 sj |
||
|
||
Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!!
|
|
|
Subject: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: InOBU Date: 12 Jan 01 - 05:21 PM Little Hawk - point well taken... it is too bloody long. Next time you are going to be in New York, I will take you into the cellars and back allys wherein dwell we lucky few, that gallent band of red diaper babies, who need not hold our manhood cheep, as we remember the dark days of Joe McCarthy, even though we were very young... we who are bloody poor for doing the right thing, who roll up our sleaves and say, these wounds did I revieve on Cristpian's day - the anti invasion of France demo... Rave on Brothers and sisters... Larry |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: catspaw49 Date: 12 Jan 01 - 07:15 PM Glad you started this Larry......I have been collecting MAV's posts and I need to bag some more whenever he can get to it. I'll be taking them all to the Balloon Nationals in April and this should result in a considerable savings on propane. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: GUEST,MAV Date: 12 Jan 01 - 08:34 PM "I lived in New York State for 10 years, and never did I see even a trace of anything that could be called "leftist" or "socialist" in the political arena there. All I saw was the eternal boondoggle and nonsense between the Democrats and the Republicans that passes for a political debate in the USA. The Democrats and Republicans are both fond of accusing the other of various heinous acts, sometimes with justice, but neither one of them could be accused of being "leftist" by general world standards. They are both right of center by those standards" Well, New York is indeed the center of liberalism in the US. The Republicans are hard to tell apart from the Democrats other than being a bit more civil. I'd say you were probably right in your observations.
NY has serious gun control (disarmament of the citizenty) and the emboldened criminal element and violent crime statistics that go with it. Starting a business is next to impossible there as well as working without belonging to a Marxist labor union. "..so the Republicans, who are usually a tad more reactionary than the Democrats, just blithely assume that the Democrats are leftists! Hah! They may be corrupt and power-hungry (the Democratic Party machine itself, I mean...not you individual Democrats out there!), but they are NOT leftists" Oh sure they are. They are as corrupt as the Soviet Communists (Russian Mafia). The big circle in the democrat power structure is Corrupt Big City Government, Corrupt Organized Labor/Crime and real Marxists who work behind the scenes, all thieving from the working class while pretending to stand up for them. Most government workers in the US are union. The leftists are actually representing the unionized government and constantly trying to increase it's size and scope. "Finding a genuine leftist alternative in the USA is like looking for ice in the Sahara or fleas on a week-old dead camel...hopeless" Try the Congressional Black Caucus. I'll try to provide you a link. "Of course, it's all a matter of what you're used to isn't it? When an eskimo thinks it's warm outside, you might still think it's cold... " I'm glad you said that, thanks for that bit of perspective. By the way, Canadians are some of the nicest people in the world. I've found people in Ontario who would literally invite you to stay the night if you were having car trouble. We were total strangers, they fed us and invited us to join them in their pool. A guy on a motorcycle in Kingston, I think it was, saw me reading a map and came by to see if he could help (reminded me seriously of Eric Idle). I appreciated his concern but he cracked me up (EH?) MAV |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: Greg F. Date: 12 Jan 01 - 08:43 PM 'Spaw- Don't miss the 8:10 PM one, today's date, on the old thread, either.He's really pretty good- haven't laughed so hard in a long time!! How does he make this stuff up in such quantity? Wonder if he does a stand-up routine, too- or maybe recordings? Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: Troll Date: 12 Jan 01 - 08:47 PM Little Hawk. Glad to see you still love me. Larry, now there you go again. Chomsky is on PBS a lot. But you REALLY need to work on your Shakespere. Besides, I thought you Bolshies were dead set against monrachy. What are you doing (almost) quoting one? EH? troll |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: catspaw49 Date: 12 Jan 01 - 08:49 PM Damn Greg....Hadn't thought about an ENTIRE ROUTINE!!! AND RECORDINGS?!?!?!?!?!?! Man, if I could get that on CD, it'd be good for teo balloons at least.....maybe three!!! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: GUEST,MAV Date: 12 Jan 01 - 10:30 PM Well Guys, Here's another one. You can laugh all you want. If you aren't US citizens, I don't really care what you think, your country has likely gotten its fair share of US taxpayer booty. If you are Anti-American domestic liberal extremists, the party's over in eight days. Ashcroft or any other conservative AG will start actually enforcing the laws and the Constitution, unlike comrade Reno, an incompetent boob who never saw a law she couldn't subvert and who couldn't find her own a$$ with both hands. I expect there will be an awful lot of racket from your so-called leaders (like Bonnie Fwank and Jesse Jack@$$)but the indictments will soon be coming down. Let's have some MORE prosecutions on the Communist Chinese/Buddist Temple campaign funding scandals. Clinton doesn't seem to want a pardon and (heh heh), Dubya doesn't seem inclined to give him one. I see so much fertile ground I don't really know where they will begin, but look for election fraud investigations coming to a corrupt RAT city near you soon. We also are anticipating some interesting killer "hangin' judge" Supreme Court nominations. Let's see, how about justices Alan Keyes, Bob Barr or Newt Gingrich No wait, I have it, how about Supreme Court Justice Rush Limbaugh? Let the Good Times Roll!!! By the way, I have a transpose button on my e-piano (capo) but I prefer to play in the actual key. Love, peace Dudes. mav
|
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: InOBU Date: 12 Jan 01 - 10:52 PM Mav If you can't tell a liberal from a communist, I would suggest - as you say you don't know where to start, start by going to school, work real hard, get into grad school, and you may in fact be able to tell the difference between a communist and a liberal, however, you may also become a democrat, as the majority of Americans with graduate degrees are democrats, now in the anti intelectual environment of the republican party, I realise this does not sound good, I remember a line from a film with John Malkavich, where the German fellow says to him, "this child looks to bright, we don't want bright children, we Germans are plodders..." I should go and grab a bite, I'm a wee bit hungrey, I havent had breakfast yet and its 11 pm, and I get a bit short tempered when I'm peckish... See ya PS Good on ya troll, I infact am quiet fond of the bard - I believe he was a closit Irishman. Cheers, Larry |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: Greg F. Date: 12 Jan 01 - 11:09 PM "Liberal Extremists"???ROFL!!!! Good One! Is this guy funny, or what?? Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: CarolC Date: 12 Jan 01 - 11:42 PM "The bulk of federal spending is also simply a redistribution of the wealth called entitlements"(socialism)." --GUEST MAV I'm going to take it on the basis of that statement, that you are against farm subsidies and subsidies to corporations. Carol |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: GUEST,MAV Date: 12 Jan 01 - 11:51 PM "If you can't tell a liberal from a communist" A communist is a socialist with a gun. A socialist is a liberal that knows what he's doing. A liberal is a useful dupe of the communist. "I would suggest - as you say you don't know where to start, start by going to school, work real hard, get into grad school" There it goes again, another personal attack, can't you guys get over this childlike crap????? "and you may in fact be able to tell the difference between a communist and a liberal" I certainly can and it seems I've encountered all types here. Although I don't see any reason for distinguishing between the three groups of anti-capitalists, I actually respect the socialists more than the American lie-berals. At least the socialists are willing to share in business ownership and losses, where the liberals simply want to skim off the top until they destroy the incentive to produce, and then confiscate the private property, sorta mafia-like. "however, you may also become a democrat" I don't think so!!! "as the majority of Americans with graduate degrees are democrats" Well since the university system is and has been a bastion of liberal/marxist/socialist elitists, that would hardly surprise me. Those who cannot do, teach and there is no other place for these anti-business pointy headed intellectuals to exist, especially in the dreaded private sector (except of course as "journalists") "now in the anti intelectual(sp) environment of the republican party, I realise this does not sound good" You damn right it doesn't! We're not anti-intellectual, we're anti-anti-American. Unless you succeed in killing the Constitution this is NOT A SOCIALIST COUNTRY! By the way, I may not be a bleeping intellectual but at least I CAN SPELL IT. Calling the GOP anti-intellectual is yet another bit of phoney demonization which reflects the slanderous and condecending tone of your opening statements. "I remember a line from a film with John Malkavich, where the German fellow says to him, "this child looks to bright, we don't want bright children, we Germans are plodders..." That's "too bright" You're implying he looks towards illumination. Yes, the Germans are sooo stupid, except of course for their precision engineering, work ethic and of course the great Classical composers. Of course there's that little socialist thing . "I should go and grab a bite, I'm a wee bit hungrey(sp), I havent(sp) had breakfast yet and its(sp) 11 pm, and I get a bit short tempered when I'm peckish(?)..." You sound a "wee bit" UK. See ya |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Jan 01 - 11:52 PM MAV - Thanks for your kind words about Canadians. We are indeed a moderate and friendly people for the most part. Consider the fact that Canada has always been a considerably more "liberal" society than the USA, and has had a good deal more socialism...and that, hey, maybe liberals and socialists ain't so bad after all. Cos I see what your beef is...it's "liberals". Okay. Well, American liberals are not what I call leftists. Liberals in the USA are mostly capitalists who have their eyes on the usual dreams that fuel American society...which are...money, fame, youth, good looks, designer clothes, a big house, a fancy car, a CD player that can hold 9 or more CD's simultaneously, and so on. Plus, if they're liberals they tend to vote Democratic. Whereas conservatives are people who have their eye on those very same dreams...only they tend to vote Republican. True, conservatives are more hostile toward labour unions than liberals (unless they belong to one, that is...I've met union members who were surprisingly conservative in my time), and they are more hostile toward big government (except where it concerns military spending and building prisons)...but that doesn't make liberals leftists. Hardly. Leftists are socialists. Most leftists are democratic socialists, with just as strong a love for freedom as any conservative...but more of a belief in people's ability to cooperative with each other, rather than to compete in a battle for survival against each other. I met any number of "liberals" in the States, but hardly any socialists at all. You're right that New York City is the bastion of liberalism, but that's not where I was. I was in upstate New York...about 20 miles from Syracuse...and it was the very bastion of conservatism then and still is now. The rural parts of New York hate New York City. It's like 2 different worlds. Virtually everyone where I was located voted Republican regardless of what was going on. They loved both Goldwater and Nixon. New York City, by the way, is hell on earth as far as I'm concerned, but not because it's "liberal"...because it's too damn big, too crowded, too many poor people, too many slums and abandoned buildings, too much crime, and so on. Toronto is slowly deteriorating for precisely the same reasons, although it is a paradise in comparison ro NYC. But the bigger it gets, the worse it gets. Being a Canadian and living in upstate New York was scary. You'd have to be a Canadian to know what I mean about that. I learned to keep my mouth shut about political and social issues, not to mention religious ones. I am not afraid to talk about such things in Canada. Anyway, the point I'm making is that in the USA a "liberal" is a pretty pale version of what might be termed a genuine leftist anywhere else in the world. I'm curious...do you think people are: 1. basically good in their nature? or 2. basically evil in their nature? I mean, just people in general...what say? - LH |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: GUEST,MAV Date: 12 Jan 01 - 11:54 PM "I'm going to take it on the basis of that statement, that you are against farm subsidies and subsidies to corporations. Carol" YUP MAV |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Jan 01 - 12:19 AM In Canada the more affluent provinces pay a subsidy to help the more impoverished parts of the country...which is mainly the Maritime (Atlantic) provinces. The reason for that is...those areas have always been disadvantaged economically, and are now in SERIOUS trouble, because their traditional industries (fisheries, primarily) are in very deep trouble, because the fish are dying off. The fisheries are in that trouble because too many people have caused too much pollution and destroyed too much of the ocean and eaten too many fish. In other words, we have soiled our own bed, and are paying the price for it. We are all responsible for that, not just the maritimers, so we all share in the cost. Things are already bad in the Maritimes and would be a lot worse without the subsidies. Now the point is, this country Canada is one family...and a family takes care of its own. A family that doesn't help a sick child isn't deserving of the name. And that is why I favour the subsidies. I would also favour subsidies to an embattled agricultural sector in any country if they were needed. I'm not too selfish to share, and the whole country benefits in the end if we do. Socialism is a system that tries to help everyone who is genuinely in need. Capitalism is a system that doesn't basically give a damn about that...survival of the richest and most aggressive is what it is...and the rich perpetuate and enlarge their share of the loot generation after generation, while terrorizing the middle class with lurid tales of "communism", and keeping them pacified with TV and consumer goods, like fat little hamsters in cages. The cages are mostly built by utterly impoverished 3rd World labourers. I do not call that a moral system, but a barbarous one. It is not the system that Jefferson, Washington and Franklin sought to create...nor was the American constitution designed to protect such a system. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Jan 01 - 12:30 AM By the way, I'm not suggesting they were trying to build socialism either, just democracy free of rule by hereditary kings...and equality of opportunity for everyone. I'm for that too, plus a 50:50 mix of socialism and capitalism. As for owning guns? I see no problem with that, as long as people take a proper gun handling course so they know what the hell they are doing (as they are required to in Ontario), and get a certificate when they pass the course. Then if they want to buy a gun...fine with me. If they misuse it, then prosecute them. I don't think they should be allowed to own military assault rifles or automatic weapons, however, unless the firing pin is removed. If they're gun collectors...fine with me...just remove the firing pins and keep them in a safe or something. There's nothing you can do to make life totally safe for everyone all the time, but you can take some reasonable precautions in that direction. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: GUEST,MAV Date: 13 Jan 01 - 12:31 AM Dear Little Hawk, Do I detect a little American Indian affiliation by your screen name? I believe socialists participate in 50% ownership in production and cover all needs of the citizens from cradle to grave. Most of the democrat party has been infiltrated by unreasonable anti-constitutional hard-cores. Pat Moynahan and the other real democrats are long gone. Traficant has now been ostracized by his peers. This is exactly what I'm referring to in the US. Our taxation at all levels (fed, state, local) is now about 45%. This is a level seven times higher than the tax burden paid by our parents. We have medicare, Social(ism) Security and a massive bureaucracy. Well, I don't know about being a Canadian, but I do know about living in the sticks both in the midwest (NE) and also in the northeast (ME) Sticks are good. "do you think people are: 1. basically good in their nature? or 2. basically evil in their nature? I mean, just people in general...what say?" That's a tough question actually; My first impulse was to say good, but then there is the Cain/Able deal. The reason I chose that is because people want to be loved and most well adjusted folks obey the golden rule for that reason. Many big city people are not well adjusted and are at least rude if not downright cruel. I think evil people are being tortured inside perhaps having been denied love as a child and totally devoid of the lessons we all took for granted from mom, dad and grandma. I only associate with good people. (Unless they've all been fooling me) You seem to be one. MAV
|
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: catspaw49 Date: 13 Jan 01 - 12:31 AM OHMYGOD LARRY!!!!! YOU SOUND UK!!!!! What's next? ..............Greg, I'm up to about four ballons at this point!!!!! While that's good, I am concerned about the detrimental effect on the ozone layer..................oy..........................uh,oh...........sounded Jewish there, could be in trouble like Larry, probably worse............ This is really some funny shit!!! I mean, if the guy believes it and all, well, more's the pity, but ya' gotta' admit the concept is a riot! Greg, can you keep your copy and send it to me too? I'll be such a hit at the balloon nationals!!!!!! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: CarolC Date: 13 Jan 01 - 12:33 AM GUEST MAV, What does your man, G.W.B., have to say about subsidies to corporations? Carol |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: GUEST,MAV Date: 13 Jan 01 - 12:51 AM "What does your man, G.W.B., have to say about subsidies to corporations?" I'm not sure, I hope he is against corporate welfare. I am referring to outright grants to corporations, not favorable tax treatment. I'll bet though, he stops the assault on American business (Microsoft etc.) Let me just say that I think it's deplorable to tax income either personal or corporate. In the case of raising revenue from individuals, I prefer something more voluntary like retail tax, tolls, sin taxes etc, you know, the tourists. As far as corporations go, you can't tax them. I'm not saying you shouldn't (which I also believe)... I'm saying........YOU CAN'T! Corporate income tax is just another cost of doing business which is passed on to the consumer who (through higher prices) winds up paying the tax, once again. I know, I know, more than you asked, but you are fairly short on words.
|
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: CarolC Date: 13 Jan 01 - 01:01 AM "I'm not sure, I hope he is against corporate welfare. I am referring to outright grants to corporations..." --GUEST MAV Might be worth checking out. Carol |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: flattop Date: 13 Jan 01 - 01:04 AM > The reason for that is...those areas have always been disadvantaged economically, and are now in SERIOUS trouble, because their traditional industries (fisheries, primarily) are in very deep trouble, because the fish are dying off. Yours is not the story they tell in the Maritimes, Little Hawk. Maritimers had a booming economy when Ontario was underdeveloped. Canadian governments put import tarrifs in place to protect weak Ontario industries. This lead to Maritimers subsidizing great Canadian industries like General Motors, Ford and Chrysler when they bought cars. At the same time it destroyed the economic base of the Maritimes by inflating their costs and encouraging other countries which were maritime markets to erect recprical tarrifs. (Were you at Tim Hortons, Little Hawk, when Johnny told about his recurring dream that police come to arrest him for blowing up the Chrysler building and killing hundreds of people - that in the dream he confesses to blowing up the building even though he's innocent because he hates his Caravan so much?) You may also find that in provinces like Saskatchewan people feel that the country has been run so that tax money flows to Ontario at the expense of the rest of the country. Then when the goverment runs a deficit, they rip up the tracks and make the whole prairie grain business uneconomical. |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: GUEST,Thom M. at work Date: 13 Jan 01 - 01:06 AM Dear Mav, I agree we should do away with commie unions. Jesus Christ they make to much money and want things like benefits, sick days,vacations and pensions. Its much better to work for minimum wage or less instead of negotiated contracts especially if it guarentees the Wheels get their million dollar bonuses and stock options. If someone complains beat them up and throw them out the door. Once they've gotten older or hurt throw their asses out on the street; plenty more where they came from. Keep them ignorant too. Hell three years of school is plenty for anyone. Especially if their just doing menial labor, not the important stuff you do, huh MAV. Why don't we put all people who can't pay their credit cards into debtors prisons or indentured servitude. No unions there pal. Jobs are not the problem. Shit with slavery they all had jobs. Making a good wage for a good day's work is all most people want. < I guess that's enough. I'm getting a stomach ache. Thom M |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: GUEST,MAV Date: 13 Jan 01 - 01:26 AM "I agree we should do away with commie unions. Jesus Christ they make to much money and want things like benefits, sick days,vacations and pensions. Its much better to work for minimum wage or less instead of negotiated contracts especially if it guarentees the Wheels get their million dollar bonuses and stock options" OK. "If someone complains beat them up and throw them out the door" If anyone is doing any beating up, it's the union thugs. "Keep them ignorant too. Hell three years of school is plenty for anyone" If you say so, I'd say that's a personal choice (and not a very good one) "Especially if their just doing menial labor" Anything a trained chimp can do shouldn't pay over six bucks, where's the incentive to improve yourself. "not the important stuff you do, huh MAV" How do you know what I do or how much I earn? Guess what, not rich, blue collar. "Why don't we put all people who can't pay their credit cards into debtors prisons or indentured servitude" Racking up a credit card you can't pay off is not a real brilliant career move. "No unions there pal. Jobs are not the problem. Shit with slavery they all had jobs" No idea what you're talking about there.....PAL! "Making a good wage for a good day's work is all most people want" Sounds like making way more money than you're actually producing is what YOU want. "I guess that's enough" Indeed. "I'm getting a stomach ache" Probably all that beer. mav |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: flattop Date: 13 Jan 01 - 01:49 AM For Galbraith, historical social darwinism, 1980s supply side theory, current efforts to revive supply side policy, and efforts to reduce welfare, are based on faulty assumptions about human motivation. Supply side theory and current welfare arrangements assume different motivations at the top and bottom of society, that the rich do not work hard enough because they have insufficient rewards (incentives) and that the poor do not work hard enough because minimum wage laws and welfare systems give them too much, discouraging effort. This, of course, implies that the rich are not doing their job, that their performance is bad and inadequate. For Galbraith, this suggests that they may need higher, not lower, taxes to encourage their effort, "in order to sustain their after-tax income." http://plsc.uark.edu/584v/critique.htm
|
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: flattop Date: 13 Jan 01 - 01:50 AM Galbraith's Law of Human Nature: Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everybody gets busy on the proof.
|
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: flattop Date: 13 Jan 01 - 01:54 AM "We have had, in these last years, large reductions in the effective rates of the income tax on the very rich. And also a powerful crusade against the welfare services to the poor. The rich, it is held, need incentive to greater economic effort ; the poor need release from the debilitating effect of welfare. The rich have not been working because they have too little money; the poor have not been working because they have too much." - Galbraith |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: GUEST,Thom M. at work Date: 13 Jan 01 - 02:30 AM Mav, I don't care what you do for work. You obviously feel superior to anyone who works for minimum wage (or in that vicinity). Any job that someone does is not menial. Comparing them to chimpanzees is pretty demeaning if you ask me. Oh I forgot you don't name call do you? As far as union thuggery goes what are you talking about? Are you talking about the miners JD Rockerfeller had machine gunned. Do you mean the strikers Henry Ford had beaten and shot. Do you mean people who get upset when they are replced by strikebreakers. Oh hell let's use the real word, SCAB. Pete Seeger once said about the scab "that he can always make living on the money he takes from blind mens' cups". Do you think there is a fourty hour work week, strong anti-child labor laws and yes even the dreaded minimum wage because the owners feel some sense of obligation to their emplyees? They would still have tus working for fifty cents an hour.Do you think they provide fitness centers, vacations,and paid sick days out of the goodness of their hearts? Unions and the fear of unions being organized in their workplaces got these items put into place. Hell the mill owners have more respect for their cattle. They at least call them heads. They call their employees hands. |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: kendall Date: 13 Jan 01 - 08:35 AM Not only do I remember the "great" depression, when the republicans sat on their fat asses and did nothing...I'm also a history major. In college, I was amazed at the real history that was not even touched upon in grammar school. Wanna know how it really was? check out people like Eugene Debbs and Joe Hill. If you are under 40 years old, you have never had it so good, and, unless you are a republican fat cat, you can thank the unions for the 40 hour week, minimum wage, social security, medicare, medicade and an equal chance at the American dream. I still say the motto of the republican party should be:PULL UP THE LADDER I'M ABOARD. |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: flattop Date: 13 Jan 01 - 11:14 AM Conservtives seem look back to times before taxes. If we looked back far enough we'd probably find a more idyllic time. Back then, if a truly conservative Mav speared a striped animal, he'd be proud to share rump of skunk with Little Hawk and other members of his tribe. A few days later Mav might proudly pike a porcipine and offer Little Hawk a delicious quill burger. |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: jets Date: 13 Jan 01 - 11:14 AM Bravo Kendall. Well said. |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: flattop Date: 13 Jan 01 - 11:17 AM Well I screwed that one up. Shoulda had a cupa tea before I started typing. |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: InOBU Date: 13 Jan 01 - 12:25 PM Hi ya MAV As to personal attacks, it is one thing to comment on an obvious lack of education when you mistake corportate capitolism (democrats rather than lezie fare capitolists republicans...) for comunuists - and not being able to spell from someone who has made no secret of his learning disability, which did not keep him (me) from scoring in the one hunderd percentile in logic on the LSATS (the national law school admissions/aptitude test)- which by the way does not include a spelling test... So lets look at you proposal. We cut out government spending on say, health care for the indigent. Now, as has happened in New York, when we cut back on health care for the homeless, there is a rise in TB, suddunly folks on Wall Street are getting sick - fact is, what goies around comes around, and that's a Christian concept, but then again, next you'll lable Christ a commie, after all, he was not to much a fan of personal property and the wealthy... and as far as a wee bit UK - shite yes, I am Anglo Irish, and an American citizen, as far as uk though, as many here know about me, I am a Republican in Ireland, which means that I don't suport George W (the pretender) but rather I believe in the rights of citizens, not subjects... By the way, if grad schools are controlled by commies, as you say, why is that, they took over at gun point - or scored higher, got better grades and in a sort of free market way, succeeded, or do you endorce government creating standards to keep leftists from runnign the grad schools (he said laughing histerically). Hey speaking of funny, last night at 2am, my wife mother and I were on the floor laughing histerically. Seems my mother was hearing the sound of rushing water, called me, I went to her place with the wife and it was silent, so we rushed her to the hospitial. They did tests, no problem, just ringing in the ears, so we took her home. I said, as I opened her door, "now whatch a deluge of water is going to hi us, and they'll rush us back to the same doctor - they'll tell him three drowning victems, two of em are deaf..." Cheers MAV, come the revolution you'll be the one getting us all to eat our borscht and vodka - it may surpise you to know that the conceratives here, were the party members over there! Larry |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Jan 01 - 12:59 PM Geez, flattop, you've been busy haven't you? Thanks for the interesting input on the Maritimes! You obviously know more about that one than I do. It's a pity that you and me and MAV can't sit down at Tim Horton's for awhile and discuss all this stuff, cos I think it would be most interesting...seriously! You put in this quote: Galbraith's Law of Human Nature: Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everybody gets busy on the proof. WOW!!! What a quote that is. Dead right. This is why Republicans and Democrats absolutely will not respect or give credence to what the other one is talking about most of the time....although, they all want truth, justice, fairness, and all those good things. Nice to hear from you, anyway, flattop. MAV - I think that people sometimes forget that things change over course of time. Some examples: 1. A political party begins as a new and radical movement, filled with hope and idealism, challenging the old corrupt order. 2. At first it's a voice in the wilderness. 3. Eventually it gets elected. 4. After being in office for some time, it begins to become complacent and self-serving, even arrogant. 5. It loses touch with the common people. 6. It makes friends with entrenched financial interests, and takes behind-the-scenes payoffs from them in order to consolidate its power. 7. It "cleanses" the radicals and idealists from its ranks, and puts in the bureaucrats. 8. It loses all sense of why it originated and does anything it can to cling to power. 9. It routinely lies to the electorate and makes false promises. 10. It gets rich, and befriends the rich who fund its campaigns. 11. It is now as corrupt as what it formerly fought against. Now, take the same prescription and apply it to not only political parties, but also: to labour unions. And there you have the problem. There was a lengthy period when unionization was an absolutely vital social movement launched in order to secure basic rights and protections for workers...rights that we all take for granted today. Such a movement is still needed badly in 3rd World countries where child labourers work for pennies in sweat shops to produce the goods we buy at the mall...where workers have NO rights or protections, and soldiers will shoot them down like dogs if they make a peep about it. Labour unions were just as noble in concept when they began as was the American revolution. And the labourers also paid a price in blood. They were all called "communists" and treated as criminals, for just seeking rights which none of us would consider working without today. They were beaten up and shot and tried and imprisoned. They were genuine heroes. Now, it's a different story. Many unions have become corrupt themselves, in the fashion I described above. Take a look at the history of churches and religions and you will find much the same story in most cases. They start out with the highest ideals...but then the bean-counters take over, and the power junkies take over, and they pervert the whole process. So..it's not unions, per se, that are the "enemy" here... It's the improper administration of certain unions by the fat cats who run them...people who are in their basic nature almost indistinguishable from the fat cat industrialists against whom the unions originally strove so courageously. Around and around it goes. If you want to find the original cause of all this corruption...Just FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIL. Somebody's getting rich at the expense of you and me and our neighbours. - LH p.s. The American Indian connection is there, all right, but it's a mysterious one which I am not gonna explain right now.
|
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: wildlone Date: 13 Jan 01 - 01:33 PM So we in the UK have had our share of the American taxpayers money have we. Let me tell you MAV what I have got I worked for, I live in an area that gets a lot of American Tourists and I to will help if I am asked by one of your countrymen. The town at the moment is trying to get a memorial placed in the area of an old US army camp to honour the men killed when a truck carrying explosives blew up killing a lot of men. So maybe you dont care for us, the drain on the US economy. Do I tell the locals that the GREAT VOICE of America has spoken, that America is not going to want to have anything to do with england? |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Jan 01 - 02:41 PM I note that GUEST MAV sees all that stuff about Compassionate Conservatism, and how Baby Bush was going to be nice and cuddly and bringing America together and so forth as being utter crap.
And on that anyway I have no doubt he is absolutely right.
I imagine anyone who actually voted for Bush because they believed that line is going to be pretty pissed off.
But maybe most of the people who voted that way didn't believe in it anyway, and actually hold MAVing extremist (and totally un-conservative) views, but they were holding their breath and crossing their fingers until after the elections were done with.
At any rate I haven't see any Compassionate Conservatives jumping in to disagree with GUEST MAV. |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: GUEST,A" Liberal" Date: 13 Jan 01 - 03:43 PM Alright, MAV, its time someone levelled with you. The liberal movement to take over this country has been making gradual progress toward our final vision of a Proletarian Utopia since the early 1930s. Many of us are indeed devout Bolshevists, but because of threats by the bourgeoise establishment, we call ourselves by innocuous-sounding names like "Democrats", "Sierra Club Members", or "Jews for Jesus". We meet in secret underground lairs where pictures of Lenin and Franklin D Roosevelt hang illuminated by guttering candles. Here we proudly display our hammer-and-sickle tattoos, and chant curses against American Heroes like Charles Lindbergh, Robert Welch, and Rush Limbaugh. Over the years we have managed to infiltrate every level of your society, mostly undetected by the average citizen. But some of the more intelligent and discerning conservatives, such as yourself, seem to be on to us. But it is far too late to stop us now! Already plans are underway to dismantle shopping malls and replace them with old growth forests, to abolish the three-martini lunch, to make any mention of the word "god" in elementary schools a felony, and to allow black people to once again vote in Florida. You think that you Conservatives have scored a victory by getting George W elected President? Ha! It was our plan all along to help the feeblest and most innocuous member of your constituency into the Chief Executive Office, in order to make your so-called "Republic" that much easier to overthrow and replace with a benevolent dictator! All Power to the People! |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: catspaw49 Date: 13 Jan 01 - 06:53 PM I'm sorry Guest/Member.....MAV is unavailable to answer you at this time. He's had a busy day deciding which new fatigues he likes best from the Spring Collection now being shown. I have heard that the ones from Faschits of Montana are really hot this year. Also he had a call from a real estate broker in West Bumfuck, Idaho inquiring about his decision as to purchasing a mountain top retreat. Evidently its not easy to find one these days with enough flat area to build an armory on and still have room for sufficient battlements to hold 391 used Howitzers and a pinball machine. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Jan 01 - 07:55 PM Guest A Liberal - Har! Har! So that's what a liberal is... Well, now it's out in the open, anyway. Ooooo...scary, scary! Okay...let's look at the old definitions of socialist, etc...that were posted a while back by MAV...from the "conservative" viewpoint: It went like this... A communist is a socialist with a gun. A socialist is a liberal that knows what he's doing. A liberal is a useful dupe of the communist. Hmmm...I get the drift, but I don't buy it. Actually all manner of people can be found among the ranks of communists, socialists, liberals, conservatives, or anyone else you care to name. I've known entirely nice and agreeable people from all those groups...except I don't think I've ever met an official "communist". I wasn't living in the right part of the world for that, I guess...I've met a lot of Cubans, but not a single one claimed to be a communist. Some of them are Presbyterians, however... How about I try for a definition: 1. Communism is a system that pretends to follow the teachings of Marx, but deviates in a number of key areas. It centralizes all ownership and power in the bureaucracy of the state, while pretending that said bureaucracy represents the people, which it does not. It represents itself. In the positive sense, communism provides work, housing, education, health care, and basic needs to all the people who tow the line. In the negative sense, it imprisons or executes those who don't. It typically rules through a harsh and militaristic system, with a strong secret police to enforce it. Communism also elevates a political party to the status of a god...not a good idea!!! Like all systems, though, it's good in some ways and bad in others. I give it about a 4 out of 10 on the desirability scale...not too good. I give the present chaos in the former Yugoslavia, since the fall of communism there, a zero out of 10...just for comparison's sake. Communism is created and maintained by ordinary human beings of every type imaginable, both liberal and conservative. 2. Socialism is a method of allocating certain (but NOT all or even close to all) sectors of society to public ownership and management...such as: large transportation networks and regulatory agencies, one or two large media outlets (out of many), a health care system, the postal system, the military, the police, the mint, the courts, the various levels of government, national parks and game preserves, some energy regulating agencies, and so on. This is done through taxation, and accomplished by government workers. This in no way presents any threat to democracy, and it is the rule, not the exception, in most First World societies, such as Canada and western Europe, but to a considerably lesser degree in the USA, where socialism is more or less considered a dirty word. Socialism and capitalism can and do thrive in partnership...each one accomplishing what the other is ill-equipped to accomplish. Socialists are not generally entrepreneurs, while capitalists are not generally public servants. Socialism likewise is created and maintained by ordinary human beings of every type imaginable, liberal and conservative. 4. Capitalism - hell, you all know what that is, and it works fine, providing it is subject to certain regulations...such as labour laws, pollution laws, truth in advertising, and so on. We do not at present have international laws really capable of properly governing corporate capitalism, nor do we have the means to enforce such laws. Also created and maintained by ordinary human beings of every type imaginable, liberal and conservative. 3. Liberalism - is an attitude. A philosophical attitude. So is conservatism. They both try to achieve social justice, but do it from a different perspective. One tries to open the door, the other tries to shore up the dike. Some communists are liberals, by communist standards. The ones who aren't liberals are called hardliners. They are quite comparable to hardline conservatives in the USA, except they're on the other side of the fence, that's all. They believe in getting tough with the "enemy" and beefing up the military at all times, just as do their conservative counterparts in the USA or anywhere else. They are very much engaged in preparing for war against someone and have a fortress mentality. Some socialists are also liberals, while some are not, by socialist standards. Liberals are seen as flexible, rational and reasonable...from their own viewpoint. They are seen as wishy-washy, fuzzy-thinking, and deluded by those who are not "liberals". But one man's liberal may well be another man's conservative... It's all a big wordgame. We are fighting over words, for heaven's sake! If you actually got to know some genuine socialists, some liberals, some conservatives, and even some communists...you would find that most of them are downright likeable people, with high ideals, just as high as your own. Try it and see. The enemy you fear is not your enemy at all...he's just different from you...cos he grew up under different influences. Want to see the real enemy? Look in the mirror the next time you're in a really hateful and rotten mood. As Pogo said "We have seen the enemy and he is us". - LH
|
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: flattop Date: 13 Jan 01 - 08:07 PM But who's Robert Welch? Does he bottle grape juice? |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Jan 01 - 08:16 PM Actually it's been quite normal for the media in England at any rate, to call hardline communists in Russia "conservative", especially at the time of the fall of the Sovuet Union. Which is of course a perfectly correct way of describing people who are resisting change. I don't think anyone finds it confusing.
And there's a party in Russia which calls itself "Liberal Democrat" which is in most essentials Fascist (and I'm not using that merely as a term of abuse, but referring to a political ideology).
|
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: flattop Date: 13 Jan 01 - 09:53 PM While you kind and gentle liberals are waiting for MAV to reappear so that you can kick the crap out of him, you might enjoy reading the lyrics from the Jerry Jeff Walker song Stony. Stewie posted them the thread where I requested them. |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: flattop Date: 13 Jan 01 - 09:58 PM Make that Stoney (before the Canadian spelling police close in on me.) |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: Lonesome EJ Date: 14 Jan 01 - 01:17 AM I believe Robert Welch was the founder of both the Welch's Grape Juice empire, and the John Birch Society. |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: blt Date: 14 Jan 01 - 02:42 AM After wandering in here (I didn't read the previous threads), the first thing I noticed was how polarized these discussions appear--one either is or isn't, was or wasn't. Too bad the force with which a person hits the keys on the keyboard can't register somehow, as I think that would provide a wider range of gray. The second thing I wondered, because I always look for this, is whether or not this discussion is male-dominant for a particular reason (if it is, in fact, male-dominant)--the keys are just as bad at registering gender as they are at showing emotion. The third thing I wondered is how each of us arrives at our beliefs. Mine (decidedly more left than liberal)are a result of New England working class upbringing, biracial family as an adult, homelessness, 2 graduate degrees, huge loans, 40 years of combining activism, employment, and the arts, and being gay. Personal context tends to sculpt one a bit. Lastly, the USA has many problems, particularly with housing, health care, the criminal justice system, and education. These are not simple, just pull-yourself-up-by-your bootstraps problems, if they ever were, but deep-seated and complex issues that require all the combined efforts of both the full Senate and the House, as well as local governments and citizens. It is completely irrelevant to throw rhetoric at a problem that is rooted in historical, cultural, sociological ways of behaving--it means absolutely nothing, will change nothing. If the US government cannot figure out how to work together to effectively and meaningfully address these problems (vs spend time blaming one side or the other, posturing, or serving corporate interests or the interests of elites only), these problems will simply worsen and the ship will, no doubt about it, sink. Indeed, I believe I feel a listing to the right... blt |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: GUEST,MAV Date: 14 Jan 01 - 08:23 AM |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: GUEST,MAV Date: 14 Jan 01 - 09:27 AM Sorry 'bout that, the cat was helping me post. I realize I'm speaking to people from all over the world on this forum. Given that, I also realize there is a need for a social safety net in any society. Its POINT OF ORIGIN is the issue between liberals and conservatives. We (as American Conservatives) believe that this is a nation of laws, not of men. The outgoing administration has had quite the opposite view and has trampled on the Constitution at every turn. In the US we have 50 states (nations) many of which have GDPs as large as industrialized countries elsewhere in the world. They are each supposed to have their own soverignty but share a common defense (Navy). The Constitution outlines what powers are GIVEN to the federal government. Then there's this little thing called the Tenth Amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"
Plain, simple and in layman's language. The rest of the powers that are given to the federal government BY THE PEOPLE are also outlined in as plain language in this SHORT document. All that Conservatives are saying is "socialism" should occur at the state and local levels (people) where it is not disallowed, and in a matter self-determined by those various levels of government. A strong family structure is the historic and proven foundation of any society. This is one reason why the poor get poorer etc. Weak family structure results in poorly enforced dicipline in both behavior and education. Also the crime statistics show a huge number of the career criminals in the US come from single parent families. This has only been made worse by the $5 Trillion waste of taxpayer funding of the "War on Poverty". Guess what, poverty won. The male (father figure) in those demographic groups slated for "help" has been relegated to irrelevance by well meaning liberals since the "gubmint" provides the monthly income. This helps formulate the "attitude" and likely of criminal activity prevalent in those groups. It's also a trap since there is no possibility of opportunity or escape. Many public assistance programs yank the financial rug from under those who get entry level jobs and practically guarantee failure and return to the welfare rolls. The family is the bottom rung on the ladder of governing structures, (Not as long as you're living in my home you won't) followed by community/church, city, county and state) The closer the point of origin of assistance is to the recipient, the more successful it will be. Stigma is a useful component missing from federal assistance since the "caring what people think" concept does not come from a Washington bureaucrat. There are cases where the drug/alcohol addictions are treated as a "disability" and their habit is then subsidized. You will see the incoming Bush administration making good on a promise to enhance and encourage community based organizations and allow the self-serving unionized social bureaucracies die by attrition. When someone retires or quits, their "non-essential position" circles the bowl. MAV
|
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: InOBU Date: 14 Jan 01 - 01:45 PM Dear MAV The point of view you espose in your view of complete state soverinty, save for a shared navy, LOST the civil war, short of firing again on Ft. Sumter, I don't think many constitutional scholars will come round to your point of view.... regards (how ever the F**K it is spelt) Larry |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Jan 01 - 05:37 PM At this point that's more or less how the European Union operates. I imagine if there hadn't been bent judges who thought slavery wasn't barred by the Constitution, that might be how the USA still operated. A bit late to go backl to trhat now though isn't it? Not a very copnservative things to do either.
Many public assistance programs yank the financial rug from under those who get entry level jobs and practically guarantee failure and return to the welfare rolls.
And I take it, MAV, you think that is a stupid way to run a welfare benefit system? And that help should only be tapered off reasonably gradually to help people get back on their feet? Well, that's something to agree on anyway. I hadn't heard that attacking poverty traps like that was Republican policy, or Republican practice either.
There are cases where the drug/alcohol addictions are treated as a "disability" and their habit is then subsidized.
But is that necessarily be a bad thing, if it stops people robbing and stealing from their neighbours to pay for their habit, and putting enormous sums of money into the hands of the drug and booze entrepreneours, and then costing the community enormous sums to keep in jail? (I don't mean give them the money to buy the stuff on the street.)
When someone retires or quits, their "non-essential position" circles the bowl.
That's a bit too cryptic for me. What's it mean?
|
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: blt Date: 14 Jan 01 - 05:39 PM MAV, it's not clear what you mean by the "War on Poverty," as that was a term used during Johnson's administration during the 60s; due to the Vietnam War's demands, the "War on Poverty" was actually never fully funded at the time, and the drive to address hunger, substandard housing, and inadequate healthcare stalled. However, some funding existed, though it was slowly whittled away during the 70s. When Reagan was elected in the early 80s, funding for most social services plummeted. It is one of the reasons that homelessness rose to the fore as a significant issue in the US, as there was no (or very little) money put into building low-income houseing or providing for subsidized housing. Employment assistance (especially for poor youth, rural and inner city) was also dramatically reduced. Social services today consist of a very thin welfare system, designed to push people into low-income jobs, some food stamp availability, and, depending on the state, some healthcare assistance. I've never really understood the reasoning behind denial of the need for social services, perhaps because I've needed and used them from time to time myself, but also because I've worked in some form of social service for many years, including working in homeless shelters, tutorial and literacy programs, substance abuse treatment, short-term psychiatric care. The truth is, many people need some form of help, whether that is through support for pre-natal care, housing, food, education, healthcare--not everybody can or will fend for themselves, for various reasons. It just seems extremely cruel to either blame people who are struggling with these problems, incarcerate them, or simply pretend they don't exist. MAV, you mention $5 trillion dollars. Again, you don't say where this number comes from, but exactly what price can be put on the value of educating or feeding a community? What is the price of one Stealth bomber? There is an obscene imbalance of wealth in this country and it appears that Conservatives, in general, believe that's some sort of divine balance. It's interesting to note which side of the financial divide most of the conservative politicians fall on. Laws are never separate from the perspectives and interests of the human beings that write them. |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: Richard Bridge Date: 14 Jan 01 - 06:43 PM I think this thread may be showing signs of rationality! Now, just a couple of thoughts. MAV seems to assume that anything not authorised by the US constitution is improper. That is not correct. By way of comparison, most of what Hitler did in Germany was perfectly constitutional - if he had problems he changed the constitution(!) but nonetheless immoral. Likewise labelling something "socialist" does not make it wrong. Many of us believe that "capitalist" is a term of abuse, but regrettably the accurate application of the insult does not necessarily establish that the thing insulted is wrong. Even a capitalist can so something right occasionally, as for example the reforms of the "Reform" party in the USA were far better than anything the democrats had on offer at that time, but by any definition I can think of Roosevelt was a capitalist. As most systems of ethics teach us, it is wrong to take simply because one can. Yet that is what the espousal of the free market economy, without constraint, ends as. Likewise as many systems of morality teach us, it was right for Robin Hood to steal from the rich to give to the poor.
|
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: CarolC Date: 14 Jan 01 - 06:49 PM I'm having a hard time getting past this "nation of laws, not of people" thing. I thought the document read "government by the people, of the people for the people." Not "government by the laws, of the laws, for the laws." Carol |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Jan 01 - 07:27 PM MAV - I basically agree that welfare is not a very good idea (in most cases), because it tends to institutionalize and perpetuate poverty. It also makes people feel like they are useless, worthless individuals with no future. Poverty is something that a lot of people are born into, and most of them never get out of it, but pass it on to the next generation. Along with poverty go things like domestic violence, crime, bad diet, fatherless families, drug addiction, and a host of other problems. A few individuals are so gifted that they rise above it, and make a good life for themselves...but most people just get trapped in it. Welfare doesn't change that, it just sticks a bandaid on what is a gaping wound...but doesn't cure the illness that caused the wound. Revolutions have been launched to try and cure the illness, and some of those were communist revolutions, while some were not. Most of the revolutions were themselves soon hijacked by ruthless men who took over the system for their own gain and betrayed the ideals which had placed them in power. That happened in Russia after 1917. It happened in France after the French revolution. In both of those cases, there was a genuine intent to redistribute wealth and end the great disparity between rich and poor. In both cases, the attempt failed. The Russians got Stalin and the gulag, and the French got a bunch of scoundrels, culminating in Napoleon. If you want poverty to end in a society, you have to give the poor not welfare, but jobs! Not welfare but education! Not welfare, but health care! Not welfare, but a decent place to live in. Most people have a keen desire to amount to something, but they can't be kicked in the head (figuratively speaking) from the time of birth into late adolescence and still be expected to think straight and pull themselves up by their bootstraps. That's what happens to ghetto children. I had the great good fortune to be born into a relatively stable middle class family which always had enough food, enough money...and I didn't witness any violence or drug abuse or alcohol abuse in my own home. If I hadn't been so fortunate, I might not be here today at all. I don't consider myself better than some drug addict in the ghetto...I just came out of a different circumstance, that's all, so I have some compassion for the guy. The national government simply has to be the one to change this situation, by first providing a decent level of employment and housing for the poor (indeed for everyone who needs it), because... Private industry has little or no interest in doing so...cos they can't make a profit doing it, so they won't. And why would they, given their philosophy? Town councils don't have the will or the resources to do it. Nor do Counties. And States likeswise...they have neither the will nor the resources. If they had the will, however, the resources could perhaps be found. Only the national government can take on something that big. FDR did, and he called it the New Deal. Something similar, but even more far-reaching is needed now...otherwise poverty will remain, as will drug addiction, crime, and all the terrible social distress that has become commonplace in today's societies...both in the USA and elsewhere. Don't think it wouldn't pay for itself...in less than a generation it would. Can you imagine what a stimulus to the economy it would be if all those who are presently poor, unemployed, and on welfare had a decent job, and were bringing home a good paycheck! My God, then private industry would have reason to smile...they'd be selling goods to those people. As for the illegal drug problem, just make them freely available on prescription to anyone who is addicted. The addict is not a social problem, generally speaking, when he's got his fix, but he's damn dangerous when he doesn't. So no more illegal drugs. Bingo! No more illegal drug trade. No more break-ins by desperate junkies. No more drug wars between dealers staking out turf. No more inflated drug prices. No more market for the international drug trade. Police would have the time and resources to deal with other things of a far more useful nature, and the Mafia and the bikers would be in utter despair, because their main cash supply would be gone! Crime just wouldn't pay any more. (Legalize prostitution and you could remove their other primary source of income.) By the way, if you think that's crazy, consider this. Coffee is a dangerous drug. It's a powerful stimulant. It royally messes up your digestive system, is extremely addictive, causes mood swings, and interferes with your body's production of adrenalin. The majority of the public is heavily addicted to it on a daily basis. Now, if the governing powers decided, in a moment of moral fervor, to make coffee illegal..... Then, my friend, you would soon see a drug trade that would make prohibition look like a tea party (to use an expression). There would be murder in the streets, coffee dealers everywhere, and a cup of coffee would probably cost you $25 dollars...if you had a good connection...$50 if you didn't. It would be the biggest illegal drug trade ever, and the Mafia would be laughing all the way to the bank. That's how stupid and self-defeating the present drug policies are. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Jan 01 - 07:38 PM You don't get laws singing many songs do you? Part from folklore of course...
Sorry I missed out a couple of important strokes in that last post of mine - the idea was to have the quotes in italics and the rest not. Here goes again.
Referring to the States rRightys stuff: At this point that's more or less how the European Union operates. I imagine if there hadn't been bent judges who thought slavery wasn't barred by the Constitution, that might be how the USA still operated. A bit late to go back to that now though isn't it? Not a very conservative things to do either.
Many public assistance programs yank the financial rug from under those who get entry level jobs and practically guarantee failure and return to the welfare rolls.
And I take it, MAV, you think that is a stupid way to run a welfare benefit system? And that help should only be tapered off reasonably gradually to help people get back on their feet? Well, that's something to agree on anyway. I hadn't heard that attacking poverty traps like that was Republican policy, or Republican practice either, but if it is going to be undwer this "compassionate conservatism", that's great.
There are cases where the drug/alcohol addictions are treated as a "disability" and their habit is then subsidized.
But is that necessarily be a bad thing, if it stops people robbing and stealing from their neighbours to pay for their habit, and putting enormous sums of money into the hands of the drug and booze entrepreneurs, and then costing the community enormous sums to keep in jail? (I don't mean give them extra money to buy the stuff on the street.)
When someone retires or quits, their "non-essential position" circles the bowl.
That's a bit too cryptic for me. What's it mean?
|
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: kendall Date: 14 Jan 01 - 07:53 PM My oldest daughter is a hard core republican. She started working as a teen ager, put herself through college, became n X-Ray technician and was convinced that all those "Welfare cheats" should be in jail. Little or no mercy for those women who get pregnant just to get more welfare. Constantly raved about how she worked hard to get ahead while those women sat on their asses and sucked off the system into which she paid high taxes. Well, guess what? a couple of years ago, she developed a herniated disc. An operation was performed in the hospital where she worked. It was botched and she is now almost a cripple. There is no way she can wear that heavy lead apron again, and her job is gone for good. She is now faced with divorce with three kids to raise, and she admits that it is very hard for her to swallow her pride and call for help. She is to become one of those welfare mothers whom she used to look down upon. I could rub it in by saying, "Pride goeth before the fall" but, I wont. So, to all you smug conservatives who find fault with the welfare system, remember this. It could happen to you. |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: Greg F. Date: 14 Jan 01 - 08:25 PM That's Abe Lincoln, Carol, not the constitution- and he was a member of a third-party, radical/progressive - dare I say liberal?- group roundly denounced by the two major parties,of the time (Democrat and Whig) as being inimical to the future of the country. And you're probably only going to hurt your head trying to make sense out of the ramblings of a gent. with as loose a grasp on reality as Friend MAV- nice of you to try, but don't confuse him with logic. Or facts. Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: Lox Date: 14 Jan 01 - 08:57 PM This argument has become too wordy. Mav has identified the key point. It is this - To what extent do we need a safety net? I think that America could do with patching up some big holes. Governments and Laws exist (in my opinion) to protect the citizens of the state they govern. If they don't, there is no point in having them. Wealth in America is distributed criminally. Most people have no faith in the electoral system, and don't bother with the only way they have of making themselves heard - voting. Who cares? You? Are you thinking about your compatriots or yourself or (ideally) both equally? Are you thinking about your country only, or do you accept that the fate of any country, especially the united states, is inextricably bound to the fates of other countries. (remember - it works both ways). Will "Dubya" have even the remotest idea how to liase with Chinese, Russian or European Union leaders. how will all this affect you - and your compatriots - and your global brethren. What are your priorities? This last question goes out to everyone. lox |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: mousethief Date: 15 Jan 01 - 01:00 PM Will George the Conservative dismantle the unconstitutional "war on drugs"? When (for whatever reason) they wanted to make alcohol illegal, they realized the constitutionality of the question and made it an amendment. When Dow Corning (a Big Business) wanted to make hemp illegal, it was done by a presidential decree. Some constitutionality. If you will recall, MAV, the 10th amendment was gutted by arch-Republican Abraham Lincoln and his immediate successors in the Civil War and Reconstruction. It hasn't been the same since. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Jan 01 - 07:22 PM WEll, George Washington used to grow hemp on his farm.
I would have thought that a Constitution committed to "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ought to have protected such things. |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: kendall Date: 15 Jan 01 - 07:29 PM In George Washingtons day, they made rope out of hemp. What a waste! |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: Little Hawk Date: 15 Jan 01 - 07:42 PM Actually, it's not a waste. Hemp makes great rope, and rope was far more useful in those days than getting high. Believe me on this. It was needed in all those sailing ships, etc. Getting high is actually the least productive thing you can do with hemp, although I don't see why people shouldn't do it if they want to. Hemp could make all kinds of useful things, including books and clothing. I've been "high" a few times, and I honestly wasn't all that impressed. What's the big deal? I've had more fun when I wasn't high. First people think it's cool, then they convince themselves they're having a great time. Well, maybe they are... I'm not into it, but I wouldn't deprive them of it either. I believe in freedom of choice when it comes to that. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: katlaughing Date: 15 Jan 01 - 07:46 PM I have two shirts and a checkbook cover made of hemp. |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Jan 01 - 07:51 PM The word canvas is just a variant on cannabis. Essentially the male plant make the best rope, the female plant makes the best dope. And you can't have really have the one without the other. |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: mousethief Date: 16 Jan 01 - 12:03 PM Think of all the trees we could save if we made paper out of hemp. All those tobacco farmers the government subsidizes could be raising hemp for paper, and instead of killing people they could be saving trees. I've never smoked marijuana, but I have inhaled (at rock concerts, second-hand smoke). I wasn't impressed. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: kendall Date: 16 Jan 01 - 12:16 PM Little Hawk, I was being subtle. Of course they made rope out of hemp in Washingtons time..there was no other choice. Tell you what, I would much rather splice a length of nylon or polypro. than hemp. |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: Troll Date: 16 Jan 01 - 12:53 PM Actually, I think that the drive to make hemp illegal was spearheaded by William Randolph Hearst. Hemp makes good paper and is cheap to raise. Hearst owned vast tracts of timber. If he could make the growing of hemp illegal, then his timber would be worth a fortune as paper pulp. He did and it was. Scope out such propaganda films as 'Reefer Madness". troll *not bad for an old conservative, eh?** |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: Troll Date: 16 Jan 01 - 01:01 PM BTW, I think that the drug laws should be overturned. BUT...I also think that ANYONE caught operating any type of vehicle-motorized or not- while under the influence should NEVER be allowed to drive again,ever, under any circumstances. And anyone caught operating a vehicle(Car, boat, plane, bicycle) after being caught the first time should do five years hard time with no parole. A second time would be life. If they show that kind of reckless risregard of the lives and safety of others, they have no business being in free society. Comments? troll |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: mousethief Date: 16 Jan 01 - 01:01 PM I was told it also had to do with Dow (or some other big chemical firm) wanting to sell the military on nylon rope. But that could just be the addled brains of various pot-heads trying to get me to vote for the legalization of marijuana.
"you pothead!" Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: kendall Date: 16 Jan 01 - 01:02 PM But, thats the American way, Troll!! |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: mousethief Date: 16 Jan 01 - 01:10 PM Subverting the Constitution for the sake of profit is, unfortunately, the American Way. Wish it would stop so being. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Jan 01 - 01:40 PM Would you apply the same same restriction to anyone with a gun in their possession troll?
I rather assume you do. But restrictions on gun-users seem to be seen somehow seen as less acceptable than restrictiions on car-users by some people.
And I take it the same rules would apply to alocohol abusers? After all the evidence about adverse efects on driving is a lot stronger there. If it hasd been in force back then of course it'd mean Baby Bush would have lost his licence to drive for life of course. I think most people could live with that consequence anyway. (And unless I'm very mistaken he was pulled in in two occasions, so that would have been five years in jail...Better still.) And I think that any-type-of vehicle-in-any-circumstances would be a bit harsh. Presumably it'd apply to people riding push-bikes or roller-skates or skateboards in parks, or with a sit-down lawn-mower in their garden. Push-chairs could be a problem too. Would riding a horse count as a vehicle? |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: Troll Date: 16 Jan 01 - 02:29 PM Kevin. I feel that anyone who abuses the right to own a gun should do jail time. Period. And yes, that applies to any and all types of transport, animate or otherwise. A drunk on a push bike or skates or a skateboard has already proved that he doesn't give a damn if he hurts himself or others. If he cared, he wouldn't be doing it, would he? A runaway horse can kill you as quickly as an out of control auto. Of course alcohol would be included, and while Bush would have done jail time under these laws, Teddy Kennedy might have done some time too, so it evens out. troll |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: mousethief Date: 16 Jan 01 - 02:36 PM No no, Troll, that's not the point. Applying the rules equally to both situations would make it so that anyone who drinks and shoots should lose the right to own or operate a gun, FOREVER. |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: Skeptic Date: 16 Jan 01 - 04:54 PM Where does it stop. After all, its not just alcohol and illeagal drugs that can impair judgement or reflexes. If my doctor prescribes a medication with demonstrated side effects that impair motor skills and judgement to correct a chemical imbalance or to help me through a crisis, should I be allowed to own a gun/operate a vehicle. Or prosecute/defend a criminal? Or perform open-heart surgery. If I'm impaired, shouldn't I be prohibited from practicing law, medicine or whatever might cause harm or death? And it's not just guns that have the potential to harm self/others. Power tools, chemicals.... the list could go on for pages. Ah, but drunk driving causes more harm than a drunk lawyer? Not if you're the one who has to do the time. Or the victim of the criminal who didn't do time because of an impaired prosecutor. Or the patient whose doctor mis-diagnosis or mistreats something? Where to start is no easier than where to stop. Regards John
|
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Jan 01 - 05:08 PM There's under the influence of and there's incapable by reason of and there over the limit...And different places draw different limits. But if it's danger to yourself that's a factor, that should apply to pedestrians to. And people fixing a snack in a kitchen full of lethal equipment.(That would really threaten potheads!)
And if your blood sugar is low because you missed lunch, or you haven't had enough sleep, that impairs you too...I think a zero-tolerance all-or-nothing approach tends to run into a few problems. And that doesn't mean I don't think coming down heavy on people driving irresponsibly for whatever reason isn't a good idea. |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: Troll Date: 16 Jan 01 - 07:37 PM Kevin, in this country (The US) if you are convicted of a felony, one of the things you lose is the right to own a firearm. Skeptic, you are quite right but something needs to be done. The present rules don't work. I do not believe in laws that "protect us from ourselves" such as helmet laws etc but there must be something done about repeat offenders who commit murder with their cars. Most vehicular homicide cases involve someone who has already been in trouble with the law for driving while impared. Isn't it time we put these people away where they cannot continue to kill? If you commit a felony with a gun, you do hard time. If you are caught with a firearm in your posession after that you go back to prison. Why can't this be extended to drug/alcohol impared drivers? troll |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: Little Hawk Date: 16 Jan 01 - 08:05 PM All this yakking makes me want to have a good stiff drink, hop in the car, and go shoot someone...and not wear a helment while I'm doing it, too! I want to feel veins in my teeth, and whistle Dixie while I chop down old growth forests! I demand a whole new set of laws right now to protect people like me, and imprison everybody else! God, I think I'm getting delirious...there's a pink elephant trampling on my geraniums! Where is that goddamn gun! It's this damned thread. It's driven me insane. I say we all stop right now and clear our heads... EEEEEEEYYYYYAAAAAAHHHH!!! Ah. That feels better. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: Troll Date: 16 Jan 01 - 08:08 PM STOP? You were finally starting to make sense! troll |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: Little Hawk Date: 16 Jan 01 - 08:16 PM Why thanks, pal! I try... - LH |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: kendall Date: 16 Jan 01 - 08:39 PM A bit of digging has shown that dubbya was arrested 3 times, and Cheney twice. |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: GUEST,petr Date: 16 Jan 01 - 08:44 PM just one comment on the safety net. in america more money is spent on corporate grants than on welfare.
|
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: Lox Date: 17 Jan 01 - 12:53 AM It depresses me to say it, but I had hoped for something better. In my posting, I asked what peoples priorities were. After that, the thread seemed to go in a new direction. From what I can tell, so far, your priorities are drugs, guns and cars. I'm not saying that your attention is entirely misplaced, but you have at least painted a clear picture of America for me. Next step I suppose is to ask you why you think that these have become issues at all. lox |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: CarolC Date: 17 Jan 01 - 03:05 AM Lox, you're being hasty. These are mostly American males contributing to this thread. That's only about half of us. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: CarolC Date: 17 Jan 01 - 03:25 AM My priorities are as follows: The environment. The welfare of my son and that of future generations. Caring for those who cannot adequately care for themselves. Promoting peace whenever possible. Making the education system more child friendly. Making society more child friendly. Educating women in third world countries and helping them to become more financially independent. Educating young people all over the world about birth control and aids. Those are just a few that come to mind right now. Carol |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Jan 01 - 06:57 AM Most of the stuff that people seem to argue about here - drugs and guns in a bundle and such - aren't really political at all, in a left/right sense.
For one reason or another a whole bunch of special issues have got tied up and labelled "left" or (in that peculiar American usage) "liberal", and others as "right" or "conservative".
And yet for so many there is no particular reason why supporters they are seen as going together. And you get glaring inconsistencies, like people saying they are pro-life and pro-death penalty - and the other way round. Or people being libertarian on some issues and anti-libertarian on others, and yet talking as if libertarianism was a fundamental principle.
I think a lot of it is about us having things which we care a lot about, but needing allies, so we group ourselves with the people who agree with us on the things we care about, and take on board the other things that our allies include in the package deal. (And I'm not talking about the Mudcat discussions here, but about the background to them.)
And one reason these kind of things go round and round here is that in some ways much of the music we love has been included in these package deals, at least for Americans. So "folk music" gets seen s a "liberal" linked music, and "country" gets seen as a "conservative" music -and yet much of the time its the very same music. And that means we can't avoid each other's company. And if we look into it at the end of the day the old truth applies, there is more that unites us than divides us. |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: InOBU Date: 17 Jan 01 - 08:22 AM Jeeze Carol? From your breakdown of the dif between American men and women, ... could it be my wife is a lesbian? I better go out and drive around awhile and clear my head out of all those shared beliefs we have, become a real guy! I'm saying this only in fun, though, I worry that in stead of class and political belief, we try, in the states to find other acceptable break downs, race and gender, in the aftermath of the Red scare days. Troll, you may be on to something. How about not allowing anyone who is convicted of drunk driving not being alowed to take the presidential oath? I'd back that! ;-] Larry HEY! Just came out on the knews, we might have had a wee rummbly earthquake felt here in New York! WOOF! |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Jan 01 - 08:26 AM It's those dinosaurs coming back on home InOBU! Godzilla rules... |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: InOBU Date: 17 Jan 01 - 11:20 AM Jeeze that did rumble my head! Knews for NEWS! Well the epi center tunrs out to be New York Harbour. It must be all the beer barrels Mayor Laguardia tossed in the bay during prohibition rupturing! The durty ould whoore of a bay just belched! - Larry |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: Troll Date: 17 Jan 01 - 11:52 AM Come on down to Florida, Larry. All we gots to worry about is hurricanes and (ptui!) tourists. BTW, I don't believe that anyone who has been convicted of a felony is eligible to run for president and since a second drunk driving conviction would be a felony under my plan, no Bush! That would mean that the Republicans would have fielded someone else who would have probably beaten Gore so badly that he would have dried up and blown away. I mean look how badly he did against BUSH! troll |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: mousethief Date: 17 Jan 01 - 12:11 PM If the Republicans COULD HAVE put up somebody stronger than Bush, who after all lost the election, why didn't they? Lox, you are making a mistake by conflating the things that matter to us with the things we argue about. What matters to most of us is our family. But nobody else knows anything about our family so an argument about that would make no sense. We argue about things like gun control and abortion and such because (1) these are in the public eye and laws and court rulings can make a difference, and (2) they show up some of the fundamental differences in how we feel about human rights and responsibilities. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: Lox Date: 17 Jan 01 - 12:38 PM Firstly, I don't see the point in, and I don't enjoy, arguing about things that don't matter to me. Secondly, I think it's a mistake to seperate issues like gun control from issues like your family, because your family could be affected by the issue. If abortion isn't a family issue, I don't know what is. If political argument/discussion is a diversion from the things we care about, then it can only wind up becoming an abstract intellectual pursuit. When politics becomes abstract, it loses its meaning. The political issue becomes - "politicians are out of touch". For most people in the world, life is a constant struggle to protect ones family, on the most fundamental level that you can imagine (India, Africa, etc). This struggle for them is what politics is about. I do not wish to associate myself in any way with the Pat Buchannan idea of the uber-family as a foundation to politics, (as abstract and unrealistic a concept as you can imagine) but I would never dream of trying to seperate politics from family. Your family is being affected every day by policy decisions. I care about my family, and believe it or not, I care that yours isn't suffering. It is for these reasons that I care about politics. PS I hope I didn't imply that I thought Guns drugs & cars weren't important issues. I think they are all matters of great importance as they all play a mighty role in most americans lives. ...rant...drivel...rave...etc... lox |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: Lox Date: 17 Jan 01 - 12:43 PM Please note - I am not a politician!!!!!!! lox |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: MichaelAnthony Date: 17 Jan 01 - 01:06 PM "Most people have no faith in the electoral system, and don't bother with the only way they have of making themselves heard - voting." Voting is not enough for some, and sometimes one can't vote for the person they want to, or the choices aren't right for them. Fortunately in some places it's safe to rally for a cause, run for office, write letters, songs, etc.
|
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: GUEST,kendall Date: 17 Jan 01 - 01:38 PM As I understand it, Dubbya was arrested for drunk and disorderly, and another time for stealing something, a college prank. ( probably the answers to tests) I dont know about Florida, but in Maine, a felony is simply an offence which is punishable by more than 1 year in jail. |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: Lox Date: 17 Jan 01 - 01:42 PM I agree - use it. before those rights are whittled away too. lox |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: Lox Date: 17 Jan 01 - 01:47 PM (That was to Michael Anthony) lox |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: InOBU Date: 17 Jan 01 - 02:19 PM I went to Florida once, ol troll ol pal - I couldn't take the hot weather. About half my genes are Viking, being Norman Irish, and the farther away from the artic circle I get, them more I begin to feel out of sorts. As long as our wee tremblers don't get worce than the one we had this morning - I'll keep them and let you guys have the serrious wind. We actually had two that felt much worse about ten or fifteen years back. Larry |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: CarolC Date: 17 Jan 01 - 05:06 PM InOBu, Did you see the smiley face at the end of my post to which you refer? (Joking, I was...) Although, in terms of voting patterns, if you believe the polling data, priorities do break down somewhat differently between the sexes. You sound like a very enlightened man to me. I'm sure there are many men like you in America. If the results of this last election are any indication, though, it looks like we need a few more like you. |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Jan 01 - 05:25 PM More InOBUs ? That's an awesome thought. I mentioned Godzilla up there didn't I? Not in the same class. |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: InOBU Date: 17 Jan 01 - 06:42 PM Dear dear Carol! Of course I knew you were joking, and so was I... I hark back to when my local cafe, which serves Male and Female Chi (spiced tea) ran out of male chi and gave me female chi and after drinking it, I told the waitress I had an uncontrolable desire to run home and speak to my wife about my emotions... ;-) Larry PS speaking of joking ... KEV! you and Fion may note the diff between joking about the little burp of an earthquake we just went through here, and the big tragidy in El Salvador - which I would never have joked about, even if it were not in a nation I got into fist fights in bars with American navy men over the illegal mining of their harbours! Cheers all the same... as ever... the one and only.... Larry |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: Little Hawk Date: 18 Jan 01 - 01:33 PM I'm in a really rotten mood today, so it's the perfect time to cap off post # 100 here, and start Conservative Cavalry, Round 4!!! isn't it? Cheers, - LH |
|
Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!! From: mousethief Date: 18 Jan 01 - 01:36 PM Go for it, LH! |
| Share Thread: |