Posted by:
MirstnKim
07/06/2002, 16:45:12
|
I
realize this is not a recipe per say but it is the best forum for me
to share this story.
On June 29th, a very dear friend and co-worker passed away.
This was a man of 33 years. Far to young to be taken away from us.
His fight was one that he fought nearly all his life. For most
of us, taking a breath is something we do without any problem. We
breath and run and basically live without fear of colds, or if we
are nearing our last breath.
This man lived with a terrible disease, cystic fibrosis. He
lived with it all of his life. Cystic fibrosis is a genetic disease
affecting approximately 30,000 children and adults in the United
States.
CF causes the body to produce an abnormally thick, sticky
mucus, due to the faulty transport of sodium and chloride (salt)
within cells lining organs such as the lungs and pancreas, to their
outer surfaces. The thick CF mucus also obstructs the pancreas,
preventing enzymes from reaching the intestines to help break down
and digest food.
People with this disease are generally small, thin, and the
majority have to limit their physical activity due to lung
endurance.
This person lived his life to the fullest. He lived it knowing
that he may not see 30 or beyond. He was an avid fisherman. He
played hard, and worked hard. He chose to be a Respiratory
Therapist, to help other cystic children. He was an excellent RT and
the kids loved him.
We watched Mike go down hill this past year. We gave him a big
party when he finally decided to go on disability. Though he tried
to stay away, he could not and came back to work a day here and
there.
Something that all of us gained from his funeral was this.
None of us know how many tomorrows we have. None of us know what
tomorrow will bring. We need to live our life as if this could be
the last day of it. Have we made this day a day that was productive,
gracious, and one you do not have to wish never happened?
I just want to pay tribute to a very brave man. Believing that
he is in a place where he no longer has to work to breath, where he
is able to play basketball without gasping for his breath. Where
hospital admissions are non existant. Where he doesn't have to cough
so hard and the pain of a disease that took his life, no longer
exists.
|
 |
Reply
|
 Recommend
(0
recommendations so far) |
Message
148 of 148 in Discussion |
|
|
You brought up your age, what point were you trying to
make? That you had the ability to give away money when
you were yet to reach the age when you would be
responsible for your own welfare?
You make the claim that capitalism promotes anti social
behavior, please provide the peer reviewed scientific
study to back up the claim. I have provided proof to the
contrary.
You make the claim capitalism does not provide for quality
enhancements, when empirical evidence contradicts you no
matter where you look. You make the claim that in
capitalism cooperation is impeded, when capitalism uses
both the forces of cooperation and competition to provide
unprecedented bounty for those that seek it.
A sewer cleaner is paid roughly equal to to the value
society places on his services, as does the average burger
flipper and the computer programmer and the basketball
player. Are we going to start hearing about fantastical
self replicating sewer cleaning bots now?
|
|
|
Posted by:
stray pooch ®
06/13/2002, 23:28:42
Author Profile
Mail author
|
It has been said that "any man can be a father but it takes someone
special to be a dad." Well, I don't k now about that. It seems to me
that while any man can create a life, it takes a lot of courage to
take responsibility for that life. Dads get all the cool jobs.
Fathers get all the work. Dads get the good press. Fathers get a bum
rap. Being a dad is just plain fun. Being a father is sometimes no
fun at all. Yes, it takes a lot to be a dad. But it takes a even
more to be a father. For example:
A dad has great talks with his kids. A father gives his kid a
good talking to.
A dad shows up for the school play. A father shows up in the
principal's office.
A dad teaches his kids how to play baseball. A father teaches his
kids how to work.
A dad gives out allowances. A father gives out the chores.
A dad puts on his grubby clothes and plays with the kids. A
father puts on his good clothes and goes to work.
A dad tells his kids the silly things he did when he was a kid. A
father tells his kids he better never catch them doing those things.
A dad takes his kids for a walk in the woods. A father takes his
kids to the woodshed.
A dad buys his kids toys. A father puts a roof over their heads.
A dad talks to his sons about girls. A father talks to his sons
about responsibile sex.
A dad talks to his daughters about their boyfriends. A father
talks to boyfriends about his daughter.
A dad teaches his kid to build a hot rod. A father teaches his
kid to drive safely.
A dad dances at his daughter's wedding. A father foots the bill.
And if you think that's tough . . .
A dad gets his son into Scouting. A father gets his son into
rehab.
A dad comes up with ice cream money. A father comes up with bail
money.
A dad buys his daughter baby dolls. A father helps raise his
teenage daughter's baby.
A dad goes to the DMV for his son's driving test. A father goes
to the morgue to identify his son.
And what is the reward for all of this?
A dad gets hugs from his children . A father gets ignored.
A dad gets asked for advice by his children. A father gets told
to stay out of their lives.
A dad gets praised for being an involved parent. A father gets
told he's too controlling.
A dad gets called "the coolest dad on the planet!". A father gets
called a jerk.
Yes, it takes somebody special to be a dad. But it takes somebody
strong to be a father. It takes someone with the courage to speak up
when everybody says he should shut up. It takes someone who loves
his children, even when they hate him. It takes someone who can make
tough decisions, dole out discipline, and take charge when nobody
else will. He needs to be able to take responsibility without
getting credit, to invest his life in the lives of his children, and
to sacrifice what he has so that his children will have more. Most
of all it takes someone with the patience to wait, to work and to
love for all the many years it takes his kids to grow. Only then can
he see his children reap what he has sown. Then maybe, for all his
love, he can hear his children say:
"My dad was a great father."
Copyright 2002 - Straypooch
|
Memorial Day Sampler
Reply
|
|
|
Gany aka Tommy
Do you remember learning about "What to do in the event of a
Nuclear Attack" instruction? Hiding under desks while at
school? Bomb shelters in the back yard? Such novel things as
the Dooms Day Clock, which told how close we were to WWIII?
No, I am sure you are not. I do. I remember the days of the
"evil empire". I stood in the Fulda Gap in Germany, looking
over the border. There were fences. Tall fences of razor
wire, designed to be loose enough that if someone put his/her
fingers in them to try to climb over, they would close (like
scissors) and cut off the fingers. There were minefields.
There were armed guards...and guard towers. And all of these
were designed to keep the people of the Soviet Block in, not
NATO out. I know people who risked their lives to come over
to the West. This went on for over 25 years (remember the
wall only went up in the 60's). Hundreds died trying to come
to freedom.
Kennedy went to Berlin and said he was one of them (in
spirit). All of the other presidents (until Reagan) were too
busy for Berlin, but maintained a sizable force in Europe to
"Deter aggression". Then we had Reagan. He came into office
on the heals of Jimmy Carter, notably weak in almost every
area. His sole claim to fame was the Camp David Peace
Accords, bringing peace (which has lasted) between Egypt and
Isreal. Reagan, having lived through WWII and the Cold War,
stood in Berlin and told Gorby to "tear down this wall".
Reagan built up our military. He outspent, yes at the cost of
a deficit, the Soviets. But he laid the ground work for the
fall of the Soviet Union in 1990. And the wall came down. Go
look at an old map: most of central asia read "Soviet
Union". Now there are 11 different DEMOCRATIC countries, each
independent. And the best part of the whole cold war: there
were no shots fired in anger.
We are about to celebrate Memorial Day. We do this to honor
those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice in the defense of
this country. We do it so that we will remember that freedom
is not free. It is paid for at a cost. Sometimes the cost is
the very lives of those sent to fight. Sometimes the cost is
in money. But no matter what, there is a cost.
You complain about the $4T deficit. Remember that during ALL
(every single day) of the Reagan administration, the DEMOCRATS
were in charge of the Senate. At the hight of the Defense
buildup, it accounted for less than 10% of the total budget.
Yet welfare and other "entitlements" made up significantly
more. But you want to complain about the rich getting richer
and owning the world. Well guess what: the "rich" have
always "owned" the world...and always will. And the middle
class is alive and well. Just come down here to Central
Florida. Drive around. These homes are not owned by the
"rich".
You said: Boy this White House "foreign" policy crowd is
clever! Send shrub out to talk about anything at Pointe ad
Hoc! Can shrub talk out of both sides of his mouth at the same
time? Ich bin a shrub! Is our kids learning?
Just a note: Presidents make speaches. They get out and talk
about "stuff". I see Bush tieing the fight of the men at
Normandy, men from many countries, not just the US, with the
current "war on terrorism". He already alluded to it in
Berlin. He is going to make this "war" international in
response. And your "Is our kids learning?" comment: I hope
you were kidding here. But I wouldn't bet on it. The
answer: No. Our "kids" aren't learning about what freedom
means. They aren't learning about what it took for us to be
here today discussing it. They aren't learning about respect
for those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice, and those who
have stood on the border and said "you aren't coming over
here. Not on my watch." (note: Thanks Jack). They aren't
learning about how aggression was stopped in Europe...and
Korea. Instead they are learning things like gay rights,
birth control, and self esteme. They learn that if they don't
want to make anything of themselves, the government will do it
for them. They learn that the military is a nice thing to
have around, but they don't want to be part of it.
Gany..er...Tommy, you need to take a look around and thank the
likes of Reagan and Bush (Sr) for being willing to pay the
price for freedom. And Bush (the younger) for his willingness
to wage this "war". And I suppose that I should include
Clinton. Afterall, he did send our folks in to the Balkans to
deter aggression there.
Quit listening to Bagalla and Carvel and listen to reality.
Listen to history. Listen to the voices coming from those
rows of white crosses saying "Freedom isn't Free".
CPT
|
|
Posted by:
Plane_talker ®
05/25/2002, 23:57:38
Author Profile
Mail author
|
|
Original Message: Re:
Wise Words MLK |
| The other side of this exchangeable coin:
"By any means necessary...."
--Malcolm X |
Malcom X himself had more to say on this subject, he
returned from a stay in Mecca with another idea about power and
redemption. His new ideas were a portion of the explanation of his
killing .
Perhaps his new thinking began even before his trip to
Mecca, after all it was at about this time that Martin Luther King
Jr. was demonstrateing that nonviolence can be very persuasive and
effective. Perhaps if any means necessacery were to include
nonviolence it would be no contradiction at all?
What if Non - violence were MORE effective than violence
and what if non - violence were more difficult and required more
courage than violence?
Would "By any means necessacery " include being self
sacrificeing even if the offering of paitence and kindness were the
sacrifice? It might be easyer to lash out sometimes and it might
sometimes be less effective .
The Freedom Marchers were people who displayed
remarkable disapline .
|
Posted by:
domer10 ®
05/24/2002, 09:07:43
Author Profile
Mail author
|
A true
"citizen soldier" like so many of his generation, my father, a
veteran of the North African invasion, the early stages of the
Italian campaign, and the Japanese theatre, was wounded in a bombing
attack on his air base in the Burmese jungle. Here's to all the
brave men and women who have fought our wars over the years, to
those who were wounded, to those who died -- on Tarawa, on Bataan,
at Normandy, at Monte Cassino, at Inchon, at Hue and Khe Sanh, in
the Hindu Kush. In our gratitude we stand with you, forever strong.
Domer
|
Posted by:
mirstnkim ®
05/24/2002, 14:04:56
Author Profile
Mail author
|
As I sit
here thinking about the blessings I have in my life, I think about
those who lost so much because of their loss of life, mind, or loved
ones. I am humbled at times realizing that because of those who
serve this nation, die for this nation, I am able to have such
blessings.
There is none I respect more than our Military people. They go
into the service with the understanding that they may not come
back. They go knowing that they may have to make the ultimate
sacrifice for this nation. Make the sacrifice so that those who
want to rant about war, rant about the wrongs of this nation, can
have that freedom to do so.
I admit, there are times that I feel many Americans do not
deserve the benefits that these brave people fight for. Then I
become humbled because this great nation is the land of free, the
land of opportunity, and above all, the land where all can voice
their beliefs and opinions. And our military keep that a reality in
this land.
So, I just want to thank those who have given up so much for
freedoms, that we often times take for granted. Thank them for
their bravery, and thank those who died, giving us the freedoms we
cherish.
May God bless each and everyone of you, both present and past,
for the service you gave this great nation.
|
|
|
|
|
Re:
voucher plan |
_MissusDe
(46/F/Northern California) |
2/22/02 1:37 am |
|
well, bt's ideas work for me.
***eliminate the standardized tests as far as they are held
up against funding and teaching standards.
***devise a method(s) of spot checks that will reflect a
student's comprehension in the core subjects.
***create incentives for schools and individual teachers
whose scores prove them to be successful.
***offer tax breaks to companies who are willing to sponsor
public education in their communities by creating
partnerships with the schools; providing both money and
resources for core and accerlerated classes, as well as the
extracurricular programs, such as choir, band, drama, debate
- all educational venues that will help students later in
life.
i'm sure there are other ways and other 'fixes'. but to
answer your question, it is our clear duty to fix it. the
proof of that is in the phenomenon we have come to know as
'the dumbing down of America' - high school graduates who
have only a weak grasp of basic arithmetic and reading
skills. but we don't dare single them out as needing
remedial help. mom and dad wouldn't like that, would they?
education is standing on the edge of a weak and crumbling
precipice, in my opinion. the emphasis MUST be on teaching
our children...not in saving and/or creating jobs for
teachers and administrators. somewhere, somehow, the focus
shifted. and the bill is coming due.
|
|
|
|
|
Messages |
|
|
|
Re: Russian and French judges made deal? |
Mint_60
(42/F/South Carolina) |
2/13/02 12:26 pm |
|
I never thought I'd live to see the
day when a panel of biased judges would strip the
rightful winner of a contest of their title and award
the prize to the losing team....Oh well, any attempt to
right this wrong would obviously cause irreprable harm
to the Russian team...I suggest the Canadians stop
acting like a "bunch of crybabies" and "get over it"...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Messages |
|
|
|
Anti-Objectivism Basics |
_JSov
(28/M/Knoxville, TN) |
2/12/02 2:24 pm |
|
I'll try:
First, an objectivist only believes what sensory
perceptions can tell them and what can be logically
concluded from those perceptions. They hold this as
objective truth. First of all, that means that there are
NO mystical revelations...which means that Christianity,
Islam, Judaism, and a plethora of world religions are
all false and fake. Secondly, it presents certainty
where there is no certainty. There is an argument to be
made the the human mind is filled with abstract
conveniences that hold NO external value, if that is the
case then it flied into the face of objectivism.
Moreover, objectivism is really little more than ethical
egoism. In other words, everything you do should be in
your own self-interest, and by doing so you are serving
the interest of society at large. There can be no such
thing as altruism. No man should sacrifice himself for
the sake of others, nor others for the sake of himself.
Generally the latter is regarded as wrong, but the
former is regarded (at least by us westerners as
heroic). Did the firemen and policemen of New York City
not receive heroic status for sacrificng themselves to
save others? Is this not a flaw in Objectivist logic, or
were they being ridiculous?
"The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not
require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the
sacrifices of anyone to anyone. It holds that the
rational interests of men do not clash – that there is
no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the
unearned, who do not make sacrifices or accept them, who
deal with one another as traders, giving value for
value." - Ayn Rand
I suppose one could argue that the emergency workers of
New York were doing their jobs to earn their pay...but
you'd have difficulty proving that they took such heroic
actions to earn money.
Furthermore, ethical egoism completely ignores the
effect known as "the tragedy of the commons." Sometimes
if everyone is looking out for themselves, they might
endanger society as a whole (especially in the case of
scarce resources).
There are many critiques to Rand's ideas, and I will be
more than happy to go in depth if questions are raised.
Many of her problems stem from two facts
1. She wrote novels, not ethical treatises. We are not
dealing with Hegel here, it is not a well-developed
philosophical method...but mostly an implied
character-driven view.
2. She conflicts with herself. She raises ideas and
questions at one point and then refutes those ideas by
supporting different or conflicting views at a later
point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Messages |
|
|
|
|
does not dictate any behaviour
toward humanity. If it did, why do we still have wars,
homelessness, medically uninsured, big box stores
selling goods made by modern day slave labor? All a
belief in god shows is that you want to be perseived as
not shallow.
It is not belief but action that is the true indicator
of one's faith.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Messages |
|
|
|
Re: Making History Politically Correct. |
Janefinch
(49/F) |
1/16/02 8:13 pm |
|
Why would I? I don't give two shits
about the race of the staged photo, nor of the statue. I
think it's a great symbol. Period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Messages |
|
|
|
What about the Blue Light? |
dharkangell
(23/M/Somewhere on Earth) |
1/16/02 4:43 pm |
|
Enter the light of reason, the blue
light of reason.
If you've been following the recent financial news
you'll soon learn that K-Mart's stock is lower than the
blue light special on used toleit paper. In fact its so
low that employees at K-Mart have lost hundreds of
millions in the 401K plans.
The fall of K-Mart has been largely ignored,
surprisingly so, since K-mart employes over 10 times as
many people as Enron. K-mart has over 275,000 employees
and 2,100 stores across the country K-mart is big.
So why has so little coverage been given to the story?
Perhaps its because only certain bankruptcies deserve
the vaunted blue light of the media. Or put differently,
only some massive failures involve the blue light of
scandal.
K-mart's fall from success is as much a story of
mismanaged restructuring and corporate marketing
failures as anything else. More importantly despite
K-mart's size and the large stock losses in employee
401K plans no one can find an easy way to link Bush to
the bankruptcy.
Apparently there were no last minute calls from
creditors to the White House (creditor who also happen
to be former Treasury Sectaries.) No last minute begging
to save K-Mart from its humilating delisting from the
S&P 500.
Then there is also the excitement factor, with Enron we
have the mysterious machinations of high finance. Which
if you only listened to the evening news rank in
complexity somethwere between building a pyramid and
landing a man on the moon. K-Mart, on the other hand,
ranks outright on the mundane side. They couldn't
compete on price with the monolith from Arkansas,
Wal-Mart. How trivial, how boring, how utterly void of
scandalousness.
The fact is the debacle at Enron and the apparently
growing crisis at K-Mart (I personally think the
problems are being exagerated a bit) are similar. Both
involve poor managment of assets, though granted no one
at K-mart is being accused of fraudulent accounting
practices, that is really just another poor management
decision. One that is magnified at company like Enron
that depends enourmously on trust and relationships.
Perhaps if Bush had been from Michigan, or John Engler,
Michigan's current governor, were President then we
would be hearing about K-Martgate and the ties to the
Engler family. But well I suppose retailing just isn't
as exciting a field as oil derivaties exploration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Messages |
|
|
|
|
200,000 posts.
Mind boggling.
Something that started as an "idea" conjured up in IM's
between JayC and I...and then Chick and JSov..
......200,000 posts under its belt, and almost 2 years
of history. Unbelieveable. I'm proud of what we've done.
I hope for the return of my good friends, Mint, Riting...Ganny....y'all
come back....we miss you more than you'll ever know.
But I am proud we've survived, despite it all. We
haven't gone "private" like some other forums. (LOL)
Jay...you're a bonafide conservative fart. But I love
you, brother. Despite what I say in the heat of battle.
You're the best. I mean that with all my heart.
Everyone--Jill...G....Jane....Plum...Henny....Pete...CNYMark...Domer...Sir...BT....Rich....MIB....and
all the "new" guys...Pooch...Prince....Freak.....CPT....
A toast to all of you...and anyone I've missed. Even the
flamers. You're all a part of this.
Truly astounding. I'm serious. Take a look at our
"competition." Take a look at what we talk about. What
we accomplish in our debates. You'll soon appreciate
what we have here.
I sit back in wonder.
JK
|
|
|
|
|
|
Messages |
|
|
|
Re: Bush recession picks up steam |
universeprince
(M/U.S. of A.) |
1/14/02 3:14 pm |
|
antitelephonica said:
"Seek the responsible parties, not drop bombs on
children."
And you call breaking Al-Qaida and hunting down its
members what exactly?
"We've already killed more of Afghanistan's innocent
civilians with our 'smart' bombs than the terrorists
killed at the WTC."
Really? Do you have something of substance to back up
that claim?
"Surely you agree that's an absurd lesson to be teaching
our children: 'Violence is a great way to respond to
violence'."
[I'm going to piss off Brassmask here, but I can't
honestly say I that bothers me.] Actually, I think the
lesson is that when someone violently assaults you and
threatens further violence that retaliation in self-defence
is perfectly acceptable.
[And I'm going to piss off more people now, but again, I
don't care.] Have you seen the movie _High_Noon_? [That
clang I just heard is probably your mind shutting tight
closed, but think parable and humor me.] Will Kane, a
sheriff, just got married to a beautiful woman and is
ready to leave town, but then he gets news that Frank
Miller, an angry and evil person that Kane help put in
jail, is out of jail. Trying to round up help to stop
Miller from destroying the town and fulfilling his
promise to kill Kane, Kane gets no support whatever, not
even from his wife, because people want to avoid
violence. But Kane knows that not only will Miller
destroy the town (hence the repeated plea, "You know
what kind of man Frank Miller is."), but Miller will
track Kane and his wife down to kill them. So does Kane
run? No. Does Kane try to negotiate with Miller? No.
Kane stays and defends not only himself but the town.
Why? Because the alternative is unacceptable. And in the
end, Kane's Quaker wife even kills to defend her
husband. [Like I said, think parable and humor me.]
There are times for talking and words. No sane person
wants war or lethal violence. Call it honor, or
integrity, or probity, or foolishness if you wish, but
sometimes violence and the threat of violence has to be
met with strength and force.
"Instead of indiscriminately bombing civilians, we
should look at the root of what causes terrorism and aim
our focus at that."
We are not indiscriminately bombing civilians. And if we
focus on the root causes of terrorism, what then is the
appropriate action?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Messages |
|
|
|
Brass |
cptstrickland
(38/M/Oviedo FL (near Orlando)) |
1/14/02 2:02 pm |
|
Brass
You were doing well. You said that you were a bit over
the edge yesterday with the baby-killer...stuff. THEN
you come here and call people like me, Ertirk, Tony,
Pooch and I don't know how many more "poor saps".
First off, the statement that Tony made "<<You have to
have faith that our leaders know that the end will
justify the means.>>" was directed at the people serving
in the military. WE don't have the perogative of picking
and choosing which orders we obey. We must make a
decision if the order is legal. If it is, we are legally
and morally obligated to follow it through.
It is a shame that noone in your family is "proud" of
their service. I am. Pooch is. My father, who served in
Viet Nam is. You don't have to be on the "winning" side
to be proud. All you have to do is know that you did
your duty to the best of your ability. Since I don't
know any of the rest of your family, I shall not
comment. But I agree with Tony: I'll bet my paycheck
that they would not take kindly to being called
"baby-killers". I'll even bet that Ertirk would take
offense at that, and he's on YOUR side.
Here in the United States of America, we have a unique
freedom. It is called "Freedom of Speach". There are
limitations to that. There is this thing called "libel".
My dictionary defines LIBEL as a noun meaning
:1)defamation by written or printed matter, rather than
by spoken words; 2) the crime of publishing such matter.
We also have a thing called SLANDER. This is a noun that
means: a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or
report.
So, since I have neither killed any babies, nor am I a
"poor sap", I have been either libeled or slandered
(depending on if this forum is "spoken" or "written". So
have the other veterans here.
For some reason, I felt compelled to bury the hatchet
with you a couple days ago. I think we were discussing
robots and such. But this I can not let go. It is a
direct insult of me and the MILLIONS of Americans who
serve (and have served) this country with distinction.
We did not always like what we were told to do, but we
did it. And we have done it well...for nearly two and a
half centuries.
I shall not trade insults. I will not call names. I will
not make any threats. I shall simply sit here and wait
for the appology that you know you need to give, not to
me, but to ALL of the men and women who serve (and have
served).
CPT
Damn Proud Desert Storm and Cold War Veteran
Standing in the Door, waiting for the next call
|
|
|
|
|
|
Messages |
|
|
|
Re: THE BUSH RECOVERY WILL TOPPLE PEARLM |
victor_hmv
(44/M/Chicago area) |
12/31/01 1:12 am |
|
>>Anyway any extra money evaporates
in the economy anyway with it going to just the retail
levels and then fanning out to the places where the
products are made. It does not stay here flushing down
to many multilevels back to the raw products or the
farmland.
Nothing will work except bringing back real jobs for
real people and declare all jobs hi tech affording at
least a bare liveable wage for all. <<
Imagine you were to go to your local grocery store, and
the only things available for purchase were rotten and
spoiled fruits and vegetables at outrageous prices.
Would you feel obliged to purchase them and support the
merchant regardless, simply because the merchant was
local? I wouldn't either. But that is exactly what you
are proposing.
No one deserves my business simply because they were
born in the same country as I was. My business is to be
earned, by providing me with the best value possible for
my hard earned money. If American businesses are unable
to provide a value to their customers, they need to
revise their flawed business models and processes, not
enact protectionist legislation to protect them from the
consequences of their own incompetence. And if they
can't get their acts together, they deserve to fail.
This is the same nonsense I heard back in the 80's when
the Japanese started to take over the automotive
industry with superior products at better prices. I kept
hearing this "Buy American" rubbish on the pretext of
"saving the American auto industry". The American auto
industry didn't go under. Instead, they finally got off
of their butts and figured out how to deliver a decent
value to their customers.
Apparently you are willing to accept mediocrity as long
as it is American mediocrity. That is your privilege.
But I am no admirer of mediocrity; I aspire to the best,
regardless of it's origin.
While you have denied it, you have been damned as a
Socialist in this and other forums. I agree, you and Pat
Buchanan are not Socialists. But while your means may
differ, your ends a precisely the same. You propose to
sacrifice the competent to the incompetent, the best to
the mediocre, and the valuable to the worthless, all in
the name of the "the good of society". In what essential
manner is this any different than the ends of the
Socialists? In a word, it isn't. You both wish to reward
failure and penalize success.
This is the country of General Electric, Microsoft, IBM,
General Motors, Monsanto and AOL. We are the premier
industrial power of the western world. And we got that
way not by hiding from competition, but from meeting it.
The way to win in the marketplace is to provide the best
value to your customers, not throw tacks under the tires
of your competition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Messages |
|
|
|
Re: economy and arklineart |
btschmidt
(50/M/Cabin in the Woods) |
12/31/01 12:55 am |
|
Brass>> You don't have to think
about the economy any more than you have to think about
some catfish in the Mississippi River.
You got that part right. You don't need to worry about
what the stock market is doing if you don't own stock.
Who cares how many milions Gates has. You don't need to
worry about who is ahead of you or who is behind you.
You just need to worry about you and yours. If you feed
and clothe and shelter yours , and all your neighbors
did the same, what a wonderful world this would be.
So how are you going to take care of that one simple
obligation. Market whatever skills you have. If your
skills are lacking , improve them.
Invest in your future. Delay some gratification today,
so you won't have to work so hard when you are older.
Prepare and plan. If you want to help someone who has
fallen on hard times by all means do it. That's your
choice. That's the economics that count. That's the
power of one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Messages |
|
|
|
PIC New Year's Resolutions |
straypooch
(44/M/in the doghouse) |
12/31/01 1:21 pm |
|
"I will limit my posts to one per
day" - straypooch
"I will take the pins out of my Amianthus voodoo doll" -
terragazelle
"I will refrain from poking CPT in the chest" - PC
"I will remove my chest protector and clear my weapon" -
CPT
"Ok. Wait. I will limit myself to one post per TOPIC." -
straypooch
"I will admit I learned about the great conspiracy from
the voices that come from my next door neighbor's dog" -
Blarry
"Oh, and I'll make Major, dammit!" - CPT
"I will sublimate my desire to cyber-torture
conservatives into a nice floral arrangement hobby.
(snip, snip)" - JaneFinch
"I will get post #200000 and copyright it before Jay can
change it" - mirstnkim
"Alright, now really, I will limit myself to one post
per hour." - straypooch
"I will decide once and for all whether CPT or SirS is
the man-o'-my-dreams" - crystalee
"I'll do any damn thing I want, you jerks" - ertirk
"I'll get riled up enough to use "bad" words more than
once in a blue moon" - plumnyc
"I will stop renumbering the 0000 posts" - Jay
"How 'bout this? I will limit myself to one post per
minute." - straypooch
"I will stop snickering under my breath each time I type
'SOURCE?'" - Amianthus
"I will accept the reality of the Bambino curse and stop
cursing Steinbrenner's moneybags." - jkstraw
"I will invest in a better spell chick program" - br_shf
"I WILL STOP SPAMMING ABOUT BUSH" - howardpearlman
"I will expose you right-wing idiots for what you really
are - smarter than me." - dobberx
"OK. I got it. I will limit myself to one SUBSTANTIVE
post per day. ( I hope I can think of that many.)" -
straypooch
HAPPY NEW YEAR, PIC!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Messages |
|
|
|
Re: Question for plum |
victor_hmv
(44/M/Chicago area) |
12/8/01 2:04 pm |
|
>>I however question why else would
people want to play religious music in stores when there
is an abundance of secular seasonal music available.<<
I worked in retail for ten years, so I think I can
answer that. It has nothing to do with converting
anyone. In fact, a large portion of the managers and
board of directors at the chain I worked for were
Jewish, so I doubt they had much interest in converting
anyone to Christianity.
The department stores don't even pick the music. It is
leased from Muzak, Inc., who in turn develop their
programming by testing focus groups to find out what
music will appeal to *most* customers. The chain I
worked for broadcasted their music by satellite from a
central location. To the stores. To the warehouses. To
the corporate offices. Even if they'd had a store in
Baghdad, they would have got Xmas Carols. So you can
complain to the clerks and the managers all you want,
they can't do a damn thing about it, anyway.
I can assure you, if anyone hates canned Xmas music,
it's retail employees! I had to listen to the stuff from
Thanksgiving to New Years Day, 8-12 hours a day, for 10
years. I'm no fan. Still, if I go shopping in a retail
store, I recognize the music is for the benefit of their
*average* customer (and probably to annoy their
employees), and is not meant as a personal insult to me.
Truthfully though, as much as I hate Xmas Muzak, I'm a
lot sicker of listening to the whining of you McCarthys
of Grievance, looking for Offence under every bed. (Yes
Prince, I know I have a crappy attitude. After 10 years
in retail I've earned it.) If you really believe
retailers are playing Xmas Carols to convert you, you're
not paranoid, you just suffer from a ridiculously
inflated sense of your own importance. Nobody gives a
shit what you believe, least of all the retailers.
GAFL!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Messages |
|
|
|
Re: Statement for Ertirk |
freak5646 |
11/4/01 1:00 am |
|
maybe you haven't noticed, dipshit,
but this is a whole new kind of war. a large part of
this war is going to be fought by the people in uniform.
I think that, if your eyes and mind were open, you'd
find that one lesson that has been learned by MOST of
the people in this country, is that we support those in
uniform. period. we may well question those in three
piece suits who are giving the orders, but we
differentiate them from those following the orders. and
Sirs is about the last one in here for you to even
question his support for the military. this was a
painful lesson we learned as a nation, and one that we
don't need to repeat.
there is another, perhaps nearly as important, part of
this conflict which must be waged here at home. by those
of us NOT in uniform. the war here is a war to keep
terrorism from getting any validity. I'm not talking
about validity in the sense of approval, I'm talking
about validity in the sense of efficacy. We have to go
on with our lives. As Americans. As civilians. As
geologists, teachers, public safety workers, IT
directors, and physical therapists. If we significantly
alter our way of life, if we allow the terrorism to
change us, then we lose. because, and anyone who is
familiar with classical conditioning will recognize this
immediately, if we allow terrorism to control us, to
change us, then we have given the bastards what they
want.
so PC is doing what he can, and what he should. what the
fuck are you doing other than denigrating people and
being a crotchety old asshole?
Freak
|
|
|
|
|
|
Messages |
|
|
|
|
Seems like the "en vouge" think to
do these days in PIC is pick on Dobber. Not saying he
might not deserve it at times...but the funny thing
is....it's not entirely unreasonable, in the context of
a "politically incorrect" forum for one to make an
argument that the military draft is indeed, in some way,
analogous to forced servitude--slavery.
I probably wouldn't touch that argument, but he did, and
from where I sit, it seem to me like Dobber is now
"typecast" as the villiage idiot in this forum--ANYTHING
he says is taken with utter disdain and contempt. In
fact, I've even seen "Universeprince" warn other, NEW,
posters in here about Dobber beforehand, a practice I
don't particularly approve of. I find myself in rare
agreement with BT. Let the newbies figure it out for
themselves. We don't need the "stay away from X"
comments, particularly from people who are relative
newbies themselves.
Well...Freak DID fire the first volley with the "dumbass"
comment. Not surprising, or
But Dobber, if you're reading, Plum is right. Part of
the problem is your continual complaining about people
calling YOU names when you do it yourself, with great
enthusiasm. People usually don't give a shit who starts
it first when the flame war develops.
Anyway...I think if your argument is a comparison
between the military draft, and forced servitude, you
can still stay on message/topic while maintaining a
reasonable sense of decorum. "Name calling," I think, is
part of the great tradition of this forum. I always felt
that this ain't your grandma's forum--you have to have a
bit of a thick skin, Dobber, to participate in here.
So....you can see why the complaints of name calling
might not go over so well.
JK
|
|
|
|
|
|
Messages |
|
|
|
|
I don't care if you are getting
your talking points from Buchannon, Ross Perot or Ralph
Nadar. Your view of economics varies from that of Karl
Marx to Mercantialism.
There is no giant sucking sound to the south. Some jobs
went south, some came north. And a great many more were
created in industries that are being created or
developing now. The simple fact is that industries
change as technology and consumer demographics and
tastes change. Either change to meet the new demand
structure or become the contemporary version of the
'horse drawn buggy maker.'
You like to piss and moan about the shrinking sector of
agriculture and manufactuing in our economy as if that
is a bad thing. Pol Pot would have agreed with you, and
you are both wrong. The share of teh economy of the
farmer and the manufacturer shrank becuse their
productivity rose to the point they could free up people
to do other things, like maintain internet sites for
pissing and moaning. Research stem cells searching for
the amazing possibilities that may be developed.
One reason some jobs have gone overseas is the simple
fact that the per hour production does not create enough
value for the consumer to justify paying them 10, or 5
or in some case 1 dollar an hour. Yet in some places
that is a vast improvement from what they had, no job at
all. (How much would you pay someone to build those
stupid toys in a Happy Meal?)
If you want to consider the plight of the American
t-shirt maker when you buy a fucking hanes t-shirt, by
all means go find some poor out of work textile worker
and pay them, what $15.00 per hour to make t-shirts for
you. That is your right. It is not your right to force
me to do that, I have different priorities.
By the way where do you think the workforce comes from
for new and developing industries here? Could it be from
the ranks of the currently unemployeed? Or maybe from
the ranks of the currently employed who move on and
leave their position to the currently employed?
If you find a large enough voting block to enforce "fair
trade" (a euphamism for protectionism) you will lock us
into the economy we have now while you watch the free
trading world pass us by. The AMC Gremlin and the Ford
Pinto were the direct result of ''fair trade' practices.
The fact is there is a cost to progress, part of the
cost is the cost of maintaining a dynamic work force.
One that accepts change, one that prepairs to change
careers when the opportunity arises. The brief
dislodging of the workforce is a small cost to pay for
continued long run growth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Messages |
|
|
|
|
I'm not worried about being that
different from Jay, Dobber. He knows that I disagree
with him, but he and I are capable of mutual respect.
My problem is with YOU. You refuse to show respect to
anyone who disagrees with you on the issue of faith. You
are no better than Osama Bin Laden. You get that? Is
your tiny little turd of a mind capable of grasping the
connection? Bin Laden feels that anyone who believes
differently from him is wrong. Is beneath respect.
That's what makes him and people like you dangerous. You
don't have the basic respect for others that they
deserve.
On top of that, you don't seem to have any capacity for
assessing the subtleties of complex issues. There is
only ONE point where the PK argument, as I have
researched it-- with help from Jay and Henny (they know
that I have some respect for them and their faiths) --
where a real question comes in: why is the male the
leader by default?
Now. I don't like the answer that I have been given.
That is, that it is basically a faith thing. But guess
what? Faith is a voluntary thing. If the men who join or
support PK want to, it is their right. 1st amendment,
dobber, means freedom OF religion (and association),
just as it means freedom FROM religion. You don't want
to be the leader in your house? Fine. Don't join PK.
Your wife or any other woman not want to be "led" by
their man? Fine. Don't marry a PKer. In case you forgot,
this IS a free country. Last I checked, the PK people
had no legal authority to enforce their vision of a
proper marriage on the rest of us. If I have my way,
they never will. But neither will YOU have authority to
deny them their rights.
You see, well, you probably don't, but for the rest of
the class, it all comes down to mutual respect. This is
what makes America better than places like Afghanistan.
In Afghanistan, the people in power have no respect for
anyone who disagrees with them. They don't have to. They
didn't have great men like Thomas Jefferson before them.
We do. and We did. We the People have to have a little
mutual respect for each other and for the differing
beliefs and lacks thereof of others. That is why this
experiment in human society works so well. That is what
I think of EVERY TIME that I look at the Stars and
Stripes. That is the beautiful sight that I see every
time that it is raised, lowered, saluted, and burned.
And your stupid ass obviously can't see it. And that is
why I will continue to mock you and abuse you. Jay has
passed citizenship 101. You haven't. Show me that you
have the mental capacity to look Jay or me or Cardinal
O'Connor or a Rabbi or an Imam or a Guru or anyone else
whose religious views and the societal norms that they
derive therefrom differ from your the respect which is
necessary for the proper functioning of this country,
for the continuation of FREEDOM, as laid out for us, and
then I will stop flaming you. Until then, you better
keep your asbestos undies on, cause I got a blowtorch.
to go with my hammer. and my bell. and my song.
Freak
|
|
|
|
|
|
Messages |
|
|
|
|
"You have nothing to bury, no place
to weep, for those touched in that fashion, seriously --
how do you move on?"
By choosing to. By making the decision to.
A national grief process bears no real remarkable
difference from a personal one.
When you do not move through a grief process, you make
it part of your baggage, and that lends to neurotic
pathology.
In my opinion, when Bush declared the flags to full
staff, he signalled a time to put away the vestments of
grief, and to create a closure by establishing a ritual
burial. But the press, making hay, did not follow
through. Cronkite would have, but then Cronkite had a
sense of national destiny, and was not a slave to the
ratings game. The press has moved into a cloying
opportunism, wringing out inadvisiable mileage out of
the national tragedy. The press in this country have, at
times, played the part of the nation's chief enabler,
and like the codependent nature of a single
relationship, does so, ultimately, for its own gain.
We must move from grief to anger, and not let anger
subvert the grief, bury it.
Too long into a grief process begats a dishonest
sentimentality, which, when wallowed in, furthur
complicates the psyche. Some politicos are already
starting to capitalize on it. The press continues to
capitalize on it. The politicos may be playing for time
until the US retaliates, but the press presses for more
anecdotal amperage to goad remorse into sentimental
revelry and finally to collective but uncontrolled
outrage. The sensible segments of the press have begun
to realize the tangential ramifications--inflaming
Americans to vent on the innocent muslims and Americans
of Middle East, and have been producing spots calming
reminding Americans that killing the innocent hardly is
a congruent response.
It is time for a national funeral, created by the
President; he should ritualize it, make it encompassing
in a single ceremony, and call for moving on.
It is time to move on.
We are in eminant danger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Messages |
|
|
|
A
Day in the Life of PIC |
yukonbluewolf
(37/M/Brussels) |
9/9/01 5:48 am |
|
For those of you who have had a
life over the weekend and may not wish to read all
Saturday's posts I offer a concise snaphot of the 104
posts posted during that 24 hour period;
RC calls RIS a Retarded Insolent Shithead and a pansy.
JK tells RC to STFU and calls him a big idiot. Domer
calls JK pretty extreme, and JK tells him to lighten up.
Domer calls JK a prick. JK tells Domer he can stick his
tongue up RC's ass till he's blue in the face. Carlos
tells RC he's seriously delusional. Carlos tells JK he's
nuts and certifiable. JK again calls RC an idiot. RC
calls JK a wimp and a 'real tough guy'. He calls Plum
attractive, domer a nitwit, and questions JK's virility
and his interest in porno flicks. Anniesmomjill implies
RC is a mono neuroned idiot on drugs or alcohol. BT
titters [note to BT: try guffawing, it's more manly :)]
RC tells Jill she has a big bloated face and a very
large ass and is of questionable character. He calls JK
wimpy and a sissy who can't debate without holding
Jill's dress. He renews his claims that RIS is a
plagiarizer. He then says titties on Jill are as useless
as those on a boar.
In between the fighting and name calling Chicky posted a
quote, Missus D posted an interesting article,
Revolution till Victory posted a 5 page diatribe against
Israel which everyone will skip over, Kathasanga claimed
he or she was being microwaved to death by the US
government, and a debate broke out on SS funding.
However the debate was quickly quelled without serious
injury and normal fighting resumed.
Yukon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Messages |
|
|
|
Re: finally seeing the light |
beselfish
(35/M/FL.) |
8/22/01 4:39 pm |
|
Allright, things have gotten a
little outta control between us, unfortunately, and I
just wanna regroup for a second to try to deliver my
point.
I originally took issue with you, JK, on this thread
because of your seemingly overwhelming support of public
funding for science, namely the NIH. You have done a
very effective job in pointing out all the discoveries
resulting from the NIH research and no one can argue
that these things did result from the ingenuity of the
scientists and the funding. But the point that I have
been trying to make is that the results are not a good
thing. Not because I want sickness, pain and misery to
prevail in our country but because of the means by which
these discoveries were achieved.
To support your position you point to scientific
discoveries and the consistency with which they have
happened. You also indicate just how many people have
agreed with you throughout history. One might agree that
these are irrefutable. But the problem is, that to
conclude that the NIH has therefore been (and is) a good
thing requires that you completely drop the context
under which the NIH has operated. You forget that
supporting the the NIH and the funding requires
advocating the abrogation of rights in the name of
science. Do you honestly consider it possible to achieve
a "good" and effective ends via the expropriation of
property as a means toward that end?
The more you and others tout NIH operations the easier
it will be to continue to violate property rights in the
name of science or whatever the popular cause may be at
the time.
That is what I am trying to point out. That is why the
NIH and the funding mechanism as it currently exists is
not a good thing. Actually, come to think of it, I think
I may have already said something along these lines
previously. oh well, there you have it.
beselfish
|
|
|
|
|
|
Messages |
|
|
|
Re: Question (response) |
jkstraw_01 |
8/17/01 10:02 am |
|
Henny, I recognize hypocrisy when I
see it and I'll speak up about it when i see it. Don't
like it? Tough shit.
I can not remember a single report, in my 38 years, of
pro life activists organizing and demonstrating in front
of a fertility clinic over the issue of discarded
embryos. I have never read ONE post, in either this
forum, or the previous two incarnations of it, PIP and
C. Cafe, where ANYONE was as "morally outraged" about
the destruction of discarded embryos as they are the
destruction of them for the use of science.
When you discard an embryo, you're ending a potential
human life, right?
Some wanted to use THIS issue as a platform to push the
pro-life agenda...lol..and really, they came off with a
little egg on their faces because most of the country
agrees with me that stem-cell researchis pretty much a
no-brainer.
Look at Ricky, he's gone completely off his rocker
calling them "embryonic kids." Even the most
conservative approach will tell you that these embryos
are really not much more than a clump of cells with the
potential of human life. They don't have a conscience,
or sense of self. They aren't "people," in the sense
that a person who is born, is a person. They are cells
with the potential for human life.
And the ironic thing is, that Ricky and other
conservatives often accuse others of being "emotional."
Uh..excuse me...what is the term "embryonic kids,"
doing, if not infusing emotional rhetoric on the issue.
So..what I'm saying, is that if you're going to be
"morally outraged" over the taking of a "human life," or
in Ricky's silly example, an "Embryonic Kid,> (BTW..good
name for a band..."Embryonic Kids on the Block"??)....
how about a little friggin consistency in your argument.
A little honest and a little intellectual integrity.
It's a complicated issue. W. told as as much, and ya
know what...he's right. But it's much more convenient to
blame liberals, because that's what people like Ricky
NEED to do.
JK
|
|
|
|
|
|
Messages |
|
|
|
Morality in Public Life |
domer_10
(52/M/West Orange, NJ) |
8/15/01 4:29 pm |
|
I was somewhat dismayed at the
reception my gambit on the moral aspect of health care
in America received. Maybe some consider it too personal
a subject. Maybe others are uncomfortable with it for
other reasons. Maybe there is no available franca
lingua. But none of that changes the fact that morality
has to be at the very essence of a human being, of a
human society.
With much fanfare on this very issue, George W. Bush
took office with a promise of renewal. Despite his
efforts, much is left to be done in public discourse.
Morality extends far beyond the dalliances of an
ex-President, the philandering of members of Congress,
the outrage over abortion, the conundrums of stem cell
research, the involvement of religion and its values in
publicly-funded charity. Far beyond. And it is a proper
topic for public discussion.
On the heels of the health care discussion, I will
emphasize social justice, distributive justice. It is a
problem as old as man, and just as intractable. In my
(lapsed) religious tradition, I could endorse
wholeheartedly, for example, the American Catholic
Bishops' statements on the matter over the years, in
which they argue for a very broad sweep indeed of
measures to fill basic needs (such as health care and
education, for example), to guarantees of adequate
clothing, food and shelter, and on to real and fair
economic opportunities.
It's a complicated matter why these matters are not at
the forefront of public consciousness. But I will assign
partial blame to the politics of the day -- and even to
the fast-paced culture (leaving aside other epithets)
that seems to emphasize the wrong things.
Can Bush bring himself to heed the bishops on social
justice as he apparently did the Pope on stem cell
research?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Messages |
|
|
|
|
First its not 'my limited worldview' it
is the worldview of countless philosphers and economists and
Noble Laurates. I wish I could claim original credit for
most my philosophies and ideas, but I cannot. The influence
of others is apparent to anyone well eduacted enough to have
read Smith, Locke, Rand, Clauswitz and others.
"Passion has its rightful place in political discourse."
That includes the death penalty, the burning of witches,
racial segragation, slavery, racism, communism, nationalism,
the list is endless. Emotions are too easy to manipulate to
allow for sound decisions. It amazes me how quickly you
forget Nazi Germany, the Jim Crow laws. No rational person
or though process could support such atrocities, but
emotions can be stretched, people infuriated and arguments
based on illogical fallicies presented to create passionate
appeal.
The sense of being right is too often corrupted by our own
personal desires and influences to be trusted completely.
Mankind can, in all likelihood, never free itself completely
of this habit, nor do I advocate that it should. However
society must refrain from endorsing the emotional persuasion
lest it result in another great tradgedy or holocaust.
Our government and our founders wether by accident or
purpose realized the role of emotions and what passions play
out among the populace. They seem to have realized how
easily the populace can be 'whipped into a furor' over
trivial matters only to later regret their foolish and
emotional decisions. That is our Republic establishes a slow
and methodical process of legislation. It is our
counterweight to the often reckless passion that can be
displayed by members of all political and philosphical
persuasions.
|
|
|
|
|
Messages |
|
|
|
Re: Fetus signs banned |
cptstrickland
(37/M/Oviedo FL (near Orlando)) |
8/12/01 10:45 pm |
|
Xenorg said: so there should be no
legal difference between denying this women the right to
abort her child than to amputate her arm if it were
gangrenous.
I am merely an army truck driver. I am not a doctor. But
correct me if I am wrong: wouldn't a "gangrenous" arm
potentially harm, if not kill, the person? So the
removal of the arm is done to protect the life of the
person. The removal of the baby is not (in many, if not
most cases) done to protect the mother. It is done all
too often to remove an "inconvienance". But a BABY is
not an inconvienance. It is a life. The mere fact that
it is not able to survive outside of the mother does not
make it non-living. A baby is not able to live outside
of the mother. The mother (or a substitute) must feed
the child or it will die. What is the difference? Life
is life.
The bigger problem is that there are too many people who
have decided that right and wrong are arbitrary. "What
is right for me may not be right for you". "I have to do
what I feel is best." Well, that is just an attempt to
justify something. "He was rich so I stole it from him.
He will never miss it." When we try to justify something
that we do, but we know it is wrong, we are denying the
truth. And the truth is that abortion is taking the life
of an innocent being without regards to the life itself.
I still find it amazing how two women can go to the same
doctor on the same day and be told that they are
pregnant. One is overjoyed because they are "having a
baby" while the other seeks ways to have this "tissue"
or "fetus" removed. Kind of like parents: MY son was the
captain of the football team. YOUR son wrecked the car.
We attempt to pick and choose. We call things by other
names so that they won't sound as bad. We "fudge" on our
taxes, not lie. We "borrow" things from the office to
take home, not steal. We "use every means available",
not cheat. It doesn't matter what we call it, it is
still wrong.
A baby is like a gangrenous arm. Now I have heard
everything.
CPT
|
|
|
|
|
|
Messages |
|
|
|
Re: PK: practical application |
CnyMark |
8/11/01 8:16 am |
|
Have to somewhat disagree Gretch.
Learning patience, what it actually means and brings
with it, comes out of cause and effect, and to a GREAT
deal, that's lost today.
Cause and effect, not to mention accountability.
Regardless of what you do in life, one way or another,
you pay your "dues". No matter what you carry as
educational tools/ credentials, you have to start at the
base to learn. People today don't understand that.
You also have to be willing to accept responsibility for
your mistakes (most often our greatest teachers). People
don't want to do that, and they particularly don't want
to accept the various forms of penalty that come with
those mistakes.
It's a "no-fault" society, and we're suffering greatly
because of it. Patience is important, but what
"patience" is, how it pays off and it's ultimate value
can only be learned through perspective, and that
involves acknowledging, taking responsibility for and
learning from both the "good" and "bad" in ones life
(whether coincidental or self-made) AND for all the
various shadings in between.
Life isn't easy. Marriage in particular isn't easy.
And it shouldn't be easy. That's where the values and
value comes in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Messages |
|
|
|
Individual Gun Ownership |
freak5646 |
7/21/01 8:12 pm |
|
This is why I support individual
gun ownership.
Let me set the table first: I don't think that many
people in this country are mature and ethical enough to
carry firearms. You want to test my theory? Fine. Pay
attention to the people around you the next time that
you are out on the highway. They are swerving in and out
of lanes, heedless of their own or YOUR safety. They are
talking on cellphones, gesticulating with both hands.
They are eating. They are reading. Some of them are
drunk. The vast majority of them, in sum, are showing a
lack of judgement and maturity involving the proper
operation of a device not designed to be lethal but
lethal nonetheless. Now ask yourself, do you really
think that they are going to do better with a gun? If
so, then you are naive.
However, gun ownership, by the individual, was the
intention of the Founding Fathers. Their desire for the
populace to represent a threat to the established
government was clear. Read the Federalist Papers. Read
the private correspondence. I have. There is little
doubt to be had that they envisioned an armed populace.
I assume that they also assumed a responsible populace,
which I don't think that we have, but they never
mentioned or set up safeguards to prevent the possession
of firearms by those that plague us today. Would they
object to our current standards of no felons and no one
with a history of mental illness? No. Would they support
a system that kept firearms out of the hands of those
that "might" present a danger? No. Freedom, which they
valued above most anything else, is not easy. They knew
it then and they expected that those who followed them
would know it. Freedom, in this instance, means that we,
as a country, have to deal with the dangers of firearms
as a consequence of their idea of protecting society
from oppressive government. Do I think that we are
looking at a civil war, or a popular uprising? No. Do I
think that one would be feasible or winnable? No. Change
in this country must come from the ballot box. However,
the Founding Fathers' vision was one of an armed
populace.
Why is their intent so important to me? Because it is
their intent, from their public and private writings,
which tells me that the 1st Amendment included freedom
from religion. "No man shall be burdened" and "wall of
separation between church and state" are the words of
Thomas Jefferson describing the system that he
envisioned. "Pride and indolence in the clergy,
ignorance and servility in the laity; in both
superstition, bigotry and persecution" are the words of
James Madison describing the alternative.
In both cases, freedom is not easy. Responsible gun
ownership starts at home. Parents, not the government,
must teach their children how to handle, or not handle,
guns. Religion starts at home. Religion must survive or
die without the intervention of the government. It
cannot reasonably be denied that the Founding Fathers
expected the individual to be responsible. It cannot
reasonably be denied that they envisioned a limited
government. It cannot be denied that they planned a
system to be maintained by the people. The freedoms set
forth are to be protected by the people. Each of these
freedoms comes with responsibility, though. Each comes
at a price.
Freak
|
|
|
|
|
|
Messages |
|
|
|
Re: The Liberal/Progressive 20th Century |
justhavinfun_now
(35/M/Moscow, Idaho) |
7/19/01 5:15 pm |
|
You do not understand the great
depression; it was not runaway capitalism. There was a
global recession exacerbated by a contractionary
monetary policy implemented by the federal reserve. Once
the contractionary monetary policy was implemented banks
began to fail. People lost faith in the banking system
resulting in a run on banks causing many to fail. Stocks
were sold off to acquire liquidity of assets for
individuals who no longer had cash reserves in the
banks. An anomaly in the weather system for the ‘dust
bowl states coincidentally occurred. A drought wiped out
many of the crops in the Midwest states. A large number
of the nation had been employed in the agriculture and
farming sector, when the crops failed they were forced
into the labor market which was already overflowing with
those people forced out of work when banks closed, loans
were no longer being made and the manufacturing sector
was in a state of decline.
Your much-vaunted socialist program, the New Deal,
provided a little fiscal stimulus, but if you look you
will see the fiscal stimulus leveled out without
bringing the nation out of the depression. In fact the
budgetery problems of continued finance of the New Deal
coupled with little if any actual production changes
foretold of a coming economic collapse absent any other
changes.
WWII started and the military industrial sector needed
to feed the war mechanism provided a further boost to
the economy. Millions of people were removed from the
labor market as they went overseas to combat the
fascists and nazi’s. The economy picked up further at
that point.
When the war ended many did not return. Still a large
number were placed back in the labor market, but many
women left to raise families. A renewed faith in oneself
returned, we could beat back the nazi’s and fascists so
we could definitely overcome a simple little economic
problem. (Ever hear of consumer confidence?) The
increased national self confidence couple with the
stimulatory effect of fighting a war and the
technological developements during the wartime period
brought us out of the rest of the way out of the
depression. The federal reserve eventually reversed the
contractionary monetary policy and claimed credit for
ending the depression they had actually exacerbated (or
created depending on who you ask).
That’s the cliff notes, if you want more detail I
suggest you do some reading.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Messages |
|
|
|
|
<<funny how we talk about this
issue too much except when rich finds what he considers
to be a juicy bit of antigay ammunition.>>
Sure everyone's going to happily bring up a subject when
they think they've stumbled across evidence that backs
them up, but why should this be about Rich? I think the
article itself was unbiased enough to be reasonable, and
the point is accurate. If we twist research to support
our pre-existing beliefs, we get nowhere. I'm sure the
dittoheads will have a fieldday with this, but only
because they're adopting the same tactics that they
gleefully accuse liberals of using: selective valuation
of the results. I found this passage particularly
interesting:
"Researchers, they say, ought to be honest about their
personal convictions and let the political chips fall
where they may. Stacey and Biblarz admit in their own
review that they believe in a "diverse" and
"pluralistic" family structure that does not
discriminate against same-sex households. Any
differences found in research on children do not
necessarily constitute "deficits," they say, and ought
to be acknowledged and studied more thoroughly."
This had occured to me earlier in the article, as most
of the differences seemed to me to be advantages. The
data suggested to me kids who were actually more healthy
and open, and less afraid of sacrificing the love of
their parents by being honest about themselves. To brush
these differences under the rug helps noone. I can't
help but put in one more quote:
"David Murray of the Washington-based Statistical
Assessment Service and co-author of It Ain’t Necessarily
So: How Media Make and Unmake the Scientific Picture of
Reality, agrees that most of the research on homosexual
parenting is politically contaminated. He blames it on a
fear of "arousing the dog chained on the left side and
arousing the cat chained on the right side" of the
political spectrum."
Simply because everyone knows that all Republicans hate
cats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Messages |
|
|
|
|
>so what it really, as almost
always comes down to is simple dislike of the content.<
No - that's not what I said as you claim in your
deconstruction of my post. Programs like Nova are the
standard argument used by the leftist-liberals to
justify public funding for such propaganda media outlets
such as PBS. If the topics are worth exploring, they
could by produced quite nicely in the private sector -
but I would rather see NOTHING produced with public
money, then have it be used to promote political causes
of any sort.
The public high school authorities of San Diego took
this approach: rather than allow the student formation
of a Christian study group and use of the school's
property after school - as the SCOTUS has ruled they
must - they disbanded ALL existing clubs and ALL after
school property use - including their own various
multicultural/diversity clubs. Of course, this story
wasn't reported in any paper or media outlet outside of
San Diego.
There's no provision anywhere in the constitution that
says the Federal gov't should be funding ART - or for
that matter, a myriad of other things. The fact is that
whenever the gov't gets into the business of funding art
(and in this case the Humanities), the purpose behind
the effort is essentially political in nature or becomes
so. Leni Riefenstahl and Sergie Eisenstein may have
taken the documentary and cinematography to new heights,
but the message behind their work was to promote the
regimes of the dictators who were paying them. Both
developed second thoughts about what they were doing and
when Eisenstein produced a piece on Ivan the Terrible
that Stalin recognized as himself, he would have been
murdered like countless others had he not died of
natural causes. Leni fell out of favor with Hitler for
similar reasons.
As to your references to 'governments' and 'central
authority' to describe the funding sources of
Renaissance art, no amount of historical revision is
going to change the fact that the funding for art was
essentially private, commercial or otherwise subject to
public approval via the market place. Art was not
promoted to offend prevailing mores as Federal
bureaucrats with a political agenda, who are incredibly
insulated from the political process, are allowed to do.
At the moment, YOU don't mind what the public money is
funding because you support the agenda that it is
promoting. But if it was promoting an agenda YOU might
find offensive, it would be quite another matter.
See
http://www.WorldNetDaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23208
The funding of 'Art' that attacks the culture and
enrages major segments of the population is a form of
barbarism unleashed and those that permit it, promote it
and it are the New Barbarians. Rather than defend this
politically motivated degeneracy 'for the sake of ART',
perhaps you should reflect on its message, what it
promotes, denigrates and where it may eventually lead
because in defending it, you are complicit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Messages |
|
|
|
|
<<funny how we talk about this
issue too much except when rich finds what he considers
to be a juicy bit of antigay ammunition.>>
Sure everyone's going to happily bring up a subject when
they think they've stumbled across evidence that backs
them up, but why should this be about Rich? I think the
article itself was unbiased enough to be reasonable, and
the point is accurate. If we twist research to support
our pre-existing beliefs, we get nowhere. I'm sure the
dittoheads will have a fieldday with this, but only
because they're adopting the same tactics that they
gleefully accuse liberals of using: selective valuation
of the results. I found this passage particularly
interesting:
"Researchers, they say, ought to be honest about their
personal convictions and let the political chips fall
where they may. Stacey and Biblarz admit in their own
review that they believe in a "diverse" and
"pluralistic" family structure that does not
discriminate against same-sex households. Any
differences found in research on children do not
necessarily constitute "deficits," they say, and ought
to be acknowledged and studied more thoroughly."
This had occured to me earlier in the article, as most
of the differences seemed to me to be advantages. The
data suggested to me kids who were actually more healthy
and open, and less afraid of sacrificing the love of
their parents by being honest about themselves. To brush
these differences under the rug helps noone. I can't
help but put in one more quote:
"David Murray of the Washington-based Statistical
Assessment Service and co-author of It Ain’t Necessarily
So: How Media Make and Unmake the Scientific Picture of
Reality, agrees that most of the research on homosexual
parenting is politically contaminated. He blames it on a
fear of "arousing the dog chained on the left side and
arousing the cat chained on the right side" of the
political spectrum."
Simply because everyone knows that all Republicans hate
cats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Messages |
|
|
|
|
>so what it really, as almost
always comes down to is simple dislike of the content.<
No - that's not what I said as you claim in your
deconstruction of my post. Programs like Nova are the
standard argument used by the leftist-liberals to
justify public funding for such propaganda media outlets
such as PBS. If the topics are worth exploring, they
could by produced quite nicely in the private sector -
but I would rather see NOTHING produced with public
money, then have it be used to promote political causes
of any sort.
The public high school authorities of San Diego took
this approach: rather than allow the student formation
of a Christian study group and use of the school's
property after school - as the SCOTUS has ruled they
must - they disbanded ALL existing clubs and ALL after
school property use - including their own various
multicultural/diversity clubs. Of course, this story
wasn't reported in any paper or media outlet outside of
San Diego.
There's no provision anywhere in the constitution that
says the Federal gov't should be funding ART - or for
that matter, a myriad of other things. The fact is that
whenever the gov't gets into the business of funding art
(and in this case the Humanities), the purpose behind
the effort is essentially political in nature or becomes
so. Leni Riefenstahl and Sergie Eisenstein may have
taken the documentary and cinematography to new heights,
but the message behind their work was to promote the
regimes of the dictators who were paying them. Both
developed second thoughts about what they were doing and
when Eisenstein produced a piece on Ivan the Terrible
that Stalin recognized as himself, he would have been
murdered like countless others had he not died of
natural causes. Leni fell out of favor with Hitler for
similar reasons.
As to your references to 'governments' and 'central
authority' to describe the funding sources of
Renaissance art, no amount of historical revision is
going to change the fact that the funding for art was
essentially private, commercial or otherwise subject to
public approval via the market place. Art was not
promoted to offend prevailing mores as Federal
bureaucrats with a political agenda, who are incredibly
insulated from the political process, are allowed to do.
At the moment, YOU don't mind what the public money is
funding because you support the agenda that it is
promoting. But if it was promoting an agenda YOU might
find offensive, it would be quite another matter.
See
http://www.WorldNetDaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23208
The funding of 'Art' that attacks the culture and
enrages major segments of the population is a form of
barbarism unleashed and those that permit it, promote it
and it are the New Barbarians. Rather than defend this
politically motivated degeneracy 'for the sake of ART',
perhaps you should reflect on its message, what it
promotes, denigrates and where it may eventually lead
because in defending it, you are complicit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Messages |
|
|
|
|
"Criticizing people you disagree
with is easy. Telling your friends they are wrong is the
challenge." - Mint_60
"it takes a lot of fortitude to hold a position steady
and not respond when you are being flamed. some of us
react by ignoring, others by trying to outflame them
back - and others by just staying out of it" - _missusde
"Something to consider here....instead of all this other
nonsense, we should focus our considerable talents on
getting Yahoo to fix this freaking post 41 problem...."
- Richpo64
"One thing, most predominately, that he has not failed
in is his adroit prediletions to utilize enablers to
furthur his protagonist's part in this narcississtic
opera." - Yellow_crane
"We have some liberals blaming conservatives for what
they perceive as the declining quality of this forum,
and we also have some conservatives blaming liberals for
what they perceive as the declining quality of this
forum. This says to me that if the club truly has
declined in quality, then we are all to blame." -
plumnyc
"the best position to take is the one that shows the
other person for who they are. in this case, ignoring
would do that. it turns into a little sideshow, watching
someone go off, ranting and raving, and seeing them
realize that no one is paying attention!!" - _missusde
"In the year (almost) that I have been visiting this
club, I have found it to be....interesting. Adictive...
Annoying.... but mostly informative. This is a place
where anyone can come in and give their opinion without
having to worry about retribution or anything from
anyone what actually makes a difference." -
cptstrickland
"We had a bad couple of days. It happens from time to
time in here. Lots of strong wills and personalities in
this forum. We'll get past it. We'll recover. Things
will be back to "normal."
You think this is our first trip down this road?
We should be so lucky...." - jkstraw_01
"John Travolta Sucks! I have no idea if you like him or
not, I really haven't paid much attention to his acting,
but I thought a debate over the acting abilities of some
celeb would be more exciting than the last two days." -
justhavinfun_now
"Finally, just a few words of advice:
Don't take any of this seriously: Noone else is.
Don't use profanity. Ever. There is no need for it.
Ever. Don't attack a person. If you don't believe what
they are saying is true, discredit the post. Don't
attack someones beliefs. Don't try to force yours on
someone. Remember that there are sometimes children and
young people reading this forum. Lets make life easier
for their parents by not teaching any new words.
Finally, if you don't like what is being said, don't
read it!!!" - cptstrickland
|
|
|
|
|
|
Messages |
|
|
|
Re: Supreme Court travesty |
plumnyc
(37/F/New York, NY) |
5/31/01 4:13 pm |
|
For someone who allegedly doesn't
care what other people believe, you sure have a funny
way of showing it. An entire post dedicated to showing
how belief in G_d is akin to a belief in Santa Claus and
the Easter Bunny seems a lot like caring to me. Maybe
I'm wrong, but why even bring it up if you truly don't
care? I also don't care what other people believe as
long as they don't try to shove it down my throat, etc.
That goes for atheists as well as members of other
religions. I must say, though, that I classify being
basically called a fool for believing in G_d to be a way
of trying to shove atheism down my throat. Even if that
isn't your intention, it comes across that way. Leave
off, please. I promise not to judge you for your
atheistic views. All I really care about are people's
actions anyway. Judge people on their actions, not their
beliefs. That's what my religion teaches. I think a few
atheists might want to consider that as well. After all,
it doesn't require a belief in G_d to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Messages |
|
|
|
|
I apply the "local paper" standard
to the coverage of presidential kids. That is -- if it
would get written up in your local, small town paper if
the person was Joe or Jane Doe, then cover it. If not,
leave it alone. Our local paper prints all the police
activity and includes the names of the kids busted at
high school beer parties, DUIs, disorderly conduct, etc.
etc. etc. If it works for the kids at South Side High,
it works for Chelsea, Jenna, etc.
However -- I don't want you to cover who someone is
dating, if they spent the night at a frat house, ace a
class or flunk a class, etc. I don't care if they drop
out of school, join the circus, ace a class, etc. I
don't care if the child of a pro-life politician has an
abortion. Jane Doe wouldn't make the papers for that and
the fact that you come from a public family should not
intrude on the constitutional basis for Roe v. Wade --
privacy.
Were I Jenna's mom, I would be concerned and I am sure
that Mrs. Bush is. This last incident goes beyond campus
keggers to using a fake ID at a restaurant and by even
conservative accounts, gettng a bit belligerent when not
served. However, that is a family concern, not mine.
I am reminded of JFK Jr. and having his bar exam
failures broadcast nationally (one of the NY tabloids
had a "The Stud is a Dud" headline. I felt so sorry for
the kid, no one should have had that broadcast.
Honestly, is it news if someone flunks the bar exam?
Wouldn't have made my local paper. Try the "local paper"
standard -- it works.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Messages |
|
|
|
Re: Latest Insanity From College Lesbian |
henny_2010
(30/F/Ann Arbor Area, Michigan) |
5/28/01 9:05 pm |
|
<<Say it anyway Henny. That's what
this club is about.>>
LOL... it is. But sometimes it takes some mental
preparation to get into something like this. Especially
when this is based on opinion and opinion more than
research (although I'm sure that there is some highly
controversial studies out there to support any view you
want to take on feminism.)
***IMHO***
The feminist movement, while it did have good in it
(such as helping women who had to be in the workplace),
caused a LOT of problems.
The very basis of the good, healthy relationship between
a man and a woman has been shattered. The prevalance of
divorce is but one indicator of what has happened.
There used to be clear cut, defined roles for men and
women. We all know what those rolls were. That's not to
say that women should have been or should now be
considered stupid or incapable.
But now we have women who are trying to do everything -
be a wife and mother, plus have a career - and often it
is the marriage that suffers. That leaves the men who
are generally not allowed to be ANYTHING without a woman
screaming at him (either vocally OR by her actions) that
he isn't needed, that they are "equals". Not everything
is equal - each gender has specific capabilities and
traits that they excel at over the other!
This is perpetuated by groups, such as those who support
the vagina monologues/lollipops, with a constant
ridicule and degradation of men. It isn't so much *what*
they are saying over and over - that is old news. It is
WHO they are saying it to - college girls - and creating
another generation of hardcore feminists who carry
(either knowingly or not) this into their relationships
with men.
This is one of the hardest things to put into words. But
I feel very strongly that every relationship I've ever
had has been affected by the fallout of the feminist
movement. And I get really SICK of men saying - before
they even know me - "if you want equal rights, then you
should ______________."
First, I believe that when men say these things, they
are defending themselves against what is constantly
thrown up in their faces. I can't blame them for that!
But, I never said I wanted "equal" rights. I am
traditional at heart - in fact most hardcore feminists
would think me unmotivated or mentally affected. When I
was a kid and people would ask "what do you want to be
when you grow up?" My instant answer was "A wife and a
mother". And I sure didn't mean the kind that works 60
hours a week. I don't think I was even in high school
before I realized that an answer like that caused
nothing but problems and ridicule for me.
IMHO!!!
Henny
|
|
|
|
|
|
Messages |
|
|
|
Re: Good News for Gore supporters |
JayC28
(30/M/Ormond Beach, FL) |
5/26/01 2:40 pm |
|
>> I don't know what you mean by
Gore losing the election. He didn't lose it, Bush
magaged to get in to the White House by default,
mistakes, law suits, and butterfly debacles....not by
WINNING an election.
George Bush won 30 states which gave him 270 electoral
votes. HE WON. Not matter how many times people such as
yourself continue to live in denial, Bush won.
>> Maybe you missed the news reports about how of the
thousands upon thousands of voters were purged from the
voter rolls in Florida claiming they were felons thanks
to Kath. Harris .
Yes and anybody who was mistakenly identified as a felon
was given ample opportunity to correct the situation. It
was not like people were showing at the polls and being
turned away. This is not the first time a misake like
this has happened. It's only because the election was so
close that it became something that actually got more
attention. Also, there is no evidence that the company
who did the cross-checking of names, Database
Technologies is a Republica firm so give that nonsense a
rest.
You're one of the many people who believe that Katherine
Harris and Jeb Bush had some insight into the fact that
the election was going to that close in Florida so they
set out on some plot to somehow prevent a few thousand
people from voting, thereby giving the election to Bush.
It's a bunch of crap being perpetrated by sore losers.
As for the military ballots, you're ramblings are
nothing more than left wing conspiracy nonsense. There
was NEVER any evidence to support your ridiculous
accusation.
>> If you want more details on all this go to
http://www.gregpalast.com for the American
journalist that has been one of the leaders in
uncovering many things that REALLY took place in Florida
and Tennesee.
Well I picked up a copy of Bill Sammon's "At Any Cost :
How Al Gore Tried to Steal the Election" and it reveals
a LOT of things that were never reported by the
supposedly 'right wing media' (lol....God is that a
laugh or what?). Take a look.
Gore lost. I know this is cliche already, but deal with
it. His political career is over. He should enjoy
working in the private sector (for once) and just kick
back and relax because the third time is NOT going to be
the charm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Messages |
|
|
|
Yo
liberals, be generous |
rc_roma
(M/Palm Beach, FL) |
5/26/01 1:31 am |
|
While taxpayers are being literally
stripped of their money by the government via legalized
extortion, generous Americans like me are sharing their
personal economic earnings with others-- voluntarily.
The United States of America has had a fine history of
charitable giving unmatched by any other country, in my
judgement, in the history of the world. Some think that
it was the outreach of our settlers, who had rich
religious philosophies that proceeded to share the
wealth to seduce a new continent. But whatever the
beginnings of the practice, the good deed is
growing...big time.
Although much of the charitable giving in the U.S. can’t
be measured, it can be showed that in the year 2000 it
was an all time high! Personally I give my money to
diabetes causes and to the Boy’s and Girl’s club of Palm
Beach. I was stunned to see that in the year 2000,
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/abc/20010523/ts/philanthropy010523_1.html
$203 billion in gifts were reported by causes, an
increase of almost 7% from the previous year.
But what can’t be measured is that the money is coming
from all ranges of the American people. Some of the
poorest people as well as billionaires all contributed
their hard earned money to causes and charities of their
own choosing. And that’s something to think
about...liberals.
And that's the second midnight memo. You got lucky. I
felt like writing. I'm Its. Thanks for reading.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Messages |
|
|
|
Re: Redefining 'moderates' |
sirsebastopol
(M/Northern CA) |
5/26/01 1:19 am |
|
Following such a well articulated
piece, posted by Miss Repub, all I can add to that is
the recent rash of the media, Deomcrat pundits, and
political liberals trying SOOO hard to redefine what it
is to be "moderate" in the political arena, obviously
using the recent Jeffords bolt, to do so. Mr. Jeffords
was GOP in name only.
Going back to my premise of "actions dictating what 'is'
is", I thought Senator Jeffords was quite clear, and
HONEST in his reasons for leaving the GOP. He felt it
harder and harder to support policies that he so
disagreed with, even if he voted for some of them. He
demonstrated obious liberal policies/proposals towards
tax relief, education, abortion, just to name a few.
When Clinton was signing/vetoing, he didn't have to
worry about voting against the many GOP bills prduced by
then controlled GOP Senate, due to the likelyhood of a
Clinton veto. BUT NOW, with a Conservative as the
President, it was MUCH more likely that he'd "stick out
like a sore thumb", voting against measures that would
likely be signed into law. + he's able to head his
coveted committee, by switching at this time, at least
in theory.
All the while, through all his actions, of obvious
liberal thought process, "the masses" are trying to
convince everyone that he's a "moderate", and that he
simply left a "very conservative party" (which even if
it were true, I wouldn't have much of a problem with
it).
Nice try guys, but it won't wash. Jeffords is a liberal,
as demonstrated by his actions and voting record, not to
mention the obvious plausibility of him needing to drop
the "R" if he wants to get elected as Vermont Governor,
in the future.
Funny though, how well he hid his "concerns" the entire
time he supported Bush's election, as well as his own,
all the while knowing exactly what the GOP and Bush were
running on. Bush's election has changed nothing in the
GOP agenda, simply made it more passible into law.
That's the only thing that's changed, and not some
"higher calling to principles", IMHO
|
|
|
|
|
|
Messages |
|
|
|
|
"The man should have stomped Bush
into the ground."
By all credible dipsticks, Gore going in was in the cat
bird's seat, no doubt about it. He should have, by most
assessments, won easily, or as you say "stomped Bush
into the ground."
"Gore simply couldn't beat Gore."
Again, I agree. Bush did not beat Gore--Gore beat Gore.
"And I for one will never understand why he virtually
closeted his most humanizing asset- Tipper."
Perhaps. It must be remembered, however, that Tipper was
high profile in a very radical incident involving the
burning of rock and roll albums as a protest about the
morality of the music industry, a morality that rang
strongly of rabid fundamentalist principles. Then, too,
he coupled with Lieberman, who, too, comes off as a
crusader moraliser. In the long count, I suppose I would
agree with your assessment of Tipper's contributing
influence, despite this blemish to the freedom from
puritan censorship. She could have added the warmth and
realness that he is noted for not having. Most people
were turned off by Gore's insufferable egotistical
bearing during the campaign debates, and then subsequent
meliorating shifts of imaging of himself, apparently on
advice that Gore alone chose to heed. I would say that,
concerning this area of tactical maneuvers during the
critical aspect of the election--the debates--he would
have done well to consult the old pros--Bill and
Hillary. Say what you will, their political expertise is
beyond RW dismissal. Even while distancing himself from
the Clintons publically, he could have consulted his
worthy-opponent boss in the back room.
Instead of trying to portray himself as a entity of
worthy consideration by modeling himself as a moraliser,
above the Clinton scandals, the public might have more
appreciated loyalty to the Clintons, especially in light
of the Starr-Helms-Scaife persecutorial pursuit of
slandering them out of office. More people disagreed
with Starr's tactics than agreed, after all. In the end,
Gore's posturizing himself as separate from this infamy
of power politics focused the light on himself as eagle
scout, boring the shit out of everybody but the most
superficial, and that was all it took. He was in a
hardball game, and he underestimated the public's good
sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Messages |
|
|
|
Re: Kerrey Off Our Wayward Son |
yellow_crane |
5/10/01 10:17 am |
|
"But when it is US who are accused
of doing dasdardly deeds, we are quick to make excuses
and allow Kerrey to play his smoke and mirrors media
game of vague statements."
Actually, the Kerrey incident has little to do with the
main issue you address. As a nation, we have been
inculcated with a narrow and select band of imagery
concerning war. One can look at movies, and their stars
who are continally attached to their cinematic products
for propagandic purpose. Paid hacks like Arnie, Bruce
Willis, Charleton Heston, and formerly John Wayne, and
many others--all cinematic heros--who, arguably enough,
serve a vital function in keeping the glorious side of
war in resonance to maintian recruitment for future
possible conflict--are exhibited on convention stage
like GI Joe dolls to portray an image of blind
patriotism, whatever the contributing circumstances.
Hollywood had a rash of this indulgence during the
Second World War, which did indeed serve a national
purpose.
But what is missing generally in media treatment is a
balancing counterpart which imagizes the true atrocities
and horrors of war. Calley and Kerrey are two incidences
of a possible viable use of such a differing focus. With
the conflict in Vietnam behind us, we can choose to gain
from or ignore its lessons. The common link here is the
immediate future, and the incrementally released plans
to engage in Columbia. While some argue that any such
engagement in really a policing of the drug barons to
benefit our participation in the active gain from
illegal drugs by the CIA, many others have only
rudimentary cerebral discerning equiptment about war to
make distinctions, which has largely been conditioned by
media intent. Will any committed Columbian engagement
bring about demonstrations of protest like we
experienced about Vietnam--demonstrations that to this
day are intractably mired in mixed messages? Has the
military devolved to world cop? Many reports state that
any action in Columbia will not only compare to but but
exceed the difficult and dark dilemmas of the Vietnam
experience.
If nothing else, the Kerrey incident may bring sorely
needed attention to address that issue. Kerrey's "smoke
and mirrors media game of vague statements," as you term
it, really needs to be looked at intensely. Firstly, no
politician in his right mind would have taken a
proactive role in such a public exposure of his own
culpability. It simply makes no sense. But the
symtomology of his reaction does make some sense.
Atrocities not held in the mind are not due to memory
failure, but to the shelving to the closed rooms of the
mind for psychic survival. What makes sense to me is a
real lack of calculation in Kerrey's actions. He may
have seriously damaged his political career because he
chose to speak honestly to an audience hostile to such
candidness, inadvertantly. We do not like to look.
Instead of learning from Kerrey, I fear that what we
will do will be to turn on him, and seek to punish him.
That will alleve our stress about our conflicted
messages about war, and reduce the formula back to
simple pumping up of killers for the cause. What made
Vietnam an issue for many people in this country was the
lack of National interest. It took courageous conviction
for many, for instance, to protest the war; all who
exercised such courage were subjected to suffer personal
loss by the establishment's heavy lean. John Wayne was
USED extensively in this regard--to discredit such
protests by a massive, over-simplistic and perverse use
of patriotism to over-ride real scrutiny of the tangled
interests who put us there. Wayne's greatest moment was
to punch a small protester while surrounded by body
guards himself; many present thought the whole thing
staged. Such heroes are self-tarnishing.
"Who will stand up for the dead civilians?"
Hopefully only those who wish to see a cessation of more
dead civilians, and not recruiters who would hold open
the door for more
|
|
|
|
|
|
Messages |
|
|
|
Re: SOMEBODY MUST KNOW OR WHY TALK 3$ GA |
justhavinfun_now
(35/M/Moscow, Idaho) |
5/8/01 8:20 pm |
|
<BAGS>
As has been explained, the reason the gasoline prices
are high and rising is that US refineries are running at
capacity. There is no oil shortage. Crude prices are
holding steady or dropping slightly. The problem is in
limited refining capacity and the state of the
distribution system.
A shortage is when, at current prices, demand exceeds
supply. A price cap creates a shortage. There is no oil
shortage. There is upward price pressure due to
regulations (oxygenated fuel, pollution controls at
refineries).
Stating the fact that there is upward price pressure due
to regulations is not stating that the regulations are
bad, that is a value judgment you need to make. Are you
willing to pay the price per gallon for what the
regulations get? If you answer is yes then the level of
regulations is fine with you.
|
| | | |
Recommend