Giuliani 08 [Archive]

View Full Version : Giuliani 08

Pages : [1] 2

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 02:05 PM

Giuliani Plans Return to Politics

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

WASHINGTON — Rudolph Giuliani (search) plans to return to politics, he said Wednesday, but argued it's too early to say if that will be for the 2008 presidential campaign.

"I think I'll return to politics," Giuliani said during a speech to business leaders.

Dubbed "America's Mayor," after his performance in leading New York City during the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, Giuliani has spent the years since working as a highly-paid corporate executive and public speaker.

The event, hosted by Visa USA, brought together business leaders, anti-fraud experts, and government officials to discuss credit card security — but the first question from audience members concerned his possible return to public office.

Asked if he had any "political visions," Giuliani laughed and rubbed his forehead.

"I have some political visions. I don't know what they are yet, they're a little foggy," he said.

Though he wasn't asked specifically about the next presidential campaign, Giuliani mentioned the 2008 race and said "it's too far away" to make a decision on running.

National polls regularly place Giuliani among the most popular Republican vote-getters, and he is asked about his plans at almost every public appearance. He usually deflects the question by suggesting he would not decide on 2008 until after the 2006 congressional elections.

During a visit to Denmark on Sunday, Giuliani said he would consider the presidential race "next year."

In the 2004 presidential campaign, the former mayor campaigned strenuously for President Bush's re-election.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171338,00.html

____________________________________________________

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Though he is hated in Manhattan for the Padillo (sp.?) tragedy and the "smeared feces is art" world also do not like him - he would win by a landslide as the D's have nothing to counter him.

Would he be good for America? I would say yes as he is a social liberal in that he lived with a gay couple when he was the Mayor of NYC and, if I am not mistaken, he marched in Gay Pride parades - two things most R's are loathe to do. Moreover, he is a fiscal conservative.

So, I think he would be okay but not great and certainly better than the filth we currently have.

DavidMn

10-05-2005, 02:10 PM

estranged4life

10-05-2005, 02:16 PM

former Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating (The most popular Governor in Oklahoma history...Hell, Even the Democrats loved him more than their own candidates who were absolutely slaughtered in their losing election bids) as a running mate should he run for the presidency.

Brian "Missy Gail & Rufus Roughcut in 2008" j

sparky

10-05-2005, 02:18 PM

DavidMn

10-05-2005, 02:18 PM

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 02:21 PM

Hmmm...interesting. A Republican candidate I don't automatically think should be put to sleep. He isn't horrible. Wasn't there some scandal over his divorce ? Wasn't he cheating before the the marriage broke up ? That cold be a problem. Polititicians can steal billions of dollars and practically commit murder, but God Help Them if they make some sexually related error and have the misfortune of getting caught. Strand, you must know the gossip.

New York Mayor Files For Divorce

NEW YORK, Dec. 20, 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(AP) New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has filed papers to end his 16-year marriage to television personality Donna Hanover, according to the New York Daily News. In recent months, their marraige deteriorated into unfaithfulness and public feuding, and eventually helped derail Giuliani's U.S. Senate bid.

On Wednesday, the mayor declined to discuss the reported divorce, but did not deny the story.

"I have no comment," he said. "All that, I consider private and I'm not going to discuss it."

Giuliani's attorney, Raoul Felder, also declined comment, as did Hanover attorney Helene Brezinsky. Hanover spokeswoman Joannie Danielides also had no comment.

Divorce proceedings are confidential in New York. In Wednesday's editions, the Daily News reported that the divorce filing is listed as Anonymous vs. Anonymous in the court's database - a method employed by many celebrity couples.

The complaint was filed by Giuliani on Oct. 20, according to the newspaper.

Giuliani, Hanover and their attorneys met in the chambers of Acting State Supreme Court Justice Judith Gische on Monday afternoon, according to the Daily News.

Giuliani, 56, and Hanover, 50, have two children Andrew, 14, and Caroline, 11.

The reported divorce filing is the latest development in a relationship that the couple's confidants have said has been cold for years, but publicly unraveled this year.

In April, Giuliani told the press that 46-year-old divorcee Judith Nathan, whom he had been spotted squiring around town, was "a very good friend." Weeks later, he announced he was seeking a legal separation from Hanover.

Hanover responded by publicly accusing Giuliani of cheating on her with both Nathan and his former spokeswoman Cristyne Lategano-Nicholas.

Giuliani and Lategano-Nicholas have denied an affair.

The messy split, together with Giuliani's diagnosis of prostate cancer, forced the mayor to abandon his plans to run for the Senate. Rep. Rick Lazio received the Republican nomination instead and lost to Hillary Rodham Clinton in November.

www.cbsnews.com

As for Rudy G. - he is FAR from perfect - but he a vast improvement over Kerry or W IMO.

DavidMn

10-05-2005, 02:24 PM

New York Mayor Files For Divorce

NEW YORK, Dec. 20, 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(AP) New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has filed papers to end his 16-year marriage to television personality Donna Hanover, according to the New York Daily News. In recent months, their marraige deteriorated into unfaithfulness and public feuding, and eventually helped derail Giuliani's U.S. Senate bid.

On Wednesday, the mayor declined to discuss the reported divorce, but did not deny the story.

"I have no comment," he said. "All that, I consider private and I'm not going to discuss it."

Giuliani's attorney, Raoul Felder, also declined comment, as did Hanover attorney Helene Brezinsky. Hanover spokeswoman Joannie Danielides also had no comment.

Divorce proceedings are confidential in New York. In Wednesday's editions, the Daily News reported that the divorce filing is listed as Anonymous vs. Anonymous in the court's database - a method employed by many celebrity couples.

The complaint was filed by Giuliani on Oct. 20, according to the newspaper.

Giuliani, Hanover and their attorneys met in the chambers of Acting State Supreme Court Justice Judith Gische on Monday afternoon, according to the Daily News.

Giuliani, 56, and Hanover, 50, have two children Andrew, 14, and Caroline, 11.

The reported divorce filing is the latest development in a relationship that the couple's confidants have said has been cold for years, but publicly unraveled this year.

In April, Giuliani told the press that 46-year-old divorcee Judith Nathan, whom he had been spotted squiring around town, was "a very good friend." Weeks later, he announced he was seeking a legal separation from Hanover.

Hanover responded by publicly accusing Giuliani of cheating on her with both Nathan and his former spokeswoman Cristyne Lategano-Nicholas.

Giuliani and Lategano-Nicholas have denied an affair.

The messy split, together with Giuliani's diagnosis of prostate cancer, forced the mayor to abandon his plans to run for the Senate. Rep. Rick Lazio received the Republican nomination instead and lost to Hillary Rodham Clinton in November.

www.cbsnews.com

As for Rudy G. - he is FAR from perfect - but he a vast improvement over Kerry or W IMO.
John Kerry's biggest problem was that he could've put more people to sleep than Elevator music. C'MON Democrats, wouldnt you have come up with someone more charasmatic thatn that? That being said, he STill came pretty close to winning.

dissention

10-05-2005, 02:25 PM

Say it ain't so. We'll need all the help we can get if he runs. I shudder at the thought.

sparky

10-05-2005, 02:28 PM

As for Rudy G. - he is FAR from perfect - but he a vast improvement over Kerry or W IMO.

I knew you'd have something. Good thing he kept his mouth shut about it, and his ex did to a degree. He isn't horrible, I'll give you that. Even with the affairs...he'll probably get away with that if he runs. I think it's a little more acceptable to do that if you are a republican.

DavidMn

10-05-2005, 02:29 PM

dissention

10-05-2005, 02:33 PM

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 02:35 PM

Say it ain't so. We'll need all the help we can get if he runs. I shudder at the thought.

But, of the people who can run, who is better.

I personally like John Edwards and Wesley Clark - but cannot see them beating Rudy G. because outside of a minority in Manhattan, he is well liked by almost all Americans and he could have beaten W had he run in 04. That is a strong base.

DavidMn

10-05-2005, 02:39 PM

Brwn_eyes0511

10-05-2005, 02:39 PM

I do like Giuliani, he just needs to get on board with most other republicans about abortion...however I think he would make a great leader. :nod:

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 02:39 PM

I knew you'd have something. Good thing he kept his mouth shut about it, and his ex did to a degree. He isn't horrible, I'll give you that. Even with the affairs...he'll probably get away with that if he runs. I think it's a little more acceptable to do that if you are a republican.

People mostly do not like him because they feel he sacrificed the homeless in Times Sq. and other places in NYC to get the tourism back up - crime fell drastically (though many argue Rudy G. had nothing to do with that and it just happened sua sponte). He also cut AIDS funding, but it is unclear if that was necessitated by budget contraints as opposed to ill will to the gay communty and Federal Programs allegedly picked up much of that slack - though many went through hell to be sure.

Again, he is no agngel, but there are far worse a la Frist, Lott, Delay, etc.

dissention

10-05-2005, 02:40 PM

But, of the people who can run, who is better.

I personally like John Edwards and Wesley Clark - but cannot see them beating Rudy G. because outside of a minority in Manhattan, he is well liked by almost all Americans and he could have beaten W had he run in 04. That is a strong base.

Who is better? You answered your own question. John Edwards and Wesley Clark. Edwards may run, Clark certainly won't. It really doesn't matter to me who can beat Giuliani because no Democrat that runs against the man is going to beat him; the day he announces his candidacy is the day he might as well start packing for the White House. If that happens, run to your basement and hunker down for daylight.

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 02:40 PM

Why is he not well like by that small group? Dont mean to sound ignorant, just curious.

See my other post. Also, google him and read the yellow press stuff - they are not kind to him and most of it is deserved.

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 02:41 PM

Who is better? You answered your own question. John Edwards and Wesley Clark. Edwards may run, Clark certainly won't. It really doesn't matter to me who can beat Giuliani because no Democrat that runs against the man is going to beat him; the day he announces his candidacy is the day he might as well start packing for the White House. If that happens, run to your basement and hunker down for daylight.

I agree that he is a shoe in.

However, I do not think he will be that bad. What exactly do you think he will do that is so horrible?

On edit - his use of the NYPD was rather firghtening - but will that translate to the Federal level, which has no police dept., per se, with the exception of the Dept. of Justice and when he worked for them as a prosecutor, he record was very good - I mean he prosecuted Marc Rich :shrug:

estranged4life

10-05-2005, 02:43 PM

Is he a moderate? can I ask what are his policies?

Governor Keating being a hardline Conserva-tard, I remember him being a very well respected moderate leader.

But Bush mustnt like good ol' Frank much, Everyone was sure Frank would have been the perfect choice for Shruby-nutts A.G. cabinet position, but the Bush Doctrine, (I meant Adminstration) had something against ol' Frank and chose otherwise.

Brian "What do you call an Oklahoman Democrat? A Republican" j.

DavidMn

10-05-2005, 02:44 PM

See my other post. Also, google him and read the yellow press stuff - they are not kind to him and most of it is deserved.
I will do that, thank you. I'm a little tired so I'm sorry I missesd that other one. :sorry:

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 02:45 PM

I will do that, thank you. I'm a little tired so I'm sorry I missesd that other one. :sorry:

Its cool - they were cgoing rather fast :laugh:

dissention

10-05-2005, 02:46 PM

People mostly do not like him because they feel he sacrificed the homeless in Times Sq. and other places in NYC to get the tourism back up - crime fell drastically (though many argue Rudy G. had nothing to do with that and it just happened sua sponte). He also cut AIDS funding, but it is unclear if that was necessitated by budget contraints as opposed to ill will to the gay communty and Federal Programs allegedly picked up much of that slack - though many went through hell to be sure.

Again, he is no agngel, but there are far worse a la Frist, Lott, Delay, etc.

He also turned a blind eye to corruption in the NYPD and his Broken Windows policy was despicable. Not to mention his adventures with the Brooklyn Museum.

DavidMn

10-05-2005, 02:46 PM

Its cool - they were cgoing rather fast :laugh:
You know I'm getting old now, I'll be 35 next year..... :eek: My one gay friend said to me the other day that I'm now a T.I T, Troll In Training. I cant remember when I've laughed so hard!!!! :lol:

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 02:51 PM

He also turned a blind eye to corruption in the NYPD and his Broken Windows policy was despicable. Not to mention his adventures with the Brooklyn Museum.

oops - I edited as you posted.

As for the Brooklyn Museam - I have to say that with starving children in the US, inadequate health care, etc. - it seems to me that the govt. ought not to fund that - but then again, I think the govt. ought not fund most art when we cannot or will not feed out poor - but that is a whole other debate :laugh:

Anyway - this is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudy_Giuliani

Opposition to Brooklyn Museum art exhibit

In 1999 Giuliani threatened to cut off city funding for the Brooklyn Museum, shut it down and replace its current board with one of his own choosing if the museum did not remove a number of works in an exhibit entitled “Sensation: Young British Artists from the Saatchi Collection.” One work in particular, The Holy Virgin Mary by Turner Prize winning Catholic artist Chris Ofili, was targeted as being offensive to some in the Christian community in New York. This painting depicted a black Mary composed with collaged cut-outs of female genitalia from pornography magazines around her. Like many others by this artist, the montage also made use of elephant dung.[1] Ofili, while refusing to defend his work, commented that "The people who are attacking this painting are attacking their own interpretation, not mine," and that "This is all about control"[2].

In its defense, the museum filed a lawsuit, charging Giuliani with violating the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. This action by the mayor was condemned by groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, objecting to the mayor's interference with the first amendment rights of the museum and censorship. Religious groups such as the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights supported the mayor's actions [3] [4]

At that time, it was widely expected that Giuliani and Hillary Clinton would compete for the open seat in the Senate in 2000. She said the mayor's action was the "wrong response," and added "I share the feeling that I know many New Yorkers have that there are parts of this exhibition that would be deeply offensive. I would not go see the exhibition[5]."

The museum's suit was successful, the mayor was ordered to resume funding and the judge declared that There is no federal constitutional issue more grave than the effort by government officials to censor works of expression and to threaten the vitality of a major cultural institution as punishment for failing to abide by governmental demands for orthodoxy[6].

dissention

10-05-2005, 03:02 PM

What exactly do you think he will do that is so horrible?

Too many things to list, dear. He's a ****ing fascist.

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 03:04 PM

Too many things to list, dear. He's a ****ing fascist.

Well, he is better than anything the R's can offer - which is my point and he will win, which is our point.

dissention

10-05-2005, 03:07 PM

Well, he is better than anything the R's can offer -

No, he's not. I'll take the Snowester before him any day. :woohoo:

Too bad she'd never run.

which is my point and he will win, which is our point.

Which makes me quake in my loafers.

xxxmx

10-05-2005, 03:12 PM

i couldn't wait to move to nyc for like, three reasons:

1) it was not pittsburgh, pennsylvania

2) the red sox play in nyc (if only occasionally and vs. that team)

3) i could vote against giuliani

so i did, gleefully. i wish middle america would wake up and smell the resentment. he didn't save the city and he didn't save the world.

and just because he wouldn't be voted off the island first (delay, frist) doesn't mean anyone wants him on it.

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 03:13 PM

No, he's not. I'll take the Snowester before him any day. :woohoo:

Too bad she'd never run.

I think you know I meant and R who stood a chance of winning and therefore will run :laugh: - which will be Jeb, Lott, Romney, McCain (who is a good guy IMO) , and possibly Frist and DeLay, assuming they get out of their current legal troubles.

Which makes me quake in my loafers.

I just do not think he will be that bad. I mean look at his record as a prosecutor, which pretty stellar and just :shrug:

As for the NYPD stuff, I am unsure the drastic change in the crime rate could have taken place any other way, which is saddening - though not all of his actions were bad..

BTW - here is a pretty good article/commentary on the Broken Windows policy if anyone wants to read it http://www.umsl.edu/~nestor/Broken%20Windows.htm

DavidMn

10-05-2005, 03:14 PM

I think you know I meant and R who stood a chance of winning and therefore will run :laugh: - which will be Jeb, Lott, Romney, McCain (who is a good guy IMO) , and possibly Frist and DeLay, assuming they get out of their current legal troubles.

I just do not think he will be that bad. I mean look at his record as a prosecutor, which pretty stellar and just :shrug:

As for the NYPD stuff, I am unsure the drastic change in the crime rate could have taken place any other way, which is saddening - though not all of his actions were bad..

BTW - here is a pretty good article/commentary on the Broken Windows policy if anyone wants to read it http://www.umsl.edu/~nestor/Broken%20Windows.htmNo, but I dont think he'el have the Mob connections like Kennedy did, what with his zeal for prosecuting them back in the day.... :nod:

sparky

10-05-2005, 03:15 PM

Which makes me quake in my loafers.

This must be a figure of speech. You don't own a pair of loafers.

You don't.
You don't.
You don't.

Say it isn't so.

dissention

10-05-2005, 03:15 PM

i couldn't wait to move to nyc for like, three reasons:

1) it was not pittsburgh, pennsylvania

2) the red sox play in nyc (if only occasionally and vs. that team)

3) i could vote against giuliani

:laugh:

Too bad I didn't live there long enough to vote against his sorry ass. It would have been a humbling experience. I'll never forget when he said that streets are not meant for civilized people to sleep on, bedrooms are. Un****ingbelievable and oh so rich.

dissention

10-05-2005, 03:17 PM

No, but I dont think he'el have the Mob connections like Kennedy did, what with his zeal for prosecuting them back in the day.... :nod:

He used to open Town Hall meetings by doing impressions of Corleone. :rolleyes:

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 03:17 PM

. . . and just because he wouldn't be voted off the island first (delay, frist) doesn't mean anyone wants him on it.

I, respectfully, disagree and submit most of America, somewhat foolishlyu IMO, considers him a hero and that will never change because he tried to boycott vulvas comprising a picture of the Holy Mother, he used identification of smaller crimes to catch the same people commiting larger or repeat crimes, and he put 5,000 more cops on the streets of NYC. I know his tactics are questionable, but the vast majority of people see those as good things.

sparky

10-05-2005, 03:18 PM

I would prefer McCain, but I doubt he will run. The R establishment doesn't appreciate him. He is too straight of a shooter and too authentic a human being to get much much support from the insiders. When it comes down to it, he is more of an old school republican...i.e. not owned by religious extremists and corporations.

dissention

10-05-2005, 03:18 PM

This must be a figure of speech. You don't own a pair of loafers.

You don't.
You don't.
You don't.

Say it isn't so.

No, I don't.

I should have said Birkenstocks. :p

sparky

10-05-2005, 03:19 PM

No, I don't.

I should have said Birkenstocks. :p

A shade better, but just a shade.

Are you a lesbian ?

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 03:21 PM

No, I don't.

I should have said Birkenstocks. :p

I thought you HATED Birkenstocks - disn't we used to give Deanna shiitte about her's :laugh:

DavidMn

10-05-2005, 03:22 PM

He used to open Town Hall meetings by doing impressions of Corleone. :rolleyes:
No way, really?

dissention

10-05-2005, 03:22 PM

A shade better, but just a shade.

Are you a lesbian ?

A lipstick lesbian, babe.

DavidMn

10-05-2005, 03:23 PM

A lipstick lesbian, babe.
Oh now THAT'S funny..... :laugh:

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 03:24 PM

A lipstick lesbian, babe.

Not with that hair you are not :wavey:

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 03:25 PM

He used to open Town Hall meetings by doing impressions of Corleone. :rolleyes:

I think you know he was joking :rolleyes: :laugh:

DavidMn

10-05-2005, 03:26 PM

Not with that hair you are not :wavey:
WHat the hell is wrong with me? I am as gay as they come, but I have SOOO little fashion sense?!?!?! :confused:

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 03:27 PM

WHat the hell is wrong with me? I am as gay as they come, but I have SOOO little fashion sense?!?!?! :confused:

join a support group and get a personal shopper :p :wavey: ;) :laugh:

DavidMn

10-05-2005, 03:28 PM

join a support group and get a personal shopper :p :wavey: ;) :laugh:
Well yeah. I remember this ong guy I met once, we were sorta getting along till he saw my wardrobe. Out the door he went........ Maybe that's not a bad idea you have. :thumbsup:

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 03:37 PM

Well yeah. I remember this ong guy I met once, we were sorta getting along till he saw my wardrobe. Out the door he went........ Maybe that's not a bad idea you have. :thumbsup:

LOL - I have done that upon:

1. seeing their home decor

and

2. seeing their wardrobe

I am old enough to know somethings are just NEVER gonna work no matter how much I try :laugh:

DavidMn

10-05-2005, 03:39 PM

LOL - I have done that upon:

1. seeing their home decor

and

2. seeing their wardrobe

I am old enough to know somethings are just NEVER gonna work no matter how much I try :laugh:
Youre right on that for sure. But in a way, I'm happy being who I am, not part of the "Crowd." I really want people to see me for what I am, not someone I'm trying to be. I figure I take a shower everyday and always have clean clothes on, so I'm not doing too bad..... :D

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 03:42 PM

Youre right on that for sure. But in a way, I'm happy being who I am, not part of the "Crowd." I really want people to see me for what I am, not someone I'm trying to be. I figure I take a shower everyday and always have clean clothes on, so I'm not doing too bad..... :D

That's a start :laugh:

No, altogether - P R A D A - keep repeating that :wavey:

sparky

10-05-2005, 03:43 PM

LOL - I have done that upon:

1. seeing their home decor

and

2. seeing their wardrobe

I am old enough to know somethings are just NEVER gonna work no matter how much I try :laugh:

LOL. Excellent. I have a friend who tends to hook up with these guys who have spectacular homes. We call them Yoko Onos ( a nod to the movie Jeffrey). The guy never gets that much airtime, but the homes do. :lol: I can't remember a thing about this one dude I heard about, except he had a half dozen original Joni Mitchell paintings in his house.

sparky

10-05-2005, 03:44 PM

That's a start :laugh:

No, altogether - P R A D A - keep repeating that :wavey:

Not everyone can drop a mortgage payment on an outfit, Imelda.

High class problems... ;) :wavey:

DavidMn

10-05-2005, 03:46 PM

That's a start :laugh:

No, altogether - P R A D A - keep repeating that :wavey:
Oh yes, how could I forget that..... :D

DavidMn

10-05-2005, 03:47 PM

Not everyone can drop a mortgage payment on an outfit, Imelda.

High class problems... ;) :wavey:
Imelda, I got that. :lol:

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 03:47 PM

LOL. Excellent. I have a friend who tends to hook up with these guys who have spectacular homes. We call them Yoko Onos ( a nod to the movie Jeffrey). The guy never gets that much airtime, but the homes do. :lol: I can't remember a thing about this one dude I heard about, except he had a half dozen original Joni Mitchell paintings in his house.

LMAO - it really does not have to be a palace or anything (though I certainly have had that :laugh: ) - it just has to resemble some form of taste.

As for Yoko - she had cocktails at the table next to me at the George V in Paris ahile back. She wore sunglasses larger than her entire face and which weighed more than she did. She was HYSTERICAL - "WHERA MY CUKTALE _ I WANT - NOW" :eek: As her shoulder was about a foot from mine, I wanted to write "breathe" on some paper and nahnd it to her and them start wailing like a cat in heat :laugh:

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 03:49 PM

Not everyone can drop a mortgage payment on an outfit, Imelda.

High class problems... ;) :wavey:

There are outlets :wavey:

Seriously, I scour the TJ Maxx and Marshall's by my house and often save thousands! Then again, I am prone to haul it into NM or SFA and spend thousands :eek: I gotta calm my life down :nod:

And - Imelda has NOTHING on my shoe collection :laugh:

sparky

10-05-2005, 03:50 PM

LMAO - it really does not have to be a palace or anything (though I certainly have had that :laugh: ) - it just has to resemble some form of taste.

As for Yoko - she had cocktails at the table next to me at the George V in Paris ahile back. She wore sunglasses larger than her entire face and which weighed more than she did. She was HYSTERICAL - "WHERA MY CUKTALE _ I WANT - NOW" :eek: As her shoulder was about a foot from mine, I wanted to write "breathe" on some paper and nahnd it to her and them start wailing like a cat in heat :laugh:

I will NEVAH forget your story about her...."I loved your husband"..

"Everybody did !"

The Tower

10-05-2005, 03:58 PM

Giuliani will never make it.... the conservative evangelicals would never support him.

DavidMn

10-05-2005, 04:00 PM

Giuliani will never make it.... the conservative evangelicals would never support him.
That might be a real fun battle to watch. :nod:

sparky

10-05-2005, 04:03 PM

There are outlets :wavey:

Seriously, I scour the TJ Maxx and Marshall's by my house and often save thousands! Then again, I am prone to haul it into NM or SFA and spend thousands :eek: I gotta calm my life down :nod:

And - Imelda has NOTHING on my shoe collection :laugh:

Sparky does the outlet circuit.

Stay outta those retail places !

BTW, you better show up in Australia in February. If it actually happens.

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 04:05 PM

Sparky does the outlet circuit.

Stay outta those retail places !

BTW, you better show up in Australia in February. If it actually happens.

I am sooooo there!!!!!!!!!!

The only thing that could prevent me from going is if my pooch is in Westminster :eek:

sparky

10-05-2005, 04:07 PM

I am sooooo there!!!!!!!!!!

The only thing that could prevent me from going is if my pooch is in Westminster :eek:

Oh come on. You must have handler who could take care of that.

Another dog medal or cocktails with Stevie and Sparky in Melbourne ?

:wavey: :laugh:

The Tower

10-05-2005, 04:11 PM

Another dog medal or cocktails with Stevie and Sparky in Melbourne ?
You mean cocktails with Stevie, Sparky and Tower in Melbourne........

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 04:13 PM

You mean cocktails with Stevie, Sparky and Tower in Melbourne........

OMG - I would sooooo have to fly out of LA so we could all be one the plane together. Better yet, let's spend the $100,000 and rent the G-550 :laugh:

sparky

10-05-2005, 04:14 PM

You mean cocktails with Stevie, Sparky and Tower in Melbourne........

I didn't think you were up for it, Homie !

BTW Clayre is in, so it won't be all boys.

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 04:17 PM

I didn't think you were up for it, Homie !

BTW Clayre is in, so it won't be all boys.

Thank goodness - I'd say she'd be the voice of reason - but I am unsure whether she can't drink us under the table :laugh:

DavidMn

10-05-2005, 04:19 PM

OMG - I would sooooo have to fly out of LA so we could all be one the plane together. Better yet, let's spend the $100,000 and rent the G-550 :laugh:
Is that that new Mercedes?

gldstwmn

10-05-2005, 04:19 PM

No, but I dont think he'el have the Mob connections like Kennedy did, what with his zeal for prosecuting them back in the day.... :nod:

Giuliani's father had mob ties. :laugh: Giuliani fancied himself a new Robert Kennedy before he turned.

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 04:21 PM

Is that that new Mercedes?

http://www.gulfstream.com/g550/

They cost a little over $50 million. I want one :cool:

DavidMn

10-05-2005, 04:21 PM

Giuliani's father had mob ties. :laugh: Giuliani fancied himself a new Robert Kennedy before he turned.
I didnt know that about his father. interesting... :nod:

gldstwmn

10-05-2005, 04:23 PM

Giuliani will never make it.... the conservative evangelicals would never support him.

Finally, the voice of reason. :lol:

DavidMn

10-05-2005, 04:24 PM

http://www.gulfstream.com/g550/

They cost a little over $50 million. I want one :cool:
Wow, those are nice!!!

The Tower

10-05-2005, 04:24 PM

OMG - I would sooooo have to fly out of LA so we could all be one the plane together. Better yet, let's spend the $100,000 and rent the G-550 :laugh:
That would be one interesting 14 hour flight, lemme tell ya...

I didn't think you were up for it, Homie !
Sigh.... just wishful thinking. Alas, the new hardwood floors and the kitchen redo have dibs on my next cash outlay. And maybe Europe for my birthday...

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 04:25 PM

Giuliani's father had mob ties. :laugh: Giuliani fancied himself a new Robert Kennedy before he turned.

Well, he did a pretty good job before and during office, to wit:

Rudy Giuliani started his political life as a Democrat, before registering as an Independent. Afterward, he finally decided on being a Republican.

In 1970, Giuliani joined the Office of the US Attorney. At age 29, he was named Chief of the Narcotics Unit and rose to serve as executive US Attorney. In 1975, Giuliani was recruited to Washington, D.C., where he was named Associate Deputy Attorney General and chief of staff to the Deputy Attorney General. His first high-profile prosecution was Congressman Bert Podell who was convicted of corruption. From 1977 to 1981, Giuliani practiced law at the Patterson, Belknap, Webb and Tyler law firm.

In 1981, Giuliani was named Associate Attorney General, the fourth highest position in the Department of Justice. As Associate Attorney General, Giuliani supervised all of the US Attorney Offices' Federal law enforcement agencies, the Department of Corrections, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the United States Marshals Service. During this time, he successfully argued on behalf of the U.S. government, in a high-profile case, that there was "no political repression" in Haiti under President Jean-Claude Duvalier, aka "Baby Doc".

In 1983, Giuliani was appointed U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. It was in that position that he first gained national prominence by prosecuting numerous high-profile cases, including indictments of Wall Street figures Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken for insider trading. Giuliani attracted some criticism for arranging very public arrests of people, then dropping charges for lack of evidence instead of going to trial. He also spearheaded the effort to jail drug dealers, fight organized crime, break the web of corruption in government, and prosecute white-collar criminals. He amassed a record of 4,152 convictions with only 25 reversals. Senator Alphonse D'Amato who had been an long-time ally of Giuliani broke with him because of his prosecution of D'Amato contributor Milken.

It was in 1983 that Giuliani prosecuted Marc Rich on charges of tax evasion and illegally making oil deals with Iran during the hostage crisis. Rich fled the United States for Switzerland to avoid charges and was pardoned by President Bill Clinton in 2001.

then

In addition to decreasing the rate of street crime, Giuliani went after enterprises linked to organized crime, such as the Fulton Fish Market and the Javits Center on the West Side.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudy_Giuliani

dissention

10-05-2005, 04:27 PM

Finally, the voice of reason. :lol:

I wouldn't count him out. The Republican party will be begging him to run if their bad luck continues, and he could very well win with the support of the moderate and fairweather Democrats.

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 04:27 PM

Finally, the voice of reason. :lol:

But, I am unsure that would be enough to overcome his status as a national hero of mythic proportions. Moreover, these same people venerated him when he was running against Hillary.

I think while a few may try, they would fail due to his national hero status. I mean every Bubba in creation loves the guy :shrug:

dissention

10-05-2005, 04:30 PM

Well, he did a pretty good job before and during office, to wit:

Rudy Giuliani started his political life as a Democrat, before registering as an Independent. Afterward, he finally decided on being a Republican.

In 1970, Giuliani joined the Office of the US Attorney. At age 29, he was named Chief of the Narcotics Unit and rose to serve as executive US Attorney. In 1975, Giuliani was recruited to Washington, D.C., where he was named Associate Deputy Attorney General and chief of staff to the Deputy Attorney General. His first high-profile prosecution was Congressman Bert Podell who was convicted of corruption. From 1977 to 1981, Giuliani practiced law at the Patterson, Belknap, Webb and Tyler law firm.

In 1981, Giuliani was named Associate Attorney General, the fourth highest position in the Department of Justice. As Associate Attorney General, Giuliani supervised all of the US Attorney Offices' Federal law enforcement agencies, the Department of Corrections, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the United States Marshals Service. During this time, he successfully argued on behalf of the U.S. government, in a high-profile case, that there was "no political repression" in Haiti under President Jean-Claude Duvalier, aka "Baby Doc".

In 1983, Giuliani was appointed U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. It was in that position that he first gained national prominence by prosecuting numerous high-profile cases, including indictments of Wall Street figures Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken for insider trading. Giuliani attracted some criticism for arranging very public arrests of people, then dropping charges for lack of evidence instead of going to trial. He also spearheaded the effort to jail drug dealers, fight organized crime, break the web of corruption in government, and prosecute white-collar criminals. He amassed a record of 4,152 convictions with only 25 reversals. Senator Alphonse D'Amato who had been an long-time ally of Giuliani broke with him because of his prosecution of D'Amato contributor Milken.

It was in 1983 that Giuliani prosecuted Marc Rich on charges of tax evasion and illegally making oil deals with Iran during the hostage crisis. Rich fled the United States for Switzerland to avoid charges and was pardoned by President Bill Clinton in 2001.

then

In addition to decreasing the rate of street crime, Giuliani went after enterprises linked to organized crime, such as the Fulton Fish Market and the Javits Center on the West Side.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudy_Giuliani

In 1982, he said there was no political oppression in Haiti. :laugh:

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 04:30 PM

That would be one interesting 14 hour flight, lemme tell ya...

I may have take one of the Scotties on it for good measure. How do you feel about a bearded black bitch on your lap for a few hours :wavey:

Sigh.... just wishful thinking. Alas, the new hardwood floors and the kitchen redo have dibs on my next cash outlay. And maybe Europe for my birthday...

If I haul my ass to LA - you are being kidnapped. Sparky has a ball gag ready and I am in charge of the fur restraints.

gldstwmn

10-05-2005, 04:30 PM

But, I am unsure that would be enough to overcome his status as a national hero of mythic proportions.

Just read Brownie's post up thread. :shrug:

DavidMn

10-05-2005, 04:30 PM

But, I am unsure that would be enough to overcome his status as a national hero of mythic proportions. Moreover, these same people venerated him when he was running against Hillary.

I think while a few may try, they would fail due to his national hero status. I mean every Bubba in creation loves the guy :shrug:
Boy the comedy is just hilarious in here today.. Bubba :lol:

The Tower

10-05-2005, 04:31 PM

I wouldn't count him out. The Republican party will be begging him to run if their bad luck continues, and he could very well win with the support of the moderate and fairweather Democrats.
Nah. It'll never happen. The social conservatives would never allow a pro-choice, gay-tolerant republican to represent them. Never.

But, I am unsure that would be enough to overcome his status as a national hero of mythic proportions. Moreover, these same people venerated him when he was running against Hillary.

I think while a few may try, they would fail due to his national hero status. I mean every Bubba in creation loves the guy :shrug:
I don't think everyone loves him. I think he's kinda creepy, and I certainly don't think he's a hero.

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 04:31 PM

In 1982, he said there was no political oppression in Haiti. :laugh:

What does that have to do with his mob prosecution :shrug:

dissention

10-05-2005, 04:32 PM

Nah. It'll never happen. The social conservatives would never allow a pro-choice, gay-tolerant republican to represent them. Never.

I thought the same thing until recently, but now I'm not so sure.

I don't think everyone loves him. I think he's kinda creepy, and I certainly don't think he's a hero.

Again, he's a ****ing fascist.

dissention

10-05-2005, 04:33 PM

What does that have to do with his mob prosecution :shrug:

Not a thing, I just found it particularly funny. :laugh:

The Tower

10-05-2005, 04:34 PM

I may have take one of the Scotties on it for good measure. How do you feel about a bearded black bitch on your lap for a few hours :wavey:
It's the only kind of bitch that will ever be allowed in my lap...

If I haul my ass to LA - you are being kidnapped. Sparky has a ball gag ready and I am in charge of the fur restraints.
You'll hafta bring Josh with you so that he can be in charge of the paddle.

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 04:34 PM

. . . I don't think everyone loves him. I think he's kinda creepy, and I certainly don't think he's a hero.

Certainly not everyone, but the vast majority of Americans do.

Again, all they have to hit him with on any relevant front is his use and misuse of the NYPD to clean up crime and his wanting to cut off funding for an art exhbit most do not want funded. Middle America will add that to his 9/11 hero status. I am not saying they are correct. I am just saying that will be the overall perception by many if not most.

I am not in favor of the gut by any means. I just think he is the most preferable R if we have to have an R.

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 04:35 PM

. . . You'll hafta bring Josh with you so that he can be in charge of the paddle.

We'll just let him use his tongue - it is a blunt enough instrument.

BTW - the thought of Diss. in a plane sharing community air and toilets is sight worth $100,000 :laugh:

DavidMn

10-05-2005, 04:36 PM

It's the only kind of bitch that will ever be allowed in my lap...

You'll hafta bring Josh with you so that he can be in charge of the paddle.
Oh my :shocked: What's going on here? :p

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 04:38 PM

Just read Brownie's post up thread. :shrug:

Are you suggesting that most of America does not look at him as a hero after 9/11? Every poll I have ever read refutes that.

Again, I am not saying he deserves that (though his actions were exemplary on 9/11) - I am just saying people look at him that way.

On edit - I mistook your intent as demonstrated below :sorry:

GypsySorcerer

10-05-2005, 04:47 PM

I thought the same thing until recently, but now I'm not so sure.

I agree. I bet they will run him, especially if Hillary is the nominee. He and McCain are the only Republicans with the name recognition that she has. And besides, they have paraded him out in the past when they need a boost.

dissention

10-05-2005, 04:47 PM

Are you suggesting that most of America does not look at him as a hero after 9/11? Every poll I have ever read refutes that.

No, she's saying the evangelicals won't support him because of some of his stances, as demonstrated by Brownie's post.

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 04:50 PM

No, she's saying the evangelicals won't support him because of some of his stances, as demonstrated by Brownie's post.

Oops - mea culpa :sorry: :sorry: :sorry: :sorry:

gldstwmn

10-05-2005, 04:52 PM

No, she's saying the evangelicals won't support him because of some of his stances, as demonstrated by Brownie's post.

Thank you. :wavey:

sparky

10-05-2005, 06:16 PM

No, she's saying the evangelicals won't support him because of some of his stances, as demonstrated by Brownie's post.

F them. It would be a breath of fresh air for them to be represented by someone who's ass wasn't beholden to them. Then the party could actually be something more than an puppet of the US Taliban. That would make for some interesting and possibly even reasonable policy decisions.

sparky

10-05-2005, 06:17 PM

You'll hafta bring Josh with you so that he can be in charge of the paddle.

Who says I can't man the gag and the paddle simultaneously?

I do have two hands ya know. :D

dissention

10-05-2005, 06:20 PM

That would make for some interesting and possibly even reasonable policy decisions.

If you want interesting and reasonable policy decisions, Giuliani ain't your guy. The man is slime.

Serrart

10-05-2005, 06:32 PM

He's hugely admired in my Country, also because he was a close friend to Giovanni Falcone, the judge who led the war against mafia here and got killed in a bomb attack.

What's his position on war in Iraq?

Romy

dissention

10-05-2005, 06:35 PM

What's his position on war in Iraq?

"Thank God that George Bush is our president."
-August 31, 2004

'Nuff said.

Serrart

10-05-2005, 06:38 PM

"Thank God that George Bush is our president."
-August 31, 2004

'Nuff said.

Oh well. Next candidate please. ;)

Romy

The Tower

10-05-2005, 06:38 PM

Who says I can't man the gag and the paddle simultaneously?

I do have two hands ya know. :D
I have plans for your other hand.... ;)

dissention

10-05-2005, 06:41 PM

Oh well. Next candidate please. ;)

Romy

Ah, but it gets better. :laugh:

"And it was here in 2001, in the same lower Manhattan, that President George W. Bush stood amid the fallen towers of the World Trade Center, and he said to the barbaric terrorists who attacked us, "They will hear from us."

Well, they heard from us.

They heard from us in Afghanistan and we removed the Taliban.

They heard from us in Iraq, and we ended Saddam Hussein's reign of terror.

So long as George Bush is our president, is there any doubt they will continue to hear from us until we defeat global terrorism?"

...and:

"From the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, to President George W. Bush, our party's great contribution is to expand freedom in our own land and all over the world.

And our party is at its best when we make certain that we have a powerful national defense in a still very, very dangerous world.

I don't believe that we're right about everything, and Democrats are wrong. They're wrong about most things."

Watching this speech was even better, trust me on that.

sparky

10-05-2005, 06:41 PM

If you want interesting and reasonable policy decisions, Giuliani ain't your guy. The man is slime.

I should research his history a bit. You and I don't share similar opinions about things like homelessness and poverty and the like. Although, anyone who says Thank God Bush is president is certainly a half wit. How is Giuliani with deficits ? Did he bankrupt New York like Bush has bankrupted the US ?

dissention

10-05-2005, 06:48 PM

I should research his history a bit. You and I don't share similar opinions about things like homelessness and poverty and the like. Although, anyone who says Thank God Bush is president is certainly a half wit. How is Giuliani with deficits ? Did he bankrupt New York like Bush has bankrupted the US ?

I think that's the only arena in which he excelled. When he wasn't busy leading the religious right's crusade against art, evicting the homeless from shelters, or condoning the murders of unarmed black men like Amadou Diallo by his police force, he turned the deficit into a surplus.

Regardless of how you feel about the homeless, I doubt that you could deny that his homeless policies were anything short of reprehensible.

sparky

10-05-2005, 07:06 PM

I think that's the only arena in which he excelled. When he wasn't busy leading the religious right's crusade against art, evicting the homeless from shelters, or condoning the murders of unarmed black men like Amadou Diallo by his police force, he turned the deficit into a surplus.

Regardless of how you feel about the homeless, I doubt that you could deny that his homeless policies were anything short of reprehensible.

There is a lot to be said for having a surplus of money.

I am puzzled by homelessness and have scant ideas about :

a) why it exists
b) what can be done about it, if anything
c) whose problem it really is.

I had an uncle who died homeless. Why? He was a drunk. He wanted to be a drunk. He refused help, he stole from everyone, he was a bad egg from the nursery on is how my Aunt described him. (But man was he a beautiful young man...I digress.) My brother was homeless for awhile. Why ? He is a junkie. He stole from everyone, burned every bridge available, quit rehab many times, and now lives in a trailer in the driveway of a friend's mother. She feels sorry for him. He currently uses his disability checks to buy booze and from what I hear, drugs when he can find them. That's the extent of my experience with homelessness.

What I would love to know is why certain other civilized countries - European in particular - don't have this problem. God knows our government is loathe to take direction from ANY OTHER COUNTRY who has solved the problems that plague us, however, just for my own information I would be curious to know why it is such a problem here and not in other places.

Brwn_eyes0511

10-05-2005, 07:07 PM

I think that's the only arena in which he excelled. When he wasn't busy leading the religious right's crusade against art

Yea, I tell you I do enjoy a good portrait of the Virgin Mary with dung! :nod:

Serrart

10-05-2005, 07:31 PM

What I would love to know is why certain other civilized countries - European in particular - don't have this problem. God knows our government is loathe to take direction from ANY OTHER COUNTRY who has solved the problems that plague us, however, just for my own information I would be curious to know why it is such a problem here and not in other places.

Talking about Italy, we have homeless too, but the numbers aren't considered alarming, as far as I know. About the possible solutions, here our social system connect with them through various programs in the big cities ( where the problem is visible) but the biggest help come from Caritas and other no- profit associations who work with thousands and thousands of volunteers, preparing meals, offering free medical assitance, clothes, counselling, places where they can rest and sleep, etc.

Romy

amber

10-05-2005, 08:36 PM

There is a lot to be said for having a surplus of money.

I am puzzled by homelessness and have scant ideas about :

a) why it exists
b) what can be done about it, if anything
c) whose problem it really is.

I had an uncle who died homeless. Why? He was a drunk. He wanted to be a drunk. He refused help, he stole from everyone, he was a bad egg from the nursery on is how my Aunt described him. (But man was he a beautiful young man...I digress.) My brother was homeless for awhile. Why ? He is a junkie. He stole from everyone, burned every bridge available, quit rehab many times, and now lives in a trailer in the driveway of a friend's mother. She feels sorry for him. He currently uses his disability checks to buy booze and from what I hear, drugs when he can find them. That's the extent of my experience with homelessness.

What I would love to know is why certain other civilized countries - European in particular - don't have this problem. God knows our government is loathe to take direction from ANY OTHER COUNTRY who has solved the problems that plague us, however, just for my own information I would be curious to know why it is such a problem here and not in other places.

Wow, I'm suprised Diss didn't answer this.
Well, little Sparky, it all starts with a lesson in how Capitalism works, and why.... :laugh:
Seriously, it does, but it's pretty complicated.
But in the simple way, it comes down to: The gov't, and most other people, don't give a crap about the homeless, or why they are homeless, etc. And they certainly don't want to allocate money to take care of the problem. I believe that statistics will back up the fact that most homeless people are mentally ill somehow. I mean, it's hard to care about homeless people, or even education, when there is huge money to be spent on defense. :)

dissention

10-05-2005, 08:37 PM

Wow, I'm suprised Diss didn't answer this.

I just now saw it after you bumped it up, that's why. :laugh:

amber

10-05-2005, 08:39 PM

I just now saw it after you bumped it up, that's why. :laugh:
Oh - I thought you trailed Sparky like a dog after a tasty bone.

:lol: :xoxo:

Since I can't write anymore, I was looking forward to your take. :mad: :laugh:

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 08:43 PM

Wow, I'm suprised Diss didn't answer this.
Well, little Sparky, it all starts with a lesson in how Capitalism works, and why.... :laugh:
Seriously, it does, but it's pretty complicated.
But in the simple way, it comes down to: The gov't, and most other people, don't give a crap about the homeless, or why they are homeless, etc. And they certainly don't want to allocate money to take care of the problem. I believe that statistics will back up the fact that most homeless people are mentally ill somehow. I mean, it's hard to care about homeless people, or even education, when there is huge money to be spent on defense. :)

True for the most part, but then there is the problem of once you put someone on the public tit, they do not want to get off of it; or, they get put in govt. housing, turn to drugs and get thrown out'or, they are mentally ill, get put in meds, get released, stop taking the meds, etc. I fully realize not everyone on welfare thinks that way or is in this situation, but clearly that problem exists and it is part of welfare that has to be fixed. Yet, when any politician has the sand to say that, they are branded an uncaring racist and when any person not on welfare ever in their lives says it, they are told they have no clue whay they are talking about and are an elitist.

dissention

10-05-2005, 08:46 PM

There is a lot to be said for having a surplus of money.

Of course there is, but I'm not too keen on electing a politician who can give us a surplus of money but also allows rampant corruption and misuse of power in his police force, leads crusades against art that he doesn't like and wants censored, forces the homeless out of shelters only to round them up when they start living on the street, and so on. Giuliani is a bad apple to me, and the worst kind because he comes across as so uncaring.

And what's the point of having a surplus if you're unwilling to help those who can benefit from it? I didn't see Giuliani coming up with any comprehensive housing policies once New York had money again.

amber

10-05-2005, 08:46 PM

DavidMn

10-05-2005, 08:47 PM

irishgrl

10-05-2005, 08:48 PM

I could live with him as well. Although I dont know what the hell the far right would do, assuming Hilary is the nominee for the Democrats. He might be the only Republican who can beat her, but they'd be in a quandry over his social policies.
I still say she aint running for President. That is smoke and mirrors on the part of the GOP and I cant believe how many people are falling for it.

amber

10-05-2005, 08:51 PM

Of course there is, but I'm not too keen on electing a politician who can give us a surplus of money but also allows rampant corruption and misuse of power in his police force, leads crusades against art that he doesn't like and wants censored, forces the homeless out of shelters only to round them up when they start living on the street, and so on. Giuliani is a bad apple to me, and the worst kind because he comes across as so uncaring.

And what's the point of having a surplus if you're unwilling to help those who can benefit from it? I didn't see Giuliani coming up with any comprehensive housing policies once New York had money again.
From everything I've heard/read, he's incredibly fascist, and possibly corrupt. I think he's smart, but he stanks. I mean, he's waaaaaaaaaay too fascist. Like, Mussolini and him would be friends.... :laugh:

dissention

10-05-2005, 08:55 PM

True for the most part, but then there is the problem of once you put someone on the public tit, they do not want to get off of it; or, they get put in govt. housing, turn to drugs and get thrown out'or, they are mentally ill, get put in meds, get released, stop taking the meds, etc. I fully realize not everyone on welfare thinks that way or is in this situation, but clearly that problem exists and it is part of welfare that has to be fixed. Yet, when any politician has the sand to say that, they are branded an uncaring racist and when any person not on welfare ever in their lives says it, they are told they have no clue whay they are talking about and are an elitist.

I think it's a bigger issue than that. Before politicians start decrying the woes of the government because they have poor bums sucking off of it's tits, maybe they should start addressing exactly why so many people are in those predicaments to begin with. They should be addressing what is going on in our society that leaves so many people poor, without health insurance, and jobs that cannot support them. They should be addressing why so many people are living out on the streets. Surely they aren't all drunks and bastards, there are too many impoverished people for that to be the case.

But they will not address any of that because it all comes down to money. They're beholden to capitalism and the insurance companies (which is why we'll never have socialized medicine) and all that other jazz. So they blame it all on the people who abuse public assistance, as if they make up the majority of people who are on public assistance because they have no other option. They give everyone on public assistance bad names so that the rest of the country gets into the act and gets furious that people are taking money out of their pockets to buy Timberland shoes and bling bling, as if those people doing so are the majority. Government should be there to help people and it's currently doing a shameful job of that.

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 08:56 PM

I was thinking of more intensive rehabilitation. What you said is the danger that everyone always brings up. But, last I read a statistic, welfare was about.....01% of the national budget, whereas defense was like....20%
I think there's room to spread it out there, even if some people do have to be "on the tit" their whole life. And when I'm saying that I'm thinking more in terms of mentally ill homeless people, and not so much of Welfare recipients.

I think mentally ill people should be in institutions as well. But, what do you do when they get better through medication and want to be released with the promise that they will take their meds. Then they do not and they go back or become some random homeless person. The only solution there is to make them check in daily and inject their medication or keep sane people institutionalized for their own good - both of which are rather Unconstitutional.

amber

10-05-2005, 08:57 PM

I agree with you, but did you read my stats on the actual money involved? That even makes it more ridiculous. *although they are old stats - current ones should be found, but I can't imagine it's changed too much*

Sesly, it makes it flaming ridiculous.

amber

10-05-2005, 09:01 PM

I think mentally ill people should be in institutions as well. But, what do you do when they get better through medication and want to be released with the promise that they will take their meds. Then they do not and they go back or become some random homeless person. The only solution there is to make them check in daily and inject their medication or keep sane people institutionalized for their own good - both of which are rather Unconstitutional.
well....for one thing, I assume they would only come to get the gov't help when they needed it. So, basically, if they don't take their meds, they'll be homeless again. :shrug: I don't think they should "have to check in", but I do think their meds should always be available to them. And perhaps therapy. Job training/placement. Whatever, they should have a lot of tools available to them is my point, and then if they don't utilize them, at that point it is their problem. I don't think there are enough intensive tools available to them, though. I don't just think that, I know it's true. :shrug: And if someone is hella crazy ( :laugh: ) then they should just be institutionalized, like "crazy" criminals are.

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 09:07 PM

I think it's a bigger issue than that. Before politicians start decrying the woes of the government because they have poor bums sucking off of it's tits, maybe they should start addressing exactly why so many people are in those predicaments to begin with. They should be addressing what is going on in our society that leaves so many people poor, without health insurance, and jobs that cannot support them. They should be addressing why so many people are living out on the streets. Surely they aren't all drunks and bastards, there are too many impoverished people for that to be the case.

I agree and am pretty sure I never said as much. But, many are and that issue needs to be addressed :shrug:

But they will not address any of that because it all comes down to money. They're beholden to capitalism and the insurance companies (which is why we'll never have socialized medicine) and all that other jazz. So they blame it all on the people who abuse public assistance, as if they make up the majority of people who are on public assistance because they have no other option. They give everyone on public assistance bad names so that the rest of the country gets into the act and gets furious that people are tkaing money out of their pockets to buy Timberland shoes and blinb bling, as if those people doing so are the majority. Government should be there to help people and it's currently doing a shameful job of that.

Aren't you guilty of that as well though? I get that you have said you give large amounts to charity; I am not asserting otherwise. I give too and I have given not only money but my time as well and have done so for many years. But, at what point is it enough when the govt. already takes like 35% or more of our income? I think the answer is that is a personal choice no one should comment on lest they want that high powered judgment turned on them. I am sure that there are homeless people who would scoff at me having a computer while they haven't eaten in days. Should I sell my computer and all my extraneous (however defined) possessions and live in a one room box with no decoration at all because somewhere someone will have less than I do :shrug: I realize that is an extreme example, but the logic is the same.

Having said that, I certainly think people should be as chartiable as possible and I think most are, despite your assertion that few care. I base that on the staggering amount of private donations in this country.

irishgrl

10-05-2005, 09:10 PM

amber

10-05-2005, 09:11 PM

amber

10-05-2005, 09:14 PM

I agree and am pretty sure I never said as much. But, many are and that issue needs to be addressed :shrug:

Aren't you guilty of that as well though? I get that you have said you give large amounts to charity; I am not asserting otherwise. I give too and I have given not only money but my time as well and have done so for many years. But, at what point is it enough when the govt. already takes like 35% or more of our income? I think the answer is that is a personal choice no one should comment on lest they want that high powered judgment turned on them. I am sure that there are homeless people who would scoff at me having a computer while they haven't eaten in days. Should I sell my computer and all my extraneous (however defined) possessions and live in a one room box with no decoration at all because somewhere someone will have less than I do :shrug: I realize that is an extreme example, but the logic is the same.

Having said that, I certainly think people should be as chartiable as possible and I think most are, despite your assertion that few care. I base that on the staggering amount of private donations in this country.

You always say things like this, which, to me, is arguing within the existing system. Which is understandable, we live in the giant Capitalist power of the world.
But if you take it out of the personal, where you have it, and into the theoretical, where a new paradigm could *possibly* be established - that is more what we are talking about. :) You know, a new, productive way of handling resources? :)

Brwn_eyes0511

10-05-2005, 09:15 PM

Wow, I'm suprised Diss didn't answer this.
Well, little Sparky, it all starts with a lesson in how Capitalism works, and why.... :laugh:
Seriously, it does, but it's pretty complicated.
But in the simple way, it comes down to: The gov't, and most other people, don't give a crap about the homeless, or why they are homeless, etc. And they certainly don't want to allocate money to take care of the problem. I believe that statistics will back up the fact that most homeless people are mentally ill somehow. I mean, it's hard to care about homeless people, or even education, when there is huge money to be spent on defense. :)

Actually the real problem is....(bet you can guess what I'm going to say before I say it....) LIBERALS! I'm sick of hearing how capitalism is the "root" of all evil and the "reason" for the homeless. And even more sick about hearing how conservatives are responsible for racism and the poor, and what links them together.

Liberals are going to have to accept at some point, that they are not responsible for civil rights and equality in this country. They are responsible for supporting the party who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and currently aid in the perseverance of patronizing racism that feeds a culture of entitlement which kills the incentive of the individual, white or black, to achieve.

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 09:15 PM

well....for one thing, I assume they would only come to get the gov't help when they needed it. So, basically, if they don't take their meds, they'll be homeless again. :shrug: I don't think they should "have to check in", but I do think their meds should always be available to them. And perhaps therapy. Job training/placement. Whatever, they should have a lot of tools available to them is my point, and then if they don't utilize them, at that point it is their problem. I don't think there are enough intensive tools available to them, though. I don't just think that, I know it's true. :shrug: And if someone is hella crazy ( :laugh: ) then they should just be institutionalized, like "crazy" criminals are.

I agree with you that more should be done.

I am just unsure what the best method is. I mean your statement "they should have a lot of tools available to them is my point, and then if they don't utilize them, at that point it is their problem" essentially ignores the basic conclusion that they will be homeless again and start the problem again.

I honestly do not know what the solution here is other than focring them to take their meds, which is a touchy subject. I mean I do not think tax dollars should be spent constantly institutionalizing people who refuse to take medication that could make them a productive member of society. Yet, these people have rights and some of that medication is not that much of a guarantee.

dissention

10-05-2005, 09:15 PM

Aren't you guilty of that as well though?

Guilty of what? I don't decry my tax dollars being used to help those in need; I never have and I never will. What I do object to is wasteful spending. You know, ordering millions of bags of ice for the Katrina victims and then essentially throwing them away. That's money that could have gone to housing or feeding those people.

I get that you have said you give large amounts to charity; I am not asserting otherwise. I give too and I have given not only money but my time as well and have done so for many years. But, at what point is it enough when the govt. already takes like 35% or more of our income?
I think the answer is that is a personal choice no one should comment on lest they want that high powered judgment turned on them. I am sure that there are homeless people who would scoff at me having a computer while they haven't eaten in days. Should I sell my computer and all my extraneous (however defined) possessions and live in a one room box with no decoration at all because somewhere someone will have less than I do :shrug: I realize that is an extreme example, but the logic is the same.

Having said that, I certainly think people should be as chartiable as possible and I think most are, despite your assertion that few care. I base that on the staggering amount of private donations in this country.

I really don't think any of that applies to anything I said. :shrug:

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 09:18 PM

which is exactly why we would be better off with HIM (if any R, that is)
than the current crop of favor curriers...........ACK :p

Which was the point of my initial comments - I would take Giuliani on a minute over just about any other R candidate currently beinf discussed save for maybe McCain.

That point is not to be confused with I want any R to win. In fact, I don't want any or most D names currently being bandied about, save maybe for Edwards. I think both parties are full of shiitte :mad:

dissention

10-05-2005, 09:19 PM

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 09:20 PM

You always say things like this, which, to me, is arguing within the existing system. Which is understandable, we live in the giant Capitalist power of the world.
But if you take it out of the personal, where you have it, and into the theoretical, where a new paradigm could *possibly* be established - that is more what we are talking about. :) You know, a new, productive way of handling resources? :)

Well, I am all for that - but what would that be? No one seems to be able to answer that outside of communism, which I submit the human spirit will never allow. For example, where would we be if everyone lived in the same box, ate the same foods, wore the same clothing, etc. Where would we be without the money to fund artists, etc.

amber

10-05-2005, 09:20 PM

dissention

10-05-2005, 09:20 PM

That point is not to be confused with I want any R to win. In fact, I don't want any or most D names currently being bandied about, save maybe for Edwards. I think both parties are full of shiitte :mad:

They are both full of ****. There is no real difference between them and it's a shame that this country is beholden to the two-party system when neither party is worth having around.

dissention

10-05-2005, 09:23 PM

Dude, wasteful spending is defense spending. And that's what most tax dollars go for. Make no mistake. Look at the statistics.

And the funny thing is that while most money is wasted on defense, we can't even give our troops overseas in Iraq and Afghainstan the proper protection for their vehincles or their bodies. If you can figure out why that is, I'll give you a cookie, because I sure as **** can't. :laugh:

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 09:24 PM

Guilty of what? I don't decry my tax dollars being used to help those in need; I never have and I never will. What I do object to is wasteful spending. You know, ordering millions of bags of ice for the Katrina victims and then essentially throwing them away. That's money that could have gone to housing or feeding those people.

I am not talking about that. I am talking about personal donations, which was clear from my post.

But, regarding you changing of the topic, I agree and if the fat were trimmed, out taxes could be cut in half or more.

I really don't think any of that applies to anything I said. :shrug:

It applies to your statement judging people for buying Timberland shoes and bling bling. How do you know that the person buying that did not give to charity as well :shrug: You don't - yet you made the assumption.

amber

10-05-2005, 09:25 PM

Well, I am all for that - but what would that be? No one seems to be able to answer that outside of communism, which I submit the human spirit will never allow. For example, where would we be if everyone lived in the same box, ate the same foods, wore the same clothing, etc. Where would we be without the money to fund artists, etc.
No, not communism. But there is a middle ground. It's just almost impossible for americans to imagine it, because we are the most consumptive society ever. We feel like we need certain things. We feel entitled to a certain way of life. I'm not saying I have the answers, but I am definitely saying that a bunch of the answers have already been identified, and no politician is willing to commit to them wholeheartedly. But I feel strongly that Capitalism, in it's present definition, and practice, is unworkable for much longer. There just isn't that many resources in the world to support it. We've nearly raped everything. :shrug: Capitalism runs on cheap labor, and making people desire things they don't need, and the resources to provide those things. It can't go on forever. That's just common sense!
It's the same old Power grab for resources and the control of them. Perhaps it's human nature, but I don't think it's the totality of human nature, which gives me hope. :angel:

amber

10-05-2005, 09:26 PM

And the funny thing is that while most money is wasted on defense, we can't even give our troops overseas in Iraq and Afghainstan the proper protection for their vehincles or their bodies. If you can figure out why that is, I'll give you a cookie, because I sure as **** can't. :laugh:
yeah, what the heck is up with that?!?!?! :laugh: It's all very disgraceful.

So, does anyone (Strand?) have the statistical numbers on Gov't spending yet?

Brwn_eyes0511

10-05-2005, 09:27 PM

Oh, bite my ass.

Didn't know you were into that stuff. :laugh:

And you say this with exactly what kind of experience in the real world? Go volunteer to work in a welfare office, it will be an enlightening experience for you, I promise.

You can't deny that Josh. That complete racism that is implied by liberals..."Oh, well blacks they're stupider so they deserve special treatment", not only is that racist to whites but even more racist to the minorities and kills their incentive to achieve anything.

Why is it that you feel that someone has to have a "life experience" in order to make a relative point? The facts don't change, regardless of what "life experience" a person has had. What exactly makes you qualified Mother Theresa? I could sit here and argue about how you don't know what my life has been like or what I have volunteered for...but then that would be the liberal approach...which is "you must have an experience to have a valid argument."

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 09:28 PM

No, not communism. But there is a middle ground. It's just almost impossible for americans to imagine it, because we are the most consumptive society ever. We feel like we need certain things. We feel entitled to a certain way of life. I'm not saying I have the answers, but I am definitely saying that a bunch of the answers have already been identified, and no politician is willing to commit to them wholeheartedly. But I feel strongly that Capitalism, in it's present definition, and practice, is unworkable for much longer. It's the same old Power grab for resources and the control of them. Perhaps it's human nature, but I don't think it's the totality of human nature, which gives me hope. :angel:

The human nature part is individuality, which I firmly believe humans need to survive.

But and again, at what point do I determine what I need? I can assure you whatever point I chose, there will be someone who thinks I am an a$$ for wasting my money on things I do not need.

dissention

10-05-2005, 09:28 PM

I am not talking about that. I am talking about personal donations, which was clear from my post.

But, regarding you changing of the topic, I agree and if the fat were trimmed, out taxes could be cut in half or more.

You changed the topic, Jason, because I wasn't discussing personal donations or anything of the sort. I was talking about public assistance in response to your post about the sucking of the public tit and that never changed. :shrug:

It applies to your statement judging people for buying Timberland shoes and bling bling. How do you know that the person buying that did not give to charity as well :shrug: You don't - yet you made the assumption.

I'm talking about people bitching that their tax dollars are going to people on public assistance who are going to buy Timberlands and bling bling with that money, hon. I.e. abuse public assistance.

irishgrl

10-05-2005, 09:30 PM

"Thank God that George Bush is our president."
-August 31, 2004

'Nuff said.

hey now, you owe me royalties! :laugh: ;) :thumbsup:

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 09:31 PM

. . . So, does anyone (Strand?) have the statistical numbers on Gov't spending yet?

How come I always gotta do the work :laugh:

Actually, I will say this. I posted in a thread awhile back that W is throwing an historical amount of money at poverty in an attempt to keep it at the relatively and comparatively low current rate and to prevent that rate from rising any more. Yet, people slammed me for daring to suggest that that was a good thing :laugh:

Brwn_eyes0511

10-05-2005, 09:32 PM

[quote]I'm talking about people bitching that their tax dollars are going to people on public assistance who are going to buy Timberlands and bling bling with that money, hon. I.e. abuse public assistance.

We don't exactly bitch about that. I bitch about the fact that half of the people getting "our tax dollars" don't NEED it, when so many other people do. Welfare started out as one thing...but ended up as something else.

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 09:33 PM

. . . I'm talking about people bitching that their tax dollars are going to people on public assistance who are going to buy Timberlands and bling bling with that money, hon. I.e. abuse public assistance.

I misunderstood you :sorry:

dissention

10-05-2005, 09:34 PM

I misunderstood you :sorry:

And I got lectured because of it. Pfffffft.

:p :laugh:

irishgrl

10-05-2005, 09:34 PM

Wow, I'm suprised Diss didn't answer this.
Well, little Sparky, it all starts with a lesson in how Capitalism works, and why.... :laugh:
Seriously, it does, but it's pretty complicated.
But in the simple way, it comes down to: The gov't, and most other people, don't give a crap about the homeless, or why they are homeless, etc. And they certainly don't want to allocate money to take care of the problem. I believe that statistics will back up the fact that most homeless people are mentally ill somehow. I mean, it's hard to care about homeless people, or even education, when there is huge money to be spent on defense. :)

Here in sunny CA, we can thank dear old Teflon Ron for the huge numbers of homeless roaming the streets....many of whom are also vietnam vets btw, all of which have some sort of mental issue which prevents their dealing with responsibility (like bill paying, grocery shopping, shelter procuring etc) they get a pittance first of the month (usually from GA, I should know) spend it on cel phones, booze and cigarettes. its gone by the end of the first week. the other three weeks, they bum off of people, dumpster dive, engage in petty thievery, pester Behavioral Health for meds and generally avoid baths. and toothbrushes. Not my idea of a fun life.

amber

10-05-2005, 09:35 PM

The human nature part is individuality, which I firmly believe humans need to survive.

But and again, at what point do I determine what I need? I can assure you whatever point I chose, there will be someone who thinks I am an a$$ for wasting my money on things I do not need.
1) You can be "individual" without buying ****. In fact, I think people love their individuality the most when they are engaged in work that means something to them. But that's another thing.
2) It's impossible for you, like it is for many Americans, to think outside the paradigm of the current system you are ensconced in. It's bigger, and different, and more whole, than you giving up your personal stuff you have right now. That's not the point at all. So I can't really discuss the microcosmic point of "you giving up something" because that's not really what it's about. It's about a whole system, a whole thought process, a way of thinking...globally about the future...(cheesy Cali phrase, but nevertheless apropos.)
2) You're bringing it to the micro, when it's really about the macro.
:wavey: :xoxo:

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 09:36 PM

irishgrl

10-05-2005, 09:37 PM

How come I always gotta do the work :laugh:

Actually, I will say this. I posted in a thread awhile back that W is throwing an historical amount of money at poverty in an attempt to keep it at the relatively and comparatively low current rate and to prevent that rate from rising any more. Yet, people slammed me for daring to suggest that that was a good thing :laugh:
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, you got slammed because you said poverty was worse under Clinton than Bush and tried to justify it by saying he threw more $$$$ at it. you LATER said that the high poverty numbers under Clinton werent his fault which I could actually agree with. and thats how we left it. dont make me spank you!!

amber

10-05-2005, 09:38 PM

Here in sunny CA, we can thank dear old Teflon Ron for the huge numbers of homeless roaming the streets....many of whom are also vietnam vets btw, all of which have some sort of mental issue which prevents their dealing with responsibility (like bill paying, grocery shopping, shelter procuring etc) they get a pittance first of the month (usually from GA, I should know) spend it on cel phones, booze and cigarettes. its gone by the end of the first week. the other three weeks, they bum off of people, dumpster dive, engage in petty thievery, pester Behavioral Health for meds and generally avoid baths. and toothbrushes. Not my idea of a fun life.
Don't. Even. Get. Me.Started.About.Reagan. :mad: :mad: :mad:
Also, yes, exactly. The vietnam vets are the most poignant and sad of these homeless stories, too, and I see soooo many. :( Those are some mental issues that would take years of intensive therapy to overcome. I shudder to think of the mental baggage that the Iraq soldiers will come home with. It doesn't just hurt them, it hurts society as a whole.

dissention

10-05-2005, 09:40 PM

Here in sunny CA, we can thank dear old Teflon Ron for the huge numbers of homeless roaming the streets....many of whom are also vietnam vets btw, all of which have some sort of mental issue which prevents their dealing with responsibility (like bill paying, grocery shopping, shelter procuring etc) they get a pittance first of the month (usually from GA, I should know) spend it on cel phones, booze and cigarettes. its gone by the end of the first week. the other three weeks, they bum off of people, dumpster dive, engage in petty thievery, pester Behavioral Health for meds and generally avoid baths. and toothbrushes. Not my idea of a fun life.

I brought that up when Ronny croaked and was accused of being a heartless bastard with no class. :laugh:

irishgrl

10-05-2005, 09:40 PM

Here are some sites about the breakdown of public assistance.

I am working through them now and do not know too much about their credibility.

http://www.oecd.org/topicstatsportal/0,2647,en_2825_497118_1_1_1_1_1,00.html

http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/stecgovt.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/welfare-reform-announcement-book.html

Happy Reading :wavey:

its more accurate to go to a county accounting site, because it is the counties that administer the funds for GA. Cash Aid, (the program that helps parents with children) is different from General Assistance. The monies come out of two different pots.

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 09:42 PM

1) You can be "individual" without buying ****. In fact, I think people love their individuality the most when they are engaged in work that means something to them. But that's another thing.

They do, but look at all the beauriful things in the world people have had the money to commission. Look at the works of art. Look at the beautiful houses built. Look at the skyscrapers. All that took money to express individuality :shrug:

2) It's impossible for you, like it is for many Americans, to think outside the paradigm of the current system you are ensconced in. It's bigger, and different, and more whole, than you giving up your personal stuff you have right now. That's not the point at all. So I can't really discuss the microcosmic point of "you giving up something" because that's not really what it's about. It's about a whole system, a whole thought process, a way of thinking...globally about the future...(cheesy Cali phrase, but nevertheless apropos.)

Well that was condecending :laugh: Of course I can think outside of the box. But, I, like you, cannot think of any solution that is better than fixing the system we have now. If you can - let's hear it.

irishgrl

10-05-2005, 09:42 PM

I brought that up when Ronny croaked and was accused of being a heartless bastard with no class. :laugh:
I brought it up too, and since I LIVE here, and I know first hand what he did (he was terrible as GOV) I supported you my friend. re-read the thread and you'll see! :wavey:

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 09:43 PM

its more accurate to go to a county accounting site, because it is the counties that administer the funds for GA. Cash Aid, (the program that helps parents with children) is different from General Assistance. The monies come out of two different pots.

True - but I was focusing on the total amount of Federal Aid as we were talking about that. But, I will look later for how counties disburse that and other aid.

dissention

10-05-2005, 09:44 PM

I brought it up too, and since I LIVE here, and I know first hand what he did (he was terrible as GOV) I supported you my friend. re-read the thread and you'll see! :wavey:

You did. If I remember correctly, it was you, Chris, and I who went on the Reagan tear. :laugh:

amber

10-05-2005, 09:44 PM

Found this handy pie chart:

http://www.perezhilton.com/topics/listen_to_this/listen_to_this_fallin_for_stevie_20051004.php

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 09:45 PM

And I got lectured because of it. Pfffffft.

:p :laugh:

Do you want me to bite your a$$ - cuz I will ya know :xoxo: :xoxo:

irishgrl

10-05-2005, 09:46 PM

you girlz are just too wild for staid ol me! :lol:

amber

10-05-2005, 09:47 PM

They do, but look at all the beauriful things in the world people have had the money to commission. Look at the works of art. Look at the beautiful houses built. Look at the skyscrapers. All that took money to express individuality :shrug:

Well that was condecending :laugh: Of course I can think outside of the box. But, I, like you, cannot think of any solution that is better than fixing the system we have now. If you can - let's hear it.

Okay, Ayn, sorry, I didn't mean to be condescending, it just appeared you couldn't think outside the current paradigm with the arguments you were presenting. :sorry: Just going by what you say.

One solution...lets start with less defense spending, mmkay? that would be huge, it would free up an immense amount of money.

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 09:48 PM

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, you got slammed because you said poverty was worse under Clinton than Bush and tried to justify it by saying he threw more $$$$ at it. you LATER said that the high poverty numbers under Clinton werent his fault which I could actually agree with. and thats how we left it. dont make me spank you!!

No, my initial statements were that though W's numbers have risen every year he has been in office (which I consistently said was a bad thing) - they are still comparatively low (though 0% is the goal) and he is throwing an historic amount of money (more than Clinton) at it in an attempt to stop that growth.

You misunderstood that for me saying W is doing better than Clinton, which I never said.

In the end, let's not get into that again :laugh:

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 10:37 PM

Okay, Ayn, sorry, I didn't mean to be condescending, it just appeared you couldn't think outside the current paradigm with the arguments you were presenting. :sorry: Just going by what you say.

Then you did not read my repeated statements requesting you present a solution instead of your bitchin' - which suggests I was and am open to any new ideas :wavey:

One solution...lets start with less defense spending, mmkay? that would be huge, it would free up an immense amount of money.

I am all for it and never said anything to the contrary :shrug: In fact, I repeatedly said here and elsewhere that I think less wasteful govt. spending is a great thing.

gldstwmn

10-05-2005, 11:05 PM

There is a lot to be said for having a surplus of money.

.

Well, it was the 90's. Everybody had surplus money.

amber

10-05-2005, 11:09 PM

Then you did not read my repeated statements requesting you present a solution instead of your bitchin' - which suggests I was and am open to any new ideas :wavey:

I am all for it and never said anything to the contrary :shrug: In fact, I repeatedly said here and elsewhere that I think less wasteful govt. spending is a great thing.

I believe I expressly said that I "did not have all the answers", but that one answer would be to "cut defense spending"
That's all I said. I didn't claim to have the giant solution, in fact I think I specifically disclaimed to have it, biotch. :laugh:
I need more than 3 minutes to gather all my lifelong notes of what the real answer is. Sheesh. :rolleyes:
Do you want my analytical treatise on Capitalism first, to lay the foundation, or do you want a simpler, meatier analysis/answer???
:laugh:

For your second point:
mmkay, that sounds fine... :shrug:

amber

10-05-2005, 11:10 PM

Well, it was the 90's. Everybody had surplus money.
Just like in the 20's before the Crash.
Good god, economic history is so simple, yet, few of our presidents care about it or understand it, apparently. :rolleyes:

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 11:11 PM

I believe I expressly said that I "did not have all the answers", but that one answer would be to "cut defense spending"
That's all I said. I didn't claim to have the giant solution, in fact I think I disclaimed to have it, biotch. :laugh:
I need more than 3 minutes to gather all my lifelong notes of what the real answer is. Sheesh. :rolleyes:
Do you want my analytical treatise on Capitalism first, to lay the foundation, or do you want a simpler, meatier analysis/answer???
:laugh: . . . .

Well, then stop telling me I cannot think outside the box, etc. when I cannot produce one :wavey:

It just irks me when people bitch about things, tell people they cannot see the forest for the trees, and then offer no viable solution :cool:

gldstwmn

10-05-2005, 11:12 PM

There is a lot to be said for having a surplus of money.

I am puzzled by homelessness and have scant ideas about :

a) why it exists
b) what can be done about it, if anything
c) whose problem it really is.

I had an uncle who died homeless. Why? He was a drunk. He wanted to be a drunk. He refused help, he stole from everyone, he was a bad egg from the nursery on is how my Aunt described him. (But man was he a beautiful young man...I digress.) My brother was homeless for awhile. Why ? He is a junkie. He stole from everyone, burned every bridge available, quit rehab many times, and now lives in a trailer in the driveway of a friend's mother. She feels sorry for him. He currently uses his disability checks to buy booze and from what I hear, drugs when he can find them. That's the extent of my experience with homelessness.

What I would love to know is why certain other civilized countries - European in particular - don't have this problem. God knows our government is loathe to take direction from ANY OTHER COUNTRY who has solved the problems that plague us, however, just for my own information I would be curious to know why it is such a problem here and not in other places.

The homeless problem in this country started in earnest when then governor of California Ronald Reagan decided to close mental institions and continued that on a grand scale when he took the office of the presidency. Let's also not forget how our veterans have been treated from the Vietnam era onward.

DavidMn

10-05-2005, 11:14 PM

The homeless problem in this country started in earnest when then governor of California Ronald Reagan decided to close mental institions and continued that on a grand scale when he took the office in the presidency. Let's also not forget how our veterans have been treated from the Vietnam era onward.O I know what youre talking about there. thats terrible how some of our soldiers have been treated!! :distress:

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 11:20 PM

Just like in the 20's before the Crash.
Good god, economic history is so simple, yet, few of our presidents care about it or understand it, apparently. :rolleyes:

Markets have crashed many times and for generally different reasons - though the comp. age greatly increased the flow of info. So, its not that simple?

http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/depression.html

http://www.lowrisk.com/crash/

http://stocks.about.com/od/whatmovesthemarket/a/crash102904.htm

Essentially, the margain (investing by borrowing money) was the cause of the 29 crash.

The most recent crash was less severe than the 29 crash and was spawned by the inflated stock prices of the IPO's and the loss of consumer confidence in fraudulent activities resulting in the bankruptcy of several of the largest corp.'s in the US.

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 11:24 PM

The homeless problem in this country started in earnest when then governor of California Ronald Reagan decided to close mental institions and continued that on a grand scale when he took the office in the presidency. Let's also not forget how our veterans have been treated from the Vietnam era onward.

Well, they had many homeless before then - but that certainly did not help - in fact, it greatly exacerbated the problem :nod:

amber

10-05-2005, 11:24 PM

Well, then stop telling me I cannot think outside the box, etc. when I cannot produce one :wavey:

It just irks me when people bitch about things, tell people they cannot see the forest for the trees, and then offer no viable solution :cool:
Fair enough. But I actually do have a good bulk of some stuff worked out. A bunch of solutions, and/or theories of possible solutions. And some varied knowledge to go with it. About how everything impacts everything else.
And you have to admit, if you are still talking about your personal income, and what you should and should not have the right to buy, you are thinking a bit more personally, and micro, and typically capitalistic. Moreso than I am for this particular argument.
You are thinking within the rules of the current system. Very, very well, I might add. :cool: Your attention to detail is unparallelled. I appreciate that. :cool:
So, I concede that you have a good point, with respect to some certain aspects of the whole. As do I. Who among us can truly see the whole?
The rare person.

I try, but goodness knows it's hard, if not impossible. But perhaps.... attainable? :shocked: I hope so, but I doubt it. And that's fine. My strategy is "Gather knowledge wherever you can, and in whatever forms it presents itself to you." :woohoo:

*discuss*

:laugh:

:xoxo:

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 11:25 PM

^^^^

LOL - I say I should be Pres.

gldstwmn

10-05-2005, 11:27 PM

gldstwmn

10-05-2005, 11:29 PM

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 11:31 PM

What a bunch of pull yourself up by your own bootstraps dreck. Heaven forbid that anyone in this country should have to think about anyone but their god damned selves for a minute. That's just what we need, a less caring, less kind America. Really, your first sentence is just disgusting. I'm apalled.

So, no one on welfare does this :shrug: Or are you just apalled because I said it and you know its true.

Again, I have repreatedly said not all welfare rec. are like this, to wit "I fully realize not everyone on welfare thinks that way or is in this situation . . . ." But, some are and that is part of the problem. I fail to see how that makes me a bad person :shrug:

Moreover, I repeatedly said people should give to charities and the govt. should cut the wasteful spending and help the people who need it. Again, I fail to see how that makes me a bad person :shrug:

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 11:33 PM

How about education? Is that on the tit too? Shouldn't we encourage our citizens to get their education? And what about healthcare?

Of course we should - and I never said anything to the contrary.

I think you are just angry because you are assuming I am talking about all welfare rec., which I have repeatedly said is not the case.

amber

10-05-2005, 11:34 PM

Markets have crashed many times and for generally different reasons - though the comp. age greatly increased the flow of info. So, its not that simple?

http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/depression.html

http://www.lowrisk.com/crash/

http://stocks.about.com/od/whatmovesthemarket/a/crash102904.htm

Essentially, the margain (investing by borrowing money) was the cause of the 29 crash.

The most recent crash was less severe than the 29 crash and was spawned by the inflated stock prices of the IPO's and the loss of consumer confidence in fraudulent activities resulting in the bankruptcy of several of the largest corp.'s in the US.

No, it's not simple, it's just so predictable cyclicle.
ie:
These economic/social factors coupled with *insert..."war, depression, etc"*

IMO, the same factors, with small variation, have led to predictable results.

And money is not that cut and dried. Sadly. But in a way, it is. You just have to factor in a few social components and politicial tendendies.

Like "communism with no viable resources and corrupt despots leads to (fill in the blank/unprecedented atrocities/unparallelled famine)" (Der Magazine every century)
It's all been the same over Millenia, with important distinguishing details, but ever any variance in true human motives.
:shrug:

Money, Greed, Resources, Strength, Survival Mechanisms, and who has power over all things things - and who has power over education (in my mind the most important factor)

Etc, have always worked together in the same way - It's the happy enlightened anomoly that has allowed us to advance. :woohoo:

And, just as you *should* imagine, money and all these other factors mixed together works in PAINFULLY predictable, mathematical ways. It's almost EMBARRASSING how easy this all is to figure out. I shudder that there is as much debate as there is. I expected so much more of all of us.
:wavey:

gldstwmn

10-05-2005, 11:35 PM

Liberals are going to have to accept at some point, that they are not responsible for civil rights and equality in this country. They are responsible for supporting the party who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and currently aid in the perseverance of patronizing racism that feeds a culture of entitlement which kills the incentive of the individual, white or black, to achieve.

Once again, your facts are wrong and if you can't get them straight, then you really need to just shut your pie hole.

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 11:36 PM

No, it's not simple, it's just so predictable cyclicle.
ie:
These economic/social factors coupled with *insert..."war, depression, etc"*

IMO, the same factors, with small variation, have led to predictable results.

And money is not that cut and dried. Sadly. But in a way, it is. You just have to factor in a few social components and politicial tendendies.

Like "communism with no viable resources and corrupt despots leads to (fill in the blank/unprecedented atrocities/unparallelled famine)" (Der Magazine every century)
It's all been the same over Millenia, with important distinguishing details, but ever any variance in true human motives.
:shrug:

Money, Greed, Resources, Strength, Survival Mechanisms, and who has power over all things things - and who has power over education (in my mind the most important factor)

Etc, have always worked tothether in the same way - It's the happy enlightened anomoly that has allowed us to advance. :woohoo:

touche'

though, when you figure out that predictability to the point of an exact date, let me and no one else know :laugh:

gldstwmn

10-05-2005, 11:38 PM

amber

10-05-2005, 11:39 PM

Two words: Social democracy.
Thank you, but I stand by my 4000 words it took me to say that! :laugh: :xoxo:

And Strand? No one believes more than you or I that the human is a .... very basic biological entity, in most cases. :xoxo: *le sigh*

*holy typing errors, Batman!*

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 11:42 PM

Two words: Social democracy.

For those who have no clue what that means :laugh: go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

But, in a nutshell:

Social democracy is a political ideology emerging in the late 19th and early 20th centuries from supporters of Marxism who believed that the transition to a socialist society could be achieved through democratic evolutionary rather than revolutionary means. It emphasises a program of gradual legislative reform of the capitalist system in order to make it more equitable, usually with the theoretical end goal of building a socialist society.

The term social democracy can also refer to the particular kind of society that social democrats support. The Socialist International (SI) - the worldwide organization of social democratic and democratic socialist parties - defines social democracy as an ideal form of representative democracy, that may solve the problems found in a liberal democracy. The SI emphasizes the following principles for building a welfare state:

First, freedom that includes not only individual liberties, but also freedom from discrimination and freedom from dependence on either the owners of the means of production or the holders of abusive political power, as well as the ability to determine one's own fate.

Second, equality and social justice, not only before the law but also economic and socio-cultural equality as well, and equal opportunities for all including those with physical, mental, or social disabilities.

Finally, solidarity - unity and a sense of compassion for the victims of injustice and inequality.
______________________________________________________________

I think it sounds great - but the application is a little difficult when they realize the govt. wants to take half of what they make and then wastes it on crap like the war in Iraq.

gldstwmn

10-05-2005, 11:45 PM

[QUOTE=dissention]

We don't exactly bitch about that. I bitch about the fact that half of the people getting "our tax dollars" don't NEED it, when so many other people do. Welfare started out as one thing...but ended up as something else.

The people who don't need our tax dollars are the top 3% that are getting huge tax breaks. Not to mention corporate wlefare.

amber

10-05-2005, 11:46 PM

How about education? Is that on the tit too? Shouldn't we encourage our citizens to get their education? And what about healthcare?
Dude - girl, you're preaching to the choir, I addressed it later, i just don't have time to explain every little thing, in every post.
Some things I assume poeple know.
I said later that the lack of education spending in the country is my greatest shame and sorrow. :wavey:

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 11:49 PM

Dude - girl, you're preaching to the choir, I addressed it later, i just don't have time to explain every little thing, in every post.
Some things I assume poeple know.
I said later that the lack of education spending in the country is my greatest shame and sorrow. :wavey:

. . . and I agree with you here as well. I think the fact that schools have to beg for money from outside the govt. is a horrid thing and it needs to stop. The more interesting point though is how do we successfully educate everyone. Have you been to an inner city public high school lately - it is way scary and many of those kids have not been receptive to the current methods of getting them to learn.

gldstwmn

10-05-2005, 11:49 PM

Well, they had many homeless before then - but that certainly did not help - in fact, it greatly exacerbated the problem :nod:

Who is they? Prove it.

Brwn_eyes0511

10-05-2005, 11:49 PM

Once again, your facts are wrong and if you can't get them straight, then you really need to just shut your pie hole.

If that is the case, I should never read another political post from you again!

And also...wow, such strong words. I pointed out the obvious dear and if you are unable to see...wait...of course you are unable to see it.

gldstwmn

10-05-2005, 11:51 PM

So, no one on welfare does this :shrug: Or are you just apalled because I said it and you know its true.

No, it's not true. You have at times accused myself and others of being rank partisans. And I am stating that your rank elitism is showing. And it ain't pretty.

gldstwmn

10-05-2005, 11:52 PM

Of course we should - and I never said anything to the contrary.

I think you are just angry because you are assuming I am talking about all welfare rec., which I have repeatedly said is not the case.

Well, yes you did mention the dole. If you're not talking about welfare, then what the hell are you talking about? Quit spinning, man.

amber

10-05-2005, 11:53 PM

For those who have no clue what that means :laugh: go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

But, in a nutshell:

Social democracy is a political ideology emerging in the late 19th and early 20th centuries from supporters of Marxism who believed that the transition to a socialist society could be achieved through democratic evolutionary rather than revolutionary means. It emphasises a program of gradual legislative reform of the capitalist system in order to make it more equitable, usually with the theoretical end goal of building a socialist society.

The term social democracy can also refer to the particular kind of society that social democrats support. The Socialist International (SI) - the worldwide organization of social democratic and democratic socialist parties - defines social democracy as an ideal form of representative democracy, that may solve the problems found in a liberal democracy. The SI emphasizes the following principles for building a welfare state:

First, freedom that includes not only individual liberties, but also freedom from discrimination and freedom from dependence on either the owners of the means of production or the holders of abusive political power, as well as the ability to determine one's own fate.

Second, equality and social justice, not only before the law but also economic and socio-cultural equality as well, and equal opportunities for all including those with physical, mental, or social disabilities.

Finally, solidarity - unity and a sense of compassion for the victims of injustice and inequality.
______________________________________________________________

I think it sounds great - but the application is a little difficult when they realize the govt. wants to take half of what they make and then wastes it on crap like the war in Iraq.

I agree.
that's why I think we need to think of new solutions, and maybe *gasp* call them new names, if that is what is necessary. Move forward. Everything doesn't have to fit in the same slots as it did before. People don't have to be black and white in their thinking on issues. Things have changed a lot, knowledge wise and technology wise since we made up the old rules. We have to take this into account! We're fools if we don't! We have to do what is right for what we have come to be, and what we have to work with right now,
which is completely different in myriad ways than what we were!
The old labels, and what they signified, are not adequate anymore!
Biatchez!!!

:lol:

*hops off soapbox. Specifically, the soap was "Planet" laundry soap. :D

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 11:53 PM

Who is they? Prove it.

I am saying that America had a homeless problem prior to Reagan. I think that is a generally known fact.

Brwn_eyes0511

10-05-2005, 11:54 PM

I am saying that America had a homeless problem prior to Reagan. I think that is a generally known fact.

And if they deny this...

I'm never looking at this thread AGAIN!

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 11:55 PM

Well, yes you did mention the dole. If you're not talking about welfare, then what the hell are you talking about. Quit spinning, man.

I am spinning nothing and I think you are angry at me for no reason.

I am talking about welfare and never said anything to the contrary. But,. please show me exactly where I said all welfare rec. are like the relatively few I specifically was talking about.

Again, I specifically said that I was not talking about all welfare rec. Did you miss that?

Moreover, do you really think that the problems I noted do not exist?

amber

10-05-2005, 11:56 PM

Well, yes you did mention the dole. If you're not talking about welfare, then what the hell are you talking about. Quit spinning, man.
That's like asking a Bush not to...

Use their money and connections to manipulate the fate of the free world, and the rest of the world, too!

Aww, we all spin.

Did I say that?
:laugh:

gldstwmn

10-05-2005, 11:57 PM

I am saying that America had a homeless problem prior to Reagan. I think that is a generally known fact.

Let's see the figures prior to Reagan's term as governor of California and then from about the middle of his presidency to present day.

gldstwmn

10-05-2005, 11:58 PM

I am spinning nothing and I think you are angry at me for no reason.

It is not your place to tell me that my feelings are invalid.

amber

10-05-2005, 11:59 PM

I am spinning nothing and I think you are angry at me for no reason.

I am talking about welfare and never said anything to the contrary. But,. please show me exactly where I said all welfare rec. are like the relatively few I specifically was talking about.

Again, I specifically said that I was not talking about all welfare rec. Did you miss that?

Moreover, do you really think that the problems I noted do not exist?

I...don't think you're spinning, necessarily...on purpose...I honestly think that there are some facts and opinions you might not be in possession of. :confused: None of us knows everything.
It just seems like that from what you say. :)

strandinthewind

10-05-2005, 11:59 PM

Let's see the figures prior to Reagan's term as governor of California and then from about the middle of his presidency to present day.

Bless your heart - are you having a bad night :laugh:

I specifically said that though there were homeless people in America prior to Reagan, his evacuation of the mentally ill greatly exacerbated the homeless population. How are you getting that I did not say that?

strandinthewind

10-06-2005, 12:00 AM

I...don't think you're spinning, necessarily...on purpose...I honestly think that there are some facts and opinions you might not be in possession of. :confused: None of us knows everything.
It just seems like that from what you say. :)

All I said was that some welfare rec. are content to stay there and some are caught in a vicious cycle perhaps due to their medical condition.

How is that spinning or implying I know everything?

strandinthewind

10-06-2005, 12:02 AM

It is not your place to tell me that my feelings are invalid.

I am trying to explain to you why I think they are not valid because you miscontrued what I said.

Again, I was not talking about all welfare rec. What part of that is hard to get?

gldstwmn

10-06-2005, 12:07 AM

I am trying to explain to you why I think they are not valid because you miscontrued what I said.

Again, I was not talking about all welfare rec. What part of that is hard to get?

Your initial statement was just apalling to me. And yes I'm angry but that's okay too. And since you asked, yes, I'm in pain. goodnight. :xoxo: :wavey:

amber

10-06-2005, 12:09 AM

I am trying to explain to you why I think they are not valid because you miscontrued what I said.

Again, I was not talking about all welfare rec. What part of that is hard to get?

Here's where you mentioned Welfare:

"True for the most part, but then there is the problem of once you put someone on the public tit, they do not want to get off of it; or, they get put in govt. housing, turn to drugs and get thrown out'or, they are mentally ill, get put in meds, get released, stop taking the meds, etc. I fully realize not everyone on welfare thinks that way or is in this situation, but clearly that problem exists and it is part of welfare that has to be fixed. Yet, when any politician has the sand to say that, they are branded an uncaring racist and when any person not on welfare ever in their lives says it, they are told they have no clue whay they are talking about and are an elitist."

Just saying. I don't like excess political correctness, either, but I have the feeling the potential for, and ramifications of, any kind of slur, are different. And by that, I mean in the different states, the law comes out different. :shocked: :laugh:

strandinthewind

10-06-2005, 12:09 AM

Your initial statement was just apalling to me. And yes I'm angry but that's okay too. And since you asked, yes, I'm in pain. goodnight. :xoxo: :wavey:

Well, I hope you get better and don't be mad at me :wavey:

strandinthewind

10-06-2005, 12:10 AM

Here's where you mentioned Welfare:

Well, I know, but I specifically noted that not all welfare rec. are like that, to wit:

I fully realize not everyone on welfare thinks that way or is in this situation, but clearly that problem exists and it is part of welfare that has to be fixed.

Thus, I was not talking about all rec. of welfare.

Out of curiosity, do you think the things I mentioned never occur and/or they are not a problem?

gldstwmn

10-06-2005, 12:13 AM

Well, I hope you get better and don't be mad at me :wavey:

I try not to hold on to anger. That's why it's just better to safely express it and move on. You don't see where your statement could be construed as just a tad elitist and cold though?

strandinthewind

10-06-2005, 12:13 AM

. . . Just saying. I don't like excess political correctness, either, but I have the feeling the potential for, and ramifications of, any kind of slur, are different. And by that, I mean in the different states, the law comes out different. :shocked: :laugh:

okay - that made no sense to me :laugh:

sparky

10-06-2005, 12:14 AM

Actually the real problem is....(bet you can guess what I'm going to say before I say it....) LIBERALS! I'm sick of hearing how capitalism is the "root" of all evil and the "reason" for the homeless. And even more sick about hearing how conservatives are responsible for racism and the poor, and what links them together.

Liberals are going to have to accept at some point, that they are not responsible for civil rights and equality in this country. They are responsible for supporting the party who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and currently aid in the perseverance of patronizing racism that feeds a culture of entitlement which kills the incentive of the individual, white or black, to achieve.

SUCH USEFUL INFORMATION.

Blame it on liberals. Call someone names. Point fingers ! Like that idiot shill bitch Ann Coulter. No solutions, just name calling and **** stirring. Brilliant. I didn't even read the rest of the thread after this post yet. I will, but your idiocy riles the hell out of me. There is nothing constructive here, nothing but provocation. This really helps. This furthers discusion. YOU ought to run for office. Hollering, screaming, belittling people and a political party out of some blind stupid, thoughtless adherence to a party you affiliate with. And offering nothing.

I joined this thread to get some input on other people's ideas about what causes and contributes to homelessness and poverty.

WHAT A GENIUS YOU ARE.

Thank you for your information, insight and open mided desire to figure out the causes of this problem.

Someone give me a strike for this post. I BEG OF YOU. It will be worth it.

amber

10-06-2005, 12:15 AM

Well, I know, but I specfically noted that not all welfare rec. are like that, to wit:

I fully realize not everyone on welfare thinks that way or is in this situation, but clearly that problem exists and it is part of welfare that has to be fixed.

Do you think that is not a problem?

It is a problem, but it's not the kind of problem you think it is, and it's not the size problem you are intimating it is.

That "problem" is like...the tip of the iceberg of things that should be addressed.
uh, do you want me to get the "cost of welfare compared to defense" chart out again?
Yeah, it needs to be fixed, but not in a "cutting budget" way. Sheesh. Good lawd. Criminy.
okay, love ya, I'm going to go eat. May check back. Have good night. Wish I had a candybar. Oops.
:wavey:

strandinthewind

10-06-2005, 12:15 AM

I try not to hold on to anger. That's why it's just better to safely express it and move on. You don't see where your statement could be construed as just a tad elitist and cold though?

Well, it was not intended that way.

Are you upset because I used the phrase public tit? If so, I can substitute it for public assisstance rolls. But, even then, the existence of SOME of the people on welfare being content to stay there and the other problems still exist and they need to be fixed.

I do not see how that is elitist or cold, esp. since I have repeatedly said in this and other threads that America should do way more than it does to help its poor.

strandinthewind

10-06-2005, 12:17 AM

It is a problem, but it's not the kind of problem you think it is, and it's not the size problem you are intimating it is.

That "problem" is like...the tip of the iceberg of things that should be addressed.
uh, do you want me to get the "cost of welfare compared to defense" chart out again?
Yeah, it needs to be fixed, but not in a "cutting budget" way. Sheesh. Good lawd. Criminy.
okay, love ya, I'm going to go eat. May check back. Have good night. Wish I had a candybar. Oops.
:wavey:

I never said that :laugh:

But, whatever.

amber

10-06-2005, 12:19 AM

okay - that made no sense to me :laugh:
alright.
1.I don't like super political correctness either. You said something about people being accused of racism.
2.I have the feeling we have different ideas of what "inappropriate" constitutes.
3.Because your home state law and attitudes are different than mine.

strandinthewind

10-06-2005, 12:22 AM

1.I don't like super political correctness either

Me either.

You said something about people being accused of racism.

Well, that happens. Do you deny that.

2.I have the feeling we have different ideas of what "inappropriate" constitutes.

Well, that may be true - but where in this thread have I been inappropriate? Please be specific.

3.Because your home state law and attitudes are different than mine.

What does that have to do with anything regarding my accurate point that some abuse the system, etc.

The Tower

10-06-2005, 12:26 AM

Government should be there to help people and it's currently doing a shameful job of that.
I love you- end of story. In some other reality- some other planet- you and I are joined togehter.... well, Jason and Sparky are there too, but quit yer bitching.

Aren't you guilty of that as well though? I get that you have said you give large amounts to charity; I am not asserting otherwise. I give too and I have given not only money but my time as well and have done so for many years. But, at what point is it enough when the govt. already takes like 35% or more of our income? I think the answer is that is a personal choice no one should comment on lest they want that high powered judgment turned on them. I am sure that there are homeless people who would scoff at me having a computer while they haven't eaten in days. Should I sell my computer and all my extraneous (however defined) possessions and live in a one room box with no decoration at all because somewhere someone will have less than I do :shrug: I realize that is an extreme example, but the logic is the same.

Having said that, I certainly think people should be as chartiable as possible and I think most are, despite your assertion that few care. I base that on the staggering amount of private donations in this country.
Jason, your defense of the wealthy is getting very old. Most people want to keep their money and few are willing to help- prejudices foster that as well.

I know that you are a sweetie-pie, but unfortunately most of the "wealthy" are not interested in giving up their stuff. Sorry, it's a fact of life. The whole reason for government and society is because greedy bastards withheld and wouldn't share the wealth.

strandinthewind

10-06-2005, 12:27 AM

. . .
Yeah, it needs to be fixed, but not in a "cutting budget" way. Sheesh. Good lawd. Criminy. . . .

I never said they should cut the budget. I think they should increase it after they made its application more effective by getting rid of the waste.

How is that a bad thing or me a bad person for saying it?

amber

10-06-2005, 12:29 AM

I never said they should cut the budget. I think they should increase it after they made its application more effective by getting rid of the waste.

How is that a bad thing or me a bad person for saying it?
I didn't say you were. That's the first time you said that. :confused: :laugh:
Sounds great to me.

The Tower

10-06-2005, 12:30 AM

The homeless problem in this country started in earnest when then governor of California Ronald Reagan decided to close mental institions and continued that on a grand scale when he took the office of the presidency. Let's also not forget how our veterans have been treated from the Vietnam era onward.
SING IT, MAMA!!!!!!

Oooh, I'd just like to squish you right now!

Ronald Reagan is/was a complete piece of **** and I'm glad the mother****er is dead in the ground.

No apologies.

gldstwmn

10-06-2005, 12:31 AM

Well, it was not intended that way..

Watch out mama, that horse you're riding is mighty high.

Are you upset because I used the phrase public tit? If so, I can substitute it for public assisstance rolls. .
No, I can handle the teat word. In fact, I can even handle the "c" word and have been known to throw it down once in a blue moon. :lol:

But, even then, the existence of SOME of the people on welfare being content to stay there.
Sweeping generalization. You'll never know until you've walked a mile in their shoes.
The "welfare queen" is a myth. :shrug:

gldstwmn

10-06-2005, 12:31 AM

SING IT, MAMA!!!!!!

Oooh, I'd just like to squish you right now!

Thank you. I could use a little squishing. :lol:

Brwn_eyes0511

10-06-2005, 12:32 AM

SUCH USEFUL INFORMATION.

Blame it on liberals. Call someone names. Point fingers ! Like that idiot shill bitch Ann Coulter. No solutions, just name calling and **** stirring. Brilliant. I didn't even read the rest of the thread after this post yet. I will, but your idiocy riles the hell out of me. There is nothing constructive here, nothing but provocation. This really helps. This furthers discusion. YOU ought to run for office. Hollering, screaming, belittling people and a political party out of some blind stupid, thoughtless adherence to a party you affiliate with. And offering nothing.

I joined this thread to get some input on other people's ideas about what causes and contributes to homelessness and poverty.

WHAT A GENIUS YOU ARE.

Thank you for your information, insight and open mided desire to figure out the causes of this problem.

Someone give me a strike for this post. I BEG OF YOU. It will be worth it.

Firstly, you aren't going to get a strike...because those in charge agree with you.

Secondly...You did get input from others' ideas about what causes homelessness/poverty/racisim...re-read my post one more time.

Thirdly, one must be able to get people to SEE the obvious before something can be done about it.

I'm going to start using large letters...they are fun!!!

The Tower

10-06-2005, 12:33 AM

Once again, your facts are wrong and if you can't get them straight, then you really need to just shut your pie hole.
If only. JEEZUS!!!!!

strandinthewind

10-06-2005, 12:37 AM

Jason, your defense of the wealthy is getting very old. Most people want to keep their money and few are willing to help- prejudices foster that as well.

I know that you are a sweetie-pie, but unfortunately most of the "wealthy" are not interested in giving up their stuff. Sorry, it's a fact of life. The whole reason for government and society is because greedy bastards withheld and wouldn't share the wealth.

That is just not true and a sweeping generalization not supported by the facts.

The really rich down to the moderately rich ($100,000 or more a year) donate billions each year to charities. That is hardly selfish, etc.

For example, here is a list on educational ones:

Largest private gifts and grants to higher education since 1967
A shorter version of this list was published in The Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac on August 27, 1999. Additions to the list since then appear in bold italics. Last updated on February 18, 2000. Supplements to earlier gifts are counted separately.

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

Gates Millennium Scholars program: from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, $1 billion; 1999*

Vanderbilt University: from the Ingram Charitable Fund, $300 million; stock; 1998*

Emory University: from the Lettie Pate Evans, Joseph B. Whitehead, and Robert W. Woodruff Foundations, $295 million; stock; 1996

University of California at San Francisco: from the estate of Larry L. Hillblom, up to $240 million to establish the Larry L. Hillblom Foundation, which will support medical research at the university and be of benefit to other charities; stock, land, and other assets; 1998*

New York University: from Sir Harold Acton, a 57-acre Italian estate, a collection of Renaissance art, and at least $25 million in cash with a value estimated by the university of more than$125 million and perhaps as much as $500 million; 1994*

Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering: from the F.W. Olin Foundation, at least $200 million to establish the college; cash; 1997*

Stanford University: from James H. Clark, $150 million, nature of gift not disclosed; 1999*

Polytechnic University: from Donald and Mildred Topp Othmer, $144.2 million; cash; 1998*

DePauw University: from Ruth Clark and Philip Forbes Holton, $128 million; stock; 1997

Louisiana State University: from Claude B. (Doc) Pennington, $125 million; stock and gas-and-oil royalties; 1981*

University of Nebraska: from Mildred Topp Othmer, $125 million; cash; 1998*

University of Pennsylvania: from Walter H. Annenberg, $120 million; cash; 1993

University of Southern California: from Walter H. Annenberg, $120 million; cash; 1993

University of Southern California: from the W.M. Keck Foundation, $110 million; cash; 1999*

Emory University: from Robert W. Woodruff, $105 million; stock; 1979

Barksdale Reading Institute at the University of Mississippi's School of Education: from James L. and Sally Barksdale; $100 million; stocks; 2000*

Cornell University: from an anonymous donor, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 1999*

Cornell University Medical College: from Joan and Sanford I. Weill, $100 million; nature o f gift not disclosed; 1998

Massachusetts Institute of Technology: from Kenan E. Sahin, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 1999*

Princeton University: from Gordon Y.S. Wu, $100 million; cash and securities; 1995*

Regent University: from the Christian Broadcasting Network, $100 million; interest-bearing note convertible to stock; 1992 1*

Rowan University: from Henry M. and Betty L. Rowan, $100 million; stock and cash; 1992*

Scripps Research Institute: from L. Samuel and Aline W. Skaggs, $100 million; cash; 1996*

University of North Dakota: from Ralph and Betty Engelstad, $100 million; cash, stocks and other assets; 1998*

University of Pennsylvania: from the Abramson Family Foundation, $100 million; cash; 1997*

University of Southern California: from Alfred E. Mann, $100 million; bequest; 1998*

Washington University (Mo.): from the Danforth Foundation, $100 million; stock; 1986

Washington University (Mo.): from the Danforth Foundation, $100 million; stock; 1997

University of Utah: from Jon M. Huntsman, $90 million; cash; 1995*

Yale University: from the estate of Paul Mellon, $90 million; cash, along with 155 paintings, drawings, and sculptures; 1999*

Emory University School of Theology: from the estates of W.I.H. and Lula Pitts, $83.3 millon; trust; 1999

Young Harris College: from the estates of W.I.H. and Lula Pitts and Margaret Adger Pitts, $82 million; trust; 1999

Iowa State University: from Raymond and Mary Baker, $80 million; stocks; 1999*

Stanford University: from William R. Hewlett and David Packard, $77 million; cash and securities; 1994*

Harvard University: from Edward Mallinckrodt, $75.5 million; securities; 1982

Florida International University: from Mitchell Wolfson, a museum and its collection, with a value estimated by the university of $75.5 million; 1997

Mount Sinai School of Medicine: from the Frederick and Sharon Klingenstein Fund, $75 million, cash and securities; 1999*

Harvard University: from John L. and Frances Lehman Loeb, $70.5 million; cash; 1995*

Liberty University: from Arthur and Angela Williams, $70 million; cash; 1997

Stanford University: from David and Lucile Packard, $70 million; stock and cash; 1986

University of Cincinnati Medical Center: from the estate of William A. French, $70 million trust; 1999*

California Institute of Technology: from Rea and Lela Axline, $60 million; cash; 1999

Columbia University: from John W. Kluge, $60 million; cash, stock, and bonds; 1993*

Georgetown University Medical Center: from the estate of Harry A. Toulmin, Jr., $60 million; charitable trust; 1997*

Harvard University Medical School: from Isabelle and Leonard Goldenson, $60 million planned gifts of an undisclosed form; 1994*

Illinois Institute of Technology: from Robert W. Galvin, $60 million; cash; 1996*

Illinois Institute of Technology: from Robert A. Pritzker, $60 million; cash; 1996*

University of Mississippi: from the Joseph C. Bancroft Charitable and Educational Fund, $60 million; trust; 1997*

University of Virginia: from Frank Batten, Sr., $60 million; stock; 1999

Asbury Theological Seminary: from Ralph Waldo Beeson, $58 million; stock and bonds; 1990

University of Miami: from James L. Knight, $56 million; charitable trust; 1986*

Berry College: from J. Bulow Campbell, $55 million; charitable trust; 1995

Columbia Theological Seminary: from J. Bulow Campbell, $55 million; charitable trust; 1995

Johns Hopkins University: from Michael R. Bloomberg, $55 million; cash; 1995

Princeton University: from Peter B. Lewis, $55 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 1999*

Washington University (Mo.): from the Danforth Foundation, $55 million; stock; 1986

Samford University: from Ralph Waldo Beeson, $54.8 million; stock and bonds; 1990

Texas A&M University: from Dwight Look, $52 million; land; 1992

Pepperdine University: from Blanche Ebert Seaver, $51.7 million; cash and stock; 1996

University of Houston: from John and Rebecca Moores, $51.4 million; stock; 1991

Brown University: from Walter H. Annenberg, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 1993*

California Institute of Technology: from the Arnold and Mabel Beckman Foundation, $50 million; cash and stock; 1986*

Columbia University School of Public Health: from the William H. Gates Foundation, $50 million; cash; 1999*

Cornell University Medical College: from an anonymous donor, $50 million; charitable trust 19832

Drake University: from Dwight D. Opperman, $50 million; cash and charitable remainder trust; 1997*

Johns Hopkins University: from the Zanvyl and Isabelle Krieger Fund, $50 million; cash; 1992*

Keck Graduate Institute of Applied Life Sciences: from the W.M. Keck Foundation, $50 million; cash; 1997

Stanford University: from William R. Hewlett, $50 million; cash and stock; 1986

United Negro College Fund: from Walter H. Annenberg, $50 million; cash; 1990*

University of Arizona College of Law: from James E. Rogers, $50 million; cash supplementing earlier pledges totaling $50 million this year; 1998*

University of Arkansas: from the Walton Family Charitable Support Foundation, $50 million cash; 1998

University of Richmond: from E. Claiborne Robins, $50 million; stock; 1969

University of Saint Thomas (Minn.): from Richard M. and Sandra Schulze, $50 million; cash and stock; 2000*

Yale University: from Paul Mellon, $50 million; art works and historical documents; 1992

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/2000/neurogifts.html

Here is another glaring example:

Gates thinks big, gives big

(CNN) -- How do you measure Bill Gates' success?

Forbes magazine puts a dollar figure on the Seattle, Washington-area native's net worth -- $46.6 billion in 2003 -- and crowned him the world's richest person for the seventh year in a row.

His company, Microsoft, reports that it raked in $32.19 billion in revenues for the fiscal year ending in June 2003, ranking it among Fortune's top 50 largest U.S.-based corporations.

And by donating $600 million a year and creating a charitable foundation with a $26 billion endowment, Gates is the world's largest private giver, according to The Washington Post.

His trademark glasses and restrained speech notwithstanding, most everything about Gates is big -- his business, wealth and philanthropy. He's a hero to some; a reviled monopolist to others.

"I think we are a little bit like the Yankees in that we've got a good track record, and sometimes people get a kick out of saying if we don't win, 'Hey, that's fascinating, why didn't they win?'" Gates said in late March 2004 of Microsoft, according to the high-tech publication eWeek.

The son of an attorney and a schoolteacher, Gates began computer programming in 1968, when he was 13. He entered Harvard in 1973, where he befriended future Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer. Gates developed a version of the BASIC computer language for the first microcomputer, the MITS Altair, during his stint at Harvard.

Gates left college in his junior year and launched Microsoft with his childhood friend Paul Allen. As the personal computer market exploded, so did Microsoft, growing into the industry leader in computer software.

Microsoft's enormous success developing and selling word processing and Internet browser programs, operating systems and other applications not only made Gates a rich man, it also made his company a prime target for government regulators.

After four years of legal wrangling, Microsoft fended off a bid to break up the company -- accused of anti-trust violations -- by reaching a deal with the Justice Department and nine states.

"We recognize that we will be closely scrutinized by the government and our competitors, and we will devote all the time, energy and resources needed to ensure that we meet our responsibilities," said Gates after the settlement became official in fall 2002.

Earlier this year, the European Union ended a five-year investigation by unanimously finding Microsoft guilty of abusing the "near-monopoly" of its Windows PC operating system on the continent and fined it 497 million euros ($613 million). Microsoft has said it will appeal the ruling.

But such rulings against his company do not necessarily reflect animosity against Gates, who was knighted in January by Britain's Queen Elizabeth for his business and charitable efforts.

Shortly after the EU ruling, EU commissioner and former Finnish Finance Minister Erkki Liikanen called the Microsoft chairman "a good man," according to Financial Express. "He's one of the greatest businessmen I have met. I admire him for his charity work."

Gates' charitable organizations -- starting with the William H. Gates Foundation in 1994, which was combined with the Gates Learning Foundation in January 2000 to create the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation -- have donated billions of dollars for global health initiatives, education programs, libraries and other causes.

By 2003, the Gates' foundations had given $250 million to install 47,000 computers in 11,000 libraries in 50 states and Washington, D.C. The New York public schools received $51 million in fall 2003 to create 67 small public high schools in the city -- one of several substantial Gates Foundation grants for urban American schools.

In 1999, $750 million went to produce and provide vaccines worldwide -- part of an extensive, expensive global health program -- The Washington Post reported. Gates has also helped lead the fight against AIDS, donating hundreds of millions of dollars for prevention and drug programs in Africa, India and elsewhere.

"You need to feed people and cure people before you can begin the development cycle of education and entrepreneurship," Gates said in 2001, quoted by the business and technology Web site Red Herring.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/04/16/gates

Here is another:

The 2003 Slate 60: Top Donations
The 60 largest American charitable contributions of the year.
Compiled by the Chronicle of Philanthropy
Posted Monday, Feb. 16, 2004, at 7:26 AM PT

Donors Who Gave $25 Million or More

Joan B. Kroc—a bequest of $1.91 billion to 10 organizations. Kroc, who died on Oct. 12, 2003, at age 75, was the widow of Ray A. Kroc, the founder of the McDonald's Corp. Her gifts were: $1.5 billion to the Salvation Army, in Alexandria, Va., to construct and endow up to 50 recreational and educational facilities across the United States; $200 million to National Public Radio to support the network's operating reserves and endowment; $60 million to Ronald McDonald House Charities to be distributed to its programs worldwide; $50 million to the University of Notre Dame to support the Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies; $50 million to the University of San Diego to establish the Joan B. Kroc School of Peace Studies at the Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice; $20 million to San Diego Hospice and Palliative Care to support its programs and services; $10 million to the San Diego Opera to support artistic programming; $5 million to KPBS radio and television, in San Diego, to establish an endowment and operating reserve and create a capital-equipment fund; $5 million to the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Diego to build a high school; and $500,000 to Mama's Kitchen, a meal-delivery service in San Diego for people with AIDS. Before her death, Kroc gave $5 million to the University of San Diego to endow a lecture series at the Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice.

Michael S. and Susan Dell—$673.7 million to the Michael and Susan Dell Foundation. Michael Dell, 38, chairman and chief executive officer of Dell, in Round Rock, Texas, and his wife, Susan, chief executive officer of the Michael and Susan Dell Foundation, in Austin, and president of Susan Dell, a clothing company, gave $673.7 million in Dell stock to the foundation, which supports childhood-development programs. In 2003, the organization gave 36 grants of $30,000 each during the Thanksgiving holiday to nonprofit organizations. The Dell foundation joined with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in giving $55 million in grants to support public education in Texas. Since it was established in 1999, the Dells have donated $1.2 billion in Dell stock to their organization. The foundation awarded $20 million in grants in 2003 and had $1.1 billion in assets at the end of the year.

Eli and Edythe L. Broad—$409 million to the Eli and Edythe L. Broad Foundation, the Broad Foundation, and the Broad Art Foundation. Eli Broad, 70, chairman of AIG Retirement Services, formerly SunAmerica, and his wife, Edythe, 67, gave $266 million to Eli and Edythe L. Broad Foundation, in Los Angeles, which supports medical research and other causes, primarily in California. The Broads also contributed $76 million to the Broad Foundation, in Los Angeles, which supports efforts to improve public elementary and secondary schools, and $67 million to the Broad Art Foundation, in Santa Monica, Calif., which seeks to foster public appreciation of contemporary art by lending its collection of artworks to museums.

John A. (Jack) Jackson—$247 million to the University of Texas at Austin. Jackson, a retired gas and oil executive who died in 2003 at age 89, pledged his estate, in 2002, to the John A. and Katherine G. Jackson School of Geosciences at the University of Texas at Austin following his death. Jackson estimated his estate's value at between $150 million and $200 million, but as it was being settled the university determined it was worth at least $247 million. Jackson's gift could actually be worth much more than $247 million, according to university officials, because one-third of the estate includes current and potential royalties in gas and oil reserves. Jackson graduated from the university in 1940 with a bachelor's degree in geology.

Frank Sr. and Jane Batten—$141.2 million to eight organizations. Frank Batten, 77, retired chairman and CEO of Landmark Communications, in Norfolk, Va., which owns the Weather Channel and several other media properties, and his wife Jane, 66, gave $32 million to Old Dominion University, in Norfolk, for research and to endow faculty chairs. The couple also gave $32 million to the Harvard Business School, from which Frank Batten graduated in 1952, for capital improvements. In addition, the couple gave $11.2 million in stock to Virginia Wesleyan College, in Norfolk, to support academic scholarships and professorships and $2.2 million to Hollins University, in Roanoke, Va., to support an endowed chair. Jane Batten graduated from the university in 1958, and Frank Batten served on the Hollins board of trustees from 1969 to 1991. The couple also gave $20.5 million to the Norfolk Foundation to establish the Batten Educational Achievement Fund to support educational, recreational, developmental, and enrichment programs in the region over the next 15 years. Additionally, the couple gave $11.3 million to the College of William and Mary, in Williamsburg, Va., to endow the school of business, and $11.2 million to the Tidewater Scholarship Foundation, in Norfolk, to support and expand a program that provides college-advising services and scholarships to local high-school students. Frank Batten co-founded the Tidewater Scholarship Foundation and was a member of the College of William and Mary's board of visitors. In 2003, the Battens also gave $20.8 million to the Culver Academies, in Indiana, to support academic programs, the faculty, and technology procurement, and to provide scholarships. Frank Batten graduated from the boarding school in 1945.

Robert Edward (Ted) Turner—$128 million to the U.N. Foundation, Better World Fund, Nuclear Threat Initiative, Brown University, the Citadel, and McCallie School. Turner, 65, founder of CNN and Turner Broadcasting System and chairman of Turner Enterprises, fulfilled a part of his pledge to the U.N. Foundation, in Washington. The gift, $60 million in stock, goes toward fulfilling the $1 billion pledge he made to the organization in 1997. He also gave $20 million to the Better World Fund, in Washington, which he created to educate people about the work of the United Nations, and $45 million in stock and cash to the Nuclear Threat Initiative, in Washington, which works to reduce the global threat posed by nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Turner co-founded the organization in 2001. He also gave stock valued at $1 million to the Citadel, a military college in Charleston, S.C. This unrestricted gift will likely be used for scholarships and capital improvements. Turner also gave stock valued at $1 million to the McCallie School, a college-preparatory school in Chattanooga, Tenn. According to a school spokesman, the gift will be used for capital improvements. Turner is a 1956 graduate of the school. Turner also gave stock valued at $1 million to Brown University. He attended the university but did not graduate.

Jane Bancroft Cook—$127 million to Jane's Trust. Bancroft Cook, an heir to the family that founded Dow Jones and Co. and a former board member of the company, who died in 2002 at age 90, gave $127 million to establish Jane's Trust, in Boston, a charitable trust. The trust will support the arts, education, the environment, health, and welfare projects in Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont.

Paul G. Allen—$100 million to the Allen Institute for Brain Science. Allen, 51, co-founder of Microsoft and founder and chairman of the investment firm Vulcan Inc., both in the Seattle metropolitan area, donated $100 million to create the Allen Institute for Brain Science, in Seattle. The institute's first project, the Allen Brain Atlas, will attempt to map the genes that operate the mammalian brain.

Jeffrey S. Skoll—$81.3 million to the Skoll Foundation. Skoll, 39, former president of eBay, an online auction site, gave five gifts of eBay stock totaling $81.3 million to the Skoll Foundation, formerly the Skoll Community Fund, in San Jose, Calif. Skoll's foundation, of which he is chairman, supports social entrepreneurship. Skoll also supports a separate entity, also called the Skoll Foundation, which shares the same mission.

Pierre and Pam Omidyar—$80.5 million to the Omidyar Foundation, donor-advised funds, and other nonprofit organizations. Pierre Omidyar, 36, founder and chairman of eBay, an online auction site, and chairman of the Omidyar Foundation, and his wife, Pam, 36, chairman of HopeLab in Palo Alto, Calif., which develops tools using digital technology to help children with chronic illnesses, gave $40 million to the Omidyar Foundation, in Redwood City, Calif. The foundation, established in 1998, supports programs on civic awareness and involvement. The couple also gave $40.5 million to donor-advised funds and other nonprofit organizations in 2003.

Maude Woods Wodehouse—$80 million to 14 organizations and schools in Hawaii. Wodehouse, who died in 2003 at age 87, bequeathed the bulk of her estate to organizations in Honolulu. The real-estate heiress left approximately $18 million to the Bishop Museum for its endowment; $18 million to the Punahou School, a college-preparatory institution, for faculty support and programs; $9 million to the Hawaii Community Foundation, for programs that help prevent child abuse and neglect; $9 million to the Nature Conservancy of Hawaii to support conservation projects; and $2 million to the American Cancer Society Hawaii Pacific. Wodehouse also left $18 million to Seabury Hall, a college-preparatory school in Makawao, Hawaii. In addition, she left $6 million to be divided among the Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association, in Honolulu; the American Red Cross, Hawaii State Chapter, in Honolulu; Christ Episcopal Church, in Kealakekua, Hawaii; the Daughters of Hawaii, in Honolulu; the Hawaii Lions Foundation, in Honolulu; the Hospice of Kona, in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii; the Institute for Human Services, in Honolulu; and the Iolani School, in Honolulu. Wodehouse owned a ranch on the Island of Hawaii and was the widow of Cenric N. Wodehouse, whose grandmother founded Victoria Ward, a real-estate company in Honolulu.

Priscilla Bullitt Collins—$71.1 million to the Nature Conservancy, CARE USA, and the Trust for Public Land. Collins, who died in June at age 82, gave $28.5 million to the Nature Conservancy, in Arlington, Va. Collins told the charity to divide the gift into three equal portions, for preservation projects in the Pacific Northwest, projects elsewhere in the United States, and conservation efforts outside the United States. Collins also gave $28.5 million to CARE USA for the education of young women in developing countries. She also left $14.1 million to the Trust for Public Land, in San Francisco. She earmarked half of the bequest for conservation projects in the Northwest and half for use elsewhere in the United States. Collins had supported all three organizations in the past, giving about $4.4 million to the Nature Conservancy during her lifetime. The Trust for Public Land and CARE said she did not want them to disclose details of her previous support. Advisers to Collins said that, in addition to the money in the bequest, she had given more than $80 million to charity in the past decade. For 20 years Collins was chairwoman of King Broadcasting, now a subsidiary of Belo Corp., a media company in Dallas. She was the daughter of Dorothy Stimson Bullitt, the founder of King Broadcasting, which was sold in 1992.

Phil Anschutz—$70 million to the Anschutz Foundation. Anschutz, founder of Qwest Communications International, in Denver, established a charitable lead trust with Qwest stock valued at approximately $70 million. For the next three years, the trust will distribute 36 percent of its assets to the Anschutz Foundation, in Denver, which supports arts, culture, and public-policy organizations. Any income or principal remaining in the trust at the end of three years will go to Anschutz.

Jackson T. Stephens—$60.5 million to the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, U.S. Naval Academy Foundation, and St. Vincent Infirmary Medical Center; and a $20.4 million pledge of which $13.26 million was paid in 2003 to the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Stephens, 80, owner and operator of Stephens Inc., a brokerage house in Little Rock, Ark., gave $48 million to the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, in Little Rock. The gift will finance a building at the Jackson T. Stephens Spine and Neurosciences Institute at the university, purchase equipment for the institute, and support programs and research. Stephens also gave $10 million to the U.S. Naval Academy Foundation, in Annapolis, Md., for renovations at the Navy Marine Corps Memorial Stadium there. The gift is the largest ever to the naval academy. Stephens graduated from the academy in 1947. Stephens also gave $2.5 million to St. Vincent Infirmary Medical Center, in Little Rock, to purchase equipment for the health center and to support completion of the hospital's new heart center. He also pledged $20.4 million to the University of Arkansas at Little Rock to construct a center for the university's athletics department and basketball and volleyball teams. The center is scheduled to open in spring 2005.

Frank Porter—$60 million to the Cleveland Foundation. Porter, a car-dealership owner and real-estate developer who died in June 2002 at age 82, left an estate worth at least $60 million to the Cleveland Foundation. The bequest consists of securities, a modern-art collection, privately held companies, and real estate in California, Idaho, Ohio, and the Virgin Islands. His wife, Nancy, died in 1996 at age 75. The foundation says it will sell the estate to make grants that benefit residents of the metropolitan Cleveland area.

Ira A. and Mary Lou Fulton—$55 million to Arizona State University. Ira Fulton, 72, chief executive of Fulton Homes, in Phoenix, and his wife, Mary Lou, 70, gave $50 million to Arizona State University, in Tempe. The gift will be used to increase financing for student and faculty research, to recruit faculty, and to support student programs at the Ira A. Fulton School of Engineering. The couple also donated $5 million to Arizona State's College of Education to endow a faculty chair, provide fellowships and scholarships, and support faculty research projects. Ira Fulton attended Arizona State but never graduated.

Oprah Winfrey—$50.7 million to the Oprah Winfrey Foundation. Winfrey, 50, chairman of Harpo, a production company, host of The Oprah Winfrey Show, and founder and editorial director of O, the Oprah Magazine, gave $50.68 million to the Oprah Winfrey Foundation, in Chicago. Winfrey's foundation supports educational programs and programs that help women and children.

Charles Simonyi—$47 million to the Charles Simonyi Fund for Arts and Sciences. Simonyi, 55, founder and chief executive of the Intentional Software Corp., in Bellevue, Wash., and a former software engineer at the Microsoft Corp., gave $47 million in Microsoft stock to establish his foundation, the Charles Simonyi Fund for Arts and Sciences, in Bellevue. The foundation will support the arts, sciences, and education. The foundation sold $8 million of the Microsoft stock last year to help fulfill a $10 million pledge to the Seattle Symphony, to be paid over the next five years.

Arthur M. Blank—$37.6 million to the Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation. Blank, 61, co-founder and former chief executive of Home Depot and owner and chief executive of the Atlanta Falcons football team, gave $37.6 million to the Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation. The foundation, established in 1995, supports arts, environmental, quality-of-life, and youth-development programs.

Lawrence J. Ellison—$35 million to the Ellison Medical Foundation. Ellison, 60, chief executive of the Oracle Corp., in Redwood City, Calif., gave $35 million to the Ellison Medical Foundation, in Bethesda, Md. The foundation supports research on aging and on global infectious diseases.

Reed and Carolee Walker—$34.5 million to the Oregon Community Foundation, University of Wisconsin Comprehensive Cancer Center, and the Salvation Army. Reed Walker, who died in 2002 at age 77, and his wife, Carolee, who died in 1999 at age 66, left $32 million to the Oregon Community Foundation, in Portland. The couple also bequeathed $2 million to the University of Wisconsin Comprehensive Cancer Center, in Madison, and $500,000 to the Salvation Army, in Medford, Ore. The gift to the community foundation will endow a fund that will make grants to charities that serve children and needy people in Jackson County, Ore. Reed Walker acquired much of his wealth through Anheuser-Busch stock, which he received when his parents sold their Kansas City, Mo., bakery to the brewery in the early 1940s.

Frances P. Bunnelle—$34 million to Frances P. Bunnelle Foundation, an affiliate of the Community Foundation Serving Coastal South Carolina. Bunnelle, who died in 2000 at age 95, left a $34 million bequest to the Frances P. Bunnelle Foundation, an affiliate of the Community Foundation Serving Coastal South Carolina, in Charleston. Bunnelle, who lived on Pawleys Island, S.C., earmarked the funds for organizations in Georgetown County and set aside part of the money specifically for annual gifts to the Pawleys Island-Litchfield Rescue Squad, the Saint Frances Humane Society, the Tara Hall Home for Boys, and the Tidelands Community Hospice. Bunnelle's first husband, Charlie Peace, an owner of the Greenville News-Piedmont, died in 1958. Her second husband, Robert Ellsworth Bunnelle, died in 1988.

Herbert and Evelyn Axelrod—$32 million to the New Jersey Symphony Orchestra. Herbert Axelrod, 76, an author and publisher, and his wife, Evelyn, gave a gift valued at $32 million to the New Jersey Symphony Orchestra, in Newark. Herbert Axelrod sold 30 Italian stringed instruments from the 17th and 18th centuries, including 12 Stradivarius violins and one Stradivarius cello, to the symphony for $18 million. The collection was appraised by an insurance company to be worth $50 million. The symphony, which received the instruments in February 2003, recorded the transaction as a $32 million donation.

Zell and Emily Kravinsky—$30 million to the Adria Kravinsky Foundation. Kravinsky, 49, a real-estate developer in Jenkintown, Pa., and his wife, Emily, 46, a psychiatrist, gave commercial real estate valued at $30 million to establish the Adria Kravinsky Foundation, in Philadelphia. The foundation will support the School of Public Health at Ohio State University, in Columbus. The foundation is named for Zell Kravinsky's sister, who died of lung cancer 20 years ago at age 33. Zell Kravinsky attracted attention in 2003 by donating a kidney to a woman he did not know.

Sanford I. and Joan Weill—$29.4 million to Carnegie Hall. Weill, 70, chairman of Citigroup, in New York, and his wife, Joan, gave $29.4 million to Carnegie Hall, in New York. The gift, which must be met by gifts from other sources, will establish the Weill Music Institute, which will support music-education programs. Sanford Weill has served as a Carnegie Hall trustee for 20 years and as chairman of the board for the past 12.

Marrs and Verna McLean—$28.8 million to Baylor University and Trinity University. Marrs McLean, an oil and gas developer in Beaumont, Texas, who died in 1953 at age 70, and his wife, Verna, who died in 1991 at age 98, gave $19.4 million to Baylor University, in Waco, Texas. Following Marrs McLean's wishes, Baylor University will allocate $6.4 million of the gift to the Baylor College of Medicine, which once was a part of the university. The couple also gave $9.4 million to Trinity University, in San Antonio. The gifts came from the Marrs and Verna McLean Foundation Trust, which was established in 1953. Mr. McLean stipulated that the trust be dissolved after 50 years.

Arthur Rock—$25 million to the Harvard Business School. Rock, 77, co-founder of Davis and Rock, a venture-capital firm in San Francisco, gave $25 million to the Harvard Business School, in Boston. The gift will be used to create an academic center for entrepreneurship. Rock is an alumnus of the school.

Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2094848/

There are more sites - but you get my drift :cool:

strandinthewind

10-06-2005, 12:38 AM

Thank you. I could use a little squishing. :lol:

I wanna squish you too - but I am scared right now that you'd belt me one instead :eek:

Brwn_eyes0511

10-06-2005, 12:38 AM

Ronald Reagan is/was a complete piece of **** and I'm glad the mother****er is dead in the ground.

Hey Sparky,

Is this what you meant by getting "people's ideas about what causes and contributes to homelessness and poverty?" Because this is that warm kind constructive thinking that leads to solutions.

sparky

10-06-2005, 12:39 AM

Let's see the figures prior to Reagan's term as governor of California and then from about the middle of his presidency to present day

This would be fascinating. The "letting loose" of the mentally ill is well documented. I would like to know the exact repercussions and some numbers.

Also, what I would like to see is a poll, or some kind of statistics on the homeless themselves. I want to see a detailed questionnaire about how people became homeless, and what it would take to get them out of it.

The arguments about spending are USELESS without knowing how people got where they are. Money, shmoney. Money will not solve the problem of poverty. It never has. Like I posted before, I have known people who were homeless and died homeless. I know why they got there. I think there is a certain percentage of the population that is going to be incurable addicts, and it will never change. What about the rest ? Who the hell are all of these people ? The people I know from my hometown who are on public assistance all have kids from 3 or 4 different men, never got married, never graduated high school, chain smoke, drink cheap beer, and do nothing. And their parents were the same. It seems a cycle...learned, genetic... I don't know. The bickering about money and politics are entertaining, I suppose, but have nothing to do with the problem. And I suspect at least Strand could dig up some statistics on who these people are and how it happened to them. Why wouldn't those in government agencies do the same ? This is not a political debate. It isn't something to argue about. It is about human beings and what happened to them and why they are where they are.That supercedes the money and the politics and everything else. Of course I dump the statistical thing on Strandie, because he is a lawyer and it is his job. And I love him :xoxo:
Sparky don't know nothin' about statistics. I just make pretty sets for y'all to watch on TV and in movies. :lol:

strandinthewind

10-06-2005, 12:43 AM

Watch out mama, that horse you're riding is mighty high.

No it is not :laugh: Seriously, I did not intend for it to come off that way.

Sweeping generalization. You'll never know until you've walked a mile in their shoes.
The "welfare queen" is a myth. :shrug:

Are you honestly saying no welfare abuse (intended or not) occurs :eek:

amber

10-06-2005, 12:45 AM

This would be fascinating. The "letting loose" of the mentally ill is well documented. I would like to know the exact repercussions and some numbers.

Also, what I would like to see is a poll, or some kind of statistics on the homeless themselves. I want to see a detailed questionnaire about how people became homeless, and what it would take to get them out of it.

The arguments about spending are USELESS without knowing how people got where they are. Money, shmoney. Money will not solve the problem of poverty. It never has. Like I posted before, I have known people who were homeless and died homeless. I know why they got there. I think there is a certain percentage of the population that is going to be incurable addicts, and it will never change. What about the rest ? Who the hell are all of these people ? The people I know from my hometown who are on public assistance all have kids from 3 or 4 different men, never got married, never graduated high school, chain smoke, drink cheap beer, and do nothing. And their parents were the same. It seems a cycle...learned, genetic... I don't know. The bickering about money and politics are entertaining, I suppose, but have nothing to do with the problem. And I suspect at least Strand could dig up some statistics on who these people are and how it happened to them. Why wouldn't those in government agencies do the same ? This is not a political debate. It isn't something to argue about. It is about human beings and what happened to them and why they are where they are.That supercedes the money and the politics and everything else. Of course I dump the statistical thing on Strandie, because he is a lawyer and it is his job. And I love him :xoxo:
Sparky don't know nothin' about statistics. I just make pretty sets for y'all to watch on TV and in movies. :lol:

Right in this, you are not addressing what perpetuates the cycle of poverty, and that is...remiss.

gldstwmn

10-06-2005, 12:47 AM

If only. JEEZUS!!!!!

I was having a casual conversation the other night and they told me they thought we should have another "outsider" president who wasn't wrapped up in politics and everybody likes-someone like Reagan. :shocked:
I just shook my head, laughed and said Reagan was a terrible president and tried to start from the begining, explaining that the Lebanese hostage release was orchestrated and that the only reason they agreed to release them in the first place was because we promised to arm Iran. I was like "you know, Iran Contra?"

strandinthewind

10-06-2005, 12:49 AM

I was having a casual conversation the other night and they told me they thought we should have another "outsider" president who wasn't wrapped up in politics and everybody likes-someone like Reagan. :shocked:
I just shook my head, laughed and said Reagan was a terrible president and tried to start from the begining, explaining that the Lebanese hostage release was orchestrated and that the only reason they agreed to release them in the first place was because we promised to arm Iran. I was like "you know, Iran Contra?"

Reagan, though well liked for his personality, was a horrible president on sooooo many levels. Also, many people just cannot admit the bad things done in his era.

ragandbone

10-06-2005, 12:54 AM

I would like to see the end of the corporate welfare state. Bailouts and superfund sites cost taxpayers much more than welfare for the poor.

As far as helping families below the poverty line, if we don't have welfare, then we need to insure there are jobs that pay a living wage, and that there are affordable options for childcare. I don't know how you do that, but I do know that there are CEOs and shareholders raking in bucks and nothing is enough for them. :mad: They (corporations) have lobbyists galore, and politicians in their pockets and are accountable to noone.

*note, this is a chicken post, because I actually have to get back to work, and can't respond till much later, but flame away. I apologize if you guys have covered this at length already - I couldn't read all of the posts!

strandinthewind

10-06-2005, 12:56 AM

This would be fascinating. The "letting loose" of the mentally ill is well documented. I would like to know the exact repercussions and some numbers.

Also, what I would like to see is a poll, or some kind of statistics on the homeless themselves. I want to see a detailed questionnaire about how people became homeless, and what it would take to get them out of it.

The arguments about spending are USELESS without knowing how people got where they are. Money, shmoney. Money will not solve the problem of poverty. It never has. Like I posted before, I have known people who were homeless and died homeless. I know why they got there. I think there is a certain percentage of the population that is going to be incurable addicts, and it will never change. What about the rest ? Who the hell are all of these people ? The people I know from my hometown who are on public assistance all have kids from 3 or 4 different men, never got married, never graduated high school, chain smoke, drink cheap beer, and do nothing. And their parents were the same. It seems a cycle...learned, genetic... I don't know. The bickering about money and politics are entertaining, I suppose, but have nothing to do with the problem. And I suspect at least Strand could dig up some statistics on who these people are and how it happened to them. Why wouldn't those in government agencies do the same ? This is not a political debate. It isn't something to argue about. It is about human beings and what happened to them and why they are where they are.That supercedes the money and the politics and everything else. Of course I dump the statistical thing on Strandie, because he is a lawyer and it is his job. And I love him :xoxo:
Sparky don't know nothin' about statistics. I just make pretty sets for y'all to watch on TV and in movies. :lol:

Here is a good start:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/perindex.html

gldstwmn

10-06-2005, 12:57 AM

This would be fascinating. The "letting loose" of the mentally ill is well documented. I would like to know the exact repercussions and some numbers.

Also, what I would like to see is a poll, or some kind of statistics on the homeless themselves. I want to see a detailed questionnaire about how people became homeless, and what it would take to get them out of it.

The arguments about spending are USELESS without knowing how people got where they are. Money, shmoney. Money will not solve the problem of poverty. It never has. Like I posted before, I have known people who were homeless and died homeless. I know why they got there. I think there is a certain percentage of the population that is going to be incurable addicts, and it will never change. What about the rest ? Who the hell are all of these people ? The people I know from my hometown who are on public assistance all have kids from 3 or 4 different men, never got married, never graduated high school, chain smoke, drink cheap beer, and do nothing. And their parents were the same. It seems a cycle...learned, genetic... I don't know.

It is most definitely a cycle. That is why education is so important. that is why the middle class is so important. That's why we have to teach them about birth control in the schools. If I remember correctly, girls without a prominent male figure in the home are 3 times more likely to become pregnant out of wedlock than girls who do have a prominent male figure in their lives. Also, consider the cost of day care. How are moms who are making 40k a year before taxes supposed to pay for day care for the little ones while they work to make ends meet? TheEuropean countries have a much stronger focus on quality of life while we seem to have lost that in America for a variety of reasons.

gldstwmn

10-06-2005, 12:59 AM

Are you honestly saying no welfare abuse (intended or not) occurs :eek:

You know I'm not.

gldstwmn

10-06-2005, 01:00 AM

strandinthewind

10-06-2005, 01:00 AM

It is most definitely a cycle. That is why education is so important. that is why the middle class is so important. That's why we have to teach them about birth control in the schools. If I remember correctly, girls without a prominent male figure in the home are 3 times more likely to become pregnant out of wedlock than girls who do have a prominent male figure in their lives. Also, consider the cost of day care. How are moms who are making 40k a year before taxes supposed to pay for day care for the little ones while they work to make ends meet? TheEuropean countries have a much stronger focus on quality of life while we seem to have lost that in America for a variety of reasons.

Sadly, the religious right will try and never allow that to happen.

Interestingly, AIDS is killing more poor people than ever ( http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/fall04/epidemic.htm ) and that is a direct result of the lack of education. A friend works for a local AIDS charity and he cannot mention condon useage when lecturing at a public school. How fu**ed up is that :mad:

strandinthewind

10-06-2005, 01:03 AM

You know I'm not.

Interestingly:

Myth: There are Welfare Queens driving Welfare Cadillacs.

Fact: Reagan made up this story.

Summary

Reagan's story of a Welfare Queen driving a Welfare Cadillac was apocryphal. Even so, there is no evidence that welfare cheating is a significant problem; besides, individual welfare payments are too small for recipients to live well.

Argument

Conservative politicians have a talent for telling memorable anecdotes that capture the essence of their beliefs on any particular issue. One of the most enduring of these came from Ronald Reagan on the subject of welfare. He cited a Chicago "Welfare Queen" who had ripped off $150,000 from the government, using 80 aliases, 30 addresses, a dozen social security cards, and four fictional dead husbands. The country was outraged; Reagan dutifully promised to roll back welfare; and ever since, the "Welfare Queen" driving her "Welfare Cadillac" has become permanently lodged in American political folklore.

Unfortunately, like most great conservative anecdotes, it wasn't really true. The media searched for this welfare cheat in the hopes of interviewing her, and discovered that she didn't even exist.

As a bit of class warfare, however, it was brilliant. It diverted public attention from insider traders in their limousines to Welfare Queens in their Cadillacs, even though the former were stealing thousands of times more from the American people than the latter. Just one example of the cost of white collar crime would become apparent a few years later, when President Bush bailed out the Savings & Loans industry with $500 billion of the taxpayer's money -- enough to fund 20 years of federal AFDC.

Questions of class warfare aside, there is no evidence that there is a significant problem with welfare cheating. In 1991 less than 5 percent of all welfare benefits went to persons who were not entitled to them, and this figure includes errors committed by the welfare agency. (1)

Nor are people getting rich off welfare. The two largest welfare programs are Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and food stamps. In 1992, the average yearly AFDC family payment was $4,572, and food stamps for a family of three averaged $2,469, for a total of $7,041. (2) In that year, the poverty level for a mother with two children was $11,186. (3) Thus, these two programs paid only 63 percent of the poverty level, and 74 percent of a minimum wage job. There are other welfare programs, of course, but they either pay a minuscule fraction of these two programs, or, if larger, are collected by only a small percentage of welfare recipients. The typical welfare recipient remains among the poorest members of society.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarequeen.htm

P.S. the slight to Reagan was an olive branch :wavey:

gldstwmn

10-06-2005, 01:03 AM

Sadly, the religious right will try and never allow that to happen.

Interestingly, AIDS is killing more poor people than ever ( http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/fall04/epidemic.htm ) and that is a direct result of the lack of education. A friend works for a local AIDS charity and he cannot mention condon useage when lecturing at a public school. How fu**ed up is that :mad:

That is insane and you can thank George for that becuase under Clinton it was allowed.
My daughter goes to a parochial school and they did cover birth control in their health class.

gldstwmn

10-06-2005, 01:04 AM

Interestingly:

Myth: There are Welfare Queens driving Welfare Cadillacs.

Fact: Reagan made up this story.

I told you. :laugh:

strandinthewind

10-06-2005, 01:06 AM

That is insane and you can thank George for that becuase under Clinton it was allowed.
My daughter goes to a parochial school and they did cover birth control in their health class.

My friend has to give them his card and then tell them he can be fired/jailed/fined/etc. if he discusses it there. They have to call him when he is off of school property, which sadly, few do.

I was so disgusted when I learned that - I almost puked, esp. in light of the fairly recent stat. that demonstrated something like almost half (I cannot remember the exact number) of GA students will get an STD prior to leaving high school.

On edit - it was Bush that did that if I am not mistaken as I remember when the change took place.

I mean how can you do any meaningful AIDS or other STD education discussing abstinence only - esp. in a group of horny teenagers innundated by sex 24/7.

strandinthewind

10-06-2005, 01:08 AM

I told you. :laugh:

I thought you might like that one :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

See - I ain't so bad :o :o :o

Brwn_eyes0511

10-06-2005, 01:12 AM

Sadly, the religious right will try and never allow that to happen.

Interestingly, AIDS is killing more poor people than ever ( http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/fall04/epidemic.htm ) and that is a direct result of the lack of education. A friend works for a local AIDS charity and he cannot mention condon useage when lecturing at a public school. How fu**ed up is that :mad:

Almost as f*cked up as not being able to say the pledge in public schools...

sparky

10-06-2005, 01:36 AM

Firstly, you aren't going to get a strike...because those in charge agree with you.

Secondly...You did get input from others' ideas about what causes homelessness/poverty/racisim...re-read my post one more time.

Thirdly, one must be able to get people to SEE the obvious before something can be done about it.

I'm going to start using large letters...they are fun!!!

First off, Chris was quite enlightneing, and Strandie posted a great site. More than you offered.

Secondly, I do not believe, as you posted, that a belief in "entitlement" creates poverty. No one has tons of babies and lives in filth because they believe that the government needs to take care of them. No one I ever knew anyway. They did it because they were uneducated and caught in a strange cycle that only sociologists can properly explain.

Capital letters are fun. They allowed me to express my frustration at your absolute idiocy and partisan name calling. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to take a person seriously when they venerate and glorify an idiot like Ann Coulter. A person who essentially is spraying the same kind of "I am right because I am a conservative and you are wrong because you are not"
garbage (that Coulter sprays with abandon) that has produced a political system that is essentially at a standstill. People like her are not idea people, they are provocateurs and most of all celebrities. They rabble rouse and shout loudly not to solve problems, but to create their own cults of personality that will perpetuate their own wealth and notoriety and help no one but themselves and their employees. Your relentless identification with such a charlatan and a phony (the white female Jesse Jackson she is without a doubt) renders and colors everything you say with a patina of disingenuousness that not only makes me want to vomit, it also makes me see everything that is wrong with the current political system in this country.
And the media that feeds on its filth.

Originally Posted by The Tower

Ronald Reagan is/was a complete piece of **** and I'm glad the mother****er is dead in the ground.

Is this what you meant by getting "people's ideas about what causes and contributes to homelessness and poverty?" Because this is that warm kind constructive thinking that leads to solutions..

That isn't exactly what I was looking for. Nonetheless, I agree with Towie with every fiber of my being. Reagan heartlessly released all those mentally ill people as a bizarre cost cutting measure, in direct conflict with his dishonest stance on the military, as many of those in the system were the veterans he vowed to protect, and pandered to as part of his Hollywood bulll**** artist campaign. I also agree with this statement because of Reagan's unforgivable ignoring of the nascent AIDS crisis, which he was loath to mention because it affected mostly gay men. Paying attention and speaking of it publicly might have sullied his reputation with the "religious" constituency his campaign courted and manipulated to get him voted into the White House. Countless thousands died because of his attitude. Funding for research came late, and it was up to actors and actresses with balls and souls (thank you Elizabeth Taylor) to get America to wake up to a crisis which has killed millions worldwide. For that, I will never forgive that bastard. For the record, I have spit on his grave. One day soon, I will urinate on it and do a little dance. Perhaps I will invite Towie and we can share an expensive bottle of champagne to commemorate the glorious occasion.

Sorry everyone, for going so far off topic. I just have to go nuts sometimes.

Brwn_eyes0511

10-06-2005, 01:41 AM

I agree with Towie with every fiber of my being.

Well, Ann would probably kill me for this but I am not even going to bother responding to the rest of your post after reading this. I think I made it pretty clear where I stand and where you stand.

sparky

10-06-2005, 01:42 AM

Right in this, you are not addressing what perpetuates the cycle of poverty, and that is...remiss.

The cycle....I think it is generally sociological. It is related to depression, as trite as that sounds, and a mindset that encourages drug use, alcoholism, and hopelessness. The problem of women having babies with losers and not marrying them is confounding and part and parcel of this as well.

irishgrl

10-06-2005, 06:50 AM

That is just not true and a sweeping generalization not supported by the facts.

The really rich down to the moderately rich ($100,000 or more a year) donate billions each year to charities. That is hardly selfish, etc.

For example, here is a list on educational ones:

Largest private gifts and grants to higher education since 1967
A shorter version of this list was published in The Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac on August 27, 1999. Additions to the list since then appear in bold italics. Last updated on February 18, 2000. Supplements to earlier gifts are counted separately.

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

Gates Millennium Scholars program: from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, $1 billion; 1999*

Vanderbilt University: from the Ingram Charitable Fund, $300 million; stock; 1998*

Emory University: from the Lettie Pate Evans, Joseph B. Whitehead, and Robert W. Woodruff Foundations, $295 million; stock; 1996

University of California at San Francisco: from the estate of Larry L. Hillblom, up to $240 million to establish the Larry L. Hillblom Foundation, which will support medical research at the university and be of benefit to other charities; stock, land, and other assets; 1998*

New York University: from Sir Harold Acton, a 57-acre Italian estate, a collection of Renaissance art, and at least $25 million in cash with a value estimated by the university of more than$125 million and perhaps as much as $500 million; 1994*

Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering: from the F.W. Olin Foundation, at least $200 million to establish the college; cash; 1997*

Stanford University: from James H. Clark, $150 million, nature of gift not disclosed; 1999*

Polytechnic University: from Donald and Mildred Topp Othmer, $144.2 million; cash; 1998*

DePauw University: from Ruth Clark and Philip Forbes Holton, $128 million; stock; 1997

Louisiana State University: from Claude B. (Doc) Pennington, $125 million; stock and gas-and-oil royalties; 1981*

University of Nebraska: from Mildred Topp Othmer, $125 million; cash; 1998*

University of Pennsylvania: from Walter H. Annenberg, $120 million; cash; 1993

University of Southern California: from Walter H. Annenberg, $120 million; cash; 1993

University of Southern California: from the W.M. Keck Foundation, $110 million; cash; 1999*

Emory University: from Robert W. Woodruff, $105 million; stock; 1979

Barksdale Reading Institute at the University of Mississippi's School of Education: from James L. and Sally Barksdale; $100 million; stocks; 2000*

Cornell University: from an anonymous donor, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 1999*

Cornell University Medical College: from Joan and Sanford I. Weill, $100 million; nature o f gift not disclosed; 1998

Massachusetts Institute of Technology: from Kenan E. Sahin, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 1999*

Princeton University: from Gordon Y.S. Wu, $100 million; cash and securities; 1995*

Regent University: from the Christian Broadcasting Network, $100 million; interest-bearing note convertible to stock; 1992 1*

Rowan University: from Henry M. and Betty L. Rowan, $100 million; stock and cash; 1992*

Scripps Research Institute: from L. Samuel and Aline W. Skaggs, $100 million; cash; 1996*

University of North Dakota: from Ralph and Betty Engelstad, $100 million; cash, stocks and other assets; 1998*

University of Pennsylvania: from the Abramson Family Foundation, $100 million; cash; 1997*

University of Southern California: from Alfred E. Mann, $100 million; bequest; 1998*

Washington University (Mo.): from the Danforth Foundation, $100 million; stock; 1986

Washington University (Mo.): from the Danforth Foundation, $100 million; stock; 1997

University of Utah: from Jon M. Huntsman, $90 million; cash; 1995*

Yale University: from the estate of Paul Mellon, $90 million; cash, along with 155 paintings, drawings, and sculptures; 1999*

Emory University School of Theology: from the estates of W.I.H. and Lula Pitts, $83.3 millon; trust; 1999

Young Harris College: from the estates of W.I.H. and Lula Pitts and Margaret Adger Pitts, $82 million; trust; 1999

Iowa State University: from Raymond and Mary Baker, $80 million; stocks; 1999*

Stanford University: from William R. Hewlett and David Packard, $77 million; cash and securities; 1994*

Harvard University: from Edward Mallinckrodt, $75.5 million; securities; 1982

Florida International University: from Mitchell Wolfson, a museum and its collection, with a value estimated by the university of $75.5 million; 1997

Mount Sinai School of Medicine: from the Frederick and Sharon Klingenstein Fund, $75 million, cash and securities; 1999*

Harvard University: from John L. and Frances Lehman Loeb, $70.5 million; cash; 1995*

Liberty University: from Arthur and Angela Williams, $70 million; cash; 1997

Stanford University: from David and Lucile Packard, $70 million; stock and cash; 1986

University of Cincinnati Medical Center: from the estate of William A. French, $70 million trust; 1999*

California Institute of Technology: from Rea and Lela Axline, $60 million; cash; 1999

Columbia University: from John W. Kluge, $60 million; cash, stock, and bonds; 1993*

Georgetown University Medical Center: from the estate of Harry A. Toulmin, Jr., $60 million; charitable trust; 1997*

Harvard University Medical School: from Isabelle and Leonard Goldenson, $60 million planned gifts of an undisclosed form; 1994*

Illinois Institute of Technology: from Robert W. Galvin, $60 million; cash; 1996*

Illinois Institute of Technology: from Robert A. Pritzker, $60 million; cash; 1996*

University of Mississippi: from the Joseph C. Bancroft Charitable and Educational Fund, $60 million; trust; 1997*

University of Virginia: from Frank Batten, Sr., $60 million; stock; 1999

Asbury Theological Seminary: from Ralph Waldo Beeson, $58 million; stock and bonds; 1990

University of Miami: from James L. Knight, $56 million; charitable trust; 1986*

Berry College: from J. Bulow Campbell, $55 million; charitable trust; 1995

Columbia Theological Seminary: from J. Bulow Campbell, $55 million; charitable trust; 1995

Johns Hopkins University: from Michael R. Bloomberg, $55 million; cash; 1995

Princeton University: from Peter B. Lewis, $55 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 1999*

Washington University (Mo.): from the Danforth Foundation, $55 million; stock; 1986

Samford University: from Ralph Waldo Beeson, $54.8 million; stock and bonds; 1990

Texas A&M University: from Dwight Look, $52 million; land; 1992

Pepperdine University: from Blanche Ebert Seaver, $51.7 million; cash and stock; 1996

University of Houston: from John and Rebecca Moores, $51.4 million; stock; 1991

Brown University: from Walter H. Annenberg, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 1993*

California Institute of Technology: from the Arnold and Mabel Beckman Foundation, $50 million; cash and stock; 1986*

Columbia University School of Public Health: from the William H. Gates Foundation, $50 million; cash; 1999*

Cornell University Medical College: from an anonymous donor, $50 million; charitable trust 19832

Drake University: from Dwight D. Opperman, $50 million; cash and charitable remainder trust; 1997*

Johns Hopkins University: from the Zanvyl and Isabelle Krieger Fund, $50 million; cash; 1992*

Keck Graduate Institute of Applied Life Sciences: from the W.M. Keck Foundation, $50 million; cash; 1997

Stanford University: from William R. Hewlett, $50 million; cash and stock; 1986

United Negro College Fund: from Walter H. Annenberg, $50 million; cash; 1990*

University of Arizona College of Law: from James E. Rogers, $50 million; cash supplementing earlier pledges totaling $50 million this year; 1998*

University of Arkansas: from the Walton Family Charitable Support Foundation, $50 million cash; 1998

University of Richmond: from E. Claiborne Robins, $50 million; stock; 1969

University of Saint Thomas (Minn.): from Richard M. and Sandra Schulze, $50 million; cash and stock; 2000*

Yale University: from Paul Mellon, $50 million; art works and historical documents; 1992

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/2000/neurogifts.html

Here is another glaring example:

Gates thinks big, gives big

(CNN) -- How do you measure Bill Gates' success?

Forbes magazine puts a dollar figure on the Seattle, Washington-area native's net worth -- $46.6 billion in 2003 -- and crowned him the world's richest person for the seventh year in a row.

His company, Microsoft, reports that it raked in $32.19 billion in revenues for the fiscal year ending in June 2003, ranking it among Fortune's top 50 largest U.S.-based corporations.

And by donating $600 million a year and creating a charitable foundation with a $26 billion endowment, Gates is the world's largest private giver, according to The Washington Post.

His trademark glasses and restrained speech notwithstanding, most everything about Gates is big -- his business, wealth and philanthropy. He's a hero to some; a reviled monopolist to others.

"I think we are a little bit like the Yankees in that we've got a good track record, and sometimes people get a kick out of saying if we don't win, 'Hey, that's fascinating, why didn't they win?'" Gates said in late March 2004 of Microsoft, according to the high-tech publication eWeek.

The son of an attorney and a schoolteacher, Gates began computer programming in 1968, when he was 13. He entered Harvard in 1973, where he befriended future Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer. Gates developed a version of the BASIC computer language for the first microcomputer, the MITS Altair, during his stint at Harvard.

Gates left college in his junior year and launched Microsoft with his childhood friend Paul Allen. As the personal computer market exploded, so did Microsoft, growing into the industry leader in computer software.

Microsoft's enormous success developing and selling word processing and Internet browser programs, operating systems and other applications not only made Gates a rich man, it also made his company a prime target for government regulators.

After four years of legal wrangling, Microsoft fended off a bid to break up the company -- accused of anti-trust violations -- by reaching a deal with the Justice Department and nine states.

"We recognize that we will be closely scrutinized by the government and our competitors, and we will devote all the time, energy and resources needed to ensure that we meet our responsibilities," said Gates after the settlement became official in fall 2002.

Earlier this year, the European Union ended a five-year investigation by unanimously finding Microsoft guilty of abusing the "near-monopoly" of its Windows PC operating system on the continent and fined it 497 million euros ($613 million). Microsoft has said it will appeal the ruling.

But such rulings against his company do not necessarily reflect animosity against Gates, who was knighted in January by Britain's Queen Elizabeth for his business and charitable efforts.

Shortly after the EU ruling, EU commissioner and former Finnish Finance Minister Erkki Liikanen called the Microsoft chairman "a good man," according to Financial Express. "He's one of the greatest businessmen I have met. I admire him for his charity work."

Gates' charitable organizations -- starting with the William H. Gates Foundation in 1994, which was combined with the Gates Learning Foundation in January 2000 to create the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation -- have donated billions of dollars for global health initiatives, education programs, libraries and other causes.

By 2003, the Gates' foundations had given $250 million to install 47,000 computers in 11,000 libraries in 50 states and Washington, D.C. The New York public schools received $51 million in fall 2003 to create 67 small public high schools in the city -- one of several substantial Gates Foundation grants for urban American schools.

In 1999, $750 million went to produce and provide vaccines worldwide -- part of an extensive, expensive global health program -- The Washington Post reported. Gates has also helped lead the fight against AIDS, donating hundreds of millions of dollars for prevention and drug programs in Africa, India and elsewhere.

"You need to feed people and cure people before you can begin the development cycle of education and entrepreneurship," Gates said in 2001, quoted by the business and technology Web site Red Herring.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/04/16/gates

Here is another:

The 2003 Slate 60: Top Donations
The 60 largest American charitable contributions of the year.
Compiled by the Chronicle of Philanthropy
Posted Monday, Feb. 16, 2004, at 7:26 AM PT

Donors Who Gave $25 Million or More

Joan B. Kroc—a bequest of $1.91 billion to 10 organizations. Kroc, who died on Oct. 12, 2003, at age 75, was the widow of Ray A. Kroc, the founder of the McDonald's Corp. Her gifts were: $1.5 billion to the Salvation Army, in Alexandria, Va., to construct and endow up to 50 recreational and educational facilities across the United States; $200 million to National Public Radio to support the network's operating reserves and endowment; $60 million to Ronald McDonald House Charities to be distributed to its programs worldwide; $50 million to the University of Notre Dame to support the Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies; $50 million to the University of San Diego to establish the Joan B. Kroc School of Peace Studies at the Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice; $20 million to San Diego Hospice and Palliative Care to support its programs and services; $10 million to the San Diego Opera to support artistic programming; $5 million to KPBS radio and television, in San Diego, to establish an endowment and operating reserve and create a capital-equipment fund; $5 million to the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Diego to build a high school; and $500,000 to Mama's Kitchen, a meal-delivery service in San Diego for people with AIDS. Before her death, Kroc gave $5 million to the University of San Diego to endow a lecture series at the Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice.

Michael S. and Susan Dell—$673.7 million to the Michael and Susan Dell Foundation. Michael Dell, 38, chairman and chief executive officer of Dell, in Round Rock, Texas, and his wife, Susan, chief executive officer of the Michael and Susan Dell Foundation, in Austin, and president of Susan Dell, a clothing company, gave $673.7 million in Dell stock to the foundation, which supports childhood-development programs. In 2003, the organization gave 36 grants of $30,000 each during the Thanksgiving holiday to nonprofit organizations. The Dell foundation joined with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in giving $55 million in grants to support public education in Texas. Since it was established in 1999, the Dells have donated $1.2 billion in Dell stock to their organization. The foundation awarded $20 million in grants in 2003 and had $1.1 billion in assets at the end of the year.

Eli and Edythe L. Broad—$409 million to the Eli and Edythe L. Broad Foundation, the Broad Foundation, and the Broad Art Foundation. Eli Broad, 70, chairman of AIG Retirement Services, formerly SunAmerica, and his wife, Edythe, 67, gave $266 million to Eli and Edythe L. Broad Foundation, in Los Angeles, which supports medical research and other causes, primarily in California. The Broads also contributed $76 million to the Broad Foundation, in Los Angeles, which supports efforts to improve public elementary and secondary schools, and $67 million to the Broad Art Foundation, in Santa Monica, Calif., which seeks to foster public appreciation of contemporary art by lending its collection of artworks to museums.

John A. (Jack) Jackson—$247 million to the University of Texas at Austin. Jackson, a retired gas and oil executive who died in 2003 at age 89, pledged his estate, in 2002, to the John A. and Katherine G. Jackson School of Geosciences at the University of Texas at Austin following his death. Jackson estimated his estate's value at between $150 million and $200 million, but as it was being settled the university determined it was worth at least $247 million. Jackson's gift could actually be worth much more than $247 million, according to university officials, because one-third of the estate includes current and potential royalties in gas and oil reserves. Jackson graduated from the university in 1940 with a bachelor's degree in geology.

Frank Sr. and Jane Batten—$141.2 million to eight organizations. Frank Batten, 77, retired chairman and CEO of Landmark Communications, in Norfolk, Va., which owns the Weather Channel and several other media properties, and his wife Jane, 66, gave $32 million to Old Dominion University, in Norfolk, for research and to endow faculty chairs. The couple also gave $32 million to the Harvard Business School, from which Frank Batten graduated in 1952, for capital improvements. In addition, the couple gave $11.2 million in stock to Virginia Wesleyan College, in Norfolk, to support academic scholarships and professorships and $2.2 million to Hollins University, in Roanoke, Va., to support an endowed chair. Jane Batten graduated from the university in 1958, and Frank Batten served on the Hollins board of trustees from 1969 to 1991. The couple also gave $20.5 million to the Norfolk Foundation to establish the Batten Educational Achievement Fund to support educational, recreational, developmental, and enrichment programs in the region over the next 15 years. Additionally, the couple gave $11.3 million to the College of William and Mary, in Williamsburg, Va., to endow the school of business, and $11.2 million to the Tidewater Scholarship Foundation, in Norfolk, to support and expand a program that provides college-advising services and scholarships to local high-school students. Frank Batten co-founded the Tidewater Scholarship Foundation and was a member of the College of William and Mary's board of visitors. In 2003, the Battens also gave $20.8 million to the Culver Academies, in Indiana, to support academic programs, the faculty, and technology procurement, and to provide scholarships. Frank Batten graduated from the boarding school in 1945.

Robert Edward (Ted) Turner—$128 million to the U.N. Foundation, Better World Fund, Nuclear Threat Initiative, Brown University, the Citadel, and McCallie School. Turner, 65, founder of CNN and Turner Broadcasting System and chairman of Turner Enterprises, fulfilled a part of his pledge to the U.N. Foundation, in Washington. The gift, $60 million in stock, goes toward fulfilling the $1 billion pledge he made to the organization in 1997. He also gave $20 million to the Better World Fund, in Washington, which he created to educate people about the work of the United Nations, and $45 million in stock and cash to the Nuclear Threat Initiative, in Washington, which works to reduce the global threat posed by nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Turner co-founded the organization in 2001. He also gave stock valued at $1 million to the Citadel, a military college in Charleston, S.C. This unrestricted gift will likely be used for scholarships and capital improvements. Turner also gave stock valued at $1 million to the McCallie School, a college-preparatory school in Chattanooga, Tenn. According to a school spokesman, the gift will be used for capital improvements. Turner is a 1956 graduate of the school. Turner also gave stock valued at $1 million to Brown University. He attended the university but did not graduate.

Jane Bancroft Cook—$127 million to Jane's Trust. Bancroft Cook, an heir to the family that founded Dow Jones and Co. and a former board member of the company, who died in 2002 at age 90, gave $127 million to establish Jane's Trust, in Boston, a charitable trust. The trust will support the arts, education, the environment, health, and welfare projects in Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont.

Paul G. Allen—$100 million to the Allen Institute for Brain Science. Allen, 51, co-founder of Microsoft and founder and chairman of the investment firm Vulcan Inc., both in the Seattle metropolitan area, donated $100 million to create the Allen Institute for Brain Science, in Seattle. The institute's first project, the Allen Brain Atlas, will attempt to map the genes that operate the mammalian brain.

Jeffrey S. Skoll—$81.3 million to the Skoll Foundation. Skoll, 39, former president of eBay, an online auction site, gave five gifts of eBay stock totaling $81.3 million to the Skoll Foundation, formerly the Skoll Community Fund, in San Jose, Calif. Skoll's foundation, of which he is chairman, supports social entrepreneurship. Skoll also supports a separate entity, also called the Skoll Foundation, which shares the same mission.

Pierre and Pam Omidyar—$80.5 million to the Omidyar Foundation, donor-advised funds, and other nonprofit organizations. Pierre Omidyar, 36, founder and chairman of eBay, an online auction site, and chairman of the Omidyar Foundation, and his wife, Pam, 36, chairman of HopeLab in Palo Alto, Calif., which develops tools using digital technology to help children with chronic illnesses, gave $40 million to the Omidyar Foundation, in Redwood City, Calif. The foundation, established in 1998, supports programs on civic awareness and involvement. The couple also gave $40.5 million to donor-advised funds and other nonprofit organizations in 2003.

Maude Woods Wodehouse—$80 million to 14 organizations and schools in Hawaii. Wodehouse, who died in 2003 at age 87, bequeathed the bulk of her estate to organizations in Honolulu. The real-estate heiress left approximately $18 million to the Bishop Museum for its endowment; $18 million to the Punahou School, a college-preparatory institution, for faculty support and programs; $9 million to the Hawaii Community Foundation, for programs that help prevent child abuse and neglect; $9 million to the Nature Conservancy of Hawaii to support conservation projects; and $2 million to the American Cancer Society Hawaii Pacific. Wodehouse also left $18 million to Seabury Hall, a college-preparatory school in Makawao, Hawaii. In addition, she left $6 million to be divided among the Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association, in Honolulu; the American Red Cross, Hawaii State Chapter, in Honolulu; Christ Episcopal Church, in Kealakekua, Hawaii; the Daughters of Hawaii, in Honolulu; the Hawaii Lions Foundation, in Honolulu; the Hospice of Kona, in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii; the Institute for Human Services, in Honolulu; and the Iolani School, in Honolulu. Wodehouse owned a ranch on the Island of Hawaii and was the widow of Cenric N. Wodehouse, whose grandmother founded Victoria Ward, a real-estate company in Honolulu.

Priscilla Bullitt Collins—$71.1 million to the Nature Conservancy, CARE USA, and the Trust for Public Land. Collins, who died in June at age 82, gave $28.5 million to the Nature Conservancy, in Arlington, Va. Collins told the charity to divide the gift into three equal portions, for preservation projects in the Pacific Northwest, projects elsewhere in the United States, and conservation efforts outside the United States. Collins also gave $28.5 million to CARE USA for the education of young women in developing countries. She also left $14.1 million to the Trust for Public Land, in San Francisco. She earmarked half of the bequest for conservation projects in the Northwest and half for use elsewhere in the United States. Collins had supported all three organizations in the past, giving about $4.4 million to the Nature Conservancy during her lifetime. The Trust for Public Land and CARE said she did not want them to disclose details of her previous support. Advisers to Collins said that, in addition to the money in the bequest, she had given more than $80 million to charity in the past decade. For 20 years Collins was chairwoman of King Broadcasting, now a subsidiary of Belo Corp., a media company in Dallas. She was the daughter of Dorothy Stimson Bullitt, the founder of King Broadcasting, which was sold in 1992.

Phil Anschutz—$70 million to the Anschutz Foundation. Anschutz, founder of Qwest Communications International, in Denver, established a charitable lead trust with Qwest stock valued at approximately $70 million. For the next three years, the trust will distribute 36 percent of its assets to the Anschutz Foundation, in Denver, which supports arts, culture, and public-policy organizations. Any income or principal remaining in the trust at the end of three years will go to Anschutz.

Jackson T. Stephens—$60.5 million to the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, U.S. Naval Academy Foundation, and St. Vincent Infirmary Medical Center; and a $20.4 million pledge of which $13.26 million was paid in 2003 to the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Stephens, 80, owner and operator of Stephens Inc., a brokerage house in Little Rock, Ark., gave $48 million to the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, in Little Rock. The gift will finance a building at the Jackson T. Stephens Spine and Neurosciences Institute at the university, purchase equipment for the institute, and support programs and research. Stephens also gave $10 million to the U.S. Naval Academy Foundation, in Annapolis, Md., for renovations at the Navy Marine Corps Memorial Stadium there. The gift is the largest ever to the naval academy. Stephens graduated from the academy in 1947. Stephens also gave $2.5 million to St. Vincent Infirmary Medical Center, in Little Rock, to purchase equipment for the health center and to support completion of the hospital's new heart center. He also pledged $20.4 million to the University of Arkansas at Little Rock to construct a center for the university's athletics department and basketball and volleyball teams. The center is scheduled to open in spring 2005.

Frank Porter—$60 million to the Cleveland Foundation. Porter, a car-dealership owner and real-estate developer who died in June 2002 at age 82, left an estate worth at least $60 million to the Cleveland Foundation. The bequest consists of securities, a modern-art collection, privately held companies, and real estate in California, Idaho, Ohio, and the Virgin Islands. His wife, Nancy, died in 1996 at age 75. The foundation says it will sell the estate to make grants that benefit residents of the metropolitan Cleveland area.

Ira A. and Mary Lou Fulton—$55 million to Arizona State University. Ira Fulton, 72, chief executive of Fulton Homes, in Phoenix, and his wife, Mary Lou, 70, gave $50 million to Arizona State University, in Tempe. The gift will be used to increase financing for student and faculty research, to recruit faculty, and to support student programs at the Ira A. Fulton School of Engineering. The couple also donated $5 million to Arizona State's College of Education to endow a faculty chair, provide fellowships and scholarships, and support faculty research projects. Ira Fulton attended Arizona State but never graduated.

Oprah Winfrey—$50.7 million to the Oprah Winfrey Foundation. Winfrey, 50, chairman of Harpo, a production company, host of The Oprah Winfrey Show, and founder and editorial director of O, the Oprah Magazine, gave $50.68 million to the Oprah Winfrey Foundation, in Chicago. Winfrey's foundation supports educational programs and programs that help women and children.

Charles Simonyi—$47 million to the Charles Simonyi Fund for Arts and Sciences. Simonyi, 55, founder and chief executive of the Intentional Software Corp., in Bellevue, Wash., and a former software engineer at the Microsoft Corp., gave $47 million in Microsoft stock to establish his foundation, the Charles Simonyi Fund for Arts and Sciences, in Bellevue. The foundation will support the arts, sciences, and education. The foundation sold $8 million of the Microsoft stock last year to help fulfill a $10 million pledge to the Seattle Symphony, to be paid over the next five years.

Arthur M. Blank—$37.6 million to the Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation. Blank, 61, co-founder and former chief executive of Home Depot and owner and chief executive of the Atlanta Falcons football team, gave $37.6 million to the Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation. The foundation, established in 1995, supports arts, environmental, quality-of-life, and youth-development programs.

Lawrence J. Ellison—$35 million to the Ellison Medical Foundation. Ellison, 60, chief executive of the Oracle Corp., in Redwood City, Calif., gave $35 million to the Ellison Medical Foundation, in Bethesda, Md. The foundation supports research on aging and on global infectious diseases.

Reed and Carolee Walker—$34.5 million to the Oregon Community Foundation, University of Wisconsin Comprehensive Cancer Center, and the Salvation Army. Reed Walker, who died in 2002 at age 77, and his wife, Carolee, who died in 1999 at age 66, left $32 million to the Oregon Community Foundation, in Portland. The couple also bequeathed $2 million to the University of Wisconsin Comprehensive Cancer Center, in Madison, and $500,000 to the Salvation Army, in Medford, Ore. The gift to the community foundation will endow a fund that will make grants to charities that serve children and needy people in Jackson County, Ore. Reed Walker acquired much of his wealth through Anheuser-Busch stock, which he received when his parents sold their Kansas City, Mo., bakery to the brewery in the early 1940s.

Frances P. Bunnelle—$34 million to Frances P. Bunnelle Foundation, an affiliate of the Community Foundation Serving Coastal South Carolina. Bunnelle, who died in 2000 at age 95, left a $34 million bequest to the Frances P. Bunnelle Foundation, an affiliate of the Community Foundation Serving Coastal South Carolina, in Charleston. Bunnelle, who lived on Pawleys Island, S.C., earmarked the funds for organizations in Georgetown County and set aside part of the money specifically for annual gifts to the Pawleys Island-Litchfield Rescue Squad, the Saint Frances Humane Society, the Tara Hall Home for Boys, and the Tidelands Community Hospice. Bunnelle's first husband, Charlie Peace, an owner of the Greenville News-Piedmont, died in 1958. Her second husband, Robert Ellsworth Bunnelle, died in 1988.

Herbert and Evelyn Axelrod—$32 million to the New Jersey Symphony Orchestra. Herbert Axelrod, 76, an author and publisher, and his wife, Evelyn, gave a gift valued at $32 million to the New Jersey Symphony Orchestra, in Newark. Herbert Axelrod sold 30 Italian stringed instruments from the 17th and 18th centuries, including 12 Stradivarius violins and one Stradivarius cello, to the symphony for $18 million. The collection was appraised by an insurance company to be worth $50 million. The symphony, which received the instruments in February 2003, recorded the transaction as a $32 million donation.

Zell and Emily Kravinsky—$30 million to the Adria Kravinsky Foundation. Kravinsky, 49, a real-estate developer in Jenkintown, Pa., and his wife, Emily, 46, a psychiatrist, gave commercial real estate valued at $30 million to establish the Adria Kravinsky Foundation, in Philadelphia. The foundation will support the School of Public Health at Ohio State University, in Columbus. The foundation is named for Zell Kravinsky's sister, who died of lung cancer 20 years ago at age 33. Zell Kravinsky attracted attention in 2003 by donating a kidney to a woman he did not know.

Sanford I. and Joan Weill—$29.4 million to Carnegie Hall. Weill, 70, chairman of Citigroup, in New York, and his wife, Joan, gave $29.4 million to Carnegie Hall, in New York. The gift, which must be met by gifts from other sources, will establish the Weill Music Institute, which will support music-education programs. Sanford Weill has served as a Carnegie Hall trustee for 20 years and as chairman of the board for the past 12.

Marrs and Verna McLean—$28.8 million to Baylor University and Trinity University. Marrs McLean, an oil and gas developer in Beaumont, Texas, who died in 1953 at age 70, and his wife, Verna, who died in 1991 at age 98, gave $19.4 million to Baylor University, in Waco, Texas. Following Marrs McLean's wishes, Baylor University will allocate $6.4 million of the gift to the Baylor College of Medicine, which once was a part of the university. The couple also gave $9.4 million to Trinity University, in San Antonio. The gifts came from the Marrs and Verna McLean Foundation Trust, which was established in 1953. Mr. McLean stipulated that the trust be dissolved after 50 years.

Arthur Rock—$25 million to the Harvard Business School. Rock, 77, co-founder of Davis and Rock, a venture-capital firm in San Francisco, gave $25 million to the Harvard Business School, in Boston. The gift will be used to create an academic center for entrepreneurship. Rock is an alumnus of the school.

Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2094848/

There are more sites - but you get my drift :cool:

Blah Blah Blah......Id've joined in last night but my 'puter took WAAAAY too long to load so Im picking this up this AM.....anyway, JASON: in your entire list can you point to just ONE place where any of those donations went to the poorest of the poor? Many of those so called charities are to Universities which you know arent teeming with welfare scholars.
Face it my dear, the days of Noblesse Oblige are LONG GONE. And all that moolah floating around in your list above only really helps the middle class at best, but I'd venture to say it more probably goes further up.

The despicable Teflon Ron got it ALL WRONG, there is NO SUCH THING as trickle down, that was very aptly described as "VOODOO ECONOMICS"
by poppa Bush and there has never been any benefit realized to the lowest by giving tax cuts to the richest. The richest also do not pay the most taxes because they have more tax loopholes to utilize and more places to hide their assets, therefore, the ones paying the MOST taxes are the middle class.
Giving the rich a FREE PASS does not help the poor no matter how you spin it. Sorry.

irishgrl

10-06-2005, 06:59 AM

Almost as f*cked up as not being able to say the pledge in public schools...
Well, quit yer bitchin, the pledge IS said, and even the words "Under God" are said. But I wont complain if they are taken out. God's place is in Church.

strandinthewind

10-06-2005, 09:18 AM

Blah Blah Blah......Id've joined in last night but my 'puter took WAAAAY too long to load so Im picking this up this AM.....anyway, JASON: in your entire list can you point to just ONE place where any of those donations went to the poorest of the poor? Many of those so called charities are to Universities which you know arent teeming with welfare scholars.
Face it my dear, the days of Noblesse Oblige are LONG GONE. And all that moolah floating around in your list above only really helps the middle class at best, but I'd venture to say it more probably goes further up.

The despicable Teflon Ron got it ALL WRONG, there is NO SUCH THING as trickle down, that was very aptly described as "VOODOO ECONOMICS"
by poppa Bush and there has never been any benefit realized to the lowest by giving tax cuts to the richest. The richest also do not pay the most taxes because they have more tax loopholes to utilize and more places to hide their assets, therefore, the ones paying the MOST taxes are the middle class.
Giving the rich a FREE PASS does not help the poor no matter how you spin it. Sorry.

^^^^^

Yep - the rich (however you arbitrarily define that) apparently never donate to anything you approve of - so they are all a$$holes and no one better say anything different because you know better and any discusssion that they might donate to a worthy cause every now and then when the spirit moves them automatically make the sayer of that an elitist calling for a free pass to the inherently greedy and uncaring rich :rolleyes: :laugh:

Thus, I think the apparently inherently evil rich should stop all donations right now lest they meet with your disapproval and donate for the wrong reasons :laugh:

BTW - in case you did not know this or could not be bothered to research it due to the automatic venom produced by the thought of the rich doing something good - almost all of those universities you so readily bash have hospitals and other programs that administer to the poor on a regular basis, many have medical research programs that benefit society as a whole, and they have scholarship and outreach programs to help the needy at all levels, which fails to support your hastily drawn and incorrect point :wavey:

On a more personal note, just look at one of our large local charities - AID Atlanta, which clearly administers to the poor and downtrodden in many ways, including education for prevention. A little over 36% (totaling $2,020,857) of its budget comes from the AIDS walk, private donations, and foundations, which are all a form of individual giving as seen here http://www.aidatlanta.org/aboutus/financials.shtml That is a huge amount of money from people when you consider how many charities are competing for that money.

In the end, it is your automatic assumption that the rich never do anything to help the poor that I find incorrect and clearly unsupported by the facts, though IMO they can and should do more.

strandinthewind

10-06-2005, 09:27 AM

Well, quit yer bitchin, the pledge IS said, and even the words "Under God" are said. But I wont complain if they are taken out. God's place is in Church.

Not only that ny friend, but the analogy to a condom discussion was inane, assinine, and illogical because unlike getting AIDS because there was no information of real world prevention (abstinence only does not work) - no kid is going to die a horrible death if they do not say the POA and include "under God" in it in an effort to stop godless communism, which is why "under God" was put in there in 1954 to wit:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_pled1.htm

History of the Pledge of Allegiance:

The Pledge was originally written in 1892-AUG by Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931). He was an American, a Baptist minister, and an active Socialist. He included some of the concepts of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, who wrote a number of socialist utopian novels, such as Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897). In its original form, it read:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

It was first published in a children's magazine Youth's Companion, in 1892 to celebrate the 400th anniversary of Columbus' arrival in the Americas. 4 The word "to" was added before "the Republic" in 1892-OCT. He considered including the word "equality" in the pledge, but decided against it because he knew that many Americans at the time were opposed to equality for women and African-Americans. Opposition to equality continues today; a sizeable minority of American adults remain opposed to equal rights for women, gays and lesbians.

By 1924, the "National Flag Conference, under the leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Francis Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored." 3

Most Jehovah's Witness children refuse to acknowledge the flag. In 1940, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that school boards could compel them to recite the Pledge. The court reversed itself three years later. 4

In 1953, the Roman Catholic men's group, the Knights of Columbus mounted a campaign to add the words "under God" to the Pledge. The nation was suffering through the height of the cold war, and the McCarthy communist witch hunt. Partly in reaction to these factors, a reported 15 resolutions were initiated in Congress to change the pledge. They got nowhere until Rev. George Docherty (1911 - ) preached a sermon that was attended by President Eisenhower and the national press corps on 1954-FEB-7. His sermon said in part: "Apart from the mention of the phrase 'the United States of America,' it could be the pledge of any republic. In fact, I could hear little Muscovites repeat a similar pledge to their hammer-and-sickle flag in Moscow." After the service, President Eisenhower said that he agreed with the sermon. In the following weeks, the news spread, and public opinion grew. Three days later, Senator Homer Ferguson, (R-MI), sponsored a bill to add God to the Pledge. It was approved as a joint resolution 1954-JUN-8. It was signed into law on Flag Day, JUN-14. President Eisenhower said at the time: "From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." 4 With the addition of "under God" to the Pledge, it became both "a patriotic oath and a public prayer...Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change." 3

The change was partly motivated by a desire to differentiate between communism, which promotes Atheism, and Western capitalistic democracies, which were at least nominally Christian. The phrase "Atheistic Communists" has been repeated so many times that the public has linked Atheism with communism; the two are often considered synonymous. Many consider Atheism as unpatriotic and "un-American" as is communism.

Most communists, worldwide, are Atheists. But, in North America, the reverse is not true; most Atheists are non-communists. Although there are many Atheistic and Humanistic legislators at the federal and state levels, few if any are willing to reveal their beliefs, because of the intense prejudice against these belief systems.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review this change to the Pledge. The Court has commented in passing on the motto saying that: "[o]ur previous opinions have considered in dicta the motto and the pledge [of allegiance], characterizing them as consistent with the proposition that government may not communicate an endorsement of religious belief." [Allegheny, 492 U.S.]

______________________________________________________________

Yet, removing "under God" now that communism and/or the cold wart are no longer a real threat has been spun to "you will offend God if you remove it because all Americans need to recognize God," which ignores the incorrect and mostly Unconstitutional presumption that it is the govt.'s place to establish that recognition of the Christian God.

dissention

10-06-2005, 10:09 AM

Do you want me to bite your a$$ - cuz I will ya know :xoxo: :xoxo:

I'd probably enjoy it way too much.

dissention

10-06-2005, 10:11 AM

Okay, Ayn, sorry, I didn't mean to be condescending, it just appeared you couldn't think outside the current paradigm with the arguments you were presenting. :sorry: Just going by what you say.

One solution...lets start with less defense spending, mmkay? that would be huge, it would free up an immense amount of money.

Did you just call him Ayn? :lol: :lol:

strandinthewind

10-06-2005, 10:11 AM

I'd probably enjoy it way too much.

Flirt Flirt Flirt :xoxo: :xoxo: :xoxo: :xoxo:

strandinthewind

10-06-2005, 10:13 AM

Did you just call him Ayn? :lol: :lol:

and inappropriately so I might add if Objectivism was her intent :laugh:

dissention

10-06-2005, 10:25 AM

Two words: Social democracy.

I agree all the way, babe. Unfortunately, I think it's an unrealistic goal without some form of proletarian revolution.

The Tower

10-06-2005, 10:29 AM

Capital letters are fun. They allowed me to express my frustration at your absolute idiocy and partisan name calling. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to take a person seriously when they venerate and glorify an idiot like Ann Coulter. A person who essentially is spraying the same kind of "I am right because I am a conservative and you are wrong because you are not"
garbage (that Coulter sprays with abandon) that has produced a political system that is essentially at a standstill. People like her are not idea people, they are provocateurs and most of all celebrities. They rabble rouse and shout loudly not to solve problems, but to create their own cults of personality that will perpetuate their own wealth and notoriety and help no one but themselves and their employees. Your relentless identification with such a charlatan and a phony (the white female Jesse Jackson she is without a doubt) renders and colors everything you say with a patina of disingenuousness that not only makes me want to vomit, it also makes me see everything that is wrong with the current political system in this country.
And the media that feeds on its filth.
Everything that I have wanted to say for a long while all compressed down into a nice, little, neat package. My frustration comes from these things being so apparent, yet all the while society refuses to look at the truth. Human nature is very constant and depressing.

The problem of women having babies with losers and not marrying them is confounding and part and parcel of this as well.
This is another thing that I can't understand and probably never will.

Yep - the rich (however you arbitrarily define that) apparently never donate to anything you approve of - so they are all a$$holes and no one better say anything different because you know better and any discusssion that they might donate to a worthy cause every now and then when the spirit moves them automatically make the sayer of that an elitist calling for a free pass to the inherently greedy and uncaring rich :rolleyes: :laugh:
I don't think anyone ever said anything to this degree, Jason.

The simple fact is that, yes, there have and will be wealthy philanthropists and their contributions are great. However, the fact that people like Paul Allen, Bill Gates and Oprah donate money and at the same time have $60,000,000 homes, huge yachts and spreads that are the size of small cities is a little ridiculous. Does anyone really need all that stuff? I can understand the desire for luxury, but people who revel in luxury should not be surprised when people call a spade a spade.