You are not signed in (Login or Join Free)   |   Help
Sploofus Trivia
Trivia GamesCommunityLeaderboardsTournaments
MySploofus
You are here:  Home  >>  Chat Forums  >>  The Salty Dog  >>  View Chat Message

View Chat Message



Pages:  1    


donden
Donden  (Level: 112.5 - Posts: 2127)
Fri, 29th Aug '08 12:35 PM

MCCAIN

Well, McCain just got my vote. Great choice!

tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Fri, 29th Aug '08 12:39 PM

?????????????????????????????????

bleepy
Bleepy  (Level: 140.6 - Posts: 621)
Fri, 29th Aug '08 12:46 PM

YES!

smoke20
Smoke20  (Level: 62.6 - Posts: 2815)
Fri, 29th Aug '08 2:44 PM

So, if she had run in the primary for the nomination and McCain had not, you would've voted for her because you think she'd be a better president than any of the Dems? You think she is the second-most qualified person in your party to lead the country, fully qualified and proven and ready to be a 73-year-old heartbeat away from ruler of the free world?

Really?

avdralle
Avdralle  (Level: 183.6 - Posts: 57)
Fri, 29th Aug '08 3:45 PM

It's a 72 year old heartbeat, as of today.

eesusbejesus
Eesusbejesus  (Level: 75.0 - Posts: 3645)
Fri, 29th Aug '08 3:55 PM

Not sure why people are getting their knickers in a bunch over Repub VP nomination. The people that oppose either of the candidates aren't going to vote for them, no matter who they choose as a running mate. So why go off on tirades? I would see being upset if you had intended to vote for someone and they chose someone as a running mate that you violently oppose. But someone you didn't plan on voting for anyway? Why get upset about that? If you don't like them, don't vote for them. Seems simple enough.

smoke20
Smoke20  (Level: 62.6 - Posts: 2815)
Fri, 29th Aug '08 4:37 PM

You mean me? I'm not upset. I'd go as far as annoyed by the tokenism, but not upset.

I think it's a tactical blunder; my main objection to Obama is HIS lack of experience, and I thought that was McCain's best weapon, but he unloaded it and put it in the closet with this choice, thrown away to get a woman on the ticket. I'm fine with that. I'd've been far more upset by Tom Ridge, or yet another evangelical. I'm relieved he didn't pick Romney, who I thought would strengthen the ticket. And no, of course we don't vote for the VP, but when the presidential candidate is this old I think it's more important who the understudy is.

To be clear, I am not enthused about Obama; I have not drunk the koolaid. He was never my candidate, though I saw his potential in 2004, and my daughter can tell you that I sat in her living room in California watching his national debut at that convention, and said to her "I think we're looking at the first black president of the United States." But I didn't mean NOW! We even joked then about "after Hillary" and discussed whether a woman and an African-American on the same ticket might be asking a bit too much of America at one time, but that once Hillary had finished her two terms Obama and America would be ready for each other. Well, ready or not, here we are and there you go.

I'm still disappointed to the point of bitterness over Clinton's loss of the nomination to this upstart, and I wasn't fully resigned to voting for him (as opposed to not voting, something I've never done) until the convention. I just keep saying to myself, over and over, every day, "It's about the Supreme Court, stupid!" It is absolutely vital to me that a Democrat chose the next few justices. Bottom line, no way around it, so against my own preferences I'll do what my candidate has asked, and vote for my party's nominee.

papermanbill
Papermanbill  (Level: 41.3 - Posts: 1313)
Fri, 29th Aug '08 5:22 PM

Donna, If the Democrats ran their delegates the way the Republicans do, HRC would've been the winner by the first of March.
Also, whatever happened to the secret ballot in some of these states. This Caucaus crap is for the birds. I
watched on TV how they did a caucaus in Texas and I think it totally stinks. They use loud voices and intimidation. If McCain
shows some brains and alertness in the debates, I'll bet he wins all the marbles. Like they say about Obama backers, they can sing and dance all night long, but when that voting curtain is drawn, you vote with your head.

smaug
Smaug  (Level: 141.2 - Posts: 2772)
Fri, 29th Aug '08 5:32 PM

""""""I'd go as far as annoyed by the tokenism, """""


omigod

papermanbill
Papermanbill  (Level: 41.3 - Posts: 1313)
Fri, 29th Aug '08 6:25 PM

10-4 John

tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Fri, 29th Aug '08 7:03 PM

eesubejesus: I don't see why you have to go on a tirade anytime somebody writes anything political. If you don't like politics, just ignore the political posts. Can anybody ever post something pertinent about John McSame without you getting upset about it? If you don't like what I have to say, don't read my posts. Seems simple enough.

smoke20
Smoke20  (Level: 62.6 - Posts: 2815)
Fri, 29th Aug '08 7:04 PM

Oh your god, what? You don't think she's a token? You think she's fit to be president?

eesusbejesus
Eesusbejesus  (Level: 75.0 - Posts: 3645)
Fri, 29th Aug '08 7:21 PM

Hey tms, you haven't hit a rant in the honeymoon thread yet. I'm still waiting.

smaug
Smaug  (Level: 141.2 - Posts: 2772)
Fri, 29th Aug '08 7:35 PM

Smoke: the irony eludes you?

ladyvol
Ladyvol  (Level: 205.4 - Posts: 5493)
Fri, 29th Aug '08 9:40 PM

A very wise man once told me never to argue politics or religion...it can get you into all sorts of trouble!
Vickie

knerd
Knerd  (Level: 99.0 - Posts: 1141)
Fri, 29th Aug '08 10:11 PM

"wise men say..." - was it Elvis, Vickie?

ladyvol
Ladyvol  (Level: 205.4 - Posts: 5493)
Fri, 29th Aug '08 10:28 PM

Nope it wasn't Elvis..it was my grandpa.
Vickie

smoke20
Smoke20  (Level: 62.6 - Posts: 2815)
Fri, 29th Aug '08 11:48 PM

Smaug, you trying to say Obama's a token? I disagree. His race may have insulated him somewhat from some types of attack, especially from the media, and it definitely moved certain voting blocks, but he wasn't chosen *because* he's black. She was chosen for no other reason than gender.

If there's some other irony, then no, I don't see it.

smaug
Smaug  (Level: 141.2 - Posts: 2772)
Sat, 30th Aug '08 8:39 AM


If Obama's color insulated him from attack and his color moved certain voting blocks, then his color won the closest primary in recent memory.

One could argue that his color may hurt him at some point, but it certainly did not among the left wing and minority camps of the Democratic Party which led to his primary win.

kaufman
Kaufman  (Level: 257.2 - Posts: 3936)
Sat, 30th Aug '08 10:02 AM

I don't think the left side of the Democratic party voted based on color. They probably would have voted equally for a white taking Obama's positions. He no doubt mobilized and swayed a lot of black voters, but I wouldn't call any group voting for one of their own tokenism (there are other words for that), and I don't think the party encouraged him to run because of the color of his skin.

smoke20
Smoke20  (Level: 62.6 - Posts: 2815)
Sat, 30th Aug '08 10:33 AM

George Bush moved blocks of Christians, Hillary moved blocks of women, McCain moved blocks of vets, Bill Richardson moved blocks of Hispanics, Obama moved blocks of African-Americans. So what? Everyone's attributes are attractive to varous groups of people who identify with them. That's just human nature and politics. You can hardly fault Obama because black voters were energized by one of their own promising change. It leaves me quite breathless that you fault the man for getting an education however he could, and that you obviously think someone (your son?) would be better off in some way had Obama not had opportunities to achieve as much as white boys with rich daddies with lots of influence. I'm betting Obama's grades justified the scholarships he got, and he's certainly made full use of his education, however he got it. I don't know a thing about his college record, but I'd bet my house and favorite dog that he wasn't anywhere near 894th out of 899 in his class as McCain with all his advantages.

And as for the token woman on the McCain ticket, I think she's there *because* she's so far right to pull the party base in line, and oh yes, very photgenic. I betcha the perty lady with the big guns fires up those good ol' boys a whole bunch. Does anyone here think we'd even be having this conversation if she looked like Madelyn Albright, Golda Meir, Bella Abzug, no matter how stellar her accomplishments or how deep her experience? If he wanted a woman for her qualifications, where's Liddy Dole? Ah well, McCain always did have a thing for the beauthy queens.

This is pandering at its most cynical. It's insulting.

papermanbill
Papermanbill  (Level: 41.3 - Posts: 1313)
Sat, 30th Aug '08 10:44 AM

Hey Donna, maybe she'll have a NASCAR event on Ice. Can't you see it now, "The Fairbanks 500".!!!

smaug
Smaug  (Level: 141.2 - Posts: 2772)
Sat, 30th Aug '08 10:50 AM

Kaufman -- I don't think the party encouraged Obama to run at all, they had their machine pick in Hillary.

Smoke -- I don't "fault" Obama for getting an education anyway he could. I fault people who breathlessly cite him getting in and getting a degree as some sort of monumental accomplishment. Bill Clinton's education WAS a monumental accomplishment, by comparison, a white trash guy becoming a Rhodes scholar.

Hey, I fall back on my original premise. Anyone who says that the junior senator from Illinois with less than two years in Washington would be a presidential candidate if he looked like Opie Taylor is being intellectually dishonest with themselves or are simply blind.

smoke20
Smoke20  (Level: 62.6 - Posts: 2815)
Sat, 30th Aug '08 11:08 AM

Bill, dunno about the Fairbanks 500, but I'm betting it won't be long after the convention before she pops up at a race starting the gentlemens' engines and pretending to be a fan.

kaufman
Kaufman  (Level: 257.2 - Posts: 3936)
Sat, 30th Aug '08 2:10 PM

Craftsman Zamboni Circuit!

eesusbejesus
Eesusbejesus  (Level: 75.0 - Posts: 3645)
Sat, 30th Aug '08 2:14 PM

Wow, you guys really go for the jugular. Remind me never to run for sploofus office.

smoke20
Smoke20  (Level: 62.6 - Posts: 2815)
Sat, 30th Aug '08 2:47 PM

I never go for the jugular. Kneecap's good.

eesusbejesus
Eesusbejesus  (Level: 75.0 - Posts: 3645)
Sat, 30th Aug '08 2:58 PM

You and Tonya Harding.

smoke20
Smoke20  (Level: 62.6 - Posts: 2815)
Sat, 30th Aug '08 3:06 PM

Thanks for that. I don't think I have anything else to say about the election.

I thought I'd been fair and reasonable (if biased toward my own party) but apparently that's not the case, and the discussion isn't worth alienating and upsetting people for whom I have deep affection and respect.

I'm really sorry.

alvandy
Alvandy  (Level: 229.7 - Posts: 7573)
Sat, 30th Aug '08 3:54 PM

Hey folks, it will soon be Labor Day- when the majority of Americans get a "little" excited about an election campaign- alas- every four years [presidential} unfortunately.

Yep, the election voting percentage might hit 50%.

The conservatives are worried about the potential huge voting bloc of Hispanics and African-Americans . That is scary to them.
Watch for voter suppression tactics in key battleground states on Election Day. 2000 may be repeated.

So---watch for the "GOP playbook" to come out in full force- "worker versus worker"; pesky same sex marriages; abortion rights; gun control; "flag is ours"; "more religious than thou"; " swift boaters". .

Smaug is a tried and true libertarian at heart. I respect his views and expertise. He has taken a lead on this thread at defending the status quo. I'm glad his heart is getting into politics after all. His life "sux" lately; good to see him fired up again.
However, he is downplaying Obama's academic credentials and intellectual abilities- but that 's in the "playbook" too. Negative campaigns work best when the issues aren't on your side. That's the fear of the Republican Party- ISSUES might trump their "playbook".

I hope the country's IQ has risen lately- that's my fear-----that it may not.
I hope that a group of "Slow boaters" surfaces- if so- I'll sign up in Pennsylvania- a key battleground state.

I hope Barack promises a "peppermint pattie" in every lunchbox.
[That would gather attention- and make me famous too .]












kaufman
Kaufman  (Level: 257.2 - Posts: 3936)
Sat, 30th Aug '08 4:02 PM

Real libertarians wouild deplore the status quo and spit on the big brother authoritarianism this administration has promoted.

foogs
Foogs  (Level: 267.9 - Posts: 848)
Sat, 30th Aug '08 4:31 PM

Predictions for Ms. Palin? Don't have any yet, but as of 24
hours ago she seems to have acquired a baby wrangler, whose
job, it seems, is to keep the youngest Palin in-frame at all times.

Don't want to lose the mommy vote.

smaug
Smaug  (Level: 141.2 - Posts: 2772)
Sat, 30th Aug '08 6:33 PM

""""However, he is downplaying Obama's academic credentials and intellectual abilities- but that 's in the "playbook" too. Negative campaigns work best when the issues aren't on your side. That's the fear of the Republican Party- ISSUES might trump their "playbook".""""

Yeah, but what issues? Everybody should get everything free and not have to pay for it?

Academic credentials? Unless you are a scientist, engineer or an MD, to me, your degrees get you your first job. I've been hiring and firing for 25 years and what you did in 1982 in college doesn't mean much about your performance tomorrow.

If Obama did much in the Illinois Senate of note besides vote "present", I have not heard of it. If he did much in the US Senate before announcing his WH bid after all of 140 sessions, I have not heard it.

Biden, Clinton, McCain and even Palin have shown courageous leadership on a lot of issues. I have not seen that from Obama.

alvandy
Alvandy  (Level: 229.7 - Posts: 7573)
Sat, 30th Aug '08 9:06 PM

George W. Bush was one of the least qualified candidates for president in recent memory. This is counting his academic record and business record.
As explained by Kevin Phillips in his book, American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush, George W. Bush's businesses fail but he makes millions. Among Mr. Bush's business ventures:

* Arbusto, an oil exploration company, lost money, but it got considerable investments (nearly $5 million) because even losing oil investments were useful as tax shelters.
* Spectrum 7 Energy Corp. bought out Arbusto in 1984 and hired Mr. Bush to run the company's oil interests in Midland, Texas. The oil business collapsed as oil prices plummeted by 1986, and Spectrum 7 Energy was near failure.
* Harken Energy acquired Mr. Bush's Spectrum 7 Energy shares, and he got Harken shares, a directorship, and a consulting arrangement in return. Harken, under Bush, brought in Saudi real estate tycoon Sheikh Abdullah Bakhsh as a board member and a major investor. Over the next few years, Harken would turn out to have links to: Saudi money, CIA-connected Filipinos, the Harvard Endowment, the emir of Bahrain, and the shadowy Bank of Credit and Commerce International.
o A 1991 internal SEC document suggested George W. Bush violated federal securities law at least 4 times in the late 1980s and early 1990s in selling Harken stock while serving as a director of Harken. This is essentially the same kind of activity that Martha Stewart is going to prison over. Except at the time of the investigation, Mr. Bush's father was president and the case was quietly dropped.
"no other political family in the United States has had anything remotely resembling the Bushes' four-decade relationship with the Saudi royal family and the oil sheiks of the Persian Gulf"
To be fair-- he did turn a 14 million dollar profit from selling the Texas Rangers.
==================================================
Academics: Let's look at affirmative action- a few Sploofers rant about this as un-American.

President Bush might ask himself, "Wait a minute. How did I get into Yale?" [from a 2003 column from Michael Kinsley]

George W. Bush is all for diversity, he explained last week, but he doesn't care for the way they do it at the University of Michigan. The Administration has asked the Supreme Court to rule the Michigan system unconstitutional because of the scoring method it uses for rating applicants.

"At the undergraduate level," said Bush, "African-American students and some Hispanic students and Native American students receive 20 points out of a maximum of 150, not because of any academic achievement or life experience, but solely because they are African American, Hispanic or Native American."

If our President had the slightest sense of irony, he might have paused to ask himself, "Wait a minute. How did I get into Yale?" It wasn't because of any academic achievement: his high school record was ordinary. It wasn't because of his life experience--prosperous family, fancy prep school--which was all too familiar at Yale. It wasn't his SAT scores: 566 verbal and 640 math.

They may not have had an explicit point system at Yale in 1964, but Bush clearly got in because of affirmative action. Affirmative action for the son and grandson of alumni. Affirmative action for a member of a politically influential family. Affirmative action for a boy from a fancy prep school. These forms of affirmative action still go on.

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Harvard accepts 40% of applicants who are children of alumni but only 11% of applicants generally. And this kind of affirmative action makes the student body less diverse, not more so. George W. Bush, in fact, may be the most spectacular affirmative-action success story of all time. Until 1994, when he was 48 years old and got elected Governor of Texas, his life was almost empty of accomplishments.

Yet bloodlines and connections had put him into Andover, Yale and Harvard Business School, and even finally provided him with a fortune after years of business disappointments. Intelligence, hard work and the other qualities associated with the concept of merit had almost nothing to do with Bush's life and success up to that point.

And yet seven years later he was President of the U.S. So what is the difference between the kind of affirmative action that got Bush where he is today and the kind he wants the Supreme Court to outlaw? One difference is that the second kind is about race, and race is an especially toxic subject. Of course, George W.'s affirmative action is about race too, at least indirectly.

The class of wealthy, influential children of alumni of top universities is disproportionately white. And it will remain that way for a long time--especially if racial affirmative action is outlawed. A second difference is that the Michigan system is crudely numerical, whereas the favoritism enjoyed by George W. Bush is baked into the way we live.

Copyright © 2003 Time Inc.
================================================

My point is : Barack Obama is more qualified than George W. Bush was in 2000.
His problem- he is Black!

The playbook!







foogs
Foogs  (Level: 267.9 - Posts: 848)
Sat, 30th Aug '08 9:14 PM

AL! Ssshhhh. You're supposed to stick to the code.

"He's inexperienced." Don't go getting light headed on us.

alvandy
Alvandy  (Level: 229.7 - Posts: 7573)
Sat, 30th Aug '08 9:18 PM

Foogs correctly reminded me to re-examine the playbook.

There's nothing worse than an INEXPERIENCED BLACK!


thanks for the heads up


mplaw51
Mplaw51  (Level: 179.8 - Posts: 1582)
Sat, 30th Aug '08 9:18 PM

Love it, Al

alvandy
Alvandy  (Level: 229.7 - Posts: 7573)
Sat, 30th Aug '08 9:29 PM

I told you politics heats up around Labor Day!

Speaking of L.D. --- a word puzzle by yours truly tomorrow [Sunday August 31] pays tribute to working people all over the world.

Guess what I'll be doing tomorrow morning?
By invitation from a local church- making a presentation about Labor Day history and celebrating the 19th annual Labor Day Parade in York, PA..

Later, I'll take my word puzzle- [hope I score 5000 points )
====================================================

This thread has generated some interest in our future. Good!
Apathy sucks.







kaelin
Kaelin  (Level: 49.2 - Posts: 1685)
Sat, 30th Aug '08 10:34 PM

What Tsk said:
"eesubejesus: I don't see why you have to go on a tirade anytime somebody writes anything political. "

What Lodi said:
"Not sure why people are getting their knickers in a bunch over Repub VP nomination. The people that oppose either of the candidates aren't going to vote for them, no matter who they choose as a running mate. So why go off on tirades? I would see being upset if you had intended to vote for someone and they chose someone as a running mate that you violently oppose. But someone you didn't plan on voting for anyway? Why get upset about that? If you don't like them, don't vote for them. Seems simple enough."

There was nothing resembling any sort of tirade in what Lodi posted - it was a reasonable post that did not side with either party and made a simple observation.



violetblue
Violetblue  (Level: 112.2 - Posts: 850)
Sat, 30th Aug '08 10:49 PM

Smoke~ It's been a very long time since I've posted a message but I just had to say "I <3 U"

~VB

smaug
Smaug  (Level: 141.2 - Posts: 2772)
Sat, 30th Aug '08 11:24 PM

I already posted saying George W. Bush was a moron and the farthest thing from a conservative. Contrasting to raise a favorite's status is a weak tactic.

On almost every social issue I am a moderate at best. I am anti-gun and pro-RvW Anyone who is in favor of third trimester abortions should witness one, and anyone who is opposed to first trimester abortions should be on an adoptive parent list..

But those are stupid issues to run a country on. Anyone that feels so omnipotent to make a voting choice on the 'angels dancing on a pin" philosophical, tangential issue of abortion is an idiot to me -- either way.



eesusbejesus
Eesusbejesus  (Level: 75.0 - Posts: 3645)
Sat, 30th Aug '08 11:35 PM

Thanks Lorri.

Let me rephrase:

Party one: "Dammit, McDonalds just added meat loaf to their menu!"

Party two: "Do you like meat loaf?"

Party one: "Yes, but not their meat loaf. I'll never eat their meat loaf. Their meat loaf is icky and they are jerks for putting meat loaf on their menu."

Party two: "Do you eat at McDonalds?"

Party one: "No!" "I only eat at Burger King."

Part two: "Do you intend to eat at McDonalds in the future?"

Party one: "No!"

Party two: "So if you don't eat at McDonalds and you never intend to eat at McDonalds, why do you care if they put meat loaf on their menu?"



kaufman
Kaufman  (Level: 257.2 - Posts: 3936)
Sat, 30th Aug '08 11:51 PM

Party one: Because this move might drive Burger King out of business and we may all have nothing to eat but McMeatloaf and other McFood for the next four years.

(the fact that they offer McCane McSugar to put in their McCoffee is strictly McOincidence.)

eesusbejesus
Eesusbejesus  (Level: 75.0 - Posts: 3645)
Sun, 31st Aug '08 12:00 AM

But that determination isn't going to be made on these boards. So attacking the Mcmeatloaf, attacking McDonalds, and basically calling all of those who eat there morons, does not make anyone want to eat at Burger King. I, personally, would prefer to hear what Burger King offers on their menu and how it might be healthier for me to eat there rather than McDonalds.

kaufman
Kaufman  (Level: 257.2 - Posts: 3936)
Sun, 31st Aug '08 12:48 AM

Anyway, I think that's a misrepresentation of what this thread's about. It's about how the addition of Palin to the Republican ticket will affect voters -- what people it will draw to McCain, who it will draw to Obama, and which folks it will draw from either candidate to the None of the Above slate. If you're sure it won't change anyone's votes, that's fine, but that's no reason to jump on those who think it will move someone somewhere somehow.

And if we can't talk about things we can't change here (but someone's argument might affect someone else's vote, and that person may move others ...), we'd better call on the editors to axe the Gustav and Cubs threads too.

eesusbejesus
Eesusbejesus  (Level: 75.0 - Posts: 3645)
Sun, 31st Aug '08 1:21 AM

Ken, my only point was the nastiness and the pettiness that overtakes the actual political debate surprises me. It doesn't surprise me from some people, but some of the comments from others has been very disappointing for me. Especially those I've always trusted as fair minded, just, and level headed. Its weird how this brings out the ugly in people. However, I'm all for the discussion of it - I never once said I wasn't. I love the discussion because I learn things I didn't know and I really want to be informed for this election. I just don't like it when someone starts frothing at the mouth and throwing out petty jabs. And I don't recall asking anyone to axe any thread. Have I?

My mouse hovered over the terminate account button today for several seconds. I decided to go take some time to think about it. I guess I still need more time.

kaufman
Kaufman  (Level: 257.2 - Posts: 3936)
Sun, 31st Aug '08 1:32 AM

"But that determination isn't going to be made on these boards" did sound like a call to be done with this thread.

As I said, I didn't see too much petty frothing here, and I'm not sure where you're reading it in. But never mind that...

THIS is getting you to consider terminating your account? This? That doesn't add up. Something else must be going on. And whatever it is, I'm sorry to hear that.

cujgie
Cujgie  (Level: 173.9 - Posts: 754)
Sun, 31st Aug '08 1:48 AM

I've read in print and online everything I can get my hands on about Palin -- positive stuff as well as negative.

Where will she get her knowledge of foreign affairs? Someone somewhere said she'd better be smart and have a good memory because she's going to have to cram. The debates are next. How will she fare against Biden?

I keep thinking about Trig, the Down's baby. Yes, she's had other children so she knows the drill. But to be the U.S. Vice President with four kids at home, including a special needs baby?

eesusbejesus
Eesusbejesus  (Level: 75.0 - Posts: 3645)
Sun, 31st Aug '08 2:12 AM

It will certainly be interesting to see how one of us "regular folks" does. The lack of experience could be disastrous or the fact that Palin is not a career politician could be refreshing. I know I've bitched for years about the career politicians who seem so out of touch with the rest of us who are just trying to raise families & get by. And I've always mused that I would love to get them out of there and replace them with people who are more in touch with what the rest of us are actually going through. But there's more to being in the White House than what's happening on the home front so I am concerned with the lack of experience on both sides.

I did see Palin was boo'd today in NY for giving kudos to Hillary Clinton for the strides she has made for women in politics. I guess you're not supposed to do that kind of stuff in politics?

surreyman
Surreyman  (Level: 261.3 - Posts: 2770)
Sun, 31st Aug '08 5:04 AM

If anyone's interested, from the UK end it appears to us (well, me!) that the US has the same problem as the UK - none of the candidates merit running the country.
Brown is causing massive annoyance here - but there's no-one else to even match him, of any party. A total political doldrums here.
From my apolitical (party) view of the US, Obama seems terribly inexperienced despite his speechmaking ability, and his 'experienced' back-up - judging from the effect of past VPs - won't have much influence.
McCain also seems a relative nonenity, trading on his Nam status (that was 30 years ago for xxxxxxxx sake!). If he is the right-winger he seems from here, we've just had 8 years of that .......
Palin seems to be a feisty enough Alaskan, but has a lot of warts on her record - and as a potential President within a few months ........?
I can't help feeling that the US and the UK both lack credible leadership for the next few years, at a time when I suspect we're going to very much need that.
In the meantime, a certain other political influence in the world does seem to have very strong leadership ............

oldcougar
Oldcougar  (Level: 220.4 - Posts: 1935)
Sun, 31st Aug '08 8:27 AM

Looks like we're going to the polls this Fall, too. I know my man won't win, but I can hope for a minority Liberal government with the NDP holding the balance of power. That's how we got Old Age Pension & Universal Healthcare. Just as long as it's not a majority Conservative government. Then if the States goes Democrat, we might get somewhere at improving the lot of the average Joe/Joelle in North America

donleigh
Donleigh  (Level: 147.8 - Posts: 5087)
Sun, 31st Aug '08 8:44 AM

There is a huge lack of leadership in every country in the world. Nobody who could change things is ever going to run for office because they're busy running their own lives and don't want to run a city, state, federal government. We keep electing the idiots because there is no-one else running. Let's all stay home on election day. What would they do with zero voter turnout?

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Sun, 31st Aug '08 8:47 AM

I have friends who are doing exactly that--refusing to vote. Surreyman, I'm with you, where the leaders?

pepperdoc
Pepperdoc  (Level: 152.5 - Posts: 4286)
Sun, 31st Aug '08 9:07 AM

I'm not a big fan of anyone running. I am concerned about who influences the candidate.

As for good, strong, qualified people who don't run for public office? I don't know if it's easier or harder to run for office now than a hundred years ago. I think harder. It's not just that you have to have elephant-hide skin, you pretty much give up a lot of your personal life to serve and in many cases you get demonized for it.

I've voted Republic and Democratic and will continue to vote on a variety of factors not just on party line. What's being posted on these political threads on Sploofus isn't affecting my core beliefs. I'm checking out a variety of information from different sources - the most objective as I can find.

Does anyone remember the link to the website where the candidate's positions were posted and you checked off issues on the list and it would tell you which candidate you aligned with?

In the past I've also been a big fan of the League of Women Voters website who listed issues (without the rhetoric) on each candidate. I found that very helpful in local elections.

eesusbejesus
Eesusbejesus  (Level: 75.0 - Posts: 3645)
Sun, 31st Aug '08 9:32 AM

The demonizing is really alarming to me. Why, indeed, would anyone run?

I agree wholeheartedly with you Surrey. And while it is disturbing that many of us are in the same boat with weak leadership, it is even more alarming that the "other political leadership in the world" is just watching & waiting for any of us to appear weaker. Its the biggest concern for me in this election.

BTW, thanks all for the sane posts. I was afraid to even check this morning.

kaelin
Kaelin  (Level: 49.2 - Posts: 1685)
Sun, 31st Aug '08 10:15 AM


acofish
Acofish  (Level: 59.9 - Posts: 98)
Sun, 31st Aug '08 11:27 AM

A big point of Obama's ads here in OH explain how he is going to tax the oil companies and big business, not the middle class family. Does any rational person believe that if the oil companies get taxed to a greater extent that they won't pass that along to the consumer?!?!?! So many companies are going overseas because of the cost of doing business in the United States. Unions, high tax rates, restrictive environmental and zoning laws, the rising cost of healthcare benefits, etc., etc., these are things that cost a company money. In raising the tax rates for big businesses, do you really think the cost will not be passed on to you, the consumer???? Or that the companies will stay here instead of going to a country that appreciates having them??

eesusbejesus
Eesusbejesus  (Level: 75.0 - Posts: 3645)
Sun, 31st Aug '08 11:31 AM

I think both happens - the costs are passed on to the consumer, and when I call customer service, my rep's name is Sudip.

Both suck.

smaug
Smaug  (Level: 141.2 - Posts: 2772)
Sun, 31st Aug '08 11:36 AM

Crushing corporations with taxes as a stated goal is literally communism.

These oil companies are expected to carry the enormous financial burden of new drilling and exploration, suddenly popular even with Dems, and also play a central role in alternate energy development.

....and, oh yeah, they employ hundreds of thousands of Americans and their stocks are stalwarts in 401k and mutual funds.

pennwoman
Pennwoman  (Level: 155.2 - Posts: 2478)
Sun, 31st Aug '08 11:57 AM

Question, if Obama's father makes him black, why doesnt his mother make him white?
My mother, the meanest woman alive is thrilled with Mr. Mccain, which just cant be a good thing...

eesusbejesus
Eesusbejesus  (Level: 75.0 - Posts: 3645)
Sun, 31st Aug '08 12:06 PM

hahaha!

smoke20
Smoke20  (Level: 62.6 - Posts: 2815)
Sun, 31st Aug '08 2:32 PM

Okay, I wasn't going to post at all anymore, but since my conciliatory PM is being ignored I'll say the rest of it here. All of it.

I didn't "demonize" anyone. You want to see demonization? Googleimage Hillary Clinton + Satan. I've been enduring that for more than 15 years, and I've managed not to lose any friends over it. Google Hillary Clinton + bitch, you'll get a million hits. Few candidates in American history have been more unfairly and unrelentingly vilified. She's been accused of everything despicable you can think of, from theft to adultery to being a closeted lesbian, complicit in her husband's adultery, a monster of ambition, and on and on, up to and including murdering her oldest friends. That's what I think of as demonization.

It is unfair and not true that I find fault only with the opposition. I said plainly that I was not enthusiastic about Obama because of his lack of experience. I don't think I said how dismayed I am by the choice of Joe Biden, two-time loser in his own party. I never voted for him in a primary and I don't think he's the best choice now. I think the ticket is a loser, but I will support it as the better choice for me, because MY number one priority is the Supreme Court; we are a nation of laws, and those laws are interpreted by those nine people and no one else - for as long as they live. They are the caretakers, definers and enforcers of the United States Constitution. Nothing has more impact than that on who we are as a country.

I do not oppose Palin because she represents the "other" party. I oppose her on the issues. She's the idealogical polar opposite of everything I believe in. I oppose her because she is to the right of even most of her own party; because she'd rather see a woman die in childbirth, or a 12-year-old girl have her father's baby, or a rapist's baby, or a middle-aged woman with children in college or grandchildren forced to have a baby she doesn't want, possibly with profound handicaps, or thousands of women and girls dying from back-alley or self-abortions, or unwanted babies abandoned in bus stations and dumpsters, rather than allow women to have safe legal abortions. I absolutely unequivocally 100% oppose her on this issue.

I oppose her because pumping petrochemicals out of her state is more important to her than polar bears or wilderness conservation. I oppose her because she opposes the assault weapons ban and supports an extreme interpretation of the second amendment that thinks it's fine for teachers to pack guns into schools and citizens to be armed in grocery stores and restaurants. I have guns. I'm in favor of gun ownership within limits. She wants no limits. I think that's wrong. Note than when I originally overstated about her killing wolves and bears from airplanes, I qualified the statement as soon as I realized it. I don't know whether she's ever done that. I would hope not.

I oppose her on her rigid stance against ANY kind of same-sex relationship benefits, including not allowing insurance and pension coverage for same-sex partners, or next-of-kin rights of medical determination even in cases of long-term monogamous relationships where the partners have no one else and want each other to have those rights; because she wants a constitutional amendment banning ANY rights for same-sex partners. I think that's as immoral as she thinks it's moral.

I oppose her because she wants biblical creationism taught side by side as a reasonable alternative to science in public schools, because she is against medical marijuana and stem cell research; because she has reportedly moved McCain off his stance on offshore drilling and I worry that her whole purpose is to move him, or make him appear movable, on ANWR drilling; because the scandal involving her treatment of her brother-in-law and her own administration officials disturbs me deeply, coming after a long administration that has made a routine practice of "getting" people who displease them, from firing Justice Department lawyers to punishing our own diplomats and secret agents who fail to sufficiently toe the party line. I could go on with more issues I oppose her on. Pick an issue. Any issue.

I don't see her as "one of us regular folks"; she IS a "career politician", it's just early in her career; she's not in touch with what I'M going through. She may remember what it's like to scramble to get her kids to hockey practice in the midst of a busy workday, what it's like to juggle a career, a marriage and a houseful of children, but those are not my concerns, and I don't think her situation and resources analogizes as well with average working folks as it will be portrayed; I doubt that it's a crisis for her to get medical care or keep the lights on or heat the house this winter or forestall a mortgage foreclosure in the face of staggering credit card debt, and not likely to ever be. Compared to a lot, maybe most, of the regular working folks I know, she has a life of privilege miles removed from anything they'll ever know. So do all the other candidates. None of them are regular folks and it just annoys me when they pretend they are, whichever side they're on.

I see her as another shill for the oil interests, with a pretty face. I don't trust the corporate interests that run the Republican party to choose the best person for the country over the best person for their own interests. Powerful interests that do not have my best interests at heart have a historical pattern of trotting out an attractive woman to sell me things I don't want. I've always found it insulting, and even more so now, when she's being touted as a replacement for Hillary Clinton, as though the only reason anyone wanted to vote for her was gender, as though any woman will do. I don't blame that on Palin, but on the party machine managing the campaign. I blame her for cynically pretending that she's following in Hillary's footsteps. That's what got her booed in NY and will again. Boo I say. And hiss as well.

So. That's where I stand. These are my heartfelt opinions; admittedly they are strong opinions, but they're honest and sincere. I'm hoping I haven't burnt any bridges and to everyone who disagrees with me I say, I respect your right to disagree and I don't think any less of you for it. If I can't hold and voice these opinions without losing you as a friend, that truly breaks my heart, and I'm sure gonna miss you a lot.

I've no more interest in debating here, no more trust. I'll just be seeing myself out now, so have fun everyone, it was a blast while it lasted.

eesusbejesus
Eesusbejesus  (Level: 75.0 - Posts: 3645)
Sun, 31st Aug '08 2:56 PM

Donna, I replied to your PM last night and just as I hit send, the gd dogs who were under the computer desk, hit the kill switch down there. I was hoping the PM made it before the kill, but I'm guessing by your post, it didn't. They also managed to knock out the internet for us all until we found the cable they had knocked loose. I was so mad they are avoiding me and look at me with slitted eyes. And I think they've hidden or destroyed the fly swatter.

pennwoman
Pennwoman  (Level: 155.2 - Posts: 2478)
Sun, 31st Aug '08 3:28 PM

Smoke, I am very impressed! You have a well thought out and passionate stand --- thats way more than most people do!
You go girl!

oldcougar
Oldcougar  (Level: 220.4 - Posts: 1935)
Sun, 31st Aug '08 3:59 PM

Please explain to me how the argument that high taxes & union wages causes companies to pick up stakes & run. After we all signed NAFTA, many companies moved to Mexico citing the above reasons, those same companies are now abandoning Mexico, in favour of China & India. I just don't buy it, but what we should all buy is either US or Canadian made goods. You might pay a little more but the product is superior & that worker is paying taxes & contributing to our countries

donden
Donden  (Level: 112.5 - Posts: 2127)
Sun, 31st Aug '08 4:03 PM

Donna, your message was very well put. I do not agree with all of it but I respect your feelings and your very impressive way of expressing them. When I started this thread, I only had about 5 minutes to get it in, (I didn't notice the other post on the same subject), before I had to head for Ohio so I didn't go into detail but, after reading some of the more strongly worded opinions I decided to turn chicken and stay out of it. I DO know when I am overmatched.
Thanks

mplaw51
Mplaw51  (Level: 179.8 - Posts: 1582)
Sun, 31st Aug '08 4:38 PM

Excellent, Smoke! You also stated why I rarely express any of my own strong views! Thanks from lots of us!!!

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Sun, 31st Aug '08 4:46 PM

Smoke, thanks for the well thought out post. I agree almost 100%. Will be a greatly diminished chat without you.

rowlanda
Rowlanda  (Level: 70.0 - Posts: 2856)
Sun, 31st Aug '08 6:14 PM

Smoke....
I was so surprised when you said you wouldn't post any more
about the Elections, and gave the reasons why....
Your's is the strong voice of thoughtful and reasoned choices,

Also, I didn't see one "moron" "stupid idiot" "idiot" or any of the
other sensitive, respectful epithets used by the most vocal
advocate for four more years of McBush.

Please keep on keepin ' on....

Ken....loved your post re. the mcBurger controversy
Humour, insight and intelligence is an irresistible mix.

Lodi....I know what you're against, but have no idea of
what or who you're for....

As another "outsider looking in" I'm very happy the
elections will be in November - and then WE can get
back to some camaraderie, instead of all this dissention.

What difference does it make what "the man on the street"
thinks, when you have the Supreme Court to vote for all
of the good citizens....

eesusbejesus
Eesusbejesus  (Level: 75.0 - Posts: 3645)
Sun, 31st Aug '08 6:44 PM

Since you asked Row - here's some things I'm for, rather than opposed. Unfortunately, there's no candidate who is for all of the things I am.

1. I'm for national security. I am terrified of another strike against the U.S. by those looking for a sign of weakness.

2. I'm pro-choice, up until a certain time.

3. I'm pro-gun.

4. I'm for separation of church & state

5. I'm for marrying whoever you feel like it.

6. I'm for being able to choose my own private health care.

7. I'm for tougher laws on child predators.

8. I'm for protecting the environment but don't buy into the current hysteria.

9. I'm for the federal government cleaning itself up and relinquishing some rights back to the states.

10. I'm for living the American Dream and being whatever I want to be, but don't understand how, when I live that dream, and create a corporation that employs thousands of employees, I'm all of a sudden an asshole and I should be taken down.

11. I'm for a candidate who won't choose sides with any of these jerks and just holds true to their own beliefs, even if they don't match mine. There's something very appealing about that. That's a sign of a true leader, in my opinion.

12. I'm for people who are not extremists.

13. Currently, I'm for getting my butt out of this chair and getting some exercise.


Be excellent to each other, and party on dudes!

smaug
Smaug  (Level: 141.2 - Posts: 2772)
Sun, 31st Aug '08 6:55 PM

""""""Powerful interests that do not have my best interests at heart have a historical pattern of trotting out an attractive woman to sell me things I don't want.""""""


Like who?

rowlanda
Rowlanda  (Level: 70.0 - Posts: 2856)
Sun, 31st Aug '08 7:12 PM

Ford, Chrysler, GM....as a for instance....
Anyone remember the Car Shows with requisite
Blond sprawled out on the bonnet of the vehicle.

Selling cars they knew we shouldn't want, that were
unsafe at any speed....
Still pushing their gas guzzling pollution machines.
And who in the world needs a Hummer....or better
yet a Hummer Limousine, a block long!!!!



rowlanda
Rowlanda  (Level: 70.0 - Posts: 2856)
Sun, 31st Aug '08 7:30 PM

Lodi....
Thank you for being so open and positively positive.
Would you be receptive to a PM re some of the
points you've made that I am gagging to debate????

slicko
Slicko  (Level: 223.9 - Posts: 1609)
Sun, 31st Aug '08 7:50 PM

I'm writing in Lodi for president - except for that exercise crap

smaug
Smaug  (Level: 141.2 - Posts: 2772)
Sun, 31st Aug '08 7:57 PM

I am appalled at the smears and prejudice directed at hot chicks.

foogs
Foogs  (Level: 267.9 - Posts: 848)
Sun, 31st Aug '08 8:08 PM

Right on, Ms. Bejesus!

Did you happen to catch Jim Leach's speech last week
at the DNC? Less than 10 minutes long. It's on You Tube.
If you can get by his eerie impression of Kermit the Frog,
he is a breath of fresh air. He's the only Republican I have
ever voted for: independent, intelligent, principled.

But then he got run over by the Anti-Bush sentiment in
2006. Just a shame.

(I'm stuck with another Iowa Congressman who is a
complete moron. And, yes, I'm going to plug my quiz on
said moron if you want to find out more.)



eesusbejesus
Eesusbejesus  (Level: 75.0 - Posts: 3645)
Sun, 31st Aug '08 8:34 PM

Thanks Foogs, I'll check it out.

Row, I think you know you can ask me anything you want. I'm fresh from a 2 mile jaunt and feel much better. I haven't been able to work out since the kids went back to school and all work & no workout makes Lodi crabby.

kaufman
Kaufman  (Level: 257.2 - Posts: 3936)
Sun, 31st Aug '08 10:08 PM

Dear Smaug,

We are a nation of the people, by the people and for the people, not of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations. Our country has misplaced its priorities. You make the claim that if we tax the corporations (more), that will have certain negative side effects on individual citizens. I'm not stupid enough to deny that.

But if we don't and give them a free ride, what effect does that have? They throw their workers under the bus in favor of cheap labor from Elsewhere. They gouge us anyway with a sole goal of maximizing the take of their fat cat execs. Those most able don't contribute their fair share to our nation's coffers, and who's going to pay for the running of the country? The poor? Should we just run a fiscally irresponsible nation into insolvency? Or shut down government functions and become a third world entity?

There is a happy medium. For instance in Thursday's speech (for what it's worth), Barack Obama proposed tax breaks and incentives for good corporate citizens -- those who don't take jobs overseas, those who don't claim obscene profits, those who are good community members, those who give their employees a living wage -- and to come down hard on those who aren't.

This is of course a candidate's promise, and who knows how much he'll stick to it if elected, but doesn't this sound like a better strategy than giving corporations free rein to run rampant and trample the American people?

smaug
Smaug  (Level: 141.2 - Posts: 2772)
Sun, 31st Aug '08 10:35 PM

Ken,

A few points.

1. I hate when liberals differentiate between the "rich" and "fortunate" and the "disadvantaged" or the "poor". It's as if financial success in life is predetermined in the womb and has nothing to do with hard work and motivation. This often has racial overtones and I think that is particularly insidious, showing a demographic that their only hope for success lies in some extraordinary government largesse, intervention, or emergency program.

2. I think it is very dangerous to the future of our country when what is supposed to be a social safety net becomes a hammock. the federal government is funded by the top five percent of wage earners, including corporate "fat cats" (darn those successful Americans!") the other ninety five percent are on the teat in one form or another.

3.I think our country is on a fast march to socialism and away from the financial roots that made our country the wealthiest nation in history. In a democracy, once 51 percent of the people can vote themselves a benefit paid for by the other 49 percent, the seesaw can tilt permanently. Social Security is an example. Is it a great program? Sure! So would free shelter, food, medical care, lawn service, gov't cars, free insurance, hell, I'd love to watch movies all day and get erotic neck rubs. I cleaned that up.

So, with Social Security, everyone who is old or will soon be old or has a parent that is old or plans on being old themselves are going to kill any politician that waves so much as a spork near it.

And in about 15 years it will bankrupt this country. Great idea. So is lobster every night. We can't afford it.

That is what Obama is about. Free rides for every voter plus a bag of chips. Soak the "rich". Damn those rich, paying for the whole government and working hard and creating wealth.

Obama is harnessing his own block of the 51 percent who want benefits that the other 49 percent will pay. That's all.



kaufman
Kaufman  (Level: 257.2 - Posts: 3936)
Sun, 31st Aug '08 10:58 PM

As opposed to the Republican plan in which 98% pay for the benefits of the other 2% ...

foogs
Foogs  (Level: 267.9 - Posts: 848)
Sun, 31st Aug '08 11:14 PM

Should have included a link to Leach before:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6981BGSPnNU


Mr. McKellen: It is good that some Americans are so self-assured
and so convinced of the righteousness of the world. I can not
imagine what you feel when lesser beings such as myself look
out upon the world and think, "It's nice, but it could be better." Is
our hope for a new and better world so scary to those, like you,
who think they have life dicked?

I do not believe that the President of the United States is the end
all and the be all of our existence. S/He is just one part of a system
of checks and balances. The President does not act unilaterally.
The president is a figurehead who suggests a means to progress.
As voters, maybe we're just supposed to decide which means to
progress we prefer, then hope for the best.

It seems to me that if a smart man with the smartest of advisors--
the very best that money can buy--can't keep this country from
falling into oblivion, well, then sorry, but we're a country that isn't
worth saving.

I was reminded recently of the definition of insanity: To keep doing
the same thing over and over and hope for a different result.
Trickle down economics -- voodoo economics -- is a myth. I'm sure
John McCain is a fine man who would do his best as president.
But his vision, the same vision that has been trotted out by two
Bushes and a Reagan, has been ineffective at best. It has been
found wanting. It's time for change. Why... WHY would I vote
for four more years of the same damn thing I've cursed for the
last eight years?

From my perspective, supporting Obama's change presents no
lesser or greater threat than supporting McCain. Both will be
checked by the legislature and the judiciary. It's more than likely
any real change they suggest will be stymied by the opposition.
My vote will be cast for a HOPE for change. I don't really
expect it, but there won't even be a chance for change if I cast
a vote for a status quo mentality that has this country mired in
unnecessary war, confrontation, and isolation.



smaug
Smaug  (Level: 141.2 - Posts: 2772)
Sun, 31st Aug '08 11:17 PM

"""""""For instance in Thursday's speech (for what it's worth), Barack Obama proposed tax breaks and incentives for good corporate citizens -- those who don't take jobs overseas, those who don't claim obscene profits, those who are good community members, those who give their employees a living wage -- and to come down hard on those who aren't."""""


Since we are competing in a global marketplace, I'm curious as to how the above is anything but a precise recipe for disaster for any American company facing overseas competition. Of course, with their "tax breaks and incentives" they may limp along, with the taxpayer underwriting their incompetence in a competitive marketplace.



oldcougar
Oldcougar  (Level: 220.4 - Posts: 1935)
Sun, 31st Aug '08 11:51 PM

Just want to say, as a socialist, when I say fat cat corporations, I don't mean all corporations, some are very good. Unfortunately, many are bad. They use up all the natural resources, paying very little taxes or wages & then hit the road to save a dime. Many of these foreign corporations that are so competitive & threatening are at least partially owned by Americans. Not that I blame Americans, in general, the very bad rich people of the World, are not truly citizens of anywhere. They don't care who's economy collapses as long as they make money.

alvandy
Alvandy  (Level: 229.7 - Posts: 7573)
Sun, 31st Aug '08 11:57 PM

Any McCain / Palin advocate want to chime in about these issues?-- What does this presidential ticket plan to do about these issues?

Inherited wealth- -[ yeah, those silver spooners really worked for their money]

Mufti-national corporations [there aren't many large American -only corporations left- even Harley-Davidson just bought a company in Europe- tax incentives to keep manufacturing jobs here is better than doing nothing]. Ever try to buy an American MADE flag? A Chinese worker starts his day before going to their sweatshop- I pledge my allegiance- oh forget it.

Workers losing their "defined benefit" pensions

Workers/ retirees losing their health care coverage or having the premiums rise far above the cost of living each year.

The Ownership Society concept

FEMA- has been re-named FEEBLE

Some corporations are rolling in the dough- profit wise- [can you say oil companies?] . They know how government works.
Hmmm- any current friends in the White House?- any prospective friends in November?

Education- public education is a right?- NCLB -no child left behind- well fund the damn thing properly and it might actually work for the disadvantaged.

The National Labor Relations Act- It is declared to be the policy of the United States to eliminate the causes of certain substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce and to mitigate and eliminate these obstructions when they have occurred by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self- organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection.
Yeah right!

That's enough to keep the obfuscation going. Oh crap- the Republican National Convention coverage is curtailed on Labor Day- "Brownie- you're doing a hell of a job!"

Let's enjoy Labor Day- while it's still a national holiday.







eesusbejesus
Eesusbejesus  (Level: 75.0 - Posts: 3645)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 12:00 AM

I would just like to say that I'm all for inherited wealth. I don't have any to inherit but since I'm currently an orphan, I will consider any offers of adoption by those monetary qualified.

cujgie
Cujgie  (Level: 173.9 - Posts: 754)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 12:04 AM

How much do you need, Lodi?

(Notice I didn't say, "How much do you want?")

eesusbejesus
Eesusbejesus  (Level: 75.0 - Posts: 3645)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 2:05 AM

I don't know. I don't know how much one has to have in order to be considered a silver spooner who did not work for their money. However that much is, that's what I need.

BTW, that comment reminded me of my father. He used to frustrate me to no end because there was no reasoning with him on ANY issue, no matter how warped his opinion was. He always felt that anyone who was more successful than he was (which included most everyone), had either stolen it, screwed somebody, or inherited it and therefore didn't deserve it.

cujgie
Cujgie  (Level: 173.9 - Posts: 754)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 2:18 AM

Maybe I'll adopt you instead and give you a hug. I've always wanted a daughter.

eesusbejesus
Eesusbejesus  (Level: 75.0 - Posts: 3645)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 2:28 AM

Awwwww, now you're going to make me get all misty. I'm trying to be cool here.




oldcougar
Oldcougar  (Level: 220.4 - Posts: 1935)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 5:08 AM

I used to have a crystal bell for calling the maid, it was the only thing in my hope chest (damned kid broke it). Figured if I could afford the maid, I'd be able to buy my own damned china set, etc. Unfortunately I had to use my real chest to get a man. Passed over a couple of wealthy ones to marry a logger, I am hopeless

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 6:09 AM

McCain's choice of Palin is a "Hail Mary" pass. Look for a huge win for the Democrats.

rowlanda
Rowlanda  (Level: 70.0 - Posts: 2856)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 7:12 AM

Smaug,
Having lived in several countries....I would say that Americans own or have major interests
in most Companies in this so-called Global Marketplace....
Exactly who is it you are struggling so hard to stay in the game with????
The US is the largest, richest, most industrialized country in the world. Funnily enough,
when it's time for Show and Tell....American Corporations are constantly BOASTING about
"Record Profits" Your rhetoric about this so-called struggle, is just spouting the Politics of
Fear - as created by Right-Winged Fat Cats.
And were you not gloating recently about the fact that your son was awarded a 100%
scholarship to a good College. If you are so against "Hand Outs" and things "given away"
for free.....why not refuse the scholarship and allow it to go to someone who really needs
the help. You obviously don't need such assistance, since you're protesting so loudly against
hypothetical tax increases.

From those to whom much is given....much is expected....Luke 12:48

smaug
Smaug  (Level: 141.2 - Posts: 2772)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 9:48 AM

This basically just applies to all.

I have a real problem with government as some sort of "Robin Hood", leveling the social classes, taking from the rich and giving to the poor. That certainly is not what the constitution intended.

The comment about inherited wealth is exactly on point. If I build a fortune through my own hard work and industry, or my great grandfather did, and want to pass it on to my kids and grandkids, who the F is the government to get into my life and take MY assets?

The Constitution provides for the PURSUIT of happiness, not happiness, and certainly not the right to rob from one person to support another "less fortunate" or perhaps less industrious.

lettermanfan1
Lettermanfan1  (Level: 88.3 - Posts: 486)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 10:12 AM

I find it interesting when people get all excited about the Veep. Except for Dick Cheney (the Puppet Master) they really only have power if there's a tie or if the President becomes incapacitated. Then they are forced to follow that President's agenda for sentimental reasons. Remember when Reagan got shot? Congress was rushing through tons of bills and people were afraid to oppose as it would seem "disrespectful". So over it.
Leah

eesusbejesus
Eesusbejesus  (Level: 75.0 - Posts: 3645)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 10:20 AM

McMeatloaf

oldcougar
Oldcougar  (Level: 220.4 - Posts: 1935)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 10:20 AM

Jesus was a Socialist & that's good enough for me. Peace

kaufman
Kaufman  (Level: 257.2 - Posts: 3936)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 10:41 AM

Smaug was of course just groggily getting out of bed. He means the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution promises the pursuit of happiness, but the latter implies it through the Ninth Amendment

kaelin
Kaelin  (Level: 49.2 - Posts: 1685)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 10:51 AM

Living in my household is truly a challenge.

A few years ago, my father made the decision to begin paying my kids for their grades. He did the same thing for me and my brothers.

My husband was vehemently opposed to this. His reasons were that it was "not fair" because my son (who works extremely hard to achieve his best and most often does so) made better grades than my daughter (who is not disable in any way except she just doesn't want to do what she doesn't like - or what is hard - for instance - she just "hates" math - but excels in language arts & music because it comes easy to her - no struggle to have to be better).

Don't get me wrong because I love both my kids equally - but there is no doubt that my son does better because he applies and pushes himself - EVEN if he doesn't like it. He works at it until he gets it. My daughter chooses to "slide" on what she doesn't want to apply herself to.

A's get 20 bucks - B's get 10 bucks - electives (i.e. Band, Drama, Choir, Athletics get 5 bucks for A's/B's) C's get nothing and F's get MINUS 20 bucks.

Fair system as far as I'm concerned as it teaches them several things including hard work pays off. The kids were very excited about this proposal by their grandfather, including my daughter. She actually began to work a bit harder on the math which she disliked so intently. Her first priority was to insure that she never got anything below a C in it - then was shooting for a B.

My husband was not involved in the proposal (as often he chooses not to be a part of the family visits to my parents). The first report cards come and the kids (who have to tally their grades/earning and then mail them to my Dad) are working on the grades and my husband asks them what is going on. My daughter, bless her little heart begins to explain, and he goes off IN FRONT OF THEM about how unfair that is and that he doesn't agree with it because Paul gets better grades than Kat and that he will earn more money and by God that's just not fair.

I'll never forget the look on my daughter's face as I saw the tide turn as she listened to the passion and righteous indignation of her dad, and I sadly watched her make her way to "the other side".

It's taken me another two years as she approaches her 18th birthday in 2009, graduates and hopefully makes great strides towards adulthood. I'm doing my best to empower her with the knowledge that her talents far exceed just what comes easy for her, and that her talents can expand farther if effort is applied.

We do no favors to ourselves or our children by not teaching them to do their very best.

They are witnessing things with me and my husband that are beyond confusing since he quite his job of 17 years in January (with a large company that provided matching 401k benefits, full insurance covereage including dental and vision that we only had to pay 1% of his salary for + $500/year family deductible and a minor percentage for office visits). The latest in my tirade has been his desire to "live on" the 401k that I spent 17 years building (which I did a very good job on thanks to my years of work in the stock brokerage industry) and basically "retire" at 54 because he felt he had worked hard enough. He has no concept of the fact that it will all be gone in just a few years + the obscene 30% penalty that has to be paid to the government for early withdrawal.

His latest comment as I reitereated the fact that Kat goes to college next year was that "well, you know your parents would never let Kat not go to college just because we don't have the money"

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

The sense of entitlement or that someone ELSE should take care of you because you deserve it is a disease that infects too many people in our country.

eesusbejesus
Eesusbejesus  (Level: 75.0 - Posts: 3645)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 10:51 AM

RE: The inherited wealth thing. Heck, even the earned wealth thing. I remember my father's scathing and suspicious comments towards anyone who did well for themselves. I know those stemmed from an extreme jealousy but I know that sentiment is shared by a mind-blowing amount of people. These people will look at a doctor or lawyer through slitted eyes and comment on how they just make money on screwing people and they have no right to charge as much as they do. Really? How about the years of schooling and hard work, and the hundreds of thousands of dollars of student loans they had to take out. And I'm with Smaug on this. If I earn a bunch of money and become wealthy, and share that with my children, whose business is that? Where's the cut off there? Is it just for those who have more than we currently have? All of us who have children have helped them monetarily, as much as we can. At what dollar amount do we deem that a bad thing? Is there a guideline?

I certainly could have make the decision to work harder, further my education, and have the capacity for higher wages. I didn't do all I could and I don't blame anyone but myself for that. However, I don't sit back and grumble over those who did. Nor do I feel they should have to share the rewards from their hard work with me. If they choose to do something like that, fine. But being penalized for success is wrong. If we promote that, pretty soon we will be nothing but a nation of non-achievers. What would be the point?

knerd
Knerd  (Level: 99.0 - Posts: 1141)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 11:15 AM

I find it surprising that so many intelligent people would be agreeing with Bill O'Reilly when he says that people in unfortunate circumstances are just lazy or not applying themselves. Has anyone here ever volunteered to work at a homeless shelter? I do. And the stories break your heart. People who have been laid off, been displaced by storms and left with nothing, mental illness. Most of these people just want a job. And the system now makes it very difficult for them to do that. I totally believe in some type of welfare reform but don't lump everyone who needs a little help into one category - that's ignorant. Sometimes it's just a matter of luck, bad luck. Think of all the Katrina victims who are trying to put their lives back together. Should we not be compassionate and help those people to get back on their feet? There aren't enough Oprahs and Bill Gates to help everyone!

donden
Donden  (Level: 112.5 - Posts: 2127)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 11:22 AM

Easus, you just hit on the philosophy that drove me away from the democrats. As a Steelworker I was always told that wealth was evil and the wealthy were all spoon fed jerks. The dems all preached that the little guy had the right to make big bucks too. Then what happens to the little guys 'n gals of the world who accomplish that? Suddenly they become A--holes and arrogant rich.
Go figure.

eesusbejesus
Eesusbejesus  (Level: 75.0 - Posts: 3645)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 11:23 AM

I agree with you Karen. I do. And we do pay taxes towards those who need it, and some of us go further and volunteer and donate. My post is about a separate issue.



caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21605)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 11:47 AM

Sigh... Ho Hum....Linda You folks make me sleepy. You already know what you believe and will not convince or be convinced by anyone. Politics has been about the dollar or whatever the country's currency might be for eons. Here if a president has a congress of his politcal afffiliation, he might make a difference in something somewhere-if not he or she is screwed. Being cute and charismatic even if you are an A h--- also helps. Don't know and don't care!!!

eesusbejesus
Eesusbejesus  (Level: 75.0 - Posts: 3645)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 11:54 AM

"Being cute and charismatic even if you are an A h--- also helps."


Love it!

Permission to use it as a quote?

eesusbejesus
Eesusbejesus  (Level: 75.0 - Posts: 3645)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 11:57 AM

And you're right, Linda. Nobody gives a **** anyway. Time to go play games on that cool site Sargon recommended.

knerd
Knerd  (Level: 99.0 - Posts: 1141)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 12:22 PM

Game on!

alvandy
Alvandy  (Level: 229.7 - Posts: 7573)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 2:47 PM

Time out!

I wished I would not have made the "inherited wealth" issue first on my list. It's not the biggest issue we need to address, but it must be a hot button issue that draws attention. Anyway----------
Please address some of the other issues listed- - go back to refresh your memory. [11:57 p.m./ 8/31]

However ,I must reply to Smaug- my philosophical opposite.

quoting: The comment about inherited wealth is exactly on point. If I build a fortune through my own hard work and industry, or my great grandfather did, and want to pass it on to my kids and grandkids, who the F is the government to get into my life and take MY assets?

Who the F is the government........... The government is the same safeguard that maintains our armed forces for defense; the police and fire departments; the prisons; the the postal service; the public schools, the national park service, and other iconic American institutions. That means the government IS in our life,. and thank goodness.

If a foreign invader attacked us/ declared war, etc - you want our "government" to PROTECT" your assets.- and probably your ass as well.
Quoting that great right wing military leader from Gitmo--------- Colonel Nathan R. Jessep [to Lt. J.G. Daniel Kaffee]

KAFFEE
Did you order the code red?

JESSEP
(pause)
You're goddamn right I did.

Okay, that's not the quote I want to make my point----------- but I liked it so I added here for dramatic effect.

Disclaimer: The following quote from " A Few Good Men" has been edited by Alvandy to determine "is anyone still reading this thread?"

I think it helps makes my point about our country's well-being; common defense; freedoms and standard of living.

{Please remember, this is not the exact words from the script.]
Smaug, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have
to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You?
You? I have a greater responsibility than
you can possibly fathom. You rail against tax increases but you need the army,navy and marines (beat)
You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you
don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need
me there. So clam up and pay your fair share of taxes. Or get on the g-d wall!


The disadvantaged go "to the wall"- . The wealthy keep inheriting , and go to cocktail parties.

The government------------------------------------------------------ is in all our lives.

Happy Labor Day!


smaug
Smaug  (Level: 141.2 - Posts: 2772)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 2:54 PM

I'm not sure when 'provide for the common defense' became "communism".

It is a sophomoric argument to say that because the government has to do something it therefore can do everything.



rowlanda
Rowlanda  (Level: 70.0 - Posts: 2856)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 3:15 PM

The droning linkage between the "less fortunate and the less industrious"
and the inability to show actual, practial compassion is what I object to....
The very definition of Democracy is " a social condition of Equality and
Respect for each Individual"
If you want all of the protection of living in a Lawful and Peaceful society,
it entails sharing to the limits of your ability - in the responsibility of
maintaining the dignity of all, within that Society.
That is the essence of The American Dream.
I am really sorry Smaug - that you infer that the "Pursuit of Hapiness" is
synonymous with the Pursuit of Money. Have you heard of Maslow's
"Hierarchy of Needs" ???? Without the adequate and constant supply of
Food, Water, Shelter and Safety....no-one can move on to the higher levels
of Satisfaction and Self-Fulfillment. Nowhere in the Bible or in Psychology
does it talk about Abundance or Surfeit as being a requirement for Happiness.

The accumulation of money for it's own sake is Greed.
The wish to spend money on things one doesn't need, is a manifestation of Power



kimoira
Kimoira  (Level: 202.3 - Posts: 1190)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 3:30 PM

"Who the F is the government........... The government is the same safeguard that maintains our armed forces for defense; the police and fire departments; the prisons; the the postal service; the public schools, the national park service, and other iconic American institutions. That means the government IS in our life,. and thank goodness."

Al I think a distinction should be made between Federal and State/ Local governments here. Armed Forces for defense is a Federal issue but the rest of the things you mention are better governed by State or Locality.

An attack on the US- federal issue for sure.

An example I think of often is when Katrina hit NO 3 years ago and everyone chastised and depended on Federal government when the localities and state entities should have been best equipped to handle it. The sight of all those schools buses floating in the water while people drowned will never leave my mind.



eesusbejesus
Eesusbejesus  (Level: 75.0 - Posts: 3645)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 3:38 PM

Holy crap! How does someone who works hard and makes the money they deserve equate to going to cocktail parties while everyone else suffers? Sometimes those that "have," have done their time on the wall and did smart things with it.

This is just a venture, but I'm betting that all those who feel the "haves" are undeserved of it and should have to distribute it to everyone else, are the "have-nots." Are there any really wealthy people out there who currently feel they don't deserve it? Please speak up and let us know.

rowlanda
Rowlanda  (Level: 70.0 - Posts: 2856)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 4:07 PM

Lodi....
I'm a woman who worked hard, raised two kids by myself,
worked full time and took university courses when was
in my 40's. I now have what - for me- is a comfortable life
and have worked hard ALL my life. The last five of those
years have been spent in maximizing my efforts and
investments. I wanted to have security in my old age,
as well as being able to leave something for my kids,
(which is always hard for a single mother....)
I do NOT class myself as a "have not"
Nor do I complain bitterly at having to share some of
the bounty I've been given, with those less fortunate.

My Mother was what one would call a "religious nut"
Got thrown off several buses for trying to "convert" the
captive audience on the bus!!!! Consequently I went
many years - despising religiosity and door-knockers
who invaded my privacy. I do understand how our
childhood influences our opinions and choices as
young(er) adults.

However, I see you as a compassionate and caring
person, doing her best in sometimes difficult and
trying circumstances. And I think you know what
TRUE happiness is....

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 4:08 PM

Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and David Rockefeller Sr. are speaking up. They all favor the estate tax, or "death tax" if you're so inclined. They feel the need to give back to a society that's given them so much.

eesusbejesus
Eesusbejesus  (Level: 75.0 - Posts: 3645)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 4:26 PM

But its their choice to give back. And I'm absolutely grateful that they do. Look at Bill Gates - he's the American Dream. He worked hard, amassed a fortune, and is amazing at giving back to society. He just sent a few mill to my University. But still, its his choice that he does those things, and secondly, he's still considered a big A-hole by some because he's wealthy. Doesn't matter how hard he worked to get there. I'm utterly impressed with both his genius and his generosity, and by god, if he wants to go to a gd cocktail party, I think he's earned it.

Taxes are a different matter. Any idea how much of any estate tax goes directly to the needy?

Hey Row - I'm pretty happy, for sure. And no, the "pursuit" of happiness doesn't necessarily mean money. For some it sure does. For some, its traveling to foreign countries and administering relief. Some find happiness by building things with their bare hands, regardless of how much money they make. Happiness for others is doing as little as possible and allowing others to take care of them. For some its pursuing their dream of leading others. Others pursue happiness by devoting their lives to religion and service. For some, its a little yellow house with a smokin' hot husband, some pretty cool kids, a bunch of idiot animals and the feel of the sunshine on their face as they lay back in some cool mountain water.

Lucky for us, we are endowed with "life, liberty and the *pursuit* of happiness." Whatever that may be, is entirely up to you. Isn't it great?

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 4:32 PM

No, I said that they favor the estate tax.

kaelin
Kaelin  (Level: 49.2 - Posts: 1685)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 4:56 PM

Hey Lodi - and I bet that includes the "Death Float" with friends of all different religions/non-religions and political views as well.

Someday.......

eesusbejesus
Eesusbejesus  (Level: 75.0 - Posts: 3645)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 5:19 PM

Lorri, the river judges no one. Except those with marginal paddling skills.

There are ways around a percentage of estate taxes, and sometimes all of them. It starts by giving non-taxable "gifts" to your heirs each year. As a married couple, I think you can gift up to $24,000 a year before its taxable. Some people add their children to their property deeds or end up just signing their houses over to them before death. For the extremely wealthy, there's going to be a hit for sure, but there are several ways to funnel to your heirs where the estate tax is substantially reduced. Then go ahead and tax me when I'm dead - why do I care?

smaug
Smaug  (Level: 141.2 - Posts: 2772)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 5:24 PM

""The very definition of Democracy is " a social condition of Equality and
Respect for each Individual" ""

Equate this to tax brackets.

"""The accumulation of money for it's own sake is Greed.
The wish to spend money on things one doesn't need, is a manifestation of Power."""

Who are you, or anyone, or certainly the government, to say what someone needs or doesn't?

Y'all are aware the Soviet Union failed, right?

Humans need motivation, hope, the ability to win a better life for their children, the American work ethic. The American Dream.

Greed works.


rowlanda
Rowlanda  (Level: 70.0 - Posts: 2856)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 5:25 PM

"Happiness is doing nothing and allowing others to do for them"

I am distressed by the harshness of that judgement....Most of the
people you refer to are either substance abusers or suffer from a
mental illness which makes them UNABLE to partake of Life in a
way you would hope for.
This "learned helplessness" is caused either by DNA or Traumatic
events experienced....I have been there, and have met many people
who are still there....and NOT ONE of them was HAPPY....If that
dependence were a cause of happiness - many more people would
be "living off the teat" as Smaug so delicately terms it.

I once spent 6 months sitting on the couch, getting up only to go
to the bathroom, make a sandwich, and clean up the dog messes
from the wooden floor. If it wasn't for loving and compassionate friends
I might still be there....Someone suggested that I make large posters
listing the reasons why I might want to live - post them in front of me
on the wall - and try to remember to read them every day. And before
you ask, didn't have the energy to apply for Social Security....I put
my life entirely in the hands of God, if He wanted me to survive I would
survive. Friends sent me money/food, walked my dogs, and by their
grace and care....I survived, also with the help of 10 years of therapy.
(If anyone wants to know my story...you are welcome to PM me.)

"These people" are only disgusting because you don't know them
and don't know their stories. Most people here are enormously
compassionate and caring.



rowlanda
Rowlanda  (Level: 70.0 - Posts: 2856)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 5:35 PM

PS....
Estate Taxes go into the enormous Tax Pool.
The Government pays for Wars no-one wants
Pork Barrels, sends money for Corporate Welfare,
grabs as much as they can for their own State for
self-aggrandissment, and re-election.
Then, if there is any left, they look after the Health
and Welfare of people who need the services already
listed by other people on this thread.

eesusbejesus
Eesusbejesus  (Level: 75.0 - Posts: 3645)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 5:38 PM

Row - don't you DARE presume that most of the people to which I am referring are disabled, substance abusers, or suffer from mental illness. You have no idea the people to whom I am referring. I personally know a LOT of people who are quite content to live off the government welfare, some of them are my own family members. People who are quite capable of being employed and simply choose not to. I did not infer in any way that I was referring to those people who are actually in need of help. You are trying to put words in my mouth there - not sure why. I was referring to those who are able-bodied, but content living off the government. That is their version of the pursuit of happiness. And their right.

Those who are disabled, ill, or have fallen into unfortunate and dire circumstances are most certainly not pursuing happiness. They are in their own personal hell.

You are grossly mistaken in your interpretation of my words.

eesusbejesus
Eesusbejesus  (Level: 75.0 - Posts: 3645)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 5:41 PM

*"These people" are only disgusting because you don't know them and don't know their stories.*

Just who did I ever say was in need of help and therefore disgusting?????

rowlanda
Rowlanda  (Level: 70.0 - Posts: 2856)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 6:22 PM

Sorry Lodi....

I purposely did not address my comments to you, and apologize for using your quote
without explaining that my post was not directed at you....

I was simply:-
a) Explaining that not all hurts are visible.
I'm sure people would have been kinder to me if they could have SEEN evidence of my pain.
b) The words "Welfare Bums" hurt me when I was already in pain - because people don't
tend to verbally make the distinction between "freeloaders" and "people in need"
And some people judged me to be "freeloading" because I always appear to be strong,
and hate to appear vulnerable....

mplaw51
Mplaw51  (Level: 179.8 - Posts: 1582)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 6:48 PM

Rowlanda is making sense and sorry for the years of difficulty you suffered.

I have no problem with a "hand up" if it helps to make an individual a more productive member of society. There's a responsibility that comes with accepting the hand that's being offered to you. I believe that for most it's the "hand up" not the "hand out". It has to start somewhere. The hoodlums will always shoot themselves in the foot, they can't help it.

rowlanda
Rowlanda  (Level: 70.0 - Posts: 2856)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 7:07 PM

Thanks a lot for those kind thoughts Maureen.

It`s only because I`m ornery and won`t let the
B!"/$%?&*s win....


smaug
Smaug  (Level: 141.2 - Posts: 2772)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 10:39 PM

In any society there is a bell curve. At the bottom end there are the mentally ill, the disabled, and the chronic unemployable.

In know a bit about this because I was involved with a company that trained welfare recipients in order to help them get jobs.

"These people" were not disabled or mentally ill. there are separate programs for that. They were largely the product of three decades of a welfare generation where sustenance did not come from a forty hour week, it came from a US government check. They were simply lazy. We got them jobs and they wouldn't show. Or all the jobs were beneath them -- how could someone with their excellent resume of a GEd and a decade of welfare have to flip burgers? It was beneath them.

You speak of Iraq and pork barrel etc. Is money wasted in government? Obscenely, it is the nature of government. that is why giving more money to the government and making bigger government programs is nuts.

Every dollar the government takes from me is done at the threat of death. If I don't pay income taxes i will be jailed. I attempt to gain my freedom I will be shot. If I don't pay my property taxes my family and I will be thrown out of my home. If we attempt to get back in we will be shot. With any luck they'd take out my wife.

Charity is wonderful and that is exactly what it should be -- charity, from neighbors, churches, charitable orgs, etc. It shouldn't be an institution that people come to dwell in.

And, as I have said here before, my wife and i run our church food bank and distribute hundreds of thousands of dollars in food in our community, so I'm not talking through my hat. I give more to charity than 95 percent of Americans pay in income tax.

Rowlanda if you didn't have the energy to apply for Social Security or disability and stared at a wall for ten years i feel sorry for you, but I don't want you making government social policy, with all due respect.


eesusbejesus
Eesusbejesus  (Level: 75.0 - Posts: 3645)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 11:23 PM

Great post, Maureen.

smaug
Smaug  (Level: 141.2 - Posts: 2772)
Mon, 1st Sep '08 11:53 PM

and don't call me Maureen.

salzypat
Salzypat  (Level: 156.6 - Posts: 5316)
Tue, 2nd Sep '08 1:22 AM

There is a company in town that works with people doing exactly what you described, Smaug. Some of the things they have to teach these recipients is so elementary that most of us can't believe they don't already know it. Bathe daily, use deodorant, show up for work 5 minutes early so your start time is when you actually begin work, if you're going to be late, call in, if you're sick and can't make it to work, call in as early as possible to let them make other arrangements (and don't call in sick if you aren't sick).Wear appropriate clothing to work -- no tank tops, no T-shirts with obscene sayings, no jeans with holes in them, no low cut blouses and short-short skirts, clean your fingernails, etc.

these are all things that most of us know. We don't necessarily know how we know it, but we do. It boggles my mind that some people don't know the basics of work.

As to some thinking flipping burgers is beneath them, I heard a college teacher give a lecture on that one time. She told how her nephew flipped burgers at Burger King while he helped pay his way through college. He now owns several BK franchises.

We're all given a certain amount of talents and skills and time. In most cases it's what we do with it that counts. (with no disrespect to those who are physically and mentally unable to work).



rowlanda
Rowlanda  (Level: 70.0 - Posts: 2856)
Tue, 2nd Sep '08 1:57 AM

Shirley then....
I didn't stare at a wall for ten years---- you misread....
I sat on the couch for 6months, deciding if I wanted to live or not
and then took myself off for 10years of therapy. I would have to
have been mentally ill if I HADN'T reacted to what had happened to me.
And I'm certain that any one in my circumstances would have done
the same - or worse.

Wouldn't dream of trying to be in Government....I'm way too straight
forward and don't suffer fools gladly. And Especially not in the US
where everything is about money....because of the cynicism and
lack of concern from people like you....People of means often give
money to charities for the Tax Breaks, on the advice of their
Accountants....doesn't mean there's charity in their hearts....

kaelin
Kaelin  (Level: 49.2 - Posts: 1685)
Tue, 2nd Sep '08 6:56 AM

Rowlanda - you are doing the same thing you accuse others of - making judgements - that even if they give money they aren't doing it for the right reasons - that they don't really understand - you can't know what's in another person's heart.

You should reread Smaug's post - it's not just about "giving" money on the advice of an accountant. I work with our local food bank as well - not on the level of Smaug - but if you think that physically distributing food is as simple as writing a check on the advice on an accountant for a tax break, you should rethink that.

It's hard work - and extremely hard work - and work done with a glad heart - this is not what you do because you "have" to - it's what you do because you want to.

I know for myself, it is also extremely emotional because of the different people you meet and the circumstances they might be facing.

And should there be anyone who happens to read this post and might need this - or know someone who can benefit - this is another group that has been beneficial for many that have fallen upon hard times and are struggling -
http://www.angelfoodministries.com/ - the Angel Food program now is helping provide food relief to more than 500,000 families each month.

It's not the same as something like Manna (Our local food bank) - but provides extremely low cost food boxes on a monthly basis -

okuome1
Okuome1  (Level: 33.0 - Posts: 89)
Tue, 2nd Sep '08 8:19 PM

I'm 100 % with Smoke20's views.
I couldn't have said it better.

mplaw51
Mplaw51  (Level: 179.8 - Posts: 1582)
Tue, 2nd Sep '08 8:20 PM

Angel Food Ministries is the real deal. The agency I work for refers them all the time. They package alot of food for a small amount of money. For the working poor, it's a godsend.

alvandy
Alvandy  (Level: 229.7 - Posts: 7573)
Tue, 2nd Sep '08 10:18 PM

Coincidentally we just returned home from our monthly graduate union community activists network class- and our guest speaker was from a local Angel Food Ministries church in York.
There are about 14 locations within 25 miles of York- and growing.
I'm in charge of scheduling speakers for our community services program at the United Way. Our scheduled speaker had to cancel earlier today.
Fortunately, I was able to get a coordinator of the program [and her husband who is the pastor] to fill in at the last minute. They spoke for over an hour, and all the volunteers were impressed.

Angel Food Ministries is now in 38 states, and is headquartered in Monroe, Georgia. They work with 24 manufacturers.
Every month families can pre-order ; pay; and pick up their food at a nearby location about two weeks later.
Senior citizens are finding it very helpful also. The word is spreading around here.

There is no stigma to taking advantage of the program, since it's a low cost program open to EVERYONE.

If you eat----------------------------------------------- you qualify.

Feel free to check it out in your area. You can p.m. me if you want to chat with me about it.

Al


eesusbejesus
Eesusbejesus  (Level: 75.0 - Posts: 3645)
Tue, 2nd Sep '08 10:26 PM

Thanks for the info, Al.

smaug
Smaug  (Level: 141.2 - Posts: 2772)
Tue, 2nd Sep '08 10:33 PM

Our food pantry coordinates with angelfood.

I am always leery of the overhead of big orgs but they seem pretty good. I still think anyone is better donating directly for local impact (like our foodbank )

alvandy
Alvandy  (Level: 229.7 - Posts: 7573)
Tue, 2nd Sep '08 11:13 PM

A little more to explain how the organization operates at such relatively low overhead.
This is what I understand from tonight's presentation.
It started in Georgia and has grown widely.

The manufacturers [meat; poultry; canned good, frozen foods, etc.] offer Angel Food the products at their cost. Since there is also no "middle man"- it keeps the costs low. Angel Food sends hundreds of tractor trailers around their network area to deliver the food to the participating churches/ food banks. I assume most manufacturers are located near Atlanta and environs.

Clients pay either cash/ money order or food stamps/ EBT cards. !!!!
There is a subsidy from the government [via the Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives]. This is mostly used to subsidize the transportation costs. Food stamps? This is very unique. I assume the government permits it because it actually stretches the clients purchasing power and helps lower the food stamp expenditures.

Also, this is very important. The churches that participate [must be approved from Georgia], need scores of volunteers.
It seems to work well. It is fulfilling to volunteer. I work with many volunteers , so I appreciate that.
Locations; facilities; parking, etc. do limit some groups from becoming affiliated.

It is a worthwhile endeavor.

Check their website for more information; contact your I & R agency or United Way in your area to see if such a program exists. It is not in all states however.



rowlanda
Rowlanda  (Level: 70.0 - Posts: 2856)
Wed, 3rd Sep '08 1:02 AM

Al,
I'm wondering if it's in Tennessee and if it's a programme
that Rocco could take advantage of????
I'll be phoning him soon and hope that something like this
would help him....

kaelin
Kaelin  (Level: 49.2 - Posts: 1685)
Wed, 3rd Sep '08 2:40 AM

Rowlanda - I posted the link when I mentioned it - here it is again as it's easy to get lost in all the posts.


http://www.angelfoodministries.com/

I hope it helps

cujgie
Cujgie  (Level: 173.9 - Posts: 754)
Wed, 3rd Sep '08 2:48 AM

In Chicago, there's an effort going on to rescue cooked food that's left over from (too much prepared for) banquets, restaurants, etc. since it gets thrown out anyway.

rowlanda
Rowlanda  (Level: 70.0 - Posts: 2856)
Thu, 4th Sep '08 12:00 AM

That's something that was tried in Toronto, but it
was dropped because some people got sick and
sued....not sure how they knew it was the
donated food that caused the problems....or maybe
the businesses are just being cautious


Pages:  1    



Copyright © 2003-2016 Sploofus Holdings LLC.  All rights reserved.
Legal Notice & Privacy Statement  |  Link to Sploofus