Dave Hall wrote:
Doug, I know you have claimed to be a conservative before, but your
contributions since have said the opposite. You constantly take the
opposite side on practically every issue.

Not at all. You seem to believe that a "conservative" must mindlessly
suck up all the malarkey pushed forth by Buch & Cheney.

I follow a number of conservative principles. I believe that if you give
up on following principles where convenient, then you don't really have
principles. Bush & Cheney have violated those principles time & time
again, plus they are shameless hypocrits. Plus I have always had a
distaste for Bible-thumpers getting into politics. There you have it.
Bush is not worthy of my vote, therefor I'm not giving it to him. It's a
matter of principle.

The fact that you cannot see beyond shallow partisan brinksmanship
proves that you're stupid, not that you're conservative.

I generally favor the preservation of the economy over environmental
concerns, when it can be shown that additional conservation measures
have reached the point of diminishing returns.

How about the stripping away of all conservation enforcement?
Here's a challenge for you... look up the number of suits filed by the
EPA to force polluting businesses to cease illegal pollution since Bush
was inaugurated. Now compare to say nine years earlier.

Bingo


I don't agree that the burden of paying for toxic cleanup should be
borne by the people. It should be paid by the offending company. Bush
gets a strike for that one.

Just one?


I am totally in favor of the no child left behind initiative,
especially teacher accountability. I would also revoke tenure, to give
teachers "incentive" to continue to push without the temptation to
slack off, if they feel that their job is "locked".

How do you feel about the fact that this forces teachers to spend
professional time away from students? How do you feel about the fact
that the "no child left behind inititative" is basically another
unfunded mandate?


I favor selective educational choices, especially the voucher idea. By
giving the people the choice of where their tax money goes, it forces
school to become competitive, and ultimately the kids will benefit.

OK, first on the list should be to give me a choice. I have no kids, yet
I am forced to pay for taxes to support public schools. When that choice
is presnted to me also, then I'll favor vouchers. Until then, it's just
a fancy way to cheat me into paying for poor kids schools while rich
people skate out of a civic duty.



His policies with regard to the U.N. (now there's a set of flip-flops you can take to the
beach)?


The U.N is about as politically tainted as they come.

So? It's the only game in town for international diplomacy... unless
you're a rogue nation.

Oh? In that case, how come Bush/Cheney are now alternatively begging &
demanding that they take a bigger role in Iraq?


No one is "begging" the U.N to do anything.

Oh really? What were all those headlines about Bush going before the U.N
to "demand" they play a greater role in peacekeeping? I guess it's a
matter of what you ignore and how the headlines are worded.

... If anything Bush is
capitulating under public pressure that we stop assuming the total
burden for this operation.

Bush capitulates to public pressure? I thought he was a bold leader with
vision, who paid no attention to polls?

Can you get the story straight once in a while, and not contradict
yourself quite so often? It might help.



.... France, Germany, and Russia had a financial interest in
Saddam's Iraq,

So did Carlyle & Halliburton. Do you think I'm kidding?


So what's this the old moral equivalency arguments? How does the
involvement of one or two private corporations negate and invalidate
the indiscretions of sovereign nations to the point that sound
judgement may have been impaired due to risk of exposure, and the
cessation of their windfalls?

Are you saying that the Bush Administration did not exercise sound
judgement due to the cessation of their windfalls, and/or the prospect
of greater windfalls to come? If so I agree.

In any event, "the moral equvalency argument" is a clever rhetorical
trick for denouncing the fact I've stated, which is that Bush, Cheney, &
Rumsfeld have all had at least as much business dealing with Saddam
Hussein as Russia & France.


What's your point? That we once had diplomatic relations with Saddam?

No, that the biggest reason why Bush & Cheney & Rumsfeld were so sure
that Saddam had WMDs is that they are the ones who sold 'em to him. And
they probably kept the receipts.

What, are we not allowed to change our minds once the threat against
us is revealed?

Listen stupid, in 1988 an Iraqi jet fired two missiles into a U.S. Navy
warship, killing several of my friends. Iraq was a threat under the
Reagan Administration. Why wait untill now and pretend it's about
terrorism? I don't know for sure, but the whole episode stinks. It looks
very very fishy. And since the whole Bush crew has a history of war
profiteering there is darn good reason to be suspicious... unless you
are mindlessly swallowing all their malarkey...

You can't even admit responsibility for your boat's wake.


Because I don't believe in absolutes

You don't believe in anything Dave. You think that it's OK to abandon
your principles the moment you can profit by doing so.


... I believe that everyone
shares the responsibility to protect themselves from potentially
dangerous situations.

In that case, wear a helmt all the time. Somebody might shoot a gun
straight up in the air, not caring where the bullet falls.

If you make a wake, you are just as responsible for any harm done by it
as would be a person who discharges a firearm is responsible for where
the bullet ends up.


In life, sometimes **** happens.

Great philosophy. It's a poor excuse for moral laziness, but maybe it
sounds cool.

DSK