 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 Continued
|
|
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 10:16 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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/) |