Jeb Bush is planning to release all of his e-mails sent during his years as Florida Governor. Sounds like Jeb is planning to run as a Republican moderate. Will the other candidates do the same? What do they have to hide? If he is nominated will this transform the Republican Party?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/jeb-bush-2016-run-huge-134959549.html
Jeb who?
ReplyDeleteGood comment William. I wonder if Jeb could change his last name to Reagan.
ReplyDeleteModerate republican = democrat. No thanks.
DeleteI wonder if Jeb would be allowed to take his magic vote counting machine into the campaign. While we are on the subject of terrorism, you have no doubt heard of a bit of a problem in Sydney during the past 24 hours. Nothing world shattering, a lone nutter took some hostages and was eventually killed when the cops stormed the building. Unfortunately it appears two of the innocent hostages were also killed. The media are all over the story like fleas on a dog. Anything to sell news and tomorrow the pages will line the parrot’s cage. Unfortunately those who died will never see a parrot again.
ReplyDeleteCheers from Aussie
The irony is of course that the only desire of this guy was to be on the news....
DeleteTS You are so right but also of note is the fact that the man was on bail for dozens of alleged offences including I believe accessory to the murder of his wife. There are lots more to come out in this story and I fear the Australian Legal system may generate something of a fish market smell.
DeleteToo bad a few of those hostages were denied the right to defend themselves with a concealed firearm.
DeleteGotta.
ReplyDeleteI suggest that if a citizen feels the need to carry a concealed firearm during his normal activities, he needs to grow some balls. I submit that if a citizen needs to exercise his "Rights" he should first acknowledge his responsibilities. Come on down for a visit Gotta, you will not need your firearm.
Cheers from Aussie
I feel real sorry for the people involved. This is not a gun issue. This is part of our mutual war on Islamic fundamentalism. Clash of civilized versus non civilized cultures. From what I've read this killer wanted to spread propagandized hatred through the use of your media. He could have killed people with an ice pic or box cutter. This is not about guns.
DeleteWilliam I agree entirely, my comments above to Gotta referred only to the remarks he made concerning concealed firearms. As for the racial and religious hatred and intolerance throughout the world, I wonder what we have learnt in the past 2000 years. I further wonder to what extent, beneficial or otherwise, so called faith has in creating a civilized society
DeleteIf your restrictive gun laws are so great, how did this muslim zealot get his hands on one and the victims were denied theirs?
DeleteAt the end of the day the Islamist themselves will have to rein in their extremists. To this point we hear little or nothing from their leaders.
DeleteWe need to eliminate those who would do us harm and leave them to settle things out among themselves. Rumsfeld ' s small footprint strategy was on point but he wasn't spending enough treasure to satisfy the military industrialists. Now Obama and his "Afghanistan right war theory" had spread more deeply into nuclear Pakistan.
Gotta thanks for the question.
DeleteIt appears the nut job had a sawn off shotgun. Of course there are various ways of obtaining such a weapon.Shot guns other than pump action or automatics are not illegal although one needs a licence to own any firearm. I cannot answer as to how this particular individual had a weapon as he would never have been able to obtain a licence to own it due to his criminal history.
Since the firearms controls were introduced here, gun deaths have dropped very significantly. Those firearm deaths which do occur are mostly within the criminal fraternity. What is worrying however is the increase in stabbing deaths since guns became harder to obtain. Please understand however that the number of deaths per year in Australia caused by firearms would be less than what occurs in a week in one large US city.
We do have a problem (relative to our population), many gun parts are intercepted at entry points through the mail system. Small parts are sent separately and eventually one can assemble the completed firearm. Glok pistol parts are a favorite import through this system. We also have Bike Gangs, now in the process of being declared illegal, these gangs are a hot bed for crime and Hells Angels Finks and other oddly named groups are at the forefront of police activity.
I trust this helps and I would be pleased to try to answer any other questions you may have. It would be good to repay my friends for all the help I receive in trying to understand your Politics
Cheers from Aussie
King, I must ask you a question. On more than one occasion you have referred to responsibilities in relation to the rights of a citizen. Generally this is framed in a discussion with respect to the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms. Of course you and I are in total agreement that responsibility has and integral connection to rights and the abuse if the right or abrogation of those responsibilities should put the right in jeopardy. Certainly my rights must end where yours begin.
DeleteMy question is that when in the course of a society, individuals violate this tenet of responsibility, do you think the ‘right’ should be removed as a blanket policy? For instance, the right to free speech. We all concur that it is not responsible and can have grave consequences for someone to yell ‘fire’ in a theatre, ‘bomb’ on a plane or “Burn this thing down” in an emotionally charged group. While statistics are less clear than with gun crime, we can surmise that these kinds of words, over time, has caused people to be trampled, shocked to heart attack, murdered, bludgeoned and hanged as well as mentally scared, isolated and reticulated. At what point do you remove the universal right of free speech from all because a few conduct themselves inappropriately?
I must also ask… do you think that there is any such thing as natural rights or are all ‘rights’ just privileges of the overlord you happen to be born under? If you believe in the later, at what point, when an overlord decides for ostensibly good reasons, to revoke those ‘rights,’ does a nation lose its ability to be a functioning democracy and if you believe in the former at what point does a person stop having an absolute right to defend themselves, their family and property against encroachment of another.
In conclusion, because you rightly sight the need for a person to act responsibly, at what point does state regulation and prohibition disable a society’s ability to teach and learn personal responsibility in the first place?
TS.My thanks for the question, the first part should require no answer but I shall provide one anyway! You ask “when in the course of a society, individuals violate this tenet of responsibility, do you think the ‘right’ should be removed as a blanket policy”. My answer is that the “right” should be removed for the protection of the majority of citizens when the exercise of that “right” by the minority becomes detrimental to the “rights” of their brethren. I can see little point in curtailing free speech, history is full of examples of this” right” being abused and as a classic example I cite your own Martin Luther king. His determined use of his “right” to freedom of speech cost him his life, many, particularly people of color have reason to be grateful for his sacrifice.
DeleteYou further enquire as to my beliefs concerning natural “rights:” Here we have what is now essentially an American made concept which arose in the period preceding the Revolution. People such as John Locke Thomas Payne and Jefferson (the first English and the others American) to name but a few were instrumental in propagating the seeds of natural rights which, in common with the second have travelled down from those times until the present day. I disagree with them all; the rights to which we are entitled should be those rights which we as a people derive from our government which we have democratically elected.
As I have said previously, we are too concerned with our so called rights; we fail to consider our responsibilities. Foremost among these responsibilities is the requirement to acknowledge that the exercise of some real or imagined right can cause untold harm to a fellow citizen.
Your examples of the use of free speech in a cinema are a little puerile and your enquiry as to when we remove the freedom to speak is covered by the various statutes applicable to most free countries. If we as a people decide that we require no regulation by government for our own good; time perhaps to join the Tea Party!
Cheers from Aussie
Wow. Now we have king siding with max, exaggeration their guiding
Deletelight. Lean an ear in now king. For the umpteenth time,,,the Tea Party supports limited government, not the absence of government. The founders after all assembled to form a government, no?
Now let me think for a moment,,,would I rather follow the ideas of Jefferson,,,? or Kingston,,,? Inalienable rights,,,? or the popular current high school level of shallow thought,,,? Let me ponder on that for a moment.
Our problems king relate to 100 years of progressive leanings. You misplace yourself. You are in reality a "Clintonian progressive." Most likely you will take that to your grave.
William; It is always good to read your response to the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” as you perceive them to be. Now I have bent an ear as suggested and just a few things spring to mind. Best I think that I apologise for the clumsiness of my reply to TS. I did not intend to imply that the Teas want no government. I am fully aware that you wish for limited government with the populace being permitted to carry on their lives with the revolutionary ideals of the founders as the guiding light.
DeleteWhat worries me William is the time /event/historical difference which has occurred since 1776. The ideals of 1776 were accomplished at the end of the revolution at Yorktown, that the debit owed to France remained unpaid appears to have been conveniently forgotten! The US became respectable in the diplomatic capitals of the world, due in part to the efforts of Ben Franklin, John Adams and last but not least by Jefferson. Loans were obtained from the Dutch, at that time one of the leading sources of finance in Europe and your country joined the other nations of the free world as a developing country. As with many young nations, the means by which the nation was created assumed great significance in the way the early governments operated. The revolutionary spirit remained strong and many of the articles in the constitution reflect this spirit.
You also learned from your erstwhile colonial masters that acquisition of property was an aim worth pursuing. Jefferson, Munroe and others arranged the Louisiana Purchase, a masterstroke of the first order. Monroe also set the stage for American foreign policy which was to last, in part, until Pearl Harbour.
So with just a few examples enumerated above we can see the thread of revolution running through your history for over a century. The self created glad handedness has diminished over the past century, idealism replaced by commercial greed and idealism directed more towards personal aggrandisement than national interests. We continue to see outpourings of patriotism and national pride but I suggest the media has more influence on this than the feelings of the people.
So William, if I am correct, from whence comes the blind unthinking patriotism and belief in the “rightness” of another revolution? You are too late mate; you won your glorious revolution over 200 years ago.
Can I suggest that your movement could have more effect if you promoted the idea of a government providing a service for the people rather than being a supplicant to the moguls of industry and Wall Street?
Cheers mate from Aussie
"There are those in America today who have come to depend absolutely on government for their security. And when government fails they seek to rectify that failure in the form of granting government more power. So, as government has failed to control crime and violence with the means given it by the Constitution, they seek to give it more power at the expense of the Constitution. But in doing so, in their willingness to give up their arms in the name of safety, they are really giving up their protection from what has always been the chief source of despotism — government. Lord Acton said power corrupts. Surely then, if this is true, the more power we give the government the more corrupt it will become. And if we give it the power to confiscate our arms we also give up the ultimate means to combat that corrupt power. In doing so we can only assure that we will eventually be totally subject to it. When dictators come to power, the first thing they do is take away the people's weapons. It makes it so much easier for the secret police to operate, it makes it so much easier to force the will of the ruler upon the ruled."
DeleteRonald Reagan
A disappointing response William. Reagan did not write those words, his speechwriter (? Peter Robinson) did. To cut and paste at random does not constitute a reasoned response. This is no way in which a debate can be prosecuted; rather it diminishes the minds of all who are so engaged. Now would you care to consider the assertion which concludes my post and to which your offering does not refer.
DeleteCheers from Aussie
We are back to sending responses to avowed leftists who masquerade as self named conservatives. I think not. Just as HRC walks back her true inner Lenin you king continue to show your true petticoats. You know that Jefferson was one of the most important individuals of the millennium and yet you snipe at the documents he helped to produce.
DeleteI suggest you listen to and follow the latest tyrant when he indicates what rights he currently bestowes upon you. I believe in inalienable rights.
But I know you are smarter than Jefferson and Reagan.
So much to say… so little space.
DeleteDidn’t see that one coming now did you William? Surprise, surprise… a neo progressive statist!
Of course he has given plenty of hints as to his propensity in believing that the state can fix all of a nation’s ills even as he quite accurately lays at the feet of government many of the causes and source of much of the financial problems now facing the US and indeed much of the rest of the world.
As you quit rightly point out, he uses the tack of name calling and belittling to make his points. Interestingly he fawns over remarks by Max who almost always expresses his views as an emotional argument and but criticise anyone with a conservative view of the same. The left of course seldom argue in facts… it is rare than they can.
King, you call my example juvenile but I submit that examples exactly likes those form the basis of the line drawn in every society, democratic or otherwise and exact words used in Schenck v. United States by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. If as you contend, a freedom should be removed wholesale, harmful results from calls to destructive action and reactionary words such as those above are no less harmful to the majority and are perpetrated by a minority. As with those who cross the boundaries in speech that, if abused, can cause untold harm to a fellow citizen , there are many laws up to and including death for those who violate boundaries provided in their ‘right’ to keep and bear arms. Abolition of speech anyone? … excepting of course when used to cry ‘Pull’ at a skeet range.
Interesting that you would consider life itself as a privilege of a democratically guided state as you hold no ‘rights’ to be natural. I find it particularly odd in relation to such subjects as slavery and racism. On one occasion working in Australia, I met and got rather close to a family in Sydney. We talked about parallels and differences between our two countries and some of the more sizable blunders made in our histories… we of course talked about slavery and about the plight of the Tasmanian people. When I was departing, their son, then 13, who listened to our conversations, gave me a present and asked me to listen to it and share it with others. It was a CD by Yothu Yindi… As little has changed from what I can tell, I guess it just isn’t a democratic priority. I do take heart though, in the inclination of ever more nations adopting these principles in the fabric of their guiding documents if not their actions. For a progressive such as yourself, I would think you would revel in in this classic liberal leap forward.
“Can I suggest that your movement could have more effect if you promoted the idea of a government providing a service for the people rather than being a supplicant to the moguls of industry and Wall Street?”
Clearly King you have missed the point of many a discussion with regard to original Tea Party folks and libertarians alike. The government of ‘limited’ scope, should serve in the capacity as arbitrator of contracts, protector of basic human ‘rights’ and defender of the realm be it national, state or local. Were we to properly sever the co-dependent relationship between business and government, unshackling entrepreneurs and creators from taxes, regulations and state license, they could freely set about continuing to build the fabulous standards of living the industrial and technological revolution that we take for granted. It would also free the taxpayer of monies lost to the corruption of legislators and the protections to business that create such careless and irresponsible behaviour.
A small correction of fact. While it is true that the US defaulted on payments to France in 1785 and 1787, the US did pay off all of its war debts, first to Spain and then in 1795 to France. While the loans acquired to clear this debt remained on the US balance sheet… France was paid in full.
http://history.state.gov/milestones/1784-1800/loans
William and The Scot.
DeleteWell now, what to say in order to stop the bleeding and defend the indefensible!
Starting with William who accuses me of being a cross dresser. Even worse he accuses me of sniping at documents Jefferson helped produce. As a student of history I can find much to criticise but most of it is with the benefit of hindsight. I think William is referring to my opposition to the second in the context of modern day living. Guilty as charged William and I would not even think of taking the fifth (were it available). William also takes the opportunity of accusing me being a Leftist. More to say about that in a moment.
TS is the interesting correspondent here. It appears TS is using words simply to confuse himself or perhaps those who do not read works of the same esoteric nature as he. I am accused of being a Neo Progressive Statist. a supporter of Max and all manner of other creatures detrimental to the fostering of his own ego.
Now to what my opponents consider a question so important, it appears to almost define the right to exist on the same planet as them. I am accused of being that most disgusting of creatures, a political opponent of them both! It appears to me that both TS and William spend so much time in categorising others, inventing names for them and then placing their subjects into small neat rows of boxes. During this categorisation process, the real issues of the day are forgotten as each tries desperately to square his beliefs.
Perhaps it is different in America where a viewpoint has to be categorised, dissected and then used to belabour its author. No matter the merits of the argument, if a Conservative perceives a viewpoint to come from a Democrat then by definition it must be wrong.
Now, I shall reach eighty years of age next year and since I gained the privilege of voting at the age of 21, I have without exception voted for Conservative parties. On two occasions, in State (but never Federal) elections here in Australia I have voted informally. Try to remember that please as we progress our debates. I do not care what you think of my views, what I do care about is that our two nations have a closeness in our relations that self centred opinions will not change. Perhaps we could take politics out of our debates but that would defeat the purpose of the site. Thanks for the reference to the debit question but please read the reference again and you will notice that “the debit remains on the statute books”. You may have to dig a little deeper to obtain full understanding.
Cheers from Aussie
You are of course right in that we should be able to talk about issues in isolation and without being put in a box but most people over time tend to have a fairly singular mind-set about how government and society should function and place themselves in categories if not political parties. You just get use to calling names rather than citing actions.
DeleteApologies for an assumption made by William and me. You have often said that you ‘align’ yourself with republicans (I use ‘align’ as substitute for your most apropos choice) and have spoken about voting conservative previously. Our(My) mistake of course is concluding that voting for the Australian Conservative Party is the same as being ‘conservative’ which, for people in the US, is a subset generally speaking, of the Republican Party. While some may identify with the Republican Party because they support a strong military and foreign policy, that does not preclude them from voting for less than conservative legislation. Those people have garnered the label of RINO as most of them talk a ‘republican’ campaign and act the democrat in practice. I tend to break from conservatives and by extension, Republicans because, while I believe in the ’10 commandments’ type of values, I do not believe it is a function of government imposed law to dictate social mores which impart no violence or force on others and as such believe government should disappear in that area. Self-governance is after all a major role in a nation of free people.
My astonishment and no doubt William’s is over your view of the individual with respect to government. I realize that some of the founders of the US constitution wanted to omit any BOR as enumerating a few would tend to minimize the importance of the many not listed and I can see where living in the only democracy on the planet without a bill of rights might guide you to believe that one is unnecessary, but by saying : “I disagree with them all; the rights to which we are entitled should be those rights which we as a people derive from our government which we have democratically elected.”, you leave little doubt as to your position as a Statist… at least in my book. So, no this point isn’t about the singular right of the 2nd amendment; it is about the defence of and ability to defend all rights…. Rights that you appear hold as both arbitrary and nebulous.
I have always assumed you to be a supporter of free enterprise and market remedies but your support for state provided medicine gave me pause for thought. The prices of goods and services in many cases pushed many governments to a single payer system allowing affordable access to their people. They did so in defence of distortions created by the predominate consumer and innovator of healthcare products and equipment… America. Distortions are created and felt worldwide by protectionist and crony laws which skew delivery and price in hundreds of ways. Once the US adopts a single payer system, (which it will because “Everybody else is doing it”) innovation will be slowed and solutions will be guided by the single-minded direction of the WHO establishment. While short term equity seems fair, state budgets will always dictate access and in the long run medicine and staffing for all will suffer…. except as always of course for those who will always be able to afford premium care.
As far as digging a little deeper, I have found no information furthering your contention. Perhaps you could point me to your source. The link I provided clearly states that it cleared its debt with France. I know that I can miss things so please be so kind as to guide my to the source for your conclusion. I will have to say however, that in light of much revisionist history; perhaps a U.S. government website isn’t the most accurate source of information.
Enough said for now except to wish you and yours a very merry Christmas.
TS My thanks.
DeleteFirstly the differences between US and Australian definitions of our political parties. I have often in these posts found it necessary to add a definition as Conservative and Labor can be confused by foreigners,just as Elephants and Donkeys,Blue Dogs And various other sobriquets I often encounter. I also have trouble with the plethora of otherwise unknown adjetivs and acronems which constantly appear in your press and on sites such as this.
Let us then be very clear on the Politics of my Country. In essence we have the Conservative wing comprising the Liberal and the National Party. These form the present government and are widely accepted as the politics of the big end of town.
On the socialist side we have the Labor party (note spelling as this is an official name for a party and NOT the spelling used for a manual worker. (Labourer).In addition we have the Greens, also a left wing organisation with very few representatives in parliament and with a decreasing influence. There are other splinter groups with minimal representation although presently our National Senate is hamstrung by these minor wing nuts siding with the Labor opposition.
Where we differ with the perceived US system as you currently operate is that we often have values enacted into law by a government and then the same law is improved or modified by the alternative government when they come to power. A classic example of this is the Universal Medical Care here. Of course the conservatives opposed the passing of the law but have since adopted it and as a result we have a very good system. I can support the changes currently proposed regarding a co payment but the Labor opposition refuse to do so.
So yes I support private enterprise, I support equitable taxation and I support a strong foreign policy including the ANZUS treaty which has served our two nations for well over fifty years. I do not support unlimited welfare handouts which are given not to enable a man to eat but to live a lifestyle not commensurate with the effort he expends in earning his welfare. In this I probably agree with William, with his Rip Van Winkle philosophy (as we see it here) I guess so many of my views would correspond with those of William. The forgoing are small beer to my overriding belief, I believe that we are privileged to live in a democracy, it was a privilege to serve for twenty years in the armed forces and it was a privilege to encourage our son to hold many of those values as he too served for eight years, some of it in the Gulf.
In conclusion, there have been many Americans who became good Presidents, either because of or in spite of their political colour. Kennedy, FDR, Clinton and Reagan, (both flawed but the good outweighing the less than good) the first five, four of them Virginians and Lincoln perhaps the greatest of them all. Please let us not argue on this one and I once persuaded an American friend to read the Gettysburg address at a dinner party. I had given a short talk concerning Lincoln and the slave question and the reading ensured not a dry eye in the room.So many had not previously understood the reasons for the civil war
To you and yours,
A merry and healthy Christmas and I look forward to the resumption of hostilities in the New Year.( note; for clarity I have used Australian Spelling for this post)
When is another Bush to many? The answer is the same as when is another Clinton to many.
ReplyDeleteThe answer is: We have to many of both.
Frankly I won't vote for either of these big spenders. I'll also promote that idea within my Tea Party.
DeleteJeb NO
HRC NO
Cruz NO
DeleteCruz is hated on the Hill by all of the progressives because he is one of a select few that is actually doing what he campaigned to do. They hated Reagan when he ran also.
DeleteWilliam, I admire both Cruz and Bush. They mean what they say and say what they mean. Although poles apart in the Republican political spectrum, it will be very interesting if they go head to head during the nominations, don't you agree?
DeleteThe main difference Mick is that Bush is a tax and spender. And he means it.
DeleteRead my lips.
Uncle Ted would never win a national election. The TEAs are much better off having him as a blowhard mouthpiece in the Senate.
DeleteNow William, I've been posting with you long enough to make a pretty good guess at your response. Something like: "Wow, Comrade Pfunky, Why are you and your Liberal, Commie, Socialist, America-Hating Cohorts so afraid of Ted Cruz?"
My answer if you ask is, I'm not. If Cruz did manage to win the nomination, he would all but guarantee that a Dem (probably Clinton) would be the next POTUS.
"Back in 1927, an American socialist,Norman Thomas, six times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said that the American people would never vote for socialism but he said under the name of liberalism the American people would adopt every fragment of the socialist program."
DeleteRonald Reagan
"...My answer if you ask is, I'm not. If Cruz did manage to win the nomination, he would all but guarantee that a Dem (probably Clinton) would be the next POTUS....
DeleteNow THAT is a truely frightening thought.....
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete