"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 00:18:18 GMT, "Jeff McCann"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:13:41 GMT, "Jeff McCann"

wrote:

I'm top posting without snipping because what you quoted (the part
below
your cites) is so exactly correct I don't want anyone to miss it.
In
fact, I'm going to use it as a handout in my healthcare law class.

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 08:27:31 GMT, "Jeff McCann"

wrote:

refusing to take their meds, or go to outpatient clinics etc.

Basicly..,the Libs created the homeless situation in
California,
and
in doing so, are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of
thousands
of mentally ill folks whom died and are still dying on the
streets,
not to mention those that are killed, raped etc etc by the
more
vicious members of the homeless nutcases.

Sounds like typical revisionist neo-con spin to me; blame
everything
on
the "Libs." Cites?

Jeff

Simply cannot accept that the Libs would do that to people? How
many
did Stalin kill?

Stalin's mass murders are connected to the mainstream beliefs of
American progressive politics how, exactly? Such an obviously
overblown
smear is really beneath a man of your intelligence, Gunner.


Hint..your criteria is flawed at its root. There is NO mainstream
belief in progressive politics. By definition, progressive politics
are Leftist at best, and the US is not by any stretch of the
imagination progressive in its mainstream beliefs.

Hint: Stop listening so much to El Rushbo. America is progressive
in
it's soul. That progressive character has manifested itself in
everything from worker's health and safety laws, to free public
schools,
to social security domestically, and ideas like the Nuremberg trials
and
recognizing basic human rights internationally.

At the turn of the last century, the Conservatives and their
corporate
overlords had to be brought to heel by Theodore Roosevelt and the
progressive movement in the Trust-Busting era to move the country
forward. We may see something similar in reaction to the current Far
Right Administration, Supreme Court and Congress.

Snicker..I listen to Larry Elder, and seldom bother listening to Rush.
However..it may behove you to spend a little time listening to both of
them.

Actually, I listen regularly to Rush, but I understand that he is just
an entertainer, not the fount of all wisdom. I also listen to Sean
Hannity and watch Faux News and Joe Scarbourough (we once worked
together), so I stay pretty current on the Right wing view of things.

Few Libs have ever heard about the Law of Unintended
Consequences, nor would they ever admit that their way is not
the
Perfect way.....

Oh, like cutting taxes on the rich while paying $1+B per week for
a
highly dubious war and offering no rational plan to control
bloating
deficits and the resulting drain on the economy is wise, prudent,
the
product of careful foresight, and the perfect way to help the
economy.
It seems to me that plenty of neo-cons are actually stupid enough
to
believe their own rhetoric. The current situation in Iraq is the
perfect illustration of the Law of Unintended Consequences, or the
effect of neo-con wishful thinking and the triumph of ideology
over
reason.

One should note..that the Recession, while cyclic in nature,
started
under the auspices of the Clinton Administration, and had little to
do
with Neo-cons. The Dems were bellied up to the trough right along
side
of the Republicans during the Dot Com bubble.
One should note..that the economy is starting to move along just
fine,
GDP is up, manufacturing is up and the markets are strong.

It's kinda tough to spend over $1B a week and NOT see an increase in
GDP. The millions of jobs destroyed under George II are another
story .

Which millions are those? The ones that went tits up as a result of
the Clinton Administration? Btw..how long was Enron going on..and
whom was at the helm during that time? Hummmmmmmmmm?

Do try to stop blaming everything on the Clinton Regime, will you? It's
becoming a tiresome refrain. The plain fact is that there was steady
job growth under Clinton and steady job loss under George II. As for
Enron and the like, it seems to me that the current administration is
settling the theft and fraud cases for pennies on the dollar, letting
the wrongdoers keep most of their ill-gotten gains. They are also
watering down or stalling real efforts at reform while putting on a few
show trails of mid-level crooks like Martha Stewart.

While the Iraqi situation may or may not have been prudent..no one
has
flown airliners into buildings since 9/11..which is a good thing,
and
Bush hasnt bombed asprin factories either....and there is no Monica
or
Wag the dog ....

Ah, the Polestar of the political Far Right. "At least we aren't
Clinton!" Can't you guys ever justify yourselves on your own merits
with reference to Clinton?

Sure can, but its lots of fun using YOUR guy as a counter when you
blokes start spewing the DNC party line.

Clinton definitely wasn't MY guy. As for wag the dog, are you referring
to Reagan's invasion of Grenada to distract public attention from the
hundreds of body bagged Marines coming home from his Lebanon debacle?

Now, let's look at what you've offered as cites supporting your
assertion that the "Libs" caused the problem in California:

http://www.psychlaws.org/GeneralResources/article45.htm
"In 1967, Gov. Ronald Reagan signed the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act
(LPS), which went into effect in 1969 and quickly became a
national
model. Among other things, it prohibited forced medication or
extended
hospital stays without a judicial hearing. . . .

As a practical matter, involuntary commitment was no longer a
plausible
option. . . .


In 1999, the Legislature finally funded pilot projects in
Stanislaus,
Los Angeles and Sacramento counties that offered comprehensive
treatment
for the mentally ill. And they appeared to work. Within the first
four
months, the $10 million pilot program helped move 1,000 people off
the
streets and into support systems of care.

Last year, Assemblyman Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, sponsored
legislation to allocate $54.9 million to expand these pilot
programs
to
24 counties and two cities during the next three years. . . . "

It seems a Democrat (gasp!) was trying to address the problem
here.
Nothing attributes the problem to "Libs,", so the cited work
doesn't
appear to support your original claim

Lanterman was a Republican btw..and to this day, states quite
clearly
that it was a huge mistake.

Yeah, because community based care was never funded as he intended.

Yup. And why not? You Dems have been in charge in California for 36
yrs. So why didnt you get off your asses and do something about the
funding? God knows we got taxed enough.....

Democrats have a full share of blame, but that's not your original
claim. You blamed the entire mess on the "libs." On that point, you
were wrong.


http://www.psychlaws.org/StateActivi...a/LPSoped3.htm
Nothing about "libs" causing the problem there, either.


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...1streets.story
"This week the Assembly Judiciary Committee will consider
legislation
by
Assembly- woman Helen Thomson (D-Davis) that would solve a key
part
of
the problem. AB 1421 would amend the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, a
well-intentioned but ultimately misguided law passed in the 1960s
that
bars doctors, judges and counselors from compelling seriously
mentally
ill people to be treated unless it can be proven they are at
imminent
risk of harming themselves or others."

Another Democrat trying to address the problem.

Note..that law came into effect in 1967...36 yrs ago. What took you
guys so long?

There were efforts at reform during that time. It's not like the
Republicans gave a rat's ass, we're STILL waiting for them to do
something for the mentally ill, other than build more prisons, etc.,
I
mean.

Why bother with the Republicans? California has had a Democratic
Majority for nearly 36 yrs, with only a couple Republican Govs, whom
didnt veto any funding initiatives. How come its only NOW that the
Dems are climbing up on the ride? Hummmm?

At least somebody is.

http://sftimes.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$82
That's a story about (Democrat) SF Mayor Willie Brown's efforts
to
address the problems in San Francisco, caused by the Legislation
Gov.
Reagan signed back in '67

Note..that law came into effect in 1967...36 yrs ago. What took you
guys so long?

There were efforts at reform during that time. It's not like the
Republicans gave a rat's ass, we're STILL waiting for them to do
something for the mentally ill, other than build more prisons, etc.,
I
mean.

Why bother with the Republicans? California has had a Democratic
Majority for nearly 36 yrs, with only a couple Republican Govs, whom
didnt veto any funding initiatives. How come its only NOW that the
Dems are climbing up on the ride? Hummmm?

The Democrats have merely demonstrated that they are quite as capable as
the Republicans when it comes to mismanaging government. This surprises
you somehow? ;-)

http://www.namisonomacounty.org/reflect.htm
" 'The passage of California's Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act in
1967...made rational treatment for the mentally ill increasingly
difficult.' (Out of the Shadows, Confronting America's Mental
Illness
Crisis, E. Fuller Torrey, M.D. , John Wiley & Sons, Inc., N.Y.
1997.
pg
10, pg 143)"

Nothing about the "libs" here either, I'm afraid.

Yet it seems clear that the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act was the
source
of
the problem, or rather was the source when combined with the lack
of
funding for community-based care, according to your own cites.

Gov. Reagan, a Republican, signed the Act. Frank Lanterman, a
Republican, chaired the committee responsible for the legislation,
so
he
controlled what went into the Act. Nicholas C. Petris and Alan
Short
were Democrats. All of them later expressed disappointment that
the
funding for follow-on community based care was not provided. That
was
not their intent.

In 1967, the California Legislature was divided almost equally
between
Democrats and Republicans, with a 1 member Democrat edge in the
Senate
and a 2 member edge in the Assembly. Any legislation would
therefore
require bipartisan support and could not be passed over a
governmental
veto. Furthermore, Gov. Reagan enjoyed the power of a "line item
veto"
over expenditures in the State budget. This was the year that
Reagan
actually increased the state income tax rates on the wealthy (he
did
so
again in 1971 IIRC); he was in a budget crisis and was more than
happy
to unburden the state budget from the cost of mental health care
by
passing the buck to county and local governments that had no hope
of
meeting the needs of the newly de-institionalized mentally ill.

Your assertion that "[b]asicly..,(sic) the Libs created the
homeless
situation in California, and in doing so, are responsible for the
deaths
of hundreds of thousands of mentally ill folks whom died and are
still
dying on the streets, not to mention those that are killed, raped
etc
etc by the more vicious members of the homeless nutcases[,]"
doesn't
seem to be borne out by the facts, does it? Oh, I'm sure the
liberals
of that era played their part, but it's neither fair nor accurate
to
blame them for the resulting mess.

Jeff

Sure it was fair and accurate. Reagan HAD to sign the legislation
as
part of the Sop to the Dems for the tax increases.

Yep. Governors, unlike Presidents, can't just run up huge deficits
and
let the grandkids worry about it.

Chuckle..would you care to say the magic words...Gray Davis?

Ayup. So, who you gonna vote for to replace him?

You are also
forgetting the politics of 1967...I remember them well..Power to
the
People! (raising a fist) and Death to the Pigs.....

The hippie radical left was on the outside, looking in, and not in
power. The "Establishment" was calling the shots, remember?

Really? ROFLMAO! Tom Hayden etc had no effect..right?

Hint..I live in California..and I know personally some of the
players
in that rat ****..and to this day, they all say Lanterman was a
mistake.

Hint: So did I.

Good, then we are in agreement that Lanterman was a rat ****.

It was the Left whom pushed the law, and its been the Left,
whom for 36 yrs have not corrected its horror, as California has
been
a Democrat run state for at least that long, with a large surplus
for
much of that time.

Common Democrat fallacy. Good intentions aren't enough. But the
Republicans bear their full weight of responsibility for the resulting
horror, as well. I don't care for Democrat screw-ups either. Don't
confuse my very deep concern and occasional abject horror at the current
regime's doings as blanket approval of the alternative.

Jeff

On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 18:53:09 -0400, "Gary Warner"
wrote:


"Carolyn Louise leigh" wrote in message
...
No Brainer! OIL. Toss out all the smoke and mirrors. Every argument GWB
made
for War with Iraq was an echo of the 60's. My how short memories
become....


Operation Iraqi Liberation = OIL


Oh, wait, we better not call it that...


Operation Isralie Lackeys

Oy vey, ve kan't call it zhat either. . .


__________________________________________________ ____________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

"Ignoramus14603" wrote in message
...
In article , leon skunkers
wrote:
...why the hell we invaded Iraq?

I'll admit I can't come up with anything that makes sense.

My guess is, as to what went behind the closed doors, is that there
were two reasons:

1. Steal Iraqi oil and enrich Haliburton, etc, and lower oil prices in
time for the next election. The old "liebensraum" (living space) concept.

2. Occupy Iraq and use it as a fixed aircraft carrier in the quest for
world dominance. The thinking goes, occupying Iraq, it will be easier
to get Saudis or Iran or whatever other nation might be "next".

Unfortunately, it turns out that the Iraqis are not eager to pump out
their oil to enrich us, and also that instead of a good platform for a
conquest, Iraq consumed much of the US military manpower to the point
that it is much harder to mount more victorious blitzkriegs elsewhere.

You forgot:

3. It was Osama's wish, and a way to accede to his demand that we
leave Saudi Arabia yet still feel like we had a presence in the region.

Note: we have given in to essentially all of his post-911 demands.
Way to go George!

4. It was a way to forestall the changeover of the valuation of oil to
Euros, instead of USDollars.

A true win-win if there ever was one.

Dan

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:27:47 -0700, "Dan"
wrote:


"Jeff McCann" wrote

Hint: Stop listening so much to El Rushbo. America is progressive in
it's soul. That progressive character has manifested itself in
everything from worker's health and safety laws, to free public
schools,
to social security domestically, and ideas like the Nuremberg trials
and
recognizing basic human rights internationally.

Don't forget those dusty old chestnuts, the Constitution and the Bill of
Rights, and the first part of the Declaration of Independence. As
recently as 2 1/2 years ago, people at least paid lip service to them...

Dan

Yup, sure did. Too bad none of them were Dem Politicians.

Amazing. His lips hardly moved...

Dan