On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 09:04:00 -0400, DSK wrote:

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.

A true conservative would not be so quick to dismiss the position of
the Bush administration as "Malarkey".


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

When has Bush given up on following his principles? He's been focussed
on the war on terrorism since 9/11, and has not swayed despite growing
distrust of his leadership.


. Plus I have always had a
distaste for Bible-thumpers getting into politics.

Who's a bible thumper? What, since Bush is religious person (Something
sorely lacking in today's society IMHO), that makes him a "bible
thumper"?


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.

So you would vote for a liberal instead? How can a flip flopping
milquetoast like Kerry earn your respect for following principles,
after what he did to his own servicemen after Vietnam? That man is not
worthy of being a senator, let alone president. You claim to be a vet,
why does this not bother you? Have you listened to his 1971 testimony?


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

I am a person of principles. I am also a person of logic. The person
who most closely aligns with my own principles is the logical choice.
I do not expect perfection, and Bush is certainly far short of that,
But he's closer to my core beliefs than Kerry.


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.

What does that prove exactly? I understand what you are supposing, but
what proof is there?

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?

For now.


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?

For what reason?


How do you feel about the fact
that the "no child left behind inititative" is basically another
unfunded mandate?

So? That's what our tax money is supposed to be used for. Why is it
that every new mandate has to come with funds attached? This is a lean
economy. Learn to get by with less. That's what our bosses are always
telling us. Why should schools be any different?


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.

That complaint is as old as the hills. When I was childless, I felt
the same way. Why should I pay for schools that I'm not using? I guess
it comes down to the fact that if only the people who have kids paid,
the costs for them would be higher. But I guess this is what happens
when the government gets involved in institutions. If you don't like
paying for schools when you don't use them, just wait until the
liberals pass universal healthcare, and you start paying for people
who are sick, while you're still healthy.

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.

Please explain how using a voucher is "skating 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.

Ah! So you believe that since the U.N is the only game in town that we
should be forced to deal with the corruption? The U.N. is still a
great idea, but some clean up needs to be made in their leadership.

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?

At some point you have to make some concessions. Since the U.N.
refused to back us in the war, we didn't want them getting their hands
in the spoils (After all, they did nothing to earn it). But at some
point, we have to realize that it looks better if the rebuilding of
Iraq becomes an international effort.


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

I have no trouble keep any particular story straight. Your problem is
that you apply the same yardstick against all stories. Lest you be
accused of "binary thinking" you have to understand that all these
issues are not black and white.

.... 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.

Not at all. I'm talking about France, Germany and Russia with their
hands in Iraq's tills.

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.

I would disagree with Bush as having had as many dealings with Iraq.
However, I would agree with Cheney and Rumsfeld, both having served
under previous administrations when Saddam was not yet on our "bad guy
list".


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.

Ah! Now here's a logical conundrum for you. If, as you've said before,
there are no WMD in Iraq (Or in Syria) then that statement is an
obvious lie.

Conversely, if what you say is true (And for the record, I agree with
you), then wouldn't the fact that we sold them many of their WMD in
the past, be proof enough that Saddam had them? So where did they all
go?


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.

Yea, so? On June 8th 1967 Israel attacked the USS Liberty, and killed
34 servicemen. We're not attacking Israel are we?

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.

Yes it does Doug. There are a lot of nefarious political "behind
closed door dealings" that have gone on in the past. Many of those
deals have returned to haunt us later. Much of this has also been
responsible for much of the hatred that many Middle Eastern citizens
harbor for us.

It would be nice if we could take the clarity of hindsight, jump into
a handy time machine and undo the mistakes of our past. But it's not
that easy. We do what we feel is politically expedient at that time in
the present. What we do now will be judged in the annals of history
years from now. We made a mess, and we have to undo it somehow. Short
of surrendering and withdrawing all of our forces from the rest of the
world and keeping to our own borders, there isn't much else we can do.


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...

Every modern political administration made "deals" with countries who
turned out to be on the wrong side of democracy some time later on.
It's hard to accuse the current administration of doing something
that's been a part of our diplomatic process for years now.


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.

I believe in personal freedom and responsibility.


You think that it's OK to abandon
your principles the moment you can profit by doing so.

How can I abandon my principles if, as you say, I don't believe in
anything? You seem to be an enigma of contradictions.

... 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.

It's not legal to shoot a gun in the air. But the helmet idea is good
though. You might get hit with falling debris from tall buildings,
especially in the winter. Life itself is a risk. Anytime you go out,
you place your life at risk. The more you do, the more risk exposure
you have. Some people understand this and choose to live life anyway,
take precautions to minimize risk, and deal with those times when
"bad" things happen. Other people demand "protection" from risk, and
look to recover financial compensation from tangible entities when
"bad" things happen to them.

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.

I respectfully disagree. Shooting a firearm in the air serves no
purpose (unless you're shooting flying game in season). You cannot
operate a planing hull boat at speed without making a wake, and that
wake travels some distance. It's a part of boating and should be
expected as part of the experience.

If you're operating in close quarters with another vessel and you can
reasonably be expected to be aware of their presence then, as part of
your responsibilities, you need to take corrective measures to reduce
your wake. That should not diminish the responsibility of other boats
from making course changes as necessary to minimize the impact of
another boat's wake on them however.

If you're operating in an open waterway, and your wake travels a fair
distance and into a small cove, and disrupts a small boat drifting
there, should you be responsible, when you aren't aware of their
presence? Should the cumulative effects of boat wakes be considered in
issues such as beach erosion, especially considering the larger
effects of storms?

In life, sometimes **** happens.

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

It's the truth, and it has nothing to do with morality. It just
acknowledges that in life, some things happen which we have little to
no control over. How we deal with those times, defines our character.

Dave