TRUE or FALSE: What Goes Around Comes Around ?

Quote:

That's not liberal, that's criminal and cowardly
(although I know you think they're the same- I dont't)

The fact that something is LIBERAL ( i.e., deviant )
is fully compatible with its also being criminal.

I'll never win this argument with you, will I David?
You're much more practiced at it than I am, but I still feel compelled to give it a try.

Criminality and liberalism may be compatible within certain individuals, just as criminality and conservatism are,

but liberalism can exist within a person without criminality
and criminality can exist within a person without liberalism.

In the case you stated,
I don't believe liberalism was the inducement or root cause
of the criminal act.

I believe that the cop would have been just as likely to have
acted in the same way whether he was politically liberal or not.
He was a dishonest and manipulative person who used the power of his office without integrity.

When Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan deviated from the truth at various points in both of their administrations, were they liberal in your opinion?

I know you will say that they were being liberal in their interpretation of what was right and wrong, but I disagree. I think they both knew they were wrong.

They were not exercising a liberal interpretation of anything.

They were conservatives who were liars

-and who abused the power of their office,

You can't apply such broad strokes to one party,
and not the other David.

Which is something I think conservatives do all the time.

That is so not the case David.
Conservatives will deviate from any paradigm

that doesn't serve their agenda just the same as liberals will. It's human nature.
What about the paradigm of not bugging your political opponents offices?

What about the paradigm of not selling arms to rogue nations?

Those are paradigms that conservatives
were perfectly willing to deviate from.

MAYBE; sometimes,
but observation has shown
that liberals can be inconsistent about that too.
Thay can be inconsistent about inconsistency,
as it pleases them.

David, I hate to break it to you, but you present yourself very inconsistently.
I think I present myself more consistently than you do.

You didn't go wrong at all.
You are who you are.

Part of what I enjoy about your personality is that there are so many surprising aspects of it. Given who you present yourself to be on the one hand, it is refreshing to view glimpses of characteristics that one wouldn't expect to find in such a strong believer in inflexibility and rigidity (even if only in politics).
It's just hard for me to align the two- and so that's why you seem kind of inconsistent to me sometimes. I didn't mean it as an insult- it's just puzzling to me, that's all.

Legalization of marijuana is another sticky issue for me.
There are just too many safety and healthy concerns to make it cut
and dried for me as a personal freedom.

But what about protecting someone from the poor judgement of others?

I have to say, one aspect of taxation or transferred costs that is difficult for me to swallow is the thought of funding the incredibly high health care costs that are racked up by people in our society who knowingly engage in high risk behaviors. I don't want to pay more for my medical care or insurance so that I can cover the cost of those citizens who knowingly abuse their own health, whether it is through overeating, smoking, drinking, etc.

I have no problem funding an initiative to cover the costs of insuring every child in the US for unlimited access to preventive and therapeutic health care- but I think anything other than that is enabling and encouraging reckless and irresponsible behavior.

It has been proven to me that
terrible n illogical anti-female discrimination has existed.

Yes, and still does. And funnily enough, many times other females impose the harshest judgements, especially in terms of what is considered appropriate and inappropriate female behavior.

In a female's mind, a man is given so much more benefit of the doubt than a woman is. (I have to qualify that by saying this is true in a straight woman's mind- I think gay women tend to have harsher views of men than they do of other women- at least that's been my experience).

Quote:

I also don't really enjoy argument that I feel results in bad feelings.

" Argument is the piecing together of evidentiary fact,
in combination with the ordinary rules of logic and rhetoric. "

The purpose of an argumetn is to shed lite,
whereas quarrels shed heat.

Quarrels r an exercise in ego domination.

Did you grow up with siblings?

I knew it.
You remind me of my older brother and my son -
who are very similar to each other, and though neither one of them were
only children, they both were first born males who wished they had been,
and acted as if they were, only children.

That's not an insult David.

They're just very confident, charming, self-assured men who
seem to feel able to get and be whatever they want regardless.
I watched my mother instill that attitude in my brother, and though I
didn't realize I was doing it, I guess I instilled the same attitude in my son.
He's always known he was very important to me - he had my undivided
attention for four years until my daughter came along and I think that
made a lasting impression on him insofar as his view of himself as a
person of some importance. From things that you've said, it sounds as if
your mother made it clear that you were very important to her as well.

I think a mother's attitude toward a child strongly affects that person's
view of him or herself in the world.
And I for one, think it's good to be confident and feel good about yourself,
as long as it's tempered with understanding and compassions for others.

Have you started preparing for Christmas yet?
No.

Quote:

What do you like most about it?

I love the Christmas Spirit;
in my youth, I loved Christmas vacations,
and the presents

Quote:

Are you happy that it might snow?

not as a motorist

How about as someone who doesn't have to drive in it?

Do you live right in the city?

I'd expect it'd be pretty magical to be up high above the city watching the snow fall, blanketing the streets in uncharacteristic soft, white silence. Not that I've ever experienced that. I've never lived in a city- but I've been to NY enough times to recognize how magical it can be at Christmas time.

Criminality and liberalism may be compatible within certain individuals, just as criminality and conservatism are,

Quote:

but liberalism can exist within a person without criminality
and criminality can exist within a person without liberalism.

NO; criminality cannot exist in the absence
of OBJECTIVE CONDUCT that violates a criminal statute;
the territory between his ears is SOVEREIGN,
wherein he is an autonomous, absolute monarch.[/color[/quote]
Okay- as in yes, I see your point and agree with this - by the narrow definition of liberalism that we are employing at this moment in time.

[quote][quote]In the case you stated,
I don't believe liberalism was the inducement or root cause
of the criminal act.

What about the paradigm of not bugging your political opponents offices?

Quote:

What about the paradigm of not selling arms to rogue nations?

I don 't believe that there is such a paradigm.
Will u be more specific ?

Quote:

Those are paradigms that conservatives
were perfectly willing to deviate from.

When ? How ? Who ?

HOW was I inconsistent ??

Quote:

Criminality and liberalism may be compatible within certain individuals, just as criminality and conservatism are,

I must respectfully dissent.

We r confronted with a contradiction IN TERMS.
If a citizen deviates,
then he becomes a liberal with regard
to the criterion from which he has deviated.
For clarity of nomenclature,
instead of using " conservative " and " liberal "
let us substitute " people who rigidly never deviate from a paradigm
to which thay have committed themselves " and
" people who deviate from a paradigm to which thay have committed themselves. "
This is like hot or cold; like going north or going south.
U can 't be both at the same time.
If a man begins to deviate,
then he starts to become a liberal,
in regard to relevant criterion; the subject matter of the conservation.
If he is not conserving it anymore,
then he is no longer a conservative,
as to the subject matter thereof ( possibly, he might conserve other things ).

I understand and agree with this explanation, of the use of the terms
as you apply them during your arguments David.
What I don't agree with is that you yourself "consistently" use the terms
"liberal" and "conservative" as you have used and explained them here.

And I think it has to do with your own personal bias.

You are much more likely and quick to see deviation from conservative behavior among those you describe as having liberal political affiliations-maligning and making negative assumptions about their motives

and the amount of integrity they employ in other areas of their life-

than you are to address or acknowledge the same behavior in those who have labeled themselves as politically conservative.

This is an inconsistent (thus liberal)
application of this principal that you are espousing.

Quote:

but liberalism can exist within a person without criminality
and criminality can exist within a person without liberalism.

NO; criminality cannot exist in the absence
of OBJECTIVE CONDUCT that violates a criminal statute;
the territory between his ears is SOVEREIGN,
wherein he is an autonomous, absolute monarch.

Okay- as in yes, I see your point and agree with this - by the narrow definition of liberalism that we are employing at this moment in time.

Quote:

In the case you stated,
I don't believe liberalism was the inducement or root cause
of the criminal act.

I pointed to this phenomenon
as an example of the philosophy
of " have a heart " being FORCED upon my uncle.

But we both know - that was a red herring.
That was thrown in for effect. That had nothing to do with the true motivation or impetus for the man's action.

Why should we then give it any credence or honor it as justification- even negatively, as you would have it?

You're willing to give it credence because it feeds your view of liberalism as the cause of criminality. I'm not willing to call the fact that this man is willing to deviate from the law liberalism.
I reserve another category for such behavior.
I call it dishonesty- not simply flexibility or lack of rigid adherence.

I think it's more than that - it takes another step and becomes not just the lack of conservatism, thus liberalism - it becomes active criminal intent.

Quote:

Offhand, I can 't remember Reagan deviating from the truth.
Enlighten me ?[/b][/color]

Quote:

I guess it's a matter of interpretation.
I believe he lied during the Iran/Contra hearings in which he repeatedly
asserted that he could not recall or had no specific memories of events or
conversations in which he was involved.
Although it wasn't something that was able to be proved-
my experience in human behavior has taught me that this was a
convenient and almost fool-proof way for him to avoid or evade
knowledge of and thus culpability for activities that were attributed to his
government while he was at the helm.

Did you believe him when he said over and over, "I do not recall"?
I will give you the fact that you might, but it's probably based on the fact that you wanted to believe him.
I didn't vote for him, but I didn't particularly dislike him as a person, and as he was our president, I would have like to feel that I could believe what he said and respect him- so I wasn't looking for him to be a liar. But after viewing those hearings, I became convinced that he was.

Quote:

Quote:

I know you will say that they were being liberal in their interpretation of what was right and wrong, but I disagree.
I think they both knew they were wrong.

Rong about WHAT ?

Quote:

In their failure to conduct the business of the government lawfully. They were wrong in the model they presented to everyday citizens as to their "liberal" views of what is moral, ethical and legal behavior.

Quote:

Quote:

They were conservatives who were liars

WHAT lies did thay tell ?

I believe they both lied about their involvement in "dodgy"
(dishonest or evasive, sneaky) deals. Although Nixon did eventually admit the truth- when he no longer had an option to get away with his lie- so his attempt at honesty was a little belated and meaningless.

WHAT DID NIXON ADMIT ?

Quote:

( I shud take his picture down; but then
there 's that nice one with Tricia, Julie n Pat ),
not as to Reagan.[/b][/color]

Quote:

That was a nice picture.

The girls knit a Great Seal of the United States,
and put it in a wooden frame,
that the whole family showed
when thay appeared immediately after Election Day of 1968
when Nixon was first elected.

Quote:

Actually, I always kind of liked what I knew of his daughters, especially Julie.

I favored Tricia;
both girls married well.

Quote:

I feel that Nixon was a tortured soul-
so I'm not totally without sympathy for the guy.

After he left office,
at one of his dinner parties,
he advised a young man who was interested
in getting into politics,
to do as he had: " run on the right, and govern in the center. "
That is what he did,
betraying all of the conservatives who were hoodwinked
into voting for him ( altho, the alternatives were horrible, anyway ).

I campaigned hard for Nixon,
against Kennedy in 1960.
I held Kennedy in the most foul abhorence.
His years were pain.

Quote:

Reagan had a much happier life.
Ronny and Nancy - what a life story.

I liked him on the General Electric Theater
and on Death Valley Days.
He might still have been a liberal Demo
at the time, b4 he changed his mind.

Quote:

I was never a Reagan fan - he just seemed a little to vague to me - although later I wondered if that was the beginning of his alzheimer's disease. But I have to say, when I watched his funeral - I was impressed at the life it was recounted he had made for himself- more so in the obvious personal satisfaction and happiness he achieved than his political successes.

Quote:

What about the paradigm of not bugging your political opponents offices?

Is there such a paradigm ?
I am not aware of that;
maybe u can enlighten me.
Perhaps an applicable statute somewhere ?

That's not fair David - you know I don't have easy access to statutes like you do.
But isn't there a legal statute concerning this?

If there's not a legal paradigm,
how about the commonly accepted paradigm of western Christian-Judeo morals and ethics
under which our country was founded and has supposedly functioned
for the last two hundred and fifty years.

Quote:

What about the paradigm of not selling arms to rogue nations?

I don 't believe that there is such a paradigm.
Will u be more specific ?

Same as above.

Quote:

Those are paradigms that conservatives
were perfectly willing to deviate from.

When ? How ? Who ?

Again, see above.

HOW was I inconsistent ??

Always interesting talking to you David.
I really have to think to answer the questions you ask.
It's challenging and fun. Talk to you later.

TRUE or FALSE: " What Goes Around Comes Around " ?

In other words,
has experience led u to believe
that your good deeds or bad deeds
affect the quality of your LUCK ?

David

Sometimes

I understand and agree with this explanation, of the use of the terms
as you apply them during your arguments David.
What I don't agree with is that you yourself "consistently" use the terms
"liberal" and "conservative" as you have used and explained them here.

Quote:

And I think it has to do with your own personal bias.

I believe that I have 2 biases:
1 . Keeping your word
( i.e, that u actually DO conform to the rules, after u agree to do so [ no 4 flushing ] )

and

2. Personal freedom, consistent with #1.

Quote:

You are much more likely and quick to see deviation from conservative behavior among those you describe as having liberal political affiliations-maligning and making negative assumptions about their motives

Assumptions r not necessary.
Frequently, thay r open about their motivations,
which entail getting government to USURP power
to subordinate personal freedom to contrived, fony equality,
to accomplish their goals of financially elevating the poor
( having ROBBED the innocent rich )

and to impliment an artificial equality.

and the amount of integrity they employ in other areas of their life-

Quote:

than you are to address or acknowledge the same behavior in those who have labeled themselves as politically conservative.

Well, it depends on whether or not
that behavior is TOLERABLE.
If u c an imperfection in your ally,
u need not necessarily trumpet it around, unless it is intolerable.
No one on Earth is absolutely perfect.

Quote:

Insofar as your reference to Reagan 's continuing
his efforts in support of the Nicaraguan Contras,
in their anti-communist campaign,
I condemn the Democratic Congress,
and I applaud Reagan 's creative solution qua funding.
We were in the middle of World War III,
which we won as a result of the ministrations of Ronald Reagan.

As President, he had a constitutional duty
to keep America safe from its enemies, the commies.
He did so, despite the Democratic Congress.
There is NOTHING in the Constitution against his
creative, innovative anti-communist financing schemes.
He was a great HERO.

World War III ended, successfully and a lot more peacefully
than World War II[/b][/color]. I had previously believed that,
thanks to the maladministration of Kennedy n Johnson,
eventually, communist tanks wud come rolling down the
street in front of my house, with supporting infantry,
and I 'd have to take a gun and kill my mother,
kill as many commies as possible,
and keep the last slug for myself, to avoid a fate much WORSE
than death: capture by the communists.

Quote:

Quote:

In the case you stated,
I don't believe liberalism was the inducement or root cause
of the criminal act.

I pointed to this phenomenon
as an example of the philosophy
of " have a heart " being FORCED upon my uncle.

Quote:

But we both know - that was a red herring.
That was thrown in for effect. That had nothing to do with the true motivation or impetus for the man's action.

I dispute that.

I re-iterate :
the difference between legitimate charity and ROBBERY is
liberty in the donor to decide whether to accept or reject
the application for indulgence.[/b][/color]

Liberals try to use the USURPED power of government
to ram that decision down the throats of the donor,
like a mother who dictates: " be NICE to your brother; give him the toy "
regardless of who owns it.
That is NOT a trivial issue,

Quote:

Why should we then give it any credence or honor it as justification- even negatively, as you would have it?

Because it DEMONSTRATES my point
of the filosofy of " having a heart " being FORCED
upon the victims of liberalism,
donors who have that rammed down their throats,
making them the victims of ROBBERY,
instead of donors to charity.

The innermost soul of Kennedy liberalism
is using the USURPED brute power of government
to COERCE everyone to " have a heart " ( like it or not ).
[/b][/color]

Quote:

You're willing to give it credence because it feeds your view of liberalism as the cause of criminality. I'm not willing to call the fact that this man is willing to deviate from the law liberalism.
I reserve another category for such behavior.
I call it dishonesty- not simply flexibility or lack of rigid adherence.

Liberalism and dishonestly go well together,
like robbery n murder.

I think it's more than that - it takes another step and becomes not just the lack of conservatism, thus liberalism - it becomes active criminal intent.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I know you will say that they were being liberal in their interpretation of what was right and wrong, but I disagree.
I think they both knew they were wrong.

Rong about WHAT ?

Quote:

In their failure to conduct the business of the government lawfully. They were wrong in the model they presented to everyday citizens as to their "liberal" views of what is moral, ethical and legal behavior.

Quote:

They were conservatives who were liars

WHAT lies did thay tell ?

Quote:

( I shud take his picture down; but then
there 's that nice one with Tricia, Julie n Pat ),
not as to Reagan.[/b][/color]

Quote:

That was a nice picture.

The girls knit a Great Seal of the United States,
and put it in a wooden frame,
that the whole family showed
when thay appeared immediately after Election Day of 1968
when Nixon was first elected.

I favored Tricia;

Quote:

I feel that Nixon was a tortured soul-
so I'm not totally without sympathy for the guy.

After he left office,
at one of his dinner parties,
he advised a young man who was interested
in getting into politics,
to do as he had: " run on the right, and govern in the center. "
That is what he did,
betraying all of the conservatives who were hoodwinked
into voting for him ( altho, the alternatives were horrible, anyway ).

I campaigned hard for Nixon,
against Kennedy in 1960.
I held Kennedy in the most foul abhorence.
His years were pain.

Reagan had a much happier life.
Ronny and Nancy - what a life story.

the Watergaters were convicted of BURGLARY,
not buggery.[/b][/color]

Quote:

If there's not a legal paradigm,
how about the commonly accepted paradigm of western Christian-Judeo morals and ethics
under which our country was founded and has supposedly functioned
for the last two hundred and fifty years.

OK; can u cite me to where the rules r set forth
in the Old or New Testament as to bugging offices ?

Quote:

HOW was I inconsistent ??

I think I gave you several examples.

*By the way, I think Ivy sounded a little compulsive. I give people about fifteen minutes - at least ten- before I start getting perturbed. But I think that's because I was raised by one liberal and one conservative.
My father's motto is, "I'd rather be an hour early than a minute late". I can't tell you how many times I heard that as we all sat in the car in the driveway waiting for my mother to appear. The funny thing is, he married a woman who couldn't be on time if her life depended on it.
I'm punctual - but try to be understanding of those who are habitually late-as long as they have other good characteristics to make it worth the wait (my mom definitely does).
Have a nice Sunday...

David - Did you see this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/business/10faith.html?th&emc=th

I don't know if you subscribe the the NY Times online or not - but this was an interesting article.

Pretty wild isn't it? What's your take on it?

But does it bother people? I'm asking because I've gotten comments before - so I think it does- but noone has said specifically how or why?
What do you think?

aidan wrote:

But does it bother people? I'm asking because I've gotten comments before - so I think it does- but noone has said specifically how or why?
What do you think?

Quote:

Well, personally - I think if you and David have this much to say to each other that is addressed specifically to each other, it is a little rude to monopolize a public forum.

Very interesting; perhaps u will ENLIGHTEN us
as to how this MONOPOLY came into being ?

Perhaps u 'll indicate where we excluded other citizens
of this forum from participation ?

Did we prevent U from joining in ??
Is there a requirement that we invoke cloture,
or a moratorium on our self-expression until u
or someone else opts to join in ?

I don 't think there IS.

Quote:

It is irritating to have to scroll through pages of your dialogue,
thinking I may get a glimpse of another person's opinions.

For whose opinions r u waiting ?

Quote:

So now that you have a specific reason,
is it going to affect your postings?

I cannot represent anyone else,
but I assure u that it will have NOT THE SLIGHTEST EFFECT
on how I pursue MY thread.

Quote:

Let me ask you - why don't you two just adjourn to a more private setting?

Let me ask u: is it any of YOUR business ?

Quote:

Is it just more comfortable to you to keep it public -
you don't trust each other enough to make it a one-on-one?

I don 't c that trust has anything to do with it.

If u choose to express an opinion, on topic,
or responsive to anything that has been posted,
then u may do so.

I consider it rude of u
to effectively tell us to either shut up or go elsewhere.
David

snood wrote:

aidan wrote:

But does it bother people? I'm asking because I've gotten comments before - so I think it does- but noone has said specifically how or why?
What do you think?

Well, personally - I think if you and David have this much to say to each other that is addressed specifically to each other, it is a little rude to monopolize a public forum.
It is irritating to have to scroll through pages of your dialogue, thinking I may get a glimpse of another person's opinions.
So now that you have a specific reason, is it going to affect your postings?
Let me ask you - why don't you two just adjourn to a more private setting? Is it just more comfortable to you to keep it public - you don't trust each other enough to make it a one-on-one?

Quote:

I understand and agree with this explanation, of the use of the terms
as you apply them during your arguments David.
What I don't agree with is that you yourself "consistently" use the terms
"liberal" and "conservative" as you have used and explained them here.

Where did I go rong ?
What did I say ?

Quote:

Your willingness to attribute or assume negativities about aspects of a "liberal's" life about which you could have no knowledge, belies your overriding negative take or slant on liberals as people and not just as adherents to a more "flexible" ideology.

I care about what people who r inconsistent
with the charter of freedom DO
in their subversion of freedom.
I have little interest in their emotions,
sentiments or motivations.

Quote:

You're inconsistent in that sometimes it's the philosophy that bothers you,

I admit that collectivism rankles me.

Quote:

and that's fine - that's what the conversation is about.
But other times, it becomes obvious that you are willing to make assumptions and negatively stereotype actual people who have liberal political beliefs as to their personal behavior - but you do not apply the same scrutiny or harsh judgement to conservatives.
You are not impartial and consistent on this issue.

As FDR replied to someone who condemned him
during WWII for his support of some dictator of a banana republic:
" he may be a bastard, but he 's MY bastard. "
I have said that I will condemn conduct of a conservative,
( or ex-conservative ) if his conduct has proven to be intolerable,
but I don 't choose to take the time or trouble to point out
any insignificant imperfections of my ideological ally;
the same as the leftists, on the other side.

Quote:

Quote:

And I think it has to do with your own personal bias.

I believe that I have 2 biases:
1 . Keeping your word
( i.e, that u actually DO conform to the rules, after u agree to do so [ no 4 flushing ] )

and

2. Personal freedom, consistent with #1.

Quote:

I would add one more, which I hesitate to add,
because I know it's very important to you -
you've made it your life's work and I would never trivialize that, but:
3. Your inability to view the needs of the citizens of our country anywhere outside of the constraints of the Constitution, and your own personal freedom.

Its not that I am unwilling to VU them,
but I am unwilling for government to usurp power
to address them. If that precedent is established,
then we lose control of government and the damned thing can run hog wild,
doing whatever it wants,
and we NO LONGER HAVE A FREE COUNTRY,
which requires that government be domesticly crippled n disabled
in many ways, as set forth in the Bill of Rights,
particularly the 9th n 10th Amendments.

However, I accept your #3, as a friendly amendment,
as Robert 's Rules of Order wud characterize it.

Quote:

Quote:

You are much more likely and quick to see deviation from conservative behavior among those you describe as having liberal political affiliations-maligning and making negative assumptions about their motives

Assumptions r not necessary.
Frequently, thay r open about their motivations,
which entail getting government to USURP power
to subordinate personal freedom to contrived, fony equality,
to accomplish their goals of financially elevating the poor
( having ROBBED the innocent rich )

Quote:

Jesus, David-the rich are rarely "INNOCENT".

Of WHAT r thay guilty ?

Quote:

(I kind of believe that - not totally, and it's not something I'd usually say, but I want to make a point. I'm just doing what you always do - making a stereotypical assumption about a population who are separate and apart from me- just based on that fact).

Quote:

and to impliment an artificial equality.

Quote:

What do you find distasteful about that?

It is a USURPATION of power.
It has NO jurisdiction to do that; the Founders wud have been aghast.
It is the Frankenstein monster slipping out of his chains
that bind him to the slab, in the lab.

Quote:

I agree with you that equality is not inherently natural.
Why shouldn't we try to manufacture it?

Because there is NO JURISDICTION to do it.
If private citizens become involved in it,
making it their hobby, that might be OK.

Quote:

Does something about the concept of equality bother you?

Yes.
Government uses it to strangle personal freedom,
altho it has no jurisdiction to do so.

Quote:

and the amount of integrity they employ in other areas of their life-

That may vary among individual leftists.

Quote:

So stipulated. (I like that legal term as you use it - I also like "I must respectfully dissent").

Quote:

Quote:

than you are to address or acknowledge the same behavior in those who have labeled themselves as politically conservative.

Well, it depends on whether or not
that behavior is TOLERABLE.
If u c an imperfection in your ally,
u need not necessarily trumpet it around, unless it is intolerable.
No one on Earth is absolutely perfect.

Quote:

Tolerable to who?

To ME, if I am deciding on whether or not to complain about it.

Quote:

You're willing to deny or overlook characteristics in one population, but not in another, solely depending on how it affects or if they're somehow allied to you?

Yes

Quote:

That's inconsistent and egocentric David.

Yes; I treat my friends inconsistently
with how I treat my enemies; ( the same as our enemies have always done ).
Hence, it is unnecessary to attack my friends.

Quote:

No one said you need to trumpet anything.
But I'd feel that you were a more consistent person if you at least acknowledged the truth of a situation.

WHAT situation ?

Quote:

Quote:

Insofar as your reference to Reagan 's continuing
his efforts in support of the Nicaraguan Contras,
in their anti-communist campaign,
I condemn the Democratic Congress,
and I applaud Reagan 's creative solution qua funding.
We were in the middle of World War III,
which we won as a result of the ministrations of Ronald Reagan.

As President, he had a constitutional duty
to keep America safe from its enemies, the commies.
He did so, despite the Democratic Congress.
There is NOTHING in the Constitution against his
creative, innovative anti-communist financing schemes.
He was a great HERO.

Quote:

Again, that's open to interpretation. But what is not open to interpretation is his willingness to be dishonest and almost even worse than that - disingenous. He never even admitted his dishonesty, even after what he did was looked at as an unqualified success by his supporters such as yourself.
He just pretended that he had no clue - and for young voters such as I was at the time, it impressed upon me the strong belief that I should never trust a President to view me or my views as a constituent and citizen as more important than his own need for power.

That was an extremely valuable lesson,
for u Rebecca. U shud never trust ANYONE,
but ESPECIALLY not a government.
In the fullness of sincerity,
I counsel u that if he disabused u of your youthful naivete,
he did u a very valuable service for which u shud be grateful.
If some teacher tawt u to TRUST
politicians, u have cause for complaint,
in that he gave u a distorted vu of the world.

Quote:

I just kind of threw up my hands and asked myself why I should even bother-it's nothing but a big game.

YES.
That 's all it ever was.
U shud be HAPPY to c the world as it IS.
U r not blind anymore.

Quote:

They're gonna do what they want to do - the American people are nothing more than votes they used to get them in office.

That 's right.
That is how it has always been.
That is the expression of human nature.

Quote:

World War III ended, successfully and a lot more peacefully
than World War II[/b][/color]. I had previously believed that,
thanks to the maladministration of Kennedy n Johnson,
eventually, communist tanks wud come rolling down the
street in front of my house, with supporting infantry,
and I 'd have to take a gun and kill my mother,
kill as many commies as possible,
and keep the last slug for myself, to avoid a fate much WORSE
than death: capture by the communists.

Quote:

Ahh- so that's where the whole need to protect yourself stemmed from.

No.
I remember lying in bed,
at the age of 3, thinking of misappropriating
not only a police officer 's revolver,
but his entire rig, including bandolier.

When I entered a bank,
my eyes lustfully locked onto the guard 's revolver.
Kennedy was still a young lad,
of whom no one had heard.
Lyndon Johnson was a school teacher in Texas.

Quote:

You must have been a very impressionable, imaginative child David.
It reminds me of myself. My father loves history

Sounds like an admirable man.

Quote:

and when I was growing up the only tv shows I can really remember him watching were Combat and assorted westerns.

I remember that;
I can still c it on cable.

Quote:

But he also loved to watch war movies - especially movies about WWII. Well, sometimes when I was a little girl - I"d watch them with him - I was especially interested in and affected by the plight of the Jews under the Nazi regime.

It was not just the nazis.
The commies did it.
The French revolutionaries did it.
The Turks did it.
This went on for millenia.

Quote:

It terrified me to think of people hunting people down like that - to the point that I had a recurring dream that our suburban NJ home was stormed by soldiers and I would have try to hide (for some reason, I always tried to slide behind the refrigerator in my dream, this was before the advent of built-ins) and I would listen as they'd find my other family members one by one, and I'd have to make the decision as to whether to stay quietly hidden, or join my family. It was a terrifying dream.
I can see how the hysteria and uncertainty of that era would have affected you.

I took the threat Stalin pretty seriously.
I used to watch Richard Carlson on Channel 13
in " I Led 3 Lives ". I met the real Herb Philbrick,
some years later; my hero. I got his autograf in
his book.

We had a commie, during the 1940s n early 50s,
who defended Stalin, extolling Russian communism.
He was a furrier ( capitalist ); I spoke with him a lot;
took care of his dog, Hasty. He still owes me money for that,
but I don 't hold out much hope of seeing it.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

In the case you stated,
I don't believe liberalism was the inducement or root cause
of the criminal act.

I pointed to this phenomenon
as an example of the philosophy
of " have a heart " being FORCED upon my uncle.

Quote:

But we both know - that was a red herring.
That was thrown in for effect. That had nothing to do with the true motivation or impetus for the man's action.

I dispute that.

Quote:

So stipulated, but I stand by my interpretation.
That man didn't care if your uncle had a heart or not,
and that was never at issue issue as he extorted money from your uncle.

Liberals don 't REALLY care whether their conservative
victims have a heart or not.
Thay care about controlling their victims' CONDUCT.

Quote:

If he'd sincerely been appealing to your uncle's sense of charity or compassion or heart, he'd have made a request. He was abusing his power, and yes, being liberal (as you define it) in his application of the integrity of his office, but in his mind your uncle having a heart or not was never an issue to him.

Quote:

I re-iterate :
the difference between legitimate charity and ROBBERY is
liberty in the donor to decide whether to accept or reject
the application for indulgence.[/b][/color]

I agree. This is what I described above.

Quote:

Liberals try to use the USURPED power of government
to ram that decision down the throats of the donor,
like a mother who dictates: " be NICE to your brother; give him the toy "
regardless of who owns it.
That is NOT a trivial issue,

Quote:

But David, do you think it's wrong to inspire or encourage a charitable, sharing attitude among people?

Yes; for government,
it is rong. It has no jd for that.
We did not create it so that it wud dump its filosofy
on us, propagandizing us, because we need it to tell us what to THINK,
nor what to emote. That was not what the Founders had in mind.

Private people can debate these concepts all thay want.

Quote:

I do agree that it's wrong to take something that doesn't belong to you
and give it to someone else without that person's cooperation or assent.

THAT IS MY WHOLE POINT.

Quote:

But do you think it's wrong to encourage sharing among children?

That depends on how it is DONE.
If a mother just screams:
" Give your brother the damned toy; I don 't care WHO owns it "
to that I object. That may amount to a robbery.

If she has a family meeting,
expressing her vu of conviviality,
good will and VOLUNTARY sharing,
I c nothing rong with that,
so long as the owner is not despoiled of his chattle.
The controlling consideration
is that the decision of how to manage his property
remains in its owner.

Quote:

By the same token, do you think it's wrong to encourage VOLUNTARY generosity among the citizens of our country?

That depends on WHO is doing the encouraging.
Private citizens can freely express whatever vu
thay want to express.
Governmen has no jd to do that.

It was NOT created for that purpose.

Quote:

Are you happy with the status quo and the huge dichotomy between the rich and poor in this country

Yes.
Its only natural.

Y shud it be DIFFERENT ?

Quote:

and the chaos and strife it creates?

That is what defensive weapons r for.

Quote:

I'm interested to know what you think of the more socialist system in the UK.

Admittedly, I know little of English socialism,
except that thay fired Winston Churchill
as soon as he had finished defeating Hitler.

I oppose socialism.



The English claim to have a constitution.
Thay do not.

What happened is that in 1066,
Wm the Conqueror conquered the place
n established a military dictatorship,
with himself as King.

Subsequently, the King of Scotland inherited England.
The monarchy ( under the House of Stuart )
lost 2 wars to the military forces of Parliament,
such that Parliament murdered King Charles I n established control.

There is nothing to prevent Parliament
from enacting any statute it pleases.
Its political power is unlimited,
even to despoiling its subjects
( those held in subjection ) of their property,
in furtherance of socialism.

Unlike America, thay have little claim
of any statute being " unconstitutional. "
Thay have always lived under an authoritarian regime,
regardless of how gently it may have ( sometimes ) ruled.

Quote:

I'm also interested to know if you were someone who pulled himself up
by his own bootstraps to get to where you're at,
or if you were born into a comfortable situation,
and simply progressed from there. Care to tell me?

The latter; we have always had money.
As I type this, I am consuming a box of chocolate covered caramels
that I bought. It looks like a Christmas present.
Thay r really quite good.

Quote:

Quote:

Why should we then give it any credence or honor it as justification- even negatively, as you would have it?

Because it DEMONSTRATES my point
of the filosofy of " having a heart " being FORCED
upon the victims of liberalism,
donors who have that rammed down their throats,
making them the victims of ROBBERY,
instead of donors to charity.

Quote:

Right, because it serves your purposes. But if it was a political conservative who had indulged in such uncharacteristic "liberal" behavior, you'd gloss over it as an aberration or unimportant detail. That's INCONSISTENT.

If a freedom loving conservative went sour
and defected, Y shud " gloss it over " ?

Quote:

The innermost soul of Kennedy liberalism
is using the USURPED brute power of government
to COERCE everyone to " have a heart " ( like it or not ).
[/b][/color]

Quote:

Don't you want to have a heart?
Would it really have to be forced on you to have a heart?

A few hours ago,
I gave away money to beautiful little children ( strangers )
at the Mensa Christmas Party; ( because it was FUN ).

However, if I had become the victim of violent depredation,
I 'd have defended my funds from robbery.
The controlling criterion is that I
freely decide how to manage my property.

Quote:

Quote:

You're willing to give it credence because it feeds your view of liberalism as the cause of criminality. I'm not willing to call the fact that this man is willing to deviate from the law liberalism.
I reserve another category for such behavior.
I call it dishonesty- not simply flexibility or lack of rigid adherence.

Liberalism and dishonestly go well together,
like robbery n murder.

Quote:

I can't respond to this, except to say I believe you believe that as that must be your experience - but I don't, as it hasn't been mine.

Kennedyite liberals warmly embrace dishonesty n cheating
in their fanatical lust to enrich the poor,
at the expense of the rich n the middle class.

Quote:

I think it's more than that - it takes another step and becomes not just the lack of conservatism, thus liberalism - it becomes active criminal intent.

Quote:

I would be interested in your response to this.

Please re-frase the question,
to render it more comprehensible.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I know you will say that they were being liberal in their interpretation of what was right and wrong, but I disagree.
I think they both knew they were wrong.

Rong about WHAT ?

Quote:

In their failure to conduct the business of the government lawfully. They were wrong in the model they presented to everyday citizens as to their "liberal" views of what is moral, ethical and legal behavior.

Quote:

I'd also be interested in your response to this.

It wud be helpful to analysis,
if u specified to what failure of lawfulness u refer.
In some instances,
federal statutes have been unconstitutional and thus void.
Without knowing to what u refer,
I don 't know how to analyse it.

Quote:

You know David, just as your experiences as a child made deep impressions on you - mine did too. I was a young school-aged child when I was learning about through immersion, the civil rights movement, Watergate, etc. And I can tell you, the realization and knowledge that adults, whom I had always had great trust and faith in, were capable of such behaviors toward other people and such out and out dishonesty about their activities, made a deep impression on me.

That is a good thing;
u needed this added to your education
so that u 'd understand the world,
as it has always been. Your teachers shud
have told u that beforehand.
Trust is DANGEROUS and shud be kept to a minimum.
Governments shud NEVER be trusted.
History teaches that.

If u had not learned that,
u 'd have been living your life in a deluded
detachment from reality,
which is an educational failure.

Governments r very dangerous things.
More people have been killed by governments
than by anything other than old age.

Quote:

When I saw/read that the President of our country was engaged in such underhanded bullshit - that he presented himself to be something totally different than who he really was - it made a lasting impression on me. I have absolutely no trust in politicians and very little trust in the fact that government or politics works for the people or our country and is ever conducted honestly or with integrity (by either of the two major parties- That is how I view myself to be more consistent than you).
Bottom line- the Watergate fiasco was the beginning of the end for me in terms of faith in our governmental process.

Good; that is salutory.
As u pointed out b4,
it is all a GAME.
'Twas ever thus.

Quote:

Quote:

They were conservatives who were liars

WHAT lies did thay tell ?

I believe they both lied about their involvement in "dodgy"
(dishonest or evasive, sneaky) deals. Although Nixon did eventually admit the truth- when he no longer had an option to get away with his lie- so his attempt at honesty was a little belated and meaningless.

He admitted that he had engaged in activity that was unbecoming of his office.

Quote:

( I shud take his picture down; but then
there 's that nice one with Tricia, Julie n Pat ),
not as to Reagan.[/b][/color]

Quote:

That was a nice picture.

The girls knit a Great Seal of the United States,
and put it in a wooden frame,
that the whole family showed
when thay appeared immediately after Election Day of 1968
when Nixon was first elected.

Sad, how it all turned out, isn't it.
Imagine the girls' disappointment in their Dad.

I wonder if he cared about that at all.

I favored Tricia;

Quote:

I feel that Nixon was a tortured soul-
so I'm not totally without sympathy for the guy.

After he left office,
at one of his dinner parties,
he advised a young man who was interested
in getting into politics,
to do as he had: " run on the right, and govern in the center. "
That is what he did,
betraying all of the conservatives who were hoodwinked
into voting for him ( altho, the alternatives were horrible, anyway ).

Still advocating deception.
Maybe that was just an innate characteristic of his personality -
I can't attribute that to politics.

I campaigned hard for Nixon,
against Kennedy in 1960.
I held Kennedy in the most foul abhorence.
His years were pain.

He was before my time.
I only got the romanticized version -
aside from his liaisons and affairs -
which were romanticized as well.

He obviously was a pretty selfish guy.

Reagan had a much happier life.
Ronny and Nancy - what a life story.

I never liked what I saw of him as an actor.
His looks didn't appeal to me - and he always seemed a little too eager.
I like a little bit more of an edge ?? in general-maybe that's because
I'm somewhat liberal. Even my taste in men deviates from the straight-edged conservative all-American boyscout type.

the Watergaters were convicted of BURGLARY,
not buggery.[/b][/color]

Quote:

If there's not a legal paradigm,
how about the commonly accepted paradigm of western Christian-Judeo morals and ethics
under which our country was founded and has supposedly functioned
for the last two hundred and fifty years.

OK; can u cite me to where the rules r set forth
in the Old or New Testament as to bugging offices ?

You know very well, you're trying to be "liberally" inconsistent in your application of principals.

My only question is - do you really believe that's okay?

And I hope this doesn't offend you, but I'm sincerely curious.

Do you think you're ability to split such fine hairs in terms of people's motives and behavior, and especially your ability to justify it in certain instances, based on outcome, is partly due to the fact that you are an attorney - and in that line of work, it is often more important in terms of the minds of the judge and jury what the truth is made to appear to be rather than what the actual truth is?

HOW was I inconsistent ??

*By the way, I think Ivy sounded a little compulsive.
I give people about fifteen minutes - at least ten- before I start getting perturbed.

But I think that's because I was raised by one liberal and one conservative.
My father's motto is, "I'd rather be an hour early than a minute late".
I can't tell you how many times I heard that as we all sat in the car in the driveway
waiting for my mother to appear. The funny thing is, he married a woman who couldn't be on time if her life depended on it.

I'm punctual - but try to be understanding of those who are habitually late-as long as they have other good characteristics to make it worth the wait (my mom definitely does).
Have a nice Sunday...

Quote:

snood wrote:

aidan wrote:

But does it bother people? I'm asking because I've gotten comments before - so I think it does- but noone has said specifically how or why?
What do you think?

Well, personally - I think if you and David have this much to say to each other that is addressed specifically to each other, it is a little rude to monopolize a public forum.
It is irritating to have to scroll through pages of your dialogue, thinking I may get a glimpse of another person's opinions.
So now that you have a specific reason, is it going to affect your postings?
Let me ask you - why don't you two just adjourn to a more private setting? Is it just more comfortable to you to keep it public - you don't trust each other enough to make it a one-on-one?

Snood - I'm sorry that you feel excluded. Believe me, I know how that feels, and I try not to purposefully impose that feeling on anyone else, here on this forum or in my everyday outside life.

But how many threads are there on this forum? I fail to see how participating in one of them constitutes any sort of monopoly. Look at my post count. I make five to six posts on average a day. How does that constitute a monopoly in terms of communication on this forum?
I guess David and I have monopolized this thread - but again- if you look at it closely- it had pretty much run its course in terms of the original subject matter, and David and I became by default the only two posters who were regularly participating. I've responded to anyone who posted anything that even remotely pertained to me, but I try not to jump in too much unless I'm specifically addressed - as I've been scolded in the past for that behavior too.
I just don't seem to have the right instincts, though I am instinctively a polite person Snood- and I think you know that. This keeps happening to me specifically because not a lot of people on this forum ever choose to interact with me - so when someone does- it looks like I'm monopolizing a thread with that specific person. But that's not a choice I made. That's a choice that's been made or imposed upon me.
I'm a flexible, liberal, fun-loving person - I do tend to just go with the flow if I'm enjoying something. I do enjoy talking to David. I think he's funny and he seems to have no problem with me or anything I say or do - which is a nice change for me on this forum. As conservative as he presents himself to be - he's pretty much the most open-minded person in terms of allowing me to be who or what I am, (long-winded, opinionated, scatter-brained) of all the people I've communicated with. There are a couple more whose presence and communication I value highly, only because they choose to speak to me- and I value what they say and what they contribute, and how it might enrich my life. I look forward to and enjoy any communication with them, but they don't seem to like to talk as much as David and I do... The truth of the matter is - I talk to whoever talks to me. But I let people alone if they don't seem to want to hear from me. I thought I was being polite.

As I've communicated to you before, I'm not here to argue venomously, or have my innermost beliefs scorned, or scorn anyone else's beliefs or hurt anyone elses feelings. When you tried to help me out with that in the past - I told you - that's not something I want to expose myself to. So I avoid a lot of threads. This is one that felt safe to me.
I'm looking for enrichment Snood - not strife. Everyone has their own unique reason for being on this forum. I accepted a long time ago, that I wasn't going to be accepted as "one of the gang". For me, it's about learning what I can learn from people, and every once in a while, if I come across a person who I connect with in terms of ideas and sense of humor, that's a bonus I enjoy. Is that not an acceptable reason to continue to participate?

What you said has affected how I feel, because I like you and I care about your opinion. It bothers me to know that you think I'm being rude. I'll have to think about it some more to come to a conclusion to whether or not it's reasonable and should affect how I post on this thread.
I'm not going to play the game of pointing fingers at other posters or other threads - but I don't think this thread is any more useless in terms of information than any other thread. I've found it to be very informative and educational, myself. It's helped me explore new ideas, and solidify some of my own political views.

I don't communicate with anyone from this forum privately. I don't know if it's lack of trust - although again- I've been told over and over again by people on this forum how naive and trusting I am and that it will get me in trouble. Sometimes I see signs that that might be true and that I should believe that. I do think in terms of what can and will be attributed to me, it's better to keep things out in the open and public, so there can be no mistaking what the reality of the situation and my words are.

But the fact remains, if David came to England, I'd hope that he'd contact me and I'd invite him over to my house for dinner. Same goes for you, and several other people I've spoken to on this forum. In fact, I'd feel safer and would rather do that, or communicate with someone on the phone than I would handing out my private e-mail to people I've never met or seen. As I've learned - there are just too many openings for miscommunication and misinterpretation in e-mails between people who don't know each other fairly thoroughly.

I can't let myself be pressured to change who I am Snood- unless I know and believe it's a change I need to make. I hope you understand that.

Quote:

David - Not to seem ungrateful in terms of my Christmas present,
but let's just say that I think your skills were more fully represented
and realized in the career path you originally pursued.

Quote:

As an alternative Christmas present- you could address two issues for me:
1) If it is not the role of the government to insure and fund the health
and the pursuit of happiness for all its citizens, whose role is it?

OBJECTION,
in that the question assumes facts
not in evidence, to wit: that it is SOMEONE 's role.


With u being in England,
let 's look at it from John Locke 's point of vu:
1. Human existence anteceded the existence of government.

2. Government was created by individual people,
by their contract, among themselves.
Thay defined their own creation,
by that contract. Their creation had only those powers
that its creators granted to it. Thay did not grant the power
of funding health care. There is no evidence that thay even thought of it.

3. Quad est demonstratum:
government was not granted the power
to fund health care, and therefore does not have that power.

The citizens retain the ability to contract among
themselves to create whatever private schemes
to fund health care that thay choose to arrange.

Quote:

How would you see it funded?

Privately

Quote:

2) I'd be interested in your analysis of the article I gave you the link to
(wearing your hat as an expert in constitutional law on one hand,
and as a libertarian on the other).

The Constitution does not permit government
to prefer one religion over another in its prisons.
A Catholic prisoner complained of anti-Catholic abuse in the prison.

Jesus, David-the rich are rarely "INNOCENT".

Quote:

and to impliment an artificial equality.

Quote:

What do you find distasteful about that?

It is a USURPATION of power.
It has NO jurisdiction to do that; the Founders wud have been aghast.
It is the Frankenstein monster slipping out of his chains
that bind him to the slab, in the lab.

Quote:

I agree with you that equality is not inherently natural.
Why shouldn't we try to manufacture it?

Because there is NO JURISDICTION to do it.
If private citizens become involved in it,
making it their hobby, that might be OK.

Quote:

Quote:

Does something about the concept of equality bother you?

Yes.
Government uses it to strangle personal freedom,
altho it has no jurisdiction to do so.

Quote:

Tolerable to who?

To ME, if I am deciding on whether or not to complain about it.

Quote:

That's inconsistent and egocentric David.

Yes; I treat my friends inconsistently
with how I treat my enemies; ( the same as our enemies have always done ).
Hence, it is unnecessary to attack my friends.

Quote:

No one said you need to trumpet anything.
But I'd feel that you were a more consistent person if you at least acknowledged the truth of a situation.

WHAT situation ?

Quote:

I just kind of threw up my hands and asked myself why I should even bother-it's nothing but a big game.

YES.
That 's all it ever was.
U shud be HAPPY to c the world as it IS.
U r not blind anymore.

No.
I remember lying in bed,
at the age of 3, thinking of misappropriating
not only a police officer 's revolver,
but his entire rig, including bandolier.

When I entered a bank,
my eyes lustfully locked onto the guard 's revolver.
Kennedy was still a young lad,
of whom no one had heard.
Lyndon Johnson was a school teacher in Texas.

It reminds me of myself. My father loves history

Quote:

But he also loved to watch war movies - especially movies about WWII. Well, sometimes when I was a little girl - I"d watch them with him - I was especially interested in and affected by the plight of the Jews under the Nazi regime. [/quote[/quote]]
It was not just the nazis.
The commies did it.
The French revolutionaries did it.
The Turks did it.
This went on for millenia.
I know - but they didn't make movies about those pogroms, at least not that I saw.

Quote:

We had a commie, during the 1940s n early 50s,
who defended Stalin, extolling Russian communism.
He was a furrier ( capitalist ); I spoke with him a lot;
took care of his dog, Hasty. He still owes me money for that,
but I don 't hold out much hope of seeing it.[/b][/color]

Come on David - doesn't sound like you really need it.

Quote:

That is NOT a trivial issue,

Quote:

But David, do you think it's wrong to inspire or encourage a charitable, sharing attitude among people?

Yes; for government,
it is rong. It has no jd for that.
We did not create it so that it wud dump its filosofy
on us, propagandizing us, because we need it to tell us what to THINK,
nor what to emote. That was not what the Founders had in mind.

Private people can debate these concepts all thay want.

I understand your stance now. So can you address my question about what mechanisms you'd employ to address these issues?
Or is this where you say, you don't know, and you don't care because it doesn't affect you?

Quote:

Quote:

I do agree that it's wrong to take something that doesn't belong to you
and give it to someone else without that person's cooperation or assent.

THAT IS MY WHOLE POINT.

Got it.

Quote:

Quote:

Are you happy with the status quo and the huge dichotomy between the rich and poor in this country

Yes.
Its only natural.

That saddens me David. I know that's how it's always been, but that doesn't make it right. Do you think you'd feel the same if you were poor?

Quote:

Y shud it be DIFFERENT ?[/b][/color]

Because all people deserve the chance to live a life filled with dignity and purpose.

Quote:

Quote:

and the chaos and strife it creates?

That is what defensive weapons r for.

That was not funny (in my opinion).

Quote:

I oppose socialism.[/b][/color]

In theory or in practice? I take it you've never lived in a socialist society?
(I'm going on my impression that you've lived in NY and Arizona - so within the US your entire life- is that correct)?

Quote:

Unlike America, thay have little claim
of any statute being " unconstitutional. "
Thay have always lived under an authoritarian regime,
regardless of how gently it may have ( sometimes ) ruled.[/b][/color]

But also unlike America, the MP's that I've read about and observed seem to employ quite a bit more effort and integrity in representing and upholding the wishes of their constituents.
I think the English system of government and nationalized services, seems to provide more effectively for more of its citizens than the US system of privatized services does.

Quote:

Quote:

I'm also interested to know if you were someone who pulled himself up by his own bootstraps to get to where you're at,
or if you were born into a comfortable situation,
and simply progressed from there. Care to tell me?

The latter; we have always had money.

Lucky you. Maybe this explains your lack of understanding or motivation toward those who have started out disadvantaged and impoverished.

Quote:

As I type this, I am consuming a box of chocolate covered caramels
that I bought. It looks like a Christmas present.
Thay r really quite good.[/b][/color]

What does that have to do with anything?

Quote:

Quote:

I think it's more than that - it takes another step and becomes not just the lack of conservatism, thus liberalism - it becomes active criminal intent.

Quote:

I would be interested in your response to this.

Please re-frase the question,
to render it more comprehensible.

You stated that "liberalism" is a willingness to deviate from conservative or agreed upon standards. I agree with that. But criminality calls for more than simple willingness to deviate. It calls for active criminal intent. I don't think that is implicit in your definition of liberalism. Do you?

Quote:

Trust is DANGEROUS and shud be kept to a minimum.
Governments shud NEVER be trusted.
History teaches that.

If u had not learned that,
u 'd have been living your life in a deluded
detachment from reality,
which is an educational failure.

Governments r very dangerous things.
More people have been killed by governments
than by anything other than old age.[/b][/color]

Interesting, I've never thought of it that way. But again I ask - how or why should we even continue to try to participate in it then?

Quote:

WHAT DID NIXON ADMIT ?

Quote:

He admitted that he had engaged in activity that was unbecoming of his office.

I don 't recall him saying that.
Can u cite to a quote,
or give a recitation of the gist ?

I have a very vivid memory of watching him on tv sitting at a desk, addressing the American people in very subdued tones about his regret at what had transpired before he walked across the lawn to the helicopter. I don't remember exactly what he said - I'll try to find a transcript of it.

Quote:

I cannot represent the Nixon girls,
but I imagine that if thay were expressing themselves here,
thay 'd say that thay LOVED their time in the White House,
and were THRILLED to have had a father who was elected
President of the United States: the most powerful man in the world.
I can 't say as much about MY father, nor my grandfather.
Very, very few children r so fortunate.
If this had not happened,
it is unlikely that Julie wud have married Ike 's grandson
and that Tricia wud have gotten a multimillionaire.

GOODNESS, THAY WERE LUCKY.

I'm sure they were happy and excited at the beginning of the whole adventure. But as it soured, their feelings were probably somewhat different. That would just be human nature.

Although if their marriages have been happy - they probably do tend to view it positively instead of negatively at all.

Quote:

Well, yeah, but I wudn 't blame him for THAT.
( I believe that is the first time in my life
that I have ever defended Kennedy ! )
So is everyone else ( including ME, for sure ).

Some people are less so than others though.

Explain an " edge " ?
A little different in some way. Not typical or run of the mill or mainstream. I always appreciate someone kind of out of the ordinary or surprising. I probably would never be attracted to anyone who would run for president and receive the majority of the votes (in America, anyway)

Quote:

principals.

For your work,
note the spelling here.

Quote:

My only question is - do you really believe that's okay?

In political warfare,
neither side wud hesitate to do it.

My ex-girlfriend, Marilyn,
used to torture me, with her lateness.
I 'd be parked illegally by a fire hydrant,
or by a NO parking sign,
and calling her from a fone booth every 20 minutes,
while she was preening; ( also B.C.: b4 cell fones ).
She used to be a valium addict.
When she finally arrived, I was so upset
that she slipped me a valium to calm me down.