A Final Election Assessment

From: gwhite

Why? Why stay in this country and defy its constitutional foundations of
limited government, individual rights/freedom/liberty, and separation of
church
and state?

Let me put it to you this way: Because you just got yourself elected President,
and you've got some political capital to spend, and you mean to spend it?

You really should emigrate to a country more in tune with you
ideals. It is no joke.

Me ideals? Agreed, not a joke.

But seriously, gwhite: not much chance of either Dubbya or me moving anytime
soon. "Get over it"? --TP

In article ,
gwhite wrote:

And of course, the so-called "liberals" and "progressives" aren't either
liberal or progressive. These "liberals" and "progressives" are in fact
reactionary barbarians simply trying to acquire political control.

Heh.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/...20041108db.htm
-----------------------
The administration terms its expansion of government as a form of
"empowerment." But this is just another name for nanny-state regulation.
White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card admitted that Bush "sees America as
we think about a 10-year-old child," requiring Washington's benevolent
guidance.

In international affairs Bush most dramatically diverged from traditional
conservatism, advancing an international agenda breath-taking in its
arrogance. First, he launched a preventive war based on bad intelligence,
but offered no apologies for his mistake.
-----------------------

--
tanx,
Howard

"It looks like the squirrel's been showing everybody
where he keeps his nuts."

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article ,
gwhite wrote:

And of course, the so-called "liberals" and "progressives" aren't either
liberal or progressive. These "liberals" and "progressives" are in fact
reactionary barbarians simply trying to acquire political control.

Heh.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/...20041108db.htm
-----------------------
The administration terms its expansion of government as a form of
"empowerment." But this is just another name for nanny-state regulation.
White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card admitted that Bush "sees America as
we think about a 10-year-old child," requiring Washington's benevolent
guidance.

In international affairs Bush most dramatically diverged from traditional
conservatism, advancing an international agenda breath-taking in its
arrogance. First, he launched a preventive war based on bad intelligence,
but offered no apologies for his mistake.
-----------------------

--
tanx,
Howard

"It looks like the squirrel's been showing everybody
where he keeps his nuts."

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

gwhite Wrote:
And of course, the so-called "liberals" and "progressives" aren't either
liberal or progressive. These "liberals" and "progressives" are in fact
reactionary barbarians simply trying to acquire political control.

The so-called "progressives" are intent on imposing their religious
beliefs upon
the country. For example, today I saw a democrat congressman
critiquing the proposed privitization of social security. He called it
"immoral" and "stingy"
and within the same sentence quoted the *bible* as justification for
government sponsored social security!!!
You are a ridiculous liar. You spew the same kind of hate-filled
bull**** that many of your ilk spew, smelly vomit over the public
discourse, knowing full well that some of it will stick.

Your lies will not survive in the fullness of time.

gwhite Wrote:
Of course, primitive villagers and clans-people require collectivisation
to survive. This primitive instinctive need has been long obsoleted by
the extended market order. The "american left" proposes we live like
primitive savages, while calling themselves "progressive." LOL. What
worse doublespeak could there possibly be?You're equating a conscience, humility, generosity, and a concern for
those less well off than you with savagery.

You are a ****ing moron. You and Tom Kunich should start a mutual fan
club.


--
antoineg

gwhite Wrote:
And of course, the so-called "liberals" and "progressives" aren't either
liberal or progressive. These "liberals" and "progressives" are in fact
reactionary barbarians simply trying to acquire political control.

The so-called "progressives" are intent on imposing their religious
beliefs upon
the country. For example, today I saw a democrat congressman
critiquing the proposed privitization of social security. He called it
"immoral" and "stingy"
and within the same sentence quoted the *bible* as justification for
government sponsored social security!!!
You are a ridiculous liar. You spew the same kind of hate-filled
bull**** that many of your ilk spew, smelly vomit over the public
discourse, knowing full well that some of it will stick.

Your lies will not survive in the fullness of time.

gwhite Wrote:
Of course, primitive villagers and clans-people require collectivisation
to survive. This primitive instinctive need has been long obsoleted by
the extended market order. The "american left" proposes we live like
primitive savages, while calling themselves "progressive." LOL. What
worse doublespeak could there possibly be?You're equating a conscience, humility, generosity, and a concern for
those less well off than you with savagery.

You are a ****ing moron. You and Tom Kunich should start a mutual fan
club.


--
antoineg

Howard Kveck wrote:

In article ,
gwhite wrote:

And of course, the so-called "liberals" and "progressives" aren't either
liberal or progressive. These "liberals" and "progressives" are in fact
reactionary barbarians simply trying to acquire political control.

Heh.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/...20041108db.htm
-----------------------
The administration terms its expansion of government as a form of
"empowerment." But this is just another name for nanny-state regulation.

I agree. That is why I finally decided my choice of neither Bush nor Kerry was
right on the mark, even though it was difficult for me to finally arrive at that
decision. I'll see how things go, but I expect I won't vote republican or
democrat for president for at least the next 12-16 years, given how fast things
change on party platforms and more importantly party practice. Maybe *never*
again.

I do believe Bush was the slightly less worse choice, and I know you disagree.
It's not like I have a deterministic calculator that tells me the answer with
undoubted certainty. No one else does either, despite the claims of alleged
pundits. As I've pointed out before, we can hope for gridlock to buffer a given
politician's whackiness to some degree.

White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card admitted that Bush "sees America as
we think about a 10-year-old child," requiring Washington's benevolent
guidance.

Yep.

In international affairs Bush most dramatically diverged from traditional
conservatism, advancing an international agenda breath-taking in its
arrogance.

Oh, I think the nationalistic sentiment is often associated with "conservatism,"
so on this I am not so sure he was all that divergent. Wrong maybe, but not
necessarily divergent.


First, he launched a preventive war based on bad intelligence,
but offered no apologies for his mistake.


Well of course he didn't admit any mistakes. How could anyone *expect* him to
admit a mistake of that magnitude? That would be waving the big "don't vote for
me" flag. I've always thought the "he doesn't admit mistakes" critique to be
wholly ridiculous. No politician admits mistakes on anything other than trivial
matters (unless they get caught with their pants down like Clinton did). They
can admit trivial mistakes, because by definition "trivial" doesn't matter. It
is up to voters to determine the fact and magnitude of a politicians errors.
Expecting politicians to do so is akin to expecting hell to freeze over.

Howard Kveck wrote:

In article ,
gwhite wrote:

And of course, the so-called "liberals" and "progressives" aren't either
liberal or progressive. These "liberals" and "progressives" are in fact
reactionary barbarians simply trying to acquire political control.

Heh.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/...20041108db.htm
-----------------------
The administration terms its expansion of government as a form of
"empowerment." But this is just another name for nanny-state regulation.

I agree. That is why I finally decided my choice of neither Bush nor Kerry was
right on the mark, even though it was difficult for me to finally arrive at that
decision. I'll see how things go, but I expect I won't vote republican or
democrat for president for at least the next 12-16 years, given how fast things
change on party platforms and more importantly party practice. Maybe *never*
again.

I do believe Bush was the slightly less worse choice, and I know you disagree.
It's not like I have a deterministic calculator that tells me the answer with
undoubted certainty. No one else does either, despite the claims of alleged
pundits. As I've pointed out before, we can hope for gridlock to buffer a given
politician's whackiness to some degree.

White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card admitted that Bush "sees America as
we think about a 10-year-old child," requiring Washington's benevolent
guidance.

Yep.

In international affairs Bush most dramatically diverged from traditional
conservatism, advancing an international agenda breath-taking in its
arrogance.

Oh, I think the nationalistic sentiment is often associated with "conservatism,"
so on this I am not so sure he was all that divergent. Wrong maybe, but not
necessarily divergent.


First, he launched a preventive war based on bad intelligence,
but offered no apologies for his mistake.


Well of course he didn't admit any mistakes. How could anyone *expect* him to
admit a mistake of that magnitude? That would be waving the big "don't vote for
me" flag. I've always thought the "he doesn't admit mistakes" critique to be
wholly ridiculous. No politician admits mistakes on anything other than trivial
matters (unless they get caught with their pants down like Clinton did). They
can admit trivial mistakes, because by definition "trivial" doesn't matter. It
is up to voters to determine the fact and magnitude of a politicians errors.
Expecting politicians to do so is akin to expecting hell to freeze over.

antoineg wrote:

gwhite Wrote:
And of course, the so-called "liberals" and "progressives" aren't either
liberal or progressive. These "liberals" and "progressives" are in fact
reactionary barbarians simply trying to acquire political control.

The so-called "progressives" are intent on imposing their religious
beliefs upon
the country. For example, today I saw a democrat congressman
critiquing the proposed privitization of social security. He called it
"immoral" and "stingy"
and within the same sentence quoted the *bible* as justification for
government sponsored social security!!!


You are a ridiculous liar. You spew the same kind of hate-filled
bull**** that many of your ilk spew, smelly vomit over the public
discourse, knowing full well that some of it will stick.

Your lies will not survive in the fullness of time.


Dumbass,

Bernie Ward was saying the same religious moralistic crap as justification for
government intervention on KGO last night. You don't need to consider my "lies"
as evidence. Just open your dumbass ears up. It happens every day.

Bernie Ward:
"...he's a former Franciscan priest..."
http://www.kgoam810.com/complexshowdj.asp?DJID=3284


gwhite Wrote:
Of course, primitive villagers and clans-people require collectivisation
to survive. This primitive instinctive need has been long obsoleted by
the extended market order. The "american left" proposes we live like
primitive savages, while calling themselves "progressive." LOL. What
worse doublespeak could there possibly be?

You're equating a conscience, humility, generosity, and a concern for
those less well off than you with savagery.

Dumbass,

You and I can be as generous as we want with our own efforts and money.
Socialism is anti-constitution in the US. The point is that it is a
collectivist, and thus primitive instinct (reactionary, not progressive; that of
the primitive savage, not that of the modern civilised individual living in the
extended market order). That is not the proper role of *government* in the US,
although it is entirely appropriate as a sentiment of an individual or a
collection of faith-based givers practicing their convictions.

The primitive savage was collectivist (loyalty to the clan) out of survival
necessity. The extended market order has obsoleted this need particularly with
regard to the ideal of minimalist government. The collectivist tradition is
dead as an effective large scale *political entity* and has been supplanted by
newer traditions that support far greater numbers of humans through trade and
division of labor.

None of this says you shouldn't help someone out from the pull of your own
conscience. You do not have a right to force your conscience upon someone
else. That is coercion/tyranny. Within the mind of every collectivist is a
petty dictator.


You are a ****ing moron. You and Tom Kunich should start a mutual fan
club.


No dumbass, now I'm your #1 fan.

antoineg wrote:

gwhite Wrote:
And of course, the so-called "liberals" and "progressives" aren't either
liberal or progressive. These "liberals" and "progressives" are in fact
reactionary barbarians simply trying to acquire political control.

The so-called "progressives" are intent on imposing their religious
beliefs upon
the country. For example, today I saw a democrat congressman
critiquing the proposed privitization of social security. He called it
"immoral" and "stingy"
and within the same sentence quoted the *bible* as justification for
government sponsored social security!!!


You are a ridiculous liar. You spew the same kind of hate-filled
bull**** that many of your ilk spew, smelly vomit over the public
discourse, knowing full well that some of it will stick.

Your lies will not survive in the fullness of time.


Dumbass,

Bernie Ward was saying the same religious moralistic crap as justification for
government intervention on KGO last night. You don't need to consider my "lies"
as evidence. Just open your dumbass ears up. It happens every day.

Bernie Ward:
"...he's a former Franciscan priest..."
http://www.kgoam810.com/complexshowdj.asp?DJID=3284


gwhite Wrote:
Of course, primitive villagers and clans-people require collectivisation
to survive. This primitive instinctive need has been long obsoleted by
the extended market order. The "american left" proposes we live like
primitive savages, while calling themselves "progressive." LOL. What
worse doublespeak could there possibly be?

You're equating a conscience, humility, generosity, and a concern for
those less well off than you with savagery.

Dumbass,

You and I can be as generous as we want with our own efforts and money.
Socialism is anti-constitution in the US. The point is that it is a
collectivist, and thus primitive instinct (reactionary, not progressive; that of
the primitive savage, not that of the modern civilised individual living in the
extended market order). That is not the proper role of *government* in the US,
although it is entirely appropriate as a sentiment of an individual or a
collection of faith-based givers practicing their convictions.

The primitive savage was collectivist (loyalty to the clan) out of survival
necessity. The extended market order has obsoleted this need particularly with
regard to the ideal of minimalist government. The collectivist tradition is
dead as an effective large scale *political entity* and has been supplanted by
newer traditions that support far greater numbers of humans through trade and
division of labor.

None of this says you shouldn't help someone out from the pull of your own
conscience. You do not have a right to force your conscience upon someone
else. That is coercion/tyranny. Within the mind of every collectivist is a
petty dictator.


You are a ****ing moron. You and Tom Kunich should start a mutual fan
club.


No dumbass, now I'm your #1 fan.

robet wrote:

I hope the Democrats put pressure on Bush like the Republicans did with
Clinton. I like to see how it feels to harass a President.


It will not happen for 2 reasons:

1. The Republicans control both the Senate and the House.
2. President Bush is a eunuch.
--

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

Remove CLOTHES to reply