| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Blast Femur" |
| Date: |
15 Nov 2003 08:46:18 PM |
| Object: |
OT: John Kerry |
What do you folks think of John Kerry for President?
"September 11th was not a clash of civilizations as some would have us
believe. It – and the war on Terror that has followed – are a clash of
civilization against terror; of the hopes of humanity against the fears
of the few.
And we must be clear as a bell on this. Our cause in winning the War on
Terror isn’t helped when we have Army officers like Lt. Gen. William
Boykin speaking in evangelical churches and claiming this as some sort of
battle for the Christian religion. He said of a 1993 battle with a
Muslim militia leader in Somalia: “I knew that my God was bigger than
his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol.” "
I haven't researched this guy much, but I kind of like him. So far...
--
Blast Femur
______________
"We look at the ancient Greeks with their gods on a mountain top throwing
lightning bolts and say, 'Those ancient Greeks. They were so silly. So
primitive and naive. Not like our religions. We have burning bushes
talking to people and guys walking on water. We're ...sophisticated.'"
-Paul Provenza
.
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
15 Nov 2003 09:44:12 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns9434BEEA4E62Dblastfemur@63.240.76.16>,
says...
What do you folks think of John Kerry for President?
I'm a volunteer for his campaign. Kerry is pretty cool. In addition
to being a senator for 20 plus years, he was briefly a lieutenant
governor and a prosecutor. Of course, most people know that he was a
decorated special forces officer, getting a bronze star, a silver star
and three purple hearts. After the war he came back and told congress
the truth about the vietnam quagmire. Since then, Kerry has been a
staunch environmental advocate, a strong supporter of veterans rights,
a diligent critic of Reagan's illegal war in central america, etc, etc.
Kerry probably would be stronger than Dean when matched up against
Bush, but it's not clear that Kerry can make up for previous missteps
and slower fund raising. Part of this is that Kerry has tried to stick
to a policy of not taking PAC money at all. But unfortunately, if
Kerry can't win in New Hampshire or Iowa then it might be curtains.
Kerry has actually done better than Dean in a lot of the debates and
has more moderate, less controversial positions than Dean. I think
that right now Democrats want someone who sounds clashy, like old
double-chin Dean, but they aren't considering the fact that Dean will
have very limited appeal outside the party. Kerry, OTOH, has a lot
more of the harley motorcycle driving, common touch. Of course Kerry's
initials are JFK (John Forbes Kerry), but that's no guarantee of
anything :).
I haven't researched this guy much, but I kind of like him. So far...
The best thing about a Kerry versus Bush match up is that there would
be absolutely no way for repubs to claim Kerry was weak on defense.
Kerry can and would snap that vietnam-dodging, awol crackhead dubya
like a tooth pick, the moment any military issue arose.
--
_____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
16 Nov 2003 12:59:44 AM |
|
|
The best thing about a Kerry versus Bush match up is that there would
be absolutely no way for repubs to claim Kerry was weak on defense.
Kerry can and would snap that vietnam-dodging, awol crackhead dubya
like a tooth pick, the moment any military issue arose.
There is probably no single topic where the Republicans are more vulnerable
than their treatment of the military and veterans. This administration has
ruthlessly attacked military pay and benefits and veterans benefits at every
single oppurtunity. They've made a public shambles of military health care,
particularly for war wounded. They've stopped the Gulf War I POWs from
collecting their financial settlements from the Saddam Hussein government. This
is probably the most openly hostile administration to military servicemen that
I have ever seen...yet they claim to be "supporting the troops."
The Dems need to hammer this issue hard. Very hard. With a large sledgehammer.
Preferably on the deserter-in-chief's forehead.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
16 Nov 2003 12:13:01 PM |
|
|
Lo, many moons past, on Sat, 15 Nov 2003 20:44:12 -0700, a stranger
called by some quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> came forth and told
this tale in alt.atheism
Of course, most people know that he was a
decorated special forces officer, getting a bronze star, a silver star
and three purple hearts.
Just to be clear. He was not a Special Forces officer. He was in the
Navy, and commanded a river patrol boat. He did rescue a SF officer.
During the war, he was wounded three times, awarded the Bronze Star
and a Silver Star.
Special Forces are the Army guys commonly called the Green Berets.
After his discharge, he helped organize Vietnam Veterans Against the
War.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Blast Femur" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
16 Nov 2003 08:26:02 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:l5ffrv80cgep99mcrok5815cq1c9s40tt8@4ax.com:
After his discharge, he helped organize Vietnam Veterans Against the
War.
Yeah! I'm starting to like this guy.
--
Blast Femur
______________
"We look at the ancient Greeks with their gods on a mountain top throwing
lightning bolts and say, 'Those ancient Greeks. They were so silly. So
primitive and naive. Not like our religions. We have burning bushes
talking to people and guys walking on water. We're ...sophisticated.'"
-Paul Provenza
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
21 Nov 2003 07:19:24 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 02:26:02 GMT, Blast Femur <you@wish.com>, Message
ID: <Xns9435BB7AD48E0blastfemur@216.148.227.77> wrote in alt.atheism;
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:l5ffrv80cgep99mcrok5815cq1c9s40tt8@4ax.com:
After his discharge, he helped organize Vietnam Veterans Against the
War.
Yeah! I'm starting to like this guy.
I'd much rather have someone who's been 'in the trenches' as Commander
in Chief.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
23 Nov 2003 02:14:42 AM |
|
|
In article <8aetrvod1up618up9g08q0nkvsuidj5mcj@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 02:26:02 GMT, Blast Femur <you@wish.com>, Message
ID: <Xns9435BB7AD48E0blastfemur@216.148.227.77> wrote in alt.atheism;
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:l5ffrv80cgep99mcrok5815cq1c9s40tt8@4ax.com:
After his discharge, he helped organize Vietnam Veterans Against the
War.
Yeah! I'm starting to like this guy.
I'd much rather have someone who's been 'in the trenches' as Commander
in Chief.
....as opposed to a deserter
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
- Question authority. Now more than ever. -
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
25 Nov 2003 12:12:07 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 00:14:42 -0800, johac <jhachm@remove.ixpres.com>,
Message ID: <jhachm-0ACBBF.00144223112003@news-central.ash.giganews.com>
wrote in alt.atheism;
In article <8aetrvod1up618up9g08q0nkvsuidj5mcj@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 02:26:02 GMT, Blast Femur <you@wish.com>, Message
ID: <Xns9435BB7AD48E0blastfemur@216.148.227.77> wrote in alt.atheism;
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:l5ffrv80cgep99mcrok5815cq1c9s40tt8@4ax.com:
After his discharge, he helped organize Vietnam Veterans Against the
War.
Yeah! I'm starting to like this guy.
I'd much rather have someone who's been 'in the trenches' as Commander
in Chief.
...as opposed to a deserter
and alcoholic coke-head.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
16 Nov 2003 03:18:33 PM |
|
|
In article <l5ffrv80cgep99mcrok5815cq1c9s40tt8@4ax.com>,
penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com says...
Lo, many moons past, on Sat, 15 Nov 2003 20:44:12 -0700, a stranger
called by some quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> came forth and told
this tale in alt.atheism
Of course, most people know that he was a
decorated special forces officer, getting a bronze star, a silver star
and three purple hearts.
Just to be clear. He was not a Special Forces officer.
Yeah, sure, I guess you could say that. Special forces often used the
PBRs. In some ways, the guys operating these boats were a little more
elite than the average grunt, but not technically special forces.
He was in the
Navy, and commanded a river patrol boat. He did rescue a SF officer.
Yep. He also supported special forces attacks.
During the war, he was wounded three times, awarded the Bronze Star
and a Silver Star.
....with the combat v!
Special Forces are the Army guys commonly called the Green Berets.
It's kinda an academic distinction. Technically you're right. But it
wasn't like he had a cushy job. These guys got their asses shot off
half the time and the other half the time they shot the asses off their
enemies.
After his discharge, he helped organize Vietnam Veterans Against the
War.
Right. He affiliated with them in particular.
--
_____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
17 Nov 2003 01:22:20 PM |
|
|
Lo, many moons past, on Sun, 16 Nov 2003 14:18:33 -0700, a stranger
called by some quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> came forth and told
this tale in alt.atheism
In article <l5ffrv80cgep99mcrok5815cq1c9s40tt8@4ax.com>,
penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com says...
Just to be clear. He was not a Special Forces officer.
Yeah, sure, I guess you could say that. Special forces often used the
PBRs. In some ways, the guys operating these boats were a little more
elite than the average grunt, but not technically special forces.
No, Special Forces is a specific job. MOS/CMF 18.
He was in the
Navy, and commanded a river patrol boat. He did rescue a SF officer.
Yep. He also supported special forces attacks.
So do pilots. Doesn't make them Green Berets.
Special Forces are the Army guys commonly called the Green Berets.
It's kinda an academic distinction. Technically you're right. But it
wasn't like he had a cushy job. These guys got their asses shot off
half the time and the other half the time they shot the asses off their
enemies.
I never said he did. But to call him a SF officer is wrong. He
served honorably and with great distinction in the Unoted States Navy.
I'm former SpecWar myself. (Ranger) and just get annoyed when people
get that wrong.
After his discharge, he helped organize Vietnam Veterans Against the
War.
Right. He affiliated with them in particular.
For very good reasons.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Blast Femur" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
15 Nov 2003 11:27:16 PM |
|
|
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in news:MPG.1a209dfff0ff48cb98a317
@news.cis.dfn.de:
I haven't researched this guy much, but I kind of like him. So far...
The best thing about a Kerry versus Bush match up is that there would
be absolutely no way for repubs to claim Kerry was weak on defense.
Kerry can and would snap that vietnam-dodging, awol crackhead dubya
like a tooth pick, the moment any military issue arose.
I saw him on TV. He came across like a televangelist in a way, but write
that off to politics. His rantings were secular enough. Maybe I like
him because he opposes Bush. Like the way Schwarzenegger opposed Davis
in California, I'm at the point where I'd vote for him just to oust Bush.
My wife hasn't entertained the idea of moving to Canada since Reagan was
elected.
--
Blast Femur
______________
"We look at the ancient Greeks with their gods on a mountain top throwing
lightning bolts and say, 'Those ancient Greeks. They were so silly. So
primitive and naive. Not like our religions. We have burning bushes
talking to people and guys walking on water. We're ...sophisticated.'"
-Paul Provenza
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
16 Nov 2003 02:42:19 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns9434DA34B3FE2blastfemur@216.148.227.77>,
says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in news:MPG.1a209dfff0ff48cb98a317
@news.cis.dfn.de:
I haven't researched this guy much, but I kind of like him. So far...
The best thing about a Kerry versus Bush match up is that there would
be absolutely no way for repubs to claim Kerry was weak on defense.
Kerry can and would snap that vietnam-dodging, awol crackhead dubya
like a tooth pick, the moment any military issue arose.
I saw him on TV. He came across like a televangelist in a way, but write
that off to politics.
He has some videos on johnkerry.com that seem pretty good. I'm sure
that, like all politicians, he strikes certain political poses that may
not reflect his actual personality. But he seems to be a pretty sharp,
reasonably sincere guy. His wife Theresa Heinz is pretty smart and
articulate too. I'm sure repubs would consider her another hillary
clinton. But frankly, I'm not too impressed with shrinking violets
like laura bush. We need more dynamic first ladies.
His rantings were secular enough. Maybe I like
him because he opposes Bush. Like the way Schwarzenegger opposed Davis
in California, I'm at the point where I'd vote for him just to oust Bush.
Yeah, many people are starting to realize that Bush is an extremist.
Even compared to Nixon and Reagan many people think that Bush is an
arrogant fanatic.
My wife hasn't entertained the idea of moving to Canada since Reagan was
elected.
Like I say, I think that Bush has shown himself to be far worse than
Reagan. I suspect that Bush thinks he's being like Reagan or just
continuing the gipper legacy. But the reality is that even Reagan
didn't alienate people like Bush. Even reagan's cabinet was not as
corrupt as Bush's. Even Reagan didn't divide this country to the
same degree and sow as much hate as Bush has in only three years.
At the very least, make sure you're registered to vote in the primaries
and consider voting for Kerry. I don't know if Kerry will get the
nomination, but we need someone like him, who has the charisma and
credentials to beat Bush. Maybe Dean or Clark could do it, but I feel
less comfortable about their prospects.
--
_____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Blast Femur" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
16 Nov 2003 08:13:06 PM |
|
|
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1a218efb7965d8bb98a31d@news.cis.dfn.de:
At the very least, make sure you're registered to vote in the
primaries and consider voting for Kerry. I don't know if Kerry will
get the nomination, but we need someone like him, who has the charisma
and credentials to beat Bush. Maybe Dean or Clark could do it, but I
feel less comfortable about their prospects.
I think you're right. Thanks! Now if you'll excuse me, I must go order
a pizza. <arnold> With nine-millimeter bullets. And no broccoli. What
the hell is broccoli anyway? </arnold>
--
Blast Femur
______________
"We look at the ancient Greeks with their gods on a mountain top throwing
lightning bolts and say, 'Those ancient Greeks. They were so silly. So
primitive and naive. Not like our religions. We have burning bushes
talking to people and guys walking on water. We're ...sophisticated.'"
-Paul Provenza
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Divin Marquis" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
17 Nov 2003 02:40:06 AM |
|
|
Le Sun, 16 Nov 2003 02:46:18 +0000, Blast Femur a écrit :
It and the war on Terror that has followed
If he uses the syntagm "war on Terror" in all seriousness, I'd say you'd
better watch out. I don't hear a Dean falling or trying to have people
fall for such lame propaganda. There is no war on Terror, it cannot
possibly exist; except as a marketing concept.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
18 Nov 2003 01:42:21 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 09:40:06 +0100, Divin Marquis
<postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Le Sun, 16 Nov 2003 02:46:18 +0000, Blast Femur a écrit :
It and the war on Terror that has followed
If he uses the syntagm "war on Terror" in all seriousness, I'd say you'd
better watch out. I don't hear a Dean falling or trying to have people
fall for such lame propaganda. There is no war on Terror, it cannot
possibly exist; except as a marketing concept.
Explain please.
atheist@home31554
.
|
|
|
| User: "Divin Marquis" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
21 Nov 2003 11:01:22 AM |
|
|
Le Tue, 18 Nov 2003 07:42:21 +0000, atheist a écrit :
If he uses the syntagm "war on Terror" in all seriousness, I'd say you'd
better watch out. I don't hear a Dean falling or trying to have people
fall for such lame propaganda. There is no war on Terror, it cannot
possibly exist; except as a marketing concept.
Explain please.
I probably can't explain this as well as Chomsky does.
But anyway. "War on X" where X is not a country is initially a figure of
speech. It's an ok things to use, figures of speech, except that, in this
case, they have forgotten it is one, and begin to apply actual war logic
to it.
An example: in the litterature, love affairs are often described in
military term. It's fine for fiction or poetry purposes, it gets, however,
quite wrong when one of the "belligerant" begins using actual weapons.
Well some psychos go that route, and they end up in the news or in the
tabloids.
In a real war, such things as cutting the supply lines, demoralizing
the populace, etc, are valid techniques. It doesn't take long to figure
this doesn't apply for a "war on terror" or a "war on drugs". Sure, you
can go attack Pablo's stronghold, that's a "war on Pablo's stronghold",
not a "war on drug".
Here, the fascists in power are stretching the analogy outside its limits,
and trick us into accepting weird ***** because they kind of managed to
have us believe it's an actual war.
It's not.
You fight terrorism through police actions, through intel, through
education, that kind of *****.
The best example: the war on Iraq was presented as part of "the war on
terror". Except that it's nothing (or not much) to do with the terrorists
we have been told to fear (OBL for instance); yet it makes sense, as a big
plan, when you believe it's part of a bigger campaign.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
24 Nov 2003 12:11:26 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:01:22 +0100, Divin Marquis
<postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Le Tue, 18 Nov 2003 07:42:21 +0000, atheist a écrit :
If he uses the syntagm "war on Terror" in all seriousness, I'd say you'd
better watch out. I don't hear a Dean falling or trying to have people
fall for such lame propaganda. There is no war on Terror, it cannot
possibly exist; except as a marketing concept.
Explain please.
I probably can't explain this as well as Chomsky does.
But anyway. "War on X" where X is not a country is initially a figure of
speech. It's an ok things to use, figures of speech, except that, in this
case, they have forgotten it is one, and begin to apply actual war logic
to it.
An example: in the litterature, love affairs are often described in
military term. It's fine for fiction or poetry purposes, it gets, however,
quite wrong when one of the "belligerant" begins using actual weapons.
Well some psychos go that route, and they end up in the news or in the
tabloids.
In a real war, such things as cutting the supply lines, demoralizing
the populace, etc, are valid techniques. It doesn't take long to figure
this doesn't apply for a "war on terror" or a "war on drugs". Sure, you
can go attack Pablo's stronghold, that's a "war on Pablo's stronghold",
not a "war on drug".
Here, the fascists in power are stretching the analogy outside its limits,
and trick us into accepting weird ***** because they kind of managed to
have us believe it's an actual war.
But what would we call it?
It would also be interesting to know what your definition of facist
is.
Chomsky btw may want to re-define things to suit his world view but as
important or bright as he apparently believes himself to be, language
is not going to bend to his will just because he wants it to.
If for instance he gets on a kick and decides that an apple *is not*
real fruit he will most quite likely be left alone in his opinion no
matter how eloquently his readers think he has stated his case.
Being a sort of cult hero of course he will be able to convince some
that he has just accomplished something brilliant.
<I hope that doesn't read as a flame because that is not the intent>
On the other hand Chomsky is a linguist and may be looking for
precision of expression as a matter of habit though the political
purpose seems obvious.
Still the suggestion that we can't call what is happening in the
battle against terrorrism a "war" is moot, doesn't affect the actions
taken and doesn't make it wrong.
<If someone is hit over the head with a baseball bat, calling it an
assault with a stick isn't going to reduce the size of the bump>
I do get the point however.
It's not.
You fight terrorism through police actions, through intel, through
education, that kind of *****.
I think I understand what you mean by police actions but how could the
west use police tactics where no cooperating police force exists?
In pre-war Iraq for instance.
The best example: the war on Iraq was presented as part of "the war on
terror". Except that it's nothing (or not much) to do with the terrorists
we have been told to fear (OBL for instance); yet it makes sense, as a big
plan, when you believe it's part of a bigger campaign.
There are a number of things that are debatable about the war in Iraq
including one side saying it *is* a step in the war on terrorism and
the other saying it is not.
How are we to know?
We can read opposing opinions twenty four hours a day and the only
choice we are left with is to accept the opinions we like and reject
the ones we do not.
It isn't necessarily true of course that everybody involved is lying
for his side but more likely that each side actually believes a
rational conclusion has been reached and expressed based on available
information.
At this point it is imo far too early to know for sure whether the
actions America has taken, or will take in the future are the right
ones.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
17 Nov 2003 02:30:56 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 02:46:18 GMT, Blast Femur <you@wish.com> wrote:
What do you folks think of John Kerry for President?
"September 11th was not a clash of civilizations as some would have us
believe. It – and the war on Terror that has followed – are a clash of
civilization against terror; of the hopes of humanity against the fears
of the few.
And we must be clear as a bell on this. Our cause in winning the War on
Terror isn’t helped when we have Army officers like Lt. Gen. William
Boykin speaking in evangelical churches and claiming this as some sort of
battle for the Christian religion. He said of a 1993 battle with a
Muslim militia leader in Somalia: “I knew that my God was bigger than
his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol.” "
I haven't researched this guy much, but I kind of like him. So far...
Not a chance he did the thing he was accused of in Vietnam eh?
A story that just sort of died on the vine.
And even if he did it doesn't matter does it?
I mean the past *is* the past.
Had it been a Republican "hero" of course we would never have heard
the end of it.
Not that there is any real "liberal" <sic> bias in the press right?
<Oops...sorry about the "right" thing.
Blasphemy...fer sure...fer sure>
He does say such nice things that make us feel *so* though good
doesn't he?
And gosh...I *really, really like it when people say the things I want
to hear...I just get the warm fuzzies all over.
And I know they are telling me the truth because after all...
A Liberal <sic> politician would never lie to me would he?
And even if he did...he would have a really good reason to do so
wouldn't he?
Like for instance he would do it to make me....
To make me.....
To make me feel... really, really good.
And what could be better than that eh?
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
17 Nov 2003 08:47:21 PM |
|
|
In article <en0hrvkgheq4o8mbre4s1tuh4dj28ivenh@4ax.com>,=20
atheist@home.com says...
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 02:46:18 GMT, Blast Femur <you@wish.com> wrote:
=20
What do you folks think of John Kerry for President?
"September 11th was not a clash of civilizations as some would have us=
=20
believe. It =E2=A4? and the war on Terror that has followed =E2=A4? are=
a clash of=20
civilization against terror; of the hopes of humanity against the fears=
=20
of the few.
And we must be clear as a bell on this. Our cause in winning the War on=
=20
Terror isn=E2=A4?t helped when we have Army officers like Lt. Gen. Willi=
am=20
Boykin speaking in evangelical churches and claiming this as some sort o=
f=20
battle for the Christian religion. He said of a 1993 battle with a=20
Muslim militia leader in Somalia: =E2=A4=BDI knew that my God was bigger=
than=20
his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol.=E2=A4=9D "
I haven't researched this guy much, but I kind of like him. So far...=
=20
=20
Not a chance he did the thing he was accused of in Vietnam eh?
I don't give a rat's ***** if he did or not. If he did then he did what=20
he had to do, like tens of thousands of other US soldiers who also had=20
to make life and death decision under fire. Bush, OTOH, dodged=20
service in the war and used his political influence to get his=20
incompetent and undeserving ***** a safe assignment in the states. Bush=20
had no compunction about other people having to take his place and die=20
in the jungles, while he sat at home and partied. =20
A story that just sort of died on the vine.
And even if he did it doesn't matter does it?
I mean the past *is* the past.
Had it been a Republican "hero" of course we would never have heard
the end of it.
Get a grip. The reason the smear stories about Kerry died is because=20
only one guy on the team made the claim. Nobody backed him up, which=20
makes it a his word against everyone else's kind of situation. In any=20
event, the kind of thing that is being alleged is no different that the=20
stuff we are doing every fucking day in Iraq right now. =20
Not that there is any real "liberal" <sic> bias in the press right?
You're damn right there isn't a liberal bias in the press. Bush has=20
been given largely a free ride, though he has presided over the most=20
corrupt, extremist, fraudulent, deceitful administration in American=20
history, bar none (including Nixon and Reagan). =20
<Oops...sorry about the "right" thing.
Blasphemy...fer sure...fer sure>
He does say such nice things that make us feel *so* though good
doesn't he?
And gosh...I *really, really like it when people say the things I want
to hear...I just get the warm fuzzies all over.
What's you're real beef with Kerry, other than trying to second guess=20
his actions based on a highly-questionable, probably politically=20
motivated accusation? Do you know anything about Kerry? Do you know=20
his positions or record on education, for example? Or do you just want=20
to take cheap shots? =20
And I know they are telling me the truth because after all...
A Liberal <sic> politician would never lie to me would he?
Don't tell me about lying, you little *****. Bush has told so many=20
fucking lies and caused the death of americans in the process that no=20
amount of lies by democrats at this point could possibly blemish them=20
by comparison. =20
And even if he did...he would have a really good reason to do so
wouldn't he?
You self righteous jackass. Bush had absolutely despicable reasons to=20
tell most of the lies that he's told about war, aids funding, va=20
benefits, the economy, what he knew about 911, his cowardly vietnam=20
record, etc. =20
--=20
_____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the=20
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be=20
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,=20
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to=20
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
18 Nov 2003 10:20:56 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:47:21 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In article <en0hrvkgheq4o8mbre4s1tuh4dj28ivenh@4ax.com>,
atheist@home.com says...
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 02:46:18 GMT, Blast Femur <you@wish.com> wrote:
What do you folks think of John Kerry for President?
"September 11th was not a clash of civilizations as some would have us
believe. It � and the war on Terror that has followed � are a clash of
civilization against terror; of the hopes of humanity against the fears
of the few.
And we must be clear as a bell on this. Our cause in winning the War on
Terror isn�t helped when we have Army officers like Lt. Gen. William
Boykin speaking in evangelical churches and claiming this as some sort of
battle for the Christian religion. He said of a 1993 battle with a
Muslim militia leader in Somalia: ⤽I knew that my God was bigger than
his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol.⤝ "
I haven't researched this guy much, but I kind of like him. So far...
Not a chance he did the thing he was accused of in Vietnam eh?
I don't give a rat's ***** if he did or not. If he did then he did what
he had to do, like tens of thousands of other US soldiers who also had
to make life and death decision under fire.
Right.
Like William Calley and his bunch?
Do you really believe it's ok for American soldiers to round up
unarmed civilians, men women and children and shoot them down?
I suspect the reason you don't "give a rat's *****" is because he's a
Democrat and you will do or say whatever it takes to defend him
whether the story is true or not.
Of course you do admit that even if it's true you aren't bothered by
it.
First you assume and insist it was a "smear" then you say "if he did
it he did what he had to do" though you weren't there and the claim
says otherwise.
Not the least bit blinded by your religion, correction, I meant to say
politics of course.
Bush, OTOH, dodged
service in the war and used his political influence to get his
incompetent and undeserving ***** a safe assignment in the states. Bush
had no compunction about other people having to take his place and die
in the jungles, while he sat at home and partied.
The particulars are in dispute.
Just more politics.
The Republicans defend Bush's actions tooth and nail, right or wrong,
and you do the same regarding Kerry.
So exactly what's the difference between you and them?
A story that just sort of died on the vine.
And even if he did it doesn't matter does it?
I mean the past *is* the past.
Had it been a Republican "hero" of course we would never have heard
the end of it.
Get a grip. The reason the smear stories about Kerry died is because
only one guy on the team made the claim. Nobody backed him up, which
makes it a his word against everyone else's kind of situation.
Right.
And the guy who made the claim was a part of the team was he not?
Now which is most likely, that a guy who was involved would admit what
they had done or that others involved would deny it to cover their
asses?
Who would have the most self serving motive?
In any event, the kind of thing that is being alleged is no different that the
stuff we are doing every fucking day in Iraq right now.
Examples?
Never mind.
Anything coming out of Iraq in the press, whether it's from the left
or right is likely to be distorted all to hell for political reasons.
Not that there is any real "liberal" <sic> bias in the press right?
You're damn right there isn't a liberal bias in the press. Bush has
been given largely a free ride, though he has presided over the most
corrupt, extremist, fraudulent, deceitful administration in American
history, bar none (including Nixon and Reagan).
How about specifics regarding the corruption?
Clintons administration was pure as the new fallen snow wasn't it?
<Oops...sorry about the "right" thing.
Blasphemy...fer sure...fer sure>
He does say such nice things that make us feel *so* though good
doesn't he?
And gosh...I *really, really like it when people say the things I want
to hear...I just get the warm fuzzies all over.
What's you're real beef with Kerry, other than trying to second guess
his actions based on a highly-questionable, probably politically
motivated accusation? Do you know anything about Kerry? Do you know
his positions or record on education, for example? Or do you just want
to take cheap shots?
I don't know whether he did it or not and his positions on political
issues are irrelevant to the question at hand.
I do believe however it should have been investigated and not just by
the press.
Bush didn't call for an investigation, nor did Kerry, a man I would
think who would want to prove he didn't do as claimed.
And you wouldn't take constant cheap shots at the "repugs" damn near
on a daily basis would you?
You wouldn't be the thing you imply you hate the most would you?
And I know they are telling me the truth because after all...
A Liberal <sic> politician would never lie to me would he?
Don't tell me about lying, you little *****.
You scare the absolute ***** out of me with that kind of talk.
Bush has told so many
fucking lies and caused the death of americans in the process that no
amount of lies by democrats at this point could possibly blemish them
by comparison.
Of course not.
They are Democrats, and anything they do or say is excusable.
At least as far as the true believer is concerned.
And even if he did...he would have a really good reason to do so
wouldn't he?
You self righteous jackass. Bush had absolutely despicable reasons to
tell most of the lies that he's told about war, aids funding, va
benefits, the economy, what he knew about 911, his cowardly vietnam
record, etc.
I'm self righteous?
Read your post.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Kiewicz" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
19 Nov 2003 06:49:10 AM |
|
|
said:
Not a chance he did the thing he was accused of in Vietnam eh?
You are confusing former Sen. Bob Kerrey with John Kerry.
And the list of prominent Democrats who served in the military is rather
more impressive than you might think.
http://awolbush.com/whoserved.html
http://www.fra.org/leg-center-2/106th-congress/106-cong-mil-lst.html
--
Pat in Plymouth MI ('someplace.net' is comcast)
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(attributed to Don Marti)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
19 Nov 2003 11:11:36 AM |
|
|
And the list of prominent Democrats who served in the military is rather
more impressive than you might think.
http://awolbush.com/whoserved.html
I don't think that it's a coincidence that the only Medal of Honor winner
sitting in Congress is one of the most liberal Dems on the Hill and was someone
who served in the Army's most legendary combat unit in WW2...the 442nd Infantry
Regiment (Nisei).
from http://inouye.senate.gov/bio.html
To commemorate the third anniversary of Hawaii statehood, Congressman Leo
O'Brien of New York reminisced about Senator Inouye's arrival on the national
political scene. His recollection of the day Inouye took the oath of office in
the House of Representatives was recorded in the Congressional Record:
Tuesday last was the third anniversary of the admission of Hawaii. Today is the
third anniversary of one of the most dramatic and moving scenes ever to occur
in this House.
On that day, a young man, just elected to Congress from the brand new state,
walked into the well of the House and faced the late Speaker Sam Rayburn.
The House was very still. It was about to witness the swearing in, not only of
the first Congressman from Hawaii, but the first American of Japanese descent
to serve in either House of Congress.
"Raise your right hand and repeat after me," intoned Speaker Rayburn.
The hush deepened as the young Congressman raised not his right hand but his
left and he repeated the oath of office.
There was no right hand, Mr. Speaker. It had been lost in combat by that young
American soldier in World War II. Who can deny that, at that moment, a ton of
prejudice slipped quietly to the floor of the House of Representatives.
==========================================
The Army is proud of you Senator Inouye. America is proud of you. Perhaps, one
day, we will have an administration which is worthy of your sacrifice.
Unfortunately, this isn't it.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
19 Nov 2003 01:13:29 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 06:49:10 -0600, (Pat
Kiewicz) wrote:
atheist@home.com said:
Not a chance he did the thing he was accused of in Vietnam eh?
You are confusing former Sen. Bob Kerrey with John Kerry.
Damn!
I sure did.
Thanks for the correction.
Terribly stupid mistake.
I don't have a reasonable excuse to offer.
And the list of prominent Democrats who served in the military is rather
more impressive than you might think.
Actually I've never critized even Clinton for dodging the draft though
on a personal level I despise the guy.
In a thread sometime back I ended up in the unenviable and distasteful
position of defending him when someone said it was an act of
cowardice.
Given the circumstances at the time I thought the accusation was a bit
strong.
Can you offer up anything in the way of differences in the
philosophies of the two parties?
Or in the way they conduct the business of politics?
I'm of the opinion that the Democrats are far more cruel in their
rhetoric and dangerous to the republic but it may be my own bias at
play.
Thanks again.
atheist@home#1554
http://awolbush.com/whoserved.html
http://www.fra.org/leg-center-2/106th-congress/106-cong-mil-lst.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
19 Nov 2003 02:20:56 PM |
|
|
<atheist@home.com> wrote
Terribly stupid mistake.
Not your first.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
19 Nov 2003 04:07:20 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 15:20:56 -0500, "JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote:
<atheist@home.com> wrote
Terribly stupid mistake.
Not your first.
<Yawn>
Still waiting for *your* first I suppose?
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Kiewicz" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
20 Nov 2003 06:35:10 AM |
|
|
said:
Can you offer up anything in the way of differences in the
philosophies of the two parties?
Or in the way they conduct the business of politics?
I'm of the opinion that the Democrats are far more cruel in their
rhetoric and dangerous to the republic but it may be my own bias at
play.
As a former Republican (of the pro-small business/pro-public education/frugal/MYOB
sort), I can tell you that the current GOP leadership is what drove me to voting
for mostly Democrats. As for the current Democratic presidential hopefuls,
I like Kerry, Clark or even Edwards.
Big business and the Religious Right have bought the GOP and turned everything
I used to think it stood for on its ear. I'd rather have my pockets picked in a
lame effort to help the indigent than to feather the nests of huge corporations and
the extremely wealthy.
I would recommend you pick up and read some books by Kevin Phillips (another
disaffected Republican). _Wealth and Democracy_ is his recent book; _The
Politics of Rich and Poor_ and earlier book.
As far as vile rhetoric goes, I don't think anything the Democrats have said
recently reach the level of what the GOP is doing. Consider what was done
to *one of their own* in the South Carolina presidential primary in 2000:
"As for the Waterloo of South Carolina, most of the facts are well-known, and
among this group of Republicans, what happened has taken on the air of an
unsolved crime, a cold case, with Karl Rove being the prime suspect. Bush
loyalists, maybe working for the campaign, maybe just representing its interests,
claimed in parking-lot handouts and telephone'push polls' and whisper
campaigns that McCain’s wife, Cindy, was a drug addict, that McCain might be
mentally unstable from his captivity in Vietnam, and that the senator had fathered
a black child with a prostitute. Callers push-polled members of a South Carolina
right-to-life organization and other groups, asking if the black baby might influence
their vote. Now here’s the twist, the part that drives McCain admirers insane to
this very day: That last rumor took seed because the McCains had done an
especially admirable thing. Years back they’d adopted a baby from a Mother
Teresa orphanage in Bangladesh. Bridget, now eleven years old, waved along
with the rest of the McCain brood from stages across the state, a dark-skinned
child inadvertently providing a photo op for slander. The attacks were of a level
and vitriol that even McCain, who was regularly beaten in captivity, could not
ignore. He began to answer the slights, strayed off message about how he would
lead the nation if he got the chance, and lost the war for South Carolina. Bush
emerged from the showdown upright and victorious . . . and onward he marched..."
And don't forget what was done to Max Cleland. That was unforgivable.
We don't live in the same country we grew up in. It's changed. Divisions
are deeper. The social contract is being shredded. The old MYOB
conservatives have been replaced by 'neo-cons' and religioius zealots.
"For the America I grew up in -- the America of the 1950's and 1960's -- was a
middle-class society, both in reality and in feel. The vast income and wealth
inequalities of the Gilded Age had disappeared. Yes, of course, there was the
poverty of the underclass -- but the conventional wisdom of the time viewed
that as a social rather than an economic problem. Yes, of course, some wealthy
businessmen and heirs to large fortunes lived far better than the average
American. But they weren't rich the way the robber barons who built the
mansions had been rich, and there weren't that many of them. The days when
plutocrats were a force to be reckoned with in American society, economically or
politically, seemed long past."
I suggest you read the whole article:
http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/ForRicher.html
--
Pat K. aa#1154 ('someplace.net' is comcast)
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(attributed to Don Marti)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
22 Nov 2003 06:07:28 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 06:35:10 -0600, (Pat
Kiewicz) wrote:
atheist@home.com said:
Can you offer up anything in the way of differences in the
philosophies of the two parties?
Or in the way they conduct the business of politics?
I'm of the opinion that the Democrats are far more cruel in their
rhetoric and dangerous to the republic but it may be my own bias at
play.
As a former Republican (of the pro-small business/pro-public education/frugal/MYOB
sort), I can tell you that the current GOP leadership is what drove me to voting
for mostly Democrats. As for the current Democratic presidential hopefuls,
I like Kerry, Clark or even Edwards.
Why do you like them?
Is it based on what they are saying or something specific they have
done?
Big business and the Religious Right have bought the GOP and turned everything
I used to think it stood for on its ear. I'd rather have my pockets picked in a
lame effort to help the indigent than to feather the nests of huge corporations and
the extremely wealthy.
I frequently hear negatives about "corporate welfare" and usually
without specifics other than "huge tax breaks."
Isn't it true that sometimes the tax breaks actually help to fuel the
economy by allowing corporations to funnel money toward employees in
hiring and benefits rather than giving it to the local and federal
governments?
I would recommend you pick up and read some books by Kevin Phillips (another
disaffected Republican). _Wealth and Democracy_ is his recent book; _The
Politics of Rich and Poor_ and earlier book.
I'll check them out.
As far as vile rhetoric goes, I don't think anything the Democrats have said
recently reach the level of what the GOP is doing. Consider what was done
to *one of their own* in the South Carolina presidential primary in 2000:
"As for the Waterloo of South Carolina, most of the facts are well-known, and
among this group of Republicans, what happened has taken on the air of an
unsolved crime, a cold case, with Karl Rove being the prime suspect.
Bush loyalists, maybe working for the campaign, maybe just representing its interests,
claimed in parking-lot handouts and telephone'push polls' and whisper
campaigns that McCain’s wife, Cindy, was a drug addict, that McCain might be
mentally unstable from his captivity in Vietnam, and that the senator had fathered
a black child with a prostitute.
But what about the Democrat who designed the ballots in Florida?
The party turned on her and was vicious in it's attacks.
She meant well, had designed the things to make it easier for the
voters and was apparently deeply hurt by the things they were saying
about her.
She was pretty much excommunicated and damn near burned at the stake.
What I'm trying to decide here is what the impact of dirty tactics,
cruel rhetoric and mean spirited distortions of the truth have on
society as a whole.
Each side, Democrat and Republican makes claims that the other side is
lying, lining their own pockets with certain legislation, and does not
care about the people.
As they say, crap rolls downhill and isn't it possible that deliberate
cultivation of confusion by politicians, the class warfare and meaness
has a very bad and dangerous effect on us?
Callers push-polled members of a South Carolina
right-to-life organization and other groups, asking if the black baby might influence
their vote. Now here’s the twist, the part that drives McCain admirers insane to
this very day: That last rumor took seed because the McCains had done an
especially admirable thing. Years back they’d adopted a baby from a Mother
Teresa orphanage in Bangladesh. Bridget, now eleven years old, waved along
with the rest of the McCain brood from stages across the state, a dark-skinned
child inadvertently providing a photo op for slander. The attacks were of a level
and vitriol that even McCain, who was regularly beaten in captivity, could not
ignore. He began to answer the slights, strayed off message about how he would
lead the nation if he got the chance, and lost the war for South Carolina. Bush
emerged from the showdown upright and victorious . . . and onward he marched..."
But McCain is a Republican which according to many in the Democratic
party makes him a racist by nature.
Why would he adopt a dark skinned child?
And don't forget what was done to Max Cleland. That was unforgivable.
I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that.
Can you explain?
We don't live in the same country we grew up in. It's changed. Divisions
are deeper. The social contract is being shredded. The old MYOB
conservatives have been replaced by 'neo-cons' and religioius zealots.
I agree but I see the Democratic party and their race baiting and
class warfare as being responsible for the divisions.
I'm looking for a more precise description of the people I loath.
It can't be Democrats in general because that's an absurd intellectual
dishonesty.
For instance if I see Americans violently protesting a certain thing
and discover they are funded by anti-American groups I just assume
they are members of and support the Democratic party when in fact they
may not be affiliated with either primary party or any party at all.
It's a habit with me and leads to scape goating people who may have
nothing to do with the jerks and who don't approve of their actions.
Do you see the problem here?
It happens from both sides and doesn't really serve us well as a
people.
"For the America I grew up in -- the America of the 1950's and 1960's -- was a
middle-class society, both in reality and in feel. The vast income and wealth
inequalities of the Gilded Age had disappeared. Yes, of course, there was the
poverty of the underclass -- but the conventional wisdom of the time viewed
that as a social rather than an economic problem. Yes, of course, some wealthy
businessmen and heirs to large fortunes lived far better than the average
American. But they weren't rich the way the robber barons who built the
mansions had been rich, and there weren't that many of them. The days when
plutocrats were a force to be reckoned with in American society, economically or
politically, seemed long past."
I remember when those on the left began denigrating the family and
family values.
When they began to excuse and even celebrate rude, insensitive public
language and behavior.
When every white man was convicted of crimes he did not personally
commit.
It was all done in the name of "correct" politics and was based on
race, gender and sexual orientation.
I believe the people those on the left claimed to be concerned about
very often became the victims of their saviors as did the rest of
society.
I'm seeking information here in an effort to reach a logical
conclusion as to what the hell is going on in America and what is
likely to happen in the future.
Who is telling the truth and who is lying?
What are the nature and function of the lies they are telling?
An example.
I once met a Tennesse state senator who had been accused by his
Democratic opponent in a political race of voting against cheaper
specialty license plates for military veterans including POWs.
It sounded pretty insensitive and of course angered many veterns who
publicly condemned the Republican and asked other veterans to vote for
his opponent.
The truth however was a bit different than claimed.
The license plate issue had been tacked on to an existing bill that
Democrats wanted to pass and one that would not in the Republican's
opinion have been good for the citizens.
If Republicans voted for the entire bill they would have violated
their consciences, which most would not do, but if they voted against
it they knew the claim that they had voted against veterans would be
leveled against them.
They voted against the bill, it did not pass and they suffered the
consequences.
It was a deliberate distortion of the truth which imo is no different
than an outright lie and is a fairly common, cheap political trick.
In other words they lead us to believe that is thing is true and very
often we believe them due to a lack of information.
That is not good for us.
I suggest you read the whole article:
Thanks, I will.
atheist@home#1554
http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/ForRicher.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Kiewicz" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
23 Nov 2003 11:54:15 AM |
|
|
said:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 06:35:10 -0600, (Pat
Kiewicz) wrote:
As for the current Democratic presidential hopefuls,
I like Kerry, Clark or even Edwards.
Why do you like them?
Is it based on what they are saying or something specific they have
done?
Personal history, in part (especially Clark and Edwards).
What they've been saying, in part.
Lack of interest/trust in the other candidates, most certainly.
Big business and the Religious Right have bought the GOP and turned everything
I used to think it stood for on its ear. I'd rather have my pockets picked in a
lame effort to help the indigent than to feather the nests of huge corporations and
the extremely wealthy.
I frequently hear negatives about "corporate welfare" and usually
without specifics other than "huge tax breaks."
Isn't it true that sometimes the tax breaks actually help to fuel the
economy by allowing corporations to funnel money toward employees in
hiring and benefits rather than giving it to the local and federal
governments?
Coporate tax breaks aren't corporate welfare, per se. Though some very
creative ideas are running around in that area, off-shore 'reincorporating'
being one of them. Some of the major beneficiaries of all this tax saving
have not been line workers, but upper management. (Another former Republican,
Arianna Huffinton, has written a rather snarky book about this, _Pigs at the
Trough_ -- a little too snarky for me, sort of spoiling her argument a bit, though
there's *substance* there.)
Then too, communities have shelled out tax cuts and incentives for corporations,
hoping for jobs, only to have them cut and run and leave them holding the bag.
(I think this happened very recently and very expensively to Indianapolis.)
As for just one program that seems to be rather less effective at job creation than
you might hope, the Import-Export bank:
" The great irony of Ex-Im policy is not just that taxpayer support goes to wealthy and
profitable corporations that don't need it, but that in the name of 'job creation' a
substantial amount of federal funding goes to precisely those corporations that are
eliminating hundreds of thousands of American jobs. In other words, American
workers are providing funding to companies that are shutting down the plants in which
they work, and are moving them to China, Mexico, Vietnam and wherever else they
can find cheap labor. What a deal!...
" For example, General Electric has received over $2.5 billion in direct loans and loan
guarantees from the Ex-Im Bank. And what was the result? From 1975-1995 GE
reduced its workforce from 667,000 to 398,000, a decline of 269,000 jobs. In fact,
while taking the Ex-Im Bank subsidies, GE was extremely public about it's
'globalization' plans to lay off American workers and move jobs to Third World
countries. Jack Welch, the longtime CEO of GE stated, 'Ideally, you'd have every
plant you own on a barge.'"
http://www.progress.org/corpw30.htm
Certainly we do know that if you put money into the hands of folks like me, we
tend to buy services with it, or dine out on it, or buy entertainment with it, and churn
it through the local economy. I know what we've had to cut out of our family budget
due a decline in pay. (*Demand-side* has a part to play in the economy!)
I would recommend you pick up and read some books by Kevin Phillips (another
disaffected Republican). _Wealth and Democracy_ is his recent book; _The
Politics of Rich and Poor_ and earlier book.
I'll check them out.
Good!
Each side, Democrat and Republican makes claims that the other side is
lying, lining their own pockets with certain legislation, and does not
care about the people.
As they say, crap rolls downhill and isn't it possible that deliberate
cultivation of confusion by politicians, the class warfare and meaness
has a very bad and dangerous effect on us?
Things used to be more cordial. And party used to have less to do with how
a representative voted than it does now. My local state representative is
more of my old-style Republican, and he has been viciously targeted by the
powers-that-be in the state GOP (heavily under the sway of a very rich and
right-wing/religiously conservative woman). The rich have no compunction
about looking after their own interests -- and they have the money and influence
to act on it. But they yell 'class warfare' when the little guys call them into
question.
"In the past few years accusing people of dealing in "class warfare" has become
common in this town. Criticizing CEO pay equals class warfare, because it pits the
rich against the poor. Discussing the possibility of increasing taxes on the wealthy is
class warfare because it suggests a zero-sum game between the wealthy and the
underprivileged.
"The Bush administration has repeatedly gone to the 'class warfare' well. This past
winter was the latest example. When some opposed President Bush's proposal to
eliminate the tax on stock dividends saying it was weighted too heavily toward the
rich, the president said critics were trying to "turn this into class warfare. That's not
how I think." And you can bet the class-warfare argument will make repeated
appearances in the 2004 campaign as democrats attack the tax cuts Mr. Bush has
enacted.
"But how exactly does the class warfare argument hold up?
"The past few decades have been very good for the people on top in this economy
and particularly on the top in industry. In 1980 the ratio between what an average
hourly worker and an average CEO earned was 42 - meaning the average CEO makes
42 times as much as the average hourly worker. In 2001 that ratio was 411. The
average CEO salary in 2003 is $10.8 million according to The New York Times."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0923/p09s01-codc.html
These buzzwords like 'class warfare' are being inserted into public discourse
quite conciously and with a purposeful end.
Callers push-polled members of a South Carolina
right-to-life organization and other groups, asking if the black baby might influence
their vote. Now here’s the twist, the part that drives McCain admirers insane to
this very day: That last rumor took seed because the McCains had done an
But McCain is a Republican which according to many in the Democratic
party makes him a racist by nature.
Why would he adopt a dark skinned child?
I'm not aruing that the Republican Party is racist in nature. I think the case
can be made that some are -- and many of those were, once upon a time,
Democrats! -- though veiled appeals to racism are certainly a technique that
some members of the party were willing to use *even against another member*
in a particularly shabby fashion. (Not that it makes it right in either party.)
And don't forget what was done to Max Cleland. That was unforgivable.
I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that.
Can you explain?
I believe it was mentioned earlier in this thread. However, Saxby Chambliss
continually attacked Cleland's patriotism. Cleland is a war veteran, a triple
amputee, was linked intelevison ads to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein
because he didn't support Bush's version of the Homeland Security bill. Never
mind that Cleland was a *sponsor* in the Senate of the original bill to create the
department. Never mind how much he had given up for his country when called
upon. He was helping bin Laden, because he disagreed with Bush. (Chambliss,
of course, did not serve at all, first due to student deferments, finally winning
a medical deferment.)
We don't live in the same country we grew up in. It's changed. Divisions
are deeper. The social contract is being shredded. The old MYOB
conservatives have been replaced by 'neo-cons' and religioius zealots.
I agree but I see the Democratic party and their race baiting and
class warfare as being responsible for the divisions.
It take two to tango. And the accusations of class warfare don't pass
my personal sniff test -- though they are endlessly repeated *by the
right-wing.* Sticking up for the little guys against powerful interests
is being described as class warfare *by the powerful.*
Consider the Alabama tax reform vote (I have relatives there). The commercials
about this were shamefully misleading. Low income people who would most
definitely seen their tax burden eased were scared off by advertising.
Much tax discussion involves the simple arithmetic mean (which makes 'benefits'
or 'costs' to the typical taxpayer look better or worse than they are). The little guy
may not know where his interest lies -- and the people with the power to get a
message across may not *want* him to know. The Motley Fools have a short
discussion of this statistical stuff here:
http://www.fool.com/fribble/2001/fribble010209.htm
Be suspicious any time the word 'average' comes up in a discussion. It is
important to know *exactly* what is meant by this. Mean? Median? The
difference can be huge.
I'm looking for a more precise description of the people I loath.
It can't be Democrats in general because that's an absurd intellectual
dishonesty.
Democrats tend to be less unified and monolithic than Republicans, these days.
When I see vituperative criticism of Tom Daschle, I have to look carefully
to know if it's from the left or the right -- he gets it from both sides. Which
leads me to believe he's not the demon the Right says, and is absolutely more
moderate an
cooperative than the really partisan Democrats would like him
to be. I see Democrats in general as less threatening *as a group* than
Republicans. They are much more likely wander from the party line, which is
a good thing, generally, as it can sometimes involve thinking for oneself.
For instance if I see Americans violently protesting a certain thing
and discover they are funded by anti-American groups
Ah, you are talking about some of the war protests? I would hazzard a guess
that most people didn't know or *care* who did some of the legwork; they were
legitimately upset.
I just assume
they are members of and support the Democratic party when in fact they
may not be affiliated with either primary party or any party at all.
It's a habit with me and leads to scape goating people who may have
nothing to do with the jerks and who don't approve of their actions.
Do you see the problem here?
I go around with a sticker on my car that says, "I don't have to like Bush
to love America." Some people don't seem to understand that.
I am still officially and Independent, though I think I'll have to at least
temporarily swear that I'm a Democrat next year, if I want to participate
in the (closed) presidential primary.
It happens from both sides and doesn't really serve us well as a
people.
The nation has gone through these episodes of extreme polarity before.
However, that was before the days of televised Mass Media and sound bites.
(I have some slim hope that the Internet will act as an alternative information
source, but it requires more time and energy than most people are willing r able to
commit to be an informed citizen.)
I remember when those on the left began denigrating the family and
family values.
How was that? Merely by saying that sometimes families can be OK even
when they don't have two parents in them? Because I know some fine people
who were raised by only one parent, and some messed up ones raised in two
parent households.
When they began to excuse and even celebrate rude, insensitive public
language and behavior.
Excuse? Celebrate? I can allow for, 'found they had no legitimate weapon to
prevent people from being boors.' And I (and my friends) have raised polite
children. We are neither prudes nor fans of social conservatives -- nor vulgarians.
When every white man was convicted of crimes he did not personally
commit.
Convicted? Aren't we all, in some way, victims of stereotyping? (In this group,
as *atheists* -- you know, imoral, evil, godless people!)
You don't think black males have never felt *they've* been 'convicted' of criminality
by general asumption?
Try walking around with red hair for a while. People seemed surprised at how
mild-tempered I am! 8^)
It was all done in the name of "correct" politics and was based on
race, gender and sexual orientation.
As opposed to letting things go on as they always had? Gays safely
closeted, women excluded from many positions, and people of color
having no inside access? ("Legacy admission" was a privilege of the
socially well-connected.) Please note, the military and business people
filed in support of the University of Michigan in the most recent affirmative
action court case. And Yang had a pretty nifty post on a.a regarding this
issue a short while back.
I believe the people those on the left claimed to be concerned about
very often became the victims of their saviors as did the rest of
society.
I'm not happy with 'the Left' -- and I have noticed that, on the whole, they are
not happy with the Democrats, who they see as having moved too much toward
the center. (That's bad?) Right now, I see being against the radical right as
more pressing than the foolishness of the political left. We need *some* form
of social net, as well as some requirement for *responsibility.* Clinton helped
manages to make progress in welfare reform, working with a GOP congress --
and alienated the lefties. (Fueling, in part, the futile Green Party presidential
campaign.) However, even lip-service to the powerless is better than something
that a very good friend once heard drop from the lips of someone at a GOP
shindig (in answer to 'What about the poor?"): "Let them rot."
(It was that sort of attitude that encouraged Arianna Huffington to leave the GOP.
She found that it was far easy to raise money for politics, or for 'cultural' charities
than for the poor -- even as the GOP was touting private charity as being the
solution to social problems.)
And on another tangent...
I'm convinced that the press is far less liberal than claimed by Republicans
(some have even admitted that the *claim* has proven very useful to them).
The press is (at best) lazy and arguably more centrist/establishment than liberal
-- especially the Washington Post and even The New York Times.
If Clinton's Whitehouse had exposed a covert CIA agent, we would certainly
have heard far more about it than we have about the Bob Novak/Valerie Plame
story in the mainstream press than we have. And the talking heads and
opposing pols would *never* have shut up about it.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2089017/
I'm seeking information here in an effort to reach a logical
conclusion as to what the hell is going on in America and what is
likely to happen in the future.
Who is telling the truth and who is lying?
Keep reading. And pay attention to the foreign press. Sometimes it pays to
look at this country from outside. The Financial Times is an excellent source of
information. ( I have a friend who gets it at home.)
http://news.ft.com/home/us
What are the nature and function of the lies they are telling?
An example.
I once met a Tennesse state senator who had been accused by his
Democratic opponent in a political race of voting against cheaper
specialty license plates for military veterans including POWs.
It sounded pretty insensitive and of course angered many veterns who
publicly condemned the Republican and asked other veterans to vote for
his opponent.
If Republicans voted for the entire bill they would have violated
their consciences, which most would not do, but if they voted against
it they knew the claim that they had voted against veterans would be
leveled against them.
This works both ways. In the US Congress, this is mostly going the
other way these days (as the power to lard bills is with the GOP).
Sometimes this is done to *deliberately* kill a bill (poison pill) or
strictly to 'get' someone or some group on a vote. (Such as your
example.)
The sneakiest things are sometimes done in conference committee.
(This was one reason Sen. Jim Jeffords resigned from the GOP.)
Stuff will be inserted in a bill to win a floor vote (bring in wavering
representatives) that the leadership knows they can take back out
in conference. Or, stuff that was stripped out to get a bill passed
will be put back in, in conference. All kinds of games can be played.
(Harder to pull this stuff in those states where the governor has a
line-item veto.)
In my state, one place name was changed in a bill in conference, and
then the whole shebang was rushed through a vote. It turns out
that the conference bill had been finagled to embarrass my local
(non-conforming) Republican rep. His past (and future) right-wing
primary opponent was 'in the know' and immediately howling about
this vote 'against the community.' The governor (a Democrat, and
originally from this area) put a stop to the farce by vetoing that part
of the bill.
It is most important to watch who's funding who (in campaigns).
They don't make this easy because there are a lot of phony
organizations which sound grass-roots but are really just fronts
for vested interests ('astro turf').
It is important to ask the pols *why* things happened (or didn't).
And tell them when you think they did something right (as well
as when they did something you didn't like).
And never assume all business interests are good, or all union
interests evil. (That's a mistake I used to make. Enron, anyone?)
I'm not really interested in carrying this forward. (This sort of
discussion is a lot of work for me. I am a very slow writer.)
I must say, I've worked closely with some people (from both parties)
on issues in my state. I know the people, I know what motivated
them to run for office, and I know how they were attacked and by
whom. (I pay more attention to politics than is really safe for mental
hygiene.) I feel pretty confident if I've taken a position, it has at least
been *thoughfully* taken. I'm voting Democratic (mostly) these days.
The Republicans I do vote for have trouble getting past their party
primaries. (IMO, the best qualified candidate for governor ran a
distant second in the GOP primary. I even contributed to his campaign.
So I voted for the second best candidate -- the Democrat -- in the general
election. She won.)
Some people don't like voting for the lesser of two evils, because you always
get evil. I am of the opinion that if you don't vote for the lesser of two evils,
you risk *ensuring* the greater. (Which is sad, I suppose, but sometimes
it is the best we can do.)
I think I'll just lay this down now. I'm a slow writer, and think it best to let
this thread end. (I first came in to point out the confusion of John Kerry and
Bob Kerrey.)
--
Pat K. aa#1154 ('someplace.net' is comcast)
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(attributed to Don Marti)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dez Akin" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
24 Nov 2003 11:26:50 AM |
|
|
(Pat Kiewicz) wrote in message news:<J-qdneDIH9raaV2iRVn-uw@comcast.com>...
atheist@home.com said:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 06:35:10 -0600, (Pat
Kiewicz) wrote:
As for the current Democratic presidential hopefuls,
I like Kerry, Clark or even Edwards.
Why do you like them?
Is it based on what they are saying or something specific they have
done?
Personal history, in part (especially Clark and Edwards).
What they've been saying, in part.
Lack of interest/trust in the other candidates, most certainly.
I'm not especially fond of Clark advocating a flag burning amendment.
I frequently hear negatives about "corporate welfare" and usually
without specifics other than "huge tax breaks."
Isn't it true that sometimes the tax breaks actually help to fuel the
economy by allowing corporations to funnel money toward employees in
hiring and benefits rather than giving it to the local and federal
governments?
Coporate tax breaks aren't corporate welfare, per se. Though some very
creative ideas are running around in that area, off-shore 'reincorporating'
being one of them. Some of the major beneficiaries of all this tax saving
have not been line workers, but upper management. (Another former Republican,
Arianna Huffinton, has written a rather snarky book about this, _Pigs at the
Trough_ -- a little too snarky for me, sort of spoiling her argument a bit, though
there's *substance* there.)
To be fair, any fiscal policy program targeting specific companies
tends to breed a corrupt relationship that is tied together by
lobbyists and campaign contributions, no matter how benign the vision
started.
As for just one program that seems to be rather less effective at job creation than
you might hope, the Import-Export bank:
" The great irony of Ex-Im policy is not just that taxpayer support goes to wealthy and
profitable corporations that don't need it, but that in the name of 'job creation' a
substantial amount of federal funding goes to precisely those corporations that are
eliminating hundreds of thousands of American jobs. In other words, American
workers are providing funding to companies that are shutting down the plants in which
they work, and are moving them to China, Mexico, Vietnam and wherever else they
can find cheap labor. What a deal!...
This is where things get complicated; If China, Mexico, India,
etcetera can do the job that much cheaper, then they should do it;
Basic 'Wealth of Nations' stuff, comparative advantage and all. But
the macroeconomic picture isn't as visible as microeconomic shocks,
like plant closures and layoffs; But then new jobs are created in
| | | | | | | | | |
