Rep vs. Dem Differences

[Jim Weir]

In an on-the-air (*) broadcast, a BBC announcer was trying to explain the
difference between the Republicans and the Democrats to his British audience.

"The Republicans are verry like our ... ahhh ... Conservatives.
The Democrats are verry like our ... ahhh ... Conservatives."

(*) "on-the-AIR" makes this on-topic {;-)

Jim


Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Brian Burger]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004, Jim Weir wrote:

>
> In an on-the-air (*) broadcast, a BBC announcer was trying to explain the
> difference between the Republicans and the Democrats to his British audience.
>
> "The Republicans are verry like our ... ahhh ... Conservatives.
> The Democrats are verry like our ... ahhh ... Conservatives."
>
> (*) "on-the-AIR" makes this on-topic {;-)

I was thinking about something similar, watching US Presidential stuff &
recalling our recent Canadian federal election - and, basically, the US
doesn't have a left wing the way Canadians or Europeans would understand
it!

For all the Republican ranting about 'leftist socialists', if Kerry
moved to Canada, even our most rightwing mainstream party, the
Conservatives, wouldn't have him. He'd be way off in right field all by
himself, even with the Conservatives.

And Kerry is the 'left' in the US Presidential race. Imagine where
this leaves W... (goosestepping rapidly over the horizon, possibly...)

It's part of the problem, I think, with international relations - US
politics is skewed so far right that the rest of us just can't relate
anymore.

Brian.

[tscottme]

"Brian Burger" > wrote in message
ia.tc.ca...
>
> It's part of the problem, I think, with international relations - US
> politics is skewed so far right that the rest of us just can't relate
> anymore.
>
> Brian.

Of course it never occurs to those on the left that they have swerved to the
far left and that it causes them to see anyone to the right of Joe Stalin as
an extreme conservative. Because the politics of Canada and Europe have
skewed so far left for so long, and they have such parochial views, they are
incapable of tolerating anyone that dares to lightly drag their feet in the
rush toward socialism. Luckily, nobody depends on Canada or Europe for
their security.

--
Scott

"I have always felt that a politician is to be judged by the animosities he
excites among his opponents." - Sir Winston Churchill

[Roger Long]

I'll have to confess to being mystified the overwhelming appeal among pilots
of a jet jockey who hid out in the National Guard over a GA pilot like us
who had the conviction to put his ass in the line of fire.

I think it has a lot to do with response to emergencies and, boy, are the
Republicans ever beating that drum. If you watched the convention coverage
without knowing the background, you would think they knocked those towers
down themselves and were proud of it. No wonder many Arabs think that is
what happened.

We train for instinctive reactions to emergencies. If an engine fails on
takeoff, we admire the pilot who, almost without thought, can pull the
throttle, feather the engine, put the proper rudder pedal in, and set the
proper airspeed while chewing gum and telling the tower he needs to come
around for an emergency landing.

Bush projects exactly that kind of smoothness, assurance, and decisive
response. It comforts the voters and makes pilots, especially those who do a
lot of emergency drilling, say, "My kind of guy."

I read a profile of Scott Crossfield recently. It described the thoroughness
of his preparations for flying the X-15 to the edge of space for the first
time, the questions, the double checking, the consideration of possible
failures. Above all, he was aware that things could happen that he would
have to improvise and think his way through instead of producing a drilled
and rehearsed reaction.

If a pilot had approached Crossfield's flights as if they were flying a
commuter twin from A to B, Crossfield and most of the rest of us would have
considered him a fool. If a commuter pilot approached each flight like it
was an X-15, he would be looking for a job after the first one (which he
delayed three days to have the cable tensions checked again).

Let's face it. This election is about handling terrorism. The major
philosophical divide is not liberal vs. conservative but whether dealing
with this new evil in the world is like flying the twin commuter or the
X-15.

It was "Ho, hum, we trained, fighting the last war, We're ready for
anything.", thinking that let 911 happen. The blame there is bi-partisan.

The response however, has been like a commuter twin pilot hopping in the
X-15 saying, "No problem, I spent two weeks at Flight Safety." Right now, it
looks like it's zooming up great and everyone's cheering but the guys on the
ground know that it's way out of it's flight envelop and the problems just
haven't shown up yet. (Did you watch 60 minutes last night?)

I'm pretty sure we are all riding in an X-15 right now. Nothing is certain
but I'd rather switch to a new pilot who at least has the potential and has
declared the policy approaches to conduct the flight Crossfield style than
one who has proven himself a cocky an arrogant cowboy with a propensity to
take the easy way out of every situation.


--

Roger Long

[Icebound]

"tscottme" > wrote in message
...
>
> Of course it never occurs to those on the left that they have swerved to
the
> far left and that it causes them to see anyone to the right of Joe Stalin
as
> an extreme conservative. Because the politics of Canada and Europe have
> skewed so far left for so long, and they have such parochial views, they
are
> incapable of tolerating anyone that dares to lightly drag their feet in
the
> rush toward socialism. Luckily, nobody depends on Canada or Europe for
> their security.
>

LOL...

Of course it never occurs to those on the right that they have swerved to
the
far right and that it causes them to see anyone to the left of Rush Limbaugh
as
an extreme liberal.

....etc...


--
*** A great civilization is not conquered from without until it
has destroyed itself from within. ***
- Ariel Durant 1898-1981

[Malcolm Teas]

"tscottme" > wrote in message >...
> "Brian Burger" > wrote in message
> ...Luckily, nobody depends on Canada or Europe for
> their security.

Well, aside from all the Canadians and the Europeans that is. <grin>

-Malcolm Teas

[Malcolm Teas]

Jim Weir > wrote in message >...
> In an on-the-air (*) broadcast, a BBC announcer was trying to explain the
> difference between the Republicans and the Democrats to his British audience.
>
> "The Republicans are verry like our ... ahhh ... Conservatives.
> The Democrats are verry like our ... ahhh ... Conservatives."

It'd be nice for once to see a conservative politician in the US want
to conserve something: the budget, our soldier's lives, the economy,
the environment where we live...

> (*) "on-the-AIR" makes this on-topic {;-)

:) Spoken like a politician...

Malcolm Teas
Fiscal conservative

[John Gaquin]

"Roger Long" > wrote in message news:dsFYc.49999

> I'll have to confess to being mystified the overwhelming appeal among
pilots
> of a jet jockey who hid out in the National Guard over a GA pilot like us
> who had the conviction to put his ass in the line of fire.

I'm a little mystified that any appeal should have anything to do with
wings.

If you want to use an aviation analogy, however, it can't be simplistic. A
more apt one might be to say - if we operate these particular flights today
and for the next year or so to these particular destinations, what will be
the impact on all these destination airports, as opposed to others, and what
will be the impact on all the airports we are not flying to? And if we do
operate in this manner, what will be the long term impact on the airline
industry and aircraft manufacturers, versus had we not operated the flights
at all? In short, if we operate the flights in this way as opposed to some
other way, will we, in ten years' time, still have aircraft and airports?
Still have a viable aviation system?

[C J Campbell]

"Brian Burger" > wrote in message
ia.tc.ca...
>
> And Kerry is the 'left' in the US Presidential race. Imagine where
> this leaves W... (goosestepping rapidly over the horizon, possibly...)
>

Wow. We start right off with Godwin's law.

Then, too, we wonder what is "right" about Nazis or "left" about communists.
There doesn't seem to be much difference between them and in fact they
historically imitated and admired each other up until Germany invaded the
Soviet Union. Was Saddam Hussein "right" or "left?" He admired Hitler, but
allied with the Soviet Union.

What is "liberal" about a Europe or Canada that is grossly intolerant of
differing political or social views? What is "liberal" about Kerry
supporters that trash storefronts and beat Bush supporters up? How is their
behavior any different from that of thugs in 1935?

Maybe I am jaded, but as far as I can see the only thing people are
interested in these days is in exercising dominion over others. They want
power, and are willing to go to any lengths and use any means to get it.
Ethics, justice, right and left: they are just hollow words signifying
nothing. I truly long for leaders who are genuinely just men, who are honest
and moral, who will not steal or lie. I would vote for such a person no
matter where on the spectrum of "left" or "right" he fell.

[C J Campbell]

"Malcolm Teas" > wrote in message
m...
> "tscottme" > wrote in message
> >...
>> "Brian Burger" > wrote in message
>> ...Luckily, nobody depends on Canada or Europe for
>> their security.
>
> Well, aside from all the Canadians and the Europeans that is. <grin>

Hardly. The Canadians and Europeans depend on the US for their security.
They provide token forces, but nothing anywhere near what they would have to
do if they were fully responsible for their own security.

[Wdtabor]

The Nazi Party was the National SOCIALIST Party, fascsim is a left wing
philosophy, it never has had anything to do with the political right. It is
only characterized as such by entertainers with no knowledge of history.

I suggest you refer to Hayek's ROAD TO SERFDOM for the origins of fascism and
it's collectivist, left wing roots.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Corky Scott]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:54:33 GMT, "Roger Long" >
wrote:

>We train for instinctive reactions to emergencies. If an engine fails on
>takeoff, we admire the pilot who, almost without thought, can pull the
>throttle, feather the engine, put the proper rudder pedal in, and set the
>proper airspeed while chewing gum and telling the tower he needs to come
>around for an emergency landing.
>
>Bush projects exactly that kind of smoothness, assurance, and decisive
>response. It comforts the voters and makes pilots, especially those who do a
>lot of emergency drilling, say, "My kind of guy."

Well Roger, lucky for us we have film of exactly how "Dubya" reacted
when told the news of the attacks on the WTC because he was being
filmed at the time reading to kids in a classroom in Florida when an
aide approached and gave him the news. There it is in cold hard film,
the actual reaction of the big guy when told of the worst attack upon
the United States since Pearl Harbor.

His smooth assured and decisive reaction? He sat there stunned for 8
minutes on camera until someone came and hustled him out of the
classroom.

Maybe you can offer another, better, example of calm smooth assurance.
Please? I could sure use it because he often seems a sandwich short
of a picnic to me.

Corky Scott

[David Brooks]

"Jim Weir" > wrote in message
...
>
> In an on-the-air (*) broadcast, a BBC announcer was trying to explain the
> difference between the Republicans and the Democrats to his British
audience.
>
> "The Republicans are verry like our ... ahhh ... Conservatives.
> The Democrats are verry like our ... ahhh ... Conservatives."

Thereby quoting the late Michael Flanders in a live US appearance (with his
stage partner, Donald Swann) many many years ago.

-- David Brooks

[G.R. Patterson III]

C J Campbell wrote:
>
> Hardly. The Canadians and Europeans depend on the US for their security.
> They provide token forces, but nothing anywhere near what they would have to
> do if they were fully responsible for their own security.

Perhaps the amount they spend on security is quite adequate. Who's going to attack
them?

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Andrew Gideon]

Wdtabor wrote:

> The Nazi Party was the National SOCIALIST Party, fascsim is a left wing
> philosophy, it never has had anything to do with the political right. It
> is only characterized as such by entertainers with no knowledge of
> history.

And what was East Germany's actual name?

- Andrew

[Rosspilot]

>>Bush projects exactly that kind of smoothness, assurance, and decisive
>>response. It comforts the voters and makes pilots, especially those who do a
>>lot of emergency drilling, say, "My kind of guy."
>


Corky>Well Roger, lucky for us we have film of exactly how "Dubya" reacted
>when told the news of the attacks on the WTC because he was being
>filmed at the time reading to kids in a classroom in Florida when an
>aide approached and gave him the news. There it is in cold hard film,
>the actual reaction of the big guy when told of the worst attack upon
>the United States since Pearl Harbor.
>
>His smooth assured and decisive reaction? He sat there stunned for 8
>minutes on camera until someone came and hustled him out of the
>classroom.
>

Exactly. As close to the proverbial "deer in the headlights" look as I have
ever seen.
The film (and there are others besides Michael Moore's because many cameras
were rolling at the time) simply does NOT lie.

>Maybe you can offer another, better, example of calm smooth assurance.
>Please? I could sure use it because he often seems a sandwich short
>of a picnic to me.
>

Well, he looked pretty self-assured when he landed on the aircraft carrier in a
flight suit under the "Mission Accomplished" banner. I'll be he loved that.
Probably enjoyed having Thanksgiving with the troops, too. He's (I am told) a
very nice guy, but he's way over his head.

And I promised myself I would stay out of politics on this NG . . . sorry, but
I couldn't help myself. :-(



www.Rosspilot.com

[jawilljr]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message =
online.com...
> Wdtabor wrote:
>=20
> > The Nazi Party was the National SOCIALIST Party, fascsim is a left =
wing
> > philosophy, it never has had anything to do with the political =
right. It
> > is only characterized as such by entertainers with no knowledge of
> > history.
>=20
> And what was East Germany's actual name?
>=20
> - Andrew
>=20

Deutsche Demokratische Republik... or German Democratic Republic.

Jerry

[Roger Long]

We are talking appearance Vs reality here. One event shows planned
(probably by handlers) reactions and the other the real ones.

--

Roger Long

[Andrew Gideon]

jawilljr wrote:

>
> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> online.com...
>> Wdtabor wrote:
>>
>> > The Nazi Party was the National SOCIALIST Party, fascsim is a left wing
>> > philosophy, it never has had anything to do with the political right.
>> > It is only characterized as such by entertainers with no knowledge of
>> > history.
>>
>> And what was East Germany's actual name?
>>
>> - Andrew
>>
>
> Deutsche Demokratische Republik... or German Democratic Republic.

So it was a democracy?

- Andrew

[C J Campbell]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> Wdtabor wrote:
>
>> The Nazi Party was the National SOCIALIST Party, fascsim is a left wing
>> philosophy, it never has had anything to do with the political right. It
>> is only characterized as such by entertainers with no knowledge of
>> history.
>
> And what was East Germany's actual name?
>

The Nazis actually were socialists, however. Almost all major industries
were nationalized and, like all socialist states must do in the end, the
Nazis ultimately resorted to slave labor. After all, if you remove the
economic incentive to work harder or more efficiently and suppress
individual expression, then you are left with only physical force to make
people work. Socialism's failure is never the fault of the government, of
course. Hitler blamed first the Jews, but after he had killed nearly all of
the Jews he simply committed suicide himself, blaming the German people as
not being worthy of him.

As for the German Democratic Republic, I am reminded of Mortimer Adler's
assertion that socialism was the democratization of economic power. Just as
democracy theoretically equalizes political power among men, so socialism is
supposed to equalize economic power. From this viewpoint socialism is the
economic expression of democracy.

Of course, neither democracy nor socialism equalize anything.

[C J Campbell]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:54:33 GMT, "Roger Long" >
> wrote:
>
>>We train for instinctive reactions to emergencies. If an engine fails on
>>takeoff, we admire the pilot who, almost without thought, can pull the
>>throttle, feather the engine, put the proper rudder pedal in, and set the
>>proper airspeed while chewing gum and telling the tower he needs to come
>>around for an emergency landing.
>>
>>Bush projects exactly that kind of smoothness, assurance, and decisive
>>response. It comforts the voters and makes pilots, especially those who do
>>a
>>lot of emergency drilling, say, "My kind of guy."
>
> Well Roger, lucky for us we have film of exactly how "Dubya" reacted
> when told the news of the attacks on the WTC because he was being
> filmed at the time reading to kids in a classroom in Florida when an
> aide approached and gave him the news. There it is in cold hard film,
> the actual reaction of the big guy when told of the worst attack upon
> the United States since Pearl Harbor.
>
> His smooth assured and decisive reaction? He sat there stunned for 8
> minutes on camera until someone came and hustled him out of the
> classroom.
>

Baloney. He continued reading. What was he supposed to do, run out of the
classroom screaming? Kerry himself admits to sitting stunned for 40 minutes,
so I suppose 8 minutes is five times better than Kerry.

Seriously, what is it that you think a President could have done? No one
knew whether it was a terrorist attack or just another airline accident. I
would be very interested in knowing what magical powers Presidents have.

[Ash Wyllie]

Martin Hotze opined

>"C J Campbell" > wrote:

>> > Well, aside from all the Canadians and the Europeans that is. <grin>
>>
>> Hardly. The Canadians and Europeans depend on the US for their security.
>> They provide token forces, but nothing anywhere near what they would have
>> to do if they were fully responsible for their own security.

>Aren't we clever? We let other idio^W^Wour allies pay for it, so we don't
>have
>10% of our population in poverty.

That is a good plan, right up until someone stops providing your security.
Then you start having a problem. Luckily you have 10.6% of your population
unemployed, so there are lots of peopole that can be conscripted into your big
new army.


-ash
Cthulhu for President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?

[James Robinson]

Wdtabor wrote:
>
> The Nazi Party was the National SOCIALIST Party, fascsim is a left wing
> philosophy, it never has had anything to do with the political right. It is
> only characterized as such by entertainers with no knowledge of history.

Someone doesn't know the definition of right and left.

Right wing philosophies tend to be conservative, want to retain
traditional values, and often advocate the establishment of an
authoritarian political order.

Left wing philosophies promote political change, and generally promote
greater freedom and well being of the common man.

Fascism, and by extension Nazism, are clearly right wing philosophies.
They cannot be characterized as being "liberal" by any stretch of the
imagination.

[gatt]

"Brian Burger" > wrote in message

> It's part of the problem, I think, with international relations - US
> politics is skewed so far right that the rest of us just can't relate
> anymore.

My wife likes to remind me that America was founded and raised by religious
types who were so weird and to the right that they felt a need to escape
Europe to exercise their religious freedom. The Quakers, the "puritans"
(as we call 'em now)...

We were doing alright until the Republicans and the Democrats got their
hands on the controls. Now, the house is divided by two groups who are not
interested in American democracy, but in seizing power and money for select
constituents.

-c

[Corky Scott]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 11:17:10 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>Seriously, what is it that you think a President could have done? No one
>knew whether it was a terrorist attack or just another airline accident. I
>would be very interested in knowing what magical powers Presidents have.

"Sorry kid's got to cut this short, I'll try to come back sometime
soon" Comes to mind.

Corky Scott

[Gig Giacona]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> C J Campbell wrote:
> >
> > Hardly. The Canadians and Europeans depend on the US for their security.
> > They provide token forces, but nothing anywhere near what they would
have to
> > do if they were fully responsible for their own security.
>
> Perhaps the amount they spend on security is quite adequate. Who's going
to attack
> them?
>

Each other. With the exception of Canada, of course, who'd want it.

[Gig Giacona]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> jawilljr wrote:
>
> >
> > "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> > online.com...
> >> Wdtabor wrote:
> >>
> >> > The Nazi Party was the National SOCIALIST Party, fascsim is a left
wing
> >> > philosophy, it never has had anything to do with the political
right.
> >> > It is only characterized as such by entertainers with no knowledge of
> >> > history.
> >>
> >> And what was East Germany's actual name?
> >>
> >> - Andrew
> >>
> >
> > Deutsche Demokratische Republik... or German Democratic Republic.
>
> So it was a democracy?
>

Yes and everyone had a vote. The limiting factor was the candidates.

[Flying A Mortgage]

> generally promote greater freedom

Unless that freedom happens to involve saying that abortion is murder,
women are often happier as housewives, or that most poor people are
lazy and won't work...

....leftists are the most close-minded people I've ever met. Very, very
few can discuss "hot button" issues rationally. In fact, I've never met
a true leftist who was able to logically and reasonably defend his
position.

....I think that G. W. B. has made some VERY serious errors during his
first term. John Kerry, however, has a long history of not changing his
position. He's been an advocate of increasing Johnson's "Great Society"
from every avenue. He's been a class warfare hypocrit from before his
Vietnam Service.

I read some statistics yesterday that made my skin crawl: Most poor
households in this country have:
air conditioning,
hot & cold running water,
eat more meat (per capita) than the US RDA (and considerably more
than MIDDLE CLASS Europeans!),
have 1.5 cars,
1.5 color TVs
and own a VCR or DVD player.

Most poor households are single parent with an absentee father. Most
poor households work less than 15 hours per month.

Our "poor" live better than the middle class in Europe and considerably
better than Asia. We won't even talk about Africa!

The "Great Society" hasn't worked, instead of decreasing, the
percentage of "poor" has increased. By paying people to stay in
poverty, the bureacracies continue to justify their own existence.

Only by making poverty "undesirable" will we be able to motivate our
so-called "underclass" to better themselves and rise up out of the
station to which they were born. The GREAT NEWS is that here in the
U.S. we have the ability to do that! We're not bound by society to stay
among the lowly and despised! We can educate ourselves and rise up
beyond the reach of our fathers!

Hallelujah!

Flying A Mortgage...
....is descended from poor, black watermen in DelMarVa's eastern shore.
He thanks God that his ancestors were born in this great country where
they were able to steadily improve their lot in life until now he gets
to CHOOSE to pay off his mortgage early instead of buying a Skyhawk!

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Martin Hotze
> wrote:

> "C J Campbell" > wrote:
>
> > > Well, aside from all the Canadians and the Europeans that is. <grin>
> >
> > Hardly. The Canadians and Europeans depend on the US for their
> > security.
> > They provide token forces, but nothing anywhere near what they would
> > have to
> > do if they were fully responsible for their own security.
>
> Aren't we clever? We let other idio^W^Wour allies pay for it, so we don't
> have
> 10% of our population in poverty.

feh - if you want poverty look at Haiti or Columbia.

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Roger Long"
> wrote:

> I'll have to confess to being mystified the overwhelming appeal among
> pilots
> of a jet jockey who hid out in the National Guard over a GA pilot like us
> who had the conviction to put his ass in the line of fire.

Waffle is "like us"? guess again.

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

[Gary Drescher]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> Baloney. He continued reading. What was he supposed to do, run out of the
> classroom screaming?...
>
> Seriously, what is it that you think a President could have done? No one
> knew whether it was a terrorist attack or just another airline accident.

Two off-course airliners crashed into the World Trade Towers within minutes
of one another in clear weather, and no one knew if it was "just another
airline accident"? That's quite a spin, CJ!

What could a functioning president have done at that moment? How about
coordinating with the Pentagon and the FAA to determine the scope of the
attack, and giving an order to shoot down other hijacked planes (as Cheney
did, too late, an hour later).

Bush's own explanation is that he wanted to "project calm" (by continuing to
read "My Pet Goat"), rather than acknowledge that a major attack on US soil
requires the prompt attention of someone who's actually charge. It was the
response of someone who thinks only in terms of image, and leaves the real
substance to his handlers.

--Gary

[Bill Denton]

Obviously you don't have very young children...



"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:oQMYc.72468$9d6.48029@attbi_s54...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Baloney. He continued reading. What was he supposed to do, run out of
the
> > classroom screaming?...
> >
> > Seriously, what is it that you think a President could have done? No one
> > knew whether it was a terrorist attack or just another airline accident.
>
> Two off-course airliners crashed into the World Trade Towers within
minutes
> of one another in clear weather, and no one knew if it was "just another
> airline accident"? That's quite a spin, CJ!
>
> What could a functioning president have done at that moment? How about
> coordinating with the Pentagon and the FAA to determine the scope of the
> attack, and giving an order to shoot down other hijacked planes (as Cheney
> did, too late, an hour later).
>
> Bush's own explanation is that he wanted to "project calm" (by continuing
to
> read "My Pet Goat"), rather than acknowledge that a major attack on US
soil
> requires the prompt attention of someone who's actually charge. It was the
> response of someone who thinks only in terms of image, and leaves the real
> substance to his handlers.
>
> --Gary
>
>

[Gary Drescher]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message news:oQMYc.72468
>someone who's actually charge.

Er, that should be "someone who's actually in charge".

[Rosspilot]

>
>Obviously you don't have very young children...


What in the hell does THAT have to do with anything???


www.Rosspilot.com

[Bill Denton]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were so far out of the loop. I thought it
was common knowledge that Bush was reading to some very young children in
front of a bunch of television cameras.




"Rosspilot" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >Obviously you don't have very young children...
>
>
> What in the hell does THAT have to do with anything???
>
>
> www.Rosspilot.com
>
>

[Michael 182]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were so far out of the loop. I thought it
> was common knowledge that Bush was reading to some very young children in
> front of a bunch of television cameras.

I had small children - still don't know your point.

Michael

[Brian Burger]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Malcolm Teas wrote:

> "tscottme" > wrote in message >...
> > "Brian Burger" > wrote in message
> > ...Luckily, nobody depends on Canada or Europe for
> > their security.
>
> Well, aside from all the Canadians and the Europeans that is. <grin>

Geography helps, in the case of Canada. And proximity - anyone who can get
to Canada can then get to the US, and they're the real target of the loons
out there...

Oh, and please watch your quoting, Malcolm. 'tscottme' wrote the top
comment here, in response to something I said; I didn't write the 'nobody
depends...' comment!

Brian.

[Morgans]

"Roger Long" > wrote
a VERY interesting "spin", using his own views as the basis.

WoW, no doubt who you will be voting for. Could you be any more biased?

You (and others) still don't get it. Those who support the current
president, are not going to be influenced by your song and dance, and think
it to be really "out there". You are wasting your breath.
--
Jim in NC

[Bill Denton]

I'm sure you know this syndrome: give a child a toy he/she doesn't
particularly care for. Then try to take that toy away and you will get an
instant tantrum!

Then take a classroom full of kids who are somewhat scared and confused by
the day's activity and commotion, and you have the perfect setup. One little
tantrum would spread through the classroom like wildfire, all in front of
the TV cameras.

At this point, the only things known were that some airplanes had crashed
into some buildings, and officials on the scene did not have anymore
information than that. And Bush was sitting there calmly.

If Bush had tried to get up an leave early, the probably result would have
been a bunch of crying kids. And while newsmen aren't generally reporters,
under circumstances like these they will ask questions.

And then the President would be in a position where if he said everything
was O.K., people would want to know why he was leaving. And then the
President, who probably didn't know very much at that point, would be
battered with questions that he could not have satisfactorily answered.

So, Bush finished what he was doing, go up and left with no fuss, and
everything ended satisfactorily...



"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:AINYc.87940$Fg5.51056@attbi_s53...
>
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were so far out of the loop. I thought
it
> > was common knowledge that Bush was reading to some very young children
in
> > front of a bunch of television cameras.
>
> I had small children - still don't know your point.
>
> Michael
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Icebound" > wrote in message
.rogers.com...
>
> LOL...
>
> Of course it never occurs to those on the right that they have swerved
> to the far right and that it causes them to see anyone to the left of Rush
> Limbaugh as an extreme liberal.
>

Bot those on the right haven't swerved to the far right. Today's
"conservatives" are to the left of the "liberals" that founded the USA.

[Michael 182]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> I'm sure you know this syndrome: give a child a toy he/she doesn't
> particularly care for. Then try to take that toy away and you will get an
> instant tantrum!
>
> Then take a classroom full of kids who are somewhat scared and confused by
> the day's activity and commotion, and you have the perfect setup. One
little
> tantrum would spread through the classroom like wildfire, all in front of
> the TV cameras.
>
> At this point, the only things known were that some airplanes had crashed
> into some buildings, and officials on the scene did not have anymore
> information than that. And Bush was sitting there calmly.
>
> If Bush had tried to get up an leave early, the probably result would have
> been a bunch of crying kids. And while newsmen aren't generally reporters,
> under circumstances like these they will ask questions.

Sorry - I don't buy it. "Hey kids, looks like the principal needs to talk
with me. I'll be back in a minute, ok..."
These are little kids. You can tell them just about anything to change
course. And this comes from many, many hours spent in a classroom.

As for the reporters, of course they ask questions - that's their job. Take
it outside. Invoke your handlers. Take control of the situation.

Imagine you were in the same situation and you heard that your wife was in a
car accident. Do you wait eight minutes to find out if she was hurt? On the
way to the hospital? He found out that the country had been attacked! Aside
from any other responses President Bush had, it is absurd to defend his
inaction as making sure the kids remained calm.

Michael

[Bill Denton]

You fault Bush for inaction, fine. Now tell us, chapter and verse, what
action you would have taken....





"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:ntOYc.343037$%_6.76663@attbi_s01...
>
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I'm sure you know this syndrome: give a child a toy he/she doesn't
> > particularly care for. Then try to take that toy away and you will get
an
> > instant tantrum!
> >
> > Then take a classroom full of kids who are somewhat scared and confused
by
> > the day's activity and commotion, and you have the perfect setup. One
> little
> > tantrum would spread through the classroom like wildfire, all in front
of
> > the TV cameras.
> >
> > At this point, the only things known were that some airplanes had
crashed
> > into some buildings, and officials on the scene did not have anymore
> > information than that. And Bush was sitting there calmly.
> >
> > If Bush had tried to get up an leave early, the probably result would
have
> > been a bunch of crying kids. And while newsmen aren't generally
reporters,
> > under circumstances like these they will ask questions.
>
> Sorry - I don't buy it. "Hey kids, looks like the principal needs to talk
> with me. I'll be back in a minute, ok..."
> These are little kids. You can tell them just about anything to change
> course. And this comes from many, many hours spent in a classroom.
>
> As for the reporters, of course they ask questions - that's their job.
Take
> it outside. Invoke your handlers. Take control of the situation.
>
> Imagine you were in the same situation and you heard that your wife was in
a
> car accident. Do you wait eight minutes to find out if she was hurt? On
the
> way to the hospital? He found out that the country had been attacked!
Aside
> from any other responses President Bush had, it is absurd to defend his
> inaction as making sure the kids remained calm.
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
>

[Rosspilot]

>
>I'm sure you know this syndrome: give a child a toy he/she doesn't
>particularly care for. Then try to take that toy away and you will get an
>instant tantrum!

>Then take a classroom full of kids who are somewhat scared and confused by
>the day's activity and commotion, and you have the perfect setup. One little
>tantrum would spread through the classroom like wildfire, all in front of
>the TV cameras.

>At this point, the only things known were that some airplanes had crashed
>into some buildings, and officials on the scene did not have anymore
>information than that. And Bush was sitting there calmly.
>
>If Bush had tried to get up an leave early, the probably result would
>have
>been a bunch of crying kids.


>And while newsmen aren't generally reporters,
>under circumstances like these they will ask questions.
>
>And then the President would be in a position where if he said everything
>was O.K., people would want to know why he was leaving. And then the
>President, who probably didn't know very much at that point, would be
>battered with questions that he could not have satisfactorily answered.
>
>So, Bush finished what he was doing, go up and left with no fuss, and
>everything ended satisfactorily...
>
>
>
>"Michael 182" > wrote in message
>news:AINYc.87940$Fg5.51056@attbi_s53...
>>
>> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were so far out of the loop. I thought
>it
>> > was common knowledge that Bush was reading to some very young children
>in
>> > front of a bunch of television cameras.
>>


This is the biggest load of unmitigated crap I have ever read, and simply
cannot be expected to generate any intelligent response.

But how about if dumbo had said something like
"children, something has come up that requires my immediate attention, and so I
must go."

Naw . . . too complex.



www.Rosspilot.com

[Rosspilot]

>> >Obviously you don't have very young children...
>>
>>
>> What in the hell does THAT have to do with anything???
>>

>I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were so far out of the loop. I thought it
>was common knowledge that Bush was reading to some very young children in
>front of a bunch of television cameras.


So???

He'd just been told that the country was UNDER ATTACK! What is wrong with you?



www.Rosspilot.com

[Roger Long]

Reminds me of the joke, one with a lot of truth in it evidently:

If Dick Cheney's weak heart should give out on him during the second term,
would Jr. be capable of running the country?

--

Roger Long



"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:mjNYc.342765$%_6.30883@attbi_s01...
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message news:oQMYc.72468
> >someone who's actually charge.
>
> Er, that should be "someone who's actually in charge".
>
>

[C J Campbell]

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
...
> Wdtabor wrote:
> >
> > The Nazi Party was the National SOCIALIST Party, fascsim is a left wing
> > philosophy, it never has had anything to do with the political right.
It is
> > only characterized as such by entertainers with no knowledge of history.
>
> Someone doesn't know the definition of right and left.
>

Probably you.

> Right wing philosophies tend to be conservative, want to retain
> traditional values, and often advocate the establishment of an
> authoritarian political order.
>
> Left wing philosophies promote political change, and generally promote
> greater freedom and well being of the common man.
>
> Fascism, and by extension Nazism, are clearly right wing philosophies.
> They cannot be characterized as being "liberal" by any stretch of the
> imagination.

At least that is how the left thinks of it. Actually, fascism and Nazism did
promote political change and claimed greater freedom and well being for the
common man. That they failed is obvious.

Most so-called left wing or liberal movements are in fact quite
authoritarian in nature -- far more authoritarian than so-called right wing
or conservative movements. Socialism, usually considered to be left wing,
requires an extremely authoritarian government with centrally planned
economies and minutely planned distribution of goods and services. The same
can be said for centrally planned educational standards and even
anti-discrimination laws -- though in the latter case I suppose since
slavery was banned and most equal rights laws were passed under Republican
administrations by Republican legislatures you might be able to make an
argument that anti-discrimination laws are a characteristic of right wing
philosophies.

[C J Campbell]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Brian Burger" > wrote in message
>
> > It's part of the problem, I think, with international relations - US
> > politics is skewed so far right that the rest of us just can't relate
> > anymore.
>
> My wife likes to remind me that America was founded and raised by
religious
> types who were so weird and to the right that they felt a need to escape
> Europe to exercise their religious freedom. The Quakers, the "puritans"
> (as we call 'em now)...

Except that neither the Quakers nor the Puritans had much to do with the
founding of America beyond being some of the earliest settlers.

[C J Campbell]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:oQMYc.72468$9d6.48029@attbi_s54...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Baloney. He continued reading. What was he supposed to do, run out of
the
> > classroom screaming?...
> >
> > Seriously, what is it that you think a President could have done? No one
> > knew whether it was a terrorist attack or just another airline accident.
>
> Two off-course airliners crashed into the World Trade Towers within
minutes
> of one another in clear weather, and no one knew if it was "just another
> airline accident"? That's quite a spin, CJ!

Bush left immediately after being informed of the second crash. Of course
you probably knew that, so let's here your spin on that!

[Ash Wyllie]

James Robinson opined

>Wdtabor wrote:
>>
>> The Nazi Party was the National SOCIALIST Party, fascsim is a left wing
>> philosophy, it never has had anything to do with the political right. It
>> is only characterized as such by entertainers with no knowledge of history.

>Someone doesn't know the definition of right and left.

>Right wing philosophies tend to be conservative, want to retain
>traditional values, and often advocate the establishment of an
>authoritarian political order.

>Left wing philosophies promote political change, and generally promote
>greater freedom and well being of the common man.

>Fascism, and by extension Nazism, are clearly right wing philosophies.
>They cannot be characterized as being "liberal" by any stretch of the
>imagination.

I would love to see some lists of the philosophers that you are talking
about. I particularly would like to see the classification of Karl Marx.


-ash
Cthulhu for President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?

[James Robinson]

C J Campbell wrote:
>
> "James Robinson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Wdtabor wrote:
> > >
> > > The Nazi Party was the National SOCIALIST Party, fascsim is a left wing
> > > philosophy, it never has had anything to do with the political right.
> It is
> > > only characterized as such by entertainers with no knowledge of history.
> >
> > Someone doesn't know the definition of right and left.
> >
>
> Probably you.
>
> > Right wing philosophies tend to be conservative, want to retain
> > traditional values, and often advocate the establishment of an
> > authoritarian political order.
> >
> > Left wing philosophies promote political change, and generally promote
> > greater freedom and well being of the common man.
> >
> > Fascism, and by extension Nazism, are clearly right wing philosophies.
> > They cannot be characterized as being "liberal" by any stretch of the
> > imagination.
>
> At least that is how the left thinks of it.

Nope. That's how the dictionary thinks of it.

[James Robinson]

C J Campbell wrote:
>
> Gary Drescher wrote:
> >
> > C J Campbell wrote:
> > >
> > > Baloney. He continued reading. What was he supposed to do,
> > > run out of the classroom screaming?...
> > >
> > > Seriously, what is it that you think a President could have
> > > done? No one knew whether it was a terrorist attack or just
> > > another airline accident.
> >
> > Two off-course airliners crashed into the World Trade Towers
> > within minutes of one another in clear weather, and no one
> > knew if it was "just another airline accident"? That's quite
> > a spin, CJ!
>
> Bush left immediately after being informed of the second crash. Of course
> you probably knew that, so let's here your spin on that!

Not quite. He was informed of the first aircraft hitting the WTC before
he entered the classroom. It was the information about the second that
he heard while in the classroom, which should have made it clear it was
an attack. He remained in the classroom to finish the story with the
children, and did not leave immediately.

[C J Campbell]

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
...
> C J Campbell wrote:
> >
> > > Right wing philosophies tend to be conservative, want to retain
> > > traditional values, and often advocate the establishment of an
> > > authoritarian political order.
> > >
> > > Left wing philosophies promote political change, and generally promote
> > > greater freedom and well being of the common man.
> > >
> > > Fascism, and by extension Nazism, are clearly right wing philosophies.
> > > They cannot be characterized as being "liberal" by any stretch of the
> > > imagination.
> >
> > At least that is how the left thinks of it.
>
> Nope. That's how the dictionary thinks of it.

If the dictionary says that Nazism, which promotes political change and
which believes it promotes greater freedom and the well being of the common
man is a right wing philosophy, then it contradicts itself.

[G.R. Patterson III]

C J Campbell wrote:
>
> Except that neither the Quakers nor the Puritans had much to do with the
> founding of America beyond being some of the earliest settlers.

Not directly, but the freedom from religion amendment to the Constitution had as much
to do with reaction to the way the Puritans ran their section of the Colony as it did
the national religious dictates of England.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[James Robinson]

C J Campbell wrote:
>
> If the dictionary says that Nazism, which promotes political change
> and which believes it promotes greater freedom and the well being
> of the common man is a right wing philosophy, then it contradicts
> itself.

That's your definition of Nazism, not what it acutally was.

http://encyclopedia.fablis.com/index.php/Right-wing_politics

"Nazis opposed individualism and laissez faire capitalism, vigorous
opposition to international socialism was a founding and continuing
tenet of Nazi fascism."

Try these sources for why others label Fascism as right wing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing

"... fascism is almost universally considered to be a part of "the
right"."
"Like other forms, it arose in antithesis to the agenda of leftists,
Communists, and Socialists."

http://www.publiceye.org/eyes/whatfasc.html

"Fascism is a form of extreme right-wing ideology that celebrates the
nation or the race as an organic community transcending all other
loyalties."

"Fascism is hostile to Marxism, liberalism, and conservatism, yet it
borrows concepts and practices from all three."

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Right-wing

"... fascism and communism share much in common, and this is to be
expected since they are the most extreme forms of conservatism, fascism
being of the right, and communism being of the left."

[Michael 182]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> You fault Bush for inaction, fine. Now tell us, chapter and verse, what
> action you would have taken....

Well given that I am in no way qualified to be President, I can't really
quote you chapter and verse. On the other hand, I suspect my response to the
biggest crisis in the past 50 years would not be to continue reading "Willie
Wonka" to a group of kids. Off the top of my head, I suspect there must be
some protocol to follow when the US comes under attack.

President Bush's behavior after 9/11 may be able to be defended on a number
of arguments. I personally disagree with almost all of them, but at least
when there is some effort toward reasonableness the arguments can be
discussed. But blind support of every facet of his behavior, regardless of
fact, is one of the reasons there is such a huge divide in the electorate.

[Bill Denton]

There's nothing wrong with me, I'm firmly grounded in reality.

However, I would question the state of someone who believes the President
was told that "the country was under attack".

You have no idea what Bush was told...



"Rosspilot" > wrote in message
...
> >> >Obviously you don't have very young children...
> >>
> >>
> >> What in the hell does THAT have to do with anything???
> >>
>
> >I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were so far out of the loop. I thought it
> >was common knowledge that Bush was reading to some very young children in
> >front of a bunch of television cameras.
>
>
> So???
>
> He'd just been told that the country was UNDER ATTACK! What is wrong with
you?
>
>
>
> www.Rosspilot.com
>
>

[Tom S.]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:54:33 GMT, "Roger Long" >
> wrote:
>
> >We train for instinctive reactions to emergencies. If an engine fails on
> >takeoff, we admire the pilot who, almost without thought, can pull the
> >throttle, feather the engine, put the proper rudder pedal in, and set the
> >proper airspeed while chewing gum and telling the tower he needs to come
> >around for an emergency landing.
> >
> >Bush projects exactly that kind of smoothness, assurance, and decisive
> >response. It comforts the voters and makes pilots, especially those who
do a
> >lot of emergency drilling, say, "My kind of guy."
>
> Well Roger, lucky for us we have film of exactly how "Dubya" reacted
> when told the news of the attacks on the WTC because he was being
> filmed at the time reading to kids in a classroom in Florida when an
> aide approached and gave him the news. There it is in cold hard film,
> the actual reaction of the big guy when told of the worst attack upon
> the United States since Pearl Harbor.
>
> His smooth assured and decisive reaction? He sat there stunned for 8
> minutes on camera until someone came and hustled him out of the
> classroom.

Wow!!! You're a pilot AND a mindreader!!

[C J Campbell]

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
...
> C J Campbell wrote:
> >
> > If the dictionary says that Nazism, which promotes political change
> > and which believes it promotes greater freedom and the well being
> > of the common man is a right wing philosophy, then it contradicts
> > itself.
>
> That's your definition of Nazism, not what it acutally was.
>
> http://encyclopedia.fablis.com/index.php/Right-wing_politics
>
> "Nazis opposed individualism and laissez faire capitalism, vigorous
> opposition to international socialism was a founding and continuing
> tenet of Nazi fascism."
>
> Try these sources for why others label Fascism as right wing:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing
>
> "... fascism is almost universally considered to be a part of "the
> right"."
> "Like other forms, it arose in antithesis to the agenda of leftists,
> Communists, and Socialists."
>
> http://www.publiceye.org/eyes/whatfasc.html
>
> "Fascism is a form of extreme right-wing ideology that celebrates the
> nation or the race as an organic community transcending all other
> loyalties."
>
> "Fascism is hostile to Marxism, liberalism, and conservatism, yet it
> borrows concepts and practices from all three."
>
> http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Right-wing
>
> "... fascism and communism share much in common, and this is to be
> expected since they are the most extreme forms of conservatism, fascism
> being of the right, and communism being of the left."

Now you are contradicting yourself. Now you are saying that communism is
left wing conservatism, where before you defined the left as being liberal.

I don't give a hoot about your definitions. They are self contradictory and
arbitrary, as many have pointed out before me.

[OP]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 22:29:31 -0700, Brian Burger > wrote:

>I was thinking about something similar, watching US Presidential stuff &
>recalling our recent Canadian federal election - and, basically, the US
>doesn't have a left wing the way Canadians or Europeans would understand
>it!
>
>For all the Republican ranting about 'leftist socialists', if Kerry
>moved to Canada, even our most rightwing mainstream party, the
>Conservatives, wouldn't have him. He'd be way off in right field all by
>himself, even with the Conservatives.
>
>And Kerry is the 'left' in the US Presidential race. Imagine where
>this leaves W... (goosestepping rapidly over the horizon, possibly...)
>
>It's part of the problem, I think, with international relations - US
>politics is skewed so far right that the rest of us just can't relate
>anymore.
>
>Brian.

Do you think maybe, just maybe, Canadian politics are skewed too far left?

Ron

[C J Campbell]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> C J Campbell wrote:
> >
> > Except that neither the Quakers nor the Puritans had much to do with the
> > founding of America beyond being some of the earliest settlers.
>
> Not directly, but the freedom from religion amendment to the Constitution
had as much
> to do with reaction to the way the Puritans ran their section of the
Colony as it did
> the national religious dictates of England.

To the contrary, it is the freedom OF religion amendment, not freedom FROM
religion. And it had far less to do with Puritanism than it had with the
Masonic philosophies of the founding fathers. Puritanism was not interested
in freedom of religion, but other colonies actively promoted it.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

What this amendment says is that there shall be no 'official' religion of
the United States, nor shall any law prohibit the free exercise of religion.
There are altogether too many people who wish to eradicate religion from the
country, which would be a direct violation of this right.

[C J Campbell]

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not quite. He was informed of the first aircraft hitting the WTC before
> he entered the classroom. It was the information about the second that
> he heard while in the classroom, which should have made it clear it was
> an attack. He remained in the classroom to finish the story with the
> children, and did not leave immediately.

Even if that was the case (and it contradicts the news reports I was
watching at the time), what else should he have done about it? Immediately
ask for the football and launch missiles? Hold a conference and tell
everyone who was working to deal with the situation to stop whatever they
were doing and immediately give him a report? Any action taken at that
moment would almost certainly have been the wrong one. As a pilot, one of
the first things you learn about emergencies is to wait and see what the
emergency is before deciding what, if any, action should be taken. In fact,
everything that could be done was being done.

Has Kerry said he would have done anything different? No. He just sees fit
to criticize and armchair quarterback with the hindsight of several years,
but he still can't come up with anything else the President could have done
even after all this time to think about it.

[Peter]

Bill Denton wrote:

> There's nothing wrong with me, I'm firmly grounded in reality.
>
> However, I would question the state of someone who believes the President
> was told that "the country was under attack".
>
> You have no idea what Bush was told...

But the guy who told him, Andrew Card, should know what he was told.
His recollection was (SF Chronicle, 9/11/02):

"So I was very uncomfortable about interrupting the president during one
of his events ... so I wanted to think, how can I convey to the
president the situation? And I made a conscious decision to state the
facts and to offer editorial comment. And the facts, as I knew them,
were -- since he knew about the first plane, I said, 'a second plane hit
the second tower.' Those were the facts. And the editorial comment was,
'America is under attack.'"

> "Rosspilot" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>>>Obviously you don't have very young children...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What in the hell does THAT have to do with anything???
>>>>
>>
>>>I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were so far out of the loop. I thought it
>>>was common knowledge that Bush was reading to some very young children in
>>>front of a bunch of television cameras.
>>
>>
>>So???
>>
>>He'd just been told that the country was UNDER ATTACK! What is wrong with
>
> you?

[Morgans]

"Michael 182" > wrote

> Imagine you were in the same situation and you heard that your wife was in
a
> car accident. Do you wait eight minutes to find out if she was hurt? On
the
> way to the hospital? He found out that the country had been attacked!
Aside
> from any other responses President Bush had, it is absurd to defend his
> inaction as making sure the kids remained calm.
>
> Michael
>
*****************************
Just a small difference here. I don't suppose you have a whole government,
several layers of defense and protocol in place, to care for any situation
that comes up involving your wife, do you?

The president does. He is an administrator, not a sole caretaker.
--
Jim in NC

[Tom S.]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 11:17:10 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> > wrote:
>
> >Seriously, what is it that you think a President could have done? No one
> >knew whether it was a terrorist attack or just another airline accident.
I
> >would be very interested in knowing what magical powers Presidents have.
>
> "Sorry kid's got to cut this short, I'll try to come back sometime
> soon" Comes to mind.
>
And what would he have been able to do right away? Invade Afghanistan?

You've been watching too much TV / Hollyweird.

People have been deluded by Hollyweird on how the military/intelligence
services/police/government really works.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1183148/posts

[Tom S.]

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
...
> Wdtabor wrote:
> >
> > The Nazi Party was the National SOCIALIST Party, fascsim is a left wing
> > philosophy, it never has had anything to do with the political right.
It is
> > only characterized as such by entertainers with no knowledge of history.
>
> Someone doesn't know the definition of right and left.
>
> Right wing philosophies tend to be conservative, want to retain
> traditional values, and often advocate the establishment of an
> authoritarian political order.
>
> Left wing philosophies promote political change, and generally promote
> greater freedom and well being of the common man.

Odd, isn't it, that the left wing countires are the most brutal and
repressive in recent history?

> Fascism, and by extension Nazism, are clearly right wing philosophies.
> They cannot be characterized as being "liberal" by any stretch of the
> imagination.

And the "liberal" ones, Soviet, China, Korea, Cuba, have slaughtered more
than Germany could ever hope to.

Spin that!!

[Tom S.]

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
...
> C J Campbell wrote:
> >
> > If the dictionary says that Nazism, which promotes political change
> > and which believes it promotes greater freedom and the well being
> > of the common man is a right wing philosophy, then it contradicts
> > itself.
>
> That's your definition of Nazism, not what it acutally was.
>
> http://encyclopedia.fablis.com/index.php/Right-wing_politics
>
> "Nazis opposed individualism and laissez faire capitalism, vigorous
> opposition to international socialism was a founding and continuing
> tenet of Nazi fascism."
>
> Try these sources for why others label Fascism as right wing:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing
>
> "... fascism is almost universally considered to be a part of "the
> right"."
> "Like other forms, it arose in antithesis to the agenda of leftists,
> Communists, and Socialists."
>
> http://www.publiceye.org/eyes/whatfasc.html
>
> "Fascism is a form of extreme right-wing ideology that celebrates the
> nation or the race as an organic community transcending all other
> loyalties."
>
> "Fascism is hostile to Marxism, liberalism, and conservatism, yet it
> borrows concepts and practices from all three."

Bad definition since Fascism, under both Mussolini and Hitler, were strongly
influenced by Marx.

"Thus state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the

ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first

premise for every truly human culture..." Adolf Hitler, _Mein_Kampf_


I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit.

The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into

practice what these peddlers and pen-pushers have timidly begun.... I had

only to develop logically what Social Democracy repeatedly failed in

because of its attempt to realize its evolution within the framework of

democracy. National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could

have broken its absurd and artificial ties with a democratic order.

--Hitler to Rauschning


>
> http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Right-wing
>
> "... fascism and communism share much in common, and this is to be
> expected since they are the most extreme forms of conservatism, fascism
> being of the right, and communism being of the left."

Actually, communism is considered "progressive", the antithesis of
"conservatives".

[Tom S.]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> To the contrary, it is the freedom OF religion amendment, not freedom FROM
> religion.

Can't have one without the other.

[Tom S.]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "James Robinson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Not quite. He was informed of the first aircraft hitting the WTC before
> > he entered the classroom. It was the information about the second that
> > he heard while in the classroom, which should have made it clear it was
> > an attack. He remained in the classroom to finish the story with the
> > children, and did not leave immediately.
>
> Even if that was the case (and it contradicts the news reports I was
> watching at the time), what else should he have done about it? Immediately
> ask for the football and launch missiles? Hold a conference and tell
> everyone who was working to deal with the situation to stop whatever they
> were doing and immediately give him a report? Any action taken at that
> moment would almost certainly have been the wrong one. As a pilot, one of
> the first things you learn about emergencies is to wait and see what the
> emergency is before deciding what, if any, action should be taken. In
fact,
> everything that could be done was being done.

First thing to do in an emergency is to fly the airplane.

> Has Kerry said he would have done anything different? No. He just sees fit
> to criticize and armchair quarterback with the hindsight of several years,
> but he still can't come up with anything else the President could have
done
> even after all this time to think about it.

Someone recently made a point about the old adage that "hindsight is
20/20" -- it isn't. It's terribly myopic. It doesn't teach one to make
decisions when there are so many unknown variables afoot during the original
decision making process.

[Jay Honeck]

> Hardly. The Canadians and Europeans depend on the US for their security.
> They provide token forces, but nothing anywhere near what they would have
to
> do if they were fully responsible for their own security.

Which is precisely by design, and is precisely the way we wanted it to be.

You want a heavily armed Canadian military on our northern border? You want
a militarized Europe again? Probably not.

One thing many people forget is that the U.S. set up the world this way
quite purposefully, after World War II. The thought was that it was better
to keep our troops in forward bases, and fight the next war "over there"
rather than waiting for it to come "over here." We firmly limited the size
of the former Axis' powers militaries, and created NATO in order to protect
Europe.

At first the Europeans chafed under the "restrictions" -- but over time they
discovered that they could really live it up, with all that disposable
income from their former military budgets.

We bought the peace, but at an incredible price to our own people.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[C J Campbell]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:qbSYc.262537$eM2.184@attbi_s51...
> > Hardly. The Canadians and Europeans depend on the US for their security.
> > They provide token forces, but nothing anywhere near what they would
have
> to
> > do if they were fully responsible for their own security.
>
> Which is precisely by design, and is precisely the way we wanted it to be.
>
> You want a heavily armed Canadian military on our northern border? You
want
> a militarized Europe again? Probably not.
>

No, of course not. However, neither should they be so disrespectful of what
we have bought for them at such a high price.

[C J Campbell]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > To the contrary, it is the freedom OF religion amendment, not freedom
FROM
> > religion.
>
> Can't have one without the other.

You certainly can. In fact, they are mutually exclusive. Freedom FROM
religion amounts to a prohibition of religion, whereas freedom OF religion
means that anyone can worship who, what, or how they wish, or not at all if
it suits them.

[Earl Grieda]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> "James Robinson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Wdtabor wrote:
> > >
>
> And the "liberal" ones, Soviet, China, Korea, Cuba, have slaughtered more
> than Germany could ever hope to.
>
> Spin that!!
>

No need to. You already have done it.

[Tom S.]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:qbSYc.262537$eM2.184@attbi_s51...

>
> We bought the peace, but at an incredible price to our own people.

Did we buy peace, or indifference/surrender?

[Brian Burger]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, C J Campbell wrote:

>
> "Tom S." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > To the contrary, it is the freedom OF religion amendment, not freedom
> FROM
> > > religion.
> >
> > Can't have one without the other.
>
> You certainly can. In fact, they are mutually exclusive. Freedom FROM
> religion amounts to a prohibition of religion, whereas freedom OF religion
> means that anyone can worship who, what, or how they wish, or not at all if
> it suits them.

Errr... the last part of your sentence ("...or not at all...") IS freedom
from religion, isn't it? IE you can choose to be free from religion, while
other people can choose to practice whatever religion they want.

They aren't mutually exclusive, the larger one (freedom of...) should
automatically include the detailed one (freedom from...).

Where it gets complicated, of course, is where someone else's religion
invades public life. "In God We Trust", and stuff like that... I'm not
going to go there right now, it's even MORE off topic that we already
are...

Brian.

[Brian Burger]

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, OP wrote:

> Do you think maybe, just maybe, Canadian politics are skewed too far left?

No, actually. I think we'd be better off with another nudge to the left.
Just enough to have a gov't with more independence from Washington DC,
actually, one that could (for example) be honest about this 'Son of Star
Wars' BS that's being touted right now...

As for Canadians being too far left, check the Europeans out - they're
farther left still, even by Canadian standards...

Brian.

[Brian Burger]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, C J Campbell wrote:

>
> "Brian Burger" > wrote in message
> ia.tc.ca...
> >
> > And Kerry is the 'left' in the US Presidential race. Imagine where
> > this leaves W... (goosestepping rapidly over the horizon, possibly...)
> >
>
> Wow. We start right off with Godwin's law.

It was actually a comment on militaristic right-wingers in general, not an
attempt to invoke Der Godwinator...

> What is "liberal" about Kerry
> supporters that trash storefronts and beat Bush supporters up? How is their
> behavior any different from that of thugs in 1935?

(cough) Speaking of Godwin...

> Maybe I am jaded, but as far as I can see the only thing people are
> interested in these days is in exercising dominion over others. They want
> power, and are willing to go to any lengths and use any means to get it.
> Ethics, justice, right and left: they are just hollow words signifying
> nothing. I truly long for leaders who are genuinely just men, who are honest
> and moral, who will not steal or lie. I would vote for such a person no
> matter where on the spectrum of "left" or "right" he fell.

I'm not sure they exist, esp. in high level politics... power really does
corrupt, and all that.

Brian.

[Corky Scott]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 19:01:18 -0700, "Tom S." > wrote:

>> His smooth assured and decisive reaction? He sat there stunned for 8
>> minutes on camera until someone came and hustled him out of the
>> classroom.
>
>Wow!!! You're a pilot AND a mindreader!!

You're one for two.

Corky Scott

[Ash Wyllie]

Martin Hotze opined

>"Ash Wyllie" > wrote:

>> >Aren't we clever? We let other idio^W^Wour allies pay for it, so we don't
>> >have
>> >10% of our population in poverty.
>>
>> That is a good plan, right up until someone stops providing your security.
>> Then you start having a problem. Luckily you have 10.6% of your population
>> unemployed,


>Austria: 4.2%
>EU: 9%

>(in German:) http://www.wirtschaftsblatt.at/cgi-bin/page.pl?id=362324


>> so there are lots of peopole that can be conscripted into your big
>> new army.

>hmm, we (Austria) are only allowed to defend ourselves. We don't have the
>need or lust of invading a country some thousand miles away who never
>attacked us (we
>[Austria] had our share of invading other countries all over the world). And
>I believe that most other countries within the EU think similar)

Sorry, thought that you were German :(.

Weren't you the guys that with the Hungarians conquered a large chunk of
Europe?


-ash
Cthulhu for President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?

[Bill Denton]

Thank you...

I had not previously read/seen/heard this information.

I appreciate your bringing it to my attention.




"Peter" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Denton wrote:
>
> > There's nothing wrong with me, I'm firmly grounded in reality.
> >
> > However, I would question the state of someone who believes the
President
> > was told that "the country was under attack".
> >
> > You have no idea what Bush was told...
>
> But the guy who told him, Andrew Card, should know what he was told.
> His recollection was (SF Chronicle, 9/11/02):
>
> "So I was very uncomfortable about interrupting the president during one
> of his events ... so I wanted to think, how can I convey to the
> president the situation? And I made a conscious decision to state the
> facts and to offer editorial comment. And the facts, as I knew them,
> were -- since he knew about the first plane, I said, 'a second plane hit
> the second tower.' Those were the facts. And the editorial comment was,
> 'America is under attack.'"
>
> > "Rosspilot" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>>>>Obviously you don't have very young children...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>What in the hell does THAT have to do with anything???
> >>>>
> >>
> >>>I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were so far out of the loop. I thought
it
> >>>was common knowledge that Bush was reading to some very young children
in
> >>>front of a bunch of television cameras.
> >>
> >>
> >>So???
> >>
> >>He'd just been told that the country was UNDER ATTACK! What is wrong
with
> >
> > you?
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

C J Campbell wrote:
>
> ..... or not at all .....

That's freedom *from* religion.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[G.R. Patterson III]

C J Campbell wrote:
>
> Any action taken at that
> moment would almost certainly have been the wrong one. As a pilot, one of
> the first things you learn about emergencies is to wait and see what the
> emergency is before deciding what, if any, action should be taken.

NPR recently interviewed a U.S. Army General (retired). IIRC, it was "Stormin'
Norman". When asked about this incident, he said basically the same thing. He stated
that, when he was younger, he had been prone to make rapid decisions, and they were
almost always inferior to those he would have made had he thought about them for a
while.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[BillC85]

Political Liberals don't believe human beings are capable of taking care of
themselves or making decisions that make any real difference in the outcome
of events in their lives. Liberals feel that they, being the elite humans
because of their compassionate humanitarian attitudes, education, etc., are
the only humans capable of making any decisions of any relevancy whatsoever.
Therefore political Liberals take more and more of the real decision making
power away from the common person usurping his/her efficacy to the point
where they ultimately rule the lives of everyone.





Political Conservatives have an uncontrollable desire to tell people what to
do under the pretext of what is right for them. They feel they have an
incredibly well developed sense of what is right and what is wrong regarding
themselves as well as everyone else. Consequently, Conservatives make up
rule after rule and law after law in the name of universal morality. This
creates a continuous and unrelenting stifling of individual rights in an
effort to govern the moral and ethical lives of the populace to the point
where they ultimately rule the lives of everyone.





Most of what you just read is rhetoric. The only relevant words in each
paragraph are the first two and the last six.



Just my two cents.



BillC

[Tom S.]

"Brian Burger" > wrote in message
ia.tc.ca...
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, C J Campbell wrote:
>
> >
> > "Tom S." > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "C J Campbell" > wrote in
message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > To the contrary, it is the freedom OF religion amendment, not
freedom
> > FROM
> > > > religion.
> > >
> > > Can't have one without the other.
> >
> > You certainly can. In fact, they are mutually exclusive. Freedom FROM
> > religion amounts to a prohibition of religion, whereas freedom OF
religion
> > means that anyone can worship who, what, or how they wish, or not at all
if
> > it suits them.
>
> Errr... the last part of your sentence ("...or not at all...") IS freedom
> from religion, isn't it? IE you can choose to be free from religion, while
> other people can choose to practice whatever religion they want.

BINGO!!!

> They aren't mutually exclusive, the larger one (freedom of...) should
> automatically include the detailed one (freedom from...).

....depending on how you hold. You can't have freedom of religion unless you
correspondingly have freedom FROM it as well. That's what a secular republic
is all about, though the US was the first (and probably the only one) in
history,
America's New Secular Order (Novus Ordo Seclorem).


>
> Where it gets complicated, of course, is where someone else's religion
> invades public life. "In God We Trust", and stuff like that... I'm not
> going to go there right now, it's even MORE off topic that we already
> are...

See above.

[Tom S.]

"Earl Grieda" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Tom S." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "James Robinson" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Wdtabor wrote:
> > > >
> >
> > And the "liberal" ones, Soviet, China, Korea, Cuba, have slaughtered
more
> > than Germany could ever hope to.
> >
> > Spin that!!
> >
>
> No need to. You already have done it.
>

Care to elaborate on that?

[Tom S.]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 19:01:18 -0700, "Tom S." > wrote:
>
> >> His smooth assured and decisive reaction? He sat there stunned for 8
> >> minutes on camera until someone came and hustled him out of the
> >> classroom.
> >
> >Wow!!! You're a pilot AND a mindreader!!
>
> You're one for two.
>

Well, if you think (apparently) he was stunned into paralysis, you must be a
mindreader...(i.e., knowing what was going through his head)...

[Peter Gottlieb]

>> What is "liberal" about Kerry
>> supporters that trash storefronts and beat Bush supporters up? How is
>> their
>> behavior any different from that of thugs in 1935?

The reason a lot of people "support" Kerry is because he is not Bush and he
is the best shot at getting Bush out. They do not necessarily actually
support Kerry and his ideas. Another case of not voting "for" someone but
voting "against" someone else. I strongly suspect that who you call "Kerry
supporters" are in fact part of the anti-Bush crowd. I'm quite sure Kerry
would treat such hooligans pretty severely (as others have pointed out, the
differences between the parties here is actually small).

Myself? I am strongly biased against whoever is in power. They bear the
burden of proof of what they have done - their accomplishments. I am vastly
unimpressed by the current administration: the deception, the secrecy, the
control and manipulation, the intrusion of the Church into politics, the
poor economic performance, the corruption, the list goes on and on. I don't
know if Kerry would do any better but I would rather he and his
administration have the chance than continue on what to me seems like a very
bad path. Remember also that the Republicans had majorities across the
government these past 4 years so if ever there they had the opportunity to
show their mettle this was it and to me it looks pretty obvious their
performance was poor *at best*. I would never accept such screwed-up
leadership in a corporation I had interest in, so why should I in the
country I live in?

If Kerry gets in, I will be just or even more critical of his
administration's performance. The bigger the mess (and it seems to be
getting worse rather than better), the higher my expectations are of the
administration of the most powerful country on the planet.

Do I think we are better off than we were 4 years ago? No. Does the
current administration seem to have a clear plan to improve things? No.
Therefore, time for change.

Just my humble opinion.

[Tom S.]

"Ash Wyllie" > wrote in message
...
> Martin Hotze opined
>
> >"Ash Wyllie" > wrote:
>
> >> >Aren't we clever? We let other idio^W^Wour allies pay for it, so we
don't
> >> >have
> >> >10% of our population in poverty.
> >>
> >> That is a good plan, right up until someone stops providing your
security.
> >> Then you start having a problem. Luckily you have 10.6% of your
population
> >> unemployed,
>
>
> >Austria: 4.2%
> >EU: 9%
>
> >(in German:) http://www.wirtschaftsblatt.at/cgi-bin/page.pl?id=362324
>

http://tinyurl.com/585b7

[Peter Gottlieb]

"BillC85" > wrote in message
...
> Political Liberals don't believe human beings are capable of taking care
> of
> themselves or making decisions that make any real difference in the
> outcome
> of events in their lives. Liberals feel that they, being the elite humans
> because of their compassionate humanitarian attitudes, education, etc.,
> are
> the only humans capable of making any decisions of any relevancy
> whatsoever.
> Therefore political Liberals take more and more of the real decision
> making
> power away from the common person usurping his/her efficacy to the point
> where they ultimately rule the lives of everyone.
>
>
>
>
>
> Political Conservatives have an uncontrollable desire to tell people what
> to
> do under the pretext of what is right for them. They feel they have an
> incredibly well developed sense of what is right and what is wrong
> regarding
> themselves as well as everyone else. Consequently, Conservatives make up
> rule after rule and law after law in the name of universal morality. This
> creates a continuous and unrelenting stifling of individual rights in an
> effort to govern the moral and ethical lives of the populace to the point
> where they ultimately rule the lives of everyone.
>
>
>
>
>
> Most of what you just read is rhetoric. The only relevant words in each
> paragraph are the first two and the last six.
>
>
>
> Just my two cents.
>
>
>
> BillC
>

Clever. I'll mod you up one.

[Andrew Gideon]

BillC85 wrote:

> Just my two cents.

<Sigh> too true. But it wasn't always this way!

Once upon a time, a "political conservative" would have been apalled at the
notions expounded by religious zealots. Today, these terms of come to be
hopelessly intertwined. Annoying.

Similarly, once upon a time "democracy" was a liberal idea. Today,
"liberal" appears to carry all sorts of unrelated baggage.

What we really need are better labels.

I take the evolution of "conservative" more personally, I suppose, because I
used to be a "conservative". But, believing as I do in small government,
free trade, separation of church and state, states' rights, personal
responsibility, etc. has left me label-free (and abandoned by the major
party that claims to represent me).

- Andrew

[Wdtabor]

In article >, James Robinson >
writes:

>> >
>> > Fascism, and by extension Nazism, are clearly right wing philosophies.
>> > They cannot be characterized as being "liberal" by any stretch of the
>> > imagination.
>>
>> At least that is how the left thinks of it.
>
>Nope. That's how the dictionary thinks of it.
>
>

Fascism comes in a number of flavors, but the key elements are:

An authoritarian power structure
A collectivist economy (either socialism or feudalism will do)
Expansionist foreign policy
A central ethnic, religious or nationalist identity

The first two elements require supremacy of the collective over the individual,
which is why fascist regimes rise from democracies but not from republics. The
the extent we stray from our Constitutional Republic toward a democracy, we
risk becoming a fascist state.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Wdtabor]

In article >, "Ash Wyllie" >
writes:

>James Robinson opined
>
>>Wdtabor wrote:
>>>
>>> The Nazi Party was the National SOCIALIST Party, fascsim is a left wing
>>> philosophy, it never has had anything to do with the political right. It
>>> is only characterized as such by entertainers with no knowledge of
>history.
>
>>Someone doesn't know the definition of right and left.
>
>>Right wing philosophies tend to be conservative, want to retain
>>traditional values, and often advocate the establishment of an
>>authoritarian political order.
>
>>Left wing philosophies promote political change, and generally promote
>>greater freedom and well being of the common man.
>

Uh, No. Left and right and liberal and conservative have become distorted from
their dictionary meanings.

I can make it simpler. Look at the party NAMES.

Do you want to live in a Republic, with unalienable rights not even the power
of government is permitted to violate, or do you want to live in a Democracy,
where there is no right of yours that is not subject to transgression if 51% of
the populace lusts for what right protects?

That is what the political spectrum is all about, the degree to wich the
individual is soveriegn compared to the degree to which the collective is
soveriegn.

The order is, strarting with maximum individual rights

Libertarian > Republican > Democrat > Nazi > Socialist > Ants

If you own yourself, and are willing to be responsible for yourself, you are a
Libertarian. If you are owned by the collective, and expect to be guided and
protected from your own failures by that collective, you are an ant.

Pick the degree to which you are your own person or to which you are willing to
trade away your liberty for economic security, and find your place on the
spectrum.

The only wild cards are the theocrats, who are collectivists who submit to
their invisible friend instead of the majority. They are currently allied with
the Republicans, but for 100 years before SCOTUS ****ed them off were allied
with the Democrats.

Note that theocrats are less dangerous when allied with the GOP, where they
have succeeded in passing almost nothing, than they were when they were allied
with the statist Democrats, and passed the Sodommy laws, Prostitution laws,
Drug laws and Prohibition. An alliance between Theocrats and Collectivists
gives you the Taliban, an alliance between theocrats and individualists gives
you some hurtful rhetoric but nothing more.

So, forget the spin and demagoguery, and decide where you are on the political
spectrum based on the single matter of personal freedom vs submission to the
collective and you will not go wrong.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Wdtabor]

In article e.com>, Andrew
Gideon > writes:

>BillC85 wrote:
>
>> Just my two cents.
>
><Sigh> too true. But it wasn't always this way!
>
>Once upon a time, a "political conservative" would have been apalled at the
>notions expounded by religious zealots. Today, these terms of come to be
>hopelessly intertwined. Annoying.
>
>Similarly, once upon a time "democracy" was a liberal idea. Today,
>"liberal" appears to carry all sorts of unrelated baggage.
>
>What we really need are better labels.
>

WWW.LP.ORG

Take the World's Smallest Political quiz there.

YOu get a two axis political spectrum that describes your place better than
left/right

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Rosspilot]

>Take the World's Smallest Political quiz there.
>
>YOu get a two axis political spectrum that describes your place better than
>left/right


I am WAY Libertarian . . . 80% on social issues and 100% on economic.


www.Rosspilot.com

[Ash Wyllie]

Martin Hotze opined

>"Ash Wyllie" > wrote:

>> Weren't you the guys that with the Hungarians conquered a large chunk of
>> Europe?

>we conquered half of the world.

Anybody checked Bush's ancestry?


-ash
Cthulhu for President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Rosspilot" > wrote in message
...
> >Take the World's Smallest Political quiz there.
>>
>>YOu get a two axis political spectrum that describes your place better
>>than
>>left/right
>
>
> I am WAY Libertarian . . . 80% on social issues and 100% on economic.
>

Most of us probably are, but it's moot as they aren't even close to getting
into any important federal positions.

[Wdtabor]

>>
>> I am WAY Libertarian . . . 80% on social issues and 100% on economic.
>>
>
>Most of us probably are, but it's moot as they aren't even close to getting
>into any important federal positions.
>

So?

Join your local chapter anyway and work to build the party and steer the
country back toward the Constitution.

Here in Tidewater, our chapter is working with select Republican delegates to
fight eminient doamin abuse by local governments, and we are working for the
FairTax on the national level.

Just because we don't hold any seats in Congress doesn't mean we can't do some
good.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[David CL Francis]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 at 12:42:48 in message
e.com>, Andrew Gideon
> wrote:
>Wdtabor wrote:
>
>> The Nazi Party was the National SOCIALIST Party, fascsim is a left wing
>> philosophy, it never has had anything to do with the political right. It
>> is only characterized as such by entertainers with no knowledge of
>> history.
>
>And what was East Germany's actual name?
>
Always seems to me that there is no adequate definition of left and
right in politics. There are certain policies that seem to be associated
with one or the other but there are significant variations in even that
classification. Mostly they are just insults that one party throws at
another.

Sometimes I feel it is a circle and left and right meet around the back
of the circle anyway. Any definition that I try seems to present my own
ideas in the most favourable way. :-{

Fashions change; once the cry of the British Labour party was 'No Means
Testing' for benefits. Now there are more means tests on income for
benefits than ever.

The only thing I have tried as a separation is that the left always
believes in centralised control and planning and the right sometimes
does!

Left and Right can also be attempted as a definition as a distinction
between the left who believe that 'most people do not understand their
own best interests' and the right who believe 'most people do understand
their own best interests'. :-)

That usual collapses as well.

It seems to me that labels such as socialist, fascist, dictator,
liberal, national, peoples. communist, monarchy democrat, republican and
despot only give a very slight clue to a regime. They can be combined in
almost any way you choose.

Most important is probably a structure of a nation that limits the
power of different factions.

In some cases communism has gone directly to a form of monarchy! In
others a popular revolution has finished up with an Emperor..
--
David CL Francis

[Andrew Gideon]

James Robinson wrote:

> Right wing philosophies tend to be conservative, want to retain
> traditional values, and often advocate the establishment of an
> authoritarian political order.

Simple labels just fail too quickly. A political conservative in the US
would be a strong advocate of church/state separation. A social
conservative would want his/her own religious morals encoded into law.

It's all a matter of which values you consider "traditional".

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Brian Burger wrote:

> They aren't mutually exclusive, the larger one (freedom of...) should
> automatically include the detailed one (freedom from...).

Of course. The set of subsets of any set includes the empty set.

The problem is that C.J. Campbell believes that "freedom from" implies that
religion is kept away. Others on this thread apparently read this as
"freedom from imposition of".

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Bob Noel wrote:

> Waffle is "like us"? guess again.

"Waffle" like opinions about nation building, free trade, states' rights,
etc.?

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

> NPR recently interviewed a U.S. Army General (retired). IIRC, it was
> "Stormin' Norman". When asked about this incident, he said basically the
> same thing. He stated that, when he was younger, he had been prone to make
> rapid decisions, and they were almost always inferior to those he would
> have made had he thought about them for a while.

I'm no fan of Bush, but I think this particular issue is a little silly.
Isn't there some old story about an old airline pilot and a young examiner
of some sort where an emergency is "caused" and the pilot's immediate step
is to wind a watch, or some such? "I ain't never killed nobody winding a
watch" was the punchline.

- Andrew

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Peter
Gottlieb" > wrote:

> Do I think we are better off than we were 4 years ago? No. Does the
> current administration seem to have a clear plan to improve things? No.
> Therefore, time for change.

any change? or change for the better?

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

[Brian Burger]

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Ash Wyllie wrote:

> Martin Hotze opined
>
> >"Ash Wyllie" > wrote:
>
> >> Weren't you the guys that with the Hungarians conquered a large chunk of
> >> Europe?
>
> >we conquered half of the world.
>
> Anybody checked Bush's ancestry?

Yes, he's just a son of a Bush.

Ducking,

Brian.

[James Robinson]

Wdtabor wrote:
>
> Fascism comes in a number of flavors, but the key elements are:
>
> An authoritarian power structure

Agreed.

> A collectivist economy (either socialism or feudalism will do)

Disagree. While Fascism morphed somewhat over time, it was intensely
against socialism from the beginning. That opposition was one of the
prime tenets of the philosophy. That said, the ideology was also
against a completely free economy, preferring government direction, but
also not for the benefit of the masses. The idea of government control
was more in line with their authoritarian bent than it was a statement
of left or right leaning in economic terms. Overall, using strictly an
economic measure, Fascism was neither left nor right, but somewhere
slightly right of center.

[Tom S.]

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
...
> Wdtabor wrote:
> >
> > Fascism comes in a number of flavors, but the key elements are:
> >
> > An authoritarian power structure
>
> Agreed.
>
> > A collectivist economy (either socialism or feudalism will do)
>
> Disagree. While Fascism morphed somewhat over time, it was intensely
> against socialism from the beginning. That opposition was one of the
> prime tenets of the philosophy. That said, the ideology was also
> against a completely free economy, preferring government direction, but
> also not for the benefit of the masses. The idea of government control
> was more in line with their authoritarian bent than it was a statement
> of left or right leaning in economic terms.

In other words, a collectivist economy, as Wdtabor stated.

> Overall, using strictly an
> economic measure, Fascism was neither left nor right, but somewhere
> slightly right of center.

Irrelevant.

[C J Campbell]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> Brian Burger wrote:
>
> > They aren't mutually exclusive, the larger one (freedom of...) should
> > automatically include the detailed one (freedom from...).
>
> Of course. The set of subsets of any set includes the empty set.
>
> The problem is that C.J. Campbell believes that "freedom from" implies
that
> religion is kept away. Others on this thread apparently read this as
> "freedom from imposition of".

I would say that the remarks of many here would support my thesis that they
believe that religion should be suppressed from public view entirely.
Freedom of religion means anyone can worship anywhere at any time, even if
they are a public official. You should not lose your civil rights just
because you became a government employee.

This thread reminds of a joke over on a humor news group:

Can you imagine what would have happened if Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie
had children? Jackson is a Jehovah's Witness. Lisa Marie is an agnostic.
Their kids would have gone around knocking on doors for no reason
whatsoever.

[Judah]

(Wdtabor) wrote in
:

> In article >, "Ash Wyllie"
> > writes:

<snip>

> I can make it simpler. Look at the party NAMES.
>
> Do you want to live in a Republic, with unalienable rights not even the
> power of government is permitted to violate, or do you want to live in
> a Democracy, where there is no right of yours that is not subject to
> transgression if 51% of the populace lusts for what right protects?
>
> That is what the political spectrum is all about, the degree to wich
> the individual is soveriegn compared to the degree to which the
> collective is soveriegn.
>
> The order is, strarting with maximum individual rights
>
> Libertarian > Republican > Democrat > Nazi > Socialist > Ants
>
> If you own yourself, and are willing to be responsible for yourself,
> you are a Libertarian. If you are owned by the collective, and expect
> to be guided and protected from your own failures by that collective,
> you are an ant.
>

<snip>

Interesting, then, that our Republican government enacted the Patriot Act
that basically allows government to violate just about every basic right of
the individual without any checks and balances whatsoever...

[James Robinson]

David CL Francis wrote:
>
> Always seems to me that there is no adequate definition of left and
> right in politics.

There is a group that is trying to introduce a second dimension to
political descriptions:

http://www.politicalcompass.org

In essence, they suggest using left - right strictly to describe the
economic policies, and they superimpose a second dimension that measures
the degree of authoritarianism. Therefore, you can have authoritarian
or libertarian governments at either extreme of the economic spectrum.

The above web site also has an interesting test, where you can evaluate
your own views to see how they would fit into their definition, and
compare the result to many past and current political leaders.

[James Robinson]

C J Campbell wrote:
>
> If the dictionary says that Nazism, which promotes political change
> and which believes it promotes greater freedom and the well being
> of the common man is a right wing philosophy, then it contradicts
> itself.

Nazism was the antithesis of what you describe above.

It was very authoritarian, opposed to individual freedom in deference to
the power of the state, and believe in forced suppression of any
opposition. While it might have seemed that they promoted political
change, they change they wanted was a return to more traditional morals,
which was a conservative philosophy.

[James Robinson]

C J Campbell wrote:
>
> James Robinson wrote:
> >
> > C J Campbell wrote:
> > >
> > > If the dictionary says that Nazism, which promotes political change
> > > and which believes it promotes greater freedom and the well being
> > > of the common man is a right wing philosophy, then it contradicts
> > > itself.
> >
> > That's your definition of Nazism, not what it acutally was.
> >
> > http://encyclopedia.fablis.com/index.php/Right-wing_politics
> >
> > "Nazis opposed individualism and laissez faire capitalism, vigorous
> > opposition to international socialism was a founding and continuing
> > tenet of Nazi fascism."
> >
> > Try these sources for why others label Fascism as right wing:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing
> >
> > "... fascism is almost universally considered to be a part of "the
> > right"."
> > "Like other forms, it arose in antithesis to the agenda of leftists,
> > Communists, and Socialists."
> >
> > http://www.publiceye.org/eyes/whatfasc.html
> >
> > "Fascism is a form of extreme right-wing ideology that celebrates the
> > nation or the race as an organic community transcending all other
> > loyalties."
> >
> > "Fascism is hostile to Marxism, liberalism, and conservatism, yet it
> > borrows concepts and practices from all three."
> >
> > http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Right-wing
> >
> > "... fascism and communism share much in common, and this is to be
> > expected since they are the most extreme forms of conservatism, fascism
> > being of the right, and communism being of the left."
>
> Now you are contradicting yourself. Now you are saying that communism is
> left wing conservatism, where before you defined the left as being liberal.
>
> I don't give a hoot about your definitions. They are self contradictory and
> arbitrary, as many have pointed out before me.

They aren't "my" definitions. They are ones that are generally accepted
in political discussions, and can be found all over internet. I provided
links to them to show that Nazism is considered by most to be a right
wing political philosophy. Some suggest it is slightly right of center,
because of their economic policies and opposition to socialism, and
others suggest far more to the right, considering their strong
authoritarianism and political conservatism. Few suggest it is left of
center.

Your discomfort with the definitions is perhaps based on the fact that
the single dimensional characteristic of "left" and "right" as a
political description is simply inadequate to describe all the
complexities of politics. You are free to make up your own, but until
the mainstream accepts a diverging definition, then it is useless.

The original definition of left-right was intended to separate those who
wanted change, i.e. abolition of the French monarchy, from those who
wanted to keep things as they were. The overtones of that definition
still remain today with "liberal" and "conservative."

Over time, the definitions evolved to include an economic description,
where left described socialism, and right a more laisez faire economy.
Others suggest the economic distinction is more an emphasis of person vs
property. Today, this is probably the most important definition of left
and right.

Superimposed on this is how authoritarian the government is. Harking
back to the original definition of left-right, many people connect
authoritarianism with the right, since this was a tendency of
monarchies. Further, pretty well every government that has had right
leaning economic policies has been authoritarian to some extent or
other.

That said, there is no question that there have been very authoritarian
left wing governments, Stalinism comes to mind as an example. Thus, the
concept of how authoritarian or liberal a government tends to be is an
entirely separate concept from the traditional definitions of left and
right.

[C J Campbell]

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
...
> C J Campbell wrote:
> >
> > Now you are contradicting yourself. Now you are saying that communism is
> > left wing conservatism, where before you defined the left as being
liberal.
> >
> > I don't give a hoot about your definitions. They are self contradictory
and
> > arbitrary, as many have pointed out before me.
>
> They aren't "my" definitions. They are ones that are generally accepted
> in political discussions, and can be found all over internet.

They are both meaningless and useless, no matter who uses them. Of course,
you are free to use the terms if you would prefer to avoid thinking for
yourself.

[James Robinson]

Tom S. wrote:
>
> James Robinson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Wdtabor wrote:
> > >
> > > Fascism comes in a number of flavors, but the key elements are:
> > >
> > > An authoritarian power structure
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > > A collectivist economy (either socialism or feudalism will do)
> >
> > Disagree. While Fascism morphed somewhat over time, it was intensely
> > against socialism from the beginning. That opposition was one of the
> > prime tenets of the philosophy. That said, the ideology was also
> > against a completely free economy, preferring government direction, but
> > also not for the benefit of the masses. The idea of government control
> > was more in line with their authoritarian bent than it was a statement
> > of left or right leaning in economic terms.
>
> In other words, a collectivist economy, as Wdtabor stated.

No. It wasn't at all collectivist. Industries weren't nationalized,
and the major corporations, like Bayer, Krupp, Siemens, et al continued
to exist in a cozy relationship with the government. It was quite
profitable for those companies, who worked with the government to
promote their economic policies. Kind of like how Haliburton works with
today's government, which certainly can't be called collectivist.

> > Overall, using strictly an
> > economic measure, Fascism was neither left nor right, but somewhere
> > slightly right of center.
>
> Irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant, since the economic definition of left-right puts
Fascism close to the center, not at either extreme. They opposed both
extremes - socialism, or a laissez faire economy, preferring some
government control, but corporate organization. The economic measure is
probably the primary contributor to a left-right definition.

[Tom S.]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > The problem is that C.J. Campbell believes that "freedom from" implies
> that
> > religion is kept away. Others on this thread apparently read this as
> > "freedom from imposition of".
>
> I would say that the remarks of many here would support my thesis that
they
> believe that religion should be suppressed from public view entirely.

From publicly funded ones.

> Freedom of religion means anyone can worship anywhere at any time, even if
> they are a public official.

> You should not lose your civil rights just
> because you became a government employee.

Government employees can't go to church?

[Wdtabor]

In article >, James Robinson >
writes:

>
>> A collectivist economy (either socialism or feudalism will do)
>
>Disagree. While Fascism morphed somewhat over time, it was intensely
>against socialism from the beginning. That opposition was one of the
>prime tenets of the philosophy. That said, the ideology was also
>against a completely free economy, preferring government direction, but
>also not for the benefit of the masses. The idea of government control
>was more in line with their authoritarian bent than it was a statement
>of left or right leaning in economic terms. Overall, using strictly an
>economic measure, Fascism was neither left nor right, but somewhere
>slightly right of center.
>

You might want to read Hayek's ROAD TO SERFDOM as it deals specifically with
the rise of Nazi fascism from socialist roots. And he was there to see it
happen.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Tom S.]

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
...
> Tom S. wrote:
> >
> > James Robinson" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Wdtabor wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Fascism comes in a number of flavors, but the key elements are:
> > > >
> > > > An authoritarian power structure
> > >
> > > Agreed.
> > >
> > > > A collectivist economy (either socialism or feudalism will do)
> > >
> > > Disagree. While Fascism morphed somewhat over time, it was intensely
> > > against socialism from the beginning. That opposition was one of the
> > > prime tenets of the philosophy. That said, the ideology was also
> > > against a completely free economy, preferring government direction,
but
> > > also not for the benefit of the masses. The idea of government control
> > > was more in line with their authoritarian bent than it was a statement
> > > of left or right leaning in economic terms.
> >
> > In other words, a collectivist economy, as Wdtabor stated.
>
> No. It wasn't at all collectivist. Industries weren't nationalized,
> and the major corporations, like Bayer, Krupp, Siemens, et al continued
> to exist in a cozy relationship with the government.

I don't know your take on collectivism, but it's as much a matter of CONTROL
as it is of OWNERSHIP.


> It was quite
> profitable for those companies, who worked with the government to
> promote their economic policies. Kind of like how Haliburton works with
> today's government, which certainly can't be called collectivist.

You have no clue regarding political power versus economic power.

Halliburton is, far and away, the best at what they do. That's why they have
economic power. They've held that status for several years. The difference
between them and the rest of the pack is like the difference between the
1927 Yankees and today's AZ Diamondbacks.

Even gazillionaire Bill Gates was taken to the cleaners in Federal Court.
How much control did they have in making policy?

Speaking of which: the dot.com bubble burst and ensuing stock market slide
from the peak around 12,000 began on (+/-) March 23, 2000, which was the day
the Justice Department announced it's actions against Microsoft.

[Wdtabor]

In article >, Judah
> writes:

>
>Interesting, then, that our Republican government enacted the Patriot Act
>that basically allows government to violate just about every basic right of
>the individual without any checks and balances whatsoever...
>

At least they put a sunset provision in it.

Look, we're at war. Things are different in wartime, even the Constitution
acknowledges that.

In WW2 we interned people based on race and took the propellors off private
aircraft for the duration.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Wdtabor]

In article >, James Robinson >
writes:

>>
>> Always seems to me that there is no adequate definition of left and
>> right in politics.
>
>There is a group that is trying to introduce a second dimension to
>political descriptions:
>
>http://www.politicalcompass.org
>

I don't like that one very much. It is adpated from a British model that has
cultural baises built in. Among other things, racism/zenophobia is counted as a
conservative/libertarian trait.

The one at LP.org is better.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Wdtabor]

In article >, James Robinson > writes:

>>
>> I don't give a hoot about your definitions. They are self contradictory and
>> arbitrary, as many have pointed out before me.
>
>They aren't "my" definitions. They are ones that are generally accepted
>in political discussions, and can be found all over internet.

Oh, well. That settles it then.

I think the definition of Fascist that is best indicative of the way it is used
on the Internet is Rush Limbaugh's "A fascist is a conservative who has just
won and argument with a liberal."

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[C J Campbell]

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
...
> Wdtabor wrote:
>
> Someone doesn't know the definition of right and left.
>
> Right wing philosophies tend to be conservative, want to retain
> traditional values, and often advocate the establishment of an
> authoritarian political order.
>

> Left wing philosophies promote political change, and generally promote
> greater freedom and well being of the common man.
>
> Fascism, and by extension Nazism, are clearly right wing philosophies.

How so?

All right, since you clearly do not see the problem, George Bush is often
said to be both right wing and conservative. Using the definitions above and
George Bush's positions on issues, justify that belief.

Similarly, John Kerry is often said to be both left wing and liberal. Using
the definitions above and Kerry's positions on issues (even those where he
switches sides continually, if you want), justify that belief.

For example, Al Gore is often said to be a left wing liberal. Taking his
stated positions on the environment from his book "Earth in the Balance," we
see that Gore advocates abolishing the internal combustion engine, reverting
to an agrarian (albeit high tech agrarian) economy, and a political system
where all local decisions are made by credentialed environmentalists who
will tell you what job you will have, what level of education you will have,
what clothes you will wear, how you will decorate your house, whether you
may receive medication for your illnesses, where you may defecate, whether
you may have children and what sex they should be, etc. Think the Shire with
computers and ruled over by Environmental manor lords who free the happy
agrarian peasants from making any decisions. In order to achieve this, Gore
acknowledges that 80% of the world's population will have to die from
starvation, disease, warfare, and exposure, but he says it will be even
worse if we continue going the way we are now. Given your definitions above,
I would say that Gore represents extreme right wing conservatism. He feels
that people are essentially both the property and the wards of aristocratic
overlords and opposes most technological advances made since the early 18th
century.

[James Robinson]

"Tom S." wrote:
>
> James Robinson wrote:
> >
> > Wdtabor wrote:
> > >
> > > The Nazi Party was the National SOCIALIST Party, fascsim is a
> > > left wing philosophy, it never has had anything to do with
> > > the political right. It is only characterized as such by
> > > entertainers with no knowledge of history.
> >
> > Someone doesn't know the definition of right and left.
> >
> > Right wing philosophies tend to be conservative, want to retain
> > traditional values, and often advocate the establishment of an
> > authoritarian political order.
> >
> > Left wing philosophies promote political change, and generally promote
> > greater freedom and well being of the common man.
>
> Odd, isn't it, that the left wing countires are the most brutal and
> repressive in recent history?

Your basic premise is wrong.

You are mixing up authoritarianism with economic and social policies.
You certainly can't label countries like Sweden, Holland, or Canada,
which have left-leaning political policies, as brutal or oppressive. You
can't label Gandhi or Nelson Mandela as brutal, yet they had fairly
leftist views. As a contrary example, one can list many South American
countries, like Augusto Pinochet's regime, as brutal and oppressive, yet
they have had very rightist views on economics and social policies.
Being left or right is not a direct indication of brutality, but being
authoritarian or libertarian is.

> > Fascism, and by extension Nazism, are clearly right wing philosophies.
> > They cannot be characterized as being "liberal" by any stretch of the
> > imagination.
>
> And the "liberal" ones, Soviet, China, Korea, Cuba, have slaughtered more
> than Germany could ever hope to.
>
> Spin that!!

Well, as a result of the war, the Nazis ended up killing something like
42 million people in the European theater. It's pretty hard to beat
that.

[Icebound]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
>
> Bot those on the right haven't swerved to the far right. Today's
> "conservatives" are to the left of the "liberals" that founded the USA.
>
>

Pardon me if I find it a little bizarre that we would compare the societal
values of 21st century civilization, with the societal values of 1776.


--
*** A great civilization is not conquered from without until it
has destroyed itself from within. ***
- Ariel Durant 1898-1981

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Icebound" > wrote in message
ble.rogers.com...
>
> Pardon me if I find it a little bizarre that we would compare the societal
> values of 21st century civilization, with the societal values of 1776.
>

Specifics?

[Icebound]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Icebound" > wrote in message
> ble.rogers.com...
> >
> > Pardon me if I find it a little bizarre that we would compare the
societal
> > values of 21st century civilization, with the societal values of 1776.
> >
>
> Specifics?
>
>

Specifically, your previous post.... you are comparing today's
"conservatives" as less conservative than 1776 "liberals". By what measure
can we compare two groups separated by almost 230 years of societal
differences, and with little in common in terms of the types of
opportunities, hazards, friends, enemies, etc...

--
*** A great civilization is not conquered from without until it
has destroyed itself from within. ***
- Ariel Durant 1898-1981

[Icebound]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> ...snip...
> What is "liberal" about a Europe or Canada that is grossly intolerant of
> differing political or social views? ...snip...

Where do you get this?

The people of Canada have managed to tolerate six or seven different shades
as Federal and/or Provincial governments, from the far right to moderate
left. If and when the incumbents got too cocky or corrupt, Canadians simply
switched horses, turfed them out, and tolerated some other shade. Europe
has several governments with diverse coalitions that change more often than
some people change their underwear. Pretty hard to see how you can argue
them as "intolerant".

Canada has managed to tolerate most American Governments as friends... from
Lincoln to Clinton, even the senior Bush.

GW is a special case... even there, they tolerated his politics up to and
including the rout of the Taliban in Afghanistan... they were there, you
might recall.... they even tolerated 4 deaths and several casualties at the
hand of their "friends".

So over 150 years, Canada has disagreed with a single dubious policy of a
single American president... and they are not alone.... and this makes
Canada "grossly intolerant"?



--
*** A great civilization is not conquered from without until it
has destroyed itself from within. ***
- Ariel Durant 1898-1981

[G.R. Patterson III]

C J Campbell wrote:
>
> I would say that the remarks of many here would support my thesis that they
> believe that religion should be suppressed from public view entirely.

Well, don't take mine that way. I simply do not wish to see anything remotely
resembling the English "penal laws" of the late 17th century or the similar laws the
Puritans set up in their area of the world. It was primarily in reaction to those
that we wound up with freedom of and from religion in our Constitution.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Icebound" > wrote in message
.cable.rogers.com...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Icebound" > wrote in message
>> ble.rogers.com...
>> >
>> > Pardon me if I find it a little bizarre that we would compare the
> societal
>> > values of 21st century civilization, with the societal values of 1776.
>> >
>>
>> Specifics?
>>
>>
>
> Specifically, your previous post.... you are comparing today's
> "conservatives" as less conservative than 1776 "liberals". By what
> measure
> can we compare two groups separated by almost 230 years of societal
> differences, and with little in common in terms of the types of
> opportunities, hazards, friends, enemies, etc...
>

Freedom.

[Paul Sengupta]

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
> The only wild cards are the theocrats, who are collectivists who submit to
> their invisible friend instead of the majority. They are currently allied
with
> the Republicans, but for 100 years before SCOTUS ****ed them off were
allied
> with the Democrats.

This is something about US life and US politics which confuses me.
Christians. From reading the bible, Christian values should be for equality
and for sharing, and that the accumulation of wealth is wrong. These are the
moral values which relate to money. There are also the moral values which
relate to, in a word, sex.

The US parties have, from what I understand from the arguments on here
and what I see in the media, polarised into two camps, Republicans and
Democrats. Maybe some of the ideas here are from their opponents, but
I see:

Republicans - conservative. Economics - want the creation of wealth among
a small number of people and hope that will make the whole country wealthy.
Morality - High moral values in terms of family, anti-this and that.

Democrats - less conservative. Economics - feel that wealth should be more
evenly distributed by making laws or by taxation.
Morality - More of a live and let live idea and allow such acts as sex
before
marriage, homosexuality and so on.

So. How have these moral codes become to be associated with these
parties and why do more Christians, or so called Christians support the
former? For them, it seems the moral code overrides the economic
issues? As mentioned in another post, should there be another two
parties which have the opposite economic and moral combinations?

Paul

[john smith]

>>>>And what was East Germany's actual name?

>>>Deutsche Demokratische Republik... or German Democratic Republic.

>>So it was a democracy?

> Yes and everyone had a vote. The limiting factor was the candidates.

Kinda like the US of A.
Who REALLY picks the candidates?
A couple guys in a back room somewhere.
Money, advertising, and handlers prop up a stooge that will allow them
to carry on, business as usual.

[john smith]

And Larry thought I was off topic with my helicopter post!

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Paul
Sengupta" > wrote:

> Republicans - conservative. Economics - want the creation of wealth among
> a small number of people and hope that will make the whole country
> wealthy.
> Morality - High moral values in terms of family, anti-this and that.

wow! you don't understand Republicans.

>
> Democrats - less conservative. Economics - feel that wealth should be
> more
> evenly distributed by making laws or by taxation.
> Morality - More of a live and let live idea and allow such acts as sex
> before
> marriage, homosexuality and so on.

and you don't understand Democrats either.

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

[Peter Gottlieb]

Ok, let me give it a try:

Republicans -
Social - Conservative rhetoric, hypocritical execution. No limits
to gov't control.
Economics - Maximize wealth at top (trickle-down theory). Works
well for top, worse for others.
Morality - Big talk, too close to Church (monoculture), poor
performance.
Personal Responsibility - Via criminal regulations and laws (tends
to Police State).
Aviation - Restrict until only for the ultrawealthy and congress.
Terrorism - Crapshoot, poor record.
Unity - Very divisive, extremism driven policies, poor to mixed
record.
Honesty - Great rhetoric, poor performance.

Democrats -
Social - Less government involvement. More volatility.
Economics - More spread of wealth. Unclear how to execute this
properly, very mixed record.
Morality - Big talk, usually arms-length from Church, poor
performance.
Personal Responsibility - Via civil regulations and laws (tends to
over-regulation).
Aviation - Regulate until only for the ultrawealthy and congress.
Terrorism - Crapshoot, poor record.
Unity - Better rhetoric, mixed record.
Honesty - Great rhetoric, poor performance.

Both -
Subject to change over time, even reverse roles.


(Honest) modifications/additions welcome. Flames to /dev/null/.

[Newps]

Peter Gottlieb wrote:


>
> Both -
> Subject to change over time,

Yes, quite obviously. If Zell Miller is what democrats used to be I can
see why they had the House for 40 years. He made the democrats look
like the morons they have become over the last 20 or so years. One of
the best speeches I have seen in a long time. And what he did to Chris
Matthews last night was priceless.

[Jay Honeck]

> > We bought the peace, but at an incredible price to our own people.
>
> Did we buy peace, or indifference/surrender?

The end result is the same.

I don't care if the Europeans appreciate us or not, just so long as they
don't drag us into another stupid World War.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[SeeAndAvoid]

"Newps" wrote
> And what he did to Chris Matthews last night was priceless.

I watched most if not all of each of the conventions, flipping back
and forth between PBS, MSNBC, FOX, and CNN. I watched
MSNBC and PBS the most as it didnt seem as slanted as the
other two. But I've lost a lot of respect for Matthews for the
above and other stunts he's pulled compared to his Dem
convention coverage. At least with Hannity/Colmes or O'Reilly,
you know where they're coming from (left/right), they dont deny
it, and you get pretty much what you would expect from them.
The idea of his supposed "hardball" type of interviewing would
be great if it wasn't slanted. He was defending his style on
Bill Maher's show, but along with his hinting that anyone who
would vote for Bush must be uneducated and misinformed, failed
to mention how he goes quite "softball" on certain types of
interviewees.
The other thing I havent appreciated is his, IMO, total lack of
respect for those of opposing views in his interviews right
next to a heavily slanted crowd. Whether it be celebrities
or congressmen, he knowingly puts them in front of an
obviously hostile crowd who call them all kinds of names,
and Matthews adds fuel to their fire with his pointed questions,
followed up by interrupting their answers, and a roaring crowd.
Maybe it's just me, but if I was in that crowd and my worst
idea of a politician was 10 feet in front of me trying to give
an interview, I'd have the respect to let the guy answer a
question and not call him a "murderer" or taunt him. Off hand
I can think of Bo Derek, Zell Miller (via monitor), Larry
Gatlin (?, not into country), Alan Simpson (Sen-WY) and
I'm sure others as I don't watch every minute.

Then again, like I said, maybe it's just me.
Chris

--
Steve Bosell for President 2004
"Vote for me or I'll sue you"
www.philhendrieshow.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes, quite obviously. If Zell Miller is what democrats used to be I can
> see why they had the House for 40 years. He made the democrats look like
> the morons they have become over the last 20 or so years. One of the best
> speeches I have seen in a long time. And what he did to Chris Matthews
> last night was priceless.
>

What did he do?

[G.R. Patterson III]

Newps wrote:
>
> If Zell Miller is what democrats used to be I can
> see why they had the House for 40 years.

I moved out of Georgia in '81, but I liked Miller a lot back then.

The Democrats used to be as pretty diverse bunch -- a Southern Democrat was very like
a Northern Republican until a bit after the campaign finance reform acts in the late
'70s. After the courts got through interpreting those, the only place candidates
could get large amounts of money was from the national party. Both parties used that
lever to establish national planks. The Dems really made their members toe the line
in this regard during the late 80s and 90s -- in particular, this led to many changes
in the attitudes about gun control amongst Democratic party members.

I heard today on NPR that the Republicans just put a statement in their platform to
the extent that it's ok for party members to diverge from the party line if they
want. Of course, the issue that was discussed on the air was abortion, but the
language in the platform document isn't that specific.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Peter
Gottlieb" > wrote:

> Ok, let me give it a try:
>
> Republicans -
> Social - Conservative rhetoric, hypocritical execution. No
> limits
> to gov't control.

to the contrary, the limits to the government are spelled out
in the constitution.


> Economics - Maximize wealth at top (trickle-down theory). Works
> well for top, worse for others.

Maximize wealth at top isn't the Republican thing. Republicans
want people to retain more of their earnings. That is, money
doesn't belong to the government

And "maximize wealth at top" <> trickle down


[snip]
>
> Democrats -
> Social - Less government involvement. More volatility.

if you want to claim Conservative rhetoric above, then add
Liberal rhetoric with hypocritical execution to the democrats



> Economics - More spread of wealth. Unclear how to execute this
> properly, very mixed record.

unclear by "more spread of wealth" and wouldn't "take from haves and
give to have-nots" be more accurate?

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>
> to the contrary, the limits to the government are spelled out in the
> constitution.

Our connection to the Constitution is now tenuous at best. I wish your
statement, in practice, was correct though. The present Republican Justice
Department is leaning very strongly toward removing Consitutional
protections. This is not so much judgement on merits but observation.

> Maximize wealth at top isn't the Republican thing. Republicans want
> people to retain more of their earnings. That is, money
> doesn't belong to the government

The present administration has been spending like a drunken sailor.
Deficits are way up. A tiny tax cut does not show they want people to
retain more of their earnings, the ONLY way to do that is to cut government
and spending, not increase it! This administration puts the Republicans at
the top of the list of expansion of government.

Or you could be saying that this administration, although Republican by
name, are not acting as such? I am unclear as to your meaning.

> And "maximize wealth at top" <> trickle down

Not exactly, but pretty darn close. What do you see as the difference?

> if you want to claim Conservative rhetoric above, then add
> Liberal rhetoric with hypocritical execution to the democrats

I think you are saying the Democrats speak more "liberal" than they are.
Perhaps, you may be right, thinking about it I can think of some examples of
that.

>> Economics - More spread of wealth. Unclear how to execute this
>> properly, very mixed record.
>
> unclear by "more spread of wealth" and wouldn't "take from haves and
> give to have-nots" be more accurate?

No, not exactly. I am more thinking about opportunity. To say "take from
haves and give to have-nots" is both assuming that one group rightfully owns
something, which is a separate debate, and that the advocates want a forced
redistribution, which I do not believe. What I meant to get across is that
this group endeavors to spread opportunity to others than the biggest
players.

How about the other areas? Any comments on those?

[Trent Moorehead]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message > >

> What did he do?

I didn't see the entire interview, just the part where Zell got really
****ed. From what I can gather, Matthews asked Miller about his "spitball"
comment, asking him did he really believe that Kerry would arm the military
with spitballs. Miller responded that it was a metaphor and that had he ever
heard of a metaphor. Then Matthews kept interrupting Miller repeatedly
trying to make him answer that question, as dumb as it was.

Miller told Matthews that he wished he was in the studio with him so he
could get in his face and when Matthews would'nt let it drop, Miller said he
wished these were the old days when he could challenge him to a duel! Very
entertaining! Matthews met his match and then some.

-Trent
PP-ASEL

[Wdtabor]

In article t>, "Steven P.
McNicoll" > writes:

> He made the democrats look like
>> the morons they have become over the last 20 or so years. One of the best
>> speeches I have seen in a long time. And what he did to Chris Matthews
>> last night was priceless.
>>
>
>What did he do?
>

Among other things, challenged him to a duel.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Wdtabor]

In article >, Bob Noel
> writes:

>> Democrats -
>> Social - Less government involvement. More volatility.
>
>if you want to claim Conservative rhetoric above, then add
>Liberal rhetoric with hypocritical execution to the democrats
>
>
This would be the same Democrats that passed and maintained the drug,
pornography, prostitution, and sodommy laws for 40 years?

>
>> Economics - More spread of wealth. Unclear how to execute this
>> properly, very mixed record.
>
>unclear by "more spread of wealth" and wouldn't "take from haves and
>give to have-nots" be more accurate?
>

More accurate would be "Plunder the productive to buy the votes of the
dependent."

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Paul Sengupta]

"Icebound" > wrote in message
.cable.rogers.com...
> Europe
> has several governments with diverse coalitions that change more often
than
> some people change their underwear.

The old saying...Italy has more elections than a Chinese honeymoon.

Paul

[Paul Sengupta]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> Seriously, what is it that you think a President could have done? No one
> knew whether it was a terrorist attack or just another airline accident. I
> would be very interested in knowing what magical powers Presidents have.

Maybe he could have done what the rest of us did. Immediately
go and find a source of information as to what was happening.

Internet, TV, word of mouth, whatever.

And I'm not even an American in the US.

Paul

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Bob
> Noel
> > writes:
>
>>> Democrats -
>>> Social - Less government involvement. More volatility.
>>
>>if you want to claim Conservative rhetoric above, then add
>>Liberal rhetoric with hypocritical execution to the democrats
>>
>>
> This would be the same Democrats that passed and maintained the drug,
> pornography, prostitution, and sodommy laws for 40 years?
>

I was trying to present a snapshot of the present situation. With all the
changes (in both parties) it would be nearly impossible to have this be
applicable for a period of years, much less decades.

[Legrande Harris]

In article >,
"Paul Sengupta" > wrote:

> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Seriously, what is it that you think a President could have done? No one
> > knew whether it was a terrorist attack or just another airline accident. I
> > would be very interested in knowing what magical powers Presidents have.
>
> Maybe he could have done what the rest of us did. Immediately
> go and find a source of information as to what was happening.

Lets take this back to 9/11. If I had been on one of the hijacked
planes, I would have done nothing. I would have been wondering what
Cuba was going to be like :)

When I turned on the TV to CNBC, for financial stuff, they had pictures
of the burning WTC. No one had any idea of what had happened, they had
reports that a plane had hit the WTC but that was all. Then the second
tower was hit and it was apparent that it was a deliberate attack. I
believe it was about a 15 minute gap.

So we have Bush who spent 8 minutes continuing to talk to some kids
after the first attack, when nothing was known, before he went to
investigate.

Then we have Kerry who sat in a stupor for 40 minutes after he was
informed.

Pretty easy choice to me :)

LG


> Internet, TV, word of mouth, whatever.
>
> And I'm not even an American in the US.
>
> Paul
>
>

[Icebound]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>
> ...snip... Republicans
> want people to retain more of their earnings. That is, money
> doesn't belong to the government
>

This is a good thing...
.... providing that the "retainers" are paying their share of the costs
involved in producing those earnings.

Are they paying their share for feeding, housing, and education of the
workforces that they use? Are they paying their share for repairing the
consequences of any mistakes they make? Are they paying their share of the
infrastructure costs for the public transportation systems that they use to
distribute their goods and services?

Who has paid for the disposal of all that nuclear waste generated by the
power plants...or the stacks of chemical and biological WMD still remaining
on American soil? Or the health costs of the respiratory patients due to
pollution?

Are we reaping the benefits and "retaining more earnings" because all these
infrastructures were installed and are maintained by "somebody else" (or
will be paid for by somebody way in the future)???? When Exxon destroyed
the livelihood of a few tens of thousands in Prince William Sound, and was
told that it owed them $5billion, how much did it actually pay?


It IS the job of Governments to ensure that these costs are borne equitably
by all its citizens.

If you say that they are doing a terrible job of it, you will get no
arguement from me.


--
*** A great civilization is not conquered from without until it
has destroyed itself from within. ***
- Ariel Durant 1898-1981

[Newps]

> In article >, "Peter
> Gottlieb" > wrote:

>
>
>> Economics - Maximize wealth at top (trickle-down theory). Works
>>well for top, worse for others.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of what trickle down means.

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>> Economics - Maximize wealth at top (trickle-down theory). Works
>>> well for top, worse for others.
>
> That is a fundamental misunderstanding of what trickle down means.
>

Well, then, correct the misunderstanding. If it is so "fundamental" then is
should be trivial to correct.

[James Robinson]

Legrande Harris wrote:
>
> When I turned on the TV to CNBC, for financial stuff, they had pictures
> of the burning WTC. No one had any idea of what had happened, they had
> reports that a plane had hit the WTC but that was all. Then the second
> tower was hit and it was apparent that it was a deliberate attack. I
> believe it was about a 15 minute gap.
>
> So we have Bush who spent 8 minutes continuing to talk to some kids
> after the first attack, when nothing was known, before he went to
> investigate.

The problem with this line of logic is that the 8 minutes of inaction
was after he was told about the second plane. He had been told of the
first plane prior to entering the classroom. You need to rewrite your
conclusion.

The White House response to the criticism if GWB was that he wanted to
project an air of calm and being in control in the face of crisis, and
not immediately rush from the room.

I only brought this up to correct the facts. Personally, I probably
would have sat there just like GWB. I watched it live on TV, and it
took a bit of time after the second plane for me to figure out what was
going on. However, I'm not the President, and I don't have a direct
line to the FAA, who had a better idea of what was happening.

> Then we have Kerry who sat in a stupor for 40 minutes after he was
> informed.
>
> Pretty easy choice to me :)

Maybe not as easy, with the correct sequence of events.

[Newps]

Peter Gottlieb wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>> Economics - Maximize wealth at top (trickle-down theory). Works
>>>>well for top, worse for others.
>>
>>That is a fundamental misunderstanding of what trickle down means.
>>
>
>
> Well, then, correct the misunderstanding. If it is so "fundamental" then is
> should be trivial to correct.

Very simple. The more money you let all people have the more money that
can ciruclate in the economy. The more you have the more that trickles
down. For example 4 years ago I put an addition on my house for $55K.
If I don't have access to that money the contractor I hired doesn't get
the job. He makes a certain amount of profit, now he can trickle down
some of his money to somebody else by spending his money on something
that is important to him. The more money you have to spend the better
the economy will be.

[CB]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Paul
> Sengupta" > wrote:
>
>> Republicans - conservative. Economics - want the creation of wealth among
>> a small number of people and hope that will make the whole country
>> wealthy.
>> Morality - High moral values in terms of family, anti-this and that.
>
> wow! you don't understand Republicans.
>
>>
>> Democrats - less conservative. Economics - feel that wealth should be
>> more
>> evenly distributed by making laws or by taxation.
>> Morality - More of a live and let live idea and allow such acts as sex
>> before
>> marriage, homosexuality and so on.
>
> and you don't understand Democrats either.
>
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=557746

[Trent Moorehead]

"Newps" > wrote in message news:ccKdneZWWrnmU6XcRVn-
> The more money you have to spend the better
> the economy will be.

I didn't agree with it when Reagan called it the "trickle down" theory, but
I think it's because I don't think that money necessarily trickles down. It
can, but it also trickles over and up.

An economy depends on the movement of money from one entity to another. If
everyone just held on to their money at the same time, the economy would
cease to be. The more money I have in my hand, the greater the odds that I
will give it to another person in exchange for goods and/or services.

I have a very liberal neighbor, a carpenter, who was bitching about how bad
the economy is right now. I told him that it wasn't that bad to me, as I
handed him over 6K to build a screened-in porch onto my house!

The irony of that moment made us both laugh.

-Trent
PP-ASEL

[Newps]

Trent Moorehead wrote:
> "Newps" > wrote in message news:ccKdneZWWrnmU6XcRVn-
>
>>The more money you have to spend the better
>>the economy will be.

> An economy depends on the movement of money from one entity to another. If
> everyone just held on to their money at the same time, the economy would
> cease to be.

As long as you do anything with your money except literally put it in
your mattress the economy gets bigger.


>
> I have a very liberal neighbor, a carpenter, who was bitching about how bad
> the economy is right now. I told him that it wasn't that bad to me, as I
> handed him over 6K to build a screened-in porch onto my house!
>
> The irony of that moment made us both laugh.

That's because he never really though about it but simply spouted the
union line.

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>>> Economics - Maximize wealth at top (trickle-down theory). Works
>>>>> well for top, worse for others.
>>>
> Very simple. The more money you let all people have the more money that
> can ciruclate in the economy. The more you have the more that trickles
> down. For example 4 years ago I put an addition on my house for $55K. If
> I don't have access to that money the contractor I hired doesn't get the
> job. He makes a certain amount of profit, now he can trickle down some of
> his money to somebody else by spending his money on something that is
> important to him. The more money you have to spend the better the economy
> will be.

Ok, so what part of what I said does not match with what you said?

Regardless, like I said, the way to maximize taxpayer's take is to reduce
the size of government, not increase it.

A lot of economists disfavor the "trickle-down" theory as not being as
efficient as more balanced tax cuts. It does *seem* like it could work, but
the studies don't seem to clearly bear this out (IIRC there was a lot of
excess funds at the top being saved or invested overseas so not helping this
country's economy).

I'm not for higher taxes, certainly. However, I do believe we need a
smaller government as a first step. Democrats are called "Tax and Spend"
but Republicans are turning out to be "Spend and Borrow" which is even
worse.

[Legrande Harris]

In article >,
James Robinson > wrote:

> Legrande Harris wrote:
> >
> > When I turned on the TV to CNBC, for financial stuff, they had pictures
> > of the burning WTC. No one had any idea of what had happened, they had
> > reports that a plane had hit the WTC but that was all. Then the second
> > tower was hit and it was apparent that it was a deliberate attack. I
> > believe it was about a 15 minute gap.
> >
> > So we have Bush who spent 8 minutes continuing to talk to some kids
> > after the first attack, when nothing was known, before he went to
> > investigate.
>
> The problem with this line of logic is that the 8 minutes of inaction
> was after he was told about the second plane. He had been told of the
> first plane prior to entering the classroom. You need to rewrite your
> conclusion.
>
> The White House response to the criticism if GWB was that he wanted to
> project an air of calm and being in control in the face of crisis, and
> not immediately rush from the room.
>
> I only brought this up to correct the facts. Personally, I probably
> would have sat there just like GWB. I watched it live on TV, and it
> took a bit of time after the second plane for me to figure out what was
> going on. However, I'm not the President, and I don't have a direct
> line to the FAA, who had a better idea of what was happening.
>
> > Then we have Kerry who sat in a stupor for 40 minutes after he was
> > informed.
> >
> > Pretty easy choice to me :)
>
> Maybe not as easy, with the correct sequence of events.

Lets see :)

8:45 First attack

8:46 Jets Scrambled

President told ?, Was Kerry told?

9:03 Second attack

President told, Kerry must have known by now, goes into 40 minute
stupor.

9:08 All flights in New York area banned,

9:11 President reads to kids until 9:11

9:24 FAA tells NORAD flight 77 possibly hijacked

9:25 FAA shuts down all airports nation wide

Kerry is coming out of his stupor, unless he was told later than 8:45,
then he would still be in a stupor.

9:31 Bush issues statement "apparent terrorist attack."

9:40 Flight 77 crashes into Pentagon.

If Kerry was told after the the second attack then he would be coming
out of the stupor now.

9:45 Cell phone call indicates that flight 93 is hijacked

9:45 FAA orders all aircraft to land

9:55 Scrambled Jets reach Washington, DC area

10:07 Flight 93 crashes

Just what could Bush realistically have done from 8:45 to 10:07 that
would have changed anything in the slightest?

Maybe Moore is the idiot here :) Sometimes emergencies demand more
thought than action.

[James Robinson]

Legrande Harris wrote:
>
> In article >,
> James Robinson > wrote:
>
> > Legrande Harris wrote:
> > >
> > > When I turned on the TV to CNBC, for financial stuff, they had pictures
> > > of the burning WTC. No one had any idea of what had happened, they had
> > > reports that a plane had hit the WTC but that was all. Then the second
> > > tower was hit and it was apparent that it was a deliberate attack. I
> > > believe it was about a 15 minute gap.
> > >
> > > So we have Bush who spent 8 minutes continuing to talk to some kids
> > > after the first attack, when nothing was known, before he went to
> > > investigate.
> >
> > The problem with this line of logic is that the 8 minutes of inaction
> > was after he was told about the second plane. He had been told of the
> > first plane prior to entering the classroom. You need to rewrite your
> > conclusion.
> >
> > The White House response to the criticism if GWB was that he wanted to
> > project an air of calm and being in control in the face of crisis, and
> > not immediately rush from the room.
> >
> > I only brought this up to correct the facts. Personally, I probably
> > would have sat there just like GWB. I watched it live on TV, and it
> > took a bit of time after the second plane for me to figure out what was
> > going on. However, I'm not the President, and I don't have a direct
> > line to the FAA, who had a better idea of what was happening.
> >
> > > Then we have Kerry who sat in a stupor for 40 minutes after he was
> > > informed.
> > >
> > > Pretty easy choice to me :)
> >
> > Maybe not as easy, with the correct sequence of events.
>
> Lets see :)
>
> 8:45 First attack
>
> 8:46 Jets Scrambled
>
> President told ?, Was Kerry told?
>
> 9:03 Second attack
>
> President told, Kerry must have known by now, goes into 40 minute
> stupor.
>
> 9:08 All flights in New York area banned,
>
> 9:11 President reads to kids until 9:11
>
> 9:24 FAA tells NORAD flight 77 possibly hijacked
>
> 9:25 FAA shuts down all airports nation wide
>
> Kerry is coming out of his stupor, unless he was told later than 8:45,
> then he would still be in a stupor.
>
> 9:31 Bush issues statement "apparent terrorist attack."
>
> 9:40 Flight 77 crashes into Pentagon.
>
> If Kerry was told after the the second attack then he would be coming
> out of the stupor now.
>
> 9:45 Cell phone call indicates that flight 93 is hijacked
>
> 9:45 FAA orders all aircraft to land
>
> 9:55 Scrambled Jets reach Washington, DC area
>
> 10:07 Flight 93 crashes
>
> Just what could Bush realistically have done from 8:45 to 10:07 that
> would have changed anything in the slightest?
>
> Maybe Moore is the idiot here :) Sometimes emergencies demand more
> thought than action.

So it really doesn't matter what Bush or Kerry did, you would simply
find fault with Kerry no matter what the situation was, and adapt your
story to fit?

[Bob Noel]

In article
e.rogers.com>,
"Icebound" > wrote:

> > ...snip... Republicans
> > want people to retain more of their earnings. That is, money
> > doesn't belong to the government
>
> This is a good thing...
> ... providing that the "retainers" are paying their share of the costs
> involved in producing those earnings.
>
> Are they paying their share for feeding, housing, and education of the
> workforces that they use? Are they paying their share for repairing the
> consequences of any mistakes they make? Are they paying their share of
> the
> infrastructure costs for the public transportation systems that they use
> to
> distribute their goods and services?

By the above, I must conclude that you are more in favor of
a user fee basis for taxation rather than a tax on income. Yes?


> Who has paid for the disposal of all that nuclear waste generated by the
> power plants

how about having the users of the power plants pay for that?


.....

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

[Icebound]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> e.rogers.com>,
> "Icebound" > wrote:
>
> > > ...snip... Republicans
> > > want people to retain more of their earnings. That is, money
> > > doesn't belong to the government
> >
> > This is a good thing...
> > ... providing that the "retainers" are paying their share of the costs
> > involved in producing those earnings.
> >
> > Are they paying their share for feeding, housing, and education of the
> > workforces that they use? Are they paying their share for repairing the
> > consequences of any mistakes they make? Are they paying their share of
> > the
> > infrastructure costs for the public transportation systems that they use
> > to
> > distribute their goods and services?
>
> By the above, I must conclude that you are more in favor of
> a user fee basis for taxation rather than a tax on income. Yes?
>
>


I am in favor of fairness, simplicity, and in favor of acknowledgement of
the complete costs.

The current mish-mash of taxes by municipal, state, federal
jurisdictions...taxes on property, income, sales, and "other".... AND
user-fees.... has evolved only because stuff keeps getting through the
cracks...industries who pollute but don't clean up... tax-law that favors
one group or industry over another...individuals and corporations with
creative accountants... businesses who fail and are bailed out from
bankruptcy (along with their creditors) ..... and so governments have been
forced to make up the difference through this mish-mash.

I sort of favor a totally transaction-based system. A penny out of every
hundred dollar transaction (or whatever) no matter whether it is a deposit
of income, a payment of your mortage, or a purchase of an ice-cream cone.

It should be reasonably fair.... at least as fair as what you have now....
because the biggest payers to the taxation coffers would be those that
receive the most and buy the most.... and those are probably the ones that
use the infrastructure the most. And it could probably be applied to
offshore transactions that come into or out of the country.

And all the book-keeping is done by the banks and retailers. No forms to
fill out for you and me!


> > Who has paid for the disposal of all that nuclear waste generated by the
> > power plants
>
> how about having the users of the power plants pay for that?
>
>

That would be nice. But then, that would be the taxpayers and the taxpayers
don't want to pay more taxes. It would be the biggest industries, but then
they have bulk contracts that allow them power for cheap. etc., etc.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Newps wrote:
>
> That's because he never really though about it but simply spouted the
> union line.

If he's building porches on houses, he's probably not union.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Who has paid for the disposal of all that nuclear waste generated by the
>> power plants
>
> how about having the users of the power plants pay for that?
>

Not a bad idea, so long as those users are informed of that issue beforehand
and have a choice as to whether to "use" power from that plant or not. The
problem with must "regulated monopoly" utilities is that they are guaranteed
a certain ROI and this does not factor in a lot of externalities.

The initial promise of nuclear power was that it would be so cheap there
would be no need for meters. Unfortunately it turned out to be much more
complex than that and the designs went astray, with bigger and bigger single
reactor generators. There are other technologies that promise less
difficult to deal with waste and better resistance to thermal runaway but
they haven't yet gained wide usage. I still believe in the idea of nuclear
power, but somewhat differently executed than the present systems.

What I don't like is the immunity from damage claims the power companies
have in the case of radioactive release enough to destroy habitability. I
have zero control of whether the local company has a thermal fission turbine
a few miles away from me yet they and my homeowner's insurance company won't
cover me if something goes wrong. I know I can evacuate my family and
myself even under the worse of scenarios, in a non-panic way, but my bank
will still want mortgage payments even though my home might be worth zilch.

[Royce Brown]

"G.R. Patterson III" > writes:
>Newps wrote:
>>
>> If Zell Miller is what democrats used to be I can
>> see why they had the House for 40 years.
>
>I moved out of Georgia in '81, but I liked Miller a lot back then.


I live in Atlanta now and we (most of us) are very proud of him.

[Jay Honeck]

> >> If Zell Miller is what democrats used to be I can
> >> see why they had the House for 40 years.
> >
> >I moved out of Georgia in '81, but I liked Miller a lot back then.
>
> I live in Atlanta now and we (most of us) are very proud of him.

The Zell Miller speech was the most amazing thing I've seen in modern
politics.

We watched, cynically at first, wondering what this idiot was going to say.
I have little respect for politicians in general, and speechifiers
especially raise my shields. I automatically assume everything they're about
to say is B.S.

By the end, I was actually cheering out loud. I've never heard a Democrat
say so many things I've been feeling for so many years.

Say what you want about the guy -- he sure delivers a helluva speech. (And
it appeared to be delivered entirely from memory -- unless they have
teleprompters all over the auditorium?)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[CB]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:U6j_c.101431$9d6.67523@attbi_s54...
>> >> If Zell Miller is what democrats used to be I can
>> >> see why they had the House for 40 years.
>> >
>> >I moved out of Georgia in '81, but I liked Miller a lot back then.
>>
>> I live in Atlanta now and we (most of us) are very proud of him.
>
> The Zell Miller speech was the most amazing thing I've seen in modern
> politics.
>
> We watched, cynically at first, wondering what this idiot was going to
> say.
> I have little respect for politicians in general, and speechifiers
> especially raise my shields. I automatically assume everything they're
> about
> to say is B.S.
>
> By the end, I was actually cheering out loud. I've never heard a Democrat
> say so many things I've been feeling for so many years.
>
> Say what you want about the guy -- he sure delivers a helluva speech.
> (And
> it appeared to be delivered entirely from memory -- unless they have
> teleprompters all over the auditorium?)
> --
> Jay Honeck

A good example of bull**** baffling brains

[Legrande Harris]

In article >,
James Robinson > wrote:

> So it really doesn't matter what Bush or Kerry did, you would simply
> find fault with Kerry no matter what the situation was, and adapt your
> story to fit?

Yes, nothing Kerry or Bush could have done would have made any
difference at all. Micheal Moore could have just as easily attacked
Kerry and made him look stupid. I can just see the cut backs with Kerry
sitting in a stupor and then seeing the planes hitting the buildings.
Its all propaganda :)

LG

[Wdtabor]

In article >, Bob Noel
> writes:

>
>> Who has paid for the disposal of all that nuclear waste generated by the
>> power plants
>
>how about having the users of the power plants pay for that?

From their money tree?

Their customers have to pay for it. No business really pays a tax, ultimately
all taxes (including FICA and Personal income) wind up buried in the cost of
goods and services.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[C J Campbell]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
> > I don't care if the Europeans appreciate us or not
>
> IIRC, they don't appreciate it, YMMD
>
> >, just so long as they
> > don't drag us into another stupid World War.
>
> heck, you declared and entered war formally when attacekd on your own soil
> (Pearl Harbor). Until then you helped the British with supplies. At that
time
> the Nazis shot down american ships at the US east cost and nazi-submarines
> waited close to the harbour of NY and cruised along the shoreline of
Florida.
> AFAIK there have also been rules to darken the windows in cities at night.
>
> you would not have entered WWII *in* *Europe* with not seeing only very
big
> advantages. You haven't done it because you where nice guys.
>

So, your argument is that we were already involved in the war in Europe
before Pearl Harbor, but we would not have gotten involved in the war in
Europe if we had not been attacked at Pearl Harbor. Am I understanding that
correctly?

[Robert M. Gary]

Jim Weir > wrote in message >...
> In an on-the-air (*) broadcast, a BBC announcer was trying to explain the
> difference between the Republicans and the Democrats to his British audience.
>
> "The Republicans are verry like our ... ahhh ... Conservatives.
> The Democrats are verry like our ... ahhh ... Conservatives."
>
> (*) "on-the-AIR" makes this on-topic {;-)

My understanding is that the democratic party was not liberal enough
for the Canadians. They now have a liberal party in addition to the
democrat party.
If you feel guilty that you have the means to fly an airplane, you are
a democrat.
If you feel proud that you have succeeded enough in life to afford a
plane, you are a republican.

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
> If you feel guilty that you have the means to fly an airplane, you are
> a democrat.
> If you feel proud that you have succeeded enough in life to afford a
> plane, you are a republican.

These generalizations! They're all BS, "wishful thinking" or pure
propaganda.

[Morgans]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
>
> These generalizations! They're all BS, "wishful thinking" or pure
> propaganda.
>
You are so right! No pilots are brain dead enough to be true Democrats! <G>
(ducking while running)
--
Jim in NC

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 18:15:23 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:

>So, your argument is that we were already involved in the war in Europe
>before Pearl Harbor, but we would not have gotten involved in the war in
>Europe if we had not been attacked at Pearl Harbor. Am I understanding that

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>correctly?
^^^^^^^^^^

no.

#m
--
The more one is absorbed in fighting Evil,
the less one is tempted to place the Good
in question. (J.P. Sartre)

[Jay Honeck]

> Their customers have to pay for it. No business really pays a tax,
ultimately
> all taxes (including FICA and Personal income) wind up buried in the cost
of
> goods and services.

It is fascinating to me how few people truly understand this basic law of
economics.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> You are so right! No pilots are brain dead enough to be true Democrats!
<G>
> (ducking while running)

Nah, it just means we're older and wiser.

What was that saying Churchill coined? "If you're not a liberal at age 20,
you have no heart. If you're not a Conservative at age 40, you have no
brain..."
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:ANB_c.122971$Fg5.92285@attbi_s53...
>> Their customers have to pay for it. No business really pays a tax,
> ultimately
>> all taxes (including FICA and Personal income) wind up buried in the cost
> of
>> goods and services.
>
> It is fascinating to me how few people truly understand this basic law of
> economics.

But it is not the only "law" of economics. Think it through further.
Unless the business is a monopoly AND they provide a product or service for
which there is no alternative, the demand for their product or service
depends very much on their price (the elasticity is less if those conditions
are met). This means several things. They still have to make the
determination of how much profit to build in to their price, as the more
profit, the higher their price, and the less they will sell. They will want
to maximize profit which is not necessarily maximum production. Going
further, and especially in this context, if one particular production method
is taxed there may be alternative production methods which are less taxed
and may represent a greater profit opportunity.

The result is that taxes most definitely DO affect businesses, and since
they cannot pass along all additional expenses to their customers, part of
the tax decreases their profit and so effectively the business owners DO pay
taxes (separate from their personal income taxes, that is).

[Icebound]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
> My understanding is that the democratic party was not liberal enough
> for the Canadians. They now have a liberal party in addition to the
> democrat party.


The "Liberals" in Canada are actually the middle-of-the-road party. It is
the "Democrats" (actually "New Democratic" Party) which is the most
"left-leaning".


Canadian politics morphs over time.

The "basic" Candian sentiment is:

a "Conservative" party that is similar to USA Republicans with a
"conservative" fiscal and military platform, and perhaps a
only-slightly-less conservative social policy. A "Conservative" government
was responsible for the USA-Canada NAFTA agreement, but was decimated
electorally in 1993.

a "Liberal" party which is middle of the road, shading towards a
"conservative" fiscal policy, moderate military policy, fairly liberal
social policy. Many complain that this Liberal party is just as
"conservative" as the "Conservatives". THIS is the "natural" governing
party and has governed Canada for the majority of years, including
1993-present.

a "Democratic" party, which is actually the most left-leaning party in all
aspects. They have routinely been the party with the fewest seats
federally, although they have frequently formed governments in one or more
Provinces. This party morphed from labor activism in the dirty thirties.
Their previous incarnation managed to gain power in a single province in
1944 and were the first to institute universal medicare, starting with
hospital care in 1947 and medical (Doctor) services in 1962. Eventually,
this was accepted as a "good" thing, and universal medicare was accepted
nationally in 1966 and supported by all parties to some degree.

In recent years, regional squabbles have intensifed. The "Conservatives"
were not "conservative" enough (especially socially) for the rich
oil-producing provinces, and a more-right-leaning party was created, more
like a true Republican party. (Quebec had their own agenda and created a
"Quebec only" conservative-leaning party. Etc..) At one point the original
Conservatives were decimated and the new version ended up with a significant
portion of the vote. But vote-splitting between the two right-wing parties
ensured that the centre-of-the-road "Liberals" would remain as the governing
party forever.

So the Conservatives (except for the Quebec version) have re-joined into a
single party once more. Their platform is still nebulous since this newest
version has never actually governed; we have yet to see what their actual
policies might be.

In the most recent election (this summer), therefore, renewed interest in
the combined "Conservatives"... and vote-splitting between the
centre-of-road "Liberals", and the left-leaning "Democrats".... has left no
party with a majority of seats in Parliament. The "Liberals" retain the
most seats, the "Conservatives" next, then the Quebec-conservatives, and the
"Democrats" the fewest. The first sessions since the election are yet to
convene; it is believed some sort of coalition between the "Liberals" and
"Democrats" will be able to govern.

Such "minority" governments are not new in Canada, and in fact, have
produced some "ground-breaking" legislation because of the compromises
required to maintain a voting majority. Universal Medicare, to a certain
extent, was implemented federally because of a minority government.



--
*** A great civilization is not conquered from without until it
has destroyed itself from within. ***
- Ariel Durant 1898-1981

[Jay Honeck]

> The result is that taxes most definitely DO affect businesses, and since
> they cannot pass along all additional expenses to their customers, part of
> the tax decreases their profit and so effectively the business owners DO
pay
> taxes (separate from their personal income taxes, that is).

To a degree -- but long before personal "profits" get cut the business
"extras" will go out the window. Things like new equipment, landscaping,
added staff -- ALL of that stuff will be eliminated long before a business
owner's personal income is diminished.

And THAT is how taxes hurt the economy.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> What was that saying Churchill coined? "If you're not a liberal at age 20,
> you have no heart. If you're not a Conservative at age 40, you have no
> brain..."

Lord Chesterfield said "He who is not a revolutionary at 16 has no heart. He who is a
revolutionary at 60 has no head." If Churchill said what you posted, that's where he
got it.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Wdtabor]

In article >, "Peter Gottlieb"
> writes:

>
>The result is that taxes most definitely DO affect businesses, and since
>they cannot pass along all additional expenses to their customers, part of
>the tax decreases their profit and so effectively the business owners DO pay
>taxes (separate from their personal income taxes, that is).
>

A tax placed on bakers with names starting with the letters A to M could not be
passed on to the customers because of competition from bakers with
alphabetically later names, but a tax placed on ALL bakers simply raises the
cost of bread, since there are no alternate sources for the product unaffected
by that cost.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Wdtabor]

In article <ANB_c.122971$Fg5.92285@attbi_s53>, "Jay Honeck"
> writes:

>
>> Their customers have to pay for it. No business really pays a tax,
>ultimately
>> all taxes (including FICA and Personal income) wind up buried in the cost
>of
>> goods and services.
>
>It is fascinating to me how few people truly understand this basic law of
>economics.

That principle is the basis for my involvement with the FairTax movement.
(www.fairtax.org)

Did you notice the reference Bush made Thursday to "tax reform?" That's us,
Delay, Hastert and Cheney are on board with the FairTax as well as many others.
It will not be an isue in this election, but during the second term we will
have a real chance to make our case for it and maybe een get it done.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Peter
> Gottlieb"
> > writes:
>
>>
>>The result is that taxes most definitely DO affect businesses, and since
>>they cannot pass along all additional expenses to their customers, part of
>>the tax decreases their profit and so effectively the business owners DO
>>pay
>>taxes (separate from their personal income taxes, that is).
>>
>
> A tax placed on bakers with names starting with the letters A to M could
> not be
> passed on to the customers because of competition from bakers with
> alphabetically later names, but a tax placed on ALL bakers simply raises
> the
> cost of bread, since there are no alternate sources for the product
> unaffected
> by that cost.
>

But it does not necessarily raise the price of bread by the full amount of
the tax. The increased price will reduce demand and to optimize profit the
bakers will absorb some of the increase. But why discuss microeconomics
when there are macroeconomic issues...

The general observation that consumers pay all the taxes paid by their
suppliers is of course completely correct. It is somewhat amazing to
consider the true amount of tax that we all pay when everything is accounted
for.

But tax "reform" can only do so much. You can shift the burden around, and
here you hear the various usual Republican and Democrat arguments for whom
should be paying how much, or you can work at reducing the need for the high
burden, which is more along the lines of what I would prefer. However,
there are a lot of very entrenched self and special interests who do not
want change of the latter type and I doubt that any of the present players
have the true desire or if so, the ability, to cause any significant change.

[CB]

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
> In article <ANB_c.122971$Fg5.92285@attbi_s53>, "Jay Honeck"
> > writes:
>
>>
>>> Their customers have to pay for it. No business really pays a tax,
>>ultimately
>>> all taxes (including FICA and Personal income) wind up buried in the
>>> cost
>>of
>>> goods and services.
>>
>>It is fascinating to me how few people truly understand this basic law of
>>economics.
>
> That principle is the basis for my involvement with the FairTax movement.
> (www.fairtax.org)
>
> Did you notice the reference Bush made Thursday to "tax reform?" That's
> us,
> Delay, Hastert and Cheney are on board with the FairTax as well as many
> others.
> It will not be an isue in this election, but during the second term we
> will
> have a real chance to make our case for it and maybe een get it done.
>

I love campaigns like this. It usually means stop taxing me an go tax
someone else.

[Wdtabor]

In article >, "Peter Gottlieb"
> writes:

>
>The general observation that consumers pay all the taxes paid by their
>suppliers is of course completely correct. It is somewhat amazing to
>consider the true amount of tax that we all pay when everything is accounted
>for.
>

More than merely amazing. The Americans for Tax Reform traced the taxes
imbedded in the cost of various goods. One was a Ford Taurus automobile, priced
at $23,000. They found the car could have been sold, at the same profit, for
$12,700 with the imbedded taxes removed. The buyer of that car, who might be
under the illusion all taxation has been successfully pushed off on "the rich"
pays and astounding $10,700 plus interest when he purchases that car.

Surprise!

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Wdtabor]

In article >, "CB" >
writes:

>>
>> Did you notice the reference Bush made Thursday to "tax reform?" That's
>> us,
>> Delay, Hastert and Cheney are on board with the FairTax as well as many
>> others.
>> It will not be an isue in this election, but during the second term we
>> will
>> have a real chance to make our case for it and maybe een get it done.
>>
>
>I love campaigns like this. It usually means stop taxing me an go tax
>someone else.
>

In this case, no. What we are trying to do is to have the appearance of the tax
structure reflect the underlying impact of taxation more accurately so people
can make their political decisions based on reality instead of an illusion.

The reality is that eventually, all taxes wind up impacting us as an invisible
consumption tax, concealed in the price of goods and services. What the FairTax
will do is to make that tax transparent so everyone can make their political
choices in full knowledge of the impact of the cost of government on their
lives.


--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[CB]

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Peter
> Gottlieb"
> > writes:
>
>>
>>The general observation that consumers pay all the taxes paid by their
>>suppliers is of course completely correct. It is somewhat amazing to
>>consider the true amount of tax that we all pay when everything is
>>accounted
>>for.
>>
>
> More than merely amazing. The Americans for Tax Reform traced the taxes
> imbedded in the cost of various goods. One was a Ford Taurus automobile,
> priced
> at $23,000. They found the car could have been sold, at the same profit,
> for
> $12,700 with the imbedded taxes removed. The buyer of that car, who might
> be
> under the illusion all taxation has been successfully pushed off on "the
> rich"
> pays and astounding $10,700 plus interest when he purchases that car.
>
> Surprise!

Of course the big con with taxation and especially indirect taxation is that
it affects the middle classes the worst. The poor have no money so they
cannot spend much. However when they do spend they tend to go for branded
products because of the quality.
I was in India and given a choice of spending a days pay on a quality
branded soap or and hours pay on a local variation it was the quality
version that won out - why because poor people really want value for money
and in this case, the branded soap bar lasted 20 times longer that the cheap
bar.

The middle classes are hit the hardest as for them they are right in the
middle of the income bracket so they have a high marginal and overall tax
burden. As consumers, they also get hammered and with only a little
discretion over what to buy etc they have little choice about the taxes they
pay.

The best off are and always have been are the rich and the tax system is
geared to protect them. When you have more money than you know what to do
with it other than engage in conspicuous consumption then buying anything
not necessary a normal life become cheap. The $1m boat brings with it a
sales tax and a property tax. So what it is still cheap.
The marginal rate of income tax for these people and the overall tax burden
set against their income and wealth is also low. It may seem like a lot of
$s but is still proportionately smaller than the middle classes.

Fairer taxes to me means people paying their fair share. You cannot be more
than fair to one section of society without being less than fair to the
others.

Shift the sales taxes away from the things people need to have to live and
put tax on the things that are not essentials to live.

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
> More than merely amazing. The Americans for Tax Reform traced the taxes
> imbedded in the cost of various goods. One was a Ford Taurus automobile,
> priced
> at $23,000. They found the car could have been sold, at the same profit,
> for
> $12,700 with the imbedded taxes removed. The buyer of that car, who might
> be
> under the illusion all taxation has been successfully pushed off on "the
> rich"
> pays and astounding $10,700 plus interest when he purchases that car.
>
> Surprise!

No surprise.

But just how to you plan on getting the government to release itself from
the public teet? Our two significant parties don't seem differentiable from
one another when it comes to spending money, they only argue about where.

You can shift around who pays the biggest tax burden, you can shift around
programs, but the only way to fix things is to reduce how much is spent and
this is an enormously difficult problem to tackle.

[CB]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
et...
>
> "Wdtabor" > wrote in message
> ...
>> More than merely amazing. The Americans for Tax Reform traced the taxes
>> imbedded in the cost of various goods. One was a Ford Taurus automobile,
>> priced
>> at $23,000. They found the car could have been sold, at the same profit,
>> for
>> $12,700 with the imbedded taxes removed. The buyer of that car, who might
>> be
>> under the illusion all taxation has been successfully pushed off on "the
>> rich"
>> pays and astounding $10,700 plus interest when he purchases that car.
>>
>> Surprise!
>
> No surprise.
>
> But just how to you plan on getting the government to release itself from
> the public teet? Our two significant parties don't seem differentiable
> from one another when it comes to spending money, they only argue about
> where.
>
> You can shift around who pays the biggest tax burden, you can shift around
> programs, but the only way to fix things is to reduce how much is spent
> and this is an enormously difficult problem to tackle.

It will cost a lot of jobs and that means votes . Whether it is government
employees, or employees working for government contractors. why make
problems for yourself.

Bush is just going to borrow the money and Kerry is going to raise taxes. I
know which is sounder and going into debt at the current rate is not a good
idea. Sooner or later the tax payers are going to have to pay the bill.

Its a bit rich asking our kids to pay extra taxes in the future to fund our
tax cuts now so as we can have a ball. They wont thank us for it and nor
should they.

[vincent p. norris]

>.... The Americans for Tax Reform traced the taxes
>imbedded in the cost of various goods. One was a Ford Taurus automobile, priced
>at $23,000. They found the car could have been sold, at the same profit, for
>$12,700 with the imbedded taxes removed. The buyer of that car, who might be
>under the illusion all taxation has been successfully pushed off on "the rich"
>pays and astounding $10,700 plus interest when he purchases that car.
>
>Surprise!

I understand that when ALL taxes are considered, we in the USA have a
*regressive* tax system.

vince norris

[vincent p. norris]

>> The result is that taxes most definitely DO affect businesses, and since
>> they cannot pass along all additional expenses to their customers, part of
>> the tax decreases their profit and so effectively the business owners DO
>pay
>> taxes (separate from their personal income taxes, that is).
>
>To a degree -- but long before personal "profits" get cut the business
>"extras" will go out the window. Things like new equipment, landscaping,
>added staff -- ALL of that stuff will be eliminated long before a business
>owner's personal income is diminished.
>
>And THAT is how taxes hurt the economy.

All that is true enough, but your analysis is incomplete, Jay.

What happens to the money taxed from businesses and consumers?

The government spends it. Your local government buys a new garbage
truck, and hires a couple of guys to drive it. Or builds a school,
which creates jobs for contractors, masons, electricians, plumbers,
etc. They spend almost all the money they earn.

The Feds pay the troops who in turn buy food and other supplies. The
Feds buys C-130s (even if the Air Force doesn't want them (!) creating
jobs for Lockheed-Martin employees. They in turn buy new cars, gas to
run them, etc.

A couple of those employees might even spend a night at your place on
their way to OSH!

vince norris

[vincent p. norris]

>But it does not necessarily raise the price of bread by the full amount of
>the tax. The increased price will reduce demand and to optimize profit the
>bakers will absorb some of the increase.
>
>The general observation that consumers pay all the taxes paid by their
>suppliers is of course completely correct.

Strictly speaking, an increase in price will NOT reduce "demand," it
will decrease the *quantity* of bread purchased. Economics textbooks
define demand as a "schedule of the various quantities people buy at
various prices...."

The demand for some products is quite "inelastic," which means the
quantity does not vary much as the price changes. I would imagine
the demand for bread is fairly inelastic, so that the quantity would
not change very much if the price rise were small or moderate.

And aren't your two sentences contradictory? If bakers absorb some of
the tax, then consumers do not pay "all" the taxes paid by suppliers.

vince norris

[Peter Gottlieb]

"vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
...
> And aren't your two sentences contradictory? If bakers absorb some of
> the tax, then consumers do not pay "all" the taxes paid by suppliers.

Not contradictory at all, just different domains.

100% of the income for a baker derrives from the sale of goods (renting the
apartment upstairs would be a separate business, for example). Therefore,
the consumers pay every single penny of tax that the baker owes. Now, if
the baker's taxes increase significantly, market conditions may prevent the
baker from increasing product prices enough to fully cover those taxes. So,
part of what was the baker's profit now goes to the government. The
consumers still pay all the taxes the baker has, but the baker now gets less
pay.

[Jim Weir]

You idiots that post a two-line answer without bothering to snip the top fifty
lines of repetitive drivel are wasting bandwidth, don't you?

Jim


"CB" >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->
->"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
->> In article <ANB_c.122971$Fg5.92285@attbi_s53>, "Jay Honeck"
->> > writes:
->>
->>>
->>>> Their customers have to pay for it. No business really pays a tax,
->>>ultimately
->>>> all taxes (including FICA and Personal income) wind up buried in the
->>>> cost


Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Jim Weir" > wrote in message
...
> You idiots that post a two-line answer without bothering to snip the top
> fifty
> lines of repetitive drivel are wasting bandwidth, don't you?
>

How about top posting? Some don't like that either. But, you must admit,
with more and more broadband, and disk space close to free, bandwidth here
isn't the issue it used to be.

[Wdtabor]

In article >, vincent p. norris
> writes:

>
>I understand that when ALL taxes are considered, we in the USA have a
>*regressive* tax system.
>

For details on just how regressive it is, go to Fairtax.org and click the
Research tab and then take the link to "Current System"

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Wdtabor]

In article >, "Peter Gottlieb"
> writes:

>But just how to you plan on getting the government to release itself from
>the public teet? Our two significant parties don't seem differentiable from
>one another when it comes to spending money, they only argue about where.
>
>You can shift around who pays the biggest tax burden, you can shift around
>programs, but the only way to fix things is to reduce how much is spent and
>this is an enormously difficult problem to tackle.
>

That is, of course, the point. We spend so much only because the majority of
the electorate PERCEIVES federal spending as "free" to them. The vast majority
of the tax burden is concealed in imbedded taxes in the cost of goods and
services. Add to that the "employer contribution" to FICA and FUTA, and the
painless nature of witholding taxes from gross pay and the result is that
people vote for spendthrift politicians because they buy into the illusion that
someone else is paying for it.

What the FairTax does, more than anything else, is to dispel that illusion and
make the cost of government visible othose who are paying for it. When the
hardworking low and middle income taxpayers, who currently think they get all
their tax back when they file their return, see the true cost of government on
every grocery receipt, they will be less inclined to vote for politicians who
fund $50 million domed ranforests in Iowa.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Wdtabor]

In article >, "CB" >
writes:

>
>Shift the sales taxes away from the things people need to have to live and
>put tax on the things that are not essentials to live.
>

THe FairTax addresses this not by exempting certain goods, but by rebating the
sales tax paid on spending up to the level determined as needed to cover basic
expenses.

Using a formula very similar to that currently used to determine the poverty
line, the tax paid on necessities for a given family size is determined and
each month you get a check (or more likely, an electronic deposit) to reimburse
you for that tax. The effect is that basic living spending is tax free to
everyone, rich or poor alike.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Trent Moorehead]

"Wdtabor" > wrote

<snip>

> THe FairTax addresses this not by exempting certain goods, but by rebating
the
> sales tax paid on spending up to the level determined as needed to cover
basic
> expenses.

The FairTax interests me, but I've been wondering why tax food and clothing
at all in the first place, instead of sending out rebate checks (or
deposits)? Is it because it is hard to classify certain items as "necessary"
and a rebate is just easier?

-Trent
PP-ASEL

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> so every K you post adds up to thousand K, and every megabyte adds up to
> 1000
> megabytes.

This is silly. There is SO much capacity that whether we diligently trim or
not is inconsequential. A 200 *GIGA*byte drive is now $80. Retail. Let's
see now... the post referenced might possibly by 1k byte, so now the cost
per newsgroup server for this eggregious act of non-trimming would be a
whopping $0.0000004, or anotherwords, it would take 25,000 untrimmed
messages of that size to fill up 1 cent of disk capacity per server.

[Wdtabor]

In article >, "Trent Moorehead"
> writes:

>
>The FairTax interests me, but I've been wondering why tax food and clothing
>at all in the first place, instead of sending out rebate checks (or
>deposits)? Is it because it is hard to classify certain items as "necessary"
>and a rebate is just easier?
>

The FairTax will be collected by the States, which will get a commission for
collecting it. There will be no federal taxing authority. The States have their
own sales taxes already, and they differ from state to state as to what item
are taxable or not. To add a federal list of taxable and non-taxable items
would be very complicated to adminster.

It is adminstratively simpler, and equally fair, to simply estimate the cost of
essentials and allow for them uniformly.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[CB]

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "CB"
> >
> writes:
>
>>
>>Shift the sales taxes away from the things people need to have to live and
>>put tax on the things that are not essentials to live.
>>
>
> THe FairTax addresses this not by exempting certain goods, but by rebating
> the
> sales tax paid on spending up to the level determined as needed to cover
> basic
> expenses.
>
> Using a formula very similar to that currently used to determine the
> poverty
> line, the tax paid on necessities for a given family size is determined
> and
> each month you get a check (or more likely, an electronic deposit) to
> reimburse
> you for that tax. The effect is that basic living spending is tax free to
> everyone, rich or poor alike.


The trouble with all these great ideas is that the cost of administering the
taxes can out weight the tax benefit. In theory your idea sounds great, but
the beauracracy involved would be immense.

[Javier Henderson]

"CB" > writes:

> The trouble with all these great ideas is that the cost of administering the
> taxes can out weight the tax benefit. In theory your idea sounds great, but
> the beauracracy involved would be immense.

How would it compare to the current bureaucracy?

-jav

[Wdtabor]

In article >, "CB" >
writes:

>
>The trouble with all these great ideas is that the cost of administering the
>taxes can out weight the tax benefit. In theory your idea sounds great, but
>the beauracracy involved would be immense.
>
>

??

What bureaucracy? Other than those which already exist?

The tax will be collected by the States using their existing sales tax
bureaucracy, and the States will receive a commission to cover their small
costs for doing so.

The rebates will be sent out by the existing Social Security mechanisms, at the
cost of a bit more paper.

In return, the IRS will cease to exist. The day the FairTax goes into effect,
they turn off the lights at the IRS, and all of their records, other than those
needed for collection actions in progress, will be destroyed. That will save us
the $100Billion it costs us each year to operate the IRS, PLUS the $400 Billion
spent by businesses and individuals to comply with the IRS code.

The FairTax will reduce the total state and federal tax bureacracy by by at
least 90% over all, and the cost of collection will be built into the
collection mechanism.

Your personal tax compliance effort will be to send in a form once a year
telling the SS folks how many people are in your family and what their SS
numbers are.

Retail businesses will collect the tax as they do with sales taxes now and turn
them into the state, just as they do now. They will no longer have to withold
taxes from employees, calculate depreciation, or any of the other accounting
that is otherwise not needed in operating the business. Their monthly tax
return will look something like

Retail Sales X Tax Rate = Amount enclosed.

That's it.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[G.R. Patterson III]

Wdtabor wrote:
>
> A tax placed on bakers with names starting with the letters A to M could not be
> passed on to the customers because of competition from bakers with
> alphabetically later names, but a tax placed on ALL bakers simply raises the
> cost of bread, since there are no alternate sources for the product unaffected
> by that cost.

So does the tax on bakers with names starting with the letters A to M. Many of them
will go out of business, reducing competion and allowing the remaining bakers to
raise prices.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> This is silly.
>
>
> yeah. ever run a newsserver? (no I haven't, but I will soon)
>
(much blathering deleted)


If you can't deal with the nature of the business, then perhaps it's best to
stay out of it.

If trimming of messages is even on your radar, you are going to have a very
"interesting" experience, shall we say.

Enough of this already. Say your piece, then let's drop it.

[Robert M. Gary]

"Icebound" > wrote in message s.com>...
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> om...
> > My understanding is that the democratic party was not liberal enough
> > for the Canadians. They now have a liberal party in addition to the
> > democrat party.
>
>
> The "Liberals" in Canada are actually the middle-of-the-road party. It is
> the "Democrats" (actually "New Democratic" Party) which is the most
> "left-leaning".
>
>
> Canadian politics morphs over time.
>
> The "basic" Candian sentiment is:

Very interesting. Thanks! When my wife and I flew our Mooney out to
Vancouver this summer there were elections taking place at the time.
We tried to ask people in the hotel what the differences were between
the parties but none of them really seemed to know. I guess it gets
confusing when you have so many choices. :)

-Robert

[Marc J. Zeitlin]

Wdtabor wrote:

> .......That will save us
> the $100Billion it costs us each year to operate the IRS.....

In the interest of accuracy, the budget of the IRS is about $10B -
$11B - you're off by a factor of 10. I have no comment about any of the
rest of it.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://marc.zeitlin.home.comcast.net/
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2004

[Allen]

"Marc J. Zeitlin" > wrote in message
news:Ddo%c.143369$Fg5.24547@attbi_s53...
> Wdtabor wrote:
>
> > .......That will save us
> > the $100Billion it costs us each year to operate the IRS.....
>
> In the interest of accuracy, the budget of the IRS is about $10B -
> $11B - you're off by a factor of 10. I have no comment about any of the
> rest of it.

Source?

Allen

[Marc J. Zeitlin]

Allen asked:

> > Wdtabor wrote:
> >
> > > .......That will save us
> > > the $100Billion it costs us each year to operate the IRS.....
> >
> > In the interest of accuracy, the budget of the IRS is about $10B -
> > $11B - you're off by a factor of 10. I have no comment about any of
the
> > rest of it.
>
> Source?

http://www.unclefed.com/Tax-News/2002/nrfs02-09.html

Seems authoritative enough.....

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://marc.zeitlin.home.comcast.net/
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2004

[CB]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
> "Icebound" > wrote in message
> s.com>...
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> > My understanding is that the democratic party was not liberal enough
>> > for the Canadians. They now have a liberal party in addition to the
>> > democrat party.
>>
>>
>> The "Liberals" in Canada are actually the middle-of-the-road party. It
>> is
>> the "Democrats" (actually "New Democratic" Party) which is the most
>> "left-leaning".
>>
>>
>> Canadian politics morphs over time.
>>
>> The "basic" Candian sentiment is:
>
> Very interesting. Thanks! When my wife and I flew our Mooney out to
> Vancouver this summer there were elections taking place at the time.
> We tried to ask people in the hotel what the differences were between
> the parties but none of them really seemed to know. I guess it gets
> confusing when you have so many choices. :)

Its so much easier when the choice is between the devil and the deep blue
sea. Either way your stuffed.

[Newps]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>
> Wdtabor wrote:
>
>>A tax placed on bakers with names starting with the letters A to M could not be
>>passed on to the customers because of competition from bakers with
>>alphabetically later names, but a tax placed on ALL bakers simply raises the
>>cost of bread, since there are no alternate sources for the product unaffected
>>by that cost.
>
>
> So does the tax on bakers with names starting with the letters A to M. Many of them
> will go out of business, reducing competion and allowing the remaining bakers to
> raise prices.

Baloney, they'll just change their names so they start with a "good" letter.

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> So does the tax on bakers with names starting with the letters A to M.
>> Many of them
>> will go out of business, reducing competion and allowing the remaining
>> bakers to
>> raise prices.
>
> Baloney, they'll just change their names so they start with a "good"
> letter.
>

Reminds me of when there was the even/odd gas during the Arab oil embargo.
My family had two cars and a small transfer pump from JC Whitney. Business
went on.

[Wdtabor]

In article <Ddo%c.143369$Fg5.24547@attbi_s53>, "Marc J. Zeitlin"
> writes:

>
>Wdtabor wrote:
>
>> .......That will save us
>> the $100Billion it costs us each year to operate the IRS.....
>
>In the interest of accuracy, the budget of the IRS is about $10B -
>$11B - you're off by a factor of 10. I have no comment about any of the
>rest of it.
>

You are correct, I misremembered that one.

Even so, the cost of compliance by the private sector are nearly equal to 20%
of the total collected. Nearly all of that would be eliminated under the
FairTax for business, and compliance cost for individuals would be one first
class stamp a year.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
>
> Even so, the cost of compliance by the private sector are nearly equal to
> 20%
> of the total collected. Nearly all of that would be eliminated under the
> FairTax for business, and compliance cost for individuals would be one
> first
> class stamp a year.
>


Is there a spreadsheet or other computer model available where one could
enter hypothetical situations and see the difference in tax from the old to
proposed new system?

I am curious as to how my situation would change, and also that of my
clients.

[Wdtabor]

In article >, "Peter Gottlieb"
> writes:

>
>"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Even so, the cost of compliance by the private sector are nearly equal to
>> 20%
>> of the total collected. Nearly all of that would be eliminated under the
>> FairTax for business, and compliance cost for individuals would be one
>> first
>> class stamp a year.
>>
>
>
>Is there a spreadsheet or other computer model available where one could
>enter hypothetical situations and see the difference in tax from the old to
>proposed new system?
>
>I am curious as to how my situation would change, and also that of my
>clients.
>

There is a study by Stanford University under the research tab at the website
www.fairtax.org comparing how the change would affect various parts of the
population. Most do quite well, though a small percentage of seniors with
accumulated wealth will lose about 2% of their buying power.

Even so, most seniors do care about the world they will hand off to their
grandchildren and of course, there is no death tax under the FairTax, so no
need to divert resources to elaborate sheleters or trusts to pass on their
wealth.

There are really few questions about the plan you cannot find the answer to
either under the Research or Volunteer tabs.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
>
> There are really few questions about the plan you cannot find the answer
> to
> either under the Research or Volunteer tabs.
>


Thanks