Baby Bush will be Closing Airports in California to VFR Flight Again

You're right, I'm guilty of my own stereotyping...

Michael

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news9T1c.42536$ko6.377510@attbi_s02...
This isn't a liberal/conservative issue. For all the party line about
shrinking government, it has expanded dramatically under Republican
rule.
Conservatives have been no more successful than liberals in streamlining
the
government/business relationship.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I regard the Republicans
as fiscally Conservative.

Perhaps they once were -- but they sure aren't anymore. Which is why we
desperately need a third party in this country.

A fiscally conservative political party, without all the religious
baggage,
would win in every precinct.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:B1T1c.177980$jk2.656980@attbi_s53...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:QJS1c.177934$jk2.656404@attbi_s53...
Jay,

You seem to confuse being a liberal with being a socialist. I am a
life
long
liberal - I believe that government and industry has a responsibility
to
help those in need, that the environment needs extensive protecting,
that
most social programs do enough good to outweigh the inherent waste and
transfer costs...

The RESPONSIBILITY for those is need is those people themselves.

I respectfully disagree. It is the responsibility of the fortunate to help
the less fortunate. Almost everyone believe this to some degree, hence the
extensive charitable contribution structure. Perhaps I lean toward more
redistribution than you, and different methods. But I don't want to live
in
a society where we ignore hardship.

Unfortunately that approach has resulted in third and forth generation
welfare families. Politicians see it as an opportunity to buy votes. It's
one of those government programs that is fine in theory but is a disaster in
practice.

"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:B1T1c.177980$jk2.656980@attbi_s53...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:QJS1c.177934$jk2.656404@attbi_s53...
Jay,

You seem to confuse being a liberal with being a socialist. I am a
life
long
liberal - I believe that government and industry has a responsibility
to
help those in need, that the environment needs extensive protecting,
that
most social programs do enough good to outweigh the inherent waste and
transfer costs...

The RESPONSIBILITY for those is need is those people themselves.

I respectfully disagree. It is the responsibility of the fortunate to help
the less fortunate.

By what logic is it their RESPONSIBILITY. You can't have someone responsible
for some else without alievating the individuals responsibility for
themself.

Almost everyone believe this to some degree, hence the
extensive charitable contribution structure.

You're conflating altruism (duty) with benevolence (good hearted). Every
tyrant of recent history preached altruism.


Perhaps I lean toward more
redistribution than you, and different methods. But I don't want to live
in
a society where we ignore hardship.

You're version is charity at gun point...coercive. That's sick because it's
a complete inversion.



I am also a confirmed capitalist. I built a company with over 300
employees
over a 15 year period. I sold it for enough money to enjoy a
comfortable
retirement in my mid 40's, and started another company last year when
I
found retirement boring. I've paid pretty extensive taxes - well worth
it
for the privilege of living in the USA.

You're living the the USA is your RIGHT, not a priviledge.

It's both a right and a priviledge. They are not mutually exclusive.

It's perhaps the perfect example of a contradiction.

For some reason conservatives have stereotyped liberals as
anti-business
and
anti-patriotic. Neither is the case.

Well, the evidence is sure strong enough.

What evidence? This is the stereotype I was referring to.

Geez...how much time and bandwdith do you have for examples?



You may look up George McGovern's quote about the failure of his
business
after retiring from the Senate -- something about "If I'd known then
what
I
know now, my voting records would have been much different."

George McGovern is a great example. He was a patriotic war hero and
clearly
a liberal. His realization that the governmental burdens on small
businesses
were too extensive came, unfortunately, too late in his life for his
voting
to help the problem. I disliked many government intrusions on my business.

Now from that...jump off on a tangent to -

This isn't a liberal/conservative issue. For all the party line about
shrinking government, it has expanded dramatically under Republican rule.
Conservatives have been no more successful than liberals in streamlining
the
government/business relationship.

There should not BE a government/business relationship...anymore than there
should be a religion/government relationship, or a education/government
relationship.

You're doing a fine job of upholding the stereotype you deride, particularly
with your equivocating.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:QJS1c.177934$jk2.656404@attbi_s53...

You seem to confuse being a liberal with being a socialist.


Modern liberals are socialists.


Whether they high-jacked the term "liberal" (in the late 1800's), or call
themselves "Progressive" (actually regressive), you're exactly right.

Thing is, both conservatives AND liberals are heavily altruist/collectivist,
so the overlap is enormous.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
om...

"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:B1T1c.177980$jk2.656980@attbi_s53...

The RESPONSIBILITY for those is need is those people themselves.

I respectfully disagree. It is the responsibility of the fortunate to
help
the less fortunate. Almost everyone believe this to some degree, hence
the
extensive charitable contribution structure. Perhaps I lean toward more
redistribution than you, and different methods. But I don't want to live
in
a society where we ignore hardship.

Unfortunately that approach has resulted in third and forth generation
welfare families. Politicians see it as an opportunity to buy votes.
It's
one of those government programs that is fine in theory but is a disaster
in
practice.

Quite right...but it's not even good in theory as the theory falls with even
slight scrutiny. A politicians definition of "need" is a fabrication, as is
the solution of _forced_ charity.

A real charity makes use of scarce resources and thus must make a good
determination of real "need" AS WELL AS differentiating between those who
are in "need" thorough no fault of their own, versus the various
self-destructive types.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:B1T1c.177980$jk2.656980@attbi_s53...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:QJS1c.177934$jk2.656404@attbi_s53...
Jay,

You seem to confuse being a liberal with being a socialist. I am a
life
long
liberal - I believe that government and industry has a
responsibility
to
help those in need, that the environment needs extensive protecting,
that
most social programs do enough good to outweigh the inherent waste
and
transfer costs...

The RESPONSIBILITY for those is need is those people themselves.

I respectfully disagree. It is the responsibility of the fortunate to
help
the less fortunate.

By what logic is it their RESPONSIBILITY. You can't have someone
responsible
for some else without alievating the individuals responsibility for
themself.

Why? Everything is not at the extreme. I'm responsible for my wife. She is
responsible for me. We are both still responsible for ourselves. My social
responsibility to help, within the confines of my ability, does not
allieviate anyone's responsibility for themselves. In fact, I'd argue it
increases their responsibility to make something out of the gifts they have
received, as I felt obligated to do with gifts I received in my lifetime.


Almost everyone believe this to some degree, hence the
extensive charitable contribution structure.

You're conflating altruism (duty) with benevolence (good hearted). Every
tyrant of recent history preached altruism.

There is nothing in the definition of altruism that includes the word or
concept of duty. But assuming you are just misusing the word, I still don't
get your point. President Bush senior talked of "a thousand points of
light". Was he a tyrant. Sorry - you are losing me here.




Perhaps I lean toward more
redistribution than you, and different methods. But I don't want to live
in
a society where we ignore hardship.

You're version is charity at gun point...coercive. That's sick because
it's
a complete inversion.



I am also a confirmed capitalist. I built a company with over 300
employees
over a 15 year period. I sold it for enough money to enjoy a
comfortable
retirement in my mid 40's, and started another company last year
when
I
found retirement boring. I've paid pretty extensive taxes - well
worth
it
for the privilege of living in the USA.

You're living the the USA is your RIGHT, not a priviledge.

It's both a right and a priviledge. They are not mutually exclusive.

It's perhaps the perfect example of a contradiction.

Once again, you need to check the dictionary. There is nothing contradictory
about these terms. And citizenship is perhaps the perfect example of their
mutual applicability. In a single sentence, it is my priviledge to have the
rights of American citizenship.


For some reason conservatives have stereotyped liberals as
anti-business
and
anti-patriotic. Neither is the case.

Well, the evidence is sure strong enough.

What evidence? This is the stereotype I was referring to.

Geez...how much time and bandwdith do you have for examples?



You may look up George McGovern's quote about the failure of his
business
after retiring from the Senate -- something about "If I'd known then
what
I
know now, my voting records would have been much different."

George McGovern is a great example. He was a patriotic war hero and
clearly
a liberal. His realization that the governmental burdens on small
businesses
were too extensive came, unfortunately, too late in his life for his
voting
to help the problem. I disliked many government intrusions on my
business.

Now from that...jump off on a tangent to -

I'm sorry you can't make the conceptual leap from sentence to sentence.
Perhaps if you had spent more time in public school ;-)


This isn't a liberal/conservative issue. For all the party line about
shrinking government, it has expanded dramatically under Republican
rule.
Conservatives have been no more successful than liberals in streamlining
the
government/business relationship.

There should not BE a government/business relationship...anymore than
there
should be a religion/government relationship, or a education/government
relationship.

Well, that's an interesting fantasy land you're proposing, but I live in the
United States. For better or worse, there are constructs and institutions
that are hundreds of years old. Business and government are intertwined.
Education is part of the government's responsibility. You can rail against
it all you'd like, but it is kind of like street person standing on the
soapbox in Times Square. While it may be interesting for a passing moment,
mostly it is ignored and, in the end, of little value.


You're doing a fine job of upholding the stereotype you deride,
particularly
with your equivocating.


I think I was pretty careful in this whole thread not to deride anyone,
other than a few of your particularly unenlightened comments.

Michael

"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:WtU1c.46160$PR3.957908@attbi_s03...

By what logic is it their RESPONSIBILITY. You can't have someone
responsible
for some else without alievating the individuals responsibility for
themself.

Why? Everything is not at the extreme. I'm responsible for my wife. She is
responsible for me. We are both still responsible for ourselves. My social
responsibility to help, within the confines of my ability,

"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." And you
wonder why we stereotype liberals as socialists? Get a clue, man!!

does not
allieviate anyone's responsibility for themselves.

Sure it does.
In fact, I'd argue it
increases their responsibility to make something out of the gifts they
have
received,

Unless you can enforce that it's a non-sequitur.

as I felt obligated to do with gifts I received in my lifetime.

Again, the DUTY is the part that is patently collectivist/socialist.



Almost everyone believe this to some degree, hence the
extensive charitable contribution structure.

You're conflating altruism (duty) with benevolence (good hearted). Every
tyrant of recent history preached altruism.

There is nothing in the definition of altruism that includes the word or
concept of duty.

You might look up Augusta Comte, the guy who coined the phrase. Altruism
_IS_ DUTY.

But assuming you are just misusing the word,

Most definitely I'm not.

I still don't
get your point. President Bush senior talked of "a thousand points of
light". Was he a tyrant. Sorry - you are losing me here.

Actually, he was. And his kids BS about Compassionate Conservatism" is a
sick joke. Once again so it sinks in; FORCED charity is neither charity, nor
compassionate.





Perhaps I lean toward more
redistribution than you, and different methods. But I don't want to
live
in
a society where we ignore hardship.

You're version is charity at gun point...coercive. That's sick because
it's
a complete inversion.



I am also a confirmed capitalist. I built a company with over 300
employees
over a 15 year period. I sold it for enough money to enjoy a
comfortable
retirement in my mid 40's, and started another company last year
when
I
found retirement boring. I've paid pretty extensive taxes - well
worth
it
for the privilege of living in the USA.

You're living the the USA is your RIGHT, not a priviledge.

It's both a right and a priviledge. They are not mutually exclusive.

It's perhaps the perfect example of a contradiction.

Once again, you need to check the dictionary. There is nothing
contradictory
about these terms.

You better look up some words yourself: A right cannot be revoked, a
priviledge is GRANTED by the good graces of the state. Another aspect of
liberalism is _statism_. Again, you wonder where we get the stereotype?

And citizenship is perhaps the perfect example of their
mutual applicability. In a single sentence, it is my priviledge to have
the
rights of American citizenship.

Jeezmineez!! Where the hell do your dredge up this stuff? In 1850, Horace
Mann, in establishing the public school system in the US under the Prussian
model said that the purpose of public schools is to create good subjects --
evidently you are a prime example.




For some reason conservatives have stereotyped liberals as
anti-business
and
anti-patriotic. Neither is the case.

Well, the evidence is sure strong enough.

What evidence? This is the stereotype I was referring to.

Geez...how much time and bandwdith do you have for examples?



You may look up George McGovern's quote about the failure of his
business
after retiring from the Senate -- something about "If I'd known then
what
I
know now, my voting records would have been much different."

George McGovern is a great example. He was a patriotic war hero and
clearly
a liberal. His realization that the governmental burdens on small
businesses
were too extensive came, unfortunately, too late in his life for his
voting
to help the problem. I disliked many government intrusions on my
business.

Now from that...jump off on a tangent to -

I'm sorry you can't make the conceptual leap from sentence to sentence.
Perhaps if you had spent more time in public school ;-)

Hmm...going from liberal to McGovern's war record..that teach CONTEXT in
public school?

And public schools (see notes about Horace Mann) decidedly DO NOT teach
conceptualization or abstraction. Again, you validate my points. Which is
why I attended private schools for 14 of my 18 years in schools.



This isn't a liberal/conservative issue. For all the party line about
shrinking government, it has expanded dramatically under Republican
rule.
Conservatives have been no more successful than liberals in
streamlining
the
government/business relationship.

There should not BE a government/business relationship...anymore than
there
should be a religion/government relationship, or a education/government
relationship.

Well, that's an interesting fantasy land you're proposing, but I live in
the
United States.

Is that your right, or a privlidge?

For better or worse, there are constructs and institutions
that are hundreds of years old.

An idea isn't good because is OLD anymore than it's good because it's NEW.
Didn't they teach THAT in public schools?

Business and government are intertwined.

They're not supposed to be. When they are, it's called fascism or socialism.
(There's that stereotype again).


Education is part of the government's responsibility.

Only for indoctrination (See Horace Mann part again).

You can rail against
it all you'd like, but it is kind of like street person standing on the
soapbox in Times Square. While it may be interesting for a passing moment,
mostly it is ignored and, in the end, of little value.

Let's see:
False Dilemma http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/fd.htm

Begging the quetion http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/begging.htm

Argumentum ad populum (Popularity)
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm




You're doing a fine job of upholding the stereotype you deride,
particularly
with your equivocating.


I think I was pretty careful in this whole thread not to deride anyone,
other than a few of your particularly unenlightened comments.

Enlightenment to you means...what? You commit damn every fallacy available
and YOU claim to be "enlightened"? For one thing, modern liberalism is
highly steeped in "Post-Modernism" which utterly DENIES intellect, reason,
enlightenment...

Your every phrase is a tenant of Marxism, and you have to gall to bitch
about liberals being stereotyped as socialists?

Michael, in light of the above, I rest my case and conclude that the
stereotype not only fits, but, if anything, it's an understatement.

"Colleen" wrote in message
...


Larry Dighera wrote:

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 03:34:21 GMT, "Michael 182"
wrote in Message-Id:
1tx1c.109512$Xp.479440@attbi_s54:

While I think President
Bush is the worst president we have suffered in my 50 years, and I look
forward to the opportunity to work for his opponent this year, he is
president, and should be given the courtesy and respect afforded the
office.

Baby Bush was _declared_ President, not elected.

Wrong. Read the constitution, article II, and get back to us when you're
clued
in.


I give up. What's your point? I don't see anything in it that the Supreme
Court will have a say in the electorial process.

Article II
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...articleii.html

Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United
States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years,
and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected,
as follows:


Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may
direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and
Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no
Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit
under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.


The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for
two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same
state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted
for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and
certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United
States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate
shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all
the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the
greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a
majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more
than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the
House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for
President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on
the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in
choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the
representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose
shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a
majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case,
after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of
votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should
remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them
by ballot the Vice President.


The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on
which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout
the United States.


No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States,
at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the
office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who
shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen
Years a resident within the United States.


In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death,
resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said
office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may
by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability,
both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then
act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the
disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.


The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a
compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the
period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within
that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.


Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following
oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to
the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the
United States."


Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of
the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called
into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in
writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon
any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall
have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United
States, except in cases of impeachment.


He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to
make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he
shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall
appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the
Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose
appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be
established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such
inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the
courts of law, or in the heads of departments.


The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen
during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire
at the end of their next session.


Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of
the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures
as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary
occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of
disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may
adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive
ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be
faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United
States.


Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the
United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and
conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

And some of us found Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Clinton offensive... So go
figure...
denny

In case you haven't noticed,
many people find baby Bush extremely offensive.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:WtU1c.46160$PR3.957908@attbi_s03...

There is nothing in the definition of altruism that includes the word or
concept of duty.

You might look up Augusta Comte, the guy who coined the phrase. Altruism
_IS_ DUTY.


I'm just responding to this small section as an example - I'm too bored of
this thread to do more.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
al·tru·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ltr-zm)
n.
1. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
2. Zoology. Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the
individual but contributes to the survival of the species.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
\Al"tru*ism\, n. [F. altruisme (a word of Comte's), It. altrui of or to
others, fr. L. alter another.] Regard for others, both natural and moral;
devotion to the interests of others; brotherly kindness; -- opposed to
egoism or selfishness. [Recent] --J. S. Mill.

I know you will find some reason to believe the dictionaries are wrong, but
when you decide words have a different meaning than the dictionaries'
definition it makes it pretty hard for anyone to communicate.

Michael