Funny that you'd link me to Algore...I always agreed with Rush's view on that intellectual cripple. Actually, it's the brave, hard-working men and women of our much-berated intelligence community who deserve the credit! They had an almost impossible task of infiltrating terrorist cells throughout the world yet, as you say, here we are, years later, without another major event on US soil...a tribute to our best and brightest...but not to Bush, Clinton or any of the other figureheads of the rich and powerful who inhabit the White House.

Since you brought it up ... let's tell those who were not particpants in that other forum ... if there is anyone here who wasn't ... this forum seems to be crawling with members from that other forum using different names ...

... let's tell the story of my "banishment" ... to those who can stay awake ...

Prior to the Kentucky Derby ... I predicted that Barbaro wouldn't make it through the Triple Crown races. After his Derby victory ... the shortsighted among that forum's members heaped scorn and derision on me. After Barbaro broke down in the Preakness ... and there was great wailing and hair-pulling among the "pretty-horsie" crowd ... I posted that it was OK to cry ... but foolish to be surprised ... since I had predicted Barbaro wouldn't make it.

Well !!! You wouldn't believe the hysteria !!!

"How dare you be so insensitive? People are hurting ... people are shocked ... people are crying ... people are traumatized ... and you're ... you're ... you're gloating !!! You can't gloat when people are traumatized ... you're BANNED !!!"

Yes ... it's true ... if you didn't cry when Barbaro broke down .. if you pointed out that you had correctly predicted it would happen ... you were BANNED !!!

Yup ... that's a real bunch of mature adults over there. That's why it's so comforting to be here ... no one cries when horses break down or someone is critical of what they wrote. They stand up ... and speak out ... like grownups ... instead of hyperventilating like hysterical adolescent girls ... and that includes many of the "males" over there.

Hey ... "linking you to Gore" was a random result of quickly creating a lampoon of "Jeopardy" ... and I wasn't "linking" any of the others to Kofi or Barney either ... just picking out some leftist icons at random ... don't take it personally.

You know darn well that if there were any additional attacks ... large, medium, or small ... it wouldn't take a nanosecond for leftists to be screaming, "It's Bush's fault! It's Bush's fault!"

So ... if it would be his "fault" if there were attacks ... shouldn't it be to his credit that there haven't been any? Honestly ... don't you think that's the case?

Yes, I agree with your point in that regard...he would be blamed for further attacks so should be given credit for their absence...as long as we realize who really deserves the credit!

No you were banished for your sick and twisted posts after Barbaro had broken down. Remember? One was pulled and you'd start another and another and another,. That's why you were banned you *******. Where is your humanity, your decency laughing at something like that? Oh right..... you have none.

It wasn't enough that people were devastated... it wasn't enough that you were joyful... you went on and on and on, saying things that i'd never want to repeat.

Stop trying to be the martyr, playing the victim. You're a sadist.

Somer,
I agree that credit should be given where due. Lots of very brave people have done a great job.
I also think that there has been a lot of luck involved. Seems to me that 80% of east coast imports come through Port Elizabeth, NJ, and only between 2% and 3% are inspected. Certain "security issues, after five years and 9/11 commission recommendations, remain to be addressed.
Plenty lucky, in my humble opinion.
DTS

So this is your version? Not only are you disturbed, you're dillusional too.

Nice job editing out the main character and his actions.....

I'm done with this thread.

Thank you sincerely ... for confirming to all the members of this forum the veracity of my post about the other forum.

Six weeks have gone by ... and you're still hysterical about Barbaro's broken ankle ... and my alleged "gloating."

See, folks ... what I said here was really true. You do get banned from there for not crying when a horse breaks an ankle ... and for "gloating."

Hey, Sunday ... are all the people over there still "devastated" because a really rich guy's race horse broke an ankle? Do they get "devastated" every time a race horse breaks an ankle? Or only when I predict it will happen ... and then it does?

By the way ... you have access to my posts on that other forum. Why don't you copy the original one ... you know, the one from about two hours after the Preakness ... where I said there was reason to cry, but no reason to be surprised ... and paste it here.

In fact ... why don't you create a new thread ... and paste all of my posts about Barbaro's injury ... so that the still-awake members of this forum can judge them for themselves?

So ... if there are more terrorist attacks ... will you shrug your shoulders ... and say that Bush was just un-lucky?

It really kills you ... to give this guy any credit at all ... doesn't it? Do you really think that five years without terrorist attacks here ... while they're continually occuring around the world ... and are regularly being foiled here ... are strictly a matter of luck?

Ignore him Sunday. We know what he said and ppl here get the gist of it now.

So ... what you say I said ... has more credibility than what I actually said?

Hey ... c'mon ... what are you a-scared of? Put my posts out there so that everyone can see them for themselves.

RH10,
Got the gist.
Is this part of a "study"?

No ... it's a revelation of the hysteria and insecurity which grips another site ... and which has attempted to insinuate itself here ... where it fits about as well as O.J.'s glove.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite
There is not now ... nor has there ever been ... such a link at townhall.com.

It's a site for serious economic and political commentary.

Lying leftists will say anything to denigrate those who disagee with and disprove their sophomoric contentions.

================================================== =======

Well, here is Bold Brooklynite's BIG LIE,,,, Where he called me a lying leftist.

By now all have been able to see him for what he is.

No need to repeat it.

As for Sowell. He has his place. BUT, he had advantages far greater than many. While growing up in a family of very modest means, his mother was a tremendously positive influence through his early teen years. The advantage Sowell had others did not was that his obvious talents were noticed and nurtured. Education was stressed in his home, unlike many other children of poverty, who do not have ANY positive role models and are more likely to be shot ten times than be nurtured once.

Somehow, someway, Sowell's abilities were seen and nurtured and he had the good fortune to attend one of NYC's very best and exceedingly selective high schools.... Stuyvesant. You do not get into that school without serious ability.

I've read a few of Sowell's works. I managed my way through his critique of Marxism and it was just ok to me. Then again, dull stuff to an extent.

His criticism of "Judicial Activism" seemed empty to me especially during the Schiavo case, where the far right did everything possible to legislate from the bench, not to mention from the Florida Governors residence. Without taking a stance on the issue, I thought his work was not balanced.

His piece criticizng the movement for national health care was dead-on. Then again, I earn a living as an employee benefit consultant specializing in health insurance.

His piece critical of those wanting an increase to the minimum wage seemed, well, kind of dumb. Kids can get by on minimum wage. Adults cannot. Adult heads-of-families certainly cannot.

On his work criticizing the liberal media bias, I thought this was straight from the OReilly hour and was unoriginal. Most of this criticism today relates to leaks of government surveillance of private citizens. Only the hardest core of the conservative base chooses not to disagree on this.

I have not read any of his work on gay marraige or parial birth, but don't think it would or could influence what I believe.

Someone I respect who is a Sowell devotee told me she hated his latest book, "Black Rednecks and White Liberals." Apparently he downplays the individualistic aspects of traditional black culture instead choosing to assert that southern black culture is a relic of dysfunctional southern redneck culture.

His best-received work was about 30 years ago. "Race & Economics" is the "Bible" of Conservative Black American money and politics. I did read this book and while it was interesting, I thought his conclusions were self-proclaimed.

Sowell is tremendously literate and skilled at turning a phrase. But too much of his work is just driving his reader to his pre-ordained conclusion, balance and sound reasoning be damned.! But Sowell would tell you that's ok in his "ends justify the means" world.

Race & Economice... interesting. Against national health care.... me too! The rest? To me, just far -right zealous psycho babble.

I'm sure Bold Brooklyn just copies and pastes straght from Sowell's pieces.

Don't forget the link to "How To But A Semi-Automatic Handgun" on the towwnhall.com website.

And do not be fooled by this guy rejecting me. So I called him a few bad words. Hell, if he's really from Brooklyn, he's heard it before.

Do not be fooled. May of you exposed him . I exposed him. Then again, he just keeps exposing himself.

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite
Black families didn't need government "help" then ... or ever ... and the ones who didn't fall for it ... are the ones who live next door and up the street from me ... or are professors at Stanford.

Thomas Sowell is a serious scholar and brilliant intellectual; Billow (Full of Hot Air) Reilly is an entertainer who interviews politicians and porn stars ... there is absolutely no commonality among them.

My reply...
So how come the black families "fell" for it in such large numbers compared other groups? Because of course Black Family income was right up there with white families in the 50's... snicker, snicker. The civil rights movement of the 60's was caused by the welfare of the 50's? Give me a break.

Thomas Sowell is held close to the right because he is very bright and had no problem making things work. He is a very bright gadfly. I wonder how good things would have gone for him if he was an everyday joe.
Its this little characteristic called empathy. A trait very unique to humans. Can one actually put themselves in another's shoes and know what they have gone through. Or do they even attempt such an exercise. There are some people that have never ever tried. Or find comfort by calling the failures lazy. Because that is the easy way out. So a large number of black people became lazy in the 50's and 60's because of handouts...Some people just blame others for failing without really trying to get to the heart of the problem. That is easy. Some people get screwed and call the whole system rotten because they personally got screwed. I have seen it all. I like the big picture, not the little ancedotal situations that are not representative of the whole story... people love to use their own little favorite stories to back their claims.


So again: Black families of the 50's got duped into welfare... why did they fall for it and not others? and why were they offered welfare? Could it be they were not fairing so well in the wonderful 50's that lead to those placid 60's? A little help with the history please.

He was banned over at the "whiners forum" due to a bunch of narrow minded hero worshipping idiots thinking they got their feelings hurt. I can't figure out why you banned him, as you continue to refer to him on a daily basis, and keep the other whiners updated as to his posts on this forum.

Ez

I can't tell you why some Americans ... some of whom were African Americans ... fell sway to the siren song of the welfare state ... any more than I can tell you why some Americans still believe in leftist political nostrums ... and listen to leftist proselytisers ... despite the fact that leftism has been proven a resounding and devastating failure throughout the world.

You may not be old enough to remember ... but the War On Poverty began as an effort ... ultimately a disatrous one ... to help the alleged poor starving masses of "Appalachia" ... once known as hillbillies ... of the states from Virginia to Tennessee ... nearly all of whom were "white" ...

... and spread thereafter to a more national and urban clientele.

In any case ... the entire welfare state ... from handouts to housing to "jobs" programs to the abject surrender of personal liberty ... was ... and still is ... a complete disaster for anyone who partook of it. The Americans who shunned it ... became much more suuccessful and prosperous than the ones who embraced it.

Now here's another question for you ... do you share my anti-war sentiments ... that is ... anit-war on poverty and anti-war on drugs? And if not .. can you explain what the "exit strategy" is for these two "wars"?

Hey Ez-

When Dixie and Bold give you the old teabag, do you have a hard time seeing the gray pubes in your teeth? Just checking.

Fupeg, some things never change.. You still are the queen of the bottom feeders. I will leave the teabags and whips to you and yours.

Ez

Just a question. You dont have to get so offended...My God. I would imagine it would be hard to see the gray hairs.

Now, as far as "bottom feeding"- i didnt know that was your particular fetish. Man, it must be pretty gross starfishing an eighty year old guy.

I can't tell you why some Americans ... some of whom were African Americans ... fell sway to the siren song of the welfare state ... any more than I can tell you why some Americans still believe in leftist political nostrums ... and listen to leftist proselytisers ... despite the fact that leftism has been proven a resounding and devastating failure throughout the world.

You may not be old enough to remember ... but the War On Poverty began as an effort ... ultimately a disatrous one ... to help the alleged poor starving masses of "Appalachia" ... once known as hillbillies ... of the states from Virginia to Tennessee ... nearly all of whom were "white" ...

... and spread thereafter to a more national and urban clientele.

In any case ... the entire welfare state ... from handouts to housing to "jobs" programs to the abject surrender of personal liberty ... was ... and still is ... a complete disaster for anyone who partook of it. The Americans who shunned it ... became much more suuccessful and prosperous than the ones who embraced it.

Oh come on. The % of blacks on welfare was much greater than the % of whites. You are not an idiot. So the question remains: If Blacks as a whole were in such great financial shape in the 50's, why did they even need welfare?, and as a %, why did blacks fall for welfare? Quit playing stupid games.

And the Clinton adm. "got rid" of more welfare families than any Rep. president ever.

You appear to read a whole lot... Of what you WANT to read. This is deadly if you seek the truth. You will always have trouble dissecting any legitimate arguement if you read to satisfy JUST your preconceived notions. I can only conclude from my brief reading of your threads, that you would do wonders for North Korea as an artist of propaganda. They require a good mind-numbing drone of hailing one train of thought as they starve.

You are never to old to learn something.

Just write it without the negatives for gosh sakes. WTH are you asking?

LOL. He's busy looking up the right response. Please hold.

ooops ... will re-do

Your question is based on your misreading of my earlier post.

I said that in the 1950's black families were as stable ... or a bit more so ... as white families. I didn't say they were as affluent.

Go back and find that post ... and if you read it carefully ... I'm sure you'll agree that that's what I said.

In any case ... all individuals ... regardless of race ... who eschewed government welfare programs ... and relied on their own work and talent ... have done far, far, far better than those who bought into the fool's gold of the welfare state. You agree with that, don't you?

I can't explain why everyone does the dopey things that they do ... if I could I'd be able to explain Courtney Love to you.

And ... yes ... Wee-Wee Willie finally signed the Republicans' welfare reform legislation ... after vetoing it twice ... because Dick Morris told him that his chances for reelection were dead if he didn't.

He did the right thing for the wrong reason ... but nonetheless ... it's the results that count ... and he deserves some of the credit for the success of welfare reform.

Never mind ... it's off-topic.

Thanks for all your sincere, honest, and direct responses.

Just a question for you ...

... how does a mother of two children come up with such vulgar and disgusting language?

Ez made a mild comment about that other site ... and you came back at him with the most disgusting type of vulgarity. Why? Were you thinking of your little baby girl when you typed those utterly gross comments?

Very simple, Ez ... their inferiority complexes ... and the utter lack of wit and style over there in my absence ... compel them to trail me around ... desperately looking for something meaningful to fill their empty, bitter lives.

But you're smart enough to already know that ... so I'm hardly adding anything to your wealth of knowledge.

U are the only one doing that Punter. No one cares over there. U are the only one who brings him up.
Whens the wedding?

Somehow ... I tend to believe Ez on this one ...

... no ... make that I completely believe Ez on this one.

So black families were not as affluent as white families on the whole. We of course know that SOME white families were poorer than black families, but on the whole... why did black families experience more economic hardship compared to white families?

Now if you do answer the above, I think eventually you would come around to understanding my very first statement on this thread that caused an uproar, but which I firmly believe to be true... Even today, but not as much so as in the past.

I will agree that many of the ways the welfare system was set up based on Lyndon Johnson's dreams turned out to be a disincentive to work. I think it was well meaning, but horribly thought out. I do believe certain government programs are still needed to help people get a start. But no government program should be a disincentive for able bodied people to work. I believe working and making your way in a society, helps one cherish the benefits we do have in this country. But clearly some people need a leg up, and once they have the means, they are on their own. Churches, charities, etc... can only do so much.
I think people that reaped huge financial rewards have a duty to do everything they can to help the country that allowed them to make these gains. Like Gates and Buffet. But I dont think the government should make people do what Gates and Buffet had done.

You're beginning to see the light ... but ...

... why should anyone ... who has two legs, two arms, and a functioning brain ... need "a leg up"? And who will decide who needs the leg up and who doesn't? And who will decide just what a "leg up" means ... and what it doesn't? That's just another high-minded sounding bit of socialist claptrap.

The only one who really needs a "leg up" ... is a short jockey trying to get on the back of a tall horse.

And Gates and Buffet are intelligently doing what they're doing in order to avoid having the government confiscate their wealth. Do away with the thieving outrage known as the death tax ... wherein the government confiscates wealth which it has already taxed over and over again ... and neither of those two highly successful men would be doing what they're doing in the way that they're doing it. They'd make much better use of their money if left to their own capacious wits without the threat of confiscation.

So you dont think our government role extends to helping people in any way?
In other words, the government is needed to do what? Example: I consider the military a big leg up for many people. I know of a number of people that would not be where they are today without our government's military training. Why is the military controlled by the government? Why not just let proftit driven private entities run the military?

And Buffet could have given a hell of a lot more money to his descendants and he decided not to. His children will still be very wealthy, but he could have "captured" a hell of a lot more of his personal money for relatives. You are misinformed on his decision.
Your sites dont give you the whole story. You need to have more weapons in your arsenal if you wish to argue intelligently. Those crappy biased political sites are exactly that, political sites. They do not attempt to reveal truths. Keep searching for things that fit your worldview and throw out the rest, and you will continue to handicap your ability to learn because you dont have all sides of an issue. Its up to you, old or young. If you cannot be flexible mentally, you are a great disadvantage into today's world. Good luck.

And you bypassed the above.

Maybe the girls I knew in the transitional housing program who had a child or two when they were barely adults themselves, whose parents had completely failed them, who were on the streets themselves as children, who were usually molested as kids, who've overcome addictions to save their own kids, who wanted a chance but were screwed by the current system (one of the many incongruities of the current welfare reform is the rule that you can't afford childcare or be given time to look for it until you have a job...but you can't find a job until you have somewhere to put your kids...). Of course, you'll probably tell me that it's their fault they got pregnant, had bad parents, didn't have anyone to watch out for the as children, dropped out of high school, couldn't find jobs, wound up on the streets and are trying to fix their lives now with -- gasp! -- actual help from the government. Obviously, they should just spend the rest of their lives paying for their mistakes until they can do everything without any help at all, because that's the American way. And then *their* kids will end up on the streets. And you'll complain about all those poor people draining the system.

People in the social work world will tell you that Welfare to Work reforms have mostly harmed honest people who *WANT* to do better. Although I have a feeling you probably equate social work with bleeding-heart liberal socialism (my apologies if not). As far as I'm concerned, the government should definitely give people a leg-up when they need it. In my personal opinion, a lot more people need it than you think. It's certainly more important for the government to do that than some of the roles it currently fills, like prying into every aspect of our personal lives to shake its finger at "aberrant" behavior.

(Like pgarden, I consider the military to provide precisely that function. There's a reason most of my high school classmates are in the military: my hometown is poor. Most kids don't have anywhere else to go apart from the local tire stores, so guess what offers them a better opportunity?)

Thinkg about all of the people who need a "leg up" that the government assists: veterans, via the VA; victims of natural disasters, via FEMA (at least in theory); family members of those killed in action, who receive some financial support after the deaths of their loved ones; students who take out federal loans (getting smaller by the day)...most of us receive some sort of help in some way or another.

I honestly can't fathom that anyone would actually believe Gates and Buffet are being motivated by self-interest. Gates is possibly the most generous benefactor EVER of global health problems. His dad is a major proponent of KEEPING the estate tax (I've talked to him one-on-one a few times, so I know, but he's made very public statements in support of the estate tax).

The U.S. military is in no way a welfare program. It exists to perform the very function for which the government exists ... that is ... to maintain the freedom of the citizens who form that government.

Those who enrol in the miltary must work very hard ... and meet exacting standards ... in order to remain there. All money and benefits accruing to military personnel is earned by them ... military salaries are not welfare payments.

You can blather all you want ... and indeed you do ...

... but the unmistakable fact is that neither Gates nor Buffet will be paying any estate taxes to the government ... all those billions of dollars have been sheltered from the government's reach.

None of us know their real motivations ... but it makes no difference .. . no matter what their motivations are ... that doesn't alter the fact that they have indeed sheltered their money from the taxman's reach.

Nonetheless ...

... both Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have moved their billions out of the reach of the tax collector. The U.S. government will not be "benefiting" from any of that money.

That ... my good friend ... is what is known as a fact.

Your post was so wide-ranging that I'd need to write an encyclopedia to address all of it ... so let me just address the point of "disaster" relief.

People who choose to live on known seismic fault lines shouldn't be surprised when there are earthquakes ... people who choose to live below sea level shoudn't be surprised to find themselves under water ... people who choose to live on a table-flat land which juts into or borders the volatile Caribbean Saa shouldn't be surprised when there are hurricanes ... people who choose to live in river basins shouldn't be surprised by floods ... people who choose to live within forests which are regularly subject to months-long droughts shouldn't be surprised when there are fires.

As free citizens of a free country ... Americans can choose to live wherever they want to. Those who choose to live in places known to be more susceptible to violent acts of nature ... do not have a right to demand money from those who choose to live in safer places when the inevitable natural acts occur.

If you wish to live dangerously ... you either take you chances ... and/or buy insurance against nature's violence. If private insurers ... who are in business to make a profit from selling insurance ... are unwilling to write you an insurance policy ... then you surely know that that particular location is really, really dangerous.

If you still choose to live there ... good luck ... but don't claim any right to the money of others who have been more prudent.

When the government subsidizes insurance ... which private insurers would not otherwise issue ... it only encourages dangerous behavior ... and becomes an enabler of disastrous outcomes.

Have you ever looked at it that way?