Conference back40::soapbox

    What's to discuss? You've already closed the topic with your list of
    straw-man ad hominems.
    
    Kit
    
    Ditto for the "aren't we conservatives wonderful" list two strings down
    which is bound to elicit a paroxym of mutual masturbation from the
    usual suspects.

    Kit:
    
    Too hard for you to put together a well-thought out defense of your
    utopian fantasy?

    To each according to there needs, from each according to there means.
    
    
    R.

	Sounds like socialism, that last note does

    No, I've never had much problem articulating my beliefs. My point is
    that what you postulate is simply a string of insults which bear little
    or no relationship to my left-of-center political beliefs (And at the
    risk of speaking for anyone else whom you're targetting, I would say
    they same on their behalf).  
    
    Your list is not meant as honest descriptions of honest disagreements
    over policies or principles. It's simply agitprop, raw meat for those
    who agree with you. It's meant to demonize and to obscure, not to
    engage and clarify.
    
    I could easily tell you point by point why your list is both offensive
    and wrong. I might yet do so. But I'm busy, and, to get back to my
    original point, why bother?  You've already got it all set in ugly
    concrete.
    
    Kit

    You see that note there that note 47.3, that's communism that is. 
    That's Marx that is.   
    
    Was he wrong?  Should you tax something other than wealth and should
    you target aid for some reason other than need (race maybe?)
    
    R. Michael  -  LibDem voter, if it makes any difference.

    
    RE: .6
    
    
    >Was he wrong?
    
    
     What are the viable and visible results of such thinking/actions?
    

    For clarification, my .5 is a response to Mike in .3. The list was not
    Mike's, but Hank's in the base note.
    
    Kit

The left, a philosophy which spends so damn much time in your pocket it's
a wonder that you've never been properly introduced to them.

    It is possible to argue that bolshevism gave Marxism a bad name, but I
    wount bother since both ideas have more or less had it.  Save in one
    point, the "control of the population" necessary to get the
    utopia started, seems a universal idea of left and right.  Things
    would be perfect if only people whould do as they are told.
    
    As for .6, yep one of humanities worst experiments.  But, it doesn't
    follow that the complete failure of the Eastern block to deliver
    anything to its people means that the new rights failure to stand by its
    citizens (healthcare, wellfare, farecare) is the answer either.
    
    R. Mike.

    Okay to be fair to our leftist friends, let's take an honest look at
    their idology and policies.
    
    Welfare...a program that was designed to end poverty within 10 years of
    start up.  60 years later and there is more poverty than ever, even
    though we have spend over $1 trillion on redistribution programs since
    Great Society (I have no figures for the preceding 30 years from New
    Deal to GS, but I'm sure it adds a pretty penny to the total).
    
    Although the heart was in the right place for such a program, the mind
    was vacant.  Conservative SC justices ruled such redistribution
    policies as "unconstitutional" more than once before FDR pushed them
    through after the replacement of certiain SC justices...even after new
    (and more liberal) justices were in place, the ruling was still very
    close.
    
    Many people (some in office) warned of the opening of the federal
    coffers to the people...they claimed that once the coffers were opened,
    they could never be shut again.  It seems that these "alarmists" were
    right on the money about this, and about a whole class of individuals
    voting themselves more federal benefits and dollars (and since the
    federal government has NO money of its own, guess who pays for it all).
    
    
    Social Security...another child of New Deal.  The thought was to help
    seniors with their retirement with voluntary contributions to this
    program.  What happened?  It is now a tax.  Once again, a compassionate
    idea, but sadly lacking in foresight.  It is not the job of the
    government to work out our retirement...that responsibility belongs
    solely in the hands of the individual.  The left seems to think that it
    is the government's job.
    
    
    The federalization of education.  Though not a result of any one peice
    of legislation, it is the left who thought universal standards for all
    schools are a good thing.  Now I won't argue about having certain
    standards in public schools, but I do argue that federalization of
    education is usurping the rights of the local communities to teach
    their children as they see fit.  It takes control away from
    communities, which is never a good thing.
    
    Also, agendas are easily pushed onto our children (like Goals 2000,
    teaching alternate lifestyles in schools, etc.) since the feds control
    the standards. 
    
    Once again, an idea aimed to help something fails due to
    implimentation.  The failure is due to the ideology that the federal
    government should be in the business of teaching our children, a job
    that has historically been the responsibility of parents and
    communities.  The new proliferation of home-schools and private schools
    shows America's disgust with public education's failures and agenda
    pushing.  Even though public schools spend a lot more money (per
    student) to educate kids, private and home school kids, on average, do
    much better in acedemics (which shows that throwing more and more money
    at a problem does not solve it).
    
    
    Federalization of health care....another pet of the left.  Even though
    medicare and medicade (federal programs) are two big reasons our health 
    care costs are rising (though not the only reasons, mind you), some feel 
    that the government should go the next step and control 1/7 of our economy.
    
    Again, the ideology is one of compassion for people who have no HC
    insurace or money to afford health care...unfortunately, such ideology
    has a blind eye to previous federal failures to control anything
    without raising costs and lowering efficiency.  
    
    
    Crime.  A concern for all Americans these days.  Unfortunately for
    those of us who believe in the Constitution and the inalienable rights
    outlined in the Bill of Rights, many in the left believe that gun
    control is the answer.  Statistics to the contrary be damned, they are
    hell bent on limting (and eventually irradicating) access to the one great 
    equalizer for self defense, and for a tyrannical government.  
    
    Using semantical twists of logic thrown in with creative interpretations
    of the Second, they wish to disarm the population in the name of
    security.  The ideology is that it is the gun that is dangerous and
    must be banned, rather that the criminals who misuse them.  For some
    reason these people cannot get it through their heads that criminals,
    by definition, do not obey the laws anyway, so it is worse that useless
    to pass more laws that will only affect those who are law-abiding.
    
    By disarming honest citizens, they make it easier for the criminals. 
    Since firearms are used many times more in self-defense in crime
    situations than they are used in crimes, I can only assume that the
    crime rate will rise as gun control gets stricter...which means that
    those who vote for gun control are actually making things worse in the
    long run, even though their heart may be in the right place.
    
    
    The ideology of the left seems to need emotionalism to entrap people
    into their thought process.  Compassion is a good thing, but without
    logical application, it is worse than useless- it is damaging to this
    nation and to the free spirits who wish to do things for themselves,
    rather than have the government be the end-all of social and economic
    change.  
    
    
    -steve

 >   Welfare...a program that was designed to end poverty within 10 years of
 
    Oh, I forgot, it's make-up-a-fact-Friday
    
 >      start up.  60 years later and there is more poverty than ever, even
    
    Wrong. Poverty fell regularly through the early seventies. First,
    because the elderly moved from being the poorest age cohort to the age
    cohort with the least poverty. This was due to Social Security, as well
    as the growth of pensions that came through organized labor and
    implicit lifetime employment at major corporations. The
    elderly have held their own in this respect to this day.  
    
    Second, child poverty fell because of the various social welfare
    programs. Child poverty increased from the 80's on, in part because of 
    the decline in welfare payments in constant dollars. So you could make
    just as good an argument that the increase in poverty is due to the
    decline in welfare payments (I wouldn't, because I think that as
    simplistic and misleading as your argument)
    
  >  Social Security...another child of New Deal.  The thought was to help
  >  seniors with their retirement with voluntary contributions to this
    
    Your thought, maybe. This is the perfect example of how you argue
    endlessly on the basis of "facts" that are not facts, and never have
    been. Social security was never voluntary for the groups in covered.
    And see above for what it did.
    
  >     The federalization of education.  Though not a result of any one peice
    
    It's not the result of anything, because, in large part, it exists only
    in your mind. Anyone who has ever attended or had a child attend a
    school knows that education is primarily funded and determined at the
    local level, secondarily by state, and, in minor ways, by the feds.
    
  >  Federalization of health care....another pet of the left.  Even though
    
    Well, Congress wouldn't even buy a so-called "federalization" that was
    designed by and for the insurance interests and the medical
    establishment. No other nation would touch such a mess with a ten-foot
    pole, and the status quoers got hoisted on their own petard.  And if
    you think the problem has been solved by demonizing with a phony
    federalization argument, you're nuts. We still pay 13-14% GDP against
    7-9% in countries where everyone gets covered, and no amount of
    dissembling is going to let you escape from that nasty fact.
    
    
    etc, etc.
    
    You have let ideology blind you to reality. You can only do that so
    long before it comes back to haunt you.  We need solutions, not
    talk-show bromides.
    
    Kit
    

    re: .13
    
>>    Welfare...a program that was designed to end poverty within 10 years of
 
>    Oh, I forgot, it's make-up-a-fact-Friday
 
    Pick up a history book sometime...you may be surprised.  Nice try at
    dismissing the fact, though.  If you think I am wrong, you will have to
    do better than this to disprove my statement.
       
 >>      start up.  60 years later and there is more poverty than ever, even
    
 >   Wrong. Poverty fell regularly through the early seventies. First,
 >   because the elderly moved from being the poorest age cohort to the age
 >   cohort with the least poverty. This was due to Social Security, as well
 >   as the growth of pensions that came through organized labor and
 >   implicit lifetime employment at major corporations. 
    
    It has much more to do with the growth in pensions, retirement programs
    and individual investments than SS.  Remember, SS began in the
    30's...the 70's are four decades removed.  Why did it take so long for
    SS to help out the poor elderly people? 
    
    Of course, now you are combining SS with welfare, something I did not
    do in my note.  I separated them purposely.  SS (for now) is a
    self-funding program...I merely disagree that it is the government's
    job to fund my retirement, as well as disagree with being forced to pay
    into this program that I will never see a penny from.
    
    I'm glad you see it as welfare, though...this is a start.
    
>    The
>    elderly have held their own in this respect to this day.  
 
    Yes, but pointing towards SS and saying this is the reason is silly.
       
>    Second, child poverty fell because of the various social welfare
>    programs. Child poverty increased from the 80's on, in part because of 
>    the decline in welfare payments in constant dollars. 
    
    There was more spending on social welfare programs in the 80's than in
    the prievious decade, due to the economic boom.  Let's not let the
    facts get in the way, though.    Oddly enough, but as all these greedy
    people were raking in the dough, charity spending grew as well.
    
>    So you could make
>    just as good an argument that the increase in poverty is due to the
>    decline in welfare payments (I wouldn't, because I think that as
>    simplistic and misleading as your argument)
 
    You could, but you are starting with a false premise.
       
>  >  Social Security...another child of New Deal.  The thought was to help
>  >  seniors with their retirement with voluntary contributions to this
    
>    Your thought, maybe. This is the perfect example of how you argue
>    endlessly on the basis of "facts" that are not facts, and never have
>    been. Social security was never voluntary for the groups in covered.
>    And see above for what it did.
 
    Was participation in the SS program mandatory for everyone when it was
    passed?  Or was it optional?  Oh, I see...you'd rather play semantical
    games with me...never mind.
       
>  >     The federalization of education.  Though not a result of any one peice
    
>    It's not the result of anything, because, in large part, it exists only
>    in your mind. Anyone who has ever attended or had a child attend a
>    school knows that education is primarily funded and determined at the
>    local level, secondarily by state, and, in minor ways, by the feds.
 
    Give me a break.  Goals 2000 is a FEDERAL curriculum being forced into
    all public schools.  The federal government is NOT a minor player in
    the public school system.  You want funding, do things OUR way.  Just
    like they blackmail the states into passing laws for road funding, etc.
    It really surprises me that you can't see the government's hand in
    public education (federal government).
     
>  >  Federalization of health care....another pet of the left.  Even though
    
>    Well, Congress wouldn't even buy a so-called "federalization" that was
>    designed by and for the insurance interests and the medical
>    establishment. No other nation would touch such a mess with a ten-foot
>    pole, and the status quoers got hoisted on their own petard.  And if
>    you think the problem has been solved by demonizing with a phony
>    federalization argument, you're nuts. 
    
    Phony?  I think you need a good dose or reality.  Apparently you
    haven't been paying attention as to how the fed manages to control so
    many things, and how such controls start.  It is a prime example of the
    domino theory in action.  
    
    But, at least for now, the point is moot.  Even the Dims balked when
    faced with Clinton's idea of "reform"...well, some of the moderates
    did, anyway.  The liberal left was all for it. 
    
>    We still pay 13-14% GDP against
>    7-9% in countries where everyone gets covered, and no amount of
>    dissembling is going to let you escape from that nasty fact.
 
    You can't directly compare our system with socialistic ones.  First,
    our delivery system is the best in the world currently (and I'd like to
    see it stay that way).  Second, we seem to have a major litigation
    problem in America.  I'm willing to bet that tort reform alone could
    save everyone more than a few $$ a month.  Third, we have choice. 
    Fourth, the difference between your % figures are due to government
    intervension in the first place (medicare/medicade).  
    
    If you want to see the GDP % increase drastically, just put our
    delivery system under the control of beauracrats in federal agencies.
    
>    You have let ideology blind you to reality. 
    
    Pot and Kettle material...
    
>    You can only do that so
>    long before it comes back to haunt you.  
    
    You mean like the liberal policies are coming back to haunt us all? 
    Yeah, I thought so.  More P&K material.
    
    
    -steve 

    re: .12
    
    Why, thank you.  Maybe my long note wasn't a waste of time after all. 
    8^) 

    
>>    Welfare...a program that was designed to end poverty within 10 years of
    
    It's still make-up-a-fact-Friday. Who would ever claim the end of
    poverty?  
    
>>    30's...the 70's are four decades removed.  Why did it take so long for
>>    SS to help out the poor elderly people? 
    
    Do you willfully say such goofy things? No, I think you actually
    believe you believe what you write. I said "poverty fell through the
    70's"  I didn't say it suddenly started falling in the 70s. Between the
    30's and the 70's it fell regularly. The biggest drop occurred after
    the 50's when people had been contributing for a while and began
    retiring. (But I decided not to confuse you with anything but the
    broadest outlines -- to no avail apparently)
    
>>    Of course, now you are combining SS with welfare, something I did not
>>   do in my note.  I separated them purposely.  SS (for now) is a
    
    No, it is *I* who made the distinction -- the primary cause of the
    decline in elderly poverty was social security, that of children was
    welfare (AFDC). Don't try to take credit for my careful distinctions in
    place of your broad generalizations.
    
>>     There was more spending on social welfare programs in the 80's than in
    
    Yeah, you paid more for a car in 1989 than in 1979 , too. So what? AFDC
    and related payments have dropped steadily in all states in terms of
    buying power. Child poverty has gone up. Using your simplistic kind of
    reasoning, that proves that the drop in welfare payments caused the
    rise in poverty.  
    
    etc, etc.
    
    Kit

    re: 16
        
>>    Welfare...a program that was designed to end poverty within 10 years of
    
>    It's still make-up-a-fact-Friday. Who would ever claim the end of
>    poverty?  
 
    Is this the best you can do?  I suggest looking up the facts before
    making a further spectacle of yourself.
       
>    Do you willfully say such goofy things? No, I think you actually
>    believe you believe what you write. I said "poverty fell through the
>    70's"  
    
    And I took it to mean that they fell throughout the 70's...
    Maybe you weren't as clear as you though?
    
>    I didn't say it suddenly started falling in the 70s. Between the
>    30's and the 70's it fell regularly. The biggest drop occurred after
>    the 50's when people had been contributing for a while and began
>    retiring. (But I decided not to confuse you with anything but the
>    broadest outlines -- to no avail apparently)
 
    And it fell mainly due to retirement programs in the elderly age
    bracket, not SS.  But that's really beside the original point I was
    addressing regarding SS.
       
>    No, it is *I* who made the distinction -- the primary cause of the
>    decline in elderly poverty was social security, 
    
    This is where you make assumptions you cannot possibly back up.  Of
    course labor unions of this time of industrialization had nothing to do
    with the increased amounts of retirement benefits and salary hikes (to
    help fund retirement, for those who saved).  It had nothing to do with
    the economy, which was rolling along quite well after the war, and of
    course it had nothing to do with new businesses, less unemployment,
    etc. after the war.
    
    You are being too simplistic.  SS had little to do with the overall
    standing of our retired people.  It helped some who didn't have any
    other retirement programs, but it was not the main reason as you claim.
    Once again...this is beyond my original argument.  I'd rather not get
    into a tit-for-tat on the subject of SS at the moment.
    
>    that of children was
>    welfare (AFDC). Don't try to take credit for my careful distinctions in
>    place of your broad generalizations.
 
    Oh puleez.  
    
    Yet again you ignore other factors...AFDC was not the main reason (and
    why are you concentrating on children, when the topic is much broader?)
    but believe what you like.  There are too many factors for me to
    address all in one note, however, so I'll leave it alone for now.
       
>>     There was more spending on social welfare programs in the 80's than in
    
>    Yeah, you paid more for a car in 1989 than in 1979 , too. So what? AFDC
>    and related payments have dropped steadily in all states in terms of
>    buying power. Child poverty has gone up. Using your simplistic kind of
>    reasoning, that proves that the drop in welfare payments caused the
>    rise in poverty.  
 
    Nonsense.  The cost of living increases for welfare go beyond the
    actual cost of living, in most cases (unless they've changed
    things- this was one of my major peeves in the 80's).  They have 
    automatic cost of living increases...wish Digital 
    had the same thing.
       
    
    -steve            

    You Right Wing types act like your name is Rockafeller.  Like your poor
    tax load is so hugh on the Digital gravy train.  You guys are crying
    over a few nickles,  How much do you pay now, How much would you pay if
    we let all the poor kids starve to death?  If it wasn't for us Lefties
    keeping the Military in line, You guys would be paying more then you
    are now.  
    
    Put a dollar figure on it.  100 maybe 200 a year is your share of the
    welfare load in this country.  And for this you whine day and night. 
    you have your health,  you have a job,  don't be such a tight wad.
    
    
    

> 100 maybe 200 a year is your share of the welfare load in this country.

Not that we don't trust you, but I'd really like to see the math, please.

    
    but if my giving 100 or whatever ultimately robs the poor of
    their urge to productivity and self worth, what good have 
    I done for them?
    
    when people give panhandlers money they confirm them in their
    victimhood and self worthlessness.
    
    

    
    RE: .19
    
    Tell you what... if you can guarantee that my 200/yr. goes straight to
    feed/cloth/medicate/whatever the poor... and not into some bureucratic
    overhead that eats up 75-85% of it, I'll gladly kick in TWICE that
    amount!!!!!
    
    
      Deal???????
    

    .18
    
 >   Nonsense.  The cost of living increases for welfare go beyond the
 >   actual cost of living, in most cases (unless they've changed
    
    More make-up-a-fact goofiness... Welfare payments grew at a rate in
    excess of the rise in the cost of living throughout the 60's and 70's
    (in most states). By the early to mid 80's that was over. The feds and
    the states generally did not increase payments in line with the cost of
    living.  The poverty rate for families with children moved in inverse
    proportion to the rise and fall of welfare benefits. Surprise!
    
    Your assertion to the contrary of simple and well-known facts fits a
    pattern -- like your belief that social security payments were
    voluntary (or as, I recall, a similar bizarre view about income taxes).
    I don't doubt that you read it somewhere. The problem is that your
    breezy assertion of spurious facts probably comes from reading an
    assortment of cult-like conspiracy newspapers and books, sort of your
    flavor of Lyndon Larouche or Robert Welch, whatever your flavor might be.
    
    It is you about whom William Blake warned us when he wrote "A little
    knowledge is a dangerous thing; drink deeply or not at all".
    
    Kit  

     <<< Note 47.11 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>

>    Okay to be fair to our leftist friends, let's take an honest look at
>    their idology and policies.

That's a nice idea! Although I wouldn't call it "idology," because we don't 
as a rule study idols.
    
>    Welfare...a program that was designed to end poverty within 10 years of
>    start up.  60 years later and there is more poverty than ever, even
>    though we have spend over $1 trillion on redistribution programs since
>    Great Society (I have no figures for the preceding 30 years from New
>    Deal to GS, but I'm sure it adds a pretty penny to the total).

Toll roads were advertised to pay for themselves in 10 years, too. 
But I've yet to see a toll road turned into a freeway. That doesn't mean 
toll roads are useless and should be abandoned, you just have to adjust 
expectations. Politics is the art of selling. If the politician is 
advocating something you believe in, it's hyperbole; if it's something you
oppose, it's lies. The fact is, you CAN'T eliminate poverty except by
impoverishing the entire country (a la USSR), and no one on the left would
claim that as a goal. The point of welfare is to ameliorate the effects of
poverty -- particularly on children, and provide a survival bridge for
those who can get themselves back on their feet. 

>    Although the heart was in the right place for such a program, the mind
>    was vacant.  Conservative SC justices ruled such redistribution
     ^^^^^^^^^^\
		\Ooops, there goes the reasoned discussion. Hard to contain 
your zeal, isn't it?
		    
>    right on the money about this, and about a whole class of individuals
>    voting themselves more federal benefits and dollars (and since the
>    federal government has NO money of its own, guess who pays for it all).

Since welfare recipients account for a very small minority of voting 
public, I'm not sure what you mean...although a whole lot of people voted 
this past election to put more money in their paycheck, but they aren't 
poor.    
    
>    Social Security...another child of New Deal.  The thought was to help
>    seniors with their retirement with voluntary contributions to this
>    program.  What happened?  It is now a tax.  Once again, a compassionate
>    idea, but sadly lacking in foresight.  It is not the job of the
>    government to work out our retirement...that responsibility belongs
>    solely in the hands of the individual.  The left seems to think that it
>    is the government's job.

When people in our society become too old to hold a job and have no money 
left to take care of themselves, we'll all have to pay for their upkeep 
anyway, so why not make sure they contribute to that upkeep while they're 
working? Or would you prefer to send them into the forest to die? SS has 
some real problems dealing with big population fluctuations, but do away 
with it altogether?    
    
>    The federalization of education.  Though not a result of any one piece
>    of legislation, it is the left who thought universal standards for all
>    schools are a good thing.  Now I won't argue about having certain
>    standards in public schools, but I do argue that federalization of
>    education is usurping the rights of the local communities to teach
>    their children as they see fit.  It takes control away from
>    communities, which is never a good thing.

Education is crucial to the life of democracy. And a liberal (not in the 
political sense, but in the open-minded sense), nonsectarian education is 
crucial to sustaining a viable, diverse culture (as opposed to a warring, 
contentious society - try Bosnia, if you like that lifestyle).
    
>    Once again, an idea aimed to help something fails due to
>    implementation.  The failure is due to the ideology that the federal
>    government should be in the business of teaching our children, a job
>    that has historically been the responsibility of parents and
>    communities.  The new proliferation of home-schools and private schools
>    shows America's disgust with public education's failures and agenda

The feds don't educate and they don't do most of the funding, they dictate
certain standards. The communities do most of the funding and 
implementation. If your town's school isn't doing its job, run for the 
school committee and find out why.
    
>    Federalization of health care....another pet of the left.  Even though
>    Medicare and medicade (federal programs) are two big reasons our health 
>    care costs are rising (though not the only reasons, mind you), some feel 
>    that the government should go the next step and control 1/7 of our economy.

Medicare and Medicaid may be one reason YOUR HC costs are higher, but they 
have nothing to do the the higher cost of HC overall. Doctors have simply 
compensated for "undercharges" from public insurance by overcharging their 
private insurance companies, who pass it on to you -- all 
in the spirit of free enterprise. The UHC bill is designed to cut down 
overall HC costs -- or at least stem the tide of rising costs. Whether and 
how it can be done it is the substance of the debate. Pinning the blame for the 
problem on Medicaid/Medicare is conservative hogwash. 
    
>    Crime.  A concern for all Americans these days.  Unfortunately for
>    those of us who believe in the Constitution and the inalienable rights
>    outlined in the Bill of Rights, many in the left believe that gun
>    control is the answer.  Statistics to the contrary be damned, they are
>    hell bent on limting (and eventually irradicating) access to the one great 
>    equalizer for self defense, and for a tyrannical government.  

This isn't a lib vs conserv thing. It's a gun control vs no control 
question. I'm not particularly fond of the idea of controlling guns, but I 
also don't understand the infatuation with exotic weapons of war. In any 
case, I do think that most of this stuff about "this is only the beginning" 
is a bunch of paranoid nonsense, but hey, that's your right. Keep your 
arsenal, I don't care.

>    By disarming honest citizens, they make it easier for the criminals. 
>    Since firearms are used many times more in self-defense in crime
>    situations than they are used in crimes, I can only assume that the
>    crime rate will rise as gun control gets stricter...which means that
>    those who vote for gun control are actually making things worse in the
>    long run, even though their heart may be in the right place.
    
Actually, I can guarantee you, if we outlawed possession of guns 
altogether, we would reduce homicides by an enormous number. But it would 
be a cure that wouldn't be worth the price (encroachment of freedom) -- 
sort of like banning abortions would greatly diminish the number of 
abortions, but would also severely compromise the rights of women and all 
people for that matter, not to mention the hardships and death that would 
await those who exercised the freedom taken from them in defiance of the 
law.
    
>    The ideology of the left seems to need emotionalism to entrap people
>    into their thought process.  Compassion is a good thing, but without
>    logical application, it is worse than useless- it is damaging to this
>    nation and to the free spirits who wish to do things for themselves,
>    rather than have the government be the end-all of social and economic
>    change.  

We see a pretty emotional case being made from the right, too; it's just 
with a different cause: individual liberty vs social compassion. I don't 
know what you mean by "without logical application." Sounds like a pretty 
empty characterization to me. Let me turn that around and say "Liberty in 
and of itself is meaningless. It is empty idolatry, idolatry of self." 
    
Tom

RE: 47.24 by USMVS::DAVIS

> Toll roads were advertised to pay for themselves in 10 years, too.
> But I've yet to see a toll road turned into a freeway. 

Drive the Denver-Boulder turnpike.  Try to find a toll booth.


Phil

    I doubt he's been to Denver, so I think it's safe to say he's never
    seen that one.

    re: .23
    
    Okay, since you are so sure of yourself on this one...how much did the
    cost of living increase in the Reagan era?
    
    Seems to me that it really didn't increase all that much, therefore
    there was little need for huge cost of living increases in the welfare
    sector.  If you can disprove my memory on this matter with figures,
    I'll take your word for it that even though federal spending increased
    in the Reagan era for entitlements, the welfare receipients were
    actually worse off in real income.
    
    Of course, during this era, the overall condition of the poor improved,
    but we'll leave that for another topic.
                              
    
    -steve                    

    .25:
    
    So who screwed up, Phil?
    
    Dick

            <<< Note 47.26 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    I doubt he's been to Denver, so I think it's safe to say he's never
>    seen that one.

Actually, Chels, I lived in Boulder for a couple years...many, MANY years 
ago. Either too long ago to remember or I moved away before the conversion.
Then again, given my state of mind at the time in th Haight-ashbury of the 
Rockies, it was all kind of a blur...

                       <<< Note 47.24 by USMVS::DAVIS >>>

>Toll roads were advertised to pay for themselves in 10 years, too. 
>But I've yet to see a toll road turned into a freeway. That doesn't mean 
>toll roads are useless and should be abandoned, you just have to adjust 
>expectations.

They removed the toll booths from the Conn turnpike after a terrible
accident at one of them some years ago.  It seems it was costing
more to run the toll booths than they took in, or some such.

Does anyone remember any more details about this?

- Jim

    Ya, didn't part of that freeway in Connecticut fall down?  The one
    that used to be on the toll road.
    
    "Welcome to Connecticut"  {picture a truck flying off the bridge}
    
    
    Look at mass.  What do their toll booths fund?  The fuzz radar traps?
    They certainly don't pay to keep the roads nice.

Yes, the Mianus River Bridge collapsed, but that was later.  The tolls were
eliminated after a semi plowed into a toll booth, killing several people.

    
    re. .31
    
    Mass will be paying to keep the roads nice in the future.  A ref.
    question on the ballot was passed taxes specifically collected for the
    upkeep of the highway/bridge/roadways infrastructure cannot be moved to
    other programs, and that a 5-year plan is in place to maintain the
    roads.
    
    - chaos
    

    Yabut... the tolls collected on the Masked Pike are not part of those
    funds. They still go to line the pockets of the turnpike authority.
    
    -b

| <<< Note 47.31 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>



| Look at mass.  What do their toll booths fund?  The fuzz radar traps?
| They certainly don't pay to keep the roads nice.


	Yeah, just because the Mass Pike has been getting redone for the last 2
years means absolutely that the money is not being used to fix the road. Nice
try Mike, but you should have checked with someone before you said that.


Glen

The Pike was paid for years ago. The authority has been floating 
new bonds every few years so that their hackorama can continue to 
exist. The latest was announced yesterday when they announced 
that the pike will be increasing tolls once again to fund the 
archaeological dig of a newly discover 1700's era 4 seater 
outhouse.

daryll

    Glen:
    
    The toll money is being used to lined the pockets of the beaurocrats
    and to pay off the six Mass Pike bondholders.  Yes some of it is used
    for upkeep but most of it is used for other purposes.  The tolls are
    supposed to come down in 1996.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 47.37 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>


| The toll money is being used to lined the pockets of the beaurocrats
| and to pay off the six Mass Pike bondholders.  Yes some of it is used
| for upkeep but most of it is used for other purposes.  The tolls are
| supposed to come down in 1996.

	Gee Jack, all that construction I see every morning, the new pavement
that's been laid down all over the Pike must have cost some money. I'm glad to
see they did redo the Pike before the tolls come down, as it will be a long
time before they ever do it again. :-)


Glen

    Unfortunately, the tolls will never come down but the bonds will be
    paid off.
    
    -Jack

    Sounds like 1996 is the year hell freezes over (tolls going away, yah).
    
    Hey glen, I drove on the mass pike in july on my way to loudon.
    MASS ROADS SUCK.  Cops everywhere and toll booths to boot.
    
    Does anyone know if Fatboy gets any federal scratch to spend on that
    road?  Wouldn't that kinda be double dipping?  

	Gee Mike, back in July the road was all torn up with lots-o-grooves in
it. They were preparing it for repaving....

    RE: last few

    	Back when they built the Mass TPike (it was 1955 give or take a
    year or two) they ran it right through our back yard.  It was supposed 
    to be paid for and all tolls removed in twenty years.  Well when twenty 
    years had come and gone the Turnpike Authority was deeper in debt than 
    when they started but that had to be expected as they where basically 
    funding themselves I believe.  No tolls and no funds meant no jobs.  So 
    every time they felt a little pressure they just floated a couple of more
    bonds and re-paved some road surface or repaired a few bridges and
    everybody's job was safe.  For my money the TPike is the best kept road 
    in Mass. and I reallty don't mind paying the tolls because I'd hate to 
    see the state take it over because you know they'd siphon off a lot of 
    the money to try and balance their budget and the Pike would turn into 
    just another pot hole like the rest of the state.

    Joe  

    .40:
    
    I believe you're got it in one.
    
    FWIW, a legislator from west of the Connecticut River has been pushing
    (since maybe '86? I've forgotten) to remove the tolls on the "Berkshire
    Extension", which is that part west of the I-86 termination in
    Sturbridge.  Seems that the western half was paid for years ago, and
    they're using the tolls to subsidize Bahstin-bound suits.
    
    Dick

    RE:. 43

    >             Seems that the western half was paid for years ago, and
    >they're using the tolls to subsidize Bahstin-bound suits.

    	That shouldn't surprise anybody, our legislators have been taxing
    everything west of Sturbridge for years to subsidize the Bahstin suits.
    By the way Dick the Bahstin-suits changed the name of Rte 86 a few
    years ago to Rte 84, I guess some of them where getting lost when they
    crossed into CT and the route number changed.  I'm all for everything
    west of the route 84 and Mass Pike exchange seceding and starting
    another state.

    Joe

    Politics of the left, part 2....liberals and the Constituion.
    
    When reviewing historical SCOTUS rulings and comparing them with modern
    ones on similar Constitutional issues, one thing seems to stick out
    above all others...we interpret the First Amendment quite differently
    today than we have historically (okay, the First, Second, Fourth, and
    Tenth, if you want to be technical...and probably a couple others that
    I haven't looked into).
    
    Liberals tend to make themselves out to be the bastion of free-thinkers
    and defenders of freedoms.  Unfortunately, they are not real consistent
    in this practice, and in fact are quite hypocritical in some areas.
    
    For starters, the First Amendment is liberally applied by liberals. 
    Free speech and freedom of expression are valued highly. 
    Unfortunately, in their quest to greater freedoms in these areas, they
    seem to overlook balance (not to mention early court rulings on these
    freedoms and where our FF had drawn the line).  Pornagraphy in all its
    varied forms is a protected form of free speech/expression today.  If 
    modern courts had looked at early precedents, they would have noticed a 
    trend in the early courts that denied such an extension of these freedoms 
    in the name of the safety of the community.  (I will post an early
    ruling Monday regarding this issue, if anyone wants me to....I don't have 
    my source with me today)
    
    The odd thing about liberals, is that they defend adamantly only what
    they wish to, rather than defend the entire BoR.  In fact, they even
    split up Amendments to suit their purpose.  They adamantly defend
    "freedom of expression" and "freedom of speech" (regardless of the harm
    such extensions of these freedoms can bring to others), while trying to
    limit "freedom of religion", which is penned in the very same
    Amendment (I can site SCOTUS Monday, if you like).  
    
    While pornography is a protected freedom, nativity scenes became
    illegal under modern liberal Court interpretations.  While vile
    language has become a protected right (in various forms), prayer in school 
    was irradicated.  While homosexual and lesbian magazines found their way
    onto library shelves in schools, the Bible was banned.
    
    Anyone see a problem with consistency here?  If anything, liberals
    should have supported liberal amounts of freedoms in the way of prayer in
    school.  Instead of making it illegal in 1962, they could have expanded
    the generic prayer into an official moment of silence dedicated to all
    religions, or something similar.  Instead of banning the Bible, they
    should have elected to expand the library to include other reiligious
    texts, giving the children access to variety so they can compare them
    for themselves.  If more freedoms is the goal of the liberal
    establishment (or the defense of freedoms), then why do they
    selectively limit the freedom of religion?  I would think that they
    would be for more liberal freedoms in this area, as with freedom of
    speech and expression.  Why the double-standard?
    
    I find it amazing that as liberals argue against all forms of
    censorship in media (like that one rap song "Cop Killer"), they
    supported (and in fact took many cases to the SC and lesser courts)
    censorship of religion...which is a guaranteed right of all citizens,
    and shares the same Amendment as "freedom of speech, press and
    expression".
    
    But it doesn't end with the First...no, this is just a small portion
    of the inconsistencies of the left.  Let's move on to the Second.
    
    Liberals, who so desparately cling to the freedom of speech, press, and
    expression, seem to be quite indifferent about the right of all
    citizens to keep and bear arms.  Why?  There are loads of historical
    data and linguistic analysis on the Second that point towards the
    simple fact that the government is not granted any power to limit the
    freedoms of the people, in any manner whatsoever, on the right to keep
    and bear arms.
    
    Now, the inconsitency is not only in the indifference, or even in the
    distain some left-leaning people view this Amendment, it goes further. 
    As the defenders of freedom and liberty, I would think that liberals in
    general would fight tooth and nail for any of our inalienable rights,
    rather than try to rationalize a lesser meaning to any of them.  But
    this is exactly what has been done.  Rather than trying to liberally
    interpret this Amendment- as is done with most of the First, they seem
    to be more than willing to ignore all historical data (not to mention
    the basic rules of the English language), to interpret the Second to
    mean only a right under certain "conditions", giving Congress the right
    to limit "certain" firearms by legislation (gun control).
    
    Why the limited view of the Second, and a liberal view of most of the
    First?  Why stammer around the "freedom of religion" part of the First,
    rather than interpret it in the same liberal manner as the rest of the
    Amendment?  Not very consistent politics, IMO.
    
    And what ever happened to the Tenth Amendment?  Why does liberal policy
    ignore it so frequently?  Basically is says in no uncertain terms that
    "all powers not specifically given to the fed. in the Constitution, is
    reserved for the states and the people" (phrased from memory).  This
    one isn't even rationalized away or re-interpreted (as there is not way
    to reinterpret this one), it is merely ignored...all in the name of
    "the good of society" (as if they had a monopoly on what's best for
    America).
    
    What policies ignore the Tenth?  All the entitlement policies for one. 
    Federalized gun control, for another (making gun control DOUBLY
    unconstitutional).  How about the Federalization of public schools? 
    There are many more, but you get the point.
    
    What ever happend to the soveriegn states? (well the Fourteenth
    happened, but that's another story altogether   8^) )
    
    I find liberal ideology and policy very inconsitent.  It seems to veiw
    only certain parts of the BoR as valuable, pushing the envelope for
    more freedoms while taking freedoms away in other areas.  It would be
    at least intellectually honest if it were consistent in defending all
    our inalienable rights, but I cannot even give it that much credit.
    
    The end result to the promotion of certain "freedoms" at the expense
    of society, and the restriction of others via strange interpretations
    and other contextual feats of illogic.  This is the very thing that has 
    put America into its current difficulties.  Freedom without responsibility 
    is not possible for long.  Freedom without means of self-defence vs. 
    criminal action or tyranny of government is also a pipe-dream in the
    long run, as history proves over and over.
    
    If liberals truly valued all freedoms, then the Second Amendment would
    receive special attention and defense.  What policy springs from the
    left, though?  Gun control.  If liberals truly valued society as whole
    and wished to remain a free nation forever, then they would insist on
    LIBERAL freedoms of religion (religion is more than proven to be a
    great anchor of a civilized society).  What policies have come from the
    left?  Ban prayer in schools, ban nativity scenes, ban the Bible and
    religious clubs from schools, etc.
    
    They tell us if you don't like the crap on teevee, turn the channel. 
    Don't want your kids to see certain shows, watch them more carefully or
    buy a timer for your teevee (or get rid of your teevee). 
    Of course, when it comes to a moment of silence, the same rationale
    does not hold for them.  Leaving the room is not acceptable (equating
    to "turn the channel" that they preach), nor is just ignoring it. 
    
    There are other inconsitencies I could post, but I'll save them for a
    later date.  This post is quite long already.
    
    
    -steve

RE     <<< Note 47.45 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>

>    While pornography is a protected freedom, nativity scenes became
>    illegal under modern liberal Court interpretations.  While vile
>    language has become a protected right (in various forms), prayer in school 
>    was irradicated.  While homosexual and lesbian magazines found their way
>    onto library shelves in schools, the Bible was banned.

  Not true. Liberals are entirely in favor of a freedom of religion. What
liberals are against is government mandated religion. That includes public
schools (a part of government) imposing religion on students. 

  It is perfectly permissible in Massachusetts to teach the Bible of the
Christian religion or any other religion. It is perfectly legal for individuals
to practice those religions. What is not legal is for government, in the form
of the schools, to force kids to practice any form of religion. 

>    Liberals, who so desparately cling to the freedom of speech, press, and
>    expression, seem to be quite indifferent about the right of all
>    citizens to keep and bear arms.  Why?  

  The 2nd is being beaten to death in the gun note. Liberals have no problem
with bearing arms for the purpose of supporting a militia.

>    And what ever happened to the Tenth Amendment?  Why does liberal policy
>    ignore it so frequently?  Basically is says in no uncertain terms that
>    "all powers not specifically given to the fed. in the Constitution, is
>    reserved for the states and the people" (phrased from memory).  

  Whooooo, what happened to amendments 3 through 9? Doesn't take a rocket
scientist to see why Conservatives hop over those amendments. 

  Check out Article I of the Constitution to see where powers to legislate are
explicitly given to the Congress including the right to pass spending
resolutions that support entitlements.

>    I find liberal ideology and policy very inconsitent.  It seems to veiw
>    only certain parts of the BoR as valuable, pushing the envelope for
>    more freedoms while taking freedoms away in other areas.  

  While there may be differences here and there in interpretation of the 2nd
and 10th amendments, only by completely ignoring the 3rd through 9th, 14th,
and 16th amendment does conservative ideology end up in the same hemisphere as
the Constitution of the United States. 

  George

    re: .46
    
>  Not true. Liberals are entirely in favor of a freedom of religion. What
>liberals are against is government mandated religion. That includes public
>schools (a part of government) imposing religion on students. 

    Therein lies the first problem.  The view that the school system is a part 
    of the government.  The second problem is that there never was a
    government (or even school) mandated religion.  They used to have a
    generic (non-denominational) prayer to "God", but it was not forced. 
    By law, a student could not be forced to participate.
    
>  It is perfectly permissible in Massachusetts to teach the Bible of the
>Christian religion or any other religion. It is perfectly legal for individuals
>to practice those religions. What is not legal is for government, in the form
>of the schools, to force kids to practice any form of religion. 
                    ^^^^^
    
    Once again missing the point, and also avoiding my general message.
    
    If freedom of speech and expression are so liberally interpreted by
    liberals, why place such restrictions on freedom of religion?
    
    You also fail to explain why the Bible was banned from the library,
    when liberals slam parent and church groups for "consorship" when they
    try to ban questionable books they don't wish for their kids to have
    access to.  A little hypocritical, to say the least.
    
>  The 2nd is being beaten to death in the gun note. Liberals have no problem
>with bearing arms for the purpose of supporting a militia.

    Yes, it is.  But my query is about the *way* liberals interpret things. 
    The first (other than the "religion" part) is interpreted BROADLY, to
    say the least.  The Second, for some reason, does not get the same
    treatment (even though there are massive amounts of evidence supporting
    the RTKBA is inalienable, and only confirmed via the Second).
    
    Why place constrainst on the Second when there is so much evidence that
    supports a much broader interpretation (and if liberals were indeed the
    defenders of liberty, then they would most definitely interpret
    personal rights in a very broad manner).
    
    I'm still confused by this inconsitency.
    
>  Whooooo, what happened to amendments 3 through 9? Doesn't take a rocket
>scientist to see why Conservatives hop over those amendments. 

    Non-sequitur.  We are discussing liberals.  If you wish to bring this
    subject up in "the politics of the right" topic, I will address them
    there.
    
>  Check out Article I of the Constitution to see where powers to legislate are
>explicitly given to the Congress including the right to pass spending
>resolutions that support entitlements.

    No, it does not.  It gives a specific enumerated LIST (that has been
    ignored since New Deal on a wholescale basis).  All things not
    specifically enumerated by the Constitution in the way of spending
    policies of Congress (and taxing powers) are left to the states and
    people by default.  The whole purpose of the list is to LIMIT a federal
    government from being an economic tyranny...it worked for a while
    (until we started ignoring it...now look at the mess we're in).
    
>  While there may be differences here and there in interpretation of the 2nd
>and 10th amendments, only by completely ignoring the 3rd through 9th, 14th,
>and 16th amendment does conservative ideology end up in the same hemisphere as
>the Constitution of the United States. 

    If you wish to make this claim, do so in "the policies of the right"
    topic, where I expect to see at least a few examples.  It is just a
    deflection in this topic.
    
    
    -steve

re: Note 47.46 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI
    
George, you've highly damaged yourself over the discussion of the 2nd
Amendment (aka Gun Control Issue).  Here you go again.

>  Check out Article I of the Constitution to see where powers to legislate are
>explicitly given to the Congress including the right to pass spending
>resolutions that support entitlements.

Check out Art. 1, Sec. 8, para 17:

     To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such 
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular 
States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the 
United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the 
Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the 
Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful 
Buildings; -- And      
     To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into 
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this 
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or 
Officer thereof.

- and - Article 4, Section 3, paragraph 2

     The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and 
Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United 
States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice 
any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

And then get back to us about JURISDICTION.  You must admit it, the
feds don't have it, as you wish or proclaim.  To say the current federal
spending boondoggles are "OK" is a MAJOR stretch.  It borders on
unconstitutionality, or an extremely loose interpretation of "general welfare".

I MAINTAIN:  CONGRESS, rules/governs DC (10x10) and all FEDERAL territory.
That's IT, UNLESS the rest is of the USA is USURPED, coerced, or taken under 
    duress!

George, you admit to being a const-heavy.  Define for us a Republic, and
answer if you think the USA is a Republic, or a Democracy.  If you know
the Constitution as well as you say you do, it says it's a Republic.
    
    If it's a Republic, (which it is), You've hung yourself again.  I WANT A 
    TOWEL.  NOW!!!! :^)

	Steve, the Bible is banned from the library for just one reason. A
Bible and the Madonna book in the same library would surely cause problems. :)

    George, while preparing the rest of your "answer" (comment on
    Amendments 3 - 26)
              
    Since you're a box-const-heavy and yer old lady is a lawyer...
    
    ... what type of LAW are the Amendments to the Constutution?
    C'mon, it should be easy for you George.
                                            

While doing 6 things at once, I made a mistake.

.48>I MAINTAIN:  CONGRESS, rules/governs DC (10x10) and all FEDERAL territory.
.48>That's IT, UNLESS the rest is of the USA is USURPED, coerced, or taken under 
.48>    duress!

Congress rules (10*10/aka Washington DC), all federal territory, and the
states in which the law is positive (or specified via the constitution).
This would mean USC 1,3,4,5,6,9,10,11,13,14,17,18(ouch, but it conflicts
with the 2nd Amendment so we're ok), 23, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38,
39, 44, 46, 49.

Everything else...
 
including USC 26 or the "Internal Revenue Code"
(ya, it's internal, internal to the DC and the territories... ha, it
even says that)
and USC 42 "The Public Health and Welfare"
(ha... now you know how the GET YER MONEY TO FUND THIS GARBAGE... it wouldn't
stand up in court.  Do you think it'll ever get there though?  HELL NO!)

... is junk for most of us.

RE     <<< Note 47.47 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>

>    Therein lies the first problem.  The view that the school system is a part 
>    of the government.  

  Public schools most certainly are part of Government. They are run by town
government employees off of a town budget paid for through taxes. If that's
not government what is?

>The second problem is that there never was a
>    government (or even school) mandated religion.  They used to have a
>    generic (non-denominational) prayer to "God", but it was not forced. 
>    By law, a student could not be forced to participate.

  Not when I went to school. I remember a big flap in my town because 90% of
the town was Catholic and 10% was Protestant. Hence at the opening of every
school day we were lead to recite the Catholic version of the Lords prayer. 

  Those of us who were Protestant were considered "behavior problems" not
to mentioned receiving a ton of peer abuse if we elected to add the Protestant
section onto the end of the prayer.

  We in effect were mandated by government to be Catholic against our wishes.

>  You also fail to explain why the Bible was banned from the library,
>    when liberals slam parent and church groups for "consorship" when they
>    try to ban questionable books they don't wish for their kids to have
>    access to.  A little hypocritical, to say the least.

  In Massachusetts the Bible is not banned from the school library. It can
be in the library, people can read it, and discuss it as a theology. What
teachers (government officials) can NOT do is to use the Bible to force kids
to practice the religion there in.

> 2nd amendment

  See gun note.

>>  Whooooo, what happened to amendments 3 through 9? Doesn't take a rocket
>>scientist to see why Conservatives hop over those amendments. 
>
>    Non-sequitur.  We are discussing liberals.  If you wish to bring this
>    subject up in "the politics of the right" topic, I will address them
>    there.
    
  No we are discussing the Constitution. In fact, liberals are much better at
supporting the 4th through 9th amendments than the Conservatives so it is
germane to this debate. Only by ignoring those amendments along with the
14th and 16th can you make the claim that liberals don't support the
constitution as well as conservatives.

>    No, it does not.  It gives a specific enumerated LIST (that has been
>    ignored since New Deal on a wholescale basis).  

  I think we've been down this path before. As I recall, your argument is
based on ignoring the top of the list.

  George

RE    <<< Note 47.48 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>

>George, you admit to being a const-heavy.  Define for us a Republic, and
>answer if you think the USA is a Republic, or a Democracy.  If you know
>the Constitution as well as you say you do, it says it's a Republic.

  A republic is a nation that does not have a king. Thomas Jefferson toyed
with the idea of changing the definition of "republic" to mean a representative
form of government as opposed to a democracy which was a town meeting type
of government but that definition never really caught on.

  The Union of Soviet Socialists Republic was a Republic not because it's
parliament represented the public but rather because they overthrew the Tzar.
    
>    If it's a Republic, (which it is), You've hung yourself again.  I WANT A 
>    TOWEL.  NOW!!!! :^)

  Looks like you are going to be wet for a while.

  George

    For George:  (so his old lady don't have to enlighten him)
    
    REPUBLIC - A Commonwealth; That form of government in which the 
    administration of affairs is open to all the citizens.  In another
    sense, it signifies the state, independant of its form of government.
    		
    DEMOCRACY - That form of government in which the sovereign power
    resides in and is excersised by the whole body of free citizens
    (MDM: MOB RULES) directly or indirectly through a system of
    representation, as distinguished from monarchy, aristocracy, or
    oligarchy.
    
    -So says Blacks Law Dictionary.
    
    A Sovereign lives within the Republic.  The sCotUS has continually
    ruled for the individual in "earth shattering" instances of
    governmental assault on those rights.
    
    For example (my comments in parenthasis):
    
    "The right (NOT PRIVILEDGE) of the citizen to travel upon the public 
    highways (NO LICENSE REQUIRED IN THIS CASE) and to transport his
    property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile
    (NOT A MOTOR VEHICLE AS DEFINED IN USC 18.  IF YOU DRIVE A "MOTOR
    VEHICLE" YER GOIN TO JAIL!), is not a mere privilege (THERE IT IS
    AGAIN! AND THEY SAID IT!) which a city may prohibit or permit at
    will (HEY, HAS THAT THANG BEEN INSPECTED YET?  HOW 'BOUT EMISSIONS?),
    but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty
    and the persuit of happiness."
    
    - Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579.
    
    Driving IS a priviledge, I admit that.  Do _you_ drive?
    If you travel, do you travel in a "motor vehicle" or an automobile?
    
    See what I mean about living in the Republic?  tain't easy you know.  
    
    			 

    re: .52
    
>  Not when I went to school. I remember a big flap in my town because 90% of
>the town was Catholic and 10% was Protestant. Hence at the opening of every
>school day we were lead to recite the Catholic version of the Lords prayer. 

    Were you forced to recite it?  By law, you should have been able to
    leave the room or stand quietly.
    
>  Those of us who were Protestant were considered "behavior problems" not
>to mentioned receiving a ton of peer abuse if we elected to add the Protestant
>section onto the end of the prayer.

    Sounds more like an implementation problem.  Did you go to a Catholic
    school?  Religious schools are allowed to set their own rules on this
    matter.  In any case, I don't see what peer pressure has to do with the
    subject at hand (you keep saying that the government is somehow
    *forcing* religion on kids).
    
>  We in effect were mandated by government to be Catholic against our wishes.

    Nice stretch, that.  Sounds more like peer pressure forced you to say a
    catholic prayer vs. your own version, not the government.  
    
>  In Massachusetts the Bible is not banned from the school library. It can
>be in the library, people can read it, and discuss it as a theology. What
>teachers (government officials) can NOT do is to use the Bible to force kids
>to practice the religion there in.

    Explain that to the teacher who was told he could not bring his Bible
    to class (which he read between classes and during quiet times).  On
    threat of being fired, he was forced to stop carrying it, thus his
    religious freedoms were trampled on.  (I can recite the actual event
    Monday if you like)
    
>>    Non-sequitur.  We are discussing liberals.  If you wish to bring this
>>    subject up in "the politics of the right" topic, I will address them
>>    there.
    
>  No we are discussing the Constitution. In fact, liberals are much better at
>supporting the 4th through 9th amendments than the Conservatives so it is
>germane to this debate. 
    
    It is a deflection, George, because you have yet to explain away the
    inconsitencies of the liberal ideology.  You simply ignore my issue
    with how the second should be interpreted BROADLY like the liberals
    interpret most of the First.  It is not a question of your personal
    view of the Second, it is one of why you feel that it is not worth the
    BROAD interpretation given to (most of) the First.
    
    If you want to explain why you feel liberals are better at defending
    the 4-9th Amendments, then do so.  It is not germane to MY queries on
    the inconsitencies between how the First and Second Amendments are
    interpreted by liberals.
    
>    Only by ignoring those amendments along with the
>14th and 16th can you make the claim that liberals don't support the
>constitution as well as conservatives.

    That is not my argument (though it is my belief...don't get the two
    mixed up).  My argument is one of inconsistency.  Let's address that
    issue, shall we?  Then we can move on to your assertions above.
    
>  I think we've been down this path before. As I recall, your argument is
>based on ignoring the top of the list.

    Since you are having so much trouble reading the litteral English in
    the Second, I have no hope of rational debate on this issue.  The "top
    of the list" is a statement of reason and purpose.  The enumerations
    below show what direction the purpose should take (purpose being the
    ability to tax in what ways, the direction being the specific things
    that is lawful to tax for).
    
    
    -steve

    re -1
    
    
    
   >  Were you forced to recite it?  By law, you should have been able to
   >  leave the room or stand quietly.
    
	I can't believe you said this. 
    
    	I can just see it. "Now all you Protestants, Muslims, Buddists or
    any other little heathens who might be hiding in this class leave teh
    room for a minute while us enlightened folk practice the correct
    religion."
    
    
    	Jeesh, I was starting to wonder why I used to object so stenously
    to school prayer. Thanks for reminding me.
    
    
    								S.R.

    George, since when are schools part of government.
    
    Actually, they weren't even funded by the fed until 1962 or so.  And
    even today, most of the funding is local and state. 
    
    Of all of the crap that is true of our school system, being "part of
    the government" is not one of them.  However, government regulation of
    the schools is the direct cause of most of the crap, I believe.
    
    Your really are a twisted product of teevee.

    Oh dear God.
    
    "a republic is a government that does not have a king."
    
    George, ya done gone and outdone yourself.  So, communist china is a
    republic.  As is Iraq.  Let's not forget Libya.  Howse about Greece?
    
    Britain.  They don't have a king either at the moment.  that means
    they're a republic.
    
    Move it to the jokes topic, George...
    

    re: .56
    
    spin spin spin...

    	re .56
    
    	"Almighty God.  We acknowledge our dependence upon thee, and
    	we beg thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and
    	our country."
    
    	This was the prayer that was the subject of Engel vs Vitale,
    	6/25/62, that removed school prayer from the public schools.
    
    	The court described it as a "to whom it may concern" prayer.
    
    	You are over-reacting (or maybe just overacting) tremendously
    	in your claims that "protestants, muslims, ..." will be
    	belittled and kicked out of the classroom.
    
    	Having defended the prayer that was previously removed, I find
    	it necessary to go on the record as being opposed to any formal
    	government sponsored/written/mandated/whatever prayer in 
    	public schools.  I support the "moment of silence" and nothing
    	more.  Government does not belong in the prayer business.

    
    for one thing, it offends poly- and hummus-theiists

Re    <<< Note 47.50 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>

>    ... what type of LAW are the Amendments to the Constutution?
>    C'mon, it should be easy for you George.
                                            
  Well the case law which derives from the Constitutional and it's amendments
is called Constitutional Law.

  At least that's what the course was titled at B.C. Law. I know, I typed
the outline.

  [Hint, if you go to law school (or if your S.O. goes to law school), get
  a P.C., don't go at it with EDT and Runoff.]

  George

    .61
    
    That was rather falafel thing to say!

RE    <<< Note 47.54 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>

>    For George:  (so his old lady don't have to enlighten him)
>    
>    REPUBLIC - A Commonwealth; That form of government in which the 
>    administration of affairs is open to all the citizens.  In another
>    sense, it signifies the state, independent of its form of government.
>    		
>    DEMOCRACY - That form of government in which the sovereign power
>    resides in and is excersised by the whole body of free citizens
>    ...

  So fine, Blacks has a definition of Republic and Democracy. 

  This is a wonderful dissertation, the one thing I don't understand is why you
have put my name at the top. Are you trying to make a point in some discussion
we are having? If so, what's the point? 

  George

RE     <<< Note 47.55 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>

>    Sounds more like an implementation problem.  Did you go to a Catholic
>    school?  

  No Public. But this was back in the 1950's before the liberal rulings of the
Warren Court prevented students from being forced to pray against their
beliefs. It's the way the law works now and I'd like to see it stay that
way.

  Conservatives it appears, would like to see it changed back to the way it
was when teachers decided how kids should pray.

>    It is a deflection, George, because you have yet to explain away the
>    inconsitencies of the liberal ideology.  You simply ignore my issue
>    with how the second should be interpreted BROADLY like the liberals
>    interpret most of the First.  

  I am not ignoring this at all. I have given my reasons on this point over
in the gun note.

>    If you want to explain why you feel liberals are better at defending
>    the 4-9th Amendments, then do so.  It is not germane to MY queries on
>    the inconsitencies between how the First and Second Amendments are
>    interpreted by liberals.

  Ok I will.

  4th amendment - Liberals support the Exclusionary rule and support case law
                  saying that evidence collected without a warrant should not
                  be allowed at trial.

                - Conservatives say the public has no right to privacy.

  5th & 6th     - Liberals favor due process, the right to a fair trial,
                  protection from self incrimination, the right to an attorney.

                - Conservatives believe that if the police produce a confession
                  the right to a fair trial should be lost and are generally
                  against attorneys.

  7th           - Liberals believe that juries are competent to render verdicts
                  in civil cases. Conservatives want artificial caps on civil
                  cases.

  8th           - Liberals are against cruel and unusual punishment. 
                - Conservatives want to roll people into lakes and beat them
                  with canes.

  9th           - Liberals favor inalienable rights not specified in the
                  Constitution like the right to an abortion.
                - Conservatives like Renquist and Bork say that if it's not
                  in the Constitution, it's not a right.
                  
  George

RE              <<< Note 47.57 by ODIXIE::CIAROCHI "One Less Dog" >>>

>    George, since when are schools part of government.
    
  Public schools are a part of government. The teachers are town officials
paid by the town through money taken as taxes. They report to a principle
or superintendent who reports to a school board which is elected by the people
of the town to run the school system.

  If that's not government, I don't know what is,
  George

RE              <<< Note 47.58 by ODIXIE::CIAROCHI "One Less Dog" >>>

>    George, ya done gone and outdone yourself.  So, communist china is a
>    republic.  As is Iraq.  Let's not forget Libya.  Howse about Greece?

  What do you think the final "R" stood for in U.S.S.R?

  Remember? Union of Soviet Socialist R.....
    
>    Britain.  They don't have a king either at the moment.  that means
>    they're a republic.

  Ok, Monarch. King, Queen, Prince, Duke, what ever. 


  From "The American Heritage Dictionary" (standard DEC issue)

    Re-pub-lic (ri-pub-lik)n. 1. Any political order that is not a
    monarchy. 2. A constitutional form of government, esp. a democratic
    one. [> L respublica, "public matter."] 

  George

    George:
    
    The governments of China and the old USSR do not succemb to the will of
    the people.  They use the term Republic quite loosely.
    
    I find it interesting that when the 1993 budget deal passed by one
    vote, the democrat leadership stated, "The American people asked for
    change...And They Have Spoken!!!  Like the communists, the democrat
    party also used the term loosely!
    
    -Jack 

    re: Note 47.62 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI 
    
    Bzztt... it's Equity Law George.
    
    I have 6 PC's a VAX and a unix box.  and I don't go to law school.
    I'd hate to limit myself.

>  4th amendment - Liberals support the Exclusionary rule and support case law
>                  saying that evidence collected without a warrant should not
>                  be allowed at trial.

>                - Conservatives say the public has no right to privacy.

C'mon.  You need some help.  Conservatives say the public has no
right to privacy.... whatta joke.

>  5th & 6th     - Liberals favor due process, the right to a fair trial,

The 5th Amendment says a person has a right to COUNCIL.  Says nothing about
an attorney anywhere.  Hmmm.  Since you're so up on this deal, ask yer old
lady what she would do to me if I challenged jurisdiction (of her client
trying to bring charges against me).  Like, would she hang up on me right
quick and never call back?

Does she deal with Statute law (it's called that, but it doesn't exist)  Or 
the Constitution?  Which one are you bound by?  Do you abide by Statute
as an incorparated entity or do you abide by the Supreme Law of the Land?
If anyones porking people it's the Liberal Lawyers who ignore this fact.

>  7th           - Liberals believe that juries are competent to render verdicts
>                  in civil cases. Conservatives want artificial caps on civil
>                  cases.

You will be tried under Common law.  Period.  Unless you subject yourself
to anothers jurisdiction (SS#/Drivers license/license/fee/tax/subject to....
oh my)....  This is my favorite.  Your up there telling us about liberals,
and civil cases.... this one can/will get almost anything against you tossed
in a heartbeat.  Lies of ommission.  

***
"Do you solemly swear to tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so
help you god?"

Sounds nice and official, but your MAY be able to ring up folks for
Subornation of Perjury by asking you this.  Thats federal prison time.  

Demand to face your accuser (Amendment 6).  The cop says you were speeding.
OK, have HIM swear out a complaint against me (he won't because you'll put
him in prison).  Who's charging me?  The State?  OK, where's the state?
Lets get a certificate of existance from them from the Secretary of State.
Oh, they can't provide one?  Uh oh....  I DEMAND TO FACE MY ACCUSER.  There
ain't one.  It's over.  If they want to fart around with you, you can
then compel various "state" officials to show up.  Like the Governor, SoS,
State controller, Highway patrol director....  Pork 'em all.  Make 'em sweat.
You want to see the Constitution in action?  There it is.  When Zell
Miller (D- Georgia) gets a subpeona from me, charging him with Inland
Piracy for being party to stealing my property... someones phone is gonna
start ringing.

You see, laws are so GD screwey for the simple fact it keeps people like
your SO employed and driving fancy cars.  You figure out the rest of the
deal.

RE          <<< Note 47.68 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>

>    The governments of China and the old USSR do not succemb to the will of
>    the people.  They use the term Republic quite loosely.

  Depends which definition you are using. If you are using the one in the
American Heritage dictionary then it's hardly loose at all. They became
a Republic once they overthrew the Tsar.
    
>    I find it interesting that when the 1993 budget deal passed by one
>    vote, the democrat leadership stated, "The American people asked for
>    change...And They Have Spoken!!!  Like the Communists, the democrat
>    party also used the term loosely!
    
  Less than a majority have voted for Republicans from the Religious Right
yet they seem to be claiming a victory. What shall we compare that to,
the 4th Reich?


  George

    re: .65
    
>  No Public. But this was back in the 1950's before the liberal rulings of the
>Warren Court prevented students from being forced to pray against their
>beliefs. 
    
    I see one difference between liberals and conservatives right here. 
    Liberals have a problem defining the word "force", while using it on
    everyone else to further their social spending agendas.
    
>  Conservatives it appears, would like to see it changed back to the way it
>was when teachers decided how kids should pray.

    More fantasy-land stuff.  As Joe posted, and I've stated 100 times, it
    was a generic prayer...a "to whom it may concern" prayer.  If you don't
    believe in any god, then you still have the option of not praying. 
    
    Conservatives in general do seem to be interested in a "moment of
    silence", though, which is quite different.  Personally, I am against
    modifying the Constitution for prayer or a moment of silence, as there
    is really no need.  The Constitution already allow for it, though the
    government doesn't want to admit it.  If we passed an amendment, rather
    than interpreting the First verbatim with that "shall not be infringed"
    part, then we automatically give the First a whole different meaning by
    default. 
    
>>    It is a deflection, George, because you have yet to explain away the
>    inconsitencies of the liberal ideology.  You simply ignore my issue
>    with how the second should be interpreted BROADLY like the liberals
>>    interpret most of the First.  

>  I am not ignoring this at all. I have given my reasons on this point over
>in the gun note.

    You are ignoring me.  I'm not interested in how you view the Second, I
    am interested in why you don't give it the benefit of the doubt you
    give parts of the First and other amendments.  I'm interested in why
    you limit parts of the First and liberally interpret the rest.  
    
    If liberals are defenders of rights, then why are they so selective?
    And of course, with all the evidence posted for the Second in the gun
    control topic, I'd think being a liberal defender of our rights, you
    would be writing letters to your representatives to have them vote down
    limitations on our gun rights.  You should be a most outspoken
    advocate against gun control, as it limits inalienable rights.
    
    I just want to know why liberals are not consistent.  So far, no one is
    able to answer me (look at my surprise).
    
    I WANT A TOWEL!  8^)
     
    
    -steve

RE     <<< Note 47.72 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>

>    I see one difference between liberals and conservatives right here. 
>    Liberals have a problem defining the word "force", while using it on
>    everyone else to further their social spending agendas.

  With regard to spending yes, Congress has the right to force people to give
them money and spend that money. It's right here in the Constitution:


  Section. 8. "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, 
               ------------------------------------------------------
  Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and 
                       --                   ---------------
  general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises
  ------------------------------------
  shall be uniform throughout the United States;
     To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
     To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, 
  and with the Indian Tribes; ..."

>    More fantasy-land stuff.  As Joe posted, and I've stated 100 times, it
>    was a generic prayer...a "to whom it may concern" prayer.  If you don't
>    believe in any god, then you still have the option of not praying. 

  No it was not. The prayer I was ordered and instructed to speak by government
officials of the town was specifically a Catholic prayer as apposed to a
Protestant prayer. 

>    You are ignoring me.  I'm not interested in how you view the Second, I
>    am interested in why you don't give it the benefit of the doubt you
>    give parts of the First and other amendments.  I'm interested in why
>    you limit parts of the First and liberally interpret the rest.  
    
  I have said in great detail over in the gun note why I feel the 2nd amendment
does not guarantee every individual the right to bear arms. It is because the
2nd amendment specifically points to "a well regulated militia".

  As for the 1st amendment, like most liberals I support it completely.

>    If liberals are defenders of rights, then why are they so selective?

  We are not. It is the Conservatives that completely ignore the 4th through
9th, 14th, and 16th amendments. Liberals support all the rights given in the
bill of rights and many others under the 9th amendment. 

>    I just want to know why liberals are not consistent.  So far, no one is
>    able to answer me (look at my surprise).

  I keep answering, you keep ignoring,
  George

    RE .60
    
    	I wasn't claiming I felt that Muslims or others were in danger of
    being run out of the classroom. (yet) I was reacting to Steve Leech's
    statement that George wasn't "forced" to pray, he should have been
    "allowed" to leave the room, or stand silently. I can't belive anyone
    would support subjecting a child to this type of segragation. Claiming
    that it doesn't isolate a child to stand silently or worse yet leave
    while the rest of the class prays or whatever and then he comes back
    into the room is rediculous. I don't have any real objections to a
    momment of silence, but I don't see the real need for it. I had plenty
    of free time when I was in school. If you need more time church is the
    proper place. I also do have some concerns as to the religous rights
    agenda. I do think some of them will try to use this as a plank for
    jumping of for actual teacher led prayer. I don't care how
    nondenominational that prayer might be, I feel that is wrong.
    
    								S.R.

>    I was reacting to Steve Leech's
>    statement that George wasn't "forced" to pray, he should have been
>    "allowed" to leave the room, or stand silently. I can't belive anyone
>    would support subjecting a child to this type of segragation. Claiming
>    that it doesn't isolate a child to stand silently or worse yet leave
>    while the rest of the class prays or whatever and then he comes back
>    into the room is rediculous. 
    
    	When a class is about to go through sex-ed, the parents have the
    	option to pull the kid from the class if material that is to be
    	presented is objectionable or in conflict with the morals that
    	the parents are teaching at home.  I hope you object in the same
    	way to sex-ed material that could result in this type of
    	segregation.

    George skips my stuff.  He owes me towels and he knows it.
    How convenient.
                  

    Joe,
    
    first off the sex-ed portion of the curriculum is very short, whereas a
    moment of silence or oral prayer is a daily event.  From someone who
    believes sex should be taught in the home, I can't believe you don't
    feel the same way about religious values.
    
    meg

    I want my towel, George!  You still haven't defended the liberals'
    inconsistent interpretations on the BoR (why some portions are looked
    at liberally and others are not).
    
    You also keep ignoring my queries on the Second.  My queries are of a
    different nature than those in the gun control topic.  The queries
    there are how you interpret limitations on the Amendment...my query is
    WHY do you interpret it in a limited way, rather than a liberal way. 
    If there is any doubt (and there should be plenty of doubt after the
    latest gun control debate in that topic), you should be FOR the side of
    personal freedoms and against government limitations on them (gun
    control).
    
    I just don't understand the inconsistencies, I guess.  Maybe if I were
    a liberal defender of freedoms, I could figgure out why it is okay to
    limit the inalienable rights of religious freedoms and the freedom to
    keep and bear arms. 
    
    -steve

    	No Meg, you have it wrong.  There is no teaching during a moment
    	of silence.  I can't believe you are so threatened by it that you
    	see such a boogeyman in it.

    Joe,
    
    I don't need any more valuable class time wasted by claptrap.  I also
    realize that this is just the nose of the camel, it isn't what the
    right wants, but is just whittling away at the  right to be left in
    peace regarding one's religion.  Want me to come into a class with your
    kids and say my chants to the goddess as my prayers?
    
    also, since schools are supposed to be locally governed, I fail to see
    why the federales should be telling my district what they should and
    should not teach.  This is not getting the government off my or anyone
    elses back as the repub's keep mouthing is their goal.
    
    Off my back, but in my schools, churches, bedroom, bladder and uterus.  
    
    meg

    
    Ha !  It was, and is, local schools that try to have prayers (like
    I did back in the fifties).  The feds stop them.  All any amendment
    would do is take the feds out of the game, not force any local
    school district to have them.
    
    And the trouble with all the dire predictions of the federal ban's
    supporters, we who are old enough know this caused no problems with
    getting an education, something apparently beyond our powers today.
    
    As to George, I don't know his school, but we had plenty of Jewish
    kids, all of whom remained silent during prayers, and it would have
    been unthinkable to punish them.  Such things just weren't even a
    consideration.  This is all left-wing fud, as usual.
    
      bb

    re: Note 47.73 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI
    
    > With regard to spending yes, Congress has the right to force people
    > to give
    
    {snip}
    
    I won't destroy your post.  Congress already did.  Maybe SteveJ found
    this to be true as well.
    
    Merriam 36 NE 505, 141 NY 479
    Affirmed in United States v. Perkins 163 US 625, 16 SCt. 1073, 41 LEd.
    287.
    
    Stated by the 63rd Congress of the United States, in discussion of
    what the 16th Amendment means.  It means what I said it means.
    The United States is DC, Samoa, guam, PR, VI, Wake, midway...etc....
    it DOES NOT APPLY TO THE 50 FREE & INDEPENDANT STATES OF AMERICA;
    RATHER ONLY TO THE EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL ZONES SPECIFIED BY CONGRESS.
    Do you "always use zip code"?  Check the rules and implications of
    doing so.  Buryed deep in the MAIL LAW it says if you use zip code
    you agree to being in the federal zone.  JURISDICTION.
    
    Tell me about spending, and who needs to fund this crap. Ask your
    SO about this.... JURISDICTION - DUDE.  It means everything.
    
    

     <<< Note 47.78 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>

>    I want my towel, George!  You still haven't defended the liberals'
>    inconsistent interpretations on the BoR (why some portions are looked
>    at liberally and others are not).
    
It cuts both ways. And that most antiquated of Constitutional law (along 
with quatering of troops), the 2nd amendment, is a perfect case in point. The
right loves "original intent" when it serves their purpose (to abolish welfare 
and other social programs, for example) but ignore it in the 2nd. 
Technically, George lost this one big time. He didn't just argue it poorly, 
he's wrong. The clause about well-regulated militia doesn't expressly 
forbid infringement of the right to bear arms under any other circumstance. 
But it says volumes about their rationale for protecting that right. If the 
rationale is no longer valid, then the original intent is lost, and the law 
pointless -- if you adhere faithfully to original intent. 

Or, perhaps, the constitution is a brilliantly contrived, minimalist,
flexible document that can be adapted to a changing world. In which case,
you can replace such threats as invading indians and self-declared monarchs
with violent criminals who threaten our liberties collectively and
individually. 

    	.80
    
    	Meg:
    
>    I don't need any more valuable class time wasted by claptrap. 
    
    	I suspect that you already know I see quite a bit of the
    	liberalism in our schools as claptrap.  
    
>    I also realize that this is just the nose of the camel, it isn't what the
>    right wants, 
    
    	Here is where you are wrong.  There are too many people who
    	count themselves among "the right" who do NOT want a constitutional
    	amendment or other government mandate to take this beyond anything
    	more than a moment of silence.  I'll be standing right beside you
    	if it were to be pushed any farther than a moment of silence.
    	Many religious leaders have also come out against such governement
    	mandate for prayer.
    
>    Want me to come into a class with your
>    kids and say my chants to the goddess as my prayers?
    
    	As long as you do it silently, sure!

              <<< Note 47.84 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "I'm an orca." >>>

>    	Here is where you are wrong.  There are too many people who
>    	count themselves among "the right" who do NOT want a constitutional
>    	amendment or other government mandate to take this beyond anything
>    	more than a moment of silence.  I'll be standing right beside you
>    	if it were to be pushed any farther than a moment of silence.
>    	Many religious leaders have also come out against such governement
>    	mandate for prayer.

Why bother?!!!!! What is the point of this precious "moment of silence" if 
not to force a moment of worship? Save it for home, for Christ's sake! Who 
needs it in school? It's just creating a situation ripe for abuse.

    
    "for Christ's sake".....
    
    
     Just hadda throw that zinger in there... didn't you?
    

    	"For Christ's sake" may be the reason that some want the moment
    	of silence.  For others it may be "for Allah's sake", etc.
    
    	Currently 85% of high school students favor a moment of silence.

              <<< Note 47.86 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "grep this!" >>>

>     Just hadda throw that zinger in there... didn't you?

Naw. I'm just reminding him that he's trivializing Christianity by 
packaging it in a pre-fab moment of silence.     

              <<< Note 47.87 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "I'm an orca." >>>

>    	Currently 85% of high school students favor a moment of silence.

Who cares? 85% probably want to allow making out in the hallways. 
Everything in its place. School's for learning. Church and home are for 
praying. If you just don't find enough time in the day, so you have to pray 
at school, raise you hand and ask to go to the bathroom.

    
    RE: .88
    
    Still no excuse to denigrate the name...
    

              <<< Note 47.90 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "grep this!" >>>

>    Still no excuse to denigrate the name...

Well, that's your opinion. If I feel like lapsing into the profane, I use 
an expression like "krissake." This wasn't one of those instances.    

| <<< Note 47.91 by USMVS::DAVIS >>>


| Well, that's your opinion. If I feel like lapsing into the profane, I use
| an expression like "krissake." This wasn't one of those instances.

	You know there are many who would see that as a slam at Christ? I can
remember in the Christian notesfile I used the word geeze, and was told that it
was a slam against Jesus. Weird, huh?

    what do you think "jeeze" or "geeze" came from? 
    
    jeff

| <<< Note 47.93 by USAT05::BENSON >>>



| what do you think "jeeze" or "geeze" came from?

	humans

You misuse the term "slam against".

/john

    It just isn't right to slam the dead, do you think?

    Subtle!!
    

| <<< Note 47.95 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

| You misuse the term "slam against".

	How so John?

    In my best British accent...
    
    He may have been dead, but He got better! 

    SNARF!

    Steve, so you've seen him then?
    
    ...Tom

    Define "seen"...

    re: .102
    
    Seen - Past participle of see.
    
    See - To perceive with the eye, to apprehend by the sense of sight, to
    know through first hand experience, to meet or be in the company of, to
    visit socially, to meet.
    
    I think that about covers it.
    
    ...Tom

    Then the answer is yes.  "to meet or be in the company of"
    
    He will never leave me or forsake me.  Guess that could be interpreted
    as 'being in the company of', even though I have never seen
    him with my eyes.  
    
    Next question... 

    
    
     Has anyone ever "seen" the wind?
    

    There are many ways to "see" the wind. Jesus is in the mind only. But
    we have had this discussion many times. So, I for one will end the
    rathole here.
    
    ...Tom

| <<< Note 47.106 by DASHER::RALSTON "Ain't Life Fun!" >>>


| There are many ways to "see" the wind. 

	Yeah... place a lit match to your butt....

    Define "participle" - and be sure to document it...
    
    Also, where can I get a whole one now?

    The author of this piece is the new Minority Leader in the House.  I
    have been unimpressed with him ever since he attacked South Korea's
    trade rules and proposed protectionist retaliation during his failed
    bid for the Democratic nomination for President in 1988.  I consider
    him the worst kind of populist; one who is willing to ignore economic
    fundamentals to pander to perceived public opinion.  Here is his
    attempt to define a new democratic identity.  It sounds to me like he
    hasn't come to grips with the fact that he's now the opposition, and
    doesn't get to set policy.
    
    DougO
    -----
    Democrats to work on a sacred contract

    By Richard Gephardt

    IN THE past month, there have been endless interpretations of this
    year's anti-Democratic electoral earthquake. Pundits say, ``Voters want
    change.'' And  they do. But change from what -- to what? Pollsters tell
    us, ``Voters are angry.'' And  they are. But why? And at whom?

    Voter anger and hostility toward government played a large role in the 
    Democrats' mid-term defeat, to be sure. But most of the conventional
    wisdom about the  election misses the point -- because it almost
    inevitably ignores the reasons behind  voter rage. At their core, those
    reasons have to do with basic economic opportunity -- not  partisan
    ideology.

    Democrats presided over an economic recovery -- and that's important.
    But we  didn't speak to the sense that today's recovery is different
    from every other recovery  we've seen since World War II, because it's
    a recovery in which profits are growing,  but wages and opportunities
    are shrinking.

    We must question a recovery in which Wall Street is strong, but wages
    are weak,  a recovery in which, unemployment is down, but
    underemployment is up.

    For 15 years, incomes have eroded. Our families are working longer
    hours, more  jobs, and even extra part-time jobs -- and they're still
    barely making ends meet.  Democrats came to power in 1992 promising to
    reverse that wage slide. But we didn't. No  wonder the voters gave us
    pink slips.

    But while Democrats have not done enough to solve the problem,
    Republicans  aren't even aware of its existence. Their celebrated
    ``Contract with America'' is all  slogans and hot buttons -- without so
    much as a wink or a nod about real jobs or  opportunities. When you
    read all the fine print, it's trickle-down economics all over again:
    huge  tax giveaways for the most affluent. Defense increases. Deficit
    explosion. What do working  families get in return? More painful
    economic decay and decline.

    What America needs is not some shiny sham contract, but a government
    that  reaffirms the oldest, most sacred contract we have in this
    country -- that if you work  hard, you can have a high and rising
    standard of living.

    Some say Democrats should move to the right. Or move to the left. Or
    move to the  center. Wherever that may be. But I say: It's not about
    moving left or right -- it's  about doing right. It's about
    rediscovering the heart and the soul of the Democratic Party  -- which
    is to fight for the working families that make this country great.

    That is why, as my first order of business in the new Congress, I am
    proposing a substantial tax cut for workers, anyone earning less than
    $75,000 a year,  whether or not they have a family -- as opposed to the
    Republicans, who would give it to the  wealthiest Americans, as long as
    they have children. Under my proposal, we would allow the families that
    really need tax relief to simply stop paying taxes on part of  their
    income.

    After a dozen years of tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, isn't
    it time to  even the score? Moreover, anyone who thinks that even a few
    hundred dollars in tax relief  is insignificant is woefully out of
    touch with the lives of working people in this  country.

    Of course, a tax cut is only an initial step. Democrats can no longer
    allow our  economy to move forward while our people stand still. In the
    last 12 years, worker  productivity has increased by 18 percent, while
    inflation-adjusted wages have dropped by 4  percent.

    To address this glaring inequity, I am developing a program called
    ``Pay For Productivity.'' By offering special incentives, we will
    encourage companies to  let their workers share in the profits -- to
    make sure our people can share in our  economic success.

    Finally, the Republicans have pledged an early vote on a constitutional 
    amendment to balance the federal budget. I believe in a balanced
    budget. But the question  isn't whether you do it -- it's how you do
    it, on whose backs.

    So on the first day of the 104th Congress, I'm going to file an honest
    budget  bill. It's a rule that requires the Republicans to tell us
    exactly how they would balance the  budget, before their amendment goes
    to the states for debate. We won't delay their vote  on the amendment.
    But neither will we allow them to balance the budget on the backs of
    working people and senior citizens.

    These ideas are just the beginning. Defining a new economic compact --
    restoring  hope and opportunity at a time of constant change and
    confusion -- is the central  challenge not merely for my political
    party, but for our entire country. But for the  working people of this
    country -- the people who give their blood, sweat, toil and tears each
    and  every day -- we must keep struggling, and keep working, until we
    find the answers that  lead to real opportunity.

    Richard Gephardt is the incoming House Democratic leader, representing
    the 3rd Congressional District in Missouri.

Published 12/16/94 in the San Jose Mercury News.

 >>   After a dozen years of tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans,
 >>   isn't it time to  even the score? Moreover, anyone who thinks that even a
 >>   few hundred dollars in tax relief  is insignificant is woefully out of
 >>   touch with the lives of working people in this  country.
    
    I get quite perturbed when I read sentences like the first.  This is a
    clear cut example of class envy.  NO IT IS NOT TIME FOR US TO EVEN THE
    SCORE!!!  Gephart...pack your bags, take your friends...and GO AWAY!!
    You and your clones have screwed things up enough over the last 30
    years.  Leave businesses alone so that they can compete with their
    foreign counterparts and create jobs!  GO AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    -Jack

    
    In all the tax hoopla, you will hear many big numbers thrown around.
    
    A good guess is that $1B means about $10 to you.  So a $25B military
    increase means $250.  A $60B tax cut over 5 years is $120/year for 5
    years.
    
    Always ignore statements like "only 20 cents a week".  That's $10B.
    
      bb

    Jack, do you think businessmen are of a different class?

    No I don't.  But I do believe taxes need to be implemented equitably.  
    
    The Gepharts of the world are leaning on the entrepreneaur too much. 
    This is stifling business in this country.
    
    The private sector are the job creators of the world.  
    
    -Jack

   Jack, should businesses get preferential treatment?

    How about a flat tax rate for *everyone* - businesses and individuals?
    
    Why must we have this complicated MESS we call a tax system?  There is 
    *abosolutely* NO viable reason for it.  It only makes life harder on those 
    who wish to start a small business.  If you want job creation, how about 
    simplifying the system and making it equitable for all?  It's simply
    too complicated as it is.
    
    If a non-accountant can't understand the system without hours (years?) of
    research, then it should be done away with (same goes with common
    law..if it takes a team of lawyers to understand it, then it should be
    replaced with something much simpler).
    
    
    -steve

	Steve, what flat tax % would you be happy with? How about all states
doing the same too? What % would you give them?

    The ideas of freedom and responsibility contradict the premises of both
    conservatives and liberals. All such advocates of government control
    claim that individuals must in various ways be controlled by force or
    coersion to keep them from hurting themselves and others. This is the
    myth perpetrated by politicians regardless of right or left leanings.
    This myth falsely implies that free individuals will normally pursue
    irrational self-interests such as fraud ,theft, assult, rape, murder,
    if not controlled by government force or regulation. Irrationality, by
    nature, never works to the well-being of anyone. The human organism, as
    any living organism, if unfettered and free, works by nature toward the
    long-range best interests of everyone. Individuals free to function
    toward their own rational, nonsacrificial self-interests will achieve
    prosperity for themselves, others and society. If they allow themselves
    to be coersed and sacrificed, everyone loses except those who promote
    coersion and sacrifice, such as politicians. Republican, Democrat, 
    conservative, liberal, right, left, moderate politicians all subscribe
    to the control theory, to the detriment of every individual in society.
    
    ...Tom

    Tom:
    
    I agree with everything you said except one phrase about individuals
    naturally work for the well-being of everyone...

    Steve:
    
    I am firmly against get-even-withem-isms.  I believe government needs
    to stay out of businesses business and allow the free market do what
    they do best.  Creating jobs and stimulating economic growth!   
    
    Robert Reisch (sp?) attempting a job creation program this year.  They
    spent millions of dollars on this and a small percentage of the trained
    were able to get jobs commensurate with their training.  These are
    burger flipper jobs by the way and it was determined that each job cost
    the government $80K.  This is dismal!
    
    -Jack

            <<< Note 47.118 by DASHER::RALSTON "Ain't Life Fun!" >>>
                            -< It's all the same! >-

Yeah, that's the ticket! Lets dump all government, regulation. controls!
Govern is the invention of nonproducing parasites to prey on producers.
Human nature, left to its natural state, without bloodsucking 
beaurocracies, is a thing of beauty. A vital, GOOD, force. 

Like Somalia.

 <<< Note 47.121 by HUMANE::USMVS::DAVIS >>>
    
 >>   Yeah, that's the ticket! Lets dump all government, regulation.
 >>   controls!
    
    Curiosity question.  It appears liberals are the biggest proponents of
    keeping the abortion issue government free.  Is that the case with you
    also?  If so, are you speaking from both sides of your mouth (assuming
    you are being a cynic above)
    
    -Jack

    
    re, .121 - Yes, except that Somalia is an opposite example -
    typical result of government.
    
      bb

         <<< Note 47.122 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>

I'm not talking out of both sides of my mouth, Jack, and you know it. I'm 
poking holes in Ralston's all-gov-is-parasite schpiel. I don't say gov 
should do all things. Who would? 

                      <<< Note 47.123 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>
                              -< You've got it ! >-

    
>    re, .121 - Yes, except that Somalia is an opposite example -
>    typical result of government.
    
Say what? It's an anarchy of war lords. It is what remains when a govt 
collapses and dies.

    	Businesses shouldn't be taxed at all.  Consumers end up paying
    	that tax anyway since the costs of the taxes are rolled into the 
    	prices they pay for goods and services.  But in doing that, they
    	are unaware of what taxes are really costing them.
    
    	Put the full burden of taxation on the consumer -- either through 
    	a flat-rate tax or a sales tax or whatever vehicle is best.  This
    	would be the most honest form of taxation from the perspective of
    	allowing the consumer to see just how much taxes are really costing 
    	him.

    
    "Equal treatment" of businesses ?  What nonsense is this.  Would we
    insist on equal treatment of rocks ?  Businesses are not people - they
    only exist for people's benefit.  We should do what is in people's
    best interests, namely, have effective businesses which provide all
    the goods and services we need at our least cost.  If that means
    treating them equally or unequally, we should do either.
    
    Taxing business profits is stupid - I'd rather tax business losses,
    to punish those doing a bad job, seize their assets, and redeploy
    them to the profitable ones.  What drivel.
    
      bb

    And most beer and wine consumers in the states (not to mention harder
    spirits) would balk when they realize just how many "sin" taxes have
    been put on these products...to the tune of 50-60% of the total cost.
    
    -steve

   But businesses are "persons" in a limited sense under the Constitution.
   Businesses have rights and privileges.  National policy is directed in
   part toward businesses.  We have even gone to war and sacrificed the
   lives of citizens to protect business interests.  Why shouldn't
   businesses pay their fair share to enjoy such rights, privileges, and
   protections?

    Steve:
    
    Here's where you and I differ.  Businesses are entities, made up of
    people but entities nonetheless.  There sole purposes are to provide a
    service and primarily to make a profit.  Businesses owe the government
    and the people nothing.  They are driven by market forces.  Anything
    else is icing on the cake in order to make them competitive.
    
    I can understand the businesses paying local taxes for the use of
    municiple services etc.  However, I believe the federal government is
    an intrusive entity that brings them nothing but grief.  Another thing,
    I cringe when I hear the term, "fair share".  It implies that somebody
    is getting screwed by Uncle Sam.
    
    -Jack

re: .117

>	Steve, what flat tax % would you be happy with? How about all states
>doing the same too? What % would you give them?

I'll be happy with the current Texas State Income Tax rate for both Federal
and all states.

Bob

    i'd be happier with the current cow hampster state income tax rate for
    both state and federal.

	Well, I think Binder has something there... but for the fun of it, what
is the current State tax in Texas? 0%?

re: .132, .133

The Texas and Nude Hampster rate are the same...0%

Bob

    yeah, but cow hampster gots no SALES tax, too.  can texas make that
    claim?

Nope, but what's that got to do with .132???

    Texas has an 8% sales tax (or thereabout).  

	Well Steve, you were in this topic.... now what do you think that flat
tax should be?

    5% federal...leave the rest up to the states (who should be the one's
    handling all social spending like welfare, housing, food stamps, add
    nauseum).
    
    I don't agree with the current system of direct taxation (for many
    reasons, some Constitutional), but it's too late to close pandora's
    box.
    
    -steve

| <<< Note 47.139 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>

| 5% federal...leave the rest up to the states (who should be the one's handling
| all social spending like welfare, housing, food stamps, add nauseum).

	What would that 5% roughly come to Steve, and what would you then spend
it on?

	Also, if we leave the rest up to the states, would it be ok for some
states to charge more than others? If so, doesn't that take up back to our
current situation? OR, would you like a flat tax for them as well?


Glen

    Let's reign in the federal government then straighten out the states. 
    First things first.
    
    -steve

	No way Steve! If we follow your plan of a 5% tax for everyone, every
business, we would just be shifting the problems of taxes being too high from
the federal government to the states, who would charge their own tax. If you
are going to address the problem of taxes, address the whole problem, not part
of it. Or is it that we will just keep shifting the taxes from the fed to the 
state back to the fed (etc) governments?

	Also, you want to enlist this new tax program for us. You must have a
figure that the fed gov will be taking in. You must also have an idea on just
what you want to spend it on. So share that with us if you would.



Glen

    
    
    That's okay, Glen.  It will force the power back where it was intended
    to be in the first place, at the state level.
    
    
    Mike

    
    This new "federalism", which is not just a conservative idea, is
    the return of an idea several times championed and deplored by
    various parties.  I think it is most attractive in times of peace
    and economic normalcy.  Experimentation at the state level has its
    advantages, after all.  In times of large national catastrophe,
    it goes back out of fashion.  Personally, I think it suits the times
    right now very well.  Time to downsize the feds, decentralize.
    
      bb

| <<< Note 47.143 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "No eggnoggin n tobogganin" >>>



| That's okay, Glen.  It will force the power back where it was intended
| to be in the first place, at the state level.


	But it won't change anything on the tax front Mike. It won't change
anything on gov running everything, which is something everyone seems to bitch
about.


Glen

    re: Note 47.121 by HUMANE::USMVS::DAVIS 
    
    > Yeah, that's the ticket! Lets dump all government, regulation.
    > controls!
    
    Somalia doesn't have a Constitution like ours.   Have you ever 
    read ours?  Gov't is "free" to regulate business all they want, but 
    they commonly get into the business of regulating individuals as well.
    That's a problem.
    
    MadMike

    And if taxes are too high in one state, you can at least MOVE to an
    area that isn't so bad.  States will soon figure out that without
    citizens, it has no money and will react accordingly.
    
    Mike is right about my idea, put the power back where it belongs.  Once
    this is done and solidified, we can all fix our own local problems (and
    I'd hate to be in one of those welfare states that is supporting 30+%
    of its population (in some cities) via federeal boondoggle.  Can you
    say "welfare reform" in earnest...I thought you could.  8^)
    
    -steve

    BTW, 5% is plenty for the fed...if it were doing ONLY what it is
    supposed to be doing.  70% or so of its entire budget (if not more) is
    social spending or redundant beauracracies.
    
    -steve

    re: Note 47.129 by TNPUBS::JONG "Steve"
    
    > But businesses are "persons" in a limited sense under the Constitution.
    
    BS.  Show me where.  You got it bassackwards.  "Business" (actually
    incorparated business) is an artificial entity existing at the whim of 
    the state.  A PERSON is usually an Individual.  It is common to turn 
    persons, or individuals into psudo-corparations, violating or 
    circumventing the Constitution.
    
    MadMike

| <<< Note 47.147 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>


| And if taxes are too high in one state, you can at least MOVE to an area that 
| isn't so bad. States will soon figure out that without citizens, it has no 
| money and will react accordingly.

	So lets see, these people pack up all their belongings, sell their
house if they own one, move to another state, find another job. How much of a
cost to the person? Not just in $$$, but in anquish, frustration, etc? All this
so eventually a state will lower their taxes? Now then the states with a lot of
people could very easily raise their taxes, and the move is on again. Steve,
this has got to be one of the most unthought out plans I have ever heard. And
from you I am surprised it's one you would back. Why not just keep things the
way they are now, we could at least MOVE to another country. Try again Steve.

	But you still haven't stated any figures to back your 5% fed tax. Or
what it would be used on. Is this because you don't really know if it will work
under the 5% plan, and that you don't realize what programs it will actually
fund? How did you come to 5%?


Glen

    
    
    Steve, er, I believe it was the idea of the founders of the country.
    
    
    
    Glen,
    
    
    It's easier to get the ear of your local politician than that of your
    federal rep.  Also, the capitol's of most states are closer for most
    people than the capitol of the nation.
    
    
    
    Mike
    

| <<< Note 47.148 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>

| BTW, 5% is plenty for the fed...if it were doing ONLY what it is
| supposed to be doing.  70% or so of its entire budget (if not more) is
| social spending or redundant beauracracies.

	You made the claim, now how about some details?

    	5%?  Probably a guess.
    
    	That's why we have professional bureaucrats and experts and
    	all to figure out the proper levels.

| <<< Note 47.151 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "No eggnoggin n tobogganin" >>>



| It's easier to get the ear of your local politician than that of your
| federal rep.  Also, the capitol's of most states are closer for most
| people than the capitol of the nation.

	Mike, they might be closer, but do they listen any better?

    
    Dick Armey's proposed flat tax is around 17%.  I think you need 4%
    just for the interest on the debt.  Don't think 5% could be achieved
    without some other source of revenue (sales or VAT or some such).
    
      bb

    
    
    
    Depends upon how hard you beat on them.
    
    
    

   Anent .149: In the 14th amendment, Mike.  It has been interpreted since
   the 1880s as applying in a limited sense to corporations, starting with
   the railroads. (The framers later claimed they meant that all along.)
   
   Look in the _American Encyclopedia of Law_ under "person."
   
   (I think you know what I was doing there 8^)

   As far as Steve Leech's 5% flat tax goes, you'd need 9% just to pay the
   interest on the national debt (which is a constitutional obligation) and
   to fund the Department of Defense at current levels (national defense is
   also a constitutional obligation, though arguably not at current
   levels).  This ignores all other explicitly stated, constitutionally 
   mandated governmental activites, let alone the ones Steve Leech claims
   are unconstitutional.

    	It's ludicrous to expect that someone in this forum would be
    	qualified to determine a proper level for a flat tax rate.
    
    	I'm surprised that Steve fell for the constant calls for him
    	to provide such a rate.  All that his guess has accomplished
    	was to provide others with another stick with which to beat
    	him.  No matter what number he gave, it would be used as such 
    	a weapon.
    
    	Is that really the only purpose for this particular string?

   No, this string is to discuss the politics of the *left*.
   I doubt anyone on the left is interested in dismantling the federal
   government.  But scine Steve Leech decided to plant his stake in the
   ground, especially in light of his previous statements about dismantling
   the federal government, he's fair game 8^)

    
    Um, your own Prex is doing exactly that as we speak.
    
      bb

    re: Flat tax = high teens.
    
|   Dick Armey's proposed flat tax is around 17%. 
    
    WRONG.  Dick Armey's proposed flat INCOME tax is 21%, with it falling to
    17% a few years later.  No deductions.  (That's your house.)  No credits.
    One exemption.  FICA and Medicare would stay the current 15 and change.
    Capital Gains and interest income, however, would be taxed at 0%.
    
    So his flat tax looks very un-flat.
    
    			Earned Marginal Rate	Unearned Marginal Rate
    0-7500		15%			0%
    7500-60ish		36%			0%
    Above		21%			0%
    
    
    What amazes me more is that so many loonies buy into this "flat"
    nonsense.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    The same "loonies" as make up 75% of the prm electorate, I'd
    expect.  Yes, the flat income tax falls eventually to around
    17%, under the Armey plan, which in the current climate is considered
    a CENTRIST proposal.  The radical change is to repeal the income
    tax, disband the IRS, sell their buildings, lay off their swine
    employees.  Then just institute a sales tax, with a few auditors
    to police the collecting habits of businesses.
    
    Social Security is not even a tax, actually, so of course we leave
    that out.  Do you consider your 401k deduction a "tax" ?
    
      bb

   36%?  Wow!
   
   Anyway, President Clinton is *trimming* government.  No comparison to
   the meat-axe talk in here.  And no one is arguing that the government is
   optimally efficient now.

mr.bill, if you're going to cook your figures that way, it behooves you to
get Medicare right.  There's no 60-odd K limit on Medicare.

>    Social Security is not even a tax, actually, so of course we leave
>    that out.  
    
    	Oracle has no qualms about calling SS a tax on our paychecks!  :^)

| <<< Note 47.159 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Plucky kind of a kid" >>>



| It's ludicrous to expect that someone in this forum would be qualified to 
| determine a proper level for a flat tax rate.

	Joe, I couldn't agree with you more. He made the claim, and made it
seem like it would be easy. He said that the states could take care of their
own, and those states who charge too much, well, those people could just move.
He hasn't stated anything about who would get what money, so what I was trying
to prove is it isn't as cut and dry as he had made it seem. 



Glen

    	I saw Steve make the call for a flat rate, but I didn't see
    	anything about it being easy.  He *DID* say that current tax
    	law is difficult, and that a flat rate would simplify things...
    
    	As for states charging too much tax and losing population because
    	of it, I agree with him.  It's a matter of simple economics.
    
>He hasn't stated anything about who would get what money, so what I was trying
>to prove is it isn't as cut and dry as he had made it seem. 
    
    	It is also ludicrous to expect someone in this forum to know
    	who will get what money.
    
    	I don't see that Steve has tried to make it all that cut-and-dried
    	-- especially on the micro-accounting level that you seem to
    	require.  He has proposed a general idea -- a flat rate tax --
    	and it is a quantum leap to go from discussing that to discussing
    	micro details.
    
    	I think Steve made a mistake in bowing to your repeated calls
    	for a specific tax rate, and he will be equally wrong to try to 
    	answer your call for such details as you are asking.

.158>   As far as Steve Leech's 5% flat tax goes, you'd need 9% just to pay the
>   interest on the national debt (which is a constitutional obligation) 
    
    	If you'll recall, Steve said:
    
.148>    BTW, 5% is plenty for the fed...if it were doing ONLY what it is
>    supposed to be doing.  
    
    	Does the federal government have a constitutional OBLIGATION to
    	have a national debt?  Are we OBLIGED to carry the level of
    	debt that we currently do?
    
    	I contend that the level of debt that the government currently
    	carries is *NOT* part of what the government "is supposed to
    	be doing" -- especially from the point of view from which Steve
    	was coming when he estimated his 5% -- and therefore it is 
    	unfair to force his number to support the expense of servicing
    	that debt.

    Re: .165
    
    >if you're going to cook your figures that way,
    
    
    I'll take mine rare. :-@
    
    ...Tom

    
    You are quite right, over the past few years the Medicare contribution
    went from having the same limit as FICA, to a higher limit than FICA,
    to no limit at all.  Nice nit there.  Fixing the tables:
    
    Armey's "flat" tax is *still* anything but....
    
    			Earned Marginal Rate	Unearned Marginal Rate
    0-7500		15%			0%
    7500-60ish		36%			0%
    Above 60ish		24%			0%
    
    
    As far as "cooking" the figures, consider this.
    
    
    A friend is considering putting $5,000 into a DCRA account.  The friend
    has qualifying child care expenses far in excess of that amount.
    They want to know if this is a good idea, so you tell them that they
    really ought to ask an accountant.
    
    Oh, your friend is self employed.  And your friend estimates that their
    adjusted gross earnings (without the DCRA) will be between 60K and 70K.
    
    Politicians lie.  Marginal tax rates don't.
    
    								-mr. bill

re: .150

>	So lets see, these people pack up all their belongings, sell their
>house if they own one, move to another state, find another job. How much of a
>cost to the person? Not just in $$$, but in anquish, frustration, etc? All this
>so eventually a state will lower their taxes? Now then the states with a lot of
>people could very easily raise their taxes, and the move is on again. Steve,
>this has got to be one of the most unthought out plans I have ever heard. And
>from you I am surprised it's one you would back. Why not just keep things the
>way they are now, we could at least MOVE to another country. Try again Steve.

Try again, Glen.  I moved from Ohio to Texas a long time ago for two reasons:

1)  I got tired of winter.

2)  I was fed up with paying taxes to every entity in the state.  I've
forgotten the %, but in addition to the usual Federal taxes, I was paying a
state income tax, a city income tax to the city I lived in, and a city income
tax to the city I worked in.  ENOUGH ALREADY!  I got ~10% raise when I moved,
and my NET income increased 30% due to the raise and lower taxes!

Bob

    Anent .171: If mr. bill's figures are correct and the rate drops 12%
    above 60ish, then I am dead-set against it.

    Anent .169: Joe, the United States is obliged to pay its debts; sez so
    in the Constitution.  Now, if you want to argue that we don't have to
    such a *large* debt, or even that we don't have to *have* a debt, I'll
    agree, but please tell me where we'll find four trillion dollars.

    	You're right.  Moot point.  I agree with your whole entry.  My 
    	point (moot as it was) was that Steve's number was qualified by 
    	a big IF.  Today's reality doesn't fit that IF, so it is unfair 
    	to demand that Steve's number fit today's reality.  Nothing more.

| <<< Note 47.168 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Plucky kind of a kid" >>>


| It is also ludicrous to expect someone in this forum to know who will get 
| what money.

	Then maybe he shouldn't have given a flat rate of 5% to begin with? He
thought that rate would be ok. He MUST have had reasons for it.

| I don't see that Steve has tried to make it all that cut-and-dried 

	By not saying where the money is going is what makes it cut and dry. By
saying states could set whatever rate they want, and if people didn't like it,
they could move, makes it seem quite cut and dry to me.


Glen

| <<< Note 47.172 by ROWLET::AINSLEY "Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow!" >>>


| 2)  I was fed up with paying taxes to every entity in the state.  I've
| forgotten the %, but in addition to the usual Federal taxes, I was paying a
| state income tax, a city income tax to the city I lived in, and a city income
| tax to the city I worked in.  ENOUGH ALREADY!  I got ~10% raise when I moved,
| and my NET income increased 30% due to the raise and lower taxes!

	Bob, did you have the money to move? Did you move yourself, or a
family? Did you have family issue to deal with (uprooting several people, kids
going to a new school, etc)?  How about having to hunt down a house so your
family could move into? Or an apartment? Did you move from within the same
company or to a new one? What of those who's skills sets are lesser than yours?
All of these things and more come into play for many people Bob. How did you
stack up to any of these things? I know for me, being single, it would be
easier to just pack up and move. But for a family, with many different skill
sets, will it be so easy? Besides, what if they like the place they are living
in? What if they had always lived in that area? But now they leave because of
taxes? Does this make sense Bob?


Glen

re: .177

I was sort of in the middle...working spouse, house, no kids.  I changed
companies.  The company paid moving expenses, nothing more.  Took a loss on
the house and my spouse found a new job.

Now that I've answered the question, I'm not sure I know what the point of our
discussion is:-(

Bob

    re: .150
    
    Life is hard, no?  Tough times call for tough measures...though I think
    you are looking at the whole idea negatively.  Just maybe, by
    localizing the power (money), we will solve many of the problems
    inherant in the federalized system (redundant beauracracies and the
    multi-levels of federal government waste).  Just maybe, things will be
    BETTER.  It will be in the long run...which is worth a little
    suffering, if you value the lives of our children and grandchildren.
    
    -steve

    re: .155
    
    17% is needed IF the federal government continues to handle
    entitlements and the plethora of other social spending it should not be
    doing.
    
    You are correct about the interest on the debt, though.  5% would not
    be enough to run the federal gov. and pay off our debts.  
    
    If we had no debt, I think 5% would work, since the states would be
    taking over ALL the social programs.
    
    -steve

| <<< Note 47.179 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>


| Life is hard, no?  Tough times call for tough measures...though I think
| you are looking at the whole idea negatively.  

	Realistically is more like it Steve. The way it works now, most aren't
going to have to move. Under your plan, people just may have to. The whole
point of bringing it up in the first place is this, your plan takes the problem
of high taxes away from the government, and then shifts them onto the states.
You say don't worry about the states until we get the government fixed. Why
shouldn't we try to fix the mess instead of just shifting it? You mention maybe
this, maybe that. Hasn't our fed government been giving us a bunch of hope in
their hot air balloon that bursts almost everytime? 

	You see, I think we would agree on a lot of the things that the states
should take over. I think we would agree with most of a flat tax plan (the
amount may differ). But what we don't agree with, it would seem, is that we
should deal with one thing first, while the problems shift to another. That
does not make sense to me. 


Glen

    Joe has it right...the 5% figure was thrown out as an ideal (meaning if
    we had no debt and if the FG handled ONLY what is is supposed to
    handle).  I tossed it out only because I was incessantly badgered to do
    so, it was not supposed to be a cut and dried figure, but a starting
    point to further conversation on the issue. 
    
    Remember, this is an IT.  We still have other ways of bringing in
    money.  
    
    If everyone wishes to continue to badger me on this 5% figure, have at
    it.  When you are done, let me know and I'll drop back in this topic
    for real discussion.
    
    It planning a deficit budget constitutional?  If not, then the point
    regarding our debt is moot with regards to my ideal 5% (though in
    reality, we will have to figure out a way to pay off our debt, and a
    flat 5% rate will not cut it).
    
    
    -steve

| <<< Note 47.180 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>


| If we had no debt, I think 5% would work, since the states would be
| taking over ALL the social programs.

	Ok Steve, the debt has magically disappeared. Now show us how this 5%
will work. What you will spend it on, how much will be collected. You seem to
think it will work, you even seem confident in it, now show us the 5% in
action.


Glen

| <<< Note 47.182 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>


| Joe has it right...the 5% figure was thrown out as an ideal (meaning if
| we had no debt and if the FG handled ONLY what is is supposed to handle).  

	Have you read .180 Steve? Your last line says it differently, doesn't
it? Seems more like a fact than an ideal.

Note 47.181 by BIGQ::SILVA 

| Life is hard, no?  Tough times call for tough measures...though I think
| you are looking at the whole idea negatively.  

>	Realistically is more like it Steve. 
    
    Realistically, there is no perfect solution...SOMEONE will suffer no
    matter what we do.  If we let the fed bloat more, we ALL suffer.  If we
    cut our loses now, and revamp government towards sovereign states
    powers (as it SHOULD) be, some will suffer.  You may be surprised at
    how few will if an adequate plan of reorganization is implemented.
    
    You look at this issue the same way you do the abortion issue and the
    welfare issue...it's always "what about these people?".  I say, what
    about THIS NATION as a whole?  We cannot save everyone (welfare
    mentality), nor can we make a seamless transition to decentralization
    of power.  In the end, though, THIS NATION will be infinitely better
    off.  We need to do this for our children...aren't THEY worth suffering
    for?  Wouldn't you like to see them come of age with HOPE for the
    future? (I don't have any kids, and I am still willing to suffer for
    the next generation...as it is, they will come of age owing the
    government more money than they can ever hope to pay, via national
    debt.).
    
>    The way it works now, most aren't
>going to have to move. Under your plan, people just may have to. 
                                                     ^^^
    Key word underlined.  No one will HAVE to move, though many may choose
    to move due to unrealistic state tax policies in some states.  States
    like Texas will probably fare better than most, since they don't have
    city or state taxes.
    
>    The whole
>point of bringing it up in the first place is this, your plan takes the problem
>of high taxes away from the government, and then shifts them onto the states.
>You say don't worry about the states until we get the government fixed. Why
>shouldn't we try to fix the mess instead of just shifting it? 
    
    The only way to "fix" it, is to shift the power back to where it is
    SUPPOSED to be.  I don't suggest that you disband the federal
    government and THEN work of state problems...I suggest that a
    decentralization plan be put into effect, each state working towards a
    smooth transition for their unique problems.
    
>    You mention maybe
>this, maybe that. Hasn't our fed government been giving us a bunch of hope in
>their hot air balloon that bursts almost everytime? 

    The federal government gives me NO hope, no matter what they say.  The
    power is too centralized.  Until this is dealt with, it will be
    business as usual.  Our FF warned us of a large central government, yet
    we went and created one anyway...ignoring all balances and restrictions
    written into the Constitution. 
    
>	You see, I think we would agree on a lot of the things that the states
>should take over. I think we would agree with most of a flat tax plan (the
>amount may differ). But what we don't agree with, it would seem, is that we
>should deal with one thing first, while the problems shift to another. That
>does not make sense to me. 

    Okay, let me ammend my all-too blunt statement.  I never really meant
    dismantle the excess now and let the states pick up the peices (though
    I realize that is what my statement sounded like).  I suggest a
    comprehensive plan of decentralization.  Each state knows how many
    welfare/SS/publicly housed/etc. people there are, and should be able to
    plan accordingly in a new tax structure (that will be ratified with the
    consent of the people of that state).  Other problems/social spending
    expenditures can also be included in such a budget and tax scheme.
    
    Each state should work up its own plan for transition of power (money).
    
    Please note that without the fed eating up a huge chunk of individual
    taxes, there may not be ANY tax increase in some states (the welfare
    states will be in trouble, however, and will have to rethink their
    programs for rational reform).
    
    What is so bad about getting back to what our FF set up?
    
    
    -steve

    Glen,
    
    Why don't you show me why 5% WON'T work in an ideal situation?  Seems
    that before WWII, we didn't have much in the way of federal taxation
    and we got along just fine.
    
    -steve

| <<< Note 47.186 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>


| Why don't you show me why 5% WON'T work in an ideal situation?  Seems
| that before WWII, we didn't have much in the way of federal taxation
| and we got along just fine.

	Sorry Steve, ain't lettin you off the hook that easy. You say it will
work just fine. Show us how.

	.176

>| It is also ludicrous to expect someone in this forum to know who will get 
>| what money.
>
>	Then maybe he shouldn't have given a flat rate of 5% to begin with?
    
    	Maybe he shouldn't have.  I personally think he shouldn't have.
    	The fact that he did does not change unreasonableness of expecting
    	even more details.
    
> He MUST have had reasons for it.
    
    	I have my suspicions for those reasons.  :^)
    

>| I don't see that Steve has tried to make it all that cut-and-dried 
>
>	By not saying where the money is going is what makes it cut and dry.
    
    	I disagree.  Not providing details makes it all the more FUZZY,
    	not cut-and-dried.
    
>	By
>saying states could set whatever rate they want, and if people didn't like it,
>they could move, makes it seem quite cut and dry to me.
    
    	To you.  We'll leave it at that.

    	re .183. .188
    
    	See the first line of .159.

    re: .187
    
    Glen, you were doing fine until your last two statements.
    
    -steve

	Steve, the last statement was a joke. Forgot the smiley. :-)

	The 2nd to the last one isn't. All states get money from the government
to run certain programs. If the government goes to a 5% flat tax along with
having the states run the social programs, they will need to make up the money
they were getting from the government, so they would have to raise taxes. I
could see every state having to raise taxes to pay for these programs. While
I'm sure the programs would become streamlined, they would still need to be
funded. 

	How did you think this was not doing fine?


Glen

Note 47.192 
    
    
>	Steve, the last statement was a joke. Forgot the smiley. :-)

    Okay.
    
>	The 2nd to the last one isn't. All states get money from the government
>to run certain programs. 
    
    Yes, but where does the fed get its money?
    
>    If the government goes to a 5% flat tax along with
>having the states run the social programs, 
    
    Then the states will have more money available to them as they are
    sending less off to the fed.
    
>    they will need to make up the money
>they were getting from the government, 
    
    No, they won't, because less money will be leaving the states to be
    wasted by the fed.
    
>    so they would have to raise taxes. 
    
    Welfare states WILL inevitably have to raise their state tax, as they
    have been getting a free ride from the other states.  Maybe then these
    liberal welfare states will realize that there is no such thing as a
    free lunch (when they are stuck with the bill).
    
>    I could see every state having to raise taxes to pay for these programs. 
>    While I'm sure the programs would become streamlined, they would still 
>    need to be funded. 

    You forget that with only a 5% flat tax IT going to the fed, EVRYONE
    will have more money in their paycheck.  Even if the state raises its
    tax, it may not take as much out of your paycheck than before
    decentralization.
    
    You have to remember that the fed. gets its money from the
    states/people, it has no money on its own.  If there is less money
    leaving the state, then there is more money in that state to work with.

    
    -steve 

    
    More from Barnicle in the Globe...
    
    
    "Meanwhile, Democrats are in the funeral business: their own. They have
    not had an original thought since 1968, the last time they fielded
    candidates who grabbed the Republic's imagination."

    
    Speaking of speeches, there was an important one by a legislator
    delivered yesterday, although he wasn't on Capitol Hill.  Speaking
    at a National Press Club Luncheon, Ted Kennedy spoke defiantly.
    Among other things, he said democrats who did not come out forthrightly
    for all the good old liberal causes - health care, welfare, taxes on
    the wealthy, regulation of business - were defeated, and now try to
    blame it on Clinton when it was their own fault.
    
    Then he said that if the Democratic Party would stand on its
    liberalism, it would come roaring back to victory in 1996.  And he
    lashed out at insensitive tightfisted Republicans, etc...
    
    He hasn't changed a bit, and never claimed to.
    
      bb

Interesting. He said the same thing (same cue cards {written in BIG
letters}??) on Good Morning America this morning. Charlie Gibson tried to
ask him some questions, but Ted "Do you come here often?" Kennedy only
wanted to say what we wanted to say. 

He kept looking at something below the camera lens, either a teleprompter
or cue cards?

    
    I wonder what happened to that busload of Hoosiers who drove east
    and made commercials for Ted.         

Re: -.2 - Teddy's so big now, he has his own Zip code.

    
    Senator Kennedy and his office has given them assistance, worked
    with the Governor to try to resolve the issue, and not issued any
    press releases on the matter.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
re: <<Note 47.196  GAAS::BRAUCHER>>      
    
   > Then he said that if the Democratic Party would stand on its
   > liberalism, it would come roaring back to victory in 1996.  And he
   > lashed out at insensitive tightfisted Republicans, etc...
    
   > He hasn't changed a bit, and never claimed to.
    
    well, teddy's looking like a real stand-up guy right now compared
    to the laughable antics of dick gephardt, who must be suffering from
    whiplash from the hard right turn he took after the votes were
    counted.  not to mention slick's middle-class bill of rights, which
    popped up so fast it must have been snatched from a "break glass for
    emergency" compartment in the oval office. 
    
    by standing his liberal ground, kennedy quite likely can gain back
    some of the credibility he's lost over the years and become even
    more of a hero to the left - and to the media - while turning over
    the title of party buffoon to gephardt.
    
    bill

    
    FatBoy also expressed to the rogue dems that had they espoused the
    views he did, they would have been voted in the same way he was over
    Romney...
    
      What an ego-maniac...
    

RE: .204 - Teddy "I'll swim for help" Kennedy could have been in the
slammer, had a spike in his vein, been blotto with dementia, raped little
chillun, stolen the candle money from the church, had the worst
attendance record in the Senate (which he did, in the '70s), and
campaigned falling down drunk... and he would have been re-elected.

There's no accounting for magic. Or sense. My mother deserves him (she
votes for him -- when I ask her why, she stares off into space, thinks
hard, and answers "I don't know - because of his brother" and she's
typical).

Art

    
    I don't think Ted deserves the derision he's getting.
    Perhaps in the past, before he remarried but the fact is that he
    has indeed turned his life around and deserves some credit for
    doing so.  He also deserves some credit for sticking to
    his ideology instead of masquerading as a political chameleon
    as so many other politicians do.
    
    And no, I am not a Keneddy supporter.
    
    							Hank

re: .205, Art

I wonder if our mothers were actually sisters . . . . 

All I can say is that Kennedy must be doing something right to have so many 
'boxers STILL tripping over each other to earn the title of Most Bone-Headed, 
Rabid, Senseless Slasher.

The parade of fools never ends...

    RE: .206
    
    	Yes, I'll give credit to Kennedy for stick with his beliefs. 
    However, I still think he is wrong and has spent 32 years too many in
    tbe Senate.
    
    RE: .209
    
    	When someone makes statements that we consider idiotic, such as
    Kennedy thinking liberalism should be the ideology of the Dems,
    shouldn't we constantly address the issue?
    
    ME

    >The parade of fools never ends...
    
     You mean there's more behind you?!!

    
    RE: .208
    
    Did you see Szep's cartoon over the weekend?

| <<< Note 47.209 by REFINE::KOMAR "My congressman is a crook" >>>



| Yes, I'll give credit to Kennedy for stick with his beliefs. However, I still 
| think he is wrong and has spent 32 years too many in tbe Senate.

	I have to admit Judge, sir, that what you wrote above makes perfect
sense, and is really a level headed reply. You gave credit for him sticking to
his beliefs, (especially in these days of waffles galore) but feel he is wrong.
I agree with your first part, but definitely not the 2nd part.

| When someone makes statements that we consider idiotic, such as Kennedy 
| thinking liberalism should be the ideology of the Dems, shouldn't we 
| constantly address the issue?

	Did he mention that L swear word specifically, or is the view he is
putting across sound liberal to you? Because if it is the latter, then you're
projecting your own views into what you wrote above. Could you clarify?


Glen

                       Good answer!  GOOD Answer!!! :-)

           <<< Note 47.210 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

>    >The parade of fools never ends...
    
>     You mean there's more behind you?!!

Touche! (regretfully offered) 

    I don't know if he used the L word specifically.  However, from the
    clips I have seen, he at least implied it.
    
    ME

| <<< Note 47.215 by REFINE::KOMAR "My congressman is a crook" >>>


| -< I'll see if he used the word >-

	Did he???

| I don't know if he used the L word specifically.  However, from the
| clips I have seen, he at least implied it.

	He implied values from what I saw. 

    	Forgot to look.  Soory about that.
    
    ME

    	During their 1 minute speeches yesterday, the Dems in Congress
    wanted to talk about the book deal (Pat Shroeder (sp?) even said a
    special prosecutor should be involved) while the Republicans wanted to
    talk about the issues such as the balanced budget ammendment.
    
    	Speaking of the BBA, Sen. Byrd is fillibustering(sp?) the BBA.  The
    king of pork wants to keep spending money the way we have been.  All
    this from a person who probably thinks we should pay for a tax cut. 
    
    ME

    
    
    Byrd used a little known or cared about rule to keep the BBA from
    leaving committee yesterday.  It will get out today.
    
    
    

    the politics of sabotage at all cost will burn the dems. This stuff is
    too popular to be sat upon (unlike the creation of a huge, new
    government bureaucracy to dictate health care.)

RE: 47.220

The politics of sabotage will burn the Democrats? Your memory must be
terribly short if you've forgotten the politics of sabotage that the
Republicans have been using. You DO remember Whitewatergate, don't you?
Stop your reactionary frothing for a minute and think how much MIGHT
have been accomplished if the Republicans weren't so busy trying to get
the President lynched.

					-K-

           <<< Note 47.220 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

>    the politics of sabotage at all cost will burn the dems. This stuff is
>    too popular to be sat upon (unlike the creation of a huge, new
>    government bureaucracy to dictate health care.)

Interesting association. UHC *was* very popular at first. Even after BC 
announced his plan with his i've-got-a-card speach. A flurry of 
misinformation, dire predictions, misdirections later by the repubs, and it 
wasn't very popular anymore. Same thing could EASILY happen to the BBA.

re: .221, .222

Thanks for some early morning humour on a rainy dreary day.

Bob

    .You DO remember Whitewatergate, don't you?
    
     The subject of an ongoing investigation relative to questionable
    dealings on the part of the first family? Why, yes, I'm well aware of
    them. As are the first family and other members of the coverup team.
    
    .Stop your reactionary frothing
    
     Clue yourself in. Quickly, if possible.
    
     While there is a degree of partisanship involved (when isn't there?),
    there certainly appears to be fire at the source of the Whitewater
    smoke. And the first family has been anything but open and "let's put
    this to rest once and for all." They've been hiding and covering, and
    in general behaving in anything but the manner in which those with
    nothing to hide behave. Democratic stonewalling during the 103rd is
    over. Now perhaps we'll never know just what was going on, but we have
    a far better chance of finding things out now.

    .Interesting association. UHC *was* very popular at first.
    
     Something for nothing schemes always have initial public appeal. Until
    the layers of the onion are peeled away, at least.
    
     Clinton screwed up his chance to reform health care. Blaming it
    entirely on the republicans ignores his mistakes and poor decisions.
    Putting Hillary in charge was a mistake. The republicans didn't do
    that. Allowing all the negotiations between the various interest
    groups to take place behind closed doors was a mistake. Again, not the
    republicans' doing. Going for the golden ring without a comprehensive
    plan in place was a strategic blunder; I suppose you are going to blame
    the republicans for that, too. Read the fine print in the massive
    HillaryCare plan. There's lots of bogus stuff in there. I suppose the
    republicans are responsible for that as well.
    
     The republicans staunchly opposed the ramrod job. Give them the blame
    or credit for that as you see fit. Clinton vastly overestimated his
    "mandate," squandered his political capital on gays in the military and
    other such silliness, and stubbornly refused to reduce the scope of his
    health care proposals in order to post modest victories. Tactical
    mistakes, and very costly. But to blame/credit the republicans with
    somehow engineering Clinton's poor performance gives them entirely too
    much creedit. Clinton screwed up. Are you going to blame the litany of
    poor appointments/nominations on the republicans, too? Please.
    
     The country gave the democrats majorities in the house, the senate and
    control of the whitehouse, and what they actually delivered was little.
    The biggest victory for the whitehouse came on the backs of republicans.
    There is a dearth of leadership in general in Washington, but most
    acutely in the democratic party. Now I have reservations about whether
    the republicans will be any more effective in demonstrating leadership,
    but it's high time they got their chance. And if their attempts to
    deliver popular legislative relief are blocked by congressional
    democrats or the veto pen, I think the next election will hinge upon
    how effectively the republicans can bring their case to the people and
    point out what they need to succeed.
    
     I am guardedly optimistic that progress will be made. I only hope that
    Gingrich does not make the same mistake Clinton made by squandering
    political capital on non-critical pet projects (like an amendment
    allowing prayer in schools, for example.) 

    
      This may be whistling in the wind, but late this year, there is
     some possibility of Congress taking up some sort of Health bill,
     with a much-reduced set of reforms.  Both Dole/Gingrich and Clinton
     have hinted that they will at least talk about it.
    
      Universality would be dropped, I suppose (no money), but some of
     the stuff is actually bipartisan.  I suppose it would be called a
     band-aid, minimalist, etc.  But, for different reasons, both sides
     have political reasons to try.  Depends on atmospherics.
    
      bb

    In other words, they are promoting communism and the old "your too
    stupid to think for yourself attitude!

RE: 47.224

There probably is fire at the base of Whitewatergate. There is probably
also fire at the base of the Newt book deal. He was being pals with
Rupert Murdoch in November, and Murdoch's political action committee
gave him a big contribution, and Murdoch's company Harper Collins got
the book deal, and now we find that Fox TV just happens to be in the
way of maybe needing some help from somebody on Capitol Hill. The
appearance of impropriety glows brightly in Mister Speaker's corner of the room.

Partisan politics use whatever they can to damage the other side
instead of trying to find common ground to make things better. It's revolting.

					-K-

     Glows brightly? If it glows brightly, then the Slickster and Mizz
    Hillary's "appearances of impropriety" outshine the sun.

    .230
    
    go get 'em, doc.  nowt's hardly had time for the media nooz types to
    tear him a new arsehole yet.

           <<< Note 47.225 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

>     Something for nothing schemes always have initial public appeal. Until
>    the layers of the onion are peeled away, at least.

Nobody claimed it was something for nothing. Clinton claimed it wouldn't 
increase national debt and may well prevent worse debt down the road, and
that it would reduce HC costs as a percentage of GNP. Nobody said HC would
miraculously become free. 
    
>     Clinton screwed up his chance to reform health care. Blaming it
>    entirely on the republicans ignores his mistakes and poor decisions.

You're right. The Repubs didn't do it alone. In fact they may not have even 
been the most important factor. The insurance industry itself did the most 
to sabotage it. Purely for the good of the nation, too, no doubt.

>    Putting Hillary in charge was a mistake. The republicans didn't do
>    that. Allowing all the negotiations between the various interest

Just because you and others of like mind have had a hair across your 
behinds about her from day-1, doesn't make it a mistake. She's eminently 
qualified. Would you rather the CEO of Prudential?

>    groups to take place behind closed doors was a mistake. Again, not the

Nonsense. A lot of good and popular legislation emerged from behind closed 
doors. If the issue is too volatile, with too much money flying around 
intended to influence the outcome, a public process might *never* reach a
consensus. That wasn't legislation being created in a vacuum and being
rammed down our throats. It was a legislative *proposal*. Rather than argue
the elements of the proposal, the repubs/insurance industry demonized the
process by which it was created, because they *wanted it to fail- period*. 

>    republicans' doing. Going for the golden ring without a comprehensive
>    plan in place was a strategic blunder; I suppose you are going to blame

What does this mean?

>    the republicans for that, too. Read the fine print in the massive
>    HillaryCare plan. There's lots of bogus stuff in there. I suppose the
>    republicans are responsible for that as well.

Give examples.
    
>    other such silliness, and stubbornly refused to reduce the scope of his
>    health care proposals in order to post modest victories. Tactical

Nonsense. If there's one thing Clinton has never done, is stick to his 
guns. That's his major (mortal?) flaw. He opened the gates for every 
kind of political posturing and gamesmanship (even from within his own 
party) as soon as he unveiled his plan, by saying he would accept anything
that provided universal coverage and even hedging what "universal" meant.
He should've stuck with his plan and sold it vigorously to the public, a la
the Reagan administration. Instead, he was immediately on the defensive -
before the congress even had a chance to digest the plan. 

>     The country gave the democrats majorities in the house, the senate and
>    control of the whitehouse, and what they actually delivered was little.

Party majority, yes. Philosophical majority, no way.

>    There is a dearth of leadership in general in Washington, but most

Agreed.

>    acutely in the democratic party. Now I have reservations about whether
>    the republicans will be any more effective in demonstrating leadership,
>    but it's high time they got their chance. And if their attempts to

What happened to 1980-92? Republicans have amply demonstrated their brand of 
leadership: Give the majority whatever they want, screw anyone else, and 
use "America the beautiful" as a soundtrack to the whole process. Well I 
thought civilization in general and our country in particular were bigger 
and nobler than that. But I may be wrong.

>     I am guardedly optimistic that progress will be made. I only hope that
>    Gingrich does not make the same mistake Clinton made by squandering
>    political capital on non-critical pet projects (like an amendment
>    allowing prayer in schools, for example.) 

You may be on to the Achilles heel of the repub's majority-uber-allas 
strategy: they may misjudge who the majority really is. If they bet that 
the majority of American's are for religious intrusion into secular law, 
to borrow your example, they could indeed blow political capital in a big 
way. 

 >>   Just because you and others of like mind have had a hair across your
 >>   behinds about her from day-1, doesn't make it a mistake. She's
 >>   eminently qualified. Would you rather the CEO of Prudential?
    
    Hmmm...eminently qualified...and how do you draw this conclusion?
    
    By the way, there were alot of bogus policies within healthcare
    legislation.  Let me give you an example.
    
    Tom goes to local hospital.  Discovers he needs his appendix out.  
    Has it removed, retains an infection.
    
    Cause: Doctor is now qualified under Quota practices of hiring medical 
           personnel.  They needed more Ugandan doctors to fill their
           quota.  Guess what Tom, you can thank Hillary and Ira for that 
           little stunt!!!!!
    
    -Jack

    <<< Note 47.233 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>

>    Hmmm...eminently qualified...and how do you draw this conclusion?

She is one of the more prominent lawyers in the country. If you're gong to 
write law, it doesn't hurt to be a lawyer

>    Cause: Doctor is now qualified under Quota practices of hiring medical 
>           personnel.  They needed more Ugandan doctors to fill their
>           quota.  Guess what Tom, you can thank Hillary and Ira for that 
>           little stunt!!!!!

Whatever you say, Jack.

    Tom:
    
    Let me spell it out for you and this isn't sour grapes.
    
    1. Hillary Clinton is a lawyer who is married to a former
    governor...that's all.  She's probably made about six court appearances
    and worked at a local law firm in Arkansas.  Get real bud.
    
    2. Quotas was definitely a part of the Hillary health legislation.  You
    know it, and most people who keep up with things knows it.  Standards
    in healthcare were going to be lowered in order to bring parity in the
    medical field.
    
    Tom, I don't care what he/she looks like.  I don't care if she's
    Jewish, Catholic, Atheist, from the Orient, poops Ice Cream...I want a
    doctor damnit...a doctor who can take my appendix out in a competent
    way!   You seem to poo poo this concept.  We have the best medicine in
    the world and you support the crap...you get a clue, not me!!
    
    -Jack

>>    Tom, I don't care what he/she looks like.  I don't care if she's
>>    Jewish, Catholic, Atheist, from the Orient, poops Ice Cream...I want a
>>    doctor damnit...a doctor who can take my appendix out in a competent
>>   way!   You seem to poo poo this concept.  We have the best medicine in
>>    the world and you support the crap...you get a clue, not me!!

	hmmm.  "poops", "poo poo", and "crap".  all in the same paragraph.
	trying out the new thesaurus, jack?

    Sorry...but Tom doesn't strike me as stupid and I get annoyed when he
    says things like...Hillary is a prominent lawyer.  Yeah, like she's
    Kerry Mason in disguise!  

    
    Technically, there never was a vote on healthcare in the 103rd
    Congress.  Not in either chamber, not on any of the alternatives.
    
    There was debate.  There were various bills.  There were compromise
    meetings.  But Mitchell-Foley withdrew because none of them could
    get a majority (or come close) according to their pollings.
    
    By the end, there was no majority in the electorate either.  Nobody
    (including conservatives) particularly like the current setup.  But
    it is very hard to get a concensus on any particular changes.
    
    This was just too big a change in American life for a low-margin
    president to push through.  To do that, you need a mandate-type
    margin.
    
      bb

RE: quotas - There were, in fact, quotas for admission to med school
built into the "Health Care" bundle. Sex and race. 

More cultural reform than health care reform... Social re-engineering,
under the guise of making it easier for mom and dad to get personal
medical treatment so they could live to 110.

    
    Yes, the original Billary was simply awful.  If a patient and doctor
    decided to go outside the system, they could both be jailed.  There
    was to be a CAP on the number of doctors (funny - I would think the
    best way to lower costs would be to have a SURPLUS of doctors).  And
    there was a bureaucracy even worse than the insurance companies have.
    
    Not to mention that the financing was hocus-pocus.  And they talk of
    "voodoo economics" under Reagan !  Of course, when the GAO (executive)
    and CBO (Congress) actually scored the bill, it was revealed for the
    very costly plan it was, and the negative ads started to work.  Then
    they ditched the free drugs for the elderly, the key swing part of the
    constituency, leaving them no possible reason to support it.
    
    It was a political disaster.  Lyndon Johnson NEVER would have looked
    as bad as Clinton did on this !
    
      bb

    I have no problem with the president bringing this issue to the
    forefront of the American mind...but be real, be honest, and don't try
    to make it rosier than it is!!!

    <<< Note 47.237 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>

>    Sorry...but Tom doesn't strike me as stupid and I get annoyed when he
>    says things like...Hillary is a prominent lawyer.  Yeah, like she's
>    Kerry Mason in disguise!  

Jack, your foaming bias toward Ms Clinton is showing.

I don't have her resume handy, but I recall that she headed and was a 
member of the board of Directors of a number of national organizations and 
businesses. She has run or participated in national task forces, including 
at least one under the Reagan administration, I believe. In fact, the 
running joke during the pres campaign was that she was probably more 
qualified for the office than her husband (I can see your sneer already).

She was and is not - I repeat, *NOT* -  a small-time lawyer. Much as that 
fact might fly in the face of your prejudice, tough nubbies.

Tom

              <<< Note 47.239 by NUBOAT::HEBERT "Captain Bligh" >>>
                          -< they think we're idiots >-


>More cultural reform than health care reform... Social re-engineering,
>under the guise of making it easier for mom and dad to get personal
>medical treatment so they could live to 110.

Well, you bought the party line, that's for sure. 

Yeah, you set a guy like Magaziner loose on a project like that and you're 
bound to get some social engineering - not that the left has a monoply on 
social engineering (see: Newt). All that could've been paired out in
legislation. But it never got that far. The BC plan was doomed because he
underestimated the forces allied against him -- and it wasn't a majority of
the American people. It only became unpopular when those forces spent a lot
of money and air time to discredit rather than fix his plan. 

Tom

    Tom:
    
    Hillary Clinton was on the Board of companies and on committees
    ONLY...I repeat, ONLY...because she was the wife of the governor.
    If you had a corporation, wouldn't you want somebody as close as she
    was to the governor on your board?  I would!
    
    Moreover, the joke wasn't really a joke.  Hillary Clinton is more
    qualified to run the country than her husband...and she's a nincompoop!
    
    -Jack

    >If you had a corporation, wouldn't you want somebody as close as she
    >was to the governor on your board?  I would!
    
    I think I might prefer someone who actually slept with the Govenor! :-)
    
    -b

    <<< Note 47.244 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>

>    Hillary Clinton was on the Board of companies and on committees
>    ONLY...I repeat, ONLY...because she was the wife of the governor.
>    If you had a corporation, wouldn't you want somebody as close as she
>    was to the governor on your board?  I would!

Whatever you say, Jack.

    RE: .245
    
    :-)
    
    ME

    Kossack!!!

    <<< Note 47.248 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>

>    Kossack!!!

I don't know if that was directed at me, but if so, I'm terribly, terribly 
sorry. I confused the judge with the accused (and found guilty). An 
impardonable error (although an understandable one, I think.

Tom

    Nawwww...I just said that because:
    
    1. I miss Haag!
    
    2. You always say, "Whatever you say Jack!"

    > Hillary Clinton was on the Board of companies and on committees
    > ONLY...I repeat, ONLY...because she was the wife of the governor.
    
    Jack, remeber 'bircheresque stupidity'?  you just qualified.  you
    clearly have no idea of her qualifications or you wouldn't let yourself
    be caught displaying such blatant ignorance.
    
    Hillary graduated from Yale Law.  She was on the board of a national
    organisation (Children's Legal Defense Foundation or something like it)
    that was completely unrelated to her husband's position as governor of
    an inconsequential state.  She had been singled out as one of the top
    100 up and coming Democratic leaders to watch, by some media or policy
    wonk organization.  In short, she's relatively brilliant, and was
    recognized by others long before she came to national prominence as 
    Bill's wife.  One of the reasons the right-wingers attacked her with
    such vituperation right from the beginning is because she was so
    prominent and had a clear paper trail, they knew exactly where she was
    coming from.  
    
    DougO

RE: Note 47.251               
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
>>    Jack, remeber 'bircheresque stupidity'?  you just qualified.  you
>>    clearly have no idea of her qualifications or you wouldn't let yourself
>>    be caught displaying such blatant ignorance.
  
Doug, on behalf of the blind bumkissing liberals in the USA, you have indeed 
spoken!  
    
>>    Hillary graduated from Yale Law.  

Uh huh.  So?  Robert Reisch is a Harvard professor and he's an ass.  

>>    She was on the board of a national
>>    organisation (Children's Legal Defense Foundation or something like it)
>>    that was completely unrelated to her husband's position as governor of
>>    an inconsequential state.  

The childrens defense league is inherantly evil.  They were/are in the 
business of weakening parental rights in this country.  That's like bragging
that Dukakis was a member of the ACLU.  Again...So?

>>    She had been singled out as one of the top
>>    100 up and coming Democratic leaders to watch, by some media or policy
>>    wonk organization.  In short, she's relatively brilliant, and was
>>    recognized by others long before she came to national prominence as 
>>    Bill's wife.  

DougO, this would sound great with a laugh trac.  Remember how the media was
gocking over how wonderful a president or Supr..hahaha...supreme c...hhhhaaaa
ha....haaaaaaa...supreme court jjjuu..haha..justice Mario Cuomo would make?
Come on DougO, use your brain!!!!  <Insert Serious Voice Here>...Hillary 
Rodham was born in a log cabin in a small town in Moscow.  Remember the
news commentator on Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In?...Picture him here>  Although
Hillary faced the trials and turmoil of persecution, poverty, hunger, she rose 
up by her boot straps to become a brilliant Washington strategist.  Oh 
Hillary, lead us!!.....Hm..Hmmmmmhahahahaha!!!!!!  Sure Doug, Hillary is a
real prize...we all know her husband feels the same way, don't we!

>>    One of the reasons the right-wingers attacked her with
>>    such vituperation right from the beginning is because she was so
>>    prominent and had a clear paper trail, they knew exactly where she was
>>    coming from.  
  
Exactly...that would only make sense.  We all knew where she came from...and 
by the way, we didn't vote for her...nobody did.  If she really wants to be
in a leadership position, she can certainly register with the Federal 
Election Commission.  Then the proof will be in the pudding!  Incidently,
her husband should never have used her in healthcare.  She should have stuck
with the private sector and minded her own business.

-Jack

	You know Jack, your note speaks volumes as of late. You say a lot, but
none of it disproves anything Doug said. Offer real proof for a change.


Glen

>>     You know Jack, your note speaks volumes as of late. You say a lot, but
>>     none of it disproves anything Doug said. Offer real proof for a change.
    
    Right, it's a battle of conjecture.  Doug was trying to back up his
    claims that Hillary was brilliant and I was refuting them by bringing
    up FACTUAL examples of Ivy league prominents who are asses.  I
    factually spoke on the Childrens Defense league, and I definitely spoke
    factual on the Mario Cuomo example.  He was an ass and he was voted 
    out of office!

    factually?  that it is 'inherantly evil'?  Bircheresque stupidity.
    thanks for playing, Jack!
    
    DougO

| <<< Note 47.254 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>



| Right, it's a battle of conjecture. Doug was trying to back up his claims that
| Hillary was brilliant and I was refuting them by bringing up FACTUAL examples 
| of Ivy league prominents who are asses.  

	Jack, your two examples makes the rest who ever graduated from Yale
asses? I think not Jack. That's why it didn't work. You did nothing to prove
Hillary was an ass. You just deflected it off onto someone else, and projected
it onto Hillary. It didn't work. Try again.

| I factually spoke on the Childrens Defense league, 

	You made a statement, which you failed to back. I would love to see you
prove the evil part, along with them weakening things. If/when you do, THEN you
can say it was factual.

| and I definitely spoke factual on the Mario Cuomo example.  

	No, as Doug never mentioned any group in particular as to who said
Hillary was in the top 100 of upcoming dems. You just took one group you knew
of and projected it onto her. Again, nice try, but it didn't work. try again.

| He was an ass and he was voted out of office!

	You opinion, hardly fact.


Glen

    Glen:
    
    Apples and Oranges.  Somebody craps on a lawn.  You walk by and say,
    "My, doesn't that smell wonderful".  I walk by and say, "My doesn't
    that stink!"  Two ships passing each other.  
    
    Intelligent idiots can graduate from Ivy League Schools DougO.  That
    was my point.  We have different paradigms on this issue, so that's
    pretty much it!
    
    -Jack

    
    
     I do believe Hillary has proven how "brilliant" she is....
    
    Notice how much you hear from here since the Nov. 1994 elections?
    
    
    Seems the NY Times didn't misquote her after all...
    

| <<< Note 47.257 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>


| Apples and Oranges.  

	Wrong. You made the claims, but you offer no proof to back them. They
are just statements. Prove them and they are true.

| Somebody craps on a lawn.  

	wonderful... :(

Glen

| <<< Note 47.258 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>



| I do believe Hillary has proven how "brilliant" she is....
| Notice how much you hear from here since the Nov. 1994 elections?

	We've heard a lot HERE Andy. But what does that have to do with
Hillary?

| Seems the NY Times didn't misquote her after all...

	Don't you mean, "Seems the NY Times didn't misquote HERE after all...",
Andy? 

    
    RE: .260
    
    You make ridiculous replies like this one, and have the nerve to write
    ones like .259???
    
      
    Seems to me if one were to look in the dictionary under Pot and Kettle,
    they're liable to find your picture there...
    

    
      She may be quite as brilliant as a Democrat can get.
    
      :-)  bb
    

    Alot Glen, I see Hillary as a liberal Icon, much like Mario Cuomo.  I
    see alot of poor saps out there looking at these elitists to save the
    masses from themselves.  I THINK you will find alot of people despise
    Hillary and voted against the Clintons policies for this very reason.
    
    Proof:  Hillary was reported by the NYT as one trying to improve her
    image.  Didn't realize how uppity she was.  She is currently angry at
    the Times for reporting this.  It was supposed to be kept quiet.  The
    media bit her in the ass Glen!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 47.261 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>


| You make ridiculous replies like this one, and have the nerve to write
| ones like .259???

	This is funny coming from you andy. What was that "wit" word I
misspelled that you showed me? I guess I am working on your level andy, and
you're showing us how bad that can be. 

| Seems to me if one were to look in the dictionary under Pot and Kettle,
| they're liable to find your picture there...

	Yeah, sarcasm = what someone puts out as fact andy. uh huh.....

    
    RE: .264
    
    > I guess I am working on your level andy,
    
     Typical "victim" mentality..... Blame it on someone else.... never on
    yourself...
    
    
      You dig your own holes that you can't get out of... Don't go blaming
    anyone for trying to bury you....
    
     "Wit" is how it is spelled.... not "witt". And in trying to be witty,
    you weren't... In trying to "get back" at me, you didn't. All you
    showed was how inane and vapid you are...

| <<< Note 47.263 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>

| Alot Glen, I see Hillary as a liberal Icon, much like Mario Cuomo.  

	Ok then, you are entitled to your opinons. You just can't go around
calling them facts.

| I see alot of poor saps out there looking at these elitists to save the masses
| from themselves.  

	At one time this may very well be the case. What % of people do you
think still feel this way Jack? Seriously now. This is just an opinion I'm
after, or fact if you have it. I'm curious.

| I THINK you will find alot of people despise Hillary and voted against the 
| Clintons policies for this very reason.

	Can't argue with ya there Jack. But guess what, it does not mean that
they are correct in thinking this way. (doesn't mean they are wrong either)

| Proof: Hillary was reported by the NYT as one trying to improve her image. 
| Didn't realize how uppity she was.  

	Ok.... so there is nothing wrong with wanting to improve one's image.
I've been waiting for you to do this for quite some time now. :-) 

| She is currently angry at the Times for reporting this. It was supposed to be 
| kept quiet.  The media bit her in the ass Glen!

	Gee.... the media bit her in the ass, but were asses for mentioning
Newt's mom's quote. Sounds kind of hypocritical of you, doesn't it Jack? I
think the media had the right to print both quotes. 


Glen

    <<< Note 47.252 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>

>The childrens defense league is inherantly evil.  They were/are in the 
>business of weakening parental rights in this country.  That's like bragging
>that Dukakis was a member of the ACLU.  Again...So?

Yo, Barney-man! Would you rather children caught in an abusive home, beaten 
within an inch of their lives, be left defenseless? Nawwww. Not you!
Defender of the fetus against abusive women. Jeez, Jack, maybe George IS 
right: right to life ends at birth. 

Do you have a clue what the CDL is about??? Where do you get you info?

| <<< Note 47.265 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>


| > I guess I am working on your level andy,

| Typical "victim" mentality..... Blame it on someone else.... never on yourself

	That would be nice if I am blaming someone else. I take credit for the
things I say. I just try to match the levels of those I'm talking with.

| You dig your own holes that you can't get out of... Don't go blaming anyone 
| for trying to bury you....

	Yeah, that sarcasm hole being compared to fact was such a crevice to
dig my way out of. 

| "Wit" is how it is spelled.... not "witt". And in trying to be witty, you 
| weren't... In trying to "get back" at me, you didn't. All you showed was how 
| inane and vapid you are...

	Why thank you andy. I appreciate the kind words. I really do. 


Glen

    
    They can use you in the Philippines this Easter...

| <<< Note 47.269 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>


| They can use you in the Philippines this Easter...

	For what andy?

    Tom:
    
    I believe DSS in Massachusetts currently has too much power over
    families.  I believe the CDL is supporting this power throughout the
    country.  Obviously I don't believe children should live in abusive
    homes, nor do I believe children have the right to sue parents.
    
    -Jack

    Glen:
    
    Apples to Oranges again, no hypocrisy here.  Commie Chung has every
    right to report what she wants, but don't say in a whisper, "Between
    you and me".  That crosses the line of ethics.  
    
    -Jack

    
    RE: .270
    
    You're an intelligent boy... Go read up on it...
    

  <<< Note 47.273 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>

>    You're an intelligent boy... Go read up on it...

Why should I bother? I'm not the one accusing them. The defense rests.
On the other hand, Andy, you seem to suggest you have something on them. 
Care to enlighten the jury?    

| <<< Note 47.272 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>


| Apples to Oranges again, no hypocrisy here.  Commie Chung has every
| right to report what she wants, but don't say in a whisper, "Between
| you and me".  That crosses the line of ethics.  


	Jack, I like that. She has every right to report what she wants, BUT...
That cancels out every right....

    No, she can even be deceptive like she was...as long as she doesn't
    mind being called a bitch by the public at large!

	You're a piece of.... work Jack. :-)

RE    <<< Note 47.276 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>

>    No, she can even be deceptive like she was...as long as she doesn't
>    mind being called a bitch by the public at large!

  So it's ok for Newt to be deceptive and call Hillery a bitch behind her back
but it's not ok for everyone to find out the truth.

  Why is it that it's always the same with Newt? There's one set of rules for
when he's on the attack and then there's the kitty gloves rules for when he's
the one on the receiving end.

  I like Harry Truman's solution for Newt. If he can't take what he so freely
dishes out, he can always retire and teach full time. In fact that would be
the perfect environment for Newt. If there is one form of accepted tyranny
left it's being a college teacher. You can do and say pretty much what ever
you want, criticize and abuse your students all you want, and they have
practically no rights at all if they disagree.

  George

    
    RE: .274
    
    "Them"???
    
    WHo's "them"???
    
    >Why should I bother? 
    
     Then don't.... no one was talking to you...
    
    >The defense rests.
    
    
    Methinks you been smokin the same thing Meowski's into...
    
    >Care to enlighten the jury?
    
    Jury? Giving yourself some credit there boy.. aren't you?
    
    "Why should I bother?"
    

    George:
    
    It's called Responsibility in the Media.  Newt can say whatever he
    wants in his own house, or even outside if he doesn't mind the
    exposure.  Commie allegedly deceived Mrs. Newt into giving information
    she wasn't planning to give.  
    
    It seems to me like Newt doesn't really care if it got out.  Seems like
    Newts followers are more upset than Newt is!
    
    -Jack

    
    
    Going back to the subject... :)
    
    One observation I've made (IMHO) after seeing all the reports/hoopla...
    is that:
    
      The left is really scared... I mean really scared of Newt...
    
      and the media is right behind them.... 
    
    I haven't seen this much "Chicken Little Syndrome" since, well, Billy
    Boy won in 1992....

	Jack, you're right. Newt CAN say whatever he wants, whenever he wants.
He also has to take responsibility if it gets out. He hasn't done that.


Glen

    Bottom line is, no matter how PC you want to be, Hillary will be
    remembered as a liability to her hubby's administration!  Same with
    Witch Hazel Nancy Reagan but Ron was able to effectively overshadow
    her!
    
    -Jack

RE    <<< Note 47.280 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>

>    It seems to me like Newt doesn't really care if it got out.  Seems like
>    Newts followers are more upset than Newt is!
    
  Well not really. Newt blew a fuse when they played that tape on ABC's Good
Morning America and started whining and crying about how it wasn't fair.

  Of course if the shoe had been on the other foot and Newt had thought of
some sleazy way to humiliate a democrat, then it would have been fine.

  George

	With SOME of his polocies and statements? Yeah, I can see why the left
is scared of him. BTW, I think you'll find some of those right wingers might
feel the same way too. I know Dole has been trying to keep him in line. 

    Glen:
    
    Get it through thy head ole boy...we're broke, we can't afford it
    anymore.  Get rid of the credit card mentality.
    
    Thanks

    
    
    Playing the reins and being scared spitless is two different animals..
    

| <<< Note 47.286 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>



| Get it through thy head ole boy...we're broke, we can't afford it
| anymore.  Get rid of the credit card mentality.

	Jack, what do the following have to do with promoting credit card
mentality?

1) Teens not given welfare to detour them from having sex in the 1st place
2) Taking away the kids of welfare moms and giving them to orphanages
3) Women can't go into the trenches because they will get infections
4) Give a certain amount of weeks for someone to get off welfare (which is not
   a bad idea) but mention nothing about training.

| <<< Note 47.287 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>


| Playing the reins and being scared spitless is two different animals..

	At some point in time the rest of the repubs will see what dole sees. I
doubt they will go much further though, but one never knows...

    
    RE: .289
    
    >At some point in time the rest of the repubs will see what dole sees. 
    
    Yeah... them's realy stoopid critters!!! And so's them folks what
    elected them too!!

>>    1) Teens not given welfare to detour them from having sex in the 1st
>>       place
    
    The onus is on the local church and private organizations.  This will
    foster greater trust in the ingenuity of people...and in God. 
    Government fosters dependence.  One welfare recipient equals years of
    dependency and a perpetual trend within teenager and offspring.  
    
>>    2) Taking away the kids of welfare moms and giving them to orphanages
    
    Ha.  Donna Shalala stated two weeks ago the very same thing.  She
    represents the Clintons position.
    
>>    3) Women can't go into the trenches because they will get infections
    
    Not sure what you mean here.  Is this referring to the military?  
    
>>    4) Give a certain amount of weeks for someone to get off welfare (which
>>       is not a bad idea) but mention nothing about training.
    
Neither did Bill Weld but you seem to have voted for him.  I would say your
    fear is partisan at best!
    
    -Jack
    

    got a little bored with ring side so i thought i'd climb in a give
    a few shots (maybe take a few)...
    
    Jack... your "evil" comment remains unanswered (in fact, abandoned)
    prolly due to your habit of representing your opinion as fact.
    
    the continued harping and opportunistic dredging up of CC's remark
    never ceases to amaze me. ethics centers around it, yet ethics (or
    lack of by the press) is never given equal time when the info is
    supportive of someone's position (opinion) on a politician. fact
    is, newtie never denied saying it, making it fairly certain it's fact.
    the truth is truth... live with it or get over it, boys.
    
    IMHO, the attacks on HC smack more (to me) of jealously... even now,
    she's far more successful than her critics in here, her survivability
    (economically and career) will be far more certain than her critics
    in here, she's accused of ridiculous, unsupported short-falls by her
    critics in here, blah, blah, blah... and please don't due the victim
    thing on poor newtie either. clearly, Dole recognizes him for what he
    is, a loose cannon (an intelligent man), but nevertheless, a man that
    frequently visits the fringe. hell, the press and the repubs are still
    chasing the whitewater ghost. this makes both parties equally guilty
    of mud-wallowing. a political pastime that will survive infinity...
    
    whew! I feel better now... :-)
    
    Chip
    

    
    
    I will not be dragged down by this tabloid journalist stuff.  Calling
    Chung a serious journalist is like calling Bob Uker (sp) Hall of Fame
    material.  She is in the same category as Donahue, Rivera and the like.  
    I suggest that all of the conservatives out here let the libs rant and
    rave about the bitch comment.  We should focus on what the repubs in
    the congress are doing.  Let them have their sideshow, it's all they
    have now.  We can worry about the real issues and cutting government
    down to size and assuriing the future is bright for our children.
    
    
    Mike

    <- precisly my point, thanks Mike...

  <<< Note 47.279 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>

Sorry to interrupt, Andy. I mistook your .273 as a response to my question 
to Jack about the supposed "evil" of the Children's Defense League. 

....nevermind

re: BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me"

>2) Taking away the kids of welfare moms and giving them to orphanages

This is done all the time in cases where the parent hasnot/cannot provide
an 'acceptable' living arrangement (or they've been accused by someone of
bringing harm to the children whether based on fact or not).

>3) Women can't go into the trenches because they will get infections

The military has done many studies of women and hygene in the military.
Several problem relating to women do not exist for men in a military
theater. Perhaps Newts' delivery lacked tact, but his point is valid.


Doug.

    Doug:
    
    Thanks for clarifying that trench issue.
    
    Glen, bottom line with military, if bending over to allow women in
    trenches means even one life in a million to be needlessly taken, no
    women in trenches.
    
    Please keep PC out of the military.
    
    Chip, interesting to claim the bantering on Hillary is due to jealousy.
    Ironically, I hold Marilyn Quayle, Margaret Thatcher, Elizabeth Dole,
    and others in high esteem.  No Chip...maybe it's because Hillary is a
    blabber mouth?  And perhaps she represents many points of view that
    others don't, and maybe her demeanor is brazen and unlady-like!? 
    Jealousy has little or nothing to do with it.  Remember, CNN...a
    liberal media outlet referred to her as a political liability to Bill
    Clinton.
    
    -Jack

    <<< Note 47.297 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>

>    others don't, and maybe her demeanor is brazen and unlady-like!? 

Like Newt's?

Jack, Barney really does fit you well. It's not a question of "PC or not 
PC." You really are a dinosaur! (but a lovable one)

RE          <<< Note 47.293 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "Space for rent" >>>

>We can worry about the real issues and cutting government
>    down to size and assuriing the future is bright for our children.
    
  Oh, who has that on their agenda?

  Right now the party in power is in the process of shifting government toward
big business and assuring that the future is bright for the rich.

  George

    Oh, I agree that Newt has his enemies.  Remember John Silber who ran
    against Bill Weld?  Very cantancerous and cranky...but the guy runs a
    major school successfully and rehabilitated the Chelsea public school
    system here in Massachusetts.  
    
    Leave bedside manner to the doctors.  I'm looking for somebody who gets
    results.  People who are synsytyve are just going to have to take a
    back seat!
    
    -Jack 

    
    RE: .299
    
    Spin.. spin... spin....
    
    
    Free Clue Meowski....
    
    Reagan is out of office, so you don't have him to kick around anymore
    with that boogey man...
    

    Oh, sorry Jack... What must've misled me was your immediate and
    often unfounded/pointless attacks that made draw that incorrect
    assessment. I humbly apologize (NOT).
    
    Chip 

    
    The government governs best that governs least, George.
    
    We'll see what happens on the hill.  Give them a chance.  The Dems had
    40 years, give the repubs a few and see where they go.  If not in the
    right direction then we'll give them the boot.  

RE          <<< Note 47.303 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "Space for rent" >>>

>    We'll see what happens on the hill.  Give them a chance.  The Dems had
>    40 years, give the repubs a few and see where they go.  If not in the
>    right direction then we'll give them the boot.  

  Well it's been longer than 40 years. If you'll remember, the democrats had
power all through the 30's and into he 40's as well. The democrats have held
power with only a few small breaks since the mid 30's so that's more like
60 years. And in that 60 years we've done pretty well going from one of many
large powers to the single undisputed super power in the world.

  But sure, give the GOP it's chance. I wish them well but I'm not too awfully
worried that they will be in power long. Their policies of splitting the
economy into rich and poor never work long term because they can never keep
enough people in the rich half to maintain a majority. 

  George

    
    
    You wish them well.... Yeah... right...
    

    George:
    
    One of the biggest problems with your party is they continue to have a
    30s/40s mentality.  They have a hard time letting go of policies that
    simply aren't needed right now!
    
    -Jack

    
    
    We need to look at what the job of the federal gov't is, George.  It's
    involved in a large number of areas which should be taken care of at
    the state level.  The citizens have more of a say at the state level 
    about how they feel things should be run.  The best thing that can
    happen to the federal government (IMO) is that it is made much much
    smaller.
    
    
    Mike

    George:
    
    What baffles me is this.  Why would you want to take more money out of
    your local economy to send it down to the beltway...and then get a
    smidgen of it back?  I fail to see your logic here!
    
    -Jack

RE    <<< Note 47.306 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>

>    One of the biggest problems with your party is they continue to have a
>    30s/40s mentality.  They have a hard time letting go of policies that
>    simply aren't needed right now!
    
  Right so instead we are back to the party that wants to take us back to 1910.

RE    <<< Note 47.308 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>

>    What baffles me is this.  Why would you want to take more money out of
>    your local economy to send it down to the beltway...and then get a
>    smidgen of it back?  I fail to see your logic here!
    
  In the past Massachusetts has done rather well when it comes to government
spending. 

  Who do you think pays the largest chunk of your salary at Digital? The U.S.
Federal Government has always been and will probably always be our biggest
customer. Are you ready to cut that part of Federal Spending? 

  George 

    Yes, I am.  Especially if it isn't necessary!

| <<< Note 47.290 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>


| >At some point in time the rest of the repubs will see what dole sees.

| Yeah... them's realy stoopid critters!!! 

	No one says they have to be stupid to not see what Dole sees. My how
you are good at projecting stuff. 

| And so's them folks what elected them too!!

	Anyone can be fooled, scared, or actually believe what these people
say. That goes for dems & repubs. Many reasons one could have voted the way
they did. The only stupid person there could be is if one just voted for their
party, and not take a look to see which candidate is the best for each office.


Glen

| <<< Note 47.291 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>

| >>    1) Teens not given welfare to detour them from having sex in the 1st
| >>       place

| The onus is on the local church and private organizations.  

	You mean the ones who can't handle the crunch now as a whole are going
to somehow take on a ton more? While I do believe that they can help, I do not
theink they are the sole answer. 

| Government fosters dependence.  

	If changes are made, it won't. But the way it is right this second, I
agree.

| >>    2) Taking away the kids of welfare moms and giving them to orphanages

| Ha. Donna Shalala stated two weeks ago the very same thing. She represents the
| Clintons position.

	If that is true Jack, why has Clinton been saying over and over that he
is against that?

| >>    3) Women can't go into the trenches because they will get infections

| Not sure what you mean here.  Is this referring to the military?

	Yup. While the men go out and hunt giraffes. Clinton did say something
funny the other day. He was talking about how some want to repeal the law that
bans some guns. Clinton said that these are the guns that you go hunting
giraffes with, so they won't be repealed. (he made a good tick comment in last
nights speech that seemed to of pissed Newt off)

| >>    4) Give a certain amount of weeks for someone to get off welfare (which
| >>       is not a bad idea) but mention nothing about training.

| Neither did Bill Weld but you seem to have voted for him.  

	Bill Weld has on several occasions mentioned training Jack. I know,
I've heard him.

| I would say your fear is partisan at best!

	No, my fear is real. Until you can stop deflecting and address the
fears mentioned (like prove or disprove), then you've accomplished nothing.


Glen

| <<< Note 47.296 by BRITE::FYFE "Never tell a dragon your real name." >>>



| >2) Taking away the kids of welfare moms and giving them to orphanages

| This is done all the time in cases where the parent hasnot/cannot provide
| an 'acceptable' living arrangement (or they've been accused by someone of
| bringing harm to the children whether based on fact or not).

	I would agree with that. but Newt was talking about all. 

| >3) Women can't go into the trenches because they will get infections

| The military has done many studies of women and hygene in the military.
| Several problem relating to women do not exist for men in a military
| theater. Perhaps Newts' delivery lacked tact, but his point is valid.

	Doug, what studies are you referring to? 


Glen

| <<< Note 47.297 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>


| Glen, bottom line with military, if bending over to allow women in trenches 
| means even one life in a million to be needlessly taken, no women in trenches.

	Jack, do ALL men meet the requirements to fight in the trenches? The
answer is no. Will all women? The answer is no. IF they meet the requirements,
then ANYBODY should be able to fight in the trenches. It has nothing to do with
PC at all, it has to do with facing reality. 

Glen

| <<< Note 47.306 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>


| One of the biggest problems with your party is they continue to have a
| 30s/40s mentality.  They have a hard time letting go of policies that
| simply aren't needed right now!

	You know, the more you write Jack, the worse you sound. You've got them
stuck in the past, while they are crying reform. Face it Jack, you will never
accept them and will continue to incorrectly label them and tie them into 
policies even they want to see reformed (but you'll tie them into the old ways).



Glen

    Fine glen...but what kind of desensitivity training will we provide 
    when five men and one woman are taken in the trences and the woman gets
    gang banged by the enemy?  It happens Glen...and it happened in
    Vietnam, and some of the American soldiers acted like pigs!  
    
    No women!

    
    re.316
    
    	And what happens when the men get banged by the enemy? what happens
    when they cut off their nads and force feed them to them? that happened
    too...gonna teach the men how to handle having their nads cut off?
    
    	gimme a break. I know two women who have been raped by the "enemy"
    (rapists) right here in America, and they've come out swinging! Just
    because a woman is sexually abused when taken prisoner doesn't mean
    she'll break faster than a man. If she passes the infantry tests, she's
    in......
    
    
    jim
    

    
     Trenches are outa fashion.  Consult Saddam.  Current theory is,
    keep moving.
    
     Women soldiers works for the Israelis.  I belive the red Chinese do it
    too.  Changes the game a bit, I suppose.
    
     bb

>BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me"

Of babies and orphanges:

>	I would agree with that. but Newt was talking about all. 

I think you misinterpreted Newts position BIG TIME!

Of women in the military:

>	Doug, what studies are you referring to? 

From memory, back when there was a real push for equality (Reagan Admin?)
in the military there were several studies done by different branches of 
the military which detailed, among other things medical response issues. In 
general,these studies identified areas where men and women were most/least
effective, and the different issues that arised with each in a particular
suituation.

I believe Newt was refering to these findings. I'm not agreeing/disagreeing
with the findings (some where rather bogus - like women in fighter planes).
( I seem to recall an interview years ago with a General addressing these 
issues).

The point was that the lack of tact on Newts part doesn't necessarily
negate the point he is trying to make (but is does give something for the
opposition to sink their teeth into) .

Doug. 

>    You know, the more you write Jack, the worse you sound. You've got them
>    stuck in the past, while they are crying reform. Face it Jack, you will
>    never
>    accept them and will continue to incorrectly label them and tie them into
>    policies even they want to see reformed (but you'll tie them into the
>    old ways).
    
    Sorry Glen, but most people agree with me that socialism is a doomed
    system.  Everybody is for a measurement of reforms...but spraying crap
    with perfume doesn't change the nature of the product.
    
    By the way Glen, 10 reforms the first day of session in Congress this
    year.  You need to watch CSPAN more often!
    
    -Jack

    
    Well... I'm an equal opportunity kind of guy....
    
    I don't care if it's a man, woman, glyph or whatever...
    
    
    If he/she/it can't carry an M-60 with a couple of cans of 7.62 and be
    there when it hits the fan, then they don't belong in the sand, or the
    rice paddies or wherever....

    M60 crew would require 1 ammo-woman  :-)

    
    <--------
    
    Not the tank.... the pea-shooter!!!
    
    :)
    

| <<< Note 47.316 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>


| Fine glen...but what kind of desensitivity training will we provide when five 
| men and one woman are taken in the trences and the woman gets gang banged by 
| the enemy? 

	Gee jack, how will that be treated any different than any of the other
tortures that the enemy can do to soldiers? It's all part of war jack.

| No women!

	Maybe if you could provide a real reason..... 

| <<< Note 47.319 by BRITE::FYFE "Never tell a dragon your real name." >>>



| I believe Newt was refering to these findings. I'm not agreeing/disagreeing
| with the findings (some where rather bogus - like women in fighter planes).
| ( I seem to recall an interview years ago with a General addressing these
| issues).

	Doug, if some are bogus, what led you to believe that any could be
correct? If bogus studies are being used as proof, then we aren't basing it on
reality, just bogus facts. If the same people did each study, then I would
question each study to see if it was done correctly.

| The point was that the lack of tact on Newts part doesn't necessarily
| negate the point he is trying to make (but is does give something for the
| opposition to sink their teeth into) .

	I agree with you Doug. His tact, or lack thereof... does nothing to
negate his point. But I guess more info is still needed to see if he really
even has a point.



Glen

| <<< Note 47.320 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>


| Sorry Glen, but most people agree with me that socialism is a doomed system.  

	You really don't get it, do you..... even the dems are seeing this
Jack. They have been saying so for a while now. You have just projected your
own views of the dems into some sort of virtuereality game.

| Everybody is for a measurement of reforms...but spraying crap with perfume 
| doesn't change the nature of the product.

	Jack, please list the policies you see the dems are spraying with
perfume. Let's see if you know what you speak, or speak what you feel.

| By the way Glen, 10 reforms the first day of session in Congress this year. 
| You need to watch CSPAN more often!

	Uhhhh..... jack, this has to do with how the dems feel because.....


Glen

           Uhhhh..... jack, this has to do with how the dems feel
    because.....
    
    The dems had control over congress for 40 years and have been farting
    around an awful lot!  Funny how suddenly the democrat party looks more
    republican now!

 >   Jack, please list the policies you see the dems are spraying
 >   with perfume. Let's see if you know what you speak, or speak what you feel.
    
    Control over 14% of the GDP (Healthcare)
    Welfare (We know who the misguided ones in government cling to this 
             sacred cow)
    Affirmative Retribution Programs 
    All Federal Tax Hikes
    
    Those are the big 4 Glen.  All phoney to the core!  All bipartisan yet
    always propogated by the victims in society!

| <<< Note 47.327 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>


| The dems had control over congress for 40 years and have been farting around 
| an awful lot!  

	Jack, can you please tell me how they have been farting around for 40
years? Are you sure it was the whole 40? Remember, you know I will ask for
proof, so think... or even better, look for the facts carefully.

| Funny how suddenly the democrat party looks more republican now!

	Jack, at least this is the first time you've admitted that they are
changing. Did you suddenly just realize it or were the note you put in earlier
just you not thinking about reality, but how things used to be. And with that
in mind, if you've bitched so much about them not changing like you have been
(even though they have), why are you complaining that they have???? You make
zero sense Jack. You bitch if they don't, you bitch is they do. Go figure.


Glen

    
    <-------
    
    >Remember, you know I will ask for proof,
    
    bwahahahahahahahahahah!!!!
    
    This from a man who listens to WBZ and quotes/cites with half an ear!!
    

    Glen:
    
    The change took place about October, 1994.  Before that, they played
    the public for idiots and the constituent idiots some of them are.
    In October, they started campaigning on tax cuts, welfare reform, and
    the like.  Before that, they tried like hell to gain more control over
    you!!!
    
    

| <<< Note 47.328 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>


| Control over 14% of the GDP (Healthcare)

	What is done with this 14% of the money Jack. I'd be interested in
knowing. 

| Welfare (We know who the misguided ones in government cling to this sacred cow

	No jack, I don't. Tell me who are these people who do not want to see
the program reformed. 

| Affirmative Retribution Programs

	Tell me which ones you are talking about Jack.

| All Federal Tax Hikes

	ALL!!?? Can ya back this one Jack??? Memory does serve me correct that
someone spouted the words, "NO NEW TAXES!", got elected, and then raised taxes.
He was one of them repubs you talk so highly of. Soooooo Jack-e-poo.... please
splain what ya mean...

| Those are the big 4 Glen.  

	Uhhhh.... you might want to try again. 

| All phoney to the core!  

	Well, the claims you make maybe...



Glen

| <<< Note 47.331 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>


| The change took place about October, 1994. Before that, they played the public
| for idiots and the constituent idiots some of them are.

	Jack, that would be all, not just the dems. well, give or take a couple
of months. But if you had a clue as to when they started to change, why in the
world have you been spewing this crap about them being the same over and over
again? This is why you make less and less sense with each and every note you
write.

	If they hadn't changed, then yeah, I could see you harping on them. I
too would be there with you. But I'm sorry jack, you haven't been fair to them
at all, and as others have said, you seem to make your own opinions out to be
fact.


Glen

    
    Didn't know where else to put this...
    
     Watched part of a program last night on local Nashua, N.H. cable
    channel and Dick Swett was on...
    
      He was listing some of the reasons he lost the election on Nov. 8 and
    a one of the reasons he gave was that basically the voters were stupid
    in not knowing how to fill in the ticket...
    
      He complained that 60% of the people voted a straight Repub ticket
    by checking off the one box, but then went down to his name and checked
    that off... Since the straight ticket box supercedes everything else,
    he lost a lot of votes...
    
     Sheeeeesh!! What a loser!!!
    
     Rumors are that he's going to run for Senate in 1996!!
    

    
    So what he's saying is...60% of the people who voted for him are too 
    stupid to know how to fill out a ballot?
    
    Somehow, I feel that this isn't the kind of thing I'd want to spread 
    around!  :^)
    

    I too have seen Dick Swett on TV twice on recent days.  He's been busy
    "explaining" his defeat, in ways that are arrogant, offensive and
    brain-dead.
    
    One can only assume that he views being turned out of office as a
    temporary setback.

It's a shame you didn't tape it Andy. I would have loved to have seen
it. Imagine, a chance to see Dick Sweat, er Swett, crying in his beer
about how they done him wrong.

Senate in '96?

BWAAAHAHAHHAHHHAHAAHAHAHAH!!!!

    <<< Note 47.336 by WECARE::GRIFFIN "John Griffin ZKO1-3/B31 381-1159" >>>

   > He's been busy
   > "explaining" his defeat, in ways that are arrogant, offensive and
   > brain-dead.
    
    Old habits are hard to break.

    daryll

Minority whip declares Republican controlled Federal Reserve's recent 1/2 point
rate hike is just a republican tax hike  ....

Re    <<< Note 47.339 by BRITE::FYFE "Never tell a dragon your real name." >>>


>Minority whip declares Republican controlled Federal Reserve's recent 1/2 point
>rate hike is just a republican tax hike  ....

  That's exactly what it is.

  There are three ways for the Federal Government to increase the money supply,
increase spending, decrease taxes, or lower interest rates which encourages
borrowing.

  Likewise there are three ways for the Federal Government to decrease the
money supply which is most often done to fight inflation, decrease spending,
raise taxes, or raise interest rates which discourages borrowing.

  So raise taxes, or raise the interest rates, it has a very similar effect.

  Raising rates was a favorite tactic of Richard Nixon when he wanted to cool
off the economy without raising taxes.

  George

    I didn't realize RMN was ever chairman of the Fed.

  No, but he was in a position to appoint the guy who was.

  George

George,

I was simply pointing out the democratic spin on the fed's rate increase.

Never one did I hear the increases before the elections refered to as
democratic tax increases.

This is the "politics of the left' not, no?

Doug.

RE    <<< Note 47.343 by BRITE::FYFE "Never tell a dragon your real name." >>>

>This is the "politics of the left' not, no?

  No, it's politics as usual.

  Republicans use this sort of rhetoric just as often as Democrats to put their
spin on what ever is taking place in government.

  George

RE: 47.340 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI

>> Minority whip declares Republican controlled Federal Reserve's recent 1/2 
>> point rate hike is just a republican tax hike  ....

> That's exactly what it is.

Bull.  All the interest is paid by the debtor to the lender,  not to the 
federal government,  which is more likely to be the debtor than the lender...


> There are three ways for the Federal Government to increase the money supply,
> increase spending, decrease taxes, or lower interest rates which encourages
> borrowing.

Bull.  The Federal Government has no direct control over money supply.

Increased spending or decreased taxes can be funded by selling T-bonds 
to people (or banks or whatever),  or by selling IOU's to the Federal 
Reserve.  In the first case,  there is NO impact on the money supply. 
In the second case,  a bunch of money just got created out of thin air.


Phil

RE  <<< Note 47.345 by BOXORN::HAYS "I think we are toast. Remember the jam?" >>>

>Increased spending or decreased taxes can be funded by selling T-bonds 
>to people (or banks or whatever),  or by selling IOU's to the Federal 
>Reserve.  In the first case,  there is NO impact on the money supply. 
>In the second case,  a bunch of money just got created out of thin air.

  The government can increase the money supply by spending more than it takes
in with taxes and not borrowing money to compensate. That leads to inflation
but can be done anyway as a temporary stimulant to the economy. 

  When the fed lowers interest rates, that encourages banks to lower interest
rates. That encourages borrowing by bank customers which in turn encourages
banks to borrow from the fed thus creating money that wasn't there before. This
also increases the money supply. 

  Taxes, spending and interest rates are all tied in to the same monetary
cycle. 

  George 

    >  When the fed lowers interest rates, that encourages banks to lower
    > interest rates. That encourages borrowing by bank customers which in
    > turn encourages banks to borrow from the fed thus creating money that
    > wasn't there before. This also increases the money supply. 
    
    I'm howlin'!
    
    May we call this the Maewski Multiplier Effect in your honor, George?
    
    DougO

RE     <<< Note 47.347 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto" >>>

    
>    May we call this the Maewski Multiplier Effect in your honor, George?

  Well I can't really take credit for it since I learned this back in my
freshman year of college in Economics 102. 
    
>    I'm howlin'!

  If you'd like I'll tell you what I learned that year in my calculus course
and you can laugh at that as well. 

  George

RE  <<< Note 47.345 by BOXORN::HAYS "I think we are toast. Remember the jam?" >>>

>Bull.  The Federal Government has no direct control over money supply.

  Think for a minute how ridiculous this is.

  When the United States Federal Government was created, there was no money.
The money supply was zero. So where did money come from? Well according to
the Hays principle the Federal Government has no control over money so it
didn't come from them. What happened, did it grow on trees?

  According to Macro Economics, a sovereign nation creates money by spending it
and they destroy money by collecting taxes. They also create money by lending
it to banks and they destroy it by collecting payments on that debt.

  George

    .350
    
    > When the United States Federal Government was created, there was no money.
    
    assignment:  explain the existence of the spanish milled dollar and its
    effect on commerce at the time.
    
    money need not be issued by the fed.  for a long time it was issued,
    and backed, by individual banks or businesses.  remember jackson and
    biddle?

RE              <<< Note 47.351 by SMURF::BINDER "vitam gustare" >>>

>    assignment:  explain the existence of the spanish milled dollar and its
>    effect on commerce at the time.
    
  Fine, there was other types of money. But we're not talking about that.

  Where did the 1st U.S. dollar come from? How did we get from there being
no U.S. Dollars to there being one or more U.S. Dollars?

  assignment: Answer this question by including the line "the U.S. Federal
              Government has no control over the money supply"

  George

    Hate Speech Ban Struck Down 
    
    
    Bill Workman, Chronicle Peninsula Bureau 
    
    Stanford University's speech code banning insults based on sex or race
    was struck down yesterday by a Santa Clara County judge. 
    
    Upholding a 1992 California law that gave students at private schools
    the same free speech rights they enjoy off-campus, Superior Court Judge
    Peter Stone said Stanford's ``hate speech'' ban was unconstitutionally
    broad. 
    
    Stone granted a preliminary injunction against Stanford's enforcement
    of the 5-year-old code and ruled that the university violated students'
    freedom of expression by prohibiting only certain ``fighting words''
    linked to sex and race. 
    
    The hate speech ban, which grew out of a 1988 incident in which two
    white students defaced a poster at a black theme house with racial
    caricatures, has never been enforced. 
    
    Yesterday's decision was the first time a speech code at a private
    university has been ruled invalid, although courts have recently
    quashed similar attempts to limit speech at several public schools,
    including the University of Michigan and the University of Wisconsin. 
    
    ``We think this is a decisive victory not only for Stanford students,
    but students at universities across the nation,'' said Robert Corry,
    one of nine students who sued the university over the code last year. 
    
    ``This is a big part of the battle over political correctness in the
    country,'' added Corry, now a lawyer in Sacramento. 
    
    The students who sued the school included several with links to the
    Stanford Review, the conservative campus newspaper. They had argued in
    court papers that the speech rules violated First Amendment rights and
    tended to chill campus discussion of controversial issues. 
    
    Stanford had contended that the state's Leonard Law, which extended
    free speech protections to private schools, intruded on the
    university's right to govern itself and establish rules of proper
    behavior. 
    
    Stanford's code ``says that one student cannot with purpose vilify
    another with fighting words that are ugly gutter epithets like `nigger'
    and `kike,' '' said David Heilbron, the university's special counsel in
    the case. ``The university finds that intolerable and proscribed it.'' 
    
    The code also banned such hate-associated symbols as the swastika if
    used in personal attacks. 
    
    The Stanford hate speech ban was carefully crafted in 1990 after 18
    months of campus debate and narrowly sought to label speech as
    harassment only if racist or sexist remarks were personal in nature and
    not directed at groups as a whole. 
    
    The guidelines expressed Stanford's commitment to students' rights to
    ``hold and vigorously defend their opinions'' but also made clear the
    intention to protect students from becoming targets of bigotry. 
    
    Although the code was enforced, Corry insisted that it still made
    students fearful of possible expulsion if they crossed over the line of
    prohibited speech. 
    
    Without the code, he said, the quality of campus debate will improve.
    `'I don't expect to see any more hate speech than if they had a code in
    place,'' he said. 
    
    It was uncertain whether Stanford would appeal the ruling. Stanford
    President Gerhard Casper, who is an expert on constitutional law, could
    not be reached for comment. 

	In my opinion, the lifting of the ban is good.

ME

     I'm not sure I agree. It's a private school. It's optional to attend
    or not. It's difficult to say whether the ban should have been lifted
    without having read it, but if all it did was prevent harrassment, then
    I don't see where it was a 1st amendment issue.

    The provision about the speech being directed at an individual, rather
    than a group, is a clear indication that it was intended to address
    harassment rather than "political correctness."

    
    I'm not sure where to put this - perhaps it belongs in "Things to
    Wonder About", or somewhere else.  Yesterday I went searching the
    cable for informed political debate.  After flipping through a
    dozen OJ channels, I got CSPAN with the House after the session.
    First a black Congresscritter from NYC (not Rangel) droned on about
    how the Welfare Reform Act was blatantly racist and the Republicans
    were just re-instituting slavery.  He was followed by two GOP guys
    doing a Bob@Ray about how they are curing the ills of America, and
    the Democrats are just the paid stooges of pimps and pushers.  Yup,
    informed debate there.
    
      Flipping through another dozen OJ channels, I came to one of those
    "5 talking heads" shows - you know, the McGloughlin wannabes ?  I'd
    never seen this one before, but the supposed "moderator" couldn't
    control a set of 4 extremely obnoxious people who all babbled on
    at once.  Their pitch, however, was soprano, alto, tenor, and bass.
    So if you had a signal processor, you could perhaps extract the
    political positions they were espousing.  Perhaps muzak would help ?
    
      Flipping through yet another dozen OJ channels, I came to CSPAN-2
    and the Senate LIV "debate".  Basically this consisted of the
    exasperated Republicans calling for a debate, but the Democrats
    refusing to vote for cloture until all their amendments have been
    considered.  Howeve, the list of amendments was already 37, some
    the exact opposite of each other, and as each was debated, new ones
    were added on the end.  This charade was interrupted by a quorum call,
    and a picture of bored teenage pages plus chamber music...
    
      Flipping through another dozen OJ channels, I came to McNeil-Lehrer,
    with Shields & Gigot.  Both of them smiled sagely and said everything
    was going according to plan, and the atmospherics were very
    favorable, although mistakes in tactics had been made.  Neither
    had anything to say at all about the actual content of the various
    congressional proposals, or the billions being shuffled about.
    
      At which point I retired to a book.  bb

    Has anyone noticed how the Democrats and their supports have
    suddenly become such big fans of the Catholic Church? 
    I can't count the number of times in the past week when I've
    heard a Democrat say (to paraphrase) "The Republicans should
    listen to the Catholic Bishops. They are against the Republican
    welfare bill".

    Isn't this the same group of people who are saying that those
    same Bishops should stay out of politics when it comes to other
    issues?

    				Ed

    Well that's different!

    It's simple, really,  The Dems only want religion involved when it
    supports them.
    
    ME

RE                       <<< Note 47.358 by DECC::VOGEL >>>

>    Has anyone noticed how the Democrats and their supports have
>    suddenly become such big fans of the Catholic Church? 

  Throughout this century Catholics have been predominantly Democratic.

>    Isn't this the same group of people who are saying that those
>    same Bishops should stay out of politics when it comes to other
>    issues?

  No I've never head that. In fact back about 20 years ago a priest named
Father Drinen was the U.S. Representative from Newton Mass. He had the seat
that Barney Frank now holds.

  And then of course there was that young Catholic that got elected president
back in 1960.

  George

    George,

    I did not mean to say that Democrats have been against Catholics
    being in politics, but rather against the Catholic Church making
    political statements. There is a difference.

    						Ed

RE                       <<< Note 47.362 by DECC::VOGEL >>>

>    I did not mean to say that Democrats have been against Catholics
>    being in politics, but rather against the Catholic Church making
>    political statements. There is a difference.

  The Democratic party is rather large and diverse and no doubt given any claim
you can probably find a democrat that said it, but in general this is not true.
Democrats generally support the 1st amendment and support the right for
everyone to have their say on different issues. 

  George

    I'm one who thinks that tax-exempt institutions are abusing their
    privileges by spending their untaxable wealth on bussing people to pack
    political conventions and buying them convention entry- that happened
    in Virginia last year at the GOP convention and those are the people
    that nominated Oliver North.  That's one of the most flagrant recent
    abuses but the list is long.  Now, considering the terrible hypocrisy
    of the Catholic Church in both forbidding effective birth control to
    its followers and in their obstructionist opposition to the findings 
    of the World Conference on Population last year, while they claim to be
    interested in helping reduce misery and suffering in the world- at
    least in this particular instance they are consistent.  Consistent in
    that the GOP welfare reductions *will* result in more abortions, and
    that they thereby are duty-bound to oppose the cuts.  Of course, their
    way will result in more misery for those stuck in the welfare trap, so
    they're consistently wrong as a matter of policy; about all we can
    expect of them.  So what if some Democrats find them a useful club to
    use to bash the Republicans?  GOP has been playing the religious card
    unimpeded for years, maybe getting bashed by the Church will teach both
    sides that religion doesn't belong in the public policy debate in the
    first place.
    
    DougO

    
    But DougO - ALL charitable contributions are in some sense "political".
    If you give money to the Sierra Club, or the Rotarians, or the Boy
    Scouts, or the Campaign to Reelect Senator Bilge, at least some of
    that money will be spent politically.  I cannot name a non-profit that
    can afford to be 100% non-political today.
    
    There was a period when charity was not dedectible, I believe.  If you
    are advocating that, you are consistent.  But there is no basis for
    government distinguishing what charities are "good" or "bad".  If you
    want to deduct The Heart Association, you have to exempt churches, too.
    
      bb

    When I give to the San Francisco Opera, how is that polictical?
    
    DougO

>    When I give to the San Francisco Opera, how is that polictical?

Do they lobby for government grants?

    
    It certainly is political.  Are you kidding ?  bb
    

    give me a break.
    
    DougO

    Father Drinan was a bonafied communist.  My mother told him his
    favorite color was red and Drinan wrote my mother personally to scathe
    her over the comment.  
    
    Drinan was a BUMB!@

    
    "Communist" is not as good a description as "revolutionary priest".
    While Drinan was indeed wacko-left, so far that the church forced
    him to choose between politics and religion, I doubt he had any
    interest in foreign powers.  And in other countries, similar restraints
    on revolutionary priests have been imposed by the hierarchy in Rome,
    particularly in Latin America and Ireland.  Priests should not use
    bombs, nor go around pouring blood on selective service records.
    
    Massachusetts in the 60's-70's bred some very revolutionary Irish
    opinion.  At that time, Ted was often portrayed as "moderate".
    
      bb

The good Father Drinan, who was a Jesuit (another story in itself, though
history), and had taken a vow of poverty, lived in a sumptuous apartment
at (tadaa) The Watergate. Sound familiar?

I didn't know that Jesuits take vows of poverty.

/john

    
    What's with the past tense?  Fr. Drinan's alive and well -- and
    involved in some sort of handgun control crusade.
    
    BTW, he was neither a communist nor a revolutionary priest; just a
    liberal. And the Pope didn't order him out of politics because of
    his (Drinan's) views.

Re    <<< Note 47.374 by WECARE::GRIFFIN "John Griffin ZKO1-3/B31 381-1159" >>>

>    BTW, he was neither a Communist nor a revolutionary priest; just a
>    liberal. And the Pope didn't order him out of politics because of
>    his (Drinan's) views.

  You have a good point. As I recall the Pope gave a general order that all
priests should restrain from serving in government. It wasn't aimed at any
one priest.

  George

RE:.19
 >  You Right Wing types act like your name is Rockafeller.  Like your poor
 >   tax load is so hugh on the Digital gravy train.  You guys are crying
 >   over a few nickles,  How much do you pay now, How much would you pay if
 >   we let all the poor kids starve to death?  If it wasn't for us Lefties
 >   keeping the Military in line, You guys would be paying more then you
 >   are now.  
    
 >   Put a dollar figure on it.  100 maybe 200 a year is your share of the
 >   welfare load in this country.  And for this you whine day and night. 
 >   you have your health,  you have a job,  don't be such a tight wad.
    
   
I can't let this go while I read 356 more notes.  If "my share" of the welfare
load were $1.00 to $2.00 per year, you would still have no right to take it from
me at the point of a gun to give it to someone else.  As far as you Lefties
keeping the military in line, I shudder to think where this country would be if
ya'll were fully in charge of things.  We not only would have only a token
military if any.  More than likely, The USSR would still exist.  Why? because
there would be no one to oppose them.  We outspent them on Star Wars, and caused
their downfall largely because they could not keep up.

Mikey

    I think you display the height of arrogance and elitism to even stick
    your hand out for my money.  How dare you!

    >to even stick your hand out for my money.  How dare you!
    
    'your money'...see, there's the rub.  What kind of money could you earn
    if not for the work of millions of your fellow citizens who built this
    country, fought and died in its wars, and work everyday to protect you
    and yours, to provide you safe power, gas, water, sewers, schools, and
    roads, and generally engage in the social contract, as do you, to keep
    this economy running, providing synergistic benefits for all.  Or
    almost all.  It is upon this basis that I philosophically accept income
    taxes.  Once you recognize that without the society that surrounds you
    you'd be a subsitence level farmer scratching to raise your own feed
    and worrying about armed bandits from the next town over, and accept
    that some measure of interdependence is not only your birthright but
    your responsibility to maintain, then you pay your taxes.
    
    After that, its all politics.  You don't like the current policies, you
    can work within the system to change it.  But this nonsense about "your
    money" is utterly without merit.
    
    DougO

         
    DougO,
    
    Its a matter of extremes. What this society needs to do in providing
    an environment of prosperity is far less than it is doing today.
    
    And that's the rub. The (federal) government takes (MUCH) more money 
    than it needs to meet its obligations defined in the constitution.
    Those of us who are paying the bills simply do not wish to subscribe
    to these unwanted/failing/corrupt/political programs, at least at the
    levels we are currently contributing. 
    
    I want a government that helps thoses that help themselves. 
    
    Since children can't help themselves, my personal opinion is that they
    should be the primary social investment made by our society, but I'm
    sure there are many who disagree.
    
    Doug.
    
    
    
    

    Doug, I got no problem with that.  But demonizing the existence of tax
    collectors or the goals of political opponents as 'taking my money', as
    Jack did, is ridiculous.
    
    DougO

    DougO:
    
    I find sending money to DC only to have it divied up and get a small
    portion back is criminal.  Furthermore, if you go out and work 40 hours
    a week...at an agreed stipend between you and the business, then you
    are paid for services rendered.  It is YOUR money...period.  As a
    citizen, you are agreeing to follow the precepts of the
    Constitution...in which taxation is a viable part.  I have no problem
    paying a fair share to support the precepts of the Constitution. 
    Anything above and beyond that is extortion, coersive and is criminal.
    I'm sure there are many out there who work 60 hours a week...or even
    more because to the need to support the elitist establishment who brow
    beat you because you're a Mean Spirited right wing extreminst.  This is
    where the "My Money" comes into play.  What utter balls Gephardt
    portrays to get on CSPAN and tell me I'm mean spirited...all because 
    he thinks I should support his failed programs with...Yes...my money
    DougO.  I resent that.  Furthermore, Gephardt is a recipient of monies
    from big business just as all of them are and I resent him going on the
    aire and lying to the public that he's different.  He thinks you're an
    idiot DougO and he thinks I'm one too...and I take exception to that!
    
    -Jack

    Well, Gephardt is an idiot, so don't worry what he thinks of you,
    unless you're one of his constituents.  But I'm glad to see you do
    accept a basis for tazation; the rest is quibbling over details and
    levels and all that other politics as usual, and yes, idiots play the
    game, too.
    
    DougO

    Bill Clinton has severed all economic ties to Iran in a way to counter
    act terrorism...that's fine but...
    
    
    
    
    DON'T VOTE FOR HIM!!!

	Wow Jackless..... that was a cool note. :-)

From: The White House <Publications-Admin@WhiteHouse.Gov>
To: Public-Distribution@CLINTON.AI.MIT.EDU
Subject: 1995-05-01 Proclamation of Loyalty Day 1995



                            THE WHITE HOUSE

                     Office of the Press Secretary

________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                                        May 1, 1995
				     
				     
			    LOYALTY DAY, 1995
				     
			      - - - - - - -
				     
	     BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
				     
			      A PROCLAMATION


     Our country's rich diversity of peoples and cultures has been called
"the noble experiment."  From its beginnings, our great democracy has
guaranteed its citizens the blessings of freedom and the right of
self-determination.  Each year, with the coming of spring and the rebirth
of nature, we pause to consider the progress of our Nation and to
reaffirm our allegiance to the American experiment.

     Two hundred and twenty years ago in Lexington, Massachusetts, a
ragged group of colonial Americans faced a column of British soldiers.  As
the smoke cleared from the "shot heard round the world," eight American
"Minutemen" lay dead -- their blood spilled along the path to a new Nation
on this soil.  Their gift of freedom is held sacred to this day.

     All Americans can be proud of the heritage of courage and sacrifice
that has extended unbroken through generations of our citizens.  The
success of the United States today is seen both in our continued
prosperity and strength and in our role as an international beacon of
liberty.  As we recall those who gave their lives for our freedom, we see
our Nation's history reflected in their ranks -- from the tireless
"Minutemen" in Lexington to the brave men and women who fought in the
Persian Gulf.  These fine citizens, along with their families and those
who have served on the home front, deserve our profound respect and
gratitude.  Let history forever record our loyalty to their legacy.

     The Congress, by Public Law 85-529, has designated May 1 of each year
as "Loyalty Day."  We spend this day in celebration of our Constitution
and our precious Bill of Rights and in honor of the sacrifices that have
enabled this great charter to endure.

     NOW, THEREFORE, I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States
of America, do hereby proclaim May 1, 1995, as Loyalty Day.  I call upon
all Americans to observe this day with appropriate ceremonies and
activities, including public recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to the
Flag of the United States.  I also call upon government officials to
display the flag on all government buildings and grounds on this day.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-ninth day
of April, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and ninety-five, and of
the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and
nineteenth.



     	    	      	   	     WILLIAM J. CLINTON



                              # # #

    
    May 1st he chose?  Is this a joke?
    

    The only thing "funny" about May 1st or Loyalty Day is that Bill
    Clinton declared it. The day has far more relevance that Bill Clinton,
    and let it ever remain so!

    
    So lessee, what would be good "Loyalty Day" songs ?
    
      "Stand by your man ?" perhaps ?
    
      bb

I'm not sure which Red Scare spawned Loyalty Day, but I _have_ heard of it
before.  Presumably it would take a very right-wing president to kill it.

    Re .386:
    
    > May 1st he chose?
    
    No, Bill Clinton did not choose May 1.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

Another Loyalty day song...

"How am I supposed to live without you"

ME

 ....and IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYIIIIIIIIIIIII
  will always looooooooooove yooooooooooooooooo...

    
    Baby, I'm yours (baby, I'm yours)
    And I'll be yours until the poets all run out of rhyme
    Baby I'm yours
    Until the stars fall from the sky
    In other words, until the end of time.
    Baby I'm yours...
    
      bb

 re .393


   Barbara Wilson (I think) did the original version back in the mid-late 60's




 Jim

This past Saturday I had the opportunity to attend the ceremonies
at which my oldest daughter was presented with her Masters' Degree
in Biology at the University of Southwestern Louisiana in Lafayette,
Louisiana. In general it was a wonderful weekend, including the ceremonies
at the Cajun Dome on Saturday afternoon.

However, there was a low point of almost unparalleled depth during
those cermonies as well. The ceremonies were not the general university-wide
undergraduate commencement exercises, but the presentation of graduate
degrees and undergraduate honors. As such, the ceremony was not
necessarily a front-page event. The problem which depressed the event
had to do with the guest speaker.

I'm attempting to get ahold of a hardcopy of the entire text of the
speaker's remarks so that I can enter them for consideration, but in
the meantime, I'll mention some of what it was that got my goat.

The speaker was a friend of one of the University officers, and had
for some number of years been the CEO of a petroleum company based
in Lafayette. Currently the man is the founder and director of an outfit
known as The Southern Poverty Law Institute/Center in either Montgomery
or Birmingham, Alabama. The So. Poverty Law I/C is apparently some
sort of ACLU-type organization whose goals are the upholding of civil
rights issues for poor and minority citizens. So far so good. The
speaker was seated onstage next to the Roman Catholic Bishop of Lafayette,
another guest at the exercises who delivered the Benediction and closing
blessing.

This "gentleman" (and I use the term loosely), began his address by
mentioning that his original intent, when asked to speak at the ceremony,
was to talk of some of the good done my the Southern Poverty Law I/C
and how that should inspire the graduates of the day. HOWEVER, comma,
he felt compelled to change the theme of his address based on the recent
tragedy in OKC.

Within two minutes of having the podium, the man made it perfectly
clear as to his political views and convictions, under the guise of
his concern for the good of society. He proceeded to tell the assembled
throng (probably about 2K people including students, faculty, guests
and band) that the tragedy in OKC was the result of terrorist militias.
He went on to say how his organization (the So. Pov. Lw I/C) had sent
numerous written warnings to Janet Reno's offices since last fall, indicating
that the "rising tide of militias as pro-gun hate groups" was putting
our country at great risk (based on "extensive research done by his
organization"). He continued to tell us how he had been apalled to see that
his very clear warnings "had fallen on deaf ears".

We were then "treated to" a good 20 minutes of this "gentleman's" views
as to how all of us "really should oughta wanna" be opposed to all pro-gun
groups and their agendas. How it "isn't the least bit funny to be using
terms like feminazis" and how that's a clear sign of the hate that
exists in our society. How "Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole should be ashamed
of themselves for proposing Welfare cuts" because welfare cuts "won't
have any effect on the budget or the deficit one way or the other". How
it's absolutely a sign of hate in our country to consider that AA and EEO
could be reduced or eliminated after less than thirty years. How it's a
sign of hate to try to eliminate them, since any idiot would realize that
the short period of their implementation can't begin to wipe out the
"Debt" of over 400 (?) years of slavery. How it's a sign of hate for
pro-life groups to "be allowed" to print posters with pictures of doctors
labeled as Wanted posters. (Yes - he had something for everyone. I only
wish I'd been watching the poor Bishop at this point.) How it's absolutely
a condemnable action for anyone to make fun of, or "target" the "president
and First Lady". How it's a sign of hate to express disagreement with
the government. How talk radio hosts (he singled out Liddy a number of
times) should be ashamed of their complicity in any of the above, or
for "urging their listeners to shoot Federal Agents." How the mainstream
media should be castigated for their publicization of "problems" with
Federal Employees.

In short, the man went on and on.

When he finished, the results were somewhat interesting. All of the
folks onstage (University officers and trustees, deans, and guests,
including the Bishop) gave this turkey a standing O, while clearly 2/3 or
more of the audience, students, faculty and spectators included, declined to
even clap politely for the airhole. My discussions with several students during
the remainder of the weekend indicated that even the somewhat liberal
left-leaning population of academia found the guy to be a radical
space cadet.

When I get the text, I'll post it here. It's even "better" than I may
have led you to believe.

    
    	Makes me freakin' ill to think these arseholes use a ceremony like
    that to propagate their venemous crap. It is supposed to be a day to
    honor the graduates and give them some sort of message to take with
    them to help them along in their lives.....NOT to espouse whatever
    political agenda happens to be near and dear to the speaker. What
    garbage....now I'm going to be PO'd all day....
    
    grrr...
    
    jim

    bioya

    
    I disagree, Mistah Topaz.  A commencement address in a vehicle to
    espouse hope for the future of the new graduates and is not an
    editorial page used to espouse one's political leanings and biases.
    
    
    Mike

Liberal SNARF

    Dude sounds likes Morris Dees.
    
    

	While I agree that the commencment speeches should be about hope for
the future, is it wrong to mention some of the bad stuff out there? True, from
what Jack wrote this guy went on a tirade, but I sometimes wonder if the
students who leave thinking they will all have jobs will realize that this
isn't always the case? I know at the last company I worked at the temps that
worked for me all had their engineering degrees. All thought they would have
jobs, and all were pretty bummed about not having one.



Glen

>       Jack, by golly, it's just a damn shame that you and your crowd
>       can't have a world, or a country, where everyone has had only your
>       experiences and nothing else really matters.  

Not at all what concerned me, Donald. The second most interesting point
was the subject matter. The better point was that the bulk of the audience
hadn't much use for what the idiot had to say, faculty and student body,
people of the South and people of color included. It seemed to me that if
you want to make any sort of a statement at a commencement exercise, it
behooves you to make one that will be well received by some major segment
of the audience, or not much has been accomplished. I was far from the only
one who found his viewpoints grating. Even my Liberal daughter was put off.

PS. I also found that if you bypass the rental car at New Orleans airport,
grubbing a ride from your daughter's friends back to Lafayette, and wait to
rent a car in Lafayette, taking the bus back to the airport at the end of the
visit, you can save enough more money to take 14 graduate students out for
a crawfish dinner in Abbeville, LA. I may be obtuse, Don, but I'll wager I
ate better all weekend than you did.
:^)

    
      Actually, these speakers are usually so catatonic that anything
     that shows a pulse would be welcome.  I can't remember a word
     from any of the many commencement addresses I've heard.  If I never
     hear another, I won't pout.
    
      bb

    The Southern Poverty Law Center was the organization responsible for
    suing the KKK for damages for acts committed by their members.  Given
    their long-term relationship with the KKK, I'd say they have a fairly
    unique perspective on organized militia groups.
    
    Also, I think it is entirely traditional for commencement speakers to
    bestow upon their audiences their opinions of the shape the world is
    currently in (generally prior to exhorting them to go out there and do
    some good).

> generally prior to exhorting them to go out there and do some good

This would have been the part he forgot, then. Unless you consider
urging people to kneel down to Billary and boycott the sponsors
of all talk radio programs as the "good" that he wanted them to do.

    
    
    Not really, Chelsea.  You are equating militias to the KKK, it doesn't 
    wash.  I'm not saying that there aren't some founded under that premise, 
    but to pigeon hole them all there is wrong.  
    
    Mike
    
    

    BTW, I believe the Southern Poverty Law Center commissioned a Civil
    Rights memorial from Maya Lin.  The Smithsonian did an article on it a
    few years back; it's supposed to be quite powerful.

    Re: .407
    
    >You are equating militias to the KKK
    
    Not exactly.  My understanding is that the KKK was originally founded
    as a militia, so the connection is not entirely without basis.  My
    point, which you misplaced, was that the experience of Morris Dees (I 
    think that's the guy's name) led _him_ to equate the militias with the 
    KKK, which is why he spoke out as he did.

    
    
    What of the militias which are headed by blacks?  
    
    
    Mike

    Mike,
    
    Name a militia headed by a black.
    

    The Black Panthers.  Are they still around?

    
    I know there are some, one in California.  I can't name very many
    militia's Karen, all I have heard is that there are some that have
    black leaders.
    
    Mike

    Hmmmm, I never thought of the Black Panthers as a militia.....
    

Weathermen too.

    
    
    	The Ohio Militia is headed by an african-american man. He was on
    Phil Donahue...
    
    jim

    You beat me to that one, Jim.  
    
    Guess it does pay to read ahead before responding.  8^)

    
    I've listened to Morris Dees on several occasions and found him to be a
    flaming idiot. Ignorant, uninformed, intellectually dishonest, and
    a walking/talking spinmeister for the left-of-center platform.
    
    If he was the speaker, then you have my sympathies.
    
    
    

    Jack, you would've loved the commencement speaker at my college
    graduation:  Ted K, in 1974, at the height of Watergate, just a
    few months before Tricky Dick folded.  It was a rantfest, and
    whenever he stopped to take a breath, the assembled toaditude
    would rise as one and shriek yet another ovation.
    
    What I remember most is how lit he was, from all the bright teevee
    lights shining on him from every angle.  He was almost unbearable
    to look at, directly with the unprotected eye, like looking into
    the sun.
    
    Chris

So Chris, where were you then, politically speaking?

>> So Chris, where were you then, politically speaking?
    
    Heh-heh... well...
    
    Back then, I was somewhat left of center.  Nowadays, without
    having substantially changed any of my values, philosophies, or
    opinions on major issues, I'm considered somewhat right of center.
    
    Chris

    Oh, I forgot to mention that I was impressed at the time with the
    sheer celebrity presence of the man.  The only other celeb I'd
    even seen with my own eyes as of that time was Frank Avruch in
    costume at Raymond's in Quincy, and I was still a few years away
    from seeing Tony Pepper at the Zayre's in Woburn.  So, yeah,
    I was impressed.
    
    Chris

| <<< Note 47.423 by AMN1::RALTO "It's a small third world after all" >>>



| The only other celeb I'd even seen with my own eyes as of that time was Frank 
| Avruch in costume at Raymond's in Quincy, 

	Frank Avruch was in Quincy????? Did he play a guy on the slab, or one
that dear old Quincy sent to jail for murder????

	>> Frank Avruch was in Quincy????? Did he play a guy on the slab, or
	>> one that dear old Quincy sent to jail for murder????
    
    The latter... he murdered his occasional replacement, Nozo.
    
    Chris

<----SCREAM!!!!! Too funny!!! Especially the title....

    Not only that, but WHDH had assigned one of their news staff artists
    to the trial, to do the court drawings.  But for some strange reason,
    instead of the drawings depicting the various trial participants,
    they all came back looking the people's names, drawn in big block
    letters, and embellished with assorted personal characteristics
    of the individuals.
    
    Chris

-   The Clinton Administration has demanded that various jobs in the State
    Department be given to women and minorities rather than white male
    workers.  The White House returned the list of recommended appointments
    to the State Dept. because there were not enough minorities and women
    on the list to suit the Clinton crowd at the WH.
    
-   A hiring directive from the Clinton Defense Dept. mandated that
    "special permission" will be required for promotion of all white men
    without disabilities.
    
-   Clinton's Deputy Attorney General for Civil Rights ruled against a
    white N.J. school teacher who was fired solely because of her race.
    The Deputy AG is the former head of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.
    
-   The Feb. 7th issue of Human Events reported the the Clinton admin.
    believes that race based firings are legal even in cases where the
    employer has no history of discrimination.
    
-   Human Events also reports the Clinton Justice Department also "told a
    Maryland bank to hire black employees at all levels of its operations, 
    require the bank to advertise in black publications and on black radio
    stations, and ordered it to market its services to black real estate
    agents.
    
    
    People, this IS ILLEGAL!  The Clinton Administration is currently
    coddling 160 Affirmative Action/Quota programs today.  The above
    signifies a blatent breaking of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
    
    Please contact your Rep and Senator and encourage them to support 
    S 497.  Whether or not you believe Jesse Helms to be a kook, The other
    Jesse is even worse.  He DOES NOT espouse to the precepts of Martin
    Luther King and a color blind society. 
    
    -Jack

    >    People, this IS ILLEGAL! 
    
    What about 'the rest of the story'?
    
    In the Maryland bank case, for example, the bank was guilty of
    redlining, illegally refusing loans to people based not on their
    qualifications but upon their zipcode, which has been previously
    shown to be a racially prejudiced practise.  The Justice department is
    fully within the scope of legal actions to 'order' a bank to take
    mitigating actions in return for releif from criminal prosecutions.
    
    I suspect similar explanations lie behind the other cases you mention.
    
    DougO

        >the bank was guilty of
        >redlining, illegally refusing loans to people based not on their
        >qualifications but upon their zipcode
    
    So?? A bank is in business to make money. Why should they be forced to
    invest in an area that they deem not meeting that end??
    
    ...Tom

    .430
    
    They are in business to make money, but they are prohibited by law from
    discriminating on the basis of race, and denying loans based on ZIP
    codes is a not-too-subtle means of doing that.

	Hypothetical question...

	If every black person you ever loaned money too and expected 
to have it paid back never did pay back the loan, would you continue
to loan money to black people?

	You can supstitute the race of your choice for black, but used
black as it appeared we were talking about minorities.

ME

Whenever I've applied for a mortgage, nobody's asked my race.  They've
qualified me based on my finances and credit rating.  I suspect that if
they qualify people in black neighborhoods on the same basis that they
use for people in white neighborhoods, the default rates would be similar.

    .432
    
    > If every black person you ever loaned money too and expected
    > to have it paid back never did pay back the loan, would you continue
    > to loan money to black people?
    
    Yes.  But not to the ones who had defaulted on me.  Oddly, this is the
    same way I respond to members of nonblack races who default on loans.

    >They are in business to make money, but they are prohibited by law from
    >discriminating on the basis of race, and denying loans based on ZIP
    >codes is a not-too-subtle means of doing that.
    
    If they are doing this Dick, don't you think that it would be better to
    let the people decide if it is right or not by denying them business
    instead of a law that will apply to everyone, even if most aren't doing
    what the law is ment to stop?
    
    ...Tom

    
    .435:
    
    Relying on free market forces to combat systemic racism would be
    doomed to failure, pretty much by definition.
    
    When you apply for a loan, do you bother to check out the lending
    history of the institution?
    

    .435
    
    > let the people decide if it is right or not by denying them business
    
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!
    
    Tom, I gotta admit, your sensayuma is in fine form.  This is by far the
    funniest thing I've read in this file today.
    
    What?  You were serious?  You really believe J. Random Borrower gives a
    rodent doot about whether some other people he or she doesn't know and
    doesn't want to know can get home loans?  Like maybe if they get loans
    they'll come and build in J. Random's lilywhite neighborhood?  Get a
    clue.

       <<< Note 47.435 by DASHER::RALSTON "Anagram: Lost hat on Mars" >>>

>    >They are in business to make money, but they are prohibited by law from
>    >discriminating on the basis of race, and denying loans based on ZIP
>    >codes is a not-too-subtle means of doing that.
>    
>    If they are doing this Dick, don't you think that it would be better to
>    let the people decide if it is right or not by denying them business
>    instead of a law that will apply to everyone, even if most aren't doing
>    what the law is ment to stop?

Tom, in your enthusiasm form reason, you seem to have overlooked memory.
Not all laws came about as tools to usurp power from productive people and 
put it in the hands of bloodsucking bureaucrats. Some actually serve a 
useful purpose in countering the tendencies of individuals, institutions, 
and markets when they run counter to the general welfare of the nation and 
its people. This is one of them. If lending institutions had not 
demonstrated an inclination toward denying loans based on race, it never 
would've been enacted.

    I stick my my claim that the interests of the country or any group is
    only upheld when the rights and interests of the individual is upheld.
    Minority status is an invented concept that is used to steal freedom
    from individuals. The individual, a minority of one, is the smallest,
    the most important and the most unprotected of all minorities. If the
    rights of the individual are fully protected, and that includes not
    selling or doing business with someone if they don't want too, then all
    rights are fully protected for everyone, including blacks, Chicanos,
    women, factory owners, factory workers, farmers, homosexuals, etc, etc,
    etc. The concept of minority rights is meaningless, prejudice and
    destructive. Only the concept of individual rights is meaningful and
    valid.
    
    ...Tom

    Note 47.439, Tom:

    >I stick my my claim that the interests of the country or any group is
    >only upheld when the rights and interests of the individual is upheld.

    Absolute individual rights cannot sustain a society.  Sooner or later
    the rights of two individuals will come into conflict.  Then who wins?
    Well, the stronger/smarter/richer/faster/nastier one does, regardless
    of concepts like fairness, justice, and morality.  So laws get passed.
    They start with things like "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not
    steal", and then get more complicated from there, all of them intended
    to ensure that many, many `individuals' can share a city/county/state/
    nation without infinging on each others rights. 

    >Minority status is an invented concept that is used to steal freedom
    >from individuals.

    Nonsense.  Minorities have been trammelled by majorities since man first
    climbed up on his hind legs.  What protection do such groups have against
    this activity in the absence of legislated solutions? 

    >If the rights of the individual are fully protected, and that includes
    >not selling or doing business with someone if they don't want too, then
    >all rights are fully protected for everyone, including blacks, Chicanos,
    >women, factory owners, factory workers, farmers, homosexuals, etc, etc.

    You honestly believe this, Tom?  That the concerned, altruistic consumers
    in society will ensure that the groups listed above will be protected from
    discrimination on ludicrous grounds?  Go back and answer my question:
    When *you* apply for a loan, do you carefully investigate the lending 
    history of the institution?  And do you do the same for every other 
    product or service you purchase?  If not, then how exactly do you think 
    that those groups will be protected from discrimination?

    jc
    

       <<< Note 47.439 by DASHER::RALSTON "Anagram: Lost hat on Mars" >>>

Jeez, Tom. And you accuse Christians of blind faith...

    Re: .439
    
    I wonder how your philosophy stands up to the test of eminent domain.

 "jack-booted" hypocrisy

FWIW

	WHO'S CALLING THE BATF 'FASCIST'?
	=================================

	Quick, now.  Name the man whom Human Events identified in
	our Sept.16, 1994, How's Your Political I.Q.?, as having
	called the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms a
	"jack-booted group of fascists who are perhaps as large a
	danger to American society as I could pick today."

	No, it was not Rush Limbaugh.  Nor Gordon Liddy.  Nor Newt
	Gingrich.  Nor any Republican.  It was not even a top
	official of the National Rifle Association.  Instead, it
	was House Democrat and die-hard Clinton loyalist Rep. John
	Dingell (Mich.), who until January was chairman of the
	Energy Committee.  Dingell was referring to the BATF's
	actions during the Waco tragedy.

Source: Human Events
	Inside Washington
	May 12, 1995, p.3

    Where was all the uproar on this one?
    
    Seems the media is selectively choosing its targets to demonize (in
    this case, the much hated NRA).
    
    -steve

    
    It's probably worth noting that Rep. Dingle was, at one
    time, on the board of directors of the NRA...
    
    -b

And that Dingle used the 'jackboot' phrase as far back as 1981 ...

    
    For those of you who missed it....Sunday's Globe contains the
    following: 
    
    	"When US Rep James Walsh, a NY Republican, boarded a plane to fly
    	back to his Syracuse district a couple of weekends ago, he
    	was suprised to see his colleague Barny Frank (D-Mass) take a
    	first-class seat. "Tell me something, Barney", asked Walsh,
    	who was headed back to the coach seats. "How can you fight for
    	the middle class from first-class seats?". According to Walsh,
    	Frank couldn't think of an answer - a condition rarely seen."
    
    

I wonder if that's the same Jim Walsh who used to be involved in local
Syracuse politics 20 years ago when I lived there. Any idea, Gerald?

    Did Frank pay for the seat himself?  If he did, then the answer should
    be NOYB.  
    
    -Jack

	But I bet he didn't so it would be his business.

	Fair question anyway.

ME

Wasn't somebody named Walsh mayor of Syracuse before Lee Alexander?  But I
think his name was William.  I'm heading up there this weekend, so I'll try
to remember to ask.

	We could have paid for coach, and he could have paid the extra for the
1st class. But if he used his congressional checkbook....

I do b'lieve you're correct regarding the progression on the Salt City
Mayors, Gerald. I thought there was another Walsh as well - perhaps in
County rather than City Government. Mebbe we could check with Onondaga
hisself on that . . . 

If you happen to get to the south side, honk the horn for me.

    
    Found this gem in a George Will column recently.
    Seems quite accurate.
    
    "....liberals do not care what you do, as long as it is compulsory."
    
    

    
    A quick quote from todays Globe, yes, the Globe.
    
    
    "It is absolutely the height of hypocrisy for the five
     women senators to go after Packwood and ignore Clinton"
    
    					Susan Carpenter McMillan
    
    	
    I'll enter the article if I ever have the time....
    
    						Hank

    
    > "It is absolutely the height of hypocrisy for the five
    >  women senators to go after Packwood and ignore Clinton"

    The first time I read it, I thought it said Kennedy, not Clinton,....
    ....hhhmmmmm, work that way to though....

    Dan

    Is the Senator from Texas part of the witchhunt for Packwood...or it it
    just the other five who are no doubt bipartisan?
    
    -Jack

    
     .455>  "It is absolutely the height of hypocrisy for the five
              women senators to go after Packwood and ignore Clinton"
     
    Not to mention Kennedy.
    
    But, it is not the Height of hypocrisy - just the height of
    partisanism.
    
    	Skip

    Why is that hypocrisy?  Glen has never heard of Clinton's
    extracurricular activities!

.455>    I'll enter the article if I ever have the time....

If anybody in ZKO has said copy of the Glob and wants to drop the article
(or a reasonable facsimile thereof) at my office before 5, I'll scan it in
this evening and save Hank the trouble of keying it.

    
    fwiw, the 1st instance of mis-conduct packwood is accused of occurred
    the same year teddy entertained mary jo at chappaquiddick.
    
    bill

    comparison of Packwood to Kennedy is shallow and ludicrous. it simply
    shows the blind malice toward the senator.
    
    now, the real issue for me is Dole's reaction to the whole thing. he
    came off as poor adult and politician, but he certainly will get some
    nominations for best scurrilous extortionist. and this is the man who
    would be president? not if my vote counts for anything...

                    <<< Note 47.462 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

>   comparison of Packwood to Kennedy is shallow and ludicrous. it simply
>   shows the blind malice toward the senator.

They are both Senators.  Which Senator is being shown "blind malice", 
the one who may have asked employees for dates or the one who may be 
guilty of driving under the influence, negligent homicide, and leaving 
the scene of an accident?

    -1 gimme a break... ask a real question andi might respond.

What was wrong with that question, Chip? Seemed like a pretty reasonable
one to me.

    Nothing was wrong with the question; Chip's response was an
    argumentation tactic designed to divert attention from the matter at
    hand through use of feigned offense.

    	They should both be ousted.
    
    	Next question.

    -1 hey!

    okay, so i'll stoop just for you guys...
    
    Ted's (possible but never proven) indiscrestion is what, 3 decades old
    and absolutely unrelated to the escapades that Bobby is accused of...
    point 1
    
    there is a painfully obvious propensity for a lot of folks in here to
    take every stupid opportunity to malign political figures with some the
    most wild-butted analogies i've ever seen...
    point 2
    
    i'm not aware of TK ever being accused of SH...
    point 3
    
    i'm not saying Ted's the most wonderful guy (or politician) in the
    world, but to draw a parallel and then listen to that idiot Dole
    present his blackmail deal pushed me over the edge... this place, 
    like the political machines in this country, is scary 

                    <<< Note 47.469 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

>    Ted's (possible but never proven) indiscrestion is what, 3 decades old
    
    	Some of Packwood's accusations are older than Ted's.
    	(Which in no way excuses Packwood.  It simply puts this
    	point into perspective.)
    
    	I agree with you that the Republicans are looking petty in
    	their defensive tactics.  Better that they should take out
    	the bad apple than to use it as a battle cry.

    >i'm not aware of TK ever being accused of SH...
    
     You never heard of the groping incident in West Palm Beach with his
    drinking buddy Christopher Dodd?

    -1 he was groping Dodd? ahhh, but was Dodd working for him :-)
    
       

                    <<< Note 47.469 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

I was just having a bit of fun with your English.
You weren't very clear about which Senator was being maligned.

>   okay, so i'll stoop just for you guys...
>   
>   Ted's (possible but never proven) indiscrestion is what, 3 decades old
>   and absolutely unrelated to the escapades that Bobby is accused of...
>   point 1

Packwood's "indiscretions" have never been proved, either.  I'm not a fan
of Senator Packwood, but I was amused by the news reporters predicting that
he would be indicted if he turned over his diary.  Well, folks, it's been
over a year, and the Justice Department won't go for an indictment.
The case is far from clear.

    
>   there is a painfully obvious propensity for a lot of folks in here to
>   take every stupid opportunity to malign political figures with some the
>   most wild-butted analogies i've ever seen...
>   point 2

There is a painfully obvious propensity for members of both parties to 
protect their own while attacking major figures of the other party to gain 
votes.  Note that the people pushing for Packwood to resign suddenly turn 
deaf, dumb, and blind when it comes to Senator Inouye's [sp?] touchy-feely 
goings on with Senate workers or that Congressman who got censured a few 
years ago for "misconduct" with a young volunteer in a limousine while 
reporters stood a few yards away.  [Sorry I can't remember his name.]

What's the difference?  Packwood is a Republican, and the others are 
Democrats.  Does that mean that the Republicans wouldn't love to strengthen
their hand by embarassing a few Democrats now that they control the 
Legislature?  No, it's business as usual, and I don't like it, either.

    
>   i'm not aware of TK ever being accused of SH...
>   point 3

Perhaps, but I believe that Senator Kennedy's actions are far more serious.
I am not aware that Senator Packwood's actions got anyone killed.


In any case, the point was not to compare Kennedy and Packwood, nor was
the point to compare their misdeeds.  The point is that Packwood's accusers
have gone back decades into the past in search of evidence.  If that is 
fair, then it is also fair to bring up Kennedy's past.  To a certain 
extent, I agree.

    uhhh, the Packwood thing is still open, n'est pas?
    
    the Tk thing is fairly well buried...
    
    just for the record, i'm an independent :-)

    
    > the Tk thing is fairly well buried...

    Of course it is, he was a member of the majority for nearly all of
    those years.  He had what 30 years to hide the evidence and pay the
    people off.  It sure as H@!! better be buried by now !

    Dan

                    <<< Note 47.474 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

>   uhhh, the Packwood thing is still open, n'est pas?
>   
>   the Tk thing is fairly well buried...
>   
>   just for the record, i'm an independent :-)

Only in the Senate and in the court of opinion is the Packwood affair open.
The Justice Department considers the case closed.  

The PRM considers the Kennedy affair "case closed" as well.
I don't think it's buried that well.  

| <<< Note 47.466 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "contents under pressure" >>>

| Nothing was wrong with the question; Chip's response was an
| argumentation tactic designed to divert attention from the matter at
| hand through use of feigned offense.

	Hey..... that's the tactic the committee chairman used when he was
asked to make the hearings public! Divert to Kennedy...... 

| <<< Note 47.470 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>


| Some of Packwood's accusations are older than Ted's.

	Hey... back then it was ok to do that. :-)  If they just use the recent
ones the guy is toast.



Glen

    
    <-----
    
    Oh.. so back then it was okay to slam "queers" too???
    

| <<< Note 47.479 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Been complimented by a toady lately?" >>>


| Oh.. so back then it was okay to slam "queers" too???

	That's exactly what everyone thought Andy. Did you miss the :-)????

   > comparison of Packwood to Kennedy is shallow and ludicrous. it simply
   > shows the blind malice toward the senator.
    
    shallow and ludicrous?  name the notorius, womanizing senator who
    has been known to drink excessively and had an unfortunate incident
    with a woman in 1969, attributed to alcohol, that is still a matter 
    of controversy today.  he is distinguished by a life-long commitment to
    women's rights, and has a voting record in this area second to none in 
    his party.  many americans are confused and outraged over the fact that
    his public behaviour towards women doesn't mesh with what they read
    in the papers about his conduct in private.  he was recently divorced
    from his wife of many years. just about every member of the opposition
    party would like to see him out of the senate, and many in his own party
    consider him an embarrassment.  who is he?

    bill

    .475 and Dan, you will be providing proof of this when?

    .477 gee Glen, thanks for the help :-)

    .477 gee Glen, thanks for all the help... :-)

    .482 ahhh, so womanizing is a sin? a federal offense maybe? 
         get a grip. and all that has to do with his competency
         as a senator in what way please?
    
         ahhh, he drinks. shoot, let's string him up before he needs
         a liver transplant, goes to head of the line and gets 
         castrated in here for preferential treatment.
    
         it's still an open controversy in all the little minds who
         just have a void to fill in their lives. he wasn't found
         guilty of anything (i'm not saying he's innocent).
    
         move on, you'll feel better...

    Please define "womanizing"? Is that like being nice to one and
    harassing to another?

    >he wasn't found guilty of anything
    
     Neither was tricky dick.

    Oh, I'm sure that it was the breast cancer that precipitated the
    divorce. No doubt their relationship was peachy keen until she came
    back from the doctor's office with the news... Or are people whose
    spouses get cancer not allowed to petition for divorce any longer?

    
    Chip, try reading any of a dozen books on the incident.

    > it's still an open controversy in all the little minds who
    > just have a void to fill in their lives. he wasn't found
    > guilty of anything (I'm not saying he's innocent).

    So you classify people who fear that a senator may have used his
    political power to get away with causing the DEATH of a woman as people
    who have "little minds who just have a void to fill in their lives."
    If this is true, you are a very sick man.....

    Dan

                    <<< Note 47.486 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

>        it's still an open controversy in all the little minds who
>        just have a void to fill in their lives. he wasn't found
>        guilty of anything (i'm not saying he's innocent).

Packwood has not be found guilty of anything; he's not even being charged.
Just because the Justice Department has not found sufficient evidence to 
seek an indictment -- after investigating Packwood for about two years --
the Left shouldn't let little details like that spoil their Witchhunt.

After all, it's still an open controversy in their little minds, and they
do sooooooo need to have some petty little controversy to stir up to fill
the void left in their petty little lives.  God knows -- and the American
people know -- that they can't talk about issues: the Republicans are 
driving the agenda.  It must really be a bummer to be the minority party 
in both houses of Congress after being on top for so long.  It must be 
depressing to be heading into a Presidential election year with President 
Clinton as the head of the party and just about guaranteed to be the 
party's nominee for President.  It must be sad to pick up the newspaper 
and wonder what new horror awaits your party: perhaps another Democrat 
switching parties or maybe a new poll showing that the Democrats don't 
have a Presedential candidate who can beat Bob Dole.

Yes, the Democrats need to proceed with Ethics charges against.
They don't have anything better to do.

	Chip, glad to be of help....

	Chip, very glad to be of help! :-)

    Your contention is that Newt's divorce demonstrates ipso facto a break
    with family values, which serves to contradict his public statements
    about the value of family. To bolster this tenuous argument, you offer
    the emotional but scarcely relevent tidbit that Newt's wife had been
    diagnosed with cancer prior to the initiation of the divorce. When
    challenged to show that the actions in question are indeed equivalent
    to the hypocritical actions of Senator Ted, you resort to the ever
    popular ad hominem to provide a fig leaf. Nice try, Don. Might work
    with the rookies, even. But we've seen it all before, haven't we?
    Unstated assumptions, innuendo, and shameless generalization all
    wrapped up with a shrug, leaving the reader to connect the sloppily
    arranged dots. And when the reader dares to question the arrangement of
    the dots, why that's when we crank out the ad hominem machine and start
    attacking the intelligence of the reader, hoping to browbeat him into
    slinking away with questions unanswered.
    
     Your position is clear; it is perfectly acceptable for a legislator to
    say and vote for one thing in public and do precisely the opposite in
    private. Thus the fact that your beloved senator votes in favor of
    every single restriction to gun ownership for the general populace he
    can yet hires bodyguards who tote the very weapons he denies for the
    general populace bothers you not; it is perfectly legitimate elitism.
    
     I disagree. One's moral authority for imposing public policy is
    diminished when one behaves counter to the way one intends for the rest
    of the governed to act. That this position exposes me to the potential
    for disappointment in some of the politicians I support bothers me
    little. <r.o.> happens.

	.495  in other words, "Cow doots."

    You minimalist, you. :-)

    For those of you who think the dems don't have anyone who can beat
    dole.....
    let me remind you that 4 years ago, the dems didn't even want to
    put anyone in to run against bush.

    I think Clinton has a better chance of winning against Dole than
    anybody else. This whole morality platform strikes me as a smoke
    screen.

<---will you inhale?

    Nope, I'm too far north.

| <<< Note 47.501 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Painful But Yummy" >>>

| Nope, I'm too far north.

	Then move closer!!!! 

     <<< Note 47.498 by SPSEG::COVINGTON "When the going gets weird..." >>>

>   For those of you who think the dems don't have anyone who can beat
>   dole.....
>   let me remind you that 4 years ago, the dems didn't even want to
>   put anyone in to run against bush.

The last polls I saw show Dole [!?] and Clinton even money, which is 
pretty unbelieveable.

If your saying that the polls don't reflect the end results I agree, 
particularly when President Clinton goes into campaign mode.  

The problem is that the polls also show very high negative perceptions 
of President Clinton by likely voters.  If the Clinton team tries to 
counter by pushing up Dole's negatives, this could be the mother of all 
ugly campaigns.

    
    > ... this could be the mother of all ugly campaigns.
    
    We can only hope !
    
    :-)
    Dan

    .491 you the sick man Danny boy... until you show me a conviction
         you show me nothing. he's guilty only in your mind...

    >until you show me a conviction
    >you show me nothing. he's guilty only in your mind...
    
     Same with tricky dick. Same with John Hinckley. Same with OJ? I guess
    if OJ walks you'll say "I guess I was wrong; he really didn't do it."
    Ho ho.
    
     Then again, I suppose Robespierre had his defenders as well.

    one accused at a time, please...

    
    Chip, I'll do this again, slowly, maybe you'll understand....

    > So you classify people who fear that a senator may have used his
                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    > political power to get away with causing the DEATH of a woman as people
    > who have "little minds who just have a void to fill in their lives."
    etc.

    I believe that if the person in question had been Joe Stiff, things
    probably would have turned out differently.  Unfortunately, we will
    probably never know, because Teddy still has enough clout locally to
    prevent this from ever coming up.  Politicians possibly getting away with
    directly causing the death of someone worries me.  If this does not
    bother you, I suggest you seek professional help.

    Dan

    Dan, i guess we're at an impass because i'm sitting thinking you're
    the one in orbit...  

    
    For some reason, this doesn't surprise me.
    
    I hope you recover soon....
    
    Dan

    >I suggest you seek professional help.
    
     What is this, a mantra? You seem to invoke it every time you disagree
    with someone.

He worships Ann Landers.

    Didn't Senator Kennedy plead guilty to something like leaving the 
    scene of an accident or failure to report an accident?

    I remember that he gave a long and terribly lame excuse for going 
    home and failing to report the accident until the following day.

    
    Hardly Mark.  I was quite serious.  If the fact that a U.S. senator may
    have used his position to escape justice doesn't bother someone, I
    believe that they should seek professional help.

    The hoping for you recovery however, is a mantra.  Please try to keep
    up. :-)

    Dan

    
    can i change the subject slightly? well, not being one to wait
    for anyone's permission... :-)

    i was thinking last night about jesse jackson. someone referred
    to him as "a potential presidential candidate". i keep hearing
    his name mentioned as a possible democratic contender.

    it is my prognostication that this will not happen. however,
    jesse will be a presidential candidate... how does this jibe?
    well, i'll tell you: jesse, never one lacking in self-esteem
    shall we say, will look at h ross perot and conclude: "i
    can do that. i can deliver a block of voters, just like
    h ross says he can do". the voters jesse feels he can deliver
    are, of course, african american. jesse will play the same
    game perot did, namely offering up his voting block in
    exchange for certain political considerations (i.e. blackmail).
    knowing full well that neither major party will bite, jesse
    will instead enter the race as a third party spoiler.

    except this time, instead of harming the conservative
    (republican) candidate, jesse will have the effect of
    splintering the liberal base of support for bill
    clinton, and basically dole will walk into the white
    house the same way bc did. on the other hand, dole will
    also be perceived as lacking any clear mandate, and
    even though his party will still control both the senate
    and the house (another prediction), he will immediately
    be at odds with the newtian agenda.

    -b

    
    "Blackmail" is such a harsh word.... Wouldn't negotiated gift have a nicer
    ring to it...?

    :-)
    Dan

    Chucky Schoooooomer (F-NY) makes me very angry.  I was so pissed
    off I nearly pitched the tv though the window.  Then I tried
    to relax by thinking I'd write my rep and tell him to please
    go kick his arse.  Then I just said <r.o.> 'em.  I fight back
    other ways.  I'm in the process of "un-tagging".
    
    MadMike

    
    Mike,
    
    Pardon the stupid question, but what is "un-tagging"?
    
    Dan
    

    
    
    If a question is worth asking, it is NOT a stupid question.
    If you want to know the answer, it's worth asking.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Terrie
    

    
    re: .518
    
    
    re: "un-tagging"
    
    
     Removing the tag from the ear prior to gutting....
    
    NNTTM
    

    .514 the consistent operative you continue to offer in defense of
         your position is "may have used..."
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
         you wrote and you're missing it. hope this doesn't keep you awake
         at night...

    
    Chip,
    Your point is?

    Try being a little more coherent will you please.

    Dan

| <<< Note 47.522 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "It ain't easy, bein' sleezy!" >>>


| Try being a little more coherent will you please.


	Dan.... a serious note from YOU???? :-)

re:.486

    >.482 ahhh, so womanizing is a sin? a federal offense maybe? 
    >     get a grip. and all that has to do with his competency
    >     as a senator in what way please?
    > 
    >     ahhh, he drinks. shoot, let's string him up before he needs
    >     a liver transplant, goes to head of the line and gets 
    >     castrated in here for preferential treatment.
    > 
    >    it's still an open controversy in all the little minds who
    >    just have a void to fill in their lives. he wasn't found
    >     guilty of anything (i'm not saying he's innocent).
    >
    >     move on, you'll feel better...

    well, i guess .482 just ZOOOOOOOMMMMED right by you.  the purpose
    of that note was to show that comparing packwood and kennedy is not
    "ludicrous."  every sentence in .482 applies to both of them.

    bill
     

     re: .489 <<CALLME::MR_TOPAZ>>                                    

     come on, now.  it's not like newt stole her virginity and dumped her
     on a slag heap -- he gave it 20 years and it didn't work out.  actually,
     newt was a mere lad of 16 when his ex-wife, a teacher at his high school,
     became interested in him.  in a non-political arena, most would
     be surprised that a relationship with this type of beginning lasted
     as long as it did.    

     btw, the name bob baumann rings a bell.   was he wilbur mills' advance
     man at the tidal basin??   

     bill

    Billy & Danny... what a vaudville act you guys would make. no
    seriously, i do understand the feeble attempt to try and draw
    a comparison between the behaviors of both (term loosely used)
    "gentleman." at least in my eyes, you're falling short miserably.
    
    don't feel bad, it's not your fault because it can't be done. i
    do applaud your tenacity, however.
    
    ...and Dan, have you been tested for comprehensive deficit syndrome
    lately? :-)
    
    getting way, w-a-y back to my original observation (that was seriously
    derailed), i simply trying to pointout that it gets tiring and adds
    no value to any of these notes to simply take cheap and unsupported 
    shots at public figures incessently, and it's the worst when an
    incredible "spin & stretch" is put on it to make it fit. i'm not
    talking about comments made in jest. in here there lives some of
    the finest and fittest wit on the face of the planet. i'm pointing
    to the painfully transparent. my opinion is most of it is simply
    a security blanket for folks to belong...
    
    ta daaaaaaaa... i'm all done with conversation. have a happy life!

    
    > ... take cheap and unsupported shots at public figures....
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^

    I see, if it's a shot at one of your people, it's unsupported....
    hhhhmmmmmm  Are you related to mr bill by any chance?  
    Chip grow up will you.  I am not defending the actions of senator
    Packwood, but there is NO WAY a sane person can ignore the actions of
    senator Kennedy.  There is no way you can ignore that he could have
    been DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for the DEATH of that woman.  If you can,
    ignore the wrongeful death of this woman, I believe that you are
    SERIOUSLY lacking in the area of human compassion.

    > ta daaaaaaaa... i'm all done with conversation. have a happy life!

    Running so soon !  Gee, I was just getting started on you.... Oh well,
    see ya sonny....

    Dan

    

    >ta daaaaaaaa... i'm all done with conversation. have a happy life!


    ahhhh, so unanoting tires even one of it's most able practitioners!
    good bye and good luck.  oh, and don't spend a minute worrying about
    me, 'cause i've got some m_mercier notes stashed for a rainy day.
    
    catch you later,
    bill

    Derek:
    
    I'm sorry you are insulted and I agree that I do generalize quite a
    bit.  No, I'm afraid in most cases I'm right.  Consider the
    following...
    
    - The main problem of the inner city is a lack of jobs.  More jobs
      equal less crime.
    
    - If you remove guns from people then crime will deter and less people
      will be injured.
    
    - AFDC is a great tool to win the war against poverty.
    
    - Higher taxes will increase revenues in the Treasury and the middle
      class will finally be in an equitable position with the rich.
    
    - I am from the government and I'm here to help you.
    
    - More government programs will create more jobs on the Federal
      payroll.  This will enhance the economy.
    
    - The main purpose of guns to civilians is for hunting and other sports 
      activities.
    
    - Multiculturalism is goodness.  It reveals that there is something
      good in every culture and we can value these differences.  
    
    - The death penalty has not deterred crime in this country at all;
      therefore, we should not have it.
    
    - The NRA and other groups are extremists.
    
    - If you assimilate bad people into good neighborhoods, the bad people 
      will become good people.
    
    Derek, I believe in looking at the best in people.  Each statement I
    made above is of the liberal flank in this country.  If people who
    prescribe to the above are not misinformed, then it automatically
    default to them being liers.  I find the bullets provided above to be
    philosophically disingenuous or misinformed.  If you take offense to
    this, well I can't do much about it...the fact remains they are all
    utopian fibs!
    
    -Jack

 To answer your points.


    - The main problem of the inner city is a lack of jobs.  More jobs
      equal less crime.
 What exactly is your determination as to the cause of "inner city" problems?
I see someone with no job, no money, no education, no future, no respect in
the community as a bomb waiting to go off.

    - If you remove guns from people then crime will deter and less people
      will be injured.
Fewer guns lead to fewer deaths from guns. My mother lives in a lower rent
area, that has had an influx of Somalians. Needles to say some of the "good
'ole white boys" have a problem with this. Recently one of the boys picked on
a little girl telling her to get off the street, we don't want you here.. blah
blah blah. When some adults came over to rescue her from this verbal assault the
guy went to his car and got a chain saw. The people took the girl and left. Now
if either the loser or the Somalians had guns, it could have easily escalated
to the point of someones death. I for one am glad niether side was packing.
    
    - AFDC is a great tool to win the war against poverty.
Don't know what that is.
    
    - Higher taxes will increase revenues in the Treasury and the middle
      class will finally be in an equitable position with the rich.
Never said it myself, so I won't defend it.
    
    - I am from the government and I'm here to help you.
Ours tends to help, sorry if yours is not as beneficial.
    
    - More government programs will create more jobs on the Federal
      payroll.  This will enhance the economy.
Never said this myself, so I won't defend it.
    
    - The main purpose of guns to civilians is for hunting and other sports 
      activities.
In Canada you can not go down and get a gun permit for "self defense", so this
actually true in Canada

    - Multiculturalism is goodness.  It reveals that there is something
      good in every culture and we can value these differences.  
Canada is living proof.
    
    - The death penalty has not deterred crime in this country at all;
      therefore, we should not have it.
Canada is living proof.    

    - The NRA and other groups are extremists.
Could be true, I don't know.
    
    - If you assimilate bad people into good neighborhoods, the bad people 
      will become good people.
I don't know about "bad people", but integrated housing (up here that means
mixing in the poor with the regular folks) has for the most part eliminated
slums and areas that tourists are warned to stay away from. So once again I
would say Canada is living proof.
    
>>fact remains they are all utopian fibs!

 In that I live in a country that lives by many of those "fibs", and we have a
much more peaceful society, I fail to see why you claim these are facts.
    
								Derek.
    

    	My wife got a packet from the local county democratic party
    	organization.  "Dear Fellow Democrat..."   (Stike one.)
    
    	Some interesting stuff:
    
    	"at the national level, Colorado Democrats most work hard to
    	AGAIN deliver their state to President Bill Clinton, one
    	of the MOST VIBRANT PRESIDENT IN DECADES."  (emphasis mine.)
    
    	Strike two.
    
    	They list a whole sheet of Clinton's accomplishments -- with
    	plenty of bullet and white space...  "Fought for" all sorts
    	of stuff, yes he did.  I noticed that there was no mention
    	there about abortion of gay issues.  I suppose that even
    	they are smart enough to distance themselved from such things...
    	
    	Strike three.
    
    	Finally they said:
    
    	"Locally the 1994 elections resulted in no ElPaso County
    	Democrat being elected to the state legislature.  Clearly
    	Democrats have no place to go but up."  (They should have
    	put a smiley in there or something...)  It continued:
    
    	"We have elected Democrats from this county before (most
    	recently 1986-1994) and WE WILL ELECT DEMOCRATS AGAIN!"
    	(emphasis and parenthetical comment theirs.)
    
    	
    	I think they really *do* need help.

    
      How do you know he wasn't "most vibrant" ?  Talk to Ms. Flowers ?
    
      bb

    >>	"at the national level, Colorado Democrats most work hard to
    >>	AGAIN deliver their state to President Bill Clinton, one
    >>	of the MOST VIBRANT PRESIDENT IN DECADES."  (emphasis mine.)
    
    
    vi-brant adj.  Exhibiting, characterized by, or resulting from
                   vibration; vibrating.
    
    vi-brate v.  To move or cause to move back and forth rapidly.
    
    
    Given Slick's high-frequency oscillation on various important
    issues of the era, I'd say that this description is perfectly
    accurate.
    
    Chris

>      How do you know he wasn't "most vibrant" ?  Talk to Ms. Flowers ?

Ms. Flowers only claims to have knowledge of Clinton's vibrancy.  I don't think
she has any information on that of Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, etc.

    In an interview with Quebec MTV-equivalent Musique Plus last year,
    Quebec Premier Jacques Parizeau let slip that his nickname at school
    was something that the press translated as "vibrant weasel..."
    
    -Stephen

    By the way, when will the lefty bimbo brigade be going to the largest
    concentration camp in the world?

    
    Wrong topic, Jack.  Try 348.  :^)
    

    Uhhhh....sorry!

	"bimbo" - what a charming little term.

    'bout as good as "dork" for guys...

    Well my wife thinks it is a condescending term and won't allow me to
    use it in the house.  Therefore, it becomes necessary to vent my 
    frustrations of the Mizvinsky clones here in Soapbox.
    
    -Jack

    I get brow beaten if I say poop.  I mean, give me a break! :-)

>>    'bout as good as "dork" for guys...

	yeah, that's a charming one too.  

       <<< Note 47.536 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

>    By the way, when will the lefty bimbo brigade be going to the largest
>    concentration camp in the world?

Jack!

Nice to have you back noting instead of that imposter. I don't know what 
the 'box would do without your subtle, elegant, and enlightened 
contributions...;')

Tom

I thought dork was a gender-neutral term.  Without Chelsea, we can't argue
about dorkesses.

>>I thought dork was a gender-neutral term.  

	I was thinking that at first, too, but I can't recall hearing
	a woman referred to as a dork.  I think it's pretty much reserved
	for men.

So what would you call a woman who's dorky?

    Hillary Clinton?

    My sister calls me "bimbo"...

>>    My sister calls me "bimbo"...

	and it's not just a corruption of "Jimbo"? ;>

    .551
    
    Dat's 'xactly what it is.
    Makes people look twice sometimes after hearing a woman call, "Hey!
    Bimbo!"

>>So what would you call a woman who's dorky?

	I don't know.  <pensive frown>  Maybe a geek?

    
    Can a woman be an "@$$hole", or only a "bitch"?
    

	.554  either or both.

    
    I ask because I never hear women referred to by the former; it's
    almost always the latter.
    

    I think it's a common protocol that women should not be addressed by
    such a debased description.  Women are precious and wonderfully
    made...yes even the Jezebels of the world!
    
    Okay so I'm going overboard!
    
    

    
    I have to agree with Joan on this one.  Never heard of a woman being
    called an "@$$hole".  I'm not even quite sure how to pronounce it, but
    I'm sure I've never heard a woman called it.  :-)
    
    

    How does one pronounce "@$$hole"? at dollar dollar hole?

     I've heard it and I've done it, though bitch is more common.

    At least you're not Chele shocked.

    
    I've called many a woman driver "at dollar dollar hole"...
    
    Since they've been asserting themselves so much more on the roads
    these days, I feel they should get the equality they deserve...

 Date: Fri Sep  1 13:48:50 1995
 From: majority96@majority96.org (Majority '96)
 Subje[u.~: Majority '96 CyberGazette - Issue: 8-31
 To: majority96-l@andrew.cais.com
 Reply-To: majority96@majority96.org
 _________________________
 Majority '96 CyberGazette
 Issue V - August 31, 1995
 _________________________
 majority96@majority96.org
 http://www.majority96.org/majority96
 
 ---It's Growing !---
 
 Majority '96 is rapidly expanding its base of support.  Numerous people
 have visited the site and nearly 1000 have signed onto the Mailing List or
 the Majority '96 CyberActivists Network.  The new face of the site and its
 comprehensive Targeted Races pages have attracted attention from around the
 nation.  People are utilizing the Majority '96 website and others as a
 political resource-an Internet first!
 
 Please check the Majority '96 web site regularly.  It is constantly
 changing and providing new and important information to the user.  The site
 address is (http://www.majority96.org/majority96).
 
 Suggestions for the site are always welcome.  Please e-mail us at
 majority96@majority96.org.  Also, any programmers out there who know how to
 write a CGI-bin script, we want you!
 
 ---The Best Choice---
 by James C. Sanchez - Brevard County, Florida
 
 One of the most important things we, as the Democratic Party, need to focus
 on, is expanding our base of support. There is great opportunity for our
 party to gain the support of those unhappy with the current policies of
 the Republican Party.  This includes independents, moderate to liberal
  --------------------------> snipped <----------------------------------
 
  ---What Does It Mean to be a Democrat in 1996?---
                       Part 3 of 3
 
 The following is part three of a three part series on what it means to be a
 Democrat today and beyond.  The complete text is available on the Majority
 '96 Web site at http://www.majority96.org/majority96/whatis.htm.
 
 ---------------> blah, blah, blah.. Snipped <-----------------------------
 
 First, we do not believe that all Democrats have to share all of the
 following principles.  Our party is not a dictatorship of one, and
 political correctness is not measured by the crack of the Speaker's Whip.
 We believe that the following set of fifteen ()t}5) political principles are
{ shared by most Democrats and provide guidance that can be applied to the
 specific issues of the day.
 
 11. Reasonable Gun Control.  We believe the right to bear arms is a
 conditional right, and must be balanced with society's need for safety.
 The founding fathers never intended the Second Amendment to include assault
 weapons and "cop-killer" bullets. Democrats join with the overwhelming
 majority of America's law enforcement officers in supporting measures that
 curb the rampant spread of gun violence.
 
 12. Protection from Crime.  We believe it is an essential role of
 Government to ensure the protection of its citizens from crime.  Crime
 prevention and criminal punishment are both essential elements of that
 responsibility. Democrats believe that the former can only be achieved
 through comprehensive job training, education, and the provision of
 opportunity.  The support Republicans have received from the NRA prevent
 them from supporting any efforts to scale back the proliferation of guns in
 America.  Through NRA support, the Republican Congress has pursued policies
 of big guns and bigger  prisons.  Democrats believe a better way is to deal
 with crime at the source by strengthening families and providing
 opportunity.
   ------------------------> snipped --------------------------------------
 

	Gee Jim.... nice to know that was kept in tact.... :-)

    
    	I couldn't bear to print the whole thing...it would have to be put
    in the "GAK" note...
    
    
    
    :)

    .565
    
>11. Reasonable Gun Control.  We believe the right to bear arms is a
> conditional right, and must be balanced with society's need for safety.
> The founding fathers never intended the Second Amendment to include assault
> weapons and "cop-killer" bullets. Democrats join with the overwhelming
> majority of America's law enforcement officers in supporting measures that
> curb the rampant spread of gun violence.
    
    How about : "We believe the right barring infringement of freedom of
    the press is a conditional right. The founding fathers never intended
    to allow 'Weekly World News' or 'Juggs' magazine to be printed, as well
    as any publications by the LaRouche organization or the Libertarian
    Party.  Democrats join with the overwhelming majority of America's
    radical Republicans in supporting measures that curb the rampant spead
    of politically-incorrect journalism."

    It might be worth thinking about what an "assault weapon" was at the
    time the 2nd amendmet was written.  A muzzle-loading musket was
    certainly an effective cop-killer.

    
 > The new face of the site and its
 > comprehensive Targeted Races pages have attracted attention from around the
 > nation.       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    Geez... This sounds like something you'd expect to see on a KKK site!
    

    A man named Prophet Atlantis is running for City Council in Olympia,
    Washington.  He is a Psychic Schitzophrenic.
    
    He believes in everything the democrats believe in.  I think this man
    ought to be Bill Clintons prototype for the New Democrat.
    
    -Jack

    
    
    Shouldn't that go in the Whacky News Briefs???
    

	I thought politics of the left was code for wacky news briefs. :-)

Didn't I hear of this Prophet Atlantis on a RUSH morning comment the
other day???

       Jello Biafra, the musician, ran for Mayor of San Francisco.  His
       only campaign plank was to require all businessmen [sic] to wear
       clown suits in the city.  He finished 6th, collecting more votes
       than four other candidates, including Nun of the Above.
       
       Mr Biafra is a devoted follower of Bob Dornan.

 ZZ   Didn't I hear of this Prophet Atlantis on a RUSH morning comment the
 ZZ   other day???
    
    Yes, I was picking up something at the store and heard it!  I thought
    it was humerous.
    
    -Jack

    
    Another Dem bites the dust in CA...
    
    Rep. Anthony Beilenson - congress-critter... will not run for
    re-election in 1996.
    

    
    da da dum dum dum... da dum dum da da dum...
    
    -b