_Bias_ Bomshell Exposé by CBS Reporter
alohacyberian
liberal bias "pervades" the mainstream media
The "Hottest Book in the Country"!
Even if you've suspected your nightly news is slanted to the left, it's far
worse than you think. In this jaw-dropping exposé, Emmy Award-winning
broadcast journalist Bernard Goldberg reveals a corporate news culture in
which the close-mindedness is breathtaking, and journalistic integrity has
been pawned to liberal opinion.
In his three decades as a reporter and producer at CBS, Goldberg repeatedly
voiced his concerns to network executives about the often one-sided nature of
the news coverage. But no one listened to his complaints -- or if they did
listen, they did nothing about the problem. Finally, Goldberg had no choice
but to blow the whistle on his own industry, to break the code of silence
that pervades the news business. _Bias_ is the result.
As the author reveals, "liberal bias" doesn't mean simply being hard on
Republicans and easy on Democrats. Real media bias is the result of how those
in the media see the world -- and their bias directly affects how we all see
the world. In _Bias_, the #1 New York Times Best-seller, you'll learn:
How, on controversial issues, reporters simply regurgitate the propaganda of
liberal pressure groups they favor
The sacred but unspoken code of loyalty that makes the "News Mafia" not
unlike the real one
The Peter Jennings test for classifying politicians -- and how all the
networks do it
The network color bar -- why so many "victims" on network news stories are
blond-haired, blue-eyed, and middle class
Why one high-level executive CBS News executive told Goldberg that of course
the networks tilt left -- but in the next breath said he'd deny the
conversation ever took place if Goldberg went public
One of the biggest stories of our time -- and why you probably didn't hear
about it on the evening news
How political correctness in network newsrooms puts "sensitivity" ahead of
facts
How newsroom "diversity" covers gender, color, sexual orientation --
everything except point of view
Anti-Christian bigotry: how media elites engage in it routinely behind the
scenes (Example: the CBS producer who called Gary Bauer "the little nut from
the Christian group")
The real reason media elites are "hopelessly out of touch with everyday
Americans"
Why media liberals honestly think of themselves as "middle of the road" --
and everyone to their right as extremists
How the gay lobby enlisted its allies in the media to foster the myth of a
heterosexual AIDS epidemic, to spark demand for massive government AIDS
spending
How the media twisted (when they didn't simply ignore) a major government
study that found day care bad for children
"Liberal Hate Speech": dozens of outrageous quotes from media notables,
revealing their shameless bias and frequent stupidity
On 9/11, the media were at their best reporting the attacks. But a subtle
bias pervades their efforts at explaining them
How, in the minds of the media, "when liberals rant it's called free speech;
when conservatives rant it's called incitement to terrorism"
How shows like 60 Minutes and 48 Hours manipulate documentary footage to give
their stories a liberal slant
The real Dan Rather -- a man who regards criticism of liberal bias as treason
Case study: media coverage of the "homeless" problem before -- and after --
Bill Clinton became president
How Goldberg's professional life "was turned upside down" when he first wrote
about liberal media bias in a 1996 Wall Street Journal op-ed
How Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw tried to smear Goldberg as a "right-wing
ideologue" -- though he had never voted Republican!
BONUS: Complete texts of the op-eds, plus samples of congratulatory mail
about the op-ed from secret sympathizers within the news industry
If you ever suspected the network news was shortchanging the truth, Bernard
Goldberg will not only prove you right, he'll give you a glimpse of just how
it's done, and how fairness, balance, and integrity have disappeared from
network television.
"The allegation of liberal bias in the media is not a new one. However, in
this book the allegation is made not by a conservative but by a reporter for
CBS News -- an old-fashioned liberal who has seen the bias firsthand. Bernard
Goldberg has written a courageous book and told a story that needed to be
told." -- William J. Bennett
"A fearless and vitally important book. In exposing the bottomless
intellectual corruption within his own industry, Bernard Goldberg does what
so many in the mainstream press only pretend to do: he tells the truth
without regard to personal consequences. Colleagues will surely accuse
Goldberg of treachery, and worse. But it is he, not they, who upholds
journalism's finest traditions." -- Harry Stein, author of How I Accidentally
Joined the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (and Found Inner Peace)
"Bernie Goldberg is dead on. The astonishing distrust of the news media is
rotted in the daily clash of worldviews between reporters and their readers
and viewers. 'Bias is the elephant in the living room,' said one critic of
the news business. After Bernie Goldberg's book, it will be harder not to
notice the elephant." -- John Leo, columnist, U.S. News & World Report
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Member Book Reviews
This book is the bomb. I would never have expected a liberal to write it. But
thank God he did. In this inimitable expose, Bernard Goldberg lays the truth
out on a platter. The media news networks are biased, terribly biased,
towards the left. And Goldberg proves it beyond the shadow of a doubt. He
acknowledges that many times, the leftist journalists and media outlets may
not be aware of this bias or may not do it intentionally, but none of this
can argue away the fact that the bias is real--terribly real.
This is the kind of book you can't put down. The way Goldberg was treated
after his Wall Street Journal editorial broke, is absolutely reprehensible
but, so testifies Goldberg, is an accurate example of how leftist bias works
in practice. Always keep in mind throughout the book that Goldberg is himself
a liberal. But he is fair and honest enough and has the guts to say just how
things are. And that makes the news reporters, anchors, and journalists--who
don't think twice about ruining other people's names and careers--furious,
because for once, THEY are being exposed and THEIR actions are being
scrutinized.
The book is full of great one-liners and sad proof of how the news we are fed
are filtered through liberal bias, again either intentionally or not
intentionally. Goldberg proves that the facts can sometimes look quite
different from what we see on TV. Some great examples of his are the
AIDS-homosexuality connection and Forbes' "flat tax" proposal in 1996...
Another quite sad but important section in "Bias" is the chapter on "liberal
hate speech." Goldberg shows how liberals can get away with anything they
wish to say, basically, no matter how offensive and rude. For instance, he
quotes Julianne Malveaux as saying on PBS that she hoped Supreme Court
Justice Clarence Thomas would die an early death. That was in 1994. Today, in
2001, she is still featured in newspaper columns and on TV, no one obviously
caring about the reprehensible statement she made. Can we picture a Bill
O'Reilly saying the same thing about, say, Jesse Jackson? It would be the end
of O'Reilly's career, and the ACLU and who not would be suing the heck out of
him. Is this fair? No. It's bias. Liberal bias. And that's what Goldberg, a
liberal himself, has come to disclose.
There is much, much more excellent stuff in this book, and whether you're
liberal or conservative, you owe it to yourself, to your intellectual
honesty, to read it and ponder the facts presented therein.
One more thing. You will find negative critiques of this book. But look at
what those reviewers are actually attacking: either the publisher (Regnery)
or Goldberg himself. Dare anyone deal with the facts presented in the book?
No, of course not. People can certainly attack the author, but what they must
do if they want to show that the book is a bad one is disprove what the
author has presented.
~ MARIO DERKSEN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Bernard Goldberg says what conservatives have been saying for years: There is
a Media Bias! Furthermore he says explains why there is a bias and why
liberals refuse to admit or even recognize their own bias. This book is a
must read for any conservative and it wouldn't hurt some liberals to read it
either.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Riveting - I couldn't put the book down. It totally exposes the liberal bias
that I knew was in the "main-stream press."
~ Paul Buess
~ http://www.thbookservice.com/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=C5866
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
Baxter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in message
news:zrW9b.142262$0v4.10...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Veteran liberal CBS reporter breaks ranks - and names names - to expose
how
> liberal bias "pervades" the mainstream media
>
> The "Hottest Book in the Country"!
> Even if you've suspected your nightly news is slanted to the left, it's
far
> worse than you think. In this jaw-dropping exposé, Emmy Award-winning
> broadcast journalist Bernard Goldberg reveals a corporate news culture in
> which the close-mindedness is breathtaking, and journalistic integrity has
> been pawned to liberal opinion.
>
> In his three decades as a reporter and producer at CBS, Goldberg
repeatedly
> voiced his concerns to network executives about the often one-sided nature
of
> the news coverage. But no one listened to his complaints -- or if they did
> listen, they did nothing about the problem. Finally, Goldberg had no
choice
> but to blow the whistle on his own industry, to break the code of silence
> that pervades the news business. _Bias_ is the result.
Jeez. You neo-cons are really stuck in the past. Goldberg is not even
yesterday's news. And he's long since been discredited and his lies
documented.
Skip
<lbax01.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>Jeez. You neo-cons are really stuck in the past. Goldberg is not even
>yesterday's news. And he's long since been discredited and his lies
>documented.
Also, anybody who uses "jaw-dropping" in his message, is automatically
discredited, and sent to stand in the hall.
----------------------------
We contemplate eternity
Beneath the vast indifference of heaven
- Warren Zevon
SteveR
Skip <Sk...@NoAddress.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 07:59:33 -0700, "Baxter"
> <lbax01.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>
> >Jeez. You neo-cons are really stuck in the past. Goldberg is not even
> >yesterday's news. And he's long since been discredited and his lies
> >documented.
>
> Also, anybody who uses "jaw-dropping" in his message, is automatically
> discredited, and sent to stand in the hall.
What a coincidence:
---I wrote my weekly column about the California recall / 9th circuit
thang, so I'm not going to write about it here. Except to say this:
imagine you've been asked to complete the sentence "I'm pleased that
that the courts have canceled the election before it took place, because
. . ."
I wouldn't know what to say. And I'm fascinated by those who leap to
finish the sentence. They're perfectly comfortable with the courts
calling off a vote in advance. Wow: jaw, meet Mr. Floor.----
http://www.lileks.com/bleats/index.html
I guess Lileks had better head for the hall, eh?
--
DESPAIR is the preferred narcotic of the intellectual classes.
----Ralph peters
Marc Satterwhite
> In article <d58389dbd08f22f7...@news.1usenet.com>,
> Skip <Sk...@NoAddress.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 07:59:33 -0700, "Baxter"
> > <lbax01.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Jeez. You neo-cons are really stuck in the past. Goldberg is not even
> > >yesterday's news. And he's long since been discredited and his lies
> > >documented.
> >
> > Also, anybody who uses "jaw-dropping" in his message, is automatically
> > discredited, and sent to stand in the hall.
>
> What a coincidence:
>
> ---I wrote my weekly column about the California recall / 9th circuit
> thang, so I'm not going to write about it here. Except to say this:
> imagine you've been asked to complete the sentence "I'm pleased that
> that the courts have canceled the election before it took place, because
> . . ."
>
> I wouldn't know what to say. And I'm fascinated by those who leap to
> finish the sentence. They're perfectly comfortable with the courts
> calling off a vote in advance. Wow: jaw, meet Mr. Floor.----
Perhaps you could look up the difference between "cancel" and
"postpone" in a dictionary.
Best, Marc
Lobby Dosser
news:d58389dbd08f22f7...@news.1usenet.com:
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 07:59:33 -0700, "Baxter"
> <lbax01.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>
>>Jeez. You neo-cons are really stuck in the past. Goldberg is not even
>>yesterday's news. And he's long since been discredited and his lies
>>documented.
>
> Also, anybody who uses "jaw-dropping" in his message, is automatically
> discredited, and sent to stand in the hall.
Not to mention "astonishing" and "breathtaking" - I thought it was 50's
movie ad.
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"SteveR" <texd...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:texdriver-7899C...@netnews.attbi.com...
> In article <d58389dbd08f22f7...@news.1usenet.com>,
> Skip <Sk...@NoAddress.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 07:59:33 -0700, "Baxter"
> > <lbax01.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Jeez. You neo-cons are really stuck in the past. Goldberg is not even
> > >yesterday's news. And he's long since been discredited and his lies
> > >documented.
> >
> > Also, anybody who uses "jaw-dropping" in his message, is automatically
> > discredited, and sent to stand in the hall.
>
>
> What a coincidence:
>
> ---I wrote my weekly column about the California recall / 9th circuit
> thang, so I'm not going to write about it here. Except to say this:
> imagine you've been asked to complete the sentence "I'm pleased that
> that the courts have canceled the election before it took place, because
> . . ."
>
Really?! Do support your claim that the CA Recall Election has
been -canceled- and not merely -postponed-. Or you can admit you're wrong.
Or you can try to bluster and lie your way out.
Bill Shatzer
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, SteveR wrote:
> What a coincidence:
> ---I wrote my weekly column about the California recall / 9th circuit
> thang, so I'm not going to write about it here. Except to say this:
> imagine you've been asked to complete the sentence "I'm pleased that
> that the courts have canceled the election before it took place, because
> . . ."
Of course the election has NOT been cancelled but only postponed.
Until certified voting devices can be installed.
Peace and justice,
Skip
>
>I wouldn't know what to say. And I'm fascinated by those who leap to
>finish the sentence. They're perfectly comfortable with the courts
>calling off a vote in advance. Wow: jaw, meet Mr. Floor.----
>
>http://www.lileks.com/bleats/index.html
>
>
>I guess Lileks had better head for the hall, eh?
Sorry. There are only two topics in which the term "jaw-dropping" may
be used. These are:
1) The end of civilization as we know it
2) Naked women
Use in any other topic is considered crass hyperbole, and requires
that the offender stand out in the hall for a minimum of 15 minutes.
Run along now. There's a good lad.
----------------------------
We contemplate eternity
Beneath the vast indifference of heaven
- the late Warren Zevon. 'Keep me in your heart for awhile'
SteveR
Marc Satterwhite <mtsa...@athena.louisville.edu> wrote:
It appears the October vote has been cancelled, and rescheduled for a
later date. Chew on that semantic.
As I understand it, we now have precedent to "postpone" the next
presidential election on the grounds that inequality and
disenfranchisement *may* occur, based on the equipment that elected
Davis twice.
Keep in mind that the precedent, if it stands, gives judiciary the power
to effectively halt all elections until a standard they set is met. That
should bother you, as it effectively gives the judicial branch control
over *all* aspects of the constitution
Best,
SteveR
alohacyberian
news:vmgtmoe...@corp.supernews.com...
> "alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:zrW9b.142262$0v4.10...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> repeatedly
> > voiced his concerns to network executives about the often one-sided
nature
> of
> > the news coverage. But no one listened to his complaints -- or if they
did
> > listen, they did nothing about the problem. Finally, Goldberg had no
> choice
> > but to blow the whistle on his own industry, to break the code of silence
> > that pervades the news business. _Bias_ is the result.
>
> Jeez. You neo-cons are really stuck in the past. Goldberg is not even
> yesterday's news. And he's long since been discredited and his lies
> documented.
>
LOL! That's hilarious. Is that why his book made #1 on the "New York Times"
Bestseller list? And which books that supposedly discredited him made the
"Times" bestseller list? I'll answer for you. None. But, you are true to
form, ignore the message and attack the messenger. KM
alohacyberian
news:d58389dbd08f22f7...@news.1usenet.com...
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 07:59:33 -0700, "Baxter"
> <lbax01.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>
> >Jeez. You neo-cons are really stuck in the past. Goldberg is not even
> >yesterday's news. And he's long since been discredited and his lies
> >documented.
>
> Also, anybody who uses "jaw-dropping" in his message, is automatically
> discredited, and sent to stand in the hall.
>
Heavy-duty political anyalysis there, but, it was a quote. KM
alohacyberian
Yeah, well Lileks' works aren't nearly as well known as Skip's. KM
SteveR
"Baxter" <lbax01.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
Firstly, the words are attributed.
Secondly, if it's semantics you're concerned about, I suggest you look
up "constitution" in the dictionary. Then look up "legislative" and
"judicial".
Besides, if the decision stands, then the 9th court can "postpone" all
California elections in perpuity based on a standard *they* set.
For instance - they cite the concerns specifically concerning minority
and "poor" voters.
With that as a standard, they can now dictate any election based on a
percieved and possible disenfranchisement of that aggrieved group.
Perhaps they don't have cable? Well, then they are information-starved.
They can't afford to take time off to vote like rich white people can?
We certainly can't have that!
Use your head, Baxy boy
SteveR
<Pine.LNX.4.44.030917...@lab.oregonvos.net>,
Bill Shatzer <bsha...@OregonVOS.net> wrote:
You semanticals sure have come out of the woodwork. That's scary.
One of the most insane perversions of the constitution, state's rights
and common sense has occured, and you want to argue whether an event
that has been "postponed", has not actually been "cancelled".
Semantics aside, do you realize that the power to "postpone" can become
the power to "cancel"?
Use your head.
SteveR
Skip <Sk...@NoAddress.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:57:43 GMT, SteveR <texd...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >I wouldn't know what to say. And I'm fascinated by those who leap to
> >finish the sentence. They're perfectly comfortable with the courts
> >calling off a vote in advance. Wow: jaw, meet Mr. Floor.----
> >
> >http://www.lileks.com/bleats/index.html
> >
> >
> >I guess Lileks had better head for the hall, eh?
>
> Sorry. There are only two topics in which the term "jaw-dropping" may
> be used. These are:
>
> 1) The end of civilization as we know it
> 2) Naked women
As long as number 2 comes before number one, I'm happy.
>
> Use in any other topic is considered crass hyperbole, and requires
> that the offender stand out in the hall for a minimum of 15 minutes.
> Run along now. There's a good lad.
OTOH, use of the phrase "crass hyperbole" will keep you in the hall for
days on end or until your jaw hits the floor - whichever comes first.
SteveR
<Q97ab.146952$3o3.10...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
> "SteveR" <texd...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:texdriver-7899C...@netnews.attbi.com...
> > In article <d58389dbd08f22f7...@news.1usenet.com>,
> > Skip <Sk...@NoAddress.invalid> wrote:
> > > Also, anybody who uses "jaw-dropping" in his message, is automatically
> > > discredited, and sent to stand in the hall.
> >
> > What a coincidence:
> >
> > ---I wrote my weekly column about the California recall / 9th circuit
> > thang, so I'm not going to write about it here. Except to say this:
> > imagine you've been asked to complete the sentence "I'm pleased that
> > that the courts have canceled the election before it took place, because
> > . . ."
> >
> > I wouldn't know what to say. And I'm fascinated by those who leap to
> > finish the sentence. They're perfectly comfortable with the courts
> > calling off a vote in advance. Wow: jaw, meet Mr. Floor.----
> >
> > http://www.lileks.com/bleats/index.html
> >
> >
> > I guess Lileks had better head for the hall, eh?
> >
>
> Yeah, well Lileks' works aren't nearly as well known as Skip's. KM
Skip didn't even attempt to finish the sentence, nor did any other of
the sharp-eyed semantical slueths that responded to this post. Perhaps
it's better that they stick to chasing linguistic butterflies, and avoid
constitutional issues. After all, they may accuse me of discussing
toilet habits.
They may have a point. The 9th just flushed our founding document.
Lobby Dosser
news:texdriver-AEB01...@netnews.attbi.com:
Or the aspects not yet abandoned by the Supreme Court.
>
> Best,
> SteveR
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>
SteveR
Lobby Dosser <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote:
And which would those be?
WinGuru
Funny, I thought the 14th amendment was part of the Constitution. Of
course, you have to remember that the SCOTUS has already used it to change
the outcome of an election.
Hal Lillywhite
> Jeez. You neo-cons are really stuck in the past. Goldberg is not even
> yesterday's news.
That much is correct, I posted a review of his book here myself some time ago.
> And he's long since been discredited and his lies
> documented.
Reference please.
Bill Shatzer
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, SteveR wrote:
> As I understand it, we now have precedent to "postpone" the next
> presidential election on the grounds that inequality and
> disenfranchisement *may* occur, based on the equipment that elected
> Davis twice.
We have no such precedent.
> Keep in mind that the precedent, if it stands, gives judiciary the power
> to effectively halt all elections until a standard they set is met. That
> should bother you, as it effectively gives the judicial branch control
> over *all* aspects of the constitution
The Ninth circuit decision rather carefully distinguished between a
recall election and a general election. A recall can be safely postponed
with no particular harm done - recall that had the petitioners turned
in their petitions only a week later, the election would have been
scheduled for next march in any event.
Postponing a general election presents all sorts of complications
which are not present in postponing a special election. A distinction
the Ninth Circuit decision made rather clear.
Peace and justice,
Bill Shatzer
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, alohacyberian wrote:
-snips-
> LOL! That's hilarious. Is that why his book made #1 on the "New York Times"
> Bestseller list?
It is well to remember that Jim van Praagh's "Talking to Heaven: A
Medium's Message of Life After Death" was number 1 on the NY Times'
bestseller list for four consecutive weeks.
The NY Times bestseller list determines who is selling books at
any particular time. It doesn't pretend to determine the intrinsic
merits of any particular tome and it especially doesn't pretend to
determine the truth or veracity of any particular book on its list.
Though I find it completely unsurprising that you would confuse
a book's inclusion on the NY Times bestseller list with some sort of
intrinsic merit.
Confusion, thy name is Hulaboy.
Peace and justice,
Bob Tiernan
SteveR wrote:
> Bill Shatzer wrote:
> > Of course the election has NOT been cancelled but
> > only postponed.
> >
> > Until certified voting devices can be installed.
[snip]
> Semantics aside, do you realize that the power to
> "postpone" can become the power to "cancel"?
Excellent point, Steve R. To borrow most of
a famous quote: "Justice postponed is justice
denied".
Also, note that many of the same people criticizing
a postponed election in Iraq are defending this
postponed election.
Bob T
alohacyberian
> You semanticals sure have come out of the woodwork. That's scary.
>
> One of the most insane perversions of the constitution, state's rights
> and common sense has occured, and you want to argue whether an event
> that has been "postponed", has not actually been "cancelled".
>
> Semantics aside, do you realize that the power to "postpone" can become
> the power to "cancel"?
>
> Use your head.
>
Evasivelly arguing semantics while ignoring the points under discussion?
That's all the Leftwing Liberals can do. When they aren't stooping to
name-calling and personal slurs, they pounce on sideline minutae such as
semantics and entirely miss the thrust of the conversation. It really
bothers them when someone says something worth hearing or something that
isn't parroted Leftwing Liberal rhetoric. KM
alohacyberian
LOL! And once again, all those California jokes seem to have some merit! KM
alohacyberian
>
> It appears the October vote has been cancelled, and rescheduled for a
> later date. Chew on that semantic.
>
> As I understand it, we now have precedent to "postpone" the next
> presidential election on the grounds that inequality and
> disenfranchisement *may* occur, based on the equipment that elected
> Davis twice.
>
> Keep in mind that the precedent, if it stands, gives judiciary the power
> to effectively halt all elections until a standard they set is met. That
> should bother you, as it effectively gives the judicial branch control
> over *all* aspects of the constitution
>
> Best,
> SteveR
>
I suppose we should be frightened, but, I guess it's what we've come to
expect from Leftwing Liberals who cannot get their way via elections or
legislation, so they take to the courts to deny the will of the majority. KM
alohacyberian
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.030917...@lab.oregonvos.net...
Nobody even hinted that its being on the bestseller list had anything to do
with merit, it means a lot of people bought it. *Doh!* But, I notice you're
still hangin' in there with name-calling and personal slurs, so, who do you
expect is going to take you seriously, Baxter, Clave? KM
alohacyberian
news:Pine.GSO.4.58MAILDI...@shell1.pacifier.net...
standard we've come to expect. KM
WinGuru
> "SteveR" <texd...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:texdriver-AEB01...@netnews.attbi.com...
> >
> > It appears the October vote has been cancelled, and rescheduled for a
> > later date. Chew on that semantic.
> >
> > As I understand it, we now have precedent to "postpone" the next
> > presidential election on the grounds that inequality and
> > disenfranchisement *may* occur, based on the equipment that elected
> > Davis twice.
> >
> > Keep in mind that the precedent, if it stands, gives judiciary the power
> > to effectively halt all elections until a standard they set is met. That
> > should bother you, as it effectively gives the judicial branch control
> > over *all* aspects of the constitution
> >
> > Best,
> > SteveR
> >
>
> I suppose we should be frightened, but, I guess it's what we've come to
> expect from Leftwing Liberals who cannot get their way via elections or
> legislation, so they take to the courts to deny the will of the majority.
KM
> --
Are you for real????? After the way Bush took lawsuit after lawsuit after
lawsuit to stop the vote counting in FL you have the gall to say that this
is a trait of other than the neo-cons? How stupid are you? Are you really
this incapable of reading and comprehending facts that you would push this
idiocy?
Even on the face of it, your contention is flawed. First, there is no "will
of the majority" - only a small percentage of the voters in CA actually
signed a petition - no majority there. Second, it appears pretty clear that
when the election is held, either Davis or Cruz will be the one voted in -
certainly not some far right wacko. Third - whoever is elected won't be by
a majority. Fourth - the vote isn't being denied (that's a GOP specialty -
see the 10's of thousands illegally denied the right to vote in FL by
Harris) just delayed UNTIL EVERYONE HAS AN EQUAL CHANCE TO HAVE THEIR VOTE
BE COUNTED! Guess that's what your problem is - you want the election now
while you know that large numbers (who happen to be primarily democrats)
will be using equipment that gives a larger number of errors such that their
ballots would be discarded. Again, the neo-cons are clearly trying to keep
the votes from being counted.
WinGuru
"Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pac...@shell1.pacifier.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.58MAILDI...@shell1.pacifier.net...
>
>
> > Bill Shatzer wrote:
>
>
> > > Of course the election has NOT been cancelled but
> > > only postponed.
> > >
> > > Until certified voting devices can be installed.
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
> > Semantics aside, do you realize that the power to
> > "postpone" can become the power to "cancel"?
The judiciary has postponed and cancelled elections in the past. There's
nothing new here.
>
>
> Excellent point, Steve R. To borrow most of
> a famous quote: "Justice postponed is justice
> denied".
Explain how this relates to the situation. To What "justice" in the
situation are you referring?
>
> Also, note that many of the same people criticizing
> a postponed election in Iraq are defending this
> postponed election.
>
There's a difference between postponed to a definite time in the NEAR future
and postponed indefinitely. You do understand the distinction, don't you
BT?
Marc Satterwhite
I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with the decision. I'm just
saying that "postponing" isn't "canceling," and it's misleading
and inflammatory to conflate the two.
Best, Marc
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"SteveR" <texd...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:texdriver-D25EF...@netnews.attbi.com...
In other words, you can't answer my challenge, but instead respond to some
imaginary challenge or question I never made.
>
> Besides, if the decision stands, then the 9th court can "postpone" all
> California elections in perpuity based on a standard *they* set.
Again, support your claim. From what I'm hearing, the decision was very
narrowly drawn.
>
> For instance - they cite the concerns specifically concerning minority
> and "poor" voters.
>
> With that as a standard, they can now dictate any election based on a
> percieved and possible disenfranchisement of that aggrieved group.
> Perhaps they don't have cable? Well, then they are information-starved.
> They can't afford to take time off to vote like rich white people can?
> We certainly can't have that!
>
> Use your head, Baxy boy
Do recall that that was exactly the rational the US Supreme Court used to
hand the presidency to Bush.
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"SteveR" <texd...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:texdriver-EAD48...@netnews.attbi.com...
> In article
> <Pine.LNX.4.44.030917...@lab.oregonvos.net>,
> Bill Shatzer <bsha...@OregonVOS.net> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, SteveR wrote:
> >
> > > What a coincidence:
> >
> > > ---I wrote my weekly column about the California recall / 9th circuit
> > > thang, so I'm not going to write about it here. Except to say this:
> > > imagine you've been asked to complete the sentence "I'm pleased that
> > > that the courts have canceled the election before it took place,
because
> > > . . ."
> >
> > Of course the election has NOT been cancelled but only postponed.
> >
> > Until certified voting devices can be installed.
> >
> > Peace and justice,
> >
>
> You semanticals sure have come out of the woodwork. That's scary.
>
> One of the most insane perversions of the constitution, state's rights
> and common sense has occured, and you want to argue whether an event
> that has been "postponed", has not actually been "cancelled".
The ruling of the 9th Circuit has a precedence - Bush vs. Gore by the
SCOTUS.
>
> Semantics aside, do you realize that the power to "postpone" can become
> the power to "cancel"?
>
> Use your head.
>
Sounds like you're not using yours.
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in message
news:P97ab.146950$3o3.10...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "Baxter" <lbax01.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> news:vmgtmoe...@corp.supernews.com...
> > "alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in message
> > news:zrW9b.142262$0v4.10...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > In his three decades as a reporter and producer at CBS, Goldberg
> > repeatedly
> > > voiced his concerns to network executives about the often one-sided
> nature
> > of
> > > the news coverage. But no one listened to his complaints -- or if they
> did
> > > listen, they did nothing about the problem. Finally, Goldberg had no
> > choice
> > > but to blow the whistle on his own industry, to break the code of
silence
> > > that pervades the news business. _Bias_ is the result.
> >
> > Jeez. You neo-cons are really stuck in the past. Goldberg is not even
> > yesterday's news. And he's long since been discredited and his lies
> > documented.
> >
>
> LOL! That's hilarious. Is that why his book made #1 on the "New York
Times"
> Bestseller list?
That was in January, now you'll find Goldberg's book in the Bargin Bins - if
you find it at all.
>And which books that supposedly discredited him made the
> "Times" bestseller list? I'll answer for you. None.
Wrong. Al Franken's book for one. Besides, it doesn't require a book that
makes it onto the best sellers list in order to accomplish a debunking of
Goldberg
>But, you are true to
> form, ignore the message and attack the messenger. KM
You wish.
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in message
news:fidab.147623$3o3.10...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "Bill Shatzer" <bsha...@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.44.030917...@lab.oregonvos.net...
> > On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, alohacyberian wrote:
> > -snips-
> >
> > > LOL! That's hilarious. Is that why his book made #1 on the "New York
> Times"
> > > Bestseller list?
> >
> > It is well to remember that Jim van Praagh's "Talking to Heaven: A
> > Medium's Message of Life After Death" was number 1 on the NY Times'
> > bestseller list for four consecutive weeks.
> >
> > The NY Times bestseller list determines who is selling books at
> > any particular time. It doesn't pretend to determine the intrinsic
> > merits of any particular tome and it especially doesn't pretend to
> > determine the truth or veracity of any particular book on its list.
> >
> > Though I find it completely unsurprising that you would confuse
> > a book's inclusion on the NY Times bestseller list with some sort of
> > intrinsic merit.
> >
> > Confusion, thy name is Hulaboy.
> >
>
> Nobody even hinted that its being on the bestseller list had anything to
do
> with merit,
Yes you did. You asked not for a reference to the debunking of Goldberg's
claim, but of what 'book discrediting Goldberg made it to the Times
bestseller list.'
>it means a lot of people bought it. *Doh!* But, I notice you're
> still hangin' in there with name-calling and personal slurs, so, who do
you
> expect is going to take you seriously, Baxter, Clave? KM
It's not "name-calling" when facts are presented. And that "slur" is
extremely mild if you ask me. We routinely hear far worse from those on the
right directed against those here that are not Bush cheerleaders.
Don Homuth
<zulu.pac...@shell1.pacifier.net> wrote:
>...note that many of the same people criticizing
>a postponed election in Iraq are defending this
>postponed election.
I do have to chuckle at the Irony of your defending an Election, BT.
It is Libertoonian Orthodoxy that elections are not the appropriate
way of choosing political leaders. Or yours, anyway.
Don Homuth
>On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 06:26:14 -0700, "WinGuru" <anonymous> wrote:
>
>>> > Semantics aside, do you realize that the power to
>>> > "postpone" can become the power to "cancel"?
>>
>>The judiciary has postponed and cancelled elections in the past. There's
>>nothing new here.
>
>Let's remember too that the USSCt. first ordered that the FL recount
>be halted,
That was a TRO, left in effect while the Supremes heard the case.
>...and then several days later issued its decision that the
>Constitutionally mandated time frame was more important than getting
>an accurate recount.
The final order was far more confusing than just that.
The Supremes ordered the FLSC to "make new law" by establishing
statewide standards for vote recounting -- something the FL
legislature had previously left to the individual election boards in
the several counties in FL.
Which could have been done.
It also ordered a statewide recount to be operated under the newly
promulgated judicial standards the FLSC would have enacted.
But it ensured that neither could happen, by requiring that the new
standards be set and the entire statewide recount be accomplished
within less than 24 hours.
Which is why it didn't happen.
SteveR
And if they find fault with a general election that *may* not meet their
standards, (those standards will be clarified at the time of the
decision) they will make that perfectly clear as well.
SteveR
<Pine.GSO.4.58MAILDI...@shell1.pacifier.net>,
Bob Tiernan <zulu.pac...@shell1.pacifier.net> wrote:
Concerning Iraq - those complaining about "the election" there
(national), may be surprised to know of the dozens of free elections
already held, or in the process.
Bob Tiernan
Don Homuth wrote:
> I do have to chuckle at the Irony of your defending an
> Election, BT.
>
> It is Libertoonian Orthodoxy that elections are not
> the appropriate way of choosing political leaders.
Oh, I have no problem with this at all. I just
object to the fact that legislators have more
powers now to strip away lots of rights of lots
of people and grant privileges to a few.
Bob T
Don Homuth
As differentiated from Libertoonian Philosopher-Kings?
An election works far better.
Edward Glamkowski
> Move on has decided to begin a campaign to let the american people know
> everytime GWB lies in public. So they have started a site www.misleader.org
> They have placed the following full page ad in the New York Times.
>
> http://www.misleader.org/pdf/nyt_ad.pdf
This ad is so wrong in so many ways, its pathetic.
----
GEORGE BUSH: "[W]e will not pass along our problems to...other
generations."
THE TRUTH: $1.9 trillion in new debt over 5 years, with deficits
continuing thereafter.
----
THE REAL TRUTH:
Interesting they assume the debt to be the biggest problem of
long-term consequence here.
I for one am far more concerned about the long term consequences
of terrorism and foreign policy...
But first, Bush is not responsible for how much money gets
spent, nor how it gets spent - all appropriations and budgets
originate with the House of Representatives. Bush may have
signed the budgets into law, but it takes a majority of
Congress to get a budget to the president in the first place.
Next, 5 years does not constitute a "geneneration", much less
multiple generations. Traditionally, a generation is considered
20 years. So if we're still suffering from "Bush induced"
deficits (as if he could induce them - blame Congress first!)
20 years from now, you have an argument. Of course, that
assumes that no congress in the intervening 15 years will
do anything about it. A rather stupid assumption, no?
And "deficits continuing thereafter"? Oh PUH-LEASE! When's
the last time the US hasn't had a deficit? Duuuuuuuh....
http://www.toptips.com/debt_history.htm
That only goes back as far as 1900, but yep, we were running a
deficit over 100 years ago, and in every single year since 1900.
And yes, even under Clinton the deficit continued to go up every
single year he was in office, so don't give me any of that
"Clinton got rid of the deficit" crap. We've been running
deficits forever, so that's a non-point.
Next:
----
GEORGE BUSH: "The tax relief is for everyone who pays income taxes...
Americans will keep, this year, an average of almost $1,000 more of
their own money."
THE TRUTH: Nearly half of all taxpayers get less than $100. And 31%
of all taxpayers get nothing at all.
----
THE REAL TRUTH:
Some people appearently don't understand the meaning of the
word "average".
And that 31% that gets nothing at all? Exactly how much to they
actually pay in taxes? I don't just mean line 42 on the 1040,
but rather line 61 minus line 69. What does that amount to
for this supposed 31%? For how many is that number negative?
How many get a "refund" from credits? Answer me that and we
can discuss the matter further.
Next:
----
GEORGE BUSH: "[W]e continue to work together to keep Social
Security sound and reliable.
THE TRUTH: The costs of the Bush tax cuts exceed by 3 times
the entire projected shortfall in Social Security.
----
THE REAL TRUTH:
The entire projected shortfall? Nobody with a clue is predicting
social security shortfalls until 2015. Assuming nothing changes
in the intervening time, it would then operate at a lose such that
by 2037, it will have spent all its savings and will only be able
to dish out exactly as much as it takes in, which will be about
2/3 of what it is now (all of this inflation adjusted, of course).
Next, since shortfalls, when they do happen, will happen
indefiniately, the amount of the shortfall is the amount per
year * the number of years, which is impossible to predict,
but I'd hazard to guess that if everything were left as is,
the shortfalls would never end, and there fore the amount of
shortfall will be infinitely more then the amount of the Bush
tax cut. Literally.
FURTHER, Social Security was intended to be "self-funding", that
is, there is specifically a social security tax that is not used
for anything but paying for social security (supposedly). So
regardless of how much other taxes are cut or raised, that has
no effect on social security unless the social security tax itself
is cut or raised.
In point of fact, Bush did NOT cut the social security tax rate,
and in fact it has remained unchanged since 1990:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/payroll/..%5Ctables%5CPayroll%5CPDF%5Cssrate_historical.PDF
Bush's income tax cuts are simply irrelevant to the state and health
of social security.
Next:
----
GEORGE BUSH: "Our first goal is...an economy that grows fast
enough to employ every man and woman who seeks a job."
THE TRUTH: Bush is the first President since Hoover to preside
over an economy that has lost jobs, not created them – more
than 2.9 million since 2001.
----
THE REAL TRUTH:
First, setting a goal is not the same thing as reaching it.
Second, you may recall a little thing that happened on 9/11/01.
This event had nothing at all to do with Bush or any of his
policies (no conspiracy theories please that the US government
is behind the attacks). This event had a huge and direct impact
on the transportation and hospitality industries, with ripples
across the whole economy, far beyond anything that in Bush's
control.
Indeed, it is the height of folly to suggest that the president
has any control at all over job creation or job loss regardless.
The economy is regarded by most people with a clue as being cyclical
and completely beyond the scope of any president's powers.
And in any event, unemployment figures have been hovering at 6%
over the past year, and were down around 5% the previous year.
These numbers are WELL within historical norms.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt
Next, there was absolutely a huge bubble in the IT industry
that burst with the conclusion of the Y2K scam. That had
nothing at all to do with Bush and all those "lost" jobs
should absolutely not be attributed to him. Really, of
course, it wasn't that jobs were lost, per se, but that
jobs were temporary (until the Y2K bug was fixed, see...),
and those working on it knew for years in advance the jobs
would be gone in 2001. Their failure to plan ahead does
not constitute a failure on the part of George Bush.
Finally, there are tons of jobs out there. Just look at the
Sunday classifieds for any major city newspaper and you'll find
hundreds, possibly thousands, of jobs available. Sure, not
everyone is qualified for every job, but there is bound to be
SOMETHING a person could do amongst all those listings.
A smart person, if they are really having that hard of a time
getting a job, will look at what jobs are available, get some
training in that area, and make a career change.
Certain types of jobs are always being hired for no matter
what the economy is, and I'm not talking about garbage
collectors.
I can think of nurses and accountants off the top of my head
(been a while since I looked at the classifieds for a job),
for those who have the motivation and ability to learn those
skills.
Even for low and no-skill workers, or people who can't or
won't go back to school, there's always a need for drivers,
construction workers, security guards and the like.
For those in between, there's medical billing processors,
data entry clerks, receptionists and dentist assistants
that seem to always be in demand.
If you can show up to work on time and not be drunk/high,
it's hard to be unemployed in this country. Whether a
given employment will pay your bills is another matter,
but the jobs are definiately out there.
And if a person is unwilling to switch careers, that's
a personal choice, not a fault of the economy, much less
of George Bush.
Plus there's always the option to just start your own
company! 99.7% of all employers in the US are small
businesses, according to the SBA.
99.7%
Next:
----
GEORGE BUSH: "[My] Clear Skies legislation...mandates a
70% cut in air pollution from power plants over the next
15 years.
THE TRUTH: The Bush plan will allow more than 100,000
additional premature deaths by 2020 than alternative
legislation developed by the Environmental Protection
Agency. The plan does not regulate carbon emissions and
allows far more sulfur and mercury emissions.
----
THE REAL TRUTH:
Gosh, these folks sure have an awful lot of precognitive
ability, don't they? 100,000 additional deaths by 2020...
Wonder if they give out winning lottery numbers, too!
http://www.epa.gov/air/clearskies/fact2003.html
So let me get this straight: Bush wants legislation that
will reduce Sulfur and Nitrous Oxide emissions by 73% and
67% respectively, as well as mercury by 69%, and that's
a BAD THING?! Simply because there was alternative
legislation that was even more choking on industry?
They make it sound like he's repealing the Clean Air Act
or some such...
Ok, so his plan doesn't deal with carbon emissions. Wow,
one valid point so far. They're really batting a thousand
now!
Next:
----
GEORGE BUSH: "[W]e achieved historic education reform – which
must now be carried out in every school and in every classroom."
THE TRUTH: Bush cut $8 billion from the promised funds for
education.
----
THE REAL TRUTH:
Elementary and secondary schools are, and ALWAYS have been, funded
almost entirely by state and local taxes (primarily property taxes)
and the federal government has no business funding them in any event.
Of course, the federal government also has no business in regulating
those schools either, so if you want to bash Bush on education, do
so for creating federal level reform at all. It's not the federal
government's business!
But of course, the Bush-haters won't decry the federal funding of
schools, since teachers unions, including the AFT and NEA, give
almost ALL of their political campaign donations to democrats,
as shown here:
(http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=L1300)
so they naturally WANT federal control of education, just not
Bush control of it.
----
Now, as it so happens, there's plenty to criticize Bush about,
but this ad and this organization isn't invoking any of the
valid points against him.
They're trusting to scare tactics, pure and simple.
This misleader.org is just as much a sham as they claim Bush to be.
As their name suggests, they are the ones doing the misleading...
Edward Glamkowski
Hey Don, why is it you hate libertarian so much?
I mean, they do want smaller government, and not Bush style
smaller government either...
Do you believe smaller government is bad?
That bigger government is good?
They do have a lot of great ideas.
Their presentation isn't always great (ok, sometimes its down
right awful), but the principles, for the most part, are still
sound.
The vast majority of them are socially liberal and fiscally
conservative. Do you believe such a combation to be a Bad Thing?
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Edward Glamkowski" <eglam...@angelfire.com> wrote in message
news:c49f8b5e.03091...@posting.google.com...
> "bigdawg" <bigdawg@spam_really_sucks_.net> wrote in message
> > Move on has decided to begin a campaign to let the american people know
> > everytime GWB lies in public. So they have started a site
www.misleader.org
> > They have placed the following full page ad in the New York Times.
> >
> > http://www.misleader.org/pdf/nyt_ad.pdf
>
> This ad is so wrong in so many ways, its pathetic.
>
> ----
> GEORGE BUSH: "[W]e will not pass along our problems to...other
> generations."
> THE TRUTH: $1.9 trillion in new debt over 5 years, with deficits
> continuing thereafter.
> ----
>
> THE REAL TRUTH:
Hardly.
>
> Interesting they assume the debt to be the biggest problem of
> long-term consequence here.
It is.
>
> I for one am far more concerned about the long term consequences
> of terrorism and foreign policy...
And Bush himself said that Iraq is not tied to 9/11.
>
> But first, Bush is not responsible for how much money gets
> spent, nor how it gets spent - all appropriations and budgets
> originate with the House of Representatives. Bush may have
> signed the budgets into law, but it takes a majority of
> Congress to get a budget to the president in the first place.
Bush submits the budget and asks for further appropriations. Current news
would tell you that.
>
> Next, 5 years does not constitute a "geneneration", much less
> multiple generations. Traditionally, a generation is considered
> 20 years. So if we're still suffering from "Bush induced"
> deficits (as if he could induce them - blame Congress first!)
> 20 years from now, you have an argument.
We'll incur the deficit over the next 5 years or so, but it will take much
longer to pay it off.
> Of course, that
> assumes that no congress in the intervening 15 years will
> do anything about it. A rather stupid assumption, no?
You've got few choices:
- raise taxes
- cut spending
- print money and cause inflation.
Don Homuth
Glamkowski) wrote:
>Don Homuth <eno...@spam.com> wrote in message
>
>Hey Don, why is it you hate libertarian so much?
You misinterpret. How could I ever Hate anything or anyone that
supplied me with such entertainment.
>I mean, they do want smaller government, and not Bush style
>smaller government either...
That's what they Say they want, and let's say I believe they are
sincere about that. How is it that the screw up So Badly in the
process of working towards it?
>Do you believe smaller government is bad?
For many functions, I believe that smaller and more local government
is preferable to larger and more distant. I've said so many times
hereon.
>That bigger government is good?
That depends entirely on the magitude of the function under
discussion.
>They do have a lot of great ideas.
They say so, certainly. But this is Politics, and what they do Not
have is a lot of Votes. It matters.
>Their presentation isn't always great
It's almost always Just Awful. This newsgroup is an example.
> (ok, sometimes its down right awful),
No -- Most Times it's downright awful.
> but the principles, for the most part, are still
>sound.
The only Sound is from their endless whining that The Voters won't
vote their way, which then leads them to conclude that The Voters are
too stupid to make public policy decisions, and therefore shouldn't
vote on such Important Matters. Libertoonian Philosopher-Kings would
doubtless do Far Better Job.
>The vast majority of them are socially liberal and fiscally
>conservative.
The vast majority of them are also Politically Clueless. And that
characteristic trumps all their other self-professed virtues in a
Political milieu.
> Do you believe such a combation to be a Bad Thing?
I inevitably believe that Cluelessness is A Bad Thing, when applied to
a specific matter under discussion.
Libertoonianism has the significant virtue of allowing such clowns to
be relieved of the Burden of Thought. They merely quote and re-quote
aphorisms, rather like Xtian Fundies quote and re-quote scripture,
whether it applies to anything specific or not.
But Hate?
No -- never. The same sort of affection one might have for a
rambunctious but silly puppy.
alohacyberian
> > "Times" bestseller list? I'll answer for you. None.
>
> Wrong. Al Franken's book for one. Besides, it doesn't require a book that
> makes it onto the best sellers list in order to accomplish a debunking of
> Goldberg
>
Al Franken's book hardly debunks Goldberg's works especially in light of the
fact that Franken has never been in a position to condemn or condone it.
That's laughable. KM
alohacyberian
> "alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:fidab.147623$3o3.10...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > "Bill Shatzer" <bsha...@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.LNX.4.44.030917...@lab.oregonvos.net...
>
>
alohacyberian
> "alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:aidab.147619$3o3.10...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > "SteveR" <texd...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > news:texdriver-AEB01...@netnews.attbi.com...
> > > It appears the October vote has been cancelled, and rescheduled for a
> > > later date. Chew on that semantic.
> > >
> > > As I understand it, we now have precedent to "postpone" the next
> > > presidential election on the grounds that inequality and
> > > disenfranchisement *may* occur, based on the equipment that elected
> > > Davis twice.
> > >
> > > Keep in mind that the precedent, if it stands, gives judiciary the
power
> > > to effectively halt all elections until a standard they set is met.
That
> > > should bother you, as it effectively gives the judicial branch control
> > > over *all* aspects of the constitution
> > > Best,
> > > SteveR
> >
> > I suppose we should be frightened, but, I guess it's what we've come to
> > expect from Leftwing Liberals who cannot get their way via elections or
> > legislation, so they take to the courts to deny the will of the majority.
> KM
>
> lawsuit to stop the vote counting in FL you have the gall to say that this
> is a trait of other than the neo-cons? How stupid are you?
>
But, it's academic now, Bush won and that's what counts. But, using your
logic, it was the "neocons" who went to court in California to block the
upcoming election. I don't think that'll fly. KM
alohacyberian
> "Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pac...@shell1.pacifier.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.58MAILDI...@shell1.pacifier.net...
> > SteveR wrote:
> > > Semantics aside, do you realize that the power to
> > > "postpone" can become the power to "cancel"?
>
> The judiciary has postponed and cancelled elections in the past. There's
> nothing new here.
>
Please list examples. KM
alohacyberian
news:qtmjmvc3efpi2d4gp...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 06:26:14 -0700, "WinGuru" <anonymous> wrote:
>
> Let's remember too that the USSCt. first ordered that the FL recount
> Constitutionally mandated time frame was more important than getting
> an accurate recount.
>
"Hear the loud alarum bells -
Brazen bells!
What a tale of terror, now, their turbulency tells!
In the startled ear of night
How they scream out their affright!
Too much horrified to speak,
They can only shriek, shriek,
Out of tune, ...
~ Edgar Allen Poe
alohacyberian
news:c49f8b5e.03091...@posting.google.com...
>
> the last time the US hasn't had a deficit? Duuuuuuuh....
> http://www.toptips.com/debt_history.htm
> That only goes back as far as 1900, but yep, we were running a
> deficit over 100 years ago, and in every single year since 1900.
> And yes, even under Clinton the deficit continued to go up every
> single year he was in office, so don't give me any of that
> "Clinton got rid of the deficit" crap. We've been running
> deficits forever, so that's a non-point.
>
Yes, I've often been puzzled by that bromide from Clinton supporters. I
always assumed they meant the deficit didn't didn't grow as much during the
Clinton years and was always amused that when Clinton proposed what he
claimed to be smaller increases he called them "tax cuts". KM
alohacyberian
news:c49f8b5e.03091...@posting.google.com...
As usual, really good stuff and anyone who has had a government or civics
class should already know the basic machinations of fiscal policy in the
United States. Altogether too often all we hear is hysterical hyperbole from
people who don't have even a cursory understanding of economics or principals
of business. KM
alohacyberian
news:c49f8b5e.03091...@posting.google.com...
> GEORGE BUSH: "The tax relief is for everyone who pays income taxes...
> Americans will keep, this year, an average of almost $1,000 more of
> their own money."
> THE TRUTH: Nearly half of all taxpayers get less than $100. And 31%
> of all taxpayers get nothing at all.
> ----
>
> THE REAL TRUTH:
>
> Some people appearently don't understand the meaning of the
> word "average".
>
> And that 31% that gets nothing at all? Exactly how much to they
> actually pay in taxes? I don't just mean line 42 on the 1040,
> but rather line 61 minus line 69. What does that amount to
> for this supposed 31%? For how many is that number negative?
> How many get a "refund" from credits? Answer me that and we
> can discuss the matter further.
>
Yes, very well said. I've really become exasperated on a few occasions
trying to communicate this very simple fact to people who have been
brainwashed by perennial pessimists and are all worked up over nothing. KM
alohacyberian
news:c49f8b5e.03091...@posting.google.com...
> I mean, they do want smaller government, and not Bush style
> smaller government either...
>
> Do you believe smaller government is bad?
> That bigger government is good?
>
> They do have a lot of great ideas.
> Their presentation isn't always great (ok, sometimes its down
> right awful), but the principles, for the most part, are still
> sound.
>
> The vast majority of them are socially liberal and fiscally
> conservative. Do you believe such a combation to be a Bad Thing?
>
only to be palatable, but, highly desirable. I strongly part company with
them on open borders and legalization of drugs. Then again I also strongly
depart from the Democrats, the Republicans and the Green Party on some of the
planks in their platform. Like you, I agree that the Libertarian
presentation isn't always great and is often down right awful, but, as the
party matures and has more experience, I'm sure they'll gain more polish. At
present one of their major weaknesses is inability to give very concise
capsules of what they do endorse, but, I'm sure that will change over time.
alohacyberian
And the more successful those Iraqi elections become, the more distraught the
hand-wringing hate-mongers and perennial pessimists will become at being
denied their predicted political armageddon. KM
alohacyberian
news:rrgkmv07gs4j312n7...@4ax.com...
> On 18 Sep 2003 15:23:13 -0700, eglam...@angelfire.com (Edward
> Glamkowski) wrote:
> >"bigdawg" <bigdawg@spam_really_sucks_.net> wrote in message
> >> Move on has decided to begin a campaign to let the american people know
> >> everytime GWB lies in public. So they have started a site
www.misleader.org
> >> They have placed the following full page ad in the New York Times.
> >>
> >> http://www.misleader.org/pdf/nyt_ad.pdf
> >
> >This ad is so wrong in so many ways, its pathetic.
>
>
Uh, you stopped reading too soon, but, that's OK, the facts are all around
you. KM
SteveR
> "SteveR" <texd...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> >
> > They may have a point. The 9th just flushed our founding document.
> >
>
> Funny, I thought the 14th amendment was part of the Constitution. Of
> course, you have to remember that the SCOTUS has already used it to change
> the outcome of an election.
>
This has nothing to do with the 14th, or bush vs gore, and it will
likely be reversed. I believe the court now has the results from the MIT
study, which, boiled down is:
Optical scanners have an error rate of 3.3%
Touch screen systems have an error rate of 3.0%
Data Vote systems have an error rate of 3.2%
Punch Cards have an error rate of 2.5%
It will be interesting to see how they an argue this, since it's based
on two related issues - the supposed inherent flaws in the mechanics of
the vote, which are apparently specific to two groups (or one, depending
on how you group people) - minorities and the poor.
Opinions on this run the gamut on both sides of the ideological divides
- personally, I believe it is absurd on several levels, and I believe
that will become evident as it plays out, and it will be reversed.
SteveR
<8idab.147618$3o3.10...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
> "SteveR" <texd...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> >
> > They may have a point. The 9th just flushed our founding document.
> >
>
> LOL! And once again, all those California jokes seem to have some merit! KM
It's a petri dish of liberal solutions. All of it would have worked, it
was all on track - until neo-con energy operatives from
Enron/Bush/cheney, Inc. derailed the train to paradise. (Damn...those
guys are *smart!*)
I want the democrats to keep this particular petri dish, I think it's
breeding a nasty strain Utopian Flu. I hope they enjoy it, I will.
Unless, a Republican gets power, and the first thing he does is tax the
living bejesus out of Babnwa Stuisannd. I wanna see draconian penalties
for buying Pinor at a grand a bottle, I wanna see hot tubs costing 135K.
I want to see the blatant wealth of SoCal democrats dragged into the
tortous dungeons of excessive taxation until they have to make the help
sweep the driveway with a damn broom instead of a hose.
I'm all for granting liberal democrats power, but in carefully
controlled conditions, and on a budget that draws from the pockets of
the faithful.
SteveR
<7idab.147617$3o3.10...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
> "SteveR" <texd...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:texdriver-EAD48...@netnews.attbi.com...
> > You semanticals sure have come out of the woodwork. That's scary.
> >
> > One of the most insane perversions of the constitution, state's rights
> > and common sense has occured, and you want to argue whether an event
> > that has been "postponed", has not actually been "cancelled".
> >
> > Semantics aside, do you realize that the power to "postpone" can become
> > the power to "cancel"?
> >
> > Use your head.
> >
>
> Evasivelly arguing semantics while ignoring the points under discussion?
> That's all the Leftwing Liberals can do. When they aren't stooping to
> name-calling and personal slurs, they pounce on sideline minutae such as
> semantics and entirely miss the thrust of the conversation. It really
> bothers them when someone says something worth hearing or something that
> isn't parroted Leftwing Liberal rhetoric. KM
Well, Lileks was distressingly inflammatory in his language. Had he said
postponed rather than cancelled, passions would nat been unleashed.
Let's hope the great unleashed don't read this dangerous missive:
http://www.lileks.com/bleats/index.html
It's long, and angry, so they probably won't, this kind of stuff makes
them *uncomfortable*.
I gotta admit, Lileks deserves his reputation, and his explosions on his
blog are the best:
---
To those who sniff łthis isnšt World War Two,˛ Išll agree: itšs worse.
Itšs going to be longer, meaner, and it sprawls across every map. Its
ultimate severity wonšt be apparent to some people until a band of
god-bothering raisin seekers sneaks a nuke into Baltimore on a cargo
container.
God forbid.
{...}
We erred. We took the UN resolutions seriously. We spent blood and money
to establish Beachhead One in that wretched abattoir, and for that we
should expect to pay.
{...}
hospitals of Baghdad no longer welcome cancerous terrorists, the Kurds
no longer watch the skies for the helicopters and their bitter gusts,
the citizens no longer wonder whether the government men will rip out
the eyes of their infant children to produce the proper confession -
Irrelevant.
You know what really bothers some people?
That yellowcake story still looks shaky.
-----
SteveR
<45tab.144621$0v4.10...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
> "SteveR" <texd...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:texdriver-0EC76...@netnews.attbi.com...
> > In article
> > <Pine.GSO.4.58MAILDI...@shell1.pacifier.net>,
> > Bob Tiernan <zulu.pac...@shell1.pacifier.net> wrote:
> > > Also, note that many of the same people criticizing
> > > a postponed election in Iraq are defending this
> > > postponed election.
> >
> >
> > Concerning Iraq - those complaining about "the election" there
> > (national), may be surprised to know of the dozens of free elections
> > already held, or in the process.
> >
>
> And the more successful those Iraqi elections become, the more distraught the
> hand-wringing hate-mongers and perennial pessimists will become at being
> denied their predicted political armageddon. KM
Ask any hard lib to make this statement: "I want Iraqis to be free"
They can't do it without qualifications. It's not their war.
Droopus
> "bigdawg" <bigdawg@spam_really_sucks_.net> wrote in message
> > Move on has decided to begin a campaign to let the american people know
> > everytime GWB lies in public. So they have started a site www.misleader.org
> > They have placed the following full page ad in the New York Times.
> >
> > http://www.misleader.org/pdf/nyt_ad.pdf
>
> This ad is so wrong in so many ways, its pathetic.
>
> ----
> GEORGE BUSH: "[W]e will not pass along our problems to...other
> generations."
> THE TRUTH: $1.9 trillion in new debt over 5 years, with deficits
> continuing thereafter.
> ----
>
> THE REAL TRUTH:
>
> Interesting they assume the debt to be the biggest problem of
> long-term consequence here.
>
> I for one am far more concerned about the long term consequences
> of terrorism and foreign policy...
Your opinion, which you are free to have. I don't agree.
Unilaterally (ok, with the UK) invading a country that posed no
immediate threat in the most volatile region on the planet is going to
REDUCE terrorism? Again, your opinion: far, far from mine.
>
> But first, Bush is not responsible for how much money gets
> spent, nor how it gets spent - all appropriations and budgets
> originate with the House of Representatives. Bush may have
> signed the budgets into law, but it takes a majority of
> Congress to get a budget to the president in the first place.
Didn't catch that speech on tv the other night?
http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030908/NEWS/30908002/1060
"We have conducted a thorough assessment of our military and
reconstruction needs in Iraq, and also in Afghanistan. I will soon
submit to Congress a request for $87 billion. The request will cover
ongoing military and intelligence operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and
elsewhere, which we expect will cost $66 billion over the next year. "
Was he simply "suggesting" he needed the funds?
Do you realize $87 billion a year could pay for free health insurance
for every American? You think that Iraqi invasion was more important
than fixing the mess our health care system is in?
[....]
>
> And "deficits continuing thereafter"? Oh PUH-LEASE! When's
> the last time the US hasn't had a deficit?
FY2000 I beleive.
> Duuuuuuuh....
> http://www.toptips.com/debt_history.htm
> That only goes back as far as 1900, but yep, we were running a
> deficit over 100 years ago, and in every single year since 1900.
> And yes, even under Clinton the deficit continued to go up every
> single year he was in office, so don't give me any of that
> "Clinton got rid of the deficit" crap. We've been running
> deficits forever, so that's a non-point.
Um...do you know what the difference is between deficit spending and
the federal debt? It seems that you don't.
Yes we have had a Federal debt for decades. The part of that debt held
by the public went DOWN under Clinton for the first time (thought
intergovernmental debt continued to rise and interest payments made
the TOTAL federal debt continue to rise through Clinton's admin.) But
I digress.
The US did enjoy a surplus for a time under Bill Clinton and a
Republican Congress. Don't you remember this from the first Bush-Gore
debate?
Bush: "I want to take one-half of the surplus and dedicate it to
Social Security, one-quarter of the surplus for important projects,
and I want to send one-quarter of the surplus back to the people who
pay the bills."
So what's more likely: that Bush was lying, or that you don't
understand the difference between the Federal debt and a budgetary
surplus?
> Next:
Nah. One at a time. B)
[...]
Lobby Dosser
> "bigdawg" <bigdawg@spam_really_sucks_.net> wrote in message
>> Move on has decided to begin a campaign to let the american people
>> know everytime GWB lies in public. So they have started a site
>> www.misleader.org They have placed the following full page ad in the
>> New York Times.
>>
>> http://www.misleader.org/pdf/nyt_ad.pdf
>
> This ad is so wrong in so many ways, its pathetic.
>
> ----
> GEORGE BUSH: "[W]e will not pass along our problems to...other
> generations."
> THE TRUTH: $1.9 trillion in new debt over 5 years, with deficits
> continuing thereafter.
> ----
>
> THE REAL TRUTH:
>
> Interesting they assume the debt to be the biggest problem of
> long-term consequence here.
When the interest payments become the largest item in the budget, the
consequences will be pretty bad.
>
> I for one am far more concerned about the long term consequences
> of terrorism and foreign policy...
We have a foreign policy?
>
> But first, Bush is not responsible for how much money gets
> spent, nor how it gets spent - all appropriations and budgets
> originate with the House of Representatives. Bush may have
> signed the budgets into law, but it takes a majority of
> Congress to get a budget to the president in the first place.
The current Congress is REPUBLICAN controlled and pretty much gives Bush
whatever he wants.
>
> Next, 5 years does not constitute a "geneneration", much less
> multiple generations. Traditionally, a generation is considered
> 20 years. So if we're still suffering from "Bush induced"
> deficits (as if he could induce them - blame Congress first!)
He can veto the budget. They are giving him wht he asked for.
> 20 years from now, you have an argument. Of course, that
> assumes that no congress in the intervening 15 years will
> do anything about it. A rather stupid assumption, no?
And what, pray tell, will some intervening Congress do about debt run up
now? Renege on it?
>
> And "deficits continuing thereafter"? Oh PUH-LEASE! When's
> the last time the US hasn't had a deficit? Duuuuuuuh....
> http://www.toptips.com/debt_history.htm
> That only goes back as far as 1900, but yep, we were running a
> deficit over 100 years ago, and in every single year since 1900.
> And yes, even under Clinton the deficit continued to go up every
> single year he was in office, so don't give me any of that
> "Clinton got rid of the deficit" crap. We've been running
> deficits forever, so that's a non-point.
The budget was in surplus when Clinton left office. We had a large debt
due to prior deficits, most notably the debt run up under Reagan. There
is a difference between the National Debt and the current Deficit.
Whole lot of total misunderstanding of taxes and SS cut.
> Next:
>
> ----
> GEORGE BUSH: "Our first goal is...an economy that grows fast
> enough to employ every man and woman who seeks a job."
> THE TRUTH: Bush is the first President since Hoover to preside
> over an economy that has lost jobs, not created them – more
> than 2.9 million since 2001.
> ----
>
> THE REAL TRUTH:
>
> First, setting a goal is not the same thing as reaching it.
He set the 'goal' last week. About the only hope of him fulfilling the
goal is to serve another term. The country jast can't afford to lose that
many more jobs.
>
> Second, you may recall a little thing that happened on 9/11/01.
> This event had nothing at all to do with Bush or any of his
> policies (no conspiracy theories please that the US government
> is behind the attacks). This event had a huge and direct impact
> on the transportation and hospitality industries, with ripples
> across the whole economy, far beyond anything that in Bush's
> control.
You may recall theat that happened two years ago and that the
'recession', according to the administration, ended a month later. Last
month 93000 additional jobs were lost - and counting.
>
> Indeed, it is the height of folly to suggest that the president
> has any control at all over job creation or job loss regardless.
> The economy is regarded by most people with a clue as being cyclical
> and completely beyond the scope of any president's powers.
>
> And in any event, unemployment figures have been hovering at 6%
> over the past year, and were down around 5% the previous year.
> These numbers are WELL within historical norms.
9 million unemployed and more than 3 million jobs lost on Bush's watch
are within historical norms if you go back to Herbert Hoover.
> http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
> ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt
>
> Next, there was absolutely a huge bubble in the IT industry
> that burst with the conclusion of the Y2K scam. That had
> nothing at all to do with Bush and all those "lost" jobs
> should absolutely not be attributed to him. Really, of
> course, it wasn't that jobs were lost, per se, but that
> jobs were temporary (until the Y2K bug was fixed, see...),
> and those working on it knew for years in advance the jobs
> would be gone in 2001. Their failure to plan ahead does
> not constitute a failure on the part of George Bush.
You clueless TWIT! The bubble was the dot coms.
>
> Finally, there are tons of jobs out there. Just look at the
> Sunday classifieds for any major city newspaper and you'll find
> hundreds, possibly thousands, of jobs available. Sure, not
> everyone is qualified for every job, but there is bound to be
> SOMETHING a person could do amongst all those listings.
And damn near all of them are in Health Care. Just about the only sector
of the economy *not* losing jobs.
>
> A smart person, if they are really having that hard of a time
> getting a job, will look at what jobs are available, get some
> training in that area, and make a career change.
>
> Certain types of jobs are always being hired for no matter
> what the economy is, and I'm not talking about garbage
> collectors.
>
> I can think of nurses and accountants off the top of my head
Now there's a couple of quick career changes fro someone!
> (been a while since I looked at the classifieds for a job),
But you're just certain the classifieds are filled with thousands of
jobs.
> for those who have the motivation and ability to learn those
> skills.
>
> Even for low and no-skill workers, or people who can't or
> won't go back to school, there's always a need for drivers,
> construction workers, security guards and the like.
>
> For those in between, there's medical billing processors,
> data entry clerks, receptionists and dentist assistants
> that seem to always be in demand.
>
> If you can show up to work on time and not be drunk/high,
> it's hard to be unemployed in this country. Whether a
> given employment will pay your bills is another matter,
> but the jobs are definiately out there.
But you haven't looked at the classifieds for a while. And, I presume
have never heard the term 'over qualified'.
>
> And if a person is unwilling to switch careers, that's
> a personal choice, not a fault of the economy, much less
> of George Bush.
>
> Plus there's always the option to just start your own
> company! 99.7% of all employers in the US are small
> businesses, according to the SBA.
> 99.7%
Start it with what?
>
>
>
> Next:
>
> ----
> GEORGE BUSH: "[My] Clear Skies legislation...mandates a
> 70% cut in air pollution from power plants over the next
> 15 years.
> THE TRUTH: The Bush plan will allow more than 100,000
> additional premature deaths by 2020 than alternative
> legislation developed by the Environmental Protection
> Agency. The plan does not regulate carbon emissions and
> allows far more sulfur and mercury emissions.
> ----
>
> THE REAL TRUTH:
>
> Gosh, these folks sure have an awful lot of precognitive
> ability, don't they? 100,000 additional deaths by 2020...
> Wonder if they give out winning lottery numbers, too!
No, they're statisticians.
>
> http://www.epa.gov/air/clearskies/fact2003.html
> So let me get this straight: Bush wants legislation that
> will reduce Sulfur and Nitrous Oxide emissions by 73% and
> 67% respectively, as well as mercury by 69%, and that's
> a BAD THING?! Simply because there was alternative
> legislation that was even more choking on industry?
>
> They make it sound like he's repealing the Clean Air Act
> or some such...
>
> Ok, so his plan doesn't deal with carbon emissions. Wow,
> one valid point so far. They're really batting a thousand
> now!
>
>
>
> Next:
>
> ----
> GEORGE BUSH: "[W]e achieved historic education reform – which
> must now be carried out in every school and in every classroom."
> THE TRUTH: Bush cut $8 billion from the promised funds for
> education.
> ----
>
> THE REAL TRUTH:
>
> Elementary and secondary schools are, and ALWAYS have been, funded
> almost entirely by state and local taxes (primarily property taxes)
> and the federal government has no business funding them in any event.
So, what did happen to the 8 billion he promised?
Lobby Dosser
news:05tab.144617$0v4.10...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> "Edward Glamkowski" <eglam...@angelfire.com> wrote in message
> news:c49f8b5e.03091...@posting.google.com...
>>
>> And "deficits continuing thereafter"? Oh PUH-LEASE! When's
>> the last time the US hasn't had a deficit? Duuuuuuuh....
>> http://www.toptips.com/debt_history.htm
>> That only goes back as far as 1900, but yep, we were running a
>> deficit over 100 years ago, and in every single year since 1900.
>> And yes, even under Clinton the deficit continued to go up every
>> single year he was in office, so don't give me any of that
>> "Clinton got rid of the deficit" crap. We've been running
>> deficits forever, so that's a non-point.
>>
>
> Yes, I've often been puzzled by that bromide from Clinton supporters.
> I always assumed they meant the deficit didn't didn't grow as much
> during the Clinton years and was always amused that when Clinton
> proposed what he claimed to be smaller increases he called them "tax
> cuts". KM
The budget was in the black when he left.
Lobby Dosser
news:15tab.144618$0v4.10...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
Yeah we just heard from that someone.
alohacyberian
Ah, but, it will buy time for their confederate Gray Davis. KM
alohacyberian
In spite of the tremendous wealth of a tiny minority of California Leftwing
Liberals, the time has come that the productive people can no longer support
the unproductive people and there is no way the elites are going to foot the
bill in spite of their idealistic rants that created the present situation.
They'll look to the feds for the cash, which means you and I will have to pay
to bail out the Peoples Republic of California and all the glitterati. KM
alohacyberian
> In article
> <7idab.147617$3o3.10...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
> > That's all the Leftwing Liberals can do. When they aren't stooping to
> > name-calling and personal slurs, they pounce on sideline minutae such as
> > semantics and entirely miss the thrust of the conversation. It really
> > bothers them when someone says something worth hearing or something that
> > isn't parroted Leftwing Liberal rhetoric. KM
>
> Well, Lileks was distressingly inflammatory in his language. Had he said
>
> Let's hope the great unleashed don't read this dangerous missive:
>
> http://www.lileks.com/bleats/index.html
>
> It's long, and angry, so they probably won't, this kind of stuff makes
> them *uncomfortable*.
>
> I gotta admit, Lileks deserves his reputation, and his explosions on his
> blog are the best:
>
As former president George H. W. Bush said, "Liberals do not like me talking
about liberals."
~ Tom Bethell, "Bush Calls a Liberal a Liberal and Looks More Like the
People's Choice", _Los Angeles Times, September 27, 1988.
"The reason they [Liberals] sob... is to prevent Americans from ever noticing
that liberals consistently attack their own country."
~ Ann Coulter, _Treason - Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on
Terrorism_
alohacyberian
> In article
> <7idab.147617$3o3.10...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
> > Evasivelly arguing semantics while ignoring the points under discussion?
> > That's all the Leftwing Liberals can do. When they aren't stooping to
> > name-calling and personal slurs, they pounce on sideline minutae such as
> > semantics and entirely miss the thrust of the conversation. It really
> > bothers them when someone says something worth hearing or something that
> > isn't parroted Leftwing Liberal rhetoric. KM
>
> Well, Lileks was distressingly inflammatory in his language. Had he said
> postponed rather than cancelled, passions would nat been unleashed.
>
> Let's hope the great unleashed don't read this dangerous missive:
>
> http://www.lileks.com/bleats/index.html
>
> It's long, and angry, so they probably won't, this kind of stuff makes
> them *uncomfortable*.
>
> I gotta admit, Lileks deserves his reputation, and his explosions on his
> blog are the best:
>
Many of his remarks are stated in extremely strong language, but he always
sticks to the facts and review what has actually happened rather than try to
dazzle us with a bunch of bromides we've heard for the last 70 years that
attempt to rewrite history. I know when I read Ann Coulter's second and
third books, I often felt she was a bit too strident as was Lileks. But, one
only has to read a few books, like Franken's, from the Liberals to realize
Lileks and Coulter peddle it lightly comparted to their adversaries. Perhaps
they feel it's time to fight fire with fire and appeal to emotions the way
Liberals have attempted to do for the last 70 years. Perhaps they feel
readers will be assuaged by stong conservative ideas based in common sense
and that strike a common chord as opposed to strong Leftwing Liberal
assertions based on the scare-tactics and hysteria that worked in the French
Revolution, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia where in 2 out of 3 countries the
populace was totally or nearly illiterate and therefore easily influenced.
The major differnce between the populations of France, Germany and Russia is
that the populace during the times mentioned were downtrodden and had stones
on their hearts, while Americans, even during the Great Depression have
always been eternal optimists who always felt "good" would prevail. I feel I
gotta reprint more of the article on other posts, it's worth considering. KM
alohacyberian
>
> Ask any hard lib to make this statement: "I want Iraqis to be free"
>
> They can't do it without qualifications. It's not their war.
>
reinforce something I’ve long suspected: the reason many editorialists hate
this war is because they don’t feel it’s theirs." [It's part of the "General
Manager of the Universe" syndrome so often exhibited by journalists who know
what's best for us.]
~ James Lileks
alohacyberian
news:lc4lmvs5gtbb7r3o9...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 03:34:26 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >When the interest payments become the largest item in the budget, the
> >consequences will be pretty bad.
>
>
Oh, the gloom-and-doom of it all! No doubt the sky will soon be falling on
this economic armageddon that has been predicted by the Communists and the
Leftwing Liberals for, lo, the last 70 years as it arrives at long lugubrious
last! Finally the time has come? I'm quaking in my boots at yet another
dire, dismal doomsday prediction of wrack and ruin from the perennial
pessimists and maladroit malcontents! Oh, whatever would we do without
harbingers of horror like vpol...@hotmail.com? No doubt pusillanimously
perish, perceiving pernicious perils of a pestiliential prison with a
lifelong lock. *Oh, Sob, heart-rending, hand-wringing, breast wrenching deep
dramatic sob!* [Do they give oscars for the most dramatic Usenet response
in a black and white dirge? Dang, I'd never be able to compete with
vpol...@hotmail.com anyway.] Just remember, vpolitico, no matter what
comes down the pike don't forget to hate America with all your heart, er,
spleen and attack your adversaries with the vicious tongue of a rabid
rottweiler! Or should that have been rotty "teeth" instead of tongue? No,
matter, I'm sure mother morbid will be able to see the worst in it and blame
it on the arch-enemy: AMERICA! *Shudder!* KM
Lobby Dosser
news:texdriver-65123...@netnews.attbi.com:
Where Eagles Shit is on DVD makes people uncomfortable?
Lobby Dosser
news:QWuab.148823$3o3.10...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
snip
>
> "The reason they [Liberals] sob... is to prevent Americans from ever
> noticing that liberals consistently attack their own country."
> ~ Ann Coulter, _Treason - Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the
> War on
> Terrorism_
Who, on the tube this PM, stated that the Japanese and Iraqis were pretty
much the same as far as culture. Now there's a really brilliant source for
a quote.
Lobby Dosser
news:PWuab.148822$3o3.10...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
Including Arnold.
Lobby Dosser
news:texdriver-3064D...@netnews.attbi.com:
Sounds like you folks want to pay for it. Take up a collection. Privatize
it.
>
Lobby Dosser
news:Z7xab.148981$3o3.10...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
-0.1 - Don't quit your day job. Fire your writing coach.
Lobby Dosser
news:52wab.148907$3o3.10...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
Sorta like the scare tacticts that got us into Iraq. Sorta like the scare
tactics that say we have to have a deficit to defend ourselves from the
evil muslim hordes. Sorta like the scare tactics of the Cold War. Sorta
like that?
> countries the populace was totally or nearly illiterate and therefore
> easily influenced. The major differnce between the populations of
> France, Germany and Russia is that the populace during the times
> mentioned were downtrodden and had stones on their hearts, while
Stones on their hearts? You right wingers are turning into a bunch of
pussies.
Edward Glamkowski
> > > Move on has decided to begin a campaign to let the american people know
> > > everytime GWB lies in public. So they have started a site
> > > www.misleader.org
> > > They have placed the following full page ad in the New York Times.
> > >
> > > http://www.misleader.org/pdf/nyt_ad.pdf
> >
> > This ad is so wrong in so many ways, its pathetic.
> >
> > ----
> > GEORGE BUSH: "[W]e will not pass along our problems to...other
> > generations."
> > THE TRUTH: $1.9 trillion in new debt over 5 years, with deficits
> > continuing thereafter.
> > ----
> >
> > THE REAL TRUTH:
>
>
> >
> > Interesting they assume the debt to be the biggest problem of
> > long-term consequence here.
>
>
> >
> > I for one am far more concerned about the long term consequences
> > of terrorism and foreign policy...
>
I made no reference to Iraq vis-a-vis 9/11.
Projection...
> > But first, Bush is not responsible for how much money gets
> > spent, nor how it gets spent - all appropriations and budgets
> > originate with the House of Representatives. Bush may have
> > signed the budgets into law, but it takes a majority of
> > Congress to get a budget to the president in the first place.
>
> Bush submits the budget and asks for further appropriations. Current news
> would tell you that.
I refer you to Article I of the Constitution, which deals with the
powers of CONGRESS, not the President. Specifically, to sections
7 and 9.
I won't reproduce them here because they are a bit lengthy, but
they are trivially available on-line.
Read them.
No really, go read them right now.
The president can make *suggestions* for a budget, but it is still
up to Congress to make the actual spending decisions. If they don't
like what the President suggests, it is entirely within their scope
of duty to make a completely new budget without any regard to what
the president wanted.
In fact, in Article II of the constitution, which deals with the
powers of the executive office, there is NO mention ANYWHERE of
budets or spending. None at all. It is simply not for the
president to make the budget.
That he does so is merely a convenience to the congress, but it
is actually well beyond his scope of responsibility.
> > Next, 5 years does not constitute a "geneneration", much less
> > multiple generations. Traditionally, a generation is considered
> > 20 years. So if we're still suffering from "Bush induced"
> > deficits (as if he could induce them - blame Congress first!)
> > 20 years from now, you have an argument.
>
> We'll incur the deficit over the next 5 years or so, but it will take much
> longer to pay it off.
>
> > Of course, that
> > assumes that no congress in the intervening 15 years will
> > do anything about it. A rather stupid assumption, no?
>
> You've got few choices:
> - raise taxes
> - cut spending
> - print money and cause inflation.
And are you suggesting that no congress in the next 20 years
will do any of those things?
Edward Glamkowski
> eglam...@angelfire.com (Edward Glamkowski) wrote in message
> > > Move on has decided to begin a campaign to let the american people know
> > > everytime GWB lies in public. So they have started a site www.misleader.org
> > > They have placed the following full page ad in the New York Times.
> > >
> > > http://www.misleader.org/pdf/nyt_ad.pdf
> >
> > This ad is so wrong in so many ways, its pathetic.
> >
> > ----
> > GEORGE BUSH: "[W]e will not pass along our problems to...other
> > generations."
> > THE TRUTH: $1.9 trillion in new debt over 5 years, with deficits
> > continuing thereafter.
> > ----
> >
> > THE REAL TRUTH:
> >
> > long-term consequence here.
> >
> > of terrorism and foreign policy...
>
>
> Unilaterally (ok, with the UK) invading a country that posed no
> immediate threat in the most volatile region on the planet is going to
> REDUCE terrorism? Again, your opinion: far, far from mine.
I'm not going to argue opinions, so we'll just agree to disagree.
> > But first, Bush is not responsible for how much money gets
> > spent, nor how it gets spent - all appropriations and budgets
> > originate with the House of Representatives. Bush may have
> > signed the budgets into law, but it takes a majority of
> > Congress to get a budget to the president in the first place.
>
>
> Didn't catch that speech on tv the other night?
Haven't read the constitution lately?
Article I, Sections 7 and 9.
http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm
Reveiew article II as well, for the powers of the executive branch.
You'll discover that the executive branch has ZERO authority to
create budgets, and the ALL power to raise revenue and spend money
lies with the Congress.
The president can suggest a budget, but congress is free to ignore
him if they so choose.
>http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030908/NEWS/30908002/1060
>
> "We have conducted a thorough assessment of our military and
> reconstruction needs in Iraq, and also in Afghanistan. I will soon
> submit to Congress a request for $87 billion. The request will cover
> ongoing military and intelligence operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and
> elsewhere, which we expect will cost $66 billion over the next year. "
>
> Was he simply "suggesting" he needed the funds?
Yes, absolutely. Notice his use of the word "request".
Congress is free to deny him.
It almost certainly won't, but it could.
BECAUSE... only Congress has the authority to actually spend money!
> Do you realize $87 billion a year could pay for free health insurance
> for every American? You think that Iraqi invasion was more important
> than fixing the mess our health care system is in?
I certainly don't want to have nationalized health care regardless.
I want less government control over my life, please, not more.
In any event, there is no constitutional mandate for the government
providing health care. There is one for the government funding and
deploying the military.
> > Duuuuuuuh....
> > http://www.toptips.com/debt_history.htm
> > That only goes back as far as 1900, but yep, we were running a
> > deficit over 100 years ago, and in every single year since 1900.
> > And yes, even under Clinton the deficit continued to go up every
> > single year he was in office, so don't give me any of that
> > "Clinton got rid of the deficit" crap. We've been running
> > deficits forever, so that's a non-point.
>
>
> Um...do you know what the difference is between deficit spending and
> the federal debt? It seems that you don't.
The ad itself confuses the issue by using both the words
deficit and debt. But one thing is clear: deficit spending
leads to... increased debt!
Since the debt continued to go up under Clinton, clearly
*something* was going on to cause that to happen.
You can split hairs all you want, but the federal debt still
went up under Clinton. In that regard, the ad is disingeniuous.
They make it sound like the debt was no big deal before Bush.
It was every bit as big a deal, and was still going up regardless
before Bush did his thing.
The ad is being deceptive.
And that's the point.
Don Homuth
<alohac...@att.net> wrote:
>I can't speak for Don,
Truer words were seldom spake.
>... but, I find almost all of the Libertarian ideas not
>only to be palatable, but, highly desirable....
That's fine. Now all you and the Libertoonians need to do is Get Some
Votes.
Given your display of Political Cluelessness, I'd guess that neither
you nor they are going to accomplish that any time soon.
It's Politics!
It's a Good Thing!
Go do some Useful Political Work and see where your/their Principles
get you.
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in message
news:45tab.144621$0v4.10...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "SteveR" <texd...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:texdriver-0EC76...@netnews.attbi.com...
> > In article
> > <Pine.GSO.4.58MAILDI...@shell1.pacifier.net>,
> > Bob Tiernan <zulu.pac...@shell1.pacifier.net> wrote:
> > > Also, note that many of the same people criticizing
> > > a postponed election in Iraq are defending this
> > > postponed election.
> >
> >
> > Concerning Iraq - those complaining about "the election" there
> > (national), may be surprised to know of the dozens of free elections
> > already held, or in the process.
> >
>
> And the more successful those Iraqi elections become,
What elections were those? Near as I can tell, there've been none. Unless
you count the votes within the US-installed "government" committee meetings.
Sean
>
> Since the debt continued to go up under Clinton, clearly
> *something* was going on to cause that to happen.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
The Federal "Debt Held By Public" began to decrease in FY 98, and in fact
decreased by $450 Billion between then and FY 2001 (the last budget year
presented by Clinton).
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0&from=7#table1
You Bush apologists are just unwilling to admit that Bush has screwed this
country's finances "big time".
>
> You can split hairs all you want, but the federal debt still
> went up under Clinton. In that regard, the ad is disingeniuous.
> They make it sound like the debt was no big deal before Bush.
> It was every bit as big a deal, and was still going up regardless
> before Bush did his thing.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. See the CBO link above.
Lobby Dosser
4ax.com:
> On 19 Sep 2003 05:45:49 -0700, eglam...@angelfire.com (Edward
> Glamkowski) wrote:
>
>>
>>The president can make *suggestions* for a budget, but it is still
>>up to Congress to make the actual spending decisions.
>
>
> Ah and he's not the leader of his party? And it doesn't control both
> houses?
>
> Sheesh this old he's not responsible for the fiscal state of the
> nation crap is really some pretty transparent apologist crap.
The Buck Stops There.
Thass not my chob.
A good little CEO Bush - delegate authority, delegate responsibility,
delegate blame.
>
> _______
> "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
> we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only
> unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American
> public."
> -President Teddy Roosevelt
>
Bill Shatzer
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Lobby Dosser wrote:
-snips-
> Sounds like you folks want to pay for it. Take up a collection. Privatize
> it.
LOL!
Gee, I wish I'd said that!
Peace and justice,
alohacyberian
news:sh8mmvkqat6v7fc34...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 01:37:03 GMT, "alohacyberian"
> <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
>
> Given your display of Political Cluelessness, I'd guess that neither
>
of the Leftwing Liberal who cannot actually contribute anything meaninfull to
the conversation! Who do you intend to influence with such lack of
communication skills? 6 year olds? Juvenile delinquents? The lunatic
fringe? No amount of money, influence or persuasion can possibly paint
Leftwing Liberals in a worse light than they gladly portray themselves. They
are their own worse enemas. KM
alohacyberian
> "alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:45tab.144621$0v4.10...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > "SteveR" <texd...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > news:texdriver-0EC76...@netnews.attbi.com...
> > > In article
> > > <Pine.GSO.4.58MAILDI...@shell1.pacifier.net>,
> > > Bob Tiernan <zulu.pac...@shell1.pacifier.net> wrote:
> > > > Also, note that many of the same people criticizing
> > > > a postponed election in Iraq are defending this
> > > > postponed election.
> > >
> > > Concerning Iraq - those complaining about "the election" there
> > > (national), may be surprised to know of the dozens of free elections
> > > already held, or in the process.
> >
> > And the more successful those Iraqi elections become,
>
> What elections were those? Near as I can tell, there've been none. Unless
> you count the votes within the US-installed "government" committee
meetings.
>
You should try to get your news from someplace other than NPR and PBS. KM
Don Homuth
<alohac...@att.net> wrote:
>"Don Homuth" <eno...@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:sh8mmvkqat6v7fc34...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 01:37:03 GMT, "alohacyberian"
>> <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> Given your display of Political Cluelessness, I'd guess that neither
>>
>Oh! More name-calling and personal slurs from deep Don Homuth!
Nope. When political cluelessness is displayed, as clearly has been
the case with here, noting it straight up is neither name-calling nor
personal slurs. The focus is on the behavior and not on the
individual.
>The hallmark
>of the Leftwing Liberal who cannot actually contribute anything meaninfull to
>the conversation!
Yeah -- that format of response is pretty well canned now, idnit? You
don't mind at all whanging away at others with some pretty scurillous
stuff on your own, but when anyone comes even Close to pointing out
the content-free nature of such actions, you get All Defensive-like,
and start sniveling that y'all are being Treated Unfairly.
Better get used to it. I give as good as I get, and a tad better.
You'll find you're unarmed in this battle of wits.
> Who do you intend to influence with such lack of
>communication skills?
Not you, certainly. I'd never consider such a thing. But you'll find
that there are those who find a well-mounted response to your constant
drivel sorta fun.
>6 year olds?
When you can attain that status, perhaps you might comprehend the
discussion. I'm patient -- I can wait.
>Juvenile delinquents?
There being no reason to believe that JuVies are present hereon, it
would be silly even to consider such a thing.
>The lunatic fringe?
By inspection, the lunatic fringe is well beyond the pale, and cannot
be influenced by rational dialogue. I note, for example, that you
display that salient characteristic as well.
> No amount of money, influence or persuasion can possibly paint
>Leftwing Liberals in a worse light than they gladly portray themselves.
And happily, no amount of money or influence is being used, and the
nature of the Persuasion hereon is to hear you wingnut types ranting
about an assertion, then immediately thereafter ranting because others
don't buy it lock, stock and barrel.
Which is Just Fascinating to watch, but has no particular suasive
content either.
>They are their own worse enemas.
Beats being a tight-assed wingnut, anyway.
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in message
news:FyLab.149715$3o3.10...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "Baxter" <lbax01.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> news:vmm9dpp...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > What elections were those? Near as I can tell, there've been none.
Unless
> > you count the votes within the US-installed "government" committee
> meetings.
> >
>
> You should try to get your news from someplace other than NPR and PBS. KM
Sorry, never could get the antenna on the tinfoil hats to work. So I threw
them away long since and switched to Reality.
Droopus
> droop...@netscape.net (Droopus) wrote in message
> > eglam...@angelfire.com (Edward Glamkowski) wrote in message
> > > "bigdawg" <bigdawg@spam_really_sucks_.net> wrote in message
> > > > Move on has decided to begin a campaign to let the american people know
> > > > everytime GWB lies in public. So they have started a site www.misleader.org
> > > > They have placed the following full page ad in the New York Times.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.misleader.org/pdf/nyt_ad.pdf
> > >
> > > This ad is so wrong in so many ways, its pathetic.
> > >
> > > ----
> > > GEORGE BUSH: "[W]e will not pass along our problems to...other
> > > generations."
> > > THE TRUTH: $1.9 trillion in new debt over 5 years, with deficits
> > > continuing thereafter.
> > > ----
> > >
> > > THE REAL TRUTH:
> > >
> > > Interesting they assume the debt to be the biggest problem of
> > > long-term consequence here.
> > >
> > > I for one am far more concerned about the long term consequences
> > > of terrorism and foreign policy...
> >
> > Your opinion, which you are free to have. I don't agree.
> >
> > Unilaterally (ok, with the UK) invading a country that posed no
> > immediate threat in the most volatile region on the planet is going to
> > REDUCE terrorism? Again, your opinion: far, far from mine.
>
> I'm not going to argue opinions, so we'll just agree to disagree.
Probably a good idea for both of us. ; )
>
> > > But first, Bush is not responsible for how much money gets
> > > spent, nor how it gets spent - all appropriations and budgets
> > > originate with the House of Representatives. Bush may have
> > > signed the budgets into law, but it takes a majority of
> > > Congress to get a budget to the president in the first place.
> >
> >
> > Didn't catch that speech on tv the other night?
>
> Haven't read the constitution lately?
>
> Article I, Sections 7 and 9.
> http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm
>
> Reveiew article II as well, for the powers of the executive branch.
>
> You'll discover that the executive branch has ZERO authority to
> create budgets, and the ALL power to raise revenue and spend money
> lies with the Congress.
>
> The president can suggest a budget, but congress is free to ignore
> him if they so choose.
Indeed so, but that hasn't happened since the 90's when the GOP
Congress shut down the government rather than accept Clinton's budget.
Things are very different now, yes? Bush's "request" is tantamount to
an order to a GOP Congress. DeLay will thunder that it would be
"treasonous" not to give our brave CIC the funds he needs.
Now that's one guy that really scares the shit out of me. Bush is
idealogically closer to George McGovern than Tom DeLay. If DeLay ever
gets near the Presidency, I seriously would think of leaving the
country. Ever read some of his private writings? He makes Ann Coulter
sound like Mr Rogers.
>
>
> >http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030908/NEWS/30908002/1060
> >
> > "We have conducted a thorough assessment of our military and
> > reconstruction needs in Iraq, and also in Afghanistan. I will soon
> > submit to Congress a request for $87 billion. The request will cover
> > ongoing military and intelligence operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and
> > elsewhere, which we expect will cost $66 billion over the next year. "
> >
> > Was he simply "suggesting" he needed the funds?
>
> Yes, absolutely. Notice his use of the word "request".
> Congress is free to deny him.
> It almost certainly won't, but it could.
True, so knowing that, basically Bush knows that all he has to do is
ask and he will get the cash. Technically, you are absolutely correct,
but in the real world, Bush asks, DeLay and Hastert deliver.
>
> BECAUSE... only Congress has the authority to actually spend money!
Indeed so. That's why I find all this talk of the "Clinton
Recession/Boom" or "Bush Recession" to be so misinformed.
Now, IMO, Bush is spending waaaaaaay too much, and that could affect
the fiscal health of the country, but by and large presidents have
little to do with it.
>
>
> > Do you realize $87 billion a year could pay for free health insurance
> > for every American? You think that Iraqi invasion was more important
> > than fixing the mess our health care system is in?
>
> I certainly don't want to have nationalized health care regardless.
> I want less government control over my life, please, not more.
I agree, but what solution do you suggest for the tens of millions of
Americans without health insurance? Did you know, that even if you are
in perfect health, unless you are covered by yopur company, it is
basically impossible to get coverage past age 45? I'm a consultant,
run my own very tidy business, and pay over $1500 a month for my
family's health coverage. (1 wife, 2 kids.)
Do you think the average American can pay $18,000 a year for health
insurance?
Luckily we have a safety net. My wife is British, and if we ever lost
our insurance, we could go back to the UK and get top health care for
free.
What would you suggest for the 47 year old self-employed man who earns
$35,000 a year before taxes? Prayer and vitamins?
I'm seriously interested: what is so awful about using funds to insure
Americans' health?
>
>
> In any event, there is no constitutional mandate for the government
> providing health care. There is one for the government funding and
> deploying the military.
Indeed true. But neither the arts nor the Peace Corps are mandated
constitutionally either, yet we support them. We are a long way from
treating the constitution literally.
>
>
>
> > > Duuuuuuuh....
> > > http://www.toptips.com/debt_history.htm
> > > That only goes back as far as 1900, but yep, we were running a
> > > deficit over 100 years ago, and in every single year since 1900.
> > > And yes, even under Clinton the deficit continued to go up every
> > > single year he was in office, so don't give me any of that
> > > "Clinton got rid of the deficit" crap. We've been running
> > > deficits forever, so that's a non-point.
> >
> >
> > Um...do you know what the difference is between deficit spending and
> > the federal debt? It seems that you don't.
>
> The ad itself confuses the issue by using both the words
> deficit and debt. But one thing is clear: deficit spending
> leads to... increased debt!
After looking at the ad again, you're absolutely right. They confuse
the issue, and anyone who does not realize the difference would get a
flase impression. Agree 100%, they could have doine the ad better.
Much better.
Bush did raise the debt dramatically, and has increased spending, not
lowered it. Clinton did run a surplus, but the federal debt continued
to rise (with the interest payments on 6 trillion, almost nothing will
reduce the debt at this point.)
>
> Since the debt continued to go up under Clinton, clearly
> *something* was going on to cause that to happen.
>
> You can split hairs all you want, but the federal debt still
> went up under Clinton. In that regard, the ad is disingeniuous.
> They make it sound like the debt was no big deal before Bush.
> It was every bit as big a deal, and was still going up regardless
> before Bush did his thing.
>
> The ad is being deceptive.
> And that's the point.
I happen to agree with you, it is deceptive. See, I agree with much of
what the ad is trying to say, but they said it badly, in a sneaky way.
That's too bad.
If they had had the ad done properly, it still would have had an
effect. Now it's easy to discount.
Juan E Jimenez
"Thomas" <mau...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:054nmvogfsrrtfcrh...@4ax.com...
>
> More like he posted the facts that shredded that propaganda crap into
> kitty litter.
Still hallucinating, eh? :)
Bill Shatzer
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, alohacyberian wrote:
> "Don Homuth" <eno...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:sh8mmvkqat6v7fc34...@4ax.com...
> > Given your display of Political Cluelessness, I'd guess that neither
> Oh! More name-calling and personal slurs from deep Don Homuth!
Oh spare us your sanctimonious huffing. When one (such as yerself),
hasn't a clue, it is neither name calling nor a personal slur to identify
it as clueless.
> The hallmark
> of the Leftwing Liberal who cannot actually contribute anything meaninfull to
> the conversation!
Not that you'd know a "left-wing liberal" if you tripped over one.
"Left-wing liberal" seems to be your all-encompassing epithet for anyone
with the termidity to disagree with yer own exalted self.
Disagreeing with you does not a liberal make - left-wing or otherwise.
Nor does publicly identifying yer general lack of clues.
> Who do you intend to influence with such lack of
> communication skills? 6 year olds? Juvenile delinquents? The lunatic
> fringe? No amount of money, influence or persuasion can possibly paint
> Leftwing Liberals in a worse light than they gladly portray themselves. They
> are their own worse enemas.
Now THERE is a "meaningful contribution to the discussion".
Profound. Deep. Factually based. Logical and well reasoned.
Not!
If hot air were helium, you'd be a blimp.
Peace and justice,
alohacyberian
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 06:13:13 GMT, "alohacyberian"
> <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
> >pessimists and maladroit malcontents! Oh, whatever would we do without
> >harbingers of horror like vpol...@hotmail.com? No doubt pusillanimously
> >perish, perceiving pernicious perils of a pestiliential prison with a
> >lifelong lock. *Oh, Sob, heart-rending, hand-wringing, breast wrenching
deep
>
>
> Have you noticed that while the leftwing nuts excoriate Bush for
> following the economic plan used by Reagan when he took office with a
> recession left to him by Carter, and Bush by Clinton, they always fail
> to mention that Reagan's policies resulted in 1) the strongest and
> longest bull market in Dow Jone's history 2) Trade surpluses
> diametrically opposed to the trade deficits Carter left him 3) the
> largest business expansion in American history, and last but not least
> 4) the biggest explosion in our GNP that lasted almost 20 years, until
> Clinton began his regulatory nightmare.
>
> We're already seeing some of the same effects today. If Reagan was
> such an "economic bad dream" according to the liberal wing-nuts, that
> kind of dreams work for me. Their masturbatory speculations from the
> liberal loonies about fantasy "surpluses" and projected but not real
> "deficits", only serve to lubricate their favorite activities,
> Bush-bashing and America-hating.
>
And you left out the fact that the prime rate went over 20% (yes, the PRIME
rate) during the Carter administration and the Dow had dipped to 700
something. And you'll probably also recommend how the economic wizards in
the Media and the Democrat party called Reagan's economic policies, voodoo
economics (how childish is that?) and Reaganomics. But, I'm sure you also
noticed that when economic recovery was well on it's way they never made
another peep about "voodoo economics" or Reaganomics and stopped using the
term altogether. Oops! KM
alohacyberian
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 01:36:55 GMT, "alohacyberian"
> <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
> >"WinGuru" <anonymous> wrote in message news:3f69...@nntp0.pdx.net...> >> news:aidab.147619$3o3.10...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >> > I suppose we should be frightened, but, I guess it's what we've come
to
> >> > expect from Leftwing Liberals who cannot get their way via elections
or
> >> > legislation, so they take to the courts to deny the will of the
majority.
> >> KM
> >>
> >> Are you for real????? After the way Bush took lawsuit after lawsuit
after
> >> lawsuit to stop the vote counting in FL you have the gall to say that
this
> >> is a trait of other than the neo-cons? How stupid are you?
> >>
> >Uh, Bush would never have gone to court had the Democrats not started it.
> >But, it's academic now, Bush won and that's what counts. But, using your
> >logic, it was the "neocons" who went to court in California to block the
> >upcoming election. I don't think that'll fly. KM
>
> I'm always puzzled why the loony left tries to manipulate the
> Bush-Gore situation concerning court actions. You are absolutely
> correct, the Democrats filed the first lawsuit, (or to be accurate, a
> motion for specific performance), and then withdrew it after they
> calculated their chances of prevailing as slim and none. The
> Democratic lawyers shamelessly filed action after action to attempt to
> manipulate Florida's election process. It ultimately backfired on
> them, and ancient history, Gore conceded and GWB is our President.
>
Yeah, another thing the Leftwing Liberals also conveniently fail to mention,
but, you didn't, is that Gore conceded. End of story, curtains, beginning of
interminable whining coming from stage left. KM
alohacyberian
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.03091...@lab.oregonvos.net...
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, alohacyberian wrote:
>
> Disagreeing with you does not a liberal make - left-wing or otherwise.
> Nor does publicly identifying yer general lack of clues.
>
So, are you a Leftwing Liberal? If so, I'm sorry I huwtums wittow feewings,
if not, I wasn't talking to you, so quitcher quaking and quibbling. KM
Bob Tiernan
v politico wrote:
> Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > ...note that many of the same people criticizing
> > a postponed election in Iraq are defending this
> > postponed election.
> H,mm, an occupying force having their general say "Sorry, no election
> today" is a bit different than a court dealing with a conflicting
> statutes and constitutional provisions. Unless of course you just
> want to score cheap points.
There's a world of difference between Iraq and
California. Californians (and all other
Americans) have been holding numerous elections
several times per year for a long time,
and can do so smoothly using all kinds of
methods, none of which are 100% error-free.
That the punch card ballots will eventually
be replaced by something that at least seems more
modern in no way proves that the punch card
method is so inaccurate that it must not be
used even if that means cancelling all elections
until the entire country no longer has these
in use anywhere.
Bob Tiernan
Bob Tiernan
SteveR wrote:
> I believe the court now has the results from the MIT
> study, which, boiled down is:
>
> Optical scanners have an error rate of 3.3%
> Touch screen systems have an error rate of 3.0%
> Data Vote systems have an error rate of 3.2%
> Punch Cards have an error rate of 2.5%
Whaddaya say now, Dave Thompson?
Bob T
Mat salleh
"alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in message news:%lUab.146158
But, I'm sure you also
> noticed that when economic recovery was well on it's way they never made
> another peep about "voodoo economics" or Reaganomics and stopped using the
> term altogether. Oops! KM
> --
> (-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
> visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
> to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
> about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
>
Hmmm, these zionists can say this kind of crap with a straight face and the
lemmings buy it hook, line and sinker.
When your hand is the hand that cranks those money presses, you can crank
all you like. Since most of the revenue is benefitiing companies like the
Carlyle Group and Haliburton. It's the future generation that has to pay,
folks spending the money don't give a shit, it's the ones who have to pay
for it.
10 years from now the adults of this generation are going to pay a serious
penalty for their legacy of greed and intolerance.
Mike Pearson <see .sig>
> That the punch card ballots will eventually
> be replaced by something that at least seems more
> modern in no way proves that the punch card
> method is so inaccurate that it must not be
> used even if that means cancelling all elections
> until the entire country no longer has these
> in use anywhere.
No, but they were going to be using an election method that has already
been decertified for use in elections within the state, and that brings
up some problems. Why not allow all uncertified methods if one is
alowed to be used?
If the recall doesn't happen to go the way the republicans want it to,
I'd be willing to bet that they will be the first in line screaming
about how they got screwed because uncertified balloting mechanisms were
used.
--
Mike
NAR #70953 - Sr/HPR Level-1 ~ SeaNAR - The Seattle NAR Section #568
NO Junk Email, please! Real email to: amphoto [at] blarg [dot] net.
<Vegetables aren't food; vegetables are what the food eats!>
c...@oblivion.world
<%lUab.146158$0v4.10...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
> the economic wizards in
> the Media and the Democrat party called Reagan's economic policies, voodoo
> economics (how childish is that?)
I think you will find that the term "voodoo economics" came from Bush
the First and lasted until Reagan named him his VP running mate.
Bob Tiernan
CLW wrote:
> I think you will find that the term "voodoo economics"
> came from Bush the First and lasted until Reagan named
> him his VP running mate.
Yeah, like Bush One was a real economic wiz.
But you find this all the time, i.e. a VP
will change his tune in order to be named
to the ticket (check Lieberman's long-standing
views with what he was suddenly supporting
or not supporting ater he was chosen as Gore's
running mate, just to name one example).
But just as they seem to have a conversion
after they are chosen (on the promise that
they *will* change), their campaign stances
can be just as suspect in that they wanted
to set themselves apart from the other
candidates (like Reagan in this case).
In the end, however, Bush showed that
his own economic views were voodoo economics.
That's what he was a one-termer.
Bob t