tony1158 wrote:

SNIP a lengthy cheap shot at the Right because the Left got its
rearend handed to it by the Public this week...

Well, I'm no Republican, but this deserves an equal time rebuttal.
(For the record, I am Libertarian in political view, and find the
Right and Left about equally silly. The Left is just far more
offensive about their silliness...)

To be a Democract/Liberal in 2004 you have to believe:
--------------------------------------------------------

- That you're smarter than 'most folks' who just "don't get it"
when in fact they DID get it ... and rejected it out of hand.

- That the Western democracies, that have fostered more freedom for
more people, in more places than any other other form of government
in human history, are actually responsible for most of the Evil on
the planet ... not the tin pot dictators, strongmen, and vile
terrorist bilge that inhabit the UN and a good part of the world.

- That wealth is evil and rich people need to be spanked and
oppressed ... unless the wealthy person in question is a
Liberal political candidate.

- That business, which employs people and picks up the majority of the
tab for all your dearly held entitlement programs, is dangerous
and must be monitored closely ... but Congress Critters that
consider 20 hours a busy week, are the Great Hope for improving our
economic circumstances.

- That government - a demonstrably incompetent and corrupt institution -
is a better instrument for people's health, wellbeing, and old age
than personal choice and responsibility.

- That Michael Moore tells the truth without exception and George
Bush lies without exception.

- That people who do not live in the major urban areas are simply not
sophisticated enough to make decisions like voting on their own.

- That Free Speech is OK so long as you agree with it, but Right Wing
speech is Evil and must be supressed, especially on college campuses.

- That the Constitution must be vigorously defended ... except for the
pesky parts like the 2nd Amendment, States Rights, and the true
Federalist form of governance envisioned by the Framers.

- That Western art and culture are inferior, but murderous African
tribalism should be celebrated as "true" culture because it has
interesting Folk Dancing.

- That Gay Marriage should be celebrated and encouraged, but that
Heterosexual Marriage is an optional anachronism beneath
sophisticated folks like yourselves.

- That trial lawyers, courts, and juries are better judges of what
constitutes proper medicine than doctors.

- That every problem must have a utopian solution no matter how much
this is at odds with Reality and observed human history.

- That Yassar Arafat is (was) a "Freedom Fighter" but the US Military
is an Imperialist threat to world stability.

- That a mistake in judgement is the same thing as a lie ... except when
it's made by one of your own ... then it's Sound Policy

- That national sovereignty is an anachronism much better replaced with
a giant corrupt bureaucracy filled with political parasites like the UN.

- That every human problem is someone's fault, but never the fault
of the individual making a bad judgement.

- That France and Germany are invaluable allies, but the UK, Israel,
and Italy are pernicious dangers to world peace.

- That people of deep religious faith are a danger to Liberty, but
unshaven, hung over, and debauched rock stars are beacons of
appropriate morality.

- That people must be punished for hurting each others' feelings.

- In short, that you, the elite Thinking Classes, simply know what's
good for everyone else if they would simply resign claim to their
wealth, autonomy, liberty, and decision making to your safekeeping.


You want better choices next time? Then the Left and Right had better
get together on a few, very important issues that will lead to both
better political candidacy and the presevation of Liberty. To whit:

1) 1 Term limits for the House (4 years), Senate (6 years), and Presidency
(6 years).

2) A Constitutional Amendment affirming the Electoral College but requiring
the Electors to vote in proportion to the popular vote in each state.

3) An agreement to de-Federalize American political and public life. A
strong reaffirmation of State's Rights that would allow each of us to
live in the State that is most reflective of our personal values.
If MA wants Gay Marriage legalized, and GA does not, so be it. Let the
culture wars be fought in the arena of ideas wherein people live where
they want and how they want, not at the direction of Politicans of any
stripe.





--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

As a Southern Democrat I say great response!
Don't agree w/ the term limits on the House
because they're the only one really trying to
get things done.
I also believe that the Senate problems can be
taken care of by getting rid of the 17th Ammendment
of the Constitution where Senators are Elected by popular
vote and having them appointed by the States, as it was
originally. That would most likely assure a steady
turnover in conjunction with the governors; and put the
Senators in their rightful places as Represenatives of the
State.
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
tony1158 wrote:

SNIP a lengthy cheap shot at the Right because the Left got its
rearend handed to it by the Public this week...

Well, I'm no Republican, but this deserves an equal time rebuttal.
(For the record, I am Libertarian in political view, and find the
Right and Left about equally silly. The Left is just far more
offensive about their silliness...)

To be a Democract/Liberal in 2004 you have to believe:
--------------------------------------------------------

- That you're smarter than 'most folks' who just "don't get it"
when in fact they DID get it ... and rejected it out of hand.

- That the Western democracies, that have fostered more freedom for
more people, in more places than any other other form of government
in human history, are actually responsible for most of the Evil on
the planet ... not the tin pot dictators, strongmen, and vile
terrorist bilge that inhabit the UN and a good part of the world.

- That wealth is evil and rich people need to be spanked and
oppressed ... unless the wealthy person in question is a
Liberal political candidate.

- That business, which employs people and picks up the majority of the
tab for all your dearly held entitlement programs, is dangerous
and must be monitored closely ... but Congress Critters that
consider 20 hours a busy week, are the Great Hope for improving our
economic circumstances.

- That government - a demonstrably incompetent and corrupt institution -
is a better instrument for people's health, wellbeing, and old age
than personal choice and responsibility.

- That Michael Moore tells the truth without exception and George
Bush lies without exception.

- That people who do not live in the major urban areas are simply not
sophisticated enough to make decisions like voting on their own.

- That Free Speech is OK so long as you agree with it, but Right Wing
speech is Evil and must be supressed, especially on college campuses.

- That the Constitution must be vigorously defended ... except for the
pesky parts like the 2nd Amendment, States Rights, and the true
Federalist form of governance envisioned by the Framers.

- That Western art and culture are inferior, but murderous African
tribalism should be celebrated as "true" culture because it has
interesting Folk Dancing.

- That Gay Marriage should be celebrated and encouraged, but that
Heterosexual Marriage is an optional anachronism beneath
sophisticated folks like yourselves.

- That trial lawyers, courts, and juries are better judges of what
constitutes proper medicine than doctors.

- That every problem must have a utopian solution no matter how much
this is at odds with Reality and observed human history.

- That Yassar Arafat is (was) a "Freedom Fighter" but the US Military
is an Imperialist threat to world stability.

- That a mistake in judgement is the same thing as a lie ... except when
it's made by one of your own ... then it's Sound Policy

- That national sovereignty is an anachronism much better replaced with
a giant corrupt bureaucracy filled with political parasites like the UN.

- That every human problem is someone's fault, but never the fault
of the individual making a bad judgement.

- That France and Germany are invaluable allies, but the UK, Israel,
and Italy are pernicious dangers to world peace.

- That people of deep religious faith are a danger to Liberty, but
unshaven, hung over, and debauched rock stars are beacons of
appropriate morality.

- That people must be punished for hurting each others' feelings.

- In short, that you, the elite Thinking Classes, simply know what's
good for everyone else if they would simply resign claim to their
wealth, autonomy, liberty, and decision making to your safekeeping.


You want better choices next time? Then the Left and Right had better
get together on a few, very important issues that will lead to both
better political candidacy and the presevation of Liberty. To whit:

1) 1 Term limits for the House (4 years), Senate (6 years), and Presidency
(6 years).

2) A Constitutional Amendment affirming the Electoral College but
requiring
the Electors to vote in proportion to the popular vote in each state.

3) An agreement to de-Federalize American political and public life. A
strong reaffirmation of State's Rights that would allow each of us to
live in the State that is most reflective of our personal values.
If MA wants Gay Marriage legalized, and GA does not, so be it. Let the
culture wars be fought in the arena of ideas wherein people live where
they want and how they want, not at the direction of Politicans of any
stripe.





--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"tony1158" wrote in message
. ..
Not sure who wrote this:

To be a Republican in 2004........


snip of same old tried and failed stupidity

You know, sometimes I think that it is only a matter of time before liberals
admit why they are getting their asses handed to them at the ballot boxes
since the early 90's, and that they will surely clean up their act and
actually try to fix the problem. It is stuff like this that reminds me that
this will probably never happen.

Frank

You _did_ hear Kerry's concession speech did you not? Now why don't you try
actually doing what he asked you to do?

assorted political bull**** snipped

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Nope didn't hear it, so I don't know what he said
and don't care. Don't like anything about the man
as is the case with most politicians I've seen or heard.
He is the epitome of why I don't vote Democrat anymore,
vote mostly Republican in my state, and am searching
the Libertarian and Constitution Parties for viable
alternative for either.
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
You _did_ hear Kerry's concession speech did you not? Now why don't you
try
actually doing what he asked you to do?

assorted political bull**** snipped

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

tony1158 did say:

To be a Republican in 2004........

a little political quiz that may make you think.

www.self-gov.org/quiz.html


--
New project = new tool. Hard and fast rule.

In article ,
says...
SNIP a lengthy cheap shot at the Right because the Left got its
rearend handed to it by the Public this week...

Well, I'm no Republican, but this deserves an equal time rebuttal.

But you didn't rebut. In fact, you never referenced a single one of his
points! All you did was bring up totally different subjects, which may
or may not be accurate, but had nothing to do with rebuttal.

Sounds just like a politician (either party). Ignore the question asked
and talk about something else till the asked question is forgotten :-).

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

In article , WoodMangler wrote:

a little political quiz that may make you think.

www.self-gov.org/quiz.html


Scored me as a Libertarian. No surprise, really.

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

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 02:02:44 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote:

In article , WoodMangler wrote:

a little political quiz that may make you think.

www.self-gov.org/quiz.html


Scored me as a Libertarian. No surprise, really.

The way the quiz was written, you probably would have a hard time scoring
anywhere else. Several of the questions raise more questions:

For example:
1. Government should not censor speech, press, media or Internet
Does this also apply to speech on college campuses?

2. There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults
So, anywhere, anytime, in front of anyone if that strikes your fancy?

3. End "corporate welfare." No government handouts to business
Lacks definition. What is considered corporate welfare? A simple tax
deduction for capital expenditures, or at the extreme end, out and out
grants for particular behaviors? Other government incentives can range
anywhere in between. Are tax credits for IR&D considered "corporate
welfare" or sound economic policy?

A person can be a free market supporter and either support or oppose the
question, depending upon what they perceive the meaning of corporate
welfare to be. That definition may be completely different than that which
the questioner was using.

Mark & Juanita did say:

www.self-gov.org/quiz.html


Scored me as a Libertarian. No surprise, really.

The way the quiz was written, you probably would have a hard time scoring
anywhere else. Several of the questions raise more questions:

Actually, many of my friends that have taken the test score other than
libertarian and agree with the results. Most people, when answering
honestly, score in the centrist range. I think the real value of this test
is to illustrate the fact that most Americans don't line up perfectly into
the limited definitions that the left-right/Dem-GOP model would have us
fit into.

For example:
1. Government should not censor speech, press, media or Internet
Does this also apply to speech on college campuses?

Don't see why not. Why would an exception be necessary or desirable? Do
college students not have a right to express their views?

2. There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults
So, anywhere, anytime, in front of anyone if that strikes your fancy?

Good point there. That interpretation never crossed my mind, but I think
the question is regarding laws that regulate same gender relations,
specific acts, etc. Every state has these laws, and they're nothing more
than an imposition of religious beliefs on others. (IMO)

3. End "corporate welfare." No government handouts to business
Lacks definition. What is considered corporate welfare? A simple tax
deduction for capital expenditures, or at the extreme end, out and out
grants for particular behaviors? Other government incentives can range
anywhere in between. Are tax credits for IR&D considered "corporate
welfare" or sound economic policy?

A tax deduction, or tax credit isn't a giveaway. Not taking something from
an individual or entity is hardly the same as giving them something. I'd
define corporate welfare as the giving of public monies to corporations
for certain behavior or to bolster failed enterprises. Take Amtrak for
example. Millions every year from the federal government (from our
pockets) to continue operation of a business that the consumer isn't
willing to support. Our hard earned dollars are being given to maintain
the operation of poorly run enterprise that sells an outmoded and
unpopular method of transportation.
Both major parties support the forced redistribution of wealth. Whether
the GOP admits to it or not - and the Dems admit to little else.

A person can be a free market supporter and either support or oppose
the
question, depending upon what they perceive the meaning of corporate
welfare to be. That definition may be completely different than that
which the questioner was using.

It is a subjective test. When talking politics, or philosophy it
can be nothing else.

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 12:48:08 -0500, WoodMangler
calmly ranted:

tony1158 did say:

To be a Republican in 2004........

a little political quiz that may make you think.

www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

I'm a Libertarian. Both liberals and conservatives hate me.

---
In Christianity, neither morality nor religion comes into contact
with reality at any point. --FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE
---------------------------------------------------------------
- http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development -

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 20:25:53 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:


I'm a Libertarian. Both liberals and conservatives hate me.

Larry, Larry - I'm a conservative and I don't hate you. I _worry_ about
you and only want the best for you.

-Doug

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 22:36:35 -0500, WoodMangler
wrote:

Mark & Juanita did say:

www.self-gov.org/quiz.html


Scored me as a Libertarian. No surprise, really.

The way the quiz was written, you probably would have a hard time scoring
anywhere else. Several of the questions raise more questions:

Actually, many of my friends that have taken the test score other than
libertarian and agree with the results. Most people, when answering
honestly, score in the centrist range. I think the real value of this test
is to illustrate the fact that most Americans don't line up perfectly into
the limited definitions that the left-right/Dem-GOP model would have us
fit into.

For example:
1. Government should not censor speech, press, media or Internet
Does this also apply to speech on college campuses?

Don't see why not. Why would an exception be necessary or desirable? Do
college students not have a right to express their views?


Let me explain why I asked that question. If you ask the average liberal
on the street the question in the quiz, they will unequivocally say, "@#$%
right man! Free Speech!" However, if you look at the speech regulations on
most college campuses, particularly those with the most "liberal" of the
liberal arts, you will find that the speech codes absolutely violate the
right to free speech, free expression, and free interchange of ideas. If
you doubt that, try to find out what happens if you vocally attempt to
debate why paying reparations to descendants of slaves is a bad idea. Or
why you view the rise of Islamic Fascism as a threat to world peace. The
point of my question was that one can check the box indicating you think
that government should regulate speech and, in fact be a liberal --
probably tending to the statist side.


2. There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults
So, anywhere, anytime, in front of anyone if that strikes your fancy?

Good point there. That interpretation never crossed my mind, but I think
the question is regarding laws that regulate same gender relations,
specific acts, etc. Every state has these laws, and they're nothing more
than an imposition of religious beliefs on others. (IMO)


... which presupposed some supposition on the part of the person taking
the quiz that was in alignment with the person who wrote it.



3. End "corporate welfare." No government handouts to business
Lacks definition. What is considered corporate welfare? A simple tax
deduction for capital expenditures, or at the extreme end, out and out
grants for particular behaviors? Other government incentives can range
anywhere in between. Are tax credits for IR&D considered "corporate
welfare" or sound economic policy?

A tax deduction, or tax credit isn't a giveaway. Not taking something from
an individual or entity is hardly the same as giving them something. I'd
define corporate welfare as the giving of public monies to corporations
for certain behavior or to bolster failed enterprises. Take Amtrak for
example. Millions every year from the federal government (from our
pockets) to continue operation of a business that the consumer isn't
willing to support. Our hard earned dollars are being given to maintain
the operation of poorly run enterprise that sells an outmoded and
unpopular method of transportation.
Both major parties support the forced redistribution of wealth. Whether
the GOP admits to it or not - and the Dems admit to little else.

A person can be a free market supporter and either support or oppose
the
question, depending upon what they perceive the meaning of corporate
welfare to be. That definition may be completely different than that
which the questioner was using.

It is a subjective test. When talking politics, or philosophy it
can be nothing else.

... and I'm not really indicating that there is anything totally out of
whack with this quiz (I came up libertarian with my first inputs, but I had
several M's because I did see some shades of gray in the questions). I
really wasn't that surprised, because, for the most part I would place
myself in a libertarian tending to conservative region. I just saw some
issues related to interpretation that could move the results depending upon
how one read and interpreted some of the questions.

In article ,
WoodMangler wrote:

www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

Cool - but too vague. I came out a centrist. A left-leaning centrist,
right on the line. The following made me feel pretty superior to the
rest of you:

Centrists are ideologically flexible. Centrists recognize the complexity of
public policy choices and look to many kinds of solutions. Which solution
depends on the circumstances, the problem, and the public interest.
Ideologues repeat their slogans with little regard to the specific policy
problem at hand. Conservatives shout "private good, public bad."
Liberals*shout "public good, private bad." By contrast, the centrist movement
can show politicians how to use both the private and public sectors (often in
combination) to creatively solve problems that we would otherwise just shout
about.

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____

"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long

Owen Lowe states:

In article ,
WoodMangler wrote:

www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

Cool - but too vague. I came out a centrist. A left-leaning centrist,
right on the line. The following made me feel pretty superior to the
rest of you:

Centrists are ideologically flexible. Centrists recognize the complexity of

public policy choices and look to many kinds of solutions. Which solution
depends on the circumstances, the problem, and the public interest.
Ideologues repeat their slogans with little regard to the specific policy
problem at hand. Conservatives shout "private good, public bad."
Liberals*shout "public good, private bad." By contrast, the centrist
movement
can show politicians how to use both the private and public sectors (often
in
combination) to creatively solve problems that we would otherwise just
shout
about.

Same as me. With a photo of John McCain popping up on the "What is a Centrist?"
explanation to the right.

Works for me. I only use the classification of Liberal because I like the
results it gives with Conservatives, especially neocons. The drool marks really
mess up their highly starched shirts.
Charlie Self
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character,
give him power." Abraham Lincoln

Joseph Smith wrote:

Nope didn't hear it, so I don't know what he said
and don't care. Don't like anything about the man
as is the case with most politicians I've seen or heard.
He is the epitome of why I don't vote Democrat anymore,
vote mostly Republican in my state, and am searching
the Libertarian and Constitution Parties for viable
alternative for either.

Sorry, I meant that for the OP. Kerry basically said "It's over, I lost, he
won, I wish it was the other way around but that's the way it is, thanks
for your votes and support, now quitcherbellyachin and get with the
program" only he was more politiciany about it. Kind of surprised me--I
was expecting the Ohio vote to drag on into the next millennium--I suspect
that it surprised his partisans with their planeload of lawyers sitting on
the runway too. It was gracefully enough done that I developed a tiny bit
of respect for the man.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
You _did_ hear Kerry's concession speech did you not? Now why don't you
try
actually doing what he asked you to do?

assorted political bull**** snipped

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Aaack! I came out being only a moderately left leaning Centrist. What has
become of me? :^)

JK

Charlie Self wrote:
Owen Lowe states:


In article ,
WoodMangler wrote:


www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

Cool - but too vague. I came out a centrist. A left-leaning centrist,
right on the line. The following made me feel pretty superior to the
rest of you:


Centrists are ideologically flexible. Centrists recognize the complexity of

public policy choices and look to many kinds of solutions. Which solution
depends on the circumstances, the problem, and the public interest.
Ideologues repeat their slogans with little regard to the specific policy
problem at hand. Conservatives shout "private good, public bad."
Liberals shout "public good, private bad." By contrast, the centrist

movement

can show politicians how to use both the private and public sectors (often

in

combination) to creatively solve problems that we would otherwise just

shout

about.


Same as me. With a photo of John McCain popping up on the "What is a Centrist?"
explanation to the right.

Works for me. I only use the classification of Liberal because I like the
results it gives with Conservatives, especially neocons. The drool marks really
mess up their highly starched shirts.
Charlie Self
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character,
give him power." Abraham Lincoln


--
James T. Kirby
Center for Applied Coastal Research
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716

phone: 302-831-2438
fax: 302-831-1228
email:
http://chinacat.coastal.udel.edu/~kirby

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 21:36:51 -0700, Doug Winterburn
calmly ranted:

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 20:25:53 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:


I'm a Libertarian. Both liberals and conservatives hate me.

Larry, Larry - I'm a conservative and I don't hate you. I _worry_ about
you and only want the best for you.

Right, you want to give me your version of morals, blind faith, and
blinding debt and deficits, huh?

Um, PASS!


----------------------------------------------------------------------
* Scattered Showers My Ass! * Insightful Advertising Copy
* --Noah * http://www.diversify.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 09:13:39 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:


Right, you want to give me your version of morals, blind faith, and
blinding debt and deficits, huh?

Um, PASS!
Um, no - nor do I want you or anyone else imposing your beliefs on me.

-Doug

In article ,
says...
However, if you look at the speech regulations on
most college campuses, particularly those with the most "liberal" of the
liberal arts, you will find that the speech codes absolutely violate the
right to free speech, free expression, and free interchange of ideas.

Hoo boy, do we agree on THAT! Seems liberals and conservatives both
have a fanatic fringe that believes in suppressing opposing views.

Many times I've thought your posts were evidence of mind-altering drugs,
and I'm sure you've thought the same of me :-). But I've never
suggested you should be silenced and you've never tried to silence me.
I guess we agree on the really important things.

BTW, as a slight change of subject, has it ever struck you as odd that
we've almost never gotten a true majority (2/3) in this country on any
issue? Seems we're always split somewhere in the low 50s vs high 40s.

I wonder if anything that 2/3s can't agree on should be made into law -
or elected?

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

In article , Larry Jaques
says...
I'm a Libertarian. Both liberals and conservatives hate me.

I'm an agnostic - everyone hates me :-).

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

Larry Blanchard wrote:

In article ,
says...

SNIP a lengthy cheap shot at the Right because the Left got its
rearend handed to it by the Public this week...

Well, I'm no Republican, but this deserves an equal time rebuttal.


But you didn't rebut. In fact, you never referenced a single one of his
points! All you did was bring up totally different subjects, which may
or may not be accurate, but had nothing to do with rebuttal.

Sounds just like a politician (either party). Ignore the question asked
and talk about something else till the asked question is forgotten :-).


'Sorry - I should have said "retort" not "rebuttal" - My Bad

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 22:36:35 -0500, WoodMangler
wrote:


A tax deduction, or tax credit isn't a giveaway.

A tax deduction isn't; a tax credit might be.

Not taking something from
an individual or entity is hardly the same as giving them something. I'd
define corporate welfare as the giving of public monies to corporations
for certain behavior or to bolster failed enterprises.

Reducing a profitable corporation's tax burden - percentage-wise -
to less than that of a family of 4 with an income of $35K a year is
also corporate welfare, and that is becoming increasingly common,
enhanced by the recent pork fest in the Republican congress.

..... Take Amtrak for
example. Millions every year from the federal government (from our
pockets) to continue operation of a business that the consumer isn't
willing to support.

.... along with lousy service a good part of the time, a function of
the people that manage it, the unions that man it, and the railroads
that host it. I'm riding in one right now, as I do 2-3 times a year,
and I feel like it's time for most of it to go away. It's too bad: it
can be a great way to travel.

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 21:49:06 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:


Let me explain why I asked that question. If you ask the average liberal
on the street the question in the quiz, they will unequivocally say, "@#$%
right man! Free Speech!" However, if you look at the speech regulations on
most college campuses, particularly those with the most "liberal" of the
liberal arts, you will find that the speech codes absolutely violate the
right to free speech, free expression, and free interchange of ideas. If
you doubt that, try to find out what happens if you vocally attempt to
debate why paying reparations to descendants of slaves is a bad idea. Or
why you view the rise of Islamic Fascism as a threat to world peace. The
point of my question was that one can check the box indicating you think
that government should regulate speech and, in fact be a liberal --
probably tending to the statist side.


You got some university policy statements that back this up ??
I'm willing to bet that if you surveyed university staff and
students, white. black, muslim, christian, etc, etc, they'd tell you
that they see the "Patriot" Act to be a much more significant
damper on free speech than anything a universit y may cook up.

GregP wrote:

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 21:49:06 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:


Let me explain why I asked that question. If you ask the average liberal
on the street the question in the quiz, they will unequivocally say, "@#$%
right man! Free Speech!" However, if you look at the speech regulations on
most college campuses, particularly those with the most "liberal" of the
liberal arts, you will find that the speech codes absolutely violate the
right to free speech, free expression, and free interchange of ideas. If
you doubt that, try to find out what happens if you vocally attempt to
debate why paying reparations to descendants of slaves is a bad idea. Or
why you view the rise of Islamic Fascism as a threat to world peace. The
point of my question was that one can check the box indicating you think
that government should regulate speech and, in fact be a liberal --
probably tending to the statist side.



You got some university policy statements that back this up ??
I'm willing to bet that if you surveyed university staff and
students, white. black, muslim, christian, etc, etc, they'd tell you
that they see the "Patriot" Act to be a much more significant
damper on free speech than anything a universit y may cook up.

That's because they are ideologues that place agenda before the truth.
The "Patriot Act" as currently implemented, merely extends to "terrorists"
a set of procedures that have been used against other criminals (such
as drug dealers) for a long time. Both the Left and the Right happily
cooperated in trashing civil liberties because they wanted to be elected
on the Big Bad Anti-Drug Platform. But somehow, now when the terrorists
are the target, it is exclusively the fault of the Right? Nonsense.

Civil liberties began to erode decades ago beginning with the loss of
states rights after the Civil War and culminating with the Statist/Collectivist
legislation overseen by FDR. The fact that trashing civil liberties now
has a new face ought to surprise no one, certainly not the sanctimonious
Left that happily particpated in the violation of civil liberties for many
decades.

Moreover, while universities have "official" policies of tolerance for
free speech, the political Left is well documented as having done all
manner of naughtiness to impede speech they do not like. See, for example,
the experience of David Horowitz, a far Right political commentator
and his long war with the Left on many campuses *just to be allowed to
speak when invited*.

The Right is bad, the Left is worse - neither care about freedom or
self-determination. Both want power over the masses - but the Left is the
more eggregious in its language and actions in almost every case. That's
why I was delighted to see the Left get a nice big slap across the face
on election day. The people DID hear the Left ... and rejected it soundly.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

In news:J. Clarke typed:
You _did_ hear Kerry's concession speech did you not? Now why don't you
try actually doing what he asked you to do?

assorted political bull**** snipped

Yes, I heard it. And it was typical of the democratic party. John Kerry
did the only thing he could. The republicans have a stranglehold on the
democratic party right now. Kerry's speech was an effort to save his own
ass, as well as the party. We heard once before that we should get behind
our president and be united. It was on the capitol steps shortly after
9.11.01...only to have the democrats turn their backs on that issue.
The majority of America has decided that it is not okay to slander the
presidential office the way the democrats have. While I feel that democrats
are more in tune with what America needs within its borders, the republicans
are more in tune with what we need outside of our borders. I hope that the
republicans smash the democrats with their majority in the house and senate,
as a reminder of what they have done here.
--
Ted Harris

ted harris wrote:

In news:J. Clarke typed:

You _did_ hear Kerry's concession speech did you not? Now why don't you
try actually doing what he asked you to do?

assorted political bull**** snipped


Yes, I heard it. And it was typical of the democratic party. John Kerry
did the only thing he could. The republicans have a stranglehold on the
democratic party right now. Kerry's speech was an effort to save his own

You are dreaming Large Dreams. The Rs have a slight advantage in
the house and senate, but they are not fillibuster-proof. Moreover, W has
to not **** off too many people between now and the mid-term elections
or that could all go away. Thereafter, he *still* has to be careful
so as not to screw up the run for President Giulliani...

ass, as well as the party. We heard once before that we should get behind
our president and be united. It was on the capitol steps shortly after
9.11.01...only to have the democrats turn their backs on that issue.

As opposed to the Rs that have been a Beacon Of Cooperation? Both
of the major parties and their ideologies are bankrupt, foolish, and
at odds with individual Liberty. The only sense in which the Left is
"worse" is that their language and accusations are more obnoxious, but
the actual political results of both parties are quite similar.

The majority of America has decided that it is not okay to slander the
presidential office the way the democrats have. While I feel that democrats

Let me help you with the math here. About 3.6M more people voted R than D
out of 120M or so. i.e., 3% of the voting public "decided it is not okay
to slander the presidential office ...". While this did, in fact, constitute
a "majority", it is hardly a compelling or overwhelming one as the tone
of your sentence would imply. The Rs *barely* got a majority and the nation
is still almost exactly divided 50/50 on these issues.

are more in tune with what America needs within its borders, the republicans

That's true. It's also worrysome. This nation cannot afford to give
up its legacy of being a Republic before it is a Democracy. There was
a time when being "in tune with what America needs within its borders"
meant supporting slavery, tests of religious faith, public morality
punishments, and so forth. Just because a signficiant part of the population
wants something does not mean it should become law. In my mind, there is
no more reason for the government to enforce Judeo-Christian values in
governanance that there is for it to jam Gay Marriage down the culture's
throat - neither are any of the Government's business.

are more in tune with what we need outside of our borders. I hope that the
republicans smash the democrats with their majority in the house and senate,
as a reminder of what they have done here.

I would much perfer to see a vibrant 3rd party (libertarian) option.
Absent that, I would prefer to see an almost perfect division of power
between the two parties -the more they fight, the less they do, the better
off Liberty is...


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

WoodMangler wrote:

a little political quiz that may make you think.

www.self-gov.org/quiz.html


I'm not sure how balanced that little test is. I tried to pick
choices for liberal and conservative and it was rather hard to find
the combination. As far as being a Republican with Libertarian
tendancies, mea culpa.

Wes

--
Reply to:
Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Gee Tee EYE EYE dot COM
Lycos address is a spam trap.

clutch did say:
www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

I'm not sure how balanced that little test is. I tried to pick
choices for liberal and conservative and it was rather hard to find
the combination. As far as being a Republican with Libertarian
tendancies, mea culpa.

Wes

I've seen a slightly better phrased version of it online, but can't
remember the location. As I've said, politics is subjective by nature -
impartial truth seldom makes its way into that arena. The true value of
that little test is to point out the fact that few of us are far
right/left in our thinking. That there is in fact, more than the
one dimensional left/right way of examining issues. There's a vast middle
ground that the two major parties seldom get in touch with.

Russ

--
New project = new tool. Hard and fast rule.

WoodMangler wrote:

clutch did say:

www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

I'm not sure how balanced that little test is. I tried to pick
choices for liberal and conservative and it was rather hard to find
the combination. As far as being a Republican with Libertarian
tendancies, mea culpa.

Wes


I've seen a slightly better phrased version of it online, but can't
remember the location. As I've said, politics is subjective by nature -
impartial truth seldom makes its way into that arena. The true value of
that little test is to point out the fact that few of us are far
right/left in our thinking. That there is in fact, more than the
one dimensional left/right way of examining issues. There's a vast middle
ground that the two major parties seldom get in touch with.

Russ


http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html ???

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 09:54:10 -0800, Larry Blanchard
wrote:

In article ,
says...
However, if you look at the speech regulations on
most college campuses, particularly those with the most "liberal" of the
liberal arts, you will find that the speech codes absolutely violate the
right to free speech, free expression, and free interchange of ideas.

Hoo boy, do we agree on THAT! Seems liberals and conservatives both
have a fanatic fringe that believes in suppressing opposing views.

Many times I've thought your posts were evidence of mind-altering drugs,
and I'm sure you've thought the same of me :-). But I've never
suggested you should be silenced and you've never tried to silence me.
I guess we agree on the really important things.


I think you are right there.

BTW, as a slight change of subject, has it ever struck you as odd that
we've almost never gotten a true majority (2/3) in this country on any
issue? Seems we're always split somewhere in the low 50s vs high 40s.


That is an interesting observation; even more interesting that the
disagreement between those two groups are usually (but not always)
diametrically opposed -- as opposed to a matter of degree.

I wonder if anything that 2/3s can't agree on should be made into law -
or elected?

Certainly agree on the former. Once saw a recommendation (don't know
whether it was Heinlein or another author) that indicated there should be 3
houses of congress. Two would be charged with creating laws, and IIRC (it's
been a few years) 2/3 majority would be required to pass *any* law. The
third house was charged with repealing laws and would only require a simple
majority.

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 16:38:14 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:


Certainly agree on the former. Once saw a recommendation (don't know
whether it was Heinlein or another author) that indicated there should be
3 houses of congress. Two would be charged with creating laws, and IIRC
(it's been a few years) 2/3 majority would be required to pass *any* law.
The third house was charged with repealing laws and would only require a
simple majority.

Better yet, 2 old laws repealed for every new law passed.

-Doug

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 14:47:04 -0500, GregP wrote:

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 21:49:06 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:


Let me explain why I asked that question. If you ask the average liberal
on the street the question in the quiz, they will unequivocally say, "@#$%
right man! Free Speech!" However, if you look at the speech regulations on
most college campuses, particularly those with the most "liberal" of the
liberal arts, you will find that the speech codes absolutely violate the
right to free speech, free expression, and free interchange of ideas. If
you doubt that, try to find out what happens if you vocally attempt to
debate why paying reparations to descendants of slaves is a bad idea. Or
why you view the rise of Islamic Fascism as a threat to world peace. The
point of my question was that one can check the box indicating you think
that government should regulate speech and, in fact be a liberal --
probably tending to the statist side.


You got some university policy statements that back this up ??
I'm willing to bet that if you surveyed university staff and
students, white. black, muslim, christian, etc, etc, they'd tell you
that they see the "Patriot" Act to be a much more significant
damper on free speech than anything a universit y may cook up.

Take a look at any university student guide -- look up "hate speech",
"demeaning speech", or "harassment" and the very wide definitions. Then
take a look at various examples of students suspended, put on probation, or
made to attend "diversity training". A simple google search will turn up a
sickening amount of examples. Universities are supposed to be bastions of
free speech and encourage the free interchange of ideas, encouraging
students to think and question. Current PC regulations make that an
impossibility -- this is real, not imagined as your expressed fear of the
patriot act for which I suspect you cannot cite a single validated example
of suppressing free speech or free expression.

Several cites regarding "hate speech codes"
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v5n2/codes.html
More or less balanced exposition of the controversy

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/pubcollege/topic.aspx?topic=campus_speech_codes

Examples of what supports of hate speech code think constitute hate speech.
In several cases, this includes opposition to their political point of
view, therefore, if you are anti-abortion and verbalize that opinion, you
are engaging in "hate speech"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/jarvis/jarvis22.html


http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/1998/november_1998_4.html


Frankly, the ideas being advanced by those advocating these speech codes
and those enforcing them on college campuses should scare even the most
liberal of those who value freedom and not statism.

Doug Winterburn wrote:

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 16:38:14 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:


Certainly agree on the former. Once saw a recommendation (don't know
whether it was Heinlein or another author) that indicated there should be
3 houses of congress. Two would be charged with creating laws, and IIRC
(it's been a few years) 2/3 majority would be required to pass *any* law.
The third house was charged with repealing laws and would only require a
simple majority.

Better yet, 2 old laws repealed for every new law passed.

Personally I think that every legislator should be required to carry on his
person at all times a full copy of the US Code, printed on 20 pound paper
in 10 point type, no electronic equivalents allowed, and on his person
means in his hand, pocket, backpack, etc, with his muscles supporting the
full weight when he stands. Right now that would effectively immobilize
the lot.

-Doug

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 16:41:54 -0700, Doug Winterburn
calmly ranted:

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 16:38:14 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:


Certainly agree on the former. Once saw a recommendation (don't know
whether it was Heinlein or another author) that indicated there should be
3 houses of congress. Two would be charged with creating laws, and IIRC
(it's been a few years) 2/3 majority would be required to pass *any* law.
The third house was charged with repealing laws and would only require a
simple majority.

Better yet, 2 old laws repealed for every new law passed.

Hear, hear!

--
The State always moves slowly and grudgingly towards any purpose that
accrues to society's advantage, but moves rapidly and with alacrity
towards one that accrues to its own advantage; nor does it ever move
towards social purposes on its own initiative, but only under heavy
pressure, while its motion towards anti-social purposes is self-sprung.
- Albert Jay Nock
- http://diversify.com Web Programming for curmudgeons and others. -

Mark & Juanita wrote:

Once saw a recommendation (don't know whether it was Heinlein
or another author) that indicated there should be 3 houses of
congress. Two would be charged with creating laws, and IIRC
(it's been a few years) 2/3 majority would be required to pass
*any* law. The third house was charged with repealing laws
and would only require a simple majority.

Two chambers. One to pass laws with a 2/3 majority - and a second
to repeal laws with the simple majority.

It was RH and the book was "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" - one
of my SF favorites.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA

Doug Winterburn wrote:

Better yet, 2 old laws repealed for every new law passed.

I've heard that every new Swiss law must pass a general
referendum to be enacted. Anyone know if this is true and, if so,
are there any serious drawbacks?

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 23:45:59 -0600, Morris Dovey wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

Once saw a recommendation (don't know whether it was Heinlein
or another author) that indicated there should be 3 houses of
congress. Two would be charged with creating laws, and IIRC
(it's been a few years) 2/3 majority would be required to pass
*any* law. The third house was charged with repealing laws
and would only require a simple majority.

Two chambers. One to pass laws with a 2/3 majority - and a second
to repeal laws with the simple majority.

It was RH and the book was "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" - one
of my SF favorites.

Thanks, Teflon memory syndrome again. I read that book back in high
school and thoroughly enjoyed it. Really liked early Heinlein (Door Into
Summer, Starship Troopers, etc.), during his latter years he seemed to
become less entertaining and more vitriolic.