 sj |
||
|
||
BS: MORE credit for Bush
|
|
|
Subject: MORE credit for Bush From: mousethief Date: 16 Apr 01 - 11:04 AM I want to applaud President Bush for not going to Whidbey Island (Washington State) for the homecoming of the 24 crewmembers of the downed US surveillance plane. With the President there, it would have become a media circus focusing on the President. Another photo op. Feathering his own nest. Without the President there, it was as it should have been -- a media circus, sure, but focusing on our 24 returning servicemembers. They held the spotlight, instead of the Prez, and were able to spend time with their families that would have been lost to cameo-hamming with the Prez. (PS for what it's worth this POV was courtesy of Cokie Roberts, liberal commentator extraordinaire.) Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Bert Date: 16 Apr 01 - 12:11 PM Hmmm, you've got a point there Alex. But don't make a habit of this. We don't want to end up liking this guy you know. Bert. P.S. Are we going to applaud him every time he doesn't do anything? *BG* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: mousethief Date: 16 Apr 01 - 12:14 PM Hey, Bert, don't look a gift horse in the mouth! Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Bert Date: 16 Apr 01 - 12:16 PM Yer right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: gnu Date: 16 Apr 01 - 12:19 PM It DID show good manners and common sense, didn't it ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Naemanson Date: 16 Apr 01 - 12:25 PM Either that or he didn't want to spoil his Easter by traveling... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Naemanson Date: 16 Apr 01 - 12:29 PM I posted at 12:15 and Mousethief continued the thread moments later. I guess I'll repost my answer to MAV here.
By the way Alex, thanks for doing that. I noticed it when I looked at the number of posts and decided I should go ahead make a continuation thread myself. Well this pretty much ate up that lunch break. MAV wrote: "As far as we (American conservatives)are concerned, fascist, Marxist, Stalinist, whatever, all authoritarianism is the domain of the left." We don't seem to be communicating. The post you referred me to is mine and while I do see the phrase "American conservatives" in it the movements you cited (fascist, Marxist, Stalinist) in that same sentence are European in origin. That is why I had to take the tack I did. Besides, conservatism is not restricted to the USA. There are conservative movements all over the world and they all seem to have the same goals, i.e., limitation of personal freedom; acquisition of material wealth; a distrust of the media; a basic disinterest in the welfare of poor people; and a love of the military. You say you are a libertarian flavored conservative. What I know of the libertarian ideals is limited to the interview and call in program with Maine's libertarian candidate last year. What I heard made me believe that things could be much worse than a conservative government. Maybe you would like to enlighten me as to how we would run a huge, rich country like this under libertarian principles and keep from having disease and starvation in the streets. You are concerned that the "status quo at the moment is borderline socialism with the government attempting to become the health care industry, power producing industry, retirement security industry, education industry (mission accomplished)etc." This strikes me as another instance of either misunderstanding the goals of these programs or a disregard of history. As I said before, the social history of the US during the second half of the 19th Century and during the Great depression has shown what happens to the people when the Government takes a hands-off approach. Another example is what happened in England during the Industrial Revolution. I'm sure you don't want to see that happen again. So what is the solution to such a dilemma. You don't want the Government to handle things and there isn't anyone else with the resources to do it. What do we do? People need health care, they need to eat, we all need energy at affordable prices, and we all need an education. One proposal has been to privatize. I guess the theory is that the bureaucracy is expensive, wasteful, and slow. I can't argue that. But a private industry has two things that never seems to be considered. They have their own overhead expenses and they need to make a profit. I have no problem with making a profit but I believe the overhead and profit could equal the government waste. If there will be no change why change things? And, believe it or not, private industry has their own bureaucracy and we would have to deal with. Who has not had to ask for something from a large company? When they want to be paid it is easy to contact a responsible representative. If you need them to do something for you it can be frustrating and difficult in the extreme. Trust me, I have worked with some of the largest construction firms in the US and they are sometimes as bad as the US Government that I work for. Concerning Iran-Contra, the U.S. Congress passed the Boland Amendment in 1984 specifically outlawing the funding of the so-called Contras by any government agency. While the President has the authority to conduct foreign policy he also has to obey the law of the land and the Boland Amendment was made part of that law. The authority to conduct foreign policy does not abstract him from his responsibility to conform to the will of the people. Remember, he works for us. It didn't help that Bush Sr. collaborated in the original scandal and then engineered the cover up by pardoning the players. Those conservatives with heartburn about Clinton's pardons need to remember this one. Oh, and two can play the game of quoting and interpreting lines from famous documents. Here is the Preamble to the Constitution: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Let's take a look at what it says The Constitution is to do. "…form a more perfect Union…" After The Revolution there were many instances of conflict between the states, each asserting their states rights. The Constitution was intended to end those conflicts. "…establish Justice…" Pretty self explanatory except that it was not intended to usurp the justice system within each state. It was intended to provide a framework for justice between the states. "…insure domestic Tranquility…" Once again there was a matter of conflict between the states. In one or two instance it nearly came to blows and in one instance, Shay's Rebellion, there were deaths and a true fear of warfare. "…provide for the common defence…" Also self explanatory. We need an army and a navy to defend ALL of the states. The militias continued unaffected. "…promote the general Welfare…" This could be the one on which you and I differ the most. The word welfare is defined as health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. To my mind that pretty much requires the US Government to become the center of the social programs so hated by conservatives. "…and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…" And this is the "granting" phrase. As I said before, I had nothing to do with the creation of this document or this nation. I am eternally grateful and proud to be part of it but I believe we earn the rights which are granted to us. You and I may be at odds over a mere matter of semantics. I think the idea of the people giving permission to the Government to govern them is a principle of the Libertarians isn't it? I'd like to know more about it before I go any further on this part of the discussion. I think that pretty much covers it. I find this discussion stimulating and enjoyable. Thanks for meeting me in a like mind. Brett |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: GUEST,Claymore Date: 16 Apr 01 - 02:59 PM mousethief, We probably don't agree on much, but I also heard Cokie Roberts piece and totally agreed with it. Her second point was that, in her words, "Clinton would have draped himself all over both of these issues" (refering to the Cinncinatti funeral of the escaping criminal who was shot as he jumped over a fence into the path of a pursing police officer, as well as the Orion crew's return). Her last point was, that by inviting them to the White House at a later date, Bush can make it a pleasant weekend off-base for the flyers and their families, instead of all the Presidential protocol getting in the way of the reunion. She closed by noting that self-effacement appeared to be a hallmark of the Bush Administration as opposed to the previous Democratic Adminstration... Again, this from a liberal icon.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: mousethief Date: 16 Apr 01 - 03:20 PM It's enough to shake one's faith in the proposition that the press is dominated by conservative-bashing liberals. If one ever had such faith. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: DougR Date: 16 Apr 01 - 03:24 PM Ah, but Naemanson, he did travel. To Crawford, Texas, to be with his family for Easter. And I side with Alex and others. I think Bush was smart to play it the way he did and stay out of the spotlight. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Little Hawk Date: 16 Apr 01 - 04:09 PM Yep, sounds like he did the right thing to me... - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Greg F. Date: 16 Apr 01 - 05:57 PM Why all the accolades for this guy simply because he adopted a course that any reasonable person would take- even assuming he made the decision for himself, which is unlikely. He did absolutely nothing special- manufactured "news" at its "finest". What's next- adulation because he's able to feed himself, and is potty trained? Good god!
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Naemanson Date: 16 Apr 01 - 06:13 PM He's potty trained? About time! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: mousethief Date: 16 Apr 01 - 06:41 PM Because it is very unlikely any of our last 20 presidents would have taken such a reasonable course. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: LDave Date: 16 Apr 01 - 07:40 PM If Bush stood next to real airmen+women it would have reminded people that he went AWOL when he was in the service. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: DougR Date: 17 Apr 01 - 12:15 AM Alex: I'm beginning to worry about you. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Troll Date: 17 Apr 01 - 12:38 AM Give Clinton some credit. When the bodies of the sailors who were killed on the USS Cole were flown back to the States, neither he nor Gore used the ocassion as a photo op or even made statement to the press. They were at a Democratic fund raiser as I recall. They raised $200,00. troll * Don't worry about Alex, Doug. I'm sure it's only temporary.***BG*** |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: mousethief Date: 17 Apr 01 - 11:40 AM You guys are not much better than MAV about stereotyping people you think are "liberal." He's a liberal, so he can't possibly agree that President Bush did anything right. troll, is that two hundred dollars, or two hundred thousand dollars? Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: mousethief Date: 17 Apr 01 - 11:46 AM Great piece, Kendall. Pity the people who agree with more than 20% of it; maybe some day they'll be human, too. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: kendall Date: 17 Apr 01 - 01:08 PM The Top 13 Signs the President *is* Ecology-Minded 13> Wants to remove millions of barrels of oil from pristine Alaskan wildnerness before it can cause any harm there. 12> Reduces number of people exhaling CO2 by allowing more arsenic in drinking water. 11> Has started a White House recycling program, though it's currently limited to previous administration cabinet members. 10> Dick Cheney's new pacemaker powered by scalp-mounted solar panels. 9> Seen "watering" White House lawn during recent barbecue. 8> His policies have encouraged the homeless to be more diligent about picking up aluminum cans. 7> He's burying Bill Clinton's legacy to fertilize the Rose Garden. 6> Co-sponsored a California initiative to develop a photovoltaic electric chair. 5> Conserves brain power by not thinkin' too hard about stuff. 4> Dutifully eats any endangered animals his policies kill. 3> He heartily endorses the composting and recycling of Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN). 2> He opposes the Drug Enforcement Administration's plan to destroy agricultural lands in Bolivia and Peru. 1> During staff meetings, he doodles on *both* sides of the paper before discarding. The Top 13 Signs the President *is* Ecology-Minded 13> Wants to remove millions of barrels of oil from pristine Alaskan wildnerness before it can cause any harm there. 12> Reduces number of people exhaling CO2 by allowing more arsenic in drinking water. 11> Has started a White House recycling program, though it's currently limited to previous administration cabinet members. 10> Dick Cheney's new pacemaker powered by scalp-mounted solar panels. 9> Seen "watering" White House lawn during recent barbecue. 8> His policies have encouraged the homeless to be more diligent about picking up aluminum cans. 7> He's burying Bill Clinton's legacy to fertilize the Rose Garden. 6> Co-sponsored a California initiative to develop a photovoltaic electric chair. 5> Conserves brain power by not thinkin' too hard about stuff. 4> Dutifully eats any endangered animals his policies kill. 3> He heartily endorses the composting and recycling of Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN). 2> He opposes the Drug Enforcement Administration's plan to destroy agricultural lands in Bolivia and Peru. 1> During staff meetings, he doodles on *both* sides of the paper before discarding. The Top 13 Signs the President *is* Ecology-Minded 13> Wants to remove millions of barrels of oil from pristine Alaskan wildnerness before it can cause any harm there. 12> Reduces number of people exhaling CO2 by allowing more arsenic in drinking water. 11> Has started a White House recycling program, though it's currently limited to previous administration cabinet members. 10> Dick Cheney's new pacemaker powered by scalp-mounted solar panels. 9> Seen "watering" White House lawn during recent barbecue. 8> His policies have encouraged the homeless to be more diligent about picking up aluminum cans. 7> He's burying Bill Clinton's legacy to fertilize the Rose Garden. 6> Co-sponsored a California initiative to develop a photovoltaic electric chair. 5> Conserves brain power by not thinkin' too hard about stuff. 4> Dutifully eats any endangered animals his policies kill. 3> He heartily endorses the composting and recycling of Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN). 2> He opposes the Drug Enforcement Administration's plan to destroy agricultural lands in Bolivia and Peru. 1> During staff meetings, he doodles on *both* sides of the paper before discarding. The Top 13 Signs the President *is* Ecology-Minded 13> Wants to remove millions of barrels of oil from pristine Alaskan wildnerness before it can cause any harm there. 12> Reduces number of people exhaling CO2 by allowing more arsenic in drinking water. 11> Has started a White House recycling program, though it's currently limited to previous administration cabinet members. 10> Dick Cheney's new pacemaker powered by scalp-mounted solar panels. 9> Seen "watering" White House lawn during recent barbecue. 8> His policies have encouraged the homeless to be more diligent about picking up aluminum cans. 7> He's burying Bill Clinton's legacy to fertilize the Rose Garden. 6> Co-sponsored a California initiative to develop a photovoltaic electric chair. 5> Conserves brain power by not thinkin' too hard about stuff. 4> Dutifully eats any endangered animals his policies kill. 3> He heartily endorses the composting and recycling of Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN). 2> He opposes the Drug Enforcement Administration's plan to destroy agricultural lands in Bolivia and Peru. 1> During staff meetings, he doodles on *both* sides of the paper before discarding. The Top 13 Signs the President *is* Ecology-Minded 13> Wants to remove millions of barrels of oil from pristine Alaskan wildnerness before it can cause any harm there. 12> Reduces number of people exhaling CO2 by allowing more arsenic in drinking water. 11> Has started a White House recycling program, though it's currently limited to previous administration cabinet members. 10> Dick Cheney's new pacemaker powered by scalp-mounted solar panels. 9> Seen "watering" White House lawn during recent barbecue. 8> His policies have encouraged the homeless to be more diligent about picking up aluminum cans. 7> He's burying Bill Clinton's legacy to fertilize the Rose Garden. 6> Co-sponsored a California initiative to develop a photovoltaic electric chair. 5> Conserves brain power by not thinkin' too hard about stuff. 4> Dutifully eats any endangered animals his policies kill. 3> He heartily endorses the composting and recycling of Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN). 2> He opposes the Drug Enforcement Administration's plan to destroy agricultural lands in Bolivia and Peru. 1> During staff meetings, he doodles on *both* sides of the paper before discarding. The Top 13 Signs the President *is* Ecology-Minded 13> Wants to remove millions of barrels of oil from pristine Alaskan wildnerness before it can cause any harm there. 12> Reduces number of people exhaling CO2 by allowing more arsenic in drinking water. 11> Has started a White House recycling program, though it's currently limited to previous administration cabinet members. 10> Dick Cheney's new pacemaker powered by scalp-mounted solar panels. 9> Seen "watering" White House lawn during recent barbecue. 8> His policies have encouraged the homeless to be more diligent about picking up aluminum cans. 7> He's burying Bill Clinton's legacy to fertilize the Rose Garden. 6> Co-sponsored a California initiative to develop a photovoltaic electric chair. 5> Conserves brain power by not thinkin' too hard about stuff. 4> Dutifully eats any endangered animals his policies kill. 3> He heartily endorses the composting and recycling of Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN). 2> He opposes the Drug Enforcement Administration's plan to destroy agricultural lands in Bolivia and Peru. 1> During staff meetings, he doodles on *both* sides of the paper before discarding. The Top 13 Signs the President *is* Ecology-Minded 13> Wants to remove millions of barrels of oil from pristine Alaskan wildnerness before it can cause any harm there. 12> Reduces number of people exhaling CO2 by allowing more arsenic in drinking water. 11> Has started a White House recycling program, though it's currently limited to previous administration cabinet members. 10> Dick Cheney's new pacemaker powered by scalp-mounted solar panels. 9> Seen "watering" White House lawn during recent barbecue. 8> His policies have encouraged the homeless to be more diligent about picking up aluminum cans. 7> He's burying Bill Clinton's legacy to fertilize the Rose Garden. 6> Co-sponsored a California initiative to develop a photovoltaic electric chair. 5> Conserves brain power by not thinkin' too hard about stuff. 4> Dutifully eats any endangered animals his policies kill. 3> He heartily endorses the composting and recycling of Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN). 2> He opposes the Drug Enforcement Administration's plan to destroy agricultural lands in Bolivia and Peru. 1> During staff meetings, he doodles on *both* sides of the paper before discarding. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: mousethief Date: 17 Apr 01 - 01:24 PM Kendall, you must have nervous fingers! The one about Cheney was a low blow. The rest I like! Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: DougR Date: 17 Apr 01 - 06:31 PM Kat, why did you teach Kendall to cut and paste? Now he's going to go wild! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: mousethief Date: 17 Apr 01 - 06:36 PM Question is, why didn't she teach him to do it RIGHT? And now she's gone for a full week and we're going to have to put up with these threads where everything is repeated 3, 4, and 5 times. Sigh. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: DougR Date: 17 Apr 01 - 07:36 PM Kat is obviously a vengeful person! (Justjoking!) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: kendall Date: 17 Apr 01 - 07:41 PM Look how about some suggestions instead of the usual pissing and moaning? I dont know what the fuck is wrong, and all that juvenile complaining is no help. This is what she said to do. Drag the mouse over the text you wish to copy, holding the left click down the entire text. When it is all highlighted, take your hand off the mouse and hit the ctrl key and, at the same time the C key, then release. Go to the thread you want to put it in,and hit ctrl and V at the same time. Ok, all you pain in the ass geniuses, what is wrong? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Greg F. Date: 17 Apr 01 - 08:28 PM Hmmm--- that should work properly as you describe it. When you paste it into the "reply to thread" box, Kendall, is it in there once, or in multiple copies before you hit "submit"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: GUEST,SeanM, hopefully helpful Date: 17 Apr 01 - 09:17 PM What may have happened is your computer may have multiplied the command if you did more than strike the key (i.e., if you held it down). SOME keyboard shortcuts only activate once per key press, but paste commands repeat if you hold the key down... Hopefully, this may help as an alternate, using only the mouse: Start by left-clicking and holding next to the text you wish to copy. Drag the mouse until the entire passage you wish to copy is highlighted. Once the correct area is highlighted, let go of the button. DO NOT PRESS ANYTHING ELSE, as it will undo what you've done. RIGHT click on the highlighted section - do not hold. This should bring up a short menu of commands, including "cut", "copy", "paste" and "delete". You want copy. 'Cut' will work too, but if it's from a document that you're working on, it will delete the passage from there and let you paste the piece elsewhere. Copy leaves the original intact. Go to the document (or screen, or what have you) that you wish to paste the text to. Position the mouse where you'd like it pasted, then RIGHT click. This will bring up the same drop down menu as before - select PASTE. This should accomplish the same thing as what you were doing, but mostly eliminates the chance of keyboard stutter, as with the mouse it only accepts the command once. I hope this helps. SeanM
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Troll Date: 17 Apr 01 - 10:45 PM Alex, it was two hundred thousand dollars. SeanM, thats what I do and it works very well. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: uncle bill Date: 17 Apr 01 - 11:36 PM I heard that the joint chief were pushing Bush to send a carrier task force into the South China Sea as a show of force and gdubya told them to back off . Can anyone confirm this? If so , his stock went up considerably for me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: mousethief Date: 17 Apr 01 - 11:41 PM I heard that Colin Powell told Israel that re-invading the Gaza Strip was an overreaction to the provocation that immediately preceded it, and that he wanted them to clear out post-haste, and that they DID. NPR described the apparent censure of Israel as "rare." I'm beginning to like this State Department. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Lonesome EJ Date: 18 Apr 01 - 12:19 AM On his recent show, Dennis Miller made two comments regarding Bush which I thought were on target... 1) Bush has been able to effectively surround himself with intelligent people, just like a hole surrounds itself with a donut 2) Bush's greatest accomplishment thus far has been to lower our expectations of him to a point that, if he succeeds in getting through his term without shoving a roman candle up his ass on a dare from his brother Jeb, they'll probably put him on Mount Rushmore |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: kendall Date: 18 Apr 01 - 07:39 AM Thanks a lot Sean M. Thats what I needed. I'm more to be pitied than censured. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Whistle Stop Date: 18 Apr 01 - 08:28 AM Bush has been benefiting from low expectations for quite a while now. This thread is just one more example -- the guy decides to skip one photo op in favor of another, and people are giving him credit for having better judgment than any President in the last 20 years? Give me a break! He did an adequate job -- not exceptional -- in dealing with a situation in China that was considerably less of a "crisis" than it was made out to be. As far as I'm concerned, he has yet to be truly tested, with respect to either foreign policy or domestic issues. Let's keep this in perspective, shall we? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: kendall Date: 18 Apr 01 - 08:34 AM What can you expect from a government that is run by a bush and a dick? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Troll Date: 18 Apr 01 - 08:37 AM Whistle Stop, I agree with you. But I think that the reason people are giving him so much credit, is that they didn't think he'd even do that well. He did OK here, maybe he'll continue the trend. We don't need brilliance, just a moderate level of competence and truth. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: mousethief Date: 18 Apr 01 - 11:54 AM I'm more to be pitied than censured. What about teased? Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: GUEST,Curmudgeon Date: 18 Apr 01 - 11:59 AM I'm not sure that Bush is "receiving the benefit of low expectations." There have been plenty of signs that he has some idea of what needs to be done, and a reasonable way of attempting to achieve those goals. Despite the debate over how many more times he had to fly to run out his commission, he was a pilot and stupid pilots end up being the first person at the scene of their own plane crash. Any one who has been to flight school can verify this. His grades were better than Gores and he obtained a Master's degree (Gore did not). But I believe the most important fact is, that his enemies have had such glee at creating or passing on every criticisim that can be leveled at him, that at some point, given the law of Deminishing Returns, they are proved wrong in dramatic fashion. It's at this point that the public, which tends to ignore the whole "Bash Whoevers President" cycle, is drawn into the fray as the media picks up on the public interest, creating a cycle of Media Interest reporting on Public Interest which is reading Media Interest reporting on Public Interest ad nauseum. I've often quoted the old Arabic saying that "Dogs bark, but the caravan moves on". It happened with Clinton, it will happen with Bush. There are too many people on both sides of the asile who will not let the office fail, even if it's not their guy. And you govern from the middle no matter who your supporters are. America, to my mind, has always been one of the more interesting caravans to be on... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: kendall Date: 18 Apr 01 - 12:46 PM Alex, I welcome teasing, but, it must look like teasing. In the future, just add "I'm teasing you old fart!" I may have over reacted. Someone once said "Never spoil an apology by adding an excuse". Ok, so, I wont apologize. Kendallcomingdownoffhishighhorse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: mousethief Date: 18 Apr 01 - 01:05 PM Never spoil an excuse by adding an apology, eh? Next time I'll make sure I at least add a smiley. You old fart. :-) Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Lonesome EJ Date: 18 Apr 01 - 01:23 PM Another comment made by Dennis Miller was interesting as well. "Am I against drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge? Sure! But when every other car in America is a Lincoln Navigator with an Earth First! bumper sticker, who's to blame Bush for realizing that we can't have it both ways?" A very good point there. We Americans are often keen on lofty sentiments as long as our own ox isn't gored, and the sacrifice is made by someone else. I didn't vote for George, but he has been doing what he promised for better or worse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: mousethief Date: 18 Apr 01 - 01:26 PM I wish they could sell gasoline with a pricing scale based on your MPG. Thus if you drive a 50mpg compact car, you get gas for under $1 a gallon, and on the other end of the spectrum, if you drive a gas-guzzling 12-passenger SUV, you must pay about $5 per gallon. Bet that would change the way we buy cars. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: kendall Date: 18 Apr 01 - 01:39 PM You said it Alex. That makes sense! How about a tax break on ultra fuel efficient cars, such as the Japaese imports from Honda and Toyota? Hybrids they call them. 60 mpg in the city. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Whistle Stop Date: 18 Apr 01 - 02:14 PM Dennis Miller is right. However, the first obligation of a leader is to lead, not to pander to his constituents' lowest impulses. That's true even when our leaders are elected. So far, GWB really hasn't tried to get people to focus honestly on the tough choices, so even if the SUV drivers share the blame, I'm not inclined to let Bush off the hook. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Penny S. Date: 18 Apr 01 - 02:57 PM News today in the UK is that petrol (gas) prices are going up, due to, they say, the demand for fuel in the US. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: DougR Date: 18 Apr 01 - 03:01 PM Whistle Stop: from whose perspective? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Whistle Stop Date: 18 Apr 01 - 03:24 PM My own, of course; whose were you expecting? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: MAV Date: 19 Apr 01 - 12:05 AM Hey Brett, Good post, I'll try to make only the salient points.
conservatism is not restricted to the USA
American conservativism is.
There are conservative movements all over the world
We don't care about all those other non-American conservatives. They all want to conserve some lesser and likely evil form of government.
and they all seem to have the same goals, i.e., limitation of personal freedom;
We have NO desire to limit freedom.
acquisition of material wealth; a distrust of the media;
Yeah, like labor lefties don't want more, that is a natural tendency. You make distrust of the media sound like a bad thing.
a basic disinterest in the welfare of poor people
That's not true, we just want them to expect more of themselves than to be dependent on handouts.
and a love of the military
Well, that's in the Constitution.
You say you are a libertarian flavored conservative. What I know of the libertarian ideals is limited to the interview and call in program with Maine's libertarian candidate last year. What I heard made me believe that things could be much worse than a conservative government. Maybe you would like to enlighten me as to how we would run a huge, rich country like this under libertarian principles and keep from having disease and starvation in the streets
Easy, we have so many layers of bleeping government (50 states and thousands of cities) follow the Constitution like it's written and let them be in charge of everything NOT SPECIFICALLY ASSIGNED to the federal government.
You are concerned that the "status quo at the moment is borderline socialism with the government attempting to become the health care industry, power producing industry, retirement security industry, education industry (mission accomplished)etc." This strikes me as another instance of either misunderstanding the goals of these programs or a disregard of history. As I said before, the social history of the US during the second half of the 19th Century and during the Great depression has shown what happens to the people when the Government takes a hands-off approach. Another example is what happened in England during the Industrial Revolution. I'm sure you don't want to see that happen again
Never mind the goals, look at what they have become, mammoth tax consuming failures. I don't believe that those events would happen again nor if they were to, that government could do anything to stop it. So what is the solution to such a dilemma. You don't want the Government to handle things and there isn't anyone else with the resources to do it. What do we do? People need health care, they need to eat, we all need energy at affordable prices, and we all need an education.
Health care comes from the private sector, food comes from the private sector, college education partially comes from the private sector and so does some primary education.
One proposal has been to privatize. I guess the theory is that the bureaucracy is expensive, wasteful, and slow. I can't argue that.
Good!
But a private industry has two things that never seems to be considered. They have their own overhead expenses and they need to make a profit. I have no problem with making a profit but I believe the overhead and profit could equal the government waste. If there will be no change why change things?
You used the word "could". We don't know if we don't try. One thing the government DOES NOT HAVE and that is competition. Competition creates inovation and helps companies offer better product at a lower price. And, believe it or not, private industry has their own bureaucracy and we would have to deal with. Who has not had to ask for something from a large company? When they want to be paid it is easy to contact a responsible representative. If you need them to do something for you it can be frustrating and difficult in the extreme. Trust me, I have worked with some of the largest construction firms in the US and they are sometimes as bad as the US Government that I work for
I don't think big entities of any kind are real desirable.
Concerning Iran-Contra, the U.S. Congress passed the Boland Amendment in 1984 specifically outlawing the funding of the so-called Contras by any government agency. While the President has the authority to conduct foreign policy he also has to obey the law of the land and the Boland Amendment was made part of that law
To be made part of the Constitution, it has to be ratified by the states......was it?
Oh, and two can play the game of quoting and interpreting lines from famous documents. Here is the Preamble to the Constitution:
Yes, please continue.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Let's take a look at what it says The Constitution is to do
"…form a more perfect Union…" After The Revolution there were many instances of conflict between the states, each asserting their states rights. The Constitution was intended to end those conflicts
Ok.
"…establish Justice…" Pretty self explanatory except that it was not intended to usurp the justice system within each state. It was intended to provide a framework for justice between the states
Yup.
"…insure domestic Tranquility…" Once again there was a matter of conflict between the states. In one or two instance it nearly came to blows and in one instance, Shay's Rebellion, there were deaths and a true fear of warfare
That's all fine.
"…provide for the common defence…" Also self explanatory. We need an army and a navy to defend ALL of the states. The militias continued unaffected
True enough.
"…promote the general Welfare…" This could be the one on which you and I differ the most. The word welfare is defined as health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. To my mind that pretty much requires the US Government to become the center of the social programs so hated by conservatives
Aaaaaaa HA!!!!!!!
Words mean things and you just blew by a VERY IMPORTANT WORD!!!
Notice how I agreed when you said provide for the common defence......I agreed. The government "provides" or pays for it.
When you said promote the general Welfare, the first and most important point here is PROMOTE means promote (advocate, talk up) not "PROVIDE"!
The second word is "WELFARE", which means one's state of being or comfort both physical and mental. It never did mean a free income, that was referred to as welfare assistance, even currently.
"…and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…" And this is the "granting" phrase. As I said before, I had nothing to do with the creation of this document or this nation. I am eternally grateful and proud to be part of it but I believe we earn the rights which are granted to us
No, blessings are from God in their own words.
You and I may be at odds over a mere matter of semantics.
They said what they meant and meant what they said. They were very literate men and had a much better command of the English language than our current populace does.
I think the idea of the people giving permission to the Government to govern them is a principle of the Libertarians isn't it?
No. It's a principle of the founders. (Unless they were Libertarians) The people were here without and before government and then they created it. (the chicken or the egg). I'd like to know more about it before I go any further on this part of the discussion.
Good. If you apply the few points I made, it will change the meaning of much of your perceived notions.
Believe me, the people give their consent to be governed. That part IS democracy. I think that pretty much covers it. I find this discussion stimulating and enjoyable. Thanks for meeting me in a like mind.
Well, good. Me too. This is how I like to do it. But if you were afraid of me attacking you (which you needn't have been) Look the hell out now!
What I have said will likely be in for serious rebuttal, ridicule and discreditation.
But, oh well. I can take it. Thanks friend, see you soon
mav out
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: DougR Date: 19 Apr 01 - 01:26 AM Whistle Stop: ah ha! 'Twas as I expected! Kendall: must we add "old fart" to the message? Personally, I enjoy almost everything you post, right or not. :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: kendall Date: 19 Apr 01 - 07:22 AM MAV, you must be aware that we pay much less in taxes than any other industrialized nation on earth. Now, explain to me how you would run the country without taxes. Dubbya keeps chirping his mindless mantra.."I trust the people, it's your money, it doesn't belong to Washington, etc. well, damn it man, it's our money, yes, it is also our social security, our military, our education our highways etc. who the hell is going to pay for all the services we demand without taxes? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Skeptic Date: 19 Apr 01 - 02:26 PM Mav, We have NO desire to limit freedom Depends on your views on certain issues. Abortion, gay rights, mandatory school prayers being the "hot" topic, of course. But the conservatives propose a variety of regulations and laws that fall under the heading of "legislating morality". Liberals, of course, make similar attempts. Both philosophies seem to have bought into the idea that power flows down. Not up. A sort of social/political supply side theory. Yeah, like labor lefties don't want more, that is a natural tendency. Yes, it is. The degree is the issue. Do you want more as a pragmatic issue of living or more for the sake of more? Under the idea of the welfare state, the government controls the amount of "more" there is. How do you control the "more" in a quasi-capitalistic economy without a body with counterbalancing power. You make distrust of the media sound like a bad thing. How about uncritical trust of the media? That's not true, we just want them to expect more of themselves than to be dependent on handouts. First, define 'poor'. Are we talking about inadequate food (as in MDA) or not being able to afford imported caviar. Are we talking about inadequate housing or having to do a time share rather than buy a condo at the beach? I think your statement qualifies as sophistry (which is my job) tinged with classism. You assume they don't expect more of themselves. Some don't. A general rule? I'd like to see proof of that. There's also an implication that poor is a choice. Again, it may be. When the cost of living has risen 25% faster than wages, the argument is somewhat strained. A society that does not put the welfare of its members (as in basic needs) ahead of institutional interests would seem to be morally deficient from a religious standpoint, ethically so from a philosophical one and engaging in inherently destabilizing behavior from a pragmatic stand-point. Well, that's in the Constitution. (About the love of the military) Love of the military is in the Constitution? Missed that, somehow. Never mind the goals, look at what they have become, mammoth tax consuming failures. I don't believe that those events would happen again nor if they were to, that government could do anything to stop it. Is that a systemic or a programatic failure? Let's remember that a part of the administrative overhead is done to please various special interest groups. For example, if a program requires that funding not be used for pro-choice teaching programs, then the agency will have to prove such. (Trust is something Congress leaves to God and others). So you hire five people, create 50 forms and generate a report. The alternative is to be accused of violating the will of Congress. (An accusation that requires no proof at all). Do the programs fail because of inherent flaws (in that they are delivered by the government) or because we need to change how they are delivered. Under the faith based initiative, what will the requirements be? If, as proposed, a lot of the requirements and regulations are done away with, then how do I know my tax dollars are being used appropriately? A drug treatment program that relies on Scientology's auditing process is not something I want funded unless I have some assurance that it works. All of which means more bureaucracy, more paperwork and more reports. You used the word "could". We don't know if we don't try. One thing the government DOES NOT HAVE and that is competition. Competition creates inovation and helps companies offer better product at a lower price. The argument that competition creates innovation is specious. While it may create innovation, that seems a secondary goal, not a requirement. Let's remember that the purpose of business is to generate a profit. By whatever means generates the most profit. Microsoft has been accused of many things. Innovation isn't one of them. They succeeded through buying up ideas or copying other, truly innovative, products and doing a better job of marketing. Using techniques of sometimes questionable legality. In this, the did what a capitalism demands. Made a profit. Innovative was what PARC did. Or what any of thousands of government funded research projects have done over the years. The assumption that business will do anything more than work to create a profit seems to be a fundamental stumbling block. It's a fairly self serving process. What is the countervailing force that says "look beyond profits to social, environmental or quality issues". It's all well and good to argue about people voting with their dollars. What about when they aren't given a choice? What about when the customers who do "vote with their dollars" live 3000 miles away from the factory that's polluting the river that run's in back of your house? How do you use your dollars to vote against that? I don't think big entities of any kind are real desirable. Nor do I. How do you limit the size of business without a strong government? To be made part of the Constitution, it has to be ratified by the states......was it? The "Borland Amendment" was a law passed in 1982, not an amendment to the Constitution. The whole Iran/Contra affair had all the morality (and legality even before Borland) of a three card monte scam. Even I expect better from the government. When you said promote the general Welfare, the first and most important point here is PROMOTE means promote (advocate, talk up) not "PROVIDE"! Promote also means to establish or organize. As in promote an event, enterprise or endeavor. The argument is on how far to go in the interpretation of the word "welfare". As Hamilton in Federalist 85, and Madison in Federalist 41 implies, the intent was to create a document that could adjust and change with the times. The second word is "WELFARE", which means one's state of being or comfort both physical and mental. It never did mean a free income, that was referred to as welfare assistance, even currently. Welfare: also means Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being - (from the American Heritage) And "free income" is somewhat misleading. Certain social programs would seem to contribute to the general welfare. Being homeless and hungry would seem not too do too much for anyones state of well being. Brett, you said I am eternally grateful and proud to be part of it but I believe we earn the rights which are granted to us I agree (sort of) with Mav. The original argument is that all rights, all power, belongs to individuals. That they join (formally or informally) and agree to certain limitations on their rights for perceived mutual benefits. The Constitution being a good example of a formal agreement. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was not to grant those rights enumerated but to make sure the government understood that it had no authority (or at least limited authority) to interfere with them. Capped by the 10th amendment which added that just because a right wasn't listed earlier, doesn't mean the federal government can control it. No, blessings are from God in their own words. Which words. In the Constitution? Besides, it's a Phrase "Blessings of Liberty", not generic "blessings". The "blessings of liberty" was what the Revolutionary war was (popularly) about. They said what they meant and meant what they said. They were very literate men and had a much better command of the English language than our current populace does. And understood that both words and times change. (As mentioned above) . The stated intent was to create a document that could reflect and change with the times. No. It's a principle of the founders. (Unless they were Libertarians) The people were here without and before government and then they created it. (the chicken or the egg). And before. They borrowed the idea of a "social contract" (among other ideas) from Rousseau and the fundamentals of balance of power from a Roman. (Sorry, Can't put my finger on the name). Good. If you apply the few points I made, it will change the meaning of much of your perceived notions. Well, provoke thought anyway. Regards John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: MAV Date: 21 Apr 01 - 10:38 PM MAV, you must be aware that we pay much less in taxes than any other industrialized nation on earth.
No, really? You think 45% is too low?
What about the "hidden" taxes? Now, explain to me how you would run the country without taxes
You wouldn't, but why the hell would you want to tax the sweat of your brow, or your "own" house?
You could at least be taxing the spending habits of the ultra-rich and drug dealers.
Dubbya keeps chirping his mindless mantra.."I trust the people, it's your money, it doesn't belong to Washington, etc. well, damn it man, it's our money, yes, it is also our social security, our military, our education our highways etc. who the hell is going to pay for all the services we demand without taxes
Well, they're going to collect over $5 Trillion more than needed to pay for all that stuff, and he can't get the liberals (including your two lovely ladies) to give back $1.6 Trillion. Meaning they're still going to BLOW $3.4 Trillion.
Mindless mantra, you mean like "risky tax scheme", "for the children", "gravitas", "tax cut for the rich" etc.
mav out |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: MAV Date: 22 Apr 01 - 12:12 AM Hey Kendall, Here's some reading material for you. www.Tax the living CRAP outta ya!.com
mav out |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: catspaw49 Date: 22 Apr 01 - 12:43 AM Yeah let's give the fockin' shrub even more credit for his ability to talk out of both sides of his mouth in Quebec City. A stellar performance so far............ Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Greg F. Date: 22 Apr 01 - 08:43 AM 'Spaw, ya can't blame Prince George for doing what he's always done; no surprises there. What's sickening are the folks that mindlessly continue to BELIEVE this babbling while the record shows something entirely different.... Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: MAV Date: 22 Apr 01 - 08:57 AM Spewer,
Yeah let's give the fockin' shrub even more credit for his ability to talk out of both sides of his mouth in Quebec City
Yes, and a fine morning it is. Hadn't heard from you for awhile, we're hoping everythings ok.
Ok, let's hear your defense of the anti-capitalists...no, not liberals, not democrats, not socialists, but....
COMMUNISTS!!!!
A stellar performance so far............
Yes, you might find many in agreement.
This one's actually for Ebbie as per our discussion but maybe you could speak directly to this (or actually into it).
mav out
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: MAV Date: 22 Apr 01 - 11:45 AM The Quebec Rioteers:
Who are these people?
How hip are they?
Do they create a lot of jobs?
mav out
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: GUEST Date: 22 Apr 01 - 02:35 PM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: GUEST,JB Date: 22 Apr 01 - 02:44 PM Oh come on now and and give this man all the credit he duly deserves! Sofar he´s been able to read out all the stuff written for him by the people who are remote controlling him from the shadows and he has made hardly any errors. At times he even creates a better impression than his father. This man will surely go down in history in some way or another! A fan and a half! JB |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: GUEST,JB Date: 22 Apr 01 - 02:44 PM Oh come on now and and give this man all the credit he duly deserves! Sofar he´s been able to read out all the stuff written for him by the people who are remote controlling him from the shadows and he has made hardly any errors. At times he even creates a better impression than his father. This man will surely go down in history in some way or another! A fan and a half! JB |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: GUEST,JB Date: 22 Apr 01 - 02:44 PM Oh come on now and and give this man all the credit he duly deserves! Sofar he´s been able to read out all the stuff written for him by the people who are remote controlling him from the shadows and he has made hardly any errors. At times he even creates a better impression than his father. This man will surely go down in history in some way or another! A fan and a half! JB |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Uncle Jaque Date: 22 Apr 01 - 04:21 PM Re the Quebec Rent-A-Mob: The thug first over the torn-down barricade as shown on FOX News (I rather think that CBS overlooked this shot) with the red T-shirt with the white sickle & Hammer logo emblazoned on it with "CCCP" underneath, banging a piece of broken-off 2X4 on his makeshift sheild and waving it in the face of anyone who got in his way pretty much gave me the first clue as to who is behind a lot of this. Now they are talking up a "Carnival against Capitalisim"! Rave on, Komrades; all the purple hair, bongo drums, silly chants... shades of the '60s! weren't they fun, now?! Do you remember? Again, "Rush" is right; these LSCs get really entertaining when they're out of power and desperate to regain the throne. Stay tuned for more "love-ins", tree/pole sittings, and entire albums of tasteless but very PC Protest Songs. No offence if I don't rush right out and buy any. Keep it up, Komrades; it's a hoot!
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: GUEST,VAM Date: 22 Apr 01 - 04:31 PM Fuque off, Jaque- this ain't the Quebec thread. Your juvenile attempts at humour are getting very old as well. vam over & out |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: MAV Date: 22 Apr 01 - 05:52 PM Dear VAM,
Fuque off, Jaque-
That's not very nice gregspaw. You must not be a kind, caring, compassionate and tolerant liberal.
TOLERATE THIS!!!
this ain't the Quebec thread. Your juvenile attempts at humour are getting very old as well
This is the "Credit for Bush" thread, however, and Bush was in Quebec.
If he ticked you off, I think we have to give him credit.
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW mav out |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: GUEST,VAM Date: 22 Apr 01 - 07:00 PM Waaaaahhh! WAAAAHHHHH!! Poor little MAV baby. There there, now don't throw another tantrum, Mommie's little boy might hurt himself. What? you'll hold your breath until you turn blue? Jaque off, arsehole. VAM over& out roger wilco |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: GUEST,kendall Date: 22 Apr 01 - 07:50 PM All those wierdos and their anti- war anti- establishmet didos brought down a president and ended a war, I remember that. Furthermore MAV, according to the paper today, our two "ladies" in the senate (for the time being) voted to go along with Bush. And, who is paying 45% in taxes? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Greg F. Date: 22 Apr 01 - 08:17 PM All those wierdos and their anti- war anti- establishmet didos brought down a president and ended a war, I remember that. I'm sure he remembers that too, Kendall- or has at least read about it. So do the other right-wing nutcases, which is precisely why they all fulminate and foam at the mouth about them down to this day. Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Skeptic Date: 22 Apr 01 - 09:51 PM Kendall, The 45% is from all sources: income, corporate, property, school taxes, sales taxes and so on. I've usually seen it as a % of GDP. When you start looking at details it's not as precise since different countries deffinitions of what constituites a "tax" versus a permit fee, occupational license and so on, varies. I seem to recall the the second highest in the industrialized world is at something like 48% but can't find the reference. Regards John
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Uncle Jaque Date: 22 Apr 01 - 10:33 PM Absolutely predictable response from our "tolerant" fans out there. I would have been rather disapointed had it not been forthcoming.
As to who gets the credit for "ending" the Vietnam debacle (please don't assume that "Conservatives" stereotypically think that 'Nam was a great idea in the first place); now let's see...
Sweet dreams, all! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: MAV Date: 22 Apr 01 - 10:52 PM Oh Kendall,
All those wierdos and their anti- war anti- establishmet didos
They're not anti-establishment.......WE ARE!!!
They want to preserve the bloated oversized government with all it's giveaway programs and high tax structure.
The smaller government/lower taxes movement is the anti-establishment crowd.
Pay attention dammit!
mav out |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: mousethief Date: 23 Apr 01 - 12:45 AM America's troop involvement in Vietnam started under Eisenhower. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Naemanson Date: 24 Apr 01 - 05:51 PM OK, I am back and life can get back to normal. I apologize for taking so long to answer. Let me roll up the old sleeves and begin with reading what has passed so far. My goodness! Things certainly flamed up there for a while. It would seem we have a bit of an emotional investment on both sides. And it is a little complicated with Skeptic's comments as well. I don't want to cut him out so I have included his comments here as well. Let's see what we can do. ME: conservatism is not restricted to the USA MAV: American conservativism is. ME: There are conservative movements all over the world MAV: We don't care about all those other non-American conservatives. They all want to conserve some lesser and likely evil form of government. This exchange is a problem for me. If you are going to equate the liberal movements with world movements then we also have to do the same with the conservative movements. We want to compare apples and apples. Then there is your comment about conserving some "lesser and likely evil form of government". This comment is not only disturbing but scary. Do conservatives honestly think that our Government is the absolute highest form of government on the planet? I agree it is the best right now but time is passing, technology is improving, and humans are dynamic creatures. It may be possible to improve what we have. The Constitution is a living document, capable of improvement and adjustment. The other scary part of your comment is that you seem to equate "other" governments with "evil" governments. I'm sure our British, Canadian, Irish, French, Japanese, etc., brothers and sisters will not agree with this assessment. This comment seems to indicate either a desire for isolation or an arrogance that is sorely out of place in the modern world. ME: and they all seem to have the same goals, i.e., limitation of personal freedom; MAV: We have NO desire to limit freedom. SKEPTIC: Depends on your views on certain issues. Abortion, gay rights, mandatory school prayers being the "hot" topic, of course. But the conservatives propose a variety of regulations and laws that fall under the heading of "legislating morality". Liberals, of course, make similar attempts. Both philosophies seem to have bought into the idea that power flows down. Not up. A sort of social/political supply side theory. I have to agree with Skeptic on this one. At the same time I recognize that we are fairly safe as long as we keep a balance of liberals and conservatives in the Government. ME: acquisition of material wealth; a distrust of the media; MAV: Yeah, like labor lefties don't want more, that is a natural tendency. You make distrust of the media sound like a bad thing. SKEPTIC: Yes, it is. The degree is the issue. Do you want more as a pragmatic issue of living or more for the sake of more? Under the idea of the welfare state, the government controls the amount of "more" there is. How do you control the "more" in a quasi-capitalistic economy without a body with counterbalancing power. SKEPTIC: How about uncritical trust of the media? About the acquisition of material wealth: The difference seems to be on focus. The conservatives I know seem to make it the prime focus of their lives, sometimes to the exclusion of their personal happiness and their family relationships. The liberals I know tend to be happy making enough to meet expenses and put a little aside. Of course this is not all encompassing but is based on personal experience. About distrusting the media: It IS a bad thing. We live in an era where it is too easy to hide things and make plans that could hurt some people. Our eyes are the media. Sometimes they do their jobs poorly and sometimes they do the job right. However they do the job, when they make people sit up and take notice that is good. We can fume and sputter about their being unfair or melodramatic but if it makes people write to their representatives or start movements that will change the way things are then they have done their jobs. ME: a basic disinterest in the welfare of poor people MAV: That's not true, we just want them to expect more of themselves than to be dependent on handouts. SKEPTIC: First, define 'poor'. Are we talking about inadequate food (as in MDA) or not being able to afford imported caviar. Are we talking about inadequate housing or having to do a time share rather than buy a condo at the beach? I think your statement qualifies as sophistry (which is my job) tinged with classism. You assume they don't expect more of themselves. Some don't. A general rule? I'd like to see proof of that. There's also an implication that poor is a choice. Again, it may be. When the cost of living has risen 25% faster than wages, the argument is somewhat strained. Generally Conservatives have been particularly lacking in empathy as regards the poor. There are a variety of reasons why people are poor. Jobs in some areas are few and far between. Racism exists and eliminates some opportunities. Success, even minor success, requires certain elements not necessarily available to all people including initiative, intelligence, and interest. One of my tenants rents an apartment using state aid. He could not get by on his own natural intelligence, not because he lacks it but because his personal and medical problems are overwhelming. This isn't something he could handle by himself and his parents are not in a position to help him. Would you turn him out into the street? SKEPTIC: A society that does not put the welfare of its members (as in basic needs) ahead of institutional interests would seem to be morally deficient from a religious standpoint, ethically so from a philosophical one and engaging in inherently destabilizing behavior from a pragmatic stand-point I certainly have to agree with him on that point. A society has to have heart as well as might (either military or economic). ME: and a love of the military MAV: Well, that's in the Constitution. SKEPTIC: Love of the military is in the Constitution? Missed that, somehow I don't understand your point. The Constitution says nothing about revering the military. It just makes provision for the protection of our way of life. ME: You say you are a libertarian flavored conservative. What I know of the libertarian ideals is limited to the interview and call in program with Maine's libertarian candidate last year. What I heard made me believe that things could be much worse than a conservative government. Maybe you would like to enlighten me as to how we would run a huge, rich country like this under libertarian principles and keep from having disease and starvation in the streets MAV: Easy, we have so many layers of bleeping government (50 states and thousands of cities) follow the Constitution like it's written and let them be in charge of everything NOT SPECIFICALLY ASSIGNED to the federal government. I need to consider this longer. On the surface it seems logical but there are problems that could overwhelm such a simple approach. ME: You are concerned that the "status quo at the moment is borderline socialism with the government attempting to become the health care industry, power producing industry, retirement security industry, education industry (mission accomplished)etc." This strikes me as another instance of either misunderstanding the goals of these programs or a disregard of history. As I said before, the social history of the US during the second half of the 19th Century and during the Great depression has shown what happens to the people when the Government takes a hands-off approach. Another example is what happened in England during the Industrial Revolution. I'm sure you don't want to see that happen again MAV: Never mind the goals, look at what they have become, mammoth tax consuming failures. I don't believe that those events would happen again nor if they were to, that government could do anything to stop it. SKEPTIC: Is that a systemic or a programatic failure? Let's remember that a part of the administrative overhead is done to please various special interest groups. For example, if a program requires that funding not be used for pro-choice teaching programs, then the agency will have to prove such. (Trust is something Congress leaves to God and others). So you hire five people, create 50 forms and generate a report. The alternative is to be accused of violating the will of Congress. (An accusation that requires no proof at all). Do the programs fail because of inherent flaws (in that they are delivered by the government) or because we need to change how they are delivered. Under the faith based initiative, what will the requirements be? If, as proposed, a lot of the requirements and regulations are done away with, then how do I know my tax dollars are being used appropriately? A drug treatment program that relies on Scientology's auditing process is not something I want funded unless I have some assurance that it works. All of which means more bureaucracy, more paperwork and more reports. Kendall: MAV, you must be aware that we pay much less in taxes than any other industrialized nation on earth. Now, explain to me how you would run the country without taxes. Dubbya keeps chirping his mindless mantra.."I trust the people, it's your money, it doesn't belong to Washington, etc. well, damn it man, it's our money, yes, it is also our social security, our military, our education our highways etc. who the hell is going to pay for all the services we demand without taxes? I don't want to get into what Kendall and Skeptic are saying except that they have good points and I agree with them. I am more interested in knowing why you think these programs are failures. You cannot depend on the media, whom you already distrust. Consider that the media will only report the bad news. If a program helps thousands of people and one person abuses it then that one instance will get all the camera time. We hear of welfare Cadillacs but that isn't the norm, it is representative of the rare abuser getting all the attention. ME: But a private industry has two things that never seems to be considered. They have their own overhead expenses and they need to make a profit. I have no problem with making a profit but I believe the overhead and profit could equal the government waste. If there will be no change why change things? MAV: You used the word "could". We don't know if we don't try. One thing the government DOES NOT HAVE and that is competition. Competition creates inovation and helps companies offer better product at a lower price. Skeptic: The argument that competition creates innovation is specious. While it may create innovation, that seems a secondary goal, not a requirement. Let's remember that the purpose of business is to generate a profit. By whatever means generates the most profit. Microsoft has been accused of many things. Innovation isn't one of them. They succeeded through buying up ideas or copying other, truly innovative, products and doing a better job of marketing. Using techniques of sometimes questionable legality. In this, the did what a capitalism demands. Made a profit. Innovative was what PARC did. Or what any of thousands of government funded research projects have done over the years. I agree that competition in the creation of widgets will foster innovation and lower the price. But that is because anyone could start a widget company and drive the market leader to work harder. How much competition will you actually see to do what our social programs do? These will be single huge corporations formed to specifically fleece the taxpayer and provide the same barely marginal services the clients are already getting. Once again I speak from experience. Skeptic: The assumption that business will do anything more than work to create a profit seems to be a fundamental stumbling block. It's a fairly self serving process. What is the countervailing force that says "look beyond profits to social, environmental or quality issues". It's all well and good to argue about people voting with their dollars. What about when they aren't given a choice? What about when the customers who do "vote with their dollars" live 3000 miles away from the factory that's polluting the river that run's in back of your house? How do you use your dollars to vote against that? ME: And, believe it or not, private industry has their own bureaucracy and we would have to deal with. Who has not had to ask for something from a large company? When they want to be paid it is easy to contact a responsible representative. If you need them to do something for you it can be frustrating and difficult in the extreme. Trust me, I have worked with some of the largest construction firms in the US and they are sometimes as bad as the US Government that I work for MAV: I don't think big entities of any kind are real desirable. Skeptic: Nor do I. How do you limit the size of business without a strong government? Unfortunately the only entity that will be able to handle a privatized social program is a big entity. Mom&Pop Inc. cannot do it but MegaCorp Inc. sure can. And they can run circles around anyone who wants to keep an eye on how well they are doing. ME: Concerning Iran-Contra, the U.S. Congress passed the Boland Amendment in 1984 specifically outlawing the funding of the so-called Contras by any government agency. While the President has the authority to conduct foreign policy he also has to obey the law of the land and the Boland Amendment was made part of that law MAV: To be made part of the Constitution, it has to be ratified by the states......was it? Skeptic: The "Borland Amendment" was a law passed in 1982, not an amendment to the Constitution. The whole Iran/Contra affair had all the morality (and legality even before Borland) of a three card monte scam. Even I expect better from the government. And because it was a law of the land the President and his staff were as answerable to it as Joe Citizen walking down the street. Reagan and his crew boldly broke the law and walked free with Bush Sr. covering up their tracks. With that history conservatives have no room to complain about Clinton. From the Preamble to the Constitution: ME: "…promote the general Welfare…" This could be the one on which you and I differ the most. The word welfare is defined as health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. To my mind that pretty much requires the US Government to become the center of the social programs so hated by conservatives MAV: Aaaaaaa HA!!!!!!! MAV: Words mean things and you just blew by a VERY IMPORTANT WORD!!! MAV: Notice how I agreed when you said provide for the common defence......I agreed. The government "provides" or pays for it. MAV: When you said promote the general Welfare, the first and most important point here is PROMOTE means promote (advocate, talk up) not "PROVIDE"! SKEPTIC: Promote also means to establish or organize. As in promote an event, enterprise or endeavor. The argument is on how far to go in the interpretation of the word "welfare". As Hamilton in Federalist 85, and Madison in Federalist 41 implies, the intent was to create a document that could adjust and change with the times. MAV: The second word is "WELFARE", which means one's state of being or comfort both physical and mental. It never did mean a free income, that was referred to as welfare assistance, even currently. SKEPTIC: Welfare: also means Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being - (from the American Heritage) SKEPTIC: And "free income" is somewhat misleading. Certain social programs would seem to contribute to the general welfare. Being homeless and hungry would seem not too do too much for anyones state of well being. That was quite an exchange. On the subject of PROMOTING how does a government "promote" something? You suggest that our founding fathers thought the US should just advocate or talk up the idea without taking any action. I cannot see how that would do anyone any good. Even our forefathers could not have thought that would be a useful exercise. I agree that the drafters of the Constitution took pains to create a Government that was not intended to be too intrusive but that was because they had to persuade the very fractious states to ratify the damned thing. But as I said above, the Constitution is a living document. The Drafters understood that times and conditions change and the basic law of the land has to be updated from time to time. ME: "…and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…" And this is the "granting" phrase. As I said before, I had nothing to do with the creation of this document or this nation. I am eternally grateful and proud to be part of it but I believe we earn the rights which are granted to us SKEPTIC: Brett, you said I am eternally grateful and proud to be part of it but I believe we earn the rights which are granted to us SKEPTIC: I agree (sort of) with Mav. The original argument is that all rights, all power, belongs to individuals. That they join (formally or informally) and agree to certain limitations on their rights for perceived mutual benefits. The Constitution being a good example of a formal agreement. SKEPTIC: The purpose of the Bill of Rights was not to grant those rights enumerated but to make sure the government understood that it had no authority (or at least limited authority) to interfere with them. Capped by the 10th amendment which added that just because a right wasn't listed earlier, doesn't mean the federal government can control it. Now that I think about it I remember this discussion in my old college classes (so long ago!) and you and MAV are correct. However you are correct only insofar as the source of the rights and liberties. I grant you no further than that. MAV: No, blessings are from God in their own words. Skeptic: Which words. In the Constitution? Besides, it's a Phrase "Blessings of Liberty", not generic "blessings". The "blessings of liberty" was what the Revolutionary war was (popularly) about. It's interesting to note which words were capitalized by the drafters. This was not done at random. Re-read the preamble again. (This was taken from the website for the National Archives and Records Administration.) "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The capitalization is important, it meant something to them. It emphasizes certain words and makes them stand out. Thus they believed in Union, Justice, Tranquillity, Welfare, the Blessings of Liberty, and Posterity. They were the People of the United States and they were establishing the Constitution. So I disagree about them meaning that the blessing were from God. These blessings they were securing for themselves for themselves and us. This is getting complicated and the long posts are difficult to read. Perhaps we should limit ourselves to one or two points at a time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: mousethief Date: 24 Apr 01 - 06:12 PM Ike first sent US troops to Vietnam. Not JFK. Certainly not Johnson. Not Truman. Ike. It was Ike's war. JFK inherited it from Ike, Johnson inherited it from JFK. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: MAV Date: 24 Apr 01 - 10:41 PM Hey Mouse,
I thought it was MacNamera's war. He apologized for it....BIGTIME!
Jaque,
OK, MAV; finish 'im off!
Ok Jaque, here I go........
(feet up on desk, staring at ceiling, buffing nails, crickets chirping)
See you tommorrow at work.
mav out |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Troll Date: 24 Apr 01 - 11:35 PM Alex, Ike sent in advisors. JFK and Johnson sent combat troops. Yes,they inherited the situation from Ike, but they chose to continue the engagment and escalate it. Do you remember the Gulf of Tonkin incident? I do. I was on active duty at the time. And Johnson was president, not Ike. JFK and Johnson could have stopped the whole thing cold but they didn't, they went along with the program. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: GUEST,Rick Date: 25 Apr 01 - 05:57 AM I'm not sure it really matters who sent in the first troops. The U.S. was footing the bill for much of the war in Indochina from the end of WW2. Even tho' intelligence on the ground in Hanoi (1954) repeatedly asserted that any solution had to include Ho Chi Min, this was politically unpallatable in Washington. Denying Ho (who's hero was George Washington, by the way) was one of the key mistakes in dragging us into a military involvement. This thread seems to have strayed from the Bush/credit theme. Those interested in whether "the shrub" is our legitimate president should track down the Miami Herald April 5-7 articles on the recount. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Skeptic Date: 25 Apr 01 - 07:13 AM It's getting out of hand when we start parsing the parsings. One topic would be nice. I still would like to hear a reconcilliation of the conservative (and libertarian) view of personal responsibility with the idea of the corporation as a legal "entity", enjoying the rights and protections granted to citizens under the constitution. Such would seem to unduly shield corporations from social and moral responsibility. On the one hand, it does allow the corporation to enter into contracts and commit corporate resources (versus the individuals as in a partnership). There are less encompassing ways around that problem. On the other, it shields (partially or completely) the very real people who make the decisions from any real consequences for their actions and would seem to allow the ethics of "business as business" to dominate. There. A more or less single topic, more or less on topic. I must be getting old.
Regards John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Troll Date: 25 Apr 01 - 08:18 AM You are not getting old. You were born old. I know. I was there. Even Mom says that you were an odd child and, considering our family, that's pretty odd. Also, you may have run out of things to say...finally. You will notice that I did not say "meaningful things to say". You ran out of those long ago if, indeed, you ever had any. Enjoy your seminar and have a nice day. troll ***ps. Freddy and Angie say "Hi". Mr Feebish is sulking. Someone mussed his sock drawer. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Naemanson Date: 25 Apr 01 - 08:25 AM I HAVE to keep in mind that Troll and Skeptic are related and entitled to such teasing back and forth. Otherwise I would think the flames are creeping up again. The Supreme Court made the decision that corporations have the same rights and responsibilities of the individual citizen. I would need to do some serious research to remember which court and how long ago but I believe it was a 19th Century decision. The problem with this determination as regards corporations is that there is no sense that anyone can be punished. You can fine them for illegal actions but if you make the fine too high it can be seen as a death sentence, i.e., it will close the business. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Troll Date: 25 Apr 01 - 08:47 AM Naemanson, the problem is that corporations make decisions based on the bottom line rather than on what is morally right. Consider Ford and the Pinto gas tank. Ford knew that the placement of the tank in the extreme rear of the car without an inner liner was dangerous, but the accounting department figured that it would be cheaper to pay the wrongful death claims than it would be to fix the problem. So some innocent people roasted to death in their Pintos and Ford paid the survivors. But someone in the upper echelons of Ford ultimately made the decision to go ahead and pay rather than repair. It is that person (or small group of persons) who should have been held responsible for those deaths. Under the persent system there is no way to prosecute individuals within a corporation. If there were, we might see fewer Pintos and less environmental degredation. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Troll Date: 25 Apr 01 - 09:00 AM Quote without comment.BUSH CONTINUES HIS WAR ON THE ENVIRONMENT Well, it seems that George Bush has done it again, folks. This time he has repealed some regulations concerning the amount of dihydrogen monoxide that will be allowed in the nation's water supplies. The eco-radicals, of course, are spinning around on their eyebrows and spitting wooden nickels. Here's the press release I got today:
BUSH ESCALATES WAR ON ENVIRONMENT Seattle, April 24, 2001 (BSNS) A coalition of environmental activists and eco-scientists stepped up their criticisms of White House environmental policies at a news conference in Seattle today. At issue was Bush's move, reported Monday, to rescind newly implemented guidelines on the amount of allowable dihydrogen monoxide (hydroxyl acid) in the nation's water supply. The new EPA regulations, calling for a 50 percent reduction in the allowable amount of dihydrogen monoxide in drinking water, was implemented by the Clinton Administration on January 19, 2001, just days before the inauguration of George W. Bush. "The deadly potential of dihydrogen monoxide cannot be over-emphasized," said Bruno Ahrens, spokesman for the coalition. "This invisible killer kills thousands of people worldwide every single year. By allowing large amounts of dihydrogen monoxide to remain in our water supply President Bush has signed a death warrant for thousands of Americans, many of whom will be children. It is yet another example of Bush's willingness to declare open war on our precious environment for the benefit of his big-money corporate supporters and contributors." Documentation distributed by these friends of the environment described dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) as "colorless, odorless and tasteless," and said that it kills uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of the deaths from DHMO come from accidental inhalation. A prolonged exposure to DHMO in its solid form can cause extreme tissue damage. Other dangers of DHMO are listed as: DHMO is a major component of acid rain DHMO contributes to the world's "greenhouse effect." DHMO can cause severe burns resulting in death. DHMO is cited as a major cause of erosion of our natural landscape DHMO can even cause corrosion and rusting of many metals! In addition, DHMO is used as an industrial solvent and is a major component of the production of nuclear power. It is used in the production of styrofoam, as a fire retardant, and in many forms of animal research. It is widely used in the distribution of pesticides and is an additive in many junk foods. A press release issued at the conference reads: "After many years of dedicated work by friends of the world's environment, the enlightened Clinton Administration finally issued regulations that would reduce the amounts of this deadly substance that would be allowed in the nation's water supply. Furthermore, the new regulations would have prohibited corporations from dumping waste DHMO into our rivers, lakes and the oceans. Now that Bush has revoked these much-needed regulations our lakes, rivers and streams, our oceans and our very drinking water will remain polluted by this deadly substance. "By his actions George W. Bush has vividly demonstrated his absolute disdain for our environment and the right of the American people to clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. This is the Republican agenda, corporate profits over the health and welfare of the people." www.boortz.com/nealznuz.htm troll
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Whistle Stop Date: 25 Apr 01 - 10:03 AM Actually, I always thought the point was to increase the percentage of dihydrogen monoxide in our drinking water. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: DougR Date: 25 Apr 01 - 12:32 PM Latest polls: 63% of those polled approve of President Bush's performance to date. He must be doing something right. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Whistle Stop Date: 25 Apr 01 - 01:17 PM That's not much of a test; he hasn't really done anything yet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Naemanson Date: 25 Apr 01 - 01:35 PM Or consider the tobacco industry. They have the perfect product. It is legal, addictive and priced to fit every budget. The only problem is that they keep killing off their customers so they have to addict children to assure their market. Who do you think is guilty there? The CEO's who make the decisions? Maybe it's the farmers who insist their way of life will be destroyed if tobacco is banned. It could be the lobbyists who bribe the members of congress to support their clients. Or perhaps it's the tame scientists who skew their data to support their employers? If ever there was a justifiable death sentence for corporations this is it. Consider that we are talking, not just a corporation but an entire industry. There is probable collusion here as the corporations work together to kill more people, uh, I mean, sell more tobacco. Either way this is a case where the media did its job and opened our eyes to the killers in business suits. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Skeptic Date: 25 Apr 01 - 06:03 PM Naemanson, Yes, we are related. However, in the interests of clarity, his remarks concerning me do constitute flaming. My commenst about him are perceptive observations of his multiple defects, defficiences and lack of good (or any sense). I rarely bother as I see no need to belabor the obvious. I think the court case was in 1868 but can't find it right now. Supreme Court decision or not, (as decisions can be reversed), I don't see the consistency in the libertarian position. Not that it's required but if you proclaim (almost demand) a high degree of personnal responsibility on the one hand, then excuse same on the other under the banner of profits, it throws a different light on the ethics and motives of the ideology. Troll, Thanks for the post. Wonder in DHMO was/is linked to things like the acid rain damage to things like the damage to US and Canadian forests and to the damage to the places like Venice? My best to Freddy and Angie. Tell Mr Feebish, to "Suck it up, cupcake". Hope all the other Yous are doing "well". Regards John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Bert Date: 25 Apr 01 - 06:14 PM ...He must be doing something right... The whole point of this thread was to give him credit for doing nothing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Bert Date: 25 Apr 01 - 06:20 PM FWIW |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: DougR Date: 25 Apr 01 - 10:35 PM Whistle Stop: you been out of the country or something? We had a bit of trouble over in China while you were gone. The situation has been resolved (other than the recovery of our aircraft which we will probably get eventually). That situation was resolved by our new president and his team. When you catch up on your newspapers that probably stacked up while you were gone, you can read all about it. Oh, and by the way, both the house and the senate passed a tax reduction bill, too, while you were gone. The house agreed to a cut the size of that proposed by President Bush during his campaign. With the help of liberal Republicans in the Senate, the amount was reduced but a resoulution between the house and senate committees may see the final amount closer to the one proposed by the President. I think the majority of the American people, as reflected in the aforementioned poll, reflect their approval of the new teams effort in the aforementioned poll. DougR DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: DougR Date: 25 Apr 01 - 10:37 PM Wow, Bert! Maybe the Skull and Crossbones are gonna take over the world! Shiver! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: MAV Date: 25 Apr 01 - 10:45 PM Troll,
On at least two occasions I got DHMO in my lungs, thought I was going to die. It's a horrible suffocating feeling.
I'm sure I've ingested a ton of it in my life. What's worse is, in the summertime the air is heavily polluted with DHMO.
For more information on the nightmare of DHMO, Click here
I don't see how anyone could be in favor of this killer substance, but many people are.
mav out
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: DougR Date: 26 Apr 01 - 12:11 AM MAV: sorry I don't follow you at all. I went to the link you provided, and it was an advertisement for a dental service. Are you putting us on? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: mousethief Date: 26 Apr 01 - 12:25 AM What does DHMO ("water" for the uninitiated) have to do with Bush? It's a very old and tired joke, and... Oh. I see. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Bert Date: 26 Apr 01 - 12:38 AM Doug, I wasn't making any political comment about it. I just thought it was amusing. I really have mixed feelings about the report. Although I'm deeply suspicious of secret societies; I do like people who can behave oddly at times. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Skeptic Date: 26 Apr 01 - 07:16 AM Alex, As do we all but it's really best to humor Troll.And Freddie and all the rest of hims.
Regards John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Skeptic Date: 26 Apr 01 - 07:24 AM Bert, Thanks for the link on Skull and Bone. My only comment is that I was brought up to believe that sharing your sexual history was something "a gentlemen" (meaning a decent, moral person with a sense of personal integrity and honor) didn't do. Looks like the definition of "gentlemen" is a lot more flexible than my father thought and taught. Regards John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Whistle Stop Date: 26 Apr 01 - 08:54 AM Doug, I like and respect you, so I'll overlook the condescension in your post. If you read through this thread, you'll notice that early on I weighed in with the opinion that GWB's administration had handled the China affair competently. They didn't do a great job, but they did an adequate job. I don't think anyone who has a clue about these things seriously thought that the Chinese were going to keep our people forever -- this was a chance for them to do a bit of grandstanding, and they took advantage of it. The Bush team did what most administrations would have done under similar circumstances -- walk the passive-aggressive line while they work out some weasel-worded statements that allowed both sides to save face. I'm okay with that. As for the Bush economic package, the most significant parts of that are still pending, and are likely to be revised somewhat more before the compromise budget is finalized. I lean towards the Democrats' position on this, but I'm comfortable with economic legislation being worked out in the usual horse-trading between the political parties and branches of government. It's in process as we speak. As for the polls, please recognize that Bush is in what we typically refer to as a "honeymoon"; the period immediately after the inauguration, before the administration's imprint on society is fully felt. We tend to give Presidents the benefit of the doubt during this honeymoon period -- and in general, the less they do, the longer the honeymoon is. I offer my personal perspective only, of course (as you noted previously on this thread), but so far Bush has not turned in a stellar performance. In fact, GWB's clumsy comments regarding Taiwan yesterday morning, followed by a day's worth of dissembling, still suggests to me that Bush still has a lot to learn about his new job. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: DougR Date: 26 Apr 01 - 02:41 PM Whistle Stop: sorry if I came in a little heavy on the GWB record to date. I do get a bit overly sensitive to the constant criticism of anything Republican that is so prevelant here on the Mudcat, and do try to contain it. It leaked out a bit, and I apologize for it. One could say your comment invited it ...but I won't go there. I wholeheartedly agree that Bush still has a lot to learn and I'm probably one of the few here in the community that believes he has the capacity to do so. Yesterdays comment about the defense of Taiwan is considered by many to be intemperate. However as the media pointed out, his position is not much different from those espressed by previous presidents. He was just a bit more explicit. If that's what it takes to contain China, I say more more! I guess time will tell. I'm glad you like and respect me; backatcha! DougR
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Whistle Stop Date: 27 Apr 01 - 01:32 PM Thanks Doug; no apology necessary. While I tend towards the Democrats' positions, I am not really a party man. And I recognize that a conservative and/or Republican could end up feeling outnumbered on this forum. I enjoy discussing this stuff with intelligent people, whether or not we agree on everything. So I hope you'll continue to offer your perspective, as I will offer mine. And I will try not to seem so thin-skinned. I'm not optimistic about Bush, but I am hoping he will prove me wrong. I remember hating his father as a candidate, but feeling that he wasn't all that bad as a President (sometimes campaigning brings out people's least attractive qualities). I hope to feel the same about our current President. Personally, I think GWB just spoke too quickly in the interview, and then had to spend the rest of the day trying to pretend his statements had been intentional. Like his father (who was famously characterized as having been "born with a silver foot in his mouth"), he isn't all that comfortable speaking without a prepared script. It doesn't help that his predecessor, whatever you think of his actions and policies, was rather gifted in that regard. But probably no real harm was done by the little flap over Taiwan; intelligent people on all sides (including the Chinese) should be able to recognize the difference between public rhetoric and more constructive engagement. Pleasure chatting with you, as always. -- WS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: DougR Date: 28 Apr 01 - 01:33 AM Thanks, WS. GWB has lots to learn, I agree. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: mousethief Date: 28 Apr 01 - 01:38 AM Like Ronald Reagan before him, he must learn not to trust himself to talk without a script. Neither is any good at this particular skill/talent/art/whatever it is. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Naemanson Date: 28 Apr 01 - 10:29 AM Actually I am a little worried about the Taiwan statements. I hope his people can diffuse what he said and back us off from that position. Automatic involvement, such as he seems to be hinting at, was what got so many countries involved in WWI. By keeping a little distance, while supporting Taiwan, we would be able to keep China guessing as to what we might or might not do if there was violence between the two countries. And we may not lose any of our soldiers and sailors in an action between those two. We have to keep the doors open for diplomacy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: DougR Date: 28 Apr 01 - 05:11 PM True, Naemanson, but what WOULD you suggest he do, were China to invade Taiwan? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: Naemanson Date: 28 Apr 01 - 10:38 PM well, doug, we would have a choice. Launch a full scale nuclear attack, thus ensuring the destruction of the world, or turn to the various sanctions and penalties that work so much slower but end up with much less destruction. As the result of Bush's faux pas we are now committed to going in swinging. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: GUEST,banjodon Date: 29 Apr 01 - 12:24 AM remember Taiwan. they are our allies and the communist Chinese empire is bearing down on them.how can sanctions mean anything to a country that acquires most favored nation status without even trying. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush From: GUEST,AKRick Date: 29 Apr 01 - 05:36 AM If I remember correctly, the original Taiwanese people wanted nothing to do with the "nationalist" Chinese. They considered Chang an invader when he and his followers landed in Taiwan. Thousands were killed defending the island from Chang. Are we really going to go to war do defend this? Are hundreds maybe thousands of young Americans going to die so GW can show that he's a tough guy to the mainland Chinese? I doubt it, unless GW is the complete idiot people suspect. At this point it becomes moot. There's a lot of money to be made by the major corporations in China. These are the same corporations that financed GW's "presidency". The shrub can rattle his saber all he wants. It will satisfy the Heritage gang and others that aren't happy without a cold war or boogie man to shout at on their pathetic news/talk shows. If things begin to get hot, the big money will reign 'em in. From what I understand, in the initial days of the "crisis", when GW was talking tough, the white house and congress were flooded with alarmed e-mails and faxes from Chamber of Commerce , National Association of Manufacturers, and other business types. Bush quickly reverted to talk of diplomacy and resolved the "crisis". |