Jerry Klein's Dialogue Page - May 22

Voices In The Wilderness -- Jerry's Dialogue Page

May 22 - , 1998

Site Contents:

My Front Page

The Progressive Alliance
PA Home
PA News
PA Mission
PA Supporters
PA Events
Join The PA

JK News
What's Happening

JK In Print
My Latest Column
Archives

JK On The Air
The Link Lounge
Current Playlists

Interactivity
Send Me Email
The Dialogue Page
* Rules
* Sign-In
* Archive
Favorite Email
Join My Email List

JK Concerts
Hall Of Fame
Who's Coming

Live In Person
Come See Me

Bio
About Me

Search
Search This Site

Please Sign My Dialogue Page
( To View Previous Dialogue Pages, click here)
Read This First: Rules For Jerry's Dialogue Page

Back to the discusssion about love, sex, and marriage, the actress Carrol Channing is seeking a divorce. One her complaints against her husband is that she has not had sexual intercourse for over forty years. I guess viagra was too late to save her ma rriage. ***** As to the shooting in the Oregon High School on Thursday, my criticism is with the NRA. Rather then admit that guns are a part of the problem, the NRA has refused to discuss openly what can be done to save America's children from such unnec cessary violence and death by guns that could well be prevented. What needs to be done is for the NRA to take a more moderate and proactive position to help find the answers rather then to continuely argue that this is a second amendment issue. The true rights issue is about the lives of America's children that are at risk here. The victims of these tragic crimes are the children and their parents, not the second amendment. Why isn't the NRA trying to help reduce the suffering of these victims. Grievi ng mothers are not concerned with second amendment rights or issues. No different then the grieving victims of other crimes who have no concerned with the rights of the murderers of their loved ones. The old conservative battle cry was that liberals are soft on crime. The new liberal battle cry is that the conservatives are soft on victims. If conservatives have no problem in ignoring t he legitimate Constitutional rights of accussed criminals in order to convict, then these same conservatives should have no problem in sacrificing their beloved second amendment rights in order to prevent children from becoming victims. Like it has been been stated, many liberties must be sacrificed to win the war against crime (and drugs) to protect America's children. The same message should be sent regarding the end of the second amendment right to possess a gun.
FireTruck <ftruck@orlando.net>
Orlando, FL USA - Friday, May 22, 1998 at 01:27:20 (EDT)

FT, The NRA position is not unusual. For example, I dont see the alcohol industry and MAD patting each other on the back. I dont see Pro-choice people speaking out for abstinence. I dont see Black people complaining about high taxes or S.S. going broke . I dont see college kids complaining about the high cost of medicare. Anyway I think you get the point.
Andy <tcp12@ibm.net>
Charlotte, USA - Friday, May 22, 1998 at 06:05:32 (EDT)

Andy, a comment on your commment. " For example, I dont see the alcohol industry and MAD patting each other on the back." Actually, while beer makers do target teeens with their ad's, they have also been coupling their Ad's with responcible use of Alc ohol messages. I would guess that this is from the influence of MADD. "I dont see Pro-choice people speaking out for abstinence." Than you have never gone to a Planned Parenthood Clinic. "I dont see Black people complaining about high taxes or S.S. going broke." Do you ever see black people? I have never met anyone of any race that didn't think we paid a lot of taxes. The facts are that the NRA is representtative of Gun makers a nd Gun sellers, and they have fought every law and every piece of legislation that has sought to restrict the wide ranging distribution of guns. The NRA is very much responcible for the ability of kids to get guns, for wacko's to get guns, and for all sorts of people who don't need guns getting guns. The 2nd amendment CLEARLY SPELLS OUT that the government can regulate firearms. It is beacuse the Republicans are the puppets for the NRA that we have so many children injured and killed by guns. I just wish if nuts with guns were going to kil people, they would start with NRA lobbyists.
Marc <vsylvestre@ctc.net>
Albemarle, NC USA - Friday, May 22, 1998 at 08:01:05 (EDT)

BTW, what is the state law in NC regarding kids who bring guns into the school? I think they should get a year or more in jail for bringing a gun onto school grounds. I know that at the school where my wife teaches, they started a "no guns on campus" p olicy, which raised up a fuss among the people that like to have guns in their cars and wanted to drom off their kids at school.
Marc <vsylvestre@ctc.net>
Albemarle, NC USA - Friday, May 22, 1998 at 08:03:23 (EDT)

Lest anyone forgets who is really in bed iwth the Chinese,see:"http://www.war-stories.com/Clinton1.htm. Read with an unbiased mind.
Tropic Lightning
Charlotte, NC USA - Friday, May 22, 1998 at 14:04:58 (EDT)

If a comparison needs to be made, it should be between the tobacco industry and the NRA. Both have over the years lie and confused the issue to protect their own self interest. They both have used lobbyist to insure that their own interest will be pr otected. They both contribute huge donations to and endorsed the candidates who cater to their will, not the People's. They use fear to prevent the opposition in Congress from passing legislation that will restrict their interest. We know today from th e released of documents that the tobacco industry has hid from the People of the tobacco industry efforts to hide the truth to protect their self interest. The question now is how far has the NRA gone to hide the truth from the People to protect their ow n self interest as well.
FireTruck <ftruck@orlando.net>
Orlando, FL USA - Friday, May 22, 1998 at 14:20:46 (EDT)

I see that you still like to keep using other names Mark Hodroff (Tropic Lightning).
????
USA - Friday, May 22, 1998 at 14:55:13 (EDT)

With Memorial Day upcoming, we all should pause our activities and reflect on the meaning. For a beautiful tribute see: "http://members.xoom.com/azgecko/memorialday.htm"
Tropic Lightning
Charlotte, NC USA - Friday, May 22, 1998 at 15:25:29 (EDT)

We should be thankful to those that fell in battle defending this country, especially those that fought for the Union during the Civil War. If not for the sacrafice of those brave souls, we would be many countries, always in conflict. Thank God for Pre sident Lincoln and the Union Army!
Marc <vsylvestre@ctc.net>
Albemarle, NC USA - Friday, May 22, 1998 at 22:15:06 (EDT)

Yo "Electric Strawberry" --- 3rd Plt., C Co., 1/5 Inf., 25th Div --- Dau Tiang, Tay Ninh, Nui Ba Dinh, Luan Loc, Cu Chi, the "Parrots Beak" and the "Fish Hook" in Cambodia --- "doc" --- We are the unwilling, Led by the unqualified, To do the unnecessar y, For the ungrateful.
pressin'on <sawtooth@trellis.net>
monroe, nc USA - Saturday, May 23, 1998 at 09:57:30 (EDT)

(This posting is in honor of Memorial Day.)

In Flanders Fields
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lives, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe;
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
-- John McCrae

Randy McCracken <rdm@soundview.com>
Asheville, NC USA - Sunday, May 24, 1998 at 12:57:51 (EDT)

My only regret is that I could not get him to Richmond. And my second regret is that Grant was not with him.
John W. Booth
USA - Sunday, May 24, 1998 at 20:25:49 (EDT)

I see some coward who is afraid to leave his name posted a note for J. W. Booth. As usual, a "Rebel" misses his history. Fool, Lincoln wanted to go easy on the South, he wanted to rebuild the South. As it is we can still see the lingering effects of the Civil War on the South, in the lack of infrastruct ure, the poverty, the low level of education. The Confederacy was a bad idea, poorly executed by fools and traitors. The Confederacy and "State's Rights" are in the dustbin of history, along with Communism, Fascism, and many other once fashhionable "ism's ". Lincoln is with God in Heaven, and we all know where Booth ended up.
Marc <vsylvestre@ctc.net>
ALbemarle, NC USA - Sunday, May 24, 1998 at 22:24:26 (EDT)

Lincoln was the fool. He should have let the South go. Who wanted them in the Union anyway? Look how they screwed up the country. It was a shame that Lincoln allowed brave and honorable Union men to die to keep the South free. The United States wou ld be a better country today if Lincoln had allowed the Confederacy to go their own way. No good Northern was worth one dead Southern. While we give praise to the honor dead who died for America, lets not forget the Students who died at Kent State Unive rsity at the hands of their own countrymen. If it were not for those brave students who sacrificed their lives for peace, the United States would still be fighting in Nam today. Those honorable students made it possible for America to get out of that he ll hole called South Vietnam.
FireTruck <ftruck@orlando.net>
Orlando, FL USA - Monday, May 25, 1998 at 01:54:35 (EDT)

To Mark Hodroff, Tropic Lightning, John W. Booth, and your many other aliases..... Just pick a name and stick with it.
??????
USA - Monday, May 25, 1998 at 09:20:59 (EDT)

Firetruck, finally you have come up with the answer to all the problems of the world. As long as there is a protest something will be done right. You might use the argument that the Pilgrims were protesting the Church of England but since I know you're a religious biggot already it would fail you to use that argument. Then you might go on to say that the protests of George Wallace to segregation but he was a southerner, the worst kind of people in this country. So Firetruck why don't you go and use these arguments. I'm really trying to help you. After all if you wanted to get personal before, then you've got a long line of southeners to deal with. Take care.
Bob K. <WACurly@msn.com>
Charlotte, NC USA - Monday, May 25, 1998 at 19:22:46 (EDT)

Orland Florida, a melting pot of queers, junkies and down and outs. It only figures such rhetoric would come from the land of Mickey Mouse and Goofy. All this north and south stuff is sickening. The south is the land of liberty and freedom, free from the unions and anarchy of the urban areas of America. Quite frankly it would suit me and the rest of the Euro-Southern Americams of the rebuilding Confererate States of America quite well if we could be given 13 states where we could establish our government. This would be a gevernment of no welfare, no quotos and no taxes without representation. We would train our own in warfare and industry as well as agriculture. I can assuure you within 15 years after the establishment of these states, our borders would be overrun with aliens wanting a good piece of the pie. So Mr. Firetruck see you in WARTHOG.
Conrad Johnson III
Newton, NC USA - Monday, May 25, 1998 at 19:53:27 (EDT)

Oh Conrad, or whoever the F you are, you are Funny! "The Confederate States"? Wasn't that tried once b4, by a bunch of losers, and they got their rear ends kicked? If it were not for the tax dollers of the Northern states, especially New England, the South wouldn't have a single highway larger than Albemarle Road! The Confederacy was a complete failure. Each State was more concerned with it's own survival before the survivel of the entire confederacy, which is why they all withheld troops for their own defence, weakening the whole. As for "Union-free", if it weren't for unions, we wouldn't have a middle class to speak of. Unions have driven up wages in Union states, and some companie have fled down here, giving Southerners jobs they would never have had. You should thank your lucky stars for the Northern complete victory over the traitors of the South, and for the Unions to whom you owe your livelihood. We Northerners do enjoy your warm climate, but we will have to finish making your government better. Personally, I wish people like you would move to Alabama. We will take care of NC just fine, thankyou.
A Nanny Mouse <Nanny@Mousemail.com>
Mousebamarle, NC USA - Monday, May 25, 1998 at 22:50:24 (EDT)

Jeez! Still fighting the Civil War? In case you haven't been keeping up w/ the literature: Slavery is WRONG. War SUCKS. The Confederacy wanted slave labor. The Union wanted to keep the burgeoning American Empire together and "slavery" was the ruse. LET IT GO. The whole damn thing is just bad history- it *cannot* provide you an identity and should never be a source of so-called "pride" for anyone. IT'S HISTORY. Learn from it! Stop trying to *justify* it. By the way, as shocking as it might seem, there is no such thing as 'Northerners' or 'Southerners'... just people who try to be cool in their dealings w/ others and those who like to attack and damage those they feel are *different*...
bp <third_eye@earthlink.net>
NC - Monday, May 25, 1998 at 23:13:37 (EDT)

Anybody seen this nutcase in Georgia who wants to arm teachers to stop school shootings? It is always easier for our side if the Gun Nuts have a loony as a spokesman! Does anybody think this guy has 1 oz. of sence? I think putting guns in the classroom is about the nuttiest idea since supply side voodoonomics.
Marc <vsylvestre@ctc.net>
Albemarle, NC USA - Tuesday, May 26, 1998 at 08:06:32 (EDT)

In case anyone has not been paying attention...there has not been one single shooting at a private school...The educators in public schools are kind of like security guards who wanted to be cops. Private schools turn out better students and have better teachers. Better yet home schooling is the ay to go...I know for a fact the Albemarle City Schools have teachers who can bareley read and right themselves, and most of them are minorities who went to third rate colleges.
Jill Nolkensberg
Stanley, NC USA - Tuesday, May 26, 1998 at 08:40:50 (EDT)

For the genius who seems to think that I am using one or another alias: take note that I am one of the very few people who post here using my full real name. As it happens you anonymous poster is not I; I have spent a wonder past 4 days in Abingdon, VA, riding the Virginia Creeper rail-trail and attending a performance of The Diaries of Adam and Eve at the Barter Theater. For those of you who enjoy mountain biking you really ought to try the creeper. It's 35 miles of the most scenic ride I've ever done. And Abingtdon is a unique town. It's a great getaway and only about 3 hours from CLT. Even ??? might enjoy it!
Mark hodroff <mhodroff@juno.com>
CLT, NC USA - Tuesday, May 26, 1998 at 09:40:10 (EDT)

Hi Ya Jill, As someone living in Stanly County, I have to say that when our son is the right age he is going to private school. I don't think it is just a teacher problem though. Where my wife teaches some of the teachers are counting the days till retirement. The principal enforces no discipline in the school. Kids make out in the halls, run, scream, hit, whatever. Sure, some teachers (like my wife) care, and dare to fail students who won't work. She and a few others like her have quiet, well ordered classes, but others couldn't give an F*. Why should they? Just to get threatened by students or their parents? Just to have the administration fail to back you up? For a top salery of 35 K a year (after many years and college degreees). My wife is a professional, and although she is counting the days till she can join my business and quit teaching forever, she brings meaning to her life by doing the best job she can. But lets face facts, our parents do not back up the schools, our county's voters do not back the schools, and a lot of Administrators are gutless, and the pay stinks. BTW, the current Principal at ALbemarle High is the best Principal in the county.
BetterNotSay <notonthisone@ctc.net>
Albemarle, NC USA - Tuesday, May 26, 1998 at 12:25:55 (EDT)

The North-South nonsense is just that. Conrad you say the South is free of the anarchy of Urban areas. I presume that you mean crime. Interesting, isn't it, that Charlotte has a higher per-capita violent crime rate than New york City or Boston? You speak of urban areas as though the South is not densely populated, yet the South contains some of the more densely populated areas in the country. You want to see wide open spaces and simple country folk? Go to Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, or any of a dozen or more other states where a southern accent will mark you as an outsider. And for those of you who have a heart attack every time you see a confederate battle flag because you beleive that it represents slavery, you should be absolutely aghast when you see a British flag or for that matter the American flag; after all, slavery existed under the Confederate flag for about 5 years but THRIVED under the British flag for aver a century and under the American flag for decades. For the transplanted northerners who think the South is slow and backward, check out the geography of economic growth in this country, or for that matter note that your own children will think of themselves as Southerners and ponder whether that makes then less bright or cultured than kids in Detroit or Cleveland. Like I said, the whole North-South thing is nonsense.
Mark Hodroff <mhodroff@juno.com>
CLT, NC USA - Tuesday, May 26, 1998 at 14:00:53 (EDT)

Hey Ho Mark H. U R right about the "North/South Nonsence". However, when I lived "up North" you never heard about it. It is a complex you only hear about down here. Nobody up North cares a wit about the Civil War, other than an interesting piece of history. Down here, for a lot of people, the war is still being fought - "The North cheated", "the South was right", etc. I don't understand the obsession with some Southerners with the Civil War.
Marc <vsylvestre@ctc.net>
Albemarle, NC USA - Wednesday, May 27, 1998 at 08:32:36 (EDT)

I guess I have to back Mark up on his recent posts, he has ALWAYS been the one who has posted under his own name --- possibly because he has always talked common sense to people and has never had to be ashamed of what he says --- something I can't say about everyone on this page --- least of all, the one who made the comment and wouldn't even leave his own name after making it. Mark has always been "just Mark"and he is rich or poor according to what he is, not because of what he has. His one limitation is the same as all of us have --- he knows much more than he understands and possibly more than he wants to understand. --- This garbage about the Civil War, well my parents were from SC, but I was born in Calif, my brother was born in Fla., my sister was born in Colorado, yet when I was being raised in NH about the time of the Civil War Centinneal (1961) my teacher made me get in front of the class and tell everyone why my ancestors were traitors to the United States and why we hated blacks and what I thought of the KKK. --- Jimminy Cricket, what was I supposed to say? I was eleven years old and didn't even know that I was a traitor. There was one black family in that little town, he was the mailman and his house burned down one winter --- everyone looked at us like we had caused it. I guess that's northern hospitality for ya! I'll never forget that old woman grillin' me in front of the class --- it was the last time I ever cried but I guess I apologised for everything that had ever happened to anyone. You transplanted Northerners are fine with me, and I hope that you can be honest enough to admit that there is just as much racism up north as there ever was down here --- it's just that everyone hears about it down here when it happens, when it happens up north, it is of a more subtle nature. Which is worse --- to hate a man outright and to his face; or to stab him in the back in such a way that he doesn't know where it came from?
pressin'on (John Miles) <sawtooth@trellis.net>
monroe, nc USA - Wednesday, May 27, 1998 at 08:43:55 (EDT)

Well John and Marc, as another Yankee transplant I have to agree with both of you. I never did hear anyone up there exhibit an obsession with the Civil War, Marc, and it does seem strange. On the other hand, as the child of an immigrant (father) and a first generation American (mother) I did experience a desire on the part of family and acquaintances to "connect" to their past in some ways. (Interesting, by the way, that it was more pronounced among my mother's family, who were a generation removed from "the old country" than among my father's, who obviously knew the differences more directly.) In any case, I suspect some of the Southern heritage stuff relates to that. And on the other hand John, there IS a tendency, it seems to me, for some folks from the North to look down on the South as a "backward" area. Actually, I even sense some of that from "progressive" Southerners; the sense that the regional differences that distinguish Southerners as somehow something the people should get over. (Not to pick on Jerry, but I was always amused that on his radio program he used to mock a strong regional (Southern) accent in making the point that someone was in his view culturally, intellectually or politically backward, even though he identifies himself as a Southerner.) I don't suppose that either side is more pure than the other, but it does seem so ridiculous that people can't get past such silliness.
Mark Hodroff <mhodroff@juno.com>
CLT, NC USA - Wednesday, May 27, 1998 at 09:14:10 (EDT)

Every region thinks it’s the best, everyone claims to live in God’s Own Country. It’s not just Southerners versus Yankees. When I lived in California, San Franciscans thought Southern Californians were gauche while Eurekans considered San Franciscans to be the same sort of depraved urban trash as Los Angelenos. Manhattanites mock the Bridge and Tunnel people from New Jersey, Charlotteans mock Gastonians. When I lived in Virginia, they looked down their noses at North Carolina. North Carolinians often look down at South Carolinians, and so on down the cultural pecking order. I fight not to make generalizations about different groups, and I often fail miserably. This might be another case, but it seems to me that the chip on the Southern shoulder is a lot bigger than many others. No doubt its roots are in mistreatment by others. A lot of it even goes way back before the colonization of this continent. European nationalist, ethnic and class prejudices were transplanted here, growing into very similar rivalries and animosities. And so what do we do? I don’t know, but picking at the scabs won’t help.
Al Christensen
- Wednesday, May 27, 1998 at 19:18:18 (EDT)

Why does the North think less about the War Between The States? Could it be more immigrants settled in the North then in the South after the War. Especially at the turn of the century with Ellis Island and all that. If anyone seen the movie "Titanic" the immigrants were heading for New York City. So the South lost out on a lot fresh blood that flowed North due to the fact industry was in the North. Also, the South never could overcome the destruction of its infrastucture due to the war. Thus, the South had no jobs to offer to immigrants which in turn would have re-vitalized the South. One other point, the South had a major labor problem with all the slaves being freed. Too much labor and not enough jobs, even for the white folk. It was the immigrants who went North that changed the North. The South was left to relive the war. Also, the South was an occupied country with Northern troops stationed there. That type of situtation would caused the Southerns to view themselves as different from the North as well.
FireTruck <ftruck@orlando.net>
Orlando, FL USA - Wednesday, May 27, 1998 at 21:32:26 (EDT)

Hello, everyone. It's been a while since I've been on to chat, but I want to comment on the NRA discussion. First let me tell you that I am a lifetime member of the NRA and that there is a good reason for it. About six years ago I was delivering pizza in the UNCC area and was the victim of a robbery by six men. I was beaten and had to go to the hospital. Rights? You want to talk about victims rights? According to NC law I had the right to kill all but one of my assailants in order to give myself a reasonable chance of survival. My survival in this case was not due to the police or my having a handgun, but instead was only due to my assailants lack of willingness to kill me. Rights? Where the **** were my rights? Now I own and carry a small pistol for self-defense. I no longer believe in mercy for people like my assailants. They don't deserve it and we should not give it. This young man who committed this recent attack is clearly disturbed. Had he ran down his classmates in the parking lot with a car instead of using a gun, would we ban cars? We must focus on the real issue at hand which is punishment for criminals. Gun control? Bill Clinton brags that the Brady Law has prevented 250,000 permits from being issued. Many were denied for reasons such as typos, but I'm willing to give him credit for all. To falsify information on a handgun permit carries a five year sentence. A felon handling a pistol is illegal and carries more prison time. How many were arrested and prosecuted? Seven. I am sorry about what this disturbed child did, but I am not insane and would like to have the option of saving my own life, because the police will not be there when I need them and our system sure as **** isn't going to punish them.
Farid <fsenglish@caro.net>
Charlotte, NC USA - Wednesday, May 27, 1998 at 22:58:56 (EDT)

Farid, I can't believe you just wrote what I read. You agree with Netanhayu. A Palestinian who is against gun control. So you agree that Israel should get tough with the Palestinians to protect their "personal security" from mad Muslin Palestinian bombers.
FireTruck <ftruck@orlando.net>
Orlando, FL USA - Wednesday, May 27, 1998 at 23:33:11 (EDT)

Now ... now ... Firetruck ... you needn't be so hard in Farid --- he is just trying to protect himself. I don't carry a firearm with me ar work because I'm afraid that I would use it, then the courts around here would send me up the river for having planned a mugging inorder to get the chance to kill somebody, especially since I make all my own bullets. Don't laugh, that's the way these liberal courts carry out justice. I work nights all over Charlotte and some of the crouds that congregate around some of these gas stations at night would make you think that if "crude" were a fast food --- they would have a set of "golden arches" over their heads, anyway --- we've had drivers hit over the head with 2x4s, pipes ... and yes even pistol whipped --- it ain't a pretty sight when someone comes in with all their teeth broken out. Soooo, I don't carry a gun cause I trust the criminals more than I trust the courts to deliver justice. Anyhow, the last time it happened to me --- a cresent wrench to the face worked just fine, thank you! My guns stay in a safe place, I don't.
pressin'on <sawtooth@trellis.net>
monroe, nc USA - Thursday, May 28, 1998 at 09:29:06 (EDT)

So JOHN, can you be more explicit about the problems with the courts. Is it the Judges? The jurors? the laws? The state/county prosecutors? The police? or is it the citizens who just don't want to get involved? ... Would you prefer no laws and no justice system where it is everyone for themselves? ... Or is the problem with the Constitution? The rights of the victim versus the rights of the defendant. John, would you prefer a police state where the defendant has no rights and the police and the prosecutors have absolute authority? Where the defendant is guilty until proven innocent.
FireTruck <ftruck@orlando.net>
Orlando, FL USA - Thursday, May 28, 1998 at 12:35:15 (EDT)

Firetruck, I think you should move up to Boston. Do you know that they had a law up there whereby if someone was trying to break into your house, you were required to vacate the premises and go to your neighbor's house to call the police. In other words, to defend yourself, your family or your property in the instance of criminal conduct within your own house would be construed as criminal. Remember Dukaukas' reply to what he would do if someone was trying to rape his wife (or something like that)??? --- His answer was based on that law --- and look where it got him! THAT'S what I mean by stupid idiotic laws. You ask what I would prefer --- it's real simple --- a little bit of common sense. Good is a principle of totality, of coherence, of meaning; evil is nothing more than fragmented ideas, mockery and incoherence. There is no redeaming value to an evil law which laughs at logic.
pressin'on <sawtooth@trellis.net>
monroe, nc USA - Friday, May 29, 1998 at 08:09:50 (EDT)

There’s a very interesting article in the May 25 U.S. News and World Report about what is and isn’t behind declining national crime stats. The economy? Demographics? Prevention? Prisons? Police? Yes and no. There are also accompanying articles about changing attitudes among at-risk youths, and about factors contributing to dropping property crime rates. By the way, during the ups and downs of crime stats for the past 50 years, gun ownership by "law-abiding citizens" has remained nearly constant at 35%.
Al Christensen
- Friday, May 29, 1998 at 13:58:33 (EDT)

Hey Ya Pressin. I guess I am not crazy about gun ownership because of the vast number of people who, to be honest, ought not to have cars, let alone guns. I don't buy the idea that one is safer with a gun in the house. I would guess that Phil Hartman had a gun in the house for safety and see where it got him. I can buy gun ownership for hunting. I can see why people want the illusion of safety by having a gun. However, the government's fear of the NRA, and refusal to put controls over gun ownership have contributed to gun problem in this country. I wonder how many thousand more people have to die because of the Republican's slavish fear of the NRA? Some day, the NRA will pay for what they are doing to America.
Marc <vsylvestre@ctc.net>
Albemarle, NC USA - Friday, May 29, 1998 at 14:50:56 (EDT)

Al I haven't seen the article, although I will make it a point to read it. I gather that you intended the observation about gun ownership as an indicator that gun ownership is not responsible for declining rates of violent crime. I think that's probably a correct observation. Equally correct, however, is that gun ownership is not responsible for increases in crime rates.
Mark Hodroff <mhodroff@juno.com>
CLT, NC USA - Friday, May 29, 1998 at 15:17:19 (EDT)

Marc, you seem to believe that gun ownership is a cause of violence and that therefore a reduction in gun ownership will result n a reduction in violent crime. Consider though, the examples most frequently used to argue for that position:in Japan and England there is strict gun control and compared to the US very low rates of firearms related crime. There are also, however, in both countries very low rates of knife related crimes compared tothe US. Does gun control also reduce knife crimes, or are there other, perhaps cultural factors at work which cause lower rates of violence over-all in those countries? And if you make firearms ownership illegal in the US, will a person who plans murder be more inclined to obey the firearms prohibition that he is to obey the prohibition on murder, or will he simply violate BOTH laws?
Mark Hodroff <mhodroff@juno.com>
CLT, NC USA - Friday, May 29, 1998 at 15:28:38 (EDT)

To me, the real purpose behind the 2nd Ammendment was not necessarily for the arming of the populace to stop a foreign invader, it was to keep the central goverment in Wash DC honest. Our forefathers realized that an armed populace was the best deterrent to dictatorial or totalitarian rule from the nations capitol. As you look throughout history, the first emphasis of tyrannical rule has always been to disarm the populace, our forefathers recognized it and provided for it. With the arming of the population this country is safe from anyone who might try to occupy it and it keeps the federal goverment on their toes. I do not advocate the overthrow of the goverment, I simply state that I am not now nor will I ever be anyone's slave. As far as crime goes --- we can make a big deal out of a few youngsters who have gone wrong with the shooting in school if we want to --- or we can celebrate the tens of millions who live in law abiding homes where guns are used for recreational, home defense or collecting interrests. It is a sad thing to say, but it is a truism that there are always a few bad aples in the bottom of the barrel --- I simply do not know what we can do for that --- but if you read any achient history like you can find in Josephus, you will find that violent behavior is as old as th human race and I have always believed that the decision to use violence starts with an inward choice instead of external opportunities.
pressin'on <sawtooth@trellis.net>
monroe, nc USA - Friday, May 29, 1998 at 17:12:28 (EDT)

Marc, I don't have all the answers --- but I can tell you something about how I have managed to spend as much time in as many rough areas as I have and only been attempted to be mugged or robbed once where we have several people to whom it appears that it is almost a regular occurance --- every 2nd or 3rd year. First of all, I watch all the people around me, I watch their body language, I note their intoxication levels, I note their "roudiness". As for myself, I do not look like your ordinary "straight", my hair is long and often disarrayed, my clothes are often dirty, sweaty and greasy, I don't look "easy", I keep the door open to my truck and when I am not doing something with my hands --- I keep one hand in my pocket. There have been occasions where I have been CERTAIN that I was being setup for a "hit"and as the people approached me I simply stared them in the eye and put my hand in my coat and smiled at them as if nothing would make me more satisfied than watching the impact of a bullet on their forehead and the resultant explosion of their brain as it blew out the back of their skulls. ---- Is this nice and tidy, is it what I would prefer, is it the Christian thing to do, is it even "normal" behavior --- probably not, but for those who are inquisitive, how about taking a ride up Brookshire where it crosses I-77. Just before you get there there is a gas station beside the Hornets Nest Inn. Go up there about 3 AM on a Friday or Saturday night every night for a month and you will see what I mean and why cashiers are behind bullet proof glass with only a drawer to take change from customers.
pressin'on <sawtooth@trellis.net>
monroe, nc USA - Friday, May 29, 1998 at 17:51:12 (EDT)

Then take a ride up that little side street beside the station. It's only about 300 yards long and before you get to the end of it you will stand a good chance of being propositioned by a hooker at least once a week and offered drugs almost every night of the week if you don't mind little plastic bags pulled from the inside of someones cheeks. About a month ago, it was raining and a girl jumped up on the "running board" of my truck. She was black, about 17 and did not have a stitch of clothing on, she was soaked and smiling --- obviously high as a kite!!! I rolled the window down and asked her what she wanted. She said her boyfriend had beat her up and took her clothes and kicked her out of the car and she had no way home, then she asked me if I wanted a girlfriend for the night as she leaned back from the door of the truck and flaunted her wares. I said "no thanks" and she looked hurt, so I gave her my raincoat and told her to get her rear end home or I was gonna spank her right ther in the rain. She showed her gratitude as I drove off by bending over and "mooning "me. What really make me sick is the little girls running around, some of them about 12 or 13 years old and driven by their parents. I had one in a rest area come up and offer to make me the "happiest man in the world", what an origional line!!! She had hardly even started to develop. I asked her where her parents were and she told me that they were in the car behind my truck. I grabbed her hand and told her that if I ever saw her around there again, I was gonna notify the HP and took their license plate down. So sleep tight Marc, and whatever you do, don't run out of gas around Rozzel's Ferry Road with your family in the car at night --- it may not be a pretty sight when you get back to your family after going for some gas --- if you get back. Mess with the wrong croud and you may not believe what happens next, you may not beleive it even while it is happening to you.
pressin'on <sawtooth@trellis.net>
monroe, nc USA - Friday, May 29, 1998 at 18:18:16 (EDT)

Hey Mark. I don't think that reducing gun ownership will reduce crime, and I am sorry if I left that impression. Out in these parts, most of the gun deaths are "Friends and Family", like the Phil Hartman case. People live together or as neighbors, getting along fine, than something happens, and instead of getting into a fist fight they pull out guns. Maybe I don't have a lot of faith in people - I don't believe, for example, that humans are capable of dealing out justice. I also do not believe that a lot of people who have guns have the sence to use them in a wise or safe manner. If people had knoves rather than guns, they could still do harm to eachother, but the killing part would be harder, and take more effort. I would prefer that because I also believe that people are naturally lazy ;)....Anyway, there needs to be a lot less guns (or bullets) out on the street. I'd rather have people committing their robberies or fights or settling their bad relationships with chains and knives than handguns. I guess it is because I don't want to lose my wife or child to some idiot with a gun.
Marc <vsylvestre@ctc.net>
Albemarle, NC USA - Friday, May 29, 1998 at 19:49:11 (EDT)

JOHN, the 2nd Amendment is about arming the milita, not the populous. What the army is is to the central/Federal government, the milita was to the states. Since each state was equal in soveriegnty to the Federal government, each state needed its own means to protect itself from civil unrest on the one hand and to enforce its statues on the other. That is why the "well regulated state militas" were allowed to be armed under the 2nd amendment. *** John, if you want to worry about something other then the feds taking control of the nation, you should worry about the Christian conservatives who want to enact state and federal laws to allow law enforcement into your bedroom, not that there is anything worth seeing. They want control of your gun, the gun the army calls your fun, not your rifle. *** As to my post about choosing between more law enforcement and the rights of the accuse, just look at how the Charlotte police accused the doctor of killing his wife while ignoring another more probable suspect. *** Also, if a store is open at 3 in the mornin and expects to get rob, why then is that store open. Isn't that inviting crime?
FireTruck <ftruck@orlando.net>
Orlando, FL USA - Friday, May 29, 1998 at 21:36:58 (EDT)

BARRY GOLDWATER's quote about Reagan's involvement in the Iran/Contra Scandal: "Reagan is [either] a Liar or Incompetent". May he rest in peace, 1909 to 1998.
FireTruck <ftruck@orlando.net>
Orlando, FL USA - Friday, May 29, 1998 at 21:41:37 (EDT)

You know, after being absent from this page for about a month, and reading back, it's amazing what one can learn about the writers , our society, whatever. gun control, , Do no Democrats or Liberals own guns? has a Democrat never committed a crime ? Those kids that lost their lives in all of the school incidents is beyond tragic, but no gun control law would have changed that, no Republican Congress could have prevented that, has anyone comsidered that maybe some parents or home life atmosphere may have had something to do with that ? This page is still fighting the civil war for gods sake, the south this , the north this..Lincoln and Grant should have been together, what kind of crap is that ???? Barry Goldwater, rest in peace, says Reagon was a liar, ok, then why can't we say Clinton is a liar, I think he is...Why didn't the principle of the school report to the police that the young student was sent home for carrying a gun that day, after all it is in violation of the standing law today, we don't need new laws , we need to enforce the one we got....we are running amuck with political views and finger pointing, we are not a country in unity, we are two separate countries under the same flag, and I suppose thats the republicans fault also......I contend we all don't have to look any further than our own minds to see where we have gone wrong...Kids killing kids is about as low as we can get....the guns ain't got nothin to do with it...later.....james
James <jazzbass97@aol.com>
Charlotte, NC USA - Saturday, May 30, 1998 at 06:43:12 (EDT)

'Truck you said that the 2nd amendment is about arming the militia not the populace. I'm going to quarrel with your choice fo words for a moment, but not regarding the populace/militia issue. At least in the context of its times, there is no question that the original amendments to the Constitution were NOT about conferring rights, but rather, when rights were dealt with in those amendments, about prohibiting the federal government from interfering in the free exercise of rights that were held to be inherent in free people. Put another way, it is reasonably clear that where rights are mentioned they were presumed to exist independent of the government and outside the purview of government's authority to diminish them. The debate surrounding the matter of whether a so called "bill of rights" should be included in the Constitution hinged not on what rights the people should have, but rather on whether the gov't could be trusted to not interfere in that which was not within its scope. Among those who argued against such a listing of rights there was a fear that by listing them an excuse would be provided to those willing to usurp the people's rights to claim that they WERE the business of gov't and to attempt to regulate them. In opposition were the states contingent who feared more that were they not listed as sacrosanct, the gov't would claim the power to encroach upon them. In no case did either side put forth the argument that the business of government was to ALLOW the exercise of rights. All of this to say that the 2nd amendment was not about arming anyone. It was about preventing the government from interefering in a pre-existing right of the people: one that existed before the government said a word about it. For what it's worth, by the way, there's ample evidence as well that the militia was held to be "the whole people", not a select group.
Mark hodroff <mhodroff@juno.com>
CLT, NC USA - Saturday, May 30, 1998 at 08:36:14 (EDT)

So the purpose of the 2nd Ammendment was to keep any goverment --- foreign or domestic --- from infringing upon the rights of the populace? Mark, does that mean that the federal goverment had no rights other than those given to it by the people, that the people have the right to confer upon the goverment whatever authority they think it ought to have --- not vice-versa? Hay man, that's cool --- but, if that's true --- how come they are the ones now that are telling us what we can do and cannot do when it should be us telling them to go take a hike. How did everything get twisted up like it is now? Mark, you may not believe this but that view is thoroughly biblical in context. When Jesus was talking to his disciples he told them that self-chosen authority was in reality impertinence. He said that in this world the great ones will exercise authority; but in His kingdom, that is not the way it happens. He said,"If anyone wants to be first, he must be the last, and the servant of all." In other words, the king should be the servant of everyone, from the greatest to the least, but I guess it's kinda hard to wash the feet of those below when you are standing on a pedistal. I guess the power of a centralized goverment is like salt water to a thirsty man, the more you drink, the thirstier you get; and I would suppose that this thirst for more power would manifest itself more easily in destroying the rights of others than it would in creating right for them.
pressin'on <sawtooth@trellis.net>
monroe, nc USA - Saturday, May 30, 1998 at 09:26:08 (EDT)

OK, John, so allow me to be wholly secular for a minute! You said the governemnt has no "rights" other than what the people confer. Time to argue about words again, but they're important words. The government has no POWER other than what we give it. In the political philosophy that underpins our form of government, rights belong to people alone and cannot be nor are needful of delegating to others or to government. The classic description of the rights of a person is anything that a person may do in his own self-interest without coercing the aid of another and without limiting the similarly founded rights of another. The role of gov't is not to say which rights you have: you have them all. Rather it is to ensure, through laws, that when you ACT on those rights, it does not encroach on the ability of others to exercise their rights. The classic example, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, is a perfect example. You have the right to yell "fire" all day long but the people in the theater have the right to live without injury imposed by you. The gov't may not tell you what words you may yell, nor even that you cannot yell that specific word, but rather it may only tell you that you may not do so in a way that you might reasonably apprehend would result in a stampede of people resulting in injury. Should you exercise your right to free speech in such a way as to interfere with the rights of others, the government STILL may not involve itself with you freedom of speech other to sanction the specific instance wherein it encroached on the rights of another. (COntinued below)
Mark Hodroff <mhodroff@juno.com>
CLT, NC USA - Saturday, May 30, 1998 at 10:21:46 (EDT)

(Continued from above) If every person exercised each and all of their rights at will but limited their exercise so as to not interefere with the rights of others, government would have no role in intervening. Surely the men who designed a government to ensure and further our rights (liberties) understood that people would not act that way, but it seems clear to me that they attempted to design a system wherein the role of government was, in the arena of the people's rights, not to determine which rights were good or bad or which were safer or less safe when exercised and act to surpress the bad or less safe, but rather to stay out of the arena of rights until and unless the conflict of rights required mediation. To paraphrase Franklin, those who prefer safety to liberty deserve and will have neither.
Mark Hodroff <mhodroff@juno.com>
CLT, NC USA - Saturday, May 30, 1998 at 10:22:29 (EDT)

Tom my sorta friends , Marc, John and FT. I have been reading the posts wether or not the 2 nd ammedment cliams this or that, well it doesn't really matter. Our society has gone way past that and any other given law.We are a society based on if it feels good to me, then screw everyone else, regardless of the consequences. We can argue all day long but it's a waste of time. I watched a TV movie about the train killing's up in the Big Apple, in the movie they made a very strong political point that the republicans were NRA friendly and didn't pass the proper gun control laws. Then the movie preceeded to show that the guy who killed the folks on the train couldn't get an gun in NY or NJ !!!!! he had to go to California and take up a two week residence to get a gun !!!!! All because of the gun control laws. So why was the republican laws a point in the movie ??? I certainly don't know....This guy was gonna kill people on a train if he had to invent and build his own gun, the gun wasn't the problem, he was ...his brain was fried, just like haolf the people in this country.. I want it, I'm gonna get it , who cares what you think,,yada yada yada, No legislation is going to stop that . No gun control, no new laws, is going to stop that mind set....I contend only the family unit can do that...We are in a terrible mess , Drugs, violence on TV and the movies, records where cops are killed, black against white, white against black, Christians are no good, jews are no good, Liberals are bad, Conservatives are bad....good night , look at us...we are pretty pittiful....james
james <jazzbas97@aol.com>
Charlotte, nc USA - Saturday, May 30, 1998 at 11:06:21 (EDT)

The only way to know for sure if gun control will reduced the violence, if not the crime, is to have a true and working gun control policy in the United States. Like prohibition, it should be tried. If it doesn't work, then end it. *** Barry Goldwater voted against the 1968 Civil Rights Act. Like affirmative action, has the need for civil rights laws passed? Should the 1968 law be repealed?
FireTruck <ftruck@orlando.net>
Orlando, FL USA - Saturday, May 30, 1998 at 16:58:28 (EDT)

Thank you Mark, that does clear up some uncertainties in my mind. I assume that most of the information you have dispensed came from the Federalists Papers and it only makes sense that within the context of a democracy, that the powers of the goverment would be strictly delegated to it by the people and not the rights of the people delegated to them by the goverment and that the enumeration of a certain set of rights , within that framework, MUST be seen as rights that HAD such foundational importance to the survival of the kind of nation the founding fathers had envisioned that without their enumeration --- the democracy they had set up could someday become just another form of totalitarian rule. Thanks, Mark
pressin'on <sawtooth@trellis.net>
monroe, nc USA - Saturday, May 30, 1998 at 17:10:10 (EDT)

ON this duscussion of guns, I have to point out the the 2nd amendment says explicitly "a WELL REGULATED militia". The term "well regulated" means that the federal and state govenrments can regulate guns. Those are the facts. As to weather restrictions on gun manufacture and ownership would put a dent on crimes committed with guns, that is another matter. Drug dealers and those involved in organized, high profit crimes will always be able to get guns, no matter what the laws, because they can afford them on the black market. Driven, intelligent people, like the Unibomber, will also get guns, if they have to make them out of coat hangers and duct tape. However, if guns are not widely available, there would be a signifigant reduction in homicide in America. If you have to go to "the bad part of town" to get your gun, a lot of people are not going to bother. If guns are hard to get, the lazier brand of criminals (and I would submit that criminals are by definition lazy) won't bother to get them, they will just use a knife, chain, or whatever is the weapin of oppurtunity. If law abiding people don't have guns, they will be unable to shoot eachother when they get ticked off (like a lot of recent murders we hear about). If we stop the legal manufacture and sale of guns and bullets, we would see a slow decline in the number of guns in America, and although we couldnt get rid of all of them we would get rid of enough to save thousands of lives. I don't want to see my wife or son killed by another idiot who has lost his temper or doesn't like the way I drive.
Marc <vsylvestre@ctc.net>
Albemarle, NC USA - Saturday, May 30, 1998 at 22:48:55 (EDT)

I am ashamed, as a former Assembly of God Christian,( still a Christian though) I am ashamed as to the way some Christians or so called Christians minister. My wife works as a server in a local restaurant, hi priced one I must add, she has told me before that Christians are the worst tippers but quick to minister the word of god. Last night a couple ate a nice meal, and left her a track for her tip and wrote on it that God will provide for you...and ducked out of the restaurant before she returned to the table. That is the worst..We spoke about it this morning and came to realize that if they left that for someone who may be seeking a spiritual relationship with god that probably would have ended that search..what a scam...God has provided a means for us to earn a living, not get a freebe...If it was me, I may have left the track with a 30% tip...now that would have sent a message, not go get your tip from God...By the way I don't leave tracks or yank anyone in to my belief system, If you know Christians that do this, they need ministering to more than the unsaved, and also to the so called Christian ministers, what makes you all think that everyone you meet doesn't already know God, ???? I am ashamed of the way those folks conducted their ministry last night...especially because there are many out there that are seeking and this type of action would have a severe reverse effect....Later..James
james <jazzbass97@aol.com>
Charlotte, NC USA - Sunday, May 31, 1998 at 08:21:52 (EDT)

James, I AM WITH YOU!. I never worked in that field, but I have had relatives and friends who have. I think that is you do not intend to tip 15%, you should stay home or eat at McDonalds. I hear crap like "I can't afford to tip" or "They should get jobs that pay better". I'm not made of money by any means, but I wouldn't think of tipping under 15% unless the waitperson was nasty and the food spilled on our heads. What is really bad is that when you tip badly, you leave the impression to the waiters/waitresses that all others like will do the same. Thats why certain "types" who have a reputation for low tipping (women for example) get poorer service, because they are known for tipping low. I think it is better to treat your food handlers well - you never know what they can do to the food b4 you get it (and I have heard some stories that would turn your hair white!)
Marc <vsylvestre@ctc.net>
Albemarle, NC USA - Sunday, May 31, 1998 at 10:52:21 (EDT)

Look forward to seeing all uptown at noon on monday.
Three Eleven
USA - Sunday, May 31, 1998 at 11:38:33 (EDT)

Good luck with your "peaceful protest" tomorrow Jerry's Kids. Firetruck you can finally be happy that the protests are once again going to be used to do what? Protest the grievances of a tyrannical King of England and his "taxation without representation?" Protest the US involvement in WWII because at the time we thought that Hitler was not doing anything against us? Oh no, now you get to protest a federal prosecutor because you just don't want to hear anything bad about Mr. Clinton. I ask you, Jerry's Kids, is Clinton really a liberal (since those who are the ones who side with him on this partisan battle)? Does his stance on the death penalty warrant that of a liberal? What about balancing a budget? God (can I use that here?) forbid a liberal want to cut spending, and I know we have all not been so devoted to this idea. It's really a shame that y'all want to call Clinton a liberal when Ted Kennedy gives a good name to the true liberal. Take care, and good luck getting some on-air time with your protest. Heard that the same thing happened in Texas a month ago, but it was just a little mention on a column. Why not save your time and work on getting that "on the air" thing on the left side over there removed. God (oops, I've done it again) speed.
Bob K. <WACurly@msn.com>
Charlotte, NC USA - Sunday, May 31, 1998 at 12:53:34 (EDT)

Hey Bob K., you fine example of sneering conservatism. We would protest Starr appearing anywhere giving speeches when he is supposed to be working for the taxpayers. I would protest him since he is not an "Independent" councel, but in fact a partisan prosecuter working to further the ends of the Republican party using my taxdollers to do so . His job, the way he acts, is to gather as many smears and lies about the Clintons as he can, leak it to the press in dribs and drabs to create a long, drawn out campeign of mud slinging, and than eventually sum it all up and hand it over to the partisan witch trial in the COngress. This guy and the creeps he surrounds himself with have been the most disgraced bunch of "Independent" councels that have ever robbed the taxpayers of 40 - 50 million dollers. The list of Kooks, creeps and crack pots this guy is associated with, from Paula "the Liar" Jones, to Richard Scaif, to that weird lawyer who sues everybody in the White House (including his own mother) whom he gets illegal depositions from. Starr should never have been out on the case, but the unfortunate interference of Senetor Lauch "take a bribe when he can get it" Faircloth made it so. I don't defend the President because he is a liberal. I defend him because it is the right thing to do, something you no little about.
Marc <vsylvestre@ctc.net>
ALbemarle, NC USA - Sunday, May 31, 1998 at 16:35:37 (EDT)

Marc, I am so honored that you think I know nothing of what is right. Obviously you don't. Take for example that Judge Starr has won every courtruling that the Clintons, Ginsburg, and others have thrown at him. Yes this includes executive privelage and secret service privelage. Granted we do not know all the facts we cannot make a conclusion at the moment. However you are very ignorant to believe that Starr is at the heart of all these issues. What issues did you say? Concerning the leaking, isn't it naive to say that it is Starr who is doing all this? From a tactical stance it would be more relevant for the president to leak this information so that he can then blame Starr. Wait a second, this is the most ethical administration, I guess I should take that last statement back. I am so amused that you think that Clinton is innocent. You wanna talk about the kooks around Washington, yeah they're under the White House payroll. So tell me why you support the president. Why is it "the right thing to do?" I dare not mention the selling out of our country to the Chinese. I am so looking forward to a time when we can look back at this at quit pointing fingers at each other. I might be right or you might be. I'm getting giddy just thinking about what will happen if I'm right. Care to touch up on the liberal ideals of Clinton anyone?
Bob K. <WACurly@msn.com>
Charlotte, NC USA - Sunday, May 31, 1998 at 17:33:09 (EDT)

Bob K, as soon as you learn to string a series of coherent sentences together that pertain to a single subject, please feel free to post. Your rambling diatribe is like a poor imitation of Rush Slimeball, and imitation that failed. You could learn a lot from your conservative brethren here who can actually put two sentences together. Later *yawn*
Marc <vsylvestre@ctc.net>
Albemarle, NC USA - Sunday, May 31, 1998 at 19:59:44 (EDT)

Marc, ouch that hurt. I was just trying to play devil's advocate so that I can state whatever point you might make before you attack me on any technical mistakes. Don't really care for Rush at all so why would I try to imitate him? My "conservative brethren" are more the likes of George Will, Bob McCain, and Ronald Reagan. I'm curious of who your influences are?
Bob K. <WACurly@msn.com>
Charlotte, NC USA - Sunday, May 31, 1998 at 21:34:24 (EDT)

Please don't put a great man like Bob McCain in the same sentence with that wiener George Will or R.Reagan. I happen to admire Sen. McCain a lot. IN my mind George Will is another irrelevent talking head who has as much credibility as Sam Donaldson. I like a pretty broad spectrum, from the likes of Thurgood Marshal to Mark Twain, to Winston Churchill to Micheal Kinsley. I look for intellectual honesty (makes it kind of hard to like Clinton or most of the politicians) courage (a quality lacking in all the major political figures these days) and a compassion for the middle and lower classes. I don't love Clinton, because while he is an effective politician, he puts politics ahead if what is right sometimes. However, I think that Hillery's comment about the VRWC is being shown to have more than a grain of truth (see salonmagizine.com for some great articals). To me, the idea of taking down a President by some rich-boy like Scaif is sickening and frightening. Right now, Starr is going after Clinton on maybe lying about an affair that maybe happened. It has nothing to do with the "Whitewater Affair" and is beyond what Starr would be investigating if he were doing his job, not out to get dirt on the President. Don't you think there are rich liberals who are watching how Scaif has put together his scandel machine, with their sights on every republican out there? What ya think? (sorry for being p**d earlier - had a major program crashing on me over and over)
Marc <vsylvestre@ctc.net>
ALbemarle, NC USA - Sunday, May 31, 1998 at 22:36:40 (EDT)

Marc, I'm glad that we've both cooled off. George Will is perhaps the person I most admire on the political front. His columns are very intelligent and he is a true conservative, at least someone who keeps me on track more than Rush. George would rather find the faults with the politicians than praise them for everything. I think that your influences are all very admirable, Churchill and Twain the most. The VRWC, if you would grant me, is also in competition with a liberal bias in the media as well as a comparable left of great power and influence. Let me know your thoughts.
Bob K. <WACurly@msn.com>
Charlotte, NC USA - Sunday, May 31, 1998 at 23:35:33 (EDT)

WHERE'S THE CRIME? *** I take acception to this nonsense about court decisions to determine if the President or Starr is winning. Current rulings are about the admissibility of evidence. Since Starr perceives his role as prosecutor, not an investigator, then these evidence rulings are neccessary *** That said, Starr has uncovered not any crime committed by either the President or the First Lady. What we know are the allegations of a crime that were leaked to the press and media by Starr. Without that evidence, Starr is unable to legally prove that a crime was actually committed [by the President from Starr's point of view]. If Starr can't provide the crime, then Congress has no case for impeachment. In desperation, Starr is searching for evidence (anywhere and everywhere) to prove that a crime was committed [by the President]. *** Thus, this confusion about court rulings on evidence admissibility and the President's lawyers decision to challenge Starr's request for evidence. What is Starr's purpose for seeking this evidence or testimony? To solve a crime? Or to find a crime? If "NO" crime was committed, then how long does Starr intend to continue looking for evidence of a crime? And how far would Starr go to create that evidence to prove there was a crime? Is Starr acting within the scope of his office by using coercion and threats to get testimony from uncoperative witnesses [from Starr's perspective only] against the President?
FireTruck <ftruck@orlando.net>
Orlando, FL USA - Monday, June 01, 1998 at 03:12:12 (EDT)

Read your column on Charles Kuralt. Interesting. Two comments. First, I was surprise to learn the mistress sued the wife over Kuralt's estate. In Europe, I believe the wife gets everything even if their is a mistriss involved which explains why the divorce rate is lower in Europe. My interpretation of Kuralt's mistress's response response to sue, a very public way to show one's laundry, is that she had no love for Kuralt. The mistress, if she loved Kuralt, would have kept that secret to her death. Secondly, I believe that everyone should stive for that perfect life and endorsed it. But, there should special police who looks into people's bedrooms. It is only the politicians, entertainers, and clergy who "purposely" go out of their way to "proclaim" to the world that they are alone are "without sin" that should have "their" bedroom doors opened for the world to watch. It is the hypocrisy that is wrong, not the adultery or homosexualty. I am more interested in what happens in the sex life of Robertson, Falwell, and Dobson then in the sex life of the President. It is their business to be without sin, not the President's. They are responsible for our souls, the President is responsible for our jobs and to protect America's national security and the Constitution. *** Even though King David was hand picked by God, God still relied on His prophet for perfection of the soul, not the king.
FireTruck <ftruck@orlando.net>
Orlando, FL USA - Monday, June 01, 1998 at 21:31:20 (EDT)

"The President is responsible for our jobs and to protect America's national security and the Constitution." Have you completely flipped your balding wig,FT? Just how much effect do you think the president has on the economy? Americas National Security? Right, by giving the Chinese the ability to launch more accurate missles? The Constitution? By every means of privilege under the sun? Executive privilege, spousal privilege, attorney - client privilege, a sitting president cannot be compelled to appear before the grand jury, secret service privilege, even soldier's privilege --- and yet files and requested papers keep turning up months and years after they have been requested. Chuck Colson messed around with one FBI file, Livingstone took 900 to Clinton and where is he today? How many people have fled the country to get away from the law due to their dealings with the Democratic Party and the President? Millions of dollars illegally contributed to the Democratic Campaigns from Communist countries --- and all you can say is that we need Campaign reform --- WHY? So they can break new laws instead of the same old laws? I agree with the Reps, first prosecute the abusers to get them out of the way and them do the necessary reforms. Here's the real spiritual truth Firetruck. As we all go through this life we are constantly making choices and with every choice we make we are slowly turning the central part of ourselves, that part of you which chooses, into something a little different from what it was before. And when you take your whole life into consideration, with all the innumerable choices you make --- you are slowly turning this central thing into something good or bad, giving or greedy, true or false, heavenly or hellish.
pressin'on <sawtooth@trellis.net>
monroe, nc USA - Tuesday, June 02, 1998 at 02:15:49 (EDT)

All these choices we make have the capacity to set us on the right path and with the right path comes peace and knowledge. When a man is getting better, he understands more and more the evil which is still left in him. BUT, when a man is getting worse, he understands his own "badness" less and less. A moderately bad man knows he is not very good; a thoroughly bad man thinks he is all right. This is only common sense, really. You can understand sleep when you are awake, not while you are sleeping. You can see mistakes in your math when your mind is working properly; while you are making them you cannot see them. You can understand the nature of drunkenness when you are sober, not when you are drunk. Good people know about both good and evil; bad people do not know about either. That's why those of us who are seeking intellectual honesty, integrity and the ability to stand up for what they believe are so appaled by Clinton. It is also why those who support his "blindness" can see nothing wrong with him, they are of the same ilk! Abraham Lincoln once said,"I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong." One day I hope Bill finds out that dignity does not reside in possessing honors, but in deserving them.
pressin'on <sawtooth@trellis.net>
monroe, nc USA - Tuesday, June 02, 1998 at 02:53:25 (EDT)

So much of the strife we regular folks experience isn’t between good and evil, but rather between conflicting goods; between individual freedom and social order, for example. But generally, if you look at the things we consider good and evil, evil tends to be self-serving while good tends to be selfless. Regardless of what some moralists claim, the lines between good and evil are not always sharply delineated. We are constantly balancing degrees of behavior. For example, there’s the need to care for one’s family, and the desire to serve those in the greater community. Where’s the balancing point? And in caring for your family, do you sacrifice your own physical and mental wellbeing? This is why the words “priority” and “dilemma” exist. However, so many moment-by-moment choices are morally neutral. John, your comments about not being able to understand a destructive behavior while involved in it are interesting. But I’d be careful how you use it. By the same logic, one can’t accurately understand ANY behavior--good or bad--while involved in it. Whenever we focus on something we lose perspective.
AL Christensen
- Tuesday, June 02, 1998 at 10:24:30 (EDT)

Hi Al, Just bouncing some ideas around in my head about the moral state of affairs in the world. Take the subject of sex for example! I think something has gone wrong with the instincts God gave us. (This is not a trashing of Clinton, though you may construe it as being such if you like). I think we would all agree that the biological function of sexual intercourse is to produce children, just as the biological function of eating is to repair and nourish the body --- Right? Now, if we were to eat just what we felt like eating, whenever we felt like doing it --- it would probably be safe to say that most of us would probably eat too much and weigh more than we should, but not necessarily so much that we were morbidly overweight. After all, one man may eat enough for two, but not enough for ten! In other words the appetite goes a little beyond it's biological function, but notenormously so. However if a healthy young man were to "indulge" his sexual appetite every time he felt inclined, and if each act were to produce a baby, then in ten tears he might very well be able to populate a small town. So I think we could agree that a normal sexual appetite, in a healthy young man, is out of all porportion to it's intended function to the point of being preposterous! To put it another way, you could very easily get a large "gathering" together for a strip-tease act --- to watch a girl undress on the stage. BUT supose you were to go to a country where you could fill a large theatre with people by simply bringing a covered plate on the stage and then slowly lifting the cover in such a way that would allow everyone to see what was underneath the covering, just before the lights went out, that it contained a pork chop, mashed potatoes and a muffin. Would you not think that something very wrong had happened to the people's appetite for food?
pressin'on <sawtooth@trelis.net>
monroe, nc USA - Tuesday, June 02, 1998 at 11:31:00 (EDT)

Personally, if I were to find such a country, I would assume that the people were starving. If however, upon examination, I were to determine that there was no famine in the land, I would have to give up the thought of starvation and look for something different. In the same way, before accepting sexual starvation as the cause for strip-tease acts, I would have to look for some kind of evidence that there was more sexual abstinance now than there have been in other generations when strip-tease was virtually unknown. But there is no evidence that would bring me to that conclusion. Contraceptives have made sexual indulgence far less costly within marriage and far safer outside of it, and the public opinion to it is far less hostile to it than ever before. In fact, you could conclude that "starvation" has nothing to do with it at all, because the sexual appetite grows, like all our other appetites, by indulgence. Starving people may think much about food, but so do gluttons; the gorged as well as the famished, like titilations. You will find very few people who want to eat things that are really not food or to do other things with food instead of eating it. Perversions of the food appetite are somewhat rare, but perversions of the sexual instinct are numerous, hard to cure and can be very frightening to many . For the last 30 years we have been fed all day long with good solid lies about sex, that sex is the same as all our other natural desires and that if only we could stop this silly old Victorian idea of hushing it up, that everything would be all right.
pressin'on <sawtooth@trellis.net>
monroe, nc USA - Tuesday, June 02, 1998 at 11:57:04 (EDT)

Don't believe it, because if that were the problem, then "venting" it would be the solution and if any generation in history has vented our thoughts and acted out our instincts --- our generation has --- but sex is still a big mess for this society. There is nothing to be ashamed of in enjoying your food; there is everything to be ashamed of if half the world made food the main interest of their lives and spent their time looking at pictures of food, imagining strange and abnormal postions you could indulge in it --- all the while drooling and smacking their lips. Poster after poster, film after film, novel after novel leaves us with the impression that sexual indulgence is required to be natural, healthy, youthful and carry a good sense of humor. What would happen to all of us if we were to surrender to our baser instincts all at once? Impotence, disease, jealousies, lies, concealment and basically everything that is the exact opposite of people carrying on their lives in a natural and healthy way. Every sane man MUST have some set of principles by which he chooses to accept some desires and reject others. Many people think that being chastity is impossible because they have never tried it and they raise their children up thinking the same way. They tell their childen that "repressed" sex is dangerous. A repressed desire or thought is one which has been thrust intio the subconscious (usually at a very early age) and can comebefore the mind only in a disguised, unrecognisable form. In other words it does not appear to the person as sex at all. However, when an young person is engaged in resisting a conscious desire, he is not dealing with a repression nor is he in any danger of creating one. He is simply exercising restraint, because to experience any happiness in this world, quite alot of restraint is necessary.
pressin'on <sawtooth@trellis.net>
monroe, nc USA - Tuesday, June 02, 1998 at 12:29:00 (EDT)

All this stuff about sex will undoubtedly leave some who frequent these pages with the impression that I am a prude and obsessed with sexual indulgence. They can think what they want. I AM concerned with morality and the direction I see this country going in, and what the end results of a society that seems to be intent on partaking in every imagination which it can concoct in it's corporate mind, and what kind of world that would be for our children to live in. Do not think that I am saying that sex is the supreme vice known to man, it is NOT! The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are probably the least of all sins, if you could put sins in a catagory ranking them from bad to worst. In such a catagory of sins, if such were possible, the worst sins would appear to be spiritual. The pleasure of putting other people down, of bossing, of gossiping, the pleasure of power and of hatred. There are two things within each of us which compete for posession of the "human being" we are all becoming in the end. One is the "animal" self and the other is the "diabolical"self. The "diabolical"self is, by far, the worst of the two. That is why a self-righteous, cold, stuck-up hypocrite who goes regularly to church may be much closer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither.
pressin'on <sawtooth@trellis.net>
monroe, nc USA - Tuesday, June 02, 1998 at 12:52:27 (EDT)

John, for someone who considers himself quite the intellect and expert at judging character, what is your basis for pre-judging the President? Errors are to be expected in any administration. But these errors in the Clinton Administration are not the big lapses of judgement or character that you use contend they are to prove the President committed a crime. *** I am still waiting for Starr to present his evidence in the proper setting rather then through unsubstantiated leaks to the press and media of alleged misbehavior by the President. Leaking this gossip to the press only serves to smear the President in Starr's partisan effort to help the Republicans get re-elected to Congress. *** Considering Starr's gestapo tatics, Starr has dugged himself into a hole. Extraordinary means used by Starr hightens the Publics expectations for proof of an extraordinary Presidential crime. With Reagan and Nixon, their was one big crime the public could see and understand. John, your case against the President is built on a list of petty errors that you want to use in total to make a crime. Starr has put himself into this corner. The only question for the Public is the quality and scope of Starr's evidence against the President. *** Until Starr proves his case that the President committed a crime, I side with the Constitution and presume the President is innocent. John, you already bought a rope and picked out a tree.
FireTruck <ftruck@orlando.net>
Orlando, FL USA - Tuesday, June 02, 1998 at 14:09:12 (EDT)

FOR THE BEST ENTERTAINMENT IN THE EVENINGS TUNE INTO THE MICHAEL GRAHAM SHOW 8-11 ON WBT 1110 AM.
Alan Taylor
USA - Tuesday, June 02, 1998 at 14:32:56 (EDT)

Firetruck, you say that I have bought a rope and picked out a tree, while I can assure you that I am not President Clinton's biggest fan, I have no more information than you do as to the validity of Starrs case against the President. Most of what I base my feelings on is quite similar to the way I felt when I saw OJ Simpson driving down the freeway about 20 mph with a gun to his head and a police escort. I simply say that those are not the actions of an innocent man and I feel free in saying that the actions of the president do not appear to be the actions of an innocent man either. Let me be perfectly honest with you. If I were a sitting president who had been accused of the kind of things which the president has been accused of --- I would make EVERY attempt to satisfy the indivisual who was making the inquiry into the alligations. The main reason would be because I would want to accomplish something with my time in office, I would have an agenda which would I would be intent on accomplishing and I would know that if these alligations continually stayed up in the air, that my mission would largely go unaccomplished. All I have seen, all anyone has seen from this president cannot be characterized as anything other than the biggest "stonewalling" effort since Watergate. Do I think the president is some kind of monsterous criminal? No I do not. If he has done anything wrong it would probably stem from shear stupidity, gross incompetence, lack of good judgment or lack of moral fiber. I think that by far, the worst thing he was probably involved with were the 900 FBI files which were brought by Craig Livingstone to the White House. THAT was inexcusable, can I prove that Bill had anything to do with it --- no I cannot. But Firetruck, I want you to understand one thing --- I'm not sitting on a jury. I'm just some poor dumb schmuck that has been sitting out here for the past 6 years watching and listening to all that has happened with our "fearless leader"
pressin'on <sawtooth@trellis.net>
monroe, nc USA - Wednesday, June 03, 1998 at 06:05:50 (EDT)

And all that I have heard from the President are rantings and ravings against the Special Prosecutor who was assigned the task by Janet Reno to investigate the president on each of these charges and at the same time he "stonewalls" at every bend in the creek. One thing is for sure, an intellegent president who was innocent would NEVER do what Clinton has done to his presidency unless he had something more than mere sexual indiscretions to hide. As far as Starr is concerned, I would imagine that it won't be too long before we have the full story, he appears to be wrapping it up. I can tell you one thing, he darn sure better have some substance against Clinton or he can kiss his future bye-bye.
pressin'on <sawtooth@trellis.net>
monroe, nc USA - Wednesday, June 03, 1998 at 06:26:09 (EDT)

Hey, Stelle! Are you monitoring? Just read your Loaf column. And of course there's no such thing as Conservative Speak.
Al Christensen
- Wednesday, June 03, 1998 at 10:01:24 (EDT)

John, I don't think I'd hold out a lot of hope that the investigations of the special prosecutor's office and the grand jury will be presented in the immediate future. The firvolous claim of executive priviledge may be dropped but it seems to me that Clinton's effort to fight tooth and nail the desire of Starr to expedite the attorney-client priviledge claim to the Supreme Court has something to do with a desire to see the investigation turned over to the House. I say that because it's pretty clear that Clinton is losing in the courts ( I believe the score is 9 losses no wins) and is unlikely to prevail in the Supreme Court on the current issue. If the last appeals are lost and IF in fact there is material that he just doesn't want to come out, the only remaining options are to either expose that which he wishes to hide, or overtly refuse to cooperate with the legal system. On the other hand if he can continue to carry out a successful public relations campaign to sidestep the legal system long enough to frustrate the American public and if the entire matter can be handed to the political system, legal propriety can give way to political public relations efforts, wherein he can probably prevail.
Mark Hodroff <mhodroff@juno.com>
CLT, NC USA - Wednesday, June 03, 1998 at 10:06:51 (EDT)

John, my poor misguided friend. *** 600 files, FBI files. Now you posted these files were given to the President. Do you know that for a fact? Have you ever questioned why the FBI ever created such files on these Repoublicans in the first place? Were they former White House personnel? John, your arguement is for the President to come foreward with your interpretation of the truth. So why are you concerned about these FBI files? Are not "ALL" conservatives decent honest people who have "no" blemish in their personal lives to be concerned about. So what is in these files that has gotten you so uptight? As the files belong to Federal employees or former Federal employees, NOT PRIVATE CITIZENS, then what is your concerned? *** My arguement is that those files should have been made public, they belong to the People. I would like to know what is in those files that has you and other conservatives so scared. What are you and they hiding from the public? *** JOHN, why do you call a citizen's [the President's] right to legal counsel an attempt at stone walling? If the Police were investigating you for a crime, would you not prefer to have counsel with you regardless of your guilt or innocent; more so if you just happened to be innocent. So, John, the next time you are questioned by the Police, don't request your Constitutional right to have an attorney present or otherwise the public and the Police may think that you are guilty for stone walling and not cooperating with the Police to find the truth. *** Then again John, you would answered that the Police "never" accused an innocent man with a crime, especially in Charlotte.
FireTruck <ftruck@orlando.net>
Orlando, FL USA - Wednesday, June 03, 1998 at 11:40:47 (EDT)

To all of my net friends, How true, I am not a Clinton fan, but lets look at whats going on, FT you claim Starr has leaked all this stuff, well there are no facts about that just as there are no real facts presented about Big Bill, Yet..same thing isn't it ? Anyway, the new Monica defense team , well they are negotiators, not fighters...as reported by the press...I wonder what that means, if I was not biased it would mean that she has a story to tell and is gonna tell it...Ponder this, the issue over the secret service, mind you I am not biased while tyeing this question, if they were to answer questions, couldn't they clear Clintons name ?? Is it possible that they could be the ones that say , He's a Clean dude ? If that were the case wouldn't the WH want them to answer questions ?? If it was me, I would line up everyone I knew to tell the truth for my behalf, that is, if I was inocent of course... But actually I'm biased totally, I think Bill lied to all of us when he pointed his finger and would do anything to cover the lie...Oh well so much for my political statement of today...James
james <jazzbass97@aol.com>
Charlotte, NC USA - Wednesday, June 03, 1998 at 11:43:45 (EDT)

'Truck, do you actually not understand the issue concerning improperly obtaining FBI files? I'd prefer to believe that you do in fact understand the matter and are either fond of controversy or merely blowing smoke to obscure the matter. Taken as a whole your consistent position seems to be that Democrats and Clinton in paticular are universally noble creatures, so pure as to require no scrutiny and so perfect that if it appears that they may have wronged someone, that person must themself be evil. Why else would you suggest that when hundreds of confidential FBI background files routinely gathered on former employees show up where they don't belong that those former employees are the problem rather than the administration that seems to have found itself with improperly acquired files? (That's a rhetorical question; I laughed so hard from your response to Pressin' that I don't think I could take whatever wonderful product of your imagination that a response would engender.)
Mark Hodroff <mhodroff@juno.com>
CLT, NC USA - Wednesday, June 03, 1998 at 14:13:43 (EDT)

On a completely different subject, has TPA become a secret society? The web page appears to be down and nothing new has appeared on the TPA protions of this site in months. Al, Jerry, Marica, Mike; what's TPA up to?
Mark Hodroff <mhodroff@juno.com>
CLT, NC USA - Wednesday, June 03, 1998 at 14:24:19 (EDT)

Al, thanks for reading! Yes, there is such a thing as conservative-speak. The other word for it is truth.
Stelle
USA - Wednesday, June 03, 1998 at 14:48:49 (EDT)

Ah, come on, Stelle. You're not that naive or blinded by partisanship, are you?
Al Christensen
- Wednesday, June 03, 1998 at 16:17:43 (EDT)

I continue to marvel at the alliance between big business and the family values crowd--the alliance at the core of the GOP. Considering that big business places loyalty to the job before devotion to the family, that it promotes ever-escalating consumption of stuff, that it values money over all else, that it commercializes and trivializes love and honor, that it profits from violence and sex, that it treats people as expendable resources, what is the common bond? Low taxes? Is that and a little flag waving enough?
Al Christensen
- Wednesday, June 03, 1998 at 16:19:53 (EDT)

Oh Al, come one!! In the recent primaries here the ultra liberals were snuggled up to the epitome of big business like new lovers, the entertainment elites, who shamelessly commericalize the concepts of love and family wax orgasmic over the wonders of the Democrats, among the largest contributors to the Clinton campaigns are the Trial Lawyers Assn., the women's organizations that for years have held that "the personal is political" where sexual conduct is concerned join in the demonization of an alleged victim when the aggressor is on their side politically, and you think odd political bedfellows are the special territory of the Republicans? Political marriages of convenience are the norm on both sides. It hardly means that each participant in that process even so much as cares about the goals of the other, but rather simply indicates that each finds a better shot at influence with the same party. That's probably why the party of choice for the Teamsters and longshoremen's unions is also the party most likely to be supported by welfare advocacy groups and gay/lesbian organizations. Try picturing those three groups agreeing on the top political priority and it ought to be obvious.
Mark Hodroff <mhodroff@juno.com>
CLT, NC USA - Wednesday, June 03, 1998 at 17:00:21 (EDT)

Mark, I've long considered the Democratic Party the catch-all default party for those who didn't agree with the GOP. Or in the words of Will Rogers, "I belong to no organized political party. I'm a Democrat." The factional infighting messed them up. But the religious right has made a truly Faustian deal. (For example, who's spreading the immoral, anti-religious, anti-family propoganda? Corporate media empires.) Perhaps they see it as a short-term expediency, but if they should gain the power they hope for, if they start restricting what they see as corrosive social forces, the capitalists are going to yank their support. (You see the split locally already--fiscal conservatives versus social conservatives.) In the meantime, the religious right is helping feed the beast, making it stronger, removing its shackles. And one day you wake up and Wall Street owns your soul.
Al Christensen
- Wednesday, June 03, 1998 at 18:15:12 (EDT)

The old adage that politics makes strange bedfellows is one of the great truths of human behavior. It's a truth that crosses party lines. I remember a time when Jesse Jackson was one of the most eloquent speakers against abortion. But he hasn't said a word on the issue since he got active politically - it was obvious that the party didn't share his moral convictions. The tension between idealology and pragmatism is constant. Is it better to vote for someone who you agree with on 75% of the issues or to declare that some issues are so important that you can't support a candidate who doesn't share your stand. Pragmatists go for the half-loaf. Idealouges would rather go hungry than compromise. Personally, I'd rather start from the points where people can agree and build on them. (So far Jerry and I agree on James Taylor and Blue Cheese dressing - it's a start.)
Stelle
USA - Wednesday, June 03, 1998 at 19:13:49 (EDT)

Dometime back one poster informed me that Gingrich is better then Gephardt. Here is a problem to consider about these men. Gephardt opposses the president in giving "Most Favor Nation" status to China while Gingrich endorses it. Why are the conservatives in Congress, led by Newt, now suddenly defending trade with China when last week they wanted to impeach the President because of trade with China? Are the conservatives in Congress psychotic, or just paranoid?
FireTruck <ftruck@orlando.net>
Orlando, FL USA - Wednesday, June 03, 1998 at 20:16:58 (EDT)

Some religious that some may find interesting. The SBC wants your souls, the Christian Coalition wants your money, and now the Roman Catholic Church wants your children. *** Roman Catholic Bishop Joseph Keith Symons, 65, of the Diocese of Palm Beach (Florida) resigned Tuesday after admitting to molesting five boys forty years ago. *** If a Catholic Bishop is not perfect, what is the Christian conservatives problem with the President?
FireTruck <orlando_66@hotmail.com>
Orlando, FL USA - Thursday, June 04, 1998 at 03:52:08 (EDT)

"If a Catholic Bishop is not perfect, what is the Christian conservatives problem with the President?"??????? Oh, great king of the non sequiturs, wherever is the linkage between the conduct of a Roman Catholic bishop and the moral views of conservative protestants? It makes as much sense to ask why, if you've been kicked by a horse you would buy a parakeet!!
Mark Hodroff <mhodroff@juno.com>
CLT, NC USA - Thursday, June 04, 1998 at 08:37:44 (EDT)

I watched a tape of the BOCC meeting last night and noticed what I thought was an interesting interchange. One of the agenda items was a $13,000 appropriation to AmeriCorps to pay for a youth volunteer worker in the court system. Several of the commissioners commented on it, including the coment that with the millions upon millions appropriated at the federal level for this program it turns out that the program is twice as expensive since the agencies that use such labor must foot half the bill. (Apparently it's a matching grant type program.) Before the vote, Becky Carney briefly lectured the commissioners who objected to it that with their desire to restrain spending they're going to find themselves relying more and more on such "volunteers" and that she would hope they remember their comments in 10 years when that becomes a reality. I was amused to hear her refer to an em,ployee who costs $26,000/year as a volunteer who is part of the method of restraining spending. Let's see here: we get clerical worker with no background or training in the work he or she will be doing at a cost of $12.50 per hour and we call that a volunteer. Meanwhile we hire skilled professionals such as degreed teachers, certified corrections officers and sworn law enforcement officers, call them employees and pay them substantially less money. Yup, Commissioner Carney is right on the money: those $26,000/year volunteers are the fast track to getting more bang for the buck! Give me a break!!
Mark Hodroff <mhodroff@juno.com>
CLT, NC USA - Thursday, June 04, 1998 at 09:33:34 (EDT)

Al, as usual I like your comments about the Republicans. The thing with the republicans is this - the only issue they care about is helping the well to do. From tax breaks for the rich to welfare for the rich, the only laws and policies they actually enact are those that help the rich. All the other issues, Abortion, the Flag, Patriotism, the Family, etc., mean less than dog poop to the Republican party. Those are issues that they use to befuddle the simple minded into voting for them, but the Republicans will never, never, never do anything about them. If they could get votes for it, the Republicans would bring back slavery and proform abortions on the house floor. The Democrats may have a wide reange of membership, but they have a long track record of actually doing something for the country. I cannot think of one thing in the last century that the Republican party has done for America. If it ain't for the rich, the Republicans won't do it, and that's all you need to know about the Republican party.
Marc <vsylvestre@ctc.net>
Albemarle, NC USA - Thursday, June 04, 1998 at 12:15:02 (EDT)

Interesting comment about the Republicans. What is wrong with tax breaks for the rich, I do not know too many poor people that generate the jobs, taxes that the rich do...Whne was the last time you saw a poor person hire someone.....I guess the Kennedy's need to switch affillations. I also think we should "give" PC's to every family with a income less than 10k, at least then maybe we would see some new thinking on this page...Gotta go the poor and needy are calling.
Gary Miller
USA - Thursday, June 04, 1998 at 13:19:54 (EDT)

Marc, you were right that the Democrats have done a lot for this country. The one that strikes me the mose is Johnson's "Great Society." He should have called it the "Great Big Government Spending Program." Name me the things that have helped from that because I can't think of a single element that has helped society. I would be willing to listen.
Bob K. <WACurly>
Charlotte, NC USA - Thursday, June 04, 1998 at 13:47:21 (EDT)

Hey Ya Gary, I'll spell it our for you. Somebody has to pay the cost of government, and I believe that it is better for the Rich to bear most of the cost for a number of reasons. First, they are most able to pay. The money of poor people and people on the lower end of the middle class goes straight back into the economy. In that way, the poor hire a heck of a lot of people. The same holds true for the the upper spectrum of the middle class - midle class people buy high ticket items, like cars, houses, and all the things houses need. It is the middle class that is the backbone of the American economy. Without their purchasing power, there wouldn't be any jobs at all. The rich , on the other hand, have no greater needs than the rest of us, but a lot more money to get it with. They have the extra income that might otherwise just sit in CD', or treasury bonds, doing nothing for the economy, waiting to be passed along to their kids (see the Kennedys). It makes no sense to give them another tax break, which they will simply bank if they get it. There ought to be a tax cut for anybody making less than 30K-40K a year, and those that are making over 100K ought to pay more. Those making in the millions should pay a heck of a lot more. However, as the Republican party is in the hands of whores that work for whoever gives them the mose money, the tax breaks and welfare will go to those who need it least. Later!
Marc <vsylvestre@ctc.net>
Albemarle, NC USA - Thursday, June 04, 1998 at 13:48:49 (EDT)

Marc, I love your comment: "They have the extra income that might otherwise just sit in CD', or treasury bonds, doing nothing for the economy," Before you typed that did it occur to you that treasury bonds are government borrowing to pay for all the things you ssem to like? And bank CD's provide the money so that when you go to those evil big business folks (banks) for a car loan or a mortgage, they have something to lend? They don't go harvest it in the garden, Marc. Before you go out and buy that Zapfire 3000 sedan that keeps a factory running and keeps the UAW at work, or the house that keeps the construction workers, lumbermen and factory workers in jobs, you have to go out and borrow the money from those evil rich folks who made "too much". Now as a proponent of higher taxes for somebody else I just know that you have a better economic model. I'm sure you understand that the economy doesn't really need those savings and investment dollars. Hell, if we tax it all away from the well to do then the government will have enough money to give everybody free cars and houses and you won't need the banks, right? The bankers will be out of work, but their evil business people so who cares. Besides, people who make too much don't actually work for their money, so they'll just keep making it even if you take it away from them. And doggone it, you DESERVE to have them give you more. It jsut isn't FAIR that some people earn more than you. I'd love to commiserate with you more, Marc, but I'm gettin gready to use some of my excess earnings to put the dog in the kennel an spend the weekend with my wife and my new Cannondale F3000 riding the mountain trails of Virginia. But I feel guilty, Marc. I feel really guilty.
Mark hodroff <mhodroff@juno.com>
CLT, NC USA - Thursday, June 04, 1998 at 14:25:49 (EDT)

GARY, interesting comment you made. >>"when the last time you saw a poor person hire someone"<<. you don't like poor people? Not everyone is going to be rich like you. But, if it wasn't for all these poor people, who would these rich people get to work in their factories and offices? It is the reason that the South cotton plantations had to import slaves to work in the cotton fields. Not enough white folk were willing to do that kind of work. But those white southern plantation owners sure got rich off of the backs of those slaves.
FireTruck <orlando_66@hotmail.com>
Orlando, FL USA - Thursday, June 04, 1998 at 17:54:33 (EDT)

FT, you are such a good liberal. You want to point the fingers at conservatives because they obviously represent the rich while the liberals are the only ones who will stick up for the poor. Aren't rich people just the worst people in the world? I mean all they do is oppress the poor while prospering off of their own greed. They create millions of jobs for those who will actually get out and seek a job. How dare they! What is it that you mean by poor? Are they poor because they cannot get enough in welfare from the government? Are they poor because their lack of progress or their degression in life has made them sad individuals? There are those who will pander for money next to that left turn signal and those who will actually get to work. Which one do you favor? I think that I can probably guess that it's not the latter.
Bob K. <WACurly@msn.com>
Charlotte, NC USA - Thursday, June 04, 1998 at 19:17:01 (EDT)

FT, one more comment. How much money do you make, if I may ask? There has got to be a limit to what would be poor and what wouldn't be. I make only $5.50 when I work on weekends. I'll bet you make more than me. You're downright rich compared to me. How dare you!
Bob K. <WACurly@msn.com>
Charlotte, NC USA - Thursday, June 04, 1998 at 19:30:43 (EDT)

Bob K., what do you earned Monday through Friday? I bet it is a lot of money. You own your own business. You believe that your employees are theive stealing from your business.
FireTruck <orlando_66@hotmail.com>
Orlando, FL USA - Thursday, June 04, 1998 at 20:17:10 (EDT)

The best reason for the the wealthy to pay more in taxes is for economic and political stability. Y'all forgot about Shay's Rebellion, didn't ya? That is what got the founding fathers all together at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. The founding fathers had the wealth of the United States. They fear what people like Shay will do to them. Just imagine a revolution by the poor people against the wealthy. The founding fathers quickly realized there were more poor people then rich people. So they devised this here Constitution to protect their wealth. Well along come the depression and who saves the wealthy peoples butt, FDR, that who. But, the wealthy class did not like the taxes and regulations on business that FDR imposed to save the country from another revolution. One third of the nation was unemployed during the depression with no chance of finding a job. So, it is in the best interest of the wealthy to pay more then their fair share of taxes just to protect their accumulated wealth and property. Remember the source of the French Revolution was hunger, not the need for liberty and equality.
FireTruck <orlando_66@hotmail.com>
Orlando, FL USA - Thursday, June 04, 1998 at 20:32:02 (EDT)

No FT, I do not own my own my business. I am a student at the moment in summer school. That's where my money goes to. I am also very "poor." But what does that mean anyway?
Bob K. <WACurly@msn.com>
Charlotte, NC USA - Thursday, June 04, 1998 at 21:17:10 (EDT)

Bob K., student at summer school. Hmmm? At 5.50 an hour on weekends. So what is your problem with the poor and taxes? Since you refer to yourself as poor, then you are not paying any taxes. Right? *** What is your major? What level: Fresh, Soph, Jun, Sen, Grad School? What college? How are you paying for your college education? I assumed when you said you are in summer school, you mean college? *** When you said you very poor, did that include your parents income as well? If your parents are wealthy or own a business, then I was right about you.
FireTruck <orlando_66@hotmail.com>
Orlando, FL USA - Thursday, June 04, 1998 at 21:55:20 (EDT)

Mark H., I would have finished reading your comment but your delving into the absurd was getting beyond Monty Python. Sure, I know that treasury bonds that the well to do (like my mother, she has most of her money on T.Bills) purchase finance the debt. I don't think we should do away with them. You act as if I have something against the rich, or against bankers. My original point (you ought to read it) had to do with the fact that the Republican party only DOES ANYTHING if it will help the rich. Now as to shifting the cost of government from the backs of the poor and middle class to the rich, whats wrong with that? As I recall from history, the 1950's are often pointed to as a time of robust economic improvement and "Happy Days" (I wasn't there for them so please corect me if I am wrong) and it was a time when the wealthy paid a tax rate of 90%!! I am not suggesting we go back to that, but taxing the income of the wealthy is hardly bad for the economy. I don't want to tax the rich heavily to punish them, I want to tax them because they can afford it much more easily than the middle class or the poor. Do you really think it is better for the nation if huge stockpiles of of currency are sitting in t-bills, doing nothing, waiting to be inherited by the next generation of lazy blue-bloods (see the Kennedys and the DuPonts). Rich people don't create nearly the number of jobs with their money than the middle class do. Look, I am getting tired and running on. Back to you.
Marc <vsylvestre@ctc.net>
Albemarle, NC USA - Thursday, June 04, 1998 at 22:25:56 (EDT)

Mark, Do you remember those little kids standing beside the road with nothing but a dirty set of underwear on crying "chop, chop, GI --- chop chop" beggin' food, some with only one arm or one leg? Do ya remember watching them eat a piece of bread with maggots crawlin' through it? Do ya remember those bloated bellies and gaunt, sunken eyes? Can you make a correlation between those kids and the typical "poor" person in America? I can't!!! Those kids would have walked through fire to have just a portion of what the typical "poor" person throws in their trash can. Mark, you know what Marc and Firetruck want don't ya. They want you to support them or they want to play the part of philanthropists to anyone whose income is less than $15,000 but they want to finance it with YOUR money while they pat themselves on the back and tell everyone how big hearted they are. Go tell that to someone gullible enough to believe it. Your problem stems from one thing --- you can't handle freedom and you don't know what to do with liberty. The founding fathers of this country suffered from religious oppression in Europe and they came here to find their own particular brand of freedom. They did not come to persue job security, welfare, pension plans, comprehensive health plans or to reduce their anxieties. If anything, their anxieties multiplied. But they understood that getting their freedom was worth the risk.
pressin'on <sawtooth@trellis.net>
monroe, nc USA - Friday, June 05, 1998 at 06:44:00 (EDT)

Now we are mad at republicans because there are poor people, goodnight, I would only ask that if one were really sincere about helping the poor they would give up a few paychecks and hand thsm over. But what exactly is a poor person and how did they get there? are we talking homeless? are we talking about a family where one of the parents left and didn't provide for the family? are we talking about an imigrant from a local border? are we talking about a family that has 8 to 10 kids and neither parent works ? are we talking about someone who dropped out of school ? or are we talking about the legitimate family in need ? When did the democrats become the reference to the care factor, was it during the 96 campaign when they accused the republicans of starving kids ? On another subject, Do Democrats really take James Carville seriously ? or is he comic relief to you also ? By the way FT, I am responsible for my job , to do it well, Clinton has nothing to do with it, never did, never will...James
James <jazzbass97@aol.com>
Charlotte, NC USA - Friday, June 05, 1998 at 06:45:30 (EDT)

I don't know if you have ever read it, but there is a wonderful book called "The Brothers Karamazov" by Dostoyevski and it is set during the time of the Inquisition. There is a powerful scene in which Jesus himself has returned in the flesh, and the grand inquisitor speaks to Him about freedom: "Thou hast made us free and thou respecteth our freedom, but who told thee we want to be free? We prefer to be slaves, provided we be secure and we enjoy ourselves. Freedom is too onerous a burden to bear. Away with it! Who wants to choose for himself? Who wants to be responsible? Let others choose and be responsible for us. All we want is security and pleasure. Thou hast thought that we are gods like thyself, but we are no gods at all. We are corrupt human beings. Thy love for us is misplaced. Thy gift to us is unwanted. Thou hast said,"Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free," but we say with Pliate,"What is truth?" And we add,"Who cares to be free." --- Marc, FT ---Does the Inquisitor speak for the whole human race? Perhaps. Surely there is something that yearns for the "free meal ticket", "the get out of jail free card", the certain, the comfortable. That's more precious than the gift of freedom. What does it mean to yearn for the old comforts in modern day America? We yearn for job security. We see the injustice of society and the world and want to make it perfect. We want everybody to have everything, wether it is good for them or not. We want no pain or anxiety and to cope we can turn to alcohol or drugs. We give up our freedom to blot out our past, our failures, our problems.
pressin'on <sawtooth@trellis.net>
monroe, nc USA - Friday, June 05, 1998 at 07:10:14 (EDT)

(continued from above) --- And that is what is at the heart of the liberal demagogues appeal to us. They'll take care of us. They'll save us from our enemies. In return for our allegiance, we'll be cared for and protected. It's so attractive. We can get rid of the troublesome burden of freedom. We can be comfortable in our bondage. After my grandfather died, my grandmother became lonely. She was in a retirement home and she started to take tranquilizers so much that she got hooked on them. She fell down one day, injured her hip and had to be taken to a hospital and she started having withdrawals as she could not get to her "stash." A doctor recognized the symptoms and insisted that she go "cold turkey" and after awhile she was cured of her addiction, but she never forgave the doctor for doing that to her. Her previous doctor made her feel good, but her new doctor put her in pain, but he delivered her. The price of freedom is costly, it's risky and we are addicted to the comfortable life. --- I still remember the eyes of one little boy yelling "Chop, chop". A sargeant on the track in front of me laughed and said,"I'll give him 'chop, chop' and stood up and threw the can of c-rations at the little kid as hard as he could and "brained"him. It hit him right above the eye. He went down with blood splattered all over his face. He pulled himself back up, raised the can over his head and with a smile on his face --- he bowed to the "scumbag" that had brained him.
pressin'on <sawtooth@trellis.net>
monroe, nc USA - Friday, June 05, 1998 at 07:37:26 (EDT)

You know Pressin, I have never had more words put into my mouth than I have on this one issue! Where the heck do you get off telling Mark H what I have said when I never said it! My original point is that the Republican Party talks about God, the Family, Abortion, Prayer, Patriotism, but the only thing they actually do that envolves governing, the only thing they actually pass laws about are (A) Welfare for the Rich and (B) Tax cuts for the rich. Nobody here has even attempted to refute that fact. Nobody here as attemoted to refute the fact that the Republican is the whore for the wealthy, and they would bring back slavery or preform abortions on the house floor if they could get enough campeign money for it. The fact is that Democrats and liberals have not been afraid to put there words into action and actually make changes in this country. You cannot point to one thing that the Republicans have done in the last 100 years for this country. The Democrats are about good govcernment, the republicans are about getting power. My point has nothing to do with "robbing peter to pay paul", it has everything to do with the utter uselessness ot the entire Repuplican party.
Marc <vsylvestre@ctc.net>
ALbemarle, NC USA - Friday, June 05, 1998 at 09:07:31 (EDT)

Nice points about freedom, but they have nothing to do with reality. You say that Democrats give the poor money so they will become addicted to the democrats (did I paraphrase that right?) and keep them in power and enslaving the poor and other needy. Horse manure. Thats like saying that Jesus told his followers to help the poor to enslave them. Your theory assumes that people that get help from the government never get off that help. You are flat wrong. Most people that get government help only take it for a short time, with only a tiny minority milking the system to avoid working. I would say that the real people that are addicted to government handouts are people like the Suger Growers in Florida, that pay off the Republicans (and some democrats) to help them out when they don't need it. It is the defence contractors that get the Republicans to force the milatary to take weapons and equipment that the Pentagon doesn't want. It is the tobacco companies that get the Republicans to protect their industry, an industry that depends on selling an addictive drug to the public. The Republican Party is the whore of American politics, and Newt is the chief whore in the group.
Marc <vsylvestre@ctc.net>
Albemarle, NC USA - Friday, June 05, 1998 at 14:33:05 (EDT)

Marc & FT, no I am not "rich." I would like to be that someday if I apply myself as hard as I can. That's just something that a lot of you don't understand. Here we are in an age where progress is looked down upon (or used as a misnomer by some). I am at school right now not because of racial preference or because I have nothing better to do like being "poor." The progress that I hope to make would be to continue on here at UNC (in which I am majoring in Political Science) and up through my life. I would like to own that nice Lexus that I see outside my window right now. That house down in Piper Glen (a "rich" Charlotte suburb) looks like a good place to raise a family. I would like my children to be just as successful as I would like to be myself. Is there really something wrong with that? Please do let me know. Because what I believe is, I guess, at the heart of all "rich" people. Before I made it aware that I am "poor" but thrive to be "rich." Don't blame my parents for having just enough money to send me here because Coca-Cola was also generous to give me money not because of a lack of it but because of grades. How dare me!
Bob K. <WACurly@msn.com>
Charlotte, NC USA - Friday, June 05, 1998 at 14:38:01 (EDT)

Yeah. A small victory yesterday for those who believe in separation of church and state. There weren't enough votes in the House to approve the Istook amendment.
Al Christensen
- Friday, June 05, 1998 at 15:26:04 (EDT)

"Republicans are the whores of America." This is quite an interesting statement when you have people like Barney Frank running a homosexual brothel within his own home. But he's a liberal and your standards are already down that low, so we'll let this one slide. Have a good weekend.
Bob K. <WACurly@msn.com>
Charlotte, NC USA - Friday, June 05, 1998 at 18:14:05 (EDT)

Bob K, I misstyped. I meant to say "The Republican PARTY" is the whore of America. It does anything for money, nothing for principle. As to Barney Frank's assistant who was running a "call-boy" service, don't expect me to defend it. If Mr. Frank knew about his offices being used like that he ought to be out of office, just as a NC senator who whores out his law writing power for an Insurance Company, so they can force a woman to rent out her building for 1930 prices. Corrupt Democrats and corrupt Republicans both belong out if office, in prison, cleaning the toilets of murderers. Sorry about my Mistyping. I know some republicans and they are nice people, not whores at all. "Love the voter, hate the party"
Marc <vsylvestre@ctc.net>
ALbemarle, NC USA - Friday, June 05, 1998 at 18:21:12 (EDT)

BOB K., why are you wasting your parent's and Coke Cola's money with a major in "Politcal Science". You either intend to be a politican or a lawyer; both of which are useless to society and are nothing but parasites who live off the eanrings of the real working people. *** Have you ever considered changing your major to Engineering, Computer Science, or even becoming a Medical Doctor where you can do something really useful with your life then live off of your community as a parasite. Since your major is PoliSci, I can assume, without the fear of being wrong, that you already have become part of the welfare establishment. *** But, BOB you are out for the money and no taxes on your expected riches. You lost your soul to gain the whole world, haven't you?
FireTruck <orlando_66@hotmail.com>
Orlando, FL USA - Friday, June 05, 1998 at 19:38:40 (EDT)

Good Point Al, I agree that the defeat of the Istook amendment was a victory for America over the sort of fundamentalists that have taken Iran back to the 14th century. However, it is another fine example of how the Republican party will happily screw its conservative christian followers. They put up a bill that the Christian Conservatives want, don't vote for it, than they will go to the Comservative Christian groups and beg for yet more money and support. The republican party doesn't give a hoot about God or religion - they just want to wring these poor people out every last dime they can before the go to lick the boots of the well to do and the well connected. Nobody screws over Christian Conservatives more than people like Newt Gingrich and Jack Kemp. To vote for people like that must make your hands smell bad. I wonder if people like Pat Robertson even believe in the bible or Christ?
Marc <vsylvestre@ctc.net>
Albemarle, NC USA - Friday, June 05, 1998 at 22:35:39 (EDT)

Stelle, read your column in Creative Loafing. You are an idiot! Your column comes under the title NPR too. It means Not Pleasure Reading.
FireTruck <orlando_66@hotmail.com>
Orlando, FL USA - Saturday, June 06, 1998 at 01:45:07 (EDT)

FT, I choose PoliSci not because it will lead me to a greedy world full of corruption but because it interests me. I can no more do well in science or math than I can in believing anything you might have to say. I study PoliSci because it teaches me the founding principles of politics as well as other views of other communities. It tells me what the goal of politics used to be before the "age of compassion" came into use and when Republicans (and Democrats) would fight for their ideals not because some poll told them to but because it was what they firmly believed. You can still see some of that today in Patrick Moynihan, Ted Kennedy, and Jesse Helms. When's the last time you think any of these guys took a look at their polls? As far as Newt goes, I think that he has tried too much to nationalize everything that its gotten absurd. When the Republicans (note that I said the R word) closed down the government they should have fought for their beliefs during that period instead of name calling. Now I here that you guys are ridiculing the Istook Amendment. Unfortunately the Republican party has decided that the CC is more (or less) important than ideals of a smalled government. That's my belief in the system. I study PoliSci so that I can best learn from the past and perhaps bring some of that old fashioned whipping back on the House floor. I'd like to consider working for government (remember I got that internship with Mrs. Myrick next month) and perhaps law school will be a major factor. Now if you don't like what I decide to do with my life, TOUGH. What do you do by the way? Let me tell you how big a mistake that was. Good day sir.
Bob K. <WACurly@msn.com>
Charlotte, NC USA - Saturday, June 06, 1998 at 12:12:48 (EDT)

Oh, if I should happen to accumulate that wealth on my way up in the world then you are more than welcome to tax me more than the "poor." Then perhaps you will get what you wanted, more money going to government cheese. Will that shut you up?
Bob K. <WACurly@msn.com>
Charlotte, NC USA - Saturday, June 06, 1998 at 12:14:30 (EDT)

BoB K., the intern. I remember you now. But, you still did not say how you plan to support yourself with a PoliSci major. Do you expect to be an intern for the rest of your life? Or do you plan to do something more useful with your time? So when you graduate with your PoliSci major, what then? How are you going to support yourself? **** BTW, What does all your nonsense in your last post about DEMs and REPs in Congress have to do with how you plan to support yourself? Do you have a career in mind? Or do you expect to be on the public dole for the rest of your life?
FireTruck <orlando_66@hotmail.com>
Orlando, FL USA - Saturday, June 06, 1998 at 12:57:12 (EDT)

Stelle, your column in Creative Loafing began well with the way teens talk in their own language. But, why the brutal attack on "NPR"? Every news media and press report uses the same term "spend" when refering to the surplus. It is a common inside the "Washington Beltway" expression. Why single out "NPR" as the guilty party? *** As to this surplus, your decision to use your own "conservative" spin on it should also be questioned. The conservatives use of the word "tax cut" is not what it appears to be either. Reagan's great tax cut of the 80's in "NO" way helped the middle class. In fact because of reagan, their taxes actually want up. But, that kind of stuff you like to forget just like reagan forgot his entire adminsitration. *** Stelle, so are you speaking of refunds or tax cuts? A refund means it will be returned equally to "ALL" taxpayers. A tax cut usually targets a select few for tax reduction at the expense of the other taxpayers who do not share in this windfall. A targeted tax cut is no different then Congressional subsidies to farmers or corporations. As such, the conservative "tax cuts" are actually spending other taxpayers monies. Thus, NPR is correct in pointing out that the conservative tax cuts is in fact spending the surplus, not an overall reduction in taxes for all taxpayers. A tax cut is not a refund.
FireTruck <orlando_66@hotmail.com>
Orlando, FL USA - Saturday, June 06, 1998 at 13:16:18 (EDT)

Yo, FT, it isn't a valid crit of Bob k.'s ideas to attack his choice of career. A good friend of mine got his undergraduate degree in poli-sci to go on and get his law degree from Georgetown U. Anyway, he got a job that pays him pretty well, but he is compassionalte enough to varry $20 in small bills when he is in town (DC) to give to the homeless he encounters. Yo - Bob k., what do you think of the Republicans habit of introducing legislation that the Conservative Christians want, but then not working to get it passed. I say they do it to get the CC's interested, but won't pass it because they want the support without the actual responcility of governing. Is that any to run a government? Ask Sue Myrick why her party gives money to candidates to candidates that support abortion if the party is against themurder of the unborn. THey also give money to candidates that support Partial Birth abortion. Thats like having friends that practice Jew beating and lynchings, but saying "Yea, but we agree 75% of the time". Does the Republican stand for anything other than "more of everythging for those that already have"?
Marc <vsylvestre@ctc.net>
Albemarle, NC USA - Saturday, June 06, 1998 at 18:35:25 (EDT)

Yo James - to answer your question - no I don't take Carvel seriously, but he is a fun "barking dog" to have on our side. I think he is a very entertaining talking head that is right about some things, and at other times is very good at argueing, whether he is in the right or the wrong...
Marc <vsylvestre@ctc.net>
Albemarle, NC USA - Saturday, June 06, 1998 at 18:38:02 (EDT)

Let's get back to the heart of the matter. It's all about family values. Certain members of your group do not have them. Care to know who? Let's call them M&M. One is married and has children and now he is living with the other without the benefit of marriage while he is still married.
IH8CNH
nc USA - Saturday, June 06, 1998 at 21:42:17 (EDT)

jvhjhgjkhhjk
hacker
USA - Saturday, June 06, 1998 at 21:46:42 (EDT)

That is sure a new concept about marriage. It is now considered a benefit.
FireTruck <orlando_66@hotmail.com>
Orlando, FL USA - Saturday, June 06, 1998 at 22:41:21 (EDT)

Marc, don't get on my case because BOB K. has no mind. Bob was the one who pointed out that no poor person ever created jobs. *** But, BOB sure wants his money and wealth without any concern how he gets it. Most likely Bob will work for tobacca where he can lie and steal to make lots of money. The best part is that Bob has "NO" obligation to pay taxes. *** Hell, just think of all those Nam vets who wasted their lives in Nam because they felt an obligation to serve their country. I mean the dead ones. It is a same that BOB never served time in Nam. He might learn somethin about sharin. Right John? *** Should not BOB give back to his nation a little of his wealth that vets died in Nam so that BOB could get rich. But, BOB can't share his wealth through taxes. It is against his conservative values. So BOB believes that the government can take your life to die in an useless war, but don't touch that wallet.
FireTruck <orlando_66@hotmail.com>
Orlando, FL USA - Saturday, June 06, 1998 at 22:55:40 (EDT)

FT, I know where you're trying to go. How can a person who majors in PoliSci ever get all the things that he wanted? Well I did mention that I would likely go to law school. It's a bit early to decide what law career so we'll leave that hanging. My grandfathers both served in WWII, yet my father did not go to Nam. Do I support his decision on that? If I didn't I might not be here talking with you fine people. Right now I really have no opinion about Nam, but I'm sure I'll get one sometime.
Bob K. <WACurly@msn.com>
Charlotte, NC USA - Sunday, June 07, 1998 at 11:41:49 (EDT)

Concerning a job with "big tobacco," I see it as a highly unlikely position. There are thousands of firms out there and RJR is just a tiny tiny portion of that. My wealth will come from both a secure future but also from a loving family that will, I'm sure, provide more wealth than any monetary source. Why are you so concerned about my future anyway? It's great that you can assume what I'll be doing but really what business is it of yours? I want to know what you do. You may begin.
Bob K. <WACurly@msn.com>
Charlotte, NC USA - Sunday, June 07, 1998 at 11:51:04 (EDT)

Marc, now that I've gotten off the FT I'll answer your question. I think that the Reps introducing CC legislation is just so that they can say that they did something. On abortion, I believe that any abortion (partial or whole) is wrong. I will not quote the Bible or anything like that in favor of my stance (sorry FT, you won't find me blowing up an abortion clinic) but my position is firm. Where did you get your information of Reps supporting abortion? I really would be interested in hearing about this one.
Bob K. <WACurly@msn.com>
Charlotte, NC USA - Sunday, June 07, 1998 at 11:58:32 (EDT)

Hey Ya Bob, Although I am a supporter of the left, I am also against abortion. I believe it is wrong and in most cases it is akin to murder. Since there is no where near a broad agreement on this country about what should be done I am not in favor of it becoming illegal (too impractacle). However, while I disagree a lot with the CC, I admire their taking the unpopular stand in favor of the unborn. It is the ultimate "liberal=for the little guy" stand, in my opinion. Thats why I was mystified when the Christian Coalition tried to get something put into the Republican party committe that they would give no money at all to Republicans that support legal Partial Birth Abortion, supposedly "pro-life" republicans like Henry Hyde were against it. If the party gives money to people that support "partial birth" than I have to assume they also give money to candidates that support abortion. Its the "big tent theory", or Ive heard it put like this "if we agree 75% of the time, than we are on the same side". But this isn't like disagreeing on airbags or NATO policy. I have heard the prolife movement and the CC call abortion a holocaust, or at best Mass murder. Can you have a mass murderer as a freind if you agree on taxes and NATO policy? See why it bothers me?
Marc <vsylvestre@ctc.net>
Albemarle, NC USA - Sunday, June 07, 1998 at 19:03:48 (EDT)

Yo FT. Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they have no mind. I try to assume that Republicans and Conservatives are well meaning but misled. I attempt to see their point of view (hey sometimes they are right, but dont tell them when they are. Just make them think you said it first and they didn't understand you) and get them to see there is another side. Later!
Marc <vsylvestre@ctc.net>
ALbemarle, NC USA - Sunday, June 07, 1998 at 19:07:07 (EDT)

Please Sign My Dialogue Page
( To View Previous Dialogue Pages, click here)
Read This First: Rules For Jerry's Dialogue Page

This site was produced by Soundview Communications.

It is maintained by Jerry Klein, jerryk@jerryk.com .