Hello Again, Mr Scott...
>>I'm baffled as to what you mean by stating that left->>leaning folks have presented "no workable alternative."
Well...there's the throwback-hysteria to the 80's, there are good soundbites, there are a lot of noble ideals - but when it comes to something more than "I'll fight for you", "he's a frat boy", "he's not my president", "I'll move to France" it seems they're caught short.
If this election turned out the other way, I'd be as irritated as those who are still protesting it. But if there is a market of 50 million non-voters who could potentially help my `team` to the biggest electoral victory in the history of the world, I'd be out finding what they want instead of banging my drum over what (if Gore had his way) would have been a lost cause.
Perhaps the Democrats need the same time to form a solid opposition as the current lads need to form a forward moving government? (instead of the current hysteria opposing damage limitation)
>>The workable alternative to crippling our abortion rights >>is to leave them alone.
Like I've said, I was under the impression that even if Roe V Wade is written out of law, abortion would *still* be *available*. It would be up to the states to administer this `right` as they see fit. Or is your stance on this more principled than pragmatic? (e.g. this should be a nationally mandated right because it should be - the fact is irrelevent that the States could and would have to uphold the woman's right to choose) Unless I'm majorly wrong on this - the talk of an `abortion war` is scare mongering.
Is abortion the inflamatory topic that the Dems try and nail the Republicans with and race-baiting is the inflamatory topic the Republicans try and nail the Dems with?
>>The workable alternative to unbalancing the nation's >>budget is to leave it balanced.
As GW said, "this is just a difference of opinion". Why should we sit back and let the governement get bigger, allow people to maintain their (sometime) victimhood as a badge of honour (ask the Rev. Jackson) and like the early days of the JFK and Reagan tax-cut, miss the initial jolt to the system. Of course things went haywire near the end (for Reagan anyway) but why try and sweep over facts?
Are you happy paying more taxes than you need to? Does it concern you that Fmr. Pres. Clinton knew all about OPEC going arse over tit yet did very little? Why even use the word `unbalance` with an economy that's flawed to begin with?
>>The workable alternative to wasting huge quantities of >>money on useless missile defense systems is to stop >>spending money on them.
Again, I'll concede that the threat of WW3 is narrower and narrower - but doesn't the fact that certain states near the Persian Gulf are getting `tooled up` leave you any pause for thought? Perhaps if Messers Vidal, Chomsky and their ilk are saying much the same thing, we can scrap this `game` and move them to houses on the frontline. If the Republicans are proven wrong, then they can lead the nation in laughing at the government - but if one of the rebel states wants to take a pop at the West they can be proven wrong once and for all. (It would take an ICBM on their house to concede a point - regardless of how truthful it might be)
However dimly you might view the `Cold War Cowboys` at least they managed to stave off any major conflict in the world at that time in much the same way.
>>Seems incredibly clear to me.
As I've said earlier...regardless of how rich our rhetoric might be, we'll never agree on these topics. The best hope we have is to somehow get a comprehension of the `other side of the coin`.
Respectfully,
Richard
differences of philosophy
R
richard
(view)
Hello Again, Mr Scott...
>>I'm baffled as to what you mean by stating that left->>leaning folks have presented "no workable alternative."
Well...there's the throwback-hysteria to the 80's, there are good soundbites, there are a lot of noble ideals - but when it comes to something more than "I'll fight for you", "he's a frat boy", "he's not my president", "I'll move to France" it seems they're caught short.
If this election turned out the other way, I'd be as irritated as those who are still protesting it. But if there is a market of 50 million non-voters who could potentially help my `team` to the biggest electoral victory in the history of the world, I'd be out finding what they want instead of banging my drum over what (if Gore had his way) would have been a lost cause.
Perhaps the Democrats need the same time to form a solid opposition as the current lads need to form a forward moving government? (instead of the current hysteria opposing damage limitation)
>>The workable alternative to crippling our abortion rights >>is to leave them alone.
Like I've said, I was under the impression that even if Roe V Wade is written out of law, abortion would *still* be *available*. It would be up to the states to administer this `right` as they see fit. Or is your stance on this more principled than pragmatic? (e.g. this should be a nationally mandated right because it should be - the fact is irrelevent that the States could and would have to uphold the woman's right to choose) Unless I'm majorly wrong on this - the talk of an `abortion war` is scare mongering.
Is abortion the inflamatory topic that the Dems try and nail the Republicans with and race-baiting is the inflamatory topic the Republicans try and nail the Dems with?
>>The workable alternative to unbalancing the nation's >>budget is to leave it balanced.
As GW said, "this is just a difference of opinion". Why should we sit back and let the governement get bigger, allow people to maintain their (sometime) victimhood as a badge of honour (ask the Rev. Jackson) and like the early days of the JFK and Reagan tax-cut, miss the initial jolt to the system. Of course things went haywire near the end (for Reagan anyway) but why try and sweep over facts?
Are you happy paying more taxes than you need to? Does it concern you that Fmr. Pres. Clinton knew all about OPEC going arse over tit yet did very little? Why even use the word `unbalance` with an economy that's flawed to begin with?
>>The workable alternative to wasting huge quantities of >>money on useless missile defense systems is to stop >>spending money on them.
Again, I'll concede that the threat of WW3 is narrower and narrower - but doesn't the fact that certain states near the Persian Gulf are getting `tooled up` leave you any pause for thought? Perhaps if Messers Vidal, Chomsky and their ilk are saying much the same thing, we can scrap this `game` and move them to houses on the frontline. If the Republicans are proven wrong, then they can lead the nation in laughing at the government - but if one of the rebel states wants to take a pop at the West they can be proven wrong once and for all. (It would take an ICBM on their house to concede a point - regardless of how truthful it might be)
However dimly you might view the `Cold War Cowboys` at least they managed to stave off any major conflict in the world at that time in much the same way.
>>Seems incredibly clear to me.
As I've said earlier...regardless of how rich our rhetoric might be, we'll never agree on these topics. The best hope we have is to somehow get a comprehension of the `other side of the coin`.
Respectfully,
Richard
>>I'm baffled as to what you mean by stating that left->>leaning folks have presented "no workable alternative."
Well...there's the throwback-hysteria to the 80's, there are good soundbites, there are a lot of noble ideals - but when it comes to something more than "I'll fight for you", "he's a frat boy", "he's not my president", "I'll move to France" it seems they're caught short.
If this election turned out the other way, I'd be as irritated as those who are still protesting it. But if there is a market of 50 million non-voters who could potentially help my `team` to the biggest electoral victory in the history of the world, I'd be out finding what they want instead of banging my drum over what (if Gore had his way) would have been a lost cause.
Perhaps the Democrats need the same time to form a solid opposition as the current lads need to form a forward moving government? (instead of the current hysteria opposing damage limitation)
>>The workable alternative to crippling our abortion rights >>is to leave them alone.
Like I've said, I was under the impression that even if Roe V Wade is written out of law, abortion would *still* be *available*. It would be up to the states to administer this `right` as they see fit. Or is your stance on this more principled than pragmatic? (e.g. this should be a nationally mandated right because it should be - the fact is irrelevent that the States could and would have to uphold the woman's right to choose) Unless I'm majorly wrong on this - the talk of an `abortion war` is scare mongering.
Is abortion the inflamatory topic that the Dems try and nail the Republicans with and race-baiting is the inflamatory topic the Republicans try and nail the Dems with?
>>The workable alternative to unbalancing the nation's >>budget is to leave it balanced.
As GW said, "this is just a difference of opinion". Why should we sit back and let the governement get bigger, allow people to maintain their (sometime) victimhood as a badge of honour (ask the Rev. Jackson) and like the early days of the JFK and Reagan tax-cut, miss the initial jolt to the system. Of course things went haywire near the end (for Reagan anyway) but why try and sweep over facts?
Are you happy paying more taxes than you need to? Does it concern you that Fmr. Pres. Clinton knew all about OPEC going arse over tit yet did very little? Why even use the word `unbalance` with an economy that's flawed to begin with?
>>The workable alternative to wasting huge quantities of >>money on useless missile defense systems is to stop >>spending money on them.
Again, I'll concede that the threat of WW3 is narrower and narrower - but doesn't the fact that certain states near the Persian Gulf are getting `tooled up` leave you any pause for thought? Perhaps if Messers Vidal, Chomsky and their ilk are saying much the same thing, we can scrap this `game` and move them to houses on the frontline. If the Republicans are proven wrong, then they can lead the nation in laughing at the government - but if one of the rebel states wants to take a pop at the West they can be proven wrong once and for all. (It would take an ICBM on their house to concede a point - regardless of how truthful it might be)
However dimly you might view the `Cold War Cowboys` at least they managed to stave off any major conflict in the world at that time in much the same way.
>>Seems incredibly clear to me.
As I've said earlier...regardless of how rich our rhetoric might be, we'll never agree on these topics. The best hope we have is to somehow get a comprehension of the `other side of the coin`.
Respectfully,
Richard
