Tell the truth...

[leonid]

Heh, my last two posts were highly charged with cynicism as they were meant to be, but, yeah Dowding, I haven't the foggiest idea for an alternative either, though I do think UK/Europe is generally going in the right direction.

[qts]

Dowding, you've never experienced a Labour (not NL) government, have you. A more complete bunch of f***-ups will prove hard to find.

There were only been two good British PMs in the 20th Century - Mr Churchill and Mrs Thatcher.

Note that I said 'good', not 'great'.

But I suggest that we pursue your political naivety in private email

[Toad]

There will be MAJOR change as a result of this election.

At least 1/3, if not more, of the sitting Justices of the US Supreme Court will retire and their replacements appointed FOR LIFE by the next President. It could go as high as 5/9 of the Court.

If you don't think this is an opportunity for MAJOR change, you really don't understand the US Government.

There is a clear choice between the two contestants with respect to this issue.

Vote or don't. Your choice.

It's easy to claim this election isn't important or nothing will change but the retiring Justices give the lie to those ideas.

"Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you."

-Pericles (430 B.C.)

 


------------------
Toad

If you want government to intervene domestically, you’re a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you’re a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you’re a moderate. If you don’t want government to intervene anywhere, you’re an extremist.

-Joseph Sobran (1995)

[Dowding]

qts - there's no need to pursue this through email. This is the O-Club, and as such is open to any discussion. If you're willing to listen to my views, I'll listen to yours.

Firstly, to answer your first point it is true I am too young to have lived under a previous labour government. I know about the 'bad' old days of general strikes etc., but I was born in 1978 and lived under a Tory government for 18 of my 22 years. Let me tell you about some my earliest memories...

I've lived in South Yorkshire, just outside Barnsley all my life (apart from when I was at uni.). My father worked at Manvers coal mine at the cokeing plant and then when that was shut down, at Smithy Wood. In 1984 the Miner's Strike began, and my father refused to cross the picket line. My mother had just given birth to my little brother and was not working. We did not live in a council house, but lived on a new estate half a mile from from Cortonwood Mine.

Faced with severe financial hardship (mortgae repayments et al), my parents had to make a few savings. One of them was coal for the fire. One of my earliest memories was going down to the railway track with my father and filling a sack full of coal that had fallen from the trucks that took coal from the mine. I also remember hearing the riots at night that took place at the picket line as Thatcher ordered the local police (and bully boys from 'down south') to arrest the miners. I remember the burned out house with the words 'Scab' spray painted on one of the walls. I look at the mining village now and see how it is a no-go area after dark, whereas before there was a community. These things might explain why I have nothing but disdain for Thatcher and her policies.

Meanwhile, London and the home counties thrived.

Thatcher increased the divide between north and south, and that sentiment is still in evidence to this day.

This ain't some sob story - alot of people have it a lot worse than I have it. My parents are now comfortably wealthy (with NO help from Thatcher) and I have a degree from Durham University.

I hope you can appreciate why I don't share your admiration for Thatcher, and I find it hard to comprehend the reasoning that puts Maggie and Churchill in the same category of leader.

[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 11-01-2000).]

[Fatty]

Curious how many of those complaining that they're left with 2 bad candidates voted in the primaries?

[leonid]

Toad,

The last liberal Supreme Court Justice was nominated under Reagan.  Scalia and Thomas were nominated with Democratic approval.  Thus, who gets into the Supreme Court during this presidential term is nothing more than a crap shoot.

Like I said, they're all liars, and damn good ones too.

Oh, and if you want proof about the Supreme Court nominations, look it up yourself  

[This message has been edited by leonid (edited 11-01-2000).]

[Mighty1]

Fatty I for one do not like either candidate but I DID vote in the primary.

I used to be one of those people who didn't vote because I didn't like either candidate but soon learned the one I liked the least would win.

I'm also under the opinion that if you don't vote you don't have the right to squeak about who won.

[Rickenbacker]

 

Originally posted by Ripsnort:
In his book "Earth In The Balance" Gore claims that the nation's Number
One enemy is the internal combustion engine.

Well, he's right about that one. How many people in the US _don't_ have asthma or some kind of allergy because of the heavy pollution?


------------------
        Rickenbacker (Ricken)

                -ISAF-
the Independent Swedish Air Force

[blur]

 

Originally posted by Toad:
Bush is Tweedledum.

Gore is Tweedledummer.

Bush says he wants the government to stay out of my life as much as possible.

Gore says he wants the government to meddle in my life as much as possible.

Easy, Easy choice.
<snip>

Is it? The Republicans say they want government out of our lives. That sounds peachy. But they're only talking about fiscal concerns because they're right back in our face when it comes to moral issues.

The Right will loosen up tax laws then balance it with a host of chicken toejam laws as they codify morality into legal commandments. This is why our prison system is one of our fastest growing industries.

The Left will give us more freedom regarding moral issues but they certainly want to micro-manage how we live fiscally. They want to spread the wealth around until everyone is just "slightly" unhappy.  

Remember that young unwed welfare mother with four kids in Poughkeepsie, there's another bun in the oven and she'd sure appreciate it if you working folks take that extra job.

From the perspective of the average taxpayer the result is still the same; both parties will take your hard-earned money and piss it away.

[Hajo]

 

Originally posted by Gunthr:
Mav, Dowding, I couldn't agree more.

 Hajo, if you could see beyond your general defeatism and overall malaise, there are sharp differences between the two candidates, and some of them could effect you personally.

But don't bother. Just lay there. Rest. The world will walk around you, and events will leave you far behind.

Gunthr.....sorry to say you'll have little say in whom is elected, that decision was made by the Corporations, Lobbyists, and major contributors to each party!  If you don't believe me watch the television, and see the political advertisements night after night.  People actually believe what some of these advertisements are saying, just like you should buy this mouthwash because etc. etc. etc.  The crime is no research is done, people or last minute voters decide by how many political endorsements they see or hear, not on actual facts.  For instance our surplus <G>  LOL yet the national debt climbs at a faster rate week by week.  Looks like a big mortgage someone in the future is actually going to have to address. No one is walking by me this election, if Sen. McCain were in the running I would be deeply involved.  He suggested change, members of both parties were particularly afraid of his views on campaign financial reform.....give everyone an equal share etc.  So that they could all present their ideas equally.  As it stands now....those with the most money win.  Is that what you endorse?  You don't endorse the idea of giving each candidate the same opportunity to express his values or ideas?  Gunthr if that's what you want you've already got it.  Because as in the 1960, I believe it to be that year, during the Presidential election, in Cook County Illinois, even the dead voted, sometimes twice <G> And why?  Because someone had the money to make it so.  Not my idea of democracy.


[This message has been edited by Hajo (edited 11-02-2000).]

[Gunthr]

<S> Blur. I disagree. You are only half right. It is liberal Democrats who wish to legislate morality.

They tried to use the military as a social experiment on behalf of homosexuals.

They legislated laws that cut out Federal Grants for the Boy Scouts of America because they didn't want homosexuals as Scoutmasters.

And they have been trying for years to pass legislation creating special new rights exclusively for homosexuals.

You won't see Republicans trying to legislate morality that way.

It is a matter of record that the liberal administrations in this country have churned out massively more new legislation, codes, rules and laws than Republican administrations, much of it stuff we will probably never free ourselves from. Pages and pages of the stuff are the hallmark of the Democrats.
 
However, you are absolutely correct that the Dems will redistribute your money to those that they feel deserve it more than you...

I believe that in your part of the country people defer to that liberal, gluttonous, boozy buffoon TED KENNEDY to make those moral and financial decisions for them. How do you good people stomach that guy?

No thanks.

[This message has been edited by Gunthr (edited 11-02-2000).]

[Eagler]

I'm sorry, whatever side has Jesse Jackson and the NCAAP (to mention just two) on their side... I'll be on the opposite side.

You are judged by the company you keep.

Eagler

You've heard the NCAAP are now trying to get criminals to vote, Democrat of course!

[blur]

<S> Blur. I disagree. You are only half right. It is liberal Democrats who wish to legislate morality.

Ask any Republican their opinion on homosexuals, drugs, abortion, etc. These are moral issues, aren't they?

They tried to use the military as a social experiment on behalf of homosexuals.

The military is a dehumanizing organization that turns impressionable young people into unthinking robots to be used as tools of the state. Therefore, whether someone is straight or homosexual isn't the issue, neither group should join. This is another case of government corrupting its citizens. Believe it or not having a standing army in peacetime used to be an issue at one time.

They legislated laws that cut out Federal Grants for the Boy Scouts of America because they didn't want homosexuals as Scoutmasters.

If the Boy Scouts want to teach intolerance that's their business except when they're receiving public funds. That now makes it the public's business. In any case the government has no business funding this nonsense anyway.

And they have been trying for years to pass legislation creating special new rights exclusively for homosexuals.

If there are no Constitutional provisions curtailing the rights of homosexuals, then they have them by default.

I believe that in your part of the country people defer to that gluttonous, boozy buffoon TED KENNEDY to make those moral and financial decisions for them.

Hey, I can't help it if Ted's a bad date! I'm not voting for him anyway.  

[Gunthr]

Hajo, <S> I agree with much of what you say. The difference between me and you is that you are a cynical old fart.

I'm just an old fart.  

Blur:
 

The military is a dehumanizing organization that turns impressionable young people into unthinking robots to be used as tools of the state. Therefore, whether someone is straight or homosexual isn't the issue, neither group should join. This is another case of government corrupting its citizens. Believe it or not having a standing army in peacetime used to be an issue at one time.

Blur, I think America's need for a military is pretty well established. Soldiering is a viable occupation for people because we will always need a military, in greater or lesser strength.

I disagree with the liberals who seem to be willing to pay for the homosexual votes they recieve by attempting to burden the military with a social adventure at our expense.

The last thing you want to do is try to make the military politically correct. It's weakened and demoralized enough as it is.

And don't make the mistake of thinking that this is a diatribe against homosexuals who want to be in the military. It isn't.

 

Hey, I can't help it if Ted's a bad date! I'm not voting for him anyway.

Yeah, but I bet he's a fun guy to party with! Bill, too!  

Eagler:
You might want to consider adding Hustler publisher Larry Flint to your list of fervent liberals who's company you would rather not keep.  


<S> Gunthr


[This message has been edited by Gunthr (edited 11-02-2000).]

[Toad]

Leonid,

I feel absolutely certain that Bush will nominate potential Supreme Court Justices that are far more to my liking than those that Gore would nominate.

Those individuals will still have to jump through the confirmation process, so it won't just be the President's decision.

As I said, however, Gore and I don't see much of anything the same.

I'm more than willing to support Bush on this issue alone. Guess I'm a "single issue" voter.




[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 11-02-2000).]