Text 15272, 147 rader
Skriven 2005-09-14 07:26:24 av John Hull (1:123/789.0)
  Kommentar till text 15264 av Darryl Perry (1:106/324)
Ärende: One Thing I've Learned!
===============================
Darryl Perry -> John Hull wrote:
 DP> On 09-13-05, John Hull said...

 JB>>>> Interesting lesson.  So you've realized socialism is not a
 DP> good thin

 DP>>> That's not what I said at all.  My statements had nothing to do
 DP> with
 DP>>> socialism.  If you have gripes about socialism, then start you own
 JH>> thread.
 DP>>> Don't go trying to hijack mine.

 JH>> Sorry, doesn't work that way.  What you wrote smacked of socialism,
 DP> which
 JH>> why he called you on it.  Seemed that way to me, too.

 DP> Socialism is an econimic phenomenon.  I wasn't talking about econimics.

Baloney.  Socialism is nothing but communism is a country where it isn't in
majority control.

 DP>>> The statements I made were critical of the current administrations
 JH>> ability
 DP>>> to protect us from catestrophic events, be they natural or by
 DP> human
 DP>>> intervention.  This administration rose to power on the back of
 DP> 9/11
 DP>>> the
 DP>>> so called 'War on Terror'.  It created a bloated federal agency
 DP> who's
 JH>> sole
 DP>>> purpose in life is to protect us on our 'homeland'.  Basically,
 DP> this
 DP>>> administration is showing me that it can't live up to it's
 DP> promises.

 JH>> Now that's a pure D falsehood.  9/11 didn't take place until 8
 DP> months afte
 JH>> took office.  He was still trying to clean up the mess Clinton left
 DP> behind
 JH>> And let's not forget that most of what happened in the month or two
 DP> after
 JH>> took place in a heavily bi-partisan fervor to get even for 9/11.  I
 DP> will a
 JH>> remind you that it was Democrat Joseph Lieberman who proposed the
 DP> bill tha
 JH>> created DHS, and that it passed in a heavily bi-partisan manner.
 DP> So, if
 JH>> you're going to start pointing fingers of blame, you'd better point
 DP> them a
 JH>> those on both sides and not just the President.

 DP> Read what I said again.  I don't don't see that I was pointing a finger at
 DP> any one person.  If you are seeing that, then that is a result of you
 DP> reading
 DP> things into my statements that arn't there.   As everybody in this echo is
 DP> so quick to point out, the president cannot make all the changes himself.
 DP> Such changes require the legislation from the House and Senate as well as
 DP> the white house.  All of which are as eaqually culpable.

YOU said, and I quote:  "THIS administration rose to power on the back of 9/11
and the so-called 'war on terror.'"  My emphasis, but you are clearly putting
the blame on Bush.  And, as we must continually remind you, if CLINTON had done
his job, there wouldn't have been a 9/11 or a war on terror.

 DP>>> Now, having said that, I don't believe that the federal
 DP> government OW
 JH>> any
 DP>>> such promises to the people.  The problem lies in the fact that
 DP> the
 JH>> people
 DP>>> feel that they are entitled to such aid from the government.
 DP> The cur
 DP>>> administration plays to that angle and has siezed the
 DP> opportunity to
 DP>>> savior to the masses. Sadly, they don't live up to the hype.
 DP> But tha
 DP>>> ok.

 JH>> And whose fault is it that they have grown to expect that sort of
 DP> thing?
 JH>> is it that created the New Deal "cradle to grave welfare state" that
 DP> was t
 JH>> law of the land from the 1930's on?  Who passed the Great Society in
 DP> the 6
 JH>> that added several more layers of bureaucracy and tons more of
 DP> entitlement

 JH>> Liberals created a monstrous junkie that needed constant fixes of
 DP> cash to
 JH>> afloat.  Sooner or later, it all had to come to a crashing halt.
 DP> That's w
 JH>> happened in New Orleans.

 DP> And conservatism, the other end of the swinging pendulum, is not the
answer
 DP> either.  The current administration is heavily conservative, and yet it
 DP> defies the concepts of the RNC WRT smaller government vs larger
government.
 DP> The size of the government and the bloat just keeps on growing and
growing,
 DP> and it's effectiveness is diminishing.

The usual comeback - "you haven't fixed things either, so you're more at fault
than we are."  Pathetic.  Expecting the opposition to undo 60 odd years of
liberalism in just a few years is just plain stupid.  You can't reduce what has
become institutionalized over a 60 year period by just taking an axe and
chopping off the excess unless you want to collapse the whole thing around your
head.

 DP>>> It's not the administration that needs to come tumbling down so
 DP> much
 JH>> it
 DP>>> is the peoples expectations need to be overhauled.  Once one is
 DP> achie
 DP>>> the other will follow.  Naturally, I'm not holding my breath.

 JH>> The best way to fix things is to make sure the liberals never regain
 DP> power
 JH>> and continue reforms that encourage all those poor people to stand
 DP> on thei
 JH>> own two feet and learn how to do for themselves instead of waiting
 DP> for the
 JH>> government dole.

 DP> Right now I see that the conservatives are in power and there is no sign
 DP> that things are getting better.   Bigger government, corruption, spin,
 DP> half-truths, being "on message", the list goes on.  You can't sit there
and
 DP> tell me that the source of all our woes lies solely at the feet of the
 DP> liberals.  There is too much evidence to the contrary.

Try watching the Roberts hearings.  You'll see exactly what the Democrat
message is.  You'll see exactly what has lead us to the current point in time. 
Confirming John Roberts is a big step toward limiting the damage done by
liberals over the last 6 decades.


 DP> There has to be something better than what we have available to us then
 DP> what we are currently presented with.

Its hard to get people to step up and serve when the waters have been so
poisoned by those intent on regaining power at ANY cost - up to and including
damage to this country.

--- Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716)
 * Origin:  (1:123/789.0)