BS: Bush/Gore Round 2 To Thread - Forum Home

The Mudcat Café TM
https://mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=26353
97 messages

BS: Bush/Gore Round 2

11 Oct 00 - 03:47 PM (#316457)
Subject: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: Lonesome EJ

Tonight,Wednesday 9PM EST.Gentlemen,start your engines....


11 Oct 00 - 03:49 PM (#316459)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: Mbo

Yeah, and this time Feeb & Dweeb are 100 miles away in Raleigh. The better no start something in MY state.


11 Oct 00 - 04:56 PM (#316518)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: DougR

I can't be bothered tonight. I go other, more interesting things to do.

DougR


11 Oct 00 - 05:15 PM (#316532)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: Ebbie

I came across a quote that made me laugh out loud. In a conservative news magazine story, a woman voter had planned to vote Republican but said that she had discovered during the first debate that "Seeing George W. Bush makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck."

The second debate starts here (live) at 5 o'clock, which is a tad early for working people.

Ebbie


11 Oct 00 - 07:03 PM (#316631)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: MarkS

Can't wait to hear Gore slam big tobacco from a forum in North Carolina. Winston-Salem no less!
The more I see of him the more I am reminded of the kid in the 6th grade who used to run to the teacher to tell when somebody else had not done their book report.
Go Ralph Go
MarkS


11 Oct 00 - 07:21 PM (#316646)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: Mrrzy

I just heard Dumya (in a replayed stump speech on npr) saying that keeping families together keeps kids off drugs, which is a good thing, since later he says drugs cause families to fall apart...

Am really looking forward to this, um, debate. Formalized one-two stump speeches again, I bet... Boy, I knew Bush wouldn't answer any questions, but I was really disappointed that Gore didn't either. At least the veeps did, after the very first one at least. What I'm really looking forward to is the townhallesque Round 3.


11 Oct 00 - 08:06 PM (#316686)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: Mbo

Father Tom said the Weather Channel is much more interesting.


11 Oct 00 - 08:14 PM (#316687)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: McGrath of Harlow

Gore blimey, they're both daft as a bush!


11 Oct 00 - 11:25 PM (#316844)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: GUEST, Banjo Johnny

I'm for Gore but I don't think he did very well tonight. Spent a lot of time blaming Bush for everything that is wrong with Texas. What's wrong with Texas goes back before Bush was born. I couldn't care less about who voted for what in 1962 -- what I want to know is what is going to be done in the future. A lot of the time-wasting in these debates is the fault of Jim Lehrer and his choice of questions. I like JL on the News Hour, but I think the moderator of the VP debates was a lot better. WHAT IS HIS NAME - ANYBODY, PLEASE?? == Johnny in Oklahoma City


11 Oct 00 - 11:36 PM (#316856)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: Lonesome EJ

This was a bit better,although they both were trying so hard to be nice in the beginning that they sounded like they were running on the same ticket.About 1/3 of the way through it warmed up,and the two became more specific about their differences.I liked Gore's frankness about his environmental views,particularly Global Warming,which Bush indicated was worth looking at but is still theoretical.I also liked Gore's re-emphasis of a point he had won in the last debate...that genocide represents a threat to our national interest.He also had Bush sweating on the record of health care for children in Texas,when he said that the tax cuts had caused continued suffering,diverting the money to wealthy interests.Bush scored some points on his pragmatic view of foreign policy ("who are we to say people must govern themselves as we do?"),although I think Gore's idealistic approach is in closer agreement with mine. I don't,however,like Gore's adamant support of Hate Crimes Legislation,and I think Bush makes sense when he says that there is no greater crime than murder,and the law needs no contributing "hate" factors to make that crime more reprehensible.

I liked George's Dad,and in much the same way,I find George W a likeable fellow.He's a "plain speaker". But I don't think he does a lot better with "the vision thing" than Senior did.He may be a very effective manager,but I find myself leaning farther toward Gore because I have more confidence in his world-view and leadership abilities.


11 Oct 00 - 11:43 PM (#316863)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: Carlin

I think the moderator of the veep debate was Bernard Shaw.

I thought the thing tonight was pretty pathetic. I am likely voting for Bush, but I think Gore was certainly more coherent at times. Bush let a couple of good opportunities slip....(for instance the Marshall Plan spiel....Bush should have pointed out that when the Army of Occupation in Japan was called away from their 'nation building' duties to go fight a war in Korea they got mauled pretty badly. The equipment and training required for occupation duties are corrosive to combat readiness...). He allowed Gore to score a point or two he shouldn't have.

Gore on the other hand I thought was doing a lot of 'me too'ing when it came to domestic issues and oddly enough the environmental questions....he didn't duck fast enough to get out of the way of the Kyoto treaty.

I think the thing was a draw....I don't think either candidate turned in a good enough performance to be called a clear victor....It was like watching two boxers 'rope-a-dope'....I hate that.


11 Oct 00 - 11:52 PM (#316869)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: jofield

Well, if Americans really make these decisions on the basis of who sighs or looks like he knows it all -- on body language as opposed to what actually is being said -- then I think Bush hurt himself tonight. Most of the time he *looked* hurt, ill at ease, or aggravated that he should have to submit to this questioning. He also snorted into his mike several times, not an association he needs to make at this point. As far as actual content, it was much closer, though Bush killed all three of the men convicted of the dragging murder in Texas, when in fact only one got the death sentence. In fact, his near glee at mentioning that three people would be put to death was not a good moment for him among undecided voters. Regardless of one's death-penalty views, it just didn't feel at all presidential.


12 Oct 00 - 12:09 AM (#316880)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: Susan from California

Am I the only one who thinks that every time the Governor sniffles it subliminaly reminds people that he used to abuse his nasal passages? You would think that after the whole "rats" thing he would be very careful :-)


12 Oct 00 - 12:17 AM (#316892)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: Lepus Rex

Again, I still hate Gore, but he kicked Bush's 'humble' ass tonight. What a friggin' buffoon, Bush. He's lucky we have so many illiterate, sub-human, mullet-headed, Jerry-Springer-guest-dating, wife-beater-wearing, goat-raping NASCAR fans in this country---They're the only reason he's going to be our next Pres. Can't we give Texas to Mexico or something?

Oh, but Bush REALLY impressed me with his mention of how he'd talk with the 'Israeli President' to help end the current violence in Palestine. As interesting as a chat with impotent figurehead Moshe Katsav might be, I bet he'd really rather talk with Prime Minister Ehud Barak...

I hope he gets smallpox or something. Or maybe just leprosy.

---Lepus Rex


12 Oct 00 - 12:33 AM (#316918)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: katlaughing

Rather than the lesser of two evils, I think we are being offered the dumbing down of America with Lowered Expectations. I was amazed to hear one commentator say, with a straight face, that Bush had done well because he made it through without any blunders. Makes me wonder if they all think this is just a dress rehearsal.

I thought Bush did poorly with the usual simplistic fumbles and no guts to admit that Gore was right on the numbers in Texas. I know. I just researched it and did an editorial on it, yesterday. Instead of owning up to it, he looked like an aggravated bratty little kid.

Gore wasn't much better. I was aggravated with him for not catching Bush on several points, esp. pointing out the fact that it was a Republican Congress which wasted the past 8 years in going after Clinton, rather than tend to the business of running the country.

Something has to change in a fundemental way if this country is to get any better. At this rate, no one in their right mind would want to run for president, let alone any of other political positions. It costs too damn much money and there is no substance; the people who do run become cookie cutter products of polls, handlers, and the money that backs them. Some day I'd really like to see a woman's presidential campaign. Not that women aren't already a big part of the machinations. I just would like to believe there are enough fundemental differences in the way we think and do things that it could be different. No offense intended to any of you guys.

katwhodoesn'tlikeloweringherexpectations!


12 Oct 00 - 12:41 AM (#316923)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: Carlin

Maggie Thatcher for Prez!!!!!!!


12 Oct 00 - 12:42 AM (#316924)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: Lepus Rex

I hope that old hag gets smallpox, too, Carlin. No,wait: I hope she gets trampled by Hunnish horsemen. >;)

---Lepus Rex


12 Oct 00 - 01:00 AM (#316933)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: Carlin

"Oh, but Bush REALLY impressed me with his mention of how he'd talk with the 'Israeli President' to help end the current violence in Palestine. As interesting as a chat with impotent figurehead Moshe Katsav might be, I bet he'd really rather talk with Prime Minister Ehud Barak..."

I suppose he could have said something really brilliant...oh like the Russians are not going to help see to it that there is a peaceful transition of power in Serbia (see Algore in the first debate)......that this would be a flat contradiction of the publicly announced position of the US State Dept. wouldn't matter I guess....not to mention at the very moment that Gore was uttering those words the Russians, Germans, and French were turning the screws to get rid of old Slobo....

Either he was taking a chance on screwing up all the diplomatic efforts to get rid of the 'Butcher of the Balkans' to score a few debating points....or else he is so far out of the loop he hasn't a clue what is happening in the administration he is a member of.....not that it matters to the average liberal mouth-breather.....


12 Oct 00 - 01:32 AM (#316955)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: Lepus Rex

OK, Carlin... But why'd ya quote me?

---Lepus Rex


12 Oct 00 - 01:37 AM (#316960)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: Ebbie

Hey! This seems illogical and unfair to me and it's tiresome. If we are really so convinced that the US political system and candidates are so useless/bad/dumbed down as we say, then why are we surprised? I think we would all agree, given the current climate surrounding candidates and in-office public figures, that we can't expect good people to be interested. As kat intimated, no one in their right minds would currently run for high office.

Maybe the solution is a STRIKE- a strike against the system; no voting until the campaign season is shortened dramatically- the only reason it's so long is because it used to take months to travel around the country-, until a cap is put on the amount that can be spent on a campaign, until the press backs off on the hounding of those in office and the wannabe's, (Come on, do we really believe that all was well in the oval office until during the last couple of administrations? Power, as they say, is an aphrodisiac, and there will always be those who take what they're being offered.) and until the National Enquirer gobble-uppers are starved out. We'll take to the streets, storm Washington, picket the press and spread the word: Don't Vote! We'll come up with a catchy slogan; the year 2000 will be known as the year it began to change...

Unless we do something of the sort, we haven't much reason to complain. IMO.

Ebbie

Ebbie


12 Oct 00 - 01:41 AM (#316962)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: DougR

You know, McGrath of Harlow, I'm beginning to think that no candidate could satisfy you. We only have two realistic choices, pick the one that represents the closest to whatever you believe and go with it! Give up on the fact that neither party is going to choose you as their candidate! If you want it, start working to get the nomination the NEXT election. (said in as friendly a way as I can muster at this point). DougR


12 Oct 00 - 01:44 AM (#316964)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: catspaw49

I think McGrath also suffers from the fact that he's English too Doug. That could slow down his chances quite a bit.

Spaw


12 Oct 00 - 01:46 AM (#316965)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: Lepus Rex

Ebbie, that's not the solution. That's what people are doing NOW. The solution is in the 10 or so OTHER boxes you can fill out on the Presidential portion of your ballot. :)

---Lepus Rex


12 Oct 00 - 01:52 AM (#316969)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: DougR

I just read all the threads relating to the debate. I was not surprised to find that the posters who listened to the debate changed their opinion of each candidate not one whit.

Mudcatters are not the target audience of these debates anyway. I would venture to guess that less than 1% of Mudcatters is undecided about who he/she will vote for in the election. Had Gore struck a induspitable victory, those "Catters" who back Bush wouldn't admit it. The same is true of Bush supporters.

A hundred years from now it won't make a particle of difference to anyone who reads these threads.

DougR


12 Oct 00 - 01:53 AM (#316970)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: JamesJim

Indeed, both "gentlemen" looked and sounded very Presidential this evening. The only difference was,one was sincere and the other was still changing (for the umpteenth time). Wonder who I could be talking about?

Jim


12 Oct 00 - 01:59 AM (#316975)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: Carlin

Perhaps I took it the wrong way.....

But I think the difference in the two gaffes is a good illustration of the two men....Bush said 'President of Israel' when he should have said Prime Minister. Gore on the other hand, didn't just fracture a syllable or get his titles confused....he told a flat out bald-faced lie (I find it hard to believe he was that uninformed).

Thrashing Bush for saying President instead of Prime Minister, is on the same level as the people who went after Gore for the story about his uncle. Gore didn't say "My uncle was gassed in the Balkans...."

He said 'WWI started in the Balkans.....my uncle was gassed there.....'

It seemed obvious to me that he meant his uncle was gassed during WWI and the Western Front popped into my mind as the most likely place....(Though there is a reporter in TN that has uncovered evidence to suggest that the guy wasn't even in the war....I don't know, I'll give Algore the benefit of the doubt)

What I'm trying to say is that everyone, Bush and Gore included, makes little slips here and there. If you are gonna play gotcha! it should be with big stuff....

Besides, Bush has Condoleeza Rice to tell him who are the Presidents and who are the Prime Ministers, and which one of them he needs to talk too.....she is a pretty sharp gal. She will be outstanding as the first African-American woman National Security Adviser......


12 Oct 00 - 02:17 AM (#316984)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: DougR

Oops, Spaw! Overlooked the fact the McGrath was English. Right on, McGrath! Vote for whoever you like in the U. S. election.

DougR


12 Oct 00 - 02:21 AM (#316987)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: Lepus Rex

I see, Carlin. But, like I said, I hate 'em both. But when Al Gore says something that's incorrect, I think he probably knows better. I respect a liar more than I respect an ignorant buffoon. Bush... He's like... some sort of dog or something, just sitting there licking his nuts, doing the tricks he's been trained to do. I mean, maybe he's not stupid to the point where he's disabled (I might vote for him then), but he's close. So he trained himself to pronounce 'Milosevic,' (though he still mispronounced it...), and he memorised a few 'big' words. Wow, a parrot can do that.

And when Lehrer asked him if he agreed with the US response during various military conflicts, it was pretty obvious he remembered what maybe half of them were actually about. He just kept on saying 'Yes!' with this blank look in his eyes, until Lehrer took pity on him and stopped the questions. His 'Aw, shucks, folks! I'm just a simple country boy' act is a LOAD. Maybe if he'd have stayed off the coke during his youth, his brain might be in better condition today.

And I think it's important for the President of our country to know who and what Ehud Barak is. I mean, I'm a high school drop out (OK, I was expelled...), and *I* know these things. Bush is the friggin' governor of TEXAS (maybe that explains it) and *HE* doesn't know these things, and *HE* wants to be Pres. If he were, say, applying for a job as a electrician, would you hire him if his only training was in acounting? He is a cretin, he is incompetent, and he is going to be our next President. Ah, well. Still voting for Nader. :)

---Lepus Rex


12 Oct 00 - 02:30 AM (#317009)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: Carlin

LOL!!!! As long as your not voting for Gore....(Nader is a fine man :)


12 Oct 00 - 02:31 AM (#317010)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: DougR

Lepus Rex, I think you are sincere. If you want to be the next governor of Texas, I'll contribute to your campaign. Texas needs a man with your vision I think. Particularly since they seem to be suffering so much under the leadership of George W. Bush! Texans need someone who can take Texas into the next millinium, someone who can build a bridge to the future, someone who can make all Texicans equal, rich, poor and MIDDLE CLASS alike. You the man, I do believe! **Grin**

DougR


12 Oct 00 - 02:39 AM (#317015)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: Lepus Rex

All right! I'll PM a P.O. Box for contributions. Never mind it's in Minnesota, I'll just 'pull a Cheney'. ;)

---Lepus Rex


12 Oct 00 - 08:35 AM (#317096)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: kendall

"mouth breathing liberals?" I'd tread more carefully if I were you Carlin..


12 Oct 00 - 08:43 AM (#317103)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: kendall

you and Doug are surrounded you know


12 Oct 00 - 10:47 AM (#317211)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: Carlin

I apologize to all the mouth breathers....

BTW Kendall, when are you going to show up so we can discuss the combat readiness of the military?


12 Oct 00 - 11:44 AM (#317265)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: DougR

The check is on the way, Lepus! Kendall, you know I don't mind being surrounded! I been surrounded for the past 18 months. Loving every minute of it! DougR


12 Oct 00 - 11:58 AM (#317286)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: Jim the Bart

Happiness (in this case) is having a good reason to not watch these guys "debate". Rapture is when the reason you have is that you're busy mastering your first CD.

I've said just about all I have to say about this election and have nothing more of value to add; neither do these two guys, apparently. Is there any way that we can get this election called off?

Bart, who's all ranted out (for now)
but who reserves the right to change his mind


12 Oct 00 - 03:47 PM (#317444)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: KathWestra

Jofield -- Glad you brought up the creepy expression on dubya's face when he talked about killing Mr. Byrd's killers. He had this sly, smirky-smug expression that gave me the absolute creeps, but until you, nobody else had mentioned it. K.


12 Oct 00 - 04:14 PM (#317463)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: catspaw49

Yeah Kath and jo......that one got me too.

I am amazed watching the post debate coverage that people were now more trusting of Bush. Someone said they liked him saying he "would" rather than Gore saying he would "try." The Bush team pulled off a real coup in getting everyone to believe that he was lousy and no match for Gore in the debate format. Now it seems that anything approaching mediocre is scored as a great victory for the gawddamn shrub. He completely fumbled the whole thing on both education and health care and yet NO ONE, even the supposed "liberal" press scored that against him.

KATH.....I had a note from Sandy this AM and I know he feels about the same as I do. I think his last line summed it up best.........I fear we're toast..........yeah......pass the butter please.

I'm not willing to give in yet and I'll do what I can on my tiny local level, but we all need to be looking at the composition and makeup of the Senate Judiciary Committee and getting their addresses ready for use. What the hell....Its been almost 30 years since I was arrested in a demonstration in DC. Maybe the foods better now.

Spaw


12 Oct 00 - 05:45 PM (#317523)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: captroy

Molly Ivins has a great article today.............

http://www.star-telegram.com/columnist/ivins2.htm


12 Oct 00 - 06:00 PM (#317539)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: DougR

Spaw! Were you among the ten thousand herded into Robert F. Kennedy Stadium that fatefull day the protesters vowed to shut down the government? About 1972? I walked from Georgetown through all that stuff (cars over turned and burned, etc.) to my office. Had I known you were there, I would have tried to get you bailed out.

Sorry for the creep.

You guys shouldn't give up yet! I still think Gore is gonna pull it off. Be not discouraged!

DougR


12 Oct 00 - 06:26 PM (#317561)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: katlaughing

Jofield, Kath and Spaw, that look of smug glee creeped Rog and me, both, out. Anybody else think he looks kind of like death warmed over, himself? I mean he looks grey to me and I say that in all serious, as someone who has worked in the health profession. His colour just doesn't look healthy to me.

We can't be toast, yet! The toaster burnt out and we've no more bread!

Aaaarrrrggggghhh...let's see how they do when real people get to grill them.


12 Oct 00 - 06:39 PM (#317575)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: Lepus Rex

Maybe I've been all wrong. Maybe Bush IS qualified, after all. I mean, almost every President has been a sociopathic murderer, ordering killings for his own political gain. That sadistic, reptilian grin Bush gets on his 'face' when talking about murdering prisoners puts him in good company, then, eh? >:)

---Lepus Rex


12 Oct 00 - 06:45 PM (#317583)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: kendall

What do you mean, when am I going to show up to discuss the readiness of the military? If you are willing to believe one republican (Bush) why not another? (Cohen) Bush says he would only use the military in cases of our national interest, ok, then why does he want to "Build it up" more than it is now? The joint chiefs and the secretary of defense say it is fully armed and ready. This same old crap was used when Kennedy was running, claiming the military was in poor shape, then, years later, we find out the truth. It was bullshit! Naturally, the bullet makers love a bloated military. Do you remember a few years ago when the Prime Minister of New Zealand refused to allow a US nuclear powered aircraft carrier to enter their waters? A woman who was interviewed said something very true.."Enemies are expensive," And God knows we have made plenty of them


12 Oct 00 - 08:12 PM (#317660)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: Carlin

Okie Dokie....what do you think we need to meet our military commitments around the world?

And if you don't believe one Republican, why do you believe the other?

You are aware that the Army itself says that three of its divisions are unfit for combat?
How many operational carriers do we have, and how many of them have their full complement of airgroups?
Do you have any idea, or do you just believe everything is okay because someone from the government told you it was?

Kennedy and the military...yes, Ike's Army was quite capable. The problem was that it was built around what was known as a 'pentonic' division. This was a unit that was about half the strength of a WW2 division. The idea was you could park it somewhere to defend a given area, but it was too small for an enemy (the Soviets) to waste a tactical nuke on. Any force sent against it large enough to defeat it on the other hand, would be a prime target (it takes a three to one superiority to give a reasonable chance of victory when attacking an entrenched enemy...four to one is better...). In other words, Ike's Army was set up to ensure an immediate escalation to nuclear war....mutually assured destruction on a hair trigger. This was regarded as a very bad idea....especially by those in the military. Maybe you are comfortable with it though.....

I am sure if there was some direct immediate threat to New Zealand, the first thing their PM would do is get on the horn and start begging for a carrier or two...it is amazing how quickly a little danger can focus the mind.

We do tend to make enemies....particularly when we go around bombing aspirin factories and refugee camps to keep our president's poll numbers up.


12 Oct 00 - 08:45 PM (#317682)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: kendall

and do you forget that The Actor bombed Kaddafees child? was that ok? You sound like you are part of that military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about. Now you wanna tell us how you know so much about the rediness of the military? As far as believing Cohen over Bush, Cohen is THERE! furthermore, he is from Maine, and I know him to be an honest man. And last, but not least, I dont know of my own knowledge who is bullshitting us, Cohen and the Joint chiefs, or Dumya. How do YOU know?


12 Oct 00 - 10:55 PM (#317798)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: DougR

kat! You surprise me. One who didn't know the real kat might take your remarks about healthcare workers as being derogative. If there is anyone on the Mudcat who has established a reputation for championing public correctness, I would say it is you! Not chiding you, just surprised! Love ya' DougR


13 Oct 00 - 12:29 AM (#317860)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: Carlin

Kendall, I come from a very large family. At last count we had 1 Airforce Colonel, 1 Navy Captain and 2 LT. Commanders, a Marine Captain, 5 NCO's in the Army, an Airforce Tech Sargeant, and 1 Lance Corporal (these are all cousins btw...).

I have friends scattered throughout the services. You know something...THEY ARE ALL THERE! They aren't sitting in an office in Washington, unlike a certain Republican from Maine. And there ain't a one of 'em running for office.

These are the people on the ground that know how well they are being supplied (did you know that half of the f-14's are being cannibalized to keep the other half flying), and know what kind of training they are getting, and what the morale is like. Any one with any interest at all in the military can find hundreds of reports, both official and unofficial, on the state of the military.

I understand that you may find all things relating to the military distasteful, but you don't have to look or dig real hard to find out what is going on. You won't get dirty......

PS. Typo in the last post...should read 'pentomic', not 'pentonic'.


13 Oct 00 - 12:50 AM (#317870)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: katlaughing

DougeR, darlin', I am awful slow tonight, sweetie-pie, could ya'll tell me what you are referring to? All I can find that I said was I used to work in health care and thought Bush's colour looked terrible. Sorry, I really am ahem *bushed* tonight!*bg*

luvyakatwhodoesclaimtobeethicallyconscious


13 Oct 00 - 12:54 AM (#317873)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: Barbara

A friend sent me this, from last Sunday's Liberty Meadows comic strip.
The character is watching a political ad on TV. The words say,

"The future of Americans in your hand!
Who are you going to vote for?
A Republican lightweight from Texas?
Or a Democratic stiff from Tennessee?
Finally, there's a third option.
A candidate for the people, by the people.
A candidate with charm and magic to make things happen...
Vote Lord Voldemort for President!!
Why choose the lesser evil?"

Blessings,
Barbara


13 Oct 00 - 01:07 AM (#317879)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: Jim the Bart

I'm trying to understand what I need to believe to be a Republicans. I'm thinking of converting. Let's see if I've got this straight.

We believe in the right to life.
We believe in the death penalty
We believe everybody should be able to own as many guns of any type that they want.
We believe that the way to improve how we teach our children is to create better tests to tell us how much they know
We don't believe that you can fix what's wrong with the schools by "throwing money at the problem".
We believe that the best way to fix the military is to give it more money.
We don't believe society should interfere with the way you run your business.
We believe society has a responsibility to tell you how you should conduct your private life.
We believe that competition in the market requires a level playing field for all businesses.
We believe that the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the richest 5% of the population should not be infringed upon.

I'm sure I've missed a few. Come on, people, help me out. . .


13 Oct 00 - 01:43 AM (#317889)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: DeeAnn

Ah! Bush and Gore, the hope brothers - Slim and None!


13 Oct 00 - 04:45 AM (#317922)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: Thomas the Rhymer

Bored and dumber, sunday best
sit-com bummer, all detest
Nader breathes a fresher air
Given room he's bound to care

Take a quibble for the truth
Heartless nibble, corporate tooth
The party's over, the old unseen
New world order,... Nader's Green


13 Oct 00 - 08:23 AM (#317972)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: kendall

OK Carlin, now I know. It is nice to talk to someone who knows what he is talking about. Your credentials are honored. Now, if we were to get the hell out of all those shit holes around the world, come home and mind our own business, would we then have enough guns planes and tanks? Do you realize what a paradise this country could be if we didnt spend trillions of dollars on weapons? We could put all those Colonels and Captains to work on something that would PRODUCE something useful. Personally, I remember the days of $800.00 toilet seats, and, very recently, the pentagon being forced to buy weapons that they neither wanted nor needed because people like Trent Lott has a shipyard in his back yard.And these people are the FIRST to bellache about welfare!


13 Oct 00 - 09:02 AM (#317991)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: John Hardly

Bartholemew

I have a response to each of your paradoxes and would be glad to answer them PM if you really want to know. On this thread though they would be too long and tedious I fear. The first paradox is not that hard to understand though you just don't agree with the perspective. It is perfectly consistent to be pro-life and pro death penalty when the focus on the death penalty is placed on the criminal offence of taking a life--it shows that a society values innocent life and if a criminal wants to transgess that value he will pay with his life to show how serious the offense is to society. It's not two wrongs making a right, it's a belief that punishment works to deter crimes against society. Not well said (especially when addressing such an excellent writer such as you Bart) but I think I said the position correctly.

John


13 Oct 00 - 10:31 AM (#318027)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: Jim the Bart

John H. - Thanks again. I'm glad to converse via PM or here. I don't believe that this discussion is tedious. In fact I think that part of the problem with this discussion (and the general discourse on politics)is that the desire to avoid tedium leads to a lack of detail and a plethora of rhetoric. And in my opinion the solutions lie in the details

As for my last post, if someone else would have written it, I probably would have blasted her/him. Reading it this morning I see so many holes in the logic that its astounding. But it appears to be well reasoned on the surface, which is the problem with "good writing". You can cover a whole lot of shabby thinking in a well-turned phrase. Personally, I think Kendall's posts contain a lot more "meat and potatoes", although his style is probably too combative to convince(which is his right). In my opinion, you can't change a person's mind once you get their hackles up. But I digress. . .

What was bugging me last night was the feeling that Republicans seem to want to have things both ways too often, while slamming Gore for being inconsistent. The problem with the military isn't funding as much as it is how the money is spent and as Kendall pointed out, this is often tied closer to the "corporate welfare" issue than to real solid military strategy. The problem with the schools is not going to be solved by more testing, it will be solved by better teaching. If you want to maintain national standards in certain areas (welfare and education come to mind), how do you get that from state autonomy? Do you really believe local bureaucracies are more responsive and less wasteful than federal bureaucracies?

My biggest gripe is over "accountability". Republicans believe in personal accountability. Privatising social security, eliminating welfare, opposing national health care are among the issues that reflect this belief. But when it comes to business, i.e. corporate accountability, it's an entirely different story. Opposition to labor laws, opposition to environmental laws, bancruptcy laws - government regulation and oversight in general - springs from a belief that the only accountability business has is to "the Market". And we have seen where that leads.

Republicans complain about the "tired old solutions" that liberal Democrats (like Gore?) support. Well, I keep hearing a different bunch of "tired old solutions" in the rhetoric of conservative Republicans (like Bush?). And if the media insists on reducing this election to a choice between a "compassionate conservative Republican" and a "centrist liberal Democrat" - I'll risk the tedium that comes from trying to see what lies beneath those terms. Anyone who doesn't care to can move on to the condom thread. And people wonder how a guy can do well in the debate and drop in the polls. . .

I got work to do. Catch you all later.
Bart


13 Oct 00 - 12:05 PM (#318092)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: Carlin

It would be a wonderful thing if we could reign in the politicians and 'bring the boys back home'. Who's gonna do that though? You heard Gore the other night, he isn't in favor of 'isolationism', if anything he is more in favor of global intervention than Bush is.

The problem is we have treaty obligations all over the world....umm this is what I meant about needing 12 carriers to maintain the commitments we have without adding new ones; it takes three carriers to hold one station...there is one at sea on active duty, one at home undergoing repair and refit, and one either coming home or heading out. To meet our treaty obligations we have to keep one on station in the Indian Ocean, one for the Sea of Japan/South China Sea (that one is more or less pulling double duty), one in the Mediterranean, and one in the Persian Gulf. 12 carriers sounds like a lot but when you look at how they are deployed, it ain't.

I would love to bring home the thirty thousand troops in Korea. If the North ever decided to take another whack at the South, those thirty thousand men aren't even going to slow them down much....they are just under-strength for the job. But...there are enough of them that the casualties would be high enough to seriously piss off the American public and drag us into the war. They are human landmines....personally I think it is wrong to use American service men (and women) like that.

But the population has been conditioned to believe that we are the world's policemen. If Gore decided to make bringing them home part of his platform, the Republicans would be all over him (weakness in the face of the international communist/terrorist threat, leaving our allies out to dry, etc.). The same goes for Bush....you know if he proposed it the Democrats would eat him for breakfast (Buchanonite isolationist, retreating from our position as leader of the world, etc.). It is a viscious circle.

Also if we were to pull back and limit our global meddling to things that DIRECTLY affect the US, we are going to have to get used to seeing terrible things on TV. We would not even be able to consider rolling into places like Bosnia or Kosovo.

The Europeans would have an absolute cow. They have spent 50 years building their social democracies. They have been able to do this by living under the US nuclear umbrella and by diverting money that they would have to put into defense spending into social programs. They have lived with the happy assurance that if things go to hell in Europe the US will definitely step in. You take away that guarantee and they will panic.

It's a bitch ain't it.....


13 Oct 00 - 12:20 PM (#318103)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: McGrath of Harlow

"it's perfectly consistent to be pro-life and pro death penalty" - no it isn't. Maybe there isn't a built-in inconsistency between being in favour of the death penalty, and being against abortion, but to use the term "pro-life" in that case is a distortion of the English language.

The other way round, well, maybe there is an inconsistency, but that's another matter.


13 Oct 00 - 01:20 PM (#318157)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: Frankham

The state of Texas, under the leadership of Governor George W. Bush, is ranked:

50th in spending for teachers' salaries; 49th in spending on the environment; 48th in per capita funding for public health; 47th in delivery of social services; 42nd in child support collections; and 41st in per capita spending on public education.

BUT ... Texas is:

5th in percentage of population living in poverty; 1st in air and water pollution; 1st in percentage of poor working parents without insurance; 1st in percentage of children without health insurance; and 1st in executions (avg. 1 every 2 weeks for Bush's 5 years). Just think of what he could do for/to the country if he were president!!

Posted this on the other thread (Bush)

Frank


13 Oct 00 - 01:37 PM (#318163)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: kendall

Me? combative? really? I like to play chess, however, I will only play with someone who stands a chance of beating me. Its the same in these discussions, thats how we learn. (And people like Carlin make me guard my queen!)


13 Oct 00 - 02:13 PM (#318177)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: John Hardly

M of H

Seems to me that both sides chose the euphamistic monikers by which they wanted their side to be known. Personally I have no real problem with anti-abortion except that it inaccurately assumes I would be against it in cases of rape, incest, or the life/health of the mother. I do find it interesting that in NO public speech will pro-choice folk use the word abortion--even though that is the difference of choice offered.

Bartholemew,

The reason I as a conservative feel it is imperative to protect free market economy is that I believe it is the economic tool by which any material-based compassion can occur. I know it's kind of a economist-speak fine point but a conservative believes the economic "law" that there is no such thing as money. (I understand that there is, but the point is that it is insignificant to the real economy). The only real wealth besides what may be accumulated in a sound economy, with supply and demand reasonably in place, is PRODUCTIVITY. That is why a good conservative will begrudgingly concede the need for collective bargaining--nobody should be able to acquire wealth from the productivity of another (their wealth) without a fair contract. One person's wealth does not effect the wealth of another except perhaps in a good way. It is not probable to hoard wealth in a free market. If money is reinvested it is used to promote the productivity (wealth) of others. One reason I am not a Republican conservative is because, just as I feel Democrats buy votes with give-aways that hinder the wealth progress of the recipient, Republicans are willing to compromise the free market with "corporate welfare" to assure their power. Truth is, for all the vilification of Republicans who are characterized as hating big government, neither side has it in them philosophically or practically to diminish the size of government. All that is really on the table is the rate at which it will grow. Republican voters believe that free market will be protected enough so that the economy can continue to be productive so that poverty will be a statistically diminished possibility. Democratic voters IMO seem to think that the economy is a static quantity to be divided and see no danger in slowing it down and, at least environmentally speaking this would be a better option. I do think that it is a mistaken notion though that one could distribute what is left of the wealth in a stalled economy to keep the poor from suffering terribly--if the economy were to be stalled in such a fashion the wealthy would not have wealth (productivity) from which to take.--all for now

Frank,

Statistics are dubious partners in the pursuit of truth but they are great promotors of political power. For example, It might be more advatageous in the pursuit of the truth in the matter to discuss--Is this statistic on pulic health spending because there is less need for it or are there other factors which might make one view that statistic in a different light? I seem to remember the same kinds of stats coming out of Arkansas 8 years ago and I'd bet you my Yamaha guitar against your Kazoo that they were as meaningless to you then as the statistics you posted are to a potetially Republican voter today.

respectfully,

John


13 Oct 00 - 04:43 PM (#318301)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: kendall

Clinton and Gore claim they HAVE reduced the size of government by 300,000 jobs.??


14 Oct 00 - 12:10 AM (#318558)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: JamesJim

Wonder how many of them came from reducing the size of the military?

Jim


14 Oct 00 - 08:47 AM (#318658)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: kendall

I wondered the same thing. However, that brings up a point. Everyone wants smaller government, BUT, dont touch MY favorite special interest.


14 Oct 00 - 10:52 AM (#318704)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: BDtheQB

It is all moot, wait until the third, "Town Hall" debate here in St. Louis. All the gloves will come off, the ties and coats removed, shirt sleeves will be rolled up and posturing and gesturing will prevail. Be there, as Gore goes for the jugular... mentions that we should forgive people who did drugs in their youth and got special privleges to enter the pseudo-military during a war. Be there as GWB talks about integrity, whitewater, money raising schemes..

I promise as host city resident that this will be a trash burner. It has to be, neck and neck just isn't good enough for either of these parties they have to go into the election day a winner. That's why we have Primaries and not wait until the convention like the old days.


14 Oct 00 - 02:18 PM (#318829)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: wildlone

I saw a piece in a UK paper that Bush was using the Gary Glitter song "Leader of the gang" {do you want to be in my gang] but stoped using it when told that the said Glitter had been in prison on the charge of downloading child porno onto his computer.


14 Oct 00 - 11:29 PM (#319054)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: DougR

Oops, Kat my dear, my error. I read your message about health care workers the wrong way. Thought you were refering to them as having grey tint but you meant your old buddy, Bush. My apologies! DougR


15 Oct 00 - 12:13 AM (#319069)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: katlaughing

Ah, DougeR, my sweet, twist it in just a little more...you are smooooth, darlin', just a little mix-up there as the only bush I am buddies with is the one my dawg lifts his leg at! As you know, "Even a dog knows what a Bush is for!"

stillluvyathoughkat


15 Oct 00 - 10:45 AM (#319212)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: Carlin

Thanks Kendall!


15 Oct 00 - 03:11 PM (#319343)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: DougR

Oops again, kat! :>) DougR


15 Oct 00 - 06:53 PM (#319427)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: Frankham

John,

If you've visited parts of Texas, the need for Health spending becomes apparent. I do agree that statistics are as Disraeli once said equivalent to damn lies upon occasion. But in matters of Health Care, Education, child insurance, these are measurable and not "fuzzy math". Of course, it does matter who is doing the measuring. I refer to the political use of statistics as "skewtistics". But the case is this, Texas don't look all that great. The Republican claim against Micheal Dukakis is that Boston didn't look so great. I can assure you that under Reagan, (having lived in California at the time) Lost Angeles wasn't so great either.

So if we throw away the stats, what do we have?

Two different views of how government should be conducted.

The assumption that one's wealth does not affect another, I must take issue with. Wealth buys the type of political power through lobbies that directly affect the wealth and health of others. As affecting this in a good way, perhaps so, but also in a negative way. Hoarding, itself, is not the issue. Buying off the politicians is one way in which it can be harmful. Tax breaks for the wealthy is one way of supporting the political clout for the rich. Wealth is an abstraction that can be used for affecting very real conditions. There are philanthopists who have chosen to use their money for the "common good" but in doing so may have done so at the expense of others in this way, they have commanded a larger share of the political pie. They have also made their money at the expense of many through ruthless (Darwinian Capitalist) means without contributing much to society at all. A Donald Trump may be a case in point. I see no reason why they shouldn't be taxed in a fair way based on the percentage of income they generate which can be used for the "common good" as well.

The problem with Welfare Capitalism is that it discriminates.

Respectfully also,

Frank


15 Oct 00 - 08:32 PM (#319467)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: DougR

Frank: I'm confident if one "visited" every state in the union, one could find parts of the state in need of more health care services. I doubt that Texas stands alone in that area. I'm not convinced, howeverl tha just visiting a state gives one a true perspective of what is needed in a state. For example, I have visited Texas three or four times in the past month, and I have no idea what you are talking about.

Your comments about the wealthy, and the tax breaks they receive, etc. just isn't clear to me at all. I'm sure you are aware that the wealthy in our country pay by far the largest percentage of taxes paid by anyone. Therefore, it seems logical to me that the people who pay the largest amount of tax would receive that larger number of tax breaks. Providing tax breaks for people who pay little or no taxes are meaningless.

I also believe that there is less "paying off" of politicians than many people believe. If you are refering to campaign contributions as a "method" of payoff, that is a different matter. I do think large contributors to a candidate's campaign could possibly influence a politician to vote the way the donor favors. The best way to prevent this would be to ban soft money from political campaigns. I doubt soft money is going away though, because both the democrats and the republicans do not want to give up their own pet "cash cows"; corporate donations to the republicans and labor union donations to the democrats.

Wealthy Americans are among the most generous people in the country. Not all of them, of course, but a very large number are. Just think of the private foundations in the U. S. and all that they do for America's nonprofit organizations. There are literally thousands of them throughout the U. S. They are not all as large as the Ford and Rockefellow Foundations, which were established by wealthy families but they provide millions of dollars to the needy and to organizations that benefit the citizens of most communities.

I realize it is a popular sport to beat up on the rich, but I don't do it. I have no problem with someone being wealthy, whether they earned it by working for it, or by inheriting it. I just think they are very fortunate.

DougR


15 Oct 00 - 09:15 PM (#319491)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: kendall

Not surprising Doug, I disagree. The wealty of this country pay lots of taxes, but, the rest of us pay more because we outnumber them. And, that aint "fuzzy math" either.


16 Oct 00 - 01:04 AM (#319571)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: DougR

The logic sounds kinda fuzzy to me though, Kendall.

DougR


16 Oct 00 - 12:48 PM (#319893)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: McGrath of Harlow

"If one "visited" every state in the union, one could find parts of the state in need of more health care services."

And that is in the richest country in the world? So rich that most people in most countries couldn't even begin to imagine it? How do you organise it so it works out that way? A country is a family. Families that don't look after each other are in trouble.

And I know that within America there are amazingly generous people who do look after each other. So what's gone wrong?


16 Oct 00 - 01:08 PM (#319907)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: DougR

Well, McGrath of Harlow, it just ain't a perfect world.

DougR


16 Oct 00 - 01:37 PM (#319941)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: Hedy West (current membership)

James,

If you pay attention to honing skills at reading body-language, it can tell you a heap more than what is squeezed into spoken words. We have, after all, devoted enormous time & space to the Lie. "I did not have WHAT with WHICH WOMAN?" is only a tiny reminder.

And, James, it's the truth of body-language that comic-parody illuminates: Well illustrated by the Saturday Night Live interpretation of the Wake Forest (2nd pres-hopeful) debate.

For you, in memory of another thread:

Ich hatt' mal Marmelade,

Was Bessres gibt es nicht.

Marmelade liegt mir im Magen,

Sie Knurrt, es ist zum Klagen.

Marmelade, Marmelade,

Ist der schönste Fraß im deutschen Staate.

Darum schwärmen auch die Mädels sehr

Für das liebe, liebe Marmaladenheer.

Wir wollen und wir müssen siegen,

Solange wir Marmelade kriegen.

(Ers.-Batl. Inf.-Regt. 66 Bernburg 1917 (Anhalt. Volksliedarch.) II, pg 372 "Der Grosse Steinitz"

Hedy West


16 Oct 00 - 02:15 PM (#319973)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: McGrath of Harlow

Who's asking for "perfection", whatever that might mean? Decent health services for all doesn't need a perfect world, andnit wouldn't mean a perfect world. People would still get ill, and some people would get better and some wouldn't. And some doctors are better than others and so forth.

But a rich man whose children aren't getting the medical treatment they need has his priorities wrong.


16 Oct 00 - 02:28 PM (#319983)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: McGrath of Harlow

What I'm meaning is, there's all kind of things to disagree about about how to run a country and economic systems and all that. And decent people can be on both sides.

But agreeing that decent health services should be readily available to everyone ought to be something everyone can see is a first priority, whatever their politics, and when there's more than enough in the kitty to do it...


16 Oct 00 - 02:44 PM (#320002)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: Jim the Bart

Couple things.

Wealth doesn't get created out of nothing. Resources are consumed in the "creation" of anything and everything that makes up our economy. The exceptions to this are "intellectual capital" which is critical to building wealth and (apparently) inexhaustible, and LUV; but, I digress.

There is a finite capacity for production of wealth on this earth, and although we have not come close to reaching it, we can see signs pointing in that direction. We're running out of easily obtainable stuff that we need to create better stuff. Like oil and coal and hardwoods and open land and etc. If indeed wealth has a limit (as I believe it does), there will come a point where it is only possible to put wealth in one person's pocket by removing it from someone else's, or from that store of wealth which we hold in common. If this also is true, the huge disparity between the haves and the have nots should be of some concern. Even if you are a have. History has shown that at some point the have nots will stand for no more. And at that point, God help the "fortunate sons".

About statistics. The "statistical reduction" of poverty doesn't matter a bit to the guy living on the edge of poverty; it only works as a salve on the conscience of those who possess wealth.

As for whether or not the problems that Texas has are shared by all states. Bush advocates solving problems at the state level. As governor of Texas, the effectiveness of his efforts in these areas, as compared to other states, is relevant in examining whether his contentions hold water.


16 Oct 00 - 04:08 PM (#320060)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: kendall

Human greed being what it is, there is never enough money in the kitty...we all want more. Question, is this THE Hedy West of Folk Legacy fame?


16 Oct 00 - 04:16 PM (#320065)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: Frankham

Doug, I keep hearing from people who are well-off Republicans that they can't see the poverty around them. It's as if they have blinders on. I don't know what you saw in Texas but we didn't see the same things.

The theory behind tax breaks for the wealthy is a view that because they have entrepenurial talent, somehow they should be given a divine dispensation by the government. This is not clear to me at all. The effect of taxes are relative. Poor people are hurt by them. The denial of this is given by people who have monetasry advantages and can't (or rather won't) see the disadvantages of others.

You are free to believe as you choose, but the ract remains that lobbying interests control the politicians and the way they vote, amend and appropriate bills. I agree with you about soft and hard money but as far as influential pocket picking, the gun lobby and the tobacco lobby are stronger than ever in Congress. The evidence is that despite studies on tobacco, the politicians are compromising with human lives and as to the gun lobby, no one has the guts to stand up to LaPierre and Heston. At least not in a Republican dominated Congress. So automatic weapons and handguns on the street are part of the American landscape.

As to beating up on the rich, I'm not doing that. I just think that they should pay their fair share of taxes. Much of the generosity of wealthy Americans is assumed by their personal views on what is important for the country. Some are non-profits who benefit but if Bush becoms president, you will see this generosity eroded. The incentive for public service is often tax breaks. It the wealthy receive them automatically, the "thousand points of light" will once again be a huge joke. The purpose of business is the bottom line. It is not predicated on a predispostion of generostiy by a handful of enlightened wealthy people.

I have no problem with people becoming rich in our society but the arrogance that accompanies some of the wealthy to disregard the needs of the government elected by the American people and promote their own agendas is legendary in our history. Many are present day robber barons. They have a vested interest in weakening statutes such as the Sherman-Patman Act and buying off memebers of Congress. I can name some but what's the point? We know who they are.

It is more prevalent today to beat up on the poor and blame them for their conditions. Republicans have been good at this.

Respectfully,

Frank


16 Oct 00 - 08:22 PM (#320338)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: DougR

Frank, Bart, McGrath of Harlow, I respect your right to an opinion, of course. Shall we just agree to disagree?

DougR


16 Oct 00 - 10:46 PM (#320455)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: BDtheQB

If everyone paid a dollar to a "health care fund" every week and the US gov't invested that money in a historically sound mutual fund, and then the gov't used that interest from that money to pay medicare or a health care fund setup by a congressional committee and administered by a professional health care administrator, and included prescription drugs, and took away a dollar a day from the defense department "star wars" project to match the previous dollar, then no one would have a health care problem.However, that makes too much sense. As for the taxation of the rich, Tax everything over 10 million at 80 percent, after all if you can't live on 10 million, you probably need to cut back.. Use that money to distribute equally to every school district in the country based on the number of students in the district. i.e. 4,000 dollars for each child per month in every school for salaries and building maintenance. Leave the other expenses to be paid for by the locals. However, that will never happen but.. I think it is a good idea.. (g)


16 Oct 00 - 10:56 PM (#320465)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: catspaw49

Look Boss!!! Dee Plane.......Dee Plane!!!

Spaw


16 Oct 00 - 11:28 PM (#320488)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: JamesJim

BD, seems your system was tried for several decades and it failed miserably. It was called "communism." Don't penalize people for being sucessful. Those successful people bring so much to the table -- ingenuity, drive, desire, focus, JOBS!


17 Oct 00 - 01:30 AM (#320566)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: BDtheQB

JamesJim, if you look up the definition of "Communism" that is not what I have proposed. "Communism" takes all the money from all the people and redistributes it. The plan that the Soviets had was not communism nor would I think that "communism" would work, but if everyone contributed a tiny, tiny bit to the total cause it would go a long way toward egalitarianism, which is more easily accepted than equality. I am saying it should work, but you know, when you get a bureaucracy involved, it probably wouldn't work. I was going to submit this in triplicate buy my carbon paper got wet and.. well, you know.. (g)


17 Oct 00 - 03:19 PM (#321058)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: Hedy West (current membership)

Kendall,

Maybe we can conceive greed as one of the infinite tangled threads that come from our being alive and wanting to stay alive.

Yes, the Folk Legacy connection is: the LP "Old Times & Hard Times" produced in London by Topic in 1964 was issued in America in 1967, and will be reissued as a CD some time in the next year by TraceChain, which is just now coming to life.

And you, are you the David Kendall of Williams and Connelly notoriety?

Hedy


17 Oct 00 - 06:53 PM (#321284)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: Jim the Bart

DougR - I also respect your Point of View. We can agree to disagree if you wish, or we can continue the discussion here or elsewhere (as we probably will - these things don't just go away). I think there is value in discourse as long as it remains civil. Or droll (Spaw, you rapscallion).

I think there are many points in between free market capitalism and full bore (pun intended) communism. This country, in fact, has an economy that shifts uncomfortably from point to point, left to right to left, as each administration and congress tries to apply a "reader's-digest-flavor-of-the-month" version of some Nobel Laureate's pet economic theory. All this push and pull, over the long term, seems to even out; but it creates great periods of discomfort and more for a lot of people. Lives are ruined when S&L's fail because of the greed induced frenzy caused by foolish deregulation. Kids starve to death in this country when industries fold up shop. People die from lack of comprehensive health care. Our educational system flounders along.

The one thing that remains constant is that the richest among us keep getting richer. They hold a hire percentage of our national wealth every year. Sometime there are advances for the middle class, sometimes setbacks. Ditto for the truly disadvantaged. But the rich always get more, regardless of who's in the White House or on Capital Hill.


17 Oct 00 - 07:14 PM (#321308)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: McGrath of Harlow

I always agree to disagree with people, in the sense that I don't try to to force them to do what I want. (Apart from situations where I mignt think it right to do just that - say if someone was throwing stones at a dog etc).

But that doesn't mean bacdking off from exploring where the differences are, and where there is common ground. I'd think ensuring there was adequate health provision for everyone would be common ground, though I'm sure there is lots of room for disagreements as to the best way to achieve that.

That's the way the argument seems to go between the political parties in the country I'm living in, and the arguments are pretty heated at times.


17 Oct 00 - 07:32 PM (#321322)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: John Hardly

Bartholemew,

One reason I find you engaging is that, as per your last post, you seem to accept from a liberal perspective what I have had to accept from a conservative perspective. There is no unadulterated real-life example from either economic perspective. You also grasp from your posts that a conservative no more wants TAX BREAKS for the wealthy than does a liberal. I want a reasonable tax structure and one that does not use its power to "socially engineer" society to behave in a governmentally approved way. No amount of taxing the wealthy will 1.improve the plight of the poor--in fact quite the opposite will happen. 2. assuage the poor and middle classes envy of that which they do not have. However, that envy can be used by the politician to gain power--even though that power will enable the politician to in no way "correct" the inequity. You did point out, I believe accurately, that upon concluding that market forces are inescapable, the only factor that may lead one to conclude that it is better for the economy to collapse is the natural resource/environment issue to which you referred. We will however still go down in order (poor first) to save the planet if we agree that it need come to that. That won't be a political decision--just a cold reality.

John


17 Oct 00 - 08:34 PM (#321368)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: DougR

Bart, I don't mind continuing the discussion. It has been pretty well discussed to death in numerous threads since I have been on the Mudcat, though, and we seem to all be covering the same ground over and over.

The debate is about to come on and there is just time to grab a quick martini before I settle back to listen. Maybe later I'll jump back into the fray.

Best, DougR


18 Oct 00 - 03:24 AM (#321594)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: JamesJim

BD, please forgive what may have seemed like piling on. I accept your premise, I just don't think it would work. You hit on it yourself - bureacracy. Indeed, doesn't it all come down to trust? We can propose and even enact a reasonable solution to a serious problem, but too often greed takes over. Those "in charge" start figuring ways to line their pockets. One would like to think it is not hopeless....we seem to find solutions (often costly ones) no matter who is in charge.

I spent 28 years of my life in the management of sales and administration of employee benefits (including medical insurance) for small to medium size companies. I have seen the pain on all sides of this issue. The employee who can't afford to purchase health insurance -- the employer who can't afford to purchase health insurance for his or her employees (the small employer often pays a part of the cost, but not nearly enough to encourage the employee to participate) -- Young people who think they'll never get sick, thus do not want to "buy into" a plan offered through their employer (this is what is called "selection" in insurance terms - i.e., when only the older/sicker people participate, causing costs to rise dramatically). The frustration of the providers, who truly want to do the right thing for their patients (as well as those who only want to line their own pockets). The involvement of the government through the legislative process, where often well intentioned public servants make stupid laws that just worsen the problem. The insurance companies, who are in business to make a profit (and often could care less about someone with a serious health problem. The Benefit Specialist (insurance agent or broker) who often gets blamed for increasing costs (it's called "kill the messenger") and who sometimes, out of frustration, does not take the time to really care about the people he or she serves (just give me that commission and I'm out of here).

The trick is to find ways to help everyone, while avoiding fraud and deceit from all the parties involved. I'm not saying we shouldn't try -- I just think we must be careful not to create another big, lumbering, costly government bureacracy (we really already have one in the private sector, but it's working better than governement could make it work, simply because of competition). I have definte ideas on the approach I believe we should consider, but I won't bore you (or anyone else reading this) with those kinds of details. Instead, I'll just offer my apoligies for what might have seemed like uncalled for rancor.

Keep thinking good thoughts and stay involved! Cheers!

Jim


18 Oct 00 - 06:58 PM (#322227)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: McGrath of Harlow

The British National Health Service ain't perfect, though I've always found it pretty good, including today. But the amount spent on the bureaucracy is far far less proportionally than is spent in the private medical sector.

The point I'm making there is not that it should be cloned eleswehere, but that the assumption that the private sector is necessarily more cost effective and so forth just isn't borne out by the facts.

But if anyone wants to argue about this, the place to do it is on the new thread or somewhere else, rather than here, or it all gets too confusing.


19 Oct 00 - 12:48 PM (#322586)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: Frankham

Jim,

There is a myth that the insurance companies are working better in the private sector. In truth, their lobbying interests control government and keep reform from taking place.

Frank


19 Oct 00 - 01:00 PM (#322596)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: Frankham

John,

Taxing the rich has helped the poor already. It's a popular misconception that the welfare system has been a failure. In fact, it has had many successes that it's been politically expedient for many Republicans to refuse to acknowledge. The approach toward Darwinian Capitalism is a tad short of the old saw, "the fault of the poor is that they don't have any money". There is also the idea that "the poor will always be amoung us" as if we, as a nation, should sit back and accept "the inevitable". If the "lifeboat theory" that you advocate is implemented, I'm wondering if the country might be better served by throwing the greedy and rapacious wealthy business figures overboard. Just a thought.

Respectfully,

Frank


19 Oct 00 - 03:31 PM (#322719)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: John Hardly

Nice post Frank,

And of course I agree with you.

John


20 Oct 00 - 12:00 AM (#323145)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 2
From: Gypsy

Maybe this is a bit of creep, but...Nader? And he and Buchanan weren't even let into the debates! And they had tickets! Just how scared were the scriptwriters of people who can write for themselves?