BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Hrothgar
Date: 16 Jun 02 - 05:31 AM

Andrew Johnson or Andrew Jackson in 1833?

But I'm only an Australian, and I have previously made mistakes with US presidents' names.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: wysiwyg
Date: 16 Jun 02 - 12:34 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: DougR
Date: 15 Jun 02 - 06:16 PM

That's me! And I'm scared to death of the FBI, Rick!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 15 Jun 02 - 03:05 PM

Jeez Doug, a nuclear power plant, AND a smoker in yer backyard! Perhaps a hidden missile launcher as well????

So YOU'RE the one who's been bombarding the Taliban with constant barrages of radio-active ribs.

Rick (neo-Fascist, Conservative, Liberal, Radical).....just depends on the day of the week!

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: DougR
Date: 15 Jun 02 - 01:29 AM

Larry, you are bad. :>) DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Naemanson
Date: 14 Jun 02 - 06:09 PM

I SLEEP PEACEFULLY BUT MY PARTNER DOES NOT....

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: InOBU
Date: 14 Jun 02 - 05:30 PM

A questionair went aroung the Quaker meeting, for a weekend retrete, the last question of which was, do you snore... I responded, only during meeting. CHeers Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 02 - 03:48 PM

The innocent sleep well at night.

I sleep well in the daytime. Does that count?

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: DougR
Date: 14 Jun 02 - 01:14 PM

I sleep well, Garg. But that's because I'M pure of mind and spirit. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Naemanson
Date: 14 Jun 02 - 08:13 AM

He's just trying to get a rise out of us. When he contributes something intelligent then I will respond to him.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Jun 02 - 01:30 AM

GG, have you been paying attention? :)

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 14 Jun 02 - 01:22 AM

They ain't coming for you - and you're not a Jew!

If you have nothing to hide...you would NOT be paranoid. The innocent sleep well at night.

Repent - they evil ways!!!

Live in PEACE.

Sincerely
Gargoyle

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Jun 02 - 11:55 PM

Hey Naemanson. This is my theory... I think that the conservative mindset embraces a paternalistic concept of the president. And if this is so, and not just some BS I'm making up, I would guess that that would have quite a bit of appeal to many people. Unless I'm all wet, in which case, never mind ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Naemanson
Date: 13 Jun 02 - 11:07 PM

Talk about thread creep!

I get the feeling we have pretty much flogged this dead horse to the limits of its... whatever.

I still haven't learned why people would be attracted to the conservatives nor do I even know what a conservative is beyond my own limited definition. [Sigh] I guess I have not grown as much as I had hoped I would. Still, thanks to everyone for contributing and keeping it more or less civilized. I think I'll spend the weekend lugging boxes and making music (not simultaneously).

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: mousethief
Date: 13 Jun 02 - 07:20 PM

My pleasure!

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Jun 02 - 07:18 PM

Thanks Alex!

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: mousethief
Date: 13 Jun 02 - 06:55 PM

You were correct -- use a comma with a coordinating conjunction like "and" or "nor."

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: DougR
Date: 13 Jun 02 - 06:35 PM

I think the comma is okay. I get your point anyway.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jun 02 - 11:08 PM

Should my second sentence have had a semi-colon instead of the comma between "meat" and "nor"?

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jun 02 - 11:05 PM

I don't have a meat cleaver. I don't eat meat, nor do I cleave it.

Re: your question. Pretty much every day, DougR. Pretty much every day.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: DougR
Date: 12 Jun 02 - 08:58 PM

You guys! Carol is going to come after you both with a meat cleaver. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: mousethief
Date: 12 Jun 02 - 08:05 PM

The Veep was playing an accordion? Clearly Booth shot the wrong guy.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: InOBU
Date: 12 Jun 02 - 07:59 PM

Hey DougR! I think there are a few folks on the board who would see a conspiracy in that fact! Johnsong, trains and accordian...!!! Must have something to do with the Lincoln assasination!!!!!!
Cheers, Larry
In fact... wasn't Johnson playing an accordian on a train at the moment that Lincoln was shot!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: DougR
Date: 12 Jun 02 - 05:04 PM

Naw! The FBI knows Mudcatters are good patriots, we just sometimes don't agree on some things.

Carol: I noted something in the morning newspaper that I knew would titillate you! It's 100% creep, but I am so certain you will be facinated by this little tidbit, I am going to risk offending the originator of this thread. Ready? Get a pencil because you are going to want to write this down. Here goes: "How many times have you mused over the curious coincidence that Damian of Vienna - 1829 - invented the accordian just four years before Andrew Johnson - 1833 - became the first U. S. president to ride a train?"

Isn't that interesting? I was certain you would appreciate that. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: GUEST,Davetnova
Date: 12 Jun 02 - 11:04 AM

Whatever the ins and outs of liberal /conservative Americans an American citizen has been classified as an "Enemy Combatant" and locked up for the duration of "The War Against Terrorism" for investigating the possibility of placing a "Dirty Bomb" somewhere in America. As far as I can see at least half the British newspapers have "investigated" this possibility and several discussions on Mudcat could be construed as "investigating" terrorist activities. Does this make Mudcat an Enemy Combatant friendly space allowing could be terrorists to Conspire against America. (And the free world of course).

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Naemanson
Date: 12 Jun 02 - 10:26 AM

One of the fun things to watch in history is how the parties have changed viewpoints. At one time or another democrats have been viewed as conservative and republicans have been viewed as liberal.

As Carol says each was trying to preserve the status quo. The Civil War was a clash of divergent status quos (stati quo?). Then Lincoln made it a war against slavery and those issues became obscured.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: DougR
Date: 12 Jun 02 - 01:54 AM

No, Carol, nobody seemed to be too concerned about all the things you mentioned ...except all of those affected wondered if they would qualify for federal assistance. Since 90% of our town worked in my back yard, though, nobody sued or anything like that. *BG*

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jun 02 - 01:33 AM

I don't think so. I would say that both sides of that dispute were conservative. The Union was trying to preserve the union, and the South was trying to preserve the southern way of life.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: leprechaun
Date: 12 Jun 02 - 01:28 AM

So would the Republican Party of the 1850's have qualified as liberal?

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jun 02 - 01:10 AM

You mean the neighbors didn't catch on when little Walter (down on the corner across from the post office) was born with that third eye in the middle of his forehead? Or when the Davenport's (two houses down from the Dairy Queen) dog gave birth to a litter of puppies with eight legs each? Or when the fish in the Quigly's (three houses down from you on the other side of the street) koi pond grew rudimentary legs, and poor little Marybeth Quigly found one of them squirming its way under her bedsheets one horrible night?

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: DougR
Date: 12 Jun 02 - 12:54 AM

The ladies on the mudcat are beyond impressing, Carol. I inherited the plant anyway, it's been in the family for years, and until we had the first big bang we had successfully convinced the neighborhood that we were making doll clothes for the Ken doll. Oh well, the truth will out eventually, I suppose, but the neighbors are still complaining about respiratory problems from all the dust. I keep telling them, "Wait 'til it rains!?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jun 02 - 11:55 PM

Yeah sure, DougR. You're just saying that to try to impress the ladies.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: DougR
Date: 11 Jun 02 - 11:38 PM

Yep, Alex, I've got a munitions factory in my back yard! The only problem I have, though, is the Arizona sun keeps setting my atomic bombs off. The neighbors get annoyed by it, but since I am a conservative, I just say, what the hey! :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Naemanson
Date: 11 Jun 02 - 04:50 PM

Tut, tut, Alex, we are keeping a civil tone here. While I agree that the military industrial complex pushes war for that reason it would be unfair to say Doug or lep or any of our conservative friends are interested in war because they can make money from the conflict. We are delving for the basic difference between liberals and conservatives in general.

I am often confused about why so many of my 3d-friends support the Republican party because I can only see that party's focus on money. I do not consider these friends to be overly wealthy but they are not apparently hurting. I am hoping to learn something here about what the appeal is to those conservatives who are not wealthy but are getting by.

(My definition of wealthy comes from my father. He says he would consider himself wealthy if he could walk into a Rolls Royce dealership, pick one out and tell the salesman to "...cut the back off and throw some planks on it I need a pickup this afternoon.)

I have one conservative friend who works her butt off because she is constantly afraid of going broke. She is convinced she is steps away from the poor house. In the meantime she has to deal with weighty decisions like which Mercedes to drive to work and how many pounds of jewelry to wear.

Another friend listens to Saint Rush Limbaugh and believes every word. Yet another is still mad at Clinton (I don't blame him, I am too.) but believes in Bush. I can't figure it out. They both have lied and cheated. One harmed a few people, mostly foolish women who trusted him, and the other is busily wiping his ass with the Constitution and waving it in our faces.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: mousethief
Date: 11 Jun 02 - 12:11 PM

Pshaw. Everybody knows that conservatives love war because they are heavily invested in munitions manufacturers.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Naemanson
Date: 11 Jun 02 - 12:04 PM

Hey, where did that thread go? You guys been busy!

My understanding of the American Revolution (that little ruckus in the colonies) is, like Carol's, that we just wore them down. Great Britain's attention was on the European Continent and the trouble in the colonies didn't rate much in their grand scheme of things.

(I love, by the way, King George's notation in his diary for July 4, 1776. He wrote, "Nothing of importance happened today." Of course, it would be months before news of the Declaration Of Independence got to England by ship but...}

Conservatives vs liberals. Definitions? We all like our own definitions. And none of us like to be labeled.

I think my own take on conservatives, liberals, and war is that liberals will go to war but will do so reluctantly. My perspective is that conservatives are not reluctant but see it as a viable (and for some, desirable) outcome to any negotiation. There seems to be a desire for the glory and honor.

WWII was labeled the good war because it was a war against real bad guys. Liberals and conservatives stood together for that one. Yet there were those who didn't believe we should fight. The vote to join the war was not unanymous in Congress. There was one dissenting voter and like it or not you have to admire her courage (I wish I could remember her name).

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: InOBU
Date: 11 Jun 02 - 09:37 AM

Well, Lep, ol pal, we finally fully agree on something! (Acutally we agree and a few things!) Though, don't forget Thomas Payne, a Quaker and, as Addams said (accusing him of being an anarchist...) he is far too democratical for me! So they had a wee part in the seasoning of the mix. But, don't forget, the founders wrote far above their asperation and dreams, we where a nation which held slaves, which did not allow women (and is many cases the landless) to vote, and the process created a document seeming written by angels.
Cheers and be well,
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: leprechaun
Date: 11 Jun 02 - 09:19 AM

A long time ago in this thread I had a funny thought that made me laugh. What poor FBI agent came in late on Monday morning and got stuck with spying on Quakers? "Ha ha, Smith. You're late so the boss gave you the Quaker file. We'd be happy to help you but we got a lot of work to do on this New Orleans Brothel file."

Whatever they were, I think the founding fathers did a pretty good job. Maybe if I'd have been a Tory back then I would have considered them a hate group. But I have no faith in the fashionably revolutionary groups now claiming they want to destroy our government. I know in the depth of my soul that neither the Posse Comitatus or the Anarchists could put together a Constitution that would keep a country somewhat together for more than two hundred years.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jun 02 - 05:28 PM

(heh heh heh) Caught me, Larry. I don't really have any idea what I'm talking about with regard to the Revolutionary War, Shea's Rebellion, or the War of Independance. But as far as BS goes, I thought it sounded pretty good ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: DougR
Date: 10 Jun 02 - 12:19 PM

Yep, Carol, I guess we did. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: InOBU
Date: 10 Jun 02 - 07:36 AM

Atually the American Revolutionaries wanted to be rid of Aristocratic control of the ecconomy... that is why American leaders of the war of Independance hanged a large number of American Revolutionaries when they lost Shea's Rebellion, and so in the eyes of many historians, the "Revolution" as you are speaking of, was a war of Independance, where as the Revolution (Shea's Uprising) which would have changed the control of the ecconomic and political leadership, was lost... being that we were still sparcly populated, a larger percent of our population died in that war than in any other to date. It takes alot to put down an ideal of freedom,
hmmmmmm...
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jun 02 - 02:47 AM

We sure hijacked this puppy, didn't we?

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jun 02 - 02:30 AM

I'm not talking about who won. That would sort of be superiority in the context of the war. Although I think it could be argued that the American forces never had superiority at all. From what I've heard, military historians say that George Washingon's greatest strength was in knowing when to retreat. And my understanding is that the American forces got a lot of help from some other countries. Sounds to me like they just sort of wore the British out. But I'll leave that discussion for someone who is much more knowlegeable about military history than me.

I will attempt to rephrase what I said before in a different way so that we don't get entirely bogged down in semantics...

What I am asserting is that with regard to liberals, fighting wars has to do more with making social and/or political changes within a country, rather than trying to be more powerful than other countries, or to have power over other countries. England (the conservatives in this scenario, for the sake of argument) was trying to maintain power and control over the colonies. And it was doing that, in part, because the colonies were a good source of revenue for England to use in it's struggles with the other European countries for supremacy. (Supremacy in relation to the other countries.)

The American Revolutionaries, on the other hand, just wanted to be free of the British, and to have a crack at self determination.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: DougR
Date: 10 Jun 02 - 01:54 AM

Well, Big Mick can speak for himself.

Am I wrong that the American forces achieved superiority over the British forces to gain our independence?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jun 02 - 01:21 AM

;-) Nice try, but you can't twist my words quite that easily. The American Revolution was not fought in order to acheive supremacy in relation to or over any other countries. Just for the purpose of achieving independence from England. Since I'm the one who said it, I'm the one who gets to decide what I mean by it.

And from what I can gather, from those who classify themselves as liberals on the mudcat, they would NEVER go to war for anything, including liberty. Just my opinion, of course (but I can read).

Tell that to Big Mick.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: DougR
Date: 10 Jun 02 - 01:07 AM

Well, Carol, I think you have a weird definition, but it's yours and I salute your right to have it.

However, using your own definition, wouldn't you say the Founding Fathers were supreme in their effort to achieve liberty?

And from what I can gather, from those who classify themselves as liberals on the mudcat, they would NEVER go to war for anything, including liberty. Just my opinion, of course (but I can read).

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jun 02 - 12:44 AM

I think the big difference between liberals and conservatives with regard to war, is that liberals will go to war and fight in order to secure liberty for themselves. Conservatives will go to war in order to achieve supremacy.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jun 02 - 12:30 AM

Would liberals have beem willing to GO TO WAR to gain what they wanted (freedom)?

Yes. They would have and did. It was called the American Revolution. And that was hardly the only time liberals went to war for their cause, either. (Of course, which revolutions you would consider to have been fought by liberals would depend on your definition of liberal.)

Applying the popular definition of consevatism(on the Mudcat at least) the Founding Fathers would never have approved waging war with England for their freedom because they would have been resistant to change! So I don't know how to classify them. :>)

My point exactly. They were liberals.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: DougR
Date: 09 Jun 02 - 11:56 PM

Yes, Carol, I think you are right (surprise!) I do think the terms Liberal and Conservative mean different things in different societies.

Don, I respect your views regarding the definition of liberal and conservative, but I don't agree with it. Conservatives recognize the value of both large and small businesses, that's true. But big business does not dictate their thinking. Actually, small business is a stronger driving force in our economy, probably, than big business. I do not buy the popular belief by liberals that conservatives are uncaring about the disadvanted, or that they are resistant to change either.

President Bush has just proposed the biggest change to government organization than has been attempted since 1947. Does that make Bush a liberal? I don't think so.

He has also proposed the most radical change to Social Security that has been proposed since SS was established. That makes him a liberal? Nope.

Are either of these proposals evidence that conservatives are resistant to change?

Bush wants to abolish the death tax. That tax, in my opinion, should never have been enacted in the first place. It was passed (as I recall) during WW I, and too many Americans since then have been double taxed just because the Congress wants more money to spend. Is his proposing that it be abolished evidence that conservatives are resistat to change?

Bush wants those on welfare who are able to work, to work. Is that an outrageous expectation?

Bush wants those federal agencies concerned with home security to be organized in a more efficient manner, and has proposed a reorganization. Is that being resistant to change?

I don't know how I would classify the Founding Fathers.

Carol, you seem very confident when you point out in an earlier post that they were definitely liberals. Really?

Would liberals have beem willing to GO TO WAR to gain what they wanted (freedom? I don't think so. But, that's how we got it, right?

Applying the popular definition of consevatism(on the Mudcat at least) the Founding Fathers would never have approved waging war with England for their freedom because they would have been resistant to change! So I don't know how to classify them. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Jun 02 - 09:09 PM

Our founding fathers took a very radical step. But we shouldn't make the mistake of thinking they were doing it for purely liberal reasons. They were business men and the king's laws were strangling their trade. And their trade meant jobs and money for the people in the colonies.

Good point, Naemanson. Except that in those days, those were very liberal viewpoints. The conservative viewpoint of that day would have been that the King knows what he's doing and therefore his laws are good, and we should be good subjects, pay our taxes to the king, and keep our mouths shut and not criticize the government.

But the term "conservative" means different things in different places. I have a friend who is from Canada, and who lives in the US these days. By his standards of conservatism, I'm a conservative, and DougR is a flaming liberal.