On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 06:51:58 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

OTOH, I recently read an article on Tom Paine. Seems that after the war
Washington and Morris (the equivalent of treasury secretary) hired Paine
to write articles praising federal taxes. Seems they had to "open the
peoples purses" (Morris) to pay off the bankers who had financed the
war.

:/ Did you research its validity?

No, I didn't. It was in an article on Paine in American History
magazine. They're usually pretty accurate but certainly not infallible.
They do sometimes indulge in a bit of flag waving, but this definitely
didn't fall in that category :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Larry Jaques writes:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 13:57:56 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 7/25/2011 1:01 PM, dadiOH wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 07:30:26 -0400,
wrote:

Max wrote:
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/pr...george-w-bush/

I'd rather read his obituary.

You'd be a liberal hate monger, right?

Actually, no. Been a moderate Republican for close to 60 years and Bush was
the worst I've seen Democrat or Republican.


Have you already forgotten the peanut farmer???

Or "That depends what 'is' is, your honor." and "No, I did not have
sex with Monica Lewinsky, your honor." Clintoon?

Granted, Shrub was no peach, but have some sense of perspective!

Actually, the 8 years of the Clinton administration were, by every
objective measure, the best since the DDE administration; and by
far better than any since.

It really tickles my funny bone that the only thing the right can
find wrong with those years was an affair with an intern (something
that was, is and should never have been anyone elses business - right
or wrong). It also had _nothing_ to do with how the country or
economy was run. It was the most peaceful 8 years in the history
of the 20th century. it was the most economically powerful decade
since Vietnam, with lowest inflation and the highest gains for the
poor, middle class and well-off. The DOW grew more in those 8 years
than any other comparable 8 year period. Clinton and the United
States were well respected by most of the rest of the free world.

Then comes Bush, two unfunded wars (almost 2trillion so far) and to
top it all off, he gave tax breaks to corporations and cut the taxes
for the wealthy - the first time in history that taxes haven't been
_raised_ to pay for a war that the President has decided was
necessary. Then to top that, he gave $190 billion[*] to AIG and
bailed out wallstreet before bowing out.

scott
[*] As much as the entire space shuttle program cost over forty years.

"HeyBub" writes:
Rod & BJ Jacobson wrote:


Considering this was largely a propaganda piece with twisted selective
"facts" and heavy albeit sly editoralizing.......a honest bio is
somewhere beyond a reach. When things pretend to be a history they do
all of us a disservice......conclusions based on **** often simply
result in more turds.

I agree. For example, the piece mentioned, not for the first time, Dubya's
seeming ducking of his National Guard obligations. I have yet to see, in the
dozens of accounts I've read about this failure to participate, how his
actions deviated from the usual and accepted practice of the time.

This is the "everyone else does it" argument. Doesn't make it right.

scott

"dadiOH" wrote in message ...


You'd be a liberal hate monger, right?

Actually, no. Been a moderate Republican for close to 60 years and Bush
was the worst I've seen Democrat or Republican.

Bingo. Democrats (mostly) expected to be disappointed by a Republican
President, the surprise was all the Republicans who ended up feeling the
same way. As the late, great Wm. F. Buckley, Jr. said, whatever G.W. Bush
is, he isn't a conservative. Real conservatives believe in fiscal
responsibility on the part of govt. (the federal debt doubled on Bush's
watch), they believe in avoiding pointless military adventurism (any
explanations needed there?) and they believe in defending individual
liberties (rather than looking for reasons to ignore the Constitution).
When I think back to how I cheered Bush becoming President instead of Gore I
can only shake my head in disbelief.

"Leon" wrote in message
...


You'd be a liberal hate monger, right?

Actually, no. Been a moderate Republican for close to 60 years and Bush
was
the worst I've seen Democrat or Republican.

Have you already forgotten the peanut farmer???

Refresh my memory, how many wars did he start?

"Scott Lurndal" wrote in message
...


Considering Jimmy inheritied inflation from ford, and Reagon actively
prevented resolution of the Tehran hostage crisis, what did Jimmy do
that was so bad?

He wasn't much of a leader, even his own party's members of Congress ignored
him for much of his time in office. Perception counts, Carter just didn't
seem to be out in front much, Obama has the same problem IMO.

On the other hand Carter and his SecState pretty much engineered the end of
the Soviet Union by suckering the Soviets into invading Afghanistan, and the
Camp David peace treaty was no small thing either.

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message ...

Given the current mess in Washington, how long are we going to put up
with either party? I've about had it.

I've traditionally thought the Democrats were the worse of the two parties,
but in the past decade or so the Republicans have earned that distinction in
my books. They voted to increase the debt ceiling seven times during the
Bush administration (doubling the federal debt in the process), now that
there is a Dem in the White House they've suddenly discovered deficit
financing is a bad idea. They blew a deal to get four trillion in spending
cuts because they don't want tax breaks for millionaires and oil companies
ended--it's like they don't even care anymore about it being obvious whose
interests they serve. What we need is another purge of the party similar to
what Wm. F. Buckley, Jr. and others staged when they pushed out the
Birchers, because lately the right-wingnuts seem happy to steer the
Republican Party straight to Crazytown.

DGDevin wrote:
"dadiOH" wrote in message ...


You'd be a liberal hate monger, right?

Actually, no. Been a moderate Republican for close to 60 years and
Bush was the worst I've seen Democrat or Republican.

Bingo. Democrats (mostly) expected to be disappointed by a Republican
President, the surprise was all the Republicans who ended up feeling
the same way. As the late, great Wm. F. Buckley, Jr. said, whatever
G.W. Bush is, he isn't a conservative. Real conservatives believe in
fiscal responsibility on the part of govt. (the federal debt doubled
on Bush's watch), they believe in avoiding pointless military
adventurism (any explanations needed there?) and they believe in
defending individual liberties (rather than looking for reasons to
ignore the Constitution).

They also believe that one of the functions of government should be to
provide a climate that enables people to help themselves, not just hand
stuff to them.

When I think back to how I cheered Bush
becoming President instead of Gore I can only shake my head in
disbelief.

It's OK, you were young and foolish

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

On 7/28/2011 7:05 AM, dadiOH wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
"dadiOH" wrote in message ...


You'd be a liberal hate monger, right?

Actually, no. Been a moderate Republican for close to 60 years and
Bush was the worst I've seen Democrat or Republican.

Bingo. Democrats (mostly) expected to be disappointed by a Republican
President, the surprise was all the Republicans who ended up feeling
the same way. As the late, great Wm. F. Buckley, Jr. said, whatever
G.W. Bush is, he isn't a conservative. Real conservatives believe in
fiscal responsibility on the part of govt. (the federal debt doubled
on Bush's watch), they believe in avoiding pointless military
adventurism (any explanations needed there?) and they believe in
defending individual liberties (rather than looking for reasons to
ignore the Constitution).

They also believe that one of the functions of government should be to
provide a climate that enables people to help themselves, not just hand
stuff to them.

When I think back to how I cheered Bush
becoming President instead of Gore I can only shake my head in
disbelief.

It's OK, you were young and foolish

In hind sight Bush was still a much better choice than "Lock Box" Gore.
Carbon credits any one? ROTFL.

On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 21:06:17 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:

It really tickles my funny bone that the only thing the right can find
wrong with those years was an affair with an intern (something that was,
is and should never have been anyone elses business - right or wrong).

I tend to agree with you on the Clinton years, but he brought it on
himself in the Lewinsky case by lying about it. If he'd just had the
balls to tell the press it was none of their business he'd probably have
picked up votes.

You're trying to get people to remember reality. That doesn't stand a
chance against the constant stream of propaganda coming out of D.C..

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:37:39 -0700, DGDevin wrote:

What we need
is another purge of the party similar to what Wm. F. Buckley, Jr. and
others staged when they pushed out the Birchers, because lately the
right-wingnuts seem happy to steer the Republican Party straight to
Crazytown.

That's certainly a step in the right direction, but I'm coming to the
conclusion that we need to purge both parties. Actually the word I'm
looking for isn't "purge" it's "replace".

But as long as politicians are concerned about re-election and campaign
funding, things won't change much. I keep coming back to the idea of
drawing names out of a hat, giving them 6 weeks of free air time to
present their views, and limiting them to one term. Not a snowball's
chance in hell, but it might well work better than what we've got now.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Larry Blanchard wrote in news:j0s2ie$am6$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:37:39 -0700, DGDevin wrote:

What we need
is another purge of the party similar to what Wm. F. Buckley, Jr. and
others staged when they pushed out the Birchers, because lately the
right-wingnuts seem happy to steer the Republican Party straight to
Crazytown.

That's certainly a step in the right direction, but I'm coming to the
conclusion that we need to purge both parties. Actually the word I'm
looking for isn't "purge" it's "replace".

But as long as politicians are concerned about re-election and campaign
funding, things won't change much. I keep coming back to the idea of
drawing names out of a hat, giving them 6 weeks of free air time to
present their views, and limiting them to one term. Not a snowball's
chance in hell, but it might well work better than what we've got now.

The only real alternative is to have ideological parties of all kinds of
persuasions. Then people can vote their ideas and convictions, rather
than the lesser of 2 evils. Of course than you'd get coalition
governments with all the troubles of that system. Such as the support of
a rather right-wing party for the current Dutch government, without that
party having any officials in the cabinet. So they have no governing
responsibility other than supporting the current slate of ministers, and
can withdraw support at the drop of a hat. But currently in the US it is
a dictatorship of the current narrow majority of votes, mostly steered by
disgust of the other guy.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:37:39 -0700, DGDevin wrote:

What we need
is another purge of the party similar to what Wm. F. Buckley, Jr. and
others staged when they pushed out the Birchers, because lately the
right-wingnuts seem happy to steer the Republican Party straight to
Crazytown.

That's certainly a step in the right direction, but I'm coming to the
conclusion that we need to purge both parties. Actually the word I'm
looking for isn't "purge" it's "replace".

But as long as politicians are concerned about re-election and campaign
funding, things won't change much. I keep coming back to the idea of
drawing names out of a hat, giving them 6 weeks of free air time to
present their views, and limiting them to one term. Not a snowball's
chance in hell, but it might well work better than what we've got now.

"The problems we face today cannot be solved by the minds that created
them." A Einstien

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:37:39 -0700, DGDevin wrote:

What we need
is another purge of the party similar to what Wm. F. Buckley, Jr. and
others staged when they pushed out the Birchers, because lately the
right-wingnuts seem happy to steer the Republican Party straight to
Crazytown.

That's certainly a step in the right direction, but I'm coming to the
conclusion that we need to purge both parties. Actually the word I'm
looking for isn't "purge" it's "replace".

But as long as politicians are concerned about re-election and
campaign funding, things won't change much. I keep coming back to
the idea of drawing names out of a hat, giving them 6 weeks of free
air time to present their views, and limiting them to one term. Not
a snowball's chance in hell, but it might well work better than what
we've got now.

I agree and have been advocating it for at least 30 years.

Even if a politician is honest, caring, wants to do a good job he still has
to get elected and that takes cash. Cash = favors and favors (aka "special
interests") are at the heart of our problem. Would we get worse politicians
if they weren't elected? I really doubt it.

PS - no pension either

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

Ya know, I'm sorry as hell that I posted this thread to begin with.
In truth it was an accident. I had intended it for the political group,
"rec.outdoors.rv-travel" but I screwed up.

Mia culpa.

Max (getting back to work)

On 7/28/2011 3:17 PM, Max wrote:
Ya know, I'm sorry as hell that I posted this thread to begin with.
In truth it was an accident. I had intended it for the political group,
"rec.outdoors.rv-travel" but I screwed up.

Mia culpa.

Max (getting back to work)


ROTFL ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Leon" wrote in message
...


In hind sight Bush was still a much better choice than "Lock Box" Gore.
Carbon credits any one? ROTFL.

Hind sight, is that looking out of your ass? Two wars (both funded with
borrowed money), warrantless wiretaps, Abu Ghraib, imaginary WMDs, the
federal debt doubled in eight years, and an economy that was in free fall by
the time he left office--that's your idea of a better choice? I'm no Gore
fan then or now, but considering the state of the nation when Bush took
office and when he left, how much worse could Gore have been?

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message ...

What we need
is another purge of the party similar to what Wm. F. Buckley, Jr. and
others staged when they pushed out the Birchers, because lately the
right-wingnuts seem happy to steer the Republican Party straight to
Crazytown.

That's certainly a step in the right direction, but I'm coming to the
conclusion that we need to purge both parties. Actually the word I'm
looking for isn't "purge" it's "replace".

From your lips to God's ear.

But as long as politicians are concerned about re-election and campaign
funding, things won't change much. I keep coming back to the idea of
drawing names out of a hat, giving them 6 weeks of free air time to
present their views, and limiting them to one term. Not a snowball's
chance in hell, but it might well work better than what we've got now.

Breaking the cycle of fundraising would be a huge step, but I dont know how
you'd do it short of a constitutional amendment. I'm not so sure about term
limits, they help with corruption but they also get rid of elected
representatives just when they've been there long enough to know what's
going on. That tends to shift power to unelected civil servants and that
brings its own problems.

I'd like to see every member of Congress required to share an office with a
member of another party, and they're not allowed to play golf unless there's
an equal number of players from the other side. Members of Congress used to
be friends with members from across the aisle, they could work together as a
result of knowing and respecting each other. Now if a Republican has lunch
with a Democrat he's labeled a RINO and the Tea Potters target him for
termination. No wonder Congress is such a mess.

"dadiOH" wrote in message ...

PS - no pension either


Or a pension (and health care coverage) indexed to what the American people
have to deal with. So as the cost of health care insurance increases for
the average citizen, members of Congress have to pay the same amount towards
their own coverage--at that rate they'd have to pay for it all in about a
decade. Their pensions could be tied to unemployment numbers, the higher
unemployment rises, the smaller their pension gets.

Fat chance of getting any of them to vote for it though.

On 7/28/2011 5:29 PM, DGDevin wrote:

Fat chance of getting any of them to vote for it though.


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 7/28/2011 5:54 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 7/28/2011 5:29 PM, DGDevin wrote:

Fat chance of getting any of them to vote for it though.

They don't even have to vote for their pay raises, do they?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

dadiOH wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:37:39 -0700, DGDevin wrote:

What we need
is another purge of the party similar to what Wm. F. Buckley, Jr. and
others staged when they pushed out the Birchers, because lately the
right-wingnuts seem happy to steer the Republican Party straight to
Crazytown.

That's certainly a step in the right direction, but I'm coming to the
conclusion that we need to purge both parties. Actually the word I'm
looking for isn't "purge" it's "replace".

But as long as politicians are concerned about re-election and
campaign funding, things won't change much. I keep coming back to
the idea of drawing names out of a hat, giving them 6 weeks of free
air time to present their views, and limiting them to one term. Not
a snowball's chance in hell, but it might well work better than what
we've got now.

I agree and have been advocating it for at least 30 years.

Even if a politician is honest, caring, wants to do a good job he still has
to get elected and that takes cash. Cash = favors and favors (aka "special
interests") are at the heart of our problem. Would we get worse politicians
if they weren't elected? I really doubt it.

PS - no pension either


Good idea. Take away some of the perks and see who is really interested
in "serving". Some people (e.g. Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, other
retirees, etc.) would probably take a turn. This reduces the incentive
to be a "career politician". Whoever said "public service" was supposed
to come with a lot of $$$? What do they pay jurors?
BTW, notice that our society does have people willing to serve as jurors
(or in the military) when their service is requested..

Bill

Scott Lurndal wrote:

Actually, the 8 years of the Clinton administration were, by every
objective measure, the best since the DDE administration; and by
far better than any since.

It really tickles my funny bone that the only thing the right can
find wrong with those years was an affair with an intern (something
that was, is and should never have been anyone elses business - right
or wrong). It also had _nothing_ to do with how the country or
economy was run. It was the most peaceful 8 years in the history
of the 20th century. it was the most economically powerful decade
since Vietnam, with lowest inflation and the highest gains for the
poor, middle class and well-off. The DOW grew more in those 8 years
than any other comparable 8 year period. Clinton and the United
States were well respected by most of the rest of the free world.

Peaceful? Clinton waged war on more countries than anyone since FDR
(Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Haiti, Albania, Serbia, and Bosnia).
During the decade of the '90s there was, on average, one terrorist attack on
the U.S. or U.S. interests abroad (1st WTC bombing, USS Cole, embassy
bombings, kidnapping of U.S. ambassadors, etc.).


Then comes Bush, two unfunded wars (almost 2trillion so far) and to
top it all off, he gave tax breaks to corporations and cut the taxes
for the wealthy - the first time in history that taxes haven't been
_raised_ to pay for a war that the President has decided was
necessary. Then to top that, he gave $190 billion[*] to AIG and
bailed out wallstreet before bowing out.


You say that like you think it's a "bad" thing.

dadiOH wrote:

They also believe that one of the functions of government should be to
provide a climate that enables people to help themselves, not just
hand stuff to them.


Shorthand:

Liberals tend to PROVIDE for the general welfare through the TREASURY.
Conservatives tend to PROMOTE the general welfare through the ECONOMY.

Scott Lurndal wrote:

I agree. For example, the piece mentioned, not for the first time,
Dubya's seeming ducking of his National Guard obligations. I have
yet to see, in the dozens of accounts I've read about this failure
to participate, how his actions deviated from the usual and accepted
practice of the time.

This is the "everyone else does it" argument. Doesn't make it right.


In many cases, yes it does. The Uniform Commercial Code recognizes that the
"usual and accepted practices" of an industry have the force of law. The
Bible says "Fair weights and measures you shall have" but "fair" depends on
the community [in one community a "container" may be "heaping" and in
another community it will be "level"].

Methinks you may be painting with too broad a brush when you condemn the
excuse in its entirety.

On Jul 29, 8:47*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Scott Lurndal wrote:

Actually, the 8 years of the Clinton administration were, by every
objective measure, the best since the DDE administration; and by
far better than any since.

It really tickles my funny bone that the only thing the right can
find wrong with those years was an affair with an intern (something
that was, is and should never have been anyone elses business - right
or wrong). *It also had _nothing_ to do with how the country or
economy was run. * It was the most peaceful 8 years in the history
of the 20th century. * it was the most economically powerful decade
since Vietnam, with lowest inflation and the highest gains for the
poor, middle class and well-off. *The DOW grew more in those 8 years
than any other comparable 8 year period. *Clinton and the United
States were well respected by most of the rest of the free world.

Peaceful? Clinton waged war on more countries than anyone since FDR
(Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Haiti, Albania, Serbia, and Bosnia).
During the decade of the '90s there was, on average, one terrorist attack on
the U.S. or U.S. interests abroad (1st WTC bombing, USS Cole, embassy
bombings, kidnapping of U.S. ambassadors, etc.).


What did the DoD spend during Clinton?

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


Shorthand:

Liberals tend to PROVIDE for the general welfare through the TREASURY.
Conservatives tend to PROMOTE the general welfare through the ECONOMY.

Is that why during the Reagan administration the federal debt more than
tripled? And you already know what happened to the debt under Bush 43,
don't you.

On 7/29/2011 6:56 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Scott Lurndal wrote:
The Uniform Commercial Code recognizes that the
"usual and accepted practices" of an industry have the force of law.

No, it doesn't. What id does say is that the course of dealing, course
of performance, and usage of the trade of the parties to a contract
governed by the UCC can be used to construe the meaning of their contract.

Robatoy wrote:

Peaceful? Clinton waged war on more countries than anyone since FDR
(Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Haiti, Albania, Serbia, and
Bosnia). During the decade of the '90s there was, on average, one
terrorist attack on the U.S. or U.S. interests abroad (1st WTC
bombing, USS Cole, embassy bombings, kidnapping of U.S. ambassadors,
etc.).


What did the DoD spend during Clinton?

Not enough. There was this "peace dividend" you see, in which massive
amounts of money were transferred from the DoD to various social programs.

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


Shorthand:

Liberals tend to PROVIDE for the general welfare through the
TREASURY. Conservatives tend to PROMOTE the general welfare through
the ECONOMY.

Is that why during the Reagan administration the federal debt more
than tripled? And you already know what happened to the debt under
Bush 43, don't you.

What I posited is not a hard and fast rule - it merely an inclination.

But I do know that the debt increase under Reagan was largely responsible
for the demise of the Soviet Union. The debt increase under Bush was in some
significant measure caused by 9-11, two wars, and Katrina. Both increases,
however, were projected to be manageable given the growth of the economy.

Now we have an administration that ran up more debt in its first MONTH than
Bush did during eight years. In fact, so far, Obama has incurred more debt
than FDR did during WWII!

Just Wondering wrote:
On 7/29/2011 6:56 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Scott Lurndal wrote:
The Uniform Commercial Code recognizes that the
"usual and accepted practices" of an industry have the force of law.

No, it doesn't. What id does say is that the course of dealing,
course of performance, and usage of the trade of the parties to a
contract governed by the UCC can be used to construe the meaning of
their contract.

You are mostly correct: my terminology was wrong.

"Buyer in ordinary course of business" means a person that buys goods in
good faith, without knowledge that the sale violates the rights of another
person in the goods, and in the ordinary course from a person, other than a
pawnbroker, in the business of selling goods of that kind. A person buys
goods in the ordinary course if the sale to the person comports with the
usual or customary practices in the kind of business in which the seller is
engaged or with the seller's own usual or customary practices." [UCC Chapter
46]

I should have said "usual and CUSTOMARY (not "accepted") practices".

I regret the error and thanks for the correction.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

What I posited is not a hard and fast rule - it merely an inclination.

One which we haven't seen demonstrated in our lifetime you mean.

But I do know that the debt increase under Reagan was largely responsible
for the demise of the Soviet Union.

Equal credit to Carter for luring the Soviets into Afghanistan.

The debt increase under Bush was in some significant measure caused by
9-11, two wars, and Katrina. Both increases, however, were projected to be
manageable given the growth of the economy.

Two wars of choice, it's not like Afghanistan or Iraq was behind 9/11. I
figure Bush was entitled to go into Afghanistan after Bin Laden and AQ, but
considering they didn't finish that job and immediately started planning for
the invasion of Iraq there is no way he gets to write off that expense. As
for Katrina, pfffft, $110 billion--petty cash compared to Iraq.

Now we have an administration that ran up more debt in its first MONTH
than Bush did during eight years. In fact, so far, Obama has incurred more
debt than FDR did during WWII!

Bush added five trillion to the debt over his administration (that's why
they had to vote to raise the debt ceiling seven times while he was in
office)--do you want to go with the claim that Obama spend five trillion in
his first month? Seriously?