OT NDC Molly Ivins
Ken Fortenberry
To quote Bill O'Reilly of Fox News, "And I said on my program, if,
if the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean,
he had nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust
the Bush administration again." -- March 18, 2003
--
Ken Fortenberry
George Adams
<Ivins snipped>
Typical claptrap by the leftie's version of Rush Limbaugh.
OK, Molly , you stated the problem, now what's your solution????
George Adams
"All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of
youth that doth not grow stale with age."
---- J.W Muller
Neil Krueger
Fortenberry at kenfortenberry@*remove*ameritech.net wrote on 9/4/03 1:15 PM:
Interesting. I'm not holding my breath.
Peace,
Neil X.
Ken Fortenberry
> ...
> Typical claptrap by the leftie's version of Rush Limbaugh.
>
> OK, Molly , you stated the problem, now what's your solution????
Did you read the article, or just preemptively dismiss it as
"typical claptrap" ? If you did read it, you must have missed
this part.
"In a separate column, I will try to Be Constructive about our
current plight, but I think it is important to remember how we
got here."
So, if you're really interested in Molly's solution, and not
just being sarcastic, you'll have to tune in next week. ;-)
--
Ken Fortenberry
rw
That was a devastating column. The Bill O'Reilly quote was only the last
of MANY damning quotes from Administration officials -- from virtually
every one of them, from Bush to Cheney to Rumsfeld to Powell to Rice and
so on, down the line.
We were lied to about the cause of war, and now we're in a deadly quagmire.
Scott Seidman
$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com:
> The Bill O'Reilly quote was only the last
> of MANY damning quotes from Administration officials
Wow, Bill must have gotten some promotion!
Scott
Joe McIntosh
country under the Bush administration
"I dread our own power and ambition; I dread our power being too much
dreaded.......We may say that we shall not abuse this astonishing and
hitherto unheard of power. But every other nation will think we shall abuse
it. It is impossible but that, sooner or later, this state of things must
produce a combination against us which may end in our ruin."
How much are paying Poland to be on our side?? China and India are going to
be MAJOR powers in the future-----our grandchildren better hope our
government learns how to fit into world government.
>
David Snedeker
Joe McIntosh wrote in message ...
>
>>
Amen.
Dave
George Adams
>So, if you're really interested in Molly's solution, and not
>just being sarcastic, you'll have to tune in next week. ;-)
I can't wait. <G>
I'm thinking most of the column will be devoted to "how we got here" and little
will be said about a solution, but if you post it I'll read it. FWIW, I'm not
ecstatic about the situation in Iraq/Afganistan, either, but it is what it is,
and all the finger pointing in the world will not change it.
David Snedeker
"solution" that doesn't involve hundreds of "acceptable" casualties in their
attempts to cover their tracks. Whatever happens you know its not their
kids who will get ground up. And don't expect the folk who catch war fever
as easy as the common cold to learn anything from this debacle. Fact is that
only a few quick trials and summary punishment of those responsible would
have any effect, and that ain't going to happen.
Solution? Let Pinnochio Shrub prance around in his cowboy hat, feathering
his offshore nestegg, and quietly let the professional warriors in the
Pentagon engineer a safe withdrawal, while Powell works on sticking the UN
with Iraqi elections and the blood costs. Get back to the war against
terrorism. Hunt down Al Queda and kill it.
Back home? Go after our home town fascists with a vengeance, boycott their
scams/cut off their economic feet, retake control of the Republican Party
from the wingnuts, and, given a choice, elect people who have a real
experience of war. Bury our dead with honor. Be skeptical of anybody who
waves a flag in our face.
Pray that the God of our choice forgets we elected a martinet who didn't
know the difference between Iran and Iraq, because we were embarrassed over
a blow job.
Dave
Ideology sucks
daytripper
>>From: Ken Fortenberry
>
>>So, if you're really interested in Molly's solution, and not
>>just being sarcastic, you'll have to tune in next week. ;-)
>
>I can't wait. <G>
>I'm thinking most of the column will be devoted to "how we got here" and little
>will be said about a solution, but if you post it I'll read it. FWIW, I'm not
>ecstatic about the situation in Iraq/Afganistan, either, but it is what it is,
>and all the finger pointing in the world will not change it.
Think bigger.
All the finger pointing is required to avoid the next AFU situation the
responsible nitwits are planning to get us mired in...
/daytripper (thanks for your support)
slenon
>know the difference between Iran and Iraq, because we were embarrassed over
>a blow job.
>Dave
>Ideology sucks
So far, we Boomers have not done well electing Presidents.
>and, given a choice, elect people who have a real experience of war. Bury
our dead with honor. Be skeptical of anybody who
>waves a flag in our face
It's hard to elect leaders who know the cost of war these days. Too many of
my generation did not serve. And filling a NG slot that only existed
because of parental money and influence does not prepare one to be President
anymore than it did to be Vice-President.
It is not just the national flag that we need be wary of. The crowds
opposed to this war had their own flags to wave but they were often false
colors. ANSWER is no more an organization dedicated to peace than is the
Klan.
----
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Darkstar
Save a cow, eat a PETA member
sle...@tampabay.rr.com
http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92kword.htm
Wolfgang
"daytripper" <day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:or6flv0nic20skbbs...@4ax.com...
> Think bigger...
Yeah, that's gonna happen. Three treasonous republican presidents in a row
is hardly enough to cause anyone to face the embarrassing reality that his
entire life has been a transparent self-serving lie.
Wolfgang
blowjobs now, that's an entirely different matter. :)
Peter Charles
Here's an interesting slant on Burke's comment:
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030904/COLAXER04/TPComment/TopStories
and the reduced version
http://shorterlink.com/?XBEGZ5
Peter
Eastern Spey Clave, October 4th and 5th, 2003
http://www.easternclave.ca
Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html
Jeff Miller
George Adams wrote:
>
> I can't wait. <G>
> I'm thinking most of the column will be devoted to "how we got here" and little
> will be said about a solution, but if you post it I'll read it. FWIW, I'm not
> ecstatic about the situation in Iraq/Afganistan, either, but it is what it is,
> and all the finger pointing in the world will not change it.
perhaps not...but some proper voting in a year might do the trick. how
can any sane, thinking soul accept this presidential anomaly we're
cursed with at the moment?
jeff
Jeff Miller
David Snedeker wrote:
>
>
> Pray that the God of our choice forgets we elected a martinet who didn't
> know the difference between Iran and Iraq, because we were embarrassed over
> a blow job.
>
>
goddamn...it's through the looking glass for sure... brilliant comment,
and "hilarious" to boot.
jeff
George Adams
>perhaps not...but some proper voting in a year might do the trick. how
>can any sane, thinking soul accept this presidential anomaly we're
>cursed with at the moment?
Possibly, but I'm not thrilled with the alternatives i've seen so far.
Jeff Miller
my vote if shrub was the only alternative...
jeff
Bob Patton
"Jeff Miller" <jl...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:d_Q5b.116777$xf.73295@lakeread04...
>
//snip//> how
> can any sane, thinking soul accept this presidential anomaly we're
> cursed with at the moment?
>
> jeff
The really scary thing is that almost half the people in this country
thought he was a good choice! The events of the last few years are an
enormous indictment of the US educational system.
And this guy went to Harvard and Yale? I always thought those were pretty
good schools. Maybe they're good schools if you're poor enough that you have
to compete for admission on the basis of accomplishment (in which case it
may not be the school that's good). On the other hand, if you're the kind of
person who can be invited into Skull and Bones at your christening, Harvard
and Yale must not be much more than babysitting services.
Bob
Bob Patton
> perhaps someone can persuade that missouri corpse to run again? it'd get
> my vote if shrub was the only alternative...
>
Now we're holding him in reserve in case Ashcroft runs for something again .
. .
Bob
Wolfgang
"Bob Patton" <rwpmailatcharterdotnet> wrote in message
news:vlfser6...@corp.supernews.com...
Not to worry. Multitudes of corpses vote in any given election of national
import..........no good reason not to put any one of them on the ballot.
Lots of reasonable alternatives to the [name your party here] candidate du
jour.
Wolfgang
volkfolk
"John Metzger" <edi...@musicbox-online.com> wrote in message
news:iNK5b.18690$Ih1.7...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
> Fox News and ask where our apology is. It will be interesting to see
> how O'Reilly spins his response.
FYI- I actually listen to O'Reilly on a somewhat regular basis (he is on
between Egan and Broudy and J Severin here in Boston) HE has been quite
critical of the Bush administrations lack of success in finding Bin Laden
and the failure to find WMD's. He also rakes Ashcroft across the coals on a
pretty regular basis.
He may be a blowhard (actually he IS a blowhard), but he is hardly a lapdog
for the Bush administration.
Scot
rw
>
> He may be a blowhard (actually he IS a blowhard), but he is hardly a lapdog
> for the Bush administration.
When a right wing blowhard like O'Reilly starts ragging on the Bush
administration I'll bet that gets Karl Rove pretty worked up.
volkfolk
"rw" <royal...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3f581107$0$23251$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
If you ever listened to O'Reilly you would know that he is hardly a right
winger. He is claims to be (and I have no reason to doubt him) pro
environment, anti-SUV, He has been very critical of Ashcroft since he has
been on the radio. Recently he has questioned the truth behind Bush's claim
about WMD's in Iraq
He is definitely conservative, but a right winger? I don't think so.
YMMV,
Scot
Jeff Miller
demand...
slenon
>my vote if shrub was the only alternative...
>jeff
Personally, I would like to see someone run the newspaper cartoon lizard
that won the Prosecuting Attorney contest, not once, but twice, in Aspen CO,
early '80's.
David Snedeker
Jonathan Cook wrote in message ...
>
>I'm definitely NOT a libertarian...too much "me" and not enough
>"community".
>
I agree. For me, differentiating between most "libertarianisms" and garden
variety narcissistic personality disorders is not that easy. Anyone who has
ever helped run a united fund drive, or collect for funeral flowers in a
workplace could write a book on the "squirmy" behavior and tedious rationale
for personal selfishness these, normal appearing, folk bring to the table. I
prefer the older term, "skinflint," to "libertarian." :-)
Dave
Ray Lee
> The crowds
> opposed to this war had their own flags to wave but they were often false
> colors. ANSWER is no more an organization dedicated to peace than is the
> Klan.
I agree that ANSWER is authoritarian scum who are no more dedicated to
peace than the Klan, but while the they did organize several
high-profile anti-war rallies they did not and do not consitute the
vast majority of "the crowds opposed to this war."
Most of the "crowds opposed to this war" -- the domestic ones, anyway
-- are American patriots who believe that the course of action that
the Bush Administration has taken vis-a-vis Iraq has been detrimental
for our country.
Ray
"We know where [the WMD] are. They are in the area around Tikrit and
Baghdad."
- Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003
Tom Littleton
>Most of the "crowds opposed to this war" -- the domestic ones, anyway
>-- are American patriots who believe that the course of action that
>the Bush Administration has taken vis-a-vis Iraq has been detrimental
>for our country.
....many would agree
Tom
Allen Epps
Littleton <tjl...@aol.com> wrote:
And some of us wouldn't
Allen
Tom Littleton
>And some of us wouldn't
which parts, though, of the original statement:
"Most of the "crowds opposed to this war" -- the domestic ones, anyway
-- are American patriots who believe that the course of action that
the Bush Administration has taken vis-a-vis Iraq has been detrimental
for our country." wouldn't you agree with,
and why? Not picking on you, but I see some of the strongest disagreement with
this administration's foreign policies coming from rather staid, older
Americans.
My father, for instance(anything but a liberal, radical or
organized-anti-war-type at 82 years old, and a WWII veteran) describes the
current leadership as moronic. I read in the Hartford Courant the other day
about demands for impeachment from a senior citizens center, at a congressman's
Town Hall meeting. Strong stuff from a rather patriotic generation, it would
seem.
Tom
Guyz-N-Flyz
"Allen Epps" <gae...@deleteme.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:050920032012388941%> And
some of us wouldn't
> Allen
Given enough time with Bush and his cadre, you'll come around Allen
Peter Charles
Allen
Just finished watching a documentary on the F-105 -- it commented on
much of the lunacy at the highest levels, that directed the Thud's
missions. Listening to the commentary on the actions and attitudes of
Johnson/McNamara, I'm starting to have deja vu all over again.
vincent p. norris
>politics,
Would you mind explaining that, Jon?
> Our previous NM "Republican" governor was a full-blooded libertarian.
For those of us who are NM-history challenged, who was that?
Thanks. vince
vincent p. norris
>import..........no good reason not to put any one of them on the ballot.
And some even get elected, Wolfgang!
Recall that when Dorothy Parker was told Calvin Coolidge had died, she
replied, "How could they tell?"
vince
vincent p. norris
>> >-- are American patriots who believe that the course of action that
>> >the Bush Administration has taken vis-a-vis Iraq has been detrimental
>> >for our country.
>>
>> ....many would agree
>>
>> Tom
>And some of us wouldn't
>Allen
Either way, partriotism consists of challenging the government
regarding its conduct, not aquiescing to whatever the government
proposes.
vince
Joshua Rosenblatt
wrote:
>> Libertarian ideas are basically orthogonal to the left/right split of American
>>politics,
>
>Would you mind explaining that, Jon?
>
I beleive he means it's mutually exclusive to the polarized political
situation of left vs right. Libertarian thought simply doesn't run on
the same unidimensional horizontal political spectrum as does the
generic left/right 'split which our current political circus has based
on. There are several other dimensions to political thought and
ideology - most basically that of libertarian minded vs. 'fascistic'.
These days most on the right AND left are fascistic in nature. hence
the democratic and liberally spawned "Nanny State" and the "Daddy"
state put forth by the conservatives & republicans (hte moral majority
is neither).
>> Our previous NM "Republican" governor was a full-blooded libertarian.
>
>For those of us who are NM-history challenged, who was that?
Gary Johnson.... one of the good uns.
Joshua
George Cleveland
wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 21:49:45 -0400, vincent p. norris <vp...@psu.edu>
>wrote:
>
>>> Libertarian ideas are basically orthogonal to the left/right split of American
>>>politics,
>>
>>Would you mind explaining that, Jon?
>>
>I beleive he means it's mutually exclusive to the polarized political
>situation of left vs right. Libertarian thought simply doesn't run on
>the same unidimensional horizontal political spectrum as does the
>generic left/right 'split which our current political circus has based
>on. There are several other dimensions to political thought and
>ideology - most basically that of libertarian minded vs. 'fascistic'.
>These days most on the right AND left are fascistic in nature. hence
>the democratic and liberally spawned "Nanny State" and the "Daddy"
>state put forth by the conservatives & republicans (hte moral majority
>is neither).
>Joshua
Phlbbt! Libertarianism is nothing more than corporate fascism. No National
Parks, no environmental laws, no unions...I could go on and on. If you want to
find an example of a political ideology that is orthogonal of both left and
right read Kropotkins works concerning voluntary assciations, which in turn
gave rise to the syndicalist movements of pre-Civil War Spain.
No Passaran!
g.c.
Joshua Rosenblatt
Wow, Peter Kropotkin. I never thought I'd see his name uttered on
ROFF :) I've read planty of Kropotkin's works back in my college
anarchist days - great stuff indeed.
but that doesn't negate the point that libertarianism (like anarchism)
runs on different axis than the traditional left/right politics into
which our political system is trapped. I agree that extreme
libertarianism can and certainly would be taken advantage of by the
ruling class- ie big business. Onlya fool or a CEO would doubt that
<g>. But there is a spectrum to that ideology as with all others
(including Kropotkin - though there are not many pursuing his ideals
much at all today). But there are millions of 'Libertarian minded
folk' both left elaning and right leaning who are wise enough to know
that untethered capitalism is one of the most dangerous games in town.
This point is where most disagree with the party platforms of the
Libertarian Party itself, myself included. I beleive most
liberarians today are such for social liberty issues.
Basiaclly I don't have enough faith in my fellow man vis a vis it's
interaction with other men AND the environment to beleive in a laissez
faire business structure put forth by the Libertarian movement. So
government should be designed to protect us from each other but never
from ourselves.
Which goes back to my point, there ain't no black or white.
thanks,
Joshua
Joshua Rosenblatt
<Jos...@Rosenblatt.com> wrote:
sorry to follow up on my own post, but to give a bit more background
on myself... back in my angst ridden fusk the world youthful
rebellious days, Imuhc preferred Mikhail Bakunin. In many ways, I
guess I still do :)
George Cleveland
wrote:
>thanks,
>Joshua
>
>
I was turned onto Kropotkin by a very good friend in college. We shared a house
up off the Wisconsin River one fall. She was a descendent of his, he being her
great great uncle. Which of course made her also related to the Czar. Her dad
was something like 20th in line to the throne in Russia if it was ever restored.
(He was also an asshole, which made him a royal asshole, I suppose).
g.c.
Joshua Rosenblatt
LOL That's great!
His works are indeed thought provoking. In fact all the Russian
anarchists are, though they are faught with an adherence to some basic
socialaist principles which IMO just don't work in the real world (Men
ARE greedy).. Have you read God & State by Mikhail Bakunin? It was
my manifesto of sorts ROFLMAO. Well worth the read. He was my
favorite of the Russian philosophers... hmmm, it always struck me as
odd that even in the university classes involving the Rise of (mostly
Russian) Socialism (mine was actually taught by a hardcore Marxist at
Syracuse U) it would always result in a facile minded comparison of
Stalinism and Trotskyism while the truly innovative
anarcho-communists (Kropotkin, Bakunin, Tolstoy et al) were always
left as a sidebar, as virtually unimportant.
What really turned me onto Bakunin is that unlike his rival Marx (who
was a proponent of a strong State) Bakunin was a true anarchist. A
Socialist i n the regard that he was anti-capilalist and pro-worker -
but his distrust of government was central to his ideology. He also
contributed greatly to my won beliefs of distrusting government -
alogn witih the great works of many of the individual anarchists (HD
Thoreau & Ben Tucker, for example) with whom I more align my thoughts
with. Of course I have since come to realize the necessity for a
state (due to the greedy nature of mankind) though i can't say I've
found one I'm much a fan of yet :)
oh, and an interesting side note: Muammar Qhadafi has based much of
his 'Little Green Book' on Kropotkin's works :)
Joshua
'The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a
dunce or a rogue' - Emma Goldman
slenon
While many of them were sincere and felt that legal protest was the best
thing to do to influence national policy, I still believe that a large
percentage were only there for the party. It was true in the '60's and it
holds true today as well.
slenon
them in 1999. But that's another long story.
--
Joshua Rosenblatt
wrote:
>>Ray Lee notes:
>>Most of the "crowds opposed to this war" -- the domestic ones, anyway
>>-- are American patriots who believe that the course of action that
>>the Bush Administration has taken vis-a-vis Iraq has been detrimental
>>for our country.
>
>While many of them were sincere and felt that legal protest was the best
>thing to do to influence national policy, I still believe that a large
>percentage were only there for the party. It was true in the '60's and it
>holds true today as well.
>
I don't doubt that some un-political minded partyseekers saw an
opportunity for a good time.... on both sides of the issue. Surely
some of the attendees at the 'support our troops' rallies, just as at
the protests, weren't there for the beer & pussy?
Again, just cause some people are wrong in their motivation does not
make the casue they support wrong - Vietnam protests being the perfect
example (though the way you, my dad and other vets were treated by
some morons was deplorable).
Re Iraq, I know LOTS of people who supported the war, and LOTS who
were agaisnt it, but most of the people I know were (and still are)
rightly torn over the issue. those who were vehemently opposed to
it tended to downplay the very real benefits of removing Hussein and
those blindly for it tended to downplay the very significant risks and
repercussions of doing so.
The cyncial minded knew all along that the reasons being put forth
were simply to manufacture consent for the campaign. I don't think
there is any doubt at this time, except among the truly closed minded,
blind, or agenda-driven amongst us, that we were once again lied to
and played by yet another administration to go along with the (this
time) neo-con agenda.
Joshua
slenon
>Basiaclly I don't have enough faith in my fellow man vis a vis it's
interaction with other men AND the environment to beleive in a laissez
>faire business structure put forth by the Libertarian movement. So
government should be designed to protect us from each other but never
>from ourselves.
We've most of us had the dancing acquaintance with the radical fringes of
the political spectrum. I still have a dog-eared copy of Trotsky's "History
of the Russian Revolution." I grew up surrounded by local detachments of
a right wing militia known as the "Minutemen." When I last live in MO, I
was less than 20 minutes away from an armed Christian Identity compound
where such notables as Gary Rudolph received indoctrination.
I'm registered to vote and I don't miss elections. But I don't belong to
any party and likely never will. None of them describe me. I'm a hard
liner on defense, immigration, and national security. And I believe we need
a national health care program that covers all citizens. We need public
schools that teach education basics instead of sports. We should never
publically fund private or religious schools. No citizen should go hungry.
I don't trust any government anymore. But I don't trust ours less than I
don't trust those in other nations with different goals, cultures, and
policies.
I never trust business. Any business that isn't out to gut the competition
and corner the market is merely someone's hobby. But no business should be
allowed to move its offices offshore for tax purposes. Likewise, I don't
trust unions when the union leaders live and dress like corporate CEOs.
I want our leaders to have put in time in national service before being
allowed to feed at the public trough. No one should order troops to combat
who has not worn the uniform first. While the Constitution does not call
for this, my personal ethics do.
I don't trust the Libertarians any more than I trust the Republicans to
provide social safety nets. Letting the poor die quickly is not a solution
to housing, healthcare, and employment concerns.
I don't trust the Democrats to represent the center any longer. The drive
to political correctness, diversity as a policy, and multiculturalism has
too firmly allied them with every fringe element that can get a focus group
together and run a press conference.
The Green Party is a joke. Conservation and preservation of the ecology
are essential. But giving up our hard won position at the top of the food
chain and going on a vegan diet while basing national policy on layered
misconceptions and new age philosophies is a sure pathway to becoming a
citizen of some politically incorrect nation that doesn't give a shit about
snail darters.
I read Molly Ivins. I also read Krauthammer. And I read a ton of stuff
each week in between and outside them. There is nothing in this world so
valuable as information.
Guyz-N-Flyz
"slenon" <sle...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:aEm6b.11164$875.5...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >Ray Lee notes:
> >Most of the "crowds opposed to this war" -- the domestic ones, anyway
> >-- are American patriots who believe that the course of action that
> >the Bush Administration has taken vis-a-vis Iraq has been detrimental
> >for our country.
>
> While many of them were sincere and felt that legal protest was the best
> thing to do to influence national policy, I still believe that a large
> percentage were only there for the party. It was true in the '60's and it
> holds true today as well.
>
> ----
> Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Are you saying that your '60s belief still holds truth for you today, or are
you saying that " a large percentage were only there for the party" was a
truth in the '60s and is still a truth today?
If your answer is the latter of the above two questions:
How is something "true" that you BELIEVED to be true from the '60s. Are you
capable of mass telepathy, or is it that you are too cynical to believe
that there is a large portion of society (American) against war?
Op --just curious, but unlike a cat tethered as an alarm to the side of a
boat--
Joshua Rosenblatt
wrote:
good stuff - whether I agree with ya or not (sometimes do, sometimes
don't). Not gonna go into my personal list of issue positions (you're
welcome in advance) <g>
I guess I've gotten far less political over the years. MY politics
seem to be that primarily of trout these days. Perhaps as a result of
my growing sense of hopelessness regarding our political arena, and
perhaps because I've learned that focusing one's attention can be more
useful. I've been talking with some of our TU chapter gurus and I
plan on getting heavily involved once our meetings start up this fall.
It'll be nice to be active in some political issue again :)
When the trout are lost, smash the state! -Tom McGuane
Joshua
Tom Littleton
>I still believe that a large
>percentage were only there for the party.
strange, but hardly the effect one saw in a few Northeastern events.
>It was true in the '60's and it
>holds true today as well.
really? I would disagree with the first part of that "truism" as far from
absolute, and the second based on little beyond your opinion, as I have heard
no claim that you attended any of this year's rallies.
Tom
slenon
>How is something "true" that you BELIEVED to be true from the '60s. Are
you
>capable of mass telepathy, or is it that you are too cynical to believe
>that there is a large portion of society (American) against war?
>Op --just curious, but unlike a cat tethered as an alarm to the side of a
boat--
Some of what I believed in the '60's I still believe. And that includes the
belief that many demonstrators are there for the party. Cynical? Me? Of
course I am. And with reason. A large part of the American public is so
uninterested in anything beyond their own interests and needs that voters in
a Presidential election usually total less than 50% of the registered.
----
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
slenon
>absolute, and the second based on little beyond your opinion, as I have
heard
>no claim that you attended any of this year's rallies.
> Tom
There are no absolute truisms. And I did not attend this years rallies. I
would not willingly support anything sponsored or organized by ANSWER. My
conversations with those who did attend and what news coverage I have seen
reinforces my opinion. As always, YMMV
Guyz-N-Flyz
A large part of the American public is so
> uninterested in anything beyond their own interests and needs that voters
in
> a Presidential election usually total less than 50% of the registered.
Not necessarily voter apathy. Could just be that 50% of registered voters
don't much care for either of the major party candidates, and none of the
third party candidates. Why vote for the lesser of evils, when not voting
at all will tender the same result.
Additionally, why only allow voting on one particular day, why not set-up a
week in which voters may go to the polls? Maybe then more registered voters
would have a chance to vote.
Like you, I am also cynical.
Op
> ----
> Stev Lenon
volkfolk
"Jonathan Cook" <jc...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote in message
news:d812bd9.03090...@posting.google.com...
> "volkfolk" <volk...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<BmW5b.270236$Oz4.72450@rwcrnsc54>...
> >
> > If you ever listened to O'Reilly you would know that he is hardly a
right
> > winger.
>
> He's a libertarian disguising himself as a conservative because
> libertarian talk shows don't make much money. Libertarian ideas
> are basically orthogonal to the left/right split of American
> of the left than the right. Either that or they see the right as
> more easily swayed to libertarian positions than the left. Our
> previous NM "Republican" governor was a full-blooded libertarian.
>
> "community".
Nonsense, being a Libertarian is about everybody learning to be responsible
for themselves.
The whole concept of wealth redistribution is nothing more than socialism
IMO. I do accept the fact that there are certain things only the government
can do, but it has gone way too far in every area that it is involved in.
There are way too many people who regard the government as a meal ticket
(and that includes corporations and businesses). Welfare, Social Security,
Medicaid and other programs are hemoraging our money, are rife with fraud
and mismanagement.
Corporations are getting a free ride and soak up huge amounts of money from
industry bailouts (like the Airlines) and subsidies. If a business can't
make a profit and stay in business, then it shouldn't be in business.
Talk about way too much me, and not enough community. The community I want
to live in is the one where everybody pulls there own weight, working hard
doesn't mean that you have to give 50% of what I earn to someone else and
(most importantly) the government doesn't try to make a criminal out of me
for what I do in my own home.
Scot
David Snedeker
(usually hidden) personal responsibility cop-out. Scratch a "libertarian"
and you usually find a cheapskate. Too often you find a parent or a child
they are neglecting, a sick or poor sibling/spouse they have (or are about
to) run out on etc. etc.
I used to actually take "libertarians" seriously. After 60 years of life
experience I have to conclude that "libertarianism" for most "libertarians"
is just a garden variety personality disorder (basically obsessive juvenile
selfishness), and not some respectable "political" alternative. We all
sometimes balk about paying for things, and waste is waste, but without
basic private and public sharing we wouldn't exist. Consequently my most
frequent response to "Liberskateism" is . . . "Grow up."
Don't fret. There is hope. I've seen "liberskates" change - usually after
they have experienced personal illness or a bit of life's surprises.
Dave
Ideology sucks
volkfolk
"David Snedeker" <sned...@bainbridge.net> wrote in message
news:bjfrjs$2um$0...@216.39.143.8...
> Horse minachy Scott. Most "Libertarians" are just intellectualizing some
> (usually hidden) personal responsibility cop-out. Scratch a "libertarian"
> and you usually find a cheapskate. Too often you find a parent or a child
> they are neglecting, a sick or poor sibling/spouse they have (or are about
> to) run out on etc. etc.
Hardly. I spent eight years working with mentally retarded adults I hardly
think that I qualify as someone who shirks personal responsibilty. I was in
the trenches the whole time, doing direct care with the lowest functioning
members of our society. That experience more than any other turned me into a
libertarian. The amount of money that is tied up in bureaucratic bullshit is
truely staggering. Social Security is a joke, because of the use it (spend
it) or lose it policy that SSI has. I took people who can't even say their
own name on $2000.00 "spend downs" (they had too much money in their savings
accounts, and so they have to spend it or lose their benefits) We bought
stereos, exercise equipement, TV's etc, just so that these folks could keep
their "spending money" ( Their room and board is already funded as well as
meals etc, WTF does someone with and IQ of 30 need $500 dollars a month
spending money for?)
I work for myself and pay taxes on things like unemployment ( I have no
employees and can't collect on it myself, but I still have to pay into the
system) a "self employment" tax ( a scam IMO) in addition to several state
and local "fees" to work for myself, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
requires me to carry Workmans Comp on myself, yet I am inelligible to make
claim on my own policy .
Care to enlighten me on why you think I should be paying the freight on
stuff that I am not allowed to make use of?
> I used to actually take "libertarians" seriously. After 60 years of life
> experience I have to conclude that "libertarianism" for most
"libertarians"
> is just a garden variety personality disorder (basically obsessive
juvenile
> selfishness), and not some respectable "political" alternative. We all
> sometimes balk about paying for things, and waste is waste, but without
> basic private and public sharing we wouldn't exist. Consequently my most
> frequent response to "Liberskateism" is . . . "Grow up."
Nice try, I think you are confusing Libertarian with Libertine. I am a
Libertarian because I see the government as corrupt, ineffective and
bloated. I believe that most government services could be better provided by
the private sector. I am tired of seeing my civil liberties being erroded
away by people who think that they know best what I should be able to read,
ingest, think and sleep with.
Selfish? Maybe, but so what? If I want to be selfish, that's my business.
There is nothing in the Constitution that says I am required to be generous.
> Don't fret. There is hope. I've seen "liberskates" change - usually after
> they have experienced personal illness or a bit of life's surprises.
Thanks for the life advice, but I am not looking for any handouts, no matter
what my circumstances. I would appreciate it if your hand (and the
governments) stayed out of my pocket. I am more than capable deciding the
best use for my money.
Copping out? Hardly. IMO the cop out is on the part of people who believe
that big goverment and taxes are going to make everyone's life better
Obviously YMMV,
Scot
slenon
>Nice try, I think you are confusing Libertarian with Libertine. I am a
>Libertarian because I see the government as corrupt, ineffective and
>bloated. I believe that most government services could be better provided
by
>the private sector. I am tired of seeing my civil liberties being erroded
>away by people who think that they know best what I should be able to read,
>ingest, think and sleep with.
While your view of government may be corrupt, your social security account
is somewhat better protected from imbezzlement and mismanagement than those
folks who invested privately in Enron. Sure the return may be lower than
the dotcom darlings but there will likely be a return unless it gets
privatized. You don't want to be in a country where the cops and the army
are for sale to the highest bidder. We make jokes about Banana Repbulics
for a reason. Without that bloated ineffective government, the Constitution
would be scraps of paper with no value other than historic interest. There
would be no civil liberties as there would be no civilization. Libertarians
always seem to lose sight of the fact that if we all believed as they do we
would be stuck in a dreadful mixture of laissez faire capitalism blended
with anarchy. Imagine Afghanistan combined with Russia, Scott. Mafia,
Warlords, and truly corrupt, ineffective government, but it is what you're
aiming for.
Hope you have a strong bunker, lots of ammo, and a stockpile of food and
medicines.
Tom Littleton
>You don't want to be in a country where the cops and the army
>are for sale to the highest bidder.
oh, but at times they are!
>We make jokes about Banana Repbulics
>for a reason.
a central problem with this nation's focus. Since we view such nations as
"jokes", we are thus free to help them run things, or sometimes, run things
into the ground.
Later, we bemoan the fact that the ingrates hate us.
>Libertarians
>always seem to lose sight of the fact that if we all believed as they do we
>would be stuck in a dreadful mixture of laissez faire capitalism blended
>with anarchy.
cripes, you can get that from Republicans, after a while.
>Hope you have a strong bunker, lots of ammo, and a stockpile of food and
>medicines.
throw in strong drink and heinous chemicals and you have Hunter Thompson's
approach. The man could have
a point, as well.
Tom
Neil Krueger
wrote on 9/7/03 5:08 AM:
>
> "Jonathan Cook" <jc...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote in message
> news:d812bd9.03090...@posting.google.com...
>> "volkfolk" <volk...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:<BmW5b.270236$Oz4.72450@rwcrnsc54>...
>>>
>>> If you ever listened to O'Reilly you would know that he is hardly a
> right
>>> winger.
>>
>> He's a libertarian disguising himself as a conservative because
>> libertarian talk shows don't make much money. Libertarian ideas
>> are basically orthogonal to the left/right split of American
>> politics, but it seems that the L's are currently more fearful
>> of the left than the right. Either that or they see the right as
>> more easily swayed to libertarian positions than the left. Our
>> previous NM "Republican" governor was a full-blooded libertarian.
>>
>> I'm definitely NOT a libertarian...too much "me" and not enough
>> "community".
>
> Nonsense, being a Libertarian is about everybody learning to be responsible
> for themselves.
But there is no mechanism to help those who have problems.
> The whole concept of wealth redistribution is nothing more than socialism
> IMO. I do accept the fact that there are certain things only the government
> can do, but it has gone way too far in every area that it is involved in.
What you are calling socialism here is more appropriately called compassion
or altruism. It shouldn't be all about keeping as many of your own dollars
as you can possibly manage.
> There are way too many people who regard the government as a meal ticket
> (and that includes corporations and businesses). Welfare, Social Security,
> Medicaid and other programs are hemoraging our money, are rife with fraud
> and mismanagement.
There is far less fraud than you imagine--a couple of percent of the total
number of dollars paid out, at most.
> Corporations are getting a free ride and soak up huge amounts of money from
> industry bailouts (like the Airlines) and subsidies. If a business can't
> make a profit and stay in business, then it shouldn't be in business.
Completely true.
> Talk about way too much me, and not enough community. The community I want
> to live in is the one where everybody pulls there own weight, working hard
> doesn't mean that you have to give 50% of what I earn to someone else and
> (most importantly) the government doesn't try to make a criminal out of me
> for what I do in my own home.
To pay for services you want--including roads, fire protection, police,
military, terrorism intelligence, environmental protection--what percentage
of your paycheck do you imagine this would cost? These things aren't cheap.
The items that many on the right point to as things that should be cut
wouldn't have more than a few percent of their check if they were gone.
Peace,
Neil X.
volkfolk
> Scott:
> >Nice try, I think you are confusing Libertarian with Libertine. I am a
> >Libertarian because I see the government as corrupt, ineffective and
> >bloated. I believe that most government services could be better provided
> by
> >the private sector. I am tired of seeing my civil liberties being erroded
> >away by people who think that they know best what I should be able to
read,
> >ingest, think and sleep with.
>
> While your view of government may be corrupt, your social security account
> is somewhat better protected from imbezzlement and mismanagement than
those
> folks who invested privately in Enron. Sure the return may be lower than
> the dotcom darlings but there will likely be a return unless it gets
> privatized.
I don't expect to see a dime of my SSI. I think it will be broke by the time
I am eligible to collect. I would be more than happy to invest it on my own.
The biggest problem with the Enron employees was that they were not
diversified. All of their eggs in one basket so to speak. Unfortunately all
of my eggs are in one basket too, Uncle Sam's basket. I don't think that he
is doing any better than Enron, based on what I see happening in Washington.
> You don't want to be in a country where the cops and the army
> are for sale to the highest bidder. We make jokes about Banana Repbulics
> for a reason. Without that bloated ineffective government, the
Constitution
> would be scraps of paper with no value other than historic interest.
There
> would be no civil liberties as there would be no civilization.
Libertarians
> always seem to lose sight of the fact that if we all believed as they do
we
> would be stuck in a dreadful mixture of laissez faire capitalism blended
> with anarchy. Imagine Afghanistan combined with Russia, Scott. Mafia,
> Warlords, and truly corrupt, ineffective government, but it is what you're
> aiming for.
I don't expect or want to privatize police, fire, the military or schools
> Hope you have a strong bunker, lots of ammo, and a stockpile of food and
> medicines.
I am not against a strong military, strong local police and fire depts, or
good roads, nor am I against paying taxes. What I resent is the idea that
government is the answer to all problems.
I think that welfare (individual and corporate) is being taken advantage of
at all levels. I believe that Social Security is going to be bankrupt by the
time that I am eligible to collect it.
I think that we spend too much time giving people a hand out instead of a
hand up(kind of a correlary to your theory about the OJ jury, people too
stupid to do for themselves because they expect the government to do for
them) It might be an overused cliche, but it is true. "Give a man a fish and
he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for life". I recognize
that some people will never be able to do for themselves, but there are
plenty of people out there who are getting some sort of government
assistance that they don't really need
I am hardly an anarchist, but I firmly believe that our government is out of
control. It is a giant siphon, spending money like it is water, and giving
us very little return on our investment.
I agree that there need to be some government services, but much of the
federal budget is fat that should be trimmed.
Scot
volkfolk
"Neil Krueger" <n...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BB812068.B01E%n...@comcast.net...
I am willing to pay my fair share, and give my time and money to worthy
causes. I just feel that we are way over the edge of what is fair. Not just
for me, but for everybody (who is paying taxes) I think that there is
staggering waste throughout the Federal Government. I think that lots of the
services could be very effectively shifted to State and local government
where it could be more effectively delivered
> > There are way too many people who regard the government as a meal ticket
> > (and that includes corporations and businesses). Welfare, Social
Security,
> > Medicaid and other programs are hemoraging our money, are rife with
fraud
> > and mismanagement.
>
> There is far less fraud than you imagine--a couple of percent of the total
> number of dollars paid out, at most.
When I worked in group homes the waste was frightening. Social Security will
not allow people to accumulate more that a couple of hundred dollars in
their bank account, so "spend downs" very common occurance. (spending money
to make sure that the current level of benefits are maintained) I wouldn't
be surprised if there were a few hundred million dollars of "spend down"
money annually nationwide.
That is only the tip of the iceberg IMO
> > Corporations are getting a free ride and soak up huge amounts of money
from
> > industry bailouts (like the Airlines) and subsidies. If a business can't
> > make a profit and stay in business, then it shouldn't be in business.
>
> Completely true.
>
> > Talk about way too much me, and not enough community. The community I
want
> > to live in is the one where everybody pulls there own weight, working
hard
> > doesn't mean that you have to give 50% of what I earn to someone else
and
> > (most importantly) the government doesn't try to make a criminal out of
me
> > for what I do in my own home.
>
> To pay for services you want--including roads, fire protection, police,
> military, terrorism intelligence, environmental protection--what
percentage
> of your paycheck do you imagine this would cost? These things aren't
cheap.
> The items that many on the right point to as things that should be cut
> wouldn't have more than a few percent of their check if they were gone.
I have no problem paying for any of the above services, but most of the
services you mentioned are state and local government responsibilities, not
Federal. I would actually prefer to see a stronger local government and a
less powerful federal government.
As always YMMV,
Scot
Peter Charles
wrote:
>
>Nice try, I think you are confusing Libertarian with Libertine. I am a
>Libertarian because I see the government as corrupt, ineffective and
>bloated. I believe that most government services could be better provided by
>the private sector. I am tired of seeing my civil liberties being erroded
>away by people who think that they know best what I should be able to read,
>ingest, think and sleep with.
Ya, well, come up here and witness what eight years of "private sector
solutions" has done to fuck up this province. Just because your
experience with ineffective public sector service doesn't mean that
the public sector can't work efficiently -- it just means that your
particular public sector is the shits. BTW, dig deep enough and I bet
that most of your public sector waste has a private sector origin
(i.e. wasteful spending done to keep some politician's corporate
masters happy). Try some serious campaign spending reform and watch
your public sector clean up its act.
The biggest problem with the private sector solutions is that a truly
competitive market cannot be created out of government run services.
That's why they're usually government run. If you think a government
monopoly is bad, you should try living with a corporate one.
>
>Selfish? Maybe, but so what? If I want to be selfish, that's my business.
>There is nothing in the Constitution that says I am required to be generous.
>
>> Don't fret. There is hope. I've seen "liberskates" change - usually after
>> they have experienced personal illness or a bit of life's surprises.
>
>Thanks for the life advice, but I am not looking for any handouts, no matter
>what my circumstances. I would appreciate it if your hand (and the
>governments) stayed out of my pocket. I am more than capable deciding the
>best use for my money.
>
>Copping out? Hardly. IMO the cop out is on the part of people who believe
>that big goverment and taxes are going to make everyone's life better
>
>Obviously YMMV,
>
and mine does
What really pisses me off is that whatever political disease starts in
the US, it usually ends up north of the border. The neo-conservative
philosophy (neo-fascist without the brownshirts) arose out of the old
belief that the market produces superior results in the way of public
policy. It's been tried once already, it failed and the growth of the
public sector resulted. Now we're in for round two.
In the GWN, the government sector usually operates reasonably well.
Serious public sector fuck-ups have only occurred in Ontario after the
neo-cons took power and began the deliberate process of destroying the
public trust in public sector solutions. Here's one small example of
how it works. Ontario's health system currently has a problem
delivering MRI and CT scans without lengthy waits for non-emergency
scans. A few years back, the neo-con government shut down radiologist
college programs because they weren't "needed." Then it mandated that
hospitals could only operate their MRI and CT machines for 8 hours a
day. Then, to solve the "crisis" they created, they allowed the
opening of private MRI clinics but they would not allow hospitals to
bid for the clinic contracts. They then mandated that the private
clinics could not poach staff from the hospitals (we have a neo-con
engineered staff shortage, remember) but when the inevitable poaching
started, the government rationalized as "not poaching." Hospital MRI
departments are now worse off than they have ever been. The health
industry in the US has been licking its chops for years, hoping to
crack the Canadian market. It looks like they've finally found the
right politicians to buy.
So don't whine too loudly for an all private sector solution -- you
might get it. Really get it. Right up the old anus.
Peter
Eastern Spey Clave, October 4th and 5th, 2003
http://www.easternclave.ca
Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html
slenon
>a central problem with this nation's focus. Since we view such nations as
>"jokes", we are thus free to help them run things, or sometimes, run things
>into the ground. Later, we bemoan the fact that the ingrates hate us.
Of course, the cops are too often for hire. At what we pay them, we're
lucky they work at all.
As for our view of other nations, we too often come by it honestly. While
we have corruption and inefficiency, there are other nations which excel at
such things in a manner we can't even begin to imagine. However it is their
system and they do take offense when we meddle and sometimes when we fail to
meddle. The world is a strange place and I find that Kipling was right more
than he was wrong.
> throw in strong drink and heinous chemicals and you have Hunter Thompson's
approach. The man could have
>a point, as well.
But does his refrigerator withstand repeated small arms fire?
slenon
>federal budget is fat that should be trimmed.
>Scot
Be very careful what you trim. There's a damned sight less waste than you
think in the things that matter most. And the things that matter most may
not be what you think they are. What I resent is the idea that the
government, or this nation, is the source of all evil. I've been closer to
the source than many folks and it doesn't reside here.
slenon
get it. Really get it. Right up >the old anus.
>Peter
You've hulled him, Peter, but he won't recognize it till his shoes are
filled with whatever he's standing in.
--
Tom Littleton
>But does his refrigerator withstand repeated small arms fire?
>
by all reports, yes....repeatedly.
Tom
Neil Krueger
sle...@tampabay.rr.com wrote on 9/7/03 4:48 PM:
> Scott:
>> Nice try, I think you are confusing Libertarian with Libertine. I am a
>> Libertarian because I see the government as corrupt, ineffective and
>> bloated. I believe that most government services could be better provided
> by
>> the private sector. I am tired of seeing my civil liberties being erroded
>> away by people who think that they know best what I should be able to read,
>> ingest, think and sleep with.
>
> While your view of government may be corrupt, your social security account
> is somewhat better protected from imbezzlement and mismanagement than those
> folks who invested privately in Enron. Sure the return may be lower than
> the dotcom darlings but there will likely be a return unless it gets
> privatized. You don't want to be in a country where the cops and the army
> are for sale to the highest bidder. We make jokes about Banana Repbulics
> for a reason. Without that bloated ineffective government, the Constitution
> would be scraps of paper with no value other than historic interest. There
> would be no civil liberties as there would be no civilization. Libertarians
> always seem to lose sight of the fact that if we all believed as they do we
> would be stuck in a dreadful mixture of laissez faire capitalism blended
> with anarchy. Imagine Afghanistan combined with Russia, Scott. Mafia,
> Warlords, and truly corrupt, ineffective government, but it is what you're
> aiming for.
>
> Hope you have a strong bunker, lots of ammo, and a stockpile of food and
> medicines.
HRYK
Peace,
Neil X.
Neil Krueger
sle...@tampabay.rr.com wrote on 9/7/03 9:04 PM:
>> What I resent is the idea that government is the answer to all problems.
>> I agree that there need to be some government services, but much of the
>> federal budget is fat that should be trimmed.
>> Scot
>
> Be very careful what you trim. There's a damned sight less waste than you
> think in the things that matter most. And the things that matter most may
> not be what you think they are. What I resent is the idea that the
> government, or this nation, is the source of all evil. I've been closer to
> the source than many folks and it doesn't reside here.
And with this post it seems you are right twice in one night.....
Don't let it go to your head. ;)
Peace,
Neil X.
anno
> Corporations are getting a free ride and soak up huge amounts of money
from
> industry bailouts (like the Airlines) and subsidies. If a business can't
> make a profit and stay in business, then it shouldn't be in business.
>
I agree with you in principal, the airlines, like most failed business, were
guilty of mis-management.
But the economic impact of the airlines collapsing would be a lot more
expensive than the bailout that was given.
Scott Seidman
news:bjdagp$hqjes$1...@ID-81311.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
> Not necessarily voter apathy. Could just be that 50% of registered
> voters don't much care for either of the major party candidates, and
> none of the third party candidates. Why vote for the lesser of evils,
> when not voting at all will tender the same result.
How about "The Presidential Election of 2000"? An extra 20% voter turnout
might very well have prevented the kangaroo election flavor, regardless of
who the final winner was. I also choose to believe that while not voting
at all might tender the same result, that just isn't a good enough excuse
to opt out of a social responsibility.
>
> Additionally, why only allow voting on one particular day, why not
> set-up a week in which voters may go to the polls? Maybe then more
> registered voters would have a chance to vote.
Voter fraud is rampant enough. While recent technologies might facilitate
a week long voting scheme, these technologies are recent and voting laws
will take a while to catch up.
Plus, who wants to listen to that election day coverage for a whole damn
week?
>
> Like you, I am also cynical.
>
> Op
>
>
>> ----
>
>
>
Scott
Scott Seidman
news:nbL6b.381553$YN5.254067@sccrnsc01:
> Hardly. I spent eight years working with mentally retarded adults I
> hardly think that I qualify as someone who shirks personal
> responsibilty. I was in the trenches the whole time, doing direct care
> with the lowest functioning members of our society. That experience
> more than any other turned me into a libertarian. The amount of money
> that is tied up in bureaucratic bullshit is truely staggering. Social
> Security is a joke, because of the use it (spend it) or lose it policy
> that SSI has. I took people who can't even say their own name on
> $2000.00 "spend downs" (they had too much money in their savings
> accounts, and so they have to spend it or lose their benefits) We
> bought stereos, exercise equipement, TV's etc, just so that these
> folks could keep their "spending money" ( Their room and board is
> already funded as well as meals etc,
So, the obvious conclusion is that there's no way to fix SSI, or that the
help it offers to hundreds of thousands is so trivial as to do away with
the program?
One could also argue that those with enough in savings accounts don't need
all their bennies. Much better to buy stereos than to spend that two grand
on your own health care.
> WTF does someone with and IQ of
> 30 need $500 dollars a month spending money for?)
>
Oh, I don't know. Perhaps all of the unfortunates in this situation aren't
institutionalized, might need groceries, carfare, maybe even picture books
and videos to make a less-than-ideal existance a little more pleasant.
Of course, you can make believe that the small slice of life you see
applies to every situation if you choose
Scott
rw
>
> How about "The Presidential Election of 2000"? An extra 20% voter turnout
> might very well have prevented the kangaroo election flavor, regardless of
> who the final winner was.
And how about dumping the ridiculous Electoral College system so that
the person who gets the most votes wins.
Scott Seidman
news:3f5c8bfc$0$46498$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com:
I think there are quite a few reasons to keep it-- a last check on the
people, voice for sparsely-populated states, etc.
Besides, the states can choose to "fix" it if the state governments have a
real problem with it, by simply splitting their electoral votes to reflect
their popular vote. Many states do this, and many other states award all
their votes to their popular winner.
If you want to pick up a real cause, how about the unrepresented people of
DC?
Scott
slenon
Yep, that's the HST reknowned in "Boat Drinks," and many back page news
items originating from Woody Creek.
I've lost my "Rage, Fear & Loathing Ski Club," pin and damned if I can find
it.
Ken Janik
>
> Additionally, why only allow voting on one particular day, why not set-up a
> week in which voters may go to the polls? Maybe then more registered voters
> would have a chance to vote.
Oregon votes by mail-in ballot and it hasn't seemed to change the
voter turnout much.
Gotta say I do like not having to get to a polling place anymore.
- Ken
volkfolk
"Scott Seidman" <namdie...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93F05A2E8D9C5sc...@130.133.1.4...
> "volkfolk" <volk...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:nbL6b.381553$YN5.254067@sccrnsc01:
>
> > Hardly. I spent eight years working with mentally retarded adults I
> > hardly think that I qualify as someone who shirks personal
> > responsibilty. I was in the trenches the whole time, doing direct care
> > with the lowest functioning members of our society. That experience
> > more than any other turned me into a libertarian. The amount of money
> > that is tied up in bureaucratic bullshit is truely staggering. Social
> > Security is a joke, because of the use it (spend it) or lose it policy
> > that SSI has. I took people who can't even say their own name on
> > $2000.00 "spend downs" (they had too much money in their savings
> > accounts, and so they have to spend it or lose their benefits) We
> > bought stereos, exercise equipement, TV's etc, just so that these
> > folks could keep their "spending money" ( Their room and board is
> > already funded as well as meals etc,
> So, the obvious conclusion is that there's no way to fix SSI, or that the
> help it offers to hundreds of thousands is so trivial as to do away with
> the program?
Then fix it. Because it is seriously broken IMO. And I agree that there are
some folks who do need public assistance, but I believe that SSI needs to be
completely overhauled and that the bar should be raised as to who can
collect benefits.
> One could also argue that those with enough in savings accounts don't need
> all their bennies. Much better to buy stereos than to spend that two
grand
> on your own health care.
I am not sure what your point is. My wife and I do pay for our own health
insurance. My wife's job is the one that carries benefits, but we pay close
to 75% of the cost of those benefits (approximately $400 per month) I don'
mind paying it either. At some point I anticipate paying 100% of our health
benefits, as I am self employed and she will probably be leaving her job
within the next year or two.
So far as the individuals I worked with in the group home, the money that I
was refering to was not tied to their health benefits, so it is a non
sequiter to talk about a choice between health benefits and stereos
> > WTF does someone with and IQ of
> > 30 need $500 dollars a month spending money for?)
> >
> Oh, I don't know. Perhaps all of the unfortunates in this situation
aren't
> institutionalized, might need groceries, carfare, maybe even picture books
> and videos to make a less-than-ideal existance a little more pleasant.
The point you are missing is that all that is already paid for. The folks I
am refering to live in group homes. This money is above and beyond any
living expenses. They have staff with agency vans to transport them,
groceries that are paid for out of agency funds etc. These folks have
everything paid for. I agree that these folks have a less than ideal
existence, but why give them money that they don't require to live, if all
you are going to do is make them spend it every quarter on stuff that they
don't need.
As I said, I spent eight years watching staff take these folks on these
"spend downs", buying things that they didn't need and in some cases
couldn't even use.
> Of course, you can make believe that the small slice of life you see
> applies to every situation if you choose
I have seen enough of life to know that there are some seriously broken
parts of our government and it spends out money,
as always YMMV,
Scot
volkfolk
> I have seen enough of life to know that there are some seriously broken
> parts of our government and it spends out money,
I wrote this in a hurry and therefore didn't proofread it
sorry, this sentence should read
"I have seen enough of life to know that there are some seriously broken
parts of our governmentand it spends our money with little oversight and no
accountability"
Scot
Peter Charles
<namdie...@mindspring.com> wrote:
The Electoral College was originally created to prevent the ignorant
masses from electing a president who would be unacceptable to the
elites. The rational for its existence has since morphed into the
regional representation issue. A mature democracy, such as the US,
has no need for such a device. The last election should be ample
reason to discard it. This isn't a matter of Bush vs. Gore, but
rather a matter of one person, one vote. That is representative
democracy. Why should the value of a person's vote in some sparsely
populated rural state count more than one living in a heavily
populated state? When an unrepresentative body such as the
Electoral College can overturn the will of the majority people, you
have a problem.
Peter Charles
wrote:
>>So don't whine too loudly for an all private sector >solution -- you might
>get it. Really get it. Right up >the old anus.
>>Peter
>
>You've hulled him, Peter, but he won't recognize it till his shoes are
>filled with whatever he's standing in.
You notice that he kinda skipped right over it, eh? Must've not shown
up on his server.
volkfolk
"Peter Charles" <minib...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:p28qlvst06gp38nma...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 01:06:06 GMT, "slenon" <sle...@tampabay.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>So don't whine too loudly for an all private sector >solution -- you
might
> >get it. Really get it. Right up >the old anus.
> >>Peter
> >
> >You've hulled him, Peter, but he won't recognize it till his shoes are
> >filled with whatever he's standing in.
>
> You notice that he kinda skipped right over it, eh? Must've not shown
> up on his server.
I don't run away from my opinions.
I do have a life outside of this NG. Sorry if you seem to think I am ducking
the issue, but I do lose posts after 24 hours. Comcast's server only keeps
messages for a day, so as a matter of fact, indeed I didn't see your post
Additionally I have addressed in numerous other posts what I would like to
see happen
I am not an anarchist. I do believe that we need to have some goverment
services
Police, Fire and Military as well as some Social Services. Show me where I
said I didn't.
What I do want to see happen is the Federal Government shrunk drasticly and
State and wherever possible Local government pick up the slack. I don't
believe that the Federal government is effective in many areas that it has
huge authority in right now.
I firmly believe that most things that the federal government does it does
ineffectively and other than those things that were originally spelled out
in the Constitution it has no business being involved in.
I think that Education should be left up to local communities to handle
I believe that the National Endowment for the Arts should be done away
I believe that anyone who chooses to should be able to opt out of Social
Security
Likewise with Medicare and Medicaid
I believe that DEA, ATF and other agencies that police behavior should be
done away with
I believe that the Dept of Homeland Security should be closed
That is just a start, but I don't have all night to itemize all the things
that I would like to strip from the Federal government.
The only mandate that I want the Federal government to fufill is to protect
our borders and our environment. Other than that everything else should be
left to state and local government
Clear enough?
Scot
Peter Charles
wrote:
>
Crystal, you've shifted from private sector solutions to decentralized
ones. By your description, there wouldn't be much of a nation left,
just a collection of states doing their own thing. It's not a new
philosophy -- check out the Articles of Confederation -- it's been
done before and been found wanting.
Wayne Harrison
"Peter Charles" <minib...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> >That is just a start, but I don't have all night to itemize all the
things
> >that I would like to strip from the Federal government.
> >
> >The only mandate that I want the Federal government to fufill is to
protect
> >our borders and our environment. Other than that everything else should
be
> >left to state and local government
> >
> >Clear enough?
> >
> >Scot
> >
>
> Crystal, you've shifted from private sector solutions to decentralized
> ones. By your description, there wouldn't be much of a nation left,
> just a collection of states doing their own thing. It's not a new
> philosophy -- check out the Articles of Confederation -- it's been
> done before and been found wanting.
well, i wish i was in the land of cotton;
old times there are not forgotten--
look away, look away, look away, dixie land...
i don't know why it's so hard to get outside that feeling. but it's for
sure that 9/11 took the anger away.
yfitons
wayno
volkfolk
I don't believe that I ever suggested privatizing anything, you must have
confused me with someone else. I also happen to disagree with your
assessment that there "wouldn't be much of a nation left". We live in a
vastly different world than the one that the founding fathers lived in. The
internet, cell phones, TV etc allow for instant communication and the
ability to travel virtually anywhere on the planet within a day mean that we
certainly wouldn't be a bunch of isolated enclaves
I just don't see how having some gigantic, big brother like central
government gains us anything except for financial excess and a bureacracy
filled with no nothing drones collecting a paycheck. Certainly there is a
role for some federal government (hell, I will even concede the need for
some sort of World government at some point within the next century or two)
but I believe that each community should be able to determine the laws which
they want to be governed under and how much government involvement they want
in their lives.
And yes, I realize some communities are going to have better schools, better
roads, better water etc, but that is what we have now. All the government
programs, federal laws, unfunded and funded mandates and wishful thinking in
the world aren't going to change the fact that some people and communities
are going to prosper and some aren't
It doesn't matter how level the playing field is, there are always going to
be winners and losers.
Scot
volkfolk
"Wayne Harrison" <wa...@triad.rr.com> wrote in message
news:lob7b.15847$ip5.1...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> > Crystal, you've shifted from private sector solutions to decentralized
> > ones. By your description, there wouldn't be much of a nation left,
> > just a collection of states doing their own thing. It's not a new
> > philosophy -- check out the Articles of Confederation -- it's been
> > done before and been found wanting.
>
>
> well, i wish i was in the land of cotton;
> old times there are not forgotten--
The articles of Confederation were the predecessor to the Constitution and
the Bill of Rights, they have nothing to do with the Civil War, Slavery or
the Confederate States of America
http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html
Scot
rw
>
> I don't believe that I ever suggested privatizing anything, you must have
> confused me with someone else. I also happen to disagree with your
> assessment that there "wouldn't be much of a nation left". We live in a
> vastly different world than the one that the founding fathers lived in. The
> internet, cell phones, TV etc allow for instant communication and the
> ability to travel virtually anywhere on the planet within a day mean that we
> certainly wouldn't be a bunch of isolated enclaves
>
> I just don't see how having some gigantic, big brother like central
> government gains us anything except for financial excess and a bureacracy
> filled with no nothing drones collecting a paycheck. Certainly there is a
> role for some federal government (hell, I will even concede the need for
> some sort of World government at some point within the next century or two)
> but I believe that each community should be able to determine the laws which
> they want to be governed under and how much government involvement they want
> in their lives.
>
> And yes, I realize some communities are going to have better schools, better
> roads, better water etc, but that is what we have now. All the government
> programs, federal laws, unfunded and funded mandates and wishful thinking in
> the world aren't going to change the fact that some people and communities
> are going to prosper and some aren't
>
> It doesn't matter how level the playing field is, there are always going to
> be winners and losers.
Have you been fishing lately? Maybe it's time to get out there.
volkfolk
"rw" <royal...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3f5d53b9$0$46530$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
Sailing actually. Sorry for subjecting you Flyfishermen to my Deadhead,
libertarian rants.
But don't worry, I actually do have a life
Want to hear about my sailboat?
Scot
Wayne Knight
> insurance. My wife's job is the one that carries benefits, but we pay
close
> to 75% of the cost of those benefits (approximately $400 per month) I don'
> mind paying it either. At some point I anticipate paying 100% of our
health
> benefits, as I am self employed and she will probably be leaving her job
> within the next year or two.
>
@ $400/mo I doubt seriously you are paying 75% of the benefit cost.
volkfolk
"Wayne Knight" <wrkn...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:dfd7b.598$nQ.1...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
We have a high co pay, I don't know the exact figure, but it is somewhere
around that number and that percentage
The guy who I used to work for joined a pool of self employed insurees and
is paying $650 per month for a family plan and he is paying 100% of his
coverage
Scot
Wayne Knight
>
> The Electoral College was originally created to prevent the ignorant
> masses from electing a president who would be unacceptable to the
> elites. The rational for its existence has since morphed into the
> regional representation issue. A mature democracy, such as the US,
> has no need for such a device. The last election should be ample
> reason to discard it. This isn't a matter of Bush vs. Gore, but
> rather a matter of one person, one vote. That is representative
> democracy. Why should the value of a person's vote in some sparsely
> populated rural state count more than one living in a heavily
> populated state? When an unrepresentative body such as the
> Electoral College can overturn the will of the majority people, you
> have a problem.
>
For a foreigner, you're usually pretty good at American political theory but
you're a little off on this one.
The only thing the last election proved was
1. The state of Florida could not count a vote...
2. People would go to great lengths to show their ignorance ("we didn't know
we voting for someone else")
and lastly....
3. If you're gonna run for president, make sure the people in your home
state want you to win.
The electorial college is even more relevant today than it was in the early
days of the country. While it does not even out entirely, it helps ensure
that the voter in Wyoming has at least some relevance to the electoral
result. Under the one man one vote theory, all ya gotta do is concentrate on
the few big states. One man one vote assumes a level playing field, the
founding fathers got this one right. Even if it did stick us with Georgie.
But in spite of junior's best efforts, we will survive.
Wayne K
Wayne Knight
>
>
> We have a high co pay, I don't know the exact figure, but it is somewhere
> around that number and that percentage
>
> The guy who I used to work for joined a pool of self employed insurees and
> is paying $650 per month for a family plan and he is paying 100% of his
> coverage
>
If the coverage is decent with reasonable co-pays and coverage that would be
a relative bargain. I'm going to have the raise the darn deductibles to $750
per person and lower the benie to 80% of covered just to get my employee
cost to $1,000 net of the employee contributions. And I run a freaking
hospital.
volkfolk
What state are you in? I believe that some of the cost is determined by the
state where the coverage is offered. I am in Massachusetts, a state which
has lots of Doctors, excellent hospitals (the best in the world, actually)
This is supposition on my part, but it would be a possible explaination IMO
Scot
rb608
> > old times there are not forgotten--
>
> The articles of Confederation were the predecessor to the Constitution and
> the Bill of Rights, they have nothing to do with the Civil War, Slavery or
> the Confederate States of America
ROFL. I'd love to delve more deeply into the humor of wayno getting a
lesson on the US Constitution; but I'm late for a meeting (& fishing trip.)
Joe F.
Scott Seidman
> Why should the value of a person's vote in some sparsely
> populated rural state count more than one living in a heavily
> populated state?
Not more, but some equitable balance. For example, some sparsely populated
states supply much of our food. The voice of the farmer or rancher needs
to be heard in national elections, and the major parties must be forced to
woo this constituency. The alternative is forcing the masses to recognize
that there are important issues that aren't "their" issues, but they must
pay attention to them anyway.
Plus-- I'd argue that in a country that could come anywhere near electing
Bush two, we really have to be careful who we let directly vote :-)
Scott
Scott Seidman
> When an unrepresentative body such as the
> Electoral College can overturn the will of the majority people, you
> have a problem.
>
The Electoral College is not unrepresentative. We vote for them.
Scott
Charlie Choc
<namdie...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Peter Charles <minib...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:jc7qlvgps3vbqdjcv...@4ax.com:
>
>> Why should the value of a person's vote in some sparsely
>> populated rural state count more than one living in a heavily
>> populated state?
>
>Not more, but some equitable balance. For example, some sparsely populated
>states supply much of our food. The voice of the farmer or rancher needs
>to be heard in national elections, and the major parties must be forced to
>woo this constituency.
They already have more Senate clout per capita than more populated
states. I expect Congress has more impact on the needs of the farmer
than the President.
--
Charlie...
Ken Fortenberry
>
> They already have more Senate clout per capita than more populated
> states. I expect Congress has more impact on the needs of the farmer
> than the President.
I'm not so sure about that. The Executive Branch appoints the heads, and
thereby influences the direction, of a lot of government agencies that
impact the farmer.
--
Ken Fortenberry
Peter Charles
> "Peter Charles" <minib...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jc7qlvgps3vbqdjcv...@4ax.com...
> >
> > The Electoral College was originally created to prevent the ignorant
> > masses from electing a president who would be unacceptable to the
> > elites. The rational for its existence has since morphed into the
> > regional representation issue. A mature democracy, such as the US,
> > has no need for such a device. The last election should be ample
> > reason to discard it. This isn't a matter of Bush vs. Gore, but
> > rather a matter of one person, one vote. That is representative
> > democracy. Why should the value of a person's vote in some sparsely
> > populated rural state count more than one living in a heavily
> > populated state? When an unrepresentative body such as the
> > Electoral College can overturn the will of the majority people, you
> > have a problem.
> >
>
> For a foreigner, you're usually pretty good at American political theory but
> you're a little off on this one.
>
Historically or the current situation? Keep in mind that when the
college was created, there was no Wyoming and there were no scarcely
populated western states. The individual states and the founding
fathers feared two things above all else, an unrestrained central
government and unrestrained democracy. The states got to pick the
president via the college and also select their senators, ensuring
that both the executive and the elected House of representatives would
be constrained by the states and their elites.
> The only thing the last election proved was
>
> 1. The state of Florida could not count a vote...
> 2. People would go to great lengths to show their ignorance ("we didn't know
> we voting for someone else")
> and lastly....
> 3. If you're gonna run for president, make sure the people in your home
> state want you to win.
>
> The electorial college is even more relevant today than it was in the early
> days of the country. While it does not even out entirely, it helps ensure
> that the voter in Wyoming has at least some relevance to the electoral
> result. Under the one man one vote theory, all ya gotta do is concentrate on
> the few big states. One man one vote assumes a level playing field, the
> founding fathers got this one right. Even if it did stick us with Georgie.
> But in spite of junior's best efforts, we will survive.
>
> Wayne K
No doubt. However, universal suffrage, one person -- one vote is the
primary principle of representative democracy. When you insert a
non-democratic institution between the voter and the result, plus skew
the result by giving some voters more influence on the outcome over
others, then you have something other than a representative democracy.
Why should the vote of someone living in New York count less than a
person living in Wyoming? Keep in mind that the college first existed
to selected an *appointed* president. As such it is historical
remnant of a non-democratic process. I fail to see why it is relevant
today.
The US Senate already represents all states on equal footing, ensuring
that states rights are equally represented at the federal level. How
much more do you need? However you care to dress this up, a
non-democratic body thwarted the will of the majority of the voters.
AFAIK, this is the only presidential system in the OECD where this is
possible.
About Florida, I don't accept that this state is the main repository
of stupid people in the US. Rather, this state became the focal point
for the Gore/Bush struggle so it's problems fell under the very harsh
glare of an international spotlight. Some of the more astute US
commentators at the time made note that Florida's problems were
widespread in other states as well and perhaps it was time to clean up
the mess. However, the "state" orientation of national elections
makes such a cleanup very hard to do. The Electoral College is just
one vestiage of this "state" character. Without a federal voting
system for federal elections, the Florida situation is likely to be
repeated.
Scott Seidman
news:13fd1080.03090...@posting.google.com:
> No doubt. However, universal suffrage, one person -- one vote is the
> primary principle of representative democracy. When you insert a
> non-democratic institution between the voter and the result, plus skew
> the result by giving some voters more influence on the outcome over
> others, then you have something other than a representative democracy.
> Why should the vote of someone living in New York count less than a
> person living in Wyoming? Keep in mind that the college first existed
> to selected an *appointed* president. As such it is historical
> remnant of a non-democratic process. I fail to see why it is relevant
> today.
>
I just have the feeling that this discussion might be going the other way
if the election worked out slightly differently-- i.e., "look what the
Electoral College protected us from".
We don't live in an absolute Democracy, we live in a limited Democracy
(as do you, and just about every Democracy since ancient Greece). We
don't directly vote on every issue. We don't directly vote on every
branch of government. Every branch in balanced pretty well by a series
of checks. I choose to look at the EC as a final check on the people--
this is what it was when the Constitution was framed, and this is what it
is now.
States have the choice of how they use their electors. If they want to
split them proportional to their popular vote, they can. If people want
to change this, they can use democratic principles to change their state
constitutions.
The Constitution is a pretty good document. We shouldn't go messing
around with it on a whim.
Scott