Bush story

[doc9464]

> > > Unfortunately, I can't think about any Clinton jokes
> right
> >
> > > now. Love to hear one.
>
> >   The best Clinton joke these days goes like this:
> >
> >
> >      Hilliary in '08.
>
> She's got that John Kerry youthful look......
>

Yep, those of you on the right sure know how to take the high road.....always talking about the left...but this is just one of many examples of the hypocracy on the right.....at least when we do it we dont try to make ourselves look squeaky clean in the process....oh wait, you guys might be libratarian (sp?)....like that matters....LOL its ok....like Rush its "entertaining"!

[Jerry Stevens]

"Yep, those of you on the right sure know how to take the high road.....always talking about the left...but this is just one of many examples of the hypocracy on the right.....at least when we do it we dont try to make ourselves look squeaky clean in the process....oh wait, you guys might be libratarian (sp?)....like that matters....LOL its ok....like Rush its "entertaining"!

Oh lighten up. My homegrown artwork was an obvious retort to the "Karl Rove Perpwalk" artwork you linked to.                    
 
The word is spelled l-i-b-e-r-t-a-r-i-a-n. If you don't know the difference between libertarianism and conservatism, may I suggest www.boortz.com. They are similar but not the same.

______________
Jerry

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts" - late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan

[doc9464]

> "Yep, those of you on the right sure know how to take the
> high road.....always talking about the left...but this is
> just one of many examples of the hypocracy on the
> right.....at least when we do it we dont try to make
> ourselves look squeaky clean in the process....oh wait, you
> guys might be libratarian (sp?)....like that matters....LOL
> its ok....like Rush its "entertaining"!
>
> Oh lighten up. My homegrown artwork was an obvious retort to
> the "Karl Rove Perpwalk" artwork you linked to.            
>        
Again well played...

> The word is spelled l-i-b-e-r-t-a-r-i-a-n. If you don't know
> the difference between libertarianism and conservatism, may
> I suggest www.boortz.com. They are similar but not the same.
>

See just the fact that you know the difference is a point that gives me comfort don't take that wrong - what i mean is basically... a lot of conservatives hide behind that label..especially when they disagree with the republicans. I dont agree with you that Boortz is truly libertarian,.i havent heard much of him to make a fair judgement so im not sure if you are right and Im wrong...,..but I laugh deeply when Hannity or O'Reilly say it at various times....they most certainly do not represent libertarian values.....and if a lot of conservatives knew, really knew libertarian values...well..i think they might be a bit stunned about what beliefs have been "adopted".

[Jerry Stevens]

"I dont agree with you that Boortz is truly libertarian,.i havent heard much of him to make a fair judgement so im not sure if you are right and Im wrong.....but I laugh deeply when Hannity or O'Reilly say it at various times....they most certainly do not represent libertarian values.....
 
Hannity says he's Conservative and O'Reilly says he's Independent. I don't hear Hannity much, but he's okay. O'Reilly's I'm-The-Last-Honest-Man-In-America routine is more than I can stand to listen to. I don't know what to call him politically. He seems to relish his above-it-all registered-Independent act.

I don't listen all the time but have done so extensively in the past. He is absolutely libertarian. I suspect you don't like people to define themselves as libertarian because it allows them to escape the "conservative" rap but there is a difference.  As Boortz said to a caller a couple of days ago: "When it comes to Democrats and Republicans, I'll side with Republicans. Democrats favor government growth and Republicans favor government growth at a slightly slower rate. That's the major difference. But when it comes time to vote, I vote Libertarian."

That is the essence of libertarianism: Government is a beast that must be kept in check.

I believe many things that liberals believe: We have a moral responsibility to the poor, for example. The difference is that I don't think it is the proper role of government to act coercively to take money from one class to give to another. Likewise, I adhere to many of the same beliefs as moral conservatives. But again, there is way too much willingness to allow the government to regulate behavior. Problems arise when people on bith sides only do what the law requires.

Least tolerable things about Liberals (not all but many if not most): A pathological inability to see the US as having any moral superiority over dictatorships, and a corresponding unwillingness to ever endorse the use of our military unless under a Democrat president. (This is not universal. I consider Tony Blair to be a hero for his willingness to spend as much political capital as he has on defense. I reservedly support Bush, but it took no political courage to defend this country. It was and is popular.)

There is also a tendency to see poltics as a game with no more consequence than that of a tennis match. Hence, the willingness to subjugate the interests of the country to political victory. (I note you have "complimented" me twice on "playing it well" but it's not a game to me. )

Least tolerable thing about Conservatives: Insufferable attitude toward gays. They don't have to favor the gay lifestyle, but could they just shutup about it?

I am what Justice Scalia calls an "originalist" with regards to The Constitution. Too many people believe in originalism only when they like the outcome. I see absolutely no reference to sexual orientation in the Constitution. At least Conservatives are trying to change it through a Constitutional process instead of through the judiciary. But it is still, stupid, short-sighted and mean. While conservatism is not inherently anti-gay, I'm sick of defending the day-to-day comments by too many of them. That is one reason I reject the "conservative" label.

______________
Jerry

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts" - late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan

[doc9464]

> Hannity says he's Conservative and O'Reilly says he's
> Independent. I don't hear Hannity much, but he's okay.
> O'Reilly's I'm-The-Last-Honest-Man-In-America routine is
> more than I can stand to listen to. I don't know what to
> call him politically. He seems to relish his above-it-all
> registered-Independent act.

I loathe them both....but thats another story for another post...but when they drop that libertarian clue..its one of the few times i can say...well i know they disagree with Bush instead of the usual lock-step..but I think a "true" Librertarian couldnt support the Bush Administration for their "big government" thinking...

Im a bit of an odd liberal...i call it realistic liberalism (my term only) (....conservatives have tried to steal the idea of preserving personal freedom...but those are liberal qualities)....im not totally comfortable with what is generally called political correctness...i believe the government should not legislate private issues (its not the government's place to tell a person how to morally live their lives....nor legislate morality).

Like most liberals (and conservatives), I don't advocate abortion nor accept it...but I don't want to see one law that restricts the woman's right to decide what her conscience can bear and what she and her doctor decide to do...id rather see contraception over adoption....birth control over unwanted pregancies

...and if gays want to get married....fine..i dont want the government (it never would anyway) to force religions to accept this...but marriage is civil first (license for example) then religious (if you choose to get married with a preacher or in a church)...so no prob with gay marriage..and no, it hasnt destroyed marriage in Mass, Vermont, Canada and spain.....Mass has the lowest divorce rate in the US despite gay marriage...so marriage seems to be in good shape even with gays marrying..its not my place to push my beliefs on others.....and christians and catholics and fundamentalists shouldnt have the right to block their wishes either....

I don't expect the government to do everything...but there are some things that governement could do better than the private sector

.....one is healthcare...many people call that socialism (incorrectly as the talk radio parrots have called anything that conservatives dont like in this area socialism) and usually at this point ill hear ....what about canada and england...my answer is yes they have serious issues (a lot of their cost/time woes have been similar to our challenges...issues with immigration and the push by the right in the respective countries to for for-profit medicine)...but if you look at the other countries that have national healthcare (most of south america, asia, and all of europe except for switzerland,....but even the swiss have laws that say you can't have some type of healthcare plan in place....you have to have something...and if you can't have it for some reason well there are options)..i laugh when i hear how people resist national health care here but watched with anger and (yes Jerry) outrage when the Bush Administration put a national heathcare plan in place for Iraq..but fight it tooth and nail here.
Medicare is in place and could be evolved (with work) into a very suitable national healthcare plan.....i think business would love to throw off the costs of healthcare..thats a economic stimulus....but they would probably pocket any benefits....instead of jobs or other good sense investments...

...im a liberal who is NOT a free trader....we shouldnt sell China our oil companies and yes, I didnt support Nafta....or Cafta...or any plan that let Wal-Mart force american companies to move jobs to china and india...


...i am angered when Social Security which runs very well...is suddenly in so much trouble that we have to hand billions to the financial sector....via private accounts....there has to be a safety net...government does this well ...social security works....and when it needs adjustment its not as desperate a crisis as bush makes it to be...medicare is a true crisis...and that needs 60 day taxpayer tours...not social security....

...I laugh now when I see this administration spend like "old-style" democrats spend in government....I like the new attitude Dems/libs have toward fiscal control and wish this had been the bi-partisan thing to help thenparties work together...but this administration decided to give Tax cuts and blow up deficits that the Clinton admin worked so hard to reduce....with good fiscal policy ..now we are in debt and the Administration wants to give more tax cuts...in a time of war..senseless

...im a lib that supported the Administration on Afganistan...it was right to attack and try to elimate the Taliban and catch the guy that attacked us...Bin Laden...but unlike the Brits who caught and identifed the perpetrators of the recent attacks...we have yet to have that same focus....liberals were right to support afganistan...Iraq was where i got off the ride....this war was wrong...and the evidence supports it...and it was on Bush's watch ..dont blame any previous administrations....this was his war of choice...and now its a mess and hes got no one to blame but himself...liberals were right to not support this war....but now that we are there.....i have posted this but I fully support bring the Iraq troops over here to train them just like here in the US if it will help us develop a proper strategy to get our troops out of this mess....and I think a president should make more friends in the world when cooperation makes senses to battle terrorism...not build this fake coalition of the willing...so the french and germans have offered to train off site...take the deal, dummy...
I feel he has to pay for what i see (my opinion) are clearly war crimes and deceptions and profiteering...which should be examined with a laser clarity....

im a liberal who loves science and the environment...government does this well...but this administration ignores or tries to re-write science...we need to have an earth to live on...we need to get away from fossil fuels, and there are fiscal benefits and health benefits to fund stem cell research....

Im a liberal who doesnt want religion and government together....i was raised in a very religious home...but thanks to choice here in the us and religious freedom..i have the right NOT to practice any active religion....but I do believe in god...i think as long as people have the right to practice religion in their homes, in their own personal time, and with their friends and family...it doesnt mean that religion should be welcome in government....

thats a summary of my realistic liberalism......support personal freedom where possible and make it very clear that the governement is good for lots of things but not everything...and provide a safety net where appopriate...



 As Boortz said to a caller a couple of days
> ago: "When it comes to Democrats and Republicans, I'll side
> with Republicans. Democrats favor government growth and
> Republicans favor government growth at a slightly slower
> rate. That's the major difference. But when it comes time to
> vote, I vote Libertarian."

Dems/Libs have mixed views...but I think Dems have evolved more on fiscal issues
and Repubs grow deficits at the cost of all but the rich and big business....
>
> That is the essence of libertarianism: Government is a beast
> that must be kept in check.

I dont believe the beast should be starved....Government is not evil...but its always in need of being kept in check...
>
> I believe many things that liberals believe: We have a moral
> responsibility to the poor, for example. The difference is
> that I don't think it is the proper role of government to
> act coercively to take money from one class to give to
> another. Likewise, I adhere to many of the same beliefs as
> moral conservatives. But again, there is way too much
> willingness to allow the government to regulate behavior.
> Problems arise when people on bith sides only do what the
> law requires.
>
I don't diagree with what you are saying...but if you read the bible or other religious guides / books...i think conservatives follow very little from the teachings of many religious icons, including Jesus...and i find it hypocritical...(my opinion)...


> Least tolerable things about Liberals (not all but many if
> not most): A pathological inability to see the US as having
> any moral superiority over dictatorships, and a
> corresponding unwillingness to ever endorse the use of our
> military unless under a Democrat president. (This is not
> universal. I consider Tony Blair to be a hero for his
> willingness to spend as much political capital as he has on
> defense. I reservedly support Bush, but it took no political
> courage to defend this country. It was and is popular.)

Gore would have attacked Afganistan...I think Liberals and everyone were behind Afganistan..i dont agree with anyone who didnt go for Afganistan..but i think Bush is given too much credit...as Bill Maher said...correctly....how hard was it for Bush to point to someone to point to a map to locate Afganistan for him...and then he could say attack it.....but he lost his way....Bin Laden and Al Queda need to be chased 24-7...he blew the greatest chance for the US to be set on a new path...Gore would have done the same with Afganistan and he would have kept the pressure on BinLaden....but Bush blew it with Iraq...and with the torture and all the other diplomatic failures...the Us has no more moral authority...this is what you want for the US but bush pissed it away.....for his own arrogance....now we are a pariah....when we had the respect of the world...for one glowing moment..the world was with us....and he blew it...

he had a chance to issue a Kennedy like edict - instead of the moon...it would have been the right time to say - no more supporting these Saudis and other middle east despots who use Oil to beat us over the head...but instead he told Americans to shop ...and he issued tax credits for vehicles over 4500 lbs...thus keeping OPEC flush with $$$ to give to terrorists and breed more anger via Wahaabi muslim teachings (which are NOT the teachings of islam in its correct form)

he then lost focus on BinLaden...lost him in afganistan..and diverted all of our key resources to Iraq ...which i think history and his choices reveal were just stupid and wrong....i will not support this stupid war of choice

>
> There is also a tendency to see poltics as a game with no
> more consequence than that of a tennis match. Hence, the
> willingness to subjugate the interests of the country to
> political victory. (I note you have "complimented" me twice
> on "playing it well" but it's not a game to me. )

"Well played" is a sign of respect ...not game playing...sorry you see it that way...its a high compliment...at least in my eyes..

>
> Least tolerable thing about Conservatives: Insufferable
> attitude toward gays. They don't have to favor the gay
> lifestyle, but could they just shutup about it?

I think Gay people have enough of a hard time in life with their own personal struggles and those who are content with themselves....even better for them. I see no need to attack gay people...they certainly dont attack straight people...theres a great cartoon on Mark Fiore.com about the "gay agenda" and others...very funny stuff....but ill throw out a few links

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/agenda.html - gay agenda
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/energy.html - energy policy
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/translate.html - iraq democracy
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/econo.html - economy
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/ralphie.html - update on gay issue
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/rememberthree.html - 9/11
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/press01.html - sources
 
> I am what Justice Scalia calls an "originalist" with regards
> to The Constitution. Too many people believe in originalism
> only when they like the outcome. I see absolutely no
> reference to sexual orientation in the Constitution. At
> least Conservatives are trying to change it through a
> Constitutional process instead of through the judiciary. But
> it is still, stupid, short-sighted and mean. While
> conservatism is not inherently anti-gay, I'm sick of
> defending the day-to-day comments by too many of them. That
> is one reason I reject the "conservative" label.

The courts are an option for the minority to help defend themselves...i think sometimes the minority needs a place to turn to....its not always wrong to look to the courts....majority rule would have kept African-Americans as 3/5ths of a man and in forced segregation....just one good example of good work by judges Brown case of 1954...Judges aren't always activist when one disagrees with one's view..thats the biggest bogus thing this recent conservative push is causing..
and no ..most libs dont like the idea of the eminent domain issue...i thought that was wrong...but it stands unfortunately...but the libs are blamed for it..

..i have a problem when the Supreme Court was wonderful for forcing Bush on us....perhaps one of the more activist efforts ever seen....but that was a good thing per conservatives....and remember what happened with Teri Schiavo...when conservatives judges..dont go the way of the conservatives..those same conservative judges turn into activists....so its a BS label...conservatives use to say do it our way...or else...
>

[Jerry Stevens]

"....conservatives have tried to steal the idea of preserving personal freedom...but those are liberal qualities)...."

Naturally, every side sees itself as the defender of liberty, keeper of freedom, defender of truth. It's a given.

"...i believe the government should not legislate private issues (its not the
government's place to tell a person how to morally live their lives....nor legislate morality). "

Sounds good but laws against theft and murder are grounded in the ten commandments. Libertarians will tell you those are valid laws because to violate them takes life, liberty and/or property from another. Many conservatives will tell you that "this is a Christian nation" and our laws should reflect it. Many liberals argue against legislating morality but what are government programs that take from one group to give to another but a government run charity where giving isn't voluntary?

"Like most liberals (and conservatives), I don't advocate abortion nor accept it...but I don't want to see one law that restricts the woman's right to decide what her conscience can bear and what she and her doctor decide to
do...id rather see contraception over adoption....birth control over unwanted pregancies.

I oppose abortion on the same grounds that I do murder and capital punishment but a detailed response would be too long.

" ...and if gays want to get married....fine.."

Some people think it's fine. Some not. But either way, I don't think there is a government role to play. The libertarian acid test is: Is it infringing on someone else's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? Gay marriage is not.

"it hasnt destroyed marriage in Mass, Vermont, Canada and spain.....Mass has the lowest divorce rate in the US despite  gay marriage...so marriage seems to be in good shape even with gays marrying.."

Well.. I don't know that I'd agree that marriage as an institution is in good shape. What's risible is to blame it on gay marriage. We don't HAVE gay marriage for the most part and out-of-wedlock births are 30% of all births. The Britney Spears of the world are doing far more damage as far as setting a bad example.

"I don't expect the government to do everything...but there are some things that governement could do better than the private sector .....one is healthcare...many people call that socialism"

I tend to avoid the word because it is inflammatory (a counterproductive ingredient in serious political discussion). However, I think you can see the grounding in the definition(s)of socialism. Of course, the govenrment can manage and provide healthcare without "owning the means of its production" so it's a lazy argument.  I oppose it but again, unless you want to wade through three pages of text, I'll move on. (Hint: It's an economic argument, not a social or moral argument.)

"(incorrectly as the talk radio parrots have called anything that conservatives dont like in this area socialism)"

Frankly, when you use words like "parrot" you fall into the trap of trying to win an argument through sarcasm, ridicule and putdown. I'm not immune to the problem myself but it is a trap I try to avoid.

"but watched with anger and (yes Jerry) outrage when the Bush Administration put a national heathcare plan in place for Iraq..but fight it tooth and nail here."

Interesting. I hadn't read that. I'll have to research it.

"Medicare is in place and could be evolved (with work) into a very suitable national healthcare plan.....i think business would love to throw off the costs of healthcare.."

Yes. GM is one of the biggest proponents of national health care.

"...im a liberal who is NOT a free trader....we shouldnt sell China our oil companies and yes, I didnt support Nafta....or Cafta...or any plan that let Wal-Mart force american companies to move jobs to china and india..."

That's not a liberal versus conservative issue. Pat Buchanan is one of the biggest foes of NAFTA and CAFTA. I'm for them (economic theory again) but allowing China to buy our oil companies might well be a national security problem.

"...i am angered when Social Security which runs very well..."

I won't comment extensively. Let's just say I see my opinion to the contrary as incontrovertible.

"...I laugh now when I see this administration spend like "old-style" democrats spend in government....I like the new attitude Dems/libs have toward fiscal control and wish this had been the bi-partisan thing to help thenparties work together...but this administration decided to give Tax cuts and blow up deficits that the Clinton admin worked so hard to reduce....with good fiscal policy ..now we are in debt and the Administration wants to give more tax cuts...in a time of war..senseless"

I agree that Republicans have done a 180 in the last twenty years on deficits.
And where Clinton was an ineffective liberal (no national health care. Gave in to welfare reform) Bush is an effective politician of mixed (unknown?) political orientation. Under him Education outlays increased from $36 billion to $61 billion in just the last three years.
 
"...im a lib that supported the Administration on Afganistan...it was right to attack and try to elimate the Taliban and catch the guy that attacked us...Bin Laden...but unlike the Brits who caught and identifed the perpetrators
of the recent attacks...we have yet to have that same focus....liberals were right to support afganistan...Iraq was where i got off the ride....this war was wrong...and the evidence supports it...and it was on Bush's watch ..dont
blame any previous administrations....this was his war of choice..."

No need to counter an argument I have not even advanced! This was a war of Bush's choosing. I reservedly support it because decisions have to be made with imperfect information. I believe it was the right position but I don't know it. I think we agree that indecision is deadlly and now that we are there, we must see it through.

"and now its a mess and hes got no one to blame but himself...liberals were right to not support this war...."

I would agree that it is a "mess" except that I've come to realize all wars are messy and chaotic. It appears to me that the democratization of Iraq is proceeding better than that of Germany after WWII.

"im a liberal who loves science and the environment...government does this well...but this administration ignores or tries to re-write science..."

I love science and technology too. And I agree that only government can effectively manage the environment. I view with disdain the certainty on this issue of Rush Limbaugh "It's not possible for us to destroy the ozone" as well as those on the other side who seek to dismiss opponents as ignorant rather thad admit uncertainty. Scientists are, as a group, willing to turn on a dime when proven wrong. Steven Hawking made a bet in 1991 backing his own black hole theory. "After supercomputer simulations by M. Choptuik showed how a naked singularity  could exist, Hawking was forced to concede the bet." Can you even imagine a politician making such a concession?

"I don't diagree with what you are saying...but if you read the bible or other religious guides / books...i think conservatives follow very little from the teachings of many religious icons, including Jesus...and i find it
hypocritical...(my opinion)..."

To enforce biblical teachings through government fiat would seem to undercut arguments against legislating morality. Where we get into trouble is that most people, liberal and conservative, act as though everything that is legal is permissible. So if government doesn't take our money for welfare, then it's okay not to donate voluntarily to the poor. If the government doesn't outlaw living together, then out-of-wedlock births are fine. Cigarettes are legal, so selling them is fine. There is no law against taking money from the ignorant, so let's start a check cashing business. It goes on and on. I oppose the laws, but abhor the lack of morality. And if we don't learn self-restraint, we will eventually have all these laws. Some you will like, some you won't.
 
"The courts are an option for the minority to help defend themselves...i think sometimes the minority needs a place to turn to....its not always wrong to look to the courts....majority rule would have kept African-Americans as
3/5ths of a man and in forced segregation...."

Actually, it was the Supreme Court who put its imprimatur on slavery   Dred Scott v. Sanford and majority opposition that finally outlawed it. Dred Scott is a case against judicial advocacy.

"most libs dont like the idea of the eminent domain issue...i thought that was wrong...but it stands unfortunately...but the libs are blamed for it.."

It was caused by only a handful of libs, but those liberal justices are indisputably to blame. The conservatives dissented. What distinguishes Scalia from Souter, for example, is their process. Scalia looks at the Constitution and wants to implement it. ("I don't like to defend flag burning, but the Constitution requires me to.") Souter sees an injustice and seeks to rectify it. The reason to restrain court is that there are legislative remedies to injustices. I can't understand why we'd leave it up to 9 lifetime appointees who are as vulnerable to human weakness as anyone. The Constitution does not require ultimate deference to The Supreme Court.
 
" ..i have a problem when the Supreme Court was wonderful for forcing Bush on us....perhaps one of the more activist.. efforts ever seen....but that was a good thing per conservatives....and remember what happened with Teri
Schiavo...when conservatives judges..dont go the way of the conservatives..those same conservative judges turn into activists....so its a BS label...conservatives use to say do it our way...or else..."

I don't agree that it is a BS label. The Schiavo case demonstrates only that Republicans can fall for the same BS as Democrats if the issue is as blinding for them as others are for Democrats. I oppose the euthanization of Terri Schiavo, but also the political grandstanding of the Republicans. I see it as good law with a bad outcome. It was a a rare case.
 
Besides liking the quote, I sign off with the words of Patrick Moynihan because he was "liberal who did not flinch from the label" according to George Will.

I also admire Washington Post columnist William Raspberry who has been kind enough to reply to my occasional fan email. He is a political partisan without a shred of belicosity. His political opposite George Will is another. George Will is Moynihan's biggest fan. I am his second biggest fan.

______________
Jerry

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts" - late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan

[doc9464]

> Naturally, every side sees itself as the defender of
> liberty, keeper of freedom, defender of truth. It's a given.

So you mention "sides" so where is a libertarian and what is their belief based on your comment....what do they (you?) defend?
 
 
> Sounds good but laws against theft and murder are grounded
> in the ten commandments. Libertarians will tell you those
> are valid laws because to violate them takes life, liberty
> and/or property from another. Many conservatives will tell
> you that "this is a Christian nation" and our laws should
> reflect it. Many liberals argue against legislating morality
> but what are government programs that take from one group to
> give to another but a government run charity where giving
> isn't voluntary?


I think many of us with some time know that many of our laws come from several sources including ten commandments...thats not a surprise..but you know as well as I do...that most "christians" and "fundamentalists" want their beliefs to trump all others despite all the laws and the rights laid down as part of the core beliefs of the government....ive heard the words of many regarding this type of belief and unfortunately if you listen to some of these "christians" or ask them do people who do not share their beliefs really have any say here or in life..the answer would be no....and if we didnt have rules like we have guaranteeing religions freedom...no telling what these people would do...

My basic problem with religion is that many religions feel that there is no co-existance period....you know this so i wont rehash it...but government should not cater to any religion....christians (as of late - if you listen to Tony Perkins, Falwell, Richard Land...and others...mostly southern baptists so far) keep saying that the USA should be run their way and by their beliefs..well government caters to all ...all have the freedom to worship and all should live under the same laws...no exceptions for christians....or buddists....no religion gets the advantage...if you follow what was intended...and reasonably interpret it

Throughout your post, you mention about government programs that take from one group and give to another....do you believe social security (which is no wealth transfer program) and welfare/medicare (which are safety net programs) are a transfer of wealth...well the government now has programs that marginally address some of the issues for the poor....i would hope that a reasonable person  would agree that these programs are not perfect but that there does need to be a way to have some protection for the poor, sick, etc... Yes, there has been fraud and abuse...but there is abuse in defense..there is abuse in the treasury..etc..
Reform is always needed but that should the focus...any one i think would agree that taking care of fellow Americans is a good thing...or are you leaning in the Ayn Rand direction...... I think its nuts when you call these plans "entitlements"...its just right to try to attend to the needs of all Americans not just the rich...or the "haves". I hope you arent one of those types who think that non-whites are the only ones who are using government services and that does not fuel your "transfer of wealth" belief. Im counting on you to be a reasonable type..but i do hear that and if you check some of the conservative sites ...you would be shocked at how people blame non-whites for welfare/medicare issues...

You complain about taxes and distribution of wealth, but dont (maybe?) blink when Bush gives 5.6 trillion to 1% of the population...thats not wealth redistribution. You complain about Social Security....while 100% of your salary is taxed (@6%) up to 90,000 while those who make millions more dont pay 1 cent more. I always find it crazy that when lifting the cap is mentioned...this Administration says its a tax increase. 99% of America wouldn't be affected by raising the cap because most americans don't make 90,000 and raising the cap fixes social security without cutting any benefits for anyone...and people continue to pay in as before and businesses still kick in 6% too. You don't blink when its proven that the Estate Tax affects only the 1% ...while bush claims it hurts farmers....and regular people....most people dont even have the $$$$ to be affected....

Supporting arguments

Raising cap => http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05060/464453.stm
(BTW: Pittsburgh post is very conservative paper - not the "liberal media" conservatives and (some) libertarian people claim)
 
Annenberg Center => http://www.factcheck.org/article328.html
(Annenberg Center is non-partisan)

NY times => (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0B1EFC3E590C738DDDAE0894DD404482
(if you register for free account you can read older articles)

 
> I oppose abortion on the same grounds that I do murder and
> capital punishment but a detailed response would be too
> long.

Abortion has been debated to death ..i wont say we agree...but we can leave it there...i think we have an idea about each others ideas now..

> Some people think it's fine. Some not. But either way, I
> don't think there is a government role to play. The
> libertarian acid test is: Is it infringing on someone else's
> life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? Gay marriage is not.

I don't think the government should ever try to legislate marriage...and i agree that life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is not infringing....
>
> Well.. I don't know that I'd agree that marriage as an
> institution is in good shape. What's risible is to blame it
> on gay marriage. We don't HAVE gay marriage for the most
> part and out-of-wedlock births are 30% of all births. The
> Britney Spears of the world are doing far more damage as far
> as setting a bad example.

I wish more people would see it...cause that is the truth..marriage has its own issues that Gay Marriage isnt causing ...lol
>

> I tend to avoid the word because it is inflammatory (a
> counterproductive ingredient in serious political
> discussion). However, I think you can see the grounding in
> the  definition(s)of socialism. Of course, the govenrment can manage and provide healthcare without "owning the means of its production" so it's a lazy argument.  

Most people don't know exactly what socialism is....again i accept your reasonable look at the issue...again conservatives spew this a lot...and its just not true....(spew is correct...again watch some of the conservative articles or google....)


 I oppose it but again, unless you want to wade through three pages of text, I'll move on. (Hint: It's an economic argument, not a social or moral argument.)

We disagree but don't need to "wade" as you state - i think its a little of both...but I will say its shameful that most countries don't have many of the problems we have re:healthcare or they have some answers that we choose not to even investigate.....its also a greed issue...ill add that one in as well..
 
 
> Frankly, when you use words like "parrot" you fall into the
> trap of trying to win an argument through sarcasm, ridicule
> and putdown. I'm not immune to the problem myself but it is
> a trap I try to avoid.

I enjoy having discussions but lets not get into a delivery issue...lets just skip this one...i dont think i have to respond to that....
>

> Interesting. I hadn't read that. I'll have to research it.

A press release covering the issue below
http://www.house.gov/commerce_democrats/press/108nr17.htm

 
> That's not a liberal versus conservative issue. Pat Buchanan
> is one of the biggest foes of NAFTA and CAFTA. I'm for them
> (economic theory again) but allowing China to buy our oil
> companies might well be a national security problem.

Buchanan (yes i agree with him) as well as Perot in the 90's...Bush and Clinton were wrong about these plans....i think its nuts that we have no manufacuring facilities any more (or a devastating reduction) and we don't have fair trade...things would be right if China, India, etc...were forced to deal the way the US and other countries deal with its labor force.....pay, working condition,etc.....its not right
 
> I won't comment extensively. Let's just say I see my opinion
> to the contrary as incontrovertible.

Not trying to change you but i disagree

> I agree that Republicans have done a 180 in the last twenty
> years on deficits.
> And where Clinton was an ineffective liberal (no national
> health care. Gave in to welfare reform) Bush is an effective
> politician of mixed (unknown?) political orientation. Under
> him  Education outlays increased from $36 billion to $61
> billion in just the last three years.

Your comments about Clinton versus Bush belie one important things...Bush has had a much easier path to getting his legislation through...except for the limited time Dems controlled the senate....Bush has had both houses...and still is not the best at getting bills in and out....all these guys  did was pass tax cuts ....NO child left behind isnt funded....there are a littany of bills that had to be pushed into "Ommibus" bills because of the lack of still in getting legislation passed....you may need to rethink that comment....this has not been a good 5 years of legislation......check out CQ.
>  

> No need to counter an argument I have not even advanced!
> This was a war of Bush's choosing. I reservedly support it
> because decisions have to be made with imperfect
> information. I believe it was the right position but I don't
> know it. I think we agree that indecision is deadlly and now
> that we are there, we must see it through

I accept your view and state again..that i think the evidence is mounting on how we got there....
>
 
> I would agree that it is a "mess" except that I've come to
> realize all wars are messy and chaotic. It appears to me
> that the democratization of Iraq is proceeding better than
> that of Germany after WWII.

apples and oranges......but was interesting take on it
>

> I love science and technology too. And I agree that only
> government can effectively manage the environment. I view
> with disdain the certainty on this issue of Rush Limbaugh
> "It's not possible for us to destroy the ozone" as well as
> those on the other side who seek to dismiss opponents as
> ignorant rather thad admit uncertainty. Scientists are, as a
> group, willing to turn on a dime when proven wrong. Steven
> Hawking made a bet in 1991 backing his own black hole
> theory. "After supercomputer simulations by M. Choptuik
> showed how a naked singularity  could exist, Hawking was
> forced to  concede the bet."  Can you even imagine a
> politician making such a concession?

on the chiotuik/hawking bet....nahh never...thats the problem...no one is ever wrong....great analogy
>

[Jerry Stevens]

”So you mention "sides" so where is a libertarian and what is their belief based on your comment....what do they (you?) defend?

I defend liberty as I define it just as you defend liberty as you define it. I believe in minimalist government. The debate is about how minimal you can make it. I defend the Constitution as it was written. When it comes to the judiciary, I concern myself more with the process than the outcome. Bad outcomes should be dealt with legislatively. For example: I don’t agree with those who think the second amendment has outlived its usefulness. But there are defensible arguments that it has. I could live with a Constitutional amendment eliminating it. What’s indefensible, in my opinion, is the judicial erosion of the clear and simple language protecting it.

By the same process, the part of the first amendment, granting freedom of speech, has been expanded so far as to include all manner of expression  including nude dancing but not donations enabling dissemination of political expression.

The part of the first amendment that protects religious expression has been reduced. ”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. It prohibits laws establishing religion, not public displays of religious symbols. It is distorted beyond recognition. You rightly point out that many Christian fundamentalists do seek to impose their religion. But I tire of attempts to paint all Christians with the same brush. I am Catholic. You may not know this, but many (perhaps most) Christian fundamentalists loathe us more than they do atheists. I have been told to my face more than once that I am “practicing a false religion”. Catholics have better relations with Jews than Christian fundamentalists. Fundamentalists believe that all aspects of the bible are literally true. Catholics rely on theology to discern the difference between the literal and the illustrative parts of the bible.

But again, I would not mind a constitutional amendment that clarifies and extends the first amendment, but this has not happened. It has been revised judicially as Congress abdicates its consitutional authority to make sure that the judiciary is kept in check just as the executive and legislative branches are.

”Throughout your post, you mention about government programs that take from one group and give to another....”

I mentioned it once.

”do you believe social security (which is no wealth transfer program)”

Excuse me? It is the ultimate wealth transfer program! Current taxpayers support current retirees.

”Reform is always needed but that should the focus...any one i think would agree that taking care of fellow Americans is a good thing...or are you leaning in the Ayn Rand direction......

Ayn Rand is practically the founder of Libertarianism.

”I think its nuts when you call these plans "entitlements"...”

But I did not. I sense that you, perhaps subconsciously, categorize people and then assign words and motives from one member to another in the group. Just as you accept but reject various parts of orthodox liberalism, so do I when it comes to conservatism and libertarianism.

Entitlements is a word bureaucrats originated so as to signify that certain parts of the budget can’t be eliminated. They are “entitled” by acts of Congress and therefore immune to the budget axe.
   
”its just right to try to attend to the needs of all Americans not just the rich...or the "haves".

I agree with you. It is one of my religious tenets.

”I hope you arent one of those types who think that non-whites are the only ones who are  using government services and that does not fuel your "transfer of wealth" belief.

Why would you even suspect such a thing. Those kind of comments about things we haven’t even discussed fuels my belief that you are assigning thoughts to me based on a caricature-like image of libertarians and/or conservatives derived elsewhere.

I’ll tell you what, I’ll ask my Latino wife and my black sister-in-law and nephew what they think.

” Im counting on you to be a reasonable type..”

What is the price of being considered “reasonable”? Agreement?

”but i do hear that and if you check some of the conservative sites ...you would be shocked at how people blame non-whites for welfare/medicare issues...”
 
I’ve seen them. And I’ve seen liberal sites that foster hate toward whites. What do those sites have to do with you or with me?

”but dont (maybe?) blink when Bush gives 5.6 trillion to 1% of the population...thats not wealth redistribution.”

The value of the tax cut is arguable. But it is not a gift or redistribution of wealth. If I take $1,000 per year from you in taxes, and then reduce it to $900 per year, have I given you a gift? No, I’m just taking less.

”You complain about Social Security....while 100% of your salary is taxed (@6%) up to 90,000 while those who make millions more dont pay 1 cent more.”

Their benefits are capped as well. So why shouldn’t their premiums be capped? Or is it really a welfare program instead of retirement insurance? As a libertarians I want the fruits of my labor, not the fruit of other people’s labor. As a Christian, I recognize my obligation to help the poor. I do not seek to impose my Christian values on others through government programs. That's why I also think churches should not be tax exempt. But atheists are too busy fighting displays of the ten commandments to do anything about it.

The economic impact is the same as if the entire 12.4% FICA is deducted via payroll or if only 6.2% is taken via payroll deduction or from the employer’s checking account. When I was a hiring manager, I had to calculate and submit the entire cost of hiring a person for budget approval, not just salary. So if I had a budget of $50,000 to hire a person, I would have to back out the 6.2% FICA and don’t forget 1.45% Medicare and I could then offer $46,500. It is completely illusory that the employer pays half.

On top of that, I’m now self-employed and pay the 15.3% directly.

”I always find it crazy that when lifting the cap is mentioned...this Administration says its a tax increase. 99% of America wouldn't be affected by raising the cap because most americans don't make 90,000”

That is precisely the danger. Americans will always vote in favor of tax increases on other people. Talk about a tyranny of the majority.

Thanks for the supporting editorials in favor of raising FICA taxes on those earning over $90,000. I did read them. In the end, however, I don’t agree with people simply because someone else deems them to be of the same political flavor as I. One of the reasons I am no longer killing myself running radio stations is because the tax consequences make doing part-time consulting instead less expensive than it seems. When the kids were young, my wife and I both worked full tilt until I showed her that because she was pushing us into a higher tax bracket, the marginal income she was bringing home was negligible. I didn’t necessarily want her to quit, I just wanted to make sure she was working for personal satisfaction and not financial gain. She quit immediately. The treasury lost.

”Abortion has been debated to death ..i wont say we agree...but we can leave it there...i think we have an idea about each others ideas now..”

The debates are pointless. They hinge on the irresolvable issue of when life starts. Most libertarians like most liberals support abortion on demand. Most libertarians and most conservatives support the death penalty while most liberals oppose it. I oppose both abortion and capital punishment on the same grounds.

”Most people don't know exactly what socialism is....again i accept your reasonable look at the issue...again conservatives spew this a lot...and its just not true....(spew is correct...again watch some of the conservative articles or google....)”

Oh, and liberals don’t spew? :- )

”Your comments about Clinton versus Bush belie one important things...Bush has had a much easier path to getting his legislation through...except for the limited time Dems controlled the senate....Bush has had both houses...and still is not the best at getting bills in and out....all these guys  did was pass tax cuts ....NO child left behind isnt funded....there are a littany of bills that had to be pushed into "Ommibus" bills because of the lack of still in getting legislation passed....you may need to rethink that comment....this has not been a good 5 years of legislation......check out CQ.”

Rethink my comments? Your comments seem to corroborate my own. Bush has been completely ineffective exept in a couple of areas. And he still has not vetoed a single bill! To me, he is a Republican version of Clinton (with more sexual control). Clinton talked liberal but gave in to welfare reform and failed to nationalize health care. Clinton raised taxes. Bush lowered taxes. Bush talks conservative but expanded Medicare and the education budget (whether or not it was to fund NCLB). Social Security reform may well go the way of Clinton’s Health Care Program. Bush signed so-called Campaign Finance Reform. Like it or hate it, conservatives and libertarians view it as an infringement on political speech. If you are looking for a Bush cheerleader, you’re talking to the wrong guy.

______________
Jerry

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts" - late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan