J. Clarke responds:


Charlie Self wrote:

Doug Miller notes:


You didn't have any problem with Clinton winning two elections in a row
with less than a majority of the popular vote, did you?


Nope. And I don't have a problem with Shrub winning twice in a row, but
that doesn't change my opinion about him. He's a duplicitous twerp who is
going to do major damage to the economic structure of this country, beyond
what he has already done.

The fact that 51% of the voting public disagrees with me still doesn't
change my opinion, so you neocons will need to get over that.

Charlie, I'm a lifelong Republican and I agree with you about Bush. The
trouble is that Kerry looked to be different from Bush only in the line of
bull**** he was spouting, so I decided to stick with the devil I knew
rather than the one that I didn't.

I never thought I'd see anybody manage to make Clinton look good but Shrub
is getting there.

Yes, well...I'm a near lifelong Independent--Republican for the first two
elections, then I started recalling the bull**** that floated around. I thought
Clinton was a major PITA and a damned fool, but he was at least capable of
thinking when his one-eyed mouse wasn't controlling him. Shrub...?

Charlie Self
"I think we agree, the past is over." George W. Bush

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 18:30:13 GMT, Cothian wrote:


the election is over. get over it.

I'll get over it when the global threats he has caused are gone, Mark,
and not before. The world (including America) has become a less-safe
place since GWB has been in office. Many Americans, myself included,
are not too happy about that. I used to _believe_in_ the President of
the United States. I love my country and will not sit quietly by while
it gets trashed by an avaricious mob in D.C.
snip

get it down to basics... the guy you wanted lost.... some other guy
won...
maybe it was your fault for not being active enough in getting votes
for your guy, maybe it's just karma..

you now have 3 years to gear up for getting your choice in, go for
it...
but also admit that however it happened and whoever won, he's the
President... and you can either work toward being positive and
lobbying for what you want done, or be an anchor... YMMV


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing


Amen, Brother Davis

*blush*
sorry, I do get on the soap box once in a while.. lol


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message

Not to mention that if he goes into yet another Muslim country, he
will surely create the critical mass that will spark their global
(and unified) PHYSICAL rebellion against us. It's all just hatred now.
Wait until a large percentage of their 1.3 BILLION take up arms
against us. I, for one, don't ever want to see that happen.

That's the curse of being cowardly ... you must always live in fear that
someone is going to kick your ass if you don't placate them, no matter what
they do to you.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 17:35:01 GMT, Cothian wrote:

Kevin wrote in
m:

Doug Winterburn wrote:

mandate: A command or an authorization given by a political
electorate to its representative.

Yup, that's what any elected president gets.

Correct strictly as dictionary definition. In the political arena
however, a mandate refers to a sizable margin of victory. Although of
late mouthpieces of both parties have been using the term regardless
despite slim victories.


Number of votes or percentages be damned. The fact is W is sitting in the
oval office. It doesn't matter now if you or I voted for him, against him
or didn't vote at all. He is THE president. He is MY president. Flame at
will Oh ye of small minds.......

Coth

Well said... If ya can't respect the man, at least respect the office...

If you look at before and after pictures of presidents, they all look like hell
in just 4 years... not a job I'd want....


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

Charlie Self wrote:

J. Clarke writes:


Personally right now I'd feel a lot better if FDR was sitting in that
chair
instead of Shrub. But I suspect that Shrub, if you asked him when he had
enough liquor in him to give an honest answer, probably would say the same
thing.

You're making an assumption that may be unwarranted: that Shrub has enough
self-knowledge to admit someone else might do a better job than he can do.

Actually I'm suggesting that the seat is hot enough that he'd rather be
seeing someone else get burned if he could get out of it without appearing
to be running away.

Charlie Self
"I think we agree, the past is over." George W. Bush

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

Charlie Self wrote:

J. Clarke responds:


Charlie Self wrote:

Doug Miller notes:


You didn't have any problem with Clinton winning two elections in a row
with less than a majority of the popular vote, did you?


Nope. And I don't have a problem with Shrub winning twice in a row, but
that doesn't change my opinion about him. He's a duplicitous twerp who
is going to do major damage to the economic structure of this country,
beyond what he has already done.

The fact that 51% of the voting public disagrees with me still doesn't
change my opinion, so you neocons will need to get over that.

Charlie, I'm a lifelong Republican and I agree with you about Bush. The
trouble is that Kerry looked to be different from Bush only in the line of
bull**** he was spouting, so I decided to stick with the devil I knew
rather than the one that I didn't.

I never thought I'd see anybody manage to make Clinton look good but Shrub
is getting there.

Yes, well...I'm a near lifelong Independent--Republican for the first two
elections, then I started recalling the bull**** that floated around. I
thought Clinton was a major PITA and a damned fool, but he was at least
capable of thinking when his one-eyed mouse wasn't controlling him.

Hey, Hillary has _two_ eyes. Oh, that wasn't the mouse you meant was it.
Never mind.

Shrub...?

Charlie Self
"I think we agree, the past is over." George W. Bush

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

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 13:08:46 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Renata wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 16:54:22 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Renata
wrote:
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 07:35:26 -0700, Doug Winterburn
-snip-
-snip-


The problem here is that the prez and the rest of y'all have decided
that you'll just ignore the nearly equal number of Americans who voted
against the guy. And, that a lot of folks voted for him because they
were scairt.

I like the way you just gloss right over the figures in your snide remark
being off by _an_order_of_magnitude_.

Mathematical calculations aside, even I know that 3 million outta 120
million ain't much.

Just like we'll "fix" social security by cutting the intake and
gambling.

Never did see any adminsitration so blatant about talking outta both
sides of their mouths.


-snip-

But this seems to be the SOP. 3% margin dictates a mandate; a couple
ancient shells indicates massive stockpiles of WMD; well, you get the
idea.

You didn't have any problem with Clinton winning two elections in a row with
less than a majority of the popular vote, did you?

Hey! I thought we didn't elect presidents that a way! You sure
didn't bring it up 4 years ago. Hmm. Wonder why...

Have yourself a merry little weekend.

GO EAGLES!

Renata

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 21:20:16 -0500, Renata wrote:

Just like we'll "fix" social security by cutting the intake and gambling.

The other "solution" is to increase the intake by raising/removing caps
and running up the national debt even faster as every dollar in the SS
trust fund represents one dollar of national debt. Not to mention the
fact that every FICA tax dollar that goes into the trust fund will be
matched by an additional income tax dollar with interest for other folks
to pay (double taxation) since the feds spend every trust fund dollar in
the year it was collected. Currently, something in excess of over 40% of
the national debt is this intra-governmental debt. In case you don't
remember, this type of accounting - creating shell corporations to
transfer debt to and then counting that debt as an asset - is what some
ex-Enron execs are being prosecuted for.

And for the liberals part, they trash GWB for recognizing the problem and
trying to take some steps to correct it - all the while while moaning
about the national debt. The way the law is currently written,
eliminating the national debt would require eliminating the SS and all
other trust funds as well as every other type of government bond.

So, be careful who you accuse of talking out both sides of the mouth.

- Doug

--

To escape criticism--do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." (Elbert Hubbard)

Shrib's "solution" does not address this problem (the raiding of the
SS trust fund and replacing it w/IOU's).

Renata

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 20:06:11 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 21:20:16 -0500, Renata wrote:

Just like we'll "fix" social security by cutting the intake and gambling.

The other "solution" is to increase the intake by raising/removing caps
and running up the national debt even faster as every dollar in the SS
trust fund represents one dollar of national debt. Not to mention the
fact that every FICA tax dollar that goes into the trust fund will be
matched by an additional income tax dollar with interest for other folks
to pay (double taxation) since the feds spend every trust fund dollar in
the year it was collected. Currently, something in excess of over 40% of
the national debt is this intra-governmental debt. In case you don't
remember, this type of accounting - creating shell corporations to
transfer debt to and then counting that debt as an asset - is what some
ex-Enron execs are being prosecuted for.

And for the liberals part, they trash GWB for recognizing the problem and
trying to take some steps to correct it - all the while while moaning
about the national debt. The way the law is currently written,
eliminating the national debt would require eliminating the SS and all
other trust funds as well as every other type of government bond.

So, be careful who you accuse of talking out both sides of the mouth.

- Doug

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 07:43:55 -0500, Renata wrote:

Shrib's "solution" does not address this problem (the raiding of the SS
trust fund and replacing it w/IOU's).

Under current law, the fund must buy those IOUs with every excess dollar -
there is no choice, and if you wish to call it "raiding", it has been the
law since the inception in 1935. Just out of curiosity, what would you
have the trust fund buy in place of government securities (IOUs)? Old FDR
suggested it be transitioned out of this somewhere around 1965 into
self-supporting annuities. So far, we're only 40 years late. And since
you're against "raiding" as I am, the Democrat plan proposes to raise or
eliminate withholding caps so as to be able to "raid" at a faster rate and
buy even more IOUs.

- Doug

--

To escape criticism--do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." (Elbert Hubbard)

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 07:42:29 -0500, "George" george@least wrote:


In our ignorance we're regressing to "fundamentalism" of the sort that
rejects all other opinions save the interpretation by our priestly classes.
I for one would rather not have Dean or Michael Moore as my theologian - nor
Dan Rather as my pontiff.


But that junkie Rush is ok, eh ?

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:22:30 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:


Hope for greater understanding no longer lies in schools, as evidenced by
recent events, because they're more concerned with orthodoxy than education.

Sad but true. Of course, there are always private schools.

... which are often even more orthodox.

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 13:21:05 -0500, GregP wrote:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 07:42:29 -0500, "George" george@least wrote:


In our ignorance we're regressing to "fundamentalism" of the sort that
rejects all other opinions save the interpretation by our priestly classes.
I for one would rather not have Dean or Michael Moore as my theologian - nor
Dan Rather as my pontiff.

But that junkie Rush is ok, eh ?

Why is it that your kind will always imply that if someone doesn't respect
Michael "Never met a fact I wouldn't distort" Moore, that they must then
somehow be in bed with Rush?

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 11:24:06 -0800, mac davis
wrote:


Well said... If ya can't respect the man, at least respect the office...


The fascist right wing in this country was very comfortable
pretending that Clinto was not its president.

If you look at before and after pictures of presidents, they all look like hell
in just 4 years...

Thy all appear to age quite a bit. The only exception that I can
think of is Regan, maybe Eisenhower as well. One of the realities
that promote that is that a high percentage of presidents are
in the age range when people often visibly age quite a bit,
even without the influence of a presidency.

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 13:20:42 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:


That's the curse of being cowardly ... you must always live in fear that
someone is going to kick your ass if you don't placate them, no matter what
they do to you.

... and that is exactly what every prez from Nixon on up has done
vis China, what Regan did vis Lebanon, and what GWB II has done
with China, North Korea, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 20:06:11 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:


And for the liberals part, they trash GWB for recognizing the problem and
trying to take some steps to correct it -

- while increasing the problem by another 1-2 trillion dollars
but refusing to recognize it as additional gov't debt.

...... all the while while moaning
about the national debt.

While GWB II's heart bleeds for the SS debt 20-30 years from
now, he is busy bankrupting us NOW with huge deficits that
down the road will make SS look like a cake walk. This concern
about SS debt is false, like virtually every other pronouncement,
action, and supposed concern of this administration.



I do agree with you that SS is just a shell game. SS is
fundamentally a welfare program couched in terms of
a retirement program to make it acceptable. It is this that
rankles right wingers, not the fact that it is heading towards
debt status.

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 13:26:43 -0500, GregP wrote:
On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 11:24:06 -0800, mac davis
wrote:


Well said... If ya can't respect the man, at least respect the office...


The fascist right wing in this country was very comfortable
pretending that Clinto was not its president.

Heh. Perfect example. I respected the office then too, _and_ felt/feel
strongly that he wasn't worthy of it.

Thy all appear to age quite a bit. The only exception that I can
think of is Regan,

When was Regan President?

maybe Eisenhower as well.

Well sure, he was bald to start, wasn't he? The most visible change seems
to be that the hair goes white.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 13:21:05 -0500, GregP
wrote:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 07:42:29 -0500, "George" george@least wrote:


In our ignorance we're regressing to "fundamentalism" of the sort that
rejects all other opinions save the interpretation by our priestly
classes.
I for one would rather not have Dean or Michael Moore as my theologian -
nor
Dan Rather as my pontiff.

But that junkie Rush is ok, eh ?

Why is it that your kind will always imply that if someone doesn't respect
Michael "Never met a fact I wouldn't distort" Moore, that they must then
somehow be in bed with Rush?



Isn't it obvious? All his arguments are as powerful as a popcorn fart.

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 15:18:01 -0500, George george@least wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 13:21:05 -0500, GregP
wrote:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 07:42:29 -0500, "George" george@least wrote:


In our ignorance we're regressing to "fundamentalism" of the sort that
rejects all other opinions save the interpretation by our priestly
classes.
I for one would rather not have Dean or Michael Moore as my theologian -
nor
Dan Rather as my pontiff.

But that junkie Rush is ok, eh ?

Why is it that your kind will always imply that if someone doesn't respect
Michael "Never met a fact I wouldn't distort" Moore, that they must then
somehow be in bed with Rush?

Isn't it obvious? All his arguments are as powerful as a popcorn fart.

Well, sure, but I figured I'd point out that we're on to him. Should I
have not done that?

In article , GregP wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:22:30 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

Careful with the attributions, please. I did *not* write this:

Hope for greater understanding no longer lies in schools, as evidenced by
recent events, because they're more concerned with orthodoxy than education.

I wrote *this*:

Sad but true. Of course, there are always private schools.

... which are often even more orthodox.

I guess that depends on (a) whether you're talking about morals or educational
practices[*], and (b) what you mean by "orthodox" when referring to the
latter. For example, it was customary -- "orthodox" if you will -- for many,
many years to teach reading by phonics, and arithmetic by rote memorization of
addition and multiplication tables. It's hardly a coincidence that the decline
in reading and mathematical skills in the United States in the last three or
four decades followed directly on the heels of the abandonment of these
practices. Which is the "orthodoxy" -- phonics, or "look-say" reading? Sadly,
it's probably the latter now, although it didn't used to be that way.

It depends on the private school, too. Some have bought into the latest
psychobabble fads even more deeply than the public schools; others, more
concerned with educating students than with making their parents feel warm and
fuzzy, hew toward more traditional methods of education and discipline.

[ * We pulled our son out of public school after they announced their "value
neutral" curriculum for the coming year. (That wasn't the only reason, but it
sure played a part.) I *want* my kids to be taught in school that it's *wrong*
to cheat, to steal, to lie. We teach them that at home, of course -- but I
want the school to reinforce that, not undermine it by telling them that there
is no such thing as right or wrong. Say what you will about Catholic schools;
one thing is certain: nobody can accuse the Catholic Church of ever having
taught "value neutral" anything. ]

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

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

On 7 Feb 2005 18:23:50 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:


Why is it that your kind will always imply that if someone doesn't respect
Michael "Never met a fact I wouldn't distort" Moore, that they must then
somehow be in bed with Rush?

"My kind" (whatever slimy thought that represents) has never implied
that you ever went to bed with the guy, only that you think like him.

In article , GregP wrote:

I do agree with you that SS is just a shell game. SS is
fundamentally a welfare program couched in terms of
a retirement program to make it acceptable. It is this that
rankles right wingers, not the fact that it is heading towards
debt status.

What rankles *me* about it is something even more basic: It's a fscking Ponzi
scheme, and like any Ponzi scheme, it's mathematically impossible to sustain.
If anybody else besides the federal government was running it, they would've
thrown his arse in jail fifty years ago.

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

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 16:33:15 -0500, GregP wrote:
On 7 Feb 2005 18:23:50 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:


Why is it that your kind will always imply that if someone doesn't respect
Michael "Never met a fact I wouldn't distort" Moore, that they must then
somehow be in bed with Rush?

"My kind" (whatever slimy thought that represents) has never implied
that you ever went to bed with the guy, only that you think like him.

That's my point, Greg. "your kind" in this context, is "people who assume
and imply something not justified based on an observation". I haven't
listened to Rush in years, and didn't particularly care for the guy ever.
Just because we (rightly) point out that Michael Moore is a lying sack of
****, doesn't mean we _do_ like Rush, or Hannity, or whoever the heck
else you disagree with.

Got it now?

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 15:18:01 -0500, "George" george@least wrote:


"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 13:21:05 -0500, GregP
wrote:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 07:42:29 -0500, "George" george@least wrote:


In our ignorance we're regressing to "fundamentalism" of the sort that
rejects all other opinions save the interpretation by our priestly
classes.
I for one would rather not have Dean or Michael Moore as my theologian -
nor
Dan Rather as my pontiff.

But that junkie Rush is ok, eh ?

Why is it that your kind will always imply that if someone doesn't respect
Michael "Never met a fact I wouldn't distort" Moore, that they must then
somehow be in bed with Rush?



Isn't it obvious? All his arguments are as powerful as a popcorn fart.


Well, Georgie, Dave created a popcorn fart strawman and you
in your infinite perspicacity took it up and ran with it. So where
did the comparison come down to Michael and the junkie ?

On 7 Feb 2005 19:02:09 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 13:26:43 -0500, GregP wrote:
On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 11:24:06 -0800, mac davis
wrote:


Well said... If ya can't respect the man, at least respect the office...


The fascist right wing in this country was very comfortable
pretending that Clinto was not its president.

Heh. Perfect example. I respected the office then too, _and_ felt/feel
strongly that he wasn't worthy of it.


I agree: the president is our president, like him or not.

Thy all appear to age quite a bit. The only exception that I can
think of is Regan,
When was Regan President?


After Carter, before George I. Oh, you mean I didn't spell
his name correctly. Why didn't you just say so ?

maybe Eisenhower as well.

Well sure, he was bald to start, wasn't he? The most visible change seems
to be that the hair goes white.

The most visible changes to me is that their eyes look
much older and their faces become more lined.

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:00:03 -0500, GregP wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 15:18:01 -0500, "George" george@least wrote:


"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 13:21:05 -0500, GregP
wrote:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 07:42:29 -0500, "George" george@least wrote:


In our ignorance we're regressing to "fundamentalism" of the sort that
rejects all other opinions save the interpretation by our priestly
classes.
I for one would rather not have Dean or Michael Moore as my theologian -
nor
Dan Rather as my pontiff.

But that junkie Rush is ok, eh ?

Why is it that your kind will always imply that if someone doesn't respect
Michael "Never met a fact I wouldn't distort" Moore, that they must then
somehow be in bed with Rush?



Isn't it obvious? All his arguments are as powerful as a popcorn fart.

Well, Georgie, Dave created a popcorn fart strawman and you
in your infinite perspicacity took it up and ran with it. So where
did the comparison come down to Michael and the junkie ?

Can you answer my question, Greg? Why do you assume that just because
I think Moore is a liar, that I would then like Rush?

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:05:51 -0500, GregP wrote:
On 7 Feb 2005 19:02:09 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 13:26:43 -0500, GregP wrote:

The fascist right wing in this country was very comfortable
pretending that Clinto was not its president.

Heh. Perfect example. I respected the office then too, _and_ felt/feel
strongly that he wasn't worthy of it.

I agree: the president is our president, like him or not.

On this we agree.

Thy all appear to age quite a bit. The only exception that I can
think of is Regan,

When was Regan President?

After Carter, before George I. Oh, you mean I didn't spell
his name correctly. Why didn't you just say so ?

I thought maybe you had made a different mistake.

maybe Eisenhower as well.

Well sure, he was bald to start, wasn't he? The most visible change seems
to be that the hair goes white.

The most visible changes to me is that their eyes look
much older and their faces become more lined.

OK. To me it's the hair, to you it's the eyes.

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 13:21:05 -0500, GregP wrote:

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 07:42:29 -0500, "George" george@least wrote:


In our ignorance we're regressing to "fundamentalism" of the sort that
rejects all other opinions save the interpretation by our priestly classes.
I for one would rather not have Dean or Michael Moore as my theologian - nor
Dan Rather as my pontiff.


But that junkie Rush is ok, eh ?

Another example of the "tolerant, open-minded" left, eh? Someone who
becomes addicted to pain killers as a result of having them prescribed for
severe backpain is somewhat different than someone who was out searching
for the next and best high, don't ya think? But, since this gives you
something to beat on and impugn with, impugn away. Says more about the
shallowness of the so-called open-mindedness of the left than anything
else.




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

The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety

Army General Richard Cody

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

Mark & Juanita wrote:

: Another example of the "tolerant, open-minded" left, eh? Someone who
: becomes addicted to pain killers as a result of having them prescribed for
: severe backpain


He bought *thousands* of pills, ilegally, over a few months. This
clearly exceeds some sort of accidental addiction, don't you think?

Or do you forgive any high-seeking person so long as he spouts the
political views you adhere to?


-- Andy Barss









is somewhat different than someone who was out searching
: for the next and best high, don't ya think? But, since this gives you
: something to beat on and impugn with, impugn away. Says more about the
: shallowness of the so-called open-mindedness of the left than anything
: else.




: +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
:
: The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety

: Army General Richard Cody
:
: +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

--

Andy Barss
Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona
Douglass 208, 626-3284

Mark & Juanita wrote in
:

....
But that junkie Rush is ok, eh ?

Another example of the "tolerant, open-minded" left, eh? Someone
who
becomes addicted to pain killers as a result of having them prescribed
for severe backpain is somewhat different than someone who was out
searching for the next and best high, don't ya think? But, since this
gives you something to beat on and impugn with, impugn away. Says
more about the shallowness of the so-called open-mindedness of the
left than anything else.

Let's see ... as long as we are indulging in shallowness and pointing
out the failings of the guys on the right:

- Leading moralist "Book of Virtues" writer Bill Bennett has secret
gambling addiction

- Leading "Fair and Balanced" host Bill O'Reilly harasses his coworkers
with sex phone calls and wierd "loofah" fetishes

- Leading political "moral" leader Newt Gingrich fined $300K for ethics
violations, thrice married, served first wife with divorce papers while
she was in hospital recovering from cancer surgery

- Leading conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh advocates zero tolerance
for drug offenders, only to find he has a secret drug addiction himself

- Noted "patriotic" author and commentator Ann Coulter declares "The
myth of 'McCarthyism' is the greatest Orwellian fraud of our times."

- Prominent conservative religious figures Jerry Falwell and Pat
Robertson, two days after the 9/11 attacks, declared that the attacks
were God's retribution against the US for allowing the ACLU,
abortionists, feminists, and gays.

On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 06:15:15 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

: Another example of the "tolerant, open-minded" left, eh? Someone who
: becomes addicted to pain killers as a result of having them prescribed for
: severe backpain


He bought *thousands* of pills, ilegally, over a few months. This
clearly exceeds some sort of accidental addiction, don't you think?


You know Andy, for a college professor and scientist, you make some
pretty obtuse arguments. Once someone has become addicted to a substance,
the behavior of that person in feeding that addiction is no longer logical
nor rational. The facts are that strong pain killers were prescribed for
his back pain, he became addicted to those pain killers and the effects
they produced, he continued to crave those pain killers while addicted.
This is worlds apart from someone who goes out partying looking for new and
better highs, i.e. deliberately seeking out the drugs for the effect. The
end result is no different, the causative agent is.

Or do you forgive any high-seeking person so long as he spouts the
political views you adhere to?


Given the circumstances of the addiction, it would seem that forgiveness
and treatment are reasonable regardless of the political leanings of the
addict.

Or are you suggesting that because of the political leanings of the
person, the punishments should be much harsher than for those with whom you
agree?




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Mark & Juanita responds:

But that junkie Rush is ok, eh ?

Another example of the "tolerant, open-minded" left, eh? Someone who
becomes addicted to pain killers as a result of having them prescribed for
severe backpain is somewhat different than someone who was out searching
for the next and best high, don't ya think? But, since this gives you
something to beat on and impugn with, impugn away. Says more about the
shallowness of the so-called open-mindedness of the left than anything
else.

Uh, well, not much, since we don't really know what put that junkie on his trip
to find another high...be we do know Limbaugh used his connections and money to
find another high, something the street junkie couldn't do.

Your comment says more about your lack of knowledge of human nature than
anything else.

And I think I've done this before.

Bye.

Charlie Self
"I think we agree, the past is over." George W. Bush

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 06:31:59 GMT, Nate Perkins
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote in
:

...
But that junkie Rush is ok, eh ?

Another example of the "tolerant, open-minded" left, eh? Someone
who
becomes addicted to pain killers as a result of having them prescribed
for severe backpain is somewhat different than someone who was out
searching for the next and best high, don't ya think? But, since this
gives you something to beat on and impugn with, impugn away. Says
more about the shallowness of the so-called open-mindedness of the
left than anything else.

Let's see ... as long as we are indulging in shallowness and pointing
out the failings of the guys on the right:

- Leading moralist "Book of Virtues" writer Bill Bennett has secret
gambling addiction

- Leading "Fair and Balanced" host Bill O'Reilly harasses his coworkers
with sex phone calls and wierd "loofah" fetishes

- Leading political "moral" leader Newt Gingrich fined $300K for ethics
violations, thrice married, served first wife with divorce papers while
she was in hospital recovering from cancer surgery

- Leading conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh advocates zero tolerance
for drug offenders, only to find he has a secret drug addiction himself


So your point here is? That in order to advocate for improvements in
society one must be perfect? Thus, no-one should point out any failings
nor needs for improvement since everyone has flaws and failings? Thus,
nothing should be wrong since someone who is in a place of authority has
committed such acts. Or is it only OK for those on the left to advocate
for improvements in society since to the left, morals are all relative, so
only they have the "moral" high ground to dictate how the rest of society
should function?

In several cases above, you have your facts wrong anyway.



- Noted "patriotic" author and commentator Ann Coulter declares "The
myth of 'McCarthyism' is the greatest Orwellian fraud of our times."


Somewhat different tangent from the above statements. Or are you
indicating that expressing an opinion based upon historical facts (i.e.
some of the Kremlin archives implicating many of those being pursued by
McCarthy as sympathizers, to be kind, of the communist regime) is somehow
the equivalent to moral weaknesses or failings?


- Prominent conservative religious figures Jerry Falwell and Pat
Robertson, two days after the 9/11 attacks, declared that the attacks
were God's retribution against the US for allowing the ACLU,
abortionists, feminists, and gays.

The comments you make above are taken somewhat out of context.





+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 22:02:06 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:


Another example of the "tolerant, open-minded" left, eh? Someone who
becomes addicted to pain killers as a result of having them prescribed for
severe backpain is somewhat different than someone who was out searching
for the next and best high, don't ya think? But, since this gives you
something to beat on and impugn with, impugn away. Says more about the
shallowness of the so-called open-mindedness of the left than anything
else.

You are talking about Rush, I presume, the Champion of the
Downtrodden, the Man Who Empathizes With the Weak, the
Frail, and Those Whom Life Has Led Astray ???? If that
junkie showed *any* signs of humanity towards others who
have made similar "mistakes" (and had their housekeeper
do the dirty work for them because they didn't have the guts
to do it for themselves), I might agree with you.

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 21:30:35 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:
-snip-

I guess that depends on (a) whether you're talking about morals or educational
practices[*], and (b) what you mean by "orthodox" when referring to the
latter. For example, it was customary -- "orthodox" if you will -- for many,
many years to teach reading by phonics, and arithmetic by rote memorization of
addition and multiplication tables. It's hardly a coincidence that the decline
in reading and mathematical skills in the United States in the last three or
four decades followed directly on the heels of the abandonment of these
practices. Which is the "orthodoxy" -- phonics, or "look-say" reading? Sadly,
it's probably the latter now, although it didn't used to be that way.

It depends on the private school, too. Some have bought into the latest
psychobabble fads even more deeply than the public schools; others, more
concerned with educating students than with making their parents feel warm and
fuzzy, hew toward more traditional methods of education and discipline.

[ * We pulled our son out of public school after they announced their "value
neutral" curriculum for the coming year. (That wasn't the only reason, but it
sure played a part.) I *want* my kids to be taught in school that it's *wrong*
to cheat, to steal, to lie. We teach them that at home, of course -- but I
want the school to reinforce that, not undermine it by telling them that there
is no such thing as right or wrong. Say what you will about Catholic schools;
one thing is certain: nobody can accuse the Catholic Church of ever having
taught "value neutral" anything. ]

Finally! We agree on something. Good commentary.

REnata

What's wrong with investing the trust fund invest the money in the
stock market (or some other vehicle) rather than continually loaning
it to the government?

This loaning is apparently a good part of the problem coming up since
the fed won't be able to hide the true budget deficit as easily, once
SS stops taking in more than it pays out.

Renata


On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 07:52:26 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 07:43:55 -0500, Renata wrote:

Shrib's "solution" does not address this problem (the raiding of the SS
trust fund and replacing it w/IOU's).

Under current law, the fund must buy those IOUs with every excess dollar -
there is no choice, and if you wish to call it "raiding", it has been the
law since the inception in 1935. Just out of curiosity, what would you
have the trust fund buy in place of government securities (IOUs)? Old FDR
suggested it be transitioned out of this somewhere around 1965 into
self-supporting annuities. So far, we're only 40 years late. And since
you're against "raiding" as I am, the Democrat plan proposes to raise or
eliminate withholding caps so as to be able to "raid" at a faster rate and
buy even more IOUs.

- Doug

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 08:46:03 -0500, Renata wrote:

What's wrong with investing the trust fund invest the money in the stock
market (or some other vehicle) rather than continually loaning it to the
government?

This loaning is apparently a good part of the problem coming up since the
fed won't be able to hide the true budget deficit as easily, once SS stops
taking in more than it pays out.

You hit the nail on the head! I do believe we have found common ground.
Now that you understand the problem and solution, spread the word and push
for reform. Much better to pay back the trust fund with corporate profits
rather than government profits AKA taxes. Private investments as you
suggest also do not add trillions to the national debt as do government
securities. In addition, we would know the true amount of government
revenue as the SS surplus would not be counted as general revenue but
rather would be buying real assets rather than debt.

- Doug

--

To escape criticism--do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." (Elbert Hubbard)

Mark & Juanita wrote in
news
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 06:31:59 GMT, Nate Perkins
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:

...
But that junkie Rush is ok, eh ?

Another example of the "tolerant, open-minded" left, eh? Someone
who
becomes addicted to pain killers as a result of having them
prescribed for severe backpain is somewhat different than someone
who was out searching for the next and best high, don't ya think?
But, since this gives you something to beat on and impugn with,
impugn away. Says more about the shallowness of the so-called
open-mindedness of the left than anything else.

Let's see ... as long as we are indulging in shallowness and pointing
out the failings of the guys on the right:

- Leading moralist "Book of Virtues" writer Bill Bennett has secret
gambling addiction

- Leading "Fair and Balanced" host Bill O'Reilly harasses his
coworkers with sex phone calls and wierd "loofah" fetishes

- Leading political "moral" leader Newt Gingrich fined $300K for
ethics violations, thrice married, served first wife with divorce
papers while she was in hospital recovering from cancer surgery

- Leading conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh advocates zero
tolerance for drug offenders, only to find he has a secret drug
addiction himself

So your point here is? That in order to advocate for improvements
in
society one must be perfect? Thus, no-one should point out any
failings nor needs for improvement since everyone has flaws and
failings? Thus, nothing should be wrong since someone who is in a
place of authority has committed such acts. Or is it only OK for
those on the left to advocate for improvements in society since to the
left, morals are all relative, so only they have the "moral" high
ground to dictate how the rest of society should function?

In several cases above, you have your facts wrong anyway.

My point is that the sanctimonious "moralists" on the right tend to be
intolerant and hypocritical.

Sure, the guys on the left screw up, too. They just don't tend to have
such a holier-than-thou attitude. And they don't pretend to be great
icons of virtue that guys like Bill Bennett etc do.

Nobody has to be perfect to try to improve society. But there is a
reasonable expectation that the moral grandstanders shouldn't be
complete hypocrites.

- Noted "patriotic" author and commentator Ann Coulter declares "The
myth of 'McCarthyism' is the greatest Orwellian fraud of our times."


Somewhat different tangent from the above statements. Or are you
indicating that expressing an opinion based upon historical facts
(i.e. some of the Kremlin archives implicating many of those being
pursued by McCarthy as sympathizers, to be kind, of the communist
regime) is somehow the equivalent to moral weaknesses or failings?

Are you saying that McCarthyism was an "Orwellian fraud?" What's next,
the Holocaust never really happened either?

- Prominent conservative religious figures Jerry Falwell and Pat
Robertson, two days after the 9/11 attacks, declared that the attacks
were God's retribution against the US for allowing the ACLU,
abortionists, feminists, and gays.

The comments you make above are taken somewhat out of context.

Read the transcript:
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors...ertson-wtc.htm

I bet you guys will try to find a way to spin something even as odious
as that.

In article . 201, Nate Perkins wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote in
news
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 06:31:59 GMT, Nate Perkins
wrote:

- Prominent conservative religious figures Jerry Falwell and Pat
Robertson, two days after the 9/11 attacks, declared that the attacks
were God's retribution against the US for allowing the ACLU,
abortionists, feminists, and gays.

The comments you make above are taken somewhat out of context.

Read the transcript:
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors...ertson-wtc.htm

I bet you guys will try to find a way to spin something even as odious
as that.

Just curious: do the ellipses in the transcript indicate pauses in Falwell's
speaking, or places where some of his words have been omitted?

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

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

(Doug Miller) wrote in
m:

In article . 201,
Nate Perkins wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote in
news
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 06:31:59 GMT, Nate Perkins
wrote:

- Prominent conservative religious figures Jerry Falwell and Pat
Robertson, two days after the 9/11 attacks, declared that the
attacks were God's retribution against the US for allowing the ACLU,
abortionists, feminists, and gays.

The comments you make above are taken somewhat out of context.

Read the transcript:
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors...ertson-wtc.htm

I bet you guys will try to find a way to spin something even as odious
as that.

Just curious: do the ellipses in the transcript indicate pauses in
Falwell's speaking, or places where some of his words have been
omitted?

(shrug) You have a point?

Here's what William F. Buckley had to say about (what he calls)
Falwell's "ignorant misapplication of Christian thought":

http://www.nationalreview.com/buckle...ey091801.shtml

I love it when the "conservatives" all try to outdo each other in the
race to look most sanctimonious.