Just a little story

[Jacket2000]

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. She was
considered to be a very liberal Democrat, but her father was a staunch
Republican.

One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to
high taxes and welfare programs. He stopped her and asked how She was doing
in school. She answered that she had a 4.0 GPA, but it was really tough.
She had to study all the time and never had time to go out and party. She
didn't have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college
friends because of spending all her time studying. On top of that,the
part-time job her father insisted she keep left absolutely no time for
anything else.

He asked, "How is your friend Mary?" She replied that Mary was barely
getting by. She had a 2.0 GPA, never studied, but was very Popular on
campus, didn't have a job, but went to all the parties. She was always
complaining about not having any money, but didn't want to work. Why, she
often didn't show up for classes because she was hung over.

Dad then asked his daughter why she didn't go to the Dean's Office and
request that 1.0 be taken off her 4.0 and given it to her friend who only
had a 2.0. That way they would both have a respectable 3.0 GPA. Then, she
could also give her friend half the money she'd earned from her job so that
her friend would no longer be broke.

The daughter angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair. I worked really
hard for my grades and money, and Mary just loafs. Why should her laziness
and irresponsibility be rewarded with half of what I've worked for?"

The father slowly smiled and said, "Welcome to the Republican Party."

J2K

[sinton66]

Heh, heh, I like this story. Makes a lot of sense.

[Ranger Mom]

http://kit.netpoets.net/rofl-k2.gif That was just as funny the SECOND time around!!

[Chris Hart]

I like it! :D :D :D

[jason]

i reckon if i were a republican i would be offended...but im not, so im not...

[sinton66]

Huh? Why would you be upset if you were a republican?

<small>[ July 31, 2003, 10:08 PM: Message edited by: sinton66 ]</small>

[Ranger Mom]

jason:
i reckon if i were a republican i would be offended...but im not, so im not...Okay, am I just a "ditz" or is Jason not understanding the little story???

[sinton66]

Me thinks the point went right by him! wink

[Jimbotex40]

Gig em' Republicans (Aaaayyy)

haha i am glad that texas is mostly republican and that bush is. im also glad that he stood out against the liberals and gays saying that the definition of marriage is man and woman, and not man and man or woman and woman.

[sinton66]

Well, jason may be ragging us a bit, but the story is a good illustration of the differences between the two parties, simplistic of course, but a good illustration.

On the same sex marriage issue, one can boil the arguments down to one question. What is the purpose of marriage? Marriage is not for the commitment to each other between two adults, that can be done without a ceremony and/or witnesses. The institution of marriage is indeed for children, in history, now, and in the future. All the experts say that a child needs two loving biological parents living together and raising the child. That's the best our society can offer a child. The gay/lesbian fronts see this as a huge legitimacy issue for their "alternative" life style. It would open up a huge can of worms in terms of employee insurance benefits, military "family" benefits, adoption practices and standards, and so on.
IMO, the dems are really scraping the bottom of the barrel pushing this issue.

[jason]

sinton66:
Well, jason may be ragging us a bit, but the story is a good illustration of the differences between the two parties, simplistic of course, but a good illustration.

On the same sex marriage issue, one can boil the arguments down to one question. What is the purpose of marriage? Marriage is not for the commitment to each other between two adults, that can be done without a ceremony and/or witnesses. The institution of marriage is indeed for children, in history, now, and in the future. All the experts say that a child needs two loving biological parents living together and raising the child. That's the best our society can offer a child. The gay/lesbian fronts see this as a huge legitimacy issue for their "alternative" life style. It would open up a huge can of worms in terms of employee insurance benefits, military "family" benefits, adoption practices and standards, and so on.
IMO, the dems are really scraping the bottom of the barrel pushing this issue.:D

[espn1]

jason:
i reckon if i were a republican i would be offended...but im not, so im not...I can't imagine anyone actually admitting that they're a DDD DDD Demo a DDD Demo anyway I cant even stand to use that word.

<small>[ August 01, 2003, 08:31 PM: Message edited by: espn1 ]</small>

[bc 76]

IF MARY WOULD HAVE BEEN A GUY HE MIGHT BE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

If the Republican Party had their way, there would be no public schools, so there would be no www.3adownlow.com (http://www.3adownlow.com) and you would have no website. We would all go to public schools, possibly a Muslim backed public school, because they're taking money away from the public schools to give money to faith based schools, which would be christian, Baptist, Jewish, Muslim, etc. That is basically what it boils down to. And in a few years, middle class and poor people won't be able to afford to go to college. If you understand this, welcome to the Democratic Party, and if you don't, well, you're not very well informed.

P.S. Where you finacially better off from 1992-2000 than you were from 2000-2003?

[sinton66]

No, I wasn't. I'm better off now. And, despite what you believe, they haven't taken anything away from public schools. Never have, and never will. All they're proposing is to let parents that have already paid the taxes have a choice in where their children are educated. The voucher program that has been discussed wouldn't pay for private school entirely, merely reimburse parents for what the fed would have spent on their kids if they were in public school. The fed would spend the same money either way. This was a proposed federal program that did NOT require the states to follow suit. I don't know that it was a good program or a bad one, but you shouldn't attempt to blow things out of proportion with half-truths. Wouldn't hurt anything if you'd proofread your statements before you post them either. "There would be no public schools but we'd all go to public schools, possibly muslim backed public schools?" You sort of contradicted yourself there.

<small>[ August 01, 2003, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: sinton66 ]</small>

[PhiI C]

Actually it would be better to not get politics started on this forum but since I also talk about volleyball, soccer, softball, baseball, water polo, basketball etc. and everyone tolerates me (even though reluctantly in some cases :) )I am not one to be talking to I will just let my little reply here fade awayyyyy.

[slpybear the bullfan]

BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END:
P.S. Where you finacially better off from 1992-2000 than you were from 2000-2003?No... I am better off in the last several years than the "roaring 90s."

And Sinton66 was right... please examine statements for half-truths and pseudo-reporting before throwing out shock value...

now as Phil C. said...

Back to The Normal Stuff

[Ranger Mom]

I CANNOT believe that Phil C didn't bring up the Spurs!!! :D

[sinton66]

He's getting to be an "old" guy like me(not quite), maybe he forgot ! wink

[PhiI C]

HOW ABOUT THEM SPURS!! THEY BEAT THE NETS 4 OUT OF 6 GAMES FOR THE 2003 NBA CHAMPIONSHIP!!

BEST NBA SERIES WE EVER HAD!!

Oh and by the way ESPN - WHERE'S THE CAT?

(:

[Ranger Mom]

http://kit.netpoets.net/not-worthy.gif LOL

You "da man" PhiI C!!!