To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 21680
21679  |  21681
Subject: 
Re: With Saddam's sons dead, now we just need to bag dad (Baghdad get it?)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 25 Jul 2003 01:01:14 GMT
Viewed: 
272 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
   Let me say this, Dave! I won’t defend big business. I am not a fan of “big business”, nor am I a fan of big government. “Big” in these areas is bad IMO, inevitabley leading to corruption and abuse of power. I don’t know any specifics about Cheney, but on the surface I would be skeptical, given his previous status.

Skeptical which way?

   Nor am I a fan of the super-wealthy in general. I don’t know how one can morally be super wealthy and not be a philanthropist. But even if I find super-wealthy selfish people morally reprehensible, I still don’t favor taking their wealth by force by the government...

And neither do I. At the same time I don’t believe in letting them off the hook and overtaxing the vastly less wealthy members of our society instead. The reality is that we have a corporate welfare scheme of untold magnitude nipping at everyone’s heels -- bought from and delivered by the republican party.

Where are your priorities, John? Isn’t that morally reprehensible?

Shouldn’t it have been illegal for Halliburton et al. to do business with a known enemy of the U.S.?

What I see is two standards of law -- that which is good for the plebeians and that which is good for the elite super-wealthy.

This is not america.

   As for Clinton, I found his behavior morally reprehensible as well. What I most objected to in his sex scandal was the denegration of the Executive Office while he occupied it. His personal life is his business, but when it spilled out into the public it was just embarrassing.

How exactly did this become part of public rhetoric? Was it Clinton himself talking about cigars and ***-stained dresses? Again, this was your party doing the dirty deed -- talking and rumour-mongering about it!

Again, where are your priorities? What are you defending?

   So, if you want to say: Cheney = ethically questionable businessman = Clinton = morally questionable politician. Fine.

Wow, what an astonishing admission. The problem is that Oval Office Oral doesn’t hit anyone in the pocketbook and absent video footage most of us quickly lose interest. Paying for Halliburton et al’s access to Iraqi oil is costing everyone a lot already -- and will cost everyone a lot more down the road. Cheap gasoline is going to be a poor substitute for that ballooning national debt. “Here my children, on my death bed I bequeath you a debt that will outlast your own lifetimes...”

Again, where are your priorities? What are you defending?

The Republican party is like an Anti-Robin Hood -- stealing from the poor to give to the already super-wealthy.

Seriously, John -- how you work this stuff out in your own head remains a mystery to me. Do you just automatically favor the party talking the best line of BS or something? Would you buy a used car from Shrub?

-- Hop-Frog



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: With Saddam's sons dead, now we just need to bag dad (Baghdad get it?)
 
(...) Let me say this, Dave! I won't defend big business. I am not a fan of "big business", nor am I a fan of big government. "Big" in these areas is bad IMO, inevitabley leading to corruption and abuse of power. I don't know any specifics about (...) (21 years ago, 24-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

26 Messages in This Thread:









Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR