Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (171474)	8/15/2001 2:24:24 AM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

Wrong. I live right near a huge veteran's hospital and I remember the day Reagan cut the funding for the mentally ill and they started wandering out in droves. It was a big issue that day but soon forgotten because homeless have no representation. Since then I have accepted our resident homeless people. Some are shattered men who have intelligence and once had lives. I've never dared to engage them in discussion because I'm afraid of the hurt and embarrassment I might feel. The word "homeless" in fact began early on in the Reagan era. Before that they were known as bums and winos. So why do you imagine Kennedy was responsible? Why not take responsibility instead of always deflecting blame? because "small government" means cutting off all public assistance and you have to live with youself afterward? Why not just admit Reagan's people created the homeless problem and deal with it? They meant to and they did. They were never ashamed of it. A Thousand Points Of Light was supposed to take care of it, remember? Just like Faith-Based is now (and never will). Ironic that the richest country in the world had to create homelessness in the name of small government and lower taxes for the rich. As GW is suggesting, the churches and missions took up some of the slack but it never has and never will be enough. My Mom's a leader in a big Houston church and she tells me they are already up to their eyeballs in homeless people to feed. They can't expand into a government program. They don't want that money. Only the ripoff artists will want it and steal it. Understand? Still I'm not a proponent of the government taking care of everything like they do in Europe, just not cutting what we have not which is already minimal. You know, I have women friends who've become single mothers and had bad luck and ran out of money. The government does not offer them anything anymore. In Europe when a woman has a baby she doesn't have to worry. That's why conservatism as we know it in this country is brutally sexist and I wonder why 45% of women vote Republican. There's nothing in it for them really. Same reason some blacks vote Republican I guess. They care about something else, whatever that might be. By the way I don't dislike Republicans just the direction the party has taken. It didn't used to be a arch-conservation compassionless corrupt party. It used to be a much more positive force. These days it's getting even more cynical and dishonest than ever before. Everything is about soft money interests and voting groups. Every bit of "openness" smacks of spin, damage control and PR disinformation. Like their convention where they put all the women and minorities they had on stage and the white men hid from the camera, when 90% were white men. I'm not against white men either in fact I am one it's just that this institutionalized prejudice, lying and corruption should end. I thought McCain was a real breath of fresh air. Not a perfect candidate but at least real, honest and not divisive. Instead of embracing him the Republicans slammed him and discredited him, now spreading the rumor that he's a nut, probably started by Limbaugh and his ugly tongue or Bush's soft money PAC's. I do worry about this country. It could be a lot better. Bush has been posing as compassionate and moderate this week but why don't any of his policies reflect that? Why does it have to just be an act to battle negative poll numbers? Why can't he be genuine, generous and actually act to save the environment and people in need instead of just pretending? And why oh why do so many fall for the act when it is so obvious and when nothing Bush-Cheney do backs it up? Answers Republicans? Are you interested in saving your own party and making it truly Christian instead of prophets of greed, deception and closet prejudice? Or are the old Dixie white vote, Christian conservatives, oil money and mining-timber lobbies just too important to the party's future to do what's right? Does it all have to be a big attack on the truth?