Cuban Boating
 

Harry Krause wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:


That's almost funny. Here the left is always spouting about the
shortcomings of our government, and how they don't trust it to keep
terrorists at bay

There's no evidence the Bush Administration is keeping terrorists at bay.

They're at least TRYING. More than I can say for sniveling democratic
wannabe presidential candidates, who want to CUT defense spending.



, and to make the world a better place for freedom,

There's no evidence the Bush Administration is making the world a better
place for freedom. In fact, the opposite is true.

That's a matter of perspective, and speculation. Sometimes things have
to get a little worse, before they can get a lot better.


and
human rights.

You mean oil rights, and the rights to exploit third-world workers with
near-slave wages, right?

Your words not mine. You really need to start thinking objectively,
isstead of parroting the liberal party line.


Yet, they want the same government, to be the
administrators of healthcare

I haven't read that proposal...surely you are not referring to a
universal health care card...

The brain child of the liberal left. Until we find out how much it will
cost.....



, day care

Right...you want women at home, barefoot, pregnant and subservient, right?

Kids would have a much better upbringing if the parents, and not a bunch
of unmotivated strangers, took care of them.


, our retirement funds

What a laugh.

, and to
weigh in on lifestyle issues.

Better the government than your stinking religion.

I would disagree. Government has no place in someone's lifestyle.
Morality, however, is a different matter.

Dave

Cuban Boating
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ...
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Grumman-581" wrote in
message
...


http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/americ...ants.truck.ap/
index.html

I think I would have been tempted to let them continue on towards the
US
due
to their creativeness...


It's funny. The president says we're trying to spread the word about
freedom
and democracy, but when the occasional handful want to come here, we
send
them back to a regime we've considered evil since its inception.


Nothing "funny" about it. We have a legal process which a potential
immigrant can use to gain entry here. If you try to circumvent that
process, you deserve to get sent back.

Dave


No fruit or vegetables for you, Dave, for an entire year. Or, you can openly
admit your understanding that of all the produce picked HERE IN THIS
COUNTRY, 80% of the labor is done by illegals and YOU LIKE EATING THE
RESULTS.

Yeah - but many of them do alright. I know illegals that own have
taken out mortgages and purchased their own homes. There is just
about zero enforcement of our immigration laws once you get into this
country.

Cuban Boating
 

Dave Hall wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:


That's almost funny. Here the left is always spouting about the
shortcomings of our government, and how they don't trust it to keep
terrorists at bay

There's no evidence the Bush Administration is keeping terrorists at bay.

They're at least TRYING. More than I can say for sniveling democratic
wannabe presidential candidates, who want to CUT defense spending.

You think there is a connection between overspending on defense and
keeping a terrorist with a bomb and a Ryder truck away from a public
library or shopping mall?






, and to make the world a better place for freedom,

There's no evidence the Bush Administration is making the world a better
place for freedom. In fact, the opposite is true.

That's a matter of perspective, and speculation. Sometimes things have
to get a little worse, before they can get a lot better.

They're getting a lot worse, and there's no indication they will get
better.





and
human rights.

You mean oil rights, and the rights to exploit third-world workers with
near-slave wages, right?

Your words not mine. You really need to start thinking objectively,
isstead of parroting the liberal party line.


Ahh, but I am thinking objectively. The Bush-shippers give not a damn
for human rights in the world, unless those humans are wealthy.





Yet, they want the same government, to be the
administrators of healthcare

I haven't read that proposal...surely you are not referring to a
universal health care card...

The brain child of the liberal left. Until we find out how much it will
cost.....


You're already paying the tab, dummy. Haven't you figured that out?




, day care

Right...you want women at home, barefoot, pregnant and subservient, right?

Kids would have a much better upbringing if the parents, and not a bunch
of unmotivated strangers, took care of them.


Ever since Reagan, it's taken two paychecks to support a family.





, our retirement funds

What a laugh.

, and to
weigh in on lifestyle issues.

Better the government than your stinking religion.

I would disagree. Government has no place in someone's lifestyle.
Morality, however, is a different matter.

Dave

Your stinking religion is devoid of morality.

Cuban Boating
 

On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 06:43:53 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:

noah wrote:

Really? I see things very clearly. Maybe because I don't spend my time
making excuses and exeptions for things that should not be.

This statement is patently untrue. The government, "our" government,
does things daily that "should not be". I make no excuses and pull no
punches. From reading your posts, you see this too, but you don't
want to admit the failings. Patriotism DEMANDS critical thought- no
matter where your allegiance or affilliation lies.

That's almost funny. Here the left is always spouting about the
shortcomings of our government, and how they don't trust it to keep
terrorists at bay, and to make the world a better place for freedom, and
human rights. Yet, they want the same government, to be the
administrators of healthcare, day care, our retirement funds, and to
weigh in on lifestyle issues.

It sounds somewhat hypocritical to me.

Dave


Do you have a reading disability, Dave? If so, I apologise.

I said:
"Patriotism DEMANDS critical thought- no
matter where your allegiance or affilliation lies."

What lead you to believe that was a leftist statement? It sounds more
to me like a responsible citizen. Don't bother reading Alexander
Hamilton, or Thomas Jefferson. You wouldn't like what they had to
say.

FWIW, I am a registered Republican, who happens to believe that
thought is more important than dogma. This country is FULL of
"me-too's", who are willing to believe whatever they are told by the
Party Line. Sheep. Nothing but sheep. Both parties.

Think for yourself, Dave. It's a bit like blowing the carbon out of
the engine. It feels *good*, and you'll never again have to say
"baaa-aah".
noah


Courtesy of Lee Yeaton,
See the boats of rec.boats
www.TheBayGuide.com/rec.boats

Cuban Boating
 

Yeah - but many of them do alright. I know illegals that own have
taken out mortgages and purchased their own homes. There is just
about zero enforcement of our immigration laws once you get into this
country.

Why should there be???
If someone wants to come here, work hard, pay taxes and generally become
productive citizens I say "come on up".
I agree we don't need immigrant welfare cases and criminals but if they want
the American dream of a job, a house and a family, what/who are they hurting?
We certainly are going to need a huge increase in full grown workers if the
Ponzi scheme we call Social Security is going to survive the 2010s

Cuban Boating
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Dave Hall wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:


That's almost funny. Here the left is always spouting about the
shortcomings of our government, and how they don't trust it to keep
terrorists at bay

There's no evidence the Bush Administration is keeping terrorists at
bay.

They're at least TRYING. More than I can say for sniveling democratic
wannabe presidential candidates, who want to CUT defense spending.

You think there is a connection between overspending on defense and
keeping a terrorist with a bomb and a Ryder truck away from a public
library or shopping mall?

If Dave replies "yes" to Harry's question, perhaps he could then explain why
the Republican-controlled congress cut a hundred-something million bucks
from the air marshall program last week. In other words, if more is better,
why are security funding promises being broken?

I don't suppose it has anything to do with the tax rebate/cut/vote buying
(choose your term) plan instituted by his moron leader.

Cuban Boating
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

noah wrote:

Do you have a reading disability, Dave? If so, I apologise.

I said:
"Patriotism DEMANDS critical thought- no
matter where your allegiance or affilliation lies."

No kidding. My point is that the left is always critical of the
government when it's in their best interest, yet runs to hide behind
its skirt, when they feel the need for dependance.

Everyone feeds at the same nipple, Dave. Polluters love to complain about
government control until a willing puppet is elected and that puppet
appoints another puppet to run the EPA. When the puppet then relaxes
regulations on pollution, the industries involved fall all over the evil
government with campaign contributions. It's not a left-wing thing, Dave.
You know that.



I am critical of things which deseve criticism. Too many people are
critical of things which they either do not understand, or are lacking
sufficient information to make an informed decision.

FWIW, I am a registered Republican, who happens to believe that
thought is more important than dogma. This country is FULL of
"me-too's", who are willing to believe whatever they are told by the
Party Line. Sheep. Nothing but sheep. Both parties.

Most of them are standing in line right now to throw rocks at GWB, over
something they are ill-informed about.

Many are standing in line right now to spout theories about religions and
cultures which are relatively new to this country. I suspect your ancestors,
who were native Americans, didn't have to put up with such nonsense. They
were natives, right? They must be. You speak as if you belong here and
others don't.

Cuban Boating
 

"Curtis CCR" wrote in message
om...


No fruit or vegetables for you, Dave, for an entire year. Or, you can
openly
admit your understanding that of all the produce picked HERE IN THIS
COUNTRY, 80% of the labor is done by illegals and YOU LIKE EATING THE
RESULTS.

Yeah - but many of them do alright. I know illegals that own have
taken out mortgages and purchased their own homes. There is just
about zero enforcement of our immigration laws once you get into this
country.

I'd rather have productive illegal neighbors who appreciate living here.
Newcomers are often hungry for knowledge about their new home, and as a
result, end up being better informed citizens than "real Americans" who've
become complacent.

Cuban Boating
 

"Gfretwell" wrote in message
...

Ponzi scheme

ROFL!

Cuban Boating
 

Ponzi scheme

ROFL!

See you in 2016 when it goes "upside down" and they start trying to cash those
worthless SS bonds.

Cuban Boating
 

Ponzi scheme

ROFL!

See you in 2016 when it goes "upside down" and they start trying to cash
those
worthless SS bonds.

I always get a huge laugh at the entire social security nightmare.

The same people who scream bloody murder about the evils of socialism are the
first to get real territorial about the US Socialism Security program-
espically if they are receiving a monthly stipend.

I think we should take the "retirement" aspect of the program and junk it, or
certainly revamp it to reflect today's realities. When the program was started,
it was a program for destitute widows, orphans, and the extremely elderly. At
the time the program began, people commonly died of "old age" in their late
50's and early 60's. At 65 you were a fossil. A significant portin of the
population died before they were eligible to collect, and those who lived to
the ripe old age of 65 seldom lived much longer. Anymore, you find people at 65
and 70 who are still in the later stages of "middle age". 75 years of age
today is probably equivalent to the 65 years standard that was used back during
the 30's when the program was initiated. Kids who are teenagers and in their
20's today will routinely live to be over 100, if we can believe what the
scientists are projecting.
At 65, those kids will still have about 1/3 of their lifespan to go.

The program was initiated to keep people off the streets. "off the street"
isn't intended to mean four feet above the street in a luxurious motor coach,
touring incessantly around the country and expecting social security to pay all
the bills. That's not reality.

The retirement portion could be easily phased out. It would have to be done by
age brackets. The closer one might be to current retirement age, the greater
the portion of the existing benefit that would need to be preserved. It isn't
fair to allow people to (foolishly) plan during an entire career that Social
Security will pay them for not working after a certain age, and then change the
rules just as they reach the "finish line."

Young kids in their 20's? Sorry kids, no retirement benefits for you......but
we'll cut your SS tax rate by 50% and let you invest in whole life insurance,
stocks or bonds, or
etc. (If you spend the money and don't provide for your own retirement, that's
your choice and you'll have to live with it when you get older). Everybody
would still be covered by the disability benefits, widows and orphans benefits,
etc.

For people between their 20's and the mid to late 50's, a series of step
adjustments could be made. As each age bracket reached "retirement" age and
more kids come along, the system would be simpler to administer. Within a few
decades, all workers would be on the "no retirement benefits/ reduced SS tax
program."

And besides, the US economy is now just a branch of the global economy. Our
old people will soon be working until they die. Who can save for retirement (or
pay in much in SS taxes) on minimum wage?

Cuban Boating
 

The retirement portion could be easily phased out.

The problem with this is that the "boomers" are going to break the system long
before the phase out could occur. In fact we are still trying to add
entitlements to the system like expanded health care and drugs. The boomers
will be hitting the system in less than 10 years and most have been paying into
the system for 35 years. It isn't going to be easy to convince them all this
money went down a rathole and not expect a backlash.
I believe the government (polititians) will try to maintain the illusion of
solvency until the whole house of cards collapses. Bear in mind that the real
problem is we can't have 35% of the country "retired" and living off the other
65%. This effect will ripple down through the stock market and financial
institutions as boomers cash in 401ks and other investments, driving down
values, making pension plans fail. ERISA payments will just compound the
problems we will see when SS is upside down. The government will be left with
the option of massive taxation or abandoning promises made since the days of
FDR.
I see no indication that the polititians are looking at any kind of phase outs.
one party is adding to the entitlement burden while the other is cutting taxes.
(the exact opposite of logic) We are sitting here dumb fat and happy,
believing it will work.

Cuban Boating
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Perhaps some of it is simply the realistic view that many people can't
handle certain things for themselves.

That's a shame. It's still not the government's role to mitigate
personal responsibility. That goes against the very principle of freedom
of choice.

When 100% of citizens and corporations demonstrate personal responsibility,
you will stop hearing people clamoring for more police on the streets and
more laws. Until then, live with it. This is human nature.


You think the government should
eliminate social security, which is what I assume you mean by
"retirement
funds", eliminating what is an important option for people who
habitually
make bad investment decisions with their "other" money?

That's exactly what I'm saying. If you put that money in interest
bearing accounts (such as a mutual fund or 401K), the interest accrued
will exceed what you would get back from the S.S. as it currently
stands. Those of us who manage our money effectively, would be way
better off in the long run. But of course, you want to let the those who
can't make their own decisions hold the rest of us back. Where's the
freedom of choice there?

Dave


You want a different retirement plan system? Do something about it. But,
you're the guy who can't even deal with the minor hurdles involved in
challenging your local town council, comprised of small-time political
players from your own neighborhood. So, stop complaining. You seem to
believe that voting for president is the end of your responsibilities as a
citizen.

Cuban Boating
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Curtis CCR" wrote in message
om...


No fruit or vegetables for you, Dave, for an entire year. Or, you
can
openly
admit your understanding that of all the produce picked HERE IN THIS
COUNTRY, 80% of the labor is done by illegals and YOU LIKE EATING
THE
RESULTS.

Yeah - but many of them do alright. I know illegals that own have
taken out mortgages and purchased their own homes. There is just
about zero enforcement of our immigration laws once you get into this
country.

I'd rather have productive illegal neighbors who appreciate living here.
Newcomers are often hungry for knowledge about their new home, and as a
result, end up being better informed citizens than "real Americans"
who've
become complacent.


You mean like the complacency to look the other way when immigration
laws are being broken?

Dave

It's irrelevant. All that's important is whether people make meaningful
contributions to society, and help preserve peace and order by being good
neighbors. The only difference between you and an illegal immigrant is a
piece of paper from Big Government.

Cuban Boating
 

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

noah wrote:

Really? I see things very clearly. Maybe because I don't spend my time
making excuses and exeptions for things that should not be.

This statement is patently untrue. The government, "our" government,
does things daily that "should not be". I make no excuses and pull no
punches. From reading your posts, you see this too, but you don't
want to admit the failings. Patriotism DEMANDS critical thought- no
matter where your allegiance or affilliation lies.

That's almost funny. Here the left is always spouting about the
shortcomings of our government, and how they don't trust it to keep
terrorists at bay, and to make the world a better place for freedom, and
human rights. Yet, they want the same government, to be the
administrators of healthcare, day care, our retirement funds, and to
weigh in on lifestyle issues.

It sounds somewhat hypocritical to me.

Dave


Dave, you are a constant source of enlightenment, especially on a Monday
morning. Please explain why we should assume that if some government
programs/plans don't work, they ALL don't/can't work.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm just drawing on the left's seeming
hypocricy surrounding their love/hate relationship with the government.
It would seem that the left is always spouting off about "secret
government deals", corruption, favoratism, placing wealth above human
rights, placing the needs of the rich above that of the rest of the
country. Yet, these are the same people who WANT the government managing
our retirement funds, our healthcare, our education, making rules which
invade lifestyle choices, and whether we can own a gun etc.

It's a idealogical contradiction. Either you want big government, or you
don't.


It may be easier if you dredge up what you should've learned about
electronic gates (NAND,AND,NOR, etc). Simple logic.

That's exactly how I see it. Maybe you should learn something about it.

Dave

Cuban Boating
 

My question is still: When did Social Security become the national
retirement act? It was the "Widows and Children's act". Most of the people
getting SS paid $330 / year for most of the years they contributed. Was
maybe the mid 70's when the rate increased from the 1% of the first $3300 /
year. Matched by the employer for a $660 / year input. Can not support a
retirement plan at those rates, and the Social Security Trust Fund is
non-existant. If any private person borrowed from a trust fund with zero or
even an interest payment, they would go to jail.
Bill

"Grumman-581" wrote in message
...
"Gfretwell" wrote ...
The problem with this is that the "boomers" are going to break
the system long before the phase out could occur.

I suspect that that is not the problem, but rather a symptom of the
problem... In my opinion, the problem with Social Security is that is
basically a pyramid scheme... It it was run by anyone other than the
government, it would be illegal... The invention of the birth control pill
was the nail in its coffin... As long as we had a geometrically increasing
population, the system could continue to work... With the average family
only having around 2 kids, that means that the SS taxes that those 2 kids
pay must support their parents in their retirement... Back before The Pill
with people having 6-8 kids (more if they were Catholic, I guess), it
didn't
take as much from each of the contributors to support the people on SS...

Cuban Boating
 

My question is still: When did Social Security become the national
retirement act?

1935

From SSA.gov FAQ;
Q4: Is it true that Social Security was originally just a retirement program?

A: Yes. Under the 1935 law, Social Security only paid retirement benefits to
the primary worker. A 1939 change in the law added survivors benefits and
benefits for the retiree's spouse and children. In 1956 disability benefits
were added.

Cuban Boating
 

"Gfretwell" wrote in message
...
My question is still: When did Social Security become the national
retirement act?

1935

From SSA.gov FAQ;
Q4: Is it true that Social Security was originally just a retirement
program?

A: Yes. Under the 1935 law, Social Security only paid retirement benefits
to
the primary worker. A 1939 change in the law added survivors benefits and
benefits for the retiree's spouse and children. In 1956 disability
benefits
were added.



They paid retirement benefits. But it appears to now be the total, full
load of benefits retirement plan.

Cuban Boating
 

They paid retirement benefits. But it appears to now be the total, full
load of benefits retirement plan.

Actually I suspect you are really talking about SSI that is basically a welfare
program for people who may have never paid a penny in their life. It still
comes out of the SS funding tho.
Actually since 1968 it is all academic. Social Security was put "on budget" and
all of the money is dumped into the general fund so I suppose you could say
your FICA taxes are paying for the Iraq war. (along everything from studies of
endangered beach mice in Florida to the drug war)

Cuban Boating
 

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

noah wrote:

Do you have a reading disability, Dave? If so, I apologise.

I said:
"Patriotism DEMANDS critical thought- no
matter where your allegiance or affilliation lies."

No kidding. My point is that the left is always critical of the
government when it's in their best interest, yet runs to hide behind
its skirt, when they feel the need for dependance.

Everyone feeds at the same nipple, Dave. Polluters love to complain about
government control until a willing puppet is elected and that puppet
appoints another puppet to run the EPA. When the puppet then relaxes
regulations on pollution, the industries involved fall all over the evil
government with campaign contributions. It's not a left-wing thing, Dave.
You know that.

You have nothing but speculation to support this point. You have no
first hand knowlege of what hand shaking, back slapping or "bribery" did
or did not occur, or the reasons behind them.



I am critical of things which deseve criticism. Too many people are
critical of things which they either do not understand, or are lacking
sufficient information to make an informed decision.

FWIW, I am a registered Republican, who happens to believe that
thought is more important than dogma. This country is FULL of
"me-too's", who are willing to believe whatever they are told by the
Party Line. Sheep. Nothing but sheep. Both parties.

Most of them are standing in line right now to throw rocks at GWB, over
something they are ill-informed about.

Many are standing in line right now to spout theories about religions and
cultures which are relatively new to this country.

Such as?

I suspect your ancestors,
who were native Americans, didn't have to put up with such nonsense. They
were natives, right? They must be. You speak as if you belong here and
others don't.

Where did you come up with that one? Never mind, I'm sure you have a
very active immagination.

Dave

Cuban Boating
 

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Perhaps some of it is simply the realistic view that many people can't
handle certain things for themselves.

That's a shame. It's still not the government's role to mitigate
personal responsibility. That goes against the very principle of freedom
of choice.

When 100% of citizens and corporations demonstrate personal responsibility,
you will stop hearing people clamoring for more police on the streets and
more laws. Until then, live with it. This is human nature.

That's a cop out answer. If we were to apply that logic, we should all
be in jail, until we can all prove that we're responsible. Why should
the many suffer due to the acts of the few?


You think the government should
eliminate social security, which is what I assume you mean by
"retirement
funds", eliminating what is an important option for people who
habitually
make bad investment decisions with their "other" money?

That's exactly what I'm saying. If you put that money in interest
bearing accounts (such as a mutual fund or 401K), the interest accrued
will exceed what you would get back from the S.S. as it currently
stands. Those of us who manage our money effectively, would be way
better off in the long run. But of course, you want to let the those who
can't make their own decisions hold the rest of us back. Where's the
freedom of choice there?

Dave


You want a different retirement plan system? Do something about it. But,
you're the guy who can't even deal with the minor hurdles involved in
challenging your local town council, comprised of small-time political
players from your own neighborhood. So, stop complaining. You seem to
believe that voting for president is the end of your responsibilities as a
citizen.

I do support this change. That's why I vote for people who support
greater choice, and less government regulation. Since we live in a
system of representative democracy, there is little I can do, as a
common citizen, except to support elected representatives who most
closely align with my ideals. I do that.

If you're suggesting that I grab a picket sign and chain myself to a
state building like some leftover 60's wacko, that's not going to
happen. For one thing, I have a job, and a family to support. I don't
have the time to engage in such discretionary activities.

Dave

Cuban Boating
 

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Curtis CCR" wrote in message
om...


No fruit or vegetables for you, Dave, for an entire year. Or, you
can
openly
admit your understanding that of all the produce picked HERE IN THIS
COUNTRY, 80% of the labor is done by illegals and YOU LIKE EATING
THE
RESULTS.

Yeah - but many of them do alright. I know illegals that own have
taken out mortgages and purchased their own homes. There is just
about zero enforcement of our immigration laws once you get into this
country.

I'd rather have productive illegal neighbors who appreciate living here.
Newcomers are often hungry for knowledge about their new home, and as a
result, end up being better informed citizens than "real Americans"
who've
become complacent.


You mean like the complacency to look the other way when immigration
laws are being broken?

Dave

It's irrelevant. All that's important is whether people make meaningful
contributions to society, and help preserve peace and order by being good
neighbors. The only difference between you and an illegal immigrant is a
piece of paper from Big Government.

That and the fact that I was born here. I don't need no "steenki'n"
piece of paper.

But I agree with your point. I try not to "label" anyone beyond
"productive" and "dependant". Where they originally came from is
irrelevent. So let's welcome the formerly illegal migrant workers with
open arms, and lets deport all of our career welfare recipients. But
they have to learn English first.....

Dave

Cuban Boating
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Perhaps some of it is simply the realistic view that many people
can't
handle certain things for themselves.

That's a shame. It's still not the government's role to mitigate
personal responsibility. That goes against the very principle of
freedom
of choice.

When 100% of citizens and corporations demonstrate personal
responsibility,
you will stop hearing people clamoring for more police on the streets
and
more laws. Until then, live with it. This is human nature.

That's a cop out answer. If we were to apply that logic, we should all
be in jail, until we can all prove that we're responsible. Why should
the many suffer due to the acts of the few?

I know you hate hypothetical examples, but here goes: Our county is
considering a law which would affect the officers of corporations which
break the more serious environmental laws. Instead of their being able to
tie the NY DEC (dep't of environmental conservation) up with red tape and
lawyers for 183 years, they would be "arrestable" immediately for such
things as releasing dangerous chemicals into the community without reporting
them immediately, as the law requires.

How would this Big Government intrusion affect you personally? How does this
make the many suffer due to the acts of the few?




You want a different retirement plan system? Do something about it. But,
you're the guy who can't even deal with the minor hurdles involved in
challenging your local town council, comprised of small-time political
players from your own neighborhood. So, stop complaining. You seem to
believe that voting for president is the end of your responsibilities as
a
citizen.

I do support this change. That's why I vote for people who support
greater choice, and less government regulation. Since we live in a
system of representative democracy, there is little I can do, as a
common citizen, except to support elected representatives who most
closely align with my ideals. I do that.

If you're suggesting that I grab a picket sign and chain myself to a
state building like some leftover 60's wacko, that's not going to
happen. For one thing, I have a job, and a family to support. I don't
have the time to engage in such discretionary activities.

Dave

Nobody's suggesting that you march around with a sign. But, I doubt very
much that you know which pieces of legislation your elected officials are
working on at any given moment. And, I doubt you write letters to them or
call their offices to voice your opinions.

When you elect someone, you do so based on issues that are important to you.
We know from experience, though, that those issues are part of a much longer
list of priorities for most politicians. You cannot simply vote and then
turn your back and hope for the best. It is not patriotic.

Cuban Boating
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

Doug Kanter wrote:

It's irrelevant. All that's important is whether people make meaningful
contributions to society, and help preserve peace and order by being
good
neighbors. The only difference between you and an illegal immigrant is a
piece of paper from Big Government.

That and the fact that I was born here. I don't need no "steenki'n"
piece of paper.

Your place of birth has no logical connection with your contribution to this
country.

On the subject of farm workers, this link will take you to an excellent
story on the subject as it relates to upstate NY. Don't be put off by the
phrase "Rochester's alternative newsweekly". The writer is a freelancer, and
the paper received quite a few complimentary letters from readers,
commenting on how balanced the story was.

http://www.rochester-citynews.com/gb...oid=oid%3A1940




But I agree with your point. I try not to "label" anyone beyond
"productive" and "dependant". Where they originally came from is
irrelevent. So let's welcome the formerly illegal migrant workers with
open arms, and lets deport all of our career welfare recipients. But
they have to learn English first.....

Dave

Nah...language isn't the big deal people make it out to be. Travel to Mexico
or Puerto Rico and you'll find that people try very hard to help non-Spanish
speakers. It takes very little effort for us to do the same for new
arrivals. Only America and France have such ridiculous attitudes toward
visitors.

Cuban Boating
 

Minimum wage jobs can not support our economy. Something will have to
give. Either the prices will come way down, or wages will have to be
adjusted accordingly.

Dave

Your premise surmises that the economy will be supported. Don't be so sure.

There are a lot of people who could give a dang less about the Golden Goose-
just as long as they *personally* get their share of
eggs before the old bird kicks off.

Cuban Boating
 

Actually, I should have said the "national pension plan". No SSI is a
totally different animal. And do not get me cranked up on that giveaway.
Only one example. My brother is married to an English women. She brought
her parents over here in the late 1960's, and shortly thereafter they are on
SSI.
Bill

"Gfretwell" wrote in message
...
They paid retirement benefits. But it appears to now be the total, full
load of benefits retirement plan.

Actually I suspect you are really talking about SSI that is basically a
welfare
program for people who may have never paid a penny in their life. It still
comes out of the SS funding tho.
Actually since 1968 it is all academic. Social Security was put "on
budget" and
all of the money is dumped into the general fund so I suppose you could
say
your FICA taxes are paying for the Iraq war. (along everything from
studies of
endangered beach mice in Florida to the drug war)

Cuban Boating
 

No SSI is a
totally different animal.

As I said, since 1968 it is really all the same animal. SS is comingled with
the general fund. Right now that means the $140 billion dollar surplus is
dumped into the federal operating budget. In a decade or so that will become a
deficiet and will have to be made up by increased taxation somewhere (AKA
redeeming the bonds).
Which of this money is "Social Security" and which is "general fund". The
difference is totally in how the polititians sell the program in question.

Cuban Boating
 

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

Doug Kanter wrote:

No kidding. My point is that the left is always critical of the
government when it's in their best interest, yet runs to hide behind
its skirt, when they feel the need for dependance.

Everyone feeds at the same nipple, Dave. Polluters love to complain
about
government control until a willing puppet is elected and that puppet
appoints another puppet to run the EPA. When the puppet then relaxes
regulations on pollution, the industries involved fall all over the evil
government with campaign contributions. It's not a left-wing thing,
Dave.
You know that.

You have nothing but speculation to support this point. You have no
first hand knowlege of what hand shaking, back slapping or "bribery" did
or did not occur, or the reasons behind them.

You can help: Please provide as many reasons as you to explain why George
Bush was a driving force behind the relaxation of emissions regulations in
Texas, and why he has needled the EPA to relax clean water regulations.

I have no first hand knowlege of these actions. In fact, I am unable to
find any credible evidence that this is anything more than more leftist
propaganda.


I am critical of things which deseve criticism. Too many people are
critical of things which they either do not understand, or are lacking
sufficient information to make an informed decision.

FWIW, I am a registered Republican, who happens to believe that
thought is more important than dogma. This country is FULL of
"me-too's", who are willing to believe whatever they are told by the
Party Line. Sheep. Nothing but sheep. Both parties.

Most of them are standing in line right now to throw rocks at GWB,
over
something they are ill-informed about.

Many are standing in line right now to spout theories about religions
and
cultures which are relatively new to this country.

Such as?

Such as your comments about Islam.

In what parts have I been incorrect?



I suspect your ancestors,
who were native Americans, didn't have to put up with such nonsense.
They
were natives, right? They must be. You speak as if you belong here and
others don't.

Where did you come up with that one? Never mind, I'm sure you have a
very active immagination.

With few exceptions, every new group of immigrants to this country have been
targets of prejudice, ridicule, misunderstanding, violence, to varying
degrees.

Yea, and what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? It's
funny that most ethnic groups HAVE had some sort of prejudice, and yet
managed to overcome it, and become an integral part of our society, with
the exception of a very visible few. I wonder why that is?


You speak as if everyone else is an alien, whether it be Mexican
farm workers or Muslims. So, I assume that in your mind, you feel you have a
special right to be here, more so than newer arrivals.


When have I said anything even remotely close to what you are implying?

You really do have a problem comprehending what I say. Either that or
you read far too much into my words than what I write. Maybe that's why
you buy into leftist propaganda so well....

Dave

Cuban Boating
 

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Perhaps some of it is simply the realistic view that many people
can't
handle certain things for themselves.

That's a shame. It's still not the government's role to mitigate
personal responsibility. That goes against the very principle of
freedom
of choice.

When 100% of citizens and corporations demonstrate personal
responsibility,
you will stop hearing people clamoring for more police on the streets
and
more laws. Until then, live with it. This is human nature.

That's a cop out answer. If we were to apply that logic, we should all
be in jail, until we can all prove that we're responsible. Why should
the many suffer due to the acts of the few?

I know you hate hypothetical examples,

I love hypothetical examples, as long as they're based on reality, and
can have a direct correlation to a real situation.


but here goes: Our county is
considering a law which would affect the officers of corporations which
break the more serious environmental laws. Instead of their being able to
tie the NY DEC (dep't of environmental conservation) up with red tape and
lawyers for 183 years, they would be "arrestable" immediately for such
things as releasing dangerous chemicals into the community without reporting
them immediately, as the law requires.

Why stop there? Why not arrest them on the spot for ANYTHING improper or
illegal?

How would this Big Government intrusion affect you personally? How does this
make the many suffer due to the acts of the few?


Then you should have no problem with increases in surveilance
technology, which monitor movements outside of your home, or computer
systems which monitor your income, and spending habits, in order to spot
potential criminal activities.


You want a different retirement plan system? Do something about it. But,
you're the guy who can't even deal with the minor hurdles involved in
challenging your local town council, comprised of small-time political
players from your own neighborhood. So, stop complaining. You seem to
believe that voting for president is the end of your responsibilities as
a
citizen.

I do support this change. That's why I vote for people who support
greater choice, and less government regulation. Since we live in a
system of representative democracy, there is little I can do, as a
common citizen, except to support elected representatives who most
closely align with my ideals. I do that.

If you're suggesting that I grab a picket sign and chain myself to a
state building like some leftover 60's wacko, that's not going to
happen. For one thing, I have a job, and a family to support. I don't
have the time to engage in such discretionary activities.

Dave

Nobody's suggesting that you march around with a sign. But, I doubt very
much that you know which pieces of legislation your elected officials are
working on at any given moment. And, I doubt you write letters to them or
call their offices to voice your opinions.

Then you, once again, assume without any facts. Since the advent of
E-Mail, I have been keeping tabs on our elected officials quite closely.



When you elect someone, you do so based on issues that are important to you.
We know from experience, though, that those issues are part of a much longer
list of priorities for most politicians. You cannot simply vote and then
turn your back and hope for the best. It is not patriotic.

Patriotic? I'm not sure that I'd agree with the usage of that term, but
I would agree that it's not the most responsible. But someone who votes
for someone based on the issues, is head and shoulders above someone who
votes for someone because he has "good hair".

Dave

Cuban Boating
 

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

Doug Kanter wrote:

It's irrelevant. All that's important is whether people make meaningful
contributions to society, and help preserve peace and order by being
good
neighbors. The only difference between you and an illegal immigrant is a
piece of paper from Big Government.

That and the fact that I was born here. I don't need no "steenki'n"
piece of paper.

Your place of birth has no logical connection with your contribution to this
country.

No, but as a native born citizen, my legitimacy is established. Hence my
comment about not needing a "piece of paper".


On the subject of farm workers, this link will take you to an excellent
story on the subject as it relates to upstate NY. Don't be put off by the
phrase "Rochester's alternative newsweekly". The writer is a freelancer, and
the paper received quite a few complimentary letters from readers,
commenting on how balanced the story was.

http://www.rochester-citynews.com/gb...oid=oid%3A1940

So what do you want to do about it? I thought we settled this in another
thread? You want to pay triple the cost for produce?




But I agree with your point. I try not to "label" anyone beyond
"productive" and "dependant". Where they originally came from is
irrelevent. So let's welcome the formerly illegal migrant workers with
open arms, and lets deport all of our career welfare recipients. But
they have to learn English first.....

Dave

Nah...language isn't the big deal people make it out to be. Travel to Mexico
or Puerto Rico and you'll find that people try very hard to help non-Spanish
speakers. It takes very little effort for us to do the same for new
arrivals. Only America and France have such ridiculous attitudes toward
visitors.

There's a difference between visiting countries and those who settle
here. It is highly impractical for "native" Americans to have to learn
several different languages to "accomodate" the needs of immigrants. It
is far more practical, and a sign of comittment, for all immigrants to
become proficient in English, as at least a second language.

Dave

Cuban Boating
 

Gould 0738 wrote:

Minimum wage jobs can not support our economy. Something will have to
give. Either the prices will come way down, or wages will have to be
adjusted accordingly.

Dave

Your premise surmises that the economy will be supported. Don't be so sure.

If the economy tanks, then who will prop up the profits of those "evil"
corporations? It is, afterall, the mass populace who buy the most goods.
If they can no longer afford to buy, then who will these corporations
sell to? It is intrinsincally important to have a healthy consumer base,
for any corporation to survive.


There are a lot of people who could give a dang less about the Golden Goose-
just as long as they *personally* get their share of
eggs before the old bird kicks off.

This may be true. But those people have not thought about the big
picture, beyond their own selfish needs.

Dave

Cuban Boating
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

I suspect your ancestors,
who were native Americans, didn't have to put up with such nonsense.
They
were natives, right? They must be. You speak as if you belong here
and
others don't.

Where did you come up with that one? Never mind, I'm sure you have a
very active immagination.

With few exceptions, every new group of immigrants to this country have
been
targets of prejudice, ridicule, misunderstanding, violence, to varying
degrees.

Yea, and what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? It's
funny that most ethnic groups HAVE had some sort of prejudice, and yet
managed to overcome it, and become an integral part of our society, with
the exception of a very visible few. I wonder why that is?

Dave's back!!!!!

So....each ethnic group has had to overcome prejudice. Does that somehow
make it OK for you to continue such practice, like it's a harmless hazing
ritual at a fraternity?

Cuban Boating
 

Dave Hall wrote:
It's
funny that most ethnic groups HAVE had some sort of prejudice, and yet
managed to overcome it, and become an integral part of our society, with
the exception of a very visible few. I wonder why that is?

Because, you ignorant ass, their ethnic background was visible on their
faces.



--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

Cuban Boating
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Yea, and what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
It's
funny that most ethnic groups HAVE had some sort of prejudice, and
yet
managed to overcome it, and become an integral part of our society,
with
the exception of a very visible few. I wonder why that is?

Dave's back!!!!!

So....each ethnic group has had to overcome prejudice. Does that somehow
make it OK for you to continue such practice, like it's a harmless
hazing
ritual at a fraternity?

Who's continuing anything? I have no prejudice against anyone who
attempts to become a productive citizen, and assimilates into the
existing culture.

Dave


Right. As long as they're not Islamic, have an accent, or arrive here
illegally from Mexico and annoy you when you're at Wal Mart.

Cuban Boating
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
But they have to learn English first.....
Dave


Nah...language isn't the big deal people make it out to be. Travel to
Mexico
or Puerto Rico and you'll find that people try very hard to help
non-Spanish
speakers. It takes very little effort for us to do the same for new
arrivals. Only America and France have such ridiculous attitudes toward
visitors.

There's a difference between visiting countries and those who settle
here. It is highly impractical for "native" Americans to have to learn
several different languages to "accomodate" the needs of immigrants. It
is far more practical, and a sign of comittment, for all immigrants to
become proficient in English, as at least a second language.

Dave


Clue and FACT: The best time to learn a language is when you're age 1-4. In
this country, we do our kids a disservice by starting foreign language study
in 7th or 8th grade. For people over 20, learning a foreign language is an
uphill climb at best and a train wreck at worst. You love sources for such
statements. So, ask your kids' pediatrician, or call their school and talk
to the speech pathologist about language development vs age. Unless that
person is an idiot, you'll get a good explanation of why an immigrant can
live here for a couple of years and still have problems with English. Same
reason you'd have problems if you moved to their country.

Cuban Boating
 

There are a lot of people who could give a dang less about the Golden
Goose-
just as long as they *personally* get their share of
eggs before the old bird kicks off.

This may be true. But those people have not thought about the big
picture, beyond their own selfish needs.

Dave

Holy smokaronies! Those last two sentences are completely right!

Cuban Boating
 

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Yea, and what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
It's
funny that most ethnic groups HAVE had some sort of prejudice, and
yet
managed to overcome it, and become an integral part of our society,
with
the exception of a very visible few. I wonder why that is?

Dave's back!!!!!

So....each ethnic group has had to overcome prejudice. Does that somehow
make it OK for you to continue such practice, like it's a harmless
hazing
ritual at a fraternity?

Who's continuing anything? I have no prejudice against anyone who
attempts to become a productive citizen, and assimilates into the
existing culture.

Dave


Right. As long as they're not Islamic, have an accent, or arrive here
illegally from Mexico and annoy you when you're at Wal Mart.


Ah! Ladies and gentlemen, we are here once more, to witness that classic
"debate" technique of the left, where if one is unable to debate the
issues and points, then demonize the opposition.

Many on the left, love to use the "Racist, Bigot, Prejudice" words
(Known from now on as RBP), to paint an opponent's views with a broad
brush of generalizations, designed to drown them in the stigma of shame
and ridicule, therby losing their original point in a sea of defense,
and deflection. Much in the same way as Johnny Cochrane attempted to
play the race card at the O.J. trial, to deflect from the very real
evidence against O.J. and attempt to discredit it, by clouding it with
the RBP term.

These same people cannot, or refuse to differentiate between a
difference in principles, and one of "RBP". Because I do not condone the
acts of radical Islam, who preach the killing of "infidels", and who
routinely brutalize and subjugate women and children, I am called
"prejudiced". Because I don't care for freeloaders, and people taking
advantage of a system (at our taxpaying expense), I am called "bigoted"
or "racist".

It's classic.....

Dave

Cuban Boating
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Who's continuing anything? I have no prejudice against anyone who
attempts to become a productive citizen, and assimilates into the
existing culture.

Dave


Right. As long as they're not Islamic, have an accent, or arrive here
illegally from Mexico and annoy you when you're at Wal Mart.


Ah! Ladies and gentlemen, we are here once more, to witness that classic
"debate" technique of the left, where if one is unable to debate the
issues and points, then demonize the opposition.


Dave, you've been shown that the illegal presence of farm workers is an
integral part of our agricultural structure, and you've almost admitted that
there's nothing we can do about it. It's also been made clear that the
practice of hiring them is not hidden by farmers, which is why farmers are
willing to discuss the issue, on the record, to reporters. And, the article
I pointed out to you discussed the fact that some states have laws in the
works to afford a few more kinds of worker protection for migrants.

But, you still focus on "illegal", even though the food these people produce
is crucial to the healthy development of your children. Perhaps I'm overly
suspicious, but all of this leads me to one conclusion. You're a racist.

Cuban Boating
 

Dave Hall wrote:

Ah! Ladies and gentlemen, we are here once more, to witness that classic
"debate" technique of the left, where if one is unable to debate the
issues and points, then demonize the opposition.

Funny, it seems to be far more common among right-winger who have nothing
constructive to say, and so they constantly insult & abuse any who challenge their
statements.



Many on the left, love to use the "Racist, Bigot, Prejudice" words
(Known from now on as RBP), to paint an opponent's views with a broad
brush of generalizations, designed to drown them in the stigma of shame
and ridicule

Does that mean that you're actually proud of being a bigot and a racist? Who
woulda thunk it.....

DSK

Cuban Boating
 

DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

Ah! Ladies and gentlemen, we are here once more, to witness that classic
"debate" technique of the left, where if one is unable to debate the
issues and points, then demonize the opposition.

Funny, it seems to be far more common among right-winger who have nothing
constructive to say, and so they constantly insult & abuse any who challenge their
statements.

In the same way that you've accused me of being a draft dodger and
condoning the burning of witches and owning slaves?




Many on the left, love to use the "Racist, Bigot, Prejudice" words
(Known from now on as RBP), to paint an opponent's views with a broad
brush of generalizations, designed to drown them in the stigma of shame
and ridicule

Does that mean that you're actually proud of being a bigot and a racist? Who
woulda thunk it.....

It's just that I can separate a problem with someon'e actions without
disliking the person according to superficial attributes.

If a black guy robs a store and shoots a cop, am I not allowed to
condemn his actions out of fear of being called a "racist", even though
his race has no bearing on his actions?

Such is the stigma used by the left to silence constructive criticism of
many liberal ideas, which are discriminatory in nature.

Dave



DSK