PDA

View Full Version : BUSHvsGORE re:Horse Industry



Pages : 1 [2] 3

Snowbird
Oct. 27, 2000, 03:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But who takes care of the ones who just aren't that intelligent? And not just in the
abortion issue, but all of those other issues that Republicans want the people to just sink
or swim through? Who takes care of them? Who helps the inner-city grandma invest her
social security funds? Some rip off artist or social aide paid minimum wages? Who cares
about people stuck in that cycle of poverty? The way some Republicans talk, you'd think
all those people will just die out in time or something. They won't, of course--they'll just
get poorer while the rich get richer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who takes care of them? That Wynn is the whole point, how dumb is so dumb they don't know how they get pregnant? So I agree if they are mentally retarded they need to be taken care of, but at what point do we say you are responsible. At what point do we say we're not going to cover for you anymore. Every good parent knows that time comes with every child."It's simple live by my rules if you want me to support you."

Yes, the babies are not responsible. The babies need to be cared for, no question but does that mean we give a free trip to some girl not smart enough to ever say NO! If she is that dumb there are programs for her, there are live-in adult homes where she can be supervised.

What causes that cycle of poverty? What is the motivation to get out of that cycle? The answers to those questions would determine the programs. Lot's of really successful people came from poverty, for them it was a motivation for "never again". I'm one of those, I was a depression baby, we lived in a one room attic space without a kitchen. My husband is one of those, his parents were poor, his Dad was unemployed a lot, he never had his own bedroom until he was 28 years old. He slept on a cot in the hallway.

Right now I think that those caught in the poverty cycle are there because they are not motivated to get out. I worked for 53 cents an hour to keep my family from falling in the trap.

So you tell me PWynn what would motivate them to work 20 hours a day, just to pay the rent and buy food. Behind almost every millionaire there is a Mom and Dad or grandparents who dragged that family out of poverty.

As to them being scammed, well that's a risk! We all face that risk every day. Every one of the elderly are taken advantage of in a hundred different ways.

Deal with the problem that is the cause..the scam artists. As long as there is an endless flow of cash, as long as there is an assumption of stupidity you will never find the cure or the solution. Certainly, just like the rules we proposed they are open to negotiation by definition of terms.

There is a difference as Republicans we believe there is a way to get these people confident and successful enough to get out of poverty. We have confidence in them. As Democrats you assume their stupidity and lack of sophistication so they can't be helped to be made independent.

I think our philosophy is kinder because it will engender self esteem. We will lose the opportunity to brag about how kind we are because the poverty cycle will be broken.

What motivates you? That might be what it takes to motivate them. We can deal with effects forever if we don't deal with the causes.

hobson
Oct. 27, 2000, 03:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by magnolia:

Hobson - this makes me laugh - my boyfriend is a Nader man (he voted early, but couldn't vote Green - not on the NC ballot - talk about a crock of $%&# (could they not have gotten 2000 signatures in the Hygenically challenged Asheville area?). At any rate, he is a granola freak and wouldn't touch Cap'n Crunch with a 10' pole ~ but I digress. I should fix you 2 up. LOL
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Magnolia, I believe this is at least the second time you have mentioned getting me together with your BF...what's going on? You getting tired of the soy milk and the hummus and the natural hemp clothing? I appreciate your offer, but I already have a smarty-pants socialist/green husband who happens to look really sexy in his cycling team jersey. Whoops! That last part is for the "Designers" thread! If you guys are ever in Philly, drop me a line and I'll get you both a cheesesteak. (I personally avoid these heart attacks on a bun, but I think your BF needs one.)

Inverness
Oct. 27, 2000, 03:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aly:
Forgive me folks, I'm not facile when it comes to making use of the bold and quoting options on this board; I usually lurk. So, I'm going to indicate what's a quote in the old-fashioned way.

"So then I guess Aly you are in favor of a slickly sophisticated and produced product. Doesn't really matter what's in the box. He can say anything you want to hear and that's makes it better than a real person with some integrity and honesty to admit he's not an expert on everything in the world but willing to delegate to those who are the experts."

I am under no illusions when it comes to slickness -- Democrat or Republican. If you honestly believe that ANY candidate for president in this day in age is not availing himself of the latest in spin doctors, media-savy advisors and what not, then, well, you're going to be very disappointed. To me, it comes down to the lesser of two less than stellar choices.

I don't know what profession you're in, but in my line of business, we hire and promote based on EXPERTISE, not comfort. I am female, so let me put it to you this way: There are men you "play" with and there are men you marry. That being the case, the question becomes "Where do you want to invest your life energies and your time?" For me, there is no question --- fun is fun, but we're talking life priorities here.

"Which Al Gore do you like? The one from who lies about his pristeem views of the environment while his own money comes from a poluter of the water and ground? The one who didn't know he was at a fund raiser in a budist temple? The one who backed up the Pres who was using cigars in a most unusual way? The one who got most of his money from the entertainment business he says is ruining the children? and on..and on..and..on!"

You know, I'm tired of both the spin doctors and those who mindlessly repeat them. If you want to know the TRUTH about Gore's involvement in the internet, etc. go to various independent websites and read for yourself. He NEVER SAID he invented the internet. Frankly, I have to wonder what you gain from repeating that nonsense? Get another story and move on! I'm not going to try to convince you, the data is there. Read for yourself! What Gore actually said and what the RNC said he said are two very different things. Educate yourself and use the brain that God gave you.

"Did you know that Winston Churchill's Dad thought he was so dumb that he wouldn't trust him as the executer of the family estate? Did you know that Dwight Eisenhower chose to be President and passed people's ideas because he already had accomplished all he needed and wanted to help others? He was aware of his image but he didn't give a ****. He just did what was what he believed was right. And, what about Harry Truman who certainly wasn't a genius, did that stop him from being a good President?"

[sigh] When you have the time and are willing to read and educate yourself, you'll find that the history of the individuals you've mentioned is at once different and considerably more complex than your post suggests. The same is true for the current electoral campaign. All I can do is ask that we ALL be as intelligent in our choices as we can possibly be -- whatever those choices are. For me, intelligence as a voter means doing your homework and reading more than the opposition's take on a candidate. I don't think it's too much to ask.

More to the point, however, genius, per se, is not required to be President of these United States. Last time I looked, however, intelligence was helpful...

"None of them gave away the store for votes!"

Can't figure out which candidate you're talking about here as the issue of campaign financing plagues BOTH parties.

"Do you know if Gore's grades were better? Do you know if he is anything more than parrot of the polls? Would you really like a President who has no honest opinions of his own, but has to check the polls to find out what he thinks on an issue."

Well, actually, I KNOW about Gore's grades and yes, they were better, but that is not the point. Polling is endemic in American politics; especially during presidential campaigns and in BOTH parties. But, that is not the issue either. Get a clue.

"Do you know if George Bush flunked any classes? Do you know if he graduated from Yale with honors? Do you know his IQ? How does it compare? Are you positive that you're not just a victim of the media which so heavily supports Gore? Are you sure you've been told the truth? Are you sure you know what Al Gore really stands for and which people influence his opinions day to day! "

It is unfortunate that when one raises questions, this is the kind of response one receives. It is neither on point nor helpful. It's rather like allowing your horse to go completely off-course (nothing jumped) and saying, "well, he still looked at the jumps, so we should win." Last time I checked, going OVER the jumps was still important...

"Even his mother and father have not been saved from his prevarication of the details of his life. Which life is the truth?"

Hmmm. Which candidate are you referencing here?

"We're obviously, not going to change each others minds on our priorities. I would like it though if you would consider whether or not there is a real Al Gore or is he a produced media package that you don't know at all."

See my earlier comment regarding media savvy campaigns. Both candidates are vivid illustrations of this problem. I've no clue who is the real "G.W." just as I have no personal knowledge of Al Gore. I can only gone on their respective records -- everybody "lies" during a campaign, just as everybody "lies" on a first date.

Everyone (whatever your affiliations) should read and research on their own --- and not regurgitate "spins" from someone else. It's a novel approach, but one I'd recommend. It's also why I posed questions rather than a statement.

"If as we have all agreed the major problem today is the lack of personal responsibility for what we do, then would you prefer a guy who gets up and just says, Hey! this is me and I think I have a track record that proves I'm up to this job. What you see is what you get and you can be sure of an honest guy with integrity."

I doubt that we have or will agree on much of anything. Further, it's hard to place a mantle of "integrity" on any candidate in this campaign.

Read EVERYTHING not just what "your" candidate has to say and decide for yourself who's better.

In the final analysis, I don't have to agree with you or anybody else for that matter. That's the beauty of this country. It's easier, though if you've done your homework. This isn't it...

Aly

[This message has been edited by Aly (edited 10-26-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

An enlightened and cogent response Aly. I'd like to have dinner with you!!

Gryphon
Oct. 27, 2000, 03:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by exyankeerider:
Bush !
Gore is an idiot who is also a pathological liar !
Remember, HE invented the internet, discovered the Love Canal toxic site, and LOVE STORY was written about him & Tipper.
When Gov. of Tenn. he was for gun ownership, but now he isn't because the media polls tell him not to.
What foreighn diplomacy does he have ?
NONE
What businesses did he operate ?
NONE
What branch of the military was he in ?
NONE
HOw did he reproach "slick willie" Clinton?
DIDN'T, in fact he applauded him.
BUSH is the one hope this once great nation has, not another lying, liberal, power hungry, BIG government suporting, rights stripping, 2 faced, media puppet ! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please plug in your brain for your next post. You are a victim of spin sickness.

Gryphon
Oct. 27, 2000, 03:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:
how dumb is so dumb they don't know how they get pregnant?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll tell you how "dumb," Snowbird. My mother taught inner-city high school kids for 35 years. "Dumb" is the girl whose parents were fundamentalist christians who didn't believe in saying ANYTHING about sex, including how to say "no" to it. "Dumb" is the 13 year old girl from the wrong side of town who didn't even associate the act of intercourse with pregnancy.

In many cases, we're talking about ignorance, not lack of intelligence. Please get off of your sanctimonious high horse and take a look at the real world.



[This message has been edited by Gryphon (edited 10-27-2000).]

holland
Oct. 27, 2000, 03:42 PM
You know, I've been reading these posts over the past week or so-- with amusement and pride.

I have my views. And, they're not always accepted by everyone I run across. But, I also feel that I am a very lucky person. I live in a country where I am free to speak my mind, and others are free to disagree with me (much like the discussion on this board)

Granted, I wholeheartedly disagree with the rhetoric splashed to one side of this board (aly, rockstar, etc). But, I also respect the thought and vigor with which these posts were crafted.

Thank you for your thoughts, and thank you for your passion. Continue speaking to your neighbors (especially you Bush supporters /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) about what your views are-- and challenge them to speak out for themselves.

I knew I loved the horse world and every creature in it-- this is just one more reason.

P.S. Go George W.!

pwynnnorman
Oct. 27, 2000, 03:58 PM
I'm not trying to oversimplify these issues, but times do change. Here's one example of a similar dilemma which isn't being addressed (and I'd LOVE to get people's opinions on it).

I'm doing student advising these days because it's time for them to register for spring classes. I would say that 80% of my advisees are taking at least 18 credits (six classes) next semester. Some are taking as many as 22. They say they must take that many because they can't afford to stay in college longer than necessary.

Of course, the result is that they can't put anywhere near as much time into any one particular class as is necessary to really learn anything. And many of them also have jobs and participate in clubs and other extra curriculars that look good on a resume. Me? I got scholarships, rode horses and gave lessons for extra money, but that was hardly "work," not like putting in six hours at some restaurant after attending classes all day.

Meanwhile, my peers and I almost uniformly complain about how the students don't do the reading assigned, not ever. Some of them (juniors and seniors, mind you: our department isn't open to the lower levels.)Many of them don't put a second thought to a class between the time they step out of it to the time they step back in the next week unless there's an assignment or test coming up: they jsut don't have the TIME to. Many of the students under the most pressure in this way are the poorer students--the ones who have to work as well as go to school.

Many of my peers have, IMO, watered down their courses as a result. Students buy super-expensive textbooks, only to be required to read less than 25% of the contents. One-on-one conferences is the expectation in many courses (and I teach at a university, not a small college--I have over 50 students in my media research class alone). If left on their own, and if standards were more like they were 15 years ago when I was at school, 70% of my students would fail.

Times change. The world changes. What worked for one generation doesn't necessarily work for another. I firmly believe that in this day and age, you can't make money without money. There are exceptions to that rule,but the system is making it harder and harder to do it the old way.

I'm all for exit exams. My peers aren't. I'm all for forcing SOMEONE to address the deeper issues. I don't think Republicans are.

Welfare reform has a long way to go, but it, too, has changed for the better. It is no longer that easy to stay on welfare forever. More reform is necessary, but who is more likely to address that issue?

There are no easy solutions to the problems of poverty in this country, but the current rate of taxation isn't bankrupting the wealthy, while it is helping the poor. Maybe if the wealthy spent some time addressing the problems of the poor (since the poor are often ill-equipped to do so), they'd discover solutions that work without costing taxpayers more.

Too many Republicans seem to be saying "Solve your own problems, just let me keep my money." My point is that those with problems often CAN'T solve them on their own. Again, as Aly asked, what efforts are Republicans making to SOLVE the problems of poverty? Democrats might not be coming up with the right solutions, but at least they are trying.

(Again, me? I'd vote for Nader if I could, but I can't risk giving it to Bush by doing so. I think ANYTHING which breaks up the two party system would be a major improvement for this country.)

Janet
Oct. 27, 2000, 04:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by woodbern:
OMG, for those of you who don't/can't/won't/don't want to understand...... the top 1% already pays more. They pay 30% of the total taxes paid in America.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And your objection to that is...?

Snowbird
Oct. 27, 2000, 06:00 PM
Thank you Janet,
Yes they do and it took a lot of hours of labor with possibly no compensation, by a lot of people to get those projects up and running so that they were able to pay all those taxes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Times change. The world changes. What worked for one generation doesn't necessarily
work for another. I firmly believe that in this day and age, you can't make money without
money. There are exceptions to that rule,but the system is making it harder and harder
to do it the old way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes times change, but it is our responsibility to make them change for the better. It is still possible to start a business and make tons of money without money. Look at the whole computer revolution. Bill Gates and his college chums were not born with silver spoons. Look at those ladies who make a fortune selling tumbleweed on their .com. There has never been a better time for people to be able to stay home and yet have a business enterprise.

The farmer's wives only had the local general store to sell the products they made, today they have the world available.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Meanwhile, my peers and I almost uniformly complain about how the students don't do
the reading assigned, not ever. Some of them (juniors and seniors, mind you: our
department isn't open to the lower levels.)Many of them don't put a second thought to a
class between the time they step out of it to the time they step back in the next week
unless there's an assignment or test coming up: they jsut don't have the TIME to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't have time! Where is the work ethic? Where is the compulsion for knowledge? Where is the curiosity?

Gee! I just don't have time to get ready for my show on Sunday, Gee! it's too hard to get it all done, Gee! why should I work so hard and maybe lose money never mind make money, Gee! my daughter wants to be a waitress and hates teaching on the farm, well I guess I just have to get out of the business. I can't afford all the labor that I need to run the farm. It's too much work I can't do all the office work by myself because I'd have to spend 20 hours a day in the office seven days a week and I can't make enough profit to make it worth the trouble.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Many
of the students under the most pressure in this way are the poorer students--the ones
who have to work as well as go to school.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Poor babies, I worked my way through school with two jobs, my husband worked his way through school with jobs, my children paid their own tuition and worked their way through school. I think that is character building and that a little struggle makes you appreciate the results. My kids are very proud of their degrees and they worked their buns off. I lost the privilege of being able to brag about how difficult it was to put them through school. My loss of bragging rights gave them self esteem and the work ethic.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Many of my peers have, IMO, watered down their courses as a result. Students buy
super-expensive textbooks, only to be required to read less than 25% of the contents.
One-on-one conferences is the expectation in many courses (and I teach at a university,
not a small college--I have over 50 students in my media research class alone). If left on
their own, and if standards were more like they were 15 years ago when I was at school,
70% of my students would fail.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And maybe they should! Maybe we should stop making excuses for them and mayber they should be responsible. I will be up for two days with perhaps 2-3 hours of naps inbetween to get ready for the show. My daughters and my husband will be right there next to me working just as hard. For all the work we do , I don't think we earn $2.00 an hour, and we don't get to keep it. It gets dumped back into this bottomless pit. BUT..we love the farm and if that's what we have to do to keep well, you bet we'll keep on doing it.

Maybe, your students just figure college is an extra four years to practice at being grown up. Maybe, they'd really like being waiters and waitresses, and maybe they'd be really good at it. Maybe they ought to take restaurant management.

I'll tell you how "times have changed", in my day you decided what it was you would like to do 7 days a week, and then you hoped you could make money from your labor.

Today they want jobs that pay a lot of money and don't care if they like them. They only find pleasure in their free time. When you love what you do, as hard as you work you feel like you're on a vacation because it's a pleasure.




[This message has been edited by Snowbird (edited 10-27-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Snowbird (edited 10-27-2000).]

hobson
Oct. 27, 2000, 06:39 PM
Couple of things, Snowbird...

I learned while working for a rape crisis center that "just saying no" and clamping your legs together is a meaningless concept for young women who have spent years with daddy forcing them into sex every night. Don't think it happens? It happens to millions of girls and women all the time. The FBI, with the most conservative figures, estimates that one out of every 7 women has been sexually abused as a kid, most (85-90%) by loved ones or family members or people close to the family. That can really mess a person up.

It's great that your family had the opportunities to rise out of poverty. Do you think your experience might have been different if you were born African American, and were turned away from jobs even when they were available? If you had little access to a decent education, let alone a college education? Motivation and determination are nearly useless when you're a second-class citizen in your own country, and the folks with power do their best to keep you from getting any. The republicans in Congress tried to block the original Civil Rights Act, because the idea of African Americans having free access to employment was not acceptable to them. They're the ones who added the section barring discrimination based on sex-- they thought they could ruin civil rights legislation by adding a clause they believed was totally ridiculous: prohibiting descrimination based on gender. Republicans, are you guys OK with this?

For the gun-rights supporters, I have a serious question: how do you define the term "law-abiding" person? Most pro-gun arguments say that any law-abiding, mentally sound person should have free access to firearms. What does this mean? If I murdered someone, but was never caught, I am technically law-abiding in the eyes of the background checkers. Should I have a gun? What if I've never done anything wrong before, but plan to shoot my boyfriend because he annoys me? Should I have a gun? The law says this is just fine. After all, every dangerous criminal is a law-abiding person right up until they've committed their first crime. What if I'm a sociopath who's really good at disguising my disorder, and who's never been in the treatment system. Would you sell me a gun? It seems like no matter how you cut it, liberal gun-ownership laws will invariably result in the wrong people having guns. I'm remembering a report I read from the state of Utah a couple of years ago - they sort of cross-referenced their murder statistics with their registered weapons statistics and discovered that about half the murders in the state were committed by people who owned legally registered guns. How do you sort this out?

woodbern
Oct. 27, 2000, 07:15 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Janet:
And your objection to that is...?[/QUOTE

Well, does this qualify for an objection? I don't want to pay any more. And yes indeedy, I would like to pay less.

Are you aware that many of those in the 1% staked all their life savings in unproven ideas and start-up businesses long ago (in the years after the Civil War and before the turn of the century), and they earned this money honestly? Imagine that! And they shared generously with their communities and their country, as well.

And while I'm in the mood, let me say this...my husband, for example, worked for his family business since he was in the 8th grade. He worked while he was in college. After leaving college and after serving in WWII, he worked in every department in his family business, and eventually was Chairman and CEO. He paid in a whopping amount of Social Security money over those years. Now he is retired, but do you think he gets any of it back? Not a chance......

His crime? His family business was successful, thanks to four generations of hard work. So successful that the government has decided that he has "too much", so he doesn't get back what he paid in in Social Security.

Think that is fair? Well, here is what I think is fair...... people like my husband should have had a choice. Pay the SS money in and get it back like everyone else, or don't pay in, as he knew very well that Social Security payments would not be necessary for him. All his SS money paid in is either supporting someone else, or more likely, has disappeared into the famous "Black Hole of the Federal Government".

The amount of the money is not the point.... the point is that the famous and often-maligned 1%.... and particularly the top 5% of that 1% shoulder a lot of the financial burdens that have been created in America. And this is just one example.

And I also realize - and hope some of you do - much of the "new money" 1% usually feels a lot more proprietary about their fortunes than do the old money folks. Don't hold your breath waiting on the new zillionaires to build the colleges and universities, libraries, museums, churches, shelters, etc. that changed the history and methodology of providing for all the people in this country.

Yeah, I know, I know..... tsk, tsk, not PC. I don't care.



[This message has been edited by woodbern (edited 10-27-2000).]

[This message has been edited by woodbern (edited 10-27-2000).]

[This message has been edited by woodbern (edited 10-27-2000).]

spfarm
Oct. 27, 2000, 08:00 PM
Why do you democrats believe that the government is the answer to all of our problems? What makes you believe that programs and new laws will solve all the ills of society?
Laws are made to be broken and programs are used and abused.
I saw a post earlier that said Social Security was started after the stock market crash. If that's true, don't you think that was kind of stupid to start a program to bail out the people who gambled on stocks? Actually Social Security was started for our war heros. When they came home with no jobs, Social Security was there to help them and their families until they found jobs. It wasn't to be permanent and it wasn't to be what it is today.
The Federal Government's main purpose was to provide security (military) for this country and interstate highways. The local governments were to take care of the rest.

Snowbird
Oct. 27, 2000, 08:14 PM
Well now thank you, I was beginning to think I was the only one so stupid that I wasn't sitting around waiting for the government to support me in my old age.

The Doctor just called and gave me a clean Bill of Health! So I guess I have another 10 years I can still work and learn and try to learn new things that are happening today.

Pat Ness
Oct. 27, 2000, 09:16 PM
I don't think the Democrats are waiting for their handouts (myself included, even though I have found I am WAY MORE LEFT, then a Democrat). I vote a Democratic ticket to support the part of government that helps people out that are not in the position to help themselves. Some of these programs don't work so well with everyone, but others do. It's important that they are reviewed constantly to allow for improvements as every plan everywhere evolves and changes.

Is compassion such a hard concept.

Also, I don't quite understand why childless people don't want to pay for schools. I don't have kids, don't especially like kids, but lets get real - I want them educated and I believe the government needs to be involved and I almost always vote for tax increases for school enhancements.

I love this thread. Pat

hobson
Oct. 27, 2000, 09:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by spfarm:
The Federal Government's main purpose was to provide security (military) for this country and interstate highways. The local governments were to take care of the rest.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would this be from the Interstate Highway Act of 1796? Kidding! Just kidding!

spfarm
Oct. 27, 2000, 10:00 PM
What has become of us Americans? We don't want to take responsibility for our own actions, or lack there of. We're not disciplined enough to save our money for our own retirement, we don't want to take care of our aging parents and we don't want to work for minimum wage! Do you think the democrats have anything to do with this and all their program promising?
Let's see...you go jump in the sack with Tom, Dick and Harry. Get pregnant, no problem! Government run health care can take care of that!
Lazy, don't want to work because the soaps are just too good to miss? Hey, no problem there either! You can get your check from the government every month to pay your bills. Hey they'll even throw in food stamps for ya to buy your beer and chips!
The government has told us that Social Security will take care of you when you are old, so live it up now. No need to put money away for personal retirement. Don't even ask your children to take care of you when you are old. Goverment subsidized retirement homes are just the ticket.
I agree that there are people in this country who honestly need help, but it should come from the local level. Let the cities and towns take care of it's own people without the Federal Government imposing all of it's rules and regulations on them. Let the churches have there soup kitchens and halls for the homeless to sleep in.
One last thing here. I'm a woman who's starting to add a few pounds on my body and I've done what I wanted with it. Good southern cooking have added a few pounds on this tiring body. Do you think the government run health care should take care of my "tummy" tuck or my "liposuction"?

Snowbird
Oct. 27, 2000, 10:13 PM
Shoot! Why not if there is equality we're "entitled to all be beautiful" that is according to what is beautiful by government standards.

I'm with you, I'd like a little rejuvenation to be more competitive. A little face lift and some liposuction would sure be nice here too. Afterall, we're all entitled to be happy at all times and in all ways equally. I think I should be entitled to the same income that Julia Roberts gets, I have done more for society, I produced three happy healthy productive children.

Sannois
Oct. 27, 2000, 10:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Janet:
Gore servred in Vietnam.
Bush never served in the military<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry but Gore was nothing more than a war reporter. He had a desk job.

hobson
Oct. 27, 2000, 10:16 PM
How can one save money for retirement if one is making minimum wage, especially if one has done the responsible thing and not aborted one's pregnancy, and has children to raise?

spfarm
Oct. 27, 2000, 10:40 PM
Hobson, I'm not sure how old you are, but I'm taking a guess that you are still fairly young. Plus I don't think you will always be making minimum wage as your career advances. Hope you have more ambition to advance yourself as the years go by. Start by saving $5-10 dollars a paycheck and place it in a savings account that you don't want to access. As your income grows, add more to your savings. People have to get in the habit of saving money. Most of us live, including myself, from paycheck to paycheck. I am also raising three wild and crazy kids all under 10 right now. And I force myself to save a little bit each paycheck.
God only knows what may happen down the road with Social Security. I have put a lot of money into it over the years, and it sure would be nice to see some of it back when I'm old, but I can't count on it. Don't assume that it will be there for you when you get old. So do the smart thing and prepare yourself now.

Sannois
Oct. 27, 2000, 10:41 PM
God help this country with all the Liberals like you rockstar. So you like Socialism huh, bread lines and all that goes along with it. Say goodbye to all your freedoms. Forget your horses and your cars and everything that you take for granted. You are just the type they want. Don't think for yourself the Government will do that for you, and they will. There is none so blind as those who will not see. Snowbird is right on.
A socialist is a person who believes that my right to my life and my property varies inversely with their need, however they choose to define it at anytime. If they feel that someone else hasn't enough money, they feel perfectly justified in sticking a gun in my face, taking my money and giving it away as they see fit. They obligate the recipient to themselves to increase their power base, proclaim their superiority, sensitivity and compassion and call me selfish and mean spirited if I complain about their armed robbery. There is no moral difference between a socialist and a person who throws a brick through a plate glass window and runs off down the street with a television set. and they need the same set of circumstances to get away with their crime: Moral confusion and social disorder. They create moral confusion by trying to convince us that keeping what we earn is selfish and that we have some moral obligation to shut up and allow them to steal from us in the name of compassion - a compassion they themselves do not show those from whom they steal. Hiring armed thugs to steal our property and freedoms does not constitute compassion - it constutes an attempt to enslave us to our own government.

Snowbird
Oct. 27, 2000, 10:49 PM
AMEN! you said so well what I have tried to say. Freedom has a price, but that price beats the servitude of the "take care of me" mentality.

Socialism has been proved as a bad form of government because it removes the incentive to succeed. Why should I make 10 balonies in an hour if everyone is going to be angry that I didn't only make 5. Progress needs to be rewarded or we will sink.

B.G.M. heidi
Oct. 27, 2000, 10:54 PM
I cannot believe how horribly this thread has degenerated. Judging by some of these posts, no wonder American politics has become such a laughable folly. It's not the politicians - for god's sake, it's the electorate.

[This message has been edited by heidi (edited 10-27-2000).]

Snowbird
Oct. 27, 2000, 10:58 PM
And when we cannot defend our flag, when we are afraid to defend our rights as individuals when we permit our history to be erased and modified to be politcally correct then who are WE?

Australia has become proud of their ancesters who were the criminals according to the "King". We were proud of our history as the refugees from political persecution for debts and religion.

We could not celebrate the anniversary of Columbus arriving, because it was not politically correct. We cannot defend our flag or our country because we are afraid to be politically incorrect. We have been badly used by those who choose to use equalization as their tool instead of OPPORTUNITY.


[This message has been edited by Snowbird (edited 10-27-2000).]

Sannois
Oct. 27, 2000, 11:21 PM
There is a difference as Republicans we believe there is a way to get these people confident and successful enough to get out of poverty. We have confidence in them. As Democrats you assume their stupidity and lack of sophistication so they can't be helped to be made independent.

You are precisely right in your estimation of socialists' opinions of the American people, but their comtempt does not cause them to want to reach out and help. People's perceived helplessness is viewed by socialists as an opportunity to incresase power over them by usurping their choices and taking their freedoms in the name of compassion. Take the Clinton's attempt to institute national health care, for example. Hillary Clinton would have forcibly taken control of 14% of the Gross Domestic Product ( a huge sum of money), nationalized three major industries (Health Insurance, Health Care Dellivery, and Health Education), pressed into involuntary government service thousands of Americans now working in those industries, swelling the ranks of federal bureaucrats probably by several times and thereby increasing her constituency, and made every man, woman and child in America dependant on the federal government for their physical well-being. It would have been the single greatest act of larceny and treachery in the history of the world. Can you imagine an emergency room nurse with all the compassion and efficiency of a postal clerk or having your need for a heart transplant evaluated on the basis of poliltical reliability by some Clinton commisar?

I don't for a minute think that any of these people are doing any of this in good faith any more than I believe that the NEA opposes reform in education in the best interests of the children. This is a war for our most basic freedoms and the federal bureaucracy is the enemy. They vote their own pockets, lined with stolen money.

Pat Ness
Oct. 28, 2000, 09:32 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by spfarm:

Let's see...you go jump in the sack with Tom, Dick and Harry. Get pregnant, no problem! Government run health care can take care of that!

Why is it never the comment that men are indiscrimate when they jump in the sack with Sally, Betty or Jane. I thought we were past that point in society, where just women are to blame for unwanted children.
I have seen this comment several times in this thread and it makes me feel like we are still in the dark ages for women's rights. I am definitely pro choice, but I am first pro education and that is for men and women.
Pat

Pat Ness
Oct. 28, 2000, 09:42 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by spfarm:
[B]Hobson, I'm not sure how old you are, but I'm taking a guess that you are still fairly young. Plus I don't think you will always be making minimum wage as your career advances. Hope you have more ambition to advance yourself as the years go by

Why are you assuming Hobson is making minimum wage? Maybe she is referring to the millions that do! I totally agree with Hobson. I am 45, I have been in the work force for 30 years and I do not foresee any problems when I retire as I have been saving, but, what if something catastrophic happens in my life? Not everyone has an extended family. I am grateful to be in a country where government helps out the less fortunate. I truly hope I will never need it.
Pat

spfarm
Oct. 28, 2000, 11:13 AM
Well. excuse me pat-on-the-back! Hobson was the one who wrote that, so I assumed that she was talking about herself. And if you say she wasn't then my post above is for the ones that are. The statement that I made above was a general statement to anyone that has children and making minimum wage.
As for men, sure they can go jump in the bed with Sally, Jane or Sue, but it's usually a two way street. What's wrong with saying NO??? Raging hormones? Primitive animal instincts? No control over your own body?

Snowbird
Oct. 28, 2000, 11:23 AM
Well, guys I guess this thread has been resolved. An astrologer being interviewed today on Tony Brown's Journal has given us the answers.

Al Gore will be elected, and he will be dead in his third year from either an accident or gun shots, and Joe Lieberman will be the first Jewish President. It appears that this year is the 20th year for such events and the stars indicate what will happen.

He projects the Gore victory because there is nothing negative in Bush's horoscope, except piddly little problems.

So if you all love Gore you should vote for Bush to save Gore's life.

SAVE AL GORE...VOTE FOR BUSH!


[This message has been edited by Snowbird (edited 10-28-2000).]

appychick
Oct. 28, 2000, 08:33 PM
checking that this works before I go off

appychick
Oct. 28, 2000, 08:38 PM
Hey ho, here we go!!
I can not believe you people! (some of you anyway) How can anyone want gore for a president?

hobson
Oct. 28, 2000, 10:18 PM
Holy mackerel, I go to Fair Hill for the day and look what happens to my reputation! A word to the wise: watch out for those funnel cakes. For the record, I do not currently make minimum wage, although I have certainly been dirt-poor. I do not have children. I was referring to a theoretical person on mimimum wage with kids. I do, however, appreciate the financial management advice... But even though Sannois thinks I'm going to steal her TV at gunpoint, I've been able to focus enough to have a healthy IRA in the bank. Thank goodness the moral confusion subsides often enough that I can hold down a job.

Now someone mentioned the bible...I say that Jesus was the first well-known communist: he supported redistribution of wealth (yep, go read it!), hated materialism, did not disguise his contempt for profiteers, and wanted everyone to sacrifice for the good of the less fortunate. Go figure. I now eagerly await a biblical defense of the huge American income gap. If someone can quote chapter and verse where Jesus tells his flocks that the poor really ought to stop bugging the wealthy and get off their lazy butts, then I will vote for Bush. Even thought I am a heathen infidel.

And incidentally, the social democrats are in coalition goverment with the Greens in Germany, and the place is not falling to its knees. Schroeder is proving to be a pretty good prime minister, and the Green party's Joschka Fischer is making a name for himself as a highly effective, respected and skilled foreign minister. In fact, they still produce some rather nice horses. Some friends of ours there just got a lovely locally-bred 3 year old Fresian. Stunning! Sweden is also proof that left-leaning governments are not ships of doom. The place is thriving, and they also have nice horses. Same goes for Denmark and the Netherlands. Austria's right-wing government is being shut out by the rest of Europe, because they don't see a place for that sort of behavior in the EU.

[This message has been edited by hobson (edited 10-28-2000).]

[This message has been edited by hobson (edited 10-28-2000).]

Kryswyn
Oct. 28, 2000, 11:40 PM
Geez - stay away for 2 days and there are so many posts I want to quote back at, this would look like a patchwork quilt! http://www.chronofhorse.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

Snowbird: If I read that line about "clamp her legs shut and say NO" one more time I will SCREAM! Wise up woman! You've had children; therefore you're not a virgin - hopefully you know sex CAN be enjoyable?? Why should a male be able to take his pleasure (take being the operative word) while the female is pressing her legs together?? Why shouldn't a woman be able to enjoy sex? And if that means getting EDUCATION, REDUCED COST BIRTH CONTROL, AND MEDICAL CARE then TG for Planned Parenthood. Get out of the 40's with that ancient attitude.

Regarding those unwanted babies the Republican's want women to have rather than abortions.... only if they're white and healthy. If all prospective "adoptive" parents just wanted a child, then they'd take whatever was available, right? But they don't do that. They go to Eastern Europe to get white babies so they don't have to deal w/ "why is Johnny black when his parents are white" and learning a different culture. Yes! Some DO go to China, and some DO adopt racially mixed children, and some DO adopt children w/ known medical problems. But IMHO most couples want a child the same skin color as their own and who can blame them? If you're caucasion looking at your Vietnamese child you are reminded EVERYTIME you look at him/her that YOU were unable to bear a child.

Taxes: If you have a big piece of the pie, and you loose a chunk of it, you'll notice it less than the person w/ a sliver.

Appychick: welcome to the board. Go back to lurking if after all you've read on this thread "who'd want Gore for a president" is the best you can do. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif To give you the quick answer you don't deserve:

A woman who wants control over her body, and who wants to know she can make her decision knowing if she needs help financially, it is there. A woman who sees through the rhetoric of a tax cut many will see little of and a few will see millions of. A woman who realizes that "christian-right tolerance" is an oxymoron. A woman who can't believe a candidate believes in enviornmentalism when his own capitol city has an exceedingly high smog factor. For starters.

As for Nouveau's not being philanthropical, two words... BILL GATES. His foundation is huge and will do great things for many children.

The formation of Social Security: Occurred in 1935 as part of FDR's New Deal to improve conditions for people suffering from the fall out of the Great Depression. A system of Federally funded services and payments to help support the needy, the aged, and the temporarily unemployed as well as neglected children, and rehabilitation for the disabled. NOT instituted for "war hero's" since WWI ended in 1918 and WWII wasn't until 1941 (US entry). (Source: The Dictionary for Cultural Literacy - What Every American Needs to Know) Perhaps the poster was thinking of the GI Plan which helped discharged soldiers go to college?

Thank goodness the election is almost here.



[This message has been edited by Kryswyn (edited 10-28-2000).]

Snowbird
Oct. 29, 2000, 12:36 AM
Well now let's not get so testy just because we do not agree! I have been a long time without someone lecturing me as if they had the only solution to the problems of the world. There are always different points of view without being vitriolic.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Snowbird: If I read that line about "clamp her legs shut and say NO" one more time I will SCREAM! Wise up woman! You've had children; therefore you're not a virgin - hopefully you know sex CAN be enjoyable?? Why should a male be able to take his pleasure (take being the operative word) while the female is pressing her legs together?? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And, I certainly have and do and I hope you do too! But, since the issue is unwanted children, where in the Constituiton or the Bill of Rights does it say that everyone is entitled to immediate gratification of every whim and fancy or pleasure whenever they choose without responsibility for the consequences?

Obviously, if she says no! he won't have pleasure either. So then who is really in charge and the independent free thinker. A male can find satisfaction in an empty jar stuffed with a piece of liver, does that mean we should? A man can pee standing up by unzipping his pants we can't do that either.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Why shouldn't a woman be able to enjoy sex? And if that means getting EDUCATION, REDUCED COST BIRTH CONTROL, AND MEDICAL CARE then TG for Planned Parenthood. Get out of the 40's with that ancient attitude.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who says she shouldn't have education, certainly not me! Birth control pills from her HMO, or even free is just dandy, I certainly am not opposed to that! Planned Parenthood is a superior idea. I think all babies should be planned and not an accident. But, the premise of the topic to which I replied was that she was too stupid to know about such things. That the "she" being discussed was incapable of gaining these references, and therefore could not help popping out babies by the half dozen. That baby might grow up to solve some major world dilemma, why should it be disposed of just because she wants to, when she has already proved that her judgment is so poor.

I do find it strange when a school requires the parents permission for an aspirin to be administered and yet they think that same child should be able to have an abortion without notifying the parents.

There is absolutely nothing in the government or in civilization that permits us all to satisfy our needs whenever we feel, however we feel, with whomever we feel would be pleasant for an hour or two. That certainly would not make me feel emanicpated.

I will amend my statement to include that the "he" ought to keep his zipper zipped unless he wants to support a baby. I do believe that it is not necessary for a man to seek gratification every time it pleases him either. So, I am for full equality of the sexes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Regarding those unwanted babies the Republican's want women to have rather than
abortions.... only if they're white and healthy. If all prospective "adoptive" parents just wanted a child, then they'd take whatever was available, right? But they don't do that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all there are many states which prefer children to remain unadopted if they cannot find a home within their racial or even ethnic background in this country. Am I to assume that you are implying that all those babies being aborted are black? There have been many court cases where white foster parents wanted to adopt a black child that had been in their care, and the child was ripped out of their home just for asking. There are many advocates of those black babies who are definitely opposed to these children being adopted into a white home and perhaps being raised in a white community.

Are you saying that these babies are better off dead than being adopted by a white couple?

Further, I am not opposed to abortion when it is evident that it poses a threat to the mother, or if it was the result of rape or incest. I am saying that this is not a right which needs to be supported by the government with tax money, or government decisions. Just in the same way that the government should not support religious groups of any conviction.

I do believe that if we have failed to instill responsibility in our children and the adults, we certainly are obligated to be responsible for the children. I do not see how anyone can justify disposing of a child because it is inconvenient.

I saw a video of surgery on an infant which still had two more weeks and it could have been aborted. It's little hand came out of the surgically opened uterus and grasped the doctor's finger. That hand was fully formed, and that was a life.

Any government which justifies the disposal of inconveniently conceived, and unwanted infant may also soon adopt the philosophy that Seniors who have no quality of life should be disposed of to save tax money. And, who knows where that will take us. The principle is a reverence for life and that the instant gratification of pleasure is what should be aborted.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>They go to Eastern Europe to get white babies so they don't have to deal w/ "why is
Johnny black when his parents are white" and learning a different culture. Yes! Some DO
go to China, and some DO adopt racially mixed children, and some DO adopt children w/
known medical problems. But IMHO most couples want a child the same skin color as their
own and who can blame them? If you're caucasion looking at your Vietnamese child you are reminded EVERYTIME you look at him/her that YOU were unable to bear a child.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How sad for you that you really believe such things. They will go wherever they can go for the privilege of raising a child and watching it grow and learn. I don't know where you live, but here on my farm we have several familes with children they have adopted, and they dearly love and nuture them as they were the same flesh. MY Goodness! you must have heard some dialog, that it's not the mother who births that becomes the real mother to a child. No one I have ever known ever-ever considered the child they adopted as an insult to them because they couldn't produce their own. They have to go to South America as well as Europe and Asia for babies. Many are mixed races, not all of anything. I can tell you that when they ride here they are cared for and nutured and loved and no one even sees their color or eyes or whatever is different than caucasian.

Besides what exactly is a caucasian? I doubt any of us are so pure bred that we can be sure there are not a few mixes from the past. Attila the Hun was not a caucasian and his brother was not a caucasian, yet they and their troops probably were the ancesters who fathered half of Eastern Europe. I'm a hungarian and therefore from Hungary the home base of Attila and his brother Buda. Did you know that Budapest is named after his brother?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Taxes: If you have a big piece of the pie, and you loose a chunk of it, you'll notice it less than the person w/ a sliver.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again I find your statement unprincipled. Do you believe that in a democracy it is logical and fair that someone who has created great wealth should have it taken away and re-allocated to those who sat home watching TV and having babies? And, if you do believe that then what incentive is there to be successful? Is that not what brought down Russia? People wouldn't produce more than they needed. Why should they work so hard for someone else?

I think if you so strongly believe in the "legacy" of Bill Clinton, which is Al Gore then you should heed my previous post and vote for Bush to save Al Gore for posterity. The Bush Horoscope shows no danger. So perhaps we can agree on something.

The election will be over in two weeks, but the debate will not be over regarding the principles of being a member of a civilized community. Where everyone gets equal respect even if they have the misfortune to have too blessed.

[This message has been edited by Snowbird (edited 10-29-2000).]

woodbern
Oct. 29, 2000, 01:08 AM
Nope, not the GI Plan.... happily, my husband didn't need to be sent to college by the government. Nor did he consider himself a "war hero", merely an decent American - age 19 - who joined the Army like many, many others.

As for the rest of it - whatever, whatever, whatever floats your boat(s) ..... too fatigued to listen to any more lectures from the ilk of the Kryswyns of the world.

Let's just see what the election brings. Then some of us will like it and some will lump it, right?

[This message has been edited by woodbern (edited 10-29-2000).]

Twister
Oct. 29, 2000, 08:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hobson:
If I murdered someone, but was never caught, I am technically law-abiding in the eyes of the background checkers. Should I have a gun? What if I've never done anything wrong before, but plan to shoot my boyfriend because he annoys me? Should I have a gun? The law says this is just fine. After all, every dangerous criminal is a law-abiding person right up until they've committed their first crime.

It seems like no matter how you cut it, liberal gun-ownership laws will invariably result in the wrong people having guns. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You want to deny 'things' to people based on what 'might' happen??? You might drive drunk, but have never been caught, should you still get a license? Your child might drown if you put in a swimming pool, should you still have one???

Strict gun control laws will result in 'only' the wrong people having guns.

Twister
Oct. 29, 2000, 08:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sannois:
Sorry but Gore was nothing more than a war reporter. He had a desk job. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

80 per cent of the military was non-combat during the Vietnam war.

hobson
Oct. 29, 2000, 09:38 AM
Hi there, pacificsolo - sorry to offend you, but what's wrong with forming an impression on a piece of writing - in this case the Christian bible? Any time somebody writes something, whether it's a short story, a novel, a screenplay, an academic article, or a religous tome, it's going to be interpreted by readers with and without a critical eye. When I read the New Testament, Jesus sure looks like a lefty to me. Somebody in the thread mentioned the Bible in connection to conservative politics, so I threw in my opinion. No big deal! Others read it and say that poor people are poor because they are sinners and Satan is in charge of the world. I'm sure you'd agree that there is no universal assent about what everything in the Bible means. Not everyone agrees about James Joyce's "Ulysses" either. I would guess that critical analysis must be an interesting and lively part of seminary education, as it in in other disciplines, and that questioning and debating biblical content would be encouraged. It's an essential part of any academic process.

But we are digressing from the election topic. How'd we get on socialism anyway, when the 2 major candidates are right of center? And can I remind everyone again to please stay away from personal attacks? Things are getting mean-spirited, and I'm sure that's not what we all want. I speak only for myself, but to those who might think I'm an evil, stupid, theiving, hormone-blinded monster just because of my political position, just remember that you might meet me at a horse function one day. If we end up talking, you'd probably like me. If you met me and my charming horses, I'm certain that you would not feel quite so inclined to make the same assumptions and generalizations that are being made on this board.

So again: can we agree to keep it civil? Back in the day, when I was involved with running public policy forums with the Kettering Foundation, one of our rules was to ALWAYS try to acknowledge that no matter how much you disagree with someone, you probably share some common ground with them. Look first for where you agree, and work from there. Further, you should try to assume that those with different opinions have arrived at these opinions honestly. With these kinds of ground rules, we somehow managed to hold useful public discussions on some really divisive topics (abortion, drug policy, environmental regulation, and the like) without the hurling of insults and without depending on the back-and-forth tossing of simplistic sound-bites and cliches. Can't we try this here?

spfarm
Oct. 29, 2000, 10:52 AM
The moral of this topic....
Horses and politics just don't mix.
We've all gotten off this topic to start off with, and it's been a little disturbing to me to read the views of some of the posters. As some of you all grow older, and wiser, maybe you will realize that the government isn't the next best thing to cotton candy. I have to wonder how many lives in this country never amounted to much because they became completely dependent on the government to live. People who have the mentality that government will take care of me, so why get off my lazy rear and go find a job? It's sad that we let this happen, but government and lots of programs are to blame. That we can just tax the rich more to let John or Lucy stay home and watch their big screen TV all day. To help communities who have no electricity or running water or any sort of health care assistance, then maybe the government needs to step in. But how many communites in this country live like third world nations?
Do a little math in your head. Take a dollar that you earn and see how much of it you really keep. First of all, we have our income tax, you have your state tax (in some areas), you have your food tax, you have you property tax, you have your gas tax, you have your clothing tax. How much of that dollar is left to spend on your mortgage, your car payment, your groceries, your hobbies? NOT MUCH, becuse we are all having to fund all these wonderful programs that government does so well running!!!
Back to my original post on this topic...IT'S THE TAXES THAT WILL HURT US THE MOST!!! The more we are taxed the less we will have. And unfortunately, our horses will probably be the first to go. People have to care for their families first.
And Gore with all those programs he wants to start and increase, means more money out of our pockets to fund them!

hobson
Oct. 29, 2000, 11:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Twister:
You want to deny 'things' to people based on what 'might' happen??? You might drive drunk, but have never been caught, should you still get a license? Your child might drown if you put in a swimming pool, should you still have one???

Strict gun control laws will result in 'only' the wrong people having guns.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What I'm asking, Twister, is this: if we are going to make ideas of who are the "right" and "wrong" people a factor in gun ownership laws, how do we define these terms? We agree that criminals should not have guns. So I'm asking in a most sincere way, what do you think is a criminal? Someone who has done the crime but never been caught...someone who's been indicted but not convicted...someone who has been caught as well as convicted...someone who is planning armed robbery but has no previous record. I'm honestly interested in how a gun-rights supporter would approach this, because it's something I've never seen expanded upon in the debate.

To use a pertinent comment you made, I do think a person who drives drunk but has never been caught should be defined as a drunk driver...as to whether this person should have a license, well, the law says they can. It's a really appropriate comparison. There are two questions here: what is a drunk driver, and should a drunk driver have a car/license. Likewise: what is a criminal, and should a criminal based on this definition have a gun. What do you think? I'm interested because it can lead to a more complex debate: how do we keep never-been caught criminals from getting guns? Please answer, because I'd like to hear what you think.

Snowbird
Oct. 29, 2000, 12:41 PM
The criminals don't seem to have any problem getting guns. I have heard on the news that their best source are the recyled guns discarded by the various police departments which cannot be tracked and are not sold at gun sale places.

Now, if all the criminals have guns which they got through various nefarious means and everyone of the rest of us don't have guns..what do you suppose will be the result?

I have not heard a valid argument for why it is not better if a criminal can't be sure which house or person is armed and which is not. They at least then have to take a 50/50 risk that the person they intend to victimize might be able to defend themselves.

Yes, the slippery slope is OK! no one with a criminal record can have a gun..but these are the dummies who got caught. The smarter crooks didn't get caught! The you have all the do gooders who want to release everyone from jail because they were not properly prosecuted, or they didn't have a good defense, or they were just plain innocent. You have all the bleeding hearts who are sure that it was the twinkie that made him do it, or his Mother didn't nurture him right, or he was abused as a child or any one of a 1000 other excuses for why they are not responsible for the consequences of their actions.

Now! is our choice no guns at all including the police! or guns for everyone to keep the status quo. I sleep with a 12 guage shot gun in my bedroom, it was recommended to me by my police because we live too far off the beaten track to get help in time. Security systems are fine if the criminal types aren't smart enough to cut the telephone lines. There are no neighbors who would hear a siren if it went off outside.

And yes! I'm a terrible shot, that's why I have a shot gun with a spray. Now even if I intended to miss I'm such a bad shot I just might kill him. What are my options?

The terrorist, the nut case knows how to rebuild anything into a gun. They're never going to go bare.

Can't you see that the answer lies much deeper than the symptoms of gun ownership? It is a respect for privacy, property and individual rights. You need to better ask how can we better manage society so that there are no scam artists, no thieves or criminals to be defended from!

What is a deterent against crimes? I agree that gun ownership is not. I would prefer a world without guns. I'm not too bad with a bow and arrow. Reality check please!

Don't just tell me that you hate guns and want them gone, tell me how to stop the crooks and villains from being socialized into our society? How do we keep all the crazies out there from becoming violent and attacking someone?

How can we on the one hand be too afraid to disclose the truth as witnesses, to assist in the enforcement of the law as citizens and then wonder why all these deviant personalities don't know that there is something wrong with killing people.

How can they understand when we have looked the other way as their crimes were growing.

[This message has been edited by Snowbird (edited 10-29-2000).]

hobson
Oct. 29, 2000, 12:50 PM
OK, Snowbird...my question still stands: how do you define a criminal?

pwynnnorman
Oct. 29, 2000, 12:53 PM
Ok, getting backt to the original question (and I think the fact that this thread is now a record in posts is GREAT, regardless of the sniping going on!):

Bush would undoubtedly be a better president when it comes to the health of the horse industry. No doubt about that. If the wealthy get to keep more of their $$$, it is certainly likely they'll spend more on horses and other luxuries. Ain't that grand?

But there is one catch: those "open spaces" that some, like Snowbird, are so eager to see protected? Well, Bush won't help you much there, I'm afraid.

Sorry for the lame post. I really just wanted to say that I think the dialog has been great, regardless. Nice to know that horse people care deeply about issues beyond the horse industry. (Well, maybe not a lot of full-time trainers do, but it's nice to know their clients are still with it!)

havaklu
Oct. 29, 2000, 12:55 PM
This thread is soooo long I can't keep up. But there is an interesting web site that will give you an idea how each candidates "tax cuts" will REALLY impact you.

go to www.taxclarity.com (http://www.taxclarity.com)

I did, and it enforced my pick!!

Magnolia
Oct. 29, 2000, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by magnolia:

Hobson - this makes me laugh - my boyfriend is a Nader man (he voted early, but couldn't vote Green - not on the NC ballot - talk about a crock of $%&# (could they not have gotten 2000 signatures in the Hygenically challenged Asheville area?). At any rate, he is a granola freak and wouldn't touch Cap'n Crunch with a 10' pole ~ but I digress. I should fix you 2 up. LOL

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Magnolia, I believe this is at least the second time you have mentioned getting me together with your BF...what's going on? You getting tired of the soy milk and the hummus and the natural hemp clothing? I appreciate your offer, but I already have a smarty-pants socialist/green husband who happens to look really sexy in his cycling team jersey. Whoops! That last part is for the "Designers" thread! If you guys are ever in Philly, drop me a line and I'll get you both a cheesesteak. (I personally avoid these heart attacks on a bun, but I think your BF needs one.)

Hobson-
Yes, I grow weary of the odor...... I did get him to buy deodorant! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Oops, Hobson, no cheesesteaks for us, we are both Veggies, but we do make a mean Hummus.

Janet - hats off to you! You know, the top 1% may pay 30% of taxes, but I believe they have the most money. I believe the figure is that the top 20% make more than the bottom 80% combined. Ouch!
Hate to say it, but a lot of rich business owners treat employees like a commodity and choose not to provide needs for them. I work for a family that makes multi million dollar donations to arts foundations, but choose to keep a large part of their workforce minimum wage and part time to avoid providing insurance benefits. Well, somebody has to make it so these folks make a living, so the Govt takes way more taxes from them and evens things out...I guess taxes are an equalizer, like it or not ~ if you make 10 million a year and pay employees minimum wage, well, you're going to pay some how. I guess I don't really have a point, just wanted to maybe explain why rich folks pay higher taxes...

Pat Ness
Oct. 29, 2000, 03:03 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by spfarm:
[As some of you all grow older, and wiser, maybe you will realize that the government isn't the next best thing to cotton candy.
[end of QUOTE]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
Sorry Spfarm as I am 44 years old very middle age and becoming more liberal with each moment. I do apologize for picking on you, but whenever you generalize (minimum age earner, young and idealistic) it just encourages me to continue to add to the post.

hobson
Oct. 29, 2000, 03:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jumphigh83:
Criminal: some one with malicious intent. someone who has committed a felonious act. someone with a history of repeated acts of violence toward animals, children and others.someone whose only priority is themself.

My ideas. Anyone else?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great - I agree. So, if one of these guys does not have a rap sheet, they can buy a gun easily and legally. How do we prevent it? When I think of this situation, I mostly have in mind domestic violence. We know that the majority of women who are murdered are killed by their intimate partners, often with guns (in part of my checkered past, I worked with the police anaylzing crime statistics, so I have a head full of crime data). In a lot of cases, the violent partner is violent ONLY towards the victim at home, and does not have a prior history of crime. Nonetheless, these are very, very dangerous people. When they say "I'll kill you if you leave me," they really mean it. How do we keep guns away from these folks, especially when they are seen by the rest of society as model citizens?

As a gun control advocate, I am willing to curtail the freedom to own an injurious object for the sake of overall public safety, because I think that more innocent people are hurt by guns in the hands of their loved ones than are hurt by strangers breaking into their house (so do the Justice Dept. numbers). How, as a gun ownership advocate, do you address this? What are the options? (mandatory safety locks, mandatory training, better background checking?)

rockstar
Oct. 29, 2000, 05:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sannois:

God help this country with all the Liberals like you rockstar. So you like Socialism huh, bread lines and all that goes along with it. Say goodbye to all your freedoms. Forget your horses and your cars and everything that you take for granted. You are just the type they want. Don't think for yourself the Government will do that for you, and they will. There is none so blind as those who will not see. Snowbird is right on.
A socialist is a person who believes that my right to my life and my property varies inversely with their need, however they choose to define it at anytime. If they feel that someone else hasn't enough money, they feel perfectly justified in sticking a gun in my face, taking my money and giving it away as they see fit. They obligate the recipient to themselves to increase their power base, proclaim their superiority, sensitivity and compassion and call me selfish and mean spirited if I complain about their armed robbery. There is no moral difference between a socialist and a person who throws a brick through a plate glass window and runs off down the street with a television set. and they need the same set of circumstances to get away with their crime: Moral confusion and social disorder. They create moral confusion by trying to convince us that keeping what we earn is selfish and that we have some moral obligation to shut up and allow them to steal from us in the name of compassion - a compassion they themselves do not show those from whom they steal. Hiring armed thugs to steal our property and freedoms does not constitute compassion - it constutes an attempt to enslave us to our own government.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!


For crying out loud.... I AM NOT A SOCIALIST! I am sorry that it makes your life so much easier to just group all of us that stand to the left of center as socialists... obviously you just are not able to handle the complex issues involved and grasp the fact that there is no black and white in the politcal sprectrum... precisely becuase it is a SPECTRUM!

There are shades. You reflect clear imbecility and blockheadedness to group people as you do. I don't believe that I have posted a thing on this thread that would paint me as a socialist. I would suggest that you don't really know what a socialist is. I suggest you take a course in Comparative Politics... but you would probably think that the professor and textbook were just socialist garbage... so nevermind.

Sanois... I don't know if I will be edited for this or not... but people like you honestly make me nauseous. I am not being sarcastic here... when I read your post I really did feel my stomach turn and my throat close. The last thing I want to do is turn this thread into personal atacks... I loved what Hobson had to say on that. But really, these posts are just out of control. Next thing I know some KK Clansman is going to be posting about white supremacy and half the posters will agree.

Since you call me a socialist why don't I just call you an anarchist. Clearly you hate the government. "Armed thugs stealing our property?" COME ON!!! You are straight out of a movie script with your doomsady anti-government attitude. (I'm thinking "Arlington Road").

AGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is a line in the movie the American President that I can't quote exactly... but it went something like this... "How can you claim to love America but hate everything that is American?"

And how you can justify saying that the average liberal wants to take away all of your rights and and run around expanding the government and nationalizing everthing is as plainly wrong and far away from me as it gets. I am in this nation's capitol, around this nation's most prominent democratic government officials a fair amount. It might suprise you that I have yet to hear any of them advocate for anywhere REMOTELY near the kind of government takeover that you seem to think all of us dems and "socialists" are itching for. Oh wait... just the other day I overheard Dick Gephardt discussing how he couldn't wait to be back in power as the Speaker so that he could really work to expand education in this country and pass a REAL patient's bill of rights... SOMEONE GO STOP THAT CRAZY SOCIALIST! WHAT IS HE POSSIBLY THINKING??? http://www.chronofhorse.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif http://www.chronofhorse.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif RIGHT SANOIS? http://www.chronofhorse.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

I am too ruffled here and am going to stop. I can't believe that I am even letting the people on this board who are SOOOOOOOO close minded get to me. These people do nothing but stereotype and typify and put people into these politcal circles that never share space and are impenetrable. Hmmmph!!!

In real life, where stuff actually gets done, these people don't exist... they are non-entities in the grand scheme of things because they are so skewed in one direction that they are unable to see through the haze and ever compromise in the name of productive progress. These people make me, for lack of a better word, MADDDDD! http://www.chronofhorse.com/ubb/mad.gif http://www.chronofhorse.com/ubb/mad.gif http://www.chronofhorse.com/ubb/mad.gif And frankly, these people scare me.


And heidi... I think it is safe to say that this thread has really degenerated now! Yick. I don't know if i should let myself follow it anymore because I am just growing increasingly disapointed in the attitudes presented. The varying stands on issues don't bother me... I actually like how snowbird feels one way about taxes and I feel another way, and then hobson and magnolia feel yet another way. But the blatent radicalism of some of the ways in which some here defend their beliefs is just horrifying to me.

Oh now I have opened it up. Now I get to be lumped into the "damn crazy liberal" category. Fabulous.

[This message has been edited by rockstar (edited 10-29-2000).]

rockstar
Oct. 29, 2000, 05:54 PM
Oh! And to Bertie, DMK, and heidi... thanks for your comments on my last last post... you don't know how much i appreciate that... especially when i have grown so disheartened in the last few minutes after visitng this thread for the first time since i last posted!

hobson
Oct. 29, 2000, 06:03 PM
Uh-oh. When I am in the middle of a diplomatic problem, I always ask myself, what would Captain Picard do in this situation? (yeah, I'm a Star Trek fan on top of everything else...and Jean-Luc rides horses too!)

Rockstar, what will I do with you? This is not the place where anyone is going to be converted, so you'll have to accept that. The value here is that we are all learning from one another what a diverse group we are, and I additionally hope we are gaining some new insights into political positions we might formerly have dismissed. I hope you don't drop out of the discussion, because it's been such fun! I dislike inaccurate generalizations as much as you do, and I understand it's horribly frustrating. But I would ask you to do the right thing and not throw insults back, because it does nothing for your cause. Right now, Sannois thinks that you're not only a socialist, but a rude socialist to boot. I think the Captain would keep his calm and say something like , Sannois, you may have misunderstood me when I explained the democratic party's position on such-and-such. I see that you have concerns about this or that topic, so allow me to be more clear about it.

As the Captain would say, "Make it so, Geordie!"

hobson
Oct. 29, 2000, 06:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jumphigh83:
Why would you want to prevent a law abiding citizen from having a firearm? I hate to be cliche but guns don't kill people, people kill people. We should out law kitchen knives, golf clubs (in the case of bludgeoning deaths), cars (auto accidents kill WAY more people than guns every year), ropes (strangulations), etc. It's called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY. The basis on which a democracy is built. I don't approve of ANY of my personal liberties being dictated by the government. I think the constitution is a pretty "right on" document and I stand behind it. Isn't that what all those people DIED for in the revolution? Freedom from oppressive government?? I can't understand WHY people would be in favor of a dictatorship. Not me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jumphigh, I asked this question: How do you keep non-law-abiding people from having guns, when in many situations (say, if they have no police record) they can legally acquire them? I outlined why I would want to prevent law-abiding citizens from having guns (because more people are hurt by family members with guns than by strangers with guns) I asked for your thoughts on how to achieve this goal, upon which we appear to agree. I challenged you to respond without using cliches. I'm sorry it escalated into your hollering at me about dictatorship. I don't think you read my post closely enough. Once again I ask: what do you think is the best way to prevent criminals who do not have police records (which is to say, because they've never been caught, there are no red flags for background checkers to spot) from acquiring guns?

[This message has been edited by hobson (edited 10-29-2000).]

Kryswyn
Oct. 29, 2000, 06:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:
No one I have ever known ever-ever considered the child they adopted as an insult to them because they couldn't produce their own. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't say insult, I said reminder /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. I have had family friends as well as extended family who paid $$$$$ for multiple adoptions of white children. Is there a problem with their perceptions (we want to 'pass' as a 'natural' family)? Absolutely! As you say, once you've nutured it for a bit, you'd fight lions for it, whatever the color. But you and I (sadly) do not make up the whole spectrum. And, I believe, statisically, more white women have abortions than other races, lowering the percentage of adoptable white children. And, yes, I think it's deplorable that mixed race adoptions are not permitted in certain places. But I am not a member of an ethnic minority who's culture might be diluted/lost by this happening. So my opinion should not be weighted heavily.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>....the home base of Attila and his brother Buda. Did you know that Budapest is named after his brother? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I did. I'm a product of the 70's middle class based public school system. And I read for enjoyment. Did you know that during WWI and II the Brits called the German's "huns" to emphasize their supposed brutality?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Taxes: If you have a big piece of the pie, and you loose a chunk of it, you'll notice it less than the person w/ a sliver.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Again I find your statement unprincipled. Do you believe that in a democracy it is logical and fair that someone who has created great wealth should have it taken away and re-allocated to those who sat home watching TV and having babies? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately the TV watching baby-makers are sort of lumped in w/ the disabled, minimum wage earning lower middle class folks who need goverment services to get by in this world. Proportionately, I think there are fewer "welfare mothers" than the rest of the population that is getting the benefit of education funds, health care, military protection.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And, if you do believe that then what incentive is there to be successful? Is that not what brought down Russia? People wouldn't produce more than they needed. Why should they work so hard for someone else?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
When the top 1% are taxed so heavily that everyone in America earns w/in $25k a year of each other, that will be a problem. Until then, if you're making 5-100 MILLION a YEAR, you can afford to pay the system that allows you to prosper BACK for the opportunity. By the way, did you ever read how some of today's heirs and heiress's anscestors made their fortunes? On the backs of immigrants and the less fortunate, that's how. They got tax breaks up the wazoo as incentives to put in railroads, build mill towns, etc. They got preferential treatment. Is THAT what you want? The golden children can play w/ their horses today because the tax breaks their grandpappys got 100 years ago.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>...you should heed my previous post and vote for Bush to save Al Gore for posterity. The Bush Horoscope shows no danger. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heck no! I think Lieberman will be a great president. <grin>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So perhaps we can agree on something.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We actually agree on many things! Just not in this thread!!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Twister
Oct. 29, 2000, 06:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hobson:
Great - I agree. So, if one of these guys does not have a rap sheet, they can buy a gun easily and legally. How do we prevent it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We do NOT prevent it! This is America. Innocent until proven guilty.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
When I think of this situation, I mostly have in mind domestic violence. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you have been charged with domestic violence, or have a restraining order against you, you cannot purchase a hand gun.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
As a gun control advocate, I am willing to curtail the freedom to own an injurious object for the sake of overall public safety.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The list of things that would fall under such a category is endless. Would you give up your car? What about your right to have a swimming pool?

[This message has been edited by Twister (edited 10-29-2000).]

rockstar
Oct. 29, 2000, 07:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hobson:
Uh-oh. When I am in the middle of a diplomatic problem, I always ask myself, what would Captain Picard do in this situation? (yeah, I'm a Star Trek fan on top of everything else...and Jean-Luc rides horses too!)

Rockstar, what will I do with you? This is not the place where anyone is going to be converted, so you'll have to accept that. The value here is that we are all learning from one another what a diverse group we are, and I additionally hope we are gaining some new insights into political positions we might formerly have dismissed. I hope you don't drop out of the discussion, because it's been such fun! I dislike inaccurate generalizations as much as you do, and I understand it's horribly frustrating. But I would ask you to do the right thing and not throw insults back, because it does nothing for your cause. Right now, Sannois thinks that you're not only a socialist, but a rude socialist to boot. I think the Captain would keep his calm and say something like , Sannois, you may have misunderstood me when I explained the democratic party's position on such-and-such. I see that you have concerns about this or that topic, so allow me to be more clear about it.

As the Captain would say, "Make it so, Geordie!"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know, I know Hobson. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif I envy you for your ability to serve as such a peacemaker. I thought I possessed that ability... but some of the posts just pushed me over the edge! And believe me, I don't like that I felt I had to post that. As much as I am disapointed in myself that I could not hold back... I don't take any of it back either!

what's a young politico to do who is sitting at home twittling (sp?) her thumbs watching CNN and Fox news and msnbc, itching to get out on the campaign trail and meeting poeple in person and dealing with them in real time instead of on a BB?

shutup i guess...

if my mom could only see me now after the gazillions of times she said, "if you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all".

hobson
Oct. 29, 2000, 07:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Twister:
The list of things that would fall under such a category is endless. Would you give up your car? What about your right to have a swimming pool?

[This message has been edited by Twister (edited 10-29-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thanks for replying, Twister! Actually, I would stop at guns, because of their distinctive nature as an item that is designed for the specific purpose of causing injury. A swimming pool is primarily for pleasure, not destruction, so I can handle the inherent risks in swimming. I'm a swimmer, in fact. I guess I make an ethical distinction based on the essential nature of the object in question. In terms of the domestic violence thing, I know that if you've got a restraining order, no gun for you. Good point. But I'm also talking about the DV perps who are not in the system - only a fraction of DV victims manage to get orders in place, for various reasons (their movement is limited by the perp, cops don't take them seriously, etc). I don't feel safe knowing that these sorts of brutes can have all the guns they care to.

The other bit of the pro-gun argument that troubles me is the one that says that sales will go underground if guns are restricted, and only bad people will have access. As things are now, the guns owned by bad people were tranferred legally at some point in their provenance. Here in Philly, there's a big market in which legal people with no record buy large numbers of handguns and resell them to bad people who have felony convictions. It's the primary source of handguns for gangs and such. Imagine italics here: the legal gun market is where bad people's guns originally come from. So when legal aquisition is limited, so is the supply of guns available to felons.

And rockstar, you are TWIDDLING your thumbs. Twiddling.


[This message has been edited by hobson (edited 10-29-2000).]

woodbern
Oct. 29, 2000, 09:15 PM
This is just stream of conscious rambling to the general "YOU" out there. You, dear and gentle posters, will know who the "YOU" are, by the rising of your blood pressure.....

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>I don't want to pay enormous taxes. I think I pay enough. Truthfully, I think I pay too much. <LI>I do want tax breaks. <LI>I want my Social Security, to do with as I please. I paid it in, I want it back. As did my spouse. Interestingly enough, the "YOU" doesn't have a clue what we might do with our refund, do they? <LI>I do not want to save every country in the world. <LI>I do not want to take care of every person who manages to get here by hook or crook, hides out, has 10 children in 10 years and doesn't pay taxes right along with me. Yes, my families once came here,too - however there was a system of checks and balances on immigration, it was called Ellis Island.[/list]

Not all of the wealthy made their wealth on the backs of the less fortunate. Many actually (big gasp!) worked hard and live happily beneath their means. But that " most exploited the poor" makes good verbal fodder and gives the general "YOU" something to rally around and bitch about. (Also, could some of you know-it-alls please check the dates of when income tax was implemented - not until after 1910 or 1915 or so I believe. Before that obviously, there were no "tax breaks" to be had.)

I suppose if one follows rockstar's formula, several of the "YOU" would fall into the "imbecilic" and/or "blockheaded" category, as you have more-or-less lumped together all those persons you term as "rich".

Maybe the "YOU" know(s) one wealthy family. Maybe they know ten wealthy families. But they don't know all wealthy families, so can't legitimately categorize......unless they are clairvoyant.

This is the same-old-same-old.... I won't call it class envy, as wealth has nothing to do with class (look at some of the wealthy among us if you don't believe it). It's just envy. And a consuming need to tell the "haves" what to do fiscally, particularly if one feels and/or resents the fact that one is a "have not".

OMG, I can't wait until November 7th.

Over and out.

Snowbird
Oct. 29, 2000, 09:40 PM
I repeat my earlier question, what is a caucasian? I assume that means someone from the Caucasian Mountains.

How do you establish that "caucasian" means "white"? If we are all evolved from Africa and before that "Lucy" then are we not all just mutations of the same genetic base?

Yes, the "Hun" was used as a nasty title for invaders. Semantics do play a large part in our interpreation of a people. Yet, the Scythians whom they invaded were equally warlike, just that they lost and the huns won.

So we can establish that perhaps there is a "genetic" cause behind the behavior in eastern Europe. Yet if we are all simply varying shades of brown then we share so much genetic similarity that this whole prejudice is purely an academic study of siblings objecting to the variations which seem to give one sector more than another sector.

Yes, people who adopt, or people who use embryo transplants would most likely prefer to reproduce themselves. This will soon be possible with cloning.

What about the designer babies? What will happen to the gene pool when all these babies who have been produced by the ideal sperm donor grow up and meet? Suppose they do not know that their feelings for each other are fraternal and make the mistake of believing it is the kind of love that leads to procreation of the species?

Where does the proclivity for violence come from? Is it a recessive gene from Attila the Hun which then makes us not responsible for our behavior? If we choose we can always go back to "Lucy" the chimpanzee who is the mother of humanity.

It is the lack of patience, and the unwillingness to explore the possibility of new or opposing ideas that is a sign of our uncivilized heritage.

Who are the criminals? They are the ones who whether by reason of genetic structure, or bad parenting have chosen to believe they are entitled to the benefits which other people have produced.

There was an interesting interview with a serial killer on TV, he simply said that killing was his job! It was what he did well and what he enjoyed. And, everyone needs a job. That is an example of the criminal mind which does not comprehend that others are equally entitled to individual rights of expression.

I am happy to dialog on any esoteric issue and debate the pros and cons of all views. I have little respect for those who find it necessary to "attack" anyone who appears not to share the same view. A simple fact of life is that there is nothing that is universally acceptable to all people at all times. That is our punishment for eating from the "Tree of Knowledge".

Anarchy or communism are simply opposite sides of the same issue. Democracy is in the middle neither right nor left. Power tends to try an amplify itself and becomes convinced that it is the authority of what's best. Just as at one time in this country you could not vote unless you owned property.

We as a civilization should debate how much "government" is good government. How much are we responsible for our neighbors, and how responsible are we for ourselves?

Because we disagree, does not automatically mean that the person with whom we disagree is a "bad" person who deserves to be whipped into submission. That is democracy.

People who cannot or will not follow the rules of our society are "labeled" as the criminals. People who can not or will not follow our social morals are "labeled" as crazy. All that means is there are more of us than them. A paranoid schizphrenic who imagines that he is Napolean can be a much "happier" person, can be well adjusted into his delusion and very satisfied with his life. He is living his dream. Why is he committed to an institution
? Because no one else agrees that he is Napolean.

What is "normal"? What is average? What is right? What is wrong? All paradoxes that can only be solved by individual communities which determine what is normal in their community. We as a civilization cannot even agree on what is "truth"?

So if you think that we are responsible for those less fit to participate in our community you have to ask not how much will the most fit give back to these...but how much willyou be willing to give? We do not have the right to take from one person to give to another person more than they feel is right, that is "criminal". We do have the right to give what is ours to whomever we wish.

As people and members of humanity we have the duty to take care of those less capable, but we do not have the right to assign that duty to someone else.

hobson
Oct. 29, 2000, 10:02 PM
rockstar, pat, magnolia, kryswyn, aly, et. al...you guys want to go out for a virtual beer? Naderite I may be, but I at least bathe, unlike magnolia's boyfriend. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[This message has been edited by hobson (edited 10-29-2000).]

lillian
Oct. 30, 2000, 01:16 AM
Snowbird -- get your facts straight. Bill Gates WAS born with a silver spoon in his mouth. I went to school with Bill Gates. His father was a partner in the most prestigeous law firm in Seattle and is very wealthy. Paul Allen also came from a very wealthy family.

pwynnnorman
Oct. 30, 2000, 07:18 AM
Which yet again goes to show how in today's USofA, it takes money to make money...

On guns? I read in Newsweek a while back that, outside of metropolitan areas and their suburbs, most crimes committed with guns are committed by people with no criminal records at all. There were also statistics on the incidence of gun use in domestic violence cases and other situations where your everyday non-criminal gun owner pops someone. What about those folks?

And, pat on the back, DITTO! The older I get, the more I feel for others and am grateful for how kind fate has been to me. I guess some of us get more compassionate, while others get less so. I wonder if it is related to a glass half-full or half-empty world view? I'm happy to have my glass half-full and leave the rest to others less fortunate. But maybe that's because I don't have a heck of a lot and you can't miss what you don't have?

Magnolia
Oct. 30, 2000, 08:33 AM
Just a bit of info...
Corporations get far more subsidies than do poor people. Mc Donald's, ADM, etc.etc. They get tax breaks and government funded research and all sorts of junk. Big Oil gets wars fought for them etc.etc.
Poor people get very little. I lived upstairs from a kind veteran who worked fast food jobs. He served our country. He made barely enough to get by. He qualified for no programs whatsoever. He had a $300.00 a month apartment, no phone, no car. He ate basic food (the restaurant he worked for did not allow meals...). He had a second hand TV and radio. There are many others that live like him. (he was lucky - he had madical thru his veteran status.) Welfare programs cover few people anymore (basically families and the disabled.) The lazy person who wants to watch TV is a myth.
My point is, many of the super wealthy have benefited from tax dollars. Granted, many rich do not (esp. small business owners). I am sure Microsoft (which by the way, I think is great - Bill Gates shares his success with his employees!) has benefited (at one time) from government tax dollars.
So don't fool yourself into thinking the rich get nothing, and the poor get a ride on some coat tails.

Inverness
Oct. 30, 2000, 08:46 AM
I've worked my way up to membership in the highest tax bracket and I'm willing to pay even more in taxes to help those who are less fortunate and less lucky than I've been.

I suppose to many of you that either makes me a liberal, a socialist, a fool, or a nut. Well, so be it.

Twister
Oct. 30, 2000, 08:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hobson:
Imagine italics here: the legal gun market is where bad people's guns originally come from. So when legal aquisition is limited, so is the supply of guns available to felons.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hobson, a well made gun can last hundreds of years. Let's take this to the extreme. Private ownership of guns is made illegal. Is the guy who held up the liquor store going to say, 'Gee, I guess I'll have to turn it in.'???

You should read a scientific study published in the Journal of Legal Studies by John R. Lott, Jr. He is a senior research scholar at Yale Law School. It is called, 'More guns, Less Crime' and has been published in book form. It is, of course, deadly boring, with endless footnotes, bibliography, charts and statistics, but the title of the book sums up the findings. More guns, less crime.

Magnolia
Oct. 30, 2000, 09:15 AM
Imagine italics here: the legal gun market is where bad people's guns originally come from. So when legal aquisition is limited, so is the supply of guns available to felons.

Hobson- Got to disagree on gun control. Prohibition never works ~ look at drugs! Junkie does not say, OK, heroin is illegal, I'd best get my high off beer. He goes to rich drug dealer and illegaly buys heroin.

Robber doesn't say "oops, I can't use a gun, I'd better learn karate."...He goes and buys a gun illegaly, from someone more than happy to take a risk for the good financial return.

I say keep 'em legal, but add accountabilty. You're kid shoots someone w/ your gun, you go to jail. Require training. Have licenses. Use tracking devices etc.etc. Prohibition just keeps them out of the recreational users hands.

hobson
Oct. 30, 2000, 10:33 AM
Hey, if you all want to shoot each other, I'm not going to get in your way. Have at it! Does anyone know where I can get a good deal on a bulletproof vest? How much would it cost to outfit my Civic hatchback like the Popemobile?

In the last couple of weeks, I have noticed a strange public hypnosis going on. The Bush campaign has been capitalizing on Gore's fudgebrained little fibs by repeating the stock phrases: Gore is a liar, but I am an honest man with integrity. I am an honest man with integrity. I am an honest man.

It's working marvelously. I now hear man/woman-on-the-street interviews in which people happily say "Gore is a liar. Bush is an honest man with integrity." As though the latter follows a priori from the former. If you missed it, here's the structure: Gore lies. Therefore, Bush does not. Surely anyone can see the problem with that argument.

Oh, and a woman interviewed this morning by an NPR reporter remarked that she's going to vote for Bush because she preferred his answer over Gore's about what kind of baseball stadium the candidates liked best. She spoke earnestly about it, with the gravity that I would apply to discussing nuclear disarmament treaties or environmental destruction. As someone said earlier in the thread, "This is America," whatever that means. ("Oh, no! I've confused my home country with Finland yet again!") I've really lost interest in the election.

My final remark is about the cult of individualism. Lots of folks believe that they should have the right to not wear a seatbelt, smoke, drink, etc, as long as it doesn't affect anybody else. But it's a myth than in modern society you can be purely independent of your neighbors. For instance, the insurance companies have complex statistical models which predict with accuracy how many people will be ejected from their cars in road accidents each month, how many will die from lung cancer, and how many will accidentally kill a friend or their child with their helpful handgun. The insurance companies calculate premiums such that their profits will not be damaged by the costs of caring for these "individualists". So if you won't wear your seatbelt, insist on keeping your gun in a shoebox in your closet, smoke like a fiend, and susbscribe to the rugged American individualist way of thinking, then may I suggest you pay your own hospital bills when you crash your car without a seatbelt? Otherwise, you cause my premiums to be artificially inflated. One could say that you are stealing from me. I'd get paid more if my employer didn't have to fork out so much in insurance premiums. When your kid shoots his friend in the face with your gun, my tax dollars support the ambulance service that comes to scrape up the mess. Unless you live like the Montana Militia, your individualism is riding on my tax dollars. And that's dishonest. If you want to make an honorable claim to living the individualist life, then the right thing to do is to remove yourself altogether from the social contract.

I'm just going to return to quietly writing blueprints of the public service and suburban-sprawl-prevention programs I'll institute when I become the benevolent dictator of the US. Warning to all: banning beige houses will be my first official act after the revolution.

[This message has been edited by hobson (edited 10-30-2000).]

Magnolia
Oct. 30, 2000, 10:50 AM
LOL, Hobson, you crack me up.
I guess I am a little strange being an adament supporter of the right to bear arms. Oh well. Look, to all you who are actually afraid they'll somehow take away your right to have a gun, well, don't worry. The NRA is a strong lobbying organization ~ I seriously doubt that the election of Gore, or someone even more liberal (Nader) is going to make guns illegal. It will never happen. BTW, I don't have a gun. They scare me. I have a big dog. He scares a lot of gun owners.
At any rate, has anyone noticed that Bush takes Gores ideas, makes 'em cheaper, and calls Gore a liar? It looks to me like Bush is a copycat...without the ability to have an original thought.
Do you republicans agree with Bushes programs? They look a whole lot like Clinton/Gore ideas? or is Bush being insincere? Think my friends, think hard.

Magnolia
Oct. 30, 2000, 10:54 AM
oops, I forgot to make a point. My point is, if you are a hunter, who likes to hunt, you may consider voting Gore, as Bush just may sell off your favorite hunting ground to the highest bidder. And then all you'll be able to shoot are cans off your porch.
Remember, the NRA has a stronger lobby than your eco friends. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Inverness
Oct. 30, 2000, 11:00 AM
I'll forever defend my right to own the fifty assorted assault weapons in my basement. I need my guns to defend my home, pursue my happiness, and threaten those heathen flag burners and IRS agents.

[This message has been edited by Inverness (edited 10-30-2000).]

Janet
Oct. 30, 2000, 11:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Inverness:
I've worked my way up to membership in the highest tax bracket and I'm willing to pay even more in taxes to help those who are less fortunate and less lucky than I've been.

I suppose to many of you that either makes me a liberal, a socialist, a fool, or a nut. Well, so be it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Me too.


And I'll add that I would rather have my tax money go to support 10 scoundrels who are "working the system", than that the regulations designed to keep those scoundrels out end up with one poor child dying because of those regulations.

hobson
Oct. 30, 2000, 11:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by magnolia:
oops, I forgot to make a point. My point is, if you are a hunter, who likes to hunt, you may consider voting Gore, as Bush just may sell off your favorite hunting ground to the highest bidder. And then all you'll be able to shoot are cans off your porch.
Remember, the NRA has a stronger lobby than your eco friends. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Final, final remark:
But Gore will take away our right to blow squirrels and bunnies away with military ammo!

Magnolia
Oct. 30, 2000, 11:14 AM
Well, what can we expect from a society that considers Baby Quiche and Baby carrots to be delicacys?

lisa
Oct. 30, 2000, 11:19 AM
You can’t compare gun ownership with driving a car. Gun ownership is a Constitution-given right, like it or not. It was our forefathers' contention that no government limit the rights of its citizens to keep and bear arms or to form militias. In fact, it could be argued that they themselves were radicals. They did, after all, overthrow a government they felt was unfair. No government should be able to “keep tabs” on who has what. If one wants to own a gun, fine. That said, however, I personally feel that some accountability is warranted. Require an education course before a gun is purchased. I am not so far to the right, though, that I believe as some NRA (which I am not a member, btw) fanatics do that if there is a “database” of gun owners some day a government might come into power that will just up and take ‘em all away.

Regarding the abortion issue: What really gets me is the conservativesÂ’ view that one should not have an abortion, but THATÂ’S IT. They do not want sex education in schools, or free/reduced price birth control, nor are they there as soon as the umbilical cord is cut.

Also, the Repubs don’t want welfare, but they don’t give a damn about educating people so they will become less dependent on the government dole. (I believe the “teach a man to fish” analogy was used previously.) Subsidize and ensure quality child care so that a single mother can afford to put her children in day care so that she can get started earning a living? Well, of course not. That’s “big government” and a no-no, even though it would go a long way to help people become more self-sufficient.

People, do not for once believe that Dems are for “big government” and Repubs are not. Both parties have their own agendas: Dems have those programs which help the less fortunate and the environment (for example), and Repubs have those which protect the privileged and big business and tell me what I can do with my personal life. It still adds up to “big government”.

The only party which truly advocates “less government” is the Libertarian party. Too bad the only thing that they are known for is “no income taxes”. While I like what they have to say, even I, being an idealist, think their party line is too idealistic. Privatize everything, or put it at the state level. None, or minimal, income tax means more money to give to one’s favorite charity. Don’t like the school your kids are attending? Well, there would be no public school, and you’d have your tax dollar savings to be able to send them to the school of your choice. (They also maintain it would be less expensive.) Of course, I for one don’t believe we are a society of consummate givers. (I know I'd probably just spend more money on my own private charity, my horses... /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) I also do not believe the totally private education theory would work, either. It would still encourage elitism. Those who could afford the best would get the best. Those that couldn’t would still be left out in the cold.

You know what would be a good source of tax dollars, and a way to have less crime? Legalize/decriminalize drugs such as marijuana and cocaine! Tax their purchases heavily, and use the money to have drug prevention programs, free needles, and medical treatment for those who are addicted and/or have HIV.

Just my (long and rambling) $0.02...

Magnolia
Oct. 30, 2000, 11:39 AM
oooooo, Lisa, I like your ideas!

lisa
Oct. 30, 2000, 11:53 AM
Now if I could just find a party I truly can get behind!

A new one... The Education Party!!

Inverness
Oct. 30, 2000, 12:40 PM
I drove by the NRA headquarters building last evening and noticed that they'd changed the "NRA" sign on the building to an "NRA Sports" sign.

Cute PR, but who the bloody hell do they think they're fooling?

[This message has been edited by Inverness (edited 10-30-2000).]

hobson
Oct. 30, 2000, 12:59 PM
Please consider joining Hobson's Revolutionary Party. This morning, while shopping for new sisal rope to repair my kitties' climbing tower, I recruited a base constituency of five suburban soccer moms who don't shave their armpits. Please help me expand my influence, and victory over the beige houses will be ours.

hobson
Oct. 30, 2000, 01:32 PM
Why the unquestioning reverence of the Constitution as an omniscient, infinitely wise document, as though it flew down from Mount Olympus straight from the printing presses of the gods? Half of these ubermensch "forefathers" owned slaves, and the other half didn't object. We would consider these men morally deficient if they lived today, so why do we transport their political theories into the 21st century without any critical thought at all? Most of their ideas may be perfectly sound, but why are so few willing to examine the document more carefully?

And if you want politics today to be just like those in George Washington times, remember that the new nation loved taxes and had no qualms about using the army to subdue its own people - Alexander Hamilton himself led the expedition to crush the anti-tax Whiskey Rebellion in western PA. Uh-oh, this is taking time away from my campaign. Where's rockstar? I need a handler to manipulate the masses for me.

Magnolia
Oct. 30, 2000, 01:37 PM
This all reminds me of Survivor. First, there were 4. I really liked Rudy (McCain). He was neat and honest. First, Sue went down - (not all that poular anyhow) (Bill Bradley) Then, Rudy went by by (Mc Cain).
So, we were left with 2 jerks Richard, a conniving smart guy that you hate (Gore), and Kelly (a backstabber 2 faced queen of fake that you hate.)(Bush)
So, like the dissed castaways, we have to vote for one of these jerks, and it's gonna split right down the middle.I would love to see neither get a majority! :>

Snowbird
Oct. 30, 2000, 03:20 PM
I'm sure there's something we can agree on Hobson, but I happen to love beige houses. They merge with the earth colors and become less conspicuous.

As to the soccer moms well we know they're too pre-occupied to make much of politics. If the family had not disintergrated and dispersed then there would be a Grandmom for child care. As to who are the rich people, I wonder how much you have to have "net" in your pocket to be one of those rich people who get all those benefits?

Magnolia
Oct. 30, 2000, 03:31 PM
trust me snowbird, soccer moms are into politics...when it involves their little darling soccer brats. But, I have a ratio, it takes 10 soccer moms complaining to equal 1 GREY PANTHER fussing which equals about 100 regular childless taxpayers concerned that they are getting the short end of the stick.

dublin
Oct. 30, 2000, 03:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by magnolia:
This all reminds me of Survivor. First, there were 4. I really liked Rudy (McCain). He was neat and honest. First, Sue went down - (not all that poular anyhow) (Bill Bradley) Then, Rudy went by by (Mc Cain).
So, we were left with 2 jerks Richard, a conniving smart guy that you hate (Gore), and Kelly (a backstabber 2 faced queen of fake that you hate.)(Bush)
So, like the dissed castaways, we have to vote for one of these jerks, and it's gonna split right down the middle.I would love to see neither get a majority! :><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL, Magnolia!! I'd never thought of it that way, but you definitely make some points....

I, too, really liked McCain and would have preferred him to Bush as the Republican candidate. Have you read his book, Faith of My Fathers? It's excellent, and his story is truly inspiring. I would strongly recommend it.



[This message has been edited by dublin (edited 10-30-2000).]

hobson
Oct. 30, 2000, 05:08 PM
Don't worry, snowbird, under my dictatorship you may have a beige house as long as it is not in a development with 500 others. You get special dispensation if you help to maintain open space.

HSM
Oct. 30, 2000, 05:45 PM
Kryswyn - -

I have read this thread on and off with a combination of amusement, interest and at times, boredom. Not your posts in particular, but the whole thread.

However, you have stepped over a line to a place where you do not belong. How dare you discuss the topic of interracial or international adoption if you know NOTHING about it? What on god's green earth does this have to do with Bush vs. Gore, much less about horses?

You comments on this subject have not only been ignorant and uneducated, but also highly insulting and offensive. I speak from first-hand experience. I do not feel the need to attempt to educate you or anyone else any further about this issue, as it clearly doesn't concern you and is out of place on this board. But I will cordially ask you to please confine yourself to subjects about which you know something.

Snowbird
Oct. 30, 2000, 07:34 PM
I am reassured that whatever way it goes I am safe then as a Grey Panther, and a preserver of the open spaces. Thank you I feel so much better.

You see we really can agree!

hobson
Oct. 30, 2000, 08:03 PM
An item of random interest: the phrase "to sweat like a pig" is a funny one, since pigs don't sweat.

B.G.M. heidi
Oct. 30, 2000, 08:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HSM:
Kryswyn - -

However, you have stepped over a line to a place where you do not belong. How dare you discuss the topic of interracial or international adoption if you know NOTHING about it? What on god's green earth does this have to do with Bush vs. Gore, much less about horses?

You comments on this subject have not only been ignorant and uneducated, but also highly insulting and offensive. I speak from first-hand experience. I do not feel the need to attempt to educate you or anyone else any further about this issue, as it clearly doesn't concern you and is out of place on this board. But I will cordially ask you to please confine yourself to subjects about which you know something.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The reality is many, many people post on threads and topics when in reality they have little first-hand experience and do not qualify as leading experts - that's the nature of a bulletin board.

Does this thread have much to do with either of Gore or Bush's impact on our equestrian pursuits? No.

I would urge you to carefully read Kryswyn's post - there's nothing offensive in what she writes or perceives. You perhaps responded to the perception of a slight when there is none apparent nor intended. I don't know Krsywn nor do I know you but I do find your dismissive and enraged response strangely upsetting.

As my dear husband often reminds me, 'don't personalize'. I believe you may have.

jumpcrew
Oct. 30, 2000, 08:26 PM
This is NOT a negative statement, but women sure are complicated!

B.G.M. heidi
Oct. 30, 2000, 08:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jumpcrew:
This is NOT a negative statement, but women sure are complicated!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But, my dear, that's part of our charm /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kellybird
Oct. 30, 2000, 09:18 PM
Wow, back from a show, and look at this mess! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

To sum up a few of my thoughts, I'd like to lead all of us tree-hugging liberals in a song.
Please turn in your non-denominational "non-hymnals" to the Austin Lounge Lizards' "Teenage Immigrant Welfare Mothers on Drugs" and sing along.

For those of you who don't want to encourage the Robin Hood mentality, you can purchase the entire album and wait a while for your rewards--ya know, work a little and earn it!--OR, you could be like me *ahem* and use your trusty ole' Napster....I mean, my dad's CD.... /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif and download it. (And I call myself a good capitalist, getting music free online *tsk tsk*)

Enjoy /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
I must say, however insane this thread may get at times, it is still getting my vote for most intelligent in a while.

kelly
who chose to be Pippi Longstocking, rather than a TERRIFYING democrat in her mostly right-wing-ish neighborhood for Halloween--in fear of being attacked! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

hobson
Oct. 30, 2000, 09:48 PM
Hey from a fellow Pittsburgher (transplanted to Philthadelphia)! How yunz doin' 'n'at? I remember hearing this fabulous song done by one of those folksy granola guys many years ago - are you sure of the authorship credit? I'm curious to know who wrote it : the Austin dudes, or are they doing a cover?

hobson
Oct. 30, 2000, 09:51 PM
Kelly, PLEASE send me a cappicola and cheese sandwich from Primanti's, I beg you! I cannot bear the horrid cheesesteaks and pretzels they consume here by the ton!

BeeLu
Oct. 30, 2000, 10:27 PM
Smedley- Do you stand a stallion? Please email me if you do jumpergal@horsemail.com

Duffy
Oct. 30, 2000, 10:31 PM
Ok, what's cappicola???

Oh - Welcome, welcome, welcome, jumpergal! I hope you've been to visit some other threads besides this one! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[This message has been edited by Duffy (edited 10-30-2000).]

hobson
Oct. 30, 2000, 10:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Duffy:
Ok, what's cappicola???
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cappicola is a yummy, hot -n- spicy Italian deli ham. An essential ingredient of any Italian hoagie that's worth eating.

Now, as to Primanti's, a signature Pittsburgh treasure -- brace yourself here: their claim to fame is their sandwiches (of many varieties other than cappicola, including roast beef, tuna, cheese, ham, corned beef, etc) upon which coleslaw and french fries (both uniquely Primanti's made) are sqashed right onto the sandwich. I know what you're thinking: sounds just like heaven, eh?

rockstar
Oct. 31, 2000, 12:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hobson:
rockstar, pat, magnolia, kryswyn, aly, et. al...you guys want to go out for a virtual beer? Naderite I may be, but I at least bathe, unlike magnolia's boyfriend. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[This message has been edited by hobson (edited 10-29-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hobson... I still think that your vote for Nader in a state like PA might just win Bush the presidency... and I still think that you are one crazy and whacky liberal... but I relish your humor, your outlook, and your attitude, and I respect you immensely. I would be honored to share a beer with you any time!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif To add to the fun, I'll bring the Republican politico I am kind of/sort of seeing (I don't know what I am thinking) and we can all unite in making fun of him the whole night! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I have a feeling I might be peeing in my pants though (first from how much you would make me laugh... god you are hilarious... and then because of the enourmous amount of drinking that I am sure would take place!). /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Once we are good and intoxicated we can discuss our plans for the government takeover of Sannois' TV. HA HA HA... my evil laugh.

Cheers to ya babe!

and thanks for the spellcheck... i can not spell for my life!!! it's potatoe right? /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[This message has been edited by rockstar (edited 10-31-2000).]

rockstar
Oct. 31, 2000, 12:10 AM
case in point... i count 4 spelling errors in my post... and that was after i already went back and edited some... http://www.chronofhorse.com/ubb/eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

Kryswyn
Oct. 31, 2000, 12:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HSM:
[However, you have stepped over a line to a place where you do not belong. How dare you discuss the topic of interracial or international adoption if you know NOTHING about it....But I will cordially ask you to please confine yourself to subjects about which you know something.[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But HSM, I do know something about it, though I agree w/ Heidi (thank you Heidi /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) that perhaps your experience may be greater than mine. Simply put, I have 2 1st cousins once removed that were adopted by my cousin and his wife. They paid over $10,000 for the 1st child and more for the 2nd. They 'tried for white' and were "lucky to find" two students who chose not to abort. Were they concerned about how family would react to a biracial child? Yes, but in my opinion, unnecessarily so. We would've loved 'em if they were green. My friend's adoptions (3 by one family) were even more expensive and offensive as the 1st one HAD to be a boy to inherit the family name (go figure). They then adopted ANOTHER boy when early tests showed the 1st 'might be slow'. They tried telling everyone the girl they adopted was 'greek', but as she got older it was obvious she was racially mixed. Is this what they wanted, no. Have they become a better, more tolerant family? Well.... the jury's still out. The paternal grandmother is still horrified that 'the family line ended' because Peter chose to marry Melinda, knowing she couldn't have children. But their daughter lacks nothing and has had every advantage (the market has been VERY good to them) the boys have, and as more women have fertility problems, Melinda has felt more comfortable admitting her children are adopted. I don't know how old you are, but w/in my lifetime adoption has gone from something that was hidden, to something celebrated ("I have 2 mothers!")

And as to my knowledge of international adoption? I was a reference, thanks very much, for friends of mine who adopted the most wonderful baby from Viet Nam. So I know the heartbreak, the waiting, the immediacy, the frustration, the "we're leaving NOW to get our son!" first hand.

But, regardless of my experiences, I apologise if something in my remarks offended you.

But back to the topic: Bush, the "inclusive" Republican may have had a gay speaker at his convention, but he won't support same-sex marriage. Gore will work for a compromise that gives gay and lesbian couples the legal rights that married couples enjoy. Which would include adopting children.

rockstar
Oct. 31, 2000, 02:02 AM
WOODBERN:
"This is just stream of conscious rambling to the general "YOU" out there. You, dear and gentle posters, will know who the "YOU" are, by the rising of your blood pressure....."

ROCKSTAR REPLYING:
ok... I am sure I am included in this "you". but, hey, guess what? I agree with you on most of this (sorry Hobson... I AM a bigtime moderate... remember?... don't hate me for it!).


WOODBERN:
"I don't want to pay enormous taxes. I think I pay enough. Truthfully, I think I pay too much."

ROCKSTAR REPLYING:
Who wants to pay enourmous taxes??? I don't know anyone who WANTS to pay more taxes. Certainly not me! When I make money I want to keep as much of it as I can (not that I make a whole lot of money as a college kid). But I'm not an idiot... it's not as if I don't know what tax rates are and who gets hit the hardest. Generalizations should not be made that democrats want to go around hiking up taxes and just spending, spending, spending! It should not be assumed that only Republicans advocate for a smaller government and a deduction in taxes. That's just not true! I am a democrat but i consider myself to be a fiscal conservative. This is why i get so mad when generalizations are made and I am lumped into this "liberal" category.

WOODBERN:
"I do want tax breaks."

ROCKSTAR:
I do too! I want my mom and dad to recieve them. (Nah... actually... my dad is a jerk... keep taxing him... he has to pay child suport no matter what /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).

HOWEVER, I think a lot of other people want tax breaks too... and I think that, while they may or may not deserve them, they NEED tax breaks to get by, where we just WANT them to make life nicer/easier. A tax break for my granparents? Well that means that my grandmother can go out and buy another fur coat. A tax cut for the working parents who collectively pull in $45,000 a year to support a family? That break means money to put away for little susie's college or a much needed addition to their small two bedroom house.

So, I think the bitter pill of low to no tax breaks should be swallowed by the rich. AS LONG, and I repeat, AS LONG as the government is ACTUALLY using the money that would be going to me for productive purposes. And as we all know, there are less than productive things that the federal government is doing with our tax dollars. That has to change. It is NOT just republicans who think that many of our tax dollars are being wasted and that reform needs to take place. But as bad as some of you might think it is now, it HAS improved dramatically in the last 8 years. The federal government HAS been reduced significantly and the fact that we have a surplus and that our debt is going down are real indicators of the progress that has been made. The endless pork barelling and the still looming beaurocracy are what is killing us now. Bush isn't the only one who wants to change that... Gore does too!

So, my philosophy is, why buck what is working? It is working SLOWLY, I will give you that... but it IS working. Everyone seems to think that W. is going to blow into town and clean this place up in a jiffy. We'll move to the fast track, right? But really, it takes years and years, if not DECADES... if there exists a "fastrack" then someone, somewhere, is being royally screwed. I believe we are on or way now... I think Clinton and Greenspan and Gene Sperling and so many others have set us on the road to a time when tax cuts will be given to the rich, but not at the price of disabling the poor from making it. And I think that Bush will make a u-turn on that road... and by relieving the rich first they will be left happy with their nice cuts while the middle class will get screwed and the poor will get poorer.


WOODBERN:
"I want my Social Security, to do with as I please. I paid it in, I want it back. As did my spouse. Interestingly enough, the "YOU" doesn't have a clue what we might do with our refund, do they?"

ROCKSTAR REPLYING:
Well, I don't agree here. I want my SS back too... but I want that time to be after I am retired. I believe in the inherent value of SS and well, that's that. I am against privatization.


WOODBERN:
"I do not want to save every country in the world."

ROCKSTAR REPLYING:
Neither do I! That's not our job. But I don't want to leave them all hanging on a limb either... especially when there is help that we can give that has the possiblity to really make a tangible difference. I don't want to go running to the rescue of every country and providing non-stop relief to all of those in need. At the same time, it's pretty hard to rationalize why I am sitting here typing on my $2,500 labtop, in my $1,000 outfit, listening to my $600 stereo, stuffing myself on gourmet salsa and blue chips, and ignoring my homework for a school that costs $35,000 a year to go to. And this is going on why there are thousands of malnourished children dying and thousands of people whose basic human rights are being ignored across this globe? What kind of person does that make me? And what kind of a country accepts a society that accepts people like me?

WOODBERN:
"I do not want to take care of every person who manages to get here by hook or crook, hides out, has 10 children in 10 years and doesn't pay taxes right along with me. Yes, my families once came here,too - however there was a system of checks and balances on immigration, it was called Ellis Island."

ROCKSTAR REPLYING:
I don't blame you! Neither would I! Don't think that all of us dems want to open the flood gates and support those who do not legally belong here. But I would like to see the immigration system made a little bit more fair, and I do believe that we should remain open minded when it comes to those who are seeking political assylum. And english should be the official langueage!


WOODBERN:
"Not all of the wealthy made their wealth on the backs of the less fortunate. Many actually (big gasp!) worked hard and live happily beneath their means. But that "most exploited the poor" makes good verbal fodder and gives the general "YOU" something to rally around and bitch about. (Also, could some of you know-it-alls please check the dates of when income tax was implemented - not until after 1910 or 1915 or so I believe. Before that obviously, there were no "tax breaks" to be had.)"

ROCKSTAR REPLYING:
We are not that stupid! We do not ALL assume that the rich got that way because they were born to it or climbed their way up unfairly. The rich are rich for a myriad of different reasons... no sensible person, democrat or whatever else, believes otherwise. At the same time, it can not be denied that there are plenty of those among the rich who DO exploit the poor... for many it is just the nature of the business they are in.


WOODBERN:
"I suppose if one follows rockstar's formula, several of the "YOU" would fall into the "imbecilic" and/or "blockheaded" category, as you have more-or-less lumped together all those persons you term as "rich".

ROCKSTAR REPLYING:
Woodbern, believe it or not, I have just as much contempt for a liberal making unfair generalizations about republicans as i do for a conservative making unfair generalizations about demomcrats. Such people tend to be so narrow minded and set in their ways that they stand square in the way of the progress that I am so much in favor of.


WOODBERN:
"Maybe the "YOU" know(s) one wealthy family. Maybe they know ten wealthy families. But they don't know all wealthy families, so can't legitimately categorize......unless they are clairvoyant.

This is the same-old-same-old.... I won't call it class envy, as wealth has nothing to do with class (look at some of the wealthy among us if you don't believe it). It's just envy. And a consuming need to tell the "haves" what to do fiscally, particularly if one feels and/or resents the fact that one is a "have not"."

ROCKSTAR REPLYING:
Well, I am not a "have not". I mean, I have a feeling that i am not going to get the Fendi bag that I am asking for for christmaS... does that qualify me as a "have not"? I fit comfortably into the upper middle class. My father, who comes from a family that made its fortune at the end of the 19th century and has lived on it ever since(on Park and 5th Avenue), marked the first generation in his family to have to work and be considered as middle class instead rely on a trust fund and be of the upper class. But I am a proud member of a party that, unlike me, DOES know what it means to be a "have not". I belong to a party that strives to do what it takes, in a manner as fair as possible, to improve the conditions behind being a "have not". My party embraces all classes and works to level the playing field.


WOODBERN:
OMG, I can't wait until November 7th.
Over and out.

ROCKSTAR:
YOU CAN BET THAT I AM DYING FOR NOVEMBER 7TH TO COME!!!

and a final note from me (rockstar)... i present all of this stuff simply to attempt to prove that generalizations can't be made and to explain my side. i am not trying to change anyone's opinion here or sway someone. so please don't take this to be me attacking. what we have here are just your basic fundamental and ideological differences. it's why i'm a dem and you're a republican... and that's that!



[This message has been edited by rockstar (edited 10-31-2000).]

Magnolia
Oct. 31, 2000, 08:08 AM
"less fortunate" (translation: lazy)
Now that makes me soooooooo %$#@!^ mad. Just because you are poor, does not make you lazy. Many people are working poor with no benefits. There are more of them then there are of you. Many people just aren't smart enough to cut it in college (well, maybe now everyone is, since we water it down so much!). The gentleman I lived upstairs from was not lazy. He was a victim of circumstance. He worked 40+ hours a week, at a junky job. He wanted a better paying job, and found one. Then found the bus didn't go that far. He was an optimist and not looking for a handout, but boy, a nice program to help him finance a car would have been nice.
I think republicans think that if you have a job, you automatically have 2 cars and a house in the suburbs. Sadly, there are poor that are poor because they don't want to work, but there are probably 5x as many working poor. And that is very sad, that you might give 40 hours a week of your life to a person that doesn't pay you enough to survive.

woodbern
Oct. 31, 2000, 08:32 AM
Okay, whatever, thanks for your analysis, etc. etc. in such exacting detail.

Only one thing. I am not a Republican, if by Republican it means that I am registered as such, or that I always vote Republican. However I do vote Republican a good bit of the time, and would not be ashamed to call myself one, if it mattered.

As I am from a Southern state, I do vote Democrat when I believe a Democrat will do the best job. Southern Democrats tend to be conservative. Very conservative is what I am.

HSM
Oct. 31, 2000, 08:40 AM
*sigh* One last tryÂ…

Kryswyn –
”But IMHO most couples want a child the same skin color as their own…”

Really? In 1999, more than 16,000 children were adopted in the US from other countries. 11,000 of them came from countries NOT in Eastern Europe. (Source: The National Adoption Information Clearinghouse).

”…and who can blame them? If you're caucasion looking at your Vietnamese child you are reminded EVERYTIME you look at him/her that YOU were unable to bear a child.”

Says who??? I have 2 children who nothing like me, nor like each other, from 2 different countries, and I can honestly say that I am RARELY reminded that I was “unable to bear a child”. Where they came from and what they look like is entirely irrelevant to how I feel when I look at them. They are my children. It’s rather presumptuous for someone not in this situation to assume that I would feel anything. I must say, this is the comment that bothered me the most. It's just so off the mark, I'm afraid.

Â…we want to 'pass' as a 'natural' family

Even if you say that you “disagree” with this statement, it is language that is so offensive that it should not be used. Language is very important inhow people percevie adoption, or anything else for that matter. ALL families are “natural”. And “passing” – good lord, I can’t even comment on this one.

”They paid over $10,000 for the 1st child and more for the 2nd.”

People do not “pay” for children. They pay legally regulated fees associated with adoption. These fees may include medical and housing costs for the birthmother prior to birth, hospital fees, legal fees to both their own lawyer and to a lawyer to represent the birthmother, cost of having a ‘home study’ done by a licensed adoption agency or social worker, etc. The exact allowances vary from state to state.

”And as to my knowledge of international adoption? I was a reference, thanks very much, for friends of mine who adopted the most wonderful baby from Viet Nam. So I know the heartbreak, the waiting, the immediacy, the frustration, the "we're leaving NOW to get our son!" first hand.”

Sorry, but this is not the kind of experience to which I was referring. Especially since I’m sure that every time you look at your friend’s ‘wonderful baby from Vietnam’, you will (a) think of him/her as ‘the baby from Viet Nam’ and (b) be reminded of how it’s too bad your friend couldn’t have a ‘natural’ child.

Heidi-

”I would urge you to carefully read Kryswyn's post”

I DID re-read the post more than once, and thought long and hard before responding.

”there's nothing offensive in what she writes or perceives. You perhaps responded to the perception of a slight when there is none apparent nor intended.

I have to disagree with this. Perhaps not offensive to you, but very offensive to families formed by adoption. And whether the ‘slight’ was intended is not the point. It is, after all, all about “perceptions”.

I do find your dismissive and enraged response strangely upsetting.

Dismissive? I simply wanted to make my point as briefly as I could. Enraged? YouÂ’ve got me there.

As my dear husband often reminds me, 'don't personalize'. I believe you may have.

Dang straight I’ve personalized! If I don’t, then who will? But make no mistake – my experience is not just personal. I know literally hundreds of other adoptive families (via organizations I’m involved with), families who’ve adopted both domestically and internationally. I feel safe in saying that the majority of them share my sentiments. I know families who’ve adopted kids with physical or emotional challenges, families who’ve adopted older kids, families who’ve adopted white US born infants, families who’ve adopted minority kids in the US, families who work as adoption advocates both locally and nationally. The list goes on. I have also worked extensively in adoption education myself - including helping people who are adopting privately in the US, adopting overseas, adopting kids with special needs - and have the educational training myself to back that up. And I have made it my business for the pat 15 yrs. to remain informed and educated regarding the issues involved in parenting adopted children. So I feel pretty qualified to comment.

”The reality is many, many people post on threads and topics when in reality they have little first-hand experience and do not qualify as leading experts - that's the nature of a bulletin board.”

Yes, and itÂ’s also the nature of a BB for someone who does know a bit more on the subject and who does have first hand experience to respond.

So, Kryswyn, thanks for the apology, but it would mean more to me if youÂ’d just stay away from this issue any further. CanÂ’t make you, for sure, but thatÂ’s how I feel.

For myself, IÂ’m done with this thread and on to others where I can learn something useful, or maybe have some fun.

lisa
Oct. 31, 2000, 08:47 AM
Right on, Magnolia!

Funny, I was watching "Betsy's Wedding" yesterday, and the bride's mother (the family is middle-class one that owned a construction company) was talking to the groom's father (a very well-to-do investment banker). She said, "Well, we bailed out all the savings and loans, what's the harm in bailing out a child who can't get enough food?" He had nothing to say to that comment, and changed the subject. It just reminded me a bit of this thread's discussion...

Regarding the Constitution and gun control: If we want to pass gun control laws, it would require a Constitutional amendment (which, of course, has been done before). But I feel that doing that will just put more restrictions on my personal freedom. Also, regarding the comment about our predecessors being slave-owners, etc., and perhaps outdated thinkers, there is NOTHING in the BoR specifically relating to owning people.

Now, I don't think _anyone_ wants some wierdo to be able to blow everyone away at McDonald's with an AK47, nor do we like to see children aborted at 30+ (or even 20+ nowadays) weeks. But do we restrict the rights of the many who are conscientious citizens just to try (and that's the operative word here) to curtail the actions of a few who would probably find a way to do what they wanted to anyway? Remember the Columbine kids got their weapons illegally...

smedley
Oct. 31, 2000, 08:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jumpergal:
Smedley- Do you stand a stallion? Please email me if you do jumpergal@horsemail.com<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


No, no stallion. Unless I count myself, of course! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


[This message has been edited by smedley (edited 10-31-2000).]

Twister
Oct. 31, 2000, 09:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hobson:
Hey, if you all want to shoot each other, I'm not going to get in your way. Have at it! Does anyone know where I can get a good deal on a bulletproof vest? How much would it cost to outfit my Civic hatchback like the Popemobile?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While it is true that 2/3s of all gun deaths are criminals shooting criminals, I am not one, have never wanted to shoot anyone and in fact have never even pointed a gun at another person. Why does gun ownership translate into a desire to shoot someone?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> and how many will accidentally kill a friend or their child with their helpful handgun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

.1% of all child deaths are from firearms
.6% from cars
5.3% from beatings or bludgeoning
6% from poisoning
42.6% from suffocation

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>[
When your kid shoots his friend in the face with your gun, my tax dollars support the ambulance service that comes to scrape up the mess.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Twice as many children die from drowning in the bathtub. Your tax dollars are paying for those ambulances too. Perhaps we should not be free to have bathtubs?

Snowbird
Oct. 31, 2000, 12:02 PM
Thank you HSM,
And please do not leave this thread. It would be unfair to the innocents who might pop on here to leave it totally to the "extremists".

I wonder what one of those so sure of themselves would do if a group of recessive genes suddenly appeared in their bloodlines from a great-great grandmom and they produced a little brown baby instead of a white one? Or, even more likely a little Neanderthal.

Would it cause divorce or would it cause abortion or maybe even infanticide? In truth we are all "mongrel".

I'm not sure but does anyone know "Is Aryian white", I mean pure white?

As to guns, I have used my trusty shot gun to remove hunters from my farm. They ignored my no hunting signs and were standing there in their little orange vests. Obviously since they couldn't see well enough to read they wouldn't know the difference between a deer and a horse. The shotgun in the hands of a little old lady is a very potent universal language. It left nothing to a translation.

The deer here on the mountain since to be exceptionally intelligent. They are aware when it is hunting season and stay in the pastures with the horses or come close enough to the house to have it illegal to shoot them. We did lose our beautiful big 10 point buck to a bow and arrow even though he tried to hang out in the shrubbery around the houses.

I wish I knew what was "the rich". And, if they paid so much in I don't see why they shouldn't get a tax break too. I know the really rich can afford all those fancy tax attorneys so they don't pay taxes anyway.

I think that if we are supposed to be protecting family values it is pure hypocrisy to tax someone more because they are married than if they lived together single. I think it is obscene to tax someone just because they died.

Tax wise the repeal of the death tax would not reward the rich, and anyway why punish everyone else for the few. Under the Repblican plan my children would not owe "Death Tax" but if they sold the farm they would have to pay the same capital gain that I would pay if I sold the farm. Under the Democratic plan, if you actually qualified and met all those ifs ands and buts so that you could prove you were the "right type" you'd get an exemption and not have to pay capital gain taxes.




[This message has been edited by Snowbird (edited 10-31-2000).]

Magnolia
Oct. 31, 2000, 12:53 PM
Snowbird - I'm not 100% on the death tax, but I was told by a republican gal that it kicks in after $600,000. So, as I interpret it, anything under $600,000 is not taxed. Now, my family is far from poor, and will not be leaving me anywhere near $600,000. I would consider myself to be rich to inherit $600,000. I too thought it was unfair - I thought, say your mom left you $5000.00 and you had to give 2500 to Uncle Sam, but that isn't the case. Also, under Gore's plan, land is excluded in most cases.

hobson
Oct. 31, 2000, 02:29 PM
I had the nicest trail ride early this morning - it was a bit cold, but the sky was sunny and bright. A lovely romp over hill and dale. We went over the river and through the woods, too.

Twister, the slippery slope argument seems like a very important one to you, so could you please back it up for me with some facts?

There have been gun-ownership restrictions in place for some time: I think it was you who alerted us to the fact that DV perps cannot legally obtain a handgun. There are mandatory waiting periods and background checks. These are all relatively new restrictions on gunownership.

Now, please list for me the other freedoms - unrelated to guns- that you have lost since these restrictions were instituted. And be specific: like, "In 1997 the PA state legislature imposed a 24-hour waiting peroid for abortions." or, "In 1999, the Nevada supreme court ruled against private ownership of bathtubs." I submit that if you have not been bathing since the gun-purchase background check law went into effect, it's not because the government won't let you.

And unless you hunt, or have to chase illiterate hunters off your property like Snowbird (oh, I sympathise, Snowbird - the brain power that's packing heat out in the woods can be truly chilling - don't you love finding a decapitated deer carcass with an empty six-pack next to it?) why would you own a gun if you aren't willing to use it, to point it at someone and pull the trigger? By posessing a handgun, I think you make the statement, "I am willing to kill someone whom I perceive as a threat to me or my property." Or are you using it to shoot holes in an old K-Car parked in the back yard?

Hey rockstar, stop calling me a liberal! Never call me the L-word, because I get REALLY offended. I am a radical, OK? And yes, bring your honey along to the beer outing! I'll bring mine, too - he'll talk about his research in bureaucratic deliberation and make your eyes roll back in your head. Oh, what fun we'll have!

Janet
Oct. 31, 2000, 02:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hobson:

And unless you hunt, or have to chase illiterate hunters off your property like Snowbird (oh, I sympathise, Snowbird - the brain power that's packing heat out in the woods can be truly chilling - don't you love finding a decapitated deer carcass with an empty six-pack next to it?) why would you own a gun if you aren't willing to use it, to point it at someone and pull the trigger? By posessing a handgun, I think you make the statement, "I am willing to kill someone whom I perceive as a threat to me or my property." Or are you using it to shoot holes in an old K-Car parked in the back yard?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree. I am in favor of gun restrictions, but I know quite a few people who have guns for reasons that have nothing to do with killing people or animals (or even threatening them).

Gun collectors- people who are interested in the history, or technology, or artistry (e.g, an engraved Purdy shotgun) or workmanship of the guns they collect.

Target shooters - including hand guns, rifles, and even semi-automatics and automatics.

Trap and Skeet shooters - another form of target shooting, with a "clay pigeon" flying through the air as the target.

Magnolia
Oct. 31, 2000, 02:55 PM
Some people enjoy shooting guns for fun - target practice, clay pigeons. Some people collect old guns. It is just a hobby for some people. Some people have them to defend themselves against harm, like Snowbird. We have no right to tell people what they can and cannot have.
You know, driving a car is more dangerous than a gun.
I wish there was a way to prevent the seemingly random acts of violence that occur in our society. I think that limiting the violence one's kids (and one self...) watches may go along way to making a safer society.
But safety will come only when we promote self-responsibility, and make people pay for their irresponsibility, no matter what the age or circumstances. Prison should be reserved for those who have commited crimes against others - rape, murder, robbery, assault. They should require hard labor and provide a minimal existence - a cot and a bowl of stew a few times a day. It should be a horrible place.
Instead of making us all pay for a few, make the few really pay, and let those who may commit crimes against society know what jail is like.
JMHO

Snowbird
Oct. 31, 2000, 07:25 PM
The problem Magnolia is that what sounds like a lot of money if it were cash isn't when it's a farm or inventory for a small business, if you really had to cash it in you're lucky to get half. While the taxes are based on the appraisals.

For example, if I died the girls would have to try and find a way to raise 51% of the value of the land. Land appraisals vary and they use the highest and best use of the land. So it would be appraised for 35 nice new homes, and not what I paid when I bought it and mortgaged it. In order to raise the tax money they would have to sell the farm. They lose not only a life style but their job and their homes.

Let's take a small business a shoe store, they may have accumulated $2 million in inventory and fixtures but if they have to sell to pay taxes they would have to sell the inventory and then not have a business. Since all this money that is in the land and the inventory has been taxed many times, why should it be taxed again just because I died.
Even years ago it was published while my husband and I were paying our taxes, Rockefeller didn't pay a dime in taxes. So to use the fact that the "rich" will benefit is a red herring. Those guys get to bail anyway. Go after them if you want I couldn't care less. But it isn't fair to punish three or four generation small businesses because you're afraid a Bill Gates or some of these new millionaires will get a break.

I have no objection to the girls paying the capital gains tax if they choose to sell it, but it seems blantantly criminal to take half of it from the sale for taxes even if they don't want to sell. If chose to sell it, I would pay the capital gains and that's what they should have to pay if they sell.

While the Democrat version gives a huge exemption the rules are so stringent that almost no farmer fits the mold for what they choose to allow. The government should not be deciding what we do with what we've earned and we've done it the hard way. Let's I follow the approved mold, I sell my farm retire and live in some white plastic little senior village, that's acceptable. But, I become a vegetable, my children have no continuity and the extended family is destroyed.

I object to having to fit a mold, you get a rebate if you a good little children and send your kids to college. Now if you are not going to have kids well give the money to Uncle Sam. We'll let you have a rebate if you are good little people and buy a house, but if you want to live in an apartment and move around the country you don't get anything.

I've been paying more taxes since I no longer have children at home. WHY? I raised my kids why I keep some of that money to enjoy in my old age.

The girls have spent their lives helping us keep the farm afloat for nothing more than room and board for 22 years. The Democrats say well they should have been paid. But, if we had paid them what they deserved we wouldn't have been making the mortgage payments so the farm wouldn't still be here.

You see it's a no win situation. Now, I don't object to what is profit being taxed, but what about a "donation" from Uncle Sam if there's no profit and we perform a service by keeping open spaces and offering healthy recreational opportunities.

All the farmers and small business people are saying is don't double tax us.

The most accidents happen in the bathroom, are we going to legislate against bathrooms and send everyone back to the out-house, which by the way would be a good environmental way to protect the waterways.

That's the point when we talk about big government, it's not the taxes it the butting to our business. We have children going haywire, is it because there are guns or because their parents are paying any attention? Is it because the children have taken over and parents are afraid to discipline them? Is it because the parents are so busy being involved in what they want to do to feel fulfilled that there is no real time to parent?

Will we give up kitchen knives, they kill a lot more people. One of the kids knifed his parents, another killed his parents because they wouldn't let him have the new car. So why blame guns instead of our selves and our present morality that makes life seem so cheap a commodity. I wonder if these children didn't think that like in the movies, or TV or one the computer where they shoot it up and everything comes back after you shut down the machine.

All I do know is I grew during the depression, and the schools were all open every day until 6:00 PM because everyone had two parents working. What kind of child care can you hire for a teen ager?

I think that if you have kids it isn't enough to buy them happiness!

[This message has been edited by Snowbird (edited 10-31-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Snowbird (edited 10-31-2000).]

Bertie
Oct. 31, 2000, 07:34 PM
Off the subject, but
Snowbird, have you looked into selling the development rights to your farm? A lot of communities will give credit (i.e. lower propery taxes) to a land owner that agrees the land can never be developed into house lots. The restriction stays with the property forever, even if sold.

Then any future appraisals would reflect the value of the property as farmland, not a subdivision.

Magnolia
Oct. 31, 2000, 08:05 PM
"Land appraisals vary and they use the highest and best use of the land. "

LOL, only in tax situations where the government get's money. These poor saps in my neighborhood are getting 1/2 of their front yards taken for a roads project. They used an assessment from ten years ago (properties have about doubled since then...) oh, and do they get the whole value of the house, being as such they'll never be able to sell w/ 6 lanes of traffic literally 10 feet from their door? Noooooooo, they get a percentage based on the amount of land used. Nice,eh? I wish they would use some of my tax dollars to buy these guys houses. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Snowbird
Oct. 31, 2000, 08:06 PM
Yes I have but that's a two-edged sword. One if the neighboring community is no longer willing to support your farm activity they can zone you right out of the business. For example let's say the board of health says I must truck all manure out every day. One nearby community wanted to pass a law that said the barns had to be painted in full every six months.

Second, the price offered wasn't even enough to pay off the mortgage we still owe. We still have to pay real estate taxes, income taxes and all the rest along with the mortgage and they have approval of whatever we need to do to perhaps expand the business and build agricultural buildings. OH! yes and you have sold your rights to be able to credit for loans you need to improve the farm.

After working 22 years all I can leave to my children and grandchildren is the land. If it is not viable to continue with a horse farm then what will I have done to them?

And, lastly, I am very concerned that as years go by the new city neighbors will be offended by have a commerical farm in their
backyard. It worries me that as the acreage shrinks that is being used for horses they will become a less attractive neightbor.

I am seriously afraid that 25/50 years from now the land will become abandoned because the family will not want to pay the taxes and it will have no resale value because no one will want to buy a horse farm. Then all these communities will have no tax income from all the preserved acres and taxes in every community will rise and rise to pick up the slack or the town will re-sell the land to developers themselves.

Our first barn was in West Orange, when we went into town there were 33 horse farms and when I left there were 3. I'm afraid what we're looking at is the end of the horse farm and all there will be are city "riding academies" and parks (if you're lucky).

Be careful what you wish for you may get it!
North of Somerville Circle here in New Jersey 25 years ago there were 100's of barns and lot's of people with enough land to keep horses at home. ALL GONE!

It may well be that it will go full cycle and soon the open land will belong to only those who can afford to support the acreage for private uses. Opposing breaks for us middlers will create the very demons you're all opposed to.

[This message has been edited by Snowbird (edited 10-31-2000).]

Bertie
Oct. 31, 2000, 08:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by magnolia:
"Land appraisals vary and they use the highest and best use of the land. "

LOL, only in tax situations where the government get's money. These poor saps in my neighborhood are getting 1/2 of their front yards taken for a roads project. They used an assessment from ten years ago (properties have about doubled since then...) oh, and do they get the whole value of the house, being as such they'll never be able to sell w/ 6 lanes of traffic literally 10 feet from their door? Noooooooo, they get a percentage based on the amount of land used. Nice,eh? I wish they would use some of my tax dollars to buy these guys houses. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Magnolia, sounds like your neighbors need to hire their own appraisers. They need 'before and after' appraisals - the value of the property before, vs. the value of the property after the taking. They should be paid the difference. Might have to take the State to court, but they're entitled to just compensation.

I worked on one case where a road widening made the house's driveway access so dangerous that the appraised value of the home was $0 after the road widening, and so the judge ruled - and the State was forced to pay the owner the full 'before' value of the home /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


[This message has been edited by Bertie (edited 10-31-2000).]

AppleBird
Oct. 31, 2000, 09:11 PM
OMG! too much to digest. Two simple words: VOTE GORE!

Twister
Oct. 31, 2000, 09:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hobson:

Twister, the slippery slope argument seems like a very important one to you, so could you please back it up for me with some facts?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not a slippery slope argument, it's an apples and oranges argument. More children die from drowning than from gun deaths. Why don't you want to ban swimming????

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Now, please list for me the other freedoms - unrelated to guns- that you have lost since these restrictions were instituted.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no idea what you are going for here.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> why would you own a gun if you aren't willing to use it, to point it at someone and pull the trigger? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You own a horse, so why aren't you willing to have it pull a plow?? And if you own a show harse, should you be allowed to take a hack across the field? If we limit the use of items to their original intended purpose, what will happen to Sunday drives? Does this mean I'll have to buy a paint can lid remover instead of using a screwdriver?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
By posessing a handgun, I think you make the statement, "I am willing to kill someone whom I perceive as a threat to me or my property."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good heavens!! Why would you think so??? You DO realize pistol shooting is an Olympic sport???

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Or are you using it to shoot holes in an old K-Car parked in the back yard?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, you DON'T realize pistol shooting is an Olympic sport. Do you really think comments like this contribute to the dialogue? They
DO demonstrate that you buy into stereotypes.

I did manage to come up with a slippery slope argument for you. In Australia, guns owners were required to register their guns. All the law abiding citizens went down and registered their guns. Imagine their surprise when guns were banned and confiscated. Guess what? Gun crime increased.

Snowbird
Oct. 31, 2000, 09:44 PM
NAH! Applebird vote BUSH!

Kryswyn
Oct. 31, 2000, 10:19 PM
GORE GORE GORE and any of your democratic Senators and Congresspeople. VIRGINIANS!!! Be sure to answer "yes" to the VA constitutional question about hunting. (something like: Shall the people of VA have the right to hunt, fish, shoot, trap as decided by legislature?)

Snowbird
Oct. 31, 2000, 10:21 PM
Wait a minute, now I'm confused! A vote for Gore and hunting? How does that make logic?

Astraled
Nov. 1, 2000, 12:47 AM
Californians-vote no on Prop 34 http://www.chronofhorse.com/ubb/tongue.gif . I had to get my pet cause out there! Go, Gore!

pwynnnorman
Nov. 1, 2000, 05:03 AM
You know, the whole gun thing is super-silly. Congress can't even prevent automatic weapons from entering the country, being purchased over the internet or created in garages. Who needs to pulverize some poor animal in the woods? And yet even the most basic controls can't be established over guns that no one really needs (short of collectors, and how many of them are there--and they don't need the ammunition to enjoy their collections)? I'd happily compromise on the gun issue: hand guns by special permit and rifles without restriction, except heavy fines and jail time if they have modifications (like sawed off barrels or whatever it is that can turn them into automatic weapons). But the power of special interest groups (a topic of discussion that seems to be being ignored here) is too strong to enable even such simple restrictions to gain any headway at all.

At the least, I hope Nader gets the 5% he needs for the Green part to become a recognized party. SOMETHING has to be done to stop the special interest and pork-barrel politics. It also makes me puke to think about the wonderful this's and that's to be had here in West Virginia, a state right down there with TEXAS in a lot of social-environmental-educational rankings. Nothing like having someone on an Appropriations Committee to haul in the pork for the special interests, ignoring the incredible states of poverty and ignorance that also in exist.

I have WV students, juniors and seniors, who don't know how to use computers because they've never owned one and their high schools didn't have any. Meanwhile, Morgantown is always listed way up there in the "Best Small Cities" rankings--again, thanks to dear old whatisname: Byrd. Doesn't that anger anyone?

THAT's what is wrong with the system. I don't think Nader could solve anything, but I think his presence at the party could shake things up a bit. And I'm certain that Gore, given his stances on the environment and other tougher issues in the past (yeah, not now, now that he is actually running for prez--but politics forces one to smother certain leanings--doesn't mean they aren't there any more), Gore is more likely that Bush to do SOMETHING about these issues. I haven't heard Bush say much of anything along these lines and we all know that he's thoroughly ducked the campaign finance reform issue.

(And please don't go off about the Buddist temple thing! They ALL do it. The question is, having done it, who is also willing to STOP it? Doing it doesn't mean a person isn't willing to do AWAY with it. It's an evil, and a necessary one, under the current system. So the question is, who WITHIN the system is more likely to try to CHANGE that system? Gore or Bush? Hands down: it's Gore.)

[This message has been edited by pwynnnorman (edited 11-01-2000).]

Pat Ness
Nov. 1, 2000, 07:13 AM
Gore

lisa
Nov. 1, 2000, 08:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pwynnnorman:
...Who needs to pulverize some poor animal in the woods?...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you sure you really mean that? Isn't that the same argument anti-fox-hunters have?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>...And yet even the most basic controls can't be established over guns that no one really needs...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No one really "needs"? Why should you decide what one needs? (Note: This argument could be applied to many "personal" issues...)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>...I'd happily compromise on the gun issue: hand guns by special permit and rifles without restriction...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why make the distinction? A double-barreled shotgun can do WAY more damage than a .32...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>...But the power of special interest groups (a topic of discussion that seems to be being ignored here) is too strong to enable even such simple restrictions to gain any headway at all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're right. Which is why I can't stand behind groups such as the NRA who take an "all or nothing" stance.

Twister
Nov. 1, 2000, 08:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pwynnnorman:
I'd happily compromise on the gun issue: hand guns by special permit and rifles without restriction, except heavy fines and jail time if they have modifications (like sawed off barrels or whatever it is that can turn them into automatic weapons).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pwynn this is pretty much the way it is now. The problem is there are about 20,000 different gun laws already but prosecution of gun crimes is DEcreasing! Responsible gun owners of course want stiff prosecution of gun crimes, because it is gun crime that makes people want more legislation restricting our sport.

A good example-Under the Brady Bill, it is a felony to lie on a gun permit application. But, felons attempting to purchase guns are prosecuted in any way less than 25% of the time! These are known felons committing a felony!

Inverness
Nov. 1, 2000, 09:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:
Wait a minute, now I'm confused! A vote for Gore and hunting? How does that make logic?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To my knowledge, Gore has never opposed the sport of hunting. I believe that the gun control measure advocated in his agenda is the banning of assault weapons, continuation/extension of waiting periods and background checks for prospective purchasers, and closing the "gun show loophole."

I may not be correct on this point - I haven't really focused on this particular issue. Perhaps someone who has actually studied the issue can give Snowbird a more informed answer.

hobson
Nov. 1, 2000, 10:01 AM
What's up with Gore trying to pressure Nader into dropping out of the race? Cheesy, cheesy, cheesy. The LEAST he could have done would be to offer Nader a job - head of EPA or Interior Department or something like that. Now THAT would have convinced me to vote for Gore. But...he and his campaign are acting like spoiled brats: MINE, MINE, MINE! THESE VOTES ARE MINE! It's highly undemocratic. Rockstar, what can you do about this?

Now in defense of Gore, why are people so hot about his fundraising foibles? Does anyone recall that Bush did not accept federal campaign financing, which releases him from ethical restrictions on the use of his campaign funds? He's raised lots, lots more money than Gore, largely from corporate gifts. When you add it up, Bush owes a lot more favors to corporate giants than does Gore. It's going to be a while before he can straighten his knees again, to borrow from Nader's comments.

Whatever to the whole thing. Now if you want to spend your time doing something truly worthwhile, check out my new home page, which I just launched last night! It's pretty basic right now, but when I have time one day again I plan to expand. Here's the address: http://www.geocities.com/jenandchristian

Erin
Nov. 1, 2000, 10:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lisa:
Why make the distinction? A double-barreled shotgun can do WAY more damage than a .32...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, that's always been my favorite suggestion for gun control. I don't mind if someone wants a gun, but I'd want it to be a big ol' shotgun, not a teeny tiny handgun. You can't walk down the street hiding a shotgun in your pocket if you're planning to go postal.

Am I remembering incorrectly, or aren't handguns banned in some European countries?

moose
Nov. 1, 2000, 02:10 PM
Yikes, my head is spinning from reading this thread. What a strange balance our country maintains through the republican and democratic ideals, and how important it is to keep that balance.

What little I can offer on the issue of gun control. I must admit to having an friend who is an avid hunter and an avid collector of guns, all kinds. More then once he has walked in with a rather large semi-automatic weapon to show off after purchase, and has made a point of showing me the intricacies of loading and handling an AK-47 (which he aquired through Romanian parts which were then put together in the US, legal through last year), and shown me the difference between hunting pellets, versus Teflon coated bullets (I believe he said the manufacturer voluntarily no longer makes these of their ability to cut through a police vest) , versus spider (I believe these expand once they enter the body). His reasons for having these things is that he is obsessed with the collection aspect (I can only hope). While the description is scary, I say it because he is not alone, there is a huge market out there for these items, and of this market, he is probably in the minority in that he actually knows what he is handling and hunts.

The main problem he is seeing today is that he is the minority. The majority of people that acquire these items that donÂ’t even know how to load them, let alone take them apart. The majority are probably living in the city, not the woods, scoping out deer. More than likely they donÂ’t hunt, and because of that have even have less of a handle on the power of what they are dealing with. There is no requirement in purchasing a weapon in which you must pass a test to assure you know what you are doing.

The only way these items disappear is through pressure and legislation against the manufacturer to produce them. That is why he ran out to get his now illegal AK-47 & now illegal bullets. **He knew they would become harder to get and therefore “collectors items”.

There will always be a black market, but even he begrudgingly admitted that he purchases legally rather then risk a felony for purchasing illegally, and that the bottom line is that they will become scarcer.

Ya know, I do agree with NRA and gun enthusiasts that guns donÂ’t shoot people, people do and understand the reasoning of the constitution to back it, but you canÂ’t escape the need for control, and that is where I part with the NRA. There is way too much profit in gun and ammo production which makes them bias, so the Gov't must step in.

The majority (if any) of people on this bb are not the ones being affected by lenient gun control. We afford the luxury of horses and are not worried about our children getting struck by a stray bullet , buying a handgun or being robbed in the street. Those in the cities that are affected are going to vote on these issues as well, and if their voice goes to the majority then so be it. TheyÂ’ve been dying on the streets long before Columbine hit the news.

Thanks for the soapbox, now back to the less then fascinating world of mutual fund disclosure.


[This message has been edited by Moose (edited 11-01-2000).]

pwynnnorman
Nov. 1, 2000, 06:42 PM
That's what I meant, Erin. You can use a shotgun to protect you and yours, but you can't walk into a Wendy's with it to blow away some innocent strangers because your wife left you and you ran out of Prozac.

That is also what I meant by "need." I'm not trying to dictate "need," except in a functional sense. You don't "need" an automatic weapon to kill a deer or protect yourself or your property. And no one can say that the constitution protects people's rights to own cop-killer bullets and other kind of overkill hardware.

On the other hand, the enforcement issue is a troublesome one, I will admit. BUT the problem is that the NRA et al. use it to defend their stance without proposing any solutions. For example, if Proposition 30 (?), the California proposal to eliminate jail time for first-time drug offenders (replacing it with mandatory counselling) can be proposed to change the way drug infractions are enforced, why can't someone propose some way that would make gun infractions more enforceable? Maybe the enforcers need some "enforcing" themselves? I'd like to hear the NRA address that.

Snowbird
Nov. 1, 2000, 10:11 PM
To me it simply let's extend the right to free choice to everyone!

I don't want the government in my bedroom or my kitchen! Today's scientific evidence may be tomorrow's folly.

I think a free people have to be trusted and not policed into autocracy. Adolf Hitler believed he was perpetuating perfection, he was wrong! It isn't the guns, it isn't the drugs! It's our society that needs the correction in favor of individual rights.

There was a show on the other day and it was a comedy, but it made a valid point. Nothing in this world is safe except cotton balls and q-tips, and q-tips are questionable.

People today can lose their job, if they smoke cigarettes (plain ones) caffeine, nicotine, sugar and fat are all on the taboo list. Are people happier? healthier? 30 years ago medical science opposed breast feeding, today it is the approved! 30 years from now who knows!

So should we pass a law that one of the two parents must stay home to parent? If we give the felons enough money will they stop being felons? Freedom is the right to live your life, not be so afraid to die that you can't live.

What a bunch of paranoid junk! The law is to settle differences between people who are not capable of settling, it is not to regulate your calorie intake, decide on what weight is proper, or to create an image of who we should be and therefore we must comply.

Go BUSH! I don't want somebody bossing me around the rest of my life. I'll do what makes me a good person without the LAW!


[This message has been edited by Snowbird (edited 11-01-2000).]

rockstar
Nov. 2, 2000, 12:46 AM
Well... so long folks!

I can't keep up with this INCREDIBLE thread anymore and I have so much to say that I am just going to keep my mouth shut because I simply don't have the time. I think it is ridiculous that we are getting into such a heated debate about abortion and gun control. People feel the way they do about those issues and have their very own ideas of what is wrong and right... and the only way that those views will EVER change is if they are personally affected (i.e. are shot at or raped or something like that). Anyway, I have had it up to here (drawing my hand across my throat) with debating the candidates and the election. We have who we have for candidates... nothing can change that. And what will happen in the election will happen... we'll have to start a whole new thread AFTER the election when the american public decides what happens.

As for me, I'm not going to sit around and type about it. I hit the campaign trail in New York City tomorrow for Gore and JumpHigh83's most beloved "Hillarious". Wish me luck braving the streets of NY campaigning. I'll check in if I can for a peek at the board... if you havn't heard from me by the end of next week I am probably in a New York morgue somewhere... shot by a handgun-toting Hillary hater in the middle of Herald Square (I'm kidding, I'm kidding... I think!).

So, whoever you are and wherever you are in the country I say... VOTE! And if you really care, volunteer! I garuntee your local party headquarters could need your help getting out the vote.

And my personal prediction:
-Democrats take back the House by the slimmest of margins
-Republicans keep the senate by the slimmest of margins (despite dem wins in NY, WA, FL, DE, NE, GA, and either Missouri or Michigan)
-Al Gore looses the popular vote and wins the electoral college in the closest presidential race in history (and if he looses i think it will be because too many people went to Nader in the battleground states... sorry Hobson... but I actually don't blame gore for saying "MINE, MINE, MINE"... I think all of us dems are damn resentful of the fact that Nadar is making this ten times more difficult then it already is for Gore... and were scared bad... and it would be crazy for Gore to offer Nader some sort of cabinet spot when Nader disagrees with him so much... that would be SUCH a sign of weakness on gore's part)

it's too close to really tell though! and hey, a lot can happen in 6 days!

til' after the election...
Rockstar

Twister
Nov. 2, 2000, 08:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pwynnnorman:
That's what I meant, Erin. You can use a shotgun to protect you and yours, but you can't walk into a Wendy's with it to blow away some innocent strangers because your wife left you and you ran out of Prozac.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Long Island Subway shooter had a plain ole 12 gauge which he took the time to reload while all the law-abiding citizens cowered on the floor. Too bad New York didn't have a 'right to concealed carry' law.

In every state where a concealed carry law was passed, crime has gone down irrespective of other crime reducing factors. Florida's murder rate dropped 37%.

lisa
Nov. 2, 2000, 09:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Erin:
Am I remembering incorrectly, or aren't handguns banned in some European countries?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe they are. But some drugs are legal/decriminalized in some countries, also.

And no, no one "needs" an automatic weapon to kill deer, or to have cop-killer bullets. And no responsible gun owner is going to use either in harmful way. Cop killer bullets are used by -- guess who? -- CRIMIINALS who didn't get them legally anyway.

Twister is right. If you don't know the guy next door is packing, you might think twice about whipping out the ol' .38 -- or the switchblade, for that matter...

ponyesq
Nov. 2, 2000, 09:21 AM
Snowbird: "Go BUSH! I don't want somebody bossing me around the rest of my life. I'll do what makes me a good person without the LAW!"

Snowbird -- you're not a Republican, you're an anarchist. In fact, you sound like an off-the-grid survivalist. Do you really think that if bush is elected you'll get to smoke whereever you want again? That you'll be able to drive at any speed with or without a seatbelt? that you won't pay taxes? That you will not be expected to contribute to the good of the country, and not just the best interests of Snowbird? Ha!

And comparing a democratic administration to Nazis is just plain mind boggling... in fact, in the off-the-grid world, isn't it to hell with poor people, handicapped people, any body not like oneself?

As for the estate tax -- have you considered a little estate planning to avoid taxation? Perfectly allowable and very effective, so long as you trust your potential heirs.

DMK
Nov. 2, 2000, 09:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ponyesq:
And comparing a democratic administration to Nazis is just plain mind boggling... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, Ponyesq.... I was hoping I wasn't the only one taken aback by that ummm... interesting analogy...

And as a Certified Cynic, I tend to believe that if one thinks the world as we know it is going to radically change, and all the evils as one perceives them will magically cease to exist if one's candidate is elected... well, wouldn't it be just grand if life was THAT black and white?

Inverness
Nov. 2, 2000, 10:03 AM
I'm almost beginning to hope the guy wins - the next for (I mean "four") years could be really, well, FUNNY!

THE WORLD ACCORDING TO GEORGE W. BUSH - IN HIS OWN WORDS

"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle the job is
underestimating." - U.S. News & World Report, April 3, 2000


"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." - Greater
Nashua, N.H., Chamber of Commerce, Jan. 27, 2000


"When I was coming up, it was a dangerous world, and we knew exactly who the
they were. It was us vs. them, and it was clear who them was. Today we're
not so sure who the they are, but we know they're there." - USA Today,
August 28, 2000


"I understand small business growth. I was one." - New York Daily News,
Feb. 19, 2000


"The most important job is not to be governor, or first lady in my case." -
San Antonio Express-News, January 30, 2000


"What I am against is quotas. I am against hard quotas, quotas they
basically delineate based upon whatever. However they delineate, quotas, I
think vulcanize society. So I don't know how that fits into what everybody
else is saying, their relative positions, but that's my position." - Quoted
by Molly Ivins, the San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 21, 2000


"I am a person who recognizes the fallacy of humans." - Oprah, Sept. 19,
2000


"As governor of Texas, I have set high standards for our public schools,
and I have met those standards." - CNN online chat, Aug. 30, 2000


"This case has had full analyzation and has been looked at a lot. I
understand the emotionality of death penalty cases." - Seattle
Post-Intelligencer, June 23, 2000


"The fundamental question is, 'Will I be a successful president when it
comes to foreign policy?' I will be, but until I'm the president, it's
going to be hard for me to verify that I think I'll be more effective." -
New York Times, June 28, 2000


"The only things that I can tell you is that every case I have reviewed I
have been comfortable with the innocence or guilt of the person that I've
looked at. I do not believe we've put a guilty ... I mean innocent person
to death in the state of Texas." - All Things Considered, NPR, June 16,
2000

"It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it." - Reuters, May 5,
2000


Bush: "First of all, Cinco de Mayo is not the independence day. That's
dieciséis de Septiembre, and ..."
Matthews: "What's that in English?"
Bush: "Fifteenth of September." (Dieciséis de Septiembre = Sept. 16)
- Hardball, MSNBC, May 31, 2000


"The fact that he relies on facts-says things that are not factual-are
going to undermine his campaign." - New York Times, March 4, 2000


GOV. BUSH: Because the picture on the newspaper. It just seems so
un-American to me, the picture of the guy storming the house with a scared
little boy there. I talked to my little brother, Jeb-I haven't told this
to many people. But he's the governor of-I shouldn't call him my little
brother-my brother, Jeb, the great governor of Texas.
JIM LEHRER: Florida.
GOV. BUSH: Florida. The state of the Florida.
-The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer, April 27, 2000


"Laura and I really don't realize how bright our children is sometimes
until we get an objective analysis." - Meet the Press, April 15, 2000


"I was raised in the West. The west of Texas. It's pretty close to
California. In more ways than Washington, D.C., is close to California." -
Los Angeles Times, April 8, 2000


"Reading is the basics for all learning." - Announcing his "Reading First"
initiative in Reston, Va., March 28, 2000


"It's evolutionary, going from governor to president, and this is a
significant step, to be able to vote for yourself on the ballot, and I'll
be able to do so next fall, I hope." - Associated Press, March 8, 2000


"The senator has got to understand if he's going to have-he can't have it
both ways. He can't take the high horse and then claim the low road." - To
reporters in Florence, S.C., Feb. 17, 2000


"We ought to make the pie higher." - South Carolina Republican Debate, Feb.
15, 2000


"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" - Florence, S.C.,
Jan. 11, 2000


"This is Preservation Month. I appreciate preservation. It's what you do
when you run for president. You gotta preserve." - Speaking during
"Perseverance Month" at Fairgrounds Elementary School in Nashua, N.H. Los
Angeles Times, Jan. 28, 2000

[This message has been edited by Inverness (edited 11-02-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Inverness (edited 11-02-2000).]

hobson
Nov. 2, 2000, 11:29 AM
Indeed, Inverness, all the comedians and such are hoping for a Bush presidency. Gore just does not make for good material.

Magnolia
Nov. 2, 2000, 12:18 PM
Jumphigh, I agree puhlease let this election be over. The worst part is no presidential ads in NC, just local yocals insulting on another...."Hey- he's a jerk, vote for me!" or the annoying incumbant rep that sickeningly campaigns against....I have no clue, but boy, she has values.
I really think all of these people (Bush, Gore, Nader, and the whole lot) are sickening narcissists that can't hold a real job. Yeah, I'll vote, but I really wish they'd all catch a 2 year virus that knocked 'em out for 2 years so the smart, normal people could get things done.
I can not believe this post is 11 pages long. Oh well, at least we all care and are upset about this state of affairs.

pwynnnorman
Nov. 2, 2000, 12:51 PM
Thank you, Inverness. The diction problem really, really bothers me.

Diction: choice of words especially with regard to correctness, clearness, or effectiveness.

Now if there's one trait that I would think most would agree is absolutely necessary in a world leader--given where, when, to whom and why that leader may need to express himself--surely that is one of them. Surely!

Then there's S. Hayakawa's (and other highly respected scholars') research on the relationship between how we speak and how we think.

Egad.

Inverness
Nov. 2, 2000, 12:52 PM
Personally, I'm going to be sorry to see this thread end. It has been such fun watching Snowbird, Jumphigh83, and others get riled and radical.

Its a wonder my monitor hasn't burst into flames!

Inverness
Nov. 2, 2000, 01:03 PM
Just had to pass along Molly's most recent column for those of you who haven't already seen it.


Justice' in Great State isn't great


AUSTIN -- In Texas, the state where you have a right to a lawyer who sleeps through your murder trial, we are familiar with life under George W. Bush's concept of justice for all.

The recent "Hey, a sleeping lawyer is still a lawyer" decision came from the 5th U.S. Circuit on a 2-1 decision agreed to by the ever-charming Judge Edith Jones, who was on the short list for the Supreme Court when Bush `pere' was president and will certainly be so again under Bush `fils.'

Under Judge Rhesa Hawkins Barksdale and Judge Jones' remarkable legal reasoning, "It is impossible to determine whether . . . counsel slept during presentation of crucial exculpatory evidence, or during the introduction of unobjectionable, uncontested evidence." Therefore, they voted to fry the guy.

Actually, the top candidate for Supreme Court under Bush, who is looking for judges like Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, is Judge Emilio Garza, the Clarence Thomas of the Hispanic world (without any known sexual peccadillos).

Garza recently contributed to the cause of smaller government in a decision on a case now before the U.S. Supreme Court, Atwater vs. City of Lago Vista. A Texas soccer mom was driving her kids, ages 2 and 6, home from a soccer game when she was busted for driving without a seat belt. For this menace to the public order, she was handcuffed, taken downtown, body searched, fingerprinted, mug-shot and put in the hoosegow while Child Protective Services was called to take her kids away. Fortunately, a neighbor came by and took the kids instead.

Naturally, the state of Texas is arguing that the Constitution gives police the power to arrest for any offense whatsoever, even one carrying a maximum fine of $50, and then to conduct legal body and car searches. Now, given the practice of racial profiling in law enforcement, exactly who do we think is more likely than your average soccer mom to be affected by this lunatic doctrine?

A case that will interest constitutional scholars -- actually, it seems to blow their minds -- is the legal struggle to get Texas to do the minimum for which it is responsible under Medicaid. This is an old, bad story, put most concisely by former Public Health Commissioner Reyn Archer. The reason that Texas goes to great lengths to keep Medicaid secret is because we'd have to raise taxes to pay for it if all the children who are entitled to it were enrolled in it.

In 1996, the state entered into a consent decree promising that it would try to do better at outreach and getting more kids enrolled. And in fairness to the state, it has made some progress and has done some outreach.

Unfortunately, we've still got more than a million poor kids without Medicaid, and the usual horror stories continue: a boy who had to wait eight weeks to see an orthopedic specialist for a broken arm, which required surgery and a pin; another boy treated 17 times for ear infection in 18 months, finally taken to a clinic where they tried three times to clear up the problem -- the kid is still sick and still hasn't seen a specialist.

You know, I don't think George W. Bush is a mean person. I think he probably is a compassionate conservative. There's just some kind of disconnect in his thinking. He does not seem to grasp that policy has consequences like this.

Time and again I've heard him argue that every child in Texas has access to health care because you can take them to the emergency room at the charity hospital. Has he ever been there himself?

On Aug. 14, Judge William Wayne Justice ruled that the state had failed to live up to the decree it signed in 1996, and that more than a million children are still being denied the medical care that the state promised to give them four years ago.

So Attorney General John Cornyn is appealing this ruling on the improbable grounds that it violates the 11th Amendment. Now that would be interesting.

The 11th is the one that can be read to say that the power of the United States doesn't cover a lawsuit brought by Texans against their own state, and therefore the federal court can't enforce the consent decree voluntarily entered into by Texas. And the poor kids are screwed again.

Molly Ivins is a columnist for the `Star-Telegram.' You can reach her at 1005 Congress Ave., Suite 920, Austin, TX 78701; (512) 476-8908; or send comments to mollyivins@star-telegram.com

DMK
Nov. 2, 2000, 01:11 PM
Inverness, I am beginning to think you get more enjoyment out of that site than I do!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

As for the "diction thing" I was listening to a candidate (who shall remain nameless to protect the innocent /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ), who said "...the pundits say that tax cuts don't resignate with the voters, I believe tax cuts resignate with voters..."

I myself, felt quite resignated too...

[This message has been edited by DMK (edited 11-02-2000).]

Janet
Nov. 2, 2000, 01:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by magnolia:
I really think all of these people (Bush, Gore, Nader, and the whole lot) are sickening narcissists that can't hold a real job. Yeah, I'll vote, but I really wish they'd all catch a 2 year virus that knocked 'em out for 2 years so the smart, normal people could get things done.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem is that "normal people" are not power hungy (or whatever) enough to put up with all the BS associated with running for public office. Unfortunately, the elction process itself tends to screen out the "normal" people.

Everythingbutwings
Nov. 2, 2000, 01:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pacificsolo:
I did it too..saved nearly 2 1/2 times more with Bush's proposal!...They say numbers don't lie! concept...wonder if it works?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If taxes were the only issue then the choice wouldn't be difficult, now would it? How the rest of the issues are handled matter greatly.

Inverness
Nov. 2, 2000, 01:50 PM
From George Mason University in Fairfax, VA. Killing time for fun and profit!


The George Mason Battle of the Political
Prognosticators contest is underway and the
deadline to enter is Tuesday, Nov. 7, at 6 a.m. The
contest contains two parts: predicting the number of
electoral votes received by the presidential
candidates, and predicting the winners of the U.S.
Senate races. The tie-breaker will be to predict the
partisan makeup of the House of Representatives.

The contest is sponsored by the Department of
Public and International Affairs and is free and open
to everyone. Mason students are competing for
prizes, but the overall winner will be acknowledged
regardless of his or her status. Student prizes are
$75 for first place and $50 for second place in the
senate race contest, and $50 for first place and $25
for second place in the presidential electoral vote
contest.

Predictions are submitted on the Battle of the
Political Prognosticators web site: http://classweb.gmu.edu/skeeter/senate2000/senate2000.htm

The site is informative, with several links to help people
research their choices. For more information,
contact Joel Clark at 703-993-1415.

Inverness
Nov. 2, 2000, 01:53 PM
Sorry Jumphigh83, you make me giggle.

Magnolia
Nov. 2, 2000, 01:58 PM
Naturally, the state of Texas is arguing that the Constitution gives police the power to arrest for any offense whatsoever, even one carrying a maximum fine of $50, and then to conduct legal body and car searches. Now, given the practice of racial profiling in law enforcement, exactly who do we think is more likely than your average soccer mom to be affected by this lunatic doctrine?

hmmmmm..... sounds like those republicans like smaller, less invasive government? NOT!Yes, you have the right to be a WASP, you have the right to read the bible, you have a right to make money, you have the right to pollute, but hey, if the jack booted thug in the police car thinks you look kind of funny, they have the right to throw you in jail. Scarier than Halloween....

smedley
Nov. 2, 2000, 02:48 PM
URGENT ELECTION MESSAGE

Due to an anticipated voter turnout much larger than originally expected,
the
polling facilities may not be able to handle the load all at once.
Therefore,
Democrats are requested to vote on Tuesday, November 7, and Republicans on
Wednesday, November 8.

Please pass this message along and help us to make sure that nobody gets
left
out.

Image
Nov. 2, 2000, 03:08 PM
When I was coming up, it was a dangerous world, and we knew exactly who the they were. It was us vs. them, and it was clear who them was. Today we're not so sure who the they are, but we know they're there." - USA Today, August 28, 2000

Hello,

Can someone explain why the quotes from Bush are funny? I thought Gore's claim to have started the Internet heart-wrenching. How can people vote for somebody who learned to lie from his boss (Clinton)? Also, I can not tell you how many times I have said the wrong words or mispronounced something! I would rather have someone in office who means what he says (or means) than someone who can not decide what he means.

Also, on a different issue, I believe that murder is wrong. I know that most of you think murder is just fine and do not even loose sleep at night knowing that innocent lives have been lost that day.

On gun control - If Gore wins the election I will go to the local gun dealer and purchase a semi-automatic pistol. I believe in personal freedom. I believe that I have the right to protect my family if the need arises. I will not give up my second-admendmant rights.

Regarding the issue of Bush being backed by the Christian Coalition - I find that an encouragement. The Christian Coalition does not back just anybody. On the issue of church and state - if the christian faith had been left in Europe this country would not be. The founding fathers believed that God was guiding their footsteps. Without this faith, would they have been as bold? And if you truly believe that your religous freedom will end with the election of Bush then you need a new understanding of Christianity.

In Christ,
Image

[This message has been edited by Image (edited 11-02-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Image (edited 11-02-2000).]

Gryphon
Nov. 2, 2000, 03:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by smedley:
I've never actually met a Christian. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Image, its about time we heard from a Buchanan supporter!

Magnolia
Nov. 2, 2000, 03:29 PM
I bet the native americans wished they'd left their religion (and selves) in Europe...
America is not a nation of white christians, it has become a melting pot of many colors and faiths. Unique? yes. We cannot make laws based on religous values. Yes, most religions have basic similarities ~ be kind to one another, stealing is wrong etc.etc. It is fine to use those as a framework for law.
It scares those of us who aren't Christian to be governed by those wishing to push Christian morals on us.
For example, what if Muslims become a majority and we must adhere to their beliefs? or the Rastafarians? or a Native American religion? How would you like it? Would you like your child to go to a school that began the day with a reading from the Koran? Would they feel out of place?
Religion is a fine thing, and there are many universal themes in religion that we should live by, but to say that one religion is 100% correct for everyone, and that everyone should live by that is short sighted.
I think the goal of religion is not governace, but a route to a personal relationship with God. How you find that is up to you. I experience God through nature. The beauty of the mountains and the vastness of the oceans is my proof of God, the lessons and cycles of nature guide me, not a book. Perhaps for you, your path to god is thru a dialog and rituals based on the bible. That is great, but it doesn't work for me. The average Christian thinks it is immoral to have an abortion. Fine. I find it immoral to clearcut a forest and to overpopulate our gift of the earth.
My point is, I don't tell you what to do morally, please don't tell me what to do just because you believe that God wants us to leave via the bible.

hobson
Nov. 2, 2000, 03:34 PM
I really wish the Christian Coalition would get behind Pat Robertson again. Remember his bid for the presidency? I guess God didn't make for the best campaign advisor in the world. What a laugh riot! Has anyone ever seen him in a good rant on the 700 Club? Imagine Pat's voice squeaking a little here: "Ladeeeez and GENTlemen! Those - those - those HINDUS are really SATAN worshippers!!" I for one don't want to lose my freedom to be entertained by far-out religious figures trying to break into politics.

Gryphon
Nov. 2, 2000, 03:42 PM
Image,
Speaking on behalf of us heathen murdering liars who don't own semi-automatic handguns and who speak with proper diction, I take offense to your post.

[This message has been edited by Gryphon (edited 11-02-2000).]

Inverness
Nov. 2, 2000, 03:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Inverness:

"When I was coming up, it was a dangerous world, and we knew exactly who the
they were. It was us vs. them, and it was clear who them was. Today we're
not so sure who the they are, but we know they're there." - USA Today,
August 28, 2000

[This message has been edited by Inverness (edited 11-02-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry Image,
but THAT is HYSTERICAL!

Astraled
Nov. 2, 2000, 04:06 PM
Yeah, buy a hand gun; that'll show 'em http://www.chronofhorse.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif .

DMK
Nov. 2, 2000, 04:30 PM
OK Inverness... I'll take your quotes, and add these gems (kind of makes me remember all the enjoyment I received from the Quayle Vice Presidency)

"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
...George W. Bush, Jr.

"Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child."
...Governor George W. Bush, Jr.

"Welcome to Mrs. Bush, and my fellow astronauts."
...Governor George W. Bush, Jr.

"Mars is essentially in the same orbit...Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe."
...Governor George W. Bush, Jr., 8/11/94

"The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. I mean in this century's history. But we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century."
...Governor George W. Bush, Jr., 9/15/95

"I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy - but that could change."
...Governor George W. Bush, Jr., 5/22/98

"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any Governor, and that one word is 'to be prepared'."
...Governor George W. Bush, Jr., 12/6/93

"Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things."
...Governor George W. Bush, Jr., 11/30/96

"I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future."
...Governor George W. Bush, Jr.

"The future will be better tomorrow."
...Governor George W. Bush, Jr.

"We're going to have the best educated American people in the world."
...Governor George W. Bush, Jr., 9/21/97

"People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and have a tremendous impact on history."
...Governor George W. Bush, Jr.

"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made."
...Governor George W. Bush, Jr. to Sam Donaldson, 8/17/93

"We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a part of NATO. We have a firm commitment to Europe. We are a part of Europe."
...Governor George W. Bush, Jr.

"Public speaking is very easy."
...Governor George W. Bush, Jr. to reporters

"I am not part of the problem. I am a Republican"
...Governor George W. Bush, Jr.

"A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls."
...Governor George W. Bush, Jr.

"When I have been asked who caused the riots and the killing in LA, my answer has been direct & simple: Who is to blame for the riots? The rioters are to blame. Who is to blame for the killings? The killers are to blame.
...George W. Bush, Jr.

"Illegitimacy is something we should talk about in terms of not having it."
...Governor George W. Bush, Jr., 5/20/96

"We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur."
...Governor George W. Bush, Jr., 9/22/97

"For NASA, space is still a high priority."
...Governor George W. Bush, Jr., 9/5/93


"Quite frankly, teachers are the only profession that teach our children."
...Governor George W. Bush, Jr., 9/18/95

"The American people would not want to know of any misquotes that George Bush may or may not make."
...Governor George W. Bush, Jr.

"We're all capable of mistakes, but I do not care to enlighten you on the mistakes we may or may not have made."
...Governor George W. Bush, Jr.

"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it."
...Governor George W. Bush, Jr.

"[It's] time for the human race to enter the solar system."
...Governor George W. Bush, Jr.

DHenley
Nov. 2, 2000, 04:42 PM
This is SO funny!! How can we not be embarassed by a Bush Presidency?

A friend, who is a Republican, told me today that she is voting for Gore. Her reasoning: with all the problems going on in the Middle East, she wants a President who can find that area on a map; remember world leaders names and pronounce them; and talk in complete grammatically correct sentences when representing us on the world stage! Not alot to ask in a President I'd say.

Inverness
Nov. 2, 2000, 04:42 PM
Thanx alot DMK,
Three people just came running into my office wanting to know what I was shrieking about!!

Sleepy
Nov. 2, 2000, 04:45 PM
DMK, ROTFLMAO! Fortunately most of my office has cleared out by now.

Canter
Nov. 2, 2000, 04:56 PM
Aw you guys...those quotes are totally ROTFLMAO!!!

I'm Canadian but I just had to read all 11 pages just to see what all the fuss was about.

Thank you all for a very informative, educational update on current American politics. Believe it or not this topic has given me more insight than anything I've read in the press thus far.

Thank you Erin for allowing it to go on.

If only The West Wing was this entertaining /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

EarthTo?
Nov. 2, 2000, 05:09 PM
I always say that we have precisely the candidates and government we deserve, no better and no worse. It is simply unfair for people to get upset with politicians for promising the moon and then breaking their promises, because nobody, BUT NOBODY votes for someone who really tells the truth. When you get right down to it, there is really only one campaign promise. All campaign promises are simply variations of the one campaign promise. The one campaign promise is "I will give you what you want and it won't cost you anything." This is the only campaign promise because if a politician promises anything else, he or she cannot possibly get elected. Most people don't really want to be told painful truths, they want to be told what they want to hear, and what they want to hear is that they can get whatever it is that they want without pain. Now, of course, this is totally unrealistic. The world doesn't work that way. If you want the pleasure of the new pair of custom Dehners, you have to endure the pain of forking over the bucks to get them. But so long as most people insist on only voting for politicians who make impossible promises, they have no right to be upset when the promises aren't kept. And this is the last thing I will say on this BB that isn't DIRECTLY related to horses! I just kind of felt left out when I saw that every other person on this BB apparently has weighed in with their views. Oh well, think of the good part that we all can agree on: in just five more days we won't have to endure any more political advertisements on television!

grump
Nov. 2, 2000, 05:10 PM
For those who think Gore's boring:

===========

George Bush and empty vessel?
Then what do we call Al Gore? A colander?

"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."-Al Gore

"Democrats understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child."-- Al Gore

"The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. I mean in this century's history. But we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century."-Al Gore, 9/15/95

"I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy - but that could change."-Al Gore, 5/22/98

"Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things."-Al Gore, 11/30/96

"I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future." -Al Gore

"We're going to have the best-educated American people in the world." --Al Gore, 9/21/97

"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made." --Vice President Al Gore to Sam Donaldson, 8/17/93

"We have a firm commitment to Europe. We are a part of Europe."-Al Gore

"I am not part of the problem. I am a Democrat." --Al Gore

"A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls." -- Al Gore

"Illegitimacy is something we should talk about in terms of not having it." --Al Gore, 5/20/96

"For NASA, space is still a high priority." --Vice President Al Gore, 9/5/93

"Quite frankly, teachers are the only profession that teach our children." --Al Gore, 9/18/95

"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it."-Al Gore

LisaW-B
Nov. 2, 2000, 05:15 PM
>"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it."-Al Gore

This is particularly funny, because I've seen this same quote attributed to Bush.

Anybody seen the new Snickers candy bar commercial with the Donkey/Gore and Elephant/Bush sitting on the guy's shoulder??

Inverness
Nov. 2, 2000, 05:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jumphigh83:
But Goerge Bush is the one they call dumb!!! I believe pathological is the word one might apply to Algore. Aren't we all lucky that he invented the internet. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jumphigh83,
Go to the CNN website and look at the actual transcript of the interview with Gore. The interviewer was journalist Wolf Blitzer. I believe it was recorded in April, 1999, but I'm not 100% certain.

You will see in the transcript that what Gore actually said was; "When I was in the Congress, I took the initiative in inventing the Internet." It is obvious from the context of the interview that Gore was speaking of his role as a legislator.

Newt Gingrich recently affirmed that Gore played the key Congressional role in assuring that the development of the, then nascent, Internet was allowed to proceed without undue legislative or regulatory interference.

Obviously, Gore would've been a lot better off if he had chosen his words more carefully in responding to Blitzer's question. Its just that Gore's gaffs are nowhere NEAR as funny as Dubya's.

Besides, I think I'd rather a politician tell me anecdotal fibs about the cost of his dog's prescription medication than try and tell me he was instrumental in passing a state Patient's Bill of Rights that he actually did everything in his power to kill. (Ooooh that was a good run-on sentence!) Does Dubya think that people don't read? Well, yah, maybe that's what he's counting on!

Ahhh, enough said. I must be off now to inch my way through the traffic on the beltway and listen for more fodder from today's campaigning.

Kellybird
Nov. 2, 2000, 05:56 PM
Smedley (?)--LOL about the election day thing. I have heard it before, but that made my afternoon. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

To make ya'll happy, I am officially announcing my candidacy for presidency, and I ask that Inverness write my speeches, and we'll all go riding afterwards. We CAN be elitest Democrats! Heehee

Puh-lease, people, for all of you who are throwing around "the Christian Coalition protects our MORALS" type of lines, might I remind you about the Separation of Church and State? Take their phrase "in God we trust" and think about it--it does NOTmean, "believe in OUR God or leave," it means that we have a faith, and at this moment we are using God to represent that faith. It doesn't insult me, as an atheist, to read that on currency, because I know that it does not carry the connotation of a forced religion. I am slightly irked, however, when I read how people twist ANY government document to fit their own purposes.

I am slightly concerned about any candidate who cannot use nouns and verbs in the correct locations in a sentence, on a consistent basis. An occasional slip-up is ok, sure, I understand, but enough slips of the tongue to take up pages and pages? That's pushing it.

OK, I think I'm mostly done for now, but I love this thread! Just wait 'till AFTER the election... he he he /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I am off DisneyWorld, so must go pack.

PS, for goodness sakes, Al Gore NEVER said he INVENTED the Internet! Read the quote, it is quite different....people twist it all around to sound like he said "I created it," when in fact, he said nothing of the sort. You have to take a quote in context, not just listen to it once and decide. (However, I'll be a little hypocrite here and say that those "W" quotes are darn funny! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

Somebody watch the Daily Show for me. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
kelly

smedley
Nov. 2, 2000, 06:04 PM
My golly Inverness,
I just saw you reciting Wordsworth from memory on the Sea Urchin thread and now here you are over here in the middle of a blistering cross-examination.

Are you one of them Washington litigator types? We should oughta go for drinks some night. Is your office downtown?

Gadzooks woman - you are over there on the Horse Care forum too! Thanks for the info on oral supplements. I'll try and find that issue.

[This message has been edited by smedley (edited 11-02-2000).]

Gryphon
Nov. 2, 2000, 06:18 PM
Let's all sing along now:

My God is better than your God,
My God is better than yours,
My God's better 'cause he's a Republican
My God is better than yours.

To those of you too young to remember the old Kennel Ration jingle, just do the best you can. Oh no, Erin is it taboo to mention a dog food jingle on a horse BB?

holland
Nov. 2, 2000, 06:41 PM
This is why I'm voting for George W. Bush--
(sorry so long)

TAKEN FROM WSJ OPINION JOUNRAL 11-02-00

BY PEGGY NOONAN-

"In character, personality traits, history and attitudes, Mr. Bush seems the opposite of both Bill and Hillary Clinton and of Mr. Gore. Mr. Bush has an instinctive personal modesty, an easygoing sense of both human and governmental limits. He will know how to step aside and let the country take center stage; he will know how to show respect for others; he will not bray endlessly about his own excellence, will not compare himself to Nelson Mandela, Mark McGuire, or the heroes of the novels "Love Story" or "Darkness at Noon"; he will not discuss his underpants. Laura Bush will not announce that her husband's power is hers, that she is co-president, and that she will soon nationalize 17% of the gross national product. Both Bushes seem not emotionally troubled but mentally balanced, which was once considered the lowest of expectations for our leaders but now seems like a gift to the nation.

All of this will be a relief. What's more, it suggests a restoration of civility and grace to the White House, and to political discourse. This will have happy implications for our democracy, and for the children who see it unfold each day.

A Bush presidency would mark a cultural-political paradox: a triumph of class that is a setback for snobbery. Class--consideration, a lack of bullying ego, respect for others--has been not much present the past eight years. The Clintons and Mr. Gore have acted and spoken in ways that suggest they believe they are more intelligent and capable than others--superior, in short. They have behaved as if they believe they are entitled to assist others by limiting their autonomy; thus the tax policies in which they take our surplus and spend it for us, the social programs in which they limit what you might fritter away in your sweet but incompetent way.

The Clintons and Mr. Gore, intelligent and ambitious, came of age at the moment in our history when America As Meritocracy took off like a rocket; and they had merit. They were educated at fine universities at the moment those universities became factories for manufacturing the kind of people who prefer mankind to men and government to the individual. To absorb those views was to help ensure one's rise. They rose. In time they won power in the system they helped invent--command-and-control liberalism. In rising and running things they became what they are: vain and ruthless as only those who have not suffered could be. Not realizing they were lucky they came to think they were deserving; they were sure they had the right to show the inferior-that would be you and me--how to arrange their lives.

Mr. Bush came from the same generation, lived in the same time, but became a very different sort of man. He wasn't impressed by Yale; when he saw the elites up close he didn't like what he saw. He was of Midland, Texas.

He became a businessman, floundered, knew success, experienced disappointment, became a deep believer in God. His religious commitment has meant for him the difference between a clear mind and a double mind. It has helped him become a man who is attached to truth on a continuing basis, and not just an expedient one. It means he sees each person as a unique individual worthy of dignity, freedom and responsibility.

Mr. Bush has the awkwardness of the convicted, meaning roughly, "I'm a mess, or at least have been; I'm not a hypocrite but I've been that too. I am utterly flawed and completely dependent; and I'm doing my best." He knows he is better than no one. The man with the swagger and the smirk is humble.

Mr. Bush has a natural sympathy for, and is the standard bearer of, the modest, the patronized, the disrespected. The lumberman of Washington state who wants to earn his living responsibly and with respect; the candy store owner of New Jersey who's had it up to here with regulation and taxes; the Second Amendment-loving Louisiana housewife who keeps a gun high up in the closet; the Ohio nurse who worries about abortion and who knows that "You oppose abortion? Then don't have one!" is as empty and unsatisfying as "You don't like slavery? Then don't own one!"; the courthouse clerk in Tennessee who says he'll go to jail before he'll take the Ten Commandments off the wall; and the tired old teacher who carries a copy of the Constitution in his pocket and knows that while it is a living document it is not the plaything of ideologues. All of these--the shouted down and silenced in what the Clintons and Mr. Gore call the national conversation--are for Mr. Bush, and he for them.

That is a great irony of the 2000 election: The man who speaks for the nobodies is the president's son, Mr. Andover Head Cheerleader of 1965. But history is replete with such ironies; they have kept the national life interesting.

If Mr. Bush is wise he will continue as president to stand with them, and speak for them, so that in time their numbers increase, and a big but beset minority will grow and become again what it once was: a governing coalition. This election could in this sense be a realigning one.

There is the question of intelligence: Is Al Gore bright enough to be president? Both Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore are intelligent men, but they have very different kinds of minds. George Bush respects permanent truths and is not in the thrall of prevalent attitudes. He thinks the Sermon on the Mount is the greatest speech ever given. This would strike some as an obvious thing to say, but it takes courage now to say the obvious thing, because to say the obvious is to declare that you see it, and to declare that you see it is to announce yourself . . . a bit of dunce. If you had a first rate mind you'd see what isn't obvious, such as . . . the illustrative power of metaphor to speak to the existential challenge to postmodern man, which is to flourish within a democratic framework and negotiate its inevitable power centers while balancing the need for communal unity on the one hand with the necessity to find and unlock individual potential on the other.

I don't think that sentence made sense, but you could speak it in a lot of places--a faculty dinner, the vice president's house--and elicit nods of approval. And not in spite of the fact that it is nonsense but because of it.

The intellectually ambitious of the Clinton-Gore class seem willing to follow any small crumbs in their search for truths, perhaps because they can't see so many of the older and enduring ones. Mr. Gore with his metaphor grids and his arrows and circles shows us not a creative mind at work but a lost mind in search of shelter. Henry Hyde once said of Newt Gingrich: "He's always discovering new things to believe in." He meant: a real grown-up doesn't carry on like this, inventing new philosophies, drawing arrows and sparks; a real grown-up learns what from the past is true, and brings it into the present.

Mr. Bush speaks of God and George Washington and Reagan, and the elites find it unsophisticated. But for many citizens it will be good to see in leadership one of such simplicity, grounded in such realities, respecting of such wisdom.

Mr. Bush is at odds with the spirit of the past eight years in another way. He appears to be wholly uninterested in lying, has no gift for it, thinks it's wrong.

This is important at any time, but is crucial now. The next president may well be forced to shepherd us through the first nuclear event since World War II, the first terrorist attack or missile attack. "Man has never had a weapon he didn't use," Ronald Reagan said in conversation, and we have been most fortunate man has not used these weapons to kill in the past 50 years. But half the foreign and defense policy establishment fears, legitimately, that the Big Terrible Thing is coming, whether in India-Pakistan, or in Asia or in lower Manhattan.

When it comes, if it comes, the credibility--the trustworthiness--of the American president will be key to our national survival. We may not be able to sustain a president who is known for his tendency to tell untruths."

If we must go through a terrible time, a modest man of good faith is the one we'll need in charge. That is George Walker Bush, governor of Texas.


Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "The Case Against Hillary Clinton" (Regan Books, 2000). Her column appears Fridays.

[This message has been edited by holland (edited 11-03-2000).]

pwynnnorman
Nov. 2, 2000, 07:07 PM
Holland, how do you KNOW that? HOW? Even if you met the man, how can you REALLY know him? The same applies to Gore. We all only "know" these individuals through the mass media. Do you really think that reporters and other media figures "know" what they are saying about the "character" of any individual? How DO you get to "know" a person's character? HOW?

I am soooo sick of the character issue. I hate to be insulting, but I really have a low opinion of those who sprout it because, I'm sorry, but it smacks of sheer ignorance. A man serves eight, twelve, howevermany years in a public office, makes the mistakes any individual is capable of making, and gets labeled negatively. How in heaven could he have managed all these years working with all those important people if he is such an ogre?

On the other hand, a man does next to nothing most of his life, so he isn't in the media's eye and as well he refuses to cough up much information about himself, and as a result, through sheer lack of information about him, he gets labelled as being of "good character"? If Bush had served in a higher public office for a more significant number of years, do you really think he would be spotless? How many politicians ARE? Geezum, how many PEOPLE are?

Get real. You people don't know SQUAT about either man's "character." All you know is what you have heard.

[BTW, magnolia, THANK YOU for reminding that Christian soul--who, as usual for that type, had no response to your quite logical and reasonable post--that God doesn't play favorites.]

Bertie
Nov. 2, 2000, 07:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DMK:
....
"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
...George W. Bush, Jr.

"Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child."
...Governor George W. Bush, Jr.
....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Adam:
....
"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."-Al Gore

"Democrats understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child."-- Al Gore....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
LOL...Who REALLY owns those quotes? How about DAN QUAYLE???

Check it out /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://www.iag.net/~greth/quayle.html
Seems Dan supposedly said all that way before Gore & Bush got the credit!1980's. http://www.chronofhorse.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif Gotta love it...Freedom of the Press, I guess...

[This message has been edited by Bertie (edited 11-02-2000).]

Snowbird
Nov. 2, 2000, 07:22 PM
At least Bush won't be a dirty joke as President, he did promise to scub out the oval office.

Please don't even try to to talk about what Bush might do to the Presidency, compared to Bill Clinton he'll look like a saint and a genius. Who knows we may even learn to have respect for that office again. I'm certain he won't be renting the Lincoln bedroom, or sneaking around meeting interns for phone sex.

Arkansas certainly is is no big winner as a state and compared Texas sounds pretty good. Have you listened to the news really, and seen how many of the really big stories happened in Arkansas?

And, cut the whinning about Nader, we had Russ Perot who was the only reason "Bush Daddy" didn't get elected and we wound up with a bad actor in the White House. If we survived the Governor of Arkansas, we might be really surprised at Bush! And, by the way since they know them so well, why wouldn't "Hillarious" run for the Senate in Arkansas? Maybe they know the Clintons too well to ever go home. Have you noticed they have no plans to go home to Arkansas?

I'm too old to get riled up, you forget I started my politics with good old FDR and outlived them all! Look when the government decides what you need to do, and how you should live and are convinced they have the only right way, which is to take all your money and spend it for you! I don't care much what the name is. It seems to me there are a lot of benevolent dictators that have claimed to be "Social Democrats".

The "test" whether or not they're the only ones who get to do what they want. I saw the video of Bubba Clinton smoking a big cigar in the oval office to celebrate after one of his best con jobs. They had to photo it through the window because the White House is "smoke free" for everyone else.

Now Gore almost did get my vote, I heard that in one his speaches he was in favor of using manure to run cars, that could get my support. The perfect environmental solution even better than sending us all back to the "out-house".

hobson
Nov. 2, 2000, 07:30 PM
That's all fine, Holland, but how do I explain to my cats that we're trying to elect an anti-intellectual former coke-snorting party boy as president?

[This message has been edited by hobson (edited 11-02-2000).]

Snowbird
Nov. 2, 2000, 07:43 PM
"Why did the chicken cross the road?"

VICE PRESIDENT GORE
I fight for the chickens and I am fighting for the chickens right now. I
will not give up on the chickens crossing the road! I will fight for the
chickens and I will not disappoint them.

GOVERNOR GEORGE W. BUSH
I don't believe we need to get the chickens across the road. I say give the

road to the chickens and let them decide. The government needs to let go of
strangling the chickens so they can get across the road.

SENATOR LIEBERMAN
I believe that every chicken has the right to worship their God in their
own
way. Crossing the road is a spiritual journey and no chicken should be
denied the right to cross the road in their own way.

SECRETARY CHENEY
Chickens are big-time because they have wings. They could fly if they
wanted
to. Chickens don't want to cross the road. They don't need help crossing
the road. In fact, I'm not interested in crossing the road myself.

RALPH NADER
Chickens are misled into believing their is a road by the evil tiremakers.
Chickens aren't ignorant, but our society pays tiremakers to create the
need
for these roads and then lures chickens into believing there is an
advantage
to crossing them. Down with the roads, up with chickens.

PAT BUCHANAN
To steal a job from a decent, hardworking American.

JERRY FALWELL
Because the chicken was gay! Isn't it obvious? Can't you people see the
plain truth in front of your face? The chicken was going to the "other
side." That's what "they"call it-the "other side." Yes, my friends, that
chicken is gay. And, if you eat that chicken, you will become gay too. I

say we boycott all chickens until we sort out this abomination that the
liberal media whitewashes with seemingly harmless phrases like "the other
side." That chicken should not be free to cross the road. It's as plain
and
simple as that.

BILL CLINTON
I did not cross the road with THAT chicken. What do you mean by "chicken"?

Could you define "chicken" please?

GEORGE BUSH
I don't think I should have to answer that question.

DR. SEUSS
Did the chicken cross the road?
Did he cross it with a toad?
Yes! The chicken crossed the road,
but why it crossed, I've not been told!

ERNEST HEMINGWAY
To die. In the rain.

MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.
I envision a world where all chickens will be free to cross without having
their motives called into question.

GRANDPA
In my day, we didn't ask why the chicken crossed the road. Someone told us
that the chicken crossed the road, and that was good enough for us.

ARISTOTLE
It is the nature of chickens to cross the road.

KARL MARX
It was a historical inevitability.

SADDAM HUSSEIN
This was an unprovoked act of rebellion and we were quite justified in
dropping 50 tons of nerve gas on it.

RONALD REAGAN
What chicken?

CAPTAIN JAMES T. KIRK
To boldly go where no chicken has gone before.

FOX MULDER
You saw it cross the road with your own eyes. How many more chickens have
to
cross before you believe it?

FREUD
The fact that you are at all concerned that the chicken crossed the road
reveals your underlying sexual insecurity.

BILL GATES
I have just released eChicken 2000, which will not only cross roads, but
will lay eggs, file your important documents, and balance your checkbook
-and Internet Explorer is an inextricable part of eChicken.

EINSTEIN
Did the chicken really cross the road or did the road move beneath the
chicken?

LOUIS FARRAKHAN
The road, you will see, represents the black man. The chicken crossed the
"black man" in order to trample him and keep him down.

THE BIBLE
And God came down from the heavens, and He said unto the chicken, "Thou
shalt cross the road." And the chicken crossed the road, and there was much

rejoicing.

COLONEL SANDERS
I missed one?

pwynnnorman
Nov. 2, 2000, 07:49 PM
LOLOLOLOLOL!!!! Made my day!

hobson
Nov. 2, 2000, 08:05 PM
Oh, and Holland, as Dan Qualye would say, it was a truly heart-rendering ballad you told about Dubya. I'm mopping at my eyes here.

Please tell us again, because I'm cracking up over this one...how is it you figure Dubya "speaks for the nobodies" like nobody else can when he springs from one of the most politically powerful, elite, wealthy families in the country?

DMK
Nov. 2, 2000, 09:26 PM
Bertie - too funny! Well, at least I recognized the "Dan Quaylism" nature of the quotes at the beginning of my post!!!

Snowbird - that is hysterical!!!!

Don't forget, Jumphigh - Conspiracy Theory is on DVD now!

hobson
Nov. 2, 2000, 09:40 PM
Holland, are you really Peggy Noonan, Ronald Reagan's speech writer? - I see a credit to a Noonan at the bottom of your post.

TequilaSun
Nov. 2, 2000, 09:48 PM
The sad thing is - nobody REALLY knows what goes on in elections. What we know, is what the press has heard and what they choose to portray to us. So it's really impossible to judge who is the "better" person for the job, unless you know them both personally, and what are the chances of that?

Snowbird
Nov. 2, 2000, 10:09 PM
Hobson really get off the satire, you're very good at it. You spend columns trying to prove Bush is a nobody and then wonder why he can speak for nobodies!

Pwynn, you never heard an admission of a mistake ever from Clinton/Gore they suffer from the the narcistic conviction they are superior, that doesn't make it so!

That my friend is called honesty, Bush was a crack pilot ever hear him brag? The Bush family is not pure white, ever see then use that to win the hispanic vote? That my friend is called integrity, that's how we know.

By the way, Larry King "live" has guess who? Ross Perot and he puts it plain, when there's only two horses in the race you pick the one to win you can trust. He's picking George Bush! and he's from Texas. Simple, to Perot Gore is just a plain liar, and Presidents don't lie!

Just because some kid drank too much beer 24 years ago and he admits it, ain't no reason to count him out. He asks his 19% who voted for him to vote for BUSH! Bush didn't say he thought it was tea! He didn't say he threw it in the flower pot! He said yep! I did make a mistake when I was a young. He didn't say he didn't inhale! It didn't say it wasn't sex! He didn't say he know it was a fund raiser! To me that's honesty.

He says "Gore" was a reporter in Viet Nam for 5 months with a body guard, far behind the lines, and he got out instead of filling out the full term because he was supposed to go to divinity school and be a minister of the church, where he flunked out.

Cut me a break, who do you believe? The Governor 24 years ago was arrested for DWI, he admitted it paid the fine and regrets it! And 5 days before the election we get this great revelation. He's been sober for 14 years.

I have yet to hear Gore admit a mistake, but then when you're perfect it's not a mistake. Dirty pool! Boy these guys are really from the bottom of the pile. So what is "is"?

[This message has been edited by Snowbird (edited 11-02-2000).]

Canter
Nov. 2, 2000, 11:36 PM
Snowbird - where did you find that chickens thing? That is simply the funniest political statement I've ever read. It's priceless.

Thank you thank you thank you.

Maybe once the dust has settled some of the BBers will go back and actually read it.

That gave me a huge laugh.

Snowbird
Nov. 2, 2000, 11:44 PM
When you have the philosophical slant that I have to my personality, people generally collect these things and send them to me.

This I thought was very appropriate for the dialog we have been having. You have I am sure noticed that I try to look at every question from many sides and go back to the source.

Personally, I think that chicken should have the right to go wherever it wants, and we should be careful of it's right to cross the road, even if it is inconvenient. I would guess that chickens were here before us.

I am not happy with the fact that today the chicken has been so discriminated against that it is a favored choice by the current government for consumption. I think it is a gross miscarriage of justice that the government should single out the chicken as a major food source to replace cows and pigs.

And, I certainly hope that if Gore gets elected he will fight to protect the rights of the chickens. They are probably eligible to organize a union and set up quotas as just how many chickens may be consumed in any one life-time.

[This message has been edited by Snowbird (edited 11-02-2000).]

smedley
Nov. 3, 2000, 07:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hobson:
Holland, are you really Peggy Noonan, Ronald Reagan's speech writer? - I see a credit to a Noonan at the bottom of your post.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suspect that Peggy Noonan is the author and that it was copied here for our enjoyment - the same way that Inverness and DMK have been bringing us Molly Ivins (who is a hell of a lot funnier and more astute than Peggy Noonan).

Magnolia
Nov. 3, 2000, 08:12 AM
"It is simply unfair for people to get upset with politicians for promising the moon and then breaking their promises, because nobody, BUT NOBODY votes for someone who really tells the truth."

Yeah, but everyone we can pick is a liar.

Also, did anyone hear about Bush's brush with the law? I realize it was 20 some years ago, but DRUNK DRIVING? How immoral is that? You could selfishly kill someone. I have zero respect for drunk drivers, even that didn't kill anyone. This from a man that thought it was fine to strip search a mommy for driving without a seatbelt. I think he should at least apologize for this and should have been up front - and admitted to being arrested.
Republicans, why in the world did you chose this man over McCain? Bush is a stupid puppet. McCain was noble, and served his country and had a personality. Will you please get your acts together and nominate him in 2004?
Oh, and by the way, why all these secret meetings b/w Bush and Pat Robertson? Just curious...

Inverness
Nov. 3, 2000, 08:25 AM
Let me start by saying that I don't care that Dubya was arrested at age 30 for drunk driving. God knows there've been occasions where I could've been in the same boat. I actually do admire the man for being able to give up the sauce. It doesn't mean I think he'd be an effective President, but I do give him credit for kicking an insidious vice.

That said, I've been looking forward to getting back to this thread this morning to see what the overnight postings have brought us.

Snowbird, your chicken post is priceless.

Re the Peggy Noonan piece; that's very nice but I'd rather hear a critique of his plans for the military, SS, and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. There are a lot of "nice" non-intellectuals out there that I'd enjoy sitting down to dinner with, but I don't want them as my President.

Hobson (I think it was you - forgive me if I'm wrong), but you are correct that we cannot possibly know the true "character" of either Bush or Gore. Both have been entrenched in politics for far too long (through personal political involvement and/or family connections).

I'm puzzled. How has Dubya managed to give the impression that he is somehow unconnected to the elite? He hails from one of the most powerful political dynasties in the country.

I'm not necessarily opposed to political dynasties - I'm merely confused as to why Dubya is afraid of discussing his own connections to the wealthy and powerful. After all, it isn't his fault that he was born to privilege. It simply seems disingenuous of Dubya to present himself in a "folksy," down-on-the-ranch manner when he grew up, alternately, in a Houston hotel suite, Washington D.C., an estate in Maine, and an exclusive New England preparatory school. To the extent that Gore is attempting assume a similar "folksy" image, my criticism applies to him as well.

Can I really "know" either of these candidates? Of course not. This is the reason I will base my vote on the issues, not on "personality" or something as undefined and elusive as "character."

The bottom line for me is, I don't care who gets their hat blocked in the Lincoln bedroom so long as I'm ensured of the right to sue my HMO for negligently denying me appropriate health care (which, by the way, is a provision of the Texas Patient's Bill of Rights that Dubya vehemently opposed).

And by the way, why is it that Dubya insists that no one had better question his integrity while he makes a full frontal attack on Gore's (and, previously, on McCain's)? Dubya is the one who made integrity the focal point of his campaign, yet he's declared questions about his own integrity off limits? Call me naive, but that seems a bit inconsistent to me.

[This message has been edited by Inverness (edited 11-03-2000).]

Canter
Nov. 3, 2000, 09:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:
When you have the philosophical slant that I have to my personality, people generally collect these things and send them to me.

This I thought was very appropriate for the dialog we have been having. You have I am sure noticed that I try to look at every question from many sides and go back to the source.

Personally, I think that chicken should have the right to go wherever it wants, and we should be careful of it's right to cross the road, even if it is inconvenient. I would guess that chickens were here before us.

I am not happy with the fact that today the chicken has been so discriminated against that it is a favored choice by the current government for consumption. I think it is a gross miscarriage of justice that the government should single out the chicken as a major food source to replace cows and pigs.

And, I certainly hope that if Gore gets elected he will fight to protect the rights of the chickens. They are probably eligible to organize a union and set up quotas as just how many chickens may be consumed in any one life-time.

[This message has been edited by Snowbird (edited 11-02-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Agreed Snowbird, agreed!

However, given the recent news of the last 12 hours regarding Bush's drunk driving conviction in 1976 I say you should all be voting for the chicken.

No DUI's, no Tippers, no Daddy this Daddy that, and no I invented the Internet.

Just a persistent clucking of disapproval at all the s*** that's going down. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

hobson
Nov. 3, 2000, 10:06 AM
Good mornin', Inverness...
It was not I, but pwynnnorman who argued that we can't possibly know what these guys are truly like. I heartily agree, though. I'm curious to know what your take is on the wave of anti-intellectualism that's sweeping US culture, illustrated so well in the Noonan essay. Noonan seems to say: Don't think so hard, folks! Stop analyzing and critiquing! It's all about feelings. Noonan is certainly a master at crafting speeches that lull the listener into a sense of happy well-being.

jumpcrew
Nov. 3, 2000, 10:10 AM
I think it is safe to say that almost every American, , at one time or other in his or her lifetime, has driven at least once under the influence of booze or drugs (illegal or legal). Plus, it was 25 years ago.

jumpcrew
Nov. 3, 2000, 10:13 AM
Jump Why did they knock off Vince?

DMK
Nov. 3, 2000, 10:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Inverness:
Let me start by saying that I don't care that Dubya was arrested at age 30 for drunk driving. God knows there've been occasions where I could've been in the same boat. I actually do admire the man for being able to give up the sauce. It doesn't mean I think he'd be an effective President, but I do give him credit for kicking an insidious vice.

I'm puzzled. How has Dubya managed to give the impression that he is somehow unconnected to the elite? He hails from one of the most powerful political dynasties in the country. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Here here, Inverness - I was very upset to hear the report about the arrest this morning. As if it matters! I mean as long as the guy is not a raging drunk today, I could really give a rat's behind about what happened to him 30 years ago. If you are going to vote for Gore, please do so for some other reason than Dubya was driving drunk when he was 30...

As for this amazing "un-connection" to the elite, I share your bewilderment. I had a very intelligent person tell me that Bush was an "inarticulate, unpolished West Texas Oilman."

????

OK, "inarticulate" I can buy, (although I question how one can be educated in one of the finest learning institutions in the world, and escape without at least the normal degree of articulate speech!). But, please, the Houston (that is "East" Texas, btw) son of a PRESIDENT, who attended all the finest schools in the Northeast, being presented (by the media, I might add) as an unpolished west Texas Oilman? I previously thought we needed Reagan to pull off an acting job that big...

Oh yes, and I once hacked the top horse in this country, so I guess I must be the top rider too...


[This message has been edited by DMK (edited 11-03-2000).]

Doubleeez
Nov. 3, 2000, 10:15 AM
And why did wife Laura have to rush to the phone to call "the girls" and let them know about Daddy's DUI?
I know Dubya is no Rhodes Scholar but wouldn't you think he would have an inkling that this might come out and at least prepare his daughters for it?
What else are we going to hear that he has kept from his daughters and the American public?

Magnolia
Nov. 3, 2000, 10:50 AM
"I think it is safe to say that almost every American, , at one time or other in his or her lifetime, has driven at least once under the influence of booze or drugs (illegal or legal). Plus, it was 25 years ago."

Not me. My mom had a little girl that was in her class be struck by a drunk driver. To me, that is as irresponsible and disgusting as shooting a person. A vehicle can kill. You should not get behind the wheel drunk. Period. The end. And, I assume from being an offense from the 70's, when drunk driving wasn't as big of an issue, that he must have been pretty tanked to have been arrested.
Frankly, I see drunk driving as a bigger deal than doing coke in one's own home. To me, that crosses the line into putting lives at risk. Put anything you want in your body, I could care less, but don't go out driving.
LOL, this from a party that thinks you should be drawn and quartered for having a baggie of pot...talk about hypocrites...

Inverness
Nov. 3, 2000, 10:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hobson:
Good mornin', Inverness...
It was not I, but pwynnnorman who argued that we can't possibly know what these guys are truly like. I heartily agree, though. I'm curious to know what your take is on the wave of anti-intellectualism that's sweeping US culture, illustrated so well in the Noonan essay. Noonan seems to say: Don't think so hard, folks! Stop analyzing and critiquing! It's all about feelings. Noonan is certainly a master at crafting speeches that lull the listener into a sense of happy well-being.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Greetings Hobson,
Sorry Pwynn, for missing the appropriate attribution - thanx for noting it Hobson.

I don't know that I have a specific "take" on the current anti-intellectual fervor, except to note that it seems pervasive (e.g., kids who do well in school are ridiculed by their peers, etc).

I'm having an especially terrible time coming to terms with the fact that many of the electorate profess to support GWB because he is "nice" and is not a "know it all." I find it disturbing that the new baseline for being "Presidential" is intellectual mediocrity. DWB's candidacy is perhaps the most frightening example of the "dumbing-down" of America.

Personally, I WANT a President who knows it all.

I WANT a President who studies the issues in great detail and who has a full command of the facts.

I WANT a President who consults advisors but does not abdicate or delegate his decisionmaking responsibilty.

I WANT a President that can sit through long briefing sessions and retain his focus on the details of an issue.

I WANT a President who will take the time to read the entire briefing paper instead of relying on the Executive Summary.

I WANT a President who can find Moldova on a map, name its principal exports, and tell me something of its history and people.

I WANT a President who understands the concept of math, be it "fuzzy" or otherwise.

This isn't an election for the President of my mother's bowling league folks!

[This message has been edited by Inverness (edited 11-03-2000).]

holland
Nov. 3, 2000, 11:01 AM
First of all, let me apologize for not quoting Ms. Noonan in the proper manner. I was in a hurry when I posted a portion of her column last night, and I did a poor job. Sorry! I fixed it.

Secondly, I'd like to respond in a few of my own words now....

It's been stated that some of the posters on this board are "sick and tired of the character issue." What a sad commentary on the state of our union. Strong character was once EXPECTED of our leaders.

I also have something to add to the whole DUI discussion. I watched this morning as the pundits pontificated on this issue-- at length. And, I have to admit that I felt sick to my stomach. They called on Bush to announce his sins on National T.V.-- to admit his flawed existence to the public--- and do it now, before it's too late. Too late?! He has given us the down and dirty facts on his drinking problem....what else do you want? It's a far cry from any Gore statement confronting a possible "flaw." The words "No controlling legal authority" jump to mind.

George W. Bush made a mistake. He has admitted a drinking problem, and kicked it. As many on this board have said-- this issue is a non-issue for me. We are flawed as humans-- we all make mistakes. However, our character sees us through these mistakes-- to a higher ground (note: another reason why I think Bush has a strong character-- he pled guilty to the charge of DUI, paid his fine, and took his other punishment. I can't help but think that the same Al Gore who had his father surround him with body gaurds during his infrequent jaunts away from the typewriter in Vietnam would have had his Daddy take care of this problem for him. In other words, it shows strong character that GWB did not have his very prominent family "take care" of the problem for him)

The real issue surrounding the DUI leak is this: those "killers" in the "slaughterhouse" (they gave these names to themselves, I can't take credit) at Gore's campaign headquarters are brutal and reckless. Do you want those type of people in the Whitehouse? They actually thought that holding this bomb until five days before the election was a good idea. That type of self-distructive behavior is what we have to look forward to in the next four years if Al Gore is elected president.

Inverness
Nov. 3, 2000, 11:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by holland:

It's been stated that some of the posters on this board are "sick and tired of the character issue." What a sad commentary on the state of our union. Strong character was once EXPECTED of our leaders.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure if you are referring to my post or not Holland, but I do want to assure you that I do, in fact, care about character. The fact of the matter is, however, that we cannot possibly "know" the true character of either of the principle candidates.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, the most puzzling thing about the character question is the fact that Dubya has made it a key issue as regards Gore, and yet he refuses to answer any questions about his own character.

I recently saw a TV spot for Dubya in which he states (forgive me for paraphrasing) "you can ask me about my policies, but don't question my integrity."

Well, why can't I question his integrity? The man is running for President, not dog-catcher! I just cannot understand the logic that says it is legitimate for Dubya to cast aspersions on Gore's (and McCain's) character and integrity, and, in the same breath, indignantly refuse to entertain any inquiry about his own.

Dubya's manner of playing the "character issue" game violates my understanding of fairplay, and I am truly baffled and dismayed that the American public seems willing to overlook such blatant hypocrisy.

Does anyone else see shades of Willy Horton in this?

[This message has been edited by Inverness (edited 11-03-2000).]

Snowbird
Nov. 3, 2000, 11:33 AM
A little old lady called 911. When the operator answered she yelled,
"Help, send the police to my house right away! There's a damn Republican
on my front porch and he's playing with himself."

"What?" the operator exclaimed!

"I said there is a damn Republican on my front porch playing with himself
and he's weird; I don't know him and I'm afraid! Please send the police!"
the little old lady repeated.

"Well, now, how do you know he's a Republican???"

"Because, you damn fool, if he were a Democrat, he'd be screwing somebody!"

smedley
Nov. 3, 2000, 11:40 AM
Getting back to the subject at hand, hypothetically, what if GWB had been driving drunk and had run into a horse trailer?

DMK
Nov. 3, 2000, 11:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by holland:
I can't help but think that the same Al Gore who had his father surround him with body gaurds during his infrequent jaunts away from the typewriter in Vietnam would have had his Daddy take care of this problem for him.

The real issue surrounding the DUI leak is this: those "killers" in the "slaughterhouse" (they gave these names to themselves, I can't take credit) at Gore's campaign headquarters are brutal and reckless. Do you want those type of people in the Whitehouse? They actually thought that holding this bomb until five days before the election was a good idea. That type of self-distructive behavior is what we have to look forward to in the next four years if Al Gore is elected president.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Holland, I absolutely agree with you on your take on Dubya taking acountability for his actions and reforming. I stand pretty firmly with Inverness on her take on this issue (well stated, I might add). But the words "you can't help but think?" bother me... Do you mean, that with no evidence to the contrary, you must assume that another Washington Prince would take the helping hand of his well-connected father? That seems a tad self-serving to me.

And as for the campaign headquarter antics of Gore, has the Bush-McCain runoff antics faded so competely from the collective conscious? Or for that matter, any other politician running for office in the last several decades? Make no mistake about it, regardless of who is elected, "those type" of people WILL be in the White House.

In case you haven't noticed they HAVE been in the White House for quite some time, and will continue to be in office for the foreseeable future unless the United States Congress seriously embraces campaign reform (which they have promised to do as soon as to do so serves their best interests, hell freezes over, and pigs are seen flying aound the Washington Monument).

I would not insult your intelligence by acting as if the actions of a 30 year old man who has turned that aspect of his life around, should make a difference in this election. Please do not insult mine by telling me that one political machine is more inherently evil than another. No wonder issues get no airtime.

VTrider
Nov. 3, 2000, 11:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by smedley:
Getting back to the subject at hand, hypothetically, what if GWB had been driving drunk and had run into a horse trailer?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very good point -

I watched a replay of his press conference on the Today Show this morning - talk about repeating himself...At least 6 times he said "I can't believe this is coming out 4-5 days before the election" - Have some eloquence for gosh sake!! He must not have taken public speaking in college!!

holland
Nov. 3, 2000, 12:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DMK:
Holland, I absolutely agree with you on your take on Dubya taking acountability for his actions and reforming. I stand pretty firmly with Inverness on her take on this issue (well stated, I might add). But the words "you can't help but think?" bother me... Do you mean, that with no evidence to the contrary, you must assume that another Washington Prince would take the helping hand of his well-connected father? That seems a tad self-serving to me.

And as for the campaign headquarter antics of Gore, has the Bush-McCain runoff antics faded so competely from the collective conscious? Or for that matter, any other politician running for office in the last several decades? Make no mistake about it, regardless of who is elected, "those type" of people WILL be in the White House.

In case you haven't noticed they HAVE been in the White House for quite some time, and will continue to be in office for the foreseeable future unless the United States Congress seriously embraces campaign reform (which they have promised to do as soon as to do so serves their best interests, hell freezes over, and pigs are seen flying aound the Washington Monument).

I would not insult your intelligence by acting as if the actions of a 30 year old man who has turned that aspect of his life around, should make a difference in this election. Please do not insult mine by telling me that one political machine is more inherently evil than another. No wonder issues get no airtime.


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all, I'm sorry if I mistakenly insulted your intelligence. That was certainly not my intention.

Secondly, if you want to talk about the issues-- I'd be glad to do so. The problem with that is the frustrating and unfortunate fact that these two men are currently standing so close to the middle on many of the key issues, and it wouldn't be a very spirited debate.

The fact of the matter is, Al Gore and GWB have shifted hard to the middle (a trick they learned from Clinton) during this election.

Therefore...almost any statement about a Bush or Gore presidency becomes conjecture at this time. People say GWB will do xyz when he's in office..but, they're not sure...because he's saying abc in the election rhetoric. Same goes for Al Gore. Can we look backward to what they did in the past and think that they will fall into their more partisan selves after the election? Or, is that an self serving "you can't help but think" statement?

In other words, because Al Gore wrote in his book "Earth in the Balance" that he would like to do away with the internal combustion engine...should I conjecture that his centrist rhetoric regarding the automotive industry is just a "front" and he will step back into his "Earth in the Balance" shoes when/if he becomes Pres?

I don't know...I guess I just feel like everyone should have their crystal ball out for this election-- because we aren't seeing the real Gore or Bush at this point in the game. And, if I want to make a prediction about either man's character-- and how it will effect their time in office-- it falls into the same category as analyzing their rhetoric, and seeing how it might morph into policy during their tenure.

Magnolia
Nov. 3, 2000, 01:26 PM
Don't worry, Al Gore is hardly the environmentalist he would have you think he is...
BTW, what is so wrong with doing away with the internal combustion engine? I say it is high time we make some innovations in automotive technology. I mean people freak about the very idea. Would you complain if some money spent on solar research meant cleaner air down the road? Or lower energy rates? I don't think Gore wants us all to walk or bike, I think he wants to help researchers innovate, not take away your cars. If alternative energies had the funding that nuclear or fossil fuels get, we likely would not have this horrible air pollution problem.
But, alas, this won't happen with Gore or Bush, as they both bow to that big God, Big Oil.

hobson
Nov. 3, 2000, 01:41 PM
Amen to that, magnolia! Have you seen the modern windmills - the really tall, three-bladed white things? I just think they're some of the most beautiful pieces of technology I've ever seen.

Just so you know, I"m voting for the Libertarian cadidate for our US senator here in PA - there's no green candidate, and the Libertarian guy makes a lot of sense, even though some of the policies can be tough on cities.

horsenut
Nov. 3, 2000, 01:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Inverness:
Personally, I WANT a President who knows it all.

I WANT a President who studies the issues in great detail and who has a full command of the facts.

I WANT a President who consults advisors but does not abdicate or delegate his decisionmaking responsibilty.

I WANT a President that can sit through long briefing sessions and retain his focus on the details of an issue.

I WANT a President who will take the time to read the entire briefing paper instead of relying on the Executive Summary.

I WANT a President who can find Moldova on a map, name its principal exports, and tell me something of its history and people.

I WANT a President who understands the concept of math, be it "fuzzy" or otherwise.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Inverness, you WANT President Josiah 'Jed' Bartlet! Er, that's Martin Sheen's character on the fantastic show "The West Wing". /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Seriously, though, I think the same thoughts you mentioned every time I watch that show. Is it possible in our society today to develop such a leader?

And forgive me for a stupid question that's probably already been answered, but I've been on vacation and don't have time to go back and read all 12 pages of this really interesting thread. Where did the nickname "Dubya" come from?

DHenley
Nov. 3, 2000, 01:48 PM
His middle initial "w"--Sounds like "Dubya" when pronounced by Southerners (myself included).

DMK
Nov. 3, 2000, 01:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by holland:
The problem with that is the frustrating and unfortunate fact that these two men are currently standing so close to the middle on many of the key issues, and it wouldn't be a very spirited debate.

The fact of the matter is, Al Gore and GWB have shifted hard to the middle (a trick they learned from Clinton) during this election.

Therefore...almost any statement about a Bush or Gore presidency becomes conjecture at this time. People say GWB will do xyz when he's in office..but, they're not sure...because he's saying abc in the election rhetoric. Same goes for Al Gore. Can we look backward to what they did in the past and think that they will fall into their more partisan selves after the election? Or, is that an self serving "you can't help but think" statement? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to say, I don't have any problem with the fact that both candidates seem to share a thin line in the middle, especially since the majority of Americans, inlcuding me, share it with them. I personally was much more frustrated with candidates who represented the extreme left and right of their parties, and didn't seem to represent ME.

I will add that when both parties are "for" the same issue, it makes it much harder for a voter to make an intelligent decision. A voter actually has to make an effort to learn what the candidate is really offering up. Not an easy task in this day and age where media AND candidates prefer to feed us information in a manner that makes me think I must not have graduated from the 3rd grade...

And because of this shallow delivery of issues, I think we truly cannot look at what candidates say on the campaign trail. At best you can only look at past actions and the Party's platform, because ultimately all candidates are beholden to their party, to some extent.

As for my "insulted intelligence", it was "healed" immediately (it's been insulted more than once, and has a pretty tough skin /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ), but thank you for your very gracious apology.

HeyYouNags
Nov. 3, 2000, 02:01 PM
Oh no, politics have finally forced me out of lurking. Why can't I just sit on my hands?

Here's a horse-related tidbit to consider, although it pertains to Tennessee Walking Horses: the Walking Horse people who favor the big padded shoes, and who are opposed to federal enforcement of the Horse Protection Act (HPA), favor Bush. According to their chat rooms, they expect a Republican administration to de-emphasize the HPA. US Dept. of Ag. had in the past couple of years tried to enforce anti-soring measures more stringently, but have been beaten back by a Walking Horse Industry political action committee, which pads the coffers of several key Southern members of Congress, all Republicans.

Not sure Gore will help much, but at least he's not likely to make matters worse!

Of course, I'm sticking with my TB's and WB's...

Heather
Nov. 3, 2000, 02:15 PM
Trying . . .to sit on . . .hands . . can't stop myself from . . .responding.

The way I see it, both parties want to put someone in charge of telling us what to do. The democrats want it to be the government, the republicans want it to be the job of organized religion--organized CHRISTIAN religion.

Sorry kids, I'll take my chances with the government.

If you are a Chrsitian, I congratulate you. It is very hard to be a person of faith in this time in our history. If you are truly following the Chrisitan ideals of love for your fellow man, then you are an asset to the planet.

However, I wish to be in charge of my own life, morals, and spirit, and have my own beliefs. If God, Goddess, Allah, Yaweh, The Powers that Be, Brahma, or whoever, has a problem with my decisions and spritiual beliefs, then they can take it up with me personally. Seeing as how they are the supreme being in the universe, I think that is within their power. He/She/They doesnt/don't need a translator or interpretter.

VTrider
Nov. 3, 2000, 02:23 PM
DMK - will you please check your email!!! I am dying at work today... /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Magnolia
Nov. 3, 2000, 02:27 PM
Greetings Doc!
Thanks for the info on the HPA. I didn't know there was such thing. What else does it cover? I'm curious.

hobson
Nov. 3, 2000, 02:44 PM
Heather - get off those hands and keep responding- you post some very thoughtful things. I probably do not completely agree with you on your assessment of the Republican party vis-a-vis the Christian right. I don't think the party is truly unified behind a pro-Christian agenda, and in fact I heard some Republican political commentators the other day discussing how the far Christian right is a bit dissatisfied with Bush, because they see him as a centrist who will sell them short. The hard-core Christian right must really be torn right now, because on the one hand, Buchanan is well in line with their positions...but he's without a prayer, so to speak, in the election. Obviously the religious right is a darned powerful force in the party, but I've been seeing a tempering of that in the past few years. By the same token, as everyone in both parties move inexorably toward one another on the political spectrum, I've also seen a rise in Christian-right democrats.

Like DMK, I too think that focusing on a rigorous, substantive look at the candidates positions on the various issues is all the more important when their respective political philosophies are so close in so many ways. PBS and NPR ran a great 3-hour special on Wednesday night that dissected the candidates in just this way. My husband and I invited his students over to watch. Unfortunately, their attention spans (these are college students, mind you) lasted about 5 minutes and I couldn't really hear the program because their unrelated chatting drowned out the TV.

HeyYouNags
Nov. 3, 2000, 03:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by magnolia:
Greetings Doc!
Thanks for the info on the HPA. I didn't know there was such thing. What else does it cover? I'm curious.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Greetings, Magnolia. You don't have to call me "Doc", just Ellen will do. HPA, despite its grandiose name, only covers soring and the use of certain heights of pads, and weights of shoes and chains. (The TWH's with the exaggerated action, aka "Big Lick", all work and show in pads and chains.) It's not a breed-specific legislation, but it's the TWH industry that was (and to some extent, still is) responsible for soring.

TWH's were more or less thrown out of AHSA many moons ago (in the 1940's or 50's, I think) because of soring.

If you've never seen the Big Lick horses move, you should. It's absolutely hideous, even if they aren't sored. IMHO, it's about the most unnatural thing we ask horses to do.

Magnolia
Nov. 3, 2000, 03:31 PM
Ellen-
I went to a show as a child with my hunter, and she kept spooking at the walkers and saddlebreds. They look so uncomfortable. So do the riders.

tle
Nov. 3, 2000, 03:57 PM
Thank you Heather. You took the words right out of my mouth (but of course you know that already). :-)

Twister
Nov. 3, 2000, 04:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hobson:
Amen to that, magnolia! Have you seen the modern windmills - the really tall, three-bladed white things? I just think they're some of the most beautiful pieces of technology I've ever seen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll amen that to you, too! And even though I b[]feel[/b] old enough to have been around then, I imagine when the suggestion came that there was something better than coal firing, it was met with sceptisism, too.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Just so you know, I"m voting for the Libertarian cadidate for our US senator here in PA - there's no green candidate, and the Libertarian guy makes a lot of sense, even though some of the policies can be tough on cities.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I yanked the lever for every Libertarian on the ballot, including Harry.

Mariner
Nov. 3, 2000, 06:00 PM
I too am forced out of lurkdom for this thread. I'd like help in compiling a list of famous lies told by US Presidents. I'll start with those I know offhand:

1. We had no forewarning that the Japanese were planning an attack on Pearl Harbor;

2. Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone;

3. We are winning the Vietnam War;

4. The White House knows nothing about the Watergate burglary;

5. I am not a crook;

6. There was no arms for hostages deal;

7. The Willy Horton ads were not racially-motivated;

8. Clarence Thomas is qualified to be a Justice of the Supreme Court.

9. I did not have sexual relations with that woman.


All in all, I'd rank Clinton's lie pretty low on my list of humdingers.

Bertie
Nov. 3, 2000, 06:43 PM
10. Read my lips. No new taxes.

pwynnnorman
Nov. 3, 2000, 07:05 PM
Hey, people! Is anyone upset that Dubya DIDN'T ADMIT TO IT EARLIER? For heavens sake, he's running for president and he got a DUI years ago. We've all heard the other incidents of politicians getting razed for something they did years ago. Does it take a genius to realize that, if you did ANYTHING negative that put your name on a legal document, you'd better fess up to it BEFORE someone else does? How old are his daughters (and how dumb)? Is he expecting me to think that his daughters wouldn't follow his advice unless he were a saint? Why couldn't his experience be a learning one for his daughters as well? That's bunk. His daughters must have known he had a drinking "issue." Who with such an "issue" hasn't driven drunk, caught or not? Surely his daughters would hardly be shocked or uprooted or sent into a tizzy or something by discovering his DUI?

What kind of character does THAT evidence? Had he admitted it, proactively, he would have appeared strong and honest and even intelligent (having recognized the that it would/could come out and done something proactively to counter any impact it would have). Why NOT being it up?

Moreover, of course some devoted Democrat was going to hold onto this information and use it when it could do the most harm. It doesn't take a national committee to decide to ambush (oh, bad pun) a campaign. If I had been the arresting officer, or the lawyer, or just a resident who knew about it, I'd have sat on it until the time was ripe, too. It has nothing to do with Gore's campaign. he can't be blamed for some individual's possibly quite selfish desire to influence the election.

BTW, Snowbird, you clearly have been selectively perceptive since you dislike Gore and Clinton so much. Both individuals have admitted a wide variety of mistakes, many, many times over many, many years. All of them? Of course not. But of course they've made and admitted to mistakes! You didn't care to listen to them at the time. After all, we only hear what we WANT to hear.

Snowbird
Nov. 3, 2000, 07:33 PM
Well now, I still remember that ringing affirmation, "I never had sex with that woman". I never heard GW deny that he hadn't been the perfect kid. Apparently, a lot of people knew, and he never said he only sniffed the alcohol, he always admitted he did his share of boozing in his day and had learned his lessons. Did we need to hear everything, even what he did during a hazing in college. Wasn't there another time where Bubba said something like well it was only a lie depending on what your definition of is "is". Don't you figure Gore might have asked what he was doing there in a Budhist Temple, especially when everyone started writing checks. And, when he quit Viet Nam to be a divinity student after 5 months (instead of the full tour) with his body guard isn't that just a little smidgeon dishonest to claim you were a volunteer in the war and to imply you faced active duty. At least he wasn't marching with the protestors in London, think we've had enough of the Rhodes Scholar type.

So the point is we have no saints running, no one is perfect and like the task of our judges we can can just try to figure out who is less bad than the rest. At least what GW did was on his own time and Clinton/Gore have done it cashing my paycheck on my time and in my house!

[This message has been edited by Snowbird (edited 11-03-2000).]

woodbern
Nov. 3, 2000, 08:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:
Well now, I still remember that ringing affirmation, "I never had sex with that woman".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right... and wagging his stubby little finger in our faces, too.

Loser. http://www.chronofhorse.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

Kryswyn
Nov. 3, 2000, 11:01 PM
No no no, you've missed the point Pwynn made (and I was coming to post!) To paraphrase Daddy Bush, "It's the LYING, Stupid!" Oh how I love hearing the Elephants on this board excusing Dubya's "mistake". We Donkey's have had to do that for Clinton, and it it's so awkward, isn't it?.

The point is not that he was arrested for DUI, it's that he didn't mention it ever. In fact, lots of researchers right now are trying to find an instance of Dubya's denying this conviction on the record (or best of all, under oath). So far they've turned up: "Have you ever been arrested?" Dubya: "Well, I didn't have a completely clean record as a YOUTH" Hmmm, in 1974 he was 30! Talk about Gore's exaggerating! HAH!

This should be a reminder, or eyeopener, to all the people who have hidden their heads in the sand, believing that "Bush is honest, a "real" person." The man is a POLITITIAN, THEY LIE FOR A LIVING. Accept it.

And WORST CRIME about the DUI which is even more telling about Dubya: Somebody pulled the strings to have the record expunged! A simple man indeed. Simple enough to believe NO ONE would find out about it.

But as my local radio pointed out, it's a good thing this DUI thing broke today... Otherwise the headline would be, "Dubya declares, "Social Security is not a Federal Program!" when he (mis)spoke at a rally yesterday.

Sannois
Nov. 3, 2000, 11:39 PM
What ever will you liberals talk about once the election is over? Oh Well just more of your usual. But if GB wins you will really be screaming, but oh well, it will be worth it. Then people can remember that the White House is a place of Honor and integrity. Jumphigh83, and snow bird, you are all right. God Bless America.

creseida
Nov. 4, 2000, 12:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hobson:
Geez, Jumphigh, are you saying that as long as we keep driving our god-given gas guzzlers just like we've been, that the environmental changes will sort of cycle around and the ozone layer will begin to repair itself? Or that the smog will decrease? Maybe SUV's can actually BENEFIT the planet after all! That's great news!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, yes. Geologic history has shown that the ozone layer does indeed go through cycles, where the hole that has been there for eons (literally) shrinks and grows.

And quite frankly, the day that I was rear ended by an 18 wheeler, I was very glad I was in my Mom's SUV. I thought I was dead since I knew the wreck was inevitable; I was boxed in on all 4 sides. Imagine my surprise when there was more damage to the Freightliner than to the Cherokee. BTW, the guy hit me so hard, it picked the back of the Cherokee up and turned it 45 degrees before the back wheels came down again, so it wasn't a "love tap".

creseida
Nov. 4, 2000, 12:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wtywmn4:
Gun control...diffinitely Gore!

[This message has been edited by wtywmn4 (edited 10-20-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gun control is being able to hit what you aim at. I doubt Gore could hit the broad side of a horse barn.

creseida
Nov. 4, 2000, 12:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mariner:
I too am forced out of lurkdom for this thread. I'd like help in compiling a list of famous lies told by US Presidents. I'll start with those I know offhand:

1. We had no forewarning that the Japanese were planning an attack on Pearl Harbor;

2. Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone;

3. We are winning the Vietnam War;

4. The White House knows nothing about the Watergate burglary;

5. I am not a crook;

6. There was no arms for hostages deal;

7. The Willy Horton ads were not racially-motivated;

8. Clarence Thomas is qualified to be a Justice of the Supreme Court.

9. I did not have sexual relations with that woman.


All in all, I'd rank Clinton's lie pretty low on my list of humdingers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, and Vince Foster's death was a suicide. http://www.chronofhorse.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

lillian
Nov. 4, 2000, 01:04 AM
Boy, is it just me folks -- or has anyone else noticed Dubya's resemblance to Howdy Doody? When I watch those commercials where he wears his cowboy shirt and speaks directly to the camera, I fully expect Buffalo Bob to jump up behind him and Clarabelle break into a lively rendition of "it's Howdy Doody time!" Keeps me laughing all night long.....

pwynnnorman
Nov. 4, 2000, 06:15 AM
To: my dear Republican friends
From: a some-what bleeding heart liberal (and proud of it, these days)
Subject: the fact that we live in a world, not just a country
Date: whenever

I got an email from a British ex-patriot livinging in Arizona. He pointed out to me something interesting which I am hoping the Republicans here can address: how do you respond to the perception (from other countries) that Americans get rich on the backs of the poor?

My email friend mentioned how in countries like Sweden and the Netherlands, there are few very rich, but also few very poor because their system of heavy taxation does redistribute the wealth. He went on to explain how, in his opinion, our election boils down to nothing more than selfishness vs. unselfishness. Does one work to better the entire society or just oneself? Does one believe in helping others less fortunate (yes, through government programs--albeit, IMO, those programs have to be EFFECTIVE--when they aren't, I do agree with Repubs that they shouldn't exist) or by looking out for only one's own?

Different society's make different decisions on this matter (he pointed out). The United States' problem (in his opinion) is that we've never actually decided at all. However, he also believes that the apathy in our lower classes [*I* think possibly due to the sheer size of the country (so those classes can't work together as easily as in smaller countries)] is one reason why the decision to go one way or the other has never been (and never will be?) made.

So, Republicans, how do you feel about that? Are you rich because others are poor? Are you unwilling to become less rich so others can be less poor? And DO you think he's right in saying that America IS rich because it has so much poverty?

(And, BTW, do note that the U.S.'s standings in many, maybe even most, quality of life statistics IS shockingly low for such a "great" country: from life expectancy to literacy. That is a FACT. Take out the top 15% of our earners, and we drop even FURTHER! Somewhere near Spain, Greece and Brazil, in fact. Meanwhile, our heavily taxed neighbor, CANADA, ranks a lot higher. Ah, but who cares? As long as I'm comfortable. THAT is the Republican mind set, IMO.)

Pat Ness
Nov. 4, 2000, 08:53 AM
Well said pwynnnorman!
I have a friend who used to be a liberal, claims she is now a conservative, and when we go over all the issues, the only issue in which she really is a conservative is on TAXATION! WHAT IS SHE AFRAID OF! I'm afraid she is greedy along with some of the others worried about taxes on this list!

Twister
Nov. 4, 2000, 10:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pwynnnorman:
Hey, people! Is anyone upset that Dubya DIDN'T ADMIT TO IT EARLIER? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

'The cover-up is worse than the actual event.' Time and time again this gets played out during political elections. Now, suppose when Clinton had been asked about Monica and said, 'Well, we had a few rounds of wild sex and it was stupid of me, but most men do think with their small heads. I'm past it now.' We all would have shook our heads, pointed a few fingers and gone on with our lives. Instead we were embroiled in a political mess that shamed our country and brought down other able politicians (remember Livingston?).

I'm far less worried about the OUI than I am that Bush has claimed the high moral ground on the honesty and intergity issues. A pox on both their houses! Vote for Harry Browne!

woodbern
Nov. 4, 2000, 10:43 AM
Well, I don't feel compelled or obligated to explain anything else. Different strokes for different folks. Y'all have a nice weekend, and don't forget to vote on the 7th!

Snowbird
Nov. 4, 2000, 10:47 AM
Well PWynn,
Obviously I don't agree and if it were my choice I'd send all our "bleeding heart liberal media people" over there to stay.

It is our press and media people who have preached so long, they believe their own propaganda and have built the distorted image.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So, Republicans, how do you feel about that? Are you rich because others are poor? Are
you unwilling to become less rich so others can be less poor? And DO you think he's right
in saying that America IS rich because it has so much poverty?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How much more than 40% of my income do you guys think I should pay to support "entitlements".

When I meet some poor people who are willing to risk everything and work 8 days a week for the possibility of paying their room and board, then I'll re-consider!

My employees make enough money working for me to go back to their native country and retire after 3 years here. So, I'm sure not getting rich on their backs.

I think it depends on your definition of "RICH". There are lots of people who don't owe any money to anyone because they pay their bills...does that make them "rich".

Their are lots of people with a "paper value" and yet they can't pay their bills and if they did they'd be more than broke...is that "rich". And, exactly what would happen if everyone who hires all the others decided not to bother, who then would be rich?

I can tell you this is I were able to take out of the business a salary of $10.00 an hour plus overtime for the past 23 years I'd be fine. The problem is that the money isn't there. Now of course I could be smart and sell out to the developers and I'm old enough to retire, but just think of all the businesses and people who count on their income from Snowbird.

Judges, Stewards, farrier, veterinarian, hay and feed, bedding, electricity, insurance, telephone, advertising and the mortgage. Think of all the kids who worked their way through college as Starters. Never mind the obvious stable people. What about the benefit of a recreational activity we provide to all the generations that have passed through this farm? What's that worth to the community?

The problem is you can't measure the "rights" of freedom in dollars and cents. If everyone was a worker and no one was an entrepreneur do you think this would be a good economy? What would be the incentive to take a risk?

Being "rich" is the dream that oils the gears of industry, get rid of that and you have pure socialism and then who will make all that money to pay for all those entitlements?

[This message has been edited by Snowbird (edited 11-04-2000).]

Mariner
Nov. 4, 2000, 04:40 PM
Snowbird and Jumphigh,
I understand that you have valid, personal reasons for supporting Governor Bush in the upcoming election. I myself share many of them.

But why are you so ANGRY about it?

I sincerely hope that, regardless of the outcome of the election, you are both able to shed your anger and self-righteousness and find happiness. Please go out and hug your horses. I promise you it will help.

Go Bush/Cheney!!

Magnolia
Nov. 4, 2000, 06:33 PM
Hey guys, the 40% out of your income does not all go to the poor. Only like 5% goes to those types of programs. The rest pays for other crap.
Corporations like McDonalds and ADM get more in subsidies than all that is spent on poor people. I say we cut subsidies to corporations and people that can work.
BTW, did you know that when we log our National Forests, corporations pay a nominal fee (not nearly the cost of the worth of the trees), and TAXPAYERS pay to have the logging roads built. Normally, by the time all is said and done, taxpayers paid more for the logging roads than they got for their trees. Pretty sad, eh? I mean, if your gonna chop 'em, let's at least make money or break even.

Mariner
Nov. 4, 2000, 06:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jumphigh83:

And further more, WHO CARES what the "rest" of the world thinks of us??? They are jealous that we are the richest, free-est, most self sufficient bread basket in the WORLD and without us, alot of them could not survive. (let them EAT thier oil). Oh I know I sleep well at night knowing that a lying,cheating,treasonous (sp?) piece of crap is in the White House with one finger on Monica and the other on "the button" and they have all you liberal dems blessing and approval. AMAZING.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps I misspoke. The term "self-righteous" does not aptly describe this attitude. I believe that the terms "arrogant," "ignorant," "intolerant" and "hateful" are more appropriate.

The comparison to the Third Reich is simply ludicrous and is undeserving of comment.

Please, the rest of you, do not think that all Bush/Cheney supporters are of Jumphigh's ilk. There are many of us out here who not only have a firm grasp of reality (and history), but who also truly are compassionately conservative.

hobson
Nov. 4, 2000, 07:34 PM
Thanks, Mariner.

I took the liberty of following Jumphigh's suggestion of talking to "someone who was THERE" and emailed my mother-in-law who grew up in Berlin during the war. She emailed me right back with some highly uncomplimentary things to say about American education. She further pointed out that Germans who remember those times with sorrow DO compare some American party positions to fascism - and it's not the democratic party.

Duffy
Nov. 4, 2000, 07:47 PM
UGGGGGGG!!!!!! They're BOTH awful and I'm NOT looking forward to next Tuesday and I'm praying that the next four years does not put our country into even worse shape than it's been placed over the last four years. I know some will argue that it's not in any worse shape than it was prior to the last four years. . .but hey, we're all entitled to our opinions! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

creseida
Nov. 4, 2000, 08:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:
How much more than 40% of my income do you guys think I should pay to support "entitlements".
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, like welfare mommies who keep on having more kids so they can get even more government support so they don't have to lift a finger and do any work. You've seen them...the ones that weigh about 300 pounds, go into the grocery, buy $300 worth of food (most of it junk food, like twinkies & Pepsi), and pay with WIC or Food stamps, and when they leave, go out and get into their brand new Toyota Avalon or Subaru Outback 4wd wagon!!! . I can't afford a brand new car, yet these welfare cases can?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
When I meet some poor people who are willing to risk everything and work 8 days a week for the possibility of paying their room and board, then I'll re-consider!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A-men! I bet if able bodied welfare recipients actually had to lift a finger to collect that welfare cheque, a lot fewer of them would be on welfare. Personally, I think that if you're going to apply for welfare because "you can't get a job", then you should be required to do 40 hours of work; 32 hours of community service per week (scrubbing grafitti, picking up trash, unclogging ditches...you know, appealing fun-type jobs) in order to receive that paycheque. The other 8 should be spent pounding the pavement looking for a better job. What do ya say that suddenly, we don't have nearly the welfare issue we do now.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I think it depends on your definition of "RICH". There are lots of people who don't owe any money to anyone because they pay their bills...does that make them "rich".

Their are lots of people with a "paper value" and yet they can't pay their bills and if they did they'd be more than broke...is that "rich". And, exactly what would happen if everyone who hires all the others decided not to bother, who then would be rich? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ain't this the truth. Some friends of mine probably earn $150k per year between the two of them. They are talking about buying their first house, but they can't come up with $7,000 for a down payment. They are "cash poor". They spend their money on new cars, new computers, new (really ugly) modern objects d' art, golf, and overpriced wine. Go figure. http://www.chronofhorse.com/ubb/cool.gif

[This message has been edited by creseida (edited 11-04-2000).]

Magnolia
Nov. 4, 2000, 08:43 PM
You know, there are some poor people that work too. They can't afford cars, and usually are the ones buying rice and beans at the market.
I'm no republican, but it infuriates me to see people buying twinkies with food stamps, that have a fresh manicure, styled hair and new clothes. It makes me even sadder to see a lady in work clothes have to buy the dented cans and plain rice for her family. Or know that I have $25.00 for groceries this week, so it is Mac&Cheese for me and Brad.
Why not require work for welfare? or, give working poor a boost, so welfare doesn't seem so nice? What about giving the mom buying rice the money the twinkie lady gets, and telling the twinkie lady to strave or hit the food pantry or get a job?
But please remember that not everyone who works makes enough to get by. (basics, not a new house!) Because their companies won't pay for their living expenses, we have to pick up the slack. Yet another way we subsidize corporations. Yeah, I think everyone should have a job. And a job that requires 40 hours of your week should pay for food, housing and medical. Yet another example... Mc Donalds worker gets sick. No insurance, so they don't get to the doctor. Sickness gets worse. Their only choice is an ER. They go to ER. Huge bill. Can't pay. Hospital raises our rates to cover it. Insurance costs rise. We get hit in our paychecks. Why? Because McDonald's didn't pay the employee enough for insurance, so there we are, you and I taking up Mc Donald's slack, a company wher the salary of the CEO could no doubt cover the insurance bill for it's full time employees.

Look, I have no patience for non-workers who can work, but we need to help those who do work make a decent living. (Which, LOL, neither party addresses!)

BTW, Duffy, my sentiments exactly

Duffy
Nov. 4, 2000, 08:54 PM
This is somewhat off topic. . .But when I used to be in the insurance field full time, I had a call out of the blue, from a "friend" of a young single mother, who wanted to buy some whole life insurance (ie - one with cash values) for an infant son of said mother. Reluctantly, I went on an appointment to meet the mother. It was not in a terribly nice part of town. But, I will say that the inside of her small apartment was spotless. However, this young mother admitted to me, after I saw not just the one infant son, but two not-so-older siblings, that she made more from welfare by having more kids than she would if she worked. But, that she'd probably stop after the three, because the increase in payments if she went to four wasn't enough (or none - can't remember - was quite a few years ago).

Call me naive, but I was shocked. I couldn't believe that a person that was so "educated" as to be able to figure out how to swindle more money out of the government, could not find a job with reasonable pay. And to have more kids so that she'd get more money from welfare??? And this woman was no "monster". It truly was scary to me.

[This message has been edited by Duffy (edited 11-04-2000).]

Magnolia
Nov. 4, 2000, 09:07 PM
What's this with comparing Democrats to Nazis? Like the republicans aren't Fascists themselves? Maybe both parties are fascists, seeing as how they work so hard from preventing any 3rd parties from getting power?
Where was Ralph Nader at those debates? Hmmmmmm? I guess they didn't want him around.
Does it not bother people that both of these parties stand for the same ideas - helping big business at the expense of others? supporting nations like China? jailing more people percent wise than any other nation in the world, most of these criminals being non-violent drug offenders? giving public land resources to anyone that greases the right palm? preventing certain parties from unionization? curtailing free speech?


Do you honestly think either of these jerks are going to bite the hand that feeds them? I sure don't.
Sorry, I've made like a million posts on this topic. If I got 1 person to think that maybe both parties stink, and neither deserve to represent us, then, well, I did my job.

I'm going to go out on Tuesday. I'll vote the lessor of 2 evils where I have too. I won't vote for the #$%hole that left one of those pre recorded messages on my machine. Where I can, I'll vote 3rd party. Where I can't I'll pick an anonymous name. I'll leave, feeling dirty, like a used pawn in ssomeone elses game that I can't play.

Kryswyn
Nov. 4, 2000, 11:47 PM
Magnolia, I know it seems hopeless, but really, your "protest" vote of casting ballots for a 3d party is throwing your vote away.

Consider this:
You don't like either Bush or Gore. You decide not to vote AT ALL. Result? Your friends and neighbors choose your President. Is that what you want?

Or: You don't like either Bush or Gore. You vote 3d party. Your candidate doesn't get 1% of the vote, and once again your friends and neighbors choose your President for you. Is that what you really want?

I submit that while you may not like either Algore or Dubya, if you examine their stance on the issues, ONE of them will be more in line with your views. It might end up being a smaller issue that decides it, but I submit you dislike one of them more, so you can vote for the other one and choose your own President. Good luck.

Kryswyn
Nov. 5, 2000, 12:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sannois:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kryswyn:
[B]No no no, you've missed the point Pwynn made (and I was coming to post!) To paraphrase Daddy Bush, "It's the LYING, Stupid!"

Yeah, IT'S THE LYING, STUPID alright.

It's "I invented the Internet, stupid." It's "I didn't know it was a fund raiser" stupid. It's "I discovered Love Canal", stupid. It's "There's no controlling legal authority", stupid. It's "My mother-in-law's prescription cost more than my dog's", stupid. It's "Love Story was based on my life", stupid. It's "I've never told an untruth", stupid. It's "My mother used to sing me to sleep with the Union Label song", stupid.

The democrats and the left wing main stream media have consistantly covered up, white washed and ignored the bold-faced, arrogant lies told by the moral degenerates they have inflicted on us. We have finally realized that you socialist tolitarians have one objective: to usurp our freedoms through deceit and subterfuge to enslave us to our own government. To do this, you HAVE to use practiced liars like Bill Clinton and Algore, STUPID.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh please, are you old enough to remember the Grandaddy of all Liars? "I am NOT a Crook!" Richard M Nixon, who was ummm, let me see, a REPUBLICAN! Scandals in the oval office?? Does the word WATERGATE bring back painful memories? SHAME brought to the Presidency? Remember his resignation just prior to certain impeachment? Tricky Dick had to be PARDONED. Clinton couldn't even be convicted by a Republican majority Congress!

You may not like his choice of bedmates and bedrooms. You may not like his inability to take responsibility for certain actions (neither do I!), but the 8 years of his presidency has brought prosperity to this country the likes of which have not been seen before. And don't say "it was a republican that set the stage for that prosperity," because if that were true, Clinton would have lost to Bush in 1992. The truth is Bush's economic policies were a disaster and that's the biggest reason he was voted out of office.

PS, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and not believe you were calling me, personally, stupid /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif but using it the way Bush Daddy did.

pwynnnorman
Nov. 5, 2000, 07:27 AM
Sannois (love the name) wrote: "The opportunity is there for everyone to succeed. Try getting off your butts and working."

No, it isn't, Sannois. I tried to make this point before: times have changed. The opportunity is NOT there for everyone anymore. I mentioned before how, if a student has to work as well as go to school, s/he doesn't receive anywhere near the education that a student who doesn't have to work CAN receive (s/he doesn't even have TIME to take advantage of opportunities that arise that might get her/him ahead).

Yes, back in the olden days of lore people worked and went to school and put in 18 hour days and succeeded. But that was then: the world moved a lot more slowly than it does now.

I feel for my students (albeit, it's a love/hate relationship). Try teaching--and, mind you, my students are predominantly middle class AND I've taught in institutions where they were upper middle class as well. They are all doomed, with the exception of those with the intelligence to become the high techies and those whose families can give them a headstart with funds or at least a loan co-signature. Everyone else is headed into the trenches, never to be heard from again.

The best example of this is the horse world, of course. It USED to be possible to work hard and get ahead, but it isn't any more. Granted, Snowbird is right to a certain extent: some of what I'm arguing does depend on how you define "rich." But maybe it's easier to define "not rich."

"Not rich" is not having any discretionary income on which to buy luxuries, like horses or show circuits. For the person in the trenches, it means you MUST produce something worthwhile or YOU CAN NOT CONTINUE. You MUST sell or you will go out of business. For the young person with great aspirations, it means you cannot ask your parents to help you (or just support you while you try) and you cannot ask anyone else either because there IS no one else. You don't even travel in the right circles such that you could encounter "someone else." You don't travel in those circles because those circles are so expensive to travel in. And because you are working so hard, you don't have the time, energy or knowledge to come up with other ways to encounter "someone else."

[Break time: part of the above comes from personal experience, of course. Everyone says I should marry a rich guy. Oh, heck, I don't even have the TIME to go anywhere or do anything such that he'd ever notice I exist, whether he's rich or not. Imagine being too "not rich" to be unable to find a MAN? Geezum. And I KNOW I'm not alone in this problem. It's one of the sacrifices we make, right other-ambitious-ladies?]

In the olden days of lore--even in the horse industry--the circles where opportunity could be found weren't that expensive. It WAS possible for someone to notice how hard you work and how talented you are because you'd run into that someone in the barn, the schooling ring, the exhibitors tent, or whatever. Indeed, maybe your trainer would introduce you to that person. But today, your trainer is struggling in the trenches as much as you are and doesn't have the time or the inclination to help you much (unless you are "worth" helping in that you have contacts/family/whatever that will also help the trainer). That's not another trainer slight: the person I'm describing IS a trainer.

Today, the distance between the "not rich" and the "rich" is so much wider than it once was that you live in completely different worlds (and they haven't a clue that you do--they are so distant that they "just don't get it"). The rich are so rich now that they never need cross paths with the "not rich" at all. They aren't IN the barn when you are, there's a different tent for them that you can't afford the tickets to get into, they don't hang out on the rail anymore, they do everything through trainers and agents so they don't interact with a wide range of participants anymore.

[You know what drives me the most nuts? Everyone says you have to "network" in any business if you are to succeed. But no one admits that you have to network with the RIGHT PEOPLE. Networking with other sorryasses like yourself doesn't get you there, except, occasionally, through sheer luck when that other sorryass makes good.]

Some of you are undoubtedly saying to yourselves: why is she so convinced that the "not rich" NEED interaction with the rich to get ahead? One proof is the networking fact. Also, however, money has to come from somewhere for ANY business, whether it's through loans or clientele. Even the trickle-down economics of the Republican mantra understands that. But today, the money is too far away: it never makes it ALL the way down. Indeed, it is sort of hoarded at a level somewhere between "rich" and "not quite that rich" in my opinion.

None of this is "their" fault by the way. It is just reality. It takes money to make money these days, except in the techie industries. Give me one, single example that is an exception? Just one (in the horse industry in the last, oh, say, 15 years: someone WITHOUT some connection to $$$ somewhere--Nona Garson, you'll say, Snowbird. I think not. SOMEONE's discretionary income enabled her to take riding lessons)?

What about highly skilled and educated people? Like doctors and lawyers and college professors, perhaps? Nope, sorry: Even THEY have little discretionary income if they had to work and borrow for the education that got them ahead: they are too busy paying off loans by taking on whatever jobs will pay their bills. By the time they've paid off the bills, they are too tired, old or children-laden to do more.

And, BTW, discretionary income is also that which enables someone to start and maintain a small business. It's either that or loans, right? But where does the "not rich" get loans from? Oh, right, those baddies, the government and its programs. Hmmmm... Do ya think just maybe there is something to a little government assistance to break the cycle of the "not rich"?

You may hear more about the "poor," but it's the plight of the "not rich" that is the real problem. And I haven't even starting in on the "working poor" (someone else here did though).

It's nice to be able to soothe your conscience by getting angry at the 300 pound welfare mamma, but she's actually a minority in this issue (yeah, yeah--bad word choice, sorry). There are more "working poor" and "not [and never will be?] rich" than there are welfare mammas.

But you go ahead and focus on her if that makes you feel better.

Meanwhile, WE are going to elect to find ways to break the cycle of the rich getting richer while the not rich get poorer: Gore on Tuesday and Nader in 2004.

[This message has been edited by pwynnnorman (edited 11-05-2000).]

pwynnnorman
Nov. 5, 2000, 08:37 AM
In bringing up what my Arizona email friend said, I believe I acknowledged the sad but true nature of capitalis, but acknowledging it doesn't mean one has to like it. Me, I accept reality as a complicated matter--my mind can handle that, even if it doesn't LIKE the result and so is willing to work on changing it.

Meanwhile, over-simplification is a sign of a simple mind. And there's also nothing anyone can do about THAT, either--scary as it is.

hobson
Nov. 5, 2000, 08:55 AM
Sannois, whatever you may believe, the Nazis were not socialists, despite the party name. Nazis are fascists, which is an extreme right-wing form of government. You can verify this in any political science text. In any case...I dislike Al Gore for a variety of reasons, but for someone to see jack-booted thugs lurking behind him is a bit much.

And to all you philosophy students, metaphysics and Heidegger fans out there, check out the recent Harpers for a reprint of a Crispin Sartwell essay about Al Gore that ran during September in the "New York Press." Gore fans and foes alike will find it hilarious. Sartwell makes a compelling phenomenological argument that Al Gore does not exist. "Al Gore is the absence even of absence." I almost choked on my Fruity Pebbles this morning while reading it, I was laughing so hard.

Kryswyn
Nov. 5, 2000, 09:06 AM
Wow, from abortion, to adoption, to Utah and Waco. What a thread.

Sannois (unlike pwynn I have no idea what that means) I get the feeling you support the people trying to start cults and counter cultures in this country. You want the benefits of living in the USA, but don't want to contribute to what makes this country what it is. Am I right? Do you want your little place in the woods and the right not to be bothered by the "government". Well, if you couldn't use anything created, paid for, run by, the government you would have a lonly life.

jumpcrew
Nov. 5, 2000, 11:13 AM
As the person who started this thread, let me restate the question: Which candidate is best for the horse industry?

hobson
Nov. 5, 2000, 01:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jumpcrew:
As the person who started this thread, let me restate the question: Which candidate is best for the horse industry?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's just no single answer to this, because the horse industry is so varied. Here are some of the different facets of the industry I can think of off the top of my head - and each one might have a different approach to how national issues shape their life with horses:

Breeders of top-dollar show or race horses; breeders of inexpensive pleasure horses; gamblers; weekend trail riders; hunters who use pack horses in the mountains on federal land; serious show riders; serious pleasure riders; tack shop owners; slaughterhouses; wild horse advocates; auctioneers; working-class riders who only take weekly lessons; working-class riders who own a single horse but aspire to more; farmers; trainers; rural residents who have horses at home; suburbanites who board; city dwellers who board; foxhunters, eventers, and endurance riders whose sports need lots of land; people with non-horse careers who struggle to find riding time...the list can go on and on.

Since we all touch the business in different ways, we're going to see conflicting priorities.

B.G.M. heidi
Nov. 5, 2000, 02:10 PM
Jumphigh, how abhorrent that in your bid to equate the Democratic party to nazism, you cite examples of taxation and the loss of personal freedom as the legacy of nazism. Perhaps you should return to your vaunted history books and refresh your memory about the millions of Jews who perished under nazism. Your radical theories (how brave and heroic you must feel) are offensive and frightening.

[This message has been edited by heidi (edited 11-05-2000).]

DMK
Nov. 5, 2000, 03:12 PM
Sannois

After reading your perspective on America and her politics, I can only imagine that you will find no comfort no matter WHO is elected...

pwynnnorman
Nov. 5, 2000, 05:36 PM
Just to lighten things up a bit, here's a funny for y'all:

Jim Lehrer: Welcome to the second presidential debate between Vice President Al Gore and Gov. George W. Bush. The candidates have agreed on these rules: I will ask a question. The candidate will ignore the question and deliver rehearsed remarks designed to appeal to the undecided women voters. The opponent will then have one minute to respond by trying to frighten senior citizens into voting for him. when a speaker's time has expired, I will whimper softly while he continues to spew incomprehensible statistics for three more minutes.

Let's start with the vice president. Mr. Gore, can you give us the name of a downtrodden citizen and then tell us his or her story in a way that strains the bounds of common sense?

Gore: As I was saying to Tipper last night after we tenderly made love the way we have so often during the 30 years of our rock-solid marriage, the downtrodden have a clear choice in this election. My opponent wants to cut taxes for the richest 1 percent of Americans. I, on the other hand, want to put the richest 1 percent in an iron clad lockbox so they can't hurt old people like Roberta Frampinhamper, who is here tonight. Mrs. Frampinhamper has been selling her internal organs, one by one, to pay for gas so that she can travel to these debates and personify problems for me. Also, her poodle has arthritis.

Lehrer: Gov. Bush, your rebuttal.

Bush: Governors are on the front lines every day, hugging people, crying with them, relieving suffereing anywhere a photo opportunity exists. I want to empower those crying people to make their own decisions, unlike my opponent, whose mother is not Barbara Bush.

Lehrer: Let's turn to foreign affairs. Gov. Bush, if Slobodan Milosevic were to launch a bid to return to power in Yugoslavia, would you be able to pronounce his name?

Bush: The current administration had eight years to deal with that guy and didn't get it done. If I'm elected, the first thing I would do about that guy is have Dick Cheney confer with our allies. And the Dick would present me several options for dealing with that guy. And the Dick would tell me which one to choose. You know, as governor of Texas, I have to make tough foreign policy decisions every day about how we are goig to deal with New Mexico.

Lehrer: Mr. Gore, your rebuttal.

Gore: Foreign policy is something I've always been keenly interested in. I served my country in Vietnam. I had an uncle who was a victim of poison gas in World War I. I myself lost a leg in the Franco-Prussion War. And when that war was over, I came home and tenderly made love to Tipper in a way that any undecided woman voter would find romantic. If I'm entrusted with the office of president, I pledge to deal knowledgeably with any threat, foreign or comestic, by putting it in an iron clad lockbox. BEcause the American people deserve a president who can comfort them with simple metaphors.

Lehrer: Vice President Gore, how would you reform the Social Security system?

Gore: It's a vital issue, Jim. That's why Joe Liberman and I have proposed changing the laws of mathematics to allow us to give $50,000 to every senior citizen without having it cost the federal treasury a single penny until the year 2250. In addition, my budget commites 60 trillion over the next 10 years to guarentee that all senior citizens canhave drugs delivered free to their homes every Monday by a federal employee who will also help them with the child-proof cap.

Lehrer: Gov. Bush?
Bush: That's fuzzy math. I know, because as governor of Texas, I have to do math every day. I have to add up the numbers and decide whether I'm going to fill potholes out on Rt. 36 east of Ailene or commit funds to reroof the sheep barn at the Texas state fairgrounds.

Lehrer: It's time for closing statements.

Gore: I'm my own man. I may not be the most exciting politician, but I will fight for the working families of America, in addition to turning the White House into a lusty pit of marital love for Tipper and me.

Bush: It's time to put aside the partisanship of the past by electing no one but Republicans.

Lehrer: Good night.

Snowbird
Nov. 5, 2000, 08:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"Not rich" is not having any discretionary income on which to buy luxuries, like horses or show circuits. For the person in the trenches, it means you MUST produce something worthwhile or YOU CAN NOT CONTINUE. You MUST sell or you will go out of business.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Geez! Pwynn, So what's so terrible about the that concept. Are you saying that you should be able to produce whatever you want even if it has no sales value, potential or use to make life fair?

The point is very simple you can have anything you want if you are willing to pay the piper. For example I could have been a concert pianist but I couldn't stand practicing the piano 8 hours a day. And, even if I did, the chances are no one would be willing to pay to hear me play.

I didn't mind painting pictures 14 hours a day, and I painted more ugly pictures than you can imagine but I did get the bills paid. Because people were willing to pay for my paintings.

That is the basic element of supply and demand which creates the economy. There is nothing that says you are entitled to an above average income producing a product that you love but no one else wants.

The big fortunes were all built on designing a product that enough people wanted, and advertising is convincing them that they need it.

Fascists are no more far right than the Lords of the Manor who kept everyone in "serfdom". That is simply a mis-definition. The fascist believes that they have the only "right" solution to a problem and they believe in their superiority as a "right" to dominate the rest who are not in their forum.

If you examine the two forms of economy you will discover that the "right" belongs to those who believe in the individual and inndividuak dignity and beauty, that would include the first democracy in Greece.

The "left" are the ones who have the patronizing attitude of the slave owners who felt that it was their "right" to dominate any group that in their opinion was inferior.

If you can be objective about the "liberal" establishment they enslave the masses by making them dependent on the government for their survival. It doesn't matter much whether you call them entitlements or bribery.

Pwynn what you are saying about the days of "old" is just plain wrong. In those days a weekly salary was $8 or $10. It wasn't rare that a trades person earned $1.00 a day. Yet, they bought houses went on vactions and started businesses. Everything is relative to the times in which you live.

What I am saying is that you may not be willing to pay the price in terms of your personal dignity and pleasure, but that doesn't mean the opportunity is not there.

I have made a choice of my life style, I don't want to give up what I have for the privilege of touring in a camper and living in a tack room. Now, if it was important to me to be a "winner" then I know the route and would have taken that route.

If it was important enough to you, you find the time to network, you would play the academic games that are required to be accepted in their "successful" groups. BUT, you don't want to pay that price.

That's what I meant earlier, the "left" is any group that attempts to control others and force them to live by their rules and permits no individual preferences of opinions.

That's why so many on the "right" become hermits and seem anti-social. They are not willing to pay the price required to be socially acceptable and in many cases like mine to be politically correct.

We of the "right" want to have choice, not just on the issue of abortion but in all facets. We believe that we are able to determine and captain our own ship and do not require Big Brother to look out for us.

We know that there is no free lunch, and for every entitlement we must give up some individual rights. So, we want small government, they can maintain the highways and pick up the garbage. But, the real issues of life should be solved by real people. We don't require a Washington Bureau to supervise us and tell us what to eat, what to wear and what to do when.

I want to teach and raise my own children and grandchildren. I want to be the font of all good things so that they will respect my point of view until they are old enough to have opinions of their own. The operative word is respect and not discipline.

[This message has been edited by Snowbird (edited 11-05-2000).]