Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Open Discussions

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-26-2009, 12:33 PM   #26
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
Is this a joke? Do you understand that you cannot simply *take* money from legitimate investors and give it to someone else, particularly when you threaten the investors? It's their money, David.
Sure, it's their money EXCEPT the parts they OWED to the people who had already EARNED it from them. If you do work for me and then I tell you I'm going out of business, I HAVE to pay you EVERYTHING you earned, don't I? What did those investors give the unions that the unions had not earned (through the WORK of all their members? They EARNED all their pay, all their health care, all their pensions, but they were only paid 50% of that. Is that fair?

The investors put their money on the line. They had all the inside information on the company, they went to board meetings and determined compensation for the CEO and everyone else. They couldn't see that they had more obligations than they were ever likely to be able to repay? Or that their cars were inferior?

Sorry, but they put their money at risk and lost.

The unions, however, didn't just put money at risk: they gave their bodies and did the demanding work for those investors. It's not their fault that the investors and their hired guns mismanaged the companies. They are lucky to get a penny back but the workers should have been paid in full. Getting 50%, they lost a lot more than the investors, who were just playing with spare money, the same as if they were going to the Silver Star Casino. You say it "is" "their" money. It's just too bad they hired very bad management to handle "their" money. Obama didn't do that to them.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
If Chrysler bankrupts, the actual investor are the senior creditors. Property rights like that are the mainstays of the Constitution.
I think that seniority only kicks in after they've paid the workers for the actual work they've already done--and any contractural debt the company has incurred along the way to bankruptcy.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
There has been a trend in recent years where people have been taught to believe that if they feel something strongly enough, that's the same thing as facts and law. It's not. If people want to get rid of the law, I'm fine with that, but let's all play by the same rules.
Sounds like you think Bush and Cheney ought to be held to the same rules as pick-pockets and crack dealers. That's what they deserve. But we've seen decades where the super rich walk away free from whatever they have done and still carrying their money.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
.... no, it appears that a lot of people want to apply different rules for themselves and any victim-class they designate. I would suggest people be cautious in wishing for the law to only be applied occasionally... it could come back to haunt.
That's why we need a full and complete investigation of the start of the Iraq war, they monies paid in, the full role of Haliburton (including prosecutions for the soldiers killed by electrical errors on jobs Haliburton was paid to complete), the naming of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent and many, many, many, many other literal crimes, as well. If we follow your suggestion faithfully, Bush will eventually go to prison.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
I read an interesting article in one of the Brit papers in 2008 where they were bemused at the way all the articles in Brit papers detailing the horrors of Brit med care were never reported by liberal news-media in the US.
I doubt any country on earth can compete with the United States for health care horror stories. Remember that in the US, health care catastrophes are the leading cause of personal bankruptcies. And the irony is that it's not mainly the uninsured who are ruined by these expenses:it's people who have "good" insurance but who are dropped by their insurance carrier as soon as things start going bad. Maybe Mexico could top us, but I doubt it. I think you have to go to someplace like Guatemala or maybe Khazakstan to get a worse system than we have.

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 12:37 PM   #27
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Quote:
Ron Tisdale wrote: View Post
Speaking of vilification:

I understand that these are not your words Mike, and I also understand (or at least appreciate) the context...but really now...
And by the way...whose words were those?

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 12:37 PM   #28
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Heck, I'm disappointed that the one factual item involving Obama, something which is already on the record (Obama and union patronage/spoils) doesn't seem to evoke any worry at all! How ephemeral are the worries about justice and law. Tsk.

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 12:39 PM   #29
Ron Tisdale
Dojo: Doshinkan dojo in Roxborough, Pa
Location: Phila. Pa
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,614
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Josh, I'm going to remember that one!

Mike, understood...but hey, it had to be said.

Best to all,
Ron

Ron Tisdale
-----------------------
"The higher a monkey climbs, the more you see of his behind."
St. Bonaventure (ca. 1221-1274)
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 12:40 PM   #30
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
Well, a pejorative is not exactly a villification...
Sorry. I thought I was using perjoratives earlier.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
Calling someone a "raghead" is not the same thing as saying someone was laying around drunk, if you see the difference.
I think it's just an imaginary difference used to allow you to say whatever you want but to try to discredit other people for saying very similar things.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 12:43 PM   #31
Ron Tisdale
Dojo: Doshinkan dojo in Roxborough, Pa
Location: Phila. Pa
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,614
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Ok, I had to check to see if I was slipping...

Quote:
vil⋅i⋅fy  /ˈvɪləˌfaɪ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [vil-uh-fahy] Show IPA
–verb (used with object), -fied, -fy⋅ing. 1. to speak ill of; defame; slander.
2. Obsolete. to make vile.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1400–50; late ME < LL vīlificāre. See vile, -fy

Related forms:

vil⋅i⋅fi⋅ca⋅tion, noun
vil⋅i⋅fi⋅er, noun
vil⋅i⋅fy⋅ing⋅ly, adverb

Synonyms:
1. depreciate, disparage, calumniate, malign, abuse, asperse, blacken.
You decide...

B,
R

Ron Tisdale
-----------------------
"The higher a monkey climbs, the more you see of his behind."
St. Bonaventure (ca. 1221-1274)
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 12:46 PM   #32
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
...that still reads like "everyone else did it" to me. I guess it's not a subject you can debate very well, then, so I'll leave it as it stands.
It's not at all a matter of "everyone did it to me" because really, no one has done it to me. But the Republicans have based their entire strategy on just that for the past forty or fifty years and the current mess (both economic, war-wise and in congress) is directly rooted in that.

Anyway, you really should leave it where it stands because so far you're discounting Obama before he's really done anything especially good or bad and you're also discounting all the disastrous decisions by Bush/Cheney that got us into such a horrible mess that the current president is having to take unprecedented actions to get us out of it.

Give him six months and you'll have to admit he's a far better president than either Bush and far, far better than McCain/Palin. And when it comes to war, you'll have to admit that he's a lot sharper than Bush ever will be.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 12:50 PM   #33
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
Heck, I'm disappointed that the one factual item involving Obama, something which is already on the record (Obama and union patronage/spoils) doesn't seem to evoke any worry at all!
Why don't you lay out the union issue a little more deeply if it's that important?

And in a nation where law has been used to destroy justice, it's already gotten to the point where people don't see the point. I mean, it's been so weird to hear Bush go on and on about "the rule of law" when he was walking on the face of Justice.

That's not your strong argument, Mike. Why don't you go back to the thing about unions?

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 12:51 PM   #34
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Quote:
Ron Tisdale wrote: View Post
Ok, I had to check to see if I was slipping...

You decide...
I decided "defame, slander" was what was going on.

On the other hand:

Main Entry:2pejorative
Function:adjective
Etymology:Late Latin pejoratus, past participle of pejorare to make or become worse, from Latin pejor worse; akin to Sanskrit padyate he falls, Latin ped-, pes foot — more at FOOT
Date:circa 1888

: having negative connotations; especially : tending to disparage or belittle : DEPRECIATORY
--pe£jo£ra£tive£ly adverb


My opinion is that "belittle" is the closest idea of "redneck" or "raggies", or etc. There is not a direct attack on the personal character and habits. The idea is easy to see if you think about the difference between saying "so-and-so is a karate-clown" as opposed to "so-and-so is a drunk" (as an example).

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 12:53 PM   #35
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Quote:
Ron Tisdale wrote: View Post
You decide...
But how can you "vile-ify" someone whose own actions have openly demonstrated that he is already "vile"???

I'm not sure being "perjoratived" would be better.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 12:59 PM   #36
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
Why don't you lay out the union issue a little more deeply if it's that important?

And in a nation where law has been used to destroy justice, it's already gotten to the point where people don't see the point. I mean, it's been so weird to hear Bush go on and on about "the rule of law" when he was walking on the face of Justice.

That's not your strong argument, Mike. Why don't you go back to the thing about unions?

David
I laid it out what he did. Do you think he did the right thing, David? You seem to be concerned with (well, if you get rid of the character attacks) some perception of fairness and justice. Do you think hiding notices from union members that their union dues can't be used for politics they don't agree with is fair? How about de-funding the office the oversees union management spending (an office that normally prosecutes 200-250 criminal acts a year done by union members)? Do you think that speaks of the sort of ethics you agree with? Your point that investors money can be taken because it is somehow "owed" is simply a non-argument. That's like saying shoplifting is OK because rich-people shop-owners owe it to people to have their money stolen. An impossible position. However, don't forget my idea that if we're going to get rid of the law and say it doesn't count in certain instances to be named by you and your fellow believers, don't be surprised when other people pick the laws they want to ignore.

Oh, and don't get me wrong.... I simply find the times fascinating and the arguments interesting. I'm not invested enough to start name-calling as a replacement for debate.

Best.

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 01:02 PM   #37
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
The idea is easy to see if you think about the difference between saying "so-and-so is a karate-clown" as opposed to "so-and-so is a drunk" (as an example).
Yes, but we all know that US Grant was a drunk. We know Babe Ruth was a drunk. What's wrong with my saying they're drunks.

We know that Bush failed to appear for his Air Guard duties (while McCain was NOT drunk and was being tortured) and we know that he was declared unfit for duty because he failed his flight physical. Further, everyone knows and GW Bush himself has admitted that he was "a drunk until 40". He has said that, himself, and that's the period I'm talking about. On top of that are the stories that go around that give you a pretty good idea of exactly where he was and what he was doing when McCain was being tortured. It's also very clear that his drinkng and drug use were far beyond anything Clinton ever engaged in and this was also well known in 2000 when the Repubs chose him over John McCain. It may be bad taste to bring it up, but it's national fact that will never go away. You can dispute parts and details of it, but the big picture is a fact: GW Bush was a drunkard who avoided the slimmest chance of ever being sent to Viet Nam (to fight) and because the Republicans jammed him into the presidency with the help of a Supreme Court beholden to GHW Bush, the economy is now in the toilet and we're still bogged down in two wars, with the unnecessary one getting the bulk of the money and materiel. In the necessary war, because Bush ignored it while focusing on his personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein, the Taliban have almost retaken the entire country. So in short, Obama has to re-win a war that we had handily one eight years ago, but which Bush allowed to slide back into near defeat.

So calling someone a redneck is a perjorative, but when someone is a well-known and thoroughly documented drunk, calling them a drunk is just the truth.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 01:15 PM   #38
Ron Tisdale
Dojo: Doshinkan dojo in Roxborough, Pa
Location: Phila. Pa
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,614
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Ah, I miss the days of Neil and Mike. Say, whatever happened to Neil, anyway?!?

That's it for me folks, I'm going back to merrily skipping down the aiki-path...cough, so to speak.

Best,
Ron (and no, that was not pejorative...)

Ron Tisdale
-----------------------
"The higher a monkey climbs, the more you see of his behind."
St. Bonaventure (ca. 1221-1274)
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 01:17 PM   #39
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
Yes, but we all know that US Grant was a drunk. We know Babe Ruth was a drunk. What's wrong with my saying they're drunks.
Other than it lacks class, I'd say that attacking a person rather than debating issues is what's wrong with it. I could say "we know you are a so-and-so, David... it's obvious from your posts... so what's wrong with calling you a so-and-so?". You see the point. The argument/debate then becomes ad hominem and unproductive.
Quote:
We know that Bush failed to appear for his Air Guard duties (while McCain was NOT drunk and was being tortured) and we know that he was declared unfit for duty because he failed his flight physical.
No, we don't "know" that, David. You're offering your interpretation of events as facts. It's like the standard "Bush lied" stuff that, when you pin it down, turns out to really be "in my opinion Bush lied at this point", and not a real example of "Bush lied" after all.
Quote:
Further, everyone knows and GW Bush himself has admitted that he was "a drunk until 40". He has said that, himself, and that's the period I'm talking about.
OK, there's an actual fact you're presenting using quotation marks. So let's see. Show me where Bush admitted that he was "a drunk until 40". Let's see the citation.
Quote:
On top of that are the stories that go around ....
"The stories that go around"???? More from the high moral ground, I suppose.
Quote:
It's also very clear that his drinkng and drug use were far beyond anything Clinton ever engaged in and this was also well known in 2000 when the Repubs chose him over John McCain. It may be bad taste to bring it up, but it's national fact that will never go away. You can dispute parts and details of it, but the big picture is a fact: GW Bush was a drunkard who avoided the slimmest chance of ever being sent to Viet Nam (to fight) and because the Republicans jammed him into the presidency with the help of a Supreme Court beholden to GHW Bush, the economy is now in the toilet and we're still bogged down in two wars, with the unnecessary one getting the bulk of the money and materiel. In the necessary war, because Bush ignored it while focusing on his personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein, the Taliban have almost retaken the entire country. So in short, Obama has to re-win a war that we had handily one eight years ago, but which Bush allowed to slide back into near defeat.
Well, all that story proves is that the Far Left has some fine people indeed representing it, David.

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 01:20 PM   #40
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Quote:
Ron Tisdale wrote: View Post
Ah, I miss the days of Neil and Mike. Say, whatever happened to Neil, anyway?!?

That's it for me folks, I'm going back to merrily skipping down the aiki-path...cough, so to speak.
Sheesh, Ron... don't go running off when I've got a live one on the hook!!!

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 01:20 PM   #41
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
Your point that investors money can be taken because it is somehow "owed" is simply a non-argument. That's like saying shoplifting is OK because rich-people shop-owners owe it to people to have their money stolen. An impossible position.
Sorry, Mike, but that is the baloniest re-framing I've ever seen.

You work for me, I owe you the money.

The union worked for the investors. The investors owe them the money.

There's no way you can get out of that by logic or even by saying it's like "stealing" the money from the rich. Once a man gives you a portion of his LIFE, working for you, you OWE him every penny he earned, even if you are down to your last penny. You HAVE to pay him for work he's already done. That is a more basic truth of America than anything else you've put forth but the law itself has been used to screw thousands and thousands.

I'll be glad to hear the cries of the rich AFTER they pay what they owe. They don't pay taxes, they don't pay wages, they don't pay health care but they cry. Please.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
However, don't forget my idea that if we're going to get rid of the law and say it doesn't count in certain instances to be named by you and your fellow believers, don't be surprised when other people pick the laws they want to ignore.
Mike, I know you've been mainly in the US for the past several years because I've been arguing with you for at least three years. So don't tell me you haven't seen Bush et al cherry-picking facts, laws, "executive signing statements" and everything else that proves that American law is ONLY for the poor. People like Bush simply ignore it and the super wealthy pay a congressman to make it go away. So we've been in that place where YOUR fellow believers have picked and chosen the laws they want to ignore. We've already been there for years. You just seem to dislike it when EVERYONE gets to ignore those laws they don't like.

David

Oh, and don't get me wrong.... I simply find the times fascinating and the arguments interesting. I'm not invested enough to start name-calling as a replacement for debate.

Best.

Mike[/quote]

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 01:45 PM   #42
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
The union worked for the investors. The investors owe them the money.
No, David, the union did not work for the investors and there was never any legal contract saying such an absurd thing. The union worked for Chrysler and they had contracts with Chrysler for future benefits ("legacy costs"); those legacy costs make the unions "junior creditors" under the law. The investors are people who gave Chrysler money, but Chrysler contractually obligated to give something in return for the money; the investors are thus senior creditors. There is such a thing as a legal "contract" any you're supplanting that fact and law (supported by the contracts clause in the U.S. constitution) with your emotional belief about who owes what to whom.

Wait a sec... I just found a good article when I was searching for "contracts clause" and it's about the very Chrysler situation itself:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124217356836613091.html

As I said, you're simply wrong about the facts, regardless of how emotionally invested you are in the idea. Taking money from investors and then giving it to junior creditors is against the law. I.e., Obama broke the law. There are now lawsuits filed. What you haven't thought through very clearly is who those "investors" that you so easily dislike are: it turns out in this case that the investors are ultimately people like school teachers and cops who have invested their retirement funds into Chrysler. So you're now saying it's fine to steal the life-savings of teachers and cops as long as it's the UAW pals of Obama who paved his way into the presidency? High moral principles indeed, David.

BTW.... everything I'm laying out here is supported by facts. Question what you'd like. But please don't continue to argue using assertions and personal inferences in place of facts. Your argument, for instance, of who "owed" money to the UAW was not supported by anything other than emotion and belief. I don't consider that much of a debate position.

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 01:52 PM   #43
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
Other than it lacks class, I'd say that attacking a person rather than debating issues is what's wrong with it.
Well, blame your Republican heroes for creating the current milleu in which lack of class and attacking people far more vigorously than issues is standard fare. And no one advanced that vile art more than GW Bush and Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
I could say "we know you are a so-and-so, David... it's obvious from your posts... so what's wrong with calling you a so-and-so?".
If you could find where I said publicly, "I was nothing but a so and so until the age of forty," you might have something going there. If I said it about myself, or if there was appropriate other documentation, you would be correct to say it. George Bush admitted that he was a very bad drunk "until he was forty," supposedly. And since that's the time I'm talking about, it's a fact and it bears on the situation. It shows that although they cried, "Character counts!" the people who backed Bush clearly had NO sense of character. In fact, Bush's whole campaign was that he had overcome his general worthlessness around the age of forty and found Jesus, but all his actions after the election involve lots of people dying--most who had done nothing at all to anyone, and certainly nothig to do with 9/11. So character IS a main issue anytime the subject of George Bush comes up because it was the Republicans' MAIN issue when they were electing him.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
No, we don't "know" that, David. You're offering your interpretation of events as facts.
No, Mike. We DO KNOW that GW Bush was absent from much of his Air Guard service and that he was declared unfit for duty for failing flight physical. We "don't" know that it was for alcohol and there is much speculation that it was not alcohol at all but cocaine that had him in such sorry condition that he failed his flight physical.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
OK, there's an actual fact you're presenting using quotation marks. So let's see. Show me where Bush admitted that he was "a drunk until 40". Let's see the citation.
Without exhausting search, here's a quick reference that returned for "George Bush + drunk":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_...se_controversy

A quote from that article:

"Although Bush states that he was not an alcoholic, he has acknowledged that he was "drinking too much",[1] and that he couldn't remember a day when he hadn't had a drink, including his stay at Phillips Academy, where not only was he underage but alcohol was prohibited on campus, as well as at Yale University where, conversely, "hard drinking" was considered a badge of honor."

and

"On September 4, 1976 (age 30), Bush was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol near his family's summer home in Kennebunkport, Maine. He admitted his guilt, was fined US$150, and had his driving license in the state suspended for two years, although the White House had claimed 30 days."

So maybe it was just the "White House" that lied in this case, and not GW, himself? You think?

A little more:

"During the 2000 presidential campaign, Bush said that he gave up drinking after waking up with a hangover after his 40th birthday celebration: "I quit drinking in 1986 and haven't had a drop since then." He ascribed the change in part to a 1985 meeting with Reverend Billy Graham, after which he began serious Bible study, as well as to gentle but persistent pressure from his wife, Laura.[5][6][7] Friends recall that Bush said nothing of his decision, even to Laura, until many weeks later when they realized that he had not had so much as a single beer in the interim."

And:

""An editorial letter by Graydon Carter in Vanity Fair for January 2008 quotes a new book about Bush:

"a new book by former British foreign secretary Lord Owen may supply a clue. In The Hubris Syndrome: Bush, Blair, and the Intoxication of Power (ISBN 1842752197), Owen recalls the time in 2002 when the commander in chief collapsed while sitting on a sofa watching a football game. (Official cause: he'd choked on a pretzel.) The presidential head hit a table on the way to the floor, he suffered an abrasion on the left side of his face, and a blood sample was rushed to Johns Hopkins [Hospital] , in Baltimore. Owen says he was told by a British doctor who had visited Johns Hopkins that lab technicians there found that the blood contained significant amounts of alcohol."[8]""

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
"The stories that go around"???? More from the high moral ground, I suppose.
Nah, just a bunch of crap by people who know him closely and personally and talk about it to some reporter--or just an international news correspondent who actually watches Bush in action. Just eyewitness accounts and such.

So while I have not uncovered the "I was a total, loser drunk until I was forty years old" statement quoting Bush, I think the Wikipedia article gives a great picture of a drunk and drug abuser who somehow bamboozled the Christians of this country into believing that he was "reformed". And the state of the nation today shows us more about his true character than all the campaign slogans the Republicans could produce.

Character does count and Bush is one character who should have been counted "OUT" in 2000. You and your kids and I and my kids and all our grandchildren will be paying for Bush's actions of bad character for decades to come.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 02:04 PM   #44
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
[[snip more one-sided charges. Every heard of "Bork"?]]
No, Mike. We DO KNOW that GW Bush was absent from much of his Air Guard service and that he was declared unfit for duty for failing flight physical. We "don't" know that it was for alcohol and there is much speculation that it was not alcohol at all but cocaine that had him in such sorry condition that he failed his flight physical.
I don't "KNOW" any of that, David. Again, you're asserting something as true. "Absent from much of his Air Guard service"? I'll bet you're fabricating that. Cite please.
Quote:
Without exhausting search, here's a quick reference that returned for "George Bush + drunk":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_...se_controversy
So in other words your quotation saying that Bush admitted he was a drunk was false. That's not what that obviously partisan article says at all. At best, that article says that Bush admitted he drank too much when he was young. Bear in mind that I'm not a Bush-fan, David, but when you wrongfully smear someone's reputation, I'd suggest you simply own up to it rather than continue to justify it. Your quotation was wrong.

The main thing I tried to say, a few posts back, was that the amount of venom and personal attack, even hatred, don't do a lot to assure me that you're more principled than the people that you're personally villifying. Can't you build an argument around something other than personal destruction?

Regards,

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 02:07 PM   #45
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
Wait a sec... I just found a good article when I was searching for "contracts clause" and it's about the very Chrysler situation itself:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124217356836613091.html
I'll read that, but remembering how WSJ has slandered the auto workers for the past several months, I won't be surprised by anything they say.

And, again, these are not "ordinary" times. So much public money has gone into so many private concerns that we're having to balance a LOT of things that have gotten way out of balance during the past eight years when the rich saw their taxes fall by enough to buy autoworkers' children by the dozen. This can't be taken as an ordinary incident in ordinary times. The vast bail-outs of so many companies were justified as necessary to prevent job losses on vast scales. The decision in the Chrysler case has to be something like that. How is it better to comfort the investors and have the thousands of workers both lose their jobs AND their pensions they had already PAID for in labor?

I guess we'll have to let the courts rule on this issue.

But really, we've let the real criminals slither off into the sunset and you are pointing up quite minor and questionable issues compared to the crook you just let go. Not impressive.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 02:13 PM   #46
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
I'll read that, but remembering how WSJ has slandered the auto workers for the past several months, I won't be surprised by anything they say.

And, again, these are not "ordinary" times. So much public money has gone into so many private concerns that we're having to balance a LOT of things that have gotten way out of balance during the past eight years when the rich saw their taxes fall by enough to buy autoworkers' children by the dozen. This can't be taken as an ordinary incident in ordinary times. The vast bail-outs of so many companies were justified as necessary to prevent job losses on vast scales. The decision in the Chrysler case has to be something like that. How is it better to comfort the investors and have the thousands of workers both lose their jobs AND their pensions they had already PAID for in labor?

I guess we'll have to let the courts rule on this issue.

But really, we've let the real criminals slither off into the sunset and you are pointing up quite minor and questionable issues compared to the crook you just let go. Not impressive.

David
So you're not even going to admit that you were wrong about the investors owing money to the UAW? And I note you're opting to avoid acknowledging that the "investors" include union members like schoolteachers and cops. That's rather selective argumentation, David.

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 02:24 PM   #47
lbb
Location: Massachusetts
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,181
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
Sure, it's their money EXCEPT the parts they OWED to the people who had already EARNED it from them. If you do work for me and then I tell you I'm going out of business, I HAVE to pay you EVERYTHING you earned, don't I?
That depends on how you go out of business. If you go Chapter 7, the answer is no (not even if you put it in caps). My one option is to get in line with the rest of your creditors, but as an ordinary employee, my chances of getting anything out of the deal are somewhere between "extremely slim" and "none".
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 02:30 PM   #48
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
"Absent from much of his Air Guard service"? I'll bet you're fabricating that. Cite please.
here's a summary by Salon of the results of extensive FOIA requests made by the Associated Press:

Associated Press did the most work on the issue, filing a whole slew of FOIA requests and lawsuits to get the necessary docs. Salon summarized their findings.

Upon being accepted for pilot training, Bush promised to serve with his parent (Texas) Guard unit for five years once he completed his pilot training.
But Bush served as a pilot with his parent unit for just two years.

In May 1972 Bush left the Houston Guard base for Alabama. According to Air Force regulations, Bush was supposed to obtain prior authorization before leaving Texas to join a new Guard unit in Alabama.
But Bush failed to get the authorization.

In requesting a permanent transfer to a nonflying unit in Alabama in 1972, Bush was supposed to sign an acknowledgment that he received relocation counseling.
But no such document exists.

He was supposed to receive a certification of satisfactory participation from his unit.
But Bush did not.

He was supposed to sign and give a letter of resignation to his Texas unit commander.
But Bush did not.

He was supposed to receive discharge orders from the Texas Air National Guard adjutant general.
But Bush did not.

He was supposed to receive new assignment orders for the Air Force Reserves.
But Bush did not.

On his transfer request Bush was asked to list his "permanent address."
But he wrote down a post office box number for the campaign he was working for on a temporary basis.

On his transfer request Bush was asked to list his Air Force specialty code.
But Bush, an F-102 pilot, erroneously wrote the code for an F-89 or F-94 pilot. Both planes had been retired from service at the time. Bush, an officer, made this mistake more than once on the same form.

On May 26, 1972, Lt. Col. Reese Bricken, commander of the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, informed Bush that a transfer to his nonflying unit would be unsuitable for a fully trained pilot such as he was, and that Bush would not be able to fulfill any of his remaining two years of flight obligation.
But Bush pressed on with his transfer request nonetheless.

Bush's transfer request to the 9921st was eventually denied by the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver, which meant he was still obligated to attend training sessions one weekend a month with his Texas unit in Houston.
But Bush failed to attend weekend drills in May, June, July, August and September. He also failed to request permission to make up those days at the time.

According to Air Force regulations, "[a] member whose attendance record is poor must be closely monitored. When the unexcused absences reach one less than the maximum permitted [sic] he must be counseled and a record made of the counseling. If the member is unavailable he must be advised by personal letter."
But there is no record that Bush ever received such counseling, despite the fact that he missed drills for months on end.

Bush's unit was obligated to report in writing to the Personnel Center at Randolph Air Force Base whenever a monthly review of records showed unsatisfactory participation for an officer.
But his unit never reported Bush's absenteeism to Randolph Air Force Base.

In July 1972 Bush failed to take a mandatory Guard physical exam, which is a serious offense for a Guard pilot. The move should have prompted the formation of a Flying Evaluation Board to investigation the circumstances surrounding Bush's failure.
But no such FEB was convened.

Once Bush was grounded for failing to take a physical, his commanders could have filed a report on why the suspension should be lifted.
But Bush's commanders made no such request.

On Sept. 15, 1972, Bush was ordered to report to Lt. Col. William Turnipseed, the deputy commander of the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group in Montgomery, Ala., to participate in training on the weekends of Oct. 7-8 and Nov. 4-5, 1972.
But there's no evidence Bush ever showed up on those dates. In 2000, Turnipseed told the Boston Globe that Bush did not report for duty. (A self-professed Bush supporter, Turnipseed has since backed off from his categorical claim.)

However, according to the White House-released pay records, which are unsigned, Bush was credited for serving in Montgomery on Oct. 28-29 and Nov. 11-14, 1972. Those makeup dates should have produced a paper trail, including Bush's formal request as well as authorization and supervision documents.
But no such documents exist, and the dates he was credited for do not match the dates when the Montgomery unit assembled for drills.

When Guardsmen miss monthly drills, or "unit training assemblies" (UTAs), they are allowed to make them up through substitute service and earn crucial points toward their service record. Drills are worth one point on a weekday and two points on each weekend day. For Bush's substitute service on Nov. 13-14, 1972, he was awarded four points, two for each day.
But Nov. 13 and 14 were both weekdays. He should have been awarded two points.

Bush earned six points for service on Jan. 4-6, 1973 -- a Thursday, Friday and Saturday.
But he should have earned four points, one each for Thursday and Friday, two for Saturday.

Weekday training was the exception in the Guard. For example, from May 1968 to May 1972, when Bush was in good standing, he was not credited with attending a single weekday UTA.
But after 1972, when Bush's absenteeism accelerated, nearly half of his credited UTAs were for weekdays.

To maintain unit cohesiveness, the parameters for substitute service are tightly controlled; drills must be made up within 15 days immediately before, or 30 days immediately after, the originally scheduled drill, according to Guard regulations at the time.
But more than half of the substitute service credits Bush received fell outside that clear time frame. In one case, he made up a drill nine weeks in advance.

On Sept. 29, 1972, Bush was formally grounded for failing to take a flight physical. The letter, written by Maj. Gen. Francis Greenlief, chief of the National Guard Bureau, ordered Bush to acknowledge in writing that he had received word of his grounding.
But no such written acknowledgment exists. In 2000, Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett told the Boston Globe that Bush couldn't remember if he'd ever been grounded.

Bartlett also told the Boston Globe that Bush didn't undergo a physical while in Alabama because his family doctor was in Houston.
But only Air Force flight surgeons can give flight physicals to pilots.

Guard members are required to take a physical exam every 12 months.
But Bush's last Guard physical was in May 1971. Bush was formally discharged from the service in November 1974, which means he went without a required physical for 42 months.

Bush's unsatisfactory participation in the fall of 1972 should have prompted the Texas Air National Guard to write to his local draft board and inform the board that Bush had become eligible for the draft. Guard units across the country contacted draft boards every Sept. 15 to update them on the status of local Guard members. Bush's absenteeism should have prompted what's known as a DD Form 44, "Record of Military Status of Registrant."
But there is no record of any such document having been sent to Bush's draft board in Houston.

Records released by the White House note that Bush received a military dental exam in Alabama on Jan. 6, 1973.
But Bush's request to serve in Alabama covered only September, October and November 1972. Why he would still be serving in Alabama months after that remains unclear.

Each of Bush's numerous substitute service requests should have formed a lengthy paper trail consisting of AF Form 40a's, with the name of the officer who authorized the training in advance, the signature of the officer who supervised the training and Bush's own signature.
But no such documents exist.

During his last year with the Texas Air National Guard, Bush missed nearly two-thirds of his mandatory UTAs and made up some of them with substitute service. Guard regulations allowed substitute service only in circumstances that are "beyond the control" of the Guard member.
But neither Bush nor the Texas Air National Guard has ever explained what the uncontrollable circumstances were that forced him to miss the majority of his assigned drills in his last year.

Bush supposedly returned to his Houston unit in April 1973 and served two days.
But at the end of April, when Bush's Texas commanders had to rate him for their annual report, they wrote that they could not do so: "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of this report."

On June 29, 1973, the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver instructed Bush's commanders to get additional information from his Alabama unit, where he had supposedly been training, in order to better evaluate Bush's duty. The ARPC gave Texas a deadline of Aug. 6 to get the information.
But Bush's commanders ignored the request.

Bush was credited for attending four days of UTAs with his Texas unit July 16-19, 1973. That was good for eight crucial points.
But that's not possible. Guard units hold only two UTAs each month -- one on a Saturday and one on a Sunday. Although Bush may well have made up four days, they should not all have been counted as UTAs, since they occur just twice a month. The other days are known as "Appropriate Duty," or APDY.

On July 30, 1973, Bush, preparing to attend Harvard Business School, signed a statement acknowledging it was his responsibility to find another unit in which to serve out the remaining nine months of his commitment.
But Bush never contacted another unit in Massachusetts in which to fulfill his obligation.

This Associated Press story also highlights the White House's shifting explanations (er, lies) trying to explain Bush's refusal to meet his obligations.

There you have it. The record of a shirker in whose place others were sent to Vietnam. A shirker who sent other people who HAD fulfilled their duties on forced extended tours in Iraq while letting Afghanistan slide back into the hands of the enemy.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 02:36 PM   #49
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
So in other words your quotation saying that Bush admitted he was a drunk was false.
No. That's just the first article that came up. And I just glanced through it. There's thousands of tons of information on Bush and I just haven't had time to look through it all. I remember reading where he said he was a drunk until he was 40 and I'm going to continue looking for the quote.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
That's not what that obviously partisan article says at all. At best, that article says that Bush admitted he drank too much when he was young.
So how's it a "partisan article"? When you've lived that kind of life, there's bound to be lots of stories like that about you. And how many people accumulate such voluminous lore of that type without being rather a low life?

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
Bear in mind that I'm not a Bush-fan, David, but when you wrongfully smear someone's reputation, I'd suggest you simply own up to it rather than continue to justify it. Your quotation was wrong.
The quotation may or may not be exact, but the big picture supports my statement.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
The main thing I tried to say, a few posts back, was that the amount of venom and personal attack, even hatred, don't do a lot to assure me that you're more principled than the people that you're personally villifying. Can't you build an argument around something other than personal destruction?
Mike, the whole argument is that Bush was elected by people who trumpeted his wonderful "character" even though there was plenty of evidence that he was NOT that kind of positive character at all.

And again, the sorry state of the nation today proves my point.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 02:51 PM   #50
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
So you're not even going to admit that you were wrong about the investors owing money to the UAW? And I note you're opting to avoid acknowledging that the "investors" include union members like schoolteachers and cops.
It's a simplification for discussion purposes, otherwise you'd have to say "you're not even going to admit that you were wrong about the contracturally secured lenders of capital funds to Chrysler owing money to the party of the second part, constituting lawyers, union officials, ......" etc.

The "investors" themselves did not personally owe anything to the individual union members, but you can't divide up a pie among three people when someone else had already paid for a fourth or a half of that pie. The investors didn't pay anything to the union. They just got less out of the pie pan than they wanted.

As for who the investors were, I don't think it matters. Whenever you invest money, you're putting it at risk of ...Oh....I don't know: not getting it back, maybe?

I'm not saying auto workers should be paid severance or continuing benefits (necessarily). The risk workers take is that one day the company could terminate their jobs. They can devote their lives to the company and once they get too old to get another job, their company could go out of business or lay them off. Their risk is whether they will have continued employment in the future.

But there should be no divvying up of "what's left" until all the people who have actually EARNED a piece have been paid.

If you invest in a business, you owe it to yourself to know what's going on and if it continues to be a good investment as time goes by. If you let the board pay the CEO 475 times the salary of the average employee of the company, you ought to know something will go wrong. The investors should have recognized that Chrysler was sinking long ago. But don't try to screw people out of money they actually worked for. Don't screw them out of pensions they worked for. And don't screw them out of health care they were offered and which they paid for through labor.

I believe the courts will end up supporting Obama on this because in this unusual time (caused by eight years of rule by the super wealthy), he had to balance the interests of both the investors and the workers. It's not good for investors to lose money, but it's also very wrong to give them 100% and let them walk away from thousands and thousands of families who suddenly have nothing they thought they had earned with honest work. I'm not too concerned about this issue at all.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!



Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:48 PM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2018 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2018 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate