who moderates the moderators

[rick in cal]

KC I'll keep this as civil as I can but I remember your right wing posts from the last board. I thought maybe since you weren't being political anymore that maybe you were still out looking for the weapons of mass destruction you GUARANTEED our troops (including the 5000 dead ones) would find!

Back to your post; If it wasn't Bush's policies that caused this economic mess then tell us what he did right. If it wasn't corporate greed then tell us how multimillion golden parachutes help our economy, and one more thought on corporations; supply siders are quick to point out that if we tax them they just pass the taxes on to the consumer. What do you think they do with the eight figure salaries and stock options? If it wasn't free trade (with no restrictions) then tell us how the multibillion trade deficit is adding jobs instead of causing unemployment. If the oil companies are merely passing on the increase in oil prices wouldn't their profits remain roughly the same instead of going up tenfold!

We hear this misanthopic nonsense each time we make a small adjustment in the minimum wage We hear from the restauranteur who is going to wash his own dishes beause he can't afford a $.50 increase, the painting contractor who's going to have to pick up a paint brush to save $4.00, the landscaper who's going to get behind a lawnmower and lay somebody off, or the small business owner who is going to become a delivery boy to save $20 a week.

To my way of thinking, I wouldn't eat in a restaurant where $4.00 a day could cause the owner wash dishes instead of watching how my food is ordered and prepared. I wouldn't hire a contractor who would cut corners to save $4.00 a day. I might buy something from the small business owner but I can't because the idiot is out making deliveries and his store's closed!

Finally, I think these mean spirited opinions bother me for the most part because after 42 years of voting Democratic I've left the party over what the ultra liberals did to the Clintons and if I'm going to go over to the dark side and vote for a Republican I would like to see just a little concern for the poor and middle class.

[zeke]

Rick - The old board is just that. Most of those of us that remember have learned therefrom. Your diatribe directed toward KC is entirely uncalled for and impolite. She requested a polite discussion regarding the minimum wage and has done nothing to deserve such a personal attack.

I respect the right of each of us to have our own political thoughts, but highly prefer adult discussion. I sincerely hope that you will reconsider your attitude, and be nice. Or Be gone.

Zeke

[rick in cal]

Rick - The old board is just that. Most of those of us that remember have learned therefrom. Your diatribe directed toward KC is entirely uncalled for and impolite. She requested a polite discussion regarding the minimum wage and has done nothing to deserve such a personal attack.

I respect the right of each of us to have our own political thoughts, but highly prefer adult discussion. I sincerely hope that you will reconsider your attitude, and be nice. Or Be gone.

Zeke

Zeke My post was not meant to be a personal attack on KC and when reading it I probably could have left the first sentence about weapons of mass destruction out. As for the rest of what I wrote I stand by what I wrote and after reading four pages of posts in which American workers were for the most part trashed as lazy, greedy, and generally unworthy of employment, it needed to be addressed. We have THE MOST productive workers in the industrial world and they work hundreds of hours more per year than any Euopean country's work forces. They just might have the right to organize given the fact that in the last century they were gunned down in the streets of Chicago when they had a peaceful march supporting an eight hour work day or beaten in Flint because they wanted to discuss working conditions. Today we have the Enrons and World Coms who steal from their employees and wasn't it Wallmart the company so loved in many posts on this board that had to pay a record amount in fines for cheating their employees out of their overtime.

[Mel in Hawaii]

Rick, I think you need to read what you wrote...

"I'll keep this as civil as I can" Doesn't seem so, as soon as you were finished with that you launched right into an attack. I do believe she was quoting someone else with her post, which is what the quotes were about.

There are a LOT of people who believed what Bush was pushing, some still do. Not everything was a lie, but a lot was stretched and even his staffers agree with that. I feel that even Bush doesn't know all that was stretched before he heard it and stretched it some more. But that doesn't mean that KC is a bad moderator. KC has her views, just like everyone else in this world. She does a good job moderating this board and seems to be very fair. I disagree with KC's oppinion on this matter as best I understand it from her posts, but I don't think she is wrong. Everyone has their oppinion based on the facts as they see them. There is no right or wrong, just various shades of grey and we do our best to classify that shade to the best of our abilities.

So, let's not turn this into personal attacks, state our oppinions and as the old saying goes 'agree to disagree'.

[Mel in Hawaii]

Hmm... you posted while I was composing my post.

[jainen]

>>who moderates the moderators<<

Umm, well, I do.... I read all kc's posts, which are pretty eloquent, and if I disagree then I say so, which is pretty often. And then anyone else can read those posts and chime in pro or con, and we all get an education.

The thread you're looking at ["Interesting thoughts on the Unemployment news"] is typical of that process. I countered with a viewpoint somewhat like your own, but I dare say it didn't convince anyone. On the other hand, kc admits right in the original post that some of the basic argument was so objectionable it had to be edited out. I think that's fair.

I don't understand your last sentence, rick, where you say you are bothered by kc's opinions because of some unspoken thing ultra-liberals did. I'm sure kc has done many unspeakable things, but I doubt any of them could be characterized as ultra-liberal.

[Catherine]

Rick --

I'm going to recommend a book to you that, if you read, you may find some surprising areas of interest and agreement. The book is "Day of Reckoning" and it was written by Pat Buchanan.

You may think that it's a strange recommendation to give to someone with "42 years of voting Democratic" -- but you'll find a _really_ interesting analysis of our military commitments, the national implications of "free trade" agreements especially in regards to the middle class, and our standing in the world at large.

I picked the book up at the library on someone's recommendation, fully expecting to be able to vehemently disagree with most of it. While there are surely parts I disagree with, the analysis and background are extremely well-researched, carefully thought-out, and well presented.

And if you think, reading this, that I am espousing either a liberal OR conservative point of view, you would be incorrect. I think both major parties are, for the most part, wrong in their party platforms, but in very different ways.

Catherine

[kcjenkins]

Gee, I'm glad I did not read this thread until today, so I don't need to restate what my defenders have already pointed out. Rick, I do think your attack was unfair on the WMDs. because Bill and Hilary, as well as lots of other liberals, believed in them, too. As for the rest, I agree with Jainen, he and many others do a great job of balancing the opinions of the more conservative members.

And as I stated before in that thread, I did not agree with all of the quote, I just found it thought-provoking and worth discussing. I'm not anti-union, although I am anti anyone being forced to join a union. And I do think that most of the big unions today are corrupt at the top. Just like much of our government is. That does not make me an anarchist, however.

I am pretty fed up with both parties these days, Rick. I will still vote for McCain, because I do not want one party to control all three branches of government, and also because Obama is way too liberal for me. But I will not be happy until we either get the Republicans to go back to their roots, or else we create a new Conservative Party, that will actually deliver on the promises they make. Or I'll become a Democrat, if the grassroots Dem's take back their party from the ultra libs like Pelosi, and bring it back to being the party that actually supports the WORKING PEOPLE instead of the welfare crowd. But as long as the Dem's are controlled by people like Pelosi and Murtha. and the GOP is run by the greedy wimps that are in leadership positions now, I will not be actively working for either of these parties.

As for your last paragraph, I don't understand that one at all. What the liberals did to the Clintons? That I do not get at all. As for the Republicans, they ARE for the poor and the working class, Rick. They want the poor to have opportunities to work, and get out of poverty, rather than be kept in poverty through a welfare system that punishes those who try to work themselves out of welfare. And they are for the small businesspeople who are the ones who create most of the new jobs, and new opportunities. But I know you do not believe that, and so I think we need to just let that one rest. This is not, and should not, be about political parties, Rick. Lets keep it just to ideas and solutions, not parties, on this board, OK?

[Jack from Ohio]

Gee, I'm glad I did not read this thread until today...

...This is not, and should not, be about political parties, Rick. Lets keep it just to ideas and solutions, not parties, on this board, OK?

Well spoken and very eloquent. We can agree to disagree, and still debate our differences without it being personal. That is the difference between a closed mind, and an open one. The ability to listen and consider differing opinions than your own.

I disagree greatly with some of the members of this board on several issues. I also will fight tooth and nail for their ability to state their ideas and opinions without fear of personal attacks.

I always learn from intense debates on issues. I have even (don't speak too loudly) changed my ideas on things in the past after considering others views and information.

[joelgilb]

Prefer to stay out of political discussions and quietly standing in the sidelines waiting to see who to hand over to our Hangman, Zeke.

[Randall]

Prefer to stay out of political discussions and quietly standing in the sidelines waiting to see who to hand over to our Hangman, Zeke.

Like the old Leon Russell song said, 'The left ones think I'm right, the right ones think I'm wrong.'

[Eric]

But I will not be happy until we either get the Republicans to go back to their roots, or else we create a new Conservative Party, that will actually deliver on the promises they make.

Republicans had a chance to have a real conservative candidate in this election, and his name was Ron Paul. The problem is that the Republican party is no longer conservative. A humble foreign policy is no longer part of their platform. Many republicans who spend their time watching/listening to talking heads instead of thinking for themselves don't seem to realize that having the US military deployed in 135 countries is the antithesis of conservatism.

At any rate, there already is a -real- conservative party. The Libertarian party is the third largest political party in the US, and was formed in 1971. They're a bunch of crazy people who think we should have both personal freedom AND economic freedom, and not have to choose one over the other. Imagine that?

[joelgilb]

Like the old Leon Russell song said, 'The left ones think I'm right, the right ones think I'm wrong.'

Tapes n Tapes - Hang Them all

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMlxeGtrTKQ

[rick in cal]

Gee, I'm glad I did not read this thread until today, so I don't need to restate what my defenders have already pointed out. Rick, I do think your attack was unfair on the WMDs. because Bill and Hilary, as well as lots of other liberals, believed in them, too. As for the rest, I agree with Jainen, he and many others do a great job of balancing the opinions of the more conservative members.

And as I stated before in that thread, I did not agree with all of the quote, I just found it thought-provoking and worth discussing. I'm not anti-union, although I am anti anyone being forced to join a union. And I do think that most of the big unions today are corrupt at the top. Just like much of our government is. That does not make me an anarchist, however.

I am pretty fed up with both parties these days, Rick. I will still vote for McCain, because I do not want one party to control all three branches of government, and also because Obama is way too liberal for me. But I will not be happy until we either get the Republicans to go back to their roots, or else we create a new Conservative Party, that will actually deliver on the promises they make. Or I'll become a Democrat, if the grassroots Dem's take back their party from the ultra libs like Pelosi, and bring it back to being the party that actually supports the WORKING PEOPLE instead of the welfare crowd. But as long as the Dem's are controlled by people like Pelosi and Murtha. and the GOP is run by the greedy wimps that are in leadership positions now, I will not be actively working for either of these parties.

As for your last paragraph, I don't understand that one at all. What the liberals did to the Clintons? That I do not get at all. As for the Republicans, they ARE for the poor and the working class, Rick. They want the poor to have opportunities to work, and get out of poverty, rather than be kept in poverty through a welfare system that punishes those who try to work themselves out of welfare. And they are for the small businesspeople who are the ones who create most of the new jobs, and new opportunities. But I know you do not believe that, and so I think we need to just let that one rest. This is not, and should not, be about political parties, Rick. Lets keep it just to ideas and solutions, not parties, on this board, OK?

Again, I didn't mean to single you out on WMDs. The fact is you were duped just like the Clintons and the rest of us by Bush who lied and withheld information to get approval from congress to invade Iraq.

As for what the liberals did to the Clintons, I was referring mostly to the cable news networks coverage of the primaries. Fox who is not a liberal network may have been the fairest but they would always bring in Dick Morris in as an unbiased analyst instead of a commentator and he has been on a ten year mission to destroy Hillary Clinton ever since she fired him. CNN would always included Howard Bernstein in their analyst team and he wrote an unflattering biography of Hillary. Hardly objective. In addition to that Gloria Borger and Cafferty could hardly conceal their dislike for the Clintons and Cafferty, right after pretending to report the news would go into a commentary often tearing into Hillary's campaign but never finding anything wrong with Obama's tactics. I could spend hours on this but I still have taxes to do.

Finally, although I may have expressed myself to strongly from time to time I don't think it is ever right to misquote anyone. You said you KNOW I don't agree that "small businesses create most of the new jobs and opportunities". Did you misspeak or did you think you saw me say that somewhere?

[kcjenkins]

NO, NO, No, Rick, the Clintons were not mislead by Bush, they were mislead by the same intelligence agency's that mislead Bush. Clinton specifically, based his remarks at the time on his knowledge as a former President. He said so at the time. You are letting your hatred of Bush overrun your good sense.

And you misread my last paragraph. I did not say, or mean, the you do not agree that small business create most of the jobs. etc. I meant that you do not agree with me that Republicans are the party that more closely supports those small business and working people. You seem to still, based on various posts, believe that the Dems are the party that does that. That is where we disagree. And technically I can not be accused of misquoting you, unless I put quotes around words that I specifically attribute to you. Which I did not do. I did make an assumption, though, about your opinion on the GOP, and if I was wrong about that, I do sincerely apologize.

[jainen]

>>Republicans are the party... Dems are the party<<

Well, kc, I guess you didn't really mean what you said about "ideas and solutions, not parties, on this board." Let me observe two areas where you are in complete agreement with others who have posted seemingly opposite views. You support mainstream Republican candidates, Paul and McCain, but since neither of them will get the nomination you'll have to protest mainstream politics with write-in votes in November.

[i apologize for saying, in an earlier edit of this post, that Rick has supported any particular candidate.]

[zeke]

>>Republicans are the party... Dems are the party<<

Well, kc, I guess you didn't really mean what you said about "ideas and solutions, not parties, on this board." Let me observe two areas where you are in complete agreement with rick. You both support mainstream Republican candidates, Paul and McCain, but since neither of them will get the nomination you'll both have to protest mainstream politics with write-in votes in November.

O.K. Jainen, I'll bite. Just why will McCain not get nominated????

[jainen]

>>why will McCain not get nominated?<<

Many reasons. I'll skip all the polls that are saying he can't even carry Florida. It's enough to point out that the Republicans want to win and need a strong candidate.

First, John McCain simply doesn't have the stamina to campaign. He looks like a zombie and can hardly even read a teleprompter in front of supporters. That makes it easy to withdraw--health is the perfect excuse for a graceful exit.

Speaking of zombies, we haven't even begun to explore McCain's skeleton closet. Did he make recordings for North Vietnam? Did he cause the Forrestal fire? Documents exist. Did he violate campaign financing (the law named after himself)? A court case is putting it all under oath.

Another of the undead is Jack Abramoff. He gets sentenced on September 4th, so we'll find out what (and who) they've been investigating for two years. From Abramoff's confession we already know that it was high level corruption in Indian Affairs. John McCain was chairman of the committee. September 4th is the same day the GOP picks their candidate.

[rick in cal]

Rick --

I'm going to recommend a book to you that, if you read, you may find some surprising areas of interest and agreement. The book is "Day of Reckoning" and it was written by Pat Buchanan.

You may think that it's a strange recommendation to give to someone with "42 years of voting Democratic" -- but you'll find a _really_ interesting analysis of our military commitments, the national implications of "free trade" agreements especially in regards to the middle class, and our standing in the world at large.

I picked the book up at the library on someone's recommendation, fully expecting to be able to vehemently disagree with most of it. While there are surely parts I disagree with, the analysis and background are extremely well-researched, carefully thought-out, and well presented.

And if you think, reading this, that I am espousing either a liberal OR conservative point of view, you would be incorrect. I think both major parties are, for the most part, wrong in their party platforms, but in very different ways.

Catherine

Pat Buchanan is someone I admire greatly and although he is considered to be conservative I see him as a populist much like T. Roosevelt. I plan to read his book eventually. Incidently, I don't see a great deal of correlation between his views and those people who call themselves conservatives today.

[rick in cal]

>>who moderates the moderators<<

Umm, well, I do.... I read all kc's posts, which are pretty eloquent, and if I disagree then I say so, which is pretty often. And then anyone else can read those posts and chime in pro or con, and we all get an education.

The thread you're looking at ["Interesting thoughts on the Unemployment news"] is typical of that process. I countered with a viewpoint somewhat like your own, but I dare say it didn't convince anyone. On the other hand, kc admits right in the original post that some of the basic argument was so objectionable it had to be edited out. I think that's fair.

I don't understand your last sentence, rick, where you say you are bothered by kc's opinions because of some unspoken thing ultra-liberals did. I'm sure kc has done many unspeakable things, but I doubt any of them could be characterized as ultra-liberal.

Jainen. I was reading your posts defending the working class and you held your own very well. The consensus was that the newest generation doesn't want to do an honest day's work and wants to be compensated much more than they are worth. It reminds me of a well known individual who was quoted as saying that the new generation seems unmotivated, waunders with no purpose and each generation gets worse. He went on to say that the future looks to be doomed if young people are not willing to take on more initiative and work like the current generation. Based on the fact that this was Socrates in the fifth century BC I'm guessing maybe we are in trouble by now.

[rick in cal]

NO, NO, No, Rick, the Clintons were not mislead by Bush, they were mislead by the same intelligence agency's that mislead Bush. Clinton specifically, based his remarks at the time on his knowledge as a former President. He said so at the time. You are letting your hatred of Bush overrun your good sense.

And you misread my last paragraph. I did not say, or mean, the you do not agree that small business create most of the jobs. etc. I meant that you do not agree with me that Republicans are the party that more closely supports those small business and working people. You seem to still, based on various posts, believe that the Dems are the party that does that. That is where we disagree. And technically I can not be accused of misquoting you, unless I put quotes around words that I specifically attribute to you. Which I did not do. I did make an assumption, though, about your opinion on the GOP, and if I was wrong about that, I do sincerely apologize.

Okay KC, I give up, I concede, and I will wave the white flag. Neither one of us is going to budge. I might be wrongly assuming that Bush was concealing information in his 2003 State of the Union Address. Next I'm going to call Joe Wilson, Colon Powell, the CIA and 70% of the American public and tell them they are wrong as well.

[zeke]

Thanks Rick! The flaming vitriol was burning my virgin ears. You and Jainen seem to have such clarity of thought regarding the motivation of others, and fail to understand that most of us lack the intellectual insight requisite to appreciate your position.

[BulldogTom]

I am not trying to incite anyone, just make an observation.

I find it very interesting that there are people who in one sentence will claim G W Bush is the stupidest president we have ever had, and then in the next claim that he was able to deceive the entire US Senate, House of Representatives, United Nations Security Council, and half a dozen nations into believing that Saddam had WMD's. Oh, and don't forget that he was able to jury rig the 2000 election and get appointed by the Supreme Court, and was able to convince a majority of the voters in the US to elect him a second time. Not bad for the stupidest president in history.

I was watching a show the other day that showed Saddam did have the capability to produce WMD, but did not have the opportunity to make them. The reporter also had Iraqi documents showing that Saddam was telling everyone he had WMD when in fact he did not, but he wanted the Iranians and Isralies to think he did. The report concluded that the inspections were keeping him from starting the production of WMD, and he was just bidding his time until he could start up factories again.

60 Minutes also did a feature on the agent who interrogated Saddam for the United States, and the agent said similar things about him.

What GW knew, and when he knew it, will always be debated by those who condemn and defend him.

My personal take - he stood on the pile of rubble at Ground Zero and promised to get revenge. The nation cheered him. He went about trying to accomplish that task (poorly perhaps) and kept his word. I don't see anything sinister, just misguided.

Tom

Lodi, CA

[JohnH]

I don't even see anything particulary misguided. Not perfect, but certainly effective. After all, I can count the number of follow-up attacks on US soil on less than one hand. After 6-1/2 years, that's a commendable result, especially since one would have to be incredibly naive to think the rabid fundamentalists don't have the desire and capability to do more harm. The 9/11 attack was a tactical victory, but so far it has been a strategic failure for them.

For the sake of my grandkids I'd like for that perfect track record to continue, but common sense tells me the odds are against it. In wartime mistakes will happen. One only has to research "Exercise Tiger" at Slapton Sands in April 1944 to get a firsthand lesson in how wrong things can go, even when you're just PRACTICING how you're going to to break things & kill people.

There are always competing opinions about how both the enemy and allies should be engaged in wartime, and the naysayers always turn out in large numbers when their cousel was ignored, but they mostly show up after the fact. Since one can't prove a negative, it can't be known if their advice would have produced a better result, only a different one. (And very possibly a much worse one)

[jainen]

>>the inspections were keeping him from starting the production of WMD, and he was just bidding his time until he could start up factories again<<

The inspectors left in 1998. When they returned five years later they reported that the government was giving them unrestricted access to everything. They found that none of the previously sealed sites had been tampered with. They found no raw materials. They found no plans. They found no serviceable equipment. They found no updated scientific skills. They found no diplomatic, industrial, or commercial contacts that would lead to nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. They also found no way to deploy such weapons even if they had existed.

>>he stood on the pile of rubble at Ground Zero and promised to get revenge<<

Revenge on whom? Nobody in Iraq had anything whatsoever to do with ground zero.