Well the consenus at my barn is Bush,which I agree.There’s already an a**hole in the white house,why put another one in? Gore has the integrety of a worm and is a liar besides.And we are in NY so we get the pleasure of Hillary as well,who has no business running for Senate in NY,ought to go back to Arkansas.I hate liars and while no politician
doesn’t lie,Bush didn’t claim to invent the 'net,discover love canal,etc. which leads ME to believe Bush is more honest.
Why do you democrats believe that the government is the answer to all of our problems? What makes you believe that programs and new laws will solve all the ills of society?
Laws are made to be broken and programs are used and abused.
I saw a post earlier that said Social Security was started after the stock market crash. If that’s true, don’t you think that was kind of stupid to start a program to bail out the people who gambled on stocks? Actually Social Security was started for our war heros. When they came home with no jobs, Social Security was there to help them and their families until they found jobs. It wasn’t to be permanent and it wasn’t to be what it is today.
The Federal Government’s main purpose was to provide security (military) for this country and interstate highways. The local governments were to take care of the rest.
sigh One last tryÂ…
Kryswyn –
Â"But IMHO most couples want a child the same skin color as their ownÂ…Â"
Really? In 1999, more than 16,000 children were adopted in the US from other countries. 11,000 of them came from countries NOT in Eastern Europe. (Source: The National Adoption Information Clearinghouse).
Â"Â…and who can blame them? If you’re caucasion looking at your Vietnamese child you are reminded EVERYTIME you look at him/her that YOU were unable to bear a child.Â"
Says who??? I have 2 children who nothing like me, nor like each other, from 2 different countries, and I can honestly say that I am RARELY reminded that I was Â"unable to bear a childÂ". Where they came from and what they look like is entirely irrelevant to how I feel when I look at them. They are my children. ItÂ’s rather presumptuous for someone not in this situation to assume that I would feel anything. I must say, this is the comment that bothered me the most. It’s just so off the mark, I’m afraid.
Â…we want to ‘pass’ as a ‘natural’ family
Even if you say that you Â"disagreeÂ" with this statement, it is language that is so offensive that it should not be used. Language is very important inhow people percevie adoption, or anything else for that matter. ALL families are Â"naturalÂ". And Â"passingÂ" – good lord, I canÂ’t even comment on this one.
Â"They paid over $10,000 for the 1st child and more for the 2nd.Â"
People do not Â"payÂ" for children. They pay legally regulated fees associated with adoption. These fees may include medical and housing costs for the birthmother prior to birth, hospital fees, legal fees to both their own lawyer and to a lawyer to represent the birthmother, cost of having a Â’home studyÂ’ done by a licensed adoption agency or social worker, etc. The exact allowances vary from state to state.
Â"And as to my knowledge of international adoption? I was a reference, thanks very much, for friends of mine who adopted the most wonderful baby from Viet Nam. So I know the heartbreak, the waiting, the immediacy, the frustration, the “we’re leaving NOW to get our son!” first hand.Â"
Sorry, but this is not the kind of experience to which I was referring. Especially since IÂ’m sure that every time you look at your friendÂ’s Â’wonderful baby from VietnamÂ’, you will (a) think of him/her as Â’the baby from Viet NamÂ’ and (b) be reminded of how itÂ’s too bad your friend couldnÂ’t have a Â’naturalÂ’ child.
Heidi-
Â"I would urge you to carefully read Kryswyn’s postÂ"
I DID re-read the post more than once, and thought long and hard before responding.
Â"there’s nothing offensive in what she writes or perceives. You perhaps responded to the perception of a slight when there is none apparent nor intended.
I have to disagree with this. Perhaps not offensive to you, but very offensive to families formed by adoption. And whether the Â’slightÂ’ was intended is not the point. It is, after all, all about Â"perceptionsÂ".
I do find your dismissive and enraged response strangely upsetting.
Dismissive? I simply wanted to make my point as briefly as I could. Enraged? YouÂ’ve got me there.
As my dear husband often reminds me, ‘don’t personalize’. I believe you may have.
Dang straight I’ve personalized! If I don’t, then who will? But make no mistake – my experience is not just personal. I know literally hundreds of other adoptive families (via organizations I’m involved with), families who’ve adopted both domestically and internationally. I feel safe in saying that the majority of them share my sentiments. I know families who’ve adopted kids with physical or emotional challenges, families who’ve adopted older kids, families who’ve adopted white US born infants, families who’ve adopted minority kids in the US, families who work as adoption advocates both locally and nationally. The list goes on. I have also worked extensively in adoption education myself - including helping people who are adopting privately in the US, adopting overseas, adopting kids with special needs - and have the educational training myself to back that up. And I have made it my business for the pat 15 yrs. to remain informed and educated regarding the issues involved in parenting adopted children. So I feel pretty qualified to comment.
Â"The reality is many, many people post on threads and topics when in reality they have little first-hand experience and do not qualify as leading experts - that’s the nature of a bulletin board.Â"
Yes, and itÂ’s also the nature of a BB for someone who does know a bit more on the subject and who does have first hand experience to respond.
So, Kryswyn, thanks for the apology, but it would mean more to me if youÂ’d just stay away from this issue any further. CanÂ’t make you, for sure, but thatÂ’s how I feel.
For myself, IÂ’m done with this thread and on to others where I can learn something useful, or maybe have some fun.
And why did wife Laura have to rush to the phone to call “the girls” and let them know about Daddy’s DUI?
I know Dubya is no Rhodes Scholar but wouldn’t you think he would have an inkling that this might come out and at least prepare his daughters for it?
What else are we going to hear that he has kept from his daughters and the American public?
Well now I feel sort of dumb because, not only do I not know who John Galt is, but I also don’t know what “Sannois” or “tolitarian” mean either?
Dosen’t Bush own horses? I herd he had a ranch out in Texas.
<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by heidi:
I can’t keep up - the threads have now ricocheted from protecting the rights of the fetus to resenting the children who have clearly suffered the misfortune of birth and now roam the planet purely to make your lives an over-taxed hell. I do believe the discussion is degenerating.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think you may have something there Heidi. Let’s tax the fetuses.
God help this country with all the Liberals like you rockstar. So you like Socialism huh, bread lines and all that goes along with it. Say goodbye to all your freedoms. Forget your horses and your cars and everything that you take for granted. You are just the type they want. Don’t think for yourself the Government will do that for you, and they will. There is none so blind as those who will not see. Snowbird is right on.
A socialist is a person who believes that my right to my life and my property varies inversely with their need, however they choose to define it at anytime. If they feel that someone else hasn’t enough money, they feel perfectly justified in sticking a gun in my face, taking my money and giving it away as they see fit. They obligate the recipient to themselves to increase their power base, proclaim their superiority, sensitivity and compassion and call me selfish and mean spirited if I complain about their armed robbery. There is no moral difference between a socialist and a person who throws a brick through a plate glass window and runs off down the street with a television set. and they need the same set of circumstances to get away with their crime: Moral confusion and social disorder. They create moral confusion by trying to convince us that keeping what we earn is selfish and that we have some moral obligation to shut up and allow them to steal from us in the name of compassion - a compassion they themselves do not show those from whom they steal. Hiring armed thugs to steal our property and freedoms does not constitute compassion - it constutes an attempt to enslave us to our own government.
The problem Magnolia is that what sounds like a lot of money if it were cash isn’t when it’s a farm or inventory for a small business, if you really had to cash it in you’re lucky to get half. While the taxes are based on the appraisals.
For example, if I died the girls would have to try and find a way to raise 51% of the value of the land. Land appraisals vary and they use the highest and best use of the land. So it would be appraised for 35 nice new homes, and not what I paid when I bought it and mortgaged it. In order to raise the tax money they would have to sell the farm. They lose not only a life style but their job and their homes.
Let’s take a small business a shoe store, they may have accumulated $2 million in inventory and fixtures but if they have to sell to pay taxes they would have to sell the inventory and then not have a business. Since all this money that is in the land and the inventory has been taxed many times, why should it be taxed again just because I died.
Even years ago it was published while my husband and I were paying our taxes, Rockefeller didn’t pay a dime in taxes. So to use the fact that the “rich” will benefit is a red herring. Those guys get to bail anyway. Go after them if you want I couldn’t care less. But it isn’t fair to punish three or four generation small businesses because you’re afraid a Bill Gates or some of these new millionaires will get a break.
I have no objection to the girls paying the capital gains tax if they choose to sell it, but it seems blantantly criminal to take half of it from the sale for taxes even if they don’t want to sell. If chose to sell it, I would pay the capital gains and that’s what they should have to pay if they sell.
While the Democrat version gives a huge exemption the rules are so stringent that almost no farmer fits the mold for what they choose to allow. The government should not be deciding what we do with what we’ve earned and we’ve done it the hard way. Let’s I follow the approved mold, I sell my farm retire and live in some white plastic little senior village, that’s acceptable. But, I become a vegetable, my children have no continuity and the extended family is destroyed.
I object to having to fit a mold, you get a rebate if you a good little children and send your kids to college. Now if you are not going to have kids well give the money to Uncle Sam. We’ll let you have a rebate if you are good little people and buy a house, but if you want to live in an apartment and move around the country you don’t get anything.
I’ve been paying more taxes since I no longer have children at home. WHY? I raised my kids why I keep some of that money to enjoy in my old age.
The girls have spent their lives helping us keep the farm afloat for nothing more than room and board for 22 years. The Democrats say well they should have been paid. But, if we had paid them what they deserved we wouldn’t have been making the mortgage payments so the farm wouldn’t still be here.
You see it’s a no win situation. Now, I don’t object to what is profit being taxed, but what about a “donation” from Uncle Sam if there’s no profit and we perform a service by keeping open spaces and offering healthy recreational opportunities.
All the farmers and small business people are saying is don’t double tax us.
The most accidents happen in the bathroom, are we going to legislate against bathrooms and send everyone back to the out-house, which by the way would be a good environmental way to protect the waterways.
That’s the point when we talk about big government, it’s not the taxes it the butting to our business. We have children going haywire, is it because there are guns or because their parents are paying any attention? Is it because the children have taken over and parents are afraid to discipline them? Is it because the parents are so busy being involved in what they want to do to feel fulfilled that there is no real time to parent?
Will we give up kitchen knives, they kill a lot more people. One of the kids knifed his parents, another killed his parents because they wouldn’t let him have the new car. So why blame guns instead of our selves and our present morality that makes life seem so cheap a commodity. I wonder if these children didn’t think that like in the movies, or TV or one the computer where they shoot it up and everything comes back after you shut down the machine.
All I do know is I grew during the depression, and the schools were all open every day until 6:00 PM because everyone had two parents working. What kind of child care can you hire for a teen ager?
I think that if you have kids it isn’t enough to buy them happiness!
[This message has been edited by Snowbird (edited 10-31-2000).]
[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 DMK:
[B] Holland, I absolutely agree with you on your take on Dubya taking acountability for his actions and reforming. I stand pretty firmly with Inverness on her take on this issue (well stated, I might add). But the words “you can’t help but think?” bother me… Do you mean, that with no evidence to the contrary, you must assume that another Washington Prince would take the helping hand of his well-connected father? That seems a tad self-serving to me.
And as for the campaign headquarter antics of Gore, has the Bush-McCain runoff antics faded so competely from the collective conscious? Or for that matter, any other politician running for office in the last several decades? Make no mistake about it, regardless of who is elected, “those type” of people WILL be in the White House.
In case you haven’t noticed they HAVE been in the White House for quite some time, and will continue to be in office for the foreseeable future unless the United States Congress seriously embraces campaign reform (which they have promised to do as soon as to do so serves their best interests, hell freezes over, and pigs are seen flying aound the Washington Monument).
I would not insult your intelligence by acting as if the actions of a 30 year old man who has turned that aspect of his life around, should make a difference in this election. Please do not insult mine by telling me that one political machine is more inherently evil than another. No wonder issues get no airtime.
[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
First of all, I’m sorry if I mistakenly insulted your intelligence. That was certainly not my intention.
Secondly, if you want to talk about the issues-- I’d be glad to do so. The problem with that is the frustrating and unfortunate fact that these two men are currently standing so close to the middle on many of the key issues, and it wouldn’t be a very spirited debate.
The fact of the matter is, Al Gore and GWB have shifted hard to the middle (a trick they learned from Clinton) during this election.
Therefore…almost any statement about a Bush or Gore presidency becomes conjecture at this time. People say GWB will do xyz when he’s in office…but, they’re not sure…because he’s saying abc in the election rhetoric. Same goes for Al Gore. Can we look backward to what they did in the past and think that they will fall into their more partisan selves after the election? Or, is that an self serving “you can’t help but think” statement?
In other words, because Al Gore wrote in his book “Earth in the Balance” that he would like to do away with the internal combustion engine…should I conjecture that his centrist rhetoric regarding the automotive industry is just a “front” and he will step back into his “Earth in the Balance” shoes when/if he becomes Pres?
I don’t know…I guess I just feel like everyone should have their crystal ball out for this election-- because we aren’t seeing the real Gore or Bush at this point in the game. And, if I want to make a prediction about either man’s character-- and how it will effect their time in office-- it falls into the same category as analyzing their rhetoric, and seeing how it might morph into policy during their tenure.
Pacificsolo, I have to agree with you. I resent paying taxes so that freeloaders like the Honeywell and Raytheon CEO’s can sit on their lazy butts and just wait for those NASA contracts to come rolling in. Why don’t they go and start their own darned space program, anyway? What’s space exploration done for us, besides bring Gore-Tex to the masses? We sure didn’t need to pump billions of dollars into a wasteful program just to get high-tech winter clothing. And why does ADM need millions in subsidies with MY tax money? I’d rather throw my paycheck off a bridge than pay for one more single undeserving ear of bio-engineered corn.
Open land preservation = Nader!
Those OTHER 2 candidates are just too centrist for this lefty.
And I’m going to put on my Moderator hat and officially also ask that we get away from the abortion issue. No one is going to change anyone’s mind about it, and it is an extremely touchy subject. You’ve done a good job of not making overly personal attacks, but this is the kind of issue that can degenerate quickly.
The original question was which candidate do people believe would be better for the horse industry; can we focus on that for awhile? Or at least on the pressing issue of whether the candidates ever tasted baby quiche, and if so, did they swallow?
Yikes, I was listening to NPR this morning and they were discussing the state of affairs in Yugoslovia. They elected an honest, popular new leader, yet in many ways, his hands are tied because of the remains of the old regime.
Who we elect is oh so important. We need to keep a balance in the three sections of government. We should be happy we have the right to hash out differences and the right to be heard.
Yesterday I was angry that I had the choice b/w dumb and dumber. Today I am happy that dumb and dumber can not mess up our nation too badly (like Yugoslavia) because of our 3 branch system. So there. Thank You Fore Fathers.
checking that this works before I go off
Wait a minute, now I’m confused! A vote for Gore and hunting? How does that make logic?
DMK - will you please check your email!!! I am dying at work today… 
Pacificsolo,
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE use paragraphs. I would like to read your posts but simply cannot b/c the formatting makes my eyes ache.
I just cast my vote for Gore/Lieberman and a straight Dem ticket. Never done that before!
And BTW, I LOVE Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, and The Fountainhead. Captivating reading.
Josiah Bartlett for president!!! (I love “The West Wing”!!!)
Gore because I am in agreement with him on most of the issues, and most importantly because I don’t W to ever have the opportunity to nominate ANY justices to the Supreme Court – I would fear for Roe v. Wade, civil rights, separation of church and state, etc. All things I believe in very strongly.
And Inverness, I agree. In terms of substance, Bush is an inch deep (on a good day) and a mile wide. As Ross Perot would say, “Not qualified. Nope. Not qualified.”
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Erin:
Does anyone else feel guilty for having to drive a truck or SUV as an everyday car? I need a truck to pull my trailer, and I certainly can’t afford two cars. But it kills me that I have to tool around in a behemoth that gets 16 mpg on a good day.[QUOTE]
I’m too broke from paying the gas this summer to feel guilty!!
