PDA

View Full Version : BUSHvsGORE re:Horse Industry



Pages : [1] 2 3

jumpcrew
Oct. 20, 2000, 09:21 AM
We horse nutz sometimes forget that we are a huge industry made up of mostly small businesses. Which candidate is best for us re favorable tax climate,estate planning, land preservation, minimal governmental interferance, charitable giving, medical and veternary research etc?

jumpcrew
Oct. 20, 2000, 09:21 AM
We horse nutz sometimes forget that we are a huge industry made up of mostly small businesses. Which candidate is best for us re favorable tax climate,estate planning, land preservation, minimal governmental interferance, charitable giving, medical and veternary research etc?

Inverness
Oct. 20, 2000, 10:07 AM
Gore.

Caruso
Oct. 20, 2000, 10:12 AM
Bush

Inverness
Oct. 20, 2000, 10:17 AM
I guess you've got your answer!! LOL.

VTrider
Oct. 20, 2000, 10:19 AM
Gore - your tie has been broken /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

PocoMary
Oct. 20, 2000, 10:21 AM
Dosen't Bush own horses? I herd he had a ranch out in Texas.

smedley
Oct. 20, 2000, 10:21 AM
Favorable tax climate: toss up
Estate planning: toss up
Land preservation: Gore (w/o question)
Minimal governmental interferance: Bush

Charitable giving: Gore
Medical Research: toss up
Veterinary Research: Gore

[This message has been edited by smedley (edited 10-20-2000).]

Magnolia
Oct. 20, 2000, 10:26 AM
If you are concerned at all about having open space to ride in, Gore.
If you are concerned about paying less in taxes (and you are in the top 5% of taxpayers) so you can afford more riding, Bush.
My concern is that both seem to lack sincerity, I'm leaning toward Gore b/c although he is insincere, at least I know he is and can tell, while Bush seems rather shady and coniving, and I have my doubts that he is for the little guy.
Face it, they both stink. I would say that for horseowners, your local elections are probably far more inportant for that aspect of your life~ they determine zoning, property taxes, etc.

Canter
Oct. 20, 2000, 10:26 AM
Reduction in nuclear missles: Bush

Heather
Oct. 20, 2000, 10:32 AM
Josiah Bartlett from The West Wing!!!!

No, huh? Don't get to pick him? Darn!

Well, I'm voting for Gore because his platform on three issues I care about the most--abortion, gun control, and the environment/land preservation--are more in line with my own thoughts. Basically, the Republicans in general and Bush in specific's beholdeness to the NRA and the religous right scares the bejezus out of me.

However, the point should me made that I think Gore is kind of a putz, and had I another choice, I wouldn't pick him either.

Think we could do a write-in campaign for Josiah Bartlett?

laura
Oct. 20, 2000, 10:40 AM
Another vote for Gore.

Mostly for the same reasons as Heather, but I'd add education to my list.

Everythingbutwings
Oct. 20, 2000, 10:44 AM
Ditto on that, Gore

Inverness
Oct. 20, 2000, 10:44 AM
I have one rule in voting for a President: I want the future leader of the free world to be smarter than me. Let's face it - Bush is a 40 watt bulb.

Magnolia is correct on one count, however. State (and local) elections are extremely important for the horse industry, and neither Bush or Gore is going to be able to deliver w/o a cooperative Congress.

smedley
Oct. 20, 2000, 10:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Heather:
Basically, the Republicans in general and Bush in specific's beholdeness to the NRA and the religous right scares the bejezus out of me.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just think, if we could get rid of religion world peace might stand a chance.

hobson
Oct. 20, 2000, 10:50 AM
Open land preservation = Nader!

Those OTHER 2 candidates are just too centrist for this lefty.

DMK
Oct. 20, 2000, 11:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Inverness:
I have one rule in voting for a President: I want the future leader of the free world to be smarter than me. Let's face it - Bush is a 40 watt bulb.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


ROTFLMAO, but wait... aren't you insulting 40 watt bulbs?

haligator
Oct. 20, 2000, 11:03 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Inverness:
[B]I have one rule in voting for a President: I want the future leader of the free world to be smarter than me. Let's face it - Bush is a 40 watt bulb.

Thank you so much for this very astute comment! LOL! This is my main issue with Bush (other than the extremely high rate of executions in Texas and the low ranking of education in the state).

As they say here in Vermont - "why, he's dumber than a box of rocks".

[This message has been edited by haligator (edited 10-20-2000).]

Magnolia
Oct. 20, 2000, 11:09 AM
Whoa-
Hobson- Nader Supporter? you must meet my boyfriend. He loves Nader and all Nader promises! I dislike taxes, so I don't really go for Nader, but he has very good social ideas and seems at least ....GENUINE. What is funny is that he qualified for debates, but they wouldn't even let him in the door. Can you say "THREAT". I wish they'd let him debate those 2 turkeys, he'd make 'em look like candles.
BTW, if more people were like the people on this BB we'd live in a better place. How nice to know that others see around the smoke.

VTrider
Oct. 20, 2000, 11:13 AM
The more I listen to Bush talk, the more I hear a little bit of Ross Perot coming out. Nice 3 word sentences. http://www.chronofhorse.com/ubb/eek.gif

Hey TX cliquers - I lived in west TX for a while - and I didn't recognize anyone talking like Bush and Perot - What is up with them?

Regalmeans
Oct. 20, 2000, 11:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Heather:
Josiah Bartlett from The West Wing!!!!

No, huh? Don't get to pick him? Darn!

Well, I'm voting for Gore because his platform on three issues I care about the most--abortion, gun control, and the environment/land preservation--are more in line with my own thoughts. Basically, the Republicans in general and Bush in specific's beholdeness to the NRA and the religous right scares the bejezus out of me.

However, the point should me made that I think Gore is kind of a putz, and had I another choice, I wouldn't pick him either.

Think we could do a write-in campaign for Josiah Bartlett?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed Heather....

Okay ya'll - I CAN"T VOTE (I'm 17) so you all better get out there and vote!!!! Especially you Gore people!

Sarah

B.G.M. heidi
Oct. 20, 2000, 11:18 AM
As a neighbour to the North my condolences to all Americans this election year. It's sad when democracy leads us to vote for the lesser of two evils -- rather than, how novel, a leader of character, integrity, vision, social compassion, who practises restraint re: taxation.

DMK
Oct. 20, 2000, 11:18 AM
VT - that is an "East Texas" twang he has picked up... he didn't get his accent in the oilfields, he got it from the Houston hotel he grew up in...

For all you people who are eternally amused by politics in a cynical sort of fashion, here is the queen of comentary, Molly Ivins. The article will change daily, but today's is REALLY funny. Oh, and as a person who was very close to the legislative history on this particular subject, she ain't stretchin' the truth...
http://www.star-telegram.com/columnist/ivins2.htm

SLW
Oct. 20, 2000, 11:28 AM
Bush, no doubt about it. I agree he is not the best public speaker but I agree with the platform he represents. Get rid of the death tax and marriage penalty and many of us will benifit immediatley, ie: cash to spend on our hobby. Tax climate favors Bush ditto govt interference.

On a personal note, I like the fact that Bush sent his daughters to public schools, unlike Gore. I admired that about Jimmy Carter also.

AHC
Oct. 20, 2000, 11:29 AM
Josiah Bartlett for president!!!!! (I love "The West Wing"!!!!!)

Gore because I am in agreement with him on most of the issues, and most importantly because I don't W to ever have the opportunity to nominate ANY justices to the Supreme Court -- I would fear for Roe v. Wade, civil rights, separation of church and state, etc. All things I believe in very strongly.

And Inverness, I agree. In terms of substance, Bush is an inch deep (on a good day) and a mile wide. As Ross Perot would say, "Not qualified. Nope. Not qualified."

Caruso
Oct. 20, 2000, 11:31 AM
Gore, environmentalist? Check it out:
The Wall Street Opinion Journal http://www.opinionjournal.com/

Investigating Al Gore
The vice president, Armand Hammer and zinc. http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=65000067
Saturday, August 12, 2000

These talk about the zinc mining on his place in Tennessee. A brief quote, " It also seems that zinc from Mr. Gore's property ends up in the cool waters of the Caney Fork River, an oft-celebrated site in Gore lore. A major shaft and tailings pond of the Pasminco Zinc Mine sit practically in the backyard of the vice president's Tennessee homestead. Zinc and other metals from the Gore land move from underground tunnels through elaborate extraction processes. Waste material ends up in the tailings pond, from which water flows into adjacent Caney Fork, languidly rolling on to the great Cumberland.
Mining is intrinsically a messy business, and Pasminco Zinc generally has a good environmental record. But not one that would pass muster with "Earth in the Balance," Mr. Gore's best-selling environmental book. As recently as May 16, the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation issued a "Notice of Violation.""


Actually, if you want to read interesting and always funny political bashing from a long time (Democrat) insider, keep your eyes out for columnist William Klein. Often in the Washington Post and the Christian Science Monitor.

Will post some links when I find them.

ClemsonGraduateRider
Oct. 20, 2000, 11:33 AM
Womens rights - Gore

And taxes don't just go away they get shifted somewhere else . . unfortunately if you cancel out a stream of revenues it doesnt just miraculously appear somewhere else . .

SFLauren
Oct. 20, 2000, 11:41 AM
AHC- you stole the words right out of my mouth!

We can't go back 30 years in the Supreme Court. Yes, many of you might be pro-life, or pro choice... No matter what EVERY woman should have the right to chose. It really scares me that some 65 year old man can tell me what to do with MY body.

Also, Bush is backed by the Christian Coalition, and for me that's another bad idea. Not everyone in the USA is Christian...

Gore all the way!

Magnolia
Oct. 20, 2000, 11:54 AM
"And taxes don't just go away they get shifted somewhere else . . unfortunately if you cancel out a stream of revenues it doesnt just miraculously appear somewhere else . ."
Oh what a lovely quote, Clemson Rider - "Old Taxes don't die, they just multiply".
You know, I think our national government needs to do 3 things.
1. Defend our nation if threatened.
2. Maintain Highways.
3. And maintain peace b/w states.

I think if we made local government far more important, we'd be soooo much better off.

Bush wants to tell me what to do with my body and morals.
Gore has his hand out for my taxes.
Neither really care about what I want. Hey, they don't care about what you want either.

Yet, my city councilwoman:
1. Returns my e-mails and phonecalls.
2. Comes to my meetings, takes notes and acts.
3. Cares what happens, because she lives within a few miles.
Who should have more power in my life? Some rich $%$# who is bought off by corporations or my neighbor who was elected based on her beliefs and responsiveness? and could campaign with only a few dollars.
Our country is too large and diverse to have such centralized leadership. What plays in Peoria doesn't cut it in San Francisco. Unfortunatley, we don't really have this choice, but hey- a girl can dream.

SLW
Oct. 20, 2000, 11:57 AM
The question WAS framed around the candidates and the horse industry, not the other issues BUT since it has drifted to other issues keep in mind that Gore WILL impose a litmus(sp) test on his Supreme Court candidates as he stated during the first debate. He said he would not appoint someone the likes of Clarence Thomans and another judge currently on the bench. Bush said he would not use a litmus test. Roe v. Wade is safe, Americans want that freedom of choice for their mothers, daughters and sisters.


If Gore wins the election and makes Supreme Court appointments you will have your liberal SC bench, preserved park lands you won't be allowed to ride on, programs to heal every person for every afliction and the thought police everywhere.

Sorry, Gore is not the best person for the Democratic party.

ClemsonGraduateRider
Oct. 20, 2000, 12:00 PM
Magnolia . . . I couldn't agree more!!

I feel as though the fed government is going past the limits of control on my life that I feel confortable with!

Local government should have more power . . .esp since they are more accessible

Magnolia
Oct. 20, 2000, 12:07 PM
"If Gore wins the election and makes Supreme Court appointments you will have your liberal SC bench, preserved park lands you won't be allowed to ride on, programs to heal every person for every afliction and the thought police everywhere. "

If Bush gets elected, you will have park lands for sale to the ummmmm, "highest" bidder. Trust me, I even heard it from a Bush supporter - if you care about the environment, he is not your friend. And trust me, big corporation of logging is going to be much less welcoming to your horses then the park service. Oh, and in 4 years...well, let's just say that once trees are gone, it's a long process to grow 'em back.

Snowbird
Oct. 20, 2000, 12:19 PM
Bush is the only one we can support. I am really tired of the "Government" telling me what I should eat, what I should do and deciding who should get benefits. For example the estate tax if it is not repealed, sure there are exemptions but there are 30 pages of exceptions and definitions. How can double taxation be fair? How is it fair to tax a family just because some died? Does it really matter how much the tax would be? It's the principle, and principle is sadly lacking in all of the Gore proposals.

Do you know that Gore flunked out of his first two colleges and finally found one where he could pass! Do you know that if the environmentalists have their way oil will be so expensive that we will save the environment by not driving and turning down our thermostats. Do you realize that the largest voter base that Gore has is the blue collar people who have never gone to college and many haven't graduated high school? Never mine the other ethnic groups they measure. Why if these are the market share of votes that Gore can count on would he care about education. That's why they call it the "dumbing" of America. Do you know how George bush did in school compared to Gore?

Let's not fall into the media trap of believing all the tripe that's flying around. Don't forget that all the show business folks are Union people, and all the news people are Union people, therefore they are pronouncing based on their experience and opinions. There is no longer an objective reporting.

Magnolia
Oct. 20, 2000, 12:28 PM
"Do you realize that the largest voter base that Gore has is the blue collar people who have never gone to college and many haven't graduated high school? Never mine the other ethnic groups they measure. Why if these are the market share of votes that Gore can count on would he care about education. "

That is the most ignorant thing I have ever heard!!!! A college education does not make you smart!!!! My mechanic is the smartest man I know. He makes a crap load of money off of me. Gee, my dad was a highschool drop out, he must be dumb. It must be a fluke that he has a successful business.

Your idea is why I would never support Bush. Your ideas are elitist and dated. Screw the little people - let them eat cake! Just forget about the people working hard for a living. Who cares about the guy that frys my burger - he's not "educated".

Maybe we should only let white upper class people vote...it would be sooooooo much easier to stay rich without working. Oh, and while were at it, unions are just so messy, must we make a good work environment for a group smart enough to organize?
You made lose my appetite for lunch.

smedley
Oct. 20, 2000, 12:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:
Bush is the only one we can support. I am really tired of the "Government" telling me what I should eat, what I should do and deciding who should get benefits. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't delude yourself into thinking that Bush will be any different.

SFLauren
Oct. 20, 2000, 12:35 PM
I hate say it but Bush barely got by at Yale (with a C average). He got in because his Daddy went (as MANY students today do.) He also was in 'Skull and Bones' an elitist Frat type organization that has turned out MANY high powered politicians and business men... only 15 Juniors are nominated to get in every year.

Oh and remember how Bush said he hasn't had a drink since the early 80's? There's a wonderful wedding video out on the internet of Bush drunk off his tushy in the mid-90's.

Go Gore!

smedley
Oct. 20, 2000, 12:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Caruso:
Gore, environmentalist? Check it out:
The Wall Street Opinion Journal http://www.opinionjournal.com/

Investigating Al Gore
The vice president, Armand Hammer and zinc. http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=65000067
Saturday, August 12, 2000

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, consider the source . . . then investigate the facts yourself. Gore isn't the only one out there with a tendency to exaggerate.

Magnolia
Oct. 20, 2000, 12:36 PM
Oh no Smedley, if you have money, and are white, with Bush, the world is your oyster. (oh, you'd better be Christian too....)

Heather
Oct. 20, 2000, 12:37 PM
Just for the record, my boss is working on the Bush campaign, as a consultant, so I am getting my info straight from the horses mouth, so to speak, not the tainted media everyone is screaming about. I was on the fence for awhile, but believe me, after spending the last year seeing this up cloase and personal, there is no doubt in my mind that Bush will do EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what I would want.

-Don't be fooled by the campaign promise of no litmus test--he wants abortion GONE.

-Bush, as was mentioened, thinks "handling" the environment means selling it off to the highest bidder and hoping whoever buys it keeps it intact. He has already promised to sell of the rights to the oilfields in Denali National Park in Alaska--so if he gets elescted I suggest hasty trip up there to tell you kids what it USED to look like--when there were actual living things there.

I don't want my environment or schools or anything else, to resmeble what Texas has right now, thanks but no thanks.

And, I agree with the sentiment that its naive to think that taxes "go away"--its like matter, it can neither be created nor destroyed, only altered. Do I like paying taxes? He** no, but its a fact of life, they aren't going anywhere, so I might as well agree with how they are being spent. (BTW, in the last 3 years I've paid the marraige AND inheritance tax--fun no, but a fact of life).

Magnolia
Oct. 20, 2000, 12:55 PM
Thank You Heather-
I think many people are fooled into thinking the candidates are actually being honest. Yes, Mr. Bush and Gore both sound fabulous. They are well trained. BUT THEY ARE BOTH TELLING LIES. Look at their records and decide. Remember, words are cheap.
Just my opinion.

smedley
Oct. 20, 2000, 01:02 PM
I've never actually met a Christian.

B.G.M. heidi
Oct. 20, 2000, 01:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:
Bush is the only one we can support. I am really tired of the "Government" telling me what I should eat, what I should do and deciding who should get benefits.

***********
Would it be preferable to have some gun-toting, anti-choice, execution-happy politician who decided to run for government as an afterthought pretend he isn't making those decisions for you?
***********

For example the estate tax if it is not repealed, sure there are exemptions but there are 30 pages of exceptions and definitions. How can double taxation be fair? How is it fair to tax a family just because some died? Does it really matter how much the tax would be? It's the principle, and principle is sadly lacking in all of the Gore proposals.

******************
If we're talking about 'principle', consider this, there will be an estimated $15 trillion which will be passed between generations in the next few years. Of that, $5 trillion will go the (already) very wealthy. Much of American society as you know it now was built by inheritances - the rich created charitable foundations (yes, to avoid estate taxes) which took on much of the social infrastructure that you enjoy today. Think libraries, arts orgs., feeding the poor, fighting disease. That seems like a principled exercise to me. If the estate tax is repealed, all that principled activity will cease and you'll have to count on the largesse of Bush to make up the shortfall, which he'll do with higher taxes. BTW, if we're complaining about a lack of work ethic among the less-than-wealthy, consider that these vast inheritances were NOT earned by the recipients.

***************

Do you realize that the largest voter base that Gore has is the blue collar people who have never gone to college and many haven't graduated high school? Never mine the other ethnic groups they measure. Why if these are the market share of votes that Gore can count on would he care about education. That's why they call it the "dumbing" of America. Do you know how George bush did in school compared to Gore?

*****************

This is so ridiculous it's almost funny. George double-u's education was, as much of his life, an afterthought. I think the implication that only white college grads are qualified to vote is a scary one.

********************
Let's not fall into the media trap of believing all the tripe that's flying around. Don't forget that all the show business folks are Union people, and all the news people are Union people, therefore they are pronouncing based on their experience and opinions. There is no longer an objective reporting.

**********************
As a bystander to the American election, it's rather curious that I as a Canadian have read more and more closely followed the impending American elections than many Americans, including the white college grads. If you're concerned about the 'dumbing of America', given Bush's education record in Texas, seems to me you're supporting the wrong guy.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message has been edited by heidi (edited 10-20-2000).]

Inverness
Oct. 20, 2000, 01:09 PM
Whoa, what about horses? I wonder if Dick Cheney likes horses - he's the one that'll be running the government in a Republican administration.

CactusLil
Oct. 20, 2000, 01:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Inverness:
I have one rule in voting for a President: I want the future leader of the free world to be smarter than me. Let's face it - Bush is a 40 watt bulb.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I couldn't have said it better. Not that Gore is exactly the sharpest tool in the shed but I think he's the lesser of two idiots. Too bad the Republican party decided to push Bush instead of McCain.

moose
Oct. 20, 2000, 01:16 PM
Oh boy, a politics thread, do I forsee a possible lock /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

"Do you realize that the largest voter base that Gore has is the blue collar people who have never gone to college and many haven't graduated high school? "

Definately a voter base that shouldn't be disregarded, since they can vote & tend to get executed in the state of Texas. I've had die hard far right republican friends actually say they thought the right to vote should be removed from the less educated. How scary is that, considering the point of the country being founded was that all would have a right to vote, regardless of those issues? Can we say dictatorship?

Seriously, though, if my vote was based on the debates, it would be Bush. He came off more genuine and yes, for local gov't like Govenor I would want him. Nationally & Globally he scares me and thats a big piece of being president.

At heart I'm a democrat, and the economy has been good, but who knows what will happen when I push that button? As silly as it is, I really don't like getting lied to straight faced on t.v., which Clinton managed to do.

DMK
Oct. 20, 2000, 01:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SLWarrior:
keep in mind that Gore WILL impose a litmus(sp) test on his Supreme Court candidates as he stated during the first debate. He said he would not appoint someone the likes of Clarence Thomans and another judge currently on the bench. Bush said he would not use a litmus test. Roe v. Wade is safe, Americans want that freedom of choice for their mothers, daughters and sisters.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With all due respect, SL, I think you may have misunderstood the point Gore was making during that question. He was pointing out that no matter WHO makes the appointments, they have ways of selecting the candidate that will more than likely guarantee a certain type of future voting record without openly asking about it.

This is no more or less than has ALWAYS occurred with supreme court selection, and I think we would be in a whole new fantasy land if we were to assume that either of these candidates are any less than the politician they are born and bred to be. To do other than their party demands is a great way to lose the support of your OWN party, and few inpolitics can survive that.

OK, I think MY cynicism about politics came shining through /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Magnolia
Oct. 20, 2000, 01:17 PM
Ok-
Everyone write me in. I will make all National Forest Lands accessible to horses, Mandate 1/2 day Fridays and late start Mondays for all business to accomodate the showing public.
All "horsey girls" wishing only to be grooms will be supported by a program enabling them to make $25.00 an hour.
I will allocate 1/4 of the budget for R&D on a helmet that juniors will all fawn over that will protect their brains from injury.
I will give farmers money to switch from growing Tobacco to growing carrots and alfalafa.
We will have dressage shows on PBS every Evening.
I will subsidize tailored sportsman breeches by putting a tax on rust and grey breeches, as well as rubber boots and unapproved helmets.
Horse trailers shall have their own lanes on highways.
Anyone caught saying "But it's the horse that does all the work" will be forced to work for a DQ or a HP for a period of 6 months.
So write me in...I'm for You!

moose
Oct. 20, 2000, 01:18 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>


Smedley for president!!!!

Cactuskate
Oct. 20, 2000, 01:23 PM
I believe the nail was struck on the head many posts ago. It is about the local level politicians and Congress.

I have given up thinking that this ONE individual has that much power to "run" this country and truly affect change. My God, it seems to me that as soon as someone is elected they are either "campaigning" for the next election, or defending themselves on some "criminal" charge brought by someone that didn't want them elected in the first place.

Politics is politics and has certainly gotten a long way from representative government. It is now it's own industry.

Cactuskate
Oct. 20, 2000, 01:27 PM
MAGNOLIA for PRESIDENT

The horsey woman's candidate!!!!

Erin
Oct. 20, 2000, 01:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moose:
Definately a voter base that shouldn't be disregarded, since they can vote & tend to get executed in the state of Texas.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh my... I'm teary-eyed, I'm laughing so hard! Very clever, Moose!

Very interesting thread... please continue to discuss politely so I can keep reading without my blood pressure going through the roof, and my "locking" trigger finger getting itchy! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Inverness
Oct. 20, 2000, 01:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DMK:
VT -

For all you people who are eternally amused by politics in a cynical sort of fashion, here is the queen of comentary, Molly Ivins. The article will change daily, but today's is REALLY funny. Oh, and as a person who was very close to the legislative history on this particular subject, she ain't stretchin' the truth...
http://www.star-telegram.com/columnist/ivins2.htm <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dearly love Molly Ivins! Ya'll have gotta read this one!! LOLOLOLOL

Portia
Oct. 20, 2000, 01:33 PM
For the person who asked, yes, Dubbya does have a ranch in the Hill Country and there are horses on that ranch, but that is a far cry from being an actual horseman or even a rancher. Texas is full of these kind of vanity ranches (as I think of them) -- places in the country where well-to-do businessmen and lawyers can go on the weekend and pretend to be cowboys. Most of them have them because the come with hunting leases and they don't have to go far from the house to be able to kill deer and duck (not to mention eating baby quiche for breakfast).

Portia
Oct. 20, 2000, 01:36 PM
The absolute funniest and most true political advertisement on the air is the Snickers commercial where the cartoon elephant and donkey are sitting on the guy's shoulders.

Elephant: "Vote for me, my dad was president.

Donkey: "Well, my dad was a senator."

Elephant: "People think I sound a lot like my dad."

Donkey: "Well, I invented the internet."

Elephant: "My mom thinks I look like my dad."

And so on -- If you have not seen it, it is absolutely hysterical, because it is (all too sadly) so true.

Also, regardless of your political beliefs, this really is funny for anybody who every read "Highlights for Kids" magazine:
http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/10/16/gg/index.html


[This message has been edited by Portia (edited 10-20-2000).]

Erin
Oct. 20, 2000, 01:37 PM
Yes, there's the real question... which candidate is PBQ&C??? (pro-baby quiche and carrots!)

elghund
Oct. 20, 2000, 01:47 PM
The bottom line is that neither one of these guys is very bright. They were both C students who got into top schools because of their families.

Gore rode the family name into politics and stayed there. He grew up a politician in a washington hotel.

Bush failed at every business he tried and daddy bailed him out. As noted earlier, he grew up in a hotel in Houston.

I wish we had a none of the above option! I've been voting for president for twenty five years and am always choosing the lesser of evils.

SFLauren
Oct. 20, 2000, 01:47 PM
Random thought:

Did anyone catch the last couple weekends of Saturday Night Live?

They had the BEST take on the debates!
Soooooo funny....

DMK
Oct. 20, 2000, 01:48 PM
Well, Portia, Inverness... you are in Texas and DC, respectively... FIND OUT ABOUT THE CANDIDATES POSITION!!!

Enquiring minds need to know about their stand on PETF. My god, this election is deadlocked... this could be the deciding factor!

Magnolia
Oct. 20, 2000, 01:49 PM
Look, I'll support Baby Quiches and Carrots, but I stop short of those sneaky little cherry tomatoes.
MAGNOLIA 2000 the voice of hors de'vours and horsey people. Oh, and I care about pickles too.

Really though, it is wonderful that we live in a society that we can mock and disagree with our leaders. Some nations would hang us by our fingernails.

Fairview Horse Center
Oct. 20, 2000, 01:50 PM
Sorry, I have had enough of "no morrals" making the US the laughing stock of the world. And you can do what ever you want with your body, just not someone else's. And you will always have the right to choose, just not to "change your mind" after your neglect, lack of careing, and incompetence creates another life. You already made your choice. Just check out what the baby looks like at a month or 2 of gestational age and tell me it is nothing. Count the fingers. See the smile. So at what day do YOU think it becomes a life? Environment? How about shutting a long term family business of making apple juice down and fineing them hundreds of thousands of dollars due to a sugar spill? Especially when owners asked for the test to see how they were doing cleaning up the higher sugar ground content that they reported. Sugar? The rich getting richer might not sound good to you, but trickle down economy does work. It creates jobs, and jobs create competition for employees. If you heavily tax the rich, they sit on their money and don't invest in the future. Yes, Bush has not had the experience public speaking, and Gore is very practiced. I would rather have honest. And remember, you are getting all of your information from the media (Another word for media is liberal) I will definitely make time to vote now... BUSH

Inverness
Oct. 20, 2000, 02:01 PM
> Ok, you guys asked for it:


The Real Debate
>
> 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 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
> lock box so they can't hurt old people like Roberta
> Frampinhamper, who
> is here tonight. Mrs. Frampinhamperhas 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 suffering 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 then Dick would
> present me several options for dealing with that
> guy. And then 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're
> going 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-Prussian
> 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
> domestic, by putting it in an iron clad lock box.
> 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
> Lieberman 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 commits $60
> trillion over the next 10 years to guarantee that
> all senior citizens
> can have 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 Abilene
> 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.

Cactuskate
Oct. 20, 2000, 02:07 PM
Thanks Inverness, I too received that em a few days ago. Too true.

Erin
Oct. 20, 2000, 02:08 PM
Ahem... I don't think anyone here is going to be able to CHANGE anyone else's political thinking. Let's just agree not to try to inflict OUR views on anyone else, and continue to have a rational, thoughtful discussion, please.

This thread got off to a very nice start. Please don't turn it into something else by putting down what others find important. I'm willing to let this board tackle most any topic, but I think the pro-life/pro-choice issue is a little beyond our scope!

Thanks, from your token member of the liberal press...

B.G.M. heidi
Oct. 20, 2000, 02:10 PM
Inverness, those screams are peals of laughter. ROTFLMAO!

Magnolia
Oct. 20, 2000, 02:11 PM
JumpHigh-
I'm not basing my vote on my uterus, and yes, abortions can be prevented, but the same people who want to outlaw abortions also want to outlaw birth control. Could we not have abortion be a local decision ~ that way, if you cared that much you could move to where it was legal or illegal.

Also, I'm very sad to hear about the family farm being closed down for a sugar spill - exactly why we need local government making those decisions.

The point is, neither Democrats or Republicans want you to have control in your life, unless you conform to their ideal.

DMK
Oct. 20, 2000, 02:13 PM
Inverness - ROTFLMAO, if only I wasn't so saddened by the truth of this matter.

Jumphigh - I am sure you must not have been referring to me or any of my friends, because everyone I know has a well thought out reasoned approach to why they vote the way they do (ind, dem or rep), and of course, would not waste our vote on any one issue. If any one single issue happens to be part of a platform that we wholeheartedly believe in, that would perhaps be something different, and something you might respect, even if it differed with your own view, eh?

[This message has been edited by DMK (edited 10-20-2000).]

Inverness
Oct. 20, 2000, 02:25 PM
It made me howl too Heidi; I wish I knew where it originated. I received it via email the other day.

Heather
Oct. 20, 2000, 03:30 PM
We recieve dthe debate e-mail in my office too.

Also, Portia that Snickers commercial is my favorite!!!!!!! The best is the end:

Elephant: My Dad and I wear the same the pants.

Donkey: I invented pants.

God, I just fall off the couch every time I see that one.

I too will support Magnolia's ticket, but only if I can have some concessions on behalf of baby cheescakes--dessert isn't always fun and games!!!

Another political perspective story:

Growing up in my community, among my friends I was always considered the radical left-wing liberal (got it from my mom, I guess, Dad's a libertarian). It was sometimes an uncomfortable mantle to carry, cause no one likes being odd-man out. However, when I went to college I went to UC Santa Cruz (right now every Californian reading this is reflexively screaming "Hippy College"), not for the politics but because I loved the area, and it was close enough to home and trainers that I could still get horsey help. Well, I got there, and suddenly I was the facist, right-wing Nazi. It was rather startling to have such two different views of myself.

Anyway, the point is, political perspective changes with the backdrop--so don't sweat what everybody else thinks. If you disagree with how I'm using my vote, then use yours to counter it--there's no reason to get all angry and personal about this.

Blinky
Oct. 20, 2000, 04:17 PM
Thank you Jumphigh83-for some excellent points. First of all, if you review Gore's record since he became a politician he has done a 360 on all issues. I'm voting for Bush...no, he doesn't preach everything I believe in (I am pro-choice)or want but I believe he will do as he says. Honestly-it seems crazy for people to pin their hopes and fears on one man-it's the Congress and Senate we need to take more if an interest in.

Astraled
Oct. 20, 2000, 04:30 PM
Gore.

wtywmn4
Oct. 20, 2000, 04:42 PM
Gun control...diffinitely Gore!

Someone else said neither was too bright. Well, would YOU like to be president of this country??? http://www.chronofhorse.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

[This message has been edited by wtywmn4 (edited 10-20-2000).]

moose
Oct. 20, 2000, 04:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blinky:
[ Honestly-it seems crazy for people to pin their hopes and fears on one man-it's the Congress and Senate we need to take more if an interest in.[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very, very true Blinky. I neeed to take more consideration into who & what is voted in those areas, but so often for me I honestly don't know the majority of names listed in ballots, and it comes down to the party and the ideologies they represent. Thats the scariest part about elections for me, I really don't know how much the actual president plays into this any more, someone who charms me scares me as much as some one who has no presentation skills.

I once saw a former prime minister who was under Churchill, say that Churchill would never have made it to prime minister or leader today because of the media's effect. He said that while Churchill could give a strong speech, he couldn't react or speak immediately, was not witty and was rattled when he had to. The person interviewed said that today's media and need for immediate information would have eaten him alive.

So much of what a politician does is sell themselves to you, that it's hard to always remember what that smiling face represents. It's always amazing how one leader can symbolize a country, and even though that person isn't involved in all, if any. of the procedures, if they die or leave it seems like chaos can reign.

[This message has been edited by Moose (edited 10-20-2000).]

Becca
Oct. 20, 2000, 05:11 PM
Gore and Bush are both losers, pure and simple. Nader is a bit too out there for me. Its very sad for me to have to pick the person who will run our nation based on which is less of a total loser. And which is not quite as much of a lier plays in as well.

The other things is the abortion issue. Being pro-life, my vote goes to Bush.(And in my school, theyr all Massachusetts yuppies, I;m outnumbered 5,000:1)

bayrider
Oct. 20, 2000, 06:24 PM
Gore!

However my trainers are for George Bush. we students try to keep out of any political discussion with them so we don't loose our stirrups

ClemsonGraduateRider
Oct. 20, 2000, 08:07 PM
If any of you want to check out the political ads (including the rats one) try http://www.adcritic.com its also good for a laugh sometimes!! SEarch for the cat herder and watch that comercial!! hehe

woodbern
Oct. 20, 2000, 08:16 PM
Bush.

Snowbird
Oct. 20, 2000, 08:30 PM
TRUTH, HONOR, PRINCIPLE and the ENVIRONMENT
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
VETTING THE NOMINEE

Al Gore, Environmentalist and Zinc Miner Originally published in The
Wall Street Journal, June 29, 2000.

BY MICAH MORRISON Saturday, August 12, 2000 12:01 a.m. EDT
"The lakes and rivers sustain us; they flow through the veins of the
earth and into our own. But we must take care to let them flow back out as pure as they came, not poison and waste them without thought for the future."

--Al Gore, "Earth in the Balance"
"He taught me how to plow a steep hillside with a team of mules. He
taught me how to clear three acres of heavily-wooded forest with a
double-bladed axe. . .. He taught me how to stop gullies before they got
started. He taught me how to drive, how to shoot a rifle, how to fish,
how to swim. We loved to swim together in the Caney Fork River off a big
flat rock on the back side of his farm."

--Al Gore on his father, Sen. Albert Gore Sr., from algore2000.com CARTHAGE, Tenn.--On his most recent tax return, as he has the past 25 years, Vice President Al Gore lists a $20,000 mining royalty for the extraction of zinc from beneath his farm here in the bucolic hills of the Cumberland River Valley.
In total, Mr. Gore has earned $500,000 from zinc royalties. His late father, the senator, introduced him not only to
the double-bladed ax but also to Armand Hammer, chairman of Occidental
Petroleum Corp., which sold the zinc-rich land to the Gore family in 1973.

It also seems that zinc from Mr. Gore's property ends up in the cool
waters of the Caney Fork River, an oft-celebrated site in Gore lore.


A major shaft and tailings pond of the Pasminco Zinc Mine sit practically
in the backyard of the vice president's Tennessee homestead. Zinc and
other metals from the Gore land move from underground tunnels through elaborate extraction processes. Waste material ends up in the tailings pond, from which water flows into adjacent Caney Fork, languidly rolling
on to the great Cumberland.Mining is intrinsically a messy business, and Pasminco Zinc generally has a good environmental record. But not one that would pass muster with "Earth in the Balance," Mr. Gore's best-selling environmental book.

As recently as May 16, the Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation issued a "Notice of Violation." It informed Pasminco that it had infringed the Tennessee Water Quality Control act due to high levels of zinc in the river.

Those zinc levels exceeded standards established by the state and the
federal Environmental Protection Agency. A "sample analysis found that
total zinc was 1.480 mg/L [milligrams per liter], which is greater than
the monthly average of .65 mg/L and the daily maximum of 1.30 mg/L."
Pasminco "may be subject to enforcement action pursuant to The Tennessee
Water Quality Control Act of 1977 for the aforementioned violation," the
notice stated.

This was not the first time Mr. Gore's mining benefactor had run afoul of environmental regulations. In 1996, the mine twice failed biomonitoring tests designed to protect water quality in the Caney Fork for fish and wildlife. Mine discharge "failed two acute tests for toxicity to Ceriodaphnia dubia," a species of water flea, according to a mine permit analysis by Tennessee environmental authorities. "The
discharge of industrial wastewater from Outfall #001 [the Caney Fork
effluent] contains toxic metals (copper and zinc)," the analysis stated.
"The combined effect of these pollutants may be detrimental to fish and
aquatic life."

Tests for The Wall Street Journal by two independent Tennessee laboratories, conducted in September 1999 and this month, showed trace amounts of zinc and other metals in the Caney Fork that were in compliance with federal standards. But soil tests revealed what one lab called problematic "large quantities" of heavy metals in the riverbank
soil downstream of the Caney Fork effluent.

In both sets of tests,samples of water and soil were provided to the labs by the Journal. Soil samples drawn from the mine effluent and downstream "contained
large quantities of Barium, Iron, and Zinc, as well as smaller amounts of Arsenic, Chromium and Lead," Warner Laboratories found in September. "The soil from each of these sites seems to have some problems according
to our findings. The levels of Barium, Iron and Zinc far exceed any report limit [a detection threshold within the testing system] and it should be noted that these results are extremely high compared to
typical soil found in a populated neighborhood."

Tests conducted in June by the Environmental Science Corp. found similar traces of heavy metals in the water and soil. The report found the soil samples to contain relatively high levels of "Barium, Iron, Zinc, and
several of the other metals, including Aluminum, Calcium and Magnesium."

The ESC report also noted traces of cyanide in some water and soil samples.
Pasminco is not required to test soil along the banks of the Caney Fork.
Both labs, while noting anomalies in the soil, believe the results do
not warrant concern as environmental hazards. The water and soil clearly
are not, however, "as pure as they came," as Mr. Gore demands in "Earth
in the Balance." A 1998 study by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based organization, criticized the zinc-mining operation for purchasing a
toxic waste that included sulfuric acid and reselling it as fertilizer.

The mine buys acid waste from steel plants, uses it as purification agent in zinc processing, and then sells the waste to fertilizer companies, according to a report in the Tennessean, a Nashville
newspaper. Most soil scientists say the procedure is safe. Tennessee environmentalists disagree. "Clearly, when you spread those types of chemicals around on a farm or on the land, you're going to get
a lot of runoff," Brian McGuire, executive director of Tennessee Citizens Action told the Tennessean. "So it's going to get into the water. We're poisoning ourselves."

A Pasminco official noted that the mine has had few violations and works to uphold a "very strict standard" of environmental quality. The Gore campaign did not respond to requests for comment. But some Tennessee
residents say Mr. Gore becomes testy when questioned about the zinc mine.

Tom Gniewek, a retired chemical engineer from Camden, Tenn., has studied the zinc mine for years and tried to question Mr. Gore about it
at town-hall meetings. "He gets real angry," Mr. Gniewek says. "Instead of answering the question, he attacked my motives and accused people like me of vandalizing the earth."

Mr. Gore's original purchase of the zinc-rich land is of some interest as well, shedding light on his long relationship with Mr. Hammer, the former Occidental Petroleum chief. A controversial influence peddler who
trafficked in politicians of all stripes and parties, Mr. Hammer pleaded guilty in 1975 to providing hush money in the Watergate scandal.

Mr. Hammer cut a wide swath across Washington from the 1930s until his death in 1990 at 92. His controversial career was marked by decades of profitable business dealings with the Soviet Union, which were closely
watched by the FBI. He leapt into the big time by acquiring Libyan oil rights for Occidental Petroleum through what biographer Edward Jay Epstein has characterized as a combination of shrewd business dealings
and bribery. After his 1975 conviction, Mr. Hammer spent the rest of his life campaigning for a pardon, which President Bush granted in 1989.

Mr. Hammer cultivated close relationships with many politicians, but he
was closest to Mr. Gore's father, a U.S. senator from 1953 until 1971.

Mr. Hammer's Occidental Minerals snapped up the zinc-bearing property in 1972. The senior Mr. Gore's farm is on the opposite bank of the Caney Fork. Mr. Hammer paid $160,000, double the only other offer, according
to the Washington Post, which first disclosed details of the arrangement during the 1992 presidential campaign. According to deed documents in Carthage, a year later Mr. Hammer sold the land to the senior Mr. Gore for $160,000, adding the extremely
generous $20,000 per year mineral royalty. Ten minutes after that sale,the former senator executed a deed selling the property, including the mineral rights, to his son, the future vice president, for $140,000.
Albert Gore Sr. told the Post he kept the first $20,000 royalty for himself, evening up the father-son transaction. The purpose of the sale appears to have been transferring the annual $20,000 payment from Mr. Hammer to the young Mr. Gore. The Post reported
that the "$20,000 a year amounts to $227 an acre, much more than the $30 an acre Occidental Minerals, part of Hammer's oil company, paid the senior Gore and some neighbors a few years before the 1973 arrangement."

In 1992 then-Sen. Gore told the Post that although he had been working for "slave wages" as a newspaper reporter, he quickly came up with a $40,000 down payment from two previous real-estate investments. In 1974,
the zinc mine began annual payments of $20,000 to Mr. Gore, an important source of income to the young politician for many years. After the senior Mr. Gore lost his 1970 Senate re-election bid, Mr.Hammer named him chairman of Island Creek Coal, an Occidental subsidiary, and appointed him to the board of directors of Occidental
Petroleum.

The late Mr. Gore's estate is conservatively valued at $1.5 million, including a block of Occidental stock worth between $250,000
and $500,000. The vice president is executor and trustee of his father's estate, with "sole discretion" to manage a trust on his mother's behalf. As Albert Gore Jr. rose through the political ranks, Mr. Hammer
continued to assist him. The Hammer family and corporations made donations up to the legal maximum in all of Mr. Gore's campaigns,
according to Mr. Hammer's former personal assistant, Neil Lyndon,writing in London's Daily Telegraph. Mr. Gore regularly dined with Mr.Hammer and Occidental lobbyists in Washington, Mr. Lyndon wrote.

"Separately and together, the Gores sometimes used Hammer's luxurious private Boeing 727 for journeys and jaunts." The former Hammer aide noted that the "profound and prolonged involvement between Hammer and Gore has never been revealed or investigated."Mr. Hammer was famous for his dealings with the Soviet Union, and received a humanitarian award in Moscow in 1987 from International
Physicians Against Nuclear War.

Mr. Gore, who had been elected to the
Senate in 1984, delivered a speech to the same convention, saying conventional arms should be cut along with nuclear weapons. As vice president, Mr. Gore became the Clinton administration point man on relations with Russia. Mr. Gore would be well served to get the facts out about his relationship with Mr. Hammer, beginning with the zinc bounty. The issue is bigger than whether there is a pollution problem in Tennessee. When
Mr. Gore's zinc riches are at stake, he appears unwilling to live by the
standards he sets out for others in "Earth in the Balance."

His record of uncompromising environmental rhetoric seems another instance of the kind of hypocrisy that has dogged his campaign for
months. He's been accused of being a slumlord for providing substandard housing to a tenant on a rental unit adjoining his farm. A
well-remembered 1996 speech to the Democratic National Convention, invoking his sister's death by lung cancer and attacking the tobacco industry, also contributed to his reputation for slippery sanctimony when his close ties to Tennessee tobacco were revealed.

And of course Mr. Gore has been sharply criticized for posturing on campaign finance
reform while under investigation for possible fund-raising crimes in the 1996 campaign.
No mention of the zinc mine appears in "Earth in the Balance," on Mr.Gore's campaign Web site or in his speeches. At this point the story of the Tennessee farm, the zinc mine, the politician and the influence peddler is largely one of cant and hypocrisy.[b] This is not a hanging crime in the political world, but the vice president, among others,
might note that Bill Clinton's problems also began with a murky land deal and a shady financier. Click here to read "Vetting the Frontrunners." http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=65000070 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pat Ness
Oct. 20, 2000, 08:50 PM
There's a survey at the following site which attempts to match your views with a candidate based on your answers to some survey questions:

www.speakout.com/SelectSmart (http://www.speakout.com/SelectSmart)

My top choice ended up being a Socialist: David McReynolds (91), Ralph Nader (79), and Al Gore (73) . . .

I am planning on voting for Gore, but I may give Ralph Nader by vote. My top issues are the Death Penalty (abolish) and Pro Choice, and JumpHigh--I have voted for the abortion issue alone in the past in a Minnesota Governor race. I always vote Democrat, but once our Demcratic (DFL in MN) candidate was anti-choice, and I went with the Republican. It can come down to being the most important issue.
Pat Ness

[This message has been edited by pat on the back (edited 10-20-2000).]

hobson
Oct. 20, 2000, 08:51 PM
All right, just to throw in a few more of my cents...

Why the automatic "get the goverment out of my life" reactions? C'mon, folks, you're a smart bunch - the government does a ton of useful things! Without federal government "meddling," there would be no Nat'l Institutes of Health to find cures and treatments for almost every nasty disease on the planet. There'd be no EPA to force toxic-sludge-dumping corporations to clean up their messes (the oil would still be floating around Alaska from the Valdez). No civil rights legislation to prevent less egalitarian-minded states from the rampant discrimination they'd otherwise be inclined to allow. Airplanes would be crashing into one another. No FDA to ensure that your food and prescription medication is safe to ingest. No land-grant universities with agricultural programs that have done so much for the horse and farm industries. I could go on and on. Now don't get me wrong - the feds do some really boneheaded things as well. The murderous hi-jinx of the CIA in Latin America come to mind...the useless drug war that has resulted in MORE drug trade, etc.

And don't kid yourselves - no individual state or local government has the resources to perform these functions. You think the exalted Market Forces will cause all the aforementioned services to happen? Then go check your dictionary - the word "gullible" isn't there! And you like local control of things like zoning and development? That's exactly why the Philadelphia area is losing open space at a rate second only to Houston (uhhh - Bush supporters, are you paying attention?), as the patchwork of township-level regulations is no match for the massive developers lobby. State-level control of schools results in Kansas kids getting taught creationism as a science. Here in PA, local funding and control of schools means that kids in poor neighborhoods get crappy public schools and kids in wealthy neighborhoods get fabulous public schools. A nice system if you're into the idea of the elite class reproducing itself with no worries about sharing, not so great if you're a poor kid who'd like to get ahead.

This rant is now concluded. Oh, and JumpHigh, I think Buchanan is your man.

ponyperson
Oct. 20, 2000, 08:54 PM
GO BUSH!!!

For me, this is really a religous issue, I am a devout Roman Catholic, and of course, pro-life. People are saying, "Shouldn't a woman be able to choose if she wants an abortion." Well, she had the choice to hop in bed without protection with some guys she'll never see again so I'm guessing NO.

Becca
Oct. 20, 2000, 09:54 PM
When I run for president, i will base part of my campaign on the pro- baby quiche and baby carrots theme and centralize my focus around the cruelty surrounding them. (Taffy will have to break his habit of eating them....carrots anyhow..quiche? not sure where that one comes from...?)

rockstar
Oct. 20, 2000, 10:07 PM
Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy do I have a lot to say on this. It's been a long day for me on the job in the world of Democratic fundraising though... and I am going to now transform into a normal collge kid and go out and have some fun OUTSIDE of the political world... so you will all have to just wait.

Simmer down now! I know everyone is dying to know my sentiments... just hold on to your horses ok? Hmmm... that shouldn't be so hard! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

farmgate
Oct. 20, 2000, 10:07 PM
I remember well, the days when an abortion was illegal. That was as senseless as the war going on in Vietnam at the time.

Idealism seems to once again be the simplified platform of choice for some. Good luck in a "perfect world" approach to issues, but......

The election I most vividly remember because of the urgensy I felt in the need to vote, was the one where I stood in line for hours to vote AGAINST "Tricky Dick". I will once again be casting my vote not for, but against a candidate. I vote no to Gore.

Merry
Oct. 20, 2000, 10:16 PM
Based on the bleak prospects of Gore or Bush, I'm thinking a "benevolent dictator" doesn't sound so bad. Just rule and let me ride my horse...
My husband and I were going to vote for Nader as protest votes until I heard Nader say today that he wants universal healthcare, a "Medicare HMO" for everyone, a single-payer system. Oh, please! I'm already stuck in HMO hell. I am a product of that system. (Can you say "malpractice attorneys"?). Sure, let's spread that around! So I guess I'll vote for Gore. He doesn't smirk like Bush, he gave his wife a big, sloppy kiss on TV, and Gore was funnier than Bush on David Letterman.

Snowbird
Oct. 20, 2000, 10:35 PM
I have been ambivilent about abortion until a couple of weeks ago when I saw a film clip from a surgery being done on a 10 week fetus for spinabifita. The little hand came out of the uterus and it grabbed the doctor's finger. There were 5 perfectly formed little fingers grasping for life. That fetus could still have been aborted for another two weeks.

If we can be cavaliere about the death of a baby, will we next approve the euthanasia of senior citizens because they cost too much to support?

I have never been an activist nor an advocate against abortion, but that picture will stick in my mind, forever. I remember an interview with a lady who had 10 children, and she said I might be in favor of abortion but I don't know which of my 10 children shouldn't live.

We have been very vocal about the punishment for pedophiles, should they be killed because they are incurable?

Does anyone feel the relationship with Nazi Germany where only the wanted, the perfect and the aryan should live? Have you considered that you might be one of those that people thought shouldn't have been born?

As to guns! I sleep with a 10 guage shotgun in my bedroom. Why? because out here in the rural part of the country it can be your only protection! We have three levels, a security system, a bunch of dogs and if they get past those, there's Grandma with her trusty rifle.

The "bad" guys have no trouble buying guns illegally, if they know that all of us are disarmed are we better off?

Tobacco and alcohol! Well if you don't want to support me then you'd better let me have my cigarettes and white russians. If they're right I'll die sooner, but happy. I detest this idea that someone else is in charge of my life. I've done pretty well so far and I don't want "Big Brother" forcing me to live a life style that doesn't make me happy.

If you youngsters can't afford us to live too long, then why not let us go out early and happy? Why pass laws that force us to be so healthy that we get to the point where euthanasia is the right solution?

Do we as a society have the right to decide who is worth keeping alive and who should die?

I agree that there is the right to choose, freedom of choice says you can use prevention or you can keep your legs closed. Rape, abuse and other crimes is another story.

I campaigned for Dwight Eisenhower, everyone said oh! he's a military man he will keep us in war! It's the opposite, he knew war! He hated war!

Do you want a President who will pick the Supreme Court based on his personal convictions? I don't think so! Is it better to vote for one who believes in abortion than one who doesn't? It better to vote for one who says that won't be his criteria for a choice. If he lies then we vote the sucker out. We've had enough lies.

A child can't be given an aspirin without the permission of the parents and without notifying them. Yet, they're saying the same little girl can have an abortion without telling her parents!

[This message has been edited by Snowbird (edited 10-20-2000).]

Kellybird
Oct. 20, 2000, 11:36 PM
GORE.

Anyone who votes for Bush based on his ENVIRONMENTAL record must have been breathing the Houston smog for too long. I'd rather have that NOT happen all around the nation, or at least to that hellish degree.

As for things like oil and gas prices....who cares--pay a little more for gas, or get with the times and drive an electric car around town instead of your 4 ton SUV with it's own solar system and atmosphere. We pay so little compared to most other nations, we ought to donate money just to keep from embarrassing ourselves.

Pro-choice, because it IS important. (Erin said we shouldn't debate this endlessly, so that's all I'm saying /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

I am not a fan of the right-wing conservative, Christian right thing...I am a firm believer in separation of church and state, and I think that endorsing such a group is just mixing the two. Gore may be a religious person, but Bush is just pushing the "legal" limits. He said in a an interview that he knew one truth: "There is a God." Come on! He just lost ALL the atheists, wiccans, etc. who don't follow his religion. Couldn't he have said something like "the sky is blue?" {Coming from him, it would sound the same--clueless; sorry, feeling evil /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif }

Not to mention, In an interview with 20/20 at one point, Bush was asked about his "questionable" past, esp. his college years, and just said, "I really don't feel like discussing it," or words to that effect. ?!?!? What happens if at some international summit, or Middle-East peace talk, someone asks a sensitive question, and Bush just says, "Um, how 'bout we don't talk about that one, OK? Moving on..." Riiiiiiight, you figure it out.

I have so much more, but ya'll are bored already I'm sure, so I'll stop.

***********
Come on people, this is not a personality contest--you're voting for the most competent person of few options--it is a presidential election. You are supposed to pick the one of those offered who you believe can do the job--it's a tough job!--the best. You are not voting to pick your new best friend and golfing buddy, deal with it.

kelly
15-year-old environmentalist, capitalist, pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-personal FREEDOM /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kryswyn
Oct. 20, 2000, 11:59 PM
GORE

Inflamatory statements like Snowbird's, to the effect of 'you could've been aborted' are meaningless, because (DUH) if you'd been aborted you wouldn't have known life. You can't "miss" what you've never had. You may yearn for it, but you can't miss it and a fetus doesn't know what it's experiencing.

Ditto for comments by anyone believing in the downsizing of the government. If you can't fire a local state employee FOR CAUSE, how do think anyone is going to downsize entire sections of the behemoth known as the US Government? Not going to happen. People will lose jobs, which is bad for the economy, which puts us in a recessession, and the party in power doesn't get re-elected. Nope, sounds good in a sound bite, but stands NO CHANCE of happening.

In the fall of 1980, as elections loomed and Ronald Reagan looked like the winner, I saw a skit performed at a local college whichh is as true today as it was then.

Mother stands at kitchen counter; teen daughter walks in, they chat briefly about their day. Suddenly, off stage a LOUD scraping, screeching, shaking noise is heard for several seconds. The daughter turns wide eyed to her mother and asks, "Mom, what was that!? Who serenly replies, "Oh nothing, dear. Just the country moving to the right!"

CTT
Oct. 21, 2000, 12:11 AM
As someone of youth who is firmiliar with Bush's Education I can't realy say that our education system is all that wonderfull. You can go to mysanantonio.com and ead up on how our schools work. I realy recomend taking a look att exas as fare as school goes. When I moved here being dislexic I was astonished by the treatment I recieved. A class for special children are fare from that. I was in my first 2 months of school put into classes with mentaly retarded children. Nothing against them but when you are put into those types of classes you feal dumb. After my first 2 months I transferd out of the public school system to a private school. But I was treated no diffrent. i was asked to be held back a year cause they felt comeing out of the private school systems in CT I was somehow behind. Yah right. I was more advanced than the honor sophmore there and I was only in 8th grade.

OH and then the TASP came to be. Chat a crock of test. Im still after 2 years trying to pass that dumb math portion. We rank still very low in the education system. Our schools are crowded all over the state. And the iliteracy leval is still rising. In 3 years of TMI's graduating classes 99% will go on to hard schools. 86% will end up at a comunity college because they were under prepared. Now if bush looked at the dropout levals of texas students you would be surprised to see how under prepared we realy are here. A fue years ago from my understanding they were about to close down one of the ACCD campuses because of hifh dropout rate. After much reasearch they came to the understanding it was not that the courses were to hard nor the teachers it was because our highschool graduates are not prepared.

On the leval of enviormental and land conservation. WHAT LAND AND ENVIORMENTAL CONSERVATION? In 3 years san antonio alone has trippled in population. Contractors are buying up land left and right and what is bush doing NOTHING! YOu go to houston or sanantonio or dallas or austen and during the day you can see the thin blanket of smog in the citys. We have no admisions sniffers, we have cars driveing around puffing out harmfull chemicles. we have cars that would never pass in any other state passing their admissions. to get a car inspected here is a joke. Seriously there are many places you can go and hand over the money to get a new tag without your car even being looked at.

Farmers are selling their land cause they are becomeing incorparated by the cities. Cattle owners are haveing a very hard time down here makeing a liveing. Do you know many people are still recovering from that major flod we had 2 years ago to date thispast week.

We are still in the darkages here. I would have much preferd Jim McCain being a republican myself. I know of many prominate cattle owners that mostlikely if you get texas beef they are these people cows. They (9of them) are voteing gore. Why because Bush has done nothing for them. and these people fall in Buses richer catagory. These are nine men who have alot of ties in this state and are well known and if bush found out they were not voteing he would be in serious trouble.

I myself am Catholic, from a New York republican family, middle class... and you want to know who we are voteing for in this race.... GORE. Although he is a not so grate canadate. But Bush has done nothing for us here. Do you know in healthcare raitings out of all 50 states we are ranked 50. I rather have a man that has othe things than money on his mind. Oh and this librial catholic family suports abortion.. Look at roe VrS wade. If abortion is reversed Nomater what i have a fealing that alot of woman will be going to prison. for all you people who remember the old days think back to how many friends you lost because they could not aford a abortion. Think of that horable coat hanger saying. I know I have oversteped my boundries here but this is how I feal. The day bush gets my vote is the day I rather move to canada.

[This message has been edited by CTT (edited 10-21-2000).]

Fairview Horse Center
Oct. 21, 2000, 08:18 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snowbird:
[B]I have been ambivilent about abortion until a couple of weeks ago when I saw a film clip from a surgery being done on a 10 week fetus for spinabifita. The little hand came out of the uterus and it grabbed the doctor's finger. There were 5 perfectly formed little fingers grasping for life. That fetus could still have been aborted for another two weeks.

Actually Snowbird, that baby can be legally aborted right up to full term. It is called partial birth abortion and is legally performed for the "health of the mother" That means physical health OR MENTAL HEALTH. If it will upset you to have a baby, they will kill the baby just before delivery is complete. A minute later and it would be 1st degree. Many, many abortions are performed on babies older than the preemies they keep alive every day in our hospitals.

DHenley
Oct. 21, 2000, 09:09 AM
Gore. Bush just doesn't have the depth or breadth to understand the job.

By the way Jumphigh, gore does not have a Juris Doctorate. He dropped out of law school.

B.G.M. heidi
Oct. 21, 2000, 10:32 AM
Don't think the subject originally posted, either of Gore or Bush's impact on the horse industry, is being addressed at all. In fact, would state that the 'discussion' has now devolved to often irrational and strident dogma. Fairview Horse Center, may I suggest that you do some research into partial birth abortions before launching into such a graphic post?

And here's an idea, for all those who so clearly care about children, especially the fetus: why don't we spend some time volunteering at children's hospitals, orphanages, mentoring children at risk, demanding from our government that our children be fed, kept safe, educated, and given access to medical treatment and prescpription drugs. For those of us who can, why not institute at a local, personal, or grass roots level a program to introduce horses/riding to inner city, children at risk.

No one's personal and political position on abortion is going to change as a result of a post but wouldn't it be lovely if people were as vehemently concerned about the children who have already been born.

Caruso
Oct. 21, 2000, 10:40 AM
Hmm - interesting discussion. Couple of questions - how do you who do not like religion in politics support someone who got his tour of duty in VN shortened to 5 months (from the usual at least one year) so that he could attend DIVINITY school (from which he dropped/flunked out)?

As far as brains - his academic record has lower grades than Bush's...

I'm voting 3rd party, so I will leave the rest of you to ponder these two interesting conflicting points.

RubysMom
Oct. 21, 2000, 02:03 PM
It is not just the "issues" here, but what about special interest groups giving big money to support these candidates?
It is incredible the amount of money that is going into the campaign coffers.
There is a website that totals up the incredible amount of money that has been spent on these campaigns,(I think url is on the MSN homepage) Bush has broken campaign spending records, all I can think is he has some low friends in high places.
These "special" interest grounps are the ones that end up "running" our country, IMO, if you have a candidate "beholden" to a special interest group, wellll, you know which way the wind will blow.
There is a website that is adressing that issue, it wants to have all American citizens make a statement that we have HAD ENOUGH and WE are the ones that "hired" the politicians and they WORK for US, not for thier own interests.
Go check out Nowstanding.com
Let's put limits on these guys and remind them that WE are thier employers.
I find that I totally agree with the majority of you about feeling pretty hopeless in our choices for president, ugh, Dumb or Dumber?
But I will vote, as I have in every election since I was old enough, cuz then I have the right to B**ch.
We have wonderful freedoms here, don't ever forget that, many people over the years gave their lives so we can live in this wonderful country.
Bless you all, I am climbing down from my soapbox /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif you guys RULE!!!!

Magnolia
Oct. 21, 2000, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by magnolia:
JumpHigh-
I'm not basing my vote on my uterus, and yes, abortions can be prevented, but the same people who want to outlaw abortions also want to outlaw birth control.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MMMM....I really don't think you have your facts straight...I'm Pro-life (and that means no death penalty either!), and I'm all for birth control! And quite honestly, I've not met anyone except for my Catholic friends that don't want birth control or abortions....where did you get this idea from? I'm seriously curious.


From my republican, christian fundamentalist, very nice, but very in the dark ages former employer.

BTW, those of you who vote Bush for freedom need to know that his freedom is for WHITE, UPPER CLASS CHRISTIANS. If you really want freedom for everyone and the right to do whatever you want, you need to vote LIBERTARIAN. They feel your land is yours, your body is yours, etc.etc. Barbara Howe is running for NC governer as a libertarian and nearly every state should have a libertarian candidate.

Ozman
Oct. 21, 2000, 05:52 PM
I think you guys would appreciate this. LOL
Today in Newsday, there was a political cartoon that cracked me up.
Wizard of Oz theme.
Bush was the scarecrow saying If I only had a brain.
Gore was the tinman saying If I only had a heart.
Dorothy was saying If I only had ANOTHER choice!!

Thought you'd all like that. It made me laugh.

rockstar
Oct. 21, 2000, 06:37 PM
She clears her throat, takes a long drink of water, ponders for a moment, and to the keys she goes...

Ladies and Gentlemen, friends and foes, welcome to my arena, and really, to my life.

I wish I could have joined you sooner, but yesterday I was making phone calls all day raising money for the Democratic Party and today... well here I am! At this point in the election, democratic party fundraising is what I do most waking moments that I am not in school. OK, well, that makes me sound like a really big loser, huh? Well I swear that I really DO have a life... just not really the typical college one. I worked for a year in fundraising for a rapidly rising Political Action Committee here in Washington (the New Democrat Network), then I worked in Senator Lieberman's Senate Office, then I worked
in New York City on Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign, and now, now I work for the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). I also am studying Political
Science, with an emphasis on American Politics. So, I offer you a wealth of knowledge here... and more than just the media perspective.

I am going to say an awful lot here because it is worth the time and the effort if I can manage to sway even ONE opinion. Please take the time and read what I have to say. My argument is systematic and progressive and so, if you read only one component of it, you will most likely take that component out of context and misconstrue my points. I already recently wrote the bulk of this for another reason having nothing to do with this BB... just had to put in that disclaimer so that you donÂ’t think I am a complete whacko and wrote all of this to post on the board! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

First, let me just say that I am, indeed, biased... I am a proud Democrat. However, partisanship really pisses me off, and I am extremely moderate on all of the issues except for the social ones (abortion, gun control, censorship, etc.) I am what is called a New Democrat, a relatively new term that emerged in the 80Â’s to refer to moderate democratic centrists. Joe Lieberman is the champion of the New Democrat movement, Clinton and Gore used to be considered "champions" of this movement as well, but they have leaned more to the left in the past several years because New Democrats don't yet reflect the base of the Democratic party (they will eventually, though, because of America's recent shift to
the center of the political spectrum). As is commonly known, without the full support of the base of your party, you just can't win a presidential election in this political system... sad but true. Hence, Lieberman has taken on a somewhat more liberal persona these past few months... he simply must for Gore to win.

Anyway, working in Washington and being around "the scene" these past couple
of years has really driven in to me one very important point time and time again. With
Republicans, it's their way or the highway. This is not to say that their are not exceptions, there are certainly many, many Republican Congressman who are willing to work in non-partisan ways and cross party lines, if need be. However, for the most part, and especially within the Republican Leadership, standards are NOT to be lowered.
Compromises with the other side are NOT to be made. I, personally, have been horrified
more times than I can count to see how absolutely and completely unwilling the
Republican leaders are when it comes to making conciliatory points or taking the middle road.

Allow me to demonstrate my point. I work in the office of Congressman Patrick
Kennedy (D-RI) and House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-MI) at the DCCC (Kennedy is the chairman). Gephardt came to Congress in 1976 and eventually became the Speaker of the House. I tell you, it was quite something to sit in front of a man, a man
who stands among some of the most powerful men in the world, and hear him sound like a
prisoner in our own political system. This man is a tried and true workhorse who is more
devoted to the democratic party and its causes than I could possibly imagine anyone else being. With that said, however, when the Democrats held the majority and he was
Speaker of the House and held the gavel and the control, he made sure that he met with
the Republican minority leaders at LEAST twice a week, although it was usually once a
day. He didn't have to... there is no law that says congressional leaders must meet and
confer with each other. But to Gephardt, it just made sense to work with the opposition
instead of battle with it nonstop, and it was also just the right thing to do. He did not see the point in shutting the other side out. Then, in 1994, all was lost and the Republicans took over congress. I will never forget Gephardt standing in front of me, just a few weeks ago, counting on his fingers how many times he has met with Newt Gingrich (when he was there), Dick Army (Majority Leader, R-TX), Dennis Hastert (Speaker of the House, R-IL), Tom DeLay (Majority Whip, R-TX), and the other House Republican leaders. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6... he stopped there... he couldn't think of any other times. 6 TIMES!!!! And HE met with the opposite side nearly every day when he had control. I believe his exact words were, "They WILL NOT work with us... it is their way or the highway. ItÂ’s like we
don’t even exist... that we are not even here.” These were the words of a deeply
frustrated man who is incredibly weary of having to wake up and fight the hardest of fights every single day to get even the tiniest thing through Congress and past the Republicans.

One might say... well... that is what happens when you are in the minority, right? You have to expect to always be fighting an uphill battle. And while that is true, no good can come out of the immense SIZE of the uphill battle my party is fighting in Congress. Why? Because it just means that nothing meaningful gets done... or it only happens once in a blue moon (like welfare reform, Clinton's economic plan, and the Family and Medical Leave Law... items on the democratic agenda that were staunchly opposed by most Republicans but ended up having an extremely profound effect upon the country and its economy). The Republican's idea of making progress is stopping it. Keeping everything in a gridlock is their “preventative measure”. I swear to you that this is not me being biased... this is an eyewitness account of the facts. They REFUSE to work with us incrementally to compromise and produce meaningful legislation that has the ability to appeal to more than just a portion of the American public, but rather, to a large base of the American Public. It makes me want to spit.

What you have to understand here is the following. I mean really, I just can not
emphasize this point enough to as many people as I can... especially because most people outside of the Washington political world don't realize how it really is... they don't fully understand the politics of politics and how it has worked the past couple of years (since the Republicans have had control). I hope that does not sound patronizing... I don't mean it to! ANYWAY, my all-important point is this... if Bush is elected he will most assuredly be no kind of moderate. He will be beholden and tied to the Republican Leadership, whether he likes it or not. And the Republican Leadership is made up of men like Tom DeLay, Denny Hastert, and Dick Armey, all of whom are admittedly proud hard line, right wing conservatives... MODERATES, they are indeed not!! And they are the ones who control Congress and its actions... they are the ones who represent the Republican majority. And they will control Bush, should he get elected. Bush may or may not like it... I donÂ’t know... but a fact that any political science class will teach you is
that the American Presidency has become an inherently weak institution. Bush will
essentially need the support of the majority party in Congress to zip up his fly.

Armey, Hastert, and DeLay are the ones who you might not know; they are the
ones who, in truth, most Americans donÂ’t know... despite the fact that these men are in a small group of the most powerful men in the country and, indeed, the world. These men dominate Washington and our government... but the general American public doesnÂ’t know this because the Republican Party is doing everything it can to keep how conservative it really is a big secret. They are depending upon how naive Americans are...DONÂ’T LET THEM! You may not know Armey and his cohorts because you wonÂ’t
see them out stumping for Bush and standing behind him, showing their support for him
on the campaign trail, even though they DO stand behind him and DO support him
(emphatically). You see men like John McCain and Colin Powell and JC Watts paraded
about by the Bush Campaign and the Republican Party. Is it not rather strange that Armey (the Majority Leader), Hastert (the Speaker), and DeLay (the Majority Whip) were barely present at the Republican Convention? That is because they were hidden behind closed doors... shmoozing with the donors and politicking endlessly... but out of sight of the cameras.

The BOTTOM LINE here is that the Republican Party has grown extremely
conservative. By saying that, however, I mean that the elected officials and leaders of the party are very conservative. I do not speak of the electorate. I actually think most Republicans, in terms of ordinary people, are not hard right, die hard conservatives who typify the classic Republican (i.e., they carry NRA cards, hate gun control, are fanatically pro-life, don’t believe in taxation or strength in federal government, believe in religion in schools, etc.). I think those “typical Republicans” make up a much smaller part of the republican electorate these days. That is why GW Bush MUST play himself off to be
this “compassionate conservative” who is so moderate and wishy washy... he’s got to pull
in those votes from those who donÂ’t embody what a traditional republican is in every
way... those who might be willing to vote for the other side if Bush sings the true
conservative mantra and turns them off too much. But as I have tried to emphasize here
over and over again, Bush can claim to be as moderate as he wants, but if he is elected, it will mean nothing... if he wants to get any legislation passed in his presidency he is going to have to drive on the Republican Congressional leadershipÂ’s side of the road, not his... and that other side of the road is a conservative one with drivers who will do everything they possibly can with a Republican President in office to get rid of Roe V. Wade, to strike the Brady Bill and prevent all other gun control measures, to drastically decrease the tax on the rich, to shut down the Trial Lawyers, to keep prescription drug costs were they are, to let the environment slide, and so on. With the majority in congress, three Supreme
Court Nominations, and without a Democrat in the Oval Office like Bill Clinton or Al
Gore to veto bills and call their bluff, the leaders of the Republican Party are going to be like kids let loose in a candy store. MODERACY??? YEAH RIGHT.

That is why I shout over and over again to all who will listen... WE
(DEMOCRATS) MUST TAKE BACK THE HOUSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I dream of waking up and seeing congress back in the hand of the democrats... not because I am a democrat but because I know that they are the only party of the two that we have that will do everything they can to advance their agenda... but NOT (and I repeat, NOT) at the cost of trampling upon the oppositionÂ’s wants and needs. I dream of seeing
non-partisan bills passed by congress, signed, and enacted. If you vote Republican and they gain the presidency AND keep congress... my dreams die. ItÂ’s just that simple. Experts predict that this is the last chance for Democrats to take congress back... if we loose in this crucial election year then we will most likely not have the chance of getting it back for another twenty years. All I can say is God help us.


http://www.takebackthehouse.org
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
http://www.dnc.org
Democratic National Committee
http://www.dscc.org
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
http://www.algore.com
Gore/Lieberman Campaign
http://www.voter.com
Learn about who you are voting for
http://www.freedomchannel.com
Learn about who you are voting for
http://www.tray.com
Learn about $$$ in politics and who is raising what and from where

[This message has been edited by rockstar (edited 10-21-2000).]

Magnolia
Oct. 21, 2000, 07:08 PM
The reason I'm voting against Bush -
IF HE HAS HIS WAY, OUR ENVIRONMENT WILL BE $%#@*&. THE ENVIRONMENT WILL NOT NECESSARILY BE ABLE TO BE REHABBED AFTER 4 YEARS OF CORPORATIONS RAPING IT.
Yes, we can get our rights back after Bush tramples them. But, do you want to go fox hunting and have to wear a gas mask (oh, wait, the republicans let the developer build a chip mill over there...sorry!). Look, there is no second chance for our earth. sorry. Would you rather your tax dollars subsidize roads for a millionaire to clear cut our forest, or would you rather they be spent exploring new energy sources that may eventually save you money?
If you can show me that BUSH cares about the environment, you will sway my vote. And, no, Gore is no environmentalist, but at least he gives it a thought.
We all have to share the earth. It is a cycle. Pollution effects all people, and if we let it get much worse, well sorry, we may all just die of lung cancer from all the smog.

Heather
Oct. 21, 2000, 07:33 PM
Now, I realize that abortion is an issue that will never be resolved, but I have a question regarding something I hear pro-llife folks (in general and on this thread) saying a lot.

Obviously I'm pro-choice, but I ask this question with sincere curiosity.

When I hear the average abortion seeker characterized, it is usually with statements like "Then they shouldn't have hopped into bed with someone they didn't know" etc., therby implying that all abortionsa re recieved by irresponsible, single whores with no morals.

Well, I just read a statistic that 40% of abortions performed are done on married women? So, what is the reasoning, do you think, behind this?

I'm married, I religously (no pun intended) take my birth control pills, but its not 100% effective and were I to get pregnant, I fairly certian I would not have the child. I can't afford it--financially, emotionaly, and in every other way. I think bringing a child into this world is a scared duty--the most important thing we can do with our lives--bar none! If you cannot give everthing to a child, then I don't believe its right to bring it into this world. (This will proabably get me flamed to death, but my feeling on abortion and euthanasia is the same--there are far worse things and existences in this world than death) I've known two married women who had abortions--it wasn't an easy decision, but they have never regretted it.

And yes, I know there is adoption--but to be blunt, my jury is still out on that. In my personal expereince (which is all we can base opinions on anyway) the people in my life (friends and relatives) who were adopted--well, let's just say it wasn't exactly like the ending to Little Orphan Annie.

Anyway, I'm not actually trying to change anyone's mind--because frankly, people don't change their minds about this topic--you're either OK with it, or you're not. But, I am curious what you folks feel would be the motivation for a married person to have an abortion, since irresposnibility seems to be the watch word from your feelings.

Anyway, I'll be waiting fro the hatemail to come raining down.

Astraled
Oct. 21, 2000, 08:15 PM
Rockstar, that was the longest post I've *ever* seen http://www.chronofhorse.com/ubb/eek.gif . It was good though, LOL.

Everybody, please leave the abortion issue off the board; Erin asked really politely and I'm going to second the motion.

Portia
Oct. 21, 2000, 08:22 PM
And I'm going to put on my Moderator hat and officially also ask that we get away from the abortion issue. No one is going to change anyone's mind about it, and it is an extremely touchy subject. You've done a good job of not making overly personal attacks, but this is the kind of issue that can degenerate quickly.

The original question was which candidate do people believe would be better for the horse industry; can we focus on that for awhile? Or at least on the pressing issue of whether the candidates ever tasted baby quiche, and if so, did they swallow?

jch
Oct. 21, 2000, 08:31 PM
How about education? That's my FAVORITE since I teach!! Any candidate who tells you that testing will move the top and bottom students closer together is deluding themselves and the public! Students who need more time to learn end up being drilled so they can pass "the test" while the students at the other end of the spectrum continue to learn about literature, algebra, problem solving and critical issues.

Whenever politicians haul out the education issue, I shudder!! I've yet to hear legislators tell surgeons how to operate, but having attended a school, they feel quite comfortable telling teachers how to communicate complex learning http://www.chronofhorse.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

Kryswyn
Oct. 21, 2000, 08:47 PM
Heather, I will lend you my hate-mail umbrella. Or you can stand under mine because I'm with you on the abortion issue.

For many years now, ever since I worked in a crisis center and saw statistics on abortions, ie. the majority of women who have abortions are white, educated (some college) I have had a feeling that the Republicans are anti-abortion in part because it is prospective REPUBLICANS that are being aborted (white) It is no secret that because of the decline in white births, interacial marriage and the influx of of aliens from other countries, whites will become a minority in America within my lifetime. Of course, NO ONE has ever publically said this in anything I've heard on tv or read (MY G*d how could they? It would be the most politically incorrect thing they could say), but I still believe it to be a corallary of legalized abortion.

As for the death penalty, mentioned by Pacificsolo and euthanisia (Snowbird, I think?). IMO, not humble, there are people who do not deserve to live after the crimes they have committed. To those who say, 'but people can change', I reply, they don't deserve to have the time needed to change, because of the time stolen from the lives they've taken. As for euthanisia, many of us on this board have had to make that decision about a beloved horse or pet. We say, he was suffering...or, I looked into his eyes and he told me it was time. Why will we perform this act of mercy for an animal, and deny death with dignity to a human? (Please don't bring up God /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) Twice recently two public figures have SHOT themselves (talk about messy and traumatic for surviving family members!) rather than continue their medical treatment which is always experimental no matter how often it's done. They knew they were dying and preferred not to drag it out.

Just as there must be stringint FAIR RULES to enforce the death penaly (currently, a disproportionally high number of black males get zapped vs. whites w/ same crime/history) there must be failsafes to ensure the elderly and ill are not taken before THEY ARE READY and just for the benefit of others ('If we pull the plug on Aunt Marge Tuesday, we can still make our vacation plans for the following Sunday...').

Oh, and once again: GORE.

Kryswyn
Oct. 21, 2000, 08:51 PM
Sorry, Portia and Erin, I was drafting my post while you were banning partial birth aborted posts. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

So I think Gore will be better for the horse industry.

ProzacPuppy
Oct. 21, 2000, 09:02 PM
My husband is an lobbyist (used to specialize in environmental legislation) and his opinion is that if they elect Gore we better all be prepared to start commuting on our show horses (or invest in electric cars with really long extension cords). Basically, Gore will promise anything to anyone to get elected. On the other hand, Bush is not the brightest bulb in the marquee, but then again - he isn't really smart enough to be real sneaky and conniving. Down her in Houston alot of us like "W"....

Magnolia
Oct. 21, 2000, 09:51 PM
"we better all be prepared to start commuting on our show horses (or invest in electric cars with really long extension cords). "

Oh please, look, I'm sure the big oil lobbyists will prevent that.......
Also, if you look at the big picture, would you rather drive a solar powered vehicle, or a quality electric vehicle, or sit in a smog laden parking lot in your SUV that gets 10 mpg, while meanwhile, our brightest young people are over in the middle east trying to defend our right to cheap oil? Did it ever occur to you that with some INNOVATION, the same smarts that enable us to do a ton of pretty technology advanced things, perhaps Solar power could replace oil and coal, oh, and nuclear power too. Oh, and how about those oil subsidies that we pay....
Besides, I'd much rather get around on horseback, much less dangerous! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Erin
Oct. 21, 2000, 10:00 PM
Somewhat off the topic... (but since most of this thread has little to do with the topic... /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

Does anyone else feel guilty for having to drive a truck or SUV as an everyday car? I need a truck to pull my trailer, and I certainly can't afford two cars. But it kills me that I have to tool around in a behemoth that gets 16 mpg on a good day.

Of course, these days I only drive about 25 miles a day to work AND the barn, so I don't feel quite so bad!

Magnolia
Oct. 21, 2000, 10:10 PM
Erin-
I hate SUV's, but at least you need one to haul your horses!
What makes me mad is the guy tailgating me in his Excursion, with maybe some golfclubs in his trunk! My god, he could kill me.
Trucks are AOK in this environmetalists book for you horse trailer hauling folks - but hey, if your just hauling your #$%, and have no use for a truck, by a car!
BTW, even more of the topic, if you are a horsey person w/o need of hauling a trailer, a hatch back is just the bomb! My back seat folds down in my little Acura, and I can sleep in my car, haul mulch for our garden, and all sorts of stuff, and I get 30 mph!

ponyperson
Oct. 21, 2000, 10:12 PM
Erin, who are you for?

Erin
Oct. 21, 2000, 10:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ponyperson:
Erin, who are you for?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No WAY am I answering that question! Besides, I'm the administrator, so I'm impartial! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I agree, Magnolia... if the people who didn't need trucks or SUVs would stop driving them, I wouldn't have to feel so guilty! Even though it was killing me when gas got up over 2 bucks a gallon in Arizona and I was driving 60 miles round-trip to the barn, I never complain about the price of gas... I know I pollute more than my fair share, so I just have to grin and bear it at the pump. http://www.chronofhorse.com/ubb/tongue.gif

If I ever do get to own a car, I want one of those new hybrid gas/electic ones. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif You even get a tax break for driving one!

moose
Oct. 21, 2000, 10:19 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Erin:
Does anyone else feel guilty for having to drive a truck or SUV as an everyday car? I need a truck to pull my trailer, and I certainly can't afford two cars. But it kills me that I have to tool around in a behemoth that gets 16 mpg on a good day.[QUOTE]

I'm too broke from paying the gas this summer to feel guilty!!

Kellybird
Oct. 22, 2000, 01:01 AM
Let me clarify--I am all for PERSONAL freedom--as in, choosing your religion, etc.--, but I am also a big fan of the government. Why?
So I can breathe--EPA, as little as it often does, it has done something.
So I have the option of learning--public education.
So if I desperately need it, I can get healthcare...
...the list goes on. I have no problem with "big government" as everyone calls it. In fact, you would think all these Republicans would be all for MORE government monitoring for things like oh, say, the INTERNET and all that "non-family value" stuff that's out there. But all anyone ever says is to get out of our lives. WHY? No one is putting a camera in your bathroom, and no one will. Government is not, and probably never will be, to me, a problem. I just don't think a little control here and there is a big deal: it helps to prevent all the extremes [either direction] from taking over, not to mention helps to even out a the playing field for everyone--usually--at least a bit. *people usually ignore gov't decisions/issues anyway, so what difference does it make? Bad attitude to have, but unfortunately, many have it.*
(Did that make any sense?)

I just will not understand how people always think that government control is a bad thing. It's not anything Orwellian, and I highly doubt it ever will be. Feel free to disagree.

Buy an electric car--70 mpg is better for the environment, and you will save $$$ on gas bills--make all of you who want to drill up Denali National Park a little upset that it may not be neccessary... /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif--our next car will be the Honda Insight--63 mpg in town mileage, 70 mpg on the highways. Ford Excursion? try around 13 in town, 18 on the highways.....That ozone hole is growing, and somewhere a small child is coughing, 'cause his asthma just started acting up again....

Anyway, that's all for now.
kelly

rockstar
Oct. 22, 2000, 01:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jumphigh83:
Do I feel guilty for driving my truck? NOT. Why should I feel guilty for working 18 hour days to have the resources to buy and support my truck? I am sick and tired of appologizing for working hard and being able to have some nice things. Algore will try to scare the pants off of you (no...that was Clinton)...but I digress..Environmental changes are pretty predictable and quite cyclical. Yes we have an impact on our environment but not the doomsday impact our vice president would have you believe. Arrggghh! I can't stand this topic! Why not just give up everything we have and let big brother tell us all what to, when to do it, and how and with whom we can do it...get the government OUT of my life...oh yeah, and quarterly sales taxes are due...and withholdings, and state and federal tax, inheritance tax, luxury tax, sur tax, gasoline tax, and property tax, and income tax........ IS ANYBODY LISTENING???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Wow Jumphigh83... what a heart you have... good to see, good to see. You take social Darwinism to a whole new level I see. I disagree with absolutely everything you say... so I am not even going to begin picking apart all of your arguments (and a train could be driven through the holes in your arguments). However, I would just like to point out one thing... you complain and you complain and you complain about taxes... and yet you critique the education system? Since you apparently believe there thould basically be no taxation, especially federally, then explain to me, please, how our children will be educated? You live to moan and groan about the horrors of our government and democratic leaders... but please, by all mean, feel free to offer up some solutions that don't involve taxation of some sort.

rockstar
Oct. 22, 2000, 01:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by astraled:
Rockstar, that was the longest post I've *ever* seen http://www.chronofhorse.com/ubb/eek.gif . It was good though, LOL.

Everybody, please leave the abortion issue off the board; Erin asked really politely and I'm going to second the motion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes... well, like I said, I had written most of it already for another reason... it's actually 3 1/2 pages non double spaced on Word! yikes! :O

The problem is that people will probably not read it... and I feel that it is soooo important to read to understand how it really is in Washington and how it will really be should the republicans keep congress and get the presidency. http://www.chronofhorse.com/ubb/mad.gif

please read my long post if you can give it a few minutes!!

MBS
Oct. 22, 2000, 07:33 AM
Hey Rockstar!!! I know you from that other board. You know where who I am planning on voting for because of the other political post where ,you (Dreamer) and me (Dolcevita), we doing most of the posting. Go GORE/LIEBERMAN

ProzacPuppy
Oct. 22, 2000, 02:09 PM
I agree with Jumphigh... when the govt is taking 39% of your paycheck (not to mention those FICA people), you get a little cranky. And as for the SUVs, until you've been hit headon by a Ford F150, don't pass judgement on those who buy the big SUVs. After my minivan got minimized even further I bought a Suburban (the "Texas Cadillac" - 40% of all Suburbans are sold in TX) and I feel alot more secure out there (plus it can haul the horse or the boat). Yeah, it gets 14 miles a gallon and my Exxon bill runs about $800 a month, but heck, I'm an oil and gas accountant- my bonus should be good this year. Wanna talk air pollution, check out the figures for the amt of methane produced by grazing cattle. It is a laughably high figure. Of course no politian wants to start legislation against a bunch of cows, so they will continue to pollute our environment and ruin the air quality. Here in TX we tend to blame all the west Texas longhorn cattle for the foul condition of Houston's air.(Couldn't possibly be all the Suburbans.)

Snowbird
Oct. 22, 2000, 02:12 PM
I function on some advisory boards and other horse committees, the original question is who would be better for horse people. Well, I think that the Republicans in general are better for the farmers. We are supposed to be farmers since we keep livestock.

Democrats generally that I have been interviewed by, have only one interest, that seems to be "hack strings". Their favorite objection to us is that we are rich, we use our farms as gentlemen estates to cheat the government of taxes and we are not farmers because we oppose having horses to eat, therefore we do not have a viable farm product. They worry about the inner city rider who may rent one of our horses for an hour and fall off and get hurt, "Who will pay their medical bills?"

The envirommentalists do not consider that horses are an appropriate use for public land because horses drop manure behind. Their hoofs chew up the trails and make it unpleasant for the joggers and walkers. They also do not consider that we are what they call a passive use of the land but lump us in with motor bikes (the definition of passive means that you make no change to the land). Most in government I have met are definitely not fond of horses and consider them a toy of the rich and famous. And, they are offended by the smells from manure which they consider a polutant, and of course the flies which then interfere with their barbeques. They don't object to them at the tracks because that produces revenue and the critters are isolated from the public.

Most are unaware that the horse industry is a viable one that contributes to the economy. Therefore, Republicans who believe in small business seem much more responsive to our problems and needs.

Therefore, on those counts I think you would have to choose Bush as one of the people most likely to help our industry. And, Gore most likely to see our sport as less attractive.

Our own "elitism" perception makes it necessary to oppose Democrats (and therefore Gore)who think that anyone who is not on welfare is rich except them. They certainly, believe that if you own horses then you're not paying enough taxes.

[This message has been edited by Snowbird (edited 10-22-2000).]

hobson
Oct. 22, 2000, 03:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jumphigh83:
..Environmental changes are pretty predictable and quite cyclical.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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!

jch
Oct. 22, 2000, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by Jumphigh 83:
Just look how much the last eight years have done to improve education. The schools are all state of the art, our children can read and do math on a par with the rest of the world, teachers are well paid, the schools are in great condition with plenty of teachers and aids and equipment..all this under the democrats....And I also have some lovely swamp land in Florida to sel to any interested democrats

Our schools are not perfect, but they are under the auspices of the state, rather than the federal government. The federal government only has say over federally sponsored programs. Here in Texas, the TAAS test has become the end all and be all. Just a thought, but it would be nice if just one of the candidates would acknowledge the fact that there are people who know more about education than they do. They consult with experts to make recommendations in other areas, why not consult with recognized authorities on how the brain functions and how different people learn?

Finally, if our schools are so sub par, why do people from all over the world send their children to our universities? /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[This message has been edited by jch (edited 10-22-2000).]

pwynnnorman
Oct. 22, 2000, 04:56 PM
This comment was made way back on page one, but I'm only now catching up with this great, great thread:

"I think if we made local government far more important, we'd be soooo much better off."

LOCAL GOV'T!! Egad! Talk about a cauldron of vested interests, shady connections, breathtaking ignorance and sheer laziness! No, big government isn't much better, but at least there's a smidgen of a chance of getting a foot in the door and occasionally sneaking some common sense into a conversation or two.

BTW, the foundation for my extreme dismay over the suggestion comes from a stint covering local governments (and school boards) for one rural and one metro paper (in two different states at that). Consistently Appalling!

[This message has been edited by pwynnnorman (edited 10-22-2000).]

Snowbird
Oct. 22, 2000, 05:54 PM
Well Wynn if you had the chance to check out that "good ole' pork barrel" in Washington I think you'd be even more horrified. Same thing only bigger and more expensive.

I think the point is that the money goes through so many administratiove hands that by the time it trickles down only a few cents of the dollar ever make it. Mostly, it's the Washington slush line that people object to rather than the authority.

I'd rather fight it out at the state level myself.

hobson
Oct. 22, 2000, 06:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rockstar:

The BOTTOM LINE here is that the Republican Party has grown extremely
conservative.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hey rockstar, I appreciate your efforts and while I'm voting for Ralph, who is unfortunately the most tedious public speaker in the world, I'm secretly rooting for Gore. But I just don't buy your New Democrat line. It's just code for the process in which the D-party is moving steadily to the right, adopting more and more Republican-type positions. Heck, one of the several reasons the Repubs hate Clinton so much is that he keeps stealing their material! I'm thinking of welfare reform, reduction of the federal gov't, and stuff like that bizarre Defense of Marriage Act that he supported (I keep asking my gay/lesbian pals when and how they plan to destroy my marriage, but they promise me that their insidious attack will be a surprise one). And as to your argument that the Republicans won't play fair in Congress, I'd bet that the Dems on the federal debate commission fully cooperated in keeping Nader and Buchanan out of the presidential debates(correct me if I'm wrong on this) - doesn't seem much like sharing, does it? The further to the right everyone shifts, the fewer choices we'll have in future elections, and the political discourse will become dangerously narrow. So, if your party won't allow a multi-party electoral system, can't you guys at least resurrect some of those Old Democrats? /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Sannois
Oct. 22, 2000, 07:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by magnolia:
"Do you realize that the largest voter base that Gore has is the blue collar people who have never gone to college and many haven't graduated high school? Never mine the other ethnic groups they measure. Why if these are the market share of votes that Gore can count on would he care about education. "

That is the most ignorant thing I have ever heard!!!! A college education does not make you smart!!!! My mechanic is the smartest man I know. He makes a crap load of money off of me. Gee, my dad was a highschool drop out, he must be dumb. It must be a fluke that he has a successful business.

Your idea is why I would never support Bush. Your ideas are elitist and dated. Screw the little people - let them eat cake! Just forget about the people working hard for a living. Who cares about the guy that frys my burger - he's not "educated".

Maybe we should only let white upper class people vote...it would be sooooooo much easier to stay rich without working. Oh, and while were at it, unions are just so messy, must we make a good work environment for a group smart enough to organize?
You made lose my appetite for lunch.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ignorance is laudable compared to those who are willfully blind. Gore cares about education only because the NEA and the leftist teachers and administrators are his most affluent and vociferous constituency, made rich by the huge tax dollars they pocket at our expense while propagandizing our children and simultaniously dumbing them down enough for the eventual socialist take over of our consitutional government. Perhaps your one of these leftist dupes.

moose
Oct. 22, 2000, 07:52 PM
QUOTE "Environmental changes are pretty predictable and quite cyclical. Yes we have an impact on our environment but not the doomsday impact our vice president would have you believe."

I can empathise in a big way with the cost of gas in hauling, but visit Mexico City and then if possible, India, to get the full effect of what pollution can do to the enviroment if you don't have a functioning public works, epa, etc. When I asked a classmate why he & his family left India, since they had a business & money there, he said for starters imagine, sewage in the streets and covering your mouth from the car exhaust. I am becoming aware of the ozone situation since I now have three friends that have gotten skin cancer. Everything I have read has been that industry pollution has been a major factor in the
ozone layer. It always seems like dammage to the envirment has to be done to the extreme so that it can't be deniable before any one reacts.

QUOTE-"Democrats generally that I have been interviewed by, have only one interest, that seems to be "hack strings".

There are two presidents that I can think of as associated w/ horses. Reagan, a republican - that I believe removed tax breaks associated with owning them. And then Kennedy a democrat, who because of his wife and childrens love of them, caused a huge increase in interest in riding. I don't think the Kennedy's rode "hack strings". However, the "hack string" owners I have known, are staunch republicans, since they are small business owners.

QUOTE: "The envirommentalists do not consider that horses are an appropriate use for public land because horses drop manure behind. Their hoofs chew up the trails and make it unpleasant for the joggers and walkers"

I've run into this, imho is that the only ones at fault are the horse people for not making it known in positive ways, that they wish to have access, or for simply disappearing from that area all together.

QUOTE: "Hey rockstar, I appreciate your efforts and while I'm voting for Ralph, who is unfortunately the most tedious public speaker in the world, I'm secretly rooting for Gore."

IMHO, If you are secretly rooting for Gore, don't vote Nader, since it will only split the vote and help Bush to win. I situation like this I think your really need to decide whether you are Republican or Democrat.

wtywmn4
Oct. 22, 2000, 08:04 PM
Okay, so who will be better for the horse industry? We have run the gamat of education, touched briefly on taxes, done pro-life, no death penalty thing, environment, take Congress back, stop driving gas guzlers, but nowhere have we really touched on the who, what or when will benefit our industry?

This is one of the best threads we've had in a long time. Not only do we have very witty writers amongst us, but very provocative ones as well.....Thanks /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

nutmeg
Oct. 22, 2000, 08:08 PM
Thanks a lot, guys. With logging season upon us, my husband has decided to rename our team of Belgians (formerly Zeke and Bill) Leftist Dupe and Right Wing Conspiracy. It's going to take him 20 more yards to make a turn.

rockstar
Oct. 22, 2000, 08:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hobson:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rockstar:

The BOTTOM LINE here is that the Republican Party has grown extremely
conservative.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hey rockstar, I appreciate your efforts and while I'm voting for Ralph, who is unfortunately the most tedious public speaker in the world, I'm secretly rooting for Gore. But I just don't buy your New Democrat line. It's just code for the process in which the D-party is moving steadily to the right, adopting more and more Republican-type positions. Heck, one of the several reasons the Repubs hate Clinton so much is that he keeps stealing their material! I'm thinking of welfare reform, reduction of the federal gov't, and stuff like that bizarre Defense of Marriage Act that he supported (I keep asking my gay/lesbian pals when and how they plan to destroy my marriage, but they promise me that their insidious attack will be a surprise one). And as to your argument that the Republicans won't play fair in Congress, I'd bet that the Dems on the federal debate commission fully cooperated in keeping Nader and Buchanan out of the presidential debates(correct me if I'm wrong on this) - doesn't seem much like sharing, does it? The further to the right everyone shifts, the fewer choices we'll have in future elections, and the political discourse will become dangerously narrow. So, if your party won't allow a multi-party electoral system, can't you guys at least resurrect some of those Old Democrats? /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi there! Thanks so much for reading it! I have a lot to say about these things, (if that is not obvious by now than it sure will be in just a moment)! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

No, I will not deny that the dems played just as big a role as the repubs in keeping buchanan and nader out of the debates. However, I don't really understand how that relates to the repubs not playing fair in congress. I guess I could link them because it is all based on the same bad principle of keeping those against you out of the game entirely. I, unfortunately, don't really know what to say on that one... only that it seems a lot worse to have the congresisonal repubs overlook and completely ignore the congresisonal democrats (who represent such a large portion of the american public) than to have both parties shut out the green party and the reform parties... two parties that collectivelly encapsulate such a small percentage of the american public... not a great argument... I know!

Now... onto the whole New Democrat thing. I don't want to write and write and write like I did before... so please allow me to direct you to a few quotes and websites that basically sum up how the New Dems came into existance, where they are taking the Democratic Party, and how they fit into the politcal spectrum.

And before I do all of that, I would just like to say that I think the most beautiful aspect of my party is that it is so diverse... going from the most liberal (Senators Paul Wellstone and Ted Kennedy and Congresswoman Maxine Waters) to the most conservative (Senators Joe Lieberman and Diane Feinstein, Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher, etc). Where as the Republican leaders (like haster, armey, and delay)mostly all come from one spot on the political spectrum (hard right), Domocratic leaders like Gephardt and Gore and Clinton and Rangle and Bonior come from all sorts of differect perspectives. We represent so many points of views and ideas... it is our best aspect... but the most detrimental aspect too... party unification is a huge problem. Nonetheless, we are all of us proud Democrats... with the same bedrock Democratic values.

Ok... so, ANYWAY...

1) here is a quote from the Democratic Leadership Council's website (the DLC heads the "New Democrat Movement") http://www.dlcppi.org

"The Democratic Leadership Council is an idea center, catalyst, and national voice for a reform movement that is reshaping American politics by moving it beyond the old left-right debate. Under the leadership of co-founder and President Al From, the DLC seeks to define and galvanize popular support for a new public philosophy built on progressive ideals, mainstream values, and innovative, non bureaucratic, market-based solutions. At its heart are three principles: promoting opportunity for all; demanding responsibility from everyone; and fostering a new sense of community.

Since its inception, the DLC has championed policies from spurring private sector economic growth, fiscal discipline and community policing to work based welfare reform, expanded international trade, and national service.

Throughout the 90's, innovative, New Democrat policies implemented by former DLC Chairman President Bill Clinton have helped produce the longest period of sustained economic growth in our history, the lowest unemployment in a generation, 22 million new jobs, cut the welfare rolls in half, reduced the crime rate for seven straight years, balanced the budget and streamlined the federal bureaucracy to its smallest size since the Kennedy administration.

Now, with the help of Chairman Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT), the DLC is promoting new ideas -- such as a second generation of environmental protection and new economy and technology development strategies -- at the local, state, and national levels, working through a national network of reformers and practitioners, and offering an approach to governing that is distinctly different from traditional liberalism and conservatism to build the next generation of America's leaders. "


I would suggest that everyone on this thread take a look at a October, 1999 speech that Bill Clinton gave at a fundraising dinner held by an organization (the New Democrat Network) that I worked... it was not only a good speech but it REALLY addresses so many of the issues and perspectives that have been brought up so far on this thread... summing up a lot...

The whole speech is located here: http://www2.newdem.org/news/10071999.shtml

And here is an important part of that speech (taken somewhat out of context... so I really urge you to look at the whole thing):

"I just want to make a few points as we look to that future. First of all, in 1992, when I went out to the people in New Hampshire and all these other states and into the country, and asked then-Senator Gore to join me, and we said, look, we've got this vision of America in the 21st century, we want this to be a country where everybody who is responsible enough to work for it has opportunity, where no matter how diverse we get, we're still coming together in one community, where we're still the world's leading force for peace and freedom and prosperity.

We want to take this opportunity, responsibility, community agenda and come up with concrete policies and ideas to get the economy moving again, to bring the crime rate down, to bring the welfare rolls down, to empower poor people, to get more young people into college, to raise the standards of our schools and have more choice and competition there.

We've got some ideas. Give us a chance. And all we were doing is making an argument. And against our argument, what the Republicans said was what they've been saying about Democrats for 30 years -- you know, they're too liberal, you can't trust them with your money, they'll raise your taxes, they never met a government program they didn't like, they sleep next to a bureaucratic pile of rules at night, you know, they wouldn't defend the country if their life depended on it. You know, you've heard all that stuff.

They had this sort of cardboard cutout image of Democrats that they tried to paste on every candidate's face at election time. But all we had was an argument. And things were sufficiently bad in this country, the economy was in terrible shape, the society was divided, the crime rate and the welfare rolls were exploding, and people decided to take a chance on the argument.

And then we set about trying to turn this country around and make some very tough decisions. And some of our members paid very dearly for it for the '93 economic plan, to turn this country around, for voting for the Brady Bill and the crime bill, to bring the crime rate down. They paid dearly. But we kept chugging along.

And about four years later, the people decided to give us a -- they renewed our lease because they could feel things were beginning to change. And then in '98, we had an historic victory in the congressional elections because we had an agenda to keep building on. We said, now give us a chance to save Social Security and pass a patients' bill of rights and build and modernize schools. Give us a chance to do some things that will really make a difference here."

I, personally, am a New Democrat because I see their philosphy as the only one that will get anything done in poltics and result in meaningful, non-partisan legislation. It's not necesarily that I am not a good ol' liberal at heart who screams "tax em', tax em, tax em'" and who wants to see every citizen of this country have a good and decent life... because I AM one of those people... but, alas, the people on the extremes don't tend to get very far and I see the centrist path as the one that is, ultimately, more rewarding.


Ok... that's my New Domocrat propoganda for ya! Hope that helped Hobson???

Yeesh... am I going a little overboard here or what??? /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

[This message has been edited by rockstar (edited 10-22-2000).]

spfarm
Oct. 22, 2000, 08:18 PM
First of all, I thought this was a post on the horse industry and which candidate would best support us. Looks like it's turned into a political free-for-all.
As for me, I'm banking on Bush and here's why. First of all, if Gore's elected, our taxes would become out of sight to pay for all of the programs" that he would love to run. That alone would cause many of us to give up our sport/hobby. What about electric cars...could you see one pulling a horse trailer up a hill? Ha, it probably wouldn't even get us out the driveway!
Bush may not be the smartest man in the world, but I beleive he would surround himself with knowledgable men/women who would help make decisions to best benefit our nation. I can't stand a "know-it-all" as Gore appears to be. We need an honest, hardworking individual in the White house who let America keep the freedoms that it has struggled to have over the centuries.
I'm sure that many of you all on this board are fairly young and haven't had to work hard to make a living. Every penny helps in today's society and when I hear of one promising this and that to everyone (except the richest 1%), I see my taxes rising.
It's higher taxes that will hurt our industry, nothing else. Gore will rasie them and Bush will let us keep more of our "OWN" money! Gore's extremist views will hurt us too.

rockstar
Oct. 22, 2000, 08:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MB Stark:
Hey Rockstar!!! I know you from that other board. You know where who I am planning on voting for because of the other political post where ,you (Dreamer) and me (Dolcevita), we doing most of the posting. Go GORE/LIEBERMAN<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey! LOL. Nice to have a friend here... what gave my secret identity away... was it my 59 million word post or my job on a certain NY senate campaign? /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I have debated resurrecting that topic again over there and thought... hmmm... better not!

rockstar
Oct. 22, 2000, 08:27 PM
In the name of making my posts a little bit easier to read... how do you bold an italicize things? thanks!

hobson
Oct. 22, 2000, 09:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moose:
QUOTE
QUOTE: "Hey rockstar, I appreciate your efforts and while I'm voting for Ralph, who is unfortunately the most tedious public speaker in the world, I'm secretly rooting for Gore."

IMHO, If you are secretly rooting for Gore, don't vote Nader, since it will only split the vote and help Bush to win. I situation like this I think your really need to decide whether you are Republican or Democrat.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hiya, Moose - you make some excellent points on the regulation issue. Bravo. On the Nader - Gore thing, I've really struggled with it. I KNOW Nader doesn't have a chance. But my anti-Bush vote does not automatically belong to Gore. See, I'm really a radical left parliamentarian accidentally born into an inflexible two-party system tightly controlled by special business interests. I can't force myself any longer into the body of a Democrat. It's really hard for me to NOT lend a hand to the third-party effort. What to do? This happens for EVERY election - if I vote for the guy or gal I like, then the nasty one will win because I "steal" a vote from the less nasty one. But the lesser evils never help us Chris Hitchens fans out here on the fringe build a more broad-based, fair electoral system! Oh, for proportional representation!

And rockstar, don't hate me 'cause I'm green. And yes, by my debate commission remark I meant that I can't cry a river for the dems because the repubs won't share power...when they're guilty of the same selfishness. But agreed, the dems are certainly more representative of the nation than the republicans, and have significantly different (and in my opinion more reasonable) positions on various stuff. No argument there. But darn it, I want to vote for the candidate I think is best and smartest and most honorable! I'm sorry, but Al Gore just makes me feel icky. Yeah, he wants us medical patients to have rights, but gosh, he's awfully friendly with the pharmaceuticals. Eeek! Not a horsey topic!

So here's a horse-related thing: Those of us on the east coast are now nervously watching the spread of West Nile virus. In another thread, Weatherford mentioned all the work that the Centers for Disease Control is doing to find a way to deal with this threat, which affects both humans and horses. Our taxes support this research. For those who want the government "out of my life," would you be OK with the CDC having only enough staff and resources to test one or two dead crows and leave it at that? Hey, horses and people are dying! Oh, well, we can't meddle in your lives, ya know?

[This message has been edited by hobson (edited 10-22-2000).]

hobson
Oct. 22, 2000, 09:44 PM
PS to Rockstar - Yes, your last response was helpful. It's certainly true that non-partisan centrism is the most efficient way to get things done. But the centrists are hoarding power and limiting the discourse, and that's not a good thing. I WANT to see Pat Buchanan at a presidential debate yammering with wild-eyed paranoia about his "border war". I WANT to see Nader droning on about renwable resources and windmills. It lets us know there are MORE choices than slightly right of center and slightly left of center. And again, my big complaint about Gore and Clinton is that they're pushing the center more to the right. The center is not really center any more. You guys nominate somebody like Wellstone, and I'm your gal.

[This message has been edited by hobson (edited 10-22-2000).]

Finzean
Oct. 22, 2000, 10:15 PM
Just my .02 about the issue of local vs. federal govt....

Political machines are all the same, just on different scales. The local councilwoman may return your emails and phone calls, listen intently (while rifling through other paperwork, etc) and so on but believe me, she is going to do what is most politically advantageous for her, those who support her, and those who do the most to keep her in that position. I have worked for years lobbying local govts. for better animal cruelty laws, differential pet licensing, humane euthaniasia, trained shelter workers, etc. (just my little contribution to the world); in doing so I have attended numerous council meetings, spent countless hours composing letters and leading groups of like minded individuals, making tv appearances, you name it.... My point is this: Vote for the candidate who best supports/represents your concerns, but know that unless you contribute on a grass roots level, the changes you want will come only if the biggest players in the game also want them. These guys come as a package...you get them along with the big money that puts them there.

On a personal note, I live deep in Bush territory and the number of voters I see driving around in mommie vans with NRA stickers on the back windshields, scares the hell out of me. Mostly because not very many of them can tell you anything about "the issus" other than what the NRA pamphlets say. I'm sure the same holds true for other issues, this one is just the most obvious here.

As for my choice on Election Day...still undecided. As the Canadian poster said on page 1 of this thread "it's the lesser of 2 evils."

hobson
Oct. 22, 2000, 11:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jumphigh83:
When we are being basically told everything we can and can not do by the government I will know who to thank: all you socialist liberals. BTW, do read up on history and you will see that socailism doesn't work. (China, USSR....) Just some food for thought.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, now! Don't go callin' my pal rockstar a socialist! rockstar, you may be a liberal, but you're no socialist. I know socialists. Scialists are my friends. You're no socialist. Poor Olaf Palme is rolling in his grave - you know, the one lined with the outrageously high Swedish liquor taxes. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

By the way, guys, y'know those German warmbloods everyone loves so much to import? Their breeding programs are state-supported. With TAXES! Hee-hee! I'm sure the same is true for the other European breeding programs. The US could get itself a decent domestic sport horse sooner if only we'd raise taxes enough to develop a national breeding farm, with similar exacting performance and quality standards.

rockstar
Oct. 22, 2000, 11:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jumphigh83:
I am not losing any sleep over it. You think your socialist thoughts and I will think my democratic thoughts. I will Pay for my kids education. I don't mind supporting a system where PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY is primary and the give aways are done away with. I don't NEED the government to tell me how, when , where, why and how to run my life. I have to get off this BB because the convoluted thinking is too frustrating. When we are being basically told everything we can and can not do by the government I will know who to thank: all you socialist liberals. BTW, do read up on history and you will see that socailism doesn't work. (China, USSR....) Just some food for thought.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Damn. Really??? Are ya sure socialism doesn't work? Well shoot. And here I was thinking all I had to do was hand over every decison to some powerful elitist so that equality could finally be reached. That is, after all, what all of us crazy socialist liberals think, right?

Everyone stop! Our crazy socialist ideas or scaring Jumphigh83 off the thread! Heaven help us. http://www.chronofhorse.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

I know... that was very low... but I am sorry... I have to have a little fun when I get to be called a socialist liberal for the first time /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I am NOT anywhere NEAR being a socialist... I simply believe in lending a hand to those who need help... I believe in social welfare and being compassionate. Oh but that translates to me being a socialist... yeah. That must explain why I am a moderate Democrat.

BTW, do read up on history and you will see that social darwinism doesn't work. Just some food for thought.

Oh but here... I have some reading material for you. Does any of this ring a bell?

The following is from "Social Darwinism," Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 98 Encyclopedia. (c) 1993-1997 Microsoft Corporation.

"Social Darwinism, term coined in the late 19th century to describe the idea that humans, like animals and plants, compete in a struggle for existence in which natural selection results in 'survival of the fittest.' Social Darwinists base their beliefs on theories of evolution developed by British naturalist Charles Darwin. Some social Darwinists argue that governments should not interfere with human competition by attempting to regulate the economy or cure social ills such as poverty. Instead, they advocate a laissez-faire political and economic system that favors competition and self-interest in social and business affairs. Social Darwinists typically deny that they advocate a "law of the jungle." But most propose arguments that justify imbalances of power between individuals, races, and nations because they consider some people more fit to survive than others.

Social Darwinism characterizes a variety of past and present social policies and theories, from attempts to reduce the power of government to theories exploring the biological causes of human behavior. Many people believe that the concept of social Darwinism explains the philosophical rationalization behind racism, imperialism, and capitalism. The term has negative implications for most people because they consider it a rejection of compassion and social responsibility.

Although social Darwinism was highly influential at the beginning of the 20th century, it rapidly lost popularity and support after World War I (1914-1918). During the 1920s and 1930s many political observers blamed it for contributing to German militarism and the rise of Nazism (see National Socialism)."




[This message has been edited by rockstar (edited 10-22-2000).]

[This message has been edited by rockstar (edited 10-22-2000).]

hobson
Oct. 22, 2000, 11:48 PM
The USSR stank as a communist nation, but it really went down the toilet when they instituted a market economy and democratic processes. Citizens have less money than before, press freedom is still nonexistent, and crime has gone through the roof. Whoops!

Kryswyn
Oct. 23, 2000, 12:18 AM
Y'all can stop worrying about this. The Land's End Catalog Co. has revealed that Bush will win. They base this prediction on the sale of boxer shorts (elephants vs donkeys)in the weeks prior to the election. Elephants are outselling donkeys 2:1. They claim they haven't missed yet.

I'm hoping there is a first time for everything. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

pwynnnorman
Oct. 23, 2000, 07:41 AM
No, Snowbird, there's still a big, big difference. It's called the Freedom of Information Act and the higher up you go in government, the more difficult it is to ignore. Local governments--mere office workers even, bureaucrats whose jobs depend on pleasing their local bigwig bosses--are notorious for closing doors in your face, losing documents, not creating documents, etc., etc., etc. Most common response? "I don't know, and he's not going to be back (for you) until hell freezes over." Couple that with the fact that even fewer people vote in local elections and you've got a ghastly situation, period. Local government in this country is a JOKE!

Magnolia
Oct. 23, 2000, 08:10 AM
"Ignorance is laudable compared to those who are willfully blind. Gore cares about education only because the NEA and the leftist teachers and administrators are his most affluent and vociferous constituency, made rich by the huge tax dollars they pocket at our expense while propagandizing our children and simultaniously dumbing them down enough for the eventual socialist take over of our consitutional government. Perhaps your one of these leftist dupes."

Yes, our teachers are just oh so rich. My goodness, they just run the country club these days...Why the top 3 amateur owner hunters in the country are owned by 3rd grade teachers.
My mother was a teacher. She retired with a masters in education and 30 years of experience. She made less than my brother who is a writer in marketing for an internet company and has only 1 year of experience. So please, teachers are too busy paying basic expenses like housing and food to give big contributions to Al Gore.

Magnolia
Oct. 23, 2000, 08:18 AM
QUOTE: "The envirommentalists do not consider that horses are an appropriate use for public land because horses drop manure behind. Their hoofs chew up the trails and make it unpleasant for the joggers and walkers"

Well, It's true. As a hiker and a horseman, horses are a pain in the butt on hiking trails. Whether it's the ankle deep mud crossing the trail, or deep ruts, it makes it very difficult to hike. It is extermely difficult to walk where horses have been.
My take on the issue is that we need MORE public parks with trails for bikers, hikers, and horses to be separate. I have no problem with limiting horses to certain trails, ensuring that hikers will have adequate footing. Oh, and I have no problem with horse poops - after all, it helps fertilize!

Magnolia
Oct. 23, 2000, 10:29 AM
actually, Jumphigh, far from being a socialist, I plan to vote Libertarian. I just hate to see hard working people insulted!
Why vote libertarian? They represent true freedom for all. I have a feeling if we privatized education and created competition, good teachers like my mom would make more money.
To say that teachers are somehow getting rich is the most ignorant remark I've read on this BB (except for the comment that those w/o a college education are dumb.) Maybe it is every state except NC? Secondly, the federal government has little to do with what teachers are paid - that is a local thing.
Oh, and why do Republicans hate Unions so much? It's a good way to prevent the necessity for any socialism. It's a free market perk for laborers. Not Happy with your wages? Why ask for a government hand out? Just Unionize. What can replace federal labor laws? Unions.
I would gladly vote republican but for two things, they could care less about the environment (is air pollution a natural cycle?? Global warming may be cyclical, but there are other bigger problems out there...), and they seem to believe in rights for the wealthy.

If you really want no government intervention, and a true free market economy, you really ought to look into Libertarianism. Thanks.

ohnowwhat
Oct. 23, 2000, 11:01 AM
Bush. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ash
Oct. 23, 2000, 11:13 AM
What bothers more then anything about the Democratic Party (and a lot of people's attitudes in general) is: When did achieving the "American Dream" turn into an evil thing? Everyone agrees that this country was based on the principle that anyone (no matter what nationality or religion) could come here and earn a living and maybe a fortune. Why when someone achieves this dream does it become a bad thing??

I work hard and earn a very good living. I have several horses, a nice car, nice clothing and can *gasp* afford to do a lot of thing other people can't. Why punish me with higher and higher taxes? Why vilify me? Why make me feel guilty because there are so many less fortunate then me? I have earned my way and I refuse to be made to feel like I should be ashamed of it!


Oh, and for the record, Bush may be a 40 watt bulb (personally I think he is much smarter then that) but at least he can tell the difference between fiction and reality:

FICTION: Al Gore recently claimed that his mother-in-law pays more than $100.00 for the arthritis medicine Lodine; and he claims that his dog takes the same medicine for $37.00, declaring "This is wrong!"
FACT: Gore's aides were quick to apologize for Gore's lie, saying the information was from a Democratic study. Washington newspapers also reported that Al Gore wasn't even sure his mother-in-law was taking any
medication and wasn't even sure she had arthritis. And, he doesn't know
anything about his dog's "arthritis."

FICTION: Al Gore said his father, a senator, was a champion of civil rights during the 1960's.
FACT: Gore's father voted against the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964
and was a racist who was fond of using the "N" word.

FICTION: Al Gore said that his sister was the very first person to join
the Peace Corps.
FACT: By the time Gore's sister joined the Peace Corps, there were already over 100 members.

FICTION: The same sister died of lung cancer years later and Gore vowed to never accept tobacco money as campaign contributions.
FACT: Just four years later, while campaigning for office, Gore spoke to
the tobacco industry and said he was one of them because "I've planted it, raised it, cut it, and dried it." He raised over $100,000 in "reported" contributions.

FICTION: While running for office, Gore's campaign literature claimed he
was a "Brilliant Student."
FACT: Washington newspapers said he barely passed Harvard and consistently earned D's and C's.

FICTION: Gore claims an extensive knowledge of law as a result of his extensive study at law school.
FACT: Al Gore dropped out of law school.

FICTION: Gore claimed that his knowledge of God and spirituality came to complete fruition while "finishing" divinity school.
FACT: Al Gore dropped out of divinity school.

FICTION: Al Gore claimed responsibility for inventing the Internet in
the 1990's.
FACT: Shocked scientists were quick to speak out, explaining that the
Internet had been in widespread use by government and educational institutions since the early 1970's.

FICTION: Al Gore claimed the book "Love Story" was based on his life and Tipper's.
FACT: Author Erich Segal called a press conference to deny his claim.
(Couldn't he at least lie about a love story where his sweetheart doesn't die?")

FICTION: Gore claimed that as a reporter for a Nashville newspaper, his stories led to the arrests of numerous corrupt criminals.
FACT: He later apologized for his claim and actually said it was untrue
(also known as lying).

FICTION: Gore claims to increase diversity in the staff that follows him daily, especially among blacks.
FACT: Black members of the Secret Service are suing because they claim they are not being promoted to positions guarding the Vice President.

FICTION: Al Gore said he was the first to discover the Love Canal nuclear accident.
FACT: The incident was already discovered, being investigated, and covered widely in the press for many months before Gore was aware of it.

FICTION: Gore said just recently that if elected president, he would put
harsh sanctions on the sleazy producers of Hollywood's extreme sex and violence.
FACT: Just six days later, Gore attended a fundraiser by Hollywood producers and radical gay activists where he told them that he would only pretend to "nudge them" if elected. He raised over $4 million.

FICTION: Al Gore said he built his Tennessee home with his bare hands.
FACT: Totally false!

FICTION: Al Gore says parents should not have a choice between private and public schools because public schools are far better.
FACT: Al Gore attended private school and he has sent his children to private schools.

FICTION: Al Gore remembers his mother lulling him to sleep as a baby by
singing the popular ditty, "Wear The Union Label".
FACT: The popular ditty was created by the unions when Gore was 27 years old.

FICTION: Al Gore claimed to co-sponsor the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act.
FACT: The Act was not sponsored until he had been out of office for over a year.

FICTION: Al Gore claims to be instrumental in keeping gas prices low.
FACT: Gore has voted on numerous occasions to raise the tax on gasoline.
In his book "Earth In The Balance" Gore claims that the nation's Number One enemy is the internal combustion engine. (That's the motor in your vehicle that gets you to work and takes your kids to school)

FICTION: Gore pretends to champion the rights of poor women to be tested
regularly for breast cancer with the most modern technology.
FACT: While giving a speech on the subject in September, Gore didn't know what a mammogram was.

FICTION: AL Gore promised Florida's senior citizens that they would finally have low-cost drugs with no interference from government.
FACT: Gore's plan calls for the creation of a huge federal agency that would tell you which doctor you are allowed to see in order to get the "special rates."

FACT: Al Gore told NBC's Lisa Meyers that he had never told a lie. When Meyers pressed harder, "You've never told a lie?!" Gore said, "Not that I know of." SOUND FAMILIAR?

Inverness
Oct. 23, 2000, 11:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kryswyn:
GORE

Inflamatory statements like Snowbird's, to the effect of 'you could've been aborted' are meaningless, because (DUH) if you'd been aborted you wouldn't have known life. You can't "miss" what you've never had. You may yearn for it, but you can't miss it and a fetus doesn't know what it's experiencing.


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanx Kryswyn. I find it most disturbing that the same people (primarily men) who are vehemently anti-choice are also those who oppose spending even a government penny to help those unwanted children once they arrive on the scene . . .

smedley
Oct. 23, 2000, 11:33 AM
Ash,
You do yourself no favors in the credibility department with your post.

I urge you to investigate the "facts" yourself instead of relying on spin. For example, if you go to the CNN website and look up the transcript from the interview (I believe it was in March, 1999) where Gore made the statement re the Internet, you'll see first hand how egregiously the remark has been taken out of context.

This goes for both candidates, of course. Please people, don't simply believe and accept what you hear. Take some responsibility and verify the "facts" yourself.

DMK
Oct. 23, 2000, 11:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jumphigh83:

Just look how much the last eight years have done to improve education. The schools are all state of the art, our children can read and do math on a par with the rest of the world, teachers are well paid, the schools are in great condition with plenty of teachers and aids and equipment..all this under the democrats....And I also have some lovely swamp land in Florida to sel to any interested democrats.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually the education statistics HAVE improved slightly in the last 10 years. However the well-known-truth-but-rarely-mentioned by ANY candidate is that changes in education are really bought about at the state level, and generally take 10-15 years to show up in test scores. So I guess if you are voting for Bush based on his education platform/performance, you better do a write in for Ross Perot and the federal judge who bought the matter of education to a head in Texas /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BTW, that swamp land in Florida... mostly drained, developed and causing a serious water crisis in Florida as we speak... But I do think you can get a VERY good price for it!

Ash
Oct. 23, 2000, 11:42 AM
Actually Smedley-
Those are facts and they have been researched. Al Gore has never denied saying any of the things I have posted above and in many cases has HAD TO APOLOGIZE for saying them! I am concerned by a candidate who will make up things just to make himself look better.

These facts were taken from the an article written by the Internet News Bureau. You can check it out yourself, it is an article entitled Al Gore and his 21 lies.

Oh, and the internet lie is one of many, any excuses for the others?

Oh, and I know the difference between lying and exagerating-just like I know what the definition of "is" is.

[This message has been edited by Ash (edited 10-23-2000).]

Magnolia
Oct. 23, 2000, 11:56 AM
This is just a random thought to think about...OK, it's been established that the wealthy pay more in taxes. And, they probably get less benefits too.
What made me mad is how much more in taxes a childless couple pays than a couple with 2 kids. And this was not a poor couple. BOTH couples make $90,000 a year. I think it would help a lot if we stopped allowing children to be tax credits, if you want 'em, have 'em, but I'm sick of subsidizing them. I already pay enough for schools that all people do is &^%$# about. And the reason schools don't work is not only the system, but the fact that parents aren't doing their jobs in a lot of cases.
I'd love to see our government switch to a fee per use system - (no, it probably isn't doable...) ~ You drive - pay a per mile road tax. You have kids, either pay a $3500 tax or send 'em to wherever, or educate them yourself. Want to go for a trailride on public land? $15.00 user fee.
Republicans can say all they want about not wanting socialism, but why are they offering up a plan for senior drug coverage? What about school vouchers? And we all know the democrats passion for programs.
Medical care, libraries, schools and the like are not rights. They are privliges.
I was going to vote Gore, simply because I like his "programs" more than the other guys. But really, I'm sick of "programs" and I'm really sick of subsidizing others. Both of these jerks are saying the same thing... they just claim their programs are better than the other.
Our founder's would roll over in their graves to see this sorry state of affairs. Everybody has their dirty little paws out for MY money and I've about had it. Remember, government funded means YOU are funding it with your money that could be better spent elsewhere.
Sorry for the rant, but I read a rather depressing article in our paper featuring their "programs" ~ which were very similar in cost and outcome.

Inverness
Oct. 23, 2000, 12:09 PM
Molly Ivins for President!!


Molly Ivins
EMAIL MOLLY
Updated: Saturday, Oct. 21, 2000 at 20:52 CDT
Now can we talk about something important?


BOSTON -- The news media missed the third debate because they were so focused on Al Gore. Gore was again aggressive, Gore was arguably over the line a couple of times -- anyone see any sign of a new stretcher? They missed George W. Bush's performance.

A lady named Lisa Kee stood up and asked, "How will your tax proposals affect me as a middle-class, 34-year-old single person with no dependents?"

So Gore told how his proposal would affect her, and then it was Bush's turn. He said Gore's plan would cost a whole lot of money -- "a lot more than we have."

He then explained: "I think also what you need to think about is not the immediate, but what about Medicare? You get a plan that will include prescription drugs, a plan that will give you options. Now, I hope people understand that Medicare today is important, but it doesn't keep up with the new medicines. If you're a Medicare person, on Medicare, you don't get the new procedures. You're stuck in a time warp in many ways.

"So it will be a modern Medicare system that trusts you to make a variety of options for you. You're going to live in a peaceful world. It will be a world of peace because we're going to have a clear sight of foreign policy based upon a strong military and a mission that stands by our friends. A mission that doesn't try to be all things to all people. A judicious use of the military which will help keep the peace.

"You'll live in a world, hopefully, that is more educated so it's less likely you'll be harmed in your neighborhood. See, an educated child is one much more likely to be hopeful and optimistic. You'll be in a world in which fits into my philosophy. The harder you work, the more you can keep.

"It's the American way. Government shouldn't be a heavy hand. It's what the federal government does to you. It should be a helping hand, and tax relief and the proposals I just described should be a good helping hand. "

Kee sat back down. She will be eligible for Medicare in 31 years.

Bush's proposals are actually so big that they're simple. Just forget how many zeros a trillion is and do this math: He wants to give back $1.3 billion in tax cuts, the great bulk of which will go to the richest people in the country. Then he will take $1 trillion out of Social Security -- but he says he will not cut benefits, so he promises to put another $2.3 trillion into Social Security and Medicare, and he also wants to spend money on education, the military, health care and prescription drugs.

Really, once we get to trillions, it's quite simple. We don't have the money.

Bush wandered between pathetic and ridiculous, while the media focused on the fact that when Gore got a question from a teacher, he asked the guy, "What grade do you teach?"

"Gore repeatedly violated the rules!" claimed indignant spinmeisters for the next two days. "He was rude; he was arrogant."

In the absurd hothouse environment of Washington, where they all seem to have lost their grip years ago, I was actually asked by one interviewer, "Which of the three Al Gores do you think showed up last night?"

Gore changed his debate strategy in the second debate because everyone said he came on too strong in the first one. In the third debate, he went back to being himself, knowing so much about everything that he's boring. It beat Bush's not knowing enough to be able to talk for two minutes on major issues.

But the blackbird journalists of Washington had got themselves into a perfect tizzy of pop psychology -- Gore doesn't know he who is, who is the real Gore, Gore is unauthentic, he's trying to be an alpha male, not an omega male. Actually, it's pretty clear to everyone outside the Washington press corps that Gore is a politician trying to win a presidential campaign.

Remember the great flap and carry-on when Gore told of a Florida schoolgirl's lack of a desk, but the next day her principal said it was no such thing? This was rich new evidence of Gore's "Pinocchio problem."

Last week, CNN's Brooks Jackson reported that the principal has misrepresented the situation to reporters and that students had gone for weeks without desks in classes of 36 to a teacher.

The issue in this campaign is not Gore's truthfulness. He read in a newspaper article that Erich Segal, author of `Love Story,' had said that Gore, Tipper and Tommie Lee Jones were all models for characters in the book. Segal later said he had been misquoted about Tipper being a model. How does that make Gore a liar?

He never claimed that he invented the Internet or that he discovered Love Canal, and he did have to work cruelly hard on his father's farm in Tennessee. OK?

Now can we discuss Bush's plan to free us from dependence on foreign oil by more energy exploitation in Mexico? Now can we discuss Bush's tax plan? He has repeatedly claimed that the bulk of his proposed tax cuts would go to "the people at the bottom end of the economic ladder," and it's simply untrue.

The danger of Bush's tax cut, in addition to its timing, is that it will exacerbate this growing disparity between the rich and the rest of the country. It's not just tax cuts for the rich, but the fact that Bush doesn't believe in increasing the minimum wage -- which is set at $3.55 a hour in Texas, covering mostly farm workers who don't come under the federal minimum.

The average housing wage in this country -- what you have to earn to afford a relatively decent two-bedroom apartment for a family of four -- is $11 an hour. Bush's plan would make one of the most troubling trends in this society considerably worse.

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.

hobson
Oct. 23, 2000, 12:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ash:

FICTION: Al Gore said he was the first to discover the Love Canal nuclear accident.
FACT: The incident was already discovered, being investigated, and covered widely in the press for many months before Gore was aware of it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The assertion that Gore made this claim is itself fiction. Sure, the New York Times ran a scurrilous article about the "quote," but the New Hampshire high school class to which Gore supposedly made the remark has since set the record straight. Gore was discussing ANOTHER environmental mess elswhere...his point was, in the process of looking into a situation in, I think it was Tennessee, he found information about Love Canal.
The high school students thus received a shocking lesson in press accuracy. We can be sure that Bush falls victim to this manner of simplification as well.

This has become quite a spirited thread, but I'm concerned that it's devolving into personal attacks. I hereby challenge all to limit the attacks to the candidates POSITIONS - not the candidates' worth as people, and not our fellow posters. That said...Go Ralph!

moose
Oct. 23, 2000, 12:22 PM
Anyone up for a "Which religion has the most effect on the horse industry thread?"
Just kidding Erin /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Inverness
Oct. 23, 2000, 12:26 PM
Yes, I do keep an inventory of articles I've enjoyed reading . . .

Stretches And Sighs
Gore's fibs may be small compared with Bush's, but they drive us crazy
By Margaret Carlson
October 9, 2000
Web posted at: 11:35 a.m. EDT (1535 GMT)

A few things led me to mistakenly conclude that Gore had won Tuesday night's smackdown. It was clear that Bush didn't fully understand the peril of making Russia our broker in Serbia, especially since Russia remained so sympathetic toward the defeated Milosevic. The RU 486 question tied him in knots. He didn't want to remind such a large audience that his official position on abortion is to recriminalize it if he can change enough hearts. So he fudged his earlier statement that he would seek to overturn approval of the drug, saying a President is powerless to do so against the Food and Drug Administration. He got lost in a hypothetical financial crisis and said he would hug his way out of a domestic one. On his signature tax cut, he kept criticizing "the man's" (that would be Gore's) "fuzzy math." But when he couldn't rebut the Gore argument that nearly one-half of his tax cut would end up enriching the top 1% of Americans, it was Bush who was fuzziest of all.

So where did I go wrong? My biggest mistake was grossly underestimating the weight that would be given to any Gore exaggeration. Going in, he had been warned by the press that he had used up his lifetime allowance of melodrama with his sister's deathbed story, with his claim to being the model for Love Story (he was in part, the author confirmed, but Tipper wasn't) and with his boast that he took "the initiative in creating the Internet" (although even Newt Gingrich says Gore did so in the Congress). Gore is assumed to be exaggerating even when he's not. We're hypersensitive to the flaw, having just finished seven years with his boss, who really knew how to ice the cake.

Gore served up several juicy targets--that standing-room-only classroom in Florida, Winifred Skinner's picking up cans to buy medicine, his being in Texas during the floods with James Lee Witt. Bush's truth squad quickly put the word out that Gore had not gone with Witt but with FEMA's regional director (although he had gone on 17 other Witt trips to disaster areas). In fact, Kaylie Ellis isn't still standing at Sarasota High School, but her lab built for 24 is squeezing in 36, and other students are still deskless. Kids at that other school Gore mentioned are eating lunch at 10 a.m., not 9:30. And when a well-off son appeared to cast doubt on Winnie's need to recycle aluminum, she reiterated her desire not to take charity from anyone.

In my warped view, Gore fell within the margin of political error by scoring 95% for anecdotal accuracy, although I don't want to suggest for a second that his overall affect, especially the sighing, didn't make me want to shake him. He looked like Sylvester Stallone, absent the Uzi, as made up by Madame Tussaud. The format brought out the worst in him. Put him in front of a podium and out of his Dockers, and he reverts to his smartest-guy-in-the-class mode, impressing the teacher with factoids for extra credit, like Serbia plus Montenegro equals Yugoslavia. His excess verbiage actually detracts from the more important point that he would be better handling the crisis in Serbia.

For Gore, there's zero tolerance for anything but the literal truth. Reagan, the President who told the tallest of tales, won his debate by employing the famous line "There you go again" against Jimmy Carter, who told the fewest tales. Reagan claimed he took pictures of Nazi death camps and was happy like other vets after the war to be able to finally "rest up, make love to my wife...," though he never left the country. Biographers say he got away with it because he was so emotionally accessible. But he was that way only with Nancy (or Mommy Poo Pants, as he calls her in a just published collection of his love letters), not with anyone else, even his children. He was a better actor.

Bush is also seen as more emotionally open, ingenuously self-deprecating, so his larger distortions--about skewing his tax cuts, raising less money than Gore for his campaign, giving more seniors drug coverage--do not annoy people as much. Embellishment takes a certain amount of calculation, and most of Bush's RAM is used up trying to remember who's covered and who isn't under his own Medicare prescription plan. Bush, who boasts of his preference for one-page memos over books, obviously wanted the bell to ring badly on Tuesday night. He affably admitted he needs help, naming everyone but the Texas Rangers bat boy on the list of experts he would call on in a crisis.

In the end, Gore's fibs, which have to do with his life, should matter less to voters than Bush's fibs, which have to do with our lives. At the end of the debate, Gore was showered with affection from his kids and Tipper, which can't be conjured up for the cameras. His utter inability to extend that emotion outward leads him to make up stories, which he then tells in slow motion, to seem more real. In the process, he ends up seeming less so. It's not sincerity he lacks, it's the insincerity to fake sincerity in a league with Reagan. It leaves him speaking so remotely that we can't feel a word he's saying.

DHenley
Oct. 23, 2000, 12:28 PM
Inverness, thank you for that Molly Ivins piece. I absolutely love her.

Bush scares me to death.

Magnolia
Oct. 23, 2000, 12:32 PM
With regards to the poster for Nader, I hope you do vote for him! (even though I don't support many of his ideas.)
If you are considering voting for a 3rd Party candidate that represents your ideals very closely, please do. If you are thinking about staying home because Gore and Bush both stink, come out and vote a 3rd Party!! If we could get some new blood taken seriously it could help us all. I know Ralph Nader has many great ideas, and the Libertarian Party would probably be the best party for horse folk (their lack of regulation makes it good for small businesses).
IMO, unless you like Al and Dubya a whole lot, you are wasting your vote to vote for them. No, Nader has no chance in winning, nor are we going to have a Libertarian President, but, they can gain momentum for the next go round, instead of being discouraged by 2 parties afraid to even debate them.

smedley
Oct. 23, 2000, 12:33 PM
LOLOL Inverness!

nutmeg
Oct. 23, 2000, 12:36 PM
STOP IT YOU GUYS! My husband now wants to rename Bill (formerly Right Wing Conspiracy) Mommy Poo Pants. A highly undignified name for a hard-working Belgian gelding.

hobson
Oct. 23, 2000, 12:39 PM
Inverness, you've won me over. Ivins for president, Nader for vice president. It's about time we had a woman running the show.

Becca
Oct. 23, 2000, 12:54 PM
Oh, I can't believe it!! Are we REALLY on page five and still civil?!? I'm so proud!!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Heather
Oct. 23, 2000, 01:00 PM
OK--In the interest of keeping this thread on topic, I 'd say the answer to the initial question is that is appears that most of us don't vote as horse people primarily. I certainly don't. We vote on the other issues which concern us--some, but not all of which, may overlap with our horsey interests.

I think the point about families vs. single people is an interesting one. I saw a report the other day about a moevement of people who feel that as "non-parents" they tend to get shafted by both employers and the government. I'm not ready to start a massive throw-down campaign--but I must admit as married non-parent with no plans for parenthood, I am often struck by how much more I could get from my boss and my goverment if I had kids.

Maybe I should have just told my boss I have 8 kids (4 horses, three dogs and a cat), and that I'm a hippy since I named them Warlock, Elwood, Milo, Rajah, Jake, Merlin, Shawn and Munchkin. He's always bitching about me not being availabe for overtime with no notice (as in it's 5 minutes to five and he says, can you stay another hour)--yet if my kids were human kids--he'd NEVER ask (he even admitted as much to me).

I don't begrudge parents what they get, its just, well, don't I get credit for something too? Like not burdening my local schools or something? Anything? Guess not.

Inverness
Oct. 23, 2000, 01:59 PM
I'm with you Heather. I once worked for one of the country's largest law firms and was continually put upon to do extended travel b/c I was the one in the group that didn't have kids.

My response (after 2 years of putting up with this) was that if the people with the kids can't do the travel, then they have 2 choices: (1) get a job that provides them the flexibility they desire; or (2) get rid of the kids.

The bottom line is that they decided to have the damn kids. If they are unable to manage the precious darlings and the demands of the job, they need to fix the situation - not stick me in a hotel room in downtown L.A. for four straight months b/c they can't do the necessary travel.

Thanx, I've been wanting to vent about that for years! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Magnolia
Oct. 23, 2000, 02:26 PM
Iverness-
I feel your pain - my boyfriend and I have no kids. We do have a house and some pets. Brad works for an engineering firm. Need some one to go out of town? It's Brad. EVERYTIME!. Oh, does Brad need notice? No, we can tell him the day before. Who cares that he's rescheduled his dentist 6 times now. Billy has kids to worry about...he can't go.
Bottom line, technically, you should pay more in taxes if you have children, as you use more resources.
My favorite is trying to leave a few minutes early to take kitty to the vet. It's OK for my coworkers to go to conferences or a play (fine with me too), but I'm not allowed to leave early to take fluffy to the vet. HMPH!

woodbern
Oct. 23, 2000, 02:31 PM
Hmmmm, so someone brought up kids, huh? Is this where I get the opportunity to say how tired I am of taking care of other folks' kids?

My property taxes go to provide metal detectors in our city's public schools...... more of my money goes to educate the children (born in the USA) of illegals.

No need to get all exercised..... just saw a chance to pop this in! Don't think I would mind so much if it was other people's horses. LOL

jumpcrew
Oct. 23, 2000, 02:50 PM
So, is the concensus Gore/Lieberman/Senator Hillary?

Magnolia
Oct. 23, 2000, 02:57 PM
Hey- if anyone has the website or address of any of those organizations of single people fed up with subsidizing kids, please e-mail or post. Very off the subject for the BB, but I need to vent and get some help on a local issue vs some Soccer Moms.

[This message has been edited by magnolia (edited 10-23-2000).]

shady creek farm
Oct. 23, 2000, 03:28 PM
BUSH: our economy has been so strong lately that Alan Greenspan has been raising interest rates to slow it down. If Bush cuts taxes, it will overheat the economy, leading to inflation (because with more income, people will want to buy much more than the economy can produce) and out-of-sight interest rates (as Greenspan tries to get control of the economy -- think back to 1982!). How will this affect the horse industry? Since horses are a luxury good, that industry tends to get hit harder during recessions.

GORE: Gore plans to use a good chunk of the surplus to pay down the national debt. This will lower interest payments on the debt, thus reducing the third largest expenditure of the federal goverment. Interest rates will be lower, which will stimulate investment (truly more of a "supply-side" policy) which will increase growth. A stable economy will help "stable" people (pun intended).

Bush continually reiterates that the tax money is ours, so we should get it back. However, the debt is ours too. When will we pay it down if not during a time of budget surpluses?

spfarm
Oct. 23, 2000, 03:30 PM
Just a thought for you who plan on having no kids. Who's going to take care of you when you get old if you have no kids? Answer...someone else's kids.
Kids are a good thing!

Inverness
Oct. 23, 2000, 03:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by spfarm:
Just a thought for you who plan on having no kids. Who's going to take care of you when you get old if you have no kids? Answer...someone else's kids.
Kids are a good thing!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Personally, I can't think of a worse (or more selfish) reason for having kids than merely to ensure that someone will be around to take care of me.



[This message has been edited by Inverness (edited 10-23-2000).]

Magnolia
Oct. 23, 2000, 03:42 PM
The Government will take care of me LOL.
If everyone's kids take care of their parents, why do we need all the subsidies for the elderly?
BTW, I have all the respect in the world for our senior citizens, and of all my tax dollars, I consider the ones spent on them to be the best spent.

ThirdCharm
Oct. 23, 2000, 03:53 PM
The fact that Bush sent his kids to public school, when he could obviously afford otherwise, just shows how DUMB he is and how very little he does care about education. Obviously figures being "Bush" kids is enough to guarantee their futures--reading, writing, and 'rithmetic would be useless perks!

JenniferS

Inverness
Oct. 23, 2000, 03:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by magnolia:
The Government will take care of me LOL.
If everyone's kids take care of their parents, why do we need all the subsidies for the elderly?
BTW, I have all the respect in the world for our senior citizens, and of all my tax dollars, I consider the ones spent on them to be the best spent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tell me about it Magnolia! We're taking care of my husband's mom right now - to the tune of $6,000 per month (whoops! there went 25 years of savings!).

Thank heaven that my parents planned for their old age. My husband and I aren't going to have any money left to take care of them too!

woodbern
Oct. 23, 2000, 04:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by spfarm:
Answer...someone else's kids.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, it may be someone else's kids, but only if they work in the private healthcare/caregiver/etc areas of service... and they will be damn well paid to do so!

Not everyone will be on the public dole. Isn't that a novel concept?

rockstar
Oct. 23, 2000, 04:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by shady creek farm:
BUSH: our economy has been so strong lately that Alan Greenspan has been raising interest rates to slow it down. If Bush cuts taxes, it will overheat the economy, leading to inflation (because with more income, people will want to buy much more than the economy can produce) and out-of-sight interest rates (as Greenspan tries to get control of the economy -- think back to 1982!). How will this affect the horse industry? Since horses are a luxury good, that industry tends to get hit harder during recessions.

GORE: Gore plans to use a good chunk of the surplus to pay down the national debt. This will lower interest payments on the debt, thus reducing the third largest expenditure of the federal goverment. Interest rates will be lower, which will stimulate investment (truly more of a "supply-side" policy) which will increase growth. A stable economy will help "stable" people (pun intended).

Bush continually reiterates that the tax money is ours, so we should get it back. However, the debt is ours too. When will we pay it down if not during a time of budget surpluses?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I like what you have to say and think that was a great point.

I don't like the discussion going on about kids... but hey.

Now, I HIGHLY reccomend that you visit this site... have your sound on and scroll slowly so you can catch the graphics. It is so busy that it takes a little while to fully download... but wait until it is all done and all of the images appear and the music comes on or it is not NEARLY as funny! To all of you democrats... I promise you will be rolling on the floor. To republcians... take a look... even my die hard republican friends (the one or two that I keep around that is /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) knew that it's all in fun and died laughing too...
http://www.george-w-dance.homepage.com



[This message has been edited by rockstar (edited 10-23-2000).]

jmpr/evntr
Oct. 23, 2000, 04:39 PM
Well the consenus at my barn is Bush,which I agree.There's already an a**hole in the white house,why put another one in? Gore has the integrety of a worm and is a liar besides.And we are in NY so we get the pleasure of Hillary as well,who has no business running for Senate in NY,ought to go back to Arkansas.I hate liars and while no politician
doesn't lie,Bush didn't claim to invent the 'net,discover love canal,etc. which leads ME to believe Bush is more honest.

spfarm
Oct. 23, 2000, 05:00 PM
Didn't you know that other countries are encouraging people to have kids! France, for example, is paying people to have children and the reason isn't just to have kids so that they can take care of you when you are old, but it is good for the economy. Yes, the more people in the workforce the better.
Just think what would happen if a generation decided not to have kids. It would be catastrophic.

hobson
Oct. 23, 2000, 05:16 PM
Well, kids are fine, as long as they belong to people who LIKE them. I happen to run the other way when someone in the family waves their infant at me. (C'mon, hold the BABY! HOLD the BABY! No! The baby's leaking!) Why pressure people who aren't into children to produce them? Not a very happy existence for the kid, I should think. Me, I'm saving my money now so I can pay other people's kids to babysit me when I'm 95.

DMK
Oct. 23, 2000, 05:37 PM
spfarm... i think the defnition of "catastrophic" might be me as a mother...

Snowbird
Oct. 23, 2000, 05:55 PM
Well, being in favor of individualism and individual responsibility I'm still for BUSH.

I think today there is such a high penalty for success that it really doesn't pay to save your money or accumulate any. I mean if you have an estate Uncle Sam takes half, and the kids fight over the other half. So they wind up mad at each other and you! If you have a fancy car some idiot falls in front of it so they sue you. If you have expensive clothes or jewelry you can't wear them for fear of being mugged. And, if you accumulate more than a few dollars everyone treats you like a paria that has stolen their money. So this is the end of the American Dream to do better than your parents.

By the way anyone know why it wouldn't have been more logical for Hillary to run for the Senate from Arkansas instead of New York? Is it that they know her too well there?

Razumny
Oct. 23, 2000, 07:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DMK:
spfarm... i think the defnition of "catastrophic" might be me as a mother...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOLOL DMK!!
I'll bet I'd be a worse mother (of humans) than you! I never even held a human baby until I was 35 years old and I have no desire to ever repeat the experience!

Razumny
Oct. 23, 2000, 07:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ponyperson:
GO BUSH!!!

For me, this is really a religous issue, I am a devout Roman Catholic, and of course, pro-life. People are saying, "Shouldn't a woman be able to choose if she wants an abortion." Well, she had the choice to hop in bed without protection with some guys she'll never see again so I'm guessing NO.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WAIT JUST A COTTON-PICKIN' MINUTE! The last I heard, devout Roman Catholics don't advocate "protection" either.

B.G.M. heidi
Oct. 23, 2000, 07:26 PM
I can't keep up - the threads have now ricocheted from protecting the rights of the fetus to resenting the children who have clearly suffered the misfortune of birth and now roam the planet purely to make your lives an over-taxed hell. I do believe the discussion is degenerating.

Razumny
Oct. 23, 2000, 07:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by spfarm:
Bush may not be the smartest man in the world, but I beleive he would surround himself with knowledgable men/women who would help make decisions to best benefit our nation.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow. Now that's a ringing endorsement for the man who would be President!


[This message has been edited by Razumny (edited 10-23-2000).]

Razumny
Oct. 23, 2000, 07:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by heidi:
I can't keep up - the threads have now ricocheted from protecting the rights of the fetus to resenting the children who have clearly suffered the misfortune of birth and now roam the planet purely to make your lives an over-taxed hell. I do believe the discussion is degenerating.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you may have something there Heidi. Let's tax the fetuses.

hobson
Oct. 23, 2000, 07:49 PM
Did anyone else have high hopes for George W Party Boy being as entertaining a candidate as Dan Quayle was? I've been sorely disappointed. I mean, Dubya's given us some great malapropisms, mispellings and mispronunciations and it's obvious his grasp of world affairs is tentative at best...but nothing he's said has been as inspiring as this, one of my Quayle faves:
"Hawaii has always had a very pivotal role in the Pacific. It is an island (pause) that is in the Pacific (pause) that is right here." Or his rhapsody on Rural America: "Rural America is Real America. rural America, real America, real, real America."

Heather
Oct. 23, 2000, 10:02 PM
-heavy, deep, sigh-

OK--I don't dislike kids--kids are great, I used to work with kids--which is PRECISELY why I know that I would not be a good mother. And, I'm not saying people with kids should be treatred badly, are terrible people, etc--parents are great--face it, we all need 'em--what I'm saying is that it is not fair for me to be treated unfairly because I choose not to have any myself.

I worked with kids for 6 years, believe me, the last thing this country needs is one more screwed up youngster, so I am choosing to do my part to prevent it by not having any myself. If you have it within your capacity to bring a child into this world, and rear it with love into a responsible adulthood, then congratulations, and by all means go for it--I'll even send you a baby gift (and I give good ones--Classic Pooh all the way).

BUT, I am rather sick of being penalized, chided, and otherwise abused by those like the employers outlined here because I choose NOT to be a mother. I can't imagine how much worse it would be if I was not ABLE (physically) to be a mother.

So before I'm branded a child hating, socialistic, baby quiche eater, I just wanted to attempt to clarify my point.

B.G.M. heidi
Oct. 23, 2000, 10:19 PM
At the end of the day, the decision to have a child (or NOT) should remain simply that - a choice. I have great respect for people who choose not to have children - given the social pressure to reproduce (prove your womanhood and all that), it's a difficult position to maintain.

I would, however, like to temper some of the resentful remarks so freely and easily exhanged on this thread. For many, many years I toiled away in the tv industry in Canada, eventually achieving some measure of success. That success, however, came with a great price. Unlike the experiences relayed here of preferential treatment afforded to parents, I experienced the exact opposite. If I were truly committed to the company, I would elect to stay until 9:00pm every night, go off to another meeting rather than take my own child to a doctor's appointment; if I wanted to play with the big boys, I would venture around the globe for weeks at a time, leaving behind a toddler who sat on the steps waiting for mommy to return home, with an adequate nanny by his side. The expectations were never explicit but they were clearly implicit - choose between the career and your family. For too many years I chose wrong.

Now back to the topic at hand - who's better for the horsey set. How about, neither? The presidential race would have been much more interesting between McCain and Bradley, even Keyes for that matter (who did have a unique ability it seemed to cut through the bs, too bad he was a Republican...).

[This message has been edited by heidi (edited 10-23-2000).]

jumpcrew
Oct. 23, 2000, 10:27 PM
So, Bush or Gore?

jumpcrew
Oct. 23, 2000, 10:28 PM
Spare us the details, Bush or Gore?

Finzean
Oct. 23, 2000, 11:42 PM
Hi, I was just curious to get more information about the taxation of fetuses....if it's really high, I'm going to see how long I can continue to carry this very wanted child since I am a responsible parent who totally expects to be absorb the costs of said child and will have to pay the taxes levied upon her. And I promise to never force anyone to hold her whether she's leaking or not!!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

lillian
Oct. 23, 2000, 11:44 PM
Well, I just had to jump into the fray. I personally believe that the race is so close that Bush will win if Nader draws enough votes from Gore, or Gore will win if Buchanan can draw enough votes from Bush. As a moderate Republican, I'm voting for Gore. If I hear the term "compassionate Republican" one more time I'm going to chuck my lunch on my shoes. I've chosen Gore for many reasons and I won't go into detail here, but I will say one thing....if I wanted my government run by religion, I'd move to Iran!

Kryswyn
Oct. 24, 2000, 12:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lillian:
but I will say one thing....if I wanted my government run by religion, I'd move to Iran!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Amen, Lillian, Amen! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Gore, because the thought of GW putting as many as 4 Supreme Court justices on the bench is just too scary.

Magnolia
Oct. 24, 2000, 08:14 AM
Yikes, I was listening to NPR this morning and they were discussing the state of affairs in Yugoslovia. They elected an honest, popular new leader, yet in many ways, his hands are tied because of the remains of the old regime.
Who we elect is oh so important. We need to keep a balance in the three sections of government. We should be happy we have the right to hash out differences and the right to be heard.
Yesterday I was angry that I had the choice b/w dumb and dumber. Today I am happy that dumb and dumber can not mess up our nation too badly (like Yugoslavia) because of our 3 branch system. So there. Thank You Fore Fathers.

tle
Oct. 24, 2000, 12:30 PM
I'll admit that I haven't quite finished reading everyone else's responses. I'm not positive where I stand on the upcoming election. It's kind of confusing to figure out exactly where each candidate stands simply because they keep changing their minds!!

I do know one thing... I'm **NOT** happy about Bush aligning himself sooooo closely with the christian right wing. I'm also absolutely furious over some religious statements he's made (like how Wicca is not a religion and he doesn't think the military should support it as such).

rockstar
Oct. 25, 2000, 04:20 PM
hey HOBSON...i think you might enjoy this article...
-rockstar
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=2413

Cougar2
Oct. 25, 2000, 07:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hobson:
Well, kids are fine, as long as they belong to people who LIKE them. I happen to run the other way when someone in the family waves their infant at me. (C'mon, hold the BABY! HOLD the BABY! No! The baby's leaking!) Why pressure people who aren't into children to produce them? Not a very happy existence for the kid, I should think. Me, I'm saving my money now so I can pay other people's kids to babysit me when I'm 95.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BRAVO HOBSON! good for you! I feel exactly the same way...although people just don't seem to get it that i hardly feel "left out" or that I am "missing something" but not having any...nope biological clock just ain't ticking and i'm 35..LOL... I have a horse and two cats, THAT'S children enough for me~

hobson
Oct. 26, 2000, 09:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cougar2:
BRAVO HOBSON! good for you! I feel exactly the same way...although people just don't seem to get it that i hardly feel "left out" or that I am "missing something" but not having any...nope biological clock just ain't ticking and i'm 35..LOL... I have a horse and two cats, THAT'S children enough for me~<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ahh, Cougar2 - it's great to find someone elso of the same mind! Yup...when I was 3 years old I began refusing to play with dolls, explaining to my parents that it was unnatural and creepy for someone my age to pretend to have children. (Really off the subject, but doesn't anyone else find it bizarre that we force realistic-as-possible baby dolls on little girls and then complain about teenage pregnancy?!) My opinions about having children only solidified from there. Heck, if I had kids, I couldn't afford the horses, and that's reason enough to avoid them. I, too, have had the experience of being vilified by women who scream at me that I'm "less of a woman" because I'll never crank out a baby. They get spitting angry when I assure them that I'm plenty of woman and don't need a child just to prove it. Sheesh! I'm all for any social programs that aid children, schools, teachers, etc...I just think kids deserve the best chance they can get, and that's why none of them should have unwilling parents like you and me.


[This message has been edited by hobson (edited 10-26-2000).]

Inverness
Oct. 26, 2000, 10:22 AM
Hobson,
I'm a compatriot in the "decided not to have kids" department. I think my friend's kids are great, and the kids and juniors at my barn are super.

I have faced a good deal of prejudicial comment about my decision, however. My views on everything from education to sports to what to have for dinner are frequently dismissed because, being childless, I couldn't possibly be enlightened enough to grasp the issues.

Fortunately, my parents are fine with my decision (the call the kitties their "grandcats"), and my husband is of like mind.

My hubby absolutely adores kids and has a very special talent for relating to them - it explains why he is a professional coach. He knew, however, that he'd never be able to give 100% to his own kids while he was absorbed with coaching other peoples' kids. Consequently, he decided to remain childless.

And oh, yes, Gore.

hobson
Oct. 26, 2000, 10:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rockstar:
hey HOBSON...i think you might enjoy this article...
-rockstar
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=2413 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi rockstar! Sure, I enjoyed it, insofar as I generally enjoy gnashing my teeth! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But I'm sorry the writer was so patronizing of Ralph's positions, since as far as I'm concerned, they're courageous and honorable, not bought and paid for by corporate campaign contributions. Not a surprise, since I think of the DLC as a hoary old right-wing sanctuary. Lordy, even Eric Alterman is running around this week telling us lefties to vote for Gore. What's the world coming to?

Really, if the New Dems really think they deserve and own the votes of us "lefty intelligentsia," then why must Al Gore commit such reactionary doozies like supporting Star Wars and blaming the entertainment business for the ills of society? Nader needs my vote here in PA as much as anywhere else if the Green Party is to achieve the necessary vote percentage to get federal campaign assistance. We'll never get there if we keep compromising for the sake of the "not-as-conservatives." I almost fell over laughing when I read Chris Hitchens' description of the "vote for Nader only if it doesn't hurt us" attitude as "nonsense on stilts." And I agree! (with all due respect, as I've enjoyed our exchange)I can't vote for Gore just because there's some vague chance he might throw me a bone once in office. Naive I'm not. I'd rather give the democrats a real scare, because what they're doing is INSISTING upon paying precious little attention to the left. If it makes you feel any better, a lot of new voters who are otherwise jaded by the "same old" phenomenon are going to come out for Nader on election day, and will likely vote for democrats in local/state/congressional elections, which should give you guys a boost. Good luck, and how is it you have so much time to troll the bulletin board with a crucial campaign underway? Don't they give you enough to do there at the Party? http://www.chronofhorse.com/ubb/tongue.gif

[This message has been edited by hobson (edited 10-26-2000).]

Regalmeans
Oct. 26, 2000, 11:04 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lillian:
but I will say one thing....if I wanted my government run by religion, I'd move to Iran!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kryswyn:

Amen, Lillian, Amen! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Gore, because the thought of GW putting as many as 4 Supreme Court justices on the bench is just too scary.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Both of you are right on target. Whoever wins will have a HUGE EFFECT on our country b/c of the supreme court - yeah whoever we elect may be gone if 4 years but who ever they appoint is there for life - so if Bush wins we can bet your last centRoe V Wade will be challenged - and under Bush it will be all strict constructionalists (code words for ultra conservatives who will never step outside the box) wheras Gore favors more liberal judges. Both SAY they are against a litmus test - but HELLO? the Democrats won't touch Roe V Wade and the Republicans will certainly try to. And there are alot of other issues hanging in the balance. I am a die hard democrat (and I'm 17 and can't vote...but let' move beyond that) I have worked on campaigns and I know the issues -

Bush's wanting to drill in Alaska bothers me! He is against the environment. As a student
- Gore's college loan thing appeals to me
- Bush's charter schools and vouchers seem to further strip public school.
Bush is favoring therich, Gore is more equal oppurtunity.
The one thing I like about Bush is that I agree that we shouldn't have the military everywhere - not for the same reasons he does (I am a pacifist and thus don't believe in fighing) butI agree we are spread to thin and cannot be everywhere and we often don't help at all (um....Vietnam?).
My bigget beef with Bush though is something he said about 'morals for our country' as a free country with religious freedoms you cannot really tie all people to one moral system and Bush reeks of the Christian right. 10 commandents in school? No thank you!

My question - is Gore goingto keep giving Clinton the cold shoulder? Is it hurting him? I think Clinton is such a great speaker andregardless of what youthink of him he did do a good job overthe pat 8 years - he would be great to have in Gore's corner but Gore isto into distancing himself! MY local senator/congress campaigns areusing Clinton support with great responses - with alot of democrats that factor might help Gore....but who knows?

My vote, if I had one, would go to Gore. It may be the lesser of two evils but he's a democrat, I agree with most of his policies and I'm just so scared of Bush....

Aly
Oct. 26, 2000, 11:31 AM
Sorry, I just had to delurk and post on this thread. I have no idea which candidate will be "better" for horsepeople because horsepeople (like every other group in this country) are simply too diverse to classify easily. And, contrary to the assumptions of the originator of this thread, horsepeople are NOT small business owners. Most are one or two horse owners, working full-time to support their addiction. So, I looked to other issues when determining how I will vote. Having done so, I'd like to pose a few questions for the "undecided" folks out there:

1. If the candidate doesn't trust the government, why is he running for President?

2. If a candidate claims to have made "significant" improvements in education in his state, why is the state still 49th out of 50 on national standards of educational achievement?

3. If you are at all concerned about the environment, would you live in Houston? How do you think it got that way?

4. Does it trouble you that (re)assurances about a candidate's fitness to lead (from his own party!)commonly point to the advisors backing him up --- rather than to the candidate himself?

5. Does it trouble you when a candidate seems challenged to explain, clearly, his own position on social security and tax reform?

6. Does it trouble you that a woman's right to CHOOSE (whatever her decision) may be removed?

7. If a candidate is anti-abortion, how does s/he stand with regard to the provision of programs to help single women with infants and children?

8. Does it trouble you that we may well be led by someone who seems unable to speak in complete sentences?

Aly


[This message has been edited by Aly (edited 10-26-2000).]

hobson
Oct. 26, 2000, 11:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Inverness:
Hobson,
I'm a compatriot in the "decided not to have kids" department.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is really interesing to me - I've never run across so many "childless by choice" women in one place. At least, ones who were willing to talk about it. What's the connection with horses, do you think? Almost every one of my childess friends is involved with horses, and they range from casual backyard riders to active competitors.

pwynnnorman
Oct. 26, 2000, 11:41 AM
Bravo, Aly!!!!!

I'm copying that list and posting it around the building.

Magnolia
Oct. 26, 2000, 11:58 AM
On the "childless by choice" women being so apparent with horses, I think it has to do with time and money. I work with mommies - very nice women, actually love and appreciate their kids. Every dime they spend is on the kids. Free Time? Take kids to their activities.
I think to have kids, you must sacrifice a part of your time and money for them. Horses also demand a lot of time and money. So, probably if you have kids, you have to cut back on the horses.
Why aren't Brad and I having kids? We want to travel, I want to afford a horse someday. He wants the freedom to quit his job and be an activist someday. We want the ability to pick up and move.
BTW, I have never encountered any criticism about our choice. (Maybe that is a hint from people...). But I do get tired of not having a voice on issues like parks because of the soccer moms, and the assumption that parks are for children, and it makes me mad when I see ill-behaved kids, but I feel I have to be mute, because, well, I'm not "qualified" to comment on little Eddie's food fighting because I'm not a mom.

BTW, I'm still not decided on my vote. I was gonna go third party, but all the anti-Bush propaganda is getting to me and I'm feeling the need to vote Gore as a lesser of 2 evils! HELP!!!!!!!!

Snowbird
Oct. 26, 2000, 12:15 PM
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.

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!

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?

None of them gave away the store for votes!

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

Magnolia
Oct. 26, 2000, 12:31 PM
You know, Snowbird - do you really think Bush is genuine? Really? I look at it this way - Gore is promoting what Democrats always promote. Programs, programs and more programs. He seems like a reasonable voice for those of the democratic persuasion.
But what is up with Bush? He has the same programs as Gore has, only like 10% cheaper. He seems to be promoting democratic, not republican ideals. He certainly doesn't seem to represent Republican ideals, so why is he running as a Republican? Could it be that he is pandering to the public? Can we get his beliefs signed on paper? Lordy, he sounds almost 100% like Gore.
I liked the quote- I don't know who said it (maybe Nader?) - " The only difference b/w Gore and Bush is the velocity with which their knees hit the ground for corporate interests".
Republicans are fools - had they wanted to win this thing hands down, they'd only have needed to nominate McCain.

Kryswyn
Oct. 26, 2000, 12:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by magnolia:
... it makes me mad when I see ill-behaved kids, but I feel I have to be mute, because, well, I'm not "qualified" to comment on little Eddie's food fighting because I'm not a mom.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do not feel you must be mute Magnolia. After all, 'it takes a village to raise a child'. What you cannot do, however, is respond in anger or negatively which is what you'd like to do. Example, Eddie and Molly are doing something annoying, swinging on the velvet ropes at the bank for example. You see that they are close to pulling over the heavy metal post. Mom is not paying attention, or tuning them out.

You'd LIKE to say: Hey lady, watch your kids for cryin' out loud!

You SAY: Excuse me, ma'am? I'm afraid your children are going to get hurt!

In a retail store, children are running rampant. You WANT to say: Hey lady, watch your kids for cryin' out loud!

You SAY: Ma'am? I'm sorry to interupt your shopping but you may not know this/our store has a strict breakage policy.

Child is running loose in restaurant. Step one: in the same tone you speak to your horse who's sneaking a mouthful of grass you say, "Careful! You could trip!" second step assuming s/he ignores you, put foot in aisle. We instructors refer to this as setting up the learning experience so the experience does the teaching. You immediately say (in your most sincere tone) Oh no! Did you trip? Are you okay? That's what happens when you run around in restaurants. Let's take you back to your parents.

Children are being noisy, destructive, annoying. Parents are nowhere. You WANT to say: Go away you cretinous excuses for children that will be in charge of my social security fund!

You SAY: Excuse me, I'm doing a survey can you help me? (Distraction) I'm supposed to ask 10 people what is the most fun thing to do at a _________ (fill in blank). You'd be the last _____ (fill in number) I'd need.

All of this assumes a non-threatening, non judgemental tone of voice/ body posture/ expression. A little timing is required for the tripping and some judgement, but hey, you can train a horse, you can train a kid.

exyankeerider
Oct. 26, 2000, 01:02 PM
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 !

Magnolia
Oct. 26, 2000, 01:14 PM
Neither!
Bush is an idiot who is also a pathological liar !

What foreighn diplomacy does he have ?
NONE
What businesses did he operate ?
failed ones!
What branch of the military was he in ?
NONE ( i think?)
HOw did he reproach "slick willie" Clinton?
Bush's party wasted millions of our tax dollars going after a dirty old man!

Neither is the one hope this once great nation should have, they are both lying, liberal(ie money wasting), power hungry, BIG CORPORATION supporting, rights stripping, 2 faced, media puppets !

(sorry, I couldn't resist!)


[This message has been edited by magnolia (edited 10-26-2000).]

Aly
Oct. 26, 2000, 01:31 PM
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).]

hobson
Oct. 26, 2000, 01:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by magnolia:

BTW, I'm still not decided on my vote. I was gonna go third party, but all the anti-Bush propaganda is getting to me and I'm feeling the need to vote Gore as a lesser of 2 evils! HELP!!!!!!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aw, c'mon, magnolia! The lesser of 2 evils is still evil! Join the Nader camp! I assure you there's PLENTY of space in our bandwagon!

I think Gore did enlist in the military during Vietnam. Granted, it sure helped his father's political campaign which just happened to be going on at the time, but I do believe that Dubya avoided the military altogether. So it could be said that Gore has the military-knowledge advantage in this case. As for his grades at Yale, Bush received "Gentleman's C's" which means that because of the influential nature of the Bush family, Yale wished to not embarrass Bush senior by flunking Bush junior.

I love Aly's remarks! Bush really is subliminable, isn't he? And thanks for pointing out that not all of us horse people have anything at all to do with taxable estates, businesses small or large, and the like. I'm thinking that if we help out the little guys by raising the minimum wage, providing affordable child care, making university education more accessible and affordable, tax breaks for the working class, and other stuff like that, the horse industry would benefit from an influx of newcomers suddenly able to afford this rather expensive hobby/sport.

hobson
Oct. 26, 2000, 01:40 PM
So right, magnolia. Gore at least realizes that the residents of Greece are not called "Grecians."

ponyesq
Oct. 26, 2000, 01:56 PM
I am particularly enjoying the Doonesbury take on George W -- that he's allowed to make misstatements because he is stupid, so that misstatments are "honest mistakes." I also heard a bit of Jay Leno wondering what poor Dan Quayle must be thinking now -- (paraphrasing): "I'm not smart either. I make dumb mistakes and mispronounce and misspell words and don't know anything about foreign policy. How come George W can get away with it when I couldn't. No fair!"

Hey, if all it took to be president was the ability to appoint smart people to do all the work, then why don't we just elect a good looking actor to the job -- oh, we already did that.

Magnolia
Oct. 26, 2000, 01:57 PM
Hobson-
I'm more a libertarian than a Nader supporter, but I may vote Nader because I'd like to see a 3rd party out there.
I am soooooooo tired of hearing dems and reps say 3rd parties are illegitimate and have no purpose. At least they stand for something other than the status quo.
My boyfriend is a huge Nader supporter, but I hate taxes...although, we do spend more money subsidizing corporations than people, so maybe Nader would even save us money (I doubt he'd give tax dollars to corporations, unlike Bush and Gore)
And, I think Bush has pretty much won here in NC, so unless some Gore supporter can tell me otherwise, I'll do it, I'll vote third party (which I always do!).
To Change!

Magnolia
Oct. 26, 2000, 02:06 PM
I hope it is OK to post this.
Attention all of you REPUBLICANS looking for smaller government. Here is your man.


Do You Want Smaller Government?
Why you should vote Libertarian Nov. 7.

BY HARRY BROWNE
Wednesday, October 25, 2000 12:01 a.m. EDT


(Editor's note: The Wall Street Journal asked the three minor-party nominees to write articles making the case for their candidacies. Reform candidate Patrick Buchanan was unable to accept the invitation. Click here to read "Human Need Trumps Corporate Greed" by Green nominee Ralph Nader.)
The most important political question you can ask yourself is simply this: Do you want smaller government? Do you want an end to the welfare state, to government destroying our health-care system, to government at all levels taking 47% of the national income in taxes, to government intrusions into your life and your business?
Do you want smaller government? If you do, the first step toward getting it is obvious: You must stop supporting those who are making government bigger. You can't go east by moving west. It's a physical impossibility. You can't make government smaller by rewarding those who make government bigger. It's a political impossibility.

Only when you begin asking for what you really want do you have any chance of getting it. Al Gore wants to make government bigger. He's proposed a long list of new government programs. George W. Bush wants to make government bigger. He's proposed an equally long list of new government programs to show that he's as compassionate as Mr. Gore--as though having government spend your money somehow demonstrates compassion.

I am the only presidential candidate offering specific proposals to make government smaller--much smaller. I want to get the federal government completely out of every area where it's made such a mess--health care, education, law enforcement, welfare, foreign aid, corporate welfare, highway boondoggles, farm subsidies. Not only are these programs unconstitutional, they do tremendous damage to our lives.

I want to make the federal government so small you won't pay any income tax. The tariffs and excise taxes already being collected are enough to finance the constitutional functions of government.

I want to free you immediately and completely from the Social Security system. I want to sell off government assets to finance private retirement accounts for anyone now dependent on Social Security--so you and I and every other American can immediately stop paying the 15% Social Security tax.

I want to end the nightmare of prohibition by stopping the insane War on Drugs. Most of the recent invasions of your civil liberties have been justified by the drug war. You may have no interest in drugs, but they're the reason the government snoops through your bank account, monitors your e-mail, and claims the power to search and seize your property without due process.

I don't want to appoint Supreme Court judges who are "strict constructionists" or who divine "original intent." I want to appoint judges who can read the plain language of the Constitution--who understand that the constitutional words "Congress shall make no law" mean Congress shall make no law. I want judges who will strike down government programs that aren't authorized by the Constitution.

In short, I don't want to slow the growth of government. I don't even want to stop the growth of government. I want to reduce government dramatically--to the limits imposed by the Constitution.

I want you to be free to live your life as you want to live it--not as Mr. Gore or Mr. Bush thinks you should. You're the one who gets up every morning and goes to work for eight, 10 or 12 hours a day. How dare Mr. Bush or Mr. Gore presume to decide how much of what you earn you should be allowed to keep? I want you to be able to keep every dollar you earn--to spend it, save it, give it away as you think best--not just the crumbs the politicians leave for you.

I want you to be able to use your own money to put your children in a school of your choice--private, religious or home school--without having to beg the state for a voucher or plead with the Board of Education for improvement. I want you to be able to use your own money to start your own business. Or to support your church or favorite charity in a way you've never been able to do before.

I want you to be free. I want to get government out of your life. Isn't that what you want?

If so, why would you vote for someone who's moving in the opposite direction--someone who's made it clear he intends to make government bigger, not smaller?

I'm the only candidate who's running solely for the purpose of making government smaller. I'm the only candidate who doesn't presume to know what charities your money should go to, how much of your income belongs to the politicians.

Can I win? Probably not. But if you vote for anyone else, you won't win either. Your candidate might win, but you won't get what you want. Government will continue to get bigger and more intrusive--and you'll have given this your approval. No matter what your reason for voting for Mr. Bush or Mr. Gore, your vote will be interpreted as an endorsement of every big-government proposal your candidate has made.

Even though I may not win, every vote I get will be an endorsement, a statement, a declaration on behalf of smaller government. No one can confuse a vote for a Libertarian with a vote for more government.

And if I get even one million votes, it could change politics in America forever. It could make the press take smaller-government proposals seriously, it could encourage other voters to abandon the two big-government parties, and it could attract millions of non-voters who had given up hope of getting smaller government.

Please don't let the old parties destroy your future by scaring you into voting against someone this year. Raise your sights. Vote in a way that could lead to a free America with a constitutional government before the end of this decade. For once, vote for yourself instead of a politician. Vote for freedom. Vote Libertarian.

hobson
Oct. 26, 2000, 02:21 PM
Yay, magnolia! I'm hoisting a tall frosty root beer at this moment in your honor. The thing about the Libertarians is, they're great at reminding conservatives that "big government" means not only lending a hand to less fortunate human beings, but also millions upon millions in welfare to big business.

Anyway, here are some great Bush-isms I found. Again, these are hardly Quayle-worthy, but they're fun:

"Actually, I -- this may sound a little West Texan to you, but I like it. When I'm talking about -- when I'm talking about
myself, and when he's talking about myself, all of us are talking about me."
--Hardball, MSNBC, May 31, 2000

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

"We want our teachers to be trained so they can meet the obligations; their obligations as teachers. We want them to know how to teach the science of reading. In order to make sure there's not this kind of federal cufflink."
--Fritsche Middle School, Milwaukee, March 30, 2000

"I think we need not only to eliminate the tollbooth to the middle class, I think we should knock down the tollbooth."
--Nashua, N.H., as quoted by Gail Collins, New York Times, Feb. 1, 2000

"Will the highways on the Internet become more few?"
--Concord, N.H., Jan. 29, 2000

"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses."
--At a South Carolina oyster roast; quoted in the Financial Times, Jan. 14, 2000

"We must all hear the universal call to like your neighbor just like you like to be liked yourself."
--At a South Carolina oyster roast; quoted in the Financial Times, Jan. 14, 2000

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

"The important question is, How many hands have I shaked?"
--Answering a question about why he hasn't spent more time in New Hampshire; quoted in the New York Times, Oct. 23, 1999

"Keep good relations with the Grecians."
--Quoted in the Economist, June 12, 1999

dublin
Oct. 26, 2000, 02:22 PM
In response to Snowbird's question about Gore and Bush's college grades, there was an interesting article posted on MSNBC yesterday - it may surprise you who the better student actually was.... http://www.msnbc.com/news/476109.asp?0nm=1HR

ProzacPuppy
Oct. 26, 2000, 03:49 PM
Just a reply to Aly regarding Houston's air pollution - it is not only the cars, Mexican lawn crews with gas leaf blowers etc. If you have ever been to this part of Texas, check out the refineries and chem plants near the ship channel. Ugly, stinking pollution machines- yes. But a necessary evil if Americans continue to desire gasoline, fuel oil, plastics etc etc. They've got to put the refineries somewhere. Refineries must be near navigable water routes to ship in the crude, so that lets places like Kansas and Montana out of the possible sites list. The Houston/Beaumont refineries were originally situtated near the sources of oil (Spindletop) and the cities grew up around the refineries. Yes, they create an ungodly amt of pollution (tho the oil co lobbyists will tell you that they are putting out "safe levels" of the various pollutants) but they are necessary to life as we all know it.
And a brief comment about the state of Texas' education - comparing Texas schools to Michigan schools is like comparing apples and Chevies - Texas has a MASSIVE population of non-Ingles speaking, possibly illegal, minorities who are in public schools and taking tests just like everyone else. But they don't speak Ingles....Needless to say they score fairly low on TAAS tests.
All this is not to say Texas or Bush is perfect.

stephanie
Oct. 26, 2000, 04:07 PM
i am not going to get into a discussion of my personal politics, and i hope erin doesn't think of this as advertising, but i thought since this was such a hot thread i should post the URL for the web site I worked on this summer for public television: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2000/

FRONTLINE broadcast a 2 hour documentary that was basically biographies of the two candidates, and you can watch it on the web site, plus there are a lot of other resources that try to untangle what their true positions are on a variety of topics, including the tax issue, the military and lots of others. for those of you who are really interested, it's worth exploring, if I do say so myself. and i believe it is an unbiased evaluation--we do not take a stand on the candidates, just try to provide information for those who want it. one thing that many people have found helpful is a quiz that you can take about your own political beliefs that then tells you how closely you line up with the candidates' position. I was surprised at the results, when I took it myself.

any feedback on the site is appreciated...

(and for the record, i am a member of the liberal media and am in fact a member of a union. that doesn't mean that i can't maintain journalistic objectivity)

rockstar
Oct. 26, 2000, 05:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hobson:
Hi rockstar! Sure, I enjoyed it, insofar as I generally enjoy gnashing my teeth! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But I'm sorry the writer was so patronizing of Ralph's positions, since as far as I'm concerned, they're courageous and honorable, not bought and paid for by corporate campaign contributions. Not a surprise, since I think of the DLC as a hoary old right-wing sanctuary. Lordy, even Eric Alterman is running around this week telling us lefties to vote for Gore. What's the world coming to?

Really, if the New Dems really think they deserve and own the votes of us "lefty intelligentsia," then why must Al Gore commit such reactionary doozies like supporting Star Wars and blaming the entertainment business for the ills of society? Nader needs my vote here in PA as much as anywhere else if the Green Party is to achieve the necessary vote percentage to get federal campaign assistance. We'll never get there if we keep compromising for the sake of the "not-as-conservatives." I almost fell over laughing when I read Chris Hitchens' description of the "vote for Nader only if it doesn't hurt us" attitude as "nonsense on stilts." And I agree! (with all due respect, as I've enjoyed our exchange)I can't vote for Gore just because there's some vague chance he might throw me a bone once in office. Naive I'm not. I'd rather give the democrats a real scare, because what they're doing is INSISTING upon paying precious little attention to the left. If it makes you feel any better, a lot of new voters who are otherwise jaded by the "same old" phenomenon are going to come out for Nader on election day, and will likely vote for democrats in local/state/congressional elections, which should give you guys a boost. Good luck, and how is it you have so much time to troll the bulletin board with a crucial campaign underway? Don't they give you enough to do there at the Party? http://www.chronofhorse.com/ubb/tongue.gif

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


Hey now! First of all... I don't "troll" the BB... I am a relatively new member and have become somewhat addicted... but I limit my addiction to checking it out a few times a day when I find myself in my room before or after class/work/being out and about. And I keep my visit to the few threads that look interesting. Only once have I logged on at work (and it was late at night)... I wouldn't dream of it! Way too much other important stuff to be doing... you are right on that one. I garuntee that "the party" is giving me plenty to do when I am there... but I am not there ALL the time you know... like now! Everyone is going out to the most targeted congressional races next week... and I will be taking off and heading to New York City to finnish helping out at the Clinton Campaign. So you won't be seeing me around much the last few days before the election... I can garuntee that! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hmmmm... better get my thoughts in now then huh? /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

The first thing I learned in political science here at school was that the 2 party system in not going ANYWHERE as long as the voting system remains as it is and the electoral college dictates that the winner takes all. Nader will not win. But your vote, when combined with many others, has the capability to contribute to puting Bush in the White House. And that, honestly, really scares me. I understand your frustrations with the Democrats and I see that you don't like my perspective as a staunch New Democrat. But I don't see the solution as going Green. I see the Green party as raising a rucus in vain... it's not really going to do anything. Scare the democratic party back to the left? Not going to happen. The left is not where we win elections anymore... and that's that. Parties have to change and evolve with the times. Right now the times are relatively good... and that is why the country has shifted to the right. Democrats have been slow in shifting with the rest of the country, and that is why we couldn't get the presidency for so many years. When we finally put a true moderate in the presidential race we won! But we lost the congressional majority by a LANDLSIDE in the 94' elections because the democratic congress was known to be so liberal. The seats we gained back in 96' and 98' were those won by New Democrats in swing districts... which is why there are 65 New Democrats in congress now (forming a coalition called the New Democratic Coalition). Our most targeted races now, in the senate and house alike, are New Democrats. Without them in those seats we would have NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER of being anywhere near the majority. And without the majority we are screwed... since, as I explained in a previous post, the republican ruled congress just refuses to comproimse or work with us at all. So, my point in all of this is that liberals aren't "in" right now... they can't get elected unless their incumbents with a long history or hail from notoriously liberal states (Massachusetts, Minnesota). And we loose out bigtime if so many liberals remain naive and unwilling to support New Democrats... which is worse... a moderate democrat who AT LEAST will agree with you on most of the social issues... or a republican who will not only agree with you... but will just plain ignore you and not work with you at all!


Incidentally, I am watching Hardball right now on MSNBC and Paul Wellstone is on. He wants to see Nadar's ideas incorporated into the Democratic party more... and he highly respects Nadar and thinks he is man of great integrity and strength. However, he appeals to Nadar voters in battleground states (your state Pennsylvania included) where Nadar is campaigning to get his 5% to not throw their vote to George Bush. He thinks Nadar is authentic and important but that the fact of the matter is that Bush is the last person Nadar supporters should see in the White House... he stands in almost direct opposition to everthing they believe. And it is not true that there is not a difference betwen Bush and Gore... there ARE large differences that will make a big difference in our lives in area such as social security, abortion, gun control, health care, and education.


That is a summation of Wellston'e comments and I think he hit the nail on the head.

No, it is NOT fair that you are being asked to vote for Gore. You SHOULD be angry... evreyone wants to have a voice and clearly you feel yours isn't being heard. If you feel betrayed by the democrats and left out as a constituency than you truly don't owe Gore or the democratic party anything. I really DO understand that!

But all of that just doesn't change the fact that, under the present electoral system, every vote thrown for Nadar (ESPECIALLY in the battleground states) takes away from Gore. Now Hardball has just highlighted a NARAL add that calls out for Nadar supporters to vote for Gore because the risks of the reversal of roe v. wade are too high with Bush in the office. aghhhh!

Snowbird
Oct. 26, 2000, 06:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>misstatments are "honest mistakes." I also
heard a bit of Jay Leno wondering what poor Dan Quayle must be thinking now --
(paraphrasing): "I'm not smart either. I make dumb mistakes and mispronounce and
misspell words <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So now we are down to measuring intelligence by spelling and mis-statements, gee! on that basis a lot of us are pretty stupid.

Somehow, I find it more stupid that the VP didn't know that the big guy was renting out the Lincoln bedroom, that he didn't know what Billy Bob was doing having twice as many people at the state dinners to raise money and he wasn't supposed to use his phone to call up people for money. The biggest job he's had since Clinton has been Pres was raising money.

We all depend on spellcheck and editors, does mean we're all stupid, or just the ones who don't use it? Would real people be able to speak all that much without an error? Is it just the over-trained parrots that never make a mistake? Is a parrot really smart? And, wasn't it Gore and Clinton who didn't know the statues from our founding fathers.

So do we want to measure the candidates by what they don't know? or by what they might know? or what we hope they know? or what they tell us they know and they might not know?

As to Texas, I think it also depends on the starting point. You and have 100% progress if you start at the real bottom and not be very high. Or you can have no progress and still be listed pretty high depending on your populations in the inner cities who are not english speaking as their first language.

I do agree as someone who does understand the way statistics can be manipulated that many times the comparisons are between apples and cars. That's also true of the polls. How was the question asked? Did they post every answer or discontinue the questions when they interviewed someone who didn't agree with the intended purpose of the poll.

Before you believe any figures, please ask who paid for the poll?

AppleBird
Oct. 26, 2000, 06:04 PM
ROCKSTAR said: ". . .under the present electoral system, every vote thrown for Nadar (ESPECIALLY in the battleground states) takes away from Gore. Now Hardball has just highlighted a NARAL add that calls out for Nadar supporters to vote for Gore because the risks of the reversal of roe v. wade are too high with Bush in the office. aghhhh!"

Listen To Rockstar!!! PLEASE! he/she is right on! Nadar supporters, please vote GORE. GORE GORE GORE GORE GORE
The thought of Bush in the White House is giving me nightmares. The man is a complete fool.

Snowbird
Oct. 26, 2000, 06:13 PM
Well Applebird I have to tell you I feel the same way! The idea of Gore in the Whitehouse with his finger on the red button scares me to death. The idea of Gore being charge of anything by himself scares me to death.

BUSH! BUSH!BUSH! BUSH!BUSH! BUSH!BUSH! BUSH!BUSH! BUSH!BUSH! BUSH!BUSH! BUSH!
I'd rather trust the Bush team, with Colin Powell and Chenney, Thank you very much!

Aly
Oct. 26, 2000, 07:01 PM
"Texas has a MASSIVE population of non-Ingles speaking, possibly illegal, minorities who are in public schools and taking tests just like everyone else. But they don't speak Ingles....Needless to say they score fairly low on TAAS tests."

Need I say more?

Aly

hobson
Oct. 26, 2000, 07:27 PM
Aw, rockstar, sorry I'm such a frustration for you! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I like you, and don't wish to make you crazy. You are absolutely right about the winner-take-all electoral system - as I've said in a past thread, I'm a misplaced parliamentarian aching for proportional representation (Lani Guinier, where are you when I need you!) I feel so impotent watching the rightward shift we've discussed, and I just don't feel like supporting the shift just to win is the answer. For me, anyway. On most issues, voting for Gore does not feel much different than voting for Bush. I have to vote my conscience. Even if Bush gets elected, (and I refuse to accept resonsibility if that happens - it means the DP didn't do a good enough job, not that I "stole" the votes) there are ways to deal with it. Heck, the Republicans have mobilized very effectively in congress to block many of Clinton's and the democrats' initiatives. The democrats can do the same. Funding for social-service non-profits will go up, since well-to-do liberals who stopped contributing during the Clinton years will feel guilty and begin giving again. The American public will realize their blunder and elect Wellstone in 2004.

Janet
Oct. 26, 2000, 07:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by exyankeerider:

What branch of the military was he in ?
NONE
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gore servred in Vietnam.
Bush never served in the military

ProzacPuppy
Oct. 26, 2000, 08:28 PM
Aly- You're not implying that it is the government's job to hire teachers to teach everyone who can swim into the country in their chosen language, are you?

Actually, in some places they do that - Fairfax VA had some classrooms in elem school with 10 or 12 "assistants" whose purpose was to translate the class into the child's native language. Your tax dollars at work !!!

Bertie
Oct. 26, 2000, 08:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hobson:
...Heck, the Republicans have mobilized very effectively in congress to block many of Clinton's and the democrats' initiatives. The democrats can do the same...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Keep in mind that the Republicans rule Congress, being in the majority in both the House and Senate. The Democratic President and VP lend to a balance of power. And the Vice President's vote breaks ties in the Senate.

However much the Democrats in Congress mobilize, they don't have a majority. If a Republican President & VP are voted in, it'll be Republican policy all the way.

Snowbird
Oct. 26, 2000, 10:26 PM
BUSH was a trained Jet Pilot, you can't be a dummie and do that. Gore was a reporter and never saw any more action than the typewriter. You can be a dummie and do that!
There was no war for Bush, there was a war for Gore but one without any risk bigger than tomain!!

Bertie
Oct. 26, 2000, 10:38 PM
Bush backers be careful what you wish for...Do you agree with all the Republican stances?

Nader supporters, study the Republican stance on EVERY issue, 'cause that's what we'll have if enough independents vote for Nader - i.e. enough votes for Nader will result in President Dubya

[This message has been edited by Bertie (edited 10-26-2000).]

hobson
Oct. 26, 2000, 10:41 PM
How about Buchanan? Nobody seems to be cheering for him! Has anyone heard his radio ads? (If he's on TV, I haven't seen it) They're so over-the-top I thought it was a parody at first. Just goes to show that getting to 5% does not necessarily garner you a functional party. I hope the Greens don't self-destruct like this. It would help if our image improved: most see us as wacko vegans who haven't washed our hair in five years. True, this is a significant portion of the party, but lots of us are regular, Cap'n Crunch-eating folks with good hygeine.

Bertie
Oct. 26, 2000, 11:00 PM
Every time I hear a Buchanan ad I cringe and think, well, this is the price we pay for a free society http://www.chronofhorse.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

CTT
Oct. 26, 2000, 11:24 PM
I printed this out today so I can show my Psych proffesor some good points of view. We had to watch the debats as an asighnment and had to do a analasis of thm. It was quite interesting how many people interperated the body language at these debates not to mention we had to count how many times each said money. Too bad the debates are over cause it would be interesting to do some of these things we were asked to do. Ill let you all know how my evalustion went when I get my grade. But bush gave off alot of uncomforting signals. but gore did too but just watching the body language gave alot of insight to these people.

Aly
Oct. 27, 2000, 12:13 AM
"Aly- You're not implying that it is the government's job to hire teachers to teach everyone who can swim into the country in their chosen language, are you?
Actually, in some places they do that - Fairfax VA had some classrooms in elem school with 10 or 12 "assistants" whose purpose was to translate the class into the child's native language. Your tax dollars at work !!!"

TXJumper,

I'm curious that rather than addressing the substance of my questions and comments, you chose to invoke the spector of putatively illegal aliens. What is it about "otherness" that frightens us so?

As to what appears to be your question: First, I believe it is the government's responsibility, and it's own best interests, to educate it's citizenry -- however that citizenry came to be. Parents may choose other options, of course, but that choice does not remove the government's responsibility in this specific regard.

Second, if my tax dollars are being spent to teach foreign-born children, in their native language, so as to improve their educational outcomes (and their likely contribution to OUR society later), so much the better.

Finally, the alternatives implied by your question (a generation of undereducated and subsequently unemployable children) simply don't bear thinking about --- on political or moral grounds.

Aly

rockstar
Oct. 27, 2000, 12:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hobson:
Aw, rockstar, sorry I'm such a frustration for you! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I like you, and don't wish to make you crazy. You are absolutely right about the winner-take-all electoral system - as I've said in a past thread, I'm a misplaced parliamentarian aching for proportional representation (Lani Guinier, where are you when I need you!) I feel so impotent watching the rightward shift we've discussed, and I just don't feel like supporting the shift just to win is the answer. For me, anyway. On most issues, voting for Gore does not feel much different than voting for Bush. I have to vote my conscience. Even if Bush gets elected, (and I refuse to accept resonsibility if that happens - it means the DP didn't do a good enough job, not that I "stole" the votes) there are ways to deal with it. Heck, the Republicans have mobilized very effectively in congress to block many of Clinton's and the democrats' initiatives. The democrats can do the same. Funding for social-service non-profits will go up, since well-to-do liberals who stopped contributing during the Clinton years will feel guilty and begin giving again. The American public will realize their blunder and elect Wellstone in 2004.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Oh Hobson you are not a frustration for me... ok... well... yeah, you are... but not in a bad way! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif My frustration with Snowbird... now that's in a bad way. I just don't don't DON'T understand republicans like her. I do understand where you, Hobson, are coming from... I just am frustrated that it has to be that you can't be comfortable as a democrat and that you can't vote for Gore when the alternative is so much worse. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Now... about all the candidate bashing... to all of you who keep ranting on about grades and stuttering and all of that worthless
sh*t... COME ON!!!!!!!!!!! Get a life! You guys are the people who have turned poltics into what it has become.

If I had to say what my dream job was I would say it was to be a United States Senator. Nothing would make me happier than to go into public service as an elected representative and make a difference in this country. I think being a public servant is one of the most noble professions. Yeah... it's the most corny thing ever... but it really is my dream. I see that there is so much wrong and I want to do everything I can to change that. But realistically? Realistically I say "yeah right" to the notion of going into public service and seeking elected office. Why? Because of people like you guys. I could never handle the brutal humiliation and the pure torture that we put our elected officals through. I could never handle having a thread like this circulating with people who really don't know anything (except for what they read or heard on some newshow) debating my college transcript and measuring me by it. Let me tell you... if you looked at my college transcript you would not be too impressed. And yet, I hardly feel like my transcript reflects who I am or accurately measures my intelligence.

I tell you, it deeply, deeply saddens me that I don't see my dream as remotely possible... I don't think I could hold up to the scrutiny of being a Senator's wife, let alone a Senator. I decided a long time ago that my life in politics would never involve a starring role, but rather, the role of the woman behind the scenes. I'll be the one standing next to the candidate instead of actually BEING the candidate... it's a lot safer in the shadows. Pretty pathetic huh?

Political candidates are expected to be these people who have made no mistakes and who are these absolute pillars of perfection. Such people don't exist... don't we all know that??? Yet time and time again we crucify our public figures for the most minute and insignificant things. Even when what we criticize politicians for is something of more substance and merit (in terms of how it reflects on the person)... it still is almost always the case that the facts aren't straight and it is NONE of our business anyway.

Attack them on their record... attack them on one of their stands... but I will NEVER NEVER understand the PERSONAL attacks that so many people actually seem to take pleasure in launching on politicians.

George Bush and Al Gore are both intelligent men who love this country and truely want to do right by it and see it advance further. I am sorry, but anyone who believes otherwise is a fool. No one puts themselves through the Hell that presidential candidates do just for the perks. They both come from different perspectives and have different goals... but nevertheless, they stand united by their love for the United States and everything that it stands for. I don't like Bush much... I don't think he will make a good President and I most certainly don't agree with his agenda and platform. And that is why I will always fight him... but you won't see me going on and on about rumoured mistakes... I will rant and rave about his stand on issues like abortion, education, gun control, taxes, etc. I don't doubt for one second that he is a very good and decent man who means well. People like Snowbird, with all of their personal attacks and muckrucking, drag politics through the dirt. I did not mean that as a direct attack against Snowbird... I mean to use her as an example of what so many people out there are doing... especially the media.

all right... that's enough for now!

did anyone see the west wing last night? you know the last scene with the republican strategist? if you did see it then what the scene meant is what i am struggling and failing to say here!

Bertie
Oct. 27, 2000, 12:46 AM
Rockstar, you've got my vote

B.G.M. heidi
Oct. 27, 2000, 01:14 AM
Reading through all of these posts has been a really interesting social study of the American populace - America does seem divided among several lines:

1. Those who are bitter in life and are certain in their conviction that it's someone else's fault - welfare mothers, immigrants, drug addicts, pro-choicers, anti-choicers...

2. Those who believe stridently, offensively at times, in a party or candidate regardless of fact and truth;

3. The indifferent who don't give a damn about anything but their own comfort and welfare and haven't the interest or curiosity in actually arriving at independent and informed conclusions on political issues and candidates;

4. Then there are people like rockstar who believe that the political process can lead to benefits, value, and good for all.

I laud you rockstar for committing yourself to the political process (as faulty as it may be) and for defending that admittedly faulty process with integrity, perspective and PASSION. We do not effect change by sitting on our ass typing away on a bulletin board.

NEVER settle for the diminished role of "wife of..." The frustration will gnaw at you for the rest of your life - you are too smart, ambitious, honest, and independent to settle for such a thankless job. You posess instinctively what is lacking in this election - PASSION.

Somewhat naively and simplistically, I am hopeful that the American electorate will eventually wake up one day and, with revelatory bells and whistles, realize that passion, conviction and integrity are the values that you seek in a president - and that political decisions should not be based on whether one inhaled or not. I look forward to the day that rockstar is named a U.S. senator. The nation's first equestrian senator. How cool is that?

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

spfarm
Oct. 27, 2000, 01:27 AM
Snowbird, thank God you are out there! I'm with you all the way! Go Bush/Cheney!!!
A few questions to our liberal friends here...we are all friends aren't we?
Taxes - Why do you think it's fair to tax people at higher rates when they make more money? Why should only a select few get tax relief and not all?
Aboriton - Why should our taxes go to "Planned Parenthood" to perform abortions? Especially since there's more than one our two of us out in this world who are against it. Sure a woman can do what she wants with her body and she can have an abortion if she wants, but it should be done through private enterprise and not with government help.
Social Security - Why shouldn't we be able to keep a little more of the SS tax to put away for our retirement? It IS our money!!!
Choices - Why shouldn't parents be able to choose what school there child could go to? How many of you were bussed across your city back in the 60's and 70's only to have a school across the street where you lived?
Guns - Why do you want to take guns away from us?
OK, that's enough for a start. Have at it!!!
And remember, we're all one big happy country here!!!

pwynnnorman
Oct. 27, 2000, 06:15 AM
Aly, you go girl!

Snowbird, don't send me a letter bomb about this, but, geezum, woman--WOMAN! Are you really willing to let those relatively minor matters sway you over such things as a woman's right to choose? What happens if we lose that right? Tell me that, friend? What happens to us when we lose the freedom to go out into the world and do what we want to do, when, where and how we so choose? And what about those unwanted children? Aly makes a HUGE, HUGE, HUGE point when she asks what Bush (and other pro-lifers) plan to do about those poor kids.

You probably got up in arms when I used the term "minor" above. But given that ALL politicians (and bureaucrats, and every day people, too) are similar in that vein.

Are we forgetting the parallels between Clinton and Kennedy? What about Nixon? What's worse, after all? What REALLY matters to the people? I'm forced to NOT declare my horses as property in this state because if I did, I'd have to pay a huge amount of property taxes on them. Does that make me some awful person? The system is flawed and forces less-than-flattering behavior upon its participants--ALL of its participants.

As Aly has said, don't be fooled by spin and the angles the media chooses to pursue. If the media were responsible, it would ignore the minor stuff about who is the better orator and who's elementary school teacher thought more highly of them, yada, yada. Instead, it would focus on who is getting money from whom and what are the real differences between the candidates...and it would do so CONSTANTLY, instead of just here and there on a slow news day.

And, finally, this is a no-brainer election, really. If more people got out and voted, Gore would win hands down, with Nader coming in second simply because there are more of the poor than the rich. That isn't to say that's a GOOD thing, mind you. But it is a fact. You cannot, cannot, cannot say that Bush is the champion of the masses.

[Oh, just one more thing. I made little of this above, but to me, personally, it's extremely important: I will PUKE if Bush ends up representing this country to the world speaking like some ignorant hick. At the very least, should the Fates (and Nader) manage to get him into office, I do hope he takes lessons in diction.

To my mind, the way he presents himself verbally would be almost as embarassing to country as Clinton's affair--and the world would be snickering about it for even longer than Clinton's debacle (which, world-wide, actually had little impact and was, hard-to-believe-as-it-may-be, looked upon with amusement and even some admiration by certain chauvanistic world leaders. I don't think the rich boy who can't even speak well is going to get anywhere near the same reception.]

spfarm
Oct. 27, 2000, 07:16 AM
pwnn - First of all, I don't even think our government should be involved with the abortion issue. There shouldn't even be laws for or against it. What ticks me off about the whole issue of abortion, is that the tax payers money is given to the abortion clinics to perform these "procedures." There's not enough private enterprises out there to support abortions alone, so who better to call on for help...the Federal Government!!! So now, our government has to be everything to everybody except the God fearing MAJORITY in this country.
Two major differences in the democratic party. Remember Kennedy's speech? Something like this..."Ask NOT what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." The democratic party today is totally opposite. And the only way the democrats can survive is by offering program after program to the ones that whine the loudest. Plus, I firmly believe the the democrats are the author of "class envy".
Our Federal Government was NEVER supposed to be like it is today. And thanks to the democrats, it continues to grow.

Magnolia
Oct. 27, 2000, 07:44 AM
"True, this is a significant portion of the party, but lots of us are regular, Cap'n Crunch-eating folks with good hygeine"

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

Secondly, to the republican gal claiming that tax dollars support Planned Parenthood's abortion mill. I believe Planned Parenthood is a not for profit charity that recieves no government funding. They serve a far more broader constituency than those seeking abortions. They provide women's health services. The clinic I used to go to for a yearly, when I was a poor student gave me an exam, pap and pills for about $72.00. They did not perform abortions at that specific clinic, but would refer if needed. By far, the majority of people in that waiting room are uninsured women with the need for healthcare. I believe the doctor's are low paid, and there are many volunteers. I too think they shouldn't be funded with tax dollars (which I don't believe they are), but I sure as hell wish they didn't have to spend 1/2 their money on security measures like cameras, and on my last trip some $%#hole asked me not to kill my baby, and I was just going for a yearly exam...I'm all for free speech, but this was harassment, and worse yet, it was ignorant. Maybe tax dollars would be better spent making sure these yahoos didn't try to bomb people like me just seeking affordable healthcare.

tle
Oct. 27, 2000, 09:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by spfarm:
...So now, our government has to be everything to everybody except the God fearing MAJORITY in this country.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you're saying that only this "God fearing Majority" should just shut up, right? This country is supposed to be for ALL the people... not just the christians... or jews... or wiccans... or buddists. And THAT (your attitude) is precisely why religion doesn't belong in government.

Heather
Oct. 27, 2000, 10:10 AM
tle, you and I have had disagreements in the past, BUT


YOU GO GIRL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The notion of ANY religion being "in charge" is terrifying--but for some reason the idea of the Christian right being in charge is the most terrifying of all.

DMK
Oct. 27, 2000, 10:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bertie:
Rockstar, you've got my vote<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mine too!

Sometimes I wonder who are the "dumb" ones - the people running for election, or the people who let themselves get sucked into the cheap propaganda rather than do real research (not that getting to the bottom of these issues is by any means easy, but if you want "easy" may I suggest a totalitarian state, not a democracy /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

Magnolia
Oct. 27, 2000, 10:37 AM
I worked with 2 Christian majority people at my last job. One was very kind. He had religous passages in his office. Outside of work he was a devoted father. His wife was a housewife, and they budgeted to allow her to be such. They had a wonderful sense of family, but were quiet about their beliefs and very non-judgemental.
The other was a member of the NRA. His wife worked, even though they had kids. That paid for dad's toys. He had biblical passages too, regarding justification for materialism. He was a loud mouth about being so saved and good, because he attended church. He regularly bashed gays and hippies. He hated other religions. I think he embarassed the other Christian.
A real Christian that follows the doctrine is a kind and patient person. The fake Christians are scarey as hell, using the bible to justify their faults.
I work with a preachers wife now (a democrat). I believe that real Christians have a lot to offer. Unfortunatley, they tend to stay out of politics and stick to their churches. So please don't bash all Christians, just the #$%holes that deserve it.
Oh, and yes, separation of church and state is exceedingly important, but I see nothing wrong with advocating the 10 Commandments!

Portia
Oct. 27, 2000, 11:17 AM
I'm going to be out of the country on election day, so I'm going out today to do my early voting. And no, I'm not telling you who or what I'm voting for. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The point is to examine the issues, examine the candidates (no matter how gawd awful they may be), make up your mind, and then vote -- or keep your mouth shut for the next four years. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

tle
Oct. 27, 2000, 12:12 PM
Magnolia... ABSOLUTELY!! There are "good" and "bad" representatives in *every* religion. I have no problem with any religion per se (you shoudl see my family tree... Catholic, Mormon, Baptist Wiccan, and i think there's a jewish inlaw in there somewhere)... only with the individuals (which unfortunately bleed their personality into a "whole" picture) that try to use force, etc to get everyone to think they way they do. Which is what the radical Christian right wing has been known to do. And which G.W. has been quoted as saying (for example) in regards to the legitimacy (sp?) of Wicca as a religion -- which, fyi, he doesnt' think its a religion and the military should not honor it as such... now, how do you think Wiccans are going to fare in the military with THAT as the attitude from teh Commander in Chief?

As for the 10 Commandments... I have no problem advocating the teaching of the ideas BEHIND the commandments... but teaching strictly the commandments is teaching strictly christian doctrine. And that I do have a problem with. I would feel better if one were taught the 10 commandments along with (for example) the Wiccan Rede and other religious doctrine (which, imho, all say basically the same thing anyway... but the perspective is different). Why can't people be exposed to as many religious values as possible? Isn't that part of what religious freedom shoudl be? /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif just imho

[This message has been edited by training level eventer (edited 10-27-2000).]

Janet
Oct. 27, 2000, 12:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by spfarm:

A few questions to our liberal friends here...we are all friends aren't we?
Taxes - Why do you think it's fair to tax people at higher rates when they make more money? Why should only a select few get tax relief and not all?

Because those of us who make more can AFFORD to pay more. If my taxes go up 5% I am not going to be forced to chose between buying food and going to the doctor.

I am in the top tax bracket, but I think those in the lower tax brackets need it more than I do. Yes, it is a bit annoying when I do my taxes- I make too much for that deduction, can't take that credit, etc., but I truly think that those who can AFFORD to pay more SHOULD pay more.


Aboriton - Why should our taxes go to "Planned Parenthood" to perform abortions? Especially since there's more than one our two of us out in this world who are against it. Sure a woman can do what she wants with her body and she can have an abortion if she wants, but it should be done through private enterprise and not with government help.

AFAIK, Planned Parenthood doesn't perform abortions. It educates people on the options.

If abortions are legal, why should only rich people be allowed to have them. If you are worried about "funding" abortions, it is highly likely that a higher proportion of your health insurance premium is paying for abortions than the proportion of your taxes.
Social Security - Why shouldn't we be able to keep a little more of the SS tax to put away for our retirement? It IS our money!!!

FIRST -Social Security EXISTS as a safety net to protect (among others) people who lost all their money in the stock market crash. The whole POINT of Social Security is to be very safe, very low risk. That means it will not "grow" as much in "good times", but it won't evaporate in "bad times" the way your money in the stock market may.

Second - it isn't "your money". It was never intended as an insurance scheme. In effect you are paying your Social Security tax in order to live in the world where even the elderly who did not have the means or inclanation to save, or who made bad investment decisions are not totally destitute.

Choices - Why shouldn't parents be able to choose what school there child could go to? How many of you were bussed across your city back in the 60's and 70's only to have a school across the street where you lived?
Parents certainly CAN, and should be able to choose what schools their children go to. But the government shouldn't pay for it. Your school taxes are paid so that you live in a world in which ALL of the population receives an education. It is (IMHO) criminal to TAKE MONEY AWAY from the public education system to fund private schools.

Guns - Why do you want to take guns away from us?

I don't want to take guns away from any responsible owners. But I DO want to make sure that the criminal and the insane don't have guns. Why should it be easier to own a gun than a car?

OK, that's enough for a start. Have at it!!!
And remember, we're all one big happy country here!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

STill friends, but you DID ask.

ponyesq
Oct. 27, 2000, 01:27 PM
Well put, Janet.

Snowbird
Oct. 27, 2000, 01:48 PM
First: I used those comparisons to point out how really stupid the generalizations of people's intelligence or lack thereof are in the big scheme.

As I have many times said, to deal with the "personalities" the individuals is a waste of time and energy. I also think you should not fall for the produced line of PR patter and believe it is the gospel.

It appears to me that we are divided nationally and intellectually between those of us who believe in the individual rights which I believe our forefathers intended for this democracy and those who see the Federal Government as some sort of big daddy who will take care of us.

We have the right to pursue happiness and not the entitlement of happiness. Therefore, it seems to me that a government which rewards only those who perform as expected is being fair. For example if I pay my taxes and choose not to have children, and the government has a surplus because they underestimated the income and over taxed the populace, why should I be denied a tax refund while my neighbor who did not exercise caution and produced 5 children gets a $50,000 deduction so they can go to college?

I worked just as hard, I paid even more without the deduction for children and yet the Federal Government gets the right to choose who will benefit from the fact that they plain and simple oversharged with taxes.

As to politics, I have never had the call to be a "public servant" simply because I felt that it was not viable option since I simply do not have the talent or will power to keep my opinions a secret! I believe that equally with right to become a millionaire we also have the right to starve to death. In direct proportion to the limitation of our right to get rich is the reduction of the possibility that we might starve to death. Somewhere in between is democracy.

I do not think that a government is responsible for social engineering or the reallocation of funds from one segment of the population to another. I have believed in the right of the individual to control and master his own life since FDR. Yes, I am that old and it was he who convinced me that being a Republican meant that I did not require anyone to tell me, what to eat, how to eat it, what to wear, what to think or to require a government stamp approval on my chosen life style.

I have chosen to smoke cigarettes, I will not blame the government or the tobacco companies because I find cigarettes useful to me. I enjoy having a drink of "alcohol" at the end of the day. I don't give a rat's "****" whether you think I'm too fat or too skinny!
I believe I was given by GOD and not the government the right to live my life the way I want, to spend my years doing what I enjoy whether or not it is approved by the government and all I ask from the government is "bug out" of my life and get to what matters like keeping the highways from flooding, keep the crooks somewhere where they won't get my money.

I will choose to whom I donate my money! I will choose whom I wish to assist in their path if they need help!

As a young Republican, it was clear that those of us who were Republicans were simply positive that we would always be able to find work and support ourselves. The young Democrats on the other hand had a doubt and wanted to hedge their bets with a BIG GOVERNMENT that would be there as a safety net just incase they didn't!

Karl Marx said in his manifesto, which was brand new when I was in school that Socialism would replace Democracy when it reached the point where 50% of the society was supporting the other 50%.

Where is the incentive to be sucessful? What are the benfits if the government can decide that you have too much money and therefore don't deserve to keep it.

I rather liked a proposal a few years back that said everyone was entitled to $100,000 a year. So when you filed you tax return and you earned less the government would send you a check for the difference. That was to show we didn't need an IRS at all.

Snowbird
Oct. 27, 2000, 02:01 PM
Just exactly! what is wrong with being a "rich boy"? Why is that some reason to not vote for someone?

I think Gore is not and has never been a "poor" boy. He's been a well established part of the "old boy" network for a very long time.

OH! Yes Pwynn and what about taking it back a step on all those unwanted children..she just had to keep her legs closed and say NO! Remember we want to be responsible for what happens to our bodies!

Yes, I believe in equal pay for an equal job!
Yes I want to do what I want to do! I didn't say or do I believe that it should ever be illegal to have an abortion. What I do with my doctor is between him and me. I also don't want some bureaucrat telling me that they're sorry but I'm too old and there's no economical benefit in my having that surgery I need.

BUT! should I have to pay the bills because some girl doesn't know how to say NO! The children are innocent and I'll be happy to choose to support them if they cannot find homes.

I don't see any reason today why Social Security can't be postponed to 70 years of age. Those who are ill certainly, those who are incapable certainly whenever they need the help and whatever they need they should have. And, Social Security was set up as an Insurance plan, it was designed so that the fee withheld was the premium and that's how it became an entitlement.


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

pwynnnorman
Oct. 27, 2000, 02:39 PM
Snowbird said: "OH! Yes Pwynn and what about taking it back a step on all those unwanted children..she just had to keep her legs closed and say NO! Remember we want to be responsible for what happens to our bodies!"

Have you ever had a conversation with "her"? As a teacher, I have, and guess what? She can be pretty damn dumb. Amazingly, how-can-you-survive-in-this-world stupid. What about the simply stupid--or the mentally borderline on incompetent? Who takes care of them? What about the crack baby girls and the lead-paint eaters and the three-generations-inbred offspring? What about the mentally ill, the uneducated, the timid and will-less?

If battered woman continue to expose themselves to physical abuse due to whatever mental complexes they may have, how can you just ignore the mental complexes that causes some of these girls to spread their legs too often? I'm not excusing all of them, not by any means.

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.

I can't help look at other advanced countries and see how, yeah, they pay for in taxes and for fuel, etc., etc. Their rich aren't as rich as our rich...but their poor aren't as poor, either. It's an age-old dilemma, but I am thankful that at least there are rich Democrats. Except for gun-toters, however, I know of few poor Republicans.

[And, yes, Vik, I remember calling myself a social darwinist. But my conscience of late is having a harder and harder time maintaining that attitude. There's just so much genuine stupidity in this world. I'm finding it hard to ignore the needs of those people whose circumstances put them at a disadvantage through no fault of their own.]

woodbern
Oct. 27, 2000, 03:07 PM
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.