X-Message-Number: 23020
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 21:37:32 -0600
Subject: Re: Message #23000
From: Brian A Stewart <>

>James, the old liberals did stand for personal freedom and liberty...but
they have all been >dead for almost 200 years. They 
>were our founding fathers! 

The Founding Fathers apparently spanned quite a political spectrum..., I
have been meaning to make some time to read about them some more.  

>It is irrelevant where the word liberty originated, a slave was free to
speak the word.

Interestingly, I recently learned that freshly imported slaves were
deliberately separated into groups where no two members spoke the same
language, and then talk a variation of English which did not include the
word "freedom", or other words and phrases which were likely to cause
trouble, so, technically, you are incorrect, at least as far as slaves
newly arrived from Africa.

>No democrat 
>currently running is better than Bush. 

That is a highly subjective statement.  From my perspective, all of the
Democratic candidates for President are better than Bush, unless your
goal is to bankrupt the nation and get nearly the entire world angry with
the U.S.A....

For that matter, there are probably any number of third party candidates
I would prefer to Bush.  

>They would all repeal Bush's tax cuts, increase taxes and add to the
regulatory burden 
>already crushing the private sector.

The above sentence really should be separated into at least two
sentences.  As for the first half of the sentence, at least some of the
candidates are only talking about repealing the tax cuts for the very
wealthiest members of the economy, while leaving any tax cuts for the
less extremely wealthy intact.  The less wealthy are more likely to spend
the money, and to spend it inside the United States, rather than overseas
where the money would benefit other economies than that of the U.S.A.

If we continue an aggressive military program overseas, tax increases are
inevitable, unless your plan is to send the soldiers into hostile
territory unarmed and in their underwear, or some such nonsense.

I have as yet to see convincing evidence that regulations are crushing
the private sector-- the United State's private sector still seems to be
competitive with the private sectors of other nations which have stricter
regulations.  I will grant that regulations can be improved in a number
of cases, but I really don't think that industry in general is being
crushed by regulations.  

>In addition they would turn the war on those Islamic terrorist nuttos
over to the U.N., yes, 
>the same U.N. that just tucked tail and ran away because one or more of
those nuttos bombed >their location

Actually, the U.N.'s program of containment, in the case of Iraq, was
working quite well.  That program is why no weapons of mass destruction
have been found, nor even an infrastructure which could generate them. 
The problem with invasion, and the reason why Bush Senior cautioned Bush
W. against invading, is that the group most likely to take over in Iraq,
due to their large numbers, are the Shiite, who are more fundamentalist
than Hussien's people were.  The Shiite have more in common with the
Taliban, the ones who gave shelter to Bin Laden when he was forced to
leave Saudi Arabia.  Incidentally, Saudi Arabia is where a lot of Bin
Laden's money came from, and a nation which would have been a more
logical choice for invasion, save for the fact that they have bailed out
George W's businesses on a number of occasions.  (For more on this, see
the book "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" by Greg Palast.)  

The United States can not afford to occupy as much of that region for as
long as would be necessary without a major increase in taxation.  We
would need a considerable permanent presence in the region for however
many generations it would be necessary for a program of reeducation to
switch the region from its current world view.  I suppose a program of
genocide would be quicker, but I for one could not endorse that!

>Tax cuts are 
>good. All tax cuts are good. There is no such thing as a bad tax cut.
There is only five (5) >things one can do with money: 
>Destroy it, hoard it, spend it, save it or invest it. If it is burned or
hoarded, that is bad for the >economy.

That is an overly simplified view.  The government can and does invest
money, save money, destroy money (in the case of worn out bills and
coins), spend and, occasionally, hoard money, yet the government does not
seem to be present in your model.  Unless you are considering the
government as an individual, which would then undermine your point.

> If it is spent, saved 
>or invested, that is good for the economy!

Which the government actually does, often more readily in areas of basic
research, where the benefits are not likely to show up in the next few
quarters, than private industry.  

> A tax cut means someone or some group has more money than prior to the
>cut. I know of no one who burns money. I have a little cash squirreled
away and I guess Bill >Gates has somewhat more cash 
>squirreled away. I also save and invest and I am sure Bill Gates saves
and invest somewhat >more than me. That is good. 
>The more money Bill and I have, the more we will save and invest. That
is good for everyone >including James Swayze. The 
>F.D.A. is the "big brother" you are talking about that is holding up and
even banning drugs. The >F.D.A. should be abolished 

Whereas I certainly agree that the F.D.A. has a lot of problems, I think
that it is more in need of a major reworking than abolishment.  Part of
its problem seems to be that it is currently serving the needs of the
medical establishment and industry as opposed to the needs of the
citizens.  I think that it would be better for all if its function were
more to ensure that contents of food and drugs matched the claims on the
product's labels and if it worked to confirm that products did what they
claimed.  As a centralized location and organization it could probably
perform these testing functions more cheaply and efficiently than private

>I am not responsible! 

Actually, personal responsibility is one of my biggest issues with George
W. Bush.  He seems to feel he is entitled to all of the power of the
Presidency but should not need to take any responsibility for the
consequences of his actions.  I am more than half convinced he doesn't
see anyone other than himself as a real person.

>Those of you who support democrats and republicans are responsible. Vote

You certainly do have the right to vote however you choose.  I am
probably going to vote for whoever the Democrats finally choose to run. 
The sooner Bush gets out of the White House, the better!

I realize that your message was not directed at me, but you touched on a
number of issues I felt I should speak up on.


Brian A. Stewart-- Madison, Wisconsin, U.S.A.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we
are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and
servile, but morally treasonable to the American public."
                            - Theodore Roosevelt

The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=23020