In a message dated 2/16/2004 5:19:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Subj: Re: Politics and Motivations > Date: 2/16/2004 5:19:08 PM Eastern Standard Time > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent from the Internet > > > > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Bob, we keep running into this. Just because you > believe something _doesn't mean that it's impossible > to believe something else honestly_. I don't think > Ashcroft has done any significant abrogation of the > basic rights of citizens, and he has _never_ claimed > that everyone who disagrees with him is un-american. > That's nothing more than Democratic Party propaganda > created as a smokescreen to disguise the total > ideological bankruptcy of Democratic Party foreign > policy. It's a lie, pure and simple, that you've > swallowed whole, Bob. Please give more credit than this. Frankly you insult me with this statement. Really, no hyperbole here. Read it again and ask how you would feel if it were reversed. I am not the one talking about the ideological bankrupcy of the democratic party you are. Frankly I think they are both bankrupt (except they aren't because they can't rake it in fast enough from special interests - both parties - again both parties) As to lies: I heard Ashcroft's testimony when he said either directly or by implication that anyone who disagrees with what the administration is doing with homeland security is abetting the enemy. In addition the government has completely broken the boundry information gathered for national security and that used for prosecution. American citizens have been held without bail and without the ability to contact lawyers. There is a balance between the need for security and the preservation of our rights as citizens. The administration in my opinion has crossed that line. Low taxes _are_ the American> way. The Boston Tea Party was, after all, a > tax > revolt. So one side gets to make that claim because there's a lot of > historical support _for_ that argument. And the New Deal and Social Security and Medicare are not the American Way. Taxation _isn't_ just an economic argument. > > Sure, there can be pressing reasons for higher taxes. > But that doesn't mean that, all things being equal, > low taxes are the same as higher taxes. They aren't. > Low taxes are preferable to high taxes because low > taxes giving Americans more freedom to do as they > wish. High taxes erode freedom, low taxes expand > them. So you say. How much freedom is there for the family that can't pay for housing education medical care? If only life was this simple. You are certainly entitled to your view and I to mine. I just don't think one is the american way. It is like arguing who's side god is on in the super bowl (well we know he is a Yankee fan in any event). > You're really the perfect liberal :-) I > don't know any other way to put this. I've run into > this with people on the left over and over again, and > I've never been able to effectively communicate this > point - it is something that seems to crop up much > more often on the left than the right (not that the > right is immune to it, it's just a lot more common on > the other side of the fence). People can disagree > with you without being evil. I can oppose affirmative > action without being a racist and think that > anti-terrorism legislation should be strong and > enforced without wanting to restrict basic rights. > The difference, Bob, is that I'm not claiming that the > fact that you oppose laws that (I think) are vital to > protecting the US from terrorist attack means that > you're in favor of the terrorists - but that's the > equivalent of what you're doing to people who support > the PATRIOT Act. I'm willing to acknowledge that > reasonable people can differ on such opinions. > Gautam I am not doing any of the things you claim that I am doing. I am in fact arguing that it is you who are doing this by claiming that one way, your way, is the american way. What does that mean about my way? By definition it is the unamerican way. That is my complaint. I know full well that people can disagree and in complex situations they almost have to. In the arguement about national security the balance is difficult to establish. People of good will differ on where that balance should be. In the arguement about taxes there is need to allow a market to respond to real needs and a desire to have individuals benefit from there labors. But there also must be an acknowledement that the market can fail to protect some people. As a society do we really want the medicaid rolls of Florida closed to children who need care? Don't we want to be a caring society? Individual success is only in part based on merit. Being born into a stable family without economic distress is a benefit. Don't we want to help those who have the innate ability to do well to realize their potential? Isn' t that a good thing for a free society? Isn't that the definition of a meritocracy? And for those who get the short end of the genetic stick, shouldn't we be trying to make sure they have a decent life? You can't do these things without taxes and social programs. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
