Saw "the movie"
Ejucaided Redneck
first showing, a matinee in an afternoon marked by massive
thunderstorms.
_Everybody_ oughta see it.
The real cost of war is hidden from most of us. We really oughta have
the courage to look at what our taxes –and our children's taxes, and
_their_ children's taxes– are being used for. Moore's film makes it
possible for us to take a brief look.
You'll see:
. . .the emotional agony of Americans who lost family in the WTC
bombing.
. . .an Iraqi man's rage after he places a baby's body in a pickup
truck to be carried to a mass grave after the bombing of Baghdad. I
have no doubt that guy's either toting a gun in "the insurgency," or
happily assisting those who are.
. . .an old woman's loud grief when a block of homes is bombed.
"There's no militia here!" she shrieks. Then she begs her god to bring
the same sort of terror and destruction and death –she reports her
family has had five funerals in a week– onto _our_ houses.
. . some kids you may have seen hanging out at the mall last year
conducting a middle-of-the-night raid on an Iraqi house in a scene
reminiscent of old black and white movies showing raids in Germany or
Russia. Those kids from the 4he mall are every bit the equal in terror
of the Gestapo or NKVD
. . . young Americans without legs, without hands, "in rehab," the
on-set of a life-long installment plan of personal payment toward the
war effort. One kid talks about being in constant pain that's only held
at bay with large doses of morphine, his young face contorting with
spasms and tics while he tries to explain what his life has become.
. . . a bombing, which appears to be the beginning of a fire-fight,
though they don't stay with the scene long enough to really tell what
happens. Some youngsters are dreadfully injured though. You don't
smell the cordite get splashed with warm blood, but it's as close as
most of us are gonna get to what happens to our troops every day.
. . .an Iraqi child screaming in agony as his head wounds are cleaned.
And much, much more.
We're paying for it, some of us are cheering it, and all of us oughta go
see what we're buying. We're getting a lot of bang for our buck.
And we need to ask ourselves is it worth the _real_ cost, which Michael
Moore has brought home for us to see.
--
Farther along we'll know all about it
Farther along we'll understand why
Cheer up, my brother live in the sunshine
We'll understand it all by and by
"Farther Along"
--
http://www.bobsloansampler.com:
Chapter 1 of "Home Call," a novel to be released July 1st
Links to and about "Bearskin to Holly Fork: Stories From Appalachia,"
Latest Herald-Leader Column: http://tinyurl.com/2amz7
Fiction, poetry, essays, MP3s, radio & TV interviews
Dr Zen
wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 18:17:22 -0400, Ejucaided Redneck said in
>misc.writing:
>
>>My wife and I saw "Fahrenheit 9-11" in Lexington KY yesterday at its
>>first showing, a matinee in an afternoon marked by massive
>>thunderstorms.
>
>I just saw it this afternoon with my 18 year-old son.
>
>>_Everybody_ oughta see it.
>
>I agree completely. Whether you love Michael Moore or hate him,
>the issues that he raises need to be discussed.
>
><snip examples>
>
>>We're paying for it, some of us are cheering it, and all of us oughta go
>>see what we're buying. We're getting a lot of bang for our buck.
>>
>>And we need to ask ourselves is it worth the _real_ cost, which Michael
>>Moore has brought home for us to see.
>
>Yes.
>
>I encourage everyone reading this to see Fahrenheit 9/11.
You forgot to add "and vote the cunts out".
Zen
Wendy Chatley Green
:
:I encourage everyone reading this to see Fahrenheit 9/11.
I encouraged everyone to see "The Triplets of Belleville" and
no thundering herds stormed the theaters. <sigh>
I like my fact sources much more varied and unbiased. Michael
Moore did well with "Roger and Me", but IMO, he has joined Geraldo and
others in "Look at me" journalism and he is no longer as worthwhile as
a read of the indigenous papers or a broad selection of
well-researched articles.
YM undoubtedly V.
--
Wendy Chatley Green
wcg...@cris.com
Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady
>For some inexplicable reasons, Paul Harwood <pa...@wrevel.com> wrote:
>
>:
>:I encourage everyone reading this to see Fahrenheit 9/11.
>
> I encouraged everyone to see "The Triplets of Belleville" and
>no thundering herds stormed the theaters. <sigh>
I was trying my hardest to thunder like a herd, but it never got here.
<double sigh>
> I like my fact sources much more varied and unbiased. Michael
>Moore did well with "Roger and Me", but IMO, he has joined Geraldo and
>others in "Look at me" journalism and he is no longer as worthwhile as
>a read of the indigenous papers or a broad selection of
>well-researched articles.
>
> YM undoubtedly V.
An astute reviewer on IMDb http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361596/ said
"The joy of this type of film is that no balance is required. This is
the filmmaker's viewpoint, no more no less". Roger Ebert opens his
review http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/cst-ftr-moore24f.html
saying "Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" is less an expose of George
W. Bush than a dramatization of what Moore sees as a failed and
dangerous presidency".
Seems to me that for those who will disagree with Moore, they'll see
it as bad fiction, and for those who will agree with Moore, they'll
see it as a hard-hitting documentary.
(I doubt anyone will change their minds about either Bush or Moore by
going to see this film.)
--
Davida Chazan (The Chocolate Lady)
<davidac AT jdc DOT org DOT il>
~*~*~*~*~*~
"What you see before you, my friend, is the result of a lifetime of
chocolate."
--Katharine Hepburn (May 12, 1907 - June 29, 2003)
~*~*~*~*~*~
Archer
Is the Holocaust a Jewish lie?
Didn't Jesus really die?
Does your mom fuck every guy
In town, and teenage boys, besides?
Don't get mad! It's the season
For calm, objective reason
No matter how displeasin'
Every issue has two sides.
________________________
Short-sheeting the bunks at the Trickle-Down Bible Camp!
http://tunafishnews.blogspot.com/
fundoc
"Ejucaided Redneck" <rls...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:40DDF5F2...@mindspring.com...
> My wife and I saw "Fahrenheit 9-11" in Lexington KY
Nobody gives a fuck what you think you dull cracker fuck.
<Snip Goober goes to the picture show travelogue>
Ejucaided Redneck
> (I doubt anyone will change their minds about either Bush or Moore by
> going to see this film.)
newspaper coverage that gave the Shrubbists a critical bye at i5ts onset
see the film, I suspect minds _will_ be changed,.
Americans have been shielded from the kind of reporting that turned
public opinion during the Vietnam debacle. "Fahrenheit 9-11" is in that
tradition, and could have considerable impact.
The film opened very strongly and if that continues it'll change lots of
minds. The Associated Press reports a one day gross of 8.2 million
dollars, ahead of it's nearest competitor by a million and a half
dollars, while showing on about a third as many screens.
Moore says the video/DVD will be out in late September or early October,
and that will have an impact as well.
The screening I attended in Lexington appeared to be mostly attended by
people who were already strongly anti-Shrub and opposed to his Iraqi
adventurism. If the film's numbers are still strong in a week, that
would indicate it's going to have an impact on the election.
--
This is a government of the people, by the people
and for the people no longer. It is a government of
corporations, by corporations, and for corporations."
-- Rutherford B. Hayes
--
Here's what I think the truth is: We are
all addicts of fossil fuels in a state of denial,
about to face cold turkey. And like so many
addicts about to face cold turkey, our leaders
are now committing violent crimes to get what
little is left of what we're hooked on.
-- Kurt Vonnegut
Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady
<rls...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>The screening I attended in Lexington appeared to be mostly attended by
>people who were already strongly anti-Shrub and opposed to his Iraqi
>adventurism.
This is what I'm saying. I somehow doubt that someone who is
fervently pro-Bush will go to see this film. And even if they do, I
also somehow doubt that they'll suddenly "see the light". I think
that those people will come away from the movie just calling it yet
another a pack of lies.
>If the film's numbers are still strong in a week, that
>would indicate it's going to have an impact on the election.
I think it would be more of an indication that people have already
become disenchanted with Bush and just need something to push them one
way or another. Its those people who are still on the fence that this
film is, I believe, most likely aimed at. Not those who have already
made up their minds one way or another.
fundoc
> it's nearest competitor
Archer
At the same time we discussed how the same "connect whatever dots you think
happen to be dots" technique is also the province of paranoid schizophrenics
and anti-Semites. No matter whose side you're on, a self-sufficent adult must
learn to recognize manipulative technique. If you can't recognize it coming
from your allies, you'll be in trouble when you get it from your enemies.
Alan Hope
>I think it would be more of an indication that people have already
>become disenchanted with Bush and just need something to push them one
>way or another. Its those people who are still on the fence that this
>film is, I believe, most likely aimed at. Not those who have already
>made up their minds one way or another.
General elections do tend to depend more on a small number of swing
voters than on the settled members of opposing camps though, don't
they? Neither Bob Sloan nor Wayne Lutz is ever going to move across
the floor, we can be fairly sure. But lots of people do, and they can
determine the result.
Psephologists have this sort of calculation down to a fine art, which
they call psephology, by a weird sort of coincidence.
--
AH
Jackson Pillock
"Archer" <arch...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040627113336...@mb-m02.aol.com...
: I found the movie quite compelling, of course, and so did my two kids
(19,15).
: At the same time we discussed how the same "connect whatever dots you
think
: happen to be dots" technique is also the province of paranoid
schizophrenics
: and anti-Semites. No matter whose side you're on, a self-sufficent adult
must
: learn to recognize manipulative technique. If you can't recognize it
coming
: from your allies, you'll be in trouble when you get it from your enemies.
I see what you mean. MM is a bit too grassy-knoll for me. Still, I'll
probably go and see the movie, since I liked Bowling for Collumbine.
pandora
>
> > (I doubt anyone will change their minds about either Bush or Moore by
> > going to see this film.)
>
> If people whose understanding of this war is based on the TV and
> newspaper coverage that gave the Shrubbists a critical bye at i5ts onset
> see the film, I suspect minds _will_ be changed,.
One can hope.
> Americans have been shielded from the kind of reporting that turned
> public opinion during the Vietnam debacle. "Fahrenheit 9-11" is in that
> tradition, and could have considerable impact.
>
> The film opened very strongly and if that continues it'll change lots of
> minds. The Associated Press reports a one day gross of 8.2 million
> dollars, ahead of it's nearest competitor by a million and a half
> dollars, while showing on about a third as many screens.
>
> Moore says the video/DVD will be out in late September or early October,
> and that will have an impact as well.
>
> The screening I attended in Lexington appeared to be mostly attended by
> people who were already strongly anti-Shrub and opposed to his Iraqi
> adventurism. If the film's numbers are still strong in a week, that
> would indicate it's going to have an impact on the election.
I will be seeing it next weekend.
Marg
William Penrose
<fundocx-no-archive:y...@skycap.com> wrote:
>
>"Ejucaided Redneck" <rls...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:40DDF5F2...@mindspring.com...
>
>> My wife and I saw "Fahrenheit 9-11" in Lexington KY
>
>Nobody gives a fuck what you think you dull cracker fuck.
Don't speak for me.
Funny how RWZs start showing their inner selves when they see their
glorious leader about to go down in flames.
For Cheney its, "Go Fuck Yourself," from you, it's...well, you know...
Bill Penrose
pandora
"Jackson Pillock" <Jac...@splatter.com> wrote in message
news:cbn7dr$cjq$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
Columbine_ but my daughter and her husband brought it over one night and
made me watch it. It was very interesting. They're good *kids*.
Marg
Edmond Fisher
"Dr Zen" <gol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d8tsd0hink211m2gn...@4ax.com...
Yeah, then we can vote in the radically different John Kerry who'll stop the
war, reverse the Patriot Act, stop corporate influence in government,
provide universal healthcare and college, and restore the economy.
--Edmond Fisher--
pandora
"Edmond Fisher" <n...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:I7JDc.78453$tH1.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
That would be a nice start.
>reverse the Patriot Act,
I think that would be good as well.
>stop corporate influence in government,
Let's work on it at least.
> provide universal healthcare and college, and restore the economy.
Hey, it's possible. We just need to give the right people the chance to
try.
Marg
> --Edmond Fisher--
>
>
fundoc
"William Penrose" <spenro...@wowway.com> wrote in message
news:ereud0pm65v37ggbo...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 13:04:02 GMT, "fundoc"
> <fundocx-no-archive:y...@skycap.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ejucaided Redneck" <rls...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:40DDF5F2...@mindspring.com...
> >
> >> My wife and I saw "Fahrenheit 9-11" in Lexington KY
> >
> >Nobody gives a fuck what you think you dull cracker fuck.
>
> Don't speak for me.
Good point, Penrose: I'd have to be very very stupid to speak for you.
Dr Zen
wrote:
I know the RWCs are trying to spread the idea that Kerry is no
different from Bush, and yes, he's a more conservative Democrat than a
lot of liberals would like, but the truth of it is, whether he
reverses the Patriot Act or not, he doesn't bring Rummy, Wolfo, Perle
and the crew with him.
It's the lesser of two evils, and one is a very great evil. Do your
duty, Edmond, and like I say, vote the cunts out.
Zen
Ray Haddad
>Hey, it's possible. We just need to give the right people the chance to
>try.
Every communist government on earth states the same line.
Ray
I have met the enemy, the gods of SPAM, and I have triumphed.
Edmond Fisher
"pandora" <pan...@peak.org> wrote in message
news:tN6dnb_aTej...@scnresearch.com...
He said he won't, and he voted for it.
>
> >reverse the Patriot Act,
>
> I think that would be good as well.
He supported it already.
>
> >stop corporate influence in government,
>
> Let's work on it at least.
He's accepted more corporate donations than any other senator in history.
>
> > provide universal healthcare and college, and restore the economy.
>
> Hey, it's possible. We just need to give the right people the chance to
> try.
Yeah, I agree. Unfortunately John F. Kerry and George W. Bush aren't on the
list of right people. They might as well run on the same ticket.
>
> Marg
>
> > --Edmond Fisher--
> >
> >
>
>
Edmond Fisher
He'll bring different people who want the same things. Their intentions
will just be masked instead of out in the open as they are now. Ever listen
to The Who?
What are the Democrats thinking choosing a stiff, boring candidate (again)
who barely even opposes Bush's foreign policy? They have good reason to be
afraid of Nader -- he's the only real dissenting voice, and I wouldn't be
surprised if he took just enough votes to "steal" the election for Bush.
>
> It's the lesser of two evils, and one is a very great evil.
> Do your
> duty, Edmond, and like I say, vote the cunts out.
Oh, please. What are they doing that makes them so much more evil than
anybody else? They act out of their own self-interests, exactly what you'd
expect from people running the most powerful country in the world.
>
> Zen
Dr Zen
wrote:
Yes, I know. I'm not suggesting that Kerry will ride in on a white
charger.
>What are the Democrats thinking choosing a stiff, boring candidate (again)
>who barely even opposes Bush's foreign policy? They have good reason to be
>afraid of Nader -- he's the only real dissenting voice, and I wouldn't be
>surprised if he took just enough votes to "steal" the election for Bush.
>
The Democrats are thinking that Americans won't vote for a liberal.
>>
>> It's the lesser of two evils, and one is a very great evil.
>> Do your
>> duty, Edmond, and like I say, vote the cunts out.
>
>Oh, please. What are they doing that makes them so much more evil than
>anybody else? They act out of their own self-interests, exactly what you'd
>expect from people running the most powerful country in the world.
There are thousands, millions maybe, brighter, more able men and
women. Why aren't they?
Zen
Father Luke
There is funny thing happening to P2P users looking for prints of
this. There is file that is called:
Fahrenheit 911 Michael Moore Limited (Cannes '04) Xvid Screener -Nox
Its an uncompressed 700mg - 800mg AVI file that lasts 56 seconds and
only shows someone chopping an onion.
Father Luke
Wendy Chatley Green
:.. which reminds me of yet another great scene in F 9/11, when
:Moore, on hearing that pretty much nobody in Congress had read
:the PATRIOT Act prior to passing it (as, unfortunately, is the
:case with most legislation), conned an ice-cream guy into letting
:him ride around the Capitol while reading the Act over the
:truck's loudspeaker system.
Great theater, but no direct effect on policy. All sound and
fury, signifying nothing....
--
Wendy Chatley Green
wcg...@cris.com
pandora
"Ray Haddad" <rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote in message
news:r75vd0lirr5oh7t5p...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 18:42:38 -0700, "pandora" <pan...@peak.org> wrote:
>
> >Hey, it's possible. We just need to give the right people the chance to
> >try.
>
> Every communist government on earth states the same line.
So, all other governments are by the wrong people?
Marg
Kurt Ullman
>
>"Ray Haddad" <rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote in message
>news:r75vd0lirr5oh7t5p...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 18:42:38 -0700, "pandora" <pan...@peak.org> wrote:
>>
>> >Hey, it's possible. We just need to give the right people the chance to
>> >try.
>>
>> Every communist government on earth states the same line.
>
>So, all other governments are by the wrong people?
>
>Marg
>
There is a well known school of thought that posits ALL governments are
by the wrong people.
"The major problem - one of the major problems, for there are several
- one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get
to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To
summarize: it is a well known fact, that those people who most want to rule
people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary:
anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no
account be allowed to do the job."
The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
--
"Salary is the only biological variable which peaks
after the age of 25. Somebody once suggested female libido is another
but I completely reject that because female libido and salary are
not independent variables."
Dr. Neil Barnes
Josh Hill
wrote:
>Oh, please. What are they doing that makes them so much more evil than
>anybody else?
Seems to me I could list a lot of examples, from dismantling
environmental regulations to letting power companies steal California
blind to tax cuts for the rich to the partial ban on stem cell
research. What's so subtle about that?
> They act out of their own self-interests, exactly what you'd
>expect from people running the most powerful country in the world.
That would appear to be a non-sequitur. Why would someone who runs the
most powerful country in the world be more likely to act out of
self-interest than someone who runs a less powerful country? In any
case, the assertion is wrong in the first place, since there's no
evidence that politicians always act out of self-interest; like all of
us, they act out of mixed motives, with some being more
self-interested than others.
--
Josh
To reply by email, delete "REMOVE" from the email address.
Edmond Fisher
"Josh Hill" <Josh44...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:tie0e0pjbgc0qlg1p...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 05:47:58 GMT, "Edmond Fisher" <n...@nc.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Oh, please. What are they doing that makes them so much more evil than
> >anybody else?
>
> Seems to me I could list a lot of examples, from dismantling
> environmental regulations
If you noticed (and this is written in Michael Moore's own book), Bush only
returned the environmental levels to where they were when Clinton was in
office. Clinton, right before he left office, enacted a bunch of
environmental measures to go into effect in 2004. Bush got in trouble when
he reversed those back to the normal level.
> to letting power companies steal California
> blind
So it's Bush's fault power companies gouged California? There wouldn't even
be a problem if they had allowed a couple more nuclear power plants to be
built.
> to tax cuts for the rich
I bet you got a tax cut, are you rich?
> to the partial ban on stem cell
> research.
That's a matter of religious point of view. I personally would support stem
cell research, but, considering where Bush's support comes from, I'm
surprised there's not a full ban.
> What's so subtle about that?
Nothing.
>
> > They act out of their own self-interests, exactly what you'd
> >expect from people running the most powerful country in the world.
>
> That would appear to be a non-sequitur. Why would someone who runs the
> most powerful country in the world be more likely to act out of
> self-interest than someone who runs a less powerful country?
It's exactly what you'd expect from anyone in a position of power. They
just happen to have the means to carry it out.
> In any
> case, the assertion is wrong in the first place, since there's no
> evidence that politicians always act out of self-interest; like all of
> us, they act out of mixed motives, with some being more
> self-interested than others.
The evidence is in the history of human civilization, since the beginning of
the Agricultural Revolution 12,000 years ago. Sure, there are different
degrees and the occasionally "unselfish act," but, on the whole, they look
out for #1 and the rich people who got and can keep them there.
Edmond Fisher
So the question is: would you rather have the enemy hiding or out in the
open?
>
> >What are the Democrats thinking choosing a stiff, boring candidate
(again)
> >who barely even opposes Bush's foreign policy? They have good reason to
be
> >afraid of Nader -- he's the only real dissenting voice, and I wouldn't be
> >surprised if he took just enough votes to "steal" the election for Bush.
> >
>
> The Democrats are thinking that Americans won't vote for a liberal.
Then they'll lose again. It must be pretty hard to know if Americans will
vote for a liberal if they never nominate one for the Presidency. Perhaps
if they looked at the polls, where a large percentage of Americans flatly
oppose Bush's foreign policy, they'd realize they have a better chance
running someone who diametrically opposes W.
>
> >>
> >> It's the lesser of two evils, and one is a very great evil.
> >> Do your
> >> duty, Edmond, and like I say, vote the cunts out.
> >
> >Oh, please. What are they doing that makes them so much more evil than
> >anybody else? They act out of their own self-interests, exactly what
you'd
> >expect from people running the most powerful country in the world.
>
> There are thousands, millions maybe, brighter, more able men and
> women. Why aren't they?
I wouldn't say they are not bright people. The "more able" aren't running
the country because they probably don't have the resources and support from
the right people.
>
> Zen
Kurt Ullman
<n...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>If you noticed (and this is written in Michael Moore's own book), Bush only
>returned the environmental levels to where they were when Clinton was in
>office. Clinton, right before he left office, enacted a bunch of
>environmental measures to go into effect in 2004. Bush got in trouble when
>he reversed those back to the normal level.
>
Yep. Clinton was so enamored of the environment that he put in force a bunch
of rules and regs 7 years into his administration. These weren't Clinton's
initiatvies, these were Clinton's "Gotchas" that were put in solely to play
mindgames with incoming people. (Which,in fairness to Clinton, is a
time-honored tradition if the successor isn't of your party).
>The evidence is in the history of human civilization, since the beginning of
>the Agricultural Revolution 12,000 years ago. Sure, there are different
>degrees and the occasionally "unselfish act," but, on the whole, they look
>out for #1 and the rich people who got and can keep them there.
Yeah I was wondering what alternative univserse that guy was in. The basis
of being elected (or heck even maintaining power in most every other place) is
to keep those who keep you power happy. The Dems buy off their people and the
GOP buys off there's. Heck even dictators have people they have to buy off
(most often having to do with the military).
Marg Petersen
"Kurt Ullman" <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5VWDc.3875$lh4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Yes.
Marg
Dr Zen
wrote:
It's quite simply the lesser of two evils.
>>
>> >What are the Democrats thinking choosing a stiff, boring candidate
>(again)
>> >who barely even opposes Bush's foreign policy? They have good reason to
>be
>> >afraid of Nader -- he's the only real dissenting voice, and I wouldn't be
>> >surprised if he took just enough votes to "steal" the election for Bush.
>> >
>>
>> The Democrats are thinking that Americans won't vote for a liberal.
>
>Then they'll lose again. It must be pretty hard to know if Americans will
>vote for a liberal if they never nominate one for the Presidency.
They take polls almost continuously. The polls say, We are
conservative.
Maybe they should poll you, Edmond.
> Perhaps
>if they looked at the polls, where a large percentage of Americans flatly
>oppose Bush's foreign policy, they'd realize they have a better chance
>running someone who diametrically opposes W.
>
It's only a recent thing that they oppose the foreign policy. Who
knows whether a success or two might change their mind? The Democrats
have to be cagey.
If it had been Dean, I have no doubt the Democrats would have lost.
Look at how the RWCs smear Michael Moore. They don't concern
themselves much with the truth. They'd have Dean a paid-up member of
the CP. I liked Dean. He would have represented something of a
seachange. But even in the primaries the press had him running scared,
apologising for this, that and the other. I think the Democrats made
the political decision, if not the noble one.
>> >>
>> >> It's the lesser of two evils, and one is a very great evil.
>> >> Do your
>> >> duty, Edmond, and like I say, vote the cunts out.
>> >
>> >Oh, please. What are they doing that makes them so much more evil than
>> >anybody else? They act out of their own self-interests, exactly what
>you'd
>> >expect from people running the most powerful country in the world.
>>
>> There are thousands, millions maybe, brighter, more able men and
>> women. Why aren't they?
>
>I wouldn't say they are not bright people. The "more able" aren't running
>the country because they probably don't have the resources and support from
>the right people.
I meant why aren't they acting out of their self-interests. Not
everyone seeks to rule the world, whatever Tears for Fears think.
Zen
Dr Zen
wrote:
>In article <7eZDc.81126$tH1.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>, "Edmond Fisher"
><n...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>If you noticed (and this is written in Michael Moore's own book), Bush only
>>returned the environmental levels to where they were when Clinton was in
>>office. Clinton, right before he left office, enacted a bunch of
>>environmental measures to go into effect in 2004. Bush got in trouble when
>>he reversed those back to the normal level.
>>
>
> Yep. Clinton was so enamored of the environment that he put in force a bunch
>of rules and regs 7 years into his administration. These weren't Clinton's
>initiatvies, these were Clinton's "Gotchas" that were put in solely to play
>mindgames with incoming people. (Which,in fairness to Clinton, is a
>time-honored tradition if the successor isn't of your party).
>
>
>>The evidence is in the history of human civilization, since the beginning of
>>the Agricultural Revolution 12,000 years ago. Sure, there are different
>>degrees and the occasionally "unselfish act," but, on the whole, they look
>>out for #1 and the rich people who got and can keep them there.
> Yeah I was wondering what alternative univserse that guy was in. The basis
>of being elected (or heck even maintaining power in most every other place) is
>to keep those who keep you power happy. The Dems buy off their people and the
>GOP buys off there's. Heck even dictators have people they have to buy off
>(most often having to do with the military).
Yes. I'd rather have the Dems' backers bought off.
Zen
Dr Zen
Which makes one wonder why your RWC friends are getting their panties
in such a twist over it.
Zen
Josh Hill
wrote:
>
>"Josh Hill" <Josh44...@snet.net> wrote in message
>news:tie0e0pjbgc0qlg1p...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 05:47:58 GMT, "Edmond Fisher" <n...@nc.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Oh, please. What are they doing that makes them so much more evil than
>> >anybody else?
>>
>> Seems to me I could list a lot of examples, from dismantling
>> environmental regulations
>
>If you noticed (and this is written in Michael Moore's own book), Bush only
>returned the environmental levels to where they were when Clinton was in
>office. Clinton, right before he left office, enacted a bunch of
>environmental measures to go into effect in 2004. Bush got in trouble when
>he reversed those back to the normal level.
There is no "normal level," Edmond: environmental degradation and
pollution are not currently at acceptable levels, and the environment
faces new threats.
>> to letting power companies steal California
>> blind
>
>So it's Bush's fault power companies gouged California? There wouldn't even
>be a problem if they had allowed a couple more nuclear power plants to be
>built.
It's Bush's fault that he refused to stop them from doing so, yes. Did
you read the transcript of the tape of the Enron traders bragging
about how they were stealing Californians blind? They were creaming
over the prospects of a Bush presidency.
>> to tax cuts for the rich
>
>I bet you got a tax cut, are you rich?
I bet you got a mosquito bite, are you dead?
>> to the partial ban on stem cell
>> research.
>
>That's a matter of religious point of view. I personally would support stem
>cell research, but, considering where Bush's support comes from, I'm
>surprised there's not a full ban.
I don't think it really matters where it comes from. The point is that
it's probably hurting a lot of people.
>> What's so subtle about that?
>
>Nothing.
>
>>
>> > They act out of their own self-interests, exactly what you'd
>> >expect from people running the most powerful country in the world.
>>
>> That would appear to be a non-sequitur. Why would someone who runs the
>> most powerful country in the world be more likely to act out of
>> self-interest than someone who runs a less powerful country?
>
>It's exactly what you'd expect from anyone in a position of power. They
>just happen to have the means to carry it out.
Would you say that George Washington acted that way? Not all people in
power are base.
>> In any
>> case, the assertion is wrong in the first place, since there's no
>> evidence that politicians always act out of self-interest; like all of
>> us, they act out of mixed motives, with some being more
>> self-interested than others.
>
>The evidence is in the history of human civilization, since the beginning of
>the Agricultural Revolution 12,000 years ago. Sure, there are different
>degrees and the occasionally "unselfish act," but, on the whole, they look
>out for #1 and the rich people who got and can keep them there.
The modern democracy is nothing like the kingdoms of 3000 years past.
Of course, some leaders do look out primarily for the rich, but some
care about the little guy. In this country, as things now stand,
they're called "Democrats."
Josh Hill
wrote:
>In article <7eZDc.81126$tH1.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>, "Edmond Fisher"
><n...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> Yep. Clinton was so enamored of the environment that he put in force a bunch
>of rules and regs 7 years into his administration.
Do you right-wingers ever stop twisting things? Clinton put into place
some environmental regulations. There is no law that says that such
regulations can't be put in place seven years into an administration,
just as there is no law that says they can't be put into place one
year into one.
>These weren't Clinton's
>initiatvies, these were Clinton's "Gotchas" that were put in solely to play
>mindgames with incoming people. (Which,in fairness to Clinton, is a
>time-honored tradition if the successor isn't of your party).
You're jumping through hoops, Kurt. Fact: Clinton enacted sweeping
environmental regulations. Fact: Bush undid them. Fact: Clinton acted
to preserve the environment. Fact: Bush acted to condone harm to it.
The contrast couldn't be more complete.
Edmond Fisher
There are, of course, more than two candidates.
>
> >>
> >> >What are the Democrats thinking choosing a stiff, boring candidate
> >(again)
> >> >who barely even opposes Bush's foreign policy? They have good reason
to
> >be
> >> >afraid of Nader -- he's the only real dissenting voice, and I wouldn't
be
> >> >surprised if he took just enough votes to "steal" the election for
Bush.
> >> >
> >>
> >> The Democrats are thinking that Americans won't vote for a liberal.
> >
> >Then they'll lose again. It must be pretty hard to know if Americans
will
> >vote for a liberal if they never nominate one for the Presidency.
>
> They take polls almost continuously. The polls say, We are
> conservative.
That could partially be due to the fact that the only options presented to
the people (by the two major parties) have been conservative -- since Jimmy
Carter at least. I'm not saying the people wouldn't be that way anyway,
just a thought.
Most people do act out of their own self-interest. People consider
themselves to be separate egos and they yearn to strengthen that ego. Some
just have the capabilities to do far more damage.
Josh Hill
wrote:
That isn't true. Clinton was, at heart, a liberal. But we saw what
happened when he tried to enact traditional liberal programs, e.g.,
universal health care and gays in the military. A president can't pass
laws. He has to work with Congress to achieve what he can.
And it does no good to compare conservatives like Bush and Reagan with
the likes of Clinton or Carter. That serves to efface the very real
differences between the two parties. Those differences may be
incremental -- the Republicans, for all the yammering, aren't about to
do away with Social Security and the Democrats aren't about to found a
people's republic -- but "incremental" is pretty major when it comes
to matters of war and peace, the environment, the economy, and the
like.
Edmond Fisher
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:14:27 GMT, "Edmond Fisher" <n...@nc.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Josh Hill" <Josh44...@snet.net> wrote in message
> >news:tie0e0pjbgc0qlg1p...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 05:47:58 GMT, "Edmond Fisher" <n...@nc.rr.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Oh, please. What are they doing that makes them so much more evil
than
> >> >anybody else?
> >>
> >> Seems to me I could list a lot of examples, from dismantling
> >> environmental regulations
> >
> >If you noticed (and this is written in Michael Moore's own book), Bush
only
> >returned the environmental levels to where they were when Clinton was in
> >office. Clinton, right before he left office, enacted a bunch of
> >environmental measures to go into effect in 2004. Bush got in trouble
when
> >he reversed those back to the normal level.
>
> There is no "normal level," Edmond: environmental degradation and
> pollution are not currently at acceptable levels, and the environment
> faces new threats.
>
By "normal," I meant the levels they have been at.
> >> to letting power companies steal California
> >> blind
> >
> >So it's Bush's fault power companies gouged California? There wouldn't
even
> >be a problem if they had allowed a couple more nuclear power plants to be
> >built.
>
> It's Bush's fault that he refused to stop them from doing so, yes. Did
> you read the transcript of the tape of the Enron traders bragging
> about how they were stealing Californians blind? They were creaming
> over the prospects of a Bush presidency.
We don't like Californians anyway.
>
> >> to tax cuts for the rich
> >
> >I bet you got a tax cut, are you rich?
>
> I bet you got a mosquito bite, are you dead?
I will be.
>
> >> to the partial ban on stem cell
> >> research.
> >
> >That's a matter of religious point of view. I personally would support
stem
> >cell research, but, considering where Bush's support comes from, I'm
> >surprised there's not a full ban.
>
> I don't think it really matters where it comes from. The point is that
> it's probably hurting a lot of people.
Fair enough.
>
> >> What's so subtle about that?
> >
> >Nothing.
> >
> >>
> >> > They act out of their own self-interests, exactly what you'd
> >> >expect from people running the most powerful country in the world.
> >>
> >> That would appear to be a non-sequitur. Why would someone who runs the
> >> most powerful country in the world be more likely to act out of
> >> self-interest than someone who runs a less powerful country?
> >
> >It's exactly what you'd expect from anyone in a position of power. They
> >just happen to have the means to carry it out.
>
> Would you say that George Washington acted that way? Not all people in
> power are base.
Yes he did. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending how you look at it)
there wasn't 24 hour news and a public fixated with scandals. As such,
we'll probably never know to what extent he was corrupt. I suspect there's
some element of nostalgia around people like Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln,
etc.
>
> >> In any
> >> case, the assertion is wrong in the first place, since there's no
> >> evidence that politicians always act out of self-interest; like all of
> >> us, they act out of mixed motives, with some being more
> >> self-interested than others.
> >
> >The evidence is in the history of human civilization, since the beginning
of
> >the Agricultural Revolution 12,000 years ago. Sure, there are different
> >degrees and the occasionally "unselfish act," but, on the whole, they
look
> >out for #1 and the rich people who got and can keep them there.
>
> The modern democracy is nothing like the kingdoms of 3000 years past.
Is it?
> Of course, some leaders do look out primarily for the rich, but some
> care about the little guy. In this country, as things now stand,
> they're called "Democrats."
Give me a break. John Kerry with his 5 houses doesn't care about any little
people.
Dr Zen
wrote:
Yes. Vote for anyone but Kerry, though, and you require beating.
Yes, you should vote with your heart if you vote at all. That's the
idea. But holding ideas too tightly allows bad men to run rampage.
>>
>> >>
>> >> >What are the Democrats thinking choosing a stiff, boring candidate
>> >(again)
>> >> >who barely even opposes Bush's foreign policy? They have good reason
>to
>> >be
>> >> >afraid of Nader -- he's the only real dissenting voice, and I wouldn't
>be
>> >> >surprised if he took just enough votes to "steal" the election for
>Bush.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> The Democrats are thinking that Americans won't vote for a liberal.
>> >
>> >Then they'll lose again. It must be pretty hard to know if Americans
>will
>> >vote for a liberal if they never nominate one for the Presidency.
>>
>> They take polls almost continuously. The polls say, We are
>> conservative.
>
>That could partially be due to the fact that the only options presented to
>the people (by the two major parties) have been conservative -- since Jimmy
>Carter at least. I'm not saying the people wouldn't be that way anyway,
>just a thought.
I wonder. Well, the Dems haven't had a *heap* of success since Carter,
so maybe they do need to change. Certainly, Kerry is more of the same.
It's not their only consideration, though. At least I don't believe it
is. I take the belief that it is to be a fundamental of conservative
thought that I don't share.
> People consider
>themselves to be separate egos and they yearn to strengthen that ego.
Well, the idea that we are not separate egos might well appeal,
Edmond, but how we appear -- regardless of its reality or otherwise --
is what we deal with in the day to day.
Unless you're a monk with an Internet a/c, in which case, saffron
becomes you.
> Some
>just have the capabilities to do far more damage.
>
And the desire. Or the will. It's not just a question of
"capabilities".
Zen
Dr Zen
wrote:
A peculiar definition of "normal" and one you wouldn't apply to, say,
a child who used to be abused daily but now isn't.
>> >> to letting power companies steal California
>> >> blind
>> >
>> >So it's Bush's fault power companies gouged California? There wouldn't
>even
>> >be a problem if they had allowed a couple more nuclear power plants to be
>> >built.
>>
>> It's Bush's fault that he refused to stop them from doing so, yes. Did
>> you read the transcript of the tape of the Enron traders bragging
>> about how they were stealing Californians blind? They were creaming
>> over the prospects of a Bush presidency.
>
>We don't like Californians anyway.
This is the royal "we", Mr Thereisnoself?
They had to play the game to some extent, but I think it's reasonable
to suggest they weren't as venal as Bush.
>> >> In any
>> >> case, the assertion is wrong in the first place, since there's no
>> >> evidence that politicians always act out of self-interest; like all of
>> >> us, they act out of mixed motives, with some being more
>> >> self-interested than others.
>> >
>> >The evidence is in the history of human civilization, since the beginning
>of
>> >the Agricultural Revolution 12,000 years ago. Sure, there are different
>> >degrees and the occasionally "unselfish act," but, on the whole, they
>look
>> >out for #1 and the rich people who got and can keep them there.
>>
>> The modern democracy is nothing like the kingdoms of 3000 years past.
>
>Is it?
>
>> Of course, some leaders do look out primarily for the rich, but some
>> care about the little guy. In this country, as things now stand,
>> they're called "Democrats."
>
>Give me a break. John Kerry with his 5 houses doesn't care about any little
>people.
I have to agree. Josh's take on the Democrats as just a tiptoe west of
socialist is hilarious.
Zen
The Last Real Marlboro Man
>And much, much more. ..
Yes, like posting material that advocates the violoent overthrow of
the U.S. Government, right, you subversive bastard?
Bob Sloan, posting a quote advocating the violent overthrow of
the U.S. Government and the murder of lawfully elected officials:
"America is at that awkward stage.
It's too late to work within the system,
but too early to shoot the bastards. On
the road to tyranny, we've gone so far
that polite political action is about
as useless as a miniskirt in a convent."
- Claire Wolfe, _101 Things To Do 'Till The Revolution_
-- Wayne Lutz, Emperor-for-life of Misc.Writing
Contact address: lu...@REMOVElutz.kicks-ass.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Nazism was 'National Socialism.' National Socialism is not
fascism." - Wayne Lutz, on Educating the aging 60's Radical Relic
on the misuse of the word "Facist."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Have I mentioned that the Palestinians are animals? The
politicians and diplomats will say the things that they must say,
but the terror will never stop - not until the Palestinian animals
have been exterminated like the filthy vermin that they are."
- Wayne Lutz, on terrorists who deliberately murder babies,
written on the day of one of the worst such cowardly attacks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Who?" - Wayne Lutz, on Canada
The Last Real Marlboro Man
<rls...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>If people whose understanding of this war is based on the TV
No, of course.Much better to base it on Michael Moore. How intelligent
of you!
Josh Hill
wrote:
I know. And I'm saying that isn't right.
(In some cases, though, it isn't a matter of maintaining the same
level. Clinton's decision to effectively put some areas of old-growth
forest off limits to loggers by banning the construction of new roads,
for example: old-growth forests are a vanishing resource.)
>> >> What's so subtle about that?
>> >
>> >Nothing.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > They act out of their own self-interests, exactly what you'd
>> >> >expect from people running the most powerful country in the world.
>> >>
>> >> That would appear to be a non-sequitur. Why would someone who runs the
>> >> most powerful country in the world be more likely to act out of
>> >> self-interest than someone who runs a less powerful country?
>> >
>> >It's exactly what you'd expect from anyone in a position of power. They
>> >just happen to have the means to carry it out.
>>
>> Would you say that George Washington acted that way? Not all people in
>> power are base.
>
>Yes he did. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending how you look at it)
>there wasn't 24 hour news and a public fixated with scandals. As such,
>we'll probably never know to what extent he was corrupt. I suspect there's
>some element of nostalgia around people like Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln,
>etc.
I think we know just as much about people then as we do about people
now. If anything, more, because in those days a president didn't have
an immense cadre of people charged with presenting a glossy image to
the public. When Washington spoke, his words were his own; Bush reads
the words of professional speechwriters from a Teleprompter. And as a
result, it's easier to form an impression of what Washington was
about.
Nor were early leaders immune from scandal. Consider the now-verified
rumors, printed in the newspapers of the time, that Jefferson had
fathered black children by his former slave.
I agree with Zen that the notion that everyone acts out of self
interest is a typically conservative one; what conservatives are in
fact usually saying when they say that is "I act out of self interest,
and don't want to acknowledge the possibility that others do not." But
I've known people on the far left who believe the same thing.
>> >The evidence is in the history of human civilization, since the beginning
>of
>> >the Agricultural Revolution 12,000 years ago. Sure, there are different
>> >degrees and the occasionally "unselfish act," but, on the whole, they
>look
>> >out for #1 and the rich people who got and can keep them there.
>>
>> The modern democracy is nothing like the kingdoms of 3000 years past.
>
>Is it?
Manifestly not.
>> Of course, some leaders do look out primarily for the rich, but some
>> care about the little guy. In this country, as things now stand,
>> they're called "Democrats."
>
>Give me a break. John Kerry with his 5 houses doesn't care about any little
>people.
As a generalization, that's not accurate. Modern history abounds with
examples of wealthy leaders who were sincerely concerned with the
plight of the little guy -- the Roosevelts, for example, or Kennedy.
They seldom seek to overthrow the existing order, but they push for
income redistribution and other measures that protect blue collar
workers and the poor.
Josh Hill
>On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 02:39:34 GMT, "Edmond Fisher" <n...@nc.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Give me a break. John Kerry with his 5 houses doesn't care about any little
>>people.
>
>I have to agree. Josh's take on the Democrats as just a tiptoe west of
>socialist is hilarious.
I've never characterized the Democrats that way. What they have been
consistently in favor of are programs such as old age pensions,
progressive taxation, anti-trust legislation, worker safety and
protection, health insurance, environmental protection, housing
programs, access to education, and, since the 60's, civil rights. In
international affairs, they have generally favored treaties,
internationalism, and opposed adventures such as the Contras and the
first war in Iraq. These are solidly progressive positions. The
Democrats do not favor true socialism in the sense of state ownership
of the means of production or the eradication of market forces, but
then, one would be hard pressed these days to find very many states
that favor that.
As to caring for little people, the notion that the wealthy
necessarily don't is wildly inaccurate. This is not a matter of
debate, but of observation. From what I've seen, the nouveaux riches
tend to be callous, selfish types, whereas old money and
upper-middle-class types are more likely to be progressive and
concerned. But it varies widely.
Alan Hope
>On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 18:17:22 -0400, Ejucaided Redneck
><rls...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>And much, much more. ..
>Yes, like posting material that advocates the violoent overthrow of
>the U.S. Government, right, you subversive bastard?
Gosh, really? Has free speech been banned, then?
Speaking as a loyal subject of the Crown, I wonder if I might ask you
what you think of the following text:
>Bob Sloan, posting a quote advocating the violent overthrow of
>the U.S. Government and the murder of lawfully elected officials:
>
>"America is at that awkward stage.
>It's too late to work within the system,
>but too early to shoot the bastards. On
>the road to tyranny, we've gone so far
>that polite political action is about
>as useless as a miniskirt in a convent."
> - Claire Wolfe, _101 Things To Do 'Till The Revolution_
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-- Wayne Lutz, Emperor-for-life of Misc.Writing
>Contact address: lu...@REMOVElutz.kicks-ass.org
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>"Nazism was 'National Socialism.' National Socialism is not
>fascism." - Wayne Lutz, on Educating the aging 60's Radical Relic
>on the misuse of the word "Facist."
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>"Have I mentioned that the Palestinians are animals? The
>politicians and diplomats will say the things that they must say,
>but the terror will never stop - not until the Palestinian animals
>have been exterminated like the filthy vermin that they are."
>- Wayne Lutz, on terrorists who deliberately murder babies,
>written on the day of one of the worst such cowardly attacks.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>"Who?" - Wayne Lutz, on Canada
--
AH
Alan Hope
>The Last Real Marlboro Man goes:
>>On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 18:17:22 -0400, Ejucaided Redneck
>><rls...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>And much, much more. ..
>>Yes, like posting material that advocates the violoent overthrow of
>>the U.S. Government, right, you subversive bastard?
>Gosh, really? Has free speech been banned, then?
>Speaking as a loyal subject of the Crown, I wonder if I might ask you
>what you think of the following text:
Oops. Wrong keyboard button-type thingy.
As I was saying, "the following text:"
Pretty fucking subversive, non? So much so, in fact, that I can hardly
imagine you'd support it.
NOTE TO READERS: This would have been a more forceful post had I not
required a retake. Still at least you didn't have to wait for the DVD.
--
AH
John Ashby
> The Last Real Marlboro Man goes:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 18:17:22 -0400, Ejucaided Redneck
>><rls...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>>And much, much more. ..
>
>>Yes, like posting material that advocates the violoent overthrow of the
>>U.S. Government, right, you subversive bastard?
>
> Gosh, really? Has free speech been banned, then?
>
> Speaking as a loyal subject of the Crown, I wonder if I might ask you
> what you think of the following text:
>
[snip stuff we've seen all too often]
Speaking as a disloyal subject of the Crown, I wonder if I might ask Wayne
what he thinks of a 327 year old document which takes great pains to
enumerate the list of grievances justifying the violent overthrow of the
lawfully constituted government of thirteen territories on account of its
"tyranny".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime.shtml
john(But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably
the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism,
it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government)
John Ashby
Curse you, Red Baron.
john
Edmond Fisher
Yet, according to liberals like Ralph Nader, Noam Chomsky, and Michael
Moore, Clinton has done many things in the same vein of Bush-Cheney.
Including doing nothing to stop U.S. supported slaughter in East Timor and
non-U.S. supported genocide in Rwanda, both of which cost hundreds of
thousands of lives. Plus, military action in Kosovo, Somalia, and continual
sanctions/bombings against........IRAQ.
http://www.votenader.org/why_ralph/index.php?cid=80
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199401--.htm
>
> And it does no good to compare conservatives like Bush and Reagan with
> the likes of Clinton or Carter. That serves to efface the very real
> differences between the two parties. Those differences may be
> incremental -- the Republicans, for all the yammering, aren't about to
> do away with Social Security and the Democrats aren't about to found a
> people's republic -- but "incremental" is pretty major when it comes
> to matters of war and peace, the environment, the economy, and the
> like.
Except, as is discovered when you look at the actions of the Presidents they
all support war. Carter funded Osama Bin Laden to incite a war between
Afghanistan and the USSR and under Clinton there were more military
interventions than under any other President.
The environment we've already talked about and the economy, though many
would like to think otherwise, runs largely on cycles. If you recall, at
the end of Clinton's 2nd term there was already a downturn in progress.
That's not to say that Presidents have no effect on it, but not to the
degree people assume.
Edmond Fisher
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I know the RWCs are trying to spread the idea that Kerry is no
> >> >> >> different from Bush, and yes, he's a more conservative Democrat
than
> >a
> >> >> >> lot of liberals would like, but the truth of it is, whether he
> >> >> >> reverses the Patriot Act or not, he doesn't bring Rummy, Wolfo,
> >Perle
> >> >> >> and the crew with him.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >He'll bring different people who want the same things. Their
> >intentions
> >> >> >will just be masked instead of out in the open as they are now.
Ever
> >> >listen
> >> >> >to The Who?
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, I know. I'm not suggesting that Kerry will ride in on a white
> >> >> charger.
> >> >
> >> >So the question is: would you rather have the enemy hiding or out in
the
> >> >open?
> >> >
> >>
> >> It's quite simply the lesser of two evils.
> >
> >There are, of course, more than two candidates.
> >
>
> Yes. Vote for anyone but Kerry, though, and you require beating.
>
> Yes, you should vote with your heart if you vote at all. That's the
> idea. But holding ideas too tightly allows bad men to run rampage.
Unless you vote all the entrenched bad men out.
As you wish.
>
> > People consider
> >themselves to be separate egos and they yearn to strengthen that ego.
>
> Well, the idea that we are not separate egos might well appeal,
> Edmond, but how we appear -- regardless of its reality or otherwise --
> is what we deal with in the day to day.
Unless, of course, there is a change in our consciousness.
Edmond Fisher
I, of course, used the wrong word. But, using that example, what we have is
this:
A child is beaten for 7 years and 364 days and then the abuser says, "Well,
in 4 years I'm gonna make it so you don't get beaten quite as much."
The new beater comes and, knowing he won't get as much enjoyment (which,
btw, translates to corporate support) reverses the beating level back to
where it was. Now, seeing as how the change wasn't going into effect until
'04, the levels were never actually different. But, as expected (and
planned by the previous beater) there is a public outcry.
So, what I'm hearing is that Beater #1 was far better than Beater #2.
>
> >> >> to letting power companies steal California
> >> >> blind
> >> >
> >> >So it's Bush's fault power companies gouged California? There
wouldn't
> >even
> >> >be a problem if they had allowed a couple more nuclear power plants to
be
> >> >built.
> >>
> >> It's Bush's fault that he refused to stop them from doing so, yes. Did
> >> you read the transcript of the tape of the Enron traders bragging
> >> about how they were stealing Californians blind? They were creaming
> >> over the prospects of a Bush presidency.
> >
> >We don't like Californians anyway.
>
> This is the royal "we", Mr Thereisnoself?
I take it back; I like Jack Nicholson.
I never said there is no self. There is indeed a self.
This whole California episode, while unfortunate, is really nothing new.
Other than being another point of proof for the inherent greed/selfishness
of man, it shows that political figures aren't going to stop their means of
support from becoming more powerful -- no matter what the cost. As a couple
of examples, FDR certainly wasn't going to stop funding to the Nazis by
major corporations of the time and Clinton wasn't going to stop NAFTA.
It can be suggested and assumed, but I don't think we will ever know for
sure.
Edmond Fisher
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:37:57 GMT, kurtu...@yahoo.com (Kurt Ullman)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <7eZDc.81126$tH1.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>, "Edmond
Fisher"
> ><n...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Yep. Clinton was so enamored of the environment that he put in force a
bunch
> >of rules and regs 7 years into his administration.
>
> Do you right-wingers ever stop twisting things? Clinton put into place
> some environmental regulations. There is no law that says that such
> regulations can't be put in place seven years into an administration,
> just as there is no law that says they can't be put into place one
> year into one.
Think about it, Josh, what's the use in enacting environmental regulations
right before you leave office (and you know who's going to follow you)? Why
would such an environmental friendly president wait 2,900 days to do
something about the environment, and, even when he does it, why would he
have them go into effect 4 years later?
It was a strategy to make Bush look like an ogre, because he knew he'd be
compelled to return the levels. He made it clear he didn't care about the
environment.
BTW, his strategy worked.
>
> >These weren't Clinton's
> >initiatvies, these were Clinton's "Gotchas" that were put in solely to
play
> >mindgames with incoming people. (Which,in fairness to Clinton, is a
> >time-honored tradition if the successor isn't of your party).
>
> You're jumping through hoops, Kurt. Fact: Clinton enacted sweeping
> environmental regulations. Fact: Bush undid them. Fact: Clinton acted
> to preserve the environment. Fact: Bush acted to condone harm to it.
> The contrast couldn't be more complete.
lol.........arghhhhhh
Edmond Fisher
Yeah, I agree.
>
> (In some cases, though, it isn't a matter of maintaining the same
> level. Clinton's decision to effectively put some areas of old-growth
> forest off limits to loggers by banning the construction of new roads,
> for example: old-growth forests are a vanishing resource.)
I'd say that was 8 years well spent.
You've got to be kidding me. There's no way we know more about people 200+
years ago than we do now. If I looked hard enough I could probably find
Bush's favorite form of sprinkle that he likes to put on ice cream.
Let's just put it this way: I've seen/heard of very few people who don't act
out of their own self-interest and most of them are dead. The state of this
society, and any society, can be found by looking in your own mind. If
people are individually selfish, individually bent on competition, then that
will reflect in society. There's Bush in all of us and, until there is a
real change in our minds, it will continue to be so.
>
> >> >The evidence is in the history of human civilization, since the
beginning
> >of
> >> >the Agricultural Revolution 12,000 years ago. Sure, there are
different
> >> >degrees and the occasionally "unselfish act," but, on the whole, they
> >look
> >> >out for #1 and the rich people who got and can keep them there.
> >>
> >> The modern democracy is nothing like the kingdoms of 3000 years past.
> >
> >Is it?
>
> Manifestly not.
>
> >> Of course, some leaders do look out primarily for the rich, but some
> >> care about the little guy. In this country, as things now stand,
> >> they're called "Democrats."
> >
> >Give me a break. John Kerry with his 5 houses doesn't care about any
little
> >people.
>
> As a generalization, that's not accurate. Modern history abounds with
> examples of wealthy leaders who were sincerely concerned with the
> plight of the little guy -- the Roosevelts, for example, or Kennedy.
> They seldom seek to overthrow the existing order, but they push for
> income redistribution and other measures that protect blue collar
> workers and the poor.
The same Kennedy who politically supported McCarthy, was Anti-Communist,
tried to talk King out of marching on Washington, wanted King wiretapped,
and supported a cut in the capital gains tax? Keep in mind, it was LBJ not
JFK who passed the significant legislation on civil rights.
FDR who: praised fascism in Italy, did very little to stop the extermination
of the Jews, didn't stop US corporations from funding Nazis, left with the
main distribution of wealth still in the hands of the wealthiest 1 percent
Teddy who: was an imperialist, was racist towards Indians, was a Social
Darwinist, was opposed to organized labor...
Ray Haddad
And it might have made even a trivial bit of sense had you not forgotten that
Wayne has the same freedom to express himself. I mean, duh . . . get a clue,
Alan.
Ray
I have met the enemy, the gods of SPAM, and I have triumphed.