Conservatives & Liberals - What's the difference? [Archive]

Trailscout

03-22-2006, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by usmc1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shomymojo:
Where does that leave those of us who do not fall directly into either catagory...the * Moderates...with some views that are slightly right...and some slightly left...but none to the extreme in either direction...

I expect they were the tepid as warm spit dorks who belonged to the Algebra club and were always chosen as office runners. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

USMC1, are you an ideologue?
I think shomymojo, myself and the likes of Bill Clinton are pragmatists.

If you sincerely believe that commerce is always evil and that government always wise and beneficent that would put you in the ideologue camp.

If on the other hand you study each facet of our economy and decide on a case-by-case basis whether market competition or a regulated industry is needed, then you are a pragmatist.

We had our experiment with de-regulated utilities and it has been a collosal flop, but the Russians tried state-run produce markets and that was a flop. Injecting a little competition and free enterprise into agriculture brought fresh produce to the table. The Soviets wound up tolerating those fruit stands because they had to, though it really grated on their doctrinaire teeth.

Health care used to be completely private sector and cheap. I can think of one example of a person who made $5.00/hr and managed to pay for his own health care in the early 1980's. Now, it is dominated by large companies, government and insurance companies and it threatens to drown the national budget in debt.

I don't think a good case for moderation can be made, but I have respect for people who are selectively liberal and conservative depending on what the issue or industry is.

UnitedNudists

03-22-2006, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by nacktman:
The difference between conservative and Liberal can be seen in their facial expressions.

In alphabetical order:
conservative

Because they got hit with bellicose Nachtman's spear?
http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif

nacktman

03-22-2006, 08:04 PM

Always thought of myself as imperturbable. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

Able to ventilate lies with the greatest of dispatch. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/stickdance.gif

jon71

03-22-2006, 08:21 PM

As far as the economy goes we are all in between. I've never even met someone who wants a communist govt. to run everything. At the same time who would want medieval feudalism or kids working in mines for pennies a day which is the laizze faire extreme. It's all a matter of finding the right in between spot where we are comfortable.

usmc1

03-23-2006, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by shomymojo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by shomymojo:
Where does that leave those of us who do not fall directly into either catagory...the * Moderates...with some views that are slightly right...and some slightly left...but none to the extreme in either direction...

I expect they were the tepid as warm spit dorks who belonged to the Algebra club and were always chosen as office runners. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>...there you go again USMC1...you sweet talker...how flattering...LOL...lets see...tepid as warm spit dorks...who belonged to Algebra club...Hmmm...well...I was a jock...an actor...and the lead singer in a rock and roll band in High School and College...so as you can see..I was the shy type...LOL...who went on to become a rescue & recovery diver...and a member of the swat team of a famous State Police agency...so tepid...maybe not...but a dork...ya got me...LOL...but a nekkie one[/QUOTE

No wonder you're so conflicted. Your ying is yanking your yang.

shomymojo

03-23-2006, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by usmc1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shomymojo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by shomymojo:
Where does that leave those of us who do not fall directly into either catagory...the * Moderates...with some views that are slightly right...and some slightly left...but none to the extreme in either direction...

I expect they were the tepid as warm spit dorks who belonged to the Algebra club and were always chosen as office runners. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>...there you go again USMC1...you sweet talker...how flattering...LOL...lets see...tepid as warm spit dorks...who belonged to Algebra club...Hmmm...well...I was a jock...an actor...and the lead singer in a rock and roll band in High School and College...so as you can see..I was the shy type...LOL...who went on to become a rescue & recovery diver...and a member of the swat team of a famous State Police agency...so tepid...maybe not...but a dork...ya got me...LOL...but a nekkie one[/QUOTE

No wonder you're so conflicted. Your ying is yanking your yang. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>...the way I see it...my Ying and my Yang are in near perfect balance...and harmony...LOL....Ohmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

grl66

03-23-2006, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by usmc1:
Your ying is yanking your yang.

I hate when it does that! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wiseguy.gif

Silverback

03-23-2006, 04:37 PM

Off topic here, but what does USMC mean US Marine Crop? If it does I just can't belive a Marine can be so Liberal. Sorry that is just me. No offense meant.

Bryan2

03-23-2006, 05:02 PM

Uncle Sam's Misguided Children http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif
Seriously: United States Marine Corps

Naturist Mark

03-23-2006, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by Silverback:
Off topic here, but what does USMC mean US Marine Crop? If it does I just can't belive a Marine can be so Liberal. Sorry that is just me. No offense meant.

Don't doubt it. Marines are trained to be liberals; they fight live and die for each other, there is no looking out for #1 - you are only as strong as the weakest link in your unit - you survive by bringing them up - not by looking out for yourself, and you never ever leave a man (or woman) behind.

Traditionally military officers are Republican, but traditions change. I know several junior marine officers and they say the junior ranks are increasingly Democrats, perhaps even a majority. And even a few senior officers - apparently Rumsfeld is the best recruiter the Democrats have ever had.

There are over 50 new veterans (30 Iraq war vets) running for Congress for the 1st time this year. 1 is a Republican, the rest are all Democrats.

They aren't all Marines, and they aren't all liberals, many are really old fashioned conservatives, which puts them in the Liberal camp these days.

-Mark

nacktman

03-23-2006, 06:12 PM

Dang it Mark, how do you do it?

Nailed it pretty darn good there.

Most jarheads/snake eaters/et al, are liberals (the more elite the unit, the more liberal), in fact most members of the military are ... despite what the neo-cons and traditional conservatives what you to believe.

That myth that the military votes republican or conservative is one of the biggest non-truths we hear every election.
But something tells me that we won't be hearing it so much during the next elections.

jon71

03-23-2006, 08:52 PM

I've always had the impression that the top brass (older, more establishment types) voted republican and that's about it. They probably draw more attention than the "grunts" that are much more aware of what's going on. I think the fact that vets running for office are so lopsidedly Democratic is very telling. Of course when the gop goes from Bush 1 who served honorably in ww2 to Bush 2 who went awol in Alabama and the deferment king Cheney and other chicken hawks like Rumsfeld who can really be surprised.
I think that instead of an elephant (or a white elephant is you go back to Thomas Nast) the rep.s should have John Wayne as their mascot. He projected an image of being tough, brave and noble but in real life was a pot smoking coward who was absolutely determined to never serve a day in the miliatry himself even while enticing others to do so (The Green Berets was basically a pro-vietnam war propaganda film). It seems more and more republicans like to talk tough but are yellow to the core with increasingly fewer exceptions. In addition look how hostile they are to real vets like Kerry and McCain.

usmc1

03-24-2006, 04:43 AM

Originally posted by Silverback:
Off topic here, but what does USMC mean US Marine Crop? If it does I just can't belive a Marine can be so Liberal. Sorry that is just me. No offense meant.

You're correct. But, "so liberal"?

Does my belief that GWB is a dry-drunk sociopath who has us mired in the wrong war, at the wrong time for the wrong reason make me so liberal?

Does my belief that privatization of Social Security is an experiment likely to leave behind some injuries and blistered paint on the walls and an acidic smoke in the ventilation system make me so liberal.

Does my belief in the Cosntituition and Bill of Rights make me so liberal?

Does my belief that our panic stricken reaction to the terrorist attack of 9/11 was silly and fanned by feckless politicans and a mindless media make me so liberal?

Does my standing up to thoughtlessness, cruelty, racism, homophobia, and zenophobia dressed up as "conservatism" make me so liberal?

Look, about the Marines. People often spout this thing that Marines are trained to kill. That's not exactly true---we're trained to stay alive; sometimes that means killing the other joe before he kills us.

But, that doesn't mean we're stupid. Marines come from the general population, but probably disproportionatly from the middle class and working poor (blue collar) and see the unfairness of a confiscatory tax system and predatory economic system run by the wealthy and elites.

On another topic, quickly. I'm no sociologist or politcal scientist. But, I think we're seeing the unraveling and end of those so-called Reagan Decomcrats, the blue collar guys who jumped to the GOP and began voting against their self-interests over some social issues.

I think they're trying to figure out a way to come home. The problem is, they may find the locks have been changed and their plates have been broken and mom turned their bedroom into a craft room.

hm0504

03-24-2006, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by Silverback:
Off topic here, but what does USMC mean US Marine Crop? If it does I just can't belive a Marine can be so Liberal. Sorry that is just me. No offense meant.

Having lived next door (in Canada), for the latter half of my youth, to a retired U.S. Marine who perfectly fitted Naturist Mark's description and generally would hold views in harmony with usmc1's, I have no difficulty with the concept of a U.S. Marine being liberal-minded.

Tara

03-24-2006, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by Silverback:
Off topic here, but what does USMC mean US Marine Crop? If it does I just can't belive a Marine can be so Liberal.

I'd like to know why you can't believe it?

Silverback

03-24-2006, 06:13 PM

The Marines that I know and associate with are more conservative in their views, that’s what I was basing my opinion on, but you have to factor in my age which is a lot old than USMC1. A Vietnam Veteran here -- that war/? was started by Kenney which if I am not mistaken was a democrat and continued by Johnson another democrat. Both parties are at fault here, it is not about the people it is about the party. IMHO both parties suck!
You will be lucky if you will get SSN benefits even after you paid for them all your life because both parties spent the money on the great society ideal.

Trailscout

03-24-2006, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by hm0504:
BTW, I'd like to take this opportunity to commend Tara, President Jimmy Carter [1][2][3], and othes for having the courage to move on from their root Churches due to those Church's inexcusable stances on morality and human rights. I would like to see many others do the same.

I disagree with the Baptists on a few key issues, but I applaud them for their support for morality and human rights. Not sure what you are referring to.

hm0504

03-24-2006, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by Trailscout:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
BTW, I'd like to take this opportunity to commend Tara, President Jimmy Carter [1][2][3], and othes for having the courage to move on from their root Churches due to those Church's inexcusable stances on morality and human rights. I would like to see many others do the same.

I disagree with the Baptists on a few key issues, but I applaud them for their support for morality and human rights. Not sure what you are referring to. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I moved the post to which you are referring to the topic I had intended it to go one.

I was referring specifically to the Southern Baptist Convention (not Baptists in general) and its opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment and other immoral stances.

Trailscout

03-24-2006, 07:35 PM

Women would be victimized by the Equal Rights Ammendment. Existing laws are sufficient to protect all citizens.

jon71

03-24-2006, 08:18 PM

I'm sorry but that is so ignorant. You think women would be "victimized" by having equal rights and having the protected by the constitution. I don't even know where to start with that. Obviously you have never dealt with denied rights and apparently have no empathy for those who do. Trailscout please open your eyes and your hears, there's a world out here that you are completely missing.
Incidentally this illustrates a clear difference between conservatives and liberals. Liberals respect people based on the content of their heart and mind while conservatives can't get past demographics like race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. In other words the differnce between the 21st century and the 13th.

Trailscout

03-24-2006, 08:31 PM

Women are of equal worth. In order to achieve equality between the sexes, there must be different treatment of women. Ever gone to a Braves game and seen the long lines at rest rooms for the women? As long as they are wearing clothes, they are not equipped for rapid urination like men. So the way to offer equality for women is to build more toilets for them than we build for men.

nacktman

03-24-2006, 08:41 PM

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/doh.gif Off topic again are we?

Or are we? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/bonk.gif

Trailscout

03-24-2006, 08:48 PM

Your opinion about the number of toilet seats in a ballpark is an issue that may determine whether you are a liberal or a conservative.

usmc1

03-25-2006, 05:27 AM

Originally posted by Trailscout:
Women would be victimized by the Equal Rights Ammendment. Existing laws are sufficient to protect all citizens.

Oh no they aren't and oh no they don't. “After more than 200 years of living under the United States Constitution and despite all of the progress we have made, women continue to suffer discrimination in employment, insurance, health care, education, the criminal justice system, social security and pensions, and just about any other area you can name.”

http://www.now.org/issues/economic/cea/who.html

[QUOTE]Women are of equal worth. In order to achieve equality between the sexes, there must be different treatment of women. Ever gone to a Braves game and seen the long lines at rest rooms for the women? As long as they are wearing clothes, they are not equipped for rapid urination like men. So the way to offer equality for women is to build more toilets for them than we build for men[QUOTE}

It is hard to say how many fallacies of logic this contains: False analogy, non sequiter, question begging, hard to choose I tell you.

Fallacies of logic defined and explained.

http://www.locksley.com/6696/logic.htm

[QUOTE]Your opinion about the number of toilet seats in a ballpark is an issue that may determine whether you are a liberal or a conservative.(QUOTE)

And it may not. No, make that probably not. No. Wait. Make it: Will not. See above, fallacies of logic.

Actually, though, sports arenas are nice little microcosms of our predatory economic system.

Rich white guy convinces the elites of the town to build a stadium though tax breaks, land acquisition or set asides, deferments, bond issues and at other tax payer expense.

If you don't I'll take my team elsewhere.

Stadium is built, but with the sexist assumption that women aren't sports fans there are too few convenineces for the women who were charged parking, admission and exhorbinant snack prices to watch millionaire whiners play a child's game in the park that was built at community cost.

Those rich, white male, community leaders who condone, spur and underwrite such undertakings generally describe themselves to their constituency as "conservative".

Further evidence that the label conservative is merely an easy moniker to attach to one's self in order to garner support while picking the lectorate's pockets for one's self and one's wealthy elitist friends.

hm0504

03-25-2006, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by Trailscout:
Women are of equal worth. In order to achieve equality between the sexes, there must be different treatment of women. Ever gone to a Braves game and seen the long lines at rest rooms for the women? As long as they are wearing clothes, they are not equipped for rapid urination like men. So the way to offer equality for women is to build more toilets for them than we build for men.

Actually Trailscout, what I was thinking of was that women should have the same opportunity to hold the same positions as men. For example, it should be illegal for a private company to disallow women to hold management positions.

Here is the text of the Equal Rights Amendment, proposed in 1923, that the Southern Baptist Convention and others have worked, and continue to work, so hard to prevent passing:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Naturist Mark

03-25-2006, 09:33 AM

Well lets see. In some states like New York which have Equal Rights Amendment in their State Constitution women are victimized by being allowed to be topfree in public on the same basis as men.

Curiously in Florida, which also has a state ERA, the state courts have ruled that equal rights for women don't apply to women (Nope, I am NOT joking). Pdf document (http://www.beachesfoundation.org/PDF_articles/TopFreeOverrule.pdf)

-Mark

Trailscout

03-25-2006, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by AlexisDanielle:
Trailscout .... how does the Equal Rights Amendment victimize a woman? The ERA is one simple sentence:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Would like to hear how this makes women victims?

Well, the law already protects all citizens equally.

If the ERA passed, women enlisted in the military would be required to participate in combat duty, would be subject to the draft, would not be able to take maternity leave, to name a few things.

Naturist Mark

03-25-2006, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Trailscout:
If the ERA passed, women enlisted in the military would be required to participate in combat duty, would be subject to the draft, would not be able to take maternity leave, to name a few things.

This war has shown that there is no such thing as 'non combat' duty if you are deployed in a war zone.

There is no draft, but there are contingency plans to renew the draft if the CiC so chooses. These plans (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/03/13/MNG905K1BC1.DTL) will conscript people who have certain critical skills regardless of gender.

Men who become temporarily incapable of service are put on leave (or discharged), I'm sure any man who becomes pregnant would be granted maternity leave on an equal basis.

0 for 3.

Do you really think women need to be protected from their full share of human rights?

-Mark

usmc1

03-25-2006, 03:02 PM

Trailscout wrote: [Quote}If the ERA passed, women enlisted in the military would be required to participate in combat duty, would be subject to the draft, would not be able to take maternity leave, to name a few things.[/QUOTE]

Mark dealt quite well with the military shibboleths.

Let me direct you to the FMLA.

http://www.equalrights.org/publications/fact_sheets/fmla.asp

No one would loose their maternity leave were the ERA to become part of the Constitution.

Based on what you have offred up on this topic, I have come to think this is the real you, and those recent nearly thoughtful and erudite pieces offered up last week were no more than cut and paste jobs that you snuck in under your handle without quotes or attibution.

I just do not think the same person can be responsible such off the wall, illogical, and shibbolethic stuff as you put up here about the ERA and women, compared to those other, earlier rather thoughtful pieces to which I referred.

Either that or you're so confounded by strong women fighting for their rights that you're rendered incoherent.

Something's amiss. Were I a copper, you'd be a person of interest.

Maybe someone will dogpile or google them to find where they really came from. There were some key phrases that would lend themselves to a search.

Tara

03-25-2006, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by Silverback:
The Marines that I know and associate with are more conservative in their views, that’s what I was basing my opinion on, but you have to factor in my age which is a lot old than USMC1.

Really? I was under the impression that usmc1 was no spring chicken http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif Young at heart I'm sure, but I thought from our conversations that he was older... am I mistaken?

usmc1

03-25-2006, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by Tara:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Silverback:
The Marines that I know and associate with are more conservative in their views, that’s what I was basing my opinion on, but you have to factor in my age which is a lot old than USMC1.

Really? I was under the impression that usmc1 was no spring chicken http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif Young at heart I'm sure, but I thought from our conversations that he was older... am I mistaken? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chronological age is irrelevant. I'll always be, at heart, a nineteen year old Marine on liberty--so watch out girl.

Then there's these old poots who were old men before they left high school.

But.."older"? Older than what, might I ask?

nacktman

03-25-2006, 05:05 PM

Silverback, it was Ike that sent the first troops to Vietnam as a favor to his French buddies and committed the US to the war effort of the unpopular government in place against another old friend from the "Big War", Ho Chi Min and his bunch of loyalists.

Last time I checked Ike was a republican. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

Check you history there has been only ONE war with a foreign power (not counting the multiple "domestic Indian wars" or the 1812 British 'invasion' of what they still considered their colonies) since the Revolution that was not started by a sitting republican or as a result of republican policies in the entire history of the United States ... that one war was with Mexico in the early 1840's.

Another misconseption bites the dust!

Tara

03-25-2006, 09:40 PM

Originally posted by usmc1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tara:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Silverback:
The Marines that I know and associate with are more conservative in their views, that’s what I was basing my opinion on, but you have to factor in my age which is a lot old than USMC1.

Really? I was under the impression that usmc1 was no spring chicken http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif Young at heart I'm sure, but I thought from our conversations that he was older... am I mistaken? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chronological age is irrelevant. I'll always be, at heart, a nineteen year old Marine on liberty--so watch out girl.

Then there's these old poots who were old men before they left high school.

But.."older"? Older than what, might I ask? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"older" than me? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif Now I'm gonna have to go back and look at old PM's but I believe there was a "when I was your age" in there somewhere....

EDIT: oops, wasn't you, I guess I confused you with someone else! sorry!

Trailscout

03-26-2006, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by usmc1:
...Based on what you have offred up on this topic, I have come to think this is the real you, and those recent nearly thoughtful and erudite pieces offered up last week were no more than cut and paste jobs that you snuck in under your handle without quotes or attibution.

I just do not think the same person can be responsible such off the wall, illogical, and shibbolethic stuff as you put up here about the ERA and women, compared to those other, earlier rather thoughtful pieces to which I referred.

Either that or you're so confounded by strong women fighting for their rights that you're rendered incoherent.

Something's amiss. Were I a copper, you'd be a person of interest.

Maybe someone will dogpile or google them to find where they really came from. There were some key phrases that would lend themselves to a search.

Search through that dogpile in your back yard to your heart's content, but I suggest wearing gloves or use a long stick. All my posts are Trailscout originals.

Equality for women can and should mean unequal treatment. If you are like Gomer Pyle, perhaps the logic of this has eluded you, but maybe if you are more like Sarge Vince Carter or Corporal Boyle, if you stew over it long enough, what I am saying will eventually make sense. Now drop and give me 20 pushups for assuming that I don't use original material!

jon71

03-26-2006, 09:16 AM

The thing is trail it doesn't seem to make sense because it's really nonsensical. Don't flatter yourself, you're just living in denial. You are struggling with the truth and losing. Give up and accept that you're medieval views on gender equality are bunk that is being thrown on the trash heap of history and deservedly so. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Trailscout

03-26-2006, 09:26 AM

Jon,
A good idea is not good because it is new or old. It is simply a good idea.

usmc1

03-26-2006, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by Trailscout:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
...Based on what you have offred up on this topic, I have come to think this is the real you, and those recent nearly thoughtful and erudite pieces offered up last week were no more than cut and paste jobs that you snuck in under your handle without quotes or attibution.

I just do not think the same person can be responsible such off the wall, illogical, and shibbolethic stuff as you put up here about the ERA and women, compared to those other, earlier rather thoughtful pieces to which I referred.

Either that or you're so confounded by strong women fighting for their rights that you're rendered incoherent.

Something's amiss. Were I a copper, you'd be a person of interest.

Maybe someone will dogpile or google them to find where they really came from. There were some key phrases that would lend themselves to a search.

Search through that dogpile in your back yard to your heart's content, but I suggest wearing gloves or use a long stick. All my posts are Trailscout originals.

Equality for women can and should mean unequal treatment. If you are like Gomer Pyle, perhaps the logic of this has eluded you, but maybe if you are more like Sarge Vince Carter or Corporal Boyle, if you stew over it long enough, what I am saying will eventually make sense. Now drop and give me 20 pushups for assuming that I don't use original material! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My backyard is 97 acres of East Texas' finest. Not a lot of dog piles but the occasional pile of cow pucky when my neigbor's bull, Old Rock, breaks throygh the fence and brings the herd over to visit us.

But, you got so defensive and challenging that now I'm really wondering.

Trailscout

03-26-2006, 10:50 AM

USMC1,

I have given short shrift to ERA, simply because a cursory inspection of the status of women in the corporate world should indicate to you that they are doing just fine with the laws currently on the books. How many laws do we need to pass before we realize that passing legislation is not the only way to address every inequity in society?

Has it occurred to you that we could simply do a better job enforcing the laws on the books and achieve the equity you want?

usmc1

03-26-2006, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by AlexisDanielle:
Hmmm, Trailscout .....

Yes, we do need the ERA, as many of the current written constitutional laws do not always work as the Constitution when written wrote it to mean man as the male person. There are several court cases that have proven this.

We still are fighting a huge conservative/reactionary component in this country regarding equal rights for women largely due to misinformation about what it means and from those who want to maintain the traditional status quo. The only right we are guaranteed specifically by the US Constitution is the right to vote.

The 14th amendment also does not gives us equal rights and again, the Supreme Court of this country did not move beyond the traditional assumption that males hold rights and females must prove that they hold them. A clear example of this was the Virginia Military Institute's admissions requirements.

Three more states are needed to ratify the ERA and then it might become a constitutional amendment. However, if people continue to listen to misinformation about what the ERA is really about from such spinners of mistruths like Jerry Fartwell who railed against it 30 years ago, we still have a hard road to travel down. And sadly, I live in one of those states that has not ratified it but we are working on it.

Allie

Trailscout, what she said. Plus this...

Has it not occured to you that the very bright, highly energetic, fully engaged women who support the ERA would not do so if its passing were meaningless?

So, the next time you feel like parroting the shibboleths of the right wing and religious reactionaries, please take a moment and ask yourself how it could be that they could be correct and so many very bright, energetic and socially engaged women could be so wrong. Those women who are our wives, mothers, daughters, sisters, cousins, aunts, friends and lovers.

How have they been duped into asking for an Orwellian equality, which will render them inequal?

Actually you're being quite silly about this and really ought to know it, if what you say about the other writings are true--that they came from your mind and no one else's

Trailscout

03-28-2006, 07:11 AM

If the 14th ammendment does not de-facto convey equal rights to women, it is a problem with enforcement. Additional ammendments, no matter how carefully crafted must still be enforced. But passing such redundant laws is a passifier. It makes people feel that they have accomplished something, though in reality, it will actually create an injustice to women or at best accomplish nothing.

The feminist movement long ago achieved its goals of equality and these groups have all been subverted and are now led by leftist lesbians promoting a radical social agenda that would shock and anger most Americans if they knew their true goals.

jon71

03-28-2006, 08:36 AM

YOu aren't dealing with reality Trail. There is still inequality that can and should be address by the law. Things are slowly improving but we are no where near where we can/should be. Since it's not your rights that are impaired you seem very nonchalant that others are denied their rights. Some of us however are concerned. I have a daughter and she is the light of my life. I do not want her denied any rights or opportunities based on gender (or anything else).

FireProf

03-28-2006, 10:38 PM

Doesn't take long. A tiger can never change his strips.

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/no.gif

jon71

03-28-2006, 10:51 PM

I'm a straight male and I support feminism in general and the E.R.A. in particular.

NudeTopher

03-29-2006, 03:49 AM

Originally posted by Trailscout:

The feminist movement long ago achieved its goals of equality and these groups have all been subverted and are now led by leftist lesbians promoting a radical social agenda that would shock and anger most Americans if they knew their true goals.

Once again TS must bash gays and refer to a mysterious agenda. No doubt TS blames lesbians and gays for all of society's ills, his inability to find a significant other, and quite possibly for his economic position in life. And I thought scapegoats had the week off.

Has TS ever explained why he continues to post here after he has posted on other forums that he wishes these forums would close?

nacktman

03-29-2006, 03:52 AM

NudeTopher what was it that FireProf said about a tiger and stripes? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

TS is TS and in TS's world ... well ... http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rolleyes2.gif

BTW, I thought scapegoats had next week off! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/bonk.gif

Trailscout

03-29-2006, 12:46 PM

Patricia Ireland, the feminist groups leader, recently said "maybe half" of NOWs 500,000 members are lesbians. In my previous post I said that the leadership of feminist groups was dominated by lesbians. I stand by that fact and I am astonished that so many of the rank and file are lesbians as well. There are some women who have been duped into thinking that they need these organizations to protect their rights.

As for the Equal Rights Ammendment, here's a great article showing the harm it will cause if passed:
ERA: Equality for whom? (http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/v-print/story/14143574p-14971931c.html)

usmc1

03-29-2006, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by Trailscout:
Patricia Ireland, the feminist groups leader, recently said "maybe half" of NOWs 500,000 members are lesbians. In my previous post I said that the leadership of feminist groups was dominated by lesbians. I stand by that fact and I am astonished that so many of the rank and file are lesbians as well. There are some women who have been duped into thinking that they need these organizations to protect their rights.

As for the Equal Rights Ammendment, here's a great article showing the harm it will cause if passed:
ERA: Equality for whom? (http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/v-print/story/14143574p-14971931c.html)

Gee, I went to all that effort to post a link to a list and explanation of the errors of fallacious logic in hopes you might find a way to elevate your thinking and writings.

Alas, to no avail.

First: your Ad hominem attack on lesbians.

Who, other than you and your ilk, cares how many lesbians support the ERA? You seem to think that a person's sexuality has some bearing on the legal and human rights issues involved---it does not.

Your attempt to assert, and to persuade us, that the ERA is flawed and harmful to women because it is supported by lesbians is disgusting, immoral, repulsive and wholly offensive to decent people of all political leanings.

Secondly: Your Appeal to false authority and argument by selective reasoning.

The article you cite was from the ultra-right media of The National Review and Eagle Forum which serve as nesting grounds for frenzied screech-harpies, such as Phylis Schlafley, who as a young boy growing up in Alton Illinois, I had the distinct pleasure of watching being torn to babbling shreds by my mother in a debate during the red scare nonsense.

Of course those soulless hags oppose the ERA, I'm certain that it's because they will no longer be permitted to eat their young once it passes.

hm0504

03-29-2006, 01:34 PM

Geez Trailscout, quite a week with all your arguments on homosexuality, women's rights, racism, and slavery. Can't wait to see what next week brings!

Trailscout

03-29-2006, 01:36 PM

At ease soldier! Who said anything about an attack?

Well, if over 50% of an organization's rank and file and the overwhelming majority of its leaders are all from a certain minority segment of society, I'd say that they don't and can't be representative of the rest of us. That's not an attack, just a fact.

Trailscout

03-29-2006, 01:40 PM

Albinus,

Eh? What to talk about next week?
It seems that there's a growing movement to annex Canada. I found quite a few web links. Since you hail from that frosty realm, I thought perhaps you'd care to opine!

I'm a big fan of Bob and Doug McKenzie (http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Underground/6756/takeoff.htm) and have learned a lot about the Great White North as a result of their educational television show.

jon71

03-29-2006, 01:48 PM

Trail you still haven't come up with any reason to say that E.R.A. is bad for America. When I have time tonight I will look up the exact numbers but an overwhelming majority of Americans support E.R.A. and wisely so. Only anachronistic throwbacks oppose it. Are you even going to attempt to come up with a reason other than simple misogony?

hm0504

03-29-2006, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by hm0504:
Geez Trailscout, quite a week with all your arguments on homosexuality, women's rights, racism, and slavery. Can't wait to see what next week brings!

Forgot to list torture too.

As for annexing Canada, well that would tip the balance toward the liberals in the U.S. generally. Of course, at the moment, Canadians have opted to try out a Conservative government, and wouldn't you know it, the first thing they do is muzzle government communications with the press -- no member of the government can say anything publicly without the Prime Minister's approval. The latest thing is greatly restricting reporters' access to the House of Commons [1].

Hopefully, there are a few true conservatives left, even some in the Conservative party, who actually think are appalled at this but we'll see.

[1] http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics/news/shownews.jsp?content=n032863A

Naturist Mark

03-29-2006, 04:05 PM

Hey, how about we mix it up by discussing the immigration issue.

That is a weird one in that the Democrats support W's position more than the Republicans do.

The Republican leadership's plan to build more walls, and to make it illegal for churches to even give food to undocumenteds will never work. All stick and no carrot, the sundering of families, the criminalization of the Catholic Church, and no recognizion of reality will doom it.

Personally I tend to favor the McCain-Kennedy approach - a reality based plan that gives illegals a path to legal status if they stick to the rules, but puts them at the end of the line behind those played by the rules from the start. By sticking to the rules, staying out of trouble, paying their taxes, not using welfare or other public assistance, and by learning English, illegals can earn citizenship in 11 years. Legal immigrants can earn it in 5 years. Fair?

Couple that with meaningful enforcement of sanctions against illegal employers. Fines against employers of illegal workers were in the millions during the Clinton administration, they dropped to almost nothing in 2001. If we started to enforce the laws against the employers, and If the fine were increased from $250 per worker to $10,000 or even $50,000 if an employer knowingly employes an illegal, then there will be a rush to comply with the new rules. Illegals will come out from the underground if they have a clear path to doing the hard work of becoming legal and earning their place - the one thing no sane person can accuse them of is being lazy.

-Mark

nacktman

03-29-2006, 04:17 PM

... the one thing no sane person can accuse the of is being lazy.

That's very true Mark, it's the "Legal Aliens" that are the lazy ones. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif

(BTW, nice way your stripped gears on this thread's transmission when you shifted.)

Naturist Mark

03-29-2006, 04:18 PM

As a counter to the anti-latino hysteria (AKA "operation: fear of brown people") I present an excellent article by Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez (http://alisavaldesrodriguez.blogspot.com/2006/03/how-stupid-are-us-media.html)

<UL TYPE=SQUARE> How Stupid are the US Media?!?!

(Lou Dobbs, Chief CNN DUMBASS)

Open letter to CNN and other mainstream US media outlets:

1. The vast majority of Hispanics/Latinos in the U.S. (75 percent of us) were born and raised here, including many of us who have roots here that predate the arrival of the pilgrims.

2. "Immigrant" is not synonymous with "Latino" and the media should stop pretending they mean the same thing.

3. The CNN analyst who said today "Keep in mind, Latino voters are LEGAL immigrants, not illegal immigrants" should be FIRED for sloppy thinking. MOST LATINOS ARE NOT IMMIGRANTS AT ALL, PINCHE CABRON.

4. Immigrants to contemporary USA come from EVERYWHERE. There are, for instance, 100,000 Nigerians in Houston, and tens of thousands of ILLEGAL Irish in Boston and other parts of the nation. If this debate is truly about immigration, as opposed to racist portrayals of Latinos, please curb your coverage to be more responsible.

5. Just because someone waves a Mexican or Colombian flag at a peaceful demonstration does not mean the demonstration is a "riot" or the people unAmerican. Lou Dobbs should get his panties out of a knot and realize it is no different than someone waving an Irish flag in Southie or an Italian flag on Columbus Day. These flags are not waved as proof of national allegiance; they are waved in solidarity with a person's cultural heritage.

6. You can be a Mexican American and never have had an ancestor come over the US border; vast portions of the United States of today USED TO BE MEXICO or SPAIN. If you failed to learn this in high school, your teachers should be fired.

7. The vast majority of Hispanics/Latinos in the US speak English as a first language. The Pew Center for Hispanic research shows that by the third generation, all Latin American immigrant descendents - 100 percent of them - are English-first, English dominant. Zero percent speak Spanish as a first or primary language by the third generation.

8. The US has TWO international borders, not ONE. To date, not a single terrorist has gotten to the US through Mexico; to date, at least two suspected terrorists have arrived here through Canada. In fact, I would not be surprised if, while the media and xenophobes are focused on the Mexican border, terrorists figure out that it might be a good idea to walk over from Vancouver to Seattle for a latte. Oh, and all international anti-American terrorists who have come to the U.S. so far have been *smart* enough to come with passports and other documents supplied to them by the deep pockets of their organizations. Do you really think a terrorist from Saudi Arabia is going to think it's a good idea to swim over the border to Texas or Arizona with a bunch of Mexicans? How stupid is that?!?

9. Not all Hispanics/Latinos are Mexican or of Mexican origin in the U.S., and most people of Mexican extraction in the US were born in the UNITED STATES.

10. Please check for plans to give Haliburton the contract to build a wall along the Mexican border before caving in to the right-wing propaganda about a "crisis" in immigration from Mexico.

11. Please be careful when you discuss these issues not to stereotype or overgeneralize. The anti-Latino frenzy you're creating is leading to a racist backlash against tens of millions of native-born Americans who happen to have Spanish names.

12. The following are also Spanish names: California, Arizona, Florida, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, Las Vegas. Why does CNN allow states, cities and rivers with Spanish names to be American, while disallowing American people with Spanish names the same right...? Mister Dobbs, you may no longer say the names of most states in the United States, because only SEVEN U.S. states have English names; the rest are Spanish or Native American. English-only, sir. Make up new names, change your rhetoric, or stop talking about Los Angeles altogether.

13. Please tell us what the problems are that are caused by illegal immigrants. Don't just say there is a "debate". Tell us in concrete terms what the risks and dangers are being brought to the US by "illegal" immigrants. Now tell us how these problems, if any, differ from the problems caused by U.S. citizens of all other backgrounds. Be precise. Can't find any? Thought so.

14. Please remember that the least legal and least assimilable of American immigrants were...the English. And the only people who can claim to be true "Americans" are Native Americans.

15. Most Mexicans are Native Americans.

16. Shut up about this non-issue and get back to BEING JOURNALISTS, covering the REAL issues, like the illegal war in Iraq and the lies that got us there; the record-setting trade deficit; Bush's bankrupting of America; NSA's illegal wiretapping of American citizens; the fact that our public schools are MORE segregated than they were before Brown vs. the Board of Education; the fact that we as a nation have now slipped to having only the 27th freest press in the world; the Plame leak and the consequences of it being that Americans are much less safe than we were before Cheney and his friends played "revenge"; the disappearance of the American middle class and unions; the sorry state of the FAA; the rapid devaluation of the American dollar on the world market thanks to idiot leaders; the dismantling of the endangered species act by our administration; the rapid and unprecedented rise of a white underclass (the fastest rise in poor whites in American history has occurred under Bush); the enormous and growing gap between rich and poor in America.

All best,

Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez [/list]

-Mark

nacktman

03-29-2006, 04:29 PM

Sounds like Senora Valdes-Rodriquez needs a chill pill, either that or she has the "Hots" for one Lou Dobbs. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/bonk.gif

nacktman

03-29-2006, 04:32 PM

Seriously though the Senora does point out a "few" facts that somehow escaped notice over the centuries.

Even more so recently.

usmc1

03-30-2006, 04:25 AM

Originally posted by nacktman:
Seriously though the Senora does point out a "few" facts that somehow escaped notice over the centuries.

Even more so recently.

I'm glad you added this qualification, your chill pill posting did not serve you all that well. It is akin to those marginalizing and minimalizing comments by one of the resident nitwits.

I gnerally like Dobbs, as he is one of the few, along with Jack Cafferty, who is willing to criticize the Bush gang--but he is way around the bend on the immigration issue and is focusing on Mexicans to the exclusion of all otehr immigration issues.

Trailscout

03-30-2006, 06:45 AM

I support the Kennedy-McCain plan in theory, but in the implementation may continue to exploit both native born and immigrant communities. And as far as I know, it would not address the issue of green card workers brought in to depress the wages of IT workers. That in conjunction with overseas outsourcing has dealt a one-two punch to the tech sector.

I don't buy the argument that every sector of the economy that currently has a heavy illegal presence consists of jobs that "no American will take".

I know that many carpenters, construction workers and landscapers were American-born once upon a time and they made wages good enough to support a family.

Other job types such as agriculture, well maybe we would benefit from seasonal workers.
But whatever we decide, an open border does not make sense. Not all who cross it are here to work. Unscrupulous people smugglers have abandoned trailers in the desert heat leaving scores of men women and children to die an agonizing death. Drug runners and renegade soldiers have heavy armaments and outgunned the border patrol and county sheriffs. There have even been intruders from arab countries sneaking across the Mexican border.

Both parties have winked at American businesses who hire illegal labor. Without enforcement, no new laws will help.

usmc1

03-30-2006, 10:50 AM

Back on topic. The difference between Liberals and Conservatives. Liberals are honest, Conservatives are lying liars who tell lies.

Example, lying liar California conservative Republican congressman puts up a picture on his web site to demonstrate how peaceful things really are in Bahgdad..ie Iraq. It features cobblestone streets and a couple in western garb walking along holding hands.

Only thing is, it's a picture from Istanbul Turkey, not Iraq. Bloggers nailed him. Sort of like here, honest liberals catch lying liars in the act and expose them.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12071317/site/newsweek/

Baron Lake

03-30-2006, 11:33 AM

Trail, I think most of us already use gloves and a long stick when we wade thru your posts.
Personally, I keep a box of those disposable latex gloves handy and one of those telescopic aluminum treking poles. (They were designed for trails afterall.) http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gifb.l.
Edit: forgot to mention the hip waders. I like the kind with the built-in flotation.

usmc1

03-30-2006, 02:35 PM

More on topic. Conservatives are lying liars, and their pants are on fire.

Here's that diva of screech harpies Ann Coulter with an appendage in the wringer because she lied about her place of residence to election officials.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_di...ontent_id=1002275013 (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002275013)

May result in criminal charges.

Naturist Mark

03-30-2006, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Trailscout:
I don't buy the argument that every sector of the economy that currently has a heavy illegal presence consists of jobs that "no American will take". Nor do I. The truth is that Americans WILL do the work if the wages are sufficient. When pundits say "Americans won't do the work" they mean "they won't do the work for slave wages". There have even been intruders from arab countries sneaking across the Mexican border. No doubt about it, border security is a necessity in the real war on terrorism. But just a note: Almost every "Arab" terrorist known to have entered the US came via Canada or US international airports, and most had passports.

-Mark

Boreas

03-30-2006, 02:59 PM

No doubt about it, border security is a necessity in the real war on terrorism. But just a note: Almost every "Arab" terrorist known to have entered the US came via Canada or US international airports, and most had passports.

It has been clearly determined that the terrorists that were responsible for 9/11 did NOT come through Canada. They had been in the US for some time and had been apparently productive members of American society. Apparently they also came through legally.

The US could put a big wall along the Canada/US border, and the US/Mexico border and there would still be problems.

hm0504

03-30-2006, 03:10 PM

As Still_Boreas says, the 9/11 terrorists entered the U.S. legally and I'm sure people will remember that they took flight training in the U.S. and that the U.S. government re-approved their student visas 6 months AFTER 9/11 [1].

However, other Islamists have entered, or tried entering the U.S. from Canada and there are a number of Islamist cells operating in Canada.

[1] http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/terrorvisa1.html

nacktman

03-30-2006, 05:20 PM

Still_Boreas, hm0504, most terrorists entering the United States came in crying when the doctor popped them on their arse to get them to start breathing. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

(For those metaphorically challenged out there ... that means they were born here.) http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/idea3.gif

**************

On to topic;

What is the difference between conservatives and Liberals?

Short answer: 50 IQ points, in the case of neo-cons 100 IQ points

Answer: Liberals tend to have higher IQ scores and greater cognitive skill asessments than do conservatives.

bendigonudey

03-30-2006, 05:58 PM

So spare a thought for us here in Oz, where the Liberal Party are conservatives, and the Labor Party represents the more socially aware liberals.
http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rolleyes2.gif

Boreas

03-30-2006, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by bendigonudey:
So spare a thought for us here in Oz, where the Liberal Party are conservatives, and the Labor Party represents the more socially aware liberals.
http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rolleyes2.gif

You have that too? Our provincial "Liberal Party" is so far right it is scary.

nacktman

03-30-2006, 06:24 PM

bendigonudey, just differences in terminology.
We "Americans" being egocentric and all ... forget about other appelations.

So here goes a brief definition of the terms as "we" see them.

Liberal: Open to new ideas and changes; Inclusive; Forward looking and progressive.

Conservative: Closed to new ideas and changes; Exclusive; Backward looking and regressive.

Neo-con: see conservative definition above and subtract any and all sense of reality from the equation.

jon71

03-31-2006, 08:51 AM

A second aide to Rep. Tom Delay just pleaded guilty. Also in late breaking news there are no Democratic members of congress, or their staff, facing criminal charges. Looks like a big difference to me.

UnitedNudists

03-31-2006, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by nacktman:
Liberal: Open to new ideas and changes; Inclusive; Forward looking and progressive.

.
What new ideas specifically do you think Liberals are open too? What do you mean 'forward looking' and 'progressive'? Bit confused by what you mean by that. Can you explain in your unusually intelligent fashion? thanks

jon71

03-31-2006, 07:31 PM

How about realizing that Iraq was a mistake and bringing out troops home. Or maybe allowing the morning after pill through based on science (I forget the name, it's second something) rather than blocking it to appease the blue haired old ladies. Maybe recognizing environmental science and making policy accordingly rather than being big oil's lap dog. It could refer to fiscal policy that takes into account the long term impact of today's decisions, i.e. not saddling our kids and grandkids with massive debt. I'm sure there are many other examples but this is good for starters.

Trailscout

03-31-2006, 08:35 PM

Jon,

When you think about the Marshall plan to rebuild Europe and Japan after WWII, it was not a liberal or conservative plan, it was enlightened self-interest that taught us not to leave those countries in ruins. A bitter and desperate Germany after World War I led to the rise of the Nazis and Hitler.

I believe that Iraq is fundamentally different from both Europe or Japan. In hindsight, it is probably one of the most difficult countries on Earth to govern. But the idea of not leaving Iraq in ruins seems like a sound one. It will only invite more trouble if we don't. I heard the president the other day talking about dropping the massive engineering projects that are easy targets for terrorists and focusing on providing resources to local community leaders to let them rebuild infrastructure themselves. Such local self-help is far less likely to be a target of terror groups. Apparently, by their very nature, the media does not cover such low-level grassroots efforts. Of course, the opportunities for the President to exxagerate the extent of such programs is obvious.

I don't know anyone who thinks that American troops should stay there. It's just a matter of efficiently training Iraqi police and army and then letting them do their best to keep things together. This is more a matter of logistics than politics. Let's just do what it takes!

Our military will probably never be too far from the Persian Gulf in the near future, but I would hope that getting our troops out of Iraq itself is not a partisan issue. Don't we all want that?

President Reagan won conservative support by his talk of balancing the budget. I know that Jimmy Carter campaigned for president with similar statements. Both liberal and conservative voters want fiscal restraint. We can argue about how fast we should pay down the debt and how soon we should end deficit spending, but we have the same general goal. It's our national leaders who are playing games with us. Democrats have voted for special interest projects with equal enthusiasm as Republicans. In Georgia we have gleaming highways that go through vast pine forests to connect hopeless towns in the district of a once-powerful Georgia state congressman. And we have potholes in the roads of districts where voters have little influence.

Republicans avoid embarassing tax increases by allowing inflation to put you the taxpayer in a higher tax bracket. And of course deficit spending causes inflation.

In summary, I am trying to say that conservatives and liberals are not divided on many issues. It's just that leaders of both major parties quite often are not acting according to their ideology, nor according to the needs of the people, but according to the special interests that put them in power.

Many people who have voted Republican in the past few elections are getting tired of being played for a fool by the elite in Washington. A lot of us would cross over to vote for a Democrat if he were not at the far left side of the party.

Moderates are about to show their muscle again.

Qikdraw

03-31-2006, 10:50 PM

Originally posted by Trailscout:
I heard the president the other day talking about dropping the massive engineering projects that are easy targets for terrorists and focusing on providing resources to local community leaders to let them rebuild infrastructure themselves. Such local self-help is far less likely to be a target of terror groups.

That would be a good thing, and something that should have been done at the begining, we would have less problems now if we had done that. However Bush says a lot of things, then does exactly the opposite. Like when he praises after school programs and says these are important, but then cuts their funding.

I don't know anyone who thinks that American troops should stay there.

I do. Wolfowitz, Cheney, Perle, Rumsfeld, the whole PNAC group, plus many other chicken-hawks.

It's just a matter of efficiently training Iraqi police and army and then letting them do their best to keep things together.

The problem with that is that not even the Iraqi government trusts the police or troops. If you've read a recent post of mine in the Iraq thread you'll notice a tidbit in there that says Iraqis should not let police into their homes unless coalition forces are present as well. Its portions of teh Iraqi police who have been taking people away and later on they are found dead.

This is more a matter of logistics than politics. Let's just do what it takes!

I thnk its beyond logistics. I think there have been far too many mistakes in policy in Iraq, and now we are left with little good.

Our military will probably never be too far from the Persian Gulf in the near future, but I would hope that getting our troops out of Iraq itself is not a partisan issue. Don't we all want that?

I think the majority of Americans want that, the majority of Iraqis want that, but its the chicken-haws who make policy, not us. Why are permanent US bases being built in Iraq if we want out of there?

Many people who have voted Republican in the past few elections are getting tired of being played for a fool by the elite in Washington. A lot of us would cross over to vote for a Democrat if he were not at the far left side of the party.

Moderates are about to show their muscle again.

The problem is that the Republican party has moved so far right, that a moderate view is looked as far left. A lot of democrats calling for accountability of this administration are called far left. Government accountability is not a far left ideal, its the spirit of the Constitution to have the people hold the government accountable.

This Republican administration holds none of the traditional Republican ideals, it has gone far right. So far right I don't think people can really come to grips with it. They automatically think it can't be that bad, and defend the party. Even against their own interests.

You are right in that democrats and republicans are guilty of looking after their own interests over the interests of the American people. However with the amount of corruption going on in the Republican party right now, we can see that the democrats is the cleaner of the two parties. (which is why the US should switch to a Parlamentarian system. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif )

Qikdraw

UnitedNudists

04-01-2006, 04:56 AM

Originally posted by usmc1:
More on topic. Conservatives are lying liars, and their pants are on fire.

Here's that diva of screech harpies Ann Coulter with an appendage in the wringer because she lied about her place of residence to election officials.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_di...ontent_id=1002275013 (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002275013)

May result in criminal charges.

Think they should charge this woman with assault?

http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=78068

Should law be used as a potent weapon of partisan poltiics?

Naturist Mark

04-01-2006, 06:54 AM

I don't know anyone who thinks that American troops should stay there.

Then why is the US building 14 permanent military bases?

-Mark

Naturist Mark

04-01-2006, 07:04 AM

Think they should charge this woman with assault?

http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=78068

Hmmm ... If a man who is not a uniformed officer placed a hand on a woman in such a manner -"inappropriately touching and stopping" her, he would be guilty of assualt and would have no recourse against her defense. Does the fact that he IS a security officer, even though he was mistaken about his actions in restaining a congress member, excuse his actions?

I think they were both mistaken and should excuse the other's actions in all humility. The alternative is to charge both with bull***t offenses and make a mockery of it all.

-Mark

Trailscout

04-01-2006, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I don't know anyone who thinks that American troops should stay there.

Then why is the US building 14 permanent military bases?

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Because we are building them for the Iraqi army. We are going home soon and won't need the bases for ourselves. Or am I missing something?

Trailscout

04-01-2006, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
...I think they were both mistaken and should excuse the other's actions in all humility. The alternative is to charge both with bull***t offenses and make a mockery of it all.
-Mark

Agreed! The guard was being a "Deputy Dawg" and Congresswoman McKinney is well-known for having a chip on her shoulder. Two fools who deserve each other. They should get married. It's the only honorable thing since they have touched each other. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

NudeTopher

04-01-2006, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by Trailscout:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I don't know anyone who thinks that American troops should stay there.

Then why is the US building 14 permanent military bases?

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Because we are building them for the Iraqi army. We are going home soon and won't need the bases for ourselves. Or am I missing something? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROFLMBBO

Now, that is (misguided) optimism!

hm0504

04-01-2006, 03:53 PM

As discussed on the other main thread about Iraq, training an Iraqi army and "national" police force appears not to be working because loyalties are not to a national Iraq but to ethnic, religious, and political sects.

You know how the Bush administration talks about the 14 "quiet" provinces. Why doesn't the Bush administration had those over to the Iraqi army and police? Why? Because those provinces would no longer be quiet.

If the training of the Iraqi army had gone so well, why would U.S. Major General Paul Eaton, in charge of that training from 2003 to 2004, be calling for the resignation of Rumsfeld and others [1]?

[1] http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/650...880095314#8880095314 (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6500016152/m/7350030093/r/8880095314#8880095314)

nakedstudent

04-01-2006, 04:37 PM

I think that the idea that Conservatives are whinners is completely misguided. I am a conservative and the only concrete things I stand for is everyone using their God given talents to the best of their ability. That encomases work, domestic, spiritual, and many other areas. I think its a travesty to see people who don't use their capabilities as much as others and still expect the same rewards.

Liberals in my view, especially socially, are much more willing to allow such behavior to continue. Look at welfare. It is supposed to be used as a "leg up" with time restrictions and such. This is fine. Usually time restrictions aren't enforced. Recipients have recently complained about a manditory 8 hours of community service a week!!! Any person who recieved that much money for 8 hours of work a week would be fired if they didn't work. Why treat people who need financial help any differently?

I guess what I'm trying to say is "If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish you feed him for life." It is my opinion that Liberals choose to enact the first sentence and look for a quick fix. Conservatives, atleast recently, have started to do the second. It is much more gratifying to work for a reward than to sit around and expect handouts.

usmc1

04-01-2006, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by UnitedNudists:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
More on topic. Conservatives are lying liars, and their pants are on fire.

Here's that diva of screech harpies Ann Coulter with an appendage in the wringer because she lied about her place of residence to election officials.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_di...ontent_id=1002275013 (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002275013)

May result in criminal charges.

Think they should charge this woman with assault?

http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=78068

Should law be used as a potent weapon of partisan poltiics? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No to the first question and yes to the second, depending on which law you're talking about. I'm particularly in favor of a law which would forbid conservatives access to the internet and which would would restrict their breeding only to the amount which would fulfill the needs for maintaining fully moled Whack-A-Mole games.

nacktman

04-02-2006, 05:10 AM

The whinners are whine even when they deny they are whinners.

Since they are liars as well we know they are lying when they do it.

So, how about a little cheese to go with all the whine?

nakedstudent

04-02-2006, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by nacktman:
The whinners are whine even when they deny they are whinners.

Since they are liars as well we know they are lying when they do it.

So, how about a little cheese to go with all the whine?

Yeah I absolutely love personal attacks... they are extremely effective in getting your point across...

Dude you're above this. I didn't say either was better... I just stated my point of view... Next time you want to respond to one of my posts, please use your brain not your ***.

Qikdraw

04-02-2006, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by nakedstudent:
I think that the idea that Conservatives are whinners is completely misguided. I am a conservative and the only concrete things I stand for is everyone using their God given talents to the best of their ability. That encomases work, domestic, spiritual, and many other areas. I think its a travesty to see people who don't use their capabilities as much as others and still expect the same rewards.

I think you are a believer of the traditional conservative viewpoints? If so then how do you console yourself to what the conservative party of today is doing? The amount of scanals currently going on is insane. So much corruption in the conservative party. So much secrecy, and growing secrecy as well. It seems the conservative party of today is far far removed from what most republicans would say they stand for.

Liberals in my view, especially socially, are much more willing to allow such behavior to continue. Look at welfare. It is supposed to be used as a "leg up" with time restrictions and such. This is fine. Usually time restrictions aren't enforced. Recipients have recently complained about a manditory 8 hours of community service a week!!! Any person who recieved that much money for 8 hours of work a week would be fired if they didn't work. Why treat people who need financial help any differently?

Are conservatives so cold blooded that they would have people starve to death? Or die from the elements? Is that what 'compassionate conservatism' is all about?
I agree that social services should be a 'leg up', but what if there is nothing to give a leg up to? What types of jobs are available? You can even have a full time job, but still need social services. When corporations outsource jobs, when corporation keep wages low, when corporations keep healthcare from the poor.
While I agree that things should not be given away, I do think that it is the duty of government to provide for all its citizens. That means helping the poor, and making saure corporations are not taking advantage of its people.

I guess what I'm trying to say is "If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish you feed him for life." It is my opinion that Liberals choose to enact the first sentence and look for a quick fix. Conservatives, atleast recently, have started to do the second. It is much more gratifying to work for a reward than to sit around and expect handouts.

I think the quick fix is bad, and liberals do use that a fair amount. However conservatives don't do any fix, instead they just simply cut programs that help the poor. Making it more difficult for the poor to get out of their situation. Corporate welfare is far more prevalent in conservative politics than it is in liberal politics. Why tax breaks for oil companies that have made record profits?

Qikdraw

hm0504

04-02-2006, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by nakedstudent:
...
I guess what I'm trying to say is "If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish you feed him for life." It is my opinion that Liberals choose to enact the first sentence and look for a quick fix. Conservatives, atleast recently, have started to do the second. It is much more gratifying to work for a reward than to sit around and expect handouts.

I would love to hear exactly who these Conservatives are. From what I can tell, recent Conservatives seem to love to increase the size of government, want to micro-control people's everyday lives, massively increase deficits and debts, and engage in apparently, endless, pointless wars.

I would love to vote for the Conservatives you describe -- please point them out to me!

usmc1

04-02-2006, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by nakedstudent:
I think that the idea that Conservatives are whinners is completely misguided. I am a conservative and the only concrete things I stand for is everyone using their God given talents to the best of their ability. That encomases work, domestic, spiritual, and many other areas. I think its a travesty to see people who don't use their capabilities as much as others and still expect the same rewards.

Liberals in my view, especially socially, are much more willing to allow such behavior to continue. Look at welfare. It is supposed to be used as a "leg up" with time restrictions and such. This is fine. Usually time restrictions aren't enforced. Recipients have recently complained about a manditory 8 hours of community service a week!!! Any person who recieved that much money for 8 hours of work a week would be fired if they didn't work. Why treat people who need financial help any differently?

I guess what I'm trying to say is "If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish you feed him for life." It is my opinion that Liberals choose to enact the first sentence and look for a quick fix. Conservatives, atleast recently, have started to do the second. It is much more gratifying to work for a reward than to sit around and expect handouts.

The Constitution of the United States of America

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Study that, naked student. Particularly the words about justice, domestic tranquility & promote the general welfare before you begin again to parrot the same tired old right-wing shibboleths that you have put out here thus far.

That has been done here, ad nauseum. And it has been dealt with effectively and ad infinitum.

I personally have had a gut full of that tripe about people not working in order to get on welfare so they can live in bombed out slums, barely exist, and watch their kids get eaten alive by poverty, ignorance, drugs, and all the other dysfunctions wrought by a predatory economic system administered by wealthy elites and their bought and paid for political hacks.

If you're going to convince anyone here that you're right, you're going to have to come up with something much better than the hackneyed and meaningless cliches that you've spouted so forth.

And I would suggest that before you start citing vague, apocryphal stories as fact that you've read on some right-wing site that you drill in to the story to get to the truth. Vagueries such as people who refused 8 hours of community service--you want to cite that site for us?

nacktman

04-02-2006, 07:48 PM

Hey nakedstudent if your ego is so inflated that you thought I was responding to you earlier, then it's time to let a little air out of the balloon buddy boy.

If you must be told ... I was posting a general comment on the fact that conservatives are whiners and whine about being thought of as whiners even as they deny being whiners.

Get a grip dude.
I got a clue for you ... it ain't all about you ...
However, thanks for proving the point about the whining.

nacktman

04-02-2006, 07:54 PM

hm0504 you know those conservatives you asked about earlier ... they're called Democrats.

hm0504

04-03-2006, 08:44 AM

General Wesley Clark "Bush took U.S. on 'path to nowhere'":

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/01/dems.radio.ap/index.html

nacktman

04-03-2006, 09:26 AM

Thanks for the link hm0504.

hm0504

06-07-2006, 06:17 PM

(Hilary) Clinton slams (Ann) Coulter's 'vicious' put-down of some 9/11 widows:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/07/coulter.911.widows.ap/index.html

jon71

06-07-2006, 06:38 PM

She calls her book "Godless: the church of liberalism" but I can't imagine anyone more morally adrift than Coulter. Her only contribution to American debate is adding a high degree of vemon and shrillness.

nacktman

06-07-2006, 07:19 PM

Jon you mean to say Coulter has made any contribution?

Wow, and here I thought she was squealing and b!tching because she sat on a tack. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif

sw1sweendog

06-07-2006, 10:42 PM

not a tack ,nack...sean hannitys face http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/zzz.gif

NakedTao

06-07-2006, 11:34 PM

The survey that started this topic - which said that conservatives were more likely to be whiners than progressives - I don't know if that's necessarily true because I'm a progressive and I'll admit that I tend to be a bit of a whiner at times.

That said, I'm nowhere near as big a whiner as the likes of Falafel Bill, Rush, Hannity, and Ann Coulter. If that study is indeed correct, that explains why we don't see many progressives doing the kind of things conservatives do on, say, talk radio and cable news.

In fact, I find their rants simultaneously entertaining and annoying. Good job out of Matt Lauer for putting Coulter in her place. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

That said, there are some conservatives who seem to "get it," if you will - by that, they at least try not to distort facts for their own political gain. Tucker Carlson is a good example.

That's the end of my rant for today. Have a good day, and remember to...

P.J.

06-08-2006, 12:50 AM

It seems that those who are the quickest to criticize the books by pundits such as Ann Coulter do so without reading their books.

I wonder how many of those who condemned Ms. Coulter's latest book have even read it?

Ms. Coulter has the right to have her say, just as much as Michael Moore, AL Franken, Howard Stern, Larry King and Former President Bill Clinton.

usmc1

06-08-2006, 04:28 AM

Originally posted by P.J.:
It seems that those who are the quickest to criticize the books by pundits such as Ann Coulter do so without reading their books.

I wonder how many of those who condemned Ms. Coulter's latest book have even read it?

Ms. Coulter has the right to have her say, just as much as Michael Moore, AL Franken, Howard Stern, Larry King and Former President Bill Clinton.

One does not have to get down and lie in the sewer to experience the stench it puts off. Likewise reading Coulter's insanely, hate-filled writings. She is a geek, and one does not have to pay to get inside the tent to know that the geek is biting the heads off living chickens and licking snake bellies.

Now, you're correct that she has the right to write and publisah her filth, and you have the right to buy, read and espouse her wretched viewpoints. But, others have the right to eschew such without it being sugggested that one must read her books to comment on her.

I don't have to be bitten by a rattlesnake to know to give them a berth and to warn others to do the same.

Got it?

NudeTopher

06-08-2006, 04:58 AM

Originally posted by P.J.:
It seems that those who are the quickest to criticize the books by pundits such as Ann Coulter do so without reading their books.

I wonder how many of those who condemned Ms. Coulter's latest book have even read it?

Ms. Coulter has the right to have her say, just as much as Michael Moore, AL Franken, Howard Stern, Larry King and Former President Bill Clinton.

Nobody is saying here, or elsewhere, that Ms. Coulter doesn't have the right to express her views. While on the one hand the free publicity she is receiving may increase her sales in some areas of the country, I can assure you here in the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut Tri-State area her book will flop.

Most everybody here either directly lost somebody on 9-11 or knew of somebody that did.
We all saw the destruction personally. We all did what we could as commnunities to reach out to those families that lost loved ones in the Twin Towers.

A political hack, such as Coulter won't get readership here as she attacks the spouses of those that died on 9-11.

nacktman

06-08-2006, 05:59 AM

Well, I happened to have read the aforementioned "book" and I wanted to say ... belch.

...sean hannity's face.
http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rofl5.gif That's a good one sweendog.

conservatives are whiners period just the past two days of their posts on these forums proves that beyond any doubt.

One of the definitions for the three letter word "con" is to be against whatever.
Another definition of the three letter word "con" is the attempt to fool or cheat.
Yet, another definition for the three letter word "con" is to restrict things unto a small dense area.
Humm, against, fool or cheat, small dense, sounds like it's an apt appellation to me.

hm0504

06-08-2006, 07:05 AM

Under Clinton, the U.S. tried and continually failed to open up a dialogue with Iran.

So how did Bush succesfully open a dialogue with a terrorist-supporting, genocide-supporting, regime that this White House Administration has called the greatest threat on Earth? Offer to give them nuclear technology in exchange for pleasure of simply talking! Brilliant! Hand this one to the Republicans! This is the kind of hard-nosed action they talked about when they took the White House in 2000, right?

More here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060606/ap_on_re_eu/iran_nuclear

nacktman

06-08-2006, 07:42 AM

Yep hm0504 it is.

Slaves to the almighty god The Dollar ... don't think the US with "give" anything to Iran despite what the article claims there will be more than a few dollars going into some hands.

This is just another mess in an unednig stream of messes we will have to clean up after we are rid of conservatives.

usmc1

06-08-2006, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by nacktman:
Yep hm0504 it is.

Slaves to the almighty god The Dollar ... don't think the US with "give" anything to Iran despite what the article claims there will be more than a few dollars going into some hands.

This is just another mess in an unednig stream of messes we will have to clean up after we are rid of conservatives.

Here's the perplexing thing for me.

They've had the administrative branch for 5 years, and control of both houses and in prior years enough representation in both houses to stall, sand-bag and stymie legislzation and policies they disagree with, and through Nixon, Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 have all but managed to pack the federal courts with their fellow travelers, all with the support of major media monopolies owned by their biggest coporate supporters and contributers, yet they contiually moan about the "LIBERAL" congress, courts and press.

And now that those running dogs are losing wind, they are targetting immigrants and gays for their venom and hatred.

You know what, I have repeatedly challenged conservatives to name one successful program or act of governance that has resulted from conservatism, and no one, nowhere, at no time has been able to successfully do that.

The best they can do is the "fall of communism" which on examination was clearly the result of other forces than conservative philosophy or governance.

They are a curious bunch, almost as though they were put on earth to spread misery.

jon71

06-08-2006, 01:08 PM

I actually can name one successful result of Bush II admin. Oil company C.E.O.s and major share holders are absolutely rolling in money so there's one thing that went according to plan for Bush. Of course the remaining 99.999% of us are getting shafted but hey, what do they care about the likes of you and me.

jon71

06-08-2006, 01:16 PM

Geting back to Coulter just today she was standing by her vile comments. She is so blind. M.A.D.D. was founded by a woman who's child was killed by a drunk driver. She dedicated herself to sparing other parents the grief she felt. How is wrong for these widows to work to make the country a better place also? I doubt I'm the only one who sees that.

Naturist Mark

06-08-2006, 05:24 PM

Look at welfare. ... It is much more gratifying to work for a reward than to sit around and expect handouts.

Why do the opponents of welfare always use mythical welfare 'queens' and 'lazy sit abouts waiting for a handout' as examples of the typical welfare family?

How about some facts:

70% if Welfare recipients use TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families - the program that replaced AFDC) for less than 2 years.

About half of TANF recipients are children, not adults who could work. A substantial portion of TANF recipient families have children under 6 years of age. 90% of TANF families are headed by a single mother - or no adult at all.

Welfare does not encourage poor people to 'breed' in order to 'have kids for money' - birth rates to families on assistance are lower than those in the general population.

The average TANF family receives $351 per month - less than 1/4 of the poverty level.

The inflation adjusted amount of benefits have fallen 52% since 1970.

Less than one third of children in families receiving AFDC go on welfare as adults.

"Make them work" is a laudable goal. But keep in mind the the main purpose is to provide for children and keep families together - not to provide make work. Originally welfare was called "mother's pensions" provided to widows - when it was decided that it made more sense to "pay" a mother to care for her children, than to put her children in an institution and pay others to care for them.

The biggest problem with welfare is not laziness - it takes almost superhuman effort to live on such limited resources and raise children. The problem is that there are such strong barriers to transition to work. Two of which are:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI> Unavailability or affordability of day care (and night care or evening care - most women leaving welfare have to work outside of 'normal' daytime hours).
<LI> Loss of healthcare coverage[/list] More than half of families who succeed in leaving welfare remain below the poverty level.

Don't ever forget for a minute that living on welfare is hell on Earth, and try to spare a bit of compassion and even admiration for those who manage to turn it into a leg up.

-Mark

jon71

06-08-2006, 06:49 PM

Some excellent points Mark. My mother is a social services case worker and could tell everyone this first hand. Her clients typically have jobs, just jobs that don't pay well.

06-08-2006, 07:30 PM

Hats off to you, Mark! Excellent post!

I was a social services case worker before I began doing what I do now and have witnessed the very things you've posted. This image of Welfare Queens and just lazy do no-gooders is not what the majority of welfare recipients are about.

Again, excellent post!

Allie

nacktman

06-08-2006, 07:50 PM

Jon, those jobs pay all too well ... (from the corporate office view) ... Ann is right they all need to go out and get a job ... how about she start off by being a shining example and getting one herself!

usmc1

06-09-2006, 04:47 AM

Originally posted by AlexisDanielle:
Hats off to you, Mark! Excellent post!

I was a social services case worker before I began doing what I do now and have witnessed the very things you've posted. This image of Welfare Queens and just lazy do no-gooders is not what the majority of welfare recipients are about.

Again, excellent post!

Allie

Yes, finally something upon which we agree.

But, would you please tell me why it is that the right insists that "welfare moms" should get out and work while insisting that the "traditional" family (dad works, mom stys home and nurtures) is the model for America?

jon71

06-09-2006, 07:50 AM

I'd say that's a pretty clear and accurate description of what's going on.

Bicycler

07-07-2006, 08:24 AM

Here is an interesting article about a survey that compares Republican and Democrat differences vis a vis race. The results will suprise some Libs for sure and maybe some Conservatives as well.

To whom does race matter? (http://www.quentinlangley.net/article.php?id=258)

** Bicycler

Naturist Mark

07-07-2006, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by Bicycler:
Here is an interesting article about a survey that compares Republican and Democrat differences vis a vis race. The results will suprise some Libs for sure and maybe some Conservatives as well.

To whom does race matter? (http://www.quentinlangley.net/article.php?id=258)

** Bicycler

Interesting. But not too surprising when you look beneath the surface. The media DID notice that almost all the diversity at the Republican Conventions in 2000 and 2004 was on the stage - not among the delegates. That cannot be said of the Democratic Party Conventions.

The exemplars of Black Republicans don't bear close scrutiny. For instance Ken Blackwell - Secretary of State in Ohio was responsible for the largest disenfranchisement of black citizens since Jim Crow, in 2004 one out of 4 Ohioans who tried to vote were turned away at the polls becaused their registrations were "lost" or "disqualified" without their knowledge - those Ohioans were disproportionately black. Under law those voters had the right to cast a provisional ballot, but under Ken Blackwell's leadership most of the provisional ballots from the 2004 election have still not been counted. Under Blackwell's orders voting machines were distributed such that the average wait to vote in predominently black districts was 3 hours, in predominently white suburban districts it was 15 minutes. Ken Blackwell is now counting on his skill at election fraud to catapult him into the Governor's mansion. He ought to be sent to Lucasville instead of Columbus.

He is no role model.

http://www.youtube.com/v/sN8tqGbsj0o

-Mark

Bicycler

07-08-2006, 04:56 AM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
... in 2004 one out of 4 Ohioans who tried to vote were turned away at the polls becaused their registrations were "lost" or "disqualified" without their knowledge - those Ohioans were disproportionately black.
-Mark

I think you have slipped a decimal point on this one. The number is more like 2.5%. Better check your references. And while you are at it check your basis for claiming that the disqualified were disproportionately black. I don't think so. The Democratic Party survey showed just the opposite - that the division was pretty much 50/50.

usmc1

07-08-2006, 05:01 AM

While as a member of the "working press" I covered four national political conventions and at least a dozen state politcal conventions and I can tell you with complete certainty that the people on the floor of the Democratic conventions looked like America (young, old, white, black, brown, native-peoples, disabled, gay, male, female) and the people on the floor of the Republican conventions were mostly white, mostly rich, mostly 39-plus, and mostly grim idealogues.

nacktman

07-08-2006, 05:29 AM

In the 2004 Ohio election:

Mark's numbers are correct, they are in keeping with the findings of six different sources.
All of which place the number of disenfranchised voters between 23% and 26%.
All place the number of black voters disenfranchised at 70% or better of that number.

Get with it neo-cons you don't want America to truly vote because if they did you stood less of a chance than a fart staying a cohesive unit in a wind storm than "winning" any election before the current junta, much less now. Why else has graft, fraud, and any other illegal means been the hallmark of the conservatives and republicans from their inception?

Bicycler

07-08-2006, 06:33 AM

Originally posted by nacktman:
In the 2004 Ohio election:

Mark's numbers are correct, they are in keeping with the findings of six different sources.
All of which place the number of disenfranchised voters between 23% and 26%.
All place the number of black voters disenfranchised at 70% or better of that number.

None that I can find. Can you provide a link to one or more of them?

Bicycler

07-08-2006, 11:01 AM

Well since I didn’t get any answer to my query vis a vis the 25% of Ohio voters being denied the right to vote I will provide my own refutation of that statistic.

My source is from the study funded by the Democratic National Committee Voting Right Institute. The report from this study is one that has been the source of most of the disinformation about the Ohio election. This is not a criticism of the study/report itself which looks very legitimate to me and does point out problems with voting in Ohio. It is the interpretation of the data in the report that is the problem. Let me give you a couple of example paragraphs from the report which seem to be consistently overlooked by those on the Left.

For reference, you can find the full report here:

Democracy at Risk: The 2004 Election in Ohio (http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/06/democracy_at_ri.php)

On page 19 of this DNC report you will find the following:

More than one quarter of all voters in Ohio reported some kind of problem voting in the November election. For the bulk of voters, these problems had to do with long waits in line to vote. Smaller but significant minorities of voters also experienced problems with absentee ballots, problems with their registration statuses, problems finding polling places, and problems due to voter suppression and intimidation tactics. In addition to these problems, millions of Ohio voters were subjected to unlawful identification checks at the polls.

This is most likely the basis for the idea that somehow 25% of Ohio voters were turned back and didn’t vote. In fact the figure simply refers to the percentage of voters who “reported some kind of a problem”. One of those problems was waiting more than 20 minutes to vote. Given that test, I would have reported a problem here in California as well since I had to wait quite a bit longer than 20 minutes to vote.

The real number based on the DNC report is more like 2-3%. You can verify that figure by reading from page 20 of this DNC report where you will find the following:

Despite the problems on Election Day, there is no evidence from our survey that John Kerry won the state of Ohio. Two (2) percent of voters who went to the polls on Election Day decided to leave their polling locations due to the long lines. This resulted in approximately 129,543 lost votes. However, these potential voters would have divided evenly between George Bush and John Kerry. A smaller group of potential voters (0.08 percent) were not given ballots at all due to registration challenges. These approximately 4,798 voters favored Kerry, according to the poll (extreme sample size caution). Finally, a third group of voters (equivalent to 0.83 percent of the voting population) did not go to the polls at all because they did not receive their absentee ballots, or had heard about long lines, registration challenges, and confusing polling sites. We do not know the voting preferences of these approximately 47,979 voters. However, even if they had all chosen Kerry, his overall gain of 52,777 votes would not have erased Bush’s 118,000 vote margin in the state.

To summarize: Bush Won. Kerry Lost. Bush won the popular vote. Bush won the Electoral College vote. Get over it and try to focus on the next election not the last one and the one before that.

jon71

07-08-2006, 01:57 PM

There is no acceptable margin of error or fraud in elections. Also there is a working assumption that every possible error or fraud has been uncovered and that's not a safe assumption. Immediately following the election Republicans were adamant into any investigation of the fraud in Ohio. Did they know about further criminal activity by their party?

Bob S.

07-08-2006, 02:07 PM

Assuming that the irregularities in Ohio did cost Kerry the presidency, it does not explain why he did not win either his home state nor his running mate's.

However, if you look at the election maps, the obvious comes into view: Dems generally won in the urban areas while the Reps generally took the rural.

Does that mean anything?

Bob S.

Tim2

07-08-2006, 04:25 PM

There is no way we can end the war in Iraq now but I'am with you we we should do something real soon because we are now looking at Iran what are we going to do there

usmc1

07-08-2006, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by Bob S.:
Assuming that the irregularities in Ohio did cost Kerry the presidency, it does not explain why he did not win either his home state nor his running mate's.

However, if you look at the election maps, the obvious comes into view: Dems generally won in the urban areas while the Reps generally took the rural.

Does that mean anything?

Bob S.

Yeah, it means city folks have better sense than country folks.

NudeTopher

07-08-2006, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by Bob S.:
...However, if you look at the election maps, the obvious comes into view: Dems generally won in the urban areas while the Reps generally took the rural.

Does that mean anything?

Bob S.

Well, yes it does. The level of sophistication and educational levels of the voters tend to be different. Those in urban/suburban areas tend to be significantly better educated then those in rural areas.

NudeTopher

07-08-2006, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by Bob S.:
Assuming that the irregularities in Ohio did cost Kerry the presidency, it does not explain why he did not win either his home state nor his running mate's...Does that mean anything?

Bob S.

Well d'oh. Winning or not winning in your own state and voting irregularities in Ohio are mutually exclusive. Of course one has nothing to do with the other.

jon71

07-08-2006, 06:19 PM

Kerry won his home state Massachusetts by a mile.

Ren

07-08-2006, 10:20 PM

Read "Armed Madhouse" by Greg Palast for the answers on who is "winning" elections. Kerry won Ohio and then some, but the Democrats didn't care enough to count the votes.

Bob S.

07-09-2006, 02:07 PM

jon:"Kerry won his home state Massachusetts by a mile."

Sorry, I was thinking about Al Gore.

Topher:"Winning or not winning in your own state and voting irregularities in Ohio are mutually exclusive. Of course one has nothing to do with the other."

Yes, they are mutually exclusive, but they both affect the final electoral count. Winning or losing states counts a lot in close elections. That is why in both elections, one late state was the deciding factor.

Topher:"Those in urban/suburban areas tend to be significantly better educated then those in rural areas."

But wait, I thought that the Dems were supposed to be more representative of the average Joe. If that is the case, then why would their better education, something the average Joe may not be able to afford, mean they would be Democrats?

I think you'll find an equal level of education in Dems and Reps.

Bob S.

NudeTopher

07-09-2006, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by Bob S.:

Topher:"Those in urban/suburban areas tend to be significantly better educated then those in rural areas."

But wait, I thought that the Dems were supposed to be more representative of the average Joe. If that is the case, then why would their better education, something the average Joe may not be able to afford, mean they would be Democrats?

I think you'll find an equal level of education in Dems and Reps.

Bob S.

Take a good look at those states that are most solidly Republican and you those Red States are also the states with the lowest educational levels i.e. Mississippi, Alabama, etc. The solidly Democratic States i.e. MA, CA, MI, NY, have a much greater percentage of residents that have completed higher education. So yes, there is a difference.

My gut feeling is that there is a bi-modal distribution within the Republican Party. I am willing to bet that you can find two distinct and seperate populations within that party; the fat cat neo-con capitalists i.e. Ken Lay, Jack Abramoff, Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh and then the balance will be comprised of those that seek the elimination of free choice such as the anti-abortionists, the gun crowd, and many other single interet voters plus those that vote according to the wish of their pastors.

I don't believe that any of these groups are truly representative of the American population. You will find more diversity and more average Americans in the Democratic Party.

And *GASP* urban and suburban populations are the best educated.

nacktman

07-09-2006, 03:56 PM

The education level of liberals is a lot higher than conservatives.

Liberals (including most all Democrats) have post graduate educations and many have more than one degree in multiple disciplines.

conservatives (including 99% of republicans) never completed basic high school.

These are basic facts and can not be changed ... Liberal thinking promotes growth and forward movement ... conservative thinking prohibits growth and fosters backward stumbles ... this is reflective in the education levels of those that claim to be either.

Better and more education equals Liberal Thinking.

Lax and less education equals conservative thinking.

Get over it folks it's just the facts of life.

Eric6420

07-09-2006, 04:28 PM

Bicycler

07-09-2006, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by nacktman:
The education level of liberals is a lot higher than conservatives.

Liberals (including most all Democrats) have post graduate educations and many have more than one degree in multiple disciplines.

conservatives (including 99% of republicans) never completed basic high school.

These are basic facts and can not be changed ... Liberal thinking promotes growth and forward movement ... conservative thinking prohibits growth and fosters backward stumbles ... this is reflective in the education levels of those that claim to be either.

Better and more education equals Liberal Thinking.

Lax and less education equals conservative thinking.

Get over it folks it's just the facts of life.

I would like to see a reference for your figures. I believe your figures are wrong but I can't actually prove it. I can, however, point you to some demographic data that relates preference for Democrats or Republicans to annual income. This data is in a report produced by the Pew Research Center in 2005 so it is pretty current. Here is the link:

Pew Research Center Report (http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=114)

Here is the Pew reports input on the overall Democrat-Republican-Independent split as of 2005:

"The two parties have been closely matched ever since, with Democrats generally enjoying a small single-digit advantage over the GOP during the past decade and a half – in Pew's July, 2005 survey, for example, 34% of respondents said they were Democrats, 31% Republicans and 29% Independents."

So Dems and Pubbies make up about 65% of the voters.

The Pew study looked at 5 income groups: 0 to $19,000, $19,000 to $35,000, $35,000 to $58,000, $58,000 to $92,000 and above $92,000 per year. What they found is that people in the 0 to $19,000 group were more likely to call themselves Democrats than Republicans and by a large margin 42% to 20%. In all other income groups the Republicans lead the Democrats. The margin is small in some cases, larger in other. Check out the report yourself if you want to see the figures and the trends. The trends and the 2005 figures are not favorable to Democrats.

So the bottom line is: If Liberal Democrats have all that education and conservative Republicans in all of those Red States couldn't get out of High School why is it that the vast majority of Americans with income greater than $19,000 a year are more likely to call themselves Republican rather than Democrat?

It is a mystery isn't it?

jon71

07-09-2006, 06:56 PM

In college my major was political science. I remember charts showing that as income increased there was a growing likelihood to be republican and as education increased so did the likelihood of being Democratic. The catch is more education often (not always) means more money so there is frequently a mixed pull. The "perfect" Democrat is someone very intelligent but not a lot of money, reporters and teachers tend to fall in this category. The "perfect" republican is an illiterate who wins the lottery. Of course there are numerous other factors such as upbringing, vocational interest (not a lot of oil co. c.e.o.s are Democrats, few union workers are Republican), special "one issue" interest (pro or anti- choice, pro or anti-gun control), and many other things as well even including trivial factors such as a candidate being more telegenic or "likable". For example in the last hundred years the shorter candidate for Pres. has only won twice.

Eric6420

07-09-2006, 07:38 PM

To Jon71

I do not know if teachers have a liberal reputation in the USA, but in Quebec and in France, they have a conservative and authoritarian reputation.

While I agree that the perfect liberal is poor and intelligent, I do not see teachers in Quebec as liberals.

Reporters cannot be too liberal either, because they generally work for big coorporations.

The far right is always interested in policing and education.

I was on another forum of discussion in France, and I was told that the teachers in France, were a class appart like the police or the army. In the case of teachers, they have a very strict ethic to fellow. Even taking a bear in a bar can be seen as suspicious for them. They are very conservative for french standards.

NudeTopher

07-09-2006, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by Bicycler:...So the bottom line is: If Liberal Democrats have all that education and conservative Republicans in all of those Red States couldn't get out of High School why is it that the vast majority of Americans with income greater than $19,000 a year are more likely to call themselves Republican rather than Democrat?

A quick google indicates that the state with the lowest high school graduation rate is Alabama. Similarly, 57% of Alabama's voters voted for Bush. If they couldn't even retain enough information to graduate from high school, do you really think they know enough about current events to vote? These are the educated voters that the Republican Party attracts.

It is a mystery isn't it?

Bicycler

07-09-2006, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by jon71:
In college my major was political science. I remember charts showing that as income increased there was a growing likelihood to be republican and as education increased so did the likelihood of being Democratic. The catch is more education often (not always) means more money so there is frequently a mixed pull. The "perfect" Democrat is someone very intelligent but not a lot of money, reporters and teachers tend to fall in this category. The "perfect" republican is an illiterate who wins the lottery. Of course there are numerous other factors such as upbringing, vocational interest (not a lot of oil co. c.e.o.s are Democrats, few union workers are Republican), special "one issue" interest (pro or anti- choice, pro or anti-gun control), and many other things as well even including trivial factors such as a candidate being more telegenic or "likable". For example in the last hundred years the shorter candidate for Pres. has only won twice.

You are in denial.

The reason Republicans make more money is not because they win the lottery. They make more money because they earn it. And we are not talking about "perfect" Democrats and Republicans we are talking about Americans. And the fact of the matter is that Republicans are more successful than Democrats and this is easily seen by comparing the relative income of the two groups.

If you make $19,000 a year or more you are more likely to call yourself a Republican than a Democrat. If you make less than $19,000 a year then you are way more likely to be a Democrat than a Republican. Even reporters and teachers make more than $19,000.

But you are right about union members. That was one of the major points of the Pew Study. If you read the full article what you will see is that the Democratic Party is built on a base of minorities and unions. Without them they would be down to the Republicans by at least a 60 to 40 count.

Another point made by the Pew Study: The correlation between education and party affiliation is very low. Here are the correlation figures from the study:

Race .25
Church Attendance .15
Gender .10
Income .08
Union Household .08
Education .02

What these figures tell me is that the whole argument in the thread that Democrats are better educated than Republicans is just so much bunk. The Pew Study says there is essentially no correlation between party and education.

You really should read the Pew Study. It would be an eye-opener for you.

Bicycler

07-09-2006, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):

A quick google indicates that the state with the lowest high school graduation rate is Alabama. Similarly, 57% of Alabama's voters voted for Bush. If they couldn't even retain enough information to graduate from high school, do you really think they know enough about current events to vote? These are the educated voters that the Republican Party attracts.

What makes you think that the high school dropouts are coming from Republican households? Generally speaking drop out rates are highest in families with low incomes and from minorities. In both cases these are more likely to be Democrats than Republicans. There is no mystery. Read the Pew Report and get some facts.

nacktman

07-09-2006, 09:43 PM

Facts:
Come from a family of the 5% richest.
Have multiple Doctorates in multiple disciplines.
Have income in excess of seven figures. (not including family money)
Life long liberal, smack in the middle of the political spectrum.

Facts: high school dropouts are republicans, face it. (This includes those that "graduated" without learning the basics, so don't try and deny it)

Oh and I read the Pew Report and have the facts.

Oh and BTW dropout rates are higher in upper middle and upper class families than from the poor and working class families ... who view education as a step to bettering themselves, but don't let the actual facts get in the way, now.

jon71

07-09-2006, 10:32 PM

I never said Republicans were more successful than Democrats I said having money makes someone more likely to be a Republican. Rich people are most often born rich. Rags to riches stories do happen but are fairly rare. Warren Buffett (a Democrat) has given away vast sums of money recently but even with doing that his kids will be extraordinarly wealthy when they inherit. They're already rich now. This will be true of his grandkids and who knows how many generations down the line. I wonder how many of them will be Republicans in support of tax cuts for the rich and other gop reverse robin hood policies. What a shame if so.

Sanslines

07-10-2006, 03:48 AM

From Wikipedia:

"[4] The differences in voting among income groups is small, though the poorest voters favor the Democratic Party. George W. Bush won 41% of the poorest fifth of voters in 2004, 55% of the richest 20%, and 53% of those in between. In terms of education, the GOP is slipping among the most educated. In 1988 George H.W. Bush got 52% of the total vote, about the same as his son in 2004. But the elder Bush in 1988 won 62% of voters with a bachelor's degree (but no higher degree) and in 2004 the younger Bush only got 52%, a drop of 10 points. Among voters with a Masters' degree or higher, in 1988 the elder Bush won 50% while in 2004 the younger Bush only received 42%, a drop of 8%. Of course, George W. Bush made it up by gaining among people who had from 12-15 years of school. [Data based on exit polls reported in New York Times Nov 10, 1988 p. 18 and 2004 national exit poll at [5] Bush had a slim advantage with the college educated (bachelor degree) at 52%, those with some college (54%) and high school graduates (52%). Democrats have majorities among those with post-graduate study (44% for Bush)."

If we assume that the majority of people who voted for Bush are Republicans, then it is impossible to conclude that 99% of Republicans are high school drop outs as was claimed above.

Sanslines

07-10-2006, 04:30 AM

conservatives (including 99% of republicans) never completed basic high school.

I can find no statistic anywhere to support this claim that 99% of republicans never completed basic high school. Can you please supply a source or reference for this statement?

"Facts: high school dropouts are republicans, face it. (This includes those that "graduated" without learning the basics, so don't try and deny it)"

All parties including Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, etc include high school drop outs. All parties have individuals who have graduated without learning the 'basics'. I can not find a source anywhere to conclude that the republican party is the 'party of high school dropouts and/or other assorted individuals who have not learned the basics' whereas the other parties are the solely 'educated' parties. So yes, high school drop outs are republicans.......and democrats, and libertarians, and greens, etc, etc.......

"Oh and BTW dropout rates are higher in upper middle and upper class families than from the poor and working class families ... who view education as a step to bettering themselves, but don't let the actual facts get in the way, now."

If there are sources and/or factual statistics to support this claim, then why would anyone who wants to achieve a higher income be bothered with education? This claim contradicts the focus on education that both Democrat and Republican parties promote.

usmc1

07-10-2006, 04:38 AM

Originally posted by Bicycler:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
In college my major was political science. I remember charts showing that as income increased there was a growing likelihood to be republican and as education increased so did the likelihood of being Democratic. The catch is more education often (not always) means more money so there is frequently a mixed pull. The "perfect" Democrat is someone very intelligent but not a lot of money, reporters and teachers tend to fall in this category. The "perfect" republican is an illiterate who wins the lottery. Of course there are numerous other factors such as upbringing, vocational interest (not a lot of oil co. c.e.o.s are Democrats, few union workers are Republican), special "one issue" interest (pro or anti- choice, pro or anti-gun control), and many other things as well even including trivial factors such as a candidate being more telegenic or "likable". For example in the last hundred years the shorter candidate for Pres. has only won twice.

You are in denial.

The reason Republicans make more money is not because they win the lottery. They make more money because they earn it. And we are not talking about "perfect" Democrats and Republicans we are talking about Americans. And the fact of the matter is that Republicans are more successful than Democrats and this is easily seen by comparing the relative income of the two groups.

If you make $19,000 a year or more you are more likely to call yourself a Republican than a Democrat. If you make less than $19,000 a year then you are way more likely to be a Democrat than a Republican. Even reporters and teachers make more than $19,000.

But you are right about union members. That was one of the major points of the Pew Study. If you read the full article what you will see is that the Democratic Party is built on a base of minorities and unions. Without them they would be down to the Republicans by at least a 60 to 40 count.

Another point made by the Pew Study: The correlation between education and party affiliation is very low. Here are the correlation figures from the study:

Race .25
Church Attendance .15
Gender .10
Income .08
Union Household .08
Education .02

What these figures tell me is that the whole argument in the thread that Democrats are better educated than Republicans is just so much bunk. The Pew Study says there is essentially no correlation between party and education.

You really should read the Pew Study. It would be an eye-opener for you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huffing and puffing, snorting anf spewing, researching and quoting, my, my my.

"Republicans better educated than Democrats"?, perhaps. Better educated, but not nearly as smart or wise.

"Republicans earn their money"?, some probably, many if not most were handed it or were"tracked" to get it.

Aside from all that, what I'm reading others say, and what I have said, is that Democrats tend to be smarter than Republicans.

Education does not make one smart or give one good "walking around sense". It's what one does with that education that makes one smart. And Yes!, one can be very smart without a formal education.

nacktman

07-10-2006, 05:46 AM

Education does not make one smart or give one good "walking around sense". It's what one does with that education that makes one smart. And Yes!, one can be very smart without a formal education.

So, true.

As is the reverse ... one can be very dumb with a formal education.
Something conservatives insist on re-proving everyday.

Smart people look to new and innovative ideas.
Dumb people cling to old and ineffectual ideas.

Liberals look to the new.
conservatives look to the old.

No mystery as to which group is the smarter group.

Bicycler

07-10-2006, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by nacktman:

Liberals look to the new.
conservatives look to the old.

No mystery as to which group is the smarter group.

Give me one example. What new thing are Liberals looking for?

usmc1

07-10-2006, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by Bicycler:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nacktman:

Liberals look to the new.
conservatives look to the old.

No mystery as to which group is the smarter group.

Give me one example. What new thing are Liberals looking for? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is so frightfully hilarious about this and all your other posts is that all one needs do to effectively rebut you is to merely say, "Just look all around you at the mess made by the ultra-right conservative over the past five years".

That's all, just look around you. If you don't see it, if you don't get it then you are effectively beyond any presentation of any data contrary to your truncated worldview, prejudices, biases, preconceived notions and generally argumentative and fractious nature.

Beyond that, you delude yourself to think that nacktman owes you proof or examples of anything. In thread after thread, and exchange afater exchange you've been taken by the hand and led to facts, articles, statistics, data and so forth and you persist in trumpting the same one note.

Personally, I think you should be ignored, but, then everytime I go to the pizza joint with the kids, I get sucked into that damned Whack A Mole game despite my best resolve.

Bicycler

07-10-2006, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by usmc1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bicycler:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nacktman:

Liberals look to the new.
conservatives look to the old.

No mystery as to which group is the smarter group.

Give me one example. What new thing are Liberals looking for? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is so frightfully hilarious about this and all your other posts is that all one needs do to effectively rebut you is to merely say, "Just look all around you at the mess made by the ultra-right conservative over the past five years".

That's all, just look around you. If you don't see it, if you don't get it then you are effectively beyond any presentation of any data contrary to your truncated worldview, prejudices, biases, preconceived notions and generally argumentative and fractious nature.

Beyond that, you delude yourself to think that nacktman owes you proof or examples of anything. In thread after thread, and exchange afater exchange you've been taken by the hand and led to facts, articles, statistics, data and so forth and you persist in trumpting the same one note.

Personally, I think you should be ignored, but, then everytime I go to the pizza joint with the kids, I get sucked into that damned Whack A Mole game despite my best resolve. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK. Rants over (hopefully). Can you give me an example of a new thing that Liberals are looking for? Can anyone?

usmc1

07-10-2006, 11:26 AM

You haven't yet read a rant from me.

But, since you've hung your curve ball out over the plate for me. Sign me up for the home-run derby! Move over Berkman!

Liberal ideas, that must be new since they don't yet exist as a matter of practice;

Equal opportunity for all citizens.

Rewarding honest work with a living wage and fair tax system.

Family values that are more than a politcal slogan.

Quality education for all, giving every citizen an opportunity to reach their full potential.

Freedom from governement interference in our private lives and our personal decisions.

Security in our our homes and safety on our streets.

Separation of Chruch and State to preserve religious freedom.

A strong U.S.A., our morals, our economy and our military.

Common sense reforms to give us cleaner and safer air and water.

Now, Sparky; how about you providing us with what I have asked for repeatedly, one single accomplish of conservative governance that is not based on self-contradiction.

Bicycler

07-10-2006, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by usmc1:
You haven't yet read a rant from me.

But, since you've hung your curve ball out over the plate for me. Sign me up for the home-run derby! Move over Berkman!

Liberal ideas, that must be new since they don't yet exist as a matter of practice;

Equal opportunity for all citizens.

Rewarding honest work with a living wage and fair tax system.

Family values that are more than a politcal slogan.

Quality education for all, giving every citizen an opportunity to reach their full potential.

Freedom from governement interference in our private lives and our personal decisions.

Security in our our homes and safety on our streets.

Separation of Chruch and State to preserve religious freedom.

A strong U.S.A., our morals, our economy and our military.

Common sense reforms to give us cleaner and safer air and water.

Now, Sparky; how about you providing us with what I have asked for repeatedly, one single accomplish of conservative governance that is not based on self-contradiction.

Well you didn't actually answer my question but what the heck, in fact what you have presented is not a bad list. Most conservatives could sign up for maybe 80% of it. Of course your interpretation of (for example) "Freedom from govenment interference in our private lives and personal decisions" might be different than mine which is very much on the libertarian side of things. Of course the main interference from the government in my private life is the gun that they hold to my head if I don't pay my taxes.

As to your question to me: I give you nearly 5 years of Bush Administration rule without an attack on the Homeland after 9/11. Nobody and I mean nobody would have predicted that.

jon71

07-10-2006, 01:03 PM

We had 56 years without an attack prior to Bush. Five years is not remotely impressive. If Bush had listened to the abundant warnings or even started to take national security seriously we would be at 61 years and counting. Instead that failure was asleep at the wheel.

hm0504

07-10-2006, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by Bicycler:
...

As to your question to me: I give you nearly 5 years of Bush Administration rule without an attack on the Homeland after 9/11. Nobody and I mean nobody would have predicted that.

And who can forget that under Clinton, the US went seven years with no attack on its homeland.

Bicycler

07-10-2006, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by hm0504:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bicycler:
...

As to your question to me: I give you nearly 5 years of Bush Administration rule without an attack on the Homeland after 9/11. Nobody and I mean nobody would have predicted that.

And who can forget that under Clinton, the US went seven years with no attack on its homeland. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about Oklahoma City and TWA800? Oklahoma City was certainly a terrorist attack. I happen to believe that there was Middle Eastern participation in that little project. That is debatable of course. As to TWA800 it was either terrorists or the U.S. Navy. I'm not sure which but if you saw the CIAs explanation of what happened you would simply die laughing. It was one of the CIAs most embarrasing moments.

In any case, the attacks on the U.S. under Clinton are not hard to find, they were just overseas. Check out the USS Cole and the Khobar Towers for example. When Clinton responded with a feather instead of a gun al-Qaeda decided we were pansies and felt it was safe to attack U.S. soil. 9/11 was the result. What they didn't count on of course was George Bush.

hm0504

07-10-2006, 03:06 PM

nacktman

07-10-2006, 03:34 PM

usmc1 you listed the basic Democratic Platform for the last 200 years above and the conservatives agreed with them ... imagine that.
Now, if they really wanted those ideas they'd not be so "new" and "revolutionary" now would they?

As I have stated before one needs to sound like a Democrat to win votes and the republicans have been doing just that since 1860 and more so since 1946.

Alas, they only SOUND like Democrats. Once in office they show their true colors to any paying attention ... and after the last 5.5 years everyone is paying attention (well, at least 73% are, the other 27% are brain dead sycophants).

Oh, and hm, we're not supposed to talk about the arms we sent to Iran on ronnie raygun's say so, those nukes we sent'em are our little secret!

Yep, jon it'd be 61 years and counting if the shrub and company had not stolen the presidency and prior to that little picadillo in Hawaii in December 1941 and the Aluetians in early 1942 the last time a foregin power invaded the USA was when Pancho Villa did so in the early 1910's in the Southwest, prior to that it was those pesky redcoats that didn't like being whupped in the 18th century they cam back in the early 19th to relearn their lessons (of course they were fighting the French at the time, both times so our little backwater was of minor concern).

BTW, what gives with the server? I have tried to post replies in a timely manner today and can only get one every hour or so after I sign off and go elsewhere and come back!

hm0504

07-10-2006, 03:37 PM

The CFF server certainly has sucked today -- awful when I'm trying to catch up on a week of posts.

usmc1

07-10-2006, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by nacktman:
usmc1 you listed the basic Democratic Platform for the last 200 years above and the conservatives agreed with them ... imagine that.

Yeah! Dang you're sharper than you act...

But, it was fun sand bagging this guy. Agrees 80% withthe Democratic platform. Move over Berkman, I just drove one outa da stinkin' park.

And, his feeble reply to my question gives me a twofer!

Anti terrorism measures and homeland security are not conservative governance accomplishments. In fact, the Homeland Security Department concept had to be forced on Bush.

But, the issue of keeping America safe is a bipartisan accomplishment--unless this guy thinks that liberals espouse terrorist attacks.

NakedGary

07-10-2006, 04:07 PM

I reported the server being off line 7-10-2006 @ 11:45 to about 11:55 CA PDT to CFI technical administrator.

It seems like the Forums servers have been slow in response since then.

Its 16:05 or 4:05 PM in CA ans still seem sluggish and slow to respond to inputs and has been all day. F.Y.I.

Its not my connection as other sites respond almost instantly being connected at 6MB on a broadband connection with fast through-put.

.

Bob S.

07-10-2006, 07:51 PM

jon:"We had 56 years without an attack prior to Bush. If Bush had listened to the abundant warnings or even started to take national security seriously we would be at 61 years and counting."

That is wrong. We were attacked by the same people who masterminded 9-11 in 1993. A car bomb was detonated in a garage under the WTC. The plan was to topple the towers, but the bomb was too weak. Had the CIA, FBI, INS, and the Clinton administration actually been doing their job and following Yosuef, who was actually taken into custody when they found bomb making instructions in his partner's luggage and a flase passport. Yousef claimed political asylum and was given a court date when they were out of room at the holding facility.

So he went about his business talking to his contacts, securing the material, even from a hospital room with apparently no one keeping tabs on him. The only difference between Clinton and Bush in this regard, the first attack failed. The second one was successful.

Bob S.

NudeTopher

07-11-2006, 03:56 AM

Originally posted by Bicycler:
... "Freedom from govenment interference in our private lives and personal decisions" might be different than mine which is very much on the libertarian side of things. Of course the main interference from the government in my private life is the gun that they hold to my head if I don't pay my taxes. ..

I knew it.
I just knew it.
Eventually we would hear the rallying cry of the so-called Liberterians and the neocon's - taxes. Give us roadways on which to drive; give us parks and public beaches in which to frolic naked; give us research to eradicate any disease that I might develop (never mind the diseases that others might get); develop airplanes, tanks, and bombs that will be the envy of bellicose nations; provide us with a police department that checks the immigraton status of every brown person; and provide us with a military of might; BUT DON'T ASK ME TO PAY TAXES TO SUPPORT ANY OF THIS! Liberterian philosophy: get a free ride whenever possible.

Naturist Mark

07-11-2006, 05:32 AM

That is wrong. We were attacked by the same people who masterminded 9-11 in 1993.

Not exactly. WTC83 was done by the Egyptian terrorist group Jamaat al-Islamiyya - Not al Qaeda. It was formed in the 1970's well before al-Qaeda's genesis in the 1980's. However, Jamaat al-Islamiyya's failure in 1993 is credited with inspiring al-Qaeda to adopt terrorism against the west as a major tactic.

There are literal family ties between Jamaat al-Islamiyya and al-Qaeda. Following 1993 it became a major player in the al-Qaeda network. In particular two sons of the Jamaat al-Islamiyya's militant cleric Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (who is now serving a life sentence in the US) are senior al-Qaeda officials.

1993 attack mastermind Ramzi Ahmed Yousef went on to direct al-Qaeda operations in the 90's including an attempt (foiled by the Clinton administration under the direction of terrorism czar Richard Clark) to blow up 12 American airliners over the Pacific in the so called Bojinka Plot, as well as plots to assasinate Bill Clinton and the Pope. Yousef was captured in 1995, convicted for the Bojinka plot and is serving a life sentence in the US.

Ramzi Ahmed Yousef's uncle is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - who is believed to have been the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks - thus completing the job his nephew began in 1993. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a top Bin-Ladin lieutenant is now in US custody.

Jamaat al-Islamiyya, Egyptian Islamic Jihad (http://www.terrorismanswers.org/groups/jamaat.html)

Lessons of first WTC bombing (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2800297.stm)

Ramzi Ahmed Yousef (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramzi_Ahmed_Yousef)

-Mark

Bob S.

07-11-2006, 07:55 PM

Mark:"Not exactly. WTC83 was done by the Egyptian terrorist group Jamaat al-Islamiyya - Not al Qaeda."

There was a relationship between the two attacks. But no matter who did it, I was saying to jon that we had not gone 56 years without an attack on our home soil prior to Bush II. It had only been eight years since our last attack.

Also, just to add some bipartisan blame, the Bush I administration does deserve some blame as well.

Topher:Liberterian philosophy: get a free ride whenever possible.

Actually, I say give me safety and a healthy infrastructure. Get rid of all the pork. Probably about 50% of spending could be eliminated and we would not see any major problems.

The govt soends too much money on projects that it should not. I go with the Conservative philosophy, less governement. I just wish more Repubs could abide with that philosophy.

Bob S.

ricky bobby

07-11-2006, 10:43 PM

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/freak.gif

NudeTopher

07-12-2006, 04:43 AM

Originally posted by Bob S.:
Mark:"Not exactly. WTC83 was done by the Egyptian terrorist group Jamaat al-Islamiyya - Not al Qaeda."

There was a relationship between the two attacks. But no matter who did it, I was saying to jon that we had not gone 56 years without an attack on our home soil prior to Bush II. It had only been eight years since our last attack.

Also, just to add some bipartisan blame, the Bush I administration does deserve some blame as well.

Topher:Liberterian philosophy: get a free ride whenever possible.

Actually, I say give me safety and a healthy infrastructure. Get rid of all the pork. Probably about 50% of spending could be eliminated and we would not see any major problems.

The govt soends too much money on projects that it should not. I go with the Conservative philosophy, less governement. I just wish more Repubs could abide with that philosophy.

Bob S.

You are refusing to acknowledge that people are selfish; and Liberterians are just less honest about their selfishness. You won't get any two groups of people to agree on what's good and necessary for infastructure and security.

From my standpoint I believe that medical research and national healthcare should be included in that infastructure. The owner of an inter-city trucking company wants the number of freeways increased. Conservative Republican Neo-con's have never met a weapon that they don't wish to support (in the name of national security) while I think it would get rid of our cash quicker to just flush it down the toilet instead of funding Star War initiatives.

What about safety nets for those that get ill or injured? What about edcation? What about parklands? What about the establishment and enforecement of clean air/water standards? What about the establishment and enforcement of dairy/meat standards? What about, what about, what about...ad infinitem.

The point is gov't needs to be involved in many more areas then you are willing to admit. Your big complaint is taxation. Please think of what it would be like without the FDA the next time you eat. Please think what it would be like without the FAA and NTSB the next time you board a flight. Hmmmm... I'm willing to bet that as you board that plane you are damn glad that our gov't is involved in more then just infastructre and national security!

Bicycler

07-12-2006, 05:21 AM

Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
Mark:"Not exactly. WTC83 was done by the Egyptian terrorist group Jamaat al-Islamiyya - Not al Qaeda."

There was a relationship between the two attacks. But no matter who did it, I was saying to jon that we had not gone 56 years without an attack on our home soil prior to Bush II. It had only been eight years since our last attack.

Also, just to add some bipartisan blame, the Bush I administration does deserve some blame as well.

Topher:Liberterian philosophy: get a free ride whenever possible.

Actually, I say give me safety and a healthy infrastructure. Get rid of all the pork. Probably about 50% of spending could be eliminated and we would not see any major problems.

The govt soends too much money on projects that it should not. I go with the Conservative philosophy, less governement. I just wish more Repubs could abide with that philosophy.

Bob S.

You are refusing to acknowledge that people are selfish; and Liberterians are just less honest about their selfishness. You won't get any two groups of people to agree on what's good and necessary for infastructure and security.

From my standpoint I believe that medical research and national healthcare should be included in that infastructure. The owner of an inter-city trucking company wants the number of freeways increased. Conservative Republican Neo-con's have never met a weapon that they don't wish to support (in the name of national security) while I think it would get rid of our cash quicker to just flush it down the toilet instead of funding Star War initiatives.

What about safety nets for those that get ill or injured? What about edcation? What about parklands? What about the establishment and enforecement of clean air/water standards? What about the establishment and enforcement of dairy/meat standards? What about, what about, what about...ad infinitem.

The point is gov't needs to be involved in many more areas then you are willing to admit. Your big complaint is taxation. Please think of what it would be like without the FDA the next time you eat. Please think what it would be like without the FAA and NTSB the next time you board a flight. Hmmmm... I'm willing to bet that as you board that plane you are damn glad that our gov't is involved in more then just infastructre and national security! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Much of what you say is true. It is a matter of the scale of government that is the issue. Liberals want more. Convervatives/Libertarians want less. I think we all know that you have to pay for what you get. The libertarian view is that we need less government and that many of the things that government does could be done by the private sector much more efficiently (Fed Ex and UPS vs. the USPS - who would you trust to get your stuff there for sure?).

Your comment about libertarians being selfish is right on the mark and I plead guilty to that one although I don't consider myself a true blue liberatarian and I'm certainly not a big L Libertarian.

But your comment that libertarians are less honest about their selfishness is just way off the mark. After all, the high priestess of the libertarian cause is Ayn Rand who wrote many books including one called "The Virtue of Selfishness". It's basic premise is that the we (human beings) are in fact selfish creatures and that we need to structure a society that takes that into account. We are not like ants. We are not like bees. We are a group of individuals with highly diverse views of what makes life good. (The people on this forum are certainly a very good example of that fact.)

The libertarian solution is to advocate governments that maximize personal responsibilty and freedom, focus on security and infrastructure and leave welfare and education to charitable and local organizations. Certainly things like the FDA and FAA are needed but libertarians believe their functions could be accomplished by the private sector. Historically we didn't go in that direction but we could have. The airlines and their customers need an FAA. It should be the responsibility of the airlines to form one up and build the cost into their pricing. Would we trust the inmates running the asymlum? I don't know, but the Federal Government's record in running large organizations has certainly not been very good in terms of the cost/benefit ratio.

Naturist Mark

07-12-2006, 05:47 AM

I think we all know that you have to pay for what you get. The libertarian view is that we need less government and that many of the things that government does could be done by the private sector much more efficiently (Fed Ex and UPS vs. the USPS - who would you trust to get your stuff there for sure?).

Do you really think UPS or Fed Ex will post a letter anywhere in the US for 39 cents? They have petitioned for the right to deliver 1st class mail in profitable urban areas, but are not willing to offer universal delivery to rural and outreaching areas. <UL TYPE=SQUARE>It is debatable whether any meaningful competition for ordinary letter delivery would develop in the absence of a legal monopoly. In countries that have recently undergone postal service privatization, no meaningful competition for first-class letter delivery has materialized and the overall cost of services to consumers has risen Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service#Monopoly_status) [/list]

-Mark

Bicycler

07-12-2006, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
(Fed Ex and UPS vs. the USPS - who would you trust to get your stuff there for sure?).

Do you really think UPS or Fed Ex will post a letter anywhere in the US for 39 cents? They have petitioned for the right to deliver 1st class mail in profitable urban areas, but are not willing to offer universal delivery to rural and outreaching areas. <UL TYPE=SQUARE>It is debatable whether any meaningful competition for ordinary letter delivery would develop in the absence of a legal monopoly. In countries that have recently undergone postal service privatization, no meaningful competition for first-class letter delivery has materialized and the overall cost of services to consumers has risen Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service#Monopoly_status) [/list]

-Mark

Of course it's debatable. But then again does the USPS deliver a letter anywhere in the US for 39 cents. Is their budget entirely paid for by the money they collect from postage? I don't actually know but it seems likely there is a Federal Budget line item called USPS Annual Funding. The fact that UPS and Fed Ex can exist at all tells you that they must be doing a better job at what they do than the USPS.

You make a point, however, about delivery to rural and outreaching areas. The difference between you and me, between liberals and conservatives is that I happen to think that all of those people way out in the boonies of the Red States should pay more for their mail delivery then than do those who live close in. Now maybe that is really not practical in this case but the principle that you pay for what you get and don't ask the people of New York City to subsidize services for some rancher in Wyoming is, IMHO, a good one. That principle is widely ignored by the left who appear to me believe strongly in income redistribution in all it's forms.

Sanslines

07-12-2006, 06:19 AM

Concerning government's roll in people's lives. Should the free market allow the CEO of Home Depot to collect $248 million in wages and benefits while the average worker at Home Depot makes a bit more then minimum wage and may or may not have any health benefits? Should the oil companies be allowed to lie to the American people about their justifications for higher energy prices and their CEO's rake in millions upon millions of dollars while many elderly people on fixed incomes struggle to heat their homes in Winter? Should not governement step in and stop these outrageous free market abuses? No one likes laws and controls but sometimes they are very necessary to prevent abuse and greed.

jon71

07-12-2006, 08:44 AM

The post office pays for itself. In the past they have pulled from general funds but not since the early 90's. Also it was said that liberals want more govt. and conservatives less. The truth is liberals want more govt. over industry and LESS govt. on people's personal lives. Conservatives want less govt. on industry and MORE govt. on people's personal lives (anti-abortion, blue laws, censorship, etc.).

usmc1

07-12-2006, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by Bicycler:
...I happen to think that all of those people way out in the boonies of the Red States should pay more for their mail delivery then than do those who live close in. Now maybe that is really not practical in this case but the principle that you pay for what you get and don't ask the people of New York City to subsidize services for some rancher in Wyoming is, IMHO, a good one. That principle is widely ignored by the left who appear to me believe strongly in income redistribution in all it's forms.

You really need to engage your brain before you accelerate your fingers to do their typing.

Please familiarize yourself with Section 8, Article 1 of the U. S. Constitution.

Rural people are every bit as much citizens of this country as are city dwellers and as such are entitled to precisely the same benefits and protections as are city dwellers.

'Taint a left/right issue lad..it's a Constituional guarantee issue.

nacktman

07-12-2006, 11:11 AM

Wonder where those city dewllers think that steak comes from ... hummmm?

Engagement of one's brain is necessary to function in the real world usmc1 ... apparently not so in the neo-con/theo-con world though.

But it does make for some great belly laughs now don't it?!http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rofl5.gif

Baron Lake

07-12-2006, 12:58 PM

City folk know the waiter brings the steak from the kitchen. Pay attention next time you eat out.

b.l.

Bicycler

07-12-2006, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by jon71:
The post office pays for itself. In the past they have pulled from general funds but not since the early 90's. Also it was said that liberals want more govt. and conservatives less. The truth is liberals want more govt. over industry and LESS govt. on people's personal lives. Conservatives want less govt. on industry and MORE govt. on people's personal lives (anti-abortion, blue laws, censorship, etc.).

Thanks for the correction on the USPS budget. Of course I remember when you could mail a post card for $.01. I think a letter was maybe $.03 or $.05. And you have a point on liberals vs. conservatives and where they want less government. It doesn't apply in all cases to the libertarian branch of the conservative movement. They are very liberal vis a vis government interference in private life. The War on Drugs (a monumental failure of big government) is an example. Libertarians (and I assume liberals) are very much against it. Conservatives still, amazingly, think there is some hope we can win the war against some drugs. Won't work. Never worked.

Another counter example: liberals typically want government to interfere with my right (not excercised) to own a gun. Conservatives support gun ownership.

Liberals don't believe in school vouchers. They think the government and not parents should decide where kids go to school. I think vouchers are good idea. It is the poorest among us who need them the most. I support the kids and not the NEA.

But your point is well taken, I just think the libs have some dirty laundry as well in terms of government interference in our lives.

Bicycler

07-12-2006, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by usmc1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bicycler:
...I happen to think that all of those people way out in the boonies of the Red States should pay more for their mail delivery then than do those who live close in. Now maybe that is really not practical in this case but the principle that you pay for what you get and don't ask the people of New York City to subsidize services for some rancher in Wyoming is, IMHO, a good one. That principle is widely ignored by the left who appear to me believe strongly in income redistribution in all it's forms.

You really need to engage your brain before you accelerate your fingers to do their typing.

Please familiarize yourself with Section 8, Article 1 of the U. S. Constitution.

Rural people are every bit as much citizens of this country as are city dwellers and as such are entitled to precisely the same benefits and protections as are city dwellers.

'Taint a left/right issue lad..it's a Constituional guarantee issue. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are probably right. It may well be a constitutional issue if the government is running the business. In fact I'm sure you are right. But Fed Ex doesn't have to follow that law. They can charge the guy in Wyoming more because it costs them more to deliver to him then some guy in NYC. I happen to think that the Fed Ex model (pay for what you get) is a better one than "everybody pays the same even if we are losing money in Wyoming". That is one of the reasons why I prefer private enterprise to over government wherever possible.

usmc1

07-12-2006, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Bicycler:
You are probably right. It may well be a constitutional issue if the government is running the business. In fact I'm sure you are right. But Fed Ex doesn't have to follow that law. They can charge the guy in Wyoming more because it costs them more to deliver to him then some guy in NYC. I happen to think that the Fed Ex model (pay for what you get) is a better one than "everybody pays the same even if we are losing money in Wyoming". That is one of the reasons why I prefer private enterprise to over government wherever possible.

You (ahem) missed the point. The Constitution, in its very first Article tasks the new governement with establishing Post Offices and Post Roads. And states very specifically that related charges are to be uniform. So, your laments (ever notice the root of lament - lame) concerning varible fees for different classes of citizens are foundless and speak of your lack of knowledge of the instutuion you choose to criticize.

Personally, I think that pretty much sums up the majority of the things you write here.

And since you're constantly screeching to be shown>>>HERE:

Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

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

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

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

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

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;--And

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

Gov 101

Now, if private enterprise can provide snail mail delivery cheaper than 39-cents and within a couple of days, jump on it. But, it is not proof or disproof of any liberal or conservative notion.

Bicycler

07-12-2006, 04:27 PM

I didn't miss the point. My point was that private enterprise can do a better job than Government and used Fed Ex and UPS vs. the USPS as an example. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that there can be no private deliver of mail. If there was we wouldn't have Fed Ex and UPS. The simple fact that Congress has the power to do something does not mean they are required to do it. If they elected to turn the Post Office over to Fed Ex and let them run it they have the power to do so. I don't expect that any time soon.

And don't be confused by "but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States". That has absolutely nothing to do with the Post Office fees. It is all about taxes.

NudeTopher

07-12-2006, 05:20 PM

NudeTopher

07-12-2006, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by Bicycler:
I happen to think that the Fed Ex model (pay for what you get) is a better one than "everybody pays the same even if we are losing money in Wyoming". That is one of the reasons why I prefer private enterprise to over government wherever possible.

Your facts just aren't there. FedEx charges the exact same way as USPS.

NudeTopher

07-12-2006, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by Bicycler:
That is one of the reasons why I prefer private enterprise to over government wherever possible.

I know that the mere mention of Social Security puts Liberterians and NeoCons into cardiac arrest. But, I will gladly dial 911 for you.

If you look at the expense ratio of Social Security you will find out that without any doubt our gov't has been able to handle this insurance plan cheaper then any insurance company or investment house.

NudeTopher

07-12-2006, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by Bicycler:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
Mark:"Not exactly. WTC83 was done by the Egyptian terrorist group Jamaat al-Islamiyya - Not al Qaeda."

There was a relationship between the two attacks. But no matter who did it, I was saying to jon that we had not gone 56 years without an attack on our home soil prior to Bush II. It had only been eight years since our last attack.

Also, just to add some bipartisan blame, the Bush I administration does deserve some blame as well.

Topher:Liberterian philosophy: get a free ride whenever possible.

Actually, I say give me safety and a healthy infrastructure. Get rid of all the pork. Probably about 50% of spending could be eliminated and we would not see any major problems.

The govt soends too much money on projects that it should not. I go with the Conservative philosophy, less governement. I just wish more Repubs could abide with that philosophy.

Bob S.

You are refusing to acknowledge that people are selfish; and Liberterians are just less honest about their selfishness. You won't get any two groups of people to agree on what's good and necessary for infastructure and security.

From my standpoint I believe that medical research and national healthcare should be included in that infastructure. The owner of an inter-city trucking company wants the number of freeways increased. Conservative Republican Neo-con's have never met a weapon that they don't wish to support (in the name of national security) while I think it would get rid of our cash quicker to just flush it down the toilet instead of funding Star War initiatives.

What about safety nets for those that get ill or injured? What about edcation? What about parklands? What about the establishment and enforecement of clean air/water standards? What about the establishment and enforcement of dairy/meat standards? What about, what about, what about...ad infinitem.

The point is gov't needs to be involved in many more areas then you are willing to admit. Your big complaint is taxation. Please think of what it would be like without the FDA the next time you eat. Please think what it would be like without the FAA and NTSB the next time you board a flight. Hmmmm... I'm willing to bet that as you board that plane you are damn glad that our gov't is involved in more then just infastructre and national security! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Much of what you say is true<span class="ev_code_BLUE">Much of what you say is true</span>. It is a matter of the scale of government that is the issue. Liberals want more. Convervatives/Libertarians want less. I think we all know that you have to pay for what you get. The libertarian view is that we need less government and that many of the things that government does could be done by the private sector much more efficiently (Fed Ex and UPS vs. the USPS - who would you trust to get your stuff there for sure?).

Your comment about libertarians being selfish is right on the mark and I plead guilty to that one although I don't consider myself a true blue liberatarian and I'm certainly not a big L Libertarian.

But your comment that libertarians are less honest about their selfishness is just way off the mark. After all, the high priestess of the libertarian cause is Ayn Rand who wrote many books including one called "The Virtue of Selfishness". It's basic premise is that the we (human beings) are in fact selfish creatures and that we need to structure a society that takes that into account. We are not like ants. We are not like bees. We are a group of individuals with highly diverse views of what makes life good. (The people on this forum are certainly a very good example of that fact.)

The libertarian solution is to advocate governments that maximize personal responsibilty and freedom, focus on security and infrastructure and leave welfare and education to charitable and local organizations. Certainly things like the FDA and FAA are needed but libertarians believe their functions could be accomplished by the private sector. Historically we didn't go in that direction but we could have. The airlines and their customers need an FAA. It should be the responsibility of the airlines to form one up and build the cost into their pricing. Would we trust the inmates running the asymlum? I don't know, but the Federal Government's record in running large organizations has certainly not been very good in terms of the cost/benefit ratio. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<span class="ev_code_RED">You just stated that much of what Mark and I posted is true. But, you didn't say that ALL of what we posted is true. PLEASE LET US KNOW, WHAT DID WE SAY HERE THAT IS UNTRUE?</span>

usmc1

07-12-2006, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Bicycler:
I didn't miss the point. My point was that private enterprise can do a better job than Government and used Fed Ex and UPS vs. the USPS as an example. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that there can be no private deliver of mail. If there was we wouldn't have Fed Ex and UPS. The simple fact that Congress has the power to do something does not mean they are required to do it. If they elected to turn the Post Office over to Fed Ex and let them run it they have the power to do so. I don't expect that any time soon.

And don't be confused by "but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States". That has absolutely nothing to do with the Post Office fees. It is all about taxes.

Look, guy, I'm sorry, I'm starting to feel like Leo Gorcey dope-slapping Huntz Hall.

But, damn, words do have meanings and there are distinctions in those meanings.

Fed Ex and DHL and UPS do not deliver mail. They deliver parcels of varying dimensions and weight--but, they do not deliver mail, which also has its own defined qualities.

In the USA, mail delivery is, by statute--I'm fairly confident, handled only by the USPS.

By the way, if you don't like mail delivery today--blame Bush, the USPS is now part of the Executive branch. And he's had nearly six years to get it straightened out.

Here's some factoids:

The U.S. Postal Service handles more than 40 percent of the world’s mail volume, five times more than the Japanese Post Office, the next largest carrier of letter mail.

In fiscal year 2004, the USPS sorted and delivered nearly 206 billion pieces of mail, about 680 million pieces a day.

The USPS delivers more items in one day than Federal Express does in a year and more items in one week than United Parcel Service does in a year.

The Postal Service delivers to 142 million businesses and households each day, six days per week. UPS delivers to 7 million addresses daily while FedEx serves even fewer.

So, my point is this, which by the way, I made originally; you really oughta get your facts straight before you broadcast your opinions and pronouncements.

Or as Leo would have said to Satch, "Yah gotta brain? Den use it"!

Then would have come the dope-slap.

And no it's not all about taxes being the sole reference of that line in section 8, article 1. By extention Duties, Imposts, and Tarrifs apply to all government fees being uniform.

Some things in the Constitution are stated very clearly and some things are inferred and have been resolved by practice, court decision and such.

NudeTopher

07-12-2006, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by Bicycler:

Liberals don't believe in school vouchers. They think the government and not parents should decide where kids go to school. I think vouchers are good idea. It is the poorest among us who need them the most. I support the kids and not the NEA. .

HMM.
Perhaps you should support the NEA, then you would have the ability to do the math required here.

Mr. Bike, SCHOOL VOUCHERS DON'T HELP THE POOR - THEY HELP THE WEALTHY! Let's do the math:

Depending on the actual school district, location, and other factors the averge cost to educate a student ranges from $9,000 - $12,000 per year. A school voucher has been proposed to have a cash value of $3,000.

If we take the least expensive schools at $9,000/year and deduct the $3,000 voucher the family would need to pay the balance of $6,000.

This would have no effect on poor families; they couldn't afford their share - $6,000. However, it would be a $3,000 savings to those wealthy families who's children are ALREADY in private schools!

Next: You have openly stated that you are concerend about your tax dollars. How would you feel if your tax dollars were being spent on vouchers to Islamic schools?

Please remember if the vouchers can be used at Christian, Catholic, and Jewish schools they would also be valid for ALL religious schools.

Bicycler

07-12-2006, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):

Depending on the actual school district, location, and other factors the averge cost to educate a student ranges from $9,000 - $12,000 per year. A school voucher has been proposed to have a cash value of $3,000.

...

Nice setup. Your argument would be even better if you used a proposed voucher of $500/year. A real voucher program would provide a cash value equal to the local school districts per student budget and could be used for that purpose. I have no doubt that private schools would be glad to take that money and educate our children.

As to giving the money to Islamic schools. Yes that would hurt wouldn't it?

I'll tell you a story about school vouchers.

I was once in Washington D.C when Newt Gingrich was still in the House of Representatives. He held a press conference (that I attended) to publicize a program that he was sponsoring that would subsidize Washington D.C. school children via (as I recall) some sort of voucher program. In any case it would provide funds to allow Washington D.C. kids to go to the same private schools that Congressmen and Senators send their kids to. It was a small pilot program. Not many bucks. Not many kids. The idea was to test out vouchers and see how they would work in D.C. The NEA lobbied against the bill of course.

At the press conference, what struck me was that the audience was 90% African-American, mostly women but some men. And their kids were dressed up like it was Sunday. They were gung ho for this program and were there to show their support for the bill. They wanted to try out the idea.

It went down in flames. Never happened.

I'll tell you another story: The President of the NEA was asked "When are you going to do something for the children?" His/Her answer: "When they join the NEA." You have to give him/her credit for honesty.

Don't hold me to that last one. It could be an Urban Legend for all I know but it does have a ring of truth to it.

NudeTopher

07-12-2006, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by Bicycler:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):

Depending on the actual school district, location, and other factors the averge cost to educate a student ranges from $9,000 - $12,000 per year. A school voucher has been proposed to have a cash value of $3,000.

...

Nice setup. Your argument would be even better if you used a proposed voucher of $500/year. A real voucher program would provide a cash value equal to the local school districts per student budget and could be used for that purpose. I have no doubt that private schools would be glad to take that money and educate our children.

As to giving the money to Islamic schools. Yes that would hurt wouldn't it?

I'll tell you a story about school vouchers.

I was once in Washington D.C when Newt Gingrich was still in the House of Representatives. He held a press conference (that I attended) to publicize a program that he was sponsoring that would subsidize Washington D.C. school children via (as I recall) some sort of voucher program. In any case it would provide funds to allow Washington D.C. kids to go to the same private schools that Congressmen and Senators send their kids to. It was a small pilot program. Not many bucks. Not many kids. The idea was to test out vouchers and see how they would work in D.C. The NEA lobbied against the bill of course.

At the press conference, what struck me was that the audience was 90% African-American, mostly women but some men. And their kids were dressed up like it was Sunday. They were gung ho for this program and were there to show their support for the bill. They wanted to try out the idea.

It went down in flames. Never happened.

I'll tell you another story: The President of the NEA was asked "When are you going to do something for the children?" His/Her answer: "When they join the NEA." You have to give him/her credit for honesty.

Don't hold me to that last one. It could be an Urban Legend for all I know but it does have a ring of truth to it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was no set-up at all. Every article that I have ever read regarding vouchers used $3,000/yr as the amount.

I was about to give up replying to you earlier when you suggested that industry police itself so that the gov't can save the expense. That was someplace between laughable and retarded!

You didn't fully explain how you feel about supporting religious schools of religions different from your own. How do you really feel about your tax dollars going to a Buddhist, Muslim, or Pagen school? Would you object that your money was being used to spread "truths" that you might not share?

But, once you start posting and don't know if the content of your post is fact or fiction I realized that any continued conversation with you is pointless.

jon71

07-12-2006, 07:00 PM

Vouchers have nothing to do with how much/how little govt. people favor or anything to do with being free to choose your kids school. Vouchers are basically money laundering. Conservatives wish to use that to give kick backs to yuppies and fundamentalists who voted for them. I send my girl to a private Christian school. Guess what, I pay for it. I don't ask for tax payer money for it. Taking tax money for religious schools is unconstitution and an unwise use of public funds for anything else. My recommendation is to take the same money and make public schools better.

nacktman

07-12-2006, 07:22 PM

I don't think the civics lesson has sunk in yet usmc1 ... remedial lessons always have a tougher time breaking through thick barriers. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

BTW, Baron, I cut my own steaks at the butcher shop just like I used to on the family farm ... never knew waiters brought them to you already cooked ... what will they think of next?! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif

Bicycler

07-12-2006, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
For Voucher Program, the Lessons Begin (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62607-2004Sep4.html)
There was no set-up at all. Every article that I have ever read regarding vouchers used $3,000/yr as the amount.

I was about to give up replying to you earlier when you suggested that industry police itself so that the gov't can save the expense. That was someplace between laughable and retarded!

You didn't fully explain how you feel about supporting religious schools of religions different from your own. How do you really feel about your tax dollars going to a Buddhist, Muslim, or Pagen school? Would you object that your money was being used to spread "truths" that you might not share?

But, once you start posting and don't know if the content of your post is fact or fiction I realized that any continued conversation with you is pointless.

Go to this Washington Post article circa 2004 if you want to see a voucher program that is valued at more than $3000 per student.

For Voucher Program, the Lessons Begin (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62607-2004Sep4.html)

They mention $7500 per student, 1000 students and the program is limited to poor families. Looks like Newt got his wish - finally.

As to religious schools I'm afraid I would just bite the bullet and let them have the money and go to any school they liked, Islamic or whatever. It's the price we pay for freedom of choice. A freedom highly valued by liberals I'm told.

Just for the record: I post my opinion and the facts as I know them. I don't just make stuff up. I try to document with the facts where I can and admit that I can't where I don't have the data. I just think that is the way you have an honest debate.

And I have a very strong prejudice against ad hominem attacks. I don't think they are really appropriate on this or any other forum.

As to the laughable and retarded view that industry can govern itself I give you as an example of a highly successful effort: The Internet. Very little government oversight (although they are about to start screwing with it so watch out) and it works just fine. Do you want the government to take over management of the Internet? Well I don't.

jon71

07-12-2006, 08:31 PM

There is already and has for a long time been some govt. regulation of the internet. Thankfully it seems efficient and not too heavy handed. That's not the same as nonexistent though.

nacktman

07-12-2006, 10:20 PM

To Topic:

The difference is progressive and forward thinking in opposition to regressive and backward thinking.

It's that simple.

Three guesses as to which is which (oh, and the first two don't count).

usmc1

07-13-2006, 04:50 AM

Originally posted by nacktman:
To Topic:

The difference is progressive and forward thinking in opposition to regressive and backward thinking.

It's that simple.

Three guesses as to which is which (oh, and the first two don't count).

I think that's part of it, but there is probably a subtext of their uninformed yearning for something that never was and cannot be.

I think these recent exchanges underscore that--first we have a conservative endorsing 80% of the Democratic platform and then this whole USPS thing:no sense of the history:that establishment of post road and office was one of the first pieces of busines, that the Constitution prohibits what it was he was proposing, and so forth.

I think they just come at things from a simplistic way, and decide viscerally what should be and then seek ways to prove that, discarding, villifying, or ignoring any contrary evidence, rather than looking at all the facts and drilling in to the core truths and issues and coming to a conclusion based on that rather than their pre-conceived notions.

They become easy prey for the gnawing rats and mendicants of the right. They're the howling mob with torches in Frankenstein and the lurching corpses of Night of the Living Dead.

Sort of weird funny, but you really don't want to learn your sister is dating one.

Naturist Mark

07-13-2006, 05:35 AM

Look to Cleveland Ohio to see how a long term large scale school voucher program works:

http://www.policymattersohio.org/voucherintro.html

- not particularly well.

-Mark

Bicycler

07-13-2006, 05:57 AM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
Look to Cleveland Ohio to see how a long term large scale school voucher program works:

http://www.policymattersohio.org/voucherintro.html

- not particularly well.

-Mark

It's a lot of stuff to read Mark.

I had a quick look at most of the articles and they seemed focused on how the voucher programs are functioning (not well in some cases), who is actually taking advantage of them and what schools they are going to - religious schools seem to be the choice of the vast majority. I saw nothing about how the kids were doing. The real question is: are the kids getting a better education? I'm betting they are but I don't think the data is there yet to tell us one way or another. I am pretty hard over on the idea that the NEA is not good for American Education. Too much power in the hands of an organization who's goals are (appropriately for a union) focused on the teachers and not the students.

nacktman

07-13-2006, 07:16 AM

Very true. It's kinda of funny that liberals have a sense of history and conservatives do not, one would think the opposite would be true ... with the conservatives looking backward all the time.

Clearly they cannot percieve the real world as one posting above was going on about 'ad hominem' attacks where there haven't been any ... even from the masters of 'ad hominem' attacks the starboard ala ranters thmselves.
Methinks the microbially thin shell around their little world has finally cracked open and reality is beginning to rush in and they are terrified of it.

Sort of weird funny, but you really wouldn't want to learn your sister is dating one.

The sister I know almost gives me pause to be sympathic to the poor conservative who was in her path ...nah, let her maul and mangle'em ... then again I wonder how many genitaila she would have mounted on her wall like deer heads from all the ones she'd cut off (figuratively of course ... maybe literally in a few cases).

Interesting read, Mark, vouchers will never work - humans are involed and that is enough to squash any notion they'd work even remotely as the stated intention.

Conor B

07-13-2006, 07:35 AM

Another aspect on topic: Authoritarianism.

This clip from a review of John Dean's new book:

<span class="ev_code_BLUE">… Dean takes a sincere, well-considered look at how conservative politics in the U.S. is veering dangerously close to authoritarianism, offering a penetrating and highly disturbing portrait of many of the major players in Republican politics and power. Looking back on the development of conservative politics in the U.S., Dean notes that conservatism is regressing to its authoritarian roots. Dean draws on five decades of social science research that details the personality traits of what are called "double high authoritarians": self-righteous, mean-spirited, amoral, manipulative, bullying. He concludes that Chuck Colson, Pat Robertson, Newt Gingrich, and Tom DeLay are all textbook examples. Dean calls Vice-President Cheney "the architect of Bush's authoritarian policies," and deems Bush "a mental lightweight with a strong right-wing authoritarian personality." Dean maintains that conservatives without conscience have produced such a hostile, noncollegial environment in Congress that threats of resistance through filibusters have been met with threats of a "nuclear option" and that conservatives have used fearmongering about terrorist attacks to the point where the nation faces a greater threat of relinquishing its ideals of democracy. Dean appeals to conservatives to find their consciences and to all Americans to take serious heed of what is going on in the nation. Readers of all political perspectives will find this book riveting. Vanessa BushCopyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved</span>

Dean, interviewed by Olberman Tuesday, spoke of psychological and sociological research identifying a fairly constant 25-30% of the population who fall into authoritarian classification. These people are, as it were, wired to vote and identify themselves as conservative. Very few ever align with ‘liberals’. Those that do are currently trying to unseat Joe Lieberman.

In times of stress and cultural vulnerability (post 9-11, post-WW I) these people and their views, can and often do, become more influential.

I think we can see that these people are also the members of the faith community who I often call ‘The Fearful’, people whose faith is actually about controlling there own frightening impulses.

Bicycler

07-13-2006, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by nacktman:

Interesting read, Mark, vouchers will never work - humans are involed and that is enough to squash any notion they'd work even remotely as the stated intention.

Am I reading this correctly? Vouchers won't work because humans are involved? What can that possibly mean?

Naturist Mark

07-13-2006, 03:58 PM

Dean, interviewed by Olberman Tuesday, spoke of psychological and sociological research identifying a fairly constant 25-30% of the population who fall into authoritarian classification. These people are, as it were, wired to vote and identify themselves as conservative.

I'm going to have to get his new book Conservatives Without Conscience (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0670037745/103-7458803-0842242?v=glance&n=283155).

This book grew out of conversations Dean had with Barry Goldwater back in the early 90s. Goldwater was disturbed by the direction the conservative movement was taking, and how far it had left him behind. Dean continued the exploration of the subject after Goldwater passed away, and found some answers in 50 years of academic research on the nature of people's response to authority.

Interesting interview on The Daily Show (http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/07/13/john-dean-on-the-daily-show-2/).

Dean considers himself a "Goldwater Conservative", which today places him to the left of center.

-Mark

nacktman

07-13-2006, 07:01 PM

Bicycler read the first part of usmc1's signature line to answer your quandry over how vouchers won't work if humans are involved.

It is by human avarice or human stupidity ...

Bicycler

07-13-2006, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by nacktman:
Bicycler read the first part of usmc1's signature line to answer your quandry over how vouchers won't work if humans are involved.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> It is by human avarice or human stupidity ... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very funny, ye of little faith. Of course we are not perfect but consider the alternative.

If you are serious about defects in human nature you should read The Singularity is Near by Ray Kurzweil. Here is the amazon link:

The Singularity Is Near : When Humans Transcend Biology (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0670033847/sr=8-1/qid=1152843482/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-7552336-4188956?ie=UTF8)

WARNING: THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LIBERAL VS CONSERVATIVE (At least I don't think so).

Kurzweil has the view that humans will augment their intellectual (and physical) capablilities by integrating the products of the three great technologies of the 21st Century: Nanotechnology, Genetics and Robotics. It is a little scary to say the least, particularly when you think about what happens when miniature robots learn how to replicate. And ... he sees this happening in the next 40 years or so. If you are young enough and believe Kurzweil you should also read his book about how to live long enough to live forever.

He is an interesting guy.

NudeTopher

07-13-2006, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
Look to Cleveland Ohio to see how a long term large scale school voucher program works:...
[- not particularly well.

-Mark

<span class="ev_code_RED">SCHOOL VOUCHERS = PAYBACK FROM THE NEOCONS TO THE ULTRARIGHT RELIGIOUS IN EXCHANGE FOR THEIR VOTES. IN SHORT, VOTE REPUBLICAN/CONSERVATIVE & GET VOUCHERS TO TEACH OUR NATIONAL RELIGION - CHRISTIANTIY!</span>

ricky bobby

07-13-2006, 10:30 PM

I don't know the difference between the two groups, BUT one of the groups believes the MATRIX is real! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/sneaky.gif

usmc1

07-14-2006, 04:24 AM

Originally posted by g1212:
I don't know the difference between the two groups, BUT one of the groups believes the MATRIX is real! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/sneaky.gif

Ahh, at last. Someone who comprehends an implification of string theory.

ricky bobby

07-14-2006, 08:54 AM

Or, excuse my ignorance, doesn't Paul Wolfowitz think he's a Vulcan from the planet Vulcan?

"Live long an prosper"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vulcans

Bicycler

07-14-2006, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by g1212:
I don't know the difference between the two groups, BUT one of the groups believes the MATRIX is real! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/sneaky.gif

LOL.

There is another difference. Some of us actually think that Kerry DIDN'T win Ohio. But we are in the minority, in fact there may only be one of us.

nacktman

07-14-2006, 04:01 PM

I happen to have enormous faith in humankind ... and I haven't been let down yet! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wiseguy.gif

***************

What do you mean ... The matrix is NOT real???!! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/freak.gif

ricky bobby

07-14-2006, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by nacktman:
I happen to have enormous faith in humankind ... and I haven't been let down yet! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wiseguy.gif

***************

What do you mean ... The matrix is NOT real???!! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/freak.gif

Not until 2075 when the machines take over http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/bonk.gif

Or in 2033 when they clone dick cheney and place his brain in the first robot unit.

usmc1

07-15-2006, 03:26 PM

Maybe we really have slipped into some sort of space/time continuum hiccup.

Today, in front of the world, Russia's Vladimer Putin laughed at and ridiculed Bush when Bush suggested that Russia should model itself after the "democracy" in Iraq.

Putin laughed, looking at Bush and making the sort of jovially scornful face one might make had one's mother-in-law had let rip a bout of flatulence at the dinner table, and said, in effect, to the delight of the assembled dignitaries and world press, "A democracy for Russia, like Iraq? I don't think so". Gales of laughter from the assembly.

Bush's lame retort, "wait and see---nanner-nanner-nanner". He learned that one when he was driving the Rangers into the ground, "Wait til next year".

Were it not so tragic, it would be a freekin' hoot.

Sanslines

07-15-2006, 06:43 PM

According to the latest reports, the polar ice caps are melting faster and faster. If nothing changes, within a generation, costal cities such as New York, Miami, and Los Angeles will be under water. Time is rapidly running out to make changes and if we continue to ignore this one and put our heads in the sand, then we will all be doomed regardless of who is in office.

ricky bobby

07-15-2006, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by Sanslines:
According to the latest reports, the polar ice caps are melting faster and faster. If nothing changes, within a generation, costal cities such as New York, Miami, and Los Angeles will be under water. Time is rapidly running out to make changes and if we continue to ignore this one and put our heads in the sand, then we will all be doomed regardless of who is in office.

Surf's up dude? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/sick.gif

Sanslines

07-15-2006, 07:44 PM

Yup, surf's up so get your long boards all waxed up as you might need to ride the waves inland until you reach terra firma again.

ricky bobby

07-15-2006, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by Sanslines:
Yup, surf's up so get your long boards all waxed up as you might need to ride the waves inland until you reach terra firma again.

When you say "terra firm," you mean the new coast of Nevada. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif

Sanslines

07-15-2006, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by g1212:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sanslines:
Yup, surf's up so get your long boards all waxed up as you might need to ride the waves inland until you reach terra firma again.

When you say "terra firm," you mean the new coast of Nevada. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nah, Lake Tahoe will be the new coastline. It's like way up there in the ozone - lol.

hm0504

07-16-2006, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by usmc1:
Maybe we really have slipped into some sort of space/time continuum hiccup.

Today, in front of the world, Russia's Vladimer Putin laughed at and ridiculed Bush when Bush suggested that Russia should model itself after the "democracy" in Iraq.

Putin laughed, looking at Bush and making the sort of jovially scornful face one might make had one's mother-in-law had let rip a bout of flatulence at the dinner table, and said, in effect, to the delight of the assembled dignitaries and world press, "A democracy for Russia, like Iraq? I don't think so". Gales of laughter from the assembly.

Bush's lame retort, "wait and see---nanner-nanner-nanner". He learned that one when he was driving the Rangers into the ground, "Wait til next year".

Were it not so tragic, it would be a freekin' hoot.

Is the concensus that Bush was serious when he said that? My guess is yes he was. If Bush truly believes Iraq is a model democracy, then I would worry that he is indeed truly deluded -- not just utterly incompetent.

usmc1

07-17-2006, 09:40 AM

Well, here we have the middle east at war, Russia's Putin taunting and ridiculing Bush at the G8, the country gripped in a savage heat wave that will work extreme hardship on the elderly, the poor, low-income working families and retirees on fixed income, and our congress is debating gay marriage.

Words just fail me. Where is the outrage?

Sanslines

07-17-2006, 09:56 AM

New York, NY:

HEAT AND HUMIDITY IS EXPECTED TO REACH DANGEROUS LEVELS...

.HIGH PRESSURE BUILDING AT ALL LEVELS OF THE ATMOSPHERE WILL BRING A VERY HOT AND HUMID AIRMASS ACROSS THE TRI-STATE REGION THIS AFTERNOON.

...HEAT ADVISORY REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL 7 PM EDT THIS EVENING...

TEMPERATURES WILL CLIMB INTO THE MID 90S TO NEAR 100 DEGREES AWAY FROM THE OCEAN BEACHES THIS AFTERNOON. THESE TEMPERATURES WHEN COMBINED WITH INCREASING HUMIDITY LEVELS WILL ALLOW THE HEAT INDEX TO CLIMB TO BETWEEN 100 AND 104 DEGREES DURING THE AFTERNOON HOURS. THE HOTTEST PORTION OF THE DAY WILL BE BETWEEN 2 PM AND 6 PM.

REMEMBER...A HEAT ADVISORY IS ISSUED WHEN HIGH HUMIDITIES ARE EXPECTED TO COMBINE WITH HOT TEMPERATURES TO MAKE IT FEEL LIKE IT IS 100 TO 104 DEGREES. RESIDENTS WILL NEED TO EXERCISE APPROPRIATE CAUTION DURING THIS HEAT WAVE WHICH IS LIKELY TO LAST THROUGH TUESDAY. COMMON SENSE SAFETY TIPS INCLUDE...WEARING LIGHTWEIGHT AND LIGHT COLORED CLOTHING AND AVOIDING STRENUOUS ACTIVITIES...ESPECIALLY DURING THE HOTTEST PART OF THE DAY. YOU SHOULD ALSO DRINK PLENTY OF WATER OR OTHER NON ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES.

LOW TEMPERATURES WILL DROP ONLY TO AROUND 80 DEGREES IN NEW YORK CITY TONIGHT...AND FALL INTO THE LOWER TO MID 70S ELSEWHERE...

MAKING FOR A VERY UNCOMFORTABLE AND MUGGY NIGHT. TEMPERATURES WILL ONCE AGAIN TOP OUT IN THE MID 90S TO AROUND 100 DEGREES ON TUESDAY... WITH HEAT INDICES LIKELY CLIMBING TO BETWEEN 100 AND 104 DEGREES ONCE AGAIN. MAKE PLANS TO CHECK ON THOSE MOST SUSCEPTIBLE TO THE HEAT SUCH AS THE ELDERLY AND VERY YOUNG. PETS WILL ALSO NEED YOUR SPECIAL ATTENTION DURING THIS TIME.

NEW YORK CITY RESIDENTS SHOULD CALL 3 1 1 TO IDENTIFY COOLING CENTER LOCATIONS AND BEAT THE HEAT SAFETY TIPS.

THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION HAS ISSUED AN AIR QUALITY HEALTH ADVISORY FOR THE FOLLOWING COUNTIES...

SUFFOLK...NASSAU...RICHMOND...KINGS...QUEENS...NEW YORK...BRONX...

WESTCHESTER...ROCKLAND...ORANGE...AND PUTNAM.

AIR QUALITY LEVELS IN OUTDOOR AIR ARE PREDICTED TO BE GREATER THAN AN AIR QUALITY INDEX VALUE OF 100 FOR THE POLLUTANT OF OZONE.

THE AIR QUALITY INDEX...OR AQI...WAS CREATED AS AN EASY WAY TO CORRELATE LEVELS OF DIFFERENT POLLUTANTS TO ONE SCALE. THE HIGHER THE AQI VALUE...THE GREATER THE HEALTH CONCERN.

WHEN POLLUTION LEVELS ARE ELEVATED...THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH RECOMMENDS THAT INDIVIDUALS CONSIDER LIMITING STRENUOUS OUTDOOR PHYSICAL ACTIVITY TO REDUCE THE RISK OF ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS. PEOPLE WHO MAY BE ESPECIALLY SENSITIVE TO THE EFFECTS OF ELEVATED LEVELS OF POLLUTANTS INCLUDE THE VERY YOUNG, AND THOSE WITH PRE-EXISTING RESPIRATORY PROBLEMS SUCH AS ASTHMA OR HEART DISEASE. THOSE WITH SYMPTOMS SHOULD CONSIDER CONSULTING THEIR PERSONAL PHYSICIAN.

A TOLL FREE AIR QUALITY HOTLINE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED SO NEW YORK RESIDENTS CAN STAY INFORMED ON THE AIR QUALITY SITUATION.

THE TOLL FREE NUMBER IS: 1-800-535-1345.

nacktman

07-17-2006, 10:52 AM

nacktman

07-17-2006, 10:56 AM

Back to topic:

Forward with Liberals. (Strive for the betterment for everyone!)

Backward with conservatives. (Just don't bend over to pick up the soap!)

*************
There is NO choice for any intelligent being.

ricky bobby

07-17-2006, 09:18 PM

Originally posted by nacktman:
.

The temperature is wrong for my area. Its not 55 degrees!

usmc1

07-18-2006, 05:05 AM

Originally posted by g1212:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nacktman:
.

The temperature is wrong for my area. Its not 55 degrees! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huh?, Oh yeah, right. There were temperaturs in that picture Hadn't noticed till you mentioned it.

Sanslines

07-18-2006, 06:32 AM

The temperature is wrong for my area. Its not 55 degrees!

That's the temp for San Francisco and we all know that it is always foggy and 55F in SF - lol.

Bob S.

07-18-2006, 02:41 PM

usmc:"Russia's Putin taunting and ridiculing Bush at the G8"

And kissing a little boy's bare belly beforehand. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/anxious.gif

Bob S.

Baron Lake

07-18-2006, 03:01 PM

I think that 55 California temp is Celsius!!!
b.l.

Baron Lake

07-18-2006, 04:02 PM

Bob S.

I think your implication that even someone with Putin's sense of socially acceptable behavior
is still intellectually superior to Georgie Porgie is right on target.
Um... that was your point wasn't it? I mean it wasn't just some sort of ad hominium thingy was it?
b.l.

usmc1

07-19-2006, 04:44 AM

Originally posted by Bob S.:
usmc:"Russia's Putin taunting and ridiculing Bush at the G8"

And kissing a little boy's bare belly beforehand. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/anxious.gif

Bob S.

Oh, and you think it should have been vice versa?

Old Hippie

07-19-2006, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by g1212:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nacktman:
.

The temperature is wrong for my area. Its not 55 degrees! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not the temperature that's wrong; it's the DATE. Those readings were from April.

Bicycler

07-20-2006, 09:22 AM

There is an amazing lack of interest in events in Lebanon on this forum. I really thought you guys would be jumping in with some views on what is clearly a an event of historical significance.

Unless of course you are actually doing something truly useful like hitting the beach and getting naked. That's my excuse.

usmc1

07-20-2006, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by Bicycler:
There is an amazing lack of interest in events in Lebanon on this forum. I really thought you guys would be jumping in with some views on what is clearly a an event of historical significance.

Unless of course you are actually doing something truly useful like hitting the beach and getting naked. That's my excuse.

What's to say? For whatever reason Bush is fighting a proxy war with Iran using our cat's paw Israel to engage with Iran's para-military Hezbollah.

I think it is positively brilliant, get our Army & Marines mired in the middle of a civil war in Iraq and then do your best to draw Syria and Iran into a hot war with Israel.

Why not?, the world is seriously overpopulated and we all just need to get back to basics--the survivors, that is.

Of course, the upcoming November elections in which the GOP is looking forward to an ***-whipping have nothing to do with it.

The dog is getting wagged to death.

jon71

07-20-2006, 11:53 AM

Personally I hope Israel takes them out by the thousand. You don't mess with GOD's chosen people.

Bicycler

07-20-2006, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by usmc1:
[...
The dog is getting wagged to death.

You guys see a conspiracy behind every Grassy Knoll. Maybe we should just call this the Karl Rove War.

I have a simpler explanation (don't forget good old Occam): I think the Israelis have had their fill of so called diplomatic solutions and "engagement" (whatever that is) and decided to use the next excuse that came along to take care of business. Good old Hezbollah delivered a nice 70 MPH fast ball right down the middle of the stike zone. I predict that the IDF will hit it out of the park.

usmc1

07-20-2006, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by Bicycler:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
[...
The dog is getting wagged to death.

You guys see a conspiracy behind every Grassy Knoll. Maybe we should just call this the Karl Rove War.

I have a simpler explanation (don't forget good old Occam): I think the Israelis have had their fill of so called diplomatic solutions and "engagement" (whatever that is) and decided to use the next excuse that came along to take care of business. Good old Hezbollah delivered a nice 70 MPH fast ball right down the middle of the stike zone. I predict that the IDF will hit it out of the park. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was in Dallas that day, the railroad overpass is yet another story. My old pal Fletcher Prouty told the staight story on that deal.

No conspiracy theory about Israel being our cat's paw. Stone cold fact. No conspiracy theory about our using them for a proxy war with Iran through Hezbollah. Stone cold fact. Grow up, that's realpolitik.

Hezbollah has been yanking Israel's chain for years and year's, don't believe for a minute that it's about two soldiers or that Israel threw down on Lebanon's failure to curtail Hezbollah without our approval

After all, we're their banker and armorer.

One just has to wonder why now. Probably the same reason that the dry-drunk sociopath went before NAACP for the first time in five years, there's a freeking election coming up and the Republicans are seeing the lights flickering!

Jeez! Stop and use your brain. These things do not happen in vaccuum and things are seldom quite as simple as they first appear. Go to Mossad's front site, there you'll find confirmation of what I'm saying.

Bicycler

07-20-2006, 08:17 PM

Originally posted by usmc1:

I was in Dallas that day, the railroad overpass is yet another story. My old pal Fletcher Prouty told the staight story on that deal.

No conspiracy theory about Israel being our cat's paw. Stone cold fact. No conspiracy theory about our using them for a proxy war with Iran through Hezbollah. Stone cold fact. Grow up, that's realpolitik.

Hezbollah has been yanking Israel's chain for years and year's, don't believe for a minute that it's about two soldiers or that Israel threw down on Lebanon's failure to curtail Hezbollah without our approval

After all, we're their banker and armorer.

One just has to wonder why now. Probably the same reason that the dry-drunk sociopath went before NAACP for the first time in five years, there's a freeking election coming up and the Republicans are seeing the lights flickering!

Jeez! Stop and use your brain. These things do not happen in vaccuum and things are seldom quite as simple as they first appear. Go to Mossad's front site, there you'll find confirmation of what I'm saying.

No problem with everything you say right up to "One just has to wonder why now. ..."
And I agree that it is a good question. A very good question.

But events in Lebanon were certainly not under the control of the U.S. Iran on the other hand had just been told that the EU guys and the US were headed back to the UN to get sanctions since Iran was not responsive to the their latest offer to negotiate. Granted it wasn't a very good offer but what the heck. Same day or the next we get a war started in Lebanon. That doesn't sound like anything that Karl Rove could orchestrate but Iran just had to pick up the phone and make a call to Hezbollah and Bashar Assad. I think they made those calls. I think they did it in the hopes of showing how big a mess they could make of the M.E. as a warning to the U.S. to lay off. They really want that bomb and we are heading to crunch time. They want to show us what's in store for us if we keep pushing them.

BTW. An unconfirmed report in one of the British papers: All 13,000 rockets were transported from Iran to Lebanon via Syria in MARCH 2006. Sound far out to me. But in any case they have been put in place over some period of time for some purpose. That purpose was and is to fire them at Israel. Think about it. What good would that do Iran? Maybe a way of keeping Israel from bombing their nuclear facilities like they did to Iraq. I think that is what Iran is thinking. Right now they are probably re-thinking that strategy. But maybe we haven't seen the big ones yet. Maybe we haven't seen the biological or chemical warheads yet. They have them and will certainly threaten to use them. Will they use them? I don't know.

As to the NAACP and Bush. You're right on that one. But it was a nice thing to do. He should have been doing it all along.

I don't know what site you are referring to as the Mossad's front site. If it says that Israel was ready, anxious, willing to hit Hezbollah then I will agree. That is certainly true. But the timing was all Iran's doing.

Actually we are not really very far apart on this one.

Who killed Jack Kennedy?

nacktman

07-21-2006, 04:16 AM

The dust up in Lebanon is entirely staged by the US.

The US has been in Iran stirring up the infrastructure for several years now in an undeclared war and Lebanon is but the opening salvo of a shooting war that will engulf the world.

Since World War Three was to have started in the middle east in 2003 with the invasion of one country by another ... oh, wait, that has already happened ... and spread to a worldwide conflict by 2007, we are right on schedule.

So let's all sit back and enjoy the seven years of world war to come and then in 2013 when peace is finally brought forth ...

Then again, according to the Aztec SUNSTONE ... a far more accurate calendar than the one Nostradamus (or we) used says the world will end on August 23rd 2012, thereby relieving us of that pesky burden of living in global peace. Something conservatives have apolexy when they think of ... a world at peace, why that would be a Liberal paradise.

usmc1

07-21-2006, 05:06 AM

America is fighting a proxy war with Iran, using its middleeast cat's paw Isreal against Hizballah, a politcal, social and para-military group in Lebanon supported by ists spnsor states Syrai and Iran, according to recent postings on the Isreali intelligence service's (Mossad) website.

Meanwhile back in the U.S.A., a dumbed-down and bloated citizenry suffering from the heat, dispepsia and terminal dumb-*** haven't yet figured out that it is only four-months to next election and that "the war on terror" is a greaat rallying point for frightened Republicans who see the lights flickering and the boogie about to come out of the closet, according to socialactivist and political operative and extraordinarily bright and devastatingly handsome, USMC.

Bush Wants the Hizballah-Israel War to Give Iran a Bloody Nose

DEBKAfile Special Analysis

July 17, 2006, 8:07 PM (GMT+02:00)

Since the onset of the Israel-Hizballah war on July 12, US president George W. Bush never tires of repeating that Israel has the right to defend itself against terrorists and that it is up to Syria to press Hizballah to stop shooting rockets at Israel.

His secretary of state Condoleezza Rice says she doesn’t see how an immediate ceasefire can solve the Middle East crisis.

UN secretary general Kofi Annan, playing along, is in no hurry to take a hand. “It will be a while before fighting ends,” he says calmly. And Germany’s Angela Merkel thinks the kidnapped Israeli soldiers should be returned before any talk begins.

Britain’s Tony Blair would like to put an international force into southern Lebanon, but Bush put him off none too gently according to an open mike at the G-8 summit. Anyway, south Lebanon already has an international force. It is called UNIFIL, and it has never stopped Hizballah firing a single cross-border shot.

All the world powers assembled in St. Petersburg for the G-8 summit agreed that Hizballah started the war as Tehran’s proxy terrorist arm. They picked up on the attitude of the US president, who is telling Israel: Let it run; but keep civilian casualties down and don’t kick too much Lebanese infrastructure.

Even Arab governments, which automatically fought any Israeli military action in the past, have formed a solid Sunni Muslim front, led by Saudi Arabia, which is content to watch the ****e Hizballah take a beating and the burgeoning Shiite assertiveness in the region squashed.

The Olmert government is eagerly exploiting this leisurely international climate to smash as much of Hizballah’s terror machine as he can before Washington holds up a stop sign. Monday, July 17, a clutch of would-be ceasefire brokers descended on Beirut and Jerusalem. None came with Bush’s nod, so they will not get very far.

In Tehran, the hardline supreme ruler, Ayatollah Khamenei, picked up on the prospect of the only export arm of Iran’s Shiite revolution facing a hammering in a drawn-out conflict. Sunday, July 16, four days into the hostilities, he spoke his first words in support for Hizballah. Typically, he struck out at UN Security Council resolution 1559 when he declared: No one will ever disarm the Hizballah.

On the same day, when black clouds of rockets and warplanes filled the skies of Lebanon and northern Israel, both Tehran and Damascus made a point of supporting Syria – not Hizballah – against a possible Israel attack.

This was seen by DEBKAfile’s Iranian sources as a jab at Bush and Rice first, Israel second.

This poker game between Tehran and Washington is going back and forth over the heads of Israel and Lebanon. It is the cause of the muddled statements coming from Israeli leaders with regard to the targets of the Lebanon campaign. They range from recovering the kidnapped soldiers, to smashing the Hizballah, breaking up its terrorist infrastructure (what about its personnel?), moving their positions back from the Israeli border to one kilometer or more (depending on the estimated range of their rockets), and forcing the Lebanese government to displace the Hizballah in the south and disarming the Shiite terrorists as ordered by the Security Council.

Meanwhile, no more than 25% of Hizballah’s arsenal has been destroyed in Israel’s six-day air blitz and cannonade, and no one is quite sure what surprises are in store in the form of long-range, heavy rockets or missiles, what hardware is being smuggled from Iran via Syria past the Israeli blockade, and whether either or both will intervene at some point – and how.

The green light flashing in Washington may give Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert a latitude never before granted any Israeli premier. But it also tells the Islamic Republic that its rulers’ meddling in Iraq carries a high price tag. By pulverizing Iran’s surrogate, Israel is articulating America’s determination to smash Iran’s strength and positions of influence around the Middle East and the Persian Gulf.

This determination was sparked by an unnoticed incident in Iraq on July 4, 2006.

On that day, for the first time in the Iraq War, Nasrallah activated the three-year old sleeper terror and sabotage networks Iranian and Hizballah intelligence had established across Iraq shortly after the US invasion. He was obeying orders from Iranian supreme ruler Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

America’s Day of Independence 2006 was selected for this group to make its first low-key attacks against US forces in Baghdad and British units in Basra and break surface under the name of The Abu al Fadal al Abas Brigades. No one had heard of it because Tehran had kept this Iraqi arm of Hizballah dark as the ultimate weapon to spring on the Americans in Iraq at the appropriate moment.

President Bush saw that if he looked away and let Iran’s challenge burst into full-blown action without responding, America’s standing in Iraq and the rest of the region would be forfeit. He was further stirred into a response by Tehran’s developing appetite for quick gains. On July 12, believing they had got away with it in Iraq, Iran and Hizballah followed it up by opening a second front against Israel, America’s ally: the Shiite terrorists kidnapped two Israeli soldiers.

That was the last straw, but George W. Bush turned it around as a boomerang to hit Tehran. The Israeli Defense Forces, there to hand, were more than ready to punish Hizballah and had been raring to go after five years of forced restraint against the Lebanese group and Palestinian terrorists. For Bush, this course offered America the chance of a bold, efficient blow against a Shiite extremist terrorist group without a single American soldier having to step onto the battlefield.

Therefore, Israel’s Operation Just Reward, which started out as a rescue operation for its two abducted soldiers, then a campaign to push Hizballah back from its border, within six days opened Lebanon up as a major arena for the showdown building up between the United States and Tehran over a whole bagful of issues - not least Iran’s nuclear defiance. However, the unacknowledged object of Israel’s campaign is none of the highly rational goals outlined by officials. It is to satisfy Washington that Tehran has been given a bloody nose and is ready to pull back from its deepening political, military and intelligence interference in Iraq.

To this end, Bush decided to let the armed forces of the Jewish state strike out against a fundamentalist Islamic force. For Israel, this is a first, a chance awaited since the first Gulf War of 1991 to get its own back on the radical Arab assailants besetting the country. This chance was denied even when it came under attack from Saddam Hussein’s missiles in 1991. Israel was then consistently held back from ridding itself of the vicious Palestinian suicide terror launched in 2000, leaving the conflict unresolved to this day. Israel was kept on the sidelines of the US global war on terror, even though it targeted the Jewish state no less than the West.

Now, Ehud Olmert has picked up the gauntlet handed by Washington and decided to settle a long score with a Shiite terror group plaguing Israel from its northern border. He has plunged the country into a conflict that may well draw Iran and Syria in on the side of the enemy.

No one can tell how it will come out.

Israeli generals and officials asked about the objectives of this war are cagey; they can’t tell what will eventuate in the next 24 hours – and not only because of the uncertain fortunes of war. The tricky test is to correlate Israeli and American interests from one day to the next. Hizballah keeps on threatening “new surprises,” because its leaders are also playing their tactics by ear, dependent on the support and weapons Tehran judges it politic to release.

The conflict may only just be at the beginning. None of the main players show any eagerness to cut it short before they attain their purpose.

hm0504

07-21-2006, 07:45 AM

In light of the U.S. debacle in Iraq, Iran believes the momentum of history is on its side. Similarly, Israel feels it must act now before American power and influence wane any further.

Bicycler

07-21-2006, 11:49 AM

usmc1:

So it was DEBKA that you were talking about. Well the article is interesting and pretty accurate.

It seems a stretch, however, to describe Israel as Iraq's Cat's Paw. If you really meant the U.S.'s cat's paw well that is a different matter. If your postion is that this is a war between the U.S. and Iran/Syria with Israel and Hezbulloh as surrogates then we agree - that is in fact the truth of the matter.

The Debka business about the July 4th decision sounds correct. That makes sense. Iraq is a real threat to Iran in the long term if democracy succeeds there. It is in Iran's best interest to do everything they can to help make sure it fails.

A word of warning about DEBKA: they are sometimes correct and sometimes not. I suspect that they occasionaly serve as a disinformation source for Mossad so you have to be a little careful with what you take to be the truth when reading their stuff. But it is always interesting.

I noted that you passed on the real question: Who killed Jack Kennedy?

usmc1

07-21-2006, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by Bicycler:
usmc1:

So it was DEBKA that you were talking about. Well the article is interesting and pretty accurate.

It seems a stretch, however, to describe Israel as Iraq's Cat's Paw. If you really meant the U.S.'s cat's paw well that is a different matter. If your postion is that this is a war between the U.S. and Iran/Syria with Israel and Hezbulloh as surrogates then we agree - that is in fact the truth of the matter.

The Debka business about the July 4th decision sounds correct. That makes sense. Iraq is a real threat to Iran in the long term if democracy succeeds there. It is in Iran's best interest to do everything they can to help make sure it fails.

A word of warning about DEBKA: they are sometimes correct and sometimes not. I suspect that they occasionaly serve as a disinformation source for Mossad so you have to be a little careful with what you take to be the truth when reading their stuff. But it is always interesting.

I noted that you passed on the real question: Who killed Jack Kennedy?

Typos make for fun reading for agile minds.

I didn't pass, I wrote that my old ponyo, Fletcher Prouty nailed it.

Naturist Mark

07-21-2006, 04:19 PM

Who killed Jack Kennedy?

The Mafia.

Specifically Carlos Marcello of Louisiana (who controlled the rackets in Dallas), Tampa's Santo Trafficante, and Johnny Rosselli of the Chicago mob

In retaliation for Bobby Kennedy's efforts to arrest or deport leading Mafia chiefs.

OK, a little more than that.

Jack Kennedy had a CIA coup plan to remove Castro and install a new regime in Cuba called AMWORLD. It was supposed to be implemented in December 1963. The mob learned of the plan and successfully infiltrated it. They were able to use elements of AMWORLD to rid themselves of Kennedy, on the third try they succeeded. There were unsuccessful attempts made in Chicago 3 weeks prior to Dallas, and in Tampa 4 days prior.

The mafia plot could not be revealed without also revealing the Cuban coup plan, so the evidence was buried in the interest of national security. Neither the Warren Commission nor the later Congressional investigations were given any AMWORLD documents. Bobby Kennedy still tried to convict the 3 mafia bosses on other charges, with little success. All three mafiosi later confessed to friends their involvement in the assassination and the AMWORLD plot.

Lamarr Waldron and Thom Hartmann spent a decade researching the AMWORLD plot and its connections to the Kennedy murder, via FOIA requests, original research and interviews. Last year their research was published in Ultimate Sacrifice (http://ultimatesacrificethebook.com/), which was also used as the basis for a Discovery Channel documentary called Conspiracy Files: JFK Assassination (http://inthefray.com/html/article.php?sid=1666)

Document Walkthrough: Ultimate Sacrifice (http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Document_Walkthrough_-_Ultimate_Sacrifice)

The mafia, the coup and the murder (http://dir.salon.com/story/books/feature/2005/12/07/response/index.html?pn=1)

Collected Reviews (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhartmannT.htm)

-Mark

Bicycler

07-22-2006, 04:56 AM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Who killed Jack Kennedy?

The Mafia.

Specifically Carlos Marcello of Louisiana (who controlled the rackets in Dallas), Tampa's Santo Trafficante, and Johnny Rosselli of the Chicago mob

In retaliation for Bobby Kennedy's efforts to arrest or deport leading Mafia chiefs.

OK, a little more than that.

Jack Kennedy had a CIA coup plan to remove Castro and install a new regime in Cuba called AMWORLD. It was supposed to be implemented in December 1963. The mob learned of the plan and successfully infiltrated it. They were able to use elements of AMWORLD to rid themselves of Kennedy, on the third try they succeeded. There were unsuccessful attempts made in Chicago 3 weeks prior to Dallas, and in Tampa 4 days prior.

The mafia plot could not be revealed without also revealing the Cuban coup plan, so the evidence was buried in the interest of national security. Neither the Warren Commission nor the later Congressional investigations were given any AMWORLD documents. Bobby Kennedy still tried to convict the 3 mafia bosses on other charges, with little success. All three mafiosi later confessed to friends their involvement in the assassination and the AMWORLD plot.

Lamarr Waldron and Thom Hartmann spent a decade researching the AMWORLD plot and its connections to the Kennedy murder, via FOIA requests, original research and interviews. Last year their research was published in Ultimate Sacrifice (http://ultimatesacrificethebook.com/), which was also used as the basis for a Discovery Channel documentary called Conspiracy Files: JFK Assassination (http://inthefray.com/html/article.php?sid=1666)

Document Walkthrough: Ultimate Sacrifice (http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Document_Walkthrough_-_Ultimate_Sacrifice)

The mafia, the coup and the murder (http://dir.salon.com/story/books/feature/2005/12/07/response/index.html?pn=1)

Collected Reviews (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhartmannT.htm)

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Looks like I have another Kennedy assassination book to read. A quick perusal of the documentation in your links makes it a must read for me. I have read a lot about the JFK assasination and have always come away with the feeling that I don't really have the answer. The mob connection always seemed feasible to me because of Ruby. Looks like Amazon is going to get a little more of my money.

I guess I'll have to add usmc1's recommendation (L. Fletcher Prouty and Oliver Stone: "JFK: The Cia, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy") to my Amazon list but I'm much more inclined to buy the mafia theory than one involving the CIA.