"Glenn Zelniker" wrote in message
...
Michael McKelvy wrote:

WRT Top Gun school I've heard it reported on radio.

Thank you for your candor on this. I assure you the report
was wrong.

WRT Dubya's intelligence, if he's as dumb as people say, I still prefer
him
to a smart Liberal.

I still don't think you have a clue about what constitutes
true Liberalism. Unless you're a multi-millionaire CEO or a
biblical end-timer, your beliefs are far closer to the core
beliefs of a true Liberal than they are to the *actual* (yet
unstated) objectives of Bush and his cronies.

Don't fall for the vulgar stereotyping of Liberals put forth
by the mainstream media and by the Conservative
establishment. You'd do well to learn what actual Liberalism
and Progressivism really mean.

I know what it means. That's why I'm scared.

I'll see if I can find independent confirmation of the Top gun deal.

Barring some *very* loose definition of TopGun, you're going
to be searching for a looooong time.

Glenn Z


Such is the case.

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Le Artiste" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

Since the Democrats all seem to thinl we should repeal the
tax
cuts,
IOW
raise your taxes, shouldn't one of the questions being
asked
of
the
potential candidates be: How many months of each year
should
a
taxpayer
have to work in order to pay the government?

6 months?
7 months?

Or should wee just give it all to themand they send us what
they
think
we
need? That seems to be the direction we've been heading.

Meltdown approaching..


--
Wrong again. Just wondering what the left thinks is a fair
amount
of
income
to confiscate.


Easy, till everybody has nothing. Then we are all equal.
Of course, except for the ruling intelligentsia.

**Are REALLY suggesting that Dubya is intelligent?



I'm not suggesting it,it's simply a fact.

**Not on this planet.

You think because he doesn't
speak well that he's stupid?

**Nope. I think he is stupid, because he exhibits a whole host of
obviously
stupid characteristics. Some (but far from all) include:

* He believes in God (and all the supernatural claptrap which
accompanies
such silliness).
So do Clinton and Carter.

**That does not make Dubya any smarter. Belief in the supernatural is a
major blindspot for any human. Such a beleif system shows that the person
is
incapable of critical thought.


* He performed poorly at school.
He preformed average at school.

**Nope. Poorly.


* When he speaks off-the-cuff (which is, understandably, very rare),
his
words are almost incomprehensible.


Meaning that he doesn't speak well.

**Not quite. I mean he often makes no sense at all. The fact that he
cannot
pronounce nuclear correctly, is a minor issue. The words he speaks often
suggest a poor thinking ability.



You don't get to go to Top Gun school if
you're an idiot, they are the best of the best.

**Top Gun school? You've got to be joking. He was in the reserve! He
used
his connections to avoid actual combat.


You don't get Ivy League degrees if your an idiot, not even if daddy
is
a
congressman.

**Sure you do.

Not according to people I've spoken with.

**I guess you need to speak with a few more.


True he may only have been a C student, but a C from one of
those schools is as good as an A in a lot of other well respected
institutuions.

**Utter nonsense.


So's global warming, but you believe in that.

**Sadly, global warming is a fact. It's just the causes of that warming
we're arguing about.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au


Sorry, but you're still wrong the last temprature increase anybody can point
to, was in 1952 0r 53. 1 degree at the south pole.

The computer models are junk. The people making this claim are the same
gang of idiots who were claiming we were headed for an Ice Age. No
crediblity.

"Glenn Zelniker" wrote in message
...
Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:


Every system, every enterpise, every governemantal entity is
subject to being abused. In Washingotm DC, the very liberal
DC teachers union leaders ripped off their members. That is
human nature, and we ain't found a cure for it yet. And certainly
socialism ain't the cure. The basic fault of socialism and
communism is that they are built upon the precepts that
human beings are basically altrusitic.

And the basic fault of laissez-faire capitalism is that it
is built upon the precept that the corporation *and* its
leaders are absolved of responsibility for its misdeeds.

Absolute nonsense. It simply means that you should not be prhibited from
making money from people who are willing to do business with you. Nothing
about capitalism absolves anybody from actual wrongdoing.

The
corporate leaders wield massive power over the employees in
their thrall, are compensated disproportionately,

According to what standard?

and mold
the very governance that is supposed to provide oversight
and protect the public.

Wrong, that's what a mixed economy does.

The CEOs continue to reap all the
benefits yet suffer very little in the face of their
companies' poor economic performance or, worse yet,
unethical and criminal behavior.

Wrong again, that is the leftist spin, nothing about capitalism says you are
entiltled to decieve your customers or stockholders.

This is a big falsehood.
Human beings are basically egocentrical, and are motivated
by individual benefit (and to some degree by group
benefit, say family, religion, ethnicity). In consideration
of the true nature of human beings, capitalism works best.

Measured how?

By the gains human beings make under what we have had passing for capitalism
up to now.

I urge you to think this point through very
carefully, for I fear you'll point to GDP or per-capita
income. Please consider other factors such as safety,
security, dignity, happiness, and quality of life.

None of those gains would have been possible without capitialsim. If they
were possible under socialism why haven't emerging nations that are
socialist done better.



However, that is not to say it works perfectly. There has to be
regulation to ensure against abject greed.

There need to be laws to prevent and or punish those who cheat their
customers or create hazards to the public. Greed is not a crime, theft is.

It is a system where
some will wield more power than others, and this has
to be controlled to some degree, to prevent abuse.

Define abuse.

We have come
a long way in this regard, at least in America and in Western
Europe. But, the basic tenet of capitalism has to be the
Profit Motive. It is what makes things happen (jobs, business,
invention, progress)

Unfortunately, it has led to creepy philosophies such as the
PNAC, which attempts to instill a hegemony where we're the
only superpower and the moral, spiritual, economic,
military, and cultural leaders of the world. This kind of
globalization is quite dangerous given that global capital
is a zero-sum game and there are others who don't want to be
on the wrong end of the gun. There's a better way, but we're
not headed in that direction.

GZ

And hopefully never will.

"Glenn Zelniker" wrote in message
...
Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

Thsy should be paid massive amounts for the responsibilities
of their positions. Leaders are always paid more and more as you
got up the ladder. And more and more, they are being held
responsible.

But some, like Terry McCauliffe, seem to escape
justice.


You still want to turn this into a Dem vs Rep thing, don't you?
Terry's a very bad boy and he should pay dearly if ever convicted
for his role in the Global Crossing disaster.

He makes Bush look like the guy Diogones was looking for, by comparison.


Measured how? I urge you to think this point through very
carefully, for I fear you'll point to GDP or per-capita
income. Please consider other factors such as safety,
security, dignity, happiness, and quality of life.


Zilch, nada in Communist societies.
No security, no freedom, no happiness, no quality
of life, no dignity, just low rent in a run down tenement,
food rationing, a dearth of consumer goods, but yes, free
health care so that they can lead a long, healthy miserable life.


We're talking about different things, Art, OK? Let's not
vulgarize my position. I'm talking about modern European-style
socialism. The kind you see in Scandinavia.

Look at the freedoms, security, happiness and dignity
we have here in AMerica. We are so fortunate to live
in a capitalistic representative democracy, with strong
constitutional guarantees of freedom.


Those guarantees are not as strong as you'd like them to be. Keep
your eyes on the constitutional sleights-of-hand Ashcroft and Co.
are performing.


Look at the lack of enforcement from Clinton's Attorney General. We still
have a court system to stop those who go overboard. So far Ashcroft has a
pretty good batting average with them.

Global capital is NOT a zero sum game. you don't know much
about economics.


Try to keep the gloves on, Art. I understand economics. Give me a
counter-example to my claimed theory of "conservation of wealth."
That is, give me an example where wealth is created without an
attendant, equal loss.


Who's losing to XM radio?

Of course, under socialaism it would be
nearly so, as there is no incentive to produce other than altruism,
which is in limited supply.


Let's talk about the same socialism, OK? We're in utter agreement
on this point, provided we're discussing a country like North
Korea.

GZ

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...
Since the Democrats all seem to thinl we should repeal the tax
cuts,
IOW
raise your taxes, shouldn't one of the questions being asked of
the
potential candidates be: How many months of each year should a
taxpayer
have to work in order to pay the government?

6 months?
7 months?

**There are many answers to your question, but I must ask one,
first:

Over here, we have a sliding scale of taxation. The first $XXXX.00
earned
is
tax free. The next bracket is taxed at a low rate. The next
bracket
is
taxed
a little more and so on. AFAIK, no one in Australia pays more than
47%
tax.
Doesn't the US employ a similar system?

Yes.

Now, for some comments and more questions:

Who do you imagine has to pay for the hugely expensive operations
in
Afghanistan and Iraq?

The miltary is a logical thing to pay taxes for.

Who do you imagine has to pay inefficient US farmers?

You imply we have inefficient farmers. That might be true for some
kinds
of
crops, but on the whole I think we are very efficient. I know one
of
the
reasons the Bush administration want to allow amnesty for illegal
aliens,
is
for the cheap labor to pick crops. I also know that Australia
doesn't
have
the same cheap laor source and has, as a consequence, mechanized
much
of
its
crop harvest.

I have been on record here as saying I don't subscribe to any kind
of
subsidy.

Who do you imagine has to pay for all the infrastructure you seem
to
take
for granted?

I don't take it for granted, I just think the private sector can do
tehsame
job.

The US is the most lightly taxed economy in the Western, developed
world.
Don't the tax cuts announced by Dubya only affect the wealthy?


No, that's a popular lie. The Bush tax cuts affect anybody who pays
income
tax.

The way it stands now, most people have to work 5-6 months each year
to
pay
their tax. After that they are working for themselves.



Solution:
Stay home until June 1


Sort of a quasi Atlas Shrugged?

There wasn't anything in that pompous tome that was tongue in cheek.


Aw c'mon Art, that was sort of what Galt got the brains of the world to do.
Strike!

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

Michael McKelvy wrote:

"Glenn Zelniker" wrote in message
...

You're not related to him and he doesn't represent you,

Of course he represents me, he's the President of my country.

OK, poor choice of words on my part. I meant that he's not
looking out for *your* (Mike's) best interests.

I think it's about time somebody was proactive against terrorism. I have
every conficence that should any of the Democrats get elected to the office
of President the war on terrorism will go the way of the Dodo. They scare
me much more than Dubya. Look at the record of the Democrats on Defense.
If it were up to them they'd dismantle it completely.

I urge you to give me the benefit of the doubt that I will
address this point later tonight. For now, I'll leave you with
this tease and beg you not to pounce until I have a chance to
back up my assertions with actual numbers: Clinton (whom I've
already indicated I don't like, either), believe it or not, had
put in place comprehensive anti-terrorism measures that were
dismantled by Bush's people upon taking office. I'm not talking
about plans and contingencies; I'm talking about money, people,
equipment, and infrastructure. It was already effective but it
was gutted wholesale by Bush & Company for a number of political
and partisan. Granted, this sounds like partisan grousing on my
part, but I'll provide details later. I'm on the east coast and
I'm headed out the door right now.

Mostly, it's a matter of fairness. If any Dem were doing what Bush is
doing, they'd be defending him.

I am on record as being opposed to things that Bush has done, but they pale
in comparison to what the left wants to do to the American people.

Other than spending your tax dollars, Mike, what would those
things be? Without hyperbole, now...

GZ

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 23:38:46 -0500, Glenn Zelniker
wrote:

Understood. I'd seen him make the reference before, though,
and that's why I understood what he intended. The reason I
seized on the remark, though, is that I wanted to point out
the absurdity of some of the mythology concerning GWB. He's
not a genius. He's not a good businessman. He's not a man of
the people. He's not a good statesman. He's not an orator.
He's not a thinker. He's not an intellectual. He's not
honest. He's not compassionate. He's a doofus and a liar who
serves a single master: the corporate machine that put him
in office. The next time somebody tries to tell you he's a
TopGun, that he discovered superconductivity, proved the
Poincare conjecture, or discovered a cure for paralysis,
simply ask yourself "how can I reconcile this claim with
everything I see before me and know intuitively?" I suspect
that any rational person, regardless of political leanings,
will conclude "I can't."

In other words, they should read this title, suggested on the ABX web
site:

"Andersen, Hans Christian, "The Emperor's New Clothes" Andersen's
Fairy Tales, with biographical sketch of Hans Christian Andersen by
Thomas W. Handford. Illustrated by True Williams and others., Chicago,
Belford, Clarke (1889)"

http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_book.htm

--

Jacob Kramer

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

Captain Fire Farter; "The" wrote in message
news:jr8k205hmf8q9nf3sjn0fhp9p9kkned46h@rdmzrnewst xt.nz...


Everyone should build their own roads.


On and across other people's property?

Only with permission.


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

"Glenn Zelniker" wrote in message
...
Michael McKelvy wrote:

He served his commitment and got an honorable discharge.

Mike, I still don't understand the source of your vehement
protestations whenever anybody attacks GWB's character.
You're not related to him and he doesn't represent you, no
matter how much you'd like to be a multi-millionaire.
There's a preponderance of evidence that he:

a) Had many favors pulled on his behalf to get him into the
"Champagne Unit" in which he served.

b) Achieved the very lowest score on his pilot/officer
aptitude test that still allowed him to fly.

c) Served sporadically while in Texas then got permission to
transfer to Alabama to work on the political campaign of a
family friend.

d) Was derelict in his service while in Alabama.

To date, not a *single* person has come forward to
corroborate his presence in Alabama -- not even a fellow
flyboy who would likely remember his famous fellow
squadmember. The best that can be said is that his commander
can't refute claims that GWB was there.

For god's sake, Mike, call a spade a spade. This isn't mere
defamation by merciless political adversaries. It's an
exposition of the typical behavior of a wild young man with
a known propensity for irresponsibility. It's not at all
inconsistent with what's known about young W. And if he'd
have just come clean about it (too late now), it wouldn't
have been an issue.

None of this would be terribly interesting under ordinary
circumstances. But W's veracity and integrity are of
fundamental importance in the current climate: an
administration that frequently operates in unprecedented
secrecy, an administration that wants to take by fiat powers
that go way beyond those *granted* previous administrations
-- powers over the American populace and dominion over the
entire geopolitical sphere. As an avowed Libertarian, you
should be shocked and horrified.

Glenn Z


I could answer all your points but I should let Col. William Campenni do so.
Mr. Campenni serve with President Bush in the National Guard. Below is his
letter to the editor:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/funct...0-082910-8424r

'Bush and I were lieutenants'
George Bush and I were lieutenants and pilots in the 111th Fighter
Interceptor Squadron (FIS), Texas Air National Guard (ANG) from 1970 to
1971. We had the same flight and squadron commanders (Maj. William Harris
and Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, both now deceased). While we were not part of
the same social circle outside the base, we were in the same fraternity of
fighter pilots, and proudly wore the same squadron patch.
It is quite frustrating to hear the daily cacophony from the left and
Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, et al., about Lt. Bush escaping his
military responsibilities by hiding in the Texas ANG. In the Air Guard
during the Vietnam War, you were always subject to call-up, as many Air
National Guardsmen are finding out today. If the 111th FIS and Lt. Bush did
not go to Vietnam, blame President Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert
S. McNamara, not lowly Lt. Bush. They deliberately avoided use of the Guard
and Reserves for domestic political calculations, knowing that a draftee
only stirred up the concerns of one family, while a call-up got a whole
community's attention.
The mission of the 147th Fighter Group and its subordinate 111th FIS,
Texas ANG, and the airplane it possessed, the F-102, was air defense. It was
focused on defending the continental United States from Soviet nuclear
bombers. The F-102 could not drop bombs and would have been useless in
Vietnam. A pilot program using ANG volunteer pilots in F-102s (called Palace
Alert) was scrapped quickly after the airplane proved to be unsuitable to
the war effort. Ironically, Lt. Bush did inquire about this program but was
advised by an ANG supervisor (Maj. Maurice Udell, retired) that he did not
have the desired experience (500 hours) at the time and that the program was
winding down and not accepting more volunteers.
If you check the 111th FIS records of 1970-72 and any other ANG
squadron, you will find other pilots excused for career obligations and
conflicts. The Bush excusal in 1972 was further facilitated by a change in
the unit's mission, from an operational fighter squadron to a training
squadron with a new airplane, the F-101, which required that more pilots be
available for full-time instructor duty rather than part-time traditional
reservists with outside employment.
The winding down of the Vietnam War in 1971 provided a flood of exiting
active-duty pilots for these instructor jobs, making part-timers like Lt.
Bush and me somewhat superfluous. There was a huge glut of pilots in the Air
Force in 1972, and with no cockpits available to put them in, many were
shoved into nonflying desk jobs. Any pilot could have left the Air Force or
the Air Guard with ease after 1972 before his commitment was up because
there just wasn't room for all of them anymore.
Sadly, few of today's partisan pundits know anything about the
environment of service in the Reserves in the 1970s. The image of a
reservist at that time is of one who joined, went off for six months' basic
training, then came back and drilled weekly or monthly at home, with two
weeks of "summer camp." With the knowledge that Mr. Johnson and Mr. McNamara
were not going to call out the Reserves, it did become a place of refuge for
many wanting to avoid Vietnam.
There was one big exception to this abusive use of the Guard to avoid
the draft, and that was for those who wanted to fly, as pilots or crew
members. Because of the training required, signing up for this duty meant up
to 2½ years of active duty for training alone, plus a high probability of
mobilization. A fighter-pilot candidate selected by the Guard (such as Lt.
Bush and me) would be spending the next two years on active duty going
through basic training (six weeks), flight training (one year), survival
training (two weeks) and combat crew training for his aircraft (six to nine
months), followed by local checkout (up to three more months) before he was
even deemed combat-ready. Because the draft was just two years, you sure
weren't getting out of duty being an Air Guard pilot. If the unit to which
you were going back was an F-100, you were mobilized for Vietnam. Avoiding
service? Yeah, tell that to those guys.
The Bush critics do not comprehend the dangers of fighter aviation at
any time or place, in Vietnam or at home, when they say other such pilots
were risking their lives or even dying while Lt. Bush was in Texas. Our
Texas ANG unit lost several planes right there in Houston during Lt. Bush's
tenure, with fatalities. Just strapping on one of those obsolescing F-102s
was risking one's life.
Critics such as Mr. Kerry (who served in Vietnam, you know), Terry
McAuliffe and Michael Moore (neither of whom served anywhere) say Lt. Bush
abandoned his assignment as a jet fighter pilot without explanation or
authorization and was AWOL from the Alabama Air Guard.
Well, as for abandoning his assignment, this is untrue. Lt. Bush was
excused for a period to take employment in Florida for a congressman and
later in Alabama for a Senate campaign.
Excusals for employment were common then and are now in the Air Guard,
as pilots frequently are in career transitions, and most commanders (as I
later was) are flexible in letting their charges take care of career affairs
until they return or transfer to another unit near their new employment.
Sometimes they will transfer temporarily to another unit to keep them on the
active list until they can return home. The receiving unit often has little
use for a transitory member, especially in a high-skills category like a
pilot, because those slots usually are filled and, if not filled, would
require extensive conversion training of up to six months, an unlikely
option for a temporary hire.
As a commander, I would put such "visitors" in some minor administrative
post until they went back home. There even were a few instances when I was
unaware that they were on my roster because the paperwork often lagged.
Today, I can't even recall their names. If a Lt. Bush came into my unit to
"pull drills" for a couple of months, I wouldn't be too involved with him
because I would have a lot more important things on my table keeping the
unit combat ready.
Another frequent charge is that, as a member of the Texas ANG, Lt. Bush
twice ignored or disobeyed lawful orders, first by refusing to report for a
required physical in the year when drug testing first became part of the
exam, and second by failing to report for duty at the disciplinary unit in
Colorado to which he had been ordered. Well, here are the facts:
First, there is no instance of Lt. Bush disobeying lawful orders in
reporting for a physical, as none would be given. Pilots are scheduled for
their annual flight physicals in their birth month during that month's
weekend drill assembly -- the only time the clinic is open. In the Reserves,
it is not uncommon to miss this deadline by a month or so for a variety of
reasons: The clinic is closed that month for special training; the
individual is out of town on civilian business; etc.
If so, the pilot is grounded temporarily until he completes the
physical. Also, the formal drug testing program was not instituted by the
Air Force until the 1980s and is done randomly by lot, not as a special part
of a flight physical, when one easily could abstain from drug use because of
its date certain. Blood work is done, but to ensure a healthy pilot, not
confront a drug user.
Second, there was no such thing as a "disciplinary unit in Colorado" to
which Lt. Bush had been ordered. The Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver
is a repository of the paperwork for those no longer assigned to a specific
unit, such as retirees and transferees. Mine is there now, so I guess I'm
"being disciplined." These "disciplinary units" just don't exist. Any
discipline, if required, is handled within the local squadron, group or
wing, administratively or judicially. Had there been such an infraction or
court-martial action, there would be a record and a reflection in Lt. Bush's
performance review and personnel folder. None exists, as was confirmed in
The Washington Post in 2000.
Finally, the Kerrys, Moores and McAuliffes are casting a terrible
slander on those who served in the Guard, then and now. My Guard career
parallels Lt. Bush's, except that I stayed on for 33 years. As a guardsman,
I even got to serve in two campaigns. In the Cold War, the air defense of
the United States was borne primarily by the Air National Guard, by such
people as Lt. Bush and me and a lot of others. Six of those with whom I
served in those years never made their 30th birthdays because they died in
crashes flying air-defense missions.
While most of America was sleeping and Mr. Kerry was playing antiwar
games with Hanoi Jane Fonda, we were answering 3 a.m. scrambles for who
knows what inbound threat over the Canadian subarctic, the cold North
Atlantic and the shark-filled Gulf of Mexico. We were the pathfinders in
showing that the Guard and Reserves could become reliable members of the
first team in the total force, so proudly evidenced today in Afghanistan and
Iraq.
It didn't happen by accident. It happened because back at the nadir of
Guard fortunes in the early '70s, a lot of volunteer guardsman showed they
were ready and able to accept the responsibilities of soldier and citizen --
then and now. Lt. Bush was a kid whose congressman father encouraged him to
serve in the Air National Guard. We served proudly in the Guard. Would that
Mr. Kerry encourage his children and the children of his colleague senators
and congressmen to serve now in the Guard.
In the fighter-pilot world, we have a phrase we use when things are
starting to get out of hand and it's time to stop and reset before disaster
strikes. We say, "Knock it off." So, Mr. Kerry and your friends who want to
slander the Guard: Knock it off.

COL. WILLIAM CAMPENNI (retired)
U.S. Air Force/Air National Guard
Herndon, Va.5

Captain Fire Farter; "The" wrote in message
news:mq4n20ltv9oqeiinlani47jb9snlffck52@rdmzrnewst xt.nz...
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:28:03 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
wrote:

First of all, I never said I supported laissez faire. That is about an
outdated economic concept as the manor system. And anayway,
there si no precept that the corp leaders are resolved of misdeeds.

Which jail are the Enron lot currently serving time in, out of
interest?


Its a complicated case, and it is in the process of being built.
I hope to see prosecutions. Other similar cases are being prosecuted.





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Captain Fire Farter; "The" wrote in message
news:5u4n20tgmv3bv0amo1g1paugfij9g66tuu@rdmzrnewst xt.nz...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:15:21 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
wrote:

Everyone should build their own roads.

On and across other people's property?

Only yours.


I know how to get a good deal on that!
I wish it would happen.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Joseph Oberlander said:

Flying *rocks* - how he was such a deadbeat that he couldn't even
get excited about the coolest damn job in the entire military
that his relatives helped him to get I just don't know.

Dubya knew then what we all know now -- namely, he's a screwup and
would have crashed his plane, or shot up a barn, or some other
stupid Bush trick.

Then its a good thing he wasn't based in NYC.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

Dubya knew then what we all know now -- namely, he's a screwup and
would have crashed his plane, or shot up a barn, or some other
stupid Bush trick.

Then its a good thing he wasn't based in NYC.

Apparently I assumed too much. I should have said "crashed his plane
by accident". God knows, if he aimed for a building like WTC, he'd
end up in the East River.

"Glenn Zelniker" wrote in message
...
Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

Thsy should be paid massive amounts for the responsibilities
of their positions. Leaders are always paid more and more as you
got up the ladder. And more and more, they are being held
responsible.

But some, like Terry McCauliffe, seem to escape
justice.


You still want to turn this into a Dem vs Rep thing, don't you?
Terry's a very bad boy and he should pay dearly if ever convicted
for his role in the Global Crossing disaster.

Measured how? I urge you to think this point through very
carefully, for I fear you'll point to GDP or per-capita
income. Please consider other factors such as safety,
security, dignity, happiness, and quality of life.


Zilch, nada in Communist societies.
No security, no freedom, no happiness, no quality
of life, no dignity, just low rent in a run down tenement,
food rationing, a dearth of consumer goods, but yes, free
health care so that they can lead a long, healthy miserable life.


We're talking about different things, Art, OK? Let's not
vulgarize my position. I'm talking about modern European-style
socialism. The kind you see in Scandinavia.


It is not socialism, it is basically capitalistic, though
tightly regulated.

Look at the freedoms, security, happiness and dignity
we have here in AMerica. We are so fortunate to live
in a capitalistic representative democracy, with strong
constitutional guarantees of freedom.


Those guarantees are not as strong as you'd like them to be. Keep
your eyes on the constitutional sleights-of-hand Ashcroft and Co.
are performing.


I do not like all of that. There are a number of conservatives who
also do not like it.


Global capital is NOT a zero sum game. you don't know much
about economics.


Try to keep the gloves on, Art. I understand economics. Give me a
counter-example to my claimed theory of "conservation of wealth."
That is, give me an example where wealth is created without an
attendant, equal loss.

I borrow money to build a factory, I repay the loan out of profits.
Capital has been created. The loan has been repaid with interest.

Now, raw materials have been expended to build the factory,
but some of them are renewable, and some materials used in
the factory construction can be recycled after the factory has
been physically or economically depleted.

Also, as the completed factory is worth more than the raw
materials would be worth sitiing in their natrual state in or
on the ground, weakth has been created. Wealth is also
created as property values go up, which requires no
depletion of resources or diminution of wealth in any other
segment.

By the way, my house just went up in value $15,000
this past month. So where is the attendeant economic loss?



Of course, under socialaism it would be
nearly so, as there is no incentive to produce other than altruism,
which is in limited supply.


Let's talk about the same socialism, OK? We're in utter agreement
on this point, provided we're discussing a country like North
Korea.


Yes, you are always welcome to adopt the correct definition of Socialism.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Joseph Oberlander said:

Flying *rocks* - how he was such a deadbeat that he couldn't even
get excited about the coolest damn job in the entire military
that his relatives helped him to get I just don't know.

Dubya knew then what we all know now -- namely, he's a screwup and
would have crashed his plane, or shot up a barn, or some other
stupid Bush trick.




Did you read Phil's post?

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

Captain Fire Farter; "The" wrote in message
news:jr8k205hmf8q9nf3sjn0fhp9p9kkned46h@rdmzrnewst xt.nz...


Everyone should build their own roads.


On and across other people's property?

Only with permission.

A road to nowhere!




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om...
dave weil wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 15:32:22 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:
I'll see if I can find independent confirmation of the Top gun deal.

You won't be able to. He never attended Miramar.

W's flying experience was in an F102 "Delta Dart," an interceptor that was
designed to go very fast in a straight line, not get involved in dog
fights, for which it was unsuited. It was also never used by the Navy,
which means his "landing on a carrier" stunt was doubly incorrect.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

He never claimed to have landed the plan. He landed inside a plane that
landed on a carrier and said that the pilot did the takeoff and landing. He
took over control in the air for awhile and that was it.

Maybe I misinterpreted your meaning but it seemed as if you were trying to
say that Bush claimed to have been at the controls for the landing.

"Glenn Zelniker" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Glenn Zelniker" wrote in message


I agree and I'm no big fan of Clinton. But that's not the
issue here. Clinton lied often and there's no denying it,
but the Clinton administration did not seek the sweeping and
unprecedented powers that Bush and Company desire.



Yup, Hillary and Bill had zero interest in having the government obtain
sweeping and unprecedented powers in the area of health care. Oh, yes,
and
we all know that health care involves an insignificant fraction of the
GNP.
So, yes it's true that Clinton administration did not seek the sweeping
and
unprecedented powers.


The powers I'm referring to are the ones pertaining to civil
liberties, Arny. I agree that the Clinton healthcare proposal was
a mess and a disaster, but the way in which Patriot I was passed
was bothersome, as were many of its provisions. Patriot II is
even scarier and it's still more frightening that many of *its*
less savory measures were successfully snuck into other pieces of
legislation. As an avowed Liberal, there are many other things
about the present administration that scare and disturb me. But
I'm not talking about those things; I'm talking about the space
where my ideology and the civil libertarian ideology overlap.

Nothing in the Patriot Act (passed nearly unanimously) comes close to the
actions of FDR who had people locked up for nothing in Internment Camps.
But FDR was a Liberal, so your side offers him up as a hero.

You certainly have the right to your opinions Glenn, But your
recitations of
history seem to overlook important major events.


I'm quite aware of the recent major events and of the dangerous
position we're now in. But I don't think our current aggressive
course of action is going to help matters in the long term.
Granted, I'm far younger than you and haven't had the benefit of
living through earlier crises of similar global proportion. But
these are my beliefs.

GZ

Beliefs should be subject to review of history, double checked against
reality.

Here's a place to get a reality check.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/19...24_clinton.htm
Here's another. http://www.cato.org/dailys/8-22-97.html
and another http://www.nationalreview.com/york/y...ue112901.shtml


His record on terrorism alone should ahve gotten him impeached.
There is also a book by one of the people who carried the "Football" that
Clinton twice lost the the codes.
Once he forgot them and then found them and once he lost them entirely.

If you seek to compare Bush to Clinton or any other Liberal Democrat, Bush
is going to come out looking much better by comparison. Not because of my
"bias" but simple objective reality.

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
k.net...
Glenn Zelniker wrote:

Michael McKelvy wrote:

He served his commitment and got an honorable discharge.


Mike, I still don't understand the source of your vehement protestations
whenever anybody attacks GWB's character. You're not related to him and
he doesn't represent you, no matter how much you'd like to be a
multi-millionaire. There's a preponderance of evidence that he:

a) Had many favors pulled on his behalf to get him into the "Champagne
Unit" in which he served.

b) Achieved the very lowest score on his pilot/officer aptitude test
that still allowed him to fly.

c) Served sporadically while in Texas then got permission to transfer
to Alabama to work on the political campaign of a family friend.

d) Was derelict in his service while in Alabama.

To date, not a *single* person has come forward to corroborate his
presence in Alabama -- not even a fellow flyboy who would likely
remember his famous fellow squadmember. The best that can be said is
that his commander can't refute claims that GWB was there.

For god's sake, Mike, call a spade a spade. This isn't mere defamation
by merciless political adversaries. It's an exposition of the typical
behavior of a wild young man with a known propensity for
irresponsibility. It's not at all inconsistent with what's known about
young W. And if he'd have just come clean about it (too late now), it
wouldn't have been an issue.

Compared to Kerry's - gosh - I know of Generals with less major
decorations than him. Honestly. 3 commendations, 3 purple hearts,
2 bronze stars, and the crowning achievement, a silver star.

Now, most of the others you can get for being a good guy and
soldier and doing your job well(and surviving). They give
Bronze Stars to a lot of people, to be honest - but the Silver Star
is special as it requires something way above a typical heroic
act to save your men. Very very few soldiers ever get one.

That's what you'd expect from a work is ass off man or woman
in the military - they get commendations and awards and never
wimp out. That says a lot for his leadership qualities, whether
or not you believe in the tripe he says most of the time about
politics.

This is going to be a *close* race especially if he's smart and
chooses a proper V.P. from the west or middle america.

It will either be close with Bush winning or a landslide with Bush winning.

"Glenn Zelniker" wrote in message
...
Michael McKelvy wrote:

"Glenn Zelniker" wrote in message
...

You're not related to him and he doesn't represent you,

Of course he represents me, he's the President of my country.

OK, poor choice of words on my part. I meant that he's not
looking out for *your* (Mike's) best interests.

I think it's about time somebody was proactive against terrorism. I
have
every conficence that should any of the Democrats get elected to the
office
of President the war on terrorism will go the way of the Dodo. They
scare
me much more than Dubya. Look at the record of the Democrats on
Defense.
If it were up to them they'd dismantle it completely.

I urge you to give me the benefit of the doubt that I will
address this point later tonight. For now, I'll leave you with
this tease and beg you not to pounce until I have a chance to
back up my assertions with actual numbers: Clinton (whom I've
already indicated I don't like, either), believe it or not, had
put in place comprehensive anti-terrorism measures that were
dismantled by Bush's people upon taking office. I'm not talking
about plans and contingencies; I'm talking about money, people,
equipment, and infrastructure. It was already effective but it
was gutted wholesale by Bush & Company for a number of political
and partisan. Granted, this sounds like partisan grousing on my
part, but I'll provide details later. I'm on the east coast and
I'm headed out the door right now.

Mostly, it's a matter of fairness. If any Dem were doing what Bush is
doing, they'd be defending him.

I am on record as being opposed to things that Bush has done, but they
pale
in comparison to what the left wants to do to the American people.

Other than spending your tax dollars, Mike, what would those
things be? Without hyperbole, now...

GZ

Review the link I posted to CATO for a review of Clinton's assault on the
Consitition.

Look at the leaked memos from the Democrats on teh Inteligence commitee and
the computer messages that got sent by mistake from the Judiciary commitee.
They are pure partisan politics for trying to disgrace Bush irrespective of
what the facts are. The Democrats are playing politics with the lives and
well being of the American people in order to help win an election. They
appear to be willing to let people die in order to win.

**** them.

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

Captain Fire Farter; "The" wrote in message
news:jr8k205hmf8q9nf3sjn0fhp9p9kkned46h@rdmzrnewst xt.nz...


Everyone should build their own roads.


On and across other people's property?

Only with permission.

A road to nowhere!

A road that doesn't need force against people to get to the destination.

I don't see how the government can be protecting freedom when it takes
property away by force. It is one of my principles that the use of force is
wrong except in retaliation to force.

We will continue to disagree on this.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 10:06:21 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Nothing in the Patriot Act (passed nearly unanimously) comes close to the
actions of FDR who had people locked up for nothing in Internment Camps.
But FDR was a Liberal, so your side offers him up as a hero.

Actually, the left is *very* critical of this decision.

I guess you *don't* think he was a "hero", which seems weird.

Dave Weil wrote:


On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 10:06:21 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Nothing in the Patriot Act (passed nearly unanimously) comes close to the
actions of FDR who had people locked up for nothing in Internment Camps.
But FDR was a Liberal, so your side offers him up as a hero.

Actually, the left is *very* critical of this decision.

I guess you *don't* think he was a "hero", which seems weird.







Yes, I agree - except for those, who, of course, have a bitter and apparently
near-universal hatred for all Democrats. Hate can be a powerful motive, as
several RAO posters frequently demonstrate.






Bruce J. Richman

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 10:06:21 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Nothing in the Patriot Act (passed nearly unanimously) comes close
to the actions of FDR who had people locked up for nothing in
Internment Camps. But FDR was a Liberal, so your side offers him up
as a hero.

Actually, the left is *very* critical of this decision.

Yes Weil, but despite your "Look over there, cake" debating trade trick,
he's still their hero.

I guess you *don't* think he was a "hero", which seems weird.

Shows how ignorant you are of conservative thought, Weil. There are lots of
people who are/were not exactly enamored of FDR. I think that history has a
mixed view of him as a hero.

FDR was also a supporter of other racist policies of the day, including
those involving African-Americans.

Eisenhower, FDR's second vice-president, and FDR's wife were IMO the more
laudable kind of liberal in this regard.

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


Yes, I agree - except for those, who, of course, have a bitter and
apparently near-universal hatred for all Democrats. Hate can be a
powerful motive, as several RAO posters frequently demonstrate.

Love those auto-biographical, but completely non-self-conscious statements!

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


Yes, I agree - except for those, who, of course, have a bitter and
apparently near-universal hatred for all Democrats. Hate can be a
powerful motive, as several RAO posters frequently demonstrate.

Love those auto-biographical, but completely non-self-conscious statements!











Not half as interesting as the self-descriptive projections of delusional,
compulsive liars who never miss an opportunity to demonstrate their paranoid
ideation coupled with unprovoked personal attacks on others. Lack of insight
duly noted.


Q.E.D.



Bruce J. Richman

Love those auto-biographical, but completely non-self-conscious statements!

You ought to given how often you make them.

Michael McKelvy wrote:

His record on terrorism alone should ahve gotten him impeached.

Mike, we're never going to agree on this. I'm of the opinion that
everybody is to blame for the present situation WRT terrorism.
Clinton was weak and Bush was weak until it wasn't possible to be
weak anymore. You'll likely shriek and holler about this, but
it's undeniable that the Bush family and the Saudis have strong
ties. The Saudi ambassador calls himself Bandar Bush. He goes to
Bush birthdays, spends time at Kennebunkport. His wife, innocent
or not, ended up giving money to terrorist groups within Saudi
Arabia. Bush Sr. was invloved in Carlyle. Carlyle had money in
Global bin Laden. Members of the bin Laden family were flown out
of the US right after 9/11 while the rest of the country was
grounded. We routinely gave the Saudis a pass on
terrorism-related issues under Clinton and under Bush. Neil and
Marvin Bush have been making business pitches to Saudi investment
groups. As much as Clinton may have kow-towed to the Saudis, a
rational person can not conclude that the Bush family ties to the
Saudi royal family are far stronger and may have led to some
blind spots. Will you admit this?

Clinton is certainly guilty of keeping in place long-standing
policies that allowed the Saudis to behave very badly -- gutting
their own country's economy and paying off terror groups in order
to keep the terror out of the Kingdom. Will you at least allow
that GW Bush is guilty of the same transgression?

BTW, If you would like an accurate and compelling assessment of
the US's long and disgusting history of co-dependence with the
Saudis, RUN out and get Robert Baer's "Sleeping With the Devil:
How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude." Baer is a
long-time CIA guy who pulls no punches: Republicans and Democrats
are both blamed. I was sleepless for a few nights after finishing
the book; it's one of the more frightening pieces of non-fiction
I've ever read. It'll also have you hating special interests more
than you ever have before.

If you seek to compare Bush to Clinton or any other Liberal Democrat, Bush
is going to come out looking much better by comparison. Not because of my
"bias" but simple objective reality.

Your objective reality may differ!

GZ

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 13:56:26 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 10:06:21 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Nothing in the Patriot Act (passed nearly unanimously) comes close
to the actions of FDR who had people locked up for nothing in
Internment Camps. But FDR was a Liberal, so your side offers him up
as a hero.

Actually, the left is *very* critical of this decision.

Yes Weil, but despite your "Look over there, cake" debating trade trick,
he's still their hero.

Yes, I think that he (and Eisenhower and Marshall and Clark and the
others that prosecuted that war) were heroes. Roosevelt was also a
hero for pulling America out of the Depression.

I take it that you don't consider him a hero, right?

I guess you *don't* think he was a "hero", which seems weird.

Shows how ignorant you are of conservative thought, Weil.

There are lots of people who are/were not exactly enamored of FDR. I think that history has a
mixed view of him as a hero.

I think that history considers him to be heroic. I'm sorry that you
don't appear to. shrug

FDR was also a supporter of other racist policies of the day, including
those involving African-Americans.

Eisenhower, FDR's second vice-president, and FDR's wife were IMO the more
laudable kind of liberal in this regard.

The fact that you consider Eisenhower a "liberal" shows that *you* are
pretty ignorant of conservative thought yourself. You seem to have
bought into the liberal spin chuckle.

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Glenn Zelniker" wrote in message



Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:


But, the basic tenet of capitalism has to be the
Profit Motive. It is what makes things happen (jobs, business,
invention, progress)


Unfortunately, it has led to creepy philosophies such as the
PNAC, which attempts to instill a hegemony where we're the
only superpower and the moral, spiritual, economic,
military, and cultural leaders of the world.


A very strange statement based on the unrealistic idea that a leader can
install himself. Leaders only exist if there are followers.

Why is the US the only superpower? Not because we installed ourselves in
that role, but because the only serious contenders during the 20th century
were seriously injured by others (UK), self-destructed (USSR) or were
destroyed by our allies and us (Japan, Germany).

China decided to forget about military hooliganism recently and
instead is starting to kick our butts economicaly. Japan also decided
to do this. We're still stuck in the old world idea of military
might makes you a big player. Hope that still works when we all
work for minimum wage in 50 years.

dave weil wrote:

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 07:06:38 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
wrote:


Trevor Wilson wrote:


* He performed poorly at school.

He preformed average at school.


**Nope. Poorly.

Exactly. Name me one grad school that will let you in with a
C average.


Apparently the Harvard Business School will. But you will first have
to have ended your military service early.

Heh. Actually, that's a whole other issue. How the hell he get
into HArvard with a C average if it wasn't for his family pulling
strings? Kerry could have a field day with that one subject alone.

People by and large don't like people like that - they are all
too aware every day that they are passed over for promotions and
schools and so on by the rich elite who see themselves as better
human beings.(especially considering Bush's family history).

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

This is going to be a *close* race especially if he's smart and
chooses a proper V.P. from the west or middle america.


Dan Quayle?

I was thinking about someone from Texas or Arizona or Colorado
or simmilar - hopefully hispanic. Get a lock on the swing vote
in areas that Bush is usually strong in.

Phil wrote:

It is quite frustrating to hear the daily cacophony from the left and
Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, et al., about Lt. Bush escaping his
military responsibilities by hiding in the Texas ANG. In the Air Guard
during the Vietnam War, you were always subject to call-up, as many Air
National Guardsmen are finding out today. If the 111th FIS and Lt. Bush did
not go to Vietnam, blame President Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert
S. McNamara, not lowly Lt. Bush. They deliberately avoided use of the Guard
and Reserves for domestic political calculations, knowing that a draftee
only stirred up the concerns of one family, while a call-up got a whole
community's attention.

....

Sadly, few of today's partisan pundits know anything about the
environment of service in the Reserves in the 1970s. The image of a
reservist at that time is of one who joined, went off for six months' basic
training, then came back and drilled weekly or monthly at home, with two
weeks of "summer camp." With the knowledge that Mr. Johnson and Mr. McNamara
were not going to call out the Reserves, it did become a place of refuge for
many wanting to avoid Vietnam.

So basically, he knew this and was doing everything he could to avoid
actually serving. Do some training. Hide with the rest of those who
were against the war and didn't want to serve, but were unwilling to
actually not show up for duty. Solution at the time? Reverves.

I heard that around 300 reservists died in the entirety of the war
today. Out of half a million. The common man without family
connections? Eating dirt and getting shot at.

He should at least be honest about it - he was a draft dodger, or
close to it, just like all of the others who used school or
The Reserves as an excuse to stay out of actual combat.

That I could respect, actually. His coming clean and saying that
the war was wrong in his mind and he went into the reserves due
to not wanting to fight/kill people.

Michael McKelvy wrote:

I don't see how the government can be protecting freedom when it takes
property away by force. It is one of my principles that the use of force is
wrong except in retaliation to force.

Did you ever read about how GW Bush and his cronies managed to
invoke eminent domain rules to condemn the land they needed to
build a new stadium for their the baseball team they owned?

Your comments on this story, please.

GZ

---------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.salon.com/news/col/scheer/2002/08/29/bush/


But egregious examples of gouging by those with the power to
leverage stock options, loans, kickback schemes and insider
trading deals are all too common, even in the business of sports.
Take big league baseball's squalid gang of billionaire owners,
who maximize profit by holding up taxpayers for new ballparks by
threatening to take their ball and go somewhere else and by
taking advantage of enormous tax breaks.

That's what George W. did with the Texas Rangers when he parlayed
$606,000 -- nearly all borrowed from a Midland, Texas, bank where
he had been a director -- into a $15 million profit when he sold
his stake in the team a decade later. The Rangers, despite
erratic results on the field, grew astronomically in financial
value because Arlington, Texas, taxpayers faced with the threat
of losing the Rangers were coerced into coming up with $135
million in sales taxes to build Bush's team a palatial new field
of dreams. Bush and his buddies also used their political
influence to grab valuable commercial land surrounding the
stadium under the government power of eminent domain.

Thanks to those acquisitions, paid for with more than $200
million in public funds, Bush and his partners were able to turn
around and sell for $240 million a team they had purchased for
$86 million. Bush never did risk any of his own money, instead
selling shares at an inflated insider's rate -- courtesy of his
now-famous relationship with Harken Energy -- to cover the
original bank loan.

Scott Wheeler wrote:



Love those auto-biographical, but completely non-self-conscious statements!

You ought to given how often you make them.







Agreed.



Bruce J. Richman

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 13:56:26 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 10:06:21 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Nothing in the Patriot Act (passed nearly unanimously) comes close
to the actions of FDR who had people locked up for nothing in
Internment Camps. But FDR was a Liberal, so your side offers him up
as a hero.

Actually, the left is *very* critical of this decision.

Yes Weil, but despite your "Look over there, cake" debating trade
trick, he's still their hero.

Yes, I think that he (and Eisenhower and Marshall and Clark and the
others that prosecuted that war) were heroes. Roosevelt was also a
hero for pulling America out of the Depression.

Or, he simply wasn't an incompetent president.

I take it that you don't consider him a hero, right?

I guess you *don't* think he was a "hero", which seems weird.

Shows how ignorant you are of conservative thought, Weil.

There are lots of people who are/were not exactly enamored of FDR. I
think that history has a mixed view of him as a hero.

I think that history considers him to be heroic. I'm sorry that you
don't appear to. shrug

Like a lot of other things that I choose, I probably choose my heroes more
carefully than you do, Weil.


FDR was also a supporter of other racist policies of the day,
including those involving African-Americans.

Eisenhower, FDR's second vice-president, and FDR's wife were IMO
the more laudable kind of liberal in this regard.

The fact that you consider Eisenhower a "liberal" shows that *you* are
pretty ignorant of conservative thought yourself.

Or more knowledgeable about Eisenhower than you are...

You seem to have bought into the liberal spin chuckle.

It would surely take more than a newsgroup to get you to the point where you
could manage your delusions, Weil.

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
ink.net
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Glenn Zelniker" wrote in message



Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:


But, the basic tenet of capitalism has to be the
Profit Motive. It is what makes things happen (jobs, business,
invention, progress)


Unfortunately, it has led to creepy philosophies such as the
PNAC, which attempts to instill a hegemony where we're the
only superpower and the moral, spiritual, economic,
military, and cultural leaders of the world.


A very strange statement based on the unrealistic idea that a leader
can install himself. Leaders only exist if there are followers.

Why is the US the only superpower? Not because we installed
ourselves in that role, but because the only serious contenders
during the 20th century were seriously injured by others (UK),
self-destructed (USSR) or were destroyed by our allies and us
(Japan, Germany).

China decided to forget about military hooliganism recently and
instead is starting to kick our butts economically.

The two are largely irrelevant.

Japan also decided to do this.

The two are largely irrelevant.

We're still stuck in the old world idea of military
might makes you a big player.

Wrong, wrong, and oh by the way, completely wrong.

The fundamental reason why we overcame the Nazi and Fascists during WW2 was
our economic and technical might. Our military build-up was simply a means
to a specific end given that the Nazi and Fascists had succumbed to the old
world idea that military might makes you a big player. Remember they said
guns uber alles, and we made sure there was plenty of "butter". As soon as
WW2 was over we got out of the military might business as fast as we could.
So fast in fact, that we were embarrassed by subsequent world events.

The fundamental reason why we overcame the USSR and China during the Cold
War was our economic and technical might. Our military-build up was simply a
means to a specific end given that the USSR and China had succumbed to the
old world idea that military might makes you a big player. Remember they
said guns uber alles, and we made sure there was plenty of "butter". Under
the Clinton administration we embarrassed ourselves by trying too hard to
get out of the military might business as soon as possible. Clinton's
namby-pamby military policies set the stage for "Blackhawk Down" and 9/11.

It is probable that the fundamental reason why will overcome the terrorists
who wrap themselves in Islamic fundamentalism during the war on terror (or
whatever history calls the phase we are in now) will be our economic and
technical might. Our military build- up is simply a means to a specific end
given that the terrorists who wrap themselves in Islamic fundamentalism
have succumbed to a updated retread of the old world idea that military
might makes you a big player. Remember they are saying military action uber
alles, and we are still making sure there is plenty of "butter". I see the
Democratic Party as trying to return to the namby-pamby military policies of
the Clinton administration. It's easy to predict that if they take over the
White House, things will really degenerate fast and we'll see aggressive
military action by our enemies on US soil like we've never seen since the
war of 1812.

Hope that still works when we all work for minimum wage in 50 years.

Weil, were that to happen (unlikely) we'd still be better off than the
Chinese who you're deifying are, right now.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 15:36:43 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 13:56:26 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 10:06:21 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Nothing in the Patriot Act (passed nearly unanimously) comes close
to the actions of FDR who had people locked up for nothing in
Internment Camps. But FDR was a Liberal, so your side offers him up
as a hero.

Actually, the left is *very* critical of this decision.

Yes Weil, but despite your "Look over there, cake" debating trade
trick, he's still their hero.

Yes, I think that he (and Eisenhower and Marshall and Clark and the
others that prosecuted that war) were heroes. Roosevelt was also a
hero for pulling America out of the Depression.

Or, he simply wasn't an incompetent president.

Well, *that's* certainly true. However, it took an active multi-year
program to accomplish it. It also took one of the most extensive
efforts in history to finish a global war.

shrug

I take it that you don't consider him a hero, right?

I guess you *don't* think he was a "hero", which seems weird.

Shows how ignorant you are of conservative thought, Weil.

There are lots of people who are/were not exactly enamored of FDR. I
think that history has a mixed view of him as a hero.

I think that history considers him to be heroic. I'm sorry that you
don't appear to. shrug

Like a lot of other things that I choose, I probably choose my heroes more
carefully than you do, Weil.

The fact that you don't consider Roosevelt a hero shows your true
colors.

FDR was also a supporter of other racist policies of the day,
including those involving African-Americans.

Eisenhower, FDR's second vice-president, and FDR's wife were IMO
the more laudable kind of liberal in this regard.

The fact that you consider Eisenhower a "liberal" shows that *you* are
pretty ignorant of conservative thought yourself.

Or more knowledgeable about Eisenhower than you are...

Hardly.

You seem to have bought into the liberal spin chuckle.

It would surely take more than a newsgroup to get you to the point where you
could manage your delusions, Weil.

That's MR. Weil to you.

Arny Krueger wrote:

It is probable that the fundamental reason why will overcome the terrorists
who wrap themselves in Islamic fundamentalism during the war on terror (or
whatever history calls the phase we are in now) will be our economic and
technical might. Our military build- up is simply a means to a specific end
given that the terrorists who wrap themselves in Islamic fundamentalism
have succumbed to a updated retread of the old world idea that military
might makes you a big player. Remember they are saying military action uber
alles, and we are still making sure there is plenty of "butter". I see the
Democratic Party as trying to return to the namby-pamby military policies of
the Clinton administration. It's easy to predict that if they take over the
White House, things will really degenerate fast and we'll see aggressive
military action by our enemies on US soil like we've never seen since the
war of 1812.

We may have had our very ugly fights about audio, Arny, but I
think that we're at a critical juncture in world history and that
this is a discussion worth having. The stakes are much higher, if
you will. So I'd like to ask you, in all seriousness, why you
think al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11. Furthermore, short of killing
every last one of them, what can we do to make sure they don't
attack us again?

I suspect our answers will be different.

Glenn Z

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 15:55:41 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

The fundamental reason why we overcame the Nazi and Fascists during WW2 was
our economic and technical might.

I guess that it was a "not incompetent" CiC, eh?