Is there any political opposition in America at all at the moment?

[morninggirl5]

p_p_man, if you insist on another thread like this, please get your names straight first. It's Enron.

 

[delite]

Oooo, I just love the way you talk.

Arr thanks


By the way did you hear that Maggie's had a minor stroke and that it led to some sluring of her words and a slight stagger
do you reckon she's after Prescott's job?

 

[p_p_man]

Arr thanks


By the way did you hear that Maggie's had a minor stroke and that it led to some sluring of her words and a slight stagger
do you reckon she's after Prescott's job?

Personally I still think she hankers after the Leadership.

Just think we'd be the only country with an exhumed mummy as Prime Minister.

Aaaaaggghhh!

 

[Moridin187]

Personally I still think she hankers after the Leadership.

Just think we'd be the only country with an exhumed mummy as Prime Minister.

Aaaaaggghhh!

I'd rather have a mummy than a monkey

 

[p_p_man]

I'd rather have a mummy than a monkey

Good point...

At least she could always be reburied...

 

[SINthysist]

I ain't gonna do the whole list

But, most of it goes like this:

“Significantly eased field-testing controls of genetically engineered crops.”

GOOD! About damn time!

“Cut by 50% funding for research into renewable energy sources.”

GOOD! Make the private sector make the proper investments in the most promising technologies where the money won’t be flushed down some academic politically-driven sewer.

“Blocked rules that would require federal agencies to offer bilingual assistance to non-English speaking persons. This, from a candidate who would readily fire-up his Spanish-speaking skills in front of would-be Hispanic voters.”

It’s not just Hispanics! It’s Cambodians, Chinese, Cantonese and Mandarin, Russians, etc.! If they’re coming here to be Americans, they should make an effort to learn the language damn it! It ain’t that hard! My three-year old is making great strides and she’s only been at it seriously for about 6 months.

” Cut funding by 28% for research into cleaner, more efficient cars and trucks.”

See # 2!

“Suspended rules that would have strengthened the government's ability to deny contracts to companies that violated workplace safety, environmental and other Federal laws.”

Rules made by the Clintoniestas that were rabidly anti-business.

“OK'd to state Interior Department appointee Gale Norton to send out letters to officials soliciting suggestions for opening up national monuments for oil and gas drilling, coal mining, and foresting.”

See #1!

“Appointed John Negroponte - an un-indicted high-level Iran Contra figure to the post of United Nations Ambassador.”

Yawn. Name a handful of Clinton Appointees and staff members and associates and you will get two to three people who were actually indicted on real charges and sometimes sent to prison.

“Appointed Otto Reich - an un-indicted high-level Iran Contra figure to Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs.

Ditto.

“Abandoned a campaign pledge to invest $100 million for rain forest conservation.”

See #1! Abuse of junk science for political reasons.

“Rescinded a proposal to increase public access to information about the potential consequences resulting from chemical plant accidents.”

Rules made by the Clintoniestas that were rabidly anti-business.

“Suspended rules that would require hardrock miners to clean up sites on Western public lands.”

It’s Rock. most of it in the desert, or near enough that people never settled there. In 100 years, it’ll look natural and since the government under Clinton has tried to seal those areas off from man, any man, then If the tree falls in the forest…

“Cut $60 million from a Boy's and Girl's Clubs of America program for public housing.”

Well duh, they run community centers basically.

“Proposed to eliminate a federal program, designed and successfully used in Seattle, to help communities prepare for natural disasters.”

Redundant program.

“Pulled out of the 1997 Kyoto Treaty global warming agreement.

The most egregious example of Liberal Philosophy creating its own Science-Fiction.

“Eliminated funding for the Wetlands Reserve Program, which encourages farmers to maintain wetlands habitat on their property.”

And was being used, and continues to be used against small farmers and ranchers, as a means for Liberal Junk-Conservation Policies to force all people off the land in order to return it to its pristine state. It’s become a minor religion of the left.

“Cut program to provide childcare to low-income families as they move from welfare to work.”

Everyone else who is working has to pay for it. Promotes breakup of families by removing familial responsibility and putting it into the hands of Big Brother.

"Cut Environmental Protection Agency budget by $500 million.”

Rate of growth in an inflated, intrusive, bureauchratic body .

 

[rexfelis]

America is still a hotbed.

But our current BS situation seems pretty hopeless to me. Maybe that's the problem. So much is being screwed up in so many directions that nobody who sees it feels like they can do anything about it.

"Told you so" is not going to be adequate compensation for this American.

Not like anyone who can't see it now will be able to see it then, either. *sigh*

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by RisiaSkye
Ah, but I thought that the Justice system was politically neutral, Bill. I was talking about the Republican party's getting in bed with guys like Robertson to cry "immorality," which is a different thing than going to court to try someone on criminal grounds. The criminal charges are another issue.

I'm not trying to open a whole new can of worms here, but I do want to be clear. I'm not so naive as to suggest that the Special Prosecutor was politically neutral in his investigative efforts, but I am talking about the actions and public moves of Republican politicians--in the non-judicial arena.

When administered by honest men, it is. And considering the bastion of moral integrity that is Mr. Clinton, what does that say of the previous administration's justice department? Certainly his justice department was, as he declared himself to be, the most ethical administration in the history of the republic, was it not then?

But if you recall the history accurately, it was a charge of perjury arising from the Paula Jones civil suit which led to the investigation and the subsequent criminal charges. It was the result of his egregious personal behavior as governor of Arkansas which brought about the civil trial. The "it's all about sex" was a smokescreen created to obfuscate the reality of the criminal actions which resulted in the charges. And to this day it amazes me how many ostensibly intelligent people seem to let the facts elude them.

Originally posted by RisiaSkye
If my separation of Judicial from Legislative makes me sound less intelligent, I guess we're even, as this makes you sound paranoid--just as paranoid as Clinton's whole "vast right wing conspiracy" bullshit. "The press" is as vast and diverse as any other huge body of communication. Why substitute a conspiracy theory when simple self-interest will explain it?

He wanted to keep his job, the Starr Report information came out through some pretty shady back-door political dealing, and his office exploited the ethical faults of the other side to their own advantage to the best of their ability. This is not at all unlike what the other side did, either. Maybe it was *just* here at my house, but I read MANY media missives which were everywhere from critical to overtly and aggressively hostile about Clinton. As I assume they wanted to sell newspapers and advertising time, and we're in a Democratic state, that indicates at least *some* level of media diversity on the subject. I certainly don't remember a universal media love-fest.

In any case, it doesn't change the fact that the public for the most part grew disgusted with *both* sides of that whole fiasco. As the initiators of the public inquest, Republicans paid a lot of the price in terms of the public's urge to punish someone for the sleaziness of the whole deal--on both Republican and Democrat sides.

I'm a tad baffled about the separation of Judicial and Legislative. If you're referring to impeachment, while it is a judicial process of sorts, it is explicitly defined by the Constitution for certain circumstances. And criminal actions of the Executive branch head is such a circumstance. If not, then I'm lost by the implication.

It was hard to ignore the coverage of that debacle. And most (probably 80%) was not at all directed toward the fact that the charges were perjury. What I did hear along those lines seemed confined to talk radio. The news media seemed for the most part intent on discussing whether someone's personal sexual behavior was proper material for public scrutiny or for qualification to hold public office. The not so subtle implication being that it was a witch hunt using his personal lack of ethics and morals as a basis for political persecution.

I cannot remember hearing one journalist ever saying that the charges were felony perjury in a civil case and that justice should be pursued. Perhaps I missed that newscast.

As to how the Independent Counsel's information came out through shady backdoor political dealing leaves me wondering. The report was published upon completion of the investigation as required by law and the IC released none of it prior also as required by law. So where is the shady dealing?

Originally posted by RisiaSkye
I'm very hesitant to interpret the principles and ethics of nearly half the nation, at least to the extent to holding myself above them. The values by which people lead their own lives are not necessarily reflected in their voting practices. Once again, self-interest rules the day. Many people vote for the party platform which both has a chance of winning and most benefits them personally. *Very* few people vote based on a larger concept of government process and the different theoretical models of state leadership. However, to suggest that this is somehow a *less* valid set of voting criteria than your own ignores some of the complex implications of representative government, and it's a somewhat arrogant value judgement.

I don't recall saying I hold myself above anyone. I do make some judgements but they are based on what I see and what can be reasonably concluded from that.

And while I'm making my judgements, I do allow for the fact that some people don't know the truth of what they vote for. I hope that is only a small percentage. Am I being optimistic or pessimistic when I hope that they are voting from at least a somewhat informed point of view?

If not, the implication is they are duped into voting for a destructive government policy moving toward totalitarian governmental control of the whole of society. If so, then they are doing so consciously and what does that say of them? Why would anyone with any morals and ethical principles vote for the enslavement of other men? And how can they delude themseves and think that somehow they will not one day bear the same yoke? But that is the way their votes are taking this government.

Perhaps I am expecting too much. But here's how I came to my judgement. In the 1960's or early 1970's following the Civil Rights Legislation, I watched and listened to politicians, mostly of the self-identified liberal affiliation, telling me that affirmative action was necessary to "correct the evil of discrimination".

At this point in time, I'm in my early to mid twenties, not politically cognizant at all, not registered to vote, never voted. etc.

I could not believe what these morons were saying thinking no one could fall for such crap. What they are saying in honest terms is "in order to correct the problem of discrimination, we need laws MANDATING discrimination". Now who would listen to a doctor who suggested the treatment for poison is another dose of the same poison? But the politicians did precisely that and are still trying to sell it today and brand as racist anyone who opposes affirmative action.

It took a few more years before I finally had found, studied and adopted Objectivism as my chosen philosophy because it explained to me among other things the pseudo-intellectual root of these political ideas.

As I became more comfortable with Objectivism through a better understanding of its ideas, I began to look at politicians and the things they offered. I also understand enough to ask where do they get all the money they are going to spend or give away on their various programs.

Having an understanding of property rights, I realized that they must steal it. Of course, they are not so honest as to say that. They say it's to be collected in taxes which the rich can afford. As it turns out, the rich is anyone who earns his living. Of course, they won't tell you that either. And their ally in this fleecing, legalized plundering, of private property, is religion which teaches altruism as a morality and most people have been inculcated via their religion to believe that they somehow are obligated to support others because they have legitimately achieved wealth.

And these people continue to get elected. By whom? Well, most of the collectivist welfare system was engineered by the Democratic Party getting into its really big swing under the reign of LBJ. And a large portion of the Republican party has joined in.

And it seems to again separate themselves and demonstrate that they are political leaders of the "progressive" variety, the Democrats are now moving steadily toward Fascism as their chosen means of political rule. And by that I mean they advocate laws to micromanage every facet of our lives.

This provides you a thumbnail sketch of the evolution and basis of my judgements of political causes and pursuits.

That people do not lead their lives by the same principles that guide their vote is an interesting observation. Exploring a bit further, I submit that one reason is that individual citizens are prohibited from committing theft as a way of life. The police and courts will intervene and they face accountability. But when they vote a politician into office who promises to pass a law legitimizing theft via taxation, the proceeds of which will be shared with people who vote for him, they are in fact doing the same thing as if they stick a gun in your face and demand your money directly.

But in fact, I have more respect for the common street thug than for the one who does it using the law as a shield of legitimization. At least the street thug at least makes no such pretense of morality or legitimacy.

So to say that they don't, I wonder? They're just using the political power of legislation to promote the illusion that their hands are clean.

But perhaps you misinterpret the implication of your statement. Perhaps they are voting for collectivism having been miseducated to not understand what it is that's offered or they are inculcated with the dogma that touts it. And don't forget the vast majority of people claim some religious affiliation. Most if not all religion is fundamentally altruistic in nature, the morality of collectivism or slavery.

And I really wonder at the idea that they could vote for some variant of collectivism as being in their self-interest. How can voting a nation into slavery be to the benefit of anyone? A few may benefit in the short term, but in the long run, everyone is harmed. Are they so miseducated they don't know what it is they support?

Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain-and since labor is pain in itself-it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.
Frederic Bastiat

I find it interesting that you point out that many people vote for a party platform that benefits them without completing the tacit implication; that they vote for the platform that benefits themselves at the expense of someone else. Why do you shy away from pursuing that truth? Or have you not considered it?

I'm also a little puzzled as to the meaning of your statement about the complex implications of a representative government. If that government is constrained to its legitimate function (as our Constitution was designed to do), suffrage is a rather unimportant thing. Simply because other voters cannot use the power of legislation to harm me, then my vote is a less important concern than when it becomes imperative for me to vote simply as a means of attempting to defend myself from the legalized plunder of a collectivist government.

I'll recommend you (and everyone, actually) read The Law by Frederic Bastiat (Fr. 1802-1850). He makes some very sage observations in this small book about civilization, society, and law. He also makes some very sage observations about Socialists and Communists, two variants of collectivism he addresses specifically because they both saw significant rise during his lifetime.

And my compliments on the subtle usage of the argument from intimidation by labeling me as arrogant because I hold clearly defined values and make judgements in accordance with them. That's a very effective tactic against those who don't recognize it even though it is fallacious. But it's a good choice because it's more subtle than the ad hominem attack which is much more easily recognized.

Originally posted by EBW
I'm sorry Bill but as much as you'd like to believe this it just isn't true.

I'm the first to say that the Clinton thing was about something bigger than a blowjob but you are in a fantasy world, an easily tumbled fantasy world, if you truly believe that it was the Democrats and CLinton supporters who wanted to turn this into a morality issue.

How did you tell your kids?

Then you really should review the facts. The impeachment draft before the house consisted of 4 charges: 2 counts of perjury, 1 count of obstruction of justice and 1 count of abuse of power. The abuse of power was not adopted into the articles of impeachment; only the 2 counts of perjury and the 1 count of obstruction of justice.

And on the second idea you are completely wrong. They Democrats by necessity had to shift the argument from one of criminal action to one of personal moral failing. They could not win on the criminal perspective because the evidence was clear. They are not stupid; they recognized that they could not win in that venue. The criminal facts had to be obfuscated by and subordinated to a cooked up political plot to "get Clinton" and they sold it. It looks as if even you bought it.

My kids were grown and my granddaughter was too young to know or care. So I lucked out in that perspective. Many parents weren't so fortunate and can thank the Democrats who defended and supported Clinton and partied with him after they acquitted him in the Senate for that little pleasantry.

Had I had a child to explain it to, I would have told them the truth. He committed a crime and most of what you are hearing in defense of him is lies by people of the same moral quality as he; otherwise they would not be defending him.

Originally posted by EBW
Back when I played hockey the coach used to say "Just get the puck on net, you never know what kind of shot will fool the goalie"

So WD, First you say that the cut isn't that much, then you try that we shouldn't be funding libraries at all and finally you shoot a it's not a cut at all but a 60 million increase.

Bad angle, Bad angle.

WD, when will you learn, son. Truth and fact are just not admissible arguments in political discourse. What's wrong with you, boy? Your ethics are showing. How dare you argue fact! How very arrogant! Now go to your room!

For pdx39, I'm truly impressed. If only half of this is true, you've raised my respect for Bush quite a bit. He should be doing more of this. Lots more!

And do you know what unindicted means? It means that despite wasting $54 Million dollars, the Democrats' witch hunt into Reagan's presidency couldn't find any evidence to substantiate their desperate hunt for something, anything to hurt Reagan. Yeah, they did convict Oliver North. But guess what? It was overturned on appeal. $54 Mil; NO CONVICTIONS!

Originally posted by Moridin187
Yes, it is. The government takes our money through taxes, and should therefore provide services. The way that America has gotten so far ahead in the past couple hundred years is through information. The larger the amount of smart people we have, the better the country fares. Nothing makes a person smart like reading.

You really have sucked up this liberal collectivist crap haven't you?

First, show me where in the Constitution the Federal government is authorized to fund libraries (or education or socialist welfare programs).

Second, reading doesn't make you smart. First, it requires someone to teach you to read. Comic books are reading, too. It takes reading, questioning and understanding to make one smart. Also, in most cases, it requires someone with whom you can discuss ideas to gain clarity and understanding. Reading may provide some information, but without deliberative thought processes to sort the wheat from the chaff, you don't learn unless by happenstance you pick accurate material to read.

Reading all the books in the world on Communism, you will never learn what it means to be free. Nor can it teach you how to establish a society of the most mutually beneficial organizational type. It can teach you how to make something work on a small, primitive scale though.

I'd venture to say the people of the Soviet Union could read as well as Americans. I'd imagine you would agree.

I remember about 15 years or so ago when the Soviet officer flew the MIG-25 into Japan and defected. The military experts from our defense department started going over it from a technological perspective and for awhile thought the whole thing was a put-on by Soviet intelligence playing us like a cheap fiddle with this leading edge of their technology in aircraft.

The Soviets were using for much of the electronics vacuum tube technology which had been virtually eliminated from U. S. aircraft for a decade because of weight and power requirements. So if reading makes you smart, why weren't they on a par with us technologically with solid state electronics?

If reading makes you smart, why did the Communist Chinese government have to get the technology from Loral to be able successfully launch their rocketry to put satellites into orbit? Why did they need to steal info from the Los Alamo labs on nuclear weapons technology?

Why did the Russians need the Rosenbergs to develop their atomic bombs? The Russians could read, couldn't they?

Libraries did not make this nation the phenomenal success it is. Neither did some collectivist government. Most of that is the product of the latter twentieth century would-be statists of the Socialist, Communist Fascist bent like FDR, LBJ, Clinton, etc. It is freedom of personal determination that resulted in the greatest expansion of human well being in the history of mankind.

Collectivism had ruled the world for all of recorded history. Not until individual rights and freedoms were put above the government's authority in the founding of America did the overall wealth and well being of mankind make major strides. It was the innovations of America that dragged the rest of the world out of their quagmire and challenged them to keep up.

But where did so many of those innovations occur? In the cradle of freedom. Where did people seek to go even at the risk of their safety or their very lives? Into the collectivist slave pits of the rest of the world or to America where freedom was valued?

How many people were shot to death climbing over the iron curtain INTO Soviet Russia? Or any other collectivist slave state for that matter.

And today's most sickening tripe is this new politically correct crap that America's greatest asset is its diversity. What pure collectivist BULLSHIT! America's greatest asset is still freedom (what's left anyway) although its value is not understood as it was 200 years ago. And if people don't realize that, we may be doomed as a free nation. And those of the collectivist persuasion need desperately for that value to be diminished as much as possible if not obliterated.

Originally posted by p_p_man
Just think we'd be the only country with an exhumed mummy as Prime Minister.

And fortunately, we got rid of the asshole who said he'd date one.

 

[p_p_man]

Unclebill

I see you've gone back to being wordy. I can't spare the time to read it all in one go so I'll just pick out bits and pieces as I come and go. Providing the thread lasts that long:

Quote from Unclebill's Post:

"It takes reading, questioning and understanding to make one smart"

Nothing makes you smart. You either are or you ain't.

What you're talking about is gaining an overall comprehension.

 

[Weevil]

Sorry Bill but you're deadly wrong on both counts. I suppose if you're the kind of person who believes hook, line and sinker what republicans say then I suppose the fact that they didn't come out and say "We don't like what he did so we're stringing him up by the balls on trumped up charges" would have you convinced.

But if the Republicans weren't interested in the moral side of it, indeed didn't have any interest in the moralities of the actions that weren't criminal, then why the "How did you tell your kids" advertisements? Not hard to explain the criminal side of what he did, is it?

Look back at what actually happened and you might be surprised to learn that what politicians say and what they actually intend are different things. You'll get over it. The rest of us have.


Also, as to the libraries thing. I didn't object to the facts, just that in order to defend a fairly hard to defend move(Or, at the very least Bush should actually say that he doesn't think Libraries should be funded.) Wd tried to make three different arguments. each of which contradict the other two. If the feds shouldn't fund libraries, then isn't the fact that it's not a big cut bad? Or that a 60 million increase is worse? Or, if it is just a small cut and it shouldn't matter then isn't that an admission that funding libraries is legitimate? And don't the ideas of "Small cut. Who cares?" and "Not a cut at all." mix poorly. I know you get the picture but if it is a 60 million increase then isn't that another endorsement of funding libraries? and doesn't that clash with the idea of a small cut.

Any reasonably objective individual could see that WD didn't use any facts. He threw out argument after argument, all of which could be true because he is blind to the idea that Bush could have done something wrong.

 

[p_p_man]

Quote from Unclebill:

"Why did the Russians need the Rosenbergs to develop their atomic bombs? The Russians could read, couldn't they?"

It was a shortcut. Like America using Dr. Wernher von Braun to help along her rocket technology.

 

[freedom]

Actually, I think you already have one. Led by Terry McAuliffe, who made an $18 million profit from a $100,000 investment in the now bankrupt telecommunications giant Global Crossing. That's an 18,000% gain! Brings a tear to my eyes. Gotta love this guy.
Do any of you know if he'll be teaching investment classes anytime soon? My best broker got me 62% one year. 18,000%!!! Heck, he ought to take over Enron and Kmart, and spread the returns to 9,000% each. That'd put Enron stock back to about $72/share. Got to love the Dems.

 

[WriterDom]

Also, as to the libraries thing. I didn't object to the facts, just that in order to defend a fairly hard to defend move(Or, at the very least Bush should actually say that he doesn't think Libraries should be funded.) Wd tried to make three different arguments. each of which contradict the other two. If the feds shouldn't fund libraries, then isn't the fact that it's not a big cut bad? Or that a 60 million increase is worse? Or, if it is just a small cut and it shouldn't matter then isn't that an admission that funding libraries is legitimate? And don't the ideas of "Small cut. Who cares?" and "Not a cut at all." mix poorly. I know you get the picture but if it is a 60 million increase then isn't that another endorsement of funding libraries? and doesn't that clash with the idea of a small cut.

Well Gee, how do you get specific about democrat web based copy and paste propaganda? When they throw out 100 or so blanket statements like "Bush cut 39 million from libraries" What libraries? School libraries? Public libraries? Terrorist libraries? I guess you think all these little tidbits of undocumented trivia not back up with references are gospel.

I have to throw a wide blanket to cover that much bullshit. Why don't you do some research on the library cuts then we can discuss them.