 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: Once Famous Date: 27 Jan 05 - 09:56 PM You never hear of a Rabbi doing this though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: Peace Date: 27 Jan 05 - 09:44 PM Susu, yes some people abuse the system, just as some priests and ministers abuse children. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: susu Date: 27 Jan 05 - 08:30 PM Donuel, the statement "PS While the Constitution protects the rights of our KKK sap, it is good that FDR's social security protects life itself." Are you insinuating that my husband is a member of the KKK? and if you are, what in the world would make you think such a thing? Actually, he is a wonderful Christian who loves everyone the same, and actually is more tolerant than most people on this website. While he was extreme with the view of people on welfare he did not actually mean that he thought that all of them are on crack or tramps. It is just we have seen alot of people abuse the system. I cannot tell you how infuriating it is to see someone who drives a caddilac, wears designer clothes and carries a $1500 Prada purse using a foodstamp card and saying why should she work when the govt will pay for her to sit at home. Yet when a friend of mine lost her job and they were not making the amount of money to put them above the poverty level, they were denied assistance because they happened to have qualified for a new vehicle that they needed not wanted a new payment, prior to her job loss. The system stated that their car was too new. So there needs to be reform in the system. So before you start calling people members of unsavory organizations, get the facts first, it's called making an informed comment. Susu! (not my hubby) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: Peace Date: 27 Jan 05 - 01:18 AM Hello Doug, Regarding your remark: "brucie: Your remark about Bobert, and his penchant for compassion, compells me to ask:if you are such a champion of compassion, why are you so opposed to compassionate conservatism?" Before I deal with that question, would you please provide some answers you talked about providing first? See the thread entitled "Good News in Iraq." I will be pleased to address your question after you attend to that pressing matter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: Bobert Date: 26 Jan 05 - 06:52 PM Well, you know very well my position on *creation of wealth* but... (pssst, amos... Shhhhh... We got some lives ones and we don't want scare 'um off to soon so I'm just tryin' to reel 'um in until I can get a net unner 'um... But lets jus' keep this between us... Okay, pal?) Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: Amos Date: 26 Jan 05 - 06:37 PM Bobert: Capital OR labor? The only wealth that comes from capital alone is from money changers. The only wealth that comes from labor alone is from artisans, artists, or mom and pop operations. To seriously add wealth you have to manufacture which requires management , administration, and capital. All these things add value and help make something happen. It's doing them badly that causes the problems you are protesting, not the use of capital. It's MISmanagement, not management. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: Donuel Date: 26 Jan 05 - 05:59 PM What a sap. "Why should I give my money to (expletives deleted)" .... Because a safty net for a society, like the graineries of ancient Egypt, protect us all. PS While the Constitution protects the rights of our KKK sap, it is good that FDR's social security protects life itself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: Bobert Date: 26 Jan 05 - 05:32 PM Well, gol danged nice to have folks 'round to come to my defense while my boney butt and the other anatimical parts connected to it are out making a gol danged living but... As for BB, that's about what I expected of him. He prolly couldn't find Europe on a map. When I mentioned that other countries with less resources did a better job of redistributing them, I wasn't thinking 3rd world counties, gol dangit. Only you would wonder off in that direction where probably about 99 % of others would automaticly think of more deveoled countries that compare closer to the US... And don't worry about the susu hubby, Amos. He is a longwinded Martin Gibson. Nothin. more and nothin less. But far less entertaining than Martin who ya gotta admit, is a hoot. Hunny isn't a hoot, Just another angry white guy who won't answer any questions that you ask of him yet says he wants to have discussion... So he goes about having one... Porblem is is that it is purdy much with himself... But he certainly would like all of us to snap to attention, hear out his monologue and sign on *his* Bushite dotted line. As for my ol' pal, Dougie's comment? He knew that someone would come back with the compassionate conservatism is neither remark becuase, like a crossword puzzle word, this one has a few laps under its belt. But I guess if having out percentage of elderly folks and kids living in poverty higher each year since Bush took office is compassion, that tells ya something about compassion. Not to mention the 100,000 people who have been "liberated" from *the living*... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: Amos Date: 26 Jan 05 - 03:13 PM Susu -- How unreal do you think Bobert is? Really, you reflect poorkly not on his intelligence, but on your own, posing such a question. I mean no offense, but Bobert deserves a decent amount of respect as an articulate and thinking human being. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: Once Famous Date: 26 Jan 05 - 03:12 PM As a socialist, I'm sure that he does. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: susu Date: 26 Jan 05 - 03:07 PM Ok this is from "The Susu" just a question Bobert, do you think that the high school drop-out who flips burgers at McDonalds should make the same amount of money as the cardio-vascular surgeon who saves your sorry butt after eating too many of those Mickie-D's? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: Amos Date: 26 Jan 05 - 01:30 PM Because it is neither compassionate nor conservative? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: DougR Date: 26 Jan 05 - 01:17 PM brucie: Your remark about Bobert, and his penchant for compassion, compells me to ask:if you are such a champion of compassion, why are you so opposed to compassionate conservatism? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: Amos Date: 26 Jan 05 - 01:12 PM Actually, there was one embarrassing moment today. A reporter asked President Bush if he thought of his inauguration being a gala event, and Bush said, "As long as none of them try to get married." Republican speechwriter Peggy Noonan says that a president's second inaugural speech usually refers to the accomplishments of the past four years. So, the good news is it should be a really short speech. An article in The New Yorker magazine says that the next place the Bush administration is planning to attack is Iran. Boy, that seems like a mistake, doesn't it? Shouldn't we go after the Neverland Ranch first? Free those people? (Leno) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Jan 05 - 01:10 PM There is this other guy called Bobert in Pocatello, Bobert, and he's a nasty, mean-minded little neocon pissant with a bad attitude. He's the "lesser Bobert", and that is why what's-iz-name referred to you as "the Great Bobert". That's my theory on it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: Amos Date: 26 Jan 05 - 12:48 PM Delighted to hear your self-recogntiion has improved, Martin. Neither am I, and thank God for both of us. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: Peace Date: 26 Jan 05 - 12:27 PM Martin, when did you think you were? LOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: Once Famous Date: 26 Jan 05 - 12:20 PM Amos, you've snapped. I am not President Bush. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: GUEST Date: 26 Jan 05 - 12:13 PM Acapulco, BB? Why not Brazil? You can find lots of countries around the world where poverty is worse than it is in the United States. But these are also countries that have no social safety net programs. Now, Denmark, or Norway, or Sweden are nowhere near as rich as the United States, but due to their concern for all their citizens, not just the very rich, you will not find people who have to sleep in back alleys there. The United States is the richest country in the world. But that wealth is so poorly distributed, that you have tent cities and Hoovervilles tucked away in major cities all over the country. They don't make the national press because that would be admitting that we have a problem, and that's bad for business. And politics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: beardedbruce Date: 26 Jan 05 - 11:42 AM Bobart, "The point is not rocket surgery here. If we're so friggin' wealthy then why is there sucha high rate of poverty? And why is that countries that aren't so wealthy, seesm to do a much better job in distributing their wealth so that their people have decent health care, educations and standards of living..." Have you ever visited other countries? Try going to the slums on the other side of the mountain from Acapulco THEN tell me that the US has a high rate of poverty, or that other countries do so much better. I understand that the situation is the same in many countries, but can only comment on what I have seen, unlike some people here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: GUEST Date: 26 Jan 05 - 07:54 AM "Too many Republican senators allow Bush's top aides "to get away with lying," said Sen. Mark Dayton, a Democrat who opposed the war and will face reelection next year in the swing state of Minnesota. "Lying to Congress, lying to our committees and lying to the American people. It's wrong, it's immoral." The only way to stop it, Dayton said, is to keep the administration from promoting officials "who have been instrumental in deceiving Congress and the American people, and regrettably that includes Dr. Rice." Wasg. Post. Someone stepping out of line? Is the whole Liar's Pack going to take a tumble? If we really revert to family values, as some mugwumps said, does that include charity and truthfulness? Because these Reds don't have a lot of practice in either. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: Peace Date: 25 Jan 05 - 11:13 PM "Pres. Bush's next four years" On the lighter side, it ain't four no more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: Amos Date: 25 Jan 05 - 11:03 PM ANd you, that you are an abusive one, who doesn't understand what he reads. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: Once Famous Date: 25 Jan 05 - 10:10 PM Greg F The freedom to practice any religion you want to. The freedom of speech. The freedom to move about this land at will. The freedom to tell you that you are an ungrateful idiot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 25 Jan 05 - 10:03 PM "…a welfare crack whore with six kids…" Just curious; how many of those do you know? I don't know any, though there is probably at least one somewhere. I hear her referred to a lot, anyway. But if she exists we can ignore her and let her take care of herself. Malnutrition and sickness will take care of the kids. No prob'm. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: Bobert Date: 25 Jan 05 - 09:19 PM Hah, nothin great 'bout me, bruce... My mother raised me as a commie... But you, on the other hand, had to fight thru to get there so... ...tou be the "great" one far as I can see... An' *aww shucks, I meant commie in jest, folks*..... Geeze Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: Peace Date: 25 Jan 05 - 08:53 PM "...and I quote the great Bobert...." susu, I don't see where that type of remark supports your argument. Thare ARE many great things about the Bobert. One of them is his compassion for people. I will take compassion over an extra three percent anytime, anywhere. I agree with Bobert that people are infinitely more important than money. I think that's pretty great of him to have said. Bruce M |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: Bobert Date: 25 Jan 05 - 08:50 PM Okay, hubby... I know you have taken the 5th ammendment on 12 of the 15 questions I have allready asked you but maybe youwould like to explain to me your concept of "creation of wealth"? Is that asking too much? Like, where does wealth come from? Capital or labor? Please think this one thru before going off on one of yer "privleged few" rants, okay? Bobert no, make that "the great Bobert", wherever that came from (ahhh, BTW, where'd you come up with that, if I might ask?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: Greg F. Date: 25 Jan 05 - 08:47 PM Yup. The freedom to starve in the midst of plenty. The freedom to live in substandard housing. The freedom to go without decent health care. The freedom to watch more money being spent to kill Iraquis than is spent on education in a decade. The freedom to pay a higher percentage of your income in taxes than the rich do. The freedom to be spied on by your government at their whim. The freedom of senior citizens to survive by eating dog food. Etc. Amerika sure looks to be the "free-est" country in the world, all right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: Amos Date: 25 Jan 05 - 08:42 PM The thing to know, Bobert, is that the redistribution of wealth has Under the current standing of things "one"is out because we are reducing all them liberal damn laws. Three is a lot harder than it useter be because the hired poor are not paid enough as a whole to make a family survive on the efforts of less than three people. The fourth is taking up as much of the slack as it can, but the truth is that those controlling the purse-strings are not highly compassionate people in many cases; and the government's tax plan will remove any incentive to support charities for tax cuts. That leaves part of three and a little of four and a lot of two, crime. That's the answer to your question about prisons. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: susu Date: 25 Jan 05 - 08:42 PM ...and I quote the great Bobert.... "And why is that countries that aren't so wealthy, seesm to do a much better job in distributing their wealth so that their people have decent health care, educations and standards of living..." Distribution of wealth? That's the scary part. Why should I give MORE of my money from the money that I EARN from my own business that I have worked my ass off for and watch it go to a welfare crack whore with six kids or to somebody that has failed to plan on what to do whenever they lose a job or for just when times get tight? If they can't save any money for those times then they have way too many expenses and they need to stop living beyond their means. People need to stop trying to keep up with the Jones' and keep up with their own NEEDS. NOT WANTS. If I want to be benevolent and just GIVE the money to someone, then let me decide who that money needs to go to. I think that I can find somebody a lot more worthy and would actually appreciate it a ton more that somebody who EXPECTS it to be there because their congressman or Senator has signed a bill that actually rewards people for being lazy. Bobert, get a clue.......... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: Bobert Date: 25 Jan 05 - 06:07 PM Yeah, Hubby et al are not able to grasp the simple questions that I asked and cooze instead to answer the question they wished I'd asked. The point is not rocket surgery here. If we're so friggin' wealthy then why is there sucha high rate of poverty? And why is that countries that aren't so wealthy, seesm to do a much better job in distributing their wealth so that their people have decent health care, educations and standards of living... Freedom? Is that your final answer? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 25 Jan 05 - 05:38 PM "5. Higest incarceration rate in world- because we put criminals in jail. In other countries they put criminals in office and consider corruption the norm. Were Sadaams sons ever arrested for rape and murder?" We put poor people in jail. I believe White-collar thieves spend less time in jail per dollar stolen than car thieves. We put wealthy criminals in office and consider corruption by campaign donations the norm. We jail drug users and go lightly on drug dealers, and lighter still on those who launder drug money. "4. 1/4 afro americans in jail- That is an easy one. Because they committed crimes." Not quite. Just read in the paper today California statistics show blacks get more severe sentences for the same offenses than whites. And there's plenty of evidence that this holds true across the country. Hell, being convicted of "DWB" has become a cliché. "The real question is why are they committing crimes. I would contend that the 70% out of wedlock birth rate has a great deal to do with the poverty and incarceration. That and voting democratic which should be a crime." Because they're black bastard Democrats, eh? For shame. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: GUEST Date: 25 Jan 05 - 05:01 PM oil |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: DougR Date: 25 Jan 05 - 04:12 PM Larry K. you soon will learn that Bobert is not easily confused by facts. Your points are well taken even if they will not be accepted by most our friends here. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: Jim Tailor Date: 25 Jan 05 - 04:02 PM I see. Shelby Steele has long contended that the racism of governmental intervention has so significantly contributed to the illegitimacy rate among one race in US society that, quite the contrary to assuming the weakness on the part of the subjugated race (subjugated by governmental "kindness") -- they are merely the "canary in the mine" warning society as a whole of the dangers of removing familial resposibility. He contends that any race (because it has nothing to do with race) that is subjegated by subsidy of government will soon do the same -- act antisocially. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: Peace Date: 25 Jan 05 - 04:01 PM That's as may be Martin. BUT, without doing the resaerch, I would posit that Black Americans do NOT have the same PCI as the average American. Why might that be, then? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: Once Famous Date: 25 Jan 05 - 03:58 PM As I have said before, there is a certain amount of truth in most sterotypes. all of them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: Peace Date: 25 Jan 05 - 03:54 PM Guys, I do not think Larry is racist, and that is why I was surprused. Poverty leads to crime. The real question is, Why are so many people from a single race incarcerated? We have a similar situation in Canada in terms of Native people. Similar questions being asked here, too. When you steal a million, you can afford lawyers to fight the charges for you. When you steal a few hundred bucks, you don't have enough to hire a lawyer to get you off or staal the case so long that eventually someone makes a procedural mistake and screws the case. Implied in that statement is that certain races 'breed' and so bring upon themselves a high crime stat. Sorry, but I just don't buy it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: Once Famous Date: 25 Jan 05 - 03:42 PM I agree. it has nothing to do with being racist. More Afro-Americans come from that type of background. They as a whole, I sure know it also. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: Jim Tailor Date: 25 Jan 05 - 03:28 PM What do you find disgusting about it, brucie? I think those are fairly verifiable statistics, more than half of which were offered up by Bobert, not Larry. Are you disgusted with Bobert's stats or Larry's? If Larry wonders whether out-of-wedlock births has negative societal imlications doesn't it make more sense to refute that assertion than to be indignant? There was no racist edge to Larry's contention -- only that of assuming consequenses to out-of-wedlock births in such great numbers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: Peace Date: 25 Jan 05 - 03:21 PM "4. 1/4 afro americans in jail- That is an easy one. Because they committed crimes. The real question is why are they committing crimes. I would contend that the 70% out of wedlock birth rate has a great deal to do with the poverty and incarceration." That, sir, is disgusting. Thought you were a much better man than that, Larry. I don't agree with your politics, nor do you with mine, but don't you find this type of scapegoating a bit tasteless--even though you are trying desperately to make a point? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: GUEST,Larry K Date: 25 Jan 05 - 02:34 PM Normally I don't take Bobert seriously enough to respond to, but I thoughts his questions would be a good learning tool. The question was "how could the US have 43% of the worlds GNP" given the problems Bobert mentions. The answer is simple. FREEDOM. The USA is the freest county on the planet. The best and the brightest from other countries (Canada, India, UK, Pakistan) come to the USA because of the freedom to succeed. Here are the specifics to the Bobert challenge. 1. How can we rank 21 in science- teachers union prohibiting students from learning while protecting bad tearhers, and no vourchers for parents in bad school districts. Fortunately, freedom and US ingenuity overcome this. 2. Highest murder rate- mostly limited to urban city and gang violence. Murders rates in rural areas very low. Most states bordering Canada have lower crime rate than in Canada. 3. 1/4 of people in poverty- low income people in USA live better than most general populations in world. According to study, the majority of people living in poverty in the USA have tv's, stereos, cars, houses, air conditioning, vcr's, expensive sneakers, etc. The average low income person in USA has larger living quarters than the average person in Paris or London. 4. 1/4 afro americans in jail- That is an easy one. Because they committed crimes. The real question is why are they committing crimes. I would contend that the 70% out of wedlock birth rate has a great deal to do with the poverty and incarceration. That and voting democratic which should be a crime. 5. Higest incarceration rate in world- because we put criminals in jail. In other countries they put criminals in office and consider corruption the norm. Were Sadaams sons ever arrested for rape and murder? 6. Upper 1% bring up the GNP- The upper 1% in USA make 20.8% of all the income and pay 37.4% of all the taxes. Clearly they are paying too much. We must begin to tax the poor their fair share. In the words of Suzanna Goodfreind (wife of former CEO of Solomon Brothers on Wall Street) "it's so expensive being rich" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: Once Famous Date: 25 Jan 05 - 12:58 PM Welcom to the small and very narrow world of leftest commie pinko Mudcat politics, susu's hubby. that usual cast of characters of peudo intellectuals shoots themselves in the foot most every day. Hope you get as much a charge out of it as I do. Stick around to see great features from them like: changing the subject everyday suffering in America imagining what it's like to appreciate living in America hating everything corporate promoting socialism ridiculing nationalism ridiculing people with religious beliefs believing everything they read on the Internet plenty more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: GUEST,Susu's Hubby Date: 25 Jan 05 - 12:15 PM OH NO! WHAT AM I GOING TO DO WITHOUT BOBERT'S SUPERIOR KNOWLEDGE? If anyone has noticed, he has now, TWICE, tried to change the subject by asking irrelevant questions on something that I started and said that these are my OPINIONS. I brought up three issues and stated my opinions on them and what I would like to see happen. Quit changing the subject. If we wanted to talk about your issues then go start your own thread and we will join in and STILL tell you how wrong you are. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: Kaleea Date: 25 Jan 05 - 03:31 AM Loved the "Iraqco" cartoon! If you know anyone in the oil business, you may know just how close to the frightening truth that is. Except the name on the sign should read: "BushOCo." So when Bush was not 'zactly elected the first time, I told my coworkers that we would be in "all out bloody hell war in a year or two tops. How many trillion $$$$ has the war cost the American taxpayer so far? How much is that national debt now? You know, the one that was reduced significantly in the 4 years before W. took the oval office. After he took office the 1st time, he decided to rob social security of a bundle of $$$ to give million$$ tax rebates to the very rich. So he's just now figuring out that there are problems with Social Security. Hmmmmm. The next 4? God help us all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: Biskit Date: 25 Jan 05 - 12:44 AM susu & susu's husband, RIGHT ON! however, trying to talk sense to Bobert is hopeless, he is convinced that his way is the only way and if he repeats the same thing over, and over again (that he heard someone else say) eventually it will become true. I appreciate your views, and the courage to print them in this forum. but don't expect to change his mind. Peace! Through Understanding ~Biskit! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: Bobert Date: 24 Jan 05 - 11:23 PM Too late, fir me, susu's hubby. You have alreadly demonstratede that you ahve no interest in discussing anything except those thing on *your* agenda... Answer the questions I have allready asked and we'll talk, Until then count me out of yer monologue, thank you... If I wants be preached to by a right wing idealogue I'll drive a couple hundred miles south of here and listen to Jerry Falwell, thank you... Like I said, answer my questions an then lots of us will play but not until then... And I know I'm speaking fir a lot of folks here... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: Once Famous Date: 24 Jan 05 - 11:20 PM Amos can't let me go. I have become his naval. Gazing at it, fascinated with it, pick at it, stick your finger in it and smell it. I don't use drugs, Amos. Did for a while, but quit years ago. And let's say I do know what effect they have on people. I read your crap and it's obvious. oooooooooh my name is Amos and I'm so abused by President Bush and Martin Gibson on Mudcat. ooooooooohh. Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! They are both out to get me! They are the establishment and I can't fit in to it so I whine about it every single day hoping some one will listen. Ooooooooooooohh! Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years From: susu Date: 24 Jan 05 - 11:08 PM Hello all.....hubby here again. I don't know who this "guest" is but I wish I knew where he/she was so I could send them a check. HAHAHAHAHA. I'm glad that we have a place to come to and "discuss" the issues when they need discussing. Even though Bobert and Brucie and Teresa and I will probably never see eye to eye, I'm glad that we can come together and say what we're thinking without having to watch out for somebody to come and throw us in jail. (Don't start with the Rummy or Ashcroft jokes). At least we can "discuss"? our ideas and SHOUT when we need to to get our point across and appreciate the self defecating.....deprecating (oops) humor that each of us has so profoundly displayed here. Even if we don't agree.....we at least are thinking. Susu's hubby. |
