posted on September 25, 2000 11:11:51 PM new
Damn right! We live in the most powerful nation on Earth and deserve the biggest government spending the most money.
Serendipity & Peace...
posted on September 25, 2000 11:22:34 PM new
I want to increase the budget for NASA so we can explore, and go, into outer space. More than we have so far.
Barry (it is in our nature, we have to explore) Barris
posted on September 26, 2000 05:08:41 PM newI want to increase the budget for NASA so we can explore, and go, into outer space. More than we have so far.
barrybarris, I can agree with that, however, what I have to take exception to would be increasing the size of the staff for whatever cabinet post or any other government department that controls or oversees NASA to the point that any increase in budget for NASA would not be effective towards the exploration of outer space. In otherwords make the funds available for research and/or exploration but leave the pencil pushing bean counting beurocrats out of it after the increase.
posted on September 26, 2000 06:48:41 PM new
yellowstone I agree, honestly who? would want more gov't, thats in your face and your business? I don't.
I vote Republican.... hey sorry Gore fans, Bush might not be the best candidate, but he's for less government, the way it should be.
Who chooses the canidates? The parties. There are a ton of Republicans that could have been chosen, same with the Democratic party.
They are not stupid, either party. They know what they are doing.
posted on September 26, 2000 08:52:00 PM new
yellowstone,
Thank you for agreeing with me about increasing NASA's budget. I agree with you that any increase should be towards the exploration of outer space. and not for the pencil pushing bean counting bureaucrats.
I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, I have no political party affiliation. I feel this gives me the flexibility to vote for the candidate and party platform that I think is best for the time. So I will be voting for Al Gore.
posted on September 26, 2000 09:01:56 PM new
I tend to advoid the political subjects just because I don't think you will convince anyone. But I will tell you, that I am from Texas and I am voting for Gore!
posted on September 27, 2000 04:24:19 AM new
Assuming this isn't just a rhetorical question, I think it stems from the desire to have things "fixed" (however you define that term) without having to actually get off your personal duff. You know: "Somebody got to DOOOOOO something!"
Individual action is scary. But I also think we like to talk ourselves into thinking "Oh, what I do won't matter" because that way we don't have to act. We say society's so impersonal now, nobody knows their neighbors, so we needto have an agency do X - all the time, of course, making no move whatsoever to personally make society LESS impersonal by getting to know your neighbors. It's much easier to excuse oneself with inadequacy/delicacy/fear of retribution, and expect "Them" to take care of it - the added bonus being that when "They" DO "take care of it," we can then blame "Them" for not taking care of it right, bemoan the advent of Big Brother, and gripe about how much it all costs.
The inverse of this stance, of course, is insisting that "people should do that for themselves," which absolves the speaker/observer from doing anything personally to help. The bonus on this side of the fence is the opportunity to feel self-righteous in one's good fortune, deride the unfortunate for being shiftless, and ask why, since agencies certainly don't help this sort of problem since the problem still exists, people would want bigger government.
I do think there's a middle ground. I suspect it's populated mostly by people who are too busy "doing something" to spend time debating the issue further.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 27, 2000 04:27 AM ]
posted on October 8, 2000 10:03:39 PM new
figuratively speaking I am jumping up on the soapbox again and I want too say;
Each of these cases-- and many other similar ones -- may be trivial.
But together, do they show a pattern that, in a president, for example,
would reflect a character trait that is not trivial?
It's a trivial thing, maybe, that Vice President Al Gore Jr. repeatedly
tells things that, well, just aren't really so.
It was trivial when he claimed that he and wife Tipper were the models for
characters in "Love Story."
It was trivial when he claimed he "found" Love Canal, although two months
before President Jimmy Carter had declared it a disaster area and offered to
have the federal government buy its houses.
It was trivial when Mr. Gore claimed to have invented the Internet, which
was conceived before he entered Congress.
It was trivial when he said he became an enemy of tobacco when his sister, a
smoker, died of lung cancer -- but he later appealed for tobacco farmers'
votes by ardently relating how he was one of them, having worked personally
in every stage of tobacco production.
It was trivial when he claimed his sister was "the very first volunteer for
the Peace Corps," although she was actually a paid employee in its
headquarters.
It was trivial when he said " I grew up on a farm," and "I live on a farm
today," although he lived in a Washington hotel suite and went to school at
St. Albans Cathedral School in Washington, and at the time of the latter
claim lived in the vice presidential mansion in Washington.
It was trivial when he claimed in 1987 that half his staff were women, but
when asked by reporters to name his staff women, he fumbled before coming up
with one name, which later was found to be incorrect.
It was trivial that he claimed he had "always" been for "choice" for
abortion to kill unwanted unborn babies, although when he represented a
fairly conservative Tennessee district he voted for declaring an unborn baby
a person and said abortion is "arguably the taking of a human life."
It was trivial that he changed from being a House member who prompted a
National Rifle Association official to say "We could have made Al Gore NRA
Man of the Year," to be one of the most vociferous gun-control advocates in
current politics.
It was trivial when he claimed "I was the author" of a proposal for the
Earned Income Tax Credit, although it was enacted in 1975, two years before
Mr. Gore entered Congress.
It was trivial when he claimed he was a co-sponsor of the McCain-Feingold
campaign-finance reform bill, although he and Sen. Russell Feingold never
served together in the Senate.
It was trivial when he claimed President Bill Clinton is "one of our
greatest presidents,'' although ...
It was trivial whether the meeting at the California Buddhist temple was a
fund-raiser -- until the money poured in from poverty-pledged nuns and
pre-event Gore staff memos showed it was clearly a fund-raiser.
It was trivial -- or was it? -- when Mr. Gore claimed there is "no
controlling legal authority" to prevent him from making political fund
solicitation calls from the White House although the law says it is, and
although a White House adviser had warned against the illegal procedure in
advance
It was trivial -- or was it? -- when Mr. Gore claimed he was a supporter of
the Persian Gulf War, although Sen. Alan Simpson, R-Wyo., said Sen. Gore
approached Minority Leader Bob Dole seeking to barter his vote "for" or
"against" supporting President George Bush on the war -- depending upon how
much debate time Sen. Gore would get: "Bob, how much time will you give me
if I support the president?" Sen. Dole asked how much "the other side"
offered. Sen. Gore said "seven minutes." Sen. Dole offered 15, then said,
"Maybe we can get you another five, so you'd have 20 minutes, Al." Sen. Gore
responded, "Well, I'll think about it all night." He finally voted for the
war.
It was trivial when, courting union officials, Mr. Gore recently said he
remembered, as a baby, the singing of "Look for the union label" as a
lullaby. But he was actually 27 when the song was written.
It was trivial when Mr. Gore claimed his mother-in-law had to pay $108 for
an arthritis drug that cost only $37.80 for his dog, Shiloh, although his
claim was not fact at all. He had lifted the cost figures from a Democratic
report that had nothing to do directly with his mother-in-law or Shiloh.
It was trivial when Mr. Gore insisted in Tuesday's presidential debate that
he had accompanied the Federal Emergency Management director to Texas in the
wake of a disaster -- although he and the FEMA director had never been there
together.
It was trivial when Mr. Gore, also in Tuesday's debate, claimed that a
15-year-old Sarasota high school girl had to stand because she had no desk,
being the 36th student in a class supposedly for 24 -- to which the school
principal, Daniel Kennedy, responded: "It would have been good if the facts
had been checked before he was encouraged to use that information on a
national debate. The picture he was referring to was taken maybe the first
or second day of school. It's that time when we're normally moving
furniture, we're moving kids. If this young lady had to stand ... it may
have been largely her choice because there were lots of lab stools in that
classroom." The room, in question was a science lab that Principal Kennedy
said "has about $150,000 in new equipment this year."
Each of these cases-- and many other similar ones -- may be trivial.
But together, do they show a pattern that, in a president, for example,
would reflect a character trait that is not trivial?
posted on October 8, 2000 10:48:33 PM new
Yes, trivial or not we have to choose between:
A liar caught on many occasions
OR
A confessed drug addict
hmmm..... the lesser of two big evils
So I choose how the economy is doing and the fact that the new President picks several supreme court justices this term and I cannot have Bush who wishes to abolish a woman's right in that hot seat- so the liar it is.
posted on October 8, 2000 11:13:24 PM newBoysmommie3 I've seen a lot of proof of Gore's lies and I know that Bush admitted to having tried drugs. I think he even admitted to inhaling. Still, I don't consider him a drug addict - pretty strong words. Why do you believe that Bush wants to abolish a woman's right as a supreme court justice?
posted on October 8, 2000 11:22:52 PM new
Bush is a confessed cocaine addict. He has been through treatment.
He is against abortion and will be choosing like candidates for the justice seats.
My husband feels the same way so not just a female perspective. Although he feels the same way because of economical reasons and Bush's record in his home state.
Edited to add:
I am reading the issues and both sides as well as watching the debates. I am pretty set but can always be persuaded. However, the supreme court issue is a major one.
[ edited by boysmommy3 on Oct 8, 2000 11:25 PM ]
posted on October 8, 2000 11:25:00 PM new
Woah! Admitted to inhaling what? Cocaine? That isn't a 'recreational' drug by any means and is *highly* addictive! If he took it as much as was rumored, I'd be impressed if he *wasn't* addicted.
As for taking away a woman's right to choose..you're right, he has *not* said outright that he will do that. He *has* said which Supreme Court Justice he admires most. That person is Antonin Scalia, one of *the* most conservative justices on the court and one of the justices that has time and again voted *against* a woman's right to choose. The court is already only 5-4 on these issues, if he gets elected and appoints justices like Scalia, that is going to drop *very* quickly into 5-4, even 6-3 the other way (considering there are most likely 3 justices that will be up for appointment during the next four years).
That just scares me.
<edited because Supreme Court Justices should have their names spelt right >
[ edited by tarisa on Oct 8, 2000 11:36 PM ]
posted on October 8, 2000 11:53:17 PM new
I think you're right. It was Clinton & Gore who admitted smoking marijuana. Clinton said he didn't inhale and I'm sure Gore had something to do with inventing it.
As for Bush, everything I've read about his drug use dated back to over 25 years ago and was limited to a short period of time. Very stupid - but, I hardly think he's having flashbacks.
Also, he has expressed repeatedly that he wants Supreme Court Justice appointees to adhere to the constitution - regardless of his views... course, what else could he say.
I'm pretty sure they all just say what they have to to get elected.
I think the thing that offends me about Gore is that he thinks we're all too stupid to know when he's lying. As in simple things like doing the math to figure out he was 27 years old when the Union song he was lullabyed to as a babe was written.
I'm still undecided - but have seen a lot of good under the Bush Governorship in Texas - especially in my local school districts.
posted on October 9, 2000 12:05:34 AM new
I'm not thrilled with my choices either, but I don't understand the need to bring up all of Al Gore's lies. We know he's made them, and it just brings up the question as to whether you think George Bush is lily white, excluding even the cocaine issue?
Have you checked out www.georgebush2000.com ?? There you'll find equally as many points to be made about the ethics of and questions to be raised about Bush...my fingers are too tired to type them all here
Why throw stones when you're in a glass house?
To be honest, I won't be voting for either - call it a throw-away vote if you will, at least my conscience will be clear.
posted on October 9, 2000 04:31:07 AM new
Bravo, tarisa. Yours may be a "throwaway" vote, but at least it's not as unconscionable as not voting at all. We might not like the choice presented to us, but for crying out loud, people died to preserve that right - and are dying every day in countries around the world to obtain the right to make even an unpalatable choice.
Please, folks, as much as some or ALL of the candidates may turn your stomach, honor the guys who died on D-Day and show up at the polls.
posted on October 9, 2000 05:50:22 AM new
Dont make any mistakes about what I am saying here the fact is that if you would rather have a liar as president rather than a person who has the dignity and honesty to admit to their prior/past drug abuse then you want to live in a fantasy/fairytale world. I would not want someone for president that is obviously going to lie to me or to the rest of the world. I'm sure that Algore thinks he is only being funny when he makes these misleading and stupid statements but this sort of humor is not fully understood by other cultures and if he is not careful he can undo all of the advances that prior presidents have made with regards to foreign policy and possibly be the catalist that starts wars.
I agree with HCQ, voting is better than not voting at all, whomever you vote for.
posted on October 9, 2000 06:01:46 AM new
Does anybody actually think that calling the opposing candidate a liar, or resorting to snide name-calling ("Algore," "Dubya" is going to convince anybody that HIS candidate is somehow morally superior or better suited to the job?
posted on October 9, 2000 06:04:23 AM new
Bravo, hcq! Yes, the choices make me want to retch, but for people like my uncle, my grandfather, husband, and brother,(WW2, WW1, Vietnam) I get out there. I'll be nice, and just say these guys make Nader look Great!
posted on October 9, 2000 06:40:30 AM new
Unfortunately his drug addiction was not just 25 years ago. He was addicted enough to seek treatmeant - and that is why I believe he admitted b/cuz he would have been outed.
He is an addict for life. But the main problem I have is the supreme court justice appointments. Those we all will deal with and I believe the ones he supports will set us back and that is a major thing to me. In addition, Bush's record in many areas in Texas is horrible- so taking that to the Nation is not a plus for him.
I do not like either choice. However, I do like the state of the economy right now and that is b/cuz of the current administration. Interesting that a poll was done last week and named on the national news that said if Clinton ran again he would win.
posted on October 9, 2000 07:20:53 AM new
OK, so we all know Al Gore is a liar and a crummy choice for President. (And I'll bet he's a PayPal supporter, too! )
But Bush's views indicate such a fundamental lack of respect for women that I could never vote for him. So Gore it is.
) Barris
LOL