[Scott_H]

Yup. As is often the case. The left spouts off regardless of the facts.


Prevaricating about "snakes"?

California Governor Gray Davis appears to have been caught in a series of untruths in his accusations that Texas power companies, which he called the "biggest snakes on Earth," had gouged his state when it needed to buy power on the spot market this year. An article in The Houston Chronicle says that newly released public records show that such companies, Texas companies, actually charged California utilities less than the state's publicly owned utilities were charging.

For the first three months of the year, the article says California's own utilities were selling their excess power for $344 per megawatt while the Texas companies were charging only $250. The article, by two Cato Institute researchers, said Davis knew this all the time.

Ooopps. I'm sure Gray Davis will correct the error soon.

[ 07-31-2001: Message edited by: Scott_H ]

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Scott_H:
<STRONG>
Ooopps. I'm sure Gray Davis will correct the error soon.

[ 07-31-2001: Message edited by: Scott_H ]</STRONG>

I also heard that a member of Gov. Davis' staff was found to have purchased stock in a San Jose energy company. But it's not a conflict of interest, of course.

When George W. Bush and Dick Cheney SELL all their stock, they are accused of being in the pocket of the oil companies...

Strange. Double standard maybe?

[poocat]

oh god make it stop.
make it stop.
make it stop.

what we have here is some primo dreamers,
that try so hard to believe that there is a smart man in the white house... they try so hard...

meanwhile he keeps going around withdrawing us from twenty five years worth of treaty work, withdraw here, drill there, withdraw here, build missles there, withdraw here, pollute over there... it's a great legacy we're building.

this isn't an argument, it's just me being amazed at how far you are going to legitimize the current administration. it's absurd! let it go! you won, and now everyone has to deal with YOUR OPINIONS BEING IN CHARGE FOR FOUR YEARS! you can't even be gracious?!

you won.
yes, you. you scott h WON.

now chill out, sit back, buy an suv, drill an oil well, and enjoy it.
because seriously, it's old, old news.

poocat.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
<STRONG>

I also heard that a member of Gov. Davis' staff was found to have purchased stock in a San Jose energy company. But it's not a conflict of interest, of course.

When George W. Bush and Dick Cheney SELL all their stock, they are accused of being in the pocket of the oil companies...

Strange. Double standard maybe?</STRONG>

We are, of course, ignoring all of the same stuff going on to the right of the line. Dems have not got the corner on the dubious ethics market. We double standard lefties also take a look at those big oil leaning actions that big GW and the boys commit... or try to commit the country to.
Yeah. Ari Fleisher tells it like it is... *SPIN* whoosh. I'm dizzy.
But, of course, we've already discussed all of this in the same old moribund fashion.
Is that horse STILL alive?!? KICK IT!!!

[pathogen]

I think the article quoted is misleading.

First of all, Texas had the opportunity over the last 18 months to sell energy to California at much less than half of what California was paying to its own power suppliers, mostly because Texas enjoys the nation's largest oil and energy loan credits and tax reimbersements, because its companies are the leading suppliers. $250 is about 10% more than the $227 price Texas sold elsewhere, so California was being taken advantage of, which Gray Davis has a right to complain about.

This is from a recent transcript of a meeting of the U.S. Committee on Ways and Means... Government Transcript

Mr. COOK. Well, certainly those kinds of price increases we are seeing in California in gas and power markets I don't believe they are that high nationwide. The data that we have show gas prices approximately 50�percent higher, and the bill maybe double. But certainly in the West where supplies have been very constrained with the disruption in the El Paso pipeline into California, and combined with a very strong economy out there, certainly that balance is very tight. And when the market is resolving a situation like that, prices do not rise proportionately. They tend to rise to whatever will clear the market. Then the individual who just has to have supplies...

--Chairman HOUGHTON. You mean whatever people will pay? In other words, will be forced to pay; is that right?

Mr. COOK. Unfortunately, that is correct, sir. In economics, back when I took the course 30 years ago, I think the professor talked a little bit about the glass of water. How much you would pay for it in the first hour you are in the desert, which is not very much. As you walk farther and get hotter and thirstier, then the amount you are willing to pay for it, assuming you can, rises geometrically. I am not here to offer excuses or apologies, or suggest, you know, solutions to the problem. I can only tell you what has happened.

Anyhow, the facts are that Texas is currently negotiating for further tax relief to pursue cleaner coal burning, because it stands to profit greatly from energy sales over the next 8-10 years.

And Fox News isn't the most objective news source there is... Rupert Murdoch has been known to encourage anti-liberal "prevarication" in the past...

[ 07-31-2001: Message edited by: pathogen ]

[daimoni]

Originally posted by poocat:
<STRONG>this isn't an argument, it's just me being amazed at how far you are going to legitimize the current administration. it's absurd! let it go! you won, and now everyone has to deal with YOUR OPINIONS BEING IN CHARGE FOR FOUR YEARS! you can't even be gracious?!

you won.
yes, you. you scott h WON.

now chill out, sit back, buy an suv, drill an oil well, and enjoy it.
because seriously, it's old, old news.

poocat.</STRONG>

High five to you, poocat.

Nothing worse than sore winners.... of an illegal election. Apes, rule. I guess.

[Scott_H]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
<STRONG>

I also heard that a member of Gov. Davis' staff was found to have purchased stock in a San Jose energy company. But it's not a conflict of interest, of course.

When George W. Bush and Dick Cheney SELL all their stock, they are accused of being in the pocket of the oil companies...

Strange. Double standard maybe?</STRONG>

Here's one along those lines.

Rossotti in the Stocks

Democrats and the press have been pounding Bush aide Karl Rove and Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill over possible conflicts of interest stemming from their private stock holdings. Why, wonders John Berlau in National Review Online, hasn't there been a peep over the between $8 million and $40 million in stock that Charles Rossotti, the Clinton appointee who still heads the Internal Revenue Service, holds in American Management Systems, which has millions of dollars in contracts with the IRS?

[Scott_H]

Originally posted by poocat:
<STRONG>this isn't an argument, it's just me being amazed at how far you are going to legitimize the current administration. it's absurd! let it go! you won, and now everyone has to deal with YOUR OPINIONS BEING IN CHARGE FOR FOUR YEARS! you can't even be gracious?!</STRONG>

You have it backwards. The democrats and left and liberals lie to the public's face and in this forum posts total BS to try to discredit Bush.

Bash him on the stuff he's done. Not the stuff they make up.

[Scott_H]

Originally posted by pathogen:
<STRONG>I think the article quoted is misleading.

First of all, Texas had the opportunity over the last 18 months to sell energy to California at much less than half of what California was paying to its own power suppliers, mostly because Texas enjoys the nation's largest oil and energy loan credits and tax reimbersements, because its companies are the leading suppliers. $250 is not half of $340, so California was being taken advantage of, which Gray Davis has a right to complain about.

This is from a recent transcript of a meeting of the U.S. Committee on Ways and Means... Government Transcript</STRONG>

Wow, that tells us almost nothing. Am I to take it that when Califonia has to buy power on the open market they run this risk of paying the market price? If you look at it a different way CA saved money by buying from out of state. If I were Texas I'd tell CA to stuff it next time the want to buy power.


It's nice that Gray Davis can pull the wool over so many eyes and fool the dimwitted left into thinking all their problems are caused by Bush and the evil power companies. Even if the facts don't support that.

And Fox News isn't the most objective news source there is... Rupert Murdoch has been known to encourage anti-liberal "prevarication" in the past...

Actually it was taken from the Houston Chronicle (didn't read the quote huh?) but I guess they're in the pocket of Big Oil. Facts are facts. CA's own power companies charge more than TX when they have excess power.

You're sounding like crazed conservatives when they spout off about the "liberal media".

[ 07-31-2001: Message edited by: Scott_H ]

[maxelson]

Originally posted by Scott_H:
<STRONG>

You have it backwards. The democrats and left and liberals lie to the public's face and in this forum posts total BS to try to discredit Bush.

Bash him on the stuff he's done. Not the stuff they make up.</STRONG>

So you have it. Once again... we have done this before... the lefties lie cheat and steal and the conservatives are the moral saviours of our beleagured country.
Scott, please. Listen to yourself, will ya?
No. Scott. I'm over here. Scott? Whoohoo! Scott. Scott. Over here. Jeez. You're all spun around. Hey, will someone get Ari away from the poor guy? He's all dizzy!

[pathogen]

Originally posted by Scott_H:
<STRONG>

Wow, that tells us almost nothing. Am I to take it that when Califonia has to buy power on the open market they run this risk of paying the market price? ... It's nice that Gray Davis can pull the wool over so many eyes and fool the dimwitted left into thinking all their problems are caused by Bush and the evil power companies. </STRONG>

How do you get around saying these things? California didn't pay market price... even an oversite committee is looking into that. There is plenty of evidence to support everyone's contentions. I'm from Canada and have no stake in left or right politics in the U.S. (I just enjoy watching), but I can certainly see that you selectively cull your facts from manipulative sources that don't even carry bi-lateral perspective (The National Review), and just now you used derogatory remarks and insults, snide blanket statements, and tub thumping ...as valid arguments? Previously, you complained vigorously about "the left" and laughed that no one can bander back insightful liberal "facts"... but I've seen plenty of people do it here, and in the press. Maybe it only suits you to unfairly claim they have no merit or to mock some perceived weakness. I see both Democrats and Republicans as being largely dishonest in rhetorical arenas, and anyone ridiculing G.W. Bush should have as much avenue as anyone who saw it fit to discredit Clinton private life.


Don't get me wrong, I love reading your posts, but I think you ought to lighten up a bit and not take it so personally.

[Joshua]

this isn't an argument, it's just me being amazed at how far you are going to legitimize the current administration. it's absurd! let it go! you won, and now everyone has to deal with YOUR OPINIONS BEING IN CHARGE FOR FOUR YEARS! you can't even be gracious?!

Let it go? Be gracious? With all do respect, the conservatives aren't the one tossing around the majority of the flamebait:

Nothing worse than sore winners.... of an illegal election. Apes, rule. I guess.

What you construe as an attempt to "legitimize the current administration," many of us see as an attempt to defend the current administration from a largely baseless smeer campaign.

[daimoni]

Was Gray Davis gov. when they voted for deregulation. No.

Who was? A Republican. 'nuff, said.

I'm not defending Gray Davis... nor the Democrats. But I do take issue when people attack "the left" -- as if we can all be so easily pigeon-holed.

I do hope you guys know that some of us voted (and will continue to vote) Green.

[Arty50]

Post from a Californian (someone that actually should give a s**t about this):

1) Pete Wilson (Republican) was an idiot.
2) Gray Davis (Democrat) is also an idiot.
3) We should've let PG&E and SCE go bankrupt. They basically wrote the deregulation bill and should suffer the consequences. People need power and other companies I'm sure would step in. The state could've fixed the holes in the bill (implementing full deregulation instead of the hybrid solution we have now) and let other power companies come in and buy PG&E and SCE up cheap. Instead the consumers, who didn't vote for deregulation, have had to foot the bill. Blame Wilson for his support of this half-baked deregulation scheme.
4) Davis' grandstanding has actually ended up doing more harm than good. He should have stuck it to the power companies (PG&E and SCE); instead, California taxpayers are going to take a big hit. Davis bought SCE's powerlines in an attempt to infuse cash into the company. The dirty, little secret is that most of those powerlines are nearly end of life, and California taxpayers are going to have to pay for their replacement in the very near future. And those long-term power contracts he signed aren't looking so rosy right now.

Basically, the power companies wrote this bill and passed it through the State legislature with their lobbying prowess. No one disputes this. And at first glance it looked good. Unfortunately, the public was never given all of the fine print. So no concerns were raised, and the bill passed. The companies screwed themselves, we're paying for it, and Gray Davis is merely facilitating this idiodicy. Can someone tell me how this is right?

Criticize GWB all you want, just please don't defend Davis in the process. He's just as much of an idiot politician as George.

[daimoni]

Arty50: you rock!

Thanks for telling it like it is.

[pathogen]

Originally posted by daimoni:
<STRONG>Arty50: you rock!

Thanks for telling it like it is. </STRONG>

agreed

[Arty50]

Had to add this for laughs:

Southern California Edison (SCE) is owned by Edison International. Edison Mission Energy is also owned by Edison International. SCE almost went bankrupt, while EME raked in the dough selling power in California. At the top level SCE=EME. So I have to ask: is SCE really going bankrupt or did Edison International merely shift profits from one company to another? Now do you see why a consumer bail-out of the power companies is so wrong? And the honorable Mr. Davis is facilitating this travesty.

[daimoni]

Originally posted by Joshua:
<STRONG>


What you construe as an attempt to "legitimize the current administration," many of us see as an attempt to defend the current administration from a largely baseless smeer campaign.</STRONG>

Largely baseless? Yeah, just try telling that to the rest of the free world. The whole election process was an embarassment to all Americans. We should've brought in the UN (or at least Jimmy Carter's org.) to oversee it.

Hey, why just shop at Banana Repulic when we can live in one?

[Subzero Diesel949]

My two pennies:

Originally posted by Arty50:
<STRONG>Post from a Californian (someone that actually should give a s**t about this):

1) Pete Wilson (Republican) was an idiot.
</STRONG>

Deregulation took place under Wilson.

<STRONG>
2) Gray Davis (Democrat) is also an idiot.</STRONG>

Davis is somewhat of an idiot. He inherited this mess to begin with, so he is not to be fully blamed for our energy crisis. What makes him an idiot is his continued finger-pointing and failure to remedy this crisis. Bailing out SCE and PG&E was a joke. The parent companies have the $$$ to do it, but would put holes in their fat pockets.

<STRONG>
3) We should've let PG&E and SCE go bankrupt. They basically wrote the deregulation bill and should suffer the consequences. People need power and other companies I'm sure would step in. The state could've fixed the holes in the bill (implementing full deregulation instead of the hybrid solution we have now) and let other power companies come in and buy PG&E and SCE up cheap. Instead the consumers, who didn't vote for deregulation, have had to foot the bill. Blame Wilson for his support of this half-baked deregulation scheme.</STRONG>

Agreed.

<STRONG>
4) Davis' grandstanding has actually ended up doing more harm than good. He should have stuck it to the power companies (PG&E and SCE); instead, California taxpayers are going to take a big hit. Davis bought SCE's powerlines in an attempt to infuse cash into the company. The dirty, little secret is that most of those powerlines are nearly end of life, and California taxpayers are going to have to pay for their replacement in the very near future. And those long-term power contracts he signed aren't looking so rosy right now.</STRONG>

Now here's something to consider: I remember reading somewhere about Montana. Those guys have a surplus of energy; as a matter of fact they've been selling their surplus energy. Yet the people there have continued rate hikes...hmmm...

[Scott_H]

Originally posted by daimoni:
<STRONG>

Largely baseless? Yeah, just try telling that to the rest of the free world. The whole election process was an embarassment to all Americans. We should've brought in the UN (or at least Jimmy Carter's org.) to oversee it.

Hey, why just shop at Banana Repulic when we can live in one? </STRONG>

**** the rest of the free world. I don't tell the brits who to vote for how to do it. I don't tell those snot nosed french that their leaders are a little to left for me and they had better come around to my way of thinking or just you wait and see what happens.

Next you'll tell me Europeans have a right to vote in the next election?

[IceEnclosure]

I lie, I cheat, and I, well.. I don't really steal.. but whatever.

This doesn't change the fact that our president, Dubyah, is not a very intelligent man.. I mean..don't you watch Conan O'Brian? SNL???

valley girl voice: 'like, hell-OOoo?'

sheesh, maing

like I've said before... I'm waiting for the 'Bloopers' to be released on DVD.. but sigh, prolly gotta wait till he's outta office.. by then, it'll be like a 4 DVD set.

[poocat]

oh god.

well, the server (maybe for the best) messed up and just lost this long reply i just wrote.

but since i don't have the energy to get that angry again,
i'll just give you the play by play.

scott, are you frome texas?
thought so.
(no offense intended to any texan other than scott)

wow. i can't believe anyone would be so completely determined to undermine whatever kind of ordinary discussion we were attempting to have here. you manage to break right into the middle of it every time, insulting everyone you can find. in fact, i think you started this thread just to be obnoxious, to insult people, and maybe to make yourself feel better? because those are the only reasons i could see for being so determined to undermine what is going on here (that hopefully being useful and intelligent discussion.

now, while you personally might feel that it is a good idea for us to withdraw from every global treaty because you think we should

**** the rest of the free world

well, that's just grand.
unfortunately for you (and for our president) the world is headed the same place it's been since we started trying to communicate with noises-towards a more unified and more globally concerned system.

so you, like your president, may not believe in global warming, you may believe that we desperately NEED a ballistic missile defense system, we may DESPERATELY NEED to ignore the rest of the world...

but unfortunately for you, since it obviously makes you so irate, the majority of the people in this country don't agree, and, as you've seen in this thread and others, neither does the rest of the world. heck, you can see that on tv any day. most other countries think bush is a nut!

so do i.
but you?

man, you're (or maybe i'm) lucky the server deleted my last post.
because your CONSTANT attacks on that which you obviously make NO ATTEMPT to understand are really getting old. i mean, they were old when there was a presidential ellection going on, and most people's feelings are really hot. they were old when we didn't know who'd won, and everyone's feelings were REALLY hot. they were definitely, absolutely and completely old when it turned out bush'd won and we all said he was going to mess up this country.

and don't even get me started on you now that he's doing just that.
i'm stooping to your level, making wonderfully entertaining and completely outrageous personal attacks, because ITS OBVIOUS THAT YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE.

so hey,
chill out. you're getting way past the point of fun to have around.
or just refrain from posting any more non-amusing or insightful or open-minded topics? is that too much to ask?

ah well, it was worth a shot.
poocat.

(yeah guys, i know this is a bit much... you should have seen what i wrote before, just for humors sake... i apologize for making most of you read this.)

[ 07-31-2001: Message edited by: poocat ]

[Subzero Diesel949]

Speaking of which, isn't it funny how every time Bush tries to go somewhere out of the U.S. a riot insinuates in the streets?

Shows what the rest of the world thinks of our president...

[Scott_H]

Originally posted by poocat:
<STRONG>...man, you're (or maybe i'm) lucky the server deleted my last post.
because your CONSTANT attacks on that which you obviously make NO ATTEMPT to understand are really getting old. i mean, they were old when there was a presidential ellection going on, and most people's feelings are really hot. they were old when we didn't know who'd won, and everyone's feelings were REALLY hot. they were definitely, absolutely and completely old when it turned out bush'd won and we all said he was going to mess up this country. ..</STRONG>

So Ummmmmm? Lemme see. When we're bashing Bush for things he didn't do and making stuff up that never happened and lying to the public and have the facts all wrong.... it's just time to pile on and add what a "moron" he is.

But when we uncover the lie and hold it up for what it is ... it's boring and needs to go away?

How do you use a computer with your head in the sand?

[ 07-31-2001: Message edited by: Scott_H ]

[finboy]

Right, Scott, but I don't think that the Left's head is in the SAND.

[San Acoustic]

Why not let the Europeans and everyone else vote in U.S. elections? The outcome doesn't depend on voters, anyway.

[ 07-31-2001: Message edited by: San Acoustic ]

[Joshua]

Unless you're prepared to provide empirical data or unbiased facts to prove your claims about the Bush administration - yes, baseless.

but unfortunately for you, since it obviously makes you so irate, the majority of the people in this country don't agree, and, as you've seen in this thread and others, neither does the rest of the world.

None of this would be an issue of 'the majority of the people in this country' disagreed with Scott; Gore would have easily won the election, and you'd be a happy little camper with nothing to complain about.

It's fine to say "I disagree with George W. Bush on issue X for reasons Y and Z." It's asinine, however, to phrase your personal opinions or perceptions as fact.


Empirical data. Cold hard facts. Simple reasoning. It's not that hard.

[steve666]

I consider myself a moderate, leaning to the right. I voted for Gore but the rest of the ticket I voted all Republican. Why? I DESPISE Bush. He is a ****ing moron. I wasn't crazy about Clinton but I would say he was right 70 % of the time. Bush so far is correct only in rejecting the Kyoto treaty, only because China and other third world countires got off easy. As for other environmental policies, Bush is so wrong its scary. Now he wants to give another few million mexicans amnesty just so he will look good to hispanics in 4 years!? Screw that ****, I might as well vote Democrat!..........................

[TNproud2b]

*bump*

For another embarrassing reason to be a liberal.


George Dubya is stupid?

He's The President of the greatest nation on Earth.

What does that make you? Let's see, you got how many votes last November?

[smacintush]

Deregulation took place under Wilson.

And a very LIBERAL legislature.

[simifilm]

Originally posted by Scott_H:
<STRONG>


**** the rest of the free world. I don't tell the brits who to vote for how to do it. I don't tell those snot nosed french that their leaders are a little to left for me and they had better come around to my way of thinking or just you wait and see what happens.

Next you'll tell me Europeans have a right to vote in the next election?</STRONG>

I always thought moderating a discussion would need someone open minded with an open and friendly attitude towards the world, seems like I was wrong.

[Scott_H]

Originally posted by simifilm:
<STRONG>

I always thought moderating a discussion would need someone open minded with an open and friendly attitude towards the world, seems like I was wrong.</STRONG>

Yup you sure were.

[Treebeard]

Originally posted by Scott_H:
<STRONG>Yup. As is often the case. The left spouts off regardless of the facts.</STRONG>

That's making the assumption that Davis and the Democrats are lefties.

If you think that, you've got some serious fact-checking to do. Davis in particular is on the right of the Democratic Party. And that makes him more right-wing than a good number of Republicans. The only way you can call him a lefty is because he isn't an open racist and doesn't believe gays should be burnt at the stake (although he does not believe they should have the same civil rights as others).

The "left" in the US is not Davis. It is not Bill "Let's bomb Iraq 'cause it's a Tuesday" Clinton. It's not Al "Occidental Oil programs me" Gore. It's not Roy "NRA" Barnes (Democratic governor of Georgia...my state). And it sure as h3ll ain't Tom "no bankruptcy for poor people" Daschle.

The Democrats may have some lefty allies--like most labor leaders and leading feminists, and the more "respectable" environmentalists--(they also have right-wing ones), but the Dems are NOT the "left."

If you're looking for the left in the US, a good place to start is with the 3,000,000 people that voted for Nader, and then you can start adding from there. Take a look at what Nader said in the campaign, take it to heart, and then realize that the Dems have sooooooooooooooooo much more in common with the republicans than with me.

- Universal health care
- clean energy & low-cost public transport
- stop pollution
- abolish the death penalty
- education not incarceration (more teachers, fewer cops)
- no more nukes
- strengthen affirmative action
- civil rights for gays
- abolish anti-union laws
- cut wasteful military spending and tax the rich and the corporations to pay for it all

[ 08-01-2001: Message edited by: Treebeard ]

[Scott_H]

Originally posted by Treebeard:
<STRONG>
- Universal health care</STRONG>

Socialized medicine is an inefficient system that leads to poor care. There's also indication, in the Netherlands for example, that euthanasia is encouraged as a "cost cutting" measure. Great. How about moving closer to Universal Health Insurance?

<STRONG>- clean energy & low-cost public transport</STRONG>

Energy bills four to 10 times higher. Great for the poor? Here in Chicago public transportation is cheap. $1.85 to go anywhere in the city. The cost of bring public trans' to the burbs would be huge!

<STRONG>- stop pollution</STRONG>

Impossible.

<STRONG>- abolish the death penalty</STRONG>

There's people from both side on both side of that issue. How about we put the "hard" back in "hard time". No more cable TV for murders.

<STRONG>- education not incarceration (more teachers, fewer cops)</STRONG>

We spend a tremendous amount on education. As education spending has gone up and up and up we've seen little improvement. No wait. We seen NO improvement. Now more money is the solution? We tried that and it failed to get results.

Fewer cops? I'll tell you what. Take the cops from your city and put them in mine. See how long before you beg for them back. How about more better cops and not fewer cops.

<STRONG>- no more nukes</STRONG>

The cold war is over. But look at the world today. MAD is still in effect like it or not. Wasn't Bushing thinking of working with the Russian to both reduce nukes and implement a missile shield? Hummmm?

<STRONG>- strengthen affirmative action</STRONG>

Sorry. Not the real solution to the socio-economic problems faced by minorities. Look what Jeb Bush did in Florida with the state universities. A system NOT based on race that increased minority enrollment AND based more on achievement and not skin color. It works for everyone

<STRONG>- civil rights for gays</STRONG>

Fine by me.

<STRONG>- abolish anti-union laws</STRONG>

Increase Right to Work laws. Why do I have to pay union dues if I don't agree with and don't want to join the union? The union wanted to get into where my wife worked. Great, no increase in pay and high union dues. The union didn't realy care abou the people that worked there, they just needed more members (read dues) to stay afloat.

<STRONG>- cut wasteful military spending and tax the rich and the corporations to pay for it all</STRONG>

Cut wasteful spending everywhere. The Education Department lost $1 Billion over three years under Clinton's watch. They're sure it was spent on something thy just don't know what. Last report was that $333 million was accounted for. Want more teachers? How's about $300 million a year sound? Just get the education department to stop losing money.

The rich pay for it? How much should we take from them? What's fair? You wouldn't be exacting your pound of flesh would you? It's NOT the governments job to make this world "fair" for everyone. You will always lose the "fair" game. Corporations pay for it? Where do they get their money from? Us.

The Federal government has a poor track record at solving problems by spending money. Big government, big money, big taxes haven't gotten us any closer to your goals. Here in Chicago they are getting around to razing the Projects that people of your bend wanted so badly. It was a total disaster. Your left wing house project did more to hurt the poor than help them. Please no more good ideas.

Getting the economy going with tax cuts (Reagan) has done more to lift people out of poverty and provide the health care that you want the government to provide.

My father used to say the worst thing you could ever hear in your life was, "We are from the government and we are here to help"

[DBursey]

Socialized medicine is an inefficient system that leads to poor care.

Pure conjecture. Why then does Canada, with 'socialized' universal health care, consistently beat the U.S. in longevity statistics?

Please pardon my interjection!

[daimoni]

Originally posted by Treebeard:
<STRONG>

That's making the assumption that Davis and the Democrats are lefties.

If you think that, you've got some serious fact-checking to do. Davis in particular is on the right of the Democratic Party. And that makes him more right-wing than a good number of Republicans. The only way you can call him a lefty is because he isn't an open racist and doesn't believe gays should be burnt at the stake (although he does not believe they should have the same civil rights as others).

The "left" in the US is not Davis. It is not Bill "Let's bomb Iraq 'cause it's a Tuesday" Clinton. It's not Al "Occidental Oil programs me" Gore. It's not Roy "NRA" Barnes (Democratic governor of Georgia...my state). And it sure as h3ll ain't Tom "no bankruptcy for poor people" Daschle.

The Democrats may have some lefty allies--like most labor leaders and leading feminists, and the more "respectable" environmentalists--(they also have right-wing ones), but the Dems are NOT the "left."

If you're looking for the left in the US, a good place to start is with the 3,000,000 people that voted for Nader, and then you can start adding from there. Take a look at what Nader said in the campaign, take it to heart, and then realize that the Dems have sooooooooooooooooo much more in common with the republicans than with me.

- Universal health care
- clean energy & low-cost public transport
- stop pollution
- abolish the death penalty
- education not incarceration (more teachers, fewer cops)
- no more nukes
- strengthen affirmative action
- civil rights for gays
- abolish anti-union laws
- cut wasteful military spending and tax the rich and the corporations to pay for it all

[ 08-01-2001: Message edited by: Treebeard ]</STRONG>

Treebeard just dropped an empirical branch an all of you midwestern, conservative isolationists.

Y'all need to drink some entwash... so you can grow up a little.

[gwrjr33]

Originally posted by DBursey:
<STRONG>
Pure conjecture. Why then does Canada, with 'socialized' universal health care, consistently beat the U.S. in longevity statistics?</STRONG>

Cold purifies.

Or how about when the sh!t really hits the fan and they can't wait 6 weeks for an MRI, they come to America?

[Scott_H]

Originally posted by gwrjr33:
<STRONG>

Cold purifies.</STRONG>

I bet our pals up north are not as fat nor smoke as mush as we do

<STRONG>Or how about when the sh!t really hits the fan and they can't wait 6 weeks for an MRI, they come to America?</STRONG>

Yup. Or like the Netherlands where you can wait up to 6-8 weeks for cancer treatment. How mush bigger does a tumor grow in that time? Does it spread to your brain while you're waiting? Lets hope not. Don't worry. Some goverment bean counter is working on a study about if when and where they should build a new treatment center.

I'm NOT saying we have a perfect system here. Just that government management is NOT the solution AT ALL!!!!!!

[ 08-01-2001: Message edited by: Scott_H ]

[simifilm]

Originally posted by Scott_H:
<STRONG>

Yup you sure were.</STRONG>

And even proud of it...

[DBursey]

Cold purifies.

... And heat putrefies! It's 35C (95F) here in Southern Ontario today.

It's true that for certain procedures the waiting periods can be longer than in the U.S. Perhaps that's because the facilities are available to all, not just those who can afford them.

Our health system is funded by the government; it is not run by the government. There is a huge difference.

[Macintosh]

You have it backwards. The democrats and left and liberals lie to the public's face and in this forum posts
total BS to try to discredit Bush. Bash him on the stuff he's done. Not the stuff they make up.

Yes, exactly! I am only 15 and have no voting experience but I bet I follow politics more than the avg. person here.
Also my father worked on Capitol Hill for 15 years with democrats and republicans. He was a staff member for democrats
and republicans as well. He also works as a University Lobbyst (sp?),he has done this for about 15 years also. In this time he
has worked with all types of political charcters and has uncountable behind the scenes stories. Just listening to what he says to
my mom at night and what he tells me, I know that when I vote in the next election I will not vote democrat. Especially if it is Hillary.
The stories I have heard sicken me about the political process and almost make me want to be a politician someday (but I hope not).
I dont want to give a vote to somebody who is just a public figure seeking a higher office just for political power. Mark my words there
are some politicians that do their job justly and to serve the people (not the majority). I would have voted for Bush in the last election
because he is a Republican,both candidates did not represent my ideals but Bush did seem to be more sincere than Albert Gore.

My reason for not likeing Gore.

Supports capital punishment (so does Bush though).
Gore supports abortion.
He seemed so insincere.
Too many lies.
Association with Bill Clinton.
Wants bigger government.
Would spend less on millitary.
Too many plans involving government with state and state with local.

[maxelson]

Macintosh, when you do get to be voting age, I would hope that you'd be looking into this stuff yourself instead of using your father as your sole source. Think for yourself. Don't just accept what others tell you is wrote.
BTW, your father is %100 correct.
I am a left leaning albeit independent voter and I am corrupt to the core. I lie. I cheat. When I'm not kissing babies, I steal their lollipops. Hell, even what I just told you is a lie. I'm tellin' you, us lefties just caint be trusted. Because we have liberal tendencies. Take a look at the very nature of left! It's evil! Left handed people? Evil. Those Brits who drive on the left? Evil. Left handed pitchers? Evil. Don't get me started on Trot Nixon. Daubach. Left handed hitters the both of them. Vile. Evil. Hell, I'M left handed. I already told you how vile I am. My first grade teacher used to slap my writing hand and put the pencil in the right (syn: CORRECT) hand. And rightly so. I must be stopped. Before I leftify the whole planet. Because, you know, I won't stop there. I will leftify the universe. No one is safe. You will be assimilated.
Resistence is futile...

[Treebeard]

Of course, you try to ignore my main point: that the Democrats are not the left. I'm all for Democrat-bashing. They're awful.

Republicans are worse.

Both are bought and paid for by the wealthy in this country. The dollar is the religion, the free market is the sermon.

Bow down, everybody. Bow down.

And the same is pretty much true around the world. From "Communist" China, to "Socialist" Europe, to "Democratic" America, profit rules. People suffer.

Originally posted by Scott_H in response to universal health care:
<STRONG>

Socialized medicine is an inefficient system that leads to poor care. There's also indication, in the Netherlands for example, that euthanasia is encouraged as a "cost cutting" measure. Great. How about moving closer to Universal Health Insurance?</STRONG>

You're right. It is inefficient. Three cents of every dollar goes to insurance administration with socialized health care. Under the private modern US system, 27 cents out of every dollar goes to insurance administration. And of course, with socialized medicine, everyone is covered. Under the US system, about 43 million people have no insurance. That will increase dramatically if we slip into a recession.

In response to clean energy and cheap public transport:<STRONG>Energy bills four to 10 times higher. Great for the poor? Here in Chicago public transportation is cheap. $1.85 to go anywhere in the city. The cost of bring public trans' to the burbs would be huge!</STRONG>

Who says 4 to 10 times higher? What is that based on? By when? Or is this just silly rhetoric? And in any case, dirty energy can increase pretty fast too. They're already twice what they were last year with the free market system.

I love the El. Here in Atlanta, however, our public transportation system in a laughingstock. It's expensive. Trains come every 45 minutes (hardly "rapid transit"). And they don't go anywhere (we have a grand total of 2 lines ). Rush "hour" lasts from 3:30 to 7:00. At the height, our 16-lane superhighways are effectively parking lots.

What's the solution proposed by both Democrats and Republicans? An HOV lane.

In response to Stop pollution:<STRONG>Impossible.</STRONG>

Not impossible. It would just cut into some corporate profits for a while.

Wind, hydroelectric, tidal, and solar power are all proven technologies.

A low level of "unavoidable" pollution can be absorbed by the environment...provided we have enough trees and wilderland to do the absorbing.

In response to More teachers, fewer cops:<STRONG>

We spend a tremendous amount on education. As education spending has gone up and up and up we've seen little improvement. No wait. We seen NO improvement. Now more money is the solution? We tried that and it failed to get results.</STRONG>

Spending has only gone up in absolute terms. Accounting for inflation and increased enrollment, spending per pupil has stagnated. This at a time when about 50% of school buildings need to be replaced. Massive cash infusion is needed. But that even understates what's going on. In reality, spending per pupil in some districts--usually suburbs--has increased. In most, it has fallen.

Fewer cops? I'll tell you what. Take the cops from your city and put them in mine. See how long before you beg for them back. How about more better cops and not fewer cops.

It's a deal. Take 'em all. And give us an equal number of teachers. Let's see what happens to crime rates.

In response to No more nukes:<STRONG>The cold war is over. But look at the world today. MAD is still in effect like it or not. Wasn't Bushing thinking of working with the Russian to both reduce nukes and implement a missile shield? Hummmm?</STRONG>

You are even more naive than I thought if you think NMD is going to lead to anything other than another wasteful arms race. China has already increased its military budget 12% in response. Furthermore, NMD is as big a fantasy as Reagan's Star Wars lunacy. Ever hear of Dr. Postol? Why is the pentagon trying to shut him up?

In response to Affirmative action:<STRONG>Sorry. Not the real solution to the socio-economic problems faced by minorities. Look what Jeb Bush did in Florida with the state universities. A system NOT based on race that increased minority enrollment AND based more on achievement and not skin color. It works for everyone</STRONG>

Affirmative action does work. Rather, strong affirmative action works. Weak affirmative action doesn't. Affirmative action was declawed back under that stalwart of the left Jimmy Carter with the Bakke decision. Until then, Blacks and women--why do people always forget to include women in discussions of AA?--(but not gays) made fantastic leaps in a few very short years. After Bakke, that slowed to a crawl, and paled in the face of the massive militarization of the inner cities initiated under Reagan (but continued under Bush and Clinton), with the resulting explosion in the number and percent of black males in prison.

In response to Abolish anti-union laws:<STRONG>Increase Right to Work laws. Why do I have to pay union dues if I don't agree with and don't want to join the union? The union wanted to get into where my wife worked. Great, no increase in pay and high union dues. The union didn't realy care abou the people that worked there, they just needed more members (read dues) to stay afloat.</STRONG>

You pay dues even if you don't agree because it's part of an effort to democratize the workplace, however modestly. (Just like you pay taxes even if you don't agree with the government.) Sure, lots of unions are run by conservative jack@$$es that refuse to challenge the bosses and defend jobs, etc. That's why you fight for better union leaders, and if they continue to suck, you act without them. But that's against the law (one of those anti-union laws). A union leader who refuses to fight for better pay should be replaced by one who does by democratic vote of the members.

Without a union, we're only left with the autocracy of management. Particularly in the South, which clings to your precious anti-union laws fiercely. No rights in the workplace. You can be fired without cause and without right of appeal.

In response to Cut wasteful military spending and tax the rich:<STRONG>Cut wasteful spending everywhere. The Education Department lost $1 Billion over three years under Clinton's watch. They're sure it was spent on something thy just don't know what. Last report was that $333 million was accounted for. Want more teachers? How's about $300 million a year sound? Just get the education department to stop losing money.</STRONG>

Sorry. I was wondering if that would be confusing. I meant to imply that any and all military spending was wasteful. If there are threats around the world, you should ask how they got their armaments. (The US sells more military hardware than all other countries combined--52% of global sales.)

As for the Education Department losing the money. Yeah I guess that sucks. They shouldn't have lost it. (I admit I don't know anything about it: when did they lose it? over how many years? what percentage of their budget was that?) But is it really logical to conclude that government is incapable of educating its people? And that churches and corporations would do a better job?

$300 million is a lot of money. The annual US military budget is $300 billion.

[snip pro-business factless rhetorical assertions]

My father used to say the worst thing you could ever hear in your life was, "We are from the government and we are here to help"

Again, you are even more naive than I thought if you think your father came up with that phrase. Or were you trying to be all "down-homey" and populist by working in a reference to the supposed home-spun wisdom of your father?

If your dad told you he came up with that saying, all I can say is you've been lied to by a whole bunch of people.

Gotta go.

[mr. natural]

Originally posted by Treebeard:
...the Democrats are not the left. I'm all for Democrat-bashing. They're awful.

Republicans are worse.

Both are bought and paid for by the wealthy in this country. The dollar is the religion, the free market is the sermon.

Bow down, everybody. Bow down.

And the same is pretty much true around the world. From "Communist" China, to "Socialist" Europe, to "Democratic" America, profit rules. People suffer.

Hear, hear! Unfortunately, Treebeard, you're arguing with a numbskull (as evidenced from his signature).

These patsies believe in the holy trinity as espoused by the right:

Reducing the Government: The government should only be big enough to annihilate any country and (if necessary) every country, to spy on other governments (and its own citizens if necessary), to keep big secrets, and to see to the health & happiness of large corporations. A government thus reduced will be almost too small to notice and will require almost no taxes and spend almost no money (or do so more efficiently for all of the above than a truly progressive leftist government would).

The Free Market: The free market sees to it that everything ends up in the right place -- that is, it makes sure that only the worthy get rich. All millionaires and billionaires have worked hard for their money (without any government subsidies), and they deserve the rewards of their work. But they need all the help they can get from the government (with unlimited tax loopholes) and the universities (developing their products with government subsidies). Having money stimulates the rich to further economic activity that ultimately benefits the rest of us to further economic activity that ultimately benefits the rich. The cardinal principle of the free market is unrestrained competition, which is a kind of un-real tournament that will decide which is the world's champion corporation. Ultimately, thanks to this principle, there will be only one corporation, which will be wonderfully simplifying. After that, we will rest in peace.

Unlimited Economic Growth: This is the pet idea of the party of hard-headed realists. That unlimited economic growth can be accomplished within limited space, with limited materials and limited intelligence, only shows the unlimited courage and self-confidence of these Great Minds. That unlimited economic growth implies unlimited consumption, which in turn imples unlimited pride, covetousness, lust, anger, gluttony, envy, and sloth, only makes the prospect even more unlimited; especially as to the unlimited punishments which will be our just desserts for such arrogance.

This about sums up the agenda that our politicians (both Democratic & Republican) have concocted for our approval. But what astonishes me is that folks (like Scotty boy) get all riled up defending the present puppet-de-jour (Dubya). Go figure.

[ 08-01-2001: Message edited by: mr. natural ]

[Scott_H]

Originally posted by Treebeard:
<STRONG>Of course, you try to ignore my main point: that the Democrats are not the left. I'm all for Democrat-bashing. They're awful.</STRONG>

Uhhhhh! I didn't ignore it. I just didn't reply to it. Don't be so nit picky annoying. I read it. I understood it. I just didn't have a reply to it. Sure wrt to the rest of the worlds democracies most of us are to the right of that. Happy?

<STRONG>
You're right. It is inefficient. Three cents of every dollar goes to insurance administration with socialized health care. Under the private modern US system, 27 cents out of every dollar goes to insurance administration. And of course, with socialized medicine, everyone is covered. Under the US system, about 43 million people have no insurance. That will increase dramatically if we slip into a recession.</STRONG>

So ahhh where do you get your numbers from? How do you explain the lack of care in places like Canada and Holland? Personally I don't like waiting for cancer treatment.

<STRONG>Who says 4 to 10 times higher? What is that based on? By when? Or is this just silly rhetoric? And in any case, dirty energy can increase pretty fast too. They're already twice what they were last year with the free market system.</STRONG>

I was thinking solar. Some news show priced it out. It can't pay for itself over the grid. The up front cost are high and they don't last long enough to pay themselves off.

<STRONG>I love the El. Here in Atlanta, however, our public transportation system in a laughingstock. It's expensive. Trains come every 45 minutes (hardly "rapid transit"). And they don't go anywhere (we have a grand total of 2 lines:rolleyes . Rush "hour" lasts from 3:30 to 7:00. At the height, our 16-lane superhighways are effectively parking lots.

What's the solution proposed by both Democrats and Republicans? An HOV lane. </STRONG>

Every wonder why it goes nowhere? Because the cost of going everywhere are to too high. But lets just create a new tax on the rich to pay for it.

<STRONG>Not impossible. It would just cut into some corporate profits for a while.

Wind, hydroelectric, tidal, and solar power are all proven technologies.

A low level of "unavoidable" pollution can be absorbed by the environment...provided we have enough trees and wilderland to do the absorbing.</STRONG>

Solar cost too much. The Euros are working on wind. We'll see how that pans out. HYDRO!!!! You forget about the tree toes blue eyed sucker hoot frog! Greens wont allow more hydro.

Maybe in 100 years we'll have a good way to make no emission power but not any time soon.

<STRONG>Spending has only gone up in absolute terms. Accounting for inflation and increased enrollment, spending per pupil has stagnated. This at a time when about 50% of school buildings need to be replaced. Massive cash infusion is needed. But that even understates what's going on. In reality, spending per pupil in some districts--usually suburbs--has increased. In most, it has fallen.</STRONG>]

Please read an award winning article on the subject. More Money? In fact read all of them. You are too "naive" and need to open your eyes a bit.

<STRONG>It's a deal. Take 'em all. And give us an equal number of teachers. Let's see what happens to crime rates.</STRONG>

You're kids will be just as dumb and your streets will be a war zone. At least this guy figured it out. read to the end

<STRONG>You are even more naive than I thought if you think NMD is going to lead to anything other than another wasteful arms race. China has already increased its military budget 12% in response. Furthermore, NMD is as big a fantasy as Reagan's Star Wars lunacy. Ever hear of Dr. Postol? Why is the pentagon trying to shut him up?</STRONG>

China's increase is not in response to the missile defense. China is a communist dictatorship looking to increase its influence in the pacific. That's why they're spending more. Not "in response" to the US.

<STRONG>Affirmative action does work. Rather, strong affirmative action works. Weak affirmative action doesn't. Affirmative action was declawed back under that stalwart of the left Jimmy Carter with the Bakke decision. Until then, Blacks and women--why do people always forget to include women in discussions of AA?--(but not gays) made fantastic leaps in a few very short years. After Bakke, that slowed to a crawl, and paled in the face of the massive militarization of the inner cities initiated under Reagan (but continued under Bush and Clinton), with the resulting explosion in the number and percent of black males in prison.</STRONG>

Yea. That whole "Constitution" and "Bill of Rights" thing is always getting in the way of "real progress" Making a preferred class in this country is no way to run it. There are way to help people out of lower classes without making special exceptions based on race. This type of thinking lead to the "social promotion" in the public schools that turned out to be one of the most damaging thing ever done the children in the public schools. When they tried to end it people said is was "racism"

"militarization" Ha. That a laugh. Who was running the cites back then? I don't think Reagan, Carter or Clinton were ever mayors. If this is your idea of a conspiracy theory it's rather weak.

<STRONG>You pay dues even if you don't agree because it's part of an effort to democratize the workplace, however modestly. (Just like you pay taxes even if you don't agree with the government.) Sure, lots of unions are run by conservative jack@$$es that refuse to challenge the bosses and defend jobs, etc. That's why you fight for better union leaders, and if they continue to suck, you act without them. But that's against the law (one of those anti-union laws). A union leader who refuses to fight for better pay should be replaced by one who does by democratic vote of the members.

Without a union, we're only left with the autocracy of management. Particularly in the South, which clings to your precious anti-union laws fiercely. No rights in the workplace. You can be fired without cause and without right of appeal.</STRONG>

Maybe I don't want to pay for the "democratize the workplace". Maybe I want to keep my money. Or maybe I want to join a different union and give my money to something else.

I pay txes because I was born into the system. You're born a citizen of the country. No one is born into a union. If you don't want to pay, in some areas, your only choice is to not work. Great. Land of the free? Not of the unions have their way.

<STRONG>Sorry. I was wondering if that would be confusing. I meant to imply that any and all military spending was wasteful.</STRONG>

That whole "protection of the US" think is written into the Constitution. We could argue about how big the military needs to be. When we airlift a bunch of guy to stomp out "ethnic cleansing" in Europe (why can't the *&%#ing Europeans take care of their own *&^#?) I'm sure you're all for it.

<STRONG>As for the Education Department losing the money. Yeah I guess that sucks. They shouldn't have lost it. (I admit I don't know anything about it: when did they lose it? over how many years? what percentage of their budget was that?) But is it really logical to conclude that government is incapable of educating its people? And that churches and corporations would do a better job?</STRONG>

And you call me naive and ignorant? Read a paper and not the workers' paper. The federal government does not educate one kid in this country. No one. Why does that department need so much money of it doesn't educate one kid?

Many a poor black kid in Chicago escape the crappy public schools by going to the Catholic school system. Maybe the tax money could help his parent offset the cost. After all the kids not using resources in the public school. OOOPPPSS! Unions wont allow it.

<STRONG>Again, you are even more naive than I thought if you think your father came up with that phrase. Or were you trying to be all "down-homey" and populist by working in a reference to the supposed home-spun wisdom of your father?


If your dad told you he came up with that saying, all I can say is you've been lied to by a whole bunch of people.</STRONG>

Uhhhh! You're being annoying again. When did I ever say my father "came up with that phrase". I just said he said it. Don't be such a haughty prick. I know it's hard for member of the left not to be that way.

[Scott_H]

Originally posted by Treebeard:
<STRONG>Of course, you try to ignore my main point: that the Democrats are not the left. I'm all for Democrat-bashing. They're awful.</STRONG>

Uhhhhh! I didn't ignore it. I just didn't reply to it. Don't be so nit picky annoying. I read it. I understood it. I just didn't have a reply to it. Sure wrt to the rest of the worlds democracies most of us are to the right of that. Happy?

<STRONG>
You're right. It is inefficient. Three cents of every dollar goes to insurance administration with socialized health care. Under the private modern US system, 27 cents out of every dollar goes to insurance administration. And of course, with socialized medicine, everyone is covered. Under the US system, about 43 million people have no insurance. That will increase dramatically if we slip into a recession.</STRONG>

So ahhh where do you get your numbers from? How do you explain the lack of care in places like Canada and Holland? Personally I don't like waiting for cancer treatment.

<STRONG>Who says 4 to 10 times higher? What is that based on? By when? Or is this just silly rhetoric? And in any case, dirty energy can increase pretty fast too. They're already twice what they were last year with the free market system.</STRONG>

I was thinking solar. Some news show priced it out. It can't pay for itself over the grid. The up front cost are high and they don't last long enough to pay themselves off.

<STRONG>I love the El. Here in Atlanta, however, our public transportation system in a laughingstock. It's expensive. Trains come every 45 minutes (hardly "rapid transit"). And they don't go anywhere (we have a grand total of 2 lines:rolleyes . Rush "hour" lasts from 3:30 to 7:00. At the height, our 16-lane superhighways are effectively parking lots.

What's the solution proposed by both Democrats and Republicans? An HOV lane. </STRONG>

Every wonder why it goes nowhere? Because the cost of going everywhere are to too high. But lets just create a new tax on the rich to pay for it.

<STRONG>Not impossible. It would just cut into some corporate profits for a while.

Wind, hydroelectric, tidal, and solar power are all proven technologies.

A low level of "unavoidable" pollution can be absorbed by the environment...provided we have enough trees and wilderland to do the absorbing.</STRONG>

Solar cost too much. The Euros are working on wind. We'll see how that pans out. HYDRO!!!! You forget about the tree toes blue eyed sucker hoot frog! Greens wont allow more hydro.

Maybe in 100 years we'll have a good way to make no emission power but not any time soon.

<STRONG>Spending has only gone up in absolute terms. Accounting for inflation and increased enrollment, spending per pupil has stagnated. This at a time when about 50% of school buildings need to be replaced. Massive cash infusion is needed. But that even understates what's going on. In reality, spending per pupil in some districts--usually suburbs--has increased. In most, it has fallen.</STRONG>]

Please read an award winning article on the subject. More Money? In fact read all of them. You are too "naive" and need to open your eyes a bit.

<STRONG>It's a deal. Take 'em all. And give us an equal number of teachers. Let's see what happens to crime rates.</STRONG>

You're kids will be just as dumb and your streets will be a war zone. At least this guy figured it out. read to the end

<STRONG>You are even more naive than I thought if you think NMD is going to lead to anything other than another wasteful arms race. China has already increased its military budget 12% in response. Furthermore, NMD is as big a fantasy as Reagan's Star Wars lunacy. Ever hear of Dr. Postol? Why is the pentagon trying to shut him up?</STRONG>

China's increase is not in response to the missile defense. China is a communist dictatorship looking to increase its influence in the pacific. That's why they're spending more. Not "in response" to the US.

<STRONG>Affirmative action does work. Rather, strong affirmative action works. Weak affirmative action doesn't. Affirmative action was declawed back under that stalwart of the left Jimmy Carter with the Bakke decision. Until then, Blacks and women--why do people always forget to include women in discussions of AA?--(but not gays) made fantastic leaps in a few very short years. After Bakke, that slowed to a crawl, and paled in the face of the massive militarization of the inner cities initiated under Reagan (but continued under Bush and Clinton), with the resulting explosion in the number and percent of black males in prison.</STRONG>

Yea. That whole "Constitution" and "Bill of Rights" thing is always getting in the way of "real progress" Making a preferred class in this country is no way to run it. There are way to help people out of lower classes without making special exceptions based on race. This type of thinking lead to the "social promotion" in the public schools that turned out to be one of the most damaging thing ever done the children in the public schools. When they tried to end it people said is was "racism"

"militarization" Ha. That a laugh. Who was running the cites back then? I don't think Reagan, Carter or Clinton were ever mayors. If this is your idea of a conspiracy theory it's rather weak.

<STRONG>You pay dues even if you don't agree because it's part of an effort to democratize the workplace, however modestly. (Just like you pay taxes even if you don't agree with the government.) Sure, lots of unions are run by conservative jack@$$es that refuse to challenge the bosses and defend jobs, etc. That's why you fight for better union leaders, and if they continue to suck, you act without them. But that's against the law (one of those anti-union laws). A union leader who refuses to fight for better pay should be replaced by one who does by democratic vote of the members.

Without a union, we're only left with the autocracy of management. Particularly in the South, which clings to your precious anti-union laws fiercely. No rights in the workplace. You can be fired without cause and without right of appeal.</STRONG>

Maybe I don't want to pay for the "democratize the workplace". Maybe I want to keep my money. Or maybe I want to join a different union and give my money to something else.

I pay txes because I was born into the system. You're born a citizen of the country. No one is born into a union. If you don't want to pay, in some areas, your only choice is to not work. Great. Land of the free? Not of the unions have their way.

<STRONG>Sorry. I was wondering if that would be confusing. I meant to imply that any and all military spending was wasteful.</STRONG>

That whole "protection of the US" think is written into the Constitution. We could argue about how big the military needs to be. When we airlift a bunch of guy to stomp out "ethnic cleansing" in Europe (why can't the *&%#ing Europeans take care of their own *&^#?) I'm sure you're all for it.

<STRONG>As for the Education Department losing the money. Yeah I guess that sucks. They shouldn't have lost it. (I admit I don't know anything about it: when did they lose it? over how many years? what percentage of their budget was that?) But is it really logical to conclude that government is incapable of educating its people? And that churches and corporations would do a better job?</STRONG>

And you call me naive and ignorant? Read a paper and not the workers' paper. The federal government does not educate one kid in this country. No one. Why does that department need so much money of it doesn't educate one kid?

Many a poor black kid in Chicago escape the crappy public schools by going to the Catholic school system. Maybe the tax money could help his parent offset the cost. After all the kids not using resources in the public school. OOOPPPSS! Unions wont allow it.

<STRONG>Again, you are even more naive than I thought if you think your father came up with that phrase. Or were you trying to be all "down-homey" and populist by working in a reference to the supposed home-spun wisdom of your father?


If your dad told you he came up with that saying, all I can say is you've been lied to by a whole bunch of people.</STRONG>

Uhhhh! You're being annoying again. When did I ever say my father "came up with that phrase". I just said he said it. Don't be such a haughty prick. I know it's hard for member of the left not to be that way.

[itai195]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
<STRONG>The Free Market: The free market sees to it that everything ends up in the right place -- that is, it makes sure that only the worthy get rich. All millionaires and billionaires have worked hard for their money (without any government subsidies), and they deserve the rewards of their work. But they need all the help they can get from the government (with unlimited tax loopholes) and the universities (developing their products with government subsidies). Having money stimulates the rich to further economic activity that ultimately benefits the rest of us to further economic activity that ultimately benefits the rich. The cardinal principle of the free market is unrestrained competition, which is a kind of un-real tournament that will decide which is the world's champion corporation. Ultimately, thanks to this principle, there will be only one corporation, which will be wonderfully simplifying. After that, we will rest in peace.
</STRONG>

I generally agree with your argument, but I think you're exaggerating to a large extent with this paragraph. Hardly anybody in America since the 1930s (or really, since the 1910s) would agree with most of that statement. Trickle down economics maybe, but unrestrained competition and total lack of regulations? That's not quite the case...

And now to Scott_H...

I was thinking solar. Some news show priced it out. It can't pay for itself over the grid. The up front cost are high and they don't last long enough to pay themselves off.

Really? I've heard about quite a few Californians who've installed solar panels in their homes and now not only generate enough power for their own homes but at times PG&E actually owes them money. Anyway, solar energy isn't the only form of clean energy...

Every wonder why it goes nowhere? Because the cost of going everywhere are to too high. But lets just create a new tax on the rich to pay for it.

If you didn't notice, you just stated how great your public transportation is because it goes everywhere and is cheap, yet here you're saying that extensive public transportation is a bad idea? Huh? Nice way to contradict your earlier statement. I'd remind you of the logical fallacy you made but I'm too lazy to go look up the exact name for it. Living in the SF Bay Area I can tell you that public transportation here isn't very extensive -- BART doesn't go to the south bay at all, San Jose's Lightrail is a COMPLETE JOKE (yay, lets take a train that goes in a straight line from one place nobody wants to go to to another place nobody wants to go to), CalTrans is slow and expensive, and Amtrak is, well, Amtrak. Despite this, BART manages to carry more passengers in one day than any US airline... What does that tell you? Obviously a lot of people want to use public transportation -- if we actually make it useful in more parts of the country then that could greatly alleviate congestion on our highways and reduce pollution.

Please read an award winning article on the subject. More Money? In fact read all of them. You are too "naive" and need to open your eyes a bit.

That's nice, you try to argue against a liberal by citing an article that supports a point of view even many conservatives don't agree with. The increased spending hasn't had much of a positive effect because a lot of the money hasn't been wisely spent. Many schools are still deteriorating and teachers are still paid ridiculously low salaries. Private schools aren't the answer, that's just yet another way to reward the privileged and punish the rest.

Yea. That whole "Constitution" and "Bill of Rights" thing is always getting in the way of "real progress" Making a preferred class in this country is no way to run it. There are way to help people out of lower classes without making special exceptions based on race.

While I'm not a supporter of Affirmative Action, this statement makes it pretty clear you really don't know what it is. Affirmative Action doesn't make a preferred class, in essence it's merely a tie breaking measure. I don't think it was applied properly though, especially in public universities.

The federal government does not educate one kid in this country. No one. Why does that department need so much money of it doesn't educate one kid?

Hmm, perhaps because it pays for state programs that do?

Many a poor black kid in Chicago escape the crappy public schools by going to the Catholic school system.

That's nice, lets just make everyone go to religious schools... That wouldn't happen to violate anything in your cherished Bill of Rights now would it?

Anyway, good points treebeard but I disagree on military spending. Thinking that all military spending is wasteful seems a bit naive doesn't it? Are you suggesting the US doesn't face any threat from any foreign nations? I may consider myself liberal but I can see that military spending is a necessarily evil -- though certainly not at Bush levels.

Anyway, Davis is an idiot. But that doesn't get Bush off the hook for letting the most economically prosperous state in the country flounder while the rest of the nation is in the middle of a recession. I have to wonder, if Texas was having this problem, what would Bush have done?

[ 08-01-2001: Message edited by: itai195 ]

[Arty50]

Treebeard,

Ideals and reality are vastly different. Case in point.

Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan increased the size of the police force and crime has plumetted. LA is a much safer city than it used to be. Ask anyone who's lived there for at least 10 years. Let's use my brother's neighborhood as a perfect example. Before the increase, he was lucky if he saw a police car drive down his block more than once a month. Now he sees a patrol go by once or more a day. Crime in his neighborhood has dropped significantly. The LAPD was way too spread out before. They couldn't patrol neighborhoods often enough to ward off criminals. Now not only can the police demonstrate a presence, but they have implemented measures to get feedback from citizens on their individual beats. This allows citizen complaints to get handled much more swiftly and efficiently. Please don't spout off BS about less cops when the reality of the situation is much different. Oh, and one more thing, teachers can't patrol neighborhoods for kids that are playing hooky. They have to teach class. Cops fill that role. I used to live next to a public middle school and kids were always hopping the fence in the middle of the day. A police presence was nonexistant in the area, and the children had no fear of reprimand. The residents constantly complained about this and the resultant problems (vandalism, loitering, littering, etc) to no avail. Police would have solved this.

<STRONG>[snip pro-business factless rhetorical assertions]
My father used to say the worst thing you could ever hear in your life was, "We are from the government and we are here to help"</STRONG>

How can anyone really criticise this? Treebeard, obviously you've never worked for the government. I do indirectly, and let me say right now that this is the most utterly inefficient way of operating a business I've ever seen. The amount of regulations and red tape is staggering. And I deal with one of the most historically autonomous organizations in the government. Things used to get done around here really quickly, but as the bureaucracy has crept into this program things have slowed down significantly and costs have gone up in response. That's just the way it works.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Arty50:
<STRONG> I do indirectly, and let me say right now that this is the most utterly inefficient way of operating a business I've ever seen. </STRONG>

Hmm, first of all the government isn't a business and shouldn't be operated like a business. That's one of the first things they teach budding political scientists in school

That said, I work for the state of california for summer and I have to agree. I do nothing, most people here do nothing, and it's all a collosal waste of money...

As far as crime goes... I think you're missing treebeard's point. Increasing the size of the police force is a very narrow minded and short term solution. That's the thinking that has made America have one of the highest proportionate prison populations in the world. The more cops you have, the more people you'll end up putting in prison. Cops aren't a solution to the root of the crime problem, they're merely a way to remedy it once the damage has already been done. They're also a way to provide a false sense of security for Americans. Oooh there are cops around, now nothing bad can possibly happen... ridiculous. If we actually build an effective educational system that's about as great a crime deterrent as you can have. That's attacking the problem at its root, not attempting to patch it up with a quick fix. The unfortunate thing is that in reality it's easier to patch up a few holes in the wall rather than tear the whole thing down and rebuild it... of course, once there are enough holes you're going to be pretty screwed And sheesh, using the LAPD of all possible examples? Is there a police force in the world with a more racist and intolerant history?

[gwrjr33]

Originally posted by itai195:

<STRONG>That wouldn't happen to violate anything in your cherished Bill of Rights now would it?</STRONG>

I would hope you too cherish the Bill of Rights. Anyway Scott didn't say everyone should go to religious schools. He just said that kids trapped in lousy schools should be able to access the alternative that's already there.

More later. Go to go.