"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message

No, that's just your own ass. I have never claimed that Bush was
personally responsible for the job growth we currently have, or that
Clinton
was personally responsible for the recession that started during his
term.

Presidents do not have that power, they can only submit a budget to
Congress
which either passes it or not.

No President has ever had any personal blame or responsibility for the
economic situation.

There is no doubt things would be far worse for the economy if the tax
cuts
proposed by Bush and passed by Congress had not been passed.

No President creates or destroys jobs or has any influence on what type
of
jobs come into existence.

See Robert Samuelson's article at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Sep14.html to
get
an explanation on this.

How about telling the truth on this subject for a change?

If you're peeved about the earlier (mis?)chracterizartion of your views, I
suggest that you take it up with the person who wrote it.

I have been nothing, if not truthful. Sure, I am a biased - but I have
never
denied being so. Please point out exactly what lies I have spread about
you.
Once again, I was not the author of that post.


So it was not you who wrote this?

This article proves beyond doubt that Michael McKelvy is not the true,
classical conservative that he claims to be, but simply a partisan hack. Or
perhaps, in more erudite terms, a Republican attack dog.

I can sum it up for you. The well-known magazine American Conservative has
endorsed John Kerry for President because: "George W. Bush has come to
embody a politics that is antithetical to almost any kind of thoughtful
conservatism."

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

So it was not you who wrote this?

This article proves beyond doubt that Michael McKelvy is not the true,
classical conservative that he claims to be, but simply a partisan hack.
Or
perhaps, in more erudite terms, a Republican attack dog.

I can sum it up for you. The well-known magazine American Conservative has
endorsed John Kerry for President because: "George W. Bush has come to
embody a politics that is antithetical to almost any kind of thoughtful
conservatism."

No, that I did write. The one I didn't was the long, winding one about
Clinton, Scalia, stem-cells, etc.

The point I was making in the above post are that there are moderate
conservatives out there who do feel that the Bush administration has screwed
up some things royally.

You claim to be a moderate conservative or a libertarian, yet have issued
slap-on-the-wrist criticisms of the Bush administration on what are
currently trivial matters.

Of course I know Clinton was not solely responsible for the surplus. He was
the president at a time of a great stock market surge, which resulted in
increased capital gains receipts and hence more money flowing into the
exchequer.

However, he did appoint what are (IMO, at least) excellent people to
powerful positions - Robert Rubin to the Treasury and Joseph Stiglitz to the
Presidential Council of Economic Advisors. That is more that I can say for
the current administration.

You keep talking about tax cuts. Ever heard of David Stockman? He was the
economic 'whiz kid' who first suggested the idea to Reagan that cutting
taxes would result in greater receipts. Perhaps when you have the time you
should pick up the following book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...099001524/sr=8
-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-9661297-5163845?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

It's a trifle more intellectual than The Turner Diaries.

But that's not the point. You've made up your mind that I am a weak,
pacifist liberal who just wants to live off welfare checks paid by taxes
from the rich.

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

So it was not you who wrote this?

This article proves beyond doubt that Michael McKelvy is not the true,
classical conservative that he claims to be, but simply a partisan hack.
Or
perhaps, in more erudite terms, a Republican attack dog.

I can sum it up for you. The well-known magazine American Conservative
has
endorsed John Kerry for President because: "George W. Bush has come to
embody a politics that is antithetical to almost any kind of thoughtful
conservatism."

No, that I did write. The one I didn't was the long, winding one about
Clinton, Scalia, stem-cells, etc.

The point I was making in the above post are that there are moderate
conservatives out there who do feel that the Bush administration has
screwed
up some things royally.

You claim to be a moderate conservative or a libertarian, yet have issued
slap-on-the-wrist criticisms of the Bush administration on what are
currently trivial matters.

Because to me they handle the real important stuff well.

Of course I know Clinton was not solely responsible for the surplus. He
was
the president at a time of a great stock market surge, which resulted in
increased capital gains receipts and hence more money flowing into the
exchequer.

He was not responible for it in any way. Presidents don't have that power.



However, he did appoint what are (IMO, at least) excellent people to
powerful positions - Robert Rubin to the Treasury and Joseph Stiglitz to
the
Presidential Council of Economic Advisors.

Yes, he's guilty of that.

That is more that I can say for
the current administration.

Then you should learn more.

You keep talking about tax cuts. Ever heard of David Stockman? He was the
economic 'whiz kid' who first suggested the idea to Reagan that cutting
taxes would result in greater receipts. Perhaps when you have the time you
should pick up the following book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...099001524/sr=8
-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-9661297-5163845?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

It's a trifle more intellectual than The Turner Diaries.

You miss the point, I think all taxation by force is wrong and any tax cut
especially to the rich is good. The rich are the ones who make it possible
for the rest to make a living.


But that's not the point. You've made up your mind that I am a weak,
pacifist liberal who just wants to live off welfare checks paid by taxes
from the rich.

Putting words in my mouth? I responded to what you wrote. What you wrote
was wrong. It doesn't represent my views.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message

However, he did appoint what are (IMO, at least) excellent people to
powerful positions - Robert Rubin to the Treasury and Joseph Stiglitz to
the
Presidential Council of Economic Advisors.

Yes, he's guilty of that.

Oh, I see. So they were both under-qualified for the job, perhaps?

That is more that I can say for
the current administration.

Then you should learn more.

Please teach me.

What I am trying to ascertain is whether your hatred of liberalism is driven
by ideological fanaticism (see Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter) or by fact. I am
leaning towards the former.

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message

However, he did appoint what are (IMO, at least) excellent people to
powerful positions - Robert Rubin to the Treasury and Joseph Stiglitz
to
the
Presidential Council of Economic Advisors.

Yes, he's guilty of that.

Oh, I see. So they were both under-qualified for the job, perhaps?

They probably are qualified but having heard Rubin speak on many programs,
I'm convinced that whatever qualifications he may have are overshadowed by
his ideology.

That is more that I can say for
the current administration.

Then you should learn more.

Please teach me.

What I am trying to ascertain is whether your hatred of liberalism is
driven
by ideological fanaticism (see Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter) or by fact. I
am
leaning towards the former.

It's the fact that Liberalism means more government control. I want the
least amount of government possible. That means they only do the things
that there is a reason to have government for at all, protecting individual
rights. The only part of government that does that is the police the courts
and the military. They have no business doing anything else. Their job is
to have the means to keep citizens safe for the use of force imposed on them
against their will and to protect property.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message

However, he did appoint what are (IMO, at least) excellent people to
powerful positions - Robert Rubin to the Treasury and Joseph Stiglitz
to
the
Presidential Council of Economic Advisors.

Yes, he's guilty of that.

Oh, I see. So they were both under-qualified for the job, perhaps?

They probably are qualified but having heard Rubin speak on many programs,
I'm convinced that whatever qualifications he may have are overshadowed by
his ideology.

That is more that I can say for
the current administration.

Then you should learn more.

Please teach me.

What I am trying to ascertain is whether your hatred of liberalism is
driven
by ideological fanaticism (see Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter) or by fact. I
am
leaning towards the former.

It's the fact that Liberalism means more government control. I want the
least amount of government possible. That means they only do the things
that there is a reason to have government for at all, protecting
individual
rights. The only part of government that does that is the police the
courts
and the military. They have no business doing anything else. Their job
is
to have the means to keep citizens safe for the use of force imposed on
them
against their will and to protect property.

I am a proponent of small government and less government interference in our
lives. I find it ironic that you defend President Bush and are completely
oblivious to the fact that the government is now larger and more bloated
than it ever was under any Democrat administration.

Furthermore, how do you reconcile your desire of 'protecting individual
rights' with the opinion by conservatives (extreme opinion, I will concede)
that the police should monitor what goes on in the privacy of a person's
bedroom?

Excuse me if I find those two contradictory positions untenable and reeking
of hypocrisy.

Actually, please tell me exactly what you do think of Scalia and Thomas's
dissent on the whole sodomy issue.

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message

However, he did appoint what are (IMO, at least) excellent people to
powerful positions - Robert Rubin to the Treasury and Joseph
Stiglitz
to
the
Presidential Council of Economic Advisors.

Yes, he's guilty of that.

Oh, I see. So they were both under-qualified for the job, perhaps?

They probably are qualified but having heard Rubin speak on many
programs,
I'm convinced that whatever qualifications he may have are overshadowed
by
his ideology.

That is more that I can say for
the current administration.

Then you should learn more.

Please teach me.

What I am trying to ascertain is whether your hatred of liberalism is
driven
by ideological fanaticism (see Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter) or by fact.
I
am
leaning towards the former.

It's the fact that Liberalism means more government control. I want the
least amount of government possible. That means they only do the things
that there is a reason to have government for at all, protecting
individual
rights. The only part of government that does that is the police the
courts
and the military. They have no business doing anything else. Their job
is
to have the means to keep citizens safe for the use of force imposed on
them
against their will and to protect property.

I am a proponent of small government and less government interference in
our
lives. I find it ironic that you defend President Bush and are completely
oblivious to the fact that the government is now larger and more bloated
than it ever was under any Democrat administration.


Spin and spin again. The government get bigger and more bloated every year
no matter who is in charge. That's why I don't vote Republican either.

It is however, a matter of record that teh bloat really took off when
Democrats controlled both houses.

Furthermore, how do you reconcile your desire of 'protecting individual
rights' with the opinion by conservatives (extreme opinion, I will
concede)
that the police should monitor what goes on in the privacy of a person's
bedroom?

I don't, never have. Are you actually paying attention?

Excuse me if I find those two contradictory positions untenable and
reeking
of hypocrisy.


Find whatever you like, you don't appear to be abble to deal to well with
reality or you wouldn't think Kerry is the answer to anything.

Actually, please tell me exactly what you do think of Scalia and Thomas's
dissent on the whole sodomy issue.

I think the government has no business telling anyone who they can ****, who
they can marry, or who they do anything they consent to. I think their
dissent is based a lot on the fear of what kind of can of worms they feel
will be opened if the government sees things my way.

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

But that's not the point. You've made up your mind that I am a weak,
pacifist liberal who just wants to live off welfare checks paid by taxes
from the rich.

I have no such view of you and could care less what you do. I responded to
what you wrote. You also seem to want to portray me as a member of the
Christian Right. Why? I have stated on many occasions that I am an
atheist.

So far it seems that what I think about you is correct, namely that you
don't think clearly and are unconcerned with the truth. Unfortunately this
makes you an average Liberal.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

But that's not the point. You've made up your mind that I am a weak,
pacifist liberal who just wants to live off welfare checks paid by taxes
from the rich.

I have no such view of you and could care less what you do. I responded
to
what you wrote. You also seem to want to portray me as a member of the
Christian Right. Why? I have stated on many occasions that I am an
atheist.

On the contrary in my opinion your religious inclinations are among your
(few) gratifying attributes. In that regard even I don't consider myself an
atheist (I prefer agnostic) even though I see that the church (Christian,
Judeo, Hindu, Muslim alike) as an inherently a corrupt institution that
creates more divisions than it destroys. I have seen this both in my own
country (India) and here.

So far it seems that what I think about you is correct, namely that you
don't think clearly and are unconcerned with the truth. Unfortunately
this
makes you an average Liberal.

I vociferously disagree. I do think I have a good command of the facts.
Perhaps you just disagree with my interpretations which is fair.

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

But that's not the point. You've made up your mind that I am a weak,
pacifist liberal who just wants to live off welfare checks paid by
taxes
from the rich.

I have no such view of you and could care less what you do. I responded
to
what you wrote. You also seem to want to portray me as a member of the
Christian Right. Why? I have stated on many occasions that I am an
atheist.

On the contrary in my opinion your religious inclinations are among your
(few) gratifying attributes. In that regard even I don't consider myself
an
atheist (I prefer agnostic)

The most cowardly positioin one can take.

even though I see that the church (Christian,
Judeo, Hindu, Muslim alike) as an inherently a corrupt institution that
creates more divisions than it destroys. I have seen this both in my own
country (India) and here.

So far it seems that what I think about you is correct, namely that you
don't think clearly and are unconcerned with the truth. Unfortunately
this
makes you an average Liberal.

I vociferously disagree. I do think I have a good command of the facts.
Perhaps you just disagree with my interpretations which is fair.

I think it more than fair. After 40 years of Liberalism here we have
nothing to show for it except a bloated wasteful government. It should tell
you something that none of the Liberal "accomplishments" have ever been
voted on, they have all come about through Judicial activism. California is
a great example, we have a gang of aging hippies who have ****ed up the
state with overspending who still want more. they answer to nobody and have
set the system up so that it's virtually impossible to get rid of them.
When any of their bull**** views are actually given a chance to be voted on,
they nearly always lose.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

California is a great example, we have a gang of aging hippies who have
****ed up the
state with overspending who still want more. they answer to nobody and
have
set the system up so that it's virtually impossible to get rid of them.
When any of their bull**** views are actually given a chance to be voted
on,
they nearly always lose.

Such as?

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message ...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

California is a great example, we have a gang of aging hippies who have
****ed up the
state with overspending who still want more. they answer to nobody and
have
set the system up so that it's virtually impossible to get rid of them.
When any of their bull**** views are actually given a chance to be voted
on,
they nearly always lose.

Such as?

Drivers license for illegals and reinstatement of the car tax.

Ca. legislature is one F'd up establishment and the agreement between
the parties to leave hands off certain districts, in effect
gerrymandering, is the most blatan corruption of the democratic
process in the country.

The recall of David Dryer pushed by John & Ken of KFI is a prime
example. Here we have a republican candidate who faces strong public
opposition and the democrats still won't funnel any money to his
democratic opposition candidate. Why? Because they have an agreement
to leave that district to the Republicans.
Its criminal and I'd like to see the justice department conduct an
investigation and make some high profile arrests of responsible party
leaders on both sides.

ScottW

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

California is a great example, we have a gang of aging hippies who have
****ed up the
state with overspending who still want more. they answer to nobody and
have
set the system up so that it's virtually impossible to get rid of them.
When any of their bull**** views are actually given a chance to be voted
on,
they nearly always lose.

Such as?

Prop. 13
3 Strikes
Prop 187

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

So it was not you who wrote this?

This article proves beyond doubt that Michael McKelvy is not the true,
classical conservative that he claims to be, but simply a partisan hack.
Or
perhaps, in more erudite terms, a Republican attack dog.

I can sum it up for you. The well-known magazine American Conservative
has
endorsed John Kerry for President because: "George W. Bush has come to
embody a politics that is antithetical to almost any kind of thoughtful
conservatism."

No, that I did write. The one I didn't was the long, winding one about
Clinton, Scalia, stem-cells, etc.

The point I was making in the above post are that there are moderate
conservatives out there who do feel that the Bush administration has
screwed
up some things royally.

You claim to be a moderate conservative or a libertarian, yet have issued
slap-on-the-wrist criticisms of the Bush administration on what are
currently trivial matters.

Of course I know Clinton was not solely responsible for the surplus. He
was
the president at a time of a great stock market surge, which resulted in
increased capital gains receipts and hence more money flowing into the
exchequer.

However, he did appoint what are (IMO, at least) excellent people to
powerful positions - Robert Rubin to the Treasury and Joseph Stiglitz to
the
Presidential Council of Economic Advisors. That is more that I can say for
the current administration.

I must amend my comments on Robert Rubin, he is not who I was thinking of
when I said I had heard him speak and was not impressed, I was thinking of
Paul Begala.

Rubin has some high points, ( the Mexico Bailout) and a really low
one(trying to pull strings on behalf of ENRON when oddly enough they got
none from the Bush folks).