Sooner Or Later The Truth Comes Out

[bejohnson]

SOONER OR LATER THE TRUTH COMES OUT

As the Democrats continue to hammer their "Bush lied, Bush lied" theme, bit by bit the real story is coming out.

First we have this insistence on the part of Democrats that Bush told the American people that Saddam Hussein was directly tied to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. An editorial writer for the Cleveland Plain Dealer made just such an assertion, and then was challenged by a reader to back it up. The editorial writer took the challenge, did the research, and then wrote a column in which he admitted that Bush had never, in fact, made any such statement.

Democrats are also fond of saying that Bush's claims that there was a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda was a lie. Looks like the democrats are going to have to eat some crow on that one too. A recent issue of an independent Baghdad newspaper contains an interview with a former Iraqi army officer who talked about the presence of Al Qaeda terrorists in training camps in Iraq.

"They were a mixture of Arabs, Arabs from the Peninsula [Saudi Arabia], Muslim Afghans, and other Muslims from various parts of the world. They were divided into two groups, the first one went to Al-Nahrawan and the second to Salman Pak, and this was the group that was trained to hijack airplanes. The training was under the direct supervision of major general (M. DH. L) [only identified by initials] who now serves as a police commander in one of the provinces. Upon the completion of the training most of them left Iraq, while the others stayed in the country through the last battle in Baghdad against the coalition forces.
"On April 5, 2003 orders were issued to send these individuals to the battle front immediately. About 100 of them were sent to the 11th company division in Nasiriya. And for the sake of history I will say that this division's endurance was due to some formidable fighters, the commanding officer and members of Al-Qa'ida who fought with intensity and brutality that are seldom matched, while they were praising Allah."

This report will be largely ignored by Democrats. They don't want the truth to get in the way of their lie or their drive to return to their rightful position of power in Washington.

From Neal Boortz
Here is the link to the Cleveland Plain Dealer column:

Tom Brazaitis' Column in the Cleveland Plain Dealer (http://www.cleveland.com/search/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1066469887215242.xml)

Let's hear some knowledgeable fact based discussion on this article.

[wazman]

All right, I admit it - I lied. It was all me. :)

Seriously, though. I am not surprised by this. If there's anything I've learned in my 30 years, it's that politicians will lie about anything to get their way.

[Maro]

The thing is we will never know the truth - as the govt controls the media - i.e. they feed to the media what they want us to hear. (e.g. the blacked out "Saudi link" in the 9/11 evidence)

I'm not saying it si not true , just unconvinced

:thumb

[JohnathanJones]

Originally posted by Maro
The thing is we will never know the truth - as the govt controls the media - i.e. they feed to the media what they want us to hear. (e.g. the blacked out "Saudi link" in the 9/11 evidence)

I'm not saying it si not true , just unconvinced

:thumb

We'll never know the truth with people like Fox News around! :rolleyes:

As long as I don't die or get hurt future wise or career wise i'll be ok living in a pool of lies every once in a while. :thumb

[JohnathanJones]

Oh yeah! The Democrats are cowards because they could have voted to avoid this whole thing but, they didn't. Now we are in a mess that may take almost 50 years to 100 years to clean up! The middle east or the world for that matter will always be a mess if we allow one particular political party to just overun and outright lie and stick behind the lie with the commander and cheif!

I'm very disappointed in the democratic party and the republicans. They just won't agree on one thing! Now Bush is TELLING but, not ASKING other countries to HELP instead of
saying "look I'm sorry" (France)(United Nations). So, what do they do? ; They get the media to let US hear what we really want to HEAR or WATCH. God bless the troops. (and my uncle Frank)

Just My 50 Cents! :)

[Maro]

Dubya is in Canberra (Australian Capital) today - the public is usually allowed to walk over the building (it's cool - check it:)

Today, US Secret service has taken over out capital and blocked publeic access!

Great Democracy!

[Scottman]

Originally posted by Maro
Dubya is in Canberra (Australian Capital) today - the public is usually allowed to walk over the building (it's cool - check it:)

Today, US Secret service has taken over out capital and blocked publeic access!

Great Democracy! In all fairness, would you expect general public access to an area where a politician is visiting? I was in Halifax for the G7 summit in 1995. While most areas around the political leaders were "accessible", sections of the harbor were completely closed off, and military snipers were on top of every building downtown (you could see the rifle barrels sticking over the tops of the buildings).

[egarrard]

I think that's the main reason Tennessee went against Al Gore in the last election. He'd screw up traffic so bad every time he'd come home, the whole town of Nashville voted against him just to get even. :rofl2

[tantousha]

So you and your wifey tell us not to believe the press and what it says unless of course it supports your beliefs?

Hypocracy at it's finest folks...almost as bad as the politicians. But then, they're from the military...no freedom of thought or conscience there! :wavey

[SavesNFGDay]

Originally posted by tantousha
So you and your wifey tell us not to believe the press and what it says unless of course it supports your beliefs?

Hypocracy at it's finest folks...almost as bad as the politicians. But then, they're from the military...no freedom of thought or conscience there! :wavey Thank goodness someone else can be bold.

[Scottman]

Oh Boy, here we go.... I give this thread a few more days before it gets trashed. Please, Please, PLEASE!!! Argue your points objectively. Don't make sweeping generalizations about other people's viewpoints solely based on their line of work.

[egarrard]

Originally posted by Scottman
Oh Boy, here we go.... I give this thread a few more days before it gets trashed. Please, Please, PLEASE!!! Argue your points objectively. Don't make sweeping generalizations about other people's viewpoints solely based on their line of work. They haven't learned to think for themselves yet. I think that's why Ed posts stuff like this, to get people thinking and discussing. I'd like to hear some valid points from their point of view, but sadly, it's all just personal ridicule against anyone who has a different view. Socialism is government of the mind. It can't stand the scrutiny of fact.

[efernandez_98]

I don't think it matters who was involved, America was blood thirsty for a target and Bushy gave 'em one.

[Maro]

I was going to post but earlier today but I refreained - it will get ugly

I don't mind debate but once it goes to this topic it gets ugly - and predictable; you can tell who is going to post what next
:confused:

[tantousha]

Originally posted by egarrard
They haven't learned to think for themselves yet. I think that's why Ed posts stuff like this, to get people thinking and discussing. I'd like to hear some valid points from their point of view, but sadly, it's all just personal ridicule against anyone who has a different view. Socialism is government of the mind. It can't stand the scrutiny of fact.

Who said I was socialist? I don't remember stating my personal politicial views in that matter. I remember expressing resentment towards Bush's foreign policy of occupy first, ask questions later...but I never said I believe in going the way of the Red.

And you say I make sweeping generalizations?

[bejohnson]

Originally posted by tantousha
So you and your wifey tell us not to believe the press and what it says unless of course it supports your beliefs?

Hypocracy at it's finest folks...almost as bad as the politicians. But then, they're from the military...no freedom of thought or conscience there! :wavey

First of all my wife has no input on what I post. She can not by regulation afford to participate in any thread such as this. I have no opinion until I research the topic at hand then I post the facts as I find them. I then will find articles to stimulate the discussion on the facts such as this one. I try to be fair on all my opinions but when the facts lead you to logical conclusions then I will defend my opinions. Follow the link to the Cleveland Plain Dealer. You will find that the writer says many things I do not agree with.

BTW My military background has nothing to do with my views as I was using common sense and logic to determine my political beliefs long before I was associated with the U. S. Government in any way.

If you can't refrain from a personal attack and discuss an idea objectively then refrain from posting.

[bejohnson]

Originally posted by egarrard
They haven't learned to think for themselves yet. I think that's why Ed posts stuff like this, to get people thinking and discussing. I'd like to hear some valid points from their point of view, but sadly, it's all just personal ridicule against anyone who has a different view. Socialism is government of the mind. It can't stand the scrutiny of fact.

Much like the vindictive hatred of Bush by the Democrats. The liberals really need some anger management. See my thread on the "The Sport of Bush-hating"

[wazman]

Originally posted by egarrard
They haven't learned to think for themselves yet. I think that's why Ed posts stuff like this, to get people thinking and discussing. I'd like to hear some valid points from their point of view, but sadly, it's all just personal ridicule against anyone who has a different view. Socialism is government of the mind. It can't stand the scrutiny of fact.

On the contrary -

I can think for myself...

I'm not surprised if Bush did lie. Every politician lies. It's part of the game. Why are people still blown away by this, after all the evidence we've seen?

I think another reason Ed posts stuff like this is to get the reaction. Why else post all these political threads when anybody who's been here any amount of time knows it will turn ugly? I raised this point in another thread.

And finally - I'm not a Socialist. I'm not a Communist. I'm not a Republican. I'm not a Democrat. If nothing else, I'm a realist. I know politicians are going to lie, and that they will do what has to be done to get their way.

So I think you'll find I can handle scrutiny AND fact very well, thank you. It's just called common sense in my neck of the woods.

[wazman]

Originally posted by bejohnson
First of all my wife has no input on what I post. She can not by regulation afford to participate in any thread such as this. I have no opinion until I research the topic at hand then I post the facts as I find them. I then will find articles to stimulate the discussion on the facts such as this one. I try to be fair on all my opinions but when the facts lead you to logical conclusions then I will defend my opinions. Follow the link to the Cleveland Plain Dealer. You will find that the writer says many things I do not agree with.

BTW My military background has nothing to do with my views as I was using common sense and logic to determine my political beliefs long before I was associated with the U. S. Government in any way.

If you can't refrain from a personal attack and discuss an idea objectively then refrain from posting.

Question: who is this Neal Boortz, and why are you so enamored of him?

[wazman]

Originally posted by bejohnson
Much like the vindictive hatred of Bush by the Democrats. The liberals really need some anger management. See my thread on the "The Sport of Bush-hating"

You know, it's posts like this one that really make me think we need another two or three political parties in America. Every liberal or Democrat blames the Republicans, and every Republican or conservative blames the Democrats.

It reminds me of a grade school playground fight, more than anything. Or sibling rivalry.

"He started it!" "No - he started it!"

[bejohnson]

Originally posted by tantousha
I remember expressing resentment towards Bush's foreign policy of occupy first, ask questions later...

If you would do some research you would find that many, many questions were asked and resolutions passed by the UN over a period of 12 years calling for action by the Iraqi government that were systematically ignored. The United States' only problem was that Clinton did not act when he was president. Bush’s mistake was acting after the attacks of 9/11/2001 and not taking the media to task when they started trying to make all the connections by saying that Bush had made statements that he had not made.

[bejohnson]

Originally posted by wazman
Question: who is this Neal Boortz, and why are you so enamored of him?

Neal Boortz is a Libertarian talk show host that is syndicated nationwide but is based here in Atlanta. I like Boortz because he, like I, tells it like it is and uses logic, reason and research before stating a position. I agree with him about 75% of the time.

Here is a link to his website.

Neal Boortz (http://boortz.com)

[egarrard]

Originally posted by tantousha
Who said I was socialist? It wasn't me. I was speaking in generalities. And not about Communism, but Socialism.

[bejohnson]

Originally posted by wazman
You know, it's posts like this one that really make me think we need another two or three political parties in America. Every liberal or Democrat blames the Republicans, and every Republican or conservative blames the Democrats.

It reminds me of a grade school playground fight, more than anything. Or sibling rivalry.

"He started it!" "No - he started it!"

We have other parties. The Libertarian Party for one. I do not belong to any party. I vote for the person I think is best qualified for the job. I really think that maybe we should do away with the party system and each person run on his own record and beliefs.

[bejohnson]

Originally posted by tantousha
Hypocracy at it's finest folks...almost as bad as the politicians. But then, they're from the military...no freedom of thought or conscience there! :wavey

That statement shows how ill informed you are of military life. No one is told how to think or does anyone berate someone for his or her conscience. As a matter of fact the ability to think independently and with a conscience is one of the requirements for command. You are required to follow orders and one thing you can’t do is publicly attack anyone, particularly an office holder or his office, something that should be learned by all here. Before accusing someone of hypocrisy, make sure you are not guilty of the same offense.

As far as me blaming the Democrats for the current attitude of the media in this country, you only have to check their track record. Go to the thread I started today, “The Sport of Bush-hating”. Read it and check some sources with an open mind and you will see what I mean. I have nothing against Democrats as long as they back up their statements with facts not innuendo. Manicmous here is a Democrat and I would like to think he is a friend. I would love to discuss some of these topics with him face to face as I think he could debate the topics logically and with reason.

BTW I can count several Democratic (as well as Republican) congressmen and senators both active and retired among my friends. Most of them are serious and dedicated to the country. These are the ones that the media never mentions.

[SavesNFGDay]

Originally posted by bejohnson
Much like the vindictive hatred of Bush by the Democrats. The liberals really need some anger management. See my thread on the "The Sport of Bush-hating" ARE all of you conservatives nothing but Hypocrites?!?!?!?!?! What was on Talk radio ALL the time during the clinton administration, Nothing but anti-clinton propaganda, Spreading lies and deciet that he was ruinging the country. and now your complaining about a FEW newspaper editorials speaking out against clinton. Both of you Eds are the same, claim to be independent, just like all republicans, you claim to be independent but that's only to save you from being branded with the Neo-Con tag you need. I don't deny the fact that I'm Liberal, and that I am a democrat, and if the Greens had any chance of winning in this country I'd be voting for them. But I simply choose not to stand by while the leaders of this country continue to undermine the infrastructure, The Dammned Cut, and Spend republicans, continue to plunge this country into further Debt, so that it implodes and we're sent spiralling into the feudalism found last time in the middle ages. This is the reason why I tend to ignore your news posts, except for Egarrads which occasionally were not about politics, But you, you NEVER post anything with even an idependent Veiw point. All you do is come into the off topic forum and post your political agenda Save it for the talk radio airwaves, dittohead.

[bejohnson]

Originally posted by SavesNFGDay
ARE all of you conservatives nothing but Hypocrites?!?!?!?!?! What was on Talk radio ALL the time during the clinton administration, Nothing but anti-clinton propaganda, Spreading lies and deciet that he was ruinging the country. and now your complaining about a FEW newspaper editorials speaking out against clinton. Both of you Eds are the same, claim to be independent, just like all republicans, you claim to be independent but that's only to save you from being branded with the Neo-Con tag you need. I don't deny the fact that I'm Liberal, and that I am a democrat, and if the Greens had any chance of winning in this country I'd be voting for them. But I simply choose not to stand by while the leaders of this country continue to undermine the infrastructure, The Dammned Cut, and Spend republicans, continue to plunge this country into further Debt, so that it implodes and we're sent spiralling into the feudalism found last time in the middle ages. This is the reason why I tend to ignore your news posts, except for Egarrads which occasionally were not about politics, But you, you NEVER post anything with even an idependent Veiw point. All you do is come into the off topic forum and post your political agenda Save it for the talk radio airwaves, dittohead.

I never post anything that I have not researched to ascertain whether or not it's based in fact or innuendo. The bottom line is when the liberal claims of the left are exposed to the truth they are made out for what they are, nothing but innuendo, fabrications, factoids spun to suit the moment or down right lies. Show me one instance where Bush told a bald face lie concerning Iraq, but be prepared to prove your statement because I will do my best to prove you wrong and I have fairly extensive resources at my disposal but nothing that you don't have access to.

As far as the economic situation in this country, you should look to the socialist entitlement and give away programs of the last 70 years. Both the Democratic and Republican Parties are very free with our money and this is done without any constitutional basis for their actions. These programs far outspend anything else in our government even defense spending, which I might add is one of the constitutional responsibilities of the government. If you are so worried about the debt load of this country let's eliminate all spending that is not specifically authorized by the constitution. This will leave only defense spending and a few other minor programs.

As far as me being a Neo-Conservative, I'm an independent conservative. You make the mistake of thinking that most independents will fall between liberal and conservative views. This is not the case. Being an Independent means I do not subscribe to the beliefs of any one party. The beliefs and opinions are mine and mine alone. No one tells me what to believe or what to do. You will find that about 80% of all independents are considered very conservative. This is because we do the research and find the truth for ourselves. Once the entire picture is known the logical conclusions tend to make you conservative. BTW I not a new conservative. I've been an independent conservative since I was 17 and started preparing for my first time voting in an election.

The entire tone of your response bears out what I was expressing earlier. Liberals can not participate in a debate without resorting to name calling or other personal or quasi-personal attacks. If you can't discuss a topic logically and rationally then don't even post a reply because you do nothing but show your immaturity.

[wazman]

Originally posted by bejohnson
I never post anything that I have not researched to ascertain whether or not it's based in fact or innuendo. The bottom line is when the liberal claims of the left are exposed to the truth they are made out for what they are, nothing but innuendo, fabrications, factoids spun to suit the moment or down right lies. Show me one instance where Bush told a bald face lie concerning Iraq, but be prepared to prove your statement because I will do my best to prove you wrong and I have fairly extensive resources at my disposal but nothing that you don't have access to.

As far as the economic situation in this country, you should look to the socialist entitlement and give away programs of the last 70 years. Both the Democratic and Republican Parties are very free with our money and this is done without any constitutional basis for their actions. These programs far outspend anything else in our government even defense spending, which I might add is one of the constitutional responsibilities of the government. If you are so worried about the debt load of this country let's eliminate all spending that is not specifically authorized by the constitution. This will leave only defense spending and a few other minor programs.

As far as me being a Neo-Conservative, I'm an independent conservative. You make the mistake of thinking that most independents will fall between liberal and conservative views. This is not the case. Being an Independent means I do not subscribe to the beliefs of any one party. The beliefs and opinions are mine and mine alone. No one tells me what to believe or what to do. You will find that about 80% of all independents are considered very conservative. This is because we do the research and find the truth for ourselves. Once the entire picture is known the logical conclusions tend to make you conservative. BTW I not a new conservative. I've been an independent conservative since I was 17 and started preparing for my first time voting in an election.

The entire tone of your response bears out what I was expressing earlier. Liberals can not participate in a debate without resorting to name calling or other personal or quasi-personal attacks. If you can't discuss a topic logically and rationally then don't even post a reply because you do nothing but show your immaturity.

Ummm... Call kettles black much?

Look at your last paragraph. You go after liberals the same way he goes after conservatives.

This is the point I was trying to make earlier. As a taxpayer and a voter, I'm really tired of this liberal/conservative - Republican/Democrat horsehockey. I'm sick and tired of one side blaming it on the other.

The answer seems so simple: people in power - don't spend your time pointing fingers and laying blame. Just fix the damn problem. If my car gets a flat tire, I don't ***** at Goodyear for a couple months - I just go get the damn thing replaced.

Did Bush lie? Yes. Did Clinton lie? Yes. Did Bush senior lie? Yes. Did I lie to my parents as a child? Yes. Does my child lie to me? Yes.

It's the way things are. If we as a nation spent half as much time fixing our problems as we do calling names and pointing blame and crucifying each other for our political affiliations, we'd never have a need for any of this again.

[wazman]

Oh, and Saves - you need to take a step back and watch what you say as well... That last post was uncalled for, in my opinion.

I think we need to just move away from this thread for a while and let things calm down.

[bejohnson]

Originally posted by wazman
Ummm... Call kettles black much?

Look at your last paragraph. You go after liberals the same way he goes after conservatives.


I do not make personal attacks directed at a person. I will make statements about liberals in general but I have never resorted to personal attacks as was directed at my wife (she was called wifey and who by the way has not posted anything in this thread) and me. I was also called a dittohead. This is a veiled reference to Rush Limbaugh. While I might agree with Rush on occasion I have never led anyone to think I blindly support him. I do not. I find that he is totally full of himself and condescending, but that is my personal opinion and other than just now no one has seen me express that opinion in print.

I will debate anyone on the merits of my statements using logic and facts. But I will not resort to personal name calling that most of the liberals do because they can not form a logical thought structure to carry on the debate. They are too emotional in their thoughts to be logical. It's very similar to the differences between most men and women. (I said most not all,) Men tend to be logical in their approach to problems and politics. Women tend to be emotional. That's the way we are and there is nothing wrong with it as long as the differences are addressed in a civil way. As they say Viva la Difference.

[bejohnson]

Originally posted by wazman
Ummm... Call kettles black much?

Look at your last paragraph. You go after liberals the same way he goes after conservatives.



In reference to me saying he was showing his immaturity I stand by that statement, as it is not a personal attack. It's simply a statement of fact. Debating using logic, reason and facts shows maturity. Name-calling shows lack of maturity.

[Maro]

Originally posted by bejohnson
But I will not resort to personal name calling that most of the liberals do because they can not form a logical thought structure to carry on the debate.

What is that statement all about?

:lmao

[bejohnson]

Originally posted by Maro
What is that statement all about?

:lmao

Most of the far left liberals that I have had dealings with are so emotional in their thought processes that logic goes out the window. As one woman stated once that a long gun (rifle or shotgun) should be illegal because you could use it as a club. Never mind when she made this statement she was in a sporting goods store in front of the baseball bat display. I laughed my butt off over that one.

[Maro]

Which is no different than the Far right view - e.g. speaking without engaging brain.

I just thought your comment hamstrung your agument that you had eloquently laid out.

[bejohnson]

Originally posted by Maro
Which is no different than the Far right view - e.g. speaking without engaging brain.

I just thought your comment hamstrung your agument that you had eloquently laid out.

All kidding aside, it has been my experience when the liberals are faced with a lose of a debate due to facts and the logical application of those facts to the subject at hand, all reason goes out the window. The personal attacks and name calling starts because they can not formulate a logical rebuttal. If they acknowledge the facts but argue the situation from a liberal view point with reason instead of vindictiveness then they might actually sway some opinions their way.

[ChKFlores]

Originally posted by wazman
This is the point I was trying to make earlier. As a taxpayer and a voter, I'm really tired of this liberal/conservative - Republican/Democrat horsehockey. I'm sick and tired of one side blaming it on the other.

The answer seems so simple: people in power - don't spend your time pointing fingers and laying blame. Just fix the damn problem. If my car gets a flat tire, I don't ***** at Goodyear for a couple months - I just go get the damn thing replaced.

Did Bush lie? Yes. Did Clinton lie? Yes. Did Bush senior lie? Yes. Did I lie to my parents as a child? Yes. Does my child lie to me? Yes.

It's the way things are. If we as a nation spent half as much time fixing our problems as we do calling names and pointing blame and crucifying each other for our political affiliations, we'd never have a need for any of this again.

Ditto waz. I too, am sick of the political bickering and want it to stop. But that's just life. People have a right to say what they want whether the other person likes it or not.

Good point about being practical about all the problems. I believe Alex (tantousha) will eventually see things in life as they really are, but I still am concerned about him being a bit too unrealistic. As for Saves...I don't think he leaves well enough alone on things to be heard.

[wazman]

Originally posted by bejohnson
I do not make personal attacks directed at a person. I will make statements about liberals in general but I have never resorted to personal attacks as was directed at my wife (she was called wifey and who by the way has not posted anything in this thread) and me. I was also called a dittohead. This is a veiled reference to Rush Limbaugh. While I might agree with Rush on occasion I have never led anyone to think I blindly support him. I do not. I find that he is totally full of himself and condescending, but that is my personal opinion and other than just now no one has seen me express that opinion in print.

I will debate anyone on the merits of my statements using logic and facts. But I will not resort to personal name calling that most of the liberals do because they can not form a logical thought structure to carry on the debate. They are too emotional in their thoughts to be logical. It's very similar to the differences between most men and women. (I said most not all,) Men tend to be logical in their approach to problems and politics. Women tend to be emotional. That's the way we are and there is nothing wrong with it as long as the differences are addressed in a civil way. As they say Viva la Difference.

And yet after I made my post, you twice - in this post and one after it - used the term "the liberals". Whenever you sum up an entire group of people in one word like that, it's the same as me calling you something rude.

My point was that I don't care what political party anyone here is. I just want the people in power - the people who make the laws and enforce the laws, to fix what's wrong with this country. Whether they're liberal, conservative, Republican, Democrat, black, white, green, orange, short, tall, or have two heads and six feet means nothing to me. I see people who have to choose between clothing and food. I see people who have to resort to crime to survive. I see our government shipping food off to foreign countries and rebuilding foreign cities when our homeless rate is high. I see corporations laying off thousands of hard working Americans and moving their stuff overseas so that foreigners can work ungodly hours for little or nothing.

I just want those problems fixed. Who can do that? Nobody out there currently, I guess.

[ChKFlores]

Originally posted by wazman
And yet after I made my post, you twice - in this post and one after it - used the term "the liberals".

I just want those problems fixed. Who can do that? Nobody out there currently, I guess.

Waz, I think it's not just the political views, it's become a philosophy where they believe that what good for others is good for them. There's one flaw in this type of thinking: the ideals work on paper, but in reality it's zero squat.

As for people fixing society's problems, people need to fix themselves before they can offer any answers.

[wazman]

Originally posted by ChKFlores
Waz, I think it's not just the political views, it's become a philosophy where they believe that what good for others is good for them. There's one flaw in this type of thinking: the ideals work on paper, but in reality it's zero squat.

As for people fixing society's problems, people need to fix themselves before they can offer any answers.

Exactly. You got my point. I'm not saying being conservative or liberal or Republican or Democrat is wrong... I'm just saying it doesn't matter when it comes right down to it. If the problem needs to be fixed, fix it.

You did get the point though, and I agree with you.

[bejohnson]

Originally posted by wazman
And yet after I made my post, you twice - in this post and one after it - used the term "the liberals". Whenever you sum up an entire group of people in one word like that, it's the same as me calling you something rude.

My point was that I don't care what political party anyone here is. I just want the people in power - the people who make the laws and enforce the laws, to fix what's wrong with this country. Whether they're liberal, conservative, Republican, Democrat, black, white, green, orange, short, tall, or have two heads and six feet means nothing to me. I see people who have to choose between clothing and food. I see people who have to resort to crime to survive. I see our government shipping food off to foreign countries and rebuilding foreign cities when our homeless rate is high. I see corporations laying off thousands of hard working Americans and moving their stuff overseas so that foreigners can work ungodly hours for little or nothing.

I just want those problems fixed. Who can do that? Nobody out there currently, I guess.

Waz, you missed the point of the original post in that the media that is biased to the left and controlled by liberals has been spinning the truth to suit their agenda. Now while both parties do that the liberal controlled media has been fabricating small but important mis-statements (lies) to try and sway public opinion. The media has forgot it is their job to report the truth no matter what it is and to let the public form it's own opinion. It's not the job of the media to change the world only to report accurately those changes.

Calling someone or a group of people liberals or the liberals is not being vindictive. It's identifying a group of people of like political philosophy. It's the same as calling me an independent or a conservative. I prefer the term "independent conservative" or really "realist." I draw the line though at terms such as "Hypocrite", "Dittohead" or "Wifey". You use the word "Hypocrite" only when you have concrete proof of such actions. As far as the term "Wifey" that just shows pure ignorance on the part of the person that used it. Brandi is still seething and it's a good thing she distanced herself from this thread, as we all would still be using a collegiate dictionary to understand the meaning and intent of her reply.

I post these articles to make people think. I don't post any that support the liberal view because when I check them out (Yes, I check everything before I post) they don't pass muster in being accurate in their reporting. There have been articles from the conservative side also that I have not posted for the same reason.

If you will refer to this post by tantousha:
So you and your wifey tell us not to believe the press and what it says unless of course it supports your beliefs?

Hypocracy at it's finest folks...almost as bad as the politicians. But then, they're from the military...no freedom of thought or conscience there!

The statements made here imply that I wrote the article and that my wife was involved. Neither was the case. The article was from the Boortz web site (as indicated) and, what nobody here has seemed to notice, contains a quote from a Baghdad newspaper interview of an Iraqi military officer that substantiates the involvement of Al-Qaeda in Iraq before the war and that the Al-Qaeda members fought effectively in the war. I did not post this until I found that quote from another source and verified it. All the article stated is that as pieces of evidence become available we find that the statements or the implied meaning of statements were based in facts and not fabrications.

The post also contained a link to a column in the "Cleveland Plain Dealer" that was written by a liberal columnist that was indicating that he was in error for saying Bush had made a statement that we were in imminent danger from Iraq. He still made many statements that I do not agree with but the link was posted just the same. I sometimes wonder if people read and understand the entire post before they fire off a reply.


The Bottom-Line.

If you are going to discuss political viewpoints you must do it from a position of fact and truth. You have to be logical not emotional and you must not be vindictive. To reply without facts or research to rebut the other's statements and to be vindictive when you can't put up a logical, fact-based response is a waste of everybody's time. Being vindictive or calling names just shows immaturity and ignorance and should never be done.

[wazman]

Originally posted by bejohnson
Waz, you missed the point of the original post in that the media that is biased to the left and controlled by liberals has been spinning the truth to suit their agenda. Now while both parties do that the liberal controlled media has been fabricating small but important mis-statements (lies) to try and sway public opinion. The media has forgot it is their job to report the truth no matter what it is and to let the public form it's own opinion. It's not the job of the media to change the world only to report accurately those changes.

Calling someone or a group of people liberals or the liberals is not being vindictive. It's identifying a group of people of like political philosophy. It's the same as calling me an independent or a conservative. I prefer the term "independent conservative" or really "realist." I draw the line though at terms such as "Hypocrite", "Dittohead" or "Wifey". You use the word "Hypocrite" only when you have concrete proof of such actions. As far as the term "Wifey" that just shows pure ignorance on the part of the person that used it. Brandi is still seething and it's a good thing she distanced herself from this thread, as we all would still be using a collegiate dictionary to understand the meaning and intent of her reply.

I post these articles to make people think. I don't post any that support the liberal view because when I check them out (Yes, I check everything before I post) they don't pass muster in being accurate in their reporting. There have been articles from the conservative side also that I have not posted for the same reason.

If you will refer to this post by tantousha:


The statements made here imply that I wrote the article and that my wife was involved. Neither was the case. The article was from the Boortz web site (as indicated) and, what nobody here has seemed to notice, contains a quote from a Baghdad newspaper interview of an Iraqi military officer that substantiates the involvement of Al-Qaeda in Iraq before the war and that the Al-Qaeda members fought effectively in the war. I did not post this until I found that quote from another source and verified it. All the article stated is that as pieces of evidence become available we find that the statements or the implied meaning of statements were based in facts and not fabrications.

The post also contained a link to a column in the "Cleveland Plain Dealer" that was written by a liberal columnist that was indicating that he was in error for saying Bush had made a statement that we were in imminent danger from Iraq. He still made many statements that I do not agree with but the link was posted just the same. I sometimes wonder if people read and understand the entire post before they fire off a reply.


The Bottom-Line.

If you are going to discuss political viewpoints you must do it from a position of fact and truth. You have to be logical not emotional and you must not be vindictive. To reply without facts or research to rebut the other's statements and to be vindictive when you can't put up a logical, fact-based response is a waste of everybody's time. Being vindictive or calling names just shows immaturity and ignorance and should never be done.

Well, then, if this is just a PoliSci lesson on debate, and no one here is getting it, then let's just not debate political viewpoints on this forum, shall we? It's a waste of your time, according to your logic. So then you're either doing it a) to get attention or b) to provoke these responses. I can't see any other reason.

Do liberals control the media? I don't know. I don't care. It doesn't affect me. I still pay my taxes, go to work, eat my supper, and drive my car just like everyone else. What Rolling Stone magazine has to say about anything doesn't make one bit of difference to me. Because what I do in my day to day life doesn't make one bit of difference to them, or to George Bush, or Bill Clinton, or anyone else.

Now I agreed with you that SavesNFGDay was out of line in his remarks. But the bottom line is that whenever we try to discuss political issues on this forum, it goes haywire and gets mean. Continuing to push these discussions when you as well as anyone else can plainly see what happens just doesn't make sense.

My point is that I don't care who controls the media. I don't care who controls the White House, or Congress. I don't care about liberals, or conservatives, or Republicans, or Democrats. All I care about is that the United States is facing a huge deficit, people in this country are homeless, marriages are falling apart at record rates, skilled Americans are being fired from good paying jobs so that the corporations can move their operations to countries where they only have to pay the workers a pittance, and people are going hungry every night while we airlift food to other countries.

I don't care who's biased, or who did drugs, or who lied when, or any of that. I just want these problems fixed. I'm an American. I want my country to be number one. I want my politicians, and leaders, and whoever to solve these issues once and for all so that people don't starve to death or freeze to death on a sidewalk in the middle of winter. I'm not asking for Utopia. I'm just asking the people that I vote to put in power and guide this country to give up the blame game and the pointing fingers and the whole thing and just do their jobs. That can't be too much to ask.

But I guess when you're too caught up on trying to provoke people in the name of debate, it is.

[bejohnson]

Originally posted by wazman
Well, then, if this is just a PoliSci lesson on debate, and no one here is getting it, then let's just not debate political viewpoints on this forum, shall we? It's a waste of your time, according to your logic. So then you're either doing it a) to get attention or b) to provoke these responses. I can't see any other reason.

Do liberals control the media? I don't know. I don't care. It doesn't affect me. I still pay my taxes, go to work, eat my supper, and drive my car just like everyone else. What Rolling Stone magazine has to say about anything doesn't make one bit of difference to me. Because what I do in my day to day life doesn't make one bit of difference to them, or to George Bush, or Bill Clinton, or anyone else.

Now I agreed with you that SavesNFGDay was out of line in his remarks. But the bottom line is that whenever we try to discuss political issues on this forum, it goes haywire and gets mean. Continuing to push these discussions when you as well as anyone else can plainly see what happens just doesn't make sense.

My point is that I don't care who controls the media. I don't care who controls the White House, or Congress. I don't care about liberals, or conservatives, or Republicans, or Democrats. All I care about is that the United States is facing a huge deficit, people in this country are homeless, marriages are falling apart at record rates, skilled Americans are being fired from good paying jobs so that the corporations can move their operations to countries where they only have to pay the workers a pittance, and people are going hungry every night while we airlift food to other countries.

I don't care who's biased, or who did drugs, or who lied when, or any of that. I just want these problems fixed. I'm an American. I want my country to be number one. I want my politicians, and leaders, and whoever to solve these issues once and for all so that people don't starve to death or freeze to death on a sidewalk in the middle of winter. I'm not asking for Utopia. I'm just asking the people that I vote to put in power and guide this country to give up the blame game and the pointing fingers and the whole thing and just do their jobs. That can't be too much to ask.

But I guess when you're too caught up on trying to provoke people in the name of debate, it is.

As I said Waz, I want people to think. But I expect a certain maturity level from people that are 18 years old or older. I really would like to hear their opinions and reasons that they think they are right. Remember these same people vote.

You say you want the problems fixed but you don't care who is in power. You should because if the wrong people are in control the problems get worse. To solve the problems we need honest dedicated people to do the job. Not people whose only concern is either to get into power or stay in power.

Right now we have a situation where the Democratic Party has no qualified candidate and faced with a improving situation in Iraq and with the economy greatly improved can't debate the effectiveness of the current administration without resorting to half truths and lies. We have a Republican Party that is spending not only on the war and defense but huge amounts on social programs that we can not afford. As you have said we need another choice and that is the aim of these post. People need to be aware of what is going on, how it's being reported and how it effects their everyday lives. If enough people were informed I think you would see a much larger interest in the Independent and Libertarian candidates.

Our political system is not for the weak. It can be very ugly at times. That is why I insist on the responses being knowledgeable, factual and civil. I am amazed though at some of the more, how can I say it, animated responses come from persons outside the US that have no vested interest in what happens here. While they are certainly welcome to give their opinion, I would expect them to be civil also. I really would like to know why the citizens in this country are so apathetic toward something that can effect every part of their lives.

Let me quote part of your response.
My point is that I don't care who controls the media. I don't care who controls the White House, or Congress. I don't care about liberals, or conservatives, or Republicans, or Democrats. All I care about is that the United States is facing a huge deficit, people in this country are homeless, marriages are falling apart at record rates, skilled Americans are being fired from good paying jobs so that the corporations can move their operations to countries where they only have to pay the workers a pittance, and people are going hungry every night while we airlift food to other countries.
You say what you don't care about and what you do care about. If you don’t care about whom controls the White House, the media or the Congress how do you expect any progress to be made on what you do care about.

Let's discuss your cares,

" All I care about is that the United States is facing a huge deficit".

If we are going to get the deficit under control we must curtail the rampant spending by the government. Not just for defense but at all levels.

" Skilled Americans are being fired from good paying jobs so that the corporations can move their operations to countries where they only have to pay the workers a pittance".

First of all when jobs go out of the country the pay to the foreign workers is almost always way above the average of the location where the jobs are moved. The real reason that companies move operations to foreign locations is the taxes in this county are killing them. A Company has to make a profit. If it doesn't it close its doors. By shifting the manufacturing process to cheaper labor the company can afford to pay the taxes and still keep the profit margin high enough to stay in business. So, if you want to blame someone for sending the jobs out of the country look to your government that is run by people that you said that didn't matter who was in office. They did the deed by increasing the taxes to the point that the companies could not continue to pass them along to the consumer and stay competitive with foreign companies that have access to our markets using the same cheap labor that our companies are forced to use.

As for the marriage situation the only thing that would be of concern to the government would be the fact that so many families require both adults to work to make ends meet. If the taxes in this country were not so high statistics show most every family could have one adult stay at home to provide a better environment for the family.

The hungry and homeless are not the concern of the Federal government and should be handled by the local governments. But if you check the records you will find that the percentage of homelessness and being hungry is lower today than at anytime in our history after the 1860's. While it is a problem that needs attention, it is not the level of a problem the media would have you to believe.

The hungry and homeless are not the concern of the Federal government and should be handled by the local governments. But if you check the records you will find that the percentage of homelessness and being hungry is lower today than at anytime in our history after the 1860's. While it is a problem that needs attention, it is not the level of a problem the media would have you to believe.

Bottom line, If you want to make a difference in our government and our lives you must be informed of the facts so you can make the correct decisions at the polls.

You are right on one thing; this has turned into a Civics and Political Science lesson. It's a pity that our schools no longer teach either.

[egarrard]

I'm staying out of this. Except to say that "Liberals" is perhaps the wrong term. Progressives, maybe. Neo-Socialists, maybe. The vast majority who vote Democratic are not the problem. It's the leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy, who are so intent on removing the political structure that made the US great and replacing it with a socialistic society that just doesn't work, that I believe Ed is trying to shine a light on. "Liberal" seems to be confusing the issue here.

[bejohnson]

Originally posted by egarrard
I'm staying out of this. Except to say that "Liberals" is perhaps the wrong term. Progressives, maybe. Neo-Socialists, maybe. The vast majority who vote Democratic are not the problem. It's the leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy, who are so intent on removing the political structure that made the US great and replacing it with a socialistic society that just doesn't work, that I believe Ed is trying to shine a light on. "Liberal" seems to be confusing the issue here.

Actually the term "Socialist" fits best. And you are right, I am out to hold that part of the Democratic Party to the light of the truth. I have the utmost respect for some members of the Democratic Party. Zell Miller of Georgia and ex-senator Sam Nunn are a couple. These gentlemen are men of integrity. (As far as any politician can be.:) )

[Maro]

Originally posted by bejohnson


I am amazed though at some of the more, how can I say it, animated responses come from persons outside the US that have no vested interest in what happens here. While they are certainly welcome to give their opinion, I would expect them to be civil also.

.

Hey Ed - I hope you are not referring to me perchance?

anyway - this is a Canadian Forum so we are all outsiders

in the words of Intima83 - No Offense?
:beer

I think you will find that the reason a lot of people don't have any time for politics is that ,unfortunately, a lot of politicians outright lie - they never follow through with the promises they make when they are running for election. - the 4 year term is spent making sure they get re-elected. To young people like myself it just looks like a glorified "Men's Club".

This could possiby be why the "Anarchist" movement is so strong with the younger generation - as Peter Finch would say: "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take this anymore!!!!"

They see no way of making things change for the better - it is the Politician's responsibility to find out why they are so mad- not just pass them off as "angry kids".

They are sick and tired of the Corporate wh*ring that is going on today. As Waz said - why in this age should people be starving to death on the streets of the US?

[bejohnson]

Originally posted by Maro
Hey Ed - I hope you are not referring to me perchance?

anyway - this is a Canadian Forum so we are all outsiders

in the words of Intima83 - No Offense?
:beer

I think you will find that the reason a lot of people don't have any time for politics is that ,unfortunately, a lot of politicians outright lie - they never follow through with the promises they make when they are running for election. - the 4 year term is spent making sure they get re-elected. To young people like myself it just looks like a glorified "Men's Club".

This could possiby be why the "Anarchist" movement is so strong with the younger generation - as Peter Finch would say: "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take this anymore!!!!"

They see no way of making things change for the better - it is the Politician's responsibility to find out why they are so mad- not just pass them off as "angry kids".

They are sick and tired of the Corporate wh*ring that is going on today. As Waz said - why in this age should people be starving to death on the streets of the US?

Nope not referring to you. Just another person. You are actually a pleasure to discuss things with because you actually can carry on an intelligent conversation.

Yeah this is a Canadian forum but that dosen't mean that someone can be vindictive because we are not from Canada. Everybody should be able to carry on a debate with out going ballistic.

Only other thing I'd like to say is that I haven't heard of anyone starving to death on our streets in a while. There are too many shelters and programs both public and private for that to happen.

The latest statistics from Atlanta show the majority of the homeless are in that condition by their own choosing. This is from a City of Atlanta survey done this summer. They have taken some off the streets, trained them to be employable, got them jobs and housing and 3 months later they are back on the streets. Go figure. If you try to place them in an asylum to protect them then you are violating their rights. It's obvious that the ones that fall into this group are in need of mental help but you can't force it upon them so they live on the streets.

The ones that are there not of their own choosing are usually off the streets within days because they ask for help and it is given. We have several agencys and private groups helping in that task.

The entire problem is linked to run away government spending that causes asinine taxes. If the spending is curtailed and the taxes reduced then you would see more jobs staying in the states. This would increase productivity which in turn boost the economy. When the economy is good everybody including the government has more money. The problem is the tax and spend politicians are blind to these connections. To them the public is a bottomless money well.

[tantousha]

Originally posted by bejohnson

If you will refer to this post by tantousha:


The statements made here imply that I wrote the article and that my wife was involved. Neither was the case. The article was from the Boortz web site (as indicated) and, what nobody here has seemed to notice, contains a quote from a Baghdad newspaper interview of an Iraqi military officer that substantiates the involvement of Al-Qaeda in Iraq before the war and that the Al-Qaeda members fought effectively in the war. I did not post this until I found that quote from another source and verified it. All the article stated is that as pieces of evidence become available we find that the statements or the implied meaning of statements were based in facts and not fabrications.

The post also contained a link to a column in the "Cleveland Plain Dealer" that was written by a liberal columnist that was indicating that he was in error for saying Bush had made a statement that we were in imminent danger from Iraq. He still made many statements that I do not agree with but the link was posted just the same. I sometimes wonder if people read and understand the entire post before they fire off a reply.


Whoa there!

Sometimes I wonder if you read MY posts as well!

I never once said that you guys wrote it...or was I calling the authenticity of the article into question. I was merely pointing out that you always in the past seemed to whitewash the media as being liberal biased and therefore not a trusted source of news....but then you find an article that supports your beliefs and it's the greatest thing ever...

You can find sources everywhere...and interview whoever you want. Hell...Mackenzie King (Canadian Prime Minister that valiantly led the Canadians to war in WWII) said that he thought Hitler was doing wonderful things for Germany...he said this about 2 months before Britain declared in with full knowledge of the human rights violations being committed against the Jews. Britain declares war...he quickly changes his story and suddenly he's a hero against the evil. You can interview however you want...but they're still liable to change their story to make it fit better. There really isn't a truth or a right or wrong answer...life is just to damn complication.

Oh...and one last thing....(directed mostly to Chkflores...but also the rest of you...can't seem to get it I think...for clarification you know...)

I AM NOT A SOCIALIST!!!
Hell...I'm not even a democrat...based on my views of the economy, unions, social programs and what not I consider myself a republican...Just a republican who doesn't particularly like the guy in power...and not even him as much as I don't like his foreign policy or his long-term economic or environmental choices...

I sure hope that clarifies it for you all...it is possible to like a nation and even a political party and not like the boss...

[egarrard]

Originally posted by tantousha

I sure hope that clarifies it for you all...it is possible to like a nation and even a political party and not like the boss... I agree. I don't like a lot of what President Bush does. I think he's insane on his views on illegal aliens...

I think the terms for the different political parties are reversed from the US to Canada. That's leading to a lot of confusion. At least that was what I gathered from an earlier post you had made when we were talking about Starbucks. Because the liberals in the US are very socialistic, I made the mistake before of thinking you were too. You corrected my error then and I'm sorry if you thought I continued in the misunderstanding. I've been trying to stay out of this, and just learn from all the posts. Maro especially, has done much to enlighten my thinking.

[tantousha]

Originally posted by egarrard
I agree. I don't like a lot President Bush does.

I think the terms for the different political parties are reversed from the US to Canada. That's leading to a lot of confusion. At least that was what I gathered from an earlier post you had made when we were talking about Starbucks. Because the liberals in the US are very socialistic, I made the mistake before of thinking you were too. You corrected my error then and I'm sorry if you thought I continued in the misunderstanding. I've been trying to stay out of this, and just learn from all the posts. Maro especially, has done much to enlighten my thinking.

Yes...I think I'll agree.

Up here..the Liberals are supposed to be right down the middle between left and right wing, but they've ended up about as right wing as the Republicans. Further right we have the Conservative party but they are now nothing more than a bunch of powerless, dinosaurs that love the monarchy...

On the left we have the real nuts, the NDP...or New Democrat Party...or as they're formerly known before communism showed it's true colours, the CCP or Canadian Communist Party. These guys are a bunch of bleeding-heart commies. Up until 2000, BC had the NDP party in power for provinicial politics and man...there was nothing but problem after problem...grossly overbudgeted projects, massive debt, huge homelessness problems (Give 'em free food and shelter and more will follow is my mantra) and various other horrible things...We've since booted them out and put in a more right-wing based provincial liberal party (it gets complicated because the Federal Liberal party has nothing to do with the Provincial Liberal party...but they're both right wing) and we've been cutting back, trimming fat and working towards a leaner government...the only problem is now all the unions and social-advocacy groups are in an outcry...sheesh...

[bejohnson]

Tantousha, I read both of your post. I stand by my statement as what you wrote inferred. I was not the only one to take it that way and I am not referring to Brandi either.

As for your response to CKFlores, you've just confirmed every point I was trying to make about being mature and not being vindictive in the post. I'm sorry you can't act with maturity and I hope one day you will be able to.

CkFlores, I would like to apologize for his outburst. It was totally uncalled for.

I have asked Rodney to look at this thread and post with the recommendation to close it because some of our younger members are not mature enough to carry on a dialog with out losing it. If this was Tantousha goal, he has succeeded. I again would like to apologize to all for his lack of control and immaturity.

[egarrard]

Originally posted by tantousha
Yes...I think I'll agree.

Up here..the Liberals are supposed to be right down the middle between left and right wing, but they've ended up about as right wing as the Republicans. Further right we have the Conservative party but they are now nothing more than a bunch of powerless, dinosaurs that love the monarchy...

On the left we have the real nuts, the NDP...or New Democrat Party...or as they're formerly known before communism showed it's true colours, the CCP or Canadian Communist Party. These guys are a bunch of bleeding-heart commies. Up until 2000, BC had the NDP party in power for provinicial politics and man...there was nothing but problem after problem...grossly overbudgeted projects, massive debt, huge homelessness problems (Give 'em free food and shelter and more will follow is my mantra) and various other horrible things...We've since booted them out and put in a more right-wing based provincial liberal party (it gets complicated because the Federal Liberal party has nothing to do with the Provincial Liberal party...but they're both right wing) and we've been cutting back, trimming fat and working towards a leaner government...the only problem is now all the unions and social-advocacy groups are in an outcry...sheesh... Just as I thought. A confusion of terms. So why do you dislike Bush so much? Most of his core beliefs seem to be the same as yours.

[Maro]

It is not a Young problem - let's get ack on topic with my response about the anarchist movement

:eek:

[bejohnson]

Originally posted by egarrard
I agree. I don't like a lot of what President Bush does. I think he's insane on his views on illegal aliens...

I think the terms for the different political parties are reversed from the US to Canada.

That is true in most instances. But here we are talking US politics and I think everybody understood that. I have not mentioned anything about Canada because I am not informed on Canadian Policy or politics. Even if there is confusion, the losing of one's temper is not called for.

[Maro]

On Topic:banghead :banghead

[bejohnson]

I'm not that up to date on the anarchist movment today. There were people that said they were anarchist in the 60's and they never made a big splash. They were mostly young college age kids that most people referred to as "Hippies". I saw you refer to yourself with that term. At 29 you're too young for that aren't you? I though most of the hippies had cut their hair, shaved, put on a three piece suit and were working at Enron.:jawsdown :rofl2

[bejohnson]

Just did a quick scan of the anarchist movement. Nothing really new from the 60's. It appears to be nothing but communism under another name. It's what I would call a very simplistic view by people that do not understand where the basics of life come from.

From the Australian web site Angry People for a strong united working class, "We believe everyone has a birthright to the basics in life these being, decent food, clothing, housing, health care, a livelihood and well-being." This looks so good on paper but this was the foundation of the Communist revolution in Russia. It did not work then and it won't work now.

I don't think they understand the meaning of working for your basics in life. Even the most lowly ant works all season to survive. True they work as a colony but it takes the whole colony just to survive. We as humans have figured out that a capitalist society is much more efficient. It’s not perfect but it beats anarchy.

[wazman]

Originally posted by bejohnson
Tantousha, I read both of your post. I stand by my statement as what you wrote inferred. I was not the only one to take it that way and I am not referring to Brandi either.

As for your response to CKFlores, you've just confirmed every point I was trying to make about being mature and not being vindictive in the post. I'm sorry you can't act with maturity and I hope one day you will be able to.

CkFlores, I would like to apologize for his outburst. It was totally uncalled for.

I have asked Rodney to look at this thread and post with the recommendation to close it because some of our younger members are not mature enough to carry on a dialog with out losing it. If this was Tantousha goal, he has succeeded. I again would like to apologize to all for his lack of control and immaturity.

Please stop. Just stop right there. While you're fully in your rights to have Rodney close and/or delete this thread, this lofty "Above it all" attitude you have is really starting to get on my nerves.

If you don't like the way these political threads go, don't post them. Private Message them between the people you really wish to speak with. I guess that means egarrad, as you once again slam an entire group of people with your "younger members" dig.

I am not trying to control what gets posted here, but to complain about how your thread turned out after you've insisted for several weeks now to post these political topics that we all know damn well turn into these kinds of arguments is just unbelievable. You can't be surprised that these arguments get this heated, can you? They do all the time - not just on this forum. After all, I don't go into a crowded theater and yell "Fire" for the very same reason - I know the panic and reactions that will result.

I'm actually beginning to wonder if somebody used that "younger members" thing on you when you were a kid, and it's come back to haunt you.

Again, I'm not trying to tell you or anyone else what to post. Nor am I apologizing for what some of the others have posted. But whenever topics like these are posted anywhere, moderators must cringe... They know what they're in for.

And if you don't believe people still starve to death in this country, or that there are still homeless who don't go to shelters, I'd like to invite you to an AA meeting. There're plenty of people there who are living that way. I know - through my father, I've seen them. I've seen them in the town I live in. They may not make front-page headlines - maybe that's the media bias again - but they're there.

Please - don't take this as a personal attack. It's not meant that way. Just observing that there's obviously no way to discuss these topics without everyone going off on each other, and that maybe this isn't the best place to be posting them.

[efernandez_98]

Let's not fool ourselves, the goal of debate really is to prove a point not to come to an common understanding. Supporting one's stance is often at cost of undermining the views and opinions of your opponent. This is why I cringe whenever topics that revolve around religon or policts are posted in the Off-Topic forums; which I co-moderate with Rodney. These topics evolve people's personal beliefs and ideals. Beliefs and ideals which many put faith in them as truth. Remember, the "truth" is a simple fact that is tainted by an individual's perception and interpretation. So, I can understand why people are passionate when their beliefs have been put into question.

It is my personal belief that this forum is open to personal opinions despite of agreement or popularity. As long as the comments remain civil, I have no problems with allowing this thread to remain open. Although, I have seen some close calls but nothing so far seems to crosses over the line. Honestly, closing this thread would be the last means of intervention because I don't believe in repressing anybodys opinion of a particular topic. This is why, at this time I will not intereve and close this thread; however, should Rodney decide to do it will be of his own volition.

I'm going to reiterate but paraphrase one of Scottman's post as advice to anyone willing to read, "Argue your points objectively, refrain from making sweeping generalizations about other people, and ignore those who don't." However, I am told that offering advice is a fruitless effort, since the wise truley do not need it, and the foolish will not heed it.

In regards to the thread's original topic, my retort, "The media has always been used as a tool of politics and the politicans. Duh. :happywave"

[Maro]

Originally posted by bejohnson
Just did a quick scan of the anarchist movement. Nothing really new from the 60's. It appears to be nothing but communism under another name. It's what I would call a very simplistic view by people that do not understand where the basics of life come from.

From the Australian web site Angry People for a strong united working class, "We believe everyone has a birthright to the basics in life these being, decent food, clothing, housing, health care, a livelihood and well-being." This looks so good on paper but this was the foundation of the Communist revolution in Russia. It did not work then and it won't work now.

I don't think they understand the meaning of working for your basics in life. Even the most lowly ant works all season to survive. True they work as a colony but it takes the whole colony just to survive. We as humans have figured out that a capitalist society is much more efficient. It’s not perfect but it beats anarchy.

Check my pics again - I never said I wasn't a hippy - check my profile for my official definition!:thumb

As for being too young - I don't think it makes any difference - it's your head not your body that makes the decisions and it has no chronograph!

Capitalism? I think it sucks - I'm no communist but I strive to find an alternative to a system where 1% of the people get 90% of the money - the rest of us are effectively wage slaves dressed up with nice toys to keep us occupied. The tragedy is that we are becoming a race of inhumane people.

There is a lot of talk of "Utopian" spciety - I don't think the Human mind is capable of it - we will probaly just get worse.

Call me mr Cynical!

I know these threads can cause aggravation but I like them - the trick is to pause before replying - that's what we teach all new starters with emial - you can't take it back once it is written , sadly.



:thumb

[bejohnson]

Waz, There are only three people that have problems with these threads, tantousha, SavesNFGDay and you. Everybody else manages to discuss the threads with respect for each other and decorum. Maro and I have vastly different views but we manage to be civil and rational in our post. I am not trying to have an “Above it All” attitude but you seem to have problems with adjectives and descriptions. Younger members means just that, people that are younger than myself and the other person that it was directed to. What I said was not a slam but an accurate description of what occurred. The truth is not politically correct. The truth can be brutal but I will not soften the truth simply because someone might get their feelings hurt. The fact of the matter is the truth is the truth. You seem to want to avoid lively debate at all cost. Why? As long as the debate is civil and respectful there is a lot to be learned. I thought that was what a forum was for, the healthy exchange of differing ideas and opinions. I agree that temper tantrums and outburst have no place in the discussion. That is what I have been saying all along. But to not post something because someone might get his or her underwear in a wad is ludicrous.

If Rodney does not wish to have a political posts then all he has to do is drop me a note. So far he has not complained about the subject matter. The only problem I see is the irrational responses from a couple of the members.

Now as far as the homeless and I will include the homeless alcoholics in this category, they are homeless because they either have a mental or drug problem that they refuse to address or they have made poor life’s choices and rather than address the corrective procedures for that situation they chose to remain on the street and live off everyone else.

Back when I was growing up the people with drug and mental problems were taken care of in state run hospitals. Some time in the late 70’s someone had the bright idea that this was violating his or her rights. So now these people that desperately need help and can’t find room in a privately run or public shelter, have no place to go but on the streets. It is against the law to place them in a hospital for their own protection and rehabilitation.

The ones that are there because of their own actions and choices or lack of proper actions and choices have been with use forever. They were called Bums when I was a kid. As I said before, no amount of help will make a dent in that part of the homeless population because of the attitude of most of them. You can try but they resist the help.

Now before you go off on me about alcoholics, you should know that I lost my father to alcohol and it’s related health problems. I lost three uncles, an aunt, two nephews, a niece and several cousins to alcohol. I lost two friends in high school due to drunk driving and I have 6 friends that are members of AA. I have attended meetings with them and know what they go through. I have set up all night talking with a friend just so he would not take that first drink. I have held a female friend for hours because she took that first drink and was scared as hell she was going to take another. I’ve had to take a friend to the hospital because of alcohol poisoning. This is why I do not drink except on rare occasions. My position on the homeless that are in that situation because of alcohol comes from the attitude of my friends that are in AA. You try to help, but the only person that can beat the demon of alcohol is the alcoholic himself. He or she has got to want to quit and it’s an hour-to-hour battle for some. The alcoholic has to hit rock bottom before he or she realizes they need help. Until they do anything you do is fruitless.

[bejohnson]

Originally posted by efernandez_98
Let's not fool ourselves, the goal of debate really is to prove a point not to come to an common understanding. Supporting one's stance is often at cost of undermining the views and opinions of your opponent. This is why I cringe whenever topics that revolve around religon or policts are posted in the Off-Topic forums; which I co-moderate with Rodney. These topics evolve people's personal beliefs and ideals. Beliefs and ideals which many put faith in them as truth. Remember, the "truth" is a simple fact that is tainted by an individual's perception and interpretation. So, I can understand why people are passionate when their beliefs have been put into question.

It is my personal belief that this forum is open to personal opinions despite of agreement or popularity. As long as the comments remain civil, I have no problems with allowing this thread to remain open. Although, I have seen some close calls but nothing so far seems to crosses over the line. Honestly, closing this thread would be the last means of intervention because I don't believe in repressing anybodys opinion of a particular topic. This is why, at this time I will not intereve and close this thread; however, should Rodney decide to do it will be of his own volition.

I'm going to reiterate but paraphrase one of Scottman's post as advice to anyone willing to read, "Argue your points objectively, refrain from making sweeping generalizations about other people, and ignore those who don't." However, I am told that offering advice is a fruitless effort, since the wise truley do not need it, and the foolish will not heed it.

In regards to the thread's original topic, my retort, "The media has always been used as a tool of politics and the politicans. Duh. :happywave"

Well said Efer!!

[bejohnson]

Originally posted by Maro
Check my pics again - I never said I wasn't a hippy - check my profile for my official definition!:thumb

As for being too young - I don't think it makes any difference - it's your head not your body that makes the decisions and it has no chronograph!

Capitalism? I think it sucks - I'm no communist but I strive to find an alternative to a system where 1% of the people get 90% of the money - the rest of us are effectively wage slaves dressed up with nice toys to keep us occupied. The tragedy is that we are becoming a race of inhumane people.

There is a lot of talk of "Utopian" spciety - I don't think the Human mind is capable of it - we will probaly just get worse.

Call me mr Cynical!

I know these threads can cause aggravation but I like them - the trick is to pause before replying - that's what we teach all new starters with emial - you can't take it back once it is written , sadly.



:thumb

I used to be cynical but I've seen to much good that was done by rich and poor alike. I know of companies that put their employees interest above all else.

The problem is GREED. People and companies don't want enough to be comfortable they want it all. Everybody wants to be rich. Look how many people play the lottery.

BTW I was yanking your chain about being a hippie.:thumb

[Maro]

Originally posted by bejohnson
I used to be cynical but I've seen to much good that was done by rich and poor alike. I know of companies that put their employees interest above all else.

The problem is GREED. People and companies don't want enough to be comfortable they want it all. Everybody wants to be rich. Look how many people play the lottery.

BTW I was yanking your chain about being a hippie.:thumb

No offense taken - I spent years fighting it but I know what I am !

I still find it dispiriting


:(

[bejohnson]

As a follow up to my comments on the homeless I realize that there are a few people that are there because of circumstances beyond their control. These people have the drive to get themselves back into society. They may need help and there are groups and shelters for that purpose. All any one on the streets has to do is ask and help is provided.

[Maro]

Capitalism that is - not being a hippe:thumb

[bejohnson]

Originally posted by Maro
No offense taken - I spent years fighting it but I know what I am !

I still find it dispiriting


:(

Cheer up Mate. You could be like me. A gold plated professional Assh**e that only a mother could love. And then only on holidays. God only knows what Brandi sees in me.:Holy Crap :rofl2

[bejohnson]

I like this thread. It's running my post count up faster than Spam.:lmao

[3dGameMan]

It's a mystery to me why some of you here can't respect other people views. Sure you can comment on others views but do it in an adult way. There is no need to condescend, criticize, bash, etc. peoples views even in a heated topic. I really do not know if some of you here will ever understand this very simple idea of respect!

[wazman]

Originally posted by bejohnson
Waz, There are only three people that have problems with these threads, tantousha, SavesNFGDay and you. Everybody else manages to discuss the threads with respect for each other and decorum. Maro and I have vastly different views but we manage to be civil and rational in our post. I am not trying to have an “Above it All” attitude but you seem to have problems with adjectives and descriptions. Younger members means just that, people that are younger than myself and the other person that it was directed to. What I said was not a slam but an accurate description of what occurred. The truth is not politically correct. The truth can be brutal but I will not soften the truth simply because someone might get their feelings hurt. The fact of the matter is the truth is the truth. You seem to want to avoid lively debate at all cost. Why? As long as the debate is civil and respectful there is a lot to be learned. I thought that was what a forum was for, the healthy exchange of differing ideas and opinions. I agree that temper tantrums and outburst have no place in the discussion. That is what I have been saying all along. But to not post something because someone might get his or her underwear in a wad is ludicrous.

If Rodney does not wish to have a political posts then all he has to do is drop me a note. So far he has not complained about the subject matter. The only problem I see is the irrational responses from a couple of the members.

Now as far as the homeless and I will include the homeless alcoholics in this category, they are homeless because they either have a mental or drug problem that they refuse to address or they have made poor life’s choices and rather than address the corrective procedures for that situation they chose to remain on the street and live off everyone else.

Back when I was growing up the people with drug and mental problems were taken care of in state run hospitals. Some time in the late 70’s someone had the bright idea that this was violating his or her rights. So now these people that desperately need help and can’t find room in a privately run or public shelter, have no place to go but on the streets. It is against the law to place them in a hospital for their own protection and rehabilitation.

The ones that are there because of their own actions and choices or lack of proper actions and choices have been with use forever. They were called Bums when I was a kid. As I said before, no amount of help will make a dent in that part of the homeless population because of the attitude of most of them. You can try but they resist the help.

Now before you go off on me about alcoholics, you should know that I lost my father to alcohol and it’s related health problems. I lost three uncles, an aunt, two nephews, a niece and several cousins to alcohol. I lost two friends in high school due to drunk driving and I have 6 friends that are members of AA. I have attended meetings with them and know what they go through. I have set up all night talking with a friend just so he would not take that first drink. I have held a female friend for hours because she took that first drink and was scared as hell she was going to take another. I’ve had to take a friend to the hospital because of alcohol poisoning. This is why I do not drink except on rare occasions. My position on the homeless that are in that situation because of alcohol comes from the attitude of my friends that are in AA. You try to help, but the only person that can beat the demon of alcohol is the alcoholic himself. He or she has got to want to quit and it’s an hour-to-hour battle for some. The alcoholic has to hit rock bottom before he or she realizes they need help. Until they do anything you do is fruitless.

Let's get one thing straight: the only reason I have a problem with these threads is because of what they turn into, like this one. I do have a problem with you dismissing forum members as "younger members". When have I ever referred to older forum members as anything but their names, in any shape or form? Have I ever called you "old fart"? No, and I don't intend to.

Very interesting viewpoint. I'll try to remember to bring it up with the next homeless person I see. I'm sure they'll jump right up and say "Of course! How could I have been so mistaken?"

You seem to have a problem with me, bejohnson. I do not have any problem with adjectives and descriptions. I may not be quite as super-intelligent as yourself and your wife, but believe me, I can turn a phrase more quickly and more appropriately than most. I do not have any problem with debate; I also do not want to suppress the truth. I simply do not want this forum to turn into a giant flame war just because of threads like these.

I'm not going to go off on you about alcoholics. I'm not going to go off on you about anything. You seem to have a problem with me because, unlike the military that you are so familiar with, I do not simply say "Yes, sir!" every time you bark an order. I am a free thinker and have deep beliefs, and I'm not afraid to share those beliefs when they are challenged. Why should I not become angry when my beliefs are challenged? Are they not the very core of what makes me who I am? I'm not a killer, or a drug dealer, or a rapist. Why? Because I believe those things are wrong.

I just get tired of people lumping large groups of people into categories. Younger members, liberals, conservatives, fat kids, geeks... Where does it end?

I'm sorry, bejohnson. You seem to have a problem with me, and I have a problem with you. I suggest the best thing for both of us to do is put each other on our respective ignore lists before one of us says something here that really goes too far.

I simply don't recall where I yelled, or screamed, or spammed, or became heated, or anything - until you started in. I even agreed with you that someone went too far in their remarks. I don't see why you think I'm here to cause trouble...

But since you do, there's no point in trying to argue this any further. Good day.

[ChKFlores]

Originally posted by bejohnson CkFlores, I would like to apologize for his outburst. It was totally uncalled for.

I have asked Rodney to look at this thread and post with the recommendation to close it because some of our younger members are not mature enough to carry on a dialog with out losing it. If this was Tantousha goal, he has succeeded. I again would like to apologize to all for his lack of control and immaturity.

Ed(bejohnson), you don't have to apologize for another person's mistake. Besides, you're getting an idea of how certain age groups think. You were just seeing how they thought and only were getting discussion out of this. As for Alex (tantousha), I have something to say to him:

Originally posted by tantousha Oh...and one last thing....(directed mostly to Chkflores...but also the rest of you...can't seem to get it I think...for clarification you know...)

I AM NOT A SOCIALIST!!!
Hell...I'm not even a democrat...based on my views of the economy, unions, social programs and what not I consider myself a republican...Just a republican who doesn't particularly like the guy in power...and not even him as much as I don't like his foreign policy or his long-term economic or environmental choices...

I sure hope that clarifies it for you all...it is possible to like a nation and even a political party and not like the boss...

Look at how you're reacting. And I didn't even make the remarks about you being Socialist. Heck, you're not even being objective towards this topic. You're going off on "knee-jerk" responses because you and SavesNFGDay are still too emotional about your political views. Also I respect your thinking, but careful how you think...later on in life (before you reach 30) you will see the realities and find out for yourself what's it all about. Look at me, I've lived on an island for nearly 30 years, being isolated from the rest of the world, and KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT OUT OF LIFE.
If you can't make decisions for yourself, how are you going to support yourself down the road?

As SavesNFGDay, well...that's another reply.

ChKFlores (Charles Flores)

[bejohnson]

Originally posted by wazman
Let's get one thing straight: the only reason I have a problem with these threads is because of what they turn into, like this one. I do have a problem with you dismissing forum members as "younger members". When have I ever referred to older forum members as anything but their names, in any shape or form? Have I ever called you "old fart"? No, and I don't intend to.

Very interesting viewpoint. I'll try to remember to bring it up with the next homeless person I see. I'm sure they'll jump right up and say "Of course! How could I have been so mistaken?"

You seem to have a problem with me, bejohnson. I do not have any problem with adjectives and descriptions. I may not be quite as super-intelligent as yourself and your wife, but believe me, I can turn a phrase more quickly and more appropriately than most. I do not have any problem with debate; I also do not want to suppress the truth. I simply do not want this forum to turn into a giant flame war just because of threads like these.

I'm not going to go off on you about alcoholics. I'm not going to go off on you about anything. You seem to have a problem with me because, unlike the military that you are so familiar with, I do not simply say "Yes, sir!" every time you bark an order. I am a free thinker and have deep beliefs, and I'm not afraid to share those beliefs when they are challenged. Why should I not become angry when my beliefs are challenged? Are they not the very core of what makes me who I am? I'm not a killer, or a drug dealer, or a rapist. Why? Because I believe those things are wrong.

I just get tired of people lumping large groups of people into categories. Younger members, liberals, conservatives, fat kids, geeks... Where does it end?

I'm sorry, bejohnson. You seem to have a problem with me, and I have a problem with you. I suggest the best thing for both of us to do is put each other on our respective ignore lists before one of us says something here that really goes too far.

I simply don't recall where I yelled, or screamed, or spammed, or became heated, or anything - until you started in. I even agreed with you that someone went too far in their remarks. I don't see why you think I'm here to cause trouble...

But since you do, there's no point in trying to argue this any further. Good day.

Waz, whether you realize or not we are all members of a group. You and I belong to the group "men". Using your logic I could not make the statement that all men have the Y chromosome. Being categorized as a member of a group is normal. It's a part of everyday life. You are a member of the group of people that work on computers; I am a member of the group of people that are seriously overweight. Do I get mad when someone says I'm fat? No, because I am. To some people that would be politically incorrect, I don't give a rat's ass about being politically correct. I state the facts as I see them. I also realize that all members of a group are not the same. But to try and speak to each individual's differences would so greatly hamstring the communication of an idea as to prevent the understanding of that idea.

As for me stating that forum members are "younger members" may I remind you that I am probably the oldest one in the forum? Hell everyone is younger than I am. And yes I am an old fart. I do not intend to speak from a position of superiority. I speak from personal experiences of life and from the knowledge of research. If my stating the facts in a forceful way leads you to think I'm condescending then either you or I have a problem understanding what condescending entails. I made the apologies to CKFlores and all the members because I am the one that started the thread and I was taught to apologize when something that I did caused problems for someone else whether or not I was directly responsible.

As for my views on the homeless, They come from dealing with the problems of the homeless for 20 years. I have volunteered to help at shelters, I have counseled the homeless and I have help place them in shelters. My views and comments come from experience both personal and from other people. I also keep up on statistics of many things. It's a hobby of mine. The statistics dealing with the homeless are readily available on the web. You will find my position agrees with most of the unbiased statistics published. I will bend over backward to help someone that wants to be helped but I refuse to waste my time on someone that has no intention of helping themselves. As the saying goes. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me."

Yes there is a problem with the homeless but throwing money at the problem will not solve it. It's going to take proactive measures to accomplish any results and that is going to have to include mental evaluations and drug screenings for the chronically homeless. If a person is found to have a problem then that base cause problem will have to be addressed before any meaningful progress can be made for that individual. All we are doing now is throwing money into a system that largely ignores the root causes of the homeless problem and seeks to warehouse them out of sight. The very people that think they are doing good are doing nothing but exacerbating the problem.

There was a article dealing with the homeless people that ask for money at the street corners here in Atlanta that I think was carried out by the investigative reporters at the Atlanta Journal and Constitution. This investigation found a organized group of "homeless" persons that had divided the city into territories and each one had there own corner or corners. They were averaging $30,000/year begging and of course there was no taxes being paid. This is the equivalent of you and I working for a wage of $50,000/year. Yet these people were classified as homeless. And this was not an isolated occurrence either. There were literally a couple of hundred people involved in this. The homeless know Atlanta as the 5th meanest city because the laws are enforced here. Begging and panhandling has drop significantly since that article was published and the people of Atlanta insisted on something being done.

Waz I never said that you were here to cause trouble. I said that you and two others were the only people that have a problem with the subject matter of the thread. You seem to want to avoid controversy at all cost to the point of stifling discussion on subjects that can be inflammatory. These very same subjects effect all of our lives and must be discussed. I post these threads so all members' young and old can be informed of what is going on in our world in particularly the United States. I chose the more conservative views to contrast with what is in the day to day media. If we try to be politically correct and avoid controversy all we do is sink into a quagmire of sameness. We all end up as people that can not or will not think for themselves or express an opinion because we might offend some one.

[Maro]

I think the Homeless is to complicated to narrow it down to alcoholic/non-alcoholic argument. Whilst a lot of the people on the street want to be there there are many who have no escape.:(

[bejohnson]

Originally posted by Maro
I think the Homeless is to complicated to narrow it down to alcoholic/non-alcoholic argument. Whilst a lot of the people on the street want to be there there are many who have no escape.:(

Thankfully we have people trying to help. There are a multitude of problems that cause homelessness. But the most pervasive one is alcohol/drug use. Until we address those issues we will always have a homeless problem with no solution.

[Maro]

Originally posted by bejohnson
Thankfully we have people trying to help. There are a multitude of problems that cause homelessness. But the most pervasive one is alcohol/drug use. Until we address those issues we will always have a homeless problem with no solution.

The other major contributing factor is the shambles of helathcare provided for the mentally ill/handicapped.

Here in Aus and back in the UK enlightened politicians decided to "Free" all the patient sin care - like hello they are in care because they cannot cope in society! Now we have people wandering the streets who cannot look after themselves and are generally scapegoated by the rest of the community - that really does wonders for their self-esteem!
:bomb

[bejohnson]

Originally posted by Maro
The other major contributing factor is the shambles of helathcare provided for the mentally ill/handicapped.

Here in Aus and back in the UK enlightened politicians decided to "Free" all the patient sin care - like hello they are in care because they cannot cope in society! Now we have people wandering the streets who cannot look after themselves and are generally scapegoated by the rest of the community - that really does wonders for their self-esteem!
:bomb

The exact same thing happen here. Read a couple of my post up and I mentioned that. It's better to be in state care than to be wandering the streets aimlessly.

[Maro]

Originally posted by bejohnson
The exact same thing happen here. Read a couple of my post up and I mentioned that. It's better to be in state care than to be wandering the streets aimlessly.

Granted a few can function adequately but they still need support. Unfortunately, many are best looked after in care - they often prefer the "normalcy" of care as it is comforting.

My Dad is a Nurse for the Mentally Handicapped - it is criminal how underpaid they are.

I don't mind earnign good money as an IT Contractor but I thinkit is repugnant that my sister, who works nights caring for the Mentally handicapped and days helping to teach kids, gets paid less - she even loses out on tax as she is classed as having two jobs !(you can gauge my loathing of politicians from this - they get away with being on boards as non-executive Chairmen etc and have good accountants so they pay very little tax proportionally)

:bomb

[bejohnson]

Originally posted by Maro
Granted a few can function adequately but they still need support. Unfortunately, many are best looked after in care - they often prefer the "normalcy" of care as it is comforting.

My Dad is a Nurse for the Mentally Handicapped - it is criminal how underpaid they are.

I don't mind earnign good money as an IT Contractor but I thinkit is repugnant that my sister, who works nights caring for the Mentally handicapped and days helping to teach kids, gets paid less - she even loses out on tax as she is classed as having two jobs !(you can gauge my loathing of politicians from this - they get away with being on boards as non-executive Chairmen etc and have good accountants so they pay very little tax proportionally)

:bomb

You will get no arguement from me on that. The taxes everywhere are out of control.

[Maro]

Originally posted by bejohnson
You will get no arguement from me on that. The taxes everywhere are out of control.

Actuially I can't complain at them moment as I am on a Tech Visa in Aus so get taxed less - mind you it is a bonus as we are saving feverishly for a deposit on a house - real estate in Sydney is Unbelieveable