What Would You Have Done?if The War Did'nt Happen?

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@27 June 2003 - 06:22

Your dismissal of Bush the younger as a capable leader begs the question:

If not him, who?

Your anti-conservative vehemence also invites comparisons between Bush and the last liberal president and current icon, Bill Clinton.

Forgive the pun, but Mr. Clinton's resume is not without a few "stains"-to name a very few:

How about Nader?

Your anti-conservative vehemence also invites comparisons between Bush and the last liberal president and current icon, Bill Clinton.

Sorry j2, but this seems like a weak comparison to me.
Why not compare Bush to Lincoln, Roosevelt or Washington?
He certainly suffers when judged by higher standards than just Bill Clinton.

As I know you possess more than a passing grasp of American history, it strikes me as a limp defense to limit your comparison to only the most recent of Presidents.

[Rat Faced]

In addition, although not overly liked by yourselves, Clinton was hugely respected abroad......unlike GW.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker+27 June 2003 - 08:05--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 27 June 2003 - 08:05)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@27 June 2003 - 06:22

Your dismissal of Bush the younger as a capable leader begs the question:

If not him, who?

Your anti-conservative vehemence also invites comparisons between Bush and the last liberal president and current icon, Bill Clinton.

Forgive the pun, but Mr. Clinton&#39;s resume is not without a few "stains"-to name a very few:

How about Nader?

Your anti-conservative vehemence also invites comparisons between Bush and the last liberal president and current icon, Bill Clinton.

Sorry j2, but this seems like a weak comparison to me.
Why not compare Bush to Lincoln, Roosevelt or Washington?
He certainly suffers when judged by higher standards than just Bill Clinton.

As I know you possess more than a passing grasp of American history, it strikes me as a limp defense to limit your comparison to only the most recent of Presidents.[/b][/quote]
An object lesson-

Just trying to point out the irrelevance of the expression of anti-Bush/conservative sentiment for it&#39;s own sake; in this instance it struck me as gratuitous in light of the very clear indication of angellynn&#39;s wish for someone else to be occupying the White House so as to have avoided military involvement in Iraq.

I felt a contemporary comparison thus appropriate.

Although I hear he is mulling another run, I&#39;m afraid Ralph Nader is far enough off my radar-screen I hadn&#39;t given him any thought; if memory serves, outside of an appearance on "Saturday Night Live" a while back, he is/would be a scandal-free candidate.

He surely seems to have steered clear of any unfortunate female entanglements (this is not to cast aspersions or speculate in any way on Mr. Nader&#39;s orientation).

What do you think he would have done?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@27 June 2003 - 09:26
In addition, although not overly liked by yourselves, Clinton was hugely respected abroad......unlike GW.

How so, exactly?

I have heard this, but always thought it a peculiarity personified by the French, in admiration for what they took to be his success rate with females.

Actually, wasn&#39;t Tony Blair more popular in the U.K. when Clinton was president?

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@27 June 2003 - 08:41


Although I hear he is mulling another run, I&#39;m afraid Ralph Nader is far enough off my radar-screen I hadn&#39;t given him any thought; if memory serves, outside of an appearance on "Saturday Night Live" a while back, he is/would be a scandal-free candidate.

He surely seems to have steered clear of any unfortunate female entanglements (this is not to cast aspersions or speculate in any way on Mr. Nader&#39;s orientation).

What do you think he would have done?

Speculation of that sort is, of course, useless. However...
After decades of ferreting out governmental duplicity and deception, I suspect that Mr. Nader&#39;s Presidency would be characterized by a greater sense of transparency and decency.

Should an invasion of Iraq have come to pass, I doubt that Nader&#39;s Vice-President&#39;s old company would have been awarded a mega-million dollar contract (in secret, with no competitive bidding) to rebuild the infrastructure. Unlike the Cheney/Halliburton deal.

White House position papers would probably not be issued where conclusions are justified by the simple expedience of gutting all dissenting views ( The Bush Admin. recent papers on global warming and the condition of Yellowstone Park come to mind).

Not being a terribly charismatic man, I think Nader might have spent more energy trying to reach agreement with the rest of the world rather than glorying in the "lone cowboy", John Wayne persona that Bush is so fond of.

Nader would never have used veiled references to 9/11 to justify completely unrelated actions.



And Nader can correctly pronounce "nuclear".

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@27 June 2003 - 06:22


While it is convenient-and more than a bit disingenuous-to paint Bush as the oil-hungry crony and pawn of back-door interests, the same argument could be made (however speciously) about anybody, including Clinton, or Al Gore, for that matter.

Point being, unless proven by some irrefutable means, accusations of industrial collusion are best left out of the debate.

I&#39;m afraid that, once again, I must disagree, j2.

When he became President, Bush tacitly agreed to adhere to a higher standard of conduct than the average businessman.
The Cheney/Halliburton connection reeks of special interest intervention and thus reflects poorly on Bush.
Even lawyers, in theory, try to avoid the " appearance of impropriety".
Bush seems oblivious to this behavioral guideline.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker+28 June 2003 - 08:47--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 28 June 2003 - 08:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@27 June 2003 - 06:22


While it is convenient-and more than a bit disingenuous-to paint Bush as the oil-hungry crony and pawn of back-door interests, the same argument could be made (however speciously) about anybody, including Clinton, or Al Gore, for that matter.

Point being, unless proven by some irrefutable means, accusations of industrial collusion are best left out of the debate.

I&#39;m afraid that, once again, I must disagree, j2.

When he became President, Bush tacitly agreed to adhere to a higher standard of conduct than the average businessman.
The Cheney/Halliburton connection reeks of special interest intervention and thus reflects poorly on Bush.
Even lawyers, in theory, try to avoid the " appearance of impropriety".
Bush seems oblivious to this behavioral guideline.[/b][/quote]
In lieu of a more comprehensive response, I must point out for now that politics is a game currently "owned" by politicians, whose ranks include, almost exclusively, businessmen and, even more regretfully, lawyers.

While this doesn&#39;t fit my ideal scenario (I would prefer a massive overhaul of the whole system, starting with a return to a part-time legislature), I&#39;m cognizant that it is what it is, and we&#39;re not likely to change it anytime soon.

I&#39;ll also point out two other things:

The "appearance of impropriety" was a phrase coined during the Dems pursuit of Ed Meese.

Other phrases cropped up during the last administration, such as "No controlling legal authority".

I call them "buzz-phrases"; they are meant to get one&#39;s attention and affix it to what rhetorically follows.

They are intended to mislead and deflect-they have the opposite effect with me.

I am guessing that you were not entirely pleased with Clinton, either; as one who practiced cronyism to the extent those who weren&#39;t in bed with him were far in the minority, I&#39;m sure that if cars ran on chicken, Clinton would have unapologetically handed the entire industry to his friend Tyson, who made the rivers run with feathers in Arkansas.

Again, as regards Ralph Nader, I would submit to being tested as to his viewpoints on any subject; I suspect I would not agree with him in many areas, but I would read his comprehensive platform (if one is extant) and and give it the thought it warrants.

I&#39;m in total agreement as to your assessment of his honesty and the potential transparency of a Nader administration, but there are other areas of concern, which I can&#39;t enumerate adequately absent a better "picture" of him.

I must say, if he desires to build credibility for another campaign, I would recommend not sitting down with Phil Donahue this time around.

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@28 June 2003 - 14:15


The "appearance of impropriety" was a phrase coined during the Dems pursuit of Ed Meese.

Not so, buddy.
This phrase has long been a staple of canons of legal ethics and is, in fact, a part of several state constitutions- Rhode Island, for instance.

As to Nader&#39;s platform, perhaps this will provide a start.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker+28 June 2003 - 19:16--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 28 June 2003 - 19:16)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@28 June 2003 - 14:15


The "appearance of impropriety" was a phrase coined during the Dems pursuit of Ed Meese.

Not so, buddy.
This phrase has long been a staple of canons of legal ethics and is, in fact, a part of several state constitutions- Rhode Island, for instance.

As to Nader&#39;s platform, perhaps this will provide a start.[/b][/quote]
Please excuse my laziness; it would have been more correct in both instances to note the phrases in question were embedded in the public consciousness by these people and events.

I went to the Nader website and sort of cherry-picked the following to comment on:

Tuesday, July 27, 1999

PERSPECTIVES ON FEDERAL SPENDING

Build On, Repair What We Have

The debate over how to allocate funds must include how best to improve
our great shared assets.

By RALPH NADER

New projections of a federal budget surplus have left Washington abuzz with proposals on how the government should allocate hundreds of billions of dollars. Strikingly absent from the debate are recommendations to revitalize our commonwealth by investing in a public works program.

At no time in recent history has a program to construct, rebuild or repair crumbling bridges, schools, drinking water facilities, sewer lines, docks, parks, mass transit systems, libraries, clinics, courthouses and other public amenities and infrastructure been so urgent or achievable. Too many of our roads and bridges are decrepit; school roofs across the nation are leaking or falling in; the public water system does not deliver safe drinking water for millions; the reach of public transportation systems is dwindling; the great national park system is seriously decaying--and this is only the beginning of the list. It is past time to commence a major public works initiative to repair this great storehouse of shared wealth.
Federal, state and local governments already spend substantial funds on various public works projects, most notably highway construction. And a modest debate is now percolating on federal support for school building construction. But current expenditures are hugely inadequate to meet many of our most pressing public works needs.
Consider the following:
* One in three schools across the United States is "in need of extensive repair or replacement," according to a 1995 General Accounting Office report. Fixing the schools, the GAO estimates, will cost &#036;113 billion over three years.
* The Centers for Disease Control estimates 1 million people become sick every year from bad water, with about 900 deaths occurring. The EPA estimates nearly &#036;140 billion will be needed over the next 20 years for water system
investments to install, upgrade or replace failing drinking water infrastructure.
* Maintaining the public transit system at current levels, the Department of Transportation estimates, will cost &#036;9.7 billion a year. Improving the infrastructure to a condition of "good" would require upping annual expenditures to &#036;14.2 billion a year. However, maintaining or slightly upgrading the public transit is not nearly enough. Bold new investments
are needed to create a modern mass transit system conducive to livable cities, one which will bring community residents closer together, combat the momentum toward sprawl, guarantee lower-income groups the ability to travel efficiently in metropolitan areas, abate air pollution and improve transportation safety.
* As a society we have failed to respect the foresight of Theodore Roosevelt, John Muir and other conservationist founders of the national park system, neglecting to invest sufficient resources to maintain, let alone properly expand, the parks. A National Park Service-estimated funding gap of nearly &#036;9 billion has left animal populations at risk, park amenities in substandard or unusable conditions and many national historical artifacts in danger of being lost to posterity.
Investments in public works--those mentioned here, plus others,such as construction of public health clinics, libraries, sewers and courthouses; bridge and road repair, and cleanup efforts of military and nuclear waste sites--make our communities stronger and more closely knit. While many of these community benefits do not accrue in citizens&#39; personal bank accounts, they do register in direct and discernible improvements in every person&#39;s life. Investing in and protecting our great public assets makes us richer as a nation and a people. Public investments also strengthen the economy
through a better-educated and healthier work force and through efficient transportation of goods and people.
Historically, investments in public works have been a key spur to private wealth creation. A national public works plan, Franklin Roosevelt said in his 1934 State of the Union speech, "will, in a generation or two, return many times the money spent on it . . . More important, it will conserve our natural resources, prevent waste and enable millions of our people to take better advantage of the opportunities which God has given our country."
This--an era of burgeoning private wealth and large projected public surplus--is the time to reinvigorate our public investments.


Now, this whole treatise is predicated on the premise the Federal Government is best equipped to determine what to do with our tax money.

I think Mr. Nader forgets that, as taxes go, the cart has been before the horse far too long.

The American taxpayer has not been given that to which he has the undeniable right-that before the Federal Government demands more taxes, it ought to be required TO PROVE it is adequately husbanding it&#39;s current revenue intake.

Mr. Nader instead wants to create a new bureaucracy to administer these "excess funds" for public works.

Let us not forget-before the Feds can give money to the states for public works, it first must take the money from the states, in the form of taxes, in order to return the money to them for this purpose.

The money in question (thus bureaucratically "washed") shrinks like cheap cloth before it gets to it&#39;s end; the Federal Government is sated, and perpetuated.

As a preferrable alternative, why not allow the states to assume control over their own needs, and raise their own taxes for public works projects?

The other day, I read that Georgia, as an example, is a leading light among states for it&#39;s budgetary effectiveness and efficiency.

California, by comparison, exemplifies waste and poor planning.

Is it fair or moral that the citizens of Georgia pay taxes so the Feds can send the cash to California for a "public works" project which will have the effect of allowing the politicians and bureaucracy there to cover their own mismanagement and inefficiencies?

Surely you can see how the current system perpetuates itself through this defective web of systemic and endemic indifference?

No, Bush has this one right; get the Feds out of the business of confiscatory taxation-put the burden of responsible spending back on the states where it belongs-where WE can keep an eye on the spenders.

That Mr. Nader believes the Federal bureaucracy is best equipped to spend excess revenue indicates (to me-I&#39;m sure you disagree) an elemental misunderstanding of what constitutes genuine efficiency and fairness, and the concurrent buy-in to big government likewise indicates that, while he would have us believe a "Vote For Ralph" is a radical departure from &#39;politics as usual&#39;, it&#39;s really the same old bill of goods.

[clocker]

After the spectacularly successful Republican efforts at gerrymandering state voting districts ( with substantial White House support), I have little reason to trust my state government either.
I would be all for Federal oversight of public works. The Federal government managed to create the Interstate highway system after all.
To see a grahic example of how states have mishandled their duties just witness the change in pavement conditions as you go from Nebraska to Colorado on I-76.