Enough pessimism -- how about the good news

[MikeBalk]

Gary, we agree.

-Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: deveil [mailto:deveil@earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 6:13 PM
To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: Enough pessimism -- how about the good news


mike,
"...if you heard me say..."
one of the things that has been muddled (appropriated?) is the idea that if
one says they are a 'believer' then the person is 'one with bush'.
conversely, if one is a 'believer', how can they not be one with bush? AND
if one uses the term 'believe' or 'believer' that one is automatically
talking about god, or christianity.
...here's something telling...i read your note and immediately jumped on the
keyboard because i thought you might be being broad and indiscriminate and i
wanted to make sure that i hadn't been misinterpreted or that what i was
saying wasn't being mis(?)appropriated!
i went back to your post to pick those parts that i might want to address
specifically only to realize that YOU ACTUALLY WEREN'T 'SLAMMING' PEOPLE
OF FAITH but saying something more specific and precise.
certain aspects of the language HAVE been appropriated (inappropriately
. and 'coded' and used perjoritively or for exclusion and/or for
...etc...etc. that's part of the game that president karl and those other
evil geniuses are so expert at.
to be clear on this one point- i am sincerely happy for anyone who has a
faith in something beyond this mortal world. and i have a fear of those who
blindly (and even unknowingly!) use such a thing to support their bigotries,
agendas and such ('it' is misused in so many ways!) and i have a burning,
pure disgust for those who would use such things cynically. unfortunately,
quite often it is nearly impossible to tell them apart...anybody for
separation of church and state?
it's the blind belief in these worldly things and people and parties and
dogma and stuff that we are both talking about.... i believe .

okay, you DO have to stop THIS stuff 'cause this here response has been too
HARD! and i've probably misstated something, or been confusing or unclear
and then someone will call me on it or accuse me of something. and ALL I
REALLY WANT TO DO IS MAKE FUN OF OTHER PEOPLE! it's just so much easier.
[Wink]

[Joe Schad]

Hello Marco and Rance,

Thought I would start with Marco's orginal view of the world.

A couple of questions for your consideration:

1. Are you proud of the Republican policies and funding cuts that have contributed to FEMA's problems in handling the hurricane Katrina situation? Or is it all still Bill Clinton's fault as Rush would say?

2. Do you like the gross over tasking of the Guard and Reserve Forces? Extremely bad policy and failed leadership don't you think?

Remember, if you voted Republican in the last election YOU VOTED FOR THESE POLICIES AND THE RESULTING MESS.

I will be interested in your answers?

Also, consider the current crisis in handling hurricane Katrina's aftermath with what is going on in the Senate this next week. The Senate is suppost to consider ending the estate tax permanently. The tax affects the very rich and brings in about 1.5 billion a week in taxes( about the cost of the Iraq war per week). If they pass it as the Republican house has already done, Bush will have added one more tax cut for the wealthiest Americans while cutting budgets that protect the poorest amoung us from such things as natural disasters. Just another example of "Republican" moral values I would say.

Joe



Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 1:45 am Post subject: Enough pessimism -- how about the good news

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My first post on this forum. ( I'm sure you all were missing me javascript:emoticon('') )

Let's review:

We have liberated 50 million people.
We are establishing democracies in a region of the world that has never known democracy.....remember the blue fingers.
We are fighting terrorists abroad instead of here in Foggy Bottom (not a Clinton reference LOL).
No further terrorist attacks in the past 4 years here at home.
Our military is doing a fabulous job under very difficult conditions....again.
Our economy is growing at 3-4%.
The deficit (we are spending toooo much) is shrinking.
Unemployment is down to 5%.
DC finally has a baseball team of its own again.
Home ownership is at an alltime high.
Bush is likely to appoint 3, or possibly 4 Supreme Court Justices.
Jeb Bush is likely to win the Presidency in 2008. ( you heard it here first ! )

On the downside, gas prices are a bit on the high side, but if we were to produce more domestic oil, which we have in Alaska and offshore, the prices would come down.

Not utopia, but overall, pretty darn good, IMHO. I can't think of any place better, can you?

I know summer is coming to an end. but there is more than enough reason for cheer and optimisim.

[Marco Zee]

Joe,

Let me try to answer one question at a time. Sorry for the delay.

Previously you stated:

<<Marco,

Question:
1. Do you believe that it is in the best interest of society/goverments for people to be secure in matters of survival and health and thereby have a social safety net for all citizens? >>
Reply: I am all for National Security. As the health and social safety net stuff, in theory, that sounds so generous and caring, but paying for it is the hard part. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are all heading toward bankruptcy as the sheer number of baby boomers start to overwhelm the system.


2. Isn't this Republican administration responsible for the increase of people below the poverty line and the increase in the number of people without health insurance?
Reply: As the old saying goes, a rising tide lifts all boats. The best way to help poor folks is to strengthen the economy....that's why Bush cut taxes...to stimulate the economy. As the economy continues to recover and grow, employment rises, and the poor have and will benefit, but as with any recovery, the poorest and the least "flexible" workers are the last to benefit. Bush inherited a recession from Clinton/Gore, and 9/11 compounded the depth of that recession....it's taken a few years to "turn things around", but the economy has rebounded....obviously...just look at the numbers.....5% Unemployment, 3-4% growth....Clinton's numbers were never better than this.

<<I do believe that you are much like George Bush. Strong in your beliefs and you will let not fact change those beliefs. It is my hope that enough people will see your views and approach for what it is, danger to the country and vote, vote, vote every single Republican out of office at every level of government. Hopefully we can prevent the fraud with the elections that has occured in the last two.>>

Reply: Facts are facts...as new facts arise, you always need to reevaluate your position based on the latest facts. Most of what I am hearing from my liberal colleagues here is opinion and perception, and not facts. Speaking of "facts" and "beliefs".....do you have any FACTUAL EVIDENCE of significant fraud that would have changed the outcome of either of the last two presidential elections? Or is this just your gut belief, unsubstantiated by irrefutable facts? Last I checked, the Republicans have won the white house, both houses of congress, most state legislatures and governorships....were they all by fraud? Or is it possible that the American people are seeing liberalism, as currently espoused, as a failed ideology and are therefore rejecting it across the board? Good grief, I still can't believe people are griping about Bush stealing the election......get over it.

<<Joe

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Option 1: Primary

Declare victory and move our troops to the border of Syria and Iran for six months the take them all out.

Option 2: Admit it was a mistake in the first place and bring all the troops home now.

I prefer option 2.

A question(s) for you Marco.

Why should we make our children pay for this war as we are doing by not budgeting for the costs and deficit spending?>>

Reply: I have been an advocate for a balanced budget since the days the Jimmy Carter (yes I voted for Carter, not Reagan in 1980) advocated it back in 1978. Social Security should be off budget, instead of being raided annually in the general budget by both parties. I don't like running deficits, but in cases of war or natural disasters, I can "tolerate" it a bit more easily. Otherwise, I'd prefer to balance the budget.

<<Do you believe the establishment of an Islamic State alighened with Iran( of the Axis of Evil) is success for the USA? If so Why? >>

Reply: The Shi'ites in Iraq are 60% of the population, and there was great concern by Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war that the Iraqi Shi-ites would join the Iranian Shi'ites, but they never did. I am not convinced, based on this history, that the Iraqi Shi'ites are in any hurry to be beholden to Iran in the future since they passed on that possibility in the past. But, IF the new government in Iraq becomes an Iran "West", this would not be acceptable to the Sunnis and the Kurds. So, I think that the three parties will come to an agreement, otherwise they might have to battle it out, or they could just agree to partition Iraq into three separate countries, like what happened in Yugoslavia, and even in the USSR.

<<Is a civil war in Iraq really bad for the US? >>

Reply: Not sure what you mean by really bad, but a negotiated settlement to either "power share" Iraq democratically, or partition Iraq into three parts would be much more preferable so as to avoid further bloodshed.


<<Joe>>

Hope this helps.

Marco

[Marco Zee]

Hey Marc,
Let me take these one at a time. Your statements are in << >>.

<<OK Marco--you've made your points.
Bush has nothing to do with the war in Iraq--Congress and the UN made him do it. His advisors, acting under the influence of Clinton-controlled programmers, egged Bush on to invade Iraq. Although we're there now, by golly those WMDs and nukes are still there somewhere--its just a matter of invading the next country to find where they are hidden. In other words--"I didn't do it--so I'm not responsible for what happens." >>

Reply: Bush has led the way on the Iraq War, no doubt, but he was supported by virtually all Republicans, a majority of Democrat Senators (30/50), and the UN Security Council (16-0). In the final analysis, he will earn most of the glory, or receive most of the blame, depending on how things go and how things are perceived. But to say that he "acted alone" , or that it's "Bush's war" or a "Republican War" is simply inaccurate. As I said earlier, 23 of 26 European nations supported the invasion, as did Japan and Australia, amongst others.

People who were against the war from the start have not, for the most part, changed their opinion of the war. However, as the Iraqi's go to vote again in October and December, it will become harder and harder to not support these brave people seeking democracy. I know it will be tough, but you might even have to admit that Bush was right, and you were wrong, as many EuroWeenies were saying after the first election back in January. There is something about repressed people, defying death threats and bodily injury, as they line up to vote, that is so darn inspiring !!!

<<In the end we can argue forever about the hows and whys. But the real issue is what the results are and is it worth continuing down the same ruinous path.>>

Reply: Exactly (except for the "ruinous" part) my point....how best do we proceed NOW ? (see....I am obtaining the latest facts and reevaluating the situation, not just acting on faith.. ....and even asking for opinions and input from my flying buds).

<<To sum it up, you maintain that staying in Iraq is the right thing to do, even if it means continued death and destruction with no descernable lessening of the terrorist threat.>>

Reply: That's not "exactly" what I said,..that's your perception of the current situation. I believe that the establishment of democracy in Iraq will stabilize Iraq, and place pressure on neighboring countries to democratize. Islamic fundamentalist terrorists can then spend their time attacking their own people seeking democracy (like they are doing now to the democratic forces in Iraq) instead of Americans here and abroad. That's taking the battle "for hearts and minds" to their home turf. IF THE TERRORISTS ARE BUSY ATTACKING THEIR OWN PEOPLE (WHO ARE ACTIVELY SEEKING DEMOCRACY), THEY WILL NOT HAVE TIME TO ATTACK US HERE AT HOME.
For some reason, many LIBERALS do not believe that we are fighting terrorists in Iraq NOW...despite overwhelming evidence of all the foreign terrorists being captured and killed there daily by US and coalition forces. Unbelievable. I don't know if this is willful denial or what? I guess if they can deny there are terrorists there, then they can justify withdrawing without being accused of "retreating from terrorists". Or they could just be misinformed........uh....not likely. More likely they are following thier beliefs, and NOT the facts. Or they just hate Bush, so they reflexively oppose whatever he advocates.


<<Interesting to see that the mississippi delta region knew in advance that a Katrina-like distaster was a high probability, so much so that they succeeded in getting a program going for improved flood control and wetland reclamation. Bush subsequently slashed the budgets of these programs. Must have been a Clinton advisor somewhere that made him do it. Marc>>

Reply: There is no city in America, including Miami and New Orleans, that is adequately prepared to withstand a direct hit Cat 5 Hurricane. To make things worse, the city of New Orleans is mostly below sea level. From what I've heard on TV, there are 90,000 square miles of devastation....greater than the size of all of Great Britain!!! Most likely the worst natural disaster of our lifetimes...or at least in the past 100 years. Whoever was responsible for not building and maintaining those levies properly is gonna be in big trouble, for sure. Doesn't LA have a Democratic Governor, and have NOT had a Republican senator (until 2004) for more than 100 years? The blame game is definitely taking shape down there, unfortunately.

Marco

[Joe Schad]

Posts: 24
Location: Bel Air
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 1:57 am Post subject: Reply to Joe

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joe,

Let me try to answer one question at a time. Sorry for the delay.

Previously you stated:

<<Marco,

Question:
1. Do you believe that it is in the best interest of society/goverments for people to be secure in matters of survival and health and thereby have a social safety net for all citizens? >>
Reply: I am all for National Security. As the health and social safety net stuff, in theory, that sounds so generous and caring, but paying for it is the hard part. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are all heading toward bankruptcy as the sheer number of baby boomers start to overwhelm the system.


2. Isn't this Republican administration responsible for the increase of people below the poverty line and the increase in the number of people without health insurance?
Reply: As the old saying goes, a rising tide lifts all boats.

I don't believe the evidence supports this idea with respect to the economy. Here is some data from the Post today: "...the increase in poverty between 2003 and 2004 is in fact out of the ordinary; such a rise hasn't happened between the second and third years of an economic recovery since the federal government began collecting poverty data in 1960. For another the poverty rate may be a lagging indicator, but in this case it's no lonely: See, for example the median income of working-age households, which declined 1.2 percent."

"Another ominous signal involves health insurance coverage. Althought the percentage of people with coverage remained unchanged from 2003 to 2004, that masked a shift from employer-provided insurance to government coverage. The percentage of people with employer-babsed health insurance fell for the fouorth year in a row. Most of this slack has been taken up by Medicaid, the shared federal state healthe program for the poor and disabled. Buthe with state budgets under increasing strain from Medicaid costs and with Congress poised to make cuts in the program, it's not at all certain that states will be willing or able to maintain coverage for working Americans hovering at the edge of poverty."

The people benefiting from this administrations tax and spending policies are the very rich.



The best way to help poor folks is to strengthen the economy....that's why Bush cut taxes...to stimulate the economy. As the economy continues to recover and grow, employment rises, and the poor have and will benefit, but as with any recovery, the poorest and the least "flexible" workers are the last to benefit. Bush inherited a recession from Clinton/Gore, and 9/11 compounded the depth of that recession....it's taken a few years to "turn things around", but the economy has rebounded....obviously...just look at the numbers.....5% Unemployment, 3-4% growth....Clinton's numbers were never better than this.

<>

Reply: Facts are facts...as new facts arise, you always need to reevaluate your position based on the latest facts. Most of what I am hearing from my liberal colleagues here is opinion and perception, and not facts. Speaking of "facts" and "beliefs".....do you have any FACTUAL EVIDENCE of significant fraud that would have changed the outcome of either of the last two presidential elections?

I do not have facts to take to court on the election fraud possibility. I just happen to know one person who was denied the opportunity to vote on election day in Ohio. This was a person who has lived in the same house for forty years. Election officials said she was not on the voting rolls even though she voted in every election for the past forty years. When asked to point out her street on the elections officials official map of the voting district her street was not even on the map. She was given, after much heated discussion, a provisional ballot, one of the hundred thousand or so that resulted from this election. Who knows if they were honored or even counted. I hope there is some state attorney general with the real data but I won't hold my breath.

Or is this just your gut belief, unsubstantiated by irrefutable facts? Last I checked, the Republicans have won the white house, both houses of congress, most state legislatures and governorships....were they all by fraud? Or is it possible that the American people are seeing liberalism, as currently espoused, as a failed ideology

American Liberalism is not failed. It is just being destroyed by the "conservatives Republicans." By the way Just what do conservatives conserve? The environment, the peoples money? freedom, individual rights? religious freedom? privacy? I see no evidence of any conservation from the Republican side>

and are therefore rejecting it across the board? Good grief, I still can't believe people are griping about Bush stealing the election......get over it.

If by chance voting fraud would happen come to court would you change your mind?

<<Joe

[Joe Schad]

Joe,

Let me try to answer one question at a time. Sorry for the delay.

Previously you stated:

<<Marco,

Question:
1. Do you believe that it is in the best interest of society/goverments for people to be secure in matters of survival and health and thereby have a social safety net for all citizens? >>

Reply: I am all for National Security. As the health and social safety net stuff, in theory, that sounds so generous and caring, but paying for it is the hard part. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are all heading toward bankruptcy as the sheer number of baby boomers start to overwhelm the system.


Marco. Just because it is expensive to provide health and social safety net for our citizens I would argue that it is much more expensive not to do so. Just look at the cost of Katrina. The damage and flooding caused by failed leeves that could have been prevented if we had just spent the money everyone knew needed to be spent to protect from a level five hurricane.

Social Security could be solvent right now if we were not paying for Iraq. We can and should maintain social security and Medicare and provide health insurance for everyone in the country. Personal security of every citizen is important to the safety of our country. The Republicans since Newt Gingrich want to starve Social Security and all the social programs and get rid of every program. Then it is survival of the fittest just like you see in New Orleans. I do not believe that is good for our country or represents a set of moral values that have been at the heart of this country from the beginning.

Also, paying for everything should be easy for Bush. He charges everything to the national credit card and does not blink an eye.

Marco if you don't like the debt why do you vote republican? Remember Reagan took us from being the largest creditor nation to being the greatest debtor nation in just one year. George is just trying to out do Reagan with debt.

Joe

[mcelrah]

I do not subscribe to the election fraud theories - but there is a
boatload of pandering and demagoguery ("fraud") from the Republican
side. Not that the Democrats won't stoop to that - but the GOP
machine is better at it. Sure, Medicare and Social Security need to
be reformed, but I don't trust Bush to do it after taking those huge
mal-distributed tax cuts. As they say, Bush's concern for the
solvency of Social Security and his reform proposal is like the
skipper who shoots a hole in the bottom of the lifeboat and then
tells everyone to put a hat on. I think the huge fiscal and monetary
stimulus of the first term was a lot less about setting up the rising
tide to lift all boats (bad metaphor in the current New Orleans
context) that it was about stomping both feet on the accelerator to
pull out of the recession in time for the 2004 election. The
Congress and Administration are spending money like drunken sailors
(as in the Reagan years) and it will take statesmen in the mould of
Daddy Bush and Clinton in the succeeding administrations to repair
the damage. That's the real turnaround. - Hugh

On 6 Sep 2005, at 02:57, Marco Zee wrote:

>
> Joe,
>
> Let me try to answer one question at a time. Sorry for the delay.
>
> Previously you stated:
>
>
> Reply: I am all for National Security. As the health and social
> safety net stuff, in theory, that sounds so generous and caring,
> but paying for it is the hard part. Social Security, Medicare, and
> Medicaid are all heading toward bankruptcy as the sheer number of
> baby boomers start to overwhelm the system.
>
>
> 2. Isn't this Republican administration responsible for the
> increase of people below the poverty line and the increase in the
> number of people without health insurance?
> Reply: As the old saying goes, a rising tide lifts all boats. The
> best way to help poor folks is to strengthen the economy....that's
> why Bush cut taxes...to stimulate the economy. As the economy
> continues to recover and grow, employment rises, and the poor have
> and will benefit, but as with any recovery, the poorest and the
> least "flexible" workers are the last to benefit. Bush inherited a
> recession from Clinton/Gore, and 9/11 compounded the depth of that
> recession....it's taken a few years to "turn things around", but
> the economy has rebounded....obviously...just look at the
> numbers.....5% Unemployment, 3-4% growth....Clinton's numbers were
> never better than this.
>
>
>
> Reply: Facts are facts...as new facts arise, you always need to
> reevaluate your position based on the latest facts. Most of what I
> am hearing from my liberal colleagues here is opinion and
> perception, and not facts. Speaking of "facts" and
> "beliefs".....do you have any FACTUAL EVIDENCE of significant fraud
> that would have changed the outcome of either of the last two
> presidential elections? Or is this just your gut belief,
> unsubstantiated by irrefutable facts? Last I checked, the
> Republicans have won the white house, both houses of congress, most
> state legislatures and governorships....were they all by fraud? Or
> is it possible that the American people are seeing liberalism, as
> currently espoused, as a failed ideology and are therefore
> rejecting it across the board? Good grief, I still can't believe
> people are griping about Bush stealing the election......get over it.
>
>
>
> Reply: I have been an advocate for a balanced budget since the
> days the Jimmy Carter (yes I voted for Carter, not Reagan in 1980)
> advocated it back in 1978. Social Security should be off budget,
> instead of being raided annually in the general budget by both
> parties. I don't like running deficits, but in cases of war or
> natural disasters, I can "tolerate" it a bit more easily.
> Otherwise, I'd prefer to balance the budget.
>
>
>
> Reply: The Shi'ites in Iraq are 60% of the population, and there
> was great concern by Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war that the Iraqi
> Shi-ites would join the Iranian Shi'ites, but they never did. I am
> not convinced, based on this history, that the Iraqi Shi'ites are
> in any hurry to be beholden to Iran in the future since they passed
> on that possibility in the past. But, IF the new government in
> Iraq becomes an Iran "West", this would not be acceptable to the
> Sunnis and the Kurds. So, I think that the three parties will come
> to an agreement, otherwise they might have to battle it out, or
> they could just agree to partition Iraq into three separate
> countries, like what happened in Yugoslavia, and even in the USSR.
>
>
>
> Reply: Not sure what you mean by really bad, but a negotiated
> settlement to either "power share" Iraq democratically, or
> partition Iraq into three parts would be much more preferable so as
> to avoid further bloodshed.
>
>
>
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Marco
>

[mcelrah]

"The terrorists" are not a monolith. The ones in Iraq don't
necessarily subtract from the ones here. Al Qa'ida is more of a
franchise than a block diagram organization - so it can definitely
walk and chew gum at the same time. I gotta say that your saccharin
view of the situation in Iraq is breathtakingly naive. I admire the
brave Iraqis who are trying to make a go of it as a democratic
government and will be glad if they succeed, but if I were a betting
man...I'd give it two to one against. And, as mentioned, it's not
clear that U.S. forces are doing any good if they were ever. Seems
like they are just providing an irritant around which the insurgency
forms. If we are indeed killing and capturing large numbers of
insurgents, it sure doesn't seem to be reducing the level of
terrorist activity. When - not if - we leave, the insurgents may
well have the means to overthrow the government. The Kurds have
their act together and will secede. The southern Shi'i are
cohesive, if not as well organized, and will hold their areas. I see
three successor states, with only Kurdistan recognizably democratic -
not so sure about the democratic part...
Yup, if Bush says it, I doubt it. There's no trust that he really
has the interests of the whole nation at heart (c.f. his exaggerated
concern that Trent Lott's house was destroyed).
- Hugh


On 6 Sep 2005, at 05:17, Marco Zee wrote:

>
> Hey Marc,
> Let me take these one at a time. Your statements are in >.
>
>
>
> Reply: Bush has led the way on the Iraq War, no doubt, but he was
> supported by virtually all Republicans, a majority of Democrat
> Senators (30/50), and the UN Security Council (16-0). In the final
> analysis, he will earn most of the glory, or receive most of the
> blame, depending on how things go and how things are perceived.
> But to say that he "acted alone" , or that it's "Bush's war" or a
> "Republican War" is simply inaccurate. As I said earlier, 23 of 26
> European nations supported the invasion, as did Japan and
> Australia, amongst others.
>
> People who were against the war from the start have not, for
> the most part, changed their opinion of the war. However, as the
> Iraqi's go to vote again in October and December, it will become
> harder and harder to not support these brave people seeking
> democracy. I know it will be tough, but you might even have to
> admit that Bush was right, and you were wrong, as many EuroWeenies
> were saying after the first election back in January. There is
> something about repressed people, defying death threats and bodily
> injury, as they line up to vote, that is so darn inspiring !!!
>
>
>
> Reply: Exactly (except for the "ruinous" part) my point....how
> best do we proceed NOW ? (see....I am obtaining the latest facts
> and reevaluating the situation, not just acting on faith.. ....and
> even asking for opinions and input from my flying buds).
>
>
>
> Reply: That's not "exactly" what I said,..that's your perception
> of the current situation. I believe that the establishment of
> democracy in Iraq will stabilize Iraq, and place pressure on
> neighboring countries to democratize. Islamic fundamentalist
> terrorists can then spend their time attacking their own people
> seeking democracy (like they are doing now to the democratic forces
> in Iraq) instead of Americans here and abroad. That's taking the
> battle "for hearts and minds" to their home turf. IF THE
> TERRORISTS ARE BUSY ATTACKING THEIR OWN PEOPLE (WHO ARE ACTIVELY
> SEEKING DEMOCRACY), THEY WILL NOT HAVE TIME TO ATTACK US HERE AT HOME.
> For some reason, many LIBERALS do not believe that we are
> fighting terrorists in Iraq NOW...despite overwhelming evidence of
> all the foreign terrorists being captured and killed there daily by
> US and coalition forces. Unbelievable. I don't know if this is
> willful denial or what? I guess if they can deny there are
> terrorists there, then they can justify withdrawing without being
> accused of "retreating from terrorists". Or they could just be
> misinformed........uh....not likely. More likely they are
> following thier beliefs, and NOT the facts. Or they just hate
> Bush, so they reflexively oppose whatever he advocates.
>
>
>
>
> Reply: There is no city in America, including Miami and New
> Orleans, that is adequately prepared to withstand a direct hit Cat
> 5 Hurricane. To make things worse, the city of New Orleans is
> mostly below sea level. From what I've heard on TV, there are
> 90,000 square miles of devastation....greater than the size of all
> of Great Britain!!! Most likely the worst natural disaster of our
> lifetimes...or at least in the past 100 years. Whoever was
> responsible for not building and maintaining those levies properly
> is gonna be in big trouble, for sure. Doesn't LA have a Democratic
> Governor, and have NOT had a Republican senator (until 2004) for
> more than 100 years? The blame game is definitely taking shape
> down there, unfortunately.
>
> Marco
>

[Flying Lobster]

Truth be told, I seriously doubt that there is anything you guys can say that will ever convince me that GW, in my opinion, is nothing more than some ignorant rightist John Wayne wannabee who can't think his way out of a paper bag and above all serves the interests of the rich and big business.

If there are members of the conservative right who want to wrap themselves in the flag and proclaim themselves true patriots (though there is a huge difference between 'patriot' and 'patronizing') while the country goes straight down the toilet--then so be it.

Marc

[Marco Zee]

Marc said <<Truth be told, I seriously doubt that there is anything you guys can say that will ever convince me that GW, in my opinion, is nothing more than some ignorant rightist John Wayne wannabee who can't think his way out of a paper bag and above all serves the interests of the rich and big business. >>
Reply: This exactly proves my point,....there are liberal (and proud of it, as Hugh says) Bush haters who do not trust Bush in any manner, shape, or form, and therefore reflexively oppose whatever he does. These Bush haters have failed to convince the American public to hate Bush OR to embrace their liberal agenda. Thanks Marc for your honesty and forthrightfulness. Were you a Dean or Kucinich supporter last time around?

The political battles in this country are usually fought for the voters "in the middle", so as to win their "hearts and minds" . Spewing hatred of Bush as an idiot, cowboy, frat boy, etc... just hasn't cut it with the American voters and public. But feel free to continue your rants, as it demonstrates and reinforces the utter lack of any serious plans or agendas by liberals to benefit the people of our country and the world. Hatred for Bush is not an agenda.

Let's see how the "middle" feels about Iraq after the two elections this year.....stay tuned.

Joe, you said:
<<Marco. Just because it is expensive to provide health and social safety net for our citizens I would argue that it is much more expensive not to do so.>>

Reply: Joe, without serious reform to SS and Medicare/Medicaid, these programs will go belly up in a few short years. THIS IS A FACT. There is only disagreement of exactly how many years it will take before they go bankrupt, but they are DEFINITELY heading that way. THERE ARE JUST TOO MANY BABY BOOMERS FOR THE SYSTEM TO HANDLE. If liberals don't want reform of these programs, fine, .....then let them demand higher taxes to pay for the program, OR, let them propose a reduction of benefits. Go ahead..but at least be honest that that is what you are seeking.....higher taxes to pay for your social "comprehensive care", not a safety net.
The American people already believe that they pay too much in taxes, so go ahead and feel free to run on your "Impeach Bush and Higher Taxes" platform.....it's a political loser.

Joe said: <<Social Security could be solvent right now if we were not paying for Iraq. We can and should maintain social security and Medicare and provide health insurance for everyone in the country. Personal security of every citizen is important to the safety of our country. The Republicans since Newt Gingrich want to starve Social Security and all the social programs and get rid of every program. Then it is survival of the fittest just like you see in New Orleans. I do not believe that is good for our country or represents a set of moral values that have been at the heart of this country from the beginning>>

Reply: As of today, SS is solvent...unfortunately, every cent that has been collected for SS is GONE however....completely SPENT by general revenues every year. The SS "Trust Fund" has zero cash....nothing but IOU's.
The moral values "of this country from the beginning" were never based on the government providing SS, Medicare, Medicaid to its citizens.....good grief. The early settlers who survived did so by being self reliant, and "rugged individualists". This is how the country was formed....not by some notion that people flocked here for its availability of social programs and governmental "cradle-to-grave" care. Did you know that the federal government did not even collect an income tax until 1920 (or so)? The first 145 years of this country had basically little if any "social" programs....I don't know how we ever survived, much less flourished LOL.

Gotta run guys....thanks for the posts....I am enjoying them all...Joe and Hugh, I'll catch up with you later....

Marco

[Marco Zee]

Trent Lott's house was 150 years old and built on 8 foot stilts. It survived mother nature for all of those 150 years, but has been completely demolished by Katrina. GONE.
I think this clearly demonstrates that Katrina has been the worst natural disaster to hit this area in the past 150 years. Bush isn't concerned about his house....Lott will "get by"....he simply uses this example to exemplify the obvious....the historical severity of this incredible storm.

[huddlec]

Marco,
?
How about the Bush folks spewing hatred for certain people based on 'moral' stands?? That ok?? Using the gay marriage ticket simply as a way of?bringing out the anti-gay vote, is that ok with you?

Where's the proof that the American people believe they pay too much in taxes? Please provide. Anecdotal evidence isn't good enough.? I think a split system for Social Security might be doable, but I don't trust Bush to set it up so that it's fair across all income levels. His lies about the 'death tax' showed me he can't be trusted when it comes to helping those who aren't in the top 1% income level.
?
What was the average life expectancy for people in this country in the first 50 years, 100 years, during the Depression?? Do you think it's ok that the infant mortality rate in this country is well below just about every industrialized nation out there?
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004393.html
?
George Washington wasn't willing to free his slaves (300 of them) and he's the father of this country.? I believe we've come a long way from back then and I don't think too many people would like to go back to that era. If you are, let me get my time machine up and running. Just kidding.
?
If you haven't read the 3 volume bio of Lyndon Johnson, I recommend you all do. Fascinating account of how?one Texan was able to make it to the top.? What's really amazing is that another Texan used the same techniques?and the same dang companies. As I said before, it's the water.
?
Christy
?
?

Marco Zee <marcoz757@aol.com> wrote:

Spewing hatred of Bush as an idiot, cowboy, frat boy, etc... just hasn't cut it with the American voters and public. But feel free to continue your rants, as it demonstrates and reinforces the utter lack of any serious plans or agendas by liberals to benefit the people of our country and the world. Hatred for Bush is not an agenda.



The American people already believe that they pay too much in taxes, ...



The early settlers who survived did so by being self reliant, and "rugged individualists".? ...The first 145 years of this country had basically little if any "social" programs....I don't know how we ever survived, much less flourished LOL.


Marco

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[huddlec]

As all hang glider pilots should know, a 10 mph wind is 4 times stronger than a 5 mph wind. Not surprised that 140 mph wiped so much off the face of the earth.
Christy

Marco Zee <marcoz757@aol.com> wrote:

Trent Lott's house was 150 years old and built on 8 foot stilts. It survived mother nature for all of those 150 years, but has been completely demolished by Katrina. GONE.
I think this clearly demonstrates that Katrina has been the worst natural disaster to hit this area in the past 150 years. Bush isn't concerned about his house....Lott will "get by"....he simply uses this example to exemplify the obvious....the historical severity of this incredible storm.

Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

[Flying Lobster]

Marc0--never said I hated him--just have zero respect for him. There IS a difference. I believe his policies are by and large foolish--and that those that doggedly support them are equally so (or have their minds clouded by the rightest jihad disguised as patriotism).

Marc

PS I'm growing weary of your selective "filtered retrieve" of so-called "facts" which are then reinterpreted to give spin. You forget that I used to earn a living doing this for the oil lobby, so I know how this little game works.

[deveil]

anybody notice that as things started to calm down...our boy cranked it up a notch? maybe it's an addiction thing? you know something like....ahhh....hmmmm?.....if no one is yelling at him, he can't strike back at his daddy (who HATES! him, obviously)(lot a hate references being thrown around, aren't there? ) and try to finally win or something (i'm not going to work too hard on this. i mean, is he the only one who gets to torture the language, can't i have some liberties also?)
tell you what...he's even starting to make me feel sympathetic towards him. really. i mean...are we just being 'enablers' here? what are they called? co-something-or-others? (it will feel REALLY creepy though if we find out he actually DOES get orgasmic from this stuff (yheeecchhhh!)

i hope i'm helping here ( i think sniping is definitely my best thing, don't you?)...you know, so he feels like he's still winning and thriving and stuff........i really think ( fear?) he secretly likes me ( A LOT! )

( i can give it a break... ya know.... if i start scaring somebody again, give me a heads up. i just didn't see where any of those GARY-HATERS! stuck around though).

anyhow...I STILL THINK ITS MARC !!!!! ( though, even at his (my?) worst i never thought he was THIS maladjusted! ...sure.....some......but.......

[Marco Zee]

I believe we should do everything possible to stop voter fraud.

Why do liberals oppose a bill requiring that all voters provide a PHOTO ID and proof of citizenship before they can vote?????

This would eliminate a big chunk of voter fraud by stopping people from a) voting on multiple occasions, and b) voting illegally by non-citizens.

Do you all remember the Lackawanna 6 ? They were the Al-Quada cell outside of Buffalo that got busted shortly after 9/11. They were all foreigners, but each had a voter registration card.....and I've got to say it.......they were all registered DEMOCRATS .....LOL......another one of my selective facts and spin LOL. Just the facts ma'am.

But certainly, I would hope that everyone wants only citizens of the USA to vote in the US elections, and photo ID's and proof of citizenship SHOULD be a "minimum" requirement before being allowed to vote.

Marco

PS: Joe, I am glad to hear that you are not "holding your breath" awaiting someone to overturn the 120,000 vote margin in Ohio. My gosh, if they couldn't find 550 votes to overturn the Florida election in 2000, how are they gonna find 120,000 votes to overturn Ohio in 2004? It's time to move on Joe.

[deveil]

..
HE'S AN EVIL GENIUS is what he is !!!!!!!!

marC tried to bail with a parting shot that was really just a toss away ( and god KNOWS he hasn't said anything substantial for a while , i mean who CARES if he stays in the 'discussion', right? )

but that marqaida-boy ROPED HIM BACK IN !! with a flick of his _hit! just like that!

that marC, he's such an easy marK ( cute, huh?), ( i mean.........
oh......wait a minute......... HEY !...JUST WAIT A GOSH DARN MINUTE! .....i know what you're thinkin' ! ....but it's different in my case.... I.....uuhhhmm.............


HE'S AN EVIL GENIUS is what he is !!!!!!!!
( ...karl ...? ....is that really you karl......?............
............( i'm startin' to get scared.....really, i don't hate bush either.......
....J. EDGAR...? is that you mister hoover? joe, joe macarthy ole' buddy.....how ya been?! whupped them commies good!, didn't we.............

[Marco Zee]

Christy,
Lets review.....Mondale ran on a " I'll raise your taxes" platform and barely won his homestate of Minnesota by 5000 votes.....unfortunately he lost the other 49 states by a huge margin.

Clinton ran in 1992 on a "middle class tax cut" , which he never delivered, and in fact gave us the largest tax increase in US history. By 1994, the Dems lost six senate seats ( not sure of exact #) and lost the House of Representatives for the first time if 40 years after losing over 50 house seats.

Gore did not run on a "higher taxes" platform, nor did Kerry. Why? Because their internal polls showed that it is not desired by the American people. If the polls showed support, the Dems would have been "pedal to the metal" proposing it.

If people want to pay more taxes, they can...... simply forego your deductions on your tax return. Don't take that Home Mortgage deduction...don't take that child tax credit....don't take that State Tax deduction. Sure, people are foregoing these deductions CONSTANTLY LOL.

I don't have any current polls to support this assertion, but certainly history provides a pretty clear view of this issue. Do you have any polls that show Americans feel "undertaxed"?

Lastly , the gay marriage issue became such a huge topic in last election because 4 of 7 Massachussetts judges decided that gays should have a right to marriage. Then they ORDERED the legislature to pass a law legalizing gay marriage. What audacity !!! The people of Massachussets did not request this, or pass a law saying this....it was done by liberal judicial activists, not by a vote or desire of people of Massachusetts. In all eleven states with gay marriage on the ballot, every "Gay Marriage" bill was defeated handily by the voters.

The bottom line is: the VOTERS should make these decisions....not a handful of unelected judges.

Very lastly, Can you give me any quotes of Bush or his campaign, or the RNC "spewing hatred for gays"? I am not aware of any.

Thanks for the posts,

Marco

PS: Where is Brian with his KE = 1/2 mvv formula for wind velocities ?

[Marco Zee]

Gary,
I think you have found your niche.....you are providing the Comic Relief on this discussion. John Stewart would be proud of you. From your posts, you sound like a very funny and fun-loving guy. And how do you put all those little graphics and things under your username? Thats' impressive !!!
Marco

PS: you should come up to Oregon Ridge for the MHGA meeting and have a few brews with the Maryland boys....we almost always get a political discussion going at some point. It's always fun.

[deveil]

....
better watch yourself there marqaida-boy......you're getting awfully darn obvious there with that obsequiousness bs....... getting close am i?.............

[deveil]

....
.........OR .......WAS THAT A ' R-E-L-E-A-S-E' WE JUST HEARD ?!?!?!?!?!

ohhhhhh... NNNNOOOOOOOOO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YYYYYYYYEEEEEEECCCCCCCHHHHKKKK!!!!!!!

[Joe Schad]

Marco said:
Spewing hatred of Bush as an idiot, cowboy, frat boy, etc...

Joe's Reply:
Why do you always say everyone who disagrees with Bush is a Bush hater? Is it because the Repbulicans alway try to destroy their opponet's character in every political race?

I do not agree with a single policy of this Bush administration. I believe Bush and Cheney are short of intergrety and cannot be trusted. I am sure he is a nice guy to party with.

Marco said:
Let's see how the "middle" feels about Iraq after the two elections this year.....stay tuned.

Joe's Reply:
YEP. and lets count the body bags as well. For every body bag there are ten walking(maybe) wounded that will never get back to duty. We will probably feel just like we did after the last election in Iraq. I am so relieved.



Marco said:...
THERE ARE JUST TOO MANY BABY BOOMERS FOR THE SYSTEM TO HANDLE. ...

If liberals don't want reform of these programs, :

Joe's Reply
How could they? The Republicans control congress and won't even let the Democrats in many meeting for the work of the congress. They don't really have any say in what is going on in Washington.

Marco said:

fine, .....then let them demand higher taxes to pay for the program, OR, let them propose a reduction of benefits. Go ahead..but at least be honest that that is what you are seeking.....higher taxes to pay for your social "comprehensive care", not a safety net.
The American people already believe that they pay too much in taxes, so go ahead and feel free to run on your "Impeach Bush and Higher Taxes" platform.....it's a political loser.

Joe's Reply:
Do you honestly believe people should not have to pay taxes as the Repbulicans have convinced most people? Can we have a country without taxes? Get real.

Joe

[deveil]

....
... okay, that was satisfying ( you too, huh marqaida-boy? )

i'm gonna go and smoke a cig - might take me a while. have at it.
......but ....remember........

[huddlec]

I don't think taxes was the issue for the voters on any of these elections. And in the last one,? the deteriorating economic state of the middle class wasn't either.? Bush has cut the taxes on the rich, thus winning support from?the major campaign contributors, while using the morality card to win the others.??
?
Three years ago I calculated how long the CEO of a home building company would have to work to pay for one of the houses his company was building in Clarksburg MD and how long one of the finish carpenters would have to work for same. The carpenter would have had to put in 42 years of work, with every penny (including what should have gone for taxes) to pay for one of the single family houses. The CEO, his boss, would have had to work 57 hours. I'd say this country is in a lot of trouble with this incredibly wide gap between what people are making (I won't say earning).? Bush's tax cuts have only been exacerbating the problem. No doubt you think this is fair and will say it's the free market and the American way.
?
I think the gay marriage issue in Mass didn't spread to the polls without major help from Republicans. I'm sure they saw is as manna from heaven.? Interesting that they were also running around saying that this was a legislative and not a judicial matter.? Now that the CA legislature has approved a bill allowing gay marriage, we're hearing that it isn't a legislative matter, but one for the voters. Last I saw the voters voted for the legislature.? Having lived previously in CA (23 years), I know that the voters have the right to pass initiatives (not something granted to all voters throughout the USA) and that they've had no problem passing initiatives that have been found to be (immediately) unconstitutional. They've also passed a fair number that could be considered shots to the foot, including Proposition 13 which limited tax increases and tax assessments, except upon sale of?a property. So today, you can have someone owning a recently purchased dinky townhouse paying much more in property taxes than a movie star on his 7 acre property on the Malibu beach.? Residential property owners now foot a bigger and bigger share of the property tax bill compared to commercial property owners, because the latter don't turn over as often.? I think voters can be snookered. Just takes enough money for enough half truths on TV ads.
Christy


Marco Zee <marcoz757@aol.com> wrote:

Christy,
Lets review.....Mondale ran on a " I'll raise your taxes" platform and barely won his homestate of Minnesota by 5000 votes.....unfortunately he lost the other 49 states by a huge margin.

Clinton ran in 1992 on a "middle class tax cut" , which he never delivered, and in fact gave us the largest tax increase in US history. By 1994, the Dems lost six senate seats ( not sure of exact #) and lost the House of Representatives for the first time if 40 years after losing over 50 house seats.

Gore did not run on a "higher taxes" platform, nor did Kerry. Why? Because their internal polls showed that it is not desired by the American people. If the polls showed support, the Dems would have been "pedal to the metal" proposing it.

If people want to pay more taxes, they can...... simply forego your deductions on your tax return. Don't take that Home Mortgage deduction...don't take that child tax credit....don't take that State Tax deduction. Sure, people are foregoing these deductions CONSTANTLY LOL.

I don't have any current polls to support this assertion, but certainly history provides a pretty clear view of this issue. Do you have any polls that show Americans feel "undertaxed"?

Lastly , the gay marriage issue became such a huge topic in last election because 4 of 7 Massachussetts judges decided that gays should have a right to marriage. Then they ORDERED the legislature to pass a law legalizing gay marriage. What audacity !!! The people of Massachussets did not request this, or pass a law saying this....it was done by liberal judicial activists, not by a vote or desire of people of Massachusetts. In all eleven states with gay marriage on the ballot, every "Gay Marriage" bill was defeated handily by the voters.

The bottom line is: the VOTERS should make these decisions....not a handful of unelected judges.

Very lastly, Can you give me any quotes of Bush or his campaign, or the RNC "spewing hatred for gays"? I am not aware of any.

Thanks for the posts,

Marco

PS: Where is Brian with his KE = 1/2 mvv formula for wind velocities ?

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[brianvh]

I got tired of the whole discussion. You guys (especially Gary) are all
fulminating and it wearies me.

Brian Vant-Hull
301-646-1149

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Marco Zee wrote:

>
> PS: Where is Brian with his KE = 1/2 mvv formula for wind velocities ?
>