BUSHvsGORE re:Horse Industry

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

Ignorance is laudable compared to those who are willfully blind. Gore cares about education only because the NEA and the leftist teachers and administrators are his most affluent and vociferous constituency, made rich by the huge tax dollars they pocket at our expense while propagandizing our children and simultaniously dumbing them down enough for the eventual socialist take over of our consitutional government. Perhaps your one of these leftist dupes.

I hope it is OK to post this.
Attention all of you REPUBLICANS looking for smaller government. Here is your man.

Do You Want Smaller Government?
Why you should vote Libertarian Nov. 7.

BY HARRY BROWNE
Wednesday, October 25, 2000 12:01 a.m. EDT

(Editor’s note: The Wall Street Journal asked the three minor-party nominees to write articles making the case for their candidacies. Reform candidate Patrick Buchanan was unable to accept the invitation. Click here to read “Human Need Trumps Corporate Greed” by Green nominee Ralph Nader.)
The most important political question you can ask yourself is simply this: Do you want smaller government? Do you want an end to the welfare state, to government destroying our health-care system, to government at all levels taking 47% of the national income in taxes, to government intrusions into your life and your business?
Do you want smaller government? If you do, the first step toward getting it is obvious: You must stop supporting those who are making government bigger. You can’t go east by moving west. It’s a physical impossibility. You can’t make government smaller by rewarding those who make government bigger. It’s a political impossibility.

Only when you begin asking for what you really want do you have any chance of getting it. Al Gore wants to make government bigger. He’s proposed a long list of new government programs. George W. Bush wants to make government bigger. He’s proposed an equally long list of new government programs to show that he’s as compassionate as Mr. Gore–as though having government spend your money somehow demonstrates compassion.

I am the only presidential candidate offering specific proposals to make government smaller–much smaller. I want to get the federal government completely out of every area where it’s made such a mess–health care, education, law enforcement, welfare, foreign aid, corporate welfare, highway boondoggles, farm subsidies. Not only are these programs unconstitutional, they do tremendous damage to our lives.

I want to make the federal government so small you won’t pay any income tax. The tariffs and excise taxes already being collected are enough to finance the constitutional functions of government.

I want to free you immediately and completely from the Social Security system. I want to sell off government assets to finance private retirement accounts for anyone now dependent on Social Security–so you and I and every other American can immediately stop paying the 15% Social Security tax.

I want to end the nightmare of prohibition by stopping the insane War on Drugs. Most of the recent invasions of your civil liberties have been justified by the drug war. You may have no interest in drugs, but they’re the reason the government snoops through your bank account, monitors your e-mail, and claims the power to search and seize your property without due process.

I don’t want to appoint Supreme Court judges who are “strict constructionists” or who divine “original intent.” I want to appoint judges who can read the plain language of the Constitution–who understand that the constitutional words “Congress shall make no law” mean Congress shall make no law. I want judges who will strike down government programs that aren’t authorized by the Constitution.

In short, I don’t want to slow the growth of government. I don’t even want to stop the growth of government. I want to reduce government dramatically–to the limits imposed by the Constitution.

I want you to be free to live your life as you want to live it–not as Mr. Gore or Mr. Bush thinks you should. You’re the one who gets up every morning and goes to work for eight, 10 or 12 hours a day. How dare Mr. Bush or Mr. Gore presume to decide how much of what you earn you should be allowed to keep? I want you to be able to keep every dollar you earn–to spend it, save it, give it away as you think best–not just the crumbs the politicians leave for you.

I want you to be able to use your own money to put your children in a school of your choice–private, religious or home school–without having to beg the state for a voucher or plead with the Board of Education for improvement. I want you to be able to use your own money to start your own business. Or to support your church or favorite charity in a way you’ve never been able to do before.

I want you to be free. I want to get government out of your life. Isn’t that what you want?

If so, why would you vote for someone who’s moving in the opposite direction–someone who’s made it clear he intends to make government bigger, not smaller?

I’m the only candidate who’s running solely for the purpose of making government smaller. I’m the only candidate who doesn’t presume to know what charities your money should go to, how much of your income belongs to the politicians.

Can I win? Probably not. But if you vote for anyone else, you won’t win either. Your candidate might win, but you won’t get what you want. Government will continue to get bigger and more intrusive–and you’ll have given this your approval. No matter what your reason for voting for Mr. Bush or Mr. Gore, your vote will be interpreted as an endorsement of every big-government proposal your candidate has made.

Even though I may not win, every vote I get will be an endorsement, a statement, a declaration on behalf of smaller government. No one can confuse a vote for a Libertarian with a vote for more government.

And if I get even one million votes, it could change politics in America forever. It could make the press take smaller-government proposals seriously, it could encourage other voters to abandon the two big-government parties, and it could attract millions of non-voters who had given up hope of getting smaller government.

Please don’t let the old parties destroy your future by scaring you into voting against someone this year. Raise your sights. Vote in a way that could lead to a free America with a constitutional government before the end of this decade. For once, vote for yourself instead of a politician. Vote for freedom. Vote Libertarian.

<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jumphigh83:
Why would you want to prevent a law abiding citizen from having a firearm? I hate to be cliche but guns don’t kill people, people kill people. We should out law kitchen knives, golf clubs (in the case of bludgeoning deaths), cars (auto accidents kill WAY more people than guns every year), ropes (strangulations), etc. It’s called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY. The basis on which a democracy is built. I don’t approve of ANY of my personal liberties being dictated by the government. I think the constitution is a pretty “right on” document and I stand behind it. Isn’t that what all those people DIED for in the revolution? Freedom from oppressive government?? I can’t understand WHY people would be in favor of a dictatorship. Not me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jumphigh, I asked this question: How do you keep non-law-abiding people from having guns, when in many situations (say, if they have no police record) they can legally acquire them? I outlined why I would want to prevent law-abiding citizens from having guns (because more people are hurt by family members with guns than by strangers with guns) I asked for your thoughts on how to achieve this goal, upon which we appear to agree. I challenged you to respond without using cliches. I’m sorry it escalated into your hollering at me about dictatorship. I don’t think you read my post closely enough. Once again I ask: what do you think is the best way to prevent criminals who do not have police records (which is to say, because they’ve never been caught, there are no red flags for background checkers to spot) from acquiring guns?

[This message has been edited by hobson (edited 10-29-2000).]

Just had to pass along Molly’s most recent column for those of you who haven’t already seen it.

Justice’ in Great State isn’t great

AUSTIN – In Texas, the state where you have a right to a lawyer who sleeps through your murder trial, we are familiar with life under George W. Bush’s concept of justice for all.

The recent “Hey, a sleeping lawyer is still a lawyer” decision came from the 5th U.S. Circuit on a 2-1 decision agreed to by the ever-charming Judge Edith Jones, who was on the short list for the Supreme Court when Bush pere' was president and will certainly be so again under Bush fils.’

Under Judge Rhesa Hawkins Barksdale and Judge Jones’ remarkable legal reasoning, “It is impossible to determine whether . . . counsel slept during presentation of crucial exculpatory evidence, or during the introduction of unobjectionable, uncontested evidence.” Therefore, they voted to fry the guy.

Actually, the top candidate for Supreme Court under Bush, who is looking for judges like Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, is Judge Emilio Garza, the Clarence Thomas of the Hispanic world (without any known sexual peccadillos).

Garza recently contributed to the cause of smaller government in a decision on a case now before the U.S. Supreme Court, Atwater vs. City of Lago Vista. A Texas soccer mom was driving her kids, ages 2 and 6, home from a soccer game when she was busted for driving without a seat belt. For this menace to the public order, she was handcuffed, taken downtown, body searched, fingerprinted, mug-shot and put in the hoosegow while Child Protective Services was called to take her kids away. Fortunately, a neighbor came by and took the kids instead.

Naturally, the state of Texas is arguing that the Constitution gives police the power to arrest for any offense whatsoever, even one carrying a maximum fine of $50, and then to conduct legal body and car searches. Now, given the practice of racial profiling in law enforcement, exactly who do we think is more likely than your average soccer mom to be affected by this lunatic doctrine?

A case that will interest constitutional scholars – actually, it seems to blow their minds – is the legal struggle to get Texas to do the minimum for which it is responsible under Medicaid. This is an old, bad story, put most concisely by former Public Health Commissioner Reyn Archer. The reason that Texas goes to great lengths to keep Medicaid secret is because we’d have to raise taxes to pay for it if all the children who are entitled to it were enrolled in it.

In 1996, the state entered into a consent decree promising that it would try to do better at outreach and getting more kids enrolled. And in fairness to the state, it has made some progress and has done some outreach.

Unfortunately, we’ve still got more than a million poor kids without Medicaid, and the usual horror stories continue: a boy who had to wait eight weeks to see an orthopedic specialist for a broken arm, which required surgery and a pin; another boy treated 17 times for ear infection in 18 months, finally taken to a clinic where they tried three times to clear up the problem – the kid is still sick and still hasn’t seen a specialist.

You know, I don’t think George W. Bush is a mean person. I think he probably is a compassionate conservative. There’s just some kind of disconnect in his thinking. He does not seem to grasp that policy has consequences like this.

Time and again I’ve heard him argue that every child in Texas has access to health care because you can take them to the emergency room at the charity hospital. Has he ever been there himself?

On Aug. 14, Judge William Wayne Justice ruled that the state had failed to live up to the decree it signed in 1996, and that more than a million children are still being denied the medical care that the state promised to give them four years ago.

So Attorney General John Cornyn is appealing this ruling on the improbable grounds that it violates the 11th Amendment. Now that would be interesting.

The 11th is the one that can be read to say that the power of the United States doesn’t cover a lawsuit brought by Texans against their own state, and therefore the federal court can’t enforce the consent decree voluntarily entered into by Texas. And the poor kids are screwed again.

Molly Ivins is a columnist for the `Star-Telegram.’ You can reach her at 1005 Congress Ave., Suite 920, Austin, TX 78701; (512) 476-8908; or send comments to mollyivins@star-telegram.com

Well PWynn,
Obviously I don’t agree and if it were my choice I’d send all our “bleeding heart liberal media people” over there to stay.

It is our press and media people who have preached so long, they believe their own propaganda and have built the distorted image.

<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>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?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How much more than 40% of my income do you guys think I should pay to support “entitlements”.

When I meet some poor people who are willing to risk everything and work 8 days a week for the possibility of paying their room and board, then I’ll re-consider!

My employees make enough money working for me to go back to their native country and retire after 3 years here. So, I’m sure not getting rich on their backs.

I think it depends on your definition of “RICH”. There are lots of people who don’t owe any money to anyone because they pay their bills…does that make them “rich”.

Their are lots of people with a “paper value” and yet they can’t pay their bills and if they did they’d be more than broke…is that “rich”. And, exactly what would happen if everyone who hires all the others decided not to bother, who then would be rich?

I can tell you this is I were able to take out of the business a salary of $10.00 an hour plus overtime for the past 23 years I’d be fine. The problem is that the money isn’t there. Now of course I could be smart and sell out to the developers and I’m old enough to retire, but just think of all the businesses and people who count on their income from Snowbird.

Judges, Stewards, farrier, veterinarian, hay and feed, bedding, electricity, insurance, telephone, advertising and the mortgage. Think of all the kids who worked their way through college as Starters. Never mind the obvious stable people. What about the benefit of a recreational activity we provide to all the generations that have passed through this farm? What’s that worth to the community?

The problem is you can’t measure the “rights” of freedom in dollars and cents. If everyone was a worker and no one was an entrepreneur do you think this would be a good economy? What would be the incentive to take a risk?

Being “rich” is the dream that oils the gears of industry, get rid of that and you have pure socialism and then who will make all that money to pay for all those entitlements?

[This message has been edited by Snowbird (edited 11-04-2000).]

Ok-
Everyone write me in. I will make all National Forest Lands accessible to horses, Mandate 1/2 day Fridays and late start Mondays for all business to accomodate the showing public.
All “horsey girls” wishing only to be grooms will be supported by a program enabling them to make $25.00 an hour.
I will allocate 1/4 of the budget for R&D on a helmet that juniors will all fawn over that will protect their brains from injury.
I will give farmers money to switch from growing Tobacco to growing carrots and alfalafa.
We will have dressage shows on PBS every Evening.
I will subsidize tailored sportsman breeches by putting a tax on rust and grey breeches, as well as rubber boots and unapproved helmets.
Horse trailers shall have their own lanes on highways.
Anyone caught saying “But it’s the horse that does all the work” will be forced to work for a DQ or a HP for a period of 6 months.
So write me in…I’m for You!

PS to Rockstar - Yes, your last response was helpful. It’s certainly true that non-partisan centrism is the most efficient way to get things done. But the centrists are hoarding power and limiting the discourse, and that’s not a good thing. I WANT to see Pat Buchanan at a presidential debate yammering with wild-eyed paranoia about his “border war”. I WANT to see Nader droning on about renwable resources and windmills. It lets us know there are MORE choices than slightly right of center and slightly left of center. And again, my big complaint about Gore and Clinton is that they’re pushing the center more to the right. The center is not really center any more. You guys nominate somebody like Wellstone, and I’m your gal.

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

“Texas has a MASSIVE population of non-Ingles speaking, possibly illegal, minorities who are in public schools and taking tests just like everyone else. But they don’t speak Ingles…Needless to say they score fairly low on TAAS tests.”

Need I say more?

Aly

Which yet again goes to show how in today’s USofA, it takes money to make money…

On guns? I read in Newsweek a while back that, outside of metropolitan areas and their suburbs, most crimes committed with guns are committed by people with no criminal records at all. There were also statistics on the incidence of gun use in domestic violence cases and other situations where your everyday non-criminal gun owner pops someone. What about those folks?

And, pat on the back, DITTO! The older I get, the more I feel for others and am grateful for how kind fate has been to me. I guess some of us get more compassionate, while others get less so. I wonder if it is related to a glass half-full or half-empty world view? I’m happy to have my glass half-full and leave the rest to others less fortunate. But maybe that’s because I don’t have a heck of a lot and you can’t miss what you don’t have?

<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by smedley:
I’ve never actually met a Christian. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Image, its about time we heard from a Buchanan supporter!

What’s this with comparing Democrats to Nazis? Like the republicans aren’t Fascists themselves? Maybe both parties are fascists, seeing as how they work so hard from preventing any 3rd parties from getting power?
Where was Ralph Nader at those debates? Hmmmmmm? I guess they didn’t want him around.
Does it not bother people that both of these parties stand for the same ideas - helping big business at the expense of others? supporting nations like China? jailing more people percent wise than any other nation in the world, most of these criminals being non-violent drug offenders? giving public land resources to anyone that greases the right palm? preventing certain parties from unionization? curtailing free speech?

Do you honestly think either of these jerks are going to bite the hand that feeds them? I sure don’t.
Sorry, I’ve made like a million posts on this topic. If I got 1 person to think that maybe both parties stink, and neither deserve to represent us, then, well, I did my job.

I’m going to go out on Tuesday. I’ll vote the lessor of 2 evils where I have too. I won’t vote for the #$%hole that left one of those pre recorded messages on my machine. Where I can, I’ll vote 3rd party. Where I can’t I’ll pick an anonymous name. I’ll leave, feeling dirty, like a used pawn in ssomeone elses game that I can’t play.

The bottom line is that neither one of these guys is very bright. They were both C students who got into top schools because of their families.

Gore rode the family name into politics and stayed there. He grew up a politician in a washington hotel.

Bush failed at every business he tried and daddy bailed him out. As noted earlier, he grew up in a hotel in Houston.

I wish we had a none of the above option! I’ve been voting for president for twenty five years and am always choosing the lesser of evils.

actually, Jumphigh, far from being a socialist, I plan to vote Libertarian. I just hate to see hard working people insulted!
Why vote libertarian? They represent true freedom for all. I have a feeling if we privatized education and created competition, good teachers like my mom would make more money.
To say that teachers are somehow getting rich is the most ignorant remark I’ve read on this BB (except for the comment that those w/o a college education are dumb.) Maybe it is every state except NC? Secondly, the federal government has little to do with what teachers are paid - that is a local thing.
Oh, and why do Republicans hate Unions so much? It’s a good way to prevent the necessity for any socialism. It’s a free market perk for laborers. Not Happy with your wages? Why ask for a government hand out? Just Unionize. What can replace federal labor laws? Unions.
I would gladly vote republican but for two things, they could care less about the environment (is air pollution a natural cycle?? Global warming may be cyclical, but there are other bigger problems out there…), and they seem to believe in rights for the wealthy.

If you really want no government intervention, and a true free market economy, you really ought to look into Libertarianism. Thanks.

I printed this out today so I can show my Psych proffesor some good points of view. We had to watch the debats as an asighnment and had to do a analasis of thm. It was quite interesting how many people interperated the body language at these debates not to mention we had to count how many times each said money. Too bad the debates are over cause it would be interesting to do some of these things we were asked to do. Ill let you all know how my evalustion went when I get my grade. But bush gave off alot of uncomforting signals. but gore did too but just watching the body language gave alot of insight to these people.

<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Inverness:
[B]I’ve worked my way up to membership in the highest tax bracket and I’m willing to pay even more in taxes to help those who are less fortunate and less lucky than I’ve been.

I suppose to many of you that either makes me a liberal, a socialist, a fool, or a nut. Well, so be it. [/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Me too.

And I’ll add that I would rather have my tax money go to support 10 scoundrels who are “working the system”, than that the regulations designed to keep those scoundrels out end up with one poor child dying because of those regulations.

DMK, ROTFLMAO! Fortunately most of my office has cleared out by now.

Jumphigh, how abhorrent that in your bid to equate the Democratic party to nazism, you cite examples of taxation and the loss of personal freedom as the legacy of nazism. Perhaps you should return to your vaunted history books and refresh your memory about the millions of Jews who perished under nazism. Your radical theories (how brave and heroic you must feel) are offensive and frightening.

[This message has been edited by heidi (edited 11-05-2000).]

Inverness, those screams are peals of laughter. ROTFLMAO!

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

FICTION: Al Gore said he was the first to discover the Love Canal nuclear accident.
FACT: The incident was already discovered, being investigated, and covered widely in the press for many months before Gore was aware of it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The assertion that Gore made this claim is itself fiction. Sure, the New York Times ran a scurrilous article about the “quote,” but the New Hampshire high school class to which Gore supposedly made the remark has since set the record straight. Gore was discussing ANOTHER environmental mess elswhere…his point was, in the process of looking into a situation in, I think it was Tennessee, he found information about Love Canal.
The high school students thus received a shocking lesson in press accuracy. We can be sure that Bush falls victim to this manner of simplification as well.

This has become quite a spirited thread, but I’m concerned that it’s devolving into personal attacks. I hereby challenge all to limit the attacks to the candidates POSITIONS - not the candidates’ worth as people, and not our fellow posters. That said…Go Ralph!

<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by spfarm:
…So now, our government has to be everything to everybody except the God fearing MAJORITY in this country.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you’re saying that only this “God fearing Majority” should just shut up, right? This country is supposed to be for ALL the people… not just the christians… or jews… or wiccans… or buddists. And THAT (your attitude) is precisely why religion doesn’t belong in government.