 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
GoophyDog
PO1
Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 480
Location: Washington - The Evergreen State
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 7:02 am Post subject: |
 |
|
publius: I do applaud your literacy. Your views and opinions appear well thought out and you've definitely expressed yourself well.
I've read your missive a couple if times over and I'm still bewildered as to what exactly your point is. You use a quote from the Jefferson letters that in effect, echos what ROWELG has been saying all along:
| Quote: | | "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." -- Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, 1816. |
Summary: You can do what you want so long as it doesn't infringe on someone else and they like in turn. ONLY with such infringement should there be laws to seek redress. Given that premise using your quote, individual rights do come first, followed by laws to govern action if those rights are infringed upon.
Now, apply what was intended with what is in existance today. We are fast becoming a charity state treating, feeding - basically babysitting those who choose to not do it themselves. In order to accomplish these "good works", rights of the responsible individuals are being infringed upon with the laws, totally contrary to the author's intentions, enforcing that infringement.
So, yes, you are right in that the initial intention of the founders was to ensure rights trump law. Unfortunately it actually is becoming what ROWELG says, laws trumping rights.
TANSTAAFL - a way to get back to the founder's intentions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ROWELG
Ensign
Joined: 12 Jun 2004
Posts: 64
Location: Minnesota
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 12:38 pm Post subject: glaring errors in understanding |
|
|
You write that I have glaring errors in my understanding.
So, educate me. I will shut up and listen to you. I support the BIll of RIghts, Civil Rights Laws, and Human Rights in general. When I speak of law trumps rights, I speak more of citizen rights to material goods and services, not rights of liberty, nor freedom from oppressive government intervention in private life.
Beyond that blanket summary, please educate me on RIGHTS over and above this blanket! Educate me on where RIGHTS come from, and how specifically. Educate me on what RIGHTS you personally do not have that you will carry the banner for, or fight for, or die for? Can we move it from the abstract, to the concrete, to specifics?
I would like to read a small thesis on this RIGHTS subject. It would be interesting to see how two roots of common geneology arrive at where they are, 300 years later. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ROWELG
Ensign
Joined: 12 Jun 2004
Posts: 64
Location: Minnesota
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 2:51 pm Post subject: glaring errors in my understanding. |
|
|
Errors in my understanding are correct, which leads to another different subject, for another specific need in my education of liberalism.
We have a United Nations made up mostly of dictatorships, with few democracies. We see human rights violations all over the world, particularly in Africa where millions are butchered and the basic RIGHT, the right to live is absent, where dissent is put to death. I am at a loss as to why liberals don't take on this UN body who for decades have turned its back on the murder of entire cultures.
Since the United Nations was formed in the 1940's, they have made 700 resolutions. Of these, 450 (64%) have been against Israel, a nation smaller than most US States. Does that smack of bias? I believe few or none have been against Arab nations or Islam cultures. Does this suggest that the United Nations is highly Muslim, in their backing. Yet, liberal attacks are mostly against the USA because we do not subordinate our country to this toothless biased United Nations.
It is obvious our civilization is in IRAQ, with great sacrifice, providing millions of Muslims with 21st Century RIGHTS and FREEDOMS they never had. Yet the liberals oppose this activity and shout out against America. I don't see the liberals of the world shouting out agains China, or North Korea, and other major areas of the globe where the basic human rights to life and dissent are violated by murder, every day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ROWELG
Ensign
Joined: 12 Jun 2004
Posts: 64
Location: Minnesota
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 3:09 pm Post subject: errors in understanding |
|
|
Yes, In the name of privacy I understand why liberals protest publically to defend the RIGHTS of homosexuals.
I don't understand why these same liberals don't protest publically to defend the basic life RIGHTS of millions upon millions of innocents being extrminated in Africa, and elsewhere.
I don't understand why they gather in San Francisco city courthouses, not not at New York United Nations buildings. Yes, I error in my understanding about RIGHTS and LIBERALISM. I confess to it!
[b]phrase changed to 'homosexuals' by Moderator - Let's keep it clean here![/b] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ROWELG
Ensign
Joined: 12 Jun 2004
Posts: 64
Location: Minnesota
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 3:15 pm Post subject: error in understanding |
|
|
Yes, I error in my understanding!
On Tue Jun 15, 2004 8:24 pm, Publius said "For liberals, rights trump law!"
On Wed Jun 16, 2004 1:48 am, and on who decides our RIGHTS, Publius said "Uh, that would be judges!"
On Wed Jun 16, 2004 2:46 am, Publius said "Judges aren't above the law!"
These statements are logically incongruous!
RIGHTS trump LAW!
Judges create RIGHTS!
Judges interpret LAW!
Judges are not above the law!
On Judges, are they, or are they not, above the law.
In my logic, if laws can trump judges, than laws can trump the rights that judges create beyond the laws. How can it be that "no person, including judges and Presidents, are above the law", AND YET "our body of law is not the supreme ruler of our civilization"? I don't understand this logic! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ROWELG
Ensign
Joined: 12 Jun 2004
Posts: 64
Location: Minnesota
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 3:29 pm Post subject: From Publicus to Proletarus! |
|
|
From a Latin Dictionary etymology:
Publicus, for populus, for belonging to the people,
for popularus, for the peoples party, for the democrat,
for proletarus, for the citizen of the lowest common class who served the state, with his children.
From an enclypedia: "The dictatorship of the proletariat is defined by Marxist theory as the forceful use of state power by the working class against its enemies during the passage from capitalism to communism, entailing control of the state apparatus and the means of production. Though under Stalin the phrase came to be understood as a dictatorship in the name of the proletariat, the original meaning was a workers' democracy where the working class would dictate rather than the capitalist class." " Marx said "Religion is the opium of the masses". Most Marxists are atheists. Similar views are held by most types of socialists, and so they tend to be atheist or agnostic." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ASPB
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 01 Jun 2004
Posts: 1680
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Publius is the name used by Hamiltion, Jay, & Madison when penning the Federalist papers in 1787-1788. The 1st great believers in centralized big government
_________________
 On Sale! Order in lots of 100 now at velero@rcn.com Free for the cost of shipping All profits (if any, especially now) go to Swiftvets. The author of "Sink Kerry Swiftly" ---ASPB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
publius
Ensign
Joined: 04 Jun 2004
Posts: 69
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ROWELG, you and others have raised a number of additional points, but for now I'd like to confine some remarks to the fundamental issues of rights, liberty and the Constitution. I have a few minutes so I'll get started on that response.
For the life of me, I cannot tell what motivates comments like this one:
| ASPB wrote: | | Publius is the name used by Hamiltion, Jay, & Madison when penning the Federalist papers in 1787-1788. The 1st great believers in centralized big government. |
I read that last sentence as not complimentary. Not only is the sentence untrue - prove a word of it, ASPB, you cannot - but it is all the more remarkable because the Constitution delivered to us by these men, with Madison as its principal architect, and the other two among its most principal architects for ratification, is not only the very one I and millions of others have always revered as the greatest document ever to govern the affairs of men, but is the selfsame Constitution that ASPB and every other veteran here once swore an oath to uphold and defend.
The contempt here for basic American philosophy and institutions is nothing short of amazing.
_________________
Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living. -Gen Omar N. Bradley |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ASPB
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 01 Jun 2004
Posts: 1680
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Publius wrote:
| Quote: | I read that last sentence as not complimentary. Not only is the sentence untrue - prove a word of it, ASPB, you cannot - but it is all the more remarkable because the Constitution delivered to us by these men, with Madison as its principal architect, and the other two among its most principal architects for ratification, is not only the very one I and millions of others have always revered as the greatest document ever to govern the affairs of men, but is the selfsame Constitution that ASPB and every other veteran here once swore an oath to uphold and defend.
The contempt here for basic American philosophy and institutions is nothing short of amazing. |
My last sentence was not complimentary of Hamilton or your misguided beliefs. Your talking crap if you believe Hamiltion was staunch supporter of our republican form of government. Let us educate you.
As a New York delegate to the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton initially had to compete with Roberts Yates and John Lansing, Jr., two fellow representatives from his state who had been appointed by Governor George Clinton, a staunch opponent of centralized federal power, in order to outweigh Hamilton's vote.
Hamilton's role in the framing and ratification of the Constitution was a curious one. He did not prove to be a particularly distinguished or influential delegate at the Convention -- many members thought his proposals went too far in strengthening the central government. Indeed, the ideas Hamilton presented on June 18, 1787, after approximately a month of peripheral involvement, included some shockers: state governors would be appointed by the President; the President and Senators would hold office for life; and the Congress would retain exclusive authority to make all the laws of the country.
The five-hour speech had little effect. Many delegates were already nervous about a plan put forth by Virginia which, while less radical than Hamilton's vision, seemed to retain too little power for the states. Since convention proceedings were kept secret from the public, however, an atmosphere of free and open debate prevailed, and Hamilton felt obligated to at least raise his proposals in their undiluted form.
His philosophy rested, in true colonialist fashion, on the notion of "the public good" and the superiority of a government which derived its power from the consent of the governed: the essence of republicanism. Where Hamilton differed from his contemporaries was, first, in believing that only a "talented few" -- understood to mean men drawn from the wealthy and aristocratic strata of society -- had the wisdom and dispassionate foresight to implement the measures necessary for the public good. The great majority of people, in Hamilton's eyes, operated primarily out of self-interest and could not be trusted to think or act judiciously in matters of state power. Hence, a proposal such as seating the President for life, so that he would not be subject to the whims of a fickle electorate.
The second major distinguishing feature of Hamilton's political philosophy was its emphasis on energetic government. He believed that the government should be proactive in economic and military affairs, have the power the supersede lower governments (as at the state level), and be able to exercise authority directly on the people. Only an energetic government would be able to provide the stability and order necessary to secure the blessings of liberty for the people, especially over such a large geographical area as the United States.
The proposed Constitution that the convention produced in September -- and the one most Americans are familiar with -- did reflect much of the spirit of Hamilton's philosophy, particularly in clearly subordinating the states to the federal government. But it represented a much more moderate compromise of a number of competing interests. Still, Hamilton firmly supported the Constitution, even while admitting in his last speech to the convention that "no man's ideas were more remote from the plan than [mine] were known to be." He supported the plan because he believed it to be the country's last, best hope for an effective union. He was not alone in believing that the potential consequences of rejecting the Constitution entailed nothing less than civil war.
But ratification would prove to be an uphill battle. In particular, New York Governor Clinton and fellow opponents of the Constitution vowed to stymie passage in the state legislature. This opposition was especially dangerous because New York, as a major economic and political entity located in the heart of the country, would be an essential pivot in any union of states.
Against this background, Hamilton, in an attempt to win over New Yorkers to the convention's plan, launched a project of explaining and defending the Constitution which eventually produced one of the world's most enduring texts of political theory. In collaboration with James Madison and John Jay, Hamilton wrote a series of newspaper pieces, under the pseudonym "Publius," which he called The Federalist. Comprised of 85 articles appearing between October, 1787, and August, 1788, two-thirds of which were written by Hamilton, The Federalist combined bombastic attacks on the Articles of Confederation, sage insights into human nature, deft evasions of significant criticisms of the Constitution, and clear-headed explanations of the ways in which the proposed new government would operate.
At the time, the primary importance of The Federalist was to provide supporters of the Constitution with a kind of handbook of argumentation they could use in debate. It probably had little impact on the actual course of ratification, and, since the authors remained anonymous, had no impact on Hamilton's career other than helping him to refine his political philosophy. Over time, The Federalist has become a staple of political science courses, but unlike Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, it has not inspired much personal affection for the man behind it.
Finally, The Federalist is important for what it reveals of Hamilton's views regarding human nature. The usual verion, and the one routinely employed by his critics, holds that Hamilton saw humankind as inevitably selfish, untrustworthy and prone to corruption and "licentiousness." The characterization has some merit, but Hamilton actually held a more complex set of beliefs.
In Federalist no. 76, while discussing the role of the President in appointing federal officers, Hamilton asserts that any group of people will contain measures of both vice and virtue. "The supposition of universal venality in human nature is little less an error in political reasoning than the supposition of universal rectitude. The institution of delegated power implies that there is a portion of virtue and honor among mankind, which may be a reasonable foundation of confidence. And experience justifies the theory. It has been found to exist in the most corrupt periods of the most corrupt governments." In addition to "virtue and honor," Hamilton also exalted the human capacity for reason, although he admitted that reason too often furthers the pursuit of immoral aims.
Such complexities of view, however, tend to become flattened out and forgotten in the centrifuge of public memory. The Jeffersonian Republians assailed Hamilton as an arrogant aristocrat and enemy of the people, and the charges, however warranted they may have been, indelibly stained Hamilton's reputation and helped to determine future generations' impressions of him. Many Americans genuinely feared a return to an aristocratic, British style of rule, even monarchy, and Hamilton's controversial career as Secretary of the Treasury allowed the Republicans to play on those fears and storm the breach
Your contempt for the beliefs of the participants in this forum will not be tolerated. If you cannot conduct yourself in a manner that conveys respect for it's participants and their views you will not be allowed to participate. Any further questioning of our commitment to the Constitution and our Republican form of government , often served with our blood, will lead to an instant ban.
Respectfully
_________________
On Sale! Order in lots of 100 now at velero@rcn.com Free for the cost of shipping All profits (if any, especially now) go to Swiftvets. The author of "Sink Kerry Swiftly" ---ASPB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
publius
Ensign
Joined: 04 Jun 2004
Posts: 69
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Let us start with the origin of our rights - our liberties. In the Declaration of Independence, a document of such noble and soaring sentiment that its first few paragraphs are tantamount to scripture, Thomas Jefferson announces to an oppressed world world just where Americans stand (I'll bold a few parts that I wish to highlight. Note the essential use of right and rights.):
| T Jefferson wrote: | When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
...
He [George III] has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. |
It is thus American doctrine that (1.) the source of our rights is our Creator (God, for believers but nature or man, perhaps, for atheists - no problem) and that (2.) the repository of these rights is the individual person himself, not government and no document, and that (3.) government's duty is to make safe these rights of man. That should clear up a great deal about the discussion. Amplification is needed, however.
It is well to remember a little about the context of our Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. At the time of its writing the states cooperated poorly in a loose confederation that emphasized their sovereignty and commanded little or no cooperation. The result was military weakness and economic stagnation. If state A, for example, wished to boost its public revenues, it had only to impose duties on the goods of states C, D, and E, when they crossed its borders, for example. Among many others, this was an untenable circumstance and congress, with consderable prodding, finally got together enough representatives of the states in Philadelphia in the spring of 1787 to come up with suggestions for improving the Articles of Confederation.
The delegates in Philadelphia soon concluded that the Articles were fatally flawed and in illegal defiance of their mandate secretly set to work on drafting a document that would provide for a General Government, with a limited grant of power, just sufficient to provide, among a few other objects, for the common defense, the general welfare and to command the states to cooperate in matters such as trade and forbid them from unliaterally changing their borders, making deals with other nation-states, etc. It established republican democracy for itself and dictated them in its states.
Fast-forwarding, though there were multiple views and considerable dissension on every subject, through a process of persuasion, compromise and back-door deals, the Constitution as we have received it was ready for the nation within a few months. Though conceived in secret and signed by fewer, I think, than 40 of the delegates, congress nevertheless put forward this new FEDERAL constitution for the consideration of the states and its possible ratification by special representative bodies assembled just for that one purpose.
There ensued a healthy debate, one in which every disputed aspect of a new federal form of government, one with a limited central government and "sovereign" states, which by virtue of their ratification were admitted to the new union and which thereby submitted to the supremacy of the Constitution when any of their laws or acts contravened it, were discussed. Lacking cable television, forces for the new Constitution, Federalists, and those against it, Anti-Federalists took to the newspapers to plead their cases. The singularly most important of those many explanantory and propagandizing efforts were the New York newspaper writings of Alexander Hamilton with a few by Madison and fewer still by John Jay. Under the moniker Publius, a distinguished nom de plume I have shamelessly co-opted, the trio set about both to convince the people to ratify the new constitution and, significantly, to head off the growing calls from others in the New York delegation and elsewhere for an entirely new constitutional convention to revise the present document before it had taken its first breath of authority in the colonies. These documents are full of public relations, wisdom and explication and are extremely useful in apprehending the popular understanding of the Constitution as ratified. For example, ROWELG, since you have denigrated Marbury vs. Madison and judicial review, I commend Federalist #78 to you as well as Madison's speech to the House of Representatives which I shall shortly quote, as texts to guide the revision of your thoughts.
In any case, a huge obstacle to be overcome in dealing with the Anti-Federalists was that a large number of people were uncomfortable supporting a national government which despite assurances, they feared would have the power to oppress them and deprive them of their God-given, not constitution-given rights or liberties.
And why shouldn't they? Many of the colonies by this time had Bills of Rights. Some of the rights highlighted in these bills can be traced back through English common law to at least the Magna Carta. At the same time, the new Americans had had long experience with the English monarchy wherein a King might be disposed in one season to grant a set of rights - a bill of rights - and then decide at another time to rescind the inconvenient ones, a hopelessly unsatisfactory arrangement for a people drunk with the idea that their rights, their liberties, were their own and not the gift of a fickle monarch.
For their part, the Federalists thought no bill of rights was necessary, that because of the limited grant of power given to the central government in black-letter, it could not exceed its powers, usurping the unalienable rights of the people who were in fact that government's only legitimate source of power. What was even worse, this school of thought believed, and please play close attention, that it was downright dangerous to prepare a bill of rithts, on the grounds that any enumeration of rights might suggest that rights not so identified were therefore junior or even might not exist!
Such was the thinking of James Madison, Jr., when he in concert with his fellows were plotting to see the new Constitution become the supreme law of the land. Hence, we finally come to Madison, the reluctant author and promoter of our treasured Bill of Rights, well, the compiler anyway, as he approaches congress in order to bridge the gap between principled supporters and detractors of the new form of national government.
I'll leave this article here and proceed to a new one, liberally quoting Madison as he explains for all our benefit something about rights, their origins and security, majorities, judges and tyranny.
_________________
Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living. -Gen Omar N. Bradley |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ASPB
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 01 Jun 2004
Posts: 1680
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Given your change of direction and topic, may it presumed that we are in agreement on Hamilton's political philosophy as to centralized big government under the control of the "elite"? 
_________________
On Sale! Order in lots of 100 now at velero@rcn.com Free for the cost of shipping All profits (if any, especially now) go to Swiftvets. The author of "Sink Kerry Swiftly" ---ASPB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
publius
Ensign
Joined: 04 Jun 2004
Posts: 69
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ASPB posted his long copy and paste while I was writing my abbreviated history and explanation of rights, liberties, the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Now this: | Unknown wrote: | Your contempt for the beliefs of the participants in this forum will not be tolerated. If you cannot conduct yourself in a manner that conveys respect for it's participants and their views you will not be allowed to participate. Any further questioning of our commitment to the Constitution and our Republican form of government , often served with our blood, will lead to an instant ban.
Respectfully |
Edited to remove contemptuous statements about participants in this forum.
Now I was preparing to go to quite a bit of trouble in quoting Madison on the Bill of Rights. Perhaps instead I should quote Eric Hoffer:
"It is the true believer's ability to shut his eyes and stop his ears to facts which in his own mind deserve never to be seen nor heard which is the source of his unequalled fortitude and consistency."
I can still do Madison. That is if anyone here has gust enough to see just how wrong they have been, and who can read Madison without turning around and insulting him, for if that is to be the case I will not expose Madison's wisdom to calumny.
_________________
Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living. -Gen Omar N. Bradley |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
War Dog
Captain
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 517
Location: Below Birmingham Alabama
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This thread is going nowhere, and all parties concerned are not going to come to an agreement on the topics and issues within this thread. Let's take it easy on each other, stop the snide comments, and play nice.
At the request of a member, I have unlocked this thread. But if we do not start respecting others here, it will be locked again.
Woof!
_________________
"When people are in trouble, they call the cops.
When cops need help, they call the K-9 unit." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oldkayaker
Ensign
Joined: 25 May 2004
Posts: 52
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2004 6:51 am Post subject: whats a liberal and whats a conservative |
|
|
Eisenhower had some great words and very good advice that he provided in his 1961 departure speech.
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html
An excerpt from that speech is especially appropriate to this discussion:
| Quote: | Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. |
The Military Industrial Complex (MIC) and how it is controlled by any administration seems to be a significant factor in whether an administration is fiscally conservative or not. Eisenhower warned us to be wary of the MIC. To not let the MIC have unwarranted influence.
Now, is an administration conservative or liberal if it lets the MIC spending get out of hand and causes out of balance budgets to be created?
Historically, liberal governments were labelled as big spenders and conservative governments were the anti-spendthrifts who reined in the spending. Seems that lately, traditional conservativeness has gone the way of liberal spending causing great deficits with spending way over budget on many MIC projects. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ASPB
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 01 Jun 2004
Posts: 1680
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
OH! I see, you'd rather have had the Soviet Union and Stagflation for the last 20 years! Now that really makes a lot of sense. 21% Short term interest, 11% unemployment, people on welfare making more than many workers. Ah yes, the benefits of Democratic Party Stewardship. Ya know, Clinton almost got it right on domestic matters but, rather than cutting expenses to balance the budget he raised taxes and killed the economy requiring more stimulative tax cuts to get it moving again. You might want to study Reaganomics 101 before making such brash and uninformed statements.
Actually it's simple Free Market Capitalism with a polical name. I learned it in Grad School 33 years ago before the nation even heard of Reagan. Check with Larry Kudlow if you don't believe me.
And before you respond with tired MIC rhetoric re the economy take a look at your socialistic model nanny states of Germany and France to see who's really doing well. Kerry, Chirac, and Shroeder; there's a trio of idiots for the ages.
_________________
On Sale! Order in lots of 100 now at velero@rcn.com Free for the cost of shipping All profits (if any, especially now) go to Swiftvets. The author of "Sink Kerry Swiftly" ---ASPB
Last edited by ASPB on Thu Jun 17, 2004 12:51 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
