Will this be the premature end of South Park

Found in the South Park Digest on January 31:

Read these two posts and tell me if there is anything to them.
_______________________________________________________

From: "MOOMONK99" Subject: What were they thinking?!?

I'm sure everyone has heard the crap about George W. Bush trying to take away our offensive, vulgar, beloved South Park, and Mr. Bush, if you can hear me SCREW YOU! I would like to see us (The digest people trying to stop him like Bush was Kyle's mom) try to save South Park. Just imagine Paul as "The Mole" and Matt and Trey in electric chairs, and one of us trying to shut the electricity off on the chairs! Anyway, i have some juicy news that I'll share with all of you. It's kind of a hard thing to imagine, and kind of sad, but here it goes. for the last episode of South Park :( which is said to be in late March-early April, Matt and Trey have something special planned for us. The last episode will have Stan and Kyle w/ their hats on, We will see Kenny without his hood for a longer period of time, we will find out who Cartman's true mom is, and the part we've been waiting for, Matt and Trey will show up cartoon style as all powerful beings, or something like that. It will also last an hour. Nicole ====================> NEXT POST

From: [email] Subject: Censorship sucks a$!!!

Sup SP fans? It really pisses me off that those buttpipes in DC think they can tell me what I can and cannot watch. Screw them I have every single South Park video that has ever come out, so there!!! I say we prank call a bunch of cops and send pizzas to their houses that they did not order. Anyway enough on that before I get so pissed off I throw my computer out the window. That would suck b/c I haven't even paid this thing off. I mean I love God and I consider myself a Christian but I don't push my beliefs on anyone. If there is something that offends me I don't watch it. It's that simple. Why should everyone suffer just b/c someone else's sense of humor is like nil?

--- Willie Westwood

BULLSHIT, SEE BELOW QUOTED TEXT

BULLSHIT HOAX. Some reasons:

• I have never heard him say anything about South Park.

2) Even if he has publicly denounced South Park, what the hell can he do about it in the next few weeks? George W. Bush is *running* for President; he isn't the President yet. He has no power to do anything to South Park as a candidate who hasn't even won a primary, unlike his opponent McCain who just did. M&T have already said there will only be ~27 more episodes (by their own choice).

3) This was undoubtedly started by someone who doesn't like George W. Bush and isn't the first time this type of ploy has been attempted. Here is another *lie* that spread across the country a while back about Ken Starr:

---------- Special prosecutor Kenneth Starr now has the same dubious distinction as the giant albino alligators in the sewers of New York: He's an urban legend.

There's a story going around that Starr, then a federal judge, told "60 Minutes" reporter Diane Sawyer back in 1987 that: "Public media should not contain explicit or implied descriptions of sex acts. Our society should be purged of the perverts who provide the media with pornographic material while pretending it has some redeeming social value under the public's 'right to know'."

The tale would be great ammunition for Starr's critics, who think the independent counsel's own report contains unnecessarily pornographic details of President Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky.

Too bad Starr didn't say it.

For the record, Sawyer never interviewed Starr in 1987. Starr never appeared on "60 Minutes" that year. His purported statement does not appear in any judicial documents issued by him during his tenure on the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Starr's non-statement has already been debunked by the Washington Post, the San Francisco Examiner and Salon magazine. But the president's defenders have adopted the credo "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story."

fnord
-----------------------------------------------------------------
                         [email]
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*NOTE*  I am not responsible for equipment damage due to reeeealy
dumb children with no parental supervision, and access to a hammer.

He should perhaps pay less attention to SP and more to the ass kicking he just received in New Hampshire.

Viva la resistance!!

God help us all.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                         [email]
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*NOTE*  I am not responsible for equipment damage due to reeeealy
dumb children with no parental supervision, and access to a hammer.

Sorry, but I still plan to cast my vote for ANYone else. Bush is trying to buy his way into the White House. He's been a little rich kid who grew up having his way, and now he wants Santa to put the White Hiuse under his tree.

My voting decision method is quite simple, actually. Watch "the 700 Club" and see who Pat Robertson is in favor of, and vote for the OTHER guy. Pat chose Bush Sr. in 92, and he supported Dole in '96. Pat sure knows how NOT to pick 'em. <g>

|

I am not a right-wing Christian or Republican. In fact, I am an atheist and Libertarian. I abhor Pat Robertson. But, that doesn't mean that I like that Clinton was elected or that nothing Pat Robertson likes is good. What if Pat Robertson likes ice cream? Does that mean you will now hate it? Dole would have made a much better president than Clinton, imo. (I voted for Harry Browne, of course.) Clinton's popular only because the economy is good. Few people admire him as a person or leader; they just approve of the way he's doing his job (they think) because the economy is good. Like he had anything to do with that.

Now this is way off-topic, but you started it!

p.s. I suppose you find Al Gore appealing? How about Bauer? You did say anyone...

If a power-mad Nazi like Robertson is in favor of ice cream, I'd certianly be wary of eating any for a while.

If he did, I'm sure all of his endorsements supporting Bugs Bunny for president would hold more weight. <g>

The economy was pretty sucky when Clinton first got elected, but it soon changed when he was sworn in. Say what you will about him, but at least he knows how to appoint the right people to get things done. I'll bet Greenspan gets his dong sucked more often than Bill Gates these days.

I look at it like Capt. Pierce from M*A*S*H. A real oddball anarchist in his off-hours, but when it comes time to be a surgeon, he does his job damn well. Sorta the same way with Clinton. We elected him to help keep the economy from sliding deeper into the toilet thanks to years of Reagan/Bush bullshit policies, and he did turn things around. If that's what it took to get things back on track, then I say let Bill use his cigars in any damn way he wants to.

Like I said, if Pat Robertson doesn't like the guy, then there must be something GOOD about the candidate. Part of what I like most about Clinton is that he never had to bow down and kiss Robertson's ass like Bush does. The Christian Coalition is the biggest anti-democracy organization since the Third Reich.

That is very poor logic. I hope you are joking. So, Pat Robertson wears shoes. Are you not going to wear shoes now? He likes to talk; are you not going to talk because he likes to?

|The economy was pretty sucky when Clinton first got elected, but it soon |changed when he was sworn in. Say what you will about him, but at least |he knows how to appoint the right people to get things done. I'll bet |Greenspan gets his dong sucked more often than Bill Gates these days.

If you didn't remember, the global economy was in poor shape when he took office. Does Clinton get credit for that improving as well? It is naive to think that one man can change global economics that quickly. Finally, Clinton did not appoint Greenspan to be the head of the Fed. Greenspan has held that position since August 1987, so I guess that means Reagan, whom you hate so very much, selected him. In fact, Greenspan served on Reagan's Economic Policy Advisory Board (1981-87) and also his Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (1983-85). The most that Clinton has done is reappoint/select (it is the U.S. Senate that ultimately decides who heads the Fed, not the President) Greenspan, which any idiot would have done. Even more proof that credit for the good economy is due much to Clinton. Here is some more Greenspan info if you want: http://www.economeister.com/news/2000_02/03/141200po.htm

He should put his cigars wherever he wants; he just shouldn't lie about it. I wasn't going to bring up Lewinsky anyway; I don't need to. Again, how can you credit Clinton with "turning things around"? He just happened to be in office when they turned around. You might as well credit Clinton for anything that has happened in the last 7 years or so. Yes, give him credit for Jeff Gordon winning so many NASCAR races.

Preaching to the chorus. (Yes, irony of clich� duly noted.) I am not pro-Bush. But you're kidding yourself if you think Clinton is the reason why the economy is good.

The fact remains that the man(?) is a putrid dinosaur who thinks that people should obey him as God's personal representative, and if anyone dares not to, he'll try what he can to force it on them by law. What do you think the Christian Coalition is there for?

You can when you stop doing bullshit and start concentrating on what's relevant.

Isn't it interesting that during the first several years of the Reagan Regime, all the social/economic ills of the time were being blamed on that horrible Carter. NOW that things have improved, the RepubliKKKlans are trying to take credit for it. Which way is it? The bad economy of the 80's because of a prior president's poicies, or current economics based on the prior presidency? Can't have it BOTH ways, bubbie.

Well, it's interesting to see that all during Reagan/Bush, all we read about was the growing deficit, massive layoffs and business closings, people getting tossed into the streets by the truckload, and yet all Washington cared about was whether we "just said no" and did our sex in the missionary position with a person of the opposite gender.

Compare the Democratic candidates to their GOP counterparts. Notice that the Demos may not be much to thrill over, that the Repubs look downright *scary* in their ideas on how to fuck over people if they got elected (look at Bauer, who recently dropped out of the race. Now THERE'S an evil leprechaun if there ever was one).

And, let's pop the ultimate question; Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?

Well, are you?

Happy Sight To See: Tuning into "The 700 Club" one day in Jan 1993 and watching Pat Robertson almost choking on his own spit while trying to force himself to say the words "-->President<-- Clinton".

You conveniently downplayed the fact that your man Greenspan was not selected first by Clinton (as you thought) but by those bastard Republicans. I admire Greenspan. I do not admire Republicans or Democrats as a whole. I judge clients on their individual merits. Also, you proceed to write your post as if I was a Republican trying to defend Bush, Reagan, etc. when I clearly stated that I was not a Republican. I am a Libertarian, also as stated before.

"furplay" wrote

Again, preaching to the chorus. What makes you think that I support Robertson or the Christian Coalition? I think the world would be a better place if they didn't exist or wield power. I just find it absurd that someone bases his/her politics and thinking just simply to be the opposite of Pat Robertson. Yes, the man is a putrid facist dinosaur who I would like to see gunned down right after Jesse Helms. However, that doesn't mean that an intelligent person simply votes the opposite of EVERYTHING Robertson supports because that's just plain stupid. As I proved.

|

relevant.

Or you can just sit on your ass through scandal after scandal (and I'm not referring to Lewinsky) while the improving world economy boosts your ratings. Add to that basing your policy on poll results. Most experts will tell you that the economy would also have improved if Bush had been re-elected. (NO, I am not pro-Bush, Sr. or Jr.; just stating what I have read.)

Why not? You are trying to apply axiomatic thinking to something that doesn't have to be one way. It *is* possible for the problems of the 80s to be due to Carter's administration while at the same time having the success of today's economy have nothing to do with Clinton. I AM NOT SAYING THAT IS WHAT I BELIEVE OR THAT IS THE CASE -- SIMPLY THAT IT IS POSSIBLE. (It is possible to have it both ways, in other words.) Anyway, *Republicans could argue* that many ills of the 80s can be blamed on the previous presidency (Carter) because he fucked things up so badly AND that the success of today's economy is also due to the previous administration (Reagan/Bush). So there doesn't have to be "both ways" as you speak -- simply the same way: the previous administration having a great effect on the success of the incoming administration. *Republicans could argue.* *Republicans could argue.* *Republicans could argue.* *Republicans could argue.*

Never said that I thought the Reagan/Bush years were good, or that I support or supported ANY Republican social policies. I do, however, believe that the shrinking deficit has more to do with a good economy than the fact that Clinton is the president or that Democrats are in power. This does not mean I give credit to the Republicans. The "credit" that you so desperately want to give to someone...perhaps it doesn't belong to anyone. A lot of the good economy is based on the soaring stock market. This is heavily based on the rise of the Internet. (Please don't tell me you're going to give Al Gore credit for the Internet.)

Again, more anti-Republican rhetoric for no apparent reason. I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN! And I am *not* any better off than I was 4 years ago, because 4 years ago Clinton was president. If you are referring to 7-8 years ago, then my answer is that I am still no better off. Many people are better off -- this I realize. But, we are falling back on the stumbling point of you thinking that today's better economy is Clinton's doing, where I think it is a natural progression based on global economic patterns, the Internet, and wise decisions made by Greenspan, a man who holds the office he does with little help from Clinton.

UUUGGGHHHHH! A libertarian, huh? The party that sez "Toss 'em into the streets, but let 'em smoke their weed"?

Kinda reminds me of a political cartoon, detailing the difference between a radical Iranian and a moderate. The radical carried a sign that said "DEATH TO AMERICA!", and the moderate carried a sign saying "SERIOUS HARM TO AMERICA!"

And can you tell me what political party has actually managed to effectively thwart such megalomania by the GOP. Even Jesse Ventura hasn't pulled that off yet.

You would if you saw enough of him, and believe me, I've seen enough of the guy.

Actually, I'd sooner see Pat eat lead before Jesse. Jesse's not long for this world, but Pat's not only seems to have the lifespan of a Nosferatu, but he's even appointed a "Baby Doc" successor in his son to run the ministry when the eventual arrives. Jesse's evil will end when he does, but Pat's got plans to be an asspain to the human race long after he's maggot-chow.

Can you keep your conscience clear if you voted for someone who DID have Pat's support?

A few years ago, the "world economy" was seriously in the sh*tter, and yet, the US kept chugging along. Now THAT'S a robust economy.

Now, let's drop the thread here & now and get back to talking about things that DO matter, like whether Matt & Trey do it "doggie style", and is it Matt behind Trey or vice-versa? <g>

Actually, it's the party that says adults should be allowed to live their lives in the manner they choose without government interference as long as they do not interfere in others' right to do the same. Yes, this means that they think an adult should be allowed to make decisions like whether they will use cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, etc., whether they can decide for themselves what is appropriate to watch, etc. Ultimately, we believe that regardless of the supposed "right and wrong" of a situation, government is usually the least qualified entity to make the distinction, the individual being the most qualified to decide about his or her own life. I'm not what the "Toss 'em into the streets" part was all about, but that's okay.

Huh? Relevance?

The U.S. is still stuck in its basically binary thinking mode of "I have to vote for a Democrat if I don't like the Republican" and vice versa. There are more and more disenchanted people every day who really don't feel good about voting either Republican or Democrat. The Libertarian Party shall eventually rise, as it has been, until such a point that they are a major power or until the two big parties incorporate more Libertarian platforms. I will be fairly satisfied either way. A good example is the utter failure of the drug war, which is generally supported by Republicans *and* Democrats.

Not a problem, because Pat would never support a candidate that I supported. However, that doesn't mean that 100% of what he believes is wrong. I'm sure he thinks that schools could improve. I agree. I think most of us would. Does that mean that I necessarily support the exact manner in which he suggests said improvement? No!

Uh, sorry, didn't see this until now. But I'll gladly let it drop.

I'm definitely a Libertarian based on Bao's paragraph above and have voted for Libertarian candidates. The part I have trouble swallowing is privatizing _everything_, police, courts, highways, the military, etc.

Bill Lynch (who hasn't a clue what this has to do with SP)

I think seeing how HMOs operate is reason enough not to privatize anything.

Typical of your line of thinking: "Cite one not-perfect example and damn the whole thing as worthless." Things that are important in this world are not so neat, you know? Not everything is black-and-white, this-or-that, Choice 1-or-Choice 2. Even if it turns out that we get rid of HMOs, that doesn't mean that is "proof" of some sort that privatization is a bad concept for *everything*. UPS and FedEx are both excellent examples of how a private company can do a more efficient job than the government. Privitazation encourages competition, efficiency, and lower prices. Before the rise of UPS and FedEx, you didn't see that many ads for the U.S. postal service. Now they actually have to be price-competitive (gasp) and efficient (gasp gasp), begging us for their business as much as FedEx and UPS. Priority Mail is a fairly good USPS service, but I don't remember it always existing...and it still is not as good as UPS Ground!

Does this mean that National Socialism should still be considerred valid in spite of the policies of a certain Austrian back in the 30's-40's?

(yes, I am trying to invoke Godwin's Law by saying the word "Nazi" here so we can end this OT thread and move back into SP-related topics).

the

|

You really could use a refresher course in reasoning. This would help you in all facets of your life, not just South Park discussion tangents. Your question displays either your lack of ability to understand the concepts below or your unwillingness to accept the concepts below. The simple fact that you ask such a question shows that you do not understand the nature of reason and how to discuss topics in a meaningful way.

Very simply, individual pieces of damning evidence here or there (e.g., bad HMOs & poorly-run private prisons) are not proof that a whole line of reasoning (e.g., privatization) is incorrect. Likewise, individual pieces of confirmatory evidence (e.g., UPS, FedEx) are not proof that a whole line of reasoning (e.g., privatization) is correct. These two statements are inequivocably true; they are woven into the fabric of discourse, reason, and logic.

My willingness to embrace a line of reasoning (e.g., privatization) despite a few counter-examples (e.g., some bad HMOs and private prisons) does not translate to mean that I embrace all lines of reasoning (e.g., Nazism) that have faults.

A = Bao thinks a line of reasoning is good. B = The line of reasoning in question might have some faults. (If A, then B) is true.

Your Nazi question suggests the form If B, then A. You should be able to plainly see now why you can't just reverse the clauses; it is invalid to deduct (If B, then A) from (If A, then B). Last example:

A = It is raining B = Ground gets wet. (If A, then B) is true.

However, (If B, then A) is not necessarily true. If the ground is wet, it is not necessarily raining.

C = too MUCH rain, and the coffins will start bobbing up from the cemetaries.

(Sorry, but I wanted to get back into an SP frame of mind, which IS what this NG was for)

That happens in New Orleans, I hear.

Jed Clampett said something like: We be wanting to plant a whole mess of Greens out here. We don't want no hillside plot. Come a good rain, a body could get clean washed out!

I thought people were interred in vaults in New Orleans? KyleIke13~ <A HREF="http://kyleike.8m.com">Lyrics Page</A> <A HREF="http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/macau/1068">Tree Huggin' Hippie Crap!</A> "Oh no! I'm not SANE YET!" ~ Kyle Katelyn Lenora Ordway 2-6-2000 RIP Kenny Kitty 1999-1999

ROFL which reminds me... We have this road in my old hometown...this cemetary is beside it, but on a hill...kinda like they put the road thru a hill...And there is a wall beside the road. When I was little, I thought the wall was holding the bodies in and that, if it were to fall, bodies would go spilling out into the road. I was a fudged up little thing, wasn't I?

KyleIke13~ <A HREF="http://kyleike.8m.com">Lyrics Page</A> <A HREF="http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/macau/1068">Tree Huggin' Hippie Crap!</A> "Oh no! I'm not SANE YET!" ~ Kyle Katelyn Lenora Ordway 2-6-2000 RIP Kenny Kitty 1999-1999

"otherwise known as HippiChk79" wrote in message news:[email]...

You don't even wanna know the kinda stuff I used to think when I was a kid.

:infear: KyleIke13~ <A HREF="http://kyleike.8m.com">Lyrics Page</A> <A HREF="http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/macau/1068">Tree Huggin' Hippie Crap!</A> "Oh no! I'm not SANE YET!" ~ Kyle Katelyn Lenora Ordway 2-6-2000 RIP Kenny Kitty 1999-1999

"otherwise known as HippiChk79" wrote in message news:[email]...

d.

The mere description of my nightmares would prolly put ya in a mental hospit al singing the Dreidle song :-P

Dude, my life right now is doing that...I just need something to push me over the edge...again...lol KyleIke13~ <A HREF="http://kyleike.8m.com">Lyrics Page</A> <A HREF="http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/macau/1068">Tree Huggin' Hippie Crap!</A> "Oh no! I'm not SANE YET!" ~ Kyle Katelyn Lenora Ordway 2-6-2000 RIP Kenny Kitty 1999-1999

"otherwise known as HippiChk79" wrote in message news:[email]...

pit

ver

You *requesting* a shove? ;-)

heh I'll jump. KyleIke13~ <A HREF="http://kyleike.8m.com">Lyrics Page</A> <A HREF="http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/macau/1068">Tree Huggin' Hippie Crap!</A> "Oh no! I'm not SANE YET!" ~ Kyle Katelyn Lenora Ordway 2-6-2000 RIP Kenny Kitty 1999-1999

"otherwise known as HippiChk79" wrote in message news:[email]...

You just need to be molested. *volunteers*

(snip)

A perfect example of the religious fervor the doctrinaire libertarians bring to the discussion, *everything* is better privatized. One effect of privatization - a company finds a profitable niche, i.e., delivering packages, and concentrates on that. Show me a profit making concern which wants to deliver 1st class or bulk (junk) mail. I don't want everything nationalized, nor do I want everything privatized. From what I've been reading on another NG, deregulated truckers are hurting because of the run up in diesel prices - there's a groundswell to bring regulations back so they can count on certain rates. IMHO privatization often profits companies who can utilize economies of scale. Private citizens are seldom better off.

Bill Lynch

the

so

mean

|

Read what I wrote above again. I never wrote that privatization was good for everything. I very specifically said that if we get rid of HMOs -- presumably because they all sucked, which isn't true; I am very happy with mine -- that would not be "proof" that privatization was bad for *everything*. That is not the same as saying that privatization is good for everything. For example, if I *disagreed* with someone who said that aspirin should not be used by *anyone* because some people had allergy problems with it, that *does not* translate to me thinking that aspirin should be used on *everyone*. It simply means that I feel aspirin should be allowed on the market, even if some people have allergies to it. I don't want everything privatized or everything nationalized either. We can both sit around and cite privatization gone awry and government gone awry. The mere citing of instances is not a cause to go 100% one way or the other. That is what I objected to with furplay's reasoning, that things were either all bad or all good, or that if some concept had a bad aspect that the entire concept should be rejected.

(snip)

Excellent,then we're in agreement.

Bill Lynch

On Sun, 06 Feb 2000 03:59:59 GMT, William Lynch wrote:

You're argument is damned from the start. First of all, there are plenty of mail delivering options, such as UPS, Federal Exrpess and RPI, etc. These private companies are in competition with the U.S. Mail. The problem is, the U.S. Mail still exists, with millions of tax payer's money being pumped into it each day. Take away the U.S. Mail, and then, see what happens. I can't honestly show you a bulk mail concern that can honestly compete with the U.S. Mail one-for-one, because the U.S. Mail actually exists--sucking up tax dollars, still being ineffecient. That is why private concerns such as UPS, FE, and RPI can actually do business on their own accord. Eliminate the U.S. Mail and then we will talk. Besides the other mail carriers I have mentioned, I predict new mail carriers would come in to pick up the slack (if the 'ol crappy US Mail was eliminated).

Wrong. The problem with deregulated trucking is that the oil industdry isn't deregulated. Sure you can ask for more regulation, but that will just result in the same ineffeciencies. And if you question whether oil is regulated, then ask why do we bomb the middle east? The problem lies in the fact that we live in a mixed, mercantilist economy. The fed controls our money supply, industries get preferential treatment, corporate welfare exists, the industrial-military complex thrives, and wealth transfers are common. Take the power away from government, and ordinary, working people get a chance.

That is the way I see it, =>---jurb---<=

jurb wrote in message ...

the

not so

doesn't mean

OK, you've just eliminated yourself from the intelligent conversation. The USPS is completely self-funding. Every penny it spends comes from postage fees. There is NO tax mony used to support it, and it has been that way for a number of years. The USPS is finacially stable, even though it is required to provide service to East Bumblefuck, North Dakota and 1000s of other out of the way places that aren't easy to serve. It would be pretty easy for a private company to agree to provide First Class mail service to the 50 largest metro areas at less than $0.33/letter, given a couple years to ramp up and learn the business. There is almost no way that they are going to be able to do it for much less if they must serve the entire country, as the USPS does. (Of course if you really want to get into this we can discuss rural electrification and the Bell System.)

OK, another completely incorrect statement. The oil industry has been generally deregulated since the early 80s in the US. The US government used to set the maximum gas prices, though there were ways for stations to charge more. Reagan removed those price controls and now the oil industry is generally unregulated. The Feds are limited to manipulating the levels of the oil reserves to attempt to control costs.

Jeremiah get your laws off my constitution!

On Wed, 09 Feb 2000 20:52:31 GMT, "Jeremiah Kristal" wrote:

First of all, you think the USPS is selfserving? Is the pope catholic? The USPS takes taxpayers money. I am so sick of fucking socialists/liberals, sucking away money from the general populous and thinking that government = an eye for an eye.

I am wrong? Oil had been "generally deregulated"? No fucking way. Why in the hell did we bomb Iraq? A bombing constitutes a government regulation in my book. Unfortunately, greedy government tinkerers like Bush and Clinton have their hands all over this mess. Plus, of course, governmentally imposed tariffs still exist.

Of course feedom means nothing. Just ask Austria?

=>---jurb---<=

(snip)

I thought this was alt.tv.southpark? Then did it morph into alt.bullshit.politics? Please can this crap or slide over to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, or something similar.

Bill Lynch

"William Lynch" wrote in message news:[email]...

that

will

|

Privitazation is a long-term goal that will take much effort to work. There would be failures along the way as with any radical changes. The end result will be worth it, imo. People are scared about privitazation because they think of Robocop right away. (Other cite HMOs.) Finally, not every Libertarian believes that everything should be privatized. (A good immediate target: U.S. Postal Service, which in some ways is finally starting to buckle up and act more like a business than a government agency.) Sure, HMOs are not perfect, but was what we had before perfect? Again with the binary thinking: "If the current solution [HMOs] isn't the best, then it must be the case that whatever it replaced is the best solution." No necessarily so.

Which in spite of it having turned another yearly profit, is now demanding yet another stamp price increase (yeahyeah, I know the USPS is the cheapest post office in the world, but maybe if they stopped doing stupid gimmicks like Looney Tunes stamps and the like, maybe they can hold onto these alleged profits).

Privatization in the penal system has also been shown to be not a good idea (not as bad as seen in "Fortress", but who knows what may come down the road). Abuses by the buttload have been happening in each and every one of them.

Privitization means one thing; a bunch of "suits" will come in squeese resources to the barest minimum (General Motors actually has a policy where they decided that the cost of lawsuits and settlements would be more economical in the long run compared to the cost of actually spending money on making safe cars?) in order to crank out the most money possible for themselves. The patient/customer/client is seen as merely a "resource" to be exploited until it's tapped out.

The former Soviet Union and their attempts at privatization. 'Nuff said!

A company owned by the Chinese govermnment taking control of a Social Security system gone privatized. How's THAT potential scenario freak you out?

In article , furplay wrote:

How you feel about all that gushing of how great corporations are that Trey and Matt do in "Gnomes"?

- Juan F. Lara http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~jfl/intro.html

Kyle: Then don't belittle my people, you fucking fatass! Cartman: Goddammit! Don't call me fat you buttfucking son of a bitch!

Just another example of M&T being offensive. Corporations always suck. Micro$oft got a serious spanking for their misdeeds by Janet Reno, and now it looks like eBay's next to get a taste of her belt.

In article , furplay wrote:

Well I agree about Microsoft. But how do you know whether or not Trey and Matt really meant that praise?

- Juan F. Lara http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~jfl/intro.html

Stan: No! Not ham, you fat fuck! Cartman: Ah, fuck you!

"Juan F. Lara" wrote in message news:87j57t$[email]...

Trey and

I think that "moral" was more about not giving preferential treatment to the underdog (for that reason alone) than it was a boost for mega-corporations.

On 5 Feb 2000 23:23:15 -0600, furplay wrote:

Just another example of Janet "The Waco Killer" Reno butting her nose where it doesn't belong. Don't think the feds will win out on this one, because they don't have a case. I mean, heaven forbid Microsoft make their browser part of their operating system. Beware of the feds, because MS is willing to give away software for free.

Not that I, a paying customer, choose to use all of MS's product. For example, instead of using Outlook Express for mail and news, I opt for Agent (at extra cost). I do so, because of (what I feel is) added benefit.

I always thought that the government busted up monopiles because they jacked up prices, never would I have thought the gov't busting up a company because they were offering a product... too cheap.

Oh well, Reno "The Waco Killer" is on her last legs, and the Clinton administration will be history. Hopefully the next president, whoever gets elected, won't make the same mistake of appointing Reno AG for a second time (if she is still alive).

=>---jurb---<=

"Hello, Reno, meet Satan."

There is plenty of abuse in "regular" prisons as well. Prisons in general are ripe for corruption and abuse.

That is the worst-case scenario of privatization. Your "one thing" quote further shows your inability to see anything but black and white. Moreover, I would argue that the government doesn't care that much about the individual citizen, that it cares more about supporting and sustaining itself. Squeezing resources doesn't sound like a bad idea really, either. No way a private company would pay $600 for a toilet seat or fund thousands of pork-barrel projects.

Again with the binary thinking. Who says that if the Soviets can't do something that we can't either?! Jeez. I might as well say "The former Soviet Union and their attempts at making cars. 'Nuff said!" (Should the US stop making or doing anything that the Soviets failed at?!)

No more so than a Social Security system not privatized that goes bankrupt.

I'd be happy to drop this. I can see that it is pretty pointless discussing these things with you as you have repeatedly shown your inability to reason in a useful manner.

(snippage)

All big companies do this, cost/benefit analysis. IIRC Ford did this with the Pinto - decided settling a (relatively) few lawsuits was cheaper than re-engineering the fuel system & upgrading the assembly lines. This is the dark side of privatization - some guys get control and rape the companies, then leave their carcasses behind (how about the railroads?). The truly bad dudes get involved in raiding pension funds so that people who worked 20-30 years end up with no pension. This sort of eager free enterprise ruins lives. A business has two ways of making more money: increase sales & reduce costs. Truly ruthless executives can abuse both sides of the equation.

There's no magic in privatizing - free enterprise has always tended toward monopoly or oligopoly control of industries. The trick is to get enough government regulation & oversight to prevent the abuses or outright crimes, but still maintain a competitive environment.

Bill Lynch

(snip)

Of course not, aren't you invoking the same reasoning you just criticized furplay for? I don't know anyone, doctor or patient, who believes the current HMO lashup is better than before, costs certainly haven't been contained, nor has the quality of medical care improved. Finally, the US has *far* too many people with no medical coverage - practically a 3rd world country. It's a disgrace.

Bill Lynch

There

result

Libertarian

U.S.

act

perfect,

|

No, I am not invoking the same reasoning. How might you think that I was? My reasoning is that privatization of healthcare is not invalidated by not-perfect HMOs. I believe that HMOs can improve. Maybe I'm wrong. But, I think it's too early to give up on taking government more and more out of the equation. furplay wants to cite not-perfect HMOs and damn privatization of healthcare, as if things cannot be improved. I gave government a chance to improve. Unfortunately, government has little motive to improve without competition from the private sector.

Also, I do believe my current HMO provides me just as good of care if not better than what I had before at a lower cost. I realize that has not been the case for every other person, even most of them. HMOs are not totally in the spirit of free enterprise, because most of us have little choice -- we simply get the HMO that successfully bid our employer, or maybe we get a choice between two. The HMO puts effort towards getting the contract, because that's how the system is designed. They know it is hard for unsatisfied people to choose another HMO. If we could switch HMOs as easily as we switch long distance providers and have our choice of 10 different HMOs, I think things would improve. That is just an idea I came up with 10 minutes ago. I am not a politician.

Finally, I agree that the U.S. has too many people without medical coverage. I just don't think that socialized medicine is the solution. Some of you might think that Canadian health care is so great. Well, it's not. Yes, it's cheaper or included in your taxes, but the service is not necessarily better. My mom's friend lives in Montreal and works in doctor's office. She can go on all day about how long people have to wait (like months+) for treatment anything remotely serious unless it is absolutely life-threatening. She says that people in-the-know, so to speak, such as friends of the staff can get appointments much faster than the general citizen.

Health care is a big problem and concern. It cannot be fixed by flipping a switch to 100% privatization or flipping it back to 100% government socialized medicine. THAT IS ALL I WAS FUCKING TRYING TO SAY WITH THIS WHOLE FUCKING THREAD. THAT IS FUCKING SIMPLISTIC AND NAIVE.

Actually, furplay wanted to cite not-perfect HMOs and damn privatization of *anything*. Oh yeah, furplay cited the Soviets' failure in privatization efforts and wanted the U.S. to reject privatization on that basis as well. And our prison system, which is a failure just about any way you look at it, private or government-run.

On Sat, 5 Feb 2000 11:31:42 -0600, "Bao H. Lammy" wrote:

HMO's are not the fully realized results of privitization. Our current medical system is a mixture of government and private entities -- government money pouring into our so-called "private" health care system artificially inflates costs. This mixture of private and public enterprise doesn't just exist in medicine, it exists in all forms of enterprise (liberals tend to call it corporate welfare). We are much closer to the mercantilist society of the Britons than we are that of a capitalist, lassiez-faire society.

=>---jurb---<=

Yes, that is one way that we can *try* to fix HMOs (note I did not say that it is a guaranteed way to fix HMOs; we would have to try and see if it works first) -- make them more "private" so to speak. That is what I was referring to before, that HMOs are not truly about choice. Privatization works best when there is choice. Otherwise, it is simply replacing one bloated bureaucracy (government) with another (private company with next to no competition). When one looks at privatization mishaps, it is often because only one or a couple companies are allowed on the playing field.

On Fri, 4 Feb 2000 10:06:05 -0600, "Bao H. Lammy" wrote:

Also, don't forget that both the leadership and majority of both the Republican party and the Democratic parties are globalists and interventionalists. Both are warlike and both have an equal track record of murderous military campaigns (and I am being fair here, the Republican party used to be the party of isolationism, it was Truman who dropped the A-Bomb and it was LBJ who got us involved in the Vietnam War--even though the Republican party has recenty gotten the reputation as the war party (bc Nixon, etc.), Clinton has been especially trigger-happy and has already conducted more than his fair share of illegal warlike aggresions).

Libertarianism, as I like to think of it, is in direct opposition of interventionalism and globalism... as well as the stupid drug war.

=>---jurb---<=

(snip)

Amen to that - the modern prohibition. Let's start by pulling the plug on the War Against Drugs.

Bill Lynch

That makes three of us.

SMOKE IT!

On Sun, 06 Feb 2000 14:17:55 -0800, "D.G. Porter" wrote:

Declare victory, and flee the field; just like in 'Nam.

However, because of corporate greed and governmental tax-addiction, the price of pot will likely increase.

What we need is a Betty Ford clinic for tax-addicted government officials (we're all looking at you, Alphonse "TaxFace" Gore.)

Who declared victory - other than N. Vietnam, that is?

What happened to the price of liquor after Prohibition ended?

Are you in favor of The War on Drugs? If so, what would you do to make it more successful?

Bill Lynch

(snip)

You tuned into the "700 Club"? Who held the gun to your head?

Bill Lynch

No one that time. I just tuned in \ to see how many colors Pat's face would turn when he had no choice but to accept the fact that Clinton was now the president.

In article , furplay writes:

I don't see anything inconsistant with that, furplay. Carter's fucked up policies continued on a bit, just as the policies Reagan setup have continued to this day. We're just lucky things went tihs well depsite his attempts to "fix" things.

On 3 Feb 2000 15:41:22 -0600, furplay wrote:

Sounds like this "power-mad Nazi" has a lot of power over YOU.

Bullshit. The economy was never nearly as bad as most people thought, and it began recovering almost six months before Clinton was even elected, much less sworn in. Then, soon after he took office, he started proposing all sorts of wacky "stimulus" packages and socialized medicine, and suddenly the economy wasn't doing so hot after all. It wasn't until the Republicans took over both houses in 1994 - and Clinton became largely irrelevant - that the economy was anywhere as good as it is now.

<sarcasm>Boy, it sure is a good thing that we elected Clinton President, cuz everybody knows no Republican would ever have thought to appoint Alan Greenspan.</sarcasm>

How? By losing his party's majority in both houses and re-appointing Alan Greenspan? Or by failing to get any of his radical policies through early in his first term, and by then giving up and leaving most of Reagan and Bush's "bullshit" policies intact? I love how you partisans distinguish "good" policies from "bad" ones according to which party implements them. Were you also part of that chorus of Demo-drones that condemned Dan Quayle for criticizing Murphy Brown but supported Donna Shalala when she adopted his position two or three years later?

And by Godwin's law, it's time to declare this thread dead.

Hold on here...

RADICAL????? Jeez, you must be a loony. Are al your pets named Eric? You seem to forget that Clinton's defeat in '94 was in no small part due to two series of ads, one iwth "Hairy and Lousy" and another with that old fucking bitch (who's still on TV) raving about "big government." This was the valued private sector, who wanted to preserve dependance on HMOs. Funny that now people are catching on and calling for recourse aganst HMOs.

Now, a really "radical" plan would have been "Single Payer," which allows people to <gasp!> actially choose their own physicians, and cut the HMOs out of the picture! But Clinton wanted to preserve HMOs, and they turned on him.

(snip)

An excellent example of where consensus politics was wrong and the country needed leadership. This is not to say the Republicons wouldn't have crucified him for suggesting it, of course. I'm to the point where if someone says: "single payer, that's socialized medicine", I reply: "so what". Let's get it done.

Bill Lynch

Well, we're a couple of old men in a newsgroup full of kids who aren't told a lot of shit in schools! Wait a minit, *I* wasn't told this in school either! You learn a lot when the country is fighting a stupid war and goes schizo....

LOL - enjoyed your post.

Bill L

Dont ever EVER bring politics in this NG or i'll make you listen to alice coopers "elected" for 3 hours straight!

"It ain't over till it's over", or has George W. Bush so bought the election that all the hullabaloo for the next 9 months going to be just a mere formality?

The "electoral process" may be totally wack, but I hope it hasn't degraded into an eventual coronation for G.W.. A war was fought several centuries ago so that the nation would'nt have to be run by a ruler who got into power simply because his dad was a ruler. This ain't Haiti, you know.

"furplay" wrote in message news:[email]...

If you think there's any chance left to the selection of a president, you're smoking crack.

know.

So once won, freedom never has to be guarded? It can't happen here? You *are* smoking crack.

That said, has anyone noticed the Bush clan is something of a spooky/Adamms family version of the Kennedys?

They're creepy and they're kooky, mysterious and "spooky." They're altogether ooky, the George Bush family! Their mom is on the dollar. They never listen to Mahler. When seen, the people holler, "The George Bush family!" <da-da-da-dum!> Dim! <da-da-da-dum!> Prim! <da-da-da-dum! da-da-da-dum! da-da-da-dum!> It's him! So get a spook's trenchcoat on, some words that you can drawl on. We're going to pay a call on the Geogre Bush Family! "We bought this cocaine across the street from the White House. And you can have it for the low low price of only $5 a gram if you vote for me!"

"D.G. Porter" wrote in message news:38A0668F.6E2A@pac bell.net...

Seriously dude. 1 ex-president, 2 governers. And maybe one of those gettin g the top spot. Eeiry.

1 ex-president, former head spook, oversaw the Mena airport biz with Ollie Norh running interference. Sons involved up to their eyeballs in the S&L scandals to one degree or another. 1 gov just in love with the death penalty while nationwide we find more and more DNA evidence showing some juries make stupid fucking mistakes all the time and once you're dead it's kinda hard to undo the sentence. BTW, that ex-prez also said that anyone who doesn't believe in God (his) is unfit to be Prez. BTW, it was that "card-carrying" (as he called it) ACLU that got his underling North off on a trechnicality when North's appeal was heard by one of the (Reagan-appointed) judges who later voted to appoint Starr. BTW it was that ex-prez who, earlier in his career, helped Pinochet overthrow Allende an start a reign of terror in Chile and plant a bomb in Washington DC. BTW it was that ex-prez who boasted to the press in '80 that we "win" a nuclear war by having our President and his staff surviving underground while the rest of us are fried cinders. And BTW it was funny to see that ex-prez debating the current one in '92, knowing full well that his opponent knew every sordid detail about the CIA bringing coke into this country and couldn't mention it for fear that his opponent would blow the whistle on him. You can keep the Bushes. Daddy's a war criminal and his sons are lamers who I could out-argue on any topic with marbles in my mouth and three sheets to the wind with the jib flapping.

BTW, Rush revealed himself today as part of a Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy by the DNC to get George W. the nomination -- so Gore (who will probably not get my vote unless the Libs and Greens drop out) can whip his ass in debates like he did with Quayle and Kemp -- by advocating the candidacy of McCain. Rush was "bemoaning" the DNC encouragement of McCain's candidacy. Well, we all *know* this is a plot to push voters to voting for GWB, because he's a dork and a dim bulb who can't hold his own water in any kind of stressful situation! Dang, that Rush is a smart cookie! All these years I thought he believed what he said! But he's a very clever infiltrator and mole and DNC operative!

"D.G. Porter" wrote in message news:38A0B31E.2B78@pac bell.net...

Yeah, it sucks. Public service should be something you *have* to do, not so mething you *want* to do. I don't trust anyone who isn't looking out for #1 . Or would that be #2 in Mr Hankey's case?

Metlhd3138 wrote in message news:[email]...

"The desire to BE a politician should ban you for LIFE from ever becoming one!"

Billy Connolly...

In article , [email] (Willie Westwood) writes:

Funny, I seem to recall it was the Demogague party that squawked more when BLU came out...

Better now than when eps REALLY start to get lame!

In article , Brian Barjenbruch writes:

Unfortunately, Dole will be his running mate. *shudder*

Not necessarily. There's still time for the average voter to develop common sense.

At least you didn't call him Bush's "right hand man."

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                         [email]
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*NOTE*  I am not responsible for equipment damage due to reeeealy
dumb children with no parental supervision, and access to a hammer.