How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 The Race is on...get used to it!   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

The Race(ism) is on...get used to it!

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


50 posted 01-23-2012 03:50 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
For you to claim that anything the government does must be done on an equality basis is unrealistic, at best. It also means you would be against things like food stamps, higher taxes for the rich, college loans and anything the government deems to be done on a "need" basis.

I'd certainly be against them if they weren't available or applicable to all Americans equally Mike.

Ron,

As odd as it may seem I pretty much agree with all of what you said.

Especially this:

quote:
Personally, I think such a plan would be as dangerous in America as it was in Nazi Germany, not because of evil intent, but simply because some things can't be safely legislated.


Do you think that there could ever come a point where the cost of not legislating outweighs the possibile danger of that legislation being abused or corrupted somewhere down the line?

.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


51 posted 01-23-2012 06:51 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


"In my opinion, it was a valiant -- if misguided -- attempt to help correct a basic flaw in our current national character. It was meant as a signal, I think, that we need to return to a time when we helped ourselves by helping each other -- instead of expecting Government to do everything for us. "


Or a Clinton like shift to the right
in words to get a second term.


.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


52 posted 01-23-2012 07:39 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I'd certainly be against them if they weren't available or applicable to all Americans equally Mike.

Really? So you think that higher taxes for the rich apply to all Americans...or all Americans that become rich, do you mean? Of course, in that case, the eliteism against the poor that appals you would also deal with all Americans. Ditto that for government housing and the rest...

You don't get it both ways.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


53 posted 01-23-2012 07:46 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Ron, I can see in a small way where you can equate mandatory community service with the draft. That's fine and I don't have a problem with it. The interesting part is that, as soon as there were negative responses to it, Obama's people went back, changed it to voluntary with cash rewards and then claimed that they never changed it, that it was that way all the time. I guess it was out of their realm of intelligence to think that someone could have saved an original copy of it to compare. So how sincere was Obama's plan, to have it trashcanned so easily.....and was it something he believed in or was it something to get votes, something thrown out there to be deleted at any signals of discord?
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


54 posted 01-24-2012 12:52 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Do you think that there could ever come a point where the cost of not legislating outweighs the possible danger of that legislation being abused or corrupted somewhere down the line?

Inherent in your question, Grinch, is the assumption that my biggest concern lies "somewhere down the line." Any law can be abused, and indeed I suspect that any good law WILL be abused, which is precisely why the guilty sometimes walk free and the innocent too often have to pay damages for frivolous law suits. Elimination of potential abuse inevitably results in grossly unfair laws. We should guard against abuse as much as we can, of course, but I don't think we should ever allow the potential for abuse to stop us from doing the right thing.

Admittedly, some laws don't just open the door to potential abuse but seem rather to almost encourage it. The so-called Patriot Act immediately springs to mind. These, too, are dangerous and, yea, the danger is usually "somewhere down the line."

Laws that try to mandate "good behavior," in my opinion, are dangerous from the very moment they are passed. They are dangerous because things like ethics, morality and honor can't ever be legislated, can't ever be defined by majority rule. Trying to force people into a common mold both robs the individual of the emotional rewards of voluntary compliance and tries (albeit unsuccessfully) to rob society of the strengths of cultural diversity. I'm absolutely convinced that "good behavior" has to be defined by the individual if it is to have any real meaning.

So no, Grinch, I don't believe there could ever come a point where the cost of not legislating ethics, morality and honor will outweigh the cost of forced homogeneity on society.

quote:
The interesting part is that, as soon as there were negative responses to it, Obama's people went back, changed it to voluntary with cash rewards and then claimed that they never changed it, that it was that way all the time.

Mike, I guess I'm not entirely sure who "Obama's people" are, because I've not seen any official government statements claiming what you say they've claimed. If you have references, I'll take the time to read them. In any event, if someone has lied about the change in direction it's certainly not a lie I would condone. Works both ways, though. If obviously biased writers are wrongly accusing Obama staff of blatantly lying, that too is not something I would condone.

quote:
So how sincere was Obama's plan, to have it trashcanned so easily.....and was it something he believed in or was it something to get votes, something thrown out there to be deleted at any signals of discord?

Beat me, Mike. I've never seen anything to indicate it was ever really thought through well enough to qualify as a plan. On the other hand, even in my world, which is far less fraught with controversy than a politician's, I understand the necessity of "picking our battles."

Of course, I've got a few ex's out there who would probably say I was never very good at picking the right ones.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


55 posted 01-24-2012 07:41 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

As I linked to in #47, the post and change were at "change.gov", Obama's website as president elect. That would certainly mean Obama's people made the change. It also, though, makes my query about throwing it out for re-election invalid, since it was posted right before he took office for the first time. Why he posted it and why he backed away so quickly is something I still don't understand.

Interesting....my ex-wives accused me of choosing the WRONG battles!!
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


56 posted 01-24-2012 10:40 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
As I linked to in #47, the post and change were at "change.gov", Obama's website as president elect. That would certainly mean Obama's people made the change.

Yes, but that's no indication they then lied about making the change. That, Mike, is the part that remains uncorroborated.


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


57 posted 01-24-2012 11:18 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


“According to estimates by The National Institute for Literacy, roughly 47 percent of adults in Detroit, Michigan -- 200,000 total -- are "functionally illiterate," meaning they have trouble with reading, speaking, writing and computational skills. Even more surprisingly, the Detroit Regional Workforce finds half of that illiterate population has obtained a high school degree.”


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/07/detroit-illiteracy-nearly-half-educati on_n_858307.html

I witnessed a similar situation in Rhode Island where being a teacher was a very good living.
There was a least one honest union rep, ( I think it was in DC), who said when kids start paying
dues he would represent them . . .


.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


58 posted 01-24-2012 11:13 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Ah, I see what you mean, Ron. Well, of course it it written on the page I linked to but, of course, that does not make it true. I'll check around and see what I can find.

I'm looking at it in what I consider to be a realistic view. They came out with the first plan, declaring the community service would be mandatory. According to Mr. Grinch, "it was shot down in flames by a bunch of short-sighted idiots who've decided that anything Obama suggests is automatically a radical Marxist, socialist, Maoist, communist plot to destroy America."  These idiots were unnamed by Mr. Grinch but it must be true because Mr. Grinch declared in post #19 of this thread that "If I knew it wasn't valid I wouldn't have written it.", regarding another comment of his I had questioned. Therefore we must accept it as something he researched and is valid. So we have the original and then we have a second one which changes it to voluntary with financial rewards. There was no reference to the first one, no mention of a revision and, actually, one can read both of them as if they were original, stand-alone statements. The second one completely ignores the first one. That would suggest to me that they simply disavowed anything the first one said. With regards to the second one, I'm wondering if those same unnamed idiots shot that one down, too. I haven't seen it implemented.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


59 posted 01-25-2012 12:41 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/fact-checking-the-2012-state-of-the-union-speech/2012/01/25/gIQAa5CTPQ_blog.html?hpid=z1


It's nice to have this out there . . .

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


60 posted 01-25-2012 06:20 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I agree, even though it will be ignored by democrats it's good to see.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


61 posted 01-25-2012 08:02 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
Really? So you think that higher taxes for the rich apply to all Americans...


Yes.

quote:
or all Americans that become rich, do you mean?


No Mike I mean all Americans who are rich. Does it only apply to a subset of Americans (those that are rich)? Yes, but nobody is excluded from being part of that subset.

quote:
Of course, in that case, the elitism against the poor that appals you would also deal with all Americans


No Mike because it doesn't apply to all Americans. It only applies to poor kids who need, and want, to improve their work ethic. Rich kids who need, and want, to improve their work ethic are excluded.

That's the elitism I was talking about Mike, as far as Gingrich is concerned only poor kids need to improve their work ethic.

quote:
These idiots were unnamed by Mr. Grinch but it must be true because Mr. Grinch declared in post #19 of this thread that "If I knew it wasn't valid I wouldn't have written it.", regarding another comment of his I had questioned. Therefore we must accept it as something he researched and is valid.


If you didn't know who the idiots were Mike you should have asked, The idiots I was referring to were those folk who criticised Obama's idea because they claimed it was a clear attempt to raise and arm a private army. They "shot it down in flames" all over the web, they didn't manage to stop it being passed though, they simply managed to destroy any enthusiasm that may have made it work.

What you got is the legislation that might bite you down the line without the possibility of it ever doing much good.

Ron,

I agree that legislation isn't the ideal way to go but I can't honestly see where the change is going to come from without it. I believe Bush I, who introduced the original legislation and later Clinton, Bush II and, as discussed, Obama, who amended it, all thought that too. None of them, in my opinion, would have tried legislation if they didn't think it was necessary to at least attempt to sow the seed of more ethical behaviour, not by legislating ethics but by legislating to reward and promote it.


.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


62 posted 01-25-2012 08:17 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


How do you wean people from a sense of entitled dependency
in the face of an entrenched government base that depends for
for its good living on their existence?


.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


63 posted 01-25-2012 09:14 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
I agree that legislation isn't the ideal way to go but I can't honestly see where the change is going to come from without it.

I can't disagree. I would like to, but I can't. Unfortunately, I can't see where the change is going to come from with legislation, either.

If the change doesn't come from within, the consequences are inevitable.

quote:
None of them, in my opinion, would have tried legislation if they didn't think it was necessary to at least attempt to sow the seed of more ethical behaviour, not by legislating ethics but by legislating to reward and promote it.

The trouble, Grinch, is that each is trying to sow the seed of their definition of ethical behavior. If they want to use MY definition, maybe we can talk. But I'm the only person I trust to instill ethics in my children.

And, frankly, if I had to make choices on a continuum, the state would be my LAST choice. I'd sort of like to see the politicians start displaying better behavior before they try to teach it to our kids.

quote:
How do you wean people from a sense of entitled dependency in the face of an entrenched government base that depends for for its good living on their existence?

Seriously, John? How many politicians can you name who depend on a government job for a "good living?"

It's easy enough, I suspect, to demonize politicians, but I honestly don't think one in a thousand has truly evil intent. Even the worst, I believe, want to do right by the nation and nearly all justify their dubious behavior behind a facade of the means justifying the end. That cycle starts from the moment we, the electorate, force them to tell us lies because we won't elect anyone who tells us the truth. And then we're surprised when they lie to us after they're elected?


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


64 posted 01-25-2012 09:33 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

If I want to know who those idiots were, all I had to do was ask? Ok, I'm asking because you still haven't told me, outside of nameless people who criticized Obama's idea and shot it down "all over the web". I'll ask again> Who is "they"? All over the web? The web is a pretty big place, grinch. Are you telling me that these nameless people caused Obama to trash his plan just because they posted negative things about it? If that were the case, he would have trashed Obamacare, too, because it was certainly trashed all over the web, too. If bloggers could get Obama to back down on his proposals, what does that say about him and/or his proposals? SO he changed it to voluntary with rewards. Has THAT one been implemented then or have the mysterious "they" defeated that one, too?

If you don't mind, I'll borrow a line of yours for Obama that you used for Gingrich..

Maybe he was just lying, now that's something he has a history of doing.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


65 posted 01-26-2012 07:56 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


I wasn't speaking of politicians
unless you put all government civil service employees
and their unions in the definition.


.

[This message has been edited by Huan Yi (01-26-2012 10:17 AM).]

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


66 posted 01-26-2012 04:03 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
Who is "they"? All over the web?

"They" would be people like Paul Joseph Watson Mike.

quote:
Are you telling me that these nameless people caused Obama to trash his plan just because they posted negative things about it?

No Mike. The plan wasn't 'trashed' or changed by Obama, in fact, as I've already pointed out, it passed through Congress and was signed into law with only one major amendment and a number of minor amendments.  Any changes  were made by Congress.

quote:
SO he changed it to voluntary with rewards.


Sorry but you've lost me Mike. I've read the original bill and all the amendments none of which described anything other than a voluntary service with rewards. Nothing I read mentioned that it was mandatory, I may have missed it though; can you supply a link or reference to the particular version of the bill you found that in? I'd be interested to read it.


Ron,

I get your point and, after reading the history of the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, I think all the Presidents I mentioned got it too. It's clearly apparent that the legislation was designed to support volunteer groups with funding and encourage and reward participation by individuals while keeping the government out of the service delivery end.

In years gone by those volunteer groups were funded by local business owners turned philanthropists, charitable donations and local fundraising  events all of which have either disappeared or can't meet the demand. Perhaps the government is the last choice.

In the UK the money for supporting good causes and volunteer organisations has come from a  very unlikely source, a portion of the profits made by the company that runs the National lottery is distributed in the form of grants to worthy applicants. Ironically it came about via legislation, being part of the licence agreement to run the lottery when it was first set up.

Does the US do the same? Is it an option perhaps?


.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


67 posted 01-26-2012 05:13 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Thank you for at least one name. This person is responsible then?  You keep referring to a "they" and "all over the web". Same question....who are "they"? All over the web..where? Got the plan changed....how? Surely, if you have the facts, you can be more specific that one name and "people like...".

No Mike. The plan wasn't 'trashed' or changed by Obama, in fact, as I've already pointed out, it passed through Congress and was signed into law with only one major amendment and a number of minor amendments.  Any changes  were made by Congress.

I don 't understand. In you post #42 you claimed it was "shot down in flames" and now you state nothing happened to it at all. Which is it?

. I've read the original bill and all the amendments none of which described anything other than a voluntary service with rewards. Nothing I read mentioned that it was mandatory

Then you may want to recheck. In my post #47, you will see this...from Change.org, Obama's website.

"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year."

I know I';m from the hills of Missouri but there "to require" is to "make mandatory", not "make voluntary." Now, if you look at the second one, you will see the change of "plan to require" to offering those who do participate financial rewards, if they choose to participate...and yet you don't see any change there?

So you have me thoroughly confused. The plan was shot down by someone but passed through congress. It was not mandatory and yet spoke of requiring schools to follow it.

So, tell ,me. If the plan passed through congress, how is it going? And which plan passed? The one requiring schools to follow it or the one making it voluntary? Which plan was shot down...and how?
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


68 posted 01-26-2012 07:06 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


"In years gone by those volunteer groups were funded by local business owners turned philanthropists, charitable donations and local fundraising  events all of which have either disappeared or can't meet the demand. Perhaps the government is the last choice."


And that's ok?


.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


69 posted 01-26-2012 07:37 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
Thank you for at least one name. This person is responsible then? You keep referring to a "they" and "all over the web". Same question....who are "they"? All over the web..where? Got the plan changed....how? Surely, if you have the facts, you can be more specific that one name and "people like...".


He's a good example Mike but if you want another how about John Ruskin. The list is very long, I can supply more if you like. The internet is full of people who decided to twist the words in the proposed legislation and make out that Obama was going to arm his personal version of the Hitler youth. I already explained that though, so how did they get the plan changed?  They didn't, as I explained the bill wasn't substantially changed, what those propaganda merchants and wingnuts did was shoot down the idea of public service, to twist the intention and demonise everything connected to it. Their idiotic short-sightedness tarnished the name of any existing volunteer organisation that received funding through the existing legislation and any potential  future volunteer. They shot down an idea and damaged a scheme that had been doing good work for over twenty years, a scheme created by Bush I, expanded and supported by Clinton then Bush II and finally Obama.

quote:
I don 't understand. In you post #42 you claimed it was "shot down in flames" and now you state nothing happened to it at all. Which is it?


Both. You asked me how the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act was going and I said it had been shot down in flames by a bunch of short-sighted idiots who've decided that anything Obama suggests is automatically a radical Marxist, socialist, Maoist, communist plot to destroy America. I presumed that it was common knowledge that the legislation had already been signed into law and that it was clear that I was referring to critics who had nonetheless hamstrung the idea. If I confused you or was less than clear I apologise

quote:
Then you may want to recheck. In my post #47, you will see this...from Change.org, Obama's website.


I've read it Mike. In fact it was written by the first short-sighted idiot I mentioned, unfortunately it contains no reference to the actual text of the legislation, just a story about how some, out of context, web blurb was edited. There's no real evidence in the article.

You keep insisting that the proposed legislation was mandatory and then was changed to voluntary. I can't find any evidence that it was anything other than voluntary. Your insistence that it was mandatory is, presumably, based on some real evidence, would you care to share it?

Where in the original un-amended bill does it say it was mandatory?

.


[This message has been edited by Grinch (01-27-2012 01:31 PM).]

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


70 posted 01-26-2012 07:38 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
And that's ok?


Yes and no.

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


71 posted 01-26-2012 10:38 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Grinch, I showed you the document on the change.gov website. You call that non-evidence. So be it. Have a nice evening.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


72 posted 01-27-2012 02:35 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
Grinch, I showed you the document on the change.gov website. You call that non-evidence. So be it. Have a nice evening.


I call it "non-evidence" Mike because it's clearly not evidence that the service described in the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act was ever mandatory. Just because someone claims it's true doesn't make it true.

Have you read the original bill Mike? Does it propose that the service should be mandatory, if so where?

.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


73 posted 01-27-2012 05:58 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
It's clearly apparent that the legislation was designed to support volunteer groups with funding and encourage and reward participation by individuals while keeping the government out of the service delivery end.

I don't think the government's role should include encouraging or rewarding moral behavior, Grinch. That's not their job. If they were giving tax incentives to people refraining from eating meat on Friday, I suspect you might feel the same?

Morality should not be defined by the state.

quote:
In years gone by those volunteer groups were funded by local business owners turned philanthropists, charitable donations and local fundraising  events all of which have either disappeared or can't meet the demand. Perhaps the government is the last choice.

Ah, the irony!  

What if the government isn't the last choice, Grinch, but rather the reason other charitable sources seem unable to meet demand? When we expect the state to do everything for us it's absolutely inevitable that we stop doing things for ourselves. I think that's especially true when policy and attitude serve to rob people of the inner rewards of being charitable.

quote:
Have you read the original bill Mike?

Grinch, you seem to be suggesting that legislative bills start out as legislative bills and have no antecedents?

There seems to be at least some evidence that Obama's initial proposals underwent radical change between the time they were originally offered and the time they evolved into the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act. It's not unreasonable, in my opinion, to question that process.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


74 posted 01-27-2012 06:40 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Agreed....and I'm still at a loss to understand what "shot down" means. Mr. Grinch claims it was shot down while claiming the congress passed it with only minor changes. I've asked several times with no answer. I have also asked, if it is in force, how it is working out and I get no answer there, either. So I continue to be at a loss.....
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> The Race is on...get used to it!   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors