mudcat.org: BS: More Politics
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2]


BS: More Politics

Troll 03 Nov 00 - 07:44 AM
thosp 02 Nov 00 - 07:37 PM
Jim the Bart 02 Nov 00 - 06:31 PM
Troll 02 Nov 00 - 04:44 PM
Jim the Bart 02 Nov 00 - 02:31 PM
Whistle Stop 02 Nov 00 - 02:31 PM
DougR 02 Nov 00 - 02:12 PM
McGrath of Harlow 02 Nov 00 - 12:47 PM
DougR 02 Nov 00 - 12:39 PM
kendall 02 Nov 00 - 12:23 PM
Troll 02 Nov 00 - 11:25 AM
McGrath of Harlow 02 Nov 00 - 11:17 AM
Whistle Stop 02 Nov 00 - 08:44 AM
GUEST,Stackley 02 Nov 00 - 08:02 AM
kendall 02 Nov 00 - 07:05 AM
DougR 02 Nov 00 - 01:19 AM
Troll 02 Nov 00 - 12:39 AM
Ebbie 02 Nov 00 - 12:29 AM
Troll 01 Nov 00 - 11:30 PM
DougR 01 Nov 00 - 10:51 PM
Troll 01 Nov 00 - 10:41 PM
GUEST,Stackley 01 Nov 00 - 10:31 PM
Troll 01 Nov 00 - 10:03 PM
M. Ted (inactive) 01 Nov 00 - 09:12 PM
GUEST,Stackley 01 Nov 00 - 08:01 PM
kendall 01 Nov 00 - 07:31 PM
DougR 01 Nov 00 - 07:17 PM
McGrath of Harlow 01 Nov 00 - 06:57 PM
Jim the Bart 01 Nov 00 - 06:34 PM
Ebbie 01 Nov 00 - 03:45 PM
kendall 01 Nov 00 - 03:33 PM
DougR 01 Nov 00 - 03:30 PM
kendall 01 Nov 00 - 03:09 PM
Greg F. 01 Nov 00 - 02:56 PM
McGrath of Harlow 01 Nov 00 - 02:37 PM
Songster Bob 01 Nov 00 - 02:27 PM
DougR 01 Nov 00 - 01:53 PM
Troll 01 Nov 00 - 12:10 PM
kendall 01 Nov 00 - 11:35 AM
Midchuck 01 Nov 00 - 10:39 AM
Troll 01 Nov 00 - 10:28 AM
GUEST,Luther 01 Nov 00 - 09:04 AM
Whistle Stop 01 Nov 00 - 08:38 AM
Troll 01 Nov 00 - 08:12 AM
kendall 01 Nov 00 - 08:00 AM
Troll 01 Nov 00 - 07:46 AM
DougR 31 Oct 00 - 11:39 PM
thosp 31 Oct 00 - 09:12 PM
McGrath of Harlow 31 Oct 00 - 08:30 PM
kendall 31 Oct 00 - 08:02 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Troll
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 07:44 AM

Bart, I agree with your definition of "oppose". That's what I meant to say, but I said it badly. Thanks for the rescue.
thosp...By "shooting unarmed demonstrators" I assume you mean Kent State. That was a National Guard unit which was ordered out by the Governor. It has never been determined who-if anyone- gave the order to shoot so there is no one to sack or impeach. Unless, of course, you're into scapegoats.

troll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: thosp
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 07:37 PM

Blowing up meducal factories, carpet bombing countries you aren't even at war with, colluding in assassinations, shooting unarmed demonstrators - noone ever got impeached or sacked for the serious stuff.

i couldn't agree with you more McGrath of Harlow

peace (Y) thosp


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 06:31 PM

The two unions I've been an active member of were the Musician's Union and the Postal Worker's Union. The two couldn't be more different. My dad, who was a Postal Supervisor couldn't get a mail carrier canned after documenting his incredible ineptitude and getting punched by the guy! The musician's union never did anything except collect my dues and keep me from appearing on Public Access TV (unless they paid scale).

I believe in unionism, but once again, we see in a lot of current unions a horrible distortion between what unions were meant to be and what they now are. We wouldn't have five day weeks and eight hour days without them. Period. But in too many cases you see leadership in management's pocket, or following an agenda that doesn't help the membership.

This may be a little off the point, but it seems to me that the effectiveness of unions or political parties for that matter comes down to one question: what is the role of the "opposition"? I think it was Troll who said that the role of the opposition party was to oppose. Maybe it would be better said that the role is to present an opposite point of view. For example, on health care the Republicans obstructed; rather than trying to change the Clinton plan into something workable, they simply did everything they could to discredit the plan and its developers. I think it would have been more responsible to work together to find a workable compromise. Same thing on the budget. We face another government shut down as Clinton and the Congress play chicken on funding.

What if unions and management could cooperate to resolve grievances, rather than representing diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive positions? Am I dreaming, or is there a way that reasonable men can come to a reasonable resolution of their differences?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Troll
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 04:44 PM

Unfortunately, Bart,in those states that are NOT "right to work" states, you HAVE to join the union in order to be able to work. This means that the union can effectively prevent a man from working simply by denying him union membership or by charging impossibly high initiation fees. I have been a union member for 30 years and have served as a shop steward. Since Florida is a right to work state, I worked alongside men and women who were non-union. I did not resent them and, if they had a grievance, I defended them to the best of my ability.
They made the choice to go non-union. I feel that they were foolish not to join and get ALL the benefits of union membership but they chose.
I always let people know that they could jion at any time and they would be welcomed. Some eventually did; some never did.
A union is good because there is strength in numbers, but if the leadership fails to represent the needs of the members all sorts of abuses of power occur.

troll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 02:31 PM

About Government and Unions:

Back in the late 70's my band was contracted to play for a month in Ocala, Florida. We were a country-rock band, and had been booked by an agency in Nashville that handled straight country lounge acts into a club that they had done much business with previously. We stood to make a large amount of money and had a signed contract in hand before we left for FLA.

Little did we know that the club owner had decided to change format to "Rawk" Music (as the owner pronounced it). As soon as we arrived and started to set up our pedal steel guitar, he told us that we were gone at the end of the first week. We played the week under that cloud, but the crowds were good and we thought we'd be OK. On Saturday night he paid us in cash for the week and told us not to come back. We had spoken with a local union rep (the owner's bro-in-law, coincidently)who told us just to leave. Knowing that not showing up would put us in violation of our contract, I called the national office in New York, who said we'd have to show up on our next scheduled performance date ready to play unless the owner wrote a termination letter (which no sensible man would do). Still, I asked, figuring anything would be better than paying another four days of hotel bills.

Surprisingly, he wrote us the letter, and I quote "I hereby termination Cactus Jack because they don't play no rock music." We were covered.

To make a long and brutal story short, we scraped through a very poor February in Chicago while the case went to the Union. The owner was found to be in violation of a legal contract. Thank you, next case. The owner never paid us a cent; we would have had to sue him in a Florida court to get any money, which we couldn't do from Chicago. At best we would have broken even. At least we had the satisfaction of knowing the union shut him down, right? Not at all. And here is where the government part comes in.

You see, Florida is shat is known as a "right to work state". This means that the union couldn't stop other musicians from working in the club. Essentially, one very pretty sounding phrase "you have the right to work" had been twisted around by venal politicians to emasculate the unions in the state of Florida and, I have found out since, a nuber of other states.

In my mind this is a case where government has allied itself with business to undercut the rights of citizens. And it was all done under the cover of protecting a citizens right to work.

To me it takes an evil mind to create and support such pretense. It takes a lot of money and lawyers and a desire to subvert the system for personal gain. In my experience, it takes a Republican.

Thanks for letting me bore you with my little story. Hopefully it will stimulate some conversation. Jump in there and tear it apart.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 02:31 PM

I'm not a union man myself, but I believe Doug is right.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: DougR
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 02:12 PM

I think Union members have no choice in the U. S. Mick or Whistle Stop could set us right on that. Shareholders have no say with corporate contributions, though.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 12:47 PM

Where I live, unions have political funds from which any money given to poltical parties, or for campaigning, has to come, and it's up to a member whether he or she wants to pay into it. But for companies there's no such requirement - neither the shareholders nor the customers have any say on that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: DougR
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 12:39 PM

S'okay Kendall.

Troll, you seem to lean a bit more to the right than anyone I know who is, or has been, active in the labor movement. You and Big Mick could provide us with a pretty interesting debate, I think, on the use of Union dues to support candidates. I'd certainly be interested in reading it.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: kendall
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 12:23 PM

I should have proof read before posting..I knew better.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Troll
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 11:25 AM

Kendall, the 19th Amendment passed the House in 1918, The Senate in 1919 and was ratified by the states in 1920. It could not have been signed into law until it was ratified.
Stackley, I missed the link. Since then I have read the entire thread and, in my opinion, DougR fulfilled the assignment Kendall gave him. Nothing was said about giving a complete history of the various topics. That is beyond the scope of a forum at any event.
Regarding Labor Unions and their financial contributions to the Democratic Party, this is perfectly true and that money comes out of the dues paid by the Union members. They have no say in the matter; it is decided at the national level and usually rubber-stamped at the national convention.
Anyone who is a Union member who doesn't like a candidate being endorsed by the Union must live with the knowledge that HIS dues are going to support a candidate he does not support.
I speak from the vantage point of being a working member of a labor union for 30 years. During a portion of that time I was a shop steward.

troll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 11:17 AM

It always strikes me as strange how the big scandals that bring shame on politicians (in all countries) are the peccadilloes - a bit of burglary, or messing around with a groupie and so forth. Or telling a few lies - and they're politicians, it's what they do for a living, and we knew that when we elected them. It's like getting a cat and whinging when it starts spraying on the furniture.

Blowing up meducal factories, carpet bombing countries you aren't even at war with, colluding in assassinations, shooting unarmed demonstrators - noone ever got impeached or sacked for the serious stuff.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 08:44 AM

Come on, guys -- we can disagree without being so mean-spirited, can't we? This is a political thread, so disagreement is part of the game, and part of the fun. Doug is a gentleman, who isn't afraid to speak his mind, and is usually pretty articulate about it. Stackley, you don't agree with him, and much most of the time neither do I. So what? This would be a pretty uninteresting forum if we all agreed on everything. Lighten up, and play nice, okay?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: GUEST,Stackley
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 08:02 AM

Troll, if you'd clicked the link I posted, would have taken you right to it. It had nothing to do with anything I'd posted.
Ebbie, not a problem, its just Doug's uninformed opinion. You don't expect him not to be biased, do you?
Douger, you got any facts to back up your accusations, or are you just blowing it out your a** as usual?
Cheers.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: kendall
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 07:05 AM

I still say the bill for womens suffrage was signed by Wilson in 1919, ans passed under Harding in 1919. There is some question as to wether or not he was bright enough to know what suffrage meant. And social security is the child of the Democrats period.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: DougR
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 01:19 AM

Ebbie, Troll: Guest, Shackley is correct. Kendall and i were sparring a few months ago about what the Democrats and the Republicans had done for the country. Kendall, as usual, was claiming outrageous accomplishments for the Democrats and pointed out several things that the party could claim credit for. He challenged me to refute several (again) outrageous claims he made, including the ratification of the Women's right to vote. I did, in fact, go to the library and research the subject. The research that I did, and reported back to the Mudcat, did not support all of Kendall's claims, and Guest, Shackley, who at that time was operating under a different nom de plume, took offense to my report, suggesting that my research was certainly flawed (because, I assume, it did not coincide with his/her opinion). You didn't find the post, probably, because Guest Shackley was operating under a different name at the time.

After spending a couple of hours at the library, I did state that I did not plan to use more of my time on the subject. So, big deal.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Troll
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 12:39 AM

Ebbie, this may well be true. I only checked those threads on which Guest Stackley had posted. I am often off the Forum for several weeks at a time, depending on how I am doing at the time and so I miss things. If you can remember the thread, please let me know. I'd like to check it out. I may actually owe Stackley an apology, depending upon the circumstances under which the statements were made.
Again, thanks for setting me straight on this issue.

troll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 12:29 AM

where DougR claimed he had done" all he's going to do " or where he doesn't have time".Actually, Troll, DougR has said that in those words. I believe that DougR will back me up on that. I don't remember the thread- it was a few months ago- and I believe I remember I agreed with him at the time.

Doug?

Ebbie


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Troll
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 11:30 PM

Guest Stackley. I checked every thread on which you have posted.Nowhere did I find a place where DougR claimed he had done" all he's going to do " or where he" doesn't have time". It sounds to me like you are indulging in a little argumentum ad hominum.
I begin to understand your defense of Clinton but I find it a trifle pitiful that you resort to flaming instead of puting forth clear and compelling arguments.
I know that it must be frustrating; there is so little about the man that is defensible but try not to descend to the level of petty name-calling.
It does not lend weight to your defense.

troll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: DougR
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 10:51 PM

Ah ha, Guest Stackley, (as Sherlock Holmes might say) you are a wolf in sheep's clothing! Guest Stackley is an imposter! You are, in fact, another person! I have encountered you before, Professor Moriorty! In bygone threads!

Kendall: you may feel that Nixon resigned because he had no other out, probably that is partially true. Nixon did a lot of good for the good old US of A, though, and though I think he was probably a son-of-a-bitch as a person, I think he did love his country. He could have drug the country through an impeachment process, which we know some recent President did, but he cared enough for his country, and his family, not to put them through that. History will judge Nixon. Clinton too. If either of us live another fifty years (in my case EXTREMELY doubtful)it would be interesting to read what is said about both of them. If there is, in fact, a life hereafter, I'll meet you in that great library in the sky and we will both look it up.

I heard Nader on Chris Matthew's "Hardball" tonight. Did anyone else. Matthews devoted the whole show, which was telecast from the campus of U. of Wisconsin to Nader.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Troll
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 10:41 PM

Yes, I rather thought that would be your answer.

troll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: GUEST,Stackley
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 10:31 PM

CLICK

There's plenty more examples, but my time is at least as valuable as Doug's. You'll find them easily enough with the 'forum search' function.
Cheers.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Troll
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 10:03 PM

Stackley, I read McGrath's article and I read DougR's response. Nowhere did I see where he denied the stories the article put forth as facts. He simply said that the reporters opinion had flavored the story. This is probably true.
If a pro-Bush reporter had been assigned that story it would have read very differently even though the facts were the same. The bias of the newspaper may also figure into the equation.
As for his other faults, will you give us a few examples of times where he has "done all he's going to do" or said he "doesn't have time"? It should be easy for you since you have obviously checked it out yourself.
Thanks in advance.

troll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: M. Ted (inactive)
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 09:12 PM

Those of us who listen to Nancy Reagan know that, for most of Ron's Presidency, he was suffering significantly from Alzheimer's Disease. There are books full of situations where he confused what had happened in movies with reality--still, if you were wealthy on the day he was elected, you were three times as wealthy when he left office--if you weren't wealthy when he was elected, you lost a lot of the value of your pension, your taxes had went up, and, in many cases, your job had disappeared in a leveraged buyout--can you imagine what he would have done if he'd had all his faculties?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: GUEST,Stackley
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 08:01 PM

Ebbie, you're wasting your time. Its just Dougie's bait-and-switch act.'Facts' are positions he agrees with- those he refuses to accept are 'one man's opinion'. Check his previous posts- someone will post something, Dougie will say 'where's your research', it will be provided, Dougie will call it 'one man's opinion. When asked to do research himself,or provide a factual basis for his fantasies, he's 'done all he's going to do' or 'doesn't have time'. Its all on the record; check it out. And he calls Clinton "slick". And he really believes this crap, too!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: kendall
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 07:31 PM

Oh boy Doug, are you asking for it!! Nixon resigned not out of a sense of deciency, but, rather because he knew he would be impeached if he didnt. He had no choice. And, as far as Ray-Gun claiming any credit for the Berlin wall coming down, who did he think he was? Joshua? did Gorbechev take it down because Raygun asked him to? Hell no! Communism started to die the day it was born, and two modern men were responsible for its funeral..Gorbechev and Lec Walesa. Raygun did shit!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: DougR
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 07:17 PM

Ebbie, it's just an article written by a reporter. Are you suggesting that reporters don't flavor stories with their own opinions? That this reporter was being totally objective? It would be a rare reporter, I think.

Yes, Nixon disgraced the office of the presidency, but he at least admit to what he did, and resigned. Clinton disgraced the office, lied to the American people, and spent a year stone-walling to those his Attorney General had appointed to investigate him. In my book Clinton committed a far more grevious affront to the American people than Nixon did.

Neither do I believe the Reagan years were all bad ones. There was a wall that divided Berlin, you will recall. The wall is no longer there, and Reagan can rightfully claim a large part of the credit for it coming down, in my opinion, (and the opinions of many others) and bringing an end to the cold war.

If Clinton is such a great president, and so much has been accomplished during the ClintonGore administration, why doesn't Gore have him out there touting Gore's election next week? Gore hasn't run on the eight year record of this administration, has he?

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 06:57 PM

How about your guts? (As in the case of the old fella who countered the slogan "In your heart you know he's right" of Goldwater with a placard saying "In your guts you know he's nuts" - I believe he got stomped, which was, I suppose, the most effective way of making sure his message got across.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 06:34 PM

For anyone who is "voting their heart" next week -

Never use your heart when your head is the best tool for the job.

Bart


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 03:45 PM

DougR, after reading the article that McGrath linked to, will you still say, "That's just one man's opinion"? Or will you say, But your man does just as bad things"?

This polarization is becoming ludicrous. The sad part is that no doubt, no opinions or plans will be changed.

It's true that we survived the Nixon years (If we grant that Clinton damaged the mystique of the oval office, can we also agree that Nixon damaged the presidency?) and the Reagan years (What utter bosh the man spoke. IMO he set us, the American people, back a hundred years in encouraging the country to entertain a totally fanciful image of the world and our role in it. And if the country was doing as well as he claimed, why didn't we start paying our debts? When do you pay debts if you don't pay them when you're doing well?), and I suppose we'll survive the Bush2 years. But not without cost.

Ebbie


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: kendall
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 03:33 PM

Finally! I say something to which you have no answer- LOL


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: DougR
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 03:30 PM

Aw, shucks, Kendall.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: kendall
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 03:09 PM

Doug, Am Not! and that aint all, you are much nicer.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 02:56 PM

Now, now, McGrath, you're not going to rabbit on about that old Global Warming myth, are you? The Republicans can explain to you how that Kyoto Accord is the work of the Communist Anti-Christ. Don't worry- Be happy!

Best, Greg


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 02:37 PM

"I would have to assume that your criticisms of Bush, and your strong support for Gore, are based on your concerns about future international policies." Broadly correct Doug.

Though I'd jib at that "strong support for Gore" - it's like making a choice between warmed up porridge and a bad egg. Obviously I'd sooner have the porridge, but without any great enthusiasm. And I'd see Gore in that analogy as a plate of warmed up porridge, and Bush as a pretty whiffy bad egg.

The thing is, what happens in the world because America does or doesn't do something is quite important, and it's not just the war/peace issues. You sneeze, we all catch cold, you roll over in bed, and we all get dumped on the floor. It's like sharing a bedsitter with a buffalo. You want to see it happy and contented, because otherwise it's going to be a difficult relationship.

And from what I've read, Bush really does seem to have made a cod's arse out being governor of Texas, and all this stuff about reaching out to political opponents seems to add up to giving jobs to mates in other parties in order to get them on side, and not make problems about poor people getting screwed.

But all the domestic stuff is of course secondary for me. And maybe the most important thing is the environment, since unless America does something drastic about global warming and so forth, the floods we've got today are just the start of it. Well actually, whatever you do things are going to get far far worse anyway, but at least there is still time to put a limit on the damage.

And I can't envisage Bush doing much to help with that kind of stuff.

(Incidentally don't misunderstand my comments about the evident consensus in the press that Bush is likeable - there are politicians I largely agree with whom I think are detestable, and politicians I think are delightful whose ideas I deplore. I can quite understand why someone who agrees with Bush would vote for him - but I find it hard to believe that there are people who don't agree with him who would vote for him because they actually find him likeable...)

(And Songster Bob - check the Vote Nader thread for a way you can maybe have your cake and eat it...)>/A>


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Songster Bob
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 02:27 PM

Someone mentioned up there somewhere that the Democrats had abandoned their principles and were more right-wing than the Republicans in the 50s, or words to that effect. Well, I think it's more a case of the party reacted to the expressed mood of the country, a mood orchestrated by the Republicans and their ability to use the "Big Lie" technique. Repeat anything often enough and enough people will start to believe it.

For instance, what words "go with" the word "liberal?" -- "Tax-and-spend," of course! But do "borrow-and-spend" automatically appear in your mind when you hear "conservative?" Nope. Ronald Reagan, at the same time he was spending us into the largest deficit heretofore known, was also "communicating" his ideals in clever and insidious fashion. And the people bought into it. Now, in the US, "lilberal" is practically a dirty word. No one is willing to call him/herself that, at least in the political arena. To get elected, you offer what you think the people will stomach. And "Big Government" becomes a catch-phrase (more a "Gotcha") so that even good ideas get shot down if they involve the Government doing them.

We privatize government now. Hire contractors to do the work (with an added margin for profits -- where's the savings in that?*) and shrink the government staff. Meanwhile, Congress (even the do-nothing Republicans) add tasks to the government's plate, but don't allow for more "government" (workers) to do the task. Then complain when government isn't "efficient."

Reagan "shrank" the government, remember? (Net change, BTW, was PLUS 2000 or so.) And no one can "get away with" adding many jobs back to it.

So, assuming you're anxious to get elected, and at least minimize the damage to the people, the environment, the economy, the country, you move right and "hijack" Republican "issues." Clinton & Co. have done this, and have done it well. But desiring to move the country leftward again could mean losing your "say," if supporting Nader means the right-wingers make much more of an advance.

If I lived in a state where Gore was sure to win, or sure to lose, I'd vote my heart. Since I don't, I'm voting my head. Sorry that's how it has to be, but that's how it is, as I see it.

Bob Clayton


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: DougR
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 01:53 PM

I'll buy a couple of shares, Troll. The only thing Kendall and I agree on is that we both like women! Sad for me that he is better looking than I am.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Troll
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 12:10 PM

Kendall? Agreeing with ME?
Quick.Invest in ice-skate stock. Hell has surely frozen over.

troll...(evil chuckle)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: kendall
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 11:35 AM

Things have taken a nasy turn when I agree with Troll!! LOL


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Midchuck
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 10:39 AM

Troll said:

...I am dead set against the big corporations whose only reason for existance is money. But I find that they are no worse that big government whose only goal is power.

I think that says it all. I used to think that the only justification for either big business or big government was that each acted as a check on abuses by the other. Now that I'm coming to realize that each is in the pocket of the other, as it were, I tend to say a plague on both their houses. But I'm not sure what to do about it. Maybe start a Jeffersonian liberal party.

Peter.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Troll
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 10:28 AM

Then his doctors should be sued for medical malpractice and have their license to practice medicine revoked. I am aware that these things happen but they happen here with less frequency I believe.
If you will carefully read the second paragraph of my posting you will see that I am dead set against the big corporations whose only reason for existance is money. But I find that they are no worse that big government whose only goal is power.
I have looked at my wording and can see how you could have thought I meant "never". Otherwise, I stand by what I said.

troll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: GUEST,Luther
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 09:04 AM

well, I can't let that one pass in good conscience. Troll, in a word, BULLSHIT. What you say never happens here just happened to my neighbor. Who was treated with analgesics and muscle relaxants for lung cancer, undiagnosed for over a year, despite the fact that he already had a history of cancer.

What he didn't have was money, so he continued going to his job at the textile mill until a few months before the end. I don't know what kind of insurance he got from them, it didn't do shit for him though.

The mill got its full measure of labor from him, the insurance company got its cut of his paycheck every week, the doctors who somehow failed to notice for over a year that he was dying of cancer, they got their cut, too.

All he got was, at the end, a hospice nurse to pump him full of morphine. Lucky him.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 08:38 AM

Doug, I'm a Gore supporter who feels that his greater command of international politics is a big part of his (relative) appeal. It's true that domestic issues have dominated the campaign, but when it comes to foreign policy expertise Bush can't touch Gore -- no matter how much pre-debate coaching he gets on the correct pronunciation of the names of foreign leaders.

Also, however, I think that domestic policies and foreign policy are much more inter-related than some may think. Our military strength and international influence are largely dependent on our economic well-being and some degree of internal consensus. As Johnson found out during the Vietnam years, a President can't divorce his foreign policy agenda from his domestic agenda, or he'll lose support for both.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Troll
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 08:12 AM

True. But by the same token you don't have a man dieing of cancer because the "system" didn't take an x-ray when he first came in, waited until he had lost forty pounds in less than a year and THEN found the metastasized tumor on his pancreass.
You don't have a carpenter waiting nearly a year for corrective surgery on his knee and in the meantime having to go up the ladders every day in agony because the "system" decided he could keep working.
The incidence of breast cancer deaths is significantly higher in England,for example, than it is here or so my English friends have told me. I don't know what it is in Canada.
Yes, we have problems-mostly brought on by corporate greed and government mis-managment- but I'd rather bee here than anywhere else I can think of. And yes, I have lived under the English system.The cases I mentioned are real.Both men are/were friends of mine.The "system" killed Colin and put Bob through ten months of hell.

troll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: kendall
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 08:00 AM

At least under socialism you dont have old people having to choose between meds and food. Canadians bitch about their "Free medical care" but just you try to take it away!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Troll
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 07:46 AM

DougR, perhaps they want to see Gore win because a continued movement toward a more Socialist agenda would act as vindication of their own systems of government
"See? We're right.The US is doing it too."
If thats NOT it,then it MUST be as you said. Why else get involved.

troll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: DougR
Date: 31 Oct 00 - 11:39 PM

Well, McGrath, I guess you can be grateful that regardless of who wins, you will be little affected, as a citizen of Great Britain. I am not implying that whoever is elected will not affect whatever happens everywhere in world, but certainly the domestic policies of either Gore, or Bush, will not affect anyone other than citizens of the U. S.

It seems to me that most Mudcatters are much more concerned with domestic policies than they are international ones. The right to choose; the influence of big business on government; campaign finance reform; the environment; universal healthcare; social security; possible future appointments to the Supreme Court, etc. are the programs that the anti-Bush forces here on the Mudcat have most often articulated as the ones that would be the most adversely affected if Bush is elected.

None of these programs will affect anyone other than the citizens of the U. S., regardless of who wins.

So, I would have to assume that your criticisms of Bush, and your strong support for Gore, are based on your concerns about future international policies. Is that correct? Just curious.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: thosp
Date: 31 Oct 00 - 09:12 PM

if Bush wins -- i will not be mad at people who voted for Gore -- if Gore wins i will not be mad at people who voted for Bush,Buchannen,Nader et al ----- for the most part i beleive that everyone here sincerely wants a better world -- and votes their conscience as best they can ---- so JimDixon i didn't put my vote for sale on e-bay and i'm not giving it to you or asking you to give your's to me ---- vote your concience -- i'll respect that you are doing your best -as you see it -- and so am i!

peace (Y) thosp
i'm for Nader


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Oct 00 - 08:30 PM

I'm still bewildered by people saying that Bush comes across as an attractive and likeable man. I mean, I can imagine how someone might prefer his politics to those of Gore. I can envisage that they might dislike Gore even more - but actually liking that sniggering nudge-nudge barroom bore... In the words of Victor Meldrew "I just don't believe it."

If Bush wins I'll still refuse to believe anything other than that millions of Americans held their nose and voted for him the way they did for Nixon, for purely political reasons. At least nobody ever said Nixon was likeable did they?

The other thing that puzzles me is how people who have clearly thought about these things talk about third party candudates in a way that suggests they don't understand how the electoral system works. (They do it in my country too - I'm not making snide comments about Americans here.)

Except for those living in the small number of States where there is a close contest between Gore and Bush, it makes absolutely no difference who you vote for. You had much better vote for the person you like best, whoever that is. So far as electing a president the only thing that matters is the number of electoral votes he gets - it makes no difference whatsoever if he gets fewer popular votes than his opponenet, and that has happened several times already.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: kendall
Date: 31 Oct 00 - 08:02 PM

thanks Doug. Troll seems to delight in misunderstanding me.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

 


This Thread Is Closed.


Mudcat time: 7 August 12:20 AM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.