 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Oct 00 - 08:00 AM True enough - anyway, here's the bbc website, which you've probably got. It's massive. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: Greg F. Date: 24 Oct 00 - 08:41 PM Matter of economy of time, McGrath- I can listen to the radio while I'm doing something else; the Internet is a bit more labor intensive! There's still a place sometimes for the 'old technology'. :)
The problem with World News on U.S. Media has been getting worse for some time- all part of the increasing consolidation/corporatization and substitution of "entertainlment" for real news. I've been forced to rely on the BBC World Service. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Oct 00 - 08:19 PM Ummm...I wish I could answer your question on the short wave thing, but I can't. Maybe you should launch a thread asking that question. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Oct 00 - 07:49 PM Who needs the radio, Greg, when you've got the Internet?
It seems to be that the bigger the country the more parochial it is, and ignorant about the rest of the world. It's one of the contrasts between England and Ireland - and I gather it's a lot more so in the USA, especially away from the coast.
Not surprising, when a country is so big it must feel like a world. But it has some unfortunate consequences since it's so big that every time it turns over in bed the rest of us are liable to get accidentally rolled out on to the floor.
(And I know Canada is bigger than the USA geographically, but that's not what I'm talking about.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: Greg F. Date: 24 Oct 00 - 07:40 PM It Really does sound entertaining, Little Hawk. Unfortunately, the U.S. Media totally disregards Canadian News- and the rest of the world's news too for the last ten years or so- so it won't be easy for us USians to follow unless we can get the CBC on short wave. Any frequencies you can recommend? I'd kind of like to keep an eye- or ear- on it. And I heartily commend the good sense of the Canadian people in limiting the hoopla to six weeks!! Have you folks got publicly funded campaigns up there? (he asks, displaying his ignorance) Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: Greg F. Date: 24 Oct 00 - 07:37 PM It Really does sound entertaining, Little Hawk. Unfortunately, the U.S. Media totally disregards Canadian News- and the rest of the world's news too for the last ten years or so- so it won't be easy for us USians to follow unless we can get the CBC on short wave. Any frequencies you can recommend? I'd kind of like to keep an eye- or ear- on it. And I heartily commend the good sense of the Canadian people in limiting the hoopla to six weeks!! Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: GUEST,Little Hawk Date: 24 Oct 00 - 06:54 PM Right on, Bartholomew!!! But hey, folks, round 3 of Blush and Snore??? Oh, sorry, Gush and Bore... Give us Canadians a break! We've got our own federal election now, and it doesn't have just a measly 2 parties that everyone can seriously consider voting for. Nope. We've got 5 prime ministerial candidates. 1. First ya got the Gliberals (sorry, Liberals), who are like a marshmallow...they will fit into any aperture available at any time. They are so much like the TweedleDemocrats and the Tweedledumlicans that you can hardly tell the difference one way or another. 2. Then ya got the new Canadian Reform Alliance Party or whatever the hell they call it, which is kind of like Canada's version of the American Reform Party (I think...). They're classical neo-conservatives, but slightly radical...just enough to seriously worry quite a few people...but they've got a vital, young, telegenic new leader, and high hopes. It will require a miracle for them to form a majority government, IMO. 3. Then ya got the Bloc Quebecois, named after the blockhead who leads them. His dream is to separate Quebec from the rest of Canada, and then have himself crowned "L'impereur", no doubt, and launch an invasion of Labrador, perhaps. He barely has a leg to stand on (bad and tasteless joke...ya gotta be Canadian to get it). 4. Then ya got the wretched Progressive Conservatives (OOOOOO, there's a contradiction in terms...Yowsa...no wonder they're in trouble.) They used to be Canada's equivalent of the Republican Pary, but have fallen on very hard times indeed. They may soon cease to exist. The Liberals have usurped much of their traditional power base, which is why I say that the Liberals are now pretty much equal to the TweedleDemocrats and the TweedleDumlicans rolled into one. 5. Then ya got our one and only socialist party, the NDP (means the "Nearly Defunct Party", ha! ha!). I always liked them, being a socialist by nature, but they ain't got a snowball's chance in a blast furnace of doing more than hanging onto a small block of seats, and providing a conscience to watch over the other parties, who are all falling over each other promising tax cuts, and the same old neo-conservative agenda...the politics of greed, I call it. It's gonna be hilarious! And it only lasts 6 weeks. Eat your hearts out. NOTE: there are several minor inaccuracies in the above info, but don't let it bother you. I don't intend to let it bother me. I do not rate this particular subject matter very high on my accuracy agenda. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: Jim the Bart Date: 24 Oct 00 - 06:20 PM Desert Storm was a beautiful example of "Millenium Republicans at War" or at peace for that matter. Limited goals (protect "our" oil), limited results (we protected "our" oil - for a while), ignore the suffering of the the people who are not helping to provide "our" oil (Saddam had his way with those in his own country who opposed him, while we looked the other way), ignore the real evil (Saddam) when it's in our limited interest, control and manipulate the press coverage to make us look good, deny any and all mistakes you may have made even when the result is horrible for your own soldiers. Let's see, did I miss anything? Oh, yeah. Achieve your mission. Of course the military guys that accomplished that have gone on to other careers, haven't they? I have great respect for those who fought in Desert Storm, but little for their "leaders". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: mousethief Date: 24 Oct 00 - 04:25 PM > It doesn't take a great deal of bright to know who got this country into the Viet Nam mess though. Um, Truman? or do you mean Eisenhower? 10 Aug 50 - First shipload of U.S. arms aid to pro-French Vietnam arrives 1951 - U.S. military aid amounted to more than $500 million by 1951 7 May 54 - Viet Minh overrun French fortress at Dien Bien Phu 8 Sep 54 - Eight nations sign U.S.-sponsored SEATO treaty 12 Feb 55 - President Eisenhower's administration sends the first U.S. advisers to South Vietnam to train the South Vietnamese Army 5 Sep 56 - President Eisenhower tells a news conference that the French are "involved in a hopelessly losing war in Indochina" 8 July 59 - Two Americans are killed and one wounded during a Viet Minh attack 20 miles north of Saigon ------ Jeepers, all this before Kennedy took office!
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: DougR Date: 24 Oct 00 - 04:13 PM Nope, GS, not perfect. Not even close. It doesn't take a great deal of bright to know who got this country into the Viet Nam mess though. Bart: so we see the same cast of characters as we did at Desert Storm! So they did such a bad job there? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: GUEST,Stackley Date: 24 Oct 00 - 03:14 PM Oops! Sorry Alex (and Conphooshus)- nobody's perfect- not even Doug (although he apparently feels otherwise). And Dougie, my man, better to have studied 'wierd' history than none at all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Oct 00 - 03:03 PM I suppose it comes down to whether people prefer a bloke they think is brighter than they are, or a bloke they think is dimmer than they are.
And it looks as if the latter is how it's likely to go - but it's coded as "likeable." Dan Quayle must be trying to work out how it went wrong for him.
Now the interesting question is this - is Bush really a very clever man who has worked out an act that convinces people he's pretty gormless? Or is that the real Bush, and what you see is what you get?
Either way it won't make much difference down in Clarksdale. (And for solutions there, Ebbie, I'd think that a community development approach would be the way, providing job opportunities for people to do things which would help build up their own community. And I think that people who love the blues, wherever they live, should be a powerful source of support and backup for that place.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: Whistle Stop Date: 24 Oct 00 - 02:16 PM Bart, I think you're absolutely right. Bush has tried to focus the debate on "leadership" and "character," and should be judged accordingly. Personally I think his reasons for pushing these themes so hard are that (1) he doesn't know enough about the issues, and (2) he thinks these words are "fuzzy" enough that nobody will try to examine them more closely. A perfect example of sound bite politics. If he wants to talk about his "leadership" abilities, let's get specific -- the empty rhetoric is getting tiresome. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: mousethief Date: 24 Oct 00 - 01:55 PM Confucious say, "Man who picks on another man's spelling must not misspell any words himself."
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: Jim the Bart Date: 24 Oct 00 - 01:55 PM If you're trying to make a case for the idea that there is little practical difference between Democrats and Republicans, the Viet Nam War isn't a bad reference. What began out of duty became a matter of commerce quite quickly, and neither party offered a viable alternative to what was bipartisan policy until people took to the streets. But that was then and this is now. As far as I can tell, there are only two things that George Dubya offered us about his approach to foreign policy in the debates: 1. his assertion that he is "a leader". 2. His insistance that he is a man of character. I would offer the opinion that when it's clobbering time, you'll see the same cast of characters that his Daddy called on in Desert Storm. Again, I ask you all to look a little closer at this man's character as displayed in his business dealings and at his leadership as exhibited in his governorship. With the recently published Rand report stating that the so-called "Texas Miracle" was vastly overstated, I think he comes out on the short end any way you look at him. How can a major party, and its supporters, consider this man qualified to lead the country? Period. I will now sit back and listen for your answers. Thank you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: DougR Date: 24 Oct 00 - 01:36 PM And Guest, Stackley, that's AS not AD! Carlin, it does appear that Guest, Stackley studied weird history. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: Carlin Date: 24 Oct 00 - 07:49 AM And apparently you have forgotten JFK, LBJ, and Mr McNamara too........vespa boy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: Carlin Date: 24 Oct 00 - 07:47 AM Kat, There is a pretty good chance we are going to get into a war regardless of who the next President is. I don't know if you have been watching TV or reading the newspaper, but the middle-east is on fire.....and the Governor of Texas had nothing to do with it.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: GUEST,Stackley Date: 24 Oct 00 - 07:34 AM That's LOCKE, Doug- LOCKE. You must have the same difficulty with the English language ad Dumbya. And thanks, K-K-Karlin, I'd forgot that Nixon, Kissinger & that crew were Democrats. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: DougR Date: 24 Oct 00 - 01:38 AM Way to go, kat, jump on back in! Personally, I've missed you! Go Gore, I say! :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: katlaughing Date: 24 Oct 00 - 01:31 AM So it's come down to a pissing match, even here at the Mudcat? I thought we were better than that. It is starting sound like Gore and Bush clones in here, with the gloves off! I did say, in an earlier thread that part of campaign finance reform could be to ban all adverts, etc. and have pissing contests to choose winners from. At empty as the rhetoric is this election, they might as well be pissing in the wind. So here goes, I am jumping back with my my 2 cents worth: Forget the Vietnam War! We've got a lot more to worry about if Bush gets in. Did anyone hear the playback of him takign about foreign affairs on NPR? He sounded 1. like he was almost hysterical, 2. like a schoolyard bully, yelling, "Don't threaten Israel! Don't threaten the the United States! etc. ad nauseum. Great rhetoric for adding to the fomentation of war in the Middle East, there Dumbya! Be afraid, be very afraid if this jackass gets elected as we will see war during his administration. His Hawk mentality was sickening to hear. katcrawlinginafoxholeforcover |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: mmm Date: 24 Oct 00 - 12:12 AM a bit of info some might find interesting. there are 8 people running for president, why is it we only hear about 2? here is a list of who is running besides gore and bush Harry Browne-libertarian, Pat Buchanan-reform, John Hagelin, natural law, David McReynolds-socialist Ralph Nader-green,and Howard Phillips-constitution. I have not decided who i am voting for (won't be bush or gore) you can go on line and check out the candidates and what their position is on different things. it would be nice to see a candidate who didn't lie and really did care about the people. mmm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: DougR Date: 23 Oct 00 - 10:16 PM True, Carlin, but do you suppose Guest Stackley is aware of that? P'haps Amazon.com has a book on the history of that period that he would find helpful to fill in the gaps! On the other hand, are you sure Carlin, that Rousseau and Lowe didn't start that war? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: DougR Date: 23 Oct 00 - 10:08 PM Oops! Sorry, Guest Stackley, I meant to say underwhelmed. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: DougR Date: 23 Oct 00 - 10:07 PM Guest Stackley: Perhaps you misunderstand me. If I were to say that I am overwhelmed with the vast anount of knowledge you and Mousethief have shared with us on this thread, would you be impressed? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: Carlin Date: 23 Oct 00 - 10:05 PM >>>>pick up a couple of good books on Vietnam. No knowledge is ever wasted, and might help your understanding. <<< The connection is easy Doug. The same compassionate liberal Democrats that gave us the Great Society, gave us the Vietnam War. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: GUEST,Stackley Date: 23 Oct 00 - 09:48 PM That's the way, Doug!- revel in your ignorance & flaunt it proudly! As you've said, everyone here has a right to an opinion; just please stop pretending thatyours is an informed one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: DougR Date: 23 Oct 00 - 09:15 PM Thanks for the suggestion, Guest Stackley, but I don't plan to spend a lot of time reading Rousseau & Locke, and I'm well beyond the Viet Nam War. I wonder why you are not. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: GUEST,Stackley Date: 23 Oct 00 - 07:37 PM When you've completed Rousseau & Locke, Doug, pick up a couple of good books on Vietnam. No knowledge is ever wasted, and might help your understanding. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: Ebbie Date: 23 Oct 00 - 07:36 PM Ah, but McGrath, you misunderstand me. I would welcome a discussion of solutions. Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 23 Oct 00 - 07:20 PM "McGrath, what are you saying is the solution? What do you think should be done? And if you don't have a solution, button up."
Why should I come up,with a solution? Oh yes, I could make suggestions - but if I did, wouldn't you be saying what do I know about what is possible and what isn't and what would work in a country I only know at a distance?
When I was a social worker I could see when a child was sick and needed treatment, but that didn't mean I had the medical knowledge to treat that child. I'm not a vet, but I know when an animal's not being looked after properly.
And aside from everything else, it's awful to think that a place and a people who have given so much wonderful music to us can be broken down and humiliated in this way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: Greg F. Date: 23 Oct 00 - 07:09 PM Looks like after Daddy arranged for him to avoid military service, Dubya couldn't even be bothered to complete his obligation to the Guard! Man, that's CHARACTER! Story Here |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued From: Ebbie Date: 23 Oct 00 - 06:36 PM This whole argument seems inane to me. McGrath, what are you saying is the solution? What do you think should be done? And if you don't have a solution, button up. Clarksdale is a community of 20,000 plus which has lost more than a 1,000 people in the last 10 years. Since the mechanization of cotton harvests there is very little work. Are you saying that we should go back to before the cotton gin? The phenomenon of mechanization has happened in every industrialized country and some, primarily rural, pockets have never overcome it.
As for national health insurance that Vuillamy mentions, look at the derision the Clinton administration underwent when they tried. They can't win.
The military doesn't want problem people or people without a work ethic- the day is long gone when you could ship off a youngster into the military for straightening out. These days even being a high school graduate doesn't atuomatically mean you canget into the military.
American companies that have farmed out their factories to third world countries instead of to the American south are part of the problem, no doubt. But if other countries, inarguably more benevolent than this one, wanted to they could start factories in this country and help us all get some work. The Netherlands has done that for a long time, and certainly the British and the Canadians have flourished in the mining and the oil industry in this country. Are you saying that only if there is a huge payback is it worthwhile? In what way is that different from what is happening in this country?
I just don't see what the point of this argument is. It is evident that Clarksdale is a town of little hope, but even though there has been a scouring of welfare rolls, each and every one of the people below the poverty line there qualifies for food stamps and Medicaid, because those programs are income based, which means that food and medical care are paid for. Hopelessness among the people, yes, but there is no reason to starve.
I think I understand what is meant by 'ineptitude and inability to lead the working life'. I believe that behaving as a product of one's environment is only to be expected- and if you're the first one in your family or your neighborhood to attempt to get up every workday morning and trudge to work, coming home tired and spiritless, surely you are a person who is different from his or her environment. Especially when you have children at home for whom you have to find reliable care, even if you do qualify for a program that pays for childcare. Imagine yourself going through all this, while being reminded every day that your sister, your brother, your neighbor down the street- is staying home and netting more than you take home every payday. Drugs in such a community, whether you are dealing or using, are not surprising either. Ebbie |
|
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.
|
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 |