On 08 Jan 2004 23:52:14 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

When your political icons are making statements accusing "all liberals, all
Democrats, all this, all that........" of being
anti-American, (and worse), that has nothing to do with issues. It's a tool
to
polarize society.

Not when those statements are followed up with examples to back them
up.

You make my case. What example could possibly be given of any behavior engaged
in by *all* of any group?

I don't deal in absolutes. They are too easy to invalidate. It only
takes one example. But if you change the statement to read "many" or
"a majority" it becomes much easier to substantiate.




Listen to your spokespeople. They don't defend issues or policies at
all.....they simply bad mouth anybody that might oppose a right wing agenda.

You mean in the same way that you demonize conservative radio by
calling it "hate"?

Back to my desktop dictionary.
Hate: To feel very strong dislike for.

And who on the conservative circuit has expressed a personal dislike
for anyone? They may dislike their policies. But it's not personal.




Which conservative radio programs do you listen to that do not express "very
strong dislike" for liberals?

I listen to Hannity fairly regularly, as he's on during my afternoon
drive time. He strongly refutes liberal policies, but he have never
made a statement of a personal nature that could be construed as
"hate". He is also not always in lock step with Bush. He (as I am) is
totally against this whole illegal immigrant amnesty program.



And that's what really bothers you guys on the left. The conservative
message is easier to understand, and breaks down easily into bite
sized bits that even the non-scholarly among us can understand

It's the same group of techniques that over the years have rallied the gullible
against "******s" "kikes" "spics" and what not.


There you go again, attempting to demonize the messengers and the
message by comparing similar techniques that were used to promote
ideals in the past which are now generally regarded as "bad". Dope
addicts routinely use needles to inject their poison. Does that mean
we should ban all needles?

If the ideas are sound, they will stand on their own.


The new buzzword is "lib". The rhetoric remains unchanged. The "non-scholarly"
are just as misled, just as angry, and just as manipulated.

Where there is smoke there is fire. Even if the Non_scholarly" do not
completely understand the nuances of many liberal ideas, they do
understand the final outcome. Anything which takes away from their
choices, and their financial sovereignty is a bad thing.

When you have people wanting to take your money away from you so that
someone can feel good about "helping" slackers and therefore promoting
the concept of entitlement, it should be no surprise that most people
with common sense would oppose it.




In order to adopt, much less understand the liberal
mindset you have to be willing to accept some idealistic utopian
principles which are foreign to the natural order of most people.

Again, you make my case. Thanks for the assistance.

Which is?


Dave

Have you read any of the posts by Harry, jps, basskisser etc? You keep
highlighting mild insults from the people on the right, but high five the
left while the hurl profanity and hate speech to those they disagree with.

While I have not listen to many of the right radio shows, I don't believe I
have heard any of them use the intensity of hate shown by the 3 mentioned
above.
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
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.

My point is that those unable to discuss issues resort to hurling strings
of
insults.
An insult is an emotional reaction, not an intellectual response.

Thank you for your additional validation of my point.

Right wing insults always welcome. Particularly funny when offered to
support
an argument that many right wingers don't specialize in slander. :-)

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
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, what is it with you today? Are you on cold medication or something? I
said my mechanic finds that 99% of leakers need a washer that costs as much
as one and a half lottery tickets. Even low-income people often change their
oil. The fault lies with the mechanics who don't give a damn about the
quality of their work. Joe the mechanic puts a new washer on every car, at
every oil change.

I fully understand that some cars have much more serious problems, and that
people sometimes can't afford the repairs. I was in that situation at one
point in my life. But if you read what I wrote, it's clear that a nasty
automotive problem could be virtually eliminated for next to nothing. Want
another example? Like many astute guys, I can tell when someone's tires are
low on air. So, at my office or apartment, if I have a pen & paper handy,
I'll stick a note on someone's windshield saying something like "Hey! Your
tires are REALLY low on air. Get to the pump before you get hurt". Why? It
snows here. For tires that need 32 psi, being 5 pounds low can make them
behave as if they were bald. I don't want to see people get hurt. Sometimes,
someone sticks the note on the front door of the apt entrance, or the tenant
directory of the office building saying "Thanks to whomever - they were down
to 18 pounds!"

What does this achieve? /For either free, or 50 cents (the cost of some air
pumps), maybe someone didn't get into an accident.

ThiMk, Dayve.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

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

I guess you've never lived near rivers that were capable or catching fire,
or bodies of water with glistening rainbows from a constant oil slick. Is
that what you want for your kids?

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

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?

You are not aware of anyone suggesting that the street sweeper should be
paid like a neurosurgeon. If you THINK you're aware of someone saying such
things, you have erroneously focused your attention on an idiot.


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.

Right. That's like "some". But not all. The welfare system is gradually
being overhauled to give certain people a kick in the pants. You know that.
You read the grownup news, right? You've heard reports about some of the
successes and failures of the new program.


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 any bricklayers who think they should live in $3
million homes like a neurosurgeons. If you THINK you're aware of someone
saying such things, you have erroneously focused your attention on an idiot
or a whiner.


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.

Maybe we'd better establish some definitions. By "ER doctor", I'm not
talking about someone who's only been out of med school for a couple of
years. Their life is hell for awhile. I'm talking about a seasoned doctor
whose salary is at least in the $100-$300K range. Having established this
idea, I can say with 100% accuracy that you're not aware of anyone claiming
a union carpenter's salary should suddenly be boosted to anywhere near that
range. If a tradesman wants that kind of money, he usually goes independent
and becomes a builder, rather than hiring out for other peoples' projects.



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".

Some businesses are in a category by themselves. Food is one of them.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
news
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?

An economist can explain that to you. My only concern is our ability to sell
more bonds when interest rates are a complete snooze, as they are now.


We can support our lowered tax
structure as long as we roll back much of the left's entitlement
programs

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz...........


, and policies such as awarding huge grants of money to study
such trivial items as the sex life of a tse-tse fly.

For people who place zero value on knowledge, this is a great idea. Heard a
great news story today, on NPR, the shameless left wing news source. Some
left wing scientist has discovered something about the inner workings of
mitochondria and how it's connected with genetic aspects of diseases like
diabetes. What a friggin' waste of grant money. Who needs knowledge when you
have Cheetos, the Simpsons, and that third thing - the opiate of the masses?
You understand that last reference, I'm sure, because you have knowledge.


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.

Yeah. We'll give you back your share of all research grant money. When
someone in your family gets diabetes, you can conduct your own research.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
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

I've given you a perfect analogy for what your president is doing: Raising
debt, and lowering income. I've told you your daughter has a plan that's
identical, and that she believes it's sound. Respond to that, assuming she
intends to go ahead with her plan regardless of what you say. Also, factor
in something you don't know yet: You *will* care about her and gently nag
her until the day you die. It's human nature.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
NPR's left-wing bias is more analogous to governmental right-wing
propaganda. If you want an example of "hate talk" from the left, look at
people like Al Franken, Michael Moore, and James Carville.

When are their NPR shows scheduled?

Good question. I listen to NPR for about 10 hours a week, and have been for
about 15 years. If those 3 people have been on with any regularity, I
must've missed it.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


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?

Removing dog poop from your shoes may not remove the smell. Fill a shallow
box with baking soda and place the shoes in it for a couple of days. While
waiting for the smell to dissipate, read what left-wing puppet Powell has to
say:

Powell Admits No Hard Proof in Linking Iraq to Al Qaeda

By CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS



WASHINGTON, Jan. 8 - Secretary of State Colin L. Powell conceded Thursday
that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no
"smoking gun" proof of a link between the government of Iraqi President
Saddam Hussein and terrorists of Al Qaeda.



"I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection," Mr.
Powell said, in response to a question at a news conference. "But I think
the possibility of such connections did exist, and it was prudent to
consider them at the time that we did."



Mr. Powell's remarks on Thursday were a stark admission that there is no
definitive evidence to back up administration statements and insinuations
that Saddam Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda, the acknowledged authors of the
Sept. 11 attacks. Although President Bush finally acknowledged in September
that there was no known connection between Mr. Hussein and the attacks, the
impression of a link in the public mind has become widely accepted - and
something administration officials have done little to discourage.



Mr. Powell offered a vigorous defense of his Feb. 5 presentation before the
Security Council, in which he voiced the administration's most detailed case
to date for war with Iraq. After studying intelligence data, he said that a
"sinister nexus" existed "between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network, a
nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of
murder."



Without any additional qualifiers, Mr. Powell continued, "Iraq today harbors
a deadly terrorist network, headed by Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi, an associate
and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda lieutenants."



He added, "Iraqi officials deny accusations of ties with Al Qaeda. These
denials are simply not credible."



On Thursday, Mr. Powell dismissed second-guessing and said that Mr. Bush had
acted after giving Mr. Hussein 12 years to come into compliance with the
international community.



"The president decided he had to act because he believed that whatever the
size of the stockpile, whatever one might think about it, he believed that
the region was in danger, America was in danger and he would act," he said.
"And he did act."



In a rare, wide-ranging meeting with reporters, Mr. Powell voiced some
optimism on several other issues that have bedeviled the administration,
including North Korea and Sudan, while expressing dismay about the Middle
East and Haiti.



But mostly, the secretary, appearing vigorous and in good spirits three
weeks after undergoing surgery for prostate cancer, defended his
justification for the war in Iraq. He said he had been fully aware that "the
whole world would be watching," as he painstakingly made the case that the
government of Saddam Hussein presented an imminent threat to the United
States and its interests.



The immediacy of the danger was at the core of debates in the United Nations
over how to proceed against Mr. Hussein. A report released Thursday by the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a nonpartisan Washington
research center, concluded that Iraq's weapons programs constituted a
long-term threat that should not have been ignored. But it also said the
programs did not "pose an immediate threat to the United States, to the
region or to global security."



Mr. Powell's United Nations presentation - complete with audiotapes and
satellite photographs - asserted that "leaving Saddam Hussein in possession
of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an
option." The secretary said he had spent time with experts at the Central
Intelligence Agency studying reports. "Anything that we did not feel was
solid and multisourced, we did not use in that speech," he said Thursday.



He said that Mr. Hussein had used prohibited weapons in the past - including
nerve gas attacks against Iran and Iraqi Kurds - and said that even if there
were no actual weapons at hand, there was every indication he would
reconstitute them once the international community lost interest.



"In terms of intention, he always had it," Mr. Powell said. "What he was
waiting to do is see if he could break the will of the international
community, get rid of any potential future inspections, and get back to his
intentions, which were to have weapons of mass destruction."



The administration has quietly withdrawn a 400-member team of American
weapons inspectors who were charged with finding chemical or biological
weapons stockpiles or laboratories, officials said this week. The team was
part of the 1,400-member Iraq Survey Group, which has not turned up such
weapons or active programs, the officials said.



The Carnegie report challenged the possibility that Mr. Hussein could have
destroyed the weapons, hidden them or shipped them out of the country.
Officials had alleged that Iraq held amounts so huge - hundreds of tons of
chemical and biological weapons, dozens of Scud missiles - that such moves
would have been detected by the United States, the report said.



The Washington Post this week reported that Iraq had apparently preserved
its ability to produce missiles, biological agents and other illicit weapons
through the decade-long period of international sanctions after the Persian
Gulf war, but that their development had apparently been limited to the
planning stage.



On North Korea, he said he had received "encouraging signals" from his Asian
counterparts that the North might be close to agreeing to another round of
six-party talks. But he said the administration would not yield on its
insistence that the North first state its willingness to bring its nuclear
program to a verifiable end.



Mr. Powell was equally hopeful about a peace agreement to end a grueling
civil war in Sudan. "The key here is that after 20 years of most terrible
war, Sudanese leaders have come together and are just one or two steps short
of having a comprehensive peace agreement," he said.



On the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he said the United States and the three
other nations promoting peace talks had expected more movement ending
hostilities and establishing a Palestinian state. "They are as disturbed as
I am that we haven't seen the kind of progress that we had hoped for," he
said.



Turning to Haiti, where a decade ago Mr. Powell took part in a delegation
that sought to persuade plotters in a military coup to step down, he voiced
frustration at the failure of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide to reach
agreement with his political foes. Violence has flared in recent days as
anti-Aristide protesters demanded an end to a political deadlock that has
paralyzed the government. The country's Catholic Bishops Conference has
tried to broker a new agreement.

Have you read any of the posts by Harry, jps, basskisser etc? You keep
highlighting mild insults from the people on the right, but high five the
left while the hurl profanity and hate speech to those they disagree with.

Left wing individuals are not an "institution". Nor are right wing individuals
an "institution".

Many people exhibit outrageous behavior here in the NG. It's funny to watch how
the
accusations fly. In virtually every case, those who complain about various
individuals overlook the hateful flaming done by people on their own "side" and
point out the equally offensive antics by somebody else and label that "the
problem".

Right wing radio *is* an institution, and it rather unfortunately sets the tone
for its listening audience. The largest such audience in the US.

Did you know the largest owner of radio stations in the country is the
corporation that broadcasts the Rush Limbaugh show?

In some small towns, they own *every* station, and are buying up TV stations,
newspapers, etc literally as fast as possible.

And I don't high-five anybody. You must be new here.


This statement applies to everybody:

My point is that those unable to discuss issues resort to hurling strings
of
insults.
An insult is an emotional reaction, not an intellectual response.

It was included in a response to a couple of the resident right wingers because
they were the individuals involved in the discussion at the time.

It would be ridiculous to say that a right wing poster flames and insults when
he has nothing intelligent to offer, but that a left wing poster can do the
same thing and it's a sign of inspired genius.

But hey. It's an election year. The dirtiest ******* will win, and both sides
are out to
make sure they're dirtier than the other. Same old thing.