From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Conservative Values (Re: New group proposal:  alt.conservative.forum)
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 12:05:16 GMT

Mike Jones (mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com) wrote:
: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
: : Russ Anderson (rja@mahogany126.cray.com) wrote:
: : : In article <1gl52rINN4mf@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu>, pearsodc@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU (if God's your father then call home!) writes:
: : : > I would like to formally propose a new group, alt.conservative.forum, 
: : : > a moderated group to discuss conservative values and assorted political
: : : > goings-on from a distinctly right-wing standpoint.
: : : What are "conservative values"?
: : : Take the following issues:
: : : Drug prohibition: Conservative (former Drug Czar) Bill Bennett supports the
: : :     "War on Drugs" while Conservatives such as Milton Friedman, William F.
: : :     Buckley, and George Schultz oppose it.  Which side represents the 
: : :     conservative view?
: : The difference between Bennett and the othes mentioned are that Bennett
: : is a pragmatist who was put in the position of Drug Czar, because the war on
: : drugs was mandated by the people....
: 
: Bwahahahaha. Sorry to begin a post that way, but I can't possibly summon any
: other response to this cliam. The war on drugs was mandated by lots of
: (mostly right-wing) politicians as a way to get more control over the
: population, espcially the poor and minorities. It is promulgated by the same
: sort of bluestocking Puritanism that drove the Prohibition movement, and is
: having about the same amount of success (i.e., costing the taxpayers lots of
: money, cutting down slightly on use among the middle class, and creating a
: whole new generation of crime figures).
: 

Give me a break.  The kind of rubbish you wrote here is pure and utter nonsense.
The war on drugs has been under constant attack by liberal democrats in 
congress as being not enough and not spending enough on it.  In the Cabrini
Green public housing project in Chicago (last week), LIBERAL democrat Mayor
Richard J. Daley Jr. ordered the project sealed off and had the police do
a door to door search for drugs and weapons.  How well is the war on drugs
working?  The facts are that drug use among potential new users, particularly
the young, is WAY WAY down.  Among current users, there is little effect.
Among criminals that traffic the drugs, known as king-pins, the crimes have
gotten significantly more violent.  And the drugs being used are more harmful
than ever before (Crack and designer drugs were non-existant when I went to
school).  Your friend and mine, Clinoccio, said (during the presidential
debates) "I am a strong advocate of the war on drugs.  The war on drugs
saved my brother's life.  He was addicted to drugs.  I propose that all
non-violent first time offenders be sent to boot camp."  Go ahead and light
up your joint, but only if you want to go to boot camp.

I know you are well intentioned, but...  Your debating style is clear.
You use the word "Puritan" above to appeal to the anti-religious
political correctness crowd.  That kind of bullsh*t logic is weak.  Stick
to facts and direct them to MY points if you want good debate...  I'll
be counting your blasphemous remarks to illustrate this point...  Puritanism
has NOTHING to do with anything related to the war on drugs, at least to me.
And I'll get to that later.

And do NOT confuse me with some sort of religious person, because I am not.
I do believe in God, but not as you would think.  To me, God is what was
before the Big Bang.  He/it IS the Big Bang.  It is EVERYWHERE.  It has
NOTHING to do with the bible or with ANY organized religion.  But blasphemey
certainly insults 85% of the population which DOES believe in organized
religion.  Why do you insult so?  Your DEMOCRATIC congress, gasp, uses
public government property for prayer purposes, opening each morning with
a minister giving a prayer.  Clinoccio goes to church, even.  Carter went
to church.

: :                                    Friedman, Buckley, and Shultz are strong
: : believers in the FREE MARKET...  in a TRUE free market, legalized drugs would
: : result in a significant decrease in drug use - or at least the least harmful
: : drugs would get more use than the harmful ones.  A pragmatist like Bennett
: : knows we don't have a free market, and even the most radical conservative
: : policies implemented towards a move to free market would take decades to
: : achieve.  After all, it took us 60 years to go as far downhill as we have
: : since FDR's massive anti-free market policies were enacted...
: 
: Please elaborate. If, say, marijuana were made legal tomorrow, what
: inhibitors would there be to a basically free market in it?
: 

For starters, I support legalization of ALL drugs, not just marijuana.  But
the issue is not black and white.  I know that in a free market, where drugs
are legal, the least harmful drugs will get the most use and the most harmful
drugs will have little demand.  Legalization of drugs does not mean freely
obtainable...  For example, I would suggest a drug like cocaine be available
by prescription only (even for recreational purposes), and that laws restricting
access to minors, as with alcohol and cigarettes make sense.  I know that the
bulk of the related crime would disappear.  And there would be a double
effect for government revenues, too - currently illegal income is tax free,
and a consumption/luxury/vice tax would be gladly paid by consumers.

But I more than understand the other side of the issue, too.  When considering
the benefits to society as a whole, what kind of productivity are we going
to have as a nation if 66% of the population is addicted to drugs?  The very
poor and minority people you claim we conservatives want to control may be
affected more adversely than it seems on the surface.  And there is plenty
of evidence that habitual drug use is socially harmful - for example, a dear
friend of mine (who recently died of cancer :( was a bigtime cocaine user.
He ran a medium sized software company, and when I'd visit him, he'd pull
out a five finger bag of cocaine and offer it to me (I refused).  His company
relied heavily on him, his contacts, his negotiating ability and his management
skills to succeed.  The feeling of power he got from the drug blinded him and
impaired his ability to function to his fullest potential.  After several
years of his company floundering, he gave up the drugs (and cigarettes, too)
and not coincidentally, his company took off.  I won't say which company it
is, but it is still going strong, and is well known.  There have been other
countries which tried legalized drugs, and the experiment failed.

SO you see, it is not black and white, or simple as it would seem.  Given
that drugs are deemed illegal by society, and the far too many crack babies
and the like, I submit that you either go all out in a war against drugs,
or make them legal.  No in between.  And it is not MY style to just think
of my own ass (say, for argument's sake that I'd LOVE to do all the legal
drugs I could get my hands on) on this matter.


: : Bennett's policies are good today, while the others' are good goals to
: : achieve over the next half century...
: 
: No, and yes. Bennett's policies are an excuse for much greater government
: interference in our lives. They've resulted in the gutting of the Fourth
: Amendment, and serious dents in the Fifth.

OK, now you drag out the constitutional arguments.  Well, everyone who performs
public service for our government takes an oath to uphold and protect and
defend the constitution.  You self-rightous jerks don't have a monopoly
on interpreting the constitution.  The constitution does have 4th and 5th
amendment rights specified, but it also specifies that the government is
bound to promote the welfare of ALL the people, the people as a whole.
I accept that you are unhappy that the conflict in the constitution is
not settled as you would prefer, but in many cases, I am not pleased with
the way it has been settled on other issues.  Can't win 'em all...

: 
: : : Abortion: Conservatives such as George Bush & Dan Quayle want abortion 
: : :     made illegal (in most cases) while Conservative Barry Goldwater does
: : :     not. Which side represents the conservative view?
: : You make a HUGE mistake in calling Bush a conservative.  That aside,
: 
: You mean he's a liberal? Bush may not be a true-believer Reaganista, but
: surely on the political spectrum of the country, you'd have to accept that
: he's a conservative. The problem is that, whatever his beliefs, he's
: wishy-washy about them. The man just isn't very ideological.
: 

If LLoyd Bentsen can be a conservative democrat, why can't Bush be a liberal
republican?  I certainly do not consider Bush to be conservative.  Just as
you would claim Carter to be a moderate, I claim Bush to be a moderate - 
at best.  The republican party encompasses a wide range of beliefs, from
libertarian to liberal.  Conservative agendas win the white house.  Clinton
had to pretend to be a lot more conservative than he is to win, and so did
Bush.  If Bush is/was a conservative, he would have won big.  But he's not,
and he didn't.

: : consider that Bush was in favor of legalized abortion in 1980, but as the
: : increase in volume of abortions became an alarming trend, his position changed.
: 
: More like, "as it became a requirement for his holding office, his position
: changed." The man has no principles. One of the reasons he's about to become
: the ex-President is that in the absence of Lee Atwater it became all too
: obvious that the primary reason George Bush wanted to be President was that
: "being President" seemed like a pretty neat thing to do.
: 

I'll grant that unifying the party position on abortion certainly played
a part in his change of position.  But you make it a trivial black/white or
yes/no thing and it was not.  Bush may not be 100% credable in everything
he says, but in this case, he says the rise in abortion rates really did
convince him abortion is wrong, and he says it with enough conviction for
me to accept his word.

I bet clinoccio wants to be president because it is neat, too.  What of it?
BOTH of them have dedicated their careers to public service, and serving
as president is clearly an honorable way to do it = and it is the pinnacle
of achievement in their field.  So be it.  Picking Clinton over Bush as
president would be like picking me over Tommy Lasorda to manage the dodgers.
We both like baseball and know the ins and outs, but Lasorda is simply eminently
more qualified.  Bush is head and shoulders the better equipped man for the
job, but sense and reason lost out to emotion this time around.

: : As for Goldwater, not all of his ideas are mainstream conservative.  In 1964,
: : he proposed using nuclear weapons in VietNam...
: 
: This sounds like some of the Christianity arguments in sci.skeptic. Whenever
: presented with an X that doesn't match your picture of X, claim they're not
: *really* X. The point of the original article was that there's not "a
: conservative position" on many of the issues that are now claimed as
: conservative (by, say, the Republican convention). OK, so Goldwater's not a
: mainstream conservative. He's still a prominent conservative, and he doesn't
: agree with the Robertson wing on abortion. Which is "the conservative
: position"?
:   

ok, strike 2.  Your second uncalled for attack on religion.  If you want to
flame religion, start another thread...

There is NO such thing as the conservative position.  Good enough for you?
There are just good conservative men, men of conviction and public service
and of record.  I know that by voting Republican, and preferably for 
conservative republicans, that I will be happy with most of the results
of their actions in government.  You paranoia pushers have claimed that
stacking the supreme court with conservatives would have horrible results.
Yet I urge you to name a single decision made by them (since Bush's last
appointment) that you are NOT satisfied with, and elaborate why.  The typical
paranoia you've spread is that Roe v. Wade would be overturned, if not
in the PA case, then the Guam case.  Bwahahaha. (perhaps you can relate
to your own choice of debate tactics).  Keep it up and you will lose all
credability for your causes.


: : : Isolationism:  Conservative George Bush supports an activist US role in
: : :     the "new world order" while conservative Pat Buchannan does not.  
: : :     Which side represents the conservative view?
: : Flat out wrong assertion here.  Buchannan advocated america first as a policy,
: : which is not the same thing as isolationism.  The only reason America First
: : was deemed important was the slow economy.  Also, Buchannan sure got a lot
: : of votes and won a lot of states during the primaries... that should indicate
: : to you which side represents the conservative view.
: 
: No one claimed that Buchanan was a complete isolationist. It would be hard
: claim that Buchanan would support an activist role for the US, though. By
: the way, your second argument here contradicts your claim above that Bush
: isn't a conservative. By count of votes, I'd certainly have to say that he
: represents the conservative view.
: 

Sarcasm.  I guess I will have to think for you?  Buchanan won ZERO states
and had a horrible accounting in the polls.  Bush was the ONLY hope this
year to be the next president of the republican party.  By count of votes,
the conservatives voted far less for Bush than liberals voted for Dukakis
in '88.  By count of votes.

: : A more appropriate question is "Does Reagan support america first or an
: : active foreign policy role?"  After all, Reagan won almost 100% of the
: : conservative vote in two elections, plus a LOT of democrats, too...
: : (In case you don't figure it out, no doubt you will, Reagan would favor
: : active foreign policy...).
: 
: What the hell does Reagan have to do with anything *now*? Besides, Reagan
: supported a very limited activism. I expect that he would have supported
: Desert Storm, but I think he'd have sent troops (or at least air power) to
: Bosnia long before he sent anyone to Somalia.
: 

What does Reagan have to do with anything?  He's only the greatest and most
successful conservative of all time, including Abe Lincoln.  And he has been
consistent over his half century of political experience.  Funny how you
can bring up Goldwater when it is convenient...

: : : Free-Trade:  Conservative George Bush supports free-trade while conservative 
: : :     Pat Buchannan does not.  Which side represents the conservative view?
: : : 
: : : Capital gains tax: Conservative Ronald Reagan wanted capital gains taxed 
: : :     at the same rate as other income (1986 tax reform) while Conservatives
: : :     George Bush and Jack Kemp want capital gains taxed at a lower rate than
: : :     other income.  Which side represents the conservative view?
: : If you want a real laugh, conservative Patrick Moynahan suggests a capital
: : gains tax cut to 15% from 28%.
: 
: Pat Moynihan? Conservative? Whaaaaa?

Sigh.  Sarcasm again.  I use sarcasm for a reason, because this particular
issue is railed against for 12 years by liberals as a benefit for the rich
and as socking it to the middle class and poor.  I'm not rich, but I sure
would LOVE to get this benefit.  OOps, now we have a democrat in office
and we HAVE to keep him in at all costs, so only now can we do the RIGHT
thing (correct thing).

: 
: :                                 How can you lump Bush and Kemp into the
: : same camp?  Bush never followed any of Kemp's policies, and even had promised
: : to not have Kemp in his next cabinet.
: 
: Well, that's sort of the point. Bush and Kemp put themselves into the same
: camp. They run under the same party banner, compete for the same votes in
: primaries (at least hypothetically), look for support from the same
: interest groups, etc. But they don't agree on many issues. Which represents
: the conservative position? How can you tell?
: 

Bush and Kemp are NOT in the same camp.  They are in the same party.  Nixon
and Reagan are in the same party, but not in the same camp either.  Kemp
campaigned for Bush, as did all of the cabinet members.  Reagan did NOT
campaign for Bush at all.

: :                                        The most successful governmental
: : economic policies in this century, known as trickle-down, were a Kemp/Reagan
: : implementation.  Reagan's terms not only produced enormous prosperity and
: : growth, but year after year the debt and defecit as a percentage of 
: : GDP _decreased_ (source: Milton Friedman, interviewd on Wall Street Week).
: 
: This claim is so vague as to be meaningless. It is true that you can pick
: starting and ending points to illustrate this fact, but there's no independent
: reason to pick those points. If you take "the 80's" (1980-1989), or "the
: Reagan years (1980-1988), that isn't a true statement. (I'll welcome FACTS
: to prove me wrong, because I don't have the numbers handy.) The growth was
: largely fueled by massive increases in public and private debt, which has
: been very much responsible for the mess we're in now.

I did not video tape Wall Street Week, nor do I have a transcript of it.
The best of my recollection is what I wrote.  I apologize for saying that
the DEBT decreased.  But the defecit did indeed decrease.  Since you ask
me to do your research for you, I will provide you with the data, as found
in my 1992 Universal Almanac.  All dollar figures are in BILLIONS.

1980 GNP 2732.0, defecit = 73.8, %GNP = .0270
1985 GNP 4014.9, defecit = 212.3, %GNP = .0529
1987 GNP 4536.7, defecit = 148.0, %GNP = .0327
1988 GNP 4864.3, defecit = 155.1, %GNP = .0319
1989 GNP 5200.8, defecit = 152.0, %GNP = .0292

Less vague: 84 straight quarters of better than average growth, longest in
 peacetime in history.
More people became millionaires in the 80's than ever before.  Went from
 4000 to 64000.
More people left the middle class to become upper class, and blacks fared
 better than whites.
More people left the lower class to become middle class, and blacks fared
 better than whites.
Increase in Jobs of 18 million, far more than population growth.  Decrease
 in unemployment from 7.7% to 5.5%.

How does Reagan's defecit investment policy differ from Clinoccio's proposals?
Tax cut for the middle class?  Remains to be seen.  Reagan lowered taxes on
everyone in 1982 (Reagan/Kemp/Roth tax cut) and here's the resulting revenues:
1980-1989: 517.1, 599.3, 617.8, 600.6, 666.5, 734.1, 769.1, 854.1, 909.0, 990.8

: 
: : Allow me to refer to Rush's book, which I got as a Christmas present (note:
: : I would not have bought it for myself :)...  The difference between
: : conservatives and liberals is that liberals believe that there is a finite
: : pie which must be allocated among the population, while conservatives believe
: : the pie grows all the time.
: 
: That's about what I'd expect from Rush. He speaks well, I'll give him that,
: but that statement is completely self-serving and false. It's as though I
: said that the difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals
: love their children and conservatives eat theirs for breakfast with
: strawberries and cream. 
: 

No, conservatives allow their children to be born, and liberals terminate
the pregnancies ahead of time.  My statement is much more accurate than yours.
You owe me a major apology for suggesting I don't love my child.  I love YOUR
child.  And I love those that are aborted.

: :                              Kemp's (and Moynahan's) capital gains tax cuts
: : are meant to spur growth of the pie at a time the pie is growing slower
: : than we would have liked.  Given the spending controls Reagan (and Bush, btw)
: : proposed, Reagan would have liked to have lowered capital gains more than he
: : proposed in '86.
: 
: But Moynihan isn't a conservative by any sensible measure! What's he doing
: in a discussion of what conservative issues are? And here's Bush again. I
: thought he wasn't a conservative (ref: your post, above)? By the by, it
: would have been pretty nice (and I mean that seriously) if these alleged
: spending controls had ever shown up in any budget proposals.
: 

By the by, the capital gains tax cut has been part of the agenda of the last
3 presidential terms.  That makes it a CONSERVATIVE issue.  Pointing out
a FLAMING liberal who embraces the concept, only now that a democrat is
elected is FAIR game.

By the by, what year did Carter send up a balanced budget proposal?  I can't
tell from my almanac:
Defecit for years 1977-1981: -53.6, -59.2, -40.2, -73.8

Hmmmm... liberal democrat president, liberal democrat congress... president
submits balanced budget, yet we still have defecit spending.  THis is the 
SAME party working TOGETHER.  Given congress' intent to sabotage anything
conservative, especially the president, what's your point?

: : : Yugoslovia breakup: Conservative (former Sec of State) George Schultz supports
: : :     intervention in the former Yugoslovia while conservative George Bush does
: : :     not.  Which side represents the conservative view?
: : Who says (besides you) that Bush doesn't favor intervention in the former
: : Yugoslavia?
: 
: Ummmm....Bush? At least so far. To date, Bush has opposed intervention in
: Bosnia. This is a fact. Schultz supports it. Fact. Which side represents the
: conservative view?
: 

To date, Bush has opposed intervention in Bosnia by jumping in with both
feet and not having a concept of what to do there...  You can bet that
Bush is indeed looking for a way to intervene that makes sense.

: :              Bush is simply a lot slower at getting involved because he
: : (and consistently so) prefers to use force and commit american lives to such
: : noble causes only if he can see a logical, successful, and rapid solution.
: : Remember VietNam?  VietNam is similar to this situation in that it is a civil
: : war, albeit with attrocities being committed that nobody here likes.
: 
: Well....it's not really very much like Vietnam at all. In Vietnam we were
: supporting a puppet regime (first of the French, then of ours). The vast
: majority of the citizens of South Vietnam were opposed to the existing
: regime, to the extent that the US military classified all South Vietnamese
: civilians as potentially hostile. The Bosnian situation really is a civil
: war. It's also nice that our nobility only exists when we can ensure that it
: costs us virtually nothing. Besides, the other big difference between Bosnia
: and Vietnam is that we, alone and through NATO, have been studying that part
: of the world militarily for the whole damned Cold War! Theoretically, we've
: been spending literally billions of tax dollars to prepare for meeting the
: whole damned Red Army in Eastern Europe for the last 40 years. Now you
: expect me to believe that we can't mop up the Serbian Air Force in an
: afternoon? What have they been spending my tax dollars on, the officers'
: mess?
: 

A couple of points here...  First, it IS a lot like vietnam.  No, it isn't
a clone, and no two situations are alike.  If we lose a lot of american
lives over there with no effect, then it will be too much like vietnam
for my tastes!  

I suggest that you go do some research on the value/effect of strategic
bombing... In Iraq, we dropped more bombs than in all the rest of the
wars in history combined.  Then we had to send in ground forces.  And after
it was all said and done, Saddam still had enough of an air force to cause
a lot of hurt to the kurds.  We bombed every airfield they had many times
over.  Bombing is simply not enough.  I suppose you expect the Serbs to wear
red uniforms so we can identify them and shoot them easy.  Can you tell
a serb from a croat?  Your simplistic assessment of what we can do in bosnia
needs some serious thought.  I assure you, Bush is MUCH MUCH MUCH more of
an expert than you or I, and he has the help of Colin Powell and others.

: : my turn:
: 
: It'd be nice if you'd answered any of Russ' questions before taking your
: turn, but OK.
:   
: : Last night on larry king, guest hosted by liberal Bob Beckel (who also filled
: : in for Mike Kinsley on Cross Fire), two guests were Patricia Ireland (NOW)
: : and a woman from Clinton's campaign staff.  The hypocracy was sooo evident.
: 
: Hypocracy, eh? OK, proceed.
:   
: : 1)	Clinton's cabinet is representative of America.
: : 	Who on the cabinet represents me, or Pat Buchannan, or (gasp)
: : 	Pat Robertson, or Dan Quayle, or George Bush, or Ross Perot,
: : 	or John Switzer, or the 57% of the population that didn't vote for
: : 	clinoccio?
: 
: Here, at least technically, you have a point.
:   

Well, my turn to concede something.  I am exstatic about the appointments
of Bentsen and Panealla.  We conservatives CAN'T lose!  It is put up or
shut up time for these guys.  If they want to be reelected, they have to
do the RIGHT thing, which will be Reaganomics.  If they don't do the right
thing, liberals are going to have a tough time getting elected dogcatcher
in podunk iowa.

: : 2)	Both women agreed that they were comfortable with clinton because
: : 	with hillary as his wife, he is obviously comfortable with strong,
: : 	capable women...  Comfortable enough to have a 12 year long affair
: : 	with someone else?
: 
: 1. How does this relate to hypocracy?

Too obvious to deserve a reply.

: 2. What proof do you have that Clinton had an affair? (Hint: Unsupported
: allegations made to a tabloid for pay don't count.)

Hint: SUPPORTED allegations DO count.  The woman made tape recordings,
which are 100% legal evidence in a court of law.  And tabloid was the only
place that would take the story because of media bias.  And tabloid was
not the only place to carry the story (althouth tabloid was first).  Clinton
made a weak denial at best, and refused to talk about it.  He could have
called her a liar, but that would have risked a slander suit!

: 3. What is the connection between Clinton's having an affair (if he did) and
: his being comfortable working with capable women? 
: 

The hypocracy is not only clinoccio's, but NOW's.  I guess women don't
believe that having a husband cheat on a wife is an offense to the woman...

: : 3)	Clinton promised a NEW kind of government and change.  How does
: : 	appointing several former Carter administration people to his
: : 	cabinet mean NEW or change (other than change back to the old that
: : 	failed)?
: 
: Several? I thought it was two, out of about 15. Are you claiming that there
: was *no one* in the Carter administration with worthwhile ideas? If they
: support Clinton's ideas and policies, what does their prior service mean
: in terms of implementing those policies and ideas? How does appointing a
: couple of former Carter administration people NOT mean NEW or change?
: 

For a while there, it was two PER DAY.  Whether they support Clinton's
positions is irrelevent.  What IS relevent is they are neither new nor
is it any kind of change but a change backwards.

:    Mike Jones  |  AIX/ESA Development  |  mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com
: 

1) I wish I had played IBM puts all last year :)
2) I like the software and high end hardware IBM makes!

: More young men have lost their lives to AIDS than died in the entire Vietnam
: War.
: 	- Andew Sullivan, The New Republic 12/17/1990


While I hope and pray that there is a cure for AIDS, I have little belief
that there will be a cure.  To my knowledge, there are no cures for viruses,
only medecine to make people more comfortable that have the virus.  It is
tragic that the virus runs its course and causes a long and pitiful death.
There is every reason in the world to offer assistance, comfort, and love
to those who contract this terrible disease.  It is obvious that there is
a certain way to eliminate this disease, but in order to do so, it takes
a concerted effort and sacrifice among a population that is unwilling to
do what it takes.  
	- Myke Schwartz, UseNet 12/30/1992