|
Post by Scott Hays on Jul 29, 2004 17:52:17 GMT -5
yeah, I've seen f9/11 ... I liked it. A whole bunch.
I have read, with interest, criticisms of the movie ... both from the left and the right. The right provides a larger quantity of criticisms, but not a one has been able to argue any of the FACTS MMoore presented. Instead, the most cogent and interesting criticisms have consisted of a long list of things Democrats did when they had a chance ... a litany of real, semi-real, and fabricated accusations aimed at the Clinton and Carter administations (one must remember there haven't been too many Demcratic Presidents since the 1960's).
Most of THOSE accusations aren't too far off base, either. This is because the dance done by Democrats and Republicans ... very real and substantial if you are a donkey or an elephant ... is not really one of mano y mano (or even contra y amigo) because politicians in both mainstream parties are pawns of the folks who have purchased their souls. Please note that John Kerry says that we will "win the peace". He does not say that Iraq was a peaceful country before we destroyed and smashed it. Nor does he say we made a huge mistake and will step aside while the UN tries to negotiate some sort of truly representative government while we pay for all costs of restoring the country to someone there who actually speaks for the Iraqi people. No ... he wants MORE soldiers and MORE money for defense.
But I will vote for him because I voted my conscience last time, which enabled the Supreme Court to decide who won the election. By the by ... did anyone notice that small segment in f9/11 about the role FoxNews played in raising the question of who had won in Florida, and who it was that called the shots to raise the question in the first place?
The left poses more interesting questions about Moore, f9/11 and where we are going. I find I am a lefty at heart. But, having seen the damage done when the extreme right gets control, I suspect the same would happen if the extreme left did the same. The most useful role, for both the folks on the left AND right, is to raise the questions that they raise. Those in the middle need to listen to those questions, and find ways to address them that satisfy the great majority that are somewhere closer to the middle. It is in the middle that this country does what it does ... with help from the freaks at the edges who keep us from being complacent and wishy-washy.
I will vote for Kerry because we survived Shrub. If we can survive four years of an uncured alcoholic's dimentia (about as bad as it can get without drastic stuff .... like cancelling elections and/or having the entire Cabinet go underground to call the shots because the Congress has been wiped out and/or arrested), then we can also survive four years of a so-called liberal who might raise even one simple question: why must a whole bunch of (mostly poor or semi-poor) kids have to fork over more money for a college education while the richest folks are paying less taxes?
|
|
BillL
Full Member
RIGHT ON !!!!
Posts: 172
|
Post by BillL on Jul 30, 2004 11:12:00 GMT -5
For the record, I have not seen F 9/11 and have no intention of seeing it in the theater. To put this in perspective, I have only been in a theater 5 times in the last 12 or 14 years. I saw the first 2 Lord of the Rings movies, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (twice) and Shrek 2. I'm not a big movie theater fan. Having said that, I will probably see it when it hits cable.
J writes: I have seen F 9/11 now and it basically covers ideas Moore has had in his books in the past. Again even if you don't agree with him it will at least give you an insight to what and why some hate Bush and his gang as they do. By the way the two so-called errors in the film, that the Bin Laudin family flew out when the airlines were shut down, the fillm clearly shows that they flew out on the 13th and the film makes clear that they were given a quick superficial interview, Also, he makes clear that one congressman has a family member in Iraq. Both so-called errors have been repeated ad nauseum by his critics, they must not have watched the movie. The movie does have a clear paoint of view. But no one yet has been able to point out any factual errors. Also, it is not so one sided that it doesn't place substantial blame at the democrats door step. See the movie. Let's argue.
I think we all know why people hate Bush. It's the same reason all those other people hated Clinton. They're just in different parties. The movie most definetly has a point and has been spun to be a truthful account. The fact is, as I've stated in my arguments regarding Ms. Ronstadt, the truth lies in between what Moore says and what "the other guys" are saying.
Scott says some great stuff and I completely agree with some of it. However, ho goes into choppy waters with: I voted my conscience last time, which enabled the Supreme Court to decide who won the election. By the by ... did anyone notice that small segment in f9/11 about the role FoxNews played in raising the question of who had won in Florida, and who it was that called the shots to raise the question in the first place?
The Supreme Court did not decide the election. They stopped and unending attempt to recount all the votes until Gore could find a way to win. We can argue that ad nauseum and we'll never agree, so we should probably not follow that path of discussion (though I'm more than happy to). And I still don't know why everyone gets their panties in an uproar over FoxNews. They must be doing something right to be kicking the shiat out of CNN on a regular basis. For the record, I usually only watch NBC, MSNBC or CNBC. I'm not a fan of CNN or FoxNews.
The only thing I really have issue with here is this: I will vote for Kerry because we survived Shrub. If we can survive four years of an uncured alcoholic's dimentia (about as bad as it can get without drastic stuff .... like cancelling elections and/or having the entire Cabinet go underground to call the shots because the Congress has been wiped out and/or arrested), then we can also survive four years of a so-called liberal who might raise even one simple question: why must a whole bunch of (mostly poor or semi-poor) kids have to fork over more money for a college education while the richest folks are paying less taxes?
Isn't that a little below the belt to call someone who has stopped drinking (for whatever reason)? If I called Clinton something (and there are lots of things he can called) I'm sure you would think it is unnecessary and uncalled for. Not only that, but it almost invalidates your argument due to it's dismissiveness of that person. I also don't recall Bush (or anyone in his administration) asking that the election be delayed. When I heard the reports about it, it was said that some republicans thought it'd be a good idea. Knowing politics the way I do, 1 of 2 things happened. The republicans floated this to see how it would fly or the dems floated it to tag it to Bush. The bottom line is it's dumb and shouldn't even be discussed. I don't get the cabinet underground comment, but that's fine. Maybe if our senators and reps actually had to work instead of constantly going on recess we might be in better shape. But then again, with the way those guys spend our money we're better off with them as far away from wWashington as possible. And the last I take exception to is the taxes business. Please specify what you mean by the richest folk paying less taxes. Less than what? Less than before the tax cut. Didn't everyone (that pays taxes) get a cut? The richest 2% pay something like 90-95% of ALL tax revenues (my numbers may be off here, but I'll research it). The whole basis of our tax system is to screw anyone who actually makes money. Besides that, they earned the f-in' money. Why should the government be in charge of wealth redistribution? If our tax system is not overhauled soon, we'll end up like Animal Farm or 1984. Wealth redistribution is a failed system (see the fall of communism) that has never and will never work.
Just some food for thought!
Bill L
|
|
|
Post by jashley on Aug 2, 2004 19:16:21 GMT -5
BillL
No we don't hate Bush just because he's a Republican. Here are a few reasons. 1. An unprecedented attack on the bill of rights. 2. Spending like drunken idiots. In answer to why the USSR failed it was because of idiotic levels of military spending. Something this administration has not learned a lesson from. 3. An attempt by the republican controlled FCC to steal the peoples radio and TV airwaves for a few ultrarich corporations. 4. Unprecedented foriegn influence (if you have oil) on our government (inc. but not limited to Saudi Arabia). 5. An alltime low of international co-operation and respect for America and Americans. 6. Theft of national resources and undue policy influence by oil interest. (See the "energy bill") 7. Unfair tax cuts to the richest americans. Did you happen to see Bush's response to Kerry's proposal to repeal the tax cuts to the richest 2%? His brilliant reply was that it wouldn't work because the richest all had accountants. Ways he saying that the middle class was the only ones dumb enough to pay taxes? 8. Unprecedented growth of government. (A new cabinet post and the included buracracy) 9. Pandering to the religious right to the exclusion of scientific fact. Stem cell research for example. Blurring of chuch and state as policy in general. Also complete disregard for the enviroment. 10. The endless lies this administration has told as reason to put our young people in harms way. Not to mention the innocent Iraqi and Afgani dead.
That's just the top ten, and I didn't even mention Osama still running around loose. I don't care what party he belongs to or lib or cons this administration has been a disaster. I still can't figure how a good conservative free market guy can support this administration. I am a conservative constitutionalist and this administration strikes me a the biggest danger to a small fed government and the constitution in my life time.
By the way even as a Bush backer how can you defend Katherine Harris a leader in Bush's campaign being the head of elections in Florida. That's not only bad policy but can't be good for even the appearance of fairness.
Keep on Rollin' Peace j ashley
|
|
|
Post by Scott Hays on Aug 3, 2004 12:18:32 GMT -5
Bill ... thanks for your thoughtful comments. You wrote:
"The Supreme Court did not decide the election. They stopped and unending attempt to recount all the votes until Gore could find a way to win [snip] .... And I still don't know why everyone gets their panties in an uproar over FoxNews ...."
Nor am I (a fan of Fox or CNN). Fox, however, is not a "news" agency, but a glorified op-ed wolf in news clothing. His [Rupert Murdoch] television "news" empire has about the same respectability as does the National Inquirer (and appeals broadly to the same readership). Popularity does not make it right. Fox did not "create" the Florida election conundrum. However, the entire process -- systematic deletion of qualified voters from the roles to confusion about a voter's polling place, the physical turning away of voters from their precincts to the now famous "hanging chads" -- was, at best, questionable. Do voting irregularities occur in other locations? Of course they do. Any place where voting is regulated and controlled by the ruling political aparrati is open to manipulation ... and historically HAS been manipulated. The surprising issue here was the role of the Supreme Court in interfering in the internal and legal duties and responsibilities of state government. The point in any election is to get it right -- counting ALL the votes. The Supreme Court interfered in an area over which it had no jurisdiction, and prematurely ended efforts to get at the truth.
You also wrote: "Isn't that a little below the belt to call someone who has stopped drinking [snips] .... I also don't recall Bush (or anyone in his administration) asking that the election be delayed .... I don't get the cabinet underground comment, but that's fine. Maybe if our senators and reps actually had to work instead of constantly going on recess we might be in better shape .... And the last I take exception to is the taxes business. Please specify what you mean by the richest folk paying less taxes. Less than what? Less than before the tax cut. Didn't everyone (that pays taxes) get a cut? The richest 2% pay something like 90-95% of ALL tax revenues (my numbers may be off here, but I'll research it). The whole basis of our tax system is to screw anyone who actually makes money. Besides that, they earned the f-in' money. Why should the government be in charge of wealth redistribution? ...."
The "alcoholic" accusation was, indeed, uncalled for ... though it certainly does not rise to the same level of constant and public character assassination that Bill Clinton confronted for his eight years in office. This does not excuse my use of tit-for-tat ... even though I see all the hallmarks of alcoholism in the behaviors of this failed student, businessman, and world leader. But I am more than willing to take on the decisions and policies themselves, rather than psychoanalyze the source (in large part because I don't think George Bush is making the decisions, in the first place).
I agree that "postphoning" the elections was a trial balloon. I hadn't thought that democrats themselves might be the source ... that's a clever idea ... but I find it highly unlikely since the fall guy identified as the source was a republican. Now, however, we get a new balloon about postphoning the Republican Convention because of terrorist "threats". We have several proposals to reorganize Congress coming from this administration -- including methods for quickly appointing new senators or congressmen in case of a national disaster, doing the business of state with less than the full Congress, to creation of a new committee structuring to make government more "efficient" (that is, more friendly to the administration).
Let's be real ... machiavelli is alive and kicking in the hands of power-mongers (democrat or republican), who are constantly looking for ways to make their programs impossible to derail by the "inequities" of constitutional checks-and-balances, by the "slowness" of debate and special interest, or the "inefficiency" of policy-making by committee. It's amazing how easily dictatorship (from the left or right) can creep into existence ... all you need is a little fear to justify cops with machine guns on the corners (photos of downtown Boston or New York in the last couple of weeks remind me of Franco Spain where I attended school in 1969); electronic surveillance of your reading, banking, purchasing, or travel plans; elimination of a few taken-for-granted rights in relation to arrest and detention (only weasels, after all, use those "technicalities", and "sting" operations are permissible to find not only would be terrorists, but also possible drug-users or bank robbers); and a few reorganizations of how political or educational business is done in the name of "efficiency" and suddenly selected segments of the population are increasingly (and "naturally") suspect of all wrong-doing and everyone's rights aren't quite as 'rightful' as they used to be.
As to "redistribution of wealth" ... don't make me laugh. You object to redistribution when it flows from the wealthy to the less fortunate, but isn't everything set up so that the primary flow of "wealth" is from the 95% of the population to those fortunate enough to already own everything?
Now, some of the folks with lots of money have actually earned it. Most didn't. What does a CEO or CFO or President or anyone else "earning" $300,000+ (or more) a year do in a day that is not just as important as the least significant person in the company or organization does? Certainly nothing worthy of 10,000 or more times the income. And why does a person with so much wealth need more -- how many $4 million homes or boats or airplanes does one person need?
Currently, the overarching value of this nation (and increasingly, of the world, as we sink our claws into larger and larger chunks of turf) is to get as much stuff and wealth as you can, then use your power to centralize even more wealth and power in your hands. This value permeates all governmental decisions and policies, and it suffuses the less fortunate, as well (hence, the growth in popularity of lotteries and casinos).
And it's hardly the "rugged individualism" or "competitive edge" of the past. We're looking at corporate socialism sponsored and supported by the state -- a new form of state socialism thriving in a political and social climate shaped by the manipulation of images and control of the "word".
Wealth is being "redistributed" all the time in the current system. You just object to it going from the top to the bottom, instead of the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Aug 4, 2004 9:36:15 GMT -5
Atta boy Scott!!!!!!! It's a good thing that he doesn't actually make the decisions or no doubt, things would be even worse. As King Dubya stated at one of his fundraisers...."It's great to be here among the Haves, and the Have Mores. You are my base!" (excuse me while I puke!!!!!)
|
|
|
Post by jashley on Aug 4, 2004 16:02:15 GMT -5
Hoy Hoy All That e-mail address for info on the FCC regs I have been promising is www.freepress.net. Please, whatever your political views check it out, this might be the most pressing issue at this time, if you find the bad guys we need a free press to let the people know. In referance to the election and the supreme courts actions. I found it interesting that the justification the Supreme Court (U.S.) used in overturning the Florida Supreme Court's decision to continue the count was to uphold states rights. Yea, they overturned the Florida court to uphold states rights, figure that one out I can't. Peace j ashley
|
|
BillL
Full Member
RIGHT ON !!!!
Posts: 172
|
Post by BillL on Aug 6, 2004 20:29:58 GMT -5
Boys, this is going to take some time so bear with me. I've been too busy at work (and play) to respond earlier. Here goes: J writes: No we don't hate Bush just because he's a Republican. Here are a few reasons. 1. An unprecedented attack on the bill of rights.I understand where you are coming from here (and even agree in some instances) but I will submit that it is a catch 22. If they do nothing, there is an uproar that our own government doesn't care for the safety of its people. If they do anything, they are infringing on the rights of everyone. What is the answer? You have families from 9/11 suing the government saying they didn't do enough to prevent the attacks. You have people saying we should stop with the terror alerts. Am I the only one that sees this is an impossible situation? Obviously you can't please everyone, but lets be real. Wouldn't you rather spend an extra 20 min at the airport to make sure that there are no weapons on the plane? Don't you think that "reasonable" (I know I'm on shakey ground here because who determines this?) investigation may have helped prevent 9/11 from happening in the first place. 2. Spending like drunken idiots. In answer to why the USSR failed it was because of idiotic levels of military spending. Something this administration has not learned a lesson from.This is exactly why the Soviet Union collapsed. Was it worth it? We probably won't know for many years. However, that does not give our government the right to spend like drunken sailors. Keep in mind that the President has a limited ability to get a budget through congress. They are the spenders. As a side note, when did the budgets start to balance? It was after the '94 sweep by the GOP. 3. An attempt by the republican controlled FCC to steal the peoples radio and TV airwaves for a few ultrarich corporations.I believe that agency is (supposed to be) non partisan. However, appointments certainly make it able to lean any way in which an administration would like (to a point). I happen to believe that if you don't want your kids to see something you should turn it off. I'm against censorship of any kind. By trying to censor, you only give the subject a forbidden fruit quality. BTW, this is exactly what I think happened with F9/11. If the right didn't make such a big stink about it, it would probably would have gone away with half the money and none of the credibility. But that is, of course, unknown. 4. Unprecedented foriegn influence (if you have oil) on our government (inc. but not limited to Saudi Arabia).This country was founded on foreign influence. Why on earth would we have gotten involved in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam? And it's not just oil that drive us. Is our policy on who are allies are consistant? Not even close. Do you give friends or people you like more leway than people you don't like? Probably. I know I do. 5. An alltime low of international co-operation and respect for America and Americans.Having been to Europe a number of times (mostly Greece) in the 80's and early 90's, I can honestly say that many of the people in Europe just don't like us. I really don't think it's any worse but I do think they are being more vocal about it. I would also like to add that if ANY country in this world has ANY type of disaster, they know that the US wil be the first there with help (money, food, clothes, etc) and will be the last to leave. Say what you want about this country, but there is no doubt that we spread goodwill in times of need. 6. Theft of national resources and undue policy influence by oil interest. (See the "energy bill")Please explain this to me. I don't understand the theft of national resources. Regarding oil, if you don't think this country is in need of a 2 tier approach to our energy needs, then maybe you should take a look at it again. We should be looking for less dependence on foreign oil. We should also be (and are) exploring new ways of creating energy. This, however, is not easy and will probably require 5 - 10 years to get something that is profitable. Also, if the reigns that oil holds on the world economy were to be cut off too quickly and too drastically it would cause such a crash in the world markets that most nations probably couldn't recover. 7. Unfair tax cuts to the richest americans. Did you happen to see Bush's response to Kerry's proposal to repeal the tax cuts to the richest 2%? His brilliant reply was that it wouldn't work because the richest all had accountants. Ways he saying that the middle class was the only ones dumb enough to pay taxes?You can check me on this, but didn't everyone get a tax cut? You can check me on this too, but didn't the higher incomes recieve a fewer % cut than the rest? In actual $, yes they did get more money back. But they paid in much more money. And the fact is, they do have accountants that hide money. Who do you think makes more money, W or Kerry? Kerry does and he pays less taxes. Bush owns 1 home and Kerry has (I think) 3 in the US and still pays less taxes than Bush. I'm not jealous of Kerry and I think it's great that he can afford it, but how can he talk about the richest 2% when that's him and he's the one hiding his cash from the tax man? 8. Unprecedented growth of government. (A new cabinet post and the included buracracy)I agree with you here. I'm all for less federal government. I think they should only be in charge of the army, foreign relations and a national highway system and everything else should be left up to the states. That includes making laws, enforcing laws, collecting taxes, redistributing wealth (sorry I couldn't help myself ) 9. Pandering to the religious right to the exclusion of scientific fact. Stem cell research for example. Blurring of chuch and state as policy in general. Also complete disregard for the enviroment.Stem cell research is a hot button topic. I can understand where both sides are coming from (I've yet to make up my mind) but the reality is that it is tough for a person of faith to be able to reconcile their beliefs with what science can offer in the way that science needs it. There are still disputes on how succesful it is/can be, which cells are the best. I also take exception to the blurring of church and state. Just because some has faith in their god does not mean there is a problem. Why was it great when Clinton would go to church and it's mentioned with such disdain when Bush does it? This country was founded by Christian men (whether you like it or not) with christian values. I'm not saying that things can't updated to suit the current needs, but to try to eliminate religion (which is usually what it looks like to people of faith) is just plain wrong. 10. The endless lies this administration has told as reason to put our young people in harms way. Not to mention the innocent Iraqi and Afgani dead.
What about the innocent dead in the US. What about the endless lies fom overseas? No one wants to put anyones life in danger (at least no sane person) but it is very easy to Monday morning quarter back. Had you been in his position, what would you have done? It's impossible to know and I wouldn't even make an attempt to say what I would do. The fact is, we are where we are and we need to finish the job there quickly and get our guys back home. Quite frankly, I think it took a lot of guts to do what he did knowing full well that everyone on the other side of the isle would have a field day. To be continued, my friends. Bill L
|
|
bb
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by bb on Aug 9, 2004 14:14:24 GMT -5
BillL says:
>> Keep in mind that the President has a limited ability to get a budget through congress. They are the spenders. As a side note, when did the budgets start to balance? It was after the '94 sweep by the GOP.<<
Uh huh. Now please explain why we have the current record deficits (half a trillion dollars!!!), with the Republicans still firmly in control of Congress.
My observation is that when a Republican president is in charge (in recent years including the Reagan era), that deficits balloon. It was during the Clinton years that we saw a reversal - to the point that there was a budget surplus.
Another sure-fire way to tell who is responsible is by the conspicuous absence of the phrase "tax and spend liberals". Instead, the formerly fiscally conservative Republicans have become the "tax your children and spend" conservatives. Jeez.
|
|
BillL
Full Member
RIGHT ON !!!!
Posts: 172
|
Post by BillL on Aug 9, 2004 14:42:41 GMT -5
Uh huh. Now please explain why we have the current record deficits (half a trillion dollars!!!), with the Republicans still firmly in control of Congress.
My observation is that when a Republican president is in charge (in recent years including the Reagan era), that deficits balloon. It was during the Clinton years that we saw a reversal - to the point that there was a budget surplus.
Another sure-fire way to tell who is responsible is by the conspicuous absence of the phrase "tax and spend liberals". Instead, the formerly fiscally conservative Republicans have become the "tax your children and spend" conservatives. Jeez.
In both cases, deficits ballooned due to spending on military activities. Reagan had the Cold War (which carried into Bush I, but was already starting to decline due to the economy coming out of recession and the end of the Cold War) and the current Bush due to 9/11 and the war in the Middle East. The difference here is that the tax and spend liberals don't have the power to tax. Unfortunately, for this whole country, congress has never met a dollar it couldn't spend twice. There is no doubt in my mind that congress (and this administration, for that matter) has absolutely no idea on how to show some restraint when spending our money. You will never hear me agree with the spending going on in Washington (no matter which party is in power). See my comments above in which I say that. And all this time, I thought it was just jashley, Scott and myself left in this thread! Alas, time to get back to work before someone notices I actually look busy. Bill L Side note to jashley: I saw some of your posts in the "what other bands do you like" thread and you'd be surprised just how similar our tastes are (even if our politics aren't). You can check out my (not updated in 3 years) CD list at www.geocities.com/billleh
|
|
BillL
Full Member
RIGHT ON !!!!
Posts: 172
|
Post by BillL on Aug 9, 2004 15:57:59 GMT -5
In 2 parts because becasue I'm so F'in long winded: ahhh, screw it, I'm going to kill some more time. Scott writes: Bill ... thanks for your thoughtful comments. Any time, my friend, any time. <snip what I wrote earlier> Nor am I (a fan of Fox or CNN). Fox, however, is not a "news" agency, but a glorified op-ed wolf in news clothing. His [Rupert Murdoch] television "news" empire has about the same respectability as does the National Inquirer (and appeals broadly to the same readership). Popularity does not make it right. Fox did not "create" the Florida election conundrum. <minor snip> Any place where voting is regulated and controlled by the ruling political aparrati is open to manipulation ... and historically HAS been manipulated. The surprising issue here was the role of the Supreme Court in interfering in the internal and legal duties and responsibilities of state government. The point in any election is to get it right -- counting ALL the votes. The Supreme Court interfered in an area over which it had no jurisdiction, and prematurely ended efforts to get at the truth.You are right in that being popular does not make it right. However, being popular does make it profitable and that's what all businesses want to do. You may not like the way Fox presents their news but they have a very large audience that does. And it's their right to do it anyway they want. Regarding Murdock, I highly doubt he has any input in day to day affairs. Much like the guy that runs GE doesn't tell the NBC division what it should or shouldn't do and Eisner doesn't tell ABC news what it should and shouldn't due. People in the news arena take their freedoms very seriously and you wouldn't see too many of them hanging around if it damaged their credibility. Regarding the Supreme Court, you must understand what it is they do. Al Gore DIDN"T want a full recount of Florida because he had no idea how many uncounted Bush votes there were in the districts in which Bush won. He SPECIFICALLY pointed to several favorable-to-Gore counties that were close and chose those (which give him, statistically the advantage to win the state) and that's what the Supreme Court ruled on. They had no right to issue a full recount statewide because it is not their place to do that. They ruled on the merits of the case brought before them. What killed Gore is when, after realising he didn't have enough votes in those counties, he started demanding a statewide recount. If he had done that first, he may well have been president. <again major snip of what I wrote and minor snip of your post> though it certainly does not rise to the same level of constant and public character assassination that Bill Clinton confronted for his eight years in office. ... rather than psychoanalyze the source (in large part because I don't think George Bush is making the decisions, in the first place).I submit that both equally and willing partake in character assination. Both sides have well documented cases and there's no need to rehash them (I, as always, am certainly willing to air that dirty laundry if anyone so desires). Also, you have every right to question the decision making process. I think, here, we have a difference of opinion (big surprise, eh ) because I don't want a president that thinks he knows everything. I want a president who brings in people that he feels can handle the specific tasks that he assigns them. How do you expect anyone to be able to do the job well if they are handling everything (or even most of it). I know lots a succesful businessman that could never be in politics because they aren't used to having to get the OK to do something, they just do it. You can't do that in politics. Even if you not listening to what someone is saying, in politics you have to pretend you hear them and then do what you want anyway. In my opinion, that's what Clinton did for 8 yrs. end part 1
|
|
BillL
Full Member
RIGHT ON !!!!
Posts: 172
|
Post by BillL on Aug 9, 2004 15:58:22 GMT -5
Part 2 I agree that "postphoning" the elections was a trial balloon. I hadn't thought that democrats themselves might be the source ... that's a clever idea ... <snip> including methods for quickly appointing new senators or congressmen in case of a national disaster, doing the business of state with less than the full Congress, to creation of a new committee structuring to make government more "efficient" (that is, more friendly to the administration).I couldn't be more against special appointments. It's a local issue and it should stay that way. I further say that anyone who gets a "special appointment" due to disaster, death, etc. should be up for re-election at the next election assuming they've served at least 12 months. That gives him/her a chance to stand for something and the people a chance to decide if they agree. <minor snip> It's amazing how easily dictatorship (from the left or right) can creep into existence ... all you need is a little fear to justify cops with machine guns on the corners (photos of downtown Boston or New York in the last couple of weeks remind me of Franco Spain where I attended school in 1969); electronic surveillance of your reading, banking, purchasing, or travel plans; <snip> and a few reorganizations of how political or educational business is done in the name of "efficiency" and suddenly selected segments of the population are increasingly (and "naturally") suspect of all wrong-doing and everyone's rights aren't quite as 'rightful' as they used to be.You are absolutely correct that this could very easily turn into a police state if left alone. That is one of the reasons why I like to debate things like this. Everyone sees their own worst fears and through observation and action they will never be met. I highly doubt that we would ever get to that point. I would argue that we were closer to your experiences in Spain back in the 50's and 60's than we are now. Now, you could never have a Kent State, Chicago Seven or any of that. Both sides use incremental movement for their issues and, if you think about it, that's safer than taking a huge leap of faith. Incremental steps can be reversed. That is why I truely don't think we could ever wind up under martial law or police state type status. As to "redistribution of wealth" ... don't make me laugh. You object to redistribution when it flows from the wealthy to the less fortunate, but isn't everything set up so that the primary flow of "wealth" is from the 95% of the population to those fortunate enough to already own everything? I oppose GOVERNMENT redistribution of wealth. If you have made 50 million dollars and want to give half of it away to a school, church, organization, friend, whatever that's up to you. I have issues with the government taking your money and saying that they can do better. I won't deny that there are many rich people who wouldn't give up a dime. I also know many rich people who give so much back to their community that you'd be shocked. And I'm not just talking about money, but supporting churches and schools and communities with workers, clothing, cars, toys, food you name it. You'll find that I'm very much in favor of community. I've stated earlier that the federal government should stay out of just about everything and let the states and cities/towns handle things for themselves. Everyone would be better off. Now, some of the folks with lots of money have actually earned it. Most didn't. You couldn't have hit it any better than this. The people who've made their own money almost always are the first to help people in need. It's the one's who've inherited their money that tend to treat everyone else like lower class citizens (that's a generalzation, but for the most part I think you'll find that to be true). what does a CEO or CFO or President or anyone else "earning" $300,000+ (or more) a year do in a day that is not just as important as the least significant person in the company or organization does? Certainly nothing worthy of 10,000 or more times the income. And why does a person with so much wealth need more -- how many $4 million homes or boats or airplanes does one person need? Yet again, a good point. I don't know about you, but I'd love to get paid that much and do what they do. But that's not in my cards and I'm ok with that. For that matter, why should some guy be making $8 million to skate around all year and complain? I'm using hockey here because I love hockey, but you can say the same for any sport. How about how ridiculous it is that movie stars get paid what they get paid. I would suggest that porn stars at least earn their money. And it's not up to me to decide how many houses or boats someone has. I really don't care. I have 1 house and 5 dogs. That's my choice (actually, the dogs were my wife and I live in a dictatorship. And I'm not the dictator ). There are lots of people that think I'm nuts, but it's none of their business and I don't care what they think anyway. Currently, the overarching value of this nation (and increasingly, of the world, as we sink our claws into larger and larger chunks of turf) is to get as much stuff and wealth as you can, then use your power to centralize even more wealth and power in your hands. This value permeates all governmental decisions and policies, and it suffuses the less fortunate, as well (hence, the growth in popularity of lotteries and casinos).I find it difficult to disagree again. However, these things always come in cycles. Eventually, there will be a major backlash. On a small scale, I'm seeing something very similar with Home Depot around here. People used to flock to that store and they drove many small business to shut their doors. It looks like now there is a big movement to get away from HD and smaller stores are opening up again. Pretty soon, a happy medium will exist where both can prosper (albeit with a smaller chunck and fewer stores for Home Depot). As for the casinos and lotteries, I chalk that up to people who would rather play against astronmical odds than to actually work. Not everyone, mind, but a larger share than there should be. People look at professional athletes and actors and want that life. Who doesn't? It's just that some people don't want to work for it. And others are willing to risk everything. The latter are the ones that end up very poor or very wealthy. The former usually end poor unless they redirect their motives to something more fruitful. And it's hardly the "rugged individualism" or "competitive edge" of the past. We're looking at corporate socialism sponsored and supported by the state -- a new form of state socialism thriving in a political and social climate shaped by the manipulation of images and control of the "word".Well stated, but I think corporate socialism is only around because our politicians are too easily bought. If we could get someone who at least stood for something. And that's why I could never vote for Kerry. He's never met an issue that he didn't agree with both sides. Stand for something and let the cards fall where they may. That's how you get respect and when your respected, people will listen to you. I think Bush, whether you agree with him or not, stands for something and is willing to take the flak for his position. Maybe he isn't the best example. I'll give you 2 good ones, though. From the left, Traficante or Wellstone (take your pick) always said what they believed and were willing to live with it. On the right, Alan Keyes. All of them stand for what they think is right and they all say it with conviction. God bless them! Wealth is being "redistributed" all the time in the current system. You just object to it going from the top to the bottom, instead of the other way around. I've already stated it, and if you're still reading I'll say it again, I'm against the government redistributing it. I say, stay out of my pocket (and everyone else's as well) and let me spend my money my way. That is what true freedom is. Bill L If anyone still reading this thread would like a complimentary Little Feat show, visit my website and e mail me privately. I will only take up to 10, though. www.geocities.com/billleh and go to the Tape List
|
|
|
Post by jashley on Aug 10, 2004 16:15:42 GMT -5
BillL No I wouldn't be surprised that our tastes in music are similar, believe it or not I am of the opinion that you are an intelligent guy with good taste. After all it takes a certain dgree of taste to be a Little Feat fan. Also, you might be surprised to hear that I don't think that our politics are that differant. I think that we both want to get to roughly the same place, we just disagree on how to get there.
A few things about your answer to my numbered post. I believe in a true two tiered approach to energy, if you check out the last energy bill proposed after secrect meetings with D. Cheney and big oil less than 1% of the 49 billion dollar bill was allocated to alternative energy. Sure if we never spend any money on it alternative forms of energy will take a long time to become cost efficient. I don't believe in government subsidies either, except in emergencies, which this is. Energy produced by oil is OLD tech, oil will run out someday, shouldn't we look to the future instead of the past. And if we can subsidies oil to the tune of 49 billion, don't you think the split of the money can be a little fairer. And as we both seem to favor an open government that answers to the people, do you think it was right for the commitee to be secret to the point that Cheney wouldn't even disclose who was at the meetings.
Religion. We could get into a historical debate about how Christian our forefathers were, but let's put that aside for a moment. I think it is great that someone has found help in thier personal life with religion of any kind. However, it does not belong in government in any way. Yes, the religious right always screams that someone is attacking thier pesonnal faith when they advocate removing christian influence from govt. They are wrong, it is two completly differant issues. This country is supposed to represent all of the people of this country no matter what thier faith or lack of faith.
The FCC. I not so concerned about being able to turn off what I want to watch as being able to turn on what I need to watch. The choices in the media are becoming more and more limited and if the trend continues the peoples airwaves will be controlled by very few people, and I see this as very dangerous to our ideals of free speech and open debate. As for being non-patisan the five members of the FCC are 3 republicans and 2 democrats, the chairman is Michael Powell (Colin Powells son.)
Military spending. I doubt if you ask a Russian whether the military spending that destroyed the country was worth it, I doubt if they would have to wait a few decades to decide. By the way the funding of Afganistan to suck the Russians into a costly war that ultimately BK'd the USSR was a plan formulated by the Carter admin. and continued long after the Russian went home by Regan and Bush 1.
As far as the attack on our right goes. What does being able to access your medical records without a warrant (for example) have to do with fighting terroism. This admin has used the fight against terroism and 9/11 for the most egregious political profiteering I have ever seen and personally I think it is disgusting.
And flip flopping. This one I am sick of. If a person doesn't change his position when new evidence or a new argument changes his mind he is not a very diligent thinker. The thing I object to most about Bush are his hide bound non-thinking positions. He claimed that there were 90 stem cell strains to work with so we didn't need new ones. In fact thier are 21 and every scientists working in the field says we need more. But Bush won't change his position. He claims there is no global warming, but every reputable scientist says thier is. Bush won't change his position. Bush claimed that there were WMD's, the evidence shows there are not. Bush won't change his position. Bush said the Iraqi's were a threat to the USA, the evidence shows they were not, Bush won't change his position. Now let's face a Kerry "flip-flop" he voted to auth the presdident to use force in Iraq and then voted against the 87 billion dollars to support that effort. Kerry says that he voted to auth. the use of force with the understanding that the president would use that power responsibly. The evidence is that the president did not use that power responsibly and I agree with Kerry that the President did not deserve another "blank check". This is a flip flop that I can certainly agree with.
One last note and I'll shut up. Kerry seems to be taking a lot of heat for protesting the Viet Nam war, I couldn't vote for any politician from that era who didn't protest that war. Another "flip-flop" I agree with, he went to the war and found it to be wrong and he fought against it. Good for im. At least he didn't hide from his responsibilities in a NG unit for rich kids.
Bill again I think we agree about where we want the country to go and what it should be, we just disagree on how to get there. Please don't listen to what this gang says they are and look at what they do.
Peace j ashley
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Aug 10, 2004 23:16:26 GMT -5
Great job Jashley! "...do you think it was right for the commitee to be secret to the point that Cheney wouldn't even disclose who was at the meeting?" Even for this administration it would look pretty rediculous to admit that thier "special guest" was non other than recently indicted Enron CEO Ken Lay. Some extra pointers maybe, and here I thought Cheney was The Master! Spot on with the "flip flopping" of Kerry. It was once known as "common sense" adjustment. A pleasure, Mike
|
|
|
Post by PhillyLuvsFeat on Aug 18, 2004 10:52:09 GMT -5
Can't support an admitted baby killer and village burner.
This guy, Kerry, should be facing war crime charges rather than running for president.
Amazing how liberials have such short memories. The liberials and Dems got us into Viet Nam and protested Nixon's trying to get us out. Now they want to hold up someone who they hated (a U.S. soldier) an admitted "baby killer" and village burner as a hero ("Well they say time loves a hero") and is running on his record as an American Soldier. This is insane!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Aug 19, 2004 8:31:56 GMT -5
Oh my. "Liberals got us into Vietnam, then protested Nixon's trying to get us out of Vietnam! Hated the US soldiers"? Philly, may I ask how old you are? Sounds like an overdose of Rush & Orielly!
|
|