For Those Moderates/Liberals (either party) Voting in Williamson County
Mike
tax breaks for Apple Computer last year, here's your chance to let your
voice on the subject be heard.
Several of these county commisioners are up again for
election this year. Greg Boatright(R), Jerry Mehevec(D), and David Hays(R)
do NOT agree with Apple Computer extending health benefits to the
domestic partners of gay employees. Nor do Dorothy Druckett or Bill Lawson
of the Cedar Park city council.
BTW, Mike Krusee is running again for election in the State House of
Representatives. His former ads used to mention that he was a member
of the American Family Association, a Conservative Christian organization.
He is running on the Republican ticket.
Don't Forget to Vote on Election Day!
charles...@amd.com
..
> BTW, Mike Krusee is running again for election in the State House of
> Representatives. His former ads used to mention that he was a member
> of the American Family Association, a Conservative Christian organization.
> He is running on the Republican ticket.
OK, Mister Liberal, right now, list all the actions taken by Mike Krusee which
indicate that he follows/supports/intends to implement a radical Conservative
Christian agenda.
Do it now, and it had better be extensive and documented, because if you can't,
you're guilty of the worst kind of "Guilt By Assertion/Inuendo" perpetrated in
the American politic, one which is just sooooo typical of hypocritical Liberals
and their smarmy, disingenuous, nefarious agenda.
This is not to argue that Krusee is the answer to a reasoned electorate's
prayer, by the way.
So, put up now.
FYI, I agree with your assertion that the anti-gay county commissioners ought
to get the boot. In your narrow little Liberal picture of reality, it probably
would never occur to you that an authentic, honest Conservative, who believes
fundamentally in keeping Government both small and out of peoples private
(law-abiding) lives, would never have voted with the Murder County
homophobes... something about consenting adults in privacy being none of the
governments business.
--
contents intended to represent only personal opinions
Clayton Colwell
: In article <1994Nov3.1...@cactus.org> m...@cactus.org (Mike) writes:
: ..
: > BTW, Mike Krusee is running again for election in the State House of
: > Representatives. His former ads used to mention that he was a member
: > of the American Family Association, a Conservative Christian organization.
: > He is running on the Republican ticket.
: OK, Mister Liberal, right now, list all the actions taken by Mike Krusee which
: indicate that he follows/supports/intends to implement a radical Conservative
: Christian agenda.
: Do it now, and it had better be extensive and documented, because if you can't,
: you're guilty of the worst kind of "Guilt By Assertion/Inuendo" perpetrated in
: the American politic, one which is just sooooo typical of hypocritical Liberals
: and their smarmy, disingenuous, nefarious agenda.
Oh my. I hope this last paragraph of yours was satire. If you were really
serious about your "sooooo typical" comment, you've just demonstrated a most
pernicious double standard.
: FYI, I agree with your assertion that the anti-gay county commissioners ought
: to get the boot. In your narrow little Liberal picture of reality, it probably
: would never occur to you that an authentic, honest Conservative, who believes
: fundamentally in keeping Government both small and out of peoples private
: (law-abiding) lives, would never have voted with the Murder County
: homophobes... something about consenting adults in privacy being none of the
: governments business.
Was there a real point to that last paragraph, or were you having too much
fun with the bombast? #1. Republicans, who claim the term "Conservative"
as their sole property, want to keep governemt just as big as you think
Democrats (the classical Liberal party) want to -- just in different areas.
#2. Section 21.06 of the Texas Penal Code (the one outlawing homosexual
sodomy, despite efforts by lawmakers to either expunge the section or get
it to apply to heterosexual sodomy as well) is still on the books, tech-
nically making most "practicing homosexuals" criminals (at least this is
the argument many self-proclaimed Conservatives use). Do these
technically-non-law-abiding homosexuals have the right to keep the
government out of their private lives, in your opinion?
--
Clay Colwell (aka StealthSmurf)
er...@bga.com "So *that's* what an invisible barrier
looks like." -- from _Time Bandits_
wharfie
>"Guilt By Assertion/Inuendo" [...] which is just sooooo typical
Yeah! Like, if a Conservative was running for President against
one 'o them smarmy Liberal fellas from, say, Arkansas or someplace, he'd
*never* stoop to some cheap trick like trying to pretend that a trip
to Moscow as a student is an *obvious* connection to the Red Empire.
None of that kinda stuff from the Conservative element.
David Smith
: In article <1994Nov3.1...@cactus.org> m...@cactus.org (Mike) writes:
: ..
: > BTW, Mike Krusee is running again for election in the State House of
: > Representatives. His former ads used to mention that he was a member
: > of the American Family Association, a Conservative Christian organization.
: > He is running on the Republican ticket.
: OK, Mister Liberal, right now, list all the actions taken by Mike Krusee which
: indicate that he follows/supports/intends to implement a radical Conservative
: Christian agenda.
Well, it's printed right there that Kruse listed himself in former
advertisements as a member of the American Family Association. That's
pretty substantial in itself, given that the AFA is lead by Reverend
Wildmon, who has repeated called for the censorship/boycotts of
American television, film, and music which don't meet his religious
standards of conduct.
If someone *lists* this affiliation on their political *advertisements*
then why is it such a stretch if someone thinks, hey, I think he wants to
implement a radical conservative Christian agenda? I mean, Kruse was
advertising this affiliation as a political ploy to gain the votes of
conservative Christians, yet liberals are hypocrites if they think the
same thing.
Maybe you know something I don't. Maybe Kruse has since repudiated these
affiliations and associations with these political forces. But even that
doesn't negate the premise that if a political candidate lists
affiliationship and membership in a certain group that they are seeking to
represent the values of said groups.
: Do it now, and it had better be extensive and documented, because if you can't,
: you're guilty of the worst kind of "Guilt By Assertion/Inuendo" perpetrated in
: the American politic, one which is just sooooo typical of hypocritical Liberals
: and their smarmy, disingenuous, nefarious agenda.
Are you also asserting that this practice is unique to liberals?
I am sure that we could whip up over a dozen counter-examples by
conservatives, if you'd like, starting with all of the Republican
campaign ads that show the local Democrat candidate juxtaposed with Bill
Clinton. Bush has run this ad against Ann Richards; Jo Baylor has run
this ad against Loyd Doggett.
Where does this hit on the charles herrick outrage meter?
--
thanks, | "The most exciting breakthroughs of the 21st century
| will not occur because of technology but because
David Smith | of an expanding concept of what it means to be human."
bla...@bga.com | -- John Naisbitt / Patricia Aburdene
T. Kelley Boylan
Everything hits everywhere on the CH outrage meter. He is, after all, one
of those smarmy conservatives, and you know how *they* are.
;-)
-Kelley-
Thomas Kelley Boylan |
Technical documentation | kel...@bga.com
System support | Austin, Texas
Matthew Robert Feeney
>#1. Republicans, who claim the term "Conservative"
>as their sole property, want to keep governemt just as big as you think
>Democrats (the classical Liberal party) want to -- just in different areas.
As with any good post with such a topic as this, please answer: What "different
areas?" When making claims in the political arena, vague generalizations
don't prove much.
I tend to disagree anyway...about the only area that Republicans want a bigger
"government" really isn't the government per se; it's the military, which,
IMO, is the primary role of the Federal government.
The primary missions of the US gov't is to protect the general populace, allow
the economy & businesses run its course, and to provide a framework for fair
and just means of carrying out business. Government really shouldn't be a
major player in business the way it is now.
It's not the role of the gov't to be involved in the daily affairs of the
people. For example, government has NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER to provide social
security, health care, and welfare. The gov't has no right to take my hard
earned $$$ and give it to someone else. Why should my sweat provide for
someone else's handout on a MANDATORY basis? subsidize someone's retirement?
I think a proof of the government's over involvement is the budget deficit.
The gov't thinks that it has to provide all these (& more) services and just
keeps shelling out the $$$, without the income $$$ to back it!
______________
>#2. Section 21.06 of the Texas Penal Code (the one outlawing homosexual
>sodomy, despite efforts by lawmakers to either expunge the section or get
>it to apply to heterosexual sodomy as well) is still on the books, tech-
>nically making most "practicing homosexuals" criminals (at least this is
>the argument many self-proclaimed Conservatives use). Do these
>technically-non-law-abiding homosexuals have the right to keep the
>government out of their private lives, in your opinion?
>--
>Clay Colwell (aka StealthSmurf)
>er...@bga.com "So *that's* what an invisible barrier
> looks like." -- from _Time Bandits_
I think homosexuality is wrong (Romans 1 is quite conclusive on this issue,
yes, I'm a Christian), and I think the Williamson County Commissioners did
the right thing. The law as it stands is fine with me, for obvious reasons.
BUT, as I'm sure you're thinking...quite a double standard based on the above
arguements. That is, the gov't shouldn't interfere with the daily lives of
people. You're right. If the law is abolished, I'd have no valid argument
to keep the law.
BUT, homosexuals should NOT be considered a minority group. Homosexuality
is a CHOSEN lifestyle (similar to alcoholism), unilike a person's race or
gender. I find it hard to believe that the minority groups out there now
want to be associated with them. (Yes, I'm a white male, AND, I'd like to
hear from minorities on their opinions on this issue.)
Now, before many of you start slamming me for expressing such views, allow me
to say a few things. 1) I simply stated my opinions in an open and honest
format. I didn't do a flame fest on someone else. 2) I have NOTHING against
the homosexual person him/her-self. I'm sure many are hard-working, nice
people. I'm against their sexual oreintation, and their efforts to become
a minority (or, in some cases, a 'victim'). 3) Flaming accomplishes nothing!
Everyone has a right to express their opinions. Let's keep it that way!
- Matthew Feeney
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Matthew Feeney, ENS, USN | Today is the first day of the rest of your *
* fee...@cs.utexas.edu | life, make the best of it. *
* Reliv Independent Distributor | Carpe Diem! '93 *
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin J. Sloan
Matthew Robert Feeney <fee...@cs.utexas.edu> wrote:
>I think homosexuality is wrong (Romans 1 is quite conclusive on this issue,
>yes, I'm a Christian), and I think the Williamson County Commissioners did
>the right thing. The law as it stands is fine with me, for obvious reasons.
>BUT, as I'm sure you're thinking...quite a double standard based on the above
>arguements. That is, the gov't shouldn't interfere with the daily lives of
>people. You're right. If the law is abolished, I'd have no valid argument
>to keep the law.
Suppose I told you I thought Christianity is wrong (I'm quite conclusive
on this issue)? Could we deny tax
abatements to Apple based on the fact they give benefits to Christians?
Could I fire you from your job because I disagreed with your lifestyle?
Deny you benefirts? A place to live?
>BUT, homosexuals should NOT be considered a minority group. Homosexuality
>is a CHOSEN lifestyle (similar to alcoholism), unilike a person's race or
>gender. I find it hard to believe that the minority groups out there now
>want to be associated with them. (Yes, I'm a white male, AND, I'd like to
>hear from minorities on their opinions on this issue.)
Christians should NOT be considered a minority group. Christianity is
a CHOSEN religion (similar to poverty), unlike a person's race or
sex. I find it hard to believe the Republicans out there want to be
associated with them. (Yes, I'm a white male, AND, I'd like to hear from
Republicans on this issue.)
>Now, before many of you start slamming me for expressing such views, allow me
>to say a few things. 1) I simply stated my opinions in an open and honest
>format. I didn't do a flame fest on someone else. 2) I have NOTHING against
>the homosexual person him/her-self. I'm sure many are hard-working, nice
>people. I'm against their sexual oreintation, and their efforts to become
>a minority (or, in some cases, a 'victim'). 3) Flaming accomplishes nothing!
>Everyone has a right to express their opinions. Let's keep it that way!
Now, before you disagree and hurt my feelings, allow me to say (1) these
are simply my opinions, (2) I have NOTHING against the Christian person
him/her-self. I'm sure some are hard-working, unbrainwashed,
nonjudgemental peole. I'm against their religion and their status as a
group against which I don't have the right to discriminate in employment,
housing or benefits. 3) Flaming accomplishes nothing! (unless you're a
flamer...)
Ben
--
Benjamin Sloan "Every day is the good old days!"
b...@utig.ig.utexas.edu -Sylvia Smith
charles...@amd.com
..
> Section 21.06 of the Texas Penal Code (the one outlawing homosexual
> sodomy, despite efforts by lawmakers to either expunge the section or get
> it to apply to heterosexual sodomy as well) is still on the books, tech-
> nically making most "practicing homosexuals" criminals (at least this is
> the argument many self-proclaimed Conservatives use). Do these
> technically-non-law-abiding homosexuals have the right to keep the
> government out of their private lives, in your opinion?
yep.
charles...@amd.com
writes:
> In article <Cypr4...@txnews.amd.com> charles...@amd.com writes:
> >"Guilt By Assertion/Inuendo" [...] which is just sooooo typical
> >of hypocritical Liberals and their smarmy, disingenuous, nefarious agenda.
>
> Yeah! Like, if a Conservative was running for President against
> one 'o them smarmy Liberal fellas from, say, Arkansas or someplace, he'd
> *never* stoop to some cheap trick like trying to pretend that a trip
> to Moscow as a student is an *obvious* connection to the Red Empire.
You mean like when Bill "Slick Willie" was overseas on his
unfinished Rhodes scholarship badmouth-blasting his country,
and then tried like the dickens years later to deny it?
charles...@amd.com
..
> all of the Republican
> campaign ads that show the local Democrat candidate juxtaposed with Bill
> Clinton. Bush has run this ad against Ann Richards; Jo Baylor has run
> this ad against Loyd Doggett.
>
> Where does this hit on the charles herrick outrage meter?
Both Richards and Doggett are Clinton toadies, but neither has
the courage to admit their hidden convictions, since both
Clinton and the Liberal agenda are politically alive only
until the election.
charles...@amd.com
Robert Feeney) writes:
..
> It's not the role of the gov't to be involved in the daily affairs of the
> people. For example, government has NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER to provide
> >#2. Section 21.06 of the Texas Penal Code (the one outlawing homosexual
> >sodomy, despite efforts by lawmakers to either expunge the section or get
> >it to apply to heterosexual sodomy as well) is still on the books, tech-
> >nically making most "practicing homosexuals" criminals
> The law as it stands is fine with me, for obvious reasons.
> You're right. If the law is abolished, I'd have no valid argument
> to keep the law.
Are you purposefully weaving all over the philosophical map here, or what?
I still say if it's
.private
.concensual
..adults
it's not your business
Rick Shank
>
>I still say if it's
>.private
>.concensual
>..adults
>it's not your business
Unless you're a Liberal. In which case you belong in jail because Charles
believes everything you do is wrong. This applies even if you are not a
Liberal but maybe have a Liberal thought or two.
Rick Shank
Yeah! And like when "Teflon Ronnie" sold arms to Iran and Iraq and
then tried like the dickens years later to deny it? Slick Willie is
good for the country. He reminds us that you don't have to be a
Republican to be a good liar.
Chuck, didn't your mommy tell you that color doesn't matter? There are
good and bad people everywhere. Well, this applies to politics as well.
There are good liberal ideas and bad liberal ideas. There are good
conservative ideas and there are bad conservative ideas. Your shit is
really old.
charles...@amd.com
writes:
..
> There are good liberal ideas and
list 3.
wharfie
>You mean like when Bill "Slick Willie" was overseas on his
>unfinished Rhodes scholarship badmouth-blasting his country,
He protested the Vietnam War. I did too. So what? Does
going to college in England mean that you can't care enough about America
to speak out publicly against mistaken and destructive policies, like
pure pigheadedness disguised as Fighting Communism or electing Republicans?
Rick Shank
Well, actually our bill of rights is an example of several which were fine
liberal ideas of the time. They now are presented as conservative ideas.
Ex: It was a very liberal idea which gave us the right to bear arms. It
is a very conservative idea to retain the right to bear arms. Liberal is
forward thinking (each idea may be good, may be bad). Conservative is backward
(historically speaking) thinking (each idea may be good, may be bad). Some
things need to change, some things need to stay the same. Liberal is generous
thinking (sometimes to the point of stupidly wasting resources). Conservative
is selfish thinking. This is not necessarily all bad as you can't help others
until you help yourself.
Regardless, with someone like yourself Chuck, this is a no win argument. You
are as opposed to the very concept of liberal as the KKK is opposed to any
dark skinned people darker than a lighter shade of pale. You will label
any one or any idea you don't like - liberal. This is bigotry in pure form.
Look around you Chuck. You are obviously intelligent otherwise (bigotry !=
intelligence). Have you ever found anything which was all bad (or all good
for that matter)?
Somebody once said (and I get the feeling you know who, I don't):
An old Democrat has no sense,
and a young Republican has no heart.
John F. Haugh II
>advertisements as a member of the American Family Association. That's
>pretty substantial in itself, given that the AFA is lead by Reverend
>Wildmon, who has repeated called for the censorship/boycotts of
>American television, film, and music which don't meet his religious
>standards of conduct.
So organizations run by the follow are/were also evil because they
stood for religious values --
Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Rev. Malcolm X
Rev. Jesse Jackson
Rev. Al Sharpton
I happen to be a devoted fan of the first two. Please tell me they
were evil conservatives because so many others think they were evil
liberals ...
--
John F. Haugh II [ NRA-ILA ] [ Kill Barney ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151 [GOP][DoF #17][PADI][ENTJ] @'s: j...@rpp386.cactus.org
There are three documents that run my life: The King James Bible, the United
States Constitution, and the UNIX System V Release 4 Programmer's Reference.
John F. Haugh II
>Both Richards and Doggett are Clinton toadies, but neither has
>the courage to admit their hidden convictions, since both
>Clinton and the Liberal agenda are politically alive only
>until the election.
Richards has admitted that she is a Clinton toadie and the current
Bush ad shows the piece of video (or sound-bite -- I forget which).
What's truly amazing is that Fisher is also a Clinton toadie and
has said so, yet Kay is so far ahead against him that no one sees
the need to point out Fisher's allegiances.
John F. Haugh II
>Well, actually our bill of rights is an example of several which were fine
>liberal ideas of the time. They now are presented as conservative ideas.
>Ex: It was a very liberal idea which gave us the right to bear arms.
The right to bear arms came from England and was granted to various
groups incrementally since the signing of the Magna Carta. The only
thing "liberal" about the application of this right to all citizens
was that it applied to ALL citizens. But even that idea came from
John Locke who was Jefferson's inspiration. Locke dreamt this idea
up decades before Jefferson, and even Locke got the idea from elsewhere.
Given all of that, the Declaration of Independence and much of the Bill
of Rights were conservative ideas. Even the notion of a democratic
government is a re-tread -- Greece did it long before us.
David Smith
: So organizations run by the follow are/were also evil because they
: stood for religious values --
Huh? The question I responded to was whether Kruse publicly identifying
himself with the American Family Association in his campaign literature
was evidence for Kruse being associated with and wanting to implement the
political views of the so-called Religious Right. I say it does; charles
herrick claims it the height of liberal hypocrisy to smear guilt by
association.
You're losing me on the evil/liberal/conservative continuum here.
: Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
: Rev. Malcolm X
: Rev. Jesse Jackson
: Rev. Al Sharpton
: I happen to be a devoted fan of the first two. Please tell me they
: were evil conservatives because so many others think they were evil
: liberals ...
: --
: John F. Haugh II [ NRA-ILA ] [ Kill Barney ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
: Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151 [GOP][DoF #17][PADI][ENTJ] @'s: j...@rpp386.cactus.org
: There are three documents that run my life: The King James Bible, the United
: States Constitution, and the UNIX System V Release 4 Programmer's Reference.
--
vince
>FYI, I agree with your assertion that the anti-gay county commissioners ought
>to get the boot. In your narrow little Liberal picture of reality, it probably
>would never occur to you that an authentic, honest Conservative, who believes
>fundamentally in keeping Government both small and out of peoples private
>(law-abiding) lives, would never have voted with the Murder County
>homophobes... something about consenting adults in privacy being none of the
>governments business.
Perhaps you should read the Republican Party platform before you start
crucifying "Liberals"(whatever that word is supposed to mean these days)
for being narrow-minded. I posted some of this stuff to austin.general
a while back. I don't believe that the Republican party fits your definition
of "authentic, honest" conservatives. BTW, is Ed Meese a conservative?
It seems to me that homosexuals are the communists of the 90's as
far as Republicans are concerned. Well, homosexuals and environmentalists.
The fear doesn't have much of an effect on me.
Followups to austin.politics.
vince
charles...@amd.com
> himself with the American Family Association in his campaign literature
> was evidence for Kruse being associated with and wanting to implement the
> political views of the so-called Religious Right. I say it does
And I say it doesn't.
Look at a person's voting record and his stand _ON SPECIFIC ISSUES_
and tell me if his record indicates whether or not he is
1. an independently minded legislator who happens to belong to a religious
group or
2. a brain-dead automaton who blindly follows the party-line of some cult.
Krusee is not my candidate for legislator-of-the-year, but I submit that he is
_NOT_ characterized by option #2 above, which is what _YOU_ would like to
insinuate.
My point is that today's Liberals are by far worse in the smarmy department
than McCarthy ever was, and this fact is exacerbated by the hypocrisy
manifested by Liberals who have for years been the first to scream outrage
against what they perceive as inuendo by those they choose to label as
"Conservatives." Interesting how Liberals think nothing of turning around and
indulging in the very activities they're so petulant about, isn't it?
While you're at it, here's another question for all you Liberals. Why is it
Liberals consider it the height of reason for, say, the Feminazi cadre to shove
their agenda down the throat of the Republic, but the very definition of evil
for Christians to want to see their traditional values manifested in actions
taken by the Republic?
Note the Followups:
Frank Fitzpatrick
MI> Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 14:58:37 GMT
MI> If you were upset with the county commisioners who voted AGAINST
MI> tax breaks for Apple Computer last year, here's your chance to
MI> let your voice on the subject be heard.
While I did not agree with the actions taken by the commissioners
with respect to Apple, there are many considerations which I weigh
in my vote.
MI> Several of these county commissioners are up again for
MI> election this year. Greg Boatright(R), Jerry Mehevec(D), and
MI> David Hays(R) do NOT agree with Apple Computer extending health
MI> benefits to the domestic partners of gay employees. Nor do
MI> Dorothy Druckett or Bill Lawson of the Cedar Park city council.
FWIW, I do think the Apple stockholders should be outraged at the
benefits for domestic partners... it is just not an issue for the
county commissioners or other county representatives. Apple is not
breaking any laws.
While I do not agree with Greg Boatrights actions with respect to
Apple, and some other issues as well, at least he had the guts to
respond to an AFA survey stating his position on several issues.
His opponent (Linda Hymans) did not respond. Given a choice, I
will not vote for someone who dodges issues.
FYI... the AFA survey addressed several issues including drug laws,
parole, sex education, term limits, education regulations, and
first amendment rights vs. women's reproductive rights.
MI> BTW, Mike Krusee is running again for election in the State
MI> House of Representatives. His former ads used to mention that
MI> he was a member of the American Family Association, a
MI> Conservative Christian organization. He is running on the
MI> Republican ticket.
I don't believe membership to the AFA and being a conservative
Christian are bad things. The AFA (and many other organizations)
works to make voting records available and polls candidates about
many issues. I believe a conservative Christian has values which
make him or her unlikely to lie, cheat, steal, etc.... (Please
don't twist this around -- I am NOT implying that someone who is
non-Christian is therefore corrupt... I also know that some people
who profess to be Christians have displayed less than exemplary
behavior... that's why I will vote against Ms Hutchison.)
I believe a candidate's record should be a primary consideration.
(I like Mike Krusee's record.)
MI> Don't Forget to Vote on Election Day!
Agreed.
--
Best Regards,
Frank Fitzpatrick -- ff...@bga.com
charles...@amd.com
> In article <Cypr4...@txnews.amd.com>, <charles...@amd.com> wrote:
> >FYI, I agree with your assertion that the anti-gay county commissioners
ought
> >to get the boot. In your narrow little Liberal picture of reality, it
probably
> >would never occur to you that an authentic, honest Conservative, who
believes
> >fundamentally in keeping Government both small and out of peoples private
> >(law-abiding) lives, would never have voted with the Murder County
> >homophobes... something about consenting adults in privacy being none of the
> >governments business.
>
> Perhaps you should read the Republican Party platform before you start
> crucifying "Liberals"(whatever that word is supposed to mean these days)
> for being narrow-minded.
There are articles in the platform I don't agree with. On the other hand, I
don't extend my tolerance of other peoples' sexual preference as expressed in
the privacy of their own homes to groups such as the Lesbian recruiters who
recently were arrested while passing out leaflets and propagandizing young
girls on the grounds of their elementary school.
> I posted some of this stuff to austin.general
> a while back. I don't believe that the Republican party fits your definition
> of "authentic, honest" conservatives. BTW, is Ed Meese a conservative?
Nope. Neither is Ollie North. So what's your point? That if you can find even
one Republican who is a butthead, you can condemn the entire Conservative
philosophy? Sounds like pretty selective reasoning to me... perhaps you'd like
to extend your standards to Liberals and Democrats? No?
Gee, just as I thought... YAHL (Yet Another Hypocritical Liberal)
charles...@amd.com
..
> I believe a conservative Christian has values which
> make him or her unlikely to lie, cheat, steal, etc.... (Please
> don't twist this around
Ollie North.
Deborah Kilgore
>While you're at it, here's another question for all you Liberals. Why is it
>Liberals consider it the height of reason for, say, the Feminazi cadre to shove
>their agenda down the throat of the Republic, but the very definition of evil
>for Christians to want to see their traditional values manifested in actions
>taken by the Republic?
Gee, this doesn't seem at all biased. To which "traditional values" would you
be referring? The God-given right to associate those different than yourself
(who you're obviously afraid of) with SATAN? The right to use every means at
your disposal to take their God-given rights away?
Of course both sides of the political arena have their extremists, and its a
shame that they are by definition the most vocal. It just seems in my
experience that conservatives are particularly adept at falling into that
intolerant, extremist mold. I can tell from your post that you're just one of
a million sleep-walking zombies in a supposed "liberal" city. Not
anymore...it's too clogged with Rush disciples. Now there is a guy who has
everyone else's best interests at heart.
One more food for thought. Growing up as a Methodist, just about every sermon
I can remember centered on main one theme, "Give of yourself. Help your
neighbor and those less fortunate. Look out for others, and don't be
selfish." So my question is this: how did these "Traditional Values" turn
into "Those damn liberals are trying to take away all _MY_ money and give it
to starving people!"
John F. Haugh II
>One more food for thought. Growing up as a Methodist, just about every sermon
>I can remember centered on main one theme, "Give of yourself. Help your
>neighbor and those less fortunate. Look out for others, and don't be
>selfish." So my question is this: how did these "Traditional Values" turn
>into "Those damn liberals are trying to take away all _MY_ money and give it
>to starving people!"
My church still preaches this sermon, and some of us still practices
what we hear preached.
When I complain about "Those damn liberals", I'm not complaining about
giving it to truly needy "starving people!", my beef is that they
create new classes of poor starving people out of thin air. The wealth
in this country is concentrated in the elderly, but to hear the liberals
talk, all of the elderly are piss poor broke and living on Alpo. Likewise,
no rational adult in this group would give their child a large allowance,
never expect them to get an education, and never make them work. Yet
this is what we do with welfare and we then wonder why the people who
receive welfare can't get off it.
Sorry, but my Christian perspective was tainted by the Confucian saying
"If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day, but if you teach a
man to fish you feed him for life." And that's why I'm opposed to
"Those damn liberals are trying to take away all _MY_ money and give it
to starving people." -- Those damn liberals are doing everything they
can to make sure those starving people are hungry again tomorrow and
able to get to the polls every two years and vote them back in office!
Matthew Robert Feeney
Wharfie -
You clearly do NOT know the facts. Bill "Slick Willie" Clinton didn't get
his name for nothing. I wish I could elaborate further, but, as you can
see in my signature, President Clinton is my Commander-in-Chief.
If you want the facts, read the latest issue (November, I think) of Reader's
Digest. It contains a detailed, blow-by-blow, account of Clinton's rise to
Presidency. It is not very flattering.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Matthew Feeney, ENS, USN | Today is the first day of the rest of your *
* fee...@cs.utexas.edu | life, make the best of it. *
* Reliv Independent Distributor | Carpe Diem! '93 *
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinions are my own, not of the U.S. Navy or University of Texas.
Duncan Idaho
>In article <deborahk.2...@admin.stedwards.edu> debo...@admin.stedwards.edu (Deborah Kilgore) writes:
>>One more food for thought. Growing up as a Methodist, just about every sermon
>>I can remember centered on main one theme, "Give of yourself. Help your
>>neighbor and those less fortunate. Look out for others, and don't be
>>selfish." So my question is this: how did these "Traditional Values" turn
>>into "Those damn liberals are trying to take away all _MY_ money and give it
>>to starving people!"
There are two problems with your post. One is that a very small fraction of
taxes actually get to "the ubiquitous poor." Most of it goes into the
governments own pocket. And so the second problem is that in practise your
sermon gets translated into: "help yourself to your neighbor's pockets and
pretend that you're both helping the poor." They call that "redistribution
of wealth."
ANd if you're not convinced then look at the mdeian incomes of the "poor",
adjusted for inflation, over the entire period of the GReat Soceity. It
flattened out in the 70s that 15% of the population stays below the poverty
line. This despite spending trillions....
Meanwhile parents have to both work to pay for the taxes that otherwise
would go into their house or for their kids.
- D
--
.... (C) 1994 Copyright Duncan Idaho, All Rights Reserved ..................
There are "three absolute rights [sic] the right of personal security, personal
liberty and personal property," Sir William Blackstone. "The protection of
these faculties is the first object of government." Madison, Federalist 10.
Edward Henigin
:
: Wharfie -
: You clearly do NOT know the facts. Bill "Slick Willie" Clinton didn't get
: his name for nothing. I wish I could elaborate further, but, as you can
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: see in my signature, President Clinton is my Commander-in-Chief.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
hhehhehheh... and your job is to protect freedom? whatta joke.
: If you want the facts, read the latest issue (November, I think) of Reader's
: Digest. It contains a detailed, blow-by-blow, account of Clinton's rise to
: Presidency. It is not very flattering.
last time I wanted facts, the LAST place I read anything was in the
Readers Digest.
--
Edward Henigin | Texas Networking Inc.
e...@texas.net ^ San Antonio's Premier ISP
(210) 599-8217 | e-mail in...@texas.net for more info
"He who laughs and runs away, lives to love another day..."
Edward Henigin
: "If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day, but if you teach a
: man to fish you feed him for life." And that's why I'm opposed to
: "Those damn liberals are trying to take away all _MY_ money and give it
: to starving people." -- Those damn liberals are doing everything they
: can to make sure those starving people are hungry again tomorrow and
: able to get to the polls every two years and vote them back in office!
seems to me.... the conservatives want y'all in jail, and the
democrats want y'all on welfare.
wharfie
>If you want the facts, read the latest issue (November, I think) of Reader's
>Digest. It contains a detailed, blow-by-blow, account of Clinton's rise to
>Presidency. It is not very flattering.
Like I'd believe *anything* in a rag like "Reader's Digest",
ick. Anyway, *all* politician's rises to *anywhere* or, at the least,
not very flattering.
John F. Haugh II
>There are two problems with your post. One is that a very small fraction of
>taxes actually get to "the ubiquitous poor." Most of it goes into the
>governments own pocket. And so the second problem is that in practise your
>sermon gets translated into: "help yourself to your neighbor's pockets and
>pretend that you're both helping the poor." They call that "redistribution
>of wealth."
Duncan, I think you are completely off base on this one. Tax assistance
by income level dramatically favors the lower class. If you look at net
taxes paid by income level you will see that sufficiently low income levels
pay a =negative= tax rate because of credits such as EIC.
>ANd if you're not convinced then look at the mdeian incomes of the "poor",
>adjusted for inflation, over the entire period of the GReat Soceity. It
>flattened out in the 70s that 15% of the population stays below the poverty
>line. This despite spending trillions....
This seems to be a non-sequitor. Please show that spending trillions would
even result in the changes you are expecting for having spent trillions.
One thing which is in constant need of pointing out is that the lower income
brackets frequently have significant assets. The elderly frequently have
little "income" because investments and Social Security aren't included.
And other truly poor people don't have the social welfare payments they
receive (whether in cash or subsidised services) included in their "income".
So it just doesn't matter that LBJ sent this country on a $5 trillion
spending binge -- those dollars were never going to show up in the "results"
column anyway.
>Meanwhile parents have to both work to pay for the taxes that otherwise
>would go into their house or for their kids.
I agree that many households pay absurd amounts of tax, but I will not
agree that this is the leading cause of two income households. "Keeping
up with the Joneses" is a more than adequate explanation.
Does anyone remember when one TeeVee and one car was enough for a middle
class household? Does anyone remember when "choice" in TeeVee viewing
meant your community had ABC, CBS, NBC =and= PBS?
I bet that I could transform almost any two wage earner household into a
single wage earner household just by cutting out the increases in "standard
of comfortable living" since the 60's.
John F. Haugh II
>John F. Haugh II (jfh@rpp386) wrote:
>: Sorry, but my Christian perspective was tainted by the Confucian saying
>: "If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day, but if you teach a
>: man to fish you feed him for life." And that's why I'm opposed to
>: "Those damn liberals are trying to take away all _MY_ money and give it
>: to starving people." -- Those damn liberals are doing everything they
>: can to make sure those starving people are hungry again tomorrow and
>: able to get to the polls every two years and vote them back in office!
>
> seems to me.... the conservatives want y'all in jail, and the
>democrats want y'all on welfare.
I don't know how you reached that conclusion. My comment was that I want
those starving people to learn how to fish, or "work" for those of you who
don't work well with literary images. I'll agree with your assessment of
liberals, tho.
John F. Haugh II
>Matthew Robert Feeney (fee...@cs.utexas.edu) wrote:
>: If you want the facts, read the latest issue (November, I think) of Reader's
>: Digest. It contains a detailed, blow-by-blow, account of Clinton's rise to
>: Presidency. It is not very flattering.
>
> last time I wanted facts, the LAST place I read anything was in the
>Readers Digest.
If you don't like what Reader's Digest says, go read the article and then
look up the source article. Reader's Digest is a DIGEST. They don't make
up their own stuff and even when they do produce the occasional odd article,
they footnote the source of their information.
As for "Slick Willie", that is a name given him by his supporters. Only
after everyone else discovered how deceitful he is did his detractors
start using that name.
TBoyum
writes:
:I agree that many households pay absurd amounts of tax, but I will not
:agree that this is the leading cause of two income households. "Keeping
:up with the Joneses" is a more than adequate explanation.
I can testify to that in my personal experience. My wife and I did that
by having one car, no cable, cutting out the needed child care, and going
out to dinner less. It wasn't easy the first year, but it seems to me
that the people decide to sacrifice their children in favor of their
lifestyle. I am sometimes envious of peple I work with who have
nicer/more items, but I have a better relationship with my family than any
of them and I am confident that it impacts my children.
Both of my parents worked. I now have an 8 year old son that we home
school and who is a well balanced loving happy child. When I was 8, I was
depressed, miserable, a vandel and I already smoked cigarettes. I choose
the kids -- the Jones can create their own hell while dropping their kids
into it.
Before someone attacks that, I don't believe that everyone has to go my
route -- but I think most of us do and all of us should consider the
effect of the alternatives more seriously.
Todd
Edward Henigin
: >democrats want y'all on welfare.
: I don't know how you reached that conclusion. My comment was that I want
: those starving people to learn how to fish, or "work" for those of you who
: don't work well with literary images. I'll agree with your assessment of
: liberals, tho.
I didn't get the quip about conservatives from what you said, I
got it from what I see on tv and read in the papers and hear from friends
etc, especially wrt drug laws, sex laws, and anything to do with
not being part of the mainstream.
John Iacoletti
|> On the other hand, I
|> don't extend my tolerance of other peoples' sexual preference as expressed in
|> the privacy of their own homes to groups such as the Lesbian recruiters who
|> recently were arrested while passing out leaflets and propagandizing young
|> girls on the grounds of their elementary school.
What do you think about the Gideons passing out bibles and propagandizing young
children on the grounds of their elementary school?
--
John Iacoletti IBM RISC System/6000 Division joh...@austin.ibm.com
My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Practice senseless acts of randomness"
Rick Shank
John F. Haugh II <j...@rpp386.cactus.org> wrote:
>In article <3a34vn$i...@cactus.texas.net> e...@cactus.texas.net (Edward Henigin) writes:
>>John F. Haugh II (jfh@rpp386) wrote:
>>: Sorry, but my Christian perspective was tainted by the Confucian saying
>>: "If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day, but if you teach a
>>: man to fish you feed him for life." And that's why I'm opposed to
>>: "Those damn liberals are trying to take away all _MY_ money and give it
>>: to starving people." -- Those damn liberals are doing everything they
>>: can to make sure those starving people are hungry again tomorrow and
>>: able to get to the polls every two years and vote them back in office!
>>
>> seems to me.... the conservatives want y'all in jail, and the
>>democrats want y'all on welfare.
>
>I don't know how you reached that conclusion. My comment was that I want
>those starving people to learn how to fish, or "work" for those of you who
>don't work well with literary images. I'll agree with your assessment of
>liberals, tho.
I don't think that's where he was going John. I think he was using the
same argument I have. Some think Liberals (Democrats) are no good, some
think Conservatives (Republicans) are no good. The fact of the matter is
very few politicians are any good. It is a waste of time to get on one
side of the fence or the other and throw rocks the other way. Those of
us who are on the fence actually trying to solve the problems spend too
much of our time dodging rocks from both sides.
Lisa Senner
]
]I can testify to that in my personal experience. My wife and I did that
]by having one car, no cable, cutting out the needed child care, and going
]that the people decide to sacrifice their children in favor of their
]lifestyle. I am sometimes envious of peple I work with who have
]nicer/more items, but I have a better relationship with my family than any
]of them and I am confident that it impacts my children.
I take great exception to this. My husband and I both work, our 8-year
old is not depressed, nor is he a vandal or a smoker. Our children will
go to college, something I have had to work on for 16 years part-time while
holding down a full-time job to pay for it. My 16-month old adores his
day-care teacher and peers, he is a well-adjusted, well-rounded baby with
socialization skills your home-schooled child may have yet to develop. Our
family unit is strong and loving and we are very committed to one another.
I personally am a much better person for going off to work each day and
fullfilling my need for adult interaction, diversity and personal growth.
I believe this is reflected in the richness of my relationships with my
family. I sometimes wish I could stay at home with our kids, but when I
look at the bigger picture, it's clear to me, for our family at least, this
arrangement works out best for _everyone_.
Don't generalize me, and I won't generalize you.
wharfie
>If you don't like what Reader's Digest says, go read the article and then
>look up the source article. Reader's Digest is a DIGEST.
Reader's Digest prints slanted articles already printed in
other rags. They're *still* printing stories about marijuana addicts
driven to suicide by the brain damage inevitably caused by the evil
weed. That they don't even have the creativity to make up their own
propaganda just makes it that much more pathetic.
Barry Chalcroft,2136,x8723,18849,
>If you want the facts, read the latest issue (November, I think) of Reader's
>Digest. It contains a detailed, blow-by-blow, account of Clinton's rise to
>Presidency. It is not very flattering.
Readers Digest, now thats an unbiased source of information. Next thing
you'll be quoting the "objective" reporting of TV Guide.
CUL,
-barryc
---
Barry D. Chalcroft / N5NWI Tandem Computers ISD, Austin,TX
Work: (512) 244-8723 The Home of "UNIX with Integrity"
EMAIL: bar...@mpd.tandem.com Yes, I'm proud to be a liberal...
76500...@compuserve.com I also support President Clinton!
wharfie
>It is a waste of time to get on one
>side of the fence or the other and throw rocks the other way. Those of
>us who are on the fence actually trying to solve the problems spend too
>much of our time dodging rocks from both sides.
One time I was at this Allman Brothers concert at a big
racetrack. This racetrack had a big chainlink fence, 18 feet high at
least, going all around the actual paved part where the cars drove. All
the concert people sat inside this big fence, and naturally the ones
all the way in the back couldn't see very much of the stage.
So these people started climbing the big chainlink fence to
see better. Pretty soon the whole fence was lined with hippies and bikers,
sitting up there like swallows on a telephone line. Only thing was, the
concert people had strung all kinds of speaker wires and electrical
cables and stuff along the top of the fence where these guys were sitting.
After a while some guy walks out on stage and takes the microphone from
Duane and says
"Y'all need to get down offa that there fence. There's all
kinds of speaker wires and electrical cables and stuff along the top of
that there fence, and we don't want nobody to get electrocuted so just
climb on down, alright?"
But none of the guys on the fence want to give up their seat
and get down on the ground with the rest of us. The guy on stage says
"Well, look, the concert won't go on until y'all get down offa
that fence. I won't let the band play anymore until everybody is
down offa that fence. If you want attention that bad just take your
clothes off and get up on the stage, but *get* off the fence!"
The rest of the audience got upset at this, and we started
throwing marshmallows and candy and cigarette butts and wads of paper
and whatever else was handy at the guys on the fence. They all gave
us the finger but they did eventually climb down when it was obvious that
we wouldn't run out of ammunition and the show really wouldn't go on
until they cooperated.
About the middle of the second set the left speaker tower went
out. Some electrical guys climbed up on the fence to fix the wires,
but the audience saw them and thought it was the original crew trying
to sneak back up. They started throwing the candy and cigarette butts
and stuff again, and no matter how much the electrical guys tried to
stay up there and fix the wires they couldn't, what with all the
garbage flying through the air. So they flipped us the bird too, and
went away. Never did get those speakers fixed.
I'm not sure if the moral of the story is "if you throw
stuff at the guys on the fence you might never get to hear the
music" or "Don't run your speaker wires and electrical cables and stuff
along the top of the fence 'cause hippies will sit on them".
David Springer
>In article <1994Nov13.180303.9958@rpp386> j...@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> Reader's Digest prints slanted articles already printed in
>other rags. They're *still* printing stories about marijuana addicts
Oh really ? Perhaps you'd care to cite exactly which Readers Digest
edition this was in ? Just one will do, I won't hold you to the
plurality of articles you claim.
>driven to suicide by the brain damage inevitably caused by the evil
>weed. That they don't even have the creativity to make up their own
Dave Springer
Readers Digest Subscriber since the 60's.
TBoyum
(Lisa Senner) writes:
}I take great exception to this.
Lisa,
Speaking of generalizations -- did you care to read the rest of the post
-- I know that it is fine for some people and I am thrilled that it works
for you. My child is very well adjusted socially but it takes a lifetime
to determine how any course of action will work out entirely anyway. Why
is it that everyone wants to be offended???? Every parent should
seriously ponder their own course -- it sounds like you and I have/are
doing that --- I don't believe the majority do -- that was my point -- it
is easier for most to accept things the way they are without really
dealing with the affect it has on children. You're in the minority or so
our culture seems to be pointing to. History and current statistics
prove this without my help. Good luck on your course -- I wish you the
best.
Todd
Big Kahuna
wharfie (wr...@unisql.unisql.com) wrote:
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Small Biz Help Net - http://www.fc.net/~kahuna/
Advertise your business the way it should be advertised!
finger kah...@fc.net for more details!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Kevin Langston
>In article <1994Nov13.180303.9958@rpp386> j...@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>If you don't like what Reader's Digest says, go read the article and then
>>look up the source article. Reader's Digest is a DIGEST.
>
> Reader's Digest prints slanted articles already printed in
>other rags. They're *still* printing stories about marijuana addicts
>driven to suicide by the brain damage inevitably caused by the evil
>weed.
Stories, eh? How about naming at least two issues and the titles
of the articles?
>That they don't even have the creativity to make up their own
>propaganda just makes it that much more pathetic.
Have you read the RD issues or are you just repeating someone
else's lines?
--
Kevin Langston
lang...@frontier.lonestar.org
"Envy is a powerful tool in the hand of a tyrant."
John F. Haugh II
> I sometimes wish I could stay at home with our kids, but when I
>look at the bigger picture, it's clear to me, for our family at least, this
>arrangement works out best for _everyone_.
Make Joe sell the Bimmer then you can stay home with Dillion all day ;-)
John F. Haugh II
> Reader's Digest prints slanted articles already printed in
>other rags. They're *still* printing stories about marijuana addicts
>driven to suicide by the brain damage inevitably caused by the evil
>weed.
Hmmm. Can you provide some examples of issues in which they did
this?
> That they don't even have the creativity to make up their own
>propaganda just makes it that much more pathetic.
Lou, you've been smoking too much dope again -- Reader's Digest is a
DIGEST -- they don't make up any of their own anything. That's why
people buy the magazine -- so they can read the 2,500 word version of
"War and Peace" while taking a crap some morning.
Benjamin J. Sloan
>DIGEST -- they don't make up any of their own anything. That's why
>people buy the magazine -- so they can read the 2,500 word version of
>"War and Peace" while taking a crap some morning.
Get real. RD is a major piece of right-wing propaganda and the Clinton
expose' is a perfect example of it. Where did they summarize that stuff
from? "The Clinton Files"? Spare me. Reader's Digest is such a smug,
holier-than-thou, conservative instrument I could barely stand it after
the age of 13 or so. I think that's about the time I began skipping
most of the articles and only reading Drama In Real Life. "The stewardess
spilled hot coffee on the pilot, blinding him at 10,000 feet! The
small plane went into a death spiral until Marge Hoover thought to
press her call button, rousing him to life!" Jeez, it was the basis
for "COPS" and "911" and all the rest of that tripe.
You're right about the appropriate "reading room" for RD, though.
Ben
--
Benjamin Sloan "...the Oklahoma City police are a bunch of crazed
b...@utig.ig.utexas.edu no-neck gestapo who don't know nothing about nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and hate anyone who does." -author Bruce Sterling
Franklin Taylor
<lang...@frontier.lonestar.org> writes:
>
>wr...@unisql.unisql.com (wharfie) writes:
>>In article <1994Nov13.180303.9958@rpp386> j...@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>>If you don't like what Reader's Digest says, go read the article and then
>>>look up the source article. Reader's Digest is a DIGEST.
>>
[snip]
>>That they don't even have the creativity to make up their own
>>propaganda just makes it that much more pathetic.
>
> Have you read the RD issues or are you just repeating someone
> else's lines?
>
> Kevin Langston
Nah...read it on USENET.
Frank
Clayton Colwell
: In article <1994Nov15.074109.23928@rpp386>,
: John F. Haugh II <j...@rpp386.cactus.org> wrote:
: >Lou, you've been smoking too much dope again -- Reader's Digest is a
: >DIGEST -- they don't make up any of their own anything. That's why
: >people buy the magazine -- so they can read the 2,500 word version of
: >"War and Peace" while taking a crap some morning.
: Get real. RD is a major piece of right-wing propaganda and the Clinton
: expose' is a perfect example of it. Where did they summarize that stuff
I don't think that Reader's Digest and Catholic Digest have the identical
look'n'feel on the front cover for nuthin'.
--
Clay Colwell (aka StealthSmurf)
er...@bga.com "So *that's* what an invisible barrier
looks like." -- from _Time Bandits_
wharfie
> Stories, eh? How about naming at least two issues and the titles
Shit, like I bother to write this stuff down in case some
Usenet wiseass wants me to do his research for him. If you care that
much about the opinions of the editorial, uh, I mean, "editorial" staff
of Reader's Digest go look it up yourself. That way you can read it
instead of asking me to key it in for you.
Deborah Kilgore
>You're in the minority or so
>our culture seems to be pointing to. History and current statistics
>prove this without my help. Good luck on your course -- I wish you the
>best.
>Todd
If you are saying that Lisa's child, as the child of 2 working parents, is in
the minority in that he is a well-adjusted happy little boy, I don't know that
this can be proven. Even with statistics. I submit the hypothesis that
children are more affected by the other aspects of their lives - poverty vs.
no poverty, drugs vs. no drugs, caring parents vs. apathetic parents -
rather than the fact that both their parents work.
Can we separate out the one factor - both parents working vs. one parent
working - and find significant results pointing to children who are better off
in one situation than the other?
Lisa Senner
]In article <1994Nov14.1...@integrity.uucp>, li...@mpd.tandem.com
](Lisa Senner) writes:
]
]}I take great exception to this.
]
]Lisa,
]
]Speaking of generalizations -- did you care to read the rest of the post
Todd, I read entire post. I read the part where you said dual-income
families are created simply to keep up with the Jones. I read the part
where you said the worlds problems could probably be solved if more moms
stayed at home with their kids. I don't know where you got your data,
but I personally believe you're full of shit. ok?
David Springer
In other words; he either made up his claim or is parroting a source
that he'd rather not associate himself with (probably another
frightened liberal). Maybe he can get the gov't to back his claims ?
God knows he wants the gov't to solve all his other myriad problems.
Dave Springer
Systems Programmer and Usenet Wiseass
Dell Computer Corporation
<standard disclaimers>
David Springer
Brain Damaged Addicts to Commit Suicide".
Gee, I wonder why ? ;-)
Rick Saenz
Deborah Kilgore <debo...@admin.stedwards.edu> wrote:
Can we separate out the one factor - both parents working vs. one
parent working - and find significant results pointing to children
who are better off in one situation than the other?
Does it really matter if you can? I have no doubt that any given
individual family could buck the trend, in either direction. We don't
need studies to reassure us that we are part of a social group whose
children do well; we need to take the responsibility to see that our
children get the best possible upbringing.
Rick Saenz
wharfie
>In other words; he either made up his claim or is parroting a source
>that he'd rather not associate himself with
No, dog-breath. It means that I don't xerox the cover of
every Reader's Digest I pick up at the laundromat or the dentist's
office.
Barry Chalcroft,2136,x8723,18849,
spri...@dellgate.us.dell.com (David Springer) posts:
>I see there is still no cite for the RD articles "The Evil Weed Causes
>Brain Damaged Addicts to Commit Suicide".
>Gee, I wonder why ? ;-)
I guess most of the folks out here have a REAL life. Researching Readers
Digest articles is not on the top of MY list. Or even the bottom...
It's amazing how many people consider the RD a unbiased source of information.
Probably the same folks voted "for a change" last week. Nothing like "informed"
voters. :)
CUL,
-barryc
p.s. Yes, I sometimes do read RD. But that's only at other peoples homes.
Beats the label on the toilet bowl cleaner or the toothpaste tube. Not by
much though...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barry D. Chalcroft / N5NWI Tandem Computers ISD, Austin,TX
Work: (512) 244-8000 The Home of "UNIX with Integrity"
EMAIL: bar...@mpd.tandem.com *Democrat, liberal and a proud
76500...@compuserve.com supporter of President Clinton*
TBoyum
(Lisa Senner) writes:
>but I personally believe you're full of shit. ok?
Good for you. By the way, my parents thought I was happy and well
adjusted and too and they didn't know that I smoked when I was 8. Maybe
your eyes are closed too. Maybe, I gave you too much credit saying that
you are in the minority that has really thought out whether their personal
objectives are interferring with their child's lives. You seem content to
be happy to tell me off rather than try to understand my point.
I wasn't attacking you or saying that women who work are bad or two parent
working families are wrong. I am only saying that for a child, nothing
can substitute more attention and time with loving parents. If you
disagree with that - fine, we are from two different planets. So live
your life as you want and keep your obnoxious personal attitude problem to
yourself -- we're not all out to get you or haven't you learned that yet..
Kevin Langston
>wr...@unisql.unisql.com (wharfie) writes:
>
>>In article <1994Nov15.0...@frontier.lonestar.org> lang...@frontier.lonestar.org (Kevin Langston) writes:
>>> Stories, eh? How about naming at least two issues and the titles
>
>> Shit, like I bother to write this stuff down in case some
>>Usenet wiseass wants me to do his research for him. If you care that
>>much about the opinions of the editorial, uh, I mean, "editorial" staff
>>of Reader's Digest go look it up yourself. That way you can read it
>>instead of asking me to key it in for you.
I have a subscription to Reader's Digest. It's a very good magazine.
They print articles from all kinds of places, Arizona Highways,
Detroit News, Florida Magazine, New York Times Magazine to name a
few from the Nov94 issue. I don't recall any like you claim.
While Eric Wolfson prompted me to do a little research to prove
how gun control doesn't work, you're not worth the effort to pick
up a magazine I already read for entertainment.
>In other words; he either made up his claim or is parroting a source
>that he'd rather not associate himself with (probably another
>frightened liberal).
He's probably never done more than glance at the pictures or read
the jokes. Somebody probably told him there were "conservative"
ideals buried in there, and like so many, he KNOWS what has to
be in it...
>Maybe he can get the gov't to back his claims ?
>God knows he wants the gov't to solve all his other myriad problems.
Maybe he can get some government droid to read an issue to him.
Maybe we should take up a collection and get him the "Large Type
Edition".
Nah, pearls before swine and all that...
Kevin Langston
>John F. Haugh II <j...@rpp386.cactus.org> wrote:
>>Lou, you've been smoking too much dope again -- Reader's Digest is a
>>DIGEST -- they don't make up any of their own anything. That's why
>>people buy the magazine -- so they can read the 2,500 word version of
>>"War and Peace" while taking a crap some morning.
>
>Get real. RD is a major piece of right-wing propaganda and the Clinton
>expose' is a perfect example of it. Where did they summarize that stuff
>from? "The Clinton Files"? Spare me.
Let's see, Nov94 has articles from Arizona Highways, New York Times
Magazine, Detroit News, New York Times, Miami Herald, New York Newsday,
"Beyond the Limits", Chicago Tribune, Florida Magazine, Country Journal,
and Dan Jansen's autobiography.
>Reader's Digest is such a smug,
>holier-than-thou, conservative instrument I could barely stand it after
>the age of 13 or so.
Oh come on, surely you've grown up a ittle since then.
Much of RD is about individuals overcoming problems or succeeding.
I never really thought of these as being conservative traits, but
now that you mention it, I guess it is true.
What do liberal magazines have in them, whining, complaining,
hatred and bigotry?
>I think that's about the time I began skipping
>most of the articles and only reading Drama In Real Life. "The stewardess
>spilled hot coffee on the pilot, blinding him at 10,000 feet! The
>small plane went into a death spiral until Marge Hoover thought to
>press her call button, rousing him to life!" Jeez, it was the basis
>for "COPS" and "911" and all the rest of that tripe.
Maybe you should read some of the more interesting articles, like
Randy Fitzgerald's "A Hand Up - Not a Handout" or "Why The President
Is In Trouble" from the NYTimes Magazine. Of course, you already
"know" what RD has to say about Clinton, so there's no reason to
read it, right?
Deborah Kilgore
>Deborah Kilgore <debo...@admin.stedwards.edu> wrote:
You took me out of context of the rest of my post. My point was in response
to the idea that a minority of children whose parents both work will grow up
well-adjusted, happy, and other superduper things. Naturally, all parents
should do the 'best' for their children. But to advise that the 'best' is
having one parent stay home, is simply unscientific and unsupported by
evidence as yet presented on this news group.
- deb
Deborah Kilgore
>Meanwhile parents have to both work to pay for the taxes that otherwise
>would go into their house or for their kids.
Meanwhile, many parents both work to pay for the rising cost of living, due in
part to the entry of women into the work force. Supply and demand.
Rick Saenz
Deborah Kilgore <debo...@admin.stedwards.edu> wrote:
Deborah Kilgore <debo...@admin.stedwards.edu> wrote:
Sorry, I guess I'm not being clear (since I agree with what you've
said). My point is that no study of a group of children can tell you
what is good or bad for your child. At best it might point out a
factor which can influence your child's development that you weren't
aware of. But I think that the issues involved in working vs. staying
at home are common-sense enough that research will only serve to
soothe (or anger) people who have already made informed decisions.
Rick Saenz
wharfie
> I have a subscription to Reader's Digest. It's a very good magazine.
I'll bet you like Highlights for Children, too. Do you have
a subscription to that, or does Mommy buy it for you at WalMart?
You probably think the Statesman is a very good newspaper.
Richard Kilgore
|> >that he'd rather not associate himself with (probably another
|> >frightened liberal).
|>
|> He's probably never done more than glance at the pictures or read
|> the jokes. Somebody probably told him there were "conservative"
|> ideals buried in there, and like so many, he KNOWS what has to
|> be in it...
|>
This discussion is tiresome. I don't know whether the original claim had
any substance or not, but let's assume for a moment that it did not. The
author's
obvious error was, as you stated, in assuming that there are some relatively
well known "conservative" ideals that must be carried to the limits of
rationalization, because, as any liberal-minded person knows, conservativism
is the source of all evil.
This kind of generalization is a common mistake made daily by members from
both
sides of the fence. In fact, you are obviously just as tainted, as shown by
your intolerant "like so many, he KNOWS ..." comment. When you take this
kind of attitude, everyone becomes defensive, and the discussion becomes
completely pointless. You might as well be discussing who's mom can beat up
who else's.
So after reading 20 or 30 quips and rebutals about the nature of Reader's
Digest, can anyone remember whether or not this was originally a constructive
discussion? Well, apparently not; just take a look at the subject heading.
My point is that, in general, members of either party are not RIGHT and the
other half is not WRONG. If you believe certain views to be misguided,
calling
people who believe in those views stupid, or telling them that they're lost is
certainly not going to change their mind. And you only come off looking like
a petty name-caller. So why bother?
--
Richard B. Kilgore
Grad Student, University of Texas at Austin
E-mail rkil...@pine.ece.utexas.edu
Clayton Colwell
: Sorry, I guess I'm not being clear (since I agree with what you've
: said). My point is that no study of a group of children can tell you
: what is good or bad for your child. At best it might point out a
: factor which can influence your child's development that you weren't
: aware of. But I think that the issues involved in working vs. staying
: at home are common-sense enough that research will only serve to
: soothe (or anger) people who have already made informed decisions.
And herein lies the danger: "common-sense" isn't necessarily common,
nor does it always make sense. Talk to AI and expert systems folx
about programming "common sense" and you'll see what I mean. That
is why research is still helpful, as long as any who analyze the
data are aware of outside influences (since obviously not *every*thing
in studies can be rigidly controlled) and how those might affect
data collected.
Lisa Senner
]In article <1994Nov15.1...@integrity.uucp>, li...@mpd.tandem.com
](Lisa Senner) writes:
]
]>but I personally believe you're full of shit. ok?
]
]Good for you. By the way, my parents thought I was happy and well
]adjusted and too and they didn't know that I smoked when I was 8. Maybe
]your eyes are closed too. Maybe, I gave you too much credit saying that
]you are in the minority that has really thought out whether their personal
]objectives are interferring with their child's lives. You seem content to
]be happy to tell me off rather than try to understand my point.
oh, I understand your point, I just don't happen to agree with it. I also
think you didn't hear a thing I said either, so I guess we're even. When
someone responds with what I consider to be a very polite, although different
viewpoint (which I happen to believe my original response to you was), I
expect that response to be respected, even if it's not agreed with. What
I got instead was drilled with your original opinion again, like I'm going
to agree with you more if you just repeat it, only this time a little harder.
As though yours is the only opinion that matters on this particular topic,
and mine is just damn wrong. Yea, you pissed me off.
I don't have an attitude problem, I just don't happen to care for your tone
or your method. If you'll go back and read my original response, then reread
your original post and your response to me, (which I asked you to do before,
to try to understand where _I_ was coming from), you might see that I'm not
the one that was the agressor here, I just got tired of beating my head
against your wall.
BTW: You know absolutely NOTHING about me or my family. Don't judge me or
my choices based on how screwed up you _think_ we might be. You have no
basis, and you have no right.
]I wasn't attacking you or saying that women who work are bad or two parent
]working families are wrong.
wrong. You absolutely were attacking. absolutely.
I am only saying that for a child, nothing
]can substitute more attention and time with loving parents. If you
I couldn't agree more. suprised?
]disagree with that - fine, we are from two different planets. So live
]your life as you want and keep your obnoxious personal attitude problem to
]yourself -- we're not all out to get you or haven't you learned that yet..
so now I'm paranoid? geez, you just really have me pegged, don't you?
David Springer
>Todd, I read entire post. I read the part where you said dual-income
>families are created simply to keep up with the Jones. I read the part
>where you said the worlds problems could probably be solved if more moms
>stayed at home with their kids. I don't know where you got your data,
>but I personally believe you're full of shit. ok?
I believe that dual income families are a direct result of feminist
dogma stating that child rearing as a full time pursuit is a second
class citizens job and therefore, in order for women to take their
rightful place of power alongside men, they must get out into the
workforce in equal numbers.
A few decades later we now have a significant percentage of our
population having been raised by committee in commune like child care
facilities. When these children return from 10 or more hours of this
care 5 days a week they get to spend a few hours with one or two
parents stressed out from their own 10 hours at a job.
Without delving into the social problems that confront our society I
think the results are rather obvious and frightening to anyone with
the honesty to examine the cause and effect relationship.
On a "you're full of shit : no I'm not" note... I've had experience
with two of my own children, one raised with my wife working full time
at a demanding job and one where she is not employed.
The difference in quality of our home life is dramatic. Having a full
time devoted "mom" makes a great deal of difference to the child,
trust me. You really don't know what well adjusted is until you have an
opportunity to compare the two as I have. Not only that, but despite
having less money the quality of everyone's life has improved so much
you couldn't pay me enough to go back the other way. Call me old
fashioned but I think our children are our future and no sacrifice is
too great to insure they are the best they can be.
My wife, being somewhat an independant women with feminist leanings,
won't admit how much happier she is in her new role. This isn't
suprising... the liberal programming takes time to overcome. However,
her sister, her mother, her father, me, the kids (we have 3 ages
17,10, and 2), and everyone who knows her can see how content,
relaxed, and enjoying life she is now as compared to when she was
struggling with a carreer.
Contrary to feminist dogma I believe the *most* important job in the
world is nurturing our children. I'm just a support mechanism that
allows my female partner to do the important part to the best of her
ability, that of insuring that the next generation is compassionate,
loved and loving, and ready to continue our species in a manner which
we'd all approve of.
Men and women are different. We have to accept that. Ignoring the
obvious is having ruinous consequences. While I feel that some things
from the past are needful of change I don't believe that removing our
nurturers is one of them.
Dave Springer
Systems Programmer
Dell Computer Corporation
P.S. I'm not at all a religious person. I enter churches out of
deference to friends and family for weddings and baptisms and that's
about the extent of it. I hate having to say that but it seems
fashionable for today's liberals to accuse anyone who disagrees with
them as being of the heinous and stealthy religious right. I'm just a
conservative... agnostic to boot.
Contrary to popular belief it's quite possible to distinguish right
from wrong without referring to scripture.
David Springer
>And herein lies the danger: "common-sense" isn't necessarily common,
>nor does it always make sense. Talk to AI and expert systems folx
>about programming "common sense" and you'll see what I mean. That
>is why research is still helpful, as long as any who analyze the
>data are aware of outside influences (since obviously not *every*thing
>in studies can be rigidly controlled) and how those might affect
>data collected.
How many ways can the obvious be interpreted? Check out any study of
prison populations that you care to. The vast majority of inmates
come from non-traditional families. Spin that data all you want but
the conclusion is still obvious. All it takes is honesty and lack of
any agenda that is endangered by admitting the facts.
Dave Springer
Systems Programmer
Dell Computer
<standard disclaimers>
David Springer
Oooooooooooooo.... I'm hurt to the quick. A razor wit such as yours
just leaves me speechless.
I see you still haven't produced anything except "dog-breath" to
support your position. But, since "dog-breath" is so powerful a
statement I'll have to concede. You win. Reader's Digest *obviously*
prints exactly the sort of mistruths that you alluded to.
Oh, I wasn't aware that laundromats have Reader's Digest lying around
but since I haven't been to a laundromat since the time our washer
broke on a holiday 10 years ago I'll bow to your expertise. Anyhow,
now that I have an expert to ask... can Reader's Digest also be found
in the police holding pen, the unemployment office, and the Salvation
Army too ?
Dave
Roberto Bayardo
Oh, I get it. So common sense means deducing all correlations imply
causation. Thanks for clearing that up!
Rick Shank
Roberto Bayardo <bay...@cs.utexas.edu> wrote:
>Oh, I get it. So common sense means deducing all correlations imply
>causation. Thanks for clearing that up!
Correct! You are now awarded your PhD in Psychology. :^}
Joe Barr
> Date: 17 Nov 1994 23:03:28 GMT
> I believe that dual income families are a direct result of
> feminist dogma stating that child rearing as a full time
> pursuit is a second class citizens job and therefore, in order
> for women to take their rightful place of power alongside men,
> they must get out into the workforce in equal numbers.
I would say your opinion is based on ignorance of the facts. Women began
to come into the workforce in numbers during this century for one reason and
one reason only: war. They are still here because once they began to enjoy a
little bit of the fruits of their labor, rather than depend on 'gifts' from
their
men, they weren't about to simply hand that power back. I'm afraid your fear
of lesbians or feminists is making your blind to fact. Or else you simply have
decided
to do what Mush Limbo and Paul Pryor and all the other hate-radio professional
bigots do and twist the facts to fit your argument. Not only is that sort of
thing morally bankrupt, it's obvious even to Republicans.
> The difference in quality of our home life is dramatic. Having a
> full time devoted "mom" makes a great deal of difference to the
> child, trust me. You really don't know what well adjusted is
> until you have an opportunity to compare the two as I have.
> Not only that, but despite having less money the quality of
> everyone's life has improved so much you couldn't pay me enough
> to go back the other way. Call me old fashioned but I think
> our children are our future and no sacrifice is too great to
> insure they are the best they can be.
Extremely arrogant on your part to assume your children are in any way
better than anyone else's. Hiding your argument behind words like 'old
fashioned' has a certain appeal to conservatives, but not to folks capable
of thinking for themselves. I'm happy for you that being the sole bread
winner makes you feel 'more of a man', but please don't take that as any
sound reason for advancing your opinions over those of others.
> Men and women are different. We have to accept that. Ignoring
> the obvious is having ruinous consequences. While I feel that
> some things from the past are needful of change I don't believe
> that removing our nurturers is one of them.
This grand finale non-sequitur convinces me that you want to run for
office and have dipped into the conservative ploy-book for disconnected
homilies and feminist-bashing pent up until you feel secure behind the
backlash elections.
Judith S. Weiss
>Todd, I read entire post. I read the part where you said dual-income
>families are created simply to keep up with the Jones. I read the part
>where you said the worlds problems could probably be solved if more moms
>stayed at home with their kids. I don't know where you got your data,
>but I personally believe you're full of shit. ok?
Go, Lisa!
These guys always tip their hands don't they? They claim that they just want
children to have a lot of parental attention, but somehow it's always the
wife who's supposed to provide that attention, never them. Yup, have the kids
all spick'n'span for when dad comes home from a hard day at work, so he can
play with them and be the good guy. Meanwhile guess who's changing the
diapers and doing the laundry? Guess who gets seen by their children as a
drudge who doesn't deserve respect out in the world?
BTW I grew up in a traditional suburban 50's family: My mom stayed home to
care for me and my brother, my parents were married 45 years till my mom
died, first marriage for both of them, and us kids grew up pretty fucked up.
I know lots of "latchkey kids" from my generation who grew up better adjusted
than I did. If my mom had had the guts to divorce my dad and go to work, we
would have been better off.
I'll listen to any man who believes kids will be fucked up unless one parent
stays at home if he's the one staying at home.
Benjamin J. Sloan
>
>> Reader's Digest prints slanted articles already printed in
>>other rags. They're *still* printing stories about marijuana addicts
>
An online perusal turned up the following recent RD articles which clearly
have a conservative "slant" to them: AntiClinton, AntiMulticultural, Anti-
Gun, Anti-Gays. (come to think of it, is anti-gun conservative or
liberal??)
ARTICLE TITLE: What health care crisis? by Irwin M. Stelzer
DATE/VOL/PAGE: Sept 1994, v145, n869, p141 / 4 page(s)
ARTICLE TITLE: Let's hear it in English. (multiculturalism) by Turback
DATE/VOL/PAGE: Sept 1994, v145, n869, p177 / 4 page(s)
ARTICLE TITLE: Just take away their guns. (gun control)(includes related
article) by James Q. Wilson
DATE/VOL/PAGE: July 1994, v145, n867, p49 / 4 page(s)
ARTICLE TITLE: Has anti-Catholicism become acceptable? by John Leo
DATE/VOL/PAGE: Oct 1991, v139, n834, p151 / 2 page(s)
NOTES: Abstract: A hate campaign by gay organizations against
the Catholic Church has been growing over the past two
years and is underreported by the press.
As for pot articles, all I found was the following article about those
horrible "drug outlaws":
ARTICLE TITLE: Drug outlaws in our national forests. (illicit marijuana
plantations) by Joyce Wolkomir and Richard Wolkomir
PERIODICAL: Reader's Digest
DATE/VOL/PAGE: Oct 1988, v133, n798, p193 / 5 page(s)
--
Benjamin Sloan "...the Oklahoma City police are a bunch of crazed
b...@utig.ig.utexas.edu no-neck gestapo who don't know nothing about nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and hate anyone who does." -author Bruce Sterling
wharfie
>As for pot articles, all I found was the following article about those
>horrible "drug outlaws":
How far back does your database go?
wharfie
>I haven't been to a laundromat since the time our washer broke on a holiday
I've always enjoyed going to the laundromat as a time for
reflection, video games, and of course catching up on magazines I'm
too embarrased to subscribe to such as Reader's Digest. When I worked
the night shift I'd get there at 8AM with a load of dirty clothes and
a quart of Coors, which I'd nurse through two spin cycles and a warm-
water rinse. Topped off by an omelete and hash browns at Mother's Cafe
(Mother was a big ugly dude who parked his Harley outside the kitchen
door) this was a truly satisfying way to end my waking hours. A little
buzz, a full stomach, and a feeling of accomplishment and domesticity
engendered by the baskets of clean clothes in the back seat of my '62
VW: what more could a man ask for?
When we moved into our house in Round Rock we were renting
the place. The kitchen at our house is very very small, and since
we needed the space in the kitchen we put the refrigerator outside in the
garage in the niche where the dryer was supposed to go and the freezer -
we have a nice chest freezer which we prefer over canning garden surplus -
went where the washing machine should've gone. When we bought the
house a few years later we decided to get a washing machine but
realized that we'd have no place to put the freezer. This doesn't at all
bother me because like I said I actually enjoy the laundromat (Where
else would I find time to read biased propaganda rags like Reader's
Digest?) but it really bothers my wife who wants a washing machine so badly
that she sometimes goes to Montgomery Wards on her lunch hour just to
fondle the display models.
Of course, now that we have a Republican congress I'm sure that
I'll soon be able to afford a house big enough to hold a washing machine
AND a freezer. It's a sure thing that granting tax breaks to rich
people will greatly increase my disposable income.
"It was later than I thought
when I first believed you.
Now I cannot share your answers,
ship of fools."
David Springer
>>
>>How many ways can the obvious be interpreted? Check out any study of
>>prison populations that you care to. The vast majority of inmates
>>come from non-traditional families. Spin that data all you want but
>>the conclusion is still obvious. All it takes is honesty and lack of
>>any agenda that is endangered by admitting the facts.
>Oh, I get it. So common sense means deducing all correlations imply
>causation. Thanks for clearing that up!
Nope. It's accepting the theory which best fits the facts until a
better theory comes along. If you have a better explanation for the
data I mentioned I'm all ears. Surprise me and offer at least a
a counter explanation that can be reasonably supported.
Good luck. You'll need it. ;-)
Dave
David Springer
> > From: spri...@dellgate.us.dell.com (David Springer)
> > Date: 17 Nov 1994 23:03:28 GMT
> > I believe that dual income families are a direct result of
> > feminist dogma stating that child rearing as a full time
> > pursuit is a second class citizens job and therefore, in order
> > for women to take their rightful place of power alongside men,
> > they must get out into the workforce in equal numbers.
>I would say your opinion is based on ignorance of the facts. Women began
>to come into the workforce in numbers during this century for one reason and
>one reason only: war. They are still here because once they began to enjoy a
That's a lovely bit of deduction but it falls short explaining why it
happened in 1945 but not in 1917. Forgetting another little war are
we ? The difference was the beginning of the feminist movement and
the 40 year long dominance of liberal democrats.
>little bit of the fruits of their labor, rather than depend on 'gifts' from
>their
>men, they weren't about to simply hand that power back. I'm afraid your fear
>of lesbians or feminists is making your blind to fact. Or else you simply have
>decided
Nice straw man. Was it fun to knock down ? I neither fear
feminists/lesbians/liberals, embrace them, or am blinded to any facts.
Quite the contrary. I'm acknowledging the facts, arriving at
independant conclusions, and assigning credit where credit is due.
>to do what Mush Limbo and Paul Pryor and all the other hate-radio professional
>bigots do and twist the facts to fit your argument. Not only is that sort of
>thing morally bankrupt, it's obvious even to Republicans.
Wow, now there's a unique response for a liberal. Call Rush Limbaugh
names and blame talk radio. I'm flabbergasted; speechless; what a
potent comeback ! ;-)
> > The difference in quality of our home life is dramatic. Having a
> > full time devoted "mom" makes a great deal of difference to the
> > child, trust me. You really don't know what well adjusted is
> > until you have an opportunity to compare the two as I have.
> > Not only that, but despite having less money the quality of
> > everyone's life has improved so much you couldn't pay me enough
> > to go back the other way. Call me old fashioned but I think
> > our children are our future and no sacrifice is too great to
> > insure they are the best they can be.
>Extremely arrogant on your part to assume your children are in any way
>better than anyone else's. Hiding your argument behind words like 'old
>fashioned' has a certain appeal to conservatives, but not to folks capable
>of thinking for themselves. I'm happy for you that being the sole bread
>winner makes you feel 'more of a man', but please don't take that as any
>sound reason for advancing your opinions over those of others.
I'm comparing my own family life during periods when both my wife and
I were working and when I alone was working. If you'd have read my
post before letting your knee jerk up to block the view you
would have noticed that. I've also stayed at home for up to 2 years
playing Mr. Mom during my 14 yr marriage and have no problems with my
masculinity in either role, thanks. Your "more of a man" comment was
completely off base but since you don't have leg to stand on otherwise
I understand your need to build straw men, resort to ad hominem, and
make baseless assumptions. Perhaps *you* should run for political
office ?
> > Men and women are different. We have to accept that. Ignoring
> > the obvious is having ruinous consequences. While I feel that
> > some things from the past are needful of change I don't believe
> > that removing our nurturers is one of them.
>This grand finale non-sequitur convinces me that you want to run for
>office and have dipped into the conservative ploy-book for disconnected
Wow, no. I hadn't seriously considered running for public office but
if I can manage to rattle your chain so easily without even trying
maybe I should.
>homilies and feminist-bashing pent up until you feel secure behind the
>backlash elections.
Nah, I've been liberal bashing on networks for 3 years now. The
election has nothing to do with it. I'm happy that I'm a member of
the majority party now but there's no deep psychic connections there.
Do you have a point somewhere or do you just need to vent your
frustration at being impotent to stop the pendulum from swinging back
towards the ideals of the conservatives ? Either way, it's okay. I
feel your pain.
Oh, I should offer you congratulations for not accusing me of being a
member of the religious right. It must have been tough, way to go.
Dave
David Springer
>li...@mpd.tandem.com (Lisa Senner) writes:
>These guys always tip their hands don't they? They claim that they just want
>children to have a lot of parental attention, but somehow it's always the
>wife who's supposed to provide that attention, never them. Yup, have the kids
I'd be happy to exchange roles. I did when I had the opportunity.
>all spick'n'span for when dad comes home from a hard day at work, so he can
>diapers and doing the laundry? Guess who gets seen by their children as a
Baseless assumption. I'm the bad guy in our family. I come home and
yell at the kids for not minding their mother or arguing with her.
With her, everything she tells the kids seems to be up for debate. But
this is just us. I wouldn't presume to say that every family is like
this. You shouldn't assume that all families fit your stereotypical
image either.
>drudge who doesn't deserve respect out in the world?
Yeah right. How does that explain me who just said that raising children
to be good people is the most important job in the world. Drudge and
disrepect ? I suppose the workplace is free of same ? Hahahahaaha.
Ever hear the expression "As American as motherhood and apple
pie ?" You are the core of our society. You belong on a pedestal, or
at least you used to. Now you've chosen to relegate yourselves to the
level of the brutes you deride. Happy now ? You are free to be just
as much an asshole as any man. You've come a long way baby... mostly
downhill unfortunately.
>BTW I grew up in a traditional suburban 50's family: My mom stayed home to
>care for me and my brother, my parents were married 45 years till my mom
>died, first marriage for both of them, and us kids grew up pretty fucked up.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Acknowledging the problem is the first step towards overcoming it.
>I know lots of "latchkey kids" from my generation who grew up better adjusted
Who claimed that there aren't exceptions ? Many very important people
have come from broken homes. Sometimes this is the incentive that
drive people toward bettering society. As a rule though, people
raised by two parents are more likely to become successful, happy,
well adjusted adults. You may question the correlation but not the
facts, and if you question the correlation be prepared to offer a real
counter explanation. Denial is more than just a river in Egypt.
>than I did. If my mom had had the guts to divorce my dad and go to work, we
>would have been better off.
That is speculation. Since it didn't happen you can't know what the
result would have been, unless of course you are psychic. Which is
it ?
>I'll listen to any man who believes kids will be fucked up unless one parent
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Somehow I doubt that but go ahead, prove me wrong. By the way, "*will*
be fucked up" implies this would always be the case. I don't recall
anyone claiming that ALL cases produce identical results except you.
Can you say "straw man" ? I knew you could. 8-p
>stays at home if he's the one staying at home.
You'll have to listen to me, then. I used to have an independant
contracting business when my first daughter was born. When business
was slow I'd take care of her while my wife worked. When my second
daughter was born I lost my job shortly after. For several months I
again played Mr. Mom while my wife worked. Altogether I was the one
staying at home while the other worked for about 2 years.
I'd love to stay home and let someone put up with the shit in the
workplace while I put up with shit from the kids but unfortunately my
earning power is 2-3 times that of my wife and she's a helluva lot
better at nurturing than I am. Is there something wrong with each of
us doing what we're best at rather than try to fit the molds that
liberals insist upon ? It took a long time and a support network of
other non-working women for my wife to realize that contrary to the
dogma espoused by liberals that it's perfectly okay and emminently
deserving of respect to be a homemaker. She also volunteers much of
her time at our local elementary school, actually taking part in the
process rather than just bitching about it. Just today a teacher
called in sick and my wife filled in as a chaperone on an all day
field trip. Hey, maybe I'm married to Superwoman... I don't know. I
just think the world would a be lot better place if there were many,
many more just like her.
Of course your mind is already made up so my words will affect you
much the same as water on a duck's back but maybe someone might open
their mind a bit and that's what makes me take the time to respond.
Dave
wharfie
>If you have a better explanation for the data I mentioned I'm all ears.
The Devil made them do it.
If you can offer me an explanation that makes more sense
than the fact that the Lord of Evil posseses these souls and forces
them to commit heinous acts like murder, rape, smoking marijuana,
and driving faster than you think they should then I'd like to hear it.
charles...@amd.com
Senner) writes:
> tbo...@aol.com (TBoyum) writes:
> ]
> ]I can testify to that in my personal experience. My wife and I did that
> ]by having one car, no cable, cutting out the needed child care, and going
> ]out to dinner less. It wasn't easy the first year, but it seems to me
> ]that the people decide to sacrifice their children in favor of their
> ]lifestyle.
..
li...@mpd.tandem.com (Lisa Senner) writes
> I take great exception to this. My husband and I both work, our 8-year
> old is not depressed, nor is he a vandal or a smoker.
Both of these stories are anecdotal, and as such, are interesting but
ultimately meaningless in any discussion of broad trends distributed across a
large population base.
What is relevant is not the anecdotal exception (or the anecdotal rule) but
what happens when large subsets of the culture transit from one modality
(two-parent homes with one at home with the kids) to another modality (as an
extreme, accept the one-parent who works and puts the kids in child care).
I would submit that the current cultural decay in America parallels the trend
from the traditional modality to the one-or-two-working-parent modality, and
that it is in our best interests to recognize this and implement political and
social methodologies which reward families modeled after the traditional role
and do NOT reward families like Lisa's.
This does not mean that government should mandate against Lisa's lifestyle,
which would be something typical of BIG government, and thus what you would
expect from Liberal Democrats, but that we should just not reward or encourage
this lifestyle.
Thus, people who wish to pursue non-traditional modalities in their family
raising would have to proceed without social and political rewards (examples:
tax breaks, socially respectable, etc).
--
contents intended to represent only personal opinions
charles...@amd.com
writes:
> In article <CyyF2...@txnews.amd.com>, charles...@amd.com
(charles...@amd.com) writes:
> |> On the other hand,
I
> |> don't extend my tolerance of other peoples' sexual preference as expressed
in
> |> the privacy of their own homes to groups such as the Lesbian recruiters
who
> |> recently were arrested while passing out leaflets and propagandizing young
> |> girls on the grounds of their elementary school.
>
> What do you think about the Gideons passing out bibles and propagandizing
young
> children on the grounds of their elementary school?
I haven't seen it, haven't heard about it, haven't read about it, and doubt it,
and I have no problem distinguishing between someone handing out a bible and a
Lesbian recruiting on the grounds of an elementary school.
Then again, I'm not a hopeless Liberal, whose critical faculties have been
smoke-hardened over years of marijuana use.
charles...@amd.com
writes:
..
> Of course, now that we have a Republican congress I'm sure that
> I'll soon be able to afford a house big enough to hold a washing machine
> AND a freezer. It's a sure thing that granting tax breaks to rich
> people will greatly increase my disposable income.
OOps, here's the kicker... you'll have to go out and earn that house.
under the incoming Republican agenda, that old welfare dog just won't hunt
anymore.
wharfie
>That's a lovely bit of deduction but it falls short explaining why it
>happened in 1945 but not in 1917. Forgetting another little war are
>we ? The difference was the beginning of the feminist movement and
>the 40 year long dominance of liberal democrats.
No, the difference was that WWII was the first war that heavy
industrial capacity played a large part in. During WWII they needed
women to keep the industries running, albeit to produce tanks instead
automobiles. Ever heard of Rosie the Riveter? The bosses had this
idea that all these women would go back to barefoot-and-pregnant after
the war was over and men wanted their jobs back, but surprise! Many
of them *liked* the high pay and job security of the assembly line no
to mention the feeling that comes from performing skillful work. It
was no small task to convince Rosie to go back to being Rosie the
Domestic Servant.
You've got your cause and effect backwards, pal. This taste
of independence helped boost the feminist movement in America; it was
hard to argue that she couldn't do a man's work when she'd been doing
it for the last four years.
Richard Kilgore
> from the traditional modality to the one-or-two-working-parent modality, and
> that it is in our best interests to recognize this and implement political and
> social methodologies which reward families modeled after the traditional role
> and do NOT reward families like Lisa's.
>
>
> Thus, people who wish to pursue non-traditional modalities in their family
> raising would have to proceed without social and political rewards (examples:
> tax breaks, socially respectable, etc).
You have GOT to be kidding! While we're at it, why don't we reward
good christian folk, men with nice respectable hair cuts, and
those who think Rush is God! After all, these are the CHOSEN people
and nobody else really matters anyway, right?
- rick
wharfie
>I would submit that the current cultural decay in America parallels the trend
>from the traditional modality to the one-or-two-working-parent modality,
Coincidence does not imply causation. It is a mistake to
attempt to treat symptoms and ignore the disease. What is the disease?
Got me, but I somehow doubt that all crime in the streets is the result
of Mom getting a job too. Unlike you, I refuse to infer cause from
coincidence.
wharfie
>OOps, here's the kicker... you'll have to go out and earn that house.
>under the incoming Republican agenda, that old welfare dog just won't hunt
My friend, I've never taken a dime from the State in my life.
I've worked casual labor, I've sold beads in the parking lots of
Grateful Dead shows, I've sold blood plasma, driven a taxicab, washed
pots, and learned how to make 40 gallons of split pea soup in a steam
kettle, but I've never taken a handout.
But what I'd like to hear from you is this: When your
Republican heroes cut the capital gains tax to 14% (mainly benfiting
those who make over 100K), continue to fund expensive superweapons to
fight an enemy that doesn't exist and perhaps never existed, spend
billions bulding prisons to hold the thousands that they've spent
other billions on to pass through the legal system, well, my friend,
just who do you think will be paying those bills? The poor don't have
any money. The rich don't have to part with any money. Now how am I
supposed to save for a house when I'm supporting an entire oligarchy
of rich Republicans and their congress?
David Smith
I think the American government should serve *all* Americans and not just
those who match some socio-politico profile. As much as it is feasible,
services should be uniform independent of one's race, gender, sexual
orientation, religious views, etc.
While we are talking about single parent families, I'd be more interested
in the welfare reform debate if it came with child support payments
reform as well. Haven't heard anyone in the New Regime mention it.
And while we are talking about cultural decay, how and when did it become
the role of the government to act as our social and moral guardians? I
thought that was the role of religion and communities. If there is this
moral and culture decay, like many of the neo-conservatives claim, then
shouldn't the burden and responsibility be shifted *towards* religious
figures as opposed to always looking *away*?
Frankly, what Bill Clinton does in Washington D.C. has very little impact
and influence on what I do with my own life.
--
thanks, | "The most exciting breakthroughs of the 21st century
| will not occur because of technology but because
David Smith | of an expanding concept of what it means to be human."
bla...@bga.com | -- John Naisbitt / Patricia Aburdene
charles...@amd.com
writes:
> In article <CzHLy...@txnews.amd.com> charles...@amd.com writes:
> >OOps, here's the kicker... you'll have to go out and earn that house.
> >under the incoming Republican agenda, that old welfare dog just won't hunt
>
> My friend, I've never taken a dime from the State in my life.
> I've worked casual labor, I've sold beads in the parking lots of
> Grateful Dead shows, I've sold blood plasma, driven a taxicab, washed
> pots, and learned how to make 40 gallons of split pea soup in a steam
> kettle, but I've never taken a handout.
>
> But what I'd like to hear from you is this: When your
> Republican heroes cut the capital gains tax to 14% (mainly benfiting
> those who make over 100K), continue to fund expensive superweapons to
> fight an enemy that doesn't exist and perhaps never existed, spend
> billions bulding prisons to hold the thousands that they've spent
> other billions on to pass through the legal system, well, my friend,
> just who do you think will be paying those bills? The poor don't have
> any money.
The ones on welfare do.. and then there are all the Liberal do-nothings in
governmental bureaucratic jobs who now get paid, and who in a year from now
will be peddling their virtually worthless resumes out on the street.
As for the cost of building prisons, it won't be long before everyone gets
tired of supporting THAT form of welfare, and we can give prisoners the choice
of building their own prisons and feeding themselves or starving in some desert
maximum security gulag.
> The rich don't have to part with any money.
The rich part with money every day. It's called wages, which they pay every
time they create jobs with money that would otherwise be wasted on capital
gains taxes.
But hey, don't take my word for it... just wait and see. 2 years from now,
we'll be extending the Republican lead over the Liberal democrats in Congress,
electing a Republican president, and watching all those welfare cheats and
ex-bureaucrats applying for the new jobs created by Republicans.
vince
David Springer <spri...@dellgate.us.dell.com> wrote:
>
>I believe that dual income families are a direct result of feminist
>dogma stating that child rearing as a full time pursuit is a second
>class citizens job and therefore, in order for women to take their
>rightful place of power alongside men, they must get out into the
>workforce in equal numbers.
I think I'll sit this one out and watch the fireworks. Well, I have to
ask. David, if child rearing(and we all know how painful that can
be for the child) is so fulfilling, why don't you stay home and do it?
I'd rather jab knitting needles into my corneas.
vince
charles...@amd.com
> You have GOT to be kidding! While we're at it, why don't we reward
> good christian folk, men with nice respectable hair cuts, and
> those who think Rush is God!
I don't think rewarding people who think Rush is God would be a good idea...
Joe Barr
> Date: 18 Nov 1994 21:29:30 GMT
> jb...@ima.infomail.com (Joe Barr) writes:
>>I would say your opinion is based on ignorance of the facts. Women began
>>to come into the workforce in numbers during this century for one reason and
>>one reason only: war. They are still here because once they began to enjoy a
> That's a lovely bit of deduction but it falls short explaining
> why it happened in 1945 but not in 1917. Forgetting another
> little war are we ? The difference was the beginning of the
> feminist movement and the 40 year long dominance of liberal
> democrats.
David,
One of more obvious problems with bigoted, simplistic thinking is that it tries
to
view and present the world in black and white. That's why race is such a big
issue
to the conservative crowd. That's also why you have the time frames all wrong.
My 'lovely bit of deduction' is an accepted historical view and has been for
quite awhile.
World War I was a major contributor, as you suggest that it should have been.
I suppose
that somewhere in your past you knew, but have elected to forget, that
secretarial jobs and
nursing were once male-dominated positions. They were among the first
'casualties' lost
to 'the other side' while the boys were busy killing.
If it seems I'm talking down to you, there's a reason for that. Now run back
to the library
and do a little research so that we can continue this discussion.
<"all ignorance toboggans into know
then trudges up the hill again">
Joe Barr
> Date: Sat, 19 Nov 1994 02:04:55 GMT
> The ones on welfare do.. and then there are all the Liberal
> do-nothings in governmental bureaucratic jobs who now get
> paid, and who in a year from now will be peddling their
> virtually worthless resumes out on the street.
Charles,
I don't disagree there are liberal do-nothings in government positions. They
will in many cases be replaced by conservative do-nothings next year as you
suggest. The resumes will be on a par with their replacements.
My point is that politics is a wasteland without a viable ethical life-force of
its own. It matters not a whit (pun intended) if the jerk-off fools are
Republicans
or Democrats. That's why your post is so laughable and dishonest, because you
suggest that one set of parasites is somehow better than the other.
Bullshit.
Further, it is completely dishonest of you to suggest that it does. Truth be
known,
you are pushing a political agenda and are therefore as morally bankrupt, as
willing
to lie to accomplish your goal, as any crack-cocaine dealer on East 7th.
Benjamin J. Sloan
Joe Barr <jb...@ima.infomail.com> wrote:
>Charles,
>
>I don't disagree there are liberal do-nothings in government positions. They
>will in many cases be replaced by conservative do-nothings next year as you
>suggest. The resumes will be on a par with their replacements.
"The Republicans are a party that says government doesn't work and they
get elected to prove it."
--Patrick Jake O'Rourke
Ben
John F. Haugh II
>Get real. RD is a major piece of right-wing propaganda and the Clinton
>expose' is a perfect example of it. Where did they summarize that stuff
>from? "The Clinton Files"? Spare me. Reader's Digest is such a smug,
>holier-than-thou, conservative instrument I could barely stand it after
>the age of 13 or so. I think that's about the time I began skipping
>most of the articles and only reading Drama In Real Life. "The stewardess
>spilled hot coffee on the pilot, blinding him at 10,000 feet! The
>small plane went into a death spiral until Marge Hoover thought to
>press her call button, rousing him to life!" Jeez, it was the basis
>for "COPS" and "911" and all the rest of that tripe.
You're continuing to avoid the issue. Reader's Digest doesn't "make up"
what it publishes. It "condenses" information for other sources. If
you want to attack Reader's Digest, the proper thing to do is attack
their sources. So far all you've managed to do is assert that Reader's
Digest is evil. Give me a break.
How about, as a small challenge, you go find the original documents
condensed in Reader's Digest and show why 1). Reader's Digest incorrectly
"digestified" the information or 2). why the information is wrong.
Until you've done that all you're doing is attempting to prove your
point by repeated assertion. And most of us know that a lie repeated
does not magically become the truth.
--
John F. Haugh II [ NRA-ILA ] [ Kill Barney ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151 [GOP][DoF #17][PADI][ENTJ] @'s: j...@rpp386.cactus.org
There are three documents that run my life: The King James Bible, the United
States Constitution, and the UNIX System V Release 4 Programmer's Reference.