OT: If Kerry is elected...

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> schreef in
bericht news:7cg5n0943atdepss9lbg10bpm27u7ddka7@4ax.com...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 18:43:11 GMT, "Clarence" <no@No.com> wrote:


"Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote in message
news:4172b209$0$48933$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

Which can all be flushed trough the toilet, right?

Drop dead, dipshit.
--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'x' and 'invalid' when replying by email)


Another insightful commentary form Frank(ly) Bemelman to contribute to
the
betterment of the world!



Yeah, Frank's composition style has really developed of late. Who do
you think he's been getting lessons from?
Hmm. Now you're asking others to think for you. That's an improvement.


--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'x' and 'invalid' when replying by email)
 
"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote in message
news:uhe5n0t2ed3javj4saff9vfj779i2e7ebk@4ax.com...
On 17 Oct 2004 11:02:50 -0700, soar2morrow@yahoo.com (Tom Seim) wrote:

I'll say it again: Kerry is a
self-admitted war criminal.

Why haven't you bothered to show this, rather than just inanely repeat the
same
disproven claim over and over as though saying it more often will make it
truer?

I have repeatedly posted what I could find on this point and that evidence
isn't
at all congruent with your claim. So... let's see your 'logic' laid bare and
exposed for all to see. What are your facts, sources, and your logic?

Jon
A Kerry supporter will never see or hear anything which will convince them.
"Dense" is the best description I can use.
 
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 19:18:20 GMT, "Clarence" <no@No.com> wrote:

"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote in message
news:uhe5n0t2ed3javj4saff9vfj779i2e7ebk@4ax.com...
On 17 Oct 2004 11:02:50 -0700, soar2morrow@yahoo.com (Tom Seim) wrote:

I'll say it again: Kerry is a
self-admitted war criminal.

Why haven't you bothered to show this, rather than just inanely repeat the
same
disproven claim over and over as though saying it more often will make it
truer?

I have repeatedly posted what I could find on this point and that evidence
isn't
at all congruent with your claim. So... let's see your 'logic' laid bare and
exposed for all to see. What are your facts, sources, and your logic?

Jon

A Kerry supporter will never see or hear anything which will convince them.
"Dense" is the best description I can use.
---
Then you'll find company in the Kerry camp.

--
John Fields
 
"Clarence" <no@No.com> schreef in bericht
news:Ulzcd.31756$QJ3.20510@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
"Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote in message
news:4172be89$0$78279$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
"Fred Bloggs" <nospam@nospam.com> schreef in bericht
news:4172BA4A.6040609@nospam.com...


Frank Bemelman wrote:
"Fred Bloggs" <nospam@nospam.com> schreef in bericht
news:4172B1CE.9080700@nospam.com...
Frank Bemelman wrote:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbemelma/tibetwomanchild.jpg
You probably don't understand my point anyway, so I am not
going to waste my time explaining it.
That connection is being refused.
Strange. I placed a copy to here:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbemelma/Files/tibetwomanchild.jpg
I'll upload one to ABSE as well. But that takes a while
before it appears.

I got it now- nice. What is the purpose of posting this picture?
Respect
for other cultures and lifestyles? Very good- Iraq is a class act
example of callous contempt for all things non-American.

Exactly. While I enjoy living in the luxury that I do, I also
experienced that many people on this earth live differently. And
that doesn't make them always unhappier than we are. Forcing
our ideas down their throats is very unrespectful.

Or perhaps constructive?

You are in no position to be a judge of what is right and wrong. Even
though
you think you are the final word on every subject.
Indeed I am not in a position to be the final judge of what is
right and wrong. I have no desire to be either. But what makes the
US thinks it is ?

*Offering* help to other people is okay, but not *FORCING* it
down their throats. Note the subtle difference. Dipshit.

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'x' and 'invalid' when replying by email)
 
Clarence wrote:
"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote in message
news:uhe5n0t2ed3javj4saff9vfj779i2e7ebk@4ax.com...

On 17 Oct 2004 11:02:50 -0700, soar2morrow@yahoo.com (Tom Seim) wrote:


I'll say it again: Kerry is a
self-admitted war criminal.

Why haven't you bothered to show this, rather than just inanely repeat the

same

disproven claim over and over as though saying it more often will make it

truer?

I have repeatedly posted what I could find on this point and that evidence

isn't

at all congruent with your claim. So... let's see your 'logic' laid bare and
exposed for all to see. What are your facts, sources, and your logic?

Jon


A Kerry supporter will never see or hear anything which will convince them.
"Dense" is the best description I can use.
There you go with more of your Karl Rove retardation and criminal
conduct. You must be a moonie.
 
"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote in message
news:r4a6n0huomtiqimfstkssn0gtnpii1nutb@4ax.com...
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 02:20:34 GMT, "Clarence" <no@No.com> wrote:


"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote in message
news:t2v5n0hions86tc43bskkkufnu7akfcfgp@4ax.com...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 19:18:20 GMT, "Clarence" <no@No.com> wrote:

A Kerry supporter will never see or hear anything which will convince
them.
"Dense" is the best description I can use.

That's simply insulting bigotry. Nothing more or less.

Jon

Why think you, truth is always hard to set aside, isn't it?

Bigots tend to imagine such things are true. But it's still painting with a
broad brush, like it or not. And that's bigotry, no matter how you look at
it.
Each person should be taken on their terms and your comment doesn't do that
in
the least.

However, I can not insult them by saying what I perceive is true.

Spoken like a real bigot, indeed.

Jon

From a master that is a high complement indeed!
 
In article <6c71b322.0410181950.11530cc9@posting.google.com>,
Tom Seim <soar2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote:
[....]
They problem with Kim is you don't know what he is thinking. Anybody
who would permit his people to resort to eating bark off of trees
Um ... He cut welfare .... um
Um ... um .... so ... you're saying Kim is a Republican then ... huh?
--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
 
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:55:06 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

OK. You're my Secretary of Defense.

Fine. Do I get to put a CIWS on the front of my house for
drive-by control?
I don't know what a CIWS is, but if you can afford one, why not?
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, after all.

Unilateral disarmament doesn't make you "peaceful", it
makes you a "corpse".

By whose hand, today? And which corpse? Who's going to
start trying to kill 250,000,000 Americans? And how long
would they
get away with it, even if we didn't have soldiers stationed
in Afghanistan?

By anybody with an axe to grind, or delusions of world
conquest. You asked "how long would they get away with it?".
As long as they wanted to, since your first three points
leave no _defensive_ capabilities at all.
And exactly what are the mechanics of this invasion? Do they come
in LA? San Francisco? Miami? New York? Do they just walk ashore in
South Carolina and Georgia? And how many troops are there? When
they come marching into your neighborhood, don't you think anybody
at all will be shooting at them? Or are you an antigun nut who wants
everybody in America unarmed and defenseless?

Has somebody come up with neighborhood guerilla-fighting tactics
that work better than what the US is doing to Iraq?

....

9. Eliminate local funding of school districts; since
they have to
conform with Federal guidelines, support all of them
equally from
Federal funds. Replace the Department of Education with one
ninety-year-old schoomarm.

No, no, no! Get rid of "federal guidelines" that
interfere with local
issues! Lording it over people, telling them how they
should/must run
their lives, is the entire cause of all the problems
there have ever
been!

Competence in English, math, and other fundamentals are
not local issues. Would you prefer that schools in L.A.
teach Ebonics instead of Standard English? The country's
fragmented enough as it is.
Standards, sure, like the NBS. And I think most people with
common sense will educate their kids sufficiently one way or
the other. And who cares about being "fragmented?" What does
that mean anyway? Where do you draw the line between "fragmented"
and "marching in lockstep"? This is supposed to be a country
of individuals, each running their own life, interacting with
each other from enlightened self-interest.

Unfortunately, for enlightened self-interest to work, the self-
interested parties need to actually _be_ enlightened. :)
No government has _any_ business telling people how to
school their
children. Communities used to get together and build
schools for their own kids, and parents saw to it that the
kids learned stuff.

I don't give a fuck what was adequate for farmers who
didn't need any education beyond "See Spot Dick Jane". This
is an enormously more complicated world.
People recognize that, and don't need nanny government making
their decisions for them. People who aren't taxed into starvation
can take care of their own quite well, thank yoiu very much -
and it _is_ within enlightened self-interest to raise kids
who can make a lot of money to take care of you in your dotage.

These days, kids are just a prop for some bimbo to
swindle a meal
ticket out of some rich sucker, and are shuttled off as
soon as
possible to the consumer factories. Big Brother likes it when
everybody marches in lockstep.

Fuck Big Bro _and_ Littler Bros. I'm talking about giving
kids the tools to make up their own damn minds.
Then get government out of the education business immediately!
All they do is push propaganda.

That's
simply impossible in a locally-funded school in Podunk
Arkansas because the local asholes will want to keep them
stupid enough to work in Bubba's coal mine.
If that's what their parents want for them, nobody has any
right to use coercion on them to get them to change their ways.
That's not what America was supposed to be for.
10. Open all ex-Federal lands to homesteading.

Yeah - hey, wanna do Department of the Interior too? :)

Gee, will my Defense job leave enough free time? Oh,
wait; sure, as I'm the laziest bastard I know.
Well, since America won't be the bull in the china shop knocking
over everygthing in sight and pissing off every extremist religious
group on the planet, there won't be anythig to defend from!

11. Keep the National Parks system intact, supported by
user fees. All
users must enter _and_ leave butt-naked.

I LOVE it! You're definitely hired!

Well, we wanna keep the environmental damage down...

Also Minister of Culture. :)

I'll defer to George Carlin for that post.
Hmm. How about a culture committee?

George Carlin - president
Peewee Herman - Secretary
Steve Martin, Chevy Chase - masters-at-arms
Janean Garafolo - White House Liaison -- no, wait a minute, I'm
going to be in the white house. Laura Kightlinger for liaison.

Suggestions, anyone?

Thanks!
Rich
 
Jim Yanik wrote:
Robert Monsen <rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote in
news:fKUcd.263470$MQ5.42264@attbi_s52:


Jim Yanik wrote:

Robert Monsen <rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote in
news:faHcd.259202$MQ5.39637@attbi_s52:



Jim Yanik wrote:
drivel

You can't refute anything I say, so you resort to name calling. Fine.
I wasn't talking to you anyway, and could care less what you think.



Excuse me,but in this post you neglected to include what "names" I am
alleged to have called you.


You are right, you didn't call me names. I was mistaken. You were
calling progressive tax policy 'marxist', which is simply wrong.


It certainly is not wrong;taxing different people at different rates based
on their wealth is Marxist.
Have you ever read Marx? You wouldn't know a Marxist if one bit you.

You then snipped the gist of my argument, calling it 'utopian speech'
(apparently you didn't bother to read it), and started biting at my
ankles by calling me a marxist for my admittedly somewhat poetic
conclusion.


Oh,I read it.Except,as posted before,I did NOT call you anything.
I said the *term* you used was Marxist.
Do I need to repost it AGAIN?
I admitted that. The implication was that anybody who is for a
progressive tax structure is for tearing down capitalism. That's just
wrong, whether you understand it or not.


The point of my argument to Mr Seim was that republicans believe they
have a policy, but it's not a policy, it's a strategy. Their strategy
is designed to take power, by fooling the bible belt and the south
into believing that the republican party is on their side, when it's
really working for big business. They vote for Bush, thinking he is a
Robertson republican, and what they really get is a policy designed by
Goldwater.

He was also saying that liberals don't have a real vision.

The liberal vision, however, is obvious, as the part you snipped
pointed out. It's that everybody should benefit from the advances of
society. The reason that 'conservatives' think 'liberal' is a dirty
word is that they don't really understand that they are, at heart,
already liberal. The 'republican stragegists' have tried to change the
meaning of the word to be 'elitist snob' for political reasons.

However, the liberal idea has won so completely that, really,
*everybody* is a liberal, *everybody* in America believes that we
should take care of the sick and the aged; that we should help people
in need; and, that we should work toward 'the common good'. That's the
goal, and whether some of us are willing to admit it or not, we all
believe it. Bush seems to believe it; listen to his speeches. The only
real disagreement is how to make this goal happen.

The Goldwater 'program' is to dismantle government, or at least to
cripple it. These guys believe that corporations, not governments,
should get to say what happens, and should drive policy for economic
good. They believe that government is an impediment to a completely
free market, and that a totally free market is the path towards this
liberal utopia where nobody starves, and everybody enjoys the benefits
of society. They quote Adam Smith. Their main idea can be summarised
as this statement: a rising tide carries all boats.

Well, this is where I disagree. It's obvious to anyone who looks that
there are some boats that simply don't rise with the tide.


And they probably never will,regardless.
That does not mean we take money from others and give it to them.
This is where you are wrong. Some people can pull themselves up by their
bootstraps, but its much easier to start from a life of privilege.

Another point is that a regressive tax structure, like we have, tends to
concentrate wealth. It's been getting worse since Reagan, and it'll
continue to get worse unless we do something about it. As it gets worse,
it gets harder for people to get ahead. Wages go down. There is less out
there for the 99% of us who aren't named Rockefeller. We all end up
working for these guys as wage slaves, with decreasing wages, fear for
our jobs, and lockouts (read up on Safeway in California, or on
WalMart). Nobody will be able to afford healthcare. The people who read
this newsgroup are mostly professionals. Try walking down the street and
talking to people.

In the last
20 years, wealth has concentrated into the hands of a tiny minority.
Tax policy has been carefully restructured to ensure that this
disparity of wealth continues, and even increases.


You mean like the ESTATE tax,where one cannot transfer their accumulated
wealth to their heirs,without the gov't taking half of it?
Pure Marxism.
Actually, it has nothing to do with Marxism. You really should read more.

More people fall
into poverty each year. Real wages are falling. People can't afford
health care. The middle class is being eroded. Without progressive tax
policy, this erosion simply continues unchecked.


Bull.All that "progressive" tax policy does is fund bigger
government.Government is extremely inefficient and wasteful.It's non-
productive.I suppose you figure that they can get cushy gov't jobs pushing
paper.
Bull. The government makes it possible for you to do business by
structuring the 'rules of engagement'. Try reading some economics.

And, governement wastefulness is a myth. Take schools. Everybody says
they are totally wasteful. However, private businesses that have tried
to take over have failed. Its *very hard* to do as good a job as 'the
gummit' in this field.

Medicare is another example of a wildly successful program. This is very
little waste, very little fraud (compared to private insurance) and
everybody is covered. Its an excellent program.

Welfare is another program that has been shown time and again to be
great. If you listen to Right-Wing radio, you hear stories of welfare
families, and of cheating. However, most people who go on welfare
programs are off in 2 years. (This was true before the current draconian
schemes as well) It helps people get their life back together. Its
wildly effective and efficient.

There are countless programs like this, run by people who could probably
be making far more money in the private sector, but who continue to work
for the public good because they believe in it.

You need to talk to these people rather than listening to Rush Limbaugh,
who is, really, a big fat idiot.

Also, these days, this free market dream amounts to 'rule by
corporation'. However, most of us don't vote for the board of
directors of most corporations, and thus they generally aren't
accountable to anyone or anything except the need for profits.
Further, they aren't good stewards of the 'common good', in the form
of the global environment, or even the economic infrastructure. They
are social machines, created to extract and process the environment
for the good of their owners. Any good they do for the public is a
byproduct of this primary activity. Adam Smith could never have
conceived of their sheer power to do this when he wrote "The Wealth of
Nations". Adam Smith, who was a social progressive, would have been a
Democrat had he lived today.

Democrats believe that everyone should benefit when society advances,
not just the few. A majority of those bible-belt Robertson republicans
would agree with this, I think. This view is, basically, the Christian
ethic.


I believe they believe that people should help voluntarily,not forced to by
taxation.I do agree that corporations need to be watched.That's the "fair
playing field" I mentioned earlier.
Should we let people die in the streets? Old people starved to death
before the current minimal umbrella was erected by FDR. Like Scrooge:
"Are there no poorhouses?". Merry Christmas.

Regressive tax policy, and unchecked corporate power, despite the best
intentions of those who are working towards them, is *not* a way to
bring us closer to the goal. It simply does not work. Strong
government control of corporations, and progressive tax policy is what
leads to a better environment, a healthy infrastructure, and a
swelling middle class, which is, in my mind anyway, the right thing to
be working towards.
--
Regards,
Robert Monsen

"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.
 
Tom Seim wrote:
....

Democrats believe that everyone should benefit when society advances,
not just the few. A majority of those bible-belt Robertson republicans
would agree with this, I think. This view is, basically, the Christian
ethic.


That might be democrats with a small "d". Democrats with a big "D" are
much more into income redistribution. This is also called "robbing
from the well off - er, I mean rich - to give to the less well off -
er again, I mean poor."
No, its called 'leveling the playing field'.

Republicans believe that when society does well everybody does well.
By well they mean better. The difference, and it's huge, is that
Republicans feel this should be done by market forces; Democrats feel
this should by done by them for those that vote for them.
You are wrong, Democrats don't think this way. Democrats believe that
there should be a level playing field. Many of them (not all) believe
there should be a safety net for everybody, and that nobody should go
hungry or go without medical care for their children. They believe that
corporations should pay their fair share in taxes, and should not be
able to cheat on these taxes, or to steal from their shareholders or
employees.

Most of the Democrats you see in public office are rich folk like you.
They know about business, they've run businesses and factories, they
understand economics, and they are well educated. They understand that
capitalism is a really efficient way for resources to be allocated.
Nobody is arguing with that (except Walz).

However, they also understand that capitalism run amok is feudalism.
That without checks on corporations, those corporations will buy all the
politians and make them release all controls. Corporations have NO
INTERNAL CHECKS against abusing the environment, the public, or their
workers. They are designed to do this; its called maximizing profits.
Real economists understand that there must be a balance between the
private sector and the public good. That is the role of government
regulation and enforcement, which the current congress and
administration are busy demolishing while distracting us with the war in
Iraq.

I ran a small business for years. I created real jobs for real people.
One of the most satisfying part of that experience was handing out
Christmas bonuses when we had a good year. Needless to say, one of the
least satisfying experiences was informing my employees that there
would be no Christmas bonus that year. I felt, strongly, that the
bonus was a major factor in retaining good employees.
True of many Democrats (with a capital D) too. However, you just need to
pay your fair share. Right now, because of the regressive tax system,
and the emasculation of the IRS and SEC, corporations are getting away
with pretty much anything they want, and not having to pay for much of
anything in return. That means pushing their fair share onto taxpayers,
and thus increasing profits. It also means having unfair competitive
advantage against those small businesses you praise, who can't afford
high powered tax advisors.

The profits from these 'ill gotten gains' go predominately to the top 1
or 2 percent. Since we have regressive tax laws, including almost no
taxes on investment, those profits mount up (particularly with the
estate tax law changes), leading to a huge discrepancy between rich and
poor, which is now worse than it's been since the great depression.

What your gang apparently fails to realize is that FDR didn't create the
new deal because he was a socialist. He created it because he was afraid
of socialism. Huge discrepancies in wealth eventually cause a backlash.
There were riots in the streets. When people who are living paycheck to
paycheck lose their jobs, they aren't happy campers.

Regressive tax policy, and unchecked corporate power, despite the best
intentions of those who are working towards them, is *not* a way to
bring us closer to the goal. It simply does not work. Strong government
control of corporations, and progressive tax policy is what leads to a
better environment, a healthy infrastructure, and a swelling middle
class, which is, in my mind anyway, the right thing to be working towards.


Boy, do you have a lot to learn. What leads to a swelling middle class
is a strong and vibrant corporate infrastructure. Strong government
control of corporations was tried by the Soviet Union without success.
There were no corporations in the Soviet Union. They were state run
enterprises, and the allocation of resources was controlled by
centralized planners. Implying that Democrats want that is simply ignorant.

What Democrats want is a reasonable, enforceable tax rate on
corporations, reasonable environmental laws to protect the public,
reasonable laws protecting workers from injury, and strong enforcement
by the SEC and other agencies on corporations so the officers can't
steal from the employees and stockholders, or harm the public. We want
to take that fair share of taxes, and build that safety net for
everybody. It's not robbing the rich to give to the poor. It's keeping
society stable and safe, while trying to achieve the moral task given to
us by the founders.

That's all we need. That's whats been eroded in the last 10 years, since
the Republicans took control of congress.

Despite your patronizing attitude, I clearly know more about what it
takes to create a healthy middle class than you. So do most economists.
If you would pay attention to the effect of the discredited 'supply
side' economic policies the current administration and congress are
persuing, you would see what a failure they really are with regards to
this: the middle class is shrinking. Even Reagan was smart enough to
pull back when he saw what a mess these policies were making.

--
Regards,
Robert Monsen

"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.
 
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 16:56:43 -0700, Tom Seim wrote:

"Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote...
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> schreef in
....
But Kerry testified before congress that he committed war crimes in
Vietnam. I figured that was what you were referring to.

No, at max he admitted he was a puppet on a string, at the time.

Kerry either committed war crimes, as he testified to and makes him a
war criminal; or he didn't, in, which case, he lied under oath
(another crime).
Actually, whether what John Kerry did or didn't do in 1970 is a "war
crime" or not depends on whose horn you're blowing.

It's clear that you neocon wannabes are making up stuff to divert
attention from the fact that your fearless leader is actively committing
treason _and_ war crimes, simultaneously, right now, as we speak.

I hope somebody stops him before we have WWIII on our hands.

Thanks,
Rich
 
In article <Xns9583D38D858D0jyanikkuanet@129.250.170.83>,
Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote:
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote in
news:ckpkrg$hq2$4@blue.rahul.net:

In article <gt40n0lk5mm77n5tdko0ls8p7bl8gnqg9m@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:
[...]
But Kerry testified before congress that he committed war crimes in
Vietnam. I figured that was what you were referring to.

Let me guess, you got that factoid from Rush Limbaugh. Am I right?



"Factoid",hell.It's Congressional testimony,Kerry's own words.
Reference please.

I've read the transcript and he said nothing of the sort. I suggest you
go read what he actually said you will get a surprise if you read it
carefully.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
 
John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 12:56:09 +0200, "Frank Bemelman"
f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:

Simple-minded is shrieking and name-calling and calling people idiots
because they don't agree with you.

In general yes, but there is nothing wrong with calling people idiots
when they are. But your eyes are glued.



What a lovely example of Liberal Logic (if you'll pardon the
oxymoron): "Freedom of speech is right for me, because I'm right, but
not for you, because it's obvious to me that you are wrong."

Hell, that's a lot easier than thinking.

John
If you want to avoid being called what you are, i.e. idiot, then you
could try acting like an non-idiot. Most of the anti-Bush posts have
been backed up by factual support. It is only the Larkin, Seim,
Clarence, Durban crowd of morons who litter the NG with a bunch of
superficial drivel and unsubstantiated slander. Take your "craggy faced"
something or another remark about Kerry- yeah that sure is reasonable
discourse.
 
John S. Dyson wrote:
In article <41715BF6.4070907@nospam.com>,
Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> writes:


Abd-er-Rahman III wrote:

http://www.mypetgoat.com/goatquotes.htm

I do not care much for Bush, but nonetheless must disagree with the
popular analysis of his demeanor in that classroom. His mind was
anything but vacant and he was not looking for guidance. He was clearly
stunned and his mind was racing. The 9/11 attacks were against him as
well as the US.


Note that the timescale for Al Queda attacks shows that the plans were
formulated during the Clinton administration. The attacks weren't really
against any one president, but indeed against the US.

One thing that Bush didn't do is to panic. When the Secret Service
and intelligence agencies got involved, then his flight "all over the nation"
took place. What happened on that day seems to make sense from the
standpoint of cold war strategy, and apparently the plans hadn't
changed during Clinton's regime.

John
I think it runs deeper than that. You might recall that several
terrorist organizations attempted to donate to Bush's 2000 campaign
through front men. It was imperative that the WTC attack occur at the
earliest possible time into the Bush administration to maximize the
ensuing chaos. Terrorism wants Bush to win this election, he is doing
more for them to stir up a hornets nest of American hatred and has
accelerated their schedule for a major fundamentalist state. The last
thing terrorism wants is an intelligent and carefully programmed US
counter-attack that sets the whole world against them.
 
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 07:15:05 GMT, Robert Monsen
<rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote:

And, governement wastefulness is a myth. Take schools. Everybody says
they are totally wasteful. However, private businesses that have tried
to take over have failed. Its *very hard* to do as good a job as 'the
gummit' in this field.
The one organization that does consistantly better at education is the
Catholic Church. Oakland, California is notorious for miserable
educational outcomes, but the Catholic schools do far better than the
public ones, with about the same student mix, and spend about half as
much per student. The entire Catholic school system is administered by
- last time I heard - three nuns.

John
 
Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote in
news:pan.2004.10.20.04.03.20.606728@example.net:

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:21:40 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:

Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote in
news:pan.2004.10.19.03.32.19.759702@example.net:

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:44:29 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:

Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote in
news:pan.2004.10.18.18.48.44.647170@example.net:

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:02:54 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:

Try

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/

select "Answer this question,Mr.Kerry"

"If John Kerry wins, whose instructions will guide him?"

I dunno - maybe the voters? Whoever it is, it's gotta be better
than whoever's sitting at the Bush control panel.

Cheers!
Rich



WRT *US* National security,having the UN "guide" Kerry would be
extremely bad,for the entire world,whether they realize it or
not.And that's exactly what would happen with Kerry as Prez.He even
said so;"global test".

I would like to know the source for your information here, as to
what you predict Mr. Kerry will do. Thank you.

When Saddam invaded Kuwait,Kerry voted against removing him,public
record.Saddam threatened US and global security,yet Kerry would have
allowed Saddam to have Kuwait,and probably Saudi Arabia next.That
would be a substantial part of the world's oil supply in SADDAM's
hands. Kerry's past behavior shows what he would do as Prez.

You mean, he'd vote against invading Iraq again?
Are you dense? Kerry cannot be trusted to defend America.
He tends towards inaction.He's anti-military.He thinks he can be a great
statesman and pursuade allies that said they will not do what Kerry wants.
He's more a Chamberlain than any statesman. One of the Communist's "useful
idiots".



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net
 
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 19:22:51 +0000, Robert Monsen wrote:

However, the liberal idea has won so completely that, really,
*everybody* is a liberal, *everybody* in America believes that we should
take care of the sick and the aged; that we should help people in need;
and, that we should work toward 'the common good'.
You really believe that "everybody" has turned over to the communist side?

That's the goal,
What? Community ownership of everything? Or do you mean state ownership
of everything?

and
whether some of us are willing to admit it or not, we all believe it.
If this were really true, there would be no hope at all of ever
recovering a Free Society from the socialistic mess that America has
been turned into by politians and their loyal subjects.

Bush seems to believe it; listen to his speeches. The only real
disagreement is how to make this goal happen.
I hope to heaven that this isn't any kind of expressed goal by any
American of any importance. The problem is, your plan sounds like the
communist manifesto. What ever happened to self-reliance? How did
everybody in the country become a helpless suckling babe? Are people
really so devoid of self-respect that they'll place responsibility for
their well-being into the hands of a pack of liars, cheats and thieves?

The Goldwater 'program' is to dismantle government, or at least to
cripple it. These guys believe that corporations, not governments,
should get to say what happens, and should drive policy for economic
good. They believe that government is an impediment to a completely free
market, and that a totally free market is the path towards this liberal
utopia where nobody starves, and everybody enjoys the benefits of
society.
Well, the plain truth is, the free marked _is_ best.

You're forgetting the most fundamental difference between governments and
corporations. If you don't like what a corporation is selling you, you can
stop giving them your money. Government just keeps taking, and taking, and
taking - hell, even a thief in the night robs you once, and goes away!

They quote Adam Smith. Their main idea can be summarised as
this statement: a rising tide carries all boats.
That is true. How can you refute it? Which boat doesn't get raised?
Yours? It has been demonstrated time and time again that the only way for
a socialist state to endure is by force of arms. People don't _like_
working for no pay, which is what happens when the government takes away
your paycheck to line their own pockets and give handouts to special
interests.

Well, this is where I disagree. It's obvious to anyone who looks that
there are some boats that simply don't rise with the tide.
Only when government taxes them into poverty to enrich their cronies.

In the last
20 years, wealth has concentrated into the hands of a tiny minority.
Entirely through the power of government abuse. A Free Market is the one
true equalizer.

And when you get the government off people's backs, there is enough
charity to go around that nobody has to do without. Don't you think
people would be happy to donate a couple of bucks to the shelter if
they suddenly realize that a third of their paycheck isn't being
ripped off the top by Big Brother?

Tax
policy has been carefully restructured to ensure that this disparity of
wealth continues, and even increases.
Right, and governments tax, and give favors to the corporations.
Corporations don't tax, they sell stuff and employ people. If they're
not producing something of value to customers, they will go broke.

More people fall into poverty each
year. Real wages are falling. People can't afford health care. The
middle class is being eroded. Without progressive tax policy, this
erosion simply continues unchecked.
Pfaugh. You see a lot of problems, yet your suggested solution is to
apply more of the same shit that caused the problem in the first place!

Also, these days, this free market dream amounts to 'rule by
corporation'.

This is where you are wrong, wrong, wrong. It is self-rule. Corporations
won't have any interest in making rules, when they don't have gubmint
thugs to steal for them. Gangstas? See Amendment 2.

However, most of us don't vote for the board of directors
of most corporations,
You certainly do. Every time you spend a dollar buying one of that
corporation's products, you've cast a vote for its CEO. And its
workers, and whoever else gets paid out of the corp.'s income.

and thus they generally aren't accountable to
anyone or anything except the need for profits.
Yes. Which come from customers. Who have the option to say, "Foch
you. I'm going to go by George's product, because I don't like your
earlobes."

Further, they aren't
good stewards of the 'common good', in the form of the global
environment, or even the economic infrastructure.
And who is? You?

[remainder of anti-corporate, pro-statism rant snipped]

Thanks,
Rich
 
Rich Grise wrote:
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:55:06 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

OK. You're my Secretary of Defense.

Fine. Do I get to put a CIWS on the front of my house for
drive-by control?

I don't know what a CIWS is, but if you can afford one, why not?
http://navysite.de/weapons/phalanx.htm

I'd have to modify the targeting loop; rather than trying
to shoot down incoming bullets, it'd aim at the source of them.

I'd also substitute lead for the U slugs; after all, most
drive-by's aren't all that well armored.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, after all.
As I see it, the "assault weapon" ban is particularly
stupid, since they also make dandy _anti_ assault weapons.
Yes, I've lived in some very rough neighborhoods.

Unilateral disarmament doesn't make you "peaceful", it
makes you a "corpse".

By whose hand, today? And which corpse? Who's going to
start trying to kill 250,000,000 Americans? And how long
would they
get away with it, even if we didn't have soldiers stationed
in Afghanistan?

By anybody with an axe to grind, or delusions of world
conquest. You asked "how long would they get away with it?".
As long as they wanted to, since your first three points
leave no _defensive_ capabilities at all.

And exactly what are the mechanics of this invasion? Do they come
in LA? San Francisco? Miami? New York? Do they just walk ashore in
South Carolina and Georgia?
All the above, and across the Mexican and Canadian
borders as well.

And how many troops are there? When
they come marching into your neighborhood, don't you think anybody
at all will be shooting at them? Or are you an antigun nut who wants
everybody in America unarmed and defenseless?
If I want a CIWS on my front porch, I'm hardly anti-gun.
If I planned to live in a coastal site under your original
set of rules, I'd want some medium artillery so I could do
my part in defending the coast. You didn't allow for a Coast
Guard, you see.

The problem with defense isn't so much firepower, but
threat identification and defense technique selection. You
_are_ aware of the "experiment" done by two college students
demonstrating how easy it was to carry a pair of fifty-pound
backpacks across the Mexican border without detection by our
current pathetically limited Border Patrol? Got any idea
what those backpacks could hold?

I do, and it scares the hell out of me. It also scares
the hell out of ranchers who live in the "walk-through" zone
and get illegals coming through their properties every day.
It's bad enough that the ranchers occasionally perform
"citizens' arrest" and hold them for the INS, but they've
been known to shoot at the poor bastards trying to escape
Mexico. If they get the idea that there are non-Mexicans
carrying WMDs hiding among the real economic refugees, they
might shoot them all just in case.

Without a Border Patrol (which you also didn't allow for)
it'll only get worse; the violence would simply escalate as
the innocent refugees started carrying weapons which they
currently don't.

Of course, the long-term solution isn't militarization of
our border, but economic growth in Mexico so the locals
don't want to leave. That means either hoping that they
eventually become enlightened as per below while defending
ourselves in the meantime, or trying to export
enlightenment, generating complaints of "cultural warfare".

Let me clarify a few things here. I'm neither a warhawk
nor an extreme pacifist. I studied Martial Arts because I
got tired of being beat up (typical skinny kid) and settled
on Aikido. It's _designed_ to be the perfect unarmed
hand-to-hand defensive system; it has no attack forms
(though it involves staff and sword training so you know how
to defend against them), and those proficient can put down
anyone armed with any weapon that does not leave the hand
_only if_ they choose to attack. For those otherwise armed I
went to the trouble of becoming competent with firearms.

The only problem with part-time citizen soldiers is the
total lack of organization. An organized invader would walk
all over them; a _minimum_ of organized professionals are
necessary in the face of organized invasion.

I envision a National Defense following the philosophy of
Aikido; it will quickly become obvious that we aren't
interested in conquest, but at the same time are unconquerable.

Sun Tzu showed that you don't need overwhelming
superiority to fend off invaders; you just need to be
smarter and faster. Most modern armies are founded on the
thinking of Von Clausewitz, who was what I'd call an
"overwhelmist". They soak up way too many National resources
and cause others to do the same from fear.

Mind you most of my opinions come from my experience in
the U.S. Air Force; I saw a lot of things wrong with it, but
also a lot of things it did right. I just want to minimize
the former while keeping the latter.

Has somebody come up with neighborhood guerilla-fighting tactics
that work better than what the US is doing to Iraq?
Sure, seige tactics; starve 'em out. But there're two
problems with that. First, the violent types will hoard all
the consumables, doing the most harm to the nonviolent ones
also trapped inside. Second, in today's "I want it now"
world, it takes too long.

Did I ever relate the parable of the Mexican hotel? A
salesman checks into a Mexican hotel that has no window
screens or air conditioning. He complains to the desk clerk
about the flies keeping him awake. Desk clerk says "Sorry,
that's why we're so inexpensive". Salesman comes down the
next morning looking chipper and clerk asks how he slept.
Salesman says "Great, after I bunched the flies". Clerk asks
what he means by "bunched". Salesman says "I took a dump in
the corner, and the flies left me alone".

ISTM that Iraq is being used as a "bunching ground" for
terrorists of other nationalities. It would have worked
better if we could have gotten the civvies to safety first,
but no plan is perfekt.

9. Eliminate local funding of school districts; since
they have to
conform with Federal guidelines, support all of them
equally from
Federal funds. Replace the Department of Education with one
ninety-year-old schoomarm.

No, no, no! Get rid of "federal guidelines" that
interfere with local
issues! Lording it over people, telling them how they
should/must run
their lives, is the entire cause of all the problems
there have ever
been!

Competence in English, math, and other fundamentals are
not local issues. Would you prefer that schools in L.A.
teach Ebonics instead of Standard English? The country's
fragmented enough as it is.

Standards, sure, like the NBS. And I think most people with
common sense will educate their kids sufficiently one way or
the other. And who cares about being "fragmented?" What does
that mean anyway? Where do you draw the line between "fragmented"
and "marching in lockstep"? This is supposed to be a country
of individuals, each running their own life, interacting with
each other from enlightened self-interest.
Drawing that line is the real sticking point. A start
will be to recognize that the more knowledge you have, the
less hardware you need.

What do I mean by "fragmented"? I mean that we need a
common level of language/math/etc. competence, just as we
need common traffic rules. What we do not need is a common
habit of following "leaders" because they have a line of
bullshit plausible to the undereducated. We need the ability
in common to see through bullshit.

Unfortunately, for enlightened self-interest to work, the self-
interested parties need to actually _be_ enlightened. :)
Exactly. And how do they _get_ enlightened if the local
schools can't afford to get past Spot 'n' Jane? For
starters, formal logic ought to be taught in kindergarten,
and Constitutional fundamentals immediately thereafter.

No government has _any_ business telling people how to
school their
children. Communities used to get together and build
schools for their own kids, and parents saw to it that the
kids learned stuff.

I don't give a fuck what was adequate for farmers who
didn't need any education beyond "See Spot Dick Jane". This
is an enormously more complicated world.

People recognize that, and don't need nanny government making
their decisions for them. People who aren't taxed into starvation
can take care of their own quite well, thank yoiu very much -
and it _is_ within enlightened self-interest to raise kids
who can make a lot of money to take care of you in your dotage.
A lot of less-than-enlightened people want to pretend it
isn't though. Not just the "Religious Right", either; look
at the Radical Greens who want us to live like gorillas!

These days, kids are just a prop for some bimbo to
swindle a meal
ticket out of some rich sucker, and are shuttled off as
soon as
possible to the consumer factories. Big Brother likes it when
everybody marches in lockstep.

Fuck Big Bro _and_ Littler Bros. I'm talking about giving
kids the tools to make up their own damn minds.

Then get government out of the education business immediately!
That's part of the problem, that it's seen as a business.

All they do is push propaganda.
Then stop doing that, by which I mean remove all such
questionable philosophical components. Those can be left to
privately-funded Universities. I suppose I could have
mentioned that in my view Government ought to run K-6
period, and anything more should be left to private
Universities and industry-supported trade schools.

That's
simply impossible in a locally-funded school in Podunk
Arkansas because the local asholes will want to keep them
stupid enough to work in Bubba's coal mine.

If that's what their parents want for them, nobody has any
right to use coercion on them to get them to change their ways.
Then their kids are doomed to be as stupid and easily
controlled as they are. I don't know about you, but I prefer
smarter neighbors.

That's not what America was supposed to be for.
Exactly. It was supposed to be a place free from _any_
form of coercion, and coercion by stupidification is the
absolute worst kind.

10. Open all ex-Federal lands to homesteading.

Yeah - hey, wanna do Department of the Interior too? :)

Gee, will my Defense job leave enough free time? Oh,
wait; sure, as I'm the laziest bastard I know.

Well, since America won't be the bull in the china shop knocking
over everygthing in sight and pissing off every extremist religious
group on the planet, there won't be anythig to defend from!
Except those that aren't nearly as enlightened as we
hopefully become, and do to us what happened to Tibet.

Hmm. How about a culture committee?

George Carlin - president
Peewee Herman - Secretary
Steve Martin, Chevy Chase - masters-at-arms
Janean Garafolo - White House Liaison -- no, wait a minute, I'm
going to be in the white house. Laura Kightlinger for liaison.

Suggestions, anyone?
The more balloon-busting standup philosophers, the better.

Mark L. Fergerson
 
Julie wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote:

Julie wrote:
<snip>

Oh, I'm reading it. My comment was against Frontline.
I think they do a fine
job on non-politic(ally charged) issues. As soon as
they get political, I
think their credibility starts toward the door...
--------------------
That's just because you're an intellectually crippled
partisan.

Oh, ok... Thanks for pointing that out.
Don't take it personally; Steve subscribes to
"pre-emptive side-taking", which is the process of assigning
you to a side whether you wanted to be so assigned or not.

Lest anyone think I'm picking on Steve, let me point out
that he's not the only one around here that does that...

Mark L. Fergerson
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top