General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

In article ,
Robey Price wrote:

Exactly how is voting for ANY liberal a vote against freedom?

"Liberals" think we should leave nasty dictators in place forever and
let them kill and abuse millions, while "conservatives" think we should
kick out folks like Hussein and free those folks.

Tell us again about that "freedom" thing.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article rsqwc.5822$HG.1359@attbi_s53,
Mike Dargan wrote:

I'm sad that he's no longer CiC. Clinton was the best US military
leader since FDR.

....by doing several, well, *failed* semi-military actions like tossing
cruise missiles at some tents out in the middle of nowhere and doing
pretty much nothing when the US was actually attacked...

So your criteria for "success" seems to be pretty analogous to what most
folks call "failure..."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Ed:

And how, precisely, do "liberal solutions" get implemented?

At gunpoint.

A vote for "liberalism" (the modern definition; "big government solutions")
is clearly a vote for totalitarianism.

A vote for modern "conservatism" is different only in degree, not principle.
Vote for your economic freedoms to be taken away first, then your freedom of
action . . . or vice versa.

Steve Swartz


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 19:38:45 GMT, Robey Price
wrote:

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Steven
P. McNicoll" confessed the following:


Totalitarianism is a bit extreme, but a vote for Kerry, or any other
liberal, is certainly a vote against freedom.

Exactly how is voting for ANY liberal a vote against freedom?

I anticipate an illuminating discourse...or not.

Robey

I've got to find myself on the same side of the fence (for this one
instance) as Juvat. Certainly characterizing a vote for a liberal as a
vote against freedom is ignoring the essentials of the two primary
ideologies in America.

Characteristically the liberal ideology is based on a belief that
government is the best solution to societal problems. Taken further
left we get to welfare statism, socialism and eventually at the
extreme communism. Examples of liberal approaches are things like
Social Security, Medicare, publicly funded education, etc. Often these
solutions are very effective.

Conversely the basic element of traditional convervatism is a
free-market solution, focussed on individual responsibility. Want
health care? Get insured. Want a retirement? Put something away. Don't
expect government to do it for you. These approaches can work as well.

Trends in liberal/conservative ideology is for liberals to support the
workers (unions) and conservatives to support entrepreneurs and
management. Liberals focus government spending on social programs
while conservatives tend toward strong defense ("guns vs butter").

Inevitably government programs cost money, so a liberal administration
will lead toward higher taxes, but this is usually balanced by
including some element of "redistribution of wealth"--the progressive
tax structure of the IRS, for example. This is acceptable to some
point as folks weigh the cost/benefit of dollars paid in tax against
service provided.

The conservative side of American politics, however, is split between
traditional (i.e. fiscal) conservatives and social conservatives.
Quite clearly the social conservative side of the ideology actually
can restrict freedom as much as the liberal in their desire to impose
a standard of morality no society as a whole. Good example is liberals
support gun control (loss of 2nd Amendment freedom) while social
conservatives support censorship, prayer in school, campaign finance
reform, and a high degree of homphobia--arguably losses of 1st
Amendment freedoms.

The reality of the situation is that both sides run to the extremes
for the primary season and then back to the moderate middle for
general elections. Both sides wind up compromising to build policies
that can pass the legislative process. Clinton was arguably a fairly
moderate Democrat and Bush 43 has espoused some clearly liberal
positions such as steel and plywood tariffs or federally funded
prescription drug programs.

Illuminated yet?


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 12:56:18 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
wrote:

A vote for Socialism (in even it's weaker forms) is a vote for
Totalitarianism.

The trend world-wide is for what is referred to as "mixed
economies"--some aspects of communism in that there is central
planning and governmental interference with the natural flow of supply
and demand; and some aspects of free market in which trade of goods
and services for profit by individuals is tolerated. Good example
would be the current state of China.

Interesting to note that the most noteworthy examples of
totalitarianism include Stalin, Mao and Hitler--two from the political
left extreme and one from the political right.

Socialism must be supported by the forced confiscation of the labor of the
citizenry. This is done by the power of the state. The power of the state
is embodied in Totalitarianism.

Kudos to Ayn Rand.

You can vote for "a little bit of Socialism" and many believe that the
"little bit of Totalitarianism" is acceptable, as long as hte resulting
Socilaism is "for the greater good."

Certainly in the USA we love our little bits of socialism. Don't try
to take away our Social Security or Medicare. And be sure that we
include tax cuts for the "working poor" who pay no income tax to begin
with.

These folks generally believe that there is a "sweet spot" in the tradeoff
between liberty and security.

Actually there is. Rousseau's Social Contract says that if we are to
live with the benefits of society we will have to restrict our freedom
of action. The catch is where upon the spectrum you want to place the
line.

So go ahead and answer your own question: is a vote for Kerry (or Bush, for
that matter) a vote for Totalitarianism?

So voting is totalitarian? Probably not in the case of the upcoming
election. But, there are some clear choices and the appeal to class
warfare on the one side is distinctly off-putting for me. I'm a firm
believer that I can best choose how to spend my money.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 18:40:23 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
wrote:

Ed:

And how, precisely, do "liberal solutions" get implemented?

At gunpoint.

Hardly. We elect representatives who propose alternatives, then amend
and compromise and finally create a marginally effective bureaucracy
that does nothing for most of us, but garners votes from the unwashed
masses for reelection.

Seriously, I don't think Social Security, Medicare or public education
were implemented at gunpoint. They met the demands of "we the
people"--even when misguided.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

In article , Chad Irby
wrote:

In article ,
Robey Price wrote:

Exactly how is voting for ANY liberal a vote against freedom?

"Liberals" think we should leave nasty dictators in place forever and
let them kill and abuse millions, while "conservatives" think we should
kick out folks like Hussein and free those folks.

Tell us again about that "freedom" thing.

Tell us again about coherent, non-binary, non-demonizing definitions of
"conservative" or of "liberal". Responses of I'm an XXX and everyone who
disagrees with me is a YYY are not responsive.

For extra credit, reconcile your above statement with the ideas of
Jeremy Bentham.

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
confessed the following:

I've got to find myself on the same side of the fence (for this one
instance) as Juvat.

Can I get an "amen" brothas and sistas?

Illuminated yet?

Nice to see my political science degree wasn't a waste. But you gave
away the answer to Steven. I won't be holding my breath for his
"illuminating" epistle...dogma perhaps.

Robey

Subject: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 6/5/04 3:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time

Seriously, I don't think Social Security, Medicare or public education
were implemented at gunpoint. They met the demands of "we the
people"--even when misguided.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)

Social Security, Medicare and public education misguided? So much for
compassionate conservatism.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...

"Yeah, the mainstream media have really kept a lid on this one. We
wouldn't know anything about Bush going AWOL if it hadn't been for
that obscure underground newspaper the Boston Globe, which broke
the story nationally in May 2000. But you're right that coverage has
been pretty thin. A few months after the 2000 election, former Bill
Clinton
adviser Paul Begala said he'd done a Nexis search and found 13,641
stories about Clinton's alleged draft dodging versus 49 about George
W. Bush's military record.


Alleged? Something is alleged when it is represented as existing or as
being as described but not so proved. There's nothing alleged about
Clinton's draft-dodging.



Why the disparity?


Probably because there had been eight more years to file stories on Clinton
at that time.



We'll get to that.

First the basics: Yes, it's true, Bush didn't report to his guard unit for
an extended period--17 months, by one account. It wasn't considered
that serious an offense at the time, and if circumstances were different
now I'd be inclined to write it off as youthful irresponsibility. However,
given the none-too-subtle suggestion by the Bush administration that
opponents of our Iraqi excursion lack martial valor, I have to say: You
guys should talk.

Here's the story as generally agreed upon: In January 1968, with the
Vietnam war in full swing, Bush was due to graduate from Yale.
Knowing he'd soon be eligible for the draft, he took an air force
officers'
test hoping to secure a billet with the Texas Air National Guard, which
would allow him to do his military service at home. Bush didn't do
particularly well on the test--on the pilot aptitude section, he scored in
the 25th percentile, the lowest possible passing grade. But Bush's
father, George H.W., was then a U.S. congressman from Houston, and
strings were pulled. The younger Bush vaulted to the head of a long
waiting list--a year and a half long, by some estimates--and in May
of '68 he was inducted into the guard.

By all accounts Bush was an excellent pilot, but apparently his enthusiasm
cooled. In 1972, four years into his six-year guard commitment, he was
asked to work for the campaign of Bush family friend Winton Blount, who
was running for the U.S. Senate in Alabama. In May Bush requested a
transfer to an Alabama Air National Guard unit with no planes and
minimal duties. Bush's immediate superiors approved the transfer, but
higher-ups said no. The matter was delayed for months. In August
Bush missed his annual flight physical and was grounded.
(Some have speculated that he was worried about failing a drug test--the
Pentagon had instituted random screening in April.) In September he was
ordered to report to a different unit of the Alabama guard, the 187th
Tactical Reconnaissance Group in Montgomery. Bush says he did so, but
his nominal superiors say they never saw the guy, there's no documentation
he ever showed up, and not one of the six or seven hundred soldiers then
in the unit has stepped forward to corroborate Bush's story.

After the November election Bush returned to Texas, but apparently
didn't notify his old Texas guard unit for quite a while, if ever. The
Boston Globe initially reported that he started putting in some serious
duty time in May, June, and July of 1973 to make up for what he'd
missed. But according to a piece in the New Republic, there's no
evidence Bush did even that. Whatever the case, even though his
superiors knew he'd blown off his duties, they never disciplined him.
(No one's ever been shot at dawn for missing a weekend guard
drill, but policy at the time was to put shirkers on active duty.) Indeed,
when Bush decided to go to business school at Harvard in the fall of
1973, he requested and got an honorable discharge--eight months
before his service was scheduled to end.

Bush's enemies say all this proves he was a cowardly deserter. Nonsense.
He was a pampered rich kid who took advantage. Why wasn't he called
on it in a serious way during the 2000 election? Probably because
Democrats figured they'd get Clinton's draft-dodging thing thrown back
at them. Not that it matters. If history judges Bush harshly--and it
probably
will--it won't be for screwing up as a young smart aleck, but for getting
us
into this damn fool war.

--CECIL ADAMS


So where's the proof?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:


"WalterM140" wrote in message
...

Bush clearly did not complete his military service.


Bush clearly completed his military service.



There is no dispute on that.


Actually, many ignorant people dispute it.

Bye guys...I'll check back in a month...hopefully this political
stuff will be over by then...I'm outta here...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)