Tax dollars at work

[Hohn]

The following was written by Bill Moyers. His show is on PBS, and taxpayer-subsidized. This is an example of his "unbiased journalism":





"Way back in the 1950's when I first tasted politics and journalism, Republicans briefly controlled the White House and Congress. With the exception of Joseph McCarthy and his vicious ilk, they were a reasonable lot, presided over by that giant war hero, Dwight Eisenhower, who was conservative by temperament and moderate in the use of power.



That brand of Republican is gone. And for the first time in the memory of anyone alive, the entire federal government — the Congress, the Executive, the Judiciary — is united behind a right-wing agenda for which George W. Bush believes he now has a mandate.



That mandate includes the power of the state to force pregnant women to give up control over their own lives.



It includes using the taxing power to transfer wealth from working people to the rich.



It includes giving corporations a free hand to eviscerate the environment and control the regulatory agencies meant to hold them accountable.



And it includes secrecy on a scale you cannot imagine. Above all, it means judges with a political agenda appointed for life. If you liked the Supreme Court that put George W. Bush in the White House, you will swoon over what's coming.



And if you like God in government, get ready for the Rapture. These folks don't even mind you referring to the GOP as the party of God. Why else would the new House Majority Leader say that the Almighty is using him to promote 'a Biblical worldview' in American politics?



So it is a heady time in Washington — a heady time for piety, profits, and military power, all joined at the hip by ideology and money.



Don't forget the money. It came pouring into this election, to both parties, from corporate America and others who expect the payback. Republicans outraised Democrats by $184 million dollars. And came up with the big prize — monopoly control of the American government, and the power of the state to turn their ideology into the law of the land. Quite a bargain at any price.



That's it for this week.



For NOW, I'm Bill Moyers. "





Come now Bill! I would expect this of the DNC Clintonistas, but someone purporting to be a journalist should do better than this. .

 

[Jumbo Jet]

profits

Who will create jobs? A corporation making profits, or a corporation going bust?



Some people are so afraid of big corporations making profits. Why?



The Communists in the USSR didn't encourage profits and where did that get them?



Without profits there are no incentives to be productive or creative.



Without profits there is no reason for research and development - there are no funds either!



Without profits there are no pay raises, bonuses, or taxes on those items.

 

[baby.driver]

Just because Bill Moyers is full of poo poo doesn't mean Bush is a saint.



Jay

 

[illflem]

Don't cha know GWB walks on water?... ... ... ... NOT!

Just give the Reps a couple years and things will be so screwed up that they'll never be in control again.

 

[Champane Flight]

Not yet

I have seen nothing yet. Like Bill says "Wait two years". I do know that the Dems are not the only ones who like larger goverment. Our new Homeland security bureau (along with DOT, IATA, RMA, FAA, RCC, and a dozen more) will overwhelm the transportation system of this nation to the point of breaking. It will cost more to ship goods across the USA then around the world. The little guys (trucking industry) will sell out because of high overhead from compliance. Then we can watch this nation go into a tail spin.



I have not seen any stock jump and believe there will not be any.



Show me the profits?



I like PBS myself, the goverment only funds a small portion of there cost. The rest is funded by the public. I like the lack of advertisment. The constant noise and drivel on most radio stations is enough to make you puke. You can also hear both sides of a situation, I have heard some extremly right wing veiws on our local station.



Bill Moyers probably had funded a Dem canidate, lost, and was feeling a little testy?

 

[RonaldLarson]

Why...

would any intelligent person consider anything that any liberal says to be of interest to anyone else?

Boy, they sure don't know how to lose, do they?! This last election showed one un-deniable fact: people are tired of the press, tired of people who hate business, and ready for some good old Republican statesmanship in government.

Ron

pickin and grinnin

 

[Champane Flight]

Every

Every dog has its day... .....

 

[baby.driver]

And you have yet to have yours

 

[daveshoe]

I figgure the republicrats will try to play " protect the lead " and govern to the center. How boring. Lest mr moyers thinks our country will revert to some kind of unregulated free for all, mabey he should research when some of the most abusive regulators came to power. For example EPA and OSHA were formed under nixon and were throttled back under Reagan. Bush 1 became Kinder and Gentler to government and that is when OSHA really went out of control. I personally know some small businesses who were put out of business by them.

To those of you who love the left wing , consider the whole package. then go tell Al Gore your 7000 pound truck puts 400 horsepower to the ground. How long do you think he will let you keep it especially since you don't "need" it? [if the regs were enforced like they are on business,you wouldn't have it now]

The majority of the voters get pushed around by the two major parties because they know we hate the other side so much that they always have our vote. Elections are decided by people who are undecided until the moment they vote and the people they elect have as much principle as a truck waranty

Sorry for the bad mood

:-{} :-{} :-{} :-{}

 

[baby.driver]

Yep,

I'm still waitin' on the list of laws repealed by EITHER party.



Darn short list.



Jay

 

[Champane Flight]

Where

We can all sit around on our duffs and project what one politician will do over another. But, when it all boils down, it will fall where the money falls. Laws are broken everyday and special intrests are catered to. This goes for both major partys!



Taxes are a necessary evil and will never be compleatly gone, they will grow though (If we ever want a balanced goverment budget). We cannot continue to throw baby tax cuts at the people and expect the economy to grow. You will get a false security (and more votes) though. It also gives a bad image of our goverment to investers, if they cannot hold down spending and keep an income, how can we? If our goverment/administration can't balance a budget and hasn't a clue, it doesen't look good for the rest of the nation.



I have yet to see any statemanship from this administration. All I have seen is political fundraising and spending of our tax dollars. All while our infrastructure in the US and abroad is being strecthed to the limit.



I heard the Republicans whinning for eight years under Democratic rule. They went even farther as to sic a special investigater on the administration, all with republican and US tax dollars. Talk about not knowing how to loose. Why would anybody believe anything ANY politician would say?



My dog is quietly waiting his turn.

 

[Hohn]

A little history.....

I will post a link that you all would probably find interesting.



I have to skirt a delicate line, since I cannot criticize Pres Bush. GWB comes from a family more powerful that most people could ever know.



He is a member of the Order of the Skull and Bones... . a secret society at Yale University that reads like a who's who of the world's most powerful going back to the late 1700s. People powerful enough to make it appear as if every action in the world was either caused or permitted by them.



Read the information on this secret society here:http://www.parascope.com/articles/0997/skullbones.htm



The point is that Democrats and Republicans are both just stooges for the more powerful elite- an elite that has for hundreds of years been campaigning for a world government which THEY (naturally) would lead.



The "war on terror" is, I believe, the tool being used by the elite in the world to sieze power. The plan is simple: get everyone afraid. Persuade them that the Gov't can protect them. Then get them to surrender all their freedom and privacy for this "protection".



Is anyone dumb enough to believe that all this extra airport "security" actually keeps you safer? No, there is a different reason: to desensitize people to military presence in public places. Then, the presence of a Gestapo-like force in the US will not arouse suspicion. Of course, this force will have a name that has either "security" or "peace" in the name. The reason for it though is anything but peace or security.



The elite tried once to seize power with the Nazis. IN fact, the Order of the Skull and Bones has only two chapters: Yale and Germany. It is not well publicized that Prescott Bush (Yale class of 1917 and Bones member) was in charge of a major financial institution in New York during WW2 that had its assets seized since they were financing Nazi Germany. He is the Grandfather of our current Pres. Every Bush son since then has gone to Yale and is a Bones member. Their connections get them into Yale, since their academics clearly lack. GWB graduated with a "D" average.



Fascism and Communism are said to be political opposite (the former far right, the latter far left). Truth is, they are pretty much the same thing. They both hold that the STATE gives you your rights and is able to take them away based on how good a citizen you are. That's why it doesn't matter if you are a Republican or a Democrat. The Republicans would produce a Nazi like police state. The Dems would produce a China (communist) like police state. Does it matter THEN whom you voted for??



The connection of the Bush family to both Communist China and Nazi Germany is undeniable. Bush 41 was ambassador to China as well as head of CIA.



I believe that in our lifetimes we will see the emergence of a world Gov't and the surrender of American soveriegnty. I believe it is by design. I also believe that the present war on terror is the "straw that broke the camel's back" with respect to personal privacy and freedom. I believe we are on course to become a police state. I don't like it.



I am hesitating on whether or not my wife and I should even have children. Do I want to bring children into a pathetic world of moral relativism, where they will be brainwashed by what they "learn" in school and what they see on TV? Where they will at best be ridiculed and at worst be imprisoned for daring to say that homosexuality is wrong, not an alternate lifestyle??



It's almost like the REVERSE of the salem witch trials: people are guilty until proven innocent of the crime of believing anything that is not politically correct



1) Did you know that presently, visitors to the Statue of Liberty are required to submit to a face scan, and that the info is stored in gov't databases? Someone please prove me wrong.



2) Did you know that Massachusetts DMV forms now have provisions for "transgendered"? That's right, the gov't of MA eagerly accomodates the perversion.



Buy your guns now-- private ownership will soon be over. I love and support the NRA, but they are fighting a losing battle. In fact, there is a line item on a homeland security bill in Congress AT THIS MOMENT that all but repeals the 2nd amendment.



If you dismiss me as a wacko, wait until 2010-- then remember reading this and the link I posted. I hope you DO take time to read it-- it's long but worthwhile.



Do not take your freedom for granted. There are truly "enemies at the gate". No amount of security or peace is worth your privacy and liberty.



The oath I took to the US constitution requires me to "support and defend" it against "all enemies, foreign and domestic". Someone please tell me how exactly a military member combats a "domestic" enemy. What is a domestic enemy? Enemy of whom? The Constitution or the existing establishment? What do you do when they are at odds?



Such is my dilemma.

 

[baby.driver]

Hohn you make too much sense. Many here haven't the ability to handle it.



Have your kids, and enjoy them, they are gifts from the Most High. Just homeschool and avoid the Mark at all costs. All things must be fulfilled before Jesus is sent back to rescue us.



Hang on and enjoy the ride.



Your Bro.

Jay

 

[Champane Flight]

I was

Hohn, I was with you until you came to the alternate lifestyle thing. That is where we fall apart. How many homosexual people do you know? I know a few and can tell you that the majority are good, upstanding, contributing, moral, members of this society. It is unfortunate that the few sexual deviants in the group and of the moral majority (another name for holier than thou) can forge the outlook of many. I know you can probably quote some bible passage that says otherwise, but we really know that Homosexuals have been on this earth for as long as man, so were homophobics... ... ... ... ... .....



A wise man said once "May you live in interesting times. " . It is that. It is still a good place and time to raise a child.



It is also unfortunate that some religions still forbid birth control, yet have children starving in their order. Or follow the "Be fruitful and multiply" and still have abortions. I believe that women should be the ONLY ones who have the next vote in abortion issues. It is our only responsiblity as men to keep our zippers up!



Of course we also have to keep the guns clean and plenty of ammo handy.

 

[Hohn]

about "alternate" lifestyles

Well, I am not so ignorant as to believe that homosexuality is a new phenomenon.



I know perfectly well that the vast majority of homosexuals are law abiding citizens. I have few objections with most homosexuals, aside from the obvious.



My main disagreement is when people want special protection for deviant sexual behavior. They expect someone (the gov't) to force everyone to discriminate in favor of them and give them preferential treatment. While homosexuality will always exist (until this world passes away) i think it is a damaging and morally unsound practice to INSTITUTIONALLY (within gov't, society, etc. ) say that homosexuality is OK.

That means that if someone doesn't want to hire you because you're gay, then fine-- they can't be forced to. The employer has rights as well. If someone doesn't want to rent to you, that's fine too. They shouldn't be forced to.

Let me preempt the inevitable comparison of homosexuals' struggle for preference to the civil rights movement of the 60s. They are not similar. The civil right movement was just and proper. You cannot discriminate against someone just because of a undisputably genetic quality they have. It's a part of who they ARE.



On the other hand, homosexuality is what you DO. It's a behavior, just as lying, stealing, cheating, etc. are behaviors. It is a LEARNED behavior, resulting more from unmet emotional needs, the sexualizing of teen life, and the destruction of the traditional family than from any genetic tendency. There is no "gay" gene, and such will never be discovered.



Every person is subject to passions: romantic passions; angry passions, ambitious passions. It is precisely the ability to control and overcome these passions that makes us human. It's part of our unique ability to reason at high levels. The minute we surrender control of them and just let our drives and urges determine our behavior, we become less than human-- we are animals.



Let me also debunk the myth of homophobia. This is a clever label by pro-homosexual liberals. Its implies that conservatives who do not approve of the homosexual lifestyle are either 1) racists who speak out of fear 2) idiots who speak out of ignorance. So the label contains a conclusion within it-- you are either stupid or prejudiced to disagree with a liberal. Conservatives don't fear gays. We simply refuse to accept the lifestyle. We object to the behavior.



While our systems ensure the right to free speech, it DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD. That's absolutely crucial to understand. You don't have a right to an audience.

The parallel to homosexuality would be this: you may have a Constitutional right to be gay, but you don't have the right to endorsement. We can allow you to do it without approving of it. You have no right to force others to tolerate/endorse/agree with your behavior in the context of receiving special treatment.



There are at least three arguments that refute the acceptability of the gay lifestyle: the Biblical argument (God says no), the natural law argument (male and female have complimentary design), and the evolutionary argument (species cannot further itself from infertile copulation).



Pick the one that is most palatable.



Your comment on women having exclusive say in abortion issues derves a post all its own... Maybe that is forthcoming.

 

[Champane Flight]

Very well...

I cannot speak for myself as I am as repulsed by homosexual behavior as any hetrosexual can be. I think this is the root of our misunderstanding of homosexual activity. HOW could any male be attracted to another male? Or any female be attracted to another female. No, I don't think there is a gene that makes them what they are. Do you remember little Johnny in grade school? He was the one who played with the girls, he didn't like football or sports, he didn't like rough and tumble horseplay and he didn't turn out like us did he?



I cannot understand why anyone would CHOOSE to be a homosexual. Maybe it is because they do NOT choose to be what they are. I know a father of a straight A student. This student also had a girlfriend of many years. This young man came out one day out of the blue and said he was gay. When asked why he chose to be what he is, he replied "How could anyone choose to be a homosexual? Why would anyone choose to be looked at as a freak of nature? Why would anyone choose to be beaten by his own so called friends after coming out? And tell me why would anyone choose to have a mate and never have the opurtunity to have thier union be recognized as a marriage?" He wasn't asking for speicial privilages, just the same as any other married couple. No he didn't choose who he is, God made him who he is. You can choose your lifestyle, you cannot change who you are... ... ... . It took guts to admit who he was.



Some indian tribes revered the homosexual, they thought they were gifted by the great spirit. They were a valued part of the tribe, as they could be a warrior, a artsian, and even a wife. And NO ONE in a indian tribe chose to be a homosexual. If you were a young man, you were schooled from early childhood to be a warrior and a hunter. A learned behavior? I think not.



The human population grows in leaps and bounds and as it does, we will see more and more gays and lesbians. Maybe it is a way for God to limit our growth. I tend to think and thank him for what I am and not try to overthink what his course is for me. He always gives me what I need, not what I want. I like to think we can all occupy this earth together in peace.

 

[baby.driver]

Ever since the eating of the fruit of the tree of



Knowledge of Good and Evil,



everyone, including Champane, knows the difference between Right and Wrong. That they persist in their denial of that knowledge is yet another symptom pointing to the same knowledge of evil.



Some may indeed have a preference for their own sex from their childhood, and if God did make them that way, it wasn't so they would stay in that condition but overcome it. The Bible was given us for just this purpose so that there would be no doubt as to the will of God.



Satan walks about as an angry lion seeking who he will devour.

Satan works against everybody constantly, whispering in our ears that which he would have us do. We don't have to listen to him. We have the Knowledge and we have the Bible to back it up.

Good? There is Good in no one save God.



Yours,

Jay

 

[Hohn]

weird theology

Baby, I am starting to think you and I are very different after reading your post on the military and freedom.



God would MAKE someone Gay? Does it make sense to you that God would create someone with a condition that He "abhors"?(to use the strong Biblical language)



I can see it now: someone in court, accused of murder with overwhelming evidence. "I only murder because God made me that way" he says. That can't be wrong, can it? And God certainly can't hold him accountable, can He?



One thing that you hit on that I think is absolutely right: the issue of law vs. grace. The Bible says that if we are guilty of breaking part of the law, we have broken the whole law. In other words, my sin makes me just as bad off as someone else and their sin, whether that is homosexuality or lying or whatever. That's why the Apostle Paul talked about the law bringing condemnation. We always fall short.



The presence of sin in our own lives does NOT keep us from recognizing it in other places, nor does it change the fact that it is sin and we should hate it. I think we just have to be careful to ensure that we have handled the plank in our own eyes first, then look to the specks in others... ...



Hohn

 

[NVR FNSH]

I didn't know Jerry Falwell drives a Dodge Cummins & is a member of TDR.....



Brian

 

[baby.driver]

Hohn

Remember when the pharisees pointed out the man born blind/crippled to Jesus and asked, ' who sinned, this man born this way, or his parents?'



And what did Jesus say? Maybe that the man was this way so the Glory of God could be made manifest.



I know that is a poor paraphrase but that is the point I was making.



Jay