From: David Ruether on

"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)> wrote in message
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 10:59:17 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether(a)> wrote:
>>"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)> wrote in message
>>> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 01:12:37 -0400, "stephe_k(a)"
>>> <stephe_k(a)> wrote:

>>>>I have zero interest in owning a hand gun, personally I don't like them
>>>>but at the same time I think you have every right to own one if YOU
>>>>want. What you don't seem to grasp is you feel it's OK to limit the
>>>>freedoms of other people if you don't feel the same way they do but at
>>>>the same time don't want anyone telling you what you can and can't do.

>>> Doesn't that define Republicanism?

>>Almost - but it leaves out the word "hypocrite", an important part
>>of the definition (but I guess "stephe k" gave a good illustration

> I don't think "Republican" or "Republicanism" needs the addition of
> either "hypocrite" or "hypocrisy". They are implicit. ;-)

Oh, that is SUCH a good point! 8^)

From: David Ruether on

"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)> wrote in message
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 11:20:30 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether(a)> wrote:

>>In spirit, I am a libertarian, but in practice (given
>>human nature), I am not since I understand its limitations. To simplify,
>>no government = chaos; libertarianism = a return to the conditions
>>present with robber barons and massively corrupt politicians (with few
>>safeguards against polluted water, air, and soil, and unsafe cars, food,
>>and working conditions, and for the rights and wellbeing of the less
>>able) - in other words, I regard libertarianism as unrealistic in practice,
>>as much so as was communism with its over-controlling of every
>>aspect of citizen activity. I'm not so afraid of socialism as some are,
>>since it has been proven to work well in some countries.

> Which countries, and what do you mean by "socialism"?

So, a-skeerd of "socialism, huh? Well, Norweegia and
Sveedin come quickly to mind...;-)

From: David Ruether on

"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message

> In this country is seems to breed generations of welfare puppies who just live off the government programs that were intended for
> those who are really disabled by birth or circumstance. Less than 2% of the people drawing welfare checks in this country have
> some disability, either mental or physical. I would like to get them off of the public dole and give the other 2% 50 times as much
> money as they are getting now. Is that such a bad thing?

Hmmm, what would you do with the (presumably mostly
unable to make a living at this point) 98%? I guess we could
leave them in the streets to beg, as many of them already do...

From: David Ruether on

"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
> "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)> wrote in message news:0tvas5p1kubk1omjorb7tiginnhi3p0bjk(a)
>> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:38:59 -0400, "David Ruether"
>> <d_ruether(a)> wrote:

>>>A case in point is the rise
>>>of Sarah Palin... We are in a time when a near idiot can rise to
>>>within reach of the presidency

>> Please, in the interests of accuracy, less of the "near"?

> No, we are in a time when a near idiot has risen to the presidency. He is currently engaged in giving the whole ball park away to
> the visiting team, and putting our grandchildren (and theirs) into terrible debt. We have only one more chance to get rid of him,
> and that chance may be too late.

I guess I disagree with you on several counts. I think
no one else would call Obama an idiot. Hey, he actually
THINKS (amazing, I know ;-), and not just for the short
term (and about what will get him elected again), but for
the long term, and what is best for the country and its
people. (BTW, have you seen the graph of the rate of
change of unemployment for the last Bush year and the
first Obama year? It looks like a very deep "V", with
when Obama took office in the middle...;-) People with
your point of view may not realize that even Republicans
and conservative economists saw that we were at the brink
of a deep depression with REALLY serious unemployment,
loss of housing, etc. Bad as this recession has been, things
are now moving upward. Without throwing "tons" of money
at the problem, almost all serious economists agree that we
were at the edge of a VERY serious economic collapse.
Spending to get us out of this was necessary (and that
would have been less painful had the Republicans been
more financially responsible, having been left a surplus by
Clinton). While it appears the debt is huge (it is, but the
interest proportion of it compared with GDP is surprisingly
small...), by adjusting taxing, spending more efficiently, and
encouraging prosperity, we may work our way out of this
sooner than many people think (and I would rather have a
"big picture" president to lead us through this than one who
appears unable to take the long view on anything [even her
tenure as governor of Alaska...]).

From: Neil Harrington on

"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)> wrote in message
> news:hq4mmo$rrt$1(a)
>> "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)> wrote in message
>> news:0tvas5p1kubk1omjorb7tiginnhi3p0bjk(a)
>>> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:38:59 -0400, "David Ruether"
>>> <d_ruether(a)> wrote:
>>>>A case in point is the rise
>>>>of Sarah Palin... We are in a time when a near idiot can rise to
>>>>within reach of the presidency
>>> Please, in the interests of accuracy, less of the "near"?
>> 8^), 8^), 8^)!
>> --DR
> Do I think Sara Palin is smarter than Barak Obama? - No, of course not.
> But she has a philosophy that believes in individual responsibility, and
> Obama believes in expansion of the welfare state. When I couple this with
> the generally weak powers of the presidency anyway, my choice is simple.
> I'll take her in a New York minute.....

Absolutely, given that choice.

Obama has given us nothing but misrepresentations, outright lies, broken
promises, huge increases in the national debt with more of the same to come,
more bald-faced lies, more abandoned pledges, enormous tax increases down
the road, increased unemployment despite hundreds of billions spent on
"stimulus" that was really just loads of pork, and no accomplishments
whatever except for using every Chicago thug tactic available to him to
shove a monstrous health care "reform" that most Americans clearly want no
part of, down their throats.