(RHF) wrote in message . com...

NOTE: The "Down Sizing" (Peace Dividend) of the US Military in the
1990's was not the sole single act of the then President Clinton.
It was an ACT of Congress.

Daddy Bush got that one rolling, not Clinton. I was there.

ojunk (Michael Bryant) wrote in message ...
From: (RHF

Most of these websites are by and for Government Employees Unions
and the Reduction of Government Jobs. This has little or nothing
to do with the LOSS of "Real" Jobs by American Workers to Overseas.

RHF,

The poster said that the only jobs Bush had sent overseas were military jobs.

What other jobs does he have the authority to send overseas?

OK, diplomats to countries that we have relations with and a few UN
appointments.

What others?

That's BS.

Of course it isn't.

Bush supports companies being allowed to "outsource" jobs to the
Caribbean and India to maximize their profits. He's always supported companies
profits over keeping jobs in the US.

Then talk to their shareholders. BTW, do you have a 401K or an IRA?
Hmmmm?

He's even encouraged the RNC to do this
with telemarketers to gather Republican funds.

Encouraging something is different than having the authority to make
it happen. Personally, I think he ought to ask those Chinese Nuns and
Arms Merchants for a few bucks while he's out there "encouraging"
donations.

You're confusing Bush policy
with others.

Bryant, you're confused. That's why you have yet to respond to my
latest posting.

Will post proof when I get off work, but it's Monday for us
Americans that still have jobs.

There are non-Americans here who also have jobs, some of them
illegals. And they send U.S. $$$'s back to wherever instead of
spending them in our shopping malls, our pharmacies, and our
Blockbusters. But I don't hear you complaining about illegals or the
amount of money leaving America.

"Ken Thomas" wrote in message
...
I don't think he's being charged for abusing the drugs. I think he's
getting in trouble for how he obtained them. Hey, I agree with a lot
of the things you're saying. Drug use probably can't be changed with
jail time. I hope the guy gets better. It'll be a tough habit to
kick.

Hope so. No sense in wishing ill will even on someone I don't particularly care
for.

I bet it is tough to quit, else why do so many famous people have run-ins with
them, *despite* the risks?

Imagine being a millionaire and still risking jail-time. Must be powerful
stuff.

And I see your point about how they're obtained vs. "punishing" him for using
them. Yes, a law is a law. But some laws are kind of stupid, which is why we
have jury nullification in case someone gets too literal and mis-apply them, and
I thought you were saying that drug use was comparable with child molestation --
and I don't think very many people would agree with that idea at all.

To my way of thinking, he did something stupid which will probably cause lasting
harm to his health, if any of the rumors are true. I'm trying to understand, in
general, why people equate totally and vastly different sorts of crimes. To my
thinking, you ought to get more time for assaulting someone in a bar than
shooting up heroin. In the latter case, you're killing yourself (most heroin
users will eventually die from it if they don't quit), but it's your life to
ruin. In the former case, you're hurting an innocent victim. At least the
addict knows what he's doing, and chooses to do it. Not to be cold, but I'd
rather honor his freedom to **** his life away, than trust government to decide
what is or is not okay and make everybody conform to that.

"We're from the government, and we're here to help you!"

Run!






On 26 Dec 2003 10:41:59 -0800, (Ross Archer) wrote:

Ken Thomas wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 20:57:16 GMT, "Ross Archer" wrote:

Do I
misunderstand? Is there any value in jailing someone for becoming
addicted to
pain medication, after he sought rehab? Any value at all??? I thought
not. No
deterrent value. No rehabilitation value. Huge negative costs.

Is there any value in throwing a confessed sex offender in jail?
After they sought help a few times? Any value at all? Can't deter a
sex offender right? Can they be rehabilitated? Costs?

That's ridiculous. Putting aside the huge difference in degree of
these two crimes -- in your example, there's a clear, unwilling VICTIM
and clear harm, and in Rush's case, whatever harm was done, he did to
himself.

There is no point in discussing such idiotically unconnected examples.

More appropriate would be discussing how to punish those who refuse to
wear seatbelts or insist on smoking. THESE are comparable examples.

Besides, there are stupid laws that violate higher principles. Until
recently, there were actually laws to dictate what consenting adults
were allowed to do in bed, if you can believe that! Wasting valuable
resources that could educate kids, vaccinate poor children, or add
cops to the beat, or incarcerate truly dangerous criminals, to
incarcerate some guy who takes some pills and harms HIMSELF is truly
idiotic, as are arguments supporting such action.

It's obvious to anyone who actually thinks it out.



It's not a question of liberal/conservative values.

No, but it may be a question of reasonable people vs. "wacko" values.

I'm absolutely certain that Barry Goldwater, no liberal by any stretch
of the imagination, would agree with me on principles of liberty.
Where you're coming from -- that laws should be enforced regardless of
whether they're wrong -- is just wacko.

It's pure wackosity to jail someone for abusing perscription drugs
unless you can prove they were driving around under their influence,
or otherwise endangering others by taking them.

Ignoring unjust laws is no vice. Enforcing unjust laws is no virtue.


Who could give a
flying F about how those ideals apply to this argument. If a law was
broken - pay the consequences. If not - no problem. If anything,
he's not a victim of his politics - just a victim of being famous.

As much as Rush's politics irritate me, I beg to differ. I think it's
exactly a politically-motivated attack. When's the last time a famous
movie star was prosecuted criminally for pill abuse? It's not fame,
it's scoring political points off an opponent.

Like I said, it's not hard to take Rush down, but do so on based on
his blatant hypocrisy rather than by violating his rights.


Regards.

From: (Brian)

My mistake. I thought the subject was a Bush policy. You can bash
Clinton all you want for all the good it will do now.


Sorry, my post this early morn was mis-typed. It is Bush, not Clinton, that is
encouraging the outsourcing of US jobs.

Anyone with the minimal effort to check a URL could see that it was Bush. Check
this URL:

http://www.mcgladrey-family.us/kayne...h_permits_outs
ourcing.html

(For those with not enough time to click a link

Bush Permits Outsourcing

"Higher skilled jobs are going away," said Pricilla Tate, Director of the
Technology Managers Forum, a New York-based group representing IT executives at
large companies. "There are people who will not get jobs in the IT industry
again -- they just have been replaced." And the President isn't going to do a
thing about it.
ComuterWorld is running a story titled "Bush Administration Won't Impede
Offshore Outsourcing". While it's fully within the power of the President to
make it harder for companies to outsource work to offshore firms, there are no
plans to. Instead of providing a solution, Chris Israel, a deputy assistant
secretary at the U.S. Department of Commerce, said that "the answer to economic
challenges is growth and innovation."
Growth and innovation. When Detroit and Japan went toe-to-toe over auto
manufacturing, how quickly did growth and innovation help? Ten years? Twenty
years? Or how about textile manufacturing, with the United States going up
against China and other countries with poor human rights records? The truth is
that the manufacturing jobs went overseas and didn't come back. How long can
skilled workers remain unemployed?
Growth and innovation aren't standing well in the face of greed and
commoditization. Many of the IT workers in the United States created processes
and technologies that have enabled the globalization of information technology,
and they've lost their jobs as a result. They weren't rewarded for their
innovation.
The Gartner Group predicted that ten percent of all IT jobs are going offshore
in 2004. Despite the failing economy, despite all the indicators that this is a
crisis in the making, George Bush isn't doing a thing to prevent jobs going
overseas. His economic policy of tax cuts for the rich did not create jobs, and
his economic policy of tax cuts for parents did not create jobs. He's not even
attempting to set guidelines for trade agreements based on comparable workers
rights and human rights. His economic policy is a failure, and shows that he is
incapable of helping to retain the jobs we have, even as more jobs are lost."

Any evidence to the contrary? No? I wonder why not?

Bryant
Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nojunk" to reply)

From: (Brian)

(RHF) wrote in message
.com...

NOTE: The "Down Sizing" (Peace Dividend) of the US Military in the
1990's was not the sole single act of the then President Clinton.
It was an ACT of Congress.

Daddy Bush got that one rolling, not Clinton. I was there.


Wow. Some hint of honesty on your part. How surprising!

Bryant
Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nojunk" to reply)

From: (Brian)

There are non-Americans here who also have jobs, some of them
illegals. And they send U.S. $$$'s back to wherever instead of
spending them in our shopping malls, our pharmacies, and our
Blockbusters. But I don't hear you complaining about illegals or the
amount of money leaving America.

Wow, more stellar reasoning!

First, I've never supported illegal workers replacing US workers. Attacking
Bush outsourcing hardly means I support illegal workers. Duh.

Second, please explain, very carefully, what this has to do with Bush
outsourcing?

Third, when it comes right down to it, what has Bush done to stop illegal
workers? Nothing. It might have a negative impact on corporate profits.

You seem to enjoy being an idiot!

Bryant

From: (Brian)

Bryant, you're confused. That's why you have yet to respond to my
latest posting.

Once again, you prove that you lack basic reading capabilities. I said I would
respond as soon as I got off work. Some of us actually have to work for a
living.

My response has already been posted.

Timing your attempt as refutation,

Bryant

From: "Uncle Jizzie"

If anyone posting a message in this or any other newsgroup is "hiding"
their true identities by using a fictious or non-existent email address, it
is most likely because they very wisely choose not to have their inbox
flooded with unwanted spam - NOT because they are "losers".
Grow up Bryant, for chrissakes.
UJ

I don't but it. I've had this address on Usenet for over a decade. I'm not
buried in spam. It's a covenient excuse for people that don't want to stand
behind what they choose to say.

I think your choice of an anonymous screen name clearly tells a lot about what
type of person you are.

Bryant

Bryant

In article ,
ojunk (Michael Bryant) wrote:

From: (Brian)

My mistake. I thought the subject was a Bush policy. You can bash
Clinton all you want for all the good it will do now.


Sorry, my post this early morn was mis-typed. It is Bush, not Clinton, that
is encouraging the outsourcing of US jobs.


Msut be why Clinton signed NAFTA.

From: nobody

Msut be why Clinton signed NAFTA.

Try again. GH Bush is the President that spent his whole term negotiating and
supporting the NAFTA treaty. Clinton signed it shortly after the 92 election.
The negotiating of the details took place under the two Republican presidents
that preceded him. Actually, the US negotiations for NAFTA were initiated and
supported by Reagan. Are you aware that GW Bush is currently pursuing a free
trade agreement to cover US trade with the entire Western Hemisphere? His
rationale:
It will protect US corporate profits.

As I said, try again.


Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nojunk" to reply)