posted 01-24-2003 08:32 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by daved:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by LoopySanchez:
[b] regulating every aspect of the lives of these supposedly "inherently good people" is either a) utterly pointless, or b) all about the power, baby.

---

[/B][/QUOTE]

My bad, I was mistaken in thinking that most Liberals want government to take a more active role in people's everyday lives. I have no idea where I got that craziness.

The bad part is, today's conservatives seem to be headed in the same direction.

And no, my post did not consist of talking points, but that's another excellent example of something today's political pitch men believe in. (I'll take your response to mean you choose (c) "La la la, I'm not listening", from the 2 choices I offered in my post. )

posted 01-24-2003 08:35 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by daved:
Samchar, bringing in DharmaBum's mother is a low blow. It made it appear that have contempt for him (which I'm sure you don't). Personally I prefer Opie to Shrub, but to each his own...

---

OK, first of all, it was not written to be personal or ABOUT DharmaBum's mother. However, my truly sincere apologies to DharmaBum if that is how it reads. Sincerely, apologies Dharma.

I was intending to bring up a point of civility. Every now and then, I get the feeling that the "Jerry Springerization" of our culture has seeped into everything. I hate to see people, particularly learned people, be disrespectful to others. It demeans an otherwise lucid argument or point.

posted 01-24-2003 08:59 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by LoopySanchez:

The bad part is, today's conservatives seem to be headed in the same direction.

---

This is the crux of what I'm saying People like Pat Robertson use labels to stir up hatred, Potiticians wrap themselves it the label which they think will get the most votes.

No conservative would put forth Bush's so called economic policy. Would a business, bearing cripling debt, send all of its shareholders $300.00? Well maybe yes, but If they did no one in their right mind would call that "conservative". It was the least conservative and possibly the biggest economic blunder made in this country in a long time.

The Republicans are not "conservative", the Democrats are not "liberal". There's a whole spectrum of political belief on both sides. Actually pretty much everyone in this country is a mix of both. Calling yourself one and someone else the other, degrades discussion and turns it into a contest. I say, use your dictionary, use the words, leave the "labels" to talk radio.

posted 01-24-2003 09:30 AM               

I don't mind my "label." I would venture a guess that you wouldn't want to be called a "liberal", but would prefer the term "Moderate, or progressive??"...or, maybe you don't wanna be classified as anything...even tho, in todays environment...you are, in fact, a liberal.

I've listened to you awhile ARCH. Even tho may not like being labelled...your views have all been liberal. Hence, I cannot help but put that sticker on you

I feel bad about it...really I do. Be nice if you could come to the Texas Jam in March, we'll have a liberal selection of BBQ and Beer...just for you

posted 01-24-2003 09:36 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by SouthernFried:
I'm a conservative. You, Arch, are a liberal.

I don't mind my "label." I would venture a guess that you wouldn't want to be called a "liberal", but would prefer the term "Moderate, or progressive??"...or, maybe you don't wanna be classified as anything...even tho, in todays environment...you are, in fact, a liberal.

I've listened to you awhile ARCH. Even tho may not like being labelled...your views have all been liberal. Hence, I cannot help but put that sticker on you

I feel bad about it...really I do. Be nice if you could come to the Texas Jam in March, we'll have a liberal selection of BBQ and Beer...just for you

SF

---

Economically I am definately a conservative, while Bush is some kind of Pollyanna style anarchist. There's nothing conservative about borrowing money to give it away. Calling yourself a conservative doesn't make you one, being one does.

posted 01-24-2003 10:12 AM            

France now says it will oppose any war against Saddam. EXCEPT, hint, hint, France MIGHT support America IF France is given control of Iraq's oil fields.

France's affection for Saddam is GOOD news. No American soldier should ever go into battle depending upon the "courage" of the French government.

Over the past 200 years, France's rulers have earned a perfect record: they have stabbed each of France's allies in the back..and always surrendered at the earliest opportunity...and changed sides whenever the outcome of the war seemed to be shifting.

The sad thing is, the fields of western and northern France are covered with acre upon acre of graves. Graves of the thousands of young Americans who died fighting for France.

The next time any French government calls upon America for rescue, America's answer must be: "Call someone who cares...perhaps your pal Saddam....just dial (666) GO-TO-HELL"

By the way, I have met some wonderful people from France. Lovely people, with lousy leaders.

Al

posted 01-24-2003 11:07 AM               

Hey, not only was my college education free, the govt. actually paid me the princely sum of $345/mo., room and board, and clothing. Is this a great country, or what???

As far as our present secretary of state goes, with no disrespect intended, there is little to brag about in terms of current US foriegn policy, is there? In fact, to call the current state of US foriegn policy a "train wreck" would impugn Amtrack. I'm 50, and no one in my age group can recall a time when the US has been more isolated, more confused and dangerous than it is at this instant. We have essentially wasted the good will and international cooperation that followed 9/11, by lurching about, utterly without an articulable policy. This comes under the watch of the same individual who, as CJCS, argued to spare saddam's regime when the means, and international support, to do so was in his grasp. (Maybe the genious general thought that saddam would have a change of heart, huh?) Twelve years later, he reappears as SOS (a perfect acronym for the state of his current position), urging an unprovoked attack on the same regime, when international support is non-existant. I don't know really how much of this sick irony can be fairly attributed to him, or the CIC's he's served. But, his name will never be properly associated with good foriegn policy decisions.

posted 01-24-2003 11:28 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by LoopySanchez:

And no, my post did not consist of talking points, but that's another excellent example of something today's political pitch men believe in. (I'll take your response to mean you choose (c) "La la la, I'm not listening", from the 2 choices I offered in my post. )

---

posted 01-24-2003 11:44 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by samchar:
(If you were introduced to the current or former President directly, would you honestly address him personally as Schrub or Opie or Slick Willie? No? Then why would you do it behind their backs?) It's disrepectful, no matter what your politics. Whether you called them Opie, Schrubmakes no difference. You should no better and its a bad example. It's third-grade-level name calling. We know better, right?

---

posted 01-24-2003 12:01 PM               

Hard to argue with most of what you say. Foreign policy under Clinton was mostly non confrontational. Allegedley some appeasement and procrastination toward N Korea. Tentative intervention in Somalia. He did commit in Kosovo, with the UN. Lobbed a couple of cruise missiles in bin Laden's direction. Allegedly had formulated an anti terror plan that was turned over to the next admin and got ignored. Also allegedly squashed many intel ops and sources.

That was all before 9/11/01. It could be argued the present admin is over reacting. It could be argued even more persuasively that they are doing an extremely poor job of rallying international consensus for their agenda. In fact domestic approval is falling below 50%. No doubt it will plummet if we attack unilateraly and the war goes wrong.

I would however take exception to this interpretation:

"We have essentially wasted the good will and international cooperation that followed 9/11, by lurching about, utterly without an articulable policy. This comes under the watch of the same individual who, as CJCS, argued to spare saddam's regime when the means, and international support, to do so was in his grasp."

Not the part that says we have squadered international good will, that's true. In hind sight, if we were going to change regimes in Iraq, 1991 would have been a better time to do it. We were there. We had the coalition on our side, including Saudi and Egypt and other Arab states.

However, I believe its a mistake to blame Sec Powell. He may have had input, but could not have made the call on his own. There was a Bush Sr interview with David Frost where he admits they miscalculated. They expected the defeat to unseat Saddam. They underestimated his staying power. Bush also states he was not prepared to order US troops to engage in urban warfare to take Baghdad.

Furthermore, the coalition partners had signed on to eject Iraq from Kuwait, but would not approve a US led takeover and occupation of the Iraqi capitol. Opinon back home would not back them up in that position.

So the consensus ten years ago was to allow the UN to pass its resolutions and administer sanctions and the disarmament program. It probably wasn't such a bad idea. It needed more teeth and vigorous follow up. Still does.

posted 01-24-2003 12:01 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by alanhoustontx:
France now says it will oppose any war against Saddam. EXCEPT, hint, hint, France MIGHT support America IF France is given control of Iraq's oil fields.

---

Al, I'm generally in agreement. But I think France -as many others- sees the US doing all this war stuff because of the oil thing, so they're thinking 'well, we wont go fight and then you get all the oil, give us a piece of the action.' How is that really different from what the US wants to do in France's eye?

posted 01-24-2003 12:41 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by daved:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by LoopySanchez:
[b]

And no, my post did not consist of talking points, but that's another excellent example of something today's political pitch men believe in. (I'll take your response to mean you choose (c) "La la la, I'm not listening", from the 2 choices I offered in my post. )

---

I can easily do that without even leaving the subject of taxation:

1. I will pay about half of my income this year to the government in the form of federal, state, and sales tax, a social security fund that I'll probably never see the first penny of, and a Medicare fund that nearly tripled the rate of medical expense increases during its first 20 years of existance. I'll start keeping money for myself some time in May or June. Unfortunately, the bills start coming in January. And the European Academic-Types have the gall to say I'm undertaxed.

2. Given the current law, as an only child of two aging, middle class parents who pinched pennies their entire life, I will give roughly half of my inheritance (which has already been taxed at least once) to the government when they pass away.

3. If the government says I slipped up and didn't pay enough taxes, I have to prove my innocence--they don't have to prove my guilt. This goes against the principles of civil and criminal law, but when it's the "government's" money we're talking about, I guess drastic measures are called for.

Now, can you name three aspects of your life that don't have the government's fingerprints on it somewhere?

posted 01-24-2003 03:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by LoopySanchez:

Now, can you name three aspects of your life that don't have the government's fingerprints on it somewhere?

---

posted 01-24-2003 04:34 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by daved:
We don't want our towns to look like 1930's depression era so we give seniors today a small amount of dignity through our taxes.

---

Sorry, but with all due respect, that is a total crock. Now look, even the liberal FDR didn't want it to work that way. The point of the matter is that our seniors have already paid the tax before and the government is supposed to be taking care of it....not directly transferring our taxes into payments to them. We're giving them their own money back!

This is the problem with Social Security being handled by the government. It's one big slush fund. Perhaps we shouldn't privatize Social Security in terms of the investment vehicles being riskier, but one thing is for sure -- we need a private trustee to ensure the government can't continue to treat Social Security like welfare. It wasn't designed for that and it shouldn't act like that.

Our seniors aren't begging us for money. They are getting their own money back. "Dignity through taxes"....that is the biggest oxymoron I have ever heard.