Politic question that affexts homesteaders and everyonegreenspun.com : LUSENET : Countryside : One Thread
Did ya'll hear what Al Gore said about W. Bush and Texas yesterday during his visit here? He said because of Bush being such a bad governor here in Texas that we're going to have a huge budget defecit and that W. hasn't done anything to help poor people in Texas or the working class. He must be trying to top Clinton as the biggest liar in the world.
After Gore said that the Texas comptroller said we in Texas are going to have a one-point-something billion dollar surplus and it would be bigger if W. hadn't allocated so much to aid people on Medicaid and provided some property tax relief for the rest of us. And someone on ABC News said last night that if W. was such a bad governor, why was he re-elected with more than a 70 percent margin.
-- Joe Cole (email@example.com), July 21, 2000
Yes Joe, I saw the story on the tube.
I would file the news story under Gore's campaign journal as "Open Mouth, Insert Foot"
-- Craig Miller (CMiller@ssd.com), July 21, 2000.
Well lets see, why would W. be elected Govenor? Why a nomination to the Presidency? Why oh why... Couldn't be cause of Daddy could it? W. has done nothing in Texas but ride the programs that Ann Richards started. Our school teachers are the lowest paid in the Nation! Our school systems standardized tests are bogus, we have well over 1/4 of our kids exempt from taking them which means that the true scores aren't published. There is no medical care for kids who's parents have businesses. If you aren't working for a company that has health care, on government aid or going to 2 free hospitals in Houston, yes 2 for this large a place, with substandard care, you are without health care. 100$ for my daughter who is a full time college student working 2 jobs for college to have her yearly exam and to get birth control. This at a clinic ran by the largest medical branch in the state. Now if she was pregnant or had 2 or 3 screaming brats at 21, she could have had this done for free... Am I missing something here? Family values? Freedom of choice? Responsibility? W. will surely take Texas because of his family name, and because of the illusion of his conservative values. What do we really know about him, about his voting record? Nothing...just as they want. The debates which I think will be few and far between will be very interesting. Vicki
-- Vicki McGaugh (firstname.lastname@example.org), July 21, 2000.
That's about the funniest thing I've ever read. The only thing I liked about Ann Richards was that, as governor, she did absoutely nothing. I knew the woman personally and I've met and visited with W. and Laura several times and they are such fine people. They're real and everything Ann isn't. Even the Democrats in Texas are behind W. W. has done everything as gov. without his daddy's help.
-- Joe Cole (email@example.com), July 21, 2000.
The trouble with our schools is that the federal government (clinton's gang) run them and our teachers know less than fourth graders because they were educated by liberal profs. in liberal univs. and just why the heck should the government pay for your kid's health care? I pay for mine, you pay for yours. You are a typical liberal, you want the government to do everything for you.
-- Joe Cole (firstname.lastname@example.org), July 21, 2000.
I'm going to go out on a limb and make a prediction here. W. was picked to be the next Prez a long time ago. Last gubenatorial(sp?) he had 26MILLION left in his campaign fund. Most governors don't even get that much total in the entire campaign......He's a picked man. No different from his predecessors. If Bill goes it will be W. next. Maybe a little less cocaine has gone up his nose but they are almost the same. I wouldn't vote for either of 'em.
-- Doreen (email@example.com), July 21, 2000.
Just a thought if Texas is no longer in the union in november would George be eligible to be president? gail
-- gail missouri ozarks (firstname.lastname@example.org), July 21, 2000.
At least W.s not a rapist and I'm not aware of him selling any nuclear secrets to the Chinese for campaign money like them boys we got in there now.
-- Joe Cole (email@example.com), July 21, 2000.
Gail, I wonder about that, too. Secession honestly wouldn't occur without a war. We already have the history lesson in that.
Joe, I do not believe that he is as bad as W.J. Clinton, but he is a memeber of many of the same organizations and I think it is tremendously odd that he had SO much money in his larder and that he flat out refused to answer questions regarding cocaine, that his dad was the director of the CIA and managed to keep his backside covered in the Iran Contra dealings, waged the first war with US troops being subject to foreign command, and yet again, it was never declared a war, and introduced the "New World Order" to us. I just don't think the apple has rolled far enough from the tree, and don't believe W has done or said anything that really indicates he will do differently from Clinton. He probably wouldn't be such a moral wretch, but is he "trustworthy" in regards to standing up for the Constitution and not getting our troops into all of these policing actions? Waco was here in Texas after all and he sure hasn't said a word about it.
-- Doreen (firstname.lastname@example.org), July 21, 2000.
Half the yellow dog democrats that I know hereabouts voted for GW for gov, because of his stand on gun control.
Why should the government, either state or fed, provide medical care? Aren't we responsible for ourselves? I don't have any medical insurance. If I get sick, I'm sick. If it's bad enough, and I can't fix it myself, I haul myself to the doc, and get out the checkbook.
I don't think the government should be paying for birth control, or paying for the upkeep and maintenance of the unwed mothers. Maybe if we stepped back a few years, and unwed mothers didn't become unwed mothers we'd be better off. Growing up, we had 'shotgun' weddings. Make the man who had the pleasure get the responsibility of raising his own offspring. Of course, this notion of morality is politically incorrect, and if I have offended anyone, please forgive. I was raised to take responsibility, and today's culture seems to want to free the individual from responsibility.
I don't recollect free health care for all under Ma Richards. Don't get me wrong, I loved the old gal, and voted for her. But when she went anti gun, along with the national dem's, she left a lot of folks without a party.
-- phil briggs (email@example.com), July 21, 2000.
Can a Hoosier who used to live in TX add his 2 cents? Liberal or conservative, it doesn't matter. Al Gore has studied from the master and knows that truth does not matter. He was once a straight forward pro-life voter. Now he denies it, as if that were a bad thing. He does openly endorse partial birth abortion. That proceedure has no medical nessesity. None. Not ever. It is never indicated for any medical reason at all. I'm an RN, I can tell you what they do when partial birth abortion is done. It's murder. And the reason that technique was developed was so to do the least amount of damage to the fetus. so as to not adversly affect the resale value of that fetus' body parts. This proceedure is a travesty. Nothing anywhere, can be any worse, than puncturing the skull and suctioning out the brains of a normal healthy baby only 2-3 inches from birth. We as a nation should tremble before God for allowing this to happen. And Al Gore endorses it. And George Bush doesn't. That's the truth that counts this election. We are not "One Nation Under God" if we allow this horror to continue.
Thanks for allowing my 2 cents.
-- John in S. IN (firstname.lastname@example.org), July 22, 2000.
Pat Buchannan is on the ticket in over half the states now, including Texas. Consider looking at him. He has at least read and understood the Constitution. He also understands the border states problems with illegal immigration which both G.W. and Clinton-Gore have ignored because they want the Hispanic votes. Many of the Hispanic voters are not even citizens because of the ease of getting voter registeration and the "motor voter" laws that insist on even handing out voter's registration applications to welfare receipients, many of whom are not citizens.
And I personally do not know of ONE single person who would own up to voting for G.W. He is too deep in the pocket of one of the local business men here who is strangling the life out of our area.
The Texas schools look diligently for anything they can class as wrong with your child so they can put him/her into a special class or two. This serves 2 purposes: 1) it gets them TASS exempt. TASS is the state standardized test. 2) it gets them more tax money.
I have 3 children who are in or have just finished high school in Texas. We have had teachers who told me that it was MY job to teach my child math because she didn't have time to teach students. We have had teachers who thought there were 49 states, and Puerto Rico was one of them. Alaska and Hawaii were not states, and she couldn't name all of the states in the lower 48. She was the GEOGRAPHY teacher. We have had math classes taught with tapes in the VCR's because they didn't have math teachers. We have had teachers who did not know American History because all they were ever taught or studied was the crap published in textbooks endorsed by the State of Texas. In other words, IF my children know anything, I take full half of the credit. It is not that I think schools should have all the responsibility for teaching, it is just that it would be so much easier if parents didn't have to deal with all the disinformation being shoveled out in Texas Public Schools.
Texas has been running with a tremendous surplus of funds in her coffers for many, many years. Came from the oil industry and all those taxes the state imposes on it. Now the surplus is in place and it draws tremendous interest, plus continuing profits from other taxes. Texas taxes everything except groceries and vegetable seeds or plants. I realize we are not as bad off as some states. Arkansas and Oklahoma and I'm sure many more even tax those.
And I personally haven't seen any of that alleged property tax relief. All I can see that happened was G.W. jumped up and basically stalled some of the forward creep of the tax rate. My taxes are just as high as they have ever been.
And I wouldn't elect G.W. or Algore dog catcher for the city dump.
-- Green (email@example.com), July 22, 2000.
Hear, hear, Phil. I totally agree with you. We should all be responsible for ourselves. The government shouldn't be. I don't have a problem taking care of the elderly or anyone who is physically or mentally unable to work to support themselves but the rest of the country needs to get out and get a job. I have worked my whole life to have what I do and I think everyone else should. I don't mind welfare for unwed mothers as long as it is a workfare program and they have to get up and go to work every weekday like the rest of us to earn their check. They would soon find that there is better work off the dole and would go elsewhere and support themselves. This staying at home and taking in the money stinks. How many non-welfare parents have the luxury of being able to stay home and raise their children? They don't so why shoud welfare mothers be able to? I don't mind my taxes being used to help those that truly need it but if they are able to work for it they should be required to do so.
-- Colleen (firstname.lastname@example.org), July 22, 2000.
Sorry folks, didn't mean to sound so draconian last night, but my feathers get ruffled when I have to pay onerous property taxes here in Texas, to pay for programs that benefit folks who sit at home in air conditioned homes and live more comfortably than I do. Did that make sense? Tax me, living low on the hog (w/o a/c and other modern luxuries) so that a 'ne'er do well', can live high on the hog. I own real property and get taxed on it...unless I win the lottery (and my family informs me it's hard to win if you don't buy the tickets) this year, my property taxes will be half (or more) of this years income. Whereas folks who are way up on the socioeconomic ladder, but don't own real property, pay nothing. BTW, our local school taxes are $1.66 per $100 evaulation, plus county, fire, college, special, and 'just cause we can' taxes. Throwing more money at the schools I don't feel is the answer. Taxes get higher, I'll have to sell out and become homeless lol. (leave homesteading behind and find a 'real' job.)
-- phil briggs (email@example.com), July 22, 2000.
I'm afraid I agree with Vickii(please don't faint or send cards) I'm not for Al, my daddy nearly destroyed the state of Tn, Gore either. Is that "none of the above" solution still available ?
-- Joel Rosen (Joel681@webtv.net), July 24, 2000.
I am voting for Bush. I don't want any portion of the Clinton clan in office again. I figure the Republicans deserve the chance to have Presidency and Congress for once. Then if they still can't get anything done I say bounce them on their hiney's. I don't want to see the vote divided and end up with the Clinton Clone who really believes all that garbage. Yeah, that will surely fix America. I say get someone in office that can get them out and I mean all the way out. I'd vote for Donald Duck if it meant that the whole Clinton gang would be gone gone gone. So Bush has my vote, and I will lobby the man, pray for the man, and know he can't be any worse for this country than who we had the last eight years.
Little bit Farm
-- Little bit Farm (firstname.lastname@example.org), July 24, 2000.
Thank you John S. for your frankness re: partial birth abortions. I think that we all so often overlook the sin of our nation because it is not affecting us "directly". "If My people,which are called by My Name,shall humble themselves,and pray,and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways; THEN will I hear from heaven , and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." 2Chronicles 7:14 So I guess my opinion is that it doesn't really matter who is president, we have already offended our Ultimate Authority, and without some repentance, any man in government may just be used by Him to bring judgement upon us.
-- Tammy~ Gladheart Acres (email@example.com), July 27, 2000.
I don't mind giving a helping hand to anyone .What I do mind is it becomes a way of life .If we are going to help people the only way to do it is job training or sending them back to school .The only way to break the cycle is to educate people so they can make a good living .I also believe everyone should have access to affordable health care $100.00 dollars is allot of money to a college student and even most families .More young woman would use birth control if it was within financal range .It would pay off in the end , there would be less unwanted babies , and less mothers on welfare .This is just my option and you don't have to agree .Lets all agree its ok to disagree ,lets do it nicely and not attack a persons views .
-- Patty Gamble (firstname.lastname@example.org), July 27, 2000.
Patty, I assume you are saying that the government is to pay for this? Education & birth control? Is that all or is there other programs you agree the people's tax money should be used for? I ask this because I am always interested in the way people reach a conclusion on issues. When people talk about federal programs (read:money-taken from the people, power-given to whomever makes the rules and provides the money) that should be in place, have you then decided what you believe the role of the federal government is? Or do you base your comments on the way it is currently operating? I often wonder this in regards to the citizenry of this country. Have the people considered and concluded what they believe the role of the federal government to be, and then base thier judgements regarding federal programs, on that core foundational belief? I would really appreciate your feedback on this as it is the thing that haunts me. If we are a nation that has conscientiously made the choice to give our money and our freedoms to our government in exchange for "help" in the forms of social programs, then so be it. Let the chips for where they may. And fall they will! My hope is that this is not the case. I will eagerly await your or anyone else's thoughts on this question (questions?). Wendy
-- wjl7 (email@example.com), July 28, 2000.
Oops, I meant fall, not for. Sorry, Wendy
-- Wendy@GraceAcres (firstname.lastname@example.org), July 28, 2000.
-- wjl7 , certainly the federal government if very far from perfect. Yet it does have a legitimate role. I don't know of any other group of government agency which has the ability to aid women, or men, in buying birth control products, so I have no problem with the feds doing so. We've got about three billion too many people in this country already, so every birth that's prevented results in that much less impact on our environment, and one less person to put on welfare. Not to mention one less need for an abortion, often a
-- jumpoffjoe (email@example.com), July 29, 2000.
Joe, what are the foundational principles you base your opinions on? That which is found in the constitution? Bible? Environmentalist issues? I await your answer. Thanks! Wendy
-- Wendy@GraceAcres (firstname.lastname@example.org), July 29, 2000.
What I MEANT to say was three billion too many people on the planet, not in the usa. Obviously.
Wendy, the "foundation" I rely on is no single document. I rely on all my reading and life experience. Not dogma. What are you trying to ask?
-- jumpoff joe (email@example.com), July 31, 2000.
Joe, my question is this - if you are in agreement the gov't has a role in supplying birth control to people, it would stand to reason they should also provide food, housing, medical help, etc.. In which case, your foundational principles are opposed to the way our gov't was set up to operate. And if you are not in opposition to a free market economy, people keeping their own money (as opposed to giving it to our gov't so "it" can provide birth control to its citizens), individual freedoms and rights, then how can you support such a thing? Another words, if we support "this" social program, how do we not support "that" social program? Where does it stop? Not with just what you think is worthy, everyone has some thing they think is worthy. We have to have a core belief in what we agree, as a society, our gov't is responsible for. What it is set up to do, and not go outside those lines. I asked the question because I have always wondered how people reach the conclusions they do, when deciding what "help" they want from our gov't. What if I want some social program, paid for by your money (taxes) that you are morally opposed to? Is that really what gov't is supposed to do? I kinda think our federal gov't should protect our borders, first and foremost and do no harm to its citizenry. I base my beiliefs on biblical principles that also line up pretty well with our constitution and bill of rights. Therefore, virtually every social program the gov't comes up with to "help' the people, I am against. It is not the duty of my gov't to give me birth control or provide me with child care or train me for the job market or any other one of a thousand things it is currently doing. And I resent the thievery involved when they take my money to pay for something it should not be doing in the first place! Hope this clarifies why the question. Thanks, Wendy
-- Wendy@GraceAcres (firstname.lastname@example.org), July 31, 2000.