If you hated Clinton before

…wait 'til you read this!

An independent, unfunded research firm, TRI_BRI2CO, recently examined bicycle death rates in the U.S., and found that they were 10.3% higher under the Clinton Administration than the current Bush Administration. From 1993 to 2000, a whopping 6,198 people died in bicycle accidents in the U.S., an average of 775 per year. Aggressive action by the Bush Administration to reduce bicycle deaths has brought the average annual death toll down by 10.3%, to 695 per year. Safety advocates, however, blame the Bush Administration for not going far enough by failing to ban bicycle sales outright, or at least eliminating all bicycle advertisements to children under 16 and hairy men in Lycra shorts. A spokesman for the Clinton Administration denied that Sam Walton’s contributions to Clinton’s presidential campaigns had any connections to their utter disregard for public safety.

Is the death data in this post accurate? Absolutely. Is the write up intellectually honest? Absolutely not.

What are my point(s)?

  1. Under our representative republican form of government, it is not the responsibility of the federal government to solve every and all problems. States, counties, cities, and even (gasp) individuals have the DUTY to share in solving our problems. Not every fat kid in the U.S. got fat in the last 3 years. Therefore, it is not GWB’s fault. Where were the parents? Guess what I see when I see fat adults? I see fat kids right behind them. If Momma and Poppa can’t stop stuffing their pieholes, how do you expect the kids to?

  2. Companies (which are owned by people) have a right to sell products, even those that through their misuse/abuse, may cause injury or death. Protecting the right of companies to engage in free commerce is one of the jobs of our government.

  3. Advertising is a form of freedom of speech that is guaranteed under the First Amendment. What would Francois or Cerveloguy say if the Bush Administration banned sales of Playboy? CENSORSHIP!! Am I right? Be intellectually honest now.

  4. Eating at McDonalds or Wendy’s in a responsible manner (once or twice a week with reasonable portion sizes) never hurt anyone, and in fact, can be beneficial IF your only other choice is to skip a meal. Meat, bread, lettuce, cheese, pickles, ketchup, mustard, and potatoes are not toxic or cancer-causing.

  5. Much of the agenda of the UN and its’ subsidiaries such as the WHO, is an out-and-out assault against capitalism in general and the US in particular. It is only a thinly-disguised attempt to redistribute wealth FROM the US to the rest of the world.

  6. In general (IMO), liberals are much less likely to be intellectually honest than conservatives. You never heard the NOW complain about Bill Clinton, the serial rapist, because he supported their agenda. OTOH, many, many conservatives are expressing dismay over some of GWB’s proposals. I support GWB in his actions in Iraq, but I also supported Clinton in his actions in Bosnia, which were EXACTLY like what GWB is doing in Iraq. I also supported BC on NAFTA and Welfare Reform (interesting how much unemployment dropped after those were passed). Most liberals will never give GWB credit for anything or ever admit that Clinton did anything wrong.

  7. I am dismayed how many triathletes–independent, energetic, mostly successful, smart and fit people–want/need some form of external mandate to enable them to lead their lives.

Just my (not so humble–according to my wife) opinions hopefully stated in a somewhat funny and thought-provoking manner. Oh, yeah–Happy MLK Day. I, as a conservative, do truly hope that someday all will be judged by the content of their character and not their color, race, or religion, and not just because the government says we have to or sets some quotas.

Obviously, I agree with this post. Thanks.


The other day I was talking to my students about what they knew of Dr. King.

I started to wonder if King was the “biggest impact player” of the 20th century. Did he make more of an impact than FDR? Did he make more impact that Eleanor Roosevelet and Women’s suffrage? Regardless the man made great strides in bringing us together. Despite our differences, we get along better today than we did yesterday.

Don’t you know that the lib’s run on emotion instead of substance??? How dare you argue in a logical and rational manner against the idea they have that, GWB is a moron and everyone who supports him is, too??? They have no alternative but bash him…cuz…what he and the republican run congress just migh straighten some of the real social and economic problems out…and then what…He might win another term!!!

I argue for GWB on another forum and it always results in name calling on me as a conservitive and my inadequacies as a sub-human being. Remember fredom of speach and commerce is one sided in the commi…I mean liberal world…as long as you agree with there side the world would be fine!!!

Haven’t checked the Oxford version, but let’s see how liberal and conservative are defined in the American Webster’s dictionary:

lib-er-al 1. favoring progress or reform 2. free from predjudice, tolerant 3. characterized by generosity.

con-serv-a-tive 1. disposed to preserve existing conditions and to limit change

If you have a Webster’s check it out. But don’t the liberals just seem like nicer people.

I am using these terms as they are defined in the political lexicon of the day. Remember, that back in the early 1900’s Republicans were the Liberals and Democrats were the Concervatives.

So under your definition of Liberal…The Lib’s should be for the progressive change that Bush is for. They should be generous with their support of his adjenda. They should be tolerant that “dubya” and his supports may not be as educated as the compassionate intellectuals on the liberal side…cuz we all here on the conservative side are undeserving rich greedy selfserving bigotted religious zealots that just what to destroy and pollute the world cuz we ain’t that bright and we hate everyone???

We want change…that is why we are conserative…the “Great Society” is crumbling…!!!

  1. Agree - individuals do bear responsibility for their own actions

  2. Which amendment is the right to sell stuff in?

  3. Advertising is protected by the constitution, but there are still restrictions on what advertising is allowed in various media.

  4. Agreed - key is moderation.

  5. Huh??? All this time I thought the WHO was doing things like trying to fight the spread of AIDS, working to improve health in developing countries, and that kind of thing.

  6. No opinion on this, and I am neither a liberal or a conservative

  7. This isn’t unique to Tri-geeks.

"5. Huh??? All this time I thought the WHO was doing things like trying to fight the spread of AIDS, working to improve health in developing countries, and that kind of thing. "

Gee, so did I.

“I argue for GWB on another forum and it always results in name calling on me as a conservitive”

as for being a conservative, i’m with you. find me the candidate that is for fiscal responsibilty (like balanced budgets), non-intrusive governments in personal matters (as with what men and women are allowed to do with their bodies), in business matters (like allowing steel to fend for itself like any other industry) and, finally, for the clear separation of church and state. i’m still looking for the candidate. he’ll come along someday.

that’s my one dip into the political discussions, which i’m only doing to honor MLK (the man, not the many boulevards).

  1. In general (IMO), liberals are much less likely to be intellectually honest than conservatives

Let’s test this sad little theory, shall we folks?

And before we do, let me make clear I don’t (for a second) assume all conservatives, liberals, Amish or Moonies are as pathetically uninformed and inadvertantly comic as tri_bri2.

I also supported Clinton in his actions in Bosnia, which were EXACTLY like what GWB is doing in Iraq.

Hmmm…495, 496, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501.

Yup, 501 cold, dead Americans say you’re wrong.

Well, not “say” exactly, but mutely testify to the essential ridiculousness of the analogy.

Anyhoo…tell us, tri_bri2, how many folks died in our (ongoing) attempt at nation building/seperating in Kosovo? Hostile fire or accidents? Carbomb? Sniper? IED? Downed copter?

Take your time. Good boy. Now tell the class.

So, tri_bri2, now that we (all) have an idea of the yawning gap of death between the two (wildly divergent) situations what would you (you know, you the quick-as-a-pistol tri_bri2) say about of an “argument” which relegates that the deaths of hundreds of our countrymen to an footnote in service of a obviously specious comparison.

Is it “intellectually honest”?

C’mon now, son, the truth will set you free…

tri_larry

oh, remember last week, how you wanted me to wait until “the final tests were in” on the Danish “blister gas” shells before saying i told you so.

we’ll they’re in…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3407853.stm

…and i told you so.

“I started to wonder if King was the “biggest impact player” of the 20th century.”

now THAT’S an interesting topic. as for MLK or eleanor roosevelt, neither. my vote is for either alan turing or neil cassidy, one scientific one social.

without turing you have a hard time winning WWII, and you don’t have the computer.

without cassidy you don’t have the beats or their progeny, the hippies, the 60s, and everything that followed.

plus, cassidy and turing would’ve made a nice couple.

“2. Which amendment is the right to sell stuff in?”

The Constitution it to limit the powers of government, remember? Some us still do.

And as for the separation of church and state (a myth), the first amendment is meant to ensure freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

As to the un-funny joke that is the WHO, Uganda is the only country in sub-Saharan Africa with a declining AIDs rate, and was done in opposition to the WHO.

MLK day is (like many other federal holidays) a great drain on the economy. MLK is a figurehead of the civil rights movement, a movement with many truly heroic players, but in my opinion (and by most accounts) he was a pretty lousy human being.

Our culture, and its sub-cultures, might do well to pick fewer and better heroes.

a good take on MLK by Joe Sobrans, such as he is:

http://www.sobran.com/columns/2003/030828.shtml

b

Since we’re dragging Clinton into this, what says it all to me about US politics is the fact that Clinton lied about having oral sex and he was impeached.

Bush lied to drag the country into war, turning a healthy budget surplus into a LARGE defecit, and more importantly, a war which so far has KILLED 500+ Americans, and no-one really cares.

Regardless of which side of the political fence you’re on, you have to agree that that’s pretty f’d up.

Ok, different tack. Where in the bill of rights does it say that I have the right to sell stuff?? I’m not American, so can you cut me a little slack on the Constitution please??

I never talked about the effectiveness of the WHO, like the UN it is too large to be truly effective and is also subject to the biases of its members. But I think that its goals are noble.

Not sure where you are going with the MLK comment, but generally heroes are not picked because they are nice people, but because they contributed something valuable to a society. Its pretty hard to argue against the Reverend on that score.

  1. Companies (which are owned by people) have a right to
    sell products…

Companies don’t have rights (or aren’t supposed to, if you look at the constitution). People have rights. The inversion of individuals’ primacy over institutions is something many conservatives feared and are now, it seems champions of. Some conservatives, to be sure, are still pretty rigorous in their definitions of rights, but too many are now corporatists. Anyway, companies are allowed to sell products by virtue of being licensed to do so by the public (by governments which are ostensibly operating on behalf of the public).

Protecting the right of companies to engage in free commerce
is one of the jobs of our government.

Maybe (except that companies don’t have rights). I think it’s more the government’s job to ensure a fair and safe marketplace where transactions are conducted fairly under the rule of civil law (protection of property rights, etc.)

  1. Advertising is a form of freedom of speech that is
    guaranteed under the First Amendment. What would Francois
    or Cerveloguy say if the Bush Administration banned sales of >Playboy? CENSORSHIP!! Am I right? Be intellectually honest
    now.

Well, you’re not exactly right. There are already legal constraints, for example, on advertising of tobacco and alcohol.

  1. In general (IMO), liberals are much less likely to be
    intellectually honest than conservatives.

I don’t find this to be the case at all. Neither camp (as if there were only 2!) has cornered the market on intellectual dishonesty. Plenty to go around I think.

Interesting choices. Not sure I agree with such a strong cause-effect link on either one. Cassidy was a huge inspiration, but even without him, those were some pretty creative guys out there. Would they have ended up inspirations themselves without him, or just fizzled out, directionless?

And Turing – definitely a bigger-picture guy than von neumann, but not sure the computer wouldn’t have come about anyway. But as if everything he did intellectually weren’t enough, he also ran a 2:46 marathon!

Since we’re dragging Clinton into this, what says it all to me about US politics is the fact that Clinton lied about having oral sex and he was impeached.

Bush lied to drag the country into war, turning a healthy budget surplus into a LARGE defecit, and more importantly, a war which so far has KILLED 500+ Americans, and no-one really cares.

Regardless of which side of the political fence you’re on, you have to agree that that’s pretty f’d up.

You will have to excuse me maybe as I am having a very hard week…

I am in Des Moines Iowa…Idiot jackass undereducated plebian blue collar whine capitol of the “Every one has nice stuff but me” Democrat idiot party. Does the truth EVER get into a Democrats rational? Bush gets us into a war? LIKE CLINTON WAS NOT KILLING PEOPLE IN THE 'NO FLY ZONES"? What? Cant handle a president with balls that is not all talk?

Oh, and you like the “surplus”? That was like an Enron profot! It was all on paper! It never really was there. Why is it that the corrupt people in business gave up the gig after Bush got into office? Maybe it was false numbers that were possibly altered for political reasons? Maybe they were projected figures in cattle futures? Clinton turned this country into a squid spine joke of the planet…now, no one screws with us - period.

If you think that Iraq is a waste of lives, maybe you cant see the forest for the trees…Did you notice by chance all the other countries (Iran, Afganistan, Pakistan) who are now getting rid of weapons and talking peace? Did you not notice that N. Korea wants to get rid of their nuke programs? My president has made a great effort with what he has been given - a mess of a world…and he has made this world a safer place for all of humanity.

You want some numbers to compare against?

Chicago - 599 murders
New York - 596 murders
LA - 498 murders

These are senseless…bitch about that prior to bitching about our military trying to make the world a better place for all Iraqi people.

There, I am done…sorry for offending anyone.

And as for the separation of church and state (a myth), the first amendment is meant to ensure freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Man, that is beautiful. You should put that on a t-shirt and sell it.

The Bill of Rights says you will not have religion forced upon you nor will you be persecuted for your religion. It does not say that those in the state cannot be religious or express religious beliefs. To not have religion in politics is impossible. Even “lack of religion” is a form of religion.

#6.

Politics has its problems on both sides and jingoism taken to its extreme is always dangerous. As a liberal I will admit that I didn’t agree with a lot of policies that Clinton supported and his “ideology” wavered depending on which poll he read that morning. Unfortunately, voting is sometimes a choice between lesser evils. But to say that Bush administration has been “intellectually honest” has got to be a joke. There has been a consistent revisionist to their supporting data. For example, when the EPA, an agency which is supposed to be non-parisan, was asked to re-write their report and leave certain sections out because it wouldn’t support the Bush agenda. Keep in mind those that would potentially suffer most from the report would be companies which also the biggest supporter of his campaign. Machiavellian- yes, “intellectually honest”-no.

Another point is when the administration took CIA intellegence on Iraq’s pursuit of WMD (which said that there was no indication they were seeking them) and morphed it into “undeniable evidence”. A few months ago on NPR they were interviewing several people from the CIA in which they read sections of the reports sent to the Bush administration that said flat out there was no clear indication based on the intellegence that there was anything happening and previous reports had been properly explained through further intellegence. In 1984 this was called the Ministry of Truth.

I can’t help be suspect of an administration in which so far the company to reap the most profit from the war is the company the Vice-President used to be CEO. Keep in mind this is the same company now accused of overcharging. Also it is unnerving that Ken Lay has been left off the hook…the leader of a company which has been the most consistent supporter of Bush through both campaigns for Governer and President.

For an administratration that is supposed to be conservative(against big government in regards to business and personal life) they don’t act like it. This administration seems to have no concept of fiscal responsibility: lower taxes + increased spending = economically healthy country?

<<Since we’re dragging Clinton into this, what says it all to me about US politics is the fact that Clinton lied about having oral sex and he was impeached. >>

He was? Where the heck was I? I thought he served two full terms.

Brett

“Don’t you know that the lib’s run on emotion instead of substance??? How dare you argue in a logical and rational manner against the idea they have that…”

As a liberal the only thing I can say to that is :Your a poopyhead sub-human being! :wink:

Just kidding, its totally your freedom to say whatever you want. I think that its great that we live in a country that we can argue about this and we don’t have to agree with each others politics.