Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: The GOP and the RNC...

  1. #1
    sub specie aeternitatis Pete Hanlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Hickory Creek, TX
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    4,964

    Thumbs up

    Since the "Just Discussion" forum is open to "any non-optical topic"...

    Is anyone else watching the Republican National Convention? Dick Cheney gave a great acceptance speech last evening (I must admit I was a bit skeptical about his nomination).

    I wish CNN could be a little less biased in their coverage (when PBS is being more objective than you are, you are definitely being biased...). For example, there have been a few really great speeches from minorities and women (two groups the GOP has had a bad rep with). For some reason (wonder what it could be ) CNN, CBS, etc. strategically break away for "pundits and posturing" during these speeches. At least PBS shows you the whole convention and saves their spin till later.

    Oh well, I've always gotten the feeling that our benelovent benefactor (Steve) disdains everything political. It is one of my hobbies/interests, however, so I'm just wondering if there are any other politicos out there in OptiLand.

    GOP~ete


  2. #2
    That Boy Ain't Right Blake's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Mobile, AL, USA
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    543

    Post

    Personally, I prefer the C-SPAN version. They show everything, from the speeches to the cleanup afterwards. I'd much rather listen to the speeches than hear the same old political "wisdom" from the pundits I've heard a thousand times before. With the exception of Larry King and maybe a few others, they've thrown objectivity out the window.
    I think I'm going to be an "independent" voter for now. Not because I haven't decided, but because that's where the power is :-).

    Blake

  3. #3
    OptiBoard Apprentice
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    minneapolis,mn,us
    Posts
    16

    Post

    I am also a political junkie and have watched some of the convention coverage.I really liked NBC's coverage with Tom Brokejaw
    and his smarmy smirk when he says "Republican".Most of the press has chosen sides and can't help letting it show,
    it is only natural.I can't say democrat without using some choice adjectives.
    The dems are in big trouble now and they know it, it's going to get really dirty.
    My fear is that the rapist in chief will refuse to leave office, possibly using another wag the dog type scenario, maybe he
    will decide to bomb another aspirin factory.
    As for the independent voter, don't get sucked in, they are merely democrats that
    can't get elected as such in their area.
    Take Jesse Ventura(I live in minnesota)for
    example, he did a 180 on everything he ran on,he fought against tax cuts while holding on to a huge surplus.Third parties get you
    a candidate elected that has the support of
    far less than half the voters, or get you another Clinton!God forbid
    I just hope and pray we can recover from the
    damage he has caused thus far.

  4. #4
    OptiBoard Professional
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    plymouth, michigan and Chicago
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    146

    Post

    I too am a C-SPAN junkie. I keep breaking away from the convention coverage to watch the rerun of the American Presidents series on the other C-SPAN. I missed a lot of them when they ran individual shows last year.

    I think the RNC has done a marvelous job of stage managing the show. Of course the DNC will probably tryoto top them with their bevy of Hollywood biggies. Streisand will sing God Bless America, Spielburg will work the lights and Kevin Costner will provide the alternative entertainment by dancing with his group of trained wolves.

  5. #5
    Master OptiBoarder Jeff Trail's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Chattanooga TN.
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    973

    Post

    TO THE DUMB ***HOLE WHO KEEPS FAXING MY MACHINE EVERY 10 MINUTES AND CALLING MY 800 LINE AND HANGING UP..let me tell you something you right wing sonof a *****..YOU ARE TO STUPID TO TAKE YOUR "TAG" line off the faxes!!!... and I do have caller ID... I deleted my post because I have a business to run..and can not have my phone lines tied up by some inmature jack*** you fax me or call and hang up one more time and I'll slap you with a law suite so fast your head will spin!!... posting a good natured debate on this sight is one thing you start ****ing with my BUSINESS that's another thing!!...

    I'll post your business name, your phone number.. and since you work at a chain store I WILL be forwarding all your faxes from your store and a copy of the 800 bill THAT does have your phone number to your regional manager ALONG with a letter from my lawyer...which , BTW I know the regional manager personally ... ask her if she knows me big man... Jeff Trail... we will see where this little "prank" gets you..

    ENOUGH said... very unprofessional and something I would not have expected from this sight...

    YOU'VE BEEN WARNED... oh, and have a nice day :) oh and I just wrote Steve about this and hope he works with me on this little "problem" :)

    Jeff " No wonder I'm a democrat" Trail

    [This message has been edited by Jeff Trail (edited 08-04-2000).]

    [This message has been edited by Jeff Trail (edited 08-04-2000).]

  6. #6
    Master OptiBoarder Joann Raytar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    4,948

    Post

    Will have to see Pete. Supposedly the cabinet really runs the show and rumors have it that Bush's cabinet will be in part made up of at least a few good, smart people, Colin Powell to name one of them.

  7. #7
    Forever Liz's Dad Steve Machol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Back in AZ
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    10,252

    Post

    Originally posted by Pete Hanlin:
    Oh well, I've always gotten the feeling that our benelovent benefactor (Steve) disdains everything political. It is one of my hobbies/interests, however, so I'm just wondering if there are any other politicos out there in OptiLand.
    GOP~ete
    Au contraire - I am highly political. I was even once a candidate for the Arizona State Senate as Libertarian! And that infamous picture of me in my 'fro was actually taken during a politically charged news conference in which I was protesting the effort of the ASU administration to censor political free speech on the campus.

    I could go on and on about my views of the politics and the political system - which is probably why it's a good idea that I don't. :) I'd never have any time for anything else. Plus I'd probably manage to offend just about everyone since I think virtually all political parties and politicians are idiots. I particulalrly don't like the fact that most political factions believe they have a monopoly on the truth. Dammit - why can't they get it through their thick skulls that I'm the only one that's 100% right all the time! :D



    ------------------
    Steve
    OptiBoard Administrator

  8. #8
    sub specie aeternitatis Pete Hanlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Hickory Creek, TX
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    4,964

    Thumbs up

    I am truly impressed! It would appear that OptiLand is populated with some people who actually care about the leadership and direction of our nation.

    I want to tip my hat to CNN and especially to PBS. Last night was some of the most objective coverage of a Republican event that I've seen. Jeff, of course you realize that Reagan asked the Dems in Congress for the "line item veto" in almost every State of the Union address. It took a Republican Congress to do the right thing and give it to President Clinton (whew, that was tough, but I managed to type his name... please wait whilst I go cleanse my fingers ;) ).

    Steve is a Libertarian?!?! I believe this fact makes him the de facto politico on the Board. After all, a Libertarian has to think for him/herself- cause there's no party machine telling you what to think (but, after all, the Libertarians are an Existential group :) ). Now I understand Steve's feelings concerning politics... he isn't against politics- he's against ORGANIZED politics!

    Well, if you have read this string and have gotten this far in this post, you must have some interest in politics... Therefore, I'll bore you with my election prediction. Bush will win by about 11 points in the popular election (but it will be closer in the Electoral College). Here's why:

    • Bush has done a masterful job of getting his base lined up- 96% of Republicans surveyed plan to vote for him this Fall (note- this is no great feat, because 8 years of Clinton/Gore have created a great amount of Republican resolve)
    • On the other side, Gore is having a tough time convincing Democrats that he's a "go-to" candidate. First, he used to be a fairly conservative Democrat (I should know, I attended college in Tennessee when he was running for re-election to the Senate... our Young Republicans Club invited him to speak because of his then pro-life and anti-Hollywood views)... Second, Bill Clinton was "THE guy" that should have made Democrats look good to America- he had it all: the look, the voice, the empathy... the fact that he has largely squandered this potential has left some of the Dems a bit disillusioned.
    • Bush has shown he can reach outside of his party. Let's face it, Democrats outnumber Republicans in this country. However, Bush makes inroads to traditionally Democratic bases... he has minority relatives (his nephew, George P., did an outstanding job with his convention speech), his wife is an educator (as she noted, Gore might visit classrooms every day, but Bush sleeps with a teacher every night), and even the gay community has a representative in Cheney's daughter.

    Of course, the above may all be wishful thinking... but I don't think so. Without a doubt, Bush has one strong suit that Gore is particularly weak in- credibility. Americans KNOW they can't believe everything Gore says... they suspect they can't believe some of the things Bush will say. Gore's record is one of vascillation and adversarial politics. Bush/Cheney have a pretty consistent record and appear to be taking a positive track.

    Bush has hit a nerve... with all the "success" we've enjoyed, America doesn't feel all that good about itself right now. Like Ronald Reagan, Bush is saying "we are great, let's act like it." Short on substance? Maybe, but the Executive Branch of government usually is (substance comes from the Legislative Branch and is steered by the Executive). The last two Presidents with alot of substance were Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush- both one term Presidents.

    Sorry for the long (and no doubt boring) post, guys. Haven't found anyone here in Florida to sit down and watch this kinda stuff with...

    Pete "W" Hanlin



    [This message has been edited by Pete Hanlin (edited 08-04-2000).]

  9. #9
    OptiBoard Professional
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    plymouth, michigan and Chicago
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    146
    I find it humorous that the Democrats claim responsibility for the economic boom of the last eight years. The Republican House controls the pursestrings.

    As that great statesman Tip O'Neil is quoted as saying: "All politics are local" and, I might add, "personal!"

    Bush has a long way to go to overcome the combined strength of Albert's three largest contributing blocks: the Trial Lawyers Assoc (headed by Hilary's brother), The Federal, State & Municipal Employees Union (who gains most from larger government?)and The Teacher's Union (who's got most to lose from vouchers?).

    Even though his father was President, George W. wasn't raised in D.C. like Albert. He was raised in the Watergate complex while his father served so many years in the Senate.

  10. #10
    OptiBoard Professional
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Converse,Texas,USA (Outside San Antonio)
    Posts
    101
    Gosh! It's so good to know I'm not the only one. I watched the convention on C-SPAN. I even listen to Rush Limbaugh(in my office) and Michael Reagan on the radio. I have never run for any large office, but I was elected to the City Council where I live this Spring. I have also been a local Republican deligate a couple of time, although I have never made it to the big conventions. I LOVE politics.

    Carol "some day I'll rule the world" D

  11. #11
    Rising Star
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Odessa, Texas USA
    Posts
    68

    Post

    Hey Carol;

    I didn't know you were into politics. Wow, elected to the city council, you and Louis Bronaugh need to get together. I believe he is still Mayor of his town. If I had known this I would have nominated you for VP of TOPS. Congrats. Jim Seebach

  12. #12
    Forever Liz's Dad Steve Machol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Back in AZ
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    10,252

    Post

    Originally posted by Pete Hanlin:
    Steve is a Libertarian?!?! I believe this fact makes him the de facto politico on the Board. After all, a Libertarian has to think for him/herself- cause there's no party machine telling you what to think (but, after all, the Libertarians are an Existential group :) ). Now I understand Steve's feelings concerning politics... he isn't against politics- he's against ORGANIZED politics!
    Well I have to say that I'm no longer a Libertarian, although in essence I remain a libertarian. The truth is I got tired of listening to Libertarians argue for such things as the abolition of trafic laws and stop lights because of the chilliing effect these had on personal liberties.

    As for the Replublic and Democratic parties - when you get right down to it there really isn't any meaningful difference between the two. They are both wholly-owned subsidiaries of the corporate world, and they both work tireleslly to exclude third parties from having a fair shot in our political system.

    To quote my favorite philosopher:

    "If you always vote for the lesser of two evils, all you'll ever get is evil!" -- Lohcam Salohcin Nevets

    :D


    ------------------
    Steve
    OptiBoard Administrator

  13. #13
    Optical Curmudgeon EyeManFla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Smithfield, North Carolina
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,340

    Redhot Jumper

    I don't want to say that I am a die hard Republican, but I'd still vote for Nixon, and he's dead!

    Some things seem to take on a life of their own. And it looks like the tidal wave of history is on the side of the Bush Family. It would be the greatest ironic twist of fate if a decade from now the Bush Family rises above the Adams and Kennedy Families as the most politically important in American History.

    When I lived in DC, I supported Alan Keys over George Bush. I know he comes of way too strong, but the man is firm in his convictions and actually has a clue. That didn't mean I didn't eventually support George, but I never quite forgave him for trashing Ronnie than pertending that he learned at the feet of the master to get elected.

    Give me McKain and Chaney and then you would really have a ticket........

    I met Al Gore 12 years ago at a FEMA awards luncheon....his speech put me to sleep.....ok, maybe it was the four Bloody Marys.......


    If you think George W. is scary, wait till you get aload of Jeb........

  14. #14
    OptiBoard Professional
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    plymouth, michigan and Chicago
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    146

    Post

    I agree 100% Steve but a Parlimentary system is even worse. I think the solution is a benevolent dictatorship!

  15. #15
    Forever Liz's Dad Steve Machol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Back in AZ
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    10,252

    Thumbs up

    Originally posted by mikeh:
    I agree 100% Steve but a Parlimentary system is even worse. I think the solution is a benevolent dictatorship!
    That's exactly what I've been trying to tell people for many years. I'd make one hell of a benevolent dictator! ;)


    ------------------
    Steve
    OptiBoard Administrator

  16. #16
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    PA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    975
    I too love politics and watched the RNC every night. I also will watch the DNC. I have been following with interest some of the stats coming out of Texas in regards to education, insuring children, etc.. Seems like Bush has some problems here. The numbers slipped drastically since the last governor and are often in the 45-49th state out of 50. To me this is a serious problem.
    The term "look closely now" has to apply to both candidates and both parties before I cast my vote in November. I do know who I will vote for in our state Senatorial race.

    I am going to remind you all of the importance of the Patient Bill of Rights. It is very important. This bill wil most likely come up in the fall and the votes may have changed somewhat with Sen. Coverdale's replacement from GA to a possible pass. You play an active role in helping it succeed.

    Steve, if you decide to make a run next time sign me up to campaign.

  17. #17
    Rising Star
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Augusta, GA, CSA
    Posts
    99

    Post

    Originally posted by Steve Machol:
    That's exactly what I've been trying to tell people for many years. I'd make one hell of a benevolent dictator! ;)


    Steve:
    I'm also an ex-Libertarian, on the VERY conservative side of Libertatianism, although still one at heart. Privatization of city streets and absolutely no zoning are the things that get me a little nervous. But generally speaking, I don't think there's much difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. I want to hear things like, "We're going to totally abolish the income tax," and "We're going to end mandatory Social Security participation," and "If you're crazy enough to put enough dope in your system to kill a mule, we're not going to over-crowd our jails with you" and "We're going to abide by the letter AND THE SPIRIT of the 10th Amendment, and end federal regulation of EVERYTHING." But I'm not hearing that from the Republicrats. So I'll probably grumble a lot and vote straight Republican, like I almost always have. But if anybody's going to become dictator, I think it ought to be me first. I've got more experience. Ask them at work and at my lab, where I've been called Napoleon. Though some would say Caesar.

    ------------------


    "Come see me now, heah?"

  18. #18
    OptiBoard Professional
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    plymouth, michigan and Chicago
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    146

    Post

    I think a national retail tax would be the best solution. You can "have" all the money you want but it doesn't do you any good until you buy something with it. Most arguments against a national retail tax complain that it would unfairly burden the poor. The vast majority of citizens have no idea about the number of "value added" and "retail occupation taxes" are levied by federal, state and local governments.

    Any municipality that has a mall charges 1/4 of 1% sales tax payable to that municipality.

    I'm tired of the Democratic rhetoric aboutthe redistribution of income - "taking from the rich" and giving it to the "ordinary" people. By their definition, anyone who isn't in a labor union is "rich."

  19. #19
    Master OptiBoarder Shwing's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Pentiction, BC
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    658

    Blue Jumper

    I won't bore you (or upset myself, again) with the details, but y'all have nothing compared to Canada.

    I wish I had your issues regarding taxes.

    Ggrrrr...

    B.T.W. Napoleon, Hitler, Pol Pot. Come on. Wussies. If one is to be rated with the unholies, I have always preferred to be compare to Stalin. To the Nazi's: "You have captured my son? Hhmm. F*^k you. Come to Leningrad." Although I'm not sure that is a direct quote...

    ------------------
    Shwing;-}

  20. #20
    Master OptiBoarder karen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Rancho Cucamonga, Ca
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    1,325

    Post

    Originally posted by Pete Hanlin:


    I wish CNN could be a little less biased in their coverage (when PBS is being more objective than you are, you are definitely being biased...). For example, there have been a few really great speeches from minorities and women (two groups the GOP has had a bad rep with). For some reason (wonder what it could be ) CNN, CBS, etc. strategically break away for "pundits and posturing" during these speeches. At least PBS shows you the whole convention and saves their spin till later.

    GOP~ete
    [/I]
    It's not nichnamed the "Clinton News Network" for nothin! I think we could have had a little more coverage on regular channels- betcha that other convention will! ;)
    Guess I have to put away my Keyes 2000 T-shirt ...sob, sniffle

  21. #21
    sub specie aeternitatis Pete Hanlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Hickory Creek, TX
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    4,964

    Post

    Both Steve and Bob made comments to the effect that "there isn't much difference between the Republican and Democratic parties." I beg to differ. I believe there are several substantative differences in the candidates being proferred in this election:
    • Taxes- W. Bush looks at the "surplus" and sees a tax cut (although the existance of this "surplus" has yet to be proven to me)... A. Gore called his tie-breaking Senate vote to raise taxes "one of the best of my career"
    • Education- The Democrat's method of "education reform" always involves the teacher's unions... and therefore never involves reform. For being labeled the "anti-choice" party, it is curious that Republicans are the only ones offering parents a choice in education (this is Jeb Bush's take on things, and BTW, as a Floridian I am well pleased with Gov. Bush)
    • Abortion- Yes, it was downplayed at the convention; yes, it is controversial; but yes, there is a big difference in the parties on this issue. Republicans vary from stances which would abolish abortion to stances that would limit certain types, to stances that are pro-abortion rights. Democrats vary as well- but have chosen to make their pro-abortion plank an election issue.
    • Campaign Finance Reform- Thanks to John McCain, there is a considerable portion of the Republican party which is keen on the idea of campaign reform (even if the Presidential candidate is not). I haven't seen a similar movement in the Democratic Party.
    • Entitlements- W. Bush has proposed an interesting idea (sorry, "risky scheme") to give Americans more control over their Social Security retirement accounts. I believe former Texan governor Ann Richards expressed the Democratic idea best when she said to Larry King "I am confident in my own ability to invest my retirement money wisely, but I don't necessarily trust you."


    Ah, but isn't that the main difference between the parties after all??? Democrats believe the answers to racial conflict, socio-economic inequality, and environmental preservation are found in governmental regulation and beauracracy. Republicans place trust (and it is true enough misplaced at times) in the American people and capitalism.

    Concerning the "Patients Bill of Rights," I must respectfully offer that, whatever benefits it may or may not hold for our chosen profession, it is bad piece of legislation and will help neither America's health system nor its patients.

    There is a difference- viva la difference!

    GOP~ete

    PS.- If there is no real difference, why do frustrated Libertarians almost always close their eyes and pull the Republican lever?

    PPS.- I'm happy to see that Al has decided to stay to the left in his choice of a Veep. Given an honest look at the conservative right and the liberal left, the American people have most often voted for the former.



    [This message has been edited by Pete Hanlin (edited 08-08-2000).]

  22. #22
    Bad address email on file Darris Chambless's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    San Angelo, TX 76904
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,459

    Post

    Hey Pete and all you politicos,

    I have been reading this string and have finally decided to throw my two cents worth of (scheme) into the pot.

    Al Gore, although a rather intelligent politician (note I didn't say "intelligent man") is really warped when it comes to his "political views" and advice for the future. I think that George W. has done a pretty good job in Texas and in my opinion has done more for this state than most of the past Governor's.

    Speaking of W. Bush, I saw a commercial for "Politically Incorrect" (which was a pretty good show until Bill Mahr decided to become an idiot and side with liberal ideology, but that's a different story and one that makes me fume) Paul Rodriguez was sitting there and said "Governor Bush wants to be known as the 'Compassionate Conservative' but look how many people he's killed in Texas." which drew a lot of laughter from stupid people in Bill's audience. People have forgotten that these criminals on death row have been tried and convicted in a court of law (not by Governor Bush) In order for Gov. Bush to be able to offer up a stay of execution there must be enough reasonable doubt presented in order to give one. In the cases of the criminals that have been executed in the state of Texas this did not happen (again no fault of Gov. Bush's) Chad said "That is showing compassion. It shows compassion for the victims and their family, the law abiding citizens of Texas and the law abiding citizens of the rest of the US." I agree with that. These criminals won't be committing any more violent crimes against anyone anymore.

    I like what Pete has written as to the distinctions between the two candidates (parties)

    Taxes:

    George (Republican) is against unnecessary taxes. Al (Democrat) is for more taxes and more spending (Big Government or the "Don't worry about taking care of yourself. Give us all your money and let the government take care of you)

    Education:

    The Democrats and the Teachers Union have had control of the public school systems long enough for the "Lazy Newagers" to take over. Now what our children have available is an education that will teach them to read by the third grade. Whatever happened to learning to read in preschool and kindergarten like I did many years ago? I was taking tests on what I had learned from kindergarten on. How can you take a test if you can't read it? Not to mention if you are illiterate and in high school it's not the students fault, the schools fault nor is it the parents fault. It's societies fault for not recognizing this problem and bringing it to the attention of the proper responsible party (whomever that might be ;-)

    I have my daughter in a private school and have had for some time. My wife and I took her out of private school to see how she would do in public school (and because money was a little tight). After three months of my wife and I going over what our daughter was learning, her paperwork and talking to the teacher as well as being volunteers on field trips, we were amazed at how little our daughter had learned being in public school. In fact public school was teaching their kindergarten class things that my daughter had already learned in preschool ( private school). She was bored, hated it and my wife and I couldn't stand the idea of her being held back simply because the other kids in her class were not as advanced. She would have suffered scholastically by being "brought down" to the public schools majority level. That wasn't fare to my daughter.

    Liberalism says that this "levels the playing field" in education for the have and the have nots. I personally am not interested in "leveling the playing field." I'm interested in my daughters education. Liberals don't want to "level" the rain forest, they don't want wetlands destroyed, they don't want the air polluted so why do they work so hard at destroying education?

    While my daughter was in public school I literally came to the realization that many of the kids in her class would not learn to read or write in kindergarten. These children would not learn either of these things in first grade other than to be taught a very basic understanding of reading or writing. It wouldn't be until the second grade that they would actually start learning what was being taught in preschool in the private school systems.

    Liberal ideology has literally forced the very thing they wanted to prevent or eliminate on the public at large. It use to be public school or private school take your pick and the outcome would be similar but with a slight advantage on the private school end. Now if you want your child to grow up to have a chance at a better life you have to send them to private school, but only if you actually want them to get an education. Thanks liberals we really appreciate it (sarcasm intended) ;-) Now our children can be content with growing up educated enough to work fries at McDonalds.
    (Career ladders are great aren't they :-)

    Abortion:

    Although it has been made into one, abortion should have never been made political circus issue. Politically it should be addressed and decided upon for legal or illegal, period. This subject is one of the good ones because you are pro-choice if that will get you elected or pro-life if voting that way will get you elected. Then once in office it becomes a pandering issue which is left untouched until necessary, at which point you give a definitive "Maybe" or "We're looking into it." as an answer to everything. I think abortion should be illegal and I have my reasons (as Shwing always says "My opinion, not yours.")

    Campaign Finance Reform:

    Every candidate should get the same amount of money. No more, no less none of which can come from any special interest groups. Honestly I think they should all have to earn it by sponsoring bake sales for two years :-) The Republicans are more inclined to want reform. The Democrats don't want it mainly because the Democratic party is broke and needs the money (that should tell you something about their ability to handle your money. Scary! ;-) Liberals are so worried about "level playing fields" so why don't they work on this one. It's a much better cause to fight for and would actually make some sense

    Entitlements:

    I agree completely. I can promise myself that I will not use my money unwisely. I will not buy a $900.00 toilet seat or a $400.00 hammer. It just won't happen. I already have an IRA and if I could take the money I have to pay out for So-So Security and put it in my IRA I'd actually make interest on it (You don't collect interest in So-So Security and you WILL get back less than you put in.) and live comfortably upon retiring.

    "Democrats believe the answers to racial conflict, socio-economic inequality, and environmental preservation are found in governmental regulation and beauracracy." They also seem to believe that a rock found in a river is from Mars. I'm sure there are probably several rocks on this planet that came from Mars by some strange twist of fate, but to pick one rock out of umpteen million in a river and say that it's from Mars? Give me a break! <(John Stossal) And monkeys might fly out of my butt :-)

    "Concerning the "Patients Bill of Rights," I must respectfully offer that, whatever benefits it may or may not hold for our chosen profession, it is bad piece of legislation and will help neither America's health system nor its patients."

    Pete is correct. Did you know that no matter what, you have the right to utilize any doctor or medical facility that you please anyway. The only catch is you must pay for it yourself (What a concept :-) If your insurance company says that you can't use a specific hospital or doctor then drop that insurance and get a different one, that is also your right.

    I like it when people say things like "Well my business or company pays for my insurance." Yeah! Right! You are paying for it one way or another so don't fool yourself ;-) If they paid you the money directly that they pay to the insurance company they are tied into, you could probably find a better insurance company cheaper that would allow you to use whatever facility you wished and have extra money each month. How many people have looked into how much the company they work for actually pays for their insurance? My guess is that if "The company is paying for it." you have no clue and have never questioned it.

    "Patients Bill of Rights" a bill that cost a lot of money to get on the floor to be voted on only to give you a legal right to what you already had to start with. I think the money could have been used for something more productive (Place Shwings saying here...:-)

    We as Americans have rights as defined by the constitution. The rest are merely privileges that you work for.

    Enjoy,

    Darris Chambless

    PS. Pete, I just received my refrigeration certificate and it looks great ;-) Now I can buy R-12 LEGALLY :-) Too bad it doesn't allow me to get a discount :-(





    [This message has been edited by Darris Chambless (edited 08-08-2000).]

  23. #23
    OptiBoard Professional
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    plymouth, michigan and Chicago
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    146

    Post

    The basic differences between the two major American political parties are the same as they were in 1776. One group led by the original "policy wonk," Alexander Hamilton, was of the opinion that the intelligent and cool folks (like himself for instance) were better suited to making the important decisions for people than leaving it to the "masses." After all, they were smarter than the average Joe and he was to busy working anyway.

    Another member of that party, their first elected President, failed to get reelected for a very interesting reason. As the first President to have a standing army, John Adams first use of the military was to send them into Western Pennsylvania to forcibly collect taxes from the citizens.

    The troops brutalized the population, publicly horsewhipped newspaper editos who opposed them and generally terrorized the population. The deserved bad publicity cost Adams his attempt at reelection.

    He was defeated by T. Jefferson who led the other party which believed that elected officials were servants of the people and were supposed to do their will. Concept! He worked feverishly to reduce the size and scope of the Federal government but he operated under one major handicap. Literally, on his last day in office, Adams appointed scads of friends to Federal Judgeships throughout the Colonies. These positions were appointed for life and as a result Jefferson's efforts were severely hampered.

    What I can't figure out is why Bill Clinton says Jefferson is his hero? They don't have a thing in common.

  24. #24
    Forever Liz's Dad Steve Machol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Back in AZ
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    10,252

    Post

    Originally posted by Pete Hanlin:
    Both Steve and Bob made comments to the effect that "there isn't much difference between the Republican and Democratic parties." I beg to differ. I believe there are several substantative differences in the candidates being proferred in this election:
    Pete, Pete, Pete - you poor misguided tool of the Oligarchy. You believe there is a major difference between the parties because that's what they want you to believe!

    The truth is you're confusing rhetoric with action. Both major parties cleverly use rhetoric that appears to highlight differences between them. Although there are some exceptions, the major purpose of this rhetoric is, first and foremost, to get them elected. Once elected the politicians revert to their true purpose, i.e., serving the will of the people who gave them the money for their election.

    Do you really believe these corporations are giving tens of millions of dollars simply because they they are just being good citizens? Don't you think that $100,000 from General Motors will carry more wait than the paltry sums from you and me?

    There is often a vast difference between what politicians say they'll do and what they really do after election. Here's just a couple of examples of unintended results:

    [list=1][*]I voted for Ronald Reagan (the first time) primarily because I believed him when he said he would reduce the deficit. However once in office, he ran up the largest budget deficits in history - dwarfing the extravagant spending of Jimmy Carter.
    [*]We all know that President Bush was pro-life while Clinton (I refuse to call him 'President') was pro-choice. However in a recent Supreme Court decision, two Bush appointees voted with the pro-choice side to protect abortion rights, while one Clinton appointee sided with the pro-life side.[/list=a]

    These are just two examples. History is strewn with even more blatant examples of politicians who were elected promising one thing, then did something entirely different in office.

    However, I will give you that there is some difference between the parties. In fact, I'll even admit that it's more than a dime's worth of difference. Just look at the current fight over the minimum wage. Democrats want to increase the minimum wage by $1.00 over a two year period, while Republicans are taking a strong stand on this issue by insisting on a $1.00 increase over three years. By my calculations, this equates to roughly 16.7 cents difference between the two parties. :D

    Just to be fair, I do believe there are some politicians who are essentially honest and act according to their beliefs. You cited John McCain's efforts at campaign Finance reform. However you failed to note that a Democrat, Senator Feingold, was a co-sponsor of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill which failed to pass the Senate. The fact is that McCain has long been one of the most disliked Senators among his colleagues. Both his Republican and Democratic co-horts hated the fact that he was proposing to reform a system that had served them so well. Never mind that his ideas would help restore democracy to the political system. They were more interested in what it would mean for them if they could no longer rely on the big corporate dollars for their campaigns.

    The truth is that McCain touched a responsive cord in the American people, and now the Republicans who previously shunned him are trying to ride on his coattails. Pure and utter hypocrisy at its worst!

    In my opinion the only hope we have as a free society is to reclaim and clean up our political process. McCain would have been a good start. Unfortunately the political establishment is very adept at survival and is already finding ways to preempt the concerns he exposed.

    ------------------
    Steve
    OptiBoard Administrator

    [This message has been edited by Steve Machol (edited 08-08-2000).]

  25. #25
    Bad address email on file Darris Chambless's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    San Angelo, TX 76904
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,459

    Redhot Jumper

    Dear Steve, Ye Ole political guru and Captain of the painfully obvious when the merely obvious would do, you ;-)

    The political system is corrupt and was designed in a manner which would lend itself easily to the influences of those that needed to protect their interests. The differences are in the individuals not necessarily the parties as you stated, but there is one other thing as well. The controlling parties in the House and the Senate can make a presidents reign fruitful or not depending on how well they and their colleagues are received.

    Both parties believe that they are right when it comes to their ideology. Since we have to have a political system that operates the way ours does (which is much better than most) I go with the ideology behind the Republican party. Whether candidates follow this ideology or not is their decision and like you said you just never know until they are elected and put in office. BUT I still follow the ideology which basically says (My abridged version) You will work for a living. You will respect the rights of others and you have the right to expect the same from them. You know the difference between right and wrong so do the right thing. Waste not want not. Basically God gave you a brain so use it.

    Our political system is much like the Middle East, always fighting with each other and amongst themselves (The term "grid lock" comes to mind) The people in office are all career politicians and haven't held a real job in years. Once they get in they stay in and why not? They are treated very well by people with lots of money and get the best of everything at the taxpayer and consumers expense. What could be better? Unless your records are released to the public they will never know what type of a schlep you really are and even if records are released most people don't really care about it anyway.

    Politics in this day and time is probably the most secure job you can have. All you have to do is give some speeches, argue with your colleagues when televised so that your constituents can see just how much you are doing for their benefit (said tongue in cheek) and raise campaign funds. All of this done while in first class accommodations paid for by the tax payers. That's how it is.

    With all that said there isn't a politician anywhere that wouldn't argue with that (since that is part of what they are paid by us to do ;-) I'm sure that according to any politician their work is exhausting and demanding and we as civilians just don't have a clue about what goes on. If it were that grueling then why would the want to be re-elected? Especially at the age that most of them are. Look at Strom Therman. The man could hardly stay awake let alone carry on such a grueling pace or schedule. Or Senator Byrd whom I have yet to understand why anyone lets him get up and make an argument for anything or a speech. There is never a point to his speeches nor can anyone make any sense of his arguments. After an argument or speak by Senator Byrd the media says "Well, that was a very compelling...whatever that just was. You have just heard the esteemed Senator Byrd speaking for a long time about something that we think may have had something to do with an obscure offshoot topic that could be loosely related to the matter at hand if you tried really hard to find a similarity." :-)

    The difference in the parties that I see is that at least the Republicans put on the air of intelligence. If I can't tell just by looking at an elected official whether they are Republican or Democrat, I can after the first couple of words that come out of their mouths especially during a hearing. They are the ones "objecting" to everything pertinent to the case with nothing to support their objections :-)

    Well, I must go but it has been fun.

    Darris C.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •