Text 3057, 391 rader
Skriven 2006-06-29 11:07:00 av Robert E Starr JR (3530.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Josh Hill to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <br36a25t7u29ft21jbptij097hk42c528a@4ax.com>
@REPLY: <qv3p82l5efiuo3tnh9t68sh5udanal89f4@4ax.com>
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 03:28:41 +0000 (UTC), "Carl"
<cengman7@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I've resisted a lot of oppoirtunities to take issue with some rather=20
>one-sided comments you've said int he past.  For the most part, I decide=
d=20
>that there's not really much point because you tend to interpret everyth=
ing=20
>through a particular prism in which almost anything bad gets blamed on o=
ne=20
>side and almost everything good is Dem. Even if you accept something is=20
>less than optimal on the Dem side, you always follow up with "Yeah, but=20
>they're worse."

Carl, why would I be a Democrat if I didn't believe that the
Republicans were worse? And doesn't the very fact that I am willing to
acknowledge and criticize what I see as the shortcomings of the
Democratic Party tell you that my view is anything but one sided?

Hell, I've said it often enough, but I was a Giuliani supporter in New
York. I supported -- reluctantly and, as it turned out, mistakenly --
our entry into Iraq and have, at various times, defended Dubya and his
cronies when I thought they were being unfairly targeted, e.g., in my
excoriation of "Fahrenheit 9/11." So while left of center, I'm hardly
knee-jerk.

No one can hope to be completely objective, least of all me, but it
seems to me I'm more willing than most who hold my views to
acknowledge the achievements of the other side and the flaws of my own
-- and very much more willing than most of the Republicans and
Conservatives with whom I converse, at least on Usenet.

But neither am I blind.

The problem, in a nutshell, is that the national GOP has gone to hell.
Once upon a time, the parties were more ambiguous than they are. The
GOP had its Taft Wing and its isolationists and McCarthy and Nixon,
but they had their Roosevelt wing as well. The Democrats had FDR and
Truman, but they also had their Jim Crow segregationists and Tammany
Hall political machines.

But now the GOP is beholden to big business and their sometime
playtoy, the extremists of the religious right. It's corrupt than the
Democrats, more beholden to special interests, more given to hitting
below the belt, less likely to select even minimally competent
leaders.

I may and do criticize LBJ for getting us into Vietnam or Carter for
his ineffectuality or Clinton for his dishonesty. But Richard Nixon?
George W. Bush? This just isn't the party of Lincoln or Roosevelt or
Eisenhower anymore, or even the late Barry Goldwater and John McCain
and Rudi Giuliani, men with whom I may have had disagreements but who
have earned my respect. There are lots of people like that in the GOP,
but the national party has gone to the dark side, and the good people
in it, the Christie Todd Whitmans and the Colin Powells and so many
others, have been reduced to frustrated impotence.

>Back on Gates, you complained that he hadn't given enough away, and yet =
when=20
>I mentioned that Gates said he would be giving almost all of his wealth =
away=20
>and didn't think it was good to leave his kids all his wealth you basica=
lly=20
>said "yeah, it fugures he'd short change his kids too." or something clo=
se=20
>to that.  He hasn';t given enough away, but when he does he's mean to hi=
s=20
>kids.  No matter what happens, you tend to contort it to always be the w=
orst=20
>possible interpretation of someone that isn't a Dem.

If I did say that (I don't remember having done so, but that doesn't
mean anything these days) it was more than slightly tongue-in-cheek.

As to Gates, I had no knowledge of his political affiliation.

And now let me set that on its head: why are you and a few others so
into defending a man who according to virtually every account is
universally despised and awful? What does it mean that you admire
someone like that?

>Now...to politics...
>
>Systematic slurs?  Consider Howard Dean.  He's as vile as Anne Coulter. =
 How=20
>many times has he used the word Racist?  Not against a Republican... aga=
inst=20
>Republicans as a whole.

I don't really know. Hell, AFAIK, I've never heard him use that word.
So I'd have to see context to make a judgment.

That being said, I'm not wild about Dean and never was: like most of
those who voted in the primaries, I found him too, well, mean. Which
said, I've never seen him say anything remotely comparable to Coulter.
Hell, I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone match her unique combination
of malice, demagoguery, and stupidity, but then don't hold me to that,
because I probably have and have probably forgotten her too.

>Harry Reid couldn't wait to accuse Reps of being=20
>racist because they wanted to close the borders...until of course the=20
>politics of the situation made him shut up.

Loaded statement. Reread it with a critical eye.

>  Charlie Rangle shouts racist=20
>every chance he gets.  Not to an indiviual... to Republicans.  Broad str=
okes=20
>there.

Again, you'd have to give me an example.

>Then there's the Dem Representatrive that hit a cop because he was=20
>doing a job, then claimed racism the very first chance she got too.

Again, I've no idea. But whatever the merit of your accusations, it
seems to me that you're scrounging: one will always find people in
either party with whom one disagrees. And this is a typical tactic of
Republican spin: try to wiggle out of your bank heist by equating it
to the other fellow's cookie theft.

>Then there's the constant put downs towards the religious right.  The wa=
y=20
>Dems scream, one would think that you have to be born again to be a=20
>Republican.  The way many people speak, anyomne that's not a Dem is a=20
>"neocon."  Wrong.

A. The religious right quite deserves it: their leaders are typically
greedy demagogues who twist religion to their own political ends and
their flocks are almost inconceivably naive. The televangelists and
their cronies take advantage of and distort something good -- a
genuine faith and desire for an old-fashioned way of doing things that
was not entirely without merit.

B. Said by whom? We in the rank and file are free to say what we
think, although as a matter of courtesy we seldom do. Our leadership
almost never does.

C. When have Republicans ever refrained from insulting those on the
radical fringes of the left -- communists, socialists, anarchists, and
the like?

D. In what sense does the typical behavior of Democrats equate to that
of the conservative who yesterday evening called me on another
newsgroup a "leftist fag?"

I wish I could call that an isolated or unusual incident, but it
wasn't: it's par for the course.

E. Where have I ever suggested that all Republicans were neocons?

But perhaps it would be best to let conservative icon Barry Goldwater,
a man who whatever his views was never without principles, speak about
the religious right:

''The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people
have the right to live life as they please, as long as they don't hurt
anyone else in the process. . . .

"'The radical right has nearly ruined our party.

''Its members do not care about the Constitution and they are the one
making all the noise."
                        =20
                                * * *
                              =20
''I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the
ass.'

                                * * *=20

"In 1989, Goldwater said the Republican Party had been taken over by a
'bunch of kooks,' a reference to forces supporting TV evangelist Pat
Robertson and Mecham."

>Dirty political tricks? Consider the son of the Dem candidate in Milwauk=
ee=20
>that was convicted of slashing the trires ona number of vehicles the Rep=
s=20
>had to bring voters to polls.  Another person was arrested ( A veteran D=
emo=20
>activist), but I don't recall hearing the outcome if his trial.
>
>http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=3D273074
>
>The son (Sowande Ajumoke Omokunde) and three other Dem campaign workers =
were=20
>ordered to serve 4-6 months in prison and pay restitution.
>
>Then there's the gunshots into GOP political headquarters around the cou=
ntry=20
>last election cycle.

This is /exactly/ the sort of how-can-people-fall-for-this
conservative spin I'm talking about. A /tire slashing?/ As against
what, Tom DeLay and Carl Rove? Do you know what these men have done?
What Tom DeLay did to the ethical standards of Congress, his
institutionalization of what was in effect extortion and the sale of
votes? You're equating a leaky rowboat with the Titanic.

>Consider the hypocrisy of Nancy Pelosi, who once said "One threat to our=
=20
>Constitution, indeed to our participatory democracy, is the role of the=20
>special interest money in the political process today"and "extremists in=
 the=20
>Republican Party who have repeatedly tried to undermine campaign finance=
=20
>reform" and of "sneaky tactics employed by the Republicans."
>
>Shortly thereafter she was caught with campaign finance improprieties, a=
nd=20
>had to shut down her Team Majority PAC.   The FEC imposed fines.  Althou=
gh=20
>Team Majority didn't offically exist until Oct 16, 2002 it had been rais=
ing=20
>money since April.  Within 24 hours of being caught and an complaint fil=
es=20
>with the FEC, Pelosi shut down the PAC.
>
>That PAC was a second PAC.  Members of either party are only allowed 1=20
>leadership PAC. Apparently doners gave the max to both PACs, in violatio=
n of=20
>the rules.  Her comments on undermining campaign finance reform ring pre=
tty=20
>hollow..
>
>http://www.nlpc.org/view.asp?action=3DviewArticle&aid=3D456

Just more tired spin of the aforesaid sort. I find it inconceivable
that people fall for this stuff.

>Then of course there's Hillary Clinton's campaign finance irregularities=
=20
>too.

None that I know of.

>Remember Dan Rostenkowski?  I do, I'm originally from IL.
>
>Consider the hypocrasy of the Dems screaming how bad the Reps were over =
the=20
>influence of Abramoff, only to get caught having done the same thing...r=
ight=20
>up to Harry Ried, Dick Gephart, and Tom Daschle.

>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/03/politics/main699506.shtml?CMP=3D=
OTC-RSSFeed&source=3DRSS&attr=3DPolitics_699506

From your article:

"While Abramoff =96 a $100,000-plus fundraiser for President Bush =96 and
his firm channeled most of their clients' money to Republicans . . . "

Just another example of the lopsided spin to which I'm referring. I
don't support the Democrats because I think they're perfect, but
because as flawed as they are they're better than the Republicans.

BTW, the lopsided and frequently erroneous reporting about Abramoff
and the Democrats was and is a serious sore point among many liberals.
The press in many cases made it sound like the parties had an even
remotely equal involvement, when that wasn't even remotely true. And
Carl Rove is laughing all the way to the bank, because he knows that
many voters won't understand that.

>Howard Dean accused the GOP of abusing junkets and taking perks, yet the=
 top=20
>10 travelers for the last 5 years in both the House and  Senate have bee=
n=20
>Dems, according to PolticalMoneyLine.com.  Tied for first are Maxine Wat=
ers=20
>and John Breaux...with 61 trips each.

And this means what?

I didn't think so. Assuming it's true -- and I've learned that in most
cases, the claims of the Republican smear machine aren't -- there's no
context. It's yet another example of the obvious spin I was talking
about.

Coming up next: Joe Blow missed 75 votes in Congress last year! Never
mind that he was campaigning for President at the time . . .=20

>> B. But, since you mention it, " 'I'm not an enthusiast for dynastic
>> wealth, particularly when 6 billion others have much poorer hands than
>> we do in life,' Mr. Buffett said at the New York Public Library, where
>> he was appearing with Bill and Melinda Gates, the only Americans
>> richer than he is."
>>
>
>One thing that's always struck me as odd.   In every state where there h=
as=20
>been the opportunity to pay extra when the tax bill comes, Dems don't.  =
No=20
>state has reported any significant revenue from extra donations.  Raisin=
g=20
>taxes doesn't seem to be about raising money to do things...(if it were =
they=20
>would simply donate more to the govt and be done with it)... it's about=20
>making others pay more.  How do some (I'm not speaking of anyone here) c=
laim=20
>moral superiority by virtue of wanting to help people when they'll only =
help=20
>if they can force others to pay?

Because individual giving don't mean shit.

Sorry for being coarse, but liberals, being educated (and -- twice
burnt and twice shy -- please don't take that literally -- it's a
snide hyperbole and was intended to be) understand statistics and the
fact that individual giving for social purposes is dwarfed by
government expenditures.

There's nothing wrong with charity, but liberals aren't so naive as to
think that it's more than a drop in the bucket.

Bottom line: Dems have to pay the taxes they support, including rich
ones. When Ted Kennedy supports the estate tax, he does so knowing
that he and his dynasty will have to make a personal sacrifice.

And this is another obvious example of the way exploitative Republican
elites set things on their head to confuse the rank and file, taking
the actions of those who /are/ willing to pay more in taxes to help
the poor and making them look like they're the opposite of /not/ being
willing to lend a helping hand. As with the examples above, they get
away with it because they know that many voters aren't familiar with
the quantitative aspect.

>Ted Kennedy has plenty of money.  Al Gore is reportedly worth over $100=20
>million.  The richest prople in both the House and Senate are Dems. Why=20
>aren't they giving the majority of their wealth away?

You'd have to ask them.

>I've said this a number of times before... I'm not even a Republican.  I=
=20
>just don't like one-sided arguments.  I feel compelled to take the other=
=20
>side. :)   Neither side can lay claim to being particularly worthy of th=
e=20
>public trust.  I'd like to see every single one of them replaced with pe=
ople=20
>that aren't motivated to see themselves on the news.

And I've said often enough that I believe many of our current problems
are global, that they affect both parties. Here's an example: Bill
Clinton refused to tighten fuel economy standards because he didn't
want to hurt the American auto industry, which is dependent on the
sale of SUV's. Right from an environmental perspective? No, and I was
bothered by his lapse at the time. And Dubya, of course, has done the
same. But when one compares Clinton's overall environmental record,
one finds that he was pro-environment and conservation while Dubya is
strongly anti-. So my "vote" goes to Clinton. And so it is down the
line.

You speak of one-sidedness, and I agree that it's a danger. But overly
enthusiastic relativism is a danger too. The Democrats didn't give us
Richard Nixon. The Democrats didn't give us George W. Bush. I don't
always agree with the Democrats, but to equate the parties is to take
an essentially cynical view that precludes the possibility of change.



>Carl
>Given a choice between two theories, take the one which is funnier.
> -- Blore's Razor
>
>
>
>

--=20
Josh

"I love it when I'm around the country club, and I hear people talking ab=
out the debilitating
effects of a welfare society. At the same time, they leave their kids a l=
ifetime and beyond
of food stamps. Instead of having a welfare officer, they have a trust of=
ficer. And instead
of food stamps, they have stocks and bonds."

- Warren Buffett
                        
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)