We horse nutz sometimes forget that we are a huge industry made up of mostly small businesses. Which candidate is best for us re favorable tax climate,estate planning, land preservation, minimal governmental interferance, charitable giving, medical and veternary research etc?
Gore and Bush are both losers, pure and simple. Nader is a bit too out there for me. Its very sad for me to have to pick the person who will run our nation based on which is less of a total loser. And which is not quite as much of a lier plays in as well.
The other things is the abortion issue. Being pro-life, my vote goes to Bush.(And in my school, theyr all Massachusetts yuppies, I;m outnumbered 5,000:1)
OK–In the interest of keeping this thread on topic, I 'd say the answer to the initial question is that is appears that most of us don’t vote as horse people primarily. I certainly don’t. We vote on the other issues which concern us–some, but not all of which, may overlap with our horsey interests.
I think the point about families vs. single people is an interesting one. I saw a report the other day about a moevement of people who feel that as “non-parents” they tend to get shafted by both employers and the government. I’m not ready to start a massive throw-down campaign–but I must admit as married non-parent with no plans for parenthood, I am often struck by how much more I could get from my boss and my goverment if I had kids.
Maybe I should have just told my boss I have 8 kids (4 horses, three dogs and a cat), and that I’m a hippy since I named them Warlock, Elwood, Milo, Rajah, Jake, Merlin, Shawn and Munchkin. He’s always bitching about me not being availabe for overtime with no notice (as in it’s 5 minutes to five and he says, can you stay another hour)–yet if my kids were human kids–he’d NEVER ask (he even admitted as much to me).
I don’t begrudge parents what they get, its just, well, don’t I get credit for something too? Like not burdening my local schools or something? Anything? Guess not.
Just exactly! what is wrong with being a “rich boy”? Why is that some reason to not vote for someone?
I think Gore is not and has never been a “poor” boy. He’s been a well established part of the “old boy” network for a very long time.
OH! Yes Pwynn and what about taking it back a step on all those unwanted children…she just had to keep her legs closed and say NO! Remember we want to be responsible for what happens to our bodies!
Yes, I believe in equal pay for an equal job!
Yes I want to do what I want to do! I didn’t say or do I believe that it should ever be illegal to have an abortion. What I do with my doctor is between him and me. I also don’t want some bureaucrat telling me that they’re sorry but I’m too old and there’s no economical benefit in my having that surgery I need.
BUT! should I have to pay the bills because some girl doesn’t know how to say NO! The children are innocent and I’ll be happy to choose to support them if they cannot find homes.
I don’t see any reason today why Social Security can’t be postponed to 70 years of age. Those who are ill certainly, those who are incapable certainly whenever they need the help and whatever they need they should have. And, Social Security was set up as an Insurance plan, it was designed so that the fee withheld was the premium and that’s how it became an entitlement.
[This message has been edited by Snowbird (edited 10-27-2000).]
This is NOT a negative statement, but women sure are complicated!
Bertie - too funny! Well, at least I recognized the “Dan Quaylism” nature of the quotes at the beginning of my post!!!
Snowbird - that is hysterical!!!
Don’t forget, Jumphigh - Conspiracy Theory is on DVD now!
Please tell me what Bush is talking about when he says, “My opponent trusts the government and we trust the people”.
If he had paid attention in his 10th grade Civics class he would know that the government IS the people !!! Don’t think this statement holds alot of promise for him as President. Vote GORE.
When I run for president, i will base part of my campaign on the pro- baby quiche and baby carrots theme and centralize my focus around the cruelty surrounding them. (Taffy will have to break his habit of eating them…carrots anyhow…quiche? not sure where that one comes from…?)
The Government will take care of me LOL.
If everyone’s kids take care of their parents, why do we need all the subsidies for the elderly?
BTW, I have all the respect in the world for our senior citizens, and of all my tax dollars, I consider the ones spent on them to be the best spent.
I’m not trying to oversimplify these issues, but times do change. Here’s one example of a similar dilemma which isn’t being addressed (and I’d LOVE to get people’s opinions on it).
I’m doing student advising these days because it’s time for them to register for spring classes. I would say that 80% of my advisees are taking at least 18 credits (six classes) next semester. Some are taking as many as 22. They say they must take that many because they can’t afford to stay in college longer than necessary.
Of course, the result is that they can’t put anywhere near as much time into any one particular class as is necessary to really learn anything. And many of them also have jobs and participate in clubs and other extra curriculars that look good on a resume. Me? I got scholarships, rode horses and gave lessons for extra money, but that was hardly “work,” not like putting in six hours at some restaurant after attending classes all day.
Meanwhile, my peers and I almost uniformly complain about how the students don’t do the reading assigned, not ever. Some of them (juniors and seniors, mind you: our department isn’t open to the lower levels.)Many of them don’t put a second thought to a class between the time they step out of it to the time they step back in the next week unless there’s an assignment or test coming up: they jsut don’t have the TIME to. Many of the students under the most pressure in this way are the poorer students–the ones who have to work as well as go to school.
Many of my peers have, IMO, watered down their courses as a result. Students buy super-expensive textbooks, only to be required to read less than 25% of the contents. One-on-one conferences is the expectation in many courses (and I teach at a university, not a small college–I have over 50 students in my media research class alone). If left on their own, and if standards were more like they were 15 years ago when I was at school, 70% of my students would fail.
Times change. The world changes. What worked for one generation doesn’t necessarily work for another. I firmly believe that in this day and age, you can’t make money without money. There are exceptions to that rule,but the system is making it harder and harder to do it the old way.
I’m all for exit exams. My peers aren’t. I’m all for forcing SOMEONE to address the deeper issues. I don’t think Republicans are.
Welfare reform has a long way to go, but it, too, has changed for the better. It is no longer that easy to stay on welfare forever. More reform is necessary, but who is more likely to address that issue?
There are no easy solutions to the problems of poverty in this country, but the current rate of taxation isn’t bankrupting the wealthy, while it is helping the poor. Maybe if the wealthy spent some time addressing the problems of the poor (since the poor are often ill-equipped to do so), they’d discover solutions that work without costing taxpayers more.
Too many Republicans seem to be saying “Solve your own problems, just let me keep my money.” My point is that those with problems often CAN’T solve them on their own. Again, as Aly asked, what efforts are Republicans making to SOLVE the problems of poverty? Democrats might not be coming up with the right solutions, but at least they are trying.
(Again, me? I’d vote for Nader if I could, but I can’t risk giving it to Bush by doing so. I think ANYTHING which breaks up the two party system would be a major improvement for this country.)
case in point… i count 4 spelling errors in my post… and that was after i already went back and edited some… 
<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:
[B]When you have the philosophical slant that I have to my personality, people generally collect these things and send them to me.
This I thought was very appropriate for the dialog we have been having. You have I am sure noticed that I try to look at every question from many sides and go back to the source.
Personally, I think that chicken should have the right to go wherever it wants, and we should be careful of it’s right to cross the road, even if it is inconvenient. I would guess that chickens were here before us.
I am not happy with the fact that today the chicken has been so discriminated against that it is a favored choice by the current government for consumption. I think it is a gross miscarriage of justice that the government should single out the chicken as a major food source to replace cows and pigs.
And, I certainly hope that if Gore gets elected he will fight to protect the rights of the chickens. They are probably eligible to organize a union and set up quotas as just how many chickens may be consumed in any one life-time.
[This message has been edited by Snowbird (edited 11-02-2000).][/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed Snowbird, agreed!
However, given the recent news of the last 12 hours regarding Bush’s drunk driving conviction in 1976 I say you should all be voting for the chicken.
No DUI’s, no Tippers, no Daddy this Daddy that, and no I invented the Internet.
Just a persistent clucking of disapproval at all the s*** that’s going down. 
Funny you should ask, Erin. I’ve heard from several people that the record was expunged, but I haven’t read it anywhere yet. I was just about to flip to the NY Times online. I’ll let you know if I find any reference to it.
I haven’t found anything in print, Erin, so in fairness to Dubya, I’ll remain skeptical until I read otherwise.
[This message has been edited by Inverness (edited 11-06-2000).]
We horse nutz sometimes forget that we are a huge industry made up of mostly small businesses. Which candidate is best for us re favorable tax climate,estate planning, land preservation, minimal governmental interferance, charitable giving, medical and veternary research etc?
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snowbird:
[B]I have been ambivilent about abortion until a couple of weeks ago when I saw a film clip from a surgery being done on a 10 week fetus for spinabifita. The little hand came out of the uterus and it grabbed the doctor’s finger. There were 5 perfectly formed little fingers grasping for life. That fetus could still have been aborted for another two weeks.
Actually Snowbird, that baby can be legally aborted right up to full term. It is called partial birth abortion and is legally performed for the “health of the mother” That means physical health OR MENTAL HEALTH. If it will upset you to have a baby, they will kill the baby just before delivery is complete. A minute later and it would be 1st degree. Many, many abortions are performed on babies older than the preemies they keep alive every day in our hospitals.
Well, being in favor of individualism and individual responsibility I’m still for BUSH.
I think today there is such a high penalty for success that it really doesn’t pay to save your money or accumulate any. I mean if you have an estate Uncle Sam takes half, and the kids fight over the other half. So they wind up mad at each other and you! If you have a fancy car some idiot falls in front of it so they sue you. If you have expensive clothes or jewelry you can’t wear them for fear of being mugged. And, if you accumulate more than a few dollars everyone treats you like a paria that has stolen their money. So this is the end of the American Dream to do better than your parents.
By the way anyone know why it wouldn’t have been more logical for Hillary to run for the Senate from Arkansas instead of New York? Is it that they know her too well there?
What has become of us Americans? We don’t want to take responsibility for our own actions, or lack there of. We’re not disciplined enough to save our money for our own retirement, we don’t want to take care of our aging parents and we don’t want to work for minimum wage! Do you think the democrats have anything to do with this and all their program promising?
Let’s see…you go jump in the sack with Tom, Dick and Harry. Get pregnant, no problem! Government run health care can take care of that!
Lazy, don’t want to work because the soaps are just too good to miss? Hey, no problem there either! You can get your check from the government every month to pay your bills. Hey they’ll even throw in food stamps for ya to buy your beer and chips!
The government has told us that Social Security will take care of you when you are old, so live it up now. No need to put money away for personal retirement. Don’t even ask your children to take care of you when you are old. Goverment subsidized retirement homes are just the ticket.
I agree that there are people in this country who honestly need help, but it should come from the local level. Let the cities and towns take care of it’s own people without the Federal Government imposing all of it’s rules and regulations on them. Let the churches have there soup kitchens and halls for the homeless to sleep in.
One last thing here. I’m a woman who’s starting to add a few pounds on my body and I’ve done what I wanted with it. Good southern cooking have added a few pounds on this tiring body. Do you think the government run health care should take care of my “tummy” tuck or my “liposuction”?
Thank you HSM,
And please do not leave this thread. It would be unfair to the innocents who might pop on here to leave it totally to the “extremists”.
I wonder what one of those so sure of themselves would do if a group of recessive genes suddenly appeared in their bloodlines from a great-great grandmom and they produced a little brown baby instead of a white one? Or, even more likely a little Neanderthal.
Would it cause divorce or would it cause abortion or maybe even infanticide? In truth we are all “mongrel”.
I’m not sure but does anyone know “Is Aryian white”, I mean pure white?
As to guns, I have used my trusty shot gun to remove hunters from my farm. They ignored my no hunting signs and were standing there in their little orange vests. Obviously since they couldn’t see well enough to read they wouldn’t know the difference between a deer and a horse. The shotgun in the hands of a little old lady is a very potent universal language. It left nothing to a translation.
The deer here on the mountain since to be exceptionally intelligent. They are aware when it is hunting season and stay in the pastures with the horses or come close enough to the house to have it illegal to shoot them. We did lose our beautiful big 10 point buck to a bow and arrow even though he tried to hang out in the shrubbery around the houses.
I wish I knew what was “the rich”. And, if they paid so much in I don’t see why they shouldn’t get a tax break too. I know the really rich can afford all those fancy tax attorneys so they don’t pay taxes anyway.
I think that if we are supposed to be protecting family values it is pure hypocrisy to tax someone more because they are married than if they lived together single. I think it is obscene to tax someone just because they died.
Tax wise the repeal of the death tax would not reward the rich, and anyway why punish everyone else for the few. Under the Repblican plan my children would not owe “Death Tax” but if they sold the farm they would have to pay the same capital gain that I would pay if I sold the farm. Under the Democratic plan, if you actually qualified and met all those ifs ands and buts so that you could prove you were the “right type” you’d get an exemption and not have to pay capital gain taxes.
[This message has been edited by Snowbird (edited 10-31-2000).]
<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by holland:
It’s been stated that some of the posters on this board are “sick and tired of the character issue.” What a sad commentary on the state of our union. Strong character was once EXPECTED of our leaders.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I’m not sure if you are referring to my post or not Holland, but I do want to assure you that I do, in fact, care about character. The fact of the matter is, however, that we cannot possibly “know” the true character of either of the principle candidates.
As I pointed out in an earlier post, the most puzzling thing about the character question is the fact that Dubya has made it a key issue as regards Gore, and yet he refuses to answer any questions about his own character.
I recently saw a TV spot for Dubya in which he states (forgive me for paraphrasing) “you can ask me about my policies, but don’t question my integrity.”
Well, why can’t I question his integrity? The man is running for President, not dog-catcher! I just cannot understand the logic that says it is legitimate for Dubya to cast aspersions on Gore’s (and McCain’s) character and integrity, and, in the same breath, indignantly refuse to entertain any inquiry about his own.
Dubya’s manner of playing the “character issue” game violates my understanding of fairplay, and I am truly baffled and dismayed that the American public seems willing to overlook such blatant hypocrisy.
Does anyone else see shades of Willy Horton in this?
[This message has been edited by Inverness (edited 11-03-2000).]
Please vote with an educated thought. Just because you don’t believe in everything a candidate is for doesn’t mean he isn’t the right person for the job. Texas is making out fine with Gov. Bush and my life was never more prosperous than in the
Reagan years. Most family farms might not make it without the estate tax passed and George Bush has a huge proposal for open spaces. The easiest way to look at the situation is Bush wants each state and local gov.to take care of what their people need and Gore wants the gov. to mandate each state and local gov.
Go Bush and Cheney!!!
