Chalk one up for our side, y'all!

Remember the posting I made the other day, titled HOW TO DEBATE A LIBERAL: A GUIDE FOR TODAY'S REPUBLICANS? I also posted it to some Usenet groups, which it garnered quite a response! Check out this exchange between a proud Republican and some guy in Finland....

In rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1960s jrnelsonsr@xxx.xx.com wrote:

>> There was no "surplus". As long as there's a debt there is no surplus.


At least according to Merriam-Webster OnLine, "surplus" means "an
excess of receipts over disbursements" and not, as you seem to think,
"an excess of receipts over debts". Debts should be compared to
assets, receipts to disbursements.


>> Without being able to determine how the 40% of no shows divides
>> between those who would have voted for Bush vs. those who voted for
>> Kerry, one can't limit the support for the President to that 30%.


Oh yes, one can. What one cannot do is to use the no-shows to boost the
support of candidates other than the President from that received at the
polls. Some people have done this, but not during this discussion.


>> There was enough anti-American setiment in the world before President
>> Bush took office that the presidency didn't matter.


"The United States' reputation around the world is hurting, a series
of co-ordinated polls published Friday from 10 countries, including
Canada, indicated. ... On average, 57 per cent of those questioned
said their opinions of the United States had worsened over the last
two to three years, compared with 20 per cent who said their view
had improved. ... Seventy-four per cent of Japanese, 70 per cent of
French, 64 per cent of Canadians and 60 per cent of Spaniards said
they had a worse opinion of the United States now than two to three
years ago. ... However, many of those polled separated their feelings
about the U.S. government from their views of the American people.
Sixty-eight per cent said they had a favourable opinion of Americans."
(AP wire story, 14 October 2004)


>> President Bush reacted to this hate the way the U.S. President
>> should, putting American interests first before the world at large.


But the whole point is that to put American interests before the
world at large in a haughty and arrogant way is to imperil those
very same American interests. (That this even needs explaining at
this stage shows how imperiled they already are.)


>> He doesn't represent the world, he represents us.


A far cry from the "decent respect for the opinions of mankind"
named in the Declaration of Independence as the very reason the
Declaration was made.


>> I don't think many people who raise this point would favor doing
>> away with the US government altogether


Is the only alternative to "doing away with the U.S. government
altogether" the existence of the U.S. government exactly as it
happens to exist at each point in time?


>> The wealthiest 10% of Americans pay 90% of our taxes.


In 1999, the most recent date for which I found data, the wealthiest
10 per cent paid only 49 per cent of Federal taxes. Even the
wealthiest 40 per cent still paid only 84 per cent of Federal taxes.

Source: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1545&from=4&sequence=0
(Table 2).


>> For someone who had no WMD's, Saddam Hussein was acting awfully
>> guilty. This made intellegence claims that Iraq DID have the weapons
>> more credible than it should have been, but you don't want to be held
>> accountable for decisions that would have been different with the
>> benefit of 20/20 foresight. Such piety will bite you in the ass when
>> the situation is reversed.


On the contrary, if you decide to attack a country on flimsy or
non-existent grounds, you throw away the moral high ground you
would sorely need the next time a country decides to attack you
on flimsy or non-existent grounds.


>> Even the August 6 memo provided little if any specific information
>> about the nature of the 9-11 attack.


It said: "We have not been able to corroborate some of the more
sensational threat reporting, such as that ... saying that Bin Laden
wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of 'Blind Sheikh'
Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists. Nevertheless, FBI
information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity
in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings ...,
including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."


>> On the basis of the info that did exist, the only means we would have
>> had of stopping the attack would have been a pre-emptive strike on
>> a soveriegn state that hadn't threatened us directly (Afganistan).


I do wonder just how a military strike on a state on the other side
of the world would have prevented the hijacking of airliners in the
U.S. by people who were already in the U.S. at the time.

Back to topic: how does everyone like the 1964 "Bush Bash"
by the Mar-Keys?

T P Uschanov tuschano@xx.xxxxxxxx.fi +358 (0)40 584 2720 Visit my home page! http://www.helsinki.fi/~tuschano/


To see the full thread, go here:

http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&threadm=cmqrsk%24t2l%241%40oravannahka.helsinki.fi&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Drec.music.rock-pop-r%252Bb.1960s%26hl%3Den

Where's BOOSH going now?

Rule #1 Once you can't climb out of the hole you've dug, quit digging. Some people need to take that logical walk in baby steps.