"George Willer" wrote in message
...
It's about time you acknowledged your left leanings. Of course I'm a
right
leaner... that's how I recognized your leftist attitude. In spite of your
protestations, and denials you are a leftist liberal whacko flying false
colors.

Of course I'm to the left of you, George. So was Vlad the Impaler.

Like Gunner and a few others here, you seem to have no sense of where the
center is. Here's what you're calling "leftist":

In the presidential election of 2000, I voted with the minority -- for Bush.
It was an exceedingly close race and I was just barely favoring Bush at the
time, which put me just slightly to the right of center of American
politics.

In the 2004 election, I voted, again, with a slim minority -- against Bush.
That time I was slightly to the left of center, not thinking much of John
Kerry as presidential material.

I oppose deficit spending, which is a traditional and conservative fiscal
position.

I oppose foreign entanglements, making me slightly isolationist: again, a
traditional and conservative American position.

My idea of a proper defense is to be prepared, to fight furiously when
you're attacked, to fight preemptively only when the danger is imminent and
clear, and to never fight a "preventive" war, which is always aggression.
These are all traditional, conservative positions that have been supported
by our government and our principles (tested sometimes in the breach) for
over a century, and they are clearly, historically, demonstrably mainstream.
Even the Libertarians support it, although I don't consider that a
particularly meaningful fact. g

I favor the rule of law and I observe laws even when I oppose them in
principle, making me a law-and-order type, and most people who know me
consider fairly conservative in that regard. Anyone who uses the term
"statist" to disparage people who believe in the rule of law are quasi- or
genuine anarchists who are in serious need of some history education.

I reacted strongly to the excesses of liberals in the '60s and '70s,
opposing them largely by joining the Republican Party (of which I am a
long-standing member), particularly the mess they made of welfare, and I
continue to feel that any remaining welfare must be scrutinized constantly
to be sure it is actually providing a necessary support for human health and
dignity, and not institutionalizing a dependency.

However, you may be right that I'm left-of-center with regard to business
deregulation. I don't think so, but I'll grant that possibility. The *kind*
of deregulatation I oppose is things like allowing investment banks to
broker stocks and allowing accounting firms to sell services to the same
companies they're supposed to audit. When Reagan (and Clinton, following in
his footsteps) pushed those kinds of deregulation I said that the foxes were
now guarding the henhouse, and I believe recent events have proven what kind
of trouble that causes. I haven't looked at the polls on this; I may be
dead-center with that one, too.

I tolerate with considerable respect all religious beliefs unless and until
they result in a violation of some meaningful law. In other words, I oppose
any religious belief that leads to the practice of wife-beating, but I see
no reason Santarians shouldn't be allowed to kill chickens, as long as they
don't do it on the New York subways, where the blood could ruin my suit.
I've been known to kill chickens myself, for different reasons but to the
same effect, and even to cook and eat them. g

I am seriously anti-PC, which occassionally gets me into trouble in my work
as an editor.

If you understand polls well enough not to scoff at them like some knee-jerk
knuckle-dragger, you may be surprised that I consistently find myself in the
majority of social-issue polls, or right in the center of closely-divided
issues. A major national poll last week found that 57% of Americans oppose
the way Bush is conducting the Iraq war, for example. I'm in the mainstream
on that one, as well as most others, ranging from abortion to prayer in
schools on the religious side, to immigration and deficit spending on the
broader social and economic sides. For example, a TNS Intersearch poll
(they're the anonymous pollsters behind some national media polls, and are
considered to be among the best) showed in January that 54% of American men
support a woman's right to abortion "in all or most cases." That's me, too.

So that's the center, George. You're looking at 'im right now. Where does
that leave you? Somewhere on the edge of the ionosphere, by your comments.
Or maybe not. Maybe you're really closer to the center that you admit, or
are solidly in the rational-conservative category. I can't tell, because
those aren't the terms on which we have arguments.

Where we argue is about the attitude of the right wing in general. To me,
calling tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians "collateral damage" is
evidence of a degenerate set of values and a low-life character in general.
Making a joke of flushing Muslim heads down toilets is something only a
spoiled and rotten teenager should be expected to say, even as a joke.
Disparaging liberals as "stupid" or "murderous," or some of the other things
they've been called here, is the behavior of a low-life ignoramus.

It took over a year of sitting here politely and taking a lot of crap for my
objections to that kind of speech before I finally caught on, and realized
that these right-wingers will just roll all over you if you try to keep it
polite. One day Jim Rozen was defending me to some ill-bred right-wing pig,
saying I'm always polite, and I realized at that moment what a mistake I had
been making and resolved to change. Now I just give it back in the same
vein. When you're rolling in the mud with pigs, you have to join in or get
squashed.

You've denied quacking like a liberal whacko, walking like a
liberal whacko, and even looking like a liberal whacko, but those of us
who
really care know you are flying false colors.

I don't "quack," you smarmy, ill-bred pig.

You lefty wise asses are more
transparent than you think.

Why not acknowledge your true leanings? As it
stands, we are getting much more useful and honest input from Gunner.

Then you've set yourself up to be a victim, George. As Jim and I both found,
when checking independently some of Gunner's "cites," he apparently doesn't
even read them; he appears never to double-check anything for accuracy.

For example, he was defending the 2nd Amendment as one that applies over the
heads of the states, and he quoted Barron v. Baltimore as his example of
support from the Supreme Court. But he obviously didn't read it. When he
found out that Barron said the OPPOSITE of what he thought, he changed his
tune in a hurry.

Gunner is a dilettante, a dabbler whose arguments reflect his collection of
chaotically acquired quotes. He attracts like-minded dilettantes. If you
want ammunition, he's your man. If you want to know what you're talking
about, he'll run you into a ditch.

Your choice. Just don't think you'll get away with any more smarmy and
sarcastic remarks thrown my way. You're a decent enough guy and I have no
reason to give you a hard time, but you're not sharp enough to pull off the
smug, know-it-all routine. Leave that for guys like Strider and Stuart. They
live and breathe it.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 04:30:35 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Even the Libertarians

http://www.rackjite.com/9looney.htm
--
Cliff

In article , Jeff McCann says...

A free press is antethical to Repug scheming, but not a threat to
national security.

Yeah, just think if Feld had ratted out *Bush* instead of
Nixon. They'd just stick him in Gitmo for the duration.

They may still do that anyhow, because he put so much egg
on republican face.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 7 Jun 2005 10:40:28 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Jeff McCann says...

A free press is antethical to Repug scheming, but not a threat to
national security.

Yeah, just think if Feld had ratted out *Bush* instead of
Nixon. They'd just stick him in Gitmo for the duration.

They may still do that anyhow, because he put so much egg
on republican face.

Dang, Jim, I think you're overestimating how important this is.

In article , Dave Hinz says...

They may still do that anyhow, because he put so much egg
on republican face.

Dang, Jim, I think you're overestimating how important this is.

Folks are blaming Felt for everything from the hole in the ozone
layer to Cambodia.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 7 Jun 2005 12:36:30 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says...

They may still do that anyhow, because he put so much egg
on republican face.

Dang, Jim, I think you're overestimating how important this is.

Folks are blaming Felt for everything from the hole in the ozone
layer to Cambodia.

You must read different publications than I do. He's an interesting
"Oh, so that's who it was..." footnote to history, nothing more.