Re: Conservative-liberal flame war

[Guest guest]

Jeannette wrote.....

*****

They are working on it- and have already chipped away at a woman's

right to

choose. They are trying to do away with affirmative action,

*****

Affirmative action is counter productive. I personaly know people (my

dad for one) who would now think twice about being treated by a black

doctor. Why? because, there are these there quotas to fill, so blacks

dont have to be as good as whites to be a doctor. Ergo, people like

my dad, who arnt racist (and me) wont go to black doctors anymore,

because it goes way beyond social engineering when lives or at stake,

or maybe eyesight.

Now, i wont talk about affirmative action for women because i dont

want to get into old worn arguments with Jeaneetee, but i think all

on the list should think twice before backing affirmative action

(giving jobs to those that would not otherwise be qualified) because

it hurts all people, not just those it is supposed to protect (and

in " protecting " them it assumes they are useless or it wouldnt have a

premise)

Its like family court, the machine is there now to feed the machine,

not serve the people.

My two cents.

Gareth.

[Guest guest]

Jeanette wrote:

> > You want to see everything as a conspiracy. My friend got denied

> > Social Security Disability; you said it was a conspiracy against

> > females. The veterinary industry conspires to make our cats sick

> > so they can make more money. Corporations conspire to make their

> > employees unhappy so they buy more products. Sheesh, everything is

> > a conspiracy with you.

>

> And nothing is with you.

Pretty much, that's a true statement. Very few of the things that you

say are conspiracies (or conspiracy-like) are even close to that, as I

see it.

> Vets

> only care about money.

Oh, come on! They make piss for salary-- and they have to get a

doctoral-level degree to get that piss. If they only cared about money,

couldn't they come up with a more lucrative career? My vet charges $31

for an office visit... given the massive overhead of that place, that's

almost free medical care for animals. A lawyer would make $150 or more

in the same time that vet made $31, and with a lot less equipment to buy.

> They don't all get together and plan it, but

> they do treatments that don't work, they know they don't work, so I

> can go back until I realize I'm being screwed.

They put my mother's dog back together after he escaped from the house

and got hit by a motorcycle. He has more pins and metal in his limbs

than all of the mouths of all of the kids in an average-sized school

district... and you would never know it but for the long seams all over

his body, representing incisions they had to make to repair his

shattered bones. That worked.

My mother also had a dog that developed epilepsy. With meds, he never

had it again. The same dog developed Crohn's disease (may be spelled

wrong), and meds fixed that up too. My cat had a urinary tract

infection, and the bubble-gum flavored Amoxi-Drops took care of that

too. It is not accurate to say that they sell cures that they know do

not work. I am confident that the majority of vets are in it for the

love of animals, and the rest used to be.

> They get rich in the

> process.

Rich veterinarians... yes, of course. I don't think there are many of

those.

> They know their stuff doesn't work- they have to. I have

> too many complaints in my rescue group about some of these diseases

> they try to " treat " and horror stories about what vets have done,

> just to make money.

You're getting a skewed sample there. You also said that western

medicine does not work, not that long ago, and I can give you examples

of it working all day long.

> They lied to me about Espresso's FIV. They told me he may have it-

> and I must test him right away to confirm it, and then maybe put him

> down if he has it.

>

> BULLSHIT. FIV test is useless until a cat is at least 6 months of

> age, (Espresso was 4 months when they tested him) because that is

> when the natural antibodies from the Mother cat are totally gone.

> And FIV is in no way life threatening. It could take 20 years for

> symptoms to show up, and most cats don't live that long.

>

> But the vet told me those lies, and many others, just to get money.

Wouldn't you end up spending more money if you have a chronically sick

cat for them to keep treating? Putting a cat down is not exactly a huge

moneymaker, and neither is a blood test.

> THAT'S the shit I'm talking about. They know what they are doing.

I don't think they really do so much. They're guessing a good part of

the time, just like doctors for humans are.

> Liberals want higher taxes FOR THE RICH,

Yeah, the rich-- the ones that provide the jobs, the ones who spend the

biggest amount of money and boost the economy with those expenditures.

It does a lot more good for the economy when a rich person buys a yacht

than when a poor person buys a chicken.

The top 50% of income earners pay 96% of taxes already. Isn't that high

enough?

> low taxes for the poor, and

> environmental controls that WORK, only corporations think they are

> excessive because they don't give a shit about anyone- they don't

> care if they destroy the environment or kill people.

It still is not good for the economy to have environmental controls,

period. You can certainly argue that it is better to have pollution

controls, but all of them hurt the economy.

> And certainly the conservatives want to stifle all small businesses,

> so that the big guys win out and have little competition.

Not any conservative I have known! A lot of the conservatives out there

own small businesses. I know several such people.

> And as far

> as low regulations- you've seen how well that works! Not at all-

> poorly regulated companies go nuts and get super greedy, triple their

> prices for shitty products. You are just reiterating the silly

> conservative " trickle down " theory like crap that everyone knows from

> experience only makes the rich richer.

F. Kennedy used supply-side economics. It worked then, and it

worked in Reagan's term. It makes everyone richer. My family had

always been dirt poor... but with Reaganomics, we actually broke into

the middle class, for the first time.

> Things that REPUBLICANS want hurt the economy. Those bastards want

> to keep all the money and power to themselves, give the poor HIGHER

> taxes than they have

I have never once heard a Republican suggesting higher taxes for the

poor. This is a strawman.

> and they want to pay none, take away all social

> programs,

Some of them do, but Schwarzenegger is not one of those.

> overprice everything so they can force people into giving

> them their money,

That's called the law of supply and demand. That's very good for the

economy, not bad for it.

> take away their rights so that they are servants

> and slaves, and forcing them to work for NOTHING, with no employees

> rights, etc.

Labor unions are also bad for the economy. They cause artificial

inflation of production costs, and are a big part of why the US auto

market has taken a back seat to the imports. Now you can certainly

argue that things like higher taxes for the rich to pay for social

programs, environmental controls, unions, etc., are a good thing for

people, but not a one of them is good for the economy.

> They want to be unregulated so they can do whatever they want, it

> doesn't matter who they hurt.

They want to be unregulated because regulations are bad for business.

> The conservatives are concerned with lying. They say that if you

> give them everything, it will " trickle down " to the little guy. Of

> course, the only thing that trickles down to the little guy is a lot

> of shit.

Who do you think is providing the jobs? Poor people? Nope. Poor

people don't hire people. Rich people hire people. Corporations hire

people. If you reduce taxes for these people, their business does

better. Their margins get better. They make more money. That means

they can hire more people.

> They want to make themselves rich, and everyone else poor as piss.

Right and wrong, in that order. You are making the mistake of assuming

that the economy is a zero sum entity. It is not. Because of the

multiplier effect, banking, and other things, you can have rich people

without having others be poor.

> > Yes, I see them working to revoke the rights of women and

> > minorities to vote. Please.

>

> They are working on it-

No one is trying to revoke voting rights for anyone.

> and have already chipped away at a woman's

> right to choose.

Women get to choose all sorts of things. Don't try to euphemize it...

say what you mean, which is the right to have abortions upon demand (a

right I support).

There are women that are against abortion too... a whole lot of them.

They think that it is murder. I don't agree with that; I think you

should be able to kill any growth in your body if you so choose... but

there are people that think it is murder. Men don't have a right to

choose to kill people that call us names, because the person that we

would kill has the right not to be killed. Some people think that

fetuses are people, and so they want to treat them like they have the

right not to be killed as well. It's not a concerted effort to make

women into chattle again.

> They are trying to do away with affirmative action,

Good. Discrimination is wrong.

> and trying to mix religion with state (damn Christian right).

That part bothers me too. I don't like the Pats (on, Buchanan)

any more than you do.

> Bush

> appoints far right wing Christian wackos, who want to legislate based

> on the bible, not science.

You're talking here, I assume, about stem-cell research? Bush is way

off base on that. I am all in favor of stem-cell and other such research.

> The Bush dynasty is responsible for that whole mess. Bush has not

> even slowed al Qaeda down,

Oh, I don't know... haven't been any attacks in the US lately.

Worldwide terrorism is below 1960s levels now.

> but his stupid useless presence in Iraq

> has only further enraged them and given them a place to re-group and

> further attack Americans.

That may be valid, in fact, but we were talking about Clinton preventing

the 9-11 attacks, which he did not do.

> And as for Bush taking care of terrorists, here is a clip about what

> Bush is actually doing with OBL:

>

> Any sane person would assume that the bin Laden family could have

> given us some really useful information about Osama immediately after

> 9/11...

Yes, I had heard about that, and a lot of other stupid things like it.

I am not saying Bush is perfect; I am pretty disgusted with a lot of

things he has done. He has been a big disappointment for me, no doubt

about that. The USA PATRIOT act is an abomination, and what he and

Ashcroft want to do along those lines (including, but not limited to,

expanding the PATRIOT act) scares and repulses me. This is supposed to

be America. No, none of that is good at all. We should not sacrifice

our freedom in the name of terror abatement. We will NEVER get those

freedoms back when and if the terror threat is controlled.

> > The economy was booming, and he knew how to keep it that way.

>

> > Yeah-- by having Republicans in the majority of both houses of

> > Congress! That was the best thing Clinton did. Without the anger

> > Clinton's election caused, the 1994 Republican revolution never

> > would have taken place.

>

> NO, that's because Clinton knew what he was doing INSPITE of a

> Republican congress. And we still have one of those, don't we? And

> they are screwing everything up.

That's often what happens when you have a chief executive and a

legislature in the same party, unfortunately. The Congress has been

following the President down the garden path, and freedoms have

suffered. I am not pleased about that.

> NO, that's silly! Clinton and Gore's economics is what kept things

> going well. Of course you'd give the republicans credit for

> that!

I give the people most of the credit for that. The President has very

little power over the economy. It has been the habit of people to blame

or credit the chief executive of a state or country with the economy;

after the 1929 stock market crash started the Great Depression, the

little shanty-towns of homeless people were called " Hoover-villes. "

Hoover barely was inaugurated when the depression hit-- his policies

were not the cause of the depression, but he was the one in office, so

he was blamed. It's much more complex than that.

> Clinton designed the course of economics, and congress watered

> it down as much as they could. And the national health care plan

> was a good idea, almost every other nation has it, it's just that

> your corporate buddies and insurance companies couldn't stomach it,

> because they'd rather have a profit margin of 7000% than help people

> who are dying.

Once again, you are confusing altruistic benefit with being good for the

economy. Nationalizing health care would have been disaster for the

economy. Now, you can argue that it would be a good thing as a whole,

same as with all the other things I mentioned (labor unions,

environmental controls, etc), but they are definitely not good for the

economy.

> > Bush has done the only thing that can boost the economy, from a

> > >presidential standpoint-- he cut taxes.

>

> FOR THE WEALTHIEST 1% OF THE NATION, AND TO HELL WITH US. Gee, that

> really helped things, didn't it? (NOT!)

I know an awful lot of people that got tax refund checks, and none of

them are wealthy. However, it is true that if you want to boost the

economy, it makes sense to cut taxes for the people who will contribute

the most capital to the economy when you do so, and that is the rich.

> > Bull. 9-11 was mostly Clinton's fault, as I detailed in my other

> > letter. The 9-11 attacks took years to plan... Bush had only been

> > in office for 9 months when they took place. Most of the planning

> > took place under Clinton.

>

> 9-11 WAS CAUSED BY THE REPUBLICANS AND THE BUSH DYNASTY. Regan

The former Secretary of the Treasury caused 9-11?

> gave

> Osmama weapons to use against the soviets.

No, they gave the Taliban the weapons, and the Taliban supported al

Qaeda. That part was not when they began to hate us. It's when the US

pulled out unilaterally and cut off support for the Afghans, who were

then at the mercy of the Soviets. And I will not dispute that this has

long been the way the US has conducted itself, and that it never should

have been like that.

> Bush Sr. is what set him

> off, trying to stop Saddam, when Saddam was in power mostly because

> of American, republican support.

That may well be, but it does not support your contention that if

Clinton had been in power, 9/11 would not have happened. These events

happened before Clinton was elected, and Clinton did attempt to attack

al Qaeda on several occasions, which certainly did not appease them

any. They planned most of 9/11 under Clinton's non-watchful eye.

Remember that al Qaeda did attack US interests during Clinton's

presidency too.

Please be clear that I am in no way suggesting that Bush is perfect as

President. He has done a hell of a lot to piss me off, and I am

terribly disappointed. The purpose of this letter, though, is to

illustrate that even if Clinton had an extra term, 9-11 would have

happened just as it did.

[Guest guest]

>Oh, come on! They make piss for salary-- and they have to get a

>doctoral-level degree to get that piss. If they only cared about money,

>couldn't they come up with a more lucrative career? My vet charges $31

>for an office visit... given the massive overhead of that place, that's

>almost free medical care for animals. A lawyer would make $150 or more

>in the same time that vet made $31, and with a lot less equipment to buy.

Excuse me?

Vets make $80,000 per year, and no one ever gets out of the vet's office for a

mere $31. Here, my holistic vet charges $92 for the first visit alone, $62 for

a regular visit- I don't see her often. Most of the time people come out of the

vet owing $200+ in bills, for almost nothing. $130 for x-rays? That's just

stupid. $40 to $68 for a urinalysis or a fecal test? I do it myself for nothing

using the same sticks the vet does! And as for a fecal, all I have to do is get

a microscope, and follow the procedure. I can do it, as I've done hundreds of

analytical tests in my life. And I'm studying feline parasites, and I know what

they look like. The cost is almost nothing to do these tests.

>Rich veterinarians... yes, of course. I don't think there are many of

>those.

I KNOW for a fact that one evil, money grubbing vet and his vet wife have a $2

million dollar home here in LA. Another has a 3 million dollar home. It's all

about the money.

They have even charged me for tests, claimed the results were " normal " only to

find out later that they NEVER ran the test. So don't tell me that vets are

Angels.

>You also said that western

>medicine does not work, not that long ago, and I can give you examples

>of it working all day long.

I revised my statement to say something like a lot of Western Medicine does not

work, because it is focused on relieving symptoms, not curing the problem.

>Wouldn't you end up spending more money if you have a chronically sick

>cat for them to keep treating? Putting a cat down is not exactly a huge

>moneymaker, and neither is a blood test.

NO, because they KNOW FIV does nothing, so I wouldn't have a chronically ill

cat. And don't sit here and tell me that $220 for an initial blood test, and

then $160 for the Western Blot, and then excuses to gas Espresso AGAIN so they

can take more blood for $100 and then $300 to put him down aren't money makers.

It's designed to leave me mortified, and weakened, so I trust the vets more and

when I get a replacement kitty, I'll go running back for a check up and they can

do more shit.

>I don't think they really do so much. They're guessing a good part of the

time, just like >doctors for humans are.

THAT IS WRONG- they should KNOW what they are doing, not screwing me around and

thinking it's a lot of fun because they are too arrogant and too stupid to find

the real problem.

>Yeah, the rich-- the ones that provide the jobs, the ones who spend the

>biggest amount of money and boost the economy with those expenditures.

>It does a lot more good for the economy when a rich person buys a yacht

>than when a poor person buys a chicken.

What you seem to be forgetting here is that the rich KEEP THE EXTRA CASH FOR

THEMSELVES because they are greedy bastards. That's why the trickle down theory

is bullshit and they DON'T boost the economy. And they DO want to make everyone

poor, so they can have it all to themselves. They are drowning in greed, I tell

you, and you can't ignore it.

>The top 50% of income earners pay 96% of taxes already. Isn't that high

>enough?

No they don't. They get out of it anyway they can. Loopholes, etc.

>It still is not good for the economy to have environmental controls,

>period. You can certainly argue that it is better to have pollution

>controls, but all of them hurt the economy.

What are you talking about? I suppose lots of sick, dead people is GOOD for the

economy, at least to the health insurance companies and doctors, anyway.

>Reaganomics, we actually broke into the middle class, for the first time.

Reagan screwed everything up, and only paved the pathway to constant mergers, no

competition, and really helped the corporations start to create their " big

brother " society. They want to own us all, and they are on their way to doing

that.

>I have never once heard a Republican suggesting higher taxes for the poor.

This is a

>strawman.

They aren't going to openly say it, as they don't have the guts, but when you

look at some of the tax bracket percentages in the past, a thing that one has to

do research on, you will see that the poor and lower middle class were taxed in

such a way as the ended up with a much smaller percentage of their earnings than

corporations or rich persons.

>That's called the law of supply and demand. That's very good for the economy,

not bad for >it.

Oh, I see- so it's OK for corporations to rob us blind and triple our utility

rates, claiming there is a shortage of power, when they are making that up all

along huh?

And it's OK for the cable company to charge ridiculous and illegal zoning prices

for their worthless cable huh?

And it's OK for pharmaceuticals to have a 7000% profit margin here in the US, to

the point were sick and dying people can't afford the drugs, when down in Mexico

the prices are normal.

You think this is a GOOD thing?!

This is not the law of supply and demand. This is the law of " large

corporations will bleed you dry if they can " .

>Labor unions are also bad for the economy.

*Sarcasm* Sure- those damn labor unions- those assholes- making the

corporations treat people like human beings! How dare they! Because its MUCH

better for the economy to have beaten to death workers who earn pennies and

can't afford to buy anything but what they barely need, right? *Sarcasm*

That shit is only good for those who own the companies. Don't you remember

child labor- and the incident that started labor unions?

Back in 1912, I think, there was a sewing sweat shop in a high rise that caught

fire. I think it was in New York. The fucking managers LOCKED their employees

in a high floor, several stories up. The top of the building caught fire, and

the assholes couldn't be found to get the key to help the women who were

trapped.

HUNDREDS OF WOMEN BURNED TO DEATH OR JUMPED TO THEIR DEATHS TO TRY AND AVOID THE

FLAMES. That was the only choice they had.

Nothing happened to the owners, but I think they should have been drawn and

quartered.

People got pissed and started to form labor unions, so we could be treated like

human beings instead of property. And we still haven't gone far enough.

>They want to be unregulated because regulations are bad for business.

IE, bad in the sense of no more run away profits they can pocket at the expense

of people, who would get sick or die without regulations. Dead people buy lots

of stuff and work hard, don't they? (sarcasm)

>If you reduce taxes for these people, their business does better. Their

margins get >better. They make more money. That means they can hire more

people.

NO, it means they can keep more money for themselves and oppress the little guy

even further. Then they have more power to fake shortages and triple rates, buy

a small island in the ocean while people starve to death and they think it's

funny.

>Women get to choose all sorts of things. Don't try to euphemize it...

>say what you mean, which is the right to have abortions upon demand (a

>right I support).

Congress just passed a law BANNING late term abortions. And all that shit about

murder is just another patriarchal excuse to control women's bodies. People get

brainwashed into thinking that.

>>They are trying to do away with affirmative action,

>Good. Discrimination is wrong.

Oh, I see. So it's OK for the racist, sexist persons to continue to discriminate

against women and minorities, and it's OK to seriously limit the opportunities

minorities can get, instead of trying to balance things out since it is obvious

that women and minorities are discriminated against all the time. - In your

mind.

>Worldwide terrorism is below 1960s levels now.

So then what are all the bombings all over the world I keep hearing about? And

the deaths of at least one US troop per day in Iraq, by terrorists?!

>That may be valid, in fact, but we were talking about Clinton preventing

>the 9-11 attacks, which he did not do.

The whole thing actually started way before Clinton was in office. Before the

1993 WTC bombing. In that instance, what could have been a 9/11, with thousands

of people killed, 6 died.

I think his balanced foreign policy is MUCH better than Dubyas. The strongest

intelligence information came 2 months before the attacks.

And given how much Dubya loves Osama, I think he KNEW about the attacks, and let

them happen anyway. The 9/11 attack have done him and the republicans so much

good, that without them, he'd be toast in 2004. He used it as an excuse to

invade Iraq, he lied about WOMD, and the only reason we are there, spending

billions, is to secure OIL for Chaney's Oil cronies. Gee, this doesn't sound

like someone who has a real concern for Al Quida.

Now he's covering for the Saudis, and has a perfect excuse to enact that lovely

Patriot act. Which controls the masses and gives power to the elite rich, who

can use this against us anyway they want. It was all planned out before hand.

BTW, the attack on the USS Cole was in Oct 2000- Bush's administration. He soft

pedaled the whole thing and barely went after those terrorists

Clinton would have HEEDED THE WARNING- if it was given to him. He would have

done something to alert the people and stop it, no doubt about that.

And if he couldn't stop it, because the FBI and CIA are a bunch of morons, he

would have done things differently- he certainly would never have invaded Iraq-

that alone could have done wonders for us.

Did you know that Bush actually went to play golf in lieu of attending a fallen

soldier's funeral (from the war in Iraq)? That's just repugnant and

disgusting.

I think it's really hard to bag Clinton when you look at the jackass we've got

now.

>I know an awful lot of people that got tax refund checks, and none of

>them are wealthy.

Yeah! That stupid $300 did nothing for me, and got this country into a huge

deficit, and the thundering moron said we had a surplus, when we had no such

thing after he was done with the place.

>These events happened before Clinton was elected, and Clinton did attempt to

attack

>al Qaeda on several occasions, which certainly did not appease them any.

AQ is unappeasable. And Clinton tried very hard to get peace in the middle east,

and if those idiots followed the plan, it could have worked. Thus stabilizing

the place a little, and weakening the terrorist front.

Jeanette

[Guest guest]

Jeanette wrote:

> Vets make $80,000 per year,

That's kind of broad to say that's what they make. Some do, some

don't. $80,000 a year is hardly rich, though. Decent, but still middle

class.

> and no one ever gets out of the vet's

> office for a mere $31.

Really? I had better check my balance then, because that's what I

remember it costing.

> Here, my holistic vet charges $92 for the

> first visit alone, $62 for a regular visit- I don't see her often.

You should vote with your feet. I wouldn't pay that.

> And I'm studying

> feline parasites, and I know what they look like. The cost is almost

> nothing to do these tests.

The cost is in the time and the opportunity cost. It does not cost an

auto mechanic anything to fix your car if you bring him the parts--

except his time, and that's what you pay for.

My cat had some sort of tumor on his skin, and the vet recommended it be

surgically removed and biopsied. The total bill was $300. That's not

bad.

> What you seem to be forgetting here is that the rich KEEP THE EXTRA

> CASH FOR THEMSELVES because they are greedy bastards.

What do you think they do with it-- stuff it into a mattress? If they

invest it, that's spending; that helps the economy. If they put it in a

bank, the bank loans it out to others; they spend it, and that helps the

economy. The big houses, expensive cars, boats, all of that stuff they

buy, that boosts the economy.

> > The top 50% of income earners pay 96% of taxes already. Isn't that

> > high enough?

>

> No they don't. They get out of it anyway they can. Loopholes, etc.

They still pay 96% of the income taxes. Have a look at this Excel

spreadsheet, line 101:

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/00in01rt.xls

In the year 2000, the top 50% of income earners paid $942,179 million in

income taxes. The TOTAL income tax receipts for that year were $980,521

million. That's 96.09%. That's what they paid, not what someone thinks

they should have paid.

> > I have never once heard a Republican suggesting higher taxes for

> > the poor. This is a strawman.

>

> They aren't going to openly say it, as they don't have the guts,

Nor do they have that opinion...

> but

> when you look at some of the tax bracket percentages in the past, a

> thing that one has to do research on, you will see that the poor and

> lower middle class were taxed in such a way as the ended up with a

> much smaller percentage of their earnings than corporations or rich

> persons.

Again, I refer you to that spreadsheet. The top ONE percent of income

earners paid 37% of the taxes. Your numbers are based outside of

reality. The reality is that the rich are being soaked for FAR more of

their income than the poor.

> Oh, I see- so it's OK for corporations to rob us blind and triple our

> utility rates, claiming there is a shortage of power, when they are

> making that up all along huh?

Stop reading between the lines. I am talking about what is good for the

economy, nothing else.

> This is not the law of supply and demand. This is the law of " large

> corporations will bleed you dry if they can " .

Those are one and the same.

> > Labor unions are also bad for the economy.

>

> *Sarcasm* Sure- those damn labor unions- those assholes- making the

> corporations treat people like human beings! How dare they! Because

> its MUCH better for the economy to have beaten to death workers who

> earn pennies and can't afford to buy anything but what they barely

> need, right? *Sarcasm*

Wal-Mart is not unionized, and I don't see that happening.

> HUNDREDS OF WOMEN BURNED TO DEATH OR JUMPED TO THEIR DEATHS TO TRY

> AND AVOID THE FLAMES. That was the only choice they had.

Back then, unions were necessary.

> > If you reduce taxes for these people, their business does better.

> > Their margins get >better. They make more money. That means they

> > can hire more people.

>

> NO, it means they can keep more money for themselves and oppress the

> little guy even further.

The fact that you keep saying that they keep the money for themselves

indicates that you really do not know how the economy works. Unless

they are taking those millions and stuffing them into their mattresses,

and living like poor people even though they have a lot of money,

they're benefitting the economy. And they're paying for all of the

social services we both like, too, with the huge amounts of taxes they

pay. The top 5% of income earners paid 56% of the income taxes in 2000.

> > Women get to choose all sorts of things. Don't try to euphemize

> > it... say what you mean, which is the right to have abortions upon

> > demand (a right I support).

>

> Congress just passed a law BANNING late term abortions. And all that

> shit about murder is just another patriarchal excuse to control

> women's bodies. People get brainwashed into thinking that.

Not everyone that disagrees with you has been brainwashed. I am about

as pro-abortion as they come, but I realize that anti-abortion people

are acting according to their consciences. They are doing what they

think is the right and moral thing. I don't agree with them, but that

does not mean they are looking to dominate women. You're suggesting

that the anti-abortion movement is yet another conspiracy.

> >> They are trying to do away with affirmative action,

> > Good. Discrimination is wrong.

>

> Oh, I see. So it's OK for the racist, sexist persons to continue to

> discriminate against women and minorities,

No, and that is why affirmative action is wrong. It discriminates on

the basis of race, sex, or whatever politically correct thing they want

to discriminate on. I'm all for meritocracy-- your chances are based on

how good you are, not what color you are or how many X chromosomes you

appear to have.

> and it's OK to seriously

> limit the opportunities minorities can get, instead of trying to

> balance things out since it is obvious that women and minorities are

> discriminated against all the time. - In your mind.

The answer to discrimination is not more discrimination. The answer is

to stop discriminating.

> > Worldwide terrorism is below 1960s levels now.

>

> So then what are all the bombings all over the world I keep hearing

> about?

They are more public now that there is a " war on terror, " but the

outright numbers are down. Most of the bombings are in Israel, where

they have had that sort of thing forever. There used to be a hell of a

lot of bombings in northern Ireland; I'm not hearing about those so much

anymore.

> And the deaths of at least one US troop per day in Iraq, by

> terrorists?!

I do not consider those terrorist attacks. Those are attacks on

combatants. That's not terrorism. The US may wish to spin it as

terrorism, but it really isn't.

> > That may be valid, in fact, but we were talking about Clinton

> > preventing the 9-11 attacks, which he did not do.

>

> The whole thing actually started way before Clinton was in office.

> Before the 1993 WTC bombing. In that instance, what could have been

> a 9/11, with thousands of people killed, 6 died.

Right. That is my point.

> I think his balanced foreign policy is MUCH better than Dubyas. The

> strongest intelligence information came 2 months before the attacks.

Do you have a link for that? I would be interested in reading that.

Regardless if that is true, Clinton had the opportunity to take Osama

into custody, and he blew it.

> And given how much Dubya loves Osama, I think he KNEW about the

> attacks, and let them happen anyway.

Oh, sheesh... why am I even bothering to argue this? That is about the

same as the Clinton bashers that thought that Clinton had Vince

killed.

> The 9/11 attack have done him

> and the republicans so much good, that without them, he'd be toast in

> 2004.

His handling of Iraq has been rated badly, and his approval ratings are

declining as a result.

> He used it as an excuse to invade Iraq, he lied about WOMD,

> and the only reason we are there, spending billions, is to secure OIL

> for Chaney's Oil cronies. Gee, this doesn't sound like someone who

> has a real concern for Al Quida.

He did a lot more to fight al Qaeda than Clinton, who left office with

the Taliban still protecting him.

> BTW, the attack on the USS Cole was in Oct 2000- Bush's

> administration.

Want to check the date of Bush's term again? He was inaugurated on 20th

January 2001.

> He soft pedaled the whole thing and barely went

> after those terrorists

He meaning Clinton, the President?

> I think it's really hard to bag Clinton when you look at the jackass

> we've got now.

Oh, I don't know, it's coming pretty easily for me

> > I know an awful lot of people that got tax refund checks, and none

> > of them are wealthy.

>

> Yeah! That stupid $300 did nothing for me, and got this country into

> a huge deficit, and the thundering moron said we had a surplus, when

> we had no such thing after he was done with the place.

So you got one, and then you claimed that only the rich got a tax cut.

> AQ is unappeasable.

Well, if the US quit supporting Israel and get all Americans off of Arab

lands, it might stop. That's what they have claimed, anyway. Or maybe

their hatred would prevent that from ever being enough. Regardless, I

am not in favor of giving them what they want; if we did, they would use

terrorism to try to control us. We have to go after them as we are, but

at the same time, we should also stop the standard US practice of

abandoning our " allies " like the Afghanis when they are no longer useful

to us.

> And Clinton tried very hard to get peace in the

> middle east, and if those idiots followed the plan, it could have

> worked. Thus stabilizing the place a little, and weakening the

> terrorist front.

I would like to see Israel get out of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip,

and have the US quit supporting them blindly while they continue to

settle those regions. Still, I can understand why Israel cannot give in

to the Palestinians as long as they are using terrorism to try to

achieve those goals.

It would have been nice if Clinton had been able to establish peace, for

sure. It was a noble gesture, but that area has been a powder keg since

before there was a United States, and it was a little unreasonable and

arrogant to expect one US President to be able to fix that.

Finally-- as for your title... this is not a flame war. This is a

pretty civil debate, don't you think?

[Guest guest]

>That's kind of broad to say that's what they make. Some do, some

>don't. $80,000 a year is hardly rich, though. Decent, but still middle

>class.

That's rich to me!

> Here, my holistic vet charges $92 for the

> first visit alone, $62 for a regular visit- I don't see her often.

>You should vote with your feet. I wouldn't pay that.

The only reason I did was she was the only one who could give me good advice on

feeding my cats a raw diet when I wanted to start that. She charges like a nut,

but she hasn't lied to me,(Although she wanted to do some acupuncture on the

cats and I said NO)and really helped me with my raw food cat diet. She really

knows her stuff, and there are not very many holistic vets out in LA, believe it

or not.

>My cat had some sort of tumor on his skin, and the vet recommended it be

>surgically removed and biopsied. The total bill was $300. That's not

>bad.

No, that's not bad- they want to charge me $800 or more for the same thing, and

this is NOT my expensive vet. I think it's the high LA cost of living.

>What do you think they do with it-- stuff it into a mattress? If they

>invest it, that's spending; that helps the economy. If they put it in a

>bank, the bank loans it out to others; they spend it, and that helps the

>economy. The big houses, expensive cars, boats, all of that stuff they

>buy, that boosts the economy.

Not all that spending helps. Buying expensive cars doesn't really boost the

economy that much, as most people don't work in that industry, or rich wares

industries. And it depends on where they invest.

Buying an Island in the middle of the ocean does nothing for the little guy.

The way to boost the economy is to PAY people more and treat them with respect-

so they can buy things the little guys wants and uses, not do what conservatives

want to do. Empower and protect the little guy, because the rich have too much

power as it is.

>Wal-Mart is not unionized, and I don't see that happening.

NO, but they are being SUED for treating their employees like shit- I bet THAT

will mess up Walmart's economy! And they deserve it, too

> This is not the law of supply and demand. This is the law of " large

> corporations will bleed you dry if they can " .

>Those are one and the same.

Excuse me? I don't see the law of supply and demand " bleeding me dry " . There is

a huge difference. If you think they are one and the same, that's pretty scary

to me.

>You're suggesting that the anti-abortion movement is yet another conspiracy.

The part that is violent and involved in the Christian right sure is. Some

people get sucked into that thinking, and they are not a " conspiracy " , they just

support it without knowing it. Open your eyes.

>Not everyone that disagrees with you has been brainwashed.

No, that's not my point. And maybe it's not exactly " brainwashed " , but the

conservative propaganda machine influences people in bad ways. That's why I now

have to deal with the " governator " .

>The answer to discrimination is not more discrimination. The answer is

>to stop discriminating.

How would you do that? The laws are useless and barely enforceable.

>Worldwide terrorism is below 1960s levels now.

>They are more public now that there is a " war on terror, " but the

>outright numbers are down.

Where did you get those " numbers " ?

>Most of the bombings are in Israel, where

>they have had that sort of thing forever. There used to be a hell of a

>lot of bombings in northern Ireland; I'm not hearing about those so much

>anymore.

What about the Bali bombing? There are many others that have happened outside

Israel, against US citizens and others who back us.

And may be you aren't hearing about those because we are so focused on AQ's

world excursion.

>I think his balanced foreign policy is MUCH better than Dubyas. The

> strongest intelligence information came 2 months before the attacks.

>Do you have a link for that? I would be interested in reading that.

I have to find it.

> And given how much Dubya loves Osama, I think he KNEW about the

> attacks, and let them happen anyway.

>Oh, sheesh... why am I even bothering to argue this? That is about the

>same as the Clinton bashers that thought that Clinton had Vince

>killed.

Because Bush has done so much for Osama, including covering for the Saudis and

sending his FAMILY back on a plane, that it's pretty clear what's going on.

>He did a lot more to fight al Qaeda than Clinton, who left office with

>the Taliban still protecting him.

Like hell Bush has! All W has done is act like a jackass, divert BILLIONS of

dollars to Iraq, which has nothing to do with terrorists, but certainly

aggravated the crap out of them. And AQ is SO prevalent they are HERE IN THE

US- they have Terrorist training camps here. W has made things much, much

worse. He has pissed off so much of the world that now he has sparked enough

rage in people that many more people want to be terrorists.

And now, they can migrate to Iraq and also set up shop there! Do you have any

idea how much the Iraqis hate us? And how pissed off the other Arab nations are

now?

The Taliban protecting Clinton- where did you get that idea?

>So you got one, and then you claimed that only the rich got a tax cut.

That silly refund is NOT a tax cut. It is a stupid cheap gesture by W to cover

up the fact that the real tax cuts go to the wealthiest 1%.

>Well, if the US quit supporting Israel and get all Americans off of Arab

>lands, it might stop. That's what they have claimed, anyway. Or maybe

>their hatred would prevent that from ever being enough. Regardless, I

>am not in favor of giving them what they want; if we did, they would use

>terrorism to try to control us. We have to go after them as we are, but

>at the same time, we should also stop the standard US practice of

>abandoning our " allies " like the Afghanis when they are no longer useful

>to us.

This is true. THIS is why terrorism exists. The US just uses foreign nations,

fucks them over, and moves on, just like the greedy corporations that rule this

country. And people wonder why 80% of other nations hate us.

>Finally-- as for your title... this is not a flame war. This is a

>pretty civil debate, don't you think?

It is " civil " but its still " hot " . I was also kind of kidding about it, making

a joke of how we keep going at eachother when not one of us is going to change

our opinions on things, really.

Jeanette

[Guest guest]

>...i think all

>on the list should think twice before backing affirmative action

>(giving jobs to those that would not otherwise be qualified)

That's not what affirmative action is.

Jane

[Guest guest]

> >That's kind of broad to say that's what they make. Some do, some

> >don't. $80,000 a year is hardly rich, though. Decent, but still

middle

> >class.

> That's rich to me!

Well, there's always the " It's all relative " thing. $914 a month

(which I'll be getting when my benefits change) is rich to me, but my

friend told me most people aren't satisfied if they're making that

much a *week*.

But I've known truly, truly rich people -- very-upper-middle-class and

upper-class people, including the kind who live in mansions and buy

their children fancy cars years before they can drive -- and they're

usually not vets (never met one who was), and definitely make more

than $80,000 a year.

[Guest guest]

wrote:

>Well, there's always the " It's all relative " thing. $914 a month

>(which I'll be getting when my benefits change) is rich to me, but my

>friend told me most people aren't satisfied if they're making that

>much a *week*.

$914 a week???? Wow.

>But I've known truly, truly rich people -- very-upper-middle-class and

>upper-class people, including the kind who live in mansions and buy

>their children fancy cars years before they can drive -- and they're

>usually not vets (never met one who was), and definitely make more

>than $80,000 a year.

Back when I worked in Orthopedics, the doctors made at least

$150,000/yr. That was 20 years ago, though.

Jane