# VOTE FOR BUSH, PEOPLE!



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

I know I'm going to get it for posting a title like that....but whoever you vote for, just vote. 2000's election was decided by 535 votes, so every one counts this year.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

I am with you homeskooled. Everyone has the right to their own vote. If you do vote for Kerry, please don't do it because godless liberal rock stars and actors wouldn't get out of your face. I am a professional musician and am anything but a religious zealot, but my vote goes to Bush.


----------



## dakotajo (Aug 10, 2004)

I think bush should be taken out and horse whipped. Hes fucked up everthing in our country and the world. Give Kerry a shot. How can he do any worse?


----------



## julie (Aug 11, 2004)

Endorsing candidates on a dp site?? Let's just keep it at- Be Sure To Vote Today and let your voice be heard. Geez, you just can't get away from this anywhere!


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Agreed and moved to "That's Life" This has been a stressful election for many, and I include myself.

Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion. As someone else said, the key is to get out and vote.

Best,
D


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

I am going to try to be objective as possible here. The media (centered in NY and L.A., two democratic strongholds) is very liberal. This is where everyone gets their news. What makes good news? Bad news. Good news doesn't really make 'good news.' The news, as we get it, is very distorted.

Bush should be held responsible for the situation in Iraq. So should his admistration, so should the Senate (which included John Kerry) that unanimously voted to go to war, the CIA, foreign countries from which we received bad intelligence.

The economy is fine. No matter how badly Democrats tell you it is, it is fine. I have an economics/business degree from college. This doesn't make me an authority on this but I have some sense what I'm talking about. The tech boom (NASDAQ) in the late Clinton Administration was so overspeculated and overhyped, I'm surprised we did not fall flatter on our faces. The DOW was over 11,000 and the NASDAQ over 5,000. The DOW was at 4,000 in 1995. People were throwing money away into these dot.coms that had no assets whatsoever but a web address.

So we started falling into a recession in 2001. Then 9/11. Boom! Tourism shot, travel/airline business decimated. Without major tax cuts and the promise of future personal and corporate tax cuts, investors would have been even more heavily discouraged. Thanks to tax cuts prospects and Greenspan cutting interest rates, we held our own for a while. Yes, this would eventually catch up to us, but it was necessary for the time being.

Never buy into this 50% of the tax cuts go to the top 1% of the nation's wealthiest. There is a little thing called the trickle-down theory which says tax cuts will result in more jobs for the middle class and lower classes. What good is raising taxes for the middle and lower classes with less jobs? All this Gore/Kerry rhetoric does is promote class warfare.

Technology, innovation is moving so fast, it is difficult for jobs to catch up. Unemployment is the same as it was in 1996. So, not bad.

Education has improved dramatically.

Health care, social security...well, those are a mess and have been a mess for a while and will be a mess no matter who is president.

I give this admistration an A- on the economy. Yes, jobs were lost. But, there have been so many factors over the past 4 years that have posed some of the biggest challenges ever for our economy. China opened up its world economy in 2000. So have India and Russia. That's 2 billion people right there. All of a sudden the world isn't as dependent on the U.S. anymore. This economic expansion drives up demand for oil. Oil prices go up. People bitch.

As far as Iraq, I am not pleased. We did well in Afghanistan in my opinion. We acted on poor intelligence. Mistakes are going to be made in any war. I wish Kerry would tell General Tommy Franks how poorly planned his war was instead of Bush because he probably had a lot more to do with that than Bush. Yes, it's a mess and it will be for a while. Only time will tell.

Terrorism- we're doing well I think. No more attacks here in the U.S. is good news to me. Ever since 9/11, terrorism has taken over the news- any news on that will never be good. UBL's latest videotape says it will target states that vote for Bush. He says they will be at peace with us if Bush is removed. Sure, UBL. I'll believe that one . What had Bush done in 2001 for us to deserve 9/11? Al-Qaeda wants Kerry to win.

Finally, this country is coming to a moral crossraods. So many people are apalled by Bush's moral bearings. I think a lot of these people in Hollywood and all of these rock starts have lost sight of the fact that half of this country is still religious. The good majority of these actors/ rock 'n rollers are not and they are trying to impose their liberal, traditionally amoral views and lifestyles through the media. It's backwards.

OK, I'll quit. Food for thought.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

> dakotajo wrote in the Kerry thread:
> How can Bush be called the "lesser of 2 evils". Kerry has never been given a chance. Bush has been given a chance and has already shown he is as evil as it gets.
> 
> Joe


So I've posted this in both threads:
Kerry and Bush:

I read an excellent article the other day. Someone said, Bush and Kerry are "the lesser of two RISKS" Osama bin Laden is "evil".

Again this is terribly complex, and goes back centuries really, but bin Laden and extremist fundamentalist Muslims want ALL countries out of the Middle East. Out of the ENTIRE Middle East, and want us to dump Israel as an ally. Some of this mess goes back to 1948 when the UN created the state of Israel. Bin Laden has been a threat since 1982. He has been thrown out of his home country Saudi Arabia which is far more moderate.

This is not an easy decision for anyone, even for people who have an extensive knowledge of politics. And yes, many Presidents and other foreign leaders have made mistakes, but I reserve evil for the likes of bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin, miserable despots of all kinds in Africa, Saddam who used Iraq's oil income to either build palaces for himself or to by military equipment -- we've known that for years, etc., etc., etc.

Also, Rumsfeld is someone who really messed up our follow up into the Iraq mess. He wanted to prove his own theory that the US can operate with a smaller military presense... well he forgot we needed to be there to help clean stuff up if we were going to go in and mess things up.

I'm not arguing for or against anyone here. I'm terrified by this. Also, whoever is President will have a new cabinet. Incumbents' cabinets members don't always stay for a second term. A number of bad eggs will be gone. But I'll miss Colin Powell.

Best, 
D


----------



## Guest (Nov 2, 2004)

So with Homeskooled, Dreamer and Gimpy.....hmmm...I'm seeing an anti-Freudian trend amongst the Republicans, verrryy interesting. I suspect deep repression. (GRIN).

Just vote.

And I find the debates interesting and mentally stimulating, but only if we keep it civil.

VOTE SIGMUND,
grin
J


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

Sigmeund Freud was a cokehead... and he precribed cocaine to his patients. Oh, if only I was a mentally ill patient in the 1920s (grinning back at 'ya)


----------



## Guest (Nov 2, 2004)

I thought a comment made by an Aussie reporter on the morning news today,rather amusing.
He said that traditionally Americans don't change their president in times of war..............hello.......... who started the war?clever trick huh?

For what it's worth we just had our election and the same guy (who would be considered right wing) got back in.
Many Australians weren't ready to change governments in such precarious times.
Interest rates have been low for several years and this was something else people were afraid to gamble with.


----------



## Guest (Nov 2, 2004)

I just voted for John Kerry

and I am so DAMN proud!!!


----------



## Crumbles (Aug 19, 2004)

I voted. If anyone knows me, or has visited my site, I'm sure you know who I voted for. At least I canceled out Kari's vote!


----------



## peacedove (Aug 15, 2004)

I canceled out your vote Crumbles.


----------



## Crumbles (Aug 19, 2004)

peacedove said:


> I canceled out your vote Crumbles.


Well, it looks like it doesn't matter, Bush won the state I'm in. So that's all my vote can do.


----------



## enngirl5 (Aug 10, 2004)

Crumbles why do you say Democrats are less likely to be individuals and are followers? I see it as the exact opposite. Just curious on your thoughts behind this.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

enngirl5 said:


> Crumbles why do you say Democrats are less likely to be individuals and are followers? I see it as the exact opposite. Just curious on your thoughts behind this.


Interesting. Reality to talk about when I've just awakened from a hideous dream.

Why would either of these statements be true. They are ridiculous generalizations.

I am a registered Republican. Grew up in the Upper Class, suburb, doctors for parents, but abusive and neglectful. Private school I loved that was so good I didn't even need my Freshman year in college without advanced placement.

I voted for Bush for one reason -- the reason I had from the beginning -- international issues. Not wanting to change horses in midstream. I did not trust Kerry to be agressive enough. Round table peace talks don't work in the Middle East. I don't know what will. CLinton failed numerous times to kill bin Laden. He's been messing with us since 1982.

Also have read a great deal recently about the complexity of foreign policy and guessing, what does bin Laden, really want. (Not just bin Laden, fundamentalist Muslims who don't just hate America, but hate the West). Bin Laden wants us OUT of the Middle East entirely.

That can't happen. We and other coutnries have been living/working, had military involvement in the Middle East for.... forever. It's too late at night to go into detail.

Neither Kerry nor Bush will pull us out of Iraq or stop being an ally to the moderate Middle Eastern coutries, Quatar who asked us to be there, Saudi Arabia (we've been protecting her borders from Saddam Hussein for forever), etc., etc. too tired. Israel.

I saw on a 12pm analysis that the votes went this way:

1. Morality FIRST: anti-abortion, anti gay civil unions, anti-stem cell, and a return to legislative control of morality. I find that unnacceptable and I am a conservative. I am COMPLETELY against every one of those concepts. I am pro-choice, pro gay civil unions, pro-stem cell, and don't want my morality legislated.

2. Domestic Issues SECOND: this election, these issues were less a concern for me than the war. That's just me. Though i know we need many social reforms.

3. Fear of Terrorism/War in Iraq: LAST. And that was how I was voting. So my Republican vote wasn't even representing my views.

It is bigotry to assume that one person who calls themselves a conservative or a liberal is all one thing and that's it. There are people in this country from extremely bright and well-informed to those who know nothing about politics. We all came out in droves to vote. We all don't agree on everything. Even within one party.

It is bigotry to assume that one "party member" stands for only ONE thing or set of ideas and is "only a follower", etc.

It is NEVER that simple.

My state is still undecided as I see. At this hour 5am, I don't know who the President will be, and at this point I don't care. I hate Bush a million ways to SUnday, but I also don't have enough confidence in Kerry's stance in foreign affairs. If he wins only time will tell. Maybe my vote mattered, changed the world, maybe it didn't.

I did what was foremost in my mind at this time in my life. I was very much affected by 9/11, and being conservative to me, simply means less government intervention. Sadly, Bush is a Republican who is MORE intrusive in our lives. You don't bring anti-gay civil unions up as a Federal issue.

This is far too complex. I feel far too miserable right now from a horrible dream.

Haev to pull myself back to reality, as stupid as it is.

I wish that morality wasn't the key reason for this vote. It pisses me off. That is not how I see government, or America. But I voted for a specific reason.

So shoot me.
Peace,
D


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

I'm a registered Republican as
1. I simply believe in less government
but:

2. I am an agnostic
3. I could use social programs, yes, but find when the Federal government gets involved they cause MORE messes. Health care is one issue -- Federal health care in Canada and Britain is in serious trouble. DOn't know the answer. I'm not a genius.
4. I can vote in the Republican primaries for my best choice for President. There was no choice this time. The incumbent was guaranteed to win.
5. This has not prevented me in the past for voting for a Democratic president.
I do not vote a straight ticket, and when I understand the issues/representatives with confidence I vote different parties, I vote PEOPLE.

Proposals. I voted them all down in my state, they all won. All were against my personal convictions, but they were Republican, morally influenced votes.

We all have different priorities, needs, fears, concerns, ideologies. Being one or another doesn't make us "one type of person." Impossible.

Peace,
Nite
D


----------



## dakotajo (Aug 10, 2004)

Its a crime... looks like 4 more years with the war monger. God help us all.


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2004)

fuck it, it is what it is, theres NOTHING we can do about it. I don't like Bush but obviously others do for some reason i can't understand. If there is a draft, My therapist & doctor both assured me i wouldn't have to go due to my psychological problems. My therapist said all he would have to do is write a letter and i would be all set.

The thing is i don't want to see any of my friends go to Iraq and i don't want to see my cousin who is currently in the military have to go to Iraq. Im close to him & that would make me worry like crazy if he went.


----------



## 1A (Aug 12, 2004)

There will be no draft, SoulBrotha. Only two Democrats in the House introduced bills to reinstate the draft and the members rejected the bills big time. MTV / Rock the Vote / Democratic Party did their best to scare young voters, by thinking they'd be drafted, but it didn't work.


----------



## 1A (Aug 12, 2004)

dakotajo said:


> Its a crime... looks like 4 more years with the war monger. God help us all.


LOL. Emotion. Emotion. Emotion.


----------



## 1A (Aug 12, 2004)

The one question that goes unanswered is this:

Why, during the mid to late 90s was a little known terror organization known as al-Qaeda allowed to grow and grow and grow into what it became by 2000 or 2001?

After all, you had the first WTC bombing, the Khobar Towers and USS Cole bombings, etc. PRIOR to 9/11/01.

Then, Bush is in the WH for 8 months and *he's* the one who dropped the ball?!

That's too much.


----------



## 1A (Aug 12, 2004)




----------



## 1A (Aug 12, 2004)

County by County! Ouch!



1A said:


>


----------



## 1A (Aug 12, 2004)

I have a good liberal friend who needed a ride to vote yesterday. He was sleepy and didn't want to vote, but I insisted he vote. I offered to drive him to his precinct since his sister had his car.

I didn't care that he was voting for Kerry. The point is that if you're 18 to 24, register and then VOTE VOTE VOTE!!!! Get involved in the political process.

Fewer than one in 10 voters yesterday were 18 to 24 (source: USA Today) -- that is sad. Less than 10 percent turnout for that age group.

If the Democratic Party wants to become relevent again, it needs to do better at attracting young people to register to vote. That is, attracting them, not using false scaremongering tactics, i.e., the draft, to frighten them (which only subsequently pisses them off, after they find it was 2 DEMOCRATS who wanted to bring the draft back, not Republicans).


----------



## enngirl5 (Aug 10, 2004)

Married Women
1. Moral Values
2. Terrorism
3. Economy

Single Women
1. Economy
2. Terrorism
3. Moral Values

This is in order of how women felt on issues.


----------



## enngirl5 (Aug 10, 2004)

I agree that calling one group or the other "followers" is a stupid generalization. I was just pissed last night when I saw that on his website that dem's are sheep. And I agree there are plenty of intelligent repub's. I just happen to live in the part of the country where people are voting for Bush because they hate gays, hate welfare, and don't want their gun rights taken away. And of course are blood thirsty.


----------



## sleepingbeauty (Aug 18, 2004)

i always knew he would win. but im not worried. im all stocked up on tribal face paint and multi colored hair dye. theres lots of lava tubes here to hide from the nuclear fallout, and i got lots of canned spam. all i need now are a pair of goggles and some football shoulder pads.

bring it on osama. im ready.

WORLD WAR III - THE OIL WAR APOCALYPSE ("People stopped in the streets and listened: for the first time they heard the sound of silence."): As the service utilities of the industrial nations - the power generation, transport and manufacturing sectors - fail, national and international communication breaks down. Long-standing East/West tensions in the face of worldwide fuel shortages degenerate into pre-emptive attacks on the remaining fuel-rich countries. After endless political deliberations on both sides, the final acts of the war are strategic nuclear strikes between the East/West blocs intended to prevent either side from securing new fuel reserves. In Australia, centralised government crumbles. In most of the cities, panic and looting precede death and wholesale destruction. The remaining population scatters, leaving the cities to crumble and fall apart. Limited nuclear explosions near Sydney cause turbulence that damages a fleeing 747 under the command of Flight Captain Walker. It crashes in the desert some 500 kilometres from the city. The nuclear exchange causes widespread changes in the world's environment, the most notable of which is large-scale evaporation of the oceans, and a short nuclear winter. Sydney Harbour dries up and the city is abandoned. Australia's coastal regions become more arid - problems with food supplies force many to cannibalism. The collapse of civilization goes largely unnoticed in the wasteland; although the depletion of the fuel supplies and manufacturing technology brings about the end of the roving marauders. In the following few years, tribal settlements are established on the Sunshine Coast and elsewhere by people fleeing the savagery of the interior desert. Technology is at a pre-Industrial Revolution level in these largely agricultural communities.

2018 - ("At last, the vermin had inherited the earth."): The survivors of the war begin to form small, tribal groups, fighting over the few remaining sources of food and energy. Isolated settlements develop in the desert amidst the barbarians, under the rule of people who possess technical knowledge or power. Some of the old gang leaders realise the futility of destroying the pockets of civilization, because eventually nothing is regenerated. Some of the survivors live in primitive harmony, while others form towns where savage violence is a way of life. Max survives a number of adventures; as his resources diminish he builds up his capital - a wagon train. He collects things, finds things, and is resourceful enough to improvise.


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

I actually thought Kerry would win to be honest. I respect the man despite disagreeing with him on issues. It's interesting how all these exit polls heavily favored Kerry. Wonder if there is a liberal bias there.

I've been looking at those county maps, too. It's amazing how the democratic party is really only rooted in urban areas. And where do we get our news?

As I've hinted before, one of my biggest beefs with this campaign was how many celebrities got involved. Considering how morals played into this election, they might have done more to hurt Kerry's campaign than help. People in the breadbasket states, midwest, and the southern Bible belt are by nature more conservative. Many of these people view these entertainers as godless, hedonistic liberals living charmed lives. Which is true in a lot of respects. These people don't realize how different their realities are from the rest of the country.

I was also disgusted how the media tried to manipulate this election. I think that may have turned off some voters too. When you have The New York Times, Washington Post, and magazines like Rolling Stone blatantly endorsing Kerry is sickening. Probably the most essential trait to have in journalism is being objective. That was clearly violated. I know in pretty much all past elections these publications have leaned one way, but they crossed the line this time.

The Democratic Party is in trouble. They are too divided amongst themselves to accomplish much of anything. Really the only uniting factor they had this election was disdain for Bush.

But, now that the election is over, I feel a huge weight has already been lifted off of this country's shoulders. I am already starting to feel this dissention dying down. Kerry and Bush both gave excellent concession and acceptance speeches, respectively. I thought the line about Bush thanking Kerry voters and how he has to earn their trust was great. Kerry was great, too. I am pleased.


----------



## GavinD (Aug 10, 2004)

Perhaps this is proof after all that the American dream really does exist. Someone can start off in life with no brain whatsoever and still rise to the top!

Or is it the American nightmare?

Don't get me wrong....I'm a socialist and I believe the mentally handicapped should be given total support by the state to play a worthwhile part in society....but letting them have the White House is taking things a bit too far!


----------



## dakotajo (Aug 10, 2004)

Its an American nightmare. I dont care about political parties and I never will. I think voting for the party rather than the person is ridiculous. I actually supported bush in the beginning. I agreed with hunting terroists in Afganistan but the invasion of Iraq made me sick to my stomach. I was ashamed of "shock and awe". Those words still make me ill. I believe terrorism has probably grown and will continue to grow, because we always stick our nose where it doesnt belong and we piss everybody off. Our support of Isreal also makes me sick. As far as I am concerned they can go straight to hell.


----------



## *Alex (Sep 27, 2004)

Good choice....never under-estimate fear,ignorence,greed and apathy.......

Did you ever stop to think about whatcha gonna do
With your responsibility?
Or did you,
Just take this job cause it would
Be good for the money
And did you
Ever stop to think
About your duty to mankind
Or did you,
Think ya take this job do favours
For you friends and waste all our time?
So tell me man
Do you realize what you're doing to this good country?
Cause you're selling it all away for your economic
Stability
And you,
Justify everything you do
With the people that you say you're gonna employ
But the unemployment line is getting bigger every year
And you treat us all like toys.
We're just expendable to you
Along now with this land
And there ain't no room left for empathy
And this is something I don't understand
We're just expendable to you
Along now with this land
And just ain't no room left for empathy
And this is something I don't understand
Don't understand don't understand
Don't understand what headspace you are in
Don't understand don't understand 
Don't understand what headspace you're in
Lies, Lies, Lies that you're speakin
And I don't understand what headspace you are in
Don't make no sense to me
Justifying everything we do on our economy
And there ain't no room
No more room left for human decency
Justifying everything we do on our economy
And the only time you listen to the people
Is when you think you won't get their vote
Otherwise you really could not give a shit
Don't mind rockin all our boats
And the greatest living friend is a man who goes by
The name of apathy
And we let you get away with everything you like so
You make all your money
But I tell you something right now old man
And this is a fair old warning to you
That the people are waking up
And gonna make you accountable too
Just like the nazi trials in Nuremburg
Hell not so long ago
Gonna make you pay for what you have done
Gonna make you responsible
Cause I don't understand
don't understand
don't understand
what head space you are in
so it must be lies you're speaking
Lies you're preachin
Must be lies you're feeding our children
Man must be lies you're teachin
and the land that you love he could not give a damn
about
and the ocean that you love do you think he could give
a shit about?
and the trees that you love do you think he could give
a fuck about?
And the family that you love do you think he could give
a damn about? 
So it must be lies you're speakin
So it must be lies you're speakin
So it must be lies you're speakin
So it must be lies you're speakin
No more, no more, I want no more no more
Don't wanna die in a war
No more
Don't wanna die in a war
No more 
I don't want a war
No more 
Don't want a war 
No more 
Don't want a war 
No more
Don't want a war
No war no war no war
I don't want no war, no war
I don't want no war
Young people dyin for buisnessmen
Young people dyin they don't understand
Young people dyin for buisnessmen
Going away to fight don't understand
No war i don't want no war
I don't want no war


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

enngirl5 said:


> I agree that calling one group or the other "followers" is a stupid generalization. I was just pissed last night when I saw that on his website that dem's are sheep. And I agree there are plenty of intelligent repub's. I just happen to live in the part of the country where people are voting for Bush because they hate gays, hate welfare, and don't want their gun rights taken away. And of course are blood thirsty.


Dear Enn,
Didn't mean to come on mean. Bad night last night. I also hadn't read what came before.

And I agree, I don't want the government to legislate morality. What's interesting is in my state, we had an anti-gay civil union ammendment. The only reason it was, there was fear that Kerry would win, and in that case, certain voters "protected us" from potential degradation of morals.

I was furious. I voted that down. This happend in many states. And it was cloaked in a pretty little commercial that looked like it was an *affirmation* of the sanctity of the marriage of a man and a woman.

I realize this is a personAL issue, and not everyone may agree with my stand.

At any rate, no attack intended. I responded directly to that post you had put up, hadn't read what was before.

Edit... that order of voting intent I think was combined male and female. I was really outraged that Morality was #1 of ALL Republican voters. I think this election brought out SO many people for SO many different reasons, many people that wouldn't have voted came out in droves. If there's anything good to be said, at least we're getting involved. I'm not sure of the statistics, but I believe 62% of Detroiters came out, which broke some record 3 decades ago. Astonishing.

And again I say, this has been brewing for years. And it's a new breed of cat. I think everyone was completely caught off-guard by 9/11. It brought to the forefront certain actions we had tabled.... killing bin Laden.. there was never "a right time" in the CLinton administration.... and we were destined to invade Iraq at some point when the UN sanctions ran out completely.

The worst thing Bush did was justify the Iraq invasion with a connection to 9/11. We may all disagree about what happened, but all events were inevitable. It was a matter of time.

And I'll say it again. If you've read the FULL tape transcript that bin Laden had for Al-Jazeera which they MERCIFULLY kept edited, bin Laden would have controlled our election, much like Spain's was. Maybe. But it's scary as Hell.

Peace,
D :shock:


----------



## 1A (Aug 12, 2004)

Dreamer wrote:

"The worst thing Bush did was justify the Iraq invasion with a connection to 9/11. We may all disagree about what happened, but all events were inevitable. It was a matter of time."

Kerry said on 9/21 during a campaign speech that we now know there were no connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

He must not have read the Senate Intelligence Committee Report or the 9/11 Commission Report, both of which cited the many connections between Iraq and AQ.

A high ranking Iraqi Fedayeen soldier attended at least one pre-planning 9/11 meeting with AQ.

Saddam knew 9/11 was coming and where we were going to be hit.

Even the Clinton Justice Department was able to obtain an indictment against bin Laden which cited the terrorist's ties to Iraq.

A federal judge has granted two 9/11 families a multi-million dollar judgement - against Iraq.

During the 90's, the mainstream press wrote about the world's alarm at the growing relationship between Saddam and Osama bin Laden. The Old Media thinks we can't look these things up.

Here's a great read on the topic of 9/11 and the Saddam connection:

Saddam Warned of WTC Attack Before 9/11, Praised bin Laden Afterward


----------



## lone wolf (Aug 10, 2004)

Forgive me, I'm posting rubbish. But there is an interesting theory a friend of mine expressed (we crazy Finns). As Bush family and the family of Mr. bin Laden enjoyed a good companionship in the past, it seems strange that Osama bin Laden suddenly became the great enemy of the United States. So the clever-head friend of mine thought maybe the WTC terrorist attack was arranged by Bush et al, as it gave the US the permit to attack other countries in the Middle East. First Afghanistan, so the Americans can get the opium farms in control. Then Iraq, so they may get their piece of the pie of the oil the country produces. The US won't attack North Korea, as there is no reason for that, as North Korea doesn't have any valuable natural resources or other stuff that might be in the need of controlling (i.e. the War on Drugs of the United States: South America, Afghanistan)...

OK - this is enough, I have already expressed the weird conspiracy theory. Perhaps you already knew about this theory, as I am not sure, did the friend of mine invent the whole thing or maybe read about it somewhere... :twisted:


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2004)

Yeah there are strange theories around.

Go to http://www.deprogram.info/index.html and check out the section "911 lawsuits".

There is a high ranking guy who wants to sue the Bush government for mass murder.


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

Conspiracy indeed, Ninnu. We were pals with Sadaam in the late 70s and early 80s. As soon as the Berlin wall came down in 1989, we were all of a sudden friends with the Russkies when being mortal enemies a week earlier.

I used to like the Queer Guys until I found out they were gay.


----------



## Crumbles (Aug 19, 2004)

enngirl5 said:


> Crumbles why do you say Democrats are less likely to be individuals and are followers? I see it as the exact opposite. Just curious on your thoughts behind this.


Because democrats want to take from the successful, and give it to themselves. They don't want to have to work harder at things, they feel like they are entitled to it without having to earn it.

If you want to read a lot of arguments I had back and forth, you can read them here so I don't have to type them out all over again:

http://www.mattandthat.com/forum/showth ... ge=1&pp=10


----------



## dakotajo (Aug 10, 2004)

I think you have it switched around.


----------



## sleepingbeauty (Aug 18, 2004)

its nice to live in a dream world where the playing field is equal and everyone has a fair chance of success. dont forget that 99% of the successful and affluent got that way with a silverspoon stuck up their ass.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

sleepingbeauty said:


> its nice to live in a dream world where the playing field is equal and everyone has a fair chance of success. dont forget that 99% of the successful and affluent got that way with a silverspoon stuck up their ass.


I'd say that is just as bigoted as making a generalization of conservatives and liberals.

Personal Story A:
My maternal grandfather was a train engineer (i.e. repairman for the rails) and my grandmother a mother of three and a housekeeper. There was a point when times were so bad that they worked as handyman and housekeeper resepctively for a wealthy family. They had no college educations, they spoke German and learned English on thier own.

They had little money to speak of. Of the three children, my mother was the only child to get a college education which she got on scholarship. She became a doctor. She managed her money very well. She was not dripping in money when she died, but I did grow up in the Upper Middle Class... no competition to the Fords, i.e. the Henry Fords and family who streamed through my private school. They were THE UPPER CLASS. My parents as medical professionals didn't come near the income of that class.

My father was born in a tiny town in Ohio at the turn of the century. Parents, poor school teachers who also owned a general store.
Four children. One son became a playwright, died young. One son became a career military man. The daughter in the family became a housewife. My father received a scholarship to University and subsequently medical school and became a doctor. He was the most succesful person in the family. My father had severe OCD and lost his money.

My mother, thank God, was able to be financially independent, a taxpayer of course. She of course was also abusive, but that's beside the point.

My life, if you want to call it that had a lot of silver spoons in it. But a lot of struggle. I was still able, despite my mental illness, to complete a B.A. and an M.A. and if I weren't disabled I would have continued my career in the "corrupt entertainment industry" -- I suppose I would have been a closet conservative, LOL. I would have made a decent living. I'm now in a real shit mess. But I don't consider my friends who have been succesful in many fields to have gotten to such places without hard work. And their careers are varied and admirable. Professionals to those with vocations. Human beings, struggling with everyday problems. Some with serious problems.

Personal story B:
My husband's Uncle A. and Aunt F. They were poor/Jewish (hence discriminated against)/in the early 1900s. No college education, either of them. Because they lived through the depression, in true poverty, they were extremely careful with their money. This is a tendency of people who lived through the Depression.

Uncle A. was a machinist. A factory worker his whole life. Aunt F. was a secretary. They had two children who are now in their fifties, and there are granchildren. One of Uncle A. was a proud WWII Veteran. Front line. Fighting in Germany. An American Jew against the Nazis. (Sounds like a soap opera I made up, but it's true). The two were also socialists. My husband's father (Jewish) -- a communist.

At any rate, Uncle A. and Aunt F. took their lives into their own hands. Worked as hard as Hell their whole lives, took care of two kids, both while working. They were very careful with their money, their investments.

Uncle A. died of cancer about... 6 years ago. *Aunt F. can live comfortably on over 3 million dollars, which is earning interest, so she will not be a burden on anyone, even if she has to go into a nursing home. They were taxed, once they became wealthy at the highest income tax bracket.* That money was hard-earned, fought for, and well managed. By a man who had no college education, came from a hated minority at the time (perhaps still hated), lived in poverty, he lived "the American Dream" and was a distinguished war veteran.

Dare I mention that Kerry is extremely wealthy, not merely by his own family wealth, but in his marriage to the heiress to the Heinz ketchup empire. Kerry is no poorer than George W. and they're both a helluva lot better off than most of us here. BOth of them went to Yale.

What is wrong with this?

No, we are not all equal, we never have been. But being wealthy doesn't mean someone didn't work for it. And someone is supposed to be guilty if old wealth is passed down.

And, if I may say, entertainers in Hollywood, and sports stars earn an obscene amount of money, regardless of their backgrounds. Many are philanthropists, many are not.

How can one decide that an actor is worth millions, or these sports players, millions of millions, I can't even think of the figures ... and yet a secretary, or a plumber, or a doctor, or a businessman, or an attorney is worth less.

Just a few thoughts.
Again, about generalizations.
There are nasty rich people and there are nasty poor people.
There are decent conservatives and decent liberals.
There are nasty conservatives and there are nasty liberals.

That statement is truly .... again bigoted.

I'm not saying capitalism is a system better than any other. All social/economic systems have plusses and minus'.

And, I hate to say this, but did any of us get to select what family we were born into, what COUNTRY. Why in God's name does someone have to apologize for being a wealthy American, a poor American, a wealthy British Monarch, or a poor working class Brit.

This completely ignores the complexity of human existence. And it's only the beginning ... this is again like saying, all black kids are gang members and murderers... we start going into the deepest ugliest stereotypes from here.

In the spirit of debate, 
But with frustration,
Peace,
D


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Forgot to mention. My wealthy Aunt A. and Aunt F. were life-long liberals, voted democrat all the way.

Yes there are evil greedy people in this world. But there are also decent hard-working people. There are people with inherited wealth who are a disaster. There are people with inherited wealth who have gone on to be decent hard-working people. There are poor who are hard-working and good, there are poor who are hardworking and bad.

Ohio was the deciding vote in the election. Ohio has been hit seriously by loss of jobs during the Bush administration, yet Ohioans voted Republican, for a million different reasons.

What should we do with the 99%????? of SUCCESSFUL and affluent people with spoons up there asses? Tell me what to do about it? Let's have a plan here.

Henry Ford was a pioneer. HIs money came from the concept of the auto on the assemblyline. The Ford Family is one of the largest philanthropic organizations in Michigan. We have hospitals, schools, all form of cultural and educational foundations that were established and maintained by the Fords.

I don't understand the logic of this.


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2004)

I agree with all Dreamer has said,I think I do anyway.

I have given a lot of thought and observation to the accumulation of monitary wealth.
My conclusions is.......... there are no absolutes.

Often times situations occur in people's lives that prevent them from earning a living or working hard and getting ahead financially.
This can be so dissapointing and frustrating.I sympathise with anyone who this has happened to.

More often than not,people in western society don't get get out of the cycle of being poor due to their own life choices and attitudes not that they would ever admit it.
We are not taught basic finance in schools.
If people were honest many would confess that they often live beyond their means,they don't save and don't think about their future retirement until it's too late.
They don't consider that when they have children they not only have an obligation to love and care for them but to financially provide and assist them into early adulthood.

Many people say they are simply not into money and materialism.That's fine,it's a personal choice.
The thing is these are often the very people who belly ach about greedy rich people and expect the governmnt to take care of them.

Life sure isn't about money,I agree.
At the same time why expect others to take care of you if you are healthy, fit and able to work.
In this country we have unemployment benefits(the dole).I'm glad we have it and yet it has been to the detriment of so many people for so long.
Originally it was intended to be there when a person through no fault of their own and despite their best efforts found themselves out of work.
Soon,for some it became a choice......hmm
"should I work or go on the dole for awhile"?

If you want to get ahead watch the migrants that come from underprivileged countries.
They think we are crazy,so much oppurtunity and yet so many non migrants sit back and whine,winge and blame the government for their lot.

It has never made much difference to my life which government was in power.There have always been advantages and disadvantages.

If I were young again,I'd work hard and invest wisely so I could retire at 40 or atleast 45.That's just me.
As they say life is about balance,it's important to remember to play and smell the roses.

Ok if you're Paris Hilton then what's the point,I wouldn't work lol I'd shut up a lot more too.

oops sorry,getting off the soap box
Shelly.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Yup, Shelly, I think we're talking about more examples as well. The safety net of welfare here has been abused, not by everyone, but by enough people that those truly deserving of help get a smaller slice of the pie.

I am not judging any person that has done this, but it sure as hell doesn't help the system work. People are law suit happy here as well, driving up the cost of health insurance and even keeping young people from going into medicine. OB/GYNs have staggering health insurance premiums. They are also mired in paperwork that costs a ridiculous amount to process.

My mother took on many Medicaid patients when she worked in the court system. She ironically evaluated abused children, and was often called "the baby snatcher" as she would help remove abused babies and children from horrible family situations. Even if she testified to guaranteed potential of death for these children, they would be returned to their homes, only to be reported dead in three months.

My mother didn't have a secretary. She did her own billing, and even had me doing it!!!! We THREW AWAY, HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF MEDICAID FORMS. There was no way she could keep up. She never collected thousands of dollars. She didn't have the time, and paying a secretary for a single woman's practice, she wasn't part of a group, wasn't worth it. She paid malpractice, rent on her office, etc., etc., etc.

*I'll tell you who bugs the Hell out of me PARIS HILTON. And she is one of the most popular celebrities these days. Admired, fawned upon, ACH, ACH, ACH. Now there's where I say, yeah, give me a break. I'd like to kick her in the head, LOL. Yeah, she pisses me off. But she is not an example of all wealthy people born to great wealth.*

OK, like Shelly, off my soapbox. 
But here's something interesting. Even Paris Hilton has made a career for herself. She doesn't need the money, but she actually works for a living as well!


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

Sleeping Beauty, how wrong you are. I can't claim to not come from a fairly well-off family. I went to a competitive, private high school. Yes, most people were by national standards, rich. But, a lot of us also worked our asses off in school. People went to some of the best colleges in the country and they are going to be well off as a result. Success is contagious. When you grow up around rich, successful people, there is an enormous pressure to do the same.

Some people do have everything handed to them. I've known people who jerked-off in school and wouldn't have amounted to crap and then go and work for their daddy's company and do well for themselves. But many of the born-rich people I know are some of the hardest-working people I've ever seen. It's unbelievable. They get out of college and work 80-90 hour weeks. And a lot of it's genetic. Their family didn't come off of the Mayflower like that. They earned it.

There is something called working class arrogance. People with lower paying jobs feel they are better than rich people because they have to work their asses off to keep their head above ground. They feel they've earned something special because they started out with nothing. I've seen it and it's just as bad as snobbery.


----------



## GavinD (Aug 10, 2004)

> There is something called working class arrogance. People with lower paying jobs feel they are better than rich people because they have to work their asses off to keep their head above ground. They feel they've earned something special because they started out with nothing. I've seen it and it's just as bad as snobbery.


This just doesn't make sense. Gimpy, people with lower paid jobs dont feel theyve earned something special because they started out with nothing. People with lower paid jobs who, as you put it, work their asses off feel crap because they started out with nothing and end up with nothing, while the fat cat assholes they work for treat them like dirt and the state offers them no assistance. Try living this life sometime and you'll find out for yourself.

As for those people who work their ass off at elitist private schools (which if i had my way would all be banned for the sake of creating a true meritocracy), no one doubts that these kids work hard. They've got the CHANCE to be able work hard at a school that is well staffed and with good facilities....just cause they make the most of the privilige they have doesnt make it any less of a silver spoon.

I belive that the only civilised countries are those working towards creating a true meritocracy...and the playing field can only only be levelled by state intervention to assist those born in deprived circumstances, be it poverty, disablity, discrimination or whatever. Only then can you see who makes something of themself from nothing....the American Dream as it stands is just a myth all the time people come into this world inequal. The true meritocratic utopia will not be the United States, because the dream of justice for all is not adhered to by those in power.


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

Your utopian dream is noble, Gavin D, but it is just a dream.

I can't claim to be poor and know what it feels like. OK, "better than" was a poor choice of words, I'll admit. But, it is an arrogance more like "resenment." My first jobs in high school, starting out at the bottom, there were people 20 years older than me, working the same job. They hated me from the start. They especially hated me after I came in and was a better employee. I have seen working class arrogance and know it's there. It's kind of like reverse discrimination. The likelihood of a rich, white person being accepted by a group of poor minorities is just as likely as a poor minority being accepted by a group of rich, white people. Argue all you want, but there is alot of truth to that.

I'll agree people born-rich have a head start. And the American Dream is not all it is cracked up to be. But, the secret to success isn't all that secret. If you can work hard enough in school and go to college and keep up the hard work, you will do well for yourself. A lot of school is what you make of it, despite if it is public or private, how good the facilities are or whatever. The problem is when few people around you don't have the ambition to go to college and have lower expectations of themselves, it rubs off on you. When you are not pushed to go to college, and your parents make you work every day after school since you are 15, it makes things harder. But, that doesn't mean there is no chance. Success is contagious and so is failure. I know it takes money to go to college but everybody has hurdles in life. Poorer people have more hurdles to overcome when it comes to making money, but there is always a chance. Some people aren't born with innate smarts. It's harder. But, by your rationale, people with natural high intelligence also have a silver spoon.


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2004)

lol Dreamer,Paris seems to stir up a lot of people.
Is that what you call it "work for a living",hey if that's work,I'll have some lol.
I have a strong hunch Paris just loooves all the attention,I don't think the girl can get enough,she's a bottomless pit.
They'd like to chop off all of hair extensions here,she's been bonking
Mark Philippoussis(tennis player)who ditched an Aussie darling soap star for the racy blonde........such drama lol

Let's face it she's riding on her name like hundreds of brats who were born into famous families.

Did you know Stella McCartney really is a brilliant designer in her own rights and her fame has nothing to do with her family name and the many connections they have.......yeah right.

Most people who climb out of poor families do it because they are afraid of poverty,not because they love money or are greedy or ruthless.
They simply want it better for themselves and their family.


----------



## dakotajo (Aug 10, 2004)

Gavin,

excellent post!


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2004)

Just because somebodies a battler doesn't mean they are down trodden and abused.
Yep I kinda agree about private schools and do wish goverments would put more money into education.
The fact is and it is a proven fact that you can make it financially without a uni degree or a private school education.
A couple of our prime ministers have been educated at public schools. Now,that's a job that pays well.

I know people who come from wealthy families,had the best private school education and haven't got a penny to their name.
I know others who didn't finish high school and have done very well for themselves.

It's mostly a matter of attitude.
With a blast of tenacity the majority of people in a developed country can't improve their financial sitution if they so desire.
I'm not talking about wishing and hoping,I'm talking about getting a positive mind set and doing the hard yards.

Most people don't want it bad enough and that's ok but there is no use blaming the scum for holding you back when you don't get off of your bum and give it all.
Blame is a mugs game,it keeps people trapped.Don't rely on any goverment,any boss,any family or friend to help you get ahead.

Libraries are full of inspirational books that can assist in getting a better mind set.

If people truly don't care about having money,why bother examining people who do?


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Just for the record, as NOTHING is simple....

I suggest two books Gavin.

Believe it or not, one was written by one of my classmates in private school here in Michigan. He was in our private school on scholarship as he lived in a poor area of Detroit. He doesn't like being called an African American, he likes to simply be called an American.

He graduated from my private school, coming from a strong family background in a very poor area of Detroit. He lost both his brother early, and his mother, and his father raised him with great emphasis on education.

Things DO start at the family level. Good things, and bad things. I've had both.

My friend from highschool and his book:

*Out Of Amercia: A Black Man Confronts Africa* by Keith B. Richburg. He is a journalist for The Washington Post

Also, by a CONSERVATIVE black man who grew up in South Central L.A.... you passed through there on your awful train ride from LAX... I agree that was a BAD part of town.... this man, Larry Elder has gotten death threats from black people, and is called an "Oreo" which in this country means "black on the outside, white on the inside" which is truly insulting, simply because he got out of the ghetto (his father was a hotdog vedor!), went to university and became a lawyer and now an author, radio talk host, etc.

*The Ten Things You Can't Say In America* by Larry Elder Take him or leave him.

All I'll add to this. I never said it was easy being a minority in America. Where does racism come from. From eVERYWHERE. Not just whites.

And the public school system here is rife with corruption. If parents would participate in their childrens' education there might be some changes. I was damned lucky to go to Private School. For me, it saved my life. It was my family since Pre-Kindergarten. I feel very fortunate. I wish all school could be like mine was. But for some reason the Public school system in America is falling apart, and it used to work rather well.

Many reasons I won't even try to go into here.

I do recommend these two books, and yes, I am very proud of my classmate and friend who even acted in plays with me. His source of strength -- his family. Bottom line.

Peace,
D


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

PS, LOL Shelly. Agreed, Paris would NOT have a TV show, what now, a clothing line, a fragrance, etc. if it weren't for her name. SHe can't act to save her life.

I can only say though... so, she was born into wealth? SHould we crucify her for that? -- (directed at Gavin/and Sleeping.) Kick her in the head, YES. LOL. But she sure is popular. ACH. :shock:

All the boys seem to think she's peachy. I wouldn't want to LOOK like her and I'm not lying.

Wouldn't mind being wealthy though. WHO WOULDN'T. Yes, it would make life, especially with DP, a helluva lot easier, but I would rather have my DP go away, and contribute to society in some job.


----------



## enngirl5 (Aug 10, 2004)

It's funny Dreamer because you talk about money problems and both of your parents were doctors so I know you get the stereotype as well. "Oh both of her parents were physicians, so she MUST have money." 
As for Paris Hilton, yeah she doesn't have to work but she prolly gets bored. "Work" and what she does are entirely different things. She does what she _wants_ to do. Opening a club, writing a book, acting, perfume line, etc. She does these things for basically hobbies and to be more famous. She doesn't work like the rest of us do. We do things we hate because we need money. I'm sick to death of school and sitting up all night studying and doing projects but I don't have any other choice. I wanted to major in something other than what I'm majoring in but I need to be able to get a job when I get out of school. I know you should major in what your passion is but I see people do this all the time that get out and are like, "Ok, what am I supposed to do now." If I could go open a club and start a clothing line or be an actor, hell yeah, but come on, we don't all have that opportunity. Stella McCartney, she started a clothing line. Wouldn't it be great if we could all just do whatever we wanted for work? I'm jealous now.


----------



## Guest (Nov 7, 2004)

never mind ennegirl,who knows what the future holds,you might get to do what you love one day.

I just reread my post and realised I'm not in any position to be knocking Paris,I spelt blonde incorrectly  how blonde am I :?:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Gimpy said:


> Success is contagious and so is failure


No truer words have been spoken.

I just thought of something, the simplest thing, which is the most ridiculous debate between private and public schools.

At private school I was required to wear a uniform up through 8th grade. High school -- 9th through 12th we had a strict dress code. No casual wear, no jeans. The purpose of the dress code was literally to "even the playing field!" Some kids in my town came from heavy duty old wealth. But many didn't. The incomes of families in my school varied tremendously.

The dress code made it:
1. "an equal playing field"
2. taught us discipline, to have all parts of our uniform together as we did in gym class
3. it was easy to identify us on class trips so we didn't get lost, LOL

But right there, my private school leveled the playing field.

I had friends in the community who went to the Upper Class Public school. The schools (two in my district) were not as good as my private school. There was less respect for authority. The richer kids could wear top of line clothes and the less wealthy kids couldn't afford them. The classes were MUCH larger. I had some classes with only 8 students in them vs. 25 students in a class.... even in an Upper Class neighborhood, the private school surpassed everything that was offered at the public school.

Bureaucracy got in the way. There weren't the same high expectations. And I'll tell you. I was struggling like hell at home and it reflected in school. Poor grades, lack of confidence. My private school MADE A GREATER EFFORT to be supportive of my strengths/talents and to encourage me to do better. (They knew there was "bad stuff" happening at home and made an effort to make school a "safe place" for me.)

Had I gone to Public school, where these days kids would BALK at having to wear a uniform -- which is far less expensive than getting a kid an entire wardrobe every semester -- I know I would have gotten lost in the crowd and fallen through the cracks.

So the simplest thing, a uniform -- required at a Private school, but found not "politically correct" in public schools today -- MADE THE PLAYING FIELD MORE EVEN. Equal expectations, attention, support, demands and REWARD for the expectations was so valuable -- we were prepared for life, for university, or for vocations if we chose them. We were counseled on career choices. Educated on how to find our way.

Had I gone to the public school in my Upper Class neighborhood, I may very well have failed, I may have even killed myself, and I am not lying. Instead, I was given encouragement, challenges, hope, stimulation, attention I didn't get at home. That is the fault of my parents, and no school should babysit a child. Public schools here in the US (not all there are some EXCELLENT ones) have turned into a big playground. And where there are no expectations, kids graduate and can't write a decent sentence, or read a book.

*How can we give children the best start in life if we expect nothing of them? Though who need extra help should get it. I got it in Private school. Extra help is HARDER to get in Public school, due to so many bureuacratic red tape, size, corruption, lack of standardization, etc.*

I was damned lucky. I was lucky that my school expected the most of me. I felt proud when I succeded. And the teachers were expected to perform at a high level, and they didn't haev to spend time babysitting us, they focused all of their time on teaching us how to LEARN.

Gimpy said it..... "Success is contagious, and so is failure." Gimpy you ought to copyright that unless someone famous already said that.

And again this is so difficult to write about vs. discussing in person.

And Shelly, LOL.

Peace,
D


----------



## ret (Aug 10, 2004)

Nuff' said.


----------



## sleepingbeauty (Aug 18, 2004)

you got it wrong. hes not an assh0le. hes a BUSH.. and his right hand is a D!CK.


----------



## GavinD (Aug 10, 2004)

Dreamer, every single school in the UK has a school uniform...evern the state schools. It is a leveller and it's wrong that american public schools dont do the same thing. But that doesnt make a difference as to whether people who can afford to go to private schools are privilged or not while state school kids are diadvantaged....in fact you seem in agreement. And thats what I'm talking about....we need to work towards a society where all our kids have the same start in life...which means more investment in schools by the our governments to raise them to the standard of private schools. I know the rich dont want to pay higher taxes to help their fellow countrymen who are in less fortunate circumstances (yet never resist an oppurtunity to display how 'patriotic' they are), but if you want a succesful, fair and civilised society, thats the only way it can come about. I work in a school where every child has a computer screen in front of them...the teachers have smart boards...the facilities compared to when i left school ten years ag are astonishing. That's cause Labour have poured more money into schools, especially technology and so where these kind of skills would have once been only learnt by the rich, the working class state school kids now have the oppurtunity to be in a similar position when they get out into the big wide world of the workforce. And this is all payed for by the taxpayer...and rightly so.
To an individualistic mind, socialism seems to be the politics of envy....the poor wanting to steal a bit of the rich's pie. People say capitalism gives people an incentive to work hard and be successful and if the government steals half your money in tax for being rich, then what incentive is there to being rich? But that is only from the perspective of the individualistic person who sees success as being personal success or success for their family. I believe in society, I believe that success is working together for one's self and for the good of one's fellow countryman. If my plans, which I'm extremely ambitious about, ever come to fruition I will gladly pay 50% tax back into the next generation. Britain has assisted me, sometimes not enough maybe, but nevertheless, as a working class person I have had a good education because of 'interfering' government, and Ive had the saftey net of free healthcare and welfare while ive been out of action with this goddamn illness.
Now this is another point....for those of us on this site who are ill AND poor, the thought of medical bills we simply cannot afford on top of our suffering is intolerable. For those with wealth in the family, or who have savings, you must see what a disadvantage this is....and that's why I'm so glad that I live in a country with the civilised idea of a health service which is free on the point of delivery. its covered by taxes before anyone says 'you do pay for it', but of course, if you're too ill to work you dont have to worry about paying those taxes!

g.


----------



## Guest (Nov 7, 2004)

I have no idea what you guys are talking about.

You seem very hellbent about money.
As if it was just all about money.

Like, you are ill, money is to blame for making it worse ( or for making it bearable).

Or, you have shitty schools, so you have a shitty life (still about money)

Or, society is to blame because the rich take from the poor ( money again).

How many excuses will you find for feeling miserable?

The bottomless pit is not Paris Hilton, it's you guys with your deathless arguing about how it should be or what you should have or what we should have or should not have.

Who cares?
Here comes the clue:
It is not about money! Whatever it is, it is not about money!
The poor feel miserable, the rich feel miserable.

And you don't have to have money to make money.
That is the American dream, but the American dream only exists for those who can see it.
Also, the American dream is about independence which people who constantly blame others for their misery don't have.

America is about variety.
There is everything in America. There is hell next to heaven, all you have to do is choose. It is up to the individual, and this implies that nobody cares if you are miserable. But if one chooses to be inferior, one definitely is, and this has nothing to do with bad schools, lack of money or other shallow loopholes.

If you were rich, you would feel as miserable as you feel now.
Don't blame others for having a shitty life.


----------



## GavinD (Aug 10, 2004)

Thank you for those insightful comments....we're glad you've enjoyed our debate. Don't tell me it aint about money....the only people to whom money means nothing are the rich. I'd love to be in the position to have your attitude. Nobody's wallowing....I certainly dont blame my financial situation for my illness if that's what you mean. And i would never suggest that the rich cant be miserable. I dont think anyone has....it's not about being negative, it's about seeing positive ways of improving things. In fact the only person being negative is you....so i suggest you just stay out of it, okay? Not all people feel miserable as you'd have us believe. I lived from 1978-2000 without dp and 2000 to the present day with it, but the best year of my life has been this one.


----------



## Guest (Nov 7, 2004)

> but the best year of my life has been this one.


Why?


----------



## GavinD (Aug 10, 2004)

Mainly down to fortuitous events and happy experiences.....like finding the girl of my dreams and going places I never thought I'd go. But also due to my realising that life goes on despite my suffering.


----------



## Guest (Nov 8, 2004)

.............


----------



## sleepingbeauty (Aug 18, 2004)

ive cleaned house for lisa marie presley. shes a miserable woman. i really feel sorry for her even though shes rich as sh!t she lives like a prisoner. she never goes anywhere she just coops herself up and shes surrounded by money grubbing parasites. but if i had to choose between her life and the life i lived a year ago... homeless, panhandling and selling myself on the street, staph infections on my legs to the point where i could barely walk on my own, the mosquitos trying to carry me off in the night, only getting a few hours of sleep everyday fearing that ill be jacked, gang raped and or murdered.

gee.. i wonder which is better. :roll:

and to any of you that would say that im responsible for my situation because it was my choice to run off to the city to escape my family, my two jobs, my brand new crv. sure i can agree with that. why not. why blame it on my illness. even though my choices were a direct result of my illness at the time.

nope thats a cop out. i should blame myself cause if i really wanted to, i could be as successful and affluent as i want to be. the sky is the limit! we all start off from zero and its OUR PERSONAL CHOICES THAT EFFECT THE RESULTS WE SEE IN OUR LIVES TODAY. isnt that what youre trying to tell me?

right on.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Dear *SleepingB,*
Your story makes me sad. Interesting. I made many bad choices in my younger years based on the fact that I wanted to get as far away from my mother as possible. Had I been healthy, that would have been easy, or had I had a *healthy family*, THAT would have made the difference.

*In my experience, I find that yes, money is important, it greases the wheel, but bottom line the foundation for the rest of our lives comes from family.*

Dear *Gavin*
Man this debate is great, but again exhausting as I have million things to explain and can't type that fast.

We certainly have differences of opinion as we have grown up in two different worlds. It's pretty amazing that I think of the Americans and Brits as "the same family" -- the colonists were Brits (and of course later many other foreign immigrants) ... but we have been raised with different ways of seeing the world. I understand that.

To sort of clarify the school thing. The public schools in the US can be excellent. The problems run deeper than that.

Public schools are funded by property taxes on the individuals who live in a particular location. (I'm making this very simplistic, and I may say have some things incorrect so don't quote me.) But for example, I went to Private School, that my father paid for. My parents were separated until I was 18 and lived in different areas. My mother paid income taxes and property taxes which went to fund the PUBLIC schools in our district. My father did the same for HIS district. On top of that my father was paying for a private school.

So say there is an elderly couple with no children, living in a wealthy area. Say they never had kids and lived there their whole lives. They still paid taxes which were funneled into the local Public Schools. So there IS an example of 2 homeownders contributing to a school district through taxation, (AS WELL AS FEDERAL FUNDING), though they never use the Public School system. They have no kids, but part of their income pays for the local Public School.

In higher income neighborhoods there is a stronger tax base, so the quality of the school overall will be better (in theory).

But this is interesting. My private school had high expectations, and one thing was, if you did poorly, you weren't allowed to stay, you got expelled -- for good. The fear and terror of that is, your parents would be furious, as they paid good money for you to go and you didn't take advantage of the opportunity. That happens. I have no judgement. And I'm talking about kids WITHOUT problems/disabilities, etc. Who chose to screw around. They got to go to Public school, for FREE, but they STILL screwed around.

Not every kid wants to go to school. I feel it goes back to the family though. The majority of the kids who went to the public schools in my wealthy neighborhood did go on to be successful. I think the community itself had certain standards, and parents were more involved in their kids' educations. Kids from my private school went to Harvard. Kids from the public school went to Harvard. But bottom line -- here are kids motivated by something.

These days, public schools are in bad shape. They are FREE. *But there is no such thing as getting anything for FREE. Someone is paying for that out of their taxes, somewhere.* Since certain districts don't have a strong tax base, the schools can start heading downhill -- that's not good, it's not fair to the young kids who want/need an education. But more money gets pumped into those school districts and the money is mishandled.

A private school is held more accountable as parents say, "Where is my money going?" "What books is my child reading?" "Why isn't there a music program?" There are stricter rules, parent involvement and expectation.

And despite that, some kids don't want to be scholars. I understand that too. But in a world where manual labor is being replaced by computers, you have to have specific knowledge. The US lags behind many countries in terms of math and science scores. Why? It's complicated.

I'm already tired.

The thing is, where does a child get motivation from? Whom does a child really want to please? His/her parents. I believe strongly in family as the basis for success. Being in a bad neighborhood is NOT GOOD though. I agree. But in the average public school, those children whose PARENTS expect something from them, want them to learn, help them to learn... bottom line LOVE them... they do better in school anyway.

And yes. If you grow up in the ghetto, you have a million strikes against you to start with. You have to worry about drug sales in the hallways. Gangs. Kids who don't CARE about learning. Public schools that existed before the 1960s, worked pretty well here. There is a giant chapter on social/cultural change I can't even get into now.

But the public schools started to fail.

I know we have problems with our health care system now. But when you guys talk about your NHS in the UK, or I hear about healthcare in Canada, I'm shocked. I hear stories here of people not being able to see a psychiatrist for 6 months. Someone with a tumor getting on a list to wait forever to have it removed and biopsied.

The social medical system in Canada and the UK, which I hear the most about is in trouble. OUR system is in trouble. So neither the capitalist system nor the socialist system is working re: healthcare overall. And I do know, that wealthy Brits have private health insurance, and they can get immediate care, better care, etc.

It is so complicated.

I don't know the answers.
*But I know one thing. Certain things like starting out well in life start at the family level. I came (as an only child) from a relatively wealthy family, but I was ill. My parents didn't love me, didn't help me. So the money helped in certain ways, but had they given me coping skills, helped me live with my illness, work around it, etc..... let me get help when i first needed it (and my parents were doctors and turned their heads the other way for their own screwy reasons).... had I had support from my family, I would have done 500 times better than I am now at 46.

Personal responsiblity falls in here somewhere.

I wish I could wave a magic wand, and help everyone here.

I wish that millions of Africans weren't starving, dying of AIDS, etc. How can that be happening in 2004?

Very complicated.
There is no simple, perfect answer.*

Peace Folks,
Sorry for the ramble. I like this section. It DOES take my mind off the DP!!!!
D


----------



## Guest (Nov 9, 2004)

Hmm, I always wonder where Dreamer gets the energy from to write novel sized replies in a row.
I don't even have the energy to read them all, alone write so much.

Well, actually I still wonder why this is a subject people are so keen on writing about.

My message was as clear as it can possibly get.
All that I said was that it is not about money.

When you have problems, there are solutions to those.
And since we suffer from dr or dp here, our problems are emotional.
So, it is not about money.

If we had money problems, we would not suffer emotionally, because money problems are rational and unpersonal problems.

Since you guys suffer emotionally and still moan about money (or school, whatever) at the same time, the conclusion is as follows: 
you are connecting your personal emotional problems to other issues ( money for example), and those other issues have nothing to do with your actual emotional problems.

So, this whole discussion is totally senseless.

And, to state something else:

Dreamer wrote: There is no simple, perfect answer.
Well, Dreamer, let me tell you this:
There is really no simple, perfect answer because there are millions of simple, perfect answers.

There are millions of simple, perfect answers because there is one simple, perfect answer to each individual.

If you try to find one perfect, simple answer for all human beings together, you are inevitably in for a disappointment.
Because finding one simple, perfect answer for all means finding millions of wrong complicated answers for most of them who fall in the category I termed "all".

So, this whole discussion is really totally senseless from the outset.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

> So, this whole discussion is really totally senseless from the outset.


Well, perhaps, but we're having fun. And jeepers, it started out about the election. We know we're arguing about a million issues here.

All of this takes my focus off of my DP. Trying to understand more about politics. And ya' don't have ta' read all of my drivel. I always try to explain, and explain. I yammer on. I'm working on it, it's difficult.

8)

Peace,
D :shock:


----------



## Guest (Nov 9, 2004)

> but we're having fun


that makes sense to me.
In fact, I was replying here for the same reason, I am not even interested in all the stuff.

But when there is an opportunity to stir up some controversy, I just have to interfere.


----------



## JasonFar (Aug 13, 2004)

After "I"'s last naive, obtuse, and moronic post filled to the brim with misinformation about nutrition in a post just a few days ago, I think it would serve us well to discard his posts on this thread. It's clear his posts on this thread inparticular are out of mere frustration and therefore he isn't consciously aware of his ignorant undermining of yours guys interesting and convincing debate. So please, do continue on.


----------



## dakotajo (Aug 10, 2004)

Jasonfart,

"I" should be allowed to post his thoughts as much as anybody wether you agree with them or not. Who are you to call anybodies thoughts moronic? I think its YOUR rude post thats moronic and should be "discarded"!!

Joe


----------



## JasonFar (Aug 13, 2004)

moronic

adj : having a mental age of between eight and twelve years

I wouldn't have used the word, DakotaJoe, had there not been a reason for it. I didn't call I a moron, I simply called his last post moronic, which it certainly was -- it was informationally incorrect, completely, and furthermore showed such a confidence despite its complete erroneous nature, all the more irritating. You can go look at it yourself.

I displays that same skewed confidence here, accusing both Dreamer and Gavin of blaming their emotional turmoils on these other issues, which, clearly, is not the case if one reads these posts here. If one doesn't have the ability to distinguish between emotion and can't respect the importance of philisophical debate, then that's one thing. But to outright acuse the thoughts and ideas as being a mere tool of excusing the former is ridiculous, especially when both Dreamer and Gavin have, again, well-thought out and strictly philisophical ideas here. Again, I's post simply shows disregard for the thoughts and opinions here, and blasphemously (and clearly without reading the thread itself) attacked the m, pretty abrasively I might add.

So no, I think my post stands.


----------



## GavinD (Aug 10, 2004)

Hey kids, dont start fighting!! I can see where you're coming from JasonFar, but I suppose Joe is right...I is entitled to make his point, although like I said before, if this debate bothers him so much why doesnt he just keep out of it? There's other things to do....

I....2 points....1. Not everybody on this site sees DP as an emotional illness. If you read the descriptions on the homepage, or in the DSM-IV, you'll see what DP specifically is is a sensual/perceptual change in consciousness. Although most people with this thing have emotinal problems too (natch), we do not all have emotional problems.

2. To say that money is a 'rational' issue seperate from emotions is very naive. Try breaking your back to keep yourself fed, housed and clothed with no help without getting emotional. You can't.

Dreamer....you make some very interesting points and I'm always glad that you're so generous with the amount of information you put in that you give me some that proves my point nicely! Let me get it straight that I'm certainly NOT against people who've been to private school OR parents who send their kids there...what I want is governments to do a lot more to make things fairer for the less advantaged. And your point about how the public schools there are funded sums up perfectly where a lack of social engineering and redistribution of wealth perpetuates and exacerbates the problems that already exist. It's nonsense that areas that are more affluent should get better funded schools than deprived areas that have a greater need for investment...or at the very least an equal amount. That is why the cards need to be shuffled at a national level and dealt out equally.
As for the differences in our culture, yes there are big differences now, although the similarities remain. A lot of why Britain had to become more socially minded is because we got the crap bombed out of us during world war two and serious measures were needed to get the nation back on it's feet. Another reason is because this country is one of the most densely populated countries on Earth, so it's getting harder and harder for the rich to keep themselves isolated from the rest of us commom plebs. I can understand why a rich american in a big house in the middle of nowhere, far from any urban area might feel a bit resentful when it comes to paying taxes to support the less well off in a world they never see. They are happy to exist in their own world, self sufficent, like the pioneers of old, or if you like, like the anglo saxons.
Some commentators would say that American society is more like Anglo Saxon England than modern Britain is, because in Anglo Saxon times there was less interference by the state (or the King as it was then) and local issues were decided by local people...that's what made England so different from the rest of Europe and so much more free. But that was in an age when everyone was to all intents and purposes, born equal...because the only way of life was working the land and being self sufficient. But we dont live in that age anymore....we now live in the post industrial revolution age age where self sufficiency comes at a much higher price and only those born into money can compete without a little assistance. 
I'm not saying the rich dont have problems....Dreamer, my family is financially poor but rich in love and for that reason I feel you've had a much harder run than me....but my concern is not only people's sense of emotional wellbeing, but people's survival. And there's too many people in your country and to a lesser degree in my country, struggling just to survive.

I'm all for self sufficiency, honest hardwork and enterprise by those able to do it. I myself could never be happy living on handouts forever...been there done that, hated it. I dont believe that's the sort of society we want and I think people should always strive to work as hard as they can to make something of themselves and help society, as the socialist mantra goes 'from each according to his ability to each according to his needs'. But there should always be a safety net for those who fall on hard times or who are born to hard times and hard circumstances and in this age, that safety net has to be controlled on a national level so that rich parts of society dont get richer while poor areas decline. It's not a case of taking away people's freedom to control their own destiny....it's about giving other people, one's fellow countrymen, the chance to have good health, food, a place to live and a decent education. Things some people take for granted while others cannot afford to.

that'll do for now.

God bless America and God save the Queen!

Chairman Gav


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

Gavin, good point about the U.S. and liberalism vs. land per capita. It's no secret here that urban areas are more Democratic, largely for reasons you pointed out and because of higher minority concentrations, which overwhelmingly vote Democratic. That also explains why the Northeastern U.S. is much more liberal. People who live in the midwest/breadbasket states (Nebraska, Kansas) aren't exposed to what people in New Jersey or Massachusetts are. You're not going to find a large minority population in buttf*ck Alabama. Minorities are concentrated in urban areas as are gay populations. People who are gay tend to flock to cities where diversity is concentrated and more tolerated, hence the so-called "Gay Meccas" like San Francisco, New York City, and Miami.

Europe just has so much more history than the U.S., full of conflict and war, church corruption, that you are just over a lot of the issues that face Americans. Seperation of church and state is in our Consitution, so we haven't faced the corruption like many of Europe's past governments, and a lot of people have remained religious. You all have seen it all. I don't mean to say the U.S. is behind Europe, we just face different problems and issues. The socialism/meritocracy you espouse could never be feasible in the U.S. where farmers in Iowa could give a rat's ass about poverty on city streets. The U.S. is "the land of opportunity", so a lot of people (republicans mainly) believe that people are personally responsible for their successes and failures.

Interesting little point, one of my best friends that I grew up with in Tennessee was the biggest Democrat I knew. He then went to college in California and came back a huge Republican because, as he put it, "I realized how stupid being a liberal Democrat was." He said there were just non-stop protests on campus about animal rights, the environment, and other crap. The people were just so extreme, he found them much more revolting than any religious zealot he ever met.

Lost track of what this thread was even about. Later


----------



## GavinD (Aug 10, 2004)

I can totally relate to why your friend says that...there's too many pseudo-left wingers who jump on any old bandwagon they can find, even if it means defending some right-wing dictator against their own government. Very true. But a true socialist shouldn't be swayed by the behaviour of people like that...in my experience those type of people are not true socialists, they're just rich kids who as soon as they leave the shackles of their parental home start playing the right-on che guevara act. Maybe if they'd experienced a bit of hardship they'd know that the common man doesnt give a toss about the causes they bang on about, the common man cares about schools, hospitals, welfare, crime etc. 
Also, I like that comment about the seperation of church and state in the US constitution. That made me laugh! Okay so the US government aint affiliated to any particular religion or denomination, but old George Dumbass Bush certainly likes to wear his christianity on his sleeve....well, it's a few tens of million guaranteed votes in the bag aint it. Tony Blair's a bible basher as well, but at least he has the dignity not to keep shoving it in people's faces. Then again, unlike in the states it wouldn't be such a vote winner in this heathen country.

gav


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

I said separation of church and state is in our constitution. Never said politicians couldn't be religious. We have never had people here forcing others to accept their religion or denomination a la Henry VIII or the Nazis. i think that has a lot to do with why people have remained religious here.

I have more respect for George Bush who has the balls to wear his religion on his sleeve than John Kerry who completely feigned his devotion with his "i was an altar boy growing up" crap. I saw right through that. The guy is a once-a-year Christmas Catholic, and it was a piss-poor attempt to attract Christians.

Mixing religion and politics is dangerous ground in politics, even in the U.S. You are just as likely to turn off voters as you are to attract them. The thing with this election is that nobody really loved John Kerry, the only thing that united Democrats was their hate of Bush and opposition to the war. John Kerry was THE most liberal member of the Senate and I think a lot of people were worried his presidency could compromise traditional Christian values, not Christianity. They felt more comfortable with Bush.

People blow Bush's faith and politics way out of proportion. Opponents threaten that he will appoint conservative Supreme Court judges and have Roe v. Wade overturned. Total scare tactics. He really only talks about it when confronted about it, which the media likes to do all the time. I think Christian values influence his agenda, but religion doesn't pass legislation in Washington. It is very easy to associate values with religion, because what are considered to be traditional values, right vs. wrong, are dictated in the The Bible, the Torah, the Koran, etc. Christian values of right and wrong, the Ten Commandmentsand such, coincide with the general population's concept of right and wrong. So, if you want to say his faith influences his politics, I guess you have an argument.

Bush is not going to come out and say he supports stem-cell research, partial-birth abortions, and gay marriage because he doesn't, but if Congress passes bills in support of any of these (stem-cell research is probably the only one that could be passed any time soon), he is not going to veto it. Most Americans are against partial-birth abortions and gay marriage so he can oppose those all he wants for now. When stem-cell research came up 2 or 3 years ago, it was such a new issue, I think people just took the conservative route to ban it for the time being.

I know people can argue against this. Whatever.


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

note: slaveowners did impose Christianity on their slaves and people obviously try to impose their religion on others, but there has never been a mass government movement that forced people what to think.


----------



## Guest (Nov 10, 2004)

Jason wrote:



> it was informationally incorrect, completely, and furthermore showed such a confidence despite its complete erroneous nature


From my point of view, it is your post that reveals exactly what you were stating above.

If you are not able to discuss things in an adult manner and are furthermore not even able to accept other opinions, it is your posts that should be discarded.

Go educate yourself and come back when you have gained some insights that are true.

Besides, I was not affronting and posting childish accusations over nothing.

If you check out all my posts on this board you will find out that the only person I ever insulted here was George W. Bush. 
I would never be so dowdy to directly insult people here just because they have other attitudes.

In my opinion you really revealed where you are coming from and what person you are.


----------



## JasonFar (Aug 13, 2004)

I, first of all, let me reiterate: I said what you said was moronic, obstuse, and naive. Full of misinformation. You stated, dare I quote, that fruits have everything the body needs -- protein, vitamins, minerals. You stated this, along with a fat "you're wrong in almost every respect", after I posted simple, *completely factual* information. I had no opinions of the sort, and was merely sharing the wealth of knowledge. I just posted #'s, #'s that are universally accepted among any and every Human being regarding nutrition numbers. Nothing disputable, nor did I make it that way. At any rate, my point was somehow you completely discredited something that is *WRITTEN INTO STONE* with such brevity and seeming self-assurance, pointing out I was wrong with (_what_?) information besides "you're just wrong.". When I call the advice moronic, I very much mean that in these regards: if someone were to follow the advice and eat nothing but fruits, they would most likely succumb to severe vitamin, mineral, fat, and protein deficiencies, and death would ultimately follow. When one displays such wrongful advice with such confidence, it is a danger indeed, and at the very least needs to be contradicted with correct information.

My beef with your post here was simple as well: your post was spiteful and angry, dissmissive and negative. Anyone just has to read it to see that.

But geeez, I'm done with this thread. Sorry, I just have a penchant for playing "Mr. Cop" for that exact thing; I've seen too many people in my Life possess the trait, and I can't stand it. A higher-than thou sense of rightness in the midst of wrongness.

BUT PLEASE, CONTINUE WITH THE DEBATE, FOR IT WAS BETTER WITHOUT I OR I'S POSTS. (get it?) :shock:


----------



## Guest (Nov 10, 2004)

> if someone were to follow the advice and eat nothing but fruits, they would most likely succumb to severe vitamin, mineral, fat, and protein deficiencies, and death would ultimately follow.


You are totally wrong indeed.
There are a lot of people who do that and are healthier than ever before.

I didn't read your reply (if there was any) in the main forum so I didn't even know your statements actually, but it is not my fault that you don't know anything about nutrition facts.


----------



## Guest (Nov 10, 2004)

> your post was spiteful and angry, dissmissive and negative.


That was not meant as an invitation to be insulting, Jason.

Had I known how incompetent you really are I would have never read a single post from you. Well, now I know and I am forewarned.

Don't bother to reply to this post, I won't read it.


----------

