Chris,

Howdy.. Been too busy to respond before now..

>>>>While you may not see or acknowledge this fundamental difference it has had HUGE impacts on the notion of private property.
>>>>
>>>>Those who believe in man's ability to better himself always seem to end up at the notion that those men who are governing know best for the governed. They tend to arrive at the conclusion that they have risen to the top of their respective political 'heaps' and that is an indication of their superiority - even over their countrymen. They see themselves as the embodiment of moral certitude and eventually arrogance overcomes good judgement and they begin to step into their society (or others in the case of the Facists in WWII) and appropriate that which is not rightfully theirs.
>>>>
>>>>If you have listened carefully to Mr. Clinton's remarks and the remarks of many Democrats in Congress, when the issue of a tax refund/rebate/giveback has come up they will more often than not couch their words in terms that indicate that they see all the earned monies in the US as theirs and they are giving us back some. Not that we earn and own the money and they are taking less.
>>>
>>>OK, here we go again. I could not help but notice you jumped right from facists to Clinton. If you are going to make broad statements like that, I am going to ask for specifics. Who, what, where, and when.
>>
>>I explained all of this two paragraphs up. Did you not read my post or do you not comprehend it? Or do you not want to? Mr. Clinton exhibits existentialism like no other public figure I've ever seen. I mean, redefining the words 'is' and 'sex' for goodness sakes. Perhaps you know nothing about existentialism? If you want me to write a treatise on Communism, Socialism, Facism and how they relate to existentialist thought then you're going to be disappointed I guess. Let me direct you to the writings of the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer for that.
>
>Your remark was specifically aimed at Clinton and many Democrats in regards to taxes. I have asked you to back this up. You have come back with Clinton and sex. I have not asked for your writings on communism, socialism, or facism. Just to back up your statement:

Once again I refer you to my statement above. I think what you're missing is the connection between how mankind thinks about itself (typically) and how that translates into governance. Doesn't matter if its taxes, sex, last minute Executive Orders or whatever. What I'm suggesting is that how a man thinks about himself fundamentally affects how he thinks of others. Most liberals and Democarts (and far too many Republicans for that matter) follow what I outlined above.

I really think you've missed my point which in my mind totally answers your concerns. Mr Clinton, as a direct example of existentialist thought, sees himself as able to define words as he goes through life. Liberals and Democrats do the same thing with respect to taxation and they seem to think that the money you and I earn is theirs to allow us to keep rather than ours which they take. It all flows from how they fundamentally think about themselves.

>
>"they see all the earned monies in the US as theirs and they are giving us back some"
>
>Stick to the facts Doug. And please, do not send me on another goose-chase with your so called "facts".

I did.

>
>>And yes, here we go again.. Do your own dang research. <g> I've told you where to get the information. Go get the books and learn something. Cripes, don't you know anything about Communism, Fascism, Socialism or existentialism? Are you unable to think how they relate to each other?? C'mon Chris, don't disappoint me here..
>
>Ah, so typical. In what debate does anyone make a statement, and then ask everyone else to do their research for them? Maybe if I decide to go for my Masters degree, I could do this: make a bunch of statement, then tell my professors to do the research.

Well, I have given you my thinking on the subject. If that's not good enough for you then you have a problem I guess. You've not cited your sources either so it seems to me that you're just playing the hypocrite here as I've not asked you for yours. I take your words as you write them.

>
>>I stand by my statement. Mr. Clinton just today is going to 'grab' some 60 million acres of land and 'protect' them. He's already reversed the very first executive order he initiated after his first swearing in in 1992. You remember, that's the one where federal employees are barred for 5 years from lobbying. Funny that he now recinds it. There are but two examples but I suppose that won't be enough for you. If you want more go read a newspaper or even better, Matt Drudge's web site. <g>
>
>I am not defending Clinton, just asking for you to defend your statement:

>
>"they see all the earned monies in the US as theirs and they are giving us back some"

Well, if you need me to defend that statement all I can say is that you must not read your daily newspaper or the Internet or pay attention whatsoever to what goes on in DC. ALl of the above are my sources and it appears I am able to read them and synthisize the data. Do you not get out much? <g>

>
>But really, I should know better. I have asked you to do this before and:
>
>1. You sent me on a wild goose-chase
>2. When I pointed out your source wasn't what you claimed it to be, you told me I should find it myself.

Well, I guess your inability to see the obvious is my fault too then. <g>

Chris, I cannot make you successful in your observations of what goes on around you. When I cite some of my sources you simply scoff and dismiss them.


>
>>>This is a Republican camp?
>>
>>No, not at all. There are many liberal Republicans who are IMO just as 'off the reservation' as liberal Democrats are. OTOH< there are a few conservative Democrats who are 'cool' IMO. James Trafficant for one. Funny how the so-called bipartisanship of the Democratic Party evaporated about 1 1/2 hours after they were all sworn in yesterday. Trafficant voted for Hastert as was his right and the Dems immediatly kicked him out. Now, that's Liberal Compassion for you! Hypocrites - plain and simple. I'm sick of them and the likes of Jesse Jackson who take advantage of their own for monetary gain.
>
>First of all, I have no respect for a man that wear polyester suits (Traficant), although ending each speech in the House with "Beam Me Up" might get my vote. < g >

<g>

So, since he differs in his opinions he's now a target for ridicule? Is this what you call clear thinking? What about the content of his daily speeches?

>
>Second of all, the feud between Traficant and the other Democrats goes back a ways, and I think you failed to mention that Traficant rarely attends Democratic caucus meetings and has been at odds with the party since at least last March.

Right, and this is IMO really more evidence of the structural intolerance and bigotry of the Democrats. Did you catch Maxine Waters the other day asserting that she did not care what the rules were? Now there's a sterling example of bigotry, close-mindedness, narrow-mindedness, arrogance and outright hate if I've ever seen it. And yet Democrats don't even have the internal party character to purge garbage like that from their midst. Yes indeedy.. The pparty of the little guy who all ride in their limosines to their rallies. <g>


>
>Then again, I am getting use to you leaving out the pertinent facts.

Well, I've long since gotten used to you misinterpreting what I write so I guess we're even. <g>

>
>>Lat time I looked Newt had a life. Since you brought his name up should Hillary do what Newt did and only take one dollar advance for her book? You remember of course how the liberals all howled about his 4.5 million deal don't you? Or do you have selective memory now? <g> Hers is some 8 million, which by my count is almost double what his was. Should she do the same?
>
>Do your research Doug. The House had specific rules against it, the Senate doesn't. It's as simple as this: Newt broke the rules (and very similar rules to the ones he demolished Jim Wright with), and Hilary didn't.

Please cite those rules Chris. You have consistently failed to provide your sources.... <g> How am I to believe you when you consistently fail to provide me with the least bit or shred of credible sources?? You see, you don't do it either Chris.

>
>>>That is all too apparent from your post.
>>
>>Give me a break. <g> Is that the best you can do? You're starting to remind me of the child who responds, "You did it too!" <g>
>>
>>Where's your substance man?
>
>My substance is being able to back up what I say, or admit when I am wrong. I do not ask you or anyone else to back up my statements for me, and I don't send them off on wild goose-chases when I site my source.

Uh huh... <g>

Regardless, thanks for the discussion!