On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:46:20 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

If
Dean gets into office he'll tax Grandma right out of her mobile
home!......etc"

Much of the fuel for that fire was supplied by the candidates
themselves. Dean has publicly stated that he intends to roll back all
of our tax cuts. Grandma is part of that group.


Strawman:
Your daughter's all grown up and has her own place to live. You stop by to
annoy her just as she's taking the mail out of the mailbox. You notice she's
got 19 credit card bills in the mail. Being the concerned daddy, you say
"Hey...that's not gonna look so good on your credit report, having that many
credit accounts...even if they're all current". She says "Hey - I was
$8,000.00 in debt last year and now I've got it up to $17,300.00. I applied
for more cards yesterday, and I'm thinking of finding a job that pays me
less".

Analogies:
"applied for more cards" : Sold more Treasury bonds
"job that pays me less: : Lowered taxes (income)

What do you say to her?

Get a better job.


Dave

On 08 Jan 2004 17:57:40 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Try NPR...

I listen to NPR regularly.

Tell me, when do I tune in to hear the hosts denigrate all conservatives as
"traitors"? When should I listen to hear dozens of "Yep, me toos" from the
listening audience? Can't believe I'm missing all this hateful stuff boradcast
on NPR.

So it's your assertion then that people who agree with a certain
position, are somehow "hateful"?

Dave

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 12:58:52 -0500, DSK wrote:

Do you have some call letters of a radio station that broadcasts the left wing
equivalent of Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, and the rest? I'd like to know where
you hear the left "do the same" as the right.

Dave Hall wrote:
Try NPR...

That's great Dave.... remember, it's only "fair and balanced" if it promotes the
illogical bigotry & fascism that are nearest & dearest to your heart.


As opposed to the illogical bigotry and fascism that are nearest and
dearest to yours?




Kudos, though: Like NOYB you are willing to admit that the right at least does
it "too"

I disagree with your characterization of conservative talk radio as
"Hate".

Wait a minute, in your last post didn't you say "if it quacks like a duck, call it
a duck"?

I don't think Gould0738 was trying to characterize all conservative talk radio as
"hate radio" just the ones that are hate-filled. Like the ones that denounce
liberals as traitors (among other hateful accusations)....

Proceeding to undermine the fight against terrorism, especially when
you have little to no credible information to base your opposition on,
is analogous to being a traitor. How can you be a good citizen if you
oppose the policies of your own country? It's like being a good
parent. If mom and dad disagree about a particular method of
punishment, they need to resolve it in private. Not air it out in
front of the kids, where the kids can then sense a chink in the
parental armor. That same is true with our foreign policy. Sure you
have a right and a responsibility to oppose that which you disagree
with. But you don't compare your leaders to Hitler, or pull a "Dixie
Chicks" in a public forum in a foreign country. Especially when your
whole reason for opposing is contained in sound byte propaganda.


Stating a negative opinion is also not automatically hateful. You
frequently disagree with me and have used ad-hominem names out of
sheer frustration. By your and Chuck's "logic", can I then assume that
you guys "hate" me? Should I be calling the DA's office?


Just because you can't counter the points made in a logical
fashion, and it bothers you, doesn't make the content "Hateful".

Actually, I and others have countered many (at least, all the ones I've cared to
read) of your points in sensible, factual, logical fashion... but you have refused
to learn anything at all in the years you've been ranting on this NG.

You arrogantly assume that your points made any sense to anyone
besides yourself. Just because someone provides you with "information"
does not mean that the information is either factual, or rational. I
have yet to hear a liberal point that makes any sense. It's just the
wrong ideology, and I can give many reasons why. It's no different
than our latest bunch of democratic presidential wannabees. None of
them have made any hint as to what they would do to fix things,other
than to counter what "the enemy" has done. Where is their vision for
success?


God bless you for never changing, Dave! You're like a rock!

It's called sticking to sound moral principles. A concept that those
on the left seem to have forgotten.

Dave

On 08 Jan 2004 18:05:47 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

That the left refers to the presentation of an opposing opinion as
"Hate" is what I find most offensive.

Opposing opinion is fine. When that "opinion" becomes, "In my opinion, anybody
who disagrees with Bush is a tratior. In my opinion, the liberals in this
country are all out to coddle terrorists." etc
that becomes hate speech.

It is not hateful to draw conclusions. That you guys on the left try
to taint such conclusions by demonizing them as hate (and therefore
invalid) is the point.

An opinion is
"I believe the current policy in Iraq is a good one because........" The
statement, "All liberals should be given a one-way ticket out of the United
States to improve our national security" may be an opinion- but it's also hate
speech.

Sean Hannity put it best one day when he made the statement: "I don't
hate liberals. I have plenty of liberal friends. I play golf with
them, I go to dinner with them. I just don't want them in power."

They just don't understand reality.

Dave

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 02:53:17 GMT, WaIIy
wrote:

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 20:04:40 -0500, "Jim--" wrote:


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
What's the matter Chuckie somebody hurt your feelings with big bad words?
Grow up!

Bert


Very good, Bert. You make my point.

If your *point* is about being mean tempered, unwilling to accept views
opposing yours and being egotistical, then I guess Bert did prove it. You
fit it to a T as evidenced by your posts scattered throughout this NG.


Better shut up, Jim. You might be spewing "hate speech".

Hate Speech : Any notion Gould, jps and Krouse don't agree with.

That pretty much sums it up.

Dave

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 18:14:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

I don't think that mainstream America is ready for a liberal. Liberals
downplay those values and morals that most of the heartland live by.


Nah....that's not true. Liberals don't try to legislate morals, or preach
about them. We get in your face about some stuff, but not about other stuff.
The difference between Liberals and Conservatives is which areas they
acknowledge as "None of anybody's business".

It's 100% based on the opinions of human beings, not natural law or deities.
Therefore, it's fair play to meddle until the next person is elected. If I
were elected, there'd be a law saying that if your car leaks oil all over
parking lots and you don't fix it within 30 days of getting a ticket,
someone comes to your house and breaks your kneecaps, and all five fingers
on one hand. But that's just me.


My law would be that you'd be legally allowed to shoot the fool that
came to your house to break your kneecaps.

Dave

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 21:33:43 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:



That law's been on the books in Germany for a long time!

John H

I like it! Seriously....it washes into the storm drains and ends up in MY
fishing water. My mechanic says 99% of the leakers he sees need a $1.50
washer around the oil pan drain plug.

But you fail to consider the poor people, who routinely drive 20 year
old cars, who can't afford to replace the front main seal in the
engine, or the valve cover gaskets.

See, this is what I mean about the duplicity of the left. You guys
become single focussed when you adopt a cause. But you fail to
consider the interactivity that results when your "vision" is applied
in practice.

What is more important to you? Helping the poor stay afloat, or being
cents wise and dollar foolish when it comes to little environmental
issues?

Dave

On 08 Jan 2004 18:15:56 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Think about this though. If there were an element in society that you
could statistically track, and could link this same element to a
definite decline in living standard, or quality of life, and you spoke
out against it, based on your evidence, would that make you "Hateful"?

When your only "evidence" is conjecture, spin, and speculation and you speak
out not against the decline but against those groups or individuals you blame
for the decline, yes. Even unto the classic sense of the Nazi vs. Jew or KKK
vs. black American examples. "Everything wrong with this country is the fault
of this group of people over here......." Very old story.


I specifically stated "Statistically track" so as to avoid the "he
says/she says" form of opinion bantering.

Dave

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 18:43:15 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


Free market capitalism is natural. Socialism is not. Liberalism is
ultimately bound to fail. There will always be classes in society, no
matter now hard the left tries to artificially remove them.


1) You have a short memory. We've discussed this. You are not permitted to
use the word "socialism" unless you understand it. You do not understand it.
If you disagree with me, please explain socialism and how it applies to this
discussion.

I could give you the dictionary definition or the practical one. Which
one do you want? In either case, a system which artificially relocates
wealth from those who work for it to those who don't, is blatantly
unfair to those who work hard. It also promotes a sense of mediocrity,
as it remove incentives to better oneself. If one can make a living
wage as a street sweeper, why take on the additional responsibility
and stress of being a rocket scientist or CEO, if the rewards are not
that much greater?


2) There's nothing wrong with classes within society, as long as people are
free to choose their place.

That is precisely what we have. The problem is that many people's
class is the product of either poor choices or lack of ambition. Many
on the left feel that these people are victims, rather than
participants in their own situation, and that the rest of us should be
bound to "do something" about it.



If I'm happy laying bricks, and my lack of
stress leads my doctor to say I'm the healthiest man he's ever seen, that's
my choice. If, on the other hand, I can accept chaos and stress and choose
to be an emergency room doctor, that also my choice.

Then don't complain if you can't afford to live the same standard of
life that your CEO neighbor lives.


You are not aware of anyone suggesting that the salary of the ER doctor
should be lowered to the level of what the bricklayer is paid.

Not, actually just the opposite. Many of you on the left feel that the
bricklayer should be paid close to what the ER doctor is paid. Support
of unions is a prime example of promoting a disproportionate wage for
the intrinsic value of an un- or under skilled labor job.

We have had this discussion before. Only Mark Browne had the insight
to even address the other side.

You fell apart after the $10 Big Mac that would result if we paid fast
food workers a "Living wage".

Dave

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 19:02:53 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

Do you want to pay more in taxes or less? For most people the answer
is easy.

As long as you don't ask them if they understand the long term consequences
of such a tax decision, you're all set. At least in terms of getting
yourself elected, and the aforementioned consequences don't come down the
chute until your term of office ends and you're back on your ranch.


And just what are those consequences? We can support our lowered tax
structure as long as we roll back much of the left's entitlement
programs, and policies such as awarding huge grants of money to study
such trivial items as the sex life of a tse-tse fly. We can also
insist that all of those countries that we provided unselfish aid at
times of crisis (That they have promptly forgot) repay much of the
debt that we routinely forgive.

The more money you give back to the people, the better their standard
of living becomes.

Dave