Ungood - was: Re[3]: [at-l] A.N.W.R. VOTE

[spiriteagle99@hotmail.com (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

Bob Cummings wrote:
>"To keep the truly, the near and the occassional poor from riot and 
>revolution while the really big bucks are doled out to the rich and the 
>super rich under the theory that they understand the sanctity of money 
>better than those of us stuck in the middle who fear and blame the poor for 
>their poverty and applaud and envy the rich for their
>>money, a condition that few of either genuinely earned," says Curtis.
>
>Jeez. I think we may be getting enuf folks so that we can form a Liberal 
>cell here on ATL. Someone else will have to do the organizing. But count me 
>in.


Sheesh, Bob - sometimes I've gotta wonder about you --- yesterday(?) you 
objected to Sloetoe's characterization of your attitude with respect to the 
list as "me v. all-of-you", then you asked me what you've ever said that was 
"ungood" - and then you come up with THIS??

The "Liberal cell" thing is patently "me v. all-of-you", don'tcha think?  I 
do.  Where's Sloetoe when you need to apologize to him?

Hmmm - we've been what - 5 or 6 years? - on this list without ever 
characterizing each other by divisive political labels - and now you want to 
start that crap?  Sorry, Bob - but that's "ungood".  Divisiveness is 
definitely "ungood".  You asked - and then answered your own question.  Oh 
well - I did ask you to define it, didn't I.

Aaahhhh - and then there's Curtis -
Hey, Curtis - I've enjoyed your posts - welcome to the zoo.

But your economic theory of welfare has a hole in it that I could drive a 
truck through.  Actually more than one, but just for grins --- how did it 
escape you (and Weary) that the principal proponents of welfare are --- oh 
my God!!  -- Liberals?  Democrats?  And rich ones at that.  LOL

A little more seriously --- I know at least 50 millionaires.  And each and 
every one of them has gotten there by "working" for it, babe.  By doing the 
things that the "average bear" can't, or more likely WON"T do, by working 
longer, harder and smarter, by believing in themselves rather than the 
political "system", and by not giving up when things got tough.  Curtis's 
statement of welfare theory comes straight out of Communist economic theory 
- anyone have any questions about how well that works?  It's an "excuse" for 
those who won't do what it takes to get rich to blame those who are willing 
to do so, thereby excusing their own failure.

On the other hand, there's the Kennedy's and FDR ----- Welfare, Inc.

And just for reference - I was raised in poverty - in a coal mining town by 
a mother who was a war widow and didn't have two nickels to rub together - 
and by uncles who qualified for Black Lung payments and not much more.  But 
I was never "poor" - that's an attitude that I never acquired.  Anyone who 
wants to talk trash to me about "the poor" had better have more than 
"theory" to back them up.  Been there - lived with the "poor", loved them, 
worked with them, fought with them and for them, WAS one of them --- and 
don't appreciate those who put them down.

Walk softly,
Jim



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp