PDA

View Full Version : BUSHvsGORE re:Horse Industry



Pages : 1 2 [3]

Kryswyn
Nov. 5, 2000, 09:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sannois:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DMK:
[B]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...
Not true, DMK. I would be very happy if Harry Browne, Libertarian Party were elected.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well thank goodness THAT won't happen! One right that has NOT been restricted is an American's right to move about as they please. Please feel perfectly free to move to another country where you can spout this rhetoric and form your utopian culture. Oh wait! There aren't any other country's that would let you do that. http://www.chronofhorse.com/ubb/eek.gif

Janet
Nov. 5, 2000, 10:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:

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.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So, by your definition, anti-abortion activists are the "left".

So are those that want to re-introduce prayer in public schools.

Very interesting.

B.G.M. heidi
Nov. 6, 2000, 12:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jumphigh83:

You are RIGHT! they are abhorant and we are next. I did not praise the system where "millions of jews perished" I said that's where we are heading! And not just jews died but ANYONE who didnt agree with Hitler was also exterminated. Jews had no corner on the death market. Most of my great uncle died because of their beliefs (anti Hitler) and so did a great Aunt who dies in childbirth because she was "too old" to bear any more children for the fatherland so she was allowed to die. I HAVE been to the history books and better than that I have heard first hand the horrors of what it is like to give up your personal freedoms to the government. So keep up the good work all you liberals and do vote for Billious (Algore) and (in NYS) Hillarious and then if we are allowed to have opinions on BBs (NOT) I'll be the first to tell you all about how WRONG you were. Have a nice day. (don't get a rash from the bark!)
And Heidi, since you are not an American citizen, your interest in our politics would be....??? I guess you just don't want the neighborhood to deteriorate too much when America becomes the United American Socialist Republic. Might make the Canadian dollar evenweaker than it already is.


[This message has been edited by Jumphigh83 (edited 11-05-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not certain which country you live in Jumphigh - Croatia, Rwanada; certainly not the U.S. If the criteria to stridency is the number of deaths in one's family - sweetie, I probably win.

My interest in American politics is mostly a sociological one - it is forever an interesting, not to mention an amusing, exercise to witness otherwise sane people revert to all the ugly stereotypes that Canadians have always suspected a few Americans were capable of. But as someone who gets a job offer (yes, stealing those jobs away from all of you deserving Yankees) from a U.S. company every couple of months, I thank god, allah, whomever, that we remain steadfastly in our rather sane, innocuous, rational little country.

Baltic Sky
Nov. 6, 2000, 12:51 AM
Whew!! After reading all of this, I can say that the candidates have nothing on anyone. Things I've read: misquotes by people who would rather continue misquoting than find the truth, stretching and twisting of facts, cruel, selfish, narrow-minded ideaology, frightening reactionary beliefs, lies, stereotyping and prejudicial untruths about people who have little or no voice in this society. In short, there are many people who posted here who would make GREAT political candidates for this race, and be picked apart, looked at under a magnifying glass, and made to looking just as bad, if not WORSE than anyone currently running. Fortunately we have the right to read, go to libraries, use computers and in general, EDUCATE OURSELVES and make a change in this country by voting, writing letters, running for office, and getting involved. VOTE TUESDAY in PEACE as an AMERICAN.......

farmgate
Nov. 6, 2000, 02:44 AM
I must say, this has been an interesting thread. I think, more than anything, it reflects how some of us feel they have been or should be affected individually by our government. [Hummm...how 'bout the BIG picture?]

Isn't an understanding of government historically, important in shaping reasonable opinions on the subject. For instance it's argued that, as far as leaders go, the trends of society determine the course of government or...if not Hitler then someone by another name.

For a good look at how government can evolve, try an in depth study of Republican Rome and then Imperial. For those who instantly conjured up thoughts of brutality and lions, you, most of all, need to lose the Hollywood perception of one of the most successful governing machines ever. The similarities in that government and ours, is most interesting.

One example is that of unreliable political rumours. Petronius from the time of Nero writes:

"People would rather swallow a lighted candle
Than keep a secret that smacks in the least of scandal.
The quietest whisper in the royal hall
Is out in a flash buttonholing passers-by against a wall;
And it's not enough that it's broadcast to the nation-
Everyone gets it with improvement and elaboration."

A thoroughly enjoyable read including the subject of government is "The First Man In Rome" a novel by Colleen McCullough who also wrote "The Thorn Birds". Once read, you won't be able to resist her second in the series, "The Grass Crown".

pwynnnorman
Nov. 6, 2000, 07:59 AM
Snowbird, you misread me: "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?"

[First, hmmm...does that sound familiar? Sounds like a whole slew of horse breeders to me. The ones with the full-page, full-colro stallion ads and fathers or husbands with Dr. before or Esq. after their names-- and/or names which also appear on durable goods and foodstuffs.]

Anyway, in my post, I was defining "not rich." That definition had nothing to do with how one should or should not be productive. I'd ask that you reread what I wrote, if you care.

Moreover, are you denying that you are "not rich" if you MUST be productive? That you are "not rich" if you don't have any discretionary income? THAT was the point I was making: "not rich" means no discretionary income and a fine, financial line between success and failure. "Not rich" means no padding. And now, be honest: when it comes to the working folks in our industry, where do most of them stand? Not the HORSE owners, mind you--the BUSINESS owners and other WORKERS. Most of them walk a very fine line indeed.

I believe Gore would HELP them, the "not rich" in our industry (yeah, myself included). No, Gore will not help those they work for, but he will help US. Trickle-down Republicanism, of cousre, assumes that if you help those we work for, their succeses will trickle down and help their workers as well. Hmmm...Has the plight of the average groom or lower level trainer improved much from the, oh, say 60s? Indeed, seems to me they actually have to work HARDER and LONGER these days and turnover and burnout and bankrupcy is ever more common.

Meanwhile, those that "make it" in our industry are INCREASINGLY coming from ranks that are much, much higher on the food chain. That's no improvement for the working class. That's no support for the "American way" of hard work leading to success. It ain't hard work: it is, increasingly in OUR industry, Daddy's or Hubby's money. CAN YOU DENY THAT? Especially you, Snowbird, who are old enough to remember the personalities of times past and from whence THEY arose (in contrast to times present).

This thread started with a question about the horse industry. Speaking from my liberal Democratic perspective, I thus defined "not rich" in terms that I hoped horse people could understand, whether they are or aren't "not rich": no discretionary income to indulge in their horse pleasures and, if you are in the business, no CHOICE about what or when to sell. If you love horses, regardless of your income, surely you can appreciate the impact, the stress, the sometimes-almost-hopelessness of that lack of choice. It's not a "right"; it's merely a distinguishing trait which, one would hope, those who HAVE a choice might have some compassion toward.

Think about THAT with respect to the horse "businesses" and "professionals" you know, not only the owners and exhibitors, but the trainers (especially the lesser-known, AVERAGE ones), the grooms, the riders, the shippers, the braiders, the muckers. Consider their insecure and nomadic lives. Or, to be more specific--since you know me--contrast ME, SportPonies Unlimited, with, oh, say Iron Springs Farm. Contrast any of those "little" trainers who come to your shows with the big name trainers, nearly ALL of whom were big name riders first. ON AVERAGE, what do you see is the difference between them? ON AVERAGE, mind you--please don't cite some individual case.

Some horse people--maybe not the majority on this BB since it seems most people here are horse owners, but not business owners (and, if they ARE business owners, like yourself, they are the landed gentry in marvelously populous areas)--some horse people (MOST, I dare say) ARE in the trenches and probably think more Gore-like. I may be dead wrong, but I suspect that others who aren't think more Bush-like.

In light of the horse-angle of this discussion, those aspects of who is supporting whom in this election are neither complicated nor obscure. Who do you think that midwestern trainer who never rode at the Garden, who earned her clientele first by being someone's working student or assistant, who has never owned land in a prime location (because it's too expensive, of course)...who do you think she is more likely to vote for?

Doubleeez
Nov. 6, 2000, 09:03 AM
Jumpcrew,
As the person who started this thread, you ask which candidate is better for the horse industry?
In essence, you are asking which candidate is better for ME in the horse industry?
When it comes right down to the nitty gritty and you are alone in that booth with just your ballot, ask yourself, "Am I better off today than I was 8 years ago - getting my stable board paid without scrimping, going to a show when I see one that looks good, buying new boots even though the old ones would do?" Hmmmmmmm.
IF IT AIN'T BROKE DON'T FIX IT 111
Vote GORE for MORE.

Gryphon
Nov. 6, 2000, 09:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jumphigh83:

And Heidi, since you are not an American citizen, your interest in our politics would be....??? I guess you just don't want the neighborhood to deteriorate too much when America becomes the United American Socialist Republic. Might make the Canadian dollar evenweaker than it already is.


[This message has been edited by Jumphigh83 (edited 11-05-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't take offense Heidi. Jumphigh is what we refer to as an "Ugly American."

smedley
Nov. 6, 2000, 09:21 AM
Sannois and Jumphigh,

Your irrational, hate-mongering ravings have convinced me to vote Gore/Lieberman tomorrow. Thank you.

Signed,
Previously Undecided Voter, Smedley

Magnolia
Nov. 6, 2000, 09:42 AM
I agree. You Bush supporters aren't doing yourselves any favors, in fact, you are really scaring off us poor undecideds....
For the sake of the nation, this 3rd Party Queen, hater of both parties is saying...
Please Vote for Gore / Leiberman! We sure as %$^& don't want Bush!

Jumphigh83
Nov. 6, 2000, 10:05 AM
hiedi honey..I am not your sweetie, and please do, take offense... I am all over you guys and your IGNORANCE to the obvious. Go vote Algore. Sin in haste..repent in leisure. BYE.
The ugly (but REAL) American

[This message has been edited by Jumphigh83 (edited 11-06-2000).]

woodbern
Nov. 6, 2000, 10:07 AM
Bush.

Have a nice day! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Gryphon
Nov. 6, 2000, 11:00 AM
A letter from Michael Moore - another perspective to peruse.


THREE STRIKES AND YOU'RE OUT, MR. BUSH

November 3, 2000

Dear friends,

With the revelation last night of the drunk driving
arrest and conviction in 1976 of George W. Bush,
this marks the THIRD arrest -- that we know of --
involving this man who would be President.

Let me ask you, the readers of this letter: How
many times have YOU been arrested? Me, none.
Most of you -- once? twice? This guy has been
arrested AT LEAST THREE TIMES! How many
people do you know have been arrested three
times? Go ahead, do a quick count on your fingers.
The answer? NONE!

Yet, we are being asked on Tuesday to vote for
a man who has been arrested THREE TIMES.
For President of the United States! Are they
kidding? The Republicans must take us all for
idiots.

The first arrest of George W. Bush was for
theft at a hotel. The second arrest was for
disorderly conduct at a football game. The
third arrest, we've now learned, is for a very
serious crime -- drunk driving. What's the next
crime committed by George W. Bush that we
will learn of? When will we learn it? It is time for
everyone to demand the truth from Governor
Bush. I'm telling you, we haven't heard the last of
his criminal behavior.

But next Wednesday will be too late to find out.

The press should be ashamed of itself for its
laziness. I cannot believe it took a young woman,
Erin Fehlau -- at a FOX affiliate, no less -- up in
Maine to stumble onto this story and do the
necessary work to uncover it. Where have the
big networks' investigative reporters been?

I'll tell you where: ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL!

After seeing this local Maine reporter on "Nightline"
last night explain how a policewoman told her she
overheard a conversation between a lawyer and a
judge, and then the reporter started digging around
and found out the facts, it was clear the story was
not planted by the Gore campaign, as Bush and his
people have been insinuating.

The real story here is how did this conviction get
covered up for so many years? I spoke to a lawyer
last night familiar with these kinds of cases. She
said that a D.U.I., in and of itself, is not something
worth covering up. Had Bush revealed this himself,
he would have found the public forgiving of his
infraction.

No, my lawyer friend continued, the only reason
to cover it up would be that there was something
ELSE connected to the arrest that night -- e.g.,
drugs or resisting arrest. This other potential charge
could have been dropped and expunged. The
reporter was shown only the court docket which
listed Bush's name, address, and the charge to
which he pleaded guilty. What we need to see
is the actual POLICE REPORT from that night.
Assuming it hasn't been doctored, that will tell us
the truth.

The Bush people have already lied about the
nature of the D.U.I. arrest (they said the cop
pulled Bush over because he was "driving too
slowly"; the arresting officer last night said it
was because Bush had "swerved off on the
shoulder of the road"). Bush himself lied last
night when asked about the night he spent in
jail. "I didn't spend time in jail," he insisted. The
officer told the local reporter that Bush, in fact,
was handcuffed, taken to the station, and held
in custody for at least an hour and a half.

This is not just some simple traffic ticket. I
don't want to hear one word comparing this
drunk driving conviction to Clinton's
transgressions. Lying about consensual sex you
had with another adult is NOT the same as
getting behind the wheel of a car when you are
drunk and endangering the lives of others
(including the life of your own sister, Mr. Bush,
who was in the car with you that night).

It is NOT the same as Gore volunteering he
smoked pot in his youth. That act endangered no
one's life and he did not try to cover it up.

And don't tell us that the drunk driving and the
"drinking problem" was just a "youthful indiscretion."
You were NOT a "youth" when you were in your
THIRTIES on the night you were arrested while
careening off the road. The fact is, according to your
own admission (if not in these words), you were a
drunk and a bum 'til the age of 40, living off your
rich daddy who spent his time bailing you out of
trouble.

For crying out loud -- if any Republican is reading
this, I implore you: this man does not deserve to
be placed in the highest and most respected office
in the land! Bush voters, come to your senses! If
you can't bring yourself to vote for Nader or Gore,
then show your love for your country and just stay
home next Tuesday.

Please, save our nation this incredible, unfolding,
never-ending embarrassment.

Yours,

Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com www.michaelmoore.com (http://www.michaelmoore.com)

Doubleeez
Nov. 6, 2000, 11:01 AM
Please tell me what Bush is talking about when he says, "My opponent trusts the government and we trust the people".
If he had paid attention in his 10th grade Civics class he would know that the government IS the people !!! Don't think this statement holds alot of promise for him as President. Vote GORE.

Jumphigh83
Nov. 6, 2000, 11:11 AM
GOOD NEWS all you liberal love festers out there!!!Jumphigh has deleted ALL her previous posts!! In the spirit of liberalism, equality, fairness and leveling the playing field, she has deleted all previous posts for your viewing pleasure. She decided that a battle of wits with the unarmed would be positively unAmerican! So remember...vote early, vote often AND look for that union label!!!
The ugly (but REAL) American who could give a rats behind about the rest of the world but would love to save her country from those that choose to bring it down.

Inverness
Nov. 6, 2000, 11:11 AM
I have a new theory:

Jumphigh and Sannois are really Gore supporters.

The two of them have conspired to post outlandishly uninformed and inflammatory statements in order to convince the undecideds that Bush supporters are all loonies.

Sleepy
Nov. 6, 2000, 11:19 AM
I swore I was not going to respond to this thread. But if what Gryphon posted is true, I am appalled. With Dubya's rap sheet, I could not have gotten my job with the government agency I work for.

pwynnnorman
Nov. 6, 2000, 11:30 AM
How come we haven't heard of those other two arrests? Where did Moore get his information from?

Inverness
Nov. 6, 2000, 11:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jumphigh83:
GOOD NEWS all you liberal love festers out there!!!Jumphigh has deleted ALL her previous posts!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not to worry Jumphigh, I've already emailed most of your posts to friends around the country. Your circulation is increasing by the minute.

Erin
Nov. 6, 2000, 11:34 AM
There were several articles about Bush's DUI in the Washington Post on Saturday. From what I recall, the article said he was arrested once before (and he readily admitted that) in college for a fraternity prank -- swiping a Christmas wreath.

The article didn't mention any other arrests, so I'm a bit dubious about the validity of the Moore article.

Here's the one from the Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11309-2000Nov3.html

Goodness, I just now noticed the paragraph at the end of the article that said Cheney has been arrested TWICE for DUI, while in his 20s. I hadn't heard about that before...

[This message has been edited by Erin (edited 11-06-2000).]

Inverness
Nov. 6, 2000, 11:39 AM
I wondered that myself, Erin. I generally like Michael Moore's pieces, but I don't think I would equate 90 minutes in custody with "spending time in jail."

On the other hand, the fact that the record was expunged for unknown reasons does make me wonder . . .

Erin
Nov. 6, 2000, 11:46 AM
Inverness, I've never found mention in an article of the record being expunged. (Of course, it's probably mentioned somewhere in the foot-high stack of Posts that I haven't read yet!) Is that really true? Frankly, that fact would bother me a lot more than the DUI itself.

Inverness
Nov. 6, 2000, 11:50 AM
Funny you should ask, Erin. I've heard from several people that the record was expunged, but I haven't read it anywhere yet. I was just about to flip to the NY Times online. I'll let you know if I find any reference to it.

I haven't found anything in print, Erin, so in fairness to Dubya, I'll remain skeptical until I read otherwise.

[This message has been edited by Inverness (edited 11-06-2000).]

rockstar
Nov. 6, 2000, 12:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Baltic Sky:
Whew!! After reading all of this, I can say that the candidates have nothing on anyone. Things I've read: misquotes by people who would rather continue misquoting than find the truth, stretching and twisting of facts, cruel, selfish, narrow-minded ideaology, frightening reactionary beliefs, lies, stereotyping and prejudicial untruths about people who have little or no voice in this society. In short, there are many people who posted here who would make GREAT political candidates for this race, and be picked apart, looked at under a magnifying glass, and made to looking just as bad, if not WORSE than anyone currently running. Fortunately we have the right to read, go to libraries, use computers and in general, EDUCATE OURSELVES and make a change in this country by voting, writing letters, running for office, and getting involved. VOTE TUESDAY in PEACE as an AMERICAN.......<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


WELL SAID!!! I really admire and appreciate your post.

But ohhhhhhhhh, how I SOOOO don't admire or appreciate many of the other posts on this thread... this thread that has just gotten out of control.

Let's just put it this way, to all of you out there who think jumphigh83 is a radical lunatic whose posts make your stomach turn, say "aye"!

I have spent the past few days campaigning in New York and have returned to DC and the board to find, OMG, 536 posts! That is UNBELIEVABLE!

One thing that is very clear is that many of you are gravely disapointed in who we have runnning in this race. It is quite clear that, for many of you, it is going to be a matter between deciding which is the lesser of two evils. I am so disheartened by this... and yet I can understand perfectly well why so many of you feel let down and pessimistic about our candidates. I wish that it didn't have to be this way... I wish that we had candidates that people actually were enthused to vote for and see in the oval office.

Personally, and I emphasize the word PERSONALLY, I am proud of and really do admire Al Gore. I know that the "snowbird's" of the world are as incapable of understanding my good feelings and enthusiasm for Al Gore as I am in understanding why someone would want to vote for Bush based on who he is (I can understand voting for him because he is the Republican nominee and represents general republican thought... but voting for him because of the man that he is??? I will never understand that!) Anyway, I feel that Gore has blundered a few times, and I wish that he was a little more charismatic and fun, but I don't doubt for a single second that he is not a loving and caring man who is highly intelligent (and I don't give a shi* if he flunked out of divinity school or was a C student at Harvard... say what you will about Gore... but anyone who calls Al Gore stupid is a damn hypocrit (sp?) who is as "stupid" as they come). Most importantly, I feel that he will serve the American people well and be a dutiful and extremely capable president who will work as hard as any president ever has.

The thing is... all of us seemingly hold a double standard when it comes to politics. I mean, we expect so much from our political candidates and dote on their actions, past and present, so frequently. We discuss who they "really" are, what they have done, and what they will do... and we disccus all of this everywhere from the grocery store to the dinner table to an obscure internet bulletin board where hundreds of horse people have congregated, many of whom masquerade as the poltical and historical experts and saints that they, in truth, are not. It is very entertaining to say the least. But how can we expect so much and put candidates under such a microscopic watch and then be so shocked and displeased when these candidates are caught lying about DUI's, bad grades, affairs, and such? Who here hasn't driven with a blood alcohal level that would probably exceed the legal one? Who here hasn't recieved a poor grade, but hinks they are pretty intelligent? Who here does has not cheated or does not know someone who has cheated? I am, by no means, exusing these behaviours, but I don't blame someone who is running for or is in the presidential office (or any other major political position) for struggling to fess up to mistakes, downfalls, and vices that could consequently ruin their dreams and dash their hopes of making it to an office that they have worked harder for than any of us will ever know.

I guess that the bottom line for me is that, in this day in age, in this time of intense media and public scrutiny where nothing goes unnoticed or can be forgiven, it is unfiar and silly to expect that we will ever have another JFK or FDR or Truman... great men who we glorify to no end. Why? Because we knew not of their blunders, at least, not in the same kind of way that we know of the mistakes and disapointments of today's candidates. Could a candidte with polio win today? Never! What about JFK's affairs? We know about them now (or at least we think we do), but few did then, and those who did overlooked it for the most part. Can you possibly imagine a document such as the Starr Report coming out in the early 1960's? It NEVER would have been publically disclosed the way it was in Clinton's term. If we keep up as we do, there will always be something, some kind of scandal or problem, blocking a candidate's greatness.

When you go to the polls tomorrow, try to block out all of the extraneous information you know about the candidates. For a moment, try to actually BELIEVE in the candidate. Imagine having a converstation with him. Is that a converstaion you would like to have? Would you joke around and laugh a lot and discuss a sports team or a pending bill on congress? Imagine crisis like an outbreak of war or a stock market crash and picture who could handle such a situation better. And what about the issues that matter most to you? Is it taxation? Abortion? Gun control? Foreign policy and trade? Who's position is more in synch with your's? Consider all of this and make your choice. But please, try not to base your vote on the "lesser of two evils"... matching up one's mistakes with those of the other. We put these men in this spot... its our choice now... don't waste that choice.

lisa
Nov. 6, 2000, 03:55 PM
Sigh.

It's unfortunate that to many people, it has come down to the lesser of two evils.

While I disagree with the Dems stance on gun control, I will, in fact, throw my vote away in this bastion of Republicanism (Georgia -- hell, the candidates aren't even campagaining here...) and vote Gore.

You know, one topic that hasn't been discussed in this thread is health care. Now _that_ would be something I would think the horse industry (small businesses) would be interested in...

So does anybody have Molly Ivin's new book _Shrub_? /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I just love her.

Aly
Nov. 6, 2000, 04:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Inverness:
I have a new theory:

Jumphigh and Sannois are really Gore supporters.

The two of them have conspired to post outlandishly uninformed and inflammatory statements in order to convince the undecideds that Bush supporters are all loonies.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


ROTFLMAO! Inverness, if that dinner offer is still open, I'd be happy to met you. What say we have Rockstar, Pyn and a few others join us?

As to the DUI revelations, consider these facts: (a) that the arrest occured 24 or so years ago when attitudes towards drunken driving were not as strong as they are now; (b) that the subsequent arrest occured in Maine, where Bush's family owned/owns sizeable vacation property and the family was and remains very well known; and (c) that the "punishment" was fairly severe for what might generally be considered a first offense during an historical period when attitudes towards that kind offense were more relaxed. It is fair to say that in similar circumstances, the son of a local/national celebrity often gets a "smack on the wrist." The fact that that didn't happen raises questions in my mind as to how many other similar offenses had preceeded it that have not been disclosed. The fact that there were one (or two) prior arrests does not give one comfort either.

On a larger point, I find the tenor of many of the posts to be troubling in the extreme. Mindless repetition of spins (pro Bush and pro Gore) serves no good purpose and shames us all.

Whatever your affiliation and beliefs, in the hours remaining check your facts, disregard "spin" and VOTE!

Aly

Sannois
Nov. 6, 2000, 06:04 PM
To all you deliberate collectivist tolitarians and/or spoiled, ignorant, shallow, arrogant fools:

It has been said that a people gets the government it deserves. The only shame of it is that you will drag us all into the Dark Ages of collectivist tolitariansim with you. Though I find it impossible to watch silently as the lamp of freedom flickers and dies, it appears that here I have cast my pearls before swine. I now SHRUG and join Jumphigh in retiring from this board. Who is John Galt?

AMom
Nov. 6, 2000, 06:20 PM
Well now I feel sort of dumb because, not only do I not know who John Galt is, but I also don't know what "Sannois" or "tolitarian" mean either?

hobson
Nov. 6, 2000, 09:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CWP:
Well now I feel sort of dumb because, not only do I not know who John Galt is, but I also don't know what "Sannois" or "tolitarian" mean either?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't John Galt a character in one of those freaky Ayn Rand novels with the cult following? If Sannois styles her/himself after someone in Rand's strange little objectivist world, that would explain a lot.

My question is: who is Sannois, really? I have some ideas...

farmgate
Nov. 6, 2000, 10:33 PM
"....freaky Ayn Rand novels with the cult following"
Oh my......I too am starting to understand. May I ask....have YOU read them? No,never mind. I think I already know that answer too.

[This message has been edited by farmgate (edited 11-06-2000).]

hobson
Nov. 6, 2000, 10:44 PM
Oh, I forgot to say...yesterday I stopped by the Al Gore (himself being present) rally here in Philly. Aren't you pleased, rockstar? I confess I really only dropped in because I was cycling past anyway, but it was kind of fun. Funny, really. The unbelieveable part is that Gore's advisors have not yet figured out that spewing numbers upon numbers does NOT capture the imagination and spirit of the voting populace. I could see the crowd sort of glazing over and swaying with befuddlement as Gore spoke. Which is not to say that they weren't enthusiastic - they just couldn't quite follow what he was talking about. It's unfortunate - as viable candidates go, he's a good one, but heck! He really knows how to bore a crowd. It says depressing volumes about the dumbing down of public political discourse that his attention to detail hurts him. I think that one of the things that has helped Dubya close the poll gap in the past several months is the fact that he keeps his proposals, ideas and speech structure so simple.

Weezer2
Nov. 6, 2000, 10:52 PM
Please vote with an educated thought. Just because you don't believe in everything a candidate is for doesn't mean he isn't the right person for the job. Texas is making out fine with Gov. Bush and my life was never more prosperous than in the
Reagan years. Most family farms might not make it without the estate tax passed and George Bush has a huge proposal for open spaces. The easiest way to look at the situation is Bush wants each state and local gov.to take care of what their people need and Gore wants the gov. to mandate each state and local gov.
Go Bush and Cheney!!!!!!!!!!!!

Janet
Nov. 6, 2000, 11:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pacificsolo:
I am so confused...are all you "liberals" really ok with getting your hard-earned money taken away? If so, I REALLY need help with tuition and I desperately need a saddle of high quality...OH! What's that? That's NOT where you would put your money? OH! You want it to go to a woman who has babies for a living! AND DON'T TRY TO TELL ME IT DOESN'T HAPPEN! ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

I don't want my money to support "freeloaders".

Yes it does happen, but it is the minority.

But I would rather support 10 freeloaders than have one truly needy child die of malnutrition or treatable illness because the rules designed to keep the freeloaders out kept her out to.

Snowbird
Nov. 6, 2000, 11:05 PM
Freedom is a simple concept. It takes a lot of juggling to make the taking away of freedom sound right.

The problem Doubleeez is that the elected officials of "everything" have forgotten they are supposed to be the servants of the people and not their Lords and Masters

I too find it very sad, that those of you who prefer Gore don't notice his take charge attitude leaves out freedom of "choice" for all of us.

That is what BUSH is saying, government is not in control to tell us what we may do, he wants the government to let the "people" make the decisions.

If you find me unreasonable in my conviction then I apologize, but I have always believed in the right of everyone to have free "choices".

I however, will not delete nor will I concede to those beliefs which I know from experience are not in defense of the individual rights. Not only is the right to control pro-creation at stake but the right the believe differntly and be a minority.

Perhaps, tomorrow will show who is the minority.

[This message has been edited by Snowbird (edited 11-06-2000).]

hobson
Nov. 6, 2000, 11:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by farmgate:
"....freaky Ayn Rand novels with the cult following"
Oh my......I too am starting to understand. May I ask....have YOU read them? No,never mind. I think I already know that answer too.

[This message has been edited by farmgate (edited 11-06-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Au contraire, farmgate! I indeed have read one of them...I just can't remember which, since I didn't find it at all memorable. I read about three books a week, so I'm bound to forget a few. Will you confirm for us who John Galt is?

B.G.M. heidi
Nov. 6, 2000, 11:15 PM
I believe the infamous John Galt is in "Atlas Shrugged". Could be wrong though - hated Ayn Rand.

hobson
Nov. 6, 2000, 11:22 PM
Pacificsolo, I have to agree with you. I resent paying taxes so that freeloaders like the Honeywell and Raytheon CEO's can sit on their lazy butts and just wait for those NASA contracts to come rolling in. Why don't they go and start their own darned space program, anyway? What's space exploration done for us, besides bring Gore-Tex to the masses? We sure didn't need to pump billions of dollars into a wasteful program just to get high-tech winter clothing. And why does ADM need millions in subsidies with MY tax money? I'd rather throw my paycheck off a bridge than pay for one more single undeserving ear of bio-engineered corn.

farmgate
Nov. 6, 2000, 11:48 PM
A bit off topic but perhaps worthy as an example of "different strokes for different folks."

On the list of the 20th Century's 100 Best English-Language Novels as compiled by Radcliffe......

Ms Rand's "The Fountainhead" is positioned between Edith Wharton's "The Age Of Innocence" and James Joyce's "Finnegans Wake"

Her book "Atlas Shrugged" is listed between F. Scott Fitzgerald's "This Side Of Paradise" and John Fowles's "The French Lieutenant's Woman".

I discovered Ayn Rand by accident. I am "into" architecture and was told of a certain book "about an architect". It was much more. I was blown away. Perhaps her work is an acquired taste. Try reading them again.

woodbern
Nov. 6, 2000, 11:57 PM
Just sitting here thinking.....

As a member of the infamous 1%, I felt like I should do something special on election eve..... to live up the the reputation that all of the libs want to hang on us.

So, here was my little action on behalf of the 1%ers across the nation! I'm flying to FL on Thursday, to work on my house in preparation for the upcoming WEF season. I had planned to leave all 4 of my dogs at home, as I never ship them by air. But I started thinking about how lonely I will be with no pups there for 10 days, and no canines.

Well, a decision had to be made! So this evening, on the spur of the moment, I called my farm manager and told to get ready to drive 2 of my dogs down to FL to arrive shortly after I arrive...... and bought him a nice round trip ticket (full fare on such short notice) so that he could get right back up to the farm the next day. Then he can go on about his work until he flies back down to drive them back next week. That works, right?

Now everybody will be happy! I will be happy with the dogs, the dogs will be happy, and my farm manager (who loves to fly about) will be happy!

This is in honor of you libs, and of Algore and Flipper..... and it's the best I could do on such short notice. Next time I'll charter a plane to boost the economy even more. Have a nice day and don't forget to vote!

Bertie
Nov. 7, 2000, 12:01 AM
(I read "The Fountainhead" & "Atlas Shrugged" a LONG time ago...)

There was a discussion on MSNBC just now about the possibility of one candidate winning the popular vote, and the other winning the electoral vote. Hmmm.

One of the commentators said that if that happens, it'll be the end of the electoral college. IMO, it should be ended anyway. What if the winner of the popular vote loses the election?

[This message has been edited by Bertie (edited 11-07-2000).]

farmgate
Nov. 7, 2000, 12:16 AM
Bertie, I agree. The college was formed back when distance was an issue in a campaign. Another interesting part of it, in case of a tie, each state gets one vote. Also, each state's delegates are not bound by law to vote as their state's majority indicates. Like most things in government, it'll take a "collision" of sorts to amend the constitution.

Oh yeah........Woodbern...you go girl!

[This message has been edited by farmgate (edited 11-07-2000).]

Sannois
Nov. 7, 2000, 12:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hobson:
Isn't John Galt a character in one of those freaky Ayn Rand novels with the cult following? If Sannois styles her/himself after someone in Rand's strange little objectivist world, that would explain a lot.

My question is: who is Sannois, really? I have some ideas...
It's A French City, and not pronounced like it is spelled, Not That any of you Brilliant folks would know that. Try looking up Tolitarian in the dictionary, if you own one.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Magnolia
Nov. 7, 2000, 07:32 AM
I think Hobson's point was that not only do your tax dollars support welfare mama's, even more go to support things like research on corn with fish genes, that mainly benefit the corporation that chooses to market that technology. Hell, my boyfriend is a taxpayer subsidy waste. He works for a government contractor. Guess what he did this summer? He supervised our military as they put non-hazardous barrels of water on a truck for 3 days. YOU paid for his beach front condo, a rental car, and a $1200.00 EACH WAY plane ticket b/c the government was too disorganized to plan better. He stood around for 6 hours a day, was paid for 8.
I believe Hobson's candidate, Nader, is against spending money like this, hence her post. So if you are really tired of your money being wasted on garbage, vote libertarian or Nader. Bush and Gore both love to subsidize corporations!

hobson
Nov. 7, 2000, 09:44 AM
Good mornin, pacificsolo...

No, I think I did get your point. It was this: you do not like having the money you pay in taxes going to support people who do not deserve it. You characterize these people as lazy female welfare recipients who crank out babies to increase their payments. It is not clear whether you believe that ALL welfare recipients fit this description, but perhaps you see them as the majority.

Perhaps I was in a weird mood late last night, sitting at work with nobody else around, watching the tumbleweeds roll past my office...but Magnolia interpreted my post correctly. I grow weary that we all generalize and scapegoat the "welfare mother" when we talk about the waste of government funds.

Here are some of the other undeserving recipients of your hard-earned money: logging companies, mining companies and ranchers who use public land for pennies per acre (magnolia has mentioned this earlier); defense and space contractors who supply the hardware for boondoggles like Star Wars and $2000 toilet seats for the Pentagon; multinational agricultural corporations who receive ag subsidies...magnolia can probably think of additional examples.

Again, this is not a new idea to this thread, but I can't begrudge cutting a government check to some woman with a couple of kids to help them live a slightly less crappy existence, when much larger checks are buying homes in Aspen for officers of space contractor companies. I'd rather send my money to help people who are LESS fortunate than me, not people who are MORE fortunate.

And "stupid theological holes"? If you think that our beliefs are stupid or somehow deficient (because we don't share your personal interpretation of Jesus?), please provide an argument as to why you think this, rather than just calling us stupid. As you can see, there's no shortage of back-and-forth argument on this thread, so a little theology-based counterpoint won't hurt anybody here.

And hey, Sannois, I thought you were retiring from the thread! If not, please stop teasing us and tell us what a tolitarian is. I checked my 6-inch thick dictionary, and it's not there. C'mon, don't keep us in the dark!

[This message has been edited by hobson (edited 11-07-2000).]

hobson
Nov. 7, 2000, 10:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by farmgate:

Ms Rand's "The Fountainhead" is positioned between Edith Wharton's "The Age Of Innocence" and James Joyce's "Finnegans Wake"
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Farmgate - this is a purely non-argumentative, friendly post: You gave me a great chuckle this morning with this reminder. I'm a Joyce fan, but "Finnegan's Wake" is about the most impossible book I've ever read. Joyce's genius is in exploding the English language in ways it had never been before, but here is an example of the result: "The great fall of the offwall entailed at such short notice the pftjschute of Finnegan, erse solid man, that the humpyhillhead of humself prumptly send an unquiring one well to the west in quest of his tumptytumtoes..." And on it goes just like this for 700 pages. I always thought it must be a joke on both Rand and Joyce that these novels were parked together on the list.

Inverness
Nov. 7, 2000, 11:47 AM
Pacificsolo,
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE use paragraphs. I would like to read your posts but simply cannot b/c the formatting makes my eyes ache.

I just cast my vote for Gore/Lieberman and a straight Dem ticket. Never done that before!

And BTW, I LOVE Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, and The Fountainhead. Captivating reading.

Heather
Nov. 7, 2000, 12:04 PM
I too am voting largely Dem today, and I also enjoyed the Fountainhead immensely. Have not read Atlas Shrugged yet.

And vis a vis biotech crops--you have no idea what is going on with that industry. Be very vigilant on this one folks, more has gotten past you than you can imagine, and the government subsudies are the least of it. The approval for biotech corn is not being pulled, and in fact you probably eat some every day. The strain involved in the taco shell scare is approved for animals, not people.

But then, approved is a very interesting word, since there are NO mandatory government testing required of these products. Do you understand that? The government is taking the word of the companies that this stuff won't affect us. What is their proof? Oh wait, we don't have any because the products have not been in the marketplace long enough to test things like long-term effects and genetic migration. How do you like being a guinea pig?

I have seen this stuff close up. You cannot imagine how prevelant and how underhanded this technology is. But heck, I'm sure a giant multinational conglomerate cares about me and the environment more than profit. Right? Right? RIGHT?

Snowbird
Nov. 7, 2000, 01:45 PM
Well, there is something to agree on! Ayn Rand and I will vote for Bush and the Republican ticket.

What strange bedfellows politics makes? That is the secret..we can disagree vehemently and yet we can agree on other things.

Well, tonight will tell the tale, unless the Electorial overturns the vote. We'll know soon, who won and who lost.

Inverness
Nov. 7, 2000, 01:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pacificsolo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hobson:
Pacificsolo, I have to agree with you. I resent paying taxes so that freeloaders like the Honeywell and Raytheon CEO's can sit on their lazy butts and just wait for those NASA contracts to come rolling in. Why don't they go and start their own darned space program, anyway? What's space exploration done for us, besides bring Gore-Tex to the masses? We sure didn't need to pump billions of dollars into a wasteful program just to get high-tech winter clothing. And why does ADM need millions in subsidies with MY tax money? I'd rather throw my paycheck off a bridge than pay for one more single undeserving ear of bio-engineered corn. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm not sure if that was meant to be sarcastic, ...

I think you REALLY missed my point...no, I'm CERTAIN you missed my point! What kind of random tangent was THAT?!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pacificsolo,
You sweet innocent, you! Hobson understood you perfectly and responded with some delightful sarcasm.

I enjoy reading your posts, but there is a certain naivete evident in most. Would that we all could preserve our innocence and sunny outlook on life. I understand that your religious convictions help simplify life for you, and that is wonderful. Sophistication and broadened insight will come with time. Hopefully, cynicism will not.

[This message has been edited by Inverness (edited 11-07-2000).]

Erin
Nov. 7, 2000, 02:11 PM
Just wanted to say that I have found this thread to be very enjoyable reading! Thanks to everyone for being (mostly) polite and having a (mostly) intelligent discussion.

I am very interested to see how this election turns out. Supposedly voter turnout was very impressive here in Maryland this A.M. It would be nice to see a lot more people vote this time around! There's a positive-sounding story on cnn.com about turnout so far:

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/07/election.turnout/

I still can't belive this thread is 15 pages... wow...

[This message has been edited by Erin (edited 11-07-2000).]

Chief2
Nov. 7, 2000, 03:23 PM
A few things here...Atlas Shrugged was great, but...it's fiction. The fine imposed on George W. also included losing his license. Furthermore, not only is it illegal to hold office in TX with a conviction on your record, but turning in a jurors survey with portions left blank, signed, and then claiming an aide who didn't have enough information filled it out now has the judiciary interested in speaking with George W. Which would have ordinarily been enough, but his comment over the weekend in Florida, while campaigning in a Senior Center, that he was admitting his guilt now "because that's what an honest American does" (Source: NPR Radio) tipped the balance. Must have been quite a mouthful of crow to swallow, 14 years AFTER the conviction! To all of it I can only say...
Go, Jo! Go!
Sincerely, A Connecticut resident, an Independent voter, and a Yalie.

Inverness
Nov. 7, 2000, 03:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chief2:
Furthermore, not only is it illegal to hold office in TX with a conviction on your record, but turning in a jurors' survey with portions left blank, signed, and then claiming an aide who didn't have enough information filled it out now has the judiciary interested in speaking with George W. Which would have ordinarily been enough, but his comment over the weekend in Florida, while campaigning in a Senior Center, that he was admitting his guilt now "because that's what an honest American does" (Source: NPR Radio) tipped the balance.
.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hadn't heard about the jurors' survey before this. Isn't such a survey a "sworn, under penalty of perjury" document in every jurisdiction?

[This message has been edited by Inverness (edited 11-07-2000).]

Chief2
Nov. 7, 2000, 06:30 PM
Exactly, Inverness. That's why the judiciary would like to have that chat. The portions left blank all pertained to previous arrests and convictions.

Aly
Nov. 7, 2000, 07:35 PM
This is all very interesting. Let me hurry with a disclaimer to the effect that I am not a lawyer. That being said, here is my understanding of things: (a) Bush was convicted of drunk driving which may or may not have been a felony at that point in time in the state of Maine (lawyers on this BB please check this); (b) Bush was arrested and convicted (though whether of a felony or misdemeanor is not clear-see point a);(c) Bush's record was "expunged" after a 16 year period during which there were apparently no other incidents; and (d) Bush and/or his "representative" did leave that portion of the jury form blank.

Here are my questions:

1. What does it mean to "expunge" a record? Does it mean that it is as though the offense never existed? I suspect that a lot of nonlawyers believe that that is the case.

2. Is the DUI a misdemeanor or a felony conviction? Was it so considered at the time of Bush's arrest 24 years ago?

3. Is it the case that one cannot hold office with a felony conviction? At the State level? At the federal level? What is the source (e.g., U.S. Constitution) for this prohibition?

I'd REALLY appreciate it if some of the attorneys on this list would respond.

Thanks,

Aly

lillian
Nov. 8, 2000, 01:55 PM
Farm: actually, the average welfare recipient in this country is a 23-year-old white female, unmarried, with one child.