BS: Bushwacked - Seven

Subject: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Skeptic
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 01:18 PM

Just a glutton for punishment I guess

Back to Buswacked Six

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Pseudolus
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 01:42 PM

I feel proud when 3 or 4 people respond to a thread I started. If I started a thread that had to go to its seventh "edition", I would not know what to do with myself!!!

OK, this had nothing to do with the topic, but I had to say it!!!

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 02:32 PM

MAV - I was talking metaphysical pants. "Getting caught with your pants down" is a long-used and still functional metaphor for having one's ideas exposed as vacuous and being left without a fallback position. I will assume ignorance of this term on your part because otherwise I would have to assume that your comment was some kind of cheap-shot implying homosexual interest on my part. That would be totally pointless in a political/philosophical discussion, wouldn't it?

I take exception to your comments about Jesse Jackson's constituency "marching in lockstep" when they vote for a Democratic candidate. Jesse Jackson has a long record for representing the best interests of the black community. Whether you accept that or not is beside the point. For you to contend that you know better than the black community itself what is in its best interest is the height of presumption. That you believe the overwhelming minority support for Al Gore was due to the blind following of charismatic leaders, rather than self-interest, is ludicrous. The implications about your thought process in presenting this argument do not speak well for you.

It also bothers me that you don't understand that there is a huge difference between calling Jackson a "hypocrite" and a "moron". There is a strong case to be made for the good reverend's hypocrisy; labelling him a "moron" is simple name-calling and rather pointless.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Skeptic
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 02:47 PM

It all began way back on January 22, 2001. The credit (or blame) goes to Kat/Katlaughing.

For all you die hard rerun fans (yeah you, the guy on his 19th round of Gilligan reruns), you can relive the magic by going here: blicky

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 02:52 PM

Also, although a person may sometimes be hypocritical (and we all are, sometimes)...does this justify simply labelling him a "hypocrite", as if that is the total summation of his existence?

As for being moronic, we are probably all that sometimes, too. Jesse Jackson can't be a complete moron, or he would hardly have gotten as far as he has in life.

Better to criticize the man's policy decisions than insult him.

Of course, the Democrats have accused Bush of similar failings...so it's tit for tat, isn't it?

Lovely subject to wake up to in the morning....

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Troll
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 03:26 PM

Bart, I believe that the only "best interests" that people like Jese Jackson have in mind are their own. By pushing the idea of victimization, that they are "owed" by the white establishment, and that HE can get them what's coming to them, the Jesse Jacksons of this world guarantee themselves a job and a following.
What would happen if the Reverend Jackson started telling his followers that they could make it by study, by hard work and by adherence to traditional family values i.e. take responsibility for your children and give them a two-parent home for example.
Instead, he sets the example by having children out of wedlock and tells his followers that they are owed all sorts of special accomodations because they are victims, thereby perpetuating the situation.
The Cubans, Koreans, Chinese, Japanese,Viet Namese and others who have come to this country have made it without all the help that Jackson and his ilk would have everyone believe is necessary.
Yes, there was slavery in this country. It ended in 1865. In the past 45 years there have been hundreds of laws passed to end racial discrimination. If those laws are enforced, why should we still need special programs?
Because people haven't changed? You cannot legislate the way people think. There have always been bigots and there always will be bigots. To think differently is to display a profound ignorance of human nature.
We can legislate against actions but not against thoughts.
When the Democrats get over 90% of the African-American vote it's hard not to call that "lock-step" voting. The vote for Gore was certainly self-interest but Jackson and his demagogic brothers were out front telling them what their self-interest was and assuring them that they could make it happen only if the Democrats got in.
There is a story going around that the Voting Rights Act expires in a couple of years and a lot of African-Americans are worried about it happening. To date, I haven't heard Rev Jackson, Sharpton, or Mr M'fiune(sp?) address this lie. Why don't they set their followers minds at ease about this?
Could it be that they want to keep things stirred up for their own purposes? We'll have to wait and see.
Meanwhile,Jackson, who is a highly gifted speaker, pursues his own agenda under the guise of helping his followers.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 04:13 PM

troll - you said "We can legislate against actions but not against thoughts."

Dead right. Well said.

As for the "victim" psychology...it's a very nasty one indeed, and it has led to travesties like the O.J. Simpson trial. Strange that Hollywood almost invariably casts blacks either as:

1. violent criminals and drug dealers

or

2. saintly victims of racial discrimination

or

3. mouthy, obnoxious, and supposedly funny egomaniacs spouting stereotyped ghetto slang (in the sitcoms)

but hardly ever as...real people. I've known a fair number of black people who were quite unlike any of those 3 carboard role models above, thank God.

Those sterotypes are a disservice to blacks and whites alike, and have helped perpetuate the racial problems in America. Hollywood plays the "race card" all the time to pull in big bucks at the box office. It can't help but affect people's perceptions, and not for the better.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 04:29 PM

Troll, Your opinion about the messenger is your business, but I think you're wrong about his message. As I said before, Jackson's primary goal is access to jobs, not handouts. Pointing out that there are still incredible differences in opportunity for minority children is not the politics of "victimization". If George W. can be elected president as an advocate for the put upon 1% who pay ever so many taxes, we need men like Reverend Jackson to be an advocate for his constituents. Should there be others out there working looking after the rights of poor white folks, hispanics, middle-class anybodies, etc.? YOU BETCHA

As far as "out of wedlock" children, Reverend Jackson hasn't (as far as I know) disavowed or abandoned anyone. He didn't walk away from the child. Sure there is a moral issue when a family man fathers a child with a woman not his wife. But as far as I know the Reverend Jackson hasn't walked away from his responsibility to his child or his family here. Nor has he walked away from his responsibility to represent his constituents. He has shown how a man takes the hit for his mistakes and moves forward. His agenda? If his goal was personal wealth and power, he could have retired from the public eye a long time ago. You don't like him. You don't have to like him. But don't let your dislike for him blind you to the good that he has done and continues to do.

I had an uncle, a teamster, who absolutely loved Jimmy Hoffa. My granddad took every opportunity to call him a crook. My gramps knew he was a blowhard who was only feathering his own nest in the name of his union brothers. Try to convince my uncle of that. Same goes for Jackson. Or George W. for that matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: wdyat12
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 06:04 PM

I'm getting tired of this BUSHWACKED thread as named. Can we call the next one BUSHIT 8?

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: kendall
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 07:22 PM

UNCLE ALREADY!!

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Troll
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 08:26 PM

Jackson is interested in power. Money is just the way you keep score. A man who hungers for power cannot retire from the public eye if his power is derived from being in it.
If he was so interested in helping his "constituients" he wouldn't have squandered all the money he is reputed to have spent on his mistress(es). He would have seen that it went to helping the poor people he claims to represent.
To my way of thinking, Jesse Jackson is no better than any other politician who claims to feel the pain of the needy while living high on the hog. He is more interested in power than anything else. And you are right. I don't like him. I also don't like Bill Clinton, Al Sharpton, Ted Kennedy, and a whole bunch of others but my like or dislike doesn't change the facts.
So Jackson hasn't abandoned his child? Will he be there to be a father to him, to teach him how to play ball, to teach him how to be a man? I doubt it. He'll send money, he has plenty of that. What he won't spend is time and the message he sends is that it's ok, as long as you send money you don't have to spend time.
Why not ask a kid if he'd rather have a lot of money or his father to read to him at night.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: catspaw49
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 08:37 PM

Kendall, you're still forgetting to sign off as David!!!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: kendall
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 09:02 PM

What the hell was that David stuff all about anyway? Troll, Jackson might as well throw in the towel, you have already convicted him!

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: hesperis
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 09:03 PM

It's too bad we can't get Jesse himself to post on this thread...

That would be fun.

Then we could get Jesse Helms to offer rebuttals.

Neato.

Spaw, you're a smart guy...how do you think we could induce those 2 worthies to join the Mudcat???

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: hesperis
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 09:04 PM

It's too bad we can't get Jesse himself to post on this thread...

That would be fun.

Then we could get Jesse Helms to offer rebuttals.

Neato.

Spaw, you're a smart guy...how do you think we could induce those 2 worthies to join the Mudcat???

- LH

Damn! Wrong cookie. Sorry, hesperis... That was me, not her.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 09:06 PM

You could devote a whole thread to it, and call it Jesse-whacked!

- LH (on right cookie now...)

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Troll
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 09:53 PM

Kendall, is anything I said untrue?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Skeptic
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 10:01 PM

Troll

Okay, standing as an accused liberal, I've got to say I don't like Jesse either. But (you knew there was one), Jesse is just highly visible. Signifying not a whole lot of anything. So is Madonna and who listen to her.

I believe that the only "best interests" that people like Jese Jackson have in mind are their own. By pushing the idea of victimization, that they are "owed" by the white establishment, and that HE can get them what's coming to them, the Jesse Jacksons of this world guarantee themselves a job and a following.

Which changes nothing So Jesse is a con-man. He may even be a self deluding con-man. And there are always people who'll follow anyone who promises something for nothing. Its why pyramid schemes work so well. He may be one of the more dangerous types of con men, one who believes his own con.

Does that change that fact that there are structural barriers for some groups being able to share in the American version of paradise? Even if you steal an argument from the Durants, who commented that the gates to the old ghettoes were locked from both sides, that doesn't mitigate the problem. Whether the victimization is real or not, as long as it's perceived as real, it needs to be addressed.

What would happen if the Reverend Jackson started telling his followers that they could make it by study, by hard work and by adherence to traditional family values i.e. take responsibility for your children and give them a two-parent home for example.

There are a lot of non-Jesse followers who do that. And paradise remains as elusive as ever. There's just enough truth to his spiel to make it plausible. Its why a con works. The key is that there is some truth there.

What do you say when someone plays by all the rules and is still overtly kept on the outside? The fact that all the feel-good legislation and programs aren't very effective isn't the point.

Instead, he sets the example by having children out of wedlock and tells his followers that they are owed all sorts of special accomodations because they are victims, thereby perpetuating the situation.

Yes, he's part of the problem. And so are all the people who feel they are owed everything. But what about all the rest? The African Americans who think Jesse's an idiot. And still fell like they are being denied a chance? Talk to a loan officer sometime, very off the record, about unofficial policies and guidelines. Or a policeman in our own town. As a public defender we both know once commented as he was doing about 10 miles over the speed limit and I said something "Oh don't worry. Police won't stop us. Wrong color"

The Cubans, Koreans, Chinese, Japanese,Viet Namese and others who have come to this country have made it without all the help that Jackson and his ilk would have everyone believe is necessary. Yes, there was slavery in this country. It ended in 1865.

However, back in the 60's, I don't remember marching to get Chinese, Koreans or latino's the right to vote or to rent an apartment. I do remember sitting with my girlfriend and two African-American NAACP lawyers in her apartment with a cross burning outside the front and being told by the police "well what do you expect if you let those kind in your home?" BTW, that was the 1960's not the 1860's. I remember an apartment I had at the Beach. The couple across the hall was Chinese, Downstairs were more wasps. And the landlord wouldn't rent to African-Americans because "you know how they are". Which is why I moved, cause I knew how he was.

For whatever reason, the assimilation and acceptance hasn't happened. Jesse is a symptom and a leech. You seem to imply he's somehow a cause.

< I>In the past 45 years there have been hundreds of laws passed to end racial discrimination. If those laws are enforced, why should we still need special programs. Because people haven't changed? You cannot legislate the way people think. There have always been bigots and there always will be bigots. To think differently is to display a profound ignorance of human nature. We can legislate against actions but not against thoughts.

There may indeed always be bigots. Sadly, in some parts of the land, that's considered to good thing. There will always be obnoxious drunks too. I don't have to like them, tolerate them, or hang around them. What I should do is minimize the harm they cause and not tacitly accept that "oh well, they'll always be here. And when people glorify being drunk, I need to speak up. We all do. You do, btw. So is this arguing for the sake of arguing?

When the bigotry is institutionalized, of course you need laws to stop certain actions. The laws don't change anyone's minds. They're not supposed to. That's our jobs, as friends, neighbors, and citizens.

When the Democrats get over 90% of the African-American vote it's hard not to call that "lock-step" voting. The vote for Gore was certainly self-interest but Jackson and his demagogic brothers were out front telling them what their self-interest was and assuring them that they could make it happen only if the Democrats got in

Lock Step, perhaps. . But then so was, according to the polls, the vote of the less tolerant Christians.

And Jackson was out front, on the TV, in the news. That hardly equates to being a cause of it all. Or even showing that he's prolonging it. Just as Pat Robertson's pronouncements didn't cause the fundamentalist Christians to vote for W. They all remind me of the old phrase "I must hurry and catch the others, for I am their leader". . There is a story going around that the Voting Rights Act expires in a couple of years and a lot of African-Americans are worried about it happening. To date, I haven't heard Rev Jackson, Sharpton, or Mr M'fiune(sp?) address this lie. Why don't they set their followers minds at ease about this?

Maybe because debunking urban legends is a no-win situation?

Could it be that they want to keep things stirred up for their own purposes? We'll have to wait and see.

Could it be that it's easier to blame Jesse than address core problems? For society, I mean. Could it be that very few take the Voting Rights nonsense seriously? Could it be that you're taking this attitude in a deliberate attempt to irritate me?...but I digress.

Meanwhile, Jackson, who is a highly gifted speaker, pursues his own agenda under the guise of helping his followers.

Damn. The man's a demagogue and insincere. He's in good company. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell Sharpton, and to some extent people like Limbaugh and Bortz(sp?). Brothers under the skin. They're a problem because they're opportunists, preying on fear and greed and hate and ego and seem to have little regard for consequences. Dare I say "ends justifying means". IMO, they're all scum who wrap themselves in righteousness. Probably self deluding scum.

Which changes nothing. The fundamental issues remain unaddressed and festering.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 10:58 PM

Hey groovy guys and gals,

Kendall,

"I was ALSO right about Clinton. Big deal. And, you are right about that "reich field" remark. That was uncalled for, and I do apologize"

Thank you for that.

"You bring out the worst in me, but, you will probably take that as a compliment!"

Well of course, just like the I-Man.

"By the way, why do you attach the name David to me?"

David Kendall was clinton's attorney in impeachment.

"Kendall is my first name"

I know exactly who you are, I've heard your music and downeast humor. I like all you guys (McDonald, Sample etc.) good stuff.

"Anyway sir...it is obvious that we are not going to change each others minds, so, why waste time trying?"

I don't know about you, I was just debating.

"Back when I was a Barry Goldwater republican, I thought much as you do, and, I was just as convinced that I was right"

You probably were.

"The solution was, mow them all down, let God sort them out"

Well I don't know about that.

"I grew up and wised up. Maybe you will too! LOL"

It's supposed to work the other way around, becoming more conservative as you get older.

(If by age twenty you are not a liberal, then you have no heart. If by age 40 you are not a conservative, then you have no brain) old quote

"Seriously, remember, "On a dead mans door, you can knock forever" my knuckles are sore. out"

I ain't dead yet, but I'll be glad to goof with you on a different level if you like.

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: kendall
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 11:12 PM

MAV,I think I know who you are, but, I wont say. Troll, I dont know if all you said is true or not. We will have to wait to see if he abandons his child.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Skeptic
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 11:14 PM

Mav

It's supposed to work the other way around, becoming more conservative as you get older.

Damn. Something else I've being doing wrong.

BTW the quote's usually attributed to Churchill and says Any man under 30 who is not a liberal has no heart, and any man over 30 who is not a conservative has no brains

Which is interesting because I seem to remember that he wasn't exactly conservative (for his time) at thirty and clearly had brains.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 11:22 PM

Troll, you are absolutely right. There is more to being a father than just paying the bills. There is also more to fatherhood than just being there. But you do the best you can given the circumstances you're in. Let's hope the reverend doesn't compound his error. Only time will tell.

It's hard to defend someone who has made an egregious error in judgement. What you can do is try to separate the man from the message and judge each on its own merits.

To return this to a Republican/Democrat thang: I contend that one primary difference between the right and the left is that the right will discredit a man's public record for a private indiscretion while the left will at least try to separate the two. That's why we get Clinton's private misconduct being compared to Nixon and Reagan's law breaking. It's all bad, but it is not all equal.

In the current discussion we get Jesse Jackson's public record repudiated because of a private act. Are there charges against him? Did he mis-use public funds? If and when he gets convicted history will consider him disgraced.

It is not the responsibility of the leader to be perfect in mind, body and spirit. It is also not to fulfill the expectations of all and sundry. The role of the leader is to achieve the goals of those whom he is acknowledged to lead. And Jesse Jackson has worked relentlessly and publicly for decades to achieve opportunity for his constituents. And he has become rich along the way. And he is a powerful man. And he is not perfect. So what? It's a bitch when people don't live up to their own standards. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 11:27 PM

Hey Skeptic,

Thanks for starting a new thread, I was going to do that but you beat me to it. I had to go to an "after hours" with my wife.

"To finish a thought. There are things that Clinton can and should be blamed for. And will"

Yes, his legacy will be handing the entire government over to the Republicans.

I wonder if they actually did it on purpose, if so, we really thank them.

Uncle Jaque and I were laughing today about a fantasy where Hillary, Bill, Monica, Denise and Susan etc. were taking a curtain call, smiling, taking bows and saying "none of it ever happened, we scammed the DNC"

"However, on some of the older issues you continue to rage about, he had his day in court"

Yes, and he got slapped down for contempt of court. (I believe it was Judge Norma Holloway Johnson)

He didn't get his day in court with the Senate because the cowards (GOP) and the complicit (dems) failed to do their duty and even hold a trial, they should all be very proud now that they've enabled him to sink to this current level.

The house democrats were just a bunch of lemmings and the only heros of the day, in retrospect, were the House Managers and Ken Starr.

"I may not like the outcome but thats the way it is"

Agreed, but there are many more crimes yet to surface.

"I think, for example, that Neil Bush got of fairly light in the Silverado fiasco. Should that be reopened?"

If there is unfinished business that has not be prosecuted, that's not unreasonable, but he can't be tried twice for the same crime.

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 11:28 PM

Kendall - David Kendall was a Clinton lawyer, hence the source of mav's "humor". That Mav is a funny guy.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Skeptic
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 11:49 PM

Mav

Yes, his legacy will be handing the entire government over to the Republicans

A time honored political tradition. Look at Hoover. He got blamed for the depression and liberals were in control for the next 30 or 40 years and ....oops....there's talk about a recession. Which isn't as big a deal as a depression but we can blame it on W and maybe get 15 years out of it :-).

Bart

It is not the responsibility of the leader to be perfect in mind, body and spirit. It is also not to fulfill the expectations of all and sundry. The role of the leader is to achieve the goals of those whom he is acknowledged to lead. And Jesse Jackson has worked relentlessly and publicly for decades to achieve opportunity for his constituents. And he has become rich along the way. And he is a powerful man. And he is not perfect. So what? It's a bitch when people don't live up to their own standards. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone

I think a leader has a greater responsibility than that, if he assumes the mantle of leader. Being a little facetious, goals are what you hire managers for. Leaders should define policy and set standards.

I just remember people who knew Jesse way back when who though he was an opportunist of the first order. Did he change? Maybe. He's certainly effective. And he makes sure the whole issue stays in the public's mind where it needs to be.

I'm a little more critical about the illegitimate child thing. Because he was a minister and held himself to a higher standard and because the child won't have a father around. he gets some points for taking responsibility but it was a fairly substantial breach of faith. There needs to be some tangible show of remorse beyond "oops, sorry". Yes, we are all human. But when we adopt the role of moral, spiritual and political leader, and accept the power, accolades and money, I think something more than he's done is required.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 12:02 AM

Dear Bartholomew,

"MAV - I was talking metaphysical pants" OH! Metaphysical pants!!!!

"I will assume ignorance of this term on your part because otherwise I would have to assume that your comment was some kind of cheap-shot implying homosexual interest on my part"

Yes, I know I'm ignorant. I knew about but wasn't really thinking about my metaphysical pants.

"That would be totally pointless in a political/philosophical discussion, wouldn't it?"

Yes, as would any straight faced debate about the racebaiting extortionist and philandering hypocrite, the holier than thou reverend Jackson.

"I take exception to your comments about Jesse Jackson's constituency "marching in lockstep" when they vote for a Democratic candidate"

Why, the democrats haven't done anything for them.

"Jesse Jackson has a long record for representing the best interests of the black community"

No he doesn't, he has a long record of helping himself to the treasury of the phoney organization he heads.

A Chicago inner city Baptist reverend said on national tv that they've trusted in Jackson and the democrats for decades, their schools are still falling apart and the original problems still exist, they are willing to give Mr. Bush a chance (even though they didn't vote for him)

"For you to contend that you know better than the black community itself what is in its best interest is the height of presumption"

Well, since their desire is to receive money from taxpayers (retributions and quotas) rather than "being equal" and participating in the American Dream, I'd say we are all involved and have a say in it.

"That you believe the overwhelming minority support for Al Gore was due to the blind following of charismatic leaders, rather than self-interest, is ludicrous"

Yes, ludicrous is right, you would have thought they would be more astute than that, I don't think for a second that they have lower intelligence, just misplaced trust.

"The implications about your thought process in presenting this argument do not speak well for you"

It's not my thought process, a higher percentage of blacks voted D (despite Bush's efforts to woo them) than ever before (with no outreach at all). Many pundits are blaming the racist dragging ad from the NAACP.

"It also bothers me that you don't understand that there is a huge difference between calling Jackson a "hypocrite" and a "moron"

I understand the difference, I think he's both. What kind of moronic accent is that? I've been to Chicago and didn't hear people talk like that, isn't Oprah from Chi-town? (ishas)

"There is a strong case to be made for the good reverend's hypocrisy"

Yes there is, he IS a hypocrite, and he's not a "good reverend".

"labelling him a "moron" is simple name-calling and rather pointless"

I can't believe you are even attempting to defend this lying, cheating, thieving criminal. The IRS should take him away.

I've heard many black Baptist ministers criticize the pig and tell him to JUST SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!!!

Next question please.

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: kendall
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 08:12 AM

Speaking of philandering ministers, does anyone remember Martin L. King? Has anyone noticed that with one exception, Warren G. Harding) the other politicians who engaged in extra-marital affairs were democrats? What should we think about this? Is it because all those democrats are whore dogs? Or maybe the republicans dont have the balls to spare? (By the way, I dont respond to bomb threats!) ROTFLMAO!!!

A LITTLE HUMOR!! Oy Vey.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 10:43 AM

I've been wondering myself why it is almost always Democratic politicians who are notorious philanderers???

And not republicans. Hmmmm....

Could it be the religious factor? The John Wayne factor? Or is it just that Republicans are too damned serious to have any fun? Or is it all three?

Whatever it is, something should be done about it. There's a fertility gap here, or something like that, and it is creating a schism in American politics that threatens the strength of the Union! :-)

MAV - Although it is a general trend for people to become more conservative as they get older, it isn't an absolute rule. It's also questionable as to whether it's a good thing. I find that people tend to shut down in the heart area as they get older, and instead become focused mainly on money, possessions, and guarding their turf. These are hardly positive changes. The open-heartedness and idealism of the young is evidence that they are still fully alive inside, and still capable of dreaming magnificent dreams. When people are no longer capable of doing that, they've already got one foot in the grave.

Also, to be "conservative" does not necessarily mean to be "right-wing", it just means to be hard-nosed and reactionary (well, that's what it means to me at any rate). The arch-conservatives in Soviet Russia were the old men, the top Communists, the bosses of the Kremlin, the generals, the commissars, and the deadly enemies of their conservative counterparts in America.

How ironical. They were mutually aiming their missiles at their spiritual blood brothers...while the "liberals" in both camps tried to find ways to end the conflict. The liberals finally prevailed in Russia, and the Cold War ended. You oughta thank those Russian liberals, MAV.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 10:58 AM

Mav - I don't think you're ignorant and I do appreciate your subtle humor. You keep the dialogue lively. Unfortunately, (and I know I've said this before,but you just don't seem to get it) you undercut your own points when you throw around unnecessary epithets.

I'll just try to illustrate this once more and then let it go. If you think Jackson is a "hypocrite" and you say it, I have no argument; you're working from the facts. If you say he's a "crook", you're reaching; you will need to provide proof of some criminal conviction or you will need to retract. If you say he's a "moron", you're telling me nothing about him and a lot about you; what I see is that you have something against the guy, and would not like him (Sam I am) regardless of his behavior.

Skeptic - Yeah, Jesse Jackson has put himself up there on the pedestal and deserves whatever you want to sling at him. He has been a disappointment as a human being. But that still shouldn't negate the good that he's done.

My point above, to state it plainly, is "What should we realistically expect of our leaders?" How do you measure a person's achievements, given his/her humanity? Does that blindfolded lady use her scale to weigh the good against the bad? Does one sin discredit a man or woman forever? Do Two? Three? How do you judge Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon? Is there a statute of limitations on dishonor? How about Tom Jefferson? Is the ownership of slaves and a black mistress his legacy?

I have to go
Bart

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 11:13 AM

Yup. People usually have their minds all made up about whether or not to like or hate a public figure.

Then they set about gathering evidence to support their chosen prejudice...

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Skeptic
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 12:50 PM

Now Pat Robertson has expressed concerns about the Faith-based initiative program. These little problems keep popping up. As W has prior experience with FB programs, you'd think he'd have at least considered some of these issues a little more carefully. Its almost as if there's another agenda running here. Robertson and FB Charities

Re: Politicians who were fooling around. I thought Eisenhower had a mistress?

And I'm not sure Kennedy counts as a democrat. Eleanor Roosevelt looked at him as a DINO.

Bart

Skeptic - Yeah, Jesse Jackson has put himself up there on the pedestal and deserves whatever you want to sling at him. He has been a disappointment as a human being. But that still shouldn't negate the good that he's done.

Or negate the issues he raises. The problem is that all to many link people like Jesse to the underlying issues and problems and do the intellectual shorthand of ignoring the reality of problems because they've discredited the "leader". It's distracting from the real issues.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: kendall
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 01:12 PM

Ike only had one mistress. Conservative right to the end! LH, I'm often impressed at your eloquence and your level head.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 01:29 PM

I wasn't going to get myself into this debate. There are too many excellent minds at work here. I just want to take a moment to stick up for the poor beleaguered republicans who have been accused of not having any balls. There are plenty of philandering republicans. Henry Hyde and Newt Gingerich are two of the more recent examples.

Carol

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 01:31 PM

Oh, yeah... and Rudy Giulianni.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Skeptic
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 03:21 PM

Carol C,

Your integrity is deeply appreciated. Maybe having an affair is a symptom of being in politics, not party?

And sooner or later all those "excellent minds" are gonna show up and teach all us opinionated SOB's a thing or two.:-)

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: kendall
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 03:38 PM

I just love plowing up snakes!As long as there is some humor mixed in.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 05:27 PM

Me too. Oh, and thanks for the kind words, Kendall.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 09:41 PM

Hey!!

We have just as good a philanderer class as you guys.

Let me help, Bob Packwood (GONE! he wanted to kiss and hug), Clarence Thomas (then single, who wanted a date with Anita Hill, not a real philanderer), Newt (GONE! who had affairs while criticizing clinton), Bob Livingston (GONE!), Henry Hyde (not gone)

Notice many of our philanderers are toast. (It's so embarrassing, they just have to go)

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: kendall
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 10:05 PM

Is it possible that they are all alike? The evidence indicates that they are. If so, what the hell are we argueing about?

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 10:33 PM

Hey Bartholomew,

You're not so bad yourself.

"you undercut your own points when you throw around unnecessary epithets"

WHAT?????

How the hell do you expect me to work up a good rant if I can't throw around a few unnecessary epithets?...damn it!

"If you think Jackson is a "hypocrite" and you say it, I have no argument; you're working from the facts"

Ok so far.

"If you say he's a "crook", you're reaching; you will need to provide proof of some criminal conviction or you will need to retract"

He hasn't been convicted yet, but I'd say extortion (shaking down major corporations) and engaging in prostitution (giving huge sums of money to the women he began harrassing) are a good start.

He also hasn't explained his limitless funding and given the disclosures that a non-profit is obligated to report.

The IRS or Ashcroft will likely have a heyday with this guy and his minions.

"If you say he's a "moron", you're telling me nothing about him and a lot about you; what I see is that you have something against the guy, and would not like him (Sam I am) regardless of his behavior"

Oh, his behavior is everything. To him, everything is a racial ish-ya.

How about the high school thugs in Illinois, how about the alleged racial disenfranchisement in FL?

Nobody in the world talks like that, he has his own stupid accent. He is from the US isn't he?

Here is some transcript from O'Reilly;

"O'REILLY: When you say tell all, are there other mistresses, children, financial...

COZ: There...

O'REILLY: ... shenanigans? What?

COZ: There's financial shenanigans. There are other women involved. But, at the core of it, it's how is the Rainbow Coalition money used to support lifestyle and where exactly does that money come from and where exactly is that money spent. That's at the core of the investigation.

O'REILLY: Are you paying these guys to talk?

COZ: Money is not the driving force either on the Jesse Jackson stories we've run or on the Clinton pardon payoff story that we've run. What these are are really good, old-fashioned news investigation. You know, we're just out there pounding the pavement"

More to follow.

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 10:45 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 10:58 PM

Well, it's a relief to know that the Republicans have their share of philanderers... :-)

I also find Jesse Jackson a little hard to take...when I think about him, which isn't often.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 11:01 PM

Sorry, I did it again.

Here's something interesting,

=======================================================

"Dear Gov. Bush,

I know a picture is worth a thousand words, but if you have any comment you want to make about this AP photo -- and what you were thinking at the time, I'd be glad to share it with others.

Sincerely, [deleted]"

====================================================== From: Jeb Bush To: [deleted] Date: Friday, February 23, 2001 10:00 PM Subject: RE: AP Photo

I wasn't weeping as the article said but I did shed a tear for Leslie Steele and others who have suffered for working with me.

I feel horrible for the midnight calls to African American team members who are called Uncle Toms or traitors to their race for working in my office.

I am tired of the threats and intimidation of people who I respect and who do great work on behalf of the state.

I am sick of the quiet ostracizing of co-workers for believing in equality of opportunity rather than the tired system of set asides and quotas and race based preferences.

Our way has generated a better result but they don't get any credit.

Jeb Bush

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Metchosin
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 11:21 PM

Mav, the original quote you referred to about hearts and brains re liberals and conservative is actually originally as follows:

Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart;
to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.
-Francois Guisot (1787-1874)

which was later changed by Georges Clemenceau (1841-1929) into:

Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart;
to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.

It is interesting how over the years we borrow things and modify them for our own purposes.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 11:27 PM

CAUGHT AGAIN!

Rev. Jesse Jackson is embroiled in a shocking NEW sex and money scandal -- with a Rainbow Coalition staffer half his age.

The 59-year-old civil rights leader as previously reported had a love child with aide Karin Stanford has also been intimately involved with 31-year-old Sherva Jenkins-Smith and regularly slipped her secret cash gifts, charge outraged former Coalition members.

======================================================

Halleluja brother Jessee, and pass the condoms, oh wait, he doesn't use them.

Jessee was feeling the spirit (and young Sherva).

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 11:34 PM

Dear Metchosin,

Thanks for the quotes, think I'll paste 'em.

I think I repeated the one I used just as I heard it.

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 11:42 PM

Boy, am I sick of this term "love child". What does it mean, anyway? Seriously! It's a dumb term used by publications like National Enquirer to embarass celebrities. How come they have "love children" while the rest of us simply have children?

Presumably it means a child conceived out of wedlock. Big deal. I don't particularly care. If I thought marriages were "made in heaven" then I would, but I don't. They're made in churches and government offices generally. I mean, in the technical sense...

Feh! I exclaim with emphatic contempt regarding this overused cliche. "Love child" indeed. Feh, again!

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 11:48 PM

59 to 31 is supposed to be bad or something? Why? What have their ages got to do with it, as long as they're both "adults" (in the usual sense of the term).

59 and 31 is shocking? Hell, MAV, you have no idea...

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Skeptic
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 11:49 PM

Metchosin,

My thanks for the background on the quote.

Mav,

The interesting question is where he got the money used to pay off the woman in his life. I seem to recall he always claimed that he was living off what the Coalition paid and turning over all his speaking engagement money and so forth to them. Must be quite a salary to afford $10K/month child support and the $350K+ house. You'd think he could have afforded condums. Hope Sherva at least got a corner office out of it.

You don't think he's also *gasp* guilty of improper use of Coalition funds?

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 11:57 PM

"You don't think he's also *gasp* guilty of improper use of Coalition funds?"

Yessssssssssssssssssss and tax evasion.

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 11:58 PM

That is a pretty mind-boggling thought, John. I, for one, will NOT sleep well tonight while I ponder it. *gasp* indeed!

It reminds me of Inspector Clouseau telling the French court that his wife "is very frugal with the 'ousekeeping money". Har, har!

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Skeptic
Date: 24 Feb 01 - 12:24 AM

Little Hawk and Mav,

How could you even think about sleep at a time like this?

How fallen are the mighty. The sad part is that the self-proclaimed leader and the cause he supposedly championed will be linked and the later will suffer because of the former.

On a more troubling note (Please tell me this guy is on the far, far fringes with minimal creddibility) I came across and editorial in the National Review Online from John Derbyshire.

After citing three incidents that he feels were heinous in the extreme(defending her father, monopolizing dinner conversation at Camp David and showing up late fro Church) he continues with this:

Chelsea is a Clinton. She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored. All the great despotisms of the past —— I'm not arguing for despotism as a principle, but they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble —— recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin's penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an "enemy of the people". The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, "clan liability". In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished "to the ninth degree": that is, everyone in the offender's own generation would be killed, and everyone related via four generations up, to the great-great-grandparents, and four generations down, to the great-great-grandchildren, would also be killed. (This sounds complicated, but in practice what usually happened was that a battalion of soldiers was sent to the offender's home town, where they killed everyone they could find, on the principle neca eos omnes, deus suos agnoscet —— "let God sort 'em out".)""

We don't, of course, institutionalize such principles in our society, and a good thing too. Our humanity and forbearance, however, has a cost. The cost is, that the vile genetic inheritance of Bill and Hillary Clinton may live on to plague us in the future. It isn't over, folks. Dr. Nancy Snyderman, a "friend of the family" (how much money did she give them?) is quoted as saying that Chelsea shows every sign of following her parents into politics. "She's been bred for it," avers Dr. Snyderman. Be afraid: be very afraid. - John Derbyshire, The National Review.

Almost sound like he regrets that we don't "institutionalize such principals".

I'd always though the National Review had a little higher jounalistic standard. Not being a regular reader, is this sort of thing typical of their editorial policy?

I am not trying to point a finger at conservatives but a a man who, at least based on this article, strikes me as being evil (for want of a better word).

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: kendall
Date: 24 Feb 01 - 08:13 AM

Love Child..yuk! almost as bad a illegitimate! What a cruel narrow minded label to stick on an innocent child.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Troll
Date: 24 Feb 01 - 10:45 AM

"Love Child" is an old term as is "Woods Colt", "Byblow", and "Bantling". Bend or Bar Sinister is popularly thought to denote bastardy in heraldry (it doesn't), as does the term "red-haired step-child" in some circles. I never could figure the last one out myself. A fascinating study, illegitimacy.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: kendall
Date: 24 Feb 01 - 11:08 AM

Red haired step child? I believe it means that the child in question is obviously not the off spring of the father. Remember Laugh In? the Farckle family,with all those red haired kids, and the neighbor, Furd Burffle with flaming red hair? Everytime I see a Volvo car I think of that old saying; "Ministers dont like bar sinisters."

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: catspaw49
Date: 24 Feb 01 - 07:06 PM

I dunno'........On a completely serious note, you do change as you age and I think ol' Mav may have some points.

Government is the term for the modern state. Government denotes the perennial lie, "of the people" which is used to mislead those who should know better. All governments are oligarchies, which means rule by the few. Some oligarchies have facades, such as the Congress and the Senate. Dictatorships are, in reality, oligarchies (rule by the few). The modern oligarchy, which refers to itself as a democracy, is the most deceptive. That is because democracy is a fraud today, just as it has been throughout history; remember, the Trojan Horse or the Great Oz.

Even the best of states are a protection racket. For example, the state takes $1.00 in tax, and you are lucky to receive 20% of that in services. These services are then usually redirected. The hold-up man, on the street, takes all that you have at the time. The burglar carries off, all that he can, from your house. However, rarely do these men make regular demands upon you, such as the state does, by robbing you and always claiming to be doing it "for your own good" or "for your general welfare". You may rob and kill, without worry of punishment, if you are licensed by the state. The state police kill quite regularly, as do the military, the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. These people are allowed to. Most of us travel through life unlicensed, unless it is perhaps a license to drive or to run a business. Should we attempt to operate anything without the proper license, we are sent to jail.

National states are gangs, no less, no more. Gangs, by their nature, strive to become larger by gobbling up smaller gangs (smaller states), on their way to becoming syndicates (or as we know them to be now, transnational corporations). Remember, the goal of International Socialism and International Capitalism, was to destroy smaller states, or to absorb them into the "Super Gang". Soviet Russia was a good example, and the term "the West" as opposed to "the East", was another. The result, in that case, was the "Cold War". The "Cold War" gobbled up nations into the specter of the "one big fight". Using this as an excuse, the natural resources of the world were squandered, along with the death of millions. All in the name of peace, brotherhood and national defense.

Street gangs are the lowest common denominator, and in reality, the most sensible of all gang activity! Most street gangs today are satisfied with control of a few blocks of turf, and a financial cut. These gangs are somewhat beneficial since they, in some ways, erode the confidence in the "Big Gang." However, the "Big Gang" tries to use this as a method of gaining tighter control. Enters: drunk driving, road blocks, helmet laws and seat belt enforcement, as an example of seemingly "good" plans. These so-called "good" plans guide the sheep (that's you), to a more total control, by the "Big Gang" in Washington D.C.

The international style state is inefficient, to the maximum. Perhaps we are moving towards a time of city states. City states would be desirable and efficient, plus they would be culturally strong. As an example, the greatest time of culture and art, on the Italian Boot, were in the time of the city states. Italy has not since demonstrated anything that comes close. Greece, at its peak, was comprised of city states. Why not city states with satellite village states? By effective immigration, this is a reachable goal.

Like I say, I dunno'.........

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Feb 01 - 09:17 PM

Spaw - That is the most gloriously true post I think I have ever read on Mudcat. I like you when you're funny, but when you're serious you are amazing.

We are indeed all ruled by oligarchies, big gangs, masquerading as defenders of freedom. "Like Judas of old they lie and deceive..."

Now he worships at the altar
Of a stagnant pool
And when he sees his reflection, he's fulfilled.
Man is opposed to fair play
He wants it all and he wants it his way
But there's a woman on my block
She just sits there in a cold chill
She says "Who's gonna take away his license to kill?"

Above quotes from Dylan. The woman might just as well be Mother Nature...

The big gang that rules the USA cynically divides its people into following 2 official parties (tools of the oligarchy), then sets them at each others' throats every 2 to 4 years, then walks away with the riches, and throws the public a few crumbs. Divide and conquer.

Democracy, indeed. Hah! Just give them enough TV and consumer goods and mindless entertainment to keep them pacified (like the Roman mob), and the game goes on and on...while Eden burns. Orwell only glimpsed the possibilities.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Troll
Date: 24 Feb 01 - 10:22 PM

"Spaw, the Italian city-states were constantly at war with one another and the Greek city-states were based on slave labor. Only male citizens could vote and to be a citizen you had to have been born of citizen parents.
Otherwise I like what you said.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 24 Feb 01 - 10:38 PM

I swear, "old" catspaw49 wrote that himself, I had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

I'm innocent (well, at least not guilty) I tell you.

I dunno either,

mav out

PS HEY!! Is that the same guy as catspawl???

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: catspaw49
Date: 24 Feb 01 - 11:14 PM

Oh I dunno' myself Mav......but somehow I have a feeling you have a lot to do with it.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 24 Feb 01 - 11:29 PM

Hey cats,

Thanks, I think.

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 24 Feb 01 - 11:35 PM

Well, well, well,

BLEEP! Jackson, take a look at this;

==================================================

Kweisi Mfume, President & CEO, NAACP, said today that he looks forward to meeting with Rep. Dick Armey and other leading Republican Congressional leaders to turn down racial rhetoric and to lay "the groundwork for a different type of coexistence and cooperation between the NAACP and the Republican Party."

Mfume, in a letter to Armey, a former colleague in the House of Representatives, said: "On the issue of race the American people have every right to expect that we will work together to achieve real and lasting progress. Under that rubric our mantra must read, "race baiters of either ilk need not apply."

On February 17, 2001, Mfume called for meetings between himself and President Bush and leaders of Congress. He said that despite some differences on key issues such as public education, affordable health care, hate crimes, and economic development, "there is no reason for us to have permanent disengagement.

========================================================

Armey had agreed to meet with Infume if he would repudiate the "dragging ad" and other attacks accusing the GOP of racism.

Maybe the NAACP sees the dems as fading and want to get while the gettin's good.

IT'S ABOUT TIME!!!

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: katlaughing
Date: 25 Feb 01 - 12:51 AM

Mfume supposedly said some differences on key issues such as public education, affordable health care, hate crimes, and economic development. SOME differences...KEY issues?? Well, yeah...major ones, if you ask me and there is a wide, wide gap betwixt the leadership of the GOP and where they think the rest of the country is on those issues.

Oh, Spaw darlin'...can I interest in you in a Home State in the Northwest? Land o' Plenty...big fences, big guns to keep everyone else out...Karen would have to go barefoot, though...same ol' Spaw, my arse!

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 Feb 01 - 12:56 AM

I must say how happy I am to have brought both sides together with one post.....except for Skeptic of course. What he has to say generally makes perfect sense and therefore can be excluded from the rest of these arguments, which rarely do. Though Mav may not agree with me, I think there is very little difference between the extremes of left and right......since both sides seem to agree with the above post.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 25 Feb 01 - 08:50 AM

Yes Catspaw,

Except the left favors the BIG gangs and the right favors the smaller ones (state, city, family).

Small gangs is a natural thing.

Everyone knows "It takes a village". Hitlary told us so. The quote doesn't say "It takes a bloated self-serving bureaucracy to _____________"

We have plenty of lefties in the GOP by the way, and there are probably some wayward conservatives in the democrat party (but not many at the top).

It is more specific to refer to left and right than GOP and democrats. (except the dems stick together like glue on an issue regardless of their individual positions)

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 25 Feb 01 - 10:05 AM

"Mfume supposedly said some differences on key issues such as public education, affordable health care, hate crimes, and economic development. SOME differences...KEY issues?? Well, yeah...major ones"

First of all it's bad enough that the federal government is addressing any of these issues at all, for anyone. These are just not supposed to be Constitutionally allowed of the federal government.

These are the domain of the smaller gangs.

ALL violent crimes are HATE CRIMES!!!

The federal sentencing guidelines already gives plenty of lattitude to "throw the book" at violent criminals, but liberal judges get all touchy feely and end up letting criminals get away with murder.

Those judges need to GET OUT!

If "Hate Crimes" legislation is to be taken seriously, what happens to the argument when the new justice department starts prosecuting the black on white crimes as mandated by the non-sensical and convoluted legislation?

Many more black on white crimes occur every year than the reverse.

"if you ask me and there is a wide, wide gap betwixt the leadership of the GOP and where they think the rest of the country is on those issues"

Well then how did they get elected?

"Economic development" is definitely a function of the private sector.

The GOP (which represents the private sector) should do everything it can to educate the public about all things financial, the dems (who represent the public sector) NEVER WILL!

If Koreans and other Asian entrepreneurs can proliferate in the inner city areas, so can the blacks. Instead, there has been an attitude of "racial" hated and jealousy, no white devils involved!!!

Blacks are the fastest growing segment of the middle class. As more and more professional atheletes, entertainers and other members of any high paying profession begin to see the government's unreasonable confiscation of half of their hard earned income, their thinking is going to shift.

"Queasy" is a good looking black man with a nice smile and demeanor, likely the replacement for the disgraced (or should be) Jackson.

Unfortunately he is, like Jackson, an unashamed racebaiter and father of a small village of "single parent" children (aka bastards).

Given that the cycle of violent crime and welfare dependency is fueled by an unlimited supply of children who unfortunately grow out of these circumstances, and that Queasy's actions speak louder than his words....

he wants to perpetuate the black underclass just to guarantee the "sacred" (and corrupt) "black civil rights" industry, finding inequity where none exists, and creating phoney rhetoric to keep people divided.

Hopefully this insidious institution (the racebaiting NAACP) will fade away, it has served its purpose.

I would agree that the GOP and Infume are worlds apart on lots of issues (gimmee vs. responsibility)

The people he "serves" are welcome to become educated and productive Americans and to join the party.

To say they can't do it is to call them STUPID!

We all know that's just not true. (Don't we?)

By the way, there is only one race......HUMAN!

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Feb 01 - 11:11 AM

Amen to that, MAV. There is only one race...HUMAN! Now there's a simple truth that bears repeating now and then.

I agree that individual right-wingers are more inclined toward small gangs and leftists toward big ones, but that does not necessarily follow with right-wing governments...who work happily with multinational corporations, generally speaking, to exploit the have-nots in the world. The multinationals are capitalists, but they are among the biggest gangs we've seen yet in this world. To me, they are like Communists with a new party line...which is...make money and lots of it by any means possible, regardless of consequences to nature, society, or human rights and moral decency.

I've noticed that the city politics in my home town of Orillia are basically far more democratic than the Ontario provincial political system or the Canadian federal system, because the people involved in city politics are far better known to the public who votes for them, and accordingly are more responsive to that public.

So Spaw may be onto a good idea here with his notion of city-states. More local control leads to better government. The ultimate horror is a state-centered authority like Stalinist Russia, which caused the deaths of millions of small farmers and their families in its efforts to collectivize agriculture. Such a government is utterly out of touch with the aspirations of its people, and is capable of atrocities that pass all understanding.

It is the same catspaw49, MAV. He's a very smart guy, he just has a wicked sense of humour at times, that's all.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: katlaughing
Date: 25 Feb 01 - 11:23 AM

Oh...Spaw....fess up, darlin'....? You might as well have left the racist crap in...would've pleased the insecure white guy to no end...Oh, didja know there are NO single parents our there in Whitey's World? That's right, no bastards at all!

What a bunch of crap...LH, read, very carefully...our Spaw has outsmarted you this time...

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 25 Feb 01 - 11:30 AM

Dear Little Hawk,

"Boy, am I sick of this term "love child". What does it mean, anyway? Seriously! It's a dumb term used by publications like National Enquirer to embarass celebrities"

I think the Supremes (the singing group, not SCOTUS) created it in the 60s and probably helped make the destructive practice more acceptable.

"How come they (celebrities) have "love children" while the rest of us simply have children?"

Because they have the morals of alley cats and the "rest of us" presumably look out for the best interests of our children including giving them TWO parents.

"Presumably it means a child conceived out of wedlock"

Yes, it means illegitimate (illegal) or even nastier, BASTARD!

Both of those terms can be viewed in a dictionary near you.

"Big deal. I don't particularly care. If I thought marriages were "made in heaven" then I would, but I don't"

That is your right, but centuries of societies conducting experimentation with family arrangements have brought us to the current status of the desirablilty of the nuclear family.

Recent studies have shown most criminals and other whack jobs emerge from dysfunctional and broken households but largely from single parent "families" where no father is present to enforce dicipline and teach right from wrong.

"They're (referring to marriages) made in churches and government offices generally. I mean, in the technical sense..."

Yes, hence the term legitimate or legal applied to a new member of a family...not just spawn popped out like so many accidental puppies.

Not being real friendly to political correctness, I think the term "love child" does have a certain consideration for the individual in question to it when contrasted to BASTARD!

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: katlaughing
Date: 25 Feb 01 - 11:34 AM

Oh, whip me, daddy, whip me! Of course you don't cite any studies, of any ilk, to prove any of your statements...but that doesn't surprise me...it is always easiest to turn it around and make out as the victim with a bunch of meaningless crap...

again, LH, read Spaw very carefully...

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: kendall
Date: 25 Feb 01 - 11:38 AM

The issue of liberal judges. The main problem here is not so much the fact they are "Liberal" but, the constitution forbids Cruel and unusual punishment. Jambing 3 men into a cell built for one is just that.Every prison in this country is overcrowded, and, just like rats or any other animal, when over crowding occurs, the result is quite predictable. Remember Attica? So. What happens when the voters are asked to foot the bill for a new or bigger prison? N.I.M.B.Y. thats what. (not in my back yard) The general public wants to throw them into prison and forget them. The constitution forbids it. Judges are bound by the constitution.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: katlaughing
Date: 25 Feb 01 - 11:46 AM

Yes, but, Kendall, if MAV et al got their way, all of the liberals, non-Christians, people of colour, homosexuals, bastards, etc would be put in concentration camps and/or eliminated and then they wouldn't have those problems at all! You know they just wouldn't have any crime amongst themselves!

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Metchosin
Date: 25 Feb 01 - 11:51 AM

The one saving grace of all this is that we human beings are so incompetent.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Metchosin
Date: 25 Feb 01 - 11:55 AM

and not. Contradiction is not a bad thing just inevitable.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 25 Feb 01 - 12:05 PM

Hey Mister,

"The main problem here is not so much the fact they are "Liberal" but, the constitution forbids Cruel and unusual punishment"

I think they were referring to torture and drawing an quartering here, not overcrowding.

"Jambing 3 men into a cell built for one is just that.Every prison in this country is overcrowded, and, just like rats or any other animal, when over crowding occurs, the result is quite predictable"

Don't forget some immigrants live this crowded by choice, it only seems cruel by jaded American standards.

I will not disagree, but the end result of releasing these violent anti-social predators back onto the streets is illogical because it is cruel and unusual punishment to the general public who deserve protection from them.

I'd like to see them exported. (This is a Gene Burns concept)

Strip violent repeat offenders and murders of their Constitutional rights, since they've proven that they don't wish to participate in civilized society, and "farm them out" with a one time payment (say $25,000) to penal systems of third world countries. This could defuse some of the controversy over capital punishment.

You might think twice about raping someone if you knew you might be moving to SYRIA!

Not my idea, your thoughts?

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 25 Feb 01 - 12:40 PM

Ok Kat,

"Oh, whip me, daddy, whip me! Of course you don't cite any studies, of any ilk, to prove any of your statements...but that doesn't surprise me...it is always easiest to turn it around and make out as the victim with a bunch of meaningless crap..."

I assume you're talking to me. If you want to be that way, that's fine.

Don't you pay attention to anything current? Any moron could have looked this up in 2 minutes so I (your favorite moron) DID!

It's a study from the University of Minnesota, that obvious bastion of southern bible banging right wing extremist rednecks (Mondale, Humphery etc.)

The study covers much of what we already knew and more. It shows the destructive effects of your philosophy on a class of people. If you want to talk about victims, READ IT!

www.ipums.umn.edu/~ruggles/strib94.html

It might be meaningless crap, but it's YOUR meaningless crap.

"Yes, but, Kendall, if MAV et al got their way, all of the liberals, non-Christians, people of colour, homosexuals, bastards, etc would be put in concentration camps and/or eliminated and then they wouldn't have those problems at all! You know they just wouldn't have any crime amongst themselves!"

Of course you don't cite any studies, of any ilk, to prove any of your statements...but that doesn't surprise me...it is always easiest to turn it around and make out as the victim with a bunch of meaningless crap...

I have a Collie named Patty, unlike you she is very friendly and reasonable.

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Feb 01 - 01:10 PM

Naming no names I'd like to make a few guesses on a certain person's homelife: Your wife trots back and forth bringing you comestibles - and never doing it quite to your satisfaction- or she is out there telling people how unhappy she is in her situation. Your children, sir, are either kowtowing to you and spouting the same rhetoric or they left home long ago and you haven't seen them in 10 years. You are an animal lover- and are fond of saying dogs are the only thing you can trust. Your daydreams are dark and scary.

Or NOT... Maybe this is just the venting of a mild little man who wishes someone would pay attention to him just once.

Incidentally, where does mav (nothing big about him) get off taking offense at being placed in 'reich field' but feels justified in saying 'Hitlary'?

Fondly,

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: kendall
Date: 25 Feb 01 - 01:41 PM

MAV, there is a huge difference between forcing a man to live like a rat, and an immigrant living in a crowd. The immigrant is probably among friends and relatives, and, he does have a choice.Much more of a choice than the prisoner. Are you aware of a recent study that shows considerable evidence that the criminal brain is lacking in the stuff that makes us know the difference between right and wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 25 Feb 01 - 02:19 PM

Dear Ebbie,

"Naming no names I'd like to make a few guesses on a certain person's homelife"

Well, since you named me in your last comment I'll just guess you're talking about me.

"Your wife trots back and forth bringing you comestibles -and never doing it quite to your satisfaction-"

She takes pretty good care of me and I try to do the same for her. I leave her a message daily on the answering machine thanking her for what she does for me, she also works.

"or she is out there telling people how unhappy she is in her situation"

We both find ourselves talking favorably to others about our better halves, both of us had prior relationships where we were treated badly so we love and appreciate each other (for 18 years). You? "Your children, sir, are either kowtowing to you and spouting the same rhetoric or they left home long ago and you haven't seen them in 10 years"

We weren't blessed with children but we love the daylights out of our nieces and nephews.

"You are an animal lover-"

True. "and are fond of saying dogs are the only thing you can trust"

Not true, I believe in people and their ability to exercise their freedom and accept their responsibilities.

The thing about the Collie went right over you lil head. Didn't it?

"Your daydreams are dark and scary"

Not really, we just got control of the US government for the first time in 40 years, actually I'm quite optimistic.

"Or NOT... Maybe this is just the venting of a mild little man who wishes someone would pay attention to him just once"

I'm pretty mild mannered but I get plenty of attention. It's actually pretty amazing that I even have time to post on this forum. Maybe it's just the venting of someone with a different point of view than the Hollywood left.

"Incidentally, where does mav (nothing big about him)"

There he goes, not naming names.

"get off taking offense at being placed in 'reich field'"

I think I covered that but just let me add......I HATE AUTHORITARIANISM and BIG GOVERNMENT!!!

"but feels justified in saying 'Hitlary'?"

She not Reno, ordered the raid on WACO.....FOR THE CHILDREN!!!

She's the smartest woman in the world, but she doesn't know anything. (Just like Sargeant Schultz)

"I know NUTZING!......mmmmm......NUTZING!"

I just watched the entire Hitlary press conference from Thursday, what a lying crock. Any one who believes a word she says is..........whatevr.

Perhaps you should take a look at "Hell to Pay" by Barbara Olsen, or take a look at some of the observations of people who worked with her in the White House (they weren't allowed to look at her)

Thank you for asking.

By the way, lots of New Yorkers are questioning their choice for Senate, I'd say she may well face 6 years of defending emerging details from her and bubba's (nothing big about him) reign of terror in the White House. This should be good. Unless of course they can un-elect her.

Fondly,

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 25 Feb 01 - 02:26 PM

Mister M,

"Are you aware of a recent study that shows considerable evidence that the criminal brain is lacking in the stuff that makes us know the difference between right and wrong?"

Yes, it's called morality.

Just kidding, I'll take your word on it, but beware the junk scientists.

Go to www.junkscience.com for a global warming update.

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 25 Feb 01 - 02:45 PM

Hey Ebbie,

This just in......

======================================================== "Newsweek also reports that Hillary Clinton's brother Hugh Rodham and a third sibling, younger brother Tony Rodham, tried to set up a hazelnut-export business in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia -- until the State Department told them to stop. The brothers traveled to Taiwan and South Korea prospecting for business. During one visit, according to local press reports, they brought a gift and personal letter from Hillary to the Korean First Lady, Lee Hee-ho. (A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton says she does not recall the episode.)" =====================================================

I have no recollection of that, Sorry, I don't recall, I really don't remember that, I really don't know. I have no knowledge, You'll have to ask my husband about that.........

Expect investigations and special council.

Don't blame me, Don't blame Ashcroft. Blame the clintons.

Fondly,

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Feb 01 - 03:21 PM

mav (my opinion is still out on that one!), I'm not defending the Clinton's. I'm saying that neither of them is a HITLER. You are trivializing.

And don't tell me that Hillary Clinton "ordered" Waco!

Question: As for the attempted export business of Ms. Clinton's brothers- to Russia- in what way was it illegal? Was it because she allegedly abused her position in giving them an unfair edge?

I'm going to have to think of a better sign-off. Neither of us wants to misuse the concept of love, do we?

Cheers- but not a 'toast'...

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: MAV
Date: 25 Feb 01 - 03:38 PM

Dear Skeptic,

"When the Democrats get over 90% of the African-American vote it's hard not to call that "lock-step" voting. The vote for Gore was certainly self-interest but Jackson and his demagogic brothers were out front telling them what their self-interest was and assuring them that they could make it happen only if the Democrats got in

Lock Step, perhaps. . But then so was, according to the polls, the vote of the less tolerant Christians"

That's a skewed poll.

They didn't consider the "less tolerent Christians" who happen to be black Baptist algor voters. Did they?

The so-called religious left.

Guess I'll stick around after all. You guys are ok.

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: MAV
Date: 25 Feb 01 - 04:19 PM

Hey Ebbie,

"And don't tell me that Hillary Clinton "ordered" Waco!"

You heard it here first. Film at 11.

I also predicted the report on Dale Ernhart's safety harness, I still think there's more on that story, but then I'm not a big NASCAR fan.

"Question: As for the attempted export business of Ms. Clinton's brothers- to Russia- in what way was it illegal? Was it because she allegedly abused her position in giving them an unfair edge?"

That is a question for the new and exciting Department of Justice, something we haven't had in 8 years. It certainly calls into question her veracity. Doesn't it?

"I'm going to have to think of a better sign-off. Neither of us wants to misuse the concept of love, do we?"

No, but maybe something like;

"10-4 good buddy, put the pedal to the metal and keep the greasy side down and the shiny side up, right back 'atcha. We clear, Ebbie"

But then again, maybe that isn't you and it is a little lengthy.

Oh well, you'll think of something.

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: kendall
Date: 25 Feb 01 - 04:33 PM

MAV, I would love to debate you in person! I would also love to switch sides, you liberal, me conservative! Put em up, put em up!

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Feb 01 - 04:59 PM

Kendall and Mav- try it! I would love to follow that. And just maybe I'll learn something. I would like to be able to negotiate the tortured labyrinthe- "This happened and that means such and so and therefore, so and so is also true"- that MAV is trekking.

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 Feb 01 - 09:23 PM

Hawk, I luvya.........And I know where your heart lies having read your views on the Cuban situation and the world in general for some time here at the 'Cat. You are many times a disillusioned optimist who would so much like to see the individual rights and freedoms of all upheld and defended by an honest government that you are able to look past the implications of some actions. If things were to go according to that other post I made, we would be returning to fiefdoms based on the collective prejudices of each and rather than freedom and respect for all and less war, there would be more.

REad and think it through carefully and (as Troll so well picked up historically) you will see it is yet another form of bigotry and racism.

Yeah, I do have a wicked sense of humor. I pulled that post from a White Supremacist website and deleted the "whites, niggers, Jews" lines. It is understandable how at first read it may sound sensible in the same way that MAV sounds sensible at times-----"There is only one race, the human race"------which makes us want to believe that he does see things as we do, only slightly skewed. This is not true.

Mav speaks the same "bigotspeak" that has made racism, chauvinism, and jingoism, come back to the fore. It is often subtle, sometimes even joking, but it is always there below the surface. A desire for freedom for all and less government restriction can make strange bedfellows. Never mistake where these folks are coming from and never allow yourself to be drawn into using them to advance your own good hearted arguments. In the end you will lose. They are insidious and growing in number and you have to fight it and expose it where you find it.

Spaw

Oh yeah......Mav? Bugger off...

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Skeptic
Date: 25 Feb 01 - 10:20 PM

Spaw,

Been out at a gig and got back to find mudcat was down. Nonetheless, I responded to your posting as follows (just to stay in character)

Spaw, you're doing it too. I am not reasonable and I deeply resent being labeled so. Even troll has failed to come forth to correct this demeaning misconception.

First you, then Little Hawk. And even Mav. I have to assume some deep conspiracy, replete with passwords, secret handshakes, private chat rooms and your own blazers and rings. You've already got the endearing nicknames and misleading cult name. "Catters" indeed!

To clarify things for the last time: I am not reasonable or rational or logical. I am simply and consistently right. You are all consistently deluded and wrong. Once you all acknowledge that, the quality of your lives will dramatically improve. Well, the quality of mine will, which is what counts, of course.

Please conduct yourselves accordingly.

Spaw and others.

Government denotes the perennial lie, "of the people" which is used to mislead those who should know better

Lies?. Only if you assume "of the people", implies the dynamic and scope of your forth grade election for class president. It is the keystone of your utopian nonsense and is meaning is vital. It works if "of the people" is taken as a literal statement of practical government as opposed to a belief used to establish power flow/

All governments are oligarchies, which means rule by the few

No they aren't. All governments are a means of mediating power within a group. And that means that voluntarily or not, some limited group are designated to run things within the defined rules. The issue is whether power is irrevocably concentrated in the hands of a defined few, or concentrated by structural definition. And whether the structure is open or closed.

Some oligarchies have facades, such as the Congress and the Senate. Dictatorships are, in reality, oligarchies (rule by the few). The modern oligarchy, which refers to itself as a democracy, is the most deceptive. That is because democracy is a fraud today, just as it has been throughout history; remember, the Trojan Horse or the Great Oz.

Which means very little unless you are deeply into paranoia. All oligarchies have facades. All forms of government have a facade. Any ongoing group of more than three has a facade, written or implied. That does not mean all governments are oligarchies. Democracy tends to abstract ownership of power more than most forms. In the West, capitalism provides a strong oligarchical overlay since its current logic requires an oligarchy to maximize profit. There are more elements to an oligarchy than those given.

Even the best of states are a protection racket. For example, the state takes $1.00 in tax, and you are lucky to receive 20% of that in services. These services are then usually redirected

A curious assertion. Say rather that "you are lucky to receive 20% in services that you approve of" and it comes closer to the truth. When you live in a group, the adult thing to do is look at the overall benefits. It really isn't all about you, personally. If you don't want the benefits, passive or active, of the group (government) you're in, then either leave or expect to be accused of Randite self interest, which wouldn't work in the ultimate fantasy proposed..

The hold-up man, on the street, takes all that you have at the time. The burglar carries off, all that he can, from your house. However, rarely do these men make regular demands upon you, such as the state does, by robbing you and always claiming to be doing it "for your own good" or "for your general welfare"

No. That isn't the claim. And it might be noted that one of the reasons the bad guy doesn't keep coming back is the evil government. You may rob and kill, without worry of punishment, if you are licensed by the state. The state police kill quite regularly, as do the military, the F.B.I. and the C.I.A

Sometimes with justification (in their minds) sometimes without. Methinks we approach the crux of the issue. (Spaw, are you in some sort of trouble? Would you like to talk about it? I need to tell you up front. I don't do bail or character references.)

Most of us travel through life unlicenced, unless it is perhaps a license to drive or to run a business. Should we attempt to operate anything without the proper license, we are sent to jail

Jail? Please. A fine maybe. I, personally, don't want an un-licensed driver on the road with me. Or some guy who claims to be a doctor performing surgery. As society grows complex, some form of assuring safety is needed. We use (and also over use) the idea of the license but it provides some assurance of a minimal level of competency in a field (as opposed to so called occupational licenses, which are, in fact, a form of tax).

National states are gangs, no less, no more

They are either oligarchies or gangs. The two aren't interchanable terms. The first implies an dinstyitutioonalized concentration of power with little means of "breaking in". The second implies the ability to rise to the top through personal effort, usually by beating your fellow gang member.

Gangs, by their nature, strive to become larger by gobbling up smaller gangs (smaller states)

Some do it. "By their nature" is an unproven assertion and not normally seen as "normal" to the dynamic of gangs.

on their way to becoming syndicates (or as we know them to be now, transnational corporations).

I missed the leap from government to transnationals. They really are different as one is a promary an economic entity.

Remember, the goal of International Socialism and International Capitalism, was to destroy smaller states, or to absorb them into the "Super Gang"

Well, technically the communsists believed that the "destruction" was inherent in capitalism and that all they had to do was wait for the historic imperative. Gobbling up is an inhereent implication of capitalism. It is not a good "steady state" system.

Soviet Russia was a good example

Of an oligarchy. No kidding.

and the term "the West" as opposed to "the East", was another. The result, in that case, was the "Cold War". The "Cold War" gobbled up nations into the specter of the "one big fight". Using this as an excuse, the natural resources of the world were squandered, along with the death of millions. All in the name of peace, brotherhood and national defense

You realize this is overgeneralized, grossly incomplete and silly?

Street gangs are the lowest common denominator, and in reality, the most sensible of all gang activity

Actually, the family is the lowest common denominator. But who am I to stand in the path of a tidal wave of nonsense?

Most street gangs today are satisfied with control of a few blocks of turf, and a financial cut.

What happened to the "natural tendency" of gangs outlined above?

These gangs are somewhat beneficial since they, in some ways, erode the confidence in the "Big Gang." However, the "Big Gang" tries to use this as a method of gaining tighter control.

These gangs are arbitrary, narcissistic to the extreme and parasitical by definition and intent. There enduring social value is questionable, except as it relates to providing a simplistic support structure for those alienated by or too dysfunctional for the large society. Hey, I may be on to something here.

Enters: drunk driving, road blocks, helmet laws and seat belt enforcement, as an example of seemingly "good" plans. These so-called "good" plans guide the sheep (that's you), to a more total control, by the "Big Gang" in Washington D.C.

Or keeps me from getting killed because you are too stupid not to drink and drive. Imposes a burden of care on others due to more extensive injuries. Although I suppose the sick and injured could just be abandoned. Or if their belief in the good of the group triumphed over the good for themselves, there's always voluntary euthanasia.

The international style state is inefficient, to the maximum.

The goal of the "international style state" doesn't generally have efficiency as a goal. Exceptions would include most dictatorships. Nazi Germany, for example, made efficiency a virtue. The gaol of most states is efficacy. Either for the few or the many, depending on the mediating structures.

Perhaps we are moving towards a time of city states. City states would be desirable and efficient, plus they would be culturally strong

Efficient versus efffacious. Culturally strong? Because Athens was? Or the Italian States (and that for a brief period of the renaissance)? Both were "culturally strong" only in comparison to some geographically close neighbors. They were also fairly bellicose and tried to dominate their fellow city states. In Athens, if you weren't a citizen, you were considered less than human. And treated accordingly. In Italy, the City States were usually at war, devoting considerable effort and expense to dominating their neighbors. And both had governments, with Italy being an example of a fairly typical oligarchy. Status was based on wealth and family. If you were a member of the right family, it wasn't too bad, otherwise, it was pretty miserable.

As an example, the greatest time of culture and art, on the Italian Boot, were in the time of the city states. Italy has not since demonstrated anything that comes close. Greece, at its peak, was comprised of city states. Why not city states with satellite village states? By effective immigration, this is a reachable goal

Because it doesn't answer any of the earlier objections. It doesn't get around the grave concerns about oligarchy and may, in fact, promote same, as political, social and economic power is more concentrated, hence easier to concentrate. It would encourage a lacl of diversity of viewpoint and type. Provincialism in the extreme. And would still have to have the dreaded "government" if for nothing else to settle inter city-state issues.

I think "immigrations: is a key word. Absolutely. Each little group can have their own little city state and live in perfect agreement and splendid isolation. The saving grace is that in achieving commonality of viewpoint and belief, these states would achieve (ultimately) unrelenting blandness. It would be safe and secure and everyone would feel empowered and you'd be perfectly free to do whatever you wanted as long as everyone more or less agreed with you. And if not, well, there's always exile.

All in all, I'd say that as a utopian ideal, it's as ill conceived, impractical and unviable as any I've come across. And not as well argued.

Unless, of course, your agenda is to develop the commonality mentioned above. In which case it's a bigot's wet dream come true and would ultimately (as history as amply demonstrated) lead to the kind of "freedom" found in cloistered communities or any petty dictatorship. I would find the city state to be limiting in the extreme, but them I think life should be embraced, not constrained.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 Feb 01 - 10:27 PM

.....Applause sign lights up and the audience goes wild!!!!

Well done John!........oops, sorry, I meant to say..Totally Unreasonable John! Is that better?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Skeptic
Date: 26 Feb 01 - 12:03 AM

Spaw,

No, no. Its too late. I'm on to you now. All of you. As soon as I find the a right (of left) wing conspiracy site thats sufficiently extreme, I'm exposing you all. (links to same would be appreciate and would be the least you could all do.

Consider yourself warned.!!

Regards

John

PS: On the whole, from my limited time on Mudcat, one of your better efforts. Many thanks for an enjoyable time.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Skeptic
Date: 26 Feb 01 - 12:54 AM

A plea for Civility

It is entirely possible to call each other leftwing femminazi ecofreaks or rightwing, racist, greedhead assholes without coming right out and saying it. Most here are performers, creative types and fairly literate. A little style would be appreciated. Its much more fun to use nice language to call someone names, as it usually takes them a few minutes to figure out they've been deeply insulted. I've found there's nothing more self-satisfying than a delayed action insult.

Mav

ALL violent crimes are HATE CRIMES!!!

Technically true. There are already varying degrees of intent used to persecute violent crimes. Adding the "Hate Crimes" category is an expansion and refining of intent. As a pragmatic matter, does it much matter if the violent crime was premeditated? If a murder was for financial gain, is that better or worse than a murder because someone was gay or a minority? Or a communist. Or a Rommani. Or a Jew? Evil they all are. Some have more widespread implications for society.

The federal sentencing guidelines already gives plenty of lattitude to "throw the book" at violent criminals, but liberal judges get all touchy feely and end up letting criminals get away with murder. Those judges need to GET OUT!

I would suggest you consider the fact that in this country, our justice system combines justice under the law with the idea of equity. There are abuses. If we throw out the judges who are to lenient, what about the other extreme?

If "Hate Crimes" legislation is to be taken seriously, what happens to the argument when the new justice department starts prosecuting the black on white crimes as mandated by the non-sensical and convoluted legislation? Many more black on white crimes occur every year than the reverse.

I believe that black on black crime is even more prevalent. But either way, that doesn't make them hate motivated. What happens when the new justice department continues what the old ones did, disparate prosecution based on race? Think they won't? My favorite is crack versus cocaine possession. And it doesn't seem to matter whether the DA's in question are liberal or conservative.

Well then how did they get elected?

At least one of them got elected by vote of the Supreme Court. Perhaps some got elected through the judicious use of fear tactics? Some because of their positions on various social issues. Very few because they had anything much to offer in the way of getting to the root of the problem....beyond building more jails.

The GOP (which represents the private sector) should do everything it can to educate the public about all things financial, the dems (who represent the public sector) NEVER WILL

What a curious statement. The GOP doesn't represent the public sector? I thought they claimed to represent all the people, which was one of the keystone principals of W's administration. So we're back to "What's good for General Bullmouse is good for the USA"?

If Koreans and other Asian entrepreneurs can proliferate in the inner city areas, so can the blacks. Instead, there has been an attitude of "racial" hated and jealousy, no white devils involved!!!

Clearly, a lot of minorities proliferate in the inner city. A lot of businesses do to, large numbers of them marked by outrageous price gouging, credit schemes and the like. Run by all races. Victimizing the poor.

Blacks are the fastest growing segment of the middle class. As more and more professional atheletes, entertainers and other members of any high paying profession begin to see the government's unreasonable confiscation of half of their hard earned income, their thinking is going to shift.

I doubt if professional athletes and entertainers could be considered middle class. And question your statistics. And if true, they are the fastest growing segment of a shrinking middle class.

Given that the cycle of violent crime and welfare dependency is fueled by an unlimited supply of children who unfortunately grow out of these circumstances, and that Queasy's actions speak louder than his words....

Given? By who, pray tell. The last I saw (and it has been several years), the average number of children for a family (usually single parent) on welfare was 2.1. About the same for non-welfare families (that was 2.3). While a nice, neat simple answer that explains away a very complex problem might be comforting to some, it does nothing to address root causes or solve anything. It offers the solace of style over substance.

he wants to perpetuate the black underclass just to guarantee the "sacred" (and corrupt) "black civil rights" industry, finding inequity where none exists, and creating phoney rhetoric to keep people divided.

Do you feel there is truly equality of opportunity?

Hopefully this insidious institution (the racebaiting NAACP) will fade away, it has served its purpose.

What about the significant number of other civil rights groups? Is there truly no prejudice left. Just what is artificially created by The Rainbow Coalition and NAACP (who represent 10% or so of blacks). I do partially agree that the NAACP takes its self defined role as savior a little too seriously and it's agenda has become distant from the root problems.

I would agree that the GOP and Infume are worlds apart on lots of issues (gimmee vs. responsibility) The people he "serves" are welcome to become educated and productive Americans and to join the party. To say they can't do it is to call them STUPID!

To say there are still not structural (political, social and economic) obstacles to their becoming such is also stupid.

We all know that's just not true. (Don't we?)

No. We don't. You may wish it was so. It would be comforting if it was. It would mean that it could all go away an we wouldn't have to deal with it. Could happily declare that the symptom is a cause and fell very self-satisfied. By the way, there is only one race......HUMAN!

For an alternate opinion on this try the usenet. I suggest alt.alien.abduction. :-) Or this thread on mudcat BS: We are not (well maybe Alone

in another post, these choice tidbits.

That is your right, but centuries of societies conducting experimentation with family arrangements have brought us to the current status of the desirability of the nuclear family.

Actually, it was the extended family that proved desirable and most viable. S the study you later cite implies.

Recent studies have shown most criminals and other whack jobs emerge from dysfunctional and broken households but largely from single parent "families" where no father is present to enforce dicipline and teach right from wrong.

It's a little like the old marijuana-heroin link from the 60's. 90% of all heroin users reported that they began by smoking pot. However, only 8% of all marijuana users reported that they had used heroin, a very different thing.

In my part of Florida, 85% of all serious juvenile crime (defined as crime that, for an adult, would be a felony) is committed by children from single parent homes. However, of all single parent families, 18% have juveniles that commit a felony (On average. Rates vary by socio-economic groups).

Which would seem to indicate the existence of other factors. In logic, it would be the error of composition

And then he said......

I think they were referring to torture and drawing an quartering here, not overcrowding.

As they are long dead, it matters what the courts and society today define as such.

I will not disagree, but the end result of releasing these violent anti-social predators back onto the streets is illogical because it is cruel and unusual punishment to the general public who deserve protection from them. I'd like to see them exported. (This is a Gene Burns concept)

To bad for him that the Constitution doesn't seem to agree.

ip violent repeat offenders and murders of their Constitutional rights, since they've proven that they don't wish to participate in civilized society, and "farm them out" with a one time payment (say $25,000) to penal systems of third world countries. This could defuse some of the controversy over capital punishment. You might think twice about raping someone if you knew you might be moving to SYRIA!

Or not. The use of punishment as a deterrent seems to be be linked to the nature of the crime, having less impact of most violent crimes because they are generally acts of passion and deterrence assumes some level of rationality.

So far, building more prisons, mandatory sentencing and the like hasn't seemed to stem the tide. Could it be that there are underlying causes that could be corrected to reduce the number of crimes?

And in another post

The study covers much of what we already knew and more. It shows the destructive effects of your philosophy on a class of people. If you want to talk about victims, READ IT!

The study also drew no conclusions. It was a fairly straight forward statistical analysis. The reporter tossed in several other "studies" that theorized about causes. I stress the "theory". And refer back to the discussion on juvenile crime.

Next

I think I covered that but just let me add......I HATE AUTHORITARIANISM and BIG GOVERNMENT!!!

What about big business????

She not Reno, ordered the raid on WACO.....FOR THE CHILDREN!!!

Huh. A new one? Where did that come from? And still doesn't justify the name calling.

By the way, lots of New Yorkers are questioning their choice for Senate, I'd say she may well face 6 years of defending emerging details from her and bubba's (nothing big about him) reign of terror in the White House. This should be good. Unless of course they can un-elect her.

But then a lot of high level Republican strategists are very worried about Jeb and Republicans in general in Florida next year.

Neither statement having any great or profound meaning. Or signifying much of anything.

Been busy, haven't you?

Go to www.junkscience.com for a global warming update.

There is a reason they call it "junkscience.com" Just not the reason you imply or they would like you to believe

Strangely, the IPCC report that involved something on the order of 60 scientists (all well respected), think that (for some reason) the mtl is up. "JunkScience" quotes one scientist who says it isn't.

And what about the 1000 year ice core samples taken from glaciers around the globe that show a warming trend? Which may be a natural cyclical variances, may be due to greenhouses gases. May be a short term blip. Time will tell. Fortunately I have land in the North Carolina mountains, just in case.

Which isn't to say he's wrong. I'll prefer not to leap quite yet. The debate his highly technical and will be fought out in peer-reviewed journals.

Journalists will mis-report it. Politicians will miss-interpret it and "junkscience.com will report it as proving....something.

Regards

John

I am off to Tallahassee for a Block Grant meeting Monday afternoon. Usually, I can't get the office laptop to connect to the internet on the road so somehow, you'll have to survive without me. And I without you.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Feb 01 - 12:56 AM

Boy, what a read! Kat, it appears you are correct about Spaw's post. "Fascinating", as Mr. Spock might have said...

The really vital thing is...what intentions lie behind a bunch of words...or a law...or a government? And what intentions lie behind the enforcement of a law?

Socialism can work very well if the people administering it are of good intention and high morality, and they administer it well. If not, it can become a monstrosity. Ditto for capitalism, which has definitely become a monstrosity of late.

The present society you and I live in is a mixed picture. In one sense it is an oligarchy (it's run by a rich elite). In another sense it is a democracy (we have many basic human rights which we are fortunate to have, and which were acquired only through long social struggle).

So, from a radical activist sense much of what was said in Spaw's post is right on...depending on the intention that lies behind it. From a more moderate perspective, it's suspect. Depends on what angle you're looking at it from.

I personally do find that fascinating indeed.

I liked many things about socialism in Cuba, while I didn't like some aspects. I detest the excesses of capitalism and consumerism here, but I like many other aspects of North American society.

Everywhere is a mixed picture. Well, maybe not Afghanistan...but I haven't been there.

As for the one race thing...yeah, there is only one human race. I don't see rabbits dividing up into brown ones, black ones, spotted ones, and gray ones and fighting wars over it. They are smart enough to know that a rabbit is simply a rabbit (regardless of color) and that's all there is to it. When we humans get that smart, the racial slurs and racial wars will be over.

Spaw is one clever rabbit, boy! Bye for now. Gotta get some sleep.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Skeptic
Date: 26 Feb 01 - 01:24 AM

Little Hawk,

Sleep. With vital issues to discuss and me with insomnia. Or have you forgotten that yes, it really is all about me :-)

The present society you and I live in is a mixed picture. In one sense it is an oligarchy (it's run by a rich elite). In another sense it is a democracy (we have many basic human rights which we are fortunate to have, and which were acquired only through long social struggle).

And we shouldn't be resting on our ancestors' laurels. What we seem to have done is allow the locus of power to move up the hierarchy, rather than keeping it at the lowest possible level. Rather than base decisions on that basis, we let ourselves be swayed by arguments about security and necessity and the idea that things are too complex for any but the experts.

But there was an earlier thread that got into all that.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Feb 01 - 12:42 PM

You're quite right that we shouldn't be resting on our ancestors' laurels.

If you want REAL change, I would recommend the following:

1. Abolish money

2. Abolish political parties and nation-states (as separate, armed entities)

3. A worldwide Bill of Rights for citizens and workers

4. Dismantle all offensive weapons of mass destruction and establish a worldwide security force

5. Employment, education, and medical care for all who want it...at no charge

6. Same basic level of material wealth available in all parts of the planet

7. World citizenship for all with the same privileges across the board

How's that for a start?

Oh, and lots of local autonomy under that umbrella, with plenty of encouragement of local culture and local unique qualities. Plenty of democracy, with elections for individual representatives, without political parties, on all levels, from local to regional to a world governing council.

Star Trek Next Generation, in other words.

I ain't holdin' my breath, though...

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 26 Feb 01 - 01:22 PM

Man, you don't log in for a coupla days and all kinds of stuff breaks loose.

'Spaw - you are the devil (or at least devilishly funny). You had me with that first post. I was ready to fire back an irate post pointing out how what you were advocating was the bleak post-apocolyptic vision of the "Mad Max" movies when I decided to read on. And I'm glad I did. It's remarkable how good bad ideas can look on the surface.

Of all the posts (and there have been some great points made in most of them), the one idea that jumped out at me was Skeptic's statement about government mediating power within a group. And POWER is what it is all about. People form groups to begin with because "in unity there is strength". A group, properly applying the power that it's existence generates, can accomplish a lot more than individual's can on their own. If that is true, bigger should be better.

Standing against the concept of the power-generating properties of groups is the nature of Genius. Genius (at least as I understnd it), is the capacity for truly original thought, and is a property of the individual mind. Groups (brain-storming sessions not withstanding) do not possess genius. But once formulated in the mind of the individual of genius, an original idea gains potency when it is backed by the power of a group. There is, at best, an uneasy relationship between the needs of the individual and the power of the group. How the conflicts in this relationship are to be resolved is, at the most basic level, what separates the right and left politically. All the rest is details (sic).

There is nothing keeping big government from working theoretically. It all comes down to execution at the individual level. Greed leads to corruption, cooperation turns to coercion; the power of the group, when misdirected, can lead to no good end regardless of the system in place.

Can we solve the problems generated by the dynamics at work? We like to think so. As rational beings, we assume that applying reason to our problems we can find solutions that are acceptable for everyone. In practice, we eventually discover answers that (for some reason or another) we will not accept. We as a species are reluctant to change and to try new things. I personally think that one of the greatest obstacles to our ability to rationally solve our problems is religious dogma. But that's just me.

Where the hell is this rant going? I dunno. Maybe I'm tired of talking about symptoms and want to try to peel away a few layers to see the disease that's causing all of this dissension for what it is. It's not our politics that's the problem here - it's us. Someone cited Pogo once before in this thread; it still holds true.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 26 Feb 01 - 06:23 PM

More -

If you grant that the "problem" is the nature of man (and I don't really consider it a problem as much as the conditions under which we are expected to work), does it matter which system is in place? Some would say "No; man's nature will subvert the best intentions of any system designer." I would disagree. I believe the key is to design a system that builds on the strengths of human nature and protects us from the failings.

For example - If you feel that GREED is a problem, don't design a system which puts a strong emphasis on acquiring stuff for oneself. If COOPERATION is a strength, build a system that rewards the ability to work together.

We are a species where each individual is born too weak and helpless to survive on our own. We do not possess the greatest strength or speed of all mobile creatures and we don't possess natural defense mechanisms like shells, tusks, claws or overwhelming stench (well, at least not all of us).

How have we managed to survive at all? We learn. And we discard old, outmoded learning which no longer serves to benefit the species. We changed our view of our place in the universe when the physical evidence finally overcame our superstitious ethnocentrism. We changed our view of the makeup of the stuff of the universe. We have learned so much about STUFF in the few thousand years we've been around.

But every change in thinking is fought every step of the way. And the willingness to entertain new modes of thought seems to shrink more every day. Certain topics cannot even be broached without risking enmity that can escalate to mayhem. Abortion. Euthenasia. Capital Punishment. Sexual Orientation. Equitable Redistribution of Global Resources. Heresy.

How the H*ll did this happen? How the H*ll are we going to survive the next thousand years?

I'm off to ponder the eternal mysteries. Or maybe I'll just watch some TV, have dinner and a glass of wine.

Have a great night,all.
Bart

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 26 Feb 01 - 09:34 PM

Dear Kendall,

"MAV, I would love to debate you in person! I would also love to switch sides, you liberal, me conservative! Put em up, put em up!"

I did that once, trying to prep a candidate, I was a rotten liberal.

It would be fun though. Maybe I'm better now.

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Feb 01 - 09:46 PM

Beam me aboard, Data. This planet is far too primitive to even consider for direct contact at this time.

However, they do show promise. We'll check back in a few decades and see how they're doing.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: kendall
Date: 26 Feb 01 - 09:49 PM

Then I would have the advantage. You see, I remember how I thought back when I was very conservative. It's hard to believe I was that narrow minded, judgemental, anal and self centered!

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Troll
Date: 26 Feb 01 - 09:55 PM

Forgive me, one and all. I have been derelict in my duty. I shall now attempt to make up for it.
Skeptic is NOT reasonable, logical, or rational.Ever.
He IS however always and irrevocably right.
This is one of his least endearing qualities.
Actually, he doesn't seem to have any "most" endearing qualities. And Freddie thinks he's "a neat guy."
Thats enough for me.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: MAV
Date: 26 Feb 01 - 10:11 PM

Catspawl,

"Mav speaks the same "bigotspeak" that has made racism, chauvinism, and jingoism, come back to the fore"

No I don't, I speak plain English, I will tell you straight out exactly what I support and believe in and what I despise and oppose. This is the exact demonization I was referring to back in Conservative Cavalry.

The real bigots are the left, who can't wait to divide and categorize people into ethnic, sex, religious, philosophical and social strata classifications.

We encourage people to "get out of the box" which refers to the nosey questions on applications about the above information. DON'T CHECK ANY BOXES!

"It is often subtle, sometimes even joking, but it is always there below the surface"

Painting any group with the broad brush is bigotry, you are doing here what you accuse me of. This is a typical fascist tactic.

"A desire for freedom for all and less government restriction can make strange bedfellows"

So you, of course, must be against all those things.

"Never mistake where these folks are coming from and never allow yourself to be drawn into using them to advance your own good hearted arguments"

Yes, stay with the lefty Marxist line like your glorious leader algor, who won by a landslide, oh wait, the head of the DNC is BILL CLINTON.

"In the end you will lose"

I think you have a little experience with that.

"They are insidious and growing in number and you have to fight it and expose it where you find it."

You don't know me and to brand me as a White Supremecist is both disingenuous and patently unfair.

You sir are not just a liar, but genuinely evil......JUST LIKE CLINTON!

"Oh yeah......Mav? Bugger off..."

(I think I'll take Skeptic's advice here)

You, sir, are a MASTER DEBATER!

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: catspaw49
Date: 26 Feb 01 - 10:11 PM

Actually Troll, neither Skeptic nor yourself have any endearing qualities whatsoever which is what endears you to me.

Spaw