BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!

08 Apr 01 - 05:37 PM (#435927)
Subject: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: MAV

Go to Bushwhacked-Nine

mav out

---

08 Apr 01 - 08:04 PM (#436033)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: MAV

At least W's consistant. Sigh

Dear Friend Skeptic,

Obviously I disagree, but then again that's why you posted this word monster isn't it?

The Bush administration and Secretary Evans, chose not to correct the undercount of more than 3 million Americans in the 2000 Census

If they're not counted, how do you know there are more than 3 million of them?

The Democrats believe that every person, like every vote should be counted

No, the democrats believe every BALLOT should be counted, spoiled, disqualified or illegal. "Vote Early and Often" (how offensive)

The Republicans clearly do not..A disproportionate percentage of people of color, children and the urban poor are not included in this count

Of course they do, but COUNTED not estimated. If they can't be bothered to come forward and be counted, then THEY DON'T EXIST!

3-14-01 Bush's senate Republicans defeated a measure yesterday that would have kept medicare surplus from being spent on anything other than Medicare, or Debt reduction

Good, that means the working stiffs will be getting a tax cut.

3-14-01 "You can't say one thing and do amother" GWBUSH, Orlando Sentinel 10-31-00 Bush broke his Explicit Promise to reduce harmful emmissions

A mother? (Ahem, I mean) You mean that horrible harmful toxin CO2?

The impact of floods, droughts and deadly heatwaves and crop failures will have crippling consequences on the US, the world and the economy

Yes, it snowed here today (8 Apr), we still have several feet of snow standing on the lawn (it's so damn hot). Plants turn CO2 into Oxygen (which can kill you if you get too much). Plants (crops)like WARM TEMPERATURES, WATER AND CO2!

CO2 is a non-issue!

3-16-01 Bush takes his "dispassionate neglet" to America's public housing.(The Public Housing Drug Elimination Program) His decision to decrease funding (only half of the 310M for security, hightr utilities and other operational costs) in order to get Religious groups involved in neighborhoods, is another example of Republicans longterm insensitivity toward persons living in public housing

No, it's an example of Republican insensitivity to duplicate programs that don't work except to provide jobs to the do-nothing arrogant bureaucrats that staff them.

Since it's been tried and failed BIG TIME, the Liberal's way, I don't see how letting a little religion (of any kind) could hurt.

3-23-01 Bush Breaks Another Promise: Plans Cuts in Child Care and Child abuse Prevention.Bush's promise "to leave no child behind" now sounds like other notable Bush betrayals, like the promise to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions. He plans to cut grants that help low income families afford child care by 200 million: child abuse prevention by over $15 million, and completely eliminate the $20 million "early learning fund" Also, considerating large cuts in the $235 Million programs that train pediatricians and other doctors in childrens hospitals. About 900,000 children suffer from abuse or neglect each year.

Like I said....failed redundant programs and "nonessential" union thug bureaucrats.

Remember when clinton shut down the government and blamed the Republicans? NOTHING HAPPENED!!!

This is exactly the kind of anti-GOP demonization propaganda I got in trouble for describing early on in my Mudcat "career". "Starve school children, throw old people out of nursing homes, kill more people" (algor et al)

Did it ever occur to you that Republicans have children, love their parents and grandparents, like clean air and drinking water?

*apparently Bush and the Republicans believe that EVERY CHILD SHOULD BE BORN, but once they enter this world, they will have to find some other way to survive, that they won't get any help from the federal government!

I'd take one, maybe two.

Ask Jerry Falwell, he puts his money where his mouth is. We don't think the answer is to just kill them.

3-15-01 Bush announced that National Monuments have potential for drilling. He said the administration will look at ALL PUBLIC LANDS for energy

More land was confiscated under the clinton administration than ever before in US history. You don't really think there will be mining and drilling in National Parks do you? Another bit of scare propaganda.

3-17-01 Bush administration filed a motion today, to postpone the date when one-third of our national forests would become off limits to developement. The move opend the door for negotiations between the Bush Administration and TIMBER INTERESTS.* big surprise! This act would overrule Clintons Roadless Forests Designations

Guess what, they grow back. The government shouldn't own huge tracts of land anyway, that really is socialism.

If they are going to allow land use, they should charge handsomely for it (to reduce the citizen's tax burden). However it should either be in private ownership or given back to the Indians.

3-20-01 Bush announces he will block new rules limiting ARSENIC LEVELS in water. The new rules would have slashed acceptable levels of arsenic by 80% bringing into complience with codes already agreed upon by both the World Health Organization and the European Union and would have upgraded the arsenic standard for the first time in 60 years

How many cases of arsenic poisoning from drinking water have been documented (or even estimated) in the last 60 years?

Municipal waste treatment practices are a MAJOR contributing source of the problem in the first place.

The 5 to 10 parts per billion arsenic standard may be financially or virtually IMPOSSIBLE to achieve! Meaning NO WATER!

I wouldn't drink that crap anyway. Do you consider government water to be fit for human consumption?

It's a stupid goal in the first place to provide "pure" municipal water for purposes which largely do not affect health and mostly go on the lawn or DOWN THE TOILET!!!

3-22-01 Bush's Federal agencies blocked today, an initiative to help save the Pacific Salmon, a Clinton initiative.

Simply because it's a clinton initiative, it should be opposed.

1-22-01 "I expect every member of this administration to stay well within the boundries that define legal and ethical conduct. This means avoiding EVEN THE APPEARENCE of problems" President G.W.Bush

Bush-appointed Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, has decided NOT to divest himself of $100 Million in holdings of ALCOA (aluminum) a company he used to run. Bush is taking the economy into another Bush Resession, but his appointee's unusual stock arrangement, has unlimited growth potential. Last year alone, O'Neill made $50 Million in pay and stock options from Alcoa. As Treasury Secretary, O'Neill will be called on to set policy on a wide range of vital issues, including taxes, trade, and the strength of the dollar, that can influence Alcoa's and his own Profits. No matter how honest O'Neill is, the credibility of US economic policy is at stake, and there exists the appearence of a conflict of interests. *it is imposible to not consider his own personal position when setting policy.

3-22-01 Bush Says No to Bipartisan Patients' Rights Bill Because it's too Costly-

It's also not a federal function. Had I mentioned that bipartisan *BLEEPS*?

In his zeal to pay back his donors and oppose ANYTHING John McCain supports, GWB would rather let the bill die than to do anything truely beneficial for the American people

I think you have that backwards, democrat McCain would rather pursue his own anti-Bush agenda than do anything truely beneficial for the American people.

3-20-01 Continuing his Texas record, Bush will carry on with Judicial appointments that do not reflect the make up of America

I think we already have enough LSC judges to represent the political makeup of the former USSR and the CHI-COMS!

and has gone so far as to RECIND 10 apointees for judgeship that Clinton submitted.

That's not enough, there must be some more!

Bush rejected Judge Gregory, a African American, the first to sit on the bench on the 4th US court of Appeals

I'm sure he was a staunch conservative. (I don't care what color he is)

and BOTH Virginia REPUBLICAN senators approved his appointment on a permenent basis

He's just less PC than they are. You can do that when you are the President.

Continuing with his TEXAS policy of appointments , the breakdown was 77% White 13%Hispanic and 9% Black, although Texas population is broken down 57% White 28%Hispanic and 11% African American

There's that skin color thing again, maybe he couldn't find enough conservatives among those ethnic groups. You know he has one or two represented in his cabinet.

He doesn't believe in quotas anyway.

"It is important that Bush use his Power od Judicial Appointments as a chance to create EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW, and not to turn the judiciary into another conservative think tank"

I don't know who said that, but I prefer the constitutionalist judges to those criminal loving LSC types.

3-21-01 Bush Blows Off Electoral Reform. Bush returns to Florida as Administration refuses Extra Money for Federal Elections Committee. He refused a request fot 5.5 Million over two years for its office of election administration, the only federal office with power to address how elections are run. "George W Bush , Jeb Bush and the Republican party are at it again with their double talk, two step strategy. On the one hand, they send out K Harris, to say they are in favor of reform

It's not a federal issue since there is no such thing as a federal election.

but on the other hand they refuse to fund REAL efforts to reform the system on a State or National level.

It is at the very most a STATE issue, but that is between the states and the various local political districts. You can't tell me that Palm Beach County and Miami are too poor to fund a better system.

Even SOCIALIST Canada had better elections than Miami/Dade, Broward and Palm Beach with PAPER BALLOTS!

What's wrong with that improvement???

They not only turned down the request, but it also askes the FEC to CUT $1.4 Million from the $42.8 Million budget

Good! They should kill it. That's another expense that the working poor should not be expected to shoulder, funding political campaigns.

Although Bush called for a repairing the tattered system that PUT him in the whitehouse, he rejected its first FORMAL opportunity to help fix the problems

Bush did his campaign exactly right. Full disclosure on the internet. You can look it up and see that it was mostly small contributors.

Those who agree with you should be able to GIVE you money, no limits. If nobody likes you....no money (see Elizabeth Dole). That's the first cut before the primaries.

2-9-01 Bush to close Office of AIDS national Policy and the Office on the presidents ONE AMERICA, and transfer their responsibilities somewhere else.

The key phrase here is "transfer their responsibilities somewhere else". More redundancy.

Closing the Whitehouse offices created by President Clinton, specifically to fight the spread of AIDS

The "spread of AIDS" is spawned by deliberate irresponsible behavior; promiscuity and intervenous drug use. Unless you engage in such activities you are very UNLIKELY to get AIDS.

If I know that (due to public service announcements) everybody knows it.

"Discrimination continues to be a serious problem in America

I dispute that premise and suggest that discrimination is against the law and can result in prosecution or lawsuits.

2-26-01 Bush tax plan: Cut Homeless aid and Cops to pay for tax cut for the Wealthy.Proposed cuts of $1 Billion to the Justice Dept. Will impact drug inforcement, and law enforcement hiring community police officers. The plan calls for cuts in the 50 programs for the homeless

Good, good, good! Those are not federal government responsibilities.

Bush also wants to abolish COPS program and turn it into block grants

It could only be better if it was returned to the taxpayers.

regards,

mav out

---

08 Apr 01 - 09:18 PM (#436060)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: Little Hawk

Ummm...MAV..."Socialist" Canada? While we are a tad more socialist (thank God...) than the USA, primarily in that we have a socialized health care system, Canada is largely a capitalist society. Big private enterprise, mostly American-owned, runs Canada, from the top down, and controls every major political party in the country, with the vaguely possible exception of the NDP (our only socialist party), which doesn't have a dog's change in hell of forming a national government, although they have formed a number of provincial governments from time to time...once Ontario, several times out west.

Canada is slightly socialist, but mainly capitalist.

Our elections are pretty reliable in terms of accurate counting...

- LH

---

08 Apr 01 - 10:18 PM (#436088)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: kendall

I heard that on the Canadian $2.00, the flag over the Parliament building is an American flag. Is this true?

---

08 Apr 01 - 10:33 PM (#436093)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: MAV

Hey Little Hawk,

we are a tad more socialist (thank God...) than the USA

Well we are Waaaaay more socialist than we should be.

the NDP (our only socialist party

We have one main one (the democrats) and a small one from the Northeast (the RINOs)

which doesn't have a dog's change in hell of forming a national government

Why do dogs change in hell? Crispy?

Unfortunately, ours have done a whizbang job of laying the groundwork.

How much is a 6 pack of beer there?

How about a litre of gasoline (4 per gallon)?

Pack of butts?

Is it the shipping costs or.........something else?

Big private enterprise, mostly American-owned, runs Canada

Would that be where most of your jobs come from?

The main difference between the public sector (government) and the private sector (business)is;

Business (which create wealth) pays workers who help them provide a valuable product or service.

Government (which confiscates money) overpays workers most of whom do little else than accept their paychecks. (see: USPS)

The government rips off both the companies and their workers and then feeds itself.

Where would you be if the hated American companies were to split?

Here's to both of our prosperity,

mav out

---

08 Apr 01 - 10:48 PM (#436098)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: MAV

PS Little Hawk,

I was complimenting Canada on its ablity to conduct a clean and honest election without sophisticated and expensive equipment (and fast too).

I'm not too crazy about your socialist PM however.

mav out

---

08 Apr 01 - 11:13 PM (#436112)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: Little Hawk

He's not socialist, MAV. He just likes staying in power, and will do or say anything that serves that end. The other parties have made it easy for him by fracturing themselves into political oblivion.

I appreciate the jobs that come from the USA. But there has been a slow shift in this country, in that more and more Canadian businesses are taken over by American money, simply because America HAS more money. That is unfortunate, from a Canadian point of view, but inevitable. It has nothing to do with socialism, it's just the facts of life here. Only legislation such as Switzerland has, regarding who is allowed to own the majority of shares of a domestic company (foreigners or citizens of the nation) could possibly change what has been happening, which is the buying out and taking over of this country by Amerian and East Asian money. You will never see such legislation in Canada, because foreign money controls Jean Chretien, who is no socialist, and controls his political opponents as well.

I don't know what cigarettes cost here, or beer either, cos I don't smoke or drink beer. I know our gasoline and our taxes are higher here. I also know our social services are better. That's a tradeoff I can live with at this point.

We have had a "conservative", tax-cutting government in Ontario now for a number of years, and things have gotten a lot worse for: poor people, low income people, middle income people, hospitals, schools, roads, towns, municipalities, water treatment facilities, and all social services. Things have gotten a lot better for banks and the rich. The glorious tax cuts do NOT seem to be helping the 95% of the people who aren't rich.

Gasoline, by the way, has continued to get more and more expensive, despite that conservative, tsz-cutting government. Oh, and a few people died because of polluted municipal water after the funding was drastically reduced to water inspection facilities..that never happened before in my lifetime.

Yet the banks have never been happier or done better.

Funny, isn't it?

- LH

---

08 Apr 01 - 11:18 PM (#436116)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: Little Hawk

Excuse the typos. I'm very tired. See ya tomorrow.

---

09 Apr 01 - 12:06 AM (#436134)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: Peg

I can't believe you folks have been doing this for ten threads...

Peg

---

09 Apr 01 - 08:35 AM (#436270)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: kendall

Male dogs always try to piss higher than the previous dog did.

---

09 Apr 01 - 10:29 AM (#436353)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: Skeptic

Mav,

A detailed response. I will address only four points (briefly) as duty calls (most are simply rehashes of arguments we've already had).

1. You claim a number of the programs W plans to cut have failed. Please provide evidence of same. Especially the child care programs.

2. You mention that Republicans love their children and family and so on. I agree. I just don't think that W and his backers in Washington care about children, family or any of the other values you list all that much. There focus is on the old mantra "what's good for General Motors is good for the USA". Their primary concern is their favorite special interest group: Big Business. Anything else is secondary. Or tertiary. Unless you want to argue that Big Business cares about family values?

There is a material difference between the attitudes and actions of a small business (less than 300 employees) and big business. Small businesses tend to be what they should be: local employers, involved in the community and responses to community needs. Concerned with profit, true. But not obsessed by it. These are the "Chamber of Commerce" types. There concerns are community oriented.

I don't see W and his backers as caring much about them. Their focus is on big business whose focus is obsessively and solely with profits. Support for community values starts and stops with a ROI analysis.

3. The issue of CO2 is not why it's there, but that it is and too much of it isn't a good thing. If it is, in part, based on natural causes and if too much is bad, then why add to the problem.

4. The general reason people don't want to be counted by the census is that the distrust the governments motives. Sometimes to the point of pathology. But the do exist and deserve to be counted. Statistical modeling and validation is a lost less esoteric than some of the financial analysis I've seen come out of some of the companies I've worked for. The question is, I suppose, why not count them?

Regards

John

---

09 Apr 01 - 12:40 PM (#436449)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: mousethief

Sorry about italic problems. Thought I had it fixed.

Alex

---

09 Apr 01 - 12:53 PM (#436460)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: mousethief

Okay maybe this will work a little better (and a Joe Clone can delete the above post):

Bush … chose not to correct the undercount of more than 3 million Americans ….
If they're not counted, how do you know there are more than 3 million of them?

Not sure if I should even respond to such a numbskull question. Are you saying that if you're not counted by the census, you can't be counted any other way? Just because you're not counted by the census doesn't mean we can't be sure you exist. This is asinine.

The Democrats believe that every person, like every vote should be counted
No, the democrats believe every BALLOT should be counted, spoiled, disqualified or illegal. "Vote Early and Often" (how offensive)

Clever. Avoid the question (the census) by bringing up something unrelated (the Florida election). This is typical of your argument style, but far from intellectually honest. Which also is typical, I suppose.

The Republicans clearly do not..A disproportionate percentage of people of color, children and the urban poor are not included in this count
Of course they do, but COUNTED not estimated. If they can't be bothered to come forward and be counted, then THEY DON'T EXIST!

Ah. Republican logic at work. No comment necessary.

Bush's senate Republicans defeated a measure yesterday that would have kept medicare surplus from being spent on anything other than Medicare, or Debt reduction
Good, that means the working stiffs will be getting a tax cut.

And medicare recipients will pay for it. And yet later on he will claim that Republicans love their grandmothers.

"You can't say one thing and do amother" GWBUSH, Orlando Sentinel 10-31-00 Bush broke his Explicit Promise to reduce harmful emmissions
A mother? (Ahem, I mean) You mean that horrible harmful toxin CO2?

Didn't even respond to the point, which was that Bush LIED THROUGH HIS CROOKED TEETH. The fact that he was lying about CO2 or H2O or waffle syrup doesn't matter a gnat's ass.

The impact of floods, droughts and deadly heatwaves and crop failures will have crippling consequences on the US, the world and the economy
Yes, it snowed here today (8 Apr), we still have several feet of snow standing on the lawn (it's so damn hot).

Proving what? How does snow in one place prove that global warming isn't real? Global warming is a matter of overall temperature of the atmosphere, not spot temperatures in one place. Even Republicans should know this. This is beneath even MAV. Hey MAV, is somebody using your log-in account while you're not looking? They're an idiot. You should make them stop.

Plants turn CO2 into Oxygen (which can kill you if you get too much). Plants (crops)like WARM TEMPERATURES, WATER AND CO2! CO2 is a non-issue!

Ah. Republican Science at work. Plants eliminate CO2, so it's a nonissue. Do you have any estimates of the amount of increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, the CO2 processing capacity of the total plant population in the bisophere, and whether or not the latter is capable of dealing with the former? Thought not. No, this is science by wave-of-hand. You must be taking lessons from Rush Limbaugh.

Bush Breaks Another Promise: Plans Cuts in Child Care and Child abuse Prevention. Bush's promise "to leave no child behind" now sounds like other notable Bush betrayals, like the promise to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions. He plans to cut grants that help low income families afford child care by 200 million: child abuse prevention by over $15 million, and completely eliminate the $20 million "early learning fund" Also, considerating large cuts in the $235 Million programs that train pediatricians and other doctors in childrens hospitals. About 900,000 children suffer from abuse or neglect each year.
Like I said....failed redundant programs and "nonessential" union thug bureaucrats.

More name calling. You're a great one for providing proof of what you claim, MAV. It must be redundant and nonessential - it's run by union thugs. And again, more lying being justified by - what? It was okay for W to lie about this to get the demo votes because these programs really suck? Um, okay, I guess that's Republican Ethics at work. Remember this, Democrats and Independent voters: if the Republicans really don't like something, they will lie about supporting it just to get elected, then go back to what they really think after they are in office.

Remember when clinton shut down the government and blamed the Republicans? NOTHING HAPPENED!!!

I don't remember this. I remember Newt Gingrich shutting down the goverrnment (not allowing the budget to be voted upon, if I recall) because he was peeved at Clinton. I don't remember Clinton shutting down the government. This is Republican Selective Memory at work. (Also note that proper names, such as names of persons like Clinton, are capitalized in English. I hear community colleges teach lessons on this sort of thing - you might look into it.)

Did it ever occur to you that Republicans have children, love their parents and grandparents, like clean air and drinking water?

Let's see them prove it by their actions. So far they leave a little to be desired.

More land was confiscated under the clinton administration than ever before in US history.

Confiscated? I'm unaware of this (no doubt the fault of the Liberal media) - can you provide proof of this?

You don't really think there will be mining and drilling in National Parks do you? Another bit of scare propaganda.

I pray you are right. If not I will shove these words down your throat so far they will come out your ass.

3-17-01 Bush administration filed a motion today, to postpone the date when one-third of our national forests would become off limits to developement. The move opend the door for negotiations between the Bush Administration and TIMBER INTERESTS.* big surprise! This act would overrule Clintons Roadless Forests Designations
Guess what, they grow back.

Hey, MAV, get this through your thick skull: Old growth forests NEVER GROW BACK. Thinking otherwise is Republican Botany at work. And forests, although they do grow back, don't do so rapidly, and strip-foresting, the usual practice, destroys ecosystems needed for healthy growth and healthy forests.

The government shouldn't own huge tracts of land anyway, that really is socialism.

By and large, the government PAID FOR those lands. Why shouldn't it own them? Making them get rid of it is redistribution, which IS in fact socialism.

If they are going to allow land use, they should charge handsomely for it (to reduce the citizen's tax burden). However it should either be in private ownership or given back to the Indians.

Absolutely. Like the free or nearly-free ranching we allow on public lands. Let's charge market rate for that. But wait! We can't do that! Ranchers give big bucks to the Republican party. Never mind, it'll never happen.

3-22-01 Bush's Federal agencies blocked today, an initiative to help save the Pacific Salmon, a Clinton initiative.
Simply because it's a clinton initiative, it should be opposed.

This is a joke, right? Tell me you were joking, and really aren't an unthinking knee-jerking moron.

Had I mentioned that bipartisan *BLEEPS*?

Yes, people from both sides of the aisle doing something together that's right for the country, and not just for one party's support base, is to be avoided at all costs. This isn't Republican anything at work, it's just moronic.

In his zeal to pay back his donors and oppose ANYTHING John McCain supports, GWB would rather let the bill die than to do anything truely beneficial for the American people
I think you have that backwards, democrat McCain would rather pursue his own anti-Bush agenda than do anything truely beneficial for the American people.

McCain is not a Democrat. He is a Republican. (Yes, I know, you didn't capitalize it -- even if it's not a typo, and with your typing one can never quite be sure, it's still wrong.) If I recall, McCain has been pushing his CFR since long before Dubya was ever on the national radar screen. So your shrill comment here is baseless, and even if it weren't, it doesn't refute the claim made, but falls into the category of hand-waving.

3-20-01 Continuing his Texas record, Bush will carry on with Judicial appointments that do not reflect the make up of America
I think we already have enough LSC judges to represent the political makeup of the former USSR and the CHI-COMS!

Huh? What does that have to do with ANYTHING? Hand-waving in the extreme. And how does it justify what Bush is doing with his judicial appointments? We'd settle for it reflecting the make-up of the qualified applicant pool.

and has gone so far as to RECIND 10 apointees for judgeship that Clinton submitted.
That's not enough, there must be some more!

I'm really beginning to think you are incapable of actually thinking, and find opposing anything Clinton stood for a reasonable substitute. Sad, but not wholly unexpected. If you could actually think, you might not be nearly so conservative.

Bush rejected Judge Gregory, a African American, the first to sit on the bench on the 4th US court of Appeals
I'm sure he was a staunch conservative. (I don't care what color he is)

The problem is that it begins to appear that Bush DOES care what color he is. And your flip comments do nothing to dispel this notion.

and BOTH Virginia REPUBLICAN senators approved his appointment on a permenent basis
He's just less PC than they are. You can do that when you are the President.

Not for long. Not and get re-elected. The question is not PC-ness, it's RACISM. Bringing up "PC" to throw sand in our eyes won't work. We know racism when we see it.

3-21-01 Bush Blows Off Electoral Reform. Bush returns to Florida as Administration refuses Extra Money for Federal Elections Committee. He refused a request fot 5.5 Million over two years for its office of election administration, the only federal office with power to address how elections are run. "George W Bush , Jeb Bush and the Republican party are at it again with their double talk, two step strategy. On the one hand, they send out K Harris, to say they are in favor of reform
It's not a federal issue since there is no such thing as a federal election.

Now this is hand-waving at its absolute finest. I guess we'd better get rid of all the rules in the constitution about elections, since there aren't any at the national level.

Technical niceties aside, elections for federal offices are usually called "federal elections" by people in the United States, whether they fall under any definition of "federal" in any particular dictionary. Your ignorant and attention-shifting remark does nothing to change this fact, nor justify Bush's actions.

Discrimination continues to be a serious problem in America
I dispute that premise and suggest that discrimination is against the law and can result in prosecution or lawsuits.

And everybody knows that there are no problems in America except those that are completely legal. This is doublespeak, MAV. We know it's illegal. It wasn't claimed otherwise. The problem is not the legality of it, but the reality of it. And if it's illegal but Bush's justice department isn't going to seriously fight it, then it may as well be legal.

In all, MAV, you do exactly what you accuse your detractors of doing: a lot of name-calling and hand-waving, but no substantial argumentation or proof for your outrageous claims.

By the way, what in the hell is dextrorphobia? I found "Dextrophobia" (fear of the right side of the body) online, but no dextrorphobia. Those who taunt and insult others for their misspellings should watch their own fingers a little better.

Alex

---

09 Apr 01 - 01:13 PM (#436477)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: Skeptic

Mav and others

A general question:

The tax cut W proposed during the election was touted as appropriate to an expanding economy.

Now the same tax cut is proclaimed as being a cure for the recession.

Which is it? And how does a tax cut whose main impact won't be felt for 5-6 years, help today's economy.

Repuiblicans (and not just MAV), claim the recession has really been happening since July of 2000. If so, why would W propose a tax cut and claim the economy was expanding?

Inquiring minds want to know

Alex,

Thanks for the detailed response.

Regards

John

---

09 Apr 01 - 11:07 PM (#437045)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: MAV

Thief,

Sorry about italic problems. Thought I had it fixed

What.....was your computer broken? Did you take it apart?

I knew what you were thinking and you're blood pressure was really up there.

By the way.....you lied.

mav out

---

09 Apr 01 - 11:13 PM (#437050)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: MAV

Dear Peg,

I can't believe you folks have been doing this for ten threads...

Then there's the additional FIVE Conservative Cavalry threads averaging over 100 posts each and random "sidebar" threads.

Get your work clothes on and get in here.

enjoy,

mav out

---

10 Apr 01 - 12:17 AM (#437096)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: MAV

Thief,

Not sure if I should even respond to such a numbskull question.

Me neither.

Are you saying that if you're not counted by the census, you can't be counted any other way? Just because you're not counted by the census doesn't mean we can't be sure you exist

The Constitution calls for a count, not an estimate.

This is asinine

Thank you.

"The Democrats believe that every person, like every vote should be counted

No, the democrats believe every BALLOT should be counted, spoiled, disqualified or illegal. "Vote Early and Often" (how offensive)

Clever. Avoid the question (the census) by bringing up something unrelated (the Florida election). This is typical of your argument style, but far from intellectually honest. Which also is typical, I suppose.

Unrelated? Intellectually dishonest? Read the second half of Skeptic's question.

The fact that he was lying about CO2 or H2O or waffle syrup doesn't matter a gnat's ass

Since California is about to implode, he changed his mind ON CO2!

You accuse Bush of lying after every word clinton uttered in the last eight years WAS A *BLEEP* EATING LIE!!!!!?

Proving what? How does snow in one place prove that global warming isn't real? Global warming is a matter of overall temperature of the atmosphere, not spot temperatures in one place. Even Republicans should know this.

I was just making fun of the global warming Chicken Little types. Lighten the hell up.

This is beneath even MAV. Hey MAV, is somebody using your log-in account while you're not looking? They're an idiot. You should make them stop

(Looks like he's really whacking out now.)

Ah. Republican Science at work. Plants eliminate CO2, so it's a nonissue. Do you have any estimates of the amount of increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, the CO2 processing capacity of the total plant population in the bisophere, and whether or not the latter is capable of dealing with the former? Thought not. No, this is science by wave-of-hand

Oh for CRYING OUT LOUD!!!

Did it ever occur to you (assuming you know about dissolved gases) that rising global temperatures cause rising seawater temperatures and hence lessen the ability of the oceans to contain CO2???

Global warming causes ELEVATED CO2 LEVELS!!!

More name calling

NO! This is name calling......an unthinking knee-jerking moron (your words)

Yes, people from both sides of the aisle doing something together that's right for the country, and not just for one party's support base, is to be avoided at all costs. This isn't Republican anything at work, it's just moronic

If the democRATS have anything to do with it, it's not good for the country. Than't why bi-partisanship sucks.

McCain is not a Democrat. He is a Republican

Well, the Republican voters didn't seem to think so, did they? McKeating is a dirty corrupt democRAT!

(Yes, I know, you didn't capitalize it -- even if it's not a typo, and with your typing one can never quite be sure, it's still wrong.)

Well, at least I didn't screw up a massive meaningless post like you did. I don't capitalize democRAT because there is no democracy in the democRAT party, just marching orders.

I'm really beginning to think you are incapable of actually thinking, and find opposing anything Clinton stood for a reasonable substitute. Sad, but not wholly unexpected. If you could actually think, you might not be nearly so conservative

Opposing anything clinton stood for is perfectly logical.

The opposite position makes you represent support for perjury, lying, immoral and perverted behavior (including rape) disdain for the Constitution, no respect for the rule of law, marriage, women or the English language (like the White House lawn pep rally after IMPEACHMENT). But then again, your guys made this bed and now you too can "lie" in it!!!

I don't remember this. I remember Newt Gingrich shutting down the goverrnment (not allowing the budget to be voted upon, if I recall)

(A little typo there? Or is that the Republicans' fault?)

Did Dan Rather tell you that Newt shut down the government? Oh wait, he just confessed to being a MAJOR CommucRAT Operative from the Ministry of Propaganda.

If you recall a lie, it's still a lie.

I'm tired and going to bed. I have to get up and go to work in the morning.

Have a great evening. More to follow.

mav out

---

10 Apr 01 - 01:34 AM (#437122)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: Skeptic

Mav,

Insomnia again. Sigh

The Constitution calls for a count, not an estimate.

No the Constitution calls for The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct (emphasis mine.

Which means Congress can decide how the count will be done. They decided not to use statistical estimates. The fact that not using estimates would affect the number of poor, homeless and so on who won't get counted does not necessarily mean that there was malice. Several possibilities allow:

(1) Our elected representatives could have met and held a solemn discussion of the relative merits of statistical sampling as a tool, considered the valid of statistical test of validity and decided that the mathematicians and statisticians were wrong.

(2) Another explanation is that they flipped a coin.

(3) And, of course, it could have been a purely political decision that has the effect of hurting minorities and the poor.

I opt for #3

The idea that the census has to be a count is a creation of Congress and a myth pushed by those only an exact count would benefit. I?ve heard (through friends) that the same assertion (census=exact count per the constitution) has been made by a number of the conservative talk show hosts, which serves to spread the myth and enshrine it as truth. Clearly they argue on purely ideological grounds.

Were the shoe on the other foot, (say if the residents of the heavily Republican city of Palm Beach refused to allow those tacky census takers in the city limits) Democrats would be calling as loudly for the count to reflect only those who responded.

Opposing anything Clinton stood for is perfectly logical

The logic escapes me. It is certainly an emotional response. Because of Clinton?s actions, everything he believes in must be wrong? Then do I conclude that the fact that a Catholic Priest in South Carolina recently admitted to sexually molesting children in his parish (over a 15 year period) invalidates the tenets of the Catholic religion? Or of Christianity in general?

Finally, what should I make of the ?liberal media? who reported the Miami Herald/Knight story of the recount on day one (which said Bush would have won if Gore?s standards had been used) that was picked up by the national media. The next day, when the same newspaper explained that had the count been done uniformly (as the Supreme Court directed but didn?t allow to proceed) Gore would have won. Strangely the ?liberal media? didn?t give that story much play. The consortium is still doing their recount.

I hear Texas has money problems. W apparently forgot the lesson of Joseph from the Bible. And may be forgetting again on the national level

I suppose a plea to ALL to try to maintain civility would be wasted? Or are we going to get into the "he/she started it" postings again. What seems to me to be the issue is not who started it, but who's going to stop it.

Regards

John

---

10 Apr 01 - 03:34 AM (#437150)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: mousethief

You accuse Bush of lying after every word clinton uttered in the last eight years WAS A *BLEEP* EATING LIE!!!!!?

Yes, I do. Clinton (it's still capitalized, whether you like the man or not) lying doesn't make everything Bush says true. That's absurd. Nor does his track record make Bush unassailable when he does lie. All politicians must be held accountable for their words. If they are lies, bringing up somebody else's lies does not change that fact (remember the "two wrongs don't make a right" principle?). Bush is a two-faced liar. He said anything he thought the swing voters wanted to hear just to get elected, and now is reneging on everything he said in order to get the swing votes. And all the lies you can dig up by Clinton and Tom Cruise and Mickey Mouse don't change that fact.

Proving what? How does snow in one place prove that global warming isn't real? Global warming is a matter of overall temperature of the atmosphere, not spot temperatures in one place. Even Republicans should know this.

I was just making fun of the global warming Chicken Little types. Lighten the hell up.

Sorry, I thought this was a serious discussion. How am I to tell which of your answers are mere sport, and which you want me to take seriously? They all look the same to me. Would you please label your absurd sarcasm so I can tell it from your absurd serious claims? It would really help. Thanks.

Did it ever occur to you (assuming you know about dissolved gases) that rising global temperatures cause rising seawater temperatures and hence lessen the ability of the oceans to contain CO2???

Lacking evidence to the contrary (which you have not provided) I would likely assume it would lessen the ability of the oceans to contain any and all dissolved gasses, at roughly the same rates, so it wouldn't change the CO2 levels -- which are percents of all atmospheric gasses -- a bit.

Oh, and by the way, starting sentences with "did it ever occur to you" is extremely rude. If you want your self-righteous high moral ground to really be unassailable, you would be better served not to use such rude and offensive mannerisms in your posts.

If the democRATS have anything to do with it, it's not good for the country. Than't why bi-partisanship sucks.

You really have stopped thinking. As I said before, not terribly surprising.

McCain is a Republican.

Well, the Republican voters didn't seem to think so, did they?

Huh? Are you saying that electing one person over another is evidence that you don't think the person not elected is in the same party? Just because the Republicans elected Bush rather than McCain as their party's candidate in the 2000 election doesn't mean they don't think McCain is a Republican. That's silly.

Well, at least I didn't screw up a massive meaningless post like you did.

I don't write meaningless posts. Nor do I call yours meaningless. Screwing up HTML sometimes happens. I admitted it and went on. Wish you could.

I don't capitalize democRAT because there is no democracy in the democRAT party, just marching orders.

Can we have proof of this? Or is this just more of your mudslinging?

Opposing anything clinton stood for is perfectly logical.

No, it is not. Opposing anything any one person "stands for" is emotionalism, not logic. A logical person would look at each issue on its own terms, not simply look at whether one person is for it or against it. No matter how much you dislike Clinton, and it is apparent that your dislike for him knows no bounds (and no rationality), not everything he said and did is 100% deplorable. Your inability to see or admit this is simply childish.

The opposite position makes you represent support for perjury, lying, immoral and perverted behavior (including rape) disdain for the Constitution, no respect for the rule of law, marriage, women or the English language (like the White House lawn pep rally after IMPEACHMENT).

No, it does not. The opposite position makes me support looking at the issues one by one, and not at whether or not somebody I'm irrationally peeved with supported it. Just because clinton was a perjurer, liar, immoral, pervert, rapist, constitution-hating, law-bashing, etc. etc. (assuming this is all true, which of course I am not beholden to agree with), doesn't mean that everything he said was false, every action he took was immoral, every sexual act he committed was perverted or rapine, and so forth. This is fallacious reasoning.

I don't remember this. I remember Newt Gingrich shutting down the government (not allowing the budget to be voted upon, if I recall)

(A little typo there? Or is that the Republicans' fault?)

If you would be a little more civil, you probably would get fewer people calling you things like gobshite. Then again you probably revel in that, because they're democRATS, and anything they say (according to your bleary-eyed "logic") must be false. Nevertheless you really should try to be polite, if only because it's the right thing to do.

Did Dan Rather tell you that Newt shut down the government? Oh wait, he just confessed to being a MAJOR CommucRAT Operative from the Ministry of Propaganda.

I don't watch television. I never heard anything Dan Rather said. You're once again diverting attention from your inability to counter the real argument made. Throwing sand in your opponent's eyes is great sport when you're Captain Kirk wrestling with the alien bad guy for the alien bimbo. When you're presenting yourself as an intellegent observer and commenter upon things political, however, it's very bad form, and makes your observers and/or opponents wonder if you really have anything to say.

Back to the issue: the president doesn't choose what the congress votes on. The speaker of the house does. If the congress is gridlocked, it's not the president's fault.

So far you haven't said anything that really shows you are thinking about these issues at all. It's all been rudeness, and propaganda, and knee-jerk contrarian emotional responses. If I were a conservative, I'd be embarassed to have you on my side.

TTFN,
Alex

---

10 Apr 01 - 03:48 AM (#437154)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: mousethief

And yes, I realize I failed to capitalize "Clinton" once. I admit I make mistakes. Do you, Mav?

Alex

---

10 Apr 01 - 05:53 AM (#437192)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: Dave the Gnome

Ho-hum. And here was me thinking that this was an interesting thread about some miscarriage of justice I had not heard of. You know, Guildford four, Birmingham six, Bushwhacked ten....

I don't know all the ins and ous of American politics of course but if they are the same as here in the UK I don't know what all the fighting is about. Politicians are all as bad as each other. They want power. They will pander to whoever will give it them. They wil lie, cheat and trample over anyone to get it. The only difference between one side and another is they hurt different people in getting whatthey want. All we can hope for is that as long as they are fighting each other they will be doing us less harm.

What worries me most about democracy is that we all vote for someone who is mad enough to think they can run a country. Who is daftest? Use your votes properly next time - don't vote for anyone. Imagine how seriously buggered an election would be if everyone abstained!

Cheers

Dave the Gnome

---

11 Apr 01 - 04:25 AM (#437918)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: Dave the Gnome

Well...

I didn't know I was that good at killing threads!

DtG

---

11 Apr 01 - 11:16 AM (#438097)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: Skeptic

Dave the Gnome

Dead? Probably not. Like Eboli, it vanishes only to reappear when you least expect it.

Regards

John

---

12 Apr 01 - 08:27 PM (#439425)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: MAV

Skeptic,

1. There are thousands of duplicate federal programs dealing with "helping little people". MOST are failures.

Head Start is a failure, they could be teaching learning skills but are basically a Federal babysitting agency. The main beneficiaries are the unskilled "workers".

The Post Office is a failure (just got a rate hike, wants to cut services), AMTRAC is a failure, the IRS is a failure (should be audited for fraud themselves), HUD is a failure, the Dept of Education (lost $450M to fraud) is a failure. All entitlement programs by virtue of their eternal need for higher funding having failed to accomplish their individual mission are failures.(Except of course for their actual purpose, which is to create jobs for unionized bureaucrats wherein they are great successes).

2. You mention that Republicans love their children and family and so on. I agree. I just don't think that W and his backers in Washington care about children, family or any of the other values you list all that much. ....Their primary concern is their favorite special interest group: Big Business

No, their favorite "special interest group" is......Republican voters. W ran on the slogan "no child should be left behind" and I believe he will make good on that.

Small businesses tend to be what they should be: local employers, involved in the community and responses to community needs. Concerned with profit, true. But not obsessed by it. These are the "Chamber of Commerce" types. There concerns are community oriented.

Yes, and what makes this economy tick are those small businesses, not the major corporations. Did you ever notice how it's the DOW Industrial 30, or the S&P 500 (big business) and the Russell 4500? (dollar and penny stocks)? This is not to mention those thousands or millions of noncorporations which take a chance on their own money, provide jobs and pay taxes.

I don't see W and his backers as caring much about them.

Who do you suppose those "tax cuts for the 'rich'" were for? Those business owners who do all of the above, usually work long hours and their efforts and investment which result in community development and employment should be rewarded, not punished.

Their focus is on big business whose focus is obsessively and solely with profits. Support for community values starts and stops with a ROI analysis

Community/Faith Based Organizations?

3. The issue of CO2 is not why it's there, but that it is and too much of it isn't a good thing. If it is, in part, based on natural causes and if too much is bad, then why add to the problem.

That's a BIG IF. The premise has not yet been proven. Volcanos and forest fires have not been included in the equation which contribute far more CO2 and actual pollutants than auto exhaust.

The fact that sea level has actually fallen in the last 100 years really blows that theory anyway.

4.The general reason people don't want to be counted by the census is that the distrust the governments motives. Sometimes to the point of pathology. But the do exist and deserve to be counted. Statistical modeling and validation is a lost less esoteric than some of the financial analysis I've seen come out of some of the companies I've worked for. The question is, I suppose, why not count them?

You gave the answer yourself..."people don't want to be counted"

Sorry for not responding to all your posts, I need to catch up.

Regards,

mav out

---

12 Apr 01 - 09:48 PM (#439450)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: Skeptic

Mav,

With apologies to Spaw for parsing :-)

Head Start is a failure, they could be teaching learning skills but are basically a Federal babysitting agency. The main beneficiaries are the unskilled "workers".

Interesting. Most of the statistics I've seen indicate the Head Start is an effective program. Locally a study demonstrated that children who went through the Head Start program did significantly better in elementary school than similar socio-economic group kids who didn't. A local "Blip"? Maybe but my understanding is that the statistics are fairly consistent nationally. That in mind, I would have to add that the benefit to "unskilled workers" would count as an added, not a main, benefit. If you have contrary statistics, I?d like to look at them. BTW, I don?t think Head Start is the best way to go, just one that works. How much nicer if the wages paid by business had kept pace with the cost of living.

The Post Office is a failure (just got a rate hike, wants to cut services),

Hardly. They move more mail a day than the rest of the world combined. Cheaper. De-regulate postal rates and prices will go up. So will the howls from the biggest users (who pay the least per piece ? bulk mailers. FedEx, lets remember, charges a premium and demands standardized packaging. And they don?t ?do? bulk mail, magazines or a lot of other services we and businesses take fro granted. Or are necessary. . Granted the Post Office needs improvement. Calling it a ?failure? seems to define ?failure? in a way that

AMTRAC is a failure

Yes. As it was designed to be by the government (at the request of the Railroads, aka ?big business?) by relieving them of the responsibility of carrying passengers and denying AMTRAK the right to carry freight, which has traditionally subsidized passenger traffic, failure was guaranteed, even before AMTRAK got outdated equipment dumped on it by these same big businesses (who demanded and got premium prices for what was essentially junk.

,the IRS is a failure (should be audited for fraud themselves)

Oh, the IRS is sadly very successful at what it does. Fraud? I disagree. Criminal in that it tries to operate outside of and above the law, yes.

HUD is a failure

Why? I can make a good argument that the Federal DOT freeway system contributed fairly directly to the decline in community and family life. But HUD? Which programs? The subsidize housing models of the 60?s and 70?s was certainly a failure. Section 8? Fair Housing? Community Development Block Grants?

the Dept of Education (lost $450M to fraud) is a failure

We?ve done the education argument I think. If not, I will agree that the Dept of Education is an almost archetypical bureaucracy that hides behind unproven and unprovable claims of ?expertise. (But then, the same is true of the home school crowd. It?s just that the Dept of Education?s anecdotal evidence is presented with all the trappings of real science. Pseudoscince at its ?best?)

Basing evaluation of failure on losing large amounts of money to fraud also means that Medicare and especially the Military are even bigger failures.

All entitlement programs by virtue of their eternal need for higher funding having failed to accomplish their individual mission are failures.(Except of course for their actual purpose, which is to create jobs for unionized bureaucrats wherein they are great successes).

Such as Social Security? The last time I looked, the estimate was that private pension funds where so grossly under-funded and the outright fraud practiced by big business so blatant that it has the potential to make the Savings and Loan bailout look like chump change. Big business at it?s best.

Medicare? Pushed by big business to relieve them of the responsibility of continued funding of retireee?s health insurance. A perfect out. For them.

No, their favorite "special interest group" is......Republican voters. W ran on the slogan "no child should be left behind" and I believe he will make good on that.

W ran on a lot of slogans. Made a lot of promises. Did the same in Texas. Hopely his national record will be better than his State record.

You, and other Republicans may think that W (not the republican party, but W) cares. If so, it is a secondary consequence.

?leave no child behind?? After discounting monies already budgeted to education by Clinton and company (2.l billion), W?s ?generosity amounts to a 4% increase. Slightly less than inflation. Or consider the Salmonella fiasco? Or look at the state of education in Texas.

I said Small businesses tend to be what they should be: local employers, involved in the community and responses to community needs. Concerned with profit, true. But not obsessed by it. These are the "Chamber of Commerce" types. There concerns are community oriented.

you replied

Yes, and what makes this economy tick are those small businesses, not the major corporations

We agree. Please demonstrate where W?s programs help this group directly. What I see is a focused concern for Big Business and a propaganda job to convince small business that they will benefit. Except the trend is for big business to gobble up small business. Starbucks being a current example.

Who do you suppose those "tax cuts for the 'rich'" were for? Those business owners who do all of the above, usually work long hours and their efforts and investment which result in community development and employment should be rewarded, not punished.

Since I think that we need to pay off the debt before we reduce taxes, I tend to think that the ?tax cuts for the rich? fall under the penumbra of ?voodoo economics? And, as I said, how the same tax package can be an appropriate answer to an expanding economy and the solution to a recession is a mystery. Or BS.

Actually, most wealth is inherited. Which was the argument against cutting the estate tax. Bill Gates earned his billions. His children didn?t. And it was Bill?s wife, not Bill, who got him started in the philanthropy business. Big business, and those who run it, are far removed from their communities needs. Their focus is on increasing the size of the business and their share of the profits. At the expense of small businesses.

As Gates did. With questionable tactics. Read the transcript of his testimony during the trail. You think Clinton argued over the meaning of ?is?. Gates elevated sophistry to a level of cynicism that is truly awe-inspiring. Normally the kind of ethical and moral indifference he demonstrated is reserved to petty dictators and sociopaths. Up to then, I was almost willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I said Their focus is on big business whose focus is obsessively and solely with profits. Support for community values starts and stops with a ROI analysis

and you replied

Community/Faith Based Organizations?

Of course, W is only talking about the faiths he likes.. However, one program for faith based initiatives and a hundred or so pay backs to big business doesn?t seem to invalidate my contention.

t's a BIG IF. The premise has not yet been proven. Volcanos and forest fires have not been included in the equation which contribute far more CO2 and actual pollutants than auto exhaust.

Yes, they have. As they have always been a factor, they become part of the base-line level. (The ?normal level?) The issue is how much the system can tolerate above that level. And that excess is man-made.

fact that sea level has actually fallen in the last 100 years really blows that theory anyway.

Based on the opinion on one scientist, I seem to recall. Odd that of the 3000 or so prominent climatologists, less than a handful argues against the fact of global warning. That these few get many more column inches than the overwhelming majority doesn?t mean much. That a few journalists latch onto the opinions of the few to prove that there is no such thing as global warming is not a validation.

You gave the answer yourself..."people don't want to be counted"

And yet the Constitution requires that they be counted.

Thanks for responding. I?m off for a long weekend with family. ?See you all Monday?

Regards

John

---

12 Apr 01 - 10:11 PM (#439463)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: MAV

Dear Ratnapper,

Clinton (it's still capitalized, whether you like the man or not)

cLINTON's lying can be detected (When his lips are moving)

Well, what's important is that YOU like him! Remember..
BIRDS OF A FEATHER, FLOCK TOGETHER!!!

starting sentences with "did it ever occur to you" is extremely rude. If you want your self-righteous high moral ground to really be unassailable, you would be better served not to use such rude and offensive mannerisms in your posts

Did it ever occur to you that you are perhaps the last person on the planet to be lecturing others on being rude and offensive?

Are you saying that electing one person over another is evidence that you don't think the person not elected is in the same party?

No.

Just because the Republicans elected Bush rather than McCain as their party's candidate in the 2000 election doesn't mean they don't think McCain is a Republican

Most of the votes McCain got were in those states which had "open primaries" which allowed voters outside the party registration to vote in the GOP primaries (a stupid idea). Republicans by and large voted for Bush not McKeating.

That's silly

No, I told you, it's a stupid idea.

I don't write meaningless posts. Nor do I call yours meaningless

Ok, I'll capitulate, you're getting more argumentative and less combative. In fact, I believe I once told you that you were a master debater.

Screwing up HTML sometimes happens. I admitted it and went on. Wish you could

I've apologized to Skeptic in the past and I'll gladly treat you fairly as well. I expect no less.

I said: "I don't capitalize democRAT because there is no democracy in the democRAT party, just marching orders"

Can we have proof of this? Or is this just more of your mudslinging?

Sure, first example off the top of my head. Does the uniform use of the term "gravitas" (to describe the quality lent by Cheney to the Bush campaign) by the news media and democrat operatives overnight not smack of marching orders?

How about the famous "mea culpa" used to refer to Clintons contrition?

If you look at the way the democrats vote in any legislative body (including both houses of the Congress) as a block with very few strays and understand that various members are told by leadership that they will tow the party line or they will get no committee appointments and be opposed in a primary at the next election. The GOP does not operate that way and their voting and "infighting" shows that to be the case. We like to argue (even among ourselves) in case you hadn't noticed.

No matter how much you dislike Clinton, and it is apparent that your dislike for him knows no bounds (and no rationality)

Considering the damage he did to this country (including the current China problem) may not be fully known for decades, should I be happy about that?

not everything he said and did is 100% deplorable

No, he did a good job at Oklahoma City, he did a good job of signing the "Contract with America".

I can't think of what he did that meant much of anything. You?

Your inability to see or admit this is simply childish

Another ad hominem?

I remember Newt Gingrich shutting down the government (not allowing the budget to be voted upon, if I recall)

You said you didn't hear it from Rather or TV news. It matters not, the real source of media talking points is the NY times making sure all liberal press and broadcast media is singing off the same page.

You couldn't remember it correctly if you never heard the truth could you? Tom Delay, Gingrich and other GOP leadership had just met with cLINTON 15 minutes before thought they had a budget deal. cLINTON then went before the press and betrayed them and had previously cleared it with the federal employees unions to have a shutdown. This can be confirmed by asking the above sources. cLINTON had lied again.

Shrimp, fettucine and wine awaits.

later,

mav out

---

12 Apr 01 - 10:29 PM (#439476)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: Troll

Mav, The Post Office is not an agency of the Federal Government and receives NO tax money from it. It IS regulated by a Board of Governors established by the Fed. Govt. but it has been quasi-independent since 1972 when the re-organization took place.
The PO is required to provide universal mail service AND pay its own way. Not an easy job in todays economy. If you look at the percentage of price increase between a first class stamp and a 12 oz. can of coke in any supermarket you'll see what I mean.
If the USPS were subsidized like it was 50 years ago, we could still have 3 cent stamps but we would all be paying through out taxes. With the present system, them what uses, pays.

troll

---

13 Apr 01 - 01:28 AM (#439563)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: mousethief

Did it ever occur to you that you are perhaps the last person on the planet to be lecturing others on being rude and offensive?

Even if it did, it's not true, and it's a very nasty little bit of invective. So much for your treating me with respect.

Your inability to see or admit this is simply childish

Another ad hominem?

Calling childish behavior childish may or may not be an ad hominem. If you're acting like a child and somebody says, "you're really being childish, you know," is that an ad hominem? Do you know what "ad hominem" means?

Tom Delay, Gingrich and other GOP leadership had just met with cLINTON 15 minutes before thought they had a budget deal. cLINTON then went before the press and betrayed them and had previously cleared it with the federal employees unions to have a shutdown. This can be confirmed by asking the above sources.

Embarassingly, I don't know who Tom Delay is. I wouldn't trust Gingrich to read a clock to me which was plainly visible to both of us. This sounds like a he said/she said problem. Don't see how we can resolve it, seeing as you don't trust my sources and I don't trust yours.

Most of the votes McCain got were in those states which had "open primaries" which allowed voters outside the party registration to vote in the GOP primaries (a stupid idea). Republicans by and large voted for Bush not McKeating.

I think it's a stupid idea -- nay, worse, it's thievery -- to have "republican" or "democrat" primaries that are paid for by a state's taxpayers. If the GOP truly wants to just poll its members to find out who to run for an office, let them do it on their own dime. Why should I pay for it? If, on the other hand, a state is holding a primary to winnow down a set of candidates for its final ballot, why should it take marching orders from the political parties?

As you probably know we have historically had an "open ballot" primary in Washington State, until the Big 3 political parties (GOP, Dems, and the Libertarians) took us (or somebody like us; I forget) to court. Now we must rewrite our way of doing primaries or face having a new method forced upon us by court order. The best suggestion I've heard so far is to have a totally nonpartisan ballot. Throw everybody on there and vote for your favorite. Top 2 winners run off in the final election. Perhaps this will start the process of undoing the stranglehold the GOP and Democrats have on our country? Nah. Special interest groups wouldn't stand for that.

it is apparent that your dislike for [Clinton] knows no bounds (and no rationality)

Considering the damage he did to this country (including the current China problem) may not be fully known for decades, should I be happy about that?

Must you be irrational whenever you're unhappy?

Shrimp, fettucine and wine awaits.

Subject/verb disagreement. Lose 10 points. Sounds nummy, though. :-)

Alex

---

13 Apr 01 - 01:59 AM (#439575)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo

> >Are you saying that if you're not counted by the census, you can't be counted any other way? Just because you're not counted by the census doesn't mean we can't be sure you exist

> The Constitution calls for a count, not an estimate.

No. It calls for an "enumeration". Who's to say that a head-count is a better "enumeration" than a statistically derived quantification? Both are just particular methods aimed at arriving with what is hopefully an accurate count of the _actual_ number (ya know, the root word of "enumeration"?) of people. It may well be that the statistical methods are in fact more accurate in doing the _desired_ job (and there is good evidence to show that this is in fact true). If you insist on a formal but inaccurate "count" which is known to miss people, and to be farther from the actual value, you are exalting form over substance.

Cheers,

-- Arne Langsetmo

---

13 Apr 01 - 10:32 AM (#439720)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: GUEST, Heartbroken

Dear Lord, Trollo, say it ain't so! The All-Knowing, All-Seeing, All-Spewing, Infallible Mav-Thing, the one, the only Bipedal Turd of the Mudcat WRONG??? about the Post Office? IMPOSSIBLE! Could this mean that he might possibly be wrong about OTHER THINGS!??!

My world is shattered.

---

13 Apr 01 - 09:27 PM (#440156)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: MAV

Mousethief,

So much for your treating me with respect

Well, you seem to be right on the edge, but haven't quite earned it yet.

Do you know what "ad hominem" means?

Of course..to the man. Usually refers to a personal attack, something you do a lot. I wish you'd stop it.

Embarassingly, I don't know who Tom Delay is

Whoa! That is embarassing! You didn't know who the Grand Imperial Wizard of the Senate....Billy Jim Bob Byrd democRAT former Klansmen was either. Wasn't your search engine working those days?

I wouldn't trust Gingrich to read a clock to me which was plainly visible to both of us

Why not, you obviously have very limited information and a blatant negative bias. Are you sure you even know who Newt is?

This sounds like a he said/she said problem. Don't see how we can resolve it, seeing as you don't trust my sources and I don't trust yours

Well, since your source is the impeached, disgraced ex-President, convicted perjuror and known pathological liar cLINTON, and mine isn't, I guess you're right.

I think it's a stupid idea -- nay, worse, it's thievery -- to have "republican" or "democrat" primaries that are paid for by a state's taxpayers. If the GOP truly wants to just poll its members to find out who to run for an office, let them do it on their own dime. Why should I pay for it?

Gee, I might actually agree with that, except the state allows anyone to get on the ballot in a given primary whether or not they have the blessing of the their party.

In other words, you could call yourself a dem and actually beat the candidate put up by the local democrat committee if you were well known in your community or worked harder (door to door) than the opponent did.

If, on the other hand, a state is holding a primary to winnow down a set of candidates for its final ballot, why should it take marching orders from the political parties?

It doesn't.

The best suggestion I've heard so far is to have a totally nonpartisan ballot. Throw everybody on there and vote for your favorite. Top 2 winners run off in the final election. Perhaps this will start the process of undoing the stranglehold the GOP and Democrats have on our country?

Well, I don't care who the parties are, as long as there are only 2 of them. (Well I'd actually like to see the Rs and the Libertarians slugging it out).

The reason for that is that in a voting body, 100% divided by 2, is either side of 50% (a majority).

When you divide by 3 or 4 or more parties you have a less well defined decision making concensus (a plurality)

Italy's Parliament is subject to this kind of division and is a total waste and constant melee.

Nah. Special interest groups wouldn't stand for that

Everyone has a special interest group, it's called "free speech". I'll be you have at least two "special interest groups" lobbying on your behalf in Washington, whether you know it or not.

I said: "Shrimp, fettucine and wine awaits"

You said;Subject/verb disagreement. Lose 10 points. Sounds nummy, though. :-)

Hey! It smelled good, I was hungry, the wife was adamant, thus my post was done.

It was great!

mav out

---

13 Apr 01 - 09:34 PM (#440168)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: MAV

Dear Arne,

All good information and well stated.

It may well be that the statistical methods are in fact more accurate in doing the _desired_ job (and there is good evidence to show that this is in fact true). If you insist on a formal but inaccurate "count" which is known to miss people, and to be farther from the actual value, you are exalting form over substance.

Did you want a democrat estimate or a GOP estimate? I'll take a count any day.

mav out

---

13 Apr 01 - 10:30 PM (#440196)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: MAV

Hey Dude,

. Granted the Post Office needs improvement. Calling it a ?failure? seems to define ?failure?

Notice we aren't using the post office to communicate this information. We could, but for some reason we aren't.

How about the whacked out, overpaid ,"going postal" workers?

The post office is a government monopoly. If you don't believe it's still federal, try crossing a postal inspector and see what the consequences are.

Oh, the IRS is sadly very successful at what it does. Fraud? I disagree. Criminal in that it tries to operate outside of and above the law, yes.

No, they can't account for millions if not billions of money (I forgot the actual figure). They can't even give the same answer to the same tax question twice.

They are in such disarray that it could be a complete thread all of its own.

The last time I looked, the estimate was that private pension funds where so grossly under-funded and the outright fraud practiced by big business so blatant that it has the potential to make the Savings and Loan bailout look like chump change

I don't know why anyone would let another entity either government or business be in charge their own retirement account. I'll take a 401K or IRA (either type) any day.

Since I think that we need to pay off the debt before we reduce taxes

They are doing that. It makes no sense to retire some of that debt, it would cost more to pay it off early than to let it mature as planned. Some of the debt is savings bonds which would require people holding them to take them in and lose interest.

And, as I said, how the same tax package can be an appropriate answer to an expanding economy and the solution to a recession is a mystery

There should be no connection. The tax burden is way too high, the government needs to be reduced in size and make do with less bureaucracy.

Actually, most wealth is inherited

Like farms and small businesses. I don't know about most.

Bill Gates earned his billions. His children didn?t. And it was Bill?s wife, not Bill, who got him started in the philanthropy business

It should be his right to decide how to dispose of their income, not the government's. What happened to freedom?

I mentioned Community/Faith Based Organizations.

Of course, W is only talking about the faiths he likes..

That's not true. I have seen the crowds of clergy gearing up for the FBI deployment. They range from the Nation of Islam to the LDS and Catholics.

I mentioned the "fact that sea level has actually fallen in the last 100 years really blows that theory anyway"

Based on the opinion on one scientist, I seem to recall.

Actually I have a site showing a sea level mark on a rock documented in print of the day over 100 years ago showing significantly above the current sea level.

Odd that of the 3000 or so prominent climatologists, less than a handful argues against the fact of global warning. That these few get many more column inches than the overwhelming majority doesn?t mean much. That a few journalists latch onto the opinions of the few to prove that there is no such thing as global warming is not a validation.

Actually I would say 1000s of times more column inches and air time (including a concerted effort by climatologist) have been devoted to promote the concept of global warming than to dispute it.

The latest bomb to fall on the global warming crowd is the release of information that most changes have been noticed at sea and the temperature samples were being taken by sailors from the water, assuming water and air temperatures would be the same.

Seems that assumption was not valid and the water temperatures were in fact higher than the air temps. skewing the whole study's findings artificially high.

Thanks for responding.

But of course, you're my favorite liberal.

I?m off for a long weekend with family

Well, you have a great time then.

?See you all Monday?

I'll be here.

Later,

mav out

---

13 Apr 01 - 10:32 PM (#440197)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: CarolC

Hi MAV,

About this thing that you said...

"HUD is a failure"

Maybe you have some statistics to back that up. I don't know. But I'm going to give you a personal, rather than statistical perspective on HUD, because I'm in a position to do so.

I live in a small apartment complex that is specifically for people who are elderly, handicapped, or disabled. It is subsidized by HUD. If I couldn't live here, or another HUD subsidized facility, at this particular point in my life, I might well be homeless.

So, from my own, personal perspective, HUD is a very big success.

Carol

---

13 Apr 01 - 11:21 PM (#440225)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: MAV

Hi Carol,

Well, I'm glad to hear you are getting some benefit from HUD. Many Americans do I'm sure, but it is another huge agency which consumes way more resources than it distributes.

The image that comes to mind is the rows of slab sided government housing, covered with layers of spray paint grafitti populated by desperate people and infested with drug dealers.

Many of these sorry communities began to get assistance from the Nation of Islam and were the better for it. Some buildings were transferred to residents who then had a different attitude which went with ownership. The new owners cleaned them up and made them into nice safe communities. Still others were simply torn down.

The point is that the guidance and material from HUD didn't create a good situation, self-reliance or other outside influence did.

Thanks for your post,

mav out

---

13 Apr 01 - 11:36 PM (#440234)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: BK

Carol;

It appears likely that you are not a Republican... At least, not doing a Republican sort of thing... To the fat-cats you have NO RIGHTS... They'll take your housing & give the money to their rich buddies as soon as they can, so let's hope it takes a while. My aging mom is in a similar predicament but she voted for dubya - based solely on the abortion issue. Virtually everyone I know who voted for dubya did it on either the abortion issue or the gun control issue. Most are adamant that they don't want the environment trashed, or have any goals in common w/the current republican leadership.

Amazing..

BK

---

14 Apr 01 - 11:08 AM (#440412)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: mousethief

This is just thinking out loud, but I wonder if the Republicans would ever win a national election if it weren't for the abortion issue?

alex

---

14 Apr 01 - 11:27 AM (#440430)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: kendall

Headstart is a proven success. (my ex wife who used to teach teachers)

---

14 Apr 01 - 11:30 AM (#440432)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: mousethief

Mav,

So much for your treating me with respect

Well, you seem to be right on the edge, but haven't quite earned it yet.

This is an area where we disagree greatly. I believe all humans are worthy of respect by virtue of the fact that they are human beings. But of course how you treat someone says oodles more about you than them. Being mistreated by someone who is in general unpleasant and obnoxious is hardly a cause for sorrow, it's just par for the course.

Do you know what "ad hominem" means?

Of course..to the man. Usually refers to a personal attack, something you do a lot.

No, you are incorrect. You have mistaken etymology for meaning, and you appear to be ignorant of the origin of the term as well.

"Ad hominem" is short for "argumentum ad hominem." It is a logical fallacy, brought about when one disputant, in the course of refuting his opponent's argument, instead attacks the opponent. It is only defined as a logical fallacy. Personal attacks which are not part of an argument, i.e. which are not intended to "win" an argument, are not "ad hominems." There is another name for them, but they are not ad hominems.

I wish you'd stop it.

Funny, I feel exactly the same way about you. What can fix this impasse? I've tried to be very generous in my last several posts but you keep attacking me, presumably out of this notion that I haven't "earned" the right to not be attacked yet. Which as I said speaks volumes about you.

Embarassingly, I don't know who Tom Delay is

Whoa! That is embarassing! You didn't know who the Grand Imperial Wizard of the Senate....Billy Jim Bob Byrd democRAT former Klansmen was either. Wasn't your search engine working those days?

I don't see how this comment applies to this discussion at all. A flippant personal attack, versus rational political discussion. Nope, I just can't see it.

Why not, you obviously have very limited information and a blatant negative bias. Are you sure you even know who Newt is?

Nor am I certain how this comment, with its obvious negative (one is tempted to say "nasty") tone, applies to what we have been discussing.

You obviously have a blatant negative bias against Clinton, so that can't possibly be a bad thing in your eyes.

This sounds like a he said/she said problem. Don't see how we can resolve it, seeing as you don't trust my sources and I don't trust yours

Well, since your source is the impeached, disgraced ex-President, convicted perjuror and known pathological liar cLINTON, and mine isn't, I guess you're right.

You're claiming to be able to read my mind again, which is very annoying, and rather makes you look a fool. Just thought you might like to know.

I think it's a stupid idea -- nay, worse, it's thievery -- to have "republican" or "democrat" primaries that are paid for by a state's taxpayers. If the GOP truly wants to just poll its members to find out who to run for an office, let them do it on their own dime. Why should I pay for it?

Gee, I might actually agree with that, except the state allows anyone to get on the ballot in a given primary whether or not they have the blessing of the their party.

Which is as it should be, since it's an election for a state office, run by the state, for the citizens of the state. Where does "party" enter into it at all? If the party can't keep its "members" from running when it doesn't want them to, that's the party's never-mind, not the state's.

In other words, you could call yourself a dem and actually beat the candidate put up by the local democrat committee if you were well known in your community or worked harder (door to door) than the opponent did.

Ain't it grand? Sounds like real democracy at work, to me.

If, on the other hand, a state is holding a primary to winnow down a set of candidates for its final ballot, why should it take marching orders from the political parties?

It doesn't.

Doesn't now. But that's what the parties want.

The best suggestion I've heard so far is to have a totally nonpartisan ballot. Throw everybody on there and vote for your favorite. Top 2 winners run off in the final election. Perhaps this will start the process of undoing the stranglehold the GOP and Democrats have on our country?

Well, I don't care who the parties are, as long as there are only 2 of them. (Well I'd actually like to see the Rs and the Libertarians slugging it out).

Ah, now THERE would be CHOICE.

The reason for that is that in a voting body, 100% divided by 2, is either side of 50% (a majority).

This is why you have a run-off election. Not a terribly hard concept.

Wait, on second glance I see that you have changed the subject. The "voting body" you refer to is no longer the body politic, but the legislature.

Obviously you have a fear of people working together which I do not. I actually LIKE the fact that the Senate is divided 50/50; it means for the most part nothing gets passed that doesn't have at least SOME bipartisan backing, which to me is equivalent to actually having some reason to be a law at all, over and above the backing of one party. Political parties tend to be far more interested in self-preservation than in the good of the nation.

Italy's Parliament is subject to this kind of division and is a total waste and constant melee.

Seems one could come up with other ways to avoid Italian gridlock -- although I'm not certain gridlock isn't a great thing. Government is a necessary evil; having them spinning their wheels most of the time probably is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Everyone has a special interest group, it's called "free speech". I'll be you have at least two "special interest groups" lobbying on your behalf in Washington, whether you know it or not.

I don't mind that, what I mind is when the special interest group with the most chump change calls the shots in Washington. Most of the time that's Big Business.

Hey! It smelled good, I was hungry, the wife was adamant, thus my post was done. It was great!

I'm glad you enjoyed it!

Alex

---

14 Apr 01 - 11:35 AM (#440435)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: Little Hawk

Here's a possibility...

We are ALL guilty as charged of every unreasonable thing we have accused each other of while getting excited discussing political issues...ALL of us...at times.

And then at other times we're not.

We all make silly typos at times and forget to capitalize words like "Clinton".

We all show a lack of respect at times for opposing viewpoints, and take unwarranted cheap shots.

We all get carried away emotionally over issues at times, and throw logic overboard as we rave righteously on.

I know I do these things...at times. And there are times (hopefully more of them) when I don't.

So, fine. Live with it.

Why don't we just go to the beach for the day, play some volleyball, watch the seagulls, and concentrate on what we have in common for a change?

All these hot words ain't gonna change a thing anyway.

But...if you enjoy it...well, who am I to take away your pleasure? :-)

Besides, if you did follow my advice, it might kill the most long-running thread series I've seen yet...

Best wishes from Little Hawk, who is going out to enjoy the sunshine today.

---

14 Apr 01 - 11:35 AM (#440436)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: kendall

Old Maine proverb: "The more you stir a turd, the worse it stinks."

---

14 Apr 01 - 11:50 AM (#440446)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: Little Hawk

That's for damn sure.

- LH

---

14 Apr 01 - 12:58 PM (#440495)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: mousethief

Actually it's not true. The more you stir it, the more you expose the anaerobic bacteria (which are what cause the stench) to the air, which kills them.

Alex

---

14 Apr 01 - 07:49 PM (#440732)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: Little Hawk

Boy, what a nitpicker! Okay, it's true on a short term basis. Try it and see. It may not be true on a long term basis...

Sort of like Reagan's economic theories....hmmmm....

Oops! Here we go again.

- LH

---

14 Apr 01 - 08:57 PM (#440782)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: mousethief

This is a political thread, and you're surprised by nitpicking?

Alex

---

14 Apr 01 - 09:24 PM (#440798)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: mousethief

All I ask is a simple apology, and an end to your nastiness. Until you end the nastiness, I will continue to point it out. If that's flaming, so be it.

Alex

---

14 Apr 01 - 09:37 PM (#440809)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: mousethief

I don't know if we will be friends, but we don't need to be enemies!

Perhaps. I wouldn't hope for too much until you're willing to apologize for calling my grandfather a thug.

Enough is Too Much!!!

Ah, something we agree on. Will you stop, then? You say you will. But you've said that before, and you didn't. As I said earlier, I'm not holding my breath.

The only reason I'm discussing this with you at all is that you had a civil discussion in the previous thread with somebody (I forget now who) about water treatment. Which showed me a side of you I'd never seen before, and I thought "hey -- maybe this guy *IS* capable of civil discourse." It was short lived, alas, but you say you're going to be civil now, and I'm willing to let you try. But not willing to hold my breath.

I will forego the apology on the mind-reading thing, if you can come up with one for my grandfather.

Alex

---

14 Apr 01 - 09:38 PM (#440811)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: mousethief

PS are you really unable to cook, or just not feeling like it tonight? I can give you some quick-and-easy ideas for supper that might help you avoid eating popcorn when your wife is away, if you're interested.

Alex

---

14 Apr 01 - 10:27 PM (#440834)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: MAV

Thanks for the offer.

I like to cook Chinese, Thai and Indian. I also can do more normal stuff like Italian and Mexican.

We have 85 cookbooks and two killer spiceracks.

I just don't like to cook for myself.

My wife, however, really can throw down the Cajun.

mav out

---

14 Apr 01 - 10:29 PM (#440835)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: RichM

So, does anybody here want to talk about *music* ?

You know, do-re-mi etc?

:)

---

16 Apr 01 - 11:01 AM (#441639)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: mousethief

In a political thread? Horrors!

Alex

---

16 Apr 01 - 04:39 PM (#441950)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: Little Hawk

You seem to have gotten stuck on the italics key, John...

There was a statement a while back to the effect that American conservatives see "all forms of authoritarianism as the domain of the left"...that is, fascism, Stalinism, communism, etc...

Well, I know that's how they see it. I lived in Skaneateles, New York once, after all, and I personally knew otherwise rational people who thought the US government had been taken over from within by communist operatives.

However, because American conservatives see it that way doesn't make it so. Why wouldn't they think so? That's what they've been taught from birth. I remember my "social studies" classes in Skaneateles, New York. I was encouraged every day to hate communists with all my heart and soul, and to hate anything "leftist".

Communist conservatives suffer from a similar fallacy. They think that all forms of authoritarianism and oppression emanate from the right. Why wouldn't they think so? That's what they've been taught from birth. Same story...different version.

It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

The fact is, authoritarianism can function with equal effect either under a right-wing or a left-wing power structure.

In a right-wing power structure, rich men and their bought politicians (also rich men) used hired thugs, police, and soldiers to beat up and kill striking workers...from the 1800's right through till the mid-20th century. That was during the long and bloody formation of workers' unions in the developed world. Those unions secured basic human rights that we now all take for granted.

In a left-wing structure, monolithic governments have repeatedly used soldiers and police (official thugs) to do exactly the same thing.

They have both done it with equal gusto and similar effect.

What difference does it make if the thug's paycheck was signed by Joe Walton or Joe Stalin...to the striking worker who is shot and carted away to the graveyard?

Authoritarianism thrives on both the right and the left. In both cases it does so at the behest of the privileged few who control...the system, the money, the resources, and the firepower.

If someone beats me up and kills me for no good reason but to feather his own nest at my expense, what do I care if he is funded privately or by the state?

- LH

---

16 Apr 01 - 05:38 PM (#441989)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: Kim C

Hmmmm....

---

17 Apr 01 - 02:30 PM (#442718)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: mousethief

Hey, MAV, here's something we can argue about -- who is more of an enemy of the constitution than people who support the extremely unconstitutional federal ban on growing or possessing marijuana? When they wanted to make alcohol illegal, they realized they needed to amend the constitution, because the 10th amendment took away that right from the feds. But when Big Business wanted marijuana made illegal, it was done without even glancing at the Constitution.

How can a "conservative" defend the unconstitutional "war on drugs"?

Alex

---

17 Apr 01 - 02:42 PM (#442734)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: Little Hawk

Ah yes, particularly when the whole society is geared to drug use and addiction as a way of life, and a means of sustaining the economy. I'm talking about nicotine, caffeine, refined sugar, alcohol, uppers, downers, addictive over-the-counter medicines and prescriptions, TV watching, shopping addiction (the most over-consumptive civilization in history heads out dutifully each day to the mall...while the 3rd World starves), sex addiction (encouraged in almost every form of commercial advertising), fashion addiction, automobile addiction (resulting in horrors like Los Angeles freeways), gambling addiction (coming soon to your town, courtesy of the Mob), Internet addiction...

Internet addiction????

ACCCKKK!!! They got me.

- LH

---

17 Apr 01 - 02:42 PM (#442737)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: Little Hawk

Ah yes, particularly when the whole society is geared to drug use and addiction as a way of life, and a means of sustaining the economy. I'm talking about nicotine, caffeine, refined sugar, alcohol, uppers, downers, addictive over-the-counter medicines and prescriptions, TV watching, shopping addiction (the most over-consumptive civilization in history heads out dutifully each day to the mall...while the 3rd World starves), sex addiction (encouraged in almost every form of commercial advertising), fashion addiction, automobile addiction (resulting in horrors like Los Angeles freeways), gambling addiction (coming soon to your town, courtesy of the Mob), Internet addiction...

Internet addiction????

ACCCKKK!!! They got me.

- LH

---

17 Apr 01 - 03:26 PM (#442783)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: Little Hawk

"And you're sick of all this repetition..."

- Bob Dylan

...must've hit the Submit button twice, I guess. Sorry.

- LH

---

17 Apr 01 - 03:43 PM (#442796)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: Little Hawk

Alex - Here is a possible reason why the powers that be decided to make marijuana an illegal substance, despite its pretty innocuous characteristics compared to numerous legal drugs...

The ordinary public can grow, harvest, and package it with absolute ease! In their own backyards! This means it is effectively outside of the control of the money machine, unlike coffee, alcoholic beverages, heroin, refined sugar, and all manufactured pharmaceuticals. All of those require a degree of expertise to manufacture that is far beyond what is required in the case of marijuana...thus they are fairly much out of reach of the ordinary public to manufacture...thus they can support a lucrative official business structure which will provide them (at a HIGH price) to an addicted public.

Believe me, a complete idiot can grow and harvest marijuana and roll it into joints and smoke it.

I knew any number of complete idiots in the early to mid-70's who did. They couldn't cook, they couldn't clean the house, they couldn't hold down a job, but by golly they could grow and package marijuana! All you need is earth, water, sunshine, some plastic baggies, and a few rolling papers!

No way the System is gonna allow something like that, when they can't control (meaning: monopolize) the source or the marketing!!!

Better to waste the time and resources of a lot of highly trained police personnel, and keep them dollars rolling in...for the legal manufactured drugs.

- LH

---

17 Apr 01 - 04:40 PM (#442830)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: mousethief

Oh, LH, there's no end to coming up with handy theories about WHY the Governuisness wanted MJ illegal. The question is why they did it unconstitutionally, and why we continue to let them get away with it, and why anybody who can roll such terms as "enemies of the constitution" off their tongue like they were kissing their wife can put up with it.

Don't forget the power of DuPont (hemp rope cut into their nylon rope market) and Hearst (hemp fiber paper cut into his wood fiber paper market).

Alex

---

18 Apr 01 - 12:18 AM (#443162)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: GUEST,MAV

Hey, MAV, here's something we can argue about......How can a "conservative" defend the unconstitutional "war on drugs"?

SURPRISE!

Sorry, I believe it (MJ) is a naturally occuring plant, not a lab creation.

I did say I was a libertarian Republican didn't I?

Try agin tommorrow.

mav out

---

18 Apr 01 - 01:49 AM (#443204)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: CarolC

About the question of rising sea levels. A year or so ago I read or heard somewhere that scientists are now using a technology that is similar to what surveyors use to measure distance, in order to determine whether or not the sea level is rising.

Apparently, they are bouncing signals from satelites off of the ocean surface and measuring the amount of time it takes them to get back to the satelite. It's kind of like bouncing a beam from a theodolite off of a surveyor's rod and measuring the time it takes to get back to the theodolite.

This is supposed to be a very accurate way of measuring changes in sea level. If my memory serves me correctly, they said they have detected a rise in sea level since they started measuring using this method. Has anyone else heard anything about this?

---

18 Apr 01 - 09:41 AM (#443366)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: Little Hawk

MAV - If you are saying that you are NOT in favour of regarding a naturally growing plant (MJ) as an illicit substance, and that you are not in favour of treating people who grow it and personally use it as criminals...

Then we are in agreement on this one.

I have no interest in smoking MJ, by the way, I just don't think other people should be prosecuted for so doing in the privacy of their own homes. I don't smoke, period...tobacco or marijuana.

- LH

---

18 Apr 01 - 10:16 PM (#444011)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: MAV

Hey Mouse,

It never made sense to me.

I guess I feel the same about coca leaves and poppies, but not the refined concentrated products.

I also would differentiate between adults and kids having the right to possess.

We have a "medical marijuana" law here.

mav out

---

18 Apr 01 - 10:54 PM (#444047)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: MAV

Dear Carol,

Good to hear from you.

This is supposed to be a very accurate way of measuring changes in sea level. If my memory serves me correctly, they said they have detected a rise in sea level since they started measuring using this method. Has anyone else heard anything about this?

Here is a little reading material which relies on a very low tech method of measuring the level of the ocean.

Falling sea level rock, Part one

Falling sea level rock, Part two

Still some more stuff

There are also reports on volcanic activity under the ice cap and many other natural phenomenon that are causing "symptoms".

I also have read that satellite data has been embarassingly unsupportive of the global warming theory.

I'll see if I have any information on that.

Talk to you later,

mav out

PS. By the way, when they start getting accurate weather forcasts 5 days out, maybe I'll start paying attention to their 50 year predictions.

---

18 Apr 01 - 10:57 PM (#444048)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: GUEST,Bruce O.

Anybody catch the Mark Russell special on PBS tonight at 8:00 PM? He closed with his song about arsenic in your water. I just got the heading typed up when I was told in no uncertain terms that it was time for dinner, and after dinner I couldn't remember the verses.

---

18 Apr 01 - 11:10 PM (#444052)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: CarolC

Hi MAV,

I had some trouble with your links. I'm using an old browser and it sometimes cause problems with links. Could you post the URLs for the sites you want me to look at? Thanks.

Carol

---

19 Apr 01 - 01:20 AM (#444114)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: DougR

Well, Guest Bruce O., maybe you haven't heard the latest, but I heard today that the Bush administration is revisiting the Arsenic in the water thingy. It is still not clear to me why anyone would be so surprised that a new administration would not look carefully, and yes, study, any last minute laws initiated as Executive Order by an outgoing President. Seems prudent to me.

DougR

---

19 Apr 01 - 01:33 AM (#444122)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: CarolC

DougR, I think Bruce O. would just like someone to provide him with the verses to the song which, being by Mark Russell, were most probably a part of a comedy routine. Bruce O. probably found them amusing.

---

19 Apr 01 - 06:28 PM (#444856)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: MAV

Dear Carol,

Sure, I'll put them here so you can copy/paste them.

1) www.greeningearthsociety.org/Articles/2000/sea.htm

2) www.john-daly.com/ross1841.htm

3) www.john-daly.com/evidence.htm

Going out for a seafood platter, best get moving.

See you later

mav out

---

19 Apr 01 - 06:31 PM (#444863)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: mousethief

Bon appetit!

Alex

---

19 Apr 01 - 07:05 PM (#444905)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: toadfrog

Doug R:

The Wall Street Journal printed an article today on the Arsenic issue, which I recommend you read. The regulation which Mr. Bush cancelled was under consideration for seventeen years before being put into effect. "Dozens of studies" were conducted. The margin of safety for Arsenic (in federal regulations) "is lower than for virtually any other substance the EPA regulates." On the other hand, it is expensive to get rid of, so that very large outfits like ARCO (which runs Anaconda Copper) hired people to prove that Arsenic really isn't dangerous. And then suppressed the studies when the results showed that yes, it really was that dangerous. The article mentions three additional instances where scientists were misquoted, or bribery was attempted, in an effort to make it appear that Arsenic really wasn't all that bad.

So with this background, our President now tells us, that Clinton made a decision "at the very last minute," which he, George W. Bush, "pulled back," "so that we can make a decision based on sound science."

All this is in today's WSJ. I read it every day, and in my opinion the WSJ is not infected by any liberal bias.

Sorry Doug R., but Mr. Bush does not impress me.

---

19 Apr 01 - 07:14 PM (#444911)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: mousethief

Toad, can you give us page number for that? I want to get a copy and with the page number I can make sure it's in the edition I have.

Alex

---

19 Apr 01 - 10:34 PM (#445037)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: DougR

Toad: No apology necessary at all. I would merely point out that the Clinton administation had seven years to do something about the problem, if one exists, but they didn't do anything about it until weeks before a new administration came to Washington. I stand by my belief that any new president (representing the views of either party) should be given the latitude to review last minute Executive Orders. I will read the article, however. Thanks for recommending it.

DougR

---

20 Apr 01 - 12:21 AM (#445109)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: CarolC

Thanks for the URLs MAV. I've read some of what's in them. There's a lot of stuff in there, so I probably won't be able to read all of it any time soon.

I'm reluctant to take the information in those sites at face value at this time because I have quite a few concerns and questions that I would want to have addressed before I did.

For instance, I notice that all three sites are authored by the same person. What is his background? What are his qualifications? Who is the driving force behind his organization? Is it a grassroots effort, or is there any coporate money involved anywhere along the line? How many scientists agree with his findings? What do other scientists have to say about his findings?

Then there are questions about conflicting evidence. What sort of explanation does he have for the fact that (according to what I heard), the polar ice caps are calving at much higher rates than previously? Also the fact that there are areas of bare ground in Antarctica where there previously been a thick layer of ice?

Also the landmasses that are already disappearing, such as Smith Island in the Chesapeake bay, and possibly some of the Florida keys?

And I had a problem with this bit...

Since the tide follows the moon, the tides will be higher in those regions where the moon's orbital path periodically takes it "high" in the sky, and lower in those regions where the moon's orbit periodically takes it "lower" in the sky.

I would think it would be the other way around. I would think that a closer proximity would cause a higher tide because the force of gravity would be greater. If I'm right, then I would probably have some serious questions about whether or not Mr. Daly is qualified to promote himself as an expert or even a scientist regarding these kinds of issues.

I think I would want to hear Mr. Daly having an in depth discussion with several other people from various scientific disciplines, as well as knowing whether or not he or his backers (if he has any) have any kind of axe to grind, financial or otherwise, before I would base any decisions on his findings.

Thanks for sharing that stuff with me.

Carol

---

20 Apr 01 - 08:12 AM (#445224)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: GUEST,Greg F.- remote computer

Oh, c'mon now, Carol! Its posted on the 'Net on someone's personal website(s). It must be true! And don't be too hard on the guy 'cause he got an arcane piece of scientific theory like gravity wrong.

Best, Greg

---

20 Apr 01 - 11:37 AM (#445369)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: CarolC

Hi Greg. I appreciate your input. Somehow, I have a feeling that my post will get a more thoughtful response from MAV than yours will. I could be wrong, but I strongly suspect it's the case.

And seeing as how a thoughtful response was what I was looking for (rather than a fight), I hope I'm right.

Carol

---

20 Apr 01 - 11:55 AM (#445388)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: Skeptic

Carol,

You may also want to look Here for the alternate view from the 3000+ scientists who do believe in global warming.

Is there a possibility that teh Greening Earth Society is right. Yes. IMO a minimal one. If they are it would seem to count as being a good guess versus good science.

Regards

John

---

20 Apr 01 - 12:09 PM (#445398)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: CarolC

Hi Skeptic. Thanks for posting the link. I can't get it to work, probably for the same reasons I couldn't get MAV's to work. (Old technology on my computer.)

Would you mind posting the URL for that site? Thanks.

Carol

---

20 Apr 01 - 02:29 PM (#445490)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: Skeptic

Carol,

The url is: http://www.ipcc.ch/. This is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Another is: http://www.pnas.org/ which is the homepage fro the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. A search on "Global Warning" will bring up a number of articles that deal with the issue, pro and con.

One that I read argues the possibility that it is non-CO2 gases that are the real problem, for example, refelcting (sort of) what Mav has been saying. The difference being that the conclusions in the Proceedings are not nearly as dogmatic as Daly's.

Still, the Greening Earth site makes interesting reading. Their concentration on the physical sea level measurements is interesting. I understand the IPCC (and NASA and others) have started using satellite based measurements. (Or maybe have been using it for a while) which may resolve that particular issue.

The real issue is to come up with something to explain all the phenomena - the purported rising sea level, climate changes, glacier and snow pack data and all the rest. Saying it's normal climatic variation begs the question as it has a lot of the earmarks of a non-falsifiable claim. If the Greening people (and others) want to be taken seriously, they really need to do more than say "see, this piece doesn't fit, that means the whole thing is wrong". IMO anyway.

Regards

John

---

20 Apr 01 - 02:30 PM (#445491)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: Greg F.

Hullo, yourself, Carol-

Skeptic's Site Address is:
http://www.ipcc.ch/

I suspect "MAV" and "thoughtful" are mutually exclusive terms. I could be wrong, but I strongly suspect it's the case. ;-)

Best, Greg

---

20 Apr 01 - 02:32 PM (#445494)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: mousethief

Greg is this "preponderance of evidence" or "beyond a reasonable doubt"?

---

20 Apr 01 - 02:41 PM (#445506)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: CarolC

I dunno, Greg. MAV has given me some thoughtful responses before. I bet he can do it again.

Thanks Skeptic and Greg for the addresses.

Carol

---

20 Apr 01 - 03:06 PM (#445530)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: Greg F.

Primarily the former, Alex; the latter would depend on your definition of "reasonable"  :-)

You appear to be singularly favored, Carol. Enjoy it while you can!  ;-)

Best, Greg

---

20 Apr 01 - 10:11 PM (#445850)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: MAV

Dear Carol,

I wanted to be sure you understand that I don't absolutely deny the existance of global warming.

I'm not real convinced that we have anything to do with it though.

I believe it may have a political agenda, 31 years ago they were warning about a coming ice age.

I also have seen evidence that the government weather system can't predict out 5 days accurately (How about that foot of snow you were supposed to get last month in DC?) So, just like other "the sky is falling" issues, I have my doubts.

Here are some other examples, "salt is bad for you", "Eggs are bad for you", "sacharine will cause you to get cancer", "high fiber diets get rid of cholesterol".

The proof of actual global warming is not beyond a reasonable doubt and based on computer models. Since I believe in looking at both sides of an issue, I will go to the sites provided by the others and see what they have to say.

I have a feeling that we may be in a slight temporary global warming trend which is caused by solar cycles. Within the last week we were blasted by a massive solar flare which is caused by cyclical sunspot activity.

I got some other urls here Carol for home water treatment. I'll put them up here but I haven't looked at them yet myself.

www.johnellis.com

www.waterwise.com

www.filterdirect.com

www.puritywater.com

Talk to you later.

mav out

---

20 Apr 01 - 11:06 PM (#445873)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: CarolC

Interesting points, MAV. And thanks for posting the URLs.

Carol

---

20 Apr 01 - 11:39 PM (#445888)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: Little Hawk

It's true that there have been any number of flip-flops on these issues. I have heard over the years that chocolate, coffee, aspirin, and a host of other things are very...

bad for me...

or very...

good for me...

And I expect I will hear more such contradictions in short order, all backed up by the most reliable sources.

We were supposed to get a BIG snowstorm here on Monday night too according to the weathermen. It never happened. No snow. Zip. Thank God! I am sick of snow at this point.

- LH

---

21 Apr 01 - 12:36 AM (#445898)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: mousethief

In general I expect that eating whole foods is good for you, as well as exercising (within reason) and cutting down on empty calories. These things I'm willing to "buy into" because they don't need obtuse studies to make them plausible.

Alex

---

21 Apr 01 - 07:30 PM (#446312)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: Little Hawk

Good point, Alex.

By the way, the thread I launched that compared George W. Bush to psoriasis ("2 Reasons why Dubya is better than psoriasis") may have unduly offended certain conservatives around here. If so, it's unfortunate, because the main purpose of that thread was NOT to go after George W. Bush...but to satirize 2 other threads which had appeared on that same day:

Namely..."99 Reasons why guitars are better than girls" and a counterattack that was launched against it called "100 reasons why guitars are better than men". I could not stand by and allow such annoying threads to go by without satirizing them. Accordinly, I thought..."what can I do that will make fun of these threads in a totally ridiculous way?"

I came up with a thread entitled: "12 reasons why camels are better than llamas". It turned out to be a lot of fun, and got a lot of contributions. Who needs 99 reasons, anyway? 12 are entirely enough.

Then I came up with an even briefer concept: "2 Reasons why Dubya is better than psoriasis".

Now, anyone who thinks that I was SERIOUSLY saying anthing about Dubya in launching that thread is missing the point. It was a satirical humorous attack on the men/girls/guitars nonsense, that's all. It was theatre of the absurd, and an obvious red flag to attract any liberal bull who might be pacing the arena at that moment, looking to make a wisecrack or 2.

I could just as well have said "2 reasons why Bill Clinton is better than a nosebleed", and it would have served exactly the same purpose. The joke was not aimed at the politician, but at the thread concept.

Okay? Ostracize me if you want to, but not over a mere silly joke...

- LH

p.s. And if I'm totally off the beam about this whole thing...well, it wouldn't be the first time that happened, I'm sure.

---

21 Apr 01 - 07:42 PM (#446316)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: CarolC

Well, Little Hawk, at least you didn't start a thread called "2 Reasons why psoriasis is better than Dubya". (*BG*)

---

21 Apr 01 - 10:29 PM (#446392)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: CarolC

Excellent MAV! (nice HTML, too, by the way)

---

22 Apr 01 - 09:11 AM (#446563)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: MAV

Dear Ebbie,

You had said early in "Nine"...

Mav, I'm with you on that subject: We need to compel ourselves to put in plumbing, however much it costs, that separates 'white', 'gray' and 'black' water. As it stands (or flows) now, our best water is going into the same sewage systems that treat our most polluted water.

If we had had the forethought, when indoor plumbing was first installed- not really so many years ago- to separate the systems, we would readily see the sense of it.

And it's not too late.

Here's an answer, this could be installed anywhere (especially cities).

Ecolet

mav out

---

22 Apr 01 - 12:56 PM (#446648)
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
From: Little Hawk

Hi there!

Hmmm...gotta brush up on my HTML...

I'll need it for the Ebay ads, anyway.

Okay, then.

Stay tuned for Bushwhacked-11, on the way soon, I'm sure.

- LH

---