BUSHvsGORE re:Horse Industry

<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hobson:
[B]rockstar, pat, magnolia, kryswyn, aly, et. al…you guys want to go out for a virtual beer? Naderite I may be, but I at least bathe, unlike magnolia’s boyfriend.

[This message has been edited by hobson (edited 10-29-2000).][/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hobson… I still think that your vote for Nader in a state like PA might just win Bush the presidency… and I still think that you are one crazy and whacky liberal… but I relish your humor, your outlook, and your attitude, and I respect you immensely. I would be honored to share a beer with you any time!! To add to the fun, I’ll bring the Republican politico I am kind of/sort of seeing (I don’t know what I am thinking) and we can all unite in making fun of him the whole night! I have a feeling I might be peeing in my pants though (first from how much you would make me laugh… god you are hilarious… and then because of the enourmous amount of drinking that I am sure would take place!). Once we are good and intoxicated we can discuss our plans for the government takeover of Sannois’ TV. HA HA HA… my evil laugh.

Cheers to ya babe!

and thanks for the spellcheck… i can not spell for my life!!! it’s potatoe right?

[This message has been edited by rockstar (edited 10-31-2000).]

Let me start by saying that I don’t care that Dubya was arrested at age 30 for drunk driving. God knows there’ve been occasions where I could’ve been in the same boat. I actually do admire the man for being able to give up the sauce. It doesn’t mean I think he’d be an effective President, but I do give him credit for kicking an insidious vice.

That said, I’ve been looking forward to getting back to this thread this morning to see what the overnight postings have brought us.

Snowbird, your chicken post is priceless.

Re the Peggy Noonan piece; that’s very nice but I’d rather hear a critique of his plans for the military, SS, and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. There are a lot of “nice” non-intellectuals out there that I’d enjoy sitting down to dinner with, but I don’t want them as my President.

Hobson (I think it was you - forgive me if I’m wrong), but you are correct that we cannot possibly know the true “character” of either Bush or Gore. Both have been entrenched in politics for far too long (through personal political involvement and/or family connections).

I’m puzzled. How has Dubya managed to give the impression that he is somehow unconnected to the elite? He hails from one of the most powerful political dynasties in the country.

I’m not necessarily opposed to political dynasties - I’m merely confused as to why Dubya is afraid of discussing his own connections to the wealthy and powerful. After all, it isn’t his fault that he was born to privilege. It simply seems disingenuous of Dubya to present himself in a “folksy,” down-on-the-ranch manner when he grew up, alternately, in a Houston hotel suite, Washington D.C., an estate in Maine, and an exclusive New England preparatory school. To the extent that Gore is attempting assume a similar “folksy” image, my criticism applies to him as well.

Can I really “know” either of these candidates? Of course not. This is the reason I will base my vote on the issues, not on “personality” or something as undefined and elusive as “character.”

The bottom line for me is, I don’t care who gets their hat blocked in the Lincoln bedroom so long as I’m ensured of the right to sue my HMO for negligently denying me appropriate health care (which, by the way, is a provision of the Texas Patient’s Bill of Rights that Dubya vehemently opposed).

And by the way, why is it that Dubya insists that no one had better question his integrity while he makes a full frontal attack on Gore’s (and, previously, on McCain’s)? Dubya is the one who made integrity the focal point of his campaign, yet he’s declared questions about his own integrity off limits? Call me naive, but that seems a bit inconsistent to me.

[This message has been edited by Inverness (edited 11-03-2000).]

Inverness, I’ve never found mention in an article of the record being expunged. (Of course, it’s probably mentioned somewhere in the foot-high stack of Posts that I haven’t read yet!) Is that really true? Frankly, that fact would bother me a lot more than the DUI itself.

<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by magnolia:
JumpHigh-
I’m not basing my vote on my uterus, and yes, abortions can be prevented, but the same people who want to outlaw abortions also want to outlaw birth control.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

MMMM…I really don’t think you have your facts straight…I’m Pro-life (and that means no death penalty either!), and I’m all for birth control! And quite honestly, I’ve not met anyone except for my Catholic friends that don’t want birth control or abortions…where did you get this idea from? I’m seriously curious.

spfarm… i think the defnition of “catastrophic” might be me as a mother…

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

Would this be from the Interstate Highway Act of 1796? Kidding! Just kidding!

<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hobson:
Hey, if you all want to shoot each other, I’m not going to get in your way. Have at it! Does anyone know where I can get a good deal on a bulletproof vest? How much would it cost to outfit my Civic hatchback like the Popemobile?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While it is true that 2/3s of all gun deaths are criminals shooting criminals, I am not one, have never wanted to shoot anyone and in fact have never even pointed a gun at another person. Why does gun ownership translate into a desire to shoot someone?

<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> and how many will accidentally kill a friend or their child with their helpful handgun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

.1% of all child deaths are from firearms
.6% from cars
5.3% from beatings or bludgeoning
6% from poisoning
42.6% from suffocation

<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>[
When your kid shoots his friend in the face with your gun, my tax dollars support the ambulance service that comes to scrape up the mess.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Twice as many children die from drowning in the bathtub. Your tax dollars are paying for those ambulances too. Perhaps we should not be free to have bathtubs?

First of all, let me apologize for not quoting Ms. Noonan in the proper manner. I was in a hurry when I posted a portion of her column last night, and I did a poor job. Sorry! I fixed it.

Secondly, I’d like to respond in a few of my own words now…

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.

I also have something to add to the whole DUI discussion. I watched this morning as the pundits pontificated on this issue-- at length. And, I have to admit that I felt sick to my stomach. They called on Bush to announce his sins on National T.V.-- to admit his flawed existence to the public— and do it now, before it’s too late. Too late?! He has given us the down and dirty facts on his drinking problem…what else do you want? It’s a far cry from any Gore statement confronting a possible “flaw.” The words “No controlling legal authority” jump to mind.

George W. Bush made a mistake. He has admitted a drinking problem, and kicked it. As many on this board have said-- this issue is a non-issue for me. We are flawed as humans-- we all make mistakes. However, our character sees us through these mistakes-- to a higher ground (note: another reason why I think Bush has a strong character-- he pled guilty to the charge of DUI, paid his fine, and took his other punishment. I can’t help but think that the same Al Gore who had his father surround him with body gaurds during his infrequent jaunts away from the typewriter in Vietnam would have had his Daddy take care of this problem for him. In other words, it shows strong character that GWB did not have his very prominent family “take care” of the problem for him)

The real issue surrounding the DUI leak is this: those “killers” in the “slaughterhouse” (they gave these names to themselves, I can’t take credit) at Gore’s campaign headquarters are brutal and reckless. Do you want those type of people in the Whitehouse? They actually thought that holding this bomb until five days before the election was a good idea. That type of self-distructive behavior is what we have to look forward to in the next four years if Al Gore is elected president.

Oh, I forgot to say…yesterday I stopped by the Al Gore (himself being present) rally here in Philly. Aren’t you pleased, rockstar? I confess I really only dropped in because I was cycling past anyway, but it was kind of fun. Funny, really. The unbelieveable part is that Gore’s advisors have not yet figured out that spewing numbers upon numbers does NOT capture the imagination and spirit of the voting populace. I could see the crowd sort of glazing over and swaying with befuddlement as Gore spoke. Which is not to say that they weren’t enthusiastic - they just couldn’t quite follow what he was talking about. It’s unfortunate - as viable candidates go, he’s a good one, but heck! He really knows how to bore a crowd. It says depressing volumes about the dumbing down of public political discourse that his attention to detail hurts him. I think that one of the things that has helped Dubya close the poll gap in the past several months is the fact that he keeps his proposals, ideas and speech structure so simple.

If you are concerned at all about having open space to ride in, Gore.
If you are concerned about paying less in taxes (and you are in the top 5% of taxpayers) so you can afford more riding, Bush.
My concern is that both seem to lack sincerity, I’m leaning toward Gore b/c although he is insincere, at least I know he is and can tell, while Bush seems rather shady and coniving, and I have my doubts that he is for the little guy.
Face it, they both stink. I would say that for horseowners, your local elections are probably far more inportant for that aspect of your life~ they determine zoning, property taxes, etc.

She clears her throat, takes a long drink of water, ponders for a moment, and to the keys she goes…

 Ladies and Gentlemen, friends and foes, welcome to my arena, and really, to my life.

 I wish I could have joined you sooner, but yesterday I was making phone calls all day raising money for the Democratic Party and today... well here I am!  At this point in the election, democratic party fundraising is what I do most waking moments that I am not in school.  OK, well, that makes me sound like a really big loser, huh?  Well I swear that I really DO have a life... just not really the typical college one.  I worked for a year in fundraising for a rapidly rising Political Action Committee here in Washington (the New Democrat Network), then I worked in Senator Lieberman's Senate Office, then I worked

in New York City on Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign, and now, now I work for the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). I also am studying Political
Science, with an emphasis on American Politics. So, I offer you a wealth of knowledge here… and more than just the media perspective.

 I am going to say an awful lot here because it is worth the time and the effort if I can manage to sway even ONE opinion.  Please take the time and read what I have to say. My argument is systematic and progressive and so, if you read only one component of it, you will most likely take that component out of context and misconstrue my points.  I already recently wrote the bulk of this for another reason having nothing to do with this BB... just had to put in that disclaimer so that you donÂ't think I am a complete whacko and wrote all of this to post on the board!   [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

 First, let me just say that I am, indeed, biased... I am a proud Democrat.  However, partisanship really pisses me off, and I am extremely moderate on all of the issues except for the social ones (abortion, gun control, censorship, etc.)  I am what is called a New Democrat, a relatively new term that emerged in the 80Â's to refer to moderate democratic centrists.  Joe Lieberman is the champion of the New Democrat movement, Clinton and Gore used to be considered "champions" of this movement as well, but they have leaned more to the left in the past several years because New Democrats don't yet reflect the base of the Democratic party (they will eventually, though, because of America's recent shift to

the center of the political spectrum). As is commonly known, without the full support of the base of your party, you just can’t win a presidential election in this political system… sad but true. Hence, Lieberman has taken on a somewhat more liberal persona these past few months… he simply must for Gore to win.

 Anyway, working in Washington and being around "the scene" these past couple

of years has really driven in to me one very important point time and time again. With
Republicans, it’s their way or the highway. This is not to say that their are not exceptions, there are certainly many, many Republican Congressman who are willing to work in non-partisan ways and cross party lines, if need be. However, for the most part, and especially within the Republican Leadership, standards are NOT to be lowered.
Compromises with the other side are NOT to be made. I, personally, have been horrified
more times than I can count to see how absolutely and completely unwilling the
Republican leaders are when it comes to making conciliatory points or taking the middle road.

 Allow me to demonstrate my point.  I work in the office of Congressman Patrick

Kennedy (D-RI) and House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-MI) at the DCCC (Kennedy is the chairman). Gephardt came to Congress in 1976 and eventually became the Speaker of the House. I tell you, it was quite something to sit in front of a man, a man
who stands among some of the most powerful men in the world, and hear him sound like a
prisoner in our own political system. This man is a tried and true workhorse who is more
devoted to the democratic party and its causes than I could possibly imagine anyone else being. With that said, however, when the Democrats held the majority and he was
Speaker of the House and held the gavel and the control, he made sure that he met with
the Republican minority leaders at LEAST twice a week, although it was usually once a
day. He didn’t have to… there is no law that says congressional leaders must meet and
confer with each other. But to Gephardt, it just made sense to work with the opposition
instead of battle with it nonstop, and it was also just the right thing to do. He did not see the point in shutting the other side out. Then, in 1994, all was lost and the Republicans took over congress. I will never forget Gephardt standing in front of me, just a few weeks ago, counting on his fingers how many times he has met with Newt Gingrich (when he was there), Dick Army (Majority Leader, R-TX), Dennis Hastert (Speaker of the House, R-IL), Tom DeLay (Majority Whip, R-TX), and the other House Republican leaders. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6… he stopped there… he couldn’t think of any other times. 6 TIMES!!! And HE met with the opposite side nearly every day when he had control. I believe his exact words were, “They WILL NOT work with us… it is their way or the highway. ItÂ’s like we
donÂ’t even exist… that we are not even here.” These were the words of a deeply
frustrated man who is incredibly weary of having to wake up and fight the hardest of fights every single day to get even the tiniest thing through Congress and past the Republicans.

 One might say... well... that is what happens when you are in the minority, right?  You have to expect to always be fighting an uphill battle.  And while that is true, no good can come out of the immense SIZE of the uphill battle my party is fighting in Congress. Why?  Because it just means that nothing meaningful gets done... or it only happens once in a blue moon (like welfare reform, Clinton's economic plan, and the Family and Medical Leave Law... items on the democratic agenda that were staunchly opposed by most Republicans but ended up having an extremely profound effect upon the country and its economy).   The Republican's idea of making progress is stopping it.  Keeping everything in a gridlock is their Â"preventative measureÂ".  I swear to you that this is not me being biased... this is an eyewitness account of the facts.  They REFUSE to work with us incrementally to compromise and produce meaningful legislation that has the ability to appeal to more than just a portion of the American public, but rather, to a large base of the American Public.  It makes me want to spit.   

 What you have to understand here is the following.  I mean really, I just can not

emphasize this point enough to as many people as I can… especially because most people outside of the Washington political world don’t realize how it really is… they don’t fully understand the politics of politics and how it has worked the past couple of years (since the Republicans have had control). I hope that does not sound patronizing… I don’t mean it to! ANYWAY, my all-important point is this… if Bush is elected he will most assuredly be no kind of moderate. He will be beholden and tied to the Republican Leadership, whether he likes it or not. And the Republican Leadership is made up of men like Tom DeLay, Denny Hastert, and Dick Armey, all of whom are admittedly proud hard line, right wing conservatives… MODERATES, they are indeed not!! And they are the ones who control Congress and its actions… they are the ones who represent the Republican majority. And they will control Bush, should he get elected. Bush may or may not like it… I donÂ’t know… but a fact that any political science class will teach you is
that the American Presidency has become an inherently weak institution. Bush will
essentially need the support of the majority party in Congress to zip up his fly.

 Armey, Hastert, and DeLay are the ones who you might not know; they are the

ones who, in truth, most Americans donÂ’t know… despite the fact that these men are in a small group of the most powerful men in the country and, indeed, the world. These men dominate Washington and our government… but the general American public doesnÂ’t know this because the Republican Party is doing everything it can to keep how conservative it really is a big secret. They are depending upon how naive Americans are…DONÂ’T LET THEM! You may not know Armey and his cohorts because you wonÂ’t
see them out stumping for Bush and standing behind him, showing their support for him
on the campaign trail, even though they DO stand behind him and DO support him
(emphatically). You see men like John McCain and Colin Powell and JC Watts paraded
about by the Bush Campaign and the Republican Party. Is it not rather strange that Armey (the Majority Leader), Hastert (the Speaker), and DeLay (the Majority Whip) were barely present at the Republican Convention? That is because they were hidden behind closed doors… shmoozing with the donors and politicking endlessly… but out of sight of the cameras.

 The BOTTOM LINE here is that the Republican Party has grown extremely

conservative. By saying that, however, I mean that the elected officials and leaders of the party are very conservative. I do not speak of the electorate. I actually think most Republicans, in terms of ordinary people, are not hard right, die hard conservatives who typify the classic Republican (i.e., they carry NRA cards, hate gun control, are fanatically pro-life, donÂ’t believe in taxation or strength in federal government, believe in religion in schools, etc.). I think those Â"typical RepublicansÂ" make up a much smaller part of the republican electorate these days. That is why GW Bush MUST play himself off to be
this Â"compassionate conservativeÂ" who is so moderate and wishy washy… heÂ’s got to pull
in those votes from those who donÂ’t embody what a traditional republican is in every
way… those who might be willing to vote for the other side if Bush sings the true
conservative mantra and turns them off too much. But as I have tried to emphasize here
over and over again, Bush can claim to be as moderate as he wants, but if he is elected, it will mean nothing… if he wants to get any legislation passed in his presidency he is going to have to drive on the Republican Congressional leadershipÂ’s side of the road, not his… and that other side of the road is a conservative one with drivers who will do everything they possibly can with a Republican President in office to get rid of Roe V. Wade, to strike the Brady Bill and prevent all other gun control measures, to drastically decrease the tax on the rich, to shut down the Trial Lawyers, to keep prescription drug costs were they are, to let the environment slide, and so on. With the majority in congress, three Supreme
Court Nominations, and without a Democrat in the Oval Office like Bill Clinton or Al
Gore to veto bills and call their bluff, the leaders of the Republican Party are going to be like kids let loose in a candy store. MODERACY??? YEAH RIGHT.

 That is why I shout over and over again to all who will listen... WE

(DEMOCRATS) MUST TAKE BACK THE HOUSE!!!

 I dream of waking up and seeing congress back in the hand of the democrats... not because I am a democrat but because I know that they are the only party of the two that we have that will do everything they can to advance their agenda... but NOT (and I repeat, NOT) at the cost of trampling upon the oppositionÂ's wants and needs.  I dream of seeing

non-partisan bills passed by congress, signed, and enacted. If you vote Republican and they gain the presidency AND keep congress… my dreams die. ItÂ’s just that simple. Experts predict that this is the last chance for Democrats to take congress back… if we loose in this crucial election year then we will most likely not have the chance of getting it back for another twenty years. All I can say is God help us.

http://www.takebackthehouse.org
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
http://www.dnc.org
Democratic National Committee
http://www.dscc.org
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
http://www.algore.com
Gore/Lieberman Campaign
http://www.voter.com
Learn about who you are voting for
http://www.freedomchannel.com
Learn about who you are voting for
http://www.tray.com
Learn about $$$ in politics and who is raising what and from where

[This message has been edited by rockstar (edited 10-21-2000).]

At the end of the day, the decision to have a child (or NOT) should remain simply that - a choice. I have great respect for people who choose not to have children - given the social pressure to reproduce (prove your womanhood and all that), it’s a difficult position to maintain.

I would, however, like to temper some of the resentful remarks so freely and easily exhanged on this thread. For many, many years I toiled away in the tv industry in Canada, eventually achieving some measure of success. That success, however, came with a great price. Unlike the experiences relayed here of preferential treatment afforded to parents, I experienced the exact opposite. If I were truly committed to the company, I would elect to stay until 9:00pm every night, go off to another meeting rather than take my own child to a doctor’s appointment; if I wanted to play with the big boys, I would venture around the globe for weeks at a time, leaving behind a toddler who sat on the steps waiting for mommy to return home, with an adequate nanny by his side. The expectations were never explicit but they were clearly implicit - choose between the career and your family. For too many years I chose wrong.

Now back to the topic at hand - who’s better for the horsey set. How about, neither? The presidential race would have been much more interesting between McCain and Bradley, even Keyes for that matter (who did have a unique ability it seemed to cut through the bs, too bad he was a Republican…).

[This message has been edited by heidi (edited 10-23-2000).]

And when we cannot defend our flag, when we are afraid to defend our rights as individuals when we permit our history to be erased and modified to be politcally correct then who are WE?

Australia has become proud of their ancesters who were the criminals according to the “King”. We were proud of our history as the refugees from political persecution for debts and religion.

We could not celebrate the anniversary of Columbus arriving, because it was not politically correct. We cannot defend our flag or our country because we are afraid to be politically incorrect. We have been badly used by those who choose to use equalization as their tool instead of OPPORTUNITY.

[This message has been edited by Snowbird (edited 10-27-2000).]

Yes I have but that’s a two-edged sword. One if the neighboring community is no longer willing to support your farm activity they can zone you right out of the business. For example let’s say the board of health says I must truck all manure out every day. One nearby community wanted to pass a law that said the barns had to be painted in full every six months.

Second, the price offered wasn’t even enough to pay off the mortgage we still owe. We still have to pay real estate taxes, income taxes and all the rest along with the mortgage and they have approval of whatever we need to do to perhaps expand the business and build agricultural buildings. OH! yes and you have sold your rights to be able to credit for loans you need to improve the farm.

After working 22 years all I can leave to my children and grandchildren is the land. If it is not viable to continue with a horse farm then what will I have done to them?

And, lastly, I am very concerned that as years go by the new city neighbors will be offended by have a commerical farm in their
backyard. It worries me that as the acreage shrinks that is being used for horses they will become a less attractive neightbor.

I am seriously afraid that 25/50 years from now the land will become abandoned because the family will not want to pay the taxes and it will have no resale value because no one will want to buy a horse farm. Then all these communities will have no tax income from all the preserved acres and taxes in every community will rise and rise to pick up the slack or the town will re-sell the land to developers themselves.

Our first barn was in West Orange, when we went into town there were 33 horse farms and when I left there were 3. I’m afraid what we’re looking at is the end of the horse farm and all there will be are city “riding academies” and parks (if you’re lucky).

Be careful what you wish for you may get it!
North of Somerville Circle here in New Jersey 25 years ago there were 100’s of barns and lot’s of people with enough land to keep horses at home. ALL GONE!

It may well be that it will go full cycle and soon the open land will belong to only those who can afford to support the acreage for private uses. Opposing breaks for us middlers will create the very demons you’re all opposed to.

[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 Inverness:
[B]Personally, I WANT a President who knows it all.

I WANT a President who studies the issues in great detail and who has a full command of the facts.

I WANT a President who consults advisors but does not abdicate or delegate his decisionmaking responsibilty.

I WANT a President that can sit through long briefing sessions and retain his focus on the details of an issue.

I WANT a President who will take the time to read the entire briefing paper instead of relying on the Executive Summary.

I WANT a President who can find Moldova on a map, name its principal exports, and tell me something of its history and people.

I WANT a President who understands the concept of math, be it “fuzzy” or otherwise.
[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Inverness, you WANT President Josiah ‘Jed’ Bartlet! Er, that’s Martin Sheen’s character on the fantastic show “The West Wing”.

Seriously, though, I think the same thoughts you mentioned every time I watch that show. Is it possible in our society today to develop such a leader?

And forgive me for a stupid question that’s probably already been answered, but I’ve been on vacation and don’t have time to go back and read all 12 pages of this really interesting thread. Where did the nickname “Dubya” come from?

(I read “The Fountainhead” & “Atlas Shrugged” a LONG time ago…)

There was a discussion on MSNBC just now about the possibility of one candidate winning the popular vote, and the other winning the electoral vote. Hmmm.

One of the commentators said that if that happens, it’ll be the end of the electoral college. IMO, it should be ended anyway. What if the winner of the popular vote loses the election?

[This message has been edited by Bertie (edited 11-07-2000).]

Whoa-
Hobson- Nader Supporter? you must meet my boyfriend. He loves Nader and all Nader promises! I dislike taxes, so I don’t really go for Nader, but he has very good social ideas and seems at least …GENUINE. What is funny is that he qualified for debates, but they wouldn’t even let him in the door. Can you say “THREAT”. I wish they’d let him debate those 2 turkeys, he’d make 'em look like candles.
BTW, if more people were like the people on this BB we’d live in a better place. How nice to know that others see around the smoke.

Sorry, Portia and Erin, I was drafting my post while you were banning partial birth aborted posts.

So I think Gore will be better for the horse industry.

<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hobson:
Well, kids are fine, as long as they belong to people who LIKE them. I happen to run the other way when someone in the family waves their infant at me. (C’mon, hold the BABY! HOLD the BABY! No! The baby’s leaking!) Why pressure people who aren’t into children to produce them? Not a very happy existence for the kid, I should think. Me, I’m saving my money now so I can pay other people’s kids to babysit me when I’m 95.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BRAVO HOBSON! good for you! I feel exactly the same way…although people just don’t seem to get it that i hardly feel “left out” or that I am “missing something” but not having any…nope biological clock just ain’t ticking and i’m 35…LOL… I have a horse and two cats, THAT’S children enough for me~

[QUOTE]Originally posted by hobson:
[B]
Now someone mentioned the bible…I say that Jesus was the first well-known communist: he supported redistribution of wealth (yep, go read it!), hated materialism, did not disguise his contempt for profiteers, and wanted everyone to sacrifice for the good of the less fortunate. Go figure. I now eagerly await a biblical defense of the huge American income gap. If someone can quote chapter and verse where Jesus tells his flocks that the poor really ought to stop bugging the wealthy and get off their lazy butts, then I will vote for Bush. Even thought I am a heathen infidel.
[This message has been edited by hobson (edited 10-28-2000).]

OK! I have been lurking for a while, and darn it if somebody wasn’t begging for me to correct their theology!
OK! JESUS WAS NOT A COMMUNIST! With that said, as the only (admittedly) seminary student on this board, I’d like to shed some light onto this argument: But, there must be rules before I begin my defense:
#1. Do not make the Bible say things it does not INTEND to say! You are mistaken to call Jesus a communist,socialist or even a democrat (the word for democracy that is parallel fails me at this moment). Jesus, as one of the equal three in one (Father, Son (Jesus) and Holy Spirit, believed and originally planed for a Theocracy…but alas, the forbidden tree was eaten from and here we are!
#2. If you do not intend to have a relationship with Christ, this argument won’t mean much to you, so please skip to the next thread.
Now, while Christaianity is my personal belief, I will not impose it on anyone. But, when somebody is trying to win a political argument and has low ammunition, PLEASE refrain from putting words into my Lord’s mouth. Another part of the Bible you might want to read up on is where it say to not add to or take away from the Bible.
At some point, I have noticed that no matter what people think of the Bible, somehow they like to use it to defend their personal opinions. If it’s so darn foolish and unreliable, why does this happen? Please start using Budah, John Smith, or Muhamad…I am so tired of people using the Bible to prove ridiculous points, such as Jesus being a communist!
And just so you know, Jesus had a lot of specifics to say to different communities. He spoke to their individual issues. Jesus also spoke often in what is known as parables. These are short stories that include a HIGH amount of exageration (considered humor for the first-century Jews), and which the moral was not the story, but the ending of the story. They are NOT parallel to fables or lesson-stories that we are told/use today. Please allow the Bible to interpret itself. As far as a defence for the income gap? Christ never said life was fair…in fact, their is an ugly three letter word that is the root of this issue S-I-N! And the Prince of this World is the Satan…does it make more since now? I hate giving “pat answers” but most of you wished I’d have not seen this post anyway!
And again, in case anyone missed it, Jesus was not a communist!