BUSHvsGORE re:Horse Industry

[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. Could we not have abortion be a local decision ~ that way, if you cared that much you could move to where it was legal or illegal.

Also, I’m very sad to hear about the family farm being closed down for a sugar spill - exactly why we need local government making those decisions.

The point is, neither Democrats or Republicans want you to have control in your life, unless you conform to their ideal.

[moose]

Anyone up for a “Which religion has the most effect on the horse industry thread?”
Just kidding Erin

[Heather]

tle, you and I have had disagreements in the past, BUT

YOU GO GIRL!!!

The notion of ANY religion being “in charge” is terrifying–but for some reason the idea of the Christian right being in charge is the most terrifying of all.

[Snowbird]

I’m sure there’s something we can agree on Hobson, but I happen to love beige houses. They merge with the earth colors and become less conspicuous.

As to the soccer moms well we know they’re too pre-occupied to make much of politics. If the family had not disintergrated and dispersed then there would be a Grandmom for child care. As to who are the rich people, I wonder how much you have to have “net” in your pocket to be one of those rich people who get all those benefits?

[holland]

This is why I’m voting for George W. Bush–
(sorry so long)

TAKEN FROM WSJ OPINION JOUNRAL 11-02-00

BY PEGGY NOONAN-

"In character, personality traits, history and attitudes, Mr. Bush seems the opposite of both Bill and Hillary Clinton and of Mr. Gore. Mr. Bush has an instinctive personal modesty, an easygoing sense of both human and governmental limits. He will know how to step aside and let the country take center stage; he will know how to show respect for others; he will not bray endlessly about his own excellence, will not compare himself to Nelson Mandela, Mark McGuire, or the heroes of the novels “Love Story” or “Darkness at Noon”; he will not discuss his underpants. Laura Bush will not announce that her husband’s power is hers, that she is co-president, and that she will soon nationalize 17% of the gross national product. Both Bushes seem not emotionally troubled but mentally balanced, which was once considered the lowest of expectations for our leaders but now seems like a gift to the nation.

All of this will be a relief. What’s more, it suggests a restoration of civility and grace to the White House, and to political discourse. This will have happy implications for our democracy, and for the children who see it unfold each day.

A Bush presidency would mark a cultural-political paradox: a triumph of class that is a setback for snobbery. Class–consideration, a lack of bullying ego, respect for others–has been not much present the past eight years. The Clintons and Mr. Gore have acted and spoken in ways that suggest they believe they are more intelligent and capable than others–superior, in short. They have behaved as if they believe they are entitled to assist others by limiting their autonomy; thus the tax policies in which they take our surplus and spend it for us, the social programs in which they limit what you might fritter away in your sweet but incompetent way.

The Clintons and Mr. Gore, intelligent and ambitious, came of age at the moment in our history when America As Meritocracy took off like a rocket; and they had merit. They were educated at fine universities at the moment those universities became factories for manufacturing the kind of people who prefer mankind to men and government to the individual. To absorb those views was to help ensure one’s rise. They rose. In time they won power in the system they helped invent–command-and-control liberalism. In rising and running things they became what they are: vain and ruthless as only those who have not suffered could be. Not realizing they were lucky they came to think they were deserving; they were sure they had the right to show the inferior-that would be you and me–how to arrange their lives.

Mr. Bush came from the same generation, lived in the same time, but became a very different sort of man. He wasn’t impressed by Yale; when he saw the elites up close he didn’t like what he saw. He was of Midland, Texas.

He became a businessman, floundered, knew success, experienced disappointment, became a deep believer in God. His religious commitment has meant for him the difference between a clear mind and a double mind. It has helped him become a man who is attached to truth on a continuing basis, and not just an expedient one. It means he sees each person as a unique individual worthy of dignity, freedom and responsibility.

Mr. Bush has the awkwardness of the convicted, meaning roughly, “I’m a mess, or at least have been; I’m not a hypocrite but I’ve been that too. I am utterly flawed and completely dependent; and I’m doing my best.” He knows he is better than no one. The man with the swagger and the smirk is humble.

Mr. Bush has a natural sympathy for, and is the standard bearer of, the modest, the patronized, the disrespected. The lumberman of Washington state who wants to earn his living responsibly and with respect; the candy store owner of New Jersey who’s had it up to here with regulation and taxes; the Second Amendment-loving Louisiana housewife who keeps a gun high up in the closet; the Ohio nurse who worries about abortion and who knows that “You oppose abortion? Then don’t have one!” is as empty and unsatisfying as “You don’t like slavery? Then don’t own one!”; the courthouse clerk in Tennessee who says he’ll go to jail before he’ll take the Ten Commandments off the wall; and the tired old teacher who carries a copy of the Constitution in his pocket and knows that while it is a living document it is not the plaything of ideologues. All of these–the shouted down and silenced in what the Clintons and Mr. Gore call the national conversation–are for Mr. Bush, and he for them.

That is a great irony of the 2000 election: The man who speaks for the nobodies is the president’s son, Mr. Andover Head Cheerleader of 1965. But history is replete with such ironies; they have kept the national life interesting.

If Mr. Bush is wise he will continue as president to stand with them, and speak for them, so that in time their numbers increase, and a big but beset minority will grow and become again what it once was: a governing coalition. This election could in this sense be a realigning one.

There is the question of intelligence: Is Al Gore bright enough to be president? Both Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore are intelligent men, but they have very different kinds of minds. George Bush respects permanent truths and is not in the thrall of prevalent attitudes. He thinks the Sermon on the Mount is the greatest speech ever given. This would strike some as an obvious thing to say, but it takes courage now to say the obvious thing, because to say the obvious is to declare that you see it, and to declare that you see it is to announce yourself . . . a bit of dunce. If you had a first rate mind you’d see what isn’t obvious, such as . . . the illustrative power of metaphor to speak to the existential challenge to postmodern man, which is to flourish within a democratic framework and negotiate its inevitable power centers while balancing the need for communal unity on the one hand with the necessity to find and unlock individual potential on the other.

I don’t think that sentence made sense, but you could speak it in a lot of places–a faculty dinner, the vice president’s house–and elicit nods of approval. And not in spite of the fact that it is nonsense but because of it.

The intellectually ambitious of the Clinton-Gore class seem willing to follow any small crumbs in their search for truths, perhaps because they can’t see so many of the older and enduring ones. Mr. Gore with his metaphor grids and his arrows and circles shows us not a creative mind at work but a lost mind in search of shelter. Henry Hyde once said of Newt Gingrich: “He’s always discovering new things to believe in.” He meant: a real grown-up doesn’t carry on like this, inventing new philosophies, drawing arrows and sparks; a real grown-up learns what from the past is true, and brings it into the present.

Mr. Bush speaks of God and George Washington and Reagan, and the elites find it unsophisticated. But for many citizens it will be good to see in leadership one of such simplicity, grounded in such realities, respecting of such wisdom.

Mr. Bush is at odds with the spirit of the past eight years in another way. He appears to be wholly uninterested in lying, has no gift for it, thinks it’s wrong.

This is important at any time, but is crucial now. The next president may well be forced to shepherd us through the first nuclear event since World War II, the first terrorist attack or missile attack. “Man has never had a weapon he didn’t use,” Ronald Reagan said in conversation, and we have been most fortunate man has not used these weapons to kill in the past 50 years. But half the foreign and defense policy establishment fears, legitimately, that the Big Terrible Thing is coming, whether in India-Pakistan, or in Asia or in lower Manhattan.

When it comes, if it comes, the credibility–the trustworthiness–of the American president will be key to our national survival. We may not be able to sustain a president who is known for his tendency to tell untruths."

If we must go through a terrible time, a modest man of good faith is the one we’ll need in charge. That is George Walker Bush, governor of Texas.

Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of “The Case Against Hillary Clinton” (Regan Books, 2000). Her column appears Fridays.

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

[pwynnnorman]

Snowbird, you misread me: “Geez! Pwynn, So what’s so terrible about the that concept. Are you saying that you should be able to produce whatever you want even if it has no sales value, potential or use to make life fair?”

[First, hmmm…does that sound familiar? Sounds like a whole slew of horse breeders to me. The ones with the full-page, full-colro stallion ads and fathers or husbands with Dr. before or Esq. after their names-- and/or names which also appear on durable goods and foodstuffs.]

Anyway, in my post, I was defining “not rich.” That definition had nothing to do with how one should or should not be productive. I’d ask that you reread what I wrote, if you care.

Moreover, are you denying that you are “not rich” if you MUST be productive? That you are “not rich” if you don’t have any discretionary income? THAT was the point I was making: “not rich” means no discretionary income and a fine, financial line between success and failure. “Not rich” means no padding. And now, be honest: when it comes to the working folks in our industry, where do most of them stand? Not the HORSE owners, mind you–the BUSINESS owners and other WORKERS. Most of them walk a very fine line indeed.

I believe Gore would HELP them, the “not rich” in our industry (yeah, myself included). No, Gore will not help those they work for, but he will help US. Trickle-down Republicanism, of cousre, assumes that if you help those we work for, their succeses will trickle down and help their workers as well. Hmmm…Has the plight of the average groom or lower level trainer improved much from the, oh, say 60s? Indeed, seems to me they actually have to work HARDER and LONGER these days and turnover and burnout and bankrupcy is ever more common.

Meanwhile, those that “make it” in our industry are INCREASINGLY coming from ranks that are much, much higher on the food chain. That’s no improvement for the working class. That’s no support for the “American way” of hard work leading to success. It ain’t hard work: it is, increasingly in OUR industry, Daddy’s or Hubby’s money. CAN YOU DENY THAT? Especially you, Snowbird, who are old enough to remember the personalities of times past and from whence THEY arose (in contrast to times present).

This thread started with a question about the horse industry. Speaking from my liberal Democratic perspective, I thus defined “not rich” in terms that I hoped horse people could understand, whether they are or aren’t “not rich”: no discretionary income to indulge in their horse pleasures and, if you are in the business, no CHOICE about what or when to sell. If you love horses, regardless of your income, surely you can appreciate the impact, the stress, the sometimes-almost-hopelessness of that lack of choice. It’s not a “right”; it’s merely a distinguishing trait which, one would hope, those who HAVE a choice might have some compassion toward.

Think about THAT with respect to the horse “businesses” and “professionals” you know, not only the owners and exhibitors, but the trainers (especially the lesser-known, AVERAGE ones), the grooms, the riders, the shippers, the braiders, the muckers. Consider their insecure and nomadic lives. Or, to be more specific–since you know me–contrast ME, SportPonies Unlimited, with, oh, say Iron Springs Farm. Contrast any of those “little” trainers who come to your shows with the big name trainers, nearly ALL of whom were big name riders first. ON AVERAGE, what do you see is the difference between them? ON AVERAGE, mind you–please don’t cite some individual case.

Some horse people–maybe not the majority on this BB since it seems most people here are horse owners, but not business owners (and, if they ARE business owners, like yourself, they are the landed gentry in marvelously populous areas)–some horse people (MOST, I dare say) ARE in the trenches and probably think more Gore-like. I may be dead wrong, but I suspect that others who aren’t think more Bush-like.

In light of the horse-angle of this discussion, those aspects of who is supporting whom in this election are neither complicated nor obscure. Who do you think that midwestern trainer who never rode at the Garden, who earned her clientele first by being someone’s working student or assistant, who has never owned land in a prime location (because it’s too expensive, of course)…who do you think she is more likely to vote for?

[ClemsonGraduateRider]

If any of you want to check out the political ads (including the rats one) try http://www.adcritic.com its also good for a laugh sometimes!! SEarch for the cat herder and watch that comercial!! hehe

[Magnolia]

Iverness-
I feel your pain - my boyfriend and I have no kids. We do have a house and some pets. Brad works for an engineering firm. Need some one to go out of town? It’s Brad. EVERYTIME!. Oh, does Brad need notice? No, we can tell him the day before. Who cares that he’s rescheduled his dentist 6 times now. Billy has kids to worry about…he can’t go.
Bottom line, technically, you should pay more in taxes if you have children, as you use more resources.
My favorite is trying to leave a few minutes early to take kitty to the vet. It’s OK for my coworkers to go to conferences or a play (fine with me too), but I’m not allowed to leave early to take fluffy to the vet. HMPH!

[woodbern]

OMG, for those of you who don’t/can’t/won’t/don’t want to understand… the top 1% already pays more. They pay 30% of the total taxes paid in America.

[Kellybird]

Wow, back from a show, and look at this mess!

To sum up a few of my thoughts, I’d like to lead all of us tree-hugging liberals in a song.
Please turn in your non-denominational “non-hymnals” to the Austin Lounge Lizards’ “Teenage Immigrant Welfare Mothers on Drugs” and sing along.

For those of you who don’t want to encourage the Robin Hood mentality, you can purchase the entire album and wait a while for your rewards–ya know, work a little and earn it!–OR, you could be like me ahem and use your trusty ole’ Napster…I mean, my dad’s CD… and download it. (And I call myself a good capitalist, getting music free online tsk tsk)

Enjoy
I must say, however insane this thread may get at times, it is still getting my vote for most intelligent in a while.

kelly
who chose to be Pippi Longstocking, rather than a TERRIFYING democrat in her mostly right-wing-ish neighborhood for Halloween–in fear of being attacked!

[TequilaSun]

The sad thing is - nobody REALLY knows what goes on in elections. What we know, is what the press has heard and what they choose to portray to us. So it’s really impossible to judge who is the “better” person for the job, unless you know them both personally, and what are the chances of that?

[Inverness]

I have a new theory:

Jumphigh and Sannois are really Gore supporters.

The two of them have conspired to post outlandishly uninformed and inflammatory statements in order to convince the undecideds that Bush supporters are all loonies.

[farmgate]

I remember well, the days when an abortion was illegal. That was as senseless as the war going on in Vietnam at the time.

Idealism seems to once again be the simplified platform of choice for some. Good luck in a “perfect world” approach to issues, but…

The election I most vividly remember because of the urgensy I felt in the need to vote, was the one where I stood in line for hours to vote AGAINST “Tricky Dick”. I will once again be casting my vote not for, but against a candidate. I vote no to Gore.

[Inverness]

<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by magnolia:
The Government will take care of me LOL.
If everyone’s kids take care of their parents, why do we need all the subsidies for the elderly?
BTW, I have all the respect in the world for our senior citizens, and of all my tax dollars, I consider the ones spent on them to be the best spent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tell me about it Magnolia! We’re taking care of my husband’s mom right now - to the tune of $6,000 per month (whoops! there went 25 years of savings!).

Thank heaven that my parents planned for their old age. My husband and I aren’t going to have any money left to take care of them too!

[Snowbird]

Thank you Janet,
Yes they do and it took a lot of hours of labor with possibly no compensation, by a lot of people to get those projects up and running so that they were able to pay all those taxes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Times change. The world changes. What worked for one generation doesn’t necessarily
work for another. I firmly believe that in this day and age, you can’t make money without
money. There are exceptions to that rule,but the system is making it harder and harder
to do it the old way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes times change, but it is our responsibility to make them change for the better. It is still possible to start a business and make tons of money without money. Look at the whole computer revolution. Bill Gates and his college chums were not born with silver spoons. Look at those ladies who make a fortune selling tumbleweed on their .com. There has never been a better time for people to be able to stay home and yet have a business enterprise.

The farmer’s wives only had the local general store to sell the products they made, today they have the world available.

<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Meanwhile, my peers and I almost uniformly complain about how the students don’t do
the reading assigned, not ever. Some of them (juniors and seniors, mind you: our
department isn’t open to the lower levels.)Many of them don’t put a second thought to a
class between the time they step out of it to the time they step back in the next week
unless there’s an assignment or test coming up: they jsut don’t have the TIME to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don’t have time! Where is the work ethic? Where is the compulsion for knowledge? Where is the curiosity?

Gee! I just don’t have time to get ready for my show on Sunday, Gee! it’s too hard to get it all done, Gee! why should I work so hard and maybe lose money never mind make money, Gee! my daughter wants to be a waitress and hates teaching on the farm, well I guess I just have to get out of the business. I can’t afford all the labor that I need to run the farm. It’s too much work I can’t do all the office work by myself because I’d have to spend 20 hours a day in the office seven days a week and I can’t make enough profit to make it worth the trouble.
<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Many
of the students under the most pressure in this way are the poorer students–the ones
who have to work as well as go to school.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Poor babies, I worked my way through school with two jobs, my husband worked his way through school with jobs, my children paid their own tuition and worked their way through school. I think that is character building and that a little struggle makes you appreciate the results. My kids are very proud of their degrees and they worked their buns off. I lost the privilege of being able to brag about how difficult it was to put them through school. My loss of bragging rights gave them self esteem and the work ethic.

<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Many of my peers have, IMO, watered down their courses as a result. Students buy
super-expensive textbooks, only to be required to read less than 25% of the contents.
One-on-one conferences is the expectation in many courses (and I teach at a university,
not a small college–I have over 50 students in my media research class alone). If left on
their own, and if standards were more like they were 15 years ago when I was at school,
70% of my students would fail.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And maybe they should! Maybe we should stop making excuses for them and mayber they should be responsible. I will be up for two days with perhaps 2-3 hours of naps inbetween to get ready for the show. My daughters and my husband will be right there next to me working just as hard. For all the work we do , I don’t think we earn $2.00 an hour, and we don’t get to keep it. It gets dumped back into this bottomless pit. BUT…we love the farm and if that’s what we have to do to keep well, you bet we’ll keep on doing it.

Maybe, your students just figure college is an extra four years to practice at being grown up. Maybe, they’d really like being waiters and waitresses, and maybe they’d be really good at it. Maybe they ought to take restaurant management.

I’ll tell you how “times have changed”, in my day you decided what it was you would like to do 7 days a week, and then you hoped you could make money from your labor.

Today they want jobs that pay a lot of money and don’t care if they like them. They only find pleasure in their free time. When you love what you do, as hard as you work you feel like you’re on a vacation because it’s a pleasure.

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

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

[rockstar]

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…”

ROCKSTAR REPLYING:
ok… I am sure I am included in this “you”. but, hey, guess what? I agree with you on most of this (sorry Hobson… I AM a bigtime moderate… remember?.. don’t hate me for it!).

WOODBERN:
“I don’t want to pay enormous taxes. I think I pay enough. Truthfully, I think I pay too much.”

ROCKSTAR REPLYING:
Who wants to pay enourmous taxes??? I don’t know anyone who WANTS to pay more taxes. Certainly not me! When I make money I want to keep as much of it as I can (not that I make a whole lot of money as a college kid). But I’m not an idiot… it’s not as if I don’t know what tax rates are and who gets hit the hardest. Generalizations should not be made that democrats want to go around hiking up taxes and just spending, spending, spending! It should not be assumed that only Republicans advocate for a smaller government and a deduction in taxes. That’s just not true! I am a democrat but i consider myself to be a fiscal conservative. This is why i get so mad when generalizations are made and I am lumped into this “liberal” category.

WOODBERN:
“I do want tax breaks.”

ROCKSTAR:
I do too! I want my mom and dad to recieve them. (Nah… actually… my dad is a jerk… keep taxing him… he has to pay child suport no matter what ).

HOWEVER, I think a lot of other people want tax breaks too… and I think that, while they may or may not deserve them, they NEED tax breaks to get by, where we just WANT them to make life nicer/easier. A tax break for my granparents? Well that means that my grandmother can go out and buy another fur coat. A tax cut for the working parents who collectively pull in $45,000 a year to support a family? That break means money to put away for little susie’s college or a much needed addition to their small two bedroom house.

So, I think the bitter pill of low to no tax breaks should be swallowed by the rich. AS LONG, and I repeat, AS LONG as the government is ACTUALLY using the money that would be going to me for productive purposes. And as we all know, there are less than productive things that the federal government is doing with our tax dollars. That has to change. It is NOT just republicans who think that many of our tax dollars are being wasted and that reform needs to take place. But as bad as some of you might think it is now, it HAS improved dramatically in the last 8 years. The federal government HAS been reduced significantly and the fact that we have a surplus and that our debt is going down are real indicators of the progress that has been made. The endless pork barelling and the still looming beaurocracy are what is killing us now. Bush isn’t the only one who wants to change that… Gore does too!

So, my philosophy is, why buck what is working? It is working SLOWLY, I will give you that… but it IS working. Everyone seems to think that W. is going to blow into town and clean this place up in a jiffy. We’ll move to the fast track, right? But really, it takes years and years, if not DECADES… if there exists a “fastrack” then someone, somewhere, is being royally screwed. I believe we are on or way now… I think Clinton and Greenspan and Gene Sperling and so many others have set us on the road to a time when tax cuts will be given to the rich, but not at the price of disabling the poor from making it. And I think that Bush will make a u-turn on that road… and by relieving the rich first they will be left happy with their nice cuts while the middle class will get screwed and the poor will get poorer.

WOODBERN:
“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?”

ROCKSTAR REPLYING:
Well, I don’t agree here. I want my SS back too… but I want that time to be after I am retired. I believe in the inherent value of SS and well, that’s that. I am against privatization.

WOODBERN:
“I do not want to save every country in the world.”

ROCKSTAR REPLYING:
Neither do I! That’s not our job. But I don’t want to leave them all hanging on a limb either… especially when there is help that we can give that has the possiblity to really make a tangible difference. I don’t want to go running to the rescue of every country and providing non-stop relief to all of those in need. At the same time, it’s pretty hard to rationalize why I am sitting here typing on my $2,500 labtop, in my $1,000 outfit, listening to my $600 stereo, stuffing myself on gourmet salsa and blue chips, and ignoring my homework for a school that costs $35,000 a year to go to. And this is going on why there are thousands of malnourished children dying and thousands of people whose basic human rights are being ignored across this globe? What kind of person does that make me? And what kind of a country accepts a society that accepts people like me?

WOODBERN:
“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.”

ROCKSTAR REPLYING:
I don’t blame you! Neither would I! Don’t think that all of us dems want to open the flood gates and support those who do not legally belong here. But I would like to see the immigration system made a little bit more fair, and I do believe that we should remain open minded when it comes to those who are seeking political assylum. And english should be the official langueage!

WOODBERN:
“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.)”

ROCKSTAR REPLYING:
We are not that stupid! We do not ALL assume that the rich got that way because they were born to it or climbed their way up unfairly. The rich are rich for a myriad of different reasons… no sensible person, democrat or whatever else, believes otherwise. At the same time, it can not be denied that there are plenty of those among the rich who DO exploit the poor… for many it is just the nature of the business they are in.

WOODBERN:
"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”.

ROCKSTAR REPLYING:
Woodbern, believe it or not, I have just as much contempt for a liberal making unfair generalizations about republicans as i do for a conservative making unfair generalizations about demomcrats. Such people tend to be so narrow minded and set in their ways that they stand square in the way of the progress that I am so much in favor of.

WOODBERN:
"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”."

ROCKSTAR REPLYING:
Well, I am not a “have not”. I mean, I have a feeling that i am not going to get the Fendi bag that I am asking for for christmaS… does that qualify me as a “have not”? I fit comfortably into the upper middle class. My father, who comes from a family that made its fortune at the end of the 19th century and has lived on it ever since(on Park and 5th Avenue), marked the first generation in his family to have to work and be considered as middle class instead rely on a trust fund and be of the upper class. But I am a proud member of a party that, unlike me, DOES know what it means to be a “have not”. I belong to a party that strives to do what it takes, in a manner as fair as possible, to improve the conditions behind being a “have not”. My party embraces all classes and works to level the playing field.

WOODBERN:
OMG, I can’t wait until November 7th.
Over and out.

ROCKSTAR:
YOU CAN BET THAT I AM DYING FOR NOVEMBER 7TH TO COME!!!

and a final note from me (rockstar)… i present all of this stuff simply to attempt to prove that generalizations can’t be made and to explain my side. i am not trying to change anyone’s opinion here or sway someone. so please don’t take this to be me attacking. what we have here are just your basic fundamental and ideological differences. it’s why i’m a dem and you’re a republican… and that’s that!

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

[jumpcrew]

I think it is safe to say that almost every American, , at one time or other in his or her lifetime, has driven at least once under the influence of booze or drugs (illegal or legal). Plus, it was 25 years ago.

[lisa]

Sigh.

It’s unfortunate that to many people, it has come down to the lesser of two evils.

While I disagree with the Dems stance on gun control, I will, in fact, throw my vote away in this bastion of Republicanism (Georgia – hell, the candidates aren’t even campagaining here…) and vote Gore.

You know, one topic that hasn’t been discussed in this thread is health care. Now that would be something I would think the horse industry (small businesses) would be interested in…

So does anybody have Molly Ivin’s new book Shrub? I just love her.

[Caruso]

Bush

[B.G.M_heidi]

Don’t think the subject originally posted, either of Gore or Bush’s impact on the horse industry, is being addressed at all. In fact, would state that the ‘discussion’ has now devolved to often irrational and strident dogma. Fairview Horse Center, may I suggest that you do some research into partial birth abortions before launching into such a graphic post?

And here’s an idea, for all those who so clearly care about children, especially the fetus: why don’t we spend some time volunteering at children’s hospitals, orphanages, mentoring children at risk, demanding from our government that our children be fed, kept safe, educated, and given access to medical treatment and prescpription drugs. For those of us who can, why not institute at a local, personal, or grass roots level a program to introduce horses/riding to inner city, children at risk.

No one’s personal and political position on abortion is going to change as a result of a post but wouldn’t it be lovely if people were as vehemently concerned about the children who have already been born.