View Full Version : Non-Football: Anybody watch the debates last night?

Pages : 1 [2]

10-05-2000, 03:18 PM
Duck - Answer me this one question. If you feel that the entire investigation about Clinton was wrong, explain to me why it was that they would always say they didn't have any documents on something and then 6 months later they would show up? It happened numerous times and prolonged the investigation even longer and longer and longer. If they would have just handed the docs over everything would have been done a long time before the whole intern thing. So if you want to ***** about the length of time and the amount of money then talk to the people who were stalling and holding everything up.

Duck Dog
10-05-2000, 03:24 PM
UD, there you go again... http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/wink.gif

You're obviously justifying for Al Gore.

You believe in Socialism and Gore is the person that gets you closest to it. I don't want to mis-represent you, but I believe I remember you saying something along these lines.

I have no problem with you believing in a different form of government than what we have ~ if you'll be honest about it.

The problem is that a whole bunch of people get swept up in your arguments that never stop to think about the ultimate ramifications or the underlying philosophy.

Just be honest about what your beliefs and ultimate goals are ~ you won't find near as much agreement, but at least you'll have your integrety.

standing for freedom...

[This message has been edited by Luzap (edited 10-05-2000).]

10-05-2000, 03:51 PM

This is from the "See I told you so file."

NBC news reporter Norah O'Donnell 14:30 PDT on MSNBC.

"Remember (in the debate) on Tuesday Bush said they (should) ask Russia to get Milosevic out of Yugoslavia, and gore said they shouldn't ask the Russian president. Well, today Clinton, Albright, Sandy Berger were all asking the Russian president."
(Berger and Albright are cabinet memebers, I'm not sure according to you they should even speak on this matter.)

Host Chris Matthews, "So (Bush) scores a hit on that one."

Report filed from the sight of the veep debate, Danville, KY.

This is the same stuff I gave you last night. Just think, you were one of the first to know.

So---Once again in simple terms, Bush was right, algore was wrong.

10-05-2000, 03:56 PM
Let the foreign policy thing go Duck. Dems are clueless. Check Billy Richardson, Albright, et al.

Next thing you know you'll be telling me Dems are more adept on Military issues.

10-05-2000, 04:14 PM
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet"

Direct quote from the man himself. Cant really run from that.

10-05-2000, 05:45 PM
Michigan...I guess you got me on the Putin thing. I didn't know that he had agreed to put the kabosh on the Yugo runoff election before the debate. Apparently, Gore didn't know either. You sure this didn't happen till after the debate?

Morph...I don't believe that hiding papers had anything to do with the vehemency of the anti-Clinton investigation. They were going to keep fishing around with unlimited budget till they could find something to pin on the president.

Luz...You kinda lost me on your last post. I guess you want me to confess whatever you believe that I am trying to hide. Perhaps somehow my apparent anti-Repub stance is a smokescreen for things dark and sinister? Maybe you don't quite have me pegged yet.


10-05-2000, 05:46 PM
(cont. from last post)

Here's a bit that I'll bet will surprise you - Although I've voted in every election, I've never voted for Clinton. Carter is the only Demo that I've ever voted for in my life. Last two elections I voted Independant. This time, I'm voting for Gore, but really its a vote against the Repubs. I'm appalled at the way they have misused the power garnered from the House and Senate majorities. I didn't like them holding the budget hostage, or the anti-Clinton vendetta, the phoney impeachment, or the declaration that they would not consider any important legislation until Clinton was gone.

Those guys were hired by us to do a job, and they refused to do it. They wasted time that the country could have used much more wisely. Yeah, their majority gave them the power to stall, but that ain't the way I run MY company. Mature leaders would accept that they lost the White House, and then get on with the country's business. Instead, they misused the power of their majority to thwart business getting done. I don't want to reward such behavior, and would like to see them lose the White House, Senate, and the House.

10-05-2000, 05:51 PM
UD - Did you read the article on the front page of chiefsplanet about draft day 2000? You might find it interesting.

10-05-2000, 05:54 PM
Duck - Yet you feel it is OK to vote for those who wasted tax payers money doing the same thing to Newt, over 200+ counts brought up against him, and the only thing wrong was a paper he signed about one of the counts, not an actuall thing brought up against him. Kind of funny.

10-05-2000, 06:02 PM
Morph....did I say the Newt thing was OK? Partisan antics have gone on for decades, and both sides are guilty. Hence my votes for Independents. But this gang of Repubs went too far for too long. I'll do my part to banish that behavior from American politics by voting against them this time.

Hey! My vote cancels out Luz's! I even got my mother-in-law to switch, she's always voted Repub.

10-05-2000, 06:16 PM
UD - Just odd that you punish one and blame republicans for it, even though Clinton's own appointee had to say OK to all of the investigations that were started, and not the republicans in congress. Yet it was the Demo's that did it to Newt and you think that the rep's are the one to attack. I guess I just don't follow the logic.

10-05-2000, 08:05 PM

I am not certain on the time line. I got a heads up last night per e-mail when I saw your post and wanted to give you the skinny. The key here is...Bush was right, algore was wrong.

And you were wrong to try and pin it as a gaffe on Bush just because algore stated that it was. When algore makes a statement, assume it is false, and then dig to see if it is true. <P>

10-05-2000, 08:37 PM
I only watched the last 1/2 an hour of the VP debate, but I think I learned more then I did during the Presidential one. Both guys were much better speakers and more interesting then Gore or Bush.

10-05-2000, 09:11 PM
I agree Morph, both men are much more eloquent than their supervisors.

I do feel that Joe attempted to relate everything to moral issues (I wonder how the dems who live and die by "my personal life = no judgement from you" will feel about this), but he was concise and non threatening to the other side. THe only disappointment I had in him was his dodge when asked how he can condemn the movie industry one day and sit in on a fundraiser with the Hollywood elite the next day.

Cheney was Cheney. He reminds me of William Jennings Bryan with his oratories.... beautifully done in a moments notice. He is a bastion of strength. I am sorry he is as old as he is, because frankly, win or lose, this would be the premier stepping stone to get him out in the public eye and get him in the oval office as the boss in 4 more years.

Puttin' on my game face!

10-05-2000, 09:13 PM
Major props to Bernard Shaw. He had this baby under control...

10-05-2000, 09:20 PM
Wolfman - I really liked Cheney, I thought he did a good job, seemed very intelligent and eloquent. I agree that he might even make a very good run at the oval office. Of course he might not be exciting enough for some people.

10-05-2000, 09:22 PM
Morph - You are right, unfortunately. And as I stated, I think his health and age would prevent him from doing so.

Wolf - You are correct. Except it was a little odd to hear Shaw use the words "boo boo"

10-05-2000, 09:26 PM
LOL. But it was better than hearing "Uhh, gentlemen, uhh, go ahead." http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif

What format is this next debate going to be in? No more podiums!

10-05-2000, 09:28 PM
Wolf - True LOL
I would like a moderator who demands a straight answer to the question presented or have the speaker forfeit his time on the next question to his opponent.

That rule alone would bring a great many unanswered questions to light from both presidential candidates.

Duck Dog
10-05-2000, 09:32 PM
I too enjoyed the debate and I think Chaney is a man of intelligence and character.

Duck, please correct me if I'm wrong; I sincerely don't want to mis-characterize you... but don't I remember you defending Socialism on another bb at another time?

do you believe socialism is good?...

10-05-2000, 09:54 PM
Hi Luz....I was one of the folks that did not see socialism as the work of Satan, which may cause a right-winger to interpret my position as "support" (relatively). But, no, I am a capitalist.

Hey - I think both parties are running the wrong guys. Both Cheney and Lieberman outclass the presidential candidates in my book. Now THATS they way mature and capable men debate. Is it too late to switch vice for presidential candidates? Here's how I rate them on a scale from 1 to 10:

9 Lieberman
6 Cheney
5 Gore
2 Bush

Lick Bush in 2000 !!!

10-05-2000, 10:36 PM
Reported on Drudge... Make up your own minds...
Wed Oct 05 2000 18:01:33 ET
Filed By Matt Drudge


A '20/20' investigation by ABC NEWS' Brian Ross found an unprecedented number of Democratic contributors being invited to what were once small, intimate affairs. A computer analysis of the four state dinners hosted by President and Mrs. Clinton this year revealed a total of 390 Democratic donors on the guest lists, representing more than $10 million in contributions. Of the non-governmental guests invited, nearly half -- 47 percent -- were contributors to the Democratic Party.

Ross also found that the list of state dinner guests has included David Chang of New Jersey, a businessman who attended two state dinners and has since pleaded guilty to felony charges of illegal campaign contributions.

State dinners are organized by the Office of the First Lady. Brian Ross speaks with Letitia Baldrige, who was Jackie Kennedy's social secretary. The guest list for state dinners, she told Ross, 'was supposed to represent people of quality, people of excellence, people who'd contributed a lot to this country or to the world.'

The White House denies the Clinton guest list is tied to political contributions and earlier this week Hillary Clinton told '20/20,'

'I think contributing to the Democratic Party is a contribution to the country in my view.'

The report will air on '20/20,' Friday October 6 (10:00-11:00 p.m., ET), on ABC. <P>

Larry Reed
10-05-2000, 10:46 PM
Can someone who may know more on the topic explain how Bush/Cheney are using this military needs to be fixed platform when Gore is proposing $100 billion in new military spending vs Bush's proposed $45 billion? How do you use the military argument when you are proposing less to spend to fix the military than the opponent? Am I missing something here?

I do remember the military on capitol hill earlier last month saying that they need more than either one is proposing...

10-05-2000, 10:50 PM
Hey Michigan...Concerning asking "the Russia" to step in....Bush was right, Gore was wrong, and I were wrong to try and pin it as a gaffe on Bush just because Gore stated that it was.

Scuze me while I go wash some egg off my face.... <BR>

10-05-2000, 10:53 PM
Hey Moose - Maybe its because, as Joe said, the Dems want to continue upgrading equipment and personnel, and the Repubs don't want to.

10-05-2000, 11:15 PM
It's nice to upgrade hardware, but the attrition rate in the military is the biggest single issue. We can't keep our pilots, our trained soldiers, engineers, technicians, etc because of the pay and work conditions.

Upgrading hardware will not solve that problem. That's what Bush is talking about. Funny thing is, UD, you know that. Another interesting twist...<BR>

Larry Reed
10-05-2000, 11:34 PM
“Our troops are paying the price,” he said. “They’re spending more and more time working on aging equipment at the expense of honing important war-fighting skills, and they know it.”

General Hugh Shelton — chairman of the joint chiefs of staff<BR>

10-05-2000, 11:41 PM

# 273, you are excused. I truly enjoy our banter.

Now....who predicted in #253 that soon the dems would try to claim to be more adept on military issues.

And who is doing it based on statements put forth by a democratic canidate?

Live and learn. http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif

10-06-2000, 12:14 AM
Hey Michigan...here's an interesting synchronicity...The Russian move away from Milosovic happened the day after the debate. So Gore was right about the Russian position when he showed up for the debate, and right when he said, "Well, they don't." But the situation started to change on Wednesday. This from CNN:

Unlike Western countries, which back Kostunica's claim to have won outright in the first round, Russia has maintained that only Yugoslav courts can call into question the official results.

Clinton administration officials hoped Thursday's events would persuade the Russians to move away from the Milosevic regime.

Putin's government has advocated the election dispute be resolved with the runoff Milosevic called for after election officials said he finished a close second.

But after Wednesday's attempt by the Yugoslav Constitution court to nullify "parts" of the election results, one senior administration official said, the Russians "realized that everything has changed." <P>

10-06-2000, 12:38 AM

Nice to see CNN catch up. Check my post 181 for basically the same info. Posted 24 hours ago.

Maybe CNN should use some of the sources I do and they might have been on the cutting edge of this one.

Day late, dollar short. Kind of like their canidate algore.

Larry Reed
10-06-2000, 12:40 AM
So, nobody can tell me how Bush plans in improving the military better with less than half the money?

Here are my thoughts on the debate:

I guess Cheney and Bush think we're a bunch of idiots who can't understand specifics. "You have to be a CPA to understand what he said." Uhh, no. I understood perfectly what he said. Why don't YOU get specific instead of retorting with such brilliant stuff like "fuzzy nembers" and "CPA"? Don't talk down to me.

He totally avoided the equal pay for women question.

He again quoted the partisan tax report in response to the Gore budget.

He didn't respond to why military spending started dropping under the original Bush camp.

He did not pledge that everyone would be covered under their plan.

Cheney skipped over his very partisan ultra right voting record when discussing how they would bring bipartisanship to the senate.

He stated that we probably need to use military power to overthrow Hussein, even though he already had his chance.

He said it was OK to drill in other states but hedges when it comes to his own back yard.

In response to Liebermann's barb about how he was better off after getting the $30 milion or whatever it was retirement plan, he said "The government didn't help me" of course not stating that his company recieved a couple of billion in government contracts.

Larry Reed
10-06-2000, 12:41 AM
“Women, in fact, as a stay-at-home mom get no tax advantage under the Gore tax plan.” Yet Gore’s economic plan does include a $500 tax credit for parents — mothers or fathers —who choose not to work, in order to care for young children.

"There’s been no progress on reading scores in the last eight years.”
According to the National Center for Education Statistics which administers the NAEP, a 1998 assessment yielded the following results: “Average reading scores increased for students in grades 4, 8 and 12. At the fourth and twelfth grades, the national average score was higher in 1998 than in 1994. At eighth grade, the national average score was higher in 1998 than in 1994 and in 1992.”

10-06-2000, 12:46 AM

If you understand it---explain it.

Larry Reed
10-06-2000, 12:56 AM
What was tough about figuring out that they are targeted cuts? College tuition tax deductible. Tax credit for child care. Reduce estate tax. Tax deductions and credits to help families. Eliminate marriage penalties for working families. Match money we decide to put into a retirement fund. All the specifics are right there on the website. It isn't that hard to look at and understand. Do Bush and Cheney feel that education is so bad people are incapable of understanding taxes and doing math? They ought to either attack the plan with specifics or start talking their own numbers instead of just dismissing it as "fuzzy math."

10-06-2000, 06:50 AM
Moose: maybe you're talking about something that was said in the debates, because your posts dont make any sense...

He totally avoided the equal pay for women question - Im not sure what was said, but I can tell you that there should also be equal pay for men as well. Solution? That's where the parties differ, One solves the 'problem' with 'government'.

As an aside, I have 4 men who work for me, they all do the same job, but none of them are paid equally? Fair? No. Life is not fair. It's called a negotiation and if my employee will take less, well by golly, I will give him less.

Dems dont need to pander to the women vote. the angry soccer moms are already in their camp.

He again quoted the partisan tax report in response to the Gore budget - source of the partisan tax report? source for Gore's budget, Im sure this would be good for a laugh.

He didn't respond to why military spending started dropping under the original Bush camp. - This makes no sense, are you saying that Cheney was asked to respond to a question about a previous administration? How does that apply to this admin?<P>

10-06-2000, 06:53 AM

He did not pledge that everyone would be covered under their plan. - Probably a good thing. It would be impossible to cover 'everyone'. Saying a government plan would 'do so' is a LIE. Remember, government as developed by Dem's do not service those who actually PAY the money into the system (ie the Rich).

Cheney skipped over his very partisan ultra right voting record when discussing how they would bring bipartisanship to the senate. - please. a few examples would be nice.

he said "The government didn't help me" of course not stating that his company recieved a couple of billion in government contracts- Ever heard of Occidental Petroleum? Look up Armand Hammer and Occidental Petroleum. Good read.<P>

Kurt Surber
10-06-2000, 07:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR>Except it was a little odd to hear Shaw use the words "boo boo<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That was simply in reply to Cheney's use of the words poo poo.

10-06-2000, 07:32 AM
After watching the VP debate, I'm saddened I can't vote for McCain or Cheney. IMO, the lesser evil is Gore over Bush. Gore's not a completely inept imbecile and can probably handle foreign policy chrises. Bush on the otherhand seems unable to make a point, decision, etc. without having someone else hold his hand. It's sad I have to pick between these two bozos.

Duck Dog
10-06-2000, 07:59 AM
KC Jones,

Come off it! I've read your posts and I have zero doubt that you were planning on voting for Gore before the debate.

I want to respond to:

Post# 280 posted 10-06-2000 01:40 AM
"So, nobody can tell me how Bush plans in improving the military better with less than half the money?"

Yes Moose, we can give you the answer, but you don't want to hear it! When others start pointing out the reality of the situation, your side typically starts yelling 'personal attack', etc.

The truth is that there is zero chance that Gore will even attempt to do everything he's promised. Guess what one of the things he won't do will be?

Have you forgotten the 'middle class' tax cut that Gore promised in '92? They never even attempted to pass one ~ never intended to, yet you now believe him when it comes to military spending, Rx drug coverage, Medicare, and SS? I don't think YOU believe him either, but for whatever reason, you want him in office.

BTW, the Bush plan DOES give tax cuts worth up to $10,000 of tax credits for parents of college children, it DOES give $500 worth of tax credits to stay at home moms, it DOES reward people who conserve energy; as a matter of fact, every single person that Gore would give a tax break to would also receive one under Bush ~ AS WELL AS 50 MILLION OTHER PEOPLE!

you're either for everybody, or you're only behind the select few...<P>

10-06-2000, 08:04 AM
Luz - Please correct me if I'm mistaken. But is there not currently a $500 tax credit per child, and Bush plans to bump it up to $1000 per child? I wasn't planning on having kids yet, but since I am anyway I should find out.

Tom A Hawk
10-06-2000, 08:18 AM
"Dems dont need to pander to the women vote. the angry soccer moms are already in their camp."

"Life is not fair. It's called a negotiation and if my employee will take less, well by golly, I will give him less."

You are DEFINITELY a Republican. Are you saying that all woman are housewives whose only goal in life is their kids, aka soccer moms? (not necessarily a bad thing, but not all woman fit into this role!) I definitely do NOT want to work with you. Sounds like you only compensate fairly those who whine, ***** , moan, and threaten to quit. The quiet man who does his job well gets diddly. Just great.<P>

Tom A Hawk
10-06-2000, 08:22 AM
To all those who subscribe to the theory of social darwinism, do me a favor and go look this word up at www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com)


I can't quite kick the mental image of some of you as arrogant French nobleman of the Renaissance, kicking a lowly peasant and mocking them for their laziness and ineptitude, justifying their "lowliness" and your "greatness" because of your wealth and position.


Don't think....feel.

Tom A Hawk
10-06-2000, 08:24 AM
Gotta love "trickle down" economics. Too bad what trickles down is always yellow.

Don't think....feel.

10-06-2000, 08:38 AM
KCatMU - Just because it is out there today, isn't your "Don't think...feel" the same thing that happened in Germany when the Nazi' blamed the Jews for everything that was wrong, and instead of using logic they just felt that it could be true?

Tom A Hawk
10-06-2000, 08:47 AM

My sig, "Don't think...feel" pertains to a certain philosophy in life that I try to adhere to. My "feel" is based on my upbringing and morals (Christian based-->forgiveness and compassion). If I try using the logic as taught to me in the public education/college system, I can justify anything. I have realized that I can not understand the complexities of everything, so therefore logic doesn't always work so well. Therefore, I go with my gut and everything seems to work out.

I would hope that the gut feelings of the german soldiers was that killing innocents was wrong, but they were brainwashed, conditioned, and forced to commit acts they otherwise wouldn't. The German people were not evil. The system that was controlling them was. Do you believe that logic and the scientific method is the best philosophy in life? Next time you question the morality of this country's younger generations, remember that logic is now what dictates our actions, not feelings based on morality and religion.

Nice to see someone invoke Godwin's law (did i get that name correct?)

Don't think....feel.

Duck Dog
10-06-2000, 08:47 AM

We're currently spending tons of money and emotion trying to get pregnant, so my thinking hasn't gotten that far yet.

That fact that neither one of us knows for sure is an excellent argument for accross the board tax relief, rather than Social Engineering.

people make fun of what they don't understand. 'trickle down' economics is a factual discription of our economy under any administration and only those that have never studied it (or want to lie about it) think otherwise...

10-06-2000, 08:51 AM

Are you saying that all woman are housewives whose only goal in life is their kids, aka soccer moms? - nope. If you wish to believe that, that's your problem--did I just say that? http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

I definitely do NOT want to work with you. Sounds like you only compensate fairly those who whine, ***** , moan, and threaten to quit. The quiet man who does his job well gets diddly. Just great. - I cant help but laugh at this nonsense. You must not actually be familiar with the business world too much. Stick with your university grants, you'll be ok protected from that mean old world.

If I had a job and I had a pay SCALE or range, Im going to try as an employer to pay the least I can. That may sound 'mean' or 'bad' to you, but you see, the function of a business is not to provide jobs, it is to make a profit. I'm sorry that's a harsh reality.

As to your second little quip on that response, at the end of every year, each employee goes through and evaluation. This includes making goals for the next year and reviewing previous years goals and expecations. Based upon the employees PERFORMANCE--I know it's hard to grasp from outside the real world--they are given raises and bonuses.

Again, life is not fair, and I cannot even begin to respond to the 'compensate fairly' notion because it's nonsense.

Duck Dog
10-06-2000, 08:53 AM

What does your 'gut feeling' tell you about the millions of loggers that were put out of work in the North West, or all of the small 'family run for generations' boat manufacturors that were put out of business by the luxury tax, or the mothers that would love to stay home with their kids but have to work because 50% of the husbands income goes to taxes, or the young adults in our country that are smart enough to realize that they need to pay SS taxes AND save for their own retirement because they can't trust the government OR depend on a 2% return, or... oh forget it.

sometimes i don't know why i bother...

[This message has been edited by Luzap (edited 10-06-2000).]

Tom A Hawk
10-06-2000, 08:56 AM
on trickle down...Yep, and its too bad imho.

You want to see a victim of our current capitalist system? Teachers and education. I guess the government should stop supporting that as well?
Another sad result of capitalism: The gross overpayment and glorification of athletes.

hehe..Yet I still am a sports fan...oh well. Maybe someday teachers will be paid more, and athletes less...prolly not in my lifetime.

Here's an idea, lets take a percentage of the 1%'ers money and pay school teachers with it. Maybe then our top minds will go into teaching as opposed to making money for corporations. Nah...we'll just hope that the rich will give and give and give. Hrmm..nope...teachers still aren't making jack squat, and public education continues to suffer.

Don't think....feel.

Tom A Hawk
10-06-2000, 09:00 AM

My feelings tell me all of the above are horrible, and if I could do anything to help that is within my means I should. My feelings tell me that if I was a rich man, I should try and help these people out. Granted, you can't help everyone, but you can pick and choose your battles.

What does your logic tell you?

Don't think....feel.

Duck Dog
10-06-2000, 09:01 AM

Then for the Grace of God, would you please explain to me why you are going to vote for the status quo instead of Education Reform?

moving into the squiggle zone...<BR>

10-06-2000, 09:01 AM
KCatMU: You want to improve eduation? Here's a couple of suggestions:

1. Eliminate the NEA
2. Create competition for students between 'private' and 'public' schools--Vouchers. Market competition is the best way to improve a product or service. (See the Ma Bell breakup)
3. Put the money wasted on beaureaucrats and administrators in the classroom. (See Wash DC schools).

10-06-2000, 09:03 AM
KCatMU - I still disagree with the philosphy as a whole, mine would be more of a "Think and Feel", without both you only have half a picture. Sure the Germans are not all evil, but they were in the middle of a depression, Hitler blamed the Jews and without thinking many peopled followed.

Luz - Good luck on the child, my brother-in-law is going through the same thing, pretty tough. I also hate directed tax cuts, escpecially the College one. They should just call it a College Subsidy and not really a tax cut, very lame way to give money back to people, because I might see some of that in another 19 years.

10-06-2000, 09:03 AM
Here's the Gallup poll results for the last coupla weeks. Statistical dead heat, but there is a trend for Gore to score higher in every poll. That pesky Nader seems to be siphoning off the far left vote from the Dems. Right wing wacko Buchannon is not hurting Bush much. Go, America! Dump Bush!

Sept. Sept. Sept. Sept. Sept. Sept.

4-6 5-7 6-8 7-9 8-10 9-11

Gore 47% 46% 45% 47% 49% 48%

Bush 44% 43% 46% 44 42 42

Nader 3 3 2 2 3 4

Buchanan * 1 1 1 1 1


Tom A Hawk
10-06-2000, 09:06 AM

Sorry to disappoint you, but I have never been a part of the "ivory tower", although I did graduate college. Someday corporations will realize that by paying their employees a fair amount based on their performance as well as the industry standard, rather than paying them what they can "get away with", their employees will be happier and stick around longer, which means a higher quality product/service and more profit. The ITS industry, which I am a part of, particularly needs to figure this out. ITS workers are definitely not "plug n play", and I'm hoping corporations/government industries are starting to realize this. The average rate in which ITS workers change jobs in the computer industry is 2 years. Think about that next time your network goes down.

Don't think....feel.

Duck Dog
10-06-2000, 09:06 AM

Re: #299:
My logic tells me to stop voting for the selfish politicians that cause this suffering with their socialistic legislation.

You ask what you can do as if you mean it ~ then start studying the issues. Socailism, social engineering, central planning, and national give away programs have never once worked in the history of our planet.

Instead of just glancing at the ideas and deciding which one's have the best surface appearance (make you feel good), study the issues and support real change and reform.

compassionate conservatism is not throwing your hands in the air and saying 'what can i do'?...

10-06-2000, 09:10 AM
Oh, and those are the "likely voter" numbers. Repubs have better voting records than Dems. Low turnout at the voting booth could mean a Bush win (yuck!). If the turnout is good, Repubs bite again (yea!).

Lick Bush in 2000 !!!

Tom A Hawk
10-06-2000, 09:12 AM
The single best way to improve education is to invest in the teachers. If you pay the teachers an above average salary, then the top minds of your generation will become teachers, thus greatly improving the quality of education.

Private schooling, imho, is not the solution because it tends to screw over poor people and put them even further into a hole than they already are. Private schooling is a great idea for the wealthy and upper middle, but horrid for everyone else.

We need to invest in the teachers in the public education system. Period.

btw, I vote for a candidate based on multiple issues, and not just one. Don't get me started on gun control, cigarrettes, etc... :P

Don't think....feel.

[This message has been edited by KCatMU (edited 10-06-2000).]

10-06-2000, 09:16 AM
Luz.....#305....But if the system is so bad, how come we're doing so good? This country is doing better than any time in the memories of living Americans. Things are going great for me! How about you? Optimism has never been higher. If this stuff has never worked in the history of the world before, sure looks like its working now!

Lick Bush in 2000 !!!

10-06-2000, 09:16 AM
KCatMU: you SLAY me...LMAO.

Guess what industry Im in? IT...our network does not go down and I have very low turnover, thank you very much.

You see, you like to put into a negative connotation by stating 'what the employer can get away with' and further stating that they should be paid a 'fair' wage.

Who determines fair? You? Govt? The employee? As an employer, I think I will ask my employee what he thinks is fair. It is in the employees best interest to 'start high' while it is in the employers best interest to 'start low'. We meet in the middle. Some prospective candidates dont start as high as others, and it's fine with me.

The employer/employee determine a fair wage. If you as an employee feel 'cheated', you can test the market to see if you can get a 'more fair' deal elsewhere or improve your value by honing your skills.

NOT everyone wants to work for the same wage.

10-06-2000, 09:17 AM
The $500 works out to $9.00 a week, that will really help out the ole homestead.

His big $10,000 tuition gift, will equal no more than $2,800 and there are no details as to how you qualify for the full 28%.

On the military as I understand the Bush plan, they will spend the most money on personel,(where the money should be spent).
They will then skip a generation in hardware.
This is very advisable as the equipment on the boards now would be obsolete before it reaches the field.<BR>

10-06-2000, 09:18 AM
KCatMU - Gun Control? Oh, so only letting the criminals have gun is a good idea and shooting poor helpless little bambi's for food instead of running them over with your car is just pure evil at it's finest?

Now just being ornery pain in the *** and should probably be ignored.

10-06-2000, 09:19 AM
KCatMU: the single best way to improve anything from education to widgets is to ELIMINATE Monopolies.

What is public eduation? NEA?--they are anti capitalist institutions, that might be why they suck.

Private schools are the best schools, if you 'invest' in the parents by giving them the means to send their child to the school of 'their' choice, things would improve drastically. Schools losing students would either improve or disappear.

Tom A Hawk
10-06-2000, 09:22 AM

I don't have a problem with socialism. Some programs need to be set in place, for the greater good.

As far as past socialist governments, the Roman Republic wasn't all that bad. In the days of the republic, the rich aristocracy, lets call them the 1%'ers, took office and had to use their money to fund public works. They got the glory, but the people got the social benefits. Unfortunately, as usually happens with power, some particularly powerful Romans decided they wanted even more power, thus the Empire and the decline.

Comparatively, I like our republic system here in the states, but I just wish that those 1%'ers would chip in more and help out the poor and lower middle. I wish they would do it volunteerily, but I'm afraid that's a pipe dream. That's why they need to be more heavily taxed. Now, I'm not saying just giving the money to the poor. I'm saying, invest in the education and social settings of the poor in order to empower future generations to improve their lifestyles.

Don't think....feel.

10-06-2000, 09:24 AM
As to the equal pay issue.
When you take into consideration time spent on the job and education. White collar women make as much or more than men.
Men as a rule spend their whole working years working. They spend more time on the job and invest more into their education.
Women on the other hand as a rule spend less time on the job (due to family issues) and have lower education levels.
Now this is changing, we do have women who have forgone either having a family or sacrifice the family for the job.
It may not be fair but if you want to exceed in the white collar world you have to sacrifice the family.

10-06-2000, 09:26 AM
Cat, you could cut the top 1%'rs taxes in half right now and they would still be giving more.

Maybe if they did have their taxes cut they would be more willing to contribute to worth while projects.

Tom A Hawk
10-06-2000, 09:26 AM

What do poor people do about educating their kids? I guess they just get the underpaid government teachers who graduated at the bottom of their class. I guess we shouldn't care. We need someone to serve us fries at McDonalds...right?

Don't think....feel.

10-06-2000, 09:29 AM
KCatMU - We should continue to tax the rich even more because they have not given to others? I have a feeling that they feel that is what their high taxes are being used for now, so why would they want to give more? Yet of course we all know they do, just not as much as they could because the gov't takes so much.

10-06-2000, 09:29 AM

You're right I was leaning toward Gore before the debate. That doesn't mean the debate didn't make a difference for me.

1) I like vouchers for education.
2) I don't think we should have opened the oil reserves.
3) I don't think paying for prescription drugs for the elderly is a good idea.
4) I like the idea of a smaller and cheaper government.
5) I hate Gore's concept of a 'living' constitution open to reinterpretation.

However, I'm also pro choice, an environmentalist, and as equally concerned about a big governement as I am about corporate interests running unregulated. Lump me in wherever you like, but my first choice during the primaries was McCain. Mostly because of the man he is and his history of standing for his values against his own party. Even though I disagree with some of his stances on certain issues, he's twice the man Bush or Gore ever will be. That said, I walked away from the presidential debate thinking there is no way Bush could hold his own among world leaders or in times of crises. He has two more debates to change my mind, but ultimately I choose presidents based on more than just legislative opinions.

Tom A Hawk
10-06-2000, 09:31 AM

I've worked for companies that give "industry standard" adjustments if they find you are being underpaid. They do it voluntarily, to promote loyalty and productivity. Other companies, who don't quite "get it", don't. They just continually lose employees in an ITS merry-go-round.

As far as your network, you are blessed. From my experience, the ITS industry tends to be a bit understaffed and immature as yet. Here's hoping that in 10 years we see a bit more stablity.

Don't think....feel.

10-06-2000, 09:34 AM
According to the 2000 numbers reported by candidates to the Federal Election Commission, the disbursments from Feb thru Sept show Bush spent over $62 million and Gore spent under $25 million. Less than half of Bush's spending. So what about this Bush quote from the debate?

"And so I -- look, I'm going to -- what you need to know about me is I'm going to uphold the law. I'm going to have an attorney general that enforces the law; that if the time for -- the time for campaign funding reform is after the election, this man has outspent me,..."

Is this what he means by "fuzzy math?" Somehow $62M < $25M? Sure, his english is fuzzy, but maybe his math as well.<BR>

10-06-2000, 09:34 AM
KCatMU: You're great at sarcasm...hilarious.

You just described the current system. I thought you wanted to improve the system?

Let's try this:
Let's evaluate teachers performance on an annual basis--oops, nope, cant do that the NEA is against that, some of their members might be fired.

Let's take the money that the parents are paying in the form of state taxes and give that back in the form of a voucher to go to the school of their choice--any school--oops, nope, cant to do that NEA is against it, some of their memebers might lose their jobs.

Let's make the administrators/prinicpals of the public schools accountable to the schoolboard and allow the schoolboard to fire teachers/principals/administrators that have demonstrated repeated incompetence.--oops, wait, cant do that, the NEA is against it, some of their members might lose their jobs.

Who's the single biggest contributor to the DNC? Yup, the NEA.

Bottom line: If someone wants an education, the NEA or public schools or the govt is not going to stop them. They may have to work harder to overcome the obstacles, but it can be accomplished.

Caring is one thing and I do care, but applying the same, tired, failed practices to an abject failure is a waste of time.

Tom A Hawk
10-06-2000, 09:46 AM

I believe that all I have stated is that teachers need to be paid more in a public education system. You pay more, you get higher quality. You keep it governmentally controlled so that the poor and unfortunate do not get the shaft.

Vouchers.....hrmm..I'm thinking every parent would want to send their kid to the best suburbanite schools available. The best schools can only hold so many students. How do you decide who gets into these schools and who doesn't? Also, how does a poor family with one functional automobile get their kids to a suburbanite school, especially with gas prices the way they are? How exactly is transportation to these schools going to work under the voucher system?

Why do I support helping the poor so much? Because in helping them, I help society as a whole. Less crime, less hate, less ignorance in the world. Education is the key.
Don't think....feel.

[This message has been edited by KCatMU (edited 10-06-2000).]

10-06-2000, 09:49 AM
LMAO... Can't believe KCatMU used ancient Rome as a successful model for socialism... Absolutely didn't happen that way. And it wasn't socialism by any means. It was called pandering to the mob...

You need to study your history pal. Rome fell from within: corruption, bribery, high taxation, elimination of the middle class, separate currencies for the rich and everyone else, politicians for played class warfare...

I could give you a detailed history lesson but somehow I figure you wouldn't think about it... http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/wink.gif

Baby Lee
10-06-2000, 09:52 AM

'I believe that all I have stated is that teachers need to be paid more in a public education system. You pay more, you get higher quality. You keep it governmentally controlled so that the poor and unfortunate do not get the shaftelieve that all I have stated is that teachers need to be paid more in a public education system. You pay more, you get higher quality. You keep it governmentally controlled so that the poor and unfortunate do not get the shaft'

But if you don't have accountabilty and a change in tenure, you are going to have over-paid bad teachers still.


Tom A Hawk
10-06-2000, 09:54 AM

What you described was Rome during the Empire, after the Republic. The Republic was actually a very successful form of early government. Rome's success is a testament to that. You call it pandering to the mob, I call it the rich giving back to the poor. Either way, it resulted in the same thing.

I know this because I'm auditing a Roman Empire class this semester, just for the hell of it.

Don't think....feel.

Tom A Hawk
10-06-2000, 09:56 AM

It's not going to change overnight. You increase pay, then gradually the quality of teachers will improve with time.

Don't think....feel.

10-06-2000, 10:00 AM
I am so glad you are auditing a class on Ancient Rome... Who's your teacher? And what is his POV?

Sorry, guess my double major in history doesn't count... (Majors: Ancient History, US History)


10-06-2000, 10:01 AM
You pay more, you get higher quality. You keep it governmentally controlled so that the poor and unfortunate do not get the shaft. - sorry, throwing money at the problem does not fix a systemic problem.

The goverment spent $500 on toilet seats in the Army. Are they better quality?

WashDC spends approx $8000 per year per student to educate them to the nations worst education.

Let's try eliminating the roadblocks and fostering competition.

State of MO was ordered to spend 1 Billion dollars on KC schools, did that improve them? nope. nice swimming pools and you could take fencing lessons, but education still sucked.

How do you decide who gets into these schools and who doesn't? Also, how does a poor family with one functional automobile get their kids to a suburbanite school, especially with gas prices the way they are? How exactly is transportation to these schools going to work under the voucher system? - I dont. I leave that to the able bodied parents who brought that child into the world. They will make the decisions that's best for their child. Hell, they might even work harder for their child that I would.

Feel free to help the poor all you want, I do know that the US and State govt's will not turn down any extra money you send into them to help pay the teachers more.<P>

Tom A Hawk
10-06-2000, 10:02 AM
Test: How many consecutive years could a roman senator serve as a Quaestor under the old republic?

Don't think....feel.

[This message has been edited by KCatMU (edited 10-06-2000).]

10-06-2000, 10:04 AM
KCatMU, I will have to pull my notes out of storage to answer that question. Give me a half-hour and I'll have your answer.

What does that have to do with your sweeping statements that Rome was socialist? It simply isn't true... That's a teacher's POV... Not a fact...

Graduate, MU, 1978<BR>

Tom A Hawk
10-06-2000, 10:07 AM
The problem now is that the gov is throwing money at equipment and facilities. Sure, they need improved, but not nearly as much as the quality of the teachers. You pay more, you get better quality employees, because there is more competition and more to choose from. Surely you can't disagree with that?

I can't even begin to explain how I feel that improving the quality of our teachers will improve our society as a whole.

Don't think....feel.

10-06-2000, 10:09 AM
QUAESTORS. --the quaestors (quaestores), or public treasurers, were in Cicero's time twenty in number. Two (called quaestores urbani) had charge of the treasury and archives at Rome, while the others were assigned to the several military commanders and provincial governors, to serve as quartermasters and paymasters. The quaestors entered upon office on Dec. 5, when they drew lots to determine their respective places of service. [They were originally appointed by the consuls, but in Cicero's time were elected by the comitia tributa. The practical management of the treasury was with the clerks (scribae quaestorii), as in our modern civil service. These formed a permanent and powerful corporation.]

-- more to come --

[This message has been edited by TheFly (edited 10-06-2000).]

10-06-2000, 10:09 AM
You increase pay, then gradually the quality of teachers will improve with time. - LOL. If the pay increase is not tied to performance, remember we cant do that cause NEA wont allow it, there's no reason to improve ones self.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that teachers even the 'good' ones dont teach for the money. If it were merely a function of 'more' money, then we could take the U.S. Dept of Educations budget for one year and give it to teachers and we wouldnt have a problem. Right?

10-06-2000, 10:11 AM
-- continued --

The list of Senators, regularly numbering 300, was in early times made up by the Censors at their discretion from among those who had held high magistracies. But after the reforms of Sulla (B.C. 80) every person who had held the quaestorship--the lowest grade of the regular magistracy--was lawfully entitled to a seat in the Senate. This aristocracy was therefore an official or bureaucratic class. Their number fluctuated, running up to five or six hundred.

-- still going through notes to find the term --<BR>

10-06-2000, 10:13 AM
Sorry but I couldn't let this statement pass with out a reply....

"You pay more, you get better quality employees, because there is more competition and more to choose from. Surely you can't disagree with that?"

ROFLMAO, IF it wasn't so sad http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/frown.gif

In an Ideal world yes. But sorry to tell you we are not. What will happen is some will pay more, and attract the BEST, while the poorer districts will not be able to, thus widening the gulf.

Let the goverment administer it so there is equality you say??? LOL sorry but that will never happen. We all know how impartial the goverment is.

Tom A Hawk
10-06-2000, 10:17 AM
Sure, the Roman government did not supply health care for every citizen, but it did provide a certain amount of bread for the citizens of the city, all public works were built by the government, entertainment was provided via parades, coliseums, etc. Roman soldiers were provided land and salary. This socialism was partly based on the political system, or "pandering to the mob" as you put it, but it was there. Oh...and religion was a function of the state. Even new colonies of Rome were funded by the government. Water was provided via aqueducts by the government. Roads were provided by the government. Bathhouses, sanitation, etc.....
Most of the basic necessities of life were provided by the Roman government.

Don't think....feel.

Tom A Hawk
10-06-2000, 10:19 AM

Teachers in the less than desirable neighborhoods would be paid more money and offered more incentives.

You could probably base it on the crime rate of the district, or something similar. Higher the crime rate, higher the pay.
Don't think....feel.

[This message has been edited by KCatMU (edited 10-06-2000).]

10-06-2000, 10:20 AM
-- hope this answers your question --

No one could be chosen praetor until he had been quaestor, or consul until he had been praetor. These three magistracies, then, formed a career of office--the so-called cursus honorum--which it was the aim of every ambitious Roman to complete as soon as possible. To be elected quaestor a man had to be at least 30 years old [in the time of the Gracchi the age was 27], and the lowest legal ages for the praetorship and the consulship were 40 and 43 respectively. The consulship could in no case be held until three years after the praetorship. Consuls and praetors were curule magistrates, but this was not the case with the quaestor. The office of curule aedile was often held between the quaestorship and the praetorship, but it was not a necessary grade in the cursus honorum. The minimum age for this office was the twenty-seventh year.

-- still trying to find limit of term --<BR>

10-06-2000, 10:21 AM
-- more Rome for you --

The aediles (from aedes, a temple) were four magistrates, who had the general superintendence of teh police of the city, criminal jurisdiction with the power of imposing fines, the care of the games, public buildings, etc. They did not form a board (collegium), but were of two grades, two being necessarily plebeians, while the other two, the curule aediles, who ranked with the higher magistrates, might be patricians. The aedileship was not a necessary step in a political career, but it was eagerly sought, between the quaestorship and the praetorship, by ambitious men, for the reason that the superintendence of the public games gave great opportunity for gaining popular favor. A certain sum was appropriated from the public treasury for these games; but an aedile who wished to rise to higher positions, and not to be thought mean, took care to add a good sum from his own pocket.

-- sooner or later I'll find that term --<BR>

10-06-2000, 10:21 AM
KCatMU: Im almost willing to concede that point....

Let's try:
If the students can demonstrate a predetermined skill set, the teachers get a bonus. ---opps, that would mean testing the students. NEA prohibits pay based upon testing.


10-06-2000, 10:24 AM
Consuls, praetors and quaestors were 1 year term of offices.

The cursus honorum was a series of political offices in Republican Rome. It defined strict age limits and rules for progressing to higher office. A candidate had to wait 10 years before obtaining a second consecutive term, or 5 years for a term in a higher office. The requirement of the Cursus Honorum was that the candidate must have held all lower offices (e.g. Quaestor, Aedile, Praetor in order to hold the office of Consul). All offices were immune from prosecution until after the expiration of the term of office.

-- does that answer your question? --<BR>

10-06-2000, 10:24 AM
You just don't get it.

Ok so we pay more for the Less desirable schools huh? Ok then we pay the others less? Humm that sounds fair....NOT!

Ok so then do you pay more for teachers in areas like the rural south, and areas that are more remote and have a hard time attracting teachers? but wait these areas are not in "bad" nieghborhoods.

And WHO decides what schools deserve more money? the goverment right? Gee sounds Alot like what we have now. so how do you get rid of the special interists and the Senators preverances for there home states?<P>

Tom A Hawk
10-06-2000, 10:25 AM
hehe..you pass.

Senators could only hold an office (quaestorship, aedileship, etc..) for one year at a time. After serving for a year, they were stripped of power and became a normal citizen. They were not able to take another office until after being a citizen for a year.

This ensured accountability of one's actions while in power. The empire lost this basic concept, thus its fall.

In the old republic, building one's glory and position meant giving to the public. Certainly an interesting method of redistribution of wealth..aye?

Don't think....feel.

Tom A Hawk
10-06-2000, 10:28 AM
"Ok so we pay more for the Less desirable schools huh? Ok then we pay the others less? Humm that sounds fair....NOT!"

Ummm..sure..sounds fair to me. The teachers in the less desirable schools will be working a hell of a lot harder just to get their kids to show up for class than the Johnson County schoolteacher ever will.

Basing pay on crime rate was just one possible idea. Ok...base it on the average income of the district?

Don't think....feel.

10-06-2000, 10:31 AM
KCatMU, you must have professors who are heavy believers in socialism. I cannot otherwise explain why they present ancient Rome as a socialist model. It simply isn't true.

My professors ran the gamut of belief systems. One was a declared Anarchist, one a Socialist, one a Marxist, and one a Libertarian. Depending on their POV's you would get history presented as it fit their belief systems.

The truth is always in-between. You must not take what they say and believe it. Think and question it, dammit. Don't believe me. Check things out for yourself!!<BR>

10-06-2000, 10:34 AM
2 things.

#1 as someone allready pointed out, Not many teachers base there teaching decisions on PAY. they base it on there safety, And I truely think your pissig in the wind if you think you will attract the best and Brightest to bad areas.

#2 So then IF we pay more for bad areas, what happens to the Other districts? do we raise there local taxes to keep up?

And lastley WHO will decide were this money goes?

Tom A Hawk
10-06-2000, 10:37 AM

You are wrong in your assumption that the professor indicated to us that Rome was a socialist government. I came up with that on my own. In the old republic, everyone had a vote, and most of the basic necessities of life were distributed through the government. Isn't that socialism? This is at least true for the city of Rome imho.

The US is also partly socialist. (not that you hadn't already realized that)

I wouldn't say Rome was totally socialist, but a majority of it was imho.

Don't think....feel.

[This message has been edited by KCatMU (edited 10-06-2000).]

10-06-2000, 10:39 AM
1. Teachers are underpaid
2. I do believe in the idea of citizen-legislators where they meet in Congress six months a year and then must live and work in their district the other six months
3. Civic duty has been woefully forgotten as a noble and desirable concept
4. None of the three statements has anything to do with socialism!

Tom A Hawk
10-06-2000, 10:45 AM

If you increase the overall pay, you will gain an influx of higher quality. The overall quality will go up. Thus, there won't be many "bad" teachers (they won't get hired or won't receive tenure), thus every district will have its fair share of quality.

Don't think....feel.

Tom A Hawk
10-06-2000, 10:49 AM
Been fun guys/gals. I gotta roll to lunch, then actually do some work so I can ***** about how underpaid I am :P

Don't think....feel.

10-06-2000, 10:53 AM
If you increase pay, all things being equal, you will not gain an 'influx' of higher quality, you will have highly paid bad teachers retaining their positions for longer periods because they will want to stay where the pay is 'high'.

What determines 'fair share' or 'quality' in this simplistic model? Is fair share = money allocation? How does one measure quality of a teacher? Please remember you cannot test the students and hold the teacher accountable, that's against the union rules. Good ol' NEA...fighting for the education of our children.

10-06-2000, 11:04 AM
KCatMU - There are always teachers looking for jobs, and there are plenty of teachers who should not be teaching in the positions that the others want. So maybe you can explain to me why some of these bad teachers made tenure since they were bad teachers before that point and possible good teachers can't find a job.

Duck Dog
10-06-2000, 11:23 AM
I just finished catching up on all of the new posts since earlier this morning.

It is obvious to me that we have a basic 'dis-connect' here.

"The teachers in the less desirable schools will be working a hell of a lot harder just to get their kids to show up for class than the Johnson County schoolteacher ever will."

Why would they work harder to do this? Their pay is not connected to performance. As a matter of fact, the more gang bangers attending class, the more dangerous it would be. You have just given these high payed yeachers incentive to repell the already dissaffected.

this isn't that tough...
(and don't get me started on socialism)...<BR>

10-06-2000, 11:28 AM
Morph: I will try to answer based upon his model...

The infusion of money for those teachers who need jobs will attract only 'good' teachers because the bad teachers will know that this money is only for the 'good'/'quality' teachers. By the same token, the 'bad' teachers who have achieved tenure will summarily refuse this increase in pay because they will know this money is not for them rather for the good teachers. Lastly, this 'good' money which will only attract 'good' teachers will be allocated based up on the crime rates, so if the schools needed more money, rather than hold a bake sale, the 'good' teachers would hold 'stolen goods sale' where the kids would instead of baking goods and selling them, steal things and then sell them back to the victims.

Larry Reed
10-06-2000, 12:33 PM

So in other words, you have no answer except "Don't believe Gore"? And I thought the Democrats were the ones using scare tactics as Bush put it.

Larry Reed
10-06-2000, 12:33 PM
About equal pay question, typical way to say something without giving an answer to how to fix the problem. That is what I call avoiding.

As far as the partisan tax report, go to ABCnews.com or some other news website and see their "checklist" reports on the debate, they list the sources used and in this case what Cheney was quoting was a statement put out by some of the republican staffers on the committee, not the bipartisan committee itself.

As far as his voting record, come on. It is well documented. Go look it up, it is a matter of public record. There was a whole list of them put out right after he got selected by Bush, which is why Bush had to go defend the guy's record and he went on Larry King and tried to explain some things. Voting against head start (which Regan supported), voting for the Regan tax reduction act and voiced no objection to the measure's hundreds of billions of dollars in tax subsidies for oil companies, utilities, railroads and other corporate interests. Policies he supported helped triple the budget deficit between 80-86.

Larry Reed
10-06-2000, 12:34 PM
He opposed federal funding for abortions -- with no exceptions in the case of rape or incest.

He voted against the Equal Rights Amendment for women.

He voted against creating the Department of Education.

He was one of just 21 members of Congress, in December of 1985, to vote against a ban on armor piercing bullets -- called cop killer bullets.

He was one of only four members of the House voting against a ban on plastic guns that could slip through airport security machines undetected.

He voted to scrap a proposed national seven-day waiting period on handgun purchases.

Cheney opposed refunding the Clean Water Act. He voted to postpone sanctions slapped on air polluters that failed to meet pollution standards.

He voted against legislation to require oil, chemical and other industries from making public records of emissions known to cause cancer, birth defects and other chronic diseases.

He opposed sanctions on South Africa, saying it was "irresponsible."

At the same time, was one of only a few congressmen who did not vote to support Nelson Mandella being released.

"Cheney's voting record was slightly more conservative than mine."
-Newt Gingrich

Duck Dog
10-06-2000, 12:53 PM

Let me ask you an interesting question. Do you know why he did each one of those things? I'm not asking if you agree, I'm asking if you understand the reasoning?

I'm willing to bet that you don't.

I have found that most conservative positions can only be understood in light of both positions being clear.

Conversely, I have found that most liberal viewpoints only make sense in a vacuum.

btw, i agree with most of cheney's record...

Larry Reed
10-06-2000, 01:00 PM
Yes, because he is a right wing conservative. I do not question the consistency of what he did. It is very consistent with his political views. But there is nothing there to show that he can or will reach across the aile and bring the two sides together and end the partisanship if he was so far to the right during his own tenure there.

10-06-2000, 01:04 PM
About equal pay question, typical way to say something without giving an answer to how to fix the problem. That is what I call avoiding. - wonderful demonstration of avoiding. I understood that part, now can you answer my question?

As far as the partisan tax report, go to ABCnews.com or some other news website and see their "checklist" reports on the debate, they list the sources used and in this case what Cheney was quoting was a statement put out by some of the republican staffers on the committee, not the bipartisan committee itself - Oh I see, so it's ok for Gore to make up a story about drug medication costs for his mother in law based on a 'partisan' report, but Cheney is not allowed to 'spin'? If it's everywhere, Im sure you can post a link for me, eh?

10-06-2000, 01:04 PM
As far as his voting record, come on. It is well documented. Go look it up, it is a matter of public record. There was a whole list of them put out right after he got selected by Bush, which is why Bush had to go defend the guy's record and he went on Larry King and tried to explain some things. - LOL...Larry King? Yeah, he's a real crusader for clearing a conservatives votin record.
Voting against head start (which Regan supported), - I would love to see some context on this. My guess is he voted down a 28% increase in funding and voted for a mere 15% increase in funding

voting for the Regan tax reduction act and voiced no objection to the measure's hundreds of billions of dollars in tax subsidies for oil companies, utilities, railroads and other corporate interests. - Please list these 'subsidies', lets not forget that Republicans did not control congress during that time so spending/corporate subsidies was the fault of the righteous dems.

Policies he supported helped triple the budget deficit between 80-86. - Im confused, Cheney is a republican right? Spending polices enacted into law were the brainchild of Foley, Rostenkowski (convicted felon), and Gephardt.

Duck Dog
10-06-2000, 01:07 PM

Now you're really reaching.

Bush has the best record of building concensus of any of them ~ yet you ignore it?

where is this conversation going?...

10-06-2000, 01:12 PM
Luz: where? nowhere. When you see the incessant useage of 'right wing' in the responses, I know we're basically getting the pre-programmed responses.

KCatMU...see public education is working well. The NEA and Democrats working together to indoctrinate...err...educate our children.

10-06-2000, 01:12 PM
What I really want to see is which of these candidates can do the punt, pass and kick competition...

Line 'em up and whoever does the best should be President...

- - - - - - - - - - - - -- -
Gore wins the kicking competition. He'll kick you when you're up. He'll kick you when you're down. He'll kick all the time.

Bush wins the passing competition. This guy doesn't need Jimmy Raye to feed him plays. He'll throw the damn ball every down!

Cheney won't win any of the competitions but he makes for an excellent pass blocker...

Lieberman wins the punting competition because he has punted away his previous stands on issues in favor of those from his running mate...


[This message has been edited by TheFly (edited 10-06-2000).]

10-06-2000, 01:13 PM
Moose: Tell me where you got #357 from?

Larry Reed
10-06-2000, 02:31 PM
You know, you guys are on the net. If you want to see his record, or anyone's voting record, it is all public.

Of course you hold the viewpoint that you do. You can't critisize me for my position just because it doesn't agree with your position. I'm sure you just sit there and belittle the Democratic view just as you accuse me of "not understanding" the republican view. If we take that approach, you have just as much credibility as me, and we'd each be right in our own minds. That is not the question. The question is based on his voting record, where is the proof that Cheney is going to bring about bipartisanism? Remember, these guys are the ones who are going to be working in the senate. And I think the record would show that Lieberman is more likely to be able to work with both sides than Cheney. As far as the presidential candidates, what proof is there that Gore can't? Many of the major Clinton/Gore policies that went through like Nafta, Welfare reform, etc. were bipartisan efforts. Thou doth assume too much about your republican prince. And thanks for changing the subject and again ignoring the original topic.

How does he not qualify as "right wing?"

10-06-2000, 02:32 PM
Fiction and Fact... as reported by Reuters, AP, ABC, NBC, FOX etc. etc.
- - - - - - --- -----
FICTION: During the recent debate, Al Gore claimed a school in Florida was
so overcrowded, a student was forced to stand all day. (What parent in this
day and time would even allow that to happen?)
FACT: The school had recently received over $100,000 worth of lab
equipment. Those were the boxes in the classroom. The principal went on a
Tampa radio station to say that Mr. Gore's statement was, at very the least
"a misrepresentation."

FICTION: Al Gore recently claimed that his mother-in-law pays more than
$100.00 for the arthritis medicine Lodine; and he claims that his dog takes
the same medicine for $37.00, claiming "This is wrong!"
FACT: Gore's aides were quick to apologize for Gore's lie, saying the
information was from a Democratic study. Washington newspapers also
reported that Al Gore wasn't even sure his mother-in-law was taking any
medication and wasn't even sure she had arthritis. And, he doesn't know
anything about his dog's "arthritis".<P>

10-06-2000, 02:32 PM

FICTION: Al Gore said his father, a senator, was a champion of civil rights
during the 1960's.
FACT: Gore's father voted against the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
was a racist who was fond of using the "N" word.

FICTION: Al Gore said that his sister was the very first person to join the
Peace Corps.
FACT: By the time Gore's sister joined the Peace Corps, there were already
over 100 members.

FICTION: The same sister died of lung cancer years later and Gore vowed to
never accept tobacco money as campaign contributions.
FACT: Just four years later, while campaigning for office, Gore spoke to
the tobacco industry and said he was one of them because "I've planted it,
raised it, cut it, and dried it." He raised over $100,000 in "reported"

FICTION: While running for office, Gore's campaign literature claimed he was
a "Brilliant Student".
FACT: Washington newspapers said he barely passed Harvard and consistently
earned D's and C's.<P>

10-06-2000, 02:34 PM
And more...
FICTION: Gore claims an extensive knowledge of law as a result of his
extensive study at law school.
FACT: Al Gore dropped out of law school.

FICTION: Gore claimed that his knowledge of God and spirituality came to
complete fruition while "finishing" divinity school.
FACT: Al Gore dropped out of divinity school.

FICTION: Al Gore claimed responsibility for inventing the Internet in the
FACT : Shocked scientists were quick to speak out, explaining that the
Internet had been in widespread use by government and educational
institutions since the early 1970's.

FICTION: Al Gore claimed the book "Love Story" was based on his life and
FACT: Author Erich Segal called a press conference to deny his claim.
(Couldn't he at least lie about a love story where his sweetheart doesn't

FICTION : Gore claimed that as a reporter for a Nashville newspaper, his
stories led to the arrests of numerous corrupt criminals.
FACT: He later apologized for his claim and actually said it was untrue
(Also known as lying).

FICTION: Gore claims to increase diversity in the staff that follows him
daily, especially among blacks.
FACT: Black members of the Secret Service are suing because they claim they
are not being promoted to positions guarding the Vice-President.<P>

10-06-2000, 02:35 PM
And still more...
FICTION: Al Gore said he was the first to discover the Love Canal nuclear
FACT: The incident was already discovered, being investigated, and covered
widely in the press for many months before Gore was aware of it.

FICTION: Gore said just recently that if elected president, he would put
harsh sanctions on the sleazy producers of Hollywood's extreme sex and
FACT: Just six days later, Gore attended a fundraiser by Hollywood
producers and radical gay activists where he told them that he would only
pretend to "nudge them" if elected. He raised over $4 million.

FICTION: Al Gore said he built his Tennessee home with his bare hands.
FACT : Totally false!<P>

10-06-2000, 02:36 PM
And ....
FICTION: Al Gore says parents should not have a choice between private and
public schools because public schools are far better.
TRUTH : Al Gore attended private school and he has sent his children to
private schools.

FICTION: Al Gore remembers his mother lulling him to sleep as a baby by
singing the popular ditty, "Wear The Union Label".
FACT: The popular ditty was created by the unions when Gore was 27 years

FICTION: Al Gore claimed to co-sponsor the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform
FACT: The Act was not sponsored until he had been out of office for over a

10-06-2000, 02:36 PM

FICTION: Al Gore claims to be instrumental in keeping gas prices low.
FACT: Gore has voted on numerous occasions to raise the tax on gasoline. In
his book "Earth In The Balance" Gore claims that the nation's Number One
enemy is the internal combustion engine. (That's the motor in your vehicle
that gets you to work and takes your kids to school)

FICTION: Gore pretends to champion the rights of poor women to be tested
regularly for breast cancer with the most modern technology.
FACT: While giving a speech on the subject in September, Gore didn't know
what a mammogram was.

FICTION: AL Gore promised Florida's senior citizens that they would finally
have low-cost drugs with no interference from government.
FACT: Gore's plan calls for the creation of a huge federal agency that would
tell you which doctor you are allowed to see in order to get the "special
FACT: Al Gore told NBC's Lisa Meyers that he had never told a lie. When
Meyers pressed harder, "You've never told a lie?!" Gore said, "Not that I

Larry Reed
10-06-2000, 02:44 PM
OK then, in the same regard as you come at me, let's see the exact sources for all this stuff...

10-06-2000, 03:02 PM
1) I didn't come at you for exact sources. I took you at your word. Maybe someone else did.
2) From FOX, Reuters and CNN especially. I will try to get all the URLs together but it will take time... Otherwise you can look it up yourself... That is, if you really want to...<BR>

Larry Reed
10-06-2000, 03:14 PM
Don't bother. Gathering URL's take time, and I figure we're probably both at work right now and have better things to do than gather URL's. I just happened to have my Cheney things handy in mind or on my desktop, and I'm sure you had that long list handy somewhere for arguments like this. If anyone wishes, I'll just link you to all the anti Bush sites when I get home and we can argue back and forth. But I don't think that accomplishes much, because again in your mind you've got your views and your guy and in my mind I've got my position, and we'd just keep going back and forth. I don't doubt for a moment that Gore has stretched the truth. It is the implying that Bush and Cheney are so untouchable that I find weak. This entire thing started with me pointing out some inaccuracies from my view in the Cheney argument in the debate. I did not think he was as forthcoming as some of you feel. But hey, we've all got our opinions.

10-06-2000, 03:28 PM

very nice argument..

sounds verrrrry "i did not have sexual relations with that woman"esqu doesn't it.

Duck Dog
10-06-2000, 04:04 PM

You're being respectful in your arguments (I think http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/biggrin.gif), and I want to return that respect, but you keep mis-characterizing what I'm saying.

Riddle me this.

Why is it that when the obvious dishonesty or the left is [repearedly] pointed out, all you guys can do is say, "your guy is no better!" You don't try and defend your guy because you know he's dishonest.

I'm telling you right here an now, that Bush is an honorable man (so is Cheney).

If you're reduced to saying, "your guy is crooked TOO!", perhaps you should re-evaluate your position.

just not understanding some people...

10-06-2000, 04:15 PM
Most Important Question:
- Can we get this thread to 1000 posts?! http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/wink.gif

2nd Most Important Question:
- When I show all the URLs and news sources that reveal Al's made-up-stories, lies, and exaggerations, would that change anyone's vote? (Somehow I get the idea it won't.)

3rd Most Important Question:
- If we teach our children that lying is bad, then how come we excuse it in our politicians 'cause they are "right" on the issues?

We reap what we sow...<P>

Larry Reed
10-06-2000, 04:42 PM
I (not surprisingly) see it the other way. For example, when I raise a few questions on Cheney and what he said in the debate for example, I get the response "well look at Gore." I still haven't recieved a response specifically in regards to the original defense question. And I find it lame to label Bush and Cheney as "honorable" but ridicule the other ticket. I can point out many partisan sites that will argue Bush's hipocrocies, inaccuracies and misrepresentations. You can do the same for Gore. We can both point to news sites that put in question certain claims made by both candidates. In regards to defending the guy, will it really do any good? Like Fly said, is anyone going to change their mind? No, probably not. I mean look, we're sitting here today and you guys could throw 10 pages worth of stuff about Clinton here, and yet there is a ABC news poll that shows that if it was Clinton Vs Bush today Clintn would win. So in my opinion, what it comes down to is what policies you support. What to you might be a huge gaffe by Gore to me is an exaggeration of the truth which ignores the fact that the point behind the example is a good point (to me). IE if Gore comes out and says "Hypothetically, let's say so and so school has this class size, it is possible that so and so would happen." Same point, different delivery. I'm going to concentrate on the point. You're going to concentrate on how it was delivered. And then we have disagreements. But hey, we're all still friends. http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif

Fly, in regards to 1000 posts, there are still 2 more debates! http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/wink.gif

10-06-2000, 05:14 PM
Insider Trading and George W. Bush :

The Securities and Exchange Commission defines insider trading as "Corporate officers, directors, and employees who traded the corporation's securities after learning of significant, confidential corporate developments". Bush sold $848,560 worth of Harken Energy stock on June 22, 1990, just one week before the company posted spectacular losses and the stock plunged sharply. When the losses were reported to the public on August 20, 1990, the stock plummeted.
According to documents from a two year investigation by the SEC, Bush served on the board of directors of Harken Energy Corporation and his position on a special Harken committee gave him detailed knowledge of the company's deteriorating financial condition. The SEC received word of Bush's trade ten months late. <BR>

10-06-2000, 05:17 PM
Bush violates public policy and turns his back on the environment:

Texas law prohibits a sitting governor from taking campaign contributions during the legislative session in order to prevent corruption. But that is precisely what Bush did. He accepted $300,000 in two months from Texas chemical and utility interests who brought legislation to Bush to be passed.

How could he accept this money? Because they gave to his presidential exploration committee instead. Bush then pressed for "voluntary compliance" to pollution laws on their behalf. Companies that discharge 984,000 tons per year of EPA-regulated "criteria" air pollutants, which impose human and environmental costs, and smog-forming nitrogen oxides (NOx) equivalent to the emissions spewed by 18.4 million cars (twice the number of cars licensed in Texas), into the Texas skies under an exemption to the Clean Air Act championed by his father.

Former President Bush signed amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1990 stating "American heritage is precious. We will not turn our backs or look the other way." His son did for $300,000. <BR>

10-06-2000, 05:21 PM
If they gave to Bush's exploratory committee, and he was not "officially" on a position of the committee, then he was in technical compliance of the law.

I agree, though, that soft money has no rules or limits and is a way to get to politicians even when we don't want them gotten to...

About the pollution deal... I don't know the details of what you are talking about and will have to take your word for it. But I do know that the worst polluter in the U.S. is the U.S. government... And they don't seem to be cleaning up their own mess...

[This message has been edited by TheFly (edited 10-06-2000).]

10-07-2000, 09:05 AM
Many of the major Clinton/Gore policies that went through like Nafta, Welfare reform, etc. were bipartisan efforts. - 'major'?! 'Clinton/Gore'?

Did you know that Clinton vetoed Welfare reform 2 times before signing it under pressure so that he and his party would have something to 'crow' about during the 1996 election. Please, check your facts, man.

Read all about it... Clinton signed it just before the convention in 1996 (http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/24/senate.welfare/index.html)

[This message has been edited by KCTitus (edited 10-07-2000).]

10-07-2000, 09:30 AM
Who would be stupid enough to give Clinton and the Dems credit for Welfare Reform?

From what I remember it was a bill enacted into law by several hundred REPUBLICAN Representatives and over 50 REPUBLICAN Senators.

Duck Dog
10-07-2000, 11:35 AM
If Bush turned his back on the Environment, then so did the majority of democrats living in Texas.

Here in Texas, the decision was reached during the Ann Richards administrartion (Governor prior to Bush ~ Democrat), with full bipartisan support, to increase industrial activeties and opportunities in this state (because all border states with Mexico have a built in unemployment problem as well as a large unskilled labor force).

It was discussed and understood at the time that there would be a (short-term) lag in air quality compliance, but that the other problems outweighed this sacrifice.

Mind you, we are not talking about Czechloslevakian amounts of pollution, only minor acceptable increases.

In other words, Texas polliticians did what most politicians will never do ~ they made hard choices.

Today, Texas has one of the fastest growing, most vibrant economies in the world. Everyone (skilled and unskilled) can find work here at better than average wages. Even with the relatively unique problem of constant invasion by poor, uneducated, non-english speaking peoples, Texas has made GREAT strides in raising the test scores of minorities and giving ALL her children a shot at the future.

only a liberal (or a scoundral) would take these great accomplishments and twist them into something ugly...

[This message has been edited by Luzap (edited 10-07-2000).]

Larry Reed
10-07-2000, 12:57 PM

You all know we can go round and round on these until we are blue in the face. The ironic thing I see as I sit here is that this inability to give the other side ANY credit and give props only to your side and critique the other side no matter the decision is EXACTLY the same mentality that goes on in Washington and causes this partisan bickering.

So again, like I said before, I and others who are democrats can give you plenty of the same political spin that you are trying to give me to give all the credit to one party and none to another. Sometimes that may be the case, but to try and insinuate that after 8 years under Clinton/Gore they did absolutely nothing right and it was all because of the rebublicans I think it is very lame and very stupid. That is why I called some of these accomplishments BIPARTISAN efforts, which they were. We all know that some of these bills get saddled with extra stuff that leads to them getting vetoed, and the people who saddle the bills with these extra things know that. Every president has done that to good bills at one time or another because of it. So again, spin away, but remember this mentality is what causes the problems in Washingtomn in the first place, and I'm probably guilty of it as well. But hey, whatever makes you happy, more power to you.

Duck Dog
10-07-2000, 01:11 PM

I can't decide whether you're really that naive or if you just enjoy stating untruths just to watch the reaction.

You point out a couple of Republican Congressional initiatives, bills we had to fight for, and because we got them passed (despite democratic resistance), you claim it's an example of democratic bipartisanship!?

The only thing that would come close to meeting the bipartisan label is NAFTA. This is a trade treaty that is a planned extension of existing treaties (GAT). This has been a bipartisan issue for DECADES!

You're reaching so far that it is difficult for me to believe you're sincere.

no one is that confused...

Larry Reed
10-07-2000, 01:54 PM
Call me naive or whatever other thing you want, but you are being naive if you feel that bills do not get saddled down with extra initiatives that force the hand of someone to veto it. Democrats and republicans have done it for years, and presidents have vetoed bills for years, despite the premise being good. But in the case of welfare reform, the president made that one of his priorities in the first place. I do not sit here and blindly agree with every democratic vote that is cast, and I am sure you would not blindly agree with every republican vote that is cast. What you had with this bill is enough support from both sides to get it throough. Did more republicans vote for it than democrats? Heck yes. It is a republican controlled house and senate and thus they are going to have more power to write the bill in their own terms. However when you have enough compromise to get enough of the other party on board, and get the president to pass the bill, it is called a bipartisan effort. That's the way things worked when Democrats controlled capitol hill too.

Duck Dog
10-07-2000, 08:35 PM

This is a wake up call (and I hope you'll make use of it).

Wellfare reform was NOT an issue until the Gingritch lead Contract with America made it an issue.

Clinton, Gore, Gephard, Mitchell, and every single other Democrat leader called the concept 'irresponsible' and 'mean spirited'.

The Freshman Republican class of '92 forced that reform through and for you or any Democrat to to take any clain for it is laughable at best, dishonest at worst.

i won't let you rewrite history...

Larry Reed
10-07-2000, 10:48 PM
I'm sorry, but you are boring me with your one sided rhetoric. Welfare reform was a campaign promise made by Clinton while he was running. Jesse Jackson and some of the other guys critisized him for it. If Clinton was not for welfare reform, then why use it as a campaign pledge and why even bother to ever sign it? The only difference lies in what form to enact welfare reform, and that goes back to my original response on the topic, and that goes back to me giving the republicans props for trying the third time to reach a more bipartisan bill so that it could get passed, as Clinton urged. But if you still want to insist on your point, then fine, I give up, whatever. The argument here is not who introduced it. The argument is that it was a bipartisan bill that got passed. And if it is bipartisan, then both sides got something out of it that they wanted, and the president signs it. That's all I'm talking about, not who introduced it or whatnot. I do agree that there were more democrats against it than there were republicans obviously, and like I said before, I don't agree with every democrat that votes a certain way.

No one has still been able to give me an answer on the defense question though.

10-07-2000, 10:58 PM
Yes, I watched the debates: both the presidential and vice-presidential.

Sadly, the candidates in the vice-presidential debate seem more capable of running this country than the other two.

Don't mistake that as a compliment for Lieberman or Cheney. It's not. I don't think either of them would make good presidents a few years down the road.

Bush is an issue-dodging, pompous, self-promoter.

Gore is a rude, arrogant, perennial liar.

(not excited about visiting the polls this November) http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/frown.gif

[This message has been edited by Tom_Barndts_Twin (edited 10-07-2000).]

Duck Dog
10-08-2000, 10:45 AM

I don't doubt that you're bored.

Anyone who holds onto false beliefs regardless of the evidense is boundto feel a little like an ostrich with it's head in the sand ~ and that's a pretty boring view.

I have responded to your military spending issue, but you pushed my responce aside as unworthy (why am I not surprised?).

Moose, you either don't respond to points, or you respond with false facts (Clinton did not run on Wellfare Reform in his first election). You ignore answers you don't like, and then accuse people of not answering you.

You are not someone looking to debate an issue, you are a zealot that will say aything to make a point ~ true or not.

Tell me this. Why is it that you can't find anything on the Gore web site about military spending? His site has search capabilities, and the phrase doesn't appear anywhere on his site. Yet he states in his debate that he wants to spend more on the military than Bush and you believe it!


Larry Reed
10-08-2000, 11:59 PM
Your entire response to the military issue consisted of "Gore can't be trusted."

I don't know about Gore's website, but this is from ABCNews.com:

"Gore has called for $100 billion in new military spending, while Bush has proposed less than half that amount — $45 billion — in additional spending, not including funding for a possible missile defense program."

Let's come up with something better than I can't believe so and so. You're avoiding the question with that response.

10-09-2000, 03:30 AM
Just a little bored late at night and I stumbled across this convo, and thought to myself, well now I can't let a blindly dogmatic conservative get away with such a bold face lie.

"Most Americans believed the nation's welfare system had shortcomings, including that of encouraging people to stay on welfare rather than working. In his 1992 campaign, Clinton had pledged to solve the problems, saying he wanted to "end welfare as we know it."

source- www.worldbook.com (http://www.worldbook.com)

I am sure that you could find similar substantiation for the truth about Clinton's '92 campaign at any similar encyclopaedia site.

thought Luz despised slimy bold faced lies.

[This message has been edited by revolver808 (edited 10-09-2000).]

Duck Dog
10-09-2000, 07:08 AM

If I'm wrong I will gladly be corrected, but that does not match my memory (and my point still stands ~ EVERYONE in the business knows that Clinton co-opted a Republican issue).

What I find extremely interesting is your label of me as blindly dogmatic when you just witnessed a liberal (Moose):

Quote another liberal (Gore) stating a 'fact'. When it's pointed out that there is no evidence (including at the liberal's own website) to support this 'fact', the first liberal (Moose) quotes a news source that is quoting what the second liberal (Gore) said in the first place that was brought into question!

In other words, he believes Gore because someone else heard Gore say it also (perhaps from the same debate).

yet i'm blind?...

10-09-2000, 07:56 AM
I can do you one better, ol Revolver, buddy.

I went to Thomas. In case you are unfamiliar with Thomas, it records all the bills sent to or introduced in the House or Senate.

I can find no bill, that was submitted by Clinton. There were bills introduced by democratic senators and reps, but alas, they died in committee. It's odd because after his election in 1992, he had 2 full years to get a bill through a democratically controlled congress, yet no bill even passed until a week before the 1996 DNC convention to re-elect Clinton.

hmm...oh, that's right, he was busy with that gays in the military and universal health care (more govt control over one's life).

Baby Lee
10-09-2000, 08:00 AM
Here is something that really irritates me and I would like to hear (in this case) the explanation as to how it can be done. How can the President of the U.S. legislate by Executive Order? The supreme court ruled the line-item veto was unconstitutional because of the "signing into law something the congress didn't pass"

How is excutive order any different? Where is it in the constitution does it allow this?

Please explain this one.


[This message has been edited by bkkcoh (edited 10-09-2000).]

[This message has been edited by bkkcoh (edited 10-09-2000).]

Larry Reed
10-09-2000, 10:06 AM
Again, you are assuming things when they suit your needs. The ABC newssite is not quoting Gore, that was one of their "facts" in their fact sheet covering the VP debate in a checklist to see what the truth was vs what was said. The checklist covers both sides. I'm sure you could find some ammo for yourself too. But again, you avoid the main question. And BTW, if you can find anywhere that Bush is going to spend more money than Gore in planned military improvements, I would be happy to admit that the numbers I am quoting are wrong.

10-09-2000, 10:11 AM
I've always wondered about the legality and history of executive orders... Anybody care to enlighten me?<BR>

10-12-2000, 06:48 AM
Time for ROUND 2!!!! Any takers on last night's roundtable?

10-12-2000, 07:00 AM

I thought Round 2 came out essentially as a stalemate. Although I have already voiced my support for the Democratic candidate, I will try to be as objective as possible... no surprises here. Both candidates played to their strengths. Bush came across as friendlier and more personable, it seemed to me. However Gore generally looked sharper with the specific issues (I was cracking up when he asked Bush "why couldn't you move up from 50th to, say, 45th in health care coverage." http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif

calls 'em as he sees 'em.

Duck Dog
10-12-2000, 07:03 AM
Last night the American people finally got a chance to see the George Bush that Texans know and love.

He's accomplished a heck of a lot here and is the only person in Texas history to be elected back to back. That should tell us something.

Much of his success here is based on bringing people together, regardless of differences in: race, political party, age, or education.

He is an intelligent man that has real core beliefs (that don't change with every poll), and he is passionate about education and the future of our children.

i'm think this came through for anybody that wanted to see...

Duck Dog
10-12-2000, 07:04 AM
BTW, most (if not all) the polls have Bush winning by a large margin.

the gore campaign is i trouble...

10-12-2000, 07:08 AM
1) Did you know I nailed number 400?

2) I think the debate went well. They actually tried to answer the questions put to them instead of instantly falling back on campaign rhetoric.

3) I think the healthcare in Texas has a long way to go, but then again what we don't know was whether it has improved while Bush was in office. It might be 50th, but did he try to improve it or not is the question.

4) I'm "sipping" vodka while home with a nasty chest cold... Probably influencing my thinking...<BR>

10-12-2000, 07:18 AM
This, like the first one, I did not watch because they are a waste of time.

As far as 'improving' healthcare, please dont tell me that Gore's idea of 'improving' healthcare is via Government control (aka 'Investment in Healthcare).

Duck Dog
10-12-2000, 07:19 AM

Actually, we do know that healthcare coverage improved under Bush.

As he stated last night, the percentage of children without coverage has shrunk, while at the same time on a national level it is rising.

Does anybody really think it was fair of Gore to use rankings that were based on absolute numbers (Texas is the second largest state) when he knows the reality is that Texas is outperforming just about everybody when it comes to percentages?

Also left unsaid, is that Texas suffers from a tremendous amount of illegal immigration which it can't do anything about (that's a Federal Issue). Still, we manage to educate and take care of the health of these people and their children. Pretty amazing actually.

it is a mistake for gore to go after bush about texas ~ he has a great record there...

Duck Dog
10-12-2000, 07:21 AM
No KCTitus, he haas flip flopped on that too (or at least he says he flip flopped ~ which is worse, to support socialism or to be known as a flip flopper?).

i think he's both...

10-12-2000, 07:22 AM
Luz, thanks for the info on the healthcare. Being in Southern California I can strongly identify with the immigration influence and demands that places on public services.

It is hard to give kids an education and appropriate health services when you don't understand each other...

Still, glad to hear Texas is trying to take care of these folks, in spite of the fact the feds do practically nothing for them...<BR>

Duck Dog
10-12-2000, 07:26 AM
Fly, as always, you're welcome.

One other bit of interesting info that you might appreciate. Bush was overwhelmingly re-elected as Governor with over 50% of the Hispanic vote!

He also had 26% of the black vote!

i think that speaks volumes...

[This message has been edited by Luzap (edited 10-12-2000).]

10-12-2000, 07:39 AM
How long do you think it will take before my life is improved in some way, if GWB takes office?

10-12-2000, 07:40 AM

I appreciate you pointing out the fact that Texas is the second largest state in the Union, and how this will scew the facts that Gore is stating about Texas being the 49th state in rankings. It seems to me that Gore is still trying to use incomplete thruths to win voters. Bush clearly defends this issue by stating that his state is improving in percentage decline vs. the federal level at which the percentages are growing.

Another similar tact is when Gore states that it is not true that all Americans are getting tax cuts under Bush's plan. There is a small truth to his statement, but only if you include those that are not currently getting taxed anyhow. They will not get a tax cut, because they are not paying taxes.

It amazes me how the Gore camp tries to make Bush look like the bad guy using these bent facts. It does not surprise me though, because this administration (Clinton/Gore)is still trying to figure out what the real definition of is, is. http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/tongue.gif

[This message has been edited by Oregon Chief Fan (edited 10-12-2000).]

Kurt Surber
10-12-2000, 07:47 AM
I think G-Dubya did exactly what he had to last night, maintain credibility and project a level of comfort and and confidence. For all Gore's talk of wanting the stay on the issues, because he has a better position on them, I feel there is/was a vast segement of the American population who identified with Dubya's stated positions, but retained judgement until they could see some sign that 1) he was genuine in his positions, and 2) he appeared up to the job.
How many posting on here have referred to "the lesser of two evils" or "evil [Gore] -vs- stupid [Bush]" when indicating their position? the Gore people were counting on the debates solidfying the "stupid factor" for once and for all.
Instead, debate after debate shows Bush believes what he says, is confident in his abilities and has a sufficient mental grasp to discuss and debate the issues.
meanwhile, Gore has made no inroads on the "evil factor." His first debate performance really opened a lot of people's eyes to it and his humbled appearance last night hamstrung him from effectively debating.

Duck Dog
10-12-2000, 07:53 AM

I think that is the entire point of the election.

You have truly asked the most critical question ~ seriously.

The answer is that George Bush is NEVER going to make your life better...

...but he will make sure that no one or anything keeps YOU from making it better.

He'll make sure that you have every opportunity to improve your live AND will: prevent government from throwing up roadblocks, prosecute people that hold you back based on your race, let you keep more of your money so you can design your life and your future, and give you choices about healthcare, RXs, and schools for your children.

He will trust you to know more what's better for yourself and your family than government does.

in a nutshell...

[This message has been edited by Luzap (edited 10-12-2000).]

10-12-2000, 08:00 AM
JC I agree with your statements. I too believe that people are actually seeing past the media. The results of the polls between the first and the second debates are a small indicator that Bush probably did better in the first debate than the media would like to admit. After this debate I think the polls will show Bush winning even more of the vote. This debate will re-inforce what a lot of people probably saw in the first debate- George W. Bush is a credible, smart, likeable candidate for the President of the United States.

I must admit that I was a little shocked to see the media actually conceding a Bush win in this debate. I guess without the pouting from Gore and the focus on the questions at hand, it was hard for the media to spin this debate in Gore's favor.

Anyone else think it was funny that the media was all over the Saturday Night Live parody and mentioned that Gore was made to watch it by his peers. Kind of like your mom recording you having a fit on the floor and then showing it to you to show you what an a$# you were making of yourself.

Now that is funny!