 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued
|
|
|
Subject: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: Greg F. Date: 22 Oct 00 - 12:22 PM Looked like this was going to go past 100, so thought I'd do the honors. First Part HERE |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: Jim the Bart Date: 22 Oct 00 - 12:57 PM Carlin - I think you're dead on about the American public's wish to cleave to the center. In general, the majority of people do not want radical change in their life. The desire for serious systemic change is almost always called for by people living on the fringes - or those (like our non-American friends) who will not be directly effected by the upheaval. Revolutionary times are tough to live through and you never know what things will be like when you emerge from the other end of the tunnel. Look at the so-called "Reagan Revolution" for examples of unintended effects of good intentions (genocide in "free" Eastern Europe and the savings and loan debacle, for starters). What I venture as my opinion here is stated with all respect to everyone who has posted to these threads. I do value others opinions, even if I might not agree with them. I also feel in my bones that there are others who are paying attention to these discussions, but not posting. Not posting doesn't mean not caring. I think, at times, you can say the same for not voting. If you look at the voting numbers, you don't get high turnout for elections where there is no clear and decisive choice on an issue of great importance. And as much as the issues are "important" to we who post "and we who vote", to the vast majority there is little choice and little reason to worry about who eventually gets elected. If the American public votes in Bush and he starts to engineer great changes in the fabric of society, you can look forward to a return to a Democratic congress in two years. The "ship of state" may rock, but we won't let it get tilted far enough to tip over. This being said, do I think there is no reason to vote? Not at all. Let me gently suggewt once more that you read the articles cited. There are real differences between these men. If you're undecided, quit blaming it on the campaigns of these candidates. Do a little research. Get some real data (not just your gentle posters' opinions). Then make a choice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: Carlin Date: 22 Oct 00 - 01:06 PM "Are you aware Carlin of the fact that the Vice president has NO power? kendall" Yes well, Clinton has said a couple of times that Gore is the most involved veep in history, and the greatest since Jefferson. But if that is the argument you want to make, fine with me. It means Gore can't take credit for any of the good things that have happened on Clinton's watch, and it certainly belies the argument that Gore is more experienced than Bush....after all he has spent eight years in a position where he "has NO power", while Bush has actually been serving as an executive. ;) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: Carlin Date: 22 Oct 00 - 01:24 PM The Yank said.... "are American voters such cretins they can't remember he's the V.P. & need to be reminded?"
"Which parallel universe are you occupying, anyway?"
"The freedom to have your job shipped to Sri Lanka, the freedom to live in the only developed country in the world without adequate health insurance, the freedom to starve, the freedom to feel sorry for poor, downtrodden corporations & billionaires. Etc"
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: GUEST,The Yank Date: 22 Oct 00 - 01:37 PM Carlin:
Please see discussion, above, re: the accuracy of polls. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: Carlin Date: 22 Oct 00 - 01:43 PM So how many?
Do you have a better explanation about Gore shying away from the impeachment issue? I say it is because they have internal polling data that suggests it is an issue that that could swing either way and it is a dangerous place to go....what is your explanation? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: JamesJim Date: 22 Oct 00 - 01:59 PM Hey mousethief, absolutely good and legitimate thoughts. At least you are involved and apparently going to vote. Just keep your finger in the air (index one please) and you'll no doubt determine which way the wind is blowing (sorry, couldn't resist)! Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: Carlin Date: 22 Oct 00 - 01:59 PM BTW Kendall, I hope you took note of the military spending exchange during the debate. You have expressed concern that Bush would boondoggle the military....well Gore proudly announced that he would spend twice as much on the military than Bush ("If the military is in such great shape, why does Al Gore want to speend a $100,000,000,000 on it?"-Dick Cheney). And Bush is talking about bringing some of the troops home (and not just the peacekeepers, some of the units in Germany too). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: GUEST,The Yank Date: 22 Oct 00 - 01:59 PM This guy's already said it better than I could. CLICK HERE |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 22 Oct 00 - 02:10 PM "A country where poor people have cars and color TV's. Anyone can go to the emergency room and get treatment, it is against the law for the hospital to turn you away. How many people are starving in the US.."
In the richest country on the world someone takes pride in the fact that not many people are actually starving? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 22 Oct 00 - 02:14 PM Here is a link that was missed in the last post when my blue clicky misfired: - An article from today's Observer (London) about some people who won't be voting - by an American correspondent of The Observer (London).
And that's not me taking sides in this election between two parties who have colluded with each other in creating this state of affairs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: Carlin Date: 22 Oct 00 - 02:16 PM I wonder why people would think it is negative campaigning? Most likely because they wouldn't agree with what he had to say. Imagine that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: DougR Date: 22 Oct 00 - 02:57 PM Hmmm. Probably. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: Carlin Date: 22 Oct 00 - 04:36 PM Tch,tch! McGrath, are you suggesting that there are no industrial/agricultural backwaters with tales of poverty and deprivation in Europe? Surely you jest...... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: Greg F. Date: 22 Oct 00 - 05:55 PM Anyone can go to the emergency room and get treatment... Whoo, Boy, Carlin! LOL!! I'll leave this for some of the 'Catters I know who work in health services to deal with at length, but suggest as an experiment you go to an E.R. in any fairly large city, tell them you have no health insurance, and report back on the outcome.(We won't talk about rural America, where many folks can't get TO the E.R. 60 or 100 miles away) Try asking them about dental care. Or a mammogram. Or prenatal care. Or preventative medicine. Or how to pay for any prescriptions they might give you, if you're VERY fortunate. This isn't anything CLOSE to health care. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: Carlin Date: 22 Oct 00 - 06:20 PM "but suggest as an experiment you go to an E.R. in any fairly large city, tell them you have no health insurance, and report back"
Been there, done that. It was right about the time of the Gulf War so the rascally Republicans were in the White House too! Went to the emergency room in Titusville,FL with no money, no insurance...I had just moved into town...I was running a very high fever and had a nasty hacking cough and a very sore throat. Turns out I had strep-throat. They gave me a shot, some anti-biotics, and some pain killers. I worked out a payment plan (15$ a week)......they seemed especially pleased that I actually paid them.
'We won't talk about rural America, where many folks can't get TO the E.R. 60 or 100 miles away) '
And if we had socialized medicine they would still have to travel 60-100 miles to get to a hospital....what is your point? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: DougR Date: 22 Oct 00 - 07:07 PM My wife was admitted to Emergency Care shortly before she died. I will never forget the sign posted on the wall in the cubicle where she lay on the hospital bed. It was a sign validating exactly what Carlin said about the penalty for denial of emergency room treatment by any hospital in the United States. Sorry Greg F., but I'm afraid you are barking up the wrong tree on this one. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 22 Oct 00 - 07:19 PM "are you suggesting that there are no industrial/agricultural backwaters with tales of poverty and deprivation in Europe" - no I'm not.
There are places in England, for example, where the collapse of traditional industry has wrecked communities, and life is pretty grim - but I don't think there is anywhere you could really compare to the places Ed Vulliamy writes about there. Maybe there are, and if you know of them , let me know, because we need to know about stuff like that. There are parts of Russia which probably are as bad, and in Albania maybe...but the United States is the richest country in the world. It hasn't had a war on its territory in well over 100 years. Its got incredible natural resources. My impression is that when Americans say it's "God's own country" they don't have their tongue in their cheek. So how can people accept this kind of situation and turn their back on it?
Oh, but you who philosophize disgrace and criticise all fears |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: catspaw49 Date: 22 Oct 00 - 07:24 PM I dunno' Mac........but I have a feeling you're about to get an answer. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: Greg F. Date: 22 Oct 00 - 07:44 PM Well,I'm glad Carlin had such a positive experience at the E.R. and that they were able to kiss his boo-boo and make it better. But I think that you'll find thousands, if not millions, whose experiences have been less heart-warming, particularly those those with serious medical conditions, or chronic ones. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: DougR Date: 22 Oct 00 - 08:54 PM Greg F. Duh! :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: Carlin Date: 23 Oct 00 - 06:30 AM McGrath, according to the BBC..Click Here a third of British children live in poverty. How can you be so concerned about Mississippi when 4 million British children are living in poverty? How can you turn your back on them?
A family of four that makes $16,000 qualifies for food stamps, WIC checks, most likely AFDC. You will also note in MR Vulliamy's article that,"Finally came the 'welfare reform' of 1996 which removed tens of thousands from the benefits rolls and sent them into jobs they often lost within weeks either through ineptitude or inability to live the working life." I am assuming that 'inability to lead the working life' means they won't put down the crack pipe and the Schlitz malt liquor long enough to keep a real job.
BTW it should also be noted that YANK has not replied with any sort of figure about the number of 'starving' people in the US....perhaps he is having trouble finding such a figure because it ain't happening....
But back to these poor kids in the UK....how callous can you be, McGrath? You shed your tears for the American South, while one third of the babies in your own country live in poverty! This is after the US poured billions of dollars into rebuilding Europe after the last war! What did you folks do with all the money? How can there be poverty in the social democratic European Utopias? How can you look at other countries and tell them how cold-hearted they are, when 1/3 of British babies are in poverty, eh?
GregF "Well,I'm glad Carlin had such a positive experience at the E.R. and that they were able to kiss his boo-boo and make it better." Would you like some cheese with that whine? You employed a stupid rhetorical device and got burned....don't be prissy about it. Just out of curiosity, do you think that in a nation that has socialized medicine...oh let's say Britain (where 1/3 of children live in poverty!), if Tony Blair goes to the public health clinic (ha!), does he get a)the same treatment as everybody else, b)worse treatment than everybody else, or c)they bend over backwards and kiss his ass? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: GUEST,The Yank Date: 23 Oct 00 - 07:26 AM 'inability to lead the working life' means they won't put down the crack pipe and the Schlitz malt liquor long enough to keep a real job. 'Scuse me??? No, the reason I haven't responded is I don't see any purpose served attempting to engage in a rational discussion with a racist imbecile. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: John Hardly Date: 23 Oct 00 - 07:39 AM How is pointing out that much of poverty has a behavior cause racist? John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: John Hardly Date: 23 Oct 00 - 07:44 AM That's suppose to read; How is it racist to point out that much of poverty has a behavioral cause? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: Carlin Date: 23 Oct 00 - 07:50 AM Really Yank? Please explain what the phrase,'inability to lead the working life', means.....Perhaps they have chronic tardiness syndrome?
And you can take that rascist crap and go pound sand. You can't support your statements with facts and figures so you respond with name calling. Typical tactic for those who argue purely from emotion....
I have made no blanket statements condeming or judging anyone on the basis of race or ethnicity...I pointed out that the phrase 'inability to lead the working life' sounds like a euphemism for a particular problem, but if I am wrong....enlighten me. What does it mean? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 23 Oct 00 - 08:37 AM Nobody I know goes around saying Brirtain is the best country in the world. What have statistics about failings in other countries got to do with it anyway?
If my children were living in poverty and squalor and someone asked why that could be happening, since I was so rich, what sense would it make for me to be saying "Mine the only family which doesn't look after its children properly"? If I knew about a place in the country I live in where the kind of conditions outlined in that article existed I'd be kicking up a fuss about it, and I'd be grateful to anyone who brought it to my attention. Things are bad enough in some parts, and poverty got far worse over the 18 years of the Tories - but even they had limits.
This isn't about foreiogners. It's about your fellow Americans. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 23 Oct 00 - 09:16 AM That should have been "Mine isn't the only family which doesn't look after its children properly." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: Carlin Date: 23 Oct 00 - 09:17 AM Ok McGrath, what do you think the guaranteed standard of living should be? Is everyone entitled to live like they make 20k, 30, 40, 50? What level of taxation are you willing to submit to, to provide that standard? What do you plan on doing with people who have an 'inability to lead the working life'? Are they entitled to the same standard of living as the people who can and do lead the 'working life'?
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 23 Oct 00 - 10:50 AM In case anyone thinks I'm just stirring for fun, here are two passages from that article. There are particular reasons why Mudcatters might have a special feeling about people in Clarkesdale, Mississippi:
Here is the first passage: Clarkesdale is the epicentre of that which in eighteenth-century England was called the 'Blue Devils', adapted by plantation-speak during the 1890s to 'the Blues'. It is the town in which the famous 'Crossroads' is located at which the master of all bluesmen, Robert Johnson, is said to have sold his soul to the Devil in exchange for his wizardry on the guitar.
The old Negro lore has it that the musician must 'take a black cat bone and a guitar and go to a lonely fork in the road at midnight'. The guitarist will soon be joined by an 'unseen musician' who will 'play in perfect unison' before taking his instrument away from him - although the sound will continue until our guitarist's fingertips bleed. 'The music,' runs the legend, 'will eventually subside, and when all is quiet, you may go home. You will be able to play any piece you desire on the guitar, but you will have sold your eternal soul and are his in the world to come.' The crossroads is that between Highway 61, which splices America in two, north-south, and Highway 49 - now marked by a bricked-up, former laundromat.
It was on a farm called Hopson, now site of an annual blues festival, that another Devil claimed many souls in Clarksdale: the first mechanical cotton-picking machine, which led to the mechanisation of the plantations, and began the great migrations north that in turn created the ghettoes of Chicago, Detroit, Washington, New York and Boston.
And here is the second:
On a street that runs adjacent to the Sunflower River through Clarksdale, there's a ramshackle but precious hotel with a history to tell that encapsulates all the pain and emotion of Benny Brown's 'poverty pocket'. The Riverside Hotel dates from the days when blacks were not allowed to stay in 'white' hotels; it is where singer Bessie Smith was taken to die; it's where the blues masters stayed and now where the labourers - the 'weeklies' - live, and where the blues pilgrims, mostly from overseas, come to visit.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: DougR Date: 23 Oct 00 - 12:27 PM McGrath: those quotes offer us nothing other than the author's opinion, quotations, admittedly, from folklore written in italics. Escapes me what you are trying to prove by quoting this article. I don't know Clarkdale, Mississippi, but I would venture a guess that it might have moved into the 21st Century by now. Any Mississippi Mudcatters out there that can bring us up to date? I did get one useful piece of information from the article you quote, though, McGrath: I always wondered where the Devil lived. I'm steering clear of Clarkdale, Mississippi! :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: mousethief Date: 23 Oct 00 - 12:47 PM There are plenty of hungry people in the US. Go to any large city (Seattle is large enough) and look at the people who used to be in mental institutions but were "freed" from their "incarceration" by the inane Democrats and the budget-slashing Republicans. Every year Chicago buries hundreds of street people who freeze to death in the winter. When my ex was working at a street Mission in downtown Chicago, back in the mid-1980s, there were over 30,000 people living on the streets in Chicago. It's no good to say "there are no hungry people in the USA" and then when somebody points out the hungry people in the USA, to claim, "ah, well, they refuse to get a job, or are unable to due to their own self-induced drug problem, now aren't they?" That doesn't make them any less hungry. What REALLY bugs me (not saying anyone here has done this) is when people who claim to be Christian, and then make "let them bootstrap themselves into affluence" noises. "Lord, when did we see you hungry, and not feed you?"
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: Jim the Bart Date: 23 Oct 00 - 12:52 PM This is all interesting stuff, but typical of what happens in political discussions that I have heard lately on TV and around the water cooler. All of a sudden we're off on a tangent and the discussion descends into name calling. Neither candidate is going to solve the problem of poverty in America. Gore may be offering the traditional box of liberal band aids, but Bush offers nothing. No amount of tax relief is going to persuade some rich guy to bring jobs to rural Mississippi. If you accept that premise, and you're really interested in addressing the issue of rural poverty, it becomes clearer that you need to leverage your tax breaks toward those in the lower and middle classes who are already there and have a vested interest in improving local economies, rather than maximizing the return on their investments. You also need to create programs that improve the infrastructure (and provide jobs) in these areas. You may call them "Pork barrel", but government programs do that. Comment, please. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: mousethief Date: 23 Oct 00 - 01:08 PM I heard a very humorous description of "supply side economics" on the radio last night. It was called "horse and sparrow" economics. If you shove enough oats into the horse, eventually the horse will produce enough for the sparrows to live on.
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: DougR Date: 23 Oct 00 - 01:39 PM Bart: I agree with you. Neither Bush or Gore (and for that matter no one else) can eraducate poverty in America. It is a worthwhile goal, but I doubt it will ever be achieved. I assume you are suggesting that the federal government create some programs in those areas where the most poverty exists. Something like the W.P.A. was in the 1930s? That was a government program that I would not object to being revived myself. It did a lot of good in the state where I lived. It was all based on the participants in the program working, though, and not simply reporting for a welfare check every month having done nothing to earn it. Many parks and useful public areas in Texas might not exist today if that program had not been created by Franklin Roosevelt AND the Democratically controlled congress of the early 1930s. If such a program were created, however, I would prefer to see it funded as a matching funds program with the individual state matching, in some ratio, federal funds, and having the program administered at the state, rather than at the federal level. What we do not need, I believe, is another huge federal bureaucracy created. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: Frankham Date: 23 Oct 00 - 01:49 PM I was bothered by the casual statement," 'inability to lead the working life' means they won't put down the crack pipe and the Schlitz malt liquor long enough to keep a real job." The person that wrote this is not really looking for a solution for poverty in the US and elsewhere. The real job he talks about is pretty much at the whims of the economy. A low paying menial job does not supply a sufficient umbrella for people who are trapped in the ghettoes and in urban poverty centers. There are cases of people who have worked very hard in the US and have not been able to make it financially. This is an interpretation of the "inability" under discussion. There are many African-American young men who are deprived of education or economic opportunities whose only way to make the system work for them is to get involved in the sale of drugs for which there is a considerable market in all stratas of society in every country in the world. There is nothing noble about submitting to a grinding low-level low-paid menial job that doesn't supply enough wherewithal to meet the nut. This is a kind of exploitation advocated by an ideological group who ignores the real problem. This simplistic view was the rationale for some of the great social abuses by the wealthy robber barons of our time. It "trickled down" to the white working class blue collar and the tragedy of this view is that it keeps these folks from wanting to break out of that box, taking an inordinate pride in the fact that they "work" and others can't. To slave away at a menial job is not a great moral achievement but underscores that role in an economic environment that is insenstive to the real problems of survival where there is a large gap between rich and poor. The archaic comment from the dark ages such as "get a job" reminds me of the days of the first automobile where the horseman says to the driver of a broken-down Ford model T,"get a horse". In other words, don't bother to fix the car. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 23 Oct 00 - 02:07 PM "Escapes me what you are trying to prove by quoting this article."
Not really trying to prove anything. But I found it interesting to see from the article what life is like for the people living in a place with such remarkable cultural associations. And moving. And I thouight that other people who love the music might also find it interesting, and maybe they might be moved as well.
It's a bit like finding out that the place Shakespeare grew up in was now an impoverished third-world slum. I don't think that is what people normally mean when they say "Only in America".
"I'm steering clear of Clarkdale, Mississippi!" And you appear not to be alone in that.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: Jim the Bart Date: 23 Oct 00 - 02:08 PM Yes, Doug, I was talking about government programs. Looking back, I didn't make my point as well as I wanted to. Let me put it another way. The government "got bigger", as someone else in this thread put it, as a lever against big business. Trying to solve problems like poverty, health care, education, conservation of resources, etc. through "market forces" is,n my opinion a recire for disaster. The market is concerned with maximizing profits; these are quality of life issues and should not, can not, must not be left to the generosity of "enlightened capitalists". When GWB talks about shrinking the government, this is exactly what he's talking about doing. Gore would scare me on this issue if he hadn't been involved in the past administration's efforts to streamline the federal bureaucracy. I think your point about state administration of federal programs should be considered, but when you look at how easily local and state governments can get "de-railed" (take a look at the horrible bureaucratic mess that is the Chicago school system) or radicalized (creationism?) I can't help but think that national policy and federal control might be better. Big, multinational businesses can be run effectively; there is no reason (this side of blatant corruption) that the government can't benefit from "economies of scale" also. Bart |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: John Hardly Date: 23 Oct 00 - 02:11 PM Frank, Isn't it equally simplistic to say "we'll redistribute the money from those who do worthwhile work to the poor so that they don't have to (because they can't) do work that is beneath them. You know, it is the history of our country that groups have come here poor and, working in chorus at those jobs that you (some) deem too menial, HAVE enjoyed our prosperity. It is elitist to believe that the poor cannot make it without our benificence. Mouse, The contention is not that there are (may not be) hungry among us. The arguement centers on whether it is 1. something the government can do anything about, 2. the result of behaviors that will continue, or even get worse, when subsidized. When no behavioral strictures are placed on the largesse the government imparts, it merely "enables" ill behavior. The catch 22 is that we also don't WANT the government to demand moral choices about legal behavior. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: DougR Date: 23 Oct 00 - 02:12 PM So, Frank, it's better to find something illegal to do like selling drugs to school kids, huh? Such folks might have to work two jobs, many people do! How did you come up with logic like that? Also, do ONLY African-American men sell drugs? No "Honky" drug peddlers around? I guess as a tax payer (and I assume you are) you would much rather see your taxes used to pay welfare for those folks who just can't make ends meet from income from a meanial job. Do nothing, and get paid for it. Great idea. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: DougR Date: 23 Oct 00 - 02:34 PM Frank, just one more thought on the subject. I wonder of those young men who are driven to selling drugs because they can't make it from menial jobs have ever heard of the U. S. military? True, the Clinton administration has allowed the life style of the military to deteriorate during the past eight years which is resulting in a lot of people leaving the service, but soon the living standards of the military are likely to improve. Bush says he's going to do it, and Gore says he's going to do twice as much! These young men and women can learn skills and if they choose, get an education paid for by us folks. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: GUEST,Stackly Date: 23 Oct 00 - 03:15 PM Atta Boy, Doug! Spoken like a true patriot. It worked a treat in Viet Nam, too- killed off damn near a whole generation of Blacks & poor people!! Thats all these po' folks is good for, anyway- cannon fodder & fighting wars for the rich, white people that get to stay home & make more money. Expect K-K-Karlin would agree with you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: Carlin Date: 23 Oct 00 - 03:35 PM ROFLMAO!!!!
Frank did you read the article?
"Finally came the 'welfare reform' of 1996 which removed tens of thousands from the benefits rolls and sent them into jobs they often lost within weeks either through ineptitude or inability to live the working life."
Please note the last 16 words..."jobs they often lost within weeks either through ineptitude or inability to live the working life."
That doesn't really sound like they worked and struggled and couldn't pay the bills for very long.
Stop and roll those words around in your mind, "jobs they often lost within weeks either through ineptitude or inability to live the working life."
Now truly man, what do you think this fellow is trying to say?
If I told you, oh say Pat Buchannon said that, what would you think he meant?
Be honest with yourself and it will set you free.
After taking me to task for making an unfair stereotype, you say this,"There are many African-American young men who are deprived of education or economic opportunities whose only way to make the system work for them is to get involved in the sale of drugs for which there is a considerable market in all stratas of society in every country in the world. "
From this I can only conclude that if I had said,'inability to lead the working life means they won't get off the street corner and stop selling crack....' You would have no argument. Is it not an unfair stereotype to conclude that these people who lost their jobs because of an 'inability to lead the working life' were crack dealers?
I could take the opportunity to point out that if he is out selling it, he is smoking it....and thus my statement about putting down the crackpipe is valid. But that would be piling on so I won't.
You then make this extraordinary statement,"There is nothing noble about submitting to a grinding low-level low-paid menial job that doesn't supply enough wherewithal to meet the nut. "
But selling crack is ok? Very interesting.....
In short I think you have a very twisted sense of nobility. It is the people in the poor communities who work hard and obey the laws that are making a better lives for their kids....the crackdealers are the problem (part of it anyway)!!
"The archaic comment from the dark ages such as "get a job" reminds me of the days of the first automobile where the horseman says to the driver of a broken-down Ford model T,"get a horse". In other words, don't bother to fix the car."
It may be archaic thinking but getting a job goes a long way toward fixing the car....especially if you have to pay the mechanic.....
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: DougR Date: 23 Oct 00 - 04:47 PM Well, gee whiz, guest Stackly, who should comprise our armed forces? Our armed forces are volunteers, right? There are no more draftees in our armed services, right? Equating the Viet Nam war with the subject of this thread is a bit far out isn't it? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 23 Oct 00 - 05:10 PM I take it all this is the "compassionate conservatism" we've been hearing about? I was listening to the debate, and somehow Bush seemed to be trying to make it sound a bit different from that. Was he trying to pull the wool over people's eyes, or are some of you guys "off-message" as they say? (As for:"Equating the Viet Nam war with the subject of this thread is a bit far out isn't it?" But how can anything be more relevant to electing a President than issues of war and peace? )
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: mousethief Date: 23 Oct 00 - 05:18 PM Compassionate conservatism, defined. 'At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge,' said the gentleman, taking up a pen, 'it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.' 'Are there no prisons?' asked Scrooge. 'Plenty of prisons,' said the gentleman, laying down the pen again. 'And the Union workhouses?' demanded Scrooge. 'Are they still in operation?' 'They are. Still,' returned the gentleman, 'I wish I could say they were not.' 'The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?' said Scrooge. 'Both very busy, sir.' 'Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,' said Scrooge. 'I am very glad to hear it.'
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: Greg F. Date: 23 Oct 00 - 05:57 PM McGrath! Egad! I'm surprised at you! Suggesting that Dubya - that upright, likeable, exemplar of CHARACTER- would attempt to decieve the American Voter. Seems you've sussed out 'compasionate conservatism'- the wonder is that more of the American electorate hasn't. (Hint: its a lot like "a thousand points of light".) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: Jim the Bart Date: 23 Oct 00 - 05:59 PM Nice example, Mthief, except that conservatives would see the original speaker, with his "slight provision for the poor and destitute", as the compassionate conservative and dismiss Scrooge as some kind of reactionary (probably a Libertarian). Even old Fezziwhig wouldn't have been able to spread his Christmas largesse without turning a tidy profit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: DougR Date: 23 Oct 00 - 06:02 PM McGrath: as is often said here at the Mudcat, you certainly have a right to your opinion. Difficult for me to understand why the Viet Nam war should be singled out though. What about WW 1, WW2, Spanish American, Civil???? Oh well. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: Carlin Date: 23 Oct 00 - 06:25 PM >>>I take it all this is the "compassionate conservatism" we've been hearing about? <<<<<<
LOL Probably not....but I haven't said anything about how I would deal with the difficulties in Mississippi, or the inner-city....
I think Bartholomew's idea about infra-structure improvements is wonderful. Personally I lean more toward TVA style projects than the old WPA but both can be useful. The TVA brought economic advancement to the entire region, and it spurred many a social movement (desegregation for instance...the growing black middle class in the south got tired of sitting in the back of the bus).
I also think that there should be a major education reform. As a society we put way to much emphasis on going to college. People in the industrial and agricultural backwaters would be better served by more vocational training (I'm not talking about eliminating the academic programs but offering a choice to go to a trade school).
American high schools are increasingly geared toward putting kids on the college path....but that neglects people who are tempermentally unsuited for college or a professional career. I think vouchers would be a good way to offer this option.
I am all for spending more money to help these people get rid of the drug dealer's, muggers, and gang bangers that plague their neighborhoods. It will require the cooperation of the residents to do this though. They have to be willing to call the cops, they have to be willing to testify in court, and when they sit on a jury they have to be willing to convict the guilty and not make excuses for them.
What I will not do is subsidize Frank's crack dealing hero.
Everyone should have the chance to get a good education that will provide the opportunity to get a good job. But you can't make people take advantage of the opportunity...I'm willing to see to it the chance is there but it is up to you to have the ability live the academic/vocational life.
I am not opposed to the government providing work-fare...the WPA style program. That is to give people a chance to earn a living wage in return for honorable work...I don't happen to think that working for a living is archaic.
And Stackly...you bet your ass a tour of duty in the US Armed forces is damned honorable service. Veterans, as a group, are among the most succesful people in the country. The self discipline, work ethic, and sense of responsibility you gain from the military will be with you all your life....and it is far more useful than any particular trade or skill you might pick up.
And for the KKKarlin crap....why don't you get off that vespa and stand and fight. Not impressed with drive-by taunts.
|