Bush/boys do coup/want oil prices UP!

[JesseV!!!]

Why did the US orchestrate a coup in Venazuela and immediatly cut oil production?
B/c this administration is all about high oil prices for their own gain. Commerse secretary Don Evens (formally of Tom Brown oil) set everything up for the "clan" to make LOTS of money from theit oil interests. Venazuela was keeping prices in check. They still are. Only b/c a commando rescued President Hugo Chavez.
Apache Oil is their baby. They are striking it big in Egypt but need ANWAR bad. That's not going well. They need to make it look like we need it.
This is what we get when we fall for the candidate with the most money and lies. He's been raising money from the get go ever since. Will the US repeat? It's sickening. We are pawns to an addministration with an agenda that hurts americans at the pump.
RICHARD BENNETT MEDIA
AFI Research and a leading Global Media resource for
Intelligence, Security, Defence and Conflict OSINT.
Contact afi@supanet.com Bookmark RMB-AFI Telephone
+44(0)1626 33 50 40 Dateline 14/04/2002
Washington suffers a major
reverse in Latin America

In a dramatic twist, the democratically elected President of
Venezuela has made an unexpected comeback when the US
inspired military coup plotters realized that they had seriously
miscalculated the level of his popular support and that they now
faced a major revolt by pro-Chavez supporters and troops still
loyal to the President throughout much of the country. Indeed it
is rumored that many junior and middle ranking military officers
refused to fire on Chavez supporters who stormed the
Presidential Palace on Saturday and apparently did not fully
support American interference in Venezuelan politics.
President Hugo Chavez returned to the capital, only two days
after being forced out of office by the country's military chiefs
and a widespread US special operation, following the
resignation of the interim leader Pedro Carmona, leader of the
Fedecamaras business chamber, who lost the support of a
nervous military leadership after dissolving the National
Assembly. Carmona was soon forced to reverse his decision
after armed forces chief General Efrain Vasquez said he would
only support him if the congress was restored. Carmona was
then forced to suspend the inauguration of his new cabinet.
While this was happening, police were firing water cannon and
tear gas to disperse tens of thousands of Chavez supporters
who had surrounded the presidential palace which was then
taken over by troops still loyal to Mr. Chavez.
Vice-President Diosdado Cabello was then sworn in as
president, but immediately confirmed that he was simply
waiting to return the country to his ally Mr. Chavez. An Air
Force helicopter carrying Mr. Chavez, who won an
overwhelming general election victory in 1998, landed at the
Presidential palace on Sunday morning after bringing him from a
Caribbean island where he had been illegally detained. He is
expected to be sworn back into office within the hour, while in
other actions several television stations in Caracas have been
taken over by supporters of Mr. Chavez and pro-Chavez
crowds have gathered in Caracas and other Venezuelan cities.
Will the military and their US supporters try again?

Leaders from other Latin American countries had quickly called
meetings to discuss the situation in Venezuela and most are
believed not to have recognized the military inspired change of
government, although remaining critical of Mr. Chavez and his
controversial policies, most Latin American leaders do not
want to set a precedent that would risk returning to the
decades of US backed right-wing military takeovers and brutal
dictatorships. What is still not clear is whether the Chief of the
Armed Forces, General Efrain Vasquez will now back the
return of Mr. Chavez, resign or simply wait for another
opportunity to stage a more successful and probably more
violent coup d'etat.
Whatever Washington might be saying this morning, this return
to power of a democratically elected, but anti-US leader is a
major embarrassment and a potential threat to Washington's
policy throughout Latin America. The United States desperately
wanted his removal and in a major covert operation gave
considerable assistance to the military plotters. Chavez has
close links to Cuba, Iraq and a number of other states openly
on Washington's 'hit-list', even more importantly he controls the
worlds 4th largest oil reserve and could prove a valuable ally to
Saddam Hussein. Just how far Chavez will feel able to go in
openly challenging Washington is uncertain, and the possible
reaction of the Venezuelan military and their United States
supporters leaves this divided nation dangerously on the edge
of outright civil war.

[Tom]

Please be advised, the Tom Brown mentioned here IS NOT me.
~G~

Tom

[superfecta]

Originally posted by Tom
Please be advised, the Tom Brown mentioned here IS NOT me.
~G~

Tom Yeah, right Mr.Kentucky Derby winner is a presidential conspiracy....:) Unless Jesse V! is gonna get in his black helicopter and do something about high oil prices,I think I will try to focus on winning enough money to pay for $1.25 a gallon gas.But thats just me.

[JesseV!!!]

Too many Americans turn the other cheek, don't want to know or get involved.
How truely a sad bunch we've become...

[Lefty]

Jesse, guess you'd rather have Al Gore who would just as soon have the govt decide what you can ride in all in the name of the environment. So sick and tired of hearing how Bush only for the oil guys. I'm just damn glad to have a Prez and VP who understand energy and how to get it.
Did you ever go to an Earth Day celebration after it's over? What a mess of the evironment those people leave.

[boxcar]

Hey, Lefty, if it was left to the environmentalist whackos, they'd have us regress back to the horse and buggy days. But then the animal rights nuts would come along and cry foul on behalf of the poor horses. So between both groups, we'd wind up walking everywhere...until the latter group one day caught on to the fact that we were maiming and killing too many ants and other creepy crawlies by walking on them. Geesh, what a pickle we'd be in then...

Boxcar

[Lefty]

Right, Boxcar and then they'd say we need a few trillion to build above ground walkways so as not to kill the ants and others and then...

[JesseV!!!]

Lefty,
"Jesse, guess you'd rather have Al Gore who would just as soon have the govt decide what you can ride in all in the name of the environment. So sick and tired of hearing how Bush only for the oil guys. I'm just damn glad to have a Prez and VP who understand energy and how to get it. Did you ever go to an Earth Day celebration after it's over? What a mess of the environment those people leave."
___________________________________________
Now I don't want to go off on a rant but...

You haven't been paying very good attention! I would rather have had the Americans wise up, think straight and collectively and voted for John McCain. A "reformer". Instead of sticking with their "gang" of the destructive far leftists and rightists...Letting your "party" dictate who you should vote for via fund raising from special interests. Bush has been raising money weekly since he took office. A new record I believe! The left voters did what they were told by guys like trent lott. "Vote for G.W.".

It's not so much the air we breath as it is the price of gas we have to pay so a bunch of naive brats that NEED to follow a trend and drive gas hogs, b/c it's "their right" to and not use an ounce of common sense, get their priorities straight and conserve fuel.
Don't forget, we have rights but more importantly, we have duties.

We have a DUTY to get off of this insane idea that we can plow through life while we enable the stinking rich use the office of the prez to keep us in our places. Much like they do in arabia. Keep them dumb, uninformed and separated. Don't allow a 3rd party to intervene. They may realize what we are doing!

We also have a Duty to destroy the 2 party system for our own well being. We have a DUTY to meet in the middle and stop putting so much rediculous spin on issues like you did with the "What a mess of the environment those people leave." crack. I'm independent and wise enough to know that people were hired to go in and clean up after a rally.
I'm so sick of the 2 parties slinging this sort of rhetoric. It's frightening that people really think that way. Why can't we use common sense and foresight, get our collective act together and cause the changes that we need through our votes. If we scream for reform, reformers will come out from the woodwork and run. It's up to us.

Of course, that's just my opinion. You may think I'm wrong.

JesseV!!!....

[Lefty]

Yes, Jesse, I do think you are wrong. Mcain not a reformer. He was involved in the Keating 5 and he shouts about campaign finance reform which is ridiculous. The special interests are us, such as NRA, who belongs to NRA, millions of americans who want their voices heard and it takes money. And that's just one group. While Mcain was shouting about campain finance reform he kept accepting money himself. He wouldn't take the "point."
Meanwhile the Demos who are shouting the same thing have already made plans to circumvent any new laws in this area that they make.
At least Bush not getting money from China and drug dealers and Buddhist Monks.
We'll get a 3rd party when enough people vote for one; but what's that got to do with Mcain? He's a Repulican although he acts more like a Democrat.

[JesseV!!!]

Originally posted by Lefty
Yes, Jesse, I do think you are wrong. Mcain not a reformer. He was involved in the Keating 5 and he shouts about campaign finance <"reform"> which is ridiculous. The special interests are us, such as NRA, who belongs to NRA, millions of americans who want their voices heard and it takes money. And that's just one group. While Mcain was shouting about campaign finance reform he kept accepting money himself. He wouldn't take the "point."
Meanwhile the Demos who are shouting the same thing have already made plans to circumvent any new laws in this area that they make.
At least Bush not getting money from China and drug dealers and Buddhist Monks.
We'll get a 3rd party when enough people vote for one; but what's that got to do with Mcain? He's a Republican although he acts more like a Democrat.

What's wrong with that?

Do you think I'm wrong b/c you think we can't have a 3rd party AND the NRA?
Of course McCain kept taking money! He was just staying in the only game there is. He kept away from political suicide.
I think we have to get unstuck from the extremes of the 2 parties. Stop viewing them as gangs that we must choose from and obide by. When we get that through our heads, we can elect a 3rd party. Doesn't the situation you describe above bother you? The whole game they play in D.C. is selfish and self serving. We are secondary to the perks and their self installed pensions. Look at how bad Condit wanted to stay in office. No amount of humiliation was too much for him, in order to keep that! Made me sick.

You know what programs I despise the most? Ones like Cross Fire and Hanity & Combs.
It drives me nuts to see 2 grown men, arguing from the far edge of both sides, refusing to meet, make sense and compromise. Year after year we support that kind of program. It's nuts!
Maybe I'm a bit on edge with all the political ads on TV. One idiot here wants to tax alcohol and cigarettes more for the schools! What's fair about that? The Gov. keeps these products that are highly addictive and then uses them for monies that they can't manage in the 1st place. Another one says that 80% of the school funding is wasted in the bureaucracy and he is going to "work/fight" to get that money to the class room! Pullease! How much proof do we need to know that it will never happen with this political structure? I've been hearing the same promises for, 25 years! SOS!!!
It's way past due...

[Lefty]

Jesse, I agree with you about taxing so called "killer products" and at the same time keep them legal. The govt. knows we balk at more income tax so they extort money from big tobacco, and sin tax them and what's next. Hell, they're talking about adding more tax on soft drinks cause the "kiddies" drink too many and at the same time they're provided in the schools. Hell, there wasn't any soft drinks and junk food in the schools when I was a kid.
I don't think a third party is the answer. I think electing more of those "rightwingers" you don't like is the answer. They are for tort reform, tax reform and smaller govt. But if we don't elect enough of 'em we are going to get more and more liberalism and it's going to be harder and harder to weed the populice off of it.
Hell, Bush has already comprimised his sox off with these guys cause we don't have enough of our guys in there.

[boxcar]

Originally posted by JesseV!!!

>>
You haven't been paying very good attention! I would rather have had the Americans wise up, think straight and collectively and voted for John McCain. A "reformer". Instead of sticking with their "gang" of the destructive far leftists and rightists...
>>

Hey, Jesse, permit me to ask you something: Would you rattle off for us several names of congress critters who you consider to be "far leftists"?

Thanks,
Boxcar

[JesseV!!!]

Originally posted by boxcar
Originally posted by JesseV!!!

>>
You haven't been paying very good attention! I would rather have had the Americans wise up, think straight and collectively and voted for John McCain. A "reformer". Instead of sticking with their "gang" of the destructive far leftists and rightists...
>>

Hey, Jesse, permit me to ask you something: Would you rattle off for us several names of congress critters who you consider to be "far leftists"?

Thanks,
Boxcar

No, I'm not a wolf in sheeps clothing. For the record, let's just say I think that about 80% are extreme leftists. Same with the right. They pull the same crap. Abandoning common sense for the sake of their gang. What ever one party thinks, the other automatically says it's wrong.

Here in Oregon, The Dems want to end clear cutting of trees. The Reps want to cut them all. I want them to take every 2nd or 3rd one. No one wants to meet in the middle! It's insane!

In Klamath Falls, the Dems kept the farmers from the water to save sucker fish! Turned out to be a mistake. A big one. The farmers went a whole year without a crop! It's insane!!

Come on. We all should see that both parties breed insanity, for the lack of a better word.
Look at this crap!

Mich. Dems Say Some Candidates Fake


Email this Story

05/22/2002 10:09 AM EDT

By AMY FRANKLIN

LANSING, Mich. (AP) - The Michigan Democratic Party is
accusing state Republican leaders of planting fake Democratic
candidates in eight Senate races to force legitimate Democrats into
primary contests.

The four public notaries who certified the personal information of the
eight candidates work for two Republican state senators, the
Republican Senate policy staff and the Michigan Republican Party.

State Democratic Party chairman Mark Brewer filed a complaint
Tuesday with the state Elections Bureau against all eight candidates
and the four notaries. The complaint asks the Board of State
Canvassers not to certify the candidates for the Aug. 6 primary
ballot. It also asks for an investigation into whether the candidates or
the notaries committed perjury by signing affidavits they knew were
false.

"They don't have to be a member of the Democratic Party, but there
has to be evidence that they are a Democrat," Brewer said, adding
that none of the candidates has ever been a party member or
worked with the party.

State GOP officials called the Democrats' allegations wild and
reckless.

"After filing a lackluster crop of candidates, Democrats are back to
their 'Hail Mary' strategy of lobbing baseless accusations in the
media," GOP chairman Rusty Hills said in a written statement.

If the Board of Canvassers investigates and finds wrongdoing, it
can turn the case over to the county prosecutor or the attorney
general. A perjury conviction carries a maximum $1,000 fine and up
to five years in prison.

The candidates listed in the complaint are: Julie Whalen, Randall
Smith, Wade Bielby, Clarence Lackowski, James Shepley, Ranae
Gallagher, Dan Geiersbach and Denise Kluka.

Whalen said she is not a dues-paying member of the Democratic
Party but relates more to the Democrats than the GOP. She said
she is not actively campaigning and considers herself a "symbolic"
candidate.

Smith would say only that he recently became a Democrat and has
not been doing much campaigning.

The other candidates did not immediately return calls.

The complaint also named public notaries Melinda Jones, Marilyn
Plummer, Michael Gallagher and Mike Severino. None of the
notaries immediately returned calls.

This is what the 2 parties breed!

Too bad we got off of the original subject of the Bush admin. being involved in the coup of a democratically elected prez to drive up oil prices. They are still cuddling with the Saudis for the sake of their businesses. As I said, We are secondary.

Too bad that all of this effort is for nothing. Just chit chat between a few, when the whole country should be up in arms.

Lefty is going to keep driving his gas hog and righty is going to continue to cut us off from our lands. I'm stuck in the middle.

JesseV!!!

[so.cal.fan]

I'd vote for you, Jesse V, if I lived in Oregon, and you ran for a public office!
:)

[JesseV!!!]

Originally posted by so.cal.fan
I'd vote for you, Jesse V, if I lived in Oregon, and you ran for a public office!
:)

Thanx SCF. I would if this damned diabetes didn't tax my energy so much. I tire badly just trying to make my case! I'm so damned mad at our gov. and the people that support it. Not to mention the candidates we have to choose from. They all have "LIFER" written all over their phoney lines. When will people get tired of it and come together?

Uh oh Gary condit! Bet your nervous now! Remains found in DC park...

JesseV!!!

[so.cal.fan]

Do you think he may have done it, Jesse V ?
It really is awful when we have to suspect our elected officials of MURDER??????
We all know they are CROOKS and BUMS, we have come to expect that, but gosh..............:eek:

[Tom]

Gary Con-did-it. ~G~
Murder? Remember Vin Foster? Wasn't he murdered?

[Lefty]

Foster was declared a suicide although the gun found in the wrong hand and only, for some strange reason, investigated by the park police.

[boxcar]

Posted by JesseV!!!

>>
No, I'm not a wolf in sheeps clothing. For the record, let's just say I think that about 80% are extreme leftists. Same with the right.
>>

What do wolves in sheepskins have to do with my straightforward question?

But if you think your man Swabdadecks McCain is so different, such a hotshot "reformer", go check his voting record out. It's no coincidence at all that he votes right along with the Libs on most issues, and has co-sponsored many bills with the Dems. For me that says everything, since actions speak volumes. In fact, if he didn't have that little "R" after his name, most would undoubtedly mistake him for a card-carryin', registered DemRat.

Boxcar

[JesseV!!!]

"But if you think your man Swabdadecks McCain is so different, such a hotshot "reformer", go check his voting record out. It's no coincidence at all that he votes right along with the Libs on most issues, and has co-sponsored many bills with the Dems. For me that says everything, since actions speak volumes. In fact, if he didn't have that little "R" after his name, most would undoubtedly mistake him for a card-carryin', registered DemRat."

Sorry BC Didn't really mean to get touchy but...

Exactly! He doesn't lean to the far right. He had to make a choice between the two evils and he chose R. Choosing any other party has proven to be political suicide. He's just doing what he needs to, to stay in the race. Does that mean that he's a traitor or something? Because he's independent enough, he gives you the impression he's a plant?

Let me tell you why I have a beef with the far right.

My house is assessed at 95k. It has a manicured lawn, rhododendrons, fruit trees, a pond, new paint...pretty nice. My neighbor to the E. is even nicer.
To the W. is Ed Sanford. A 50' wide lot with an open pole barn full of very old, useless junk. Along the front, right on the 1 1/2 lane, dead end street, is an old, rotting contractors trailer, a moldy, old 25' boat that will never float again, a moldy log truck that will never run again, with broken windows that houses a stray tom cat, a van, crammed with more junk, a dead T-bird that's 2' on the street, a full bronco, a full sized dodge pickup with a giant fried generator that keeps him from driving it and his son's Dodge p/u that won't fit on the property...sigh...We have a well that we use on the lawn and shrubs. His daughter couldn't believe that we used it. Ed Sanford filled his with assorted garbage!! Contaminating our well water. The local, right, DEQ sighted him but we don't really think he cleaned it up. Our DEQ has shown to be pro pollution and does no follow ups.
My point is, the houses on my small street have proven to be worth 10% to 15% less b/c of his eye sore. People interested in other, nice houses for sale have stated they couldn't live near it.
The far right says he has a right to do with his property as he pleases.
I say he has no right to devalue every ones property or contaminate our water. He has a duty to his neighbors to be presentable or hide it behind a fence. Just as Americans have a duty to behave as civilized and considerate people.
I also think that collecting useless junk is a syndrome that needs attention and curing.
Am I wrong? He's having a little trouble stopping.

[so.cal.fan]

Jesse V:
EXACTLY right!!!!!
Please move to Sierra Madre! We need you here.

[boxcar]

I wrote:

"But if you think your man Swabdadecks McCain is so different, such a hotshot "reformer", go check his voting record out. It's no coincidence at all that he votes right along with the Libs on most issues, and has co-sponsored many bills with the Dems. For me that says everything, since actions speak volumes. In fact, if he didn't have that little "R" after his name, most would undoubtedly mistake him for a card-carryin', registered DemRat."

JesseV replied with:

>>
Sorry BC Didn't really mean to get touchy but...

Exactly! He doesn't lean to the far right.
>>

Exactly! He leans to the far left! His voting record attests to this fact.

>>
He had to make a choice between the two evils and he chose R. Choosing any other party has proven to be political suicide.
>>

Well then, I gotta ask ya: Since his voting record clearly indicates that he's in bed with the Dems, why hasn't he switched allegiances? How would it be "political suicide" for him to switch parties? He certainly wouldn't lose any of his hardcore constituents, as they obviously keep voting him in office and approve of his left wing leanings.

With respect to your neighbor and the dismal state of his property, including his polluted well, I agree wholeheartedly with you that he should grow up and start acting more like a resposible and considerate citizen and neighbor...BUT by the same token everyone in a free socieity also has the right to behave like a moron, if he or she so chooses -- even when such behavior might have some residual effect upon others.

What have you and your other responsibly-minded neighbors done to try to get this ingrate to change his ways? Perhaps a group visit to him personally would be in order. Nothing like exerting a little peer pressure.

Or have you and your negighbors considered banning together to buy the guy out? Make him an offer to see if he'll sell. If he sells, then you and your neighbors could work together to fix up the property and sell it.

Make this a political issue in your town or county, if you feel so inclined. Since you're _elected_ officials aren't willing to act (perhaps because by law they can't), lobby for a change of law and/or officials. (Although...if you were really interested in tight controls and regulations before you bought your home, why didn't you buy something in an area with a homeowner's association?)

And finally I must ask this: What condition was his property in before you bought your house? If it was rundown before you bought, why did you buy in that neighborhood? The cardinal rule in buying a house is area, area, area. IF...notice I said "IF"...you bought when his property was already rundown, then you must assume some responsibilty for the devaluation of your home. On the other hand, if his property became an eyesore at some point in time after you bought, then just as surely you're absolved of any responsiblity.

Boxcar

[JesseV!!!]

Well then, I gotta ask ya: Since his voting record clearly indicates that he's in bed with the Dems, why hasn't he switched allegiances? How would it be "political suicide" for him to switch parties? He certainly wouldn't lose any of his hardcore constituents, as they obviously keep voting him in office and approve of his left wing leanings.

I said any other party than R or D. You make him out to be a stone liberal. I expect that kind of analogy from the FAAAr right. lol Gotta go by the book! Stick with the gang.

With respect to your neighbor and the dismal state of his property, including his polluted well, I agree wholeheartedly with you that he should grow up and start acting more like a responsible and considerate citizen and neighbor...BUT by the same token everyone in a free society also has the right to behave like a moron, if he or she so chooses -- even when such behavior might have some residual effect upon others.

YOU DO!!! That kind of thinking is what blows my mind. Morons vs. Civilians, what a country!

What have you and your other responsibly-minded neighbors done to try to get this ingrate to change his ways? Perhaps a group visit to him personally would be in order. Nothing like exerting a little peer pressure.

I guess if we were a family, we WOULD have an "intervention".

Or have you and your neighbors considered banning together to buy the guy out? Make him an offer to see if he'll sell. If he sells, then you and your neighbors could work together to fix up the property and sell it.

Why in the hell should living next to such a sick b-st-rd be such a burden on Innocent folks?

Make this a political issue in your town or county, if you feel so inclined. Since you're _elected_ officials aren't willing to act (perhaps because by law they can't), lobby for a change of law and/or officials. (Although...if you were really interested in tight controls and regulations before you bought your home, why didn't you buy something in an area with a homeowner's association?)

We were here first. There is a nuisance abatement law with no officer to enforce it. I'm convinced that our two Dem Commissioners are Rep-ulsive plants.

And finally I must ask this: What condition was his property in before you bought your house? If it was rundown before you bought, why did you buy in that neighborhood? The cardinal rule in buying a house is area, area, area. IF...notice I said "IF"...you bought when his property was already rundown, then you must assume some responsibility for the devaluation of your home. On the other hand, if his property became an eyesore at some point in time after you bought, then just as surely you're absolved of any responsibility.

It was a community hall, then his uncle moved in and fixed it up even nicer. When Ed Sanford moved in, he drove a log truck and let the weeds take over. When he quit, he covered the weeds with junk.
I have done nothing but improve my property. All for nothing but pride.

This is just like Cross Fire. Pitting Americans against Americans! Keeping the parties separated as far as possible.

It's really sad to think that people are that different, when we're really not.

This is endless, tiring and unproductive. We all have to continuously ask our selves, am I part of the problem or the solution? I know where I stand.

I'll be gone for a bit now. I have to try to uproot our 2 fake Dem. commissioners in the next election.

JesseV!!!

[Lefty]

Yeah, the far right and i guess that includes me we are a nutty bunch. We believe in Personal Responsibility and not a 100 laws to take care of every situation. we are nuts aren't we?
I think Boxcar gave you some great solutions to your neighbor problem but you want some legislation to take care of him. But prob. is once legislation gets in place no common sense goes with it. Then before you know it, these same lawmakers decide YOU are doing something at YOUR house they don't like. Maybe your car is 5 yrs old or they don't like a boat in your driveway...

[boxcar]

Lefty, you beat me to it. You took the words out of my mouth. Jesse's solution is typical liberal thinking, i.e the governement needs to step in and write legilsation for every problem -- to take control of every aspect of our lives. Jesse's solution speaks very well to a totolitarian state. That kind of goverment does precisely what Jesse is proposing.

Hey, Jesse, have you considered moving to Cuba? At least the weather's pretty nice.

Boxcar

[Lefty]

Boxcar, don't forget those great Cuban cigars. I don't smoke but gosh they sound so good. Maybe Jesse will let us know if they live up to expectations.

[so.cal.fan]

Come on you guys!
There are few enviromentalists in Cuba!
If it were not for folks like Jesse V, there would be no balance.
You keep sticking up for what you believe in, Jesse V.
Lefty and Boxcar sure do have a right to their opinion, that's cool.
Balance, you guys. I think that is what JV is trying to stress?;)

[Lefty]

Jesse needs no translator. He's a moderate. Can you name me one great accomplishment by some great moderate?
If you stand in the middle of the road you will surely be run over.

[so.cal.fan]

OR.....you can see the truck coming BEFORE it hits you!
Okay, you guys.......someone has to be the VOICE OF REASON on this section of the forum.......it's a tough job, but Jesse V and I will try to do the best we can.....LOL
Everyone have a great weekend, snare some good ones, the Rush Limbaugh show will get by without you.:D :D :D

[boxcar]

Posted by so.cal.fan:

>>
Come on you guys!
There are few enviromentalists in Cuba!
>>

Do you know if on balance, they are balanced, or are the like their extremist whacko brethren here in this country?

>>
If it were not for folks like Jesse V, there would be no balance.
You keep sticking up for what you believe in, Jesse V.
Lefty and Boxcar sure do have a right to their opinion, that's cool.
Balance, you guys. I think that is what JV is trying to stress?;)
>>

I have no qualms with Jesse sharing his views. All I took issue with was his rather extremist solution for dealing with his neighbor.

What Jesse doesn't seem to understand is that when he (and people like him) always look and run to Nanny Government to solve problems in the hopes that they'll pass more laws, they unwittingly relinquish more and more of their _own_ freedoms and liberties.

Citizens in an open and free socieity (in contradistinction from a totolitarian state or dictatorship government, etc.) do in fact have a _right_ to behave as jerks if they so choose. Jesse should not expect the goverment to legislate solutions for every kind of problem or inconvenient situation we will encounter in our lives -- legislation that would be designed to get universal conformity to one standard.

This is why I recommended a solution of homeowners' associations to Jesse. Unfortunately, it's a little late for him. He should have thought of this viable option _before_ he bought where he did, but evidently his rather _unrealistic_ world view precluded any chance of him considering this _preemptinve_ solution beforehand. Just look at Jesse's reaction when I told him that his neighbor has a right to act like a moron if he wants to:

>>
YOU DO!!! That kind of thinking is what blows my mind.
>>

But why!? All people aren't molded from the same cookie cutter.

And again when I suggested that he and the rest of his neighbors ban together to discuss the possiblity of buying the guy out, fixing up the property and reselling the house, Jesse wrote:

>>
Why in the hell should living next to such a sick b-st-rd be such a burden on Innocent folks?
>>

You see the dynamics of what is really going on here? Jesse thinks of himself as a VICTIM! He hasn't given one thought to the fact that even though the guy is behaving irresponsibly -- that he pretty much has a right to do what he wants on his own property. Sure, I'd even opine that Jesse's neighbor probably does have a MORAL obligation to be more considerate of his neighbors. But should we expect the government to step into every single aspect of our lives and legilslate what someone else or some group thinks is morally right!?

Suppose some "fundamentalist" Christians in an town got all up in arms over the fact that most of their neighbors were "ungodly" types, and tried to get laws passed that for starters would require everyone living in that town to attend church services on Sunday -- the "Lord's Day". Could they not also take the same position that Jesse has!? Could they not argue: Why should God-fearing, law-abiding, commandments-keeping, God-loving people be subjected to all that immoral, ungodly behavior around them? Why should good, decent, innocent people have to suffer through all that immoral conduct?

Extreme analogy? Only on the surface! The only difference between Jesse's solution is that the problem and solution are _seemingly_ much more "innocuous" -- because Jesse's seemingly minor headaches with his neighbor and all the other little headaches and inconveniences that people must suffer through and bear with in a free society are very being "solved" by Nanny Goverment_incrementally_. In other words, we're having our Freedoms pulled out from under us, not in huge swoops (as would be with my hypothetical) but ever so slowly -- so slowly to where it's almost imperceptible.

But having said this, the socialists in this country are making great headway -- in fact, they're getting bolder and bolder in terms of legilsating their brand of morality.

Laws have been passed, for example, outlawing any further use of Indian (oops, 'scuse me, I meant Native American) names for sports teams because it's "offensive" to a few Redmen.

A black man (I believe some state legislator) is trying to get a law passed that would outlaw the use of the "N" word -- a derragotory term very often used, incidentally, by blacks themselves -- ironically. Why because it's offensive, making it morally wrong.

So, my analogy is not as far fetched as it might seem at first blush, is it?

Boxcar

[JesseV!!!]

Originally posted by boxcar
Lefty, you beat me to it. You took the words out of my mouth. Jesse's solution is typical liberal thinking, i.e the governement needs to step in and write legilsation for every problem -- to take control of every aspect of our lives. Jesse's solution speaks very well to a totolitarian state. That kind of goverment does precisely what Jesse is proposing.

Hey, Jesse, have you considered moving to Cuba? At least the weather's pretty nice.

Boxcar

Again, there is a law against people here using their yard for a junk yard. It's supposed to protect us from extreme right wingers like the 2 of you.

BTW...What party are you 2 affiliated with? I haven't seen one candidate stand up and shout no more laws! Smaller Gov!!! Free for all!...You don't seem to have a party at all. G.W. is making more laws. Gov. is still growing and always will be. Where does that leave your faction? Either of you even acknowledge the corruption pointed out in this thread! Do you wear colored bandanas? Does your gang have a name? Are you inside a militant compound?
Would you like to get back to the horse, buggy and lynching days?
That's the impression you leave. It's a dead end guys. America will survive in spite of a few radicals philosophies.
Cary on with the nonsense. Your gang is listening.

[boxcar]

JesseV wrote:!!!:

>>
Again, there is a law against people here using their yard for a junk yard.
>>

Well, if there is a law in your community and the municipality, township, county or whatever isn't enforcing it, why haven't you and your neighbors hired a good mouthpiece to file a lawsuit against the town and against your "junkyard" neighbor?

>>
It's supposed to protect us from extreme right wingers like the 2 of you.
>>

Well, for your info, this "extreme right winger" keeps his property in pristine condition. You'd love having me for a neighbor.

>>
BTW...What party are you 2 affiliated with?
>>

Why are left wingers, such as yourself, frequently so incapable of thinking outside the box? Is there a law that says I must below to some "party"?

>>
I haven't seen one candidate stand up and shout no more laws! Smaller Gov!!!

Neither have I, and it's disturbing. Just as disturbing as seeing no politician take a firm stand against runaway spending.

>>
Free for all!...
>>

I never advocated a " free for all" I'm not into anarchy. But by the same token, I'm not into the government intruding into and controlling virtually every aspect of my life. I like being my own "control freak", thank you.

>>
You don't seem to have a party at all.
>>

We have them occassionally -- usually around the holiday season, some birthdays, etc.

>>
G.W. is making more laws.
>>

Bush is a schizo, double-talking jerk.

>>
Gov. is still growing and always will be.
>>

So, what's your beef then? Before long some Goverment Nanny will be over to your house tucking you in every night. What a security blanket you'll have then.


>>
Where does that leave your faction?
>>

I guess when things get really bad, we'll move to Tahiti.

>>
Either of you even acknowledge the corruption pointed out in this thread!
>>

I question the validity of the article, especially since the Liberals in Congress haven't hopped all over it. After all, they're desperately seeking an issue to run on against Bush. In fact, they're so desperate Dasshole claimed ignorance of the "shadow goverment", even though he was taken to one of the secret facilities before 9/11. And again, the lying sack of horse manure claimed that Congress didn't have the terrorist intelligence info that the WH did prior to 9/11, even though one of his very own -- DemRat Sen. Grahm (the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee) revealed that his committee had the SAME intelligence reports as the WH!

Do you wear colored bandanas?
>>

Nooo..but would dark shades count?

>>
Does your gang have a name?
>>

Jive Five of Flatbush.

>>
Are you inside a militant compound?
>>

Right now I'm outside the jailhouse, waiting for my compadres to be freed on bail.

>>
Would you like to get back to the horse, buggy and lynching days?
>>

Wouldn't mind seeing lynching make a come back, as long as it was done all legal like.

As far as the horse n' buggy days, your whacko environmentalist pals wouldn't object at all.

>>
That's the impression you leave.
>>

Your imagination is overwrought.

>>
It's a dead end guys. America will survive in spite of a few radicals philosophies.
>>

Yeah, America may survive all right -- but not in any form that will resemble what the framers of the Constitution had in mind.

>>
Cary on with the nonsense. Your gang is listening.
>>

Well...now they will. They just got out of the clink, and we're re going to celebrate their freedom. I'm taking them all to a big party.

Boxcar

[Lefty]

I'm a Republican, Jesse; a recognized political party. Unfortunately, the left has so inundated people with what they think are "freebies" such as the outlandish Medicare and Social Security System, it's damn hard to wean them. The Republicans are far from perfect but best we have and will institute fewer laws than the Demos. Oh, and we got a tax cut, you have togo back to JFK to see the last tax cut by the Demos. No bandana but I wear a cap and I know which way the "bill" is supposed to point.
Quit whining about your neighbor and confront the SOB, show some moxy and quit expecting someone to do it for you.
Later gang.

[boxcar]

>>
Quit whining about your neighbor and confront the SOB, show some moxy and quit expecting someone to do it for you.
>>

Ha, ha. He won't do it, though, because he thinks that is a right wing extremist idea. (Geesh...wonder what he'd think if one of us suggested he go over there and off the guy!) Values such as self-reliance, responsibility, resourcefullness and ingenuity all find their roots in some extreme, radical right wing philosophy, according to Jesse. It's far easier for him to sit and and whine over his keyboard about being a victim! It's the popular American Leftist Way.

Boxcar

[Rick]

Having, over the years, voted for members of both parties, I'm still totally confused as to why people would associate a set of principles with one party or the other when there have been so many contradictions. Both Republicans and Democrats have been associated with squandering money as long as I can remember.

Some people worry about politician's positions on things that they can't really affect that much. Let's take abortion, on which I take a position that is somewhere in the middle. The composition of the Supreme Court would be a relevant thing in this regard because they interpret the Constitution. Since the President appoints the Justices with the advice and consest of Congress, if you have a strong opinion on that issue you should worry about what the President's views are mostly, but only a little about what your Congressman thinks.

If you're a "conservative" or "liberal" you still have to decide on what issues you'll apply that label to. Fiscally conservative doesn't mean socially conservative. Although there are people who have totally incompatible political philosophies, such as an anarchist who also wants to be on welfare, most people have a somewhat rational combination of views that doesn't fit nicely into any political party.

The only thing I know for sure is that I won't be voting for anyone from either party who opposes anything strictly on the principle that it was something associated with the other party. He (or she) will have to convince me that he has our best interests in mind rather than mindlessly supporting his party's political platform.

[so.cal.fan]

Well said, Rick.

[Lefty]

Oh, Rick, it's crap. you can't be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. It doesn't work, rick. Socoially liberal means spending big bucks on prgms to help people who basically won't help themselves and think someone else(taxpayers)owe them something. So if you spend the big bucks on these prgms there goes the fiscally conservative.

[boxcar]

Lefty wrote:

>>
Oh, Rick, it's crap. you can't be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. It doesn't work, rick. Socoially liberal means spending big bucks on prgms to help people who basically won't help themselves and think someone else(taxpayers)owe them something. So if you spend the big bucks on these prgms there goes the fiscally conservative.
>>

What!? You mean to tell me that my Action Hero Schwarzzzeneggar has been jerkin' my chain all these years? Man..if you can't trust your Action Hero, who can you trust?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Rick wrote:

>>
The only thing I know for sure is that I won't be voting for anyone from either party who opposes anything strictly on the principle that it was something associated with the other party. He (or she) will have to convince me that he has our best interests in mind rather than mindlessly supporting his party's political platform.
>>

Spoken by the Eternal Optimist! Forgive my cynicism, but when was the last time you saw or listened to a politician who had _our_ best interests at heart? Personally, I believe our political system is thoroughly corrupt. The only thing the vast majority of politicos know how to do well is lie, cheat and steal for the purpose of achieving or maintaning political fame, fortune and power. Here is a great recent case in point.

Remember a few weeks ago when the Dunderhead in the WH told Americans that drilling in ANWR was _necessary_ to preserve our "national security"? But what did the yo-yos in the Senate do? Vote it down! Instead of someone in the Senate standing up and showing some inkling of leadership, a modicum of interest in the security of Americans by trying to formulate a comprehensive energy package and tying in ANWR drilling with it, they just shot ANWR down, and basically left us all vulnerable to the whims and fancies of our enemies from whom we're importing the stuff. Now fast forward to just yesterday, if you will.

Yesterday Dunderhead told Americans, Congress and his bro in Florida that the government will consider buying up all the oil and natural gas leases from the oil companies, which would effectively shut the door on any drilling in the Gulf of Mexico -- the very place which many geological experts believe contains the richest oil reserves in the entire world -- located right in our own backyard. But of course, Dunderhead's kid brother down in the Swamplands doesn't want any drilling because he knows too many Floridians and tourist-related businesses are dead set against it, and if Jebular were to make the push for oil drilling in the Gulf, he could kiss his chances of reelection bye-bye.

Some semi-astute reporter asked Anne Richardson yesterday about Dunderhead's contradictory stance on oil drilling. He basically asked why was it okay to drill in Alaska, but not okay in the Gulf. The answer she gave was predictable and true enough as far as it went. She basically replied that the moose, polar bears and Eskimos were all in favor of drilling up in the Frozen Tundra -- but that the folks down in Gatorland were dead set against it.

But you see...the reporter missed the mark with his question -- or at least missed the golden opportunity to follow up with the real zinger -- with a question that dealt with the major reason Bush wanted to drill in first place, i.e. for our
"national security"! You see, Annie's reply totally begged the question. What I would have followed up with is a question along these lines:

"'Scuse me Mizz Annie, but does this mean, then, that people's political desires on this oil drilling issue are what really determine when our national security is at stake!? In the case of the Alaskans, it was first and foremost on the Prez's mind, but in the case of the Floridians and the Prez's kid brother, national security is no longer an issue now?"

I believe, Rick, that I would give up 3/4 of what I own -- 3/4 of my net worth if I could find just one honest politician -- someone who had the capacity to think of someone other than him or herself -- someone who truly had American's interest at heart first and foremost. Personally, I believe we'd see Ara[b]fat strap a bomb on himself and embark on a suicide mission inside Israel before we'll see an American politician with a pure, guileless heart.

Boxcar

[JesseV!!!]

So, what's your beef then? Before long some Government Nanny will be over to your house tucking you in every night. What a security blanket you'll have then.
~~~~~~~~~~
So, you're really just busting my ballz, right BC? b/c you really can't believe that!

>> Where does that leave your faction? >>

I guess when things get really bad, we'll move to Tahiti.
~~~~~~~~~~
Barbados is nice I hear.

>> Either of you even acknowledge the corruption pointed out in this thread! >>

I question the validity of the article, especially since the Liberals in Congress haven't hopped all over it. After all, they're desperately seeking an issue to run on against Bush. In fact, they're so desperate Dasshole claimed ignorance of the "shadow government", even though he was taken to one of the secret facilities before 9/11. And again, the lying sack of horse manure claimed that Congress didn't have the terrorist intelligence info that the WH did prior to 9/11, even though one of his very own -- DemRat Sen. Grahm (the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee) revealed that his committee had the SAME intelligence reports as the WH!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sooooo...you're not listening! I see. Just keep calling an Independent a bleeding Liberal...
LOLing big time.

Resist that it makes sense that Dunderhead? had Evans stear Apache oil to sink all of every ones money into oil leases in ANWAR, the Edmondton and Colorado basins.
Gee! Wonder why not the gulf?
It just doesn't make sense that if Dunderhead could cut oil production in Ven. they could get prices high enough to be able to AFFORD exploration...if they could just get into ANWAR!
What a Prez! If he can keep this up, the economy will explode!

Oh! How about him giving the FBI more leeway over our rights? Gotta love the right wing! lololol...I can't help it! They really go by the book.

I guess they'll be taking the time out from finding AlQueda to tuck me in now! Should I leave milk & cookies?
...Gotta go. Someone's at the door!
















JesseV!!! no one's perfect!!!!

[Rick]

Lefty,

I've heard your position expressed many times but I can't agree with it. It's a matter of setting priorities. The tradeoffs usually involve liberty versus security. Maximum liberty is anarchy, maximum security is a police state. Most of us don't want either one of those extremes.

Most people favor whatever policies wind up giving them the biggest percentage of the pie. Poor people naturally are more in favor of spending on welfare than they are in favor of cuts in capital gains taxes. The rich would rather pay no taxes at all. The rational thing to do is provide for as much security for people as we can afford but not so much that we bankrupt ourselves. Even the biggest liberals here wouldn't really want to share the wealth we have equally with everyone else in the world. That would result in everyone being in an equally hopeless situation. Even the greediest rich people wouldn't really want to take all of the money because then the poor would have nothing to lose and make the world a very insecure place for them.

Some programs that people think are a waste of money are actually good investments. Research and education dollars are usually, but not always, in that category. Some programs to improve the health of children are also good investments because they lower health care costs later. Of course there are good reasons to do these things anyway if you have any conscience whatsoever.

I'd like to see the government provide protection against large losses but not small ones because that would be too expensive. I personally use the same approach with my insurance by opting for a large deductible. It is possible (but not likely) for the government to provide major medical coverage at an affordable cost. All government programs should be devised so that people get what they need but not everything they want. I'd like to be covered if I get cancer but don't want to pay for someone seeing a doctor who has a common cold.

I've had large incomes and been a starving student, so I've seen both sides of the coin. Most poor people I've known think they're victims and don't try to change their situation. Most rich people I've known think that they deserve it because they're so smart or talented. Most people in both groups have it wrong. Luck is a very big factor. When you're poor it makes sense to keep trying different things until you get lucky. When you're rich it makes sense to not take too many risks so you don't get unlucky and lose all that you've accumulated.

Another thing while I'm on a rant. Unless you've lived in another country you really can't complain about this one. Comparatively speaking, the level of corruption and unfairness here is just not even close to what you'll find nearly anywhere else.

[boxcar]

I wrote:

So, what's your beef then? Before long some Government Nanny will be over to your house tucking you in every night. What a security blanket you'll have then.
~~~~~~~~~~

JesseV!!! (our resident Lib in denial) replied:

>>
So, you're really just busting my ballz, right BC? b/c you really can't believe that!
>>

No more than I believe your assertion that laws prohibiting people from piling up "junk" in their yards were were written for the purpose of protecting the world from right wingers like Lefty and myself.

>>
Sooooo...you're not listening! I see. Just keep calling an Independent a bleeding Liberal...
LOLing big time.
>>

Not listening? I've been reading your posts for a long time, and I conclude you're a left winger -- in denial perhaps, but a Lib just the same. If you're not a bleeding heart Liberal then Rosie O' is straight, Phil Donahuue is an extreme right winger, Slick Willy finally understands what the meaning of "is" is, a person's lips around someone's sex organ really doesn't constitute sexual activity, Bushie is the model of political consistency, the disaster on 9/11 was really America's fault, Ara[b]fat is a peace lover and not a terrorist, and I'm a hell of sweet guy even before my first cup of java in the morning!

>>
Oh! How about him giving the FBI more leeway over our rights? Gotta love the right wing! lololol...I can't help it! They really go by the book.
>>

Lemme see...you and I have the right to surfboard around cyberspace, right? And cyberspace is hardly a private place, is it? Previously, the FBI wasn't even allowed to go sleuthing on the 'net. Now the Feds can. How does that move give them more "leeway over our rights"? Since everyone else can sleuth the Web, why not the Feds also?

Or how 'bout this?: The Feds can now attend rallies and marches and the like to observe who is there and listen to what is being said -- just like you and I can. How would Fed attendance in these public activities infringe upon our rights?

(Must digress for a moment. I heard some bleeding heart airhead yesterday say that Fed attendance at a political rally, for example, would deter people who would normally participate from showing up, and infringe upon their "rights" to be there, to speak out, etc. Really? But why? What is so shameful about their activities that the participants would feel compelled to hide it from the eyes and ears of the Feds!?)

Bottom line: The restructuring of the FBI was necessary to give them power to conduct DOMESTIC intelligence gathering activities, which heretofore they were prohibited from doing -- and which the CIA was also prohibited from conducting. Not a thing has changed, however, regarding citizen's rights to _privacy_. Sure...does the potential exist for some Fed to abuse someone privacy rights? Yup? But so so what? This potential has existed for many years now with such satellite surveillance projects as Carnivore, etc.
If the Feds (more specifically the CIA) wanted to read all your email, for example, they've had that technology with their satellites, their Dictionary software, and huge mainframe computers for over a decade now. Just because the CIA is prohibited by law from engaging in domestic intelligence gathering activities doesn't mean that some mavericks in the agency haven't been spying on us for years now -- especially since projects like Carnivore are multi-national in scope! Britian, Australia, New Zealand and Canada are "partners" with the U.S. What this means is that, technically, some snooping project could gather domestic intelligence and the U.S. could say the intelligence was gathered by one of the project's partners! A nice way to get around the congressional prohibition imposed upon the CIA.

So, sit back and don't sweat the small stuff. I don't believe the institution of these common sense procedures will have much of a negative impact on law-abiding citizens. But like any other law-breaker, when or if some Fed crosses the line and violates someone's privacy, he or she will be prosecuted.

And don't forget this either, since you're so big on rights: You and I have a right to not be killed by some whacko terrorist. The primary responsibility of the U.S. government is the protection of its citizens.

Boxcar

[Handle]

Boxcar,

While I don't necessarily disagree with your point of view here, I have to say that your take on the FBI re-structuring is off base.

These are not newly _instituted_ powers, nor is it difficult to imagine how they can be abused, as you suggest. These are _re_-instituted powers. They were taken away after the Civil Rights movement when it was found that the FBI was spying on that "evil", law breaker, Martin Luther King and his associates -- harrassing and intimidating people who gathered at civil rights rallies, churches, etc..

It is naive to think that the intrusion of any body of power -- a body that has tremendous authority to excercise over the way you govern your life should they choose to -- is welcome in a free society. It is naive to say that people shouldn't worry about anything if they have nothing to hide, and, conversely, that they need watching if they do have something they don't want an authority constantly peering in on them about. The naivety stems from the fact that most any piece of information can be used as a lever against you in the hands of those who have authority.

How many lives were lived out in terror in the old Soviet Union because the KGB apparatus would have neighbors spying and informing on one another? Such information is just "gossip", right? Who would fear it being exposed to "the Feds". And we have laws to protect our civil rights, so we shouldn't worry about being accused of anything as long as we have "nothing to hide". The problem is that the act of accusation by the authority, and even the act of surveillance, carries with it a punishment, both financial as well as psychological. When we allow our governing body to interweave itself in our lives -- to monitor our actions -- we not only give up basic freedoms, we invite the advent of Political Ogres. MCArthy-sim comes to mind.

Only in the face of such real threats as demonstrated by 9/11 can these "new" powers of the FBI even be remotely considered justifiable in our free society.


-Handle

[Rick]

Perhaps a quote from Ozzy Osbourne would be appropriate at this point. Anybody got one that they can understand?

[boxcar]

Slick Rick wrote:

Gotta hand it to ya, Rick: You're slick! You're an articulate, eloquent writer. And for a moment or two, as I was reading your post, you nearly converted me to Middleism, i.e. Fiscal Conservatism/Social Liberalism. I almost got sucked into its vortex. But thankfully I came to my senses after you provided the punchline to your sensible sounding, reasonable appearing philosophy, which was:

>>
I've had large incomes and been a starving student, so I've seen both sides of the coin. Most poor people I've known think they're victims and don't try to change their situation. Most rich people I've known think that they deserve it because they're so smart or talented. Most people in both groups have it wrong. LUCK IS A VERY BIG FACTOR. When you're poor it makes sense to keep trying different things until you get lucky. When you're rich it makes sense to not take too many risks so you don't get unlucky and lose all that you've accumulated. (emphasis mine)
>>

Let's define our terms here. Luck --what is it?
The primary definition given in my dictionary is:

a. the force that seems to operate for good or ill in a person's life, as in shaping events or opportunities.

(I'm glad the lexicographers said "seems" when defining this unseen, nebulous, mystifying enigmatic "force".)

Let's look at another word very closely associated with the term "luck" while we're at it -- "fortuitous". It's primary defintion reads:

a. happening or produced by chance; accidental.

This is an interesting word because the lexicographers go to some length to point out that the definition has somewhat "developed in sense" over time. In fact, modern usage of the term is generally more restricted to "happening by lucky chance".

Didn't know you had such strong inclinations toward the dead end philosophy of Fatalism, Rick.
Let's face it: There is a very, very fine line between the terms "luck" and "fate" or "predetermination". Is not "fate" supposedly an unseen, mystifying, nebulous force that exterts its power or influence over us mere mortals? Are not superstitious gamblers, for instance, very reluctant to do anything that would tempt luck -- or fate?

Your philosophy, sir, is entirely self-defeating because it offers no real hope to those who have been "vicitimized" by bad luck. In fact, it's logical end is nothing less than abject despair itself! Why should the poor, for example, struggle to take risks when they are told that they are poor, innocent victims of a force that is beyond their control!? Would it not be far easier for the poor people of the world to simply wait for someone else to take control -- for some other "outside force" to feed them, clothe them -- and even provide them with condoms so they can continue to engage in promiscuous sex "safely"?
Your philosophy largely absolves people from assuming personal responsibility for and control over their own lives.

Moreover, your philosophy greatly diminishes the accomplishments of those who have diliegently engaged themselves in detailed planning, who have set goals for their lives, and who have worked hard to earn what they have.

In fact, I'll even go a step further to say that many liberals subscribe to your philosophy in one form or another! Is not one of the insipid implications of affirmative action programs for "minorities" that a person of color is not entirely capable of making it on his or her own merits? He or she needs "outside" help. In fact, minorities have been so "unluckly" -- so victimized by society, so disadvantaged that many institutions of higher learning have drastically lowered learning and testing standards to accomodate them. May I be so bold as to suggest, sir, that this dumbed down approach is entirely backwards!? Instead of society promoting and promulgating programs and VALUES that would engender positive self-images and an environment of true hope for its citizens by encouraging and helping the less fortunate and less gifted among us to cultivate virtues such as self-reliance, self-control, self-discipline and personal responsibility, we instead offer programs that tell them that they're really not in control of their lives -- and therefore, if not in real control, how can anyone reasonably hold them personally accountable? Your philosophy, and others very similar to it, are largely responsible for the dismal shape in which this nation finds itself.

I categorically reject this silly, fatalistic notion of "luck" as being such a huge conrolling force in my own personal life. For your info, Dick Schmidt isn't the only player around here without a day job. Your truly hasn't worked an "honest job" in nearly 30 years. I am a successful player. And I haven't achieved this kind of status by relying on this mysterious force known as "luck" -- and I doubt Dick has either. For the most part, I have made my own "luck", thank you. I have achieved what I have, and own what I have as a result of years of long hours of study, hard work, lots of trial and error runs, constant experimentation which has resulted in gradual evolution in technique, the setting of long and short term goals, etc.

>>
Another thing while I'm on a rant. Unless you've lived in another country you really can't complain about this one. Comparatively speaking, the level of corruption and unfairness here is just not even close to what you'll find nearly anywhere else.
>>

Really? As a voter, sir, I have every right to "complain" or opine as I see fit.

And how comforting it is [not] to know that the level of corruptness in this country is merely second-rate to some other nations'. Have you not read what a wise man named Jesus once said: "A little bit of leaven leavens the entire loaf"? No doubt a spinoff to that teaching is, One rotten apple spoils the whole barrel"? Lots of truth in these old adages.

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

Handle,


Very well put....I agree completely.....



==PA

[Lefty]

Rick, you say more people are for spending on welfare than cuts in capital gains and taxes.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM. A DAMN BIG PROBLEM.
They want to rob the rich and give to the poor. Well, the govt. is not supposed to be Robin Hood.
The govt. is supposed to protect us from our enemies not protect the poor from the rich.
Don't get me wrong; i'm closer to poor than rich, but killing the rich actually hirts the poor. Welfare helps nooone; just makes them dependent and takes away their initiative. I've worked lots of min. wage jobs when I was young and bringing up my kids and never took a dime of welfare and noone else should either.
More money for defense, less for social prgms.
Please eliminate capital gains taxes and the rich can provide more jobs for the poor. Those that want to work, that is.
And I don't believe I ever said I was for anarchy or a police state.
Just give me what's promised in the constitution and quit violating it.

[Lefty]

Yes, oil is good for moose and elk but not so fine for alligators.

[boxcar]

Handle, you're quite right. I was fully aware of the abuses suffered, for example, by Martin Luther King. But those abuses, as I'm sure you know, were violations involving unlawful intrustions and invasions into his privacy, such as illegal wire taps, illegal eavesdropping, etc.

My point was two-fold:

a.) this "reinstitution" (as you correctly say) of powers ivolving _public_ areas of our society doesn't necessarily mean these powers will overflow into private areas. With the old U.S.S.R., there was no system of check and balances in that totolitarian state. Conversely, in this country, we have lots of those.

And b.) The CIA has had the technology for a long time now that would enable any dishonest agent(s)
to illegally eavesdrop with relative ease on virtually any private area of our lives, such as our phone conversations, eamil correspondence, our 'net surfing activities -- even our ATM transactions. Who is to say they haven't been abusing that technology for years? On the other hand, if they have, why hasn't anyone been made wise to it and blew the whistle on them by now?

While I agree with you that we have to take strong measures to safeguard our liberties against unlawful invasion of our privacy, I think with our system of checks and balances we should be able to simultaneously accomplish that while engaging in domestic espionage. It's no longer acceptable that the good guys merely identify or even nab the bad guys after the horrible fact -- we must take a far more proactive posture and make every effort to prevent disasters like those of 9/11. After all...aren't we supposedly at war with the terrorists?

Boxcar

[Rick]

boxcar,

What I meant by using the term "lucky" was not fatalistic. I think people have a lot of control over what happens in their lives. But, when you try a lot of different things, something eventually works out for you. That's the best thing to do when things aren't going well. What I really should have said is that it's better to take on more risk when you're poor than when you're rich. You have to take on more risk to go for a potentially higher reward when you're at the bottom. Most poor people live a very risk averse lifestyle that's sure to go nowhere. Many poor families discourage their kids from getting an education because they're afraid they will fail or it won't be worth the money. In other words, they want a sure thing before they'll bet, not just an overlay.


Lefty,

You can't really believe that giving rich people more money is going to create jobs. Of course, just handing out welfare does nothing constructive either. If we're going to invest taxpayer money in something, let's make it a good investment, not just hope that some Bill Gates type will be generous. My idea of a good investment was the old GI Bill. That resulted in a huge number of people getting educated and boosting productivity. Another example is all of the work done in the Depression by the WPA and CCC. We're still using the bridges and other improvements to the infrastructure today.

[Handle]

Boxcar,

We're most likely in "violent" agreement on the subject of the FBI restructuring. I think you see where I was coming from re the re-institution and the possibility for abuses and the overall less-ening of our freedoms.

Likewise, I believe I see where you're coming from re: the need to police our nation to prevent further catastrophic acts of terrorism.

All in all, I believe its a damned tough job, and one that unfortunately has much more precedence than many are willing to see. The problem at hand is identified (stopping terrorist attacks). The future problem may become stopping the politicians
who find their way into power because they thump on issues of
"national security". Thumping, historically, has always involved the
abuse of many, for lack of a better word, "innocent" people. The Civil Rights movement offers many examples, but so does the treatment of japanese - american citizens during WWII, and many others. In all cases there was a clear rationale for doing what was done -- even in the case of M.L. King. The governing
powers were preparing for "race riots" that could be catastrophic to this country.

But rationale isn't always rational. So, I'm presently slightly worried that I'll be walking around with a computer chip in my head in a few years in the name of national security. When I go in for the implant I'll click a little "I understand" button that says the Gov. believes in my "privacy" and won't send me any spam....


Regarding Carnivore et al. Given, those at the helm are always
capable of steering it in the "wrong" direction. So, there's the possibility of abuse there. Without people, even far left people, raising a stink about it, its not inconceivable that this would become the rule rather than the exception.

How about the court room/cop shows that have the Police constantly getting into people's bank accounts and stuff? Maybe this is as common as TV makes it out to be -- maybe the American public is being conditioned to think that this is a fine practice.

I'm very much into a conservative approach to crime prevention. However, I'm also very aware that there are many groups who's approach is a very self-interested one masquerading as conservative. These groups consist of many types, from individual politicians seeking a platform to power, to larger organizations such as M.A.D.D. that have become political powers with their own agenda. (For anyone who thinks M.A.D.D. is still a few California mothers against drunk driving, do a little searching on the web. The founder actually left the organization from what I understand. This is one of the most profitable non-profit organizations in the country. Their is also an issue with its political activities being illegal since its "non-profit/tax exempt" designation doesn't fit well with the political lobbying it does. They have more judges and politicians in fear of them than the CIA itself.).


-Handle

[Rick]

Having known some people in government jobs over the years, including the IRS, I can assure you that if you're a friend of someone who works there, you can get whatever information you want. Yes, it's probably technically illegal but nobody is watching and they just consider it an extra benefit of the job. Most of these people don't get paid that much money and are either in it for the power trip or just doing it until they get something better. There is a lot of bitterness among government workers. The general population thinks that they have an easy job, which hasn't been true for the most part since at least the 70's. Try sorting mail for the post office on graveyard shift sometime and listen to people tell you all of the time what an easy job you have. That's where the term "going postal" originated.

[boxcar]

Handle wrote:

>>
We're most likely in "violent" agreement on the subject of the FBI restructuring. I think you see where I was coming from re the re-institution and the possibility for abuses and the overall less-ening of our freedoms.
>>

Yes, I do. And moreover, I'm totally in agreement about any abuses becoming legalized somewhere down the road by power-crazed legislators. I think you're on the mark here, and this should be a legit concern, since the higher up one goes on the power feeding chain, the more likely it becomes that some bottom feeding power monger will become very tempted to exploit the fears of Americans.

>>
Likewise, I believe I see where you're coming from re: the need to police our nation to prevent further catastrophic acts of terrorism.
>>

Exactly! Because what is the alternative to having no domestic espionage apparatus in place? The enemy is among us. They're all around us -- thanks largely to our insane immigration policies.
And who knows how many Taliban Johnnys we have in our midst?

>>
But rationale isn't always rational. So, I'm presently slightly worried that I'll be walking around with a computer chip in my head in a few years in the name of national security. When I go in for the implant I'll click a little "I understand" button that says the Gov. believes in my "privacy" and won't send me any spam....
>>

LOL! But seriously, this is where I would draw the line. In fact, I've already drawn the line over the somewhat more "innocuous" national I.D. card idea. They'll have to send this writer to the clink before I let them issue me a card.

The problem is not with me or most other Americans. The problem is largely attributed to our immigration laws and lack of enforcement thereof. Here we are pushing a year after the 9/11 debacle, and what has the government accomplished in terms of "national security"? Would you believe not very much!?

Airport security is still in shambles. We had national guardsmen walking around our airports with no ammo in their guns. How that for a brainless policy?

The goverment has admitted that our port security is a joke, as only a very tiny percentage of the containers are ever searched.

And our border security is in even more pathetic shape. How many countries do you know of that don't have their borders heavily patroled by armed soldiers? Here we are in the great U.S. -- a country very many in the world would die to enter into, and yet we have virtually no border security.

If we had any real leadership in this country -- politicians not afraid of defying the political correctness police, we'd call a moratorium on all immigration for a two-year period, which should give us enough time to reassess our policies, laws and enforcement techniques. But sadly this country doesn't have any real leaders in it.

>>
How about the court room/cop shows that have the Police constantly getting into people's bank accounts and stuff? Maybe this is as common as TV makes it out to be -- maybe the American public is being conditioned to think that this is a fine practice.
>>

Yup, another scary prospect. As the ranks of the blind grow, our equally blind leadership will be more disposed than ever to leading everyone, including themselves, into the ditch.

Boxcar

[Rick]

boxcar,

Do you mean to tell me you don't feel more secure knowing what the color code of today's alert level is? After the next terrorist attack they'll be able to say they warned us now. What more could you possibly want?

[boxcar]

Rick asked:

>>
boxcar,

Do you mean to tell me you don't feel more secure knowing what the color code of today's alert level is? After the next terrorist attack they'll be able to say they warned us now. What more could you possibly want?
>>

For starters, how 'bout the death of all political correctness so that at the airports, for example, the security personnel won't have to interrogate and search some 87 year old white grandma from Omaha, Nebraska?

Boxcar

[Tom]

I fly a lot less now than I did before 9-1-1 - not because I am afraid of terrorist attacks but because the airlines and the airports have entered stupid mode.
Before 9-1-1, your average security checkpoint was a complete waste of time and the people that ran them were poster boys for the word incompetent. Had this collection of morons been doing their jobs, 9-1-1 might not have ever happened.

Since then, I do not see any meaningful improvement - still the same incompetent people working without a clue. Just look at all the real weapons that have gotten through this tightened security while the stooges take away shaving cream and nail clippers. I was forced to fly home for a family emergency just days after the airorts re-opened in September and I was amazed at how totally stupid the security had become. There is no way this bunch of lazy, incompetent morons will ever stop a determined terrorist. They just don't have a clue. It only took me 10 minutes on the plance to realize where real security comes from - it comes from within - I scrutinized everyone that got on the plane and I made mental notes - profile notes- as to who to keep my eye on.

Whenever I fly, or wherever I use profiling to know how to keep an eye on. And it isn't 87year old white women. Or little girls.
The 19 death pilots of 9-1-1- stood out in a crowd if you weren't afraid to look. Political correctness is the most studid, deadly idea out there.

And by asking for a seat belt extension, I found myself very well armed to either defend or attack, a much better weapon than the Bic throw-away shaver they took from me in the airport (what would I do with that anyway, threaten to shave the pilot??).
But that belt extension......I could take your head off with that thing. And if a few other passengers had them, we could take Afghanastan.
We are at war and if a few peole get their feelings hurt, tough cookies.

[boxcar]

Rick wrote:

>>
boxcar,

What I meant by using the term "lucky" was not fatalistic. I think people have a lot of control over what happens in their lives.
>>

Well, now you're trying to backpedal from what you said originally wherein you attributed a very large role to "luck" for both groups -- the "haves" and "have nots" in terms of what the former have and the latter don't.

>>
But, when you try a lot of different things, something eventually works out for you.
>>

So what does this have to do with luck? I've tried many, many things when I firsted started out on my handicapping journey. Along the way I learned many things -- eventually enough to make money. So by your "but", does this mean I got lucky?

>>
That's the best thing to do when things aren't going well. What I really should have said is that it's better to take on more risk when you're poor than when you're rich. You have to take on more risk to go for a potentially higher reward when you're at the bottom. Most poor people live a very risk averse lifestyle that's sure to go nowhere. Many poor families discourage their kids from getting an education because they're afraid they will fail or it won't be worth the money. In other words, they want a sure thing before they'll bet, not just an overlay.
>>

I'm not sure that "risk" is a good term to use with respect to the poor. I'd prefer "responsibility" instead. What the poor need to be taught is that reasonable, responsible disciplined actions will usually produce rewards in this life. For example, they need to be taught the value of getting a good education, etc.

Also, the major problem with your utopian-like fiscal conservatism/social liberaism approach is two-fold. First, the self-serving politicians not only want to cultivate a constituency for themselves with our hard earned tax dollars, but they want to perpetuate that consitituency with more tax dollars again and again and again.

This unsound policy in turn will produce "unintended consequences" for the welfare recipients, as Lefty has already pointed out. Far too many recipients will become welfare junkies and develop a dependancy upon government entitlement programs. The Nanny State will have unwittingly removed all incentives for many of these people to pursue productive and meaningful lives on their own.

One of the most recent outstanding examples that immediately comes to mind about politicians perpetuating their constituencies is what happened when the liberals squashed the school voucher part of Bush's education program. Think about it. Numerous pilot studies showed that poor kids in private schools scored much higher than their counterparts in public schools. So, why would any truly concerned, caring and compassionate politician want to kill the voucher plan?

To me, the answer is simple. They wanted to make certain that the poor kids in their districts or states remained as dumb as they are poor! Isn't is easier to dupe the uneducated than it is the educated? Isn't it easier to fool the ignorant than it is the well informed?

One of the major idiotic arguments used by the Libs at the time to support their non-vouchers position was that vouchers would threaten the very existence of the public school system. Can you imagine using such an argument!? These self-serving, power-hungry slimeball politicians were more concerned with preserving a FAILING school system than they were in offering quality educational opportunities to the poor through private schools. Who in his or her right mind would want to preserve a failing system?

Furthermore, I don't believe we would have seen the demise of the public school system. But what I do believe would have happened over time is that _competition_ with the private schools would eventually have produced far better public schools! Competition has a way of doing this very thing, doesn't it? But even if this scenario didn't come to pass, so what!? If the public school system went the way of the dinosaur, the administrators and unions could fault no one but themselves.

It's no secret that this country has already developed a two-tier social system. One school system is turning out well educated children through its privately schooled/home schooling institutions and programs. While very many public schools are turning out a generation of undereducated, semi-literate, dumbed down numbskulls for the most part. Very many public schools today are far more concerned with inculcating and indoctrinating kids with liberal values than they are providing them with a quality education. We have the liberals and unions to largely thank for this deplorable state of public education.

And now I can't resist in jumping in on your conversation with Lefty.

Lefty,

>>
You can't really believe that giving rich people more money is going to create jobs.
>>

You can bet that I believe it. Haven't you heard that it takes money to make money? Who has the bulk of the money? The wealthy, right? What do most wealthy people want to do with their money? They want to make it grow some more, don't they?
And how do they make it grow? By investing it -- in all different ways -- including expanding their existing business, or starting a new one, or by buying out another company, etc. -- any or all these investment activities would be capable of creating more jobs.

One of the major reasons I'm solidly behind the Fair Tax plan is because companies would no longer have to pass their humongous tax compliance costs on to us consumers. This means the cost of goods and services would be made more competitive -- not only domestically, but even more importantly in the international markets. Companies would be able to retain more of their profits, which means they'd be able to reinvest that money and create more jobs, etc. Our national ecomony would realize an unprecedented rate of growth with a consumption-based tax.

Boxcar

[Lefty]

rick, lowering, or better yet, eliminating capital gains is not "giving" anybody anything. It's our &^%$money. And believe me, not only rich people have capital gains. And yes, I do believe that letting rich people KEEP more of their OWN MONEY does create more jobs.

[Handle]

Boxcar,

I'm not quite as over the top as you are concerning immigration policy (though it won't take me too many miles to get there when I'm in the proper mood). Probably a result of too much Socratic method driven into me when I was in academia (this country was built by immigrants, you're in immigrant, I'm an immigrant, yadi-yadi-yada). And my wife was born in Poland. But that's not the topic of my post.

While I think political correctness is a governing factor of our government leaders, I don't think this is what prevents a lock down on immigration. What prevents it is the fact that there are millions of _Americans_ in this country who have relatives and soon to be spouses that are aliens. The 19 year old girl who marries the 50 year old American becomes a citizen and then sponsors visas for mom, dad, sisters, and uncles. I worked in the Foreign Service (not as a member, just as a lackey) in Russia for a year. I saw this every day. Talk about a nightmare. Remember, some Foreign Service officer sat face to face (this is almost always the case. Even Russian Rear Admirals had to come in to pick up visas, and this was post-USSR) with the terrorists of 9/11... and issued them visas.

I don't want to wax Socratic here, or Conservative, or Liberal, but I do think the issue of immigration is a complex socio-economic one in this country. I'll stop here before I contradict myself.

-Handle







A

[Rick]

boxcar,

I'm not backpedalling at all. You seem to want to focus on the word "lucky" for some reason. I happen to think that people make their own "luck" to a large extent. I've taken a lot of chances in my life that others wouldn't have because they feel more secure with things always staying the same. Although I've gotten burned in the short term several times, I'm happy with the long term results. What I'm saying is that you may be rolling the dice by changing things but the dice are loaded in your favor. Not changing anything guarantees that things can't get better. It's like investing in a money market fund and losing to inflation because you're afraid of being "unlucky" (oops, I used that word again) for a few years when invested in stocks and bonds. You're almost certainly better in the long run by taking on more risk. Unfortunately, there's some luck in everything we do. You can go to college for four years and spend a lot of money and have it not result in a better income. On the average it's an overlay, but there's no guarantee (and their shouldn't be). If the economy doesn't happen to need what you trained to do in the future, oh well, you'll just have to retrain. Being a horseplayer, I have no problem dealing with a certain amount of luck influencing the outcome of events in my life. If I made the correct decision, I don't have any regrets.

Lefty,

I probably have more capital gains than most others here but I don't think it's all that effective at creating jobs. If you really want people to spend money, you'll give it to those who spend a higher percentage of their income on goods and services. That's not the rich guy. He's more likely to spend a large amount of money on one item, say a house or a car or a boat. That would help pay one salesman's large commission, not help keep a lot of people employed.


One question for you guys. Don't you ever expect to get old or sick and unable to perform at your current totally self-sufficient level? Should we make Soylent Green out of you or just send you to Dr. Kevorkian when you slow down a few steps? It could happen. I've noticed lately that the government is very concerned about people eating in an unhealthy manner and possibly being less productive and costing society more for health care. Whatever weakness you have, they'll find a way to eliminate it eventually because, after all, they own your body. Have a nice life guys.

In my opinion, more rich people AND poor people are greedy, and it's the middle class guy who's getting the worst deal. He doesn't qualify for any of the low income subsidies but he can't shelter any of his income because it's all derived from wages. If we don't do something about that, we're going to see unions making a big comeback and I think you'd agree that wouldn't be a good thing.

Of course, if we had more lawsuits, we'd create a lot more jobs for lawyers and if we had a lot more crime, we'd create more jobs for policemen and prison guards. Maybe more arsons would create more jobs for firemen. More traffic accidents would create more jobs for doctors and nurses and insurance appraisers. Love that full employment.

[Rick]

Another thing you'll probably accuse me of being a radical liberal about involves homeless people. I'm really getting tired of them being in my face all of the time. If they're mentally ill, get them some help. If not, get them a job or somewhere to live with subsistence level food and housing. I'm not saying you should make it easy for them to make the wrong choices, just find somewhere for them to go where they're not annoying everyone all of the time. And be realistic about providing public restrooms so they don't urinate all over public places like stairwells.

[boxcar]

Handle:

Calling for a temporary (two-year) moratorium on further immigration into the country for reassessment purposes is "over the top"? To paraphrase one politician (after the Memorial Day screw-up in N.Y.C. involving illegal Arab immigrants) -- the I.N.S. isn't just the weak link, it's the missing link in the grand scheme of national security.

If anyone should be fired, it should be the incompetent moron who heads the agency. If any agency in the goverment needs fundamental reform from the top to the bottom, it's the I.N.S.

And I do think P.C. plays a large part in driving immigration policy. Have you heard about the Mexican families who are suing the U.S. because some ILLEGAL immigrants died due to the fact that the the Border Patrol or the I.N.S. or someone wouldn't set out water on a much traveled route often taken by illegals on their way into our country? And believe it or not, there are plenty of liberals who think we did those poor illegals wrong! The next thing these lamebrains will want is for the Border Patrol or some agency to provide guided tours for the illegals to show them the quickest way across our borders!

Or how 'bout Senor Dunderhead's persistent attempts at getting Congress to pass 245(i) that would grant amnesty to illegals already here? I thought we were a nation that believed in the rule of law? Thankfully, 245(i) has died a few deaths in the Senate in the last several months, but the last vote was a squeaker. My prediction: Bush will finally get his way and present a gift to his buddy El Foxo.

Or have you heard about INS policy that requires agents to notify immigrants in writing about their impending deportation? Is this madness or what!?
Just send them a letter so they have plenty of time to fly the coop if they want, and go "underground" in some other part of our country.

Or were you aware of the fact that something like (although I forget the exact stat now) at least 1/3 of all the prisoners in the California's penal system are Mexicans!? (And I'm being conservative here. I think the figure could even be higher.)
What kind of people are we letting into this counrtry? Have thorough background checks become unfashionable? Or is Mexico hiding the facts about these people because they want to get rid of them?

When my grandparents immigrated here, they didn't receive any handouts from the U.S. government. As LEGAL immigrants, the government didn't provide them with food stamps, WIC checks, free hospitalization, etc., etc. When they hit our shores they had to prove that they were capable of providing for themselves and have sponsors who would assume finanacial responsiblity for them. Now a days, ILLEGAL immigrants can get any or all of the above plus even more handouts from Uncle Sam. For all practical intent and purposes, illegals are treated as U.S. citizens -- as though they have rights to these things. In fact, one would think that immigration to this country is no longer a privilege but a God-given right!

So, with all with all due respect, Handle, I think a two-year moratorium on any further immigration is entirely reasonable under these out-of-control circumstances. Immigration policy is broken beyond any hope of repair. I think it would take at least two years for a complete review and overhaul of our current policies and laws.

Boxcar

[Lefty]

rick, you keep talking about giving money, now you say give it to poor people they'll spend it. Hey, the gov. has no money! It's our money and I want to keep my own and spend my own and don't want the gov. to give it to anyone.
And you say give the homeless jobs... Jeez, that's why they're homeless; most don't want a job. They have had and still have the opportunity to apply for a job just like anyone else. They would rather whine and have someone give them food and shelter and leave their time free to drink, do drugs and in this town, gamble.
We have casinos just about on every damn block here and they are open 24 hours and these morons still deficate in the streets and then whine we're not doing more for them. I used to give money to the Salvation army and others but no more. These people just take and take and contribute nothing.
Hell, they are always looking for volunteers to serve them on Thanksgiving and Christmas. Now if all the food is donated can't these lazy people at least wait on themselves.
And you say the govt is taking a look at what we eat because they care about our health? are you kidding? They extorted billions from tobacco and that money never got to the health system as it was supposed to and now they're looking at food and every other industry to extort more money.

[Handle]

Boxcar,

You're preaching to the choir. Calling for a two year moratorium on immigration is "over the top". Its extreme hard line. You proved it yourself by mentioning all of the ways in which this country _supports_ ILLEGAL immigration, either through incompetence on the part of INS or with straight up lobbying for laws that grant citizenship!

By "Over the Top" I don't mean crazy, or even absurd -- I mean its the extreme of the spectrum. OK, maybe not. I guess the extreme would be to round up and deport everyone, including green card holders. I don't see why you object to the label. I certainly don't think you'd consider your view "middle of the road", or, to continue the metaphor, "half way up the wall".

-Handle



Originally posted by boxcar
Handle:

Calling for a temporary (two-year) moratorium on further immigration into the country for reassessment purposes is "over the top"?
Boxcar

[Rick]

Lefty,

I'm not saying we should give away money to whoever wants it. And I'm not in favor of raising taxes either, just spending what we have more wisely. I don't believe that having zero taxes is the way to go. Some things just have to be done, some things are good investments, and some things are just the only civilized thing to do. A whole lot of other things just cater to some special interest group, not only individuals but corportations as well.

You should require you politicians to represent the public interest well, not just those of a particular party. Now, it's not so easy to force them to do the right thing when they're in office because they have so many ways to fight back. Most voter initiatives are subject to the "law of unintended consequences". I remember when California cut their property taxes. Did they cut back on wasteful spending? No, they cut back on education and funding for libraries. I don't think that's what the taxpayers intended, but the politicians were trying make it hurt as a payback for giving them less money to play with.

But this whole homeless thing is becoming a real nuisance. Sometimes it's worth spending some money to eliminate a nuisance. We put criminals in jail even though it costs us a lot of money to do it because there's no other reasonable choice. If they're mentally ill, put them in a mental institution. If they're just lazy, all you can do is make it difficult to continue that way. Build a shelter with adequate space and keep transporting them back there if they loiter on the streets. I'm talking about just barely survival level facilities, not comfortable but adequate. We have a few shelters like this now, but since they're all full we can't require people to go to them. Some of them have a very good system of requirements for staying their involving their accepting personal responsibility, but it's still a matter of choice as to whether you follow the rules or leave. What else can you do? You can't invoke the death penalty for someone being lazy, just make it as difficult as possible.

[Rick]

boxcar,

The immigration situation is a good example of how the government says one thing but does another. There are too many vested interests involved. Mexican immigration is not enforced because businesses want a source of cheap labor. We want them to do the dirty, dangerous, and disgusting (3 D's) jobs. It works that way in most other countries too. Germany and South Korea are good examples. They allow enough of a flow in order to satisfy the demand. A Mexican that gets caught is not deported, just transported back to the border. If a citizen from another country comes in through Mexico they are arrested and deported. Immigrants from many countries are allowed to enter on student visas which benefits the educational institutions that sponsor them. Hey, they had to do something to support all of the excess facilities after the demise of the GI Bill.

I think if we managed the whole thing legally and kept track of aliens better we could have the benefits without suffering the detrimental effects. It's not necessary to give them exactly the same treatment as US citizens because they aren't citizens. Of course you should provide for a manageable number of them to have the chance to become US citizens if it's in the country's best interest. If they're not citizens but working legally here, they wouldn't need to bring their families because they would be able to travel freely between their home and here. We have many US citizens working in other countries now under this kind of arrangement. Most would rather have a job here and be with their families, but if they want to keep working for high wages in a field that is not in high enough demand here they must sacrifice. The choice is theirs. There are examples like this everywhere of how a problem has been handled successfully. You just have to look for them.

[boxcar]

Handle wrote:

>>
You're preaching to the choir. Calling for a two year moratorium on immigration is "over the top". Its extreme hard line.
>>

Hmm...and I suppose if I said the INS is so dysfunctional that it makes the Simpsons look normal by comparison, you'd consider that evaluation...er "extreme"?

Boxcar

[Handle]

Boxcar,

No, what makes you think that? I would say that you were employing hyperbole, but I don't think it would be an extreme characterization. Saying that we should fire every INS employee, and not let them work in this country for 2 years, would be extreme.

My, you are a hard one to get along with though. Your views on immigration -- not allowing any immigration in this country for 2 years -- represent the far right. Do you disagree?

-Handle

[boxcar]

Handle wrote:

>>
No, what makes you think that? I would say that you were employing hyperbole, but I don't think it would be an extreme characterization.
Saying that we should fire every INS employee, and not let them work in this country for 2 years, would be extreme.
>>

Whoa, chief...when did I ever say that we or Congress should fire every INS employed? The only person I strongly believe should be terminated is the head of the agency because all the evidence suggests that he's an entirely incompetent nincompoop. If you go back and read what I said, I advocate a complete rethinking and reevaluation
of the agency's policy's, laws and procedures that would probably result (or at least it should, I believe) in some major, fundamental reforms).

>>
My, you are a hard one to get along with though. Your views on immigration -- not allowing any immigration in this country for 2 years -- represent the far right. Do you disagree?
>>

Sure, I disagree. When you're out in sea in a sinking ship, you just don't ignore it or try to apply bandaid-type fixes to it and continue sailing around the world, as though the vessel is in good shape. What you do instead is make a temporary fix and make for the nearest port ASAP for permanent repairs. After repairs have been made and the vessel is declared seaworthy again, you can continue on your voyage, if so inclined.
This is all I'm suggesting for the INS -- and you consider this solution radical!?

Or do you consider this plan extemist because because a few hundred thousand...or maybe even a few million immigrants will be temporarily inconvenienced, put out or even insulted because they'll denied the privilege of entering our country? (Geesh, by your knee jerkish type reaction, one would think I was advocating kicking all aliens (legal and illegal alike) out of the country or something -- or shutting the doors shut tight on any immigration for the next 10 years.)

I don't get where you're coming from at all -- unless you believe that little bandaid fixes to all aspects of U.S. immigration would suffice. If you believe that, then we are indeed miles apart on this issue. But at least I'd be able to understand why you'd believe my approach is so terribly "far right".

Boxcar

[Lefty]

Rick, we're getting a little closer. of course zero taxes won't work but cut the social prgms to the bone, give charters so people can properly educate their kids, privatize a part of social security so my kids and grandkids have something when they get old, and if you build more shelters all you get is more homeless. Build them and they will come. the former mayor of N.Y. had the right idea on the homeless. And i favor a flat tax, fair for all.
if these be extreme rightwing ideas, so be it.

[boxcar]

Rick wrote:

>>
I'm not backpedalling at all. You seem to want to focus on the word "lucky" for some reason. I happen to think that people make their own "luck" to a large extent. I've taken a lot of chances in my life that others wouldn't have because they feel more secure with things always staying the same.
>>

I'm focusing on it because of the language you originally used and the context in which you used it -- to wit:

>>
I've had large incomes and been a starving student, so I've seen both sides of the coin. Most poor people I've known think they're victims and don't try to change their situation. Most rich people I've known think that they deserve it
because they're so smart or talented. Most people in both groups have it wrong. Luck is a very big factor.
>>

In the paragraph immediately above, you drew a sharp contrast between what most people in either group think or perceive about their standing or situation in life (which you felt both groups were dead wrong!) and the "very big factor" of luck -- clearly implying that folks in both groups should really be thanking their lucky stars instead.

But now in the first paragraph you wrote more recently, you backpedaled by saying that people for the most part really "make their own luck". Clearly a very different position from your original one.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Rick wrote:

>>
I probably have more capital gains than most others here but I don't think it's all that effective at creating jobs. If you really want people to spend money, you'll give it to those who spend a higher percentage of their income on goods and services. That's not the rich guy. He's more likely to spend a large amount of money on one item, say a house or a car or a boat. That would help pay one salesman's large commission, not help keep a lot of people employed.
>>

With all due repsect, you're way, way off base here. The "rich" have far more _disposable_ income to play with in any manner they see fit than do the poor. I bet you dollar to donuts that most poor people last year after receiving their rebate checks from the Feds did indeed spend that money -- but they spent most of it on things they NEEDED -- on necessities.

I don't consider myself to be rich at all. But I live comfortably and lack for nothing. When my wife and I received our check last year, and when we received our refund this year, we blew that money within days of receiving it -- not on things we needed per se -- but on things we wanted. Big difference.

And btw, when was the last time you were employed by some poor guy?

>>
One question for you guys. Don't you ever expect to get old or sick and unable to perform at your current totally self-sufficient level? Should we make Soylent Green out of you or just send you to Dr. Kevorkian when you slow down a few steps?
>>

Neither! Have you never heard of planning ahead for your advanced years? My wife and I are so dead set against the SS rip-off Ponzi Scheme, chances are good we'll never apply for it. We find the whole plan to be morally repugnant.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Lefty wrote:

(Man, it's tough playing catch-up after you've been out all day. :)

>>
rick, lowering, or better yet, eliminating capital gains is not "giving" anybody anything. It's our &^%$money.
>>

Such a simple truth. Goes to show ya how what a great job the Feds have done in getting us to deny this fact.

>>
And believe me, not only rich people have capital gains. And yes, I do believe that letting rich people KEEP more of their OWN MONEY does create more jobs.
>>

I gotta wonder what Rick thinks companies do with the money they receive from people who take calculated risks by investing in their coroporations.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Hey, Rick, on the homeless deal -- gotta ask you this: What do you do with the homeless (but I think the PC expression now is "houseless people") who _don't_ want to improve their lot in life -- you know...who don't want to upgrade?

Boxcar

[Rick]

boxcar,

I don't know the answer is as to what to do with lazy people, I just don't want them to ruin my quality of life and I'm willing to spend some money to improve the situation. It's exactly the same reason I don't mind spending money on jails and prisons. I don't like the fact that people won't behave themselves but we have to do something about it.


I don't have a clue as to why everyone seems to want to twist my words to support their idea that anyone spending money on anything or asking them to pay any taxes whatsoever must be a radical liberal. It's just not true. Don't you people believe in anything but your own self-sufficiency and greed? It's just crazy to think that you can do without any government and pay no taxes. Do you have nuclear weapons to protect yourself when you eliminate the military because it costs too much?

To those who don't understand economics, by the way, the objective of a corporation is to make profits for the stockholders, not provide jobs. As a stockholder, I don't invest in overly benevolent or politically correct companies because they're bad investments. I'll repeat this one more time. I'm NOT a liberal, I'm middle-of-the-road if you must classify me.

The thing that really bugs me is people whining about things without providing any workable solution. It's part of the annoying trend I see where everyone thinks they're a victim of something but want somebody else to solve all of the problems. Everyone thinks "the man" is picking on them these days. It used to only be minority groups that thought that way but now nearly everyone does. Even many women, who are in the majority, think that way to a large degree. When I ask them why they don't vote for the people who support their positions I get the usual excuses. If women are underpaid, for example, there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to change it since they have more than 50% of the votes.

[so.cal.fan]

I agree with Rick.
It is interesting that all of the men who get elected President seem to be forced to go to the middle of the road on MOST issues.
At least it has seemed to me this is true, I can only remember back to Kennedy and the guys that followed.
I think the reason why, is that when you have to deal with millions of people and thousands of issues, the middle ground is the best path.
You can see both sides a bit clearer.
Even if Boxcar and Lefty were President (YIKES) they would have to become more middle of the road! You guys will deny it, but I would bet you would!
Hey, basically, anyone who posts on this thread is a thinking person.
Thanks everyone for your opinions. I have enjoyed reading your comments.;) ;) :p

[Lefty]

Rick, talk about twisting words... Neither Boxcar nor I have suggested we can get by without any govt or taxes. We just want the govt. to stick to the things it's supposed to do as laid out and prescribed in the constitution. I want a flat tax and Boxcar wants a nat'l sales tax. we have debated that to death so no sense doing it again.
Anyway, I want the govt. to stop hijacking my money and your money too, Rick, to throw down a rathole.
You know since the Johnson administration we have spent well over FIVE TRILLION dollars on the war on poverty and we still have poor people. Go figure.
When people are totally govt. dependent they lose initiative and bring the rest of us down with them and instead of being grateful they just want more.
The mayor here just moved a bunch of homeless off the sidewalks of a bu sy area of town and you wouldn't believe the mess. These people keep wanting us to do more for them meanwhile they won't even keep their area clean. I don't feel I have to do anything for people like this and won't because they will just increase in number.

[Rick]

Lefty,

My point about lazy people is that, even though we don't owe them anything, we still have to do something about it and that will probably cost some money. I don't like it but that's the truth. I remember when one of the states, I think it was Michigan, started giving grants to welfare people to leave the state and never come back. At the time it was considered a cost-effective solution! No, I'm not saying we should do that but sometimes some pretty bizarre solutions wind up costing the taxpayers less money.

As to taxes, I'd probably prefer the sales tax because it's on consumption rather than investments and it's a pretty well known fact that Americans have a relatively low savings rate. Paying taxes on interest earned and giving deductions for interest paid seems to be completely the opposite of the correct policy. Tax reform is not likely to happen though because it's bound to change the total taxes paid by a considerable amount for some groups so they would lobby against it. The flat tax might be OK, but the few studies I've seen on it seem to imply that there might be a considerable tax increase for the middle class. If that's the case it would probably ruin the economy. But, it seems to be impossible to get unbiased information on these issues so I'm reluctant to draw any hasty conclusions.

What did they wind up doing with the homeless people in your town? And what would you have done differently? I really think we need to come up with some good ideas and bombard the politicians with them. They don't seem to have any creative solutions on their own. I think they usually take the path of least resistance because they'll usually get re-elected as long as they don't do anything risky.

[Rick]

This is off-topic, but I was just watching a CNN interview where several women were asked if they were intested in running for President. I'm wondering who you think the best women candidates would be and could they really win. And don't say Hillary Clinton, 'cause that ain't going to happen (and shouldn't in my opinion).

[Lefty]

I'm not going to debate that flat tax consunption tax again. Boxcar and I did that till I was exhausted about a yr ago.
We can't keep building shelters and giving them money; that just brings more. A while back it was suggested we pack 'em up and give them shelter at an empty prison in Jean Nv. They squawked and the A.C.L.U. squawked. They want shelter on "their" terms and not anybody elses. they want access to the casinos and the tourists so they can gamble, drink, do drugs anfd get free food and shelter.
Me, i'd arrest them for loitering and work them so hard they'd get a job or leave the state. Anybody that wanted to clean up and apply for real jobs i'd help them do that. Just giving them food and shelter just won't work.
Don't see a woman that's a politician right now that'd vote for, but maybe one will come along. If she is aboard my particular brand of rightwing extremism i'd vote for her.
Bill hurt the country and the world; Hilary prob. just fin. it off.

[Rick]

So Lefty is a "righty". Pretty stealthy. Although Clinton was probably more lucky than good, I'd like to have his economy back. I'd gladly give my $600 tax rebate back to avoid going back to budget deficits. This time around I liked the Vice Presidential candidates better than the Presidential candidates. Since I supported both JFK and Barry Goldwater, I don't know which "wing" I belong to. And I liked Gerald Ford although nobody else did.

I have a theory that the best situation is to have the President and Congress be controlled by different parties. Doesn't matter which is which as long as they're different. That way they can't do anything really bizarre. Nothing much gets done, but sometimes that's the best you can hope for out of the government.

The best strategy for the homeless problem seems to be to offer a less attractive alternative than your neighboring states. Keep 'em moving around and maybe they'll get tired of it. Nevada has always been a magnet for lowlifes in general though because of the 24 hour sin city image. I've lived in Vegas twice and can't say I care much for it any more. LA with casinos. I was there a couple of weeks ago and noticed that I can't even read some of the signs on Fremont street now. Arabic (I think) on some business next to the blood bank. Charming neighborhood.

[Rick]

Here's an idea I borrowed from George Carlin. Take a large area (a whole state if necessary) and fence it off. Then throw all of the criminals and maniacs in there together. Even criminals don't want to be victims so some order would eventually develop and in the mean time everyone would get exactly what they deserved. It's the golden rule. Make sure that others do to you what you've done to others.

And you could have another area for the lazy people. Eventually someone would have to become ambitious because it's only fun being lazy if everyone else is working. That's how the hippies turned into yuppies. It stopped being fun when Mommy and Daddy stopped sending checks.

[boxcar]

Rick wrote:

>>
Lefty is a "righty". Pretty stealthy. Although Clinton was probably more lucky than good, I'd like to have his economy back. I'd gladly give my $600 tax rebate back to avoid going back to budget deficits.
>>

You would, would you? Just remember two things about "Clinton's great economy": Downturns and upturns in the economy do NOT happen overnight. It takes years for those things to develop and mature into one or the other.

Secondly, the economy started to tank on Clinton's watch -- in March of 2000.

Boxcar

This time around I liked the Vice Presidential candidates better than the Presidential candidates. Since I supported both JFK and Barry Goldwater, I don't know which "wing" I belong to. And I liked Gerald Ford although nobody else did.

I have a theory that the best situation is to have the President and Congress be controlled by different parties. Doesn't matter which is which as long as they're different. That way they can't do anything really bizarre. Nothing much gets done, but sometimes that's the best you can hope for out of the government.

The best strategy for the homeless problem seems to be to offer a less attractive alternative than your neighboring states. Keep 'em moving around and maybe they'll get tired of it. Nevada has always been a magnet for lowlifes in general though because of the 24 hour sin city image. I've lived in Vegas twice and can't say I care much for it any more. LA with casinos. I was there a couple of weeks ago and noticed that I can't even read some of the signs on Fremont street now. Arabic (I think) on some business next to the blood bank. Charming neighborhood. [/B][/QUOTE]

[boxcar]

Rick sezz about the homeless situation:

>>
I don't know the answer is as to what to do with lazy people, I just don't want them to ruin my quality of life and I'm willing to spend some money to improve the situation. It's exactly the same reason I don't mind spending money on jails
and prisons. I don't like the fact that people won't behave themselves but we have to do something about it.
>>

And again with:

>>
My point about lazy people is that, even though we don't owe them anything, we still have to do something about it and that will probably cost some money. I don't like it but that's the truth. >>

Okay...let's see what we have here. You say that you "don't know" what the answer is for dealing with "lazy people", correct? But yet, you wouldn't mind the government spending "some" of YOUR money to experiment around a bit -- to see if maybe the Feds can get "lucky" and stumble upon
a viable solution?

Now, let's take your answer here and apply it to
an infinitely easier problem to solve. For a moment, put yourself into Jesse's shoes. (You remember Jesse, don't you? He started this thread and shared with us a problem he's having with a junk-collectin' neighbor.) Let's say that you and I live in the same town, but we're not neighbors. We're acquaintances more than anything else. And let's say I hear about your problem with your inconsiderate neighbor, and one day out of the clear blue I knock on your door and announce that I have the solution to your headache. All you have to do is give me the power of attorney and you check book. That's right -- I'm going to need YOUR checkbook because it's going to take "some money" to clear this mess up -- and I'll be needing access to YOUR funds.

Naturally, you're going to want a detailed plan on what I'm going to do with the money, how I'm going to resolve the problem, and whether or not my plan would come with a money back guarantee! But I say to you -- You know, Rick, this is complex problem. There are in fact several possible approaches I could take with your neighbor. in short I wouldn't be able to come up with anything concrete that I'd be able to guarantee to work -- but nonethess I assure you that I'll do my very best for you and sooner or later we'll (i.e. with my brains and YOUR money) get this situation resolved to your satisfacion -- even if down the road it might take a little more than just "some of YOUR money" to reach this point!

Tell me: Under this scenario, would you turn over YOUR checkbook to me? Would you allow me to experiment a bit with YOUR money? And if after a six-month period, your neighbor is still piling junk sky high in his yard, would you give me more of YOUR money to "invest" in this project?

I think we both know the answers to all these rhetorical questions, don't we? Yet, you're so willing and trusting with YOUR tax dollars to turn to Big Brother to solve an exceedingly more complex social problem -- a problem that has for the most part moral issues at its roots. (At least from where I sit laziness is a moral issue, although I'm sure someone out there has is already thinking about downgrading it to a medical problem -- a "disease" or genetic disorder, or whatever.)

Maybe, though, we should just adopt a Jesse-type solution to this problem by demading our congress critters write legislation banning laziness, along with stiff penalties, of course.

Boxcar

[Rick]

boxcar,

I said I wanted the economy back, not Slick Willie. It's true that the wrong guy usually gets blamed for these things. As far as tax cuts go, I'd rather that they cut spending along with cutting taxes but they don't ever do that. That $600 I got will probably cost me $1200 over the years because we'll be paying interest on it.

I don't believe in giving the government a blank check on anything. My point was that we'll almost surely have to spend some money on the problem to get rid of it just like we have to spend money on law enforcement. Obviously it's not fair to the rest of us. If someone came up with a workable, affordable solution to it, I'd spend some money on it. But, no, I certainly don't trust the government to come up with some kind of solution by committee. That's how Hillary botched up the health care reforms. How about a specific proposal presented to the voters that they can decide on? In other words, I'm willing to spend money on something that works, but not otherwise. I think you'll agree that the number of things that government spends money on that really work is very small compared to the number of things that don't work. So, my desired budget would be far less even though I would spend more on a few things. That's why I say you can't attach the "liberal" label to me, it just doesn't fit.

Here's a good example of government "helping us" in today's newspaper:

"Teenage suicide-prevention programs inform students of the alarming number of adolescent suicides and, research shows, cause participants to become more likely to see suicide as a possible solution to their problems". The law of unintended consequences at work again.

Here's another thing to think about. With today's technology, it's feasible to have a true democracy rather than just a representative democracy. Just think of how much fun it would be to put most of the politicians out of business and vote on things ourselves. Nah, they'll never let it happen.

[Lefty]

Remember when George 41 got blamed for the old "read my lips" statement and when he got "blackmailed" into raising taxes by the demos who threatened to shut the govt. dn then use their friends the "liberal media" to blame him. Well, ol' George managed to get some spending "caps" in there and that was one thing that helped the economy when Billie boy was in there. The Reagan tax cuts also helped. When Reagan took office I was paying off a 20% loan on a mobile home. (thanks Jimmie) Anyway, another thing that helped was Knutes contract with America. The Repubs managed to get most of it by Clinton and Billie took credit.
Every action Clinton took that actually helped the economy was forced on him by the Republicans.
The economy is cyclical and will make a comeback.
Rick, glad you got your $600. How much do you think you would have gotten if Gore had been elected?
Boxcar: Great analogy.

[boxcar]

Rick wrote:

>>
I don't believe in giving the government a blank check on anything. My point was that we'll almost surely have to spend some money on the problem to get rid of it just like we have to spend money on law enforcement.
>>

Poor analogy. Law enforcement isn't a chronic socio-economic problem, but homelessness has certainly become one. And you seemed to have missed the thrust of my last post. I wouldn't mind spending "some money" either on the problem -- but would we really get rid of it!? This is the $64 question.

I doubt it, since the government's track record with social programs is downright dismal. We still are faced with many serious social problems and with well over a TRILLION dollars in national debt to show for our "good intentioned" efforts to date. I don't know about you, Rick, but I can't begin to wrap my mind around that kind of number. In fact, it numbs my mind to think about it.

So no -- I'm not in favor in spending one thin dime on any social program because the goverment has proved beyond any shadow of it doubt that the beaucracies these give-away programs create are incapable of administering and policing these programs in a cost-effective manner.

What you need to understand is that the politicians who create these programs really don't care how they spend OUR money. This was one of the points I was trying to make in my analogy. Why would you trust me (a relative stranger) to spend _your_ money!?

Another serious problem with social give-aways is that the goverment doesn't have the first clue what true charity is all about. And charity is the right term here because it would be doling out bucks to the needy -- to the less fortunate. While the State may have good intentions for those in need, it doesn't understand what _principled_ giving is. The government doesn't understand that when it gives aid to someone, it has the right and RESPONSIBILITY (even more importantly) to _demand_
things in return from the recipients. Allow me to give you a quckie example of what I mean by principled giving.

I see the homeless on the streets begging or panhandling all the time. I always ignore those at busy intersections, on the interstate off ramps, etc. because I refuse to part with my money
unconditionally, i.e. with no strings attached.

However, on three separate occassions when approached at a convenience store location or outside some busy supermarket by an obvious down n' outer who says he's hungry and asks me to part with some of my change to help him out. This poses an entirely different situation than the scenario I described in the preceding paragraph. How? Because now I'm face-to-face with the guy and I can exert some CONTROL over the situation. What I have done in these situations (each and every time) is that I tell the person that I'll be glad to buy him a sandwich or hotplate takeout dinner, or whatever. All I require is that they come into the store with me, pick out what they want and I'll pay for it. Guess what my batting average is with this approach, thus far? Would you believe 0.00? That's right. I haven't had one taker yet!
You know what they tell me? "Oh, sir, that's okay I want the money for later. I'll buy my meal later." Hahahah. Right! These panhandlers really didn't want food. They wanted money for wine, beer, drugs or whatever. But I refused to be exploited by them. This is what I mean by principled giving or even principled charity. I'm not about to give my hard-earned money away without strings attached. Try getting the Feds, though, to learn this all-important lesson!

More later. I'm off to see the wizard.

Boxcar

[so.cal.fan]

In today's Western societies there is really no need for people to be begging on street corners.
While we don't like to see homeless people, whose to say this is not their evolutionary path? Perhaps they need to be in the gutter?
If someone really needed a job, they could get some kind of a job.
Now, the mentally ill........they need to be off the streets.
However, if someone has the where with all to hold up a sign, they could be doing something more honorable, like working.
There used to be a family of beggars on the streets of Arcadia, Calif. They would sit on a blanket with their small children and hold up a sign asking for donations.
They had a van, they parked it in a bank parking lot, and would go put up their "booth" and beg.
I could never understand how these people could use their innocent children for such a pursuit. It just didn't seem right.
By the way, they were not a minority group.
Here in California, I have never seen Mexicans begging on street corners. They sell things, but never beg. At least I have never seen it.
Now, I'll buy something from a guy selling flowers or fruit, and I am a very soft touch for a kid. I always stop my car and buy from them, but I am like Boxcar in the respect, beggars will not get my money.

[Rick]

I'd much rather contribute to a charity than to the government, but that's no sure thing either. Who would have thought that we couldn't trust the Red Cross? Sometimes I'll listen to a beggar's story just because some of them are so creative. I might even give him a buck if, after I say no he doesn't cop an attitude.

My wife and I ran a motel for a while and the Mexicans were great workers. The worst were white fat blondes. We did a lot of "profiling" when we hired people after being burned a few times. I still don't know what a real green card should look like because we encountered at least 3 different types and nobody told us what to look for. One woman applied two different times with two different names and seemingly valid documentation for both. I still don't know what her real name was but she was a great housekeeper.

One thing I don't understand about homeless people. I've seen them living in the most God awful climates. Like Chicago when it's 20 degrees below zero. Or here in Phoenix in the summer where it's 110 every day. If I were on the streets, I'd hitch a ride to somewhere with a lot kinder climate like maybe the California coast. But maybe it's standing room only over there now.

[boxcar]

so.cal.fan wrote:

>>
...but I am like Boxcar in the respect, beggars will not get my money.
>>

That's not true. I never said I wouldn't give money to a beggar -- but only that I wouldn't give money in situations wherein I wouldn't be able to exercise some control or have a say.

The Judeo-Christian ethic, for example, clearly sanctions all kinds of good works, including giving alms to the poor, the feeding of the hungry, etc.

Additionally, that fella Jesus taught his disciples that they would "always have the poor among them". Evidently, he didn't think that all the advancements (so-called) that civilization would make would ever endanger poverty anywhere near to the point of extinction.

However, there is also another highly important biblical principle that believers in the Judeo-Christian ethic should take to heart, i.e. "be wise as serpents but as innocent as doves".
(Could you ever imagine some administrator of some Fed give-away agency taking this kind to principle to heart?)

So, the problem here becomes one of who is best suited to do charitable works. The U.S. goverment has amply proven that it is _NOT_ at all suited. It has demonstrated time and again that it is unwilling or incpaple of implementing sound principles of stewardship over my money, your
money...our money. The goverment might as well have for its slogan -- Fiscal Irresponsibility R
Us!

Government, though, does a few of things very well with social issues -- unfortuanely to the overall detriment to We the People. Politicians know how to politicize issues and how to evoke EMOTIONAL responses from voters. While virtually all politicians are guilty of these practices, these two things are especially true of the Libs.

And as Rick has correctly pointed out, the large charity organizations aren't exactly saints either when it comes to administering charity to the "needy". I thought O'Reilly did a great job in exposing all the weaknessess and deficencies -- and even some level of "hanky panky" on part of these large tax-exempt organizations with regard specifically to the 9/11 Disaster Fund. However, I was not surprised to learn these things. I have never given a dime to the Red Cross, to United Way, etc., nor will I ever. Far too much donated monies are diverted to other "causes", all of which are left to the discretion of the agency, and the cost of administrative overhead is too high, generally.

I have no doubt that the vehicles that are best equipped to handle charitable giving are to be found on the local level, such as your church, your synagogue, etc. But even here one should demand to know how his contributions are being managed. Any good, honest religious organization should not mind having their books opened up to scrutiny by any church or synagoge member -- or for that matter to any contributor.

Boxcar

[so.cal.fan]

My late father, a WW2 war hero, would never give a dime to the Red Cross, he said they cheated the GI's over in Europe during the War. He had some pretty bad stories, in those days we didn't have the O'Reilly Factor on TV to expose stuff like that, but the guys who were over there, fighting, and not getting what was sent to them by the people back home.........I remember when O'Reilly exposed the 9-11 charity fraud, and named the Red Cross, I thought of my Dad and his experience with them.

Boxcar:
You obviously don't live in So. Calif. or you wouldn't give beggars money under any circumstances. It is a business here, and when you give your money to a business, you expect to get something in return.
I believe in donating to charities and do.
However, I do my homework..........I find out how ethical they are before I help them out.

[boxcar]

South Cal, I doubt beggars differ that much from one part of the country to the other. But be that as it may, I would never part with my money to any beggar without being in control of the situation. After all, I can't just presume to know their hearts or motives -- who is really in need of food and who is trying to con me on unless I have some way of judging their response or actions after I make an offer of help.

I have no respect for the UW either. This orginization really fell from grace after they refused to make any further donations to the Boy Scout org because the leadership stuck by their moral values when they refused to hire any homosexuals for scout leader positions.

Just curious...do you contribute to any national or international charities? Or do you confine your giving to local charities?

Boxcar

[Rick]

boxcar,

Which charities to you consider to be worthy ones and how do you find out what their overhead is?


Here's a quote from Thomas Jefferson for all of you guys who gave me so much grief for using the term "luck" inappropriately to describe risk: "I am a great believer in luck, and I find that the harder I work, the more I have of it". That more accurately reflects my position on "luck". Actually, to be more precise than that, I'd say that I think most things are about half luck and half skill but that makes it very worthwhile to take a chance if you have any skill whatsoever.

[boxcar]

posted by Rick:

>>
Which charities to you consider to be worthy ones and how do you find out what their overhead is?
>>

All my giving is confined to my church. Can't get much more local than that.

Maybe South Cal will, though, will share with us the procedure he uses to investigate national or international charitable orgs.

>>
Here's a quote from Thomas Jefferson for all of you guys who gave me so much grief for using the term "luck" inappropriately to describe risk: "I am a great believer in luck, and I find that the harder I work, the more I have of it". That more accurately reflects my position on "luck". >>

Jefferson's position more accurately describes your second one, i.e. people make their own luck. Whereas in the context of your first post, Lady Luck ruled the day.

Boxcar

[so.cal.fan]

Box:
So. Cal. Fan checks into legitimate organizations who help children and animals.
I also help any seniors in my little town who need help.
I never donate to any church, I do not believe in any organized religions. I have nothing against folks who do, I just don't.
I think some organized religions are more evil than others.
Of course I NEVER donate money to any political party.
However......I do vote.

[boxcar]

by so.cal.fan wrote:

>>
So. Cal. Fan checks into legitimate organizations who help children and animals.
>>

Two worthy causes indeed. I'm also an animal lover.

>>
I also help any seniors in my little town who need help.
>>

I'll be contacting you in a few years.

>>
I never donate to any church, I do not believe in any organized religions. I have nothing against folks who do, I just don't. I think some organized religions are more evil than others.
>>

Won't get an argument from here, except to say that not all "organized religions" are evil, as you seem to be implying.

>>
Of course I NEVER donate money to any political party.
>>

Ditto!

>>
However......I do vote.
>>

Double Ditto!

If you were my neighbor, we'd probably get along pretty well -- providing you didn't junk up the neighborhood. :)

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Yesterday Fox News did a story on Canadian immigration policies. I was bowled over afterwards. I thought we had really loosey goosey policies, but I now think Canada might make our immigration policy look sane and sensible by comparison!

One of the main players in the story was the Immigration Minister -- a chap by the name of Godesse (sp?), I believe. I had to pick myself up
off the floor after listening to a couple of his remarks.

In trying to offer a defense of Canadian policy, he said Canada shouldn't look at every immigrant as a "POTENTIAL" terrorist -- the operative word here being "potential". Basically, he thought that it wouldn't be right. (God only knows why it wouldn't be right. I certainly would have loved to ask him why he thought that way and how he could think that way after 9/11.)

Then he went on to glibly say later on in the interview that if they let in any "bad guys" and they do something bad, they'll just have to be prepared to pay the price! How comforting! Evidently, this guy has a love affair with Lady Hindsight and never heard of the old adage of "better to be safe than sorry". He gave absolutely no thought at all to prevention strategies -- to saving lives. None. Zero. Nada. An alien concept, evidently, to him and other high Canadian officials.

While the U.S. certainly can't force a sovereign nation to revise its immigration policies, one would think, however, that in light of those higly irresponsible policies that _common sense_ (a commodity in very short supply in the WH) would demand that we'd take some strong actions to beef up our security on our side of the Canadian-U.S. border. But where are the thousands of U.S. armed troops? Where are all the plane and helicopter surveillance units? Where are all the well armed listening posts along the border, etc., etc.?

I guess it will take another disaster or two of the magnitude of 9/11 before our resident Dunce in the WH learns the all-important lesson about "homeland security", i.e. a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

Boxcar

[Rick]

boxcar,

What people call "luck" I don't think of as being totally random. If you read about chaos theory you have to believe that seemingly unpredictable events do, in fact, follow an orderly process. Similarly, my idea of probability is that it's just a measure of ignorance. I guess you could say that God is playing with loaded dice.

My original statement had to do with my belief that poor people should be taking more chances than they usually do. Like take any job you can get, go to school at night, and be willing to move anywhere where you might be more successful. Doing that is almost sure to improve your situation eventually. When you find something that works, then you settle down, buy more insurance, etc.

The point is that most poor people don't do that. They spend every dime they make, have no savings of any kind, wouldn't think of ever living anywhere else, and choose an occupation and stick with it even if there's no longer any demand for it or it's low paying. They usually consider education to be a waste of time and will ridicule anyone who has learned more than they have.

Of course these are gross generalizations, but I've seen and heard it hundreds of times. There are some spectacular success stories but they're few and far between and they've always gone against the advice of their peers.

[Tom]

If what you say is true, and I have reason to doubt it, we should seriously re-think our boarder relationship with Cananda. If they are not abel to act like a mature, responsible nation in this world, then maybe we don't need them as an ally to our north. They have much more to lose by us closing our boarders than we do.
But if our security is at risk, then we have to cut Cananda loose today. There is no excuse for what you described - this is our survival and I am not willing to risk it over incompetence and stupidity. BTW, didn't they harbor the French and allow them to stage raids from Quebec in the 1700's.....??

[Lefty]

Rick, the poor people don't take chances because they've been misled into believing "Uncle Sugar' is going to take care of them by taking money from the "evil rich" and give it them.
Just heard on the radio LV wants to raise property taxes "only a little" to help take care of the homeless.
Screw 'em.

[boxcar]

Lefty, they gotta be kidding with this "only a little" fairytale! A few years down the road when the problem gets even bigger, they'll want "only a little more" because the'll say that the first time around their programs were underfunded. Throw good money after the bad...something else government does very well.

Boxcar

[Lefty]

Oh, yeah, it's the old "boiling the frog" a little at a time story. trble is the american taxpayer just about "fully cooked."
BTW, a while back a pollster called and asked if I was okay with raising property taxes, this time it was for education in our local schools. I said, "hell no."
"but it's for the children," she pleaded. "what else are we going to do?"
"Kick the damn illegal kids out of school and that leaves pl;enty of resources," I said.
Click.

[Rick]

Lefty,

It's just that politicians should learn the difference between needs and wants. A 90 year old disabled person needs help. A 20 year old able-bodied person just wants us to give them money. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

[boxcar]

And what does it make us, Rick, when the government fools us to the tune of 1 Trillion+ debt? I would suspect something far worse than fools!

I love John T. Kennedy's take on government. Since I couldn't have expressed it better myself, I'll yield the floor to him.

Boxcar
-----------------------------

A Parliament of Whores?
http://www.anti-state.com/kennedy/kennedy3.html

by John T Kennedy

Robert Vroman makes some good points about the unfairness of comparing government to the Mafia, but I find it even more offensive when government officials are likened to whores.

It's terribly unfair to compare government officials to whores. It slanders whores. What have whores ever done to deserve being
compared with government officials?

The oldest profession is an honorable one. Whores do honest business trading value for value. Can government officials honestly say the same? P.J. O'Rourke meant to criticize government when he called it a Parliament of Whores, but consider how much better off we would all be if government officials were as virtuous as whores.

If government officials were as virtuous as whores they wouldn't force their services on you. Whores take no for an answer. If you tell a whore you're not interested in her services she moves on and
looks for someone who is. Try telling your government officials you're not interested in the services of government. Do they move on? No, they slap you with a bill.

If government officials were as virtuous as whores they wouldn't bill you for services you didn't request. Whores never announce "From now on I'll
be providing you with a new service, and here's how much you owe me for it."

If government officials were as virtuous as whores they wouldn't start from the premise that you're born owing their business something. A whore will never argue "Everybody needs to get laid so it's only fair for everyone to pay their share."

If government officials were as virtuous as whores they'd never bill you for services they provided to somebody else. A whore won't tell you "The
guy down the block can't afford my services but I serviced him anyway. Here's how much you owe for it."

If government officials were as virtuous as whores they would never need to know the depth of your pockets. Next time you're filling out an income tax form remember that a whore's price doesn't depend on how much money you made last year. Because that's not the way an honest profession
operates.

A Parliament of Whores? We should be so lucky.

[Rick]

boxcar,

Very amusing but unfortunately true. Now we can see what they do with the Homeland Security thing. That's going to be such an opportunity for Congress to add on unnecessary spending that they probably won't be able to get it done this year! Great time to be a lobbyist.

[boxcar]

More immigration-related fiascoes.

A big story will break tomorrow, I think. Hannity & Colmes had on an investigative reporter who unearthed a "fast track" visa program in Sorry Arabia (love that phraseology, Tom). In fact, the program is called Visa Express, and it ain't referrin' to a visa credit card. Since the story will be out in print very soon, I'll spare all the details, except to give the long and the short of it.

The program allows anyone in One Sorry Land to apply for a visa to the good ol' U.S. of A. from a Saudi travel agent. In fact, the applicant never has to see an American until he sets foot here in the U.S. The reporter claims that 3 of the 19 9/11 hijackers used this program to get here!

Also learned tonight that there was a _second_ shooting incident very near the U.S.-Mexican border. Once again, Mexican police crossed over to our side of the border and shot at Border Patrol agents. (The first incident took place a month or two ago.) The Bush Admin. has been keeping these shooting incidents very, very hush-hush for obvious reasons.

But what I do find humorous about this is that the Dems really have a legitimate issue with which to attack Bush, since these incidents have been covered up by the Admin. But the Dems are also in favor of illegal immigration, so thus far they've kept their mouths shut. It'll be very interesting to see how these incidents play out politically.

Also, Zogby took a poll down in Mexico and discovered that about 58% of Mexicans think they have a RIGHT to cross over to the U.S. anytime they want without any papers!

The Mexicans also believe, by about the same ratio, that Mexico is the legitimate owner of our southwest territory. (I suppose we can expect a lawsuit on this issue anytime now!)

I'm beginning to think that my idea for two-year immigration moratorium was far too optimistic.

Boxcar