May I just call you 'nob'? The 'y' is somewhat meddlesome for me to
type.

I promise not to tell anyone else that it's actually short for
'doorknob.'

TIA...

Shhhh! said to duh-Mikey:

May I just call you 'nob'? The 'y' is somewhat meddlesome for me to
type.

Wouldn't "yob" be more appropriate? I believe that's a already an apt
slang term for the likes of Mickey in some parts of the world.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
May I just call you 'nob'? The 'y' is somewhat meddlesome for me to
type.

I promise not to tell anyone else that it's actually short for
'doorknob.'

TIA...

So you really are a Liberal. That's the trademark Liberal tactic, try to
win the argument by riduculing the person making it. Never mind that the
argument may have merit, criticize the person making it and you think you
have won something.

To quote you, "Shameful. Simply shameful."

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Shhhh! said to duh-Mikey:

May I just call you 'nob'? The 'y' is somewhat meddlesome for me to
type.

Wouldn't "yob" be more appropriate? I believe that's a already an apt
slang term for the likes of Mickey in some parts of the world.


Much like irrelevant is in all parts of the world for the likes of you
George.

From:
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 20:48:57 GMT

May I just call you 'nob'? The 'y' is somewhat meddlesome for me to
type.

I promise not to tell anyone else that it's actually short for
'doorknob.'

So you really are a Liberal. That's the trademark Liberal tactic, try to
win the argument by riduculing the person making it. Never mind that the
argument may have merit, criticize the person making it and you think you
have won something.

"Well, there you go again."

Hm. Those 'liberals' attacked Max Clelland of Georgia and questioned
his patriotism AFTER HE LOST THREE LIMBS IN VIETNAM.

Then the 'liberals' questioned the military record of a decorated war
veteran 30 years after the fact and 'reinterpreted' his officer
evaluations. Those same 'liberals' had never served, or ducked out. In
fact, the second in command of the liberals had five military
deferments.

Those damned liberals! That damned liberal Karl Rove!

To quote you, "Shameful. Simply shameful."

Get your facts straight. Then you'll stop being a doorknob. If your
arguments had any merit whatsoever, more than 2% (and that percentage
has actually shrunk) of the marketplace of voters would agree with your
ideas. That it doesn't hoists you on your own petard.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
From:
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 20:48:57 GMT

May I just call you 'nob'? The 'y' is somewhat meddlesome for me to
type.

I promise not to tell anyone else that it's actually short for
'doorknob.'

So you really are a Liberal. That's the trademark Liberal tactic, try to
win the argument by riduculing the person making it. Never mind that the
argument may have merit, criticize the person making it and you think you
have won something.

"Well, there you go again."

Hm. Those 'liberals' attacked Max Clelland of Georgia and questioned
his patriotism AFTER HE LOST THREE LIMBS IN VIETNAM.

Because he was drinking the Democrat Kool Aid.

Then the 'liberals' questioned the military record of a decorated war
veteran 30 years after the fact and 'reinterpreted' his officer
evaluations.

You mean the former candidate for president, Herman Munster?
There seem to have been legitimate questions raised about his credibilty.

Those same 'liberals' had never served, or ducked out.

Irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of the claims.

In
fact, the second in command of the liberals had five military
deferments.

And?

Those damned liberals! That damned liberal Karl Rove!

To quote you, "Shameful. Simply shameful."

Get your facts straight. Then you'll stop being a doorknob. If your
arguments had any merit whatsoever, more than 2% (and that percentage
has actually shrunk) of the marketplace of voters would agree with your
ideas. That it doesn't hoists you on your own petard.

Again irrelevant. Poularity of an idea is not what legitmizes it.

wrote:

Again irrelevant. Poularity of an idea is not what legitmizes it.

Now there's a truth !

Now try telling that to most of today's politicians.

Graham

From:
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 07:10:14 GMT

Hm. Those 'liberals' attacked Max Clelland of Georgia and questioned
his patriotism AFTER HE LOST THREE LIMBS IN VIETNAM.

Because he was drinking the Democrat Kool Aid.

Are you referring to Ann Coulter's implication that he lost his limbs
in a beer drinking accident? Or the ads the Republicans ran comparing
him to Osama bin Laden?

Or did the marketplace simply disagree with his political positions
after being offered complete information and making an informed
decision?

Then the 'liberals' questioned the military record of a decorated war
veteran 30 years after the fact and 'reinterpreted' his officer
evaluations.

You mean the former candidate for president, Herman Munster?
There seem to have been legitimate questions raised about his credibilty.

Hm. OK, so the military and his entire chain of command covered things
up so that they could suddenly attack him (coincidentally) during a
presidential election. There was no connection that (coincidentally) a
lawyer from the Bush campaign was on the board at the Swift Boats
group.

Whatever. That's over, but this does show much about your powers of
seeing things clearly.

Get your facts straight. Then you'll stop being a doorknob. If your
arguments had any merit whatsoever, more than 2% (and that percentage
has actually shrunk) of the marketplace of voters would agree with your
ideas. That it doesn't hoists you on your own petard.

Again irrelevant. Poularity of an idea is not what legitmizes it.

Not at all what I meant. I do not really care whether your ideas are
perceived as legitimate or not. You argue that the marketplace will
cure all woes, and that all good things come from the marketplace. We
don't need any kind of laws protecting classes of people historically
discriminated against, for example, because the marketplace will sense
what is best for them and will not allow things like that to occur. The
marketplace, according to your arguments, is basically a
self-correcting system.

If I accept that position, it follows that the same marketplace in
which you place so much faith will sense what is best for it and
naturally head in that direction. Percentages in elections would
therefore be on an upward trend. Since the percentage of the
marketplace that believes that libertarianism is best for it appears to
be actually shrinking, based on vote tallies, and has never exceeded a
negligible percentage anyway, one can therefore conclude, using your
own arguments, that the marketplace has rejected that set of ideas as
not best for it. Hence you are 'hoisted on your own petard.' So it is
very relevent indeed.

While your ideas may or may not indeed be legitimate, it would seem the
marketplace has decided they are not, for whatever reasons. i have
decided that way because it appears to me that your position is racism
lite.

Of course, if you are claiming to know more than everybody else, and
that your ideas are legitimate and correct in the face of what the
marketplace is calling for, and that the marketplace is therefore
incorrect, then you are running exactly counter to what you are arguing
for.

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

wrote:

Again irrelevant. Poularity of an idea is not what legitmizes it.

Now there's a truth !

Now try telling that to most of today's politicians.

Graham

Pointless. The 2 main political parties are polarized and have lost their
former idealism.
JFK wouldn't be allowed into the Democrats today and neither would Lincoln
be allowed n the GOP.

The Left which used to stand for the common man in terms of civil rights has
now turned on them and appears to want to keep them helpless and dependent.
Their primary focus now seems to be smearing the Republicans because they
thinkn it will help them get back their power.

The right which used to stand for lessening the influence of government on
people, now wants to be in the bedrooms and forcing women to have children.

Neither really stands for individual rights in any sensible way.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From:
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 07:10:14 GMT

Hm. Those 'liberals' attacked Max Clelland of Georgia and questioned
his patriotism AFTER HE LOST THREE LIMBS IN VIETNAM.

Because he was drinking the Democrat Kool Aid.

Are you referring to Ann Coulter's implication that he lost his limbs
in a beer drinking accident?

No, but I do think it's no worse than some of the ads that have been run by
the Dems in the past.

Or the ads the Republicans ran comparing
him to Osama bin Laden?

It never happened. The ad noted at its beginning that the United States
faced threats to its security and the screen was briefly divided into four
squares, with bin Laden and Saddam in two of them and the other two filled
with images of the American military. I've seen the ad. Is it now
forbidden to challenge any Senator on his voting record and the 11 no votes
he cast regarding Homeland Security, simply because he is an amputee?


Or did the marketplace simply disagree with his political positions
after being offered complete information and making an informed
decision?

Then the 'liberals' questioned the military record of a decorated war
veteran 30 years after the fact and 'reinterpreted' his officer
evaluations.

You mean the former candidate for president, Herman Munster?
There seem to have been legitimate questions raised about his credibilty.

Hm. OK, so the military and his entire chain of command covered things
up so that they could suddenly attack him (coincidentally) during a
presidential election.
There was no connection that (coincidentally) a
lawyer from the Bush campaign was on the board at the Swift Boats
group.


Does that change the fact that Kerry wrote a book saying he was one place
when his own diary said he was somewhere else? Am I supposed to feel good
about a guy who has a place of honor in Norht Viet Nam?

Whatever. That's over, but this does show much about your powers of
seeing things clearly.


And yours. You pulled out the bull**** about Cleland.

Get your facts straight. Then you'll stop being a doorknob.

I do have the facts straight and I don't need name calling to present them.

If your
arguments had any merit whatsoever, more than 2% (and that percentage
has actually shrunk) of the marketplace of voters would agree with your
ideas. That it doesn't hoists you on your own petard.

Again irrelevant. Popularity of an idea is not what legitmizes it.

Not at all what I meant.

I don't believe you.

I do not really care whether your ideas are
perceived as legitimate or not. You argue that the marketplace will
cure all woes, and that all good things come from the marketplace.

Now you are lying again, I never said any such thing.

We
don't need any kind of laws protecting classes of people historically
discriminated against, for example, because the marketplace will sense
what is best for them and will not allow things like that to occur.

Yet another lie. I have no problem with the legitimate rights of people
being protected by law, that's what law is for. The idea that former
victimhood entitles a gorup to special treatement in perpetutity however is
wrong. The notion that you serve the cause of freedom and civil rights by
destroying property rights in also wrong.

The
marketplace, according to your arguments, is basically a
self-correcting system.


In some respects, yes.

If I accept that position, it follows that the same marketplace in
which you place so much faith will sense what is best for it and
naturally head in that direction.

It only reacts to what people want and how best to get them what they want.
In the case of Plesy vs. Ferguson there was a role played by the
marketplace, I have not said that the market should be the sole vehicle for
change or even that it the most promenent one. Just like the Cleleand ad
you are distorting what I said in order to trry and win an arguement.

Percentages in elections would
therefore be on an upward trend. Since the percentage of the
marketplace that believes that libertarianism is best for it appears to
be actually shrinking, based on vote tallies, and has never exceeded a
negligible percentage anyway, one can therefore conclude, using your
own arguments, that the marketplace has rejected that set of ideas as
not best for it. Hence you are 'hoisted on your own petard.' So it is
very relevent indeed.

Still wrong, still not relevant. How many votes do you think the Bill of
Rights would get today?
If it weren't already law, it would not pass.


While your ideas may or may not indeed be legitimate, it would seem the
marketplace has decided they are not, for whatever reasons.

Your use of the word marketplace in this context is not legitmate.


i have
decided that way because it appears to me that your position is racism
lite.

Which is also wrong and I have explained my view of racism counteless times.
Any notion that determines a person worth on anything other than his
character and values is moronic and evil.
That does not mean that you may then go ahead and destroy the concept of
private property by calling a business "public."


Of course, if you are claiming to know more than everybody else, and
that your ideas are legitimate and correct in the face of what the
marketplace is calling for, and that the marketplace is therefore
incorrect, then you are running exactly counter to what you are arguing
for.

I'm claiming only that political thought ought not to be full of
contradictions.

Or lies like the one about Cleland that you told.

wrote in message
.net...

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

wrote:

Again irrelevant. Poularity of an idea is not what legitmizes it.

Now there's a truth !

Now try telling that to most of today's politicians.

Graham

Pointless. The 2 main political parties are polarized and have lost their
former idealism.
JFK wouldn't be allowed into the Democrats today and neither would Lincoln
be allowed n the GOP.

The Left which used to stand for the common man in terms of civil rights
has now turned on them and appears to want to keep them helpless and
dependent. Their primary focus now seems to be smearing the Republicans
because they thinkn it will help them get back their power.

The right which used to stand for lessening the influence of government on
people, now wants to be in the bedrooms and forcing women to have
children.

Neither really stands for individual rights in any sensible way.




--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

wrote in message
.net...


Their primary focus now seems to be smearing the Republicans because they
thinkn it will help them get back their power.


Boy, are they ever wrong.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

From:
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 18:33:51 GMT

Or the ads the Republicans ran comparing
him to Osama bin Laden?

It never happened. The ad noted at its beginning that the United States
faced threats to its security and the screen was briefly divided into four
squares, with bin Laden and Saddam in two of them and the other two filled
with images of the American military. I've seen the ad. Is it now
forbidden to challenge any Senator on his voting record and the 11 no votes
he cast regarding Homeland Security, simply because he is an amputee?

I'll grant you that the ad did not compare Cleland to bin Laden. I was
mistaken. I went and rechecked. The lie was actually that Cleland was
'soft' on homeland security. That he voted against the homeland
security bill is fact. But one has to dig deeper (if one is not stuck
in your 'black or white' world, that is) and analyze as to why one
might do that. Have you checked his reasoning?

You are arguing, if this is your line of thought regarding Cleland,
that the senators (both Democrat and Republican) who recently voted
against, or threatened to filibuster, the defense spending bill just
before the recess, are all therefore against supporting the soldiers in
the field or are anti-military or are equally 'soft' on homeland
security. After all, it is black or white that they were for or against
the bill as written. "Senator X voted against the defense spending
bill!"

This disregards that what the senators were actually against was the
backhanded way that Sen. Stevens of Alaska tied (yet again, after it
had been voted down several times this year) oil drilling in the ANWR
to the defense bill. That was what they objected to. After it was
removed, I believe the bill passed without a hitch.

So I suggest that, if you want to be honest and not a Republican shill,
that you check your facts again, as I did. Do you really wish to say
that Cleland is 'soft' on homeland security, or was there perhaps
another reason he was against the bill as written?

And let's also remember that it took the Republicans quite some time
(three years?) to even bring a homeland security bill to the floor.

There was no connection that (coincidentally) a
lawyer from the Bush campaign was on the board at the Swift Boats
group.

Does that change the fact that Kerry wrote a book saying he was one place
when his own diary said he was somewhere else? Am I supposed to feel good
about a guy who has a place of honor in Norht Viet Nam?

Does that change the fact that the officers who wrote Kerry's
commendations were now changing their story? I'd say that 30 years
later the official record was the one that mattered. Otherwise everyone
involved, including the Department of Defense, was involved in a
conspiracy.

Soldiers serve where they are ordered to serve. You should feel no
better or worse about Kerry's service in North Vietnam than you do
about anybody else's service in Afghanistan or Iraq or Wichita or New
York. If they go where they are ordered and serve well, they have done
their job. Period.

don't need any kind of laws protecting classes of people historically
discriminated against, for example, because the marketplace will sense
what is best for them and will not allow things like that to occur.

Yet another lie. I have no problem with the legitimate rights of people
being protected by law, that's what law is for. The idea that former
victimhood entitles a gorup to special treatement in perpetutity however is
wrong. The notion that you serve the cause of freedom and civil rights by
destroying property rights in also wrong.

Who's lying now? I have never said 'in perpetuity.' I do believe,
however, that after over 200 years of institutionalized discrimination
that the 40 years or so since the Civil Rights Act may not be enough.
You appear to want to just say "Whoops! Our bad!" and disregard the
massive negative effects of over 200 years. If you look around, there
is still a very long way to go. And the argument that private property
rights take priority over all others, IMO, is simply a recipe to take
several steps backward. And I believe we are currently taking many,
many steps backward.

Don't believe me? How many blacks are in the upper levels of the
current administration? How many hispanics? Asians? Women? How about at
leading corporations? How about in leadership roles at the DNC or RNC?

If I accept that position, it follows that the same marketplace in
which you place so much faith will sense what is best for it and
naturally head in that direction.

It only reacts to what people want and how best to get them what they want.
In the case of Plesy vs. Ferguson there was a role played by the
marketplace, I have not said that the market should be the sole vehicle for
change or even that it the most promenent one. Just like the Cleleand ad
you are distorting what I said in order to trry and win an arguement.

You keep bringing up Plessey v. Ferguson. You state the marketplace
played a role in bringing the trial to court. What role was that? I see
no evidence that the railroad, or its customers, or the citizens of
Louisiana, sided with Plessey in this case. Did they? How was Plessey
caught and arrested in the first place? Did the railroad have anything
to do with that? And you state that it was the government who made the
bad law to begin with. Would that perhaps be similar to the bans on gay
marriages currently going on at the state level? Or did a state
legislature just make it all up and put it into law, and the Supreme
Court upheld it, against the wishes of a majority of its citizens?

And how is the end result any different from what one might expect if
your private property views are made the norm? A railroad in Louisiana
could post a 'no blacks allowed' sign at the ticket office, or a
'Blacks are only allowed in black cars' on the train. A black man
traveling on the train and entering the whites only car would be
arrested, jailed, and fined for trespassing. The Supreme Court would
uphold that right, if they followed your views on private property. So
what exactly is your point here? How is this different from what you
argue for?

And again, I admit to being mistaken the exact details how the
Republicans conjured up a lie on Cleland. But that they did lie is
fact.

While your ideas may or may not indeed be legitimate, it would seem the
marketplace has decided they are not, for whatever reasons.

Your use of the word marketplace in this context is not legitmate.

So there is no 'marketplace of ideas?' There is only one marketplace,
and that is commerce, with money exchanging hands, according to you.
Bzzzzzt! Sorry, but your answer is not quite correct. Your ideas, in
the marketplace of ideas, are going bankrupt. That is a very legitimate
usage.

I have decided that way because it appears to me that your position is racism
lite.

Which is also wrong and I have explained my view of racism counteless times.
Any notion that determines a person worth on anything other than his
character and values is moronic and evil.
That does not mean that you may then go ahead and destroy the concept of
private property by calling a business "public."

See above. I understand your personal views on racism perfectly and I
commend you for them. But what you argue for will not give you what you
believe in, IMO. That's because I also believe that an action has
second, third, and fourth order effects. In your black and white world
there is no need to consider them. Cleland voted against the homeland
security bill, therefore he is weak on terrorism (or homeland security,
or he will put the nation at risk, or whatever). End of subject. In my
grey world, I like to look beyond what the spin doctors say. He may
have had, and indeed did have, other reasons for his vote, just like
the Senators who voted down the defense spending bill did a couple of
weeks ago.

I'm claiming only that political thought ought not to be full of
contradictions.

Political thought is a part of life. Life is always full of
contradictions. Therefore, as long as political thought is a part of
life it will always have contradictions. The form of argument is valid.
Which of these premises can be considered untrue?

Maybe it ought not to be that way. But it is and always will be.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From:
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 18:33:51 GMT

Or the ads the Republicans ran comparing
him to Osama bin Laden?

It never happened. The ad noted at its beginning that the United States
faced threats to its security and the screen was briefly divided into four
squares, with bin Laden and Saddam in two of them and the other two filled
with images of the American military. I've seen the ad. Is it now
forbidden to challenge any Senator on his voting record and the 11 no
votes
he cast regarding Homeland Security, simply because he is an amputee?

I'll grant you that the ad did not compare Cleland to bin Laden. I was
mistaken. I went and rechecked. The lie was actually that Cleland was
'soft' on homeland security. That he voted against the homeland
security bill is fact. But one has to dig deeper (if one is not stuck
in your 'black or white' world, that is) and analyze as to why one
might do that. Have you checked his reasoning?

That it wasn't full of enough opportunities for Unions?


You are arguing, if this is your line of thought regarding Cleland,
that the senators (both Democrat and Republican) who recently voted
against, or threatened to filibuster, the defense spending bill just
before the recess, are all therefore against supporting the soldiers in
the field or are anti-military or are equally 'soft' on homeland
security. After all, it is black or white that they were for or against
the bill as written. "Senator X voted against the defense spending
bill!"

This disregards that what the senators were actually against was the
backhanded way that Sen. Stevens of Alaska tied (yet again, after it
had been voted down several times this year) oil drilling in the ANWR
to the defense bill. That was what they objected to. After it was
removed, I believe the bill passed without a hitch.


The problem for me is that even with the ANWR drilling it should have sailed
through. The fact that we're arguing about drilling for oil in the
wilderness, at this time in history, is pretty sad.

So I suggest that, if you want to be honest and not a Republican shill,
that you check your facts again, as I did. Do you really wish to say
that Cleland is 'soft' on homeland security, or was there perhaps
another reason he was against the bill as written?

AFAIK what he's soft on is the balls to not be another Kool Aid drinking
Liberal and actually vote for what's right instead of what is good for the
party.


And let's also remember that it took the Republicans quite some time
(three years?) to even bring a homeland security bill to the floor.

There was no connection that (coincidentally) a
lawyer from the Bush campaign was on the board at the Swift Boats
group.

Irrelevant.

Does that change the fact that Kerry wrote a book saying he was one place
when his own diary said he was somewhere else? Am I supposed to feel good
about a guy who has a place of honor in Norht Viet Nam?

Does that change the fact that the officers who wrote Kerry's
commendations were now changing their story? I'd say that 30 years
later the official record was the one that mattered. Otherwise everyone
involved, including the Department of Defense, was involved in a
conspiracy.

Soldiers serve where they are ordered to serve. You should feel no
better or worse about Kerry's service in North Vietnam than you do
about anybody else's service in Afghanistan or Iraq or Wichita or New
York. If they go where they are ordered and serve well, they have done
their job. Period.

don't need any kind of laws protecting classes of people historically
discriminated against, for example, because the marketplace will sense
what is best for them and will not allow things like that to occur.

Yet another lie. I have no problem with the legitimate rights of people
being protected by law, that's what law is for. The idea that former
victimhood entitles a gorup to special treatement in perpetutity however
is
wrong. The notion that you serve the cause of freedom and civil rights by
destroying property rights in also wrong.

Who's lying now? I have never said 'in perpetuity.' I do believe,
however, that after over 200 years of institutionalized discrimination
that the 40 years or so since the Civil Rights Act may not be enough.
You appear to want to just say "Whoops! Our bad!" and disregard the
massive negative effects of over 200 years. If you look around, there
is still a very long way to go. And the argument that private property
rights take priority over all others, IMO, is simply a recipe to take
several steps backward. And I believe we are currently taking many,
many steps backward.

Don't believe me? How many blacks are in the upper levels of the
current administration? How many hispanics? Asians? Women? How about at
leading corporations? How about in leadership roles at the DNC or RNC?

If I accept that position, it follows that the same marketplace in
which you place so much faith will sense what is best for it and
naturally head in that direction.

It only reacts to what people want and how best to get them what they
want.
In the case of Plesy vs. Ferguson there was a role played by the
marketplace, I have not said that the market should be the sole vehicle
for
change or even that it the most promenent one. Just like the Cleleand ad
you are distorting what I said in order to trry and win an arguement.

You keep bringing up Plessey v. Ferguson. You state the marketplace
played a role in bringing the trial to court. What role was that? I see
no evidence that the railroad, or its customers, or the citizens of
Louisiana, sided with Plessey in this case.

Idon't beleive the railroads were in favor of segregation.

Did they? How was Plessey
caught and arrested in the first place? Did the railroad have anything
to do with that? And you state that it was the government who made the
bad law to begin with. Would that perhaps be similar to the bans on gay
marriages currently going on at the state level?

You might want to do check and find my position on gay marriage.

Or did a state
legislature just make it all up and put it into law, and the Supreme
Court upheld it, against the wishes of a majority of its citizens?


The courts don't care about that kind of majority.

And how is the end result any different from what one might expect if
your private property views are made the norm? A railroad in Louisiana
could post a 'no blacks allowed' sign at the ticket office, or a
'Blacks are only allowed in black cars' on the train.

But why would they shut out such a significant portion of customer base?
Railroads are or were in business to make money.

A black man
traveling on the train and entering the whites only car would be
arrested, jailed, and fined for trespassing. The Supreme Court would
uphold that right, if they followed your views on private property. So
what exactly is your point here? How is this different from what you
argue for?

They could. There could also be a balck owned railroad that allowed whites
to travel also as long as they rode in non-segregated cars. Of course that
would have never happened because government taxed the railroad of of
existence.

And again, I admit to being mistaken the exact details how the
Republicans conjured up a lie on Cleland. But that they did lie is
fact.

While your ideas may or may not indeed be legitimate, it would seem the
marketplace has decided they are not, for whatever reasons.

Your use of the word marketplace in this context is not legitmate.

So there is no 'marketplace of ideas?' There is only one marketplace,
and that is commerce, with money exchanging hands, according to you.
Bzzzzzt! Sorry, but your answer is not quite correct. Your ideas, in
the marketplace of ideas, are going bankrupt. That is a very legitimate
usage.

I have decided that way because it appears to me that your position is
racism
lite.

Which is also wrong and I have explained my view of racism counteless
times.
Any notion that determines a person worth on anything other than his
character and values is moronic and evil.
That does not mean that you may then go ahead and destroy the concept of
private property by calling a business "public."

See above. I understand your personal views on racism perfectly and I
commend you for them. But what you argue for will not give you what you
believe in, IMO. That's because I also believe that an action has
second, third, and fourth order effects. In your black and white world
there is no need to consider them. Cleland voted against the homeland
security bill, therefore he is weak on terrorism (or homeland security,
or he will put the nation at risk, or whatever).

He voted against it because he didn't think it ave the Unions enough.
He voted for the Federalization of the Airline Baggage Inspectors.
His priorities do not seem to be protecting the country quite so much as
they do protecting the people who send him money.


End of subject. In my
grey world, I like to look beyond what the spin doctors say. He may
have had, and indeed did have, other reasons for his vote, just like
the Senators who voted down the defense spending bill did a couple of
weeks ago.

I'm claiming only that political thought ought not to be full of
contradictions.

Political thought is a part of life. Life is always full of
contradictions. Therefore, as long as political thought is a part of
life it will always have contradictions. The form of argument is valid.
Which of these premises can be considered untrue?

Maybe it ought not to be that way. But it is and always will be.

The problem is that it is full of contradictions and nobody cares.
It's the contradictions that make the black and white seem gray.

From:
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 21:50:20 GMT

But one has to dig deeper (if one is not stuck
in your 'black or white' world, that is) and analyze as to why one
might do that. Have you checked his reasoning?

That it wasn't full of enough opportunities for Unions?

How about that Bush was trying to deny the employees of the new
Department of Homeland Security the ability to join a union? Whether or
not you agree with unions is not relevant. I happen to agree that new
employees should have the same benefit as any other employee.

The point is that the Republicans twisted a 'fact' and turned it
into a 'lie.'

This disregards that what the senators were actually against was the
backhanded way that Sen. Stevens of Alaska tied (yet again, after it
had been voted down several times this year) oil drilling in the ANWR
to the defense bill. That was what they objected to. After it was
removed, I believe the bill passed without a hitch.

The problem for me is that even with the ANWR drilling it should have sailed
through. The fact that we're arguing about drilling for oil in the
wilderness, at this time in history, is pretty sad.

Why? Because 'big oil' won't get the benefit?

Drilling in the ANWR will reduce our foreign oil dependence (in 10
years or so, when production would be available) by about 1% based on
today's consumption levels. Why not advocate E85, which will net an
immediate 70-80% reduction the moment the car is sold, use renewable
sources, burn cleaner, cost less (increasing available money for other
areas of the economy), reduce the need for farm subsidies, and give a
15-20% increase in horsepower?

And the next time someone wants to hold a bill hostage, let's make
the legislation to impeach Bush, remove the criminal tax breaks, and
fine the libertarian party $1,000,000,000 for lunacy and idiocy. Smart
liberals do not want legislation held hostage by special interests.
Judging from the fact that several conservatives were also against
this, it would appear that smart conservatives are against it too.

Such narrow and short-sighted thinking is one of the main problems with
conservatives, IMO.

So I suggest that, if you want to be honest and not a Republican shill,
that you check your facts again, as I did. Do you really wish to say
that Cleland is 'soft' on homeland security, or was there perhaps
another reason he was against the bill as written?

AFAIK what he's soft on is the balls to not be another Kool Aid drinking
Liberal and actually vote for what's right instead of what is good for the
party.

Uh-oh. A grey area. Cleland did what he thought was right for the
employees. So he DID vote for what he thought was right. That his
priorities and definition of right differs from your priorities and
definition of right do not make his priorities or definition wrong, or
yours right.

Keep in mind that bills are voted down for one reason or another, then
get reworked, and then pass all the time. Look at the defense spending
bill we've been discussing for an example.

And let's also remember that it took the Republicans quite some time
(three years?) to even bring a homeland security bill to the floor.

Irrelevant.

Not at all. Your argument is that the "Kool-Aid drinking liberals"
don't have the "balls" to vote for "what's right" and are,
therefore, more concerned with protecting their supporters than
protecting the country. This line of thought clearly indicates that in
your mind the conservatives are much better about protecting the
country and having the "balls" to do what's right.

I counter with the fact that the conservatives took their time in
introducing legislation forming Homeland Security (by the way, do you
know who first proposed that idea? Bill Clinton). Further, as I'm
sure you know, according to the 9/11 commission the Bush administration
rates a "D" for stepping up security measures since 9/11. Maybe
Bush needs more "balls." He doesn't seem too interested in truly
stepping up security.

It's very relevant. That you dismiss this as "irrelevant" shows
somewhat weak reasoning skills.

You keep bringing up Plessey v. Ferguson. You state the marketplace
played a role in bringing the trial to court. What role was that? I see
no evidence that the railroad, or its customers, or the citizens of
Louisiana, sided with Plessey in this case.

Idon't beleive the railroads were in favor of segregation.

Do you have any evidence? Did the railroad side with Plessy? Regardless
of what you believe, isn't it true the railroad was responsible for
arresting Plessy and bringing charges against him?

Would that perhaps be similar to the bans on gay
marriages currently going on at the state level?

You might want to do check and find my position on gay marriage.

I did a search with your email for "gay" "gay marriage" and
"homosexual" and found nothing.

I would guess that, based on your arguments, you support gay marriage.
It doesn't effect you or anybody other than those seeking to be
married. I would also guess that you support abortion for the same
reason.

Or did a state legislature just makes it all up and put it into law, and the Supreme
Court upheld it, against the wishes of a majority of its citizens?

The courts don't care about that kind of majority.

So the courts have no political bias? LOL!

And how is the end result any different from what one might expect if
your private property views are made the norm? A railroad in Louisiana
could post a 'no blacks allowed' sign at the ticket office, or a
'Blacks are only allowed in black cars' on the train.

But why would they shut out such a significant portion of customer base?
Railroads are or were in business to make money.

Why would Denny's Restaurants refuse to serve blacks (look up
Bush's secret service agents, for example. A group of secret service
agents went to Denny's for lunch. The white agents were served, the
black agents were not. It was a pervasive problem at Denny's)? Why
would Wal-Mart and Costco discriminate against female employees? Are
these (and many other) businesses not trying to make money? Wouldn't
the business' best interests be served by promoting the best person
for the job, regardless of skin color or gender? And as you say, why
alienate part of your potential customer base? These examples are very
recent, not from 1892.

Theoretically you are correct. In reality theories make no difference,
as you have to deal with reality. Prejudice and discrimination are
reality whether or not it makes sense.

Oh, and who stepped in to help correct the wrongs of these companies?
The government.

A black man traveling on the train and entering the whites only car would be
arrested, jailed, and fined for trespassing. The Supreme Court would
uphold that right, if they followed your views on private property. So
what exactly is your point here? How is this different from what you
argue for?

They could. There could also be a balck owned railroad that allowed whites
to travel also as long as they rode in non-segregated cars. Of course that
would have never happened because government taxed the railroad of of
existence.

Now you've hit upon something outside of the topic and truly
irrelevant. But nice job of venting about taxes.

Cleland voted against the homeland
security bill, therefore he is weak on terrorism (or homeland security,
or he will put the nation at risk, or whatever).

He voted against it because he didn't think it ave the Unions enough.

He voted for it because he didn't think it gave the employees enough.

He voted for the Federalization of the Airline Baggage Inspectors.

I agree. Let's subcontract baggage inspectors, police, military, the
courts, air marshals, the DEA, the CIA, the NSA, and everything else.
In fact, let's just award those contracts to Halliburton on a no-bid
basis. There's less paperwork that way. LOL!

His priorities do not seem to be protecting the country quite so much as
they do protecting the people who send him money.

See above. Your beloved conservatives are not doing any better at all.
And what they are doing is likely against the law in some (or many)
cases.

Political thought is a part of life. Life is always full of
contradictions. Therefore, as long as political thought is a part of
life it will always have contradictions. The form of argument is valid.
Which of these premises can be considered untrue?
Maybe it ought not to be that way. But it is and always will be.

The problem is that it is full of contradictions and nobody cares.
It's the contradictions that make the black and white seem gray.

The real problems are that reality often enters in to theoretical
arguments, that two equally correct definitions of 'right' (as
illustrated above) or other words can be used, and that not everybody
has the same priorities as you do.

I cannot, and will not, ever agree with your positions. And I'm more
right than you are.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From:
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 21:50:20 GMT

But one has to dig deeper (if one is not stuck
in your 'black or white' world, that is) and analyze as to why one
might do that. Have you checked his reasoning?

That it wasn't full of enough opportunities for Unions?

How about that Bush was trying to deny the employees of the new
Department of Homeland Security the ability to join a union?

A very good idea.

Whether or
not you agree with unions is not relevant. I happen to agree that new
employees should have the same benefit as any other employee.


I happen to think government employees, especially those inolved in anything
like national defense, should be disallowed from belonging to unions, or a
the very least not be allowed to strike.

The point is that the Republicans twisted a 'fact' and turned it
into a 'lie.'

This disregards that what the senators were actually against was the
backhanded way that Sen. Stevens of Alaska tied (yet again, after it
had been voted down several times this year) oil drilling in the ANWR
to the defense bill. That was what they objected to. After it was
removed, I believe the bill passed without a hitch.

The problem for me is that even with the ANWR drilling it should have
sailed
through. The fact that we're arguing about drilling for oil in the
wilderness, at this time in history, is pretty sad.

Why? Because 'big oil' won't get the benefit?

Big oil, little oil, I don't care. There is oil there and we should be
doing EVERYTHING in our power to lessen the need for middle east oil.


Drilling in the ANWR will reduce our foreign oil dependence (in 10
years or so, when production would be available) by about 1% based on
today's consumption levels. Why not advocate E85, which will net an
immediate 70-80% reduction the moment the car is sold, use renewable
sources, burn cleaner, cost less (increasing available money for other
areas of the economy), reduce the need for farm subsidies, and give a
15-20% increase in horsepower?

If I ever run into somebody that has had a car that ran well on ethanol,
I'll be sure and tell you, so far I don't know anyone that has ever said
anything nice about it.

There is apparently no market for it either or there would be more of thos
vehicles on the road.

I prefer that oil companies be allowed to do what they do and that car
makers do what they do.
If there is a market for E85 vehicles then I suspect there will be more
vehciles and more places to get the fuel.

I'd like to see there be more propane powered vehicles as well, I have no
idea why the stuff isn't available in California.

Blocking oil drilling in ANWR is pointless and stupid. The demand for the
oil there already exists and will continue for a very long time.

The blockage is all bull**** eco crap as usual. Every argeument that has
benn used to stop drilling in Alaska has proven to be false.












d is 'soft' on homeland security, or was there perhaps
another reason he was against the bill as written?

AFAIK what he's soft on is the balls to not be another Kool Aid drinking
Liberal and actually vote for what's right instead of what is good for the
party.

Uh-oh. A grey area. Cleland did what he thought was right for the
employees. So he DID vote for what he thought was right. That his
priorities and definition of right differs from your priorities and
definition of right do not make his priorities or definition wrong, or
yours right.

Keep in mind that bills are voted down for one reason or another, then
get reworked, and then pass all the time. Look at the defense spending
bill we've been discussing for an example.

And let's also remember that it took the Republicans quite some time
(three years?) to even bring a homeland security bill to the floor.

Irrelevant.

Not at all. Your argument is that the "Kool-Aid drinking liberals"
don't have the "balls" to vote for "what's right" and are,
therefore, more concerned with protecting their supporters than
protecting the country. This line of thought clearly indicates that in
your mind the conservatives are much better about protecting the
country and having the "balls" to do what's right.

I counter with the fact that the conservatives took their time in
introducing legislation forming Homeland Security (by the way, do you
know who first proposed that idea? Bill Clinton). Further, as I'm
sure you know, according to the 9/11 commission the Bush administration
rates a "D" for stepping up security measures since 9/11. Maybe
Bush needs more "balls." He doesn't seem too interested in truly
stepping up security.

It's very relevant. That you dismiss this as "irrelevant" shows
somewhat weak reasoning skills.

You keep bringing up Plessey v. Ferguson. You state the marketplace
played a role in bringing the trial to court. What role was that? I see
no evidence that the railroad, or its customers, or the citizens of
Louisiana, sided with Plessey in this case.

Idon't beleive the railroads were in favor of segregation.

Do you have any evidence? Did the railroad side with Plessy? Regardless
of what you believe, isn't it true the railroad was responsible for
arresting Plessy and bringing charges against him?

Would that perhaps be similar to the bans on gay
marriages currently going on at the state level?

You might want to do check and find my position on gay marriage.

I did a search with your email for "gay" "gay marriage" and
"homosexual" and found nothing.

I would guess that, based on your arguments, you support gay marriage.
It doesn't effect you or anybody other than those seeking to be
married. I would also guess that you support abortion for the same
reason.

Or did a state legislature just makes it all up and put it into law,
and the Supreme
Court upheld it, against the wishes of a majority of its citizens?

The courts don't care about that kind of majority.

So the courts have no political bias? LOL!

And how is the end result any different from what one might expect if
your private property views are made the norm? A railroad in Louisiana
could post a 'no blacks allowed' sign at the ticket office, or a
'Blacks are only allowed in black cars' on the train.

But why would they shut out such a significant portion of customer base?
Railroads are or were in business to make money.

Why would Denny's Restaurants refuse to serve blacks (look up
Bush's secret service agents, for example. A group of secret service
agents went to Denny's for lunch. The white agents were served, the
black agents were not. It was a pervasive problem at Denny's)? Why
would Wal-Mart and Costco discriminate against female employees? Are
these (and many other) businesses not trying to make money? Wouldn't
the business' best interests be served by promoting the best person
for the job, regardless of skin color or gender? And as you say, why
alienate part of your potential customer base? These examples are very
recent, not from 1892.

Theoretically you are correct. In reality theories make no difference,
as you have to deal with reality. Prejudice and discrimination are
reality whether or not it makes sense.

Oh, and who stepped in to help correct the wrongs of these companies?
The government.

A black man traveling on the train and entering the whites only car
would be
arrested, jailed, and fined for trespassing. The Supreme Court would
uphold that right, if they followed your views on private property. So
what exactly is your point here? How is this different from what you
argue for?

They could. There could also be a balck owned railroad that allowed
whites
to travel also as long as they rode in non-segregated cars. Of course
that
would have never happened because government taxed the railroad of of
existence.

Now you've hit upon something outside of the topic and truly
irrelevant. But nice job of venting about taxes.

Cleland voted against the homeland
security bill, therefore he is weak on terrorism (or homeland security,
or he will put the nation at risk, or whatever).

He voted against it because he didn't think it ave the Unions enough.

He voted for it because he didn't think it gave the employees enough.

He voted for the Federalization of the Airline Baggage Inspectors.

I agree. Let's subcontract baggage inspectors, police, military, the
courts, air marshals, the DEA, the CIA, the NSA, and everything else.
In fact, let's just award those contracts to Halliburton on a no-bid
basis. There's less paperwork that way. LOL!

His priorities do not seem to be protecting the country quite so much as
they do protecting the people who send him money.

See above. Your beloved conservatives are not doing any better at all.
And what they are doing is likely against the law in some (or many)
cases.

Political thought is a part of life. Life is always full of
contradictions. Therefore, as long as political thought is a part of
life it will always have contradictions. The form of argument is valid.
Which of these premises can be considered untrue?
Maybe it ought not to be that way. But it is and always will be.

The problem is that it is full of contradictions and nobody cares.
It's the contradictions that make the black and white seem gray.

The real problems are that reality often enters in to theoretical
arguments, that two equally correct definitions of 'right' (as
illustrated above) or other words can be used, and that not everybody
has the same priorities as you do.

I cannot, and will not, ever agree with your positions. And I'm more
right than you are.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From:
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 21:50:20 GMT

But one has to dig deeper (if one is not stuck
in your 'black or white' world, that is) and analyze as to why one
might do that. Have you checked his reasoning?

That it wasn't full of enough opportunities for Unions?

How about that Bush was trying to deny the employees of the new
Department of Homeland Security the ability to join a union? Whether or
not you agree with unions is not relevant. I happen to agree that new
employees should have the same benefit as any other employee.


Under the Federal employment system, they have the same benefits
as other Federal employees, comparing law enforcement to law enforcement,
and non law enforcement to non law enforcement, between other Federal
agencies.




--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
From:

How about that Bush was trying to deny the employees of the new
Department of Homeland Security the ability to join a union?

A very good idea.

In your opinion. You seem to have problems with the fact that there are
other opinions which are equally as valid as yours.

Whether or not you agree with unions is not relevant. I happen to agree that new
employees should have the same benefit as any other employee.

I happen to think government employees, especially those inolved in anything
like national defense, should be disallowed from belonging to unions, or a
the very least not be allowed to strike.

Well, if you were being honest you'd say, 'I happen to believe there
should be no government employees outside the military, police, and
courts.' So it is not at all surprising that you don't want collective
bargaining for government employees.

Why? Because 'big oil' won't get the benefit?

Big oil, little oil, I don't care. There is oil there and we should be
doing EVERYTHING in our power to lessen the need for middle east oil.

Now you're lying.

Drilling in the ANWR will reduce our foreign oil dependence (in 10
years or so, when production would be available) by about 1% based on
today's consumption levels. Why not advocate E85, which will net an
immediate 70-80% reduction the moment the car is sold, use renewable
sources, burn cleaner, cost less (increasing available money for other
areas of the economy), reduce the need for farm subsidies, and give a
15-20% increase in horsepower?

If I ever run into somebody that has had a car that ran well on ethanol,
I'll be sure and tell you, so far I don't know anyone that has ever said
anything nice about it.

What have been their specific complaints? How many have you known that
drove them? I drove an E85-powered vehicle and had absolutely no issues
with it. It had more power. Its biggest negative was that it averaged
about 10-15% less mileage than a gas-powered vehicle.

There is apparently no market for it either or there would be more of thos
vehicles on the road.

Naive statement.

I prefer that oil companies be allowed to do what they do and that car
makers do what they do.

Here's your lie from above. If you were truly committed to "doing
EVERYTHING in our power to lessen the need for middle east oil" you
would actually be *for* CAFE standards, discouraging sales of
inefficient vehicles, encouraging E85 or diesel or other fuels, and so
on. What you REALLY mean is you think we should do everything in our
power without inconvieniencing anybody, without thinking ahead, do
nothing to promote or encourage alternative fuels, and to make sure
that the "marketplace", Big Business and Big Oil can do whatever they
want, regardless of the consequences long-term. There's that short-term
conservative thinking again...

If there is a market for E85 vehicles then I suspect there will be more
vehciles and more places to get the fuel.

Who would most likely get hurt by sales of E85? Since it's mainly
produced by decentralized farming cooperatives, big oil, perhaps? And
who holds huge sway in Washington, spends a ton of money lobbying, and
(oh, by the way) is represented currently by both the Presidency and
the Vice Presidency of the US? Why would they promote something that
can hurt sales? Your own marketplace arguments explain why that isn't
happening.

The marketplace will not react until there's an absolutely imminent
crisis. Then the decisions made will be made in panic.

I'd like to see there be more propane powered vehicles as well, I have no
idea why the stuff isn't available in California.

See above.

Blocking oil drilling in ANWR is pointless and stupid. The demand for the
oil there already exists and will continue for a very long time.

Who cares? In a decade you might get a 1% drop in demand for foreign
oil, probably less. That it's blocked is not a very big deal in
reality.

The blockage is all bull**** eco crap as usual. Every argeument that has
benn used to stop drilling in Alaska has proven to be false.

According to _The New Republic_ and Rush Limbaugh, I'm sure you're
correct.

I agree: everything is eco-crap. Am I going out on a limb in thinking
you believe global warming is crap too, even though a VAST majority of
scientists are saying that it is a reality?