Re: Election Issues

November 5, 2004

Elayne Glantzberg wrote:

> Something else that I fail to understand is how citizens of other countries,

> most of whom have probably never even visited the United States, can feel

> qualified to judge us and who we elect our leader. I certainly don't feel

> qualified to make judgements on the governments of Great Britain or France.

> We are not you. I thought that was settled several hundred years ago. We

> are not you, so naturally we may make choices that you dislike or disagree

> with. That is our right and privilege as a free and autonomous nation. And

> I will not complain when you make a choice I disagree with, as I don't have

> to live with it.

Gee you should as Bush about this. He seems to think the US is

best suited to make and enforce the governing rules of most of the

world. If the US government and it's military were to follow your

thinking there would be no US involvement in any war at the moment

neither would there have been such in the last 55 years. It is obvious

that Bush and company seriously disagree with your stated thinking.

This is the true cause of most of the fear around W Bush. His

agenda is to dominate the world and he is prepared to sacrifice every

American and indeed any one or any country that gets in his way.

Red

November 5, 2004

I second Elayne's sentiment. I don't second-guess the elections

of other nations and could care less about how they view our

election. I voted for Kerry for my own reasons, not because some

foreigner told me so

Jerry Newport

>

> > Something else that I fail to understand is how citizens of other

countries,

> > most of whom have probably never even visited the United States,

can feel

> > qualified to judge us and who we elect our leader. I certainly

don't feel

> > qualified to make judgements on the governments of Great Britain

or France.

> > We are not you. I thought that was settled several hundred years

ago. We

> > are not you, so naturally we may make choices that you dislike or

disagree

> > with. That is our right and privilege as a free and autonomous

nation. And

> > I will not complain when you make a choice I disagree with, as I

don't have

> > to live with it.

>

> Gee you should as Bush about this. He seems to think the US

is

> best suited to make and enforce the governing rules of most of the

> world. If the US government and it's military were to follow your

> thinking there would be no US involvement in any war at the moment

> neither would there have been such in the last 55 years. It is

obvious

> that Bush and company seriously disagree with your stated thinking.

>

> This is the true cause of most of the fear around W Bush.

His

> agenda is to dominate the world and he is prepared to sacrifice

every

> American and indeed any one or any country that gets in his way.

>

> Red

November 5, 2004

Elayne Glantzberg wrote:

>I am not a Republican. I am a Libertarian, but I still do not entirely

>follow Libertarian party lines. I generally vote a straight Libertarian

>ticket, but in this election I left my party to vote for Bush and against

>Kerry.

>

I am very surprised to hear that. Given what the Bush adminstration has

done to civil liberties,

and especially his assault on the separation of Church and State, I

don't see how any libertarian

could support him. The ties between Bush and the Christian

Reconstructionists are very strong.

The Christian Reconstructionists are Talibornagains. They want to turn

the country into a

Fundamentalist Christian theocracy. It is hard to imagine anything

less libertarian.

Spending hundreds of billions of our money on an unnecessary war isn't

very libertarian, either.

>Where is the evidence for a Republican or Bush draft? The note posted early

>this morning doesn't hold water for me; it's always been a requirement,

>since 1940, for every adult male to register with Selective Service, and you

>haven't been able to get a government job or welfare or many other things

>without it. This is just another guarantee that the current law is

>enforced, and not a new one at that.

>

It is significant because they had not been doing this since the current

SSS law went into effect.

There is additional documentation, if you would like to see it, that

shows they are planning to

start drafting people next spring or summer.

Add to this the ongoing shortfall in recruiting. They have been issuing

repeated " stop-loss " orders

to keep our troops from leaving at the end of their tours of duty.

They have called back people in

the IRR as old as 67. And Bush wants to invade more countries. Iran

and Syria, for starters.

He is reenacting the Crusades. He even used that word on several

occasions.

>Incidentally, I have always been fond of the idea that Heinlein proposed in

> " Starship Troopers. " For those of you unfamiliar with the book, he proposed

>that the right to vote be linked to voluntary civil service....

>

Kerry proposed voluntary national service (not necessarily

military). Did you know that?

Linking the franchise to that would violate the US Constitution and that

of every state.

Given your feelings about military service, I'd think that you would

find Kerry's service record

to be considerably superior to Bush's. Kerry was a war hero, Bush

used family connections to

get a safe spot in the Texas Air National Guard, and then went AWOL from

that.

>Something else that I fail to understand is how citizens of other countries,

>most of whom have probably never even visited the United States, can feel

>qualified to judge us and who we elect our leader.

>

They are certainly entitled to an opinion. They don't get to vote on

it (something that thousands of

Americans seem to have in common with them this year).

>I certainly don't feel qualified to make judgements on the governments of Great

Britain or France.

>

Bush has no such qualms.

>We are not you.

>

We are not even we anymore.

>I will not complain when you make a choice I disagree with, as I don't have

>to live with it.

>

But they *do* have to live with the choices we made (or the Diebold

voting machinez made for us).

>Some claim that Bush and the Republicans have made the rich richer. The

>rich in our country currently pay more than 75% of the nation's taxes.

>

Depending on your definition of " rich " , that may be true.

>The number of people who do not pay taxes at all is rapidly approaching 50%,

and

>yes this includes people who do work for a living and file their tax returns

>each year. How can this system be healthy and support a growing economy?

>

The economy ISN'T healthy. The number of non-taxpayers is increasing

because people are losing

jobs and falling into poverty.

> <>What incentive is there for me to work hard to support my family and

> provide

> a future for my heirs if I know that half of every dollar I make is

> going to

> be forcibly taken away from me and handed off to an illegal immigrant or

> somebody who refuses to work? What about all the people whose wages and

> benefits I would be supporting if I did grow my business and hire

> employees?

> If I decide it's not worth it to make more money, they lose, too. Never

> mind the mathematical fact that you cannot cut taxes when they are not

> paid.

> Half of nothing is still nothing.

>

> I am not rich. I am not destitute, but I am not comfortable. Our family

> filed for bankruptcy last year. My husband was laid off in 2002, and since

> he is blind and I was pregnant at the time, we were both unable to find

> steady work. It took seven months for him to get a job. We went on welfare

> to feed our four children (triplets plus a newborn). I was on WIC, our

> children were on Medicaid, and we received food stamps. Our house was

> foreclosed on and our car was repossessed. We were forced to move from

> Texas to Michigan, a place I still don't like after living here for nearly

> two years. We are still recovering. We are currently living in a house

> that I think probably ought to be condemned, because we can't afford the

> rent of a nice house or neighborhood and our bankruptcy prevents us from

> getting a mortgage and buying a house. So if you think that my point of

> view is that of some rich fat cat, think again.

That makes it all the more mystifying, because you should know

better. Some of that money that

was " forcibly taken away " went to give YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN those

welfare benefits.

You were willing enough to accept them when you needed them. Who

wouldn't be? But now

that you are back on your feet, almost, you begrudge the taxes that pay

for them.

In any case the amount spent on welfare is curently dwarfed by the cost

of the

war in Iraq.

> <>And I did get a tax cut.

> We received a $1600 tax credit last September, which we used to

> replace our

> lost car. We have also received significant refunds, which we are

> saving to

> be able to buy a house. I would have to say, despite our troubles, that we

> are in fact better off than we were four years ago. My husband is earning

> more money, and we are now a little farther away from the noose of

> destitution than we were before.

>

> As for unemployment, the current unemployment rate is lower than it

> has been

> in over 20 years.

WHAT? Where did you get that idea? We had nearly full employment when

Clinton was in office. The economy has lost half a million jobs since then.

Many of those jobs were outsourced overseas.

> <>The numbers that you hear bandied about on television and

> in papers are misleading.

Yes they are. They don't reflect those whose unemployment benefits have

run out.

The actual rate is much higher.

> <>Using their numbers, I myself would be counted as a job lost. In

> fact, I do work.

> I work for myself, as an independent programming contractor online.

How much work are you getting?

> <> But because I am not on anybody's payroll, I am not counted in

> those jobs numbers you hear.

Independent consultants weren't counted before, either. I doubt there

are half a million

new ones who are working full-time. Most consultants have been

scrambling for work.

You aren't counted as " unemployed " unless you are collecting benefits,

which I presume

you are not.

> <> the majority of the jobs " lost and not gained " were held by people

> who are now in business for themselves, supporting the economy.

Can you substantiate this claim? It flies in the face of the evidence I

see around me.

> <>Someone mentioned a reduced access to education. I fail to see where

> that

> comes into play. Government schools are still available to anyone, even

> those who are not citizens of this nation. The government still

> attempts to

> force children to enter these schools, regardless of the wishes of their

> parents. The government still refuses to give back the school taxes

> forcibly taken away even for those of us who choose to homeschool or use

> private schools rather than allow our children to be conscripted into

> government schools. Nothing has changed here. And as far as I'm concerned,

> the government has no business in education in the first place. Never mind

> the current administration; ever since the government started forcing

> children to attend government schools, the illiteracy rate in this country

> has risen. More children got a better education at home or in private

> school than they do in government school.

That simply isn't true. Most simply didn't get any education.

At this time, if you did away with public schools, most kids would be

forced

into Christian schools, where education takes a back seat to religious

indoctrination. This is a big issue for the Christian Reconstructionists.

While doing away with public schools might seem like a good Libertarian

thing to do, you need to watch the other people who are supporting you

on this issue.

> <>Regarding national budget deficits, has anybody yet noticed that this

> country's economy thrives on deficits? Every time we have had a booming

> economy, it has been preceded by government budget deficits. Every

> time the

> government tries to balance the budget, it is followed by an economic

> recession or even depression. There were a few people who noticed this

> economic reality way back in the early 20th century. People ran for

> political office during the Great Depression using this economic theory as

> their promise to lift the economy. It runs against current " common sense " ,

> mostly because we think of the national budget as just a bigger version of

> our household budget, but it doesn't necessarily work that way. Look

> at the

> historical record, and then think about it.

a Libertarian who likes big budget deficits. Now I've seen everything.

> <>Certainly, the Patriot Act seems a little scary. It's designed to create

> security, even though you cannot have both security and freedom. It

> doesn't

> bother me, though. Why? Because it is nothing, absolutely nothing,

> compared to the licenses our government has been given to fight the

> " War on

> Drugs. " If you think the Patriot Act is scary, consider this: In order to

> fight a trumped-up war against a person smoking pot (who would of

> course be

> completely legitimate if he were doing some more dangerous legal drugs

> like

> nicotine, caffeine, or alcohol), the government can seize your

> property and

> sell it for profit without even charging you with a crime, browse your

> bank

> records and arrest you based on large cash transactions (such as would

> appear if buying a car for cash), set up roadblocks and search your car in

> violation of the Fourth Amendment, even sit across the street and scan

> your

> house for too many light bulbs. More innocent people have died in this War

> than even were killed in the World Trade Center, and in its name more

> of my

> rights have been taken away. This causes me much more concern than the

> Patriot Act. At least the Patriot Act doesn't prevent me from carrying my

> own gun and blowing off a terrorist's head if I am attacked by one.

I agree with you 100% on the War on (some) Drugs. This brings us to

the scenes

of Atty Gen Ashcroft taking time off from hunting for terrorists to

bust

cancer patients for their medicinal marijuana. How low can you go, and how

screwed up can your priorities get? I've been fighting this battle for

decades.

The Patriot Act only eroded our civil liberties that much further. I

hope you will

join me in trying to get it repealed.

> <>As for Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, I do not condone them. But

> neither do

> I blame 100,000 people for the actions of 15. Nor do I blame the CEO of a

> major corporation for the mail clerk who stole a few checks or used

> information for identity theft. Sometimes, the buck doesn't go all the way

> to the top. Sometimes, responsibility really does lie with the person who

> committed the crime.

Those who follow illegal orders cannot evade responsibility just because

they were

following orders. That was established at Nuremberg. Those who gave

the orders

are accountable also. I do not believe for one moment that all of this

happened

without any encouragement from above. Did Bush order the torture

personally?

I'm pretty sure he didn't use that word, but there were directives to

use more severe

measures and he put a raving Fundie Crusader type in charge of things,

General

Boykin.

> <> Unfortunately, the padded-room society the world is

> turning into eschews personal responsibility in favor of being able to do

> whatever they want and then blame somebody else. I find that mentality

> very

> sad, and it is part of why I homeschool my children in a very unpadded

> room.

I hope you teach them well.

> <>I personally wish for a government where:

>

> * The money I earn through legitimate business activities is mine to keep,

> not forcibly stolen from me at gunpoint to give to somebody else.

If you got what you asked for, there would not have been any welfare or

food stamps or medicaid for you when you needed it.

> <>* I (and anybody else who wants to) am able to volunteer to serve my

> country through military service.

You said you are disabled. What do you expect the military to do with you?

Create a desk job for you?

> <>* The definition of crime is restricted to those activities that

> actually

> harm another person, and people are free to go to hell in whatever manner

> they choose.

I'm with you there.

> <>* There is no government involvement in education, religion, sex, or

> marriage.

You should have voted for Kerry. Bush was pushing the " Federal Marriage

Amendment " and " faith-based " programs, which give tax money to churches,

and turn social programs over to them, thus forcing those on public

assistance

to endure religious indoctrination to get the help they need.

> <>* I have complete freedom to defend myself and my family against outside

> threats.

There have to be *some* limits. Nuclear weapons as home defense are

unacceptable.

> <>I may not agree with Bush much of the time. But based on those

> viewpoints,

> Kerry was a much bigger threat to me and mine than Bush ever

> could be.

I am still at a loss to see why you believe that. You have just listed

a number of

issues on which Kerry would be way preferable to Bush on libertarian

grounds.

Ride the Music

AndyTiedye

November 5, 2004

> Something else that I fail to understand is how citizens of other

countries, most of whom have probably never even visited the United

States, can feel qualified to judge us and who we elect our leader. I

certainly don't feel qualified to make judgements on the governments

of Great Britain or France.

I am Amercian, but I can understand. First of all, the information

broadcast overseas generally only is a footnote in our news

broadcasts. Secondly, what happens here does effect the economies and

stability/instability elsewhere, so there is a concern over what

happens here. People of other countries generally know far more what

goes on here than we know about what goes on in their countries. Not

only that, advertising campaigns of other nation's products generally

put more into understanding our culture to advertise their products

effectively here, whereas our companies do not try as hard to

understand the cultures of other nations when we do our advertising,

which often puts us at a comparative disadvantage due to the belief

that we don't have to understand other countries.

And

> I will not complain when you make a choice I disagree with, as I

don't have to live with it.

This is probably the difference.

So if you think that my point of

> view is that of some rich fat cat, think again. And I did get a tax

cut. We received a $1600 tax credit last September, which we used to

replace our lost car. We have also received significant refunds,

which we are saving to be able to buy a house. I would have to say,

despite our troubles, that we are in fact better off than we were four

years ago.

I am earning a significantly lower wage that I was at the same company

5 years ago, NOT because I took a demotion but because I left and came

back. In the 90s, I saw huge increases in raises. But when I returned

in 2001, I have only received modest increases despite high marks.

This is attributed to the economy. Additionally, the insurance rate at

my company for which we must pay more than doubled. It doesn't matter

as much now that I am married and am on my husbands plan, which scaled

back benefits but didn't increase the rate. At any rate, I view those

tax cuts as a gimmick to maintain support.

BTW, I do not affiliate myself with any party because I want to

evaluate each on their own merits.

> As for unemployment, the current unemployment rate is lower than it

has been in over 20 years. The numbers that you hear bandied about on

television and in papers are misleading.

I agree that many numbers on television are not real. However, it is

true that some areas still grow in a recessive time. The industrial

sector was hit hard. I know from experience. My dad ran a small shop

and he and many others around were struggling because no contracts

were coming in due to outsourcing. Many shops closed up and a few

survived. The ones with better resources--and I know personally a few

of my dad's business acquaintances who did this--set up shop in China.

> Someone mentioned a reduced access to education. I fail to see

where that comes into play.

Governments are involved because a lot of people wouldn't get educated

otherwise. In my particular area, since I cannot speak for others,

students who were in a special education program and mainstreamed,

were taken out of the mainstream education and placed back into

special education programs for the express reason that the schools did

not want to have funding reduced by not meeting No Child Left Behind

policies; by taking these kids out of mainstream and placing them in a

singular LD environment, they would not bring down the average on

standardize test score in the majority of schools which they were

formerly placed. Not only that, they could retain the extra funding a

school receives from the government for special ed students. To me,

that is reduced access.

> Regarding national budget deficits, has anybody yet noticed that

this country's economy thrives on deficits? Every time we have had a

booming economy, it has been preceded by government budget deficits.

Every time the government tries to balance the budget, it is followed

by an economic recession or even depression.

And if one day the Euro becomes the dominant world currency and all

the dollars get dumped back into the system, our economy will crash.

It's only a matter of time before we can't operate on deficits.

Rhonda

November 5, 2004

> It is significant because they had not been doing this since the current

> SSS law went into effect.

> There is additional documentation, if you would like to see it, that

> shows they are planning to

> start drafting people next spring or summer.

If you are as sure of this as you seem to be, I'll offer a friendly wager.

You wage $25, I'll wage $50. If there is a draft in the next 12 months,

I'll pay you. Otherwise you can pay me. Game? I like free money.

> Add to this the ongoing shortfall in recruiting. They have been issuing

> repeated " stop-loss " orders

> to keep our troops from leaving at the end of their tours of duty.

This was done during the Clinton term too. This is not a new policy,

although the scale of it is certainly larger then normal.

Of course can you remind me how many bases Clinton closed? And whether or

not Kerry promised to increase or decrease the size of the military? (for

the record, Kerry said he would add two Army divisions)

> Kerry proposed voluntary national service (not necessarily

> military). Did you know that?

So has Clinton (he was one of the first to put funding behind it -

Americorps, a very good program IMHO) and so has Bush (I forget what he

called his unfunded program).

> They are certainly entitled to an opinion. They don't get to vote on

> it (something that thousands of

> Americans seem to have in common with them this year).

Oh here we go again. Bush wins a substantial majority, but only Democrats

had problems voting and it would have changed the elections...

One of the few things I respect about Kerry is that he admitted he lost.

He might have earned my vote if he runs again because of that - he did it

in a very honorable and gracious way.

> > As for unemployment, the current unemployment rate is lower than it

> > has been

> > in over 20 years.

>

> WHAT? Where did you get that idea? We had nearly full employment when

> Clinton was in office. The economy has lost half a million jobs since then.

> Many of those jobs were outsourced overseas.

Yes, they were outsourced *BECAUSE* of a 20 year set of bi-partisan

actions that favored workers.

What? Favored workers?! I can hear the response! Yes, favored workers.

It's cheaper to do business in countries that can pay their people less

and don't have to treat them as well. Europe has the same problem. It

was a short term wage gain and a long term job loss plan. But of course

politicians only care about the short-term. (no one was arguing about

what the job situation would look like 20 years from now, they were

arguing about *NEXT YEAR*!)

The US needs to be able to compete with, say, India in the High Tech

sector. Right now we can't. There are two ways to solve this:

1) Find US programmers willing to do quality work at $12K/year (including

the cost of benefits in the $12K)

2) Increase the quality and innovation of our work

We either have to do it cheaper or better. Right now we charge more and

give worse quality. No wonder our jobs go overseas!

Manufacturing is the same thing. Why pay someone here $12/hour to make a

shirt when you can pay a 12 year old in some second or third world

country to make it for $1/day? Are you in favor of lowering the minimum

wage? How could a shirt made here be worth 100 times what a shirt made

there is worth?

The problem of outsourcing is not political choices (although I do

disagree with not having terrifs on goods made with labor that violates

reasonably fair labor standards and which is produced in factories which

don't have to comply with many environmental regulations - I think terrifs

to even the trade imbalance there make sense, even if it means people will

bitch about $40 shirts instead of $50/barrel oil [note $50/barrel oil

means it is cost effective to tap domestic oil sources, which means - get

this - AMERICAN jobs! We should be *THRILLED* to see high oil costs if we

want jobs]).

> Yes they are. They don't reflect those whose unemployment benefits have

> run out.

> The actual rate is much higher.

There are about 10 different numbers used. Some are as you say. Some

aren't.

The useful one IMHO is number of new applications for unemployment

benefits. These are higher then they were during the dot com boom, when

people say the economy was good. (it wasn't good, it wasn't stable - you

can't keep selling nothing and never expect it to catch up - and I know

this first hand, I was laid off 4 times from dotcoms, I've worked in 6

of them).

> > <> the majority of the jobs " lost and not gained " were held by people

> > who are now in business for themselves, supporting the economy.

>

> Can you substantiate this claim? It flies in the face of the evidence I

> see around me.

Job loss is very much a localized problem in the US. Overall job growth

has *NOT* kept up with inflation. But some places (WY for instance) have

*GREAT* employment numbers - we have just over 1.5% unemployment here.

Many places are many times worse, though. I think it points in part that

certain sectors are hurting while others are definitely not. Basically

" old economy " sectors such as manufacturing hurt. But that's not too much

of a surprise - nearly everyone saw that coming - when you have global

trade and cheaper products elsewhere, people don't want to buy your local

but expensive products.

> I agree with you 100% on the War on (some) Drugs. This brings us to

> the scenes

> of Atty Gen Ashcroft taking time off from hunting for terrorists to

> bust

> cancer patients for their medicinal marijuana. How low can you go, and how

> screwed up can your priorities get? I've been fighting this battle for

> decades.

I also agree with the war on drugs.

> The Patriot Act only eroded our civil liberties that much further. I

> hope you will

> join me in trying to get it repealed.

Most of the laws in it are set to expire very very soon. That's one thing

the bipartisan group that passed it ensured, which was a very good thing.

> You said you are disabled. What do you expect the military to do with you?

> Create a desk job for you?

Someone has to oversee contracts. Someone has to answer the recruitment

phone line. Someone has to cook on US bases that aren't under attack (and

thus it would be hard to justify the need for the cook to be able to run

while firing a gun). Someone has to be in the position of Secretary of

Defense. Someone has to figure out what color to paint the buildings this

week. Someone has to run the computer networks. Someone has to sit in

NORAD waiting for missile attack. Someone has to design and test new

weapons systems. Someone has to audit the finances. Someone has to do

background checks on new recruits. Someone has to deal with suppliers who

are late, having quality problems, or otherwise a concern to the DoD. I

suspect there are plenty of desk jobs to go around. And that is just

assuming we only look at the DoD for work, not government as a whole.

I doubt the military would want someone who didn't speak much of the time.

But my government job does seem happy that I'm here.

> > <>* I have complete freedom to defend myself and my family against outside

> > threats.

>

> There have to be *some* limits. Nuclear weapons as home defense are

> unacceptable.

Agreed. It is " REASONABLE freedom to defend myself. " What's a threat

anyhow? Threat of injury? Embarrassment? Can you blow someone's head

off when they don't go away when they knock on your door? How about if

they jump over your back fence? So I do agree on that.

But I think I'm sick of politics. We've elected a president. It's done.

In 4 years, everyone will get another chance. It won't be Bush then,

though (well, unless one of his daughters runs...) I sat through two

terms of Clinton I did not enjoy, but I survived. I suspect I'll survive

Bush's term, even with the mythical draft. I suspect the true threat to

my civil liberties and personal freedom is at the State level, and I have

plenty to fight in my own state right now without focusing on how much I

hate someone who is religious. I have to worry about things such as a

state-wide program to screen children for developmental disabilities, and

how that will affect those children (mandatory ABA? Institutions?

Special schools? Or decent inclusion and self-awareness?). That's not a

Bush or a Kerry issue. Right now it is a Freudenthal issue. So I'm

dealing with that.

On the national issues, you can focus on how horrible things are, or you

can continue to try changing them. You can whine or you can act. I know

which one is more likely to succeed. Your congressional representatives

still have power and can reign in nearly any of the even most dictatorial

presidents. So write them. Visit them in their office. Can you even

name all three of your congressional representatives? If not, start

there! If so, great! Can they name your name? If not, start there

instead!

--

November 5, 2004

> >From Rhonda: " ...the insurance rate at my company for which we must pay

> more than doubled. "

>

> I don't think you can find that insurance rates are unrelated to medical

> malpractice lawsuits and the work of medical trial lawyers such as

> .

Or, even worse, availability of care *AT ANY PRICE*.

There are communities in my state where people must drive 2 hours (on

*CLEAR* roads, much longer in winter - sometimes 5+ hours) to have a baby

delivered. That's because the doctors simply can't do enough business in

these small rural communities to make enough money to pay $750,000/year

for insurance. And, best of all, the only ones that get a break on

medical insurance are *inexperienced* doctors, because the longer you

practice the more chance you'll eventually screw up...

Thats an even bigger medical crisis then cost of health-care. Both are

issue #1, and I stand by my statement that I'll vote for the first person

who comes up with an intelligent answer to this problem which doesn't

involve little more then " tax the rich " or " cut taxes and educate the

kids " . We need a real solution, not a stop-gap measure.

> The necessity of the war is debatable. I can accept that many people in the

> world do not agree that Iraq was a clear and present danger to us. I happen

> to think it was. I also think that other countries, including North Korea,

> Syria, Iran, and others, are as much a threat or more, and I would have no

> problem with Bush turning his attention to these countries once Iraq is

> settled. I would hope that at least some of these leaders would follow

> Kaddafi's lead, though.

I hope so too, on all counts. And I do support the war, and have several

people ready to go off to war from my community that I know well (the

local guard unit is being activated, and they are going right into the

middle of the unrest). I still support it. As does every member of the

guard I've talked to about it (currently 3 members).

And I won't vote democratic for a long time based on what Clinton did to

the military. Closing bases is not a good idea if it means we can't fight

a single decent sized war along with a fairly modest conflict.

Although I say to all the foreigners who say the UN can bring leaders into

line: Why don't you solve the Bush problem through the UN? Then tell us

how effective it is. Or explain why Israel doesn't have a full seat in

the UN, despite being created by the UN (the only widely recognized

country to not have a full seat is Israel - Syria, Iran, North Korea,

Cuba, etc, all have full seats).

> In any event, if you believe that the war is necessary for the defense and

> security of the nation, there is nothing at all un-Libertarian about

> supporting and funding it.

Agreed.

I'd add that if you believe that people are being abused and you stand by

and do nothing, then you are as guilty as those who are abusing. I think

the US fails this test pretty bad, based on our reaction to N. Korea,

Syria, and several other nations. But getting Saddam out of power was a

very good thing. An Iraqi is allowed to speak out against the US and the

interim government. That's a tremendous change. Is there a lot of

problems? Yes. Would pulling out at this point solve any? No.

> >From Andy: " He is reenacting the Crusades. He even used that word on

> several occasions. "

>

> Could you provide supporting documentation here also, please?

He did use that word at least once. He shouldn't have. But then again,

as someone with speech problems, I tend not to criticize based on using

the wrong word at the wrong time.

--

November 5, 2004

> From Rhonda: " ...the insurance rate at my company for which we must

pay more than doubled. "

>

> I don't think you can find that insurance rates are unrelated to

medical malpractice lawsuits and the work of medical trial lawyers

such as .

First off, I didn't say that I supported Bush, Cheney, Kerry or

. My point was just one aspect on how the economy has not

improved. Just last year, Alan Greenspan recommended that federal and

state governments eliminate or dramatically cut back Medicaid and

Medicare programs.

I won't disagree that malpractice lawsuits do contribute to the costs,

although they certainly didn't suddenly come into existence. Consider

also that because of the existence of insurance companies and federal

and state funding in the way of Medicaid and Medicare has created a

'pool of money' which is seemingly endless in supply (though we know

this not to be the case) and open to be bled not only by the trial

lawyers you mention, but also by the doctors and hospitals themselves.

If such a pool of money did not exist none of these institutions would

be able to remain in existence on the rates they are charging.

Last year, my dad was hospitalized for two separate two-week stays. He

was insured the previous year, but when his insurance rate was

increased to $4200 per quarter ($16,800 per year) he could no longer

afford to pay. It was a feel months later that he became severely ill.

Only during one stay did he have surgery, and the surgery itself only

made up a small part of the bill, $200,000. The rest was by tests,

overcharges for medication, various doctors stopping in just to add to

the charge and so on. His bill probably wouldn't have even been this

high had it not been for the fact that the hospital was relatively

sure that he would soon be a recipient of Medicaid. (My dad's own

resistance to applying for Medicaid partly resulted in his failure to

qualify, along with other reasons.)

Let's contrast this to pet care, for which such a pool of money does

not exist and for which trial lawyers aren't even remotely interested

in because vet clinics cannot afford payouts on their own. Locally a

dog had a congenital heart defect plus other problems. It's owners

gave the pet to a shelter because the owner could not afford the cost

of its surgery. So the shelter ran a drive to raise the $2000 needed

to send the dog out of state for the procedure.

>

> From Rhonda: " ...students who were in a special education program

and mainstreamed, were taken out of the mainstream education and

placed back into special education programs for the express reason

that the schools did not want to have funding reduced by not meeting

No Child Left Behind policies... "

>

> I don't have a problem with this. I don't feel that children should

necessarily be mainstreamed, unless their disabilities are purely

physical.

This is not my point. You said you did not see that access to

education was reduced, and here is an example of how it was. If a

child is not better served by the LD program, the child does not

belong there and certainly should not be removed simply because of an

act, and especially not by an act called " No Child Left Behind. "

Also, as far as this war revitalizing the economy, it cetainly did

not. Unlike wars of the past, which resulted in government contracts

for the industries, there is so much outsourcing going on right now

that this isn't going to have the same impact. If anything, it might

help to revitalize some foreign markets--and what I have a particular

issue with is that much of this patriotic memorabilia, which has sold

so well in recent years including flags and pins, are mass-produced in

China. Ah, but a tiny New England boot shop was able to stall off

lay-offs since the army does requires that military boots are made in

the US. 100 jobs saved!!-temporarily anyhow.

>>I also think that other countries, including North Korea,

> Syria, Iran, and others, are as much a threat or more, and I would

have no problem with Bush turning his attention to these countries

once Iraq is settled.

What about Saudi Arabia, where the bulk of the terrorists on the most

wanted list are from.

> I stand corrected on the unemployment figures. The low for the last

ten years was in fact reached during the Clinton administration, also

I wouldn't call it a dramatic " nearly 100% " shift from today. The

unemployment rate was 3.8% in Apr 2000. It rose during the end of the

Clinton administration and the beginning of the Bush administration to

a high of 6.3% in Jun 2003 and has since fallen to the current rate of

5.5% for Oct 2004.

Two major corporations closed up in my area within the past three

years and another layed off many workers. Again the cause is

outsourcing. The unemployment rate is at an all-time high in my

previous state of residence (where my family resides) and also in the

state where I now live. New jobs have come into existence both here

and elsewhere, but these jobs are much lower paying. Unemployment

rates only consider the percentage of employed, not the quality of the

job.

> Bush's social conservatism does scare me a little, it's true. As a

polyamorous bisexual woman, I do in fact have a personal stake in the

current Defense of Marriage debate and was disappointed to see it

passed in Michigan this week. However, I can still live my life

however I want in those matters, and Kerry posed a greater threat to

my pocketbook, my family privacy, my children's education, and the

safety of my nation.

Just tell me, how so, since you haven't mentioned why?

Rhonda

November 5, 2004

Here's another view on U.S. taxes.

<http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Economics/HeritageFound_TaxRates.html>http://\

www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Economics/HeritageFound_TaxRates.html

Jane

November 5, 2004

Jane wrote:

> I have heard that malpractice suits account for something

> less than one percent of the rise in insurance rates. Hype,

> hype, hype inflates the issue to allow the insurance com-

> panies to raise their rates (increase their profits) and

> blame it on somebody else.

AND, I heard a feller explain the other day on TV that in

the states, like California, where there IS a cap on per-

sonal injury suits, for other than Medical costs, there has

been No reduction in malpractice insurance fees - the insurers

charge the same amounts and pocket the difference.

I've enjoyed reading this debate, but am unable to participate

in such line-by-line discussions. I'm very much in Andy's

corner on all points, though made some good statements

also. And I was very much a fan of Heinlein, and in

the 70's, agreed with much of what he said pertaining to pol-

itics. However, we do not live in any of Heinlein's time-lines,

and what he said has no basis or substance in our lives here.

Nice discussion, though.

Clay

November 6, 2004

I often wish that I was not mainstreamed...

Kim

You must do the very thing you think you cannot do ---

Eleanor Roosevelt

________________________________________________________________

Juno Platinum $9.95. Juno SpeedBand $14.95.

Sign up for Juno Today at http://www.juno.com!

Look for special offers at Best Buy stores.

November 6, 2004

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/07/07_406.html

You must do the very thing you think you cannot do ---

Eleanor Roosevelt

________________________________________________________________

Juno Platinum $9.95. Juno SpeedBand $14.95.

Sign up for Juno Today at http://www.juno.com!

Look for special offers at Best Buy stores.

November 6, 2004

*************************

> Incidentally, I have always been fond of the idea that Heinlein

> proposed in " Starship Troopers. "

*************************

incidentally, that book is a satire of a " good " facist society,

based on the ideologies of WWII.... pardon me for bracing myself

when i read an arguement begins with the equivilent of, " well hold

now on, this guy Hilter had this idea, see....... "

(to read more about this:

http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/movies/troopers_contrast_000610.h

tml )

*************************

> For those of you unfamiliar with the book, he proposed

> that the right to vote be linked to voluntary civil service.

*************************

along with other " good " ideas like " kill them all " , war as " duty " ,

nationalism, propoganda, contempt for pacifism, manifest destiny,

and the " right " to kill in the name of a cause.

but... let's continue and see where you are going with this.

*************************

>The first reason I like this idea is because it ensures that

>anybody voting for issues that could lead to war knows what they're

>doing.

*************************

which is what, exactly?

starting a war.

this implies starting a war = good idea. please elaborate.

*************************

> the electorate would be guaranteed to be people who are truly

> willing to fight and die for what they believe.

*************************

and you are saying this is a GOOD thing?

ladies and gentlemen, i present the core of the Bush administration

and its followers:

the I'M RIGHT, YOU'RE WRONG mentality.

the U.S. vs THEM mentality

the WIN AT ALL COSTS OR DIE TRYING mentality.

stop kidding yourself that this is such a grand thing.

it is ignorant, immature, irresponsible, self-indulgent, selfish,

regressive, naive, ape-like, short-sighted, manical, obsessive and

weak-minded to " fight and die " for what you believe in.

-the weak-minded want to die (and consequently, kill) for something.

but that's the EASY way out because there's glory in that. glory is

as selfish and self-indulgent as the rest of it. glory is pride.

if you chose to believe in the Bible as it seems many Bush

supporters claim to, you know that pride is not only a sin, it is

considered THE sin. the evil is not in iraq. the evil is in you, for

chosing to decide you are " right " . and you will kill to prove it.

by constrast:

-the strong-minded can live for something, despite their personal

sufferage (hunger, torture, death).

there is nothing noble in saying yes. anyone can say yes. yes to

pleasure. yes to indulgence. yes to being " right " . yes to violence

to " prove " it. yes to killing. the weak can say yes. anyone can say

yes.

nobility is being able to say no. RESTRAINT.

not everyone can say no. only the strong-minded can say no. no to

indulgence. no to impulse. no to vengence. no to greed. the weak-

minded are weak because they lack this restraint. they cannot say

no. consequently, they MUST say yes. thus, they are weak-minded.

-the weak-minded want to WIN and will stop at nothing until they get

their way. again, there's nothing noble about this... it is just

selfish, violently stubborn, and obsessive to the point of self-

destruction (a nuclear exchange).

by constrast:

-the strong-minded are able to willingly accept " losing " . the strong-

minded know they are not " losing " a war they choose not to be a part

of. when you choose to be, you can lose. when you choose not to be,

you cannot. they are able to resist the ape-like need to fight in

the first place.

the weak-minded (as outlined above) believe it is the strong-minded

who are weak is because violence brings death, even to those who

know better. the weak-minded only see the result of that violence --

> too self-absorbed to understand that they perpetuate it

themselves, they continue to fight and kill in the hopes of

somehow " winning " the contest of the last man standing.

the spiral simply continues until everyone is dead. how wise. how

glorious. how evolved. how much better than those silly shit-

throwing apes.

i hope this will help you see where this mentality leads. i don't

mean my comments as an attack you on, i mean them simply as an

honest assessment of the arguement you have presented. i sincerely

hope you are able to consider what i've said and not just simply

dismiss it in the hopes of once again proving how right you are.

*************************

Something else that I fail to understand is how citizens of other

countries, most of whom have probably never even visited the United

States, can feel qualified to judge us and who we elect our leader.

*************************

maybe this will help you understand how we have formed our

impression of your leader:

http://www.milkandcookies.com/links/18356

correct me if i'm wrong, but that IS Bush--as in, President

W. Bush of the United States of America---speaking, is it not?

" tribal sovereignty means just that... it's sovereignty. you're a---

you're a---you've been given sovereignty. and.. you're viewed as a

sovereignty entity. and therefore the relationship between the

federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities. "

no one is saying Americans don't have a choice in who they elect.

but much of the world is saying that Americans have made a very,

very poor choice, because the man they have selected (among others

things) doesn't know the meaning of the word " sovereignty "

being that America is the most powerful country in the world with

the biggest weapons in the world, *I* would personally sleep better

knowing that the man with his finger directly resting on the trigger

of those weapons is well-informed enough to know that.

evidentally, he is not.

if he is not well-informed enough to know what " sovereignty " means

but currently GOVERNS the world's most powerful country, why would I

feel confident that he is well-informed enough to play with nuclear

weapons?

what you choose to eat for breakfast doesn't directly threaten my

existence. a man with his finger on a button to fire nuclear weapons

DOES. my life is in this man's hands. that scares me.

why?

do you let a child drive your car with you in the passenger seat? if

not, why not?

exactly.

I may not agree with Bush much of the time. But based on those

viewpoints, Kerry was a much bigger threat to me and mine than

Bush ever could be.

you overlook the point about who is more likely to press the button.

because when that button is pushed, everyone dies. you, me, the

towelheads, the damned Liberals, them fags who wants to get married,

them whores who wants an abortion, everyone.

while you were busy contemplating your choice between blue and red

cupcakes, you forgot to consider who was holding the match closer to

the fuse.

but hey, who are we to say? the world thanks you for coming out. god

bless America (and no one else).

g.

November 6, 2004

you have a fine passion there zeb.

btw tx for replying and saving my blood pressure.

>

> *************************

> > Incidentally, I have always been fond of the idea that Heinlein

> > proposed in " Starship Troopers. "

> *************************

>

> incidentally, that book is a satire of a " good " facist society,

> based on the ideologies of WWII.... pardon me for bracing myself

> when i read an arguement begins with the equivilent of, " well hold

> now on, this guy Hilter had this idea, see....... "

>

> (to read more about this:

>

http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/movies/troopers_contrast_000610.h

> tml )

>

> *************************

> > For those of you unfamiliar with the book, he proposed

> > that the right to vote be linked to voluntary civil service.

> *************************

>

> along with other " good " ideas like " kill them all " , war as " duty " ,

> nationalism, propoganda, contempt for pacifism, manifest destiny,

> and the " right " to kill in the name of a cause.

>

> but... let's continue and see where you are going with this.

>

> *************************

> >The first reason I like this idea is because it ensures that

> >anybody voting for issues that could lead to war knows what

they're

> >doing.

> *************************

>

> which is what, exactly?

>

> starting a war.

>

> this implies starting a war = good idea. please elaborate.

>

> *************************

> > the electorate would be guaranteed to be people who are truly

> > willing to fight and die for what they believe.

> *************************

>

> and you are saying this is a GOOD thing?

>

> ladies and gentlemen, i present the core of the Bush administration

> and its followers:

>

> the I'M RIGHT, YOU'RE WRONG mentality.

> the U.S. vs THEM mentality

> the WIN AT ALL COSTS OR DIE TRYING mentality.

>

> stop kidding yourself that this is such a grand thing.

>

> it is ignorant, immature, irresponsible, self-indulgent, selfish,

> regressive, naive, ape-like, short-sighted, manical, obsessive and

> weak-minded to " fight and die " for what you believe in.

>

> -the weak-minded want to die (and consequently, kill) for

something.

> but that's the EASY way out because there's glory in that. glory is

> as selfish and self-indulgent as the rest of it. glory is pride.

>

> if you chose to believe in the Bible as it seems many Bush

> supporters claim to, you know that pride is not only a sin, it is

> considered THE sin. the evil is not in iraq. the evil is in you,

for

> chosing to decide you are " right " . and you will kill to prove it.

>

> by constrast:

>

> -the strong-minded can live for something, despite their personal

> sufferage (hunger, torture, death).

>

> there is nothing noble in saying yes. anyone can say yes. yes to

> pleasure. yes to indulgence. yes to being " right " . yes to violence

> to " prove " it. yes to killing. the weak can say yes. anyone can say

> yes.

>

> nobility is being able to say no. RESTRAINT.

>

> not everyone can say no. only the strong-minded can say no. no to

> indulgence. no to impulse. no to vengence. no to greed. the weak-

> minded are weak because they lack this restraint. they cannot say

> no. consequently, they MUST say yes. thus, they are weak-minded.

>

> -the weak-minded want to WIN and will stop at nothing until they

get

> their way. again, there's nothing noble about this... it is just

> selfish, violently stubborn, and obsessive to the point of self-

> destruction (a nuclear exchange).

>

> by constrast:

>

> -the strong-minded are able to willingly accept " losing " . the

strong-

> minded know they are not " losing " a war they choose not to be a

part

> of. when you choose to be, you can lose. when you choose not to be,

> you cannot. they are able to resist the ape-like need to fight in

> the first place.

>

> the weak-minded (as outlined above) believe it is the strong-minded

> who are weak is because violence brings death, even to those who

> know better. the weak-minded only see the result of that violence --

> > too self-absorbed to understand that they perpetuate it

> themselves, they continue to fight and kill in the hopes of

> somehow " winning " the contest of the last man standing.

>

> the spiral simply continues until everyone is dead. how wise. how

> glorious. how evolved. how much better than those silly shit-

> throwing apes.

>

> i hope this will help you see where this mentality leads. i don't

> mean my comments as an attack you on, i mean them simply as an

> honest assessment of the arguement you have presented. i sincerely

> hope you are able to consider what i've said and not just simply

> dismiss it in the hopes of once again proving how right you are.

>

> *************************

> Something else that I fail to understand is how citizens of other

> countries, most of whom have probably never even visited the United

> States, can feel qualified to judge us and who we elect our leader.

> *************************

>

> maybe this will help you understand how we have formed our

> impression of your leader:

>

> http://www.milkandcookies.com/links/18356

>

> correct me if i'm wrong, but that IS Bush--as in, President

> W. Bush of the United States of America---speaking, is it not?

>

> " tribal sovereignty means just that... it's sovereignty. you're a---

> you're a---you've been given sovereignty. and.. you're viewed as a

> sovereignty entity. and therefore the relationship between the

> federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities. "

>

> no one is saying Americans don't have a choice in who they elect.

> but much of the world is saying that Americans have made a very,

> very poor choice, because the man they have selected (among others

> things) doesn't know the meaning of the word " sovereignty "

>

> being that America is the most powerful country in the world with

> the biggest weapons in the world, *I* would personally sleep better

> knowing that the man with his finger directly resting on the

trigger

> of those weapons is well-informed enough to know that.

>

> evidentally, he is not.

>

> if he is not well-informed enough to know what " sovereignty " means

> but currently GOVERNS the world's most powerful country, why would

I

> feel confident that he is well-informed enough to play with nuclear

> weapons?

>

> what you choose to eat for breakfast doesn't directly threaten my

> existence. a man with his finger on a button to fire nuclear

weapons

> DOES. my life is in this man's hands. that scares me.

>

> why?

>

> do you let a child drive your car with you in the passenger seat?

if

> not, why not?

>

> exactly.

>

> I may not agree with Bush much of the time. But based on those

> viewpoints, Kerry was a much bigger threat to me and mine than

> Bush ever could be.

>

> you overlook the point about who is more likely to press the

button.

>

> because when that button is pushed, everyone dies. you, me, the

> towelheads, the damned Liberals, them fags who wants to get

married,

> them whores who wants an abortion, everyone.

>

> while you were busy contemplating your choice between blue and red

> cupcakes, you forgot to consider who was holding the match closer

to

> the fuse.

>

> but hey, who are we to say? the world thanks you for coming out.

god

> bless America (and no one else).

>

> g.

November 7, 2004

Graham, you say that only the weak are willing to fight and die for what

they believe. I believe that me and mine have the right to live, love, and

choose our own destiny as long as we keep to ourselves. This is

sovereignty. As defined in the dictionary, sovereignty is " government free

from external control. " Do you have a family or children? If you don't you

may not understand what I'm about to say; I freely admit that I truly did

not before I had children.

I WILL FIGHT, TO MY LAST BREATH, ANYBODY WHO THREATENS THE SLIGHTEST HARM TO

ANY OF MY CHILDREN, AND I WILL DIE BEFORE I ALLOW THAT HARM TO TOUCH THEM.

IF SOMEBODY INTENTIONALLY HARMS MY CHILDREN AND I HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO

PREVENT IT, I WILL SEE THAT PERSON DEAD.

This is the justifiable basis for war, and what makes a war a good war.

This is why we fight or die. By defending my country, I protect and defend

my family. This is why I see just as much honor in National Guard service

as in overseas combat service: because to serve in the National Guard, you

have to face that, if and when you fight, you will be the last line of

defense between the enemy and our children.

I happen to think it requires incredible strength to fight and die for your

family, to accept any amount of pain and suffering in order to keep that

pain and suffering from them. It would be much easier to walk away and not

care what happens to them. And, to address some other concepts you don't

like, I would kill ALL of the enemies who threatened my family, I believe I

have a duty to protect my family even in war, I have contempt for anybody

who will not fight and die for their family, and I believe I have the right

to do all of this.

When you try to kill my family, YOU ARE WRONG in doing so and I AM RIGHT in

defending and retaliating. When THEY attack the U.S., it becomes the U.S.

versus THEM; and believe me, we ignored it for years, we tried to be

pacifist, from the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 (and before)

through all the murders abroad, but with 9/11 we had enough. And again, I

would DIE TRYING to stop these people from further harming my family and

country.

As a footnote, it is possible to quote from portions of something without

mindlessly believing in all of it. I can support part of the Libertarian

platform without blindly supporting the whole thing, and I can select

certain ideas from literature that I like without descending into a fantasy

world where the whole book is true. ly, I didn't care for Starship

Troopers as a story. That's probably the only Heinlein book I've never

re-read. That doesn't mean it doesn't make some points that I find

interesting.

Elayne

http://cablespeed.com/~solinox/index.htm

" If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no

candidates and no measures you want to vote for...but there are certain to

be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against. By this

rule, you will rarely go wrong. If this is too blind for your taste, consult

some well meaning fool (there is always one around) and ask his advice. Then

vote the other way. This enables you to be a good citizen (if such is your

wish) without spending the enormous amount of time on it that truly

intelligent exercise of franchise requires. " -- Lazarus Long

November 7, 2004

Elayne wote:

>When you try to kill my family, YOU ARE WRONG in doing so and I AM RIGHT in

>defending and retaliating.

How many of " their " children are you entitled to kill? In this case,

how many children of totally unconnected parents are you allowed to

kill (given that Iraq had nothing to do with attacks on the U.S.)?

Jane

November 7, 2004

This goes back to a fundamental difference of opinion, of whether or not

Iraq was a clear and present danger to the United States. I, Bush, and

others believe it was. You don't. We differ.