ot: what me worry???
bozak
me of alfred e. newman...
Bush Binds Us Into a Fiscal Straitjacket
By ROBERT SCHEER
Are we all dimwits? We just sit there with goofy looks on our faces while the economy sputters and the president blows what remains
of the budget surplus on a tax giveaway to the rich. With nary a peep as the "what me worry?" kid has the gall to make stealing
funds from Social Security and Medicare--to pay for a military buildup to fight an enemy that doesn't exist--sound like fiscal
responsibility.
There is method to the president's madness, as he spelled out in his press conference Friday, proclaiming that the prospect of
government red ink is "incredibly positive news" because it will produce "a fiscal straitjacket for Congress."
Get it? The plan is to bankrupt the national government so we can be reduced to life as it's lived in Texas, where the rich make out
like bandits playing with public funds, as George W. did on that stadium deal, while the rest of the folks scramble. Texas
politicians, including three presidents in the past 40 years, always make sure their companies are fed well at the Washington
trough, even if it means going to war. Whatever the state of the federal budget, Bush is not going to be tight with the dollar when
it comes to a bloated military, because big oil still needs that stick of U.S. military intervention to protect its investments
abroad.
Why else do we need a military big enough to fight two wars at once except to protect U.S. investments that stretch from the Caspian
Sea to the Persian Gulf? Think of it as a Social Security program--or more accurately, welfare--for military contractors and energy
companies, led by Halliburton, where Dick Cheney hustled his quick millions.
Bush never believed in a progressive federal government, including its programs for seniors, but he had to pretend otherwise to win
over moderate voters. Now he blithely offers a recession he helped create and a war that he's not yet managed to find as a rationale
for stealing from seniors: "I've said that the only reason we should use Social Security funds is in the case of an economic
recession or war." That was Friday, but Monday the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said that this year $9 billion must be
taken out of Social Security, thanks to Bush's tax cut and the recession. What idiocy, to jeopardize the one domestic government
program that really works. Seniors were once the poorest people around, and now they're the most secure, thanks to the guarantee of
at least a minimum income and health care. If you buy the lie that those programs just benefit seniors, consider the crushing burden
on young families back in the good old days, when they struggled to provide for aging parents. Try to launch a career, raise a
family and still pay the health costs of Mom and Dad, and you'll get the picture.
Unless your family happens to be super rich like the president's. For most Americans, Social Security and Medicare are the best
family values programs, and it's mind-boggling that we sit by while a born-rich president who has never known a second of family
financial insecurity threatens to pull the safety net out from under the rest of us.
Go figure. Maybe we just find it too hard to follow the money--our money--particularly when all those zeros are tacked on. The
federal budget is $1.9 trillion, and the $328 billion that Bush wants to give to the military must just sound like chump change. The
big news, much easier to understand, is the sex life of a hick congressman whose name the baby boomers will have forgotten 10 years
from now when they are informed that there is no money to cover the health and retirement payments owed them.
By then, the president who conned them will be back at his ranch in Crawford, chuckling about how he really put one over. As an
ex-president, he will even get to cut ribbons at the umpteenth test of a missile defense program that will still be as far as ever
from working.
Of course, wasting money on the military is a time-honored tradition, but with Bush, it's truly getting out of hand. Even Rep. Jim
Nussle, the Iowa Republican who heads the House Budget Committee, was perplexed by the administration's asking for a defense hike
before Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had even completed his review of what the military requires: "That's unacceptable if
they are planning on getting more. We're not just going to throw money at defense again."
Sure, he will, and so will most of his colleagues, and Bush knows it. That's why the president so smugly welcomes the shriveling of
the budget surplus as good news, because it means that those nonmilitary things the government is supposed to do but which he never
approved of, such as health care for the working poor, won't get done.
JC Martin
more anti-establishment minded artists...and I don't mean thug life or money
oriented type shit. Today's kids could use a little kick in the rear.
The party seems to be ending for now.
Will capitalism/world trade further our existence on planet Earth? Who
knows. The experiment continues
-JC
" bozak" <bo...@onebox.com> wrote in message
news:fEQi7.1468$aC1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
bozak
"JC Martin" <subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message news:jWRi7.1531$Fv3.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> I don't know about you, but I hope the music industry will start to promote
> more anti-establishment minded artists...and I don't mean thug life or money
> oriented type shit. Today's kids could use a little kick in the rear.
> The party seems to be ending for now.
why do we need music or art to figure out our presidunce is a money
grubbing dweeb???
Branden Wolner
bo...@onebox.com wrote on 8/28/01 1:36 PM:
> it appears that im not the only one who thinks the presidunce reminds
> me of alfred e. newman...
>
>
> Bush Binds Us Into a Fiscal Straitjacket
>
> By ROBERT SCHEER
>
> Are we all dimwits? We just sit there with goofy looks on our faces while the
> economy sputters and the president blows what remains
> of the budget surplus on a tax giveaway to the rich. With nary a peep as the
> "what me worry?" kid has the gall to make stealing
> funds from Social Security and Medicare--to pay for a military buildup to
> fight an enemy that doesn't exist--sound like fiscal
> responsibility.
>
> There is method to the president's madness, as he spelled out in his press
> conference Friday, proclaiming that the prospect of
> government red ink is "incredibly positive news" because it will produce "a
> fiscal straitjacket for Congress."
>
> Get it? The plan is to bankrupt the national government
This has been "the plan" for nearly 40 years.
--
Branden Wolner
dewey...@netzero.net
UMass Medical Center
Worcester, Mass.
--
Go Yankees!! 26 and Counting!!!
On the Back-to-Back World Championship Lakers Basketball Network
Go Giants!!! Thanks for the Ride!!!!
Go Rangers! There's always next year!
JC Martin
Because it's human nature that most people are fickle. Science and the arts
usually steer the way towards progress.
-JC
Jared James Peccarelli
> it appears that im not the only one who thinks the presidunce reminds
> me of alfred e. newman...
Did you even read the drivel below?
> Bush Binds Us Into a Fiscal Straitjacket
>
> By ROBERT SCHEER
>
> Are we all dimwits? We just sit there with goofy looks on our faces while the economy sputters and the president blows what remains
> of the budget surplus on a tax giveaway to the rich. With nary a peep as the "what me worry?" kid has the gall to make stealing
> funds from Social Security and Medicare--to pay for a military buildup to fight an enemy that doesn't exist--sound like fiscal
> responsibility.
Stealing funds from SS and Medicare? Does Mr Scheer know what he's
talking - writing - about? If Mr Scheer believes that a separate fund
exists - or even that a "lock-box" exists - does he also believe in the
"Easter Bunny" or the "Tooth Fairy?"
Bill Clinton is responsible for the misperception that a separate "trust
fund" exists for Social Security and that that "trust fund" holds our
payroll contributions each year. Of course, Clinton claimed that such a
fund existed merely for HIS political benefit. Unfortunately, Bush,
following Gore's lead, continued using similar jargon during the campaign.
That was a mistake. However, for anyone to HONESTLY claim that such a
trust fund exists - and holds our payroll contributions - is absurd and
disingenuous.
> There is method to the president's madness, as he spelled out in his press conference Friday, proclaiming that the prospect of
> government red ink is "incredibly positive news" because it will produce "a fiscal straitjacket for Congress."
That's right. Bush's tax cut has prevented lefties from (mis)spending
taxpayers' money on a variety of social and welfare programs. Now, to
expand such programs, Dems would need to RAISE taxes to fund their
government handout programs. And doing so would be politically unwise.
> Get it? The plan is to bankrupt the national government so we can be reduced to life as it's lived in Texas, where the rich make out
> like bandits playing with public funds, as George W. did on that stadium deal, while the rest of the folks scramble.
What about the billions and billions of dollars of "public funds" which
are lost each year due to waste, fraud, and abuse? If Mr Scheer is so
worried about the federal government going belly up, then why doesn't he
propose ways to streamline the federal government and make if more
efficient?
> Why else do we need a military big enough to fight two wars at once except to protect U.S. investments that stretch from the Caspian
> Sea to the Persian Gulf? Think of it as a Social Security program--or more accurately, welfare--for military contractors and energy
> companies, led by Halliburton, where Dick Cheney hustled his quick millions.
Of course, Mr Scheer is right in that the US has never fought a war in two
different theaters simultaneously.
> Bush never believed in a progressive federal government, including its programs for seniors, but he had to pretend otherwise to win
> over moderate voters. Now he blithely offers a recession he helped create and a war that he's not yet managed to find as a rationale
> for stealing from seniors: "I've said that the only reason we should use Social Security funds is in the case of an economic
> recession or war." That was Friday, but Monday the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said that this year $9 billion must be
> taken out of Social Security, thanks to Bush's tax cut and the recession. What idiocy, to jeopardize the one domestic government
> program that really works.
Untrue. Funds will not be "taken out of Social Security," as no funds are
currently HELD in Social Security. The contributions that I make to the
Social Security "fund" this year are NOT held there until I retire or I
start withdrawing the funds.
>Seniors were once the poorest people around, and now they're the most
>secure, thanks to the guarantee of
> at least a minimum income and health care.
Ah, that's right, seniors were ONCE the poorest people around - that is no
longer the case today.
> Unless your family happens to be super rich like the president's.
Or like the families of most Democrats and Republicans in Congress.
>For most Americans, Social Security and Medicare are the best
> family values programs, and it's mind-boggling that we sit by while a born-rich president who has never known a second of family
> financial insecurity threatens to pull the safety net out from under the rest of us.
Well, it's also mind-boggling that Democrats in Congress oppose school
vouchers for POOR, INNER CITY kids, while having no second thoughts about
sending their own children to PRIVATE schools. Where is Mr Scheer's
outrage for that hypocrisy?
> Go figure. Maybe we just find it too hard to follow the money--our money--particularly when all those zeros are tacked on. The
> federal budget is $1.9 trillion, and the $328 billion that Bush wants to give to the military must just sound like chump change. The
> big news, much easier to understand, is the sex life of a hick congressman whose name the baby boomers will have forgotten 10 years
> from now when they are informed that there is no money to cover the health and retirement payments owed them.
Is Mr Scheer suggesting that Bush is to blame if the money that I
contribute to SS and Medicare this year isn't there when I retire? That's
absurd and disingenuous.
> Sure, he will, and so will most of his colleagues, and Bush knows it. That's why the president so smugly welcomes the shriveling of
> the budget surplus as good news, because it means that those nonmilitary things the government is supposed to do but which he never
> approved of, such as health care for the working poor, won't get done.
Is Mr Scheer suggesting that it's fiscally sound to run a surplus in a
recession or during an economic downturn?
Jared
Branden Wolner
at subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net wrote on 8/28/01 6:56 PM:
Whereas religion usually steers the opposite way.
Branden Wolner
Jared James Peccarelli at jare...@csd.uwm.edu wrote on 8/29/01 10:26 AM:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, bozak wrote:
>
>> it appears that im not the only one who thinks the presidunce reminds
>> me of alfred e. newman...
>
> Did you even read the drivel below?
>
>> Bush Binds Us Into a Fiscal Straitjacket
>>
>> By ROBERT SCHEER
>>
>> Are we all dimwits? We just sit there with goofy looks on our faces while the
>> economy sputters and the president blows what remains
>> of the budget surplus on a tax giveaway to the rich. With nary a peep as the
>> "what me worry?" kid has the gall to make stealing
>> funds from Social Security and Medicare--to pay for a military buildup to
>> fight an enemy that doesn't exist--sound like fiscal
>> responsibility.
>
> Stealing funds from SS and Medicare? Does Mr Scheer know what he's
> talking - writing - about? If Mr Scheer believes that a separate fund
> exists - or even that a "lock-box" exists - does he also believe in the
> "Easter Bunny" or the "Tooth Fairy?"
>
I don't know what he believes, but I do know that both Bush and the
Republican Platform talk about this "lock-box" like it was a religious icon.
Jared James Peccarelli
>
> in article EkVi7.2180$Fv3.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net, JC Martin
>
> > usually steer the way towards progress.
> >
> Whereas religion usually steers the opposite way.
Yep, that's just what I was thinking while watching "The O'Reilly Factor"
last night. One of O'Reilly's guests was an "artist." His "art" involved
photographing Barbie dolls in various settings and in various positions.
Apparently, some of these pieces of "art" sell for upwards of $400.
That got me to thinking - we SHOULD fund stem-cell research, all forms, no
restrictions. In fact, the money that currently funds the NEA can be
re-directed to fund stem-cell research.
I think that's a fair compromise. What do you think?
Jared
JC Martin
"Branden Wolner" <dewey_de...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:B7B27885.18E6E%dewey_de...@netzero.net...
> in article EkVi7.2180$Fv3.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net, JC
Martin
> at subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net wrote on 8/28/01 6:56 PM:
>
> > " bozak" <bo...@onebox.com> wrote in message
> > news:LfSi7.1635$aC1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >>
> >> "JC Martin" <subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:jWRi7.1531$Fv3.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >>> I don't know about you, but I hope the music industry will start to
> > promote
> >>> more anti-establishment minded artists...and I don't mean thug life or
> > money
> >>> oriented type shit. Today's kids could use a little kick in the
rear.
> >>> The party seems to be ending for now.
> >>
> >> why do we need music or art to figure out our presidunce is a money
> >> grubbing dweeb???
> >
> >
> > Because it's human nature that most people are fickle. Science and the
arts
> > usually steer the way towards progress.
> >
> Whereas religion usually steers the opposite way.
It serves a purpose however and provides a little balance. Progress without
any form of morality is dangerous, especially given that huge portions of
the population have no brains. The problem with religion is that a shitload
of people use it to hide behind their criminal acts. I'm always wary of
people who try to sell the idea that they're moral or principled. It
shouldn't be something you need to tell people about.
-JC
Branden Wolner
Jared James Peccarelli at jare...@csd.uwm.edu wrote on 8/29/01 11:11 AM:
I would rather take the money from NMD myself. Tell me, how many of those
Barbies were getting blown up by interceptor missiles?
Branden Wolner
at subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net wrote on 8/29/01 11:23 AM:
> It serves a purpose however and provides a little balance. Progress without
> any form of morality is dangerous, especially given that huge portions of
> the population have no brains. The problem with religion is that a shitload
> of people use it to hide behind their criminal acts. I'm always wary of
> people who try to sell the idea that they're moral or principled. It
> shouldn't be something you need to tell people about.
>
The "purpose" you are talking about is also served by basic ethics. Don't
need "God" for that.
bozak
"JC Martin" <subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message news:qN7j7.3968$Fv3.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
so you tend to think people who follow imaginary book gods are more
moral than those who dont??? i'd sincerely like to see the proof of that...
> The problem with religion is that a shitload
> of people use it to hide behind their criminal acts.
not just criminal acts, the use it as excuses for war, slavery, aloofness,
and hypocrisy...
> I'm always wary of
> people who try to sell the idea that they're moral or principled. It
> shouldn't be something you need to tell people about.
so you are saying ones actions are what really matter...
the actions of many religionists are anti-moral, which gets back
to your first statement about religious people being moral...
people who follow book religions are no more moral than people
who dont follow book religions... matter of fact imo, they are far less
gullible than those who choose to believe in book gods...
Jared James Peccarelli
> in article Pine.OSF.3.96.101082...@alpha3.csd.uwm.edu,
> Jared James Peccarelli at jare...@csd.uwm.edu wrote on 8/29/01 10:26 AM:
>
> > On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, bozak wrote:
> >
> >> Are we all dimwits? We just sit there with goofy looks on our faces while the
> >> economy sputters and the president blows what remains
> >> of the budget surplus on a tax giveaway to the rich. With nary a peep as the
> >> "what me worry?" kid has the gall to make stealing
> >> funds from Social Security and Medicare--to pay for a military buildup to
> >> fight an enemy that doesn't exist--sound like fiscal
> >> responsibility.
> >
> > Stealing funds from SS and Medicare? Does Mr Scheer know what he's
> > talking - writing - about? If Mr Scheer believes that a separate fund
> > exists - or even that a "lock-box" exists - does he also believe in the
> > "Easter Bunny" or the "Tooth Fairy?"
> >
> I don't know what he believes, but I do know that both Bush and the
> Republican Platform talk about this "lock-box" like it was a religious icon.
Hey, I've already admitted that using such jargon was a political mistake.
Actually, an outright mistake. I'm not defending the use of such
language, however, I do acknowledge it was merely in response to Gore's
tactics. Scare tactics.
Just as Gore scared voters by distorting the effects of Bradley's
proposals, he was attempting to do the same with Bush.
Besides, didn't you watch any SNL episodes last year? The "lock-box" term
was hilariously (and accurately) depicted as Gore's invention.
Jared
Jared James Peccarelli
> in article Pine.OSF.3.96.101082...@alpha3.csd.uwm.edu,
> Jared James Peccarelli at jare...@csd.uwm.edu wrote on 8/29/01 11:11 AM:
>
> > That got me to thinking - we SHOULD fund stem-cell research, all forms, no
> > restrictions. In fact, the money that currently funds the NEA can be
> > re-directed to fund stem-cell research.
> >
> > I think that's a fair compromise. What do you think?
> >
> I would rather take the money from NMD myself. Tell me, how many of those
> Barbies were getting blown up by interceptor missiles?
I don't know, however, you might find this article interesting:
www.worldtribune.com/wta/Archive-2001/me_israel_08_28.html
Jared
Jared James Peccarelli
> "JC Martin" <subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message news:qN7j7.3968$Fv3.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Branden Wolner" <dewey_de...@netzero.net> wrote in message
>
> > arts
> > > > usually steer the way towards progress.
> > > >
> > > Whereas religion usually steers the opposite way.
> >
> > It serves a purpose however and provides a little balance. Progress without
> > any form of morality is dangerous, especially given that huge portions of
> > the population have no brains.
>
> so you tend to think people who follow imaginary book gods are more
> moral than those who dont??? i'd sincerely like to see the proof of that...
Well, I do lack the ability to PROVE that "God" exists, however, your
disdain, lack of respect, and hatred for people of religious faith is quite
evident.
> > The problem with religion is that a shitload
> > of people use it to hide behind their criminal acts.
>
> not just criminal acts, the use it as excuses for war, slavery, aloofness,
> and hypocrisy...
Is this an attempt to stereotype people?
> > I'm always wary of
> > people who try to sell the idea that they're moral or principled. It
> > shouldn't be something you need to tell people about.
>
> so you are saying ones actions are what really matter...
And their words. You have proven your disdain for organized religion in
multiple posts. And for all who practice organized religion as well.
> the actions of many religionists are anti-moral, which gets back
> to your first statement about religious people being moral...
What are "religionists?" What does "anti-moral" mean?
> people who follow book religions are no more moral than people
> who dont follow book religions...
Of course not. Any such statement would be a gross overgeneralization.
Now, that is not to say - as you have implied - that "religionists" are
INFERIOR. Or, worthy of your contempt. Or, unethical and immoral.
>matter of fact imo, they are far less
> gullible than those who choose to believe in book gods...
What does naivete or gullibility have to do with this topic?
Do you think that people of faith are INFERIOR to you? Why?
Jared
Mithra
<jare...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, bozak wrote:
>
>> "JC Martin" <subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message news:qN7j7.3968$Fv3.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>> >
>> > "Branden Wolner" <dewey_de...@netzero.net> wrote in message
>>
>> > > > Because it's human nature that most people are fickle. Science and the
>> > arts
>> > > > usually steer the way towards progress.
>> > > >
>> > > Whereas religion usually steers the opposite way.
>> >
>> > It serves a purpose however and provides a little balance. Progress without
>> > any form of morality is dangerous, especially given that huge portions of
>> > the population have no brains.
>>
>> so you tend to think people who follow imaginary book gods are more
>> moral than those who dont??? i'd sincerely like to see the proof of that...
>
>Well, I do lack the ability to PROVE that "God" exists, however, your
>disdain,
LIke the disdain of Christians against homosexuality?
>lack of respect,
Like wanting prayer in public school, creationism in the classroom,
telling people (atheists and theists not of your religion) that they
are wrong and will go to hell (including children). But more
importantly, trying to pass legislation that would infringe upon one's
own beliefs. Basically trying to tell others how to live their own
lives based on some 2000 year old text that has been stretched and
distorted beyond imagination.
>and hatred for people of religious faith is quite
>evident.
It's hard to love someone when they want to start wars over who's god
is better.
Branden Wolner
Jared James Peccarelli at jare...@csd.uwm.edu wrote on 8/29/01 11:56 AM:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Branden Wolner wrote:
>
>> in article Pine.OSF.3.96.101082...@alpha3.csd.uwm.edu,
>> Jared James Peccarelli at jare...@csd.uwm.edu wrote on 8/29/01 10:26 AM:
>>
>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, bozak wrote:
>>>
>>>> Are we all dimwits? We just sit there with goofy looks on our faces while
>>>> the
>>>> economy sputters and the president blows what remains
>>>> of the budget surplus on a tax giveaway to the rich. With nary a peep as
>>>> the
>>>> "what me worry?" kid has the gall to make stealing
>>>> funds from Social Security and Medicare--to pay for a military buildup to
>>>> fight an enemy that doesn't exist--sound like fiscal
>>>> responsibility.
>>>
>>> Stealing funds from SS and Medicare? Does Mr Scheer know what he's
>>> talking - writing - about? If Mr Scheer believes that a separate fund
>>> exists - or even that a "lock-box" exists - does he also believe in the
>>> "Easter Bunny" or the "Tooth Fairy?"
>>>
>> I don't know what he believes, but I do know that both Bush and the
>> Republican Platform talk about this "lock-box" like it was a religious icon.
>
> Hey, I've already admitted that using such jargon was a political mistake.
> Actually, an outright mistake. I'm not defending the use of such
> language, however, I do acknowledge it was merely in response to Gore's
> tactics. Scare tactics.
>
Wrong. Bush published his little pamphlet in 1999 and that was the first use
of the "lock-box" rhetoric. Gore just jumped on it because if he didn't, it
would have killed him.
> Just as Gore scared voters by distorting the effects of Bradley's
> proposals, he was attempting to do the same with Bush.
>
And it turns out that Gore's doom and gloom predictions of Bush's proposals
were actually understatements.
> Besides, didn't you watch any SNL episodes last year? The "lock-box" term
> was hilariously (and accurately) depicted as Gore's invention.
>
I never watch SNL. It's stupid. Has been since the second cast left. I used
go to SNL and watch it live in the day. I even appeared on SNL once. When
Rick Nelson was the host they did a skit that culminated in a Candy Slice
performance. Before that, there is a scene with Ackroyd and Belushi playing
"The Elvi" and Jane Curtin as Dolly Parton. On the couch in the background I
am sitting next to Carrie Fisher and Paul Simon.
Back to the subject - how ignorant are you? You completely fell for my trap
about the Indiana LL team and now you're going on about the "lock-box"
rhetoric being Gore's "invention" when it was actually Bush who started it
in 1999. It was his rhetoric because the repub's were wary of Clinton and
Gore using SSI surplus to "balance the budget." He and they were trying to
force the democrats into admitting that there was no real budget surplus at
that time - only SSI and medicare. Bush started the "lock-box" rhetoric and
now it's biting him on the ass. And you are too blinded by your programming
to know it.
Branden Wolner
Jared James Peccarelli at jare...@csd.uwm.edu wrote on 8/29/01 12:16 PM:
I'm much more interested in the fact that you learned your politics from SNL
sketches.
Branden Wolner
mit...@institute.com wrote on 8/29/01 12:57 PM:
The irony of being scolded by a deity...
Branden Wolner
at subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net wrote on 8/29/01 12:59 PM:
> "Branden Wolner" <dewey_de...@netzero.net> wrote in message
> news:B7B283E3.18F47%dewey_de...@netzero.net...
>> in article qN7j7.3968$Fv3.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net, JC
> Martin
>> at subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net wrote on 8/29/01 11:23 AM:
>>
>>> It serves a purpose however and provides a little balance. Progress
> without
>>> any form of morality is dangerous, especially given that huge portions
> of
>>> the population have no brains. The problem with religion is that a
> shitload
>>> of people use it to hide behind their criminal acts. I'm always wary of
>>> people who try to sell the idea that they're moral or principled. It
>>> shouldn't be something you need to tell people about.
>>>
>> The "purpose" you are talking about is also served by basic ethics. Don't
>> need "God" for that.
>
>
>
> You don't...but some people do.
>
Fine for them. Why must they force it on me?
JC Martin
many Dr. Dre produced sessions. He was profiled in last month's Rolling
Stone. He's a great guy and is a devout Christian as well. Certainly you
also know that many others in the hip hop community have a strong belief in
God. I don't think it's fair to put all people of faith on the same level
is what I'm getting at.
And to answer your question, no, I'm not saying religious people are more
moral. Definitely not! But some people need a reason in order to establish
a moral life. You know, we could all just decide to adopt the
survival-of-the-fittest mentality and kill of the weak. I mean, why not?
What has steered us away from that? I think religion has played a part.
Whether we believe or not, it has influenced us...and certainly it has had
an influence on the principles of freedom this country was founded upon.
BTW, I still maintain that the Israel/Palestinian conflict is more about
land, food and water than it is belief. A sizable portion of the
Palestinian community is Christian, so on its face the fights may seem based
in religious differences. But without religion, the cultural differences
still exist. And really man, I do agree with you if we start to look at
everything being a religion. For instance, this country's belief that
capitalism will rid the world of poverty and make our lives better in the
long term...that is a belief system/religion. Socialism is a religion. Hip
hop is a religion. People band together in their little comfortable worlds
and become ignorant to what's outside them. If you're saying that mind-set
causes war, than I agree 100%. Unfortunately that's human nature. But
belief in a God IMO doesn't cause war. People's ignorance (still-evolving
human beings) and them looking only to protect their own causes wars.
-JC
-JC
" bozak" <bo...@onebox.com> wrote in message
news:858j7.3902$aC1.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
JC Martin
> in article qN7j7.3968$Fv3.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net, JC
Martin
> at subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net wrote on 8/29/01 11:23 AM:
>
> > It serves a purpose however and provides a little balance. Progress
without
> > any form of morality is dangerous, especially given that huge portions
of
> > the population have no brains. The problem with religion is that a
shitload
> > of people use it to hide behind their criminal acts. I'm always wary of
> > people who try to sell the idea that they're moral or principled. It
> > shouldn't be something you need to tell people about.
> >
> The "purpose" you are talking about is also served by basic ethics. Don't
> need "God" for that.
You don't...but some people do.
-JC
Gary S. Simon
Wolner <dewey_de...@netzero.net> wrote:
> I even appeared on SNL once. When
> Rick Nelson was the host they did a skit that culminated in a Candy Slice
> performance. Before that, there is a scene with Ackroyd and Belushi playing
> "The Elvi" and Jane Curtin as Dolly Parton. On the couch in the background I
> am sitting next to Carrie Fisher and Paul Simon.
Nice company.
How did that come about?
Many years ago, I won an SNL appearance in a stand-up comedy
contest. Unfortunately, a strike halted production for the season and
I was never able to collect.
Branden Wolner
gars...@pipeline.com wrote on 8/29/01 1:33 PM:
> In article <B7B29A94.18F77%dewey_de...@netzero.net>, Branden
> Wolner <dewey_de...@netzero.net> wrote:
>> I even appeared on SNL once. When
>> Rick Nelson was the host they did a skit that culminated in a Candy Slice
>> performance. Before that, there is a scene with Ackroyd and Belushi playing
>> "The Elvi" and Jane Curtin as Dolly Parton. On the couch in the background I
>> am sitting next to Carrie Fisher and Paul Simon.
>
>
> Nice company.
>
> How did that come about?
>
Several of the staff at that time were patients of my Dad's (a writer, the
set designer and the costume designer (the latter two of whom were
married)). This writer had fallen down some stairs and ended up with
stitches in her head. Don't ask me why, but for some reason she called my
Dad (he's a dentist) to come to the studio that night and take her stitches
out. They were encrusted in this huge scab so my Dad but a H2O2 compress on
it which she covered with a wig (she was an extra in several skits including
a pregnant immigrant in the "Quien es mas macho?" skit). Since we had to
wait for her scab to dissolve and there were no tickets left - we were
invited to "hang out" on the floor. This meant mostly staying out of the
way. However, in this one skit, we (and other "hanging out" guests such as
Paul and Carrie (who were married at the time)) were invited to sit in the
set. I was 15 or 16 at that time. And I had long hair.
JC Martin
> in article 9c9j7.4126$Fv3.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net, JC
Martin
> at subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net wrote on 8/29/01 12:59 PM:
>
> > "Branden Wolner" <dewey_de...@netzero.net> wrote in message
> > news:B7B283E3.18F47%dewey_de...@netzero.net...
> >> in article qN7j7.3968$Fv3.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net, JC
> > Martin
> >> at subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net wrote on 8/29/01 11:23 AM:
> >>
> >>> It serves a purpose however and provides a little balance. Progress
> > without
> >>> any form of morality is dangerous, especially given that huge portions
> > of
> >>> the population have no brains. The problem with religion is that a
> > shitload
> >>> of people use it to hide behind their criminal acts. I'm always wary
of
> >>> people who try to sell the idea that they're moral or principled. It
> >>> shouldn't be something you need to tell people about.
> >>>
> >> The "purpose" you are talking about is also served by basic ethics.
Don't
> >> need "God" for that.
> >
> >
> >
> > You don't...but some people do.
> >
> Fine for them. Why must they force it on me?
They shouldn't...and not all of them do.
-JC
Gary S. Simon
Wolner <dewey_de...@netzero.net> wrote:
> Several of the staff at that time were patients of my Dad's (a writer, the
> set designer and the costume designer (the latter two of whom were
> married)). This writer had fallen down some stairs and ended up with
> stitches in her head. Don't ask me why, but for some reason she called my
> Dad (he's a dentist) to come to the studio that night and take her stitches
> out. They were encrusted in this huge scab so my Dad but a H2O2 compress on
> it which she covered with a wig (she was an extra in several skits including
> a pregnant immigrant in the "Quien es mas macho?" skit).
That was a classic.
I wonder if the Comedy Central re-runs go back that far. Who was
the guest host?
bozak
"Jared James Peccarelli" <jare...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.101082...@alpha3.csd.uwm.edu...
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, bozak wrote:
>
> > "JC Martin" <subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message news:qN7j7.3968$Fv3.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > "Branden Wolner" <dewey_de...@netzero.net> wrote in message
> >
> > > > > Because it's human nature that most people are fickle. Science and the
> > > arts
> > > > > usually steer the way towards progress.
> > > > >
> > > > Whereas religion usually steers the opposite way.
> > >
> > > It serves a purpose however and provides a little balance. Progress without
> > > any form of morality is dangerous, especially given that huge portions of
> > > the population have no brains.
> >
> > so you tend to think people who follow imaginary book gods are more
> > moral than those who dont??? i'd sincerely like to see the proof of that...
>
> Well, I do lack the ability to PROVE that "God" exists, however, your
> disdain, lack of respect, and hatred for people of religious faith is quite
> evident.
please show an example of my hate for people of religious faith...
>
> > > The problem with religion is that a shitload
> > > of people use it to hide behind their criminal acts.
> >
> > not just criminal acts, they use it as excuses for war, slavery, aloofness,
> > and hypocrisy...
>
> Is this an attempt to stereotype people?
if mentioning the truth is a stereotype, yes...
if you can read, you will notice that my response was to jc saying a "shitload", which most people would assume that shitload meant
a lot, not all...
>
> > > I'm always wary of
> > > people who try to sell the idea that they're moral or principled. It
> > > shouldn't be something you need to tell people about.
> >
> > so you are saying ones actions are what really matter...
>
> And their words. You have proven your disdain for organized religion in
> multiple posts. And for all who practice organized religion as well.
yes i have a disdain for organized religion... do you know warped aka rick???
he is a known christian and i like him just fine... apparently either you dont
comprehend to well or you just pick out posts that you figure its easy to
make yourself look like an ass... btw mrs.b is also a christian, i love her...
you should quit acting like you are so full of shit... or are you acting???
>
> > the actions of many religionists are anti-moral, which gets back
> > to your first statement about religious people being moral...
>
> What are "religionists?" What does "anti-moral" mean?
if you dont know what i meant by this then why are you even
answering the post... shouldnt this have been your first question???
but of course this would have stopped you from spewing all of that
other crap right???
>
> > people who follow book religions are no more moral than people
> > who dont follow book religions...
>
> Of course not. Any such statement would be a gross overgeneralization.
> Now, that is not to say - as you have implied - that "religionists" are
> INFERIOR. Or, worthy of your contempt. Or, unethical and immoral.
yet you go on here talking about religionists... you are one strange bird!!!
>
> >matter of fact imo, they are far less
> > gullible than those who choose to believe in book gods...
>
> What does naivete or gullibility have to do with this topic?
if you still want to believe in santa claus be my guest, but dont ask me
to feel sorry for you when somebody cons your ass out of everything
you own...
>
> Do you think that people of faith are INFERIOR to you? Why?
you are really stoooopid... lol... you ask the question and then put
why as if you know that i am going to say yes they are inferior to
me... you are a moron my friend... first class... lol...
Branden Wolner
gars...@pipeline.com wrote on 8/29/01 2:35 PM:
Ricky Nelson.
Branden Wolner
at subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net wrote on 8/29/01 1:55 PM:
But the ones that do make all the rest look bad.
-(Jeff Mayner)-
"Jared James Peccarelli" <jare...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.101082...@alpha3.csd.uwm.edu...
That you're a card carrying, Rush hate spewing, republi-bot.
Jeff
>
> Jared
>
D. Gerasimatos
-\(Jeff Mayner\)- <bk...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>That you're a card carrying, Rush hate spewing, republi-bot.
That's Branden.
Dimitri
JC Martin
Depends on your focus though. Again I'll use hip hop as an example. The
hip hop community certainly has been involved in its share of ignorance and
negative attitudes, but on the flip side it's had a lot of positive affects
on the black community. Maybe you don't see the religion/hip hop
connection. But religion is just another group of people who believe in
something and all groups have some level of ignorance contained within them.
It's the nature of the beast. Same thing with a Martha Stewart group or
people who believe rock 'n' roll stands for freedom.
-JC
Charlie Board
Jared James Peccarelli wrote:
>
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Branden Wolner wrote:
> > I don't know what he believes, but I do know that both Bush and the
> > Republican Platform talk about this "lock-box" like it was a religious icon.
>
> Hey, I've already admitted that using such jargon was a political mistake.
> Actually, an outright mistake.
Well without that "mistake" Bush would've never been close enough to
winning the election for the Supreme Court to install him.
Charlie Board
Jared James Peccarelli wrote:
>
> That got me to thinking - we SHOULD fund stem-cell research, all forms, no
> restrictions. In fact, the money that currently funds the NEA can be
> re-directed to fund stem-cell research.
>
> I think that's a fair compromise. What do you think?
I got a better one that'll free up several orders of magnitude more
money....let's cut the War Department's budget to where it's *only*
as much as the next ten highest nations in the world (seven of whom are
allies) combined. We still keep massive military overspending beyond all
reason for the hawks and yet free up many billions for real
productive use. Who could complain?
Branden Wolner
d...@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU wrote on 8/29/01 4:44 PM:
Everyone knows I'm a democri'bot - all NBA agree.
Branden Wolner
at subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net wrote on 8/29/01 5:04 PM:
>
> Depends on your focus though. Again I'll use hip hop as an example. The
> hip hop community certainly has been involved in its share of ignorance and
> negative attitudes, but on the flip side it's had a lot of positive affects
> on the black community. Maybe you don't see the religion/hip hop
> connection. But religion is just another group of people who believe in
> something and all groups have some level of ignorance contained within them.
> It's the nature of the beast. Same thing with a Martha Stewart group or
> people who believe rock 'n' roll stands for freedom.
>
I don't see too many hip hop artists spending most of their money trying to
get laws passed that would require me to smoke crack, wear lots of gaudy
jewelry or drive white convertibles.
JC Martin
> in article 9Ncj7.4401$aC1.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net, JC
Martin
> at subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net wrote on 8/29/01 5:04 PM:
>
> >
> > Depends on your focus though. Again I'll use hip hop as an example.
The
> > hip hop community certainly has been involved in its share of ignorance
and
> > negative attitudes, but on the flip side it's had a lot of positive
affects
> > on the black community. Maybe you don't see the religion/hip hop
> > connection. But religion is just another group of people who believe in
> > something and all groups have some level of ignorance contained within
them.
> > It's the nature of the beast. Same thing with a Martha Stewart group or
> > people who believe rock 'n' roll stands for freedom.
> >
> I don't see too many hip hop artists spending most of their money trying
to
> get laws passed that would require me to smoke crack, wear lots of gaudy
> jewelry or drive white convertibles.
You know that wasn't my point. But hip hop certainly has lobbying groups
and representatives. Freedom to offend is something rap artists and rockers
have been fighting for ages. Everyone fights for their own turf, not just
religious groups. And Branden, you seem to be throwing all religions and
all followers into one category. That would be ignorant of you if you truly
believe that.
-JC
Branden Wolner
at subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net wrote on 8/30/01 7:31 PM:
Not all "followers" - just the fanatical ones. I know plenty of "good
christians" who aren't trying to make me live by their beliefs. Too bad a
few nut cases ruin it for everyone else.
JC Martin
Okay...we're in agreement then.
Cheers,
JC