Soap Opera Discussion Groups and Forums

ATWT Discussion Group

Topic: An email I received and my reply...Political


Topic Posted by: Shea
Date Posted: Sun Sep 21 16:32:01 2008
Additional Comments:

The email I received is first nd my reply follows.

Obama   by Bill Brown of the Billy Graham Team

          Bill Brown, is a highly respected retired member of the
Billy Graham team.Hope this email informs you in a wise way. 

          
       The Obama Tidal Wave
          We are witnessing a political phenomenon with Barack Obama of rare magnitude.

          His speeches have inspired millions and yet most of his followers have no idea of what he stands for except platitudes of 'Change' or that he says he will be a 'Uniter'.

          The power of speech from a charismatic person truly can be a powerful thing.   Certainly Billy Graham had charisma.   Both his manner of speech and particularly the content changed millions.

          On the extreme other hand, the charisma of Adolph Hitler, too, inspired millions and the results were catastrophic.

          Barack Obama certainly is no Hitler or a Billy Graham, but for many Americans riding on the Obama Tidal Wave it is just like a surfer who might be ecstatic and euphoric while riding a tidal wave, but the reality of the ride is what happens when it hits shore.



       
  Just Some of What Defines Barack Obama:

         He voted for  partial birth abortion.
         He voted no on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.
         Supports affirmative action in Colleges and Government (quotas)..
         In 2001 he questioned harsh penalties for drug dealing as being too severe.
         Says he will deal with street level drug dealing as minimum wage affair.
         Admitted  his use of marijuana and cocaine in high school and in college.
         His religious convictions are very murky.
         He is willing to meet with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
         Has said that one of his first goals after being elected would be to have a
conference with all Muslim nations.  Why?
         Opposed the Patriot Act.
         First bill he signed that was ever passed was campaign finance reform..
         Voted to allow law suits against gun manufacturers.
         Supports universal health-care.
         Voted yes on providing habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees.
         Supports granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.
         Supports extending welfare to illegal immigrants.
         Voted yes on comprehensive immigration reform.
         Voted yes on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.
         Wants to make the minimum wage a 'living wage'.
         Voted with Democratic Party 96 percent of 251 votes.  (241 votes Demo, 10 votes Republican)
         Is a big believer in the separation of church and state.

         Opposed to any efforts to Privatize Social Security and instead supports
         increasing the amount of tax paid into Soc. Sec.  Tax Increase.
         He voted No on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax which now hits middle income brackets. Tax Increase.
         He voted No on repealing the 'Death' Tax..  Tax Increase.
         He wants to raise the Capital Gains Tax.  Tax Increase.
         Has repeatedly said the surge in Iraq has not succeeded...which is not true.
         He is ranked as the most liberal Senator in th
e Senate today and that takes some doing.

          If your political choices are consistent with Barack Obama's and you think that his positions will bring America together or make it a better place, then you will probably enjoy the ride and not forward this Email.   If you are like most Americans that after examining what he stands for, are truly not in line with his record, it would be prudent to get off the wave or better yet, never get on, before it comes on shore and undermines the very foundations of this great Country.  We have limited time to save America or the Supreme Court as we know it.

          Inaction is action.
 

          If you agree this is important, pass it on. The  mainstream media will not do it for you!

        Bill Brown

           Billy Graham Team, Retired
 
  Below is my reply to the above.

The Other Side of the Coin
 
Everyone knows there are two sides to any story. So let's take a look at things from the other side.
 
Obama has been using the platform of change from the start of his campaign. Recently McCain has started running ads promoting change. Now isn't that original?
 
As for abortion, McCain/Palin would like to make abortion illegal unless the life of the mother is endangered.
 
So ask yourself this - if your daughter were raped would you want her to have to carry that baby? If your granddaughter were molested by her father or brother or other close male relative, would you want her to have to carry that baby?
 
Has everyone forgotten how things really were when abortions were illegal? It did not stop abortions. It only resulted in abortions being done by quacks or self-induced abortions that often had tragic consequences. Would you want your daughter or granddaughter going to a quack or trying to abort a baby by using a coat hanger?
 
Was Sarah Palin attempting a self-induced abortion after her membranes ruptured (water broke) while she was at an energy conference in Texas? Would any sane woman get on an airplane for an eight hour flight in such a condition knowing that she might be going into premature labor and that her unborn baby had Down's Syndrome. Down's Syndrome babies' often have other health problems in addition to mental retardation. Would a sane woman not notify the airplane crew of her condition? Would a sane woman after landing in the largest city in Alaska with several fine hospitals, pass those hospitals by and instead undergo a 45 minute ride to a tiny hospital in a small town without a neonatal intensive care unit? Her actions could have easily resulted in the death of her baby unless she wasn't really pregnant when she boarded that plane. I am not saying that she covered up her daughter's pregnancy but some things just don't add up.
 
Her daughter was absent from school for 5 or 6 months with an alleged case of mono. She was also reported by fellow students to have been wearing loose clothing before she had to leave school.  A smoking gun? Hardly, but evidently during this terrible case of mono she was well enough to become pregnant. And isn't it convenient that she is just 5 months pregnant? Just pregnant enough that she couldn't have given birth in April but not so pregnant that it would be strange for her to suffer a miscarriage.
 
Then there is the fact that Gov. Palin kept her pregnancy a secret until her 7th month. Of course, she may have just wanted her privacy but isn't it kind of strange that people she worked with everyday didn't notice anything prior to her announcement?
 
Considering all of the above, is this a woman who should be a heartbeat away from the Presidency of the United States of America? At best she used extremely poor judgement which could have resulted in the death of her baby. At worst, she plotted a cover-up of her daughter's pregnancy and now has had to cover-up a cover-up. In either instance, this isn't the kind of person that should be 2nd in command of our country.
 
Now on to another subject. The author of the original email that prompted this reply seems to take issue with the minimum wage being a living wage. So are workers supposed to keep trying to live on a salary that doesn't even meet their basic living expenses? Consider the following scenario: You are a single mother or father with 3 children bringing home $1460.00 monthly and you have to pay the following expenses:
 
Rent - $600
Electric bill - $166 (averaged from experience during a 12 month period)
Phone bill - $35 (basic no frills service)
Water bill - $35 (based on moderate usage in an area with relatively low rates)
Grocery bill - $300 (I suspect this is at least 25% less than the real cost would be)
Car insurance - $35 (basic liability for one car at the lowest limits required)
Gasoline - $112 (calculated cost at $3.50 per gallon for a car with a 16 gallon tank being driven 800 miles monthly that averages 25 mpg. driven 25 miles a day)
 
The above expenses total $1283 and do not include expenses such as clothing, medicine, school supplies, automobile maintenance, home repairs, child care, or any non-essentials such as cable television. The above expenses are also significantly higher in some parts of the country.
 
So after paying the expenses above this hypothetical family of 4 would have left a grand total of $177.
 
Now consider this: the salary above is what a worker making $10 an hour working 40 hours per week brings home. Minimum wage is currently only $6.55 with a bring home pay of $968 monthly. So after working 160 hours per month the worker above is $315 short of meeting their basic expenses. What do they cut out? Food or the electricity? Maybe they can just pay half the rent and eat but then the landlord might not like that and they will probably be evicted. Then since they can't provide a proper home for their children Social Services will probably take their children away.
 
Would YOU feel like working if all you're doing every month is getting further and further behind.
 
So the next time you cash your check, pay your bills and still have plenty of money left; remember it isn't that way for most people.
 
Think about those people when you sit down to a restaurant meal that costs more than  what some people spend to eat on for a week.
 
I won't even get into all the other issues or I would be typing all night but I am sure you can see that most Americans can't afford to live on minimum wage or even on $10 an hour and they can't afford to vote for McCain/Palin.
 
Replies welcome.
 
jeanniet@ec.rr.com
 
 
 
 




Add a MessageGuidelinesTopics ListHomeOther SoapsJava ChatRegistration
Posted by: maggimae
Date posted: Mon Sep 22 19:00:55 2008
Message:
I checked the Bill Brown email out on Snopes.com and it was not written by the Bill Brown who is not an associate of Billy Graham.

Replies: (list all replies)

  • Correction: It was not written by the Bill Brown who is an associate of Billy Graham./mm
  • Then someone is really nasty, writing such inflammatory stuff under someone else's name, don't you think?
  • That type of email, attributed to some public personality, is epidemic. Every single time I receive something like that in my inbox, I attempt to either verify or debunk it on one of the fact checking resources. If it turns out to be *debunk* (which it almost invariably does) I reply to everyone on the recipients list with a link to my source. I am sick to death of this rubbish circulating online in general, and of it wasting my time and upsetting my digestion in particular. eom/D

    Respond to this message


    Posted by: I'm just sayin'
    Date posted: Mon Sep 22 10:03:19 2008
    Message:

    Don't know who I'm voting for  yet. But I thought it was clear that Palin wasn't covering up her daughter's pregnancy because the girl is pregnant now and it's medically impossible that she could be so far along now if she delivered 5 months ago.  I wish that rumor would just die.  I really don't know what went on with Palin's 5th pregnancy and what went on in her head during the pregnancy but that's her business, not mine.  And it doesn't become my business just because she's on the ticket.  The public decided a long time ago that the personal business of a candidate or politician doesn't always matter (think Bill and Monica; it was apparently ok if he had sex with her in the Oval office, as long as he was running the country well)

    I agree w/Obama that illegals should be able to have a driver's license.  They're driving anyway, so we might as well make them legal, and it might be a little easier to keep track of them . Moreover, they might be safer drivers if they have to pass drivers tests. And if there are illegals who aren't driving, maybe they could get better jobs if they did have a license and could get to the better jobs. 

    I would love to be able to take care of all the poor, let the illegals collect welfare, etc. But hey, I don't have enough money myself to do all that. Obama's heart is in the right place, but I don't think he's being realistic. Where is the money coming from? You and me!  I'm sorry, but if someone chooses to come here illegally, they can't get the whole piece of the pie by collecting welfare.  Minimum wage?  If you can't make it on minimum wage, do what we all did--- get a second job, find something better; work up to something better.  Minimum wage jobs are starter jobs.  If we raise minimum wage, who will pay for that? We will - by paying higher prices for services, by paying more money for fries and a burger.  Whenever politicians make promises to pay more, offer more services (including health care), that money is coming from you and me !  There is no money in the coffers of government. We were in the red before last week and now we're 7 billion MORE in the red. Who's paying for the bailouts? You and me?

    Death taxes- don't get me started on that.  A man or woman can work an entire lifetime, paying income taxes on money earned.  And any money saved is also taxed because it might earn interest.  Any money invested is taxed because of interest.  And if you sell investments, they're taxed yet again because they might have earned interest.  So when you die, whatever's left is TAXED YET AGAIN so the money or property you thought you were leaving your kids or grandkids is now virtually nothing. The kids have to take whatever it was you left them and cash it in to pay taxes. Before the present tax repeal (ending in 2010, I think) the government could take up to 55% of what you left to your kids. That meant families had to sell the family business because half of it was owed to Uncle Sam. That meant that families had to sell off farms for McMansions because they needed the cash to pay death taxes.  Can you imagine if your father left you 100K after a lifetime of hard work, and you had to turn around and write a check to George Bush for 55K?  That would really p!ss me off, so I understand why so many people are against death taxes.  The government shouldn't be taxing the same money so many times.

     I am pro-choice but wouldn't NOT vote for the Republican ticket on that issue alone.  I highly doubt Roe v Wade will ever be voted out at this point. My concerns are tied into the war, the economy and fuel.  My vote will come down to which candidate has the most cogent and feasible suggestions on how to deal with these three issues.

    McCain's platform of change isn't new. His reputation of a "maverick", while annoyingly repeated, is longstanding.  He's so different than Bush, he would provide change just as Obama would.  I don't see him as "another Bush", as the Obama people try to paint him.  I think what is new this year is that the Republicans HAVE to show their candidates will change because nobody's happy with the present regime. 

    Personally, I wish that Hillary were the democratic candidate. I have more confidence in her as a leader than Obama.  Yes, Palin doesn't have much experience, but truly, Obama has no more -- maybe even less executive experience, and HE'S running for the top spot, not as VP.  I'm also distressed that there are people voting for the McCain ticket just because Palin is a woman --- no interest in where they stand on issues. Similarly, we know people will vote for Obama simply because he's black.  Or simply because he's making promises he might not be able to keep in this economy.

    Should be an interesting couple of weeks leading up to the election

    Replies: (list all replies)

  • Wow! I bet a lot of people are going to think I wrote this under another screen name because I agree with so much of it. But I didn't. I'm still trying to figure out who to vote for. One strategy I'm considering is to decide which issues are important to me and then TRY to determine which candidate will address those concerns. I still think that the most important job our next president will have is to keep us safe from terrorist attacks. Close behind it is the economy. Saving social security, providing affordable health care (not free), and improving our educational system are also important to me. Less important are the right to choose or right to life issues and the illegal immigration issue./mm
  • the problem with your *death tax* example is that Obama will ONLY impose it on estates in excess of $250,000. If you inherit that $100,000 from your father, you won
  • Cont: you won't pay a cent of tax on it. Misinformation like this is so common and it horrifies me that people base their voting decisions on it. eom- D
  • There's a flaw in your logic, Dolphina (can't believe it). The father may have left other monies to other children and his estate may have been over $250,000./mm
  • True. I was working on the assumption we were talking about a $100,000 estate. eom-D
  • I bring the pregnancy up because as I pointed out to begin with the whole thing causes me to doubt her honesty and judgement. And how do we REALLY know her daugher is pregnant now? Because they said so? I'm just saying..S.
  • ''Death tax'' is a misnomer because the person who dies doesn't pay the tax. The person who inherits money (i.e., gets money that s/he did not earn) pays the tax. Therefore, the correct term is ''inheritance tax.'' Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that jointly owned property is not taxed when one owner dies and the other retains title to it. Furthermore, one can lower the taxes on a property transfer by gifting it to one's heirs. This means that the inheritance tax is only paid by those heirs whose benefactors didn't love them or trust them enough to make them joint owners or gift the property to them ahead of time. Maybe it should be called a ''filial nonpiety tax'' for that reason! Think about Lily Snyder, for example: Lucinda will no longer let her work at Worldwide after she embezzled her budget, trashed the reputation of their products, and abused her power of attorney. When Lucinda dies, should Lily get millions of dollars, which she didn't earn and wasn't trusted to safeguard, without paying taxes as one would for any income?
  • Hell no, give it to the government. They'll be much more responsible in using it. LOL. Hmm. Let me see. Why don't old people just give their money to their kids before they die? Maybe because they don't know when they are going to die and they don't want to run out of money. Why don't they just put everything in joint accounts? Maybe they don't want to lose their home if one of their kids gets in an accident and is sued. Do me a favor and put your initials at the end of your messages so I won't read them. I try to ignore your absurdities, but sometimes I just have to take the bait./mm
  • Whoa, maggimae, I'm already aware that there are good reasons not to give away one's assets or put everything in joint accounts. People only decide to take that risk with their assets if they feel that their heirs can be trusted. If you don't expect your heirs to provide for you if you run out of money, and you don't consider their debts your debts, then why should your assets be considered their assets automatically when you die? An inheritance is income similar to lottery winnings. It's not remuneration for work, and it's a large amount at once. Therefore, it should be taxed at a higher rate than other income. If you don't like how the government will use these tax dollars (e.g. war), don't vote for more of the same. However, if you just don't like to pay your dues to the government, be prepared to build your own roads and pay your own police force.

    Respond to this message


    Posted by: Brhannada^sArmour
    Date posted: Sun Sep 21 21:26:33 2008
    Message:
    Nice work, Shea!

    I'm not Christian, but didn't Jesus Christ have a soft spot for the poor? Didn't he extend his miracles to a Canaanite woman who wasn't part of his divine mandate? Didn't he preach that one should love one's NEIGHBOUR as one's self, including turning the other cheek and giving up one's cloak also? How can any self-professed Christian oppose a decent minimum wage, affirmative action, and sharing health care and Social Security with illegal immigrants? As for tax increases, didn't Jesus Christ say, ''Give to Caesar what is Caesar's?''

    Read your Bible, Bill Brown! Or, if that's too difficult a reading level, check out www.thebricktestament.com

    Replies: (list all replies)

  • Ah, but we CAN take care of the poor without taxing everyone. Private enterprise, private programs, church programs can all attend to the poor without taxing every single American on the planet. Everything doesn't HAVE to be subsidized by the government. We have seen that this is possible in the Arts, through programs like Habitat for Humanity, etc. Why does the government have to the the entity to dole out the money? IMO, they don't do such a great job with the money they DO dispense!
  • So basically Tosca you feel it's fine for tax payers to help zillionaires when they get into trouble but the poor are on their own. You have obviously never been without. Private industry doesn't give a rat's ass about the poor and never will. Churches are turning away the poor, homeless and hungry left and right because they have no money left to take care of them. Soup kitchens and food pantries for the poor are out of everything and have to turn away the hungry in droves, that is hungry men, hungry women and hungry children. Homeless shelters are filled to capacity despite being filthy and dangerous. It's fine to give trillions to companies who's own greed got them into the trouble they are in and whose CEO's are still pocketing over 2 billion dollars in bonuses this year as they stand with their greedy hands out taking tax payer dollars and you think that's fine, but heaven forbid we should help the poor. I'll bet you think of yourself as a good Christian, don't you, if your definition of a good Christian is to live life in the exact opposite way of Jesus' teachings. If so you're in good company as from Reagan to Bush and now McCain and Palin also live their good Christian lives in total opposition to the teachings of Jesus. Maybe someday you'll find yourself in the position of the very poor and you'll know what it's like and you'll see just how much help you'll get from private industry. Oh and I sure hope you're not counting on Social Security or you or anyone you care about is disabled and depends on SSI because that's going to be gone as trillions are given to greedy big business. Why is it people like you have no problem giving your tax dollars to the very rich but begrudge the poor even a penny of your income? Shame one you!//Bobby
  • Whoa! How do you REALLY feel about me? You really have no idea what my situation is but right now we're living on disability and what I can get as a temp. So don't tell ME that I don't know what it's like to live ''without''. Where did I say it was ok to bail out big business? Did one of my last sentences not say the Government doesn't do a good job of what they dispense right now? So why give the government MORE opportunities to waste taxpayer money? If private organizations take care of things, the money will get to those who need it faster, without paying some governmental idiot to be the middle man. I've built homes with my two hands with Habitat. I volunteer hours a week for the local soup kitchen and I contribute by donating the ''get one free'' from every BOGO I purchase at the grocery store. Doesn't cost me any money out of pocket, but it fills up the shelves for the people who need it. My husband can't work, but he volunteers his time at a hospital and he also volunteers with senior citizens helping them figure out medicare and medicaid. It costs us NOTHING (except gas) to do these things. It's free to us, and free to the people we help. So you want government to do this instead? Check out this website (inside) or here:http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/bg1840.cfm Is this who you want to allocate money to the poor? I believe in doing these things locally, personally and efficiently. I don't think the government is efficient at all. So shame on YOU for making assumptions about me. Not only do I believe that government can't help - whether it's Democrats or Republicans, but I can say that I pitch in everything I can to help those who have less than I have. That includes my time and my money.
  • Also, I never said that private INDUSTRY helps the poor. I said private ENTERPRISE...like foundations supported by private donations. My town's churches all got together to form an organization to help feed local families. Each week, every church is assigned food products; butter, cheese, bread, oil, canned veggies, etc. and it's collected with the collection plate. There are over 60 churches in my home town, so it's a lot of food that's donated by private citizens. All the people who work are volunteers. This can be done on a local level. Our shelves are low now, so the call went out to all churches to donate anything - not just their assigned foods and the shelves were filled up in a week's time.. You have no faith in people but you DO have faith in the government?
  • Also, I never said that private INDUSTRY helps the poor. I said private ENTERPRISE...like foundations supported by private donations. My town's churches all got together to form an organization to help feed local families. Each week, every church is assigned food products; butter, cheese, bread, oil, canned veggies, etc. and it's collected with the collection plate. There are over 60 churches in my home town, so it's a lot of food that's donated by private citizens. All the people who work are volunteers. This can be done on a local level. Our shelves are low now, so the call went out to all churches to donate anything - not just their assigned foods and the shelves were filled up in a week's time.. You have no faith in people but you DO have faith in the government?
  • sorry for double post n/t
  • Today on THe View, Whoopie said the government should cut everyone's mortgages in half. I believe what she meant was that if government was going to bail out big business, then they should do the same for the people. But it really bothered me that she should say such a thing. My husband and I have been looking at houses and it is amazing the number of really swank places that are now on the market because the people who bought them couldn't afford them. They were obviously living beyond their means. That's the way culture is today. People want everything right away instead of saving and living modestly until they can afford something better. I was a single parent who never took a dime from the government. I went one summer without a stove and one winter without a refrigerator. I saved my money and put myself through college. I'm for helping the truly needy, but I'm not for bailing out people who have chosen to live beyond their means./mm
  • maggimae, you're right, there are people (and corporations) that don't deserve to be bailed out at taxpayers' expense. Tosca has provided truly inspiring examples of how nongovernmental organizations can distribute charity locally. However, I don't think it's a good idea to leave everything up to local NGOs because not every community has them and they can't be held as accountable as government agencies if they discriminate unfairly. I have very rarely volunteered at a temple that serves lunch to its worshippers as well as anyone who comes in. The cooks tried to get me to serve the worshippers first, and pay less attention to the people who came in off the street with needle marks on their arms. Sure, that sort of thing would also happen at taxpayer-funded soup kitchens, but at least they can be held accountable to the government for it, in theory. Getting back to Tosca's original comment, Obama is not in favour of ''taxing everybody'' - only those who are raking in the big bucks would be getting fewer tax breaks. And my comment about the poor was about a fair minimum wage, not about taxing the rich. However, it seems to me that true Christians wouldn't want to be rich - didn't Jesus Christ say that it's easier to put a rope (the Aramaic words for ''rope'' and ''camel'' are homonyms, I've heard) through a needle's eye than for a rich man to get into heaven?
  • The Bible doesn't condemn wealth. There are many passages where God actually bestows wealth on those who are loyal and believers (Abraham was wealthy and still in favor with God) The lessons in the Bible teach us not to trust wealth, not to worship money, and to do good with the money you have. Here's something I don't think many people grasp. If a big corporation is taxed but the middle income person isn't - that middle income person will still pay the price of that tax by paying more for services. If McDonalds has to pay their hamburger flippers more money per hour, the corporation will not bear the extra cost - they will pass it on to anyone who buys a hamburger. If the government taxes IBM for doing business, they will find other ways to pay for that tax - they will charge more for the things they manufacture and they will find cheaper places to do business (and thus move jobs out of the country) Taxing big business or the rich eventually trickles down to the little guy. The trick is to watch what we're spending and not waste it. Right now, the government wastes millions on stupid things. That website I linked to detailed some of these things. I swear, if the government stopped paying for oddball ''studies'', overpaying for airline tickets, perquisites for government employees that are over the top, etc., maybe we could start paying off the national debt without taxing ANYONE.
  • Tosca and others...You may think that churches and other organizations will look after the poor people but really think AGAIN. Donations to those organizations are at an all time low because the people who were making the donations are now looking for assistance themselves. Most people who need help aren't living beyond their means. They were getting by until high food and high gas prices ate up their savings. How is that their fault?
  • Tosca, I agree that big businesses will do anything to make a profit, whether they're taxed or not, and whether they have to pay a fair wage or not. How is that an argument against shifting the burden of taxes from the poor and middle class to those who can actually afford to pay, or an argument against paying people what their labour is worth? I'm not at all convinced that lower taxes keep big businesses from raising prices whenever they can, or that the availability of slave labour and child labour in the U.S.A. keeps them from outsourcing jobs. They're doing both those things right now, while enjoying the lion's share of tax cuts and labour-crushing laws. About the Bible now, it's often inconsistent, and the distinction between Old Testament and New Testament is generally accepted. How many times did Jesus tell his followers to sell all their possessions and give the money to the poor? You can't nullify that by saying that a few Old Testament characters were rich, or made rich by God. Besides, even the Old Testament tells you that Job was an exceptional man who didn't pride himself because God had made him rich.
  • Paying entry level jobs anything more than an entry level salary makes sense. Why would anyone work harder if they knew they could make a living doing as little as possible. That's what free enterprise is all about in our country. If you aren't making enough money, you improve your skills and find something else. That's the way you improve your job or your salary --- you improve yourself. Most Americans (other than those who have inherited money) have worked long hours, borrowed money to go to school, took low paying jobs just to learn a trade -- that's how it works. You don't ask to be paid $20.00 an hour to fold laundry when someone else is making the same amount of money working harder, requiring more education and more skills. You EARN increases in pay, you don't demand them. There were times in our life that we both worked and my husband took on a second job. If times were tough, we just worked harder. I worked as a waitress earning $1.00 an hour plus tips. So I worked harder to earn those tips - and I did. I didn't whine that I was making minimum wage. And I never took a handout from anyone. That doesn't keep me from doing all I can for people who are in a tough spot. But help like that should be temporary - just so people can regain their footing and start again. Yes, ''Even the Devil can quote Scripture''.... but one thing I always learned in church was that God helps those who help themselves.
  • Tosca - The point is that not everyone has the means or opportunity to do the things you suggest. Some areas just don't offer those programs and people who are struggling can't afford to drive to where there are programs. I mean no disrespect to you but you seem kind of out of touch with a reality that many people face everyday.
  • BTW, Tosca - many of those entry level jobs that you refer to, that you don't think deserve higher pay, require back breaking labor. So how does that equate to doing as little as they can? S.
  • I agree with what you said and I think that you and the people like you are what made this a great country./mm
  • I've had those back breaking jobs. I worked in a parts factory on a drill press. I worked in a garment factory on a sewing machine. I cleaned hotel rooms. I KNOW IT'S HARD WORK and I also knew I had to better myself to get out of those jobs. So I did. Libraries are free and you can read and study. You can use their computers for free. Community colleges are cheap and you can push for scholarships and grants. If you can't speak the language well enough, there are free programs to learn to speak and write better. There is no reason why anyone in this country can't improve their lot in life, and that's my belief. We all have people in our own families that have risen above their circumstances. They aren't any magical exceptions. It's the way our country works. There are people who go through catastrophic illness, or floods or tornadoes or whatever and certainly that makes their uphill climb harder, but it's done every day. I'm not out of touch. I've been there.
  • I hear you, Tosca. It took me fourteen years to get through college because I was a single parent and working full time for most of those years./mm
  • Perhaps a few years ago what you say migh have been possible. Nowadays, it would be a real challenge. Maybe in large cities but in the rural areas of the country such resources just don't exist. Not every person who is working a min, wage is good for nothing and doing as little as they can. It's just their only option. S.
  • Excuse my typos. The edit function is not working. S.

    Respond to this message


    Posted by: Barb
    Date posted: Sun Sep 21 18:31:06 2008
    Message:
    I try to avoid political discussions but I will ask your opinion on a "botched" abortion that took place recently here in my hometown. The baby was ALIVE when aborted-what would you do? Kill it or try to save it(probably too far gone to save but the child WAS breathing). Strange ethical decision.

    Replies: (list all replies)

  • If the baby were viable everything should be done to save it. I myself would not want an abortion but think a woman should be able to choose to have a safe, legal abortion if that is what she wants. S.
  • Barb, I recognize that this is a very difficult situation and everyone has to draw the line somewhere. When a pregnancy is borderline viable, someone has to decide whether to perform the abortion and try not to deliver the fetus alive, or to refuse and risk that the woman will try to abort the pregnancy in a more dangerous manner. I believe that a woman has the final say over her own body, and should have access to the same abortion services whether or not her health is endangered by the pregnancy. I think that there should be guidelines for euthanasia. If the baby is so damaged that it will suffer a prolonged death, or will be dependent on invasive life support for months or years, or will live in constant pain, a humane death is preferable. I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I don't believe in the sanctity of human life. There comes a point when life has no quality left, and a peaceful death is the kindest fate one can expect. Of course, you have the experience to know better than I do.

    Respond to this message


    Posted by: dolphina
    Date posted: Sun Sep 21 18:10:16 2008
    Message:

    Great work!  And you didn't even mention all those "negatives" in the original email that just happen to be in the Constitution.  Or the number of McCain's votes that have betrayed the best interests of his fellows serving in the military.  Or the fact that McCain's entire campaign has been based on his brilliant "strategy" for "the surge," when any half-wit could have figured out that sending in a bunch more troops and weapons would naturally calm things down in Iraq.  Temporarily.  Have the GOALS of the surge been met?  No, of course not.

     

     

    Replies: (list all replies)

  • I forgot to mention.... the statements about *death tax* and capital gains tax are so misleading, they border on outright lies. Also regarding minimum wage - what people like that writer (and John McCain, and George Bush, and Ronald Reagan) are never able to grasp is that the fewer people there are living in poverty, the better off the whole country is. There is less burden on the public healthcare system, there is less crime, there are fewer unplanned pregnancies.... the list of benefits to society as a whole is lengthy. eom/D
  • Thanks, Dolphina. I just sat down and started figuring expenses and I am sure my figures are low and don't cover some necessities. Thank goodness our home is paid for but my husband and I still struggle wtith the rest of the bills. It's easy to see why more and more people are becoming homeless. It is definitely time for a change in D.C. Go Obama/Biden!
  • BTW...Have you noticed how many times McCain/Palin ads are shown during our soaps. I watch all CBS soaps and seems like alot more than Obama's. I guess they think the soap viewers will go for Sarah Barracuda. I hope it backfires on them. S.
  • I haven't noticed McCain-Palin ads running excessively. I only watch one soap - ATWT - and most often I'm watching it on dvr so I can fast forward through all the ads. But it does make sense that they would target their *woman* ticket to the people most likely to be watching daytime dramas. I can't blame them for being smart. I only blame them for lying. eom/D

    Respond to this message


    Add a MessageGuidelinesTopics ListHomeOther SoapsJava ChatRegistration