Modern Liberalism

[Dick Schmidt]

Enjoy, Tom.



I understand modern conservative thought. I understand libertarian thought. I understand classical liberalism.

What I can't begin to comprehend is modern liberalism. Maybe you can help me.

As near as I can tell, to be a liberal:


You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding.

IF there is a church that is valid it has been pre-approved by the government.

You have to be against capital punishment but for abortion on demand ... in short, you support protecting the guilty and killing the innocent.

You have to believe that the same public school idiot who can't teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

You have to believe that everyone on the internet is a pervert BUT the school officials who want to do vaginal exams on your daughter without telling you have your best interest at heart.

You have to believe that trial lawyers are selfless heroes and doctors are overpaid.

You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Red Chinese.

You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the Sun, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.

You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being gay is natural.

You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature but pasty, fey activists who've never been outside Seattle do.

You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

You have to believe there was no art before federal funding.

You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start wars.

You have to believe the free market that gives us 500+ channels can't deliver the quality that PBS does.

You have to believe the NRA is bad, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution. You have to believe that taxes are too low but ATM fees are too high.

You have to believe that Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee or Thomas Edison.

You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't.

You have to believe second-hand smoke is more dangerous than HIV.

You have to believe Hillary Clinton is really a lady and Rosie O'Donnell is not really a man who is jealous of Tom Selleck.

You have to believe conservatives are racists but that black people couldn't make it without your help.

You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

Looking back on my list, it seems shallow, muddled, contradictory, divorced of logic and a bit sadistic.

Well, then, if that doesn't describe the modern American liberal, I don't know what does.

Author Unknown


Posted by Dick, who agrees with some of this.

[DJofSD]

Gee whiz, Dick, which ones do you believe in?

I believe one of the tenets of modern liberalism is this: nothing is impossible as long as it's funded with OPM.

DJofSD

[Tom]

Ya know, when ya sees it all in print like that.........YIKES!
It is sooooo scarry you have to laugh!
So,

HEHEHEHEHE.

I have to send this to my Ayn Rand follower friends.
Objectivism enjoys good humor - it is what it is.



:D :eek: :D

[ljb]

I got on tonight to offer my condolences to sufferin downs. But I saw this and have to reply.
I am a liberal and don't believe any of those statements. If I wasn't so tired I would reply to each statement.
Oh and they should have pulled him at the end of the 7th inning.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by ljb
I got on tonight to offer my condolences to sufferin downs. But I saw this and have to reply.
I am a liberal and don't believe any of those statements.

That's true of many people who call themselves liberals. Problem is, the people they vote for do believe those statements...

[andicap]

As a self-proclaimed moderate liberal, I would say much of that list is the
mainstream or conservative media's perception of what liberals are.

Conservatives are always defining liberalism by their standards.

"Gender roles are artifical and being gay is natural"

What does that mean? It overcomplicates the issues. A real liberal (and most centrists these days -- I think its entertaing mainstream majority thought in this country) believe that people should not be judged based on their gender or sexual preference, that what you do in your own bedroom is your own business.
I would think that a true conservative -- someone who wants the government out of our lives -- would agree that people should be allowed to do what they want AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT HURT ANYONE ELSE.
OK, you say hving a gay teacher in the classroom will hurt my kid.
HOW? Will the teacher come on to the student? of course not.
Yes, I agree, if the gay teacher comes out and says "being gay is great and you should try it," that teacher should be canned on the spot. If the gay rights movement called on gay teachers to start a curriculum on "Great Gay Authors in our History," i would be dead set against that. (Its approprate at college not in high school.).

But why do we have to say a "gay" teacher. He/she is just a teacher who happens to be gay. As long as the teacher leaves his/her private life at home, what does it matter.
Now a gay teacher might teach tolerance. But I learned tolerance from all my straight teachers too. In my school I was brought up to believe everyone is equal, that everyone has a right to privacy as long as you don't affect me.

And as far as global warming is concerned -- scientific study after study has confirmed it is a reality (OK, 90% of them, you can always dig up a different opinion, but the overwhelming majority of scientists believe global warming is real.) And yuppies driving SUVs contribute to it--- BTW, it's not all yuppies driving SUVs. I see plenty of blue-collar people driving them too.
And SUVs hurt our war against terrorism!!
Why? Because by getting 12 miles to the gallon, they increase our dependence on foreign oil, from.....the Arabs!
So it's unpatroitic to drive an SUV.
And they are dangerous. Tests show if a regular car gets hit by an SUV, the occupants are far more likely to be injured than if hit by a normal car. (There was a story in the press this week about that).

So that list is a lot of hooey, half-truths, oversimplification that sounds like it come from the mouth of that hypocrite Rush Limbaugh, who hates drug abusers and doesn't want to spend any money on rehabbing them. But then gets his MAID to buy his illegal drugs so she can take the blame if caught.

And I don't agree with a lot of the stuff on that list --
"You have to believe that trial lawyers are selfless heroes and doctors are overpaid."

That's a ridiculous overstatement that absolutely distorts what most liberals believe.

Yes, trial lawyers tend to support the Democrats, but that doesn't mean liberals think they are heroes. Liberals do believe that everyone is entitled to a fair trial and that trial lawyers play a vital role in the checks and balances that make up the Constitution -- just as prosecuters and judges do. And lots of liberals and conservative agree/disagree on the outsized judgements that trial lawyers win in civil cases that are the subject of "tort reform."
Trial lawyers are villified because they defend people who are often guilty. But if they don't, who will? Do we go back to the days of kangaroo courts and convict people without a trial?
A lawyer's job -- what he gets paid for, what John Adams did for the British troops in the Boston Massacre, what our system relies - is to give his cliient the best possible defense within the confines of the law. To do otherwise would get a lawyer disbarred. The prosecution is trying his hardest to prove his care, why shouldn't the defense attorney?
Lawyers are considred "heroes" sometimes because in history lawyers have often taken on those roles -- Clarence Darrow and Attiticus Finch (to name a fictional hero) are examples. They are the sometimes to last line of defense against a government that wants to railroad someone because of their color (The Scottsboro Boys in the 30s in Alabama), or their beliefs -- Sacco & Vanzetti in the 20s -- and John Peter Zenger in 1744.

I don't believe drs. are overpaid. My friend is a dr. and he definitely ain't overpaid. He's got a tough gig and works hard and gets by.

You know who's overpaid? Lousy CEOs whose companies are losing millions of dollars and they get $5 million a year. Or who get fired and end up with huge umbrellas. That's who liberals believe are overpaid.
CEOs on the other hand who make millions for shareholders, create thousands of new jobs, and are overall contributors to soceity, are entitled to make a good dime.

Don't confused liberals with the far left -- just like Dick, I wouldn't confuse you with a far-right believer.

[bettheoverlay]

That list pretty much defines liberals anecdotally as idiots, which is what I guess conservatives believe they are. My opinions may be skewered by having been brought up in the sixties by a right wing father who was constantly ranting and raving about the evils of FDR and JFK, close minded to any unemotional discussion. Dad was an angry man who blamed everything he saw as wrong in society, and in his own life, on the liberal devils. His guys could do no wrong. I couldn't wait to escape that narrow-minded environment, and think for myself. Being free of ideology is how I might define myself as a modern liberal.

And what is modern conservatism? It seems less conservative to me, and more a radical, evangelical nationalism for white people, who are panicking at all the non-whites in their midst. Goldwater transformed Robert Tafts anti-New Deal conservatism into a political religion, which spawned an unquestioning ideological loyalty even Lenin might have coveted. Huge deficits and risking costly foreign wars are hardly classical conservatism.

But one thing you can always count on with ideologues is that they will eventually fall hard on the slippery slope of their own excesses.

[Suff]

Florida aside. The Vote was 50/50. And few deny that HIGHER turnout helps Democrats. So Its fair to say that 50% or more of the Country subsrcibe to a predominatley Liberal thought. And vote accordingly.

I suspect many of them are quite bright and well intended.

[Tom]

.....appears to be no sense of humor.
Lighten up, you to the left of me, it is what it is....it is humor. Exxagertion. Tongue -in-cheek.
(and probably more true than many care to admitt ...D'OH!)
;)

[Lefty]

If you don't believe that list is true then just listen to Ted Kennedy and the 9 democrats running for Pres. Or is it 8 now, can't keep up.

liberals are big on teaching tolerence but have precious little of it
just ask Clarence Thomas.

[Amazin]

Thus spaketh Lefty,a limbaugh devotee...

But what about Humanists?I consider myself more of a Humanist than a liberal.Humanists believe in human rights for all people(humans): I.E.non Americans/non-white/non-christian/non affluent etc included. IMO some liberals will have prerequisites for equal rights depending on their personal interests,just like some Dem's(Gray Davis comes to mind)act more like a wanna-be -Republican.Conservatives on the other hand have a pre Galilean concept that they are the center of the universe and all must conform to their gravitational force.My best description for Christ,Ghandi,Martin Luther King in a political sense would not be a liberal.It would be a Humanist.

[Dick Schmidt]

Hey Tom,

Judging from the response, I'd say this little list hit low and hard. No one gets this incensed over a bad joke. I guess it was more on target than I thought. You're right, libs all seem to lack a sense of humor. Of course, so do the serious conservatives and almost everyone else who takes politics seriously. Can you imagine any group less jolly than the Beltway Bunch? No matter which party is in power, everyone takes themselves and their issues SO seriously.

Lighten up out there folks.


Dick

Who takes nothing seriously.

[Lefty]

amazin, yep, i'm a big Limbaugh fan and I dion't care who knows it. Now humanist sounds all well and good in a perfect world, but buddy, hate to be the one to break the bad news to you, but we are not living in a perfect world.
There are times you cannot have both peace abnd freedom-pick one.

[Suff]

Originally posted by Tom
.....appears to be no sense of humor.
Lighten up, you to the left of me, it is what it is....it is humor. Exxagertion. Tongue -in-cheek.
(and probably more true than many care to admitt ...D'OH!)
;)

who you talkin bout me? No sense of Humor? ok. Yea.. I'm burnt Toast.

Anyway.. A joke...? Ohh Ok now I see it. Yea... Real side splitting stuff. Stop it...Lol...funny. Hilarious... I can't standz it no more.. You guys are too much.

[ljb]

George W. Bush as President. :D :D :D

[Tom]

OK, A, riddle me this:

You suppose that hunmaists are good.
You further suppose Christ was a humanist.
Would not htne, the natural conclusion be to encourage Christ?
Instead, the liberal wack-o army is hell bent on outlawing him everywhere.

Let's talk math.
Liberal goals, for the most part, may be well meant and decent.
Their strategy to acheive them, however, is usually mutally exclusive of the goal.
In other words, you can't get there from here.
You want everyone to have access to benifits of our society, ie, welfare, food stamps, free rides, etc. yet you don't also insist that they share in the load, ie work.
We have spent trillions of dollars on welfare since LBJ's Warped Society and what have we got to show for it? Professional poor people. Being poor is no longer a social issue, it is genetic.
There are now traditions where the father passes his welfare card on to his son and his son calls it an heirloom.
Liberal wnat our borders open so everyone can come here for freedon and free rides and yet when we try to topple the oppresive governments that make their homelands unlivable we are condemned.
California is a good example of what liberalism leads to - just like communisn - it cannot sustain itself and will always lead to economic fall and ruin. The only thing that will save California is a good dose of "Right-Aid."
Conservatism and the republicans are not the cure, but at least they will take us in the right direction - so when we get close, maybe we can recognize some landmarks and find our goal.
I think the basic flaw in liberaism is that it wants to take care of everyone. Conservatism want to give everyone the opportunity to take care of themselves.
Conservatists want freedon for everyone, too - we just want them to earn it. You cannot have basic human freedons in a society that is controlled by and depends on a strong central government, which is what all these demo-wackos are preaching.
If you don't have motivation, you die. Freeloaders have no incentive and eventually, those of us carrying them lose interest
and stop being the movers. Then who will pay the bills?

[hcap]

Then again you might be a Republican
If.....

You think "proletariat" is a type of cheese.

You've named your kids "Deduction one" and "Deduction two"

You've tried to argue that poverty could be abolished if people were just allowed to keep more of their minimum wage.

You've ever referred to someone as "my (insert racial or ethnic minority here) friend"

You've ever tried to prove Jesus was a capitalist and opposed to welfare.

You're a pro-lifer, but support the death penalty.

You think Huey Newton is a cookie.

The only union you support is the Baseball Players, because heck, they're richer than you.

You think you might remember laughing once as a kid.

You once broke loose at a party and removed your neck tie.

You call mall rent-a-cops "jack-booted thugs."

You've ever referred to the moral fiber of something.

You've ever uttered the phrase, "Why don't we just bomb the sons of bitches."

You've ever said, "I can't wait to get into business school."

You've ever called a secretary or waitress "Tootsie."

You answer to "The Man."

You don't think "The Simpsons" is all that funny, but you watch it because that Flanders fellow makes a lot of sense.

You fax the FBI a list of "Commies in my Neighborhood."

You don't let your kids watch Sesame Street because you accuse Bert and Ernie of "sexual deviance."

You scream "Dit-dit-ditto" while making love.

You've argued that art has a "moral foundation set in Western values."

When people say "Marx," you think "Groucho."

You've ever yelled, "Hey hippie, get a haircut."

You think Birkenstock was that radical rock concert in 1969.

You argue that you need 300 handguns, in case a bear ever attacks your home.

Vietnam makes a lot of sense to you.

You point to Hootie and the Blowfish as evidence of the end of racism in America.

You've ever said civil liberties, schmivil schmiberties.

You've ever said "Clean air? Looks clean to me."

You've ever called education a luxury.

You look down through a glass ceiling and chuckle.

You wonder if donations to the Pentagon are tax-deductable.

You came of age in the '60s and don't remember Bob Dylan.

You own a vehicle with an "Ollie North: American Hero" sticker.

You're afraid of the liberal media."

You ever based an argument on the phrase, "Well, tradition dictates...."

You ever told a child that Oscar the Grouch "lives in a trash can because he is lazy and doesn't want to contribute to society."

You've ever urged someone to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, when they don't even have shoes.

You confuse Lenin with Lennon.

Author unknown

[Tom]

The obligatory knock-off post.
Nice try, H...but no cigar.
You won't sucker anyone into that trap.

On a scale of 1-10....

Humor - 5
Originality - 3
Predictability - 11

BTW.....got a Rolex you want to sell me?

[Suff]

Originally posted by Tom
The obligatory knock-off post.
Nice try, H...but no cigar.
You won't sucker anyone into that trap.

On a scale of 1-10....

Humor - 5
Originality - 3
Predictability - 11

BTW.....got a Rolex you want to sell me?

Yes but when his Figures are adjusted for Affirmative action Reasons. Hdcaps was rated better in all Catergories and as such gets the nod over yours. The American way...No?..:confused:

[hcap]

Tom

I only report the news.
Unlike the republicans, I don't make it up
:p

[Amazin]

Dick S.

Sense of humor and detachment from horrors of war and political oppression is definetly critical to sanity. At times,that's not good enough and I have to rely on my spiritual resources.Certainly my human resources cannot handle it more than denial.

Talking about war and political oppression is easy for us behind our laptops and latte's.Easy to joke about.But you go to Iraq and see all the dead,wounded and crippled on both sides and see how funny it is. There are 2 sides to this coin:Fantasy talk and Reality.Why do you think the media doesn't show the horrors of war from Iraq?Learned their lessons from Vietnam.

lefty

You have it backwards.Humanists are needed in an imperfect world,not a perfect one. How else do you think we are going to achieve equality and justice for mankind.Through Conservatism and Limbaughism?Now that's a funny one for Dick.

[Lefty]

hcap, I do like the Simpsons and the funniest one was where Bart and Lisa were writing a sitcom but put Granpa's name on it cause they were kids. They asked Granpa, "But Granpa, didn't you think it was funny when you were getting those checks for nothing?"
And Grandpa says, "I just thought the Democrats were back in power."
hcap, your post most disengenous and just proves you libs don't get it.

[Suff]

Originally posted by Lefty
hcap, I do like the Simpsons and the funniest one was where Bart and Lisa were writing a sitcom but put Granpa's name on it cause they were kids. They asked Granpa, "But Granpa, didn't you think it was funny when you were getting those checks for nothing?"
And Grandpa says, "I just thought the Democrats were back in power."
hcap, your post most disengenous and just proves you libs don't get it.

Cost of Iraq War. 100 Billion.

Cost of sending $1000.00 a Month to all the Grandpa Simpsons in the world so they Can spend a Few afternoons at the races on us.

Priceless.

[hcap]

Lefty

hcap, I do like the Simpsons and the funniest one was where Bart and Lisa were writing a sitcom but put Granpa's name on it cause they were kids. They asked Granpa, "But Granpa, didn't you think it was funny when you were getting those checks for nothing?"
And Grandpa says, "I just thought the Democrats were back in power."
hcap, your post most disengenous and just proves you libs don't get it.

I agree with you 100%. I love the Simpsons. I never said I didn't. The last time we discussed Al bundy you welcomed back ljb to political debate.

welcome back. Your clone's already here resurrecting some of your old liberal crap. There's always been intelligent life, i.e. Tom, Just Ralph, Boxcar, SO. Cal Fanand many many others.
As Al Bundy used to say, "Let's Rock."
I simply said

"Al Bundy also used to stick his hand down his pants and work in a shoe store for minimum wage.

Or when you quoted him did you confuse Bundy with Bush?
Ya know, "Bring 'em on"

[Larry Hamilton]

The button doesn't say IGNORE IF we are talking about politics, it says IGNORE. click click

[Tom]

Originally posted by hcap


"Al Bundy also used to stick his hand down his pants and work in a shoe store for minimum wage.



Al Bundy had a job.
Kept his family together, in spite of everything.
Protected his daughter's reputation as best he could.
Failed a lot, but at least he kept trying.

He was not a democrate.
:D

[hcap]

Tom and Lefty

Don't get me wrong. I like Al Bundy.
His job performance or personal hygiene did not take away from his lovability.

I just asked Lefty if he got confused bescause Al said "Let's Rock" and Bush said "Bring em on".
Reasonable question, honest misunderstanding on Lefty's part. Now that I think of it, there are a number of other similarities.
by Tom
"Failed a lot, but at least he kept trying."

Another reasonable comparison.

[Lefty]

You libs are gettin' so close i'm almost proud of you. You're just not quite there yet.
Cost of Iraqi war 100 billion.
Cost of freedom: PRICELESS

[Suff]

Originally posted by Lefty
You libs are gettin' so close i'm almost proud of you. You're just not quite there yet.
Cost of Iraqi war 100 billion.
Cost of freedom: PRICELESS

"Any man who gives up an ounce of Freedom for an ounce of Protection deserves niether."

Benjamin Franklin. 1776.


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

You can Profile me

You can search me

You can check my Crimanal Background

You can check if I pay my Bills.

You can check who I associatte with.

You can pull me aside and strip search me.

You can Force me to carry Government Issued credentials.

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

You can do all this to "Protect me"... but thank God I'm free right?

Very Funny. You think we're free? America is Rich and powerfull.. but one thing it aint anymore... it aint free. Sorry to break the news to you.

[hcap]

Another Ashcroft Minute

John Ashcroft is visiting an elementary School. After 15 minutes speaking he says, "I will now answer any questions you have."

Bobby stands up and says: "Mr. Ashcroft, I have 4 questions:[list=1]
How did Bush win the election with fewer votes than Gore?
Why are you using the American Patriot Act to limit civil liberties?
Why haven't you caught Osama Bin Laden?
Where are the weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq?"
[/list=1]
Just then the bell rang and the kids rushed out to play.

Upon returning Mr. Ashcroft said: "I'm sorry we were interrupted. I will answer any questions you have."

A little girl named Julie stands up and says: "I have 6 questions:[list=1]
How did Bush win the election with fewer votes than Gore?
Why are you invoking the American Patriot Act to limit civil liberties?
Why haven't you caught Osama Bin Laden?
Where are the weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq?
Why did the bell ring 20 minutes early?
Where is Bobby?"[/list=1]
:cool:

[Amazin]

Lefty says:
Cost of Iraqi war 100 billion.
Cost of freedom: PRICELESS

You said the F word.But freedom for who?If my government is telling me they are killing and maiming Iraqi's civilians whose number of dead they refuse to count, so I can be free,then I don't want it. And what about Iraq's military?Iraq has never been a threat to me or America.Even the administration has conceeded that there is no connection between Iraq/Sadaam and 9/11.

If it's freedom for Iraqi's that's even a bigger joke.They are protesting the occupation.They are literally worse off than before the invasion with lack of food,water,electricity,housing,jobs,
sanitation,medical,etc.etc. They are demonstrating for an end to the occupation.
They will continue to kill Americans as long as Americans occupy Iraq.And Iraqi's will continue to die too,In the name of your Orwellian freedom.Can't conservatives get it through their arrogant head.It's like some big dork,trying to score with some hot babe. Everything he does just diminishes his chances for sucess. Lose the arrogance.A country of our stature should show some class. Instead it lowers itself in the eyes of the world and looks like a fool.

[lsbets]

Amazin,

We have been down this road before. Your disconnect with reality is truly, well, amazing. Have you talked to anyone who is over in Iraq? Do you have any firsthand knowledge of what has gone on there, or is going on there? Or do you simply make up situations that fit your worldview, that America is bad, and the rest of the world good?

I vote for the latter. Talk to soldiers home on leave, don't listen to the reports in the media. Electricity is more reliable today than before the war. Iraqis no longer live in fear of being killed by a brutal dictator. A small minority of baathists are attacking Americans. The majority of Iraqis are better off today than they were before the war. Saddam's minions are not. Too bad.

You have shown through your numerous posts that you hate this country and all that it stands for. You would probably agree with Ed Asner who says that Stalin is "one of the most misunderstood figures of all time." Trying to argue with you is like trying to clap with one hand, because you care nothing for reality.

What do you know about the horrors of war and political oppression? Do you have firsthand knowledge or do you sit in your ivory tower and cast judgement? Have you ever seen a land devastated by a brutal dictator and freed from that oppression? Yes, civilians died ridding many nations of those dictators, but the vast majority will tell you it was worth the cost. You will come back with some "you don't care about anyone but Americans" reply, and you could not be further from the truth. The deaths civilians anywhere is a tragedy, but do the math. How many more will live because of what has happenned? I would venture to say countless thousands. When you stand over a pit in the ground and smell the stench of a mass grave containing women clutching their children their arms whose only crime was being of the wrong ethnicity, tell me that those people are not worth saving from the dictators who slaughter them. They have no recourse, no way of defending themselves. If not for us, countless others would die. But you cannot comprehend that, because to you, we are the bad guys. I feel sorry for you. You just don't get it.

[DJofSD]

Ya you guys. W and the US are a bunch of idiots. They're acting like a bunch of teen age boys with a woody in their pants. (Oh, ya, I forgot the dem's in Congress endorsed W's actions. Never mind!)

Can't you understand that the UN was just about ready to get everything straightened out there in Iraq? They had it all under control, preserving the Iraqi freedom. The so called freedom that only a minority of people are now protesting has been lost.

Gee whiz. Don't you know that the liberals have every ones best intentions in their heart.

I think it was John Milton that had an apt expression to describe their philosophy.

DJofSD

[Lefty]

hcap, just like the libs running for Pres. with the repeating mantra "tax cuts for the rich" and "he lied about the war" you guys are repeating yourself on this board. One of you(maybe you)posted the liberal fantasy about Ashcroft at school a longtime ago.
Something diff please, or at least an orig. twist.

[hcap]

Lefty

I might have posted the Ashcroft joke.
After awhile my collection of police state and anti-Bush jokes, mysteriously gets erased from my computer, so I can't double check!
Gotta get a firewall

Anyway that kid Bobby is still missing, and Ashcroft is still around covering up statues.


I think this is new

Republicans in Hell

While walking down the street one day, a Republican head of state is tragically hit by a truck and dies. His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.

"Welcome to Heaven," says St. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you."

"No problem, just let me in." says the Republican.

"Well, I'd like to but I have orders from higher up. What we'll do is have you spend one day in Hell and one in Heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity."

"Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in Heaven," says the Republican head of state.

"I'm sorry but we have our rules." And with that, St. Peter escorts the Republican to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to Hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a club and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him, everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, hug him, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at expense of the people. They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster and caviar. Also present is the Devil (a Republican, too), who really is a very friendly guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes.

They are having such a good time that, before he realizes it, it is time to go. Everyone gives him a big hug and waves while the elevator
rises. The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on Heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him.

"Now it's time to visit Heaven." So 24 hours pass with the Republican head of state joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.

"Well then, you've spent a day in Hell and another in Heaven. Now choose your eternity."

He reflects for a minute, then the head of state answers: "Well, I would never have thought it, I mean Heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in Hell."

So Saint Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to Hell. Now the doors of the elevator open and he is in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage. He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags. The Devil comes over to the Republican and lays an arm on his neck.

"I don't understand," stammers the Republican head of state. Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and club and we ate lobster and caviar and danced and had a great time. Now all there is a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable.

The Devil looks at him, smiles and says, "Yesterday we were campaigning. Today you voted for us!"

[Tom]

Hey, Amazin, Hcap...you guys are so unhappy here, why don't you do something about it. Like the Pilgrims did years ago-set sail for a new world and found your own humanist nation.
Now, what would you call a nation built on the principles and beliefs of these two?
Hmmmmmm........
Could it be..........

France?

_________________________________

BTW, historical trivcia question-
Who invented the welcome mat?

Answer-France. It was originally a protype for thier new flag!

___________________________________

[Amazin]

Tom:

Oh ye of litlle understanding of the human experience.Happiness is not "out there".Happiness is within.

Thus spaketh Amazin

[Tom]

Originally posted by Amazin
Tom:

Oh ye of litlle understanding of the human experience.Happiness is not "out there".Happiness is within.

Thus spaketh Amazin

If you were "over there" there would be happiness within! :rolleyes:

Bon frommage!
:p

[hcap]

Tom

"To announce that there must be no
criticism of the President or
that we are to stand by the President
right or wrong is not only
unpatriotic and servile
but it is morally treasonable to the
American public."

-Theodore Roosevelt, 1918

Just think Teddy charging up San Juan Hill,
now shouting "IMPEACH, IMPEACH!"

This is a one term preznit..
:cool: :cool:

[Amazin]

hcap

I doubt the sheep on this board have any idea of the rights and responsibilities of being an American citizen.

[delayjf]

I'm game, what are our rights and responsibilities as US citizens? And what proof do you have of the "mass atrocities", of the so called millions of Irag citizens we are supposed to have killed. If its true why not just fax your data to Hillary to use as political ammunition for he up coming Pres. campaign.

[Lefty]

hcap, hmm, you say we have a 1 term Pres. Okay, now look at the field running against him. These guys waffle and contradict themselves every day. How do you figure one of them is going 2 win? Who do you think it is?
I say we have a 2 term Pres.

[lsbets]

Amazin, I am starting to doubt that you could even say what planet we live on. You have proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that you are a flaming moron.

Tell me what our rights and responsibilities are as citizens, and what you have done to serve our nation. How have you ever protected freedom? Hmmmmmmmmm, can't wait to hear your answer.

[hcap]

Amazin

How can all the fox fans on this board ignore ths?

"And I said on my program, if, if the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush Administration again." ---Fox News's Bill O'Reilly, on Good Morning America, March 18

Maybe they're wating for Rush to come outa rehab and suggest Saddam tricked us into war just to make us look stupid.

Lets hear from another republican President

Abraham Lincoln
On Feb. 15, 1848, he denounced the proposition "that if it shall become necessary to repel invasion, the President may, without violation of the Constitution, cross the line, and invade the territory of another country; and that whether such necessity exists in given case, the President is to be the sole judge."

Lincoln continued: "Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion . . . and you allow him to make war at pleasure. . . . If to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us' but he will say to you 'be silent; I see it, if you don't.'

"The Founding Fathers," resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us."

Lefty there are too many people pissed at Bush. He went too far too fast.
He didn't just screw up, he srewed up big time. He has made enemies in the state department, the CIA, and among many patriotic long serving military personal.
Not every repub or conservative is a Neocon. What Rumsfeld has done, has irked many.
At this point Bush is tied with any "generic" democrat in some polls.
Other scandals are brewing and the mainstream press is getting braver.
One term preznit, maybe impeachment if the failures of 9/11 and the BUSH-SAUDI connections see daylight.

lsbets-There are many ways to serve.
Respecting the right to dissent and even dissenting, are part of our history.

delayjf

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq:
60 Minutes (5/12/96)

" We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright:

" I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

A 1995 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report that 567,000 Iraqi children under the age of five had died as a result of the sanctions.

I can find other sources if you like. There is some dispute now about the exact amount over and above what a bombed back to stone age Iraq would have experienced without the sanctions, but remember we bombed them during the first gulf war, and demolised the water supply system.
Among other things.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Amazin
hcap

I doubt the sheep on this board have any idea of the rights and responsibilities of being an American citizen.

You must have failed reading comprehension in the west-coast liberal public school you attended. That statement was so obviously stupid I cannot respond to it. I only speak English and a little French.....Stupeedo is not in my vocabulary.

[Tom]

You are re-hashing old news already proven incorect.
If you are going to practice liberal spin,at least learn how to do it.
You and A are getting pretty boring...not worth the bother top reply to any more. Used to look forward to a good debate, but lately, you are throwing grapefruits for fast balls.
Please get some rest and maybe atttend a lecture or two at Berkley then come back and offering something worthy of discussion. Maybe you could find a tape of the OJ trial and watch Johnny Cockroach in action - his gift for twisting the facts and buring the truth should be just the thing to get your little liberal brain back in gear. Liberalism always sounds better to a beat (If it does not fit, you must aquit!) or if it has a profound ring to it (The Twins of Deception).
Cut and past is really beneath you.

[lsbets]

Hcap,

You misunderstand my last post. It was not aimed at you. I absolutely respect, and defend, the right to dissent. I have had no problem with any of the posts that you have written. I may disagree with them, but at least you have presented well thought out ideas. My post was directed at Amazin. Just as I do not with to be associated with some people on my end of the fringe, I would not want to be associated with someone on that end of the fringe if I were on the other side. I wanted to hear what Amazin said, he was the one who called everyone who disagreed with him mindeless sheep. Sounds like he does not respect the right to dissent with his opinion, doesn't it?

In terms of some of your other posts, I think O'Reilly is a blowhard. I can't watch him for more than 5 minutes. I enoy watching Chris Matthews and Kudlow and Cramer. Cramer may be a lib, but he has a ton of common sense.

And, here is a shock. I agree that Bush will be a one term president. I said that after his innauguration. No president who lost the popular vote but won the electoral college has ever been reelected. As a handicapper, I would not bet on Bush, he has a bad post and the track bias is against him.

In terms of anything being found in Iraq, read the report that just came out. Saddam was in clear violation of UN resolutions. No way to argue that, you can only argue the extent to which he was in violation, and to me that does not matter. The world is a better place without him. Bottom line.

Regarding the Lincoln quote, Bush did not wake up and say "Lets invade Iraq". He went to Congress and got a resolution authorizing the use of force. All of the members of the intelligence commitees had the same information he did, and no one challenged his assertions. They only did so afterwards to score political points.

I hope that you can respect our rights to have our opinions and not be condescending towards anyone who disagrees with you like Amazin is. I will never argue with your right to dissent, but when people cross the line - remember, on a previous board, Amazin said that anyone who serves in our military is a murderer - then, I will speak up to challenge their idiocy.

[Lefty]

hcap, As already responded to, Bush had a "blank check" from Congress and now that some of those running for Pres they try to act like they never voted for the war, but they did.
Generic Dem not running and Bush beats anyone with a real name.
Freeing Iraq, 100 Billion.
Watching these Dem Candidates keep shooting themselves in the foot: PRICELESS!

[Amazin]

Delay
I have answered these questions you pose in previous posts,but will indulge you a bit.
Re; Rights and responsibilities

Have you ever heard the term"We the People"?Yes the preamble to the Constitution.Who do you think WE is.The next two words answer the question:The people.The government.was a creation of the people and, therefore, was subject to alteration or abolishment if need be.American citizen's responsibility, I believe, is to constantly keep a vigil over what is happening in government. In order to preserve our republic, it is crucial for us to be alert as to what Congress is doing as well.Jefferson said, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it never will be free.

1st amendment to the Constitution guarantees the "Right to petition" the government.Means you have a right-not a priveledge-to question the choices made by your government. First Amendment also gives the right of the people to peaceably assemble ' in order to petition the government.Read the Bill Of Rights some time.

Re:Millions killed in Iraq,Hcap has allready addressed that.Madeline Allbright has admited this tragedy but rationalizes it as a necessity.Tom claims this news is incorrect but gives no evidence to the contrary.Sure wouldn't want him as my lawyer.

Lefty:

You're right about the sheep in congress who kissed Bush's ass and voted for the war and now regret it.I have no sympathy for themThey certainly acted like blind sheep swept up in the moment.

lsbets

I call people sheep when they blindly follow an idiot down the road to death and destruction.I am not intending to be condescending.I am using a term that best describes the event and makes my point..And you still find it offensive that I would call people who serve in the military-murderers. I have addressed this issue with you before.here is my previous reply to this same question:



I have no doubt that you feel that you are doing a good thing being in the military.So I dont fault you,and even if you killed someone in the name of your country,you probably are not a murderer in the eyes of god because as Jesus said"forgive them for they know not what they do".It's when you know and you kill that you have crossed the line.And the one that will suffer the most from that action will eventually be the perpetrator.When you get to that state of evolution I'll explain that.For now,suffice to say I don't consider you a murderer,but if you kill someone it will be a murderous act.

[Dick Schmidt]

Hello All,

I must say the results of this little post vastly exceeded my wildest expectations.

Note to all who have replied to this thread in a serious manor, on either side:

This is a JOKE. An attempt at humor. Not to be taken seriously by anyone.

If you find yourself taking it seriously, or taking any of the responses seriously, you may want to stop and consider that you may just be a little too tightly wrapped and dial it down a notch or three.

The most interesting thing about all this is the response of those who posted in outrage and full of spite and malice. Why are you taking this so seriously? It was just a joke, and if you found that it cut a little too close to the bone, maybe it was a sign that you should step back and reexamine your outlook on life. The truly scary politicians (on both sides and in the middle) are the one's without a sense of humor. The one's who are offended by any attempt at levity, who react by saying: Oh, you find the plight of (black, red, brown, old, young, bald etc.) men (or women)funny, do you? Well let me tell you . . .

The first step to fanaticism is the loss of a sense of humor. Next you lose the ability to see that the other guy may have any point at all. Soon, you start accepting that the cause is more important that any small group of people and that if a few get hurt it is OK as long as the cause is advanced. Once you accept that the cause is more important than people, it is a short step to strapping on the dynamite and strolling into a restaurant looking for where you'll kill the most people when you push the button. (OK, I know this is a gross exaggeration, but remember, exaggeration is a form of humor.)

So guys, have a care. Remember we're only here a short time and that soon all the political causes we think are so important will be forgotten (THE most important cause of 100 years ago was the free coinage of silver. Anyone still upset about that?) Stop, have a laugh and admit that maybe we conservatives (liberals) are kind of like that joke makes us out to be and get on with the rest of your all too short life.

Dick

Who studied history and politics for six years and decided the best philosophy is "be happy."

[boxcar]

Amazin wrote:

I have no doubt that you feel that you are doing a good thing being in the military.So I dont fault you,and even if you killed someone in the name of your country,you probably are not a murderer in the eyes of god because as Jesus said"forgive them for they know not what they do".It's when you know and you kill that you have crossed the line.And the one that will suffer the most from that action will eventually be the perpetrator.When you get to that state of evolution I'll explain that.For now,suffice to say I don't consider you a murderer,but if you kill someone it will be a murderous act.

So, the "line is crossed" when a military person "knows and kills". Just what precisely does this mean? How can someone kill without knowing they've killed?

Then you go on to say that you don't consider this military person, who you're addressing, to actually be a murderer (even though he may have killed), but would consider him to be such if he were to kill someone. What manner of doublespeak is this?

Finally, Jesus' words are certainly open to intepretation, especially since other parts of the bible don't support your simplistic interpretation:

Rev 21:8
8 "But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."
NAS

Rev 22:14-15
14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city. 15 Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.
NAS

Not that this little fact would matter to you very much -- but the words quoted from those portions of Revelation were spoken by Jesus.

At any rate, it appears that "in the eyes of God", there will be a huge number of murderers who'll be spending eternity as one humongous group of unhappy campers. Hey, Amazin', just curious...do you think all the unrepentant women who have freely chosen to kill the human life within their womb will be included in this group?

Boxcar

[Lefty]

amazin, I certainly do believe in Jeffersons words; which is why you should watch Fox to get the whole picture and not the distorted one you have been getting from the "so called mainstream"
When you reach your final stages of evolution will you just have a complete metamorphisis into a complete pacifistic little parasite? Watch out for the Hawks.

[delayjf]

Amazin,

I have no quarrel within anybody who questions our government.

On the murder of thousands of Iraq children:
-Assuming the atrocities occured:

-It was under Clinton's watch, did that stop you from voting for him?

-Leslie Stalh "heard" of these atrosities?? As I recall it was CNN that has now admitted to covering up Saddam Hussains atrocities for fear of their rerporters lives. Do you think it possible that a reporter just might have concocted something like this to save their ass. She "heard", thats weak.

-If the UN had uncovered these atroacities, why didn't the UN lift the sanctions. Were are the international protests. Has the Red cross verified any of this, to include, the number, the cause of death or that 500,000 childrens bodies ever existed.

Bottom line for me is this:

Would saddam if he had the weapons available to him, hand them over to Al Quida or some other terrorist group for use against the US, in my opinion yes.

Would Al Quida use these weapons against us if they had them. HELL YES.

Given the threat (imminant or otherwise) plus the evil nature of the Iraq regime and it's atrocities, invasion was justified. Rember , just because we have not found the WMD doesn't mean they don't exist. I'm not willing to take that chance.

Isbet,
By the way, Clinton won re-election without ever winning the majority of the Popular vote.

[lsbets]

Delay,

I like Bush, I voted for him and I will again, and you are right, Clinton did not get a majority of the popular vote, but he got more than anyone. Gore won the popular vote, Bush won the electoral college. That has happenned twice before, and both times the incumbant lost reelection. I'm hoping for a different outcome, but I have thought that he would lose since the election. I hope I'm wrong, but I will not be surprised if he does lose.

[doophus]

DRAFT BARBARA!!

[Rick]

I know nobody wants my opinion but here it is anyway. Everyone I've ever known who always supported either a far right or far left position was a total idiot. They just want their guys to win and don't really care about what's right or wrong. Real people in the real world are never always conservative or always liberal on every issue.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Rick
I know nobody wants my opinion but here it is anyway. Everyone I've ever known who always supported either a far right or far left position was a total idiot. They just want their guys to win and don't really care about what's right or wrong. Real people in the real world are never always conservative or always liberal on every issue.

I hate to admitt it, but I am supporting 100% Hillary and Schummer's efforts to save the VA hospital in our town. They were both here Monday for a rally (very well attended rally, at that) and both spoke to thundering applause and I stood in honor with everyone else. What they spoke was the truth I have no doubts they are both sincere in their support of our veterens. Schummer asked the rather obvious question, why is ther unlimited oney to rebuild Iraq and not a mere pittance by comparison to honor our promises made to the vets? Hillary was impressive when she rebutted the VA organization scum bucket's lame postion that the move would actually improve health services for most when she pointed out that that might be true for medical infirmities but would be totally the opposite for those who have mental issues that need treatment. The bottom line is we, the governement, made promises to these guys and now we are turning our backs on them. I't ain't right. I will to support any governemtn that treats its own so badly. That Bush has allowed this travesty to continue as long as it has it a disgrace and as Commander-in-chief, it is his shame. I heard today he is going to Bali show support for thier leader in the war on terroism - why didn he not come to Canandaigua to show support for some of the very people his own father send to war and then ignored?
I often put down Clinton for lack of character, so I will not stand silent and not do the same for the current lunkhead. W, you are a disgrace. The fuel you will burn up going on three hour visit to Bali would probably pay for the hospital for a year or so. A three hour tour......where I have heard that before? President Gilligan.
:mad:

[cato]

Rick said: "I know nobody wants my opinion but here it is anyway. Everyone I've ever known who always supported either a far right or far left position was a total idiot. They just want their guys to win and don't really care about what's right or wrong. Real people in the real world are never always conservative or always liberal on every issue."

And I say amen.

ANyone who has lived chronologically and deloped philosopically and pschologically past about, oh, 17, knows that the world is full of nuances and surprises. Folks who blindly follow a path or a purpose without the ability to listen to reason and debate are doomed. Likewise societies that develop into a people that blindly follw a path (or follow through fear or intimidation) are also doomed (recent examples are Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan, Communist Russia, Charlie Manson and his disciples, Jim Jones and his followers, the Ku Klux Klan, fans of Barry Manilow, etc.).

I am fearful (as should you be) of somone or some group that claims an inside path to the truth, God, etc., to the exclusion of all others.

So how do we get the world to chill out?

Dick SCHMIDT FOR PRESIDENT!

That's the ticket

Cato

[cato]

And the polarization of this country (and the world for that matter) into extreme positions on both sides of things is looking very very discouraging.

I think maybe we have too much free time on our hands..something like that

More handicapping, less philosophy

DICK SCHMIDT FOR PRESIDENT

Cheers, Cato

[Rick]

The candidate I want is one who's good at solving problems. I don't want to hear about how the other party has ruined the country, I want to hear what they would do instead. Sometimes more than one approach will work, but the important thing is to get the problem solved. So my political philosopy is pragmatism. Whatever works.

[Larry Hamilton]

In the words of a great American who knows who he is, I suggest you go to your local library and check out all the books you can find about Great American Moderates.
When you find that in the millions of books there are none about moderates, ask yourself why.

[Rick]

Yeah, I've heard that argument before. Supposedly, if you're not an extremist then you must not have any opinions. The logic is just ridiculous. But maybe your guy will win and that's what really counts.

[Rick]

Anyone who blindly follows everything their left or right wing extremist spokesperson says and defends them even when they do or say something hypocritical is not acting very intelligently.

[Lefty]

You mean like when a Pres lies to a judge under oath and his loyal hypocritical party members vote not to impeach and line up behind him on the White house lawn in a gesture of solidarity? That whatcha talkin about, Willis?

[cato]

I see that the pleas for common sense, decency and reason have fallen on deaf ears. Oh well...

Cato

[cato]

Moderation is bad? Extremism is good? Is that your point?
So the extremism of Hitler, Stalin, Bin Laden, Timothy McVey, John Wilkes Booth, S. Hussein, the Taliban, etc etc etc
These are examples of a philosophy and life style (extremism) that should be used as a good example of how to appraoch life and government?

As to the US political system, in most cases what appears to be extremism by a successful poilitician is simply a show for the masses.

Anyone who has worked closely with a politician knows that compromise is the essence of politics. Nothing can be accomplished without it. The opposite of reason and compromise in a political system is a totalitarian state.

Cato

[delayjf]

I think there's a difference between compromising on policies and compromising on principle.

[Rick]

Lefty,

Yes, that's one example and there are many others on the right as well. Rush Limbaugh also proved that he's one of those "say one thing and do another" kinds of people. I have a family member who defends anything that Pat Robertson says just because he's a "Christian". That's the trouble with having a hero instead of thinking for yourself. Sometimes they just don't live up to your expectations. I just refuse to agree with everything that someone says and does just because they might be a famous representative of any political position.

I'm willing to spend money on government programs if they're necessary, efficient, and a good investment for the taxpayer. I believe in some abortions but not all abortions. I believe in low taxes but not defecit spending. I support environmental restrictions if they're necessary and affordable but don't think we should make a religion out of it. Am I a liberal or a conservative? Well, it depends on the specific issue at hand so I have no choice but to call myself a moderate. You just can't pin a label on me and expect me to vote in a stereotyped way on every issue. But you can do that with most members of Congress.

[Tom]

Talk about going to extremes....this pathetically moronic government of ours is spending millions of dollars to advertise......$20 bills! Fer God's sake, this is the ultimate of total loss of mental ability. We have sunk to a new low on the stupid scale. It is bad enough that they are doing it, but they are defending it.
Enough already. Our governement is now beyond salvation.
The idiots are solidly in charge and we have to vote out every single incumbent in every sinlge election. NO exceptions.
I thinkg extreme thinkg can now be defined as moderate common sense. Been many years since any of that has been seen in Washington. And the fault is ours. We have settled for the absolute crap the two parties keep parading as candidates. Both parties are complete shams and it time stop supporting either one of them.

[ljb]

yer right tom but, it ain't gonna happen.
so what's your next idea?

[Amazin]

Boxcar:

I’m not sure you understand what Jesus meant when he said”forgive them,for they know not what they do”.The reason is because I was paralleling that idea to people in the military and whether or not you agree with it,you ask” How can someone kill without knowing they've killed?”

Jesus knew that his crucifiers were immersed with this material world and could not “see”that he was the son of God.If they could “see” who he was they would not have done what they did.Simple as that.

So My point is if one army could “see”that the other is not his enemy(illusion) but his brother(reality),they wouldn’t even think of killing eachother.All are immersed in this material world and can’t “see”through it.Simple as that

Delay & Lefty

You guys sound similar.Delay wants to deny an event that even the Former Secretary of State acknowledges occurred and Lefty wants to deny any event that goes against his conservative glass menagerie.Pathetic.

[lsbets]

Amazin, the only thing I see that is pathetic is you. You stand in front of those who we fight and say "you are my brother, not my enemy". They will kill you and your family without even giving it a second thought. You might have your high moral ground, but you won't have it on this earth. Come to grips with reality. Being "nice" and "loving" does not keep us safe, being strong does.

And you are so insistent that you are not condescending towards anyone who disagrees with you, yet you insist on calling us pathetic, stating that you have reached a higher level of evolution than us (we've hashed this out before, if you are higher on the eveolutionary ladder, you claim superiority, sorry, you can't talk your way out of that one), and referring to us as mindless sheep. I find it odd that someone who feels he is of such high principles can so easily look down on everyone else. But, I am a mere mortal, I do not have the prescience of the great Amazin.

[Tom]

What do you call a man who stands in front of a tank and offers a flower as a gesture of peace?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Wait for it.
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Mat

[DJofSD]

What do you call a man in a tub with no arms or legs?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Bob.

[Lefty]

Rick, I give you an example of an immoral Pres. and his buddies in Congress who make laws but stand behind Clinton when he breaks one that would put any of us in jail if we did the same.
You come back with a talk show host who has no ability to implement any laws and who is hooked on pain pills because he is, get this, in extreme pain. So far, he hasn't been put on trial for breaking any laws. So,
NON ANALAGOUS.
Try again.

[Lefty]

amazin, yep, I categorically deny that the we are the bad guys.
We stand for freedom and you, apparently, given the choice, would opt for enslavement.

[Lefty]

Rick, what's that? You're willing to spend money on govt. prgms if they're efficient and a good investment for the taxpayer. You have me on the edge of my seat. what prgms would those be?
And, what baby killing has your approval?

Tom, the govt has to advertise that $20 bill cause i'm about to come out with a bigger, better more efficient $20 bill that will do the work of a $50 bill.

[Rick]

I just remembered why I usually don't post here. It's a total waste of time. Nobody's going to change their opinion no matter what. Half of the people think it's realistic for the government to spend no money and the other half think the government should run everything. If you don't agree with either of these extremes you shouldn't even bother with this forum. Bye.

[Lefty]

Rick, you say you like certain govt prgms and I ask what they are and you say bye bye? Guess you're mighty short on examples.
Yes, if you're willing to post something and then won't respond to an honest question(s) then right, waste of time posting here.

[Rick]

Lefty,

Blah, blah, blah. You know as well as I do that there are plenty of examples, but I don't want to get in another one of those tedious childish arguments. You want to believe that anything government does is bad and I don't care if you believe that. I don't need your vote. I probably don't really disagree with you on that many issues but I don't like wasting time arguing about it. As I said before, I don't believe that everything is an all or nothing or black or white issue. It's just hardly ever that way. But if you're just rooting for some ideology to win then you'll probably think of it that way. I'm for America, not the Republican or Democrat parties, not the liberals or the conservatives. You should be in Washington. Everyone there thinks the way you do.

[Amazin]

Well that was funny.Rick thinks people post here to convince one another.Side splitter.I couldn't convince Lefty or Tom if Jesus materialized in front of them and said.Thou shalt not kill.I think Tom would say,"but who do you like in the 4th at Belmont?"

I post for my own reasons but they certainly are not to convince anyone. Change is evolutionary Rick.Relax,you have eternity.

Speaking of evolution, lsbets you show your primitiveness not unlike Tom.No I wouldn't stand in front of a tank with a flower.Palestinians kids throw rocks at Israeli tanks that don't even reach the tank and have gotten their heads blown off.I'm not ignorant of my ignorant brothers.

But this endless cycle of violence can only stop when someone gets off the treadmill.As Ghandhi said"an eye for an eye and pretty soon the whole world is blind"The reason you look at your enemy as an enemy is because
you are intentionally misinformed by greedy leaders.

I saw a good program last night about Lawrence of Arabia. He was a soldier in the British army around WWI. When he went to work with the Arabs on behalf of the British,he developed friendships and bonds with the Arabs. Later he found the British were lying to the Arabs and he would soon be exposed as a traitor,but he never intended to betray the Arabs. He was caught in the middle. He went thru tremendous psychological stress and guilt about it and never got over it. This is an example of how the exploiter exploits for their own selfish reasons,but when you take this egotistical factor away,we easily transcend the idea of " the enemy" into brotherhood.

[lsbets]

I look at my enemy as my enemy because they kill Americans wherever and whenever they get the chance. Tell Daniel Pearl's widow that the enemy that killed her husband is not really an enemy. I wish the world could work the way that you want it to, I would agree that it would be a better place, but it can't. Human history has shown that. You do not comprehend the conept of good and evil, so you just don't get it.

I do agree with you on one thing. We don't post here to convince each other of anything. Personally, I enjoy the back and forth. I think it is good to have to rebut the arguments of those you disagree with. That is one of the greatest things about America, we can do this here.

[lsbets]

Amazin,

I do think if you combine some of the things that you have said in the previous post there is a good idea there. I have felt for some time that if the Palestinians adopted peaceful resistance than Israel would be forced to make peace. However, I don't think that will happen for a number of reasons:

1) Arafat - he is a murdering thug in the vein of Bin Laden, it is a sin that this man was given a sense of credibility by our nation
2) The Palestinians don't want peace if that peace involves an Israel. One of their mottos is "from the river to the sea" that means no Israel. They are not interested in peace, they are interested in killing Jews. Until that changes, peace is impossible.
3) Other Arab governments support the terrorism because it advances their regimes at home. If there were peace in Israel, then the Saudis and Egyptins would not be able to blame the conditions of their people on the Jews or evil Zionist plots. Saddam was a huge backer of the suicide bombers because it made him look like a hero to the Arab street. The current leadership in the Arab world will not allow peace to happen in Israel, it would end up shining the spotlight on their corruption.

But, if the Palestinians were to somehow adopt the philosophies of Ghandi and MLK, then US public opinion would turn in favor of their statehood, and that would result in an enormous amount of pressure being placed on Israel. I wish it would happen, but I doubt it will.

[Suff]

Oldie... but for the few that may not have heard it.

Deer with no eyes?

No Idea.

Deer with no eyes and no legs?

Still, no idea.

Deer with no eyes, no legs and no balls?

Still, no f'ng , idea.

[Tom]

What do you call a boy with no feet?


Niel.

[Suff]

Man in a Hole?


Phil....................:eek:

[Tom]

Girl with one leg shorter than the other?


Eilien. :p

[lsbets]

Guy with no arms and legs, hanging on the wall? ......



Art

[Lefty]

Rick, I asked for examples you gave none. Please don't make statements you cabn't back up and then presume to know how I think. If you're in the middle of the road lookout, you just may get ran over. What's wrong with a little discourse; presuming of course you have an argument to begin with. It's gettin' tough around here; the liberals won't give a direct answer to questions and now the moderates have joined in.

[ljb]

Lefty,
Have you watched the online video yet?

[Tom]

A boy hiding in the bushes?



Russel.

[Red Knave]

A guy in the pool with no arms or legs

Bob

[Rick]

Lefty,

I could give examples, like the interstate highway system, started by one of your guys (and mine) by the way. But since you're determined to show that all government programs are a waste of money and you'd surely be able to show that money was wasted somewhere. Of course these things aren't perfect, but we need them anyway. But, no, I'm not going to get in an argument where I'm expected to show that something's perfect and all you need to do is show that it's imperfect. It's just a stupid, juvenile game to play. No thanks.

[Lefty]

That's not the game I play. Yes, I expect the Govt to fight our wars and take care of the infrastructure. But Govt social prgms which are aimed at redistributing our money; everyone a waste. I thght you were alluding to those.
And if you don't wanna argue your points, don't hang 'em on the line.

[Rick]

Lefty,

Fair enough. I was only arguing that some government is necessary even if it is imperfect. Some things that have been deregulated have gotten even worse (hard to imagine but true).

I'm not going to argue for social programs though because it's a lot harder to find anything that works. Even most charities work better than that and we all know how much they rake off of the top. I can imagine some limited programs that might work but nobody in Washington ever seems to want to try that. Government probably could do something in the healthcare area to cover major medical expenses that would pay for itself but probably won't. All I've heard about are 900 million dollar programs that want to do everything. That sounds like Hillary's ideas all over again. Yikes!

[Rick]

Lefty,

If you want a real laugh at liberal ideas, check this one out:

http://www.kucinich.net/issues/issue_departmentpeace.htm

Just a bit naive and gullible I think.

[Tom]

What do you call a man after losing 30 pounds?




Les.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Rick
Lefty,

If you want a real laugh at liberal ideas, check this one out:

http://www.kucinich.net/issues/issue_departmentpeace.htm

Just a bit naive and gullible I think.


Never heard of peace breaking out anywhere! :eek:

[Rick]

Tom,

There was actually an even dumber comment he made about something about wrapping his peace loving arms around all of us or something but I couldn't find it. This guy is seriously out of touch.

[Lefty]

Rick, guess we're pretty much on the same page after all. Smaller Govt not no Govt that would bring anarchy. I just wish ALL the jackasses in Wash. would adhere to the constitution.

[Lefty]

Rick, thanks for the link. Now we know who amazin really is.

[delayjf]

Amazin,

You mean to tell me that the Clinton Administration and the UN are responsible for 570,000 Iraq childrens deaths. Then by your own admission Clinton is a war criminal of the worst kind.
Sounds like a left wing cover up to me.

[Suff]

Is one of the Republican Posistions that it Makes good War?

That it knows exactly what countries to bomb? That it knows exactly what countries to Conquer? and that it knows exactly how to rebuild a Country it conquers better than the democrats?

If so... I'll concede.

[Amazin]

Delay

I never said Clinton was clean.But I do think he has a few more neurological connections in his brain than Bush.Certainly his domestic economic policy proves that.

Rick and Lefty:

it's one thing to knock a politician. Kucinich has no shot anyway. But it also sounds like you're knocking him because he advocates peace. So from process of elimination,I assume you guys are advocating violence and a cowboy Bush mentality,acknowledging your primitive state of maturity.

[Dave Schwartz]

Amazin,

My "big C" friends hate it when I say this, but this country made a lot of financial progress during Clinton's presidency.

My biggest problem with Clinton is one of right, wrong and morals. And not just Monica. Accepting campaign contributions from China was just not okay. Of course, whenever this subject is brought up the "L" people (such as yourself) immediately say "Bush and Saudis" in the same sentence as if that somehow makes Clinton's actions okay.

I think that is what infuriates me the most about partisan politics... the issues are forgotten in favor of whatever the party line is.

I'm not thrilled with Bush these days - the 16 words thing bothers me a lot - Instead I am busy asking the question (again), "Why is it so difficult to find leaders with unquestionable integrity?"

Truth is, I voted for Nader. <G>

Just my opinion.


Regards to all,
Dave Schwartz

[Lefty]

amazin, not knocking the guy because he believes in peace. I;m knocking him because he believes in utopia. We can't lay down our arms and declare ourselves non-combatents. If we do, there are despots in the world who will destroy us. This guy's ideas are dangerous because freedom must be fought for. Didn't Pearl Harbor teach that? Didn't the holocaust teach that? Didn't 9-11 teach that?
Ever see the movie Shenandoah? It was about the Civil war and this farmer thought he and his sons could just not take sides, keep on farming and stay out of it.
If you haven't seen it, rent it.

[Dave Schwartz]

Lefty,

Well put.

Dave

[Amazin]

Lefty:

You said the most Ghandist statement conservatives say: freedom must be fought forAbsolutely correct. Only thing is they think freedom is exclusive to them and/or their own interests, contradicting the essence of the word.

Why is it that we talk so nobly about freedom and support the suppression of other people around the world who are struggling for it. Biggest example right now are the Palestinians. This is the #1 criticism of our support for Israel.Not to mention the human rights atrocities of an illegally occupied people. This is why I have no respect for politicians who talk like they have a copyright on freedom.

BTW I don't think Kucinich is unaware of the Constitutional duties of the President of the U.S. He just doesn't believe in taking away phantom WMD from small fry while we increase our own nuclear arsenal.

[Rick]

I'm all for peace but I'm not naive enough to think that you can achieve it without being capable of kicking the bad guy's butt if necessary. It's called deterrence and it works very well. Being a pacifist just gets you enslavement in the real world. That's my problem with liberals. They have really great dreams about how the world should be but their plans never work in the real world. Be a little (no, a lot) more practical please.

[Lefty]

amazin, if conservatives think freedom just for them why are we still in Iraq? To secure their freedom. The more countries that are free the better it is for us.
Israel wants peace and the Palestinians have vowed to kill every last jew and you're concern is for them? You get more out of touch every day.

[Amazin]

Lefty

You are one naive dude. We didn't go into Iraq to free Iraqi's.We invaded Iraq for our own interests: To control the region's resources and further our militaristic foothold in the middle east.

You are also one brainwashed dude. Palestinians were /are basically a peasant people, They are the victims. Their land was robbed from them due to British imperialism and Zionistic colusion that in turn served the British interests.If you get a pre 1948 map of the middle east you'll see there was a Palestinian state back then.It shouldn't be an issue today whether or not to create a Palestinian state.The British had no right to take land that was not theirs and give it to others who did not own it. Palestinians have every right to be pissed off at those that took their homeland.If a stranger took over your home back in 1948,I suppose you'd just forget about it, right mister hawk?

[Tom]

Originally posted by Amazin
Lefty

You are one naive dude. We didn't go into Iraq to free Iraqi's.We invaded Iraq for our own interests: To control the region's resources and further our militaristic foothold in the middle east.

>>> Outright lie! <<<


You are also one brainwashed dude. Palestinians were /are basically a peasant people, They are the victims. Their land was robbed from them due to British imperialism and Zionistic colusion that in turn served the British interests.If you get a pre 1948 map of the middle east you'll see there was a Palestinian state back then.It shouldn't be an issue today whether or not to create a Palestinian state.The British had no right to take land that was not theirs and give it to others who did not own it. Palestinians have every right to be pissed off at those that took their homeland.If a stranger took over your home back in 1948,I suppose you'd just forget about it, right mister hawk?
>>>Lie nuimber 2 - the UN sancitoned the creation of Israel.
I find it very hard to have any sympathy for any people who continue to strap on bombs and walk into civilized neighborhoods. If the only way to stop the homacide bombings to kill every single palestinean, then I support it. NOBOBY who is serious about peace lines up behind Arafat. Short of eliminating paelstineans completetly. I suggest that everytime a homacide bomber is identified, Israel go and find all of his family and kill them all, their neigbors, burn their homes, etc. The only way to stop terrorism is to kill the terrorists. You cannot negotiate with these brain-dead devil-worshiping people.
[/B]

[lsbets]

Yes Amazin, you are right, the Zionists (jews) are the cause of all of the world's problems. I can almost here the rest of your drivel. At least you have outed yourself. The Palestinians have not demonstrated any desire for peace at all, read my prior post regarding that. Your worldview would have fit perfectly in 1930s Germany.

[lsbets]

Okay, aside from my visceral reaction to the crap that Amazin and the radical left like to spoew about Israel and the poor Palestinians, let me make a few points:

1) There never was an independant Palestinian state. There was a region called Palestine that was ruled by various empires. The UN attempted to create an independant Palestinian state, but they refused and instead started a war with the aim of driving the Jews into the sea. In retrospect, that did not work out too well for them.

2) When you say the Palestinians are basically a peasant people, you need to ask why. Is it because of the Israeli occupation or because of their own misguided leadership. Seeing how Arab Israeli's do rather well, my vote is with the leadership. If they get peace, the leadership loses power. Peace is not in Arafats best interest. Keeping his people in poverty and dependant on him is.

3) The Palestinians are victims. They are the victims of their leadership and the Arab regimes who support it. Without the "Jewish problem" the Arab street would look inward, and regimes would fall. The Arab leadership needs an Israeli/Palestinian conflict to stay in power.

4) You love to refer to Jesus and God and speak as if you were that enlightened. Well, on that I have a question for you. In the Bible that you only quote when it is convenient to you, God gives the land of Israel to the Jewish people. If you believe that, then how can man take away what was given as a divine covenant? I can't wait for your answer to this one.

[Amazin]

These two responses to the Palestinian question reflect the lack of knowledge in America surrounding the creation of the state of Israel.

Before 1948,the main goal of Zionism was for the creation of a Jewish state. During the years of the Palestine Mandate, from 1922 to 1947, large-scale Jewish immigration from abroad, mainly from Eastern Europe took place, the numbers swelling in the 1930s with the notorious Nazi persecution of Jewish populations. Palestinian demands for independence and resistance to Jewish immigration led to a rebellion in 1937, followed by continuing terrorism and violence from both sides during and immediately after World War II. Great Britain tried to implement various formulas to bring independence to a land ravaged by violence. In 1947, Great Britain in frustration turned the problem over to the United Nations.

The Palestinians argued that Palestinian territory could not and should not be used to solve the plight of the Jews in Europe, and that Jewish national aspirations should not override their own rights.

During the PALESTINE MANDATE period the Palestinian community was 70 percent rural, 75 to 80 percent illiterate, and divided internally between town and countryside and between elite families and villagers. Despite broad support for the national aims, the Palestinians could not achieve the unity and strength necessary to withstand the combined pressure of the British forces and the Zionist movement.

After looking at various alternatives, the UN proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized (Resolution 181 (II) of 1947). One of the two States in the partition plan proclaimed its independence as Israel and in the 1948 war expanded to occupy most of Palestine through the process of ethnic cleansing.

Palestinians rejected the UNITED NATIONS (U.N.) partition plan which granted the Jews statehood in 55 percent of Palestine, an area that included as many Arab residents as Jews. However, the Palestinian Arabs lacked the political strength and military force to back themselves. Britain withdrew its forces in 1948 and the Jews proclaimed the state of Israel.

The drive for statehood IGNORED the presence of a Palestinian majority with its own national aspirations. The right to create a Jewish state-and the overwhelming need for such a state-were perceived as overriding Palestinian rights as a people that continues till today.

[lsbets]

Ummmm - Amazin - you use the term ethnic cleansing. Do you even know what that means? From your usage you do not. Visit Bosnia one day and take a look at what ethnic cleansing really is. You are intelligent enough to know, so based on that I can only assume that you are using intentionally inflamatory terms to foster hatred and use the sterotype of Jews as the manipulators behind the scenes to advance your narrow minded, hate filled opinion. The war in 1948 was started by the states surrounding Israel, and the aim was to drive the Jews into the sea, yet you would call Israelis as the aggressor.

I do not know you well enough to say if you really believe the lies that you tell. If you do, you are a disgusting person. Bottom line, nothing else to say. You spread the propoganda of terrorists and murderers. This goes way beyond "Bush lied". That is fine to believe and say, and your right - I do not accuse anyone else who has posted on this board of supporting the enemies of America. But the more you talk, the more it seems that you support those who would kill us. Remember, up until 9/11, Palestinian terrorists had killed more Americans than Al Queda.

[Amazin]

"Antisemitism" has been a complement of "terrorism" in the propaganda
arsenal of the "friends of Israel," more properly designated the "supporters
and underwriters of Israeli ethnic cleansing." The Palestinians have engaged
in terror, but by any meaningful definition the Israelis have also, and the
bias in treatment of the two has been staggering. The huge death rate
differential over the years -- better than twenty Palestinian to one Israeli
deaths -- and the steady racist bias in systematic house demolitions and
removals, the seizure of water resources, and the rise to head of the
Israeli state of a world class terrorist responsible for over a thousand
Palestinian civilian deaths in a single episode, doesn't alter the deeply
imbedded bias:That only the Palestinians terrorize; the Israelis retaliate and
are the victims of terror.

[lsbets]

As I said, Amazin, you have outed yourself. The Israelis do retaliate and are the victims of terror, there are Palestinian victims, but that is the fault of their leadership. You have shown who you are, and you are a vile human being who supports the murder of women and children as long as they are Jewish. You are disgusting.

[Amazin]

Palestinians are "Semites," but the word antisemitism is never applied to
prejudice against them, only to Jews. The restriction on the application to
Jews, and failure to use it in reference to Palestinians, continues in the
face of the fact that prejudice against Jews has sharply diminished in the
West from the era of Hitler, and that the Arabs and their supporters have displaced them as
target of anti-"Semite" hostility.

[Tom]

There is a difference between attacking military target and killing civilians in the process and targeting civilians. The Palestinean leadership hides behind innocent civilians on purpose. They are cowards and deserve nothing but death. Go Israel!

And no matter what kind of sick perverted spin you try to put on it, the US did not kill aNY Iraqi children through any sanctions. That responsibility falls soley on S0-damn Insane-period. And if Irag really had no weapons of mass destruciton and was truly abiding by the UN resolutions, then he had the power to stop the invasion and ease the sancitons by simpy coming clean. He did not because he did not and does not give a damn about the Iraqis, and his thugs, augmented by outside terrorists, are still responsible for the attacks to deny the Iraq people a chance at freedom. It is pretty obvious that the only chance Iraq has for any meaningful future lies with the US and the US alone. We are the ones over there fighting and dying to re-build while the rest of the world is only interested in using Iraq as a pawn for their own gains.

[Amazin]

All Israeli attacks on Palestinians are against civilians.They do not have a military. Israesl does not discriminate between terrorists and civilians. Israel has used apache helicopters to shoot into crowded civilian populations killing women and children in the name of finding terrorists.On Oct.25 they made 2000 Palestinians homeless. I suppose in your eyes,Israel has just pinpointed 2000 terrorists and never harmed a civilian. Unbelievable.How do they do it? It's called Ethnic cleansing.

Yes Saddam was partially responsible for the deaths of Iraqi's due to sanctions.But the enforcement of the sanctions was optional and if the U.S. and Britain had any sense of caring for the welfare of Iraqis who were in effect hostages of Hussien,they wouldn't have enforced the sanctions.Could have taken other alternatives.Not only that but the U.S. and Britain directly caused Iraqi deaths by roadblocking vital medical supplies to children at that time,directly causing their deaths.What was the point of that?Hussien certainly didn't care.That's why Bush can sell you the Brooklyn bridge with his so called Iraqi freedom. He kills em now he loves em. He's either schizoid or is just a politician with self serving interests.

[Amazin]

As I said,Israel just made another 2000 Palestinians homeless.Here's the catch. How many of those 2000 do you think will now turn into terrorists.Bingo,Israel's terrorist policy is about as stupid as Bush's Iraq policy and war on terrorism.They both compound the problem. So stop telling how terrorists are the evil.They are a creation of the "good".

[Lefty]

amazin, I have no words to say how wrong you are and continue to be except congrats on a 100% record.

[Amazin]

You have no words to say how wrong I am therefore I must be right.

[lsbets]

Amazin, how is it that you condemn the US for its actions in war because innocents die, even though every attempt is made to minimize civilian casualties, yet all you do is speak of your support for people who intentionally target women and children. Yes, when Israel go after a terorist they will shoot into a crowd, well, guess what, that crowd should not be trying to protect that crowd. The Palestinian terrorists (notice I do not say all Palestinians) intentionally target civilians in order to maximize the shock effect. So, from what I can surmise from your philosophy, it is wrong to kill women and children unless they are Jewish women and children and then it is okay. Again you use the words ethnic cleansing. If Israel was practicing ethnic cleansing there would be no Palestinians left. You cannot possibly be stupid enough to believe that what is happenning in the Middle East is ethnic cleansing. Go ask Bosnian Muslims what ethnic cleansing is, go ask a Holocaust survivor what it is (now I think you might say that never happenned, wouldn't surprise me if you thought that). You have completely discreditied yourself. You are agaisnt killing unless it is the killing of Jews, and then it is acceptable. As I said before, in my book you stand with the terrorists, and against freedom. You hide behind the word peace yet are an agent of hate. You are in the camp of the enemy.

And in terms of the semantics, racism in all forms is wrong and disgusting. I can differentiate between the Palestinians and their leaders. Read my previous posts about how I think peace is possible in the Middle East and why the Palestinians face the problems that they do. It seems that you do not believe that. You would join with their leadership and drive the Jews into the sea. Disgusting. Simply disgusting.

[Amazin]

lsbets

Just for your clarification,I do not condone terrorism just as I don't condone the so called retaliation be it by Israel against Palestinians or U.S. against Iraqi's etc.

Furthermore to clarify why Palestinians target civilians is because it is an easier target.Believe me they are not very skilled. Their success rate would be close to nill with the Israeli army,who is basically a superpower today.Israel bombed Syria recently.Syria knew that if it retaliated it would be overwhelmed by Israel's overwhelming military superiority.So all they could do was complain to the U.N. This idea of yours of the arabs driving Israel into the sea is like watching some reruns from a 70's sitcom.It's dead.Arabs don't say that anymore.They took enough pounding from Israel in 67 and 73 to know they were idiots for underestimating Israel's strength.

So not speaking biased or pro arab,you need to understand Palestinian strategy in fighting Israel .Targeting civilians is their only means of effective combat at this point.

BTW,I coincidently read a report this morning where the top israeli military soldier agreed with the point I made about Israel's treatment of Palestinians. He said this hard line attitude of Sharon only backfires by increasing hatred of Israel and strengthning terrorist oraganization. Plus he sites Israel lack of concessions for the demise of the Palestinian prime minister and the Bush proposed peace initiative.He's right.

And please stop trying to use the low blows to try to make me look like a hater of Jews just because I defend Palestinians.FYI alot of jews here and in Israel support the Palestinian cause.I'm pretty sure they don't hate themselves..

[Tom]

Grow up.
The Palestineans do have a militarty - it is the terroist cells, PLO, Hesbala, or whatever that cockroach army calls itself.
It these sub-human leader Israel attack and more powe to them.
For my money, anyone withing 5 miles of a terrorist is a grade B target at best. I shed no tears for the loss of these cowards.

BTW.......my condolences on your recent loss.....the economy is up 7%+ in the third quarter-up twice over what it was in the second quarter. Those tax cuts must be kicking in. I know a healthy economy really upsets you, so, hope you are feeling better soon.
:D

[Lefty]

amazin, how shall I phrase it? Oh, YOU ARE NOT RIGHT. YOU ARE A MILLION LIGHT YEARS FROM BEING CLOSE TO RIGHT.

You say you don't condone terrists but your rhetoric is always against the U.S. and now, Israel. So, your own words give you away.

People find themselves always having to take sides. That's the real world and not the "bubble" you apparently, live in.

[lsbets]

Your words create impressions Amazin, not any attempted low blows by me. As I said, you outed yourself, and now I for one know what you are.

[Amazin]

Tom

Your remarks and attitude feed the cause of terrorists around the world. When you call all Palestinians terrorists and denounce them as cockaroaches,why should terrorist organizations refrain from blowing people like that up to bits. It's in their interest and survival because that is what people like you want to do to them. People with that attitude are in a cage of hatred ,ignorance and stupidity.They are trapped in darkness.Have a nice day.

Lefty

Like Isbets,you assume too much. Because I talk against U.S. and Israeli military policy, you assume I do support terrorists. Isbets thinks because I support Palestinian rights I hate Jews. This thinking is not only jumping to conclusions but shows insecurity in both you and Isbets.

I support the rights of Palestinians and Iraqi's Period. Are you two saying these people cannot have the same rights as Israeli's and Americans? That American and Israeli rights supersede these people rights? Yes I'm sure you do,allthough you don't say it,you just beat around the bush. You are racists in the true sense of the word. Next time just say it so I don't have to waste time pointing it out.Tom is practically screaming it with colorful descriptions.

Once you acknowledge that you are racist against ALL Middle Easterners(except Jews),it will be alot simpler to discuss these issues.

[Lefty]

amazin, you wouldn't know a racist if you tripped over one, because you demonstrate you do not have a firm gril on reality or what racism is. Like Tom, any cowards that urge young boys and others to strap on bombs and blow themselves up and take out a bunch of civilians at the same time, i am firmly against them.
It's not the people who speak out against terrorism and fight it that promulgate it, but people like you who try to excuse it.

[lsbets]

Amazin, if you had paid any attention to what I have said about the Palestinians, you would have noticed that I have criticized their leadeship while being quick to differentiate between them and the rest of the people there. You, on the other hand, justify attacks on civilians. All I did was point out that you say it is wrong when we kill civilians even though we go out of our way to minimize civilian casualties, yet you justify the intentional killing of Jewish civilians. The racist is you. You are full of hate and have proven it by your words. As I said, your attitude is simply disgusting.

[boxcar]

Tom wrote:

BTW.......my condolences on your recent loss.....the economy is up 7%+ in the third quarter-up twice over what it was in the second quarter. Those tax cuts must be kicking in. I know a healthy economy really upsets you, so, hope you are feeling better soon.
:D

Haa...someone noticed! In fact, the GDP grew by a whopping 7.2% -- the largest since '84. (And of course we all remember who was prez back then, right!?) Even the Liberal Rag Extraordinare the N.Y. Times had to concede (albeit grudgingly, perhaps) that the tax cuts contributed to the phenomenal growth. Yes, indeed...Good News for America is always bad news for the Libs.

Naturally, the Libs are trying desparately to downplay and spin the Good News by pointing, for example, to the 6% unemployment rate. What they don't tell you, though, is that a 5% rate is perfectly normal for a host of reasons. A one point higher rate, therefore, isn't all that bad.

Boxcar

[Suff]

When GDP is up.. and job growth and wages are stagnant it means two things....

People are working harder and producing more for less money.

If that benefits you... Then you should be happy. But it does'nt benefit the Mass's. Unless you own a whole shitload of Fleet.. Cuz Bank America has 50 Billion they're giving them elites.

The GDP might be slightly lower had Walmart employed America.


btw. Wal-Mart. Largest Employer in 21 of our 50 States.. Knowing hired illegal immgrants to save a Buck. Giving a Retiree $10.00 bucks an hour was to much. The shipped them in from Mexico and paid them $7.00. Remember. Largest Employer in 21 States. And they will conspire and cheat and Break Federal Laws for the almight Dollar. Ok. If we can't trust #1 in 21 states to follow the laws... what state is Democracy and Captialism in?

The people are getting it stuck to them Good right now.

[boxcar]

Suff wrote:

When GDP is up.. and job growth and wages are stagnant it means two things....

People are working harder and producing more for less money.

If that benefits you... Then you should be happy. But it does'nt benefit the Mass's. Unless you own a whole shitload of Fleet.. Cuz Bank America has 50 Billion they're giving them elites.

The GDP might be slightly lower had Walmart employed America.

Well Golly Gee, Suff, in the next election, why don't you just vote that nasty ol' Walmart out -- right along with Bush!?

And for your info, Walmart didn't employ a bunch of illegals. Those illegals were employees of a subcontractor with which Walmart contracted to maintain their floors. And if you think this is a mere technicality and still begs the question, then I have a few questions for you: Isn't it Bleeding Hearts like yourself who are all ga ga over allowing illegals into this country and bestowing upon them all kinds of entitlements and benefits (including free hospitalization public school education, etc.), and in general treating them as privileged characters, having more rights than us citizens and the legal resident aliens who played by all the rules to be here? Isn't it California who wants to make it easy and fast for everyone and anyone (with or without proper I.D.) to be able to get a driver's license? And don't you Libs constantly try to defend the immigration of illegal aliens by arguing that, after all, they're just taking jobs that no one else wants!? Therefore, how can you logically moan and groan about the Walmarts of this world saving a buck by not paying a retiree $10. per hour? How many retirees do you personally know have been turned away by Walmart? Maybe not very many of those poor ol' retirees wanted to sweep, mop and perform floor maintenance chores, after all.

Nice chattin' with you.

Boxcar

[Lefty]

Some of you keep saying captalusm no good, suspect, on the way out etc, etc., etc.
I still prefer it over socialism.
We have a good thing going with the economy here and the libs try to make out like a bad thing happened.
They spin the war and now the economy for politics. For ^%#^(^#$shame.

[Suff]

whoa...brakes on Cowboy. I'm not amazin. I'm Mike Dudley. a construction worker from Boston. I made a point in response to your GDP post.

Only guys like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity can get away with that Caustic crap..

You know crossfire..and hannity and colmes and all them... when they scream back and forth about the left and right positions. They do that for ratings and such.

Thats not the Required way for the General Public to communicate ideas or opinion to one another.

I'm not above a little mix and mush. But you guys are head bangers in here. Like little Hannity and colmes robots. Its really unattractive. Teachs nothing, accomplish's nothing.. But you guys seem to like it..

If you think a GDP raise and stagnant wages and job is a GOOD THING.. or thats it temporary and they'll catch up in the near term..Then thats a Point.

I myself see a Consolidation of Wealth . The GDP is up... and corporate profits are soaring... But lower and Middle class have fallen behind. Thats my current view.

You disagree? Ok.

Not sure why you went right to calling me a Bleeding hearts and all that. I'm not looking for an insult battle.

Btw.. Documents obtained in disocvery. Wal-mart was aware of the purpose of the Hiring agent.. supported it, conspired to hide it and has admitted it made a corporate Blunder.

I used that example and the Bank Merger agreement as the Consolidation of Wealth and greed.

I know ...and you know .. that Wal-mart not only has the The most talented and accomplished Management of perhaps any company in the world.. and also it has on its payroll..an entire department that focus's on following Federal, State and Local Laws in the State sit operates in..

In addition it hires consultants and Lobbyists to keep it abreast of Labor laws and how to best influence these laws.

So My point was that if the Most accomplished and most informed and LARGEST EMPLOYER in 21 States makes a SOUND business decison that they can get away with this...or the penalty from a Republican admistration will be minimal. Its bad sign at what may be happening all the way down the Trough.

When B of A completes its fleet transaction... it will hold 1 in 10 of every american dollar deposited. 1 in 10.. One company with that much control over who gets what and when is pretty alarming to me.

Anyway.. just my opinion.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Suff


btw. Wal-Mart. Largest Employer in 21 of our 50 States.. Knowing hired illegal immgrants to save a Buck. Giving a Retiree $10.00 bucks an hour was to much. The shipped them in from Mexico and paid them $7.00. Remember. Largest Employer in 21 States. And they will conspire and cheat and Break Federal Laws for the almight Dollar. Ok. If we can't trust #1 in 21 states to follow the laws... what state is Democracy and Captialism in?

The people are getting it stuck to them Good right now.

This is not Bush's fault-it is basic American greed.
Bush's Justice Department is on the job, so what more can he do?
WalMart, if found guilty, should be severley punished, including JAIL TIME for the board of directors and CEO and CFO and COO.
Won't happen. The government, both parties, do not represent us...they represent lobbyists. Big money. they are already bought and paid for. Projectioins are for up to 11% of our jobs are going overseas and not coming back. What are we doing about it??

How about this - boycott WalMart-no one buy anything fom them.
Boycott any business that is sending Amercian jobs away.
Vote out all incumbents, every election, no matter what. Maybe its time you Boston guys hosted another tea-party, 'cause I have no faith that our current government is salvagable...it was nice couple of hundred year trial run, but it don't work. Time to think up a new form and dump this one. You think NYCity couldn't be just like Baghdad within 10 years?

[Tom]

Sorry, Lefty, but it doesn't work. It might be better than socialism, but then I guess cancer is better than Aids.

Rmeber the Posiden Adventure, ship overturned, half under water, one end sticking up? Liken the submerged part to the liberal, already dead, no hope, wrong way. The bow, a little bit above water, is the conservatives. This is the way to the light, the way to survice, the way to go for now.
But the real solution for those that went to the conservative end of the ship was a whole new vehicle-a helicopter. They abandoned the whole sinking ship (our current governmeny) because it was so flawed it would eventually be a coral reef.
This is where America is today-it has already died, and we cannot fix it.

[Lefty]

Tom, usually agree with you, but not this time.

[boxcar]

Suff wrote:

whoa...brakes on Cowboy. I'm not amazin. I'm Mike Dudley. a construction worker from Boston. I made a point in response to your GDP post.

Welcome aboard, Mr. Dudley. Now on to your "point".


If you think a GDP raise and stagnant wages and job is a GOOD THING.. or thats it temporary and they'll catch up in the near term..Then thats a Point.

I myself see a Consolidation of Wealth . The GDP is up... and corporate profits are soaring... But lower and Middle class have fallen behind. Thats my current view.

With all due respect, sir, I don't know from what planet you hail, but down here in America on Planet Earth, the economy is bouncing back strongly. There's nothing stagnant about this economy.

It bears repeating once again, for starters, that a 5% unemployment rate is considered "full employment". Currently, then, we're only 1% below
the norm.

Wages are indeed up, as is spending, most especially for big ticket items. About half of my friends or acquaintances this year have made big ticket purchases -- either homes, cars or boats or renovations. (Even yours truly sprung for a late model used truck.) And none of us (to my knowledge) consider ourselves to be "wealthy" -- some of us comfortable, perhaps, but certainly not rich.

Furthermore, no one can deny that the stock market is once again bullish, and the longterm outlook is good.

You disagree? Ok.

You bet I do for the reason stated above. In fact, the economy would boom even louder and for a longer period if taxes were cut again for all taxpayers!

Not sure why you went right to calling me a Bleeding hearts and all that. I'm not looking for an insult battle.

Well, then, maybe I owe you an apology -- after you tell me where you stand on the illegal aliens issue. Are you one of those "compassionate" Libs who believe all the illegals in the country have some sort of inherent right to be here? I noticed you ducked this issue altogether.

Btw.. Documents obtained in disocvery. Wal-mart was aware of the purpose of the Hiring agent.. supported it, conspired to hide it and has admitted it made a corporate Blunder.

If this is so (I haven't read or heard about this alleged admission of guilt), then given the way Libs welcome, coddle and give preferrential treatment to illegals, can you blame Wal-Mart for "breaking the law" which the Feds themselves are reluctant to enforce!? In short, why wouldn't Wal-Mart think they could "get away with it"?

Boxcar

[Rick]

boxcar,

Why is 5% (or some say 6%) considered "full employment" now when in the distant past the goal would have been more like 3%? My guess is that it could go lower than 5% now without triggering inflation. I'm not a great believer in giving too much blame or credit to a President for how the economy is anyway though. Most of it is usually beyond their control and it seems like the next guy usually gets the blame or credit for what the last guy did because most of the policy changes take so long to have any effect.

[Tom]

Isn't this a not-real statistic?
It doesn' t count people no longer looking, does it?
And it says nothing of the quality of the job either.
This is like touting a huge win percentage with a negative roi.
The out look for this country IS NOT good-our manufacturing base is leaving and it is not coming back. We will be a seconds rate nation in 1o years unless we stop the flow of jobs outside out borders.
Good line on the West Wing this week.
Something about the administration created 1 million new jobs and they should be bragging about it. The phone rings and Toby says here is someone calling about the jobs now....he says"Hello, thank you for the million jobs. I have three of them and still cannot pay my rent."
The outlook is bleak and it will take a whole new paradigm to stop the downhill slide.
The recent performance is good, and proves out the tax cuts, but business are not adding new people-like Suff says, more and more are doing more and more for the benitfit of fewer and fewer.
We are in trouble. American business is a bigger threat than El Qeda is to this country.

[Suff]

Lamar Smith. Direct quote from a speech to the Limits to Growth Politica Action Comittte.

Lamar Smith is a Texas Republican.


Immigration Policy to Blame for Stagnant Wages
By U.S. REP. LAMAR SMITH

Labor economists questioned why wages for American workers either stagnated or rose slower than expected given the economic expansion and the low unemployment rates. Paul Krugman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology asked: How can we have such a low unemployment rate without an explosion of wages? One economist summed it up by stating, “I don't think anybody has a good answer.” That is, until now. The answer, as it often does when the question involves American workers, points to our dysfunctional immigration system.



Apparently, an unprecedented wave of illegal migrants flooded the labor market in the 1990s. At the same time, any pressure on employers to raise the wages of American workers is strangely absent, especially for low-skilled workers.

The widespread availability of illegal labor gives employers the means to keep wages down. Add to this our government's policy since 1990 of admitting almost 1 million legal immigrants a year — a third of whom do not have a high school education — and it seems clear that today's mass immigration of both legal and illegal low-skilled aliens has an adverse effect on low-skilled American workers, both native and immigrant. This conclusion should not come as a surprise. A series of recent studies all have documented the effects of our mass immigration policy:

• The National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences concluded that immigration was responsible for “about 44 percent of the total decline in relative wage of high school dropouts… between 1980 and 1994.”

• The Rand Corp. reported that, in California, “the widening gap between the number of jobs available for noncollege-educated workers and the increasing number of new noncollege-educated immigrants signals growing competition for jobs and, hence, a further decline in relative earnings

[Suff]

* Unemployment has climbed to six (6) percent, an eight-year high. Ten million unemployed workers want jobs but cannot find them.

* Almost 2 million workers had been unemployed for six months or more in November 2002, a 54 percent jump over the previous year.

* Instead of adding thousands of jobs in November as predicted, the economy shed 40,000 jobs. Manufacturing lost 45,000 jobs, the 28th straight month of decline.

* Even before emergency unemployment benefits were cut off for the families of nearly 800,000 jobless workers over the holidays, one million unemployed workers had already exhausted emergency benefits; an additional 95,000 are now running out of regular benefits each week.


* More Americans were poor and fewer had health insurance in 2002 than in 1999-2001. With employers continuing to jack up workers’ health costs, even more families will lose coverage next year.

[boxcar]

Rick asks:

Boxcar:

Why is 5% (or some say 6%) considered "full employment" now when in the distant past the goal would have been more like 3%? My guess is that it could go lower than 5% now without triggering inflation. I'm not a great believer in giving too much blame or credit to a President for how the economy is anyway though. Most of it is usually beyond their control and it seems like the next guy usually gets the blame or credit for what the last guy did because most of the policy changes take so long to have any effect.

Hi, Rick, how the heck are ya?

The "distant past" is precisely why. Our business culture has evolved considerably since then. For one thing, it's more difficult to keep up with technological evolotion. For example, my brother-in-law is an electronics engineer. When he works, he makes very good $. However, he's been gainfully unemployed twice in the last 7 years or so. Does this bother him? Sure, he'd rather be working and doing something productive; however by the same token he's a realist and knows that these kinds of setbacks are indigenous to his profession, are temporary, and he budgets his money accordingly. There are lots of people in his shoes. Many handle their particualr situations differently by returning to school, for example, for purposes of career changes, etc.

Secondly, a certain percentage of the population just doesn't want to work -- thanks in large part to all our entitilement/welfare (read handout) programs -- most of which we never had in the "distant past". It's far easier for these types to "sleep in" and stay on the dole, rather than go out and hustle for work.

Also, in that "distant past", there weren't nearly as many women working, as in these last couple of decades or so. If mothers, for example, could stay home and take care of their children properly (and not farm them out to daycare centers), more men would be able to fill their jobs.

Finally, I gotta think there are more than a few small businesses, who because of the sheer complexity of all the IRS regs, not to mention the compliance expenses, have opted to pay at least some of their employees "under the table". Many of these employees are still counted as being "unemployed", when in reality they are not. And there probably are even a larger number of work-at-home types who have found ways to dodge the IRS bullets. In fact, I know two entrerpreneur types who do very well selling their wares on e-Bay, and don't pay a nickel in taxes. Chalk up such practices to "progress" or "evolution" or whatever. Remember what I have stated many times on this forum in the past: Our "hallowed" income tax system is the cause for many of our economic ills -- including businesses fleeing the county -- which is, yet , another reason why higher unemployment rates are more acceptable today.

I'm sure I could add to the list more reasons why a 5% unemployment rate is considered "full employment" today, but I gotta run soon, plus I have a few words for Suff before I sign off the evening.

Take care,
Boxcar

[boxcar]

Suff, please spare me from your anecdotal, touchy/feely, unsubstantiated balderdash. You say that "ten million" want jobs but can't find them? You know this for a fact, do you?

If so many people are looking for and wanting to work, I have to wonder, for example, why two different supermarkets in my area had multiple listings posted for weeks for various positions before most of them were filled. Low paying, entry-level stuff. Sure, but something temporary to keep bod and soul together is better than nothing, yet, evidently, there weren't very many takers for a while.

And spare me from quoting a yo-yo like Lamar. I'm not a Republican and follow no one and no party lock-step. However, I do agree with him that another contributing factor (one that you can add to the several reasons I've given to Rick) for the unemployment rate is the immigration problem. But you keep ducking this issue. Why? Isn't it because its mostly the Libs who welcome all the illegal aliens we can get into this country with wide open arms -- not to mention pocket books? And Bush is no better than Clinton in this regard. Clinton and his ilk wanted all they could get in exchange for their votes. (Recall how Clinton ordered the IRS to rush through the application process and admit as many as possible before the second term election?) And Bush is scared stiff of offending the Mexicans because he wants the votes of the legal ones that are here; therefore, he won't provide border security or change the laws -- or even enforce the ones we have, for that matter!

So, I'll ask you one more time: Where do you stand on the immigration issue? Are you the typical touchy-feely, "compassionate" Lib, who welcomes all illegals into this country with open arms, believing they have some inherent right to come over and squat on our land, as it were? Or are you for enforcing and tightening the laws we have to restrict the number of illegal immigrants that flood our country every year?

And for your info, employers don't "jack up" health costs. We have the Feds to thank for that! Anything the Feds touch is sure to turn to crap. Oh, sure...employers might be passing more of the costs on to their workers, but whenever they do, it's to keep competitive -- to keep the costs of doing business down as much as possible. Is it better for the workers to pay a little more, or is better to have even more unemployment because the employer can't compete and goes belly-up? You tell me. But knowing you, you probably think along the same lines as Madame Hill and believe the answer is to federalize the healthcare industry, right? Ha, ha.. What a joke, you think healtcare costs are high now!?

And finally, allow me to clue you in on a little know fact about that ever-so-"compassionate" entitlement we call "unemployment compensation": Hong Kong has either the 2nd or 3rd largest economy in the Pacific Rim, and has virtually no unemployment. What's their trick? Very simple. They also don't offer the unemployed any unemployment benefits! This, then, leaves any unemployed with but two very simple choices: Find work or go hungry. No wonder at all, is it, that Hong Kong enjoys virtually 0% unemployment? Got to hand it to those diabolically clever Chinese: They sure know how to cut to the chase with their practicallity.

Boxcar

[lsbets]

The 5% number is standard economics 101. That is what economists consider full employment. We can shoot for 3, and should, but just from a textbook point of view, 5% is the standard. Its a baseline, nothing more, but when you look at past recessions 6% unemployment, while horrible for the people unemployed, is nothing. Remember when uunemployment was over 10%? How bout 8%. This was a very mild recession.

I am a big believer that the President has very little to do with how the economy performs. There are too many moving parts for centralized control. However, our government can stimulate the economy through tax policy and spending. The tax cuts kept us from going into a deep recession, because almost everyone took theirr money and bought something. And that is not supply side economics either. That is basic Keynsian economics (you know, FDRs guy). He said cut taxes and increase spending during cyclical downturns, run a deficit, and get the economy going again. During the good times, he advocated less spending and higher taxes to build a surpluss to deal with recessions. Personally, I do not agree with all of it, and one of my great disappointments with Bush is that he has done nothing to curtail spending, but I think no politician will. They pander for our votes and throw money at their supporters. Dems and Reps do it the same. I really like Bush's foreign and tax policies, but on spending he has been a huge disappointment to me. I want government to be smaller and do less. There are things that only government can do, and it should do those things, but in a lot of areas, the federal government should just get out of the way and lets the states and local governments take care of business. However, the bureacracy grows under every administration. That is a disappointment to me. A big one. Bush has my vote, but he has let me down when it comes to the size of government. The people who have really let me down though are the leaders in Congress. When Newt came in, they started well, hell, they did some great things that caused our economy to boom (Libs hate to admit that Clinton's real successes came when Newt ran Congress) but after the first two years, they became more concerned with staying in power than doing what is right. Tom, I do not think we need a new paradigm, but I think we need some real leadership in Congress. Unfortunatly, those who are the best leaders get fed up and go home.

Okay, there is my after beer rambling for the evening.

[Rick]

boxcar,

I'm doing fine. I moved out to Fallon where the housing costs are lower and it's not as crowded. I found that there was absolutely no reason for me to stay in the city. Since I do all of my horse betting online I didn't need the race books, and it turns out that they have better and cheaper high speed internet access and TV here than they do in Reno. But I also don't need one of those elusive high paying jobs these days though.

It must be difficult knowing that you're going to have to retrain many times during your career and go through extended periods of unemployment. College is way more expensive than when I went. Unemployment benefits are a joke. Nobody I ever knew was able to live on them. Going down to apply for them is mostly a waste of time that you could better be using to look for another job. And you don't want some government bureaucrat telling you that you should be applying for jobs that you know you're clearly not qualified for even though the job titles sound to them like the right match. I remember one place I worked in Las Vegas where we were looking for a computer graphics expert. The unemployment idiots sent us a graphic artist to interview and we had to write an explanation for why the person wasn't qualified for the job.

Anyway, things should be much better next year, just in time for the election. Looks like another amusing round of political hogwash ahead.

[boxcar]

Rick wrote:

I'm doing fine. I moved out to Fallon where the housing costs are lower and it's not as crowded. I found that there was absolutely no reason for me to stay in the city. Since I do all of my horse betting online I didn't need the race books, and it turns out that they have better and cheaper high speed internet access and TV here than they do in Reno.

I can barely remember when the last time was that I graced the entranceway to any racetrack. There's nothing like playing from home, as far as I'm concerned. No lines, no crowds, no rude personnel, no expenses and, perhaps, best of all -- no lousy food. :)

But I also don't need one of those elusive high paying jobs these days though.

I haven't been in need of one those in many moons.

It must be difficult knowing that you're going to have to retrain many times during your career and go through extended periods of unemployment.

I think the vast majority of those who chose a different career path do that only once during their lifetime. In most cases the new path works out fine for them. And then there are many like my brother-in-law who don't change careers but simply hang in there tough, knowing something else will come along.

Unemployment benefits are a joke. Nobody I ever knew was able to live on them.

Shh...not so loud, Rick. The Libs haven't woke up to this fact yet; for if they had someone would have sponsored a bill by now requiring states to pay a real "living wage".

Going down to apply for them is mostly a waste of time that you could better be using to look for another job.

I agree completely.

And you don't want some government bureaucrat telling you that you should be applying for jobs that you know you're clearly not qualified for even though the job titles sound to them like the right match.

Ha, ha. The majority of civil servants are brain-dead career seat-warmers who couldn't find their butt if you gave them a road map to it!

Anyway, things should be much better next year, just in time for the election. Looks like another amusing round of political hogwash ahead.

And even when things do improve, we can look forward to some very creative spin by the Left.

Have a good one,
Boxcar

[Rick]

boxcar,

Well, so far the Democrats seem to be back stabbing one another and promising a lot of handouts to try to buy votes. I wonder if they'll figure out this time around that that's not what will get you elected.

[boxcar]

Rick wrote:

Well, so far the Democrats seem to be back stabbing one another and promising a lot of handouts to try to buy votes. I wonder if they'll figure out this time around that that's not what will get you elected.

It's worked in the past, plus it's all the Dems really know what do. Sadly, there's still lots of folks out there who believe in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and most of all Free Lunches.

Boxcar

[Tom]

The dems are always trying to win elections with handouts.
The republicans win the old fashioned way....they lie!
:eek:

[boxcar]

Unemployment rates have dropped slightly for three months in a row. Furthermore, revised DOL figures (just in) tell us that economists expected job growth by only about 57,000 jobs in Septmember, however about 125,000 jobs were created in that month. Practically the same story applies for October. Expected job growth was about 58,000, yet the growth was more than double that -- about 126,000 jobs were added. In fact, the unemployment rate dipped .1% -- going from 6.1 to 6.0%. Overall, more jobs have been created, albeit slowly but surely.

Of course, the Libs naievly and unrealistically believe the economy turns on a dime and that the millions looking for work should have all been employed yesterday. But politics, political spin and fantasizing aside, most leading economists are pleased by what they see and find the growth assuring, and fully expect continued growth -- perhaps slower than some would like, but nevertheless real growth both in jobs and in the GDP. In fact, "slow" growth is actually healthier for the longterm prospects than would be the quick, artifical, flash-in-the-pan type.

Boxcar

[Lefty]

Tom, please forget the fact that we are in a war on terrorism and have the terrorists on the run and so far, have directed them away from this country, and have engaged them in their countries. Please forget the fact that tax cuts actually work and the economy is now rebounding.
Please forget the fact that the DEMS have no plan for the war on terrorism outside of maybe surrender and please forget the fact that their only plans for the economy is to raise taxes.
Please forget all these things and continue with your bashing of GWB.
Sorry I interrupted.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Tom
The dems are always trying to win elections with handouts.
The republicans win the old fashioned way....they lie!
:eek:

Tom, they all lie......... if two guys were standing in front of me and I knew I had to be shot by one of them, I would first examine their weapons and how they were going to use it. then I would decide who was going to do the most damage and choose the other guy. Just like politics..............

[Lefty]

JR, pretty good analogy.

[Tom]

Don't get me wrong, they are not the answer.
Nor are they the standard I use to judge Bush. I hold him to a higher standard than "better than Clinton."
I bash him because in my opinion, he lied to everyone right after 9-11 when he pledge a global war on terror. He has drifted, he has stalled and the threat is growing again. At tnis time, there is not one single candidate on the horizon who is man enough to take over the reigns. We are in dire trouble and I have serious doubts that this nation will survive the next 10-15 years!

[Richard]

Dick,
I read your post starting this thread and I think that Harriet was very important in American history.Perhaps not more important than the other names mentioned,but still important IMHO.

[Dick Schmidt]

Richard,

Post a joke, start a war. Like much of humor, there are certainly exaggerations contained in the list I posted. I didn't write or edit it, just stuck it up on the board thinking it might get a chuckle or two. After that "le deluge." I do note that after all the heat and angst, no one actually sat and refuted the items on the list. Obviously from the unanticipated response, this little joke cut a bit too close to the bone for many to accept.

As for your post, I think that anyone with any historical perspective has to agree that no matter how important Harriet Tubman may have been in the affairs of this nation, Lincoln and Washington had an impact at least an order of magnitude greater.

I had thought that this post had finally died. I for one was certainly bored with reading it, though since I started it, I felt compelled to do so. Let's hope that this is its death knell.

Dick

Who wonders why anyone who takes politics seriously posts on a horse racing board.

[Rick]

In my opinion, people who are really passionate about politics are about as useful to society as philosophers. It's not that I have anything against philosophers but they don't really accomplish very much. The great leaders find a way to make progress without worrying about whether the solution fits some purist version of a political philosophy.

[Rick]

By the way, here's a related piece of advice. Don't base your horse racing methods on philosophy either. What people think should work is not what usually really works there either.

[Rick]

Most politicians are a cross between philosophers and lawyers. They have the unrealistic and impractical goals of philosophers but most of them have law degrees which teach them that "winning is the only thing" and "the end justifies the means" so they aren't worried about doing things with no code of ethics whatsoever.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Rick
most of them have law degrees which teach them that "winning is the only thing"

No....No....No!!!!

They teach them that money is the only thing! and the only way to get more of it is to Win!!!!!

[Tom]

If all the lawyers were laid end-to -end, it woudl be a good start.:D