BUSHvsGORE re:Horse Industry

[hobson]

<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Inverness:
Hobson,
I’m a compatriot in the “decided not to have kids” department.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is really interesing to me - I’ve never run across so many “childless by choice” women in one place. At least, ones who were willing to talk about it. What’s the connection with horses, do you think? Almost every one of my childess friends is involved with horses, and they range from casual backyard riders to active competitors.

[hobson]

Hi there, pacificsolo - sorry to offend you, but what’s wrong with forming an impression on a piece of writing - in this case the Christian bible? Any time somebody writes something, whether it’s a short story, a novel, a screenplay, an academic article, or a religous tome, it’s going to be interpreted by readers with and without a critical eye. When I read the New Testament, Jesus sure looks like a lefty to me. Somebody in the thread mentioned the Bible in connection to conservative politics, so I threw in my opinion. No big deal! Others read it and say that poor people are poor because they are sinners and Satan is in charge of the world. I’m sure you’d agree that there is no universal assent about what everything in the Bible means. Not everyone agrees about James Joyce’s “Ulysses” either. I would guess that critical analysis must be an interesting and lively part of seminary education, as it in in other disciplines, and that questioning and debating biblical content would be encouraged. It’s an essential part of any academic process.

But we are digressing from the election topic. How’d we get on socialism anyway, when the 2 major candidates are right of center? And can I remind everyone again to please stay away from personal attacks? Things are getting mean-spirited, and I’m sure that’s not what we all want. I speak only for myself, but to those who might think I’m an evil, stupid, theiving, hormone-blinded monster just because of my political position, just remember that you might meet me at a horse function one day. If we end up talking, you’d probably like me. If you met me and my charming horses, I’m certain that you would not feel quite so inclined to make the same assumptions and generalizations that are being made on this board.

So again: can we agree to keep it civil? Back in the day, when I was involved with running public policy forums with the Kettering Foundation, one of our rules was to ALWAYS try to acknowledge that no matter how much you disagree with someone, you probably share some common ground with them. Look first for where you agree, and work from there. Further, you should try to assume that those with different opinions have arrived at these opinions honestly. With these kinds of ground rules, we somehow managed to hold useful public discussions on some really divisive topics (abortion, drug policy, environmental regulation, and the like) without the hurling of insults and without depending on the back-and-forth tossing of simplistic sound-bites and cliches. Can’t we try this here?

[moose]

Yikes, my head is spinning from reading this thread. What a strange balance our country maintains through the republican and democratic ideals, and how important it is to keep that balance.

What little I can offer on the issue of gun control. I must admit to having an friend who is an avid hunter and an avid collector of guns, all kinds. More then once he has walked in with a rather large semi-automatic weapon to show off after purchase, and has made a point of showing me the intricacies of loading and handling an AK-47 (which he aquired through Romanian parts which were then put together in the US, legal through last year), and shown me the difference between hunting pellets, versus Teflon coated bullets (I believe he said the manufacturer voluntarily no longer makes these of their ability to cut through a police vest) , versus spider (I believe these expand once they enter the body). His reasons for having these things is that he is obsessed with the collection aspect (I can only hope). While the description is scary, I say it because he is not alone, there is a huge market out there for these items, and of this market, he is probably in the minority in that he actually knows what he is handling and hunts.

The main problem he is seeing today is that he is the minority. The majority of people that acquire these items that donÂ’t even know how to load them, let alone take them apart. The majority are probably living in the city, not the woods, scoping out deer. More than likely they donÂ’t hunt, and because of that have even have less of a handle on the power of what they are dealing with. There is no requirement in purchasing a weapon in which you must pass a test to assure you know what you are doing.

The only way these items disappear is through pressure and legislation against the manufacturer to produce them. That is why he ran out to get his now illegal AK-47 & now illegal bullets. **He knew they would become harder to get and therefore Â"collectors itemsÂ".

There will always be a black market, but even he begrudgingly admitted that he purchases legally rather then risk a felony for purchasing illegally, and that the bottom line is that they will become scarcer.

Ya know, I do agree with NRA and gun enthusiasts that guns donÂ’t shoot people, people do and understand the reasoning of the constitution to back it, but you canÂ’t escape the need for control, and that is where I part with the NRA. There is way too much profit in gun and ammo production which makes them bias, so the Gov’t must step in.

The majority (if any) of people on this bb are not the ones being affected by lenient gun control. We afford the luxury of horses and are not worried about our children getting struck by a stray bullet , buying a handgun or being robbed in the street. Those in the cities that are affected are going to vote on these issues as well, and if their voice goes to the majority then so be it. TheyÂ’ve been dying on the streets long before Columbine hit the news.

Thanks for the soapbox, now back to the less then fascinating world of mutual fund disclosure.

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

[pwynnnorman]

Hey, people! Is anyone upset that Dubya DIDN’T ADMIT TO IT EARLIER? For heavens sake, he’s running for president and he got a DUI years ago. We’ve all heard the other incidents of politicians getting razed for something they did years ago. Does it take a genius to realize that, if you did ANYTHING negative that put your name on a legal document, you’d better fess up to it BEFORE someone else does? How old are his daughters (and how dumb)? Is he expecting me to think that his daughters wouldn’t follow his advice unless he were a saint? Why couldn’t his experience be a learning one for his daughters as well? That’s bunk. His daughters must have known he had a drinking “issue.” Who with such an “issue” hasn’t driven drunk, caught or not? Surely his daughters would hardly be shocked or uprooted or sent into a tizzy or something by discovering his DUI?

What kind of character does THAT evidence? Had he admitted it, proactively, he would have appeared strong and honest and even intelligent (having recognized the that it would/could come out and done something proactively to counter any impact it would have). Why NOT being it up?

Moreover, of course some devoted Democrat was going to hold onto this information and use it when it could do the most harm. It doesn’t take a national committee to decide to ambush (oh, bad pun) a campaign. If I had been the arresting officer, or the lawyer, or just a resident who knew about it, I’d have sat on it until the time was ripe, too. It has nothing to do with Gore’s campaign. he can’t be blamed for some individual’s possibly quite selfish desire to influence the election.

BTW, Snowbird, you clearly have been selectively perceptive since you dislike Gore and Clinton so much. Both individuals have admitted a wide variety of mistakes, many, many times over many, many years. All of them? Of course not. But of course they’ve made and admitted to mistakes! You didn’t care to listen to them at the time. After all, we only hear what we WANT to hear.

[lillian]

Farm: actually, the average welfare recipient in this country is a 23-year-old white female, unmarried, with one child.

[Magnolia]

"Do you realize that the largest voter base that Gore has is the blue collar people who have never gone to college and many haven’t graduated high school? Never mine the other ethnic groups they measure. Why if these are the market share of votes that Gore can count on would he care about education. "

That is the most ignorant thing I have ever heard!!! A college education does not make you smart!!! My mechanic is the smartest man I know. He makes a crap load of money off of me. Gee, my dad was a highschool drop out, he must be dumb. It must be a fluke that he has a successful business.

Your idea is why I would never support Bush. Your ideas are elitist and dated. Screw the little people - let them eat cake! Just forget about the people working hard for a living. Who cares about the guy that frys my burger - he’s not “educated”.

Maybe we should only let white upper class people vote…it would be sooooooo much easier to stay rich without working. Oh, and while were at it, unions are just so messy, must we make a good work environment for a group smart enough to organize?
You made lose my appetite for lunch.

[jch]

Originally posted by Jumphigh 83:
Just look how much the last eight years have done to improve education. The schools are all state of the art, our children can read and do math on a par with the rest of the world, teachers are well paid, the schools are in great condition with plenty of teachers and aids and equipment…all this under the democrats…And I also have some lovely swamp land in Florida to sel to any interested democrats

Our schools are not perfect, but they are under the auspices of the state, rather than the federal government. The federal government only has say over federally sponsored programs. Here in Texas, the TAAS test has become the end all and be all. Just a thought, but it would be nice if just one of the candidates would acknowledge the fact that there are people who know more about education than they do. They consult with experts to make recommendations in other areas, why not consult with recognized authorities on how the brain functions and how different people learn?

Finally, if our schools are so sub par, why do people from all over the world send their children to our universities?

[This message has been edited by jch (edited 10-22-2000).]

[hobson]

<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by magnolia:

BTW, I’m still not decided on my vote. I was gonna go third party, but all the anti-Bush propaganda is getting to me and I’m feeling the need to vote Gore as a lesser of 2 evils! HELP!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aw, c’mon, magnolia! The lesser of 2 evils is still evil! Join the Nader camp! I assure you there’s PLENTY of space in our bandwagon!

I think Gore did enlist in the military during Vietnam. Granted, it sure helped his father’s political campaign which just happened to be going on at the time, but I do believe that Dubya avoided the military altogether. So it could be said that Gore has the military-knowledge advantage in this case. As for his grades at Yale, Bush received “Gentleman’s C’s” which means that because of the influential nature of the Bush family, Yale wished to not embarrass Bush senior by flunking Bush junior.

I love Aly’s remarks! Bush really is subliminable, isn’t he? And thanks for pointing out that not all of us horse people have anything at all to do with taxable estates, businesses small or large, and the like. I’m thinking that if we help out the little guys by raising the minimum wage, providing affordable child care, making university education more accessible and affordable, tax breaks for the working class, and other stuff like that, the horse industry would benefit from an influx of newcomers suddenly able to afford this rather expensive hobby/sport.

[hobson]

<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jumphigh83:
[B]Criminal: some one with malicious intent. someone who has committed a felonious act. someone with a history of repeated acts of violence toward animals, children and others.someone whose only priority is themself.

My ideas. Anyone else?[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great - I agree. So, if one of these guys does not have a rap sheet, they can buy a gun easily and legally. How do we prevent it? When I think of this situation, I mostly have in mind domestic violence. We know that the majority of women who are murdered are killed by their intimate partners, often with guns (in part of my checkered past, I worked with the police anaylzing crime statistics, so I have a head full of crime data). In a lot of cases, the violent partner is violent ONLY towards the victim at home, and does not have a prior history of crime. Nonetheless, these are very, very dangerous people. When they say “I’ll kill you if you leave me,” they really mean it. How do we keep guns away from these folks, especially when they are seen by the rest of society as model citizens?

As a gun control advocate, I am willing to curtail the freedom to own an injurious object for the sake of overall public safety, because I think that more innocent people are hurt by guns in the hands of their loved ones than are hurt by strangers breaking into their house (so do the Justice Dept. numbers). How, as a gun ownership advocate, do you address this? What are the options? (mandatory safety locks, mandatory training, better background checking?)

[hobson]

Indeed, Inverness, all the comedians and such are hoping for a Bush presidency. Gore just does not make for good material.

[pwynnnorman]

To: my dear Republican friends
From: a some-what bleeding heart liberal (and proud of it, these days)
Subject: the fact that we live in a world, not just a country
Date: whenever

I got an email from a British ex-patriot livinging in Arizona. He pointed out to me something interesting which I am hoping the Republicans here can address: how do you respond to the perception (from other countries) that Americans get rich on the backs of the poor?

My email friend mentioned how in countries like Sweden and the Netherlands, there are few very rich, but also few very poor because their system of heavy taxation does redistribute the wealth. He went on to explain how, in his opinion, our election boils down to nothing more than selfishness vs. unselfishness. Does one work to better the entire society or just oneself? Does one believe in helping others less fortunate (yes, through government programs–albeit, IMO, those programs have to be EFFECTIVE–when they aren’t, I do agree with Repubs that they shouldn’t exist) or by looking out for only one’s own?

Different society’s make different decisions on this matter (he pointed out). The United States’ problem (in his opinion) is that we’ve never actually decided at all. However, he also believes that the apathy in our lower classes [I think possibly due to the sheer size of the country (so those classes can’t work together as easily as in smaller countries)] is one reason why the decision to go one way or the other has never been (and never will be?) made.

So, Republicans, how do you feel about that? Are you rich because others are poor? Are you unwilling to become less rich so others can be less poor? And DO you think he’s right in saying that America IS rich because it has so much poverty?

(And, BTW, do note that the U.S.'s standings in many, maybe even most, quality of life statistics IS shockingly low for such a “great” country: from life expectancy to literacy. That is a FACT. Take out the top 15% of our earners, and we drop even FURTHER! Somewhere near Spain, Greece and Brazil, in fact. Meanwhile, our heavily taxed neighbor, CANADA, ranks a lot higher. Ah, but who cares? As long as I’m comfortable. THAT is the Republican mind set, IMO.)

[Inverness]

Whoa, what about horses? I wonder if Dick Cheney likes horses - he’s the one that’ll be running the government in a Republican administration.

[spfarm]

First of all, I thought this was a post on the horse industry and which candidate would best support us. Looks like it’s turned into a political free-for-all.
As for me, I’m banking on Bush and here’s why. First of all, if Gore’s elected, our taxes would become out of sight to pay for all of the programs" that he would love to run. That alone would cause many of us to give up our sport/hobby. What about electric cars…could you see one pulling a horse trailer up a hill? Ha, it probably wouldn’t even get us out the driveway!
Bush may not be the smartest man in the world, but I beleive he would surround himself with knowledgable men/women who would help make decisions to best benefit our nation. I can’t stand a “know-it-all” as Gore appears to be. We need an honest, hardworking individual in the White house who let America keep the freedoms that it has struggled to have over the centuries.
I’m sure that many of you all on this board are fairly young and haven’t had to work hard to make a living. Every penny helps in today’s society and when I hear of one promising this and that to everyone (except the richest 1%), I see my taxes rising.
It’s higher taxes that will hurt our industry, nothing else. Gore will rasie them and Bush will let us keep more of our “OWN” money! Gore’s extremist views will hurt us too.

[rockstar]

<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hobson:
[B] Hi rockstar! Sure, I enjoyed it, insofar as I generally enjoy gnashing my teeth! But I’m sorry the writer was so patronizing of Ralph’s positions, since as far as I’m concerned, they’re courageous and honorable, not bought and paid for by corporate campaign contributions. Not a surprise, since I think of the DLC as a hoary old right-wing sanctuary. Lordy, even Eric Alterman is running around this week telling us lefties to vote for Gore. What’s the world coming to?

Really, if the New Dems really think they deserve and own the votes of us “lefty intelligentsia,” then why must Al Gore commit such reactionary doozies like supporting Star Wars and blaming the entertainment business for the ills of society? Nader needs my vote here in PA as much as anywhere else if the Green Party is to achieve the necessary vote percentage to get federal campaign assistance. We’ll never get there if we keep compromising for the sake of the “not-as-conservatives.” I almost fell over laughing when I read Chris Hitchens’ description of the “vote for Nader only if it doesn’t hurt us” attitude as “nonsense on stilts.” And I agree! (with all due respect, as I’ve enjoyed our exchange)I can’t vote for Gore just because there’s some vague chance he might throw me a bone once in office. Naive I’m not. I’d rather give the democrats a real scare, because what they’re doing is INSISTING upon paying precious little attention to the left. If it makes you feel any better, a lot of new voters who are otherwise jaded by the “same old” phenomenon are going to come out for Nader on election day, and will likely vote for democrats in local/state/congressional elections, which should give you guys a boost. Good luck, and how is it you have so much time to troll the bulletin board with a crucial campaign underway? Don’t they give you enough to do there at the Party?

[This message has been edited by hobson (edited 10-26-2000).][/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey now! First of all… I don’t “troll” the BB… I am a relatively new member and have become somewhat addicted… but I limit my addiction to checking it out a few times a day when I find myself in my room before or after class/work/being out and about. And I keep my visit to the few threads that look interesting. Only once have I logged on at work (and it was late at night)… I wouldn’t dream of it! Way too much other important stuff to be doing… you are right on that one. I garuntee that “the party” is giving me plenty to do when I am there… but I am not there ALL the time you know… like now! Everyone is going out to the most targeted congressional races next week… and I will be taking off and heading to New York City to finnish helping out at the Clinton Campaign. So you won’t be seeing me around much the last few days before the election… I can garuntee that!

Hmmmm… better get my thoughts in now then huh?

The first thing I learned in political science here at school was that the 2 party system in not going ANYWHERE as long as the voting system remains as it is and the electoral college dictates that the winner takes all. Nader will not win. But your vote, when combined with many others, has the capability to contribute to puting Bush in the White House. And that, honestly, really scares me. I understand your frustrations with the Democrats and I see that you don’t like my perspective as a staunch New Democrat. But I don’t see the solution as going Green. I see the Green party as raising a rucus in vain… it’s not really going to do anything. Scare the democratic party back to the left? Not going to happen. The left is not where we win elections anymore… and that’s that. Parties have to change and evolve with the times. Right now the times are relatively good… and that is why the country has shifted to the right. Democrats have been slow in shifting with the rest of the country, and that is why we couldn’t get the presidency for so many years. When we finally put a true moderate in the presidential race we won! But we lost the congressional majority by a LANDLSIDE in the 94’ elections because the democratic congress was known to be so liberal. The seats we gained back in 96’ and 98’ were those won by New Democrats in swing districts… which is why there are 65 New Democrats in congress now (forming a coalition called the New Democratic Coalition). Our most targeted races now, in the senate and house alike, are New Democrats. Without them in those seats we would have NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER of being anywhere near the majority. And without the majority we are screwed… since, as I explained in a previous post, the republican ruled congress just refuses to comproimse or work with us at all. So, my point in all of this is that liberals aren’t “in” right now… they can’t get elected unless their incumbents with a long history or hail from notoriously liberal states (Massachusetts, Minnesota). And we loose out bigtime if so many liberals remain naive and unwilling to support New Democrats… which is worse… a moderate democrat who AT LEAST will agree with you on most of the social issues… or a republican who will not only agree with you… but will just plain ignore you and not work with you at all!

Incidentally, I am watching Hardball right now on MSNBC and Paul Wellstone is on. He wants to see Nadar’s ideas incorporated into the Democratic party more… and he highly respects Nadar and thinks he is man of great integrity and strength. However, he appeals to Nadar voters in battleground states (your state Pennsylvania included) where Nadar is campaigning to get his 5% to not throw their vote to George Bush. He thinks Nadar is authentic and important but that the fact of the matter is that Bush is the last person Nadar supporters should see in the White House… he stands in almost direct opposition to everthing they believe. And it is not true that there is not a difference betwen Bush and Gore… there ARE large differences that will make a big difference in our lives in area such as social security, abortion, gun control, health care, and education.

That is a summation of Wellston’e comments and I think he hit the nail on the head.

No, it is NOT fair that you are being asked to vote for Gore. You SHOULD be angry… evreyone wants to have a voice and clearly you feel yours isn’t being heard. If you feel betrayed by the democrats and left out as a constituency than you truly don’t owe Gore or the democratic party anything. I really DO understand that!

But all of that just doesn’t change the fact that, under the present electoral system, every vote thrown for Nadar (ESPECIALLY in the battleground states) takes away from Gore. Now Hardball has just highlighted a NARAL add that calls out for Nadar supporters to vote for Gore because the risks of the reversal of roe v. wade are too high with Bush in the office. aghhhh!

[woodbern]

This is just stream of conscious rambling to the general “YOU” out there. You, dear and gentle posters, will know who the “YOU” are, by the rising of your blood pressure…

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>I don’t want to pay enormous taxes. I think I pay enough. Truthfully, I think I pay too much. <LI>I do want tax breaks. <LI>I want my Social Security, to do with as I please. I paid it in, I want it back. As did my spouse. Interestingly enough, the “YOU” doesn’t have a clue what we might do with our refund, do they? <LI>I do not want to save every country in the world. <LI>I do not want to take care of every person who manages to get here by hook or crook, hides out, has 10 children in 10 years and doesn’t pay taxes right along with me. Yes, my families once came here,too - however there was a system of checks and balances on immigration, it was called Ellis Island.[/list]

Not all of the wealthy made their wealth on the backs of the less fortunate. Many actually (big gasp!) worked hard and live happily beneath their means. But that " most exploited the poor" makes good verbal fodder and gives the general “YOU” something to rally around and bitch about. (Also, could some of you know-it-alls please check the dates of when income tax was implemented - not until after 1910 or 1915 or so I believe. Before that obviously, there were no “tax breaks” to be had.)

I suppose if one follows rockstar’s formula, several of the “YOU” would fall into the “imbecilic” and/or “blockheaded” category, as you have more-or-less lumped together all those persons you term as “rich”.

Maybe the “YOU” know(s) one wealthy family. Maybe they know ten wealthy families. But they don’t know all wealthy families, so can’t legitimately categorize…unless they are clairvoyant.

This is the same-old-same-old… I won’t call it class envy, as wealth has nothing to do with class (look at some of the wealthy among us if you don’t believe it). It’s just envy. And a consuming need to tell the “haves” what to do fiscally, particularly if one feels and/or resents the fact that one is a “have not”.

OMG, I can’t wait until November 7th.

Over and out.

[Inverness]

Sorry Jumphigh83, you make me giggle.

[Duffy]

UGGGGGGG!!! They’re BOTH awful and I’m NOT looking forward to next Tuesday and I’m praying that the next four years does not put our country into even worse shape than it’s been placed over the last four years. I know some will argue that it’s not in any worse shape than it was prior to the last four years. . .but hey, we’re all entitled to our opinions!

[Erin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moose:
Definately a voter base that shouldn’t be disregarded, since they can vote & tend to get executed in the state of Texas.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh my… I’m teary-eyed, I’m laughing so hard! Very clever, Moose!

Very interesting thread… please continue to discuss politely so I can keep reading without my blood pressure going through the roof, and my “locking” trigger finger getting itchy!

[Kryswyn]

Y’all can stop worrying about this. The Land’s End Catalog Co. has revealed that Bush will win. They base this prediction on the sale of boxer shorts (elephants vs donkeys)in the weeks prior to the election. Elephants are outselling donkeys 2:1. They claim they haven’t missed yet.

I’m hoping there is a first time for everything.

[Snowbird]

BUSH was a trained Jet Pilot, you can’t be a dummie and do that. Gore was a reporter and never saw any more action than the typewriter. You can be a dummie and do that!
There was no war for Bush, there was a war for Gore but one without any risk bigger than tomain!!