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

MAV 21 Apr 01 - 10:38 PM
MAV 22 Apr 01 - 12:12 AM
catspaw49 22 Apr 01 - 12:43 AM
Greg F. 22 Apr 01 - 08:43 AM
MAV 22 Apr 01 - 08:57 AM
MAV 22 Apr 01 - 11:45 AM
GUEST 22 Apr 01 - 02:35 PM
GUEST,JB 22 Apr 01 - 02:44 PM
GUEST,JB 22 Apr 01 - 02:44 PM
GUEST,JB 22 Apr 01 - 02:44 PM
Uncle Jaque 22 Apr 01 - 04:21 PM
GUEST,VAM 22 Apr 01 - 04:31 PM
MAV 22 Apr 01 - 05:52 PM
GUEST,VAM 22 Apr 01 - 07:00 PM
GUEST,kendall 22 Apr 01 - 07:50 PM
Greg F. 22 Apr 01 - 08:17 PM
Skeptic 22 Apr 01 - 09:51 PM
Uncle Jaque 22 Apr 01 - 10:33 PM
MAV 22 Apr 01 - 10:52 PM
mousethief 23 Apr 01 - 12:45 AM
Naemanson 24 Apr 01 - 05:51 PM
mousethief 24 Apr 01 - 06:12 PM
MAV 24 Apr 01 - 10:41 PM
Troll 24 Apr 01 - 11:35 PM
GUEST,Rick 25 Apr 01 - 05:57 AM
Skeptic 25 Apr 01 - 07:13 AM
Troll 25 Apr 01 - 08:18 AM
Naemanson 25 Apr 01 - 08:25 AM
Troll 25 Apr 01 - 08:47 AM
Troll 25 Apr 01 - 09:00 AM
Whistle Stop 25 Apr 01 - 10:03 AM
DougR 25 Apr 01 - 12:32 PM
Whistle Stop 25 Apr 01 - 01:17 PM
Naemanson 25 Apr 01 - 01:35 PM
Skeptic 25 Apr 01 - 06:03 PM
Bert 25 Apr 01 - 06:14 PM
Bert 25 Apr 01 - 06:20 PM
DougR 25 Apr 01 - 10:35 PM
DougR 25 Apr 01 - 10:37 PM
MAV 25 Apr 01 - 10:45 PM
DougR 26 Apr 01 - 12:11 AM
mousethief 26 Apr 01 - 12:25 AM
Bert 26 Apr 01 - 12:38 AM
Skeptic 26 Apr 01 - 07:16 AM
Skeptic 26 Apr 01 - 07:24 AM
Whistle Stop 26 Apr 01 - 08:54 AM
DougR 26 Apr 01 - 02:41 PM
Whistle Stop 27 Apr 01 - 01:32 PM
DougR 28 Apr 01 - 01:33 AM
mousethief 28 Apr 01 - 01:38 AM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: MAV
Date: 21 Apr 01 - 10:38 PM

MAV, you must be aware that we pay much less in taxes than any other industrialized nation on earth.

No, really? You think 45% is too low?

What about the "hidden" taxes?

Now, explain to me how you would run the country without taxes

You wouldn't, but why the hell would you want to tax the sweat of your brow, or your "own" house?

You could at least be taxing the spending habits of the ultra-rich and drug dealers.

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

Well, they're going to collect over $5 Trillion more than needed to pay for all that stuff, and he can't get the liberals (including your two lovely ladies) to give back $1.6 Trillion. Meaning they're still going to BLOW $3.4 Trillion.

Mindless mantra, you mean like "risky tax scheme", "for the children", "gravitas", "tax cut for the rich" etc.

mav out


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: MAV
Date: 22 Apr 01 - 12:12 AM

Hey Kendall,

Here's some reading material for you.

www.Tax the living CRAP outta ya!.com

mav out


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: catspaw49
Date: 22 Apr 01 - 12:43 AM

Yeah let's give the fockin' shrub even more credit for his ability to talk out of both sides of his mouth in Quebec City. A stellar performance so far............

Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Apr 01 - 08:43 AM

'Spaw, ya can't blame Prince George for doing what he's always done; no surprises there. What's sickening are the folks that mindlessly continue to BELIEVE this babbling while the record shows something entirely different....

Best, Greg


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: MAV
Date: 22 Apr 01 - 08:57 AM

Spewer,

Yeah let's give the fockin' shrub even more credit for his ability to talk out of both sides of his mouth in Quebec City

Yes, and a fine morning it is. Hadn't heard from you for awhile, we're hoping everythings ok.

Ok, let's hear your defense of the anti-capitalists...no, not liberals, not democrats, not socialists, but....

COMMUNISTS!!!!

A stellar performance so far............

Yes, you might find many in agreement.

This one's actually for Ebbie as per our discussion but maybe you could speak directly to this (or actually into it).

Envirophone for Catspew

mav out


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: MAV
Date: 22 Apr 01 - 11:45 AM

The Quebec Rioteers:

Who are these people?

How hip are they?

Do they create a lot of jobs?

Find out here

mav out


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Apr 01 - 02:35 PM


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: GUEST,JB
Date: 22 Apr 01 - 02:44 PM

Oh come on now and and give this man all the credit he duly deserves!

Sofar he´s been able to read out all the stuff written for him by the people who are remote controlling him from the shadows and he has made hardly any errors.

At times he even creates a better impression than his father. This man will surely go down in history in some way or another!

A fan and a half!

JB


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: GUEST,JB
Date: 22 Apr 01 - 02:44 PM

Oh come on now and and give this man all the credit he duly deserves!

Sofar he´s been able to read out all the stuff written for him by the people who are remote controlling him from the shadows and he has made hardly any errors.

At times he even creates a better impression than his father. This man will surely go down in history in some way or another!

A fan and a half!

JB


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: GUEST,JB
Date: 22 Apr 01 - 02:44 PM

Oh come on now and and give this man all the credit he duly deserves!

Sofar he´s been able to read out all the stuff written for him by the people who are remote controlling him from the shadows and he has made hardly any errors.

At times he even creates a better impression than his father. This man will surely go down in history in some way or another!

A fan and a half!

JB


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: Uncle Jaque
Date: 22 Apr 01 - 04:21 PM

Re the Quebec Rent-A-Mob: The thug first over the torn-down barricade as shown on FOX News (I rather think that CBS overlooked this shot) with the red T-shirt with the white sickle & Hammer logo emblazoned on it with "CCCP" underneath, banging a piece of broken-off 2X4 on his makeshift sheild and waving it in the face of anyone who got in his way pretty much gave me the first clue as to who is behind a lot of this. Now they are talking up a "Carnival against Capitalisim"! Rave on, Komrades; all the purple hair, bongo drums, silly chants... shades of the '60s! weren't they fun, now?! Do you remember?

Again, "Rush" is right; these LSCs get really entertaining when they're out of power and desperate to regain the throne. Stay tuned for more "love-ins", tree/pole sittings, and entire albums of tasteless but very PC Protest Songs. No offence if I don't rush right out and buy any. Keep it up, Komrades; it's a hoot!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: GUEST,VAM
Date: 22 Apr 01 - 04:31 PM

Fuque off, Jaque- this ain't the Quebec thread. Your juvenile attempts at humour are getting very old as well.

vam over & out


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: MAV
Date: 22 Apr 01 - 05:52 PM

Dear VAM,

Fuque off, Jaque-

That's not very nice gregspaw. You must not be a kind, caring, compassionate and tolerant liberal.

TOLERATE THIS!!!

this ain't the Quebec thread. Your juvenile attempts at humour are getting very old as well

This is the "Credit for Bush" thread, however, and Bush was in Quebec.

If he ticked you off, I think we have to give him credit.

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

mav out


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: GUEST,VAM
Date: 22 Apr 01 - 07:00 PM

Waaaaahhh! WAAAAHHHHH!! Poor little MAV baby. There there, now don't throw another tantrum, Mommie's little boy might hurt himself. What? you'll hold your breath until you turn blue? Jaque off, arsehole.

VAM over& out roger wilco


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 22 Apr 01 - 07:50 PM

All those wierdos and their anti- war anti- establishmet didos brought down a president and ended a war, I remember that. Furthermore MAV, according to the paper today, our two "ladies" in the senate (for the time being) voted to go along with Bush. And, who is paying 45% in taxes?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Apr 01 - 08:17 PM

All those wierdos and their anti- war anti- establishmet didos brought down a president and ended a war, I remember that.

I'm sure he remembers that too, Kendall- or has at least read about it. So do the other right-wing nutcases, which is precisely why they all fulminate and foam at the mouth about them down to this day.

Best, Greg


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: Skeptic
Date: 22 Apr 01 - 09:51 PM

Kendall,

The 45% is from all sources: income, corporate, property, school taxes, sales taxes and so on. I've usually seen it as a % of GDP. When you start looking at details it's not as precise since different countries deffinitions of what constituites a "tax" versus a permit fee, occupational license and so on, varies. I seem to recall the the second highest in the industrialized world is at something like 48% but can't find the reference.

Regards

John


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: Uncle Jaque
Date: 22 Apr 01 - 10:33 PM

Absolutely predictable response from our "tolerant" fans out there. I would have been rather disapointed had it not been forthcoming.

As to who gets the credit for "ending" the Vietnam debacle (please don't assume that "Conservatives" stereotypically think that 'Nam was a great idea in the first place); now let's see...
It essentially started under JFK, didn't it? and it raged on through the Administration of Johnson, who was a...a... ah yes; a Democrat as well, no? And it finally had it's ugly plug pulled (at least as far as the US was concerned) under the Administration of "Tricky Dick" Nixon, a Republican.
Now RN may have spoken with forked tounge nigh on as much as Clinton towards the end, there; he just wasn't nearly as profficient at it. But he did bring our (surviving) troops back from 'Nam. And we are told that the protest/activists are to get the credit for this? They probably were a factor, I will concede, but as I recall the rest of the Country was getting pretty fed up with the whole thing, too, and the hell-raising hipsters and weed-burners surely don't deserve the percentage of the credit reputed above.
We're getting to ye, arn't we "VAM" (or whoever you are; you certainly project an impression of fortitude and ferocity from behind that curtain of anonymity!)? Must be gitting awful close to a soft spot, eh?
OK, MAV; finish 'im off!

Sweet dreams, all!
Uncle J. clear & "Z" in ME


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: MAV
Date: 22 Apr 01 - 10:52 PM

Oh Kendall,

All those wierdos and their anti- war anti- establishmet didos

They're not anti-establishment.......WE ARE!!!

They want to preserve the bloated oversized government with all it's giveaway programs and high tax structure.

The smaller government/lower taxes movement is the anti-establishment crowd.

Pay attention dammit!

mav out


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: mousethief
Date: 23 Apr 01 - 12:45 AM

America's troop involvement in Vietnam started under Eisenhower.

Alex


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: Naemanson
Date: 24 Apr 01 - 05:51 PM

OK, I am back and life can get back to normal. I apologize for taking so long to answer. Let me roll up the old sleeves and begin with reading what has passed so far.

My goodness! Things certainly flamed up there for a while. It would seem we have a bit of an emotional investment on both sides.

And it is a little complicated with Skeptic's comments as well. I don't want to cut him out so I have included his comments here as well. Let's see what we can do.

ME: conservatism is not restricted to the USA
MAV: American conservativism is.
ME: There are conservative movements all over the world
MAV: We don't care about all those other non-American conservatives. They all want to conserve some lesser and likely evil form of government.

This exchange is a problem for me. If you are going to equate the liberal movements with world movements then we also have to do the same with the conservative movements. We want to compare apples and apples.

Then there is your comment about conserving some "lesser and likely evil form of government". This comment is not only disturbing but scary. Do conservatives honestly think that our Government is the absolute highest form of government on the planet? I agree it is the best right now but time is passing, technology is improving, and humans are dynamic creatures. It may be possible to improve what we have. The Constitution is a living document, capable of improvement and adjustment.

The other scary part of your comment is that you seem to equate "other" governments with "evil" governments. I'm sure our British, Canadian, Irish, French, Japanese, etc., brothers and sisters will not agree with this assessment. This comment seems to indicate either a desire for isolation or an arrogance that is sorely out of place in the modern world.

ME: and they all seem to have the same goals, i.e., limitation of personal freedom;
MAV: We have NO desire to limit freedom.
SKEPTIC: 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.

I have to agree with Skeptic on this one. At the same time I recognize that we are fairly safe as long as we keep a balance of liberals and conservatives in the Government.

ME: acquisition of material wealth; a distrust of the media;
MAV: Yeah, like labor lefties don't want more, that is a natural tendency. You make distrust of the media sound like a bad thing.
SKEPTIC: 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.
SKEPTIC: How about uncritical trust of the media?

About the acquisition of material wealth: The difference seems to be on focus. The conservatives I know seem to make it the prime focus of their lives, sometimes to the exclusion of their personal happiness and their family relationships. The liberals I know tend to be happy making enough to meet expenses and put a little aside. Of course this is not all encompassing but is based on personal experience.

About distrusting the media: It IS a bad thing. We live in an era where it is too easy to hide things and make plans that could hurt some people. Our eyes are the media. Sometimes they do their jobs poorly and sometimes they do the job right. However they do the job, when they make people sit up and take notice that is good. We can fume and sputter about their being unfair or melodramatic but if it makes people write to their representatives or start movements that will change the way things are then they have done their jobs.

ME: a basic disinterest in the welfare of poor people
MAV: That's not true, we just want them to expect more of themselves than to be dependent on handouts.
SKEPTIC: 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.

Generally Conservatives have been particularly lacking in empathy as regards the poor. There are a variety of reasons why people are poor. Jobs in some areas are few and far between. Racism exists and eliminates some opportunities. Success, even minor success, requires certain elements not necessarily available to all people including initiative, intelligence, and interest. One of my tenants rents an apartment using state aid. He could not get by on his own natural intelligence, not because he lacks it but because his personal and medical problems are overwhelming. This isn't something he could handle by himself and his parents are not in a position to help him. Would you turn him out into the street?

SKEPTIC: 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

I certainly have to agree with him on that point. A society has to have heart as well as might (either military or economic).

ME: and a love of the military
MAV: Well, that's in the Constitution.
SKEPTIC: Love of the military is in the Constitution? Missed that, somehow

I don't understand your point. The Constitution says nothing about revering the military. It just makes provision for the protection of our way of life.

ME: 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
MAV: 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.

I need to consider this longer. On the surface it seems logical but there are problems that could overwhelm such a simple approach.

ME: 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
MAV: 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.
SKEPTIC: 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.
Kendall: 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?

I don't want to get into what Kendall and Skeptic are saying except that they have good points and I agree with them. I am more interested in knowing why you think these programs are failures. You cannot depend on the media, whom you already distrust. Consider that the media will only report the bad news. If a program helps thousands of people and one person abuses it then that one instance will get all the camera time. We hear of welfare Cadillacs but that isn't the norm, it is representative of the rare abuser getting all the attention.

ME: 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?
MAV: 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.
Skeptic: 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.

I agree that competition in the creation of widgets will foster innovation and lower the price. But that is because anyone could start a widget company and drive the market leader to work harder. How much competition will you actually see to do what our social programs do? These will be single huge corporations formed to specifically fleece the taxpayer and provide the same barely marginal services the clients are already getting. Once again I speak from experience.

Skeptic: 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?
ME: 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
MAV: I don't think big entities of any kind are real desirable.
Skeptic: Nor do I. How do you limit the size of business without a strong government?

Unfortunately the only entity that will be able to handle a privatized social program is a big entity. Mom&Pop Inc. cannot do it but MegaCorp Inc. sure can. And they can run circles around anyone who wants to keep an eye on how well they are doing.

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

And because it was a law of the land the President and his staff were as answerable to it as Joe Citizen walking down the street. Reagan and his crew boldly broke the law and walked free with Bush Sr. covering up their tracks. With that history conservatives have no room to complain about Clinton.

From the Preamble to the Constitution:
ME: "…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
MAV: Aaaaaaa HA!!!!!!!
MAV: Words mean things and you just blew by a VERY IMPORTANT WORD!!!
MAV: Notice how I agreed when you said provide for the common defence......I agreed. The government "provides" or pays for it.
MAV: When you said promote the general Welfare, the first and most important point here is PROMOTE means promote (advocate, talk up) not "PROVIDE"!
SKEPTIC: 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.
MAV: 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.
SKEPTIC: Welfare: also means Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being - (from the American Heritage)
SKEPTIC: 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.

That was quite an exchange. On the subject of PROMOTING how does a government "promote" something? You suggest that our founding fathers thought the US should just advocate or talk up the idea without taking any action. I cannot see how that would do anyone any good. Even our forefathers could not have thought that would be a useful exercise.

I agree that the drafters of the Constitution took pains to create a Government that was not intended to be too intrusive but that was because they had to persuade the very fractious states to ratify the damned thing. But as I said above, the Constitution is a living document. The Drafters understood that times and conditions change and the basic law of the land has to be updated from time to time.

ME: "…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
SKEPTIC: 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
SKEPTIC: 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.
SKEPTIC: 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.

Now that I think about it I remember this discussion in my old college classes (so long ago!) and you and MAV are correct. However you are correct only insofar as the source of the rights and liberties. I grant you no further than that.

MAV: No, blessings are from God in their own words.
Skeptic: 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.

It's interesting to note which words were capitalized by the drafters. This was not done at random. Re-read the preamble again. (This was taken from the website for the National Archives and Records Administration.)

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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."

The capitalization is important, it meant something to them. It emphasizes certain words and makes them stand out. Thus they believed in Union, Justice, Tranquillity, Welfare, the Blessings of Liberty, and Posterity. They were the People of the United States and they were establishing the Constitution.

So I disagree about them meaning that the blessing were from God. These blessings they were securing for themselves for themselves and us.

This is getting complicated and the long posts are difficult to read. Perhaps we should limit ourselves to one or two points at a time.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: mousethief
Date: 24 Apr 01 - 06:12 PM

Ike first sent US troops to Vietnam. Not JFK. Certainly not Johnson. Not Truman. Ike.

It was Ike's war. JFK inherited it from Ike, Johnson inherited it from JFK.

Alex


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: MAV
Date: 24 Apr 01 - 10:41 PM

Hey Mouse,

I thought it was MacNamera's war. He apologized for it....BIGTIME!

Jaque,

OK, MAV; finish 'im off!

Ok Jaque, here I go........

(feet up on desk, staring at ceiling, buffing nails, crickets chirping)

See you tommorrow at work.

mav out


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: Troll
Date: 24 Apr 01 - 11:35 PM

Alex, Ike sent in advisors. JFK and Johnson sent combat troops.
Yes,they inherited the situation from Ike, but they chose to continue the engagment and escalate it. Do you remember the Gulf of Tonkin incident?
I do. I was on active duty at the time.
And Johnson was president, not Ike. JFK and Johnson could have stopped the whole thing cold but they didn't, they went along with the program.

troll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: GUEST,Rick
Date: 25 Apr 01 - 05:57 AM

I'm not sure it really matters who sent in the first troops. The U.S. was footing the bill for much of the war in Indochina from the end of WW2. Even tho' intelligence on the ground in Hanoi (1954) repeatedly asserted that any solution had to include Ho Chi Min, this was politically unpallatable in Washington. Denying Ho (who's hero was George Washington, by the way) was one of the key mistakes in dragging us into a military involvement. This thread seems to have strayed from the Bush/credit theme. Those interested in whether "the shrub" is our legitimate president should track down the Miami Herald April 5-7 articles on the recount.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: Skeptic
Date: 25 Apr 01 - 07:13 AM

It's getting out of hand when we start parsing the parsings. One topic would be nice.

I still would like to hear a reconcilliation of the conservative (and libertarian) view of personal responsibility with the idea of the corporation as a legal "entity", enjoying the rights and protections granted to citizens under the constitution. Such would seem to unduly shield corporations from social and moral responsibility.

On the one hand, it does allow the corporation to enter into contracts and commit corporate resources (versus the individuals as in a partnership). There are less encompassing ways around that problem.

On the other, it shields (partially or completely) the very real people who make the decisions from any real consequences for their actions and would seem to allow the ethics of "business as business" to dominate.

There. A more or less single topic, more or less on topic. I must be getting old.

Regards

John


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: Troll
Date: 25 Apr 01 - 08:18 AM

You are not getting old. You were born old. I know. I was there. Even Mom says that you were an odd child and, considering our family, that's pretty odd.
Also, you may have run out of things to say...finally. You will notice that I did not say "meaningful things to say".
You ran out of those long ago if, indeed, you ever had any.
Enjoy your seminar and have a nice day.

troll ***ps. Freddy and Angie say "Hi". Mr Feebish is sulking. Someone mussed his sock drawer.

troll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: Naemanson
Date: 25 Apr 01 - 08:25 AM

I HAVE to keep in mind that Troll and Skeptic are related and entitled to such teasing back and forth. Otherwise I would think the flames are creeping up again.

The Supreme Court made the decision that corporations have the same rights and responsibilities of the individual citizen. I would need to do some serious research to remember which court and how long ago but I believe it was a 19th Century decision.

The problem with this determination as regards corporations is that there is no sense that anyone can be punished. You can fine them for illegal actions but if you make the fine too high it can be seen as a death sentence, i.e., it will close the business.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: Troll
Date: 25 Apr 01 - 08:47 AM

Naemanson, the problem is that corporations make decisions based on the bottom line rather than on what is morally right.
Consider Ford and the Pinto gas tank. Ford knew that the placement of the tank in the extreme rear of the car without an inner liner was dangerous, but the accounting department figured that it would be cheaper to pay the wrongful death claims than it would be to fix the problem. So some innocent people roasted to death in their Pintos and Ford paid the survivors.
But someone in the upper echelons of Ford ultimately made the decision to go ahead and pay rather than repair. It is that person (or small group of persons) who should have been held responsible for those deaths.
Under the persent system there is no way to prosecute individuals within a corporation. If there were, we might see fewer Pintos and less environmental degredation.

troll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: Troll
Date: 25 Apr 01 - 09:00 AM

Quote without comment.BUSH CONTINUES HIS WAR ON THE ENVIRONMENT

Well, it seems that George Bush has done it again, folks. This time he has repealed some regulations concerning the amount of dihydrogen monoxide that will be allowed in the nation's water supplies. The eco-radicals, of course, are spinning around on their eyebrows and spitting wooden nickels. Here's the press release I got today:

BUSH ESCALATES WAR ON ENVIRONMENT

Seattle, April 24, 2001 (BSNS)

A coalition of environmental activists and eco-scientists stepped up their criticisms of White House environmental policies at a news conference in Seattle today. At issue was Bush's move, reported Monday, to rescind newly implemented guidelines on the amount of allowable dihydrogen monoxide (hydroxyl acid) in the nation's water supply.

The new EPA regulations, calling for a 50 percent reduction in the allowable amount of dihydrogen monoxide in drinking water, was implemented by the Clinton Administration on January 19, 2001, just days before the inauguration of George W. Bush.

"The deadly potential of dihydrogen monoxide cannot be over-emphasized," said Bruno Ahrens, spokesman for the coalition. "This invisible killer kills thousands of people worldwide every single year. By allowing large amounts of dihydrogen monoxide to remain in our water supply President Bush has signed a death warrant for thousands of Americans, many of whom will be children. It is yet another example of Bush's willingness to declare open war on our precious environment for the benefit of his big-money corporate supporters and contributors."

Documentation distributed by these friends of the environment described dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) as "colorless, odorless and tasteless," and said that it kills uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of the deaths from DHMO come from accidental inhalation. A prolonged exposure to DHMO in its solid form can cause extreme tissue damage.

Other dangers of DHMO are listed as:

DHMO is a major component of acid rain DHMO contributes to the world's "greenhouse effect." DHMO can cause severe burns resulting in death. DHMO is cited as a major cause of erosion of our natural landscape DHMO can even cause corrosion and rusting of many metals!

In addition, DHMO is used as an industrial solvent and is a major component of the production of nuclear power. It is used in the production of styrofoam, as a fire retardant, and in many forms of animal research. It is widely used in the distribution of pesticides and is an additive in many junk foods.

A press release issued at the conference reads: "After many years of dedicated work by friends of the world's environment, the enlightened Clinton Administration finally issued regulations that would reduce the amounts of this deadly substance that would be allowed in the nation's water supply. Furthermore, the new regulations would have prohibited corporations from dumping waste DHMO into our rivers, lakes and the oceans. Now that Bush has revoked these much-needed regulations our lakes, rivers and streams, our oceans and our very drinking water will remain polluted by this deadly substance.

"By his actions George W. Bush has vividly demonstrated his absolute disdain for our environment and the right of the American people to clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. This is the Republican agenda, corporate profits over the health and welfare of the people."

www.boortz.com/nealznuz.htm

troll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 25 Apr 01 - 10:03 AM

Actually, I always thought the point was to increase the percentage of dihydrogen monoxide in our drinking water.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: DougR
Date: 25 Apr 01 - 12:32 PM

Latest polls: 63% of those polled approve of President Bush's performance to date. He must be doing something right.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 25 Apr 01 - 01:17 PM

That's not much of a test; he hasn't really done anything yet.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: Naemanson
Date: 25 Apr 01 - 01:35 PM

Or consider the tobacco industry. They have the perfect product. It is legal, addictive and priced to fit every budget. The only problem is that they keep killing off their customers so they have to addict children to assure their market. Who do you think is guilty there? The CEO's who make the decisions? Maybe it's the farmers who insist their way of life will be destroyed if tobacco is banned. It could be the lobbyists who bribe the members of congress to support their clients. Or perhaps it's the tame scientists who skew their data to support their employers?

If ever there was a justifiable death sentence for corporations this is it.

Consider that we are talking, not just a corporation but an entire industry. There is probable collusion here as the corporations work together to kill more people, uh, I mean, sell more tobacco.

Either way this is a case where the media did its job and opened our eyes to the killers in business suits.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: Skeptic
Date: 25 Apr 01 - 06:03 PM

Naemanson,

Yes, we are related. However, in the interests of clarity, his remarks concerning me do constitute flaming. My commenst about him are perceptive observations of his multiple defects, defficiences and lack of good (or any sense). I rarely bother as I see no need to belabor the obvious.

I think the court case was in 1868 but can't find it right now. Supreme Court decision or not, (as decisions can be reversed), I don't see the consistency in the libertarian position. Not that it's required but if you proclaim (almost demand) a high degree of personnal responsibility on the one hand, then excuse same on the other under the banner of profits, it throws a different light on the ethics and motives of the ideology.

Troll,

Thanks for the post. Wonder in DHMO was/is linked to things like the acid rain damage to things like the damage to US and Canadian forests and to the damage to the places like Venice?

My best to Freddy and Angie. Tell Mr Feebish, to "Suck it up, cupcake". Hope all the other Yous are doing "well".

Regards

John


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: Bert
Date: 25 Apr 01 - 06:14 PM

...He must be doing something right...

The whole point of this thread was to give him credit for doing nothing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: Bert
Date: 25 Apr 01 - 06:20 PM

FWIW


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: DougR
Date: 25 Apr 01 - 10:35 PM

Whistle Stop: you been out of the country or something? We had a bit of trouble over in China while you were gone. The situation has been resolved (other than the recovery of our aircraft which we will probably get eventually). That situation was resolved by our new president and his team. When you catch up on your newspapers that probably stacked up while you were gone, you can read all about it. Oh, and by the way, both the house and the senate passed a tax reduction bill, too, while you were gone. The house agreed to a cut the size of that proposed by President Bush during his campaign. With the help of liberal Republicans in the Senate, the amount was reduced but a resoulution between the house and senate committees may see the final amount closer to the one proposed by the President.

I think the majority of the American people, as reflected in the aforementioned poll, reflect their approval of the new teams effort in the aforementioned poll.

DougR

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: DougR
Date: 25 Apr 01 - 10:37 PM

Wow, Bert! Maybe the Skull and Crossbones are gonna take over the world! Shiver!

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: MAV
Date: 25 Apr 01 - 10:45 PM

Troll,

On at least two occasions I got DHMO in my lungs, thought I was going to die. It's a horrible suffocating feeling.

I'm sure I've ingested a ton of it in my life. What's worse is, in the summertime the air is heavily polluted with DHMO.

For more information on the nightmare of DHMO, Click here

I don't see how anyone could be in favor of this killer substance, but many people are.

mav out


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: DougR
Date: 26 Apr 01 - 12:11 AM

MAV: sorry I don't follow you at all. I went to the link you provided, and it was an advertisement for a dental service. Are you putting us on?

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: mousethief
Date: 26 Apr 01 - 12:25 AM

What does DHMO ("water" for the uninitiated) have to do with Bush? It's a very old and tired joke, and...

Oh. I see.

Alex


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: Bert
Date: 26 Apr 01 - 12:38 AM

Doug, I wasn't making any political comment about it. I just thought it was amusing. I really have mixed feelings about the report. Although I'm deeply suspicious of secret societies; I do like people who can behave oddly at times.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: Skeptic
Date: 26 Apr 01 - 07:16 AM

Alex,

As do we all but it's really best to humor Troll.And Freddie and all the rest of hims.

Regards

John


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: Skeptic
Date: 26 Apr 01 - 07:24 AM

Bert,

Thanks for the link on Skull and Bone. My only comment is that I was brought up to believe that sharing your sexual history was something "a gentlemen" (meaning a decent, moral person with a sense of personal integrity and honor) didn't do.

Looks like the definition of "gentlemen" is a lot more flexible than my father thought and taught.

Regards

John


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 26 Apr 01 - 08:54 AM

Doug, I like and respect you, so I'll overlook the condescension in your post. If you read through this thread, you'll notice that early on I weighed in with the opinion that GWB's administration had handled the China affair competently. They didn't do a great job, but they did an adequate job. I don't think anyone who has a clue about these things seriously thought that the Chinese were going to keep our people forever -- this was a chance for them to do a bit of grandstanding, and they took advantage of it. The Bush team did what most administrations would have done under similar circumstances -- walk the passive-aggressive line while they work out some weasel-worded statements that allowed both sides to save face. I'm okay with that.

As for the Bush economic package, the most significant parts of that are still pending, and are likely to be revised somewhat more before the compromise budget is finalized. I lean towards the Democrats' position on this, but I'm comfortable with economic legislation being worked out in the usual horse-trading between the political parties and branches of government. It's in process as we speak.

As for the polls, please recognize that Bush is in what we typically refer to as a "honeymoon"; the period immediately after the inauguration, before the administration's imprint on society is fully felt. We tend to give Presidents the benefit of the doubt during this honeymoon period -- and in general, the less they do, the longer the honeymoon is. I offer my personal perspective only, of course (as you noted previously on this thread), but so far Bush has not turned in a stellar performance. In fact, GWB's clumsy comments regarding Taiwan yesterday morning, followed by a day's worth of dissembling, still suggests to me that Bush still has a lot to learn about his new job.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: DougR
Date: 26 Apr 01 - 02:41 PM

Whistle Stop: sorry if I came in a little heavy on the GWB record to date. I do get a bit overly sensitive to the constant criticism of anything Republican that is so prevelant here on the Mudcat, and do try to contain it. It leaked out a bit, and I apologize for it. One could say your comment invited it ...but I won't go there.

I wholeheartedly agree that Bush still has a lot to learn and I'm probably one of the few here in the community that believes he has the capacity to do so.

Yesterdays comment about the defense of Taiwan is considered by many to be intemperate. However as the media pointed out, his position is not much different from those espressed by previous presidents. He was just a bit more explicit. If that's what it takes to contain China, I say more more! I guess time will tell.

I'm glad you like and respect me; backatcha!

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 27 Apr 01 - 01:32 PM

Thanks Doug; no apology necessary. While I tend towards the Democrats' positions, I am not really a party man. And I recognize that a conservative and/or Republican could end up feeling outnumbered on this forum. I enjoy discussing this stuff with intelligent people, whether or not we agree on everything. So I hope you'll continue to offer your perspective, as I will offer mine. And I will try not to seem so thin-skinned.

I'm not optimistic about Bush, but I am hoping he will prove me wrong. I remember hating his father as a candidate, but feeling that he wasn't all that bad as a President (sometimes campaigning brings out people's least attractive qualities). I hope to feel the same about our current President.

Personally, I think GWB just spoke too quickly in the interview, and then had to spend the rest of the day trying to pretend his statements had been intentional. Like his father (who was famously characterized as having been "born with a silver foot in his mouth"), he isn't all that comfortable speaking without a prepared script. It doesn't help that his predecessor, whatever you think of his actions and policies, was rather gifted in that regard. But probably no real harm was done by the little flap over Taiwan; intelligent people on all sides (including the Chinese) should be able to recognize the difference between public rhetoric and more constructive engagement.

Pleasure chatting with you, as always. -- WS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: DougR
Date: 28 Apr 01 - 01:33 AM

Thanks, WS. GWB has lots to learn, I agree.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: MORE credit for Bush
From: mousethief
Date: 28 Apr 01 - 01:38 AM

Like Ronald Reagan before him, he must learn not to trust himself to talk without a script. Neither is any good at this particular skill/talent/art/whatever it is.

Alex


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

 


This Thread Is Closed.


Mudcat time: 15 December 6:01 AM 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.