On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 16:38:49 -0700, lgb wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 09:10:47 -0700, lgb wrote:

"Anyone who wants to be elected, shouldn't be."

I thought it was "Anyone capable of getting themselves elected to
(insert name of political office here) should in no circumstances be
trusted to fill the job."

You'll have to take that up with Will Roger's ghost - I was quoting him
:-).

Ah. I see your Will Rogers, and have countered it with Douglass Adams.

In article .com, wrote:

The tide of the war shifted because American GROUND forces were
withdrawn Vietnam and despite the fact that South Vietnam was
capable of defending itself. South Vietnam failed to defend itself
because of the incompetence and corruption of its government.

Not correct, as explained below.

North Vietnam didn't have any signficant air support for their
troops in South Vietnam, and they were outnumbered in South
Vietnam. So why couldn't South Vietnam hold its own without
American air support.

Because without American air support, it was not possible to interdict the
supply lines that the North needed to support their invasion. If American air
support had been available, the invasion could not have succeeded.


This is also reflected by the fact that it took two more
years of fighting before the North Vietnamese were
able to take Saigon to end the war.

Prior to that point, they had been losing.
After that, they began winning. And
that makes your point how?

How were they losing prior to the cease fire? They
had held onto the 'Parrot's Beak' even WITH American
ground forces in country and with the North being bombed.
If South Vietnam had a competant, effective, and honest
government the communists would never have won.

The only reason they agreed to the cease-fire in the first place is that they
were getting their asses kicked.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article . com, wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
anus detector on

Shall we move this to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?

Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

CW wrote:
...
And of course, if Billy the Twit had taken Bin Laden when he had the
opportunity, much may have been prevented.

You mean, like, when Clinton had him trapped along the Afghanistan-
Pakistan border and then declared that he didn't know where or care
where bin Laden was, and then went and invade Iraq instead of finishing
off bin Laden? Oh, wait a minute, that was Bush.

So, what do you mean?

Sounds like he's referring to the fact that Sudan offered bin Laden to the
United States -- TWICE -- and Clinton refused the offer each time.


Does he have any evidence to support that?

It's been well documented.


Ah, by 'it' do you mean the well-documented that the offer was not
made by the Sudan but by a con artist who had rippe dus off
previously?

No, I mean it's well-documented that (a) the Sudan made the offer, and (b)
Clinton refused it.



Didn't Bin Laden leave the Sudan for Afghanistan befor the US had
implicated him in the WTC bombing, and befor the embassy bombings
in East Africa had been executed meaning the US didn't have
evidence to charge him with a crime?

And that, right there, is the heart of the Clinton administration's failure
in
combating terror: treating it as a law enforcement problem, instead of a
military problem.

Right, Clinton should have invaded the Sudan because we did not
have any evidence implicating bin Laden in any acts comitted against
the US. How does that make sense to you?

One of Bush's problems was ignoring bin Laden, until after
September 11, 2001, a mistake he is now repeating, again leaving
bin Laden at large to kill more Americans. If bin Laden sticks
with his existing pattern, his next attack in the US will happen
during the first year of the next President's first term of office.

Excuse me? Bush ignoring bin Laden? Methinks you misspelled "Clinton".

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article . com, wrote:

Shall we move this to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?

Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
anus detector on

...

Remember World War I? Don't you think that peace in Europe is in
the best interest of the US?

Do you mean to suggest that the conflicts in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 90s
threatened the peace of all Europe?

No, that is why I did not ask "Don't you think that
peace in ALL Europe is in the best interest of the US?"

War anywhere in Europe is contrary to the best interests
of the US.

Codswallop. What was happening in Bosnia and Kosovo in no way involved the
interests of the United States. If you believe that it did, I invite you to
explain how.


Regardless of how compelling the US interest was, Clinton should
have been impeached for violating the War Powers Act.

Much as I dislike Clinton, I have to disagree with you here - IMO the War
Powers Act is unconstitutional.

Reading how the Constitution divide war powers and the control of
the military between the President and the Congress I agree
that the Congress has the authority to make legislation such as
the War Powers Act, though I dislike specifics of the Act itself.

I suggest you reread those sections.

Perhaps you should do the same.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article ,
says...
You'll have to take that up with Will Roger's ghost - I was quoting him
:-).

Ah. I see your Will Rogers, and have countered it with Douglass Adams.


So we both learned something :-).

Back to the original question - what can we all agree on? Other than
the above, how about:

Everyone wants their own freedom maximized, and others prevented from
harming, or even irritating, them.

If there are no rules, or no way to enforce the rules, those with no
morals and lots of brains will wind up owning everything and everybody.
For primitive societies, replace "brains" with brawn.

The trick is to keep the enforcers from becoming the very thing they're
supposed to prevent, which gets us back to the "power corrupts" theme.

These aren't quotes, although I'm certain the thoughts aren't original.
I suspect some ancient Greek said the same thing a lot better than I
have.


--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

Shall we move this to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?

Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com, wrote:

The tide of the war shifted because American GROUND forces were
withdrawn Vietnam and despite the fact that South Vietnam was
capable of defending itself. South Vietnam failed to defend itself
because of the incompetence and corruption of its government.

Not correct, as explained below.

North Vietnam didn't have any signficant air support for their
troops in South Vietnam, and they were outnumbered in South
Vietnam. So why couldn't South Vietnam hold its own without
American air support.

Because without American air support, it was not possible to interdict the
supply lines that the North needed to support their invasion. If American air
support had been available, the invasion could not have succeeded.


Were the NVA better supplied tban the ARVN troops? Didn't South
Vietnam have an airforce of their own?

So why couln't the South Vietnamese fight better _on their own
soil_ than the NVA?


This is also reflected by the fact that it took two more
years of fighting before the North Vietnamese were
able to take Saigon to end the war.

Prior to that point, they had been losing.
After that, they began winning. And
that makes your point how?

How were they losing prior to the cease fire? They
had held onto the 'Parrot's Beak' even WITH American
ground forces in country and with the North being bombed.
If South Vietnam had a competant, effective, and honest
government the communists would never have won.

The only reason they agreed to the cease-fire in the
first place is that they
were getting their asses kicked.


The main reason they agreed to the Cease Fire that it
was the most expedient way to get the rest of the US
Forces out of Vietnam. I'm quite sur they never had
any intent of honoring it anylonger than they needed
to accomplish that.

--

FF

Shall we move this to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?

Doug Miller wrote:
In article . com, wrote:
...


Ah, by 'it' do you mean the well-documented that the offer was not
made by the Sudan but by a con artist who had rippe dus off
previously?

No, I mean it's well-documented that (a) the Sudan made the offer, and (b)
Clinton refused it.

Well then you can direct us to that documentation, and discuss
it, right?

In particular, what evidence was there, at the time, that bin
Laden had been involved in any attack on US interests?

Right, Clinton should have invaded the Sudan because we did not
have any evidence implicating bin Laden in any acts comitted against
the US. How does that make sense to you?

One of Bush's problems was ignoring bin Laden, until after
September 11, 2001, a mistake he is now repeating, again leaving
bin Laden at large to kill more Americans. If bin Laden sticks
with his existing pattern, his next attack in the US will happen
during the first year of the next President's first term of office.

Excuse me? Bush ignoring bin Laden? Methinks you misspelled "Clinton".


Told that Al Quaida was determined to attack in the US, and told
that AL Quaida was planning to hijack airliners, what did the
Bush administration do, besides prepare a new War on Pornography?

Clinton isn't President. The last thing I remember Bush saying
about bin Laden was that he doesn't know hwere he is and he doesn't
care. That's a paraphrasal, but one I think is quite accurate.

How many times did anyone in the Bush administration even mention
bin Laden in the last year?

--

FF

Shall we move this discussion to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?

Doug Miller wrote:
In article . com, wrote:

Shall we move this to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?

Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
anus detector on

...

Remember World War I? Don't you think that peace in Europe is in
the best interest of the US?

Do you mean to suggest that the conflicts in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 90s
threatened the peace of all Europe?

No, that is why I did not ask "Don't you think that
peace in ALL Europe is in the best interest of the US?"

War anywhere in Europe is contrary to the best interests
of the US.

Codswallop. What was happening in Bosnia and Kosovo in no way involved the
interests of the United States. If you believe that it did, I invite you to
explain how.

War, by its very nature is contrary to the best interests of everyone.
The same is true of starvation and genocide.

What do YOU think Clinton's agenda was in Kosovo and Bosnia? Not
much petroleum in either, eh?



Regardless of how compelling the US interest was, Clinton should
have been impeached for violating the War Powers Act.

Much as I dislike Clinton, I have to disagree with you here - IMO the War
Powers Act is unconstitutional.

Reading how the Constitution divide war powers and the control of
the military between the President and the Congress I agree
that the Congress has the authority to make legislation such as
the War Powers Act, though I dislike specifics of the Act itself.

I suggest you reread those sections.

Perhaps you should do the same.


Article I, Section 8, The Congress shall have Power ...

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal,
and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, ... ;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of
the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute
the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and
repel Invasions;

....

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper
for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and
all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the
Government of the United States, or in any Department
or Officer thereof.


That last paragraph is the clincher.

Now, contrast that with the Authority granted the President:

Article II, Section 2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army
and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of
the several States, when called into the actual Service
of the United States;

....


It is clearly granted to the Congress to determine when and where the
military is to be used. It is up to the president to determine how
it is used. Arguably, (at least *I* would argue it is so) the
President can send the military where he chooses when he chooses,
unless and until the Congress intevenes.

The Congress did intervene when the Congress overode Ford's veto
of the War Powers Act.

Note that a Federal Court did rule that Clinton did not violate
the War Powers Act in Kosovo because Congress approved funding for
the military operations there. I argue that the court erred
because although in a legal sense it may be that approving funding
for a thing is equivalent for approving that thing itself that
is not necessarily so when the funding is needed to keep our
troops alive.


Digressing:

Look again at the Clause:

The Congress shall have Power ...
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of
the land and naval Forces;

and

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper
for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and
all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the
Government of the United States, or in any Department
or Officer thereof.

and

Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested
in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as
the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

It is clear that it falls to the Congress to provide both
the laws and to establish the courts and courts-martial
where those accused of violating those law shall be tried.

NO authority to create courts-martial, mush less rules and
regulations for them, is granted by the Constitution to the
President. Further, the President is BOUND by the laws made
by the Congress regarding courts-martial.

The US Congress executed its authority in the Articles of War,
circa 1820, based on the Articles of War established by the
First Continental Congress in 1775 Those delegated authority
to establish courts-martial and rules for their conduct. The
Articles of War as amended served this nation well from that
time through WWII. Under The Articles of War FDR established
the court-marital, which convicted the Nazi sabotuers. Said
conviciton was upheld in Querin.

However, the Congress repealed the Articles of War in 1949,
replacing them with the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Once the UCMJ was fully in effect, by the end of 1951, the
Commander-in-Chief no longer had the authority to establish
courts-martial.

The courts-martial established in Guantanamo Bay were
established in direct and deliberate defiance of the UCMJ
and the Constitution.

--

FF

In article .com, wrote:
Shall we move this to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?

You are, of course, free to stop reading, or responding, at any time you wish.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

The tide of the war shifted because American GROUND forces were
withdrawn Vietnam and despite the fact that South Vietnam was
capable of defending itself. South Vietnam failed to defend itself
because of the incompetence and corruption of its government.

Not correct, as explained below.

North Vietnam didn't have any signficant air support for their
troops in South Vietnam, and they were outnumbered in South
Vietnam. So why couldn't South Vietnam hold its own without
American air support.

Because without American air support, it was not possible to interdict the
supply lines that the North needed to support their invasion. If American air
support had been available, the invasion could not have succeeded.


Were the NVA better supplied tban the ARVN troops?

Quite possibly they were, given the support that they received from China and
the Soviet Union.

Didn't South
Vietnam have an airforce of their own?

Yes, they had a typical third-world air force.

So why couln't the South Vietnamese fight better _on their own
soil_ than the NVA?

Beside the point. Without supply lines, the NVA invasion could not have
succeeded - and without American air interdiction, those supply lines could
not be interrupted.


This is also reflected by the fact that it took two more
years of fighting before the North Vietnamese were
able to take Saigon to end the war.

Prior to that point, they had been losing.
After that, they began winning. And
that makes your point how?

How were they losing prior to the cease fire? They
had held onto the 'Parrot's Beak' even WITH American
ground forces in country and with the North being bombed.
If South Vietnam had a competant, effective, and honest
government the communists would never have won.

The only reason they agreed to the cease-fire in the
first place is that they
were getting their asses kicked.


The main reason they agreed to the Cease Fire that it
was the most expedient way to get the rest of the US
Forces out of Vietnam. I'm quite sur they never had
any intent of honoring it anylonger than they needed
to accomplish that.

Yes, and if they had not been getting their asses kicked -- i.e. if they had
been winning -- continuing to fight would have been the most expedient means
of achieving that objective. Hence their desire for a cease-fire.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article .com, wrote:

Shall we move this to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?

You are, of course, free to stop reading, or responding, at any time you
wish.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:
...


Ah, by 'it' do you mean the well-documented that the offer was not
made by the Sudan but by a con artist who had rippe dus off
previously?

No, I mean it's well-documented that (a) the Sudan made the offer, and (b)
Clinton refused it.

Well then you can direct us to that documentation, and discuss
it, right?

Do your own research. It's even been discussed here before.

In particular, what evidence was there, at the time, that bin
Laden had been involved in any attack on US interests?

Quite a *long* time ago, long before 9/11, The Reader's Digest, of all
publications, printed an article about bin Laden entitled IIRC "The Most
Dangerous Man in the World". There was *plenty* of evidence.

Right, Clinton should have invaded the Sudan because we did not
have any evidence implicating bin Laden in any acts comitted against
the US. How does that make sense to you?

One of Bush's problems was ignoring bin Laden, until after
September 11, 2001, a mistake he is now repeating, again leaving
bin Laden at large to kill more Americans. If bin Laden sticks
with his existing pattern, his next attack in the US will happen
during the first year of the next President's first term of office.

Excuse me? Bush ignoring bin Laden? Methinks you misspelled "Clinton".


Told that Al Quaida was determined to attack in the US, and told
that AL Quaida was planning to hijack airliners, what did the
Bush administration do, besides prepare a new War on Pornography?

Here we go again, trotting out the old tired lie that Bush knew 9/11 was
coming. Stick that one up your kazoo, Fred, you know it isn't true.

Clinton isn't President.

Thank God.

The last thing I remember Bush saying
about bin Laden was that he doesn't know hwere he is and he doesn't
care. That's a paraphrasal, but one I think is quite accurate.

Had you considered that portraying bin Laden as irrelevant and insignificant
might have been a deliberate attempt to provoke him into revealing his
whereabouts, either directly or indirectly? Sure smells that way to me.

How many times did anyone in the Bush administration even mention
bin Laden in the last year?

See above.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article .com, wrote:

Shall we move this discussion to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?

You are, of course, free to stop reading, or responding, at any time you wish.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:

Shall we move this to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?

Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
anus detector on

...

Remember World War I? Don't you think that peace in Europe is in
the best interest of the US?

Do you mean to suggest that the conflicts in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 90s
threatened the peace of all Europe?

No, that is why I did not ask "Don't you think that
peace in ALL Europe is in the best interest of the US?"

War anywhere in Europe is contrary to the best interests
of the US.

Codswallop. What was happening in Bosnia and Kosovo in no way involved the
interests of the United States. If you believe that it did, I invite you to
explain how.

War, by its very nature is contrary to the best interests of everyone.
The same is true of starvation and genocide.

What do YOU think Clinton's agenda was in Kosovo and Bosnia? Not
much petroleum in either, eh?

I can't imagine. And, judging from his public statements, neither could he.



Regardless of how compelling the US interest was, Clinton should
have been impeached for violating the War Powers Act.

Much as I dislike Clinton, I have to disagree with you here - IMO the War
Powers Act is unconstitutional.

Reading how the Constitution divide war powers and the control of
the military between the President and the Congress I agree
that the Congress has the authority to make legislation such as
the War Powers Act, though I dislike specifics of the Act itself.

I suggest you reread those sections.

Perhaps you should do the same.


Article I, Section 8, The Congress shall have Power ...

I don't see any place there where it delegates to Congress the authority to
dictate the President's actions, as the War Powers Act attempts to do.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 14:18:32 -0700, lgb wrote:

In article ,
says...
You'll have to take that up with Will Roger's ghost - I was quoting him
:-).

Ah. I see your Will Rogers, and have countered it with Douglass Adams.


So we both learned something :-).

Back to the original question - what can we all agree on? Other than
the above, how about:

You raise an interesting question. However, the problem may not so much
be what we can all agree upon but upon the method of obtaining those
objectives.


Everyone wants their own freedom maximized, and others prevented from
harming, or even irritating, them.


Wouldn't necessarily agree that everyone believes that something should
be done to prevent others from irritating them. Along that path lies more
and more restriction of others' and eventually one's own activities because
no matter what you do, somebody, somewhere is going to be "irritated" by
it.


If there are no rules, or no way to enforce the rules, those with no
morals and lots of brains will wind up owning everything and everybody.
For primitive societies, replace "brains" with brawn.

The trick is to keep the enforcers from becoming the very thing they're
supposed to prevent, which gets us back to the "power corrupts" theme.

These aren't quotes, although I'm certain the thoughts aren't original.
I suspect some ancient Greek said the same thing a lot better than I
have.

Departing from the "liberal", "conservative" designation for the moment,
one of the underlying issues is how the freedom of people is to be
maximized. Better designations would be "statist" vs. "libertarian" (with
a small "l", the party with the large "L" is a different matter). The
statist tends toward the view that government is the means by which
societal goals should be achieved and that the only thing that needs to be
guarded against is a government that regulates or restricts "their"
particular cherished activities or freedoms. The state is a means by which
others should be restricted from harming or bothering them, or
participating in acts or behaviors that they find irritating. The
liberatarian view takes the view that in many cases, the government *is*
the problem and that a government capable of restricting others' activities
is also perfectly capable of restricting the libertarian's own activities
should the balance of power or sense of "right" shift that way. A rational
liberatarian realizes that a certain amount of government regulation is
necessary in order to assure the peace and safety of all of society, but
views most government activity with deep suspicion, particularly if it
departs from certain, expected government duties, i.e. defense of country,
protection from insurrection, and police activiities that keep societal
predators at bay. These days, even that last statement is dangerous
because previously held definitions of societal predators (thieves,
rapists, murderers, etc.) has been corrupted by various statists to try to
re-define the definition of societal predator to include those who are
successful in society and those whose various business activities are
frowned upon by the modern crop of statists.

So, in regard to your original question, I'm not sure you will ever get
concensus on any particular subject simply because the approaches to
attaining various goals are diametrically opposed.





+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com, wrote:
Shall we move this to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?

You are, of course, free to stop reading, or responding, at any time you wish.

I've cross-posted to alt.war.vietnam and set followups there.

anus detector on

Please do not remove the ON-TOPIC newsgroup from the distribution.


Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

The tide of the war shifted because American GROUND forces were
withdrawn Vietnam and despite the fact that South Vietnam was
capable of defending itself. South Vietnam failed to defend itself
because of the incompetence and corruption of its government.

Not correct, as explained below.

North Vietnam didn't have any signficant air support for their
troops in South Vietnam, and they were outnumbered in South
Vietnam. So why couldn't South Vietnam hold its own without
American air support.

Because without American air support, it was not possible to interdict the
supply lines that the North needed to support their invasion. If American air
support had been available, the invasion could not have succeeded.


Were the NVA better supplied tban the ARVN troops?

Quite possibly they were, given the support that they received from China and
the Soviet Union.

I had thought a major goal of Nixon's diplomacy with the Soviet
Union and China was to reduce their support for North Vietnam.

Don't you think the US was at least as capable of supplying
South Vietnam.


Didn't South
Vietnam have an airforce of their own?

Yes, they had a typical third-world air force.

You mean, like North Vietnam?

Did the NVA have any air support in South Vietnam?


So why couln't the South Vietnamese fight better _on their own
soil_ than the NVA?

Beside the point.

No, that is precisely the point. There is no question that
limitations on US air support from 1973 on weakened the SOuth
Vietnamese. The point is that by itself it did not, or should
not have weakened the South Vietnamese to the point where they
were militarily inferior to the NVA.

Without supply lines, the NVA invasion could not have
succeeded - and without American air interdiction,
those supply lines could not be interrupted.

Agreed. But that is beside the point.



This is also reflected by the fact that it took two more
years of fighting before the North Vietnamese were
able to take Saigon to end the war.

Prior to that point, they had been losing.
After that, they began winning. And
that makes your point how?

How were they losing prior to the cease fire? They
had held onto the 'Parrot's Beak' even WITH American
ground forces in country and with the North being bombed.
If South Vietnam had a competant, effective, and honest
government the communists would never have won.

The only reason they agreed to the cease-fire in the
first place isthat they
were getting their asses kicked.


The main reason they agreed to the Cease Fire that it
was the most expedient way to get the rest of the US
Forces out of Vietnam. I'm quite sure they never had
any intent of honoring it any longer than they needed
to accomplish that.

Yes, and if they had not been getting their asses kicked -- i.e. if they had
been winning -- continuing to fight would have been the most expedient means
of achieving that objective. Hence their desire for a cease-fire.


That is just plain nuts. Obviously it was much more expedient,
and much less costly to eliminate the US via the Cease Fire than
to drive us out militarily. Driving us out would have cost
the communists time and casualties. Negotiating us out cost
them less time and no casualties.

--

FF

Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com, wrote:

Shall we move this to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?

You are, of course, free to stop reading, or responding, at any time you
wish.


I've crossposted this to alt.politics.bush and set follow-ups there.

anus detector on

Please do not remove the ON-TOPIC newsgroup from the distribution.


Doug Miller wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:
...


Ah, by 'it' do you mean the well-documented that the offer was not
made by the Sudan but by a con artist who had rippe dus off
previously?

No, I mean it's well-documented that (a) the Sudan made the offer, and (b)
Clinton refused it.

Well then you can direct us to that documentation, and discuss
it, right?

Do your own research.

My research indicates that bin Laden left the Sudan befor he
was implicated, by any reliable sources, in any attacks on the
US.

It's even been discussed here before.

I gather you have no real basis for your argument, you just 'heard
it' somewheree.


In particular, what evidence was there, at the time, that bin
Laden had been involved in any attack on US interests?

Quite a *long* time ago, long before 9/11, The Reader's Digest, of all
publications, printed an article about bin Laden entitled IIRC "The Most
Dangerous Man in the World". There was *plenty* of evidence.

So why did Bush ignore him?

How long ago was that? Before the Embassy bombings in East Africa?
Befor bin Laden left Afghanistan?


Right, Clinton should have invaded the Sudan because we did not
have any evidence implicating bin Laden in any acts comitted against
the US. How does that make sense to you?

One of Bush's problems was ignoring bin Laden, until after
September 11, 2001, a mistake he is now repeating, again leaving
bin Laden at large to kill more Americans. If bin Laden sticks
with his existing pattern, his next attack in the US will happen
during the first year of the next President's first term of office.

Excuse me? Bush ignoring bin Laden? Methinks you misspelled "Clinton".


Told that Al Quaida was determined to attack in the US, and told
that AL Quaida was planning to hijack airliners, what did the
Bush administration do, besides prepare a new War on Pornography?

Here we go again, trotting out the old tired lie that Bush knew 9/11 was
coming.

You are lying when you claim that I accused Bush of knowing
that 9/11 was coming. You must be getting desparate.

....

The last thing I remember Bush saying
about bin Laden was that he doesn't know hwere he is and he doesn't
care. That's a paraphrasal, but one I think is quite accurate.

Had you considered that portraying bin Laden as irrelevant and insignificant
might have been a deliberate attempt to provoke him into revealing his
whereabouts, either directly or indirectly? Sure smells that way to me.

Yeah, I'm sure he'll fall for that.

It looks to me like Bush was tired of being asked about bin Laden
and that was his subtle way of informing the press that reporters
who continued to ask about him woudl be disinvited to Press
Conferences.


--

FF

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 14:18:32 -0700, lgb wrote:
In article ,
says...
You'll have to take that up with Will Roger's ghost - I was quoting him
:-).

Ah. I see your Will Rogers, and have countered it with Douglass Adams.

So we both learned something :-).

Yup. Been known to happen.

Back to the original question - what can we all agree on? Other than
the above, how about:

Everyone wants their own freedom maximized, and others prevented from
harming, or even irritating, them.

Yes. The difference is in how people think that can be successfully
done.

If there are no rules, or no way to enforce the rules, those with no
morals and lots of brains will wind up owning everything and everybody.
For primitive societies, replace "brains" with brawn.

Seems fair.

The trick is to keep the enforcers from becoming the very thing they're
supposed to prevent, which gets us back to the "power corrupts" theme.

Or, on my opinion, keeps us in the "make sure the little guy has the
means to effectivly deal with the threat should it become necessary",
which in my thinking means "let honest citizens defend themselves with
guns".

These aren't quotes, although I'm certain the thoughts aren't original.
I suspect some ancient Greek said the same thing a lot better than I
have.

And hundreds of people each century since. It's not like we're having a
new argument here.

Dave Hinz (in ) said:

| On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 14:18:32 -0700, lgb wrote:
|| In article ,
|| says...
|||| You'll have to take that up with Will Roger's ghost - I was
|||| quoting him :-).
|||
||| Ah. I see your Will Rogers, and have countered it with Douglass
||| Adams.
||
|| So we both learned something :-).
|
| Yup. Been known to happen.
|
|| Back to the original question - what can we all agree on? Other
|| than the above, how about:
|
|| Everyone wants their own freedom maximized, and others prevented
|| from harming, or even irritating, them.
|
| Yes. The difference is in how people think that can be successfully
| done.

I think preventing irritation is a lost cause. On the other hand,
perhaps we should consider sufficiently (irritating) bad manners
justification for assault/homicide...

|| If there are no rules, or no way to enforce the rules, those with
|| no morals and lots of brains will wind up owning everything and
|| everybody. For primitive societies, replace "brains" with brawn.
|
| Seems fair.
|
|| The trick is to keep the enforcers from becoming the very thing
|| they're supposed to prevent, which gets us back to the "power
|| corrupts" theme.
|
| Or, on my opinion, keeps us in the "make sure the little guy has the
| means to effectivly deal with the threat should it become
| necessary", which in my thinking means "let honest citizens defend
| themselves with guns".

That's the approach taken by the framers of the Constitution.

Another that's impressed me is the Swiss approach which, if I
understood correctly, requires that all new legislation pass a popular
referendum. That's not to say that the general populace is necessarily
wiser than the legislature; but it does give ordinary citizens the
final say. I like that - and would be interested in comments by Swiss
woodworkers...

Another idea that I like is limiting the number of laws that can be on
the books at any time (I'd go for fewer than 100) so that, once the
limit is reached, no new law can be added without repealing a less
valued existing law.

I think that I might also like to see a process by which laws could be
repealed by popular referendum once they're considered no longer
useful.

|| These aren't quotes, although I'm certain the thoughts aren't
|| original. I suspect some ancient Greek said the same thing a lot
|| better than I have.
|
| And hundreds of people each century since. It's not like we're
| having a new argument here.

Agreed. Interesting that in all the time humans have been around we
haven't managed to produce and implement a fair and just solution all
can agree on. I don't think that means it /can't/ be done - perhaps it
just calls for a level of social maturity we haven't yet reached. I'm
pretty sure we shouldn't stop trying...

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 15:00:59 -0500, Morris Dovey wrote:
Dave Hinz (in ) said:

| Or, on my opinion, keeps us in the "make sure the little guy has the
| means to effectivly deal with the threat should it become
| necessary", which in my thinking means "let honest citizens defend
| themselves with guns".

That's the approach taken by the framers of the Constitution.

Yes, I agree that that's what their wording, and supporting
documentation, intend.

Another that's impressed me is the Swiss approach which, if I
understood correctly, requires that all new legislation pass a popular
referendum. That's not to say that the general populace is necessarily
wiser than the legislature; but it does give ordinary citizens the
final say. I like that - and would be interested in comments by Swiss
woodworkers...

The problem is, we can barely get half the people off their asses to
vote for _president_ once every four years. Not saying it's a bad idea,
just that as with anything else, a small percentage of the population
would be making the decisions. And, really, would _you_ vote on every
piece of legislation, or just the few that you know/care about?

Another idea that I like is limiting the number of laws that can be on
the books at any time (I'd go for fewer than 100) so that, once the
limit is reached, no new law can be added without repealing a less
valued existing law.

Great theory, I just don't know how it could be put into practice. Laws
that are hundreds of pages long, though, are insane. "Here's the deal -
don't do (thing) or (other thing) will happen".

I think that I might also like to see a process by which laws could be
repealed by popular referendum once they're considered no longer
useful.

Yes.

Agreed. Interesting that in all the time humans have been around we
haven't managed to produce and implement a fair and just solution all
can agree on. I don't think that means it /can't/ be done - perhaps it
just calls for a level of social maturity we haven't yet reached. I'm
pretty sure we shouldn't stop trying...

It's an iterative process, to be sure. Cyclical, too.

Dave Hinz (in ) said:

| On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 15:00:59 -0500, Morris Dovey
| wrote:

|| Another that's impressed me is the Swiss approach which, if I
|| understood correctly, requires that all new legislation pass a
|| popular referendum. That's not to say that the general populace is
|| necessarily wiser than the legislature; but it does give ordinary
|| citizens the final say. I like that - and would be interested in
|| comments by Swiss woodworkers...
|
| The problem is, we can barely get half the people off their asses to
| vote for _president_ once every four years. Not saying it's a bad
| idea, just that as with anything else, a small percentage of the
| population would be making the decisions. And, really, would _you_
| vote on every piece of legislation, or just the few that you
| know/care about?

*Very* worthwhile question! Let's require a majority of registered
voters in favor of a proposition for passage. Still better, let's also
provide the opportunity to vote "no"; and if a 1/3 minority of
participating voters says "no", then the proposition fails.

And you're right, I almost certainly would only vote on the issues
that I knew of and cared about. I like the idea that if a politician
wants a particular piece of legislation passed, he/she needs to ensure
that the voters are properly informed and that the legislation is
subjected to a bit of sunshine before it *can* become law.

|| Another idea that I like is limiting the number of laws that can
|| be on the books at any time (I'd go for fewer than 100) so that,
|| once the limit is reached, no new law can be added without
|| repealing a less valued existing law.
|
| Great theory, I just don't know how it could be put into practice.
| Laws that are hundreds of pages long, though, are insane. "Here's
| the deal - don't do (thing) or (other thing) will happen".

I don't know, too. :-(

We could make a fair start with the golden rule. Hmm, could we codify
"What goes around comes around"? Heh, heh - It just ocurred to me that
legislators who overspend might end up automatically losing all
property and pension rights - betcha spending would be done with
/very/ much more care...

|| I think that I might also like to see a process by which laws
|| could be repealed by popular referendum once they're considered no
|| longer useful.
|
| Yes.
|
|| Agreed. Interesting that in all the time humans have been around we
|| haven't managed to produce and implement a fair and just solution
|| all can agree on. I don't think that means it /can't/ be done -
|| perhaps it just calls for a level of social maturity we haven't
|| yet reached. I'm pretty sure we shouldn't stop trying...
|
| It's an iterative process, to be sure. Cyclical, too.

Agreed. Progress does seem to come /so/ slowly.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 16:23:52 -0500, Morris Dovey wrote:
Dave Hinz (in ) said:

| The problem is, we can barely get half the people off their asses to
| vote for _president_ once every four years. Not saying it's a bad
| idea, just that as with anything else, a small percentage of the
| population would be making the decisions. And, really, would _you_
| vote on every piece of legislation, or just the few that you
| know/care about?

*Very* worthwhile question! Let's require a majority of registered
voters in favor of a proposition for passage. Still better, let's also
provide the opportunity to vote "no"; and if a 1/3 minority of
participating voters says "no", then the proposition fails.

I'm not seeing the distinction between the two statements above which
you seem to be distinguishing ?

And you're right, I almost certainly would only vote on the issues
that I knew of and cared about. I like the idea that if a politician
wants a particular piece of legislation passed, he/she needs to ensure
that the voters are properly informed and that the legislation is
subjected to a bit of sunshine before it *can* become law.

Well, to some point, in theory at least, we hired these people to do the
homework for us. Not saying it works well, but that was the theory.
I think your proposal is all about improving the "resulution" if you
will of how my own needs and beliefs are met. Instead of one say every
few years based on one or two key issues (OK, with me, one), I'd have
say in as many as I wanted to. I don't see how that'd be bad from a
philosophical standpoint,but might be very tough to implement properly
and efficiently.

We could make a fair start with the golden rule. Hmm, could we codify
"What goes around comes around"? Heh, heh - It just ocurred to me that
legislators who overspend might end up automatically losing all
property and pension rights - betcha spending would be done with
/very/ much more care...

I like the movement to have the land of one of the SCOTUS justices
seized based on his opinion in the recent case. "Hey - better good and
all that. Move."

|| Agreed. Interesting that in all the time humans have been around we
|| haven't managed to produce and implement a fair and just solution
|| all can agree on. I don't think that means it /can't/ be done -
|| perhaps it just calls for a level of social maturity we haven't
|| yet reached. I'm pretty sure we shouldn't stop trying...
|
| It's an iterative process, to be sure. Cyclical, too.

Agreed. Progress does seem to come /so/ slowly.

And sometimes, backwards.

Dave Hinz (in ) said:

| On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 16:23:52 -0500, Morris Dovey
| wrote:
|| Dave Hinz (in ) said:
||
||| The problem is, we can barely get half the people off their asses
||| to vote for _president_ once every four years. Not saying it's a
||| bad idea, just that as with anything else, a small percentage of
||| the population would be making the decisions. And, really, would
||| _you_ vote on every piece of legislation, or just the few that you
||| know/care about?
|
|| *Very* worthwhile question! Let's require a majority of registered
|| voters in favor of a proposition for passage. Still better, let's
|| also provide the opportunity to vote "no"; and if a 1/3 minority of
|| participating voters says "no", then the proposition fails.
|
| I'm not seeing the distinction between the two statements above
| which you seem to be distinguishing ?

I'll try again. For a referendum to succeed, at least a (simple)
majority of eligible voters need to get off their butts and vote
"Yes".

This means that the referendum can't succeed unless at least a simple
majority of the eligible voters think it's the right thing to do.

However, if as many as third of actual voters say "No", then the
measure fails even if a simple majority of eligible voters say "Yes".

The distinction is in the application of "eligible" and "actual.

The strategy is intended to prevent/minimize enactment of divisive
and/or poor quality legislation.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

The problem is, we can barely get half the people off their asses to
vote for _president_ once every four years. Not saying it's a bad idea,
just that as with anything else, a small percentage of the population
would be making the decisions. And, really, would _you_ vote on every
piece of legislation, or just the few that you know/care about?


The USA was designed to be a republic, not a boobocracy. Which is a good
thing and should not be changed. Just count an absent as "no opinion" and
get over it.

Well, at this level of generality, I haven't found anything to disagree
with so far. Even on the gun issue, Dave :-).

In fact, I'd like to still be able to find books at the library on
making explosives and to go easily buy the ingredients and try them out
at my own risk, without the law interfering. I did that as a kid. I
can't say it was absolutely legal, even back then, but nobody got very
excited about it.

I got put on juvenile parole for running away from home. My parole
officer once asked me if I was still making zip guns (muzzleloaders).
I didn't even know he knew about it :-). Being basically honest, I
replied in the affirmative. His response was that I'd better not be
carrying one when I saw him :-).

Note that if I'd hurt or killed someone, the penalty would have been a
lot more severe than it'd likely be today. As it should have been.

I do wonder if we're not just tinkering around the edges of a broken
system. Here's a snowball in hell idea. Let's make running the
country/state/county/city a duty and draft people to do it. They serve
their few years and go back to whatever they were doing before and can
never again get involved in politics. Combine that with recall and
referendum abilities and we might (emphasize might) have a better
system.


--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 17:13:50 -0500, the opaque "Morris Dovey"
clearly wrote:

The strategy is intended to prevent/minimize enactment of divisive
and/or poor quality legislation.

One question:

How do we go about repealing about 35,000 of those divisive
and/or poor-quality laws which are already on the books?


--
Impeach 'em ALL!
----------------------------------------------------
http://diversify.com Website Application Programming

"lgb" wrote in message

In fact, I'd like to still be able to find books at the library on
making explosives and to go easily buy the ingredients and try them out
at my own risk, without the law interfering. I did that as a kid. I
can't say it was absolutely legal, even back then, but nobody got very
excited about it.

Well, if you're serious about that, then you can get all the information you
desire on the subject by perusing a few newsgroups. One of the binary
newsgroups I inhabit like (alt.binaries.educational.wares or
alt.binaries.cuts) gets a number of files posted on a regular basis that
deal with explosives.

Can't offer any suggestions as to where to by stuff, but many common
explosives are made out of everyday materials. I'm all for the internet, but
there's some aspects about it that make me decidedly nervous. Guess I'm at
least partially, the author of my own misfortunes eh? ~ passing information
like this around.

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 15:00:59 -0500, "Morris Dovey" wrote:

.... snip


Another idea that I like is limiting the number of laws that can be on
the books at any time (I'd go for fewer than 100) so that, once the
limit is reached, no new law can be added without repealing a less
valued existing law.

I think that I might also like to see a process by which laws could be
repealed by popular referendum once they're considered no longer
useful.


Perhaps more in keeping with the ideals of our Republic rather than a
democracy would be the addition of a third body to congress. This third
body would only be charged with repealing laws passed by the other two
bodies. In the case of repeal, a simple majority would be required from
this house and no presidential veto would be applicable, the law would need
to be re-proposed through the standard process. Inefficient? Yep, by
design, it means that those who wanted certain laws in effect would have to
both lobby for the passage of the law and against repeal of said law. The
original bodies of congress would be spending some significant amount of
time re-considering legislation that had been previously passed (sometimes
second and third revisions of anything are better models), and finally,
only laws that had overwhelming support would be kept --- not a bad thing.

One other possible job for this body -- it would also be authorized with
the authority to set aside Supreme Court decisions -- for this function, a
2/3 majority would be required and presidential veto with veto over-ride of
some larger majority (say 75%) would be authorized. This would perhaps add
the balance that appears to be missing in our time, and do away with the
social engineering and legislating from the bench that seems to be the
penchant of the courts these days.

... more snip


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Mark & Juanita (in ) said:

| On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 15:00:59 -0500, "Morris Dovey"
| wrote:
|
|| Another idea that I like is limiting the number of laws that can
|| be on the books at any time (I'd go for fewer than 100) so that,
|| once the limit is reached, no new law can be added without
|| repealing a less valued existing law.
||
|| I think that I might also like to see a process by which laws
|| could be repealed by popular referendum once they're considered no
|| longer useful.
|
| Perhaps more in keeping with the ideals of our Republic rather
| than a democracy would be the addition of a third body to congress.
| This third body would only be charged with repealing laws passed by
| the other two bodies. In the case of repeal, a simple majority
| would be required from this house and no presidential veto would be
| applicable, the law would need to be re-proposed through the
| standard process. Inefficient? Yep, by design, it means that those
| who wanted certain laws in effect would have to both lobby for the
| passage of the law and against repeal of said law. The original
| bodies of congress would be spending some significant amount of
| time re-considering legislation that had been previously passed
| (sometimes second and third revisions of anything are better
| models), and finally, only laws that had overwhelming support would
| be kept --- not a bad thing.
|
| One other possible job for this body -- it would also be
| authorized with the authority to set aside Supreme Court decisions
| -- for this function, a 2/3 majority would be required and
| presidential veto with veto over-ride of some larger majority (say
| 75%) would be authorized. This would perhaps add the balance that
| appears to be missing in our time, and do away with the social
| engineering and legislating from the bench that seems to be the
| penchant of the courts these days.

This third chamber approach has considerable appeal. I first
encountered this suggestion in a RAH novel and think the model is
extremely worthy of serious consideration.

Much of our system of government was designed to overcome the
obstacles presented by geography. Travel was slow and frequently
hazardous and only face-to-face communication could be conducted at
speed. Electing a representative and sending that representative to a
gathering of representatives to speak for their constituancy was an
intelligent solution to the problem.

Let's take notice of a breakthrough change - the Internet - that
effectively overcomes and removes the geographical obstacles. At this
point one begins to wonder whether there is still a *need* to send
someone to a remote meeting to exercise the will of a constituancy.

Some interesting thoughts for an on-line (direct) democracy:

[1] Could the primary value of an elected representative be noise
reduction?
[2] Would it make sense to elect representatives on a "per issue"
basis?
[3] How can we avoid precipitous mob response to events like those of
9/11?

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 17:13:50 -0500, Morris Dovey wrote:
Dave Hinz (in ) said:

| I'm not seeing the distinction between the two statements above
| which you seem to be distinguishing ?

I'll try again. For a referendum to succeed, at least a (simple)
majority of eligible voters need to get off their butts and vote
"Yes".

This means that the referendum can't succeed unless at least a simple
majority of the eligible voters think it's the right thing to do.

Ah, gotcha.

However, if as many as third of actual voters say "No", then the
measure fails even if a simple majority of eligible voters say "Yes".

The distinction is in the application of "eligible" and "actual.

The strategy is intended to prevent/minimize enactment of divisive
and/or poor quality legislation.

I think this might be a great theory that's hard to implement. Maybe if
we were starting over.

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 18:45:30 -0400, George George@least wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

The problem is, we can barely get half the people off their asses to
vote for _president_ once every four years. Not saying it's a bad idea,
just that as with anything else, a small percentage of the population
would be making the decisions. And, really, would _you_ vote on every
piece of legislation, or just the few that you know/care about?

The USA was designed to be a republic, not a boobocracy. Which is a good
thing and should not be changed. Just count an absent as "no opinion" and
get over it.

Ah, you misunderstand me. I'm quite happy to let people who are too
lazy to bother to vote, be ignored in the decision making process. My
comments are in the context of why a "everyone votes on new laws"
scenario would be difficult to implement.

I'm perfectly content with people who are too lazy and/or ignorant to
vote, not voting.

In article ,
says...
Well, if you're serious about that, then you can get all the information you
desire on the subject by perusing a few newsgroups. One of the binary
newsgroups I inhabit like (alt.binaries.educational.wares or
alt.binaries.cuts) gets a number of files posted on a regular basis that
deal with explosives.

I'm a little too old to want to do that again, I was just pointing out
the difference betwen now and then. And I trust a chemical textbook
from a library a wee bit more than I do the Net :-).

I tried to buy some potassium permanganate recently to use as a snail
killing dip for aqurium plants. Couldn't find it anywhere. I finally
remembered that it's a powerful oxidizer. Think that might have
something to do with it??? I did find a 3% solution at an online store
and a supply house that would ship me 100 pounds (with a lot of
paperwork!). But a few ounces of crystals? Hah!

--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 09:21:47 -0700, the opaque lgb
clearly wrote:

I'm a little too old to want to do that again, I was just pointing out
the difference betwen now and then. And I trust a chemical textbook
from a library a wee bit more than I do the Net :-).

I tried to buy some potassium permanganate recently to use as a snail
killing dip for aqurium plants. Couldn't find it anywhere. I finally
remembered that it's a powerful oxidizer. Think that might have
something to do with it??? I did find a 3% solution at an online store
and a supply house that would ship me 100 pounds (with a lot of
paperwork!). But a few ounces of crystals? Hah!

http://search.ebay.com/Potassium-Per...romZR3QQfsopZ1
Will $4.99 do? 4 ounces or a pound, your choice.

--
-------------------------------------------------------
Never underestimate the innate animosity of inanimate objects.
----
http://diversify.com Dynamic Website Applications

In article , Larry Jaques
says...

http://search.ebay.com/Potassium-Per...romZR3QQfsopZ1
Will $4.99 do? 4 ounces or a pound, your choice.

Ya' got me, Larry. I've bought a bunch of stuff on Ebay, but I never
even thought of them as a source for chemicals :-).

Of course, it's $8 for shipping :-(.

I may go with the 3% solution, as I can spread the shipping costs for it
over a number of aquarium purchases. But a whole pound of crystals sure
is tempting.

--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 01:38:50 -0500, "Morris Dovey" wrote:

Mark & Juanita (in ) said:

| On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 15:00:59 -0500, "Morris Dovey"
| wrote:
|
|| Another idea that I like is limiting the number of laws that can
|| be on the books at any time (I'd go for fewer than 100) so that,
|| once the limit is reached, no new law can be added without
|| repealing a less valued existing law.
||
|| I think that I might also like to see a process by which laws
|| could be repealed by popular referendum once they're considered no
|| longer useful.
|
| Perhaps more in keeping with the ideals of our Republic rather
| than a democracy would be the addition of a third body to congress.
| This third body would only be charged with repealing laws passed by
| the other two bodies. In the case of repeal, a simple majority
| would be required from this house and no presidential veto would be
| applicable, the law would need to be re-proposed through the
| standard process. Inefficient? Yep, by design, it means that those
| who wanted certain laws in effect would have to both lobby for the
| passage of the law and against repeal of said law. The original
| bodies of congress would be spending some significant amount of
| time re-considering legislation that had been previously passed
| (sometimes second and third revisions of anything are better
| models), and finally, only laws that had overwhelming support would
| be kept --- not a bad thing.
|
| One other possible job for this body -- it would also be
| authorized with the authority to set aside Supreme Court decisions
| -- for this function, a 2/3 majority would be required and
| presidential veto with veto over-ride of some larger majority (say
| 75%) would be authorized. This would perhaps add the balance that
| appears to be missing in our time, and do away with the social
| engineering and legislating from the bench that seems to be the
| penchant of the courts these days.

This third chamber approach has considerable appeal. I first
encountered this suggestion in a RAH novel and think the model is
extremely worthy of serious consideration.

.... snip

"The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" IIRC. I have also encountered this
suggestion in other places as well. I really think it has considerable
merit.




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

"CW" wrote in message =
nk.net...
| I agree. I never could see why people made such a big deal about low =
voter
| turn out. People that don't have enough motivation or interest to =
vote,
| likely don't know enough about it to make an informed decision anyway.
|=20
| "George" George@least wrote in message
| ...
|
| "Dave Hinz" wrote in message
| ...
|
| The problem is, we can barely get half the people off their asses =
to
| vote for _president_ once every four years. Not saying it's a bad =
idea,
| just that as with anything else, a small percentage of the =
population
| would be making the decisions. And, really, would _you_ vote on =
every
| piece of legislation, or just the few that you know/care about?
|
|
| The USA was designed to be a republic, not a boobocracy. Which is a =
good
| thing and should not be changed. Just count an absent as "no =
opinion" and
| get over it.
|
|
|=20
|=20

Remember the Weimar Republic? =20
This kind of voter apathy is exactly what got Hitler in. =20
And we all know where that lead.

It is a shame that most of those who kvetch about who got in do not take =
the time to exercise their franchise.
--=20
PDQ

I agree. I never could see why people made such a big deal about low voter
turn out. People that don't have enough motivation or interest to vote,
likely don't know enough about it to make an informed decision anyway.

"George" George@least wrote in message
...

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

The problem is, we can barely get half the people off their asses to
vote for _president_ once every four years. Not saying it's a bad idea,
just that as with anything else, a small percentage of the population
would be making the decisions. And, really, would _you_ vote on every
piece of legislation, or just the few that you know/care about?


The USA was designed to be a republic, not a boobocracy. Which is a good
thing and should not be changed. Just count an absent as "no opinion" and
get over it.

So, here's MY question. If Jerry Springer (and others like him) institute a
real high-pressure get-out-the-vote initiative for THEIR AUDIENCES, would
this be a good thing or a bad thing?

BruceT


"PDQ" wrote in message
.. .
"CW" wrote in message
nk.net...
| I agree. I never could see why people made such a big deal about low voter
| turn out. People that don't have enough motivation or interest to vote,
| likely don't know enough about it to make an informed decision anyway.
|
| "George" George@least wrote in message
| ...
|
| "Dave Hinz" wrote in message
| ...
|
| The problem is, we can barely get half the people off their asses to
| vote for _president_ once every four years. Not saying it's a bad
idea,
| just that as with anything else, a small percentage of the population
| would be making the decisions. And, really, would _you_ vote on every
| piece of legislation, or just the few that you know/care about?
|
|
| The USA was designed to be a republic, not a boobocracy. Which is a
good
| thing and should not be changed. Just count an absent as "no opinion"
and
| get over it.
|
|
|
|

Remember the Weimar Republic?
This kind of voter apathy is exactly what got Hitler in.
And we all know where that lead.

It is a shame that most of those who kvetch about who got in do not take the
time to exercise their franchise.
--
PDQ

"PDQ" wrote in message
.. .
Remember the Weimar Republic?
This kind of voter apathy is exactly what got Hitler in.
And we all know where that lead.

I more than remember. I've studied it. I would recommend you do likewise,
so you may learn that promises of glory outweigh promises of freedom and
democracy, just as absolution for loss in a disastrous war outweighs
acceptance of responsibility. The problem, as you will discover, is that
NSDAP "get out the vote" campaign was more successful than the SPD.

In article ,
says...

As long as they are informed voters, that is one thing -- IMO what others
were pointing out is that it is not a bad thing when those who are totally
clueless are not voting. i.e., do you really want someone who doesn't know
who the current sitting vice president is to vote?


I'm convinced that when tests for voter qualifications were thrown out
because they were being misused, it was a case of throwing out the baby
with the bath water.

It's been said that it's not who votes, it's who counts the votes.
That's probably true, but with modern marketing techniques, it's more
who pays for the votes- i.e. the big multi-national corporations and
other wealthy special interest groups. Most of us can't afford to
contribute enough to influence the results.

And the less educated the voters, the better the marketing techniques
work. So we'll continue to see every effort made to register the easily
influenced.

--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 16:19:15 -0700, lgb wrote:

In article ,
says...

As long as they are informed voters, that is one thing -- IMO what others
were pointing out is that it is not a bad thing when those who are totally
clueless are not voting. i.e., do you really want someone who doesn't know
who the current sitting vice president is to vote?


I'm convinced that when tests for voter qualifications were thrown out
because they were being misused, it was a case of throwing out the baby
with the bath water.

It's been said that it's not who votes, it's who counts the votes.
That's probably true, but with modern marketing techniques, it's more
who pays for the votes- i.e. the big multi-national corporations and
other wealthy special interest groups. Most of us can't afford to
contribute enough to influence the results.

And the less educated the voters, the better the marketing techniques
work. So we'll continue to see every effort made to register the easily
influenced.

... and from some circles you are going to see continued efforts to "dumb
down" the system, to fail to teach civics and the other foundational
courses that contribute to an informed electorate. Parents need to be
taking an active interest in what their children are learning and being
taught. If your kid is only getting pablum at school, make sure that you
are providing, at home, the knowledge they need to be informed. I don't
have it readily at hand, but there was a disconcerting statistic regarding
the number of high school graduates who are unaware of how our three-branch
republic is structured. Some of this may be due to disinterest on their
part (i.e, no consequence for not learning), some may be due to the fact
that it is barely touched upon.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Mark & Juanita (in ) said:

| As long as they are informed voters, that is one thing -- IMO
| what others were pointing out is that it is not a bad thing when
| those who are totally clueless are not voting. i.e., do you really
| want someone who doesn't know who the current sitting vice
| president is to vote?

Since you're asking about "want", I want a well-informed and engaged
electorate who have sufficient courage to exercise their principles
(and not just at the ballot box)!

If it seems to you (as it does to me) that this is a long way from
reality, then it's probably worth noticing that all of these can be
learned/taught/nurtured just like fine craftsmanship in woodworking.

--
Morris Dovey

"lgb" wrote in message
...
It's been said that it's not who votes, it's who counts the votes.
That's probably true, but with modern marketing techniques, it's more
who pays for the votes- i.e. the big multi-national corporations and
other wealthy special interest groups. Most of us can't afford to
contribute enough to influence the results.

Conspiracy theories again. You can't influence the outcome? You've got one
more vote than the largest company out there.