want the community to have the ability to "moderate" your PERSONAL values???

The expression of them, yes. I will still have my personal values. Moderating the expression is part of the social contract.

Sir / Mam; The idea of rugged individualism is AMERICAN. Remember how Americans came here and braved harsh winters and a strange freaky land? Remember how they traveled west across deserted plains? They craved individualism more then creature comforts. So do I. I weep every time I watch "Dances With Wolves", realizing that I'll never be able to live with that kind of freedom ever again.

Individualism is an human trait and American's value it more than most. Most individualists tacitly accept the social contract and figure out ways to express their individuality within the limits they've accepted. The classic rugged individual doesn't work well in society. But then, few seem to totally reject society either, as communities and groups tend to provide him/her with all the things that make the "individualism" possible.

Dances With Wolves? It was a movie. As I haven;'t seen it, I can't comment on it's historical accuracy. I am highly skeptical about the factual basis of anything designed for pure entertainment. Perhaps someone else who has seen the movie and studied the time period and culture can respond.

I remember exactly how, and why the first Europeans came here. And they survived as a community, not as "rugged individualists". They survived by cooperation. The earliest colonists had strong elements of theocracy and tended to demand orthodoxy. The few who practiced rugged individualism were usually tolerated, sometimes venerated, and weren't all that good at being a part of society. So they went off exploring or whatever. Society went right on doing its thing, building the country. The classic rugged individualist doesn't build a trans-continental railroad or a church.

I like individuality. Think it's a very good thing. And realize that practicality dictates that there has to be some sort of moderation of its expression. Before I can answer how much I want it moderated, I need to balance out various values, look at possible consequences and decide how far to go. And how to best go about it.

Of course, our definitions may be different.

I'm still new to HTML, and I can't remember the command for bold. I needed to add emphasis on those words. Caps was my only choice.

The teal permathread at the top of the form has stuff on html (and a whole lot more). If I can get it right, the html stuff is here

Which is the catch. The Constitution has special emphasis on the freedom of the individual

Not a catch. Just one of the rules to play by.

And that is perfectly within their RIGHTS (sorry, don't know the HTML) to not have values.

Yes. I just don't have to like it. On the other hand, those with values have a much better chance of getting society to go along with them.

That's a belief, not a value. A value is something that you can improve upon. Under your definition of respect, you either have it or you don't.

A certain basic respect, yes. And a value is a basic principal. It may arise out of a belief. What is improved is how you use that value in everyday life. Integrity is the value. Trying to be as honest as possible is the action. The idea that integrity is worthwhile is the belief. Or is it a definitional thing?

I said ""Do no harm" is laudable (not sarcasm). What is what you think and do cause me harm and to not cause me harm, you have change what you believe? and you asked Please reword that past sentence. It makes no sense to me as written. Maybe it's just missing a punctuation.

It was a mess. To bad they haven't developed a content checker. Restated, how would you/do you, mediate the difference values, beliefs or whatever in a society as large as ours. What should or shouldn't the government do.

Pardon me, but you can. Where do you think "Hate Crimes" come from?

I don't think can make an individual accept or reject a value by making a law. I think society can determine when the expression of a value is contrary to its purposes and try to moderate behavior.

And the idea behind hate crimes comes from the idea that intent should be taken into account in a crime. Just as we have various degrees of murder (based on intent and circumstances), the idea of hate crimes emerged. Needed or right, I'm not sure.

Pardon me, but when you REQUIRE someone to pay taxes for YOUR ideas of what is right, then you are making them do what you believe

Society requires its members to pay taxes for the commonly held idea of what is right, In our society, we do it through elections. If I accept the benefits of the society, become a partner to the social contract, then there are consequences to that decision. Having to pay for things that you don't like is sometimes one of them. I don't like paying for corporate welfare. I don't like paying for stadiums or paying more and more each year for police services when the crime rate continues to rise. So I work to elect people who agree with me and argue my point of view. As do you.

On voter fraud you said. Yes. Mainly the Democratic politicians.

It should be important to everyone. I don't have any more use for those who are making a sectarian political issue or a media event than you seem to.

If that's so, then it should be dealth with everywhere it occurred. We had more irregularities in Chicago, and yet, no one is complaining. ('cept me)

They should be. But the failure in Chicago, Washington, New Mexico or wherever doesn't justify ignoring a failure in Florida.

Your current friends weren't born in 1750. Point: True or false- Jefferson tried to get rid of slavery in writing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which was unheard of at the time?

He did, then didn't put his money where his mouth was by getting rid of his slaves. And yes, several of them tried to write anti-slavery provisions into the constitution and failed. You asked why I wouldn't have liked some of the Founding Fathers back then. That's a reason. My ancestors wouldn't have either At least on the slavery issue, as they believed that owning slaves was wrong.

Again, the idea that non-property owners could be allowed to vote was a radical idea in the late 1700s. Yet, they proposed such ideas in the late 1700s.

And did nothing about it. Or about the right of women to vote, either. (Although New Jersey did until 1806).

The idea of an representative government in general was fairly radical. They did that, for which they should be appreciated. The Electoral College can be looked at as a way to prevent the larger states from dominating the smaller. It is also a way to ensure that the popular vote is diluted. There are arguments both for and against the electoral college and probably no really good answer. The intent was, in part, to limit the power of the voters.(And I'm not trying to side track onto who really won the recent election).

I'd said "...don't think that Native Americans are sub-humans and that lying, cheating and stealing their land is just fine." and you asked Which founding fathers do you believe did that? Jefferson? Lincoln?

Washington and Jackson, Tyler and Harrison come to mind if you're talking about commission (although Washington's actions predate the revolution). If by acts of omission or tacit compliance, well, we really don't know how Bush will deal with the Nations yet, so I can't include him on a list that has 42 names.

What do you feel about the pledge that ends in "Our Sacred Honor

Noble sentiment. And please understand, I don't belittle what they accomplished. I've just found them to be very, very human. And don't think that the original intent argument is valid, obviously. The founding fathers (and a lot of others) risked a lot in the revolution. Or motives both altruistic and self-serving. The ideas stand independently.

Guilty, Guilty, Guilty. I can't stand when people claim to have ALL of the information. Though I admit to arguing that I know more then most people when it comes to Paula Jones and Bill Clinton.

Yes. People who think they know it all are especially irritating to people like you and me who clearly do :-)

I have friends in Arkansas who share your views. So do I, though probably based on much less information I don't like Clinton as a person. First strike was claiming JFK as his idol. That isn't to say I don't like some of his policies. (Obvious I think). Then there was White water..

Back when I was negotiating contracts with various companies around the country, our corporate attorney said to avoid contracts subject to the laws of California, Louisiana or Arkansas. I knew about the first two. His claim (as an attorney from Little Rock), was that the state was so small that nothing happened that the movers and shakers didn't know about and approve and that when it came to the judiciary, if you weren't part of the inner circle, you were pretty sure of losing, or at least having a rough time. Which I remembered when Whitewater came along and suddenly no one knew anything

Okay, then, I apoligize. I will make a note of it and try to back off.

Accepted and I also apologize. Feel free to call me when I backslide. If I do it, call me. I'll do the same. I may get passionate about politics. I try not to get pissed about them. And if I do, it will

Does this mean we can date?

On the Federalist Papers, you said I'd like to see that context. I'll have to visit the GPO on the web and look up the Federalist papers sometime soon.

This site :Federalists papers is an alternative to the GPO. Has the complete text on-line. I'd be interested in your take on it. The hardest part is trying to remember the social and historical context.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Skeptic
Date: 07 Feb 01 - 04:08 PM

Uncle Jaque,

Thanks for adding a little perspective on things.

The dialogue with Chicago John is thought provoking and fun. Like you, I'm enjoying and learning.

The sports stadium thing was the typical: Build a new stadium with tax dollars or I'll take my pro team somewhere else, sort of thing. This time it happen to involve Bush and the Texas Ranger's Baseball team of which he was general manager.

I like your take on the character of folk singers. You hit on a lot of the reasons why I hang around them [despite what it does to my reputation :-)] And they're usually a lot of fun besides.

And I think that politicians of any flavor are the boogey men until they prove otherwise.

Little Hawk

So take a deep breath, and instead of running to the Bible, or Mao's Little Red Book, or the US Constitution to do your thinking for you...why not take a really huge leap in perception and start thinking independently for yourself!

Asking people to think for themselves is work. And assumes they have any desire to try. Using the Constitution, Red Book, Manifesto or Magna Carta is the easy way out.

Independent thought indeed. Does your mother know you use words like that? :-)

This could lead to some real breakthroughs in understanding. It might lead to some major amendments to your Constitution...or it might lead to a whole new system entirely. You might find you could live without that particular Constitution. I do (in Canada), and it hasn't caused me one sleepless night yet, nor has it deprived me of democracy or freedom.

Its because there are so many who do view the Constitution as a holy document that we're reluctant to do major changes. Extremists from either side could have their pet ideas enshrined and the 'follow don't think" crowd would do just that. Not that it doesn't need fixing so much as a fear it might not go back together.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: GUEST,Liberal
Date: 07 Feb 01 - 04:38 PM

>According to Citizens for Tax Justice, during the 1950s and '60s, business paid about one-fourth of the taxes. Its share is now down to one-10th. That leaves you-know-who to pay the rest.

Believe it or not, taxing business is worse than taxing you directly. Taxes laid on a business is an expense passed on to the consumer. To account for and manage this particular expense, business must spend time and money - which, when added to the tax, effectively raises the tax rate higher.

It would cost you less to pay directly to the IRS. Trouble is, people would then realize what they are really paying the government, because the tax would not be hidden in the cost of goods and services. This makes politicians nervous.

Of course, if someone believes business should not make a profit, or that profit should be limited by government, then they should pay attention to history.

The current fiasco in California is a good example. The state government limited the retail rates (cost to the consumer) of electrical power. They also restricted the power companies from negotiating long-term rates with suppliers. They did not allow new power plants to be built, in deference to the environmental lobby. In fact, no new plants have been built in over a decade. Meanwhile, the population has continued to expand and demand for power escalated to the current point that there is a shortage. When wholesale power rates (the cost to the power companies) went above the rates they were allowed to charge consumers, guess what happened? They are in the red by BILLIONS of dollars. No new power sources within the state. They must buy from others at market rates, in spite of the rate cap for consumers.

Now the state government wants to insert itself as the middleman - buying power at long-term negotiated rates (which they wouldn't allow the power companies to do!), and then selling it to the power companies, so they can then sell it to the consumer. Incredibly, they think this will save money! Can you say: 'Another layer of bureacracy'? It won't be free.

When government bureaucrats think they can do better than the power experts - the people who have been in the business for years, it is arrogance of the highest order. Anyone who thinks government bureaucrats don't feather their own nest should reconsider.

Some people may say that power companies should be non-profit. I guess that is better than driving them to bankruptcy, but the incentive to meet customer demands is removed.

How many of you are willing to work for basic living expenses only? Maybe even work overtime when the boss asks - with no additional compensation?

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Skeptic
Date: 07 Feb 01 - 06:19 PM

Guest Liberal,

Not quite. You have to factor in income from overseas trade. So they can pay taxes on that, I suppose.

The correlation isn't necessarily one-to-one as some businesses might accept less profit and not pass on some of the tax cost.

On the other hand, a tax on businesses (even if it's passed on) directly affects the people who use the product/service. If you buy a new car every two years, you pay the taxes (both the hidden taxes, and the up front sales taxes). Why should I agree to abolish taxes on business so that when you buy a new car, I'm directly absorbing some of your tax burden? I suppose you could do it all as a sales tax, but what about business to business sales. Should there be a tax on that?

Interestingly enough, Pennsylvania also has deregulated. Without similar problems. Los Angeles chose to keep their utility system public. They bought and retrofitted/refurbished plants the private companies didn't want to bother with, including buying shares in out of state power plants. They have (at least as far as I know, experienced no rolling black-outs (the report I heard was about a month ago).

Based on that, I'd say the problem is that the for-profit power companies didn't plan well, looked to short term profits (rather than paying lower dividends and reinvesting more), grossly under-estimated demand and (as I understand 1/4 of the potential generating capacity for California is current off line for routine maintenance) didn't plan that very well either. My conclusion would have to be that in all those years of running a power company, they did learn a whole lot.

I don't see how that's the governments fault.

And yes, there were problems with those pesky environmentalists. You had the NIMBY syndrome coupled with a fairly active environmental movement. Strangely, new plants are being built. They just cost a little more because of the environmental concerns.

And while some of the environmentalists may have been extreme in their views, that's the reality. A well managed business deals with the business environment as it exists, not as they'd like it to be.

When government bureaucrats think they can do better than the power experts - the people who have been in the business for years, it is arrogance of the highest order. Anyone who thinks government bureaucrats don't feather their own nest should reconsider

Based on the above, a curious statement at best. Unless the bureaucrats took pay-offs not to report the short-sighted business practices of the power companies.

Regards

John

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: kimmers
Date: 07 Feb 01 - 06:50 PM

Chicago John:

I left out a few steps in my very brief analysis of the 19th century (and the twentieth, pre-social programs): Because the only aid available was from religious and charitable organizations, who by themselves were not able to help everyone, people suffered from the ills mentioned earlier. Poverty bred poverty, and children and others were forced into labor. The elimination of TB was accomplished mainly through large government-mandated r(ooohh!) programs of testing and treatment, and the realization that crowded and filthy living conditions were a major contributing factor.

As for the remark about foster homes: I'm speechless. No, the system isn't perfect. I have never yet interviewed a single kid who was sexually abused in a foster home. I have interviewed many who were abused by daddy or mom's boyfriend. I suspect you have not ever met any foster parents personally, or you would not have said this. We have foster parents on this forum who do some excellent work.

I suppose that you believe that birth parents never abuse their children, either? Shall I tell you about a few cases that I've been involved with firsthand?

As to orphanages: Landmark studies (in the sixties, I believe) showed that the intellectual and emotional development of children raised in orphanages was dreadful, compared to their peers raised in foster homes. The current concept of placing a child immediately into a private home came from this research.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: jofield
Date: 08 Feb 01 - 01:09 AM

1. The Branch Davidians shot and killed four peace officers trying to serve a duly-executed search warrant. Case closed. (Maybe some of our Reno-hating friends want to live in a country where suspects can pick and choose which search warrants they will honor -- not me.)

2. During the '60s and '70s, law enforcement agents smashed into apartments where Black Panthers and other radicals were living, shot first, and then figured out who was who afterward. I don't recall any cries of outrage or complaints about "jack-booted" thugs from any Republicans. I guess they're only offended when the victims are white.

3. The reason John Ashcroft was available to serve as A.G. is he was rejected by Missouri voters in favor of a dead man. If you're too conservative for Missouri, you're way out there.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: GUEST,ChicagoJohn
Date: 08 Feb 01 - 03:21 AM

"I'm not entirely sure about your full meaning here. Do think the public has any kind of right to 'dictate' your behavior? Under no cirumstances? Under any circumstances? If so, what are they."

I think that the only time the public has a right to dictate my behavior is when I pose a direct risk to society. If I am insane or criminal, then society should do something to limit my actions.

Conversely, I do not believe that society should be able to tell me that I have to wear a helmet when riding a bicycle, or that I must wear a seatbelt in my car.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Feb 01 - 03:36 AM

Bart Said:

"Let me suggest something that you can all take some shots at. Our federal government grew in response to a desire to become more involved on the world stage and as a counter balance to perceived excesses by big business and individual states."

I do not agree with that. Our federal government grew because everyone in the U.S. wants more. More of everything. It is the perception of the U.S. taxpayer that when the government gives them something, someone else is paying for it. Our politicians thrive on this perception by convincing taxpayers that the "rich" are paying more, and therefor, the middle class is really getting more then their share.

The politician survives by promising more. In exchange, he / she gets to hire more friends/fund-raisers who become dependent on the government for their paycheck. One of the largest unions is the one representing federal workers.

"On the domestic side specifically, the federal government has served as a counter weight against power and influence that has been usurped by local elites and used against individuals or less powerful groups. Examples of this would be the breaking up of trusts, desegregation of schools and support for the rights of laborers to organize."

All three things, breaking of trusts, desegregation, and labor rights do NOT require a large government. Those things are accomplished by laws, not massive spending!

"It appears to me that those who would "shrink" the federal government are those who would benefit most from the withdrawal of that counterweight."

On the contrary, the people who would benifit more from a smaller government are the ones who can't jump through hoops to get a tax exemption or lobby.

"The arguments may be for "more accountability", "less tax burden", etc. but to me it all just adds up to another grab for power."

Grab for power???? Bart, do you actually LIKE how much power the government has???

"That is not to say that the federal bureaucracy doesn't need fixing; it is - without question - a cobbled together aggregation of good ideas, bad planning, shabby thinking, poorly written laws and pork barrel projects and shameless log rolling."

No crap.

"But I stand with those who would try to re-form it, i.e., change its form. I think Clinton accomplished more in that area than either Reagan or Bush the elder did, or lil' Bush will."

Clinton didn't reform it. He did reduce it. And he did so reluctantly. He did so ONLY because the Republicans were stonewalling his budget and pushing for deficit reduction.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: GUEST,ChicagoJohn
Date: 08 Feb 01 - 04:27 AM

Skeptic wrote: "The alternative would be to give some person, King, Pope, or the Oracle at Delphi, superior authority to make laws."

Pardon, but that makes no sense. You continue: "In that case, men, not Law would be supreme."

But the men make the laws. You wrote: "government of laws, not men"

Obviously, we have laws in our government. They are made up of men. To support your point, you quote: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

Which is completely different then saying that we have a government of laws, not men. But I'm still listening. Please continue with your explanation of how you get "government of laws, not men" from the above.

"Quoting out of context leads nowhere."

Pardon, but I edit for brevity... not to quote you out of context. I truly wondered from what you wrote that you think raising children is the responsibility of society.

"Out of self-interest, society plays a role in raising children. I think I defined my hierarchy of responsibility a little later in the post."

Yes, I read the hierarchy that you defined. That doesn't remove the idea that you think society should play a role in raising children. I find that concept repugnant.

"The problem that I see is that the capitalist model assumes linear relationships with the market forces."

Whenever I see a sentence, like the above sentence, I wonder why the writer is taking such great lengths to be obtuse. NOTE: I only quoted the first sentence of the paragraph, because the next few that you wrote are based on the opening one. HOWEVER, it assumes that the reader has the faintest concept as to what you refer to in the opening sentence.

Let me be specific in my criticism, so that you do not assume that I am simply avoiding your concept. 1) Which capitalist model are you referring to? From what I've read and understood, there are literally thousands. 2) What market forces do you refer to? Inflation? Supply and demand? Monatary policy? 3) All economic models are flaky in their assumptions. It doesn't matter if it is capitalist, communist, socialist, or Disney-esque. The first thing that my economics teacher taught me was that all models are flawed.

"Define "unhealthy" companies? I think you give the government much more credit for intelligent intervention than is warranted."

Tobacco. The government has regulated, taxed, and oversaw tobacco. Heck, they even created an agency for it. Yet, tobacco thrives. As I wrote: "the companies start playing the loopholes. "

"And for some level on insight beyond the superficial. Are tariff's wrong?"

Most of the time, I believe yes.

"What effect do subsidies play in this? Are so called tax incentives any better (or worse) than regulatory taxes."

I think that all three are pretty henious.

"Given the history of self regulation (th infamous meat packing plants being the best known, probably), should government interfere?"

I was thinking California power, but the point is the same in both cases. The government is still regulating, but even less effectlively by putting one foot in the tub.

"If not, how do you stop the excesses?"

The excesses???

"The primary value of Capitalism is the accumulation of wealth."

And freedom.

"Is using actuarial tables to decide whether to correct a defect in a car something that should be ignored by the government? As they are the ones who reformed tort laws to make holding companies responsible for their own harmful acts harder to litigate, what role should government play?"

Tort reform is making it harder to litigate a "nuisance" lawsuit... a suit just cause you can. It doesn't make it harder to sue a company that created an airplane with a known tendency for engine fires.

>>>Pretend is loads more fun then reality<<< "Pretend is limited self gratification."

I couldn't disagree more. The ultimate pretend is the pretend that you play in groups.

"Reality is more fun.IMO. And has a really nasty way of slapping you in the face if you ignore it."

I've never been into getting slapped.

"How do you mediate your free will and mine and everyone else's with the need to live with others, to function as a society."

That's easy. As long as I'm not posing harm to others, I should be able to do what I want.

>>>You want the community to have the ability to "moderate" your PERSONAL values??? <<< "The expression of them, yes."

Ick!

"I will still have my personal values. Moderating the expression is part of the social contract."

What contract??? Who said that my personal values can be moderated? Explain!

"Dances With Wolves? It was a movie. As I haven;'t seen it, I can't comment on it's historical accuracy."

1) It's a great movie. 2) I'm sure it's not historically accurate, but it does accurately portray what it was like for the first settlers moving West. 3) Try watching it. Its long, its drawn out, but its really quite good.

"I am highly skeptical about the factual basis of anything designed for pure entertainment. Perhaps someone else who has seen the movie and studied the time period and culture can respond."

I hope that they'll just get you to see it for entertainment purposes.

"I remember exactly how, and why the first Europeans came here."

You're much older then I thought.

"And they survived as a community, not as "rugged individualists"."

Okee, not trying to create an argument on everything... however, most of what I've read on the first Europeans suggests that they came here to see untamed wilderness.

"They survived by cooperation. The earliest colonists had strong elements of theocracy and tended to demand orthodoxy."

Are you talking about the first ones who tried to form a socialist society and almost starved to death on their first winter here?

"The few who practiced rugged individualism were usually tolerated, sometimes venerated, and weren't all that good at being a part of society. So they went off exploring or whatever."

The FEW? Do you know how many people went West? ARrrrrgh!

"The classic rugged individualist doesn't build a trans-continental railroad or a church."

Okay. Alright. You tell ME who went West to create the trans-continental railroads.

"Restated, how would you/do you, mediate the difference values, beliefs or whatever in a society as large as ours. What should or shouldn't the government do."

Leave our values to us. The primary reason that Europeans came to the U.S. was because the government (England mainly) tried to dictate people's beliefs via the Catholic Church. Or was it the Protestant Church? You get the point. Everything was dictated as to what you were supposed to believe and do. Thus our special emphasis on freedom of religion in the U.S.

You get to be as religious or atheist as you want, and carry your values with that.

I'll respond more later, but I need sleep now.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Skeptic
Date: 08 Feb 01 - 07:05 AM

Chicago John,

To hit a couple of high points as I may or may not have time to get back to this until late Sunday. Which I look forward to as you've raised some interesting points.

"Government of Laws - In that certain rules of behavior are based on formal laws enacted and enforced by people we elected with the intent that they apply to all (hopefully equally). As opposed to someone or some arbitrary group having the right to rule by fiat, to ignore the law (codified versus informal) or change it at will. To apply the law only when and if they see fit. The Constitution was, in part, a reaction to this sort of thing. Were we talking at cross purposes here?

Social Contract - The Constitution is the primary (or supreme, if you like) social contract in this country. I believe that as long as I want to enjoy the benefits, I either have to go along with the parts I don't personally like, go somewhere else or realize that I'll have to suffer the consequences. As it provides a way to change it, I prefer to work with-in th system.

In response to my question on the right of society to moderate behavior you said I think that the only time the public has a right to dictate my behavior is when I pose a direct risk to society. If I am insane or criminal, then society should do something to limit my actions

By "direct harm" I'm guessing you mean physical? (As opposed to emotional). And you've indicated earlier that you believe the government has certain functions (which have been expanded beyond their intended scope). Literal interpretation of the Constitution, with original intent being a necessary part. So those functions (as defined) are acceptable?

But the definition of harm is made by.....who? Is smoking "harm". What about second hand smoke? If a corporation pollutes the aquifer, is that harm? Who should stop them, if it is. Where does discipline of a child start and abuse begin? Is discrimination harm? I'm looking for a general rule, though, not necessarily specifics.

I'll also suggest that you need to look up some of the current efforts in tort reform that do seem to make bringing even non-frivolous lawsuits more difficult and in limiting the amount of awards for doing actual harm.

On the trans-continental railroads. I think they were conceived and financed by large corporations and banks, with the cooperation of the government who provided military protection and land grants. Backed by factories and mines. All organized and run along lines antitheical to the "rugged individualism" you talked about. They were physically built by workers hired or imported for the job, again with little regard for individuality. They were built for financial gain, mingled with a little hubris.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Troll
Date: 08 Feb 01 - 09:21 AM

I wasn't planning to become further involved with this thread but you know how it is.
I wish to address the concept that society plays a role in the raising of children. If you raise your kids in basic conformity with the mores of the society in which they will live, you give them an easier road than if not.
Let me explain.
If you teach your children that those with money are either lucky or that they (or their parents) got their wealth, not by hard work but by cheating, they will grow up to believe that the lottery or theft is the way to riches and success. They will discount the value of hard work and education because these have no value under a luck/theft system.
If you teach them that they are better than everyone else, they will have few friends. If you teach them that it's ok to walk around naked they will have definite problems.
And so it goes. Society has a role because society defines what is, and is not, acceptable.
Still, you do get to pick and choose i little. Right now popular culture seems to be in favor of non-married families. If the trend continues, this may enter into the societal mores but at present it is just pop culture.
Religion seems to be making a come-back. It has always been a part of our culture but more honored in the breach than in the observance. This is one of the reasons many people object to John Ashcroft. They are not accustomed to people in high places who are deeply religious; religion has not been a big ticket item for years and Ashcrofts public observance rubs peoples noses in it.
John, the idea that the first colonists came here for religious freedom is a myth. They came here to escape religious persecution, it's true, but they were completely intolerant of anyone who believed differently than they did. If fact, they banished those who did not agree with them;Anne Hutcheson and Roger Williams being two in particular. The first colony to have any form of religious tolerance was Maryland, who allowed catholics in. Charlestown (SC) was a purely financial venture but the financiers didn't come over, they sent managers to run their affairs.
Yes, they faces a howling wilderness but they survived by cooperating, not by each going off to build his own little fortress.
The people who opened up the West did so for financial gain or for land and by-and-large they went in groups. The only ones that come to mind that didn't were the trappers and they were not permanent settlers. Men like John Jacob Astor went West to the roundivous and bought the furs, shipped them back East and became very wealthy in the process but they all had to depend on each other; Astor for the furs and the trappers for the supplies he brought to trade for the furs. They had to cooperate all along the line to make the endevor work.
Quite frankly, the rugged individual is NOT the kind of person who founds a country. It is the man of foresight who is willing to take a risk and also cooperate with others that leaves a lasting mark.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: GUEST,Liberal
Date: 08 Feb 01 - 11:40 AM

>Why should I agree to abolish taxes on business so that when you buy a new car, I'm directly absorbing some of your tax burden? I suppose you could do it all as a sales tax, but what about business to business sales. Should there be a tax on that?

Actually, you don't subsidize any tax burden if you don't buy the car. The tax is paid by those who do. I repeat, business' do not pay tax. It is an operating expense passed on to the consumer. It is a hidden tax for those who consume.

>Interestingly enough, Pennsylvania also has deregulated

It wasn't really deregulation. The price utility companies must pay for power are not regulated, but retail rates to the consumer are regulated. Therefore, power companies cannot adjust rates to market conditions. When power companies must pay more for power than they can charge the customer, a problem (now being experienced in California) arises.

>Based on that, I'd say the problem is that the for-profit power companies didn't plan well...

They were unable to plan, because the government prevented them from building new power plants, and prevented them from negotiating long-term rates from other suppliers. The government forced them to buy at ongoing spot-market prices, which fluctuate. The power companies have noo control over that aspect of the problem. Now the state government wants to do what it would not allow the power companies to do.

This is all factual information. No political ideology or finger-pointing will help. Californians must pay like everybody else, or sit in the dark.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 08 Feb 01 - 11:52 AM

Things seem to have taken a strange turn in this conversation, so why not turn it even more.

There is a tendency to use certain words without really considering their ramifications. The result is associating concepts that don't always work together as if they are one and the same thing.

An example of this is someone's association of "capitalism" and "freedom" in one of the posts. As a musician (and an artist) it is obvious that capitalism is antithetical to freedom. To be an artist in a capitalistic state you have to be able to sell your art; that limits your freedom to create. Note that I'm not saying that socialism or communism is any more conducive to free artistic expression; in reality, the reverse has been true. My point is that for an artist to be free, the necessity of generating cash flow must be eliminated.

Although artists are at the extreme end of the spectrum, this same principle applies to anyone in a capitalist economy. The need to generate cash flow limits everyone; none of us are free to do something FOR ITS OWN SAKE. There always has to be a source of cash somewhere; either it is inherent in what we do, or we are reduced to doing it as an avocation, i.e., after we're through making our dough. The only freedom that exists in capitalism is reserved for those who's purpose in life is to make money. Period.

I also have a problem associating "Democracy" and "freedom". Democracy simply means that everyone gets to vote (ideally), not that you can do what you want to do. Majority rules is implied in supporting a democratic state. Along the line the concept of "minority rights" was added because democracies can be severely oppressive to those in the minority.

I would like to suggest that "free market Capitalism" (never seen it, never will) and democracy get spliced together so easily because both make the assumption that what works for the majority is probably the best idea. But that is clearly not the case. The best funded idea has a better chance to win out than the least funded; the best advertised to win out over the poorly presented.

Does this mean I am anti-democracy and anti-capitalist? Not necessarily. Does this mean I'm anti-freedom? Same answer. To talk about these things without looking close and hard at the ramifications is pointless and dangerous. The "rugged individualist" who left restrictive society to pursue his "freedom" on the prairie would just as likely end up dieing a horrible death (like the buffalo hunter who delivered the hero to the West in "Dances with Wolves") as live long, celebrating his or her liberation. Does capitalism work? It works well for some, poorly for some and not at all for others. And democracy? Read the Greeks and you'll see why the foundering fathers built so many restrictions into the system.

Troll, you always make some great points (not to discount those of others in this thread). I appreciate your posts. One thing that you said in your last post really jumped out at me, and I believe relates to what I said here. It was your comment about religion making a come-back. Why would individuals in a society based in rule of law, rationalism, market forces, democracy and capitalism (both of which claim superiority based on greater numbers rather than real value) look to religion for comfort and meaning? Could it be that this democratic & capitalist society that we cherish has so little of what we need to be fulfilled as human beings inherent in it that we need to look elsewhere for fulfillment? Just asking.

I enjoy the fact that the primary contributors to this thread are mulling things over, really thinking hard about things. I'm really afraid, though, that too much time is spent defending one's own POV and not enough seriously considering the arguments on the other side (that's why I don't care for comments about spelling or grammer. It's a technique used to undercut an opponent's argument without refuting it.). It's just an observation.

I'm not going to try to refute Guest John's last parsing of my last post. After reading his comments I feel that my statements stands as written.

Enjoy your day

Bart

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: mousethief
Date: 08 Feb 01 - 12:00 PM

As long as your not wearing a helmet or seat belt doesn't cost me money (which I pay to the fire department, police department, and local hospital board), it's YOUR business. But when (as is ALWAYS the case in the USA) it costs me money if you don't, then it's MY business and my right to tell you what to do. You cause me (and my fellow taxpayers) harm (financial harm) when you don't wear your helmet or seatbelt.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: GUEST,Liberal
Date: 08 Feb 01 - 12:04 PM

>My point is that for an artist to be free, the necessity of generating cash flow must be eliminated....none of us are free to do something FOR ITS OWN SAKE

The same could be said for anyone. But no matter what your political persuasion, you must eat. Therefore you will be subject to somebody's system. That is why I make my love of music a hobby. I can do it the way I want, with whom I want. I am free in my pursuit of music!

Reality is cruel, but it beats the alternative!

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: mousethief
Date: 08 Feb 01 - 12:05 PM

Reality is cruel, but it beats the alternative!

That's not what Timothy Leary said. (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: kimmers
Date: 08 Feb 01 - 12:46 PM

Alex, you beat me to it. We have helmet and seat belt laws because society is tired of bearing the financial and social cost of the inevitable deaths and maimings that occur from motorists riding unrestrained and bicyclists riding unprotected.

What's that? Your health insurance is flawless, and you have a large life insurance policy? Well, that's good. Most people aren't so prepared. But society would still lose the benefit of your productivity, should you become severely disabled or seriously dead.

And if you are underinsured, society will have to pick up the tab sooner or later. You see, those of us who are compassionate liberals cannot look away from the handicapped or neurologically devastated. We look at these unfortunates, and we see a human being who once laughed and danced and got into arguments on Mudcat. We aren't capable of throwing you out in the street to rot because you didn't fill out the right forms when you were 25.

If nothing else convinces you, think of the human cost. Seat belt and helmet legislature came about largely because of EMTs and ER physicians who were tired of informing bereaved family members that their loved one was dead or permanently disabled... when a simple measure could have saved them.

Chicago John, I hope that your statement was mere rhetoric and that you really do use a seat belt in your car and a helmet on your bike. If you don't, I suggest you, and others like you, check your insurance policies and make an explanatory videotape that the ER personnel can play for your loved ones, explaining your choice and the consequences thereof. Something like, "Hi, dear... I'm dead or paralyzed, because I wouldn't wear a seatbelt or helmet. Tell the kids that they, too, should stand up for their constitutional right to become a gorked-out vegetable. Good luck raising them all by yourself." And so on.

Yes, I feel strongly about this. I've seen children orphaned because their parents weren't wearing seatbelts (the kids, properly restrained, survived). I've seen parents who did survive struggle to recover from their head injuries. And I watched a boy die after his helmetless head was struck by a bus that he was riding his bicycle too close to.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Skeptic
Date: 08 Feb 01 - 01:49 PM

Chicago John I said "The problem that I see is that the capitalist model assumes linear relationships with the market forces."

Whenever I see a sentence, like the above sentence, I wonder why the writer is taking such great lengths to be obtuse. ......NOTE: I only quoted the first sentence of the paragraph, because the next few that you wrote are based on the opening one. HOWEVER, it assumes that the reader has the faintest concept as to what you refer to in the opening sentence.

I wasn't going to any lengths to be obtuse Not deliberately anyway. It was a reference to work applying chaos theory to large social/political/economic organizations. The idea is that the same inputs don't produce the same (expected) outputs. And explains your economics teachers statement as to why the models are flawed. And I do assume that people keep up with at least the highlights of what's going on in fields that interest them.

Let me be specific in my criticism, so that you do not assume that I am simply avoiding your concept. 1) Which capitalist model are you referring to? From what I've read and understood, there are literally thousands. Thousands? Certainly thousands of theories about how and why it functions. I was thinking along the lines of the Adam Smith model. Or this definition from Britannica: also called Free Market Economy, or Free Enterprise Economy, economic system, dominant in the Western world since the breakup of feudalism, in which most of the means of production are privately owned and production is guided and income distributed largely through the operation of markets.

In earlier posts, you seemed quite happy with a single definition of socialism. You seem to be waffling here on capitalism.

2) What market forces do you refer to? Inflation? Supply and demand? Monatary policy?

It doesn't really matter. The effect or non-linearity of the effect) is the same.

3) All economic models are flaky in their assumptions. It doesn't matter if it is capitalist, communist, socialist, or Disney-esque. The first thing that my economics teacher taught me was that all models are flawed.

Flaky in what way? That they don't describe reality but use ideal-type arguments? That's sort of a given. Anyone dealing with making decisions about social, economic or political issues recognizes the inherent limitations of their assumptions and models. It doesn't mean the assumptions are flaky unless you expect everything in the world to be reducible to an equation that has a single answer. I suggest that you missed your teachers meaning.

I think that all three are pretty heinous.

Because of the consequences or as a basic wrong?

I was thinking California power, but the point is the same in both cases. The government is still regulating, but even less effectlively by putting one foot in the tub

As Adams argued for the original Constitution, I'd suggest that inefficient government regulation appears to be less an evil than self regulation (based on historical precedent).

The excesses??? Love Canal? The Corvair? The Valdez?

I said "The primary value of Capitalism is the accumulation of wealth." and you replied And freedom.

Only the freedom needed to pursue the accumulation of wealth. Anything beyond that is getting into political/social/moral issues.

I couldn't disagree more. The ultimate pretend is the pretend that you play in groups

You seem to be demonstrating a basic gap in your education. All the "best methods" aside, developmental psychology disagrees. And has some fairly impressive evidence to support their theories.

What contract??? Who said that my personal values can be moderated? Explain!

Which I got into in an earlier post.

Refering to "Dances with Wolves", you said 1) It's a great movie. 2) I'm sure it's not historically accurate, but it does accurately portray what it was like for the first settlers moving West. 3) Try watching it. Its long, its drawn out, but its really quite good.

I plan to watch it. Talked to a friend who has seen it and is fairly knowledgeable about the 1800's in the US. He found it highly idealized and over-simplified.

Okee, not trying to create an argument on everything... however, most of what I've read on the first Europeans suggests that they came here to see untamed wilderness.

I'm not trying to argue, just figure out what you're talking about. So I need a citation on that.

Everything I've read indicated that they came here for land to farm and the "un-tamed wilderness" was a scarey as there wasn't a lot of that where they came from (And the quickly set about taming it). They came to escape religious persecution. They came because the Lords Proprietor's (in the Carolinas) sent them. They came as felons to escape prison or death. They came as indentured servants whose treatment was pretty bad even for that day and time.

Are you talking about the first ones who tried to form a socialist society and almost starved to death on their first winter here?

It was a theocracy, a somewhat different matter. A sort of holy fascism. And then they survived. Under the same doctrine.

Later settlers did the same. Clearing land, barn raising and all the rest required a community. And they built towns, and didn't settle in isolated farms, as you'd expect from all those rugged individualists. Soon after they got into lying to the Indians, stealing from them and started a program of genocide, sanctioned by both the royal governors and the various churches.

The FEW? Do you know how many people went West? Arrrrrgh!

If you're talking about the initial exodust, I've seen numbers range from 60,000 to over 350,000. Going west doesn't make then "rugged individualists". The original scouts probably qualified. Later, the numbers grew but even in the early days, they went out in highly organizied, centralized wagon trains.

Leave our values to us. The primary reason that Europeans came to the U.S. was because the government (England mainly) tried to dictate people's beliefs via the Catholic Church. Or was it the Protestant Church? You get the point. Everything was dictated as to what you were supposed to believe and do. Thus our special emphasis on freedom of religion in the U.S.

The early Europeans came for a lot of reasons. The Puritans, Pilgrims, Quakers and Huguenots came because of religious persecution. They were a fairly small percent of the overall numbers. Just got better press. For others, it was a matter of economics...or not having much of a choice.

In England it was the Anglican Church. In Europe and especially France, the Catholic. What the governments tried to dictate was religious beliefs and practices. Most of the early settlers were dyed in the wool capitalists and religious bigots of the first order. Their demand for orthodoxly was equal too, or greater the one they'd escaped in England. In France (and Europe in general), the Huguenots were treated far worse than the Puritans, btw. As religious bigots of the first order, the early settlers rank with the "best". Even Anne Hutchinson (thrown out of Massachusetts Bay Colony for her unorthodox beliefs) wasn't much better. Maryland was fairly tolerant. At least they allowed Catholics in. And once Penn got his land grant, there was a little more tolerance. As the country grew, the influence of religion declined. Even in New England (where religion had started and remained a major force for a long time), the newer and native born grew tired of voting being tied to church membership, Long before the revolution, the idea of separation was well established.

There's no "Thus" about it. It was the diversity of later settlers (when there were Huguenots, Lutherans, Catholics and all sorts of other flavors of Christianity that the idea became a necessity.

Remember that at the time of the American Revolution, Deism was a fad among the rich and powerful. One motive might have been to make sure they weren't excluded but that's more a cynical observation than something I've read about.

You get to be as religious or atheist as you want, and carry your values with that.

Not quite. In certain Native American religions, the use of peyote is essential. And unless I missed the case (always possible) it was declared not to be protected by the first amendment.

Nor was polygamy and a list of other practices. Incest is not a protected belief or value, although there are religions that proclaim it to be acceptable. There are religions that view women as chattel, children as the same. And religions that mandate ownership of all property by the Church, held for the common good, in the finest traditions of communism.

As even the Supreme Court hasn't yet defined exactly what "religion" is. They, and lower courts, tend to rule on a case by case, practice by practice basis as to whether a specific religious practice is legitimate. However, the question is still pending is : From your perspective, how are conflicting beliefs/values moderated. And who does the moderating. What happens when someone does harm. What is the definition of harm?

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Skeptic
Date: 08 Feb 01 - 03:02 PM

Troll,

There is absolutely no reason for you to be so damned reasonable.

Bart,

Ditto.

Guest Liberal,

Actually, you don't subsidize any tax burden if you don't buy the car. The tax is paid by those who do. I repeat, business' do not pay tax. It is an operating expense passed on to the consumer. It is a hidden tax for those who consume.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. You answered the question anyway. It is question of how we want to pay our taxes. Directly or indirectly. Directly might make people more aware of what the government actually costs. And if prices fell commensurate to the tax reduction, the net effect would be positive.

On the other hand, I could incorporate myself as a business, contract my services out, transfer ownership of all my property to the business and pay myself a very nominal amount. The business would rent me my house for $5.00 a month and so on. I like that. We all get out of paying taxes that way.

On the energy crisis, I offer some of the sources of my opinions.

As the Los Angeles Times said in an editorial (Jan. 31, 2001): "The California electricity shortage was not cause by environmental extremism..." And, as Paul Krugman of the New York Times said ("Smog and Mirrors" Jan. 31, 2001), "Nor, apparently, did environmental regulations play much of a role in California's failure to build new plants in the years since deregulation. The California electricity shortage is mainly the result of a flawed deregulation plan compounded by mistakes made by the utilities. "

According to an article in the Los Angeles Daily News ("By Killing Plan, Socal Edison Helped Create Power Crisis," Jan. 21): "...Southern California Edison and other utilities helped kill a state plan that would have authorized the creation of new power plants sufficient to power 1.4 million homes, records and interviews show." The utilities hoped that they could buy " plenty of cheaper power elsewhere..." To add insult to injury the same Daily New article reported: "By state law, much of the power was ordered to come from renewable energy such as wind, geothermal and solar." According to the California Energy Commission, no electric power plant in California has been rejected over air pollution issues.

In the last three years, a number of proposed power plants have been slowed by objections from competing energy companies. According to the Sacramento Bee (Jan. 28, 2001): "Of the 21 power plants proposed for licensing since 1997, competing companies have intervened in 12 proposals, slowing the process in at least four situations..."

And don't claim they may not be biased but contrary opinions on the issued raised don't seem to be too prevalent.

The California energy companies didn't plan. They supported a flawed deregulation plan. They didn't plan well and fought companies who tried to. Then they blamed it on the State? This does not compute.

Why is this the fault of the State? Your sources would be appreciated.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Troll
Date: 08 Feb 01 - 04:26 PM

The idea is to keep you off balance. Since you are pretty unbalanced as it is, I only have to be reasonable on rare ocassions. That seems to do the trick.
Re: Capitalism and freedom, only the capitalists are free. The workers who produce whatever product is being produced are at the mercy of the capitalist.
Prior to the advent of the labor unions, the treatment of workers was a disgrace. They were treated worse than slaves since slaves, having to be purchased, represented a capital outlay and, like a machine or a horse,were maintained.
Not so with the free worker.He worked for starvation wages for 14 hours a day. He often lived in company housing and was paid in company scrip which was only good at the company store.
If he tried to strike for better conditions, the factory owned could ask the government to send in troops to "put down the rebellion".
The unions gradually put a stop to all this. Unfortunately, "BIG" labor is now in bed with the politicians. We will see where this leads. I have seen abuses on the local level where union officials played managments game in return for preferential treatment in other areas.
I have no doubt that it is the same higher up.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Feb 01 - 04:50 PM

>The California energy companies didn't plan. They supported a flawed deregulation plan. They didn't plan well and fought companies who tried to. Then they blamed it on the State? This does not compute.

The energy companies did support the deregulation plan early on. But what they got was not what they bargained for. I don't mean to get into a 'My Source/Your Source' peeing contest here, but I will post some quotes from the Richmond Times-Dispatch, which pulls in some quotes from various sources. The article provides some different background than the LA Times (and no, I won't comment on the slant of the LA Times.)

From the Times-Dispatch: Last August the head of California's Pacific Gas and Electric said California's electric industry had reached the 'ragged edge' of failure. Today his company cannot pay its bills, and Californians en-dure brownouts, roll- ing blackouts, Stage 3 alerts, and an energy circumstance not unlike Yugoslavia's.

What happened?

Reason magazine's editor at large, Virginia Postrel:

[California's 1996 'deregulation' law cut consumer rates by 10 percent and established future price caps. It made utilities sell their power plants. It dictated that electricity be bought and sold only in a single spot market. And it banned all separately negotiated contracts, including long-term deals for lower prices, between power producers and utilities.

The result?

Columnist William Safire:

Upward pressure on prices, calls for rationing, utilities going broke, government intervention that frightens off private investment, and the danger of an economic Big One in the state responsible for 13 percent of the nation's [gross domestic] product.

California's treasurer Philip Angelides puts it more succinctly: 'The state's energy policy until now [has been] hoping for mild weather.'

TWENTY YEARS ago things were different.

California produced all its own electricity. Now it imports nearly a quarter of its electricity from Arizona, Nevada, and the Pacific Northwest, where rising demand has obligated those areas to use their power at home rather than transferring it to California. And in California itself, economic growth annually exceeds national growth by a factor of three - and this while California has not built a new generating plant in 10 years. Indeed, 'deregulation' has compelled the state's utilities to 'unbundle' their generation plants - i.e., to sell them.

There's plenty of blame to go 'round.

Politicians rejiggered the regulatory environment and called it 'deregulation' when it was no such thing; they capped retail prices to consumers, while freeing wholesale prices that soon had utilities buying power for more than they were allowed to sell it for.

Environmentalists contributed to the mess - (a) first refusing to allow the construction of dread and dratted nuclear plants, then (b) forcing a flight to oil plants while preventing domestic exploration and drilling that increased our dependence on foreign oil, then (c) encouraging the construction of coal-fired plants that couldn't be economically used because they dirtied the air. In high-tech Silicon Valley, even major industrial users killed a generating plant essentially on the grounds that it would visually pollute the landscape. The utilities, according to The Wall Street Journal, 'not only agreed to [California's] original, bogus deregulation scheme, but they supported it. The scheme itself is a masterpiece of short-term thinking.'

And consumers screamed at the very notion of paying higher prices.

RISING DEMAND, static or diminishing supply, and capped retail prices proved just the right potion for California's power industry to implode.

Now California's legislature, at the urging of a statist governor, has enacted a reregulation plan whereby the state - because the past two years of 'deregulation' have bankrupted California's two biggest utilities - will buy electricity and sell it to consumers, but still at capped prices. So the taxpayers will pay for the electricity, or something. Under the new plan, according to a Washington Post news story:

The state still must find energy suppliers willing to sign long-term agreements at rates lower than what is available on the open market. In the meantime, California is spending roughly $40 million a day securing emergency power . . . .The legislature also is still debating a plan to cover most of the utilities' debts, which may exceed $10 billion . . . .State energy officials also fear that California's problems may have only just begun, because demand for electricity in the West is outstripping supply and because usage peaks in the summer.

In effect, the state is seeking to take over nearly all of California's electric power industry, and environmentalists are still complaining, and consumerists are screaming that ratepayers have no protections. The call is out, from governors in California and Washington at least, for help from the federal cavalry.

YET THIS IS not a federal problem.

California needs to get a grip, uncap retail prices, and build its own supply to meet its soaring demand. There will be a price of course - a particularly heavy price for the taxpayers and ratepayers to buy their way out of California's flower-child folly of the past several years.

Pennsylvania seems to be moving prudently toward deregulation; ditto Wisconsin. Texas and Virginia are building massively to add generating capacity.

And mere partial deregulation generally compounds problems instead of solving them. From trucking to telecommunications to the airlines to natural gas, deregulation has worked largely to the degree the federal government has gotten out of the way.

Regarding electricity, federal and state governments should cease such practices as cross-subsidies, oppressive ratemaking and rate caps, and control of bulk markets. And they should encourage - not discourage - the construction of coal and nuclear plants. Localities should work with utilities to designate sites for future generating plants now, so future development can proceed without local oppositionists turning out the lights.

Dreamin' California did not deregulate. Rather, it dramatically altered its regulatory climate - an exercise even the state's formerly enthusiastic governor these days calls 'a colossal and dangerous failure.' It was an exercise not in capitalism but in socialism refusing to let go. Now Californians will have an even tougher time shaking the yoke.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Skeptic
Date: 08 Feb 01 - 05:25 PM

Guest Liberal,

Twasn't meant as a pissing contest. (Silly waste of time. Spitting contests got more elegance). Sorry if it came off that way. I had heard some of what you posted from less than reliable sources (Limbaugh, Bortz, troll), but nothing really reliable.

And the slant of the LA Times (And Sacremento Bee and Richmond Times Dispatch) isn't an issue as long as they are reporting facts.

The State does seem to be in panic mode. Conversely, blaming only the environmentalists and bureaucrats for the problem miss states what is going on. Thus my posts. And thanks for yours. Points to ponder

Pogo is still right.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Feb 01 - 07:43 PM

This has got to be the wordiest thread series I've seen yet. It's amazing what happens when people start discussing political and social theory.

Someone expressed interest as to why so many people are "turning to religion" these days. Hmmm...

Define "religion". The common notion of religion seems to be the practice of a belief system in a divine power, a "god", or a supreme being, coupled with membership and participation in some sort of church or religious organization. Is that what you think it is?

I don't. I think that anything people have a very deep faith in is, for them, a religion. Accordingly, some people are religious about money, some about possessions, some about fame, some about Jesus, some about science and rationality, some about patriotism, some about beauty, some about popularity, some about sex, some about military supremacy, and so on. They are all seeking a form of security, a form of safety, something to belong to that gives them a strong sense of identity and a purpose for their existence.

That's a broader definition of religion.

So, if you think more people are "turning to religion"...well, I think everyone I have ever met was deeply religious about something or several things. Only question being...about what?

And if so, how well does it serve them and others around them? And is their religion tolerant of others' religions? Those are the more vital considerations.

And fascists? The "fascist", in my definition, is simply a person of any belief system whatsoever who is very fearful and extremely intolerant toward people in other belief systems...and probably willing to use force to convert them or suppress them or wipe them out. So, either Communists or Capitalists or Socialists or Christians may or may not be fascists...depending on their tolerance of others who are different from themselves.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Skeptic
Date: 08 Feb 01 - 08:28 PM

Little Hawk

Of course, now that you've been to Cuba and been brainwashed by those commie bastards....*VBG*, Oops, sorry, godless socialist bastards *VVBG*

I always think of religion as needing an element of the unknown and unknowable. The element of mystery and unattainability seems necessary to a religion.

The explainable are something less. I'm not sure what to call it, but IMO anyway, its not religion. Maybe a distant cousin?

I think that the first is a very necessary part of life but that people mistake the latter for the former. And end up very unhappy, trying to find in money, power, possessions or whatever, something that isn't there. They can evoke passion but it isn't as pervasive (at least in the long run) as a set of religious beliefs.

Probably for different reasons, I agree that tolerance is one of those "wish everyone was that way" sort of thing. (Well, with a few caveats).

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 08 Feb 01 - 11:07 PM

Guest Liberal - That was my point. There are a lot of redeeming virtues that can be affirmed for capitalism but freedom isn't one of them.

Little Hawk - Fascism is a word which in common usage is applied to intolerant people, as you said. But it has a specific application when talking political systems. Mussolini's Italy is, of course, the classic model. The kind of intolerance that you speak of was just as evident in the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin's version of communism. Fascist dogma, however, was virulently anti-communist. Much of fascism's rise pre-WWII was based on their anti-communist, anti-jew, anti-foreigner platforms, as you probably are well aware.

I hate to pick nits, but there are differences between things like socialism and communism, and to keep the conversation from slipping into semantic problems we need to be careful on how we use terms.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Skeptic
Date: 09 Feb 01 - 07:27 AM

Woke up early and did a little surfing and came across this:

Congressmen Istook wants to investigate the $650,000 Clinton wants for his transition office.

Half is to be paid by the Clinton Foundation, so its $325,000 of the taxpayers money.

Former President Regan's Office costs $357,000. What I found indicated that this was paid by the tax-payers.

I think either is a lot to pay for office space, former presidents or not. I can't find anything about who pays (and how much) for Bush Sr's office so if anyone knows, it would be interesting.

Conversely, I wish there was something that could be done about some of the presidential pardons (both those made and not made). The power of presidential pardon is an absolute power. As disturbed as I am by what Clinton did/didn't do, the call for investigation adds some credibility to the "its a witch hunt" charges and sends a dangerous signal: That there are elected members of congress who view the Constitution as an ideological and political tool.

Certainly Congress has the right to hold hearings on whatever they want. They have the right to wear propeller beanies and red ping pong ball noses too. I have a (faint) hope they have enough sense to do neither.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Feb 01 - 09:50 AM

John, I think its a very forlorn hope. Welcome to 17th century Salem. Get used to the clown noses: they should be REQUIRED for members of congress.   ;-)

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 09 Feb 01 - 12:34 PM

Those last minute pardons threaten to undermine the Clinton Presidential Legacy; heck, now she might not even get elected at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Feb 01 - 05:21 PM

Skeptic - I appreciated your well thought out comments, as usual. I didn't actually meet any "communists" in Cuba, nary a one. I guess there are a few in the government, but I didn't meet them. I just met a lot of ordinary people. Some of them like life in Cuba and some don't. Some are patriotic, some want only to get to North America, where they see opportunities for better jobs, more money, and more consumer goods. Cuba's the same as the rest of Latin America in that sense, the only difference being that they are under an embargo...oh, and they do provide much more basic infrastructure to the general population in terms of medical care, education, housing, and so on than is true in many other Latin American countries. Those are real accomplishments of Castro's revolution, and a great improvement over the Batista regime that preceded it.

I was well impressed by Cuba, on the whole, and profoundly impressed by its people.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Troll
Date: 10 Feb 01 - 08:03 AM

LH, It wpuld be well to remember that Cuba's "miracle" was build with Russian Rubles. When that fountain of aid dired up, things got pretty rough and have remained so.
I won't address the "embargo" which seems to apply only to the US. It is maintained at the insistance of the elits of the exile communtiy who want Castro overthrown so they can assume their old positions of power.
Without the Soviet asistance that Castro enjoyed for so long, he would have been just another banana republic dictator.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 10 Feb 01 - 09:28 PM

Dear Thief,

"I wanted to ask where the "bipartisanship" was that we were promised?"

That appeal came from the commucRATs, in their jargon, it means capitulating to their socialist agenda. I detest and reject it. They can put it where the sun......

When you see two opposing forces, one favoring (the evil, mean spirited, right wing extremist conservatives) and one seeking the destruction of the Constitution (the organized labor/crime/governmentalist commucRATs), how can there be "bi-partisanship"?

"So far, what I've seen is very far-right cabinet appointments, and very far-right actions (e.g. overturning the abortion thing, the roads-in-the-woods thing, etc.), and NO change in either rhetoric or numbers on his tax-cut"

That would be a testimony to his integrity, that's what he ran on.

It's only "far-right" to the LSC "far-left"

"I suppose by "bipartisanship" Bush means that if the Democrats don't fall into line, they aren't "team players"?

That would be a logical assumption.

"Or am I just missing something really obvious? (Like he's a filthy liar?)"

Yes you are missing something obvious, except it's that Clinton Tom De Ash Hole, Garp D!khe@d and the other democRATs are the filty liars.

(See; Clinton fined for perjury and loses right to practice law for 5 years) The democrat caucus defended him to a man (and that includes Maxie and Sheila)

He should and may be indicted for bribery in the Rich pardon case.

He should be indicted for grand theft larceny for ripping off the White House and not cataloging unknown quantities of opulent gifts from foreign countries while in the Oval Office.

You wouldn't know an honest man if he was slapping the cuffs on you.

love,

mav

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 10 Feb 01 - 10:01 PM

Dear typical liberthief,

"pointing his bipartisan finger right at the Democrats"

We're pointing another finger right at the democRATs.

Little Hawk,

"Those are real accomplishments of Castro's revolution"

The murder of ten of thousands of the people you so admire are the real accomplishments of Castro.

Troll,

"Without the Soviet asistance that Castro enjoyed for so long, he would have been just another banana republic dictator"

Yeah! (Oh wait, he is just another banana republic dictator)

Bart,

"I hate to pick nits, but there are differences between things like socialism and communism"

Yes, and for proof of this just see the "Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics" and the "National SOCIALIST Workers Party". "and to keep the conversation from slipping into semantic problems we need to be careful on how we use terms"

You mean like, say, "Right Wing Extremists"?

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Skeptic
Date: 11 Feb 01 - 09:25 AM

Mav,

Is "democRats" any less inflammatory than "right wing extremist nut"? Or any more true? All a matter of opinion and personal agenda. Once the name calling starts, it's hard for anyone to stop. And hard to take the name callers all that seriously, no matter what their perspective.

Are Clinton's actions defensible. Probably not. Although the bribery/pardon link is a little strained. Unless it was a very, very friendly divorce, linking the actions of an ex-wife to the pardon (without any more proof than has surfaced so far),seems a little paranoid and sour-grapeish.

Bush, btw, ran on a platform of building unity and promoting bi-partisanship. It was a mini-crisis when a group of conservative congressmen and senators (back in October, I think) indicated that they intended to pursue their very partisan agenda and expected Bush to do the same. Bush clearly needs to keep on the good side of the conservatives. The cabinet appointments aren't the test. That's still to come.

Finally, whether Bush lied or not, whether Clinton lied or not, doesn't have much to do with the validity or lack thereof of the. RWE or LSC ideas and programs.

troll,

The old USSR supported Cuba for military and propaganda reasons. That went away long ago. They endured. Our current policy toward Cuba seems simply vindictive and designed more to win votes in Florida than out of any practical or military necessity. Cuba remains a sovereign nation. Banana Republic or not, it ain't our banana republic. Historically, we have an impressive record of propping up banana republics as repressive as the popular view of Cuba makes it out to be going back well over 80 years.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 11 Feb 01 - 07:54 PM

Dear Skeptic,

"Is "democRats" any less inflammatory than "right wing extremist nut"?

Probably not, but they are the ones who created it by whining about unintentional graphics in a W campaign ad. Remember?

I liked it!

"Or any more true?"

Yes. Like I said, they have become Bill/Hitlery Clinton because they defended their criminal activities and continue to. (well, some of the rats are jumping ship, like David Bonier)

The RWEs are just American Conservatives, like they always have been. "All a matter of opinion and personal agenda"

Yes, pro or anti-Constitution.

Once the name calling starts, it's hard for anyone to stop.

I don't see much difference between Democrat and democRAT. The correct spelling has a dirty enough conotation. I don't like RINOs any better.

"And hard to take the name callers all that seriously, no matter what their perspective"

Rank and file, traditional democrat voters may be persuaded to switch parties (some are actually Conservative) but the CommucRAT LSCs are irretrievable.

For example, they think socialism works. If socialism is so superior, why aren't the Cubans driving Mercedes and Lexus (or at least VWs and Toyotas) in massive numbers? I understand why they aren't driving new GMs

Keep on groovin'

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Skeptic
Date: 11 Feb 01 - 10:55 PM

Dear Mav, Probably not, but they are the ones who created it by whining about unintentional graphics in a W campaign ad. Remember? I liked it!

They started it? A fine mature attitude. Of course, it would depend on your motives, I suppose.

The RWEs are just American Conservatives, like they always have been....pro or anti-Constitution. We just finished a long discussion on the Constitution. Which one? Original Intent, the Living Constitution, Spirit versus letter of the law? Tossing out undefined generalities isn't a discussion, and its certainly not viable propaganda. And no, I don't think you've made your interpretation of the Constitution clear. I don't see much difference between Democrat and democRAT. The correct spelling has a dirty enough conotation. I don't like RINOs any better Disingenuous at best. And evasive. Since you have to make and extra effort to capitalize, of course you see, and intend for others to see, the difference. Rank and file, traditional democrat voters may be persuaded to switch parties (some are actually Conservative) but the CommucRAT LSCs are irretrievable.

Extremist of any persuasion, if they switch, are likely to switch to the opposite extreme. Subtle and not so subtle name calling convinces most of the in-betweeners to tune out.

For example, they think socialism works. If socialism is so superior, why aren't the Cubans driving Mercedes and Lexus (or at least VWs and Toyotas) in massive numbers? I understand why they aren't driving new GMs

Maybe because your measurement is flawed? How does driving a specific car relate to superiority? He who dies with the most toys wins is a sterile, unsatisfying philosophy, at best. Why the assumption that your standard is The Standard?

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 12 Feb 01 - 12:21 PM

Mav - People can call themselves anything they desire. The Soviet Union calling itself "socialist" doesn't mean a damn thing.

You are a bit of a materialist, aren't you friend mav? For decades, the US used Cuba like a perverse theme park for the bored, affluent American. We controlled their economy, bought our pleasures at a severly cut-rate, used their land and women as we wanted until a populist movement rose up and said "Enough!!" That this movement would welcome communism was predictable. That it would, under the leadership of Fidel Castro, turn to the Soviets for aid was unavoidable.

We left the Cubans no choice but to become our enemy. The same way we left Ho Chi Minh no choice in Viet Nam. Why is it that we can co-exist with communism now and we had to eliminate it then? Why is it that we can trade with "Red" China but embargo Cuba? Is it because of the pack of fools who still think they can get their estates back from the Cubans if we can only break Castro's revolution? Bah.

What a demented policy. What a horrible thing to have to explain to good old St. Peter. "We needed to impoverish Cuba; we had to stop the inevitable march of Communism. We liked the cigars and the beautiful whores and if the Cubans insisted on controlling their own land we couldn't guarantee that we could get stuff from anywhere in Central America cheap anymore. That island was a threat to our entire system".

And don't even bring up the anti-ballistic missiles. If we would have befriended Castro, rather than trying to crush him, that wouldn't have been an issue. And they would be driving GM's today.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: mousethief
Date: 12 Feb 01 - 12:47 PM

Remember VietNam? Ho Chi Minh begged the US to help him win independence from the French. We fucked up. We said "yes" when we needed his help during WW2, then turned around and reamed him when it came time to pay up. So the communists waltz in and say, "hey, come over to our side, we'll help you get independent of the French!" And the fool buys it.

Who is to blame? The USA.

Same for Cuba.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: kendall
Date: 12 Feb 01 - 02:19 PM

Here is something of interest: www.watchersweb.com/f2776.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Skeptic
Date: 12 Feb 01 - 05:03 PM

A sense of fairness compels me to ask: So if the RWE types call us names, it's wrong, but when we do it, its okay? Exactly when is stereotyping a good thing?

Bart,

You forgot to add our support of the Batiste regime, who supposedly gave Generalissimo's everywhere a bad name.

Our missiles in Turkey (aimed at the Soviet Union) predated the Cuban missiles. It would be wrong to imply that after several years of fruitlessly asking the US to remove the missiles from Turkey and getting nowhere, the USSR just assumed that what was good for the goose was good for the gander. Or maybe it was just a calculated move, because once the missiles left Cuba, we started pulling ours out of Turkey.

On the other hand,

Just because a particular group of people are heartless, selfish, uncaring, self-centered, money-grubbing, humorless proto-fascists, I see no reason to rub their nose in it. Clearly they are merely victims of repressive parents and rigid, authoritarian private schools. Its our job, no, our solemn duty, to see that proper social and educational programs are instituted to help them overcome these deficiencies imposed on them by their up-bringing. Perhaps a peer mentoring program where LSCers could proctor them and help them transition to the real world. (Note to Republicans: The forgoing is a joke.)

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 12 Feb 01 - 09:09 PM

Skeptic;

"They started it? A fine mature attitude. Of course, it would depend on your motives, I suppose"

All I'm telling you is that RATs is a creation of the democrats, not the GOP.

I differ with Bush in that if I meant to call them rats I'd call them rats, and I do.

"We just finished a long discussion on the Constitution. Which one? Original Intent, the Living Constitution, Spirit versus letter of the law? Tossing out undefined generalities isn't a discussion, and its certainly not viable propaganda. And no, I don't think you've made your interpretation of the Constitution clear"

The Constitution! The plain as the nose on your face, no interpretation necessary, only living if you amend it one you take an oath to preserve and defend, that one.

" 'I don't like RINOs any better' Disingenuous at best. And evasive"

Huh? RINOs means Republican In Name Only. Yes they are disingenuous, if they want to be democrats they should change parties.

"Maybe because your measurement is flawed? How does driving a specific car relate to superiority?"

Because just because the US is not doing business with Cuba doesn't mean the whole world is.

My point is that the reason Cuba is impoverished is because Castro steals most of the GDP from his own people.

"He who dies with the most toys wins is a sterile, unsatisfying philosophy, at best. Why the assumption that your standard is The Standard?"

Seen any Floridians risking their lives to inner tube to escape to Cuba lately?

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: kendall
Date: 12 Feb 01 - 09:13 PM

For one thing MAV the Gulf Stream goes in the wrong direction.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 12 Feb 01 - 10:41 PM

Bart,

"The Soviet Union calling itself "socialist" doesn't mean a damn thing"

You mean they were benevolent "capitalists"?

"You are a bit of a materialist, aren't you friend mav?"

Well, "a bit" would be descriptive. I drive an early 90s car and live in a house. I'm not wealthy, living in one of the poorest socialist states in the US.

"What a horrible thing to have to explain to good old St. Peter. "We needed to impoverish Cuba"

Our embargo does not prevent the entire rest of the world from doing business with Cuba. Castro impoverishes Cuba. He is nothing more than a murdering thief.

"And don't even bring up the anti-ballistic missiles"

What do you think about the anti-ballistic missiles?

Skeptic,

"A sense of fairness compels me to ask: So if the RWE types call us names, it's wrong, but when we do it, its okay? Exactly when is stereotyping a good thing?"

As a so-called RWE. What the hell would you call a REAL right wing extremist?

What would they be? A 24/7 bible thumping, Chamber of Commerce, law abiding Constitutionalist?

Before you call us Nazis, we reject ALL authoritarianism.

We consider McVeigh a criminal but the left thinks the Unibomber is a folk hero. His twisted writings (Manifesto) are indistinguishable from algor's "Earth in the Balance".

Then there's that Black Panther death-row cop-killer poet. OOOH now there's someone your kids can look up to.

We can't forget the bribe taking perjurer Clinton, hypocrite murdering Kennedy and thieving Rottencowskin et al, heros of the left.

mav out

PS (Our philanderers are jerks, I'm glad they're gone)

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Skeptic
Date: 13 Feb 01 - 08:15 AM

Mav,

The sterotyping post was directed to the thread as a whole, not you personally. I wrote it in response to the cartoon link kendall posted. In the context of this thread, it was stereotyping. In another setting, I'd have found it as funny as the one where what you'd call and LSC is on his way to the Anti-Pollution rally in his SUV and stops to give a homeless guy and book on how to prepare healthy meals with your cusinart.

If you (or anyone else) saw it as a personal attack, all I can offer is this bit of folk wisdom: You throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that gets hit yelps the loudest.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: kendall
Date: 13 Feb 01 - 01:52 PM

Lets get one thing clear MAV..the mere fact that Kennedy and Clinton are democrats has nothing to do with the fact that I am also a democrat. They are NOT MY heros.Got it? Warren Harding is generally believed to be the worst president in history, Nixon was the only president forced to resign, the Actor lied to us about an illegal deal he was supporting. In my opinion, they were all crooks. Does that make you a crook? Of course not. Let's get real. As Jean Harris said in "Stranger In Two Worlds" Stereotypes afford us the luxury of not thinking, but, in time they extract the price of not thinking."

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 13 Feb 01 - 04:19 PM

I'm with you on that, Kendall.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Skeptic
Date: 13 Feb 01 - 04:26 PM

Mav,

For an interesting take on the Constitution consider these ideas from Pat Robertson.

"There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the Left and we are not going to take it anymore." (Address to the American Center for Law and Justice, November 1993; in this as in numerous similar pronouncements, Robertson was blithely contradicted by his top employee, Ralph Reed. While executive director of the Christian Coalition in 1994 and 1995, Reed was telling audiences at the National Press Club and various Jewish groups that separation of Church and state must be "complete" and "inviolable.")

Most people agree that the issue is the degree, not whether it exists. Nice to have it clarified.

or this.

"I am bound by the laws of the United States and all fifty states. ... I am not bound by any case or any court to which I myself am not a party. ... I don't think the Congress of the United States is subservient to the courts. ... They can ignore a Supreme Court ruling if they so choose." (Washington Post, June 27, 1986.)

This from the man who was one of Ashcrofts chief supporters, about whom Ashcroft has nothing but kind words.

And I would call him a RWE. Who seems to only want to believe in the parts of the Constitution that suit him. Which prompted (in part) my question about the Constitution

Kendall,

Great quote.

In your litany, you really didn't explore the Actor far enough. Consider: his continued support of the government in El Salvador, even in the face of clear evidence of civilian atrocities. Whining about Amnesty International picking on Efrain Montt who's scorched earth policy in Guatemala left thousands of Indian civilians dead. Supporting the Khmer Rouge (terrorists of the first order)on the grounds of self determination in Thailand, but supporting Indonesia's actions against East Timor on the grounds that the the Timoreese didn't have the same right. In Africa, he was a big fan of Apartheid and supported a bunch of fun people. The worst of a bad lot was probably Angolan rebel leader Jonas Savimbi. When Savimbi's horrific human rights record could no longer be denied, some conservatives who had once sung his praises turned against him. Reagan stood steadfast in his support, so I guess he gets credit for loyalty. Turning to his economic policies, by all the standard indicators, the 80's were worse than the 70's or the 90's. Of couse, that wasn't Reagan's fault, it was Carter's. And the recovery of the 90's was because of Reagan/Bush policies, coupled with the actions of the Republican Congress for setting good fiscal policies and not letting Clinton give away the store.. Except that the looming recession is Clinton's fault because....well, it gets a little shaky there. Same Republican controlled congress but its suddenly not their fault. Maybe Al's problem with exaggeration was catching?

And lets not forget W.

Clinton avoided military service. W went in the Texas National Guard. Interestingly, after fairly diligent attendance for the first couple of years while he was in training, he sort of tapered off. Managing in one year to not show up at all (despite a legal requirement of 36 days a year minimum).

Of late he's backed away from a very bipartisan patient bill of rights. And is suddenly not very interested in campaign reform, either. Or selling a tax cut using figures that are simply not supportable. And giving 43% o f the cuts to the top 1%. Granted, they pay a lot of taxes. 21% to be exact. So why does almost half the tax cut go to them? Impressive credentials for some of our better known RWE.

Name calling is all well and good Mav. Just remember the old adage about people in glass houses. And if you insist on assuming that because I (or anyone else) supports some of the policies espoused by Clinton that that means we like the man, I claim the same rights when it comes to you and the little foibles of the Right.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: kendall
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 09:24 AM

How much longer are we going to have to put up with those anal, humorless judgemental RWE types such as Specter, Hatch and Graham? They have hounded Clinton for 8 years spending millions of dollars..and they are still at it! Even W told them to lay off! Why? is it because he wants to "get on with it"??Hell no! he wants to keep his own options open for the crooks in his own party. All of those bastards make me want to puke! And that idiot Phil Graham talking about "Bushs' mandate" what election was he watching?

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: kendall
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 05:33 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 05:59 PM

This thread now has as many editions as the Rocky movies, I believe! Wow.

MAV - Do not assume that the lack of people driving a Lexus indicates some sort of failure in the quality of a society. Not so.

I've been to Cuba. I saw there a people who are stunningly superior to many of their North American counterparts in the things that really matter...

Such as: maturity, dignity, familial and fraternal feeling, religious faith, a sense of community, a sense of who they really are, a sense of what life is actually about, which is human values and morals...not money and possessions.

This is partly BECAUSE they did not grow up in a consumer society awash from birth to death with materialism and excess and boredom and pointless consumption...I call it the Road to Nowhere.

The Cubans astounded me. I didn't meet one single "communist" the whole time I was down there. Must've been hanging out with the wrong crowd, I suppose. Too bad those commies don't turn bright red, so you could figure out who they are on sight, isn't it. Phooey.

Don't believe the mythology you've been taught since birth until you go there and see for yourself if it holds any truth.

Many young Cubans want to get out, all right, but it is not because of socialism. It is for the same reason that many Mexicans, Guatemalans, Nicarauguans, and Costa Ricans want to get into the USA. They think it's a paradise. They are partly wrong about that, but it doesn't surprise me that they think that...all they have to do is watch Hollywood movies and American TV shows to get sold on the "American Dream"...

All of South American dreams of going to North America to get away from poverty...NOT just the Cubans. Toronto, Canada, has thousands of emigrants from all of Latin America. Most of them fled from American allies...a few from Cuba...all seeking the "good life" in North America.

What's different about the Cubans is...everyone has a good education (free) and total and excellent health coverage (free) and accomodation at very little cost...and they're virtually all poor by our standards.

Whereas in the rest of capitalist-supported South America, a great many people have little or no education, no health coverage, no accomodation...and the majority are utterly desperately poor by our standards.

Mexicans die all the time trying to get into the USA...and they are not in a "socialist" state...just a corrupt state, supported by the USA, and quarantined from it at the same time...as a source of cheap labour for American corporations.

Castro is no angel, but he has achieved a great deal more for his people than any American-supported despot such as Batista ever did. Batista was a murderer and thief on a grand scale. Castro gave the country back to the people. I'm sure the loyalists in 1776 called George Washington a murderer and a thief too, and from THEIR point of view he was. Why don't you read about the Cuban revolution? Read both sides and compare. It was a revolution that redressed MANY wrongs against Cuba's people...which is why it succeeded, in spite of having far less financial backing and far less firepower than Batista's corrupt army, which was supplied by the USA. Batista's soldiers deserted to the revolutionaries on many occasions. The reverse did not happen.

The history of the USA with regard to Cuba is one of exploitation, crime, and greed, with barely a redeeming feature, aside from the US Army's campaign to eliminate yellow fever (and that was motivated by the desire to protect their own personnel, not the Cubans).

Cubans, by the way, like Americans (as individuals), but they aren't too impressed by American policy. Little wonder. I feel the same way. You are living in Imperial Rome, my friend. Cuba is just one little country that refused to be gobbled up, and they've been made to pay for it, and pay, and pay...

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 06:26 PM

Thanks for the info, Little Hawk.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: kendall
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 10:30 PM

LH, you are right on the money. I was in Cuba in 1956. Not a nice place to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Troll
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 10:47 PM

Funny thing. We don't see too many people risking their lives to go BACK to Cuba. I guess the brainwashing they get from American TV is just too strong for the good old-fashioned virtues espoused by the Cuban Government. Things like children who spy on their parents, block commisars who keep an eye out for unorthodox thought,lack of ANY luxuries when, during the Russian "occupation" there were stores where the Russian "Advisors" and high government functionaries could shop but the ordinary Cubans could not.
I guess some folks are just more equal than others.
No one denies that education and medical care are available to all in Cuba. But those things were built with Russian money and that will never come again. If the embargo -which I think is stupid- lasts, it will be interesting to see if the programs can continue.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: kendall
Date: 15 Feb 01 - 08:42 AM

The embargo is stupid. Why do we support China as a trading partner and not Cuba? Surely the human rights abuses in China are far worse than in Cuba.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 15 Feb 01 - 10:20 AM

Who knows what a healthy Cuban economy could provide for its people? You cannot fairly judge a system that has been forced to operate on a war time footing since its inception because its closest neighbor - the most powerful country in the hemisphere - declared it an enemy and a pariah. Hell, look what we did for Japan after WWII. What if we would have offered that type of support to the new Cuban state regardless of its politics? Of course, the politics of the time wouldn't allow it; but things are different now. Why should a country that considers itself so superior in so many ways continue to feel threatened by a neighboring state that refuses knuckle under? I just don't get it.

I commented that I thought Mav was a "materialist", by this I didn't mean that he himself (I am assuming gender)was consumed with the lust for material items. I don't know him, other than through his posts. I was trying to point out was that he seemed to base his evaluation of political/economic systems on the availability of consumer goods. A good p/e combination is one that provides the most stuff for the citizens. GNP is probably more easily measured than spiritual or mental health, but that doesn't make it any less shallow a measure.

I'd feel better about Castro (and all members of the various communist politburos (SP?)) if they actually shared the austerity which the average joe-communist has been forced to endure. Personally, I think the level of hipocrisy in the communist hierarchy has only been exceeded by their greed. But we specialize in greed; it is the prime motivating force in the capitalist system. And we're pretty high on the hipocrisy scale, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: mousethief
Date: 15 Feb 01 - 01:31 PM

If you work 40 hours or less a week, thank a labor union.
If you get Saturdays and/or Sundays off, thank a labor union.
If your employer pays some or all of your health insurance premium, thank a labor union.
If your work place is relatively safe and comfortable, thank a labor union.
If you get paid sick leave and/or vacation, thank a labor union.
If you earn a living wage, thank a labor union.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 01 - 02:51 PM

Yes, Alex. It was a long and desperate struggle to secure those basic rights. Along the way many people died at the hands of police, soldiers and hired thugs who were used to bust the early unions. Those thugs were hired by the richest and most powerful people in society, the robber barons of their day.

Every attempt to secure basic worker's rights and basic workplace safety was declared "communist" by those rich and powerful people, which was rather like calling someone a "witch" back in Salem. It's a very handy label to stick on anyone who rocks the boat or wants to change the system in any meaninful way.

How soon people forget who fought and died to secure the rights and conditions they take for granted.

In that regard, the labour unions from the 1800's through the 40's and 50's deserve as much honour and remembrance as do the revolutionary armies commanded by George Washington and his contemporaries in the fledgling United States of America.

****

On people not risking their lives to go back to Cuba...I don't see them risking their lives to go back to Mexico, Peru, Bolivia, El Salvador, Costa Rica, or Panama either. Or to Pakistan, China, or India, for that matter.

However, the USA is not embargoing Mexico, Peru, Bolivia, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Panama, Pakistan, China or India.

Why? Because they are cooperating with American financial and military interests.

Get the point? The dollar rules America. To pretend that US foreign policy decisions have anything to do with morality, democracy or human rights is to be very, very naive.

Had the USA helped Castro in the early 60's, instead of driving him into the arms of the Russians (who were the only other game in town)...you would now have a valued and friendly ally of America in Havana. Castro visited the USA shortly after taking over, in the precise hope of securing such a friendly relationship. He was rebuffed. You want to know why? Not because of human rights issues. Not because of democracy issues. Because he threw rich American companies and rich American Mafia organized crime out of Cuba, and nationalized their holdings, and gave the land to the people who had been working it at slave labour wages, and gave them educational facilities and health care and some kind of basic infrastructure at all levels of society for the first time ever.

Money calls the shots in America. Money and only money. That's why it says "In God We Trust" on every dollar, I suppose, because I hardly think it refers to any spiritual being. I see no evidence that it does, unless God is the departed spirit of J.P. Morgan or some other billionaire magnate of his time.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: kendall
Date: 15 Feb 01 - 02:59 PM

A working man voting for a republican is like a chicken voting for Frank Purdue.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: mousethief
Date: 15 Feb 01 - 04:41 PM

Who's Frank Purdue?

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Feb 01 - 11:03 PM

Perhaps Kendall's former father-in-law?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: wdyat12
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 03:51 PM

Here we go again! Dubya's first sorte over Iraq 12:30 PM today. Wdyat12

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: mousethief
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 03:55 PM

He was jealous that Clinton was STILL getting so much more press than he was. Anything to grab headline space.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: kendall
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 03:58 PM

ok then...Colonel Sanders.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: mousethief
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 07:19 PM

Frank Purdue is Colonel Sanders?

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: kendall
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 07:44 PM

Go away kid, ya bother me.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 08:21 PM

Hey Kendall old buddy,

"Lets get one thing clear MAV..the mere fact that Kennedy and Clinton are democrats has nothing to do with the fact that I am also a democrat. They are NOT MY heros.Got it?"

All democRATs who blindly defended clinton against us stupid conservatives who have been on to him for nine years are CORRUPT!!!!!

GOT IT????

You asked for it, you got it.....BILL CLINTON!!!!!!

"Warren Harding is generally believed to be the worst president in history"

He was merely ho-hum...Now that honor can go to clinton.

"Nixon was the only president forced to resign"

At least he had the common decency and honor to resign. He was a Boy Scout compared to clinton.

Now we find that the Watergate burglery was all about protecting the "honor" of John Dean's wife who was operating a call girl ring.

"the Actor lied to us about an illegal deal he was supporting"

The Congress seemed to forget that the Executive sets foreign policy. Ask a hostage if they approved of that situation. His handwritten radio addresses show him to have formulated his own policy (not just an actor)

"In my opinion, they were all crooks"

Well, you seem to be real wrong a lot.

You're just mad because he destroyed the USSR.

Feel the love,

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: catspaw49
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 08:51 PM

Yeah, you're out all right MAV............far, far, out................way far back in deep right. Matter of fact you crashed through the sanity fence and are out of the stadium, past the parking lot, and about 92 city blocks on down. Try to stop at a restroom, if you can halt your backwards momentum, and dump that load of shit you're carrying. Be sure to alert the owner that your crap is especially putrid and there's a ton of it so he can get the Roto-Rooter folks on the way. When they arrive, have them snake out your ass to be sure all that shit is out.

Geeziz...................

Why are you all jacking with this guy? Go try to convince a wall to paint itself or something that is more likely than changing this boy's mind.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - FIVE
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 09:15 PM

Perhaps there's a strong spirit of masochism involved....? or training for Olympic Nutcase Wrestling?

Best, Greg