Discussion:
Most hypocrtical thing ever heard on the floor of the Senate
(too old to reply)
p***@see_my_sig_for_address.com
2005-07-29 18:29:22 UTC
Permalink
I watched today as Bobby 'KKK' Byrd took the floor, totally out of
context with any ongoing debate or legislation, to give a speech in
praise of MLK.

His repeated foucs ( and there's NOTHING that man can't repeat at
least 3 times, as anyone who has watched him knows ), was 'How great
MLK was 40 years ago, how we all need to follow his example from 40
years ago', etc, etc.

At no point in his colloquy did Bobby mention 'Oh, BTW - during this
time period, the time when I'm speaking so highly of MLK, I was a
Grand Kleagle in the KKK, and I was too busy trying to get him
lynched, hung from the nearest tree in the middle of the night, to
actually hear anything he said'.

Geez.


Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!

http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/

Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free Temperature / Pressure charts for 38 Ref's http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/
Rob St. Amant
2005-07-29 20:32:51 UTC
Permalink
So Byrd was an idiot up until about 1960. He's repudiated his former
self, and in any case he doesn't hold a monopoly on hypocrisy. I'm
thinking, for example, of Dick "I had other priorities" Cheney, as well
as his hand puppet W, who were perfectly happy for other people to take
risks they weren't willing to back in the Viet Nam days. Do any of
their supporters hold that against them? Has Bush or Cheney ever said,
"Okay, I actually should have gone to Viet Nam instead of cheering from
the sidelines"? Hardly.
p***@see_my_sig_for_address.com
2005-07-29 20:39:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob St. Amant
So Byrd was an idiot up until about 1960.
And to this day. The major difference is that now he's a
SENILE old idiot.
Post by Rob St. Amant
He's repudiated his former
self,
No, he has not. He's merely tried to get everyone to forget
it and pretend it never happened. That's different.

Your point is as persuasive as if Jeffrey Dahmer had expressed
a preference for a vegetarian diet in prison. It fails to persuade
me.
Post by Rob St. Amant
and in any case he doesn't hold a monopoly on hypocrisy. I'm
Never said he did. I said 'he sets a new standard for it, and
raises it to new heights'.
Post by Rob St. Amant
thinking, for example, of Dick "I had other priorities" Cheney, as well
as his hand puppet W, who were perfectly happy for other people to take
risks they weren't willing to back in the Viet Nam days. Do any of
their supporters hold that against them? Has Bush or Cheney ever said,
"Okay, I actually should have gone to Viet Nam instead of cheering from
the sidelines"? Hardly.
You equate staying out of the draft with being a Grand Kleagle
in the KKK ?


Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!

http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/

Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free Temperature / Pressure charts for 38 Ref's http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/
Dweezil Dwarftosser
2005-07-30 09:02:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob St. Amant
So Byrd was an idiot up until about 1960.
No, but he was a public racist well into the late 1960s.
(Remember the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Byrd vehemently
opposed it, as did most Southern Democrats of the time.)
Post by Rob St. Amant
He's repudiated his former self, and in any case he doesn't
hold a monopoly on hypocrisy.
I'm not sure on the first, but agree on the second claim.
He's still the Prince of the Pork-barrel, though.
Post by Rob St. Amant
I'm thinking, for example, of Dick "I had other priorities"
Cheney,
You do realize that Cheney was beyond (de facto) draft age
during the Vietnam war, right? Before 1965, draft calls
were quite low. (I know of only one "peacetime draftee"
from those pre-war days; just unlucky, I guess.) His
vulnerability to the draft ended a few years before the
universal draft of ALL eligibles experienced during 1966-70.
(There was no "lottery" until Nixon; you were drafted at
age 19 years and 6-9 months - or a month after a college
deferment disappeared, whichever came first.)
Post by Rob St. Amant
as well as his hand puppet W, who were perfectly happy for
other people to take risks they weren't willing to back in
the Viet Nam days.
This is clearly intellectual dishonesty. F-102 units (with
ANG pilots) provided *all* of the air defense for all units
throughout SE Asia from about 1965 through March of 1971;
I've personally seen their (unusual camoflauge instead of
the normal ADC gray) alert jets at Don Muang AB.
There was no need for them - the NVAF had their hands full
defending against us - yet F-102 jocks tried to get involved
anyway: firing an occasional (radar and IR-guided air-to-air)
AIM-4 Falcon missile into NVA ground troop concentrations.

ANG Lt. George Bush reportedly tried to volunteer for the
ADF duty in SEA - but fell far short of the 3,000 flying
hours (in fighters) required for the program.

Rarely addressed is the stark danger involved in flying an
old single-engine fighter (like the F-102) *anywhere*, even
if only on "training missions", as GWB did. Just as today,
service in combat wings of the ANG was/is NOT a guarantee
of avoiding combat service.

He volunteered for the most dangerous job in the ANG - and
was honorably discharged at the end of his term of service
- indisputable facts, and far more impressive than his
predecessor's outright criminal draft-dodging, later
pardoned by Jimmy Carter (which also permitted John Kerry
to receive an honorable discharge, six years late).

I have to agree with Paul on this one; "Sheets" Byrd has
simply gone senile...
Rob St. Amant
2005-07-31 18:07:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dweezil Dwarftosser
Post by Rob St. Amant
So Byrd was an idiot up until about 1960.
No, but he was a public racist well into the late 1960s.
(Remember the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Byrd vehemently
opposed it, as did most Southern Democrats of the time.)
Klan membership is obviously indefensible. And as you note below, Byrd
was one of a number of Dixiecrats of like mind. His actions in those
days put him in the same boat as Stom Thurmond and his ideological
descendants like Jesse Helms.
Post by Dweezil Dwarftosser
Post by Rob St. Amant
He's repudiated his former self, and in any case he doesn't
hold a monopoly on hypocrisy.
I'm not sure on the first, but agree on the second claim.
He's still the Prince of the Pork-barrel, though.
Agreed. The Emperor is Tom Delay, though, right?
Post by Dweezil Dwarftosser
Post by Rob St. Amant
I'm thinking, for example, of Dick "I had other priorities"
Cheney,
You do realize that Cheney was beyond (de facto) draft age
during the Vietnam war, right? Before 1965, draft calls
were quite low. (I know of only one "peacetime draftee"
from those pre-war days; just unlucky, I guess.) His
vulnerability to the draft ended a few years before the
universal draft of ALL eligibles experienced during 1966-70.
(There was no "lottery" until Nixon; you were drafted at
age 19 years and 6-9 months - or a month after a college
deferment disappeared, whichever came first.)
Nope, I didn't know all that; perhaps I should check it out. I was
thinking of Cheney's four deferments. Are you say that those were
pro-forma, that he'd been in no danger of being drafted if he hadn't
taken action to avoid it?
Post by Dweezil Dwarftosser
Post by Rob St. Amant
as well as his hand puppet W, who were perfectly happy for
other people to take risks they weren't willing to back in
the Viet Nam days.
This is clearly intellectual dishonesty. F-102 units (with
ANG pilots) provided *all* of the air defense for all units
throughout SE Asia from about 1965 through March of 1971;
I've personally seen their (unusual camoflauge instead of
the normal ADC gray) alert jets at Don Muang AB.
There was no need for them - the NVAF had their hands full
defending against us - yet F-102 jocks tried to get involved
anyway: firing an occasional (radar and IR-guided air-to-air)
AIM-4 Falcon missile into NVA ground troop concentrations.
ANG Lt. George Bush reportedly tried to volunteer for the
ADF duty in SEA - but fell far short of the 3,000 flying
hours (in fighters) required for the program.
Rarely addressed is the stark danger involved in flying an
old single-engine fighter (like the F-102) *anywhere*, even
if only on "training missions", as GWB did. Just as today,
service in combat wings of the ANG was/is NOT a guarantee
of avoiding combat service.
He volunteered for the most dangerous job in the ANG - and
was honorably discharged at the end of his term of service
- indisputable facts, and far more impressive than his
predecessor's outright criminal draft-dodging, later
pardoned by Jimmy Carter (which also permitted John Kerry
to receive an honorable discharge, six years late).
I'll only address the intellectual dishonesty part, which I find mildly
insulting. I was only referring to the document on which Bush check
marked that he did not want to go to Viet Nam. The rest of the story
is open to interpretation.
p***@see_my_sig_for_address.com
2005-07-31 18:16:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob St. Amant
I'll only address the intellectual dishonesty part, which I find mildly
insulting. I was only referring to the document on which Bush check
marked that he did not want to go to Viet Nam. The rest of the story
is open to interpretation.
Anyone who checked off 'Preferred assignment : rice paddy in
Vietnam' is obviously brain damaged, psychopathic, has anti-social
tendencies of a disturbing and violent nature, no sense of
self-preservation, is well suited to the chosen assignment, and would
be utterly unsuited for anything else, like leading this country.


Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!

http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/

Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free Temperature / Pressure charts for 38 Ref's http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/
Rob St. Amant
2005-07-31 18:57:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@see_my_sig_for_address.com
Anyone who checked off 'Preferred assignment : rice paddy in
Vietnam' is obviously brain damaged, psychopathic, has anti-social
tendencies of a disturbing and violent nature, no sense of
self-preservation, is well suited to the chosen assignment, and would
be utterly unsuited for anything else, like leading this country.
Well, I don't know how many people did check that box, but I suppose
the survivors can speak up for themselves.

Any thoughts about recruiting shortfalls for the current war in Iraq?
p***@see_my_sig_for_address.com
2005-07-31 19:08:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob St. Amant
Post by p***@see_my_sig_for_address.com
Anyone who checked off 'Preferred assignment : rice paddy in
Vietnam' is obviously brain damaged, psychopathic, has anti-social
tendencies of a disturbing and violent nature, no sense of
self-preservation, is well suited to the chosen assignment, and would
be utterly unsuited for anything else, like leading this country.
Well, I don't know how many people did check that box, but I suppose
the survivors can speak up for themselves.
Any thoughts about recruiting shortfalls for the current war in Iraq?
Nope.


Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!

http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/

Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free Temperature / Pressure charts for 38 Ref's http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/
Dweezil Dwarftosser
2005-07-31 22:31:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob St. Amant
Any thoughts about recruiting shortfalls for the current war in Iraq?
WHAT "current" war in Iraq?
Keeping the peace we've won for them is the bitch!
Gary L. Burnore
2005-08-01 00:15:31 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:31:59 -0400, Dweezil Dwarftosser
Post by Dweezil Dwarftosser
Post by Rob St. Amant
Any thoughts about recruiting shortfalls for the current war in Iraq?
WHAT "current" war in Iraq?
Keeping the peace we've won for them is the bitch!
"peace we've won for them"? They were at peace until we fucked it up
for them.
--
***@databasix dot com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
DataBasix | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ 3 4 1 4 2 ݳ޳ 6 9 0 6 9 ÝÛ³
Black Helicopter Repair Svcs Division | Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================
Want one? GET one! http://signup.databasix.com
===========================================================================
Rob St. Amant
2005-08-01 21:43:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary L. Burnore
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:31:59 -0400, Dweezil Dwarftosser
Post by Dweezil Dwarftosser
Post by Rob St. Amant
Any thoughts about recruiting shortfalls for the current war in Iraq?
WHAT "current" war in Iraq?
Keeping the peace we've won for them is the bitch!
"peace we've won for them"? They were at peace until we fucked it up
for them.
But what about the smoking gun that we didn't want to be a mushroom
cloud? Or was it the smoking mushroom we didn't want to be a clouded
gun, or maybe a smoking cloud we didn't want to be a mushroom gun. . .
Rob St. Amant
2005-08-01 21:46:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dweezil Dwarftosser
Post by Rob St. Amant
Any thoughts about recruiting shortfalls for the current war in Iraq?
WHAT "current" war in Iraq?
Keeping the peace we've won for them is the bitch!
Sorry, it's been so long that the mission has been accomplished that
I'd forgotten. As I understand it, the U.S. military isn't really
well-suited for this task in any case.
david gourley
2005-08-02 02:18:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob St. Amant
Post by Dweezil Dwarftosser
Post by Rob St. Amant
Any thoughts about recruiting shortfalls for the current war in Iraq?
WHAT "current" war in Iraq?
Keeping the peace we've won for them is the bitch!
Sorry, it's been so long that the mission has been accomplished that
I'd forgotten. As I understand it, the U.S. military isn't really
well-suited for this task in any case.
The mission that was accomplished was the "mission to fly the 'Mission
Accomplished' banner."

Successful indeed.

david
Dweezil Dwarftosser
2005-08-02 05:06:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob St. Amant
Post by Dweezil Dwarftosser
Post by Rob St. Amant
Any thoughts about recruiting shortfalls for the current war in Iraq?
WHAT "current" war in Iraq?
Keeping the peace we've won for them is the bitch!
Sorry, it's been so long that the mission has been accomplished that
I'd forgotten. As I understand it, the U.S. military isn't really
well-suited for this task in any case.
That's true; the only quasi-miltary organizations that are
suited for it were those in the uniformed "secret police"
mold, like those of Lenin, Mao, Saddam, Castro, Hitler, etc.
That is, those noted for the use of trenched mass graves,
3 AM "disappearances", and tanks taking target practice
on downtown streets.
Dweezil Dwarftosser
2005-07-31 21:01:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob St. Amant
Post by Dweezil Dwarftosser
Post by Rob St. Amant
He's repudiated his former self, and in any case he doesn't
hold a monopoly on hypocrisy.
I'm not sure on the first, but agree on the second claim.
He's still the Prince of the Pork-barrel, though.
Agreed. The Emperor is Tom Delay, though, right?
Three-fourths of Delay's home state don't obtain their paychecks
from federal pork - as that of Byrd's does.
Post by Rob St. Amant
Post by Dweezil Dwarftosser
Post by Rob St. Amant
I'm thinking, for example, of Dick "I had other priorities"
Cheney,
You do realize that Cheney was beyond (de facto) draft age
during the Vietnam war, right? Before 1965, draft calls
were quite low. (I know of only one "peacetime draftee"
from those pre-war days; just unlucky, I guess.) His
vulnerability to the draft ended a few years before the
universal draft of ALL eligibles experienced during 1966-70.
(There was no "lottery" until Nixon; you were drafted at
age 19 years and 6-9 months - or a month after a college
deferment disappeared, whichever came first.)
Nope, I didn't know all that; perhaps I should check it out.
I was thinking of Cheney's four deferments.
Cheney was legally deferred as a college student through at
least 1963. I'm not sure if he could extend that deferment
through a Master's at that time, but only unmarried 25-year-olds
were drafted prior to the war's calls of 1965. By January of
1966, Cheney was beyond normal draft age.
They quickly ran through the pool of eligible men 25 down to
21, so that only 19-year-olds (and a few 20-YO squeekers) were
undrafted by the Tet offensive. Of course, by then, the
colleges were chock full of men whose major was draft-dodging
- but the rules had changed to a maximum of four years, six
months 2-S deferment.
(Tangental: In Jan 1968 I sat in the AF recruiter's office
with two Columbia graduates who wanted to be officers - but
only "flying" slots were open to them - with a guaranteed
tour of the VN war. They chose to join as enlisted men.
But I'm not sure if they realized that there was a year-long
waiting list for most AF enlistments back then; they probably
were drafted as grunts long before a slot opened for them.
Foolish... because few AF toads escaped a VN tour during their
four-year enlistment.)
Post by Rob St. Amant
Are you say that those were pro-forma, that he'd been in no
danger of being drafted if he hadn't taken action to avoid it?
All deferments are pro-forma, if the conditions permitting
the deferment are known to the draft board. It is up to the
individual to notify the board of any disqualifying condition
which might result in a deferment.

Prior to 1965, perhaps 1 in 20-30 undefered eligibles were
drafted, in descending age order. That's real good odds.
By 1968, 99 of 100 eligibles were inducted.

[ snip ]
Post by Rob St. Amant
I'll only address the intellectual dishonesty part, which I
find mildly insulting.
Sorry - but it is a staple of liberals on usenet.
I find it completely incongruous for intelligent people to
merely repeat allegations that have so repeatedly been
proven false or absolutely without evidence of any kind,
as if it were the seriousness of the allegation - rather
than the facts - which were important.
Post by Rob St. Amant
I was only referring to the document on which Bush check
marked that he did not want to go to Viet Nam.
Never happened.

Since I have personally executed a number of these forms
during my career, I can attest that what you describe has
never existed. The only possible form that relates in any
way to volunteering for such duty is the "dream sheet" (a
numbered AF Form headed "Assignment Preference Worksheet"
or similar) which has two sections: US preferences and
overseas. Each of the sections has six or eight lines
wherein the airman writes (in preference order) bases,
states, or grouped regions (e.g. - "SE United States").

The Overseas section demands country names only, rather
than specific bases. It also has a warning printed in
the header: "Any entry made below indicates you are
VOLUNTEERING for world-wide duty".
Not only is that a great "Gotcha" - a volunteer statement
for Vietnam when the person wanted ONLY to be assigned
to a long tour in say, England - it means the person has
also just volunteered for the rest of the nasty places on
earth, too: Korea, the Philippines, an island in the Indian
Ocean, Greenland, Turkey, or wartime Thailand, Cambodia, or
Laos. (Any blank entry in the overseas section is by default
"no preference" - so that line will exactly match an opening
in Bumfuk Air Base, Egypt.)

The smart guys either decline to make any entries in the
overseas section - or fill every available space with either
places they wouldn't mind going - or places in which it is
impossible for them to be assigned. (Mine always contained
Argentina, Israel, Sweden and Switzerland when "ringers" were
required to fill all of the entries.)

I never volunteered for the VN war, either - but that never
stopped me from going there.

BTW - the only time the data in these "dream sheets" is actually
consulted is when the airman is vulnerable for assignment this
month (he has completed 12 months, minimum, at the current base).
At that time, the openings WILL BE filled from the list of this
month's eligibles. If matches can be made to the preferences
listed by those individuals in the pool, they will do so; if not,
they WILL be given an involuntary assignment to a current opening.

If there are 300 people on the list this month - and 250 war
assignments which must be filled, 250 people will fill them,
whether or not it matches their "volunteer" preferences.
The following month, there may be 300 openings in Hawaii
(one of your preferences) - too bad; you're off to war.
Naturally, there would be a few actual VN volunteers in that
group - but they will have to endure sitting on a beach in
Honolulu, instead.
david gourley
2005-07-31 22:03:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dweezil Dwarftosser
Post by Rob St. Amant
Post by Dweezil Dwarftosser
Post by Rob St. Amant
He's repudiated his former self, and in any case he doesn't
hold a monopoly on hypocrisy.
I'm not sure on the first, but agree on the second claim.
He's still the Prince of the Pork-barrel, though.
Agreed. The Emperor is Tom Delay, though, right?
Three-fourths of Delay's home state don't obtain their paychecks
from federal pork - as that of Byrd's does.
Not to interrupt your sandbox fight, but I guess you missed the $1.5b
pork chunk Delay wrote into the energy bill that just passed. What, Fox
or Drudge didn't report it?
Post by Dweezil Dwarftosser
Post by Rob St. Amant
Post by Dweezil Dwarftosser
Post by Rob St. Amant
I'm thinking, for example, of Dick "I had other priorities"
Cheney,
You do realize that Cheney was beyond (de facto) draft age
during the Vietnam war, right? Before 1965, draft calls
were quite low. (I know of only one "peacetime draftee"
from those pre-war days; just unlucky, I guess.) His
vulnerability to the draft ended a few years before the
universal draft of ALL eligibles experienced during 1966-70.
(There was no "lottery" until Nixon; you were drafted at
age 19 years and 6-9 months - or a month after a college
deferment disappeared, whichever came first.)
Nope, I didn't know all that; perhaps I should check it out.
I was thinking of Cheney's four deferments.
Cheney was legally deferred as a college student through at
least 1963. I'm not sure if he could extend that deferment
through a Master's at that time, but only unmarried 25-year-olds
were drafted prior to the war's calls of 1965. By January of
1966, Cheney was beyond normal draft age.
Gee, you coulda looked it up:


http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=48151

"Eventually, like 16 million other young men of that era, Mr. Cheney
sought deferments. By the time he turned 26 in January 1967 and was no
longer eligible for the draft, he had asked for and received five
deferments, four because he was a student and one for being a new
father."


and from (apologies for the wrap...)

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/bush/articles/2004/09/18/au
thor_says_cheney_draft_deferments_werent_unusual/


"Records indicate that Cheney received his first draft deferment in March
1963, two years before President Lyndon B. Johnson launched a large
military offensive in Vietnam.

Days before his 25th birthday, in January 1966, Cheney obtained his fifth
and final deferment. It ensured that he would not have to serve in the
war, which eventually claimed more than 58,000 American lives.

On Jan. 30, 1967, as the war raged, Cheney turned 26, an age that removed
him from the draft pool for good."
Post by Dweezil Dwarftosser
They quickly ran through the pool of eligible men 25 down to
21, so that only 19-year-olds (and a few 20-YO squeekers) were
undrafted by the Tet offensive. Of course, by then, the
colleges were chock full of men whose major was draft-dodging
- but the rules had changed to a maximum of four years, six
months 2-S deferment.
(Tangental: In Jan 1968 I sat in the AF recruiter's office
with two Columbia graduates who wanted to be officers - but
only "flying" slots were open to them - with a guaranteed
tour of the VN war. They chose to join as enlisted men.
But I'm not sure if they realized that there was a year-long
waiting list for most AF enlistments back then; they probably
were drafted as grunts long before a slot opened for them.
Foolish... because few AF toads escaped a VN tour during their
four-year enlistment.)
Post by Rob St. Amant
Are you say that those were pro-forma, that he'd been in no
danger of being drafted if he hadn't taken action to avoid it?
All deferments are pro-forma, if the conditions permitting
the deferment are known to the draft board. It is up to the
individual to notify the board of any disqualifying condition
which might result in a deferment.
Prior to 1965, perhaps 1 in 20-30 undefered eligibles were
drafted, in descending age order. That's real good odds.
By 1968, 99 of 100 eligibles were inducted.
[ snip ]
Post by Rob St. Amant
I'll only address the intellectual dishonesty part, which I
find mildly insulting.
Sorry - but it is a staple of liberals on usenet.
I find it completely incongruous for intelligent people to
merely repeat allegations that have so repeatedly been
proven false or absolutely without evidence of any kind,
as if it were the seriousness of the allegation - rather
than the facts - which were important.
And Fox would NEVER do that, either. Idiot, they're ALL corporate
media. Call it lazy reporting at best, but imo real journalism is an
endangered species, more and more.


now back to your sandbox fight ...

<snip>


david
Dweezil Dwarftosser
2005-07-31 23:32:58 UTC
Permalink
david gourley wrote:

[ ... thus proving Cheney's innocence in any wrongdoing...]
Post by david gourley
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=48151
"Eventually, like 16 million other young men of that era, Mr. Cheney
sought deferments. By the time he turned 26 in January 1967 and was no
longer eligible for the draft, he had asked for and received five
deferments, four because he was a student and one for being a new
father."
Heheh. The libs really try to make it sound as if he had
a choice (other than quit school and be immediately drafted).
This is just like someone who complains that their neighbor
is taking a mortgage-interest deduction on his taxes, and
should just voluntarily stop doing it in order to be patriotic.

The fact is, students were *required* to notify their draft
boards of their status. In turn, the draft boards were
required to provide the deferment, as long as he was in fact,
a student in good standing.

Prior to 1965, married men were deferred; afterward, only those
married men who were fathers were deferred. Some time prior to
the Tet offensive (when I was drafted) that deferrment
disappeared, too.

BTW - A petition to change a draft classification had to be
made PRIOR TO being drafted. (e.g. - "sole support" of
relatives who cannot work; conscientious objector, etc.)
Once you got your letter, it was too late.

There were other legal ways to dodge the draft, too:
Joining the reserves or national guard often were
good ways to avoid going to war - though neither came
with guarantees. Both methods were/are great ways to
fulfill the six-year military service commitment which
every American male had. But George Bush and John Kerry
served in the guard or reserves. (And GWB's time on
active duty exceeded that of the average draftee!)

Another way was to enlist in the military service of your
choice - including the Coast Guard. (Though Coasties
served over there, too! There really were no guarantees.)

Cheney violated no law avoiding military service. He did
not require a pardon before he could assume a federal office
- unlike two democrats of recent notariety (and one of those
actually served in Vietnam; the other fled the country).
david gourley
2005-08-01 01:37:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dweezil Dwarftosser
[ ... thus proving Cheney's innocence in any wrongdoing...]
Post by david gourley
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=48151
"Eventually, like 16 million other young men of that era, Mr. Cheney
sought deferments. By the time he turned 26 in January 1967 and was no
longer eligible for the draft, he had asked for and received five
deferments, four because he was a student and one for being a new
father."
Heheh. The libs really try to make it sound as if he had
a choice (other than quit school and be immediately drafted).
This is just like someone who complains that their neighbor
is taking a mortgage-interest deduction on his taxes, and
should just voluntarily stop doing it in order to be patriotic.
The fact is, students were *required* to notify their draft
boards of their status. In turn, the draft boards were
required to provide the deferment, as long as he was in fact,
a student in good standing.
Prior to 1965, married men were deferred; afterward, only those
married men who were fathers were deferred. Some time prior to
the Tet offensive (when I was drafted) that deferrment
disappeared, too.
BTW - A petition to change a draft classification had to be
made PRIOR TO being drafted. (e.g. - "sole support" of
relatives who cannot work; conscientious objector, etc.)
Once you got your letter, it was too late.
Joining the reserves or national guard often were
good ways to avoid going to war - though neither came
with guarantees. Both methods were/are great ways to
fulfill the six-year military service commitment which
every American male had. But George Bush and John Kerry
served in the guard or reserves. (And GWB's time on
active duty exceeded that of the average draftee!)
Another way was to enlist in the military service of your
choice - including the Coast Guard. (Though Coasties
served over there, too! There really were no guarantees.)
Cheney violated no law avoiding military service. He did
not require a pardon before he could assume a federal office
- unlike two democrats of recent notariety (and one of those
actually served in Vietnam; the other fled the country).
I posted a correction to your dates in question, as there was no wrongdoing
in seeking deferments. You just aren't man enough to admit you got
something wrong, or that Cheney was a coward. Do you feel equally
forgiving for others that received deferments no matter what, or just
right-wingers?

Having registered at 18, and being within 3-4 years of your age (guessing),
I'm fully aware of what the options were, good and bad.

And who said Chaney violated the law? Not me. Where do you come up with
this crap?

david
Dweezil Dwarftosser
2005-08-01 15:57:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by david gourley
I posted a correction to your dates in question, as there was
no wrongdoing in seeking deferments. You just aren't man enough
to admit you got something wrong, or that Cheney was a coward.
Why was Cheney a coward for being deferred, when 16 million
deferred men were not? I don't understand your logic there.
You're right, though - I got it wrong: I had no idea that
the Vice President was deferred as the married father of a
child before his age disqualified him for the draft.
Post by david gourley
Do you feel equally forgiving for others that received
deferments no matter what, or just right-wingers?
Personally, I feel that becoming a "professional student"
(with the primary motivation being to avoid one's service
commitment) distinguished that person as having even less
guts than those who left the country (never to return),
and certainly less than those who chose imprisonment for
their anti-draft beliefs.

I have no knowledge of young Bill Cheney's motivations for
obtaining a master's. I don't think you do, either.
So it would be wrong for either of us to assume gutlessness.

Of course, since Jimmy Carter gave a blanket pardon to all
of the above, there is nothing for anyone to forgive - for
any of them.
david gourley
2005-08-02 02:09:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dweezil Dwarftosser
Post by david gourley
I posted a correction to your dates in question, as there was
no wrongdoing in seeking deferments. You just aren't man enough
to admit you got something wrong, or that Cheney was a coward.
Why was Cheney a coward for being deferred, when 16 million
deferred men were not? I don't understand your logic there.
You're right, though - I got it wrong: I had no idea that
the Vice President was deferred as the married father of a
child before his age disqualified him for the draft.
That's what I'd call 'planned parenthood.' <g>

Seriously though, you have a valid point there. I realize I should have
an 'imo' or qualified that statement or just not have said it.

I thought you were mainly wrong about the dates /length. You managed to
avoid the question of Tom Delay's $1.5b dollar pork chunk, though. <g>
Post by Dweezil Dwarftosser
Post by david gourley
Do you feel equally forgiving for others that received
deferments no matter what, or just right-wingers?
Personally, I feel that becoming a "professional student"
(with the primary motivation being to avoid one's service
commitment) distinguished that person as having even less
guts than those who left the country (never to return),
and certainly less than those who chose imprisonment for
their anti-draft beliefs.
I have no knowledge of young Bill Cheney's motivations for
obtaining a master's. I don't think you do, either.
So it would be wrong for either of us to assume gutlessness.
See above.
Post by Dweezil Dwarftosser
Of course, since Jimmy Carter gave a blanket pardon to all
of the above, there is nothing for anyone to forgive - for
any of them.
Interesting enough.

david
Dweezil Dwarftosser
2005-08-02 04:18:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by david gourley
I thought you were mainly wrong about the dates /length.
That too, I guess. By my calculations, 1966 would have been
his last year of exposure to the draft (deferred or not) -
and if he passed his January birthday (his 25th) without
receiving a greeting from LBJ, he would have dodged the
bullet.
Post by david gourley
You managed to avoid the question of Tom Delay's $1.5b dollar
pork chunk, though. <g>
Do you mean the useless portion of the President's Energy
Policy which the democrats left in the bill? Of course
it is just pork. The intent was to develop more self-
sufficiency via extracting some of the oil in ANWAR, the
Gulf of Mexico, offshore Atlantic fields, and offshore
Pacific stores - along with tapping the huge reserves of
natural gas throughout the nation - but the enviro-wackos
have a stranglehold on the liberals.

That's also why coal, oil, and natural gas-fired power
plants will continue to foul the air, instead of being
replaced with safe, clean, brand-new nuclear power plants.
Instead, most of that 1.5 billion will be squandered on
building unutilized bike paths (from nowhere to nowhere),
research on wind-up automobiles, recycling ethanol farts,
and intensifying the light available from beeswax candles.
They'll probably even throw a hundred million into
studying whether skateboard lanes on I-40 could be a
precursor for light rail lines that avoid the airport.

Once again, Delay and the others were snookered by the democrats.
Don S
2005-08-02 18:19:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dweezil Dwarftosser
That's also why coal, oil, and natural gas-fired power
plants will continue to foul the air, instead of being
replaced with safe, clean, brand-new nuclear power plants.
There was a show on TV the other night about Las Vegas, and their various
sources for power. I thought most of it came from Lake Mead/Hoover Dam. LV
gets only about 2% from there. The rest goes to CA and other places. LV gets
80% of their power needs from coal.
me
2005-08-02 19:56:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don S
Post by Dweezil Dwarftosser
That's also why coal, oil, and natural gas-fired power
plants will continue to foul the air, instead of being
replaced with safe, clean, brand-new nuclear power plants.
There was a show on TV the other night about Las Vegas, and their various
sources for power. I thought most of it came from Lake Mead/Hoover Dam. LV
gets only about 2% from there. The rest goes to CA and other
places. LV gets
80% of their power needs from coal.
That's interesting. The last time I was there, I saw a very long train
with coal on it roll through the train station (in the old part of the
city). I remember wondering where it was going.
david gourley
2005-08-03 11:50:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dweezil Dwarftosser
Post by david gourley
I thought you were mainly wrong about the dates /length.
That too, I guess. By my calculations, 1966 would have been
his last year of exposure to the draft (deferred or not) -
and if he passed his January birthday (his 25th) without
receiving a greeting from LBJ, he would have dodged the
bullet.
Post by david gourley
You managed to avoid the question of Tom Delay's $1.5b dollar
pork chunk, though. <g>
Do you mean the useless portion of the President's Energy
Policy which the democrats left in the bill? Of course
it is just pork. The intent was to develop more self-
sufficiency via extracting some of the oil in ANWAR, the
Gulf of Mexico, offshore Atlantic fields, and offshore
Pacific stores - along with tapping the huge reserves of
natural gas throughout the nation - but the enviro-wackos
have a stranglehold on the liberals.
That's also why coal, oil, and natural gas-fired power
plants will continue to foul the air, instead of being
replaced with safe, clean, brand-new nuclear power plants.
Instead, most of that 1.5 billion will be squandered on
building unutilized bike paths (from nowhere to nowhere),
research on wind-up automobiles, recycling ethanol farts,
and intensifying the light available from beeswax candles.
They'll probably even throw a hundred million into
studying whether skateboard lanes on I-40 could be a
precursor for light rail lines that avoid the airport.
Once again, Delay and the others were snookered by the democrats.
Bullshit, John. You give the Dems too much credit there.

I gave you a link to the news article, and there are plenty more. Go
ahead - be obstinate, practice your willful ignorance, and look the other
way.

People like Delay are 'fake conservatives' and why you don't call
attention to that surprises me a little (I do believe you're a true
conservative, for the most part).

Delay and others in congress are not only wiping their ass with the
Constitution, they're wiping with YOUR service record (and others) as
well. Be my guest and pledge allegience to all of their sorry asses.

david
Susan Hogarth
2005-08-03 12:37:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by david gourley
...
People like Delay are 'fake conservatives' and why you don't call
attention to that surprises me a little (I do believe you're a true
conservative, for the most part). ...
Then you haven't been paying attention to what Dweezil writes. He
frequently praises European socialism, including socialised medicine.
That is hardly the stance of a 'true conservative'.

- Susan
david gourley
2005-08-03 21:58:43 UTC
Permalink
"Susan Hogarth" <***@gmail.com> excited more than a few electrons
when stating...news:1123072623.498579.208290
Post by Susan Hogarth
Post by david gourley
...
People like Delay are 'fake conservatives' and why you don't call
attention to that surprises me a little (I do believe you're a true
conservative, for the most part). ...
Then you haven't been paying attention to what Dweezil writes. He
frequently praises European socialism, including socialised medicine.
That is hardly the stance of a 'true conservative'.
Sure, I've seen that.

I guess you weren't paying attention when I said 'for the most part...'
either, even though you quoted it.

hth,
david
Susan Hogarth
2005-08-04 18:56:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by david gourley
when stating...news:1123072623.498579.208290
Post by Susan Hogarth
Post by david gourley
...
People like Delay are 'fake conservatives' and why you don't call
attention to that surprises me a little (I do believe you're a true
conservative, for the most part). ...
Then you haven't been paying attention to what Dweezil writes. He
frequently praises European socialism, including socialised medicine.
That is hardly the stance of a 'true conservative'.
Sure, I've seen that.
I guess you weren't paying attention when I said 'for the most part...'
either, even though you quoted it.
A socialist who is 'for the most part' conservative? That doesn't make
a lot of sense.

- Susan
david gourley
2005-08-04 22:42:06 UTC
Permalink
"Susan Hogarth" <***@gmail.com> excited more than a few electrons
when stating...news:1123181805.937173.289880
Post by Susan Hogarth
Post by david gourley
when stating...news:1123072623.498579.208290
Post by Susan Hogarth
Post by david gourley
...
People like Delay are 'fake conservatives' and why you don't call
attention to that surprises me a little (I do believe you're a true
conservative, for the most part). ...
Then you haven't been paying attention to what Dweezil writes. He
frequently praises European socialism, including socialised
medicine.
Post by Susan Hogarth
Post by david gourley
Post by Susan Hogarth
That is hardly the stance of a 'true conservative'.
Sure, I've seen that.
I guess you weren't paying attention when I said 'for the most part...'
either, even though you quoted it.
A socialist who is 'for the most part' conservative? That doesn't make
a lot of sense.
- Susan
I didn't say that - quit being so thick-headed.

david
Dweezil Dwarftosser
2005-08-04 04:53:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Susan Hogarth
Post by david gourley
...
People like Delay are 'fake conservatives' and why you don't call
attention to that surprises me a little (I do believe you're a true
conservative, for the most part). ...
Then you haven't been paying attention to what Dweezil writes. He
frequently praises European socialism, including socialised medicine.
True. But it's not just European; it's every industrialized
nation on earth, save two: the United States and South Africa.
Post by Susan Hogarth
That is hardly the stance of a 'true conservative'.
How the hell would YOU know? You're still under the impression
that the British conservatism style of the 18th-19th century
(which sought to conserve/restore the advantages of the privileged
classes at everyone else's expense) - and which is still commonn
here in the modern South - is "real conservatism".

Modern American ("true") Conservatism seeks:

- The full rule of Constitutional law as written without
influence of social engineering or foreign legal
philosophies. (Or wacko picking-and-choosing!)
- A strong foreign policy that benefits (in the long term)
primarily the United States and secondarily, its allies.
- A strong well-trained military of sufficient size necessary
to secure and protect the United States and its goals,
(including, when necessary, that of our allies).
- Smaller, less-intrusive government(s) with lower taxes
and more efficient delivery of essential services.
- Protection of American industry, jobs, professions, and
the economy in general from foreign economic warfare
and invasive unlawful immigration.
- Promotion of the standard of living of ALL Americans
by enabling the right to collective bargaining of
employment contracts, and improvement of life-preserving
health care delivery to all, at lower overall expense.
david gourley
2005-08-04 18:47:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dweezil Dwarftosser
Post by Susan Hogarth
Post by david gourley
...
People like Delay are 'fake conservatives' and why you don't call
attention to that surprises me a little (I do believe you're a true
conservative, for the most part). ...
Then you haven't been paying attention to what Dweezil writes. He
frequently praises European socialism, including socialised medicine.
True. But it's not just European; it's every industrialized
nation on earth, save two: the United States and South Africa.
Post by Susan Hogarth
That is hardly the stance of a 'true conservative'.
How the hell would YOU know? You're still under the impression
that the British conservatism style of the 18th-19th century
(which sought to conserve/restore the advantages of the privileged
classes at everyone else's expense) - and which is still commonn
here in the modern South - is "real conservatism".
- The full rule of Constitutional law as written without
influence of social engineering or foreign legal
philosophies. (Or wacko picking-and-choosing!)
- A strong foreign policy that benefits (in the long term)
primarily the United States and secondarily, its allies.
- A strong well-trained military of sufficient size necessary
to secure and protect the United States and its goals,
(including, when necessary, that of our allies).
- Smaller, less-intrusive government(s) with lower taxes
and more efficient delivery of essential services.
- Protection of American industry, jobs, professions, and
the economy in general from foreign economic warfare
and invasive unlawful immigration.
- Promotion of the standard of living of ALL Americans
by enabling the right to collective bargaining of
employment contracts, and improvement of life-preserving
health care delivery to all, at lower overall expense.
Reasonably stated.

The only other question I have is "Are you 'pro-market' or 'pro-
business?'" Pick one only. That will tell me a lot.

thanks,
david
p***@see_my_sig_for_address.com
2005-08-04 18:52:09 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 18:47:46 GMT, david gourley
Post by david gourley
Post by Dweezil Dwarftosser
Post by Susan Hogarth
Post by david gourley
...
People like Delay are 'fake conservatives' and why you don't call
attention to that surprises me a little (I do believe you're a true
conservative, for the most part). ...
Then you haven't been paying attention to what Dweezil writes. He
frequently praises European socialism, including socialised medicine.
True. But it's not just European; it's every industrialized
nation on earth, save two: the United States and South Africa.
Post by Susan Hogarth
That is hardly the stance of a 'true conservative'.
How the hell would YOU know? You're still under the impression
that the British conservatism style of the 18th-19th century
(which sought to conserve/restore the advantages of the privileged
classes at everyone else's expense) - and which is still commonn
here in the modern South - is "real conservatism".
- The full rule of Constitutional law as written without
influence of social engineering or foreign legal
philosophies. (Or wacko picking-and-choosing!)
- A strong foreign policy that benefits (in the long term)
primarily the United States and secondarily, its allies.
- A strong well-trained military of sufficient size necessary
to secure and protect the United States and its goals,
(including, when necessary, that of our allies).
- Smaller, less-intrusive government(s) with lower taxes
and more efficient delivery of essential services.
- Protection of American industry, jobs, professions, and
the economy in general from foreign economic warfare
and invasive unlawful immigration.
- Promotion of the standard of living of ALL Americans
by enabling the right to collective bargaining of
employment contracts, and improvement of life-preserving
health care delivery to all, at lower overall expense.
Since when did unions & socialized medicine become
prerequisites of a 'conservative' philosphy ????
Post by david gourley
Reasonably stated.
The only other question I have is "Are you 'pro-market' or 'pro-
business?'" Pick one only. That will tell me a lot.
Yeh - it will tell us that he likes to answer ridiculous
nonsensical questions.

The next question will be 'which is more important, night or
day ?'.

Then perhaps 'which is more vital to life, food or water ?'
Post by david gourley
thanks,
david
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!

http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/

Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Dweezil Dwarftosser
2005-08-05 04:03:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@see_my_sig_for_address.com
Since when did unions & socialized medicine become
prerequisites of a 'conservative' philosphy ????
Since a Conservative Party (in early 1970s NY) was created
from the ranks of union members, veterans, cops, and firemen
to combat the useless Rockefeller Republicans, who were
socio-politically indistinguishable from the democrats.
They elected a US senator (named Buckley) - and forever
changed the direction the republicans were heading.
No republican in NY can get elected without the tacit support
of the Conservative Party, which can account for 30% of their
votes.
Dweezil Dwarftosser
2005-08-05 05:10:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by david gourley
The only other question I have is "Are you 'pro-market' or
'pro- business?'" Pick one only. That will tell me a lot.
I honestly don't know how to answer that question, since so
much depends upon *your* definition of the terms.
To me, they are quite similar to two sides of a coin, dependent
upon each other for their existence.

You can't have a vibrant economy without businesses, and
businesses cannot exist without a market. (Vice-versa, too.)

Lemme' put it this way: If the US did not export raw materials
or technologies (except to very strong allies), and did not
import finished goods (with the same sort of exemptions), we'd
ALL be a lot better off here at home...
david gourley
2005-08-05 22:11:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dweezil Dwarftosser
Post by david gourley
The only other question I have is "Are you 'pro-market' or
'pro- business?'" Pick one only. That will tell me a lot.
I honestly don't know how to answer that question, since so
much depends upon *your* definition of the terms.
To me, they are quite similar to two sides of a coin, dependent
upon each other for their existence.
Similar, I'll agree, but still two different animals.

I'd see a conservative view supporting the market, and letting it take
care of itself. I see typical republicans supporting business, no matter
what. Look at the corporate welfare taking place even now. That's what
I mean, not necessarily my particular definition.
Post by Dweezil Dwarftosser
You can't have a vibrant economy without businesses, and
businesses cannot exist without a market. (Vice-versa, too.)
So what happened to 'let the market decide?'
Post by Dweezil Dwarftosser
Lemme' put it this way: If the US did not export raw materials
or technologies (except to very strong allies), and did not
import finished goods (with the same sort of exemptions), we'd
ALL be a lot better off here at home...
Heh. We don't have everything, and I wasn't talking about isolationism.
Time for a new thread <g>.

david
Dweezil Dwarftosser
2005-08-06 04:59:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by david gourley
I'd see a conservative view supporting the market, and letting
it take care of itself.
I agree in the basic principle, but markets are far too
easily manipulated these days. (I guess they always *were*
that easily fudged - but it just wasn't done so outrageously,
and so widely. Crooked businesses were eliminated, usually
by their honest competitors or, since the decline of the
robber barons, via sound external regulation of the industry.)

I don't know if it is because people are dumber, less
ethical than in years past, or they have bought into
the idea that they, too, can become fabulously wealthy
with No Money Down, working part-time from home.
Post by david gourley
I see typical republicans supporting business, no matter
what.
Agreed. It's why I vote for the democrat running for Labor
Commissioner, rather than the republican. You don't put
the wolves in charge of the henhouse.
Post by david gourley
Look at the corporate welfare taking place even now.
Oh, the amounts are always shocking, but I'd much rather see
Boeing receive *huge* incentives to stay in Seattle, than
to move some or all of their assembly work to China. (That's
not just a move to maintain the jobs/economy here; it's sig-
nificantly more important from a national security standpoint.)
BTW - I have no ties whatever to Seattle or the aircraft
industry. The same incentive strategy should apply to corn,
rice, or pig farms, textile and furniture makers, wood, pulp,
and concrete, and even (*gasp*) the oil industry.

Fifty million is nothing if it prevents the loss of a billion
in paychecks (cycled seven times through the economy) AND
another three billion in imports added to the trade deficit.
david gourley
2005-08-06 16:49:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dweezil Dwarftosser
Post by david gourley
I'd see a conservative view supporting the market, and letting
it take care of itself.
I agree in the basic principle, but markets are far too
easily manipulated these days. (I guess they always *were*
that easily fudged - but it just wasn't done so outrageously,
and so widely. Crooked businesses were eliminated, usually
by their honest competitors or, since the decline of the
robber barons, via sound external regulation of the industry.)
Sure they are due to what I believe are too many artificial forces
injected into this economic system.

Even capitalism has a dark side, and my view is that it's being exploited
today. The robber barons haven't disappeared by any means. Some of them
take the form of congresscritters.
Post by Dweezil Dwarftosser
I don't know if it is because people are dumber, less
ethical than in years past, or they have bought into
the idea that they, too, can become fabulously wealthy
with No Money Down, working part-time from home.
Probably a little of each that you mention.
Post by Dweezil Dwarftosser
Post by david gourley
I see typical republicans supporting business, no matter
what.
Agreed. It's why I vote for the democrat running for Labor
Commissioner, rather than the republican. You don't put
the wolves in charge of the henhouse.
One of those 'lesser of two evils,' but somehow it's still evil <g>.
Post by Dweezil Dwarftosser
Post by david gourley
Look at the corporate welfare taking place even now.
Oh, the amounts are always shocking, but I'd much rather see
Boeing receive *huge* incentives to stay in Seattle, than
to move some or all of their assembly work to China. (That's
not just a move to maintain the jobs/economy here; it's sig-
nificantly more important from a national security standpoint.)
BTW - I have no ties whatever to Seattle or the aircraft
industry. The same incentive strategy should apply to corn,
rice, or pig farms, textile and furniture makers, wood, pulp,
and concrete, and even (*gasp*) the oil industry.
Keeping Boeing in place is one thing, subsidizing Dell Computer in this
state is entirely different, don't you think? They're just one example
of how the hayseed legislative bodies in Raleigh are selling us down the
river by balancing the tax breaks for Dell and others on our backs.
Post by Dweezil Dwarftosser
Fifty million is nothing if it prevents the loss of a billion
in paychecks (cycled seven times through the economy) AND
another three billion in imports added to the trade deficit.
No argument there. Is hell freezing over today or what ? <g>


david
Tim C
2005-08-07 02:01:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by david gourley
Keeping Boeing in place is one thing, subsidizing Dell Computer in this
state is entirely different, don't you think? They're just one example
of how the hayseed legislative bodies in Raleigh are selling us down the
river by balancing the tax breaks for Dell and others on our backs.
Those stinkin' Republicans in Raleigh...

Oh, wait.

On an amusing side note (for anyone who understands): I heard/read
something somewhere last week about municipal wi-fi. The claim
was that the 'red states' were rushing in droves to pass laws banning
municipal wireless access, North Carolina was cited as an example.
The argument was that the Republicans were firmly in the pocket of the
ISPs. !

-TC
--
swap triangle and cannedmeat to reply
david gourley
2005-08-07 15:37:47 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 16:49:40 GMT, david gourley
Post by david gourley
Keeping Boeing in place is one thing, subsidizing Dell Computer in
this state is entirely different, don't you think? They're just one
example of how the hayseed legislative bodies in Raleigh are selling
us down the river by balancing the tax breaks for Dell and others on
our backs.
Those stinkin' Republicans in Raleigh...
It wasn't just 'them.'
Oh, wait.
On an amusing side note (for anyone who understands): I heard/read
something somewhere last week about municipal wi-fi. The claim
was that the 'red states' were rushing in droves to pass laws banning
municipal wireless access, North Carolina was cited as an example.
The argument was that the Republicans were firmly in the pocket of the
ISPs. !
Everyone is in each others' pockets, you can be sure.

Payola in the music biz is a drop in the bucket compared with politics.
On top of that, we don't even have the 'best' that money can buy!!



david

Dweezil Dwarftosser
2005-08-07 05:27:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by david gourley
Keeping Boeing in place is one thing, subsidizing Dell
Computer in this state is entirely different, don't you think?
Yup - hell just froze over.
Post by david gourley
They're just one example of how the hayseed legislative
bodies in Raleigh are selling us down the river by balancing
the tax breaks for Dell and others on our backs.
The biggest problem with the part-time (? Hah!) tenants at
the Velvet Cloak is the transparency of their kickback
mechanisms. (And the thousands of "lodge brothers" and
wannabees who look the other way.)

At least the mafia didn't pretend to be pillars of the
community.
p***@see_my_sig_for_address.com
2005-08-07 05:29:42 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 01:27:34 -0400, Dweezil Dwarftosser
Post by Dweezil Dwarftosser
Post by david gourley
Keeping Boeing in place is one thing, subsidizing Dell
Computer in this state is entirely different, don't you think?
Yup - hell just froze over.
Post by david gourley
They're just one example of how the hayseed legislative
bodies in Raleigh are selling us down the river by balancing
the tax breaks for Dell and others on our backs.
The biggest problem with the part-time (? Hah!) tenants at
the Velvet Cloak is the transparency of their kickback
mechanisms. (And the thousands of "lodge brothers" and
wannabees who look the other way.)
At least the mafia didn't pretend to be pillars of the
community.
Yes they did. Totally.


Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!

http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/

Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/
david gourley
2005-08-07 15:33:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dweezil Dwarftosser
At least the mafia didn't pretend to be pillars of the
community.
LOL -good one.

david
Rob St. Amant
2005-08-04 21:09:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dweezil Dwarftosser
- Promotion of the standard of living of ALL Americans
by enabling the right to collective bargaining of
employment contracts, and improvement of life-preserving
health care delivery to all, at lower overall expense.
I'd expect you'd find at least as much agreement with this plank on the
left as you would on the right. This may mean that it's orthogonal to
the liberal/conservative divide, rather populist, I suppose. I
certainly agree with it, to a large extent, and I'm no conservative.
Dweezil Dwarftosser
2005-08-05 04:05:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob St. Amant
Post by Dweezil Dwarftosser
- Promotion of the standard of living of ALL Americans
by enabling the right to collective bargaining of
employment contracts, and improvement of life-preserving
health care delivery to all, at lower overall expense.
I'd expect you'd find at least as much agreement with this plank on the
left as you would on the right. This may mean that it's orthogonal to
the liberal/conservative divide, rather populist, I suppose. I
certainly agree with it, to a large extent, and I'm no conservative.
When is a "special interest group" NOT a special interest?
- when it includes (and benefits) almost everyone.
Susan Hogarth
2005-08-05 12:59:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob St. Amant
Post by Dweezil Dwarftosser
- Promotion of the standard of living of ALL Americans
by enabling the right to collective bargaining of
employment contracts, and improvement of life-preserving
health care delivery to all, at lower overall expense.
I'd expect you'd find at least as much agreement with this plank on the
left as you would on the right. This may mean that it's orthogonal to
the liberal/conservative divide, rather populist, I suppose. I
certainly agree with it, to a large extent, and I'm no conservative.
Who *could* disagree with such things as the right to collective
bargaining and improvement of health care?

The place where the disagreement comes about - and the central question
- is in deciding *how* these goodies are to be obtained. Should those
who do not want to engage in collective bargaining be prevented from
doing so in the name of preserving the right to collective bargaining?
Should some people be impoverished to provide an improvement in health
care for other people?

- Susan
Dweezil Dwarftosser
2005-08-05 17:51:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Susan Hogarth
Who *could* disagree with such things as the right to collective
bargaining and improvement of health care?
The place where the disagreement comes about - and the central question
- is in deciding *how* these goodies are to be obtained. Should those
who do not want to engage in collective bargaining be prevented from
doing so in the name of preserving the right to collective bargaining?
The simplest answer is "yes" - but only when and where the
majority of employees (in a particular class) have voted
that ALL of them will speak with a single voice in negotiating
terms of employment with the employer.
The naysayer is perfectly free to disassociate themselves from
the ranks of ALL employees.
Post by Susan Hogarth
Should some people be impoverished to provide an improvement
in health care for other people?
Of course not; that's why it is so important to have a minimal
level of health care provided to all, at much less total cost
than that provided by the current menagerie of insurers and
assorted middle-men sucking out more than 30% of every dollar
spent on health in the United States, regardless of the source
of that cash.
Post by Susan Hogarth
- Susan
Rob St. Amant
2005-08-05 18:02:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Susan Hogarth
Post by Rob St. Amant
Post by Dweezil Dwarftosser
- Promotion of the standard of living of ALL Americans
by enabling the right to collective bargaining of
employment contracts, and improvement of life-preserving
health care delivery to all, at lower overall expense.
I'd expect you'd find at least as much agreement with this plank on the
left as you would on the right. This may mean that it's orthogonal to
the liberal/conservative divide, rather populist, I suppose. I
certainly agree with it, to a large extent, and I'm no conservative.
Who *could* disagree with such things as the right to collective
bargaining and improvement of health care?
The place where the disagreement comes about - and the central question
- is in deciding *how* these goodies are to be obtained. Should those
who do not want to engage in collective bargaining be prevented from
doing so in the name of preserving the right to collective bargaining?
Should some people be impoverished to provide an improvement in health
care for other people?
I don't have an easy answer for the first question, but for the second,
what plan are you thinking of that impoverishes some people for the
sake of health care for others?
Susan Hogarth
2005-08-05 18:10:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob St. Amant
Post by Susan Hogarth
Post by Rob St. Amant
Post by Dweezil Dwarftosser
- Promotion of the standard of living of ALL Americans
by enabling the right to collective bargaining of
employment contracts, and improvement of life-preserving
health care delivery to all, at lower overall expense.
I'd expect you'd find at least as much agreement with this plank on the
left as you would on the right. This may mean that it's orthogonal to
the liberal/conservative divide, rather populist, I suppose. I
certainly agree with it, to a large extent, and I'm no conservative.
Who *could* disagree with such things as the right to collective
bargaining and improvement of health care?
The place where the disagreement comes about - and the central question
- is in deciding *how* these goodies are to be obtained. Should those
who do not want to engage in collective bargaining be prevented from
doing so in the name of preserving the right to collective bargaining?
Should some people be impoverished to provide an improvement in health
care for other people?
I don't have an easy answer for the first question, but for the second,
what plan are you thinking of that impoverishes some people for the
sake of health care for others?
I wans't thinking of any specific plan. Any one that relies on price
controls or taxation would qualify, though.

- Susan
Rob St. Amant
2005-08-05 20:45:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Susan Hogarth
Post by Rob St. Amant
Post by Susan Hogarth
Post by Rob St. Amant
Post by Dweezil Dwarftosser
- Promotion of the standard of living of ALL Americans
by enabling the right to collective bargaining of
employment contracts, and improvement of life-preserving
health care delivery to all, at lower overall expense.
I'd expect you'd find at least as much agreement with this plank on the
left as you would on the right. This may mean that it's orthogonal to
the liberal/conservative divide, rather populist, I suppose. I
certainly agree with it, to a large extent, and I'm no conservative.
Who *could* disagree with such things as the right to collective
bargaining and improvement of health care?
The place where the disagreement comes about - and the central question
- is in deciding *how* these goodies are to be obtained. Should those
who do not want to engage in collective bargaining be prevented from
doing so in the name of preserving the right to collective bargaining?
Should some people be impoverished to provide an improvement in health
care for other people?
I don't have an easy answer for the first question, but for the second,
what plan are you thinking of that impoverishes some people for the
sake of health care for others?
I wans't thinking of any specific plan. Any one that relies on price
controls or taxation would qualify, though.
Okay, so that's an "in principle" rather than "in practice" rhetorical
question. Just checking.
Dweezil Dwarftosser
2005-08-04 04:41:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by david gourley
People like Delay are 'fake conservatives' and why you don't call
attention to that surprises me a little (I do believe you're a true
conservative, for the most part).
Hell - it seems that at least half of the people we elected
as "conservatives", are the "fake" variety. Lots of weak-
willed RINOs out there... Frist, too!
Rob St. Amant
2005-08-04 20:05:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dweezil Dwarftosser
Post by david gourley
People like Delay are 'fake conservatives' and why you don't call
attention to that surprises me a little (I do believe you're a true
conservative, for the most part).
Hell - it seems that at least half of the people we elected
as "conservatives", are the "fake" variety. Lots of weak-
willed RINOs out there... Frist, too!
Lots of people (including you, I'd thought) have said that Republican
doesn't equal conservative. I don't think RINO and DINO actually make
much sense unless there's that equivalence.

Frist, by the way, scores an 89% lifetime average from the American
Conservative Union. Being more conservative than that one runs the
risk of being a nutcase like John Cornyn, James Inhofe, and Tom Coburn.
What is it with Texas and Oklahoma? Something in the water?
Dweezil Dwarftosser
2005-08-04 20:23:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob St. Amant
Lots of people (including you, I'd thought) have said that
Republican doesn't equal conservative.
That's a correct assessment in my book, though I'd prefer to
say that the two are not mutually inclusive.
Loading...