How would you count 1.76 Million votes?

[Weird Harold]

If the authors of the article you linked elsewhere are so certain of the tampering, why isn't it in court already?

Janet Reno is the Attorney General. All suits filed against the US government are handled by the Solicitor General.

This would not be a suit against the US Government. It would be a suit or prosecution against a person or persons unknown who tamprered with ballots to invalidate any ballot except those already punched for Al Gore by creating double votes for others.

It would be a case brought in Florida's courts against Floridians (as only someone with access to the ballots during tabulation could perform the tampering eg a floridian.)

I see no reason for Janet Reno or the US Department of Justice to get involved unless they choose to invesitagete or bring charges of conspiracy against members of the national democratic party or Gore. (not bloody likely.)

 

[CelestialBody]

Sorry WH-

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: Sorry WH-

Like the SC, the solicitor general has the right to select which cases he or she wishes to address.

I belive the proper title is "Atorney General" in most US jurisdictions. In Nevada at least, the Attorney general must prosecute any indictment brought by a "Grand Jury" as well as investigate and/or prosecute any claim of wrongdoing where they have jurisdiction.

The point I wanted to make in response to Unclebill's question is that Janet Reno and/or the US Justice Department don't have any jurisdiction over the alleged ballot tampering unless and until there is some evidence of a conspiracy that extends outside of Florida.

The article he referenced in another thread makes a very serious charge that specifies exactly what is claimed to have been done, and if there is a shred of evidence to the allegation, any Attorney General who didn't investigate would be severely derelict in his duties.

Since the alleged actions are purported to have affected the outcome of the election, then there is also the option of an election contest which can be filed by any Florida Taxpayer in Civil court, which could remand the case to a crimial court if warranted.

So, my question still remains unanswered as to why this isn't before the Florida courts already. Or maybe not. If it isn't before the courts, then it may be because there ISN'T any evidence, just supposition and inuendo.

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[Thumper]

I defer

....to your judgement Bill.

You seem to have so much more information and a far superior ability to see things the rest of us are just too blind to see.

From now on I will come to you for what my opinion on anything is supposed to be.

You are an Oracle of Truth and Light.

With a little paranoia thrown in...

BTW Bill...everything you have said is OPINION....yours not mine.

[Edited by Thumper on 12-11-2000 at 07:27 PM]

 

[Unclebill]

Re: I defer

BTW Bill...everything you have said is OPINION....yours not mine.

I don't think I ever represented them as anything else. I simply base my opinions on objective judgement of the information I have and ask the questions no one seems to want to answer. And the questions I posed are based on your presentation. I merely offered some background as the basis for my questions and judgements.

I don't pretend to be that well informed. What I pretend is to have some very distinct and consistent opinions and judgements. There's far more information available than I can possibly digest. You may well be better informed but if so you're not passing along your information that would lead me to reevaluate my position and alter it.

Also, I have learned to discern based on principles (abstractions) more than discrete events. That's why you find a great deal of consistency in my opinions, arguments and judgements.

But it still leaves me exceedingly curious as to why anyone would choose for a leader someone whom one knows to be a liar since it is inconceivable that one could trust him and that he is so blatantly and arrogantly open about it just exabercates my puzzlement. Such a choice seems to me so irrational that I find it a complete mystery.

And BTW, the deference is a very smooth way to avoid answering the questions I pose (and much easier).

 

[Thumper]

Constitutional evolution...

Evolution means change. The Constitution is much more than a piece of paper Bill. Some may even believe it is a "living entity". In my case I believe it is an idea and a belief and as such it can evolve and be refined. It has to. If the "Founding Fathers" were so wise, why did slavery persist after it was adopted? Why were women denied the right to vote for so long? I admire and respect those who framed our democracy and the courage it took to put into action. Do I think their vision of government translates easily into our society? No. Our society and culture are completely different from when it was first drafted and as such we can never return to the days it seems you yearn for. The only way that limited of a government would work is under the agrarian horse and buggy simplicity of colonial America. If it were not for the governing bodies we have today we would have anarchy. Just look at how complex our society is and what effects irresponsible actions can have. We aren't just dumb farmers anymore.

When you talk of our freedoms being eroded and "big government" intruding on your lives, what exactly do you mean?

I still have the freedom to express myself, to worship as I please or not at all, to congregate when and where and with anyone I choose, to travel where I please. I have the right to bear arms if I so choose.

Yes government is big, but it has to be to manage the complexities of our society. Just a few examples...

FAA Do you like the idea of every airline having it's own air traffic control system? Do you want to be on plane that may or may not be airworthy?

EPA I know this is one of the sore spots of the far right. Of course I have had this discussion with others and they are under the assumption that the planet can take anything we dish out. My point is if you are wrong where do we move to? You trust the chemical companies to do the right thing? Remember Love Canal? Land use restrictions, how happy are you going to be if your neighbor decides to convert his farm to a hazardous waste landfill and several years later your land is contaminated and worth less than nothing. Who ya gonna call? This is not a fairy tale, it has happened, before waste was regulated. That was what the Superfund was all about. Cleveland's river caught fire it was so bad. Still have faith in the corporate entities? Look up Bhopal India and tell me about Union Carbide's conscience. If you live near any chemical facilities just imagine the schoolyards nearby filled with the bodies of children and then thank NIOSH, OSHA and EPA it didn't happen here.

FBI&CIA et al. Can we really do without them. Who do you think traced the Oklahoma City bombing out? Think the federal government is a big bad meanace? So did Timothy Mcveigh...so he took out 168 bad guys...only some of them were kids and secretary's and janitors and anlysts and social workers. A real freedom fighter he was.

Yes Bill I actually believe most people who enter the political arena are trying to do some good for their country. They may have some not so good ideas but that is to be expected. Your fear of a communist/collectivist conspiracy is not well founded. This would require a small very powerful personality cult that would take decades to coalesce along with the cooperation of the military and total economic collapse.

So he lied about sex....I have in the past. I denied having sex with someone because that person did not want that information made public. Does that mean I will be untruthful about everything else? If you believe that then you are a very poor judge of character.

One question...what would have happened if Clinton had admitted his affair with Lewinski? Nothing. It was not a crime and I suspect that a positive answer would have left Starr looking foolish. So he likes to have sex with women...I do too. Is your personal life so pure that you are able to cast judgement on another. That is for him and his wife to work out. Not the press...not me and not you.

I have seen no facts in any of your posts. I have seen plenty of vitriolic opinion. I have seen innuendo, rumor, allegation, insinuation and allusion...but no hard concrete corroborated facts.

Now about the Electoral College.

CB...If I didn't know better I would say your response was a tad condecsending I still hold to the belief that the Electoral College is anachronistic and a nuisance.

Lasher said kept the candidates from only focusing on the most populous states and it guarded against the possiblity of splitting the government into factions. It seems to me that the candidates only focus on the most populous states already. Since the Electoral votes are determined mostly by population. I didn't see a mad rush to win Wyoming or N. Dakota by either candidate. As far as splitting the government imagine...
Scene 1 a candidate winning 40% of every state and two other opponents sharing 30% each(I know it's far fetched but isn't what we have playing out right now out there too?). The winning candidate would appear to have won by a landslide (all but a few elactoral votes) but this would be illusory as the people would still be divided.
Scene 2 A third party emerges and while far from winning a majority it is able to win a couple of states taking the electoral votes with it. Just imagine if Nader had taken one of Gore's states and one of Bush's...talk about a mess...no one would have the required 271 votes.

Holding on to this archaic institution is a silly exercise in romanticism.

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by Thumper
Evolution means change. The Constitution is much more than a piece of paper Bill. Some may even believe it is a "living entity".

How would you like to be a player in a game with living rules, i. e., the rules change as the game progresses? Much like the Florida Supreme Court rulings changing the rules of the election after the fact.

Originally posted by Thumper
In my case I believe it is an idea and a belief and as such it can evolve and be refined. It has to. If the "Founding Fathers" were so wise, why did slavery persist after it was adopted? Why were women denied the right to vote for so long? I admire and respect those who framed our democracy and the courage it took to put into action. Do I think their vision of government translates easily into our society? No. Our society and culture are completely different from when it was first drafted and as such we can never return to the days it seems you yearn for. The only way that limited of a government would work is under the agrarian horse and buggy simplicity of colonial America. If it were not for the governing bodies we have today we would have anarchy. Just look at how complex our society is and what effects irresponsible actions can have. We aren't just dumb farmers anymore.

First, I never said the Founders were either omniscient or perfect. I have said they achieved a first in mankind's history. They did make some errors and retaining slavery was one. They lacked a fully defined philosophical basis on which to construct a government for a free society but for what they had, they produced a truly magnificent achievement.

I do find it very intriguing that your concept of freedom only works for a horse and buggy society.

I don't recall saying anyone was a bunch of dumb farmers. But I am curious as to what standards of right and wrong have changed over the past two centuries.

Originally posted by Thumper
When you talk of our freedoms being eroded and "big government" intruding on your lives, what exactly do you mean?

I still have the freedom to express myself, to worship as I please or not at all, to congregate when and where and with anyone I choose, to travel where I please. I have the right to bear arms if I so choose.

If Clinton, Algore and the Democrats succeed in their efforts, you won't have that second amendment right much longer. Their propaganda for subverting the second amendment is a lie. That's easily proven by reading the Federalist Papers in which the ideas behind the Constitutional government of the U. S. are discussed. But those crusading against the second amendment are counting on the ignorance of the public for their success. Truth does not serve their purpose.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson

By government intrusion, I mean the existence of political crimes, e. g., drugs use/possession, prostitution, gambling, etc. I mean government seizure of property without due process. I mean confiscatory taxation. I mean environmental laws that can seize your property in effect, i. e., you retain ownership but what you may or may not do with it is dictated by government bureaucrats which can and has rendered the value of the property worthless. I mean regulations put in place with the force of law, laws that could not be enacted within the confines of the Constitution. As an example, in '93 or '94 Clinton got a tax increase passed that was retroactive. That violates the Constitutional provision of ex post facto, i. e., making a law applicable before it was enacted. As another example, FCC rules dictating the content of broadcast media (censorship). As another example, there are now laws on the books which allow the police to decide if you are carrying too much cash and confiscate it. All that is required is a stop for probable cause (even a traffic stop) which results in a search disclosing that you have too much cash on your person. Once confiscated, you must then initiate civil action for return of your property even if no criminal proceedings were ever initiated against you. Am I being paranoid again?

Originally posted by Thumper
Yes government is big, but it has to be to manage the complexities of our society. Just a few examples...

As a matter of curiosity, I'd like to know what you perceive as the purpose of government for free men in a free society.

I find it interesting that you think it is the government's role to manage our society. That was the role of government in the USSR, it is the role of government in the People's Republic of China, it is the role of government in England, it is the role of government in virtually every other nation in the world. And that is where the United States is different. It was founded on principles of individual freedom and individual responsibility. Essentially, the United States government was designed with the idea of the sovereignty of the individual as sacred. It was the first (and only) government ever to not be considered a ruling entity. But I have watched it evolving to that through my lifetime.

Typically the government solution is the most expensive, the least effectual, quickly stagnated because it is law and is the least well considered, planned and executed. The Social Welfare program of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society is a classic example. We still have essentially the same percentage of poor in America (ignore the fact that our poor live better than 60% of the remainder of the world's population). We have wasted $5,000,000,000,000.00 in this pursuit. About 80% of that went to bureaucratic administrative costs. Money well spent? I certainly don't think so!

"There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as "caring" and "sensitive" because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money -- if a gun is held to his head."
-- P. J. O'Rourke

Originally posted by Thumper
FAA Do you like the idea of every airline having it's own air traffic control system? Do you want to be on plane that may or may not be airworthy?

As far as air traffic control, I think that private industry could provide the same type of system as does the FAA at lower cost. And getting a standardized system is not at all unheard of. Private industry does is frequently.

As far as airworthy, the FAA does for the airlines what a government license does for a contractor (or other professional). It provides instant legitimacy. They don't have to prove themselves in the marketplace, they don't have to earn a reputation. They only need to pay for the license. The FAA does not inspect every plane that flies. They spot check here and there and frequently, only the maintenance records, not the aircraft.

A company that can lose it's customers because of a poor flight record is more motivated to properly maintain it's equipment than one who only has to show maintenance records to a government agent now and then.

I would still favor possibly keeping the FAA as an independent investigative entity for crashes. Just as I would favor keeping the FCC as a frequency management entity but without the authority to censor.

Originally posted by Thumper
EPA I know this is one of the sore spots of the far right. Of course I have had this discussion with others and they are under the assumption that the planet can take anything we dish out. My point is if you are wrong where do we move to? You trust the chemical companies to do the right thing? Remember Love Canal? Land use restrictions, how happy are you going to be if your neighbor decides to convert his farm to a hazardous waste landfill and several years later your land is contaminated and worth less than nothing. Who ya gonna call? This is not a fairy tale, it has happened, before waste was regulated. That was what the Superfund was all about. Cleveland's river caught fire it was so bad. Still have faith in the corporate entities? Look up Bhopal India and tell me about Union Carbide's conscience. If you live near any chemical facilities just imagine the schoolyards nearby filled with the bodies of children and then thank NIOSH, OSHA and EPA it didn't happen here.

You're back to my point of holding people accountable for their actions. That has always been one of the points of all my philosophical discussions. When people know they will be held accountable, they will more often than not do the right thing. But when they know they can bribe and manipulate the bureaucracy with impunity, they will do that as a matter of expediency.

As an example, not quite an environmental disaster but an economic one, the case of Charles Keating and the Lincoln Savings and Loan debacle from about 10-15 years ago. He was running a con game under the name of Lincoln Savings and Loan. The banking regulators were about to step in and shut down his scam when 5 (yes, five) U. S. Senators stepped in and called off the dogs in exchange for $500,000 in campaign contributions. Another fine example of government and its regulations taking care of us, right?

By the time the regulators finally were allowed to do their job, he had absconded with close to $80,000,000 in funds defrauded from investors. He did go to prison and you and I paid the bill for it (via the FSLIC). The Senators: Alan Cranston (D CA), John McCain (R AZ), John Glenn (D OH), one from NY and one from NM whose names I forget forget remained in office with no accountability whatsoever. So much for government agencies and regulations protecting us.

Originally posted by Thumper
FBI&CIA et al. Can we really do without them. Who do you think traced the Oklahoma City bombing out? Think the federal government is a big bad meanace? So did Timothy Mcveigh...so he took out 168 bad guys...only some of them were kids and secretary's and janitors and anlysts and social workers. A real freedom fighter he was.

I don't recall even hinting that we do not need police and intelligence services to provide certain protections. I have never advocated anything like McVeigh's terrorist attack. What I would rather see is a police force that is integrated, not the mess we have now with every little fiefdom having its own unique set of laws and its own police force with no jurisdiction beyond its boundaries. Localized management, yes; but a totally divorced local authority and overlapping jurisdictions is ludicrous.

Originally posted by Thumper
Yes Bill I actually believe most people who enter the political arena are trying to do some good for their country. They may have some not so good ideas but that is to be expected. Your fear of a communist/collectivist conspiracy is not well founded. This would require a small very powerful personality cult that would take decades to coalesce along with the cooperation of the military and total economic collapse.

"There is no tyranny worse than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him."
-- Robert Heinlein

Originally posted by Thumper
So he lied about sex....I have in the past. I denied having sex with someone because that person did not want that information made public. Does that mean I will be untruthful about everything else? If you believe that then you are a very poor judge of character.

First, it was a tad more than lying about sex. Her committed perjury and suborned a perjurious deposition in order to evade responsibility in a civil lawsuit. That is a felony. It sounds a bit different in your case. But, let me ask; would you commit perjury were it in a court and you were under oath? It sounds as if that's your implication.

If you were to be untruthful about that, what assurance can I possibly have that you are honest about everything else? By your own admission, you will be dishonest under the right circumstances. And I have no means by which to ascertain your criteria for the right circumstances, so how much trust should I grant you? Why does it make me a poor judge of character to judge you based on your behavior? If not that, then what criterion should be the basis of my judgement?

Originally posted by Thumper
One question...what would have happened if Clinton had admitted his affair with Lewinski? Nothing. It was not a crime and I suspect that a positive answer would have left Starr looking foolish. So he likes to have sex with women...I do too. Is your personal life so pure that you are able to cast judgement on another. That is for him and his wife to work out. Not the press...not me and not you.

The sex was not the crime (and no one but the Democrat propaganda hacks ever said it was about sex), the perjury was. And look at his behavior with respect to those who were involved in bringing his criminal behavior to public scrutiny. They were sullied by a multitude of people in his camp with character assassination. Linda Tripp was prosecuted because she had the absolute temerity to produce evidence of his criminality. Is that your idea of justice, to prosecute the witness?

And this you admire? I'm impressed!

And what about the assault on Kathleen Willey? Do you admire or excuse that?

And what about Juanita Broderick? Was she lying or was Clinton? Who has established a track record of lying to evade responsibility for their actions? Or am I being a poor judge of character again?

And as an officer of the court, he committed a felony yet still holds his license to practice law. Explain to me the justice in that. Or am I being unfair to expect equal treatment under the law?

"Mine will be the most ethical administration in the history of the republic!"
-- President-Elect Bill Clinton, November 1992.

You sound as if you actually believe this one.

Originally posted by Thumper
I have seen no facts in any of your posts. I have seen plenty of vitriolic opinion. I have seen innuendo, rumor, allegation, insinuation and allusion...but no hard concrete corroborated facts.

I guess you got me there.

As far as the electoral college, at least for now I'm glad we have it. It has provided one phenomenal service; it looks as if it has kept a criminal from assuming the office of the president next January.

[Edited by Unclebill on 12-14-2000 at 06:30 PM]

 

[Thumper]

I'll be brief...

I would not lie to protect someone from posecution...but I may to keep someone that is not involved from being harmed.
Say I was with a lover and exposing her as my alibi would cause trouble for her...I would take my chances without bringing her into it.

Kathleen Willey....allegation

Juanita Broderick?

Paula Jones...case thrown out...she was just looking for money...Bogus case...

I simply meant that the government we have today would be totally unnecessary 200+ years ago...how much trouble could a bunch of farmers cause. No chemicals=No EPA, No air craft=No FAA, all I am saying is that our society is much more complex and interdependent. One man can indeed create havoc and cause great harm. Does the name Milken mean anything? Remember the Stock Market crash? Hence the SEC.

I already delineated examples of why the EPA is necessary and I assume you ignored those. Love Canal, Superfund, Union Carbide and Bhopal India. You may "own" a piece of land Bill but what you do to it can affect many others in adverse ways and for a long time after you are gone. Does owning it give you the right to fuck up the world for the rest of us or those who come after you? Mankind is at a point now where we can cause distinct profound and permanent damage to our environment...we need this place it doesn't need us. How would you feel if you had a beautiful piece of property and Ambrosious buys the land next door and to make a few bucks starts taking the toxic waste from the chemical company down the road and burying it for them....how would you feel about that...especially when it leaches into your groundwater and seeping into your basement. BTW I worked at a hazardous waste management facility back in the 80's. You really want to let the corporations start dumping this shit in the rivers again? Nasty stuff boy. Dioxin..aka Agent Orange.

Your faith in private industry is baffling to me...time and again they have proven that the only thing that matters are profits. You really believe that the airlines would cooperate with each other on traffic control. They fudge as much as they can on safety now. People don't look at safety issues when they buy their tickets. They look at price only. They can't consider that this plane might crash. If they did they wouldn't fly at all. Sometimes cheaper isn't always better....read the article in Thursday's USA Today about the Alaska Air crash. Think Alaska Air would conduct that extensive an investigation? I think they would have just paid off the victims families and been done with it. In a few weeks everyone will have forgotten about it and it might not happen again. Alaska Air did cooperate I will give them that. My point is theinvestigation came up with a definite cause and that leads to better design and less chance of a repeat occurence. If it saves a life...money well spent.

I agree with your stance on drugs prostitution and gambling...the instances of unwarranted seizure stem directly from that. It is a poor solution to a non problem Yes. But a harbinger of worse things. I doubt it. Eventually we will find a better way of dealing with it. Sometimes it takes a while for the people to catch on. Sort of like the slavery thing.


Night...

 

[Laurel]

Your faith in private industry is baffling to me...time and again they have proven that the only thing that matters are profits. You really believe that the airlines would cooperate with each other on traffic control. They fudge as much as they can on safety now.

Two words: Firestone Tires. 'Nuff said.

 

[Ezzy]

Re: I'll be brief... Long Assed Post

People don't look at safety issues when they buy their tickets. They look at price only. They can't consider that this plane might crash. If they did they wouldn't fly at all. Sometimes cheaper isn't always better...

Following on your thoughts here, I agree and can give a prime example.

Many years ago I wanted to travel to India from the UK, to take a holiday. A friend and I searched for the cheapest return fares we could find; as we would be travelling on a tight budget we thought it was important to us.

We found that the cheapest airfares to India from the UK were on Afghan airways (I kid you not). So we bought them and off we went.

The first surprise was that to fly out of London we were on an Aeroflot plane to Moscow, where we picked up our KGB (sorry Intourist) Guides.

We changed planes at Moscow from an Aeroflot jet to a four-engine propeller driven plane.

The seats on the new plane were just canvass strapping between two tubular supports, with lap straps. The other passengers with the exception of our guides, were military officers, as soon as we were sat down and strapped in, the officer across the aisle from us opened a bottle of vodka and offered it to us.

When the engines started I understood why, you could see the rivets move in the sides of the plane.

The approach into Kabul international airport occurred at night, my friend had the window seat and he nudged me and pointed out of the window at a helicopter flying parallel to the plane, but there were no runway lights lit. The helicopter was dropping flares as it flew.

When we could hear again about an hour later I asked the KGB guide about this, asking why they just did not turn on the runway lights.
He explained that wasn’t the reason they were doing it, they dropped the flares to decoy any heat seeking missile that the Afghan resistance may fire at the plane.

After we got our chins off the floor, we had to re-board the plane and travel on to India.

We sold our return ticket stubs to two guys trying to get to London the cheapest way, and paid the extra to return on British Airways.

The reason that we first flew Aeroflot to Moscow is. That the CAA (like the FAA) refuses to allow Afghan Airways to fly into British airspace as they have a tendency to fall out of the sky without a moments notice.

Did the two guys ever make it to the UK, I can’t tell and I don’t know (I still feel guilty about the possibilities).


EZ http://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/s/cwm2/sleep.gif

 

[Thumper]

Laurel

Damn...white girls can jump! Slam dunk! LOL

Pretty bad when a major car manufacturer criticizes another company on safety issues...

You don't suppose the Concorde was using Firestones do ya?

 

[Unclebill]

Re: I'll be brief...

Originally posted by Thumper
I would not lie to protect someone from posecution...but I may to keep someone that is not involved from being harmed.
Say I was with a lover and exposing her as my alibi would cause trouble for her...I would take my chances without bringing her into it.

What you're positing here is entirely different from what was previously suggested. Not stating a truth is not the same as lying. This is situation of not acting vice acting in a deceitful manner. In the act of omission you posit here, you are putting yourself at risk and you're entirely within your right to do so. The life you risk is your own.

The point which arose before was lying about sex. Saying that an event of history did not occur, i. e., intentional misrepresentation of fact with the intent to deceive. A situation which is entirely different from that which you present here.

What Clinton did was lie to avoid held accountable in a civil suit. He also enlisted the lies of another in a sworn deposition to the same end. So he also risked putting someone else's life in jeopardy (of criminal conviction) to perjure herself in his behalf. By suborning perjury and having the affidavits filed with the court, he also put his attorney's legal career in jeopardy. What I find so amazing is that you can hold any respect for or find any reason to offer defense for a man who would behave in such a despicable manner.

This was the suggestion you left open in your previous post and it was that which I questioned. If I read this correctly, you have retracted your earlier declaration?

Originally posted by Thumper
Kathleen Willey....allegation

Juanita Broderick?

Paula Jones...case thrown out...she was just looking for money...Bogus case...

Well, now I must defer to your wealth of information that allows you to dismiss out of hand these things as frivolous. Kathleen Willey's claim was provided some credibility buy Clinton's secretary stating her observation of Ms. Willey's appearance on emerging from Clinton's office but I guess you have more conclusive evidence that it's false. Please share.

As to Juanita Broderick, although her claim is twenty years old and possibly outside the statue of limitations, for me it comes down to who provides more credibility. Apparently you see Clinton as credible despite the fact that there was never a direct denial, just the standard answers casting aspersion on the accuser.

Could you provide some enlightenment on the Paula Jones case? It was dismissed based on perjury for which the court held Clinton in contempt. I guess you consider that a baseless case? If there was substantive evidence that her claim was baseless, why did the defendant find it necessary to use perjury in its quest for acquittal?

As I've noted before, when I have the situation where I'm asked to believe an unknown or a proven liar, I'll give more credence to the unknown. Apparently our choices diverge here.

Originally posted by Thumper
I simply meant that the government we have today would be totally unnecessary 200+ years ago...how much trouble could a bunch of farmers cause. No chemicals=No EPA, No air craft=No FAA, all I am saying is that our society is much more complex and interdependent. One man can indeed create havoc and cause great harm. Does the name Milken mean anything? Remember the Stock Market crash? Hence the SEC.

Stock Market Crash - Look carefully into the causes and what you will find is that Congress controlled the money supply. There was no Federal Reserve (the Fed as it's commonly know today), no SEC.

Congress came up with this marvelous idea that they could create wealth (stimulate the economy) by increasing the money supply and lowering interest rates. They lowered interest rates artificially by infusing more currency into the banking system, making money readily available has the economic result of lowering interest rates. Effectively, their actions were equivalent to counterfeiting, i. e., printing currency for which there is no backing, no guarantee.

Money was easy to get, speculation in the stock market went wild and the result was Black Friday. Out of this was born the Fed and the SEC. The Fed took control of the money supply out of the hands of Congress.

The bottom line - both the Fed and the SEC were government imposed solutions which were instituted to solve government induced and created problems.

Yes, the name Michael Milken is one I remember. Answer me this; how did he gain the position and credentials to achieve his influence? Wasn't he duly licensed by the government as an investment banker or other investment agent with the government providing him via licensing the guarantee of legitimacy? He didn't have to establish himself in the marketplace and earn a reputation as being a successful and capable investment authority. He didn't work or earn his way into the position he used to sell billions of dollars worth of junk bonds. He was handed this legitimacy, reputation and position by a government bureaucrat for the price of a license. In short, the government enabled him to perpetrate his scam at a very cheap price (for him) considering what he made off it.

Much like Charles Keating whose case I already addressed. So your expectations of government protection via these regulating mechanisms in reality is a fairy tale. It gives government arbitrary authority over the lives and fortunes of people where there is no rational reason for it. Politicians tell you how they're protecting you and you believe them while they sell you out. Some of them probably actually think they're doing good in all reality not having a clear understanding of the harm they set up to happen.

The Americans with Disabilities Act is another classic example of the unexpected and idiotic consequences of what sounded like a good idea. It has become a source of enrichment for litigation attorneys who are taking every business in sight to court over the most inane interpretations of the application of this, just one more example, of stupid laws which promote further government meddling into the marketplace. The result, penalizing of some citizens for the benefit of others.

Who pays? You do when you buy the products of the companies which are sued because to them, it's just another increase in the cost of doing business. They pass it along to you, the customer, in the form of higher prices for goods and services.

But you hang in there and keep rooting for government to institute more laws to protect you from more things until one day you're so well protected by government bureaucrats that you can't afford to feed your family because all your income is going to pay the government bureaucrats.

Originally posted by Thumper
I already delineated examples of why the EPA is necessary and I assume you ignored those. Love Canal, Superfund, Union Carbide and Bhopal India. You may "own" a piece of land Bill but what you do to it can affect many others in adverse ways and for a long time after you are gone. Does owning it give you the right to fuck up the world for the rest of us or those who come after you? Mankind is at a point now where we can cause distinct profound and permanent damage to our environment...we need this place it doesn't need us. How would you feel if you had a beautiful piece of property and Ambrosious buys the land next door and to make a few bucks starts taking the toxic waste from the chemical company down the road and burying it for them....how would you feel about that...especially when it leaches into your groundwater and seeping into your basement. BTW I worked at a hazardous waste management facility back in the 80's. You really want to let the corporations start dumping this shit in the rivers again? Nasty stuff boy. Dioxin..aka Agent Orange.

My mistake. I presumed you would see the parallel of responsibility and accountability for one's actions. Let me iterate.

This comes back to be held accountable for one's actions. If in fact someone does as you suggest, he is responsible for and is the one who should be held accountable for his actions. If he causes damage, he is accountable for restitution. If he cannot or will not make restitution, then incarceration for his actions is a suitable though less desirable alternative. And for most people, knowing they face certain (as opposed to potential but unlikely) accountability, they will more often than not make the right choice. It's simply the idea of self-preservation.

Love Canal - I've heard so much conflicting information, I have no idea who's telling the truth. So I'll give you a wash on that one.

SUPERFUND - Politician's solution to the accountability problem by making everyone accountable by paying for the infractions of a few. The collectivist mentality at work; punish everyone for the crimes of a few.

While this is a psychology that works well in some limited applications, e. g., military units where teamwork and unity is of the utmost necessity. I recall a scene from The Dirty Dozen where Lee Marvin's character says, "I think we're finally making some progress here". His fellow officer says, "You call this progress? You've got a mutiny on your hands". Marvin's response, "Yeah, but listen to what they're saying. We ain't gonna do this or we ain't gonna do that. It's not just twelve guys saying I ain't gonna. Now, it's WE! They're thinking like a team!"

That scenario does not work with free men in a free society.

Union Carbide - From the reports I remember, an industrial accident and Union Carbide did pay restitution.

Originally posted by Thumper
Your faith in private industry is baffling to me...time and again they have proven that the only thing that matters are profits. You really believe that the airlines would cooperate with each other on traffic control. They fudge as much as they can on safety now. People don't look at safety issues when they buy their tickets. They look at price only. They can't consider that this plane might crash. If they did they wouldn't fly at all. Sometimes cheaper isn't always better....read the article in Thursday's USA Today about the Alaska Air crash. Think Alaska Air would conduct that extensive an investigation? I think they would have just paid off the victims families and been done with it. In a few weeks everyone will have forgotten about it and it might not happen again. Alaska Air did cooperate I will give them that. My point is theinvestigation came up with a definite cause and that leads to better design and less chance of a repeat occurence. If it saves a life...money well spent.

Likewise, your blind faith in government bureaucrats and politicians utterly astounds me.

It was the FAA post-crash investigation that identified the elevator mechanism problem. All the FAA ground checks and maintenance record checks never identified that problem, now did they? And while you seem to be trying to blame Alaska Air, they didn't design or build the plane. They just bought and flew a FAA approved aircraft. How many other airlines fly the same aircraft? Is Alaska Air the only one? I don't know for sure but I seriously doubt it.

Originally posted by Thumper
I agree with your stance on drugs prostitution and gambling...the instances of unwarranted seizure stem directly from that. It is a poor solution to a non problem Yes. But a harbinger of worse things. I doubt it. Eventually we will find a better way of dealing with it. Sometimes it takes a while for the people to catch on. Sort of like the slavery thing.


Night...

Wow! We agree on something. We're making progress.J But it's not a poor solution, it's a non-solution, the kind politicians love best because the problem doesn't go away but political authority (power) increases once more.

Originally posted by Thumper
I already delineated examples of why the EPA is necessary and I assume you ignored those.

A question then - Based on the quote from your post above, may I presume that you favor a government agency coming down heavily on a polluter? For example, someone who puts carcinogens into the water table? Who puts on the market a product which creates an unnecessary hazard to a seriously large segment of the public at large? Would you want the EPA or appropriate authority to take these people to task and hold them accountable? Should these people be made to pay for the cleanup and the damage their actions have caused?