rec.arts.theatre.musicals

On Oct 10, 9:33 am, Harlett O'Dowd < ...@ >
wrote:

> > There is no such thing as "society" apart from individuals. If
> > "society" pays, that means that some individuals pay and other
> > individuals receive.
>
> And therein lies the germ of your whole hissyfit. You can't abide the
> idea that your tax dollars may go to someone you feel is unworthy.

You're insultingly presumptuous and wrong, and don't have a clue as to
where I'm coming from. "Society" divorced from individuals is a
floating abstraction, and floating abstractions are how a lot of
mischief is created. If you want to talk floating abstractions and
concept formation, I'd love to. But I'm not going to engage in
defending myself against your scurrilous accusations that are bereft
of even a quote of mine to refer to.

> And yet, apart from some half-hearted hand-wringing, you have no
> problems with no-bid contracts

Do I? Thanks for letting me know. I thought I didn't have a
particular opinion about no-bid contracts, since I have no detailed
knowledge about it other than reading what seemed to be valid reasons
for it in certain circumstances (though there may be arguments against
it that I am not familiar with), and knowing that no-bid contracts are
not unique to the Bush presidency, but apparently you know more about
what I believe than I do, even though you don't point to any quote of
mine to support your assertion of what you claim I believe.

I will return the favor by letting you know that you were absolutely
furious when Bill Clinton gave Halliburton a no-bid contract when he
was in office, and then to add insult to injury, seeing Al Gore
praising Halliburton -- Oh, were you hopping mad about that! It was
then that you realized Al Gore and Bill Clinton could not be trusted
with anything they said or did.

> and other ways in which the Haliburtons
> of this country fleece the government and the taxpayers many times
> over what it would cost to fund something like SCHIP.

I wonder what the government is spending on the huge advertising
campaign that I see almost nightly during the evening news to
advertise the . Mint (which is designed to seem like a
pharmaceutical ad -- "someone you love may be a numismatist"). I had
no idea that coin collecting was such an important government
priority. Wouldn't the money be better spent on something like
SCHIP? Gonna get your panties in a bunch about the ad campaign for
the . Mint? Sure it may not be as big a budget as what is set
aside for Halliburton, but then, as you say, they're getting many
times over what it would cost to fund SCHIP, so taking the money away
from the . Mint advertising budget might just be enough to cover
it. Oh, wait -- the U. S. Mint ad campaign must be necessary, because
Mr. Gowen has told us that there is so much more accountability in
government than in private companies, since no one in government is
going to want to be seen wasting money. LOL.

> Although I would still disagree with you, I could respect your opinion
> on the former if you were actually against the latter.

It's open to interpretation what you are referring to as "former" and
"latter." Please clarify.