Conservative Cavalry Round THREE!!!

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!"
---Dar Williams

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