|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jan 26, 2011 21:50:56 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by theman on Jan 26, 2011 22:36:48 GMT -8
I like George Will when he is talking Baseball. Government should protect the Country, protect the dis advantaged, provide a safety net for the retired, and protect the public from abuses that ultimately end up occurring from the private sector. Other than that government should lay low.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jan 27, 2011 8:28:29 GMT -8
I like George Will when he is talking Baseball. Government should protect the Country, protect the dis advantaged, provide a safety net for the retired, and protect the public from abuses that ultimately end up occurring from the private sector. Other than that government should lay low. Here's the problem. Once you accept the roles I highlighted, they can be interpreted to mean almost anything, which in turns means that the government can start meddling in almost any aspect of American life. It's a fool's errand to have the govt. try to right every wrong. Sadly, we have many fools in politics. (Wait, I should amend that. Plenty of pols, effectively, are in the business of enriching themselves. Promising any and every benefit and protection to the masses is a good way to put oneself in a position to end up with much more than what you had before you took office. How many career politicians retire broke? In other words, they are no fools.) AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jan 29, 2011 8:30:37 GMT -8
I am surprised that there is not more comment on this great article. George Will is right on!
|
|
|
|
Post by inocuace on Feb 1, 2011 19:19:14 GMT -8
I like George Will when he is talking Baseball. Government should protect the Country, protect the dis advantaged, provide a safety net for the retired, and protect the public from abuses that ultimately end up occurring from the private sector. Other than that government should lay low. George Will, proof arrogance and prose make mud. He is enough to make anyone hate baseball. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Feb 10, 2011 22:57:06 GMT -8
I like George Will when he is talking Baseball. Government should protect the Country, protect the dis advantaged, provide a safety net for the retired, and protect the public from abuses that ultimately end up occurring from the private sector. Other than that government should lay low. George Will, proof arrogance and prose make mud. He is enough to make anyone hate baseball. Would you care (or should I say dare) to back up your opinion with specific criticisms of Will's positions? AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by JOCAZTEC on Feb 11, 2011 7:37:36 GMT -8
The Will of the People.
HAM
|
|
|
|
Post by inocuace on Feb 17, 2011 18:56:58 GMT -8
George Will, proof arrogance and prose make mud. He is enough to make anyone hate baseball. Would you care (or should I say dare) to back up your opinion with specific criticisms of Will's positions? AzWm I think he is mud not only for his 19th century value system, but his misplaced holier than thou sh*t attitude. His use of language is arrogant and condescending. He overuses arcane words and unintelligible historical references. He writes to broadcast his high self opinion and not to communicate his ideas. Nobody in the known universe loves Will like Will does. His prose is turgid, bloated, convoluted and and difficult to read. His opinions, such as money contributions equaling free speech, are absolutely nonsensical from any rational perspective. And he loves the sport of baseball, which in my opinion sucks big time. But then I come from a family full of wannabe baseball players. Familiarity breeds contempt. Yes it is true. |
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Feb 17, 2011 21:12:07 GMT -8
Would you care (or should I say dare) to back up your opinion with specific criticisms of Will's positions? AzWm I think he is mud not only for his 19th century value system, but his misplaced holier than thou sh*t attitude. His use of language is arrogant and condescending. He overuses arcane words and unintelligible historical references. He writes to broadcast his high self opinion and not to communicate his ideas. Nobody in the known universe loves Will like Will does. His prose is turgid, bloated, convoluted and and difficult to read. His opinions, such as money contributions equaling free speech, are absolutely nonsensical from any rational perspective. And he loves the sport of baseball, which in my opinion sucks big time. But then I come from a family full of wannabe baseball players. Familiarity breeds contempt. Yes it is true. All politics aside, I find him almost unreadable. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 17, 2011 21:42:19 GMT -8
I find the critics who go after his writing style and choice of language rather than the content a ringing endorsement of the the wisdom in his opinion offerings. I find him rather easy to read and understand. I will agree that his baseball stuff is boring, but then so is baseball.
|
|
|
|
Post by JOCAZTEC on Feb 17, 2011 22:22:08 GMT -8
I love George Will. He is the best thing to happen to the Democratic Party since...HHH!
HAM
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 18, 2011 8:41:07 GMT -8
Will does not look deep enough or far back enough in our history. The question of the power and breadth of national government has been an open question from our very foundation. We started as a loose confederation of colonys. Evolved to a more formal confederaton of states with the Articles of Confederation. Some leaders saw that we needed to have a stronger national government and pushed through a new form of government with our Constituion. Foremost among those leaders were Washington, Hamilton, Adams and Madison. Madison later changed sides. The other side did not want the Constitution and preferred that the States be supreme over the national government. In Washington's first cabinet the leaders of the two factions sat in the cabinet. Jefferson was the leader of the weak national government faction and Hamilton the leader of the strong federal government faction. We have waxed and waned over this question ever since.
For myself I am a Federalist. Washington, Hamilton, and Adams are my guys. I support, and think that a strong national government makes the most sense. I am an American and want to be one no matter where I am in this country. I think that people can decide what is best for themselves and how they want to be governed. It seems to me that it is best to have a strong national government.
I know that does not suit some in our country. They believe that what they think is right and if I disagree with them I am wrong not a good American. They seem to me to be shallow and not interested in the common good. That interest in the common good is what makes a society. The dog eat dog and the devil take the hindmost attitude of many conservatives will be the be a drag on our country if they ever come fully into power. Not that we will not overcome their folly in the end, but many will suffer needlessly until we see the falseness of their ideas.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 18, 2011 12:34:00 GMT -8
Will does not look deep enough or far back enough in our history. The question of the power and breadth of national government has been an open question from our very foundation. We started as a loose confederation of colonys. Evolved to a more formal confederaton of states with the Articles of Confederation. Some leaders saw that we needed to have a stronger national government and pushed through a new form of government with our Constituion. Foremost among those leaders were Washington, Hamilton, Adams and Madison. Madison later changed sides. The other side did not want the Constitution and preferred that the States be supreme over the national government. In Washington's first cabinet the leaders of the two factions sat in the cabinet. Jefferson was the leader of the weak national government faction and Hamilton the leader of the strong federal government faction. We have waxed and waned over this question ever since. For myself I am a Federalist. Washington, Hamilton, and Adams are my guys. I support, and think that a strong national government makes the most sense. I am an American and want to be one no matter where I am in this country. I think that people can decide what is best for themselves and how they want to be governed. It seems to me that it is best to have a strong national government. I know that does not suit some in our country. They believe that what they think is right and if I disagree with them I am wrong not a good American. They seem to me to be shallow and not interested in the common good. That interest in the common good is what makes a society. The dog eat dog and the devil take the hindmost attitude of many conservatives will be the be a drag on our country if they ever come fully into power. Not that we will not overcome their folly in the end, but many will suffer needlessly until we see the falseness of their ideas. We need a strong Federal Government only to carry out the functions that are legitimate. We do not need some "nanny state" to care for us. There is not much beyond Defense that we should be involved in. Where would you draw the line? |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 18, 2011 12:45:57 GMT -8
Will does not look deep enough or far back enough in our history. The question of the power and breadth of national government has been an open question from our very foundation. We started as a loose confederation of colonys. Evolved to a more formal confederaton of states with the Articles of Confederation. Some leaders saw that we needed to have a stronger national government and pushed through a new form of government with our Constituion. Foremost among those leaders were Washington, Hamilton, Adams and Madison. Madison later changed sides. The other side did not want the Constitution and preferred that the States be supreme over the national government. In Washington's first cabinet the leaders of the two factions sat in the cabinet. Jefferson was the leader of the weak national government faction and Hamilton the leader of the strong federal government faction. We have waxed and waned over this question ever since. For myself I am a Federalist. Washington, Hamilton, and Adams are my guys. I support, and think that a strong national government makes the most sense. I am an American and want to be one no matter where I am in this country. I think that people can decide what is best for themselves and how they want to be governed. It seems to me that it is best to have a strong national government. I know that does not suit some in our country. They believe that what they think is right and if I disagree with them I am wrong not a good American. They seem to me to be shallow and not interested in the common good. That interest in the common good is what makes a society. The dog eat dog and the devil take the hindmost attitude of many conservatives will be the be a drag on our country if they ever come fully into power. Not that we will not overcome their folly in the end, but many will suffer needlessly until we see the falseness of their ideas. We need a strong Federal Government only to carry out the functions that are legitimate. We do not need some "nanny state" to care for us. There is not much beyond Defense that we should be involved in. Where would you draw the line? Not much beyond defense? Please defend that statement, Mr. UPL. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 18, 2011 16:31:24 GMT -8
We need a strong Federal Government only to carry out the functions that are legitimate. We do not need some "nanny state" to care for us. There is not much beyond Defense that we should be involved in. Where would you draw the line? Not much beyond defense? Please defend that statement, Mr. UPL. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Feb 18, 2011 16:39:33 GMT -8
What is a "UPL"?
Just wondering. Is it like the "A" word? Is it a pejorative?
I dunno.
The left controls the vocabulary, and we neanderthals need guidance....
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 18, 2011 17:11:19 GMT -8
What is a "UPL"? Just wondering. Is it like the "A" word? Is it a pejorative? I dunno. The left controls the vocabulary, and we neanderthals need guidance.... He probably meant UFL. It is an acrnym for "Unfunded Future Liability". It is a term I use to advocate cash rather than accrual accounting and funding retirement programs out of current income on a cash basis along with other features. Since I am a retired serviceman advocating a more responsible course of action that he and other liberals prefer, he thinks he is being a smart Aleck using that term. Just a typical liberal with limited imagination trying to get under my skin. It is a tactic that slower thinking liberals unable to keep up think is effective. They never use those kind of terms face to face. I love it. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 18, 2011 20:26:10 GMT -8
What is a "UPL"? Just wondering. Is it like the "A" word? Is it a pejorative? I dunno. The left controls the vocabulary, and we neanderthals need guidance.... Unfunded Pension Liability. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 18, 2011 20:33:47 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 18, 2011 20:46:09 GMT -8
What is a "UPL"? Just wondering. Is it like the "A" word? Is it a pejorative? I dunno. The left controls the vocabulary, and we neanderthals need guidance.... He probably meant UFL. It is an acrnym for "Unfunded Future Liability". It is a term I use to advocate cash rather than accrual accounting and funding retirement programs out of current income on a cash basis along with other features. Since I am a retired serviceman advocating a more responsible course of action that he and other liberals prefer, he thinks he is being a smart Aleck using that term. Just a typical liberal with limited imagination trying to get under my skin. It is a tactic that slower thinking liberals unable to keep up think is effective. They never use those kind of terms face to face. I love it. Check your PMs |
|
