mudcat.org: BS: MORE credit for Bush
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] [3]


BS: MORE credit for Bush

mousethief 16 Apr 01 - 11:04 AM
Bert 16 Apr 01 - 12:11 PM
mousethief 16 Apr 01 - 12:14 PM
Bert 16 Apr 01 - 12:16 PM
gnu 16 Apr 01 - 12:19 PM
Naemanson 16 Apr 01 - 12:25 PM
Naemanson 16 Apr 01 - 12:29 PM
GUEST,Claymore 16 Apr 01 - 02:59 PM
mousethief 16 Apr 01 - 03:20 PM
DougR 16 Apr 01 - 03:24 PM
Little Hawk 16 Apr 01 - 04:09 PM
Greg F. 16 Apr 01 - 05:57 PM
Naemanson 16 Apr 01 - 06:13 PM
mousethief 16 Apr 01 - 06:41 PM
LDave 16 Apr 01 - 07:40 PM
DougR 17 Apr 01 - 12:15 AM
Troll 17 Apr 01 - 12:38 AM
mousethief 17 Apr 01 - 11:40 AM
mousethief 17 Apr 01 - 11:46 AM
kendall 17 Apr 01 - 01:08 PM
mousethief 17 Apr 01 - 01:24 PM
DougR 17 Apr 01 - 06:31 PM
mousethief 17 Apr 01 - 06:36 PM
DougR 17 Apr 01 - 07:36 PM
kendall 17 Apr 01 - 07:41 PM
Greg F. 17 Apr 01 - 08:28 PM
GUEST,SeanM, hopefully helpful 17 Apr 01 - 09:17 PM
Troll 17 Apr 01 - 10:45 PM
uncle bill 17 Apr 01 - 11:36 PM
mousethief 17 Apr 01 - 11:41 PM
Lonesome EJ 18 Apr 01 - 12:19 AM
kendall 18 Apr 01 - 07:39 AM
Whistle Stop 18 Apr 01 - 08:28 AM
kendall 18 Apr 01 - 08:34 AM
Troll 18 Apr 01 - 08:37 AM
mousethief 18 Apr 01 - 11:54 AM
GUEST,Curmudgeon 18 Apr 01 - 11:59 AM
kendall 18 Apr 01 - 12:46 PM
mousethief 18 Apr 01 - 01:05 PM
Lonesome EJ 18 Apr 01 - 01:23 PM
mousethief 18 Apr 01 - 01:26 PM
kendall 18 Apr 01 - 01:39 PM
Whistle Stop 18 Apr 01 - 02:14 PM
Penny S. 18 Apr 01 - 02:57 PM
DougR 18 Apr 01 - 03:01 PM
Whistle Stop 18 Apr 01 - 03:24 PM
MAV 19 Apr 01 - 12:05 AM
DougR 19 Apr 01 - 01:26 AM
kendall 19 Apr 01 - 07:22 AM
Skeptic 19 Apr 01 - 02:26 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: MORE credit for Bush
From: mousethief
Date: 16 Apr 01 - 11:04 AM

I want to applaud President Bush for not going to Whidbey Island (Washington State) for the homecoming of the 24 crewmembers of the downed US surveillance plane.

With the President there, it would have become a media circus focusing on the President. Another photo op. Feathering his own nest.

Without the President there, it was as it should have been -- a media circus, sure, but focusing on our 24 returning servicemembers. They held the spotlight, instead of the Prez, and were able to spend time with their families that would have been lost to cameo-hamming with the Prez.

(PS for what it's worth this POV was courtesy of Cokie Roberts, liberal commentator extraordinaire.)

Alex


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: Bert
Date: 16 Apr 01 - 12:11 PM

Hmmm, you've got a point there Alex. But don't make a habit of this. We don't want to end up liking this guy you know.

Bert.

P.S. Are we going to applaud him every time he doesn't do anything? *BG*


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: mousethief
Date: 16 Apr 01 - 12:14 PM

Hey, Bert, don't look a gift horse in the mouth!

Alex


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: Bert
Date: 16 Apr 01 - 12:16 PM

Yer right.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: gnu
Date: 16 Apr 01 - 12:19 PM

It DID show good manners and common sense, didn't it ?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: Naemanson
Date: 16 Apr 01 - 12:25 PM

Either that or he didn't want to spoil his Easter by traveling...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: Naemanson
Date: 16 Apr 01 - 12:29 PM

I posted at 12:15 and Mousethief continued the thread moments later. I guess I'll repost my answer to MAV here.

By the way Alex, thanks for doing that. I noticed it when I looked at the number of posts and decided I should go ahead make a continuation thread myself.
********************************
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: Naemanson Date: 16-Apr-01 - 12:15 PM

Well this pretty much ate up that lunch break.

MAV wrote: "As far as we (American conservatives)are concerned, fascist, Marxist, Stalinist, whatever, all authoritarianism is the domain of the left."

We don't seem to be communicating. The post you referred me to is mine and while I do see the phrase "American conservatives" in it the movements you cited (fascist, Marxist, Stalinist) in that same sentence are European in origin. That is why I had to take the tack I did.

Besides, conservatism is not restricted to the USA. There are conservative movements all over the world and they all seem to have the same goals, i.e., limitation of personal freedom; acquisition of material wealth; a distrust of the media; a basic disinterest in the welfare of poor people; and a love of the military.

You say you are a libertarian flavored conservative. What I know of the libertarian ideals is limited to the interview and call in program with Maine's libertarian candidate last year. What I heard made me believe that things could be much worse than a conservative government. Maybe you would like to enlighten me as to how we would run a huge, rich country like this under libertarian principles and keep from having disease and starvation in the streets.

You are concerned that the "status quo at the moment is borderline socialism with the government attempting to become the health care industry, power producing industry, retirement security industry, education industry (mission accomplished)etc." This strikes me as another instance of either misunderstanding the goals of these programs or a disregard of history. As I said before, the social history of the US during the second half of the 19th Century and during the Great depression has shown what happens to the people when the Government takes a hands-off approach. Another example is what happened in England during the Industrial Revolution. I'm sure you don't want to see that happen again.

So what is the solution to such a dilemma. You don't want the Government to handle things and there isn't anyone else with the resources to do it. What do we do? People need health care, they need to eat, we all need energy at affordable prices, and we all need an education.

One proposal has been to privatize. I guess the theory is that the bureaucracy is expensive, wasteful, and slow. I can't argue that. But a private industry has two things that never seems to be considered. They have their own overhead expenses and they need to make a profit. I have no problem with making a profit but I believe the overhead and profit could equal the government waste. If there will be no change why change things?

And, believe it or not, private industry has their own bureaucracy and we would have to deal with. Who has not had to ask for something from a large company? When they want to be paid it is easy to contact a responsible representative. If you need them to do something for you it can be frustrating and difficult in the extreme. Trust me, I have worked with some of the largest construction firms in the US and they are sometimes as bad as the US Government that I work for.

Concerning Iran-Contra, the U.S. Congress passed the Boland Amendment in 1984 specifically outlawing the funding of the so-called Contras by any government agency. While the President has the authority to conduct foreign policy he also has to obey the law of the land and the Boland Amendment was made part of that law. The authority to conduct foreign policy does not abstract him from his responsibility to conform to the will of the people. Remember, he works for us. It didn't help that Bush Sr. collaborated in the original scandal and then engineered the cover up by pardoning the players. Those conservatives with heartburn about Clinton's pardons need to remember this one.

Oh, and two can play the game of quoting and interpreting lines from famous documents. Here is the Preamble to the Constitution:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Let's take a look at what it says The Constitution is to do.

"…form a more perfect Union…" After The Revolution there were many instances of conflict between the states, each asserting their states rights. The Constitution was intended to end those conflicts.

"…establish Justice…" Pretty self explanatory except that it was not intended to usurp the justice system within each state. It was intended to provide a framework for justice between the states.

"…insure domestic Tranquility…" Once again there was a matter of conflict between the states. In one or two instance it nearly came to blows and in one instance, Shay's Rebellion, there were deaths and a true fear of warfare.

"…provide for the common defence…" Also self explanatory. We need an army and a navy to defend ALL of the states. The militias continued unaffected.

"…promote the general Welfare…" This could be the one on which you and I differ the most. The word welfare is defined as health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. To my mind that pretty much requires the US Government to become the center of the social programs so hated by conservatives.

"…and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…" And this is the "granting" phrase. As I said before, I had nothing to do with the creation of this document or this nation. I am eternally grateful and proud to be part of it but I believe we earn the rights which are granted to us. You and I may be at odds over a mere matter of semantics. I think the idea of the people giving permission to the Government to govern them is a principle of the Libertarians isn't it? I'd like to know more about it before I go any further on this part of the discussion.

I think that pretty much covers it. I find this discussion stimulating and enjoyable. Thanks for meeting me in a like mind.

Brett


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 16 Apr 01 - 02:59 PM

mousethief,

We probably don't agree on much, but I also heard Cokie Roberts piece and totally agreed with it. Her second point was that, in her words, "Clinton would have draped himself all over both of these issues" (refering to the Cinncinatti funeral of the escaping criminal who was shot as he jumped over a fence into the path of a pursing police officer, as well as the Orion crew's return).

Her last point was, that by inviting them to the White House at a later date, Bush can make it a pleasant weekend off-base for the flyers and their families, instead of all the Presidential protocol getting in the way of the reunion. She closed by noting that self-effacement appeared to be a hallmark of the Bush Administration as opposed to the previous Democratic Adminstration... Again, this from a liberal icon.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: mousethief
Date: 16 Apr 01 - 03:20 PM

It's enough to shake one's faith in the proposition that the press is dominated by conservative-bashing liberals. If one ever had such faith.

Alex


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: DougR
Date: 16 Apr 01 - 03:24 PM

Ah, but Naemanson, he did travel. To Crawford, Texas, to be with his family for Easter.

And I side with Alex and others. I think Bush was smart to play it the way he did and stay out of the spotlight.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Apr 01 - 04:09 PM

Yep, sounds like he did the right thing to me...

- LH


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Apr 01 - 05:57 PM

Why all the accolades for this guy simply because he adopted a course that any reasonable person would take- even assuming he made the decision for himself, which is unlikely. He did absolutely nothing special- manufactured "news" at its "finest".

What's next- adulation because he's able to feed himself, and is potty trained? Good god!



Best, Greg


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: Naemanson
Date: 16 Apr 01 - 06:13 PM

He's potty trained? About time!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: mousethief
Date: 16 Apr 01 - 06:41 PM

Because it is very unlikely any of our last 20 presidents would have taken such a reasonable course.

Alex


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: LDave
Date: 16 Apr 01 - 07:40 PM

If Bush stood next to real airmen+women it would have reminded people that he went AWOL when he was in the service.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: DougR
Date: 17 Apr 01 - 12:15 AM

Alex: I'm beginning to worry about you.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: Troll
Date: 17 Apr 01 - 12:38 AM

Give Clinton some credit. When the bodies of the sailors who were killed on the USS Cole were flown back to the States, neither he nor Gore used the ocassion as a photo op or even made statement to the press. They were at a Democratic fund raiser as I recall.
They raised $200,00.

troll * Don't worry about Alex, Doug. I'm sure it's only temporary.***BG***


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: mousethief
Date: 17 Apr 01 - 11:40 AM

You guys are not much better than MAV about stereotyping people you think are "liberal." He's a liberal, so he can't possibly agree that President Bush did anything right.

troll, is that two hundred dollars, or two hundred thousand dollars?

Alex


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: mousethief
Date: 17 Apr 01 - 11:46 AM

Great piece, Kendall. Pity the people who agree with more than 20% of it; maybe some day they'll be human, too.

Alex


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: kendall
Date: 17 Apr 01 - 01:08 PM

The Top 13 Signs the President *is* Ecology-Minded

13> Wants to remove millions of barrels of oil from pristine Alaskan wildnerness before it can cause any harm there.

12> Reduces number of people exhaling CO2 by allowing more arsenic in drinking water.

11> Has started a White House recycling program, though it's currently limited to previous administration cabinet members.

10> Dick Cheney's new pacemaker powered by scalp-mounted solar panels.

9> Seen "watering" White House lawn during recent barbecue.

8> His policies have encouraged the homeless to be more diligent about picking up aluminum cans.

7> He's burying Bill Clinton's legacy to fertilize the Rose Garden.

6> Co-sponsored a California initiative to develop a photovoltaic electric chair.

5> Conserves brain power by not thinkin' too hard about stuff.

4> Dutifully eats any endangered animals his policies kill.

3> He heartily endorses the composting and recycling of Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN).

2> He opposes the Drug Enforcement Administration's plan to destroy agricultural lands in Bolivia and Peru.

1> During staff meetings, he doodles on *both* sides of the paper before discarding. The Top 13 Signs the President *is* Ecology-Minded

13> Wants to remove millions of barrels of oil from pristine Alaskan wildnerness before it can cause any harm there.

12> Reduces number of people exhaling CO2 by allowing more arsenic in drinking water.

11> Has started a White House recycling program, though it's currently limited to previous administration cabinet members.

10> Dick Cheney's new pacemaker powered by scalp-mounted solar panels.

9> Seen "watering" White House lawn during recent barbecue.

8> His policies have encouraged the homeless to be more diligent about picking up aluminum cans.

7> He's burying Bill Clinton's legacy to fertilize the Rose Garden.

6> Co-sponsored a California initiative to develop a photovoltaic electric chair.

5> Conserves brain power by not thinkin' too hard about stuff.

4> Dutifully eats any endangered animals his policies kill.

3> He heartily endorses the composting and recycling of Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN).

2> He opposes the Drug Enforcement Administration's plan to destroy agricultural lands in Bolivia and Peru.

1> During staff meetings, he doodles on *both* sides of the paper before discarding. The Top 13 Signs the President *is* Ecology-Minded

13> Wants to remove millions of barrels of oil from pristine Alaskan wildnerness before it can cause any harm there.

12> Reduces number of people exhaling CO2 by allowing more arsenic in drinking water.

11> Has started a White House recycling program, though it's currently limited to previous administration cabinet members.

10> Dick Cheney's new pacemaker powered by scalp-mounted solar panels.

9> Seen "watering" White House lawn during recent barbecue.

8> His policies have encouraged the homeless to be more diligent about picking up aluminum cans.

7> He's burying Bill Clinton's legacy to fertilize the Rose Garden.

6> Co-sponsored a California initiative to develop a photovoltaic electric chair.

5> Conserves brain power by not thinkin' too hard about stuff.

4> Dutifully eats any endangered animals his policies kill.

3> He heartily endorses the composting and recycling of Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN).

2> He opposes the Drug Enforcement Administration's plan to destroy agricultural lands in Bolivia and Peru.

1> During staff meetings, he doodles on *both* sides of the paper before discarding. The Top 13 Signs the President *is* Ecology-Minded

13> Wants to remove millions of barrels of oil from pristine Alaskan wildnerness before it can cause any harm there.

12> Reduces number of people exhaling CO2 by allowing more arsenic in drinking water.

11> Has started a White House recycling program, though it's currently limited to previous administration cabinet members.

10> Dick Cheney's new pacemaker powered by scalp-mounted solar panels.

9> Seen "watering" White House lawn during recent barbecue.

8> His policies have encouraged the homeless to be more diligent about picking up aluminum cans.

7> He's burying Bill Clinton's legacy to fertilize the Rose Garden.

6> Co-sponsored a California initiative to develop a photovoltaic electric chair.

5> Conserves brain power by not thinkin' too hard about stuff.

4> Dutifully eats any endangered animals his policies kill.

3> He heartily endorses the composting and recycling of Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN).

2> He opposes the Drug Enforcement Administration's plan to destroy agricultural lands in Bolivia and Peru.

1> During staff meetings, he doodles on *both* sides of the paper before discarding. The Top 13 Signs the President *is* Ecology-Minded

13> Wants to remove millions of barrels of oil from pristine Alaskan wildnerness before it can cause any harm there.

12> Reduces number of people exhaling CO2 by allowing more arsenic in drinking water.

11> Has started a White House recycling program, though it's currently limited to previous administration cabinet members.

10> Dick Cheney's new pacemaker powered by scalp-mounted solar panels.

9> Seen "watering" White House lawn during recent barbecue.

8> His policies have encouraged the homeless to be more diligent about picking up aluminum cans.

7> He's burying Bill Clinton's legacy to fertilize the Rose Garden.

6> Co-sponsored a California initiative to develop a photovoltaic electric chair.

5> Conserves brain power by not thinkin' too hard about stuff.

4> Dutifully eats any endangered animals his policies kill.

3> He heartily endorses the composting and recycling of Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN).

2> He opposes the Drug Enforcement Administration's plan to destroy agricultural lands in Bolivia and Peru.

1> During staff meetings, he doodles on *both* sides of the paper before discarding. The Top 13 Signs the President *is* Ecology-Minded

13> Wants to remove millions of barrels of oil from pristine Alaskan wildnerness before it can cause any harm there.

12> Reduces number of people exhaling CO2 by allowing more arsenic in drinking water.

11> Has started a White House recycling program, though it's currently limited to previous administration cabinet members.

10> Dick Cheney's new pacemaker powered by scalp-mounted solar panels.

9> Seen "watering" White House lawn during recent barbecue.

8> His policies have encouraged the homeless to be more diligent about picking up aluminum cans.

7> He's burying Bill Clinton's legacy to fertilize the Rose Garden.

6> Co-sponsored a California initiative to develop a photovoltaic electric chair.

5> Conserves brain power by not thinkin' too hard about stuff.

4> Dutifully eats any endangered animals his policies kill.

3> He heartily endorses the composting and recycling of Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN).

2> He opposes the Drug Enforcement Administration's plan to destroy agricultural lands in Bolivia and Peru.

1> During staff meetings, he doodles on *both* sides of the paper before discarding. The Top 13 Signs the President *is* Ecology-Minded

13> Wants to remove millions of barrels of oil from pristine Alaskan wildnerness before it can cause any harm there.

12> Reduces number of people exhaling CO2 by allowing more arsenic in drinking water.

11> Has started a White House recycling program, though it's currently limited to previous administration cabinet members.

10> Dick Cheney's new pacemaker powered by scalp-mounted solar panels.

9> Seen "watering" White House lawn during recent barbecue.

8> His policies have encouraged the homeless to be more diligent about picking up aluminum cans.

7> He's burying Bill Clinton's legacy to fertilize the Rose Garden.

6> Co-sponsored a California initiative to develop a photovoltaic electric chair.

5> Conserves brain power by not thinkin' too hard about stuff.

4> Dutifully eats any endangered animals his policies kill.

3> He heartily endorses the composting and recycling of Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN).

2> He opposes the Drug Enforcement Administration's plan to destroy agricultural lands in Bolivia and Peru.

1> During staff meetings, he doodles on *both* sides of the paper before discarding.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: mousethief
Date: 17 Apr 01 - 01:24 PM

Kendall, you must have nervous fingers!

The one about Cheney was a low blow. The rest I like!

Alex


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: DougR
Date: 17 Apr 01 - 06:31 PM

Kat, why did you teach Kendall to cut and paste? Now he's going to go wild!

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: mousethief
Date: 17 Apr 01 - 06:36 PM

Question is, why didn't she teach him to do it RIGHT? And now she's gone for a full week and we're going to have to put up with these threads where everything is repeated 3, 4, and 5 times.

Sigh.

Alex


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: DougR
Date: 17 Apr 01 - 07:36 PM

Kat is obviously a vengeful person! (Justjoking!)

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: kendall
Date: 17 Apr 01 - 07:41 PM

Look how about some suggestions instead of the usual pissing and moaning? I dont know what the fuck is wrong, and all that juvenile complaining is no help.

This is what she said to do. Drag the mouse over the text you wish to copy, holding the left click down the entire text. When it is all highlighted, take your hand off the mouse and hit the ctrl key and, at the same time the C key, then release. Go to the thread you want to put it in,and hit ctrl and V at the same time.

Ok, all you pain in the ass geniuses, what is wrong?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Apr 01 - 08:28 PM

Hmmm--- that should work properly as you describe it. When you paste it into the "reply to thread" box, Kendall, is it in there once, or in multiple copies before you hit "submit"?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: GUEST,SeanM, hopefully helpful
Date: 17 Apr 01 - 09:17 PM

What may have happened is your computer may have multiplied the command if you did more than strike the key (i.e., if you held it down). SOME keyboard shortcuts only activate once per key press, but paste commands repeat if you hold the key down...

Hopefully, this may help as an alternate, using only the mouse:

Start by left-clicking and holding next to the text you wish to copy. Drag the mouse until the entire passage you wish to copy is highlighted. Once the correct area is highlighted, let go of the button. DO NOT PRESS ANYTHING ELSE, as it will undo what you've done.

RIGHT click on the highlighted section - do not hold. This should bring up a short menu of commands, including "cut", "copy", "paste" and "delete". You want copy. 'Cut' will work too, but if it's from a document that you're working on, it will delete the passage from there and let you paste the piece elsewhere. Copy leaves the original intact.

Go to the document (or screen, or what have you) that you wish to paste the text to. Position the mouse where you'd like it pasted, then RIGHT click. This will bring up the same drop down menu as before - select PASTE.

This should accomplish the same thing as what you were doing, but mostly eliminates the chance of keyboard stutter, as with the mouse it only accepts the command once.

I hope this helps.

SeanM


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: Troll
Date: 17 Apr 01 - 10:45 PM

Alex, it was two hundred thousand dollars.
SeanM, thats what I do and it works very well.

troll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: uncle bill
Date: 17 Apr 01 - 11:36 PM

I heard that the joint chief were pushing Bush to send a carrier task force into the South China Sea as a show of force and gdubya told them to back off . Can anyone confirm this? If so , his stock went up considerably for me.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: mousethief
Date: 17 Apr 01 - 11:41 PM

I heard that Colin Powell told Israel that re-invading the Gaza Strip was an overreaction to the provocation that immediately preceded it, and that he wanted them to clear out post-haste, and that they DID.

NPR described the apparent censure of Israel as "rare."

I'm beginning to like this State Department.

Alex


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 18 Apr 01 - 12:19 AM

On his recent show, Dennis Miller made two comments regarding Bush which I thought were on target...

1) Bush has been able to effectively surround himself with intelligent people, just like a hole surrounds itself with a donut

2) Bush's greatest accomplishment thus far has been to lower our expectations of him to a point that, if he succeeds in getting through his term without shoving a roman candle up his ass on a dare from his brother Jeb, they'll probably put him on Mount Rushmore


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: kendall
Date: 18 Apr 01 - 07:39 AM

Thanks a lot Sean M. Thats what I needed. I'm more to be pitied than censured.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 18 Apr 01 - 08:28 AM

Bush has been benefiting from low expectations for quite a while now. This thread is just one more example -- the guy decides to skip one photo op in favor of another, and people are giving him credit for having better judgment than any President in the last 20 years? Give me a break! He did an adequate job -- not exceptional -- in dealing with a situation in China that was considerably less of a "crisis" than it was made out to be. As far as I'm concerned, he has yet to be truly tested, with respect to either foreign policy or domestic issues. Let's keep this in perspective, shall we?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: kendall
Date: 18 Apr 01 - 08:34 AM

What can you expect from a government that is run by a bush and a dick?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: Troll
Date: 18 Apr 01 - 08:37 AM

Whistle Stop, I agree with you. But I think that the reason people are giving him so much credit, is that they didn't think he'd even do that well.
He did OK here, maybe he'll continue the trend.
We don't need brilliance, just a moderate level of competence and truth.

troll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: mousethief
Date: 18 Apr 01 - 11:54 AM

I'm more to be pitied than censured.

What about teased?

Alex


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: GUEST,Curmudgeon
Date: 18 Apr 01 - 11:59 AM

I'm not sure that Bush is "receiving the benefit of low expectations." There have been plenty of signs that he has some idea of what needs to be done, and a reasonable way of attempting to achieve those goals. Despite the debate over how many more times he had to fly to run out his commission, he was a pilot and stupid pilots end up being the first person at the scene of their own plane crash. Any one who has been to flight school can verify this.

His grades were better than Gores and he obtained a Master's degree (Gore did not).

But I believe the most important fact is, that his enemies have had such glee at creating or passing on every criticisim that can be leveled at him, that at some point, given the law of Deminishing Returns, they are proved wrong in dramatic fashion. It's at this point that the public, which tends to ignore the whole "Bash Whoevers President" cycle, is drawn into the fray as the media picks up on the public interest, creating a cycle of Media Interest reporting on Public Interest which is reading Media Interest reporting on Public Interest ad nauseum.

I've often quoted the old Arabic saying that "Dogs bark, but the caravan moves on". It happened with Clinton, it will happen with Bush. There are too many people on both sides of the asile who will not let the office fail, even if it's not their guy. And you govern from the middle no matter who your supporters are. America, to my mind, has always been one of the more interesting caravans to be on...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: kendall
Date: 18 Apr 01 - 12:46 PM

Alex, I welcome teasing, but, it must look like teasing. In the future, just add "I'm teasing you old fart!" I may have over reacted. Someone once said "Never spoil an apology by adding an excuse". Ok, so, I wont apologize. Kendallcomingdownoffhishighhorse.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: mousethief
Date: 18 Apr 01 - 01:05 PM

Never spoil an excuse by adding an apology, eh?

Next time I'll make sure I at least add a smiley.

You old fart. :-)

Alex


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 18 Apr 01 - 01:23 PM

Another comment made by Dennis Miller was interesting as well. "Am I against drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge? Sure! But when every other car in America is a Lincoln Navigator with an Earth First! bumper sticker, who's to blame Bush for realizing that we can't have it both ways?" A very good point there. We Americans are often keen on lofty sentiments as long as our own ox isn't gored, and the sacrifice is made by someone else. I didn't vote for George, but he has been doing what he promised for better or worse.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: mousethief
Date: 18 Apr 01 - 01:26 PM

I wish they could sell gasoline with a pricing scale based on your MPG. Thus if you drive a 50mpg compact car, you get gas for under $1 a gallon, and on the other end of the spectrum, if you drive a gas-guzzling 12-passenger SUV, you must pay about $5 per gallon.

Bet that would change the way we buy cars.

Alex


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: kendall
Date: 18 Apr 01 - 01:39 PM

You said it Alex. That makes sense! How about a tax break on ultra fuel efficient cars, such as the Japaese imports from Honda and Toyota? Hybrids they call them. 60 mpg in the city.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 18 Apr 01 - 02:14 PM

Dennis Miller is right. However, the first obligation of a leader is to lead, not to pander to his constituents' lowest impulses. That's true even when our leaders are elected. So far, GWB really hasn't tried to get people to focus honestly on the tough choices, so even if the SUV drivers share the blame, I'm not inclined to let Bush off the hook.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: Penny S.
Date: 18 Apr 01 - 02:57 PM

News today in the UK is that petrol (gas) prices are going up, due to, they say, the demand for fuel in the US.

Penny


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: DougR
Date: 18 Apr 01 - 03:01 PM

Whistle Stop: from whose perspective?

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 18 Apr 01 - 03:24 PM

My own, of course; whose were you expecting?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: MAV
Date: 19 Apr 01 - 12:05 AM

Hey Brett,

Good post, I'll try to make only the salient points.

conservatism is not restricted to the USA

American conservativism is.

There are conservative movements all over the world

We don't care about all those other non-American conservatives. They all want to conserve some lesser and likely evil form of government.

and they all seem to have the same goals, i.e., limitation of personal freedom;

We have NO desire to limit freedom.

acquisition of material wealth; a distrust of the media;

Yeah, like labor lefties don't want more, that is a natural tendency. You make distrust of the media sound like a bad thing.

a basic disinterest in the welfare of poor people

That's not true, we just want them to expect more of themselves than to be dependent on handouts.

and a love of the military

Well, that's in the Constitution.

You say you are a libertarian flavored conservative. What I know of the libertarian ideals is limited to the interview and call in program with Maine's libertarian candidate last year. What I heard made me believe that things could be much worse than a conservative government. Maybe you would like to enlighten me as to how we would run a huge, rich country like this under libertarian principles and keep from having disease and starvation in the streets

Easy, we have so many layers of bleeping government (50 states and thousands of cities) follow the Constitution like it's written and let them be in charge of everything NOT SPECIFICALLY ASSIGNED to the federal government.

You are concerned that the "status quo at the moment is borderline socialism with the government attempting to become the health care industry, power producing industry, retirement security industry, education industry (mission accomplished)etc." This strikes me as another instance of either misunderstanding the goals of these programs or a disregard of history. As I said before, the social history of the US during the second half of the 19th Century and during the Great depression has shown what happens to the people when the Government takes a hands-off approach. Another example is what happened in England during the Industrial Revolution. I'm sure you don't want to see that happen again

Never mind the goals, look at what they have become, mammoth tax consuming failures. I don't believe that those events would happen again nor if they were to, that government could do anything to stop it.

So what is the solution to such a dilemma. You don't want the Government to handle things and there isn't anyone else with the resources to do it. What do we do? People need health care, they need to eat, we all need energy at affordable prices, and we all need an education.

Health care comes from the private sector, food comes from the private sector, college education partially comes from the private sector and so does some primary education.

One proposal has been to privatize. I guess the theory is that the bureaucracy is expensive, wasteful, and slow. I can't argue that.

Good!

But a private industry has two things that never seems to be considered. They have their own overhead expenses and they need to make a profit. I have no problem with making a profit but I believe the overhead and profit could equal the government waste. If there will be no change why change things?

You used the word "could". We don't know if we don't try. One thing the government DOES NOT HAVE and that is competition. Competition creates inovation and helps companies offer better product at a lower price.

And, believe it or not, private industry has their own bureaucracy and we would have to deal with. Who has not had to ask for something from a large company? When they want to be paid it is easy to contact a responsible representative. If you need them to do something for you it can be frustrating and difficult in the extreme. Trust me, I have worked with some of the largest construction firms in the US and they are sometimes as bad as the US Government that I work for

I don't think big entities of any kind are real desirable.

Concerning Iran-Contra, the U.S. Congress passed the Boland Amendment in 1984 specifically outlawing the funding of the so-called Contras by any government agency. While the President has the authority to conduct foreign policy he also has to obey the law of the land and the Boland Amendment was made part of that law

To be made part of the Constitution, it has to be ratified by the states......was it?

Oh, and two can play the game of quoting and interpreting lines from famous documents. Here is the Preamble to the Constitution:

Yes, please continue.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Let's take a look at what it says The Constitution is to do

"…form a more perfect Union…" After The Revolution there were many instances of conflict between the states, each asserting their states rights. The Constitution was intended to end those conflicts

Ok.

"…establish Justice…" Pretty self explanatory except that it was not intended to usurp the justice system within each state. It was intended to provide a framework for justice between the states

Yup.

"…insure domestic Tranquility…" Once again there was a matter of conflict between the states. In one or two instance it nearly came to blows and in one instance, Shay's Rebellion, there were deaths and a true fear of warfare

That's all fine.

"…provide for the common defence…" Also self explanatory. We need an army and a navy to defend ALL of the states. The militias continued unaffected

True enough.

"…promote the general Welfare…" This could be the one on which you and I differ the most. The word welfare is defined as health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. To my mind that pretty much requires the US Government to become the center of the social programs so hated by conservatives

Aaaaaaa HA!!!!!!!

Words mean things and you just blew by a VERY IMPORTANT WORD!!!

Notice how I agreed when you said provide for the common defence......I agreed. The government "provides" or pays for it.

When you said promote the general Welfare, the first and most important point here is PROMOTE means promote (advocate, talk up) not "PROVIDE"!

The second word is "WELFARE", which means one's state of being or comfort both physical and mental. It never did mean a free income, that was referred to as welfare assistance, even currently.

"…and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…" And this is the "granting" phrase. As I said before, I had nothing to do with the creation of this document or this nation. I am eternally grateful and proud to be part of it but I believe we earn the rights which are granted to us

No, blessings are from God in their own words.

You and I may be at odds over a mere matter of semantics.

They said what they meant and meant what they said. They were very literate men and had a much better command of the English language than our current populace does.

I think the idea of the people giving permission to the Government to govern them is a principle of the Libertarians isn't it?

No. It's a principle of the founders. (Unless they were Libertarians) The people were here without and before government and then they created it. (the chicken or the egg).

I'd like to know more about it before I go any further on this part of the discussion.

Good. If you apply the few points I made, it will change the meaning of much of your perceived notions.

Believe me, the people give their consent to be governed. That part IS democracy.

I think that pretty much covers it. I find this discussion stimulating and enjoyable. Thanks for meeting me in a like mind.

Well, good. Me too. This is how I like to do it. But if you were afraid of me attacking you (which you needn't have been) Look the hell out now!

What I have said will likely be in for serious rebuttal, ridicule and discreditation.

But, oh well. I can take it.

Thanks friend, see you soon

mav out


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: DougR
Date: 19 Apr 01 - 01:26 AM

Whistle Stop: ah ha! 'Twas as I expected!

Kendall: must we add "old fart" to the message? Personally, I enjoy almost everything you post, right or not. :>)

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: kendall
Date: 19 Apr 01 - 07:22 AM

MAV, you must be aware that we pay much less in taxes than any other industrialized nation on earth. Now, explain to me how you would run the country without taxes. Dubbya keeps chirping his mindless mantra.."I trust the people, it's your money, it doesn't belong to Washington, etc. well, damn it man, it's our money, yes, it is also our social security, our military, our education our highways etc. who the hell is going to pay for all the services we demand without taxes?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: Skeptic
Date: 19 Apr 01 - 02:26 PM

Mav,

We have NO desire to limit freedom

Depends on your views on certain issues. Abortion, gay rights, mandatory school prayers being the "hot" topic, of course. But the conservatives propose a variety of regulations and laws that fall under the heading of "legislating morality". Liberals, of course, make similar attempts. Both philosophies seem to have bought into the idea that power flows down. Not up. A sort of social/political supply side theory.

Yeah, like labor lefties don't want more, that is a natural tendency.

Yes, it is. The degree is the issue. Do you want more as a pragmatic issue of living or more for the sake of more? Under the idea of the welfare state, the government controls the amount of "more" there is. How do you control the "more" in a quasi-capitalistic economy without a body with counterbalancing power.

You make distrust of the media sound like a bad thing.

How about uncritical trust of the media?

That's not true, we just want them to expect more of themselves than to be dependent on handouts.

First, define 'poor'. Are we talking about inadequate food (as in MDA) or not being able to afford imported caviar. Are we talking about inadequate housing or having to do a time share rather than buy a condo at the beach? I think your statement qualifies as sophistry (which is my job) tinged with classism. You assume they don't expect more of themselves. Some don't. A general rule? I'd like to see proof of that. There's also an implication that poor is a choice. Again, it may be. When the cost of living has risen 25% faster than wages, the argument is somewhat strained.

A society that does not put the welfare of its members (as in basic needs) ahead of institutional interests would seem to be morally deficient from a religious standpoint, ethically so from a philosophical one and engaging in inherently destabilizing behavior from a pragmatic stand-point. Well, that's in the Constitution. (About the love of the military)

Love of the military is in the Constitution? Missed that, somehow.

Never mind the goals, look at what they have become, mammoth tax consuming failures. I don't believe that those events would happen again nor if they were to, that government could do anything to stop it.

Is that a systemic or a programatic failure? Let's remember that a part of the administrative overhead is done to please various special interest groups. For example, if a program requires that funding not be used for pro-choice teaching programs, then the agency will have to prove such. (Trust is something Congress leaves to God and others). So you hire five people, create 50 forms and generate a report. The alternative is to be accused of violating the will of Congress. (An accusation that requires no proof at all). Do the programs fail because of inherent flaws (in that they are delivered by the government) or because we need to change how they are delivered. Under the faith based initiative, what will the requirements be? If, as proposed, a lot of the requirements and regulations are done away with, then how do I know my tax dollars are being used appropriately? A drug treatment program that relies on Scientology's auditing process is not something I want funded unless I have some assurance that it works. All of which means more bureaucracy, more paperwork and more reports.

You used the word "could". We don't know if we don't try. One thing the government DOES NOT HAVE and that is competition. Competition creates inovation and helps companies offer better product at a lower price.

The argument that competition creates innovation is specious. While it may create innovation, that seems a secondary goal, not a requirement. Let's remember that the purpose of business is to generate a profit. By whatever means generates the most profit. Microsoft has been accused of many things. Innovation isn't one of them. They succeeded through buying up ideas or copying other, truly innovative, products and doing a better job of marketing. Using techniques of sometimes questionable legality. In this, the did what a capitalism demands. Made a profit. Innovative was what PARC did. Or what any of thousands of government funded research projects have done over the years.

The assumption that business will do anything more than work to create a profit seems to be a fundamental stumbling block. It's a fairly self serving process. What is the countervailing force that says "look beyond profits to social, environmental or quality issues". It's all well and good to argue about people voting with their dollars. What about when they aren't given a choice? What about when the customers who do "vote with their dollars" live 3000 miles away from the factory that's polluting the river that run's in back of your house? How do you use your dollars to vote against that?

I don't think big entities of any kind are real desirable.

Nor do I. How do you limit the size of business without a strong government?

To be made part of the Constitution, it has to be ratified by the states......was it?

The "Borland Amendment" was a law passed in 1982, not an amendment to the Constitution. The whole Iran/Contra affair had all the morality (and legality even before Borland) of a three card monte scam. Even I expect better from the government.

When you said promote the general Welfare, the first and most important point here is PROMOTE means promote (advocate, talk up) not "PROVIDE"!

Promote also means to establish or organize. As in promote an event, enterprise or endeavor. The argument is on how far to go in the interpretation of the word "welfare". As Hamilton in Federalist 85, and Madison in Federalist 41 implies, the intent was to create a document that could adjust and change with the times.

The second word is "WELFARE", which means one's state of being or comfort both physical and mental. It never did mean a free income, that was referred to as welfare assistance, even currently.

Welfare: also means Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being - (from the American Heritage)

And "free income" is somewhat misleading. Certain social programs would seem to contribute to the general welfare. Being homeless and hungry would seem not too do too much for anyones state of well being.

Brett, you said I am eternally grateful and proud to be part of it but I believe we earn the rights which are granted to us

I agree (sort of) with Mav. The original argument is that all rights, all power, belongs to individuals. That they join (formally or informally) and agree to certain limitations on their rights for perceived mutual benefits. The Constitution being a good example of a formal agreement.

The purpose of the Bill of Rights was not to grant those rights enumerated but to make sure the government understood that it had no authority (or at least limited authority) to interfere with them. Capped by the 10th amendment which added that just because a right wasn't listed earlier, doesn't mean the federal government can control it.

No, blessings are from God in their own words.

Which words. In the Constitution? Besides, it's a Phrase "Blessings of Liberty", not generic "blessings". The "blessings of liberty" was what the Revolutionary war was (popularly) about.

They said what they meant and meant what they said. They were very literate men and had a much better command of the English language than our current populace does.

And understood that both words and times change. (As mentioned above) . The stated intent was to create a document that could reflect and change with the times.

No. It's a principle of the founders. (Unless they were Libertarians) The people were here without and before government and then they created it. (the chicken or the egg).

And before. They borrowed the idea of a "social contract" (among other ideas) from Rousseau and the fundamentals of balance of power from a Roman. (Sorry, Can't put my finger on the name).

Good. If you apply the few points I made, it will change the meaning of much of your perceived notions.

Well, provoke thought anyway.

Regards

John


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

 


This Thread Is Closed.


Mudcat time: 19 November 1:55 PM EST

[ 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.