Text 3068, 596 rader
Skriven 2006-06-29 11:15:00 av Robert E Starr JR (3541.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
  * * * This message was from Carl to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *   
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <xeSdnWA3nOLewD7ZnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com>
@REPLY: <qv3p82l5efiuo3tnh9t68sh5udanal89f4@4ax.com>

"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:br36a25t7u29ft21jbptij097hk42c528a@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
>>one-sided comments you've said int he past.  For the most part, I decided
>>that there's not really much point because you tend to interpret 
>>everything
>>through a particular prism in which almost anything bad gets blamed on one
>>side and almost everything good is Dem. Even if you accept something is
>>less than optimal on the Dem side, you always follow up with "Yeah, but
>>they're worse."

>Carl, why would I be a Democrat if I didn't believe that the
>Republicans were worse?

One does not necessarily follow the other.  It is quite possible
to believe in conservative or liberal ideals and not agree with the people
that happen to be currently in a party that's closer to your beliefs.

The underlying ideals  that you believe in should have nothing to do
with specific people.  My own beliefs, which tend more towards
conservative, but I've voted for people of either party and don't consider
myself bound to either party, hjave nothing to do with what any one else
may have done.

I don't vote against one person.  If I can't vote for someone I won't vote.


>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?

Your criticism of the Democratic party is always half hearted at
best...and always followed by "But they're worse."  I can't think
of any time in recent memory when you've seemed willing to even
entertain the *possibility* that someone in the GOP is a good person.


>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.

You have made a number of statrements that I personally consider rather
extreme, but that is perhaps just a difference in our personalities.

>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.

I honestly can't recall your mentioning any positive accomplishments of 
Republicans.  I also don't recall your giving a Republican the benefit of 
the doubt in quite a while.

Getting back to Gates for a moment, you were judging him and his charity by 
your perception of his intent, which (unless you know him personally and 
haven't told us) seems like something that you are not really qualified to 
do.

And I've run into people like this on Usenet and at work.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3136366#3136578



>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.

And the Democrats are becoming more extreme, as indicated by their
complete abandonment of moderates such as Joe Lieberman.
People like Howard Dean scream and distort as much as Reps do,
but since it plays to the left they agree more and don't see it as slanted.


>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.

Harry Ried takes expensive tickets to boxing matches while the
Nevada Athletic Commision was trying to influence legislation in the Senate.
John McCain (in contrast) paid for his ticket.

The Dems are controlled by lawyers, unions, and a collection of various 
intrerests
too.  Please don't try to suggest that Dems are immune to outside influence 
because
that's just not true.

>I may and do criticize LBJ for getting us into Vietnam or Carter for
>his ineffectuality or Clinton for his dishonesty. But Richard Nixon?

I think as little of Clinton as I did of Nixon.  FBI files of opposing 
Senators
found (illegally) in the Clinton polical "war room."  IRS audits of Paula 
Jones and
others (and she only made about 20K a year).  Lying under oath.

George W. Bush?

And the Dems that promised to cut spending $2 for every $1 n tax hikes
and then raised spending and never bothered to even pretend to keep
their word.

>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.

I certainly wouldn't argue that, but then again I don't see anyone
in either party that has a shot that's worth anything.  The whole system
is brimming with mediocrity.


>Back on Gates, you complained that he hadn't given enough away, and yet 
>when
>I mentioned that Gates said he would be giving almost all of his wealth 
>away
>and didn't think it was good to leave his kids all his wealth you basically
>said "yeah, it fugures he'd short change his kids too." or something close
>to that.  He hasn';t given enough away, but when he does he's mean to his
>kids.  No matter what happens, you tend to contort it to always be the 
>worst
>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.

It was shortly after the murderer comment so if it was intended that way it 
was hard for me to take it as tongue in cheek.  Perhaps it's my 
problem...one of perception.  Quite possible...but you seem to speak with 
such venom towards a lot of people.

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

I think he gives to both parties, but I expect that he gives more to the GOP 
these days.  That's kind of ironic too, since it was Orinn Hatch that was 
one of the first to go after MS.

> 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?

Much as with most topics, I'm a contrarian.  The latest round started when 
John Kennedy pronounced him "Damned to hell," and that his charitable giving 
was only "trying to buy his way into heaven."  I think there are some people 
here that will recall that I have defended people that I've had significant 
disagreements with in the past...(in fact it was such an act that caused me 
to leave this group for several months).

Also, I don't see what Gates did as very different from what a lot of other 
companies do.  Much like most other celebrities, when they first come into 
social awareness they are built up, but when they become too successful they 
become subject to a herd mentality to tear them back down again.   I know 
that we disagree here, and that's fine... but I think thaty you would agree 
that you're not exactly the most...unbiased and dispassionate of people when 
it comes to the topic of the rich. :)

Mostly, I don't believe it's correct to completely judge a 
person...especially because of one aspect of his life.  Whether you agree 
with business practices or not, I think it inappropriate to assume the rest 
of the person's character is without merit, particularly when he is not only 
giving large sums of money to help people, but he is getting others to do 
the same.  The potential good that he can do with $60 billion dollars (so 
far) is staggering, and he's going to leave MS to oversee it full time. 
Some people are so filled with their hatred of him that they can't even 
acknowledge that he may be doing it because he thinks it's the right thing 
to do.  Is Gates a saint?  Of course not...but he's not Satan either.  He's 
had advantages and made the most of them...and he's had the resources to 
push his competetive nature much farther than most... but he also has done 
some spectacularly good things too.  Anyone that can't see that is too 
biased.


>Now...to politics...
>
>Systematic slurs?  Consider Howard Dean.  He's as vile as Anne Coulter. 
>How
>many times has he used the word Racist?  Not against a Republican... 
>against
>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
>racist because they wanted to close the borders...until of course the
>politics of the situation made him shut up.

Loaded statement. Reread it with a critical eye.

OK...I'll restate it.  Harry Reid's first political instinct was to call the 
GOP
position on immigration Racist on the floor of the Senate.  Since the polls 
came
out and controlled borders are not a politcally unpopular position, he has 
stopped
calling the position racist.


>  Charlie Rangle shouts racist
>every chance he gets.  Not to an indiviual... to Republicans.  Broad 
>strokes
>there.

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

"Republicans and white America want to keep us impoverished and 
controllable."

(I lost the reference...sorry)

"They don't say sp*ck or n*gg*r anymore. They say, 'Let's cut taxes'"
http://www.federalistjournal.com/fedblog/?p=2783



>Then there's the Dem Representatrive that hit a cop because he was
>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.

Actually, that's what I was saying that you do; bring up a problem with
the Dems and you say "But the GOP is worse..."

Note that I've never claimed that the GOP is better, or good.


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

But the rhetoric doesn't distinguish between televangelists and anyone with 
a Christian faith that happens to vote Republican.   I never hear any 
distinction.


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.

<Cough>  Excuse me?  You'r saying the Dems are too polite to take cheap 
shots?


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?"

See the site above and count the number of times "Nazi" is used.


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?

I wasn't speaking of you in this; but it is a common accusation among Dems.



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:

<snipping comments for brevity and I don't take issue with them>

I agree with many of the comments, but they are opinion, not fact.
Diofferent people have different view of what their preferred party should 
be.

Ted Kennedy's view is most likely not the same as Joe Lieberman's.




>Dirty political tricks? Consider the son of the Dem candidate in Milwaukee
>that was convicted of slashing the trires ona number of vehicles the Reps
>had to bring voters to polls.  Another person was arrested ( A veteran Demo
>activist), but I don't recall hearing the outcome if his trial.
>
>http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=273074
>
>The son (Sowande Ajumoke Omokunde) and three other Dem campaign workers 
>were
>ordered to serve 4-6 months in prison and pay restitution.
>
>Then there's the gunshots into GOP political headquarters around the 
>country
>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.

No, I wasn't equating tire slashing with Delay, although he hasn't been 
convicted of anything (yet).

It was more a comment about the complaints of some reports of 
disenfranchised voters and how the GOP always tries to steal elections.

Carl Rove's crime is what exactly?





>Consider the hypocrisy of Nancy Pelosi, who once said "One threat to our
>Constitution, indeed to our participatory democracy, is the role of the
>special interest money in the political process today"and "extremists in 
>the
>Republican Party who have repeatedly tried to undermine campaign finance
>reform" and of "sneaky tactics employed by the Republicans."
>
>Shortly thereafter she was caught with campaign finance improprieties, and
>had to shut down her Team Majority PAC.   The FEC imposed fines.  Although
>Team Majority didn't offically exist until Oct 16, 2002 it had been raising
>money since April.  Within 24 hours of being caught and an complaint files
>with the FEC, Pelosi shut down the PAC.
>
>That PAC was a second PAC.  Members of either party are only allowed 1
>leadership PAC. Apparently doners gave the max to both PACs, in violation 
>of
>the rules.  Her comments on undermining campaign finance reform ring pretty
>hollow..
>
>http://www.nlpc.org/view.asp?action=viewArticle&aid=456

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

Really?  Nancy Pelosi violates election laws, criticizes the GOP about
violating campaign laws and you don't see the hypocracy?
If it were a Republican you would be pointing it out as just another
example of the GOP.....


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

None that I know of.



http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0107052clinton1.html
http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2001/printer_1093.shtml
http://www.axcessnews.com/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=7493
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48217


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

>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/03/politics/main699506.shtml?CMP=OTC-RSSFeed&source=RSS&attr=Politics_699506


/********
From your article:

"While Abramoff - a $100,000-plus fundraiser for President Bush - 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.
*************

Of course the GOP got more money; they're in power.

The point is not that the GOP got more money; it's that both sides took it.

If you only judge a Dem as being 1/2 as bad because they got 1/2 as much,
then I can't relate to that value system.


>Howard Dean accused the GOP of abusing junkets and taking perks, yet the 
>top
>10 travelers for the last 5 years in both the House and  Senate have been
>Dems, according to PolticalMoneyLine.com.  Tied for first are Maxine Waters
>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.

No, it's a matter of your turning a blind eye to things that you don't want 
to hear.
You dismiss the source as part of a smear machine out of hand.

Nancy Pelosi was on a Sunday morning show and expressed outrage at all of
junkets that the GOP took advantage os as part of their "culture of 
corruption."

I bring it up because Pelosi did.  Hypocrisy, table for one.

You also clikpped out the section where Pelosi was caught with campaign 
finance
irregularities too.

Let's see... Harry Reid Leader of the Dems in the Senate takes gifts
Gephart, Daschle, Reid all take money from Abramoff.

Hillary Clinton has finance irregularities and FEC fines are levied.
Howard Dean...well, he's just Howard Dean.

That's significant issues with the major people in the Dem party.
Not just the Dems on the sideline, but the people at the core.

I see no evidence of moral or ethical superiority on either side.


>> 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 has
>been the opportunity to pay extra when the tax bill comes, Dems don't.  No
>state has reported any significant revenue from extra donations.  Raising
>taxes doesn't seem to be about raising money to do things...(if it were 
>they
>would simply donate more to the govt and be done with it)... it's about
>making others pay more.  How do some (I'm not speaking of anyone here) 
>claim
>moral superiority by virtue of wanting to help people when they'll only 
>help
>if they can force others to pay?

Because individual giving don't mean shit.

http://www.allbusiness.com/periodicals/article/660296-1.html

In 2002, charitable donations were $ 240.92 Billion



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.

Yup, tell that to Gates and Buffet.

I guess we have different concepts of "Drop in the buicket."


> 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.

But by your standard, he isn't giving so much that he notices, so it doesn't 
count.


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.

I wasn't turning anything around.  You just don't like the way the question 
was framed.  So?  You can argue that people should pay more in taxes.  It's 
a fair discussion to have (as long as you're specific as to where the money 
goes)... but if Dems believe we should pay more to the govt to pay for 
programs, they should be willing to pay more whether Republicans do or not. 
It's fair to try to raise taxes, but why not give more even if the taxes 
aren't higher?  Why wait until they force others to pay more?

I never said Dems aren't willing to lend a hand.  Some of my best friends 
are Dems that give a great deal in time and money to charity.

I wasn't trying to confuse anyone... *I* was asking the question, and I 
haven't heard anyone else ask that one.


>Ted Kennedy has plenty of money.  Al Gore is reportedly worth over $100
>million.  The richest prople in both the House and Senate are Dems. Why
>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
>just don't like one-sided arguments.  I feel compelled to take the other
>side. :)   Neither side can lay claim to being particularly worthy of the
>public trust.  I'd like to see every single one of them replaced with 
>people
>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.

They gave us LBJ, Carter, and Clinton.

>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.

Yeah..I'm that cynical.  I don't see any reason to think anything is going 
to
get better no matter who has power.

I still think you are overly forgiving of one side and overly damning of the 
other,
but that's fine.  We're different and it makes for some interesting 
discussions.

Thanks for your thoughts.
      
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)