While Gore has shown at (a few) times that he will cross party lines in terms of voting, it is probable that his policies will also prevent him from being able to avoid the partisanship in Wahsington. But frankly I don't know that either of these guys really will. Having said that, to be fair if I am saying that we won't know about Bush until he takes over, we won't know about Gore until he takes over. Sure there are certain assumptions we can make based on certain things, but that is a much different thing than knowing that when he takes over he will do it. Gore is much more liberal than Clinton and Bush has already stated that he leans farther to the right of conservatism after he selected Cheney, and neither position lends itself to bringing forth bipartisanship in Washington, IMO...

DeadRed....I'm not sure if I accept that eloquence is wed to dishonesty, or that inability to speak clearly is the sign of an honest man. Lets not embarrass our country by electing a man that has trouble forming coherent sentences on a national stage. Certainly we can do better than that. What happens when he has to go international? We'll be the laughing stock of the world.

What do you mean "will be" the laughing stock of the world. what exactly do you think the worlds reaction to a dope smoking liar who sticks cigars in the "areas" of chubby interns, impeached and should have been "FIRED" like any officer in ANY of our military branches would have been. Not to mention pimpin' out Lincoln's bed to Chineese, etc.....and now the "Greek" army would like to share a "don't ask don't tell" foxhole with our soldiers.

Bush can do NOTHING to gain disrespect that hasn't been done in the last 8 years....

I'd rather have a man stumble over a couple of words than have him look me in the eye, shake his finger and LIE.

Duck,

Guess thats where we differ. Would prefer a person that thinks through his answers, so they don't just fly out of his mouth, verse someone who only thought before speaking is what do they want to hear.

The real embarresment would be electing someone that said:
-Invented the internet
-Mom used to sing him to bed with the union lable song
-Woman drove here in her Winnabego that has to pick up cans on the side of the road to pay for her prescription drugs.
The list is almost endless.

Can see him now, meeting with Putin. "You know my Mom was a communist, almost got busted at the McCarthy hearings."

UD, so Bush isn't a Shakespearian actor in his delivery. So what. At least his answers sound honest and are direct answers to direct questions. Every thing that came out of Gores' mouth sounded focus grouped and polled. And they very seldom had anything to do with the question being asked. Exactly how many times did Gore repeat his mantra of 'tax cuts for the top 1%', regardless of the question being asked?

Bush dealt with the issues and the questions. Gore dealt with politics.

I really appreciated Gore's response to mean ol' W mentioning his Buhdist temple $$, etc...and he wouldn't resort to name calling....3 months ago Algores stooges were smacking "W" around on tv like a pinata...until a focus group determined that negativity was "turning off the womyn voters"..and he turned right to Oprah with his sensativity.....what a sensative man...ahhhhhh

I would like to do some bedtime ballet with his daughter though...

Iowa....the world laughed at us because we were so childishly partisan that we would go through a pretend impeachment after spending $60 million to catch the president with his pants down. The world doesn't think hanky-panky is that big a deal, and was embarrassed by the Repubs publishing the details. Divisive partisanship at its most assinine broadcast across the globe.

C'mon now, guys. We all know that Gore never said that he invented the internet. Thats embellishing, and we spank Gore for that. Lets not become the enemy.

Ck_In....I dunno, guy. Seems like Bush stumbled and fumbled until he thought he saw a place to blurt out some canned line like, "fuzzy math," or "guess he invented the calculator." Both guys were coached and fed lines for the debate. Bush just doesn't have the capability to spew the lines and still hold a coherent conversation. Lets just hope that our next president is at least smart enough to do that.

I do think Gore claimed to be responsible for the creation of the internet, but that aside do you deny that he claimed;

1. Being the inspiration for Love Story
2. The cleanup of love canal
3. Nodding off to 'the union label'
4. Lying about his mother-in-law's meds

Just to name four. The man will lie about anything, anytime if he thinks it'll get him a vote.

As for bj-gate, it was and is an embarrassment. A grown man using his position to sexually harrass an intern young enough to be his daughter, then spending seven months lying about it and letting a multi-million dollar investigation continue. That behaviour is inexcusable and borderline sociopathic.

It disgusts me whenever I think about Clinton representing the U.S. abroad.

UD, I guess we can chalk it up to differences of perception. Bush struck me as being real and attempting to respond to the question. Gore struck me as trotting out polled and focus grouped standbys.

As I've said previously, I don't care if my president can recite lines like an Oscar winner. I'm concerned with the substance. On that ground Bush is a hands down choice.

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.

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.

Luz
standing for freedom...

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

Duck-

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.

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.

"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.

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.

more...

(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.

UD - Did you read the article on the front page of chiefsplanet about draft day 2000? You might find it interesting.

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.

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.

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.

Duck-

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>

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.

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!

Major props to Bernard Shaw. He had this baby under control...

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.

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"

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!

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.

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?

Luz
do you believe socialism is good?...

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 !!!

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


'20/20' INVESTIGATION FINDS UNPRECEDENTED NUMBER OF DEMOCRATIC CONTRIBUTORS ATTENDING STATE DINNERS

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>

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...

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>

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

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>

“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>

Duck-

# 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

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>

Duck-

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.
http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif

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.

“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.”

Moose-

If you understand it---explain it.

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."

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>

[cont'd]

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>

<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.

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.

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:

Moose
Lurker
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!

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

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.

KCTitus-
"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>

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

Compassion.

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.

Compassion.

------------------
Don't think....feel.

Gotta love "trickle down" economics. Too bad what trickles down is always yellow.

------------------
Don't think....feel.

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?

Morphius-

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.

Morphius,

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.

Luz
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...

KCatMU:

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.

KCatMU,

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.

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


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

Luzap-
on trickle down...Yep, and its too bad imho.

All-
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.

Luzap-

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.

KCatMU,

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?

Luz
moving into the squiggle zone...<BR>

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).

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.

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

<BR>

KCTitus-

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.

KCatMU,

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.

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

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 !!!

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).]

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 !!!

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.

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>

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?

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

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.

Luzap-

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.

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.

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.

KCTitus-

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.

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.

Luz,

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.

KcTitus-

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.