Conference back40::soapbox

    
    o negatively biased descriptions of the left
    o self-congratulatory descriptions of the right
    
    
    :-)
    

    now, now dan, i think hank has it right :-)
    
    but the concept of the american dream....
    
    sometimes i think we've all bought into this 'dream' as
    an ideal, but the reality doesn't quite measure up to 
    the promise.

    the trend I've noticed is that as many people age, they become more
    conservative...on the other hand, some kids were brought up with
    certains standards and morals and decided to trash them upon going out
    on their own or adhering to them in order to stay in favor with sugar
    daddy...
    
    the ideals of the left, on the other hand - than the right, are just
    that ideals, but in many cases when put into reality have very little
    resemblance to theory.
    
    I've become more conservative in the past decade seeing the many
    failures of the left and similar socialist policies...but I'm still mad
    at no good lying conservatives like Nixon who lied and cheated his way
    into power and he governed atrociously...
    
    my dislike for Nixon has nothing to do that we were born on the same
    date decades apart...

    I think that if you are brought up in a family in which mutual love and
    respect were apparent, then the  principles and morality adhered to by that
    family stay with you, with minor modifications, throughout your life.
    Your politics are part of this equation. They, too, are likely to
    remain pretty much the same if you are comfortable with your
    upbringing.
    
    Kit

    RIGHT:  Leave the fallen where they land and sell more guns to there
    oppressors.
    
    Let the take from the poor and starve the hungry, and sell them guns.
    
    Lend money to people who can not possibly give it back then lend them
    the money to buy guns.
    
    Blame market forces for hte poison in our food, in our drink and in the
    air we breath.
    
    Shrink government by selling off great chunks of it to your friends, so
    keeping the right ideological control without the intervention of those
    horrible smelly votor things, sell them guns.
    
    R.  Michael.

    yell, sell some more guns...right!?!?!!

    To see right politics at its most pure, Indonesia/east Temor.
    
    R. Michael.

re:              <<< Note 49.5 by BRUMMY::WILLIAMSM "Born to grep" >>>

Freakin' far out, man!

	I think this will accurately describe one part of the Right:


	A new Christmas movie is coming out this year. It's called:




	The Gingrich who stole Christmas

    The right, the philosophy of getting the government off your back and
    into your bladder, your uterus, your bedroom and church.
    
    a philosophy which puts 50% of the population in a no win situation.  
    
    meg

  - You're either right or red.

  - Punishment of the accused.

  - Protection for all good 'ol boys.

  - Freedom of religion, as long as it's the "right" religion.

  - Celebrate the Constitution as an icon.

  - The right to life begins at conception and ends at birth.

  - "Back to when the poor were poor and rich were rich
     and you felt so dam secure just knowing which were which." -Chad Mitchel

  George

    The Right:  
    
    Zero tolerance for anyone who doesn't think like us or act like
    us;
    
    Second class status for women;
    
    The big, rich corporation is always right;
    
    The poor tax paying American can be easily soothed with the
    right amount of patriotic speeches;
    
    When all else fails, start a war.
    
    Mary-Michael

    good broadbrushing, MM, now I know how Kit felt!

>    Zero tolerance for anyone who doesn't think like us or act like
>    us;

Gee... this could fit the bill to the black leadership in this country, all
liberal, who attack that black congressman from CT because he's a conservative
and doesn't think like them or act like them...

/scott

    re: .14
    
    It's a sin that accrues to any situation in which the majority shares
    some common and relatively uniform beliefs and feels strongly enough
    about them to make life uncomfortable, or worse, for that minority
    which does not fully subscribe to those beliefs.
    
    Kit

    Conservative Economics:
    
    	If you help the rich to become richer, then the poor will be able
    to pick up some of the crumbs that are dropped by the rich.  Unless of
    course, the poor don't have any bootstraps to pull themselves up by, in
    which case they have no socially redeeming values anyway, and besides,
    the world needs ditchdiggers.

| <<< Note 49.13 by PNTAGN::WARRENFELTZR >>>

| good broadbrushing, MM, now I know how Kit felt!


	Kit from Nightrider??? I thought he was a car, and had no feelings....

  Pepper and ketchup are vegetables.

  George

    George, 
    
    No it is ketchup and pickles that are vegetables for school children. 
    
    meg

RE: Holding Constitution as an icon

	It is much better than what the liberals have done to it.

ME

RE     <<< Note 49.20 by REFINE::KOMAR "Just when you thought it was safe" >>>

>RE: Holding Constitution as an icon
>
>	It is much better than what the liberals have done to it.

  Right, insisting on it being the Supreme Law of the Land when conservatives
would rather see it gutted so the rights of the citizens can be trampled
into the ground.

  I can see where that would be frustrating to someone who holds "law and
order" over freedom.

  George

>>	It is much better than what the liberals have done to it.
>
>  Right, insisting on it being the Supreme Law of the Land when conservatives
>would rather see it gutted so the rights of the citizens can be trampled
>into the ground.

Except for that pesky Second Amendment, of course.

-Madman

  I'm still looking for a liberal who's come out against well ordered
militia.

  George

    most libs don't even know what a well ordered militia is.  the ff knew,
    they had a name for theirs, they called it the minutemen.  the PRIVATE
    CITIZENS of the country, ARMED and READY to stand against tyranny, be
    it from another country or from their own - which latter was the case
    in the 'murican revolution.

re .23:

Read the rest of the amendment.

RE               <<< Note 49.24 by SMURF::BINDER "vitam gustare" >>>

>    most libs don't even know what a well ordered militia is.  the ff knew,
>    they had a name for theirs, they called it the minutemen.  the PRIVATE
>    CITIZENS of the country, ARMED and READY to stand against tyranny, be
>    it from another country or from their own - which latter was the case
>    in the 'murican revolution.

  Armed, ready, and WELL ORGANIZED.

  The minutemen were organized into companies with Captains and other officers.
They met on weekends to march like an army, practice like an army, and they
took orders from their officers like an army and their officers were more
often than not the town fathers.

  I've never heard a liberal argue against that type of organization.

  George

    
    
    RE: .26
    
    So... do you think Frau Reno would object to me starting an "Armed,
    ready, WELL ORGANIZED"... sort of.. "militia"??
    

    you're right, meowski, well organized.  which is the specific and very
    compelling reason for compulsory military training of all civilians of
    both sexes.
    
    but of course the gummint wouldn't want to train up a real militia that
    could take the country away from the fat teat-suckin congress and give
    it back to the people, would it, hmmmmmm??

    .22
    

> Except for that pesky Second Amendment, of course.
    
    You mean the second clause of the second amendment, of course.  
    
    It's always amazed me how little conservatives think of all the rest of
    the constitution and how dearly they press that second clause to their
    heaving bosoms. 
    
    Thank God there's nothing about the right to have automobiles in there
    somewhere.
    
    Kit

  
    re: .28
    
  >  compelling reason for compulsory military training of all civilians of
  >  both sexes.
   
    Case in point. How far have we fallen from the founding principles and
    from the constitution that anyone could be arguing this line in a
    discussion of the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution.
    
    Kit 

    .30
    
    the constitution weas ordained and established to, among other things,
    provide for the General Welfare.  (they used lots of extra capital
    letters back then, i figure i have about 13 more years to go before
    i've evened it out.)
    
    the General Welfare includes protection from a tyrannical, bloated
    gummint that is progressively robbing the people blind.  you will note
    that i did not say that the fed should provide compulsory training. 
    i'd prefer that training be required by state and local school
    districts as part of other required curriculum related to civics.

    .31
    
     >  the General Welfare includes protection from a tyrannical, bloated
     >  gummint that is progressively robbing the people blind.  you will note
    
    Indeed they did fear a "tyrannical, bloated, government". They saw large
    standing armies as the embodiment of that tyranny. Indeed, the very
    taxation they revolted against was instituted to support the that army. 
    
    It makes no difference to me if you support involuntary servitude
    instituted by the feds, the states, the town, or my neighbor. It's
    abhorent to freedom, particularly when it goes to create armies, which
    are both necessary to protect freedom, and freedom's most natural
    enemy.  We have gone *way* overboard in the militarization of this
    society. Washington and the other founders would be horrified to see
    the influence.
    
    Kit

    What would this well trained malitia be for?  What is it that needs
    defending from whome, and as the nature of warfare has changed somewhat
    since the Brits last visited in force shouldn't this malitia be keeping
    the very latest in hi-tec weaponry?  How far is the itty bitty revolver
    going to get you when the hysterical right come uyp with another bunch
    of AK wielding nutters to frighten small children with.
    
    The enemy of the people is the "system" of bad government, that is not
    only or even mainly politicians but the poisonious fabric that
    surrounds them.  (I'm talking about the UK/Europe here, I haven't
    figured the colonies out yet) The EU is making a lot, quite rightly out
    of massive freud and corruption much of it bu un elected officials who
    are the by product of "small govt"  so the malitia will rise up and
    take over the GATT?  Or stand about looking stupid while children
    murder one another?
    
    R. Mike.
            

    .32
    
    okay, let's just all sit back on our collective demilitarized arses
    and let big gummint take away everything we work for and give it to the
    people who won't work.
    
    if we had a standing organized citizenry that was not reponsible to the
    gummint (which we don't have, cuz the guard IS responsible to the
    gummint) we could do away with large portions of our army, and the net
    result would be less militarization, not more.  and you better believe
    the reichs would be screaming about all the jobs lost when we closed
    down their local pet army or navy or air farce bases.

    RE: .33
    
    >  -< its getting late and I'm hungry >-
    
    Eat and go to bed....
    
    and it's "militia"
    
    As for the rest of your questions, the easiest answer is for you to
    read up on some history to find out about who should be "defending who
    from 'whom'....
    

    re .34  We already are. The main gripe against the 
    Democratic candidate for Senator in Maine was that he agreed to the
    closing of Loring AFB.  He lost. So much for the anti-pork principle.
    And with Repubs in power, you can believe there will be nothing so
    potent as military pork.
    
    Kit

    Re: .34
    
    >if we had a standing organized citizenry that was not reponsible to
    >the gummint
    
    The militia was not responsible to the _federal_ government.  It was
    responsible to the state or local government, however.

    the local government in bawston in 1775 was a british general.  was the
    militia responsible to him?  i doubt it...

    So who was responsible for "calling out" the militia?  Point is, there
    was some level of accountability built into the system.

    .39
    
    the militia were called out by other civilians like themselves, whom
    they had themselves chosen and placed in authority over them for that
    purpose only.  people like joseph warren.
    
    may i suggest you read some history?  this is well documented.

RE       <<< Note 49.27 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Less government, stupid!" >>>

>    So... do you think Frau Reno would object to me starting an "Armed,
>    ready, WELL ORGANIZED"... sort of.. "militia"??

  I have no idea but in any case Reno is hardly a liberal.

  George

    Re: .40
    
    >they had themselves chosen and placed in authority over them for that
    >purpose only
    
    And you wouldn't consider that a form of local government?

    Uh-oh...we're back to the semantic hair pulling now...

    .42
    
    > And you wouldn't consider that a form of local government?
    
    no, considering that there was an official government in power at the
    time, i don't think so.  or would you perhaps consider hamas a form of
    local government...?

	For those who believe that the 2nd Amendment confers only a
	collective right to form militias. A question.

	The word "people" is used 41 times in the Constitution and the
	Bill of Rights. How do you justify the claim that in 40 cases
	the use of the word is very strictly used to identify individual
	rights and in only ONE case is the SAME term used to identify
	a collective right?

Jim

    
    
    Come on Jim!!!! Will you please stop being so danged logical!!!!
    

       <<< Note 49.46 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Less government, stupid!" >>>

>    Come on Jim!!!! Will you please stop being so danged logical!!!!
 
	Just my nature. ;-)

Jim   

    Re: .44
    
    >considering that there was an official government in power at the
    >time
    
    Was the militia formed under that official government?  Or was it
    organized before that official government established jurisdiction?

            <<< Note 49.48 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    Was the militia formed under that official government?  Or was it
>    organized before that official government established jurisdiction?

	It was organized in opposition to the official government.

	Brought forward to today, the "Shot heard 'round the world" 
	would be the equivalent to an organized armed group firing 
	on US Army troops that were attempting to confiscate privately 
	owned firearms.

	Many in government would like us to forget that the Revolutionary
	War began with an attempt at "gun control". They would also like
	us to forget that this attempt was unsuccessful.

Jim

    >It was organized in opposition to the official government.
    
    I don't think that's true for all colonial militias, though. 
    Particularly in the south, where population density was lower.

    	I personally favor restrictions on arms. Hunting ect. gives me no
    problem, but do private citizens really need automatic weapons. I know
    many that would argue that they do but I don't think so. However, as
    much as I hate to admit it, the NRA and the anti-gun control folks to
    have a point. The way I read the constition, ANY law restricting your
    (or my) right to bear arms is uncostitional. When the constituiton was
    written however, society was a lot less urban and arms weren't so
    diverse and varying in power. By the constitution, I think that the
    right to own a tank or a nuclear bomb is protected. I feel that perhaps
    we need an amendment that will allow some limitation on arms and laws
    such as waiting periods ect. (Yes, I feel those are unconstitional as
    well, but I support them morally)
    
    
    							S.R.

                   <<< Note 49.51 by DNEAST::RICKER_STEVE >>>
>                    -< How's this for middle of the road? >-

	Not quite there yet.

>    	I personally favor restrictions on arms.

	Very interesting that you should choose this particular wording.
	"Arms" encompass far more than firearms. Knives, bows, swords
	even clubs are considered "arms". Do you favor restrictions of
	ALL categories of "arms"?

>but do private citizens really need automatic weapons. I know
>    many that would argue that they do but I don't think so.

	Again, we may be having some trouble with the use of terms.
	The difference between automatic firearms (they are NOT
	weapons unless used as such) and semi-automatic firearms
	must be recognized before we can begin to discuss your
	suggestions concerning regulation.

	The recent "Crime" Bill and the Feinstein Amendment banning
	certain semi-automatic firearms did NOT add or modify any
	regulations concerning the private ownership of AUTOMATIC
	firearms (which is quite legal BTW).

>When the constituiton was
>    written however, society was a lot less urban and arms weren't so
>    diverse and varying in power.

	Would you be willing to restrict the free press protections only
	to those newspapers/magazines that were printed on a manually
	operated printing press? The logic is the same.

> By the constitution, I think that the
>    right to own a tank or a nuclear bomb is protected.

	I think you should go back an re-read the 2nd Amendment. Also
	a look at the era and history of the newly formed United States
	at the time of its writing would be useful.

	Note the use of the phrase "Keep and Bear". "Keep" meaing to
	own, "Bear" meaning to carry. You may be able to own a tank,
	but I would challenge you to CARRY one. Before, during and
	after the Revolution, individual citizens were expected to 
	provide their own PERSONAL arms if called to Militia duty.
	These were muskets, swords, etc. Canon and such other "area
	weapons" of the time were owned by the local and state 
	governments.

	The 2nd was intended to ensure the protection of the ownership
	of personal arms.

> I feel that perhaps
>    we need an amendment that will allow some limitation on arms and laws
>    such as waiting periods ect. (Yes, I feel those are unconstitional as
>    well, but I support them morally)
 
	What limits would you impose? Why would you want these particular
	limitations?

	Propose a course of action, then we can discuss it.

Jim

    I'm waiting for a citizen militia to buy an F-16....

    
    
    	y'all got $7mil I can borrow? that should over a used one...:)
    
    
    	re: Joe
    
    	I'd suggest you read the federalist papers and various quotes by
    the founding fathers of the constitution. The gun-control topic has
    some good info in there already....
    
    
    jim

    	Yeah, I just realized that I was responding to a gun rathole
    	in a different topic, and I will move it to topic 21.

    Hey, for $56K you can buy a good, used Chinese Mig.  Customs will
    remove the machine guns for you when it arrives.
    
    To each his own.  Maybe that citizens militia will be able to shoot
    down some of the ATF's Apache attack helicopters.

    >This topic is dedicated to the politics of the right.
    >The conservatives, who believe in :
    >
    > [...]
    > less intrusion into the lives of Americans
    
    How d'you explain all that prominent national thumperism, Hank?  Your
    conservative leaders seem to be determined to intrude more, not less,
    into the bedroom sexual practises and inclusive family definitions of
    Americans. I'd say your conservative 'definitions' don't see the fact. 
    And until they do, you'll have a hard time understanding why decent
    Americans oppose your leaders.
    
    DougO

Don't worry, DougO. There're enough of us conservative republicans around
who are godless to keep the religious right from destroying the advantage
gained by the right in general.

>    conservative leaders seem to be determined to intrude more, not less,
>    into the bedroom sexual practises and inclusive family definitions of
>    Americans. I'd say your conservative 'definitions' don't see the fact. 
    
    	Current initiatives are designed to UNDO government growth.
    
    	Your liberal house of cards is crumbling, and now you're reduced
    	to playing word games like this.
    
    	I will admit that what conservatives want may be misnamed.  Some
    	of what we seek is less judicial "legislation".  If it takes
    	laws from one branch to correct the errors of another, so be it.
    	Overall there will STILL be less "government".

    >Current initiatives are designed to UNDO government growth.
            
    families are families, Joe, no matter what the government calls 'em.
    But the government, by virtue of its tax code and its ability to
    dictate such things as family leave and benefits, can harass segments
    of the population.  or it can make such harassment illegal.
    
    Thumpers want to intrude upon some families.  They want to do it with
    governmental power to intrude.  That's not what Hank says they're
    about.  I'd like to hear HIM try to explain it away.  you, I already
    know, can't acknowledge the right's faulty understanding of family
    values, given your shredded record on Prop 187 ("wards of the state").
    
    DougO

    > Don't worry, DougO. There're enough of us conservative republicans
    > around who are godless to keep the religious right from destroying the
    > advantage gained by the right in general.
    
    Sorry, Jack- they're a lot louder than your type.  Robertson ran for
    pres, North almost made the Senate, the GOP convention in '92 was an
    orgy of hatred at non-traditional families.  I'm not 'worried'- I'm
    just venturing a prediction.  The religious right is the millstone that
    will prevent America from endorsing a GOP future.
    
    DougO

The fact of the matter is that they're mostly noise, though, Doug. When it
comes down to the short of it, the things that matter, the religious/moral
agendas will not be the issues that gain the support of the right. Not
while more pressing issues, like less Government, are attractive to a far
wider range of the electorate.

I've said it in several 'boxes and I'll say it again. The thumping that
goes on in the religious right is a largely a political move to garner
votes. There are a lot of moral issues that any adept politician knows
perfectly well should be left alone in practice, though not necessarily
in theory.

    Re: .63
    
    The religious right shapes the party platform and agenda because they
    have better fundraising and organization.  They put in the legwork to
    get themselves sent as delegates to the conventions, for example.

>    families are families, Joe, no matter what the government calls 'em.
>    But the government, by virtue of its tax code and its ability to
>    dictate such things as family leave and benefits, can harass segments
>    of the population.  or it can make such harassment illegal.
    
    	Gee.  Would removing these things mean less government intrusion?
    	So what's your point in .58?
    
>    given your shredded record on Prop 187 ("wards of the state").
    
    	Still crying about this, Doug?  You stood out on an island,
    	farting into the wind about this in the last box.  I answered
    	every one of your points, *AND* received cross-ideology support
    	for what I said, while you complained about all the boxers
    	past and present who said basically the same thing I did 
    	in an older topic.  (You even pointed it out, specifically 
    	using my name.) 
    
    	I'm surprised that you'd resort to self-flagellation as a means
    	of attacking me.

    Dunno what box you were reading, Joe, but even you retreated from your
    first stance of making citizen kids 'wards of the state' automatically
    upon deportation of their parents; you amended yourself to permit the
    parents to take the kids with 'em if they wanted to.  "Family Values
    Joe."  surely you don't claim victory when you backed down?
    
    >> But the government, by virtue of its tax code and its ability to
    >> dictate such things as family leave and benefits, can harass segments
    >> of the population.  or it can make such harassment illegal.
    >
    >	Gee.  Would removing these things mean less government intrusion?
    
    'Removing'?  Which, the ability to harass, or the ability to prevent
    harassment?  Government has both powers; you can't remove either.  
    You CAN see what thumpers want to do with such powers; harass
    nontraditional families.
    
    DougO

    	.66
    
>    Dunno what box you were reading, Joe, but even you retreated from your
>    first stance of making citizen kids 'wards of the state' automatically
>    upon deportation of their parents; you amended yourself to permit the
>    parents to take the kids with 'em if they wanted to.  "Family Values
>    Joe."  surely you don't claim victory when you backed down?
    
    	Dunno what box you were reading, Doug, but I "retreated from
    	my first stance" in the paragraph immediately following the
    	one I started talking about "wards of the state".  Here, let
    	me help you.  It's in 1907.146.
    
    	Like I said, Doug, I've been able to answer every one of your
    	points on this issue.  You have been thoroughly trashed, and
    	surely I *DO* claim victory.  All you have left is attempted
    	name-calling like "Family Values Joe" (as if that's something
    	I'm supposed to be ashamed of...)  I shouldn't really be 
    	bothering with you any more.

    
    Speaking of "Politics of the Right", did anybody notice that all
    of these victorious Republicans keep using the phrase "historic
    opportunity" ?  Now, I dunno bout choo, but in Digital, this
    opportunity word is a euphemism for layoffs and general austerity.
    
    Fact is, we're broke.
    
    So what the Republicans are left with is stopping programs, defunding
    agencies, cutting off people's checks, laying off tens, maybe
    hundreds, of thousands of federal workers.  They are going to do it,
    too.  But they'll call it, "Freeing the people", "Empowering the
    States", "Restoring the American Way".
    
    At least the necessary austerity is coming.  By the way, the Democrats
    are all going off to Disney World for a big meeting.  Fantasyland
    would be appropriate.
    
      bb

    i think cutting the govt. to a much much smaller size will be viewed as
    the great achievement that it is.  the result will be a much better
    economy and renewed liberty for the citizens.
    
    jeff

RE                      <<< Note 49.69 by USAT05::BENSON >>>

>    i think cutting the govt. to a much much smaller size will be viewed as
>    the great achievement that it is.  the result will be a much better
>    economy and renewed liberty for the citizens.
    
  ... for a time. Then the rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer,
as business gets more overextended in debt. Then the balloon pops, the stock
market crashes and ** kerplum ** it all comes down in a house of cards.

  Now if the protections of the "New Deal", like bank insurance and limits on
borrowing to buy stock, are still in effect it will be a recession. If we
are "cured" of those protections, then it will be depression.

  George

    
    please meowski...what is the connection between small govt and
    corporate financial decisions?  and what does the govt do in its
    present size/incarnation that by its very absence (i.e. smallness) will
    cause the poor to get poorer and the rich to get richer.  the rich will
    get richer under any circumstances if they invest their money wisely. 
    and of course the poor will always be with us.  what is your point???
    is a large, intrusive govt a requirement for prosperity and liberty?!!!
    
    
    jeff

RE                      <<< Note 49.71 by USAT05::BENSON >>>

>    please meowski...what is the connection between small govt and
>    corporate financial decisions?  and what does the govt do in its
>    present size/incarnation that by its very absence (i.e. smallness) will
>    cause the poor to get poorer and the rich to get richer.  

  Well Bend-some, every time the Republicans control the national agenda the
rich get richer and the poor get poorer. 

  Just before the turn of the Century the Republicans got control of Congress
and when GOP candidate William McKinley was elected the gap between rich and
poor got so wide that workers invented labor unions. 

  During the roaring 20's while under Republican leadership the gap between
rich and poor was a major factor that lead to the Great Depression. It happened
again during the 80's when enough conservative democrats joined the republicans
to give Reagan a majority in Congress and we had yet another boom followed
by a bust.

  In each case the gap between rich and poor grew and the middle not only faced
layoffs but got stuck picking up the tab to sort out the mess.

  What makes you think this time will be any different? Remember, part of being
conservative is trying old ways that failed in the past rather than inventing
new solutions. 

  George

    
    let's just say that i prefer liberty over equality.
    
    jeff

.72>  Well Bend-some, every time the Republicans control the national agenda the
>rich get richer and the poor get poorer. 
    
    	Sure makes me thankful that I'm not poor, and would seem to me 
    	that this would encourage people to strive for something better 
    	-- which coincidentally was the driving reason for many of the
    	immigrants who came here.

RE              <<< Note 49.74 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Oracle-bound" >>>

>    	Sure makes me thankful that I'm not poor, and would seem to me 
>    	that this would encourage people to strive for something better 
>    	-- which coincidentally was the driving reason for many of the
>    	immigrants who came here.

  Striving for something better is exactly the reason the nation has turned
against conservatives each time they have created policies to favor the rich.
And as Dole himself admits, the same will happen again if the GOP doesn't get
their act together and deliver on their promises.

  I have no doubt that the Republicans will screw up and the Democrats will
get the ball back again. It's just a matter of time. I just hope we don't
have to go through a depression in the meantime.

  George

>  Striving for something better is exactly the reason the nation has turned
>against conservatives each time they have created policies to favor the rich.
    
    	The "something better" you advocate is a free ride on money
    	stolen from my pocket.
    
>  I have no doubt that the Republicans will screw up and the Democrats will
>get the ball back again. 
    
    	We *KNOW* you have no doubt about this.  You've been crying about
    	it since November 9th.  The republicans don't even have control
    	and you're crying about it.

    Like the rich didn't get richer during the 50 years of Dim control of
    Congress....and the poor didn't get poorer (even though the middle
    class was continually robbed to give them more money).
    
    It is not the job of the government to insure a living for everyone,
    nor dictate the proper ratio of rich to poor people.  In fact, I don't
    think it is the government's job to dictate what is considered "poor"
    or what is considered "rich".  In all manner of warfare, the sides must
    be defined to an extent...same with class-warfare (we'll get those evyl
    rich bahstuds).
    
    
    
    -steve 

RE     <<< Note 49.77 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>

>    Like the rich didn't get richer during the 50 years of Dim control of
>    Congress....and the poor didn't get poorer (even though the middle
>    class was continually robbed to give them more money).

  During the 50's, everyone in the United States got richer because after WWII
we were the only industrial nation left standing and we had a world wide
monopoly on industrial goods. 

  In spite of this, when the GOP got control of both the White House and the
Congress in 1952, they couldn't help themselves from screwing it up. 

>    It is not the job of the government to insure a living for everyone,
>    nor dictate the proper ratio of rich to poor people.  In fact, I don't
>    think it is the government's job to dictate what is considered "poor"
>    or what is considered "rich".  

  Well that's your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. However once a
small group becomes rich and the majority see them pulling away, they go to the
voting booth and vote for people who promise to insure labor and anti-trust
laws and who favor welfare. Then the broom turns the other way and it's the
Republicans who get swept out of office.

  Even notice that no matter which way the broom swings, it's the middle class
that ends up picking up the tab?

  George

>  Ever notice that no matter which way the broom swings, it's the middle class
>that ends up picking up the tab?

    	The media say this is so, and people all over the place say this is
    	so, and analysts say this is so, but I really have to wonder if it
    	is really true...  I don't believe that I am "picking up the tab"
    	to any disproportionate degree.

    > The "something better" you advocate is a free ride on money
    > stolen from my pocket.
    
    I won't say it.
    
    DougO

    Way-ell, I'm gonna back George up on this one, just a leetle teensy
    bit, here...but, I promise not to make a habit of it!
    
    I don't think the Republicans are going to fix anything.  Of course, I
    have been saying since day one that thinking of the Republicans and
    Democrats as two separate parties is a mistake.  They BOTH want federal
    control of, well, everything from your wallet to your gonads.  It's a
    one party system.
    
    The trick here is to put the leash back on Washinton.  Gridlock, for
    instance, is GOOD.  It keeps them from doing anything.  In fact, one
    can argue that gridlock was INTENDED by the FF - that's what the whole
    system of checks and balances IS, right?  Term limits stink, because it
    places restraint on YOU.  On the other, hand, I'm all in favor of
    voting out incumbents on a regular basis, in order to prevent them from
    accumulating too much power.
    
    Move the power back to your state and county.  This is where you as an
    individual have far more clout, and where the lawmakers *have* to pay
    attention to the voters, because they live right in the middle of them.
    
    Anyway, you're gonna have to work a little harder if you want my towel
    on this one George... ;-)

    GOP, Business Unite Against Regulations / 
    Incoming House whip announces coalition 


    Washington 

    Republican House members teamed up yesterday with a newly formed
    business coalition and declared war on government regulators, assailing
    many federal  rules and regulations as ``overly oppressive,
    unreasonable and even irrational.'' 

    Accusing unnamed bureaucrats of ``abusive and Gestapo-like'' behavior
    toward American businesses, incoming House whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas,
    described the GOP-business alliance, known as ``Project Relief,'' as
    ``the biggest effort ever  to seek regulatory relief for small
    business, industry and, indeed, average Americans.'' 

    The coalition's unveiling intensified the GOP's focus on one of its
    primary  legislative objectives for the 104th Congress, which begins
    January 4. Reducing the federal regulatory burden is a tenet of the
    highly touted House GOP ``Contract with  America,'' and Republican
    leaders already have called on the Clinton administration to  issue no
    new regulations during the first 100 days of the 1995 session. 

    There are 5,000 regulations awaiting issuance, according to
    Representative John  L. Mica, R- Fla. He also claimed that there are
    132,000 federal workers ``who do  nothing but regulate.'' 

    Consumer groups yesterday reacted quickly to the news conference by GOP
    House members and the business coalition. Joan Claybrook, president of
    Public Citizen,  said the project's agenda ``will stop the
    implementation of laws that save lives.'' Such  laws, she said, include
    those that ``prevent deadly E. coli poisoning in meat . . .  exposure
    to harmful chemicals and . . . the manufacture of automobiles which
    ignite upon  collision.'' 

    But DeLay rejected Claybrook's warnings. 

    ``We're not calling for an end for worker safety or health regulations
    or those  kinds of things,'' he said. ``But unfortunately, the
    bureaucrats for years have been . .  . an adversary to business and
    working people instead of trying to help business and working  people
    do the right things.'' 

    Among those joining DeLay and a throng of businessmen and women arrayed
    behind him was newly elected Representative David M. McIntosh, R-Ind.,
    who ran the  Council on Competitiveness under former Vice President Dan
    Quayle. The council was an executive branch body authorized to review
    regulations but was accused of trying  to subvert legislation passed by
    a Democratic Congress during the Bush  administration. 

    
    claybrook is a professional alarumist.
    
    when is she going to find an honest job?

    Guerrilla War On the Hill 
    

    Robert D. Novak 

    THE THOROUGHNESS of the Republican revolution in the House is suspect,
    considering that better than half of the Democratic staffers on the
    important Appropriations Committee are being retained. 

    The numbers-crunching skills needed by the committee are claimed to be
    too  arduous for the available Republican talent pool. That concept is
    labeled an ``outrage''  by GOP House members and staffers.
    Nevertheless, efforts to sweep a new broom through  the Appropriations
    Committee have been rejected by the Republican leadership. 

    This is a pity, because it undermines the 1994 election mandate to
    downsize  government. Any serious Republican revolution has to take
    dead aim at the Appropriations Committee's bipartisan buddy system,
    which for decades has fueled the inexorable growth of big government. 

    This committee's members and staff constitute a separate little world
    on Capitol  Hill. While Republicans and Democrats tear out each other's
    throats on the House  floor, debate on any appropriations bill is
    conducted in syrupy politesse with  bipartisan agreement on lavish
    allocations. 

    The non-combativeness of the Republican Appropriators is notorious. 
    Speaker-to-be Newt Gingrich appreciated this problem and consequently
    reached down to the fifth-ranking Republican, conservative Bob
    Livingston of Louisiana, to pick a reform-minded chairman. 

    That's why there is shock in Republican circles that Livingston intends
    to keep  key staffers who handled Appropriations under the Democrats.
    This has generated backstage brawling over the past two weeks. 

    The number of Democratic staffers Livingston wanted to keep has been
    shaved somewhat. The committee's staff breakdown of 161 Democrat and 57
    Republican now  is to become 119 Republican and 35 Democrat. But that
    is grossly misleading. Around  35 to 50 of the supposed Republican
    staffers are really holdovers from the staff of  liberal Democratic
    Chairman David Obey. 

    Members of the Republican leadership were appalled and asked Livingston
    what he was doing. The incoming chairman argued that only experts can
    perform an arcane procedure called ``cross-walking'' -- making the
    federal budget and  appropriations bills conform. He promised that
    partisan Democratic staffers would be fired. 

    This is viewed as nonsense by well-informed Republicans, who contend
    there is a wealth of outside talent to perform rudimentary clerical
    tasks. 

    The deeper question is what the presence of holdover staffers says
    about  Republicans using the Appropriations process to downsize
    government. The test will be  whether the Appropriators end their long
    complicity in dipping into the public treasury and  instead fight each
    other in the great struggle for the role of government. When I asked 
    Livingston that question, he replied: ``There will be no fight if
    everybody honors the `Contract  With America.' '' In fact, the
    retention of Democratic staffers raises questions  about how firmly the
    Republican committee members will stick with the contract. 

    Doug:
    
    The reasoning behind this is debatable.  One things for sure...it
    proves the new people are alot more partisan than the dinosaurs you've
    been worshipping over the last 30 years!!!
    
    -Jack

    worshipping?  are you new in here or what?  if there's one thing that
    has been a hallmark of my six years in soapbox its my total and utter
    contempt for congress.
    
    DougO

    Oh...sorry about that.  I had you confused with Glen Silva!!
    
    -Jack

    	I don't understand the problem in .84.  The article shows
    	a significant planned downsize.  Is the article calling for
    	a deeper cut?
    
    	Is the article complaining about the fact that the repubs are
    	not kicking out enough dems?  If so, isn't that a form of
    	discrimination?  Why not be satisfied with retaining some of
    	those who already know the system?
    
    	Is the article complaining about the operational procedures of
    	the committee itself?  If so, how quickly can a new process
    	be developed to replace it?  Why do so many people expect immediate
    	and absolute change all over the place.  Change will come, but
    	if it is not carefully handled, it can become a disaster.  The
    	new congress isn't even sworn in yet.  Give them a chance.

    >I don't understand the problem in .84.
    
    The article is documenting that the repubs are infighting over who will
    be on the staff of that influential committee.  Hope this helps.
    
    DougO

    Dole denies Gramm a seat on crucial tax-writing panel

    Fort Worth Star-Telegram

    WASHINGTON -- Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas has apparently been
    outmaneuvered by his leading rival for the GOP presidential nomination,
    Bob Dole of Kansas, for a  spot Gramm wanted on the Senate Finance
    Committee.

    Although committee assignments have not been formally announced, it
    appeared Thursday that Dole, incoming Senate majority leader, had
    persuaded enough senior senators to move to the powerful tax-writing
    panel to block Gramm.

    ``Gramm wanted to have a forum in which to take on Dole,'' said a
    Democratic  staffer on the Finance Committee. ``The committee would
    become the focus of the Gramm-Dole struggle for the nomination. Dole
    doesn't want Gramm to have that power.''

    The Texan acknowledged to reporters Thursday that he was unlikely to
    move from  the Appropriations Committee to Finance.

    ``Whether or not I'm on Senate Finance, I'm going to be involved,'' he
    said of  next year's congressional battles over taxes and the budget.
    ``I wasn't on the budget  committee when I wrote the Gramm-Rudman
    budget law.''

    Indeed, Dole's maneuvering came as Gramm, who expects to formally
    announce his candidacy next year, announced new details of a tax cut
    first proposed by  Republicans before the November elections.

    Dole had proposed doubling the income-tax exemption for children from
    $2,500 to $5,000 as part of the Senate Republicans' election platform.
    Gramm supported him  at the time.

    Thursday, Gramm made the same proposal again, adding what he said were
    new, specific methods to pay for the $124 billion program over five
    years.

    Gramm proposed cutting the budgets of the departments of Education;
    Labor;  Health and Human Services; Housing and Urban Development; and
    Transportation by 16 percent.

    However, Gramm offered no written details of which programs should be
    cut from  those departments.

    Still, the Dole power play was a setback for the Texas Republican,
    Senate  sources said. The Finance Committee will be the main arena for
    legislation on a middle-class  tax cut and the economic provisions of
    the Republicans' ``Contract With America.''

    Dole is also expected to announce his presidential candidacy early next
    year.

    Dole's move was also seen as a payback for Gramm's success earlier this
    month in promoting his candidate for majority whip, Trent Lott of
    Mississippi, over  Dole's choice, current whip Alan Simpson of Wyoming.
    Lott won by one vote.

    Republicans have five openings on the Finance Committee, three because
    of  retirements and two more because they are now the majority party.
    The committee will have 11  GOP and nine Democratic members.

    Simpson is one of the senators who is expected to give up another
    committee  assignment to join the Finance Committee. He would have
    priority because he was elected in  1978 and Gramm was elected in 1984.

    In addition to Simpson, other Republicans who want to be on the panel
    are:  Alfonse D'Amato of New York, Frank Murkowski of Alaska, Don
    Nickles of Oklahoma and Larry Pressler of South Dakota.

Published 12/16/94 in the San Jose Mercury News.

    The 104th Congress hasn't even opened yet, but the chinks in the GOP
    facade are already appearing.  Too many democratic staffers left on the
    Appropriations Committee?  Majority leader worried about presidential
    ambitions of rivals forced to undercut committee assignment choices?
    
    Lets see whether or not the Republicans stick to the principles Hank
    claimed for them in the basenote, or whether power politics as usual
    dominate the 104th Congress.
    
    DougO

| <<< Note 49.87 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>

| Oh...sorry about that.  I had you confused with Glen Silva!!

	Jack, at least you are consistant with everyone.... how bout knowing
who you're talking about?


Glen

   What was that word? 8^(

    Steve:
    
    I think he meant Kinks!!
    
    -Jack

    sorry Steve, but your crusade against the homonym that is unfortunately
    spelled identically to this word never persuaded me to stop using this
    one.  I do regret that my inadvertant usage offends you.
    
    DougO

    	It seems to me, Wordy, that you are doing more to promote the
    	use of the word than suppress it.

    
    Actually the biggest "chunk" in the GOP armor, if any, is that their
    majorities are slim.  That they cannot fire enough Democrats all at
    once isn't bothersome.  Sometimes you have to do things in stages.
    I agree the 1/3 cut in committee staffs is not very painful.  As to
    Dole/Gramm not always seeing eye-to-eye, so what else is new ?
    Neither do Dodd/Daschle.  Neither did Foley/Gephart.
    
    No, you aren't going to know much about the Reps (or the Dems, or
    the WH, or the guvs...) until January, maybe not till March.  What
    December is, is a slow news month - check out C-Span, even more
    boring than usual.  What little is happening is mostly posturing.
    
      bb

    
    Only Wordy would go out of his way to find the "offense"...
    
    
    Does "get a life" ring a bell???
    

   Joe, has it ever occurred to you that I actually do find the word
   distressing?  I do, you know.
   
   Actually, you may be right: Every time I call someone on it publicly,
   yahoos like Andy Krawiecki go out of their way to insult me
   (viz 49.98, noting especially his personal name).  I would
   get less grief if I conducted my crusade via MAIL.

	But Andy can't help but bei insulting. Did you know he claims to be a
Christian though? 


Glen

   Well, Glen, it does seem part and parcel of the politics of the right
   8^)

    .90
    
    Oh, oh; time to get the bifocals updated, thought that last paragraph
    said Don Rickles of Oklahoma :-)
    
    

    
    RE: .99
    
     Nice.... "yahoos" and "insult me" in the same sentence....
    
     Hypocrite...  <------ See?? You don't have to go out of your way to 
                           find it!!! Here it is!!
    
    
     BTW... what do you know of zebras? Zebras can be pious hypocrites too,
    which is very evident...

    RE: .100
    
    >But Andy can't help but bei insulting.
    
    
    Hypocrite....  You'll never change your stripes... no matter how hard
    you try and wish for it, and convince yourself otherwise, you'll still 
    continue to show the world your hypocrisy... 
    
     You'll, no doubt, put in a reply telling the world that you'll "pray"
    for me or "may the Lord bless you.." or some other tripe.... but then
    the stripes will show and you'll revert to being inane, obnoxious and
    irreverant as usual, and most will see it and you for what you are...
    and I can't mention it here or I'll get toasted...
    

re:.99

	guess he didn't get to .100 yet....... but it's nice to see he proves
the point....

| <<< Note 49.104 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>

| Hypocrite....  You'll never change your stripes... no matter how hard you try 
| and wish for it, and convince yourself otherwise, you'll still continue to 
| show the world your hypocrisy...

	I guess he read .100! Could you explain how I am a hypocrite?

| You'll, no doubt, put in a reply telling the world that you'll "pray" for me 
| or "may the Lord bless you.." or some other tripe.... 

	Since when is praying rubbish Andy? 

| but then the stripes will show and you'll revert to being inane, obnoxious and
| irreverant as usual, and most will see it and you for what you are...

	Shouldn't that be, "what they think I am"? 

| and I can't mention it here or I'll get toasted...

	Welllll..... send me mail! 

   He can sure dish it out, can't he?  But he can't take it.
   And he wishes to be able to abuse everyone without being abused in
   return.
   
   Say, isn't that the formal definition of "yahoo"...?

    children, go to your rooms...

	what for???

	Steve, you're right about the dishin', but not takin' stuff. 

    
    Can't take it???
    
    From better men than you Wordy...
    
    You think "yahoo" bothers me? Get a life!!!
    
    You can call me anything you want, anytime you want...
    
    
     An insult is like a glass of wine... only effective if accepted...
    
    My reaction is to your and the zebra's hypocrisy... nothing more... 
     
     and I'll call you on it every time....
    

    
    RE: Mine...
    
    >and I'll call you on it every time....
    
    
    Ooooooo...maybe that'll be construed as a "physical threat"...
    

     Most of the time when I hear this much crying, I end up making the
    baby a bottle... Sheesh. Overdose on whine pills or what?

| <<< Note 49.111 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>


| You think "yahoo" bothers me? Get a life!!!

	Steve, it bothers him.

| You can call me anything you want, anytime you want...

	and you'll bitch about it back to him. we know the speil Andy.

| and I'll call you on it every time....

	Oh... on this being a physical threat. Why would we ever think that?
You might be jumping to conclusions again...

    RE: .114
    
    > Steve, it bothers him.
    
    Like your stupid .666 prank where you adamantly stated "If I say I
    didn't do it I didn't do it"...
    
     "If I say it doesn't bother me, it doesn't bother me." Just because
    you took the glass of wine, don't blame me!!
    
      RE: Physical threat... Do bother to catch up Glen dear... Or do you
    need an english lesson too???
    
    
     >we know the speil Andy.
    
     Is that the royal "we"??

   I think you're just touchy about the last time you were called for
   making a physical threat.

| <<< Note 49.115 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>

| > Steve, it bothers him.

| Like your stupid .666 prank where you adamantly stated "If I say I
| didn't do it I didn't do it"...

	Good point. But you say it doesn't bother you, but ya keep on bitchin..

| "If I say it doesn't bother me, it doesn't bother me." Just because
| you took the glass of wine, don't blame me!!

	I hate wine.....

| RE: Physical threat... Do bother to catch up Glen dear... Or do you need an 
| english lesson too???

	Dear???? Why Andrew, I never knew you cared! Thank you so much!

    
    You still maintain that after the english lesson you got???
    
    Go ahead Wordy.... resurrect all the responses, or better yet, post a
    pointer so the folks can see for themselves...
    
     I had enough class to not rub your nose in it cause I thought you let
    it die.... Seems your ego over-rides your sensibilities...
    

    RE: .117
    
    > Good point. But you say it doesn't bother you, but ya keep on
    bitchin..
    
    Not bitching.. just putting the mirror up to your face...
    
    >I hate wine...
    
      Good comeback!!! You're slick!!!! Slicker than snot on a door-knob!!
    

    Shut up. All of you. I think as punishment you ought to have to read
    your notes to Bob Palmer or your mother or something. Good grief.

    
    
    Tough day/week Mark???
    

   English lesson, Andy?  Maybe later.  Right now I'm learning so much more
   from you about manners...

    Oh that's right... I keep forgetting my place.. seeing as how I'm only
    a pawn and you the mighty (word)king!!
    
    
    Manners? Are a yahoo's ones any less than a hypocrite's??

 >>   But Andy can't help but bei insulting. Did you know he claims
 >>   to be a Christian though?
    
    Gee Glen, Jesus called the pharisees dogs and John the Baptist called
    them a brood of vipers.  Besides, insults...like vices are all relative
    to ones definition.
    
    -Jack

    Not a real, honest to goodness note for 20+ replies...I would hit "next
    unseen" but I like this topic (normally).
    
    Reminds me of another conference as of late... 8^)

| <<< Note 49.119 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>


| > Good point. But you say it doesn't bother you, but ya keep on bitchin..

| Not bitching.. just putting the mirror up to your face...

	Maybe you should spend more time cleaning those logs from yer own eyes
Andy. 

| Good comeback!!! You're slick!!!! Slicker than snot on a door-knob!!

	While that sounds tastey, you just never know who's hand was on the
door knob.... 

| <<< Note 49.124 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>



| Gee Glen, Jesus called the pharisees dogs and John the Baptist called them a 
| brood of vipers. Besides, insults...like vices are all relative to ones 
| definition.

	Just like the interpretations of the Bible.....

    The ideas of freedom and responsibility contradict the premises of both
    conservatives and liberals. All such advocates of government control
    claim that individuals must in various ways be controlled by force or
    coersion to keep them from hurting themselves and others. This is the
    myth perpetrated by politicians regardless of right or left leanings.
    This myth falsely implies that free individuals will normally pursue
    irrational self-interests such as fraud ,theft, assult, rape, murder,
    if not controlled by government force or regulation. Irrationality, by
    nature, never works to the well-being of anyone. The human organism, as
    any living organism, if unfettered and free, works by nature toward the
    long-range best interests of everyone. Individuals free to function
    toward their own rational, nonsacrificial self-interests will achieve
    prosperity for themselves, others and society. If they allow themselves
    to be coersed and sacrificed, everyone loses except those who promote
    coersion and sacrifice, such as politicians. Republican, Democrat, 
    conservative, liberal, right, left, moderate politicians all subscribe
    to the control theory, to the detriment of every individual in society.
    
    ...Tom

            <<< Note 49.128 by DASHER::RALSTON "Ain't Life Fun!" >>>
                            -< It's all the same! >-

Wasn't once enough? -------------^^^^^^^^^^^^  The same could be said for 
						your entries, Tom.

    
    RE: .126
    
    > Maybe you should spend more time cleaning those logs from yer own
    eyes
    
    
     I do try... but then again, I may not believe that part of the bible
    and what it says... or that it pertains to me, or that part is just a
    fable, or that it was just written by some man... 
    
     If that's so... why should I worry about any logs? 
    
    Why!!! I know!!!! I would then be just like you!!!!

    >  -< It's all the same! >- 
    
    >The same could be said for your entries, Tom.
    
    Agree, it is no secret that I have a particular philosophy that I base
    my life's actions on. Is this different than you or anyone else? I
    respect each and every philosophy except those that use force to
    compel me and others to act their way. I make no secrets of my beliefs.
    I respect /john and -jack because they have a consistant philosophy
    also. I love honest debate and will argue for my stand every time. Is
    that a problem?? 
    
    So, let's carry on...
    
    ...Tom

| <<< Note 49.130 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>


| > Maybe you should spend more time cleaning those logs from yer own eyes

| I do try... but then again, I may not believe that part of the bible and what 
| it says... or that it pertains to me, or that part is just a fable, or that it
| was just written by some man...

	But that ain't the case Andy. So please stop talkin out yer butt.

| If that's so... why should I worry about any logs?

	Log.... kids LOVE Log! What goes down stairs, alone or in pairs, rolls
over your neighbors dog, great for snack, and sits on your back, it's Log Log
Log! It's Loooog, it's Loooog, it's big, it's heavy, it's wood. It's Loooog,
Loooog it's better than bad it's good! Everyone loves a log! Go out and get a 
Log!   

	From Blamo! 

| Why!!! I know!!!! I would then be just like you!!!!

	The world isn't ready for 2 of me!!!! :-)


Glen

    
    As for talking out someone's butt, see latter part of .132
    
    
    He is witty.. isn't he (for a kindergarten class maybe)...??

    Picked it up right away...He redid the song to Slinky! :-)

| <<< Note 49.133 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>

| -< They'll engrave P&K on your tombstone.. >-

	No... they will put Log on my tombstone. It's all set up.

| As for talking out someone's butt, see latter part of .132

	I saw it, now splain it.

| He is witty.. isn't he (for a kindergarten class maybe)...??

	Kindergarten???? Oh come on now! Ren & Stimpy is an ADULT cartoon!


Glen

| <<< Note 49.134 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>



| Picked it up right away...He redid the song to Slinky! :-)


	Some guy named John K did that Jack.

            <<< Note 49.131 by DASHER::RALSTON "Ain't Life Fun!" >>>

My problem, Tom, is that, no matter what the topic of discussion, you seem 
to find a way to apply your philosophicalframework to it in toto. It's a 
pretty stark philosophy, with little or no room for shading, so to see it 
repeated over and over gets ...me a little cranky I guess. I DO respect 
your consistency, I just think where you're coming from is out to lunch. 

You seem to enjoy the fruits of civilization (else why would you be in 
high-tech?), yet civilization and all its trappings are IMPOSSIBLE with the 
controlling forces of governments and religions. If you want to see what 
life would be like if larger, collective organization didn't come into 
play, go visit the yama....whatever in the Amazon. Theirs is an idyllic - 
and by our standards brutal - existence. Would you trade for it? If you 
want to see what life would be like if you took a governed people and 
stripped away their parasitic government, look at Somalia. I wouldn't trade 
for that, either. I think your philosophy is based on a fatally flawed 
model of human nature. Then it compounds its problem by extrapolating from
that model a simplistic paradym for understanding the problems and 
solutions of our world. It's utopianism in the great New England tradition. 
Which is to say, IMHO it's quaint-- and out to lunch.

Tom II

RE: Note 49.137, Tom
    
>no matter what the topic of discussion, you seem 
>to find a way to apply your philosophicalframework to it in toto. 
    
    Do you have differant philosophies for each subject? I think not.
    
    >It's a pretty stark philosophy
    
    I don't see how the want of individual freedom for each and every
    individual, along with self-responsibility is stark. The concern should
    be the noticable decline in freedom with a corresponding decline in
    prosperity caused by government regulation and control over our lives. 
    

>You seem to enjoy the fruits of civilization (else why would you be in 
>high-tech?), yet civilization and all its trappings are IMPOSSIBLE with the 
>controlling forces of governments and religions. If you want to see what 
>life would be like if larger, collective organization didn't come into 
>play, go visit the yama....whatever in the Amazon. Theirs is an idyllic - 
>and by our standards brutal - existence. 
    
    Your example is just a differant and more extensive form of control, force 
    and coersion. Anyone who initiates force, threat of force or fraud against 
    the person or property of any individual should be considered a criminal 
    in a modern, totally free society. Religions, governments, and leaders of
    most all collectives are notorious for this. History will agree.
    
>I think your philosophy is based on a fatally flawed 
>model of human nature. 
    
    The fact that human nature is taught to be evil is a significant part
    of the problem.
    
...Tom

            <<< Note 49.138 by DASHER::RALSTON "Ain't Life Fun!" >>>

>    I don't see how the want of individual freedom for each and every
>    individual, along with self-responsibility is stark. The concern should
>    be the noticable decline in freedom with a corresponding decline in
>    prosperity caused by government regulation and control over our lives. 

No, your philosophy goes further. You break all things into binary 
catagories: producing, and nonproducing, with you, your boss, and the board 
of directors on the producing side and government, religion and any other
organization with the purpose of the collective good in the nonproducing
bucket. The world don't fit that nice, neat grid.

>You seem to enjoy the fruits of civilization (else why would you be in 
>high-tech?), yet civilization and all its trappings are IMPOSSIBLE with the 
>controlling forces of governments and religions. If you want to see what 
>life would be like if larger, collective organization didn't come into 
>play, go visit the yama....whatever in the Amazon. Theirs is an idyllic - 
>and by our standards brutal - existence. 
    
    Your example is just a differant and more extensive form of control, force 
    and coersion. Anyone who initiates force, threat of force or fraud against 
    the person or property of any individual should be considered a criminal 
    in a modern, totally free society. Religions, governments, and leaders of
    most all collectives are notorious for this. History will agree.

No, MANKIND is known for this, which is why we have govts like ours who 
protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Which is why we have 
religions that give us a moral, and meaningful framework in which to live 
our lives amidst a world so prone to being adrift, warring among narrow 
factions.
    
>>I think your philosophy is based on a fatally flawed 
>>model of human nature. 
    
>    The fact that human nature is taught to be evil is a significant part
>    of the problem.

No, evil isn't taught, it springs naturally from our nature, taking on many 
guises to deceive us. The most dangerous being the hubris of thinking we 
have a lock on the understanding of a world far beyond our power to grasp. 
That is the root of all of the great calamitous epics in history, whether 
done in the name of religion or political ideal.

Religion, government, and other collective organizations aren't inherently 
bad, in fact they are inherently necessary. BUt they become bad when they 
fall under the control of that hubris.

That's why I'm repelled by fundamentalism of any kind - and absolute, 
unyeilding, unfaceted philosophies -- no matter how appealing their 
spokeperson.

    Tom, your whole philosophy falls apart in the real world if you are
    wrong on just one account...that human nature is good.  Certain
    "religions" say it isn't...I agree with those that state this.
    
    I think there is adequate proof that human nature has too many flaws to
    leave unchecked by a common law (which needs some form of governing
    body to enforce).
    
    Our FF set up a minimalist system (that we have systematically ruined
    over time) based on this principle.  Human nature cannot be left
    utterly unchecked, yet government cannot be granted too much power. 
    The delicate system of checks and balances (that have been
    systematically wiped out over the years) shows their philosophy that
    government WILL become a tyranny if left unchecked.  They must have
    done something right, because over 200 years of federalist (and
    globalist) assault, we STILL have some semblance of individual rights. 
    Unfortunately, this is heavily overshadowed by an ever-aggressive,
    ever-intrusive federal government.  But I digress.
    
    With an inperfect human nature, the best we can do to keep society
    peaceful is to limit both freedoms and government, in hopes of
    balancing them both.  When I say limit freedoms, I mean things like the
    "freedom" to walk up and beat someone to a pulp, kill them, etc.  Where
    do you draw the line?  They drew them with the inalienable rights
    (granted by the Creator, as they put it in the DofI) and
    Biblical concepts (though "don't murder" has been around longer than
    the Bible, many/most of our FF were Christians, and got their moral 
    guidance from the scriptures). 
    
    They tried to limit (regulate, if you will) behaviors that they felt
    were destructive (according to the Bible, from which many got their
    moral teachings) like murder, theft, adultery, polygamy and even the 
    showing of pornography (even in the privacy of one's home...see The
    Commonwealth v. Sharpless and others, 1815).
    
    [Those that think that Christianity had nothing to do with the common
    law, see Updegraph v. The Commonwealth, 1824 & City of Charlston v.
    S.A. Benjamin, 1846...amoung others.]
    
    I agree wholeheartedly with your "less government is best governmnet"
    views, as did (most of) the FF.  However, we do need government, like it 
    or not.  What we don't need is what our minimalist government (given to us 
    by our FF) has turned into.  Unfortunately, until we can convince a great
    number of people that it is not the government's job to take care of us
    and coddle to our every need (in other words, until rugged
    individualism returns to America), we will NEVER see change for the
    better.
    
    
    -steve

    RE: last two, Tom and Steve.
    
    First of all, I am not against government. The country needs an entity
    who's purpose is to protect the individual and property rights of every
    citizen. Protection from force, threat of force and fraud is needed.
    Todays government has become a system for men to set themselves up as
    authorities and then force their will on to the populas. Force such as
    armed IRS agents who seize property for non-payment of forced taxes.
    Taxes should be a civil matter and decided by an impartial court. But,
    to insure that we purchase the forced system, regardless of the quality
    of the product, the tax laws are upheld using criminal penalties. Why,
    because the system is so bad that we wouldn't voluntarily pay the
    taxes. If the government provided a valuable service, people would pay.
    Government needs to change to become a needed value instead of a forced
    service.
    
    In regards to the nature of man, the reason that man looks evil is his
    reaction to false notions, that make life seem useless. My theory is
    that as a child we learn about or perceive the finality of death.
    But, because of the dishonesties of adults, most children gradually
    learn to evade reality with various life-after-death myths in order to
    repress the essential facts about death. These religious notions are
    usually amoung children's first defaults to mystic religions and
    attitudes, which in turn undermines the efficacy of their minds through
    evasions of reality and repression of emotions. To repress or distort
    the reality of life's briefness and death's finality is harmful and
    results in the serious long term consequences that we now see as an
    evil human nature. If we were to deal honestly with the reality that
    death is permanent, this awareness would result in people placing
    much more value on their lives, time and actions in order to evolve to
    their full potential and achieve maximum happiness, removing the reason
    for actions that appear evil and are mistaken as human nature.
    
    Total individual freedom, within the bounds of the no initiation of
    force or fraud principle, is the key to society's and every
    individual's success.
    
    ...Tom

Note 49.141
    
    re: first paragraph...I agree with you wholeheartedly.  Our government
    is outside its jurisdiction, and it keep getting worse.  There are
    those who feel that due to modern problems we need to have government
    pick up the slack from the individuals...this is an absolutely false
    assumption all around.  This mentality will be taken to its logical
    conclusion...that our world is in trouble and needs a WORLD governing
    body.  It won't be until this turns into an evil tyranny of global
    proportions that those who cherish this idelology will come to
    understand the very basic flaw in it that they continue to ignore.
    
    We no longer have our minimalist government, and not surprisingly, we
    are going down-hill fast.  Our FF knew their stuff, yet we continue to
    ignore their warnings.
       
>    In regards to the nature of man, the reason that man looks evil is his
>    reaction to false notions, that make life seem useless. My theory is
>    that as a child we learn about or perceive the finality of death.
    
    I disagree...kids don't really zero in on death all that well, which
    may explain why many have the "invulnerability complex" and do crazy
    (and dangerous) things.
    
>    But, because of the dishonesties of adults, 
    
    Dishonesty?  That would suggest that adults do have a tendency to do
    wrong...perhaps as part of their nature they must control.
    
>    most children gradually
>    learn to evade reality with various life-after-death myths in order to
>    repress the essential facts about death. These religious notions are
>    usually amoung children's first defaults to mystic religions and
>    attitudes, which in turn undermines the efficacy of their minds through
>    evasions of reality and repression of emotions. To repress or distort
>    the reality of life's briefness and death's finality is harmful and
>    results in the serious long term consequences that we now see as an
>    evil human nature. If we were to deal honestly with the reality that
>    death is permanent, this awareness would result in people placing
>    much more value on their lives, time and actions in order to evolve to
>    their full potential and achieve maximum happiness, removing the reason
>    for actions that appear evil and are mistaken as human nature.
 
    Or, there is a God-shaped hole in our lives, which makes us look for
    something bigger and better than ourselves.
       
>    Total individual freedom, within the bounds of the no initiation of
>    force or fraud principle, is the key to society's and every
>    individual's success.
 
    I agree with this, but if human nature is not evil, why the need for
    government at all (as per your first paragraph that I edited out)? 
    If our basic impulse is to better society, then no intervention should
    be needed by a governing body.  We should naturally seek to do what is
    best for our community.
       
    No, history proves that man's most basic impulse is not good, which is
    why we must have laws and law enforcement.  The hard part is finding
    that delicate balance of freedoms and government.  Our FF did a
    wonderful job of giving us this system, but we have spent the last 200
    years trying to dismantle it.  Not only is our most basic instinct not
    good, but it is destructive unless we choose to control it.  Although
    you don't need religion to control destructive desires, it is
    historically proven to be one of the best ways to temper our desires.
    
    
    -steve

            <<< Note 49.141 by DASHER::RALSTON "Ain't Life Fun!" >>>


 
>    First of all, I am not against government. The country needs an entity 
>   who's purpose is to protect the individual and property rights of every 
>    citizen. Protection from force, threat of force and fraud is needed.     
 
In the main, I wouldn't call your philosophy naive. It's...convenient. You
have a comfortable job; certainly you have the skills and education to
ensure that, should you lose this job, you'll find another comparable one
soon enough. You see a portion of your hard-earned wages being taken away
and given to some faceless others and you resent it. Along comes a
philosophy that orders the world such that your resentment is justified. In
this blessedly simple world view, there are producers, of which you are
decidedly one, and nonproducers -- those faceless others, the welfare state
and  politicians, and nasty religions that provide the moral imperative for
this "forced" altruism. Now, *you* get to be the victim, and illiterate,
unwed teenage mothers, among others, are the predators. Works out rather
nicely, doesn't it? 
 
By your definition, government basically should be simply a system of hired
thugs whose job it is to protect the assets of the haves from the larcenous
ambitious of the have-nots (or want-to-have-mores). What is conveniently
ignored is the process by which nonproductive others, such as our unwed
teenage mother, transform into producers. That is dismissed with a wave of
your philosophical hand as taking care of itself when free enterprise is
unfettered by taxes and regulation. Yet even the rosiest of projections by
the dreamiest of conservative economists don't project 100% employment - or
anything close to it. What's more, you - conveniently again - gloss over
those dirty little details of life, like finding a job that is neither
intensely boring nor demeaning, or getting day care that you feel
comfortable leaving your child with (my wife would rather die than leave
our daughter at a lot of the day care facilities around - but she can
afford that "liberty" to choose). The farther you climb down from your
philosophical pedestal, the murkier the world becomes - and the harder neat
answers are to find. 
 
>    Todays government has become a system for men to set themselves up as 
>   authorities and then force their will on to the populas. Force such as 
>   armed IRS agents who seize property for non-payment of forced taxes. 
>   Taxes should be a civil matter and decided by an impartial court. But, 
>    to insure that we purchase the forced system, regardless of the quality 
>    of the product, the tax laws are upheld using criminal penalties. Why, 
>    because the system is so bad that we wouldn't voluntarily pay the 
>    taxes. If the government provided a valuable service, people would pay. 
>    Government needs to change to become a needed value instead of a  
>   forced service. 
     
Now *that* is naive. First of all, you're a consumer. You know you only
shell out money if you get something tangible in return - and if you can't
get it otherwise for free. Since the military and police are only there in
case something happens, they serve little tangible, immediate use, so
you're not likely to volunteer much in the way of money to pay for them.
Besides, since they are there already anyway, why bother? If you want to
see how efficient volunteerism is as a system for collection, look at
public radio and TV. About 10% of the listening audience forks over any
dough. We aren't forced to pay taxes because we get a lousy product; we're
forced to pay because we wouldn't if we didn't have to. 
 
Based on your logic, should we be forced to pay equally for our
government's protection as others with far greater property who face far
greater threat? Let them hire their own armies and police in whatever
quantity they need. (Starting to sound more like Somalia?) 
 
And why shouldn't tax evasion be a criminal offense? Shoplifting is a
crime. If you buy or use a service without paying for it, that's stealing.
If  you enjoy the protections of government without paying your share, you
are stealing from those who must compensate by bearing a greater burden to
sustain the same level of service. Since it would be utter chaos to let
everyone designate what government could spend his or her money on (so Meg
could stop funding those annoying AFA jets and you could trade that
teenager's food stamps for nukes), we try to keep it all within sane limits
by having representative government. You elect folks who see things closest
to your way and hope for the best. 
 
>  In regards to the nature of man, the reason that man looks evil is his 
>    reaction to false notions, that make life seem useless. My theory is 
 
I have no idea what this means, so I can't argue with it. 
 
>    that as a child we learn about or perceive the finality of death. 
 
You must not have any children. They have absolutely no concept of what
death is until they're 4-6 years old, and then it only slowly comes into
focus until they get past their immortal youth and as young adults they
begin to realize that they're actually going to die some day. 
 
>    But, because of the dishonesties of adults, most children gradually 
>   learn to evade reality with various life-after-death myths in order to 
>   repress the essential facts about death...blahblahblah 
 
Now you're showing that you know even less about religious experience than  
you do children. Your ideas thereon are probably shaped by the same  
mechanism, too: either taken uncritically as hand-me-downs or concocted on  
pure speculation. 
 
Death is central to religion only in the eyes of religion's critics - and
maybe a few Popes along the way. It's nice and easy (convenient again?) to
dismiss religion as the refuge of those who are afraid to die. No so. If it
didn't speak of a living God and show the meaning and purpose to this life,
religion would never last. Why do you think the role of religion in society
has waned periodically throughout history where and when that society has
reached a zenith in sophistication and affluence? Do you think they forgot
about death? Hardly. It's because life is offering too many pleasures.
Meaning and purpose, instead of providing insights and solace, only
threaten to take the fun out of it. 
 
The death myths spring not from fear of death but from our attempts to  
understand it. Nowhere else in nature does something simply end. Nature  
conserves, re-uses. Time and space are infinite. Why should our conscious  
being and the wellspring of that being be any different? Since our conscious  
being as we know it never transcends the barrier of death, what happens is  
beyond our comprehension. So we do the best we can. Death is one of life's  
great mysteries. Perhaps second only to the presence (or absence) of God, but  
second at best. It is most certainly *not* the compelling reason for religious  
faith. 
 
>    Total individual freedom, within the bounds of the no initiation of 
>    force or fraud principle, is the key to society's and every 
>    individual's success. 
 
In this, you and Steve Leech and all of the conservative Reagan Republicans  
are in complete agreement. In fact, except for the theological underpinning,  
you are the same. And for the same reason. Convenience. Why complicate  
your thoughts with life's visceral drama churning in the wake of our great
ship of state, when we can gather with our fellow producers in the grand
ballroom and all sing "Morning in America" together? 

Tom    

    Hear hear, Tom!

    re: .141,Tom
    
    I appreciate the well thought out response to my input. However, The
    point that I am trying to make, in all of my comments here is that all I
    want is to be left alone, to decide what is best for me and my family.
    To live my life without the constant threat from so-called government
    "authority", who always seem to know what is best for me. I also don't
    need religious people telling me that I will not get to some heaven
    because I don't follow some mystic religion that ignores my belief that
    death is the end. You seem to think that the way the country is run is
    acceptable and needed. I don't, so I guess you win and I lose. I guess
    that seems fair to you. For your information, I am charitable with my
    money and my time. It is just that I wish to decide. I also want to
    invest my income the way I see fit and not the way government, with
    their wasteful bureaucracy, tells me I should. I don't believe in a
    "level playing field" that penalizes those who provide for the society
    by producing jobs; money for mortgages, automobiles, food, clothing,
    taxes, vacations, health insurance, etc, etc, etc; and giving to those
    who have their hands out, so thay can have these things without effort.
    My business hires handicapped and even some homeless. My company has
    provided a place to live for a homeless family while giving the father
    a job and taking the rent and utilities out of his pay. This family now
    has a place to live, an income for their wants and needs, and an address
    which allows the children to attend a school. It has cost me nothing.
    The small investment has actually been a profitable one. I now have a
    dedicated, hardworking, appreciative employee who is an asset to my
    business and is not a drain on society. Tell me the last time
    government did anything like this. The answer is never. Government 
    encourages people to be a drain, in order to justify the high cost 
    programs, that keep government employees employed while draining the 
    pocket of those who provide the money in the first place. You are 
    obviously for all of this and I say so-be-it. Support the inefficiencies 
    that have held back our economy, produced working poor, enslaved the 
    populas with high taxes and takes away the rights of individuals, all to 
    support a claim to authority. I don't want to support it. I won't 
    support it. And the only way it can happen if for people with your
    ideas to force me, with treats of jail, loss of my property or both.
    
    By the way I have two children, one is working toward medical school
    and the other is doing well in high school. They are two well rounded
    and happy young men who have been taught by their father to depend only
    on themselves for every detail of their lives, and that if anyone
    proclaims that they know what is best for the lives of my sons, they
    should be ignored.
    
    In addition I have the same respect for Ronald Reagan that I have for
    most all politicians or anyone who tries to dictate my life, none.
    Therefore this assessment and others that you have made are without
    foundation. Until people who wish to steal the assets of others to
    support their own ways of life, those who produce will continue to be
    drained until the well is dry and all is lost.
    
    Live your life, accept the consequences, and let me do the same.
    
    ...Tom

    Tom:
    
    I have no doubt that Jesus would respect your position.  He left many
    people alone because they wanted him to.  Just as a final thought, I
    wonder if you want to be left alone because you are constantly being
    harrassed by Christians...or is it that the message might be
    convicting.  I do respect your wishes and yet I would simply suggest
    you might want to ponder the whys here.  
    
    I know alot of people...most people, despise Christianity because it is
    a devisive religion.  It requires dealing with sin and our very
    nature...people don't want to deal with it.  Its understandable...yet
    at the same time, if I knew a hurricane was coming, I would want to
    fill the basement with all the supplies I need!
    
    -Jack

            <<< Note 49.145 by DASHER::RALSTON "Ain't Life Fun!" >>>

Tom, you sound mighty beleaguered.

I don't think most sane people on either the right or the left want 
government to "decide what is best" for you. But there are meddlesome 
factions on both sides of the aisle, too. 

However, asking you to pay your freight is not meddling in your business as 
far as I'm concerned. Even if you don't like a lot of what government does, 
it is one of the compromises we must endure to live in an ordered society. 
NOBODY likes everything about our present state, because no single order 
fits all. At least we have a democratic process to exert some influence on 
the shape that order takes. Clearly there must be compensating virtues to 
our system that keep you here.

>  "authority", who always seem to know what is best for me. I also don't
>    need religious people telling me that I will not get to some heaven
>    because I don't follow some mystic religion that ignores my belief that
>    death is the end. You seem to think that the way the country is run is
 
Actually, I consider myself a Christian (although /John, among others, 
would probably beg to differ), and I believe death is the end, for all intents 
and purposes. The two strongest elements in Christ's teaching IMO are The 
Lord's Prayer and the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself, and 
they're about life now, focusing on the two most important issues we face: 
our relationship with God;  and our relationship with one another. I realize 
that xians are known to use the threat of hell to persuade people to follow 
their way, but as far as I'm concerned, when they do, they are, besides being 
dead wrong (to borrow a phrase), full of spit instead of the Holy Spirit.

Your story about your disabled employee is nice. So are you, for 
recognizing his value and potential. Reagan's handlers were masters at using 
such charming anecdotes to promote their agenda (although you may not 
hold RR in much regard, his administration was certainly pushing a vision 
for government much in line with yours). The trouble is, there is nothing 
intrinsic in either human nature or capitalism and free market economies that 
encourages that good impulse. 

The question is, as a society, do we ignore the plight of those less fortunate 
because there are many who abuse that generosity, or do we err on the side 
of compassion? Has that compassion REALLY cost us that much? Have 
you REALLY given up on leading a productive life? Is the American 
economy REALLY so crippled by taxation it can't compete in the global 
economy?

Now here's the mother of all ironies: the welfare state is the haves first line 
of defense - and the strongest - against the have-nots. Someone once 
entered into the 'box a quote from Gore Vidal that claimed  that Roosevelt's 
welfare programs saved capitalism. Well, Vidal may be so far left he's out on 
Waveland Avenue, but I think he's right on this one. In fact, welfare as we 
have it today is about as low-budget as we can get away with. If we 
REALLY wanted to be compassionate and really help those on the outs, it 
would cost us far more than most would be willing to pay. 

*That's* my problem with the system. Welfare may have been conceived to 
help those in need, but now that it's clear that it only perpetuates an 
underclass, we don't have the courage or the conviction to honestly solve 
the problem. No democrat - and certainly no republican - has the brass to 
talk honestly about it, because the cost for the solution would be HUGE - at 
first, anyway. Then it would probably drop to comparable or below what it 
costs now.

And that's the compromise I have to swallow.

Imagine the cost of offering real opportunity, the training required, the child 
care.

Many on the right genuinely argue for

    I hate to be the one to break this to you but Jesus spoke more on the
    subject of Hell than he did on heaven.
    
    -Jack

    Tax Cuts And Fairness 


    MOLLY IVINS 

    Austin 

    SOMETIMES, our political debates are just so silly. The vogue du jour
    is for  topping your tax-cut proposal with my tax-cut proposal. Does it
    take Ross Perot to remind us  that we are still not paying for the
    government we already have? The Clinton  administration has cut the
    deficit from $290 billion to an estimated $160 billion in 1995. That 
    still will leave us $160 billion in the hole, except that everyone
    knows health-care costs will  drive the deficit back up in a few years. 

    And that's just the deficit. Our multitrillion-dollar debt is still
    forcing the  Feds to borrow money, so interest payments eat up the
    money that might be used to solve social problems or even give us all a
    tax break. 

    Fine, say the conservatives -- we don't want all the government we're
    already  getting, so cut it. So far, Clinton is the only one who has
    explained how he's going to  pay for tax cuts with spending cuts, but
    it still doesn't get the deficit lower, much less  the debt. 

    For a tax break that amounts to the price of a pizza per week, all our
    elected representatives seem prepared to march us right back into the
    swamp of debt  we've just started to wade out of. 

    One of the most embarrassing political illusions I ever suffered from
    was that  the Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility. It
    was sort of like  believing in Santa Claus. 

    I am mortified to report that when Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980,
    I, with  touchingly misplaced faith, thought: ``Well, at least he'll
    get the deficit down.'' 

    Two trillion dollars later, as the great fiscal conservative rode off
    into the  sunset, I was cured of one more illusion. 

    Now, the same old Wall Street Journal crowd that gave us the Laffer 
    curve, voodoo economics and the $500 billion savings-and-loan bailout
    is back in  the saddle. 

    I don't believe in Santa Claus anymore, and I don't believe Republicans
    are  fiscally responsible. The hair stands up on the back of my liberal
    neck when I hear Representative Dick Armey blithely propose that we
    move from ``static  accounting'' to ``dynamic accounting.'' One of
    Clinton's finest achievements has been to use  real numbers in making
    the budget. Now is not the time to go back to pie in the sky. 

    More bad fiscal ideas are being floated than one person can keep track
    of. Representative Bill Archer wants to abolish the progressive income
    tax and go to  a flat tax, which is an old Jerry Brown idea. Fifteen
    percent across-the-board income  tax, say Archer and Armey, is fair.
    Everybody pays the same percentage -- how much fairer can you get? 

    I know a single woman whose annual income is more than $200,000 a year
    in  unearned income on money she inherited from her daddy. I also know
    a family with five  children; he works two jobs and she works every day
    cleaning houses. Their oldest son, 17,  has a night job as a
    parking-lot attendant, and together, they make $40,000 a year.  Fifteen
    percent of their $40,000 is more than 15 percent of her $200,000. Get
    it? That's  why we have a progressive income tax. Because it's fair. 

Note 49.147  by HUMANE::USMVS::DAVIS 
    
Don't mean to butt in here or speak for Tom, but...  8^)
    
>The question is, as a society, do we ignore the plight of those less fortunate 
>because there are many who abuse that generosity, or do we err on the side 
>of compassion? 
    
    The problem with this is the view that society should help those less
    fortunate via government force.  I am all for letting the individual
    decide whether to give their hard-earned money for charity or not.  To
    give to work-training programs, or not.  It is not compassion at all if
    it is forced. 
    
    I think maybe Tom would like to decide if he will give money to benefit
    the less fortunate, and how that money is spent.  The current system
    give you no choice, and assumes the this nation's people are too
    cold-hearted and cheap to help out their fellow man.  This ideology is
    counter-productive, and should be stamped out. 
    
>    Has that compassion REALLY cost us that much? 
    
    In purely monetary assets, it has cost well over $1 TRILLION since
    Great Society...which does not include the previous 30 years of New
    Deal.
    
    The cost to this society in other aspects is immesurable.
    
>Now here's the mother of all ironies: the welfare state is the haves first line 
>of defense - and the strongest - against the have-nots. Someone once 
>entered into the 'box a quote from Gore Vidal that claimed  that Roosevelt's 
>welfare programs saved capitalism. Well, Vidal may be so far left he's out on 
>Waveland Avenue, but I think he's right on this one. 
    
    You are correct on one aspect...he was way far left.  As far as saving
    capitalism...I feel he was sadly mistaken.  In fact, the very mentality
    behind welfare will destroy capitalism in the end, turning us into a
    socialistic state.
    
>    In fact, welfare as we 
>have it today is about as low-budget as we can get away with. If we 
>REALLY wanted to be compassionate and really help those on the outs, it 
>would cost us far more than most would be willing to pay. 

    AFDC may be a low budget item, but the freebies that go along with it
    are not.  Federal housing, medicare, medicade, food stamps, etc. up the
    ante quite a bit.  SS, though a self-supporting system (for now), has also 
    turned into a welfare check for those who collect longer than a few years. 
    My support to this system is paying other people's rent, while I will not
    see a penny come retirement.  This further raises the ante on our
    social spending.
    
>*That's* my problem with the system. Welfare may have been conceived to 
>help those in need, but now that it's clear that it only perpetuates an 
>underclass, we don't have the courage or the conviction to honestly solve 
>the problem. 
    
    I agree with you here
    

    -steve

    DougO:
    
    I for one appreciate the replies your entering.  I find the annecdotes
    and the commentary quite useful.
    
    Just so you'll understand, the important message the Clintons are
    getting is this.  I have been exposed to them for two years and for two
    years I have seen nothing but arrogance, elitism, powermongering, and
    of course incompetence...but that's what you get when you hire somebody
    based of class instead of competence...but that's neither here nor
    there...
    
    Even if it cost America in the short term, this is a healthy dose to
    people like the Clintons that no one party goes without check.  No one
    party can do things behind closed doors or manipulate class warfare or
    the like.  Gephart is still spewing the class warfare crap...he hasn't
    quite caught on.  
    
    Another thing, I get very perturbed at disingenuity.  The dems seem to
    always default to this idea that...they identify with the little
    people...man they don't give a crap about you...THEY THINK YOU"RE A
    FOOL DOUG...and they think I'm one too!  Are you listening??  Are you
    seeing this at all!?
    
    -Jack

         <<< Note 49.148 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>

>    I hate to be the one to break this to you but Jesus spoke more on the
>    subject of Hell than he did on heaven.
    
I don't think he spoke much about either, but feel free to educate me.

    Okay, you asked for it.
    
    Many of Jesus' discussions were with the religious elitists of the
    time.  He was consistently warning them of the wrath to come..."where
    there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth"  Also lines like..."it
    will be more tolerable in that day for Sodom and Gomorrah than it will
    be for you."
    
    Also, Jesus mission was far more than one of preaching Love your
    Neighbor".  Any religious leader can do that and many have.  The big
    difference is that all those leaders are still in their graves whereas
    Jesus is not.  His purpose was to die for the sin of the world and to
    conquer death.  Only through his death can we be forgiven for sin!
    
    -Jack

         <<< Note 49.153 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>

    
>    Also, Jesus mission was far more than one of preaching Love your
>    Neighbor".  Any religious leader can do that and many have.  The big

Provincial poppycock. Have you ever wondered why the major religions of the 
world have a variety of after-death scenarios, but universally deliver the 
message of humility in the face of God? God speaks to us in many tongues 
and through many messengers.

Jesus may have spoken of the fury of hell that awaits sin, but my feeling 
is that those either were words put in his mouth by the gospel writers for 
the same reason that today's preachers use it, as a sort of shock therapy, 
or Jesus said them metaphorically, refering to the suffering IN THIS LIFE, 
that will surely follow from sins against God and each other.

Did not Christ himself give his commandment of love primacy?

Merry Christmas,
Tom

    Tom:
    
    The greatest commandment was to Love the Lord with all your heart,
    soul, and strength.  
    
    Two books even for non believers...Evidence that Demands a Verdict by
    Josh McDowell...an excellent book on Christian apologetics.  Also a
    book by CS Lewis called Jesus Christ...Lord, Liar, or Lunatic.  
    
    If we reject the free gift of eternal life through Christ's death on
    the cross, we are rejecting God's answer for sin and hence breaking the
    first and foremost commandment.
    
    -Jack

         <<< Note 49.155 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>

Jack -
    
>    The greatest commandment was to Love the Lord with all your heart,
>    soul, and strength.  

You're right. And the second, ...(you know what it is)
    
>    If we reject the free gift of eternal life through Christ's death on
>    the cross, we are rejecting God's answer for sin and hence breaking the
>    first and foremost commandment.

Not sure how you got from the commandment requiring complete love of God 
to infer that means you have to have blind faith in the 
infallibility of the scriptures, Jack, but merry Christmas anywho.

Tom

    .155
    
    evidence that demands a verdict.  slanted, as expected.  mcdowell's
    silver dollar analogy is ludicrous.  it does not matter how remote the
    probability of jesus' fulfilling all the prophecies is - because, as a
    literate jew, he would KNOW what the prophecies were and, if he so
    chose, could manipulate events so that many of them would be fulfilled
    once he realized that he happened to match the police sketch for the
    ones he couldn't manipulate, such as a birth in bethlehem. 
    
    furthermore, as i've pointed out before, xianity is a mystical
    religion, and it is common for mystical religions to manipulate their
    stories so as to fit the provable facts.
    
    there is absolutely ZERO point in all these evidentiary apologetics
    like mcdowell's.  a person will either believe ON FAITH, or not
    believe.  no amount of argument or "convincing" is of the least use.

	>>...it is common for mystical religions to manipulate their
        >>stories so as to fit the provable facts.

	no!!  say it isn't so!!

    sounds like some dinosaur buffs ...
    and ecologists ...
    and anyone else touting their pet idea and making a few bucks/gaining
    control over you from it
    
    ric
    
    imho

    Come on Dick...There were many prophecies Jesus could not manipulate...
    
    1. Born in the line of David...both parents.
    2. Born of a virgin.
    3. Fulfilling the description of the crucifiction in Psalm 22
        (They didn't do the cross thing during King Davids era.)
    4. Killing of the children in Bethlehem
    5. Being raised from the dead on the third day.
    
    -Jack

	I'm not sure Dick would appreciate that Jack..... :-)

    .160
    
    > 1. Born in the line of David...both parents.
    
    one parent was nonhuman.  but it was of course necessary to provide a
    FAKED genealogy so that jesus would be accepted by the jews.  by this
    one fault if by no other, matthew founded his life of jesus on a lie.
    let us remember that matthew 1:1 specifically says "the record of the
    genealogy of jesus christ" and gives joseph's purported descent.
    
    > 2. Born of a virgin.
    
    born of a young woman who may or may not have been a virgin - as i've
    explained before, testing the ride was common whether it was approved
    or not.
    
    > 3. Fulfilling the description of the crucifiction in Psalm 22
    
    psalm 22 makes no mention of a cross or crucifixion.  not even a tree
    is mentioned.  other interpretations could be made of psalm 22 - it's
    just that crucifixion happens to be a model that fits both jesus and
    the psalm.  possible mystical manipulation - jesus could have worked
    events to produce that end for his life.  consider david koresh...
    
    > 4. Killing of the children in Bethlehem
    
    piffle.  the prophecy you're referring to is jeremiah 31:15, but ramah
    was the site of a battle between israel and syria and rachel's weeping
    for her children could simply refer to the many hebrews killed there -
    again, the fact that herod killed the children just happens to fit.
    
    > 5. Being raised from the dead on the third day.
    
    there has been much speculation of a ghoulish conspiracy.  no proof in
    either direction - again, possible manipulation.  since the history is
    written by the winners, the truth need not be what gets recorded.
    
    i reiterate my position that there is no value in trying to convince a
    person that jesus is god.  belief is on faith, not on evidence.

  >>  one parent was nonhuman.
    
Where did that come from??
    
    Merry ......mas!

    the holy spirit was one of jesus' parents.  see luke 1:35.  no pun
    intended - the agent of mary's pregnancy was the holy spirit, therefore
    the spirit was jesus' parent even if not his biological father.
    
    and you a bible-believing xian, too.  tch.

    Whatever...

    Thought y'all would get a kick out of this.
    
    DougO
    -----
    The Triumph Of Niceness 


    ARTHUR HOPPE 

    ``HURRY,'' said the White Rabbit, glancing at his pocketwatch. ``We
    don't want  to be late for the croquet match. Queen Gingrich of Hearts
    is playing the Democrats.'' 

    They rounded a bend, all out of breath, and came upon the Queen, a
    stern, square-jawed, playing card, surrounded by her court. She was
    looking down her imposing nose at a chubby-cheeked hedgehog. 

    ``That's the Clinton,'' said the White Rabbit. ``He's introducing his
    team.'' 

    ``And this, may it please your majesty,'' said the Clinton, pushing
    forward a  woman in a medical gown, ``is Dr. Joyce. She's our team
    physician.'' 

    ``And what is it you do?'' asked the Queen. 

    ``Oh, I talk to children about the bodily functions of their body
    parts,'' said  Dr. Joyce. ``That's the way we doctors talk.'' 

    ``How disgusting,'' said the Queen with a disdainful sniff. ``Off with
    her  head!'' 

    ``Certainly, your majesty,'' said the Clinton, performing the chore
    with a  single lop. He then quickly shoved a distinguished-looking man
    in a top hat before the Queen.  ``Have you met Mr. Hormel, your
    highness?'' he asked. ``Mr. Hormel is our new gay ambassador to Fiji.'' 

    Alice couldn't help but clap her hands. ``A gay ambassador, how nice,''
    she  exclaimed. ``All the ones I've met have been so drearily solemn.'' 

    ``Off with his head!'' cried the Queen. ``And as for you, little girl .
    . . What  on Earth is that?'' For her attention had been diverted by a
    huge, ungainly creature with a thousand  strange appendages. 

    ``Oh, that's my cherished Budget,'' explained the Clinton. ``Doesn't it
    please  your majesty?'' ``Off with its head!'' shouted the Queen. 

    ``Allow me, ma'am,'' said the Clinton. And he began chopping and
    lopping at his  Budget as the poor creature wailed piteously. 

    ``Oh, how dreadful,'' said Alice, closing her eyes to the sight. 

    ``If you're full of dread, why are you here?'' demanded the Queen,
    frowning down  on Alice. 

    ``I came to see you play croquet with the Democrats,'' said Alice.
    ``And I do  wish you would start.'' 

    ``Certainly,'' said the Queen, smiling for the first time as she turned
    to her  scores of courtiers. ``Are you ready, team?'' They all nodded
    enthusi astically and picked  up heavy wooden mallets. 

    ``And you Democrats,'' said the Queen, turning to the Clinton. ``Are 
    you ready, too?'' 

    With a heavy sigh, the Clinton rolled himself into a ball. ``Ready''
    came his  muffled voice. 

    ``That's terribly unfair,'' protested Alice, as the Queen raised her
    mallet.  ``You're all going to pick on the poor defenseless Clinton,
    and you call that playing croquet  against the Democrats?'' 

    ``We're not playing croquet against the Democrats, dear girl,'' said
    the Queen.  ``We're playing croquet with the Democrats.'' 

    She then gave the Clinton a tremendous whack that sent him tumbling
    into the  bushes. She and her courtiers gave chase, hallooing happily. 

    ``What a stupid game,'' said Alice. ``I don't see why the Clinton plays
    it.'' 

    ``I suppose he doesn't want the Queen to chop off his head,'' said the
    White  Rabbit. 

    ``Maybe so,'' said Alice, ``but why doesn't he stand up and fight
    instead?'' 

    ``I think I just answered that question,'' said the White Rabbit. 
    
    [SF Chronicle Op Ed page, 28 Dec 94]

    How many of the vociferous prolifers are also antiguncontrol?
    
    hands up, please.
    
    DougO

I'm a vociferous prochoicer who's anti-guncontrol, DougO. Does that help?

    I'm relieved that you aren't Auntie Guncontrol.

    
    Well, I'm glad he's not Amanda Huggenkiss!
    

>         <<< Note 49.168 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>I'm a vociferous prochoicer who's anti-guncontrol, DougO. Does that help?

That is two of us(at least) but I think I know where DougO is going with this
:-}

    #3 on the pro-choice, anti-control side.
    
    However, I am _only_ pro-choice with respect to what I think
    government's role in abortion is... _NONE_!!! Joe, John and
    Jack are 100% correct when they say that there is no moral
    defense for abortion. I just happen to think the government
    is not the answer for ending abortion, _or_ promoting it.
    Same thing with guns. None of their business.
    
    -b

    you guys are no fun.  I'm looking for someone who thinks they can
    logically defend a prolife and an antiguncontrol position.
    
    DougO

    Doug,
    
    I simply fail to see the connection. Obviously you feel that one
    cannot logically coexist with the other. To me, they are orthogonal.
    While Amos seems to know where you're going with this, I must
    admit I'm at a bit of a loss. Please explain how one relates to
    the other.
    
    -b
    

    actually, both typically seem to be positions of radical rightwingers.
    
    I was trying to smoke a few out, as the particular dichotomy I see
    is that a prolifer won't trust pregnant individuals to make appropriate
    decisions about running her own life, while an antiguncontroller will
    insist that an individual has the right to make life or death decisions
    in self-defense with a handgun.  Anybody who holds both positions
    simultaneously deserves to have the contradiction pointed out.  I am
    prompted by reading Tanya Metznakis' (or whatever her name is) speech
    to the undergraduates on a woman's right to choose self-defense over in
    the guncontrol topic.  
    
    I *know* some of the rightwingers in here hold both positions, too bad
    they were too fraidy-cat to admit to it.
    
    DougO

    >I was trying to smoke a few out, as the particular dichotomy I see
    >is that a prolifer won't trust pregnant individuals to make appropriate
    >decisions about running her own life, while an antiguncontroller will
    >insist that an individual has the right to make life or death decisions
    >in self-defense with a handgun.  Anybody who holds both positions
    >simultaneously deserves to have the contradiction pointed out.
    
    First of all, the Constitutional basis for the right to keep and bear
    arms (apart from the right to self-defense) is well known. I have
    yet to hear a lucid Consitutional argument that there is a right
    to abortion (nor is there, in my opinion, a Constitutional basis
    for denying abortions either.)
    
    Second, there is a right to self-defense implied under "inalienable
    rights", in that it is universally agreed someone has a "right to
    live", and thus has the right to insure that they keep on doing so.
    The same "right to live" has been argued, with some success, on behalf
    of the unborn.
    
    It is actually quite consistent in my opinion, to hold both beliefs.
    
    Where there is perhaps a major difference of opinion relates to the
    role of government in deciding and enforcing abortion "rights", and
    in general, the role of government in deciding and encorcing moral
    standards. To argue against government intervention in such matters
    is not an argument for immoral action, nor does it imply ambivalence.
    I would fight for the rights of Misters Covert, Oppelt and Martin
    to continue to speak against abortion and to protest if they so
    choose, as quickly as I would fight for your right to speak in favor
    of it.
    
    -b

>    is that a prolifer won't trust pregnant individuals to make appropriate
>    decisions about running her own life,

I'll trust pregnant individuals to make appropriate decisions about running
her own life.

Trouble is, abortion is a decision about her child's life.

/john

    RE: .175
    
       I *know* some of the rightwingers in here hold both positions, too
    bad
        they were too fraidy-cat to admit to it.
    
    ---------
    
    Either that or they have work to do.
    
    I hold the pro-life AND anti-gun control.  As I see it, both are
    Constitutional issues.  The right to bear arms is in the conveniently
    forgotten 2nd ammendment.  Gun control, in most cases, goes against the
    2nd ammendment.  Abortion involves the right to life, stated in
    Constitution.  Abortion takes the right of the unborn to live.
    
    ME

    	Can't think of too many peopel who are afraid of you, Doug, so
    	I doubt it has anything to do with being "fraidy-cat".
    
    	I wonder how the baby about to be aborted is supposed to defend
    	himself...

    -b there need not be a Constitional connection to pro-choice/pro-life
       or most of the laws we live with. that wasn't its intent then, nor
       is it now (to cover evey aspect of society's rules).
    
       i know you knew this...
    
       Chip

	Assuming that .180 was meant for me...

	I want to make a point about intent of the Constitution.


	Intent of Right to Life.  I will grant that the Constitution's right to 
life was started to prevent vigilantism (sp).  I believe that the Constitution
states that no one's right to life, liberty, and property can be taken without 
due process.  Well, a person's (the unborn) right to life is taken with an 
abortion, and nobody gave that person due process.

ME

But nobody (that counts) said it was a person, either. Remember?

    
    
    
    I did.........you saying I don't count, Jack. :') :')
    
    
    
    Mike

RE        <<< Note 49.178 by REFINE::KOMAR "My congressman is a crook" >>>

>                               -< quick defense >-

  Too quick.

>    I hold the pro-life AND anti-gun control.  As I see it, both are
>    Constitutional issues.  The right to bear arms is in the conveniently
>    forgotten 2nd ammendment.  Gun control, in most cases, goes against the
>    2nd ammendment.  Abortion involves the right to life, stated in
>    Constitution.  Abortion takes the right of the unborn to live.
    
  The right to keep and bear arms is to maintain a well ordered militia. The
right to be a citizen of the U.S. with all the rights that go along with that
are for those BORN in the U.S. or for naturalized citizens.

  George

    
    
    	We ARE the militia George....get it straight.
    
    
    

>  The right to keep and bear arms is to maintain a well ordered militia. 
>  George

No, the ability to maintain a well ordered militia is just one of the many
reasons why the people have the right to keep and bear arms.

Doug.

    George:
    
    You'd be the last to admit Washington DC is a social engineering
    failure right?!

    Pro-choice regarding reproduction, firearms, lifestyle decisions, and
    moral questions.  
    
    guess I am no fun either, being the liberal I am.  
    
    ME Komar, 
    
    could you state the "right to life" in the constitution as far as
    article, etc?
    
    meg

RE    <<< Note 49.186 by BRITE::FYFE "Never tell a dragon your real name." >>>
                             -< Clarification ... >-
>No, the ability to maintain a well ordered militia is just one of the many
>reasons why the people have the right to keep and bear arms.

  In your opinion perhaps, but not according to the 2nd amendment.

  If someone said to you "The cellar being flooded, the water must be drained"
would you go get a sump pump to drain the cellar or would you try to find a
way to drain the ocean?

  Likewise if someone said "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall
not be infringed" would you assume they were talking about arming a well
regulated militia or giving every Tom, Dick, and Harry a cannon to go blow
up what ever got in their way?

  George

    The "right to life" is mentioned in the OTHER founding document, the
    Declaration of Independence.  Such rights as the 'right to life' are
    inalienable, and are not granted by the Constitution...the Constitution
    merely limits government from infringing upon them.
    
    -steve

    -1 didn't we jump on the merry-go-round with George on this one
       a couple months ago?
    
       the 2nd amendment definition, i mean...
    
       Chip

RE               <<< Note 49.190 by CSOA1::LEECH "I'm the NRA." >>>

>    The "right to life" is mentioned in the OTHER founding document, the
>    Declaration of Independence.  Such rights as the 'right to life' are
>    inalienable, and are not granted by the Constitution...the Constitution
>    merely limits government from infringing upon them.
    
  Right, but try to find something by Thomas Jefferson that says that right to
life starts at conception. All the documents I've ever seen from the founding
fathers refer to life starting at birth if they refer to it at all.

  George

RE                    <<< Note 49.191 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

>    -1 didn't we jump on the merry-go-round with George on this one
>       a couple months ago?
>    
>       the 2nd amendment definition, i mean...
    
  Like all circles, it never ends.

  George

re: .191

Yep.  That's why we are letting him spout off but are ignoring him.

Bob

  Just because there was a debate that doesn't mean that you won.

  George

 
				CASE LAW
 
   The United States Supreme Court has only three times com-
mented upon the meaning of the second amendment to our consti-
tution. The first comment, in Dred Scott, indicated strongly that
the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right; the Court
noted that, were it to hold blacks to be entitled to equality of
citizenship, they would be entitled to keep and carry arms wherev-
er they went. The second, in Miller, indicated that a court cannot
take judicial notice that a short-barrelled shotgun is covered by the
second amendment--but the Court did not indicate that National
Guard status is in any way required for protection by that amend-
ment, and indeed defined "militia" to include all citizens able to
bear arms. The third, a footnote in Lewis v. United States, indicat-
ed only that "these legislative restrictions on the use of fire-
arms"--a ban on possession by felons--were permissable[[sic]]. But since
felons may constitutionally be deprived of many of the rights of
citizens, including that of voting, this dicta reveals little. These
three comments constitute all significant explanations of the scope
of the second amendment advanced by our Supreme Court. The
case of Adam v. Williams has been cited as contrary to the princi-
ple that the second amendment is an individual right. In fact, that
reading of the opinion comes only in Justice Douglas's dissent from
the majority ruling of the Court.
 
   The appendix which follows represents a listing of twenty-one
American decisions, spanning the period from 1822 to 1981, which
have analysed right to keep and bear arms provisions in the light
of statutes ranging from complete bans on handgun sales to bans
on carrying of weapons to regulation of carying by permit sys-
tems. Those decisions not only explained the nature of such a right,
but also struck down legislative restrictions as violative of it, are
designated by asterisks.
 
20th century cases
 
   1.  *State v. Blocker, 291 Or. 255, -- -- --P.2d-- -- -- (1981).
   "The statue is written as a total proscription of the mere posses-
sion of certain weapons, and that mere possession, insofar as a billy
is concerned, is constitutionally protected."
   "In these circumstances, we conclude that it is proper for us to
consider defendant's 'overbreadth' attack to mean that the statute
swept so broadly as to infringe rights that it could not reach, which
in the setting means the right to possess arms guaranteed by
sec 27."
   2.  *State v. Kessler, 289 Or. 359, 614 P.2d 94, at 95, at 98 (1980).
   "We are not unmindful that there is current controversy over
the wisdom of a right to bear arms, and that the original motiva-
tions for such a provision might not seem compelling if debated as
a new issue. Our task, however, in construing a constitutional
provision is to respect the principles given the status of constitu-
tional guarantees and limitations by the drafters; it is not to aban-
don these principles when this fits the needs of the moment."
   "Therefore, the term 'arms' as used by the drafters of the consti-
tuions probably was intended to include those weapons used by
settlers for both personal and military defense. The term 'arms'
was not limited to firearms, but included  several handcarried
weapons commonly used for defense. The term 'arms' would not
have included cannon or other heavy ordance not kept by militia-
men or private citizens."
   3.  Motley v. Kellogg, 409 N.E.2d 1207, at 1210 (Ind. App. 1980)
(motion to transfer denied 1-27-1981).
   "[N]ot making applications available at the chief's office effec-
tively denied members of the community the opportunity to obtain
a gun permit and bear arms for their self-defense."
   4.  Schubert v. DeBard, 398 N.E.2d 1339, at 1341 (Ind. App. 1980)
(motion to transfer denied 8-28-1980).
   "We think it clear that our constitution provides our citizenry
the right to bear arms for their self-defense."
   5.  Taylor v. McNeal, 523 S.W.2d 148, at 150 (Mo. App. 1975)
   "The pistols in question are not contraband. * * * Under Art. I,
sec 23, Mo. Const. 1945, V.A.M.S., every citizen has the right to keep
and bear arms in defense of his home, person, and property, with
the limitation that this section shall not justify the wearing of
concealed arms."
   6.  *City of Lakewood v. Pillow, 180 Colo. 20, 501 P.2d 744, at 745
(en banc 1972).
   "As an example, we note that this ordinance would prohibit
gunsmiths, pawnbrokers and sporting goods stores from carrying
on a substantial part of their business. Also, the ordinance appears
to prohibit individuals from transporting guns to and from such
places of business. Furthermore, it makes it unlawful for a person
to possess a firearm in a vehicle or in a place of business for the
purpose of self-defense. Several of these activities are constitution-
ally protected. Colo. Const. art. II, sec 13."
   7.  *City of Las Vegas v. Moberg, 82 N.M. 626, 485 P.2d 737, at 738
(N.M. App. 1971).
   "It is our opinion that an ordinance may not deny the people the
constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms, and to that extent
the ordinance under consideration is void."
   8.  State v. Nickerson, 126 Mt. 157, 247 P.2d 188, at 192 (1952).
   "The law of this jurisdiction accords to the defendant the right to
keep and bear arms and to use same in defense of his own home,
his person and property."
   9.  People v. Liss, 406 Ill. 419, 94 N.E. 2d 320, at 323 (1950).
   "The second amendment to the constitution of the United States
provides the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed. This of course does not prevent the enactment of a law
against carrying concealed weapons, but it does indicate it should
be kept in mind, in the construction of a statue of such character,
that it is aimed at persons of criminal instincts, and for the preven-
tion of crime, and not against use in the protection of person or
property."
   10. *People v. Nakamura, 99 Colo. 262, at 264, 62 P.2d 246 (en
banc 1936).
   "It is equally clear that the act wholly disarms aliens for all
purposes. The state . . . cannot disarm any class of persons or
deprive them of the right guaranteed under section 13, article II of
the Constitution, to bear arms in defense of home, person and
property. The guaranty thus extended is meaningless if any person
is denied the right to posses arms for such protection."
   11. *Glasscock v. City of Chattanooga, 157 Tenn. 518, at 520, 11
S.W. 2d 678 (1928).
   "There is no qualifications of the prohibition against the carry-
ing of a pistol in the city ordinance before us but it is made
unlawful 'to carry on or about the person any pistol,' that is, any
sort of pistol in any sort of maner. *** [W]e must accordingly hold
the provision of this ordinance as to the carrying of a pistol
invalid."
   12. *People v. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922).
   "The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all per-
sons to bear arms is a limitation upon the right of the Legislature
to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaran-
teed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the
sheriff."
   13 *State v. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921).
   "We are of the opinion, however, that 'pistol' ex vi termini is
properly included within the word 'arms,' and that the right to
bear such arms cannot be infringed. The historical use of pistols as
'arms' of offense and defense is beyond controversy."
   "The maintencance of the right to bear arms is a most essential
one to every free people and should not be whittled down by
technical constructions."
   14. *State v. Rosenthal, 75 VT. 295, 55 A. 610, at 611 (1903).
   "The people of the state have a right to bear arms for the
defense of themselves and the state. *** The result is that Ordi-
nance No. 10, so far as it relates to the carrying of a pistol, is
inconsistent with and repugnant to the Constitution and the laws
of the state, and it is therefore to that extent, void."
   15. *In re Brickey, 8 Ida. 597, at 598-99, 70 p. 609 (1902).
   "The second amendment to the federal constitution is in the
following language: 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to
the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear
arms, shall not be infringed.' The language of section 11, article I
of the constitution of Idaho, is as follows: 'The people have the
right to bear arms for their security and defense, but the legisla-
ture shall regulate the exercise of this right by law.' Under these
constitutional provisions, the legislature has no power to prohibit a
citizen from bearing arms in any portion of the state of Idaho,
whether within or without the corporate limits of cities, towns, and
villages."
 
19th century cases
 
   16. * Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54
(1878).
   "If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed
men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the
penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of con-
stitutional privilege."
   17. *Jennings v. State, 5 Tex. Crim. App. 298, at 300-01 (1878).
   "We believe that portion of the act which provides that, in case
of conviction, the defendant shall forfeit to the county the weapon
of weapons so found on or about his person is not within the scope
of legislative authority. * * * One of his most sacred rights is that
of having arms for his own defence and that of the State. This
right is one of the surest safeguards of liberty and self-preserva-
tion."
   18. *Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 8 Am. Rep. 8, at 17 (1871).
   "The passage from Story shows clearly that this right was in-
tended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed
to and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not
by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights."
   19. *Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846).
   "'The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."
The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and
boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every descrip-
tion, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be
infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and
all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and
qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the secu-
rity of a free State."
   20. Simpson v. State, 13 Tenn. 356, at 359-60 (1833).
   "But suppose it to be assumed on any ground, that our ancestors
adopted and brought over with them this English statute, [the
statute of Northampton,] or portion of the common law, our consti-
tution has completely abrogated it; it says, 'that the freemen of this
State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common de-
fence.' Article II, sec. 26. * * * By this clause of the constitution,
an express power is given and secured to all the free citizens of the
State to keep and bear arms for their defence, without any qualifi-
cation whatever as to their kind or nature; and it is conceived, that
it would be going much too far, to impair by construction or
abridgement a constitutional privilege, which is so declared; nei-
ther, after so solumn an instrument hath said the people may
carry arms, can we be permitted to impute to the acts thus li-
censed, such a necessarily consequent operation as terror to the
people to be incurred thereby; we must attribute to the framers of
it, the absence of such a view."
   21. Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13
Am. Dec. 251 (1822).
   "For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibit-
ing the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing
such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the
latter must be so likewise."
   "But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the
right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and
complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if
any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the
part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done,
it is equally forbidden by the constitution."
 
   The following represents a list of twelve scholarly articles which
have dealt with the subject of the right to keep and bear arms as
reflected in the second amendment to the Constitution of the
United States. The scholars who have undertaken this research
range from professors of law, history and philosophy to a United
States Senator. All have concluded that the second amendment is
an individual right protecting American citizens in their peaceful
use of firearms.
 

 
			    BIBLIOGRAPHY
 
   Hays, THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, A STUDY IN JUDICIAL MISINTERPRE-
TATION, 2 Wm. & Mary L. R. 381 (1960)
   Sprecher, THE LOST AMENDMENT, 51 Am Bar Assn. J. 554 & 665 (2 parts)
(1965)
   Comment, THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS: A NECESSARY CONSTI-
TUTIONAL GUARANTEE OR AN OUTMODED PROVISION OF THE BILL OF
RIGHT? 31 Albany L. R. 74 (1967)
   Levine & Saxe, THE SECOND AMENDMENT: THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, 7
Houston L. R. 1 (1969)
   McClure, FIREAMRS AND FEDERALISM, 7 Idaho L. R. 197 (1970)
   Hardy & Stompoly, OF ARMS AND THE LAY, 51 Chi.-Kent L. R. 62 (1974)
   Weiss, A REPLY TO ADVOCATES OF GUN CONTROL LAW, 52 Jour. Urban
Law 577 (1974)
   Whisker, HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT AND SUBSEQUENT EROSION OF
THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, 78 W. Va. L. R. 171 (1976)
   Caplan, RESTORING THE BALANCE: THE SECOND AMENDMENT REVISIT-
ED, 5 Fordham Urban L. J. 31 (1976)
   Caplan, HANDGUN CONTROL: CONSTITUTIONAL OR UNCONSTITUTION-
AL?, 10 N.C. Central L. J. 53 (1979)
   Cantrell, THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, 53 Wis Bar Bull. 21 (Oct. 1980)
   Halbrook, THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE SECOND AND FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENTS, 4 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 1 (1981)
 
 

 
 
	    ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS FROM THE
		PERSPECTIVE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
 
   Federal involvement in firearms possession and transfer was not
significant prior to 1934, when the National Firearms Act was
adopted. The National Firearms Act as adopted covered only fully
automatic weapons (machine guns and submachine guns) and rifles
and shotguns whose barrel length or overall length fell below
certain limits. Since the Act was adopted under the revenue power,
sale of these firearms was not made subject to a ban or permit
system. Instead, each transfer was made subject to a $200 excise
tax, which must be paid prior to transfer; the identification of the
parties to the transfer indirectly accomplished a registration pur-
pose.
   The 1934 Act was followed by the Federal Firearms Act of 1938,
which placed some limitations upon sale of ordinary firearms. Per-
sons engaged in the business of selling those firearms in interstate
commerce were required to obtain a Federal Firearms License, at
an annual cost of $1, and to maintain records of the name and
address of persons to whom they sold firearms. Sales to persons
convicted of violent felonies were prohibited, as were interstate
shipments to persons who lacked the permits required by the law of
their state.
   Thirty years after adoption of the Federal Firearms Act, the Gun
Control Act of 1968 worked a major revision of federal law. The
Gun Control Act was actually a composite of two statutes. The first
of these, adopted as portions of the Omnibus Crime and Safe
Streets Act, imposed limitations upon imported firearms, expanded
the requirement of dealer licensing to cover anyone "engaged in
the business of dealing" in firearms, whether in interstate or local
commerce, and expanded the recordkeeping obligations for dealers.
It also imposed a variety of direct limitations upon sales of hand-
guns. No transfers were to be permitted between residents of differ-
ent states (unless the recipient was a federally licensed dealer),
even where the transfer was by gift rather than sale and even
where the recipient was subject to no state law which could have
been evaded. The category of persons to whom dealers could not
sell was expanded to cover persons convicted of any felony (other
than certain business-related felonies such as antitrust violations),
persons subject to a mental commitment order or finding of mental
incompetence, persons who were users of marijuana and other
drugs, and a number of other categories. Another title of the Act
defined persons who were banned from possessing firearms. Para-
doxically, these classes were not identical with the list of classes
prohibited from purchasing or receiving firearms.
   The Omnibus Crime and Safe Streets Act was passed on June 5,
1968, and set to take effect in December of that year. Barely two
weeks after its passage, Senator Robert F. Kennedy was assassinat-
ed while campaigning for the presidency. Less that a week after
his death, the second bill which would form part of the Gun Con-
trol Act of 1968 was introduced in the House. It was reported out of
Judiciary ten days later, out of Rules Committee two weeks after
that, and was on the floor barely a month after its introduction.
the second bill worked a variety of changes upon the original Gun
Control Act. Most significantly, it extended to rifles and shotguns
the controls which had been imposed solely on handguns, extended
the class of persons prohibited from possessing firearms to include
those who were users of marijuana and certain other drugs, ex-
panded judicial review of dealer license revocations by mandating a
de novo hearing once an appeal was taken, and permitted inter-
state sales of rifles and shotguns only where the parties resided in
contiguous states, both of which had enacted legislation permitting
such sales. Similar legislation was passed by the Senate and a
conference of the Houses produced a bill which was essentially a
modification of the House statute. This became law before the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, and was therefore
set for the same effective date.
   Enforcement of the 1968 Act was delegated to the Department of
the Treasury, which had been responsible for enforcing the earlier
gun legislation. This responsibility was in turn given to the Alcohol
and Tobacco Tax Division of the Internal Revenu Service. This
division had traditionally devoted itself to the pursuit of illegal
producers of alcohol; at the time of enactment of the Gun Control
Act, only 8.3 percent of its arrests were for firearms violations.
Following enactment of the Gun Control Act the Alcohol and To-
bacco Tax Division was retitled the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Division of the IRS. By July, 1972 it had nearly doubled in size and
became a complete Treasury bureau under the name of Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
   The mid-1970's saw rapid increases in sugar prices, and these in
turn drove the bulk of the "moonshiners" out of business. Over
15,000 illegal distilleries had been raided in 1956; but by 1976 this
had fallen to a mere 609. The BATF thus began to devote the bulk
of its efforts to the area of firearms law enforcement.
   Complaint regarding the techniques used by the Bureau in an
effort to generate firearms cases led to hearings before the Subcom-
mittee on Treasury, Post Office, and General Appropriations of the
Senate Appropriations Committee in July 1979 and April 1980, and
before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Senate Judici-
ary Committee in October 1980. At these hearings evidence was
received from various citizens who had been charged by BATF,
>From experts who had studied the BATF, and from officials of the
Bureau itself.
   Based upon these hearings, it is apparent that enforcement tac-
tics made possible by current federal firearms laws are constitu-
tionally, legally, and practically reprehensible. Although Congress
adopted the Gun Control Act with the primary object of limiting
access of felons and high-risk groups to firearms, the overbreadth
of the law has led to neglect of precisely this area of enforcement.
For example the Subcommittee on the Constitution received corre-
spondence from two members of the Illinois Judiciary, dated in
1980, indicating that they had been totally unable to persuade
BATF to accept cases against felons who were in possession of
firearms including sawed-off shotguns. The Bureau's own figures
demonstrate that in recent years the percentage of its arrests
devoted to felons in possession and persons knowingly selling to
them have dropped from 14 percent down to 10 percent of their
firearms cases. To be sure, genuine criminals are sometimes pros-
ecuted under other sections of the law. Yet, subsequent to these
hearings, BATF stated that 55 percent of its gun law prosecutions
overall involve persons with no record of a felony conviction, and a
third involve citizens with no prior police contact at all.
   The Subcommittee received evidence that the BATF has primarily
devoted its firearms enforcement efforts to the apprehension, upon
technical malum prohibitum charges, of individuals who lack all
criminal intent and knowledge. Agents anxious to generate an
impressive arrest and gun confiscation quota have repeatedly en-
ticed gun collectors into making a small number of sales--often as
few as four--from their personal collections. Although each of the
sales was completely legal under state and federal law, the agents
then charged the collector with having "engaged in the business"
of dealing in guns without the required license. Since existing law
permits a felony conviction upon these charges even where the
individual has no criminal knowledge or intent numerous collec-
tors have been ruined by a felony record carrying a potential
sentence of five years in federal prison. Even in cases where the
collectors secured acquittal, or grand juries failed to indict, or
prosecutors refused to file criminal charges, agents of the Bureau
have generally confiscated the entire collection of the potential
defendant upon the ground that he intended to use it in that
violation of the law. In several cases, the agents have refused to
return the collection even after acquittal by jury.
   The defendant, under existing law is not entitled to an award of
attorney's fees, therefore, should he secure return of his collection,
an individual who has already spent thousands of dollars establish-
ing his innocence of the criminal charges is required to spend
thousands more to civilly prove his innocence of the same acts,
without hope of securing any redress. This of course, has given the
enforcing agency enormous bargaining power in refusing to return
confiscated firearms. Evidence received by the Subcommittee related the
confiscation of a shotgun valued at $7,000. Even the Bureau's own
valuations indicate that the value of firearms confiscated by their
agents is over twice the value which the Bureau has claimed is
typical of "street guns" used in crime. In recent months, the aver-
age value has increased rather than decreased, indicating that the
reforms announced by the Bureau have not in fact redirected their
agents away from collector's items and toward guns used in crime.
   The Subcommittee on the Constitution has also obtained evi-
dence of a variety of other misdirected conduct by agents and
supervisors of the Bureau. In several cases, the Bureau has sought
conviction for supposed technical violations based upon policies and
interpretations of law which the Bureau had not published in the
Federal Register, as required by 5 U.S.C. Sec 552. For instance, begin-
ning in 1975, Bureau officials apparently reached a judgment that
a dealer who sells to a legitimate purchaser may nonetheless be
subject to prosecution or license revocation if he knows that that
individual intends to transfer the firearm to a nonresident or other
unqualified purchaser. This position was never published in the
Federal Register and is indeed contrary to indications which
Bureau officials had given Congress, that such sales were not in
violation of existing law. Moreover, BATF had informed dealers
that an adult purchaser could legally buy for a minor, barred by
his age from purchasing a gun on his own. BATF made no effort to
suggest that this was applicable only where the barrier was one of
age. Rather than informing the dealers of this distinction, Bureau
agents set out to produce mass arrests upon these "straw man"
sale charges, sending out undercover agents to entice dealers into
transfers of this type. The first major use of these charges, in
South Carolina in 1975, led to 37 dealers being driven from busi-
ness, many convicted on felony charges. When one of the judges
informed Bureau officials that he felt dealers had not been fairly
treated and given information of the policies they were expected to
follow, and refused to permit further prosecutions until they were
informed, Bureau officials were careful to inform only the dealers
in that one state and even then complained in internal memoranda
that this was interfering with the creation of the cases. When
BATF was later requested to place a warning to dealers on the
front of the Form 4473, which each dealer executes when a sale is
made, it instead chose to place the warning in fine print upon the
back of the form, thus further concealing it from the dealer's sight.
   The Constitution Subcommittee also received evidence that the
Bureau has formulated a requirement, of which dealers were not
informed that requires a dealer to keep official records of sales
even from his private collection. BATF has gone farther than
merely failing to publish this requirement. At one point, even as it
was prosecuting a dealer on the charge (admitting that he had no
criminal intent), the Director of the Bureau wrote Senator S. I.
Hayakawa to indicate that there was no such legal requirement
and it was completely lawful for a dealer to sell from his collection
without recording it. Since that date, the Director of the Bureau
has stated that that is not the Bureau's position and that such
sales are completely illegal; after making that statement, however,
he was quoted in an interview for a magazine read primarily by
licensed firearms dealers as stating that such sales were in fact
legal and permitted by the Bureau. In these and similar areas, the
Bureau has violated not only the dictates of common sense, but of 5
U.S.C. Sec 552, which was intended to prevent "secret lawmaking" by
administrative bodies.
   These practices, amply documented in hearings before this Sub-
committee, leave little doubt that the Bureau has disregarded
rights guaranteed by the constitution and laws of the United
States.
   It has trampled upon the second amendment by chilling exercise
of the right to keep and bear arms by law-abiding citizens.
   It has offended the fourth amendment by unreasonably search-
ing and seizing private property.
   It has ignored the Fifth Amendment by taking private property
without just compensation and by entrapping honest citizens with-
out regard for their right to due process of law.
   The rebuttal presented to the Subcommittee by the Bureau was
utterly unconvincing. Richard Davis, speaking on behalf of the
Treasury Department, asserted vaguely that the Bureau's priorities
were aimed at prosecuting willful violators, particularly felons ille-
gally in possession, and at confiscating only guns actually likely to
be used in crime. He also asserted that the Bureau has recently
made great strides toward achieving these priorities. No documen-
tation was offered for either of these assertions. In hearings before
BATF's Appropriations Subcommittee, however, expert evidence
was submitted establishing that approximately 75 percent of BATF
gun prosecutions were aimed at ordinary citizens who had neither
criminal intent nor knowledge, but were enticed by agents into
unknowning technical violations. (In one case, in fact, the individual
was being prosecuted for an act which the Bureau's acting director
had stated was perfectly lawful.) In those hearings, moreover,
BATF conceded that in fact (1) only 9.8 percent of their firearm
arrests were brought on felons in illicit possession charges; (2) the
average value of guns seized was $116, whereas BATF had claimed
that "crime guns" were priced at less than half that figure; (3) in
the months following the announcement of their new "priorities",
the percentage of gun prosecutions aimed at felons had in fact
fallen by a third, and the value of confiscated guns had risen. All
this indicates that the Bureau's vague claims, both of focus upon
gun-using criminals and of recent reforms, are empty words.
   In light of this evidence, reform of federal firearm laws is neces-
sary to protect the most vital rights of American citizens. Such
legislation is embodied in S. 1030. That legislation would require
proof of a willful violation as an element of a federal gun prosecu-
tion, forcing enforcing agencies to ignore the easier technical cases
and aim solely at the intentional breaches. It would restrict confis-
cation of firearms to those actually used in an offense, and require
their return should the owner be acquitted of the charges. By
providing for award of attorney's fees in confiscation cases, or in
other cases if the judge finds charges were brought without just
basis or from improper motives, this proposal would be largely self-
enforcing. S. 1030 would enhance vital protection of constitutional
and civil liberties of those Americans who choose to exercise their
Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
 
 
 
-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
[email protected]  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda

    RE; .192
    
    	Show me a document that refers to Jefferson's definition of when
    life begins.  Or, at least refer it to me.
    
    RE: where in Constitution
    
    	I believe it is in the Bill of Rights, but I think the 15th
    ammendment also states that life, liberty, or property may not be taken
    without due process.
    
    ME

RE            <<< Note 49.196 by SUBPAC::SADIN "caught in the 'net" >>>

>   The United States Supreme Court has only three times com-
>mented upon the meaning of the second amendment to our consti-
>tution. The first comment, in Dred Scott, indicated strongly that
>the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right; 

  Ouch! Rule #1 in "ways and not ways to influence the court"

    NEVER cite the Dred Scott decision as your first ... Never cite the
    Dred Scott decision.

  Not exactly a high point in American jurisprudence and certainly not a way
to endear yourself to the judge.

  George

    Re: "right to life"
    
    Of course it's a bizarre distortion of meaning to think that the
    founders were considering fetuses when they spoke of "right to life".
    Anyways, it's a metaphysical question and should remain in that realm.
    If it were based on precedent as to how fetuses were treated in the
    past, the anti-abortion folks wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Consider
    how fetuses have been considered under law:
    
    1. Not counted in population figures
    2. Neither taxed (in per capita taxes) nor given tax breaks (i.e.
       deductions for)
    3. Not subject to citizenship rules (i.e., a child of aliens
       conceived here but born out of the country is not a US citizen, while a
       child of aliens conceived elsewhere but born here is
    4. Laws relating to the death or injury of a fetus are different than
       those relating to born
    
    Etc. Bottom line is that fetuses have never been considered persons by
    the state until they are born.  Maybe they should be, but that's
    another story.
    
    Kit

    
    
re:                     <<< Note 49.198 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>
    
    
    	George, if that's the only thing you have to say, then I rest my
    case.......:*)
    
    
    

	And you rested your case in the middle of what could have been a good
snarf you ingrate.....

 


Federal Cases Regarding the
Second Amendment

TABLE OF CONTENTS

   U.S. Supreme Court Cases

    1. United States v. Cruikshank 
    2. Presser v. Illinois 
    3. Miller v. Texas 
    4. U.S. v. Miller 
    5. Lewis v. United States 
    6. United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez 

   U.S. Courts of Appeals Cases

    1. U.S. v. Nelson 
    2. U.S. v. Cody 
    3. U.S. v. Decker 
    4. U.S. v. Synnes 
    5. Gilbert Equipment Co. Inc. v. Higgins 
    6. U.S. v. Oakes 
    7. U.S. v. Swinton 
    8. U.S. v. Johnson 
    9. U.S. v Bowdach 
    10. U.S. v. Johnson 
    11. Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove 
    12. U.S. v. McCutcheon 
    13. Stevens v. United States 
    14. U.S. v. Day 
    15. U.S. v. Warin 
    16. U.S. v. Tot 
    17. U.S. v. Graves 
    18. Cases v. United States 

   U.S. District Court Cases

    1. U.S. v. Gross 
    2. U.S. v. Kraase 
    3. Thompson v. Dereta 
    4. Vietnamese Fishermen's Assoc. v. KKK 
    5. U.S. v. Kozerski 

U.S. Supreme Court Cases 

 United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876).
This was the first case in which the Supreme Court had
the opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment. The
Court recognized that the right of the people to keep and
bear arms was a right which existed prior to the
Constitution when it stated that such a right "is not a
right granted by the Constitution . . . [n]either is it in any
manner dependent upon that instrument for its
existence." The indictment in Cruikshank charged, inter
alia, a conspiracy by Klansmen to prevent blacks from
exercising their civil rights, including the bearing of
arms for lawful purposes. The Court held, however, that
because the right to keep and bear arms existed
independent of the Constitution, and the Second
Amendment guaranteed only that the right shall not be
infringed by Congress, the federal government had no
power to punish a violation of the right by a private
individual; rather, citizens had "to look for their
protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens"
of their right to keep and bear arms to the police power
of the state. 

 Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886). Although the
Supreme Court affirmed the holding in Cruikshank that
the Second Amendment, standing alone, applied only to
action by the federal government, it nonetheless found
the states without power to infringe upon the right to
keep and bear arms, holding that "the States cannot, even
laying the constitutional provision in question out of
view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing
arms, as so to deprive the United States of their rightful
resource for maintaining the public security and disable
the people from performing their duty to the general
government." 

Presser, moreover, plainly suggested that the Second
Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth
Amendment and thus that a state cannot forbid
individuals to keep and bear arms. To understand why, it
is necessary to understand the statutory scheme the Court
had before it. 

The statute under which Presser was convicted did not
forbid individuals to keep and bear arms but rather
forbade "bodies of men to associate together as military
organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities
and towns unless authorized by law . . . ." Thus, the
Court concluded that the statute did not infringe the right
to keep and bear arms. 

The Court, however, went on to discuss the Privileges
and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,
noting that "[i]t is only the privileges and immunities of
citizens of the United States that the clause relied on was
intended to protect." As the Court had already held that
the substantive right to keep and bear arms was not
infringed by the Illinois statute since that statue did not
prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms but rather
prohibited military-like exercises by armed men, the
Court concluded that it did not need address the question
of whether the state law violated the Second Amendment
as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. 

 Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894). In this case, the
Court confirmed that it had never addressed the issue of
the Second Amendment applying to the states through
the Fourteenth Amendment. This case remains the last
word on this subject by the Court. 

Miller challenged a Texas statute on the bearing of
pistols as violative of the Second, Fourth, and Fourteenth
Amendments. But he asserted these arguments for the
first time after his conviction had been affirmed by a
state appellate court. Reiterating Cruikshank and Presser,
the Supreme Court first found that the Second and
Fourth Amendments, of themselves, did not limit state
action. The Court then turned to the claim that the Texas
statute violated the rights to bear arms and against
warrantless searches as incorporated in the Fourteenth
Amendment. But because the Court would not hear
objections not made in a timely fashion, the Court
refused to consider Miller's contentions. Thus, rather
than reject incorporation of the Second and Fourth
Amendments in the Fourteenth, the Supreme Court
merely refused to decide the defendant's claim because
its powers of adjudication were limited to the review of
errors timely assigned in the trial court. The Court left
open the possibility that the right to keep and bear arms
and freedom from warrantless searches would apply to
the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. 

 U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). This is the only
case in which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity
to apply the Second Amendment to a federal firearms
statute. The Court, however, carefully avoided making
an unconditional decision regarding the statute's
constitutionality; it instead devised a test by which to
measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to
firearms and remanded the case to the trial court for an
evidentiary hearing (the trial court had held that Section
11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional).
The Court remanded to the case because it had concluded
that: 

   In the absence of any evidence tending to show
   that possession or use of a "shotgun having a
   barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at
   this time has some reasonable relationship to the
   preservation or efficiency of a well regulated
   militia, we cannot say that the Second
   Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear
   such an instrument. Certainly it is not within
   judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the
   ordinary military equipment or that its use could
   contribute to the common defense. 

Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be
constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a
militia-type arm. 

The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all
males physically capable of acting in concert for the
common defense" and that "when called for service these
men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by
themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
In setting forth this definition of the militia, the Court
implicitly rejected the view that the Second Amendment
guarantees a right only to those individuals who are
members of the militia. Had the Court viewed the
Second Amendment as guaranteeing the right to keep and
bear arms only to "all males physically capable of acting
in concert for the common defense," it would certainly
have discussed whether, on remand, there should also be
evidence that the defendants met the qualifications for
inclusion in the militia, much as it did with regard to the
militia use of a short-barrelled shotgun. 

 Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980). Lewis
recognized -- in summarizing the holding of Miller,
supra, as "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to
keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some
reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency
of a well-regulated militia'" (emphasis added) -- that
Miller had focused upon the type of firearm. Further,
Lewis was concerned only with whether the provision of
the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968 which prohibits the possession of firearms by
convicted felons (codified in 18 U.S.C. 922(g) in 1986)
violated the Second Amendment. Thus, since convicted
felons historically were and are subject to the loss of
numerous fundamental rights of citizenship -- including
the right to vote, hold office, and serve on juries -- it
was not erroneous for the Court to have concluded that
laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by a
convicted felon "are neither based upon constitutionally
suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any
constitutionally protected liberties." 

 United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez, 110 S. Ct.
3039 (1990). This case involved the meaning of the term
"the people" in the Fourth Amendment. The Court
unanimously held that the term "the people" in the
Second Amendment had the same meaning as in the
Preamble to the Constitution and in the First, Fourth, and
Ninth Amendments, i.e., that "the people" means at least
all citizens and legal aliens while in the United States.
This case thus resolves any doubt that the Second
Amendment guarantees an individual right. 

U.S. Courts of Appeals Cases 

 U.S. v. Nelson, 859 F.2d 1318 (8th Cir. 1988). This
case is not a firearms case; it involves the federal
switchblade knife act. Based on the holding in U.S. v
Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1876), that the right to
keep and bear arms "is not a right granted by the
Constitution," the Eighth Circuit concluded that the right
is not fundamental. Of course, the statement in
Cruikshank -- a case which involved the theft of
firearms by private citizens from other private citizens
-- simply meant that the right was not created by the
Constitution, but that it preexisted the Constitution and
that the Second Amendment was "to restrict the powers
of the national government, leaving the people to look
for their protection against any violation by their
fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes" to the state
criminal laws. Moreover, the Eighth Circuit's one
paragraph opinion cited Miller, Oakes, infra, and Warin,
infra, without any explanation, in holding that the
Second Amendment has been analyzed "purely in term of
protecting state militias, rather than individual rights."
While this statement is true, it certainly does not mean
that Miller rejected the conclusion that an individual
right was protected. Thus, the Eighth Circuit did not err
in concluding that it was important that "Nelson has
made no arguments that the Act would impair any state
militia . . . . " 

 U.S. v. Cody, 460 F.2d 34 (8th Cir. 1972). This case
involved the making of a false statement by a convicted
felon in connection with the purchase of a firearm. After
citing Miller for the propositions that "the Second
Amendment is not an absolute bar to congressional
regulation of the use or possession of firearms" and that
the "Second Amendment's guarantee extends only to use
or possession which 'has some reasonable relationship to
the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated
militia,'" the court held that there was "no evidence that
the prohibition of 922(a)(6) obstructs the maintenance of
a well-regulated militia." Thus, the court acknowledged
that the Second Amendment would be a bar to some
congressional regulation of the use or possession of
firearms and recognized that Miller required the
introduction of evidence which showed a militia use for
the firearm involved. 

 U.S. v. Decker, 446 F.2d 164 (8th Cir. 1971). Like
Synnes, infra, the court here held that the defendant
could "present ... evidence indicating a conflict" between
the statute at issue and the Second Amendment. Since he
failed to do so, the court declined to hold that the
record-keeping requirements of the Gun Control Act of
1968 violated the Second Amendment. As with Synnes,
the court once again implicitly recognized that the right
guaranteed belonged to individuals. 

 U.S. v. Synnes, 438 F.2d 764 (8th Cir. 1971), vacated
on other grounds, 404 U.S. 1009 (1972). This is another
case involving possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon. In holding that 18 U.S.C. App. Section 1202(a)
(reenacted in 18 U.S.C. 922(g) in 1986) did not infringe
the Second Amendment, the court held (based upon its
partially erroneous view of Miller) that there needed to
be evidence that the statute impaired the maintenance of
a well- regulated militia. As there was "no showing that
prohibiting possession of firearms by felons obstructs the
maintenance of a 'well regulated militia,'" the court saw
"no conflict" between 1202(a) and the Second
Amendment. While Miller focused on the need to
introduce evidence that the firearm had a militia use,
Synnes at least recognized the relevance of a militia
nexus. There was a clear recognition, moreover, that the
Second Amendment guarantees an individual right. 

 Gilbert Equipment Co., Inc. v. Higgins, 709 F. Supp.
1071 (S.D. Ala. 1989), aff'd, 894 F.2d 412 (11th Cir.
1990) (mem). The court held that the Second
Amendment "guarantees to all Americans 'the right to
keep and bear arms' . . . . " 

 U.S. v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1977), cert.
denied, 435 U.S. 926 (1978). Although the court
recognized the requirement of Miller that the defendant
show that the firearm in question have a "connection to
the militia," the court concluded, without any
explanation of how it reached the conclusion, that the
mere fact that the defendant was a member of the Kansas
militia would not establish that connection. In light of
the fact that Miller (which defines the militia as
including "all males physically capable of acting in
concert for the common defense") saw no relevance in
the status of a defendant with respect to the militia, but
instead focused upon the firearm itself, this conclusion is
not without basis. 

 U.S. v. Swinton, 521 F.2d 1255 (10th Cir. 1975). In
the context of interpreting the meaning of the phrase
"engaging in the business of dealing in firearms" in 18
U.S.C. 922(a)(1), the court noted, in dicta, merely that
"there is no absolute constitutional right of an individual
to possess a firearm." Emphasis added. Clearly,
therefore, the court recognized that the right is an
individual one, albeit not an absolute one. 

 U.S. v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (4th Cir. 1974). This is
one of the three court of appeals cases which uses the
term "collective right." The entire opinion, however, is
one sentence, which states that the Second Amendment
"only confers a collective right of keeping and bearing
arms which must bear a 'reasonable relationship to the
preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'."
As authority for this statement, the court cites Miller and
Cody v. U.S., supra. Yet, as the Supreme Court in Lewis,
supra, made clear, Miller held that it is the firearm itself,
not the act of keeping and bearing the firearm, which
must have a "reasonable relationship to the preservation
or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." The court did,
however, recognize that Miller required evidence of the
militia nexus. Moreover, the particular provision at issue
in Johnson concerned the interstate transportation of a
firearm by convicted felons, a class of persons which
historically has suffered the loss of numerous rights
(including exclusion from the militia) accorded other
citizens. 

 U.S. v Bowdach, 414 F. Supp. 1346 (D.S. Fla 1976),
aff'd, 561 F.2d 1160 (5th Cir. 1977). The court held that
"possession of the shotgun by a non-felon has no legal
consequences. U.S. Const. Amend II." 

 U.S. v. Johnson, Jr., 441 F.2d 1134 (5th Cir. 1971).
Once again, this decision merely quotes from Miller the
statement concerning the requirement of an evidentiary
showing of a militia nexus and a consequent rejection,
without even the briefest of analysis, of the defendant's
challenging to the constitutionality of the National
Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). Apparently, the defendant
failed to put on evidence, as required by Miller, that the
firearm at issue had a militia use. Thus, Miller bound the
appeals court to reject the defendant's challenge. 

 Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261
(7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 863 (1983). In
rejecting a Second and Fourteenth Amendment challenge
to a village handgun ban, the court held that the Second
Amendment, either of itself or by incorporation through
the Fourteenth Amendment, "does not apply to the states.
. . ." The court, in dicta, went on, however, to "comment"
on the "scope of the second amendment," incorrectly
summarizing Miller as holding that the right extends
"only to those arms which are necessary to maintain a
well regulated militia." Thus, finding (without evidence
on the record) that "individually owned handguns [are
not] military weapons," the court concluded that "the
right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the
second amendment." 

 U.S. v. McCutcheon, 446 F.2d 133 (7th Cir. 1971).
This is another case involving the NFA in which the
court merely followed Miller in holding that the NFA
did not infringe the Second Amendment. 

 Stevens v. United States, 440 F.2d 144 (6th Cir
1971). In a one sentence holding, the court simply
concluded that the Second Amendment "applies only to
the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the
individual's right to bear arms ...." Merely citing Miller
as authority for this conclusion, the court undertook no
analysis of Miller or of the history of the ratification of
the Second Amendment. This case, moreover, involved
possession of firearms by convicted felons, a class of
persons whose right traditionally have been more
restricted than law-abiding citizens. 

 U.S. v. Day, 476 F.2d 562 (6th Cir. 1973). Citing
Miller, the court merely concluded, in reviewing a
challenge to the statute barring dishonorably discharged
persons from possessing firearms, that "there is no
absolute right of an individual to possess a firearm."
Emphasis added. Since there are certain narrowly
defined classes of untrustworthy persons, such as
convicted felons and, as here, persons dishonorably
discharged from the armed forces, who may be barred
the possession of firearms, it is a truism to say that there
is not an absolute right to possess firearms. In so saying,
the court implicitly recognized the individual right of
peaceful and honest citizens to possess firearm. 

 U.S. v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir 1976), cert.
denied, 426 U.S. 948 (1976). Following, and relying
upon, its earlier decision in Stevens, supra, the court
simply concluded, without any reference to the history of
the Second Amendment, that it "is clear the Second
Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an
individual right." The court also indicated that, in
reaching its decision, it was relying upon the First
Circuit's decision in Cases, infra. Yet in concluding that
not all arms were protected by the Second Amendment,
Cases did not hold, as did Warin, that the Second
Amendment afforded individuals no protections
whatever. Warin also erred in concluding that Warin's
relationship to the militia was relevant to determining
whether his possession of a machine gun was protected
by the Second Amendment since the Supreme Court in
Miller focused on the firearm itself, not the individual
involved. In fact, Miller quite expansively defined the
constitutional militia as encompassing "all males
physically capable of action in concert for the common
defense." 

 U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942), rev'd on
other grounds, 319 U.S. 463 (1943). This is another case
involving possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
Despite holding that the failure of the defendant to
prove, as required by Miller, a militia use for the firearm
was an adequate basis for ruling against the defendant,
the court, in dicta, concluded that the Second
Amendment "was not adopted with individual rights in
mind . . . ." This result was based on reliance on an
extremely brief -- and erroneous -- analysis of
common law and colonial history. In addition, apparently
recognizing that it decided the case on unnecessarily
broad grounds, the court noted that, at common law,
while there was a right to bear arms, that right was not
absolute and could be restricted for certain classes of
persons "who have previously . . . been shown to be
aggressors against society." 

 U.S. v. Graves, 554 F.2d 65 (3rd Cir. 1977). Since the
defendant in this case did not raise the Second
Amendment as a challenge to the "statutory program
which restricts the right to bear arms of convicted felons
and other persons of dangerous propensities," the only
discussion of the Second Amendment is found in a
footnote wherein the court states "[a]rguably, any
regulation of firearms may be violative of this
constitutional provision." 

 Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942),
cert. denied sub nom., Velazquez v. U. S., 319 U.S. 770
(1943). In this case, the court held that the Supreme
Court in Miller had not intended "to formulate a general
rule" regarding which arms were protected by the
Second Amendment and concluded, therefore, that many
types of arms were not protected. Nonetheless, the court
in Cases expressly acknowledged that the Second
Amendment guarantees an individual right when it noted
that the law in question "undoubtedly curtails to some
extent the right of individuals to keep and bear arms ...."
Id. at 921. Emphasis added. Moreover, the court in Cases
concluded, as properly it should have, that Miller should
not be read as holding that the Second Amendment
guaranteed the right to possess or use large weapons that
could not be carried by an individual. 

U.S. District Court Cases 

 U.S. v. Gross, 313 F.Supp. 1330 (S.D. Ind. 1970), aff'd
on other grounds, 451 F.2d 1355 (7th Cir. 1971). In
rejecting a challenge to the constitutionality of the
requirement that those who engage in the business of
dealing in firearms must be licensed, the court,
following its view of Miller, held that the defendant had
not shown that "the licensing of dealers in firearms in
any way destroys, or impairs the efficiency of, a well
regulated militia." 

 U.S. v. Kraase, 340 F.Supp. 147 (E.D. Wis. 1972). In
ruling on a motion to dismiss an indictment, the court
rejected a facial constitutional challenge to 18 U.S.C.
922(a)(5) -- which prohibited sales of firearms to
residents of other states. Recognizing that an individual
right was protected, it held that "second amendment
protection might arise if proof were offered at the trial
demonstrating that his possession of the weapon in
question had a reasonable relationship to the maintenance
of a 'well-regulated Militia.'" 

 Thompson v. Dereta, 549 F.Supp. 297 (D. Utah 1982).
An applicant for relief from disabilities (a prohibited
person) brought an action against the federal agents
involved in denying his application. The court dismissed
the case, holding that, because there was no "absolute
constitutional right of an individual to possess a
firearm," there was "no liberty or property interest
sufficient to give rise to a procedural due process claim."

 Vietnamese Fishermen's Assoc. v. KKK, 543
F.Supp. 198 (S.D. Tex. 1982). Like the statute faced by
the Supreme Court in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252
(1876), the Texas statute and the injunction at issue here
prohibited private military activity. Mischaracterizing
Miller, the court held that the Second Amendment
"prohibits only such infringement on the bearing of
weapons as would interfere with 'the preservation or
efficiency of a well- regulated militia,' organized by the
State." Later, however, the court, following Miller,
explained that the "Second Amendment's guarantee is
limited to the right to keep and bear such arms as have 'a
reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency
of a well regulated militia.'" The courts's understanding
of the Second Amendment is thus inconsistent and, given
the facts of the case, largely dicta. 

 U.S. v. Kozerski, 518 F.Supp. 1082 (D.N.H.1981),
cert. denied, 469 U.S. 842 (1984). In the context of a
challenge to the law prohibiting the possession of
firearms by convicted felons, the court, while holding
correctly (see discussion of Nelson, supra) that the
Second Amendment "is not a grant of a right but a
limitation upon the power of Congress and the national
government," concluded that the right "is a collective
right . . . rather that an individual right," citing only
Warin, supra. As a district court in the First Circuit,
however, the court was bound by Cases, supra, which
expressly recognized that the right belonged to
individuals. 



      Downloaded from GUN-TALK
      (703-719-6406) 
      A service of the 
      National Rifle Association 
      Institute for Legislative Action 
      Washington, DC 20036 


   World-Wide-Web html format by

      Scott Ostrander: [email protected]

RE            <<< Note 49.200 by SUBPAC::SADIN "caught in the 'net" >>>

>    	George, if that's the only thing you have to say, then I rest my
>    case.......:*)
    
  Well that is far from the only thing I've said so I guess you won't get much
rest.

  George

    
    
re                     <<< Note 49.203 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>
    
    	good. I hate boredom.....
    
    
    

    RE: .198
    
>      Not exactly a high point in American jurisprudence and certainly not
>    a way
>    to endear yourself to the judge.
    
 	'Tis true.  You cannot endear yourself to me by citing the Dred
    Scott case.
    
    ME (former 'box jodge)

    Oops! Congress Bans Hunting 

    THE REPUBLICAN Congress may have found itself some new friends among
    animal lovers, but the alliance is more accidental than intentional. As
    the result of anti-regulatory legislation steamrolling through the
    House, the entire 1995 hunting season for ducks, geese and other
    migratory birds may have to be canceled. 

    It seems that in drafting legislation to impose a retroactive
    moratorium on all federal regulations until Congress enacts a separate
    regulatory reform bill, no one noticed that some regulations are pretty
    useful -- including the Interior Department's annual regulation of
    wildfowl hunting seasons. 

    Without those regulations, there can be no hunting season. And even if
    Congress enacts the reform bill and the moratorium is lifted, the
    season would probably have to be canceled thanks to the bill's new
    cost- benefit analysis requirements, which are designed to make all
    regulatory action cumbersome and time-consuming. 

    This is one more sign that Congress, in its blind rush to shove the
    federal bureaucracy into the Potomac, has almost no idea of the
    real-world consequences of its actions. 

Editorial published 2/21/95 in San Francisco Chronicle

February 17, 1995

Rulemaking Moratorium

The proposed federal rulemaking moratorium, which NRA supports
because regulations by Fish & Wildlife Service, EPA, BATF, and 
others have been used to burden gun owners and hunters without
scientific basis, would not affect '95-96 migratory bird and
waterfowl seasons, because there is  an exemption for regulations
deemed by the Office of Management and Budget to be normal
"administrative functions."  

Essentially, this is a scare tactic -- the Interior Dept. doesn't
want to be prevented from issuing new regulations.  The drafters
of the bill have no intention of preventing next fall's waterfowl
season, and we believe they plan to offer amendments in
subcommittee to clarify that fact.
--
This information is presented as a service to the Internet community
by the NRA/ILA.  Many files are available via anonymous ftp from
ftp.nra.org, via WWW at http://www.nra.org, via gopher at gopher.nra.org,
and via WAIS at wais.nra.org

Be sure to subscribe to the NRA mailing lists.  Send the word help
as the body of a message to [email protected]

Information can also be obtained by connecting to the NRA-ILA GUN-TALK
BBS at (703) 934-2121.

    Of course the Interior Department doesn't want to be prevented from new
    rulemaking.  Will that stop Congress?  And seems to me that with the
    clock ticking over day 52 of Newt's first 100 days there'll be precious
    little time for "clarifying amendments" in subcommittees.  Lots of news
    stories have raised the issue that there has been no substantive debate
    on nearly all of the legislation Newt is steamrollering through.  You
    think you're gonna get clarifying amendments?  Lets wait and see, shall
    we?
    
    The larger point, that the Congress has little to no idea of the impact
    this steamroller will really have, stands.  This Congress will go down
    in the history books as "Newt's patsies".
    
    DougO

    
    
>	You
>    think you're gonna get clarifying amendments?  Lets wait and see, shall
>    we?
    
    	Ah yes Dougo, we shall wait and see. Until then you're just
    spouting crap....
    
>    The larger point, that the Congress has little to no idea of the impact
>    this steamroller will really have, stands.  This Congress will go down
>    in the history books as "Newt's patsies".
    
    	Hmmmm....kinda like when the Crime Bill got ramrodded through the
    last congress eh Dougo? Give the congresscritters 2hrs to read a
    1500+page document and then vote it on in eh? I think the last congress
    will be remembered as "Clinton's patsies".
    
    	give it a rest man....
    
    jim

    a rest?  nah, this is too much fun!  Just think, I'll be able to tell
    you guys "I told you so" a thousand times over when the results are in.
    
    I pointed out way back in .91 that the Senate was gonna be a real
    sticking point for the GOP, partially due to bickering among the
    presidential contenders.  At the time there were two obvious wannabes,
    but now it looks like four or more, in the Senate alone.  They didn't
    sign Newt's "contract", they aren't moving it all that swiftly...and
    yet they, like Newt and his mob, are the majority party, and the
    electorate will accept no excuses.  How much cooperation will be
    sacrificed to their infighting?
    
    This is gonna be such FUN the next two years!
    
    DougO

    Yes, I suppose it is fun Doug, seeing as everything else the
    dems represent is crashing and burning around them. A little
    mirth, however silly and misguided, is small price to pay,
    considering how much of your attention span is being spent
    on it. We'll gladly babysit for you while Newt gets some
    work done.
    
    -b

    (*chortle*) yeah, yeah, yeah.  governing is *such* hard work, I really
    feel for you big, strong, overworked GOP partisans, your heroes are in
    such a tough spot!  There, there, I'm sure you'll feel better when Newt
    has turfed a few more welfare mothers and babes out onto the streets. 
    Won't help the deficit, but hey, the symbol is everything, right?
    
    Seriously, reducing the deficit and paying down the debt is the only
    strategy that will earn any of those sleazebags any respect in my book.
    Democrats didn't do it, Republicans don't look like doing it, so I take
    my jollies where I can.  You people thinking that your precious
    contract-waving Newtnoids will make a difference to *that* problem are
    only deluding yourselves.  And I wish I was wrong.  But I'm not.
    
    DougO

    Doug:
    
    For crying out loud man...the contract may or may not work...it may or
    may not pass...the issues are being debated and that was the purpose of
    the contract in the first place.  The contract is a proactive step that
    your communist representatives chose not to implement over the last
    forty years.
    
    Newt may succeed or he may flop, thats not the sweet victory.  The
    sweet victory is that your communist friends were given a good message
    last November that they just can't take carte blanche against the
    wishes of the people...which by the way they have been doing for the
    last thirty year...and I resent it pal.
    
    Regarding welfare moms...I find it hard to believe you would want to
    keep status quo on that one.  I don't really care if it knocks the
    deficit down Doug.  I don't like being taken advantage of...and I don't 
    appreciate this false notion that the streamlining of an irresponsible
    welfare state is heartless and cruel...you've been holding a gun to my
    head for years and now you have the balls to say it's heartless whats
    going on down there?  Help me out here!
    
    -Jack

    
    Actually, unless Senator Byrd develops laryngitus, Newt will pass the
    whole contract, The Senate will adjourn, Clinton will veto nothing.
    
    Under Senate rules, as Dole acknowledges, the gentleman from West
    Verginny is within his rights.
    
    CSPAN1 is fun - hyperbole, insults, catcalls, lots of action in quick
    time.  CSPAN-2 is a stillshot of vapid teenage pages sitting around
    during quorum calls in the Senate chamber.  Who picks the CSPAN muzak
    selections ?
    
      bb

RE         <<< Note 49.213 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

>    Newt may succeed or he may flop, thats not the sweet victory.  The
>    sweet victory is that your communist friends were given a good message
>    last November that they just can't take carte blanche against the
>    wishes of the people...which by the way they have been doing for the
>    last thirty year...and I resent it pal.

  So if you are willing to admit that the election was a message to our
"communist" friends on the left, are you willing to admit that the 40 or so
elections before that were a message to your "fascist" friends on the right? 

  Or is an election only a message when your side wins?

  George

    George:
    
    Massachusetts is a good example.  I went to a Kennedy rally in
    Framingham last October when President Clinton appeared.  George, I
    grew up in Framingham and I never realized until this year what a bunch
    of sorry arsed blind sheep there were in the Commonwealth of
    Massachusetts.  Yes, the last 40 or so elections were for the most part
    democrat.  Now, the depression generation and the Kennedy bumb kissers
    are just starting to die off and now the country can move out of the
    40's mentality and forge ahead!
    
    -Jack

RE         <<< Note 49.216 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

>    Massachusetts is a good example.  I went to a Kennedy rally in
>    Framingham last October when President Clinton appeared.  George, I
>    grew up in Framingham and I never realized until this year what a bunch
>    of sorry arsed blind sheep there were in the Commonwealth of
>    Massachusetts.  

  Did it ever occur to you that maybe the reason we like Democrats here in
Massachusetts is that they have been in control since anyone can remember and
life here is pretty good? As the saying goes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix
it".

>Yes, the last 40 or so elections were for the most part
>    democrat.  Now, the depression generation and the Kennedy bumb kissers
>    are just starting to die off and now the country can move out of the
>    40's mentality and forge ahead!
    
  That will be the day when we "forge ahead" with the Republicans. Seems they
are doing nothing that I can see to address today's problems of shifting from
a national to a world economy and are just peddling the same tired old policies
from the late 19th century, make the rich rich enough so the rest of us can
eat their scraps.

  George

    Ahhh...the old class envy poop again.  
    
    1. It was broke and they fixed it with Weld.  Dukaka got tossed.
    2. Weld is bringing more international business to the commonwealth
       than any of the Kennedy bumb kissers you voted for.
    3. Tired policies?  You really think the form of socialism promoted in
       Massachusetts is new thinking?  Uh huh.
    
    -Jack

RE         <<< Note 49.218 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

>    1. It was broke and they fixed it with Weld.  Dukaka got tossed.

  You know it's funny. We talk about problems during the 80's and Reagan is
blameless, it's all the fault of the Democratic Congress. But things are good
in Massachusetts and the Democratic legislature gets no credit.

  Dukakis was Governor for 12 years. He took over when the state was in a
slump after the Sergeant administration and we did really well. The only time
during his administration that there was a slump coincided with slumps in all
the states around us and it didn't last all that long. With the democratic
legislature we pulled out and now we are doing fine.

>    2. Weld is bringing more international business to the commonwealth
>       than any of the Kennedy bumb kissers you voted for.
    
  There is no evidence that Weld is any more or less responsible for bringing
business to Massachusetts than the Democrats, the private sector, or our
current business or education base. 

>    3. Tired policies?  You really think the form of socialism promoted in
>       Massachusetts is new thinking?  Uh huh.

  I am not going to stoop to your level and call all Republicans fascist. The
Democrats are not the Socialist or Communist as you keep claiming. The fact
that you keep saying they are shows how completely ignorant you are of the
major political movements of this past century.

>RE         "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

  Right, and life in Massachusetts and the U.S.A in general is about as good
as it is anywhere and better than most places. Talk about a "sky is falling"
mentality.

  George

>  Did it ever occur to you that maybe the reason we like Democrats here in
>Massachusetts is that they have been in control since anyone can remember and
>life here is pretty good? As the saying goes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix
>it".

That would explain why a conservative and admirable welfare reform policy was
just signed into law.

ZZ    You know it's funny. We talk about problems during the 80's and
ZZ    Reagan is
ZZ    blameless, it's all the fault of the Democratic Congress. But things
ZZ    are good
ZZ    in Massachusetts and the Democratic legislature gets no credit.
    
    OK, Reagan signed the budgets and bears the responsibility as well as
    reaping the glory for the best economy of the 20th century.  The Soviet
    Empire was on the road to destruction and Reagan expedited the process.
    All I see the great society doing is pissing alot of cash down the 
    perverbial poop chute with little in return.  LBJ inadvertantly created
    a welfare dependent mentality and Reagan toppled an evil empire.  
    Reagans method cost money but did something proactive.  LBJ meant well
    but didn't realize the current set up would create a ton of pork
    spending and bring a percentage of letches out of the woodwork.  Too
    bad because welfare is needed in this country for those who can truly
    benefit from it.  Had it been better streamlined years ago under the
    democrat party, it wouldn't carry the negative baggage it now has. 
    That's the real crying shame of it all George.
    
    Alright, I went overboard on the communist thing.  I'll define it
    better.  Mostr southern democrats are alright and almost all northern
    democrats are socialists.  Does this make it better?
    
    -Jack

RE         <<< Note 49.220 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>That would explain why a conservative and admirable welfare reform policy was
>just signed into law.

  So what's your point? A very liberal Republican Governor and a Democratic
legislature is working on welfare reform and the sky is not falling in around
us. This troubles you or you like what they are doing? 

  George

    George:
    
    Liberal democrats are fiscally inept.  Liberal Republicans are socially
    inept.
    
    -Jack

RE         <<< Note 49.221 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

>    OK, Reagan signed the budgets and bears the responsibility as well as
>    reaping the glory for the best economy of the 20th century.  The Soviet
>    Empire was on the road to destruction and Reagan expedited the process.

  You mean Reagan and the Democratic Congress expedited the process.

>    All I see the great society doing is pissing alot of cash down the 
>    perverbial poop chute with little in return.  LBJ inadvertantly created
>    a welfare dependent mentality and Reagan toppled an evil empire.  

  LBJ also got the 1964 Civil Rights act passed and did a lot to end Defacto
Racisism. Reagan and the Democratic Congress came along at the 11th hour and
gave a nudge to an already toppling evil empire.

>    Reagans method cost money but did something proactive.  

  Like What? His method over heated the economy and ran up a debt so bad that
now the interest on that debt is one of the 4 largest items in the budget.

>    Alright, I went overboard on the communist thing.  I'll define it
>    better.  Mostr southern democrats are alright and almost all northern
>    democrats are socialists.  Does this make it better?
    
  No, you still obviously don't understand what socialism is about. Socialists
are in favor of government OWNERSHIP of business. Democrats are in favor of
regulation but favor private OWNERSHIP of business. Saying that Democrats
are the same as socialists is like saying Republicans are the same as
Fascists.

  George

> This troubles you or you like what they are doing? 

I like what they're doing, of course. I also recognize that it's 180�
out of phase with anything else that's gone on in the state for some
large number of years and it was brought about by the fact that folks
finally bit the bullet and admitted that it WAS broke and DID NEED
to be fixed, regardless of your contentions that everything's fine.

    Alot of entrepreneurship is lost in this country because of government
    regulation...including the healthcare industry.  Yes you can own your
    own business but I'll always be knocking at your door when you make a
    profit.  This sounds like a form of loansharking mentality to me.  
    You succeed, you're penalized.  
    
    -Jack

RE         <<< Note 49.223 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

>    Liberal democrats are fiscally inept.  Liberal Republicans are socially
>    inept.
    
  Same old same old. Trash talk with nothing to back it up.

  Keep gripping, keep compiling. Keep in mind you don't have to actually do
anything, just keep gripping about liberals and democrats, that's all you have
to do to keep winning.

  George

RE         <<< Note 49.225 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>I like what they're doing, of course. I also recognize that it's 180�
>out of phase with anything else that's gone on in the state for some
>large number of years and it was brought about by the fact that folks
>finally bit the bullet and admitted that it WAS broke and DID NEED
>to be fixed, regardless of your contentions that everything's fine.

  Right but who is it that's working on the reform? It's the democratic
legislature and a liberal Republican governor.

  And just because a program is being changed that doesn't mean the sky is
falling. Things are ok in Massachusetts and we're trying to make them better.
Yes we have problems, but who doesn't? And do you think for one minute that
if the Republicans were in control we'd have no problems at all?

  George

RE         <<< Note 49.226 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

>    Alot of entrepreneurship is lost in this country because of government
>    regulation...including the healthcare industry.  Yes you can own your
>    own business but I'll always be knocking at your door when you make a
>    profit.  This sounds like a form of loansharking mentality to me.  
>    You succeed, you're penalized.  
    
  When the Democrats took over, the United States was one of several large
powers including the British Empire, The Soviet Union, Germany, Japan, and
it was not that clear we were all that much stronger than other nations such
as France or China.

  Today after the fourty years you are bleating about in your p-name the United
States is the single undisputed Super Power on the planet and Europe is
scrambling to form a free trade zone to match our economic power. 

  All this in spite of the fact that ""entrepreneurship is lost in this
country"?

  George

    George:
    
    Economies are fluid and go through cycles.  The regulation that
    strangle businesses today are far more present than they were even as
    recent as the Carter administration.  I personally know business owners
    who have laid people off...simply for the reason that it is too damn
    expensive to do business in the United States.  If you really want
    Clinton to succeed, then stop shooting yourself in the foot and allow
    the private sector to tend to its own business and government tend to
    their own.  OK, unions brought us the five day work week, child labor
    laws, and some other sensible goodies.  Fine, now they're like a dirty
    glove...throw them away.  Government is like the retarded twin who just
    goes in there, poops all over the place and then leaves.  Here at
    Digital, this is called the seagull syndrome...where corporate flies
    in...poops all over the place, then flies out.
    
    -Jack

RE         <<< Note 49.230 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

>    Economies are fluid and go through cycles.  The regulation that
>    strangle businesses today are far more present than they were even as
>    recent as the Carter administration.  

  Businesses are not getting strangled today. The economy is growing and has
been for several years.

>I personally know business owners
>    who have laid people off...simply for the reason that it is too damn
>    expensive to do business in the United States.  

  Ok, and show me the new Super Power that they have created by moving their
businesses elsewhere? Somehow what ever we are doing seems to be working
because there is not an economic power anywhere in the world that matches
the United States.

>OK, unions brought us the five day work week, child labor
>    laws, and some other sensible goodies.  Fine, now they're like a dirty
>    glove...throw them away.  

  Not so quick. With the GOP threatening to return us to the good old days
of 1888, maybe we'd better keep them around.

>Government is like the retarded twin who just
>    goes in there, poops all over the place and then leaves.  Here at
>    Digital, this is called the seagull syndrome...where corporate flies
>    in...poops all over the place, then flies out.
    
  Well it must be pooping out gold because the United States Federal Government
is currently presiding over the most powerful organization relative to the
rest of the known world since the Roman Empire.

  George

re: .231

George,  you remind me of Digital when its stock was at 190+, everything is
great, we're doing better than ever, etc...

Bob

    Dost thou refer to the United Nations?  If so, then please don't make
    me laugh.  The UN is a paper tiger and is used by spineless people who
    don't want to take responsibility for their own actions.  That way if
    something fails, blame the UN.  I personally feel we should get out of
    it.
    
    Re: Unions.  Unions are extortionists in their own right.  They have no
    God given right to manipulate businesses the way they do.  They came
    looking for the job, not the other way around!!
    
    -Jack

RE    <<< Note 49.232 by ROWLET::AINSLEY "Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow!" >>>

>George,  you remind me of Digital when its stock was at 190+, everything is
>great, we're doing better than ever, etc...

  And you guys remind me of chicken little running across the barn yard yelling
"the sky is falling, the sky is falling".

  George

    
    George's claim that the Massachusetts election was in fact a vote
    for the status quo here looks pretty accurate to me.  All major
    incumbents for state and national office, of both parties, were
    reelected, many by landslides.  The biggest single voting block
    (of the 4 possibilities) were the Weld-Kennedy voters.  Not only
    that, but the more innovative referenda, both left and right, pretty
    much lost.
    
    Nationally, however, I think the picture is different.  However, I
    sort of agree that the national results are probably not indicative
    of a ntional swing to the right, or to the Republicans.  Rather, my
    own view is that the 1994 Midterm was a deliberate personal rejection
    of Bill Clinton, not his party.  But others may disagree.
    
      bb

    > The regulation that strangle businesses today are far more present
    > than they were even as recent as the Carter administration. 
    
    An interesting observation.  Reagan promised to get government off the
    backs of the people by reducing the regulatory burden.  Some
    regulations were indeed slashed, most notably those that protected the
    environment and those that restricted the banking industry, with well-
    known results.  Bush promised to continue in Reagan's path, but must
    have forgotten; there were 47,000 pages more regulations at the end of
    his term than at the beginning.
    
    Regulations are written by the administration, Jack.  In all of the
    years since Carter, regulations that strangle businesses have become
    more of a problem, I must agree...the difference between us is, I know
    whose fault it is.
    
    DougO

    re: .206
    
    I fail to see the logic behind this scare-tactic.  Without a regulation
    on the hunting season, I would think that all limitations (i.e.
    regulation) of said season would be lifted.  I could see how this may
    be bad for wildlife (an "extended" season), but I cannot see how this
    would "ban" (i.e. regulate away) the season altogether.
    
    -steve

    Simple Steve. The idea that you could do something without the
    government telling you when and how to do it is so foreign
    to democrats that such things never occur to them.
    
    -b

    even simpler than that; the existing law states that hunting shall 
    only be permitted in accord with the regulations published by the
    department.  if they are prevented from publishing, you are prevented
    from legally hunting.
    
    DougO

    But isn't that a regulation, too?  Only if this regulation is left
    untouched would the hunting season go down, by default.
    
    -steve

    no, thats a standing law, passed by Congress.  Regulations are nuts and
    bolts rules passed by the administration/executive agencies when
    Congress has told them they're responsible for something but left it to
    them to figure out how.
    
    DougO

    Beware the Hazards of New Hampshire 


    Robert D. Novak 

    Manchester, N.H. 

    WHEN 1,400 New Hampshire Republicans rushed the season Sunday night to
    pay $100 a plate to hear presidential aspirants, Senator Phil Gramm had
    a chance to gain ground on front-running Senator Robert Dole. He blew
    it, with a flat performance in his allotted 8 1/2 minutes. 

    Not that Dole was the visionary leader Republicans crave. ``There is no
    doubt that Bob Dole wants to be president,'' Governor Stephen Merrill,
    so far uncommitted in his choice for president, told me. ``Now, it's
    important that he explain why.'' The governor was saying politely what
    others here put more bluntly: The Senate majority leader lacks the
    ``vision thing'' as much today as he did when he lost the 1988
    nomination. 

    Dole, Gramm and anybody else seek ing the presidency should beware the
    hazards of New Hampshire. Republican politicians who thought that
    cramming most primary elections into the first three months of the year
    would rid them of this idiosyncratic state of 1.1 million souls were
    sadly mistaken. No candidate dares write off New Hampshire. 

    That is a real problem for Gramm, who has planned his campaign for
    president with military precision. But he has failed to understand this
    state's psyche. 

    Budget-cutting, government-downsizing Phil Gramm ought to be a natural
    for a state whose government always has been based on smaller is
    better. Alone among the four U.S. senators who are potential
    candidates, he voted against the disastrous 1990 Bush tax increase. 

    But Governor Merrill and other potential supporters believe Gramm did
    not appreciate this state's sensitivity toward efforts to undermine its
    first-in-the-nation primary. Perceived as pushing an attempt by Arizona
    to challenge New Hampshire, Gramm has fumbled in his denials. Alarmed
    by press reports that he was failing here, Gramm on Sunday hurried up
    an announcement of Senator Robert Smith's endorsement. Despite his many
    visits here, Gramm has built no organization at all. 

    Gramm must get the support of blue-collar conservatives who certainly
    would not cough up $100 for dinner, but he must fight for them with
    right-wing candidates headed by Pat Buchanan. While still writing his
    column and declaiming over television, Buchanan stole a march on Gramm
    and picked off key conservative operatives. 

    Gramm just does not seem comfortable here. At both the forum and the
    dinner, Gramm lacked the fire he shows elsewhere. Dole, running well
    ahead of Gramm, attracted overflow audiences around the state last
    weekend. 

    The restiveness of voters is seen by 18 percent to 20 percent of GOP
    voters saying they back Colin Powell, who has shown no signs of even
    being a Republican. Lamar Alexander, the former secretary of education,
    is trying to inherit the Powell vote and has built the best early
    grass-roots organization in the state. 

    But neither Alexander nor anybody else has set Republican hearts
    beating. ``Is that all there is?'' asked party activists praying for an
    expanded field. Newt Gingrich would have been the superstar here. Fewer
    politicians than usual at this stage have made their commitments, and
    they may be waiting for the House speaker's New Hampshire vacation in
    June. 

Published 2/23/95 by San Francisco Chronicle

    
    
    	Senator Phil Gramm held the largest fund raiser in political
    history last night. Over 2800 people attended a $1000 a plate
    fundraiser, bringing Gramm's campaign fund to over $10mil.
    
    

    
    
re:       <<< Note 49.208 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>
    
>	You
>    think you're gonna get clarifying amendments?  Lets wait and see, shall
>    we?
    
    	Congress voted yesterday to specifically exclude hunting and
    fishing from the federal rulemaking freeze.
    
    
    jim

    I think Doug's going to be surprised by the number of thinks that will
    happen that he doesn't expect to happen.

	I wonder if Gramm will be able to buy the election away from Dole? :-)

    
    
    	couple more of those fundraisers and he just may...;*)
    
    

    
      Gramm is worth watching.  So far, he is the most "purely
    conservative" candidate for 1996.  It is hard to imagine a less
    charismatic man.  Even bungling Clinton is a great orator by
    comparison.
    
      We in Massachusetts know that this state would never go for Gramm,
    as it might for Dole or Specter.  But Massachusetts is not like the
    country, and Gramm knows he isn't the favorite here.  The slow Texas
    drawl and endless repetition of simple homilies has enormous appeal
    down south and out west.  He could just run away with it.
    
      bb

    Yes, good old superficial Massachusetts, where perception is everything
    and content is zilch!

RE         <<< Note 49.249 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN 

>"You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

   ... and created the only Superpower on Earth.

>    Yes, good old superficial Massachusetts, where perception is everything
>    and content is zilch!

  Care to elaborate? From my point of view life is pretty good here in
Massachusetts.

  George

    Gladly, here it is.
    
    Dad, why did you vote for Nixon in 1960?
    
    Dad: Richard Nixon had a far better grasp on Foreign Policy and
    domestic fiscal policy.  Nixon served as a legislator in the House of
    Representatives and was a heavy contributor to the Foreign Relations
    Committee.  Nixon believes that power should be reserved to the
    individual states and education as well as other domestic issues should
    be administrated locally.
    
    Mother in Law (From Reading Massachusetts)
    
    Why did you vote for Kennedy in 1960?
    
    MIL: John Kennedy is from South Boston and is a good Catholic.
    
    George, who do you think the dope is here?  I'll give you three guesses
    the first two don't count!
    
    -Jack

     Of course you do! It's liberal heaven. Things that don't hurt anybody
    else are just as proscribed as things that do hurt somebody else, and
    if you really do something bad you aren't held accountable for it. That
    and high tasxes and numerous social programs- no wonder you think it's
    so grand.

| <<< Note 49.251 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| George, who do you think the dope is here?  I'll give you three guesses
| the first two don't count!

	Your father. Nixon was a crook. Your MIL was just hopin Kennedy lived
up to the rumors. :-)

	But seriously Jack, don't try and lump everyone who voted for Kennedy
into your MILs catagory. There will always be people who will vote for the
"homeboy", but in todays world, far more people look at issues. We can't help
it if they have become better liars over the years. :-)


Glen

    > Congress voted yesterday to specifically exclude hunting and
    > fishing from the federal rulemaking freeze.
    
    congratulations!  you've proven that one well-organized special-
    interest group has enough clout to get the congress not to make
    that particular mistake.  Now, how many hundreds or thousands of other
    regulatory activities have been assumed in the past to be the normal
    business of government, routine, and required to permit day-to-day
    activities to go on, that *don't* have such a well-organized special
    interest group lobbying for them?  As I said at the time of your first
    objection: THE LARGER POINT STANDS.  Congress has next to no idea what
    impact it will have to impose a moratorium on regulatory activity.
    
    DougO

    > I think Doug's going to be surprised by the number of thinks that will
    > happen that he doesn't expect to happen.
    
    Government by special interest is nothing new, Mark.  That's all this
    demonstrates.  I am surprised that you seem to think it means something
    else.
    
    DougO  

    Particularly to this administration.

>    congratulations!  you've proven that one well-organized special-
>    interest group has enough clout to get the congress not to make
>    that particular mistake.  Now, how many hundreds or thousands of other

Actually, it was felt that even without the amendment the hunting season
would not be affected, since this category of regulation fell under
the 'normal administration activities' option under the bill.

The amendment was in response to all the fear-mongering tossed around in the
press.

There, now everyone feels better ....

On a lighter note, it was fun to watch the democrats spar with each other 
over this amendment. As the elder dems would critisize the actions of the
house on this issue, the relative dem newbies would trash the elders arguments 
with simple common sense lines that made the elders look antique.

After the first few vollies, one dem outlined the fact that in eight years as
a dem the dem leadership never allowed him to put an amenedment forward, (this 
was the guy who put this particular amendment on the floor) and that he felt the
repubs were being cordial and reasonable in their proceedings. Another dem
pointed out to the leadership that 'he could explain it to them but he couldn't
understand it for them'.

I was rolling for several minutes at this exchange - better than late night
comedy  :-)

Doug.

    > This topic is dedicated to the politics of the right.
    > The conservatives, who believe in :
        
    ...buying their way into power?  See below.
    
    DougO
    -----
    Conservative `Four Families' Top List of State's Campaign Donors  
    Christian group outspent doctors, lawyers, teachers 
    
    Phillip Matier, Andrew Ross 
    
    Forget the doctors, lawyers and teachers -- the biggest ``special
    interest'' donor to California legislative candidates in November was a
    collection of largely obscure Southern California millionaires known as
    the ``four families.'' 
    
    The families -- who have a distinctly right-wing Christian bent -- go
    by the name of Allied Business PAC. 
    
    Democratic state Senate President Pro Tem Bill Lockyer, who has been
    tracking the group's meteoric rise, has just issued a new glossy
    computer printout of the state's top 10 donors to legislative races --
    and lo and behold, it shows Allied and its affiliates emerging for the
    first time in 1994 at the head of the PAC pack. 
    
    Allied's contributions last year totaled more than $2.3 million,
    according to Lockyer's report. 
    
    That's more than twice as much as the California Teachers Association's
    $963,525, and more than three times as much as the California Medical
    Association's $753,442.
    
    Unlike its counterparts, Allied is strictly a family affair, and it has
    a broad agenda -- fighting everything from gun control to abortion,
    with an evangelical bent. 
    
    Allied's main four families are: 
    
    -- Howard Fieldstead Ahmanson Jr. and his wife, Roberta. Ahmanson is
    the son of the late Howard Ahmanson, who built Home Savings and Loan
    into a multibillion-dollar financial institution. 
    
    -- Robert and Esther Hurtt. He's a Republican state senator from Garden
    Grove and president of a container supply company that, among other
    things, manufactures the cans for Almond Roca. Hurtt is seen as a
    contender for the post of Senate minority leader. 
    
    -- Roland and Lila Hinz of Mission Hills. Hinz, a Democrat, publishes
    Dirt Bike magazine. 
    
    -- Edward Atsinger III of Camarillo, owner of a chain of Christian-
    format radio stations. 
    
    Under term limits, groups such as Allied have found a recipe for
    success by putting huge sums of money behind candidates in crowded
    races in which the incumbent is not seeking re-election. 
    
    Allied has even become a big thorn in the side of Governor Wilson. The
    PAC has been behind the move to wrest control of the state Republican
    Party from Wilson-led moderates. 
    
    Their success in that arena is seen as one reason that Wilson has moved
    increasingly to the right. 
    
    Published 3/13/95 in San Francisco Chronicle

    
    
    You are a laugh riot, Doug.  Does Slick and Tyson chicken sound
    familiar??????

Big Money politics is disgusting,  regardless of party or location.  See
Japan's recent political problems for an example away from home.


Phil

    Mikie, in case you hadn't forgotten, your immediate neighbor to the
    south nominated a convicted felon as GOP candidate for the last Senate
    campaign, on the strength 55% of the votes at the GOP convention packed 
    by busloads of fundies, admission paid by their churches.  Big money
    vote buying at the Virginia GOP convention just last year, how quickly
    you forget.  And here in my digs, Michael Huffington spent $28M trying
    to buy a GOP Senate seat in his campaign against DiFi.  This certainly
    isn't the first time that I've had to point out this particularly
    distasteful aspects of the "politics of the Right".
    
    DougO

    Analysis: GOP unity begins to crack
    
    By ROBIN TONER
    New York Times
    
    WASHINGTON -- For 70 days, Republicans in the House of Representatives
    have closed ranks, demonstrated remarkable party discipline and kept
    moving through the legislative agenda in their ``Contract With
    America.'' But now the cracks are beginning to show.
    
    The bills before them now are inherently harder, with immediate,
    real-life consequences for constituents back home. The bitter
    disagreements in the party over social issues, notably abortion, are
    coming to the surface. The Democratic assaults on Republican spending
    and fiscal priorities are unrelenting.
    
    And beyond all the political and institutional factors, House
    Republicans are simply getting tired.
    
    The leadership's promise to act on the entire contract in the first 100
    days -- from nearly $200 billion in tax cuts to systematic welfare
    restructuring -- is exacting a price.
    
    ``April can't come too soon,'' said Rep. Dennis Hastert of Illinois,
    chief deputy whip for the Republicans, as he sank heavily into a chair
    in the Speaker's Lobby. ``It's been a long, long grind.''
    
    The long slide from euphoria was evident in the struggles this week
    over a short-term, $17.3 billion spending-cut bill, which prompted a
    near-rebellion from moderate Republicans over an anti-abortion
    provision, along with widespread queasiness over some of the cuts.
    
    Speaker Newt Gingrich urged his fellow Republicans in a closed caucus
    this morning to hang together and recognize that hard votes are simply
    part of governing, participants said. And later in the day, after
    substantial negotiating and compromising, Republicans did coalesce on
    an early test vote, with final passage of the bill expected today.
    
    But everyone recognizes that this is only the beginning of the hard
    votes as the party tries to deliver on its promise to balance the
    budget by the year 2002, while providing billions in tax cuts.
    ``Seventeen-plus billion is almost nothing compared to what we have to
    do,'' acknowledged California Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Redlands.
    
    At the same time, the renewed struggle over abortion suggested that the
    calm of the past two months was a fraying cease-fire, not a lasting
    peace, on social issues among congressional Republicans. What raised
    the issue was a provision in the spending-cut bill that would have let
    states deny Medicaid financing for abortions for poor women who are
    victims of rape or incest.
    
    Moderate Republicans, who believed there was a clear agreement to avoid
    these issues in the first 100 days, threatened to abandon their party
    on a key procedural vote unless the amendment was dropped.
    
    Sacrifice for party unity
    
    Their outrage, in some cases, seemed to be fueled by the feeling that
    they had swallowed and compromised a lot for the sake of party unity in
    the past two months.
    
    ``We really resent this whole thing,'' said Rep. Sherwood Boehlert of
    New York, one of several angry moderates inveighing against the
    abortion provision Tuesday night.
    
    Rep. Constance Morella, R-Md., said, ``You're talking about rape and
    incest. These situations are rare but tragic, and to deny funding is, I
    think, inhumane.''
    
    Republican leaders counted heads, smelled defeat and gave way to the
    moderates. But that left the anti-abortion forces vowing to fight
    another day.
    
    ``The fight on this issue will be absolutely comprehensive in the very
    near future,'' warned Rep. Christopher H. Smith, R-N.J., who heads the
    House's Pro-Life Caucus. ``We are not backing off, and I've been
    assured by the leadership there is no backing off.''
    
    Restrictions called artificial
    
    Smith said he ``thought from the beginning that restricting moral
    issues from the first 100 days'' was artificial, and that he was glad
    the period would soon be over.
    
    When this grueling week is over, there is no sign there will be any
    immediate respite for the Republicans. Republicans hope to finish their
    ``first 100 days'' by April 7, one week early, because of the holidays
    for Easter and Passover. But they have yet to deal with the most
    divisive legislation.
    
    They must act on a term-limits bill that has generated bitter
    infighting among conservatives -- in part, over whether it should limit
    lawmakers to six or 12 years -- and is widely expected to be the most
    uphill battle of any measure in the contract.
    
    They must act on a major welfare bill and on the tax cut plan that
    cleared the Ways and Means Committee this week. ``The lifting gets
    heavier all along,'' Hastert said in an interview. ``We've got the most
    contentious issues near the end, especially term limits.''
    
    Anticipating the Senate
    
    Hastert acknowledged that the hard votes sometimes looked all the
    harder when it was unclear what the Senate would do. House members
    generally dislike making votes that can be used against them if they
    think the Senate will shrink from the legislation.
    
    Adding to the pressure on House Republicans is a concerted, often
    contemptuous Democratic attack, which portrays the Republicans as a
    party that is systematically paring programs for women, children and
    the elderly.
    
    Still, House Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas said in an interview
    Wednesday night that when the first 100 days were over, what would be
    remarkable would be their accomplishments, not their struggles. ``The
    fact is these bills are moving smoothly,'' Armey said.
    
    And Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the chairman of the House Republican
    Conference, said strain can be a sign of health. ``We're learning to
    become a majority,'' he said. ``We have 230 members with differing
    opinions on many issues. We all have problems; we'd all like the bill
    to be the way we want it to be. But if we're going to continue to be a
    majority, we need to look beyond today.''
    
    Published 3/16/95 in San Jose Mercury News

    DougO:
    
    It was expected in my mind that there was going to be tiffing within
    the ranks of any of the parties...
    
    The BOTTOM LINE is that the contract calls for bringing these issues to
    the floor for debate.  This is giving both parties the opportunity to
    debate the issue...true democracy in practice.  This is something the
    old regime of the last congress never gave anybody the chance to do. 
    They were evil DougO...EEVIILL!!!!
    
    -Jack

	What I am wondering is why the repubs have said too much pork is
associated with bills, why the line item veto wasn't the 1st thing implimented
by them to help prevent it from happening? I kind of get the feeling if they
did, they would fear Clinton cutting up their bills..... 

    
>why the line item veto wasn't the 1st thing implimented
>by them to help prevent it from happening? I kind of get the feeling if they
>did, they would fear Clinton cutting up their bills..... 
    
    The House has passed the line item veto. It was one of the very
    first things it passed. The Senate is debating it now. 
    
    Looks like your feeling is wrong.
    
    						Ed
    
    

	If the senate passes it before the tax cuts, then I'll believe they
mean what they say. If it comes afterwards, then they are full of hot air.

>	If the senate passes it before the tax cuts, then I'll believe they
>mean what they say. If it comes afterwards, then they are full of hot air.

    In today's Globe there is a story on the Line item veto. It says
    that the Republicans in the Senate have reached agreement on the 
    version of the bill they want to bring to the floor. There had
    been a problem in that Sen McCain wanted a strong bill, while
    Domenici wanted a very weak bill. To quote from the Globe:

        "While the new approach is likely to bring together the 54
        Senate Republicans, it is not guaranteed to gain wide-spread support
        among Democrats. Sen. Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia,
        is expected to lead a filibuster against the measure..."
    
    So...not only are the Republicans not "full of hot air". I'm
    sure we'll see yet another example of the Dems trying anything
    they can to defeat any law that will cut spending.

    					Ed

    And y'all tried to tell us the religious right wasn't still a threat.
    
    Actually, I welcome Buchanan's candidacy.  It'll demonstrate to the
    huge middle-of-the-road vote just how far out from the Center is the
    real battle for control of the GOP.
    
    DougO
    -----
    Buchanan makes it official
    
    MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) -- Conservative firebrand Patrick Buchanan today
    kicked off his bid for the GOP presidential nomination by inveighing
    against foreign trade deals, illegal immigrants and the ``purveyors of
    sex and violence'' in American society.
    
    Returning to the state where he embarrassed President Bush three years
    ago, the blunt-spoken TV commentator used vintage Buchanan rhetoric,
    portraying himself as the tried-and-tested conservative in the 1996
    race and contending that Republican ``leap conservatives'' now have
    come around to his criticisms of tax hikes and affirmative action.
    
    ``This campaign is about an America that once again looks out for its
    own people and our own country first,'' he told 150 supporters at the
    Manchester Institute of Arts and Sciences.
    
    ``We have a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference ...
    that does not listen to the forgotten men and women who work in the
    forges, factories, plants and businesses of this country,'' he said.
    Instead, the government is ``too busy taking the phone calls from
    lobbyists for foreign countries and the corporate contributors of the
    Fortune 500,'' he said.
    
    Referring to the 37 percent of the vote he won against Bush here in
    1992, Buchanan said he was ``ready to resume command of the revolution
    we began here three years ago.''
    
    He said he would call the National Guard to action if necessary to
    block illegal aliens from entering the country, and he accused U.S.
    leaders of being too ``timid and fearful of being called names,'' to
    deal with the issue.
    
    Recalling his own Catholic-school youth, he said in today's schools,
    children's minds ``are being poisoned against their Judeo-Christian
    heritage, against American heroes and against American history, against
    the values of faith, family and country.''
    
    Flanked by his wife Shelley and sister Angela ``Bay'' Buchanan and a
    team of New Hampshire campaign organizers, Buchanan pledged to use the
    presidency's ``bully pulpit'' to defend American traditional values.
    ``Together we will chase the purveyors of sex and violence back beneath
    the rocks whence they came,'' he said.
    
    A handful of protesters leaped in front of the podium, jostling
    Buchanan and waving signs that said ``Buchanan is a Racist'' and
    ``Buchanan -  David Duke without the Sheet.'' Buchanan supporters
    shouted, ``Get them out of here,'' and quickly hustled them away. The
    demonstrators handed out a flyer saying they were from the Coalition
    for Jewish Concern.
    
    Buchanan, who has been dogged previously by criticism of anti-semitism,
    appeared unruffled by the disturbance, saying only, ``Now you know what
    we're fighting against in this country.'' Later, he said, ``Nothing,
    especially not this crowd that came in earlier, can stop us Americans
    from going forward to a new era of greatness.''
    
    From New Hampshire, Buchanan was headed Monday to Chicago and then Iowa
    for a tour of the leadoff caucus state.
    
    A poll of 504 New Hampshire adults found only 29 percent say Clinton
    deserves to be re-elected, compared with 53 percent who say he does
    not. Democrats surveyed were much more supportive of Clinton, with 75
    percent saying he deserves a second term, the University of New
    Hampshire poll found.
    
    The president's approval rating in the poll taken March 3-14 was 44
    percent, up from 38 percent in December. Results have a margin of
    sampling error of 4.5 percentage points.
    
    Buchanan's campaign recognizes that he is unlikely to do as well in New
    Hampshire as he did when he was Bush's lone challenger and benefited
    from a significant protest vote against the incumbent president.
    
    Widely known as the host of CNN's ``Crossfire,'' Buchanan has garnered
    only single-digit showings in early opinion polls, which are dominated
    by Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole of Kansas, followed by Texas Sen.
    Phil Gramm. The field also includes former Tennessee Gov. Lamar
    Alexander and Sens. Dick Lugar of Indiana and Arlen Specter of
    Pennsylvania.
    
    Three years ago, Buchanan wounded the embattled Bush with his 37
    percent of the vote in New Hampshire, the nation's first primary
    contest. Buchanan went on to a string of lesser showings and never won
    a primary.
    
    This year, facing a steep uphill battle against a better financed and
    organized field of Republican contenders, Buchanan says he will try to
    build a coalition among those who share his anti-abortion,
    anti-immigration ``economic populism'' views.
    
    He is looking for support from religious conservatives by stressing
    divisive social issues like abortion and gay rights that other
    contenders prefer to play down. On Saturday, he told a New Jersey Right
    to Life convention that Congress should hold hearings on abortion and
    ``totally defund the abortion industry.''
    
    Buchanan also believes he can make inroads with anti-gun control
    groups, Catholics, Ross Perot's supporters, and those who agree with
    him that immigration and the North American Free Trade Agreement and
    General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade pact undermine economic
    opportunity for Americans.
    
    Buchanan vows to defy the GOP analysts who say he cannot win.
    
    In the next 10 days he will carry his message via motor home and
    airplane visits to South Dakota, South Carolina, San Diego, Phoenix and
    Atlanta.
    
    Buchanan plans to rely heavily on conservative radio shows and talk
    radio interviews, a natural forum for him. The 56-year-old commentator
    and former White House aide to Presidents Nixon and Reagan has given up
    his ``Crossfire'' job and his Mutual Broadcasting radio show.
    
    Published 3/20/95 in San Jose Mercury News

	Hey, it was Pat who helped Clinton win last year. Such a hateful repub
convention last year, and he did his best to bring that point home..... welcome
aboard Pat!

    Glen:
    
    Refresh my memory...what were the hateful things he said?  I remember
    him accusing Hillary Clinton of taking away the rights of parents.
    
    -jack

    
    whats hateful about guarding ou borders?

RE      <<< Note 49.271 by CALDEC::RAH "pushing the envelope of sanity.." >>>

>    whats hateful about guarding ou borders?

  Well I suppose nothing, but if we are going to take that attitude perhaps
we should consider changing the slogan on the Statue of Liberty.

  "Give us your tired, your poor, ..."

  George

	Jack, I believe I have his speech somewhere. I will look it up and post
it for ya.

    His speech spat on just about anyone who wasn't a "right thinker." 
    While I am not sure, I think he was the one who started talking about a
    cultural and spiritual war neding to be waged in the US.  Give the fact
    that the only "cultural revolution" I have any knowlege of was in
    Communist China, and focused on wiping out those who thought, this man
    gives me the chills. 
    
    It seems to me he is also another member of the chicken-hawk set of
    Republicans.  He joins the proud ranks of Phil Gramm and Newt Gingrich, 
    who say they supported "our boys in Viet Nam" but found ways to dodge
    the draft and refuse to serve at the same time. 
    
    meg

    
    yes, lets lose that silly slogan.

    That came with the statue didn't it?  If so, then the slogan is from
    France and hence the slogan is the epitomy of Socialism...
    
    -Jack

  Ok, so what other ideals should we lose?

  - Even though we are a nation of immigrants, we should declare war on any
    new immigrants.

  - Reform out judicial system and do away with the presumption of innocence.

  - Institute coerced confessions and deny trials to anyone who cracks.

  - Force pregnant women into slavery by denying abortion.

  - Regulate what people get to see on TV.

  No, the America of the right is not my America.

  George

    
    See ya later, George,

    George:
    
    What in heavens name are you talking about man?!  Who said anything
    about TV regulation?  There have been moratoriums on immigration in the
    past, the abortion thing...we've beaten that to death.
    
    -Jack

    
    Buchanan at the podium in 92 was a pure public-relations disaster
    for the GOP, as bad as Rawss.  The party pollsters know it.  He is
    the Jesse Jackson the the GOP, and costs votes every time he speaks,
    while gaining none.
    
    He knows he can't be nominated (as Jesse does).  What is this man
    doing ?  You can bet Phil Gramm is very worried about Pat B.
    
      bb

    I remember watching Buchanan's speech at the last Republican
    convention.  As appalling as his rhetoric were the young men in suits
    below the podium, jumping up and down, waving arms, shouting "Go, Pat,
    Go!" 
    
    - Stephen

    Could somebody please post the speech if they can get it...thanks.
    
    I want to read this for myself as it is possible the S_Burridge is just
    parroting the bleeding hearts of the world and he really has no clue as
    to what he's saying.  Then again he may be on the up and up but I'd
    like to see the speech anyway.
    
    -Jack

    jack,
    
    Didn't you watch the convention?  It was entertaining in an Orwellian
    kind of way.  Between Pat Buchanon and Pat Robertson, you would have
    thought you were wtching something out of the 30's in a European
    country that shall remain nameless.  I truly believe that that opening
    night probably cost a few thousand votes among the "country-club"
    republican set.  
    
    meg

    Jack,
    
    I couldn't quote from the speech, but (as I wrote in my note), I remember 
    watching it, and the impression it made on me.  I'm not "parroting" 
    anybody.
    
    - Stephen
    
    

Here is the text of a speech prepared for delivery to the
Republican National Convention Monday by Patrick J. Buchanan: 
   
   Well, we took the long way home, but we finally got here. 
   And I want to congratulate President Bush, and remove any doubt about where
we stand: The primaries are over, the heart is strong again, and the Buchanan
Brigades are enlisted -- all the way to a great comeback victory in November. 
   Like many of you last month, I watched that giant masquerade ball at Madison
Square Garden -- where 20,000 radicals and liberals came dressed up as moderates
and centrists -- in the greatest single exhibition of cross-dressing in American
political history. 
   One by one, the prophets of doom appeared at the podium. The Reagan Decade,
they moaned, was a terrible time in America; and the only way to prevent even
worse times, they said, is to entrust our nation's fate and future to the party
that gave us McGovern, Mondale, Carter and Michael Dukakis. 
   No way, my friends. The American people are not going to buy back into the
failed liberalism of the 1960s and '70s -- no matter how slick the package in
1992. 
   The malcontents of Madison Square Garden notwithstanding, the 1980s were not
terrible years. They were great years. You know it. I know it. And the only
people who don't know it are the carping critics who sat on the sidelines of
history, jeering at one of the great statesmen of modern time. 
   Out of Jimmy Carter's days of malaise, Ronald Reagan crafted the longest
peacetime recovery in U.S. history -- 3 million new businesses created, and 20
million new jobs. 
   Under the Reagan Doctrine, one by one, the communist dominos began to fall.
First, Grenada was liberated, by U.S. troops. Then, the Red Army was run out of
Afghanistan, by U.S. weapons. In Nicaragua, the Marxist regime was forced to
hold free elections - by Ronald Reagan's contra army -- and the Communists were
thrown out of power. 
   Have they forgotten? It was under our party that the Berlin Wall came down,
and Europe was reunited. It was under our party that the Soviet Empire
collapsed, and the captive nations broke free. 
   It is said that each president will be recalled by posterity -- with but a
single sentence. George Washington was the father of our country. Abraham
Lincoln preserved the Union. And Ronald Reagan won the Cold War. And it is time
my old colleagues, the columnists and commentators, looking down on us tonight,
from their anchor booths and sky boxes, gave Ronald Reagan the credit he
deserves -- for leading America to victory in the Cold War. 
   Most of all, Ronald Reagan made us proud to be Americans again. We never felt
better about our country; and we never stood taller in the eyes of the world. 
   But, we are here, not only to celebrate, but to nominate. And an American
president has many, many roles. 
   He is our first diplomat, the architect of American foreign policy. And which
of these two men is more qualified for that role? George Bush has been U.N.
ambassador, CIA director, envoy to China. As vice president, he co-authored the
policies that won the Cold War. As president, George Bush presided over the
liberation of Eastern Europe and the termination of the Warsaw Pact. And Mr.
Clinton? Well, Bill Clinton couldn't find 150 words to discuss foreign policy in
an acceptance speech that lasted an hour. As was said of an earlier Democratic
candidate, Bill Clinton's foreign policy experience is pretty much confined to
having had breakfast once at the International House of Pancakes. 
   The presidency is also America's bully pulpit, what Mr. Truman called,
"pre-eminently a place of moral leadership." George Bush is a defender of right
to life, and life-long champion of the Judeo-Christian values and beliefs upon
which this nation was built. 
   Mr. Clinton, however, has a different agenda. 
   At its top is unrestricted abortion on demand. When the Irish-Catholic
governor of Pennsylvania, Robert Casey, asked to say a few words, on behalf of
the 25 million unborn children destroyed since Roe v. Wade, he was told there
was no place for him at the podium of Bill Clinton's convention, no room at the
inn. 
   Yet, a militant leader of the homosexual rights movement could rise at that
convention and exult: "Bill Clinton and Al Gore represent the most pro-lesbian
and pro-gay ticket in history." And so they do. 
   Bill Clinton supports school choice -- but only for state-run schools.
Parents who send their children to Christian schools, or Catholic schools, need
not apply. 
   Elect me, and you get two for the price of one, Mr. Clinton says of his
lawyer-spouse. And what does Hillary believe? Well, Hillary believes that
12-year-olds should have a right to sue their parents, and she has compared
marriage as an institution to slavery -- and life on an Indian reservation. 
   Well, speak for yourself, Hillary. 
   Friends, this is radical feminism. The agenda Clinton & Clinton would impose
on America -- abortion on demand, a litmus test for the Supreme Court,
homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in combat --
that's change all right. But it is not the kind of change America wants. It is
not the kind of change America needs. And it is not the kind of change we can
tolerate in a nation that we still call God's country. 
   A president is also commander-in-chief, the man we empower to send sons and
brothers, fathers and friends, to war. 
   George Bush was 17 when they bombed Pearl Harbor. He left his high school
class, walked down to the recruiting office, and signed up to become the
youngest fighter pilot in the Pacific War. And Mr. Clinton? When Bill Clinton's
turn came in Vietnam, he sat up in a dormitory in Oxford, England, and figured
out how to dodge the draft. 
   Which of these two men has won the moral authority to call on Americans to
put their lives at risk? I suggest, respectfully, it is the patriot and war
hero, Navy Lt.j.g George Herbert Walker Bush. 
   My friends, this campaign is about philosophy, and it is about character; and
George Bush wins on both counts -- going away; and it is time all of us came
home and stood beside him. 
   
   As running mate, Mr. Clinton chose Albert Gore. And just how moderate is
Prince Albert? Well, according to the Taxpayers Union, Al Gore beat out Teddy
Kennedy, two straight years, for the title of biggest spender in the Senate. 
   And Teddy Kennedy isn't moderate about anything. 
   In New York, Mr. Gore made a startling declaration. Henceforth, he said, the
"central organizing principle" of all governments must be: the environment. 
   Wrong, Albert! 
   The central organizing principle of this republic is freedom. And from the
ancient forests of Oregon, to the Inland Empire of California, America's great
middle class has got to start standing up to the environmental extremists who
put insects, rats and birds -- ahead of families, workers and jobs. 
   One year ago, my friends, I could not have dreamt I would be here. I was then
still just one of many panelists on what President Bush calls, "those crazy
Sunday talk shows." 
   But, I disagreed with the president; and so we challenged the president in
the Republican primaries, and fought as best we could. From February to June, he
won 33 primaries. I can't recall exactly how many we won. 
   But, tonight, I want to talk to the 3 million Americans who voted for me: I
will never forget you, nor the great honor you have done me. But, I do believe,
deep in my heart, that the right place for us to be now -- in this presidential
campaign -- is right beside George Bush. This party is our home, this party is
where we belong. And, don't let anyone tell you any different. 
   Yes, we disagreed with President Bush, but we stand with him for
freedom-of-choice religious schools, and we stand with him against the amoral
idea that gay and lesbian couples should have the same standing in law as
married men and women. 
   We stand with President Bush for right to life, and for voluntary prayer in
the public schools -- and against putting American women in combat. And we stand
with President Bush in favor of the right of small towns and communities to
control the raw sewage of pornography that pollutes our popular culture. 
   We stand with President Bush in favor of federal judges who interpret the law
as written, and against Supreme Court justices who think they have a mandate to
rewrite our Constitution. 
   My friends, this election is about much more than who gets what. It is about
who we are. It is about what we believe, it is about what we stand for as
Americans. There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of
America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day
be -- as was the Cold War itself. And in that struggle for the soul of America,
Clinton & Clinton are on the other side, and George Bush is on our side. And,
so, we have to come home -- and stand beside him. 
   My friends, in those six months -- from Concord to California -- I came to
know our country better than ever before in my life, and I collected memories
that will be with me always. 
   There was that day-long ride through the great state of Georgia in a bus Vice
President Bush himself had used in 1988 -- a bus they called Asphalt One. The
ride ended with a 9 p.m. speech, in front of a magnificent Southern mansion, in
a town called Fitzgerald. 
   There were the workers at the James River Paper Mill, in the frozen North
Country of New Hampshire, hard, tough men, one of whom was silent, until I shook
his hand. Then, he looked up in my eyes, and said, "Save our jobs!" 
   There was the legal secretary at the Manchester airport on Christmas Day, who
told me she was going to vote for me, then broke down crying, saying, "I've lost
my job, I don't have any money; they're going to take away my daughter. What am
I going to do?" 
   My friends, even in tough times, these people are with us. They don't read
Adam Smith or Edmund Burke, but they came from the same schoolyards and
playgrounds and towns as we did. They share our beliefs and convictions, our
hopes and our dreams. They are the conservatives of the heart. They are our
people. And, we need to reconnect with them. We need to let them know we know
they're hurting. They don't expect miracles, but they need to know we care. 
   There were the people of Hayfork, the tiny town high up in California's
Trinity Alps, a town that is now under a sentence of death, because a federal
judge has set aside 9 million acres for the habitat of the spotted owl --
forgetting about the habitat of the men and women who live and work in Hayfork.
And there where the brave live the family values we treasure, and who still
believe deeply in the American dream. 
   Friends, in those wonderful 25 weeks, the saddest days were the days of the
bloody riot in L.A., worst in our history. But even out of that awful tragedy
can come a message of hope. 
   Hours after the violence ended I visited the Army compound in south L.A.,
where an officer of the 18th Cavalry, that had come to rescue the city,
introduced me to two of his troopers. They could not have been 20 years old. He
told them to recount there story. 
   They had come into Los Angeles late on the second day; and they walked up a
dark street, where the mob had looted and burned every building but one, a
convalescent home for the aged. The mob was heading in, to ransack and loot the
apartments of the terrified old men and women. When the troopers arrived, M-16s
at the ready, the mob threatened and cursed, but the mob retreated. It had met
the one thing that could stop it: force, rooted in justice, backed by courage. 
   Greater love than this hath no man than that he lay down his life for his
friend. Here were 19-year-old boys ready to lay down their lives to stop a mob
from molesting old people they did not even know. And, as they took back the
streets of Los Angeles, block by block, so we must take back our cities, and
take back our culture, and take back our country. 
   God bless you, and God bless America.

RE         <<< Note 49.279 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

>    What in heavens name are you talking about man?!  Who said anything
>    about TV regulation?  

  Pat Buchannan. In a speech the other day up in New Hampshire he attacked
sex and violence on TV. He gave me no warm fuzzy feeling that as President
he would take the position of being "morally against it while protecting
everyone's right to decide for themselves".

>There have been moratoriums on immigration in the
>    past, the abortion thing...we've beaten that to death.
    
  When did we ever have a moratorium on immigration?

  George

Fellow noters:

I went through this speech line by line.  Conclusion...you are a bunch of 
whiners.  The presidents speech in Framingham was FAR more third Reisch than 
this.  These are the points I gleaned from the speech that could possibly be
taken as 1930's propoganda.  Feel free to make your own list!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Elect me, and you get two for the price of one, Mr. Clinton says of his
lawyer-spouse. And what does Hillary believe? Well, Hillary believes that
12-year-olds should have a right to sue their parents, and she has compared
marriage as an institution to slavery -- and life on an Indian reservation. 
----
Oh for crying out loud...that's politics!  Besides, the Childrens Defense
League does support this idea.  So he's telling the truth.
----
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
on America -- abortion on demand, a litmus test for the Supreme Court,
homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in combat --
that's change all right. But it is not the kind of change America wants. It is
not the kind of change America needs. And it is not the kind of change we can
tolerate in a nation that we still call God's country. 
----
Alot of people feel litmus tests for the Supreme Court are wrong, including
democrats.  Re: Schools, not sure exactly what he means unless he's talking
about vouchers.  Women in combat...alot of people feel it is appropriate
for women to fly an F16...as far as being in a trench, leave that to the
Joint Chiefs of Staff.  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   The central organizing principle of this republic is freedom. And from the
ancient forests of Oregon, to the Inland Empire of California, America's great
middle class has got to start standing up to the environmental extremists who
put insects, rats and birds -- ahead of families, workers and jobs. 

-----
Environmental extremisn is no big surprise.  It has been a debated issue but it
certainly isn't unprovable.
-----
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Yes, we disagreed with President Bush, but we stand with him for
freedom-of-choice religious schools, and we stand with him against the amoral
idea that gay and lesbian couples should have the same standing in law as
married men and women. 
----
I agree with him on both those counts.  So do millions of people from both 
parties...so what?
----
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   We stand with President Bush for right to life, and for voluntary prayer in
the public schools -- and against putting American women in combat. And we stand
with President Bush in favor of the right of small towns and communities to
control the raw sewage of pornography that pollutes our popular culture. 
----
Yes, give those powers back to the states where they belong.  There are lots
of free speech issues that are regulated...so what?
----
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   My friends, this election is about much more than who gets what. It is about
who we are. It is about what we believe, it is about what we stand for as
Americans. There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of
America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day
be -- as was the Cold War itself. And in that struggle for the soul of America,
Clinton & Clinton are on the other side, and George Bush is on our side. And,
so, we have to come home -- and stand beside him. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Cultural war to me isn't about race or ethnicity.  It is about ideology.  To 
say there isn't a battle in this country over different ideology is sheer 
putting ones head in the sand.  It's been going on since the sexual revolution
I do agree that Buchanan did make a hasty generalization here.  What we believe
and who we are is a matter of opinion.  But make no mistake, a cultural war
is definitely happening in our country.  Also, this war is waged by both sides
of the fence.
----
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   God bless you, and God bless America.

----
I'm sure this really got alot of peoples goat.  But let's be honest, this 
speech WAS NOT the third Reisch speech some made it out to be.  I've heard
worse.  Heck Reagans speech calling the USSR The Great Satan was more overt than
this!!!

-Jack

    George:
    
    A president is held under the responsibility of the Constitution.  A
    president can try to manipulate but the bottom line is Congress.
    
    -Jack

    Pat Buchanan is extremely unpopular with the left right now. Why?
    Because he has the audacity to have more appeal to the working
    class than the generic party-approved socialist democrat.

    Uh oh. What _are_ you all going to do now that a big part of
    your constituency has recognized that your FoS, and is giving
    a man on the far right a chance? Uh oh. Uh oh. PANIC!!! PANIC!!!
    Call him a racist! Call him a hate-monger! Damn the torpedoes,
    there's serious lying to be done!

    Well, have at it.

    Me, I already have far too much money and time invested in
    Bob Dole's candidacy to switch to Pat, but I'm certainly
    tempted!

    -b

    
    Jack, it wasn't so much the speech's content , although that was
    quite feisty, but the way it was delivered, the rhetorical effect
    of Buchanan, his looks, the responses in his supporters.
    
    This just isn't how to run for prex.  It has been the smiling,
    self-deprecating approach that has been most successful - see
    St. Ron.  The firewater approach scares the moderates, the key
    consituency, see 1992.
    
      bb

RE         <<< Note 49.288 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

>    A president is held under the responsibility of the Constitution.  A
>    president can try to manipulate but the bottom line is Congress.
    
  The 3 branches of power each have plenty of power and are pretty well
balanced. If it's all the same with you, I'll vote for a president that
represents my point of view regardless of the fact that he shares power
with Congress.

  George

RE     <<< Note 49.289 by MPGS::MARKEY "Specialists in Horizontal Decorum" >>>

>    Pat Buchanan is extremely unpopular with the left right now. Why?
>    Because he has the audacity to have more appeal to the working
>    class than the generic party-approved socialist democrat.

  If this is true, then why was he unable to win the Republican primary while
a democrat was able to win the election?

  It would seem that the democrat had a lot more support than Buchanan. As
you right wing types are so proud to say these days, "the people spoke". Bill
Clinton was elected as President and Pat Buchanan was sent packing back to
feed off the public trough at P.B.S.

  George

    RE: .291
    
    >I'll vote for a president that represents my point of view
    >regardless.....
    
    
      Ummmmm.... Meowski? I don't believe Alfred E. Newman ever ran for
    president (but I could be mistaken...)

    >If this is true, then why was he unable to win the Republican primary while
    >a democrat was able to win the election?
    
    That was then... this is now.
    
    -b

    I don't like Buchanan.

    Umm, yes, he did.  In the late 60's right around the same time that Pat
    Paulsen did.  1968 I think it was.  
    
    BTW, Pat's speech reads no differently than any other rights erosion
    plan from the left or the right.  He played the morality card and tried
    to bludgeon the populace with his own brand of righteousness.  The
    rhetoric would be funny if it wasn't so scary.  
    
    

| <<< Note 49.287 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| I went through this speech line by line.  Conclusion...you are a bunch of
| whiners.  The presidents speech in Framingham was FAR more third Reisch than
| this.  These are the points I gleaned from the speech that could possibly be
| taken as 1930's propoganda.  Feel free to make your own list!

	Jack, could you please post this Clinton speech you talked about?



Glen

    
    
    
    It's funny not to see any rebuttal of the speech yet there was a lot of
    whining going on about it........
    
    
    BTW-I'm not a big fan of Buchanan, but I still don't see all the hate
    that was being propagated by the libs and the media.
    
    
    Mike

    
    
    Of course there is no rebuttal Mike, it's a great speech and
    it reflects what most of mainstream middle-class americans feel.
    People may now agree with everything he said (I don't) but the
    core of it hits the mark.
    
    That why people have to label him a racist, or bring up the
    ever nebulous phrase - code words - or talk about his delivery.
    
    Fact is, his speech scares people who prefer sugar-coated
    meaningless platitudes, hence Bill Clinton. 
    
    Personally, I am glad he's announced and he has my vote!
    
    						Hank

    Umm, I don't care for the sugar coated platypusses either.  I just find
    Buchanan et al. to be an extremist.  
    
    

    
    
    I guess the thing that disturbs me about Buchanan is that he brings
    religion into the political arena.  Now, that is not to say that I
    disagree with what he says it's just that government has no part in
    this area of ones life.  For me, abortion is not a religious issue but
    rather an issue of the fundamental right to life, liberty and the
    pursuit of happiness.
    
    Mike

RE     <<< Note 49.294 by MPGS::MARKEY "Specialists in Horizontal Decorum" >>>

>    That was then... this is now.
    
  Well according to this morning's Boston Globe, your window of "now" may be
closing.

  A recent poll showed that people are losing faith in the GOP. A majority of
people seemed to think that the cuts being suggested by the GOP were going to
far and Bill Clinton's popularity seems to be on the way back up. 

  Now I wonder, is that still a case of "the people speaking" or are we now
back to the people being fooled.

  George

    	There was nothing wrong with that Buchanan speech posted in 
    	.285.  Nothing hateful at all.

    If one infers that by "cross dressers" Buchanan is referring to
    transvestites, then he seems like he's foaming. If one infers he means
    liberals cloaking themselves as moderates, then it seems less so.

RE:.302

	Can I assume that you also would like Rev. Jesse Jackson to stay
out of the political arena because of him bringing religion into the arena?

	If a person takes a stand on an issue because of his religion, and
states this openly, then what is wrong with that?

ME

    Joe,
    
    Of course you don't see it as hateful to declare war on people of
    different religions or sexual orientations, do you?
    
    It isn't hate to want to post armed guards, ala the berlin wall on
    2000+ miles of border is it?  
    
    It isn't hate to refer to your opossition as extremist and dangerous to
    America?
    
    meg

    	You really have to drop that feminism that is polluting your
    	outlook, Meg.
    
    	You talk about hate more than just about anyone else in this
    	conference.

    Meg
    
       
    >Of course you don't see it as hateful to declare war on people of
    >different religions or sexual orientations, do you?
    
    	Obviously he does not support the gay rights movement.
    	But where does he "declare war on people of different religions?
    
      
    >It isn't hate to refer to your opossition as extremist and dangerous to
    >America?
    
    That is *exactly* what his critics have done and are doing today.
    Are they too engaging in the politics of hate? Or is that label only
    reserved for conservatives?
    
    
    
    meg

    Meg:
    
    That's nonsense.  He was declaring war on the status quo of
    proslethizing liberal thinking in the United States.  Meg, my sister
    went to a State School in Massachusetts and by her Sophomore year,
    though Socialism was great and Lenin was a decent leader and
    philosopher.  No joke!!  8 years later and she did grow out of this
    thinking; however, her school taught her this.  I believe battling this
    is noble...socialist liberal thinking in our schools.  
    
    Oh, and you don't think that social engineering isn't happening in the
    public schools?  Well, you need to get around more.  This is why I am
    very skeptical and paranoid of government assistance programs.  It
    makes government the lord and savior of the peoples....BAD prescedent
    to set, especially to an up and coming generation.
    I believe our government is intentionally dummying up our students. 
    Give me any reason why I shouldn't believe this.  I mentioned yesterday
    our nation is ranked last in education of Sciences and Math.  This is
    pathetic Meg...Absolutely Pathetic!!!!!  Get the synsytyvyty crap out
    of the schools and get back to the basics.
    
    This is what I see Pat Buchanan speaking war on...not race or sexual
    orientation.  Social engineering is now the great Satan in my opinion!
    
    -Jack

>    Of course you don't see it as hateful to declare war on people of
>    different religions or sexual orientations, do you?

huh? we're at war?
    
>    It isn't hate to want to post armed guards, ala the berlin wall on
>    2000+ miles of border is it?  

Oh - so we should open our borders to let any and all people in???
    
>    It isn't hate to refer to your opossition as extremist and dangerous to
>    America?

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Meg, is your middle name "Pot'N'Kettle"???

/scott

RE                           -< Buchanans Speech >-

  There's plenty of hate in this speech.

>   One by one, the prophets of doom appeared at the podium. The Reagan Decade,
>they moaned, was a terrible time in America; and the only way to prevent even
>worse times, they said, is to entrust our nation's fate and future to the party
>that gave us McGovern, Mondale, Carter and Michael Dukakis. 

  Here's some hate. Calling people "prophets of doom".

>   The malcontents of Madison Square Garden notwithstanding, the 1980s were not
>terrible years. 

  ... calling people malcontents

>And the only
>people who don't know it are the carping critics 

  ... carping critics

  and on it goes, one nasty degrading comment after another. A speech riddled
with hate.

  George

    
    
    Meowski's right!!!
    
    They should pack off Pat to HymieTown!!!!!!
    

    There's nothing wrong with people having faith.  
    There's nothing wrong with people who believe in the strength
    of their convictions.
    
    There is, however, something wrong with people who believe
    that their faith and their convictions are so right that *I*
    should have them too, whether I want them or not.
    
    Mary-Michael

    George:
    
    That kind of rhetoric is politics...definitely on both sides.  Watch
    congress on CSPAN sometime!  Heck, I heard Clinton and Kennedy in
    Framingham last year.  For the first time in my life, I identified with
    a propoganda speech of such prominence.  It was airy indeed.
    
    That isn't hate George, that's political posturing.  Buchanan had
    nothing good to say about Bush before that speech for cryin out loud!
    
    -Jack

RE: .312

	8 lines out of the whole speech is a lot of hate?

	Can't you do better than that, Meowski?

ME

| <<< Note 49.304 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| There was nothing wrong with that Buchanan speech posted in
| .285.  Nothing hateful at all.

	I would have been surprised if you had said anything different.

    Mary Michael:
    
    Clintons doing this too...I keep hearing "mean spirited" from his ilk
    all the time!  What this tells me is shame on me for not thinking like
    they do!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 49.308 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

| You really have to drop that feminism that is polluting your outlook, Meg.

	I agree with Joe on this Meg. It's allowing you to see too much of the
truth and it is not a good thing for those of the RR.

| You talk about hate more than just about anyone else in this conference.

	Glad you put just about anyone else. 


Glen

    	re .314
    
    	Well it might do you some good, Mary-Michael.  From your
    	postings in here you life seems pretty miserable without
    	them!  And the more you fight them, the more miserable
    	you seem to get!
    
    	:^)

    
    
    
    Well, there you go doing it again, George (;')), calling a few lines
    hate when there is none.  Nice try in rewriting the history books (once
    again), but people are starting to wise up.
    
    
    Mike

    
    If use of the phrases "prophets of doom", "malcontents", and
    "carping critics" are evidence of hate, every politician in
    America is a hater - Clinton and Bush both used stronger language
    than that in 1992.  So does Georgie M. himself right here, and so
    do I.
    
    Actually, these are cliches.  I've heard all 3 of those phrases used
    by sportscasters on TV.
    
      bb

    re: .318
    
    I would have to have an instance to really comment on 
    this. 
    
    Personally I think there's a big difference being calling
    someone "mean-spirited" and outlawing mean-spiritedness.
    
    Rhetoric in politics is a given, albeit a rather useless
    one.  My concern with the GOP is that it is going beyond
    rhetoric to an outright ostracizing of those who do not
    conform to their way of thinking and subscribe to their
    belief.  If you are in line with them it is very easy to
    feel "safe".  We didn't coin the phrase "safety in numbers"
    for nothing.  If you fall outside their scope, then I believe
    there is a real cause for concern.
    
    Mary-Michael

    re: .320 
    
    Ah, ptooey on you! ;-) ;-) ;-)
    
    Actually I do have faith.  A very strong one.  It
    isn't like yours, but with it comes very strong ideas
    about right and wrong and accountablity.  I have been
    told many times I am "too honest". I take it as a compliment.
    I have a vision of what I would like the world to be like.
    I have very strong convictions.  They are not mainstream,
    I will grant you that, but if the world isn't going where
    you want it to, thinking like everyone else won't get you
    where you want to be faster.
    
    Mary-Michael

    
    
    RE: .323 Mary Michael,
    
    
    That's a pretty far stretch.  Do you check for boogeymen under your bed
    at night or just for Pat Buchanan. ;')
    
    
    Mike

    re: .325
    
    Think McCarthy
    Think "History repeats itself."
    
    You'll be checking under your bed too..... 
    
    :-) :-) :-)
    
    Mary-Michael

    
    Joe?
    
    What kind of leash you got that boy on???

    re: .319
    
    
    Bwahahahahaa...ahem, sorry.

RE    <<< Note 49.321 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "NRA member in good standing" >>>

>    Well, there you go doing it again, George (;')), calling a few lines
>    hate when there is none.  Nice try in rewriting the history books (once
>    again), but people are starting to wise up.
    
  I put in a few lines as examples, it went on from there.

  Even Jack Kemp complained about that speech and urged the rest of the
speakers to be more positive in their message.

  George

                     <<< Note 49.329 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  Even Jack Kemp complained about that speech and urged the rest of the
>speakers to be more positive in their message.

    	Just another example of the liberalization of even the GOP.
    	It's a cancer.
    
    	But what does Kemp know?  He isn't even running for pres.  I
    	think you'll be surprised at the support that Buchanan gets.
    	You underestimate the average American's disgust for liberalism.

Well, even though I am a relatively conservative Republican,
Buchanan won't get my vote if he becomes a national candidate.
If the GOP is smart, they'll never nominate him. 

    I don't see Buchanan getting the nomination -- just a lot of support.  
    More likely I see Gramm or Dole.  But would you choose Clinton (for 
    instance) over Buchanan, were those the choices, Jack?
    
    Probably not.  You'd do a third-party or write-in, most likely, and
    I would not begrudge you that choice.

re: .330 (Joe)

>    	Just another example of the liberalization of even the GOP.
>    	It's a cancer.

Is there any translation for this OTHER than "It's MY way, or the
WRONG way?"

Just checking.
\john

    	And are you saying any less in your attack on my position, John?
    
    	We are all entitled to our opinions.  Or perhaps you are saying
    	that I am not...

RE      <<< Note 49.330 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

>    	But what does Kemp know?  He isn't even running for pres.  I
>    	think you'll be surprised at the support that Buchanan gets.
>    	You underestimate the average American's disgust for liberalism.

  Ok, wana make a bet? I bet that who ever wins the democratic primary gets
more votes than Pat Buchannan gets in the Republican primary.

  I'll bet 10 at-ah-boys. We on?

  George

>    More likely I see Gramm or Dole.  But would you choose Clinton (for 
>    instance) over Buchanan, were those the choices, Jack?
>    
>    Probably not.  You'd do a third-party or write-in, most likely, and
>    I would not begrudge you that choice.

Correct, Joe - I would choose Slick under no circumstances. I would
end up with a 3rd party or write-in vote if those were the choices.
I only hope the choices are more reasonable than that. I trust that
they will be. I think Dole and Gramm both have better chances of the
nomination than Buchanan.

                     <<< Note 49.335 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  Ok, wana make a bet? I bet that who ever wins the democratic primary gets
>more votes than Pat Buchannan gets in the Republican primary.
    
    	(Wanna.)

    	Apples and oranges, George.  I've already stated that I don't
    	expect him to win.  I just said that he would garner a lot of
    	support.  You'd have suggested a more exciting wager if you
    	wanted to bet on Buchannan finishing last or not (among major
    	candidates) or on him dropping out of the race first or not,
    	etc.
    
    	And I may be wrong on this, but aren't there more Democratic
    	voters than Republican?  It's possible (perhaps likely) that 
    	the winner of the Democratic primaries will get more votes 
    	than the winner of the Republican primaries.

    	.336
    
    	Actually, Jack, I see Buchanan running a solid 3rd or 4th overall,
    	and will get to throw a serious block of support to whomever he
    	chooses as the primaries wind down -- and I'd bet that he throws
    	his support to Gramm, who will be running a close second (behind
    	Dole) at the time.

    
    Tell you what Meowski...
    
    If Jesse decides to run, I'll put my money on Pat (to garner more votes
    in a primary).
    
      I wouldn't vote for either one of them on my best day, but I'd put my
    money on Pat...
    
     Deal?
    

RE      <<< Note 49.337 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

>    	Apples and oranges, George.  I've already stated that I don't
>    	expect him to win.  I just said that he would garner a lot of
>    	support.  

  What are you talking about? For a presidential candidate, support = votes.

>You'd have suggested a more exciting wager if you
>    	wanted to bet on Buchannan finishing last or not (among major
>    	candidates) or on him dropping out of the race first or not,
>    	etc.

  So is that your measure of your "powerful" candidate? The ability to avoid
finishing last?

  What are you anyway, a Mets fan?
    
  George

>    	And I may be wrong on this, but aren't there more Democratic
>    	voters than Republican?  It's possible (perhaps likely) that 
>    	the winner of the Democratic primaries will get more votes 
>    	than the winner of the Republican primaries.

Since primaries are state by state, it makes no sense to compare numbers
of votes.  Some states allow crossovers, so that muddies the picture even
more.  The Democratic Party would be smart to encourage Dems to cross over
and vote for Buchanan, who'd be more likely to lose to the Dem nominee than
more mainstream candidates.

                     <<< Note 49.340 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>>    	expect him to win.  I just said that he would garner a lot of
>>    	support.  
>
>  What are you talking about? For a presidential candidate, support = votes.
    
    	A lot of support is a lot of votes.  "A lot" doesn't necessarily
    	mean "the most".

>  So is that your measure of your "powerful" candidate? The ability to avoid
>finishing last?
    
    	Did I say "powerful"?  Didn't I already say I didn't expect him
    	to win?  I believe I simply said "a lot of support".  And that
    	you'd be surprised at how much support he gets.
    
    	What's your point, George?  Are you now going to tell us that
    	you wouldn't be surprised at him finishing, say, third?

    
    Actually, in the primaries, particularly NH, all the Republicans may
    each outdraw Clinton in the primaries if he is unopposed.  This
    means nothing.  Why would Democrats come out for an uncontested
    primary, and what does it prove if they do or don't ?
    
      bb

I suspect Clinton won't be unopposed in the NH primary.  Interesting question:
which incumbents have run unopposed in NH?

   
   How long has New Hampshire had an idiot tax on presidential wannabees?
   
   								-mr. bill

RE      <<< Note 49.342 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

>    	A lot of support is a lot of votes.  "A lot" doesn't necessarily
>    	mean "the most".

>    	Did I say "powerful"?  Didn't I already say I didn't expect him
>    	to win?  I believe I simply said "a lot of support".  And that
>    	you'd be surprised at how much support he gets.
>    
>    	What's your point, George?  Are you now going to tell us that
>    	you wouldn't be surprised at him finishing, say, third?

  You are talking in circles.

  If a Republican candidate has lots of support then he should be a contender
to win. If he is not a contender to win, then he doesn't have all that much
support.

  Pat Buchannan and other far right candidates over the last couple elections
have done well to pull 5% of the Republican vote each. That's a dramatic
lack of support. A vote of 5% hardly shows name recognition.

  If Pat Buchannan is not a contender in most primaries and if he doesn't win
a bunch of them, then he doesn't have lots of support. It's that simple.

  George

>  Pat Buchannan and other far right candidates over the last couple elections
>have done well to pull 5% of the Republican vote each. That's a dramatic
>lack of support. A vote of 5% hardly shows name recognition.

Buchanan came in second to an incumbent in NH.  What percent did he get?

    To me, the important aspect of Buchanan's candidacy is that it
    highlights the huge gap between GOP rhetoric about getting the
    government off people's backs and the reality that people like Buchanan
    want government right into people's personal choices about how they
    live their lives.  Abortions?  Religion?  Pat's way or the highway, is
    the message the far right preaches.  It simply won't wash, it will not
    become any more acceptable to dictate matters of conscience from the
    power of political office than it was last timne around.  Buchanan and
    the radical right, in trying to wrest control of the GOP, will tear it 
    apart.
    
    Got your vote, has he, Hank?
    
    DougO

    
    
    No bet Meowski???
    

    	re .346
    
    	Pure semantics, George, and I don't agree with what you said.
    
    	I have no problem with you disagreeing with me.

RE  <<< Note 49.349 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap!" >>>

>    No bet Meowski???
    
  What would be the point of such a bet? They are two fringe candidates with a
small but solid and vocal group of supporters.

  The fact that you would lump them together shows just how much of a fringe
candidate Buchannan really is.

  George

    Not only that, he's mincing words too!

  Normally I avoid political discussions specific to the U.S., since it's
  not really any of my business.  Also, I've been too busy lately to really
  participate as I would have liked to, but this rathole caught my eye.
  So, if any of you care to hear MY $0.02, read on...    :^)

    

  I find myself in basic agreement with Mr. Burridge regarding Pat's little
  speech (as if any of you would have thought otherwise  :^), and here's
  why:
   
>  Under the Reagan Doctrine, one by one, the communist dominos began to fall.
>First, Grenada was liberated, by U.S. troops. Then, the Red Army was run out of
>Afghanistan, by U.S. weapons. In Nicaragua, the Marxist regime was forced to
>hold free elections - by Ronald Reagan's contra army -- and the Communists were
>thrown out of power.

  I see a tacit approval of a policy of intervention in the domestic affairs
  of other nations.  I thought Conservatives were tiring of being global
  policeman.  Or is it okay, as long as the bad guy is left wing?   I'm not
  saying that these interventions were wrong, but I'm left wondering just
  exactly what moral reasons Pat would consider acceptable for foriegn
  intervention.
 
>  Have they forgotten? It was under our party that the Berlin Wall came down,
>and Europe was reunited. It was under our party that the Soviet Empire
>collapsed, and the captive nations broke free.

  The Republican Party is here being credited for the collapse of the Soviet
  Union, the obvious implication being that it wouldn't have happened under
  a Democratic administration.  This connection seems spurious to me.

>George Bush is a defender of right
>to life, and life-long champion of the Judeo-Christian values and beliefs upon
>which this nation was built.

  So does Pat favour a separate Church and State, or a theocratic government? 

>  Yet, a militant leader of the homosexual rights movement could rise at that
>convention and exult: "Bill Clinton and Al Gore represent the most pro-lesbian
>and pro-gay ticket in history." And so they do.

  Since this appears to represent a problem for Pat, it would appear to
  indicate that he himself would prefer an anti-gay and anti-lesbian
  ticket. 

>  The agenda Clinton & Clinton would impose
>on America -- abortion on demand, a litmus test for the Supreme Court,
>homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in combat --
>that's change all right. But it is not the kind of change America wants. It is
>not the kind of change America needs. And it is not the kind of change we can
>tolerate in a nation that we still call God's country.

  Here Pat's apparently evoking God's name in favour of sexual discrimination,
  discrimination against homsexuals, government regulation of reproductive
  rights, and maybe even government-sponsored religious education.
 
>  The central organizing principle of this republic is freedom. And from the
>ancient forests of Oregon, to the Inland Empire of California, America's great
>middle class has got to start standing up to the environmental extremists who
>put insects, rats and birds -- ahead of families, workers and jobs.

  A rather simplistic view of environmentalism.  Industrial pollution, the
  permanent destruction of forests and the extincion of species is a slightly
  more serious issue than he presents here, but the heart-tugging light he
  casts on this issue makes the environmentalists look quite unreasonable.
  I don't believe it's quite as black-and-white as that.

>  Yes, we disagreed with President Bush, but...we stand with him against the
>amoral idea that gay and lesbian couples should have the same standing in law
>as married men and women.

  No doubt about his stand on this issue.  Mine, of course, would be about
  180 degrees away.

>  And we stand
>with President Bush in favor of the right of small towns and communities to
>control the raw sewage of pornography that pollutes our popular culture.

  This doesn't sound to me like a "get the Government off my back" stance, it
  sounds like the thin edge of an erosion of First Amendment rights, based on
  a religious doctrine.  Who here is comfortable with that, and why? 

>  We stand with President Bush in favor of federal judges who interpret the law
>as written, and against Supreme Court justices who think they have a mandate to
>rewrite our Constitution. 

  In other words, we favour federal judges who interpret the law as we do,
  rather than on their study of, and experience with, the law.

>  There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of
>America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day
>be -- as was the Cold War itself. And in that struggle for the soul of America,
>Clinton & Clinton are on the other side, and George Bush is on our side.

  Clearly stated...a religious agenda.  A struggle for the soul.  And if George
  Bush is on God's side, than Clinton can only be on...the OTHER side!!! 

>  They had come into Los Angeles late on the second day; and they walked up a
>dark street, where the mob had looted and burned every building but one, a
>convalescent home for the aged. The mob was heading in, to ransack and loot the
>apartments of the terrified old men and women. When the troopers arrived, M-16s
>at the ready, the mob threatened and cursed, but the mob retreated. It had met
>the one thing that could stop it: force, rooted in justice, backed by courage. 
>  Greater love than this hath no man than that he lay down his life for his
>friend. Here were 19-year-old boys ready to lay down their lives to stop a mob
>from molesting old people they did not even know. And, as they took back the
>streets of Los Angeles, block by block, so we must take back our cities, and
>take back our culture, and take back our country.

  Interesting anecdote.  Emotional rhetoric, I take it, since it doesn't
  appear to apply to anything else in the speech, except by veiled implication. 

  No, I would not support anyone who delivered this `speech'.

  jc

    
    re: .348 Hi Doug
    
    
    	Yes, if I have the chance to vote for him in a primary,
    he has my vote. After that I have to weigh the pros and cons
    of whoever makes it to the "finals" and decide then who will
    receive my vote. I don't vote by party line.
    
    	What can I say? When I listen to P.B. on The McGlaughlin Group,
    (and elsewhere) I find that I generally agree with what he says.
    Still, I don't expect him to be a major force in the upcoming
    election. 
    
    						regards
    
    							Hank

    
    For the record, Buchanan running one-on-one against Bush in NH in
    1992, polled 37% in NH, and got more total votes than Clinton did
    in the Democratic primary.  Of course, this proves nothing.  Clinton
    would destroy Buchanan in a 1996 election head-to-head nationwide.
    I bet Buchanan would CARRY New Hampshire in such a debacle, however.
    
      bb

         <<< Note 49.353 by TROOA::COLLINS "The Forest City Madman" >>>

Who says the dollar's in trouble when $.02 is worth so much? You've pretty 
well disected that speach, IMO, and revealed why clever communicators can 
be so dangerous. And Buchanon is nothing if not a clever communicator.

    
    Wheezy,
    
    Why, thank you, kind sir.    :^)
    
    jc
    

RE: .355

	In the Democratic primary, Clintoon was not going one-on-one.
There were several candidates at that point.

ME

    
    
    
    Okay Meg and George, let's talk about hateful rhetoric.  Let's talk
    about the slick administrations Mr. Michale McCurry and what he said
    yesterday.  He said, "I think it's a little early tobe commenting on
    the GOP presidential field" and then added that "somewhere along the
    way, Mr. Buchanan and his mutaween will be out there parading across
    America, and we can track them down".
    
    
    care to comment???????????

    
    I'm sorry...what's a mutaween?  It's not in my dictionary.

RE    <<< Note 49.359 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "NRA member in good standing" >>>

  What's a "mutaween"?

  In general I agree with what you are saying. The lesson the Democrats learned
in the 80's was that you can't stand there letting the other guy throw mud at
you and try to take the high road. If they are going to sling mud, then you
have a right to defend yourself in kind.

  Pat Buchannan has taken off the gloves and indicated that he wants to play
dirty against liberals and democrats in general. They've given him plenty of
rope and if he insists on continuing his hate mongering then he deserves to
get it back in kind.

  George

RE         <<< Note 49.353 by TROOA::COLLINS "The Forest City Madman" >>>

>I thought Conservatives were tiring of being global
>  policeman.  Or is it okay, as long as the bad guy is left wing?   I'm not
>  saying that these interventions were wrong, but I'm left wondering just
>  exactly what moral reasons Pat would consider acceptable for foriegn
>  intervention.

  You are exactly correct. From the beginning of the cold war just after WWII
until the mid 80's when Communism fell apart of it's own weight it was U.S.
policy to stop Communism world wide. Democrat John Kennedy won the presidential
election against Republican Richard Nixon in 1960 partly because he did a
better job talking about how he would do what ever was required to stop the
spread of Communism. 

  Where U.S. politicians differ is the case of intervention when Communism is
not involved. Democrats favor intervention for human rights but hesitate to
intervene for economic reasons while Republicans favor fighting for oil but
don't care much what right wing dictators do to their own population.

>    The Republican Party is here being credited for the collapse of the Soviet
>  Union, the obvious implication being that it wouldn't have happened under
>  a Democratic administration.  This connection seems spurious to me.

  You know it's funny, when someone talks about the mega-debt run up by the
Regan administration Conservatives are quick to point to the Democratic
Congress but when it comes to crediting the fall of Communism on the Regan
defense build up which wasn't complete until 2 years after Communism ended
then suddenly they stop talking about the Democratic Congress that funded
that build up.

  Go figure,
  George

    I'm still curious to see how the right will reconcile this:

>And we stand
>with President Bush in favor of the right of small towns and communities to
>control the raw sewage of pornography that pollutes our popular culture.

    ...with this:

>We stand with President Bush...against Supreme Court justices who think they
>have a mandate to rewrite our Constitution. 

    :^)

    
    
    
    A Mutaween is a group in Arabian countries hired to go around and make
    sure the women are doing proper things like their veils are covering
    their faces and things like that.
    
    
    
    George,
    
    If that's the best you can do for a comeback then it shows just how sad
    your party is.  Clinton said save the campaign rhetoric for next year,
    but HE LIES YET AGAIN.  There has been more politicing by him and his
    staff in the past few weeks than anyone else.  And to think I used to
    be a democrat......
    
    
    Mike

RE    <<< Note 49.364 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "NRA member in good standing" >>>

>    If that's the best you can do for a comeback then it shows just how sad
>    your party is.  Clinton said save the campaign rhetoric for next year,
>    but HE LIES YET AGAIN.  There has been more politicing by him and his
>    staff in the past few weeks than anyone else.  And to think I used to
>    be a democrat......

  Republicans are the last people who should be complaining about hard ball
politics. The democrats spent the entire 80's inviting the Republicans to stop
slinging the mud and return to discussing the issues. The Republicans spent
the entire 80's declining the invitation and scooping up more of the brown
stuff.

  Better get use to it, it will no doubt get a lot worse before it gets better.
My guess is that this will be one of the dirtiest Presidential elections in
history. The GOP won Congress by slinging mud and now with the honeymoon ending
they will have to sling it like never before to keep their momentum. And Bill
Clinton has shown that he's not the type of guy to take it the way Carter,
Mondale and Dukakis did with out slinging it back.

  Get out the slickers, '96 is closer than you think,
  George

    
    Thank you, Mike.  I'd heard of that kind of group before but didn't
    know what they were named.

    (re: .353)
    
    Actually, jc, I too normally avoid commenting directly on U.S.
    politics in here.  I (thoughtlessly) broke my own rule with my note on my 
    reaction to Buchanan's speech.  
    
    Looking at the speech in print (.285), much of it is ordinary partisan
    rhetoric.  What stands out, IMO, is the "religious war" language, which is
    extreme by any standard, and also the last paragraph.  Buchanan's idea of 
    an inspirational model for political action apparently is a soldier 
    putting down an urban riot. 

    -Stephen 
    
    

    George:
    
    Bottom line is your party wants to extort more money from the public
    than my bad guys do.
    
    -Jack

>rope and if he insists on continuing his hate mongering then he deserves to

How come whenever we can't argue the points, we have to resort to name
calling??? (well, not "we" since I'm not resorting to name calling)

/scott

RE              <<< Note 49.369 by UHUH::MARISON "Scott Marison" >>>

>>rope and if he insists on continuing his hate mongering then he deserves to
>
>How come whenever we can't argue the points, we have to resort to name
>calling??? (well, not "we" since I'm not resorting to name calling)

  Exactly my point. All through the '80s Democrats like Carter, Mondale and
Dukakis wanted to argue issues and not resort to mud slinging. But after a
decade of being drenched in conservative mud including an entire new industry
on talk radio we've given up trying.

  Bill Clinton won in part because he was willing to dish out what we had been
receiving for 12 years. What sticks in my craw is that mud slinging was fine
when the Republicans were dishing it out but now it's a whole new thing when
they find themselves on the receiving end.

  Well prepare to be boarded. It took the Democrats 10 years to respond to the
Republican declaration of mud slinging but the left is ready to fight back. Try
not to whine and cry too much.

  Get out the slickers,
  George

RE         <<< Note 49.368 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

>    George:
>    
>    Bottom line is your party wants to extort more money from the public
>    than my bad guys do.
>    
>    -Jack

  Right, but at least we give it back.

  George

>  Exactly my point. All through the '80s Democrats like Carter, Mondale and
>Dukakis wanted to argue issues and not resort to mud slinging. But after a
>decade of being drenched in conservative mud including an entire new industry
>on talk radio we've given up trying.

HA! Give me a break... while I'm sure not all republicans were angels during
the 80's, that some did throw mud, please don't try to make your democrates
look like they were angels who took all this abuse and never fought back!
Give me a break! They dished it out just as much (or more) as they recieved
it!!!

HA! you REALLY believe what you wrote above? I feel sorry for ya.

/scott

    Really George.  And all this time I thought we were pissing it away
    into pork projects and a corrupt welfare system...all under the guise
    of compassion.
    
    -Jack

 
       re: 49.371

       > Right, but at least we give it back.

	Right, minus the 80% or so for "overhead," as is the case
	with welfare.


	bill
       

  Use all the dramatic verbal gestures you like but if you look at the types
of campaigns run in '84 and '88 by Mondale and Dukakis respectively they were
relatively clean. In fact they were so clean and so technical they appeared to
be half dead. By contrast the conservatives were cranking away slinging the mud
with Revolving doors, tank ads, Willie Horton, Talk radio, and the like. The
Democrats did nothing like that.

  Yes there were a few local elections where Democrats fought back but in
general it was the GOP slinging the mud during the '80s

RE            <<< Note 49.374 by WDFFS2::SHOOK "the river is mine" >>>

>       > Right, but at least we give it back.
>
>	Right, minus the 80% or so for "overhead," as is the case
>	with welfare.

  ... but it still comes back to either working or poor people. Who do you
think gets that "overhead"? It's people who for the most part put in a 9
to 5 day and use that money for things like food and rent, not for having
their yacht repainted over the winter.

  George

    
    
    
    RE: .365  I'm used to it George, it's what you libs do best, instead of
    responding to the issues and coming up with viable alternatives or try
    and work together, you all whine, cry and name call.  My solace will 
    reside with the fact that, come 1997, the repubs will control both houses 
    and the presidency while the dims whine and cry cry cry.  And you know
    what?  If the repubs don't get the job done then, I will vote those
    suckers out as well!
    
    
    Mike

RE    <<< Note 49.376 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "NRA member in good standing" >>>

>    RE: .365  I'm used to it George, it's what you libs do best, instead of
>    responding to the issues and coming up with viable alternatives or try
>    and work together, you all whine, cry and name call.  

  Are you talking about before or after 1932?

  Since F.D.R. was elected, Democrats have been largely in control of the
national agenda. Not only have they come up with viable alternatives they have
implemented them and we have lived them. Under the New Deal and Great Society
we have gone from being one of a group of large powers to the single remaining
Super Power on the planet with only occasional input from the regular members
of the GOP.

>My solace will 
>    reside with the fact that, come 1997, the repubs will control both houses 
>    and the presidency while the dims whine and cry cry cry.  And you know
>    what?  If the repubs don't get the job done then, I will vote those
>    suckers out as well!
    
  Talk is cheap. With the 100 days coming to a close the poles are already
shifting away from the GOP. By election year 18 months from now Americans
will be none too happy with the GOP if they fail to deliver on the promises
they made to win this election.

  George

    
    
    And FDR started this government monstrosity that we see today.

    
    
    
    Oh, and did you hear about the dems new brainstorm?  They are coming
    out with a 500 day contract with America........they are original they
    are.
    
    
    Mike

    
    Hard to tell what the poles are doing, George.  You're going to
    the Domocarts, but Andy doesn't seem to be.  We don't have an
    adequate sampling of poles in the 'Box.
    
      bb

RE    <<< Note 49.378 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "NRA member in good standing" >>>

>    And FDR started this government monstrosity that we see today.

  If you mean he started the policy that turned the United States into the
worlds only super-power, yes he did.

  I suppose some people could see that as a monstrosity. It does give us
quite a bit of leverage in the world.

  George

    George:
    
    The seeds of Superpowerdome started as far back as Teddy Roosevelt when
    he mediated between Japan and Russia at the beginning of the century.
    
    FDR was a very intelligent man but his Socialist bent is what helped
    bring us to some of the problems we are having today.  
    
    -Jack

    
    
    Yup, all the govt agencies have really done a lot for the country,
    George.  It did perk up the economy, but now it's time to pay the
    piper.
    
    
    Mike

Superpowerdome?  Is that like the Fortress of Solitude?

  It's funny, but the GOP argument depends on making mockery of someone who is
arguing "hey, our team just won the championship 4 times in a row we're doing
really well". 

  Regardless of what Teddy R did 100 years ago, the Democrats have dominated
government since 1932 and during that time our economic position with respect
to every other country in the world has grown to the point where we are not
only in 1st place but way ahead of everyone else. 

  Now if that happened with all those agencies in place, then we must be doing
something right. As your resorting to cynical remarks indicates, you can't
argue with success. 

  George 

	Isn't the Superpowerdome in Louisiana?

ME

>  Now if that happened with all those agencies in place, then we must be doing
>something right. As your resorting to cynical remarks indicates, you can't
>argue with success. 

But I could argue that we'd be even much further ahead and even have more
success w/o a lot of those govermental agencies... 

/scott

    Correct.  Reagan brought alot of money into the treasury and both he
    and the democrat congress spent us into oblivion.
    
    It would be like living in a mansion.  One is perceived as a success
    but the bottom line is the owner is in hock up to his ears.
    

RE              <<< Note 49.387 by UHUH::MARISON "Scott Marison" >>>

>But I could argue that we'd be even much further ahead and even have more
>success w/o a lot of those govermental agencies... 

  That's a pretty weak argument. Yes you can argue that the '49ers were a
terrible team this year and that if they had done things your way they would
have won all their games and scoured twice as many points in the ones they
did win.

  Look around the world, there are plenty of countries doing things plenty of
ways. How many countries can you find that are more right wing than the
United States and doing much better than us?

  In fact if you look at the top 7 or 8 nations in the world, most of them
are criticized as socialist by the right wing in this file.

  George

| <<< Note 49.378 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "NRA member in good standing" >>>



| And FDR started this government monstrosity that we see today.


	allegedly.... there has been no trial to determine if it is a fact or
not.

    
    
    Only to the blind, Glen.
    

	Hey, if he were alive today, maybe he would say it was insanity? :-)

    > Since F.D.R. was elected, Democrats have been largely in control of
    > the national agenda.
    
    This is utterly simplistic.  The postwar world saw a bipartisan
    consensus on numerous issues as we developed a new national outlook
    corresponding to our increased world responsibilities.  It was not the
    Democrats alone who persuaded the nation to accept a standing army; it
    was not the Democrats alone who put us into the UN; it was not the
    Democrats alone who implemented the Marshall Plan, or took us into
    Korea, or allowed the growth of the imperial presidency.  These things
    were such radical changes from the preceding century's national vision
    of the US as isolationist and protected by the two vast oceans from
    needing to worry about the rest of the world.  We ran the Americas, we
    withdrew from Europe after the failures of the League of Nations and
    the ridiculous Treaty of Versailles which beggared the Weimar Republic
    and paved the way for Hitler.  The American public was sold on the need
    for these changes after WWII by the obvious failures of isolationism
    after the WWI, the War to End All Wars.  Saying the Democrats were in
    control of these changes is sublimely laughable, George.  They
    participated in a bipartisan consensus with the GOP that lasted
    reasonably well intact throughout the Cold War.  Both parties have
    since failed to articulate a clear vision of America's role in the
    world, and neither is in "control".
    
    DougO

RE       <<< Note 49.393 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

>    This is utterly simplistic.  The postwar world saw a bipartisan
>    consensus on numerous issues as we developed a new national outlook
>    corresponding to our increased world responsibilities....

  The 1932 election was a time in which the voters rejected the laissez faire
policies of the Republicans and voted for an administration that took the
direction of more social type programs. Since then those New Deal programs have
never been challenged with any success by the GOP. 

  For the last 60 some odd years we have been operating with those social
programs and while doing so we have gone from being one of several large
nations, and from being in the pits of the worst economic slump of the century
to being the worlds only super power.

  When you look around at what else seems to be working in the world, most of
the next six or seven nations after us in economic strength are employing
economic policies that are even more liberal than ours. Some are actually
socialistic democracies. 

  By contrast, how many successful nations do you see around the world that
are using the policies that are being pushed by the right wing? I'm not sure I
see any? Perhaps Japan to some extent, but they use a system that is tailor
made for their homogeneous society that would never work in a nation with the
cultural diversity that we have. 

  The most successful nations of the world are liberal. Liberal policies work.
The United States has become the worlds only super power under the policies
of the New Deal which define liberalism in the 20th century.

  It ain't broke, don't fix it.

  George

    
    
    
    You are scary Chairman George......

  Notice the only argument you can some up with is a cynical comment.

  George

    
    
    This is Soapbox, George.....

    
    Being a "Superpower", plus $0.50, will buy a cup of coffee.
    
    The standard of living in the USA currently ranks 36th worldwide.
    
    It is the world's largest debtor.  It makes almost nothing.  It
    imports almost all necessities.
    
    The USA has lowered its living standard every year, under either
    party in office, every year for 20 years.
    
    Among industrial nations, the USA ranks first in crime, below average
    in education, below average in life expectancy, below average in per
    capita wealth.  American manufacturing sector employment is declining
    very rapidly.  The value of its currency is at an all time low.
    
    One third of ALL its children are born out of wedlock.  Half its
    population are too clueless to vote.  It leads the world in drug
    addiction, trails the world in reading.
    
    Its legal system is the least admired, least just, and most expensive
    in the world.
    
    This list can be extended indefinitely.
    
      bb

    re: .394
    
    If it were anybody else, I'd say they were joking.
    
    We are the world's only superpower *IN SPITE* of our liberal welfare
    mentality, not because of it.  We are the world's only superpower
    due to our form of government and rights, not due to socialistic
    policies of wealth redistribution.  We will soon be dethroned as we
    continue to spend outselves into oblivian (which means that it will be
    the liberal ideal that bigger government is better that finally does us
    in).
    
    
    -steve                                 

    political SNARF!~

    Again, utterly simplistic, George.  The socialist democracies you speak
    of are proportionally deeper in debt than we are, nearly all of them. 
    By that measure, the policies of the welfare state have weakened, not
    strengthened, the democracies of the west.
    
    True it is, that FDR's legacy remains with us, and defines the current
    slate of domestic policy in this country.  That is accepted; indeed, it
    is nearly uncontested, that a social safety net of some sort is an
    absolute requirement to promote stability in a modern country.  But
    your claim was far broader than that the Democrats had lead the way on
    major domestic policies.  You insisted they were "largely in control"
    of *all* policy, and as my last reply indicated, in the great changes
    required of the American public to support required changes to foreign
    policy after WWII, the Democrats were by no means leading the way.
    
    Now, you seem to imply that because other leading trading nations, who
    have largely benefitted from the great cold war consensus in American
    Foreign Policy by having us subsidize their defense requirements as the
    price of our security, have thereby been able to afford great
    socialized states, that we should thereby abdicate fiscal
    responsibility and follow their example into the beggary of even larger
    socialistic (what you call miscall "liberal") practises?  The only
    problem, George, is that there's no bigger guarantor of security
    standing behind us to protect us, as we have protected your
    oh-so-flawed examples.  You are ignoring the peculiar circumstances
    that lead us to the present historical situation, and your analysis is
    thereby fatally flawed.  It isn't our or their liberal policies alone 
    that have lead to our being the only superpower remaining in the world,
    but those policies of a social saftey net, coupled with our free
    trading polcies and strong defensive posture which allowed us to
    out-produce and outcompete our rivals while deterring them from armed
    aggression against us and our allies.  How can you ignore all that and
    say it was the welfare state that made us the only superpower?  Either
    in ignorance, or in willful desire to look aside from the whole
    picture for your own rhetorical purposes.  It won't wash, George.
    
    If you want to know what policies the GOP proposes that are being
    followed by other successful nations, look at those who have stabilized
    their economies, reduced their deficits, and thereby stopped robbing
    their currencies of purchasing power and their peoples of earned
    wealth.  Look at those who have privatised nationalised industries to
    return incentive as spurs to efficiencies, competitiveness, and job 
    creation.  Look at those who have lowered protectionist trade barriers
    and thereby made their home industries compete from their areas of
    comparative advantage, without subsidy from the taxman at the costs of
    their consumers.  No one country has done all of these, but those who
    have begun to take these steps have strengthened themselves measurably
    and the world has taken notice.  The GOP does not present a unified
    front on these issues; I don't mean to give them too much credit; but
    they're a lot closer to understanding their role in the present state
    of the world economy than are statist Democrats who don't understand
    them at all.
    
    DougO

    
    
    George, 
    
    
    When Carter was in office, our military wasn't held in that high of
    esteem.  The only thing that kept us respected is that we had the
    nukes, otherwise our military had deteriorated a great deal.  Yes, 
    Reagan got us in red ink to rectify that problem, but it worked in 
    destroying the Soviet Union.  Our military is once again deteriorating 
    under a democratic president.  This is one of the primary purposes of
    the federal government.  Most of the other programs run by the fed
    should be a the state level.
    
    
    
    Mike  
    

  re: Note 49.375 <HELIX::MAIEWSKI>                                    

  >  ... but it still comes back to either working or poor people. Who do you
  >think gets that "overhead"? It's people who for the most part put in a 9
  >to 5 day and use that money for things like food and rent, not for having
  >their yacht repainted over the winter.

  actually, most of the money comes from people like you and me.  sadly, i
  am currently yachtless; my yacht dealer was bankrupted by the dems'
  luxury tax.  the guy who would have painted it is currently working for
  the government, sneaking through inner-city neighborhoods searching for
  AFDC recipients who have anything of value and reporting them to the
  highly paid, but necessary, poverty continuation committee, for immediate
  cessation of benefits.  he is also responsible for reporting any fathers
  seen lurking in the neighborhood...

  on a more serious note, the logic you use above could rationalize the 
  continued existence and expansion of any government program, and even argues
  against down-sizing the military.  my son is in the navy, and i assure you
  he uses his government check for food and rent (along with an occasional
  piece of brain-numbing car stereo equipment).  he'll be happy to hear at
  least one 'boxer thinks his continued employment by the government is
  desirable.  

 
  bill 

  

    
    re .401  - Well put.
    
    		Ed
    
    

    Yes. Very well put.

  That was a very entertaining exhibition in gymnastics. Actually I'm proud of
you guys, you are all learning to "think like a lawyer". 

  In spite of the fact that since 1932 the United States has gone from being a
2nd tier player to being the worlds only super power, in spite of the fact that
we are the worlds largest economic power, in spite of the fact that all of
Europe is forming a free trade zone to keep up, we are still on the road to
doom. 

  You know it's funny, I looked through all those notes but I still haven't
spotted any examples of successful right wing industrial powers. But I really
love the argument about how the nations that are successful have all done it
in spite of their liberal policies while all right wing governments have failed
in spite of their conservative policies. Johnnie Cochran in his slickest moment
couldn't have pitched that one better. 

  Good going guys, you've done yourself proud,
  George

    
    If I could wish for one thing in next year's Prexy elections, George,
    it would be the Democrats picking, "You never had it so good" as
    their party slogan.  Perhaps they would lose all 50 states.  But alas,
    no.  Your own party, Clinton and Econodwarf, admit that the middle
    class, which is most of the voters are losing ground and scared of it.
    
    So perhaps you better get with your own party's program and start
    trying to propose some way to halt the grim decline of our country.
    
      bb

RE                      <<< Note 49.407 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>

  There's no doubt that people in the U.S. are uneasy. I believe the reason
for that is not because things are getting worse, it's because they are just
not getting better very quickly.

  During the 50's and early 60's the "affluent society" experienced rapid
growth because the U.S. was the only western industrial power left standing
after WWII. Now things have leveled off but we are still doing well.

  But hey, I'm still waiting. All the countries that are doing better than
us in those categories mentioned earlier seem to be more socialist than we are.
Point to a single industrial nation that has government more right wing than
ours which is on the rise and doing better than we are? 

  George

    
    Singapore.

  Now there's a fine place to live. They have the two beatings form of justice,
first they beat you to get you to confess, then when that happens they beat you
because you confessed. 

  From what I've heard from people who have been there there is an upper class
that lives in the city and benefits from the strict justice and a lower class
that lives in poverty outside of the city who is the victim of that justice. 

  Not what I'd like to see in America,
  George

  re .401


   Excellent!!

    George, you pose a false dichotomy.  The policies that make a
    successful nation-state in today's economy are not necessarily "right
    wing" or "left wing" and nobody is arguing on that basis.  The policies
    are economically more free-market and less interventionist, and in some
    countries the parties that espouse these policies are more liberal than
    their opposition, in some countries more conservative.  in THIS country
    there is no doubt that the more responsible economic policies, in
    general, are those espoused by the GOP.  The description of those
    POLICIES, George, was in the last paragraph of .401.  So quit asking
    for the answer to your false dichotomy ("what right wing country..."); 
    start arguing the policy recommendations discussed.
    
    DougO

RE                      <<< Note 49.413 by CAPNET::ROSCH >>>
                             -< One more time... >-

>    Also 'outside the city' - S'pore is a CITY STATE. It's an island which
>    has only one city, Singapore. To restate for those who cannot
>    comprehend too well - the ISLAND of Singapore has only one COUNTRY
>    which is Singapore which has only ONE city/municipality called
>    Singapore. It's like Manhatten only clean, safe, drug free and _wildly_
>    Capitalistic.
    
  What you are talking about is a very unique situation in which there is
a homogeneous population in a very small and contained area. Go 200 miles
north of the city and I'll bet things change a lot.

  Now show me a large industrial country with a diverse population which is
more successful than the U.S. and which follows an economic system which is
more like the one proposed by the GOP than the one we now have.

  When I look at the other major industrial nations like England, France,
and so forth I don't exactly see systems that are patterned off Newt's
Contract.

  George

>  What you are talking about is a very unique situation in which there is
>a homogeneous population in a very small and contained area. Go 200 miles
>north of the city and I'll bet things change a lot.

It's a different country -- Malaysia.

RE                      <<< Note 49.416 by CAPNET::ROSCH >>>

>    >What you are talking about is a very unique situation in which there is
>    >a homogeneous population in a very small and contained area. Go 200 miles
>    >north of the city and I'll bet things change a lot.
>    
>    Singapore is smaller than metropolitan Boston.

  Exactly.

  What I asked for was an example of a successful large industrial nation
that is more like what the GOP is asking for than the United States.

  George

    For the third, time, George- look at the policy recommendations in the
    last paragraph of .401.  Its obvious you're trying to ignore them.
    
    DougO

>  Exactly.
>  What I asked for was an example of a successful large industrial nation
>that is more like what the GOP is asking for than the United States.

You think you're going to get away with that kind of crap? What you DID
was to specify that Singapore was in the throes of class warfare with
an affluent section and an impoverished section. You were proven wrong
by someone who, unlike yourself, knew what he was talking about with
respect to Singapore. And now you try to handwave and pretend it never
happened instead of admitting you were wrong and apologizing for the
error in your statement.

You really make me sick to my stomach, George.

RE       <<< Note 49.401 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

>    If you want to know what policies the GOP proposes that are being
>    followed by other successful nations, look at those who have stabilized
>    their economies, reduced their deficits, and thereby stopped robbing
>    their currencies of purchasing power and their peoples of earned
>    wealth.  

  Wait a minute DougO. Running up gigantic deficits was the core of Reagonomics
and the Democratic Congress went along with Regan because of his mandate. The
Democrats would be more than willing to raise taxes and cut the deficit if it
weren't for the GOP making that politically impossible.

>Look at those who have privatised nationalised industries to
>    return incentive as spurs to efficiencies, competitiveness, and job 
>    creation.  

  Great Britain and France are doing this more than the United States? Then
why does everyone keep calling them Socialist?

>Look at those who have lowered protectionist trade barriers
>    and thereby made their home industries compete from their areas of
>    comparative advantage, without subsidy from the taxman at the costs of
>    their consumers.  

  Sure, the European Community is a good example. Most likely it was the
success of the United States which is in itself a gigantic free trade zone
that encouraged other countries to do this.

  These days it's Bill Clinton who is pushing for things like NAFTA and the
Pacific Rim Free Trade zone more than the GOP.

  George

RE         <<< Note 49.419 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>You think you're going to get away with that kind of crap? What you DID
>was to specify that Singapore was in the throes of class warfare with
>an affluent section and an impoverished section. You were proven wrong
>by someone who, unlike yourself, knew what he was talking about with
>respect to Singapore. And now you try to handwave and pretend it never
>happened instead of admitting you were wrong and apologizing for the
>error in your statement.
>
>You really make me sick to my stomach, George.

  I make the person sick who wanted to see people in bar fights get the death
penalty. Boy that really fills me with shame.

  I've heard Singapore has class warfare from a friend who's been there.
Another noter says that's wrong. I'm not going to argue that issue because it
is orthagnal to the point. 

  I'm still waiting to hear an example of a major industrial power which is
run more the way the GOP wants to run things than the way the U.S. is now
run.

  Still waiting,
  George

    You know what I think...
    
    
    I think George is really Steve Jong who pretended to leave us...
    
    Is that you Steve?

    
    George - "run more like..." etc.  Well, I'd actually rather pick
    from several.  I'd certainly take the standard of living in Germany
    right now, thank you !  But the whole thing breaks down, as you've
    set it up.  Germany isn't the US, and it isn't run anything like
    EITHER the Republicans or Democrats would run the US.  Japan is even
    more different.  It, too, outperforms us, and operates neither to the
    left or right of us.  I'm not sure if either the GOP or I want to be
    "more like" Japan.  I think that's a stupid way of looking at it,
    frankly.
    
    The USA is mismanaged.  It needs a lot of changes.  Yes, we can borrow
    some of these from other countries.  And we can borrow some from our
    past.  And some we have to make up, because there is no analogous
    situation now or ever before.  Our families are falling apart in a
    way that is uniquely our own.  I don't think successful foreign
    examples will help us fix ourselves very much.
    
    Your whole question is just the wrong question.
    
      bb

Steve was much more rational (except when it came to a certain word).

>                   I'd certainly take the standard of living in Germany
>    right now, thank you !  

East or West?

Well, Mike suggested the Mule just this morning, but neither Frank nor
Steve ever seemed quite as obtuse and intractable as George, Jack.

RE         <<< Note 49.426 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>Well, Mike suggested the Mule just this morning, but neither Frank nor
>Steve ever seemed quite as obtuse and intractable as George, Jack.

  More mindless bashing by my opponents.

  Is there anyone out there who regularly votes democratic who believes that
I am more obtuse and intractable then my opponents on the right?

  George

I vote mostly Democrat, and I think so (well, many of them anyway).

    
    
    Meowski apologize????????
    
    
    
    Bwahahahhhahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahhaaa  !!!!!!!!!!
    

  Ok fine, that's one guy.

  Is that it? One person?

  George

George, it's been all of 13 minutes.  Give 'em a chance.

    
    
    
    
    George is working hisself into a lather......

>>  Ok fine, that's one guy.

	correction - that's one very astute guy.  in fact, you should
	probably count him as two.

    Another.
    
    								-mr. bill

RE                     <<< Note 49.427 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

  And you guys think I am more obtuse and intractable than someone who wants
to impose the death penalty on everyone who throws a punch in a bar and
people who don't believe there should be a right to an appeal?

  I guess my question is, why do you vote for democrats who are generally
against the death penalty and in favor of the appeal process?

  George

I'm against the death penalty but I still think you're obtuse.

   
   And intractable.
   
   								-mr. bill

    This is like debating with someone who gets their understanding of
    economics from Econ 101 they took in college 30 years ago or from
    watching 30-minute news shows once a month.  OK, if you absolutely must
    talk trash about things you don't understand, I'll drag you through the
    facts and shove the relevant aspects up to refute your ill founded
    assertions.  Lets be clear about it - I'm talking about policies first
    introduced here that are "good" economic policies in the world today. 
    These are important to understand- and of our political parties in the
    US, it is clear the Republicans are closer to understanding these
    policies than are the Democrats.
    
    >> followed by other successful nations, look at those who have 
    >> stabilized their economies, reduced their deficits, and thereby 
    >> stopped robbing their currencies of purchasing power and their 
    >> peoples of earned wealth.  
    >
    > Wait a minute DougO. Running up gigantic deficits was the core of
    > Reagonomics and the Democratic Congress went along with Regan because
    > of his mandate. The Democrats would be more than willing to raise taxes
    > and cut the deficit if it weren't for the GOP making that politically
    > impossible.
    
    I don't think either party, George, has fully endorsed a coherent set
    of policies intended to stabilize our currency.  As I said before, I
    think the GOP's set of policies are closer.  You are correct that the
    GOP lead the charge into the huge deficits of the 80s, and you are also
    correct that the Democrats went along with it.  In fact, they made it
    worse by insisting that defense spending increases be matched by
    welfare spending increases.  Together, those represent a bipartisan
    failure to promote the proper policies.  That was then.
    
    The current environment is different.  The GOP is certainly talking
    more seriously about reducing the deficit. Not that I'll believe any of
    them until it happens.  You say that the Dems want to raise taxes but
    the GOP makes it politically impossible;  I don't think so!  First of
    all, if they wanted to do so, it would be their job to lead the way
    into doing that; they haven't got the leadership skills nor the
    gumption to do it.  So talk of the other party making something
    "politically impossible" is just an excuse, and a poor one at that. It
    would be a hard sell, but just like NAFTA, since the facts requiring
    cutting the deficit are so overwhelming, eventually that could be
    forced.  I think the GOP, in fact, is far more likely to attempt to cut
    the deficit and it will be the Democrats who attempt to make it
    impossible politically.  The debates we've seen so far about school
    lunches and welfare mothers are one indication of that.  It is clear
    that the GOP has promised to reduce the deficit to nothing by 2002.
    That is a promise the Democrats haven't made.
    
    >>Look at those who have privatised nationalised industries 
    >
    > Great Britain and France are doing this more than the United States?
    > Then why does everyone keep calling them Socialist?
    
    You're off the point, but I'll indulge you for the fun of it.
    
    France hasn't really done much; they still have Bull, they still have
    Credit Lyonnaise, they subsidize their farmers and shippers and Air
    France despite EU regulations to the contrary.  They're still very
    socialistic.  Great Britain has privatised several important monopoly
    industries- electricity, gas, water, coal, telephones; they're trying
    to privatise the railways, now; and the effects have been stupendous.
    Efficiencies in power generation, for example, have cut bills by 20-40%
    compared to just ten years ago.  And British industry is far more
    competitive than it used to be, with lowered utility prices helping. 
    Um, these are the particulars of two countries.  GB is a reasonable
    example of what I was talking about.  But by no means are these the
    only ones.  Countries in the Far East have effectively privatised
    industries by removing regulatory restrictions that had effectively
    made the state the only participant in certain industries, like power
    generation and infrastructure construction.  The developments are
    making other investments possible and fueling rapid expansions in
    employment, manufacturing, and even some high-tech industries
    (Bangalore is the Silicon Gulch of India, for example, and they need a
    lot more electricity and phone service than they used to - and they're
    getting it.)  Russia, Poland, the Czech Republic, and to a lesser
    extent other countries in the former Warsaw pact have experienced huge
    privatisations in the past three years and the results are plain-
    they're seeing huge shakeouts in formerly state-dominated, moribund
    industries.  Germany's Treuhand has resold, recapitalised, or
    liquidated several thousand former East German firms in the four years
    since the reunification and Germany's currency troubles and
    competitiveness have already substantially recovered from swallowing
    the huge indigestible lump that was East Germany (although unemployment
    still remains high, interest rates have recovered).  In short,
    privatisation is now recognized as a global phenomenom that removes the
    state and returns incentives to the industries involved.  Calling names
    at Great Britain or France rather shows the paucity of your knowledge
    in this area or its impact on the world economy of the past decade.
    The GOP's policy role in this area is a foreign policy one- to
    encourage our trade partners and in particular to reinforce
    international institutions like the IMF and the World Bank as they work
    with emerging economies to undo the nationalisation mistakes of past
    eras.  Do the Democrats understand this?  Do they talk about it?  Name
    one Democrat who mentioned Pemex last month; I can name several
    Republicans who did so. (do you understand the relevance, George?)
    
    >> Look at those who have lowered protectionist trade barriers
    >> and thereby made their home industries compete from their areas of
    >> comparative advantage, without subsidy from the taxman at the
    >> costs of their consumers.
    >
    > Sure, the European Community is a good example. Most likely it was the
    > success of the United States which is in itself a gigantic free trade
    > zone that encouraged other countries to do this.
    
    The EC started that with the Treaty of Rome some thirty or forty years
    ago, George.  A far better example of what I'm talking about is the
    Uruguay round of the GATT, negotiated for seven years under Reagan and
    Bush, and finally finished by Clinton.  But he only got it through the
    Senate because the GOP supported it.  More Democrats voted against it,
    slaves to protectionist labor lobbies, than voted for it!  No, you
    certainly can't claim that Dmeocrats understand this point better than
    the Republicans.  Not, mind you, that the GOP is all reading from the
    same hymnal; Pat Buchanan, in particular, has his head so firmly wedged
    in the dark on this particular issue that his leadership would reverse
    fifty years of free world leadership in open markets.  But in general,
    the GOP understand this more than such Democratic dunderheads as Dick
    Gephardt, who tried to start a trade war with South Korea during the
    presidential primaries in 1988.
    
    Anyway- one hopes you see fit to attempt to respond to the substance of
    these policy issues, rather than namecalling, or attempting to ignore
    it like you did last time, when you ignored .401, or the time before
    that, when you missed the point about changes in foreign policy being
    lead by bipartisan consensus after WWII.  Really, George, your claim
    that Democrats have been mainly "in charge" of the policies that
    brought us to where we are is indefensible; and your notion that they
    are espousing policies that will continue to bring us economic
    leadership is similarly shown to be incorrect.  Give it up- you simply
    haven't the command of the facts that might better defend your
    position.  Not that such facts exist, of course ;-).
    
    If you didn't make such outrageous statements in the first place I
    wouldn't have to wipe you up like this.
    
    DougO

 Gee DougO, I'm almost in full agreement with you on that last note. What
 happened????

 On tax increases: I'm willing to bet that the repubs will actually (try to) 
 increase some(many?) taxes during the next two years has they try to tap
 into the consumption portion of our economy.

 Doug.

    Good note, DougO.  

    Bottom line (IMO) - Until such time as ALL congresscritters get the
    cojones to seriously address the budget, it's just gonna be more of the
    same ol, same ol.

    Dan

RE      <<< Note 49.441 by ODIXIE::ZOGRAN "Creative Pretzel Eaters Club" >>>

>    Bottom line (IMO) - Until such time as ALL congresscritters get the
>    cojones to seriously address the budget, it's just gonna be more of the
>    same ol, same ol.

  My problem with this is that Congress and the President were working toward
reducing the deficit over the last 2 years. It appears that the Democrats
finally did get the message and they were bringing spending under control. 

  The major problem they were facing was the constant pressure from the GOP to
lower taxes which only makes the deficit worse. Now that pressure has resulted
in a contest between the GOP and Clinton to try to come up with deficit busting
tax breaks. 

  What would help would be if the GOP would make up it's mind as to whether
they want tax breaks or a balanced budget. If they want a balanced budget then
all they have to do is stop crying about taxes and work with Clinton to
continue the deficit reductions that took place over the last couple years. 

  George 

    
    <---- the middle-class tax cut was announced with great fanfare by
          the slickster himself, during the desperate days after the
          dems were waxed in the elections last year.  that the repubs
          would up the ante should have been anticipated by begala, reich,
          and co., but they were more interested in the '96 campaign
          than in the economic well-being of the country.  
    
          bill

    How many times are you gonna just totally duck from answering my notes,
    George?  I had to drag you into addressing one tiny part of .401, and
    now you're hiding from my latest.  People will talk ;-).
    
    DougO

    
    Re .442 - 
    
>  My problem with this is that Congress and the President were working toward
>reducing the deficit over the last 2 years. It appears that the Democrats
>finally did get the message and they were bringing spending under control. 
>
    George, I will re-enter part of a note that I entered in topic
    50.
    
    What few people understand is that this reduction is
    due largely to:

    .The end of the savings & loan bailout. The S & L bailout
     was running over 100B/year at its hight. All Clinton had
     to do is nothing to reduce the deficit by 100 Billion.

    .The largest tax increase in history
    
    .An improving economy 

    .A change in treasury policy to greatly shorten the maturity of government 
     debt. This, combined with low interest rates the last few years has
     reduced the amount of money the government has to pay in interest.
     This policy change is a nice trick to reduce interest cost in the 
     short run, but it's coming back to haunt us now. I read in the paper the 
     other day (a nicely hidden piece) that the GAO (or maybe the 
     CBO...I forget) says the projected deficit for next year increased 
     by (about) 50 billion because of the recent rise in short term debt.
    

    The only one of these four that can be repeated is the tax
    increase. Please George....spending was not cut...at least
    not enough to make any kind of dent in the deficit.
    
    					Ed
    
    
    

    >How many times are you gonna just totally duck from answering my notes,
    >George?  I had to drag you into addressing one tiny part of .401,
    >and now you're hiding from my latest.  People will talk ;-).
    
     Doug- I don't think anyone is under the illusion that George deserves
    to be so much as bat boy in your league. That he doesn't run off with
    his tail between his legs after such a shellacking is merely a measure
    of how utterly shameless he is in his avoidance of the facts.
    
     These last two notes have been a far more substantial contributions to
    this conference than the sum total of notes written by George since his
    return from the last POOF! session. Just another indication that
    quality and quantity are largely orthogonal.

RE       <<< Note 49.444 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

>    How many times are you gonna just totally duck from answering my notes,
>    George?  I had to drag you into addressing one tiny part of .401, and
>    now you're hiding from my latest.  People will talk ;-).
    
  What note? I didn't see it.

  George

RE                       <<< Note 49.445 by DECC::VOGEL >>>

>    The only one of these four that can be repeated is the tax
>    increase. Please George....spending was not cut...at least
>    not enough to make any kind of dent in the deficit.
    
  Well I'm a little skeptical of your numbers. What about all the military base
closings? The Navy seems to be cutting back from a 15 carrier navy to a 10 or
12 carrier navy with resulting decreases in air wings and support ships. That's
got to save something. If that's not recorded in your list, what else did you
leave out?

  And the increase in taxes does reduce the deficit.

  George

    
    It's actually pointless, in the current environment, to bother
    discussing what happened in the political landscape of the 103rd
    Congress.  That world is gone forever, even if the Democrats were
    to retake the 105th in 1996, since such a new majority would not be
    the old one, and would not be elected in the "Fortress House"
    environment of that time.  It took 40 years to build that, and we
    will not live to see it ever again.
    
    What has emerged is a fascinating transitional environment, whose
    temporary outlines are framed by what happened on the largely
    symbolic issues of the Balanced Budget Amendment, the Line Item
    Veto, and the president's budget.  First, the DOA budget underscores
    that the "initiative" is now in the House, not the executive.  The
    House has the easiest hurdles, since majority rules.  What the House
    will be doing for at least another year is passing lots of stuff it
    originates itself.  Dominated by the Newts, the DC agenda (although
    not all the victories) will be set in House caucuses and committees.
    This engine will pressure the Senate, the president, the courts.
    There is no way to stop it, no inner dynamic to change it.
    
      Second, the BBA debacle shows that the Senate will uphold any
    well-chosen veto.  So while Clinton can initiate nothing, he holds
    a tremendous power to SHAPE the House agenda.  I think we can
    expect a series of vetos and non-vetos, carefully crafted for the
    1996 elections.  Clinton cannot afford to look obstructionist, but
    he also cannot afford to look irrelevant.  Since he has no control
    over what comes to him, all he can do is wait and decide.
    
      Finally, the Line Item Veto shows that WITHOUT a Clinton veto, the
    Senate Democratic fillibuster is a paper tiger.  The Democrats are
    just not cohesive enough as a minority party to hold the defense
    without Clinton.  They can modify, they can convince. but they are
    not strong enough to block.
    
      Which leaves Bob Dole as the crucial figure.  72 years old, his last
    chance, desperately wanting to be president, Dole has an advantage, and
    a disadvantage, for the GOP nomination, as compared to Wilson, Gramm,
    etc.  Those other guys can posture, take symbolic stands, spin their
    words for the mood of the electorate.  But they cannot get things done.
    Dole can.  But he can also fail.  Thus the legislation that ultimately
    comes out of the 104th, or doesn't, will forever be associated with
    Dole.  It's going to be "Let's Make a Deal" from now on.  How well
    he does it is the best show in town.
    
      bb

    >> How many times are you gonna just totally duck from answering my notes,
    >> George?  I had to drag you into addressing one tiny part of .401, and
    >> now you're hiding from my latest.  People will talk ;-).
    >
    >  What note? I didn't see it.
    
    (*chuckle*), yeaah, suuuuure you didn't.  .439.
    
    DougO

RE       <<< Note 49.439 by AXPBIZ::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

  Ok here it is, the terrifying ( OO - yawn - OO ) note .439 ... ok now I
remember

>OK, if you absolutely must
>    talk trash about things you don't understand, I'll drag you through the
>    facts and shove the relevant aspects up to refute your ill founded
>    assertions.  

  I got this far and stopped reading. Generally I do plow through the bashing
and insults but this time I chose not to. Let's just say that I often find
myself debating people who obviously didn't even get as far as Econ 101.

>Lets be clear about it - I'm talking about policies first
>    introduced here that are "good" economic policies in the world today. 

  And had I made it that far this would have tripped me up. "good economic
policies"? In who's opinion? That reminds me of Harry Truman and his "one
armed economist" joke.

  Ok, let's plow on and see what DougO Olson has decreed are the "good"
economic policies. Dam, 130 lines of this stuff. Maybe you are a good
economist. One trait is to be able to say in a book what could be said in a
page. 

  1). Ok, we agree Reagonomics was the start of this round of mega-debt.

>    The current environment is different.  The GOP is certainly talking
>    more seriously about reducing the deficit. 

  No, here I don't agree. If they were serious about reducing the deficit
they'd stop all talk about tax cuts until the budget was under control

  A doctor doesn't tell a heart patient to start jogging in the middle of
his bypass operation, he waits at least until the operation is over and the
patient has recovered. Likewise while these mega-deficits are still around
it is premature to push for tax cuts.

>    You say that the Dems want to raise taxes but
>    the GOP makes it politically impossible;  I don't think so!  First of
>    all, if they wanted to do so, it would be their job to lead the way
>    into doing that; they haven't got the leadership skills nor the
>    gumption to do it.  

  They did start leading the way and look what happened. The GOP point to their
tax cuts and the Democrats got bounced out of Congress. What else can they do?

>I think the GOP, in fact, is far more likely to attempt to cut
>    the deficit and it will be the Democrats who attempt to make it
>    impossible politically.  The debates we've seen so far about school
>    lunches and welfare mothers are one indication of that.  It is clear
>    that the GOP has promised to reduce the deficit to nothing by 2002.
>    That is a promise the Democrats haven't made.

  There is cutting the deficit to nothing and then there is cutting it back to
single digit deficits. While the GOP preaches cutting it back to nothing they
have not shown any sign of doing that, rather they are showing signs of cutting
school lunches and the like to pay for tax breaks for the rich.

  Raising taxes and cutting defense to get back to single digit deficits would
make more sense.

>    France hasn't really done much; 

  ... but they have a decent life style by world standards.

>Great Britain ...
>Countries in the Far East have effectively privatised ...
>Russia, Poland, the Czech Republic, and to a lesser
>    extent other countries in the former Warsaw pact have experienced huge
>    privatisations ... 
> Germany ...
>In short,
>    privatisation is now recognized as a global phenomenom 

  And once again, countries are trying to move toward our system. Dam we
better change fast, the combination of our success and the fact that everyone
is trying to imitate us must me we are doing something wrong. Why was I too
stupid to see that?

  Seriously what point are you trying to make here? In the United States those
industries are already in private hands and the Democrats have never attempted
to nationalize those industries.

>    The GOP's policy role in this area is a foreign policy one- to
>    encourage our trade partners and in particular to reinforce
>    international institutions like the IMF and the World Bank as they work
>    with emerging economies to undo the nationalisation mistakes of past
>    eras.  

  ... and JFK had his Peace Corp which tried to teach people how to fend for
themselves. 

> 
>A far better example of what I'm talking about is the
>    Uruguay round of the GATT, negotiated for seven years under Reagan and
>    Bush, and finally finished by Clinton.  But he only got it through the
>    Senate because the GOP supported it.  More Democrats voted against it,
>    slaves to protectionist labor lobbies, than voted for it!  

  Labor is the older part of the Democratic party. There were also democrats
who are against these measures because they don't want U.S. support of the type
of poor labor conditions that brought about Unions in the 1st place back in the
19th century. Many of them were not against the idea completely but wanted
more protections for that sort of thing in the treaty. Sill other Democrats
voted for the measure.

>    Anyway- one hopes you see fit to attempt to respond to the substance of
>    these policy issues, rather than namecalling, or attempting to ignore
>    it like you did last time, when you ignored .401, or the time before
>    that, when you missed the point about changes in foreign policy being
>    lead by bipartisan consensus after WWII.  

  ... Says DougO who has slung far more mud in my direction that I have slung
in his. As you can see I am perfectly able to plow through your boring and
pompous text to answer you point for point. Forgive me if I have a job and can't
afford to spend all day every day responding to notes of this length. Maybe
you get paid for this but I have work to do.

  George

    Perfectly able you may be, answers you may think you have given, but
    point-for-point?  Let us be generous and admit you quoted almost every-
    thing I said (didn't see the question directed to you about Pemex
    answered) and typed something beneath it; but as far as answering 
    the points?  Ha!
    
    Fine, you think the Democrats will cut the deficit to single digits.
    I think the preponderance of evidence points towards the GOP as
    more likely to handle them properly but I'll agree to disagree.
    
    As far as privatisation goes, you ask me "what's the point" and then
    you quote my point as if it was a different topic and answer gibberish
    about JFK and the Peace Corps.  The point is that the US is in a
    position to influence other nations, and privatisations are one of the
    things we can urge them to do; making aid, loans, approval, and other
    benefits available as rewards.  That, by the way, was the point of the
    Pemex question you ducked.  The GOP understands it; you don't, you just
    proved it, and the Democrats don't much.
    
    On the third area, reducing protectionism and bolstering free trade,
    you handwave unconvincing;y.  Those Democrats who are opposed to unfair
    labor practises, like Bill Clinton, had no reason not to support NAFTA
    because Clinton held out for side agreements on the environment and on
    Labor standards before submitting it to Congress.  Yet more Democrats
    still opposed the agreement than supported it.  The evidence is clear
    that the GOP gets this better than the Democrats do and you will not be
    allowed to obfuscate the point.
    
    Now, I knew you wouldn't have the guts to admit the facts don't support
    you.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see that you don't know when 
    your argument's been refuted.  Have a free clue, George- it has been.
    
    DougO
    

RE       <<< Note 49.452 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

>    Perfectly able you may be, answers you may think you have given, but
>    point-for-point?  Let us be generous and admit you quoted almost every-
>    thing I said (didn't see the question directed to you about Pemex
>    answered) and typed something beneath it; but as far as answering 
>    the points?  Ha!

  DougO, no doubt you've got membership card number 00001 in the DougO Olson
fan club but I'm curious, is there a member card number 00002? Good grief you
like to blow your own horn about your own nickel and dime economic theories.

>    As far as privatisation goes, you ask me "what's the point" and then
>    you quote my point as if it was a different topic and answer gibberish
>    about JFK and the Peace Corps.  The point is that the US is in a
>    position to influence other nations, and privatisations are one of the
>    things we can urge them to do; 

  And what does this have to do with our economy? What's wrong with letting
other countries decide for themselves what economic system they would like
to use? If they come to a decision on their own it's far more likely to be
popular than if it's foisted on them by those Yankees over in the States.

>That, by the way, was the point of the
>    Pemex question you ducked.  The GOP understands it; you don't, you just
>    proved it, and the Democrats don't much.

  Ok great, you are up on one more program than I am. I'll admit that you win
the pseudo intellectual badge for the day for being able to spit out a label
that your opponent hasn't heard. But do all your friends a favor and don't tell
us what Pemex is because once it's been spelled out you will have to defend it
with logical arguments which is not your strong point.

>Yet more Democrats
>    still opposed the agreement than supported it.  The evidence is clear
>    that the GOP gets this better than the Democrats do and you will not be
>    allowed to obfuscate the point.

  This is another good example of more of your pseudo intellectual ego trip.
Clearly democrats who are in industrial areas with a large labor constituency
are pressured to vote against free trade zones by the voters in their district.
This does not mean they don't understand the advantages of free trade it means
they are representing people who don't want free trade zones and will vote
against them if they support these measures. There is no evidence that they
are not capable of understanding the arguments.
    
>    Now, I knew you wouldn't have the guts to admit the facts don't support
>    you.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see that you don't know when 
>    your argument's been refuted.  Have a free clue, George- it has been.
    
  I have no problem with the facts, they support me quite well. For your
arguments to work we have to ignore the fact that under New Deal policies
followed by Great Society enhancements we went from being a 2nd tier nation to
being the undisputed leader of the world. Otherwise why would we be the one in
the position of influencing all these other nations? 

  You make one heck of a liberal DougO,
  George

    	re .453
    
    	Considering your first paragraph of .451, why should you expect
    	Doug to read the rest of .453 after reading its first paragraph?

RE      <<< Note 49.454 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

>    	re .453
>    
>    	Considering your first paragraph of .451, why should you expect
>    	Doug to read the rest of .453 after reading its first paragraph?

  He'll read it. You can take that to the bank.

  George

    
    re: .454
    
    Joe,
    
    Sarcasm is not an insult donchaknow.... 

    Re .448 - George

>  Well I'm a little skeptical of your numbers. What about all the military base
>closings? The Navy seems to be cutting back from a 15 carrier navy to a 10 or
>12 carrier navy with resulting decreases in air wings and support ships. That's
>got to save something. If that's not recorded in your list, what else did you
>leave out?

    You are certainly welcome to be skeptical of my numbers
    George, but I think that's pretty much the way it is.
    While the navy is reducing carrier task forces, this will not
    happen for a year or two. Further we are still constructing two carriers
    right now. 

    FYI - Each carrier task force costs about 1 Billion/year to operate.
    So eliminating three will reduce the deficit from $200+B to $197+B/year.

    I have left all Clinton's spending cuts off my list because while
    I applaud them, they, like eliminating carrier battle groups, are 
    a drop in the bucket.

    Perhaps you can list some real spending cuts that have taken
    place? Maybe I did miss some.


>  And the increase in taxes does reduce the deficit.

    I agree.

    					Ed

RE                       <<< Note 49.457 by DECC::VOGEL >>>

>    You are certainly welcome to be skeptical of my numbers
>    George, but I think that's pretty much the way it is.
>    While the navy is reducing carrier task forces, this will not
>    happen for a year or two. Further we are still constructing two carriers
>    right now. 

  BZZZZZZZZT WRONG!. The Navy hit their 15 carrier force when the commissioned
the Abe Lincoln (CVN-71). At that point the U.S. carriers were

 CVN 72 Abraham Lincoln 
 CVN 71 Theodore Roosevelt 
 CVN 70 Carl Vinson 
 CVN 69 Dwight D. Eisenhower 
 CVN 68 Nimitz 
 CVN 65 Enterprise 
 CV  67 John F. Kennedy 
 CV  66 America 
 CV  64 Constellation 
 CV  63 Kitty Hawk 
 CV  62 Independence 
 CV  61 Ranger 
 CV  60 Saratoga 
 CV  59 Forrestal 
 CV  43 Coral Sea
 CV  41 Midway

  That's 16 carriers. At any time that allows for 15 on active duty and one 
being overhauled in the SLEP program.

  Since then CVN 73 George Washington has been commissioned but the Midway,
Coral Sea, Forrestal, Saratoga, and Ranger have all been decommissioned. The
three that are now being built will replace the America and Independence which
will be put in moth balls and the JFK which will become the new training
carrier. 

  In addition the Army will be reduced by several division including the "Big
Red One" and all branches are undergoing base closings.

  George

    George,

    What part of the reduction has been planed for years, and what
    part has Clinton been responsible for?

    Even if he has been responsible for all of it, the savings are
    very small. 

    Remember my main point: Clinton has not reduced spending significantly.
    I'm asking you to point me to programs which have produced significant
    savings.

    Cutting a few Carrier Task forces is an insignificant savings relative
    to the size of the deficit.

    					Ed



    

RE                       <<< Note 49.459 by DECC::VOGEL >>>

>    What part of the reduction has been planed for years, and what
>    part has Clinton been responsible for?

  I think Bush planned to cut back from 15 carriers to 12 or 13 and Clinton
decided to cut the entire military to 2/3rds of it's mid '80s high.

>    Even if he has been responsible for all of it, the savings are
>    very small. 

  As the saying goes, each journey starts with a single step. Small reductions
in spending accompanied by small increases in taxes as the years go by will
eventually bring us down to single digit deficits. 

  That sounds like a better plan than the GOP plan in which spending cuts just
go to pay for tax cuts and the deficit remains the same.

  George

    > And what does this have to do with our economy?
    
    Well, everything and nothing.  We aren't discussing why privatisation
    is good for our economy ("nothing").  We're discussing policies that
    are better understood and acted upon by one political party than the
    other.  The idea of privatisation is primarily important, saying this
    for the third time now, in foreign policy.  And since our economy is
    increasingly dependent upon what goes on in the rest of the world, our
    foreign policy absolutely *must* recommend/cajole/require/invite (as
    the situation and relationship demand) strong economic policies that
    will strengthen the economies of our trading partners ("everything").
    
    I'll leave you in contented ignorance of why "the Pemex question" was
    important last month.  Your concession of ignorance grants the argument
    to me, of course.
    
    And for your excuses that democrats are beholden to their constituents
    to oppose sound policies, I'm sorry, George, but they are not.  It is
    their duty to educate their constituents, it is their duty to vote what
    is best for the country.  Shall I bother to mention the illogic of
    yours that somehow finds it so hard for Democrats to oppose the will of
    their constituents "in industrial areas" yet somehow also ignores that
    Republicans from "industrial areas" had no trouble at all voting for
    NAFTA?  The voting records are quite clear, George.  Clinton and some
    responsible Democrats (less than half) voted for NAFTA.  We only got it
    because the GOP went all out for it and delivered the votes.  I really
    don't care if the Democrats who voted against it "are capable of
    understanding the arguments"; I care that they voted against it anyway.
    They have demonstrated a willingness to ignore the facts of the
    economic arguments.  No wonder you identify with them so strongly.
    
    DougO

RE       <<< Note 49.461 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

>    I'll leave you in contented ignorance of why "the Pemex question" was
>    important last month.  Your concession of ignorance grants the argument
>    to me, of course.

  No it doesn't. It leaves the point unresolved. Clearly you are afraid of
having me find out what this means because then we would be able to discuss
the issues from a logical point of view. If this really worked in your favor
you would not hesitate to tell us all about "the Pemex question".

  Claiming you have won an argument based on the fact that you have information
that backs up your point but won't share it is pseudo intellectialism at it's
best. Could you imagine a prosecutor in a trial trying to claim "well the
defendant is guilty because of grizzeltude and because the defense doesn't
know what that is clearly the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."
    
>    And for your excuses that democrats are beholden to their constituents
>    to oppose sound policies, I'm sorry, George, but they are not.  It is
>    their duty to educate their constituents, it is their duty to vote what
>    is best for the country.  

  They have often tried this but lately it leads to them being unemployed.

>Clinton and some
>    responsible Democrats (less than half) voted for NAFTA.  We only got it
>    because the GOP went all out for it and delivered the votes.  

  The GOP would never have passed NAFTA without the Democrats support since
they did not have a majority in Congress. Clearly this was a bipartisan issue
that did not break down along traditional liberal conservative lines. 

  I have noticed, however, that you started ducking one of the most important
issues and that is how the GOP has made it politically impossible to raise taxes
to reduce the deficit. Hardly a responsible thing to do.

  George 

    If you really want to parade your ignorance of this issue we've been
    discussing, then ok - I'll tell you why the Pemex question was
    important last month.  First, some context, so you don't get confused
    again.  This is in support of my point that privatisation is primarily
    a foreign policy issue; and one that the GOP understands and uses much
    more capably than do the Democrats.  Pemex is the name of the state-
    owned, run-into-the-ground, employment vehicle that passes for the oil
    industry in Mexico.  It was built on the nationalised (read: stolen) 
    assets of all foreign-owned oil companies several decades ago, and has
    since become bloated as a holding pen for scores of thousands of
    patronage jobs; its equipment is decrepit, its fields ill-maintained;
    it is the very picture of socialisticly appropriated nationalised
    industry, run at the whim of government flunkies and ruined in the
    process.  Its continued existence in this form has been a sore point
    for years with lenders to Mexico- the IMF and World Bank have both
    urged Mexico to sell it back to private industry, the US did the same
    especially during the Brady Bond negotiations and throughout the NAFTA
    negotiations.  So what happened last month?  During negotiations for
    the loan guarantee package to Mexico, GOP leaders in the Senate urged
    Clinton to make privatisation of Pemex, or a committment to do so, a 
    condition of the guarantees.  This was not done.  Mexico's oil industry
    will continue to rot in the hands of the state instead of becoming an
    engine of growth, a source of much needed foreign currency, and and a 
    technical conduit to feed supporting industries as it could have.
    
    The Pemex question was mentioned in passing, George- as an example of
    how the privatisation issue can be used in foreign policy to encourage
    our trade partners to make their economies stronger.  The GOP got it.
    You, and far too many Democrats, do not.  This was a prominent issue of
    the very issue we were discussing, and you didn't recognize it by name.
    That's why I said it effectively wins the argument for me; you aren't
    even aware of the issues of the debate.
    
    >> It is their duty to educate their constituents, it is their duty to
    >> vote what is best for the country.  
    >
    > They have often tried this but lately it leads to them being unemployed.
    
    See, to me it looks just the opposite.  They voted against NAFTA and
    now they're unemployed.  They caved in to their old labor constituency
    and the rest of the country threw them out.  Are you really trying to
    argue that they are justified in selling out the country's interests
    just to win re-election?  I consider the argument contemptible.
    
    > The GOP would never have passed NAFTA without the Democrats support
    > since they did not have a majority in Congress. 
    
    True; at least some of the Democrats had to support it.  
    
    > Clearly this was a bipartisan issue that did not break down along
    > traditional liberal conservative lines. 
    
    True, but uninteresting.  The interesting question is how the voting
    broke down along PARTY lines, George.  Over 90% of the GOP supported
    it.  Less than half the Democrats did.  If that tells us anything
    "clearly" its that one party understands the stakes represented by free
    trade in the global economy far better than the other- which is what
    I've been claiming all along.
    
    >  I have noticed, however, that you started ducking one of the most
    > important issues and that is how the GOP has made it politically
    > impossible to raise taxes to reduce the deficit. Hardly a responsible
    > thing to do.
    
    I agreed to disagree with you on that one, George; you think the
    Democrats will work to reduce the deficit, I think the GOP will. I said
    that near the top of note .452. What's the point of arguing?  We'll see
    what we will see.  I'm glad  to see you at least recognize that
    reducing the deficit *is* the responsible course of action.  Beyond
    that its all namecalling (will they/won't they/who they?/reduce the
    deficit) and I won't play that game with you.
    
    DougO

    
    re .460 - George

>  I think Bush planned to cut back from 15 carriers to 12 or 13 and Clinton
>decided to cut the entire military to 2/3rds of it's mid '80s high.

    I believe that Clinton and Bush (as well as Reagan) have all agreed
    to cut military spending from the 80's high. 
    

>  As the saying goes, each journey starts with a single step. Small reductions
>in spending accompanied by small increases in taxes as the years go by will
>eventually bring us down to single digit deficits. 

    I doubt it. With entitlement spending going up at about 8%/year, small
    anything won't get the job done. Further, again miss my point. The 
    point is that Clinton has proposed no significant spending cuts. 
    He has proposed big tax increases. I have asked you to name specific
    spending cuts, and other than an army division and a few carrier
    task forces (which amount to peanuts), you could not list any.
    
    
>  That sounds like a better plan than the GOP plan in which spending cuts just
>go to pay for tax cuts and the deficit remains the same.

    Now what does the Presidents plan do fo rthe deficit? That's right,
    it goes up!!
    
    We'll see what the Republicans come up with (and yes....I'm pretty
    dissappointed that they've come up with so few specific cuts....
    I suspect the defeat of the BBA was a big setback).
    
    					Ed
    
    
    
  George

RE       <<< Note 49.463 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

>    The Pemex question was mentioned in passing, George- as an example of
>    how the privatisation issue can be used in foreign policy to encourage
>    our trade partners to make their economies stronger.  The GOP got it.
>    You, and far too many Democrats, do not.  This was a prominent issue of
>    the very issue we were discussing, and you didn't recognize it by name.
>    That's why I said it effectively wins the argument for me; you aren't
>    even aware of the issues of the debate.

  I had heard of the problem I just didn't remember the name. The fact that you
played that for all it's worth shows just how much you fear real debate and
have to rely on gimmicks to win an argument. 

  Personally I'm in favor of privatisation but that's just one of many issues.
The way you talk about it you'd think it was 90% of what was important from
an economic point of view. That's small stuff compared to how the Republicans
have used their Tax Revolt to force deficits on us over the last 15 years.

>Are you really trying to
>    argue that they are justified in selling out the country's interests
>    just to win re-election?  I consider the argument contemptible.

  The "countries interests" are a matter of opinion in a democracy. The entire
point of having elections is so that the people can decide who they want in
office and what policies they want followed. No I don't find that contemptible.
A bit inefficient at times but inefficiency is the price you pay for freedom.

>    I agreed to disagree with you on that one, George; you think the
>    Democrats will work to reduce the deficit, I think the GOP will. I said
>    that near the top of note .452. What's the point of arguing?    

  How can you say the GOP will take a lead reducing the deficit when they
promise during every election to return us to the days of Reagonomics which
was what caused this mega-deficit in the 1st place? 

  George

RE                       <<< Note 49.464 by DECC::VOGEL >>>

>    He has proposed big tax increases. 

  Why do you keep saying "He has proposed big tax increases" as if it were an
argument on your side of the debate. That's my line. Big tax increases help to
reduce the deficit. 

>I have asked you to name specific
>    spending cuts, and other than an army division and a few carrier
>    task forces (which amount to peanuts), you could not list any.

  Right, other than the cuts I mentioned I couldn't mention any cuts.

  These things take time. Granted he may have taken advantage of the end of the
Savings and Load bailout and a few other things but at least he was headed in
the right direction and at least he was working on building a consensus to
address the problem. 
    
>>  That sounds like a better plan than the GOP plan in which spending cuts just
>>go to pay for tax cuts and the deficit remains the same.
>
>    Now what does the Presidents plan do for the deficit? That's right,
>    it goes up!!

  I notice you don't want to talk about GOP tax cuts. Can't say I blame you,
they don't exactly work in your favor. Now what does Clinton do? Nothing. The
voters have sent a message that they don't want Clinton's deficit reduction
they want GOP tax cuts instead. There's nothing he can do he doesn't have
the votes.
    
  George

    >  I had heard of the problem I just didn't remember the name. The fact
    >that you played that for all it's worth shows just how much you fear
    >real debate and have to rely on gimmicks to win an argument.
    
     Ho ho! And what's your shtick? Relying on your copious spare time and
    write only noting style to inundate your (working) opponents with
    repetition, trivialities and non sequiturs, carefully ignoring
    inconvenient facts and unfavorable points raised by the opposition as
    you attempt to silence dissent by mere force of volume. I think this is
    the Fred Flintstone style of noting, and its pointless for anyone who
    has anything to do to waste much time with you because A) you're not
    listening B) you clearly have far more available time and C) you're not
    listening.
    
     Doug just PUMMELLED you with facts and knowledge and instead of
    conceding even the most obvious of points you remain as belligerent and
    bellicose as ever. Those of us who've been exposed to your antics
    before hope that "POOF!" time is near, thus setting the stage for an
    improved signal/noise ratio.
    
     I mean, you'd have thought that hearing from those who generally are
    politically similar in viewpoint about your obtuseness might have
    served as something of a wake up call. But nay, nay, milord. The
    windmills call.
    
     I personally don't think you'd recognize reasoned argument if it crept
    up and sank its canines into your backside.

RE           <<< Note 49.467 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

>     Ho ho! And what's your shtick? Relying on your copious spare time and
>    write only noting style to inundate your (working) opponents with
>    repetition, trivialities and non sequiturs, carefully ignoring
>    inconvenient facts and unfavorable points raised by the opposition as
>    you attempt to silence dissent by mere force of volume. I think this is
>    the Fred Flintstone style of noting, and its pointless for anyone who
>    has anything to do to waste much time with you because A) you're not
>    listening B) you clearly have far more available time and C) you're not
>    listening.
    
  And here's another one, obsessed with my writing style.

>     Doug just PUMMELLED you with facts and knowledge and instead of
>    conceding even the most obvious of points you remain as belligerent and
>    bellicose as ever. Those of us who've been exposed to your antics
>    before hope that "POOF!" time is near, thus setting the stage for an
>    improved signal/noise ratio.

  Don't you wish. Now go back and read what Dugo actually wrote. He agreed
with me on some points, played the fact that I didn't know about Pemex to
the max before entering one word of logic and he has constantly ducked my
point about the GOP starting this deficit mess with Reagonomics.
    
>     I personally don't think you'd recognize reasoned argument if it crept
>    up and sank its canines into your backside.

  Good gawd, look at'em go.

  George

    > Now go back and read what Dugo actually wrote. He agreed with me on
    > some points, played the fact that I didn't know about Pemex to the max
    > before entering one word of logic and he has constantly ducked my point
    > about the GOP starting this deficit mess with Reagonomics.
    
    This is ridiculous, George.  You have yet to answer numerous questions
    put to you, you have yet to display an understanding of the issues
    we're discussing, and you repeatedly accuse me of ducking things I 
    addressed and disposed of the first times you brought them up. 
    With regard to this latest, see .439, where I said:
    
    "You are correct that the GOP lead the charge into the huge deficits of
    the 80s, and you are also correct that the Democrats went along with
    it.  In fact, they made it worse by insisting that defense spending
    increases be matched by welfare spending increases.  Together, those
    represent a bipartisan failure to promote the proper policies."
    
    I did not duck anything.  Every time you have claimed I did (last time
    I referred you to .452, this time to .439) I've proven you wrong.  
    
    You, on the other hand, have constantly ducked points, shifted your
    ground as I refuted you at every turn; for just one example, look at
    the discussion we just had of how the GOP supports open trade policies
    much more than do the Democrats.  Go back and see how many ways you
    tried to slide away from the fact that Democrats didn't support NAFTA;
    first, you said it was because the labor provisions were inadequate,
    then I reminded you Clinton negotiated a side agreement; then you said
    that Democrats from industrial areas couldn't support it, so I pointed
    out that Republicans from industrial areas did; finally you claimed it
    couldn't have passed without Democrats and that therefore it showed a
    bipartisan consensus; to which I replied that the split along party
    lines still tells us a lot about what the parties support.  Similarly,
    in our discussion of privatisation; I bring it up and you cite France
    (!?) and Great Britain and toss off a line about why they're still
    considered socialist?  Who cares?  I cite the facts of worldwide
    privatisation and you ignore them.  I cite the foreign policy
    ramifications and you talk about the Peace Corps!  I specifically
    mention the prominent, latest current example, asking you numerous
    questions which you CANNOT answer, and you claim it to be irrelevant;
    gee, it didn't seem irrelevant in the Senate nor in the international
    press, last month.  And now, you say I used it to the max without
    entering "one word of logic"!  Go back and read the questions you
    haven't yet even tried to answer, George, about Pemex, before you toss
    off accusations about logic. There's plenty of logic behind the
    questions; too bad you were unequipped to recognize them on the first
    pass, but that's your failing, not mine.
    
    In short, you have twisted and dodged from every point; even the
    earlier ones about the fact that we have effectively subsidized those
    great socialist democracies you like so much, in terms of providing
    their security as the price of our own. Do you admit defeat?  No, as
    Mark noted, you remain just as bellicose as you were at the beginning. 
    I conclude you are without honor, George.  I welcome the opportunity to
    discuss these kinds of issues, and you make a good foil, but you are
    utterly shameless and you stand revealed.
    
    DougO

RE       <<< Note 49.470 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

>    "You are correct that the GOP lead the charge into the huge deficits of
>    the 80s, and you are also correct that the Democrats went along with
>    it.  In fact, they made it worse by insisting that defense spending
>    increases be matched by welfare spending increases.  Together, those
>    represent a bipartisan failure to promote the proper policies."

  Ok so this is an example of where we agree.
    
>    I did not duck anything.  Every time you have claimed I did (last time
>    I referred you to .452, this time to .439) I've proven you wrong.  


    
>    You, on the other hand, have constantly ducked points, shifted your
>>    ground as I refuted you at every turn; for just one example, look at
>    the discussion we just had of how the GOP supports open trade policies
>    much more than do the Democrats.  Go back and see how many ways you
>    tried to slide away from the fact that Democrats didn't support NAFTA;

  I slid nowhere. If the Democrats had wanted to kill NAFTA they had the votes.
For that matter they had a president that could have killed it with a veto.
Without the democrats there would be no NAFTA.

>    first, you said it was because the labor provisions were inadequate,
>    then I reminded you Clinton negotiated a side agreement; 

  I recall hearing several Democrats say they were voting against NAFTA because
they were not satisfied with the agreements on working standards. Maybe not
all but some held that position. 

>then you said
>    that Democrats from industrial areas couldn't support it, so I pointed
>    out that Republicans from industrial areas did; 

  Obviously they were able to tap into votes not available to the labor
democrats. Just because Republicans won in those districts that doesn't
mean a democrat who's main support came from labor could win that district
without that labor support.

>finally you claimed it
>    couldn't have passed without Democrats and that therefore it showed a
>    bipartisan consensus; to which I replied that the split along party
>    lines still tells us a lot about what the parties support.  

  It tells us there was more support among the GOP but there was still
significant support among the Democrats. And Democrats had to pay a higher
price to support NAFTA since they rely more on labor for campaign funds. 

>Similarly,
>    in our discussion of privatisation; I bring it up and you cite France
>    (!?) and Great Britain and toss off a line about why they're still
>    considered socialist?  Who cares?  I cite the facts of worldwide
>    privatisation and you ignore them.  

  This is just plane wrong. My point was that these are sovereign entities and
are entitled to decide for themselves what economic system to use.

  Yeah I know there's more. Got to go to a meeting.

  George

    First he says I ducked, and I prove him wrong, so does he retract? No,
    he says I ducked something else.  I prove him wrong again, and he says
    "oh, ok, this is where we agree."  Notice that what he now agrees to is
    substantially beyond his former assertion; now he agrees that the
    Democrats' insistence that welfare spending increases match defense
    spending increases were equally responsible for the deficit buildup in
    the 80's.  I don't think anyone's ever gotten an admission of that
    magnitude out of him before.  And in passing, no apology for missing
    the previous answers, no admission that he's trying to divert attention
    from the facts that I've previously exhaustively recited to show that
    he not only doesn't understand the ideas of these issues, he isn't even
    familiar with the particulars of the debate.
    
    Forget the handwaving, George- you have no honor, and you continue to 
    demonstrate it.
    
    DougO

	dougo, you zin-guzzling right wing wacko, you.  ;>

    
      I wish to welcome DougO to the ranks of us right wing wackos.
    
      Where should we mail you your Phil Gramm campaign button ?
    
      bb

    arghh!  Here I was all set to elucidate on why Pete Wilson is a liar
    and a scuzzbucket, now that he's all but got his hat in the ring, and
    y'all are gonna make it "politically impossible"! ;-) ;-) ;-)
    
    DougO

    
    Just the ticket Doug... what you need are "pissing off both
    sides" or "bipartisan alientation" lessons. I'm offering
    a special this week... :-) :-)
    
    -b

    Well doug O, I guess we are both RWW now?
    
    meg

    
    Meg, DougO
    
    Don't feel bad. When Breyer was nominated they listed his positions
    on major issues and damn, I agreed with all of em.
    Guess that makes me liberal...
    
    And I still haven't recovered.....

    Hank!  I'm shocked!  8^)
    
    
    Welcome Meg and DougO to the RWW club.  8^)

RE       <<< Note 49.472 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

>    First he says I ducked, and I prove him wrong, so does he retract? No,
>    he says I ducked something else.  I prove him wrong again, and he says
>    "oh, ok, this is where we agree."  

  Doug, you didn't prove me wrong. You expressed an opinion that was different
from my opinion. 

>Notice that what he now agrees to is
>    substantially beyond his former assertion; now he agrees that the
>    Democrats' insistence that welfare spending increases match defense
>    spending increases were equally responsible for the deficit buildup in
>    the 80's.  I don't think anyone's ever gotten an admission of that
>    magnitude out of him before.  

  What I agreed to was that the democrats went along with Regan because of the
"mandate" that Reagan kept yelling about. Just as they are doing now the GOP in
the mid 80's kept insisting that if we would only follow Reagonomics we would
grow out way out of our problems and the Democratic Congress was stupid enough
to go along. 

  Now we are getting the same old tired logic. If only we would pass their tax
cuts the deficit will magically disappear. Unlike the democrats in congress
during the '80s I never bought Voodoo economics and I don't buy it now. And all
of the empty insults you can dredge up talking about how you won every argument
we ever had won't make me swallow that nonsense.

>    Forget the handwaving, George- you have no honor, and you continue to 
>    demonstrate it.
    
  Right, I have no honor. I won't cave in before the giant ego of DougO and
admit he has won the debate even though he was good enough to tell me he had
won. Nope, no honor what so ever. 

  George

    > Doug, you didn't prove me wrong. You expressed an opinion that was
    > different from my opinion.
    
    I quoted my own replies (.452 and .439) that show I didn't "duck" the
    issues you raised, as you later claimed I had.  Your claims that I
    ducked were shown to be wrong.
    
    >  What I agreed to
    
    Was what I quoted from my own note .439.  Go look at what you wrote,
    in .471, quoting me, and then saying you agreed.  No backing down now.
    
    DougO

The .471 debate

>RE       <<< Note 49.470 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>
>
>>    "You are correct that the GOP lead the charge into the huge deficits of
>>    the 80s, and you are also correct that the Democrats went along with
>>    it.  In fact, they made it worse by insisting that defense spending
>>    increases be matched by welfare spending increases.  Together, those
>>    represent a bipartisan failure to promote the proper policies."
>
>  Ok so this is an example of where we agree.

  What I'm agreeing to here is the fact that the GOP lead the charge into huge
deficits and the Democrats went along. I interpret that 2nd sentence as a way
in which the Democrats went along with Reagonomics (i.e. borrow borrow borrow,
spend, spend, spend). The democrats were wrong to follow Reagan's leadership. 

  Do we disagree over this? I'm not sure I follow the point you are trying
to make.

  Now you claim you addressed the tax issue in .452 and .439. I'll go look.

  George

RE DougO and taxes

  I didn't see the point in .439 but that's kind of long. Just to be sure we
are talking about the same thing, my point is that the GOP is making it
nearly impossible for either side to address the deficit because they have
the electorate so pumped up for tax cuts that any spending cuts that are
made will not cover both those tax cuts and close the deficit.

  Is that the point you claim to have addressed in .439 and .45whatever?

  George

    >  Is that the point you claim to have addressed in .439 and .45whatever?
    
    I'm sorry you appear to find this so confusing, George.  Let me spell
    it out for you.
    
    In .462, you said:
    
    >  I have noticed, however, that you started ducking one of the most
    > important issues and that is how the GOP has made it politically
    > impossible to raise taxes to reduce the deficit. Hardly a responsible
    > thing to do.
    
    in .463, , after quoting the above, I said:
    
    > I agreed to disagree with you on that one, George; you think the
    > Democrats will work to reduce the deficit, I think the GOP will. I said
    > that near the top of note .452. What's the point of arguing?  We'll see
    > what we will see.
    
    I was referring to this from .452, which explicitly addresses our
    previous discussion on the deficits, and was intended to be my last
    word on the matter, because its all a matter of opinion until they
    actually do something.
    
    > Fine, you think the Democrats will cut the deficit to single digits.
    > I think the preponderance of evidence points towards the GOP as
    > more likely to handle them properly but I'll agree to disagree.
    
    So, your claim that I "ducked" is wrong.
    
    Now, in .468 you said:
    
    > ...he has constantly ducked my point about the GOP starting this
    > deficit mess with Reagonomics.
    
    in .470 I said:
    
    > ... you repeatedly accuse me of ducking things I addressed and
    > disposed of the first times you brought them up. With regard to this
    > latest, see .439, where I said:
    
    "You are correct that the GOP lead the charge into the huge deficits of
    the 80s, and you are also correct that the Democrats went along with
    it.  In fact, they made it worse by insisting that defense spending
    increases be matched by welfare spending increases.  Together, those
    represent a bipartisan failure to promote the proper policies."
    
    Which clearly indicates that I've thoroughly addressed your notion
    about Reaganomics "starting" the deficit mess. Thus, you are proven
    wrong again.
    
    Have a nice day.
    
    DougO

RE       <<< Note 49.484 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

  DougO.

  Tax cuts. What about tax cuts?

  The GOP insists on tax cuts. This is the single largest thing threatening any
attempt to reduce the deficit. 

  If you are a Democrat and you try to support any attempt at reducing the
deficit through a combination of taxes and spending cuts you get crucified
in the next election (just ask the Democrats who got thrown out of Congress).

  If you are a Republican and you try to support any attempt at reducing the
deficit through a combination of taxes and spending cuts you get crucified
in the next election (just ask George Bush).

  That's a major problem being created by the GOP, probably the largest problem
facing our economic future today.

  Maybe you addressed it in the middle of one of those 200 line notes and maybe
you did not. My most sincere apologies if I missed it.

  George

    What about tax cuts?  I consider the discussion of them to be subsumed
    by the larger topic of the deficit.  Both parties have irresponsibly
    promised tax cuts, and both will have to be content with climbdowns. 
    Both will be savaged by the other.  More same-old same old.  If/when
    they address the deficit, I'll worry about tax cuts.  I'm incredibly
    amused that you think you can blame all the taxcut noise on the GOP. 
    They were certainly wrong to promise one.  So was Clinton, but I don't
    hear you admitting it.
    
    What is more amusing, George, is that you keep changing the subject.
    You seem to have an impossibly difficult time admitting what has been
    detailed in .484.
    
    I've addressed the deficit.  But I brought forward many more notions of
    proper policies and curiously we don't seem to be discussing them
    anymore.  We aren't talking about how the socialist nations are deeper
    in debt (in proportion to their GDPs) than we are, nor that their
    defense needs have been subsidized by our defenses for 50 of those 60
    years you think are so significant.  Why not, George?  I don't recall
    you ever addressed that point once I made it.  And we aren't talking
    about the importance of privatisation as a foreign policy issue that
    *both* parties, not just one, should understand; why not, George?  We
    aren't talking about how lowering trade barriers is important, either;
    why not, George?  I think its because I've pretty throughly proven that
    the GOP gets these issues far better than the Democrats do, and you
    simply don't want to admit it.  You tried to change away from those
    topics and I've let you get away with a lot of it; but do you think
    nobody notices?
    
    DougO

    George is content to stick his fingers in his ears and yell at the top
    of his lungs.

RE       <<< Note 49.486 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

>I'm incredibly
>    amused that you think you can blame all the taxcut noise on the GOP. 
>    They were certainly wrong to promise one.  So was Clinton, but I don't
>    hear you admitting it.

  Yes I did, now you are the one who's missing things I wrote.

  The GOP started the latest round of the tax revolt back around 1978 with
California's Prop 13 long before anyone had ever heard of Bill Clinton. All
through the '80s the GOP pushed tax cuts while the democrats favored taxes
to cover the deficit and all throughout that time Democrats got beat up on
election day.

  What makes Bill Clinton different from other democrats is that he's willing
to play the same game as the Republicans promising things he could never
deliver.

  The GOP started the tax revolt and as long as they keep it up Democrats
will find it more and more difficult to get elected unless they go along
which is bad news for the deficit.
    
>    What is more amusing, George, is that you keep changing the subject.
>    You seem to have an impossibly difficult time admitting what has been
>    detailed in .484.

  No I'm not changing the subject. I've been trying to say all along that the
GOP driven tax revolt is what's causing the problems with the deficit and if
you look around there are no examples of successful major industrial powers
more right wing than the U.S. If I have changed from that it's because you are
dragging in other issues and I'm just following along. 

>We aren't talking about how the socialist nations are deeper
>    in debt (in proportion to their GDPs) than we are, nor that their
>    defense needs have been subsidized by our defenses for 50 of those 60
>    years you think are so significant.  Why not, George?  I don't recall
>    you ever addressed that point once I made it.  

  Fine I'll concede that point. Now show me a large nation more right wing
than us that is doing any better than those socialist nations.

>And we aren't talking
>    about the importance of privatisation as a foreign policy issue that
>    *both* parties, not just one, should understand; why not, George?  

  First you accuse me of changing the subject, then you ask me why I don't
scurry around after you while you change the subject. You brought up
privatisation. I had never intended this to be a foreign policy debate.

>We
>    aren't talking about how lowering trade barriers is important, either;
>    why not, George?  I think its because I've pretty throughly proven that
>    the GOP gets these issues far better than the Democrats do, and you
>    simply don't want to admit it.  

  No you are misrepresenting what I said.

>You tried to change away from those
>    topics and I've let you get away with a lot of it; but do you think
>    nobody notices?
    
  No, I just tried to stay on the topic that 1st started this string, you
were the one who hauled in all of those other topics.

  Meanwhile I'm still waiting for an answer to my original question. Show me
one major industrial that is more right wing than the United States and as
successful as the United States and the more socialist industrial nations in
Europe. 

  George

    Singapore?  I'm only guessing though!
    
    -Jack

RE           <<< Note 49.487 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

>    George is content to stick his fingers in his ears and yell at the top
>    of his lungs.

   ... he yelled unable to listen since his fingers were stuck in his ears.

   George

RE         <<< Note 49.489 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

>    Singapore?  I'm only guessing though!
    
  Large Industrial nation, not small city state located on a busy seaway.

  By the way I'm curious, does Singapore get any handouts from the U.S. or any
other western nations? I find it hard to believe that they wouldn't have been
offered considering it's strategic location. Wasn't it a colony of the British
Empire at one time? 

  George

    >> I'm incredibly amused that you think you can blame all the taxcut
    >> noise on the GOP. They were certainly wrong to promise one.  So was
    >> Clinton, but I don't hear you admitting it.
    >
    >  Yes I did, now you are the one who's missing things I wrote.
    
    Where did you write that before, George?  I've dredged up numerous of
    my own citations to prove it when I defend myself from your unjust
    claims that I ducked issues I addressed.  I'd like to hold you to the
    same standards.  If you say you addressed it, fine; show me.
    
    >> We aren't talking about how the socialist nations are deeper in debt
    >> (in proportion to their GDPs) than we are, nor that their defense needs
    >> have been subsidized by our defenses for 50 of those 60 years you think
    >> are so significant.  Why not, George?  I don't recall you ever
    >> addressed that point once I made it.  
    >
    >  Fine I'll concede that point. 
    
    Ah, victory is sweet.
    
    > Now show me a large nation more right wing than us that is doing any
    > better than those socialist nations.
    > [...]
    >  Meanwhile I'm still waiting for an answer to my original question.
    > Show me one major industrial that is more right wing than the United
    > States and as successful as the United States and the more socialist
    > industrial nations in Europe. 
    
    George, you're not paying attention again.  I addressed that way back
    in .412.  Go back and read that, its only a single paragraph.
    
    > I had never intended this to be a foreign policy debate.
    
    No?  You made this incredibly sweeping statement, didn't you?
    
    .377> Since F.D.R. was elected, Democrats have been largely in control
        > of the national agenda.
    
    In case you hadn't noticed, George, since FDR was elected the US has
    become the greatest and only superpower.  We've thoroughly supported
    and lead the integration of the world economy.  We've fought and been
    on the winning side of the largest war in human history.  We've
    experienced the cold war and triumphed in it.  These have all been huge
    influences on the national agenda, George, and they all have to do with
    foreign policy.  So you opened the door; I've been helping your
    education along ever since, by pointing out to you that no, the
    Democrats haven't been "largely in control" of these areas at all; in
    many cases, they don't even understand the issues!  Don't complain that
    your sweeping statements lead you into trouble, and don't complain that
    I'm changing the subject when what I'm doing is proving you didn't
    understand what you said in the first place.
    
    DougO

RE       <<< Note 49.492 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

>    Where did you write that before, George?  I've dredged up numerous of
>    my own citations to prove it when I defend myself from your unjust
>    claims that I ducked issues I addressed.  I'd like to hold you to the
>    same standards.  If you say you addressed it, fine; show me.

  Fine, I'll go back and look but what difference does it make? As I said the
GOP full court press for tax cuts has been going on since 1978 when hardly
anyone in the country had ever heard of Clinton. 
    
>    Ah, victory is sweet.

  Victory nothing, I never argued against that point.
    
>    George, you're not paying attention again.  I addressed that way back
>    in .412.  Go back and read that, its only a single paragraph.


    
>    > I had never intended this to be a foreign policy debate.
>    
>    No?  You made this incredibly sweeping statement, didn't you?
>    
>    .377> Since F.D.R. was elected, Democrats have been largely in control
>        > of the national agenda.

  Yes but that's taken out of context. We are talking here about an economic
question, not foreign policy questions.
    
>    In case you hadn't noticed, George, since FDR was elected the US has
>    become the greatest and only superpower.  

  Not only did I notice, that was my point. I keep saying over and over that
the US is the only superpower left standing, we must be doing something right.

>    So you opened the door; I've been helping your
>    education along ever since, by pointing out to you that no, the
>    Democrats haven't been "largely in control" of these areas at all; in
>    many cases, they don't even understand the issues!  

  You have educated me of no such thing and you have certainly failed to show
any evidence at all that democrats do not understand these issues. How can
you tell if a democrat votes the way he does because of concern over getting
reelected or understanding of the issue?

>Don't complain that
>    your sweeping statements lead you into trouble, and don't complain that
>    I'm changing the subject when what I'm doing is proving you didn't
>    understand what you said in the first place.
    
  I'm not in any trouble except for having to deal with your buzzing fly style
of debate in which you make generalizations, change the subject, all the while
trumpeting on ad nauseam about how you are winning the debate.

  George

>  Not only did I notice, that was my point. I keep saying over and over that
>the US is the only superpower left standing, we must be doing something right.

Newt and company just want to do things a little more to the right.

RE       <<< Note 49.412 by AXPBIZ::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

Ok here we are, the mysterious .412. 

>    George, you pose a false dichotomy.  The policies that make a
>    successful nation-state in today's economy are not necessarily "right
>    wing" or "left wing" and nobody is arguing on that basis.  The policies
>    are economically more free-market and less interventionist, and in some
>    countries the parties that espouse these policies are more liberal than
>    their opposition, in some countries more conservative.  

  Sorry I forgot, you are the one that is sensitive about the term "right
wing". Fine, show me examples of successful industrial countries that are more
conservative than the United States.

>in THIS country
>    there is no doubt that the more responsible economic policies, in
>    general, are those espoused by the GOP.  

  Right, like "let's cut taxes so we can reduce the deficit".

  George

.488, George...  re: the "...GOP driven tax revolt..."
    
    I thought high taxes were driving the tax revolt.

RE             <<< Note 49.496 by ODIXIE::CIAROCHI "One Less Dog" >>>

>.488, George...  re: the "...GOP driven tax revolt..."
>    
>    I thought high taxes were driving the tax revolt.

  What is it our gun friends say? "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".

  Likewise, takes don't drive revolutions, people drive revolutions. It was
conservative politicians who started preaching that we could have our cake and
eat it too by cutting taxes and watching the economy grow forever. That lead to
Prop 13 in California and was the basis of Reagonomics (or Voodoo economics as
George Bush called it). 

  It was that policy that lead to the mega-deficits of the 80s and it is that
policy that's making it nearly impossible now for anyone to run saying that
a deficit reduction package should include higher taxes.

  The deficit is like a cancer and solving it with spending cuts alone won't
work. As doctors often say, you can't operate until the swelling goes down and
right now we need to get the deficit under control before we are ready for new
tax cuts. But with the success the GOP has had at the polls making promises of
tax cuts, using a combination of taxes and spending cuts to address the deficit
is nearly impossible. Just ask George Bush, it cost him the presidency.

  George

    >>I'd like to hold you to the same standards. 
    >
    > Fine, I'll go back and look but what difference does it make?
    
    You made a claim that I missed something.  I have previously proven
    numerous of your claims unsubstantiated regarding topics you said I
    ducked.  I'm not about to try to prove a negative, though; so if I
    missed something, I'd like you to prove it.  Just holding you to the
    same standards to which I hold myself.  So, where did you admit Clinton
    was wrong to propose a tax cut?
    
    >... GOP full court press for tax cuts has been going on since 1978...
    
    Hmmm, seems Read My Lips Bush negotiated a tax increase in 1990 that
    contributed to his problems in 1992.  Seems that the GOP "full court
    press" hasn't been as full as you think.  But you're just potshotting,
    just blowing smoke to hide the other issues.  You seem to forget I
    agreed to disagree with you about who is likely to cut the deficit.
    Until it happens, your continued song-and-dance is really boring, you
    know?  We both agree the deficit needs to be reduced.  We both know the
    Democrats think they can get it to single digits.  We both know the GOP
    have promised to knock it to zero by 2002.  When they do it, when they
    start to address it, it'll become interesting again.  How we got here,
    you've already admitted the Dems have equal responsibility for, so
    blaming the GOP is simply your backpeddling, and there's no point to
    it, except to try to obscure the weakness of your positions on the rest
    of our issues.  I can see your dance- so can everybody else, George.  So
    knock it off.
    
    >>    Ah, victory is sweet.
    >
    >  Victory nothing, I never argued against that point.
    
    Right, you never dared even address it! but "concede" is the word you
    eventually used, and that sounds like victory to me.
    
    >>>> I had never intended this to be a foreign policy debate.
    >>>
    >>> No?  You made this incredibly sweeping statement, didn't you?
    >>
    >.377> Since F.D.R. was elected, Democrats have been largely in control  
    >    > of the national agenda.
    >
    >  Yes but that's taken out of context. We are talking here about an
    > economic question, not foreign policy questions.
    
    Since when, George, do you get to define the "national agenda" as
    solely about economic questions?  You admit you made the statement.
    It is quite obvious that the "national agenda" includes far more than 
    the limitation you try to attach now, 120 notes later.
    
    But, if you're prepared to say that you fully recognize the Democrats
    did NOT "largely control" the national agenda since FDR, then we can
    put this debate to rest.  I'll let you off the hook since you say you
    never meant to imply that erroneous statement.
    
    >  You have educated me of no such thing
    
    You can say that again; you are ineducable!
    
    DougO

    > Fine, show me examples of successful industrial countries that are
    > more conservative than the United States.
    
    You still miss the point.  Try posing the question this way:
    
    "Show me examples of successful industrial countries that are improving
    more rapidly than is the United States by following policies of
    privatisation, lowered trade barriers, improved climate for domestic
    savings, increased protection for foreign investors, and responsible
    macroeconomic policies of currency stability, reducing public sector
    debt, and controlling government spending".  Those are the policies
    that will make a successful economy and a successful nation in today's
    world, and we can name lots of countries that are following them and
    growing much more quickly than is the US.  The important point is that
    these countries are avoiding the welfare trap, avoiding providing too
    generous a safety net; which mistake we, and the socialist democracies,
    have unfortunately fallen into, and from which we are only very slowly 
    and painfully pulling ourselves.
    
    DougO

    A right political SNARF!

       <<< Note 49.498 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

>    Hmmm, seems Read My Lips Bush negotiated a tax increase in 1990 that
>    contributed to his problems in 1992.  Seems that the GOP "full court
>    press" hasn't been as full as you think.  

  Right, and look what happened to Bush as a result. He was crucified by the
GOP for going back on the pledge. You'll notice he got a lot more flack from
his own party over that deal than he did from either Ross P. or Clinton.

>... is simply your backpeddling, and there's no point to
>    it, except to try to obscure the weakness of your positions on the rest
>    of our issues.  I can see your dance- so can everybody else, George.  So
>    knock it off.

  You know DougO I'm really wondering if you aren't a right wing religious
wacko after all. You fill your replies with statement after statement saying
over and over that I'm wrong and you are right, that no one listens to me
and you have proven each of your points.

  That's just like a right wing preacher using the religious wacko system of
proof:

    State theory
    Repeat theory over and over
    Claim we are right and everyone else is wrong
    Conclude that the theory was correct.

  Why don't you knock it off and try debating without constantly trashing your
opponent. There's more hate in this reply than Pat Buchannan had in his entire
campaign.

  George

RE       <<< Note 49.499 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

>    You still miss the point.  Try posing the question this way:
>    
>    "Show me examples of successful industrial countries that are improving
>    more rapidly than is the United States by following policies of
>    privatisation, lowered trade barriers, ... and controlling government
>    spending".  

  Ok fine, ask it any way you like. I'm still waiting for a list of major
industrial countries who have done these things and are doing better than the
United States.

  All I'm asking is for you to point to a few industrial countries as examples
of where we should all go. When I look at the world I see the right wing
dictatorships down in South America, the failed left wing Communist countries,
and then I see the United States and the more socialist countries of Europe who
do well by comparison. 

  Where are the shining examples of the success of conservative policies?
Singapore? Is that it? Some small right wing hell hole that's broken off from
the British Empire where people are beaten into giving confessions then beaten
again? Is that your shining example of where America should be headed? 

  George

                     <<< Note 49.501 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>
>  You know DougO I'm really wondering if you aren't a right wing religious
>wacko after all. You fill your replies with statement after statement saying
>over and over that I'm wrong and you are right, that no one listens to me
>and you have proven each of your points.
>
>  That's just like a right wing preacher using the religious wacko system of
>proof:
>
>    State theory
>    Repeat theory over and over
>    Claim we are right and everyone else is wrong
>    Conclude that the theory was correct.
>
>  Why don't you knock it off and try debating without constantly trashing your
>opponent. There's more hate in this reply than Pat Buchannan had in his entire
>campaign.

Hmmm... I've not gotten into this debate at all - but... well... I'm not
a fan of ole DougO, but...

You are so out of whack it isn't even funny... I think you should look towards
your note for the "hate" you claim in in DougO's reply... I'm not even gonna
point out your obvious "hate"full statements... you can figure that out for
your homework.

While I'm at it... you're note is gonna go into the pot'n'kettle topic.
You've earned it.

/scott

    
    
    Forget it scott..
    
    
     You'll just get the standard...
    
    "Your reply is content free.." stuff 
    

    Dance, George, dance.  Why'd you go on and on about how hateful I am,
    instead of addressing the substance?  You agreed to find your previous
    note that supposedly admits Clinton was wrong to propose a tax cut- I'm
    still waiting for it.  You didn't address the fact that the "national
    agenda" is not solely about economics, nor that Democrats have
    demonstrably not been "largely in control" of it; even though I gave
    you an obvious climbdown if you want to save yourself further trouble.
    
    And by the way, it isn't "hate" that is the dominant emotion in my
    notes; its glee!  You're so trapped by your own proclivity to make
    outrageous claims and defend them to the death that you see no way out
    but to tell me I'm hateful.  It won't help, George- just answer the
    issues, please.  All you have to do is admit that the Democrats have
    NOT "largely controlled" the national agenda since FDR.  And your
    self-inflicted torture will end.
    
    DougO

RE       <<< Note 49.505 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

>    Dance, George, dance.  ... All you have to do is admit that the Democrats
>    have NOT "largely controlled" the national agenda since FDR.  And your
>    self-inflicted torture will end.
    
  Hate DougO Hate.

  Don't go flattering yourself into thinking I consider your notes so
powerful I am in any way intimidated or tortured. 

   I'm really disappointed at your hateful Boris/Eastland style of noting in
which you constantly bleat on about how you are always right and I am always
wrong.

  No I'm not going to back off that comment. I believe it, many right wingers
believe it. The Democrats have controlled Congress for 40 years, no real GOP
president saw the inside of the White House between 1932 and 1968, and the two
most influential programs in the United States since the great Depression were
FDR's "New Deal" and the Kennedy/Johnson "New Frontier / Great Society". 

  The Warren Court consisting of Douglas, the Ike appointees (who turned
liberal) and Johnson's appointees made enormous advances in civil liberties
only some of which have been turned back by GOP appointed justices. 

  No I believe the Democrats have largely controlled the agenda since 1932 and
in general I believe they have done a good job.

  By the way I'm still waiting for an example of an industrial nation which
is more conservative and more successful than the United States.

  George

    The dance continues; George, you're merely proving that you're ducking
    the issues.  The substance you neglect, previously discussed at length
    and unanswered by you:
    
    1- You assert I missed where you wrote something critical of Clinton's
    tax cut proposal.  You have yet to produce this note.
    
    2- When challenged on it, you first attempt to define the "national
    agenda" comment as "solely an economic question"; this after you've
    thoroughly lost the debate on foreign policy grounds.  When I
    demonstrate the "national agenda" is much bigger than that, you now
    attempt to redefine it with numerous new areas where, I certainly have
    no problem agreeing, Democrats have exerted considerable influence. 
    (your two-step into a new position, abandoning your old so
    transparently when it was shown to be inadequate, was noticed.)  Of
    course, listing a bunch of areas where Democrats have exerted influence
    does not prove that they "largely controlled" the agenda.  To counter
    it, all I have to do is demonstrate several significant areas where the
    GOP has exerted its own influence, independent of the Democrats.  This,
    I have done repeatedly already- the foreign policy areas, remember? 
    We don't even have to talk about detente, or who opened China, do we?
    
    So your two-step is for naught- you have to refute me on my own ground,
    you have to demonstrate that the GOP exerted no substantial influence
    at all, if you want to prove your thesis.  This you have quite plainly
    failed to do.  Hint- you have to show that the Democrats really are for
    free trade, and have "largely controlled" the issue, even though more
    than half voted against it, the GOP voted 90+% for it, and the
    negotiations were initiated and carried out by GOP administrations,
    leaving only the last year of crossing i's and dotting t's, and
    negotiating the side agreements, to Clinton.  Hint- you also have to
    show that an appreciation for the world economic issues of currency
    stability, market integration, and removing market distortions through
    such initiatives as privatisation and removing protectionist tariffs is
    an issue the Democrats have "largely controlled".
    
    Since the facts are otherwise, you may have a hard time demonstrating
    these things, but hey- you seem to want to tread that path rather than
    backing off your outrageous thesis.  The Democrats have largely
    controlled the national agenda for 63 years, have they?  Go ahead, try
    to refute the evidence that shows otherwise.
    
    > By the way I'm still waiting for an example of an industrial nation
    > which is more conservative and more successful than the United States.
    
    Backsliding again, George- we agreed this form of the question poses a
    false dichotomy, remember?  Once you ask the question properly, perhaps
    you'll deserve an answer.  And once you quit whining about my 'hatred'
    and face the facts that disprove your thesis, you can get over your
    little tantrums.  It isn't hatred that leads me to oppose your ideas,
    George- its that your ideas are simply wrong.
    
    DougO

    >Hate DougO Hate.
    
     Such bellyaching and boohooing over the fact that DougO is grinding
    through your transparent attempts to gloss over your repeated retreats
    in the face of contradictory and unwelcome facts. Scurry, scurry. Hate
    has nothing at all to do with it; your vainglorious ways do.
    
     Anyone who has paid even passing attention has seen your pitiful
    display decimated by the very antithesis of you: a noter with command
    of the facts. You are as utterly shameless now as the last time you ran
    crying from the box; you just don't know when to shut up. After being
    so thoroughly humiliated at every turn, most people would realize that
    continuing to get the floor wiped with your face was not an especially
    productive endeavor. But not our George! He's going to redouble his
    efforts to come off as the fool. I love it, because I know what's
    coming. The foam will build up on your lower lip, your eyes will bug
    out, the veins on your neck will pop out, and then the long awaited
    "poof" will happen and the box will have to find another pope.

RE       <<< Note 49.507 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

>    The dance continues; George, you're merely proving that you're ducking
>    the issues.  The substance you neglect, previously discussed at length
>    and unanswered by you:
    
  Dam right it still continues DougO and you are dancing up quite a storm.

  My original question was, show me a major industrial country that is more
conservative and more successful than the United States. Tell me that you
entered that somewhere and I missed it and I'll gladly go back and have a
look.

  You name the country, then I'll go look for my Clinton note.

  George

RE           <<< Note 49.508 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

>     Such bellyaching and boohooing over the fact that DougO is grinding
>    through your transparent attempts to gloss over your repeated retreats
>    in the face of contradictory and unwelcome facts. Scurry, scurry. Hate
>    has nothing at all to do with it; your vainglorious ways do.
    
  Wow, Note 49.508 takes 1st prize in the Politics of the Right Hate-ah-thon.
Well done Yahoo Levesque. 

  You've spun some good ones but this one's a classic.

  George

    Isn't it poof time, YET?

RE           <<< Note 49.511 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>
>                    -< we are all so looking forward to it >-
>
>    Isn't it poof time, YET?

  "As I was walking up the stair,
   I saw a man who wasn't there

   He wasn't there again today
   gee I wish he'd go away".

                   - Unknown

  George

    >> The substance you neglect, previously discussed at length
    >>    and unanswered by you:
    
    The "national agenda", George; "largely controlled" by Democrats since
    the inauguration of F.D.R.  Proven wrong by numerous examples in
    foreign policy - that's the substance you neglect.  Skipping it in 
    your quote is only further evidence that you're ducking.
    
    And if you're going to insist on backsliding with regard to the
    question about 'conservative' countries, I refer you right back to
    .412.  It hasn't changed- your formulation is still a false dichotomy,
    because sensible economic policies are not "conservative" nor
    "liberal".  Those labels apply to political parties, some of which
    advocate sensible policies, some of which do not; irrespective of their
    "conservative" or "liberal" label, depending more upon the political
    history and evolution of their particular country's political and
    economic society.  So- your question makes no sense.  You should really
    consider eformulating it, as you previously agreed.
    
    DougO

    George:
    
    Are you inferring that the US is a superpower due to the spending
    practices of the democrat congress?
    
    I'm scratching my head here.  I thought the deficit spending was the
    republicans fault!!!
    
    -Jack

RE         <<< Note 49.514 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

>    Are you inferring that the US is a superpower due to the spending
>    practices of the democrat congress?
>    
>    I'm scratching my head here.  I thought the deficit spending was the
>    republicans fault!!!
    
  The U.S. was a super power long before 1980.

  George

>    Dance, George, dance.  ... All you have to do is admit that the Democrats
>    have NOT "largely controlled" the national agenda since FDR.  And your
>    self-inflicted torture will end.
    
  Hate DougO Hate.
>>
>>  If there's any hate here it comes from George due to his extreme
>> intellectual dishonesty.  Perhaps he hates the human mind.
>>
  Don't go flattering yourself into thinking I consider your notes so
powerful I am in any way intimidated or tortured. 

>>
>>  Look at the emotion of hate coming from SOAPBOX' most hate-filled
>> participant.  See the 'pot-and-kettle's ?  I count 4 in one sentence !!
>>
   I'm really disappointed at your hateful Boris/Eastland style of noting in
which you constantly bleat on about how you are always right and I am always
wrong.
>>
>>  George is not always wrong, nobody is.  But he's always dishonest,
>> even when he's right.  He's so transparently and unabashedly
>> dishonest, it takes my breath away.  Does he think he's invisible ?
>>
  No I'm not going to back off that comment. I believe it, many right wingers
believe it. The Democrats have controlled Congress for 40 years, no real GOP
president saw the inside of the White House between 1932 and 1968, and the two
most influential programs in the United States since the great Depression were
FDR's "New Deal" and the Kennedy/Johnson "New Frontier / Great Society". 
>>
>>  A wonderful garbling of true history and George make-believe here !!
>> 40 years is 54-94, not the 30's, but math never stopped him yet.
>>
>>  George is correct that no straight Republican agenda has ever been
>> enacted since the twenties.
>>
>>  The New Frontier never really happened, except for the Peace Corps.
>>
>> The New Deal and Great Society certainly contributed the bulk of new
>> legislation.  This was because these were the only brief periods when
>> the same party had both parts of Congress and the White House.  Most
>> of the rest of the time, our laws stayed the same through gridlock.
>>
>>   The New Deal happened before I was born, but not the Great Society.
>> I remember the before and after well, and can compare the two.
>> It is a shame its tiny core of sensible changes was swamped by so
>> much that is terrible for our country.  If the Great Society is
>> not undone soon, I fear we are lost.
>>
  The Warren Court consisting of Douglas, the Ike appointees (who turned
liberal) and Johnson's appointees made enormous advances in civil liberties
only some of which have been turned back by GOP appointed justices. 
>>
>>  The Warren Court (1953-69) was dominated by Hugo Black and
>> Felix Frankfurter, FDR guys, who disagreed about almost everything, but
>> had immense respect for each other's capacities.  Frankfurter thought
>> civil liberties subordinate to the state, Black disagreed.  Frankfurter
>> believed in great government power over the economy, Black was against.
>> Liberal-conservative as a description of this is as worthless as it
>> usually is.  Such secondary figures as Douglas, Murphy, Stone, Jackson,
>> also FDR guys, and Warren from 1953, looked on mostly.
>>
>>  Truman appointed Burton, Clark, and Minton.
>>
>>  Warren was Ike's first appointee.  He subsequently added more
>> AFTER the unanimous Brown decision, Brennan, Whittaker, Stewart.
>> Brennan would be the "liberal" in George's lexicon.  Ike knew it
>> when he made the appointment.
>>
>>  Johnson only appointed Marshall, and Fortas, who had to resign
>> because of ethics problems and turned out to be nothing.
>>
>>  Not a single one of the "great cases" of the Warren Court has
>> been overturned.  While it is true that the Warren Court did
>> extend Civil Liberties, the Burger Court extended them much
>> further, including Roe v. Wade.
>>
  No I believe the Democrats have largely controlled the agenda since 1932 and
in general I believe they have done a good job.
>>
>>  Here is George's opinion, honestly stated.  I disagree with it, but
>> it is not intellectually dishonest.  That bores him, so he races on.
>>
  By the way I'm still waiting for an example of an industrial nation which
is more conservative and more successful than the United States.
>>
>>  By what means can you determine if Germany is more or less conservative
>> than France ?  The above "waiting" simply shows the depravity of the
>> person waiting.  Countries have no such properties (and George knows it)
>> although temporarily their governments do.  In the periods we deal with
>> here, almost all the countries with higher standards of living have
>> changed their governments multiple times between liberal and conservatives.
>> So George is posturing on a non-point, as only he does in the Box.
>>

    bb

RE       <<< Note 49.513 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

>    The "national agenda", George; "largely controlled" by Democrats since
>    the inauguration of F.D.R.  Proven wrong by numerous examples in
>    foreign policy - that's the substance you neglect.  Skipping it in 
>    your quote is only further evidence that you're ducking.

  PROVEN wrong. Oh my gosh, I missed that one. I saw lots of notes with
opinions but I don't think I've seen a formal proof of anything in this
file ever.
    
>    And if you're going to insist on backsliding with regard to the
>    question about 'conservative' countries, I refer you right back to
>    .412.  

  I'm not backsliding. That's been my question all along.

>It hasn't changed- your formulation is still a false dichotomy,
>    because sensible economic policies are not "conservative" nor
>    "liberal".  Those labels apply to political parties, some of which
>    advocate sensible policies, some of which do not; 

  Well not really. Most people seem to identify "Conservative" with more social
regulation and less financial regulation particularly on business. Most people
identify "Liberal" as less social regulation and more regulation on business.
Parties get identified as "conservative", or "liberal" based on which of those
theories they support (and which of those groups they get supported by).

  It would seem to me that any country with more social regulation, a thinner
line between Church and State, and a more free economic system with a lower
budget relative to GNP would be a more conservative country.

>    So- your question makes no sense.  You should really
>    consider eformulating it, as you previously agreed.
    
  Doug, I originally talked about "socialist" and "right wing" but changed my
question to "conservative" v. "liberal" at your request. Are you now saying you
want me to change back?

  Here, let me ask it in a more simple way.

  Are there any major industrial countries who you think have a better economic
system than the United States? If so, which ones? 

  George

RE                      <<< Note 49.516 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>

>>
>>  If there's any hate here it comes from George due to his extreme
>> intellectual dishonesty.  Perhaps he hates the human mind.
>>

  Hmmmm, no doubt DougO will claim that this is a formal proof entered by "bb"
that negates everything I've written since 1962. Deep bb, really deep.

>>
>>  Look at the emotion of hate coming from SOAPBOX' most hate-filled
>> participant.  See the 'pot-and-kettle's ?  I count 4 in one sentence !!
>>

  You talking about Yahoo?

>>
>>  George is not always wrong, nobody is.  But he's always dishonest,
>> even when he's right.  He's so transparently and unabashedly
>> dishonest, it takes my breath away.  Does he think he's invisible ?
>>

  I disagree. When I type I always believe what I am typing to be the truth
to the best of my knowledge. Show me one place where I wrote something that
I knew to be false?

>>  The New Frontier never really happened, except for the Peace Corps.

  "One small step for man, one giant leap ..."

>>
>> The New Deal and Great Society certainly contributed the bulk of new
>> legislation.  This was because these were the only brief periods when
>> the same party had both parts of Congress and the White House.  Most
>> of the rest of the time, our laws stayed the same through gridlock.
>>

  Ok fine, that's why it happened, but it happened.

>>
>>  Not a single one of the "great cases" of the Warren Court has
>> been overturned.  While it is true that the Warren Court did
>> extend Civil Liberties, the Burger Court extended them much
>> further, including Roe v. Wade.
>>

  Right but conservatives have constantly tried to overturn those decisions and
more conservative courts since have weakened some of the decisions.
Conservatives continually criticize the Exclusionary rule and try to roll back
4th amendment protections and overturning Roe V. Wade is a major part of the
conservative agenda. 

  George

    >PROVEN wrong. Oh my gosh, I missed that one.
    
    Yes, I know.  If you prefer, I could say, that you have not refuted the
    facts of the matter, therefore they stand.  Go ahead, feel free to take
    another crack at the substance, George, instead of doing the dance-
    around-the-word-game; it continues to, shall we say, fail to impress.
    You steadfastly continue to resist entering any substantive comment on
    the foreign policy aspects of the national agenda.  Continued refusal
    will of course be seen as your tacit admission that you know your
    thesis doesn't hold up in those areas, and that you don't dare address
    it further.
    
    > Are there any major industrial countries who you think have a better
    > economic system than the United States? If so, which ones?
    
    No, I don't.
    
    I do think that there will be, however; as many countries are following
    more sensible policies than we are at present, and they're growing very
    fast.  Thus it behooves us to correct our policies where these are
    wrong-headed.
    
    So much simpler, George, when you don't throw in those inapplicable
    labels.  Congratulations- I knew you could reformulate the question.
    
    DougO

RE       <<< Note 49.519 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

>    > Are there any major industrial countries who you think have a better
>    > economic system than the United States? If so, which ones?
>    
>    No, I don't.

  Thank you Doug for stipulating to my original argument.
    
>    I do think that there will be, however; as many countries are following
>    more sensible policies than we are at present, and they're growing very
>    fast.  Thus it behooves us to correct our policies where these are
>    wrong-headed.

  Name one or two.
    
>    So much simpler, George, when you don't throw in those inapplicable
>    labels.  Congratulations- I knew you could reformulate the question.
    
  The labels are applicable as I stated just a few notes back but I'm happy
that I was finally able to phrase the question in a way that you would answer
it.

  George

    > You steadfastly continue to resist entering any substantive comment on
    > the foreign policy aspects of the national agenda.  Continued refusal
    > will of course be seen as your tacit admission that you know your
    > thesis doesn't hold up in those areas, and that you don't dare address
    > it further.
    
    Thank you, George.
    
    DougO

  Now DougO is responding to his own notes.

  I guess he's finally taken the advice that if you talk to yourself, you don't
get as much of an argument.

  I'm still waiting DougO for the name of a country.

  George

    George, the countries that are reforming their economies through
    sensible policies are too numerous to name.  Russia.  China.  South
    Korea.  Kazakhstan.  The Czech Republic.  Hungaria.  Albania.  Great
    Britain.  Brazil.  Peru.  Poland.  The Ukraine.  Malaysia.  New
    Zealand.  Columbia.  All these and many others have substantially
    changed their economic systems within the past two decades, most within
    the past five years.  China, in particular, has averaged better than
    ten percent growth for more than a decade; they've more than quadrupled
    their GDP, and that despite the fact that they're still saddled with a
    decrepit state-owned industrial sector, propped up by printing more
    money and thus worsening inflation, and a completely inadequate banking 
    system.  But if they solve those problems they may quadruple their
    economy again in another fifteen years; and then George, yes indeed,
    they could have a larger economy than ours.
    
    But you never explained why you wanted such countries named in the
    first place.  What do you imagine it proves for your side of the
    discussion?
    
    And by the way, I'll hold you to your promise to dig up the note
    where you criticize Clinton's taxcut proposal, now that I've named not
    one, but over a dozen, such countries.
    
    And nobody has forgotten that you have completely failed to support
    your thesis that the Democrats have "largely controlled" the "national
    agenda" when refuted by numerous foreign policy examples that the
    Democrats not only didn't control, but seldom understood.
      
    >Now DougO is responding to his own notes.
    
    A hint for you: look up "tacit" in a dictionary.
    
    DougO

RE       <<< Note 49.523 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

>    George, the countries that are reforming their economies through
>    sensible policies are too numerous to name.  Russia.  China.  South
>    Korea.  Kazakhstan.  The Czech Republic.  Hungaria.  Albania.  Great
>    Britain.  Brazil.  Peru.  Poland.  The Ukraine.  Malaysia.  New
>    Zealand.  Columbia.  All these and many others have substantially
>    changed their economic systems within the past two decades, ...

  Right Doug, they are changing to be more like us. Take Russia. What's been
their major change? They dumped Communism and went to democracy and free
markets.

  I want to know names of countries that are moving away from where the
United States is now and toward what the GOP is saying we should become.

>    But you never explained why you wanted such countries named in the
>    first place.  What do you imagine it proves for your side of the
>    discussion?

  Yes I did, you weren't listening. Contrary to what you have stated I believe
you can talk about countries in terms of being more conservative, liberal, or
socialist. I'm looking for an example of a major industrial country that is
more conservative than the United States and which is doing better or even
as well as we are.

  There aren't any. The only countries doing nearly as well as we are tend to
be more socialist than we are now. About all you can say is that they seem
to be moving in our direction.

  Show me a country that is more like what the GOP wants us to be than what
we are now which is the envy of economists the world over? You can't, again
there aren't any.

>    And by the way, I'll hold you to your promise to dig up the note
>    where you criticize Clinton's taxcut proposal, now that I've named not
>    one, but over a dozen, such countries.

  No you have not named a single country that is doing better than we are with
a more conservative economic model. Nor will you ever, those models don't work.

>    And nobody has forgotten that you have completely failed to support
>    your thesis that the Democrats have "largely controlled" the "national
>    agenda" when refuted by numerous foreign policy examples that the
>    Democrats not only didn't control, but seldom understood.

  No I did support that theory. As I have stated, the two major economic
programs since 1932 were the "New Deal" and the "New Frontiers / Great Society"
and you even agreed that the GOP didn't have anything nearly as successful. I
believe you brushed it off saying that the GOP couldn't get anything passed
because of gridlock but for what ever reason, the New Deal and Great Society
have dominated U.S. Economics since the depression. 
      
  George

                     <<< Note 49.524 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  I want to know names of countries that are moving away from where the
>United States is now and toward what the GOP is saying we should become.

    	No other country has had, until now, the foresight, courage and
    	resolve to make such a change.

RE      <<< Note 49.525 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

>>  I want to know names of countries that are moving away from where the
>>United States is now and toward what the GOP is saying we should become.
>
>    	No other country has had, until now, the foresight, courage and
>    	resolve to make such a change.

  I don't agree. It has been tried before and in fact it's been tried right
here in the United States.

  After the Industrial Revolution in the late 19th century we were what the GOP
wants us to be. The gap between the rich and poor was so great that in spite of
the fact there were no laws to back them up people invented and formed Labor
Unions.

  Then in the 20's we got another dose of what the GOP wants us to become under
the name "laissez faire" and after the roaring and booming decade of the '20s
we plunged into the Great Depression.

  Oh it's been done, no question about that. And as a result of the fact that
it's been done no one has tried it for the last 50 years.

  George

    	Were I using the same view-finder as you, George, I'd agree
    	with you.
    
    	I'm not, though.

    Finland,
    
    they just had a major upheaval where the conservbatives are being
    tossed out of office after their "welfare reform"  
    
    seems the people would rather have taxes AND medical canre AND lunch
    rograms, AND paid parental leave, AND.........
    
    meg

    	So now you know where you can go to get those things if you want
    	them.

    
    	re: .528
    
    	broad conclusions drawn by someone who doesn't live in Finland. I
    have friends that came from there and it isn't any paradise. You like
    socialism, move there.
    
    
    jim

I hear it's quite cold there.

	Jim, shame on you. "broad" is not a word anymore. Get used to it.

    RE: 530
    
    No, thanks Clinton's brand of socialism is bad enough.  I no longer
    want or need the Government to care for me cradle to grave.
    
    Dennis

    
    
    So, this Finland, is he a ballplayer or something?
    

    > Right Doug, they are changing to be more like us. Take Russia. What's
    > been their major change? They dumped Communism and went to democracy
    > and free markets.
    
    Well, no.  They don't have democracy, they don't have free markets. 
    They do have lots of privatisation and currency reform and their
    biggest change has been to jettison the Soviet state, where they could.
    By no means can one say of such a chaotic and still ongoing transition
    that it *is* such-and-such other than a work in progress, with few
    outsiders (certainly not you) having any idea of where they'll end up.
    
    But I know you're just blowing smoke about things you know little of,
    so I'm merely offering this not with the intention of debating it,
    but merely to let you know I'm still aware of how fast and loose you
    play when you don't know the facts.
    
    >  I want to know names of countries that are moving away from where
    > the United States is now and toward what the GOP is saying we should
    > become.
    
    What a quaint idea.  Is that what you think anybody here is arguing?
    You seem to think the GOP proposes a radical change in the structure of
    our economy.  Such is not the case.
    
    DougO
    

    >> And nobody has forgotten that you have completely failed to
    >> support your thesis that the Democrats have "largely controlled" the
    >> "national agenda" when refuted by numerous foreign policy examples that
    >> the Democrats not only didn't control, but seldom understood.

    > No I did support that theory. As I have stated, the two major
    > economic programs since 1932 were the "New Deal" and the "New 
    > Frontiers / Great Society"
    
    "foreign policy", George.  Not "economic".  Nice try.
    
    DougO

Received some Bob Dole campaign literature (including an "invite" to an
appearance in Exeter, NH Next Monday at 14:45 where he intends to "announce"
his 1996 candidacy) in which Bob states that he already has plans to
dismantle 4 cabinet positions - Energy, Education, Commerce and Housing.

RE       <<< Note 49.535 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

>    Well, no.  They don't have democracy, they don't have free markets. 
>    They do have lots of privatisation and currency reform and their
>    biggest change has been to jettison the Soviet state, where they could.

  ... and Russia is irrelevant to this debate. If you want to talk about
Russia and other nations that are changing to become more like us then fine
but please don't do it in response to one of my notes. It's not a debate in
which I am participating in any way.

  My comments have to do with the GOP who wants to make changes to the way
things are being done in the United States.
    
>    But I know you're just blowing smoke about things you know little of,
>    so I'm merely offering this not with the intention of debating it,
>    but merely to let you know I'm still aware of how fast and loose you
>    play when you don't know the facts.

  Keep SAYING it DougO, keep SAYINGing it OVer and OVer, "I am right, George
is wong, I am right, George is wrong". You can't debate without that tactic.
At least I wait until the other side throws in the towel and resorts to
nothing but personal insults before I make that claim.
    
>    What a quaint idea.  Is that what you think anybody here is arguing?

  That was my original statement which is what has drawn this string of
responses. So yes, that is what we are debating.

>    You seem to think the GOP proposes a radical change in the structure of
>    our economy.  Such is not the case.
    
  Fine, some me a country that with small changes between them and us is both
more conservative and more successful.

  The only example I can see are countries in the late 19th Century or in the
predepression era where these policies lead to an increase difference in wealth
between the rich and poor followed by economic disaster. 

  George 

    George, you said "fine, ask the qeustion anyway you want", and the
    question thus became, "name countries which are improving their
    economies through [sensible policies previously defined]", and Russia
    does belong on the list.  All I was pointing out is that you didn't
    understand why they were on the list, and you don't know that they
    don't have "democracy" yet, by a long shot, and they certainly don't
    have a free-market economy.  All of which you claimed, erroneously.
    
    > My comments have to do with the GOP who wants to make changes to the
    > way things are being done in the United States.
    
    They do want to change the status quo.  For example, they want to
    remove known distortions from the economy.  That, of course, brings us
    right back to those topics you won't touch with a ten-foot pole, like
    removing market distortions via free trade bills like NAFTA and GATT,
    which Democrats largely voted against and Republicans voted 90+% for.
    
    >At least I wait until the other side throws in the towel
    
    Oh, you do more than that.  You constantly change your arguments when
    they are defeated, you stop debating areas where you've been blown out 
    of the water.  You win the 2% of the debate thats left over!  The
    numerous examples of foreign policy wherein your theses have fallen
    apart still await your picking back up the towel if you want to still
    be considered a player...
    
    DougO

  DougO I'm not going to argue with you any more. I don't see where we are any
longer discussing the same thing, if we ever were. Ok, you want to make the
point that other countries are improving by becoming more like the United
States, then fine, I agree with you. In fact I never disagreed over that point.

  You want to say Mexico is stupid for their handling of Pemex, fine. I have no
argument. Never did. I agree, just as in the United States, it makes sense for
oil companies to be in private hands. 

  You have won every point in which I was never involved. If "sweet victory" is
defined as winning a one man argument, then enjoy the fruits of your victory
and good by. 

  Now as for my argument, I believe that the two major programs that have
dominated economic policy in the United States since 1932 are the New Deal and
the Great Society, both democratic policies. Under those policies the United
States has gone from being a 2nd tier nation to being the single uncontested
super power left in the world. 

  Also, if you look around for other successful models, the only major
industrial nations you see are more socialist than we are, even though some may
be moving in our direction. You see few if any major successful nations who
have economic policies more conservative than our own. And when there were such
powers late in the 19th century and during the roaring 20's, they lead to giant
gaps between the rich and the poor followed by economic disaster. 

  George 

    >DougO I'm not going to argue with you any more.
    
    There, now, THAT'S a towel.
    
    >You want to say Mexico is stupid for their handling of Pemex, fine.
    
    It isn't the point, of course.  The issue is that foreign policies
    which include encouraging our trading partners to follow sensible
    economic policies will help us and will help them; and the point about
    Pemex was that the GOP saw an opportunity to so encourage Mexico, and
    the Democrats didn't.  Congressional Dems didn't say it, the White
    House didn't act on it.  The point is thus again demonstrated that 
    the GOP "gets it" better than do the Dems; and another point
    demonstrated is that you don't want to acknowledge that that's why 
    I brought it up.  The point of the Pemex example is not that complex, 
    George, I'm sure even you can follow it.  But you sure can't
    acknowledge it, can you?  It isn't that the Mexicans are "stupid", its
    that of our US political parties, one knows what sorts of policies we
    should be working with our trading partners on...and one doesn't.
    
    >  Now as for my argument, I believe that the two major programs that
    > have dominated economic policy in the United States since 1932 are the
    > New Deal and the Great Society, both democratic policies.
    
    Ah, at last you've changed your formulation away from the sweeping
    "national agenda" to only discussing "economic policy".  There's my
    "sweet victory", George, and you fought it tooth and nail.  That's why
    I claim your towel was just thrown in; I wanted that sweeping statement
    changed ever since my first note challenging it, I think .393.
    
    Champagne, anyone?
    
    Ahhhh. :-)
    
    Now, lets proceed; I'm certainly not done with you yet.
 
    > Under those policies the United States has gone from being a 2nd tier
    > nation to being the single uncontested super power left in the world. 
    
    You mention two undoubtedly Democratic programs as having "dominated"
    economic policy.  Certainly the institutions they have established have
    played a huge part in making our economy what it is today.  But you are
    wrong to consider them dominant; other factors have played a much
    larger part in shaping our economy than these.  I will cite many.
    
    First, the nature of the marketplace sector of the economy, describable 
    roughly as "regulatory free market", was shaped long before either
    program you mention, as an evolution from laissez-faire through the
    trust-busting of the turn of the century and subsequent decades.  This
    open market free exchange of ideas, good, and services, regulated
    lightly and only where necessary, is the single largest factor that
    contributes to the shape of our economy.  The large body of contract
    law and custom, the constitutional stipulations on regulation of trade,
    the experiments of market through the century of industrialization, all
    contributed to the evolution of the open marketplace we have continued
    to enjoy.  This legacy is something both parties have inherited; it is
    the mechanism that makes everything else possible.  Some thought the
    New Deal, in fact, would kill it off; in combination with the Great
    Depression it nearly did.  That catastrophe was averted by the advent 
    of WWII and the ensuing industrial recovery fueled by deficit spending.
    
    Secondly, the transformation of America from an agrarian/industrial 
    society of small communities built around family farms and factory
    towns, to an urban/suburban mix of consumers and services, has also had
    much larger impact than either of the political programs you mention.
    The automobile, the airplane, the television, the washing machine and
    all the other conveniences, have all come about and had much greater
    impact due to factors other than those programs.  Democrats have had
    about as much influence on the way the automobile changed this economy
    as they have on the moon's orbit.  Now, I'll grant you that the TVA and
    rural electrification programs of the New Deal era played a part in
    this change; but only a small, small part.
    
    Work calls.  I'll discuss the other flaws later ;-).
    
    More champagne, anyone?
    
    DougO

RE                      <<< Note 49.541 by CAPNET::ROSCH >>>

>    I don't understand the connection between economic policies and super
>    power.  The New Deal & Great Society also preceeded the increase in
>    crime, the increase in drugs, the increase in abortions, the increase
>    in divorce, AIDS and pop-top beer cans.

  According to the Boston Globe, the crime rate has leveled off in the past
couple years and drug use is actually down a bit. As for abortions, divorce,
and pop-top beer cans, it's only your opinion that those things are worse.

  As for AIDS, it's a disease. They come and go and have little to do with
government.
    
>    Because some thing which preceeded something else does not mean the
>    precedent was a causal factor of the antecedent. 

  This may well be true, but if it is the case that government has nothing to
do with where we go as a nation then this entire debate is moot. 

  George

  Say what you will, we still became a super power under the New Deal and Great
Society. 

  Crime grew rapidly during the 80's but did not grow that much during the 70's
or 90's with Democrats in the White House. 

  As for abortions, yes there are legal safe abortions now, that's a major
improvement. And as for divorce, I don't know about you but I have never in my
life known any couple personally who wanted to stay together but were forced
apart. It would appear to me that divorce is an example of allowing people the
freedom to live together only so long as they choose to live together. 

  Still waiting for an example of a large conservative industrial power doing
as well or better than the U.S. 

  I won't get that example either, there aren't any. But there is the glaring
example of conservative governments of the late 19th century and roaring 20's
which lead to economic disaster. And that's just where the GOP would like to
take us today. 

  George

                     <<< Note 49.545 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  Say what you will, we still became a super power under the New Deal and Great
> Society. 
    
    	It is important to note that umbrella manufacturing increased at
    	these times too.

       <<< Note 49.542 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>


What a spectacle you and George make! You've been "arguing" utterly
different premises for what seems like an eternity. And it's not just
George who's out of whack. In fact, you're really the main offender. 

This whole brouhaha began in .377 when George countered the knee-jerk moans 
of the right about the "socialist" welfare programs of the Democratic 
party. He stated, quite rightly, that under this "oppressive" system, the 
US has gone from a middle-of-the-pack economic force to far and away the 
most powerful economic force in the world. In other words, the right's 
claim that the social safety net is ruining - or at least retarding - our 
economy is at best meaningless and more likely nonsense.

Then you decide to jump in and pile onto George (lately the 'box's favorite 
sport) with your pet issue, free trade, using George's "Dems have
controlled the national agenda" as an slim opening through which you could
strut your stuff. That a large chunk of the Dems are captive to the
protectionist impulses of their labor union constituents isn't news - not
even to George. In fact, he said as much. But why let that deter you?

So off to the races you guys go. With George saying "Show me a country more
right-wing (i.e. smaller government with less generous social programs -
the GOP mating call) that is doing half as well" and you responding with
trade esoterica peppered liberally with insults. And on and on. 

Then, when George finally realizes what's going on and says "no mas, we're 
talking at cross purposes here," you have the gall to declare "victory."  
Incredible! But at least its over. 

Right?

Oops. 

Nope. 

DougO's not done yet. Off we go on another pedantic journey into the jungle
of international policy, courtesy of our ever-willing guide. 

What makes this all so comical -- or I should say, absurd -- is how much 
alike you two are. You're more detail oriented, and George is more inclined to 
make sweeping statements, but otherwise you're cut from the same cloth. 

A while ago I said that George is the most intractable noter in the 'box. I
was wrong. 

It's a tie. 

    re: .545
    
    Change the word "under" in your first sentence to "in spite of", and I
    think we will be getting somewhere.
    
    
    -steve

    You're so bent on championing the cause of the left that you happily
    support George even when it is clear to anyone who's paid a modicum of
    attention that George's grasp of the issues he argues so passionately
    about is at best strained. With this statement your agenda is clear,
    providing the "reasoning" (such as it is) why George is your hero:
    
    >In other words, the right's claim that the social safety net is ruining 
    >- or at least retarding - our economy is at best meaningless and more 
    >likely nonsense.
    
     Yes, we are a huge and potent economic force, but that is not to say
    we are not without some pretty basty problems. Yet to read your glowing
    report of our economic health you'd think that things could not be
    better (how convenient that this aligns with your leftist buddy's
    philosophy.) How's the dollar doing against foreign currency? Gee, I
    wonder why that is- must be because we're "far and away the most 
    powerful economic force in the world."
    
     Your understanding of economics and policy is as flawed and incomplete
    as George's. But what's even more humorous is your willingness to
    ignore George's flagrant failures to support his claims, and take Doug
    to task for calling attention to them. How immensely self-serving,
    hypocritical and just plain slimey. George makes a false claim (that he
    said something in a previous note) gets caught, and then he just
    refuses to answer for it. You term persisting until he concedes that he
    was untruthful bullying. Absurd! He is the one responsible for that; it
    could all be avoided if he simply conceded what everybody knows to be
    true. Most people have the gonads to admit when they've been caught
    with their pants around their ankles. George has the hubris to stand
    there like nothing's happened, and you have the gall to point to George
    and say "what a fine pair of pants!"
    
     Unfortunately the notes are kind of long, so most people don't bother
    reading them through, otherwise your duplicity in this would be all the
    more apparent. Talk about revisionist history. The bits are probably
    still cached and you're already bending the truth to suit your aims.
    
    >You're more detail oriented, and George is more inclined to
    >make sweeping statements, but otherwise you're cut from the same cloth.
    
     Now THAT is an insult. You couldn't be more wrong. but you've imagined
    DougO to be right wing, so now he's the bad guy for enabling George to
    play the pope. Too funny.
    
     It's really too bad we don't have higher quality argument of the
    liberal point of view. The few we had are long gone. Or not willing to
    try.
    
    

           <<< Note 49.549 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

>    You're so bent on championing the cause of the left that you happily
>    support George even when it is clear to anyone who's paid a modicum of
>    attention that George's grasp of the issues he argues so passionately
>    about is at best strained. With this statement your agenda is clear,
>    providing the "reasoning" (such as it is) why George is your hero:

Clear to whom? Not you, oh wise one, *that's* clear. George ain't my hero. 
If you weren't comprehension impaired, you could see that even within the 
note you so thoughtfully and constructively replied to.
    
>    >In other words, the right's claim that the social safety net is ruining 
>    >- or at least retarding - our economy is at best meaningless and more 
>    >likely nonsense.
    
>     Yes, we are a huge and potent economic force, but that is not to say
>    we are not without some pretty basty problems. Yet to read your glowing
>    report of our economic health you'd think that things could not be
>    better (how convenient that this aligns with your leftist buddy's

Never said that. I merely agreed with Georges main point: that we are the 
economic leader of the world and that, if the right were to be believed, 
that couldn't happen.
    
>     Your understanding of economics and policy is as flawed and incomplete
>    as George's. But what's even more humorous is your willingness to

 How do you know? You don't, but don't let that stop you.

>     Now THAT is an insult. You couldn't be more wrong. but you've imagined
>    DougO to be right wing, so now he's the bad guy for enabling George to
>    play the pope. Too funny.

Now pull up *your* pants, Doctah. I know full well DougO's not a right 
winger. You'd have to be blind (or under constant seige) to think that.

If I come to George's defense it's not because I agree with everything he 
says, but because I get fed up with the playground, pile-on mentality 
that's rampant in the 'box. It's the liberal in me; I can't help but root 
for the underdog.
    
>     It's really too bad we don't have higher quality argument of the
>    liberal point of view. The few we had are long gone. Or not willing to
>    try.

The same could be said for the conservative view. But then, I couldn't 
expect you to see that.

Tom    
    

    
    RE: .550
    
    The "pile-on" is of his own making...
    
    If he didn't wear the "kick me" sign, nobody would...
    
    Hope this helps...
    

    >I merely agreed with Georges main point: that we are the
    >economic leader of the world and that, if the right were to be
    >believed, that couldn't happen.
    
     Which merely shows you aren't paying attention. The right never said
    we weren't the biggest. The right just says that we aren't the
    healthiest we can be. In fact, there are some significant problems
    facing our economy, not the least of which are the federal budget
    deficit and the trade deficit (not to mention the national debt.)
    
     George claimed that the left drove the national agenda which got us to
    be the preeminent economic power, but still somehow finds a way to
    blame republicans now that things have gotten sticky. Neverthless, his
    initial point, that the democrats drove the national agenda which was
    responsible for our economic achievements was thoroughly disproved. He
    sidestepped that, and when it was brought to his attention, you called
    it carping and bullying. Hello! I don't think we have a good
    connection.
    
    >because I get fed up with the playground, pile-on mentality
    >that's rampant in the 'box.
     
     George provokes such behavior with his intransigence, belligerence and
    the fact that he appoints himself to be goalie. if you are going to be
    goalie, then people are going to shoot the puck. it's that simple. If
    George stated his opinions respectfully and reasonably, defended
    himself honorably and took his lumps like a man then nobody'd have any
    reason to "pile on." He cultivates the abuse he gets, for which you
    give him sympathy (which is as you say, just like a liberal.) In this
    conference there are always those who are going to "pile on," but there
    are an awful lot of us who only do it to those who deserve it. There
    have been many a respectful disagreement in here. But George's style
    does anything but encourage respectful disagreement.
    
    >The same could be said for the conservative view. But then, I couldn't
    >expect you to see that.
    
     You'd be surprised. Unfortunately it's not easy getting high quality
    argument when the effort feels wasted due to the lack of a quality
    adversary and/or high background noise.

RE           <<< Note 49.552 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

>Neverthless, his
>    initial point, that the democrats drove the national agenda which was
>    responsible for our economic achievements was thoroughly disproved. 

  Oh yeah, I forgot. As I recall the argument went ...

Theory
  The democrats did not run the national agenda

Argument
  Other countries are adopting our economic model.
  The democrats don't understand Pemex (no proof, just a claim).
  George doesn't know what Pemex is all about
  GEORGE IS WRONG!!! GEORGE IS WRONG!!! GEORGE IS WRONG!!! GEORGE IS WRONG!!! 
  GEORGE IS WRONG!!! GEORGE IS WRONG!!! GEORGE IS WRONG!!! GEORGE IS WRONG!!! 
  GEORGE IS WRONG!!! GEORGE IS WRONG!!! GEORGE IS WRONG!!! GEORGE IS WRONG!!! 
  GEORGE IS WRONG!!! GEORGE IS WRONG!!! GEORGE IS WRONG!!! GEORGE IS WRONG!!! 

Conclusion
  The Hypothesis is proven, the Democrats did not run the national agenda.

  George

    So you paid even less attention to the arguments than I credited you
    for paying? Quelle surprise.

    > What a spectacle you and George make!
    
    Thanks.  Every so often the soapbox calls to me, y'know, and when the
    impulse hits, I just sort of go with it.
    
    > You've been "arguing" utterly different premises for what seems like 
    > an eternity.
    
    Well, I started with one complaint.  It did take an eternity for him to
    acknowledge that and correct it, yes.
    
    > He stated, quite rightly, that under this "oppressive" system, the US
    > has gone from a middle-of-the-pack economic force to far and away the 
    > most powerful economic force in the world. In other words, the right's 
    > claim that the social safety net is ruining - or at least retarding -
    > our economy is at best meaningless and more likely nonsense.
    
    
    To quote Binder, "assumes facts not in evidence."  "at least retarding"
    is not at all disproved by the observation.  And the claim advanced by
    George that the Democrats were "largely controlling" the "national
    agenda" that made all this possible is simply too silly, and must be
    countered.  It ignores that the national economy does not exist solely
    within our borders.  It ignores a million other topics I've brought up,
    from the responsibility for promoting sensible policies among our
    trading partners because trade is not only the engine of our growth, it
    is the best guarantor of our security; to the changing demographics
    and changing technologies that have fueled this engine; for which the
    Democrats can take no credit at all.  
    
    In short, your summary is as wrong-headed as was George's.
    
    > Then you decide to jump in and pile onto George (lately the 'box's
    > favorite  sport) with your pet issue, free trade, using George's "Dems
    > have controlled the national agenda" as an slim opening through which
    > you could strut your stuff.
    
    Its a lot bigger than that.  First of all, I don't jump on George
    because its a box sport.  In fact, people with discerning memories will
    remember that I encouraged George and mocked the right-wingers in the
    abortion topic a few months ago; his tactics there were just as
    egregious, but at least his facts weren't wrong, so I enjoyed the
    spectacle of the anti-choicers faced with someone just as illogical as
    themselves.  That is to say, I don't have it in for George personally.
    
    And its likewise bigger than "free trade".  Its about the transition of
    the world from the Cold War to ... what?  Hopefully not a Pax
    Americana, as irresponsible and shortsighted understandings about our
    status as "the only remaining superpower" would eventually lead us to.
    There are other factors which if we understand we can use to affect the
    shape of the post cold war world.  What I see as the most significant
    positive force for 'good' is, free trade.  Not as an end in itself, but
    as the best guarantor of our security.  That's the second time I've
    used that phrase and what I mean by it is this:  we don't go to war with
    our best trade partners.  The world will be a lot safer place if we
    enrich each other through trade, raising the standards of living
    globally, and increasing the freedom of peoples worldwide to make their
    own choices and control their own lives.  How's that for embarassing
    liberals beholden to protectionist labor unions?  They want theirs at
    the expense of the global peace!
    
    OK, that's an exageration.  We won't see peace; there'll always be
    injustice in the world.  But the goal is there, the vision thing is
    clear.  And nothing delivers higher living standards and enriches
    nations and reduces unrest like free trade.  NOTHING.  And that's why I
    go on about free trade; as a means to that end.  If that's a "pet
    issue" you should understand why and attack it (if you will) on that
    basis.  And that's also why I spend so much time on the history that
    george misinterprets so badly.  If you don't understand where we've
    been, and George doesn't, you'll never see how to get where we want to
    go.  And if I'm intractable on the point, well, so what.
    
    DougO

       <<< Note 49.555 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

DougO, I don't disagree with your view of free trade and how it can make 
for better foreign policy. In fact I heartily agree. What I took issue with 
is that you attacked George with it, throwing in plenty of personal insult, 
even though it had little if anything to do with his premise as I 
understood it (although given his last entry, I'm beginning to wonder...)
    
>    To quote Binder, "assumes facts not in evidence."  "at least retarding"
>    is not at all disproved by the observation.  

I didn't say it was. I said it was meaningless: i.e., wether or not we 
could've competed better without the burden of social welfare, we did just 
fine with it. So should we abandon the safety net?

>   And the claim advanced by
>    George that the Democrats were "largely controlling" the "national
>    agenda" that made all this possible is simply too silly, and must be
>    countered.  It ignores that the national economy does not exist solely

I don't think the New Deal or any other dem social policy legislation "made 
all this possible." And I don't recall George ever saying that. What he 
said was that we have grown into the dominent economic force under what has 
been primarily the dem's watch. That's a fact. The GOP wants to roll back 
social policy to the late 19th century, and points to welfare mothers as 
the cause of our current, longstanding economic funk. But the facts suggest 
otherwise. The countries that are in hot persuit of us all have more 
liberal social policies than we do.

That was my point. George is arguing social policy, you're arguing 
economic/trade policy. You could both be perfectly correct, and yet a fight 
is going on as if there were a real binary difference.

And if you had argued your point with George with the same temperament and 
respect with which you have responded to my note, I never would've stuck my 
nose in here in the first place. 

Republicans passed the tax cut in the House.

The Contract has been completed, and 9 out of 10 items passed.

ME

    I saw that as payback for the 1992 budget deal.
    
    -Jack

           <<< Note 49.552 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

>     Which merely shows you aren't paying attention. The right never said
>    we weren't the biggest. The right just says that we aren't the
>    healthiest we can be. In fact, there are some significant problems
>    facing our economy, not the least of which are the federal budget
>    deficit and the trade deficit (not to mention the national debt.)

Believe me, I'm paying attention (although, upon review of this string, I 
wonder how well - at least about some things). Yes, we have problems - and 
if you're paying attention, you know the left knows it. And I never said 
that the right doesn't know we are the biggest. The difference between us 
isn't an understanding of where we are, but a strategy for where we go from 
hear.

The right blames the social policies of the New Deal and the Great Society 
for just about *everything*, from the breakdown of the family to the 
stagnation or retreat of the middle class. And DougO accuses George of 
being simplistic! Given its druthers, the right would can the safety net 
altogether and roll back government's role to 19th-century levels. And 
how will they begin: start cutting benefits to the poor -- the faster the 
better -- and start giving tax breaks to everyone else. Give some token 
breaks to the middle class, as a political pay-off and give the real dough 
to the big-money guys by getting rid of capital gains tax and lowering the 
maximum tax bracket. (Before you jump in with "Class warfare!", Jack, 
realize that while the left is using the language of class warfare, the 
right is using the guns.) I believe that most of those on the right really 
believe that the New Deal has been our demise and that turning off the 
spicket on social programs and turning on the spicket for the capitalists 
will miraculously revitalize our economy and pull us out of debt. But its a 
transparent rationale to line their own pockets at the expense of the 
voiceless. It ignores 40 years of history of economic prosperity under the 
burden of social welfare. It ignores the fact that every nation threatening 
our economic prominence has *more* liberal social policies than we do. And 
it falls into the same something-for-nothing trap that the right so 
accurately blames the politicians of the left for.

If we're going to compete effectively we as a nation in the new global 
economy, we must get our debt under control, first and foremost. We're sure 
as hell not going to do that by doling out tax breaks. We need to do what 
successful corporations are doing, which is to become more efficient and 
flexible. We sure as hell aren't going to do that by eliminating 
nonsalaried workers to give the managers a raise. What the liberals 
want to do is look closely at the process and make it work better. No 
matter what, we're going to feel some pain to get in shape to retain our
heavyweight title. Thinking liberals want to make sure that the pain is 
spread evenly over the population. But I heartily agree, the liberals in
Washington haven't shown the courage to face any pain whatsoever. But the
right's even worse. they've taken the cynical tack of blaming the poor for
our problems sustaining our global competitiveness, even though the causes
are far more complicated than that (as DougO would be more than happy to
explain to you), so that they can justify making the poor bear the brunt of
the pain. That is not only barbaric, it is downright foolish. If you want
to see this country go down the tubes fast, a la Wang (and Digital?), let
the right rule. 

>     You'd be surprised. Unfortunately it's not easy getting high quality
>    argument when the effort feels wasted due to the lack of a quality
>    adversary and/or high background noise.

Well, you'll just have to put up with me.

         <<< Note 49.558 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

>    I saw that as payback for the 1992 budget deal.
    
You're exactly right, Jack. That's what it was. No more. No less. A pure 
political pay-off with zero consideration for the welfare of the *nation.*
MOTS, if you ask me. And you're happy about that?

    Davis, please learn how to spell. here. spigot. nnttm
    
    >The right blames the social policies of the New Deal and the Great
    >Society for just about *everything*, from the breakdown of the family 
    >to the stagnation or retreat of the middle class.
    
     The left claims no deleterious effects by those policies, hence the
    polarization. Until the left can admit the shortcomings, the right will
    have hay to make with the obvious.
    
    >But its a transparent rationale to line their own pockets at the expense 
    >of the voiceless. 
    
     Whereas the Great Society is a transparent rationale to line the
    pockets of the leftist bureaucrats administering the bloated,
    inefficient and unaccountable spending, I mean, social programs. (Ain't
    tit for tat fun? I can play, too.)
    
    >It ignores 40 years of history of economic prosperity under the
    >burden of social welfare.
    
     Well at least you are acknowledging in a backhanded way that we
    prospered despite the burden, not because of it. moreover you refrain
    from attempting to make the case that we would not have prospered more
    with this huge drag on the economy, thus employing many of the people
    who are currently on welfare. I don't think that there should be no
    safety net whatsoever, and I don't think most republicans think so
    either, but I do think that we need to address the problem of lengthy
    reliance on welfare for support without any attempt to become
    productive, multiple generation welfare recipients, welfare fraud, etc.
    
    >It ignores the fact that every nation threatening
    >our economic prominence has *more* liberal social policies than we do.
    
     European nations, by and large, do. But they aren't our only
    competitors. Many european nations are paring down their generosity,
    however.
    
     Tax breaks stimulate the economy. The trick is to keep spending down,
    so the increased revenues can be used to pay down the debt. This is
    where reaganomics fell short; they increased the revenues just fine,
    they just increased spending more. We'll see if that continues to
    happen with a republican congress. Although, the big difference now is
    that much less of the budget proportionally is subject to discretion
    that ever before. So until real reform of "off budget" items takes
    place, there's only so much that can be done.
    
    > But I heartily agree, the liberals in
    >Washington haven't shown the courage to face any pain whatsoever. 
    
     Thanks for admitting this.
    
     Your bleating about making the poor feel the brunt of the pain is
    bogus, however. The poor have been the "beneficiaries" of years of
    governmental largesse, which has encouraged them to stagnate and
    demotivate. You apparently wish to continue to encourage such
    anti-productive behavior. The problems this sort of policy produces are
    legion. But that's not what really annoys me about your argument. You
    are claiming that not continually giving the poor something for nothing
    with no accountability and with little reason to go to work is
    making the poor pay for the middle class' sins. That's an outrage,
    mister. They don't _deserve_ a free ride any more than you or I do.
    That's the mindset that got the welfare state into the position it is
    in now. Not giving the poor a free ride is being mean to them? In whose
    world? God, I detest that attitude. I don't mind helping the poor at
    all, but there's no reason at all why they shouldn't give something
    back. That's where you and I differ.
    
    >If you want to see this country go down the tubes fast, a la Wang 
    >(and Digital?) let the right rule.
    
     How charmingly chicken-littlesque.
    
    
    
    

    So you don't like the insults I've given George.  You might care to
    refer back to the first several entries I made, starting with .393, and
    look carefully.  I didn't really start in on him until .439, which
    you'll note was after he'd started making generic cracks about his
    opponents, and after he'd been pretending his queries weren't answered;
    when what was really happening was he was ignoring my replies.  No, it
    isn't my usual style, but he earned it.  And he certainly joined in.
    
    > So should we abandon the safety net?
    
    That's never been the issue - see .401, second paragraph.  I addressed
    this specifically way back at the beginning.
    
    > What he said was that we have grown into the dominent economic force
    > under what has been primarily the dem's watch. That's a fact.
    
    That's a loosely stated fact, and sort of barely tolerable to me.  
    His claim was much more objectionable; not 'on their watch' but under 
    their dominant control; that's a fiction.
    
    > The GOP wants to roll back social policy to the late 19th century,
    > and points to welfare mothers as the cause of our current,
    > longstanding economic funk. 
    
    I don't think this is an accurate claim.  I don't think the social
    safety net is to be entirely removed, effectively returning us to the
    19th century.  It is, instead, merely to be changed to limit the amount
    of time people are eligible for benefits before they have to start
    working to retain benefits.  And the benefit levels are to be lowered,
    not eliminated.  If they wanted to wipe out the net, you'd be right to
    oppose them.  They don't.
    
    > But the facts suggest otherwise. The countries that are in hot
    > persuit of us all have more liberal social policies than we do.
    
    No, they aren't.  The fastest growing economies (in SouthEast Asia,
    primarily) have been very careful not to indulge their populations in
    smothering social safety blankets.  Those countries who do have more
    generous benefits than we do have also been subsidized for their defense
    needs by our expenditures on their behalf; and they're still finding it
    hard to prop up these overly generous welfare states.  Martin Minow's
    favorite example, Sweden, has been forced to sharply restrict benefits
    the last few years because their budgets have gone to the wall; the
    state had become the consumer of more than 50% of their GDP!  It was
    simply unsustainable, and welfare state benefits have been sharply
    reformed in several countries.  Your summary is simply incorrect.
    
    > That was my point. George is arguing social policy, you're arguing 
    > economic/trade policy.
    
    Ah, and here is the problem- these things are inseparable, when you
    want to talk about "the effects" of the past sixty years' policies.
    I certainly enjoy pointing out the interrelatedness- we have to
    understand these things.  We simply can't debate one fully without
    looking at the bigger picture.  And thus, the debate.
    
    > And if you had argued your point with George with the same temperament
    > and respect with which you have responded to my note,
    
    You didn't earn mistreatment.  George needs a figurative two-by-four
    sometimes to be made to pay attention to the argument.  Go figure.
    
    DougO

       <<< Note 49.555 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

>    Its a lot bigger than that.  First of all, I don't jump on George
>    because its a box sport.  In fact, people with discerning memories will
>    remember that I encouraged George and mocked the right-wingers in the
>    abortion topic a few months ago; his tactics there were just as
>    egregious, but at least his facts weren't wrong, so I enjoyed the
>    spectacle of the anti-choicers faced with someone just as illogical as
>    themselves.  That is to say, I don't have it in for George personally.

  I think I am beginning to see the light here.

  DougO, knows the facts. When he speaks, we see facts because ... because ...
because he's DougO and he knows the facts.

  That's why DougO can state something once then beat you up forever because
you have been "proven" wrong. What was the proof? Why DougO spoke, that was
the proof.

  Pro-life and pro-choice argue not because people believe fundamentally
different things but because pro-life is WRONG and pro-choice is RIGHT. When it
comes to economics, then conservatives and DougO argue against all the liberals
except for DougO because once again, we are WRONG and they are RIGHT. 

  Ok good, now I understand. Finally I can sleep at night.

  George

    Mark has substantially answered your .559 already, but I'll pick a 
    few nits.
    
    > how will they begin: start cutting benefits to the poor -- the faster
    > the better -- and start giving tax breaks to everyone else. Give some
    > token breaks to the middle class, as a political pay-off and give the
    > real dough to the big-money guys by getting rid of capital gains tax
    > and lowering the maximum tax bracket.
    
    You do understand that capital gains taxes represent double taxation,
    right?  Shareholders in companies which earn profits see that profit
    reduced by an approximate 35% corporate tax rate, before dividends or
    other profits can be returned to the shareholders.  That's the first
    tax.  What shareholders get from company profits are dividends, which
    are taxed at the individual income rate, even though 35% is already
    gone; and profits through sales of appreciated stock, which appreciates
    less because of the 2nd tax levied on the same profit through capital
    gains taxes.  Shareholders are thus taxed out of well more than 40%
    (some economists say up to 80%) of the profits their companies make.
    This penalizes shareholders unduly and distorts and damages the market
    for providing capital for investment.  Capital gains tax and taxes on
    dividend income should be abolished, not just reduced.
    
    By the way, this is not just a tax break for the 'big guys'.  The
    middle class, through the directed investments of pension funds,
    insurance funds, and individual IRA's and 401Ks, now own a sizable
    fraction of the total stockmarket equity in this country.  Their gains
    for holding these funds are doubly taxed.  Removing those market
    distorting taxes is a lot more than a 'token break' to the middle
    class.  They'll be by far the largest beneficiaries.
    
    And finally, many in the GOP are making sure that 'tax breaks' don't go
    to everyone else; in fact, some are beginning to address the current
    set of well-entrenched abuses.  Like Dick Lugar, whose bill would
    reduce farm subsidies by 85-90%, lowering consumer prices into the
    bargain.  Token break to the middle class?  Not if you're feeding a 
    family.
    
    > If we're going to compete effectively we as a nation in the new global 
    > economy, we must get our debt under control, first and foremost.  We're
    > sure as hell not going to do that by doling out tax breaks. 
    
    I agree, though removing the double taxation noted above should remain
    under consideration.  It hurts all of us by distorting the market,
    making everything cost more.
    
    > We need to do what successful corporations are doing, which is to
    > become more efficient and flexible.
    
    um.  Government has appropriate roles.  But there are some things
    governments should simply not be doing.  Doing them more efficiently is
    beside the point.  Successful corporation get out of inappropriate
    businesses.
    
    > What the liberals want to do is look closely at the process and make
    > it work better.
    
    Every administration since before my adulthood has promised to root out
    fraud, waste and abuse.  Its become its own acronym (ever hear of a
    FWA Hotline?  Nearly every government agency has one.)  And you
    completely neglect the problems of entrenched bureacracy.  The
    country simply doesn't need to have a hundred thousand people in the
    USDA doling out farm subsidies.  The entire mission needs to be
    re-evaluated and the bad ideas rooted out; and their bureacracies with
    them. 
    
    > so that they can justify making the poor bear the brunt of the pain.
    
    Again, I don't think this is an accurate depiction of the GOP's effort.
    
    DougO

    I don't think you're seeing much light at all, George, but nevermind;
    since you won't address the substance of the arguments, fortunately
    someone else has come along who can.  Run along and sleep tight.
    
    DougO

RE       <<< Note 49.565 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

>    I don't think you're seeing much light at all, George, but nevermind;
>    since you won't address the substance of the arguments, fortunately
>    someone else has come along who can.  Run along and sleep tight.
    
  Well neither would you. I'm still waiting for an example of a major
industrial country that has had success with the policies being pushed
in the Contract on America.

  So far I see some dramatic failures from the 1st half of the century, but
no successes.

  George

    > I'm still waiting for an example of a major industrial country that
    > has had success with the policies being pushed in the Contract on
    > America.
    
    Nobody ever promised you such examples, though.  The policies argued
    for were listed in .401.  The countries following such, and drastically
    improving their economies in the process, were listed in another note.
    Beyond that, your demands are irrlevant to me.  So wait away.
    
    DougO

    Gee, doug, doncha feel punished? I know I do.

           <<< Note 49.561 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

>    Davis, please learn how to spell. here. spigot. nnttm

So that's how you spell it. I wondered why spell checker doesn't offer any 
suggestions. I was way too far off.
    
>    >The right blames the social policies of the New Deal and the Great
>    >Society for just about *everything*, from the breakdown of the family 
>    >to the stagnation or retreat of the middle class.
    
>     The left claims no deleterious effects by those policies, hence the
>    polarization. Until the left can admit the shortcomings, the right will
>    have hay to make with the obvious.

No true. George may make such a claim. I never have.
    
>    >But its a transparent rationale to line their own pockets at the expense 
>    >of the voiceless. 
    
>     Whereas the Great Society is a transparent rationale to line the
>    pockets of the leftist bureaucrats administering the bloated,
>    inefficient and unaccountable spending, I mean, social programs. (Ain't
>    tit for tat fun? I can play, too.)

And a pretty good one at that.
    
>    >It ignores 40 years of history of economic prosperity under the
>    >burden of social welfare.
    
>     Well at least you are acknowledging in a backhanded way that we
>    prospered despite the burden, not because of it. moreover you refrain

Not backhanded at all. I never said that social welfare doesn't put some 
drag on the economy. In fact, I've said it has in another string. But it's 
the price you pay for a civilized modern society. We're not an agrarian 
society anymore. Few if anyone fends entirely for themselves anymore. We're 
a complex cooperation of labor in a highly dynamic system in which for all 
time some portion of those laborers are going to be unemployed. It is the 
responsibility of society to provide a *temporary* hand.

>    safety net whatsoever, and I don't think most republicans think so
    either, 
If not most, than many. Including a lot of 'boxers.

>   but I do think that we need to address the problem of lengthy
    reliance on welfare for support without any attempt to become
    productive, multiple generation welfare recipients, welfare fraud, etc.

So do I - and most other liberals. No question, the social welfare system has 
corrupt and bloated dimensions. But it needs surgery, not euthenasia.
    
>     Tax breaks stimulate the economy. The trick is to keep spending down,
>    so the increased revenues can be used to pay down the debt. This is

I disagree. Tax breaks would provide only small, shortlived stimulus, 
quickly reversed by an expanding deficit. Tax breaks always only have 
*temporary* stimulating effects, just as raising interest rates will only 
temporarily stop inflation. But to listen to Repubs, lower taxes are the
be-all end-all. The economy reaches a stasis, no matter what the tax level 
(within reason); it then becomes influenced by other factors.

>     Your bleating about making the poor feel the brunt of the pain is
>    bogus, however. The poor have been the "beneficiaries" of years of
>    governmental largesse, which has encouraged them to stagnate and
>    demotivate. You apparently wish to continue to encourage such
>    anti-productive behavior. The problems this sort of policy produces are
>    legion. But that's not what really annoys me about your argument. You
>    are claiming that not continually giving the poor something for nothing
>    with no accountability and with little reason to go to work is
>    making the poor pay for the middle class' sins. That's an outrage,
>    mister. They don't _deserve_ a free ride any more than you or I do.
>    That's the mindset that got the welfare state into the position it is
>    in now. Not giving the poor a free ride is being mean to them? In whose
>    world? God, I detest that attitude. I don't mind helping the poor at
>    all, but there's no reason at all why they shouldn't give something
>    back. That's where you and I differ.

This is all right-wing trash talk. (I suppose the same could be said for my 
get-rich-on-the-backs-of-the-poor stuff; tit for tat, an' all). That's not 
where we differ. Where we differ is that you would quickly and arbitrarily 
pull the plug, and I would systematically clean up the system, make it more 
efficient at meeting its original goal (as a temporary helping hand), and 
get the dependent welfare class off the dole through training (an expense 
the right's not willing to pay - more often out of misplaced anger than 
sound fiscal wisdom.
    
>    >If you want to see this country go down the tubes fast, a la Wang 
>    >(and Digital?) let the right rule.
    
>     How charmingly chicken-littlesque.

We each have our falling skies, don't we?    
    
    
    

RE       <<< Note 49.567 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

>    Nobody ever promised you such examples, though.  The policies argued
>    for were listed in .401.  The countries following such, and drastically
>    improving their economies in the process, were listed in another note.
>    Beyond that, your demands are irrelevant to me.  So wait away.
    
  Nice argument. I asked a rhetorical question that can't be answered because
the policies being pushed by the GOP have always failed in the past while all
the successful nations are more liberal or even socialist. 

  So declare the question to be irrelevant, change the topic and start talking
about how countries are trying to or should be more like we are now (the Pemex
debate) wave your hands, insist that you have proven things, yell at me a
lot, and try to hide the simple fact that ...

   ... no nation has ever succeeded with a policy like the GOP's Contract on
America. It's just a warmed over version of laissez faire which in the past has
lead to nothing but disaster. 

  George

RE                      <<< Note 49.572 by CAPNET::ROSCH >>>

>    Name a successful nation - and define 'successful' - which is more
>    'successful' than the US and uses liberal or even socialist policies.

  I don't believe there are any who are all that much better than we are.
That's why I believe that what we are doing while not perfect is better than
anything else that's come along in a long time.

  I do, however, observe that if you look at the next 5-6 richest countries
after the United States they are all more liberal than we are if not actually
socialist so if we move it all it should be a lean to the left, not to the
right.

  George

>  I do, however, observe that if you look at the next 5-6 richest countries
>after the United States they are all more liberal than we are if not actually
>socialist so if we move it all it should be a lean to the left, not to the
>right.

Why would you want to pursue a move toward mediocrity when you can't prove
that our conservative policies are detrimental and CAN demonstrate that
they are working to our benefit as stated above. Isn't that a rather
poor game of "what if"?

and now, a word from the haagmeister

-- [ From: Gene Haag * EMC.Ver #2.2 ] --

george's actions are a blessing in disguise. a necessary blessing i might add.
we all need to keep in mind how the members of the now crumbling infrastructure
of the ruling liberal elite think. meowski continues to provide the necessary
examples that should inspire us all to do away with most of their establishment
come election time. we've much work to do but they are self-destructing at a
rate i could have only hoped for.

lets not kid ourselves. the current democratic machine is choking on the
implosion of its own incompetence. its ironic that they choose to lash back at
the republicans, rush, etc., and attempt to use them and their policies to
unite the peoples through emotional division. how utterly stupid of them. they
still haven't learned that its the PEOPLE who are supposed to rule in this
country. and if the republicans or rush forget that we'll toss their butts out
as well.

the president rambled on a great deal in january's state of the union speech
that he "heard the people". really? it certainly hasn't shown in any actions.
quite the opposite. the president and his staff have embarked upon a strategy
that is in clear violation of the will of the peoples. no administration in the
history of this great nation has attempted to rule in such violent opposition
of the peoples wishes. and they don't understand why they are being repudiated
so strongly. as a result, their political decline will not only continue, it
will accelerate.

all this makes the current administration an extremely dangerous one. we have a
lot of very arrogant and ambitious people in DC. smart people who KNOW their
power structure is in big trouble. they won't go down easily. the office of the
president wields great power (all the more necessary to have occupants there
who understand and abide by the wishes of the peoples) and coupled with a
supportive liberal press will fight back hard. those of us who oppose the
ruling liberal elite couldn't have hoped for better. as the dying political
power, after 40 years of rule, the democrats are wasting all their energy and
time pounding the pulpits proclaiming that big bad newt and company are
destroying the country. while they, themselves, do nothing. while the people,
who are the only ones that really matter, watch, and wait -- for '96.

america was made great by just about everything the current administration is
attempting to disengage. this administration has launched an all out assault on
the rights of the peoples (the republicans are not innocent here either). it
goes well beyond my pet peeve - the RKBA. no, this administration's actions -
and some bad timing - have placed them in positions of power at a time when the
american people have re-emphasized their right to stand up to an out of control
government and literally scream - DON'T TREAD ON ME!!!!!! it's almost hilarious
that the meowski's of the world haven't figured that out - particularly
considering last november's cold slap to the face. but they better hurry up if
they even want to make a showing next time. if not, 1996 will witness a
democratic political bloodbath of unprecedented proportions in this history of
this country. 

and you can tell meowski that. the ruling liberals day of judgement before the
peoples of the land is almost here. i can hardly wait.

"Crumbling infrastructure of the ruling [whatever]" rings a bell.