Political Correctness -- America's Achilles' Heel?

[boxcar]

I stated recently on another thread that "political correctness" was certainly a large factor used to drive our immigration policies. We also see that it is also being used to largely form our national security policies from the highest levels in government, i.e. the Bush Administation, which I'll show in a subsequent post.

The following "test" was sent by a good online friend of mine. This was also aired on a local talk show in my area -- and while some of the multiple choice answers are humorous, they were chosen to drive home the point of how absurd, insane, illogical and unreasonable the current PC policies are. Think for a moment with me. Indulge me, if you will.

Let's say that instead of "Muslim male extremists between the age of 17 and 40" perpetrating all the attacks against America and American interests abroad that all those attacks were perpetrated by Black African Whackos between the age of 17 and 40, who were teed off at us because we're educated and affluent, and they're not. What would be the point in wasting a great deal of time, money and effort to comuter-generated _random_ searches of a gazillion whites!? (Please note: "random" is the key word here.)

I'm not suggesting that no whites, in this scenario, should ever be stopped, questioned, searched, etc. -- but should whites be subjected to this kind of treatment for no good reason -- without probable cause?

Still don't get it? Let's take this "PC logic" (an oxymoron if there ever was one!) to its ultimate logical conclusion. Let's suppose that little green, bug-eyed, three-legged, four- fingered Martians perpetrated these attacks against the world at large. Would the reasonable, sensible and logical course of security action by world goverments be to randomly screen millions of humans, so that we don't "offend" our galactic neighbors from Mars?

In the next post, I'll have more to say about PC, racial profiling and national security issues. Meanwhile, you may find yourself emotionally torn when deciding whether you should laugh or cry over some of the answers to the test that immediately follows.

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

Here is a test to help you understand why profiling is upsetting so
many idiots.

To ensure we Americans never offend anyone - - ---particularly fanatics intent on killing us - airport screeners will not be allowed to profile
people. They will continue random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, Secret Service agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal Of Honor winning former Governors.

Let's pause a moment and take the following test.

In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by:
(a) Olga Korbut
(b) Sitting Bull
(c) Arnold Schwartzenegger
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over by:
(a) Lost Norwegians
(b) Elvis
(c) A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
(a) John Dillinger
(b) The King of Sweden
(c) The Boy Scouts
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
(a) A pizza delivery boy
(b) Pee Wee Herman
(c) Geraldo Rivera making up for a slow news day
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked, and a 70 year old
American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard by:
(a) The Smurfs
(b) Davy Jones
(c) The Little Mermaid
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a U.S. Navy diver was murdered by:
(a) Captain Kidd
(b) Charles Lindberg
(c) Mother Teresa
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
(a) Scooby Doo
(b) The Tooth Fairy
(c) Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid who had a few sticks of dynamite left over from a train job.
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
(a) Richard Simmons
(b) Grandma Moses
(c) Michael Jordan
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
(a) Mr. Rogers
(b) Hillary, to distract attention from Wild Bill's women problems
(c) The World Wrestling Federation to promote its next villain:
"Mustapha the Merciless"
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked and destroyed and thousands of people were killed by:
(a) Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck, and Elmer Fudd
(b) The Supreme Court of Florida
(c) Mr. Bean
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
(a) Enron
(b) The Lutheran Church
(c) The NFL
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
(a) Bonnie and Clyde
(b) Captain Kangaroo
(c) Billy Graham
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

Hmmm . . . nope, no patterns anywhere to justify profiling.

[Rick]

boxcar,

I saw the same thing and thought about posting it but you did it first. Congratulations my friend.

[Tom]

Today they aannounced the arrest of an American Islamic who was planning unleashing a dirt bomb. So this guys comes to this country, lies like a mad dog to get here and take advantage of our freedom, and then tries to repay us for taking him in by killing our poeple. And people get upset when we call a spade a spade?????? Who is the sick monster here, this wothless lifeform that is lying in wait here in his adopted country or those of who realize that the Islamic menece walks amoung us today and is going to strike again????? The battlefield is here, our own streets and buildings. And the enemy is here, disguised as citizen or guests. Turn your back on them and they will slit your throat.
Let me tell you, it was no southern Baptist on my TV screen tonight. And this is no was betwen countries...it is a war between cultures, between real religions and a phony Satan worshipping cult that has no morality. We had better take care of those amoung us first..they are the ones who will lead the next attack.
And that Sorry-ass piece of crap that claims to be Sorry-Arabian royalty and come here to run his horses is a major factor in this problem. Sorry-Arabia is no friend of the USA and any one in the "royal family should be thrown in a Bronx jail cell to rot.
What this country needs is good guillitoine! Worked for the French.

[boxcar]

The American-Canadian border is the longest non-militarized border on the globe -- being nearly 4,000 miles long. Our non-militarized border with Mexico is probably about another 1,500 miles in length. So, here we have over 5,000 miles of virtually unmanned borders.

Yes, we have some armed men and women from the Border Patrol patroling these borders, but their numbers are a joke. There is no way on this little green planet so few people can do an effective and efficient job over so many miles. To say that our borders are somewhat "porous" would hardly describe how easy it is for people to cross over from Mexico or Canada. And remember: Canada operates with _extremely liberal_ immigration laws. Canadian immigration officials will even allow people into their country who arrive there with NO papers -- NO legal documentation.

So, what has the Bush Administration done to beef up our Homeland [In]Security in terms of our borders? Well, have no fear, folks, 'cause our Congress Critters passed and our resident WH Dunce signed into law the Border Security Act (I think it's called) shortly after 9/11. (Be assured that this measure will go a very short way in helping to protect our very long borders.) The bill allows the Border Patrol to beef up its forces by a whopping FOUR HUNDRED agents -- yep, you read it right -- 4-0-0 people over the next FIVE YEARS! Comforting, eh?

As most of us know, late last week our Prez announced a er...reshuffling of the Beltway Bumbling Bureaucracies. He intends to do this by putting many agencies under different tents under the oversight of a soon-to-be created Homeland [In]Security Cabinet run by Tom Ridge.

After Bush's short announcement the other night of these stupendous reforms, Fox News interviewed
Tommy. He was asked, among other things, if the Administration planned to militarize our borders.
The reply Ridge gave was mind-numbing! He said that the Administration had no plans to take that kind of action b-e-c-a-u-s-e...we have very special relationships with our neighbors, longstanding arrangements, close ties with them, blah, blah, blah...and more inane remarks.

Now let's stop here for a moment and ask what any bright, astute, thinking reporter should have asked as a follow up to that kind of a STUPID answer. I know I would have asked these for starters: So, what are you telling Americans, Tommy Baby -- that if the U.S. were to patrol its borders with armed troops that our "good" neighbors to the north and south of us would consider that as an act of war!? That by the U.S. goverment exercising its constitutionally mandated responsibility of protecting its citizens that this would somehow put a strain on our relationships with our "good" neighbors? Are Americans supposed to infer from your answer, Mr. Homeland [In]Security Exec, that our "good" neighbors would somehow be OFFENDED if we put OUR troops on OUR side of the U.S. border for defense purposes in a time of war?

Unfortunately, the reporter (as is all too often the case with these kinds of interviews) had his or her brain in snooze mode and failed to nail Ridge and the Bush Administration. Instead, the question of Canada's rather lax immigration policies was raised. Essentially, Ridge tried to assure Americans that the U.S. is "working closely" with Canada to beef up its policies -- blah, blah, blah. Huh? And just how effective is the U.S. going to be in getting Canada to implement some fundamental reforms to its immigration policies? I mean when it comes right down to it, we're talking about Canadian laws and policies, and while we _may_ be able to exert some influence for needed reforms in a socialistic country, this could take many years.
I didn't realize we had the luxury of years. But I bet the terrorists, who want to bring the U.S. to its knees, wouldn't mind us thinking along these lines at all!

Boxcar

[so.cal.fan]

"To ensure we Americans never offend anyone - - ---particularly fanatics intent on killing us - airport screeners will not be allowed to profile
people. They will continue random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, Secret Service agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal Of Honor winning former Governors".


Eye opener, Box.
While we are told that most Muslims are not terrorists.......
the evidence points clearly to most terrorists being Muslims.

[Rick]

Question: Would face recognition systems be considered profiling? Aren't people just doing the same thing by looking for similar looking faces?

[Doug]

Check out the article on the Drudge Report. They have gone so far as to accuse a police dog of racial profiling. Want to kill the dog. Give me a break.

Doug

[boxcar]

Doug wrote:

>>
Check out the article on the Drudge Report. They have gone so far as to accuse a police dog of racial profiling. Want to kill the dog. Give me a break.
>>

I'm not surprised. PC is off the Sanity Scale.
But would you believe me if I told you that the goverment has condoned and approved of racial profiling for years? I'll tell you how in a later post.

Boxcar

[Rick]

boxcar,

Check out what happens when they have an actual suspect though. They always report the the height, weight, and RACE of the suspect. So, if it's an actual suspect associated with a crime, we do consider racial profiling because it helps us to find the criminal. So, if a crime has been committed, which it has, then it is OK to look for people who resemble the criminal. We're not talking about stopping everyone of the same race on every street everywhere, but if we're trying to catch a white male about 5 feet 10 inches tall between the ages of 23 to 27 then we'll watch everyone who matches that description more closely. It's not necessary to clear our brains of information that we know that might help us to find the criminal more effectively. That's not harassment, that's just noticing patterns.

[boxcar]

Rick wrote:

>>
Check out what happens when they have an actual suspect though. They always report the the height, weight, and RACE of the suspect. So, if it's an actual suspect associated with a crime, we do consider racial profiling because it helps us to find the criminal. So, if a crime has been committed, which it has, then it is OK to look for people who resemble the criminal.
>>

And so it has always been. But look what happens when a crime hasn't been committed -- when we're in prevent mode, such as with airport security.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Doug wrote:

>>
Check out the article on the Drudge Report. They have gone so far as to accuse a police dog of racial profiling. Want to kill the dog. Give me a break.
>>

I learned more about this incident on a radio show and on the Brit Hume show on Fox News. I have concluded that the black councilwoman has the solution all bakwards. They should put her to sleep and feed a big, thick juicy steak to the pooch.

Boxcar

[Doug]

Boxcar,

Perfect.

Doug

[Lefty]

Yep, Boxcar, racial profiling done all the time. It's called Affirmative Action.

[boxcar]

Lefty wrote:

>>
Boxcar, racial profiling done all the time. It's called Affirmative Action.
>>

Hey, hey. Watch that stuff. You're stealing my thunder. :)

Boxcar

[Tom]

Originally posted by boxcar
Rick wrote:

>>

And so it has always been. But look what happens when a crime hasn't been committed -- when we're in prevent mode, such as with airport security.

Boxcar

The only thing being prevented by the airport security is travel!

[boxcar]

Tom

>>
The only thing being prevented by the airport security is travel!
>>

Not to mention peace of mind.

Boxcar

[Rick]

Waits at airports won't bother me a bit. For any trip less than 1000 miles, I've always preferred to travel by car anyway if I have the time since it's so much more convenient and comfortable. Anyone I know who's more than 1000 miles away will probably have to either come to me or talk on the phone. No, I'm not terrorized. I just hate to wait in line.

[boxcar]

As probably many of you know by now, there were some strong "anti-Islamic" sentiments expressed recently at a Southern Baptist Convention, or even more specifically at a meeting for So. Baptist pastors. If you subscribe to the NY Times, here is the link to this liberal rag's take on those remarks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/15/national/15BAPT.html?todaysheadlines

I believe this incident is worth looking at more closely, as it will amply display not merely the mainstream press' bias against conservative-traditional or Judeo-Christian values, but what the primary goals and effects of Political Correcteness are.

The Times story refers to Pastor Vines' remarks as "hate speech" and went on to say that this type of speech "...had become a staple of conservative Christian POLITICAL discourse" (emphasis mine).

But this take immediately raises a few important questions to my mind. Were the pastor's comments hate speech of free speech? Did the pastor express his opinions in an open/public or closed/private setting? To whom were his opinions expressed -- to just anyone or to a limited/restricted audience? Was his take on Islam political or theological (religious) in nature? I'd like to tackle these questions in reverse order.

The Times very cleverly and subtlely characterized a private religious meeting sponsored and hosted by the SBC as being "political" in nature. While I have never attended an SBC meeting, I can tell you from people I know who have that those kinds of meetings focus primarily on theological issues, as have other denominations' annual meetings that I have attended. Therefore, it is very misleading for the Times to characterize the SBC meeting as being "political" in nature. I would suggest that Vines was expressing his views as he understood biblical theology and his interpretation of Islamic writings. Therefore, his comments were religious in nature and not political, as the Times would have its readers believe.

The NYT also made a significant omission in its story. It conveniently failed to tell its readers that the pastor's remarks were directed solely to other SB pastors. It was a closed meeting -- in fact a meeting in which one could attend only by invitation. That is how these conventions usually work. Even if the convention consists of different workshops and different meetings covering different theological issues, etc., they usually require a specific invitation to each event, and that invite is usually set up well in advance of the date of the convention itself. Therefore, we must wonder why the Islamic groups, rags like the NYT, etc. are all bent out of shape about opinions expressed in a _private_ meeting to a _very restricted_ audience.

I would consider it imprudent and unwise to express those kinds of opinions in a public setting to a mixed audience, e.g. to believers and unbelievers -- but even so...wouldn't that speech in this context also be protected by the First Amendment? Doesn't the Left defend offensive art (such as a cross in a glass or bucket of urine) on the basis of this amendment?

And notice, I'm making my case here not on the basis of whether pastor Vines' remarks were theolgoically accurate (but nonethesss I believe they were) or whether his take on Islam was on the mark (which they might be -- see the link below and decide for yourself.). The irrefutable fact remains, regardless of what our respective positions are, that Vines had a constitutionally-protected right to say what he did.

http://www.falwell.com/historical_data.html

In order to keep this post at a reasonable length, I will write more later -- about what I think is really going on behind all the extreme left's rhetoric and attempts by the left, generally, to surpress anyone's right to free speech who espouses conservative, traditional or Judeo-Christian values.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Not too long after the 9/11 tragedy, a high school boy, out of his support for Operation Freedom in Afghanistan, hung posters inside his school locker. Because these posters supported the war on terrorism and showed planes bombing Muslim (i.e. Al Queda-Taliban) postions in Afghanistan, the school hierarchy ordered the lad to remove the posters out of its concern that they might offend the few students in the school who had a Muslim background -- even when the boy claimed that he had widespread support from virutally all the students in the school, including all the Islamic kids (which I believe numbered only two or three).
After the parents visited with the principal to see what was going on, the shcool remained steadfast in its anti-First Amendment position. In point of fact, it took nothing less than a full-blown lawsuit in a federal district court to force the school to allow the boy to rehang the posters, if he so desired. Score a small victory for the principled lad and his parents who had the determination and courage to see this issue through to the end.

A couple of nights ago on Hannity & Colmes, they brought on an 18-year old Christian girl who was graduating from her public H.S. The school wanted to censor her graduation speech because they found the words "Jesus" and "prayer" to be offensive. They allowed her to keep the more generalized reference to deity, e.g.. "God" in her speech, but ordered her to remove the other two terms. She refused. They responded by telling her that they wouldn't allow her to give her speech. The school, by wanting to do this, would have painted itself into very conspicuous corner, since this young lady also happened to be graduating with honors -- being the top student in her senior class. But evidently the potential for her rather conspicuous absence dind't bother the school one iota.

Like the young man above, she and her parents refused to buckle under to the school's unreasonable and illegal demands. They told the school in no uncertain terms that if they didn't allow her speech to stand, it would be sued. The school remained obstinate right up to the day before the graduation exercises. I could be wrong on this...but I think the girl's attorney actually filed suit in a federal district court the day before, at which time the school relented, and the suit was dropped. The girl was permitted to give her speech her way.

Not very long ago in a California school district at another middle school, either the school, or some organization was permitted by the district, to stage a play wherein the characters were Muslim religious figures and the children were required to dress up as Muslims and play act out Islamic roles. I don't think I need to elaborate on this any further, except to say -- just imagine (if you can) the outcry that would have been heard around the country if the kids had, instead, been acting out Christian roles in a PUBLIC school setting!

Also, in another California middle school, some left wing organization (I think it was Planned Parenthood) was permitted to instruct the kids on the "virtues of tolerance". And the way they decided to do this was to quiz these young kids on how they felt about homosexuals and the homosexual lifestyle. All the kids stood around in a big circle. If any child responded negatively, he or she was put in the middle of the circle and ostracized and embarrased by the adults and the other kids. The idea was to give the child with a "dissenting opinion" a taste of intolerance. Imagine the outcry that would ensue if some right wing orgainization tried pulling the same stunt!

It was reported that some young girl refused to buckle under to peer pressure and to the adults. She refused to glorify or accept the notion that the homosexual lifestyle was [morally] good or acceptable. She was taunted and embarrased by virtually everyone present. I'm not sure how this all ended. I believe the parents were going to sue the school district, but I never read or heard any follow-up to this story.

I could go on with numerous other examples of these double standards, but I think the point is established. There is a very determined, concerted effort afoot in this country by left wing extremists, who in the names of their secular, humanistic gods "plurality" and "tolerance", to not only initally undermine conservative or Judeo-Christian values, but to ultimately replace them with an atheistic, hedonistic or nihilistic world view, or any combination thereof. I will expand some more on this in a subsequent post, as this is already too long.

Boxcar

[Tom]

This is why I am against every and any gun control law. Period.
Someday, we may have to stand up and take back our rights.
Never trust the government-EVER. They are proven liars and don't think for a minute that we are safe here in the good ole USA. We are only safe as long as we are armed and ready. The step from government to Taliban is a small one. That is also why I favor one term limits for every office. Period. Give them two and they will start to become dangerous.

[Rick]

Tom,

Yes, I agree with you in principle, but if you think you're going to defend yourself against the government with a handgun, you're sadly misinformed. I'm afraid it's not going to make any difference against tanks and helicopter gunships. Get real!

[boxcar]

In the beginning, "political correctness" was a novelty -- a phenomenon that was often worthy to serve as the object of our jokes -- and surely above all else, nothing more than a transient phase or passing fad in mainstream American society. I used to believe this; but I no longer do. Now I believe PC is anything but a laughing matter; and even more importantly, that it is here to stay and will continue to grow and fester as a freedom-killing cancer, unless courageous, freedom-loving Americans remain vigilant and fight it with every ounce of strength in our beings.

Incidents, such as what I related in my previous post, are now occurring all across the nation with alarming regularity. Hardly a day passes that I don't read or hear about the underage, or some adolescent or adult with politically conservative and/or Judeo-Christian values coming under attack by the Left, and accused by the extremists of lacking "tolerance", or spewing forth "hate speech", or in some manner being "offensive", or in some other way being "bigoted". These four words/phrases (or some variation thereof) are the Left's big buzzwords/phrases. Just what is going on here? How are we to interpret the encroachment of PC into virtually every area of our lives, which will soon include the very food we eat.

While I don't hold to any vast "left wing extremist" conspiracy theories, it is clear to me, nonetheless, that the Left has all of the political impetus, and the Libs know this and aren't shy at all about running with the ball. In fact, the word "shy" doesn't seem to exist anymore in the Left's thinking or vocabulary. Far from it. The Left, since the first term of Clinton, has become more emboldened and forceful as ever. While Clinton apologists tend to label the Slickster as a "moderate", it is very difficult for me to see him in that light, most especially with all the clandestine, highly suspicious, and nefarious activities that took place on his watch.

Clinton certainly seemed to have quite an affinity with Communistic ideology. The Chinese contributed to his campaign, top secret information were stolen from Los Alamos, the golden opportnity to get bin Laden was shrugged-off and squandered, and now even more recently it has come out that Clinton and his State Dept. were sympathetic toward Hussein and prohibited a coup in Iraq that would have toppled the dictator -- and to add more icing to that cake, Clinton looked the other way while Saddam broke the oil embargo by allowing Iraq to ship and sell its oil overland through Turkey. In addition to these activities, the Clinton administration greatly weakened the CIA's intelligence gathering capabilities, not to mention sorely comprimised our military strength and preparedness through inadequate budgeting for eight years.

In summary, Clinton was first and foremost a "globalist", seemingly very enamored with the concept of a "one world governement/new world order",and was generally eager to lending a sympathetic ear toward U.N. initiatives and agendas even when it meant comprimising U.S. sovereignty. The really important and constitutionally-mandated duties, such as protecting our sovereignty, ensuring our national security and maintaining to a high degree our military capabilties were subordinated to his administration's globalist vision.

I will conintue this with one one more post, since I'm having problems loading long posts.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

(part 2/2 continued from previous post)

While the Democrats were discouraged by the outcome of the presidential elections in '99 and considered it a setback to their agenda, that mood was shortlived when the Dems, shortly after the presidential election, took control of the Senate vis-a-vis a defection of a Republican to the Independant party. Almost immediately the Dems made no bones at all that they would not support any of Bush's judicial nominees who were not in lockstep with liberal ideology. Judicial qualifications mattered little now. Political ideology counted for everything. The Democrats know that the fastest and most efficient way for a party to push its agenda through is by having judges on the bench that would generally be supportive of that agenda. If the Dems get their way and manage to stack the federal benches with liberals, they would be assured that many of these judges would return the favor by taking an aggressive, proactive role by legislating from their benches. Making law from the bench is a surefire way to save valuable time and cut through all the congressional redtape.

I don't think I would be exaggerating by saying that for all practical intent and purposes, the Senate is the body that really is in control of domestic policy. Bush, in an attempt to co-opt the Dems by stealing their issues, is merely furthering the liberal agenda. In fact, if it were not for the war on terrorism and the Middle East crisis, Bush himself would join the ranks of what his party has already become, i.e. all but irrelevant.

With the Left now being reenergized and all charged up again by the shift of power in the Senate, it has become more emboldened than ever in pushing its socialist agenda down the throat of all Americans. For years now, the Left has wielded tremendous influence in virtually all our presitigious institutions of higher learning. During the Clinton era, however, the Left focused more of its attention to our public schools. Very many of our schools have now become the breeding grounds for socialist indoctrination. Many school districts, principals, teachers, teachers' unions and even approved outside organizations have as their primary objective the theft of the hearts, minds and souls of our young children. Real, fundamental education in the "3 Rs", for example, has taken a backseat to various "education" courses, such as sex education, social values education, etc. The Left knows that if it can inculcate its values into this generation growing up, Liberals would become the recipients of most of these kids' votes in the next ten years or so.

Simultaneously, the Left is conducting its war on another front -- a broader effort that is designed to affect older Americans. But the goal here is not so much to indoctrinate (especially older, maturer people) but to condition dissenters into silence. (Unfortunately, I think the ranks of the "silent majority" are swelling to historic proportions.) Those on the left simply employ the ol' peer pressure tactics. It voices its displeasure with and disapproval of conservative or Judeo-Christian values by labeling these
values, when expressed through speech or action, as "offensiive" or "bigoted" or even as "hate speech". The Left knows that if it can pressure or shame the more timid or reserve conservatives into silence, the Right loses because its silence would amount to tacit approval of its (the Left's) positions! This in turn would promulgate the false impression that the Left itself represents and reflects the majority opinion.

Of the tactics described in the preceding paragraph, the use of the "hate speech" phrase by the Left disturbs me the most. The reason is that the Left for some time has been itching for federal legilsators to create an entirely new category of crime called "hate crimes". If the liberals succeed in doing this, I have to think the next logical and even relatively small step for them to take would be to outlaw "hate speech", which by mere statute would potentially neturalize or even nullify every American's protection of free speech under the First Amendment. For that matter, any "hate crimes" legilstation itself could seriously threaten or jeopardize our other liberties, such as freedom of religion, which includes freedom of expression thereof. Who is to say that some Christian's act of sharing the gospel with someone, for instance, wouldn't be construed as a "hateful or intolerant" act and, therefore, a federal crime!?

For all the reasons stated herein, this writer takes the threats and dangers that the "political correctness"movement poses to our liberties very seriously. If we were to view this grassroot movement, that now extends to the highest levels of goverment, as a "secular cult" bent on severely restricting our consititutionally-protected freedoms for the sole purpose of futhering its own socialist agenda, I think more of us would sense the same kind of alarm as I do.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

The following commentary (credits provided at the end) dealing more with PC is pretty good reading. The write essentially expands on some things I've mentioned previously.

The bottom line to profiling is this: Profiling seeks out patterns and is used daily to assist in making all kinds of important decisions inside and outside of government. Profiling is the sensible, reasonable, logical and intelligent approach to making these kinds of informed decisions. (Hmm...given the common-sense nature of profiling, no wonder at all that when Gore was twice randomly profiled recently at airports by a computer-generated report, he praised the system and said he didn't mind at all.)

Boxcar

----------------------
Lets just say that profiling is patterning, finding characteristics that create a pattern that leads to a certain predictive power and a higher probability of finding the truth you seek. Finding predictive patterns for a long time had been part of the standard intelligence tests administered to children of school age. Identifying recurring
patterns is also part of the scientific method, you see scientific truth does not spring full born into the minds’ of scientist.

The truth is that profiling is a central part of the liberal agenda. Using “focus” groups to determine what women think, or what senior citizens’ think are all about creating a profile. Even Senator Kennedy’s newest “hate” crime legislation is a direct form of profiling. Certain individuals when victimized by a violent crime
have a claim on society for a more severe prosecution against the perpetrators than do the rest of us subjected to the same violent crime. What constitutes this special victim’s group? Well, Senator Kennedy has a profile of such groups; he is legislating with them in mind.

The terrorists have also been operating with a profile in mind. High on their profile list is national origin – American. Depending on what
persuasion of terrorist we are talking about ethnicity may be either number one or number two on their profile – Jewish. In any case the terrorist are profiling us, and I have yet to hear that Senator Kennedy is put out enough by it to invoke any terrorist “hate” crime legislation. In fact the Senator and his liberal kin are more
interested in protecting those terrorist that have been apprehended from any "injustice." This manner of concern, of course, is also a characteristic that is part of the liberal pattern or profile.

The stupidity of Political Correctness has never been funny, but it is now deadly serious. While liberals and the Politically Correct use the government to profile for their constituencies, they are resisting with a lunatic’s zeal the use of common sense societal survival skills such as profiling for the nation’s defense and safety.

The new government Airline Security agency, and Bush’s Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, continues to insist that random screening of air passengers is a good security procedure. This in the face of the profile of 75 year old grandmothers as being interested in only knitting, talking about their grandchildren and reading a nice book.

Again let’s say that this is deadly business and to inflict this Political Correctness nonsense on the American people and to call it “Security” is criminal in its negligence.

Here is what we know about these murderers and their Terror“army”.

Nationality is a good predictor, but is not a highly rated characteristic. Let’s call nationality part of the 80-20 rule, i.e. you
could find about 80% of terror suspects based on nationality. As I write this Yemeni nationals have gone to the top of the list, everywhere but at our nation’s airports I suspect.

In any event thanks to uncontrolled immigration, profiling for nationality will leave you still with a significant exposure. The “20th hijacker” Moussaoui is “French”, “Shoe-bomber” Reid is British, and of course “Taliban” John Walker and Jose Padilla are American.

Adding “race” to this profile is only slightly better then nationality, and so far its greatest value has been to liberals in giving them
something to whine about.

Nevertheless Nationality, Race, and Criminal Background make up a good terrorist profile. That’s right, prior criminal behavior; thuggery
of some form in their background is a good predictive characteristic of the terrorist. Terroristic behavior does not usually manifest itself without some prior problems with society. In Western nations that type of behavior usually lands the perpetrator in the criminal system where record keeping is far better then what we find with the INS and our immigration services.
Of course there is the exception of Marin County, where apparently anything goes.

One other characteristic should be added to the profile and that is religion. Without exception every terrorist has been Muslim. I know Islam is the religion of peace, but there are clearly a significant number of apostates who are ruining things for the rest. Leaving the “Islam has a problem” for another day, Muslim is the universe
from which the terrorist subset is drawn.

If you just add males and an age of twenty-something to the nationality, race, criminal background, and religious characteristic
you have a pretty solid terrorist profile.

Given that the Federal government through its immigration agency, the INS, has failed to effectively screen for known and classified
criminals or for nationalities on the “watch list”, the U.S. frontlines are breached. Add to that the wide-open and porous borders and the problems grow deeper. Rampant document fraud and the willingness of several state governments to eagerly grant driver’s licenses to documented or undocumented aliens and the problems become nearly unmanageable.

With Political Correctness an unmanageable situation will never be anything but unmanaged, i.e. airport security. With most of the stupidity that PC concerns itself with, there may be a danger to our sanity and our freedoms, but with national security, PC effects national survival and our lives.

A Government founded on such nonsense is a danger to the governed, and that never more clearly seen then during a time of war. It is time we declared our independence from such politically correct thinking.

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect
their Safety and Happiness.”

Glenn R. Jackson is Chairman of the American Reformation Project, former State Chairman for Buchanan Reform and former state Chairman of the Georgia Freedom Party. Glenn also served on the
Executive Committee of the Reform Party USA. Glenn holds an MA in Philosophy from Georgia State University in Atlanta.

[boxcar]

Some of you may be subscribers to VOTE.COM, as I am, and receive email notifications ocassionaly about mostly political issues on which the sponsors of the site encourage you to cast your vote. The site, curiously enough, seems to draw a pretty conservative crowd, as evidenced over time by results off the various polls. For example, people currently are voting on whether Bush should pursue a peace plan calling for an "interim" Palestinian state. Another poll deals with the marriage penalties under our current tax laws, etc. I'm glad to say that on both of these issues the voters had their heads screwed on straight by a very large ratio.

However, there is also another hot issue being polled currently that to my surprise has been receiving a large ratio of votes that would more accurately reflect liberal thinking. Evidently (and sadly), the very clever wording of the poll has thrown most people off the track. I sumbit the language of the poll:

------------------------------------
Is Nickelodeon's special on gay parents good for kids?

Yes-- The program is about tolerance, not sex. Kids need to understand the destructiveness of hate.

No - It's a cover for promoting homosexuality to children. Nickelodeon has violated the trust of parents.
------------------------------------

Once again, I must say, even at the risk of appearing redundant, that Liberals are masters without equal at employing euphemisms -- at crafting language that is designed to throw up smokescreens over the *REAL, CORE* issues involved. (Recall the NY Times article about Pastor Vines' "political speech"? While the Times did not come straight out and explicitly call it political speech, the wording they used was designed to get the reader to infer from the article that it was just that -- "political hate speech". In this post, I'd like tackle the first half of the polling proposition that is being proffered by VOTE.COM to it readers and subscribers, i.e. the "yes" portion.

The first blatant bit of sophistry that should hit any honest, thinking person between the eyes is the equation (or conclusion drawn) that is being made between the first half of the statement and the second half, i.e. "The program is about tolerance..." (first half). While In the next breath, "Kids need to understand the destructiveness of hate". What is clearly being implied here is that if someone exhibits intolerance toward some behavior (such as sex between two people the same gender, let's say) that this intolerant person MUST be hating the participants engaged in this kind of sexual conduct. This is absurd even on the face of it; but apparently most of the pepole polled didn't take the time to think through the language. The succinct question I propose, therefore, is very simply this: Is it possible that someone can be intolerant of another's conduct or behavior apart from hating the person or people engaged in the act or activity? The answer, of course, cannot be any other than a resounding a YES! In fact, I guarantee you that all of us manifest our intolerance toward something or another just about every day of our lives, without feeling or expressing any hatred toward other people. Permit to give several common examples .

A few weeks ago I was the object of some rather rude and inconsiderate treatment by a young cashier at a supermaket at which my wife and I frequent. After she had checked me out, I told her I didn't appreciate her rudeness and told her that she should learn to be more consierate of her customers. I, then, preceded to take my shopping cart full of groceries to the service counter and asked to speak to the manager. The manager assured me that he would speak with the young lady. Hopefully, she has learned a lesson from this incident. But did I register a complaint with the store manager out of my "hate" for her? Or just because I refused to tolerate her behavior, does this mean that I hated her and was out to "get her" out of my hate-filled vindictaveness?

One time during a church service, at which parents with children, usually over the 8 or so, were encouraged to attend the worship service together, I recall an incident. A member's son (who was sitting a few pews ahead of me) was obviously very fidgety and generally being very distractive with all his moving around. Twice the lad's father leaned over to whisper instructions or warnings into his son's ear, but to no avail. After the third time, the father decided that enough was enough. He was not going to tolerate the kid's disobedience. He took the boy by the hand and the went outside to the main vestibule somewhere, or possibly to one of the unused bible study rooms, to no doubt discipline his child. Just exactly what the father did, I don't know. But I do know that after they returned to their seat about 10 minutes later, the kid was very well behaved.

Are we supposed to believe, according to the "logic" of the Left (now here is true oxymoron!), that this father's intolerance toward the behavior of his disobeident son was motivated by hatred toward the boy!?

After the trusted and capable owner of an auto repair business I had patronized for over ten years decided to retire, I had a difficult time for a while finding a replacement of his caliber. In fact, one guy stung me twice (shame on me!), but after the second time I told him outright that I would never favor him with my business again. I obviously was not going to tolerate his incompetence and what I also felt was his dishonesty! So...by my refusal to tolerate his shenanigans, are we supposed to believe that I quit giving him my business out of my hate for him!? Sure...I was displeased with him. Yes, I was justifiably angry with him. But these emotions and motivations are still a very long way from hating.

If we are to believe that intolerance of certain kinds of behavior is automatically the product of our hate toward someone, then the bible itself is one hate-filled holy book -- from cover to cover! There are _numerous_ examples of biblically-sanctined intolerances in the good book -- in the Old and New Testaments. When God (Jehovah) led his chosen people (the Israelites) into the Promised Land, he made it abundantly clear to them that they would be his intruments for driving out the idolatrous heathens from the land. It was not in a holy God's plan to have his loved, chosen people coexist with these heathens. God didn't tell Israel to occupy the land with the heathens and tolerate their immoral practices.

Christ did not tolerate the money changers in his Father's temple because they had turned it into a den of thieves. No, indeed...Christ drove them out with whips. Does this mean he hated them?

The Aposlte Paul warned believers that "bad company corrupts good morals". The message here is that Christians shouldn't habitually associate with unbelievers, whose moral values would radically differ from their own. The fear was that unbeliever's immoral conduct could rub off on believers. No call for tolerance here, either!

In closing, I concede that it is certainly possible that a person can be intolerant of another PERSON for the wrong reason, i.e. out of his hatred for the other. A white person can generally hate (and, therefore, be intolerant of) all black people, and, thus, rightly be called a bigot.

Likewise, a Gentile can generally hate Jews just because of their ethinicity. This, too, would constitute bigotry.

It would be equally immoral for a person to hate all homosexuals on the basis of their sexual conduct. But it is not bigoted to be intolerant of or to not take a permissive attitude toward someone's immoral _behavior or conduct_, in distinction from the person who is committing the act. Therefore, despite all the Left's crafitly worded propaganda to the contrary, it is NOT a foregone conclusion, by any stretch, that intolerance is always motivated by hatred. The _object_ of one's intolerance is what ultimately determines if the person's motives are acceptable and moral or unnaceptable and immoral.

Boxcar

[Rick]

boxcar,

I don't care whether they show the program or not, but if I were a parent of young children I would have to know a lot more about the content of the program before I would let them watch it. If it were only about understanding that a child might have same-sex parents, that would be OK, but I doubt if that's all it's about. Young children really don't understand anything about heterosexual sex much less homosexual sex. Hollywood almost always has an agenda and I'd bet their's one here. If my kid was 16 though, I'd probably let them watch it because I don't think you can turn a heterosexual sexually mature person into a homosexual if they're not so inclined. According to the studies of identical twins I've seen, gender preference seems to be about half genetic and half environmental. To be more specific, if one identical twin is homosexual there is about a 50% chance that the other will be as well. Since that is so much higher than the approximately 5% rate overall, I have to admit that they are genetically predisposed to such behavior to a certain degree.

I'd like to point out that I don't discriminate against homosexuals in any way as long it's between consenting adults in private. But, I think being that far out of the mainstream would be a very difficult lifestyle and would be a very poor choice unless one were 100% so inclined.

[Derek2U]

i went 2 an all guy school in hs & had a sex education course.
Hey Derek ..."whats ur opinion of necrophilia? " umm, ummm ,
its ok i guess if it occurs between consenting adults" ... & thats
bout what i think about sex education. hehe

[boxcar]

Once again, here is the language the pollesters used for the Nickelodeon special on gay parents:

------------------------------------
Is Nickelodeon's special on gay parents good for kids?

Yes - The program is about tolerance, not sex. Kids need to understand the destructiveness of hate.

No - It's a cover for promoting homosexuality to children. Nickelodeon has violated the trust of parents.
------------------------------------

The second proposition is just as bad as the "yes" portion, since the former contains half-truths. And you know what they say about half-truths, right?

Yes, it is a cover for promoting homsexuality to children, otherwise Good ol' Nick could have chosen any number of other more legit examples to hold up to our children, such as what constitutes _true_ bias and bigotry toward Christians here and abroad, for example. Ditto for the Jews around the world; ditto for God himself, etc., etc.

But the first part of the second proposition is also a lot more than this. In a broader and more important sense, Nick is also promoting and indoctrinating _our_ children with _their_ brand of moral values. Their ideas of morality to our children...hmmm.

Part two of the second proposition is also correct insofar as it goes; but what Nick is doing goes well beyond that, also. Nick has assumed some sort of surrogate role of parenthood, haven't they? They have _usurped_ the authority, the right and the responsibility of parents to teach and instill into their own kids their own peculiar set of moral values, which with the parents feel comfortable!

All in all, what we see here is a classic example of clever, slick polling -- polling that is designed to _manipulate_ opinions. If I were conducting a poll of this sort, I would word it along these lines:

Is Nickelodeon's special on homosexual and lesbian parents good for kids?

(Why soft-pedal the terms "homosexual" and "lesbian" with the word "gay". Why not come right out and tell it like it really is?)

Yes -- The program is about tolerance for homosexual and lesbian practices. Kids need to understand that these practices, and other moral values Nickeledeon may espouse in the future, are good and accpetable.

(Nothing like being up front and honest, is there? After all, honesty is the best policy, isn't it?)

No -- It is a cover for promoting homosexual and lesbian practices and whatever other moral values Nickelodeon may hold. Nickelodeon is violating the trusts of parents, attempting to usurup parental authority over their own children, and is assuming parental right and responsibilty to teach and instill into their own children their own moral values.

(Doesn't this really say it like it is?)

I bet you dollars to donuts that honest wording like this would elicit a very different set of poll results!

What we see here is another example of how our children are rapidly becoming nothing more than communal property! Anyone can have a say on what our children should believe -- on how they should think -- on what kinds of attitudes they should harbor. The Feds can have their say. School districts and principals feel they have the right to their imput since they receive federal funding. Tax exempt organazations, who aren't supposed to espouse political views, can nonetheless preach on their ideas of morality.

All I can caution to parents that in addition to knowing where your kids are at all times, and how they spend their 'puter time, you had better know, also, just what kinds of things are being taught to your loved ones in the name of "tolerance" or "plurality".

Boxcar

[Rick]

Derek,

What are you talking about? Does anyone understand what he's saying? You seem to have taken too many drugs at some time in the past or present.


boxcar,

I'll admit that originally I thought you were overreacting on some issues, but I have to give you credit as a very logical thinker and I respect your views. It's been very interesting and informative (or educational) conversing with you. I don't think that much in general of either the religious right or the liberal left, but some people impress me. For instance, I used to listen to William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater all of the time, but I don't pay that much attention to Rush Limbaugh. Conversely, JFK impressed me, but Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter seem to be total idiots to me. Keep writing, I'm interested in your views.

[boxcar]

Rick wrote:

>>
I don't care whether they show the program or not, but if I were a parent of young children I would have to know a lot more about the content of the program before I would let them watch it.
>>

First of all finding out the entire content of a program before it's aired is highly unlikely.

But I do care and question Nick's motives because of who the target audience is. I gotta figure that the age range is what...somewhere between 4 and 9 or 10? Little young for the subject material, don't you think? I mean...just how many deep, critical thinkers do you think will be in the audience? How many of those young, impressionable minds, sitting in front of the tube _passively_, are going to question what's being spoon-fed to them?

These considerations, then, lead to another: Why? Why should Nick even bother airing this kind of material that we just know beforehand is going to be condoing and promoting homosexuality and lesbianism? And that is going to be holding up these sexual practices as being every bit as valid and moral as hetrosexual relationships are?

And why would the kids living in a same sex partner household have to be taught or convinced of anything? Haven't their daddy or daddy or mommy and mommy (whatever the kids' household situation case may be) brought these kids up to speed on the joys and blissfulness of the homosexual lifestyle? And, for that matter, why do kids living in a normal situation have to subjected to this kind of sex education at all? Why not just wait until these kids are old enough to naturally inquire of their mom or dad?

Finally, because this is such a controversial subject, don't you find it curious that Nick, evidently, has zero concern about offending parents with conservative or Judeo-Christian values?

I can address all the "whys" in a very pithy manner: The extreme Left-wingers themselves _hate_ anyone who espouses or holds to conservative or Judeo-Christian values; therefore they will take every opportunity to preach anti-consersative or anti-Judeo-Christian values. The Left would be just as quick to proffer propaganda that is anti-God, anti-flag, etc. Just remember: There are two classes of people that are more easily EXPLOITED by the Left: The uneducated (as I've pointed out on other ocassions and the young.

The legit questions you raise below, Rick, only support all the points and questions I have raised in this post.

Since I have limited time left, I will say only this about homosexuality being result of one's gene pool: Nonsesne. That junk science I don't buy for a moment. I have known too many homosexuals, as have others in churches I've attened, to know that homosexual and lesbian practices are a product of moral choices. We know this from our experiences in having known and dealt with homosexuals -- with people who have made made personal _decisions_ to change their lifestyles -- for good! And these experiences certainly reflect the bible's teaching on this matter.

And thank you very much for your kind and generous remarks made in your other post. I do try to think through issues and read between the lines. I try to never forget that the pen can be mightier than the sword.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

For those of you who believe as I do about securing our borders with U.S. troops, you have a chance to sign a petition to the Prez to that effect. Here is the link to Congressman Tancredo's site:

http://www.house.gov/tancredo/

Boxcar

[Tom]

Originally posted by Bob Harris


Thoroughbreds are all heterosexual, Doug. Standardbreds are all either gay or bisexual...they don't prance around like that because it's more efficient.:eek:

You win Best Post of the Week with that one.
My side hurt from LOL
:eek: :eek: :p :eek:

[canuck]

Boxcar---

You gotta be kidding me if you think that homosexuality is not a result of ones gene pool---I have known far too many in my 47 years from living in the "gay ghetto" in Toronto.

At one point I think the wife and I were among 3 or 4 "straight" people in a 60 unit 5 storey building. My wife is in the entertainment biz and we have had many evenings entertaining all manner of flamers --queens--boy toys--prissies...

I used to think when I was younger that being queer was a choice predicated by upbringing but after countless conversations with them and pointed questions-"have you EVER wanted to sleep with a women?" NO "when did you learn you were gay?"-DEEP DOWN I ALWAYS KNEW etc etc

I really have to question if you have had very much interaction with these people....

[Derek2U]

yeah .. 1 Term, for 6 years, Period. Then, vote for a New President.

[Rick]

boxcar,

Those studies of identical twins I mentioned before lead me to believe that it is a little of both genetic predisposition and choice. But other kinds of deviant behavior follow the same pattern, part genetic and part not. And there are cases of people getting tired of that lifestyle and undergoing behavior modification therapy in order to live more normal lives. At the same time though, I'm sure that some enjoy the counter-culture aspects of the lifestyle.

As far as the kids go, they already learned way too much about sexual habits of adults from Clinton. I don't think they need any more details whether heterosexual or homosexual. All they really need to know is that same-sex parents exist and they shouldn't discriminate against the children of such couples. That's about all I can think of and I don't think we need TV to tell them that.

[boxcar]

Canuck, if your theory were true and homosexuality were a matter of someone's whacky gene pool, then no homosexual would ever be able choose to permanently change his lifestyle. The leopard cannot change his spots because of its gene pool. The Ethiopian cannot change the color of his skin because of his gene pool. But I (as well as many others) have borne witness to homosexuals making moral choices about their lifestyles, and change those lifestyles, and to this day 3 of the 4 (including one woman) are still happily married heterosexuals -- two of these families having kids. The 4th, who is the oldest of the four, never married but has been a devout and very active Christian deacon for the last 15 years or so at a church in the Midwest.

With all due respect, methinks its pretty gullible to go around polling (as it were) homosexuals to find out how they became that way. How would you expect most of them to answer? Do you really think that they're going to admit guilt to the breaking of a moral law? Do you think most of them are readily going to assume full responsibility for their actions?

Heck...we could save a ton money on our criminal system, using that method. Just go around and inquire of pedophiles, adulterers, fornicators, rapists, serial killers, wife beaters, etc. -- How did you become this way? Answer: "Oh, it's in my genes, of course. My gene pool made me do it!"

Seems to me that ascribing moral choices to genetics is a convenient escape hatch used to flee from moral responsiblity -- in fact from any and all moral responsibility from all our actions! Why not? Why stop with homosexual activities?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Yesterday I was in stitches at times listening to the latest controversy unfold with respect to airlines wanting to charge the Hefty Weights double fare because their derrieres generally tend to occupy two seats. This double fare would be paid only in the even two single seats side-by-side weren't available.

One really big gal was offended at the whole idea, but she wasn't wanting for a solution, which was: Airlines shouldn't discriminate against people by size -- instead what airlines should do to fix the problem is make ALL the seats wider! I have to think this gal had visions of a flying cruiseship!

Another Big Momma wondered aloud what standard the airlines would use to determine who pays double and who pays single? I wish I had been the reporter. I would have suggested that the only fair thing to do is to use one standard of measure for all. How 'bout, for instance, the empty 55-gal. drum test? People whose derriere's slipped easily into the drum would be charged a single fare. But any whose wide berth derrieres wouldn't fit or got stuck in the drum would have to pay double? Sounds like a fair fare plan to me.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Just a little follow-up on the Nickelodeon special discussed yesterday. According to AP, Nick received a "staggering" 100,000 emails and phone calls from viewers protesting the airing of the show. But of course, the show was aired anyway.

Here is the link to the story:

http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20020617/D7K722SG1.html

Moral to the story: When the Left talks about "offending" people, what they really mean is that it's not right to offend anyone on the Left; but it is perfectly okay to offend those on the Right.

When the Left talks about free speech and defending First Amendment Rights, they mean that only so far as this defense pertains to speech by the Left; but if it's by the Right, we should do everything to suppress it.

Boxcar

[Tom]

Originally posted by boxcar
Yesterday I was in stitches at times listening to the latest controversy unfold with respect to airlines wanting to charge the Hefty Weights double fare because their derrieres generally tend to occupy two seats. This double fare would be paid only in the even two single seats side-by-side weren't available.

One really big gal was offended at the whole idea, but she wasn't wanting for a solution, which was: Airlines shouldn't discriminate against people by size -- instead what airlines should do to fix the problem is make ALL the seats wider! I have to think this gal had visions of a flying cruiseship!

Another Big Momma wondered aloud what standard the airlines would use to determine who pays double and who pays single? I wish I had been the reporter. I would have suggested that the only fair thing to do is to use one standard of measure for all. How 'bout, for instance, the empty 55-gal. drum test? People whose derriere's slipped easily into the drum would be charged a single fare. But any whose wide berth derrieres wouldn't fit or got stuck in the drum would have to pay double? Sounds like a fair fare plan to me.

Boxcar

Well, that certainly was one of studpidest things I have have ever heard you spout off. What's next, charge extra for health insurance for people with diabetes? Prohibit tall people from sitting anywhere but the back row in movie theaters?
I got to agree with Dereck2U here, see other thread.
Now I see why a lot people don't like conservatives.....

[boxcar]

Uptight Tom wrote:

>>
Well , that certainly was one of studpidest things I have have ever heard you spout off. What's next, charge extra for health insurance for people with diabetes? Prohibit tall people from sitting anywhere but the back row in movie theaters?
>>

Wow...didn't care for one of my classic PI (in case you can't surmise -- Politically Incorrect) posts, eh? But really, Tom, before you go spouting off how stupid someone else's post is, you should look to your own first. Frankly, the paralells you're obviously trying make are absurd and have no basis in reality.

For your info, medical and life insurance companies do charge their policyholders extra for pre-existing medical conditions. Are you trying to tell me that obesity is strictly attributable to fat folks' medical conditions?

And to the best of my knowledge, a person's height is strictly the result of genetics. I do think it would be absurd to hold someone responsible for something over which he has no power of choice.

Now, before you go embarrasing yourself further by banging off another ill-conceived post, I'm fully aware that obesity can be caused by medical conditions, such as glandular problems, etc. But I also believe, from knowing more than a few obese folks over my lifetime, that these kinds of problems account for a very small percentage of the reasons for why folks are overweight.

For example, my own father-in-law is quite tall, and skinny as a rail. He's the type who could eat his way through an entire banquet hall and nary put on a pound. Obviously, he has an excessively fast metabolism rate.

Yours truly has a slight weight problem. Whenever *I* don't control my intake, I tend to put on pounds. A few months ago, I was about 20 lbs. "overweight", which I gauge by the size of my gut as opposed to some medical chart. I cut back on my intake (especially between meal snacks) and I've lost 15 lbs. I have another 5 to go, which I'm sure I'll reach my goal -- IF I continue to CHOOSE to discipline myself.

My computer techie is a huge guy -- in height and girth. Several months ago, he weighed over 350 lbs. He was so big that I used to cringe whenever he'd go to sit in one of my highback office chairs in front of one of my machines. Ironically, he thought for years that his problem was medically-related (perhaps he belieived this way to let himself off the hook) -- but after visiting a doctor who was recommended to him, the doctor told him he'd be fine if he would just follow his diet and the regime of a physical therapist that he was going to recommend. I saw my techie in his home nearly three weeks ago, and I was amazed at his progress. It was evident to me immediately. He had lost nearly 40 pounds and was sticking to his daily exercise routine. Yes, he has a long way to go, but he, too, will do fine, provided he continues to make all the right CHOICES for himself.

So, why shouldn't overweight folks be made to pay an extra fare whenever they take up an extra seat? Why should they have the right to make moderately-sized folks uncomfortable by squeezing them out of their seats? For the most part, obese people _choose_ to be that way. The airlines' solution seems eminently fair. In the fact this kind of solution closely paralells airlines' policy for small children. If the parent or guardian keeps the child on his or her lap, no fare is charged. But if the child wants to take up a seat, then the airline charges a child's fare.

>>
I got to agree with Dereck2U here, see other thread.
>>

I did. I was less impressed with that drivel than I was with your poorly thought out objections.

>>
Now I see why a lot people don't like conservatives.....
>>

And perhaps by now you can equally understand why conservatives have such disdain for politically correct garbage that usually finds its roots in the muck and mire of confused thought or outright sophistry. However, better I do this than, like you, take things so personally by taking a dislike toward the actual messenger.

Have a good night.

Boxcar

[Rick]

I don't see what this argument about whether they can control weight or not has to do with anything. I'm in favor of having people pay for what they use. If they use more than one seat they can pay for more than one seat. In fact, the airlines aren't even asking them to pay for the second seat unless they're booked up. I think that's a fair policy, since they'd sell the seat to someone else otherwise. The last time I checked, airlines weren't non-profit charitable organizations.

[boxcar]

Rick, you noticed that I didn't initially bring up the subject of whether obesity is mostly the result of people's personal choices or not. However, certain activists for fat folks, when denouncing the airlines' "bigoted" policy change decision, due to its inherent _unfairness_, were forced to trying to support their stance on the basis of the old, tiring argument of the absence of free choice because of overriding "external agents", e.g. genetics, medical conditions, etc.
Like you, I believe it's a stawman argument, which was the reason I was poking some fun in the first place.

In fact, come to think of it (but I stand to be corrected) I'm pretty darn sure that clothiers, serving either gender, who specialize in selling clothes to tall and overweight people, do indeed charge more for their goods than what moderately-sized folks would pay for products of comparable designs and fabrics. This pricing policy, too, is fair for all the _obvious_ reasons.

Assuming I'm right, isn't it interesting, then, that this old, established pricing policy in the clothier industry has never been challenged or publicly decried at any time in the past, by these same whacko activists, as being an unfair business practice? Goes to show how far the morals of our culture have declined over the years.

I had better step down, now, off my soapbox before someone else wants to take a shot at a straight thinking conservative. I don't know if I could handle another outburst. However, maybe later I'll post some interesting things I learned about the Catholic Church scandal. But if I do that, I had better first go out and find something that would appeal to and entertain D2U. Since it just rained out, I'm thinking maybe if he'd interact with a cute little earthworm, it would distract him long enough to keep him away from this forum.

Boxcar (who afterwards will start an advocacy group for the protection of earthworms.)

[Tom]

What about the fact that people come in many sizes? Is shaq the size he is becasue of his personal choise? Should he have to buy two seats?
And what is overweight are overweight becasue they eat too much.....this is a free country, and they have a right to be wahtever size they choose. How about a person who is in a wheelchair becasue de chose to drive drunk...should be be denied use of public access ramps?
The point is, where do you draw the line about a person being something he is because of choices?
You guys missed your opportunity in the 40's with the supreme arian race idea in Germany-everyone programed to be nice and fit and ssmart and alike......
The thing that got me about those other flyers that they interviewed was that one ugly lady that complained about big people infringing on her seat....what about that gallon of rot-gut perfoume of bags like her usually wear? How about my rights to clean, odor free air?
This is utter nonsense.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Rick
I don't see what this argument about whether they can control weight or not has to do with anything. I'm in favor of having people pay for what they use. If they use more than one seat they can pay for more than one seat. In fact, the airlines aren't even asking them to pay for the second seat unless they're booked up. I think that's a fair policy, since they'd sell the seat to someone else otherwise. The last time I checked, airlines weren't non-profit charitable organizations.

They don't leave the seat empty just because someone spills over into it..they just cram eveyone in.

[boxcar]

***BREAKING NEWS***BOXCAR NEWS ALERT***THIS JUST IN***BREAKING NEWS***BOXCAR NEWS ALERT

A Fat Folks' Advocacy group has just dished up its idea for fair and tasteful settlement to this double fare policy dispute. This is a MUST read!

http://www.satirewire.com/news/june02/fast_food.shtml

Boxcar

[boxcar]

The Inquiring Mind of Tom Queries:

>>
What about the fact that people come in many sizes? Is shaq the size he is becasue of his personal choise?
>>

Hmm...I'd swear I've already addressed this question in my initial reply to you.

>>
Should he have to buy two seats?
>>

The Shaqs of the world wouldn't even know what we're talking about. They travel first class.
(Come to think of it, first class accomodations are much roomier, which is one of the reasons why the airlines charge extra for same. Just some more food for thought, Tom.)

>>
And what is overweight are overweight becasue they eat too much.....this is a free country, and they have a right to be wahtever size they choose.
>>

Amen, brother, preach it! Just like what I told Jesse once: People even have a perfect right to behave like morons if they like. And while on the topic of "rights", moderately-sized folks have a right to not be squished uncomfortably in their seat because they had the unfortunate luck of sitting next to a space-hogging hippo.

>>
How about a person who is in a wheelchair becasue he chose to drive drunk...should be be denied use of public access ramps?
>>

Certainly not! But...I think it would be prudent for the sitter to reconsider implementing this right if his wheelchair were too wide for the ramp. Remember: Always Safety First!

>>
The point is, where do you draw the line about a person being something he is because of choices?
>>

From a liberal's viewpoint, there is no such line.
From a conservative's, the line has pierced the liberal's brain and protrudes from both his ears.

>>
You guys missed your opportunity in the 40's with the supreme arian race idea in Germany-everyone programed to be nice and fit and ssmart and alike......
>>

Fear not! The government is secretly working on creating the perfect population, as we speak. First among their subjects will be Teflon Bill, Jesse Jackass, Al the Sharp Ton, the Mistress of Darkness (Hillary, of course), Tom D'Asshole, and last but not least Janet Diehard Reno.

>>
The thing that got me about those other flyers that they interviewed was that one ugly lady that complained about big people infringing on her seat....what about that gallon of rot-gut perfoume of bags like her usually wear? How about my rights to clean, odor free air?
>>

Check out Sharper Image. They might carry a portable, battery-operated air purifier for just such occassions.

>>
This is utter nonsense.
>>

Agreed. But I'd fight to the death to protect your right to utter it.

Boxcar

[Tom]

Originally posted by boxcar
The Inquiring Mind of Tom Queries:


Agreed. But I'd fight to the death to protect your right to utter it.

Boxcar

No thanks, I'd prefer to go it alone.

[boxcar]

Brave Tom wrote:

>>
No thanks, I'd prefer to go it alone.
>>

Foolish choice. Don't you know that no man is an island?

Boxcar

[Rick]

boxcar,

Did Tom just call us Nazi's for wanting people to pay for what they use? Don't give him any more "food for thought" or his head might not fit in one airline seat.

Seriously though, wouldn't it make more sense to have some rows with two seats instead of three and charge more for them. They could do that for 1.5 times the regular price rather than twice and a lot of people would probably prefer the extra room even if they're not "size challenged". Or is that called "first class", with which I'm not very familiar.

Maybe Tom would like to see one postage rate as well, where one could send 20 pound packages for the same cost as 1 ounce letters.

[boxcar]

Rick wrote:

>>
Did Tom just call us Nazi's for wanting people to pay for what they use? Don't give him any more "food for thought" or his head might not fit in one airline seat.
>>

Ah...don't mind Tom. Deep down, he's a sweet guy. I think maybe he has a few bad hair days at the track or something.

>>
Seriously though, wouldn't it make more sense to have some rows with two seats instead of three and charge more for them. They could do that for 1.5 times the regular price rather than twice and a lot of people would probably prefer the extra room even if they're not "size challenged". Or is that called "first class", with which I'm not very familiar.
>>

More spacious accomodations is a big part of what first class is about. What you're suggesting is something of a hybrid between first class and economy class. You're thinking of first class- sized seats without the other frills. But why? To save the overweight some money? Frankly, I don't believe they want to pay anything extra. They just don't want to pay for the freight they're hauling. Plain and simple.

Boxcar

[Rick]

Anyone who's ever been squeezed between two overly large individuals in the middle seat knows that it's not just about picking on fat people. Other passengers also have a right to fly in comfort and use all of the space that they've paid for.

[Tom]

Originally posted by boxcar
Rick wrote:



More spacious accomodations is a big part of what first class is about. What you're suggesting is something of a hybrid between first class and economy class. You're thinking of first class- sized seats without the other frills. But why? To save the overweight some money? Frankly, I don't believe they want to pay anything extra. They just don't want to pay for the freight they're hauling. Plain and simple.

Boxcar

You are a jerk, buddy-KMA!

[boxcar]

Yesterday a radio talk show host had Mark Rose on who is the author of "Goodbye, Good Men" -- a brilliant expose on the Catholic Church scandal. Rose was way out front of this thing, as he began his investigation several years ago that took him back to 30 or more years. This goes to demonstrate just how well the church hierarchy covered up its corruption which extended from the priests all way up to the bishops, archbishops and cardinals. Yesterday, he even conjectured that the coverup could extend all the way to Rome!

Central to the thesis of Rose's book is that all the pedophilism in the American church (and possibly elsewhere around the world) is merely a byproduct of a much larger problem. According to Rose, a significantly large subculture of homosexuality has existed in the church for over 30 years. But it even gets worse, the church (particularly many of its seminaries) was not wanting for its fair share of agressive and outspoken homophiles who weren't shy about furthering their liberal agenda. They would openly flaunt their homosexuality for all to see by dressing in leather, partying in the dorms, frequenting gay bars, etc.

The problem became so bad that when many of the more conservative, traditional seminary students complained to the deans and bishops, their complaints not only fell on deaf ears, but they found themselves as the objects of ridicule and persecution! They were accused by the powers in the semimaries of being homophobic and bigoted (naturally, what else would we expect?), and they were sent to secular pychologists for counselling -- no doubt shinks of the same ilk who would counsel the "preadatory homosexuals", at the requests of bishops, when they got caught with their pants down. (This phrase is Rose's, incidentally, as he felt it more accurately depicts what has really been going on all these years.) Eventually, many of the conservative priests, who desired to hold to the traditional theology and practices of the church, came under such heavy fire -- were so ostracized by the liberals -- they left the seminaries, thus the title of the book.

Given the mood of our mainstream culture, these revelations raise some very weighty questions -- questions pertaining to what does society do with these priests!? We have priests now -- these "predatory homosexuals" -- who are being charged and tried with crimes, and will obstensibly be convicted and sentenced to long prison terms, I would like to think. But if homosexuality is not the result of free moral choice but the result of "external agents", then it would seem to me that even charging one of these priests with criminal activity would be a terrible miscarriage of justice, let alone trying and convciting him.

Moreover, would justice be served if we took these predators and locked them away in mental institutions? After all, homosexuality isn't a mental disorder, is it? It's a genetic thing, isn't it? What are shrinks going to do -- counsel someone's genes? Submit the genes to shock treatments?

Since the popular belief in today's society is that homosexuality is the result of one's gene pool, as Canuck believes, then perhaps stashing these priests away in some secret underground genetics research facility and keeping them there until scientists can figure out how to manipulate, decode or restructure their gene pools might be a possiblity. But, then, would we do that with or without the consent of those priests? I would have to think more than few of them would object vehmently on the grounds that their "lifestyle" is every bit as valid , legitimate, normal and moral as hetrosexuals'. And they'd have darn good grounds for thinking like that, wouldn't they--given the moral clime and consensus of today's society?

Another possible solution is to simply isolate these priests away in their own little community somewhere to keep them away from children who aren't old enough to consent. But then again...whos say's they're not old enough to consent!?

It seems like this church scandal has, as an "unintended consequence" put society on a horns of a dilemma, hasn't it? But at the end of the day, we'll find that our mainstream culture will be left with no other choice than to persue a course of action that will ultimately contradict its well espoused politically correct propaganda on the causes and legitimacy of homosexuality by sticking these reprehensible perverts into prison where they belong.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Tom, in one of his less coherent moments wrote:

>>
You are a jerk, buddy-KMA!
>>

Now why would I want to do that? I have no idea where you've had that thing of yours parked,or for that matter to what kind of probes it might have been subjected. With all due respect, therefore, I think I'll take a pass.

Boxcar

[Rick]

boxcar,

Everyone from wife beaters to child molestors to mass murderers has a reason why it's not their fault including genetics, pornography, television, bad parents, peer pressure, etc. The list is endless. Now it looks like if you have a low enough IQ you can be spared the death penalty if you murder someone. Stupid = insane now. Where will it end?

[boxcar]

Rick wrote:

>>
Everyone from wife beaters to child molestors to mass murderers has a reason why it's not their fault including genetics, pornography, television, bad parents, peer pressure, etc. The list is endless. Now it looks like if you have a low enough IQ you can be spared the death penalty if you murder someone. Stupid = insane now. Where will it end?
>>


I don't believe it will ever end, but I can tell you where the Blame Game all started. But first permit me to opine on how the game became so popular in our society.

I think the modern school of psychology is largely responisble. While there are different schools of thought for this imprecise discipline, I have found one common thread that seems to run through just about all the schools. Nearly all of them adhere to the idea of "false guilt". This false guilt syndrome plays a very large role in the kinds of counselling patients receive.

While there are certainly behaviorial and interactive environments in which false guilt becomes a legitimate concern and an unjusified feeling or state of mind, nevertheless most guilt is real and legitimate.

But here are a couple of examples of legit feelings of false guilt. Some children who were victims of incest may grow up believing they were at fault and carry profound guilt about the "relationship" they had with their father. Or a sincere, devout Christian may have become the unwitting vicitim of some "faith healer" charlatan, and when the healing doesn't take, the Christian can often feel that it was his fault because his inadequate faith, and subsequently he suffers from guilt feelings.

But where did the Blame Game all start? Well, in no other place than with Adam and Eve in the Garden right after the fall, if we're to believe the biblical narrative. After Adam & Eve did the dastardly deed and ate of the forbidden fruit, Genesis chapter 3 tells us that God "walked" in the garden and our two fallen first parents hearing God hid themeselves because they were "afraid" and knew they were "naked". (So evidently, they fully realized they did wrong.) But when God asked Adam if he had disobeyed him and ate of the fruit of the forbidden tree -- how did Adam answer? Well, to paraphrase Adam, "The woman you gave me gave me the fruit of the tree, and I ate. When God turned his attention to Eve and asked her about this, she followed right in Adam's footsteps by essentially saying, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate." Unmistakable fingerpointing, I would say!

And why is this Blame Game so popular? The answer is simple. When I point the finger at someone or something, I'm absolving myself from responsiblity. If I have no responsibility, how can I be quilty? And if I'm not guilty, how can I suffer any *CONSEQUENCES* for something for which I'm not responsible? And the real object of the Blame Game is to escape all consequences -- which was exactly what our first parents tried do in the garden.

So...if there's anything at all that "courses through the veins" of the entire human race -- a flaw that is inherent to our nature, it's our exceedingly strong proclivity to shift blame. It's as natural and as easy as breathing for most of us.

Boxcar

[Rick]

boxcar,

Interesting observation. I have to believe that truly great people have recognized their mistakes and corrected them, otherwise civilization never would have gone anywhere. But what you say is true of the vast majority of course, even at the highest levels.

[boxcar]

Rick wrote:

>>
I have to believe that truly great people have recognized their mistakes and corrected them,
>>

Only if you define "great" by the requisite humility they had to have owned to admit to their guilt.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

The Leftists, in their relentless march toward conquest of the innocence of our children, have sunk to new depths of depravity in their latest little published and advertised battle. The following story was on yesterday's edition of the Fox News Report.

The Mesquite Elementary School (which I believe is in southern California) gave a little survey recently to its 3rd and 5th grade class. (This would essentially make the age range of the kids to be between 8 and 10.) The school, being required by law to procure written authorization from all the parents before subjecting their kids to any kind of "sex ed" courses, sent the kids home with the permission form for their parents to sign. However, the school omitted one slight detail: Nowhere on the form did it mention that the survey contained any questions pertaining to sex. The survey was supposed to be dealing with "trauma". Therefore, just about all the parents gave their consent and signed the form.

But the survey was all about sex, as many parents found out afterwards from their kids. And some of the questions on the "survey" were highly personal, offensive and embarrasing, even for adults, let alone 3rd and 5th graders. Here are a few examples:

a) How often during the day do you touch your private parts?
b) Have you ever let anyone else touch your private parts?
c) Have you ever touched anyone else's private parts?

These are the kinds of questions, which I'd have to think most pedophiles or preadatory homosexuals would get their jollies asking of their intended victims. But an elementary school!?

At least three of the parents, upon learning of the school's deception and discovering what the true offensive nature of that "trauma survey" was, filed lawsuits against the school district.

Once again, I appeal to someone on the Left to explain the rationale of these ongoing attacks upon the innocence of our children, and now the employment of deceptive practices by shcools to obtain the information they are seeking. Is there anyone out there with the capacity that would go beyond the issuance of a juvenile complaint about the "right-wing reactionary rants" of this forum, and who actually possesses the mental acuity to offer a viable defense of these practices, which I personally find vile and despicable?

Boxcar

[TenZin]

Why do you think its the left? The right was obsessed with sex
with Clinton and Monica. It's hard to know what the political
leanings are from that story.

[Trijack]

TenZin

The answer to that is easy if you know anything at all about california schools, they lean far, far to the left. I have a son that has attended Ca schools from kindergarden thru college and he has had only one teacher that leaned to the right. But in spite of that my son is a strong conservative due to my strong beliefs. If you think Boxcar is far right I probable am far to the right of him. Plus I know 4 teachers that I have as clients and they all are far to the left..

Boxcar

I really do like your comments about liberals. Keep it up.

[so.cal.fan]

No rational thinking person, left or right would agree with such things, Boxcar.
I didn't see this report, I would like to know where this school was and read the local paper accounts of the incident.
I have to ask, as TenZin did, how do you know that this was political?
Sounds like we have some "perverts" running this school.
No unlike some of the goings on in the Catholic Church.
:mad:

In reply to Trijack:

I attended So. Cal. public schools, so did my son.
I attended the La Canada district and the Los Angeles Unified district. My son went through the Arcadia Unified schools.
None of these were liberal nor were they conservative.
I think your statement is inaccurate, or at best way too general.

[Trijack]

So.Cal.Fan

I guess you and I prove the old theory that we see what we want to see and put blinders on for what we don't want to see and that goes for both of us. How come most of the the teachers are always for the liberals if as you say they are about even.

I live down here in South Orange County and one would think there would be more conservative teachers.

My son just corrected me he has had 2 conservative teachers and they were college teachers

[so.cal.fan]

I can't imagine teachers in public schools approving what
Box reported to us.
That had to be some crackpot (or worse) principal of the school in question.
Give us some more info on it, Boxcar.
I want to protest about that, I am a Mom, and stuff like that really pisses me off.

:mad:

[Dave Schwartz]

SCF and others,

Must agree with your position here, but I would suggest that this questionaire might have been the idea of some well-intentioned (though misguided) bureaucrat whose goal was a fishing expedition to uncover molestation situations in the home.

Amazing how the end-justifies-the-means approach is so prevelant in our society.

That does not make it okay. Parents must be consulted.

Just my opinion.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Rick]

socal,

That's what I find so amusing about what some people write from California about being so "right wing". In the rest of the country what they're saying would be considered "middle of the road". I happen to be a graduate of Arcadia High School, but it was in 1965 and I think things have changed a lot since then. The last time I lived in California, they couldn't even keep the libraries open more than 3 days a week because people's priorities were so screwed up. Been there, done that, forgot about it. Please don't remind me.

[boxcar]

I've read all the replies to my last post, but can't say much now since I'm on my way out to dinner. All I can tell you is what I heard and saw on the Fox Report last night. Unfortunately, I haven't seen anything on this story in print. But that is not too unusual either since the mainstream media very often will give little or no press to these kinds of stories.

For those of you who wanted confirmation, you could try the Fox news website to see if there's anything there. Also, you may want to keep an eye out tonight on O'Reilly's show The Factor and Hannity & Colmes after that. Frequently these news analyst shows pick up stories like this a day or two later.

When I return I will investigate more into this matter myself, and answer the questions that were raised.

Boxcar

[Lefty]

TenZin, What? Clinton had the gall to engage in a sex act with an intern in the oval office of the "people's house" and then in turn lie to the american people and then to the court and you think the right was obsessed with sex? Wow, what a conclusion.

[Derek2U]

u guys r like relics ... when was the last time u bought a cd?

[boxcar]

I just returned home and was told by a houseguest that the story did not show up on the radar of either of the Fox shows I mentioned earlier. However, I did a search for Mesquite Elementary, and sure enough there is one in So. Cal. -- in Apple Valley, which looks to be a 'burb of San Bernadino. I have to think there is an excellent chance this is the school that was being reported on yesterday on the Fox Report.

I searched the L.A. Times archives and came up empty -- but then again, I'm not surprised. Many of these kinds of stories never make it in to the liberal rags -- and when they do, they're usually a few inches in length buried on page 15 of section C or something.

I wrote to Fox News to see if they could help me out. I'll have to wait and see how they answer.

Tomorrow I'll reply to some of the questions that were raised. Must rise early tomorrow morning for an appointment.

Nightie, night, y'all.

Boxcar

[canuck]

Boxcar--

It appears your disdain of homosexuals lies in a moral majority mindset that is prevalent in right wing Falwellesque types

A moral law??? Two consenting adults bumping uglies in the privacy of their abode...why would God care about something as mundane as that??

And it is really about God--isnt it? The big guy created us--but probably erred by around 10%-(the accepted homosexual population of every being on earth)

So with 600 million or so people that are destined to perish in a flaming pit of hell you REALLY have your work cut out for you to convert them...

Good luck

[Derek2U]

BoxCar ...just how old are you?
I never knew that such idiocy like yours could fit into 1 brain.
hehe ... SoapBoxCar .. yeh thats your new nic.

[Lefty]

Derek2U, Last time i bght a CD was two days ago and expecting another in the mail. They are Dean Martin CD's; so what?
Canuck, I myself am not against homosexuality, I do think they were born that way but, I don't like the way they flaunt it like a banner and try to force it down our throats, so to speak.
And when you make it sound like the preferred lifestyle(and they do) you just know susceptible children are going to experiment and be corrupted. I used to have a homosexual work for me and he was a pleasant young man and a good worker who did not
flaunt his homosexuality. Too bad they aren't all like him, but it's not about him it's about the militent homosexuals with an agenda and that is abhorrent to me, not the homosexuality itself.

[boxcar]

canuck wrote:

>>
It appears your disdain of homosexuals lies in a moral majority mindset that is prevalent in right wing Falwellesque types
>>

Didn't you bother to read my post about the Left's sophoric proposition that "intolerance" = "hate"? Tell us straight out: Is it possible to be intolerant of behavior without hating or now...showing "disdain" for the person performing the behavior? Have you personally ever been intolerant of someone's conduct apart from hating the person who performed the act?

>>
A moral law??? Two consenting adults bumping uglies in the privacy of their abode...why would God care about something as mundane as that??
>>

Yup, a moral law, according to the bible. Why would God care about something _you_ think is mundane? Maybe you should set some time apart from your busy daily schedule and start reading. You may learn somethings. For example... that the bible reveals that God is a theistic God, not a deistic one. This little theological factoid alone would go along way in aswering your question once you get a handle on the highly profound differences between the two systems of theological thought.

>>
And it is really about God--isnt it? The big guy created us--but probably erred by around 10%-(the accepted homosexual population of every being on earth)
>>

Hmm...I had always heard that "to err is to be human". Never read, though, that to err is to also be God. Besides, if God has erred, he's not even worthy of the title, let alone love, worship, faith, etc. He's no better than us mere mortals.

>>
So with 600 million or so people that are destined to perish in a flaming pit of hell you REALLY have your work cut out for you to convert them...
>>

Well, you should be be very happy to learn, however, that God does NOT discriminate, nor does he show preferences.. God can never be called a racist or a bigot or an affirmative action advocate. In fact, the bible says that "God is not a respecter of persons." And to prove this, there is another passage in the First Book of Corinthians to consider. In verse 9 of chapter 6, Apostle Paul starts the section with a rhetorical question: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?" Then after warning the Christians at Corinth to not be deceived in this matter, he proceeds to rattle off quite a list (albeit a partial one, of course) of examples of what he meant by "unrighteous", e.g. fornicators, idolators, , adulterers, effeminate, homosexuals, thieves, the covetous, drunkards, revilers and swindlers. And while the list is partial, it says a lot in a succinct way, covering such "mundane little inward sins" as coveting and idolatry (which this latter sin in other passages of the bible has a very broad definition that goes well beyond what most people would think ).

And if the above list is not comprehensive enough for you, you could always turn to what the same Apostle wrote to the church in Rome in chapter 1 of Romans. Essentially, he pronounced _universal_ condemnation upon ALL mankind -- saying that there was no one righteous -- that all have gone astray -- that there is no one who does good -- no, not one! (Ouch!) So you see, unrepentant homosexuals and lesbians will be having more company than they could ever imagine in that place called hell.

I also can't help but notcing that you have ducked another issue I raised in my post that dealt with some of the things mentioned in the "Goodbye, Good Men" book -- namely, what would be a just and fair disposition for all those preadatory homosexual priests? And if this phrase is not to your liking, feel free to change it to merely "pedophile priests" because the label change would only beg the question, anyway. Since you don't think, Canuck, that homosexuals and lesbians are breaking any moral law of God's, and since man's law (especially criminal law) basically functions to regulate, govern and control man's moral conduct, then what do you think should be done with these priests who have abused all these young boys? Should they walk because their behavior is governed by their gene pool and not their moral choices? You must think that the laws on the books concerning pedophilia are grossly unjust? I'd like to get your thoughts on this.

>>
Good luck
>>

I'm not so sure I'm the one who needs it.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Derek2U, not exactly known for his acuity, nevertheless writes:

>>
BoxCar ...just how old are you?
>>

Old enough to discern when a poster's cerebral engine is running on a few quarts low.

Boxcar

[TenZin]

I catch up with many gays because of raves and I find them
cool and interesting. I thought this room was about horse
talk and not about what god is or isn't or even if the idea of
a god is silly or lame.

[canuck]

Boxcar--

There is supreme irony in the fact that the very God fearing priests who were entrusted to preach and moralize to the most susceptible of all "Gods" creatures did in fact exploit them to the max in the most heinous of fashions!

Your "God" has a weird way of picking his troops...

On another note--would you mine sharing your "epiphany" with me? Most people who take this stuff seriously (religion) have usually thought that the big guy whispered something to them at some point in time....

[boxcar]

so.cal.fan wrote:

>>
No rational thinking person, left or right would agree with such things, Boxcar.
>>

Well, I for one have never accused any Liberal of being rational.

>>
I didn't see this report, I would like to know where this school was and read the local paper accounts of the incident.
>>

Please let us know if you find out anything. I hope the info I provided last night will be of some help. I, too, would like to learn more since the Fox Report segment was only about a 60-second slot, if that.

>>
I have to ask, as TenZin did, how do you know that this was political?
>>

To even ask this questions betrays your lack of knowlege of the two main thoughts of political ideology, and the fact that our schools, much like our higher institutions of learning, have become bastions of liberal thought. Here are a few basic facts:

1- Most unions in this country support the Democratic Party's agenda, as do many, if not most, teachers and their unions.

2- Because of the Fed's ever growing role in "managing" school affairs (including curricula) due to federal funding, public shcools have essentially become government "agencies".

3- It is the Left who aggressively supports and endorses programs like "sex education"; whereas the Right believes in family values and in the responsibility of the parents to teach moral values and to instill those values into their children.

4- It is the Left who promotes the distribution of condoms in the name of "safe sex"; whereas those on the Right promote even "safer sex" by teaching and advocating abstinence. (Handing out condoms to kids, for example, amounts to the Left's tacit approval of fornication.)

5- It is the Left who has greatly limited parents' rights and authority over their teenage daughters, for example, when a teenager wants to abort the human life within her womb; whereas the Right believes parents should have complete say and authority with any legally underage child.

I could go on with other examples, but, hopefully, the above will suffice. The basic thing to remember here is very simple. With the Left the name of the game is Big, Controlling, Intrustive (and, therefore, freedom-killing) Government; whereas with the Right the name of the game is Small, Uncontrolling, Unintrusive (and, therefore, freedom-loving) Government.

>>
Sounds like we have some "perverts" running this school.
>>

Won't get an argument from me, except to say you could have dropped the quotation marks..

>>
No unlike some of the goings on in the Catholic Church.
:mad:
>>

So much like the church scandal, it's scary.

Boxcar

[canuck]

Boxcar-

Perhaps you could clear this up for me...

If God is all powerful, why did he take 6 days to create the universe, resting on the 7th?

Why didn't he snap his proverbial fingers and create everything all at once, and not need to rest afterward?

[TenZin]

Canuck's right all this talk about what god likes, what he thinks,
whats he considers right, moral, free of sin is lame. Besides
just treat others with respect and have fun and don't physically
hurt someone that's what I think.

[boxcar]

canuck wrote:

>>
There is supreme irony in the fact that the very God fearing priests who were entrusted to preach and moralize to the most susceptible of all "Gods" creatures did in fact exploit them to the max in the most heinous of fashions!
>>

Whoa...hold on, Cowboy. You mean these predatory homosexual priests, whose actions are controlled by their gene pools, did in fact "exploit them to the max in the most heinous of fashions"? How can you possibly say this!? Those priests were doing just what came NATURAL to them, weren't they!? They did merely what their gene pools impelled them to do, didn't they!? How can you now make a moral judgement about some behavior and condemn the people who did those acts, when you have previously taken homosexual activities out of the moral choice sphere, and put then into the realm of genetics? Seems like you have unwittingly snared yourself into a contradiction. (And you wished me me "good luck", eh?)

>>
Your "God" has a weird way of picking his troops...
>>

What makes you think God "picked" those priests? Maybe you had your own little "epiphany", eh?

>>
On another note--would you mine sharing your "epiphany" with me? Most people who take this stuff seriously (religion) have usually thought that the big guy whispered something to them at some point in time....
>>

Stereotyping is something you do on a regular basis, is it? Are you aware of the fact that sterotyping is a prerequisite element to bigotry? (You aren't a anti-religious bigot, are you?) Try sticking to the topic and ditch the snide, inane remarks. This policy would help lend credence to your arguments, which right now are in a state of shambles, anyway.

Boxcar

[canuck]

My goodness--have I hit a nerve my brother?

Of course these priests did what came natural--they were PEDOPHILES!!! Are you lumping law abiding gay people in with pedophiles???

A religous bigot? Pleeeaaaseee!!!! I am an atheist and have no qualms with your religion unless I feel compelled to comment on certain issues--and if you want to turn it into a pissing match--get your rubber suit on!!!

[GR1@HTR]

W.W.J.D.

http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/local/3543105.htm

[Derek2U]

SoapBox lacks any nerves cause they all atrophied.

[Rick]

boxcar,

Do you really believe that all sinners are liberals? I don't think so. I see a lot of evidence in the news of conservatives being at least as good at it as liberals are lately. If I recall correctly, greed is one of the "deadly sins".

I have pretty much a "live and let live" philosophy as long as people are keeping it to themselves and not promoting it to children. I don't think I've ever known anyone who didn't do something that irritated a lot of other people. But usually they don't count the things they do as being offensive, only what other people do.

I'm sure you're aware by now that the average person considers anyone who bets on horses to be a total degenerate. Probably most members of your church do. Even if you've told them about it they may not show their disapproval of it to you directly but talk among themselves behind your back. That has been my experience with organized religion. Organized gossip.

I'm sure you can quote the Bible better than I can so I expect a response that includes a lot of phrases taken out of context that purport to prove that we're all wrong and you're all right.

The number one rule of all religions: Do unto others ...

[Derek2U]

hehe Rick that was well said.

[Rick]

D2U,

Bada boom, bada bing!

[Tom]

Originally posted by Rick
boxcar,



The number one rule of all religions: Do unto others ...

BEFORE others do unto YOU!:eek:

[boxcar]

Rick said:

>>
Do you really believe that all sinners are liberals?
>>

Of course not! When did I ever say that? But I'll tell you what I do believe: All conservatives, liberald, independants, libertarians and any other political group you can think of _are sinners_. For as it is written:

"For all have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God."

>>
I don't think so.
>>

Amen! Again, I ask you: When did I ever say that only liberals are sinners? Or that all liberals are hellbound, for that matter?

Hope you're clear on this.

Boxcar

[Rick]

Tom,

Yeah, I know that one. But I once worked for a company that said that the Golden Rule is that "whoever has the gold makes the rules". These same guys wanted to fire me when I got salmonella and had to stay out a few days after working there for 3 1/2 years without taking a single sick day. Watch your backside, bro.


boxcar,

OK, cool. I really do agree with you on a lot of things. I just don't frame them in a religious or anti-liberal way.

[boxcar]

canuck wrote:

>>
My goodness--have I hit a nerve my brother?
>>

Who was the one doing the sterotyping, "my brother"? Something bigots very often do, for your info, which is why I asked.

>>
Of course these priests did what came natural--they were PEDOPHILES!!! Are you lumping law abiding gay people in with pedophiles???
>>

Of course, I am from a genetics standpoint! Why? For two reasons. First, strictly speaking the priests were predatory homosexuals because the vast majority of the abused were young boys. These priests had virtually no interest in young girls.

But even if you insist on making a distinction between "predatory homosexuals" preying on young boys and "pedophiles" abusing young boys, are you telling us that the pedophile's gene pool is supposed to contain a gene or two that sets age limits on the pedophile's sexual desires? You just said the pedophiles were indeed doing what came "natural" (- that personal moral choices were not involved in their vile conduct), so I ask you again: On what MORAL grounds can you JUSTLY condemn their activities? Forget about appealing to the law, Canuck, because this only begs the question! As I pointed out previously, man's law finds its ground in MORAL values -- for the most part in Judeo-Christian values at that.

You're talking out of both sides of mouth here. Out of one side, you say the priests' behavior was natural, genetically-driven. While out of the other side, you make a MORAL judgement and UNJUSTLY condemn these poor priests who had no control over their actions.

>>
A religous bigot? Pleeeaaaseee!!!! I am an atheist and have no qualms with your religion unless I feel compelled to comment on certain issues--and if you want to turn it into a pissing match--get your rubber suit on!!!
>>

Gee, Canuck, it's really tough being humble around you. But honestly...if you want to turn this into a pissing match (which I don't), you'd need far more than a rubber suit to keep you dry. You might want to think about building another ark before you even suit up.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

canuck wrote:

>>
Perhaps you could clear this up for me...

If God is all powerful, why did he take 6 days to create the universe, resting on the 7th?

Why didn't he snap his proverbial fingers and create everything all at once, and not need to rest afterward?
>>

The switch in midstream strategy is one often used by people who find themselves on the short end of an argument. You have refused to come out and answer my honest, on-topic questions, which has made you look poorly; so now you switch horses in midstream and dishonestly ask me an off-topic question, with the hopes that I will discredit myself and my beliefs. If you had _honest_ motives, why not pose that kind of question on any number of Christian boards on the web?

But to demonstrate that I'm a bigger guy than you are, I will this *one time* address this particular question, and this theologicaly-related question only. If anyone else wants theological instruction, there are plenty of good books (not to mention The Book!) out there plus an abundance of websites in and on which to seek your answers. One of the big problems in discussing theological issues is the time it takes because theology has a language all its own, and providing answers to theological questions posed by the "unwashed" can become very time-consuming, since often theological terms will require explanation. With this understanding, Canuck, I will now don my Christian Apologetics cap.

It's important to understand from the outset, that the attribute of omnipotence does _not_ mean that God can do all things. God cannot do anything that is contrary to or inconsistent with his holy nature. For example, God cannot violate the Law of Non-contradiction by calling a thing into existence and non-existence at the same time and at same place and in the same form. God cannot do the absurd. In other words, omnipotence does not imply the power to do every conceivable thing, but only the ability to do everything that is the proper object of that power.

Moreover, omnipotence does _not require_ that God must do anything in an instant. For example, in the N.T., there is a gospel account of Jesus healing a man in stages, which was done for a reason.. Likewise, I believe that God took "six days" to create and "rested on the seventh day" for very important typological reasons, and because his creation and rest activities were to serve as the model to be followed by his O.T. covenant people -- the Jews. But before I get ahead of myself, we must briefly examine what the bible means when it says God "rested".

The term "rested" is merely a vivid Oriental way of saying that God ceased from his work of his creation and afterwards took great delight in what he had done as expressed with the phrase "and was refreshed". The term "rest" does not mean a repose due to fatigue. It simply means to suspend activity in a certain mode of operation -- to cease from doing this or that. This explanation is also consistent with Isa. 40:28, which reads: "Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth does not become weary or tired. His understanding is inscrutable."

My interpreation and understanding of these things is further borne out by the fourth commandment, which reads:

"Remember the sabbath to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the sevent day; therefore the Lord God blessed the seventh day and made it holy."

Moses, looking back at the creation account is saying at the end that the creation "work" of "six days" and the "rest" on the seventh is to serve as the model for God's covenant people to follow -- that in fact, that "seventh day" was a foreshadwing of the seventh day on the Jewish calendar -- it was the "sabbath." There are numerous other passages in the O.T. to support this position, but I'm not going to take the time to find and reference them.

In terms of the N.T., the real anti-type is to be found with God's New Covenant people who are to also observe the "sabbath", but in an entirely different sense. The Church (the body of true believers) is to actively seek its "rest" in Christ. This means believers must cease from striving to please God with their own flesh-driven works, and to seek rest in Christ, who will empower them through the Holy Spirit, to do works unto the Father which are truly pleasing and acceptable to him. Ultimately, believers who persevere in the faith will receive their "heavenly rest". This ultimate"rest" signifying all believers' cessation with the struggles they had with sin during their earthly sojourn.

In summary, the creation account is entirely consistent with God's holy nature generally, and in particular with his attribute of omnipotence, since this attribute, as would any of the others, only requires that God's creation work be consistent with his nature, which means he cannot contradict himself or do anything absurd.

Boxcar

[so.cal.fan]

Tom:

The number one rule of all religions: Do unto others ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



BEFORE others do unto YOU!


__________________

;) that's a good one, may I have your permission to "pirate" that slogan?

[boxcar]

Below is a link to a very interesting article that deals with that Nickelodeon show, which we talked about a week or so ago. You might recall the wording of the VOTE.COM poll in which, in part, it said that the show wasn't about homosexuality, but
about teaching kids about the destructiveness of hate, and blah, blah, blah, right? Well, according to the article, the show was all about homosexuality, and presented an entirely lopsided view of "same sex" parents, etc. This doesn't surprise me. I knew beforehand what the show would be all about. But what did surprise me was the CNN poll results at the end of the article. Over 234,000 folks were polled and 71% were dead set againt the show being aired. (You might also recall that the VOTE.COM went the opposite way, probably due to the wording.) This high number is consistent with what the NY Times report that the show received over 100,000 emails and phone calls protesting the airing.

Maybe there is some hope for this country...maybe.

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/article.php?sid=324

Boxcar

[Derek2U]

wow ...cnn and nytimes isnt that impressive ... im sure
nickelodeon was shakin in their bootys. Anyways today
I turned 32 so maybe I'll become over-concerned bout
everyone else's business and sit around and stop Partying.
yeah sure .,hehe

[Rick]

boxcar,

You brought up a very interesting point. The wording of the options in a poll are extremely important in determining how the results turn out. Gallup and others are aware of this and are usually pretty good at trying to eliminate any bias, but some polls look suspiciously like they are promoting an agenda by how they state the question. Also, on this particular issue, probably most who voted in any of these polls probably didn't even watch the show so their opinions would be suspect. I hate to admit it, but I fall into this category myself. I assumed that the media would act as they usually do, and I was probably right, but since I don't really know the exact content of the show, my opinion probably shouldn't count for much. But I would have been against airing it anyway because if what they were saying about it were true it would be at best boring and uninformative.

[Rick]

D2U,

32 what?

[boxcar]

Rick wrote:

>>
32 what?
>>

He probably meant to say that is how many ounces he has remaining in his cerebral engine. Dangerously low. Look out.

[PaceAdvantage]

Can we end this thread already?? It's become WAY off topic, even for the OFF TOPIC section. If you don't believe me, check the title of this thread, and then see what it has evolved into....almost everything under the sun, and then some!!


==PA

[boxcar]

Just goes to show, PA, the height, width and depth of political correctness and how it has permeated virtually every aspect of society. ;)

Boxcar

[TenZin]

Political correctness? How about closed-mindedness?
Long-windedness?

[boxcar]

TenZin wrote:

>>
Political correctness? How about closed-mindedness? Long-windedness?
>>

And how about posts with meaningful and substantitive content? Far more than I can say about anything you have written on this forum.

But I tell you what I am open to, since you, evidently, think you're a pretty smart hotshot: Why don't you try tackling the contradictory quaqmires into which Canuck and SMF(on another thread)have unwittingly plunged themslves? Now, if you were to do that, I think you'd go a very long way in impressing a lot people around here. But if not, I think we'll just have consider you a
bored playmate of D2U who likes to make some noise by mindlessly rattling cages to pass the time away.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Political Correctness continues to seek new and lower depths of absurdity. The following is out of the Left Coast Report. At the end, they forgot to mention at least one other classic: I suspect that at some time in the near future we'll be hearing about "Snow White and the Seven Little People", provided some whacko doesn't come up with the idea that Snow White is racist, at which time her name could be changed to Ms. Salt N. Pepper.

Boxcar

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

5) THE HUNCH-BLANK OF NOTRE DAME

“The Hunchback of Notre Dame” is undergoing a name change. Striving to reach absurd heights of tolerance, a touring production is tampering with the title of the classic.

After discussions with a disability adviser, Oddsocks Productions has decided to call its version of Victor Hugo’s 1831 novel
“The Bellringer Notre Dame.”

The story of deformed bellringer Quasimodo and his love for a beautiful gypsy girl, Esmeralda, has been translated into 20 languages and adapted many times for stage and screen. But never has the book’s title created the kind of stir it has now.

The Left Coast Report believes we’re going to have to look more closely at a lot of the classics and make the necessary tolerance adjustments: Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s “The Rime of the Young-at-Heart Mariner,” Rudyard Kipling’s “The
Rainforest Book,” Charles Dickens’ “A Happy Holiday Carol,” Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Everybody’s Beautiful Duckling” and the just-can’t-wait-to-read Dostoevski’s “Crime and Rehabilitation.”

[Lefty]

I'm old. Scptty, beam me up.
If my dad were still alive this kinda nonsense would kill him.

[boxcar]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/7/2/163539.shtml

[boxcar]

Yet, another school is force-feeding religion down students' throats whether they want it or not. Naturally, it's not Judiasm or Christianity. (But you already knew that, right?)

This time, it's a higher institution of learning doing the feeding. The University of North Carolina will be _requiring_ its freshman class to read some book (forget the title at the moment)_about_ Islam. That's right-- a book ABOUT Islam -- no doubt spun to present Islam in the most politically correct light possible.

Any brave soul out there want to book my bets that neither the ACLU nor any radical atheist organization will touch this issue with 50' pole, even though UNC receives all kinds of federal funding?

Boxcar

[Lefty]

The A.C.L.U. never speaks up when they should. If it's not about protecting the rights of the radical left(redundent?)they don't seem to be interested.

[boxcar]

Lefty wrote:

>>
The A.C.L.U. never speaks up when they should. If it's not about protecting the rights of the radical left(redundent?)they don't seem to be interested.
>>

Well, at least one guy is interested in this kind of issue. Supposedly, O'Reilly tonight will be devoting a segment of his show to the indoctrination of Islam that is going on in some public schools out in California.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/712764/posts

Boxcar

[so.cal.fan]

Boxcar:
This place, Byron, California......wasn't it in the news a while back after the 9/11 attacks? Something about the City Council?
Seems to me, we have heard of these folks before.

[boxcar]

SCF, I wrote about that school a couple of weeks or so ago -- I think on this very thread. :)

The school I wrote about put on a play that required middle schoolers (I believe) to act out famous Islamic religious characters. Whether or not this is the school O'Reilly will be dealing with or not remains to be seen. For all I know this could be another school, involving another and different incident. But regardless, these indoctrination sessions at schools are happening with alarming frequency all over the country.

Boxcar

[so.cal.fan]

No, this wasn't anything we discussed here on the forum.
I recall this town being mentioned in a news report, their city council was doing something controversial.

[boxcar]

so.cal.fan wrote:

>>
No, this wasn't anything we discussed here on the forum. I recall this town being mentioned in a news report, their city council was doing something controversial.
>>

You're right. This was a different issue from the one on which I posted.

Don't know if you caught The Factor last night or not, but that segment wasn't one of O'Reilly's better efforts. He came very unprepared and wasn't in a position to really challenge anything anyone said on either side of the issue. The Islamic airhead (a conclusion I have drawn from listening to her numerous times on other shows on other occasions) who attempted to defend this "social studies" class (talk about euphemistic language!) claimed that an identical class existed that presented Christianity in much the same way - something which the lawyer for the families suing the school district categorically denied. (And given how the anti-Christian bigots on the Left tend to watch for little things like "separation of church and state" issues in a public school system, I would tend to agree with the lawyer.) But be that as it may, O'Reilly, at the very least, could have played the role of devil's advocate.

It didn't take the Islamic dingbat very long to intellectually shoot herself in the foot. Her opening comments were to the effect that since Islam is a major religion practiced by about 20% of the world population, she thought "everyone would agree" that there is great value in studying a major religion like this. (Isn't it funny how Muslims living in this country see things so differently than they do in those Muslim societies (such as Sorry Arabia) that strictly forbid teaching anything about another religion, especially Christianity!?) What would possess this woman (other than her blindness to reality) to make this kind of absurd assumption? Moreover, if her assumption were really the case, why couldn't this Islamic apologist see the virtue and fairness to teaching all the major religions of the world side-by-side - in a comparative religion course? Such a course would give more or less equal time to all the major religions. But then again, why would she want to share time with other religions?

Apparently, the kids/parents had the choice to opt out of the class altogether, in which case those kids would have earned no credit. The airhead tried to draw a parallel here between this and the Pledge, but she failed to take into account the "minor" detail that credit isn't earned or lost when kids participate or don't participate in reciting the Pledge.

Also, the kids who do participate in this "social studies" class have the option of earning additional credit if they "go all the way", e.g. take Muslim names for themselves, memorize verses in the Koran, etc. At least O'Reilly was alert enough to pick up on the inherent unfairness to this policy. Kids, whose moral sensibilities may have been offended by full participation, pay a penalty!

But if I had been O'Reilly, I would have assumed the role of a radical atheist in this situation. I would have borrowed on one of their famous and lamest arguments. I would have objected to the class on the grounds that even though the children had choices, those who opted out altogether or even partially were subject to suffering "extreme emotional stress" (a highly favored "buzzphrase" used by atheists) due to peer pressure from the other kids, etc.

Meanwhile, I believe this post 9/11 Left-wing extremist lovefest with Islam will continue to flourish. More and more schools will jump aboard the Islam bandwagon. It's their newest way of expressing their hatred for all the good things for which America stands. It's their way of demonstrating their support for and solidarity with the Muslim terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 and who want to do this country more harm. And they can do all this under the guise of "diversity" and "multiculturalism".

Boxcar

[JesseV!!!]

The Inquiring Mind of Tom Queries:

>> What about the fact that people come in many sizes? Is shaq the size he is becasue of his personal choise? >>

Hmm...I'd swear I've already addressed this question in my initial reply to you.

>> Should he have to buy two seats? >>

The Shaqs of the world wouldn't even know what we're talking about. They travel first class. (Come to think of it, first class accomodations are much roomier, which is one of the reasons why the airlines charge extra for same. Just some more food for thought, Tom.)
~
Do you REALLY think Tom was talking about rich people?~
~
>> And what is overweight are overweight becasue they eat too much.....this is a free country, and they have a right to be wahtever size they choose. >>

Amen, brother, preach it! Just like what I told Jesse once: People even have a perfect right to behave like morons if they like. And while on the topic of "rights", moderately-sized folks have a right to not be squished uncomfortably in their seat because they had the unfortunate luck of sitting next to a space-hogging hippo.
~
Your space-hogging hippo analogy can be directly applied to the property devaluing junk collector. Both spill over and effect their neighbor. BoxCar Willie! The more you say, the better chance you have of contridicting yourself!
~
BTW...What is it that Bush is doing now to make the economy so great for the next Liberal Prez? I just can't put my finger on it...LOL

What did Bush Sr. do, while your at it.

Trumen
"It would be unamerican to run for a 3rd term"

[boxcar]

Jesse wrote:

>>
Your space-hogging hippo analogy can be directly applied to the property devaluing junk collector. Both spill over and effect their neighbor. BoxCar Willie! The more you say, the better chance you have of contridicting yourself!
>>

Never let it be said that logic is the métier of a Liberal. Talk about convoluted reasoning!

Hey, Jess, all you gotta do is get your neighbor to pay for his own junk removal from his own property - IF you have legal grounds to do that. And if you have legal grounds and he doesn't comply, sue him. But if you don't have legal grounds, cut your losses and move to a community that has a HOA with very strict and exceedingly comprehensive rules and regs, along with very stiff penalties for offenders. You'd fit nicely in a community loaded with control freaks. (Just make sure your clock alarm doesn't exceed the decibel rate that would annoy neighboring late(r) risers.)
~
>>
BTW...What is it that Bush is doing now to make the economy so great for the next Liberal Prez? I just can't put my finger on it...LOL
>>

I suspect that if that finger of yours was spot welded to your nose, you'd also have a problem locating any part of your face, let alone your nose.

Boxcar

[JesseV!!!]

Jesse wrote:

>> Your space-hogging hippo analogy can be directly applied to the property devaluing junk collector. Both spill over and effect their neighbor. BoxCar Willie! The more you say, the better chance you have of contridicting yourself! >>

Never let it be said that logic is the métier of a Liberal. Talk about convoluted reasoning!

Hey, Jess, all you gotta do is get your neighbor to pay for his own junk removal from his own property - IF you have legal grounds to do that. And if you have legal grounds and he doesn't comply, sue him. But if you don't have legal grounds, cut your losses and move to a community that has a HOA with very strict and exceedingly comprehensive rules and regs, along with very stiff penalties for offenders. You'd fit nicely in a community loaded with control freaks. (Just make sure your clock alarm doesn't exceed the decibel rate that would annoy neighboring late(r) risers.) ~ >> BTW...What is it that Bush is doing now to make the economy so great for the next Liberal Prez? I just can't put my finger on it...LOL >>

I suspect that if that finger of yours was spot welded to your nose, you'd also have a problem locating any part of your face, let alone your nose.

Boxcar
~~~~~
Insults followed by spin! You crack me up Boxy boy. If it makes sense, spin it to the right! lol
If you could see "your" future world, it would scare the crap out of you. You wouldn't venture past the guard shack.

Why use words like métier? You could easily use the word comedian. Is there an alterier motive behind such language? Ego? Want to impress the middle/Left?
"(Just make sure your clock alarm doesn't exceed the decibel rate that would annoy neighboring late(r) risers.)" It's comments like that from your kind (spinners) that discredit all that you write. You compare a loss of $12,000 and a polluted well to an alarm that no one can hear.

Is that REALLY your answer to the next economy?!!! More nonsense! Gimme a break!
Try to refrain from analogies that don't match up. You may fool more people!

[boxcar]

Inquisitive JesseV!!! asks:

>>
Why use words like métier? You could easily use the word comedian.
>>

Really? Those two words would only be synonymous in Jesse's New World Order Thesaurus.

>>
Is there an alterier motive behind such language? Ego? Want to impress the middle/Left?
>>

Nah. None of the above. Just wanted you to look the word up 'cause I figured it would throw you into a tailspin. Guess I was right, eh?

Boxcar

[Lefty]

Jesse, the Bushes and the economy. George 41 put the spending caps on Congress(it was part of the deal when they blackmailed him into raising taxes.)
George W. Hey, remember that 600 you got, you spent it didn't you? Plus there are more tax cuts, not enough, but a start.
Let me ask you what Clinton did for the economy?

[boxcar]

Many of the parents are saying they never knew what was going on in that "social studies" class. Well, to them I say, "Shame all over you for not taking more of an interest in your kid." And shame on you for judging a book by only the name on its cover!

By the same token, when the superintendent of the school district insists that the school wasn't teaching religion but "world history", a good case can be made for outright deception. In fact, the social studies class is called World History and Geography: Medieval and Early Modern Times. Certainly sounds innocent enough, doesn't it? Who woulda thunk that an entire "unit" in the course would be devoted to the study of any one particular religion?

Since this case will go to a federal district judge in the Frisco area, it probably has a pretty decent chance of being appealed (no matter which way the district judge opines) to the infamous Ninth Circus Court. If so, this case could very well find its way to the SC.

Boxcar

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020710-10805452.htm

[Lefty]

I think we have separation of "common sense and state."

[boxcar]

Here is an excerpt out of today's edition of The Federalist on the Univ. of North Carolina's new found romance with Islam.

Boxcar

--------------------
From the "Village Academic Curriculum" File: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is requiring 3,500 incoming freshmen read a book on the Qur'an: "The Early Revelations." The ACLU's
Seth Jaffe noted, "We are keeping an eye on it, but so far it does not seem to be problematic." Would Mr. Jaffe have a problem if UNC required all its incoming freshmen to read the Bible?
-----------------------

[Rick]

boxcar,

I'd have no problem with them reading the Koran and the Bible and others as part of a "History of Religions" class but to single one out as being the only important thing to know now seems ridiculous. I'm really tired of being "sensitive" to other people's feelings when they're not sensitive to mine.

[Lefty]

The liberals prob. think if we all covert to Islam then no more airplanes will be slamming into our buildings. We will join them and they will leave us alone. Hugs all around.

[boxcar]

Lefty wrote:

>>
The liberals prob. think if we all covert to Islam then no more airplanes will be slamming into our buildings. We will join them and they will leave us alone. Hugs all around.
>>

Well, O'Reilly had the Pile High & Dry Prof. on from UNC, who is giving the course in Islam. I had him pegged for a bleeding heart after the first couple of sentences rolled off his lips. He, too, must have been thinking that all Americans were born at night -- and last night to boot.

O'Reilly wanted to know -- why _that_ particular book dealing with Islam was required reading for all incoming freshies? Natch, the Prof., definitely being one of those open-minded types,
defended the course in the pursuit of knowledge and that all knowledge is good, blah, blah, blah.

Mr. O, not being satisfied with academic clichés, pressed the issue. The Prof. said that particular book was chosen because it was a "scholarly work", and it examined the literary and poetic value to the early writings, blah, blah, blah.

Thankfully, O'Reilly still wasn't satisfied with that nonsense and continued to press the Prof. on why he didn't merely teach a course in the history or culture of Muslims or Arabs and be done with it -- that this kind of broad overview would serve the Prof's purposes even better than a more narrowly constructed course in religion. In the end all the Prof. could offer as a defense (and was it ever feeble!) was that he didn't go the historical/cultural route because he wanted to limit the required reading to just one book -- clearly implying that O'Reilly's suggested course would take more than one book. What utter nonsense!

I am still reading David Pryce-Jones' scholarly work "The Closed Circle -- An Interpretation of the Arabs" which deals exactly with the culture and history of Arabs! Permit me to quote some from the back cover of the book, which will give everyone an idea of the general scope of the book.

"As the violence of the Middle East has come to America, many Westerners are stunned and confounded by this new form of mayhem that appears to be a feature of Arab societies. This important book explains how Arabs are closed in a circle defined by tribal, religious and cultural traditions. David Pryce-Jones examines the forces that 'drive the Arabs in their dealings with each other and with the West.' In the postwar world, he argues, the Arabs reverted to age-old tribal and kinship structures from which they have been unable to escape. In tribal society, loyalty is extended to close kin and other members of the tribe. The successful nation state - the model that Westerners understand -- generates broader loyalties, but the tribal world has no institutions that have evolved by common consent for the common good. Those who seek power achieve by plotting secretly and ruthlessly eliminating their rivals. In the Arab world, violence is systemic."

Can there be any doubt that a work like Price-Jones' that explores (in good depth, I might add) the Arab world from the tripartite perspective of "tribal, religious and cultural traditions" would provide a student with a far deeper and more profound understanding of a people than would a course that basically deals with only a people's religion?

I give the Prof an "E" for Effort, though, as he gave it the old college try in Piling it on High and Dry on The Factor.

But before I forget and to be fair to the old guy, he did say on the show that the course is voluntary. However, if a student decides to opt out, he must write at least a 300-word essay giving his reasons. If I were a freshman at UNC, I'd be hard-pressed in deciding whether it would be easier to take the dumb course than it would be in having to find all those words to state the obvious. Plagiarizing the succinctly stated back cover of the aforementioned book would be a temptation very difficult to overcome. Plus I would find it even more difficult to refrain from writing in my essay that the Prof. should take his not-so-hidden agenda and stick it in his ear.

Boxcar

[Rick]

boxcar,

I can't believe you'd ever shy away from writing a 300 word essay unless it was limited to 300 words.

[boxcar]

Rick:

>>
I can't believe you'd ever shy away from writing a 300 word essay unless it was limited to 300 words.
>>

Or unless the topic was a true-blue no-brainer, as would be the case with that course in Islam.

Boxcar

[Tom]

Originally posted by Rick
boxcar,

I'd have no problem with them reading the Koran and the Bible and others as part of a "History of Religions" class but to single one out as being the only important thing to know now seems ridiculous. I'm really tired of being "sensitive" to other people's feelings when they're not sensitive to mine.

Frankly, I know all I need to know about islam-and they can all go to hell. I spit on the koran and I spit on allah, who is NOT God.
I will never accepty islamic as anything other than murder incorporated. They declared jihad on us and The have sleepers that walk amoung us and probably are vocal in denouncing us. They don't look like us, they are easy to find, but that would not be nice so we pretend to be PC. For God's sake, watch the 911 videos again and again and you will see what islam is all about. They hate us and are out to destroy us. Remember all we did for those little sand sucking cowards the Kuwaitis? Most of them hate us and believe that musslems did not do 911. We should have given them a reason to hate us and kept their oil wells after WE put out the fires that were set by musslems!
After they explode a dirty bomb and thousands more die in the name of allah, come talk to me about political correctness.

[boxcar]

Tom wrote:

>>
Frankly, I know all I need to know about islam-and they can all go to hell. I spit on the koran and I spit on allah, who is NOT God.
>>

Now here's a guy who wouldn't have any problem finding 300 words for the prof.

Boxcar

[Tom]

What's that old saying, one finger is worth a thousand words?

[boxcar]

The Left never ceases to amaze me. The Sesame Street muckety mucks also want to deprive kids, mostly in the age range of 3 thru 7 years, of their innocence and childhood by introducing a yet-to-be-named HIV-positive Muppet to the cast.

This new "upbeat female" character will be making her debut in the near future on Takalani Sesame over the South African Broadcasting Corp. airwaves. Eventually, the show will make its way to U.S. audiences - although, I for one would not feel the least bit slighted if the whole stupid idea got flushed down some toilet bowl.

Some guy by the name of Schneider (possibly a producer) promises that the new character will be "appropriate" for the tender age range of the audience. I guess this means that the kiddies will be spared all the gory, but simple facts about AIDS. I suppose this means that the show won't be getting into prevention details. Won't be getting into the fact that AIDS is a behavior-driven disease caused mainly by promiscuous sex activities and dirty needles used for injecting veins with illegal drugs. Thank God for this. But with Liberals, one always has to wonder when the Muppet character Chucky Chuckles Condom will be taken out of the dark wings backstage and thrust into the spotlight onstage at some point in the near future.

The direct link to the story is very long and would wrap. Best thing to do is click on the link below and then find the Muppet link which will be easy to do.

http://www.drudgereport.com/

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Tom wrote:

>>
What's that old saying, one finger is worth a thousand words?
>>

In that the case, the Prof would flunk you for not adhering to his 300-word rule.

Moreover, you'd have to photocopy your finger and submit the copy as your "essay", in which case the Prof would undoubtedly flunk you for "plagiarizing", since that form of universally crude expression could hardly be considered original thought.

Boxcar

[Tom]

I got two fingers, ya know!

[Tom]

All this time I thought Elmo was a sock....come to find out he forgot to use one?

With the sharp mentality this SA group is showing on this deal, is it any wonder AIDS is spreading like wildfire over there?
Maybe we should stop spending money on research for finding a cure for HIV and spent some on good old basic education, not the liberal-crap feel good brand we are dishing out.
The basics to a good education are:
1. Learn to read
2. Learn to write
3. Learn math
4. Learn to keep your zipper up

Once every student is fluent in these topics, we can worry about everything else. Until these topics are fully mastered, students go nowhere and do nothing.
Or is that not too "feel good?"

[boxcar]

Tom wrote:

>>
I got two fingers, ya know!
>>

Which only means your chances for flunking would be twice as great. ;)

Boxcar

[boxcar]

There's going to be a segment on tonight's edition of the Factor on this Muppet-HIV thing.

Boxcar

[JesseV!!!]

Inquisitive JesseV!!! asks:

>> Why use words like métier? You could easily use the word comedian. >>

Really? Those two words would only be synonymous in Jesse's New World Order Thesaurus.

>> Is there an alterier motive behind such language? Ego? Want to impress the middle/Left? >>

Nah. None of the above. Just wanted you to look the word up 'cause I figured it would throw you into a tailspin. Guess I was right, eh?
~
Yea, right boxy. I'm in a real tail spin alright. It looks like, when you can't spin without looking like a jack ***, you just don't (can't) defend your twisted words. Go back and do it over.
~

Boxcar

Report this post to a moderator

07-09-2002 07:45 PM IP: Logged


Lefty Senior Member


Registered: Mar 2001 Location: Posts: 536

Jesse, the Bushes and the economy. George 41 put the spending caps on Congress(it was part of the deal when they blackmailed him into raising taxes.) George W. Hey, remember that 600 you got, you spent it didn't you? Plus there are more tax cuts, not enough, but a start. Let me ask you what Clinton did for the economy?
~
That $ was a drop in the bucket Righty. But hey! We can all pay the interest on the new deficit,eh? Just think. From nothing to 165 billion. What does that cost us?
Clinton? Partly due to a tecnology BOOM but mostly consumer confidence. Would you be happy if the only tax you paid went 100% towards interest? Can you see the future at all?
How's your drinking water? ...
~

[boxcar]

Kasich (who is subbing for O'Reilly tonight) had this clueless wonder on from the National Gay & Lesbian Taskforce who tried to defend the Muppet-HIV idea.

For one thing, she had absolutely no idea just how the Sesame St. producers would go about the task of making certain that the material would be "age-appropriate". All she was able to do was keep on insisting that the show knew what it was doing, and that everything would be handled tastefully. How comforting.

She did admit, however, that the purpose behind the show was to fight bigotry. I didn't realize that kids that tender age, so immature, with such limited reasoning abilities, and with such limited life experiences could develop such a high degree of depravity to know enough to become bigots. But let's say that these little devils are generally capable of bigotry, how is the show intending to connect the dots - the dots between the outward symptoms of the disease and the primary causes to it!? An opponent to the program asked this very thing, and basically all the woman could do is that it wouldn't be necessary to talk about that aspect to AIDS. Really? But aren't the behavioral causes the very reason that some adolescents and adults tend to be "bigoted" toward people with AIDS!? What am I missing here?

Another major flaw with this kind of programming to such young kids is that the show presumes that they can successfully take the "one size fits all" approach, which clearly demonstrates the producers' "collectivism" ideology and their utter disregard (if not disdain) for individuality. (How Marxist of them!) However, I think most parents would think that the discussion of any sensitive subject is best handled vis-à-vis a one-on-one approach with a child - and with a parent or guardian who the child trusts and loves.

Kasich predicted the HIV Muppet idea would never make it to America. I ain't bankin' on it.

Boxcar

[Lefty]

Wrong Jesse. yes, the cut was modest, I said that. The deficit? Have you heard about 9/11. Have you heard about the war on terrorism? Cost money, ya know.
Clinton did NOTHING for the economy but ride the coattails of, Reagan, Bush 41, and Knute's Contract With America.
Guess you would like to go back to the Carter days of rampant inflation and 19% interest...

[Tom]

So what is wrong with being bigotted against AIDS patients?
Read my lips, HIIV person (PC)...stay the hell away from me.
I don't care what the odds are for or against getting AIDS from whatever contact-if you keep away from me, my odds are better. You are concerned about your rights? I'm not. I'm concerned about my health, and the general health of the public. Sorry you are going to die, but please go do it somewhere else. BTW, most likely, you would not be going to die from this illness if you had made responsible choices about your health. In other words, you don't have to get AIDS, and most people do not unless the do things that put them at risk (yeah, yeah, some Arthur Ash got it from a transsfussion, and others got it by accident) but the VAST majority of AIDS cases are/were preventable wihtout millions of dollars wasted on research looking for a cure. We don't need a cure-we already know how to prevent it.
But to the point, you got it, I don't want it, so get away from me.
This is not a social issue.

[Rick]

Tom,

Isn't it incredible how they've managed to terrify the heterosexual non-drug-using population about this thing. And, as far as death sentences go, it's a pretty slow acting one anyway. Magic Johnson has been around about 10 years longer than most people diagnosed with cancer. And some researchers think the cures may be worse than the disease. Very strange.

[JesseV!!!]

"Wrong Jesse. yes, the cut was modest, I said that. The deficit? Have you heard about 9/11. Have you heard about the war on terrorism? Cost money, bya know. Clinton did NOTHING for the economy but ride the coattails of, Reagan, Bush 41, and Knute's Contract With America. Guess you would like to go back to the Carter days of rampant inflation and 19% interest..."

Oh! Did Reagan & Bush create the techno boom that fueled the economy in the 90s? Did they hypnotize us, saying: You will have much confidence when a Dem. is elected?
Is our confidence so low right now b/c of Clinton?
GIMME A BREAK with this myth!
The economy, I believe, is fueled or not, by what is happening here and now.
Enjoy the interest on the growing deficit!

[so.cal.fan]

Jesse V:

I think when the next elections come up, we will see a "protest"
vote, and it will be fueled by MONEY or lack of it.
Bottom line: People vote their pocketbooks, always have and they always will.
It won't matter what is going on in the world, if they don't have as much money as they used to have, they are going to say
"Hey, wait a minuet" Something's wrong! What happened to my 401K?
I know a man in my town that is about as conservative as Boxcar, not quite, but close- LOL
He lost all his money in Enron..............he probably won't vote at all, but he won't vote Republican, he is totally pissed.

[boxcar]

so.cal.fan wrote:

>>
I know a man in my town that is about as conservative as Boxcar, not quite, but close- LOL
>>

Thank God! I hate competition.

>>
He lost all his money in Enron..............he probably won't vote at all, but he won't vote Republican, he is totally pissed.
>>

Next time you see him, ask him why he's "totally pissed" at the Republicans for these corporate scandals. I'd like to know. Maybe I'm missing something.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

"I yam what I yam" asked:

>>
So what is wrong with being bigotted against AIDS patients?
>>

I wouldn't boast about being a yam. Where I live, they sell for dirt cheap by the pound.

And geesh, Tom, what isn't wrong with being bigoted against anyone or any group!? You're over the edge on so many things. If you had your way, you'd nuke every Arab counry in the Mideast. Now you hate people with AIDS. What gives with you?

Boxcar

[Tom]

Originally posted by boxcar
"I yam what I yam" asked:


And geesh, Tom, what isn't wrong with being bigoted against anyone or any group!? You're over the edge on so many things. If you had your way, you'd nuke every Arab counry in the Mideast. Now you hate people with AIDS. What gives with you?

Boxcar

1. Yes, I would nuke many middle eastern nations. No question here. I would go a lot farther than that, starting right here at home. We are at war, and I say fight to win. No quarter.

2. I don't hate aids patients, but I hate the way the left tries to make this a social disease-it is a deadly disease brought on by ones lifestyle. By contracting this disease, they forfeit their right to mingle in society and put others at risk. I feel sorry for them deep down inside, but the bottom line is that most aids patients don't have to have it-they got it bythier choices, so they have to live (or die) by them. Their right to privacy is supceded by my right to live safely.

Have a nice day, and, OBTW, I am not a "yam," I yam what I yam!

[Tom]

Originally posted by so.cal.fan
Jesse V:

I think when the next elections come up, we will see a "protest"
vote, and it will be fueled by MONEY or lack of it.
Bottom line: People vote their pocketbooks, always have and they always will.
It won't matter what is going on in the world, if they don't have as much money as they used to have, they are going to say
"Hey, wait a minuet" Something's wrong! What happened to my 401K?
I know a man in my town that is about as conservative as Boxcar, not quite, but close- LOL
He lost all his money in Enron..............he probably won't vote at all, but he won't vote Republican, he is totally pissed.

This business corruption started long before the Repubs got the WH. When you are operating at that level, your world is no linger verticle (LEft, right, Dem, Rep, Liberal, Conservative) it is horizontal-a top layer of society, so to speak, with memeber from all the verticle groups mixed together by common interest-wealth and power. Like a pond, scum rises to the top.

[Lefty]

Anyone that lost ALL their money in Enron should blame themselves. Number one rule of investing:Diversify!
And GW in a little over a yr. Sounds like most of this scandal was cooking during the Clinton adm and UNCOVERED during the GW adm.
The leader of the Demos turned a 100 grand into millions at Global Crossing, and then that co. went broke; don't see a thing on the mainstream news about it. Hmmm.

[boxcar]

Nor will you see much of anything in any of the liberal rags about the cutsie little trick Gore tried to pull with this expensive house in the Carolinas. Gore tried to save thousands in taxes by claiming a homestead exemption on the property when he shouldn't have, since he didn't live there enough months out of the year.

Yeah, Mr. Gorasmic paid up AFTER a reporter for some paper (forget the name, now) caught on to the scam.

Boxcar (who thinks there might be better reporting in the tabloids than in most liberal rags)

[Lefty]

Boxcar, your premise stands but that was Gephardt that did that particular trick.
Gore was the landlord from hell who was renting a basically uninhabitable house and refused to do any repairs.

[boxcar]

Lefty

>>
Boxcar, your premise stands but that was Gephardt that did that particular trick. Gore was the landlord from hell who was renting a basically uninhabitable house and refused to do any repairs.
>>

Hmm...yeah, I know about Gore the Slumlord. But several days ago I read about the North Carolina house -- and I swore it was about Gore -- although, I do know that Gep owns a hoidy toidy house in the mountains there. Now you've got me curious. I'm going to see if I can track down that article -- but you could very well be right.

Heck, you listen and observe one Left-wing extremist and you've seen and heard them all. They're all bad apples that have fallen from the same tree.

Boxcar

[Rick]

I think a lot of these career politicians choose their party and position on the issues according to what they think will get them elected. Sort of like people at work saying whatever they think the boss wants to hear in order to get promoted. Sure, the Republicans and Democrats talk different, but they all act pretty much the same.

[boxcar]

Tom wrote:

>>
1. Yes, I would nuke many middle eastern nations. No question here. I would go a lot farther than that, starting right here at home. We are at war, and I say fight to win. No quarter.
>>

Like you, I firmly believe that if we're going to go to _war_ with someone, then we should indeed fight that war to win it as quickly as possible and the with fewest fatalities as possible. I detest nothing more than politically correct "measured responses", as this type of strategy will only result in more casualties and fatalities for the advocates of such a response. We saw this in Vietnam. We see this again in Israel. However, there is a very large gap between a measured response and what you approve of, which is nothing short of genocide. To suggest that we as a nation should demand (or even approve) of any sitting president that he transform himself into a Hitler or a Hussein or a Milosevic goes beyond the mere bounds of the [intellectually] absurd and goes straight to the moral realm of the lowest depths of depravity.

And do you believe for a moment that the mighty U.S. could nuke some Middle East nation on the basis of a "preemptive strike", and that such impunity would not provoke an all out nuclear war between Russia and China and us?

>>
2. I don't hate aids patients,
>>

Really? You should go back and read your original remarks. It seems to me you wouldn't want to be within a 100 miles of one. Tell me: Would you feel the same way if you had a loved one (such as a son or a daughter) test HIV-positive? Would you disown the kid? Would you share the space of the same room with him or her?

>>
but I hate the way the left tries to make this a social disease-it is a deadly disease brought on by ones lifestyle.
>>

I agree completely. It's morally reprehensible what the Left does with this issue, AND what it's politically correct solutions are, e.g. handing out condoms like they were candy bars -- and at the same time denouncing and ridiculing efforts by some when they promote the very best remedy, which is abstinence, of course. And like you, I have a very tough time empathizing with an AIDS patient, as I would with a smoker dying from lung or throat cancer, since in both situations their behavior - their moral choices -- led to their condition. But this doesn't mean I can't feel pity or regret for them.

>>
Have a nice day, and, OBTW, I am not a "yam," I yam what I yam!
>>

Yes. On further reflection, you're probably right. Unfortunately, in your situation I'll have to forego expressing my true sentiments and let discretion be the better part of valor, lest PA delete this post.

Boxcar

[TenZin]

PA should not eliminate your post but he should eliminate you.
You should go to another room where your stupid and hateful
and useless comments would be appreciated.

[boxcar]

TenZin (our wannabe "Intellectual Commentator" wrote:

>>
PA should not eliminate your post but he should eliminate you. You should go to another room where your stupid and hateful and useless comments would be appreciated.
>>

Three observations from this singularly unimpressive contributor to this forum:

1- He complains about the content of certain people's posts when he could just as well ignore all posts from authors with whom he disagrees.

2- PA doesn't provide "another room" for folks like myself; but even if he did, boors like TenZin would still find an excuse to enter therein, otherwise they wouldn't be able to fulfill their solitary mission in life which it to complain about something, without ever offering viable and intelligent solutions.

3- His objections clearly prove my numerous assertions about the utter hypocrisy of the preachers of tolerance on the Left, but their lack of practice thereof in the real world.

Boxcar

[TenZin]

Boxcar you really should seek out another room. I really don't
think much of what you have typed makes any sense. You just
seem to call anyone who disagrees with your ideas names.
That's the old ad hominem ploy. So at the very least you should
just list your ideas and avoid name-calling although I still think
you should really just leave this room which is ostensibly focused
on horse racing and NOT what you seem to enjoy talking about.
BTW do you ever have anuthing sensible to contribute on horses?

[boxcar]

TenZin complains again with:

>>
Boxcar you really should seek out another room. I really don't think much of what you have typed makes any sense.
>>

WHY do you read my posts, then? Huh?

>>
You just seem to call anyone who disagrees with your ideas names.
>>

People who whine and complain for the mere sake of whining and complaining are indeed boors -- and boring ones at that. I submit no apology.


>>
That's the old ad hominem ploy.
>>

No! The "ploy" is that hominem attacks are used to divert attetnion away from the substance of a topic or discussion and to instead shift attention to personalities. Since there was no meaningful and useful substance to what you wrote previously,
it was impossible for me to use the "ploy".

>>
So at the very least you should just list your ideas and avoid name-calling although I still think you should really just leave this room which is ostensibly focused on horse racing and NOT what you seem to enjoy talking about.
>>

What part of OFF TOPIC, don't you understand? It appears you're not even aware of how PA has defined this forum -- so permit me to help you out:

"Got something on your mind other than horses?"

>>
BTW do you ever have anuthing sensible to contribute on horses?
>>

Given the fact that something as simple as the definition of what this Off Topic forum is all about, I doubt seriously anything I would say pertaining to handicapping would make any sense to you either.

May I be so bold as to suggest that you might be better off hanging out on the five horse racing-related forums PA has provided for your limited interests?

Boxcar

[JesseV!!!]

I've heard for many years that we have the power with our vote. That's not working out too well is it?

We NEED *term limits* on every level. Right down to the city council. Until we get that, we have to sit back, watch and read about this corrupt system that's in place.
It has to be our 1st move for a new start...

[Derek2U]

Maybe at one time it was useful to conceptualize Left vs Right,
but I think it's lost its usefulness. Personally, and speaking
about financial matters, I use to think I was closer to the
Republican than the Democrat, more Right than Left. Not so anymore. In fact, informal polling among my fellow workers on
Wall St show that many, many others feel as I do. The Republicans are more fiscally dumb than the DEms and
certainly more consumed with greed-for-self. And, as I
certainly know, Every Enron biggy-- ditto Global Crossing,
WorldCom-- is Republican. I know it's seems counter intuitive
that a party so associated with Big Business could be so fiscally
dumb, but they are. After all it was the Republican mindset
that almost closed down the Fed Gov't some years ago and
I know of so many many instances of them showing poor money
judgment etc etc. The real division these days that seems more
useful than R vs D or Left vs Right is Younger vs Older. Business
school is so much harder these days than past days its like a
totally different climate.

[boxcar]

JesseV!!!

>>
I've heard for many years that we have the power with our vote. That's not working out too well is it?

We NEED *term limits* on every level. Right down to the city council. Until we get that, we have to sit back, watch and read about this corrupt system that's in place. It has to be our 1st move for a new start...
>>

You have finally said something for which I'm in total agreement. But whatever you do, don't drop a line to your hero McCa(i)n't asking him to sponsor a term limits bill. The only thing you could expect from him on this issue is a canned, computerized response, as would be the case with the vast majority of other congress critters.

Boxcar

[Lefty]

derek2U, You really have it wrong. Terry M the head of the Dem
party turned a 100,000 into millions at Global crossing and then Global went broke. where's the press?
the Dems just voted for new corporate restraints and then loaded into corporate jets to go to their fund raisers. There are more rich Demos in Congress than Repubs. And on and on and on.
The diff is Repubs blve in capitalism and the demos blve in govt.
Greed? Al Gore and Clinton not big on charity. But during the 80's charitable contributions at all time high.
as O'Reilly says, C'mon get into the game.

[boxcar]

Derek2U wrote:

>>
Maybe at one time it was useful to conceptualize Left vs Right, but I think it's lost its usefulness.
>>

Now the political fad is to conceptualize "moderate", yes?

>>
The Republicans are more fiscally dumb than the DEms and certainly more consumed with greed-for-self. And, as I certainly know, Every Enron biggy-- ditto Global Crossing, WorldCom-- is Republican.
>>

Now you demonstrate how politically illiterate or naïve you are, for your argument is so superficial. You need to extricate your nose from that large Bias Tree planted firmly in your mind, so that you'll be able to see and appreciate the bigger picture. What you're failing to see is that the Enrons, Global Crossings and WorldComs scandals of the financial and business worlds are merely symptomatic of a much larger and older problem. Please inhale deeply all the wisdom that follows. By so doing, you just might liberate your senses long enough to permanently set yourself free from your load of burdensome presuppositional baggage.

"In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." --Voltaire

"The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it." - Unknown

"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election
is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods." -- H. L. Mencken

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H. L. Mencken (Does "Global Warming" come to mind? --- oh, and Hillary says there is a "hidden" child care crisis. Could she have meant to say "imaginary" child care crisis? And let's not forget all the seasoned citizens who will die without a Prescription Drug program - even though Americans are living longer than ever!)

"In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, 'Make us your slaves, but feed us.'" -- Dosteovsky's Grand Inquisitor. (This accurately describes the current state of political affairs in America.)

Now that I've laid a little political backdrop for you, please consider this, as well: The root to all evil is the love of money. The income tax system (ANY income tax system), as pointed out on other occasions, is the fertile Soil of Corruption in which that root can take hold and develop into a into a huge tree - which we'll call Greed. Our current tax system allows for ALL politicians to exploit the trust of Americans. And the politicos do this by legally "confiscating" our property (which money is) before we even see the first dollar of our hard-earned income. This inherently wicked tax system is anti-capitalism, anti-free market, anti-freedom, and in short entirely anti-American; for instead of offering, encouraging and promoting incentives and rewards for honesty, integrity, ethics, productivity, entrepreneurialism, self-sufficiency, personal responsibility and accountability (and for that matter any other virtue or good thing which I might be overlooking) in government, business and individuals, it actually encourages and promotes the practices of lying, cheating, and stealing which are the outward expressions of a corrupt heart that feeds upon the inward greed for money and lust for power at all levels and sectors of our society. In fact, any income tax system can only perpetuate and aggravate this corruption - and in addition to this corruption, an income tax system often generates a great deal of resentment in many entrepreneurial types because it punishes their ambition, ingenuity and creativity, rather than rewards it.

Here are but a few quickie examples of what I speak. (Lefty, you may want to help fill in the blanks on this particular little gem, as I forget all the details.) Not too long ago, it was reported that Clinton in the early 90s either signed into law or by Executive Order put some kind of "cap" on the salaries or perks of CEOs for all public corporations because I suppose the CEOs were taking advantage of (once again!) loopholes created by Congress by legally avoiding taxes, somehow. So, the large corporations seeing that Clinton plugged one tax (loop) hole in the ever-so- leaky [tax] dyke soon realized that that action provided another leaky opportunity to take advantage of - namely stock options! Small wonder that some CEOs, who were unable to resist temptation, saw such a great window of opportunity to become rich quick by allowing their corporations to sink to the bottom - but not before selling off their stocks first.

Or how about a few months ago when Congress rode its high horse to become so high and mighty and indignant over many corporations seeking LEGAL tax shelters by establishing their corporate headquarters offshore somewhere? How could Congress get so up at arms over the legal maneuvering of those corporations when it was our congress critters who created the tax loophole to begin with!?

Or how about the exorbitant tax rate on cigarettes now? As a result of what has been going on with ciggys, the government (by the Law of Unintended Consequences, of course) created another monstrous hole in the income tax dyke by encouraging and fostering a burgeoning black market for those nasty little cancer sticks. So, not only are the Feds losing money in taxes, but the BATF and the IRS are spending more of our tax dollars than ever in trying to enforce the tax laws! A double whammy!

And on a smaller scale, but nonetheless at an ever increasing rate (I would have to think), consider all the entrepreneurial types who are making good bucks, either full or part time, at a site like eBay. An awful lot of money changes hands daily on that site. And I happen to know a few people personally who do very well by trading their wares there. Gotta think an awful lot of "income" never gets reported to the Feds - but who knows, maybe I'm just too cynical of human nature.

In closing, D2U, when you consider the income tax system and the very few examples of abuse I gave along with the wise political observations of some that I recorded earlier in this post, it all adds up perfectly. Once you remove the rose colored glasses, you'll find that two plus two really adds up to four, and that in 1939, under a DEMOCRATIC administration, when the Income Tax became Law of the Land, this law began this country's long, steady and ongoing descent into the dark pit of Socialism --with ALL its attendant evils.

And lest you or anyone accuse me of complaining about a thing and not offering a viable alternative or solution, or worse yet of being one of those unpatriotic "tax protestors", many here will attest to the fact that I'm a staunch supporter of a consumption-based tax system.

Boxcar

[Lefty]

Boxcar, you're right on! The Clinton salary caps led to the options and the options led to...scandal.

[Lefty]

Income tax: In 1939 when the citizens grumbled the Dems said, "oh, come on, it's only 1%"

[boxcar]

Lefty

>>
Boxcar, you're right on! The Clinton salary caps led to the options and the options led to...scandal.
>>

Do you recall more details on those salary caps? Was that due to congressional legislation or was that one of the countless EOs he signed?

It bugs me when I can't recall the important details of things like this, but then again...there is soooo much information to be absorbed and remembered on that super highway out there. It's perpetual rush hour with no end in sight to the bumper-to-bumper traffic. :)

Boxcar

[boxcar]

http://www.cnsnews.com/cartoon/nowak.asp

[Lefty]

Boxcar, unfortunately, I don't recall the details either but sure it was some Clinton maneuvering.

[Derek2U]

2 political dragon heads. BoxCar i've never seen so many
non-sequiturs in 1 reply ever. You 2 are probably laminated in
1960 or thereabouts. Wake up both of you the world Has changed in 40 years; even the maps managed to change so why
can't you? Yet I don't disagree with everything you've said: YES,
government has Expanded (aH Republican Homeland Security) ;
govt is stealing from many of us (Bush's tax cuts for example);
Cheney's Halliburton & Rumsfeld's huge stock booty too. But's
whats the point guys: where is a Leader when we need one?
And incidentally, LeftY, shouldn't you change your nic to Righty?

[boxcar]

Derek2U wrote:

>>
political dragon heads. BoxCar i've never seen so many non-sequiturs in 1 reply ever.
>>

I'm sorry to learn you weren't able to connect the dots.

>>
You 2 are probably laminated in 1960 or thereabouts. Wake up both of you the world Has changed in 40 years;
>>

Time for a new Law of the Land, eh?

>>
Yet I don't disagree with everything you've said: YES, government has Expanded (aH Republican Homeland Security) ;govt is stealing from many of us (Bush's tax cuts for example);
>>

Tax cuts? Stealing!? If that's stealing, I welcome more of those tax cuts. I can _always_ put MY money to far better use than what the Feds could. (Oh...but then again, you probably don't think it's _my_ money, right?)

>>
Cheney's Halliburton & Rumsfeld's huge stock booty too.
>>

You forgot to add Bush, and you forgot to add the DNC chairman who turned 100K into millions. And you forgot Hillary's really sweeet stock windfalls several years ago.

>>
But's whats the point guys: where is a Leader when we need one?
>>

In some backroom or dark alley somewhere getting insider trading info, so he/she can make a killing in the market.

>>
And incidentally, LeftY, shouldn't you change your nic to Righty?
>>

How singularly unoriginal.

Boxcar

[Tom]

Anyone know if Boxcar is going to put out a "CLiff Notes" version of his posts? I like to read them , but I have a job so I can't stay home all day. <G>.

[Lefty]

derek2u, believe it or not, I've heard the lefty righty stuff before. And again I stand with Boxcar:If tax cuts are stealing from me I want them to steal some more. W, send me another $600 the wife spent the last chk already. Thief!
The world has changed but politicians who want to tax the hell out of me so they can give it to every cause under the sun haven't changed at all. At least a bankrobber uses a gun.

[Tom]

Itis not just the federal level - the state is wasting tax money left and right (no pun) as well. NY spend countless millions on art, on baseball parks, sports centers, ect. Rochester just got a ball park a couple years ago, no they are crying for a soccer only stadium so the grass won't get chewed up. Now I know Rochester is near the bottom of the list when it comes to getting state money for things, and that just makes me madder - why should my tax money go buy ball parks and soccer stadius? Let the damn Red Wings pay for the ball park-not people who will never use it. The local sports-nut radio talk show host boasts the Rochester has over 7,000 hard-core soccer fans...great! Let them pay for the stadium. I wouldn't go see a soccer game if they let me in free and gave free beer. And that sweetheart deal they gave Ralph"The Choker" Wilson to keep the Bills in Buffalo was outrageous! We are subsidizing a billionaire! And a loser billionare to boot (Q? what is the area code for Buffalo? A! 0-4-4)
And the Fed is spending money to subsidize NPR - a totally leftist-biased radio network. No, no....this is not right.....if they can't pay their way, then they need to go out of business. And money for the arts??? I see no earthly reason to give one penny to the arts. It is totally wasted money. Let the artist get a job or paint something good that they could sell. I would guess that at least 60% of all tax revenues are wasted on things gov't has no business getting involved with in the first place. Stop spending money on things that aren't important, and then let the free enterprise system decide we spend our own money - if there are enough soccer fans out there, they will build stadiuims, if not, they can go to Brazil and watch.
And look at racing-look at the ridiculous amont of money it turns over to government, and then we have these elected idiots trying to stop internet gambling!
The time is long overdue for another tea party in Boston.

[boxcar]

Tom wrote:

>>
Anyone know if Boxcar is going to put out a "CLiff Notes" version of his posts? I like to read them , but I have a job so I can't stay home all day.
>>

Be patient. Soon you'll be able to get a 'puter chip implant under your scalp. Then I'll be able to upload my posts directly to your brain. No reading involved. You'll have the capability to absorb all my knowledge and wisdom during your lunch break.

Boxcar (who is forced to find creative ways to compete w/El Rushbo)

[Rick]

boxcar,

That wouldn't be much fun for you, would it? But that method may be necessary in the future since most of the public school educated people may not be able to read.

[boxcar]

Hey, D2U, just click on the link below and read and weep.

Boxcar

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michaelkelly/mk20020717.shtml

[Tom]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by boxcar
[B]
Be patient. Soon you'll be able to get a 'puter chip implant under your scalp. Then I'll be able to upload my posts directly to your brain. No reading involved. You'll have the capability to absorb all my knowledge and wisdom during your lunch break.

Will I have to pay monthly downloading fees? <G>
Maybe you could hook up with HDW and offer a package! Ha!

[boxcar]

Tom asked:

>>
Will I have to pay monthly downloading fees? <G>
>>

Wouldn't it be unAmerican to think otherwise? ;)

Boxcar

[Derek2U]

i'll take BoxY public

[boxcar]

I wonder how many more little Samanthas this country will tolerate before saying enough is enough!

Boxcar

http://www.pressipice.com/no_bull_zone33.htm

[boxcar]

Once again I ask the Bush apoligists out there: Where is Bush's leadership on this critically important issue? He needs to rein in Powell or dump this Liberal -- which is what he really is.

What purpose does all this Homeland Security stuff serve -- what good is all this reorginization, reshuffling, reforming do when PC lamebrains like Powell aren't concerned at all about allowing terrorists into this country!?

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/joelmowbray/jm20020723.shtml

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Don't be surprised that if some point in the not-so-distant future the Liberals, with a little urging from the Whacko Shrink Community, come up with the idea of banning prisons, as the way to end spreading those deadly sex-related diseases.

Boxcar

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/7/28/73018.shtml

[JesseV!!!]

"Don't be surprised that if some point in the not-so-distant future the Liberals, with a little urging from the Whacko Shrink Community, come up with the idea of banning prisons, as the way to end spreading those deadly sex-related diseases.

Boxcar "
How can any one take you seriously when you make cockamamy remarks like that?
It IS NOT going to happen!
That's why I'm sure Rush is a loony. He certainly has an agenda. Only the brainwashable take him seriously. Hmmmm

A test for righty: Drink purified water for a week and then try some tap water.

[tdthomas]

Boxcar, maybe you would like to spend some time with the "Booty Bandit".

I think prison officials and guards should be held responsible for every prison rape that occurs, and they should be sent to prison themselves for allowing such crimes inside their jails.

[Lefty]

Jesse, No thanks. Did you know that the so called purified water doesn't have to be tested against any standards but tap water does. Besides, since my beer drinking days are over I drink nothing but diet cola.

[Lefty]

While i'm at it, Jesse, the Cheney Harken deal is a non-starter: Cheney sold his intersts at the INSISTENCE of the media when he was running for VP and besides, his co. didn't go broke. That's the trble with liberals:They have selective memory.

[boxcar]

tdthomas wrote:

>>
Boxcar, maybe you would like to spend some time with the "Booty Bandit".
>>

Now, why would I want to do a thing like that? I haven't broken any laws. You would have done far better suggesting that wannabe crooks should think twice about doing hard time -- and spending it with people like "Booty Bandit".

>>
I think prison officials and guards should be held responsible for every prison rape that occurs, and they should be sent to prison themselves for allowing such crimes inside their jails.
>>

Whoa, TD. (You don't mind if I use that little nick for you, do?) Just what do you think prison is? Heaven on earth? A taste of some heavenly paradise? Allah's abode with all his heavenly virgins?

Now, since you obviously don't approve of prison conditions -- yes, it is prison conditions -- or prison environment, if you will -- or even prison culture -- that largely accounts for this type of deviant behavior, please make some concrete suggestions (other than tossing apathetic guards in the clink)for us. What would you do to change the prison culture?

Thanks,
Boxcar

[boxcar]

Jesse:

>>
Boxcar "
How can any one take you seriously when you make cockamamy remarks like that? It IS NOT going to happen!
>>

Jesse, look up the word "hyperbolae" and also find out why people employ hyperoblic language in their speech and writings.

Let us know what you find out, okay?

Boxcar

[JesseV!!!]

"Jesse, look up the word "hyperbolae" and also find out why people employ hyperoblic language in their speech and writings. "

Why do people employ hyperoblic language? It just makes them sound out of touch with reality. Isn't that a brainwashing tactic? I know this. It works on some people.

Am I right in assuming, by your last comment, that you approve of prison rape?

[tdthomas]

Boxcar,
I don't expect prison to be a "heavenly paradise". But neither should it be a place where cruel and unusual punishments are handed out.
Booty Bandit should be in solitary confinement for the rest of his life. If someone like you thinks the Bandit is entitled to a piece of meat, I might allow you visitation rights. :eek:

For hardened criminals like Booty Bandit, prison should be a no-frills experience. Cheap food, water, a toilet, and a bed. Ideally, more death sentences would be carried out, but for some reason this never happens and it gets to be too expensive with all the appeals allowed.

[Lefty]

Hmm, I don't want to be raped in prison so I guess I just won't commit any crimes.
Can't help but notice that criminals do not mind at all meting out cruel and unusual publishment to the public.

[tdthomas]

Lefty,
there are plenty of people in prison who have not committed crimes. I think it was Boxcar himself who said he was carrying a gun without a conceal carry permit. Technically a crime that could land him in jail. Just one of the many "crimes" that could land one in jail.

[hurrikane]

Not sure where you fly out of but I flew out of BWI 2 weeks ago and was impressed with the security. Of course they are one of only 4 airports that have met the new Fed regs. As for random check. Not sure how random they are. Seems to me they were stopping all the same people I would have stopped. Out of all the thousands of people stopped you hear complaints from a handfull and everyone latches on.
One thing is certain. You don't have to have a towel on your head to be a terrorist.
Remember, the second worst act of terrorism on America soil was commited by an American in Oklahoma.

[Tom]

Originally posted by tdthomas
Boxcar, maybe you would like to spend some time with the "Booty Bandit".

I think prison officials and guards should be held responsible for every prison rape that occurs, and they should be sent to prison themselves for allowing such crimes inside their jails.

The only diference between prison guards and prisoners is the side of the bars the y are on. The prisons are as bad as they are because the people that run them are corrupt and incompetent.
They could probably switch places and no one would ever know.

[Tom]

Originally posted by hurrikane

Remember, the second worst act of terrorism on America soil was commited by an American in Oklahoma. [/B]

But he didn't fly in there. And the death pilots would probably pass today's miserable excuse for security.

[Lefty]

And the Oklahoma idiots not funded by a madman with an almost inexhaustable money supply.
Random acts of terrorism by our own misguided citizens is one thing organized attempts from without to completely destroy our country is quite another.

[boxcar]

Jesse wrote:

>>
Why do people employ hyperoblic language? It just makes them sound out of touch with reality. Isn't that a brainwashing tactic? I know this. It works on some people.
>>

It's okay, Jess, just go back to sleep and have pleasant dreams. The more you speak, the more you embarass yourself, whether you know it or not.

>>
Am I right in assuming, by your last comment, that you approve of prison rape?
>>

You know what they say about people who ASSume, right?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

tdthomas wrote:

>>
I don't expect prison to be a "heavenly paradise". But neither should it be a place where cruel and unusual punishments are handed out. Booty Bandit should be in solitary confinement for the rest of his life.
>>

Hmm..."cruel and unusual punishments" -- er, methinks your proposed solution wouldn't work very well. But let's talk maximum security prisons for a sec, okay?

These are large prisons with populations in the thousands -- more often than not, usually overcrowded to boot. Despite the relatively few inamates who may be in prison unjustly, the overwhelming majority of them are guilty felons and have committed serious crimes (quite often of a violent nature), which is why they're in this type of prison in the first place.

So as to not throw too much at you at one time, I'll ask just this for now: Would you consider a prison policy that mandated every prisoner to solitary confinement(such as at Gitmo) for the term of his sentence to be cruel and unusual punishment?

>>
If someone like you thinks the Bandit is entitled to a piece of meat, I might allow you visitation rights. :eek:
>>

As long as it's horse meat and cooked well to avoid food poisoning, I'd have no objection to BB getting his piece.

Boxcar

[tdthomas]

Boxcar wrote:
So as to not throw too much at you at one time, I'll ask just this for now: Would you consider a prison policy that mandated every prisoner to solitary confinement(such as at Gitmo) for the term of his sentence to be cruel and unusual punishment?

I did not say "EVERY" prisoner. Just violent and dangerous prisoners like BB. And no, I don't consider that cruel and unusual punishment.

[boxcar]

tdthomas wrote:

>>
I did not say "EVERY" prisoner. Just violent and dangerous prisoners like BB.
>>

Sir, if you had bothered to read my post _carefully_, there wouldn't have been any possible way for you to infer from it that I was somehow implying that _you_ said "EVERY" prisoner. You obviously read something into my post which the context thereof will not reasonably permit. Want to give it another shot?

Boxcar

P.S. Hint: Read my opening paragraph again.

[tdthomas]

My answer stands.

Those who are a danger to society are put in jail. Those who are a danger to the rest of the inmate population should be put in their own cage.

About half of the prisoners in jails are victims of the war on drugs. They do not belong in prison. Their release would free up space for real criminals.

[Lefty]

"victims" of war on drugs. They brk law and they are victims? If there were no users there would be no dealers. Victims?

[boxcar]

tdthomas wrote:

>>
My answer stands.
>>

Have you considered night classes for reading comp?

>>
Those who are a danger to society are put in jail. Those who are a danger to the rest of the inmate population should be put in their own cage.
>>

Since this is the third time you've said this, I think we all know by now what your original position was. I guess you think redundancy is an underrated literary device, eh?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Lefty wrote:

>>
"victims" of war on drugs. They brk law and they are victims? If there were no users there would be no dealers. Victims?
>>

TD could be a subscriber to the Libertarian view on drugs, i.e. decriminalize all drug use.
Personally, I would have no problem with that, provided taxpayers don't have to subsidize druggies' habits. I would take all 2+ times convicted offenders and stick them on a deserted island in the middle of the ocean, that would also be home for man-eating sharks, and make food drops to the addicts once or twice a week, and forget about them. At least there, maybe some of them would learn survival skills, which is far more than they would learn in a "civilized" and "compassionate" society that picks up the tab for their habit.

Boxcar (who is contacting my congress critters to get them to sponsor Victims Bill of Rights legislation.)

[PaceAdvantage]

The personal putdowns are getting ponderous.....

[Rick]

It seems to me that we should rightfully be worried about those drugs that are so addictive as to cause their users to commit crimes to support their habits, but probably not about those that are affecting only the users. I don't claim to be any kind of expert on this subject, but since I think that a significant percentage of people will always want to get high, we ought to permit or even promote something less dangerous than alcohol in order to minimize the side effects.

[boxcar]

Rick wrote:

>>
...but since I think that a significant percentage of people will always want to get high, we ought to permit or even promote something less dangerous than alcohol in order to minimize the side effects.
>>

So, if I'm understanding you rightly, you'd advocate "less dangerous" drugs (e.g. maryjane?) and make these kinds of drugs (if indeed there be any such animals) available on the free and open market for any adult to buy and use, while simultaneously having the Feds continue with its expense battle on hard drugs smuggling and use?

Second question: Let's say for the sake of discussion that someone invents a product called HighLite -- what makes you think that users' systems wouldn't develop a high tolerance to it after awhile, and want to move on to experiment with hard drugs, which is very often the case with people who started out using marijuana?

Boxcar

[Lefty]

How about this? 3 felonies and we kill you. 3 felonies and you are scum. We can do without scum.
Hell with 3 strikes and out I want 3 strikes and dead.
I know, it's radical and when you say that think about what it takes to accrue 3 felonies. How many you got? That's my point.

[delayjf]

IMHO,
While on the surface legalizing drugs might seems like a viable option, I feel that overall impact of such an act would absolutely hurt our society.

First of all, I do not buy into the theory that legalizing drug is going to empty out the prisons. The notion that 1/2 of all inmate population are drug dealers / users is not quite accurate. While 1/2 of all inmate are incarcerarted for drug related offenses, most involve some sort of thieft. I doubt these same people are going to run out and get a job simply because drugs are now legal. Despite what you have heard, not many people do time for getting caught smoking a joint.

As lefty pointed out, are the American people going to have to pick up the bill for all these individuals who have choosen this life?
I think we all know the answer to that one. I firmly believe the more prevalant and available it becomes the more common it's use. Kids will also have easier access to drugs. The more common its use, the more our society will pay in higher crime rates and greater treatment costs.

With regard to how they do things is Europe. I could care less. If Europe is so great, perhaps we could export are Drug addicts there, we're they are wanted.

I think the US should take a hard line stance ala the movie "Clear and Present Danger". We know who these people are. Lets force these drug loads into the Jungles to live like we have Bin Lauden. Let's seek out these drug lords, find their country-side Villas and blow them up. If this takes a declaration of war , so be it. What's Columbia going to do to us??

[JesseV!!!]

>> Why do people employ hyperbolic language? It just makes them sound out of touch with reality. Isn't that a brainwashing tactic? I know this. It works on some people. >>
"
It's okay, Jess, just go back to sleep and have pleasant dreams. The more you speak, the more you embarass yourself, whether you know it or not. "

You have GOT to be kidding with that lame come back, right?
I only embarrass myself in YOUR mind.

>> Am I right in assuming, by your last comment, that you approve of prison rape? >>

You know what they say about people who ASSume, right?

That's your answer? Where's the hyperbole? lololol.........

[Rick]

boxcar,

If Prohibition were in effect today, you'd probably be arguing that drinking alcohol makes you a gangster. It's quite common to confuse correlation with causation. Right now, about 25% of all people in this country are addicted to nicotine, but so far I haven't seen too many committing crimes to support their habit. But, if you raise the taxes high enough, who knows?

What you call a "drug" is largely determined by the culture you live in. You can call caffiene a drug if you want to, but everyone knows it's not dangerous. I'm not promoting drugs, but realizing the fact that people will always try to find some way to relieve stress. Making it dangerous or illegal to do something that widespread usually results in unintended consequences that are worse that the original problem.

And, as long as I'm on the subject, how about developing a way for people to easily sober up after drinking. That would save a lot of lives.

Oh, I forgot that you fans of W think that saying "evildoer, evildoer, evildoer" 20 times every day makes the problems go away.

[Rick]

Buckley on the "War on Drugs" for those who are interested:

http://www.nationalreview.com/12feb96/drug.html

[boxcar]

Two thumbs up, Rick, for providing that link! I can't recall when the last time was that I saw so many brilliantly written essays by such bright minds.

While I only had time to quickly "skim" through the lengthy essays, I have to admit that there seems to be much there that makes good sense. As stated just yesterday, I do rely on the experiences of others for making decisions. That symposium offered an adequate number of different perspectives to give readers decent glimpses into the experiences and studies of each contributor who had opportunities to deal with and research the drug-related issues in ways that differed somewhat from each of his fellow-contributors.

In the past I have read some of Friedman's arguments, and have to confess that as recent as a couple of years ago, I have started harboring some serious doubts over the conventional wisdom of fighting this "war on drugs". And I have also battled with the inconsistencies between conservative political philosophy and virtually all conservatives' stand on this war, as correctly pointed out by professor Duke.

The long essays certainly appear to be worth the read and provide more than enough food for serious consideration and reflection. For this reason, I have copied them to my HD for more careful study in the near future.

Boxcar

[JesseV!!!]

It's a no brainer...

"I HAVE spared you, even as I spared myself, an arithmetical consummation of my inquiry, but the data here cited instruct us that the cost of the drug war is many times more painful, in all its manifestations, than would be the licensing of drugs combined with intensive education of non-users and intensive education designed to warn those who experiment with drugs. We have seen a substantial reduction in the use of tobacco over the last thirty years, and this is not because tobacco became illegal but because a sentient community began, in substantial numbers, to apprehend the high cost of tobacco to human health, even as, we can assume, a growing number of Americans desist from practicing unsafe sex and using polluted needles in this age of AIDS. If 80 million Americans can experiment with drugs and resist addiction using information publicly available, we can reasonably hope that approximately the same number would resist the temptation to purchase such drugs even if they were available at a federal drugstore at the mere cost of production.

And added to the above is the point of civil justice. Those who suffer from the abuse of drugs have themselves to blame for it. This does not mean that society is absolved from active concern for their plight. It does mean that their plight is subordinate to the plight of those citizens who do not experiment with drugs but whose life, liberty, and property are substantially affected by the illegalization of the drugs sought after by the minority.

I have not spoken of the cost to our society of the astonishing legal weapons available now to policemen and prosecutors; of the penalty of forfeiture of one's home and property for violation of laws which, though designed to advance the war against drugs, could legally be used -- I am told by learned counsel -- as penalties for the neglect of one's pets. I leave it at this, that it is outrageous to live in a society whose laws tolerate sending young people to life in prison because they grew, or distributed, a dozen ounces of marijuana. I would hope that the good offices of your vital profession would mobilize at least to protest such excesses of wartime zeal, the legal equivalent of a My Lai massacre. And perhaps proceed to recommend the legalization of the sale of most drugs, except to minors.


2. Ethan A. Nadelmann

We turned to Mr. Nadelmann to pursue the inquiry. Formerly in the Political Science Department at Princeton, he is now the director of the Lindesmith Center, a drug-policy research institute in New York City. He is the author of Cops across Borders: The Internationalization of U.S. Criminal Law Enforcement.

THE essayists assembled here do not agree exactly on which aspect of the war on drugs is most disgraceful, or on which alternative to our current policies is most desirable, but we do agree, as Mr. Buckley expected, on the following: The ``war on drugs'' has failed to accomplish its stated objectives, and it cannot succeed so long as we remain a free society, bound by our Constitution. Our prohibitionist approach to drug control is responsible for most of the ills commonly associated with America's ``drug problem.'' And some measure of legal availability and regulation is essential if we are to reduce significantly the negative consequences of both drug use and our drug-control policies."

[Rick]

boxcar,

I provided that link so that there wouldn't be any misunderstanding by anyone thinking that I'm in favor of some kind of free-for-all capitulation to drug users or pushers. As Buckley and others point out, it may be necessary to move in the direction of legalization to minimize our losses as a society.

Illegal immigration is the other war that we're not winning. But, I haven't seen a workable plan yet to solve that problem.

[Lefty]

A workable plan to combat the wave of illegal immigrants is simple: Cut off the goodies. No schooling of illegal children, no free health benefits, no more dropping a kid and voila they;re a citizen and welcome to the new parents. Do not reward these people for committing a crime.
When they call us racists for instituting such policies say "then you must be one too, cause I can't go to YOUR country and get these benefits.
Stop the Nonsense.

[Lefty]

Rick, I have seen people on nicotene and I have seen people on Marijuana, and heroin. You can't seriusly compare nicotene with the latter.

[boxcar]

You're right, Lefty. Methinks the immigration problem could be solved easily enough if the politicans quit kicking it around like a political football. Three common sense things need to happen: Militarize our borders; quit hanging the sign out that says, "Welcome to America - The Land of the Free, Home of the Brave and Above All Else the Welfare State for All the World's Oppressed and Underprivleged"; and last but not least, Congress needs to establish sensible and reasonable immigration policies.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Lefty wrote:

>>
Rick, I have seen people on nicotene and I have seen people on Marijuana, and heroin. You can't seriusly compare nicotene with the latter.
>>

But can't we draw some legitimate parallels among these drugs?

And what about fundamentally important concerns Prof. Duke raises, to wit?:

>>
Why do so many conservatives preach ``individual responsibility'' yet ardently punish people for the chemicals they consume and thus deny the right that gives meaning to the responsibility? Many of these same conservatives would think it outrageous for the government to decree the number of calories we ingest or the kind of exercise we get, even though such decrees would be aimed at preserving our lives, keeping us productive, and reducing the drain on scarce medical resources. The incongruity of these positions is mystifying, and so is the willingness of conservatives, in order to protect people from their own folly, to impose huge costs in death, disease, crime, corruption, and destruction of civil liberties upon others who are entirely innocent: people who do not partake of forbidden drugs.
>>

However, one of my concerns about legalizing hard drug use is do we limit avialability of these drugs to addicts or should we also make them available to any adult who wants to experiment with them? It seems to me that if we limit the distribution of drugs to just exisiting druggies, we would still be inviting in drug pushers and making the newbie market available to them.

Boxcar

[Derek2U]

that buckley types like boxcar. all them words say just slightly
more than zero. "the # of available enforcers of law & order,
namely police." hehe ... where'd that guy learn that crap?

[Rick]

Lefty,

If you think someone using marijuana is more addicted than someone using nicotine you're definitely not well informed.


Boxcar,

Well, we definitely have to be careful about how we implement any changes so as not to promote drug use, but I think there are some things worth trying that have worked in other countries. But everything should be on a trial basis. Just because it worked in Holland doesn't mean it would work here. But we should try to find something that works better than our current policy.

As regards immigration, I guess I really don't understand why the legal immigration policy (green cards) doesn't cover the demand for workers. I'm sure it's just because I haven't read enough about the issue, but the fact is that I really don't want to spend a significant amount of my remaining lifetime worrying about things that I probably can't change.

[Rick]

Derek,

You'd be cute if you were 12 years old, but you're not.

[Derek2U]

Yeah Rick your correct; a guy has to be 12 yrs old to follow
some of the posts here. Most of you guys want gov't on every
level to (1) watch over us ; (2) tell us no drugs, no sex, NO,
NO, NO and then (3) you guys vote them into power. So many
of the posts here take the position that gov't & the PeopLe
are adversaries .... but the gov'ts got the Power. It's such an
old & useless & doomed relationship. I could make everything
so much better in every way in USA society. It's so easy, it's
like finding a winning handicapping system, but like most everything else, most peeps will find tHE way to make the simple,
incredibly confusing. Ah, that's what separates winners & losers.

[boxcar]

Derek2U, while gasping for air, wrote:

>>
that buckley types like boxcar.
>>

I should only have the intellect of a Buckley!

>>
all them words say just slightly more than zero. "the # of available enforcers of law & order,
namely police." hehe ... where'd that guy learn that crap?
>>

Two very simple pieces of advice, D2U, that will serve as your personal "speed limit regulator", if you listen up: Limit your vocabulary to words under three syllables, and worship at the feet of people who question the definitions of words like "is".

Boxcar

[Lefty]

Rick, reread my post. I didn't say maryjane more addicting than nicotene, I said the results were different.
BTW, since i've been in Vegas i've seen several "kids"that used Maryjane graduate to much "harder" stuff.

[Rick]

Lefty,

I'm not advising that anyone use any of those things, just wishing that we would deal with the reality of it more effectively. Innocent people are too often caught in the crossfire in the "war". I couldn't care less what people do to themselves as long as it doesn't affect me. And users of some kinds of drugs, especially if they're very expensive, are much more likely to cause trouble for the rest of us. Probably everyone who's ever used hard drugs has also used softer drugs including alcohol and nicotine but that doesn't prove much. But hanging out with a bunch of creeps involved in illegal activities probably has some influence on escalating people to higher levels.


Derek,

None of the points you mentioned is true about me. If you know how to make everything better, tell us. Just please leave out the juvenile emotional outbursts. Whatever you're smoking is something we should definitely all avoid.

[smf]

The horrible results of marijuana use revealed....

http://www.theonion.com/onion3001w/marijuana.html

"We have found that where there's marijuana," explained Institute spokesperson Roger Krell, "there's also a good chance of finding stoners on a couch passing around a bong." Krell added that in such situations, "There is also a strong likelihood of finding incense, a TV, and some chips, usually Ruffles."

[Rick]

smf,

How true. If marijuana was legal and affordable, most people would probably use it rather than alcohol. It isn't, so I don't.

Imagine what would happen if cigarettes were $100 a pack and you had to buy them from some guy on a street corner with no guarantee that you'd be getting real tobacco. With 25% of the population now addicted to nicotine, which some say is harder to kick than heroin, I think there would be more than a few people out there stealing to support their habit. There are already signs of a black market developing as prices get higher, and cigarettes are locked up like Fort Knox in stores due to the high rate of shoplifting. Be careful about making those bad habits too expensive.

I also remember people saying how if you allowed casino gambling, organized crime would take over society and everyone would become a compulsive gambler. The truth is that, as with all other vices, most people don't go off the deep end and ruin their lives. Obviously the 1% that do should be helped, but the 99% shouldn't be assumed guilty of the worst scenario.

[so.cal.fan]

Rick writes:
With 25% of the population now addicted to nicotine, which some say is harder to kick than heroin.......


That is interesting, Rick.
I once read years ago, that over 90% of our soldiers coming back from Viet Nam who had been addicted to heroin, kicked the habit upon return to the United States.
I wonder if 90% of the smokers kicked their habit?

[Lefty]

If marijuana was legal and affordable, yes, lots of people would be using it. Then they'd be locked up later because they graduated to heroin or whatever;'s in vogue now and then cry they;re victims and we should just legalize all of these life threatening drugs.
I don't smoke but I know of no smoker of nicotene that has missed work because of its effects or being impaired to the point they couldn't drive.
Alcohol, yes it impairs and i've seen it's devastating effects. It's bad enough let's not go from bad to worse.

[Rick]

Lefty,

Prohibition didn't make alcohol abuse disappear, all it did was make it more expensive and dangerous. Most Arab countries outlaw it's use and also betting on horse racing, so I guess you wouldn't mind moving there. You really should be ashamed of yourself for contributing to the compulsive gambling problems of all of those degenerates at the race track. Everyone knows that when you allow gambling, people go out and lose all of their money and steal from us to support their habit. Let's outlaw everything that anyone might act irresponsibly at. You can't be too careful. All security, no liberty.

What I always find interesting is that the people who know the least about something always have the strongest opinions. Ren a copy of "Reefer Madness" from the video store if you want to find something to support your beliefs. For those who know better, it's a good laugh.

[boxcar]

And not only that, Rick, but now we have a similar situation with exorbitant federal taxes on cigarettes. There is already a black market developing. Once again the Feds are shooting themselves in the foot.

Boxcar

[Lefty]

Oh, I see, marijuana is not a gateway drug? I'm having a good laugh on you because I think comparing drug use to gambling is silly. Gamblers don't exchange dirty needles, or go home and give their loved ones aids because they got it off of a chip. I'm glad to be in the company of such experts who are kind enough to set me straight. In Vegas i've seen a lot of drug addicts and a lot of gamblers. Guess which are worse?
Let's empty the prisons of all drug users and put them on the street only not my street, your street.

[boxcar]

Lefty, don't know if you bothered to read those lengthy essays on the link Rick recently posted on the Drug War. But if not, you should at least tackle Buckley's arguments. I was surprised to find, for example, how low the ratio of drug abusers was to drug users.

Boxcar

[Tom]

Originally posted by Rick
Lefty,


What I always find interesting is that the people who know the least about something always have the strongest opinions. Ren a copy of "Reefer Madness" from the video store if you want to find something to support your beliefs. For those who know better, it's a good laugh.

I just love that guy playing the pinao and smoking the joint-with that crazed look on his face. One funny movie.


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

Drugs, booze, gambling, and sex. No matter what your morality is, people want these things and no one will ever stop them from getting them. Let's quit wating billions of dollars and move on.

[Rick]

Lefty,

But, you see, people do make those kind of exaggerated arguments about gambling too. You're a perfect example of how well government propaganda works.

You don't need to worry much about AIDS unless you're partner is a male homosexual or a heroin user. I think you'd probably know. As a Nevada resident, you should know that there's never been a case of AIDS in a Nevada brothel. And the laws against prostitution work so much better in Las Vegas than in the rest of the state where it's regulated.

I'd feel much safer in Amsterdam, where people smoke marijuana openly than I would in Las Vegas, which has laws against it but has all of the worst criminal activities borrowed from Los Angeles.

Anyway, that's my opinion based on the best available evidence and observing others who you wouldn't know were users unless you tested them for minute quantities in their urine or hair. Sorry.

Another interesting thing. Marijuana use can be tested for months later but cutting someone's hair down to their scalp, but cocaine use can't be detected after about 24 hours. So, when we're drug testing for employment we're catching mostly the least dangerous people.

[boxcar]

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/kathleenparker/kp20020803.shtml

[Rick]

I've often thought that a lot of people who are using illegal drugs (and alcohol) are just self-medicating for a condition that probably could be helped by prescription drugs. It may be easier for them to obtain relief that way than to go to doctors or psychiatrists. At the same time, I think it's just plain insane for someone to care about getting high enough to risk incarceration and loss of employment or property. The rewards just doesn't justify the risk. In young people, it can be explained by immaturity or peer pressure, but in older people I'd have to consider it a personality defect.

It would be interesting to know how many people are on prescription drugs, such as Valium or diet pills (speed). Obviously, drug companies have a huge stake in making any non-patentable drugs illegal.

[Lefty]

Rick, no I am not a victim of govt. propaganda. I said you could get aids from dirty needles that denotes heroin users so see you made my argument by saing you possibly could get aids if you "snuggled" with a heroinuser(excuse the paraphrase)
I've seen enough Marijuana users in my 26 yrs in Vegas to reasonbly ascertain that it is a gareway drug.
You go to Amsterdam, but I feel safe in Vegas.

[Rick]

Lefty,

Of course you have problems if your partner is a heroin user who is sharing needles. What would make you think that you're more likely to know if it's illegal? You can't possibly believe that the streets are safer with people shooting at each other to protect their lucrative drug profits. Obviously you're not living in North Las Vegas and never go anywhere except the strip.

[Rick]

I have to point out that the abductor of the two teenagers hijacked a car in Las Vegas. It's a magnet for lowlifes. But when Ralph Lamb was sheriff it was much different.

[Lefty]

Rick, bought a foreclosed house in North Las Vegas, about 8 blocks from Jerry's Nugget. Had to run off a few drug dealers and dog fighters but what the hell... My friends think i'm crazy but gettin' along fine here. I was only here about a month when some black kids told my wife that I was "crazy white man on corner of White st.
I'm tough and i'm mean and i'm comfy.
I haven't been on Strip in yrs. I walk the 8 blocks to JN most every day.
Oh, been here in North Vegas about 17 yrs now.

[Lefty]

Rick, when Lamb was sheriff Vegas was much smaller. I came in 1976 and it was about 300,000 people; well over a million now.
When you got that many people you got crime.

[Rick]

Lefty,

I used to go to Jerry's Nugget all the time when I worked out at Nellis. I was there 1976-83 and again in 93-95. You've got to look over your shoulder a lot more these days. In 1976 nobody would have dreamed of starting any trouble in a casino, now you have robberies. Nevada has been Californicated like so many other western states. I guess I'm just sentimental about the old Nevada that was truly unique.

[Lefty]

tenzin, Because the left, visa vis the teachers union is in charge of education.
And the right, I contend, was not so much fascinated with the sex of the Bill and Monica debacle as they were with a sitting President pointing his finger right in the face of America and lieing.
And then repeating the lie to a judge.
And not going to jail when clearly other people have, for lieing to a judge.
And i'm in a "time warp" or having a deja' vu but it seems i've read and responded to all this before...

[Lefty]

Rick, blve me I miss 1976's Las Vegas. In 1976 my wife and I went to work for a small casino on Ogden named Lady Luck. It was a ramshacle place with a leaky roof, a policy that "nothing was too good for a customer." The place was always packed and it was fun, fun, fun. The other places downtown were more fun too. There were numerous .25 beer specials and when there wasn't well the Horshoe always had beer for a half buck. You could gamble for an hour or two at BJ or Craps and a pit boss would practically be shoving dinner "comps" in your face.
The Lady Luck belongs to a big corp now and sports a big hotel and everything, and is utterly devoid of its old charm and is also mostly devoid of customers too.
To get a comp anywhere they want to track your play and it better be hefty.
I miss 1976 and the Vegas of yore.

Meanwhile, I'm careful out there, Rick. I always know who's around me at all times. You're right, one must be extremely alert these days, but don't think that's unique to Vegas.

[Lefty]

Tenzin, don't think it was deja' vu at all; I somehow, got on an old page and responded to an old post. They say us leftys a little nuts, y'know.

[Derek2U]

I was in Vegas in april & i loved it .... was it better way before
or was your memories just better? hehe .. Lefty why are
you so surprised that comps aren't flying like "dem good old daze?" after all, u & box brain probably complained about
free-loaders & welfare cheats & vagrants so much that the casinos gave in from all that whining. hehe ... want some cheese
w/ ur wine?

[Rick]

Lefty,

In the early 70's when I live in SoCal, I used to get the Lady Luck coupon books and come up to Vegas for a cheap weekend. I'd play the "lucky bucks" on blackjack and just about always win a few bucks. Now that was an overlay!

I worked at the Gold Spike for a little while as a floorman in order to get experience and later went to work for Bally Sytems working on the SDS slot accounting system. I wonder if they still have penny slots there. Strictly a sawdust joint.

[Lefty]

Derek, it's simple why the "deals" are gone. The real gamblers who built Vegas knew if you got the customer in the joint and keep the customer in the joint on average the joint will make money. The old gamblers have all died off and the accountants have taken over and deman every section of the joint pay for itself. Hence, not many "deals" left.

[Lefty]

Yeah, those were the days, Rick. Penny slots have made a comeback but they're high tech now and I understand you put in a voucher and load 'em up. Never been a slot player so not real conversant with the technology.
The old Vegas is gone an in ten years or so(if i'm still on the planet) the wife will retire and we may head outta here. Just have no idea where to go...yet.

[Rick]

Lefty,

That's what I'm trying to figure out --- where to go next. If you have any ideas let me know.

Do you remember the old Del Mar Race and Sports Book? I used to go down there every day and make spot plays at lunch.

[so.cal.fan]

Rick:

Why don't you and Barb consider San Diego County?
The eastern part around Poway is pretty nice. You are not that far from the ocean.
Of course the beach is the best, but unless you have unlimited funds, and I mean unlimited, it is too pricey.
You have that great sports book at Del Mar to go watch and play the races. They have a nice poker casino in Oceanside, if you like Poker and they have an Indian Casino somewhere around
El Centro.
Of course, Lake Tahoe or Reno are nice choices as well.
;)