Text 15280, 154 rader
Skriven 2005-09-14 13:59:30 av John Hull (1:123/789.0)
Kommentar till text 15275 av Darryl Perry (1:106/324)
Ärende: One Thing I've Learned!
===============================
Darryl Perry -> John Hull wrote:
DP> On 09-14-05, John Hull said...
DP>>> Read what I said again. I don't don't see that I was pointing
DP> a fing
DP>>> at any one person. If you are seeing that, then that is a
DP> result of
DP>>> you reading things into my statements that arn't there. As
DP>>> everybody in this echo is so quick to point out, the president
DP>>> cannot make all the changes himself. Such changes require the
DP>>> legislation from the House and Senate as well as the white house.
DP>>> All of which are as eaqually culpable.
JH>> YOU said, and I quote: "THIS administration rose to power on the
DP> back of
JH>> and the so-called 'war on terror.'" My emphasis, but you are
DP> clearly putt
JH>> the blame on Bush. And, as we must continually remind you, if
DP> CLINTON had
JH>> done his job, there wouldn't have been a 9/11 or a war on terror.
DP> If you honestly believe that the administration did not get a substantial
DP> boost in their power centers as a result of 9/11, then there is no point
in
DP> continuing any debate.
What exactly do you expect? Business as usual pre-9/11? Most of the problems
encountered on 9/11 were precisely *because of* our open society and adherence
to the Holy Grail of individual rights. It is also important to note that
Senator Joe Lieberman is the one who introduced the bill that created Homeland
Security as a gov't dept, so make sure you don't try to lay it off on Bush.
Did they go too far in some respects with DHS? Yes, and there is an ongoing
debate about that right now.
JH>>> Liberals created a monstrous junkie that needed constant fixes of
JH>>> cash to afloat. Sooner or later, it all had to come to a crashing
JH>>> halt. That's what happened in New Orleans.
DP>>> And conservatism, the other end of the swinging pendulum, is
DP> not the
DP>>> answer either. The current administration is heavily
DP> conservative,
DP>>> and yet defies the concepts of the RNC WRT smaller government vs
DP>>> larger government.
DP>>> The size of the government and the bloat just keeps on growing and
DP>>> growing, and it's effectiveness is diminishing.
JH>> The usual comeback - "you haven't fixed things either, so you're
DP> more at
JH>> fault than we are." Pathetic.
DP> What is pathetic is that you change my emphasis to meet your own needs.
DP> I'm
DP> not the one saying that the current administration is worse at fixing
DP> things
DP> than the other side. That's all you.
What did I change? You claim that the current administration is heavily
conservative (it isn't, by the way - its more centrist or moderate than most
true conservatives like). You should be careful what you ask for. If *heavy*
conservatives were in charge, as you imply, things would be a lot different
than they are now. By the way, most of the bloat is because of entrenched
bureaucracy that got started decades ago. Believe me, if some of us had our
way, things would be cleaned up right quick - something akin to taking a meat
axe to a side of beef. The liberals and other lefties would all be having
apoplectic seizures!
DP> What you havn't proven to me with all your vitriolic denunciations of the
DP> liberal party is that the conservative party is a better choice.
JH>> Expecting the opposition to undo 60 odd years of liberalism in just
DP> a few
JH>> years is just plain stupid.
DP> I wasn't aware that we had democrats in the seat of power for the last 60
DP> years. GHWB, Regan, Ford, Nixon, are all republicans and two of them won
DP> reelection.
From 1932 until Reagan's administration, Democrats were in majority control of
the House and Senate 98% of the time. The House controls the money, and
virtually all the major entitlement programs were started and put in place by
Democrats. It was only after 94 that Republicans have worked to improve the
situation. Add into that all the "found" law passed by the Supreme Court
during the same period, and you've got what we have today. So, like I said,
you can't undo 60 odd years of liberalism in less than once decade.
JH>> You can't reduce what has become institutionalized over a 60 year
DP> period
JH>> by just taking an axe and chopping off the excess unless you want to
JH>> collapse the whole thing around your head.
DP> It's amazing how such liberalism was able to gain such a foothold, what
DP> with
DP> the guardians against liberalism always knocking down their doors.
What's so amazing? You tell a lie often enough and loud enough, especially to
people who are at the lower end of the economic ladder, and make all kinds of
promises about how you're going to make their lives better, and they'll vote
for you. THAT'S how all the entitlements got started. Democrats promised the
moon and stars, got the votes, and promptly forget to deliver anything.
DP>>> There has to be something better than what we have available to
DP> us th
DP>>> what we are currently presented with.
JH>> Its hard to get people to step up and serve when the waters have
DP> been so
JH>> poisoned by those intent on regaining power at ANY cost - up to and
DP> includ
JH>> damage to this country.
DP> I agree. The problem is that both sides have poisoned the waters. That's
DP> why I'm looking for something new and different.
DP> I've heard people categorize the Republicans as the "Daddy Party", and the
DP> Democrats as the "Mommy Party". That might be all well and good, but
there
DP> comes a time when we cut the cord and leave both behind if we are to grow
DP> and evolve.
To use your analogy, the problem is that for most of the 60 years I mentioned,
Daddy wasn't there. Mommy was doing like most mothers do and trying to shield
the kids from anything harmful. Just as in a family, all Mom and no Dad
usually produces kids who aren't able to do things for themselves, and are
always looking for somebody else to take up the slack, take the blame, provide
things for them they are perfectly capable of getting themselves if they would
just do it.
My dad taught me to take care of myself, and not to expect everything to be
handed to me on a silver platter. And when I screwed up, and did something I
knew was wrong, he kicked my ass for me. The people who only had Mom, never
got any of that. That's why, if you watched any of the New Orleans coverage,
you heard countless people whining about how they "didn't have nothing" and who
stood around waiting to be taken care of. Generations of Democrat mayors and
governors in Louisiana completely and utterly failed their constituents, and
when the going got tough, they bailed, and left all those people to fend for
themselves when they were incapable of doing so (that's what generations of the
welfare state do to people).
So, yeah, I'd like to see the cord cut too, but you can't do that without
weaning all those dependents away from the current system and getting to stand
on their own feet, and it will take as long to undo as it did to create. I
heard several people on the news saying that many of those people who have been
relocated are getting jobs for the first time in their adult lives. The bottom
line is that as long as liberals can hoodwink people into buying into their
empty promises, this kind of thing is going to be around.
--- Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716)
* Origin: (1:123/789.0)
|