Well now that the election is over...

[karl k]

I know that took some time to put together. I really wasn't looking to pick a fight.(contrary to what others might have thought through the appearent lack of interest in my topics)

I was very sincere in my thirst for knowledge but was looking for the condensed form rather than spending hours and hours trying to re-learn history and political science. It seems to me that there is so much attention put on getting votes to win an election that the long-term goals of the different parties is getting lost to the public. There is a fear that has been put into the minds of people that their way of life is in danger and unless they act now, that all will be lost. It is that fear that causes the short-sightedness of the public to what the different philosophies are all about. I have found myself having difficulties with aligning myself with any particular one... in part because of a lack of understanding of the goal(s) that they represent and in part because of the lack of accountability of those goals. It can be difficult to make a decission without having a representation of the big picture(as conceived by any party) before you.

I was also looking to see if all people here have an accurate concept of the goals of the parties they support/represent, or do they just support the parts of those goals that directly have their interest... at that moment. You would think more people that vote, do so because of the big picture. But I find it(more times than not) is more a case of "I want to keep my guns so I will always vote republican." or "I may want to have an abortion in the future, so I will always vote democrate." It seems like most people are happy with the way things are in general(except we are always wanting more money ) and that is why they vote as they do about "single issues". The exception is in 2000 when morals and values came into question over the Clinton sex scandle. It seems that we took it pretty personal what the world thought about our embarrassment THEN and now we are determined to do something about it. Funny how we care so much about our moral image then but not now in Iraq. See, that's why I'm having a problem with the parties. Like everyother party, it conflicts it's self making it hard to support or even understand what they stand for... long term.

Anyway, I will spare you the response to the end of your post(as I said earlier, not really what I was looking for anyway) and express a few thoughts on the rest.

"How do you like the current love-fest re: the two candidates? lol."

They both dislike each other, why put a pretty face on it... for us? Waste of energy.IMO

"I remember a story in English in elementary school, that I saw in my daughters book many years later, about how everyone was FORCED to be equal in every way. There were 200 amendments to the Constitution." " If you were stronger than average, you wore weights. Smarter, you had a headset that would give off loud noises to break your chain of thought."

Probably distributed by the GOP in an effort to start kids early on how people will never be truely equal in reality so acceptance of inequality would be seen more preferable than equality. I find it interesting that the book would cite weighing down the strong in an effort to be equal to the weak instead of the strong helping to lift the weak. I was taught that you can't help others til you help yourself, but helping others, once self established, was morally acceptable and in some cases required as a responsible member of society(Uh huh huh... member) How many CEO's would drive by the slums and offer to provide work... personally... or just drive by and complain about the government taxing them too much.

"Real equality is happening in the US, soon we will be the first multiracial democracy in history!"

I'm not sure I understand the context of the comment. You'll have to clarify.

"Anyway, equality under law is important. But the fact is, I'm sitting here talking to you because I can read. I am worth more economically than someone who can't. Doesn't make me a better person, not even smarter, just worth more money."

I agree... mostly. The fact is that most people that can't read, work really well with their hands... something that alot of well educated businessmen can't do. So while your reading skill has value, I would argue that it may not have MORE value than someone who can build and fix things. I would argue that one who can't read IS NOT generally as smart as one who can but certainly not better/worse a person.

"Money is colorblind now. And Powell is Secretary of State."

Huh? Money is NOT colorblind but I will admit it is getting better... slowly. BTW, that was forced legislation if I recall my history. Was it right to force it back then knowing the current outcome? Or should the GOV had butted out of their business as well. Some will say that color denial is a function of education. While this might be true in some cases, it's not in all... or even a few. It's just another means that justifies the end.

1) Personal freedom. Not some nebulous theory, but the reality of me and other members of my community deciding what is best for ourselves.

Not for ourselves, but for ALL in the community. It(by your definition) doesn't sound very personal to me except for those who are in the majority(see Totalitarian) or unless the majority means everybody. Hopefully before you and your other members vote, you will have come to a comprimise that everyone can vote "YES" on.

2) Personal responsibility. If some kid grows up to be a thug, it isn't my fault, it's his, perhaps (but not always) his parents, but it comes down to HIS choice, not mine.

Personal responsibility... I like that one. Good call!

Flip side, if someone does extremely well, they deserve their reward and should be able to do with it as they see fit. I am not entitled to take it by force (gov't action).

and yet it is you(figuretively speaking of course ) who are entitled to restrict, by force,(gov't action) what I may potentially view in the privacy of my home? Should they not fall under the same ideology?

"See something you don't like? Well it ain't the gov'ts fault! Want something done, it's a free country (see #1), knock yourself out. Give time and money to those causes you believe in. Don't just sit there and complain that the gov't isn't doing it for you."

Oh now Pete, you know that's not true! Come on now, how many times have I seen you complain about those liberal sissy judges that rule from the bench. They are, whether you like it or not, part of the gov't. That's a big part of what the gay marriage thing is about. BEING THE GOVERNMENTS FAULT! That's what all the ballots were about... the conservatives fear of a government takeover of their way of life. Giving time and money... every two weeks brother! And yes I still believe in them!(although they do test my patience from time to time on how they manage it )

I will fore go 3) as I want to address it a little later(if you dont mind )

4) Preservation of the Constitution. The most important single item. It is directly responsible for all other items here being possible, including this discussion itself. If it needs to be changed, it should be done through the long, difficult process of amendment, not by judicial fiat, which is against all principles listed here, and is tyranny, disenfranchment in its' final form.

Agreed. As long as you don't read to much into it. Alot like the Bible in that aspect, isn't it?

Those who twist the Constitution to meet their own ends will end up getting bitten by that lack of rules when a different group comes to power.

Do unto others... big fan of that one!

5) What used to be called, "the white mans' burden", is no more. With the end of institutional racism and the rise of multiracial democracy it now has become the civilized mans' burden: To spread personal freedom as much as possible; to show by example the fruits of religious tolerance and freedom of speech; to help were we can. We shouldn't go looking for dragons to slay, but will be a friend of humanity as we can. This is a gov't mission only as it is a mirror of us as citizens: we will give a hand when we can.

Killing me softly with his song? It seems anymore since we can't spread capitalism as directly as WE would like(figuratively speaking again) in totalitarian and dictatorship gov'ts, that the answer now is to spread Democracy instead and let the public choose Capitalism. Isn't that a big part of why we are in Iraq?(see GMEI) I find it interesting the plots being instituted by us, in the name of humanity, for our own ends, and against the wish's of those on the receiving end. While what you speak of not slaying dragons sounds noble, it seems like we have a problem with this getting in the way of our interest's.

"I realise that you were looking for greater specifics. All that I argue for comes from the above, as I see it."

And Pete, as usual, it's been a pleasure. Thank you for breaking the ice and answering my question as thoroughly as you did! If you have any additional thoughts, I'll be as civil as I can.

Congrats on a smooth election!

[piece-it pete]

I know that took some time to put together. I really wasn't looking to pick a fight.(contrary to what others might have thought through the appearent lack of interest in my topics)

karl,

I wasn't looking for a fight either, the overall thoughts I posted were a genuine attempt to answer what I thought was the question.

One wise man I knew said: "Every time 2 people talk there's actually 6 people talking. On each side: the actual person, the guy he thinks he is, and the guy the OTHER guy thinks he is".

It's a wonder we can talk at all .

Topic? What topics?

I was very sincere in my thirst for knowledge but was looking for the condensed form rather than spending hours and hours trying to re-learn history and political science. It seems to me that there is so much attention put on getting votes to win an election that the long-term goals of the different parties is getting lost to the public. There is a fear that has been put into the minds of people that their way of life is in danger and unless they act now, that all will be lost. It is that fear that causes the short-sightedness of the public to what the different philosophies are all about. I have found myself having difficulties with aligning myself with any particular one... in part because of a lack of understanding of the goal(s) that they represent and in part because of the lack of accountability of those goals. It can be difficult to make a decission without having a representation of the big picture(as conceived by any party) before you.

I think the short-sightedness of the general public is a reflection of human nature. So as scary as it is a burden is on the candidates themselves to act in our best interest. Not the way it was supposed to be. Shudder!!

I've often thought of independents, it's got to be tough. How hard is it to determine WHO will be the best to lead the country? And I fear the celebrity-based culture we live in hurts this, Lincoln wouldn't be elected now.

The only real accountability we'll ever have is the next election.

I was also looking to see if all people here have an accurate concept of the goals of the parties they support/represent, or do they just support the parts of those goals that directly have their interest... at that moment. You would think more people that vote, do so because of the big picture. But I find it(more times than not) is more a case of "I want to keep my guns so I will always vote republican." or "I may want to have an abortion in the future, so I will always vote democrate." It seems like most people are happy with the way things are in general(except we are always wanting more money ) and that is why they vote as they do about "single issues". The exception is in 2000 when morals and values came into question over the Clinton sex scandle. It seems that we took it pretty personal what the world thought about our embarrassment THEN and now we are determined to do something about it. Funny how we care so much about our moral image then but not now in Iraq. See, that's why I'm having a problem with the parties. Like everyother party, it conflicts it's self making it hard to support or even understand what they stand for... long term.

This is why I vote party and not individual. 60% of the winning parties' platform becomes law, on average. The person only counts for so much IMO.

Regardless of what's being said, most Iraqis think it was immoral of us to desert them after Gulf War round one and would be horrible to do it now.

Anyway, I will spare you the response to the end of your post(as I said earlier, not really what I was looking for anyway) and express a few thoughts on the rest.

* "How do you like the current love-fest re: the two candidates? lol." *

They both dislike each other, why put a pretty face on it... for us? Waste of energy.IMO

*"I remember a story in English in elementary school, that I saw in my daughters book many years later, about how everyone was FORCED to be equal in every way. There were 200 amendments to the Constitution." "[/i][i] If you were stronger than average, you wore weights. Smarter, you had a headset that would give off loud noises to break your chain of thought."*

Probably distributed by the GOP in an effort to start kids early on how people will never be truely equal in reality so acceptance of inequality would be seen more preferable than equality. I find it interesting that the book would cite weighing down the strong in an effort to be equal to the weak instead of the strong helping to lift the weak. I was taught that you can't help others til you help yourself, but helping others, once self established, was morally acceptable and in some cases required as a responsible member of society(Uh huh huh... member) How many CEO's would drive by the slums and offer to provide work... personally... or just drive by and complain about the government taxing them too much.

Yep I'm cynical about the love-fest, too - hate and fear each other (the election commercials) - love and respect each other - yeah that'll happen!

The one thing that stood out was Kerry saying to stand together in Iraq.

That story (I wish I could remember the name!!) was supposed to be an example of what can go wrong with democracy. Fact is, people are NOT equally endowed. Any attempt to force that will only screw things up.

*"Real equality is happening in the US, soon we will be the first multiracial democracy in history!" *

I'm not sure I understand the context of the comment. You'll have to clarify.

*"Anyway, equality under law is important. But the fact is, I'm sitting here talking to you because I can read. I am worth more economically than someone who can't. Doesn't make me a better person, not even smarter, just worth more money."*

I agree... mostly. The fact is that most people that can't read, work really well with their hands... something that alot of well educated businessmen can't do. So while your reading skill has value, I would argue that it may not have MORE value than someone who can build and fix things. I would argue that one who can't read IS NOT generally as smart as one who can but certainly not better/worse a person.

Well, we're talking about equality and the like, I thought it interesting that within a couple of decades, with current birth rates, whites will constitute less than 50% of the general population of the US. No one race will control over 50% of the vote. Thus, the first multiracial democracy in the world, curtesy of the US.

If you reread my writing on reading you will see I did not judge the nonreader. I simply stated a fact.

I think of the lead man at the last place I worked, who was solidly functionally illiterate.

He was VERY good mechanically, quite smart (a lead man who can't read!), a hard worker, and a good man you could count on and trust. We became good friends (even more amazing, considering he was an old-school union type Democrat!). But if you can't read orders and packing lists, or fill out production schedules, there is only so far you can go on tools alone.


[PETE NOTE: I had to break the post in two]

[piece-it pete]

*"Money is colorblind now. And Powell is Secretary of State."*

Huh? Money is NOT colorblind but I will admit it is getting better... slowly. BTW, that was forced legislation if I recall my history. Was it right to force it back then knowing the current outcome? Or should the GOV had butted out of their business as well. Some will say that color denial is a function of education. While this might be true in some cases, it's not in all... or even a few. It's just another means that justifies the end.

I respectfully disagree - money IS colorblind. Power, well, it NEVER will be.

The Blacks' struggle here goes waaayyy back, before the Revolution, back to the founding of the Colonies. It was punted at the Revolution, at the Constitutional Convention, and many many times right up to the Civil War, for the simple reason that everyone believed it would rip the country apart.

It did. It is a shame Lincoln died, everyone went back to business as usual, licking wounds, exhausting war, all that, but THE AMENDMENT WAS PASSED.

My point is that slavery, and by extension civil rights for blacks, was and is a special issue, a standout. It needed extreme solutions. No other issue approaches this in importance. It almost destroyed our country.

Legislate morality, or not?

*1) Personal freedom. Not some nebulous theory, but the reality of me and other members of my community deciding what is best for ourselves. *

Not for ourselves, but for ALL in the community. It(by your definition) doesn't sound very personal to me except for those who are in the majority(see Totalitarian) or unless the majority means everybody. Hopefully before you and your other members vote, you will have come to a comprimise that everyone can vote "YES" on.

What is democracy? A majority equals a totalitarian state? What type of gov't do you suggest?

People disagree, and desicions need made.

*2) Personal responsibility. If some kid grows up to be a thug, it isn't my fault, it's his, perhaps (but not always) his parents, but it comes down to HIS choice, not mine.*

Personal responsibility... I like that one. Good call!

*Flip side, if someone does extremely well, they deserve their reward and should be able to do with it as they see fit. I am not entitled to take it by force (gov't action).*

and yet it is you(figuretively speaking of course ) who are entitled to restrict, by force,(gov't action) what I may potentially view in the privacy of my home? Should they not fall under the same ideology?

But we DO use gov't force to take income through taxes. What I'm arguing for, what is part of my parties' core beliefs, is to be FAIR about it. We want to encourage the creation of wealth, not discourage it.

As far as porn goes, well, it's the same as the tax code: "The People" - the legislature -decide (or is supposed to).

*"See something you don't like? Well it ain't the gov'ts fault! Want something done, it's a free country (see #1), knock yourself out. Give time and money to those causes you believe in. Don't just sit there and complain that the gov't isn't doing it for you."*

Oh now Pete, you know that's not true! Come on now, how many times have I seen you complain about those liberal sissy judges that rule from the bench. They are, whether you like it or not, part of the gov't. That's a big part of what the gay marriage thing is about. BEING THE GOVERNMENTS FAULT! That's what all the ballots were about... the conservatives fear of a government takeover of their way of life. Giving time and money... every two weeks brother! And yes I still believe in them!(although they do test my patience from time to time on how they manage it )

I'm not making the connection - further explanation please? Or aren't I clear?

BTW, "you" in this instance is plural and not directed at you, personally.

I will fore go 3) as I want to address it a little later(if you dont mind )

Gaaahh! Ack! Phpppt!

*4) Preservation of the Constitution. The most important single item. It is directly responsible for all other items here being possible, including this discussion itself. If it needs to be changed, it should be done through the long, difficult process of amendment, not by judicial fiat, which is against all principles listed here, and is tyranny, disenfranchment in its' final form.*

Agreed. As long as you don't read to much into it. Alot like the Bible in that aspect, isn't it?

Absolutlely. If in doubt, we should err on the side of Democracy, the people.

*Those who twist the Constitution to meet their own ends will end up getting bitten by that lack of rules when a different group comes to power.*

Do unto others... big fan of that one!

*5) What used to be called, "the white mans' burden", is no more. With the end of institutional racism and the rise of multiracial democracy it now has become the civilized mans' burden: To spread personal freedom as much as possible; to show by example the fruits of religious tolerance and freedom of speech; to help were we can.We shouldn't go looking for dragons to slay, but will be a friend of humanity as we can. This is a gov't mission only as it is a mirror of us as citizens: we will give a hand when we can.*

Killing me softly with his song? It seems anymore since we can't spread capitalism as directly as WE would like(figuratively speaking again) in totalitarian and dictatorship gov'ts, that the answer now is to spread Democracy instead and let the public choose Capitalism. Isn't that a big part of why we are in Iraq?(see GMEI) I find it interesting the plots being instituted by us, in the name of humanity, for our own ends, and against the wish's of those on the receiving end. While what you speak of not slaying dragons sounds noble, it seems like we have a problem with this getting in the way of our interest's.

It is a shame, but sometimes people have been brainwashed against free trade.

If we have a legit interest then it's not "looking for dragons". And those folks WANT us there, according to poll after poll.

*"I realise that you were looking for greater specifics. All that I argue for comes from the above, as I see it."*

And Pete, as usual, it's been a pleasure. Thank you for breaking the ice and answering my question as thoroughly as you did! If you have any additional thoughts, I'll be as civil as I can.

Congrats on a smooth election!

The pleasure is all mine. Imagine, not being called a hypocrite, a KKK member, or an intolerant hater!! What do I do?!



Thanks!

Pete

[Chris]

Pete, the funny thing is, I agree with many of your points - or at least the basis of them. I believe that you're a good guy. I'm all for personal freedom, personal responsibility, and the promotion of wealth. You tend to stand for the "good" things on the conservative side... the things worth agreeing with.

I think personal freedom is extremely important, we need to protect personal liberties fiercely. I think those who are not responsible for their actions should not expect to be bailed out by loop holes. And I think we should reward hard work. But I think there are a few things we overlook as Americans. I find a little irony in how we boast about equality and how everyone has the opportunity to succeed. Our nation was founded on many principles, some of them tightly tied to religion. The gay marriage bans have made me see how religion still excludes certain people from our society, even today. Most of my family is very religious, and I still can't understand how they view other human beings as outcasts because a book tells them they should - especially when the same book tells them to love everyone. If homosexuals are denied certain rights that marriage offers, how can we argue that everyone has the same shot at the same opportunities in our country?

Humanity is imperfect. Our nation used to enslave people. We used to prevent black people and women from voting. We grew enough to see that was wrong. I'm hoping that sooner or later, we'll see how denying homosexuals various rights that married couples receive is also unjust. I'm not saying the right thing to do is to allow them to get "married". But give them their rights - that's what most of them want (along with not wanting to be verbally assaulted, beaten and killed for being gay). I don't think it's a "hate" thing
(well mostly) - just more about "exclusion" from society. If you're gonna promote wealth, you have to make sure people aren't being excluded. If you're going to promote religion, you have to promote love and acceptance for ALL.

And please, let's not have some half-wit start talking about "what's next, letting people marry sheep?" - that's the type of talk that really insults everyones' intelligence, not to mention how bad it makes you look. If you can't see the difference, please move on to a less complicated subject.

As far as the topic goes:

I think Republicans are all about standing up for their freedoms and don't want the government to tell them what they can and can't do. They stand by their religious beliefs and what they feel is morally right. They believe in promoting economic growth and rewarding those who work hard. They also feel that the environment should only be considered as long as it doesn't negatively impact the economy - if there isn't proof, it isn't our doing.

I think Democrats fight to make sure everyone has the same opportunity to succeed by promoting government intervention. They believe that the poor aren't always necessarily poor because they don't work hard. They believe that those who prosper more from our system should give more back - even though they already do. They feel that the environment should be addressed so that future generations don't have to suffer from our greed.

Both sides have good intentions, however, they sometimes fail to see how each one of their stances can be a fault. I think Republicans help the rich get richer and I think Democrats put too much effort into trying to save people who don't want to be saved. This country gives everyone freedom - many choose not to be ambitious. Sure some people really do need help, but there needs to be more effort in making a distinction between those people and the lazy people.

One last note - have any of you heard how Bush might have to raise taxes? This was on the news the day after the election. Figures... at least now I can go tell my friend "I told you so". Not sure how anyone thought it would be possible to make a dent in the deficit without raising taxes. ???

[karl k]

Sorry man, it seems you don't come by near as often as you should!

As far as the topic goes:

I think Republicans are all about standing up for their freedoms and don't want the government to tell them what they can and can't do. They stand by their religious beliefs and what they feel is morally right. They believe in promoting economic growth and rewarding those who work hard. They also feel that the environment should only be considered as long as it doesn't negatively impact the economy - if there isn't proof, it isn't our doing.

I think Democrats fight to make sure everyone has the same opportunity to succeed by promoting government intervention. They believe that the poor aren't always necessarily poor because they don't work hard. They believe that those who prosper more from our system should give more back - even though they already do. They feel that the environment should be addressed so that future generations don't have to suffer from our greed.

Both sides have good intentions, however, they sometimes fail to see how each one of their stances can be a fault. I think Republicans help the rich get richer and I think Democrats put too much effort into trying to save people who don't want to be saved. This country gives everyone freedom - many choose not to be ambitious. Sure some people really do need help, but there needs to be more effort in making a distinction between those people and the lazy people.

One last note - have any of you heard how Bush might have to raise taxes? This was on the news the day after the election. Figures... at least now I can go tell my friend "I told you so". Not sure how anyone thought it would be possible to make a dent in the deficit without raising taxes. ???

In general(veeerrry general) I think your assessment is sound. I know it goes much deeper than that but also acknowledge the list could get quite long indeed. I noticed your assessment didn't specify world policy from each partie... that's ok. That could get pretty lengthy as well. Maybe we can discuss next about how these ideals are implimented to satisfy the goals of the different parties and at what potential cost.(if the peace holds up)

You wrote that the Reps "stand by their religious beliefs and what they feel is morally right" and I was just curious if it is perceived that the Dems don't in either case? At what point(if any) does the stand for religious beliefs and what's morally right interfere with personal or religious freedom of either the majority or minority of a community or the nation as a whole?

Thanks for chiming in!

[piece-it pete]

Pete, the funny thing is, I agree with many of your points - or at least the basis of them. I believe that you're a good guy. I'm all for personal freedom, personal responsibility, and the promotion of wealth. You tend to stand for the "good" things on the conservative side... the things worth agreeing with.

Thanks, Chris.

I'm going to start a thread about the wackos on both sides one of these days - it'll be interesting to see who's willing to admit they have loonies (and what type) in their party.

I think personal freedom is extremely important, we need to protect personal liberties fiercely. I think those who are not responsible for their actions should not expect to be bailed out by loop holes. And I think we should reward hard work. But I think there are a few things we overlook as Americans. I find a little irony in how we boast about equality and how everyone has the opportunity to succeed. Our nation was founded on many principles, some of them tightly tied to religion. The gay marriage bans have made me see how religion still excludes certain people from our society, even today. Most of my family is very religious, and I still can't understand how they view other human beings as outcasts because a book tells them they should - especially when the same book tells them to love everyone. If homosexuals are denied certain rights that marriage offers, how can we argue that everyone has the same shot at the same opportunities in our country?

All the principles we were founded on are directly tied to Christianity.

We aren't denying gays anything, unless you change the definition of marriage to include them.

All issues that are brought up, be it inheritance, hospital visits, etc, as reasons to change marriage can all be addressed RIGHT NOW through current legal devices like wills, living wills, and power of attorney.

In light of the recent votes I think we're beating a dead horse. The only reason the Constitutional amendment doesn't have popular support yet is 'cause the Federal judiciary hasn't struck down a State amendment. Look for this to happen REAL soon. These folks saying that, due to the States restrictions the Federal amendment is unneccessary, and an invasion of States rights (they care about that NOW?), are wrong.

As soon as it happens, look for the amendment to pass at the Constitutional equivilent of light speed.

Some plain talk regarding Christians: the biggest single difference between secular voters and Christians is a simple one, but a huge one, and not likely to be reconciled. Christians fear Gods' wrath. We know that if we deny God or turn against Him, judgement is not far behind. The Old Testament is full of examples of this.

THAT is behind the huge Christian turnout. Overall we're not scared of gays (homophobic), or vengeful, or haters. We fear for our country.

Some are thinking right now that THIS is the argument behind the new definition of seperation of Church and State, basically that me and like-minded folks should not be allowed to encode our beliefs of right and wrong into gov't. What that definition does is deny my right of both freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Canada and some European countries have already done this.

I'm only being frank here.

Humanity is imperfect. Our nation used to enslave people. We used to prevent black people and women from voting. We grew enough to see that was wrong. I'm hoping that sooner or later, we'll see how denying homosexuals various rights that married couples receive is also unjust. I'm not saying the right thing to do is to allow them to get "married". But give them their rights - that's what most of them want (along with not wanting to be verbally assaulted, beaten and killed for being gay). I don't think it's a "hate" thing
(well mostly) - just more about "exclusion" from society. If you're gonna promote wealth, you have to make sure people aren't being excluded. If you're going to promote religion, you have to promote love and acceptance for ALL.

And please, let's not have some half-wit start talking about "what's next, letting people marry sheep?" - that's the type of talk that really insults everyones' intelligence, not to mention how bad it makes you look. If you can't see the difference, please move on to a less complicated subject.

Look at the transcripts of the debate in the Massachusetts Congress, the sheep topic was brought up, a number of them said they couldn't in good conscience tell their neighbor what he could and couldn't do.

So, how bad does it make THEM look?

I realise you haven't heard about this, good luck getting the media to report it!

And NAMBLA *has* endorsed this. Why?

I, and many like me, see skin color as different than sexual preference.

Excluded from wealth generation? Gays make more on average than the general population.

Love and acceptance for all? My religion teaches us to love their enemies. I can do this without condoning their behavior, or agreeing with it. I certainly don't have to accept it.

As far as the topic goes:

I think Republicans are all about standing up for their freedoms and don't want the government to tell them what they can and can't do. They stand by their religious beliefs and what they feel is morally right. They believe in promoting economic growth and rewarding those who work hard. They also feel that the environment should only be considered as long as it doesn't negatively impact the economy - if there isn't proof, it isn't our doing.

I think Democrats fight to make sure everyone has the same opportunity to succeed by promoting government intervention. They believe that the poor aren't always necessarily poor because they don't work hard. They believe that those who prosper more from our system should give more back - even though they already do. They feel that the environment should be addressed so that future generations don't have to suffer from our greed.

Both sides have good intentions, however, they sometimes fail to see how each one of their stances can be a fault. I think Republicans help the rich get richer and I think Democrats put too much effort into trying to save people who don't want to be saved. This country gives everyone freedom - many choose not to be ambitious. Sure some people really do need help, but there needs to be more effort in making a distinction between those people and the lazy people.

One last note - have any of you heard how Bush might have to raise taxes? This was on the news the day after the election. Figures... at least now I can go tell my friend "I told you so". Not sure how anyone thought it would be possible to make a dent in the deficit without raising taxes. ???

Oh it's pretty easy - you cut spending.

The problem and big increased spending generator in gov't is this: Flush times, money is POURING in (without a tax hike), Congressmen do the spending dance (it's a very joyous dance ).

The economy takes a downturn, as it always does, tax receipts dry up. So, they cut the spending down to fit.

Yeah, I know, that's just plain silly - it'll NEVER happen on its' own.

But instead, the Yak thing happens, because every gov't program becomes a right. So at every cycle the gov't grows, naturally, becoming a bigger and bigger burden on all of us.

Let alone the fiction of the SS withholding. It's criminal, IMO, a regressive tax that effects the poor the hardest, and exempts the wealthy, a huge stealth tax sold as saving SS. If we're going to spend it, call it what it is: a general tax increase, and make it fair.

The same thing'll happen to health care premiums too, at first. Then, when the deficit ballons again due to waste, over-promising, and overspending they'll say the healthcare system needs saved, promise a "lock-box", raise taxes again, and spend that too.

History is a wonderful thing.

Pete

[dean_martin]

Some plain talk regarding Christians: the biggest single difference between secular voters and Christians is a simple one, but a huge one, and not likely to be reconciled. Christians fear Gods' wrath. We know that if we deny God or turn against Him, judgement is not far behind. The Old Testament is full of examples of this.

THAT is behind the huge Christian turnout. Overall we're not scared of gays (homophobic), or vengeful, or haters. We fear for our country.

Some are thinking right now that THIS is the argument behind the new definition of seperation of Church and State, basically that me and like-minded folks should not be allowed to encode our beliefs of right and wrong into gov't. What that definition does is deny my right of both freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Canada and some European countries have already done this.

I'm only being frank here.




Pete

Pete - we will be calling on you and others on the right to help defeat Bush's "tort reform".

"You shall not pervert the justice due to your poor in his suit." Exodus 23:6

Your usual excellent cooperation will be appreciated.

[piece-it pete]

Pete - we will be calling on you and others on the right to help defeat Bush's "tort reform".

"You shall not pervert the justice due to your poor in his suit." Exodus 23:6

Your usual excellent cooperation will be appreciated.

Hello Dean!

Honestly, I don't see the difference betwen 1 million and 5 when it comes to judgements!

Outside of punitives.

Unless justice = 5 million? Especially to the poor?

I'd be more worried over getting the indigent better legal help. I do realise that many very good lawyers do a lot of charity legal-wise.

But I wouldn't worry too much. As you have pointed out, many members of Congress, heck the majority of members!, are lawyers, I can't imagine they will shoot themselves in the foot, more likely pass something minor they can call what they like, and drop the issue altogther.

Classic Congress.

Pete

[karl k]

I wasn't looking for a fight either, the overall thoughts I posted were a genuine attempt to answer what I thought was the question.

And you did. Due to the initial apprehension of responding to the topic, I suspected most thought I was just looking to start something... or the topic was immaterial.

One wise man I knew said: "Every time 2 people talk there's actually 6 people talking. On each side: the actual person, the guy he thinks he is, and the guy the OTHER guy thinks he is".

Probably talked to himself alot as well as in his sleep! I can see how confusing that can be... but I can't! LOL!

Topic? What topics?

Ya, there aren't many, and it's been awhile, but they do exist. Look and see. Maybe I'm just sensative.

The only real accountability we'll ever have is the next election.

By accountability, I probably meant credibility. It's one thing to state a means to achieve a goal, it's another to really expect the means to achieve that goal. The only way we'll really know is when the end game has been achieved from BOTH sides. Hopefully, we as a country will not have to see that day,(the day we can say we've tried and achieved both ideologies) for that may be the day we acknowledge as a people we really don't know what we want.

Regardless of what's being said, most Iraqis think it was immoral of us to desert them after Gulf War round one and would be horrible to do it now.

If we made a promise... you bet it was! And yes it would be horrible. No qualms with that here.

Yep I'm cynical about the love-fest, too - hate and fear each other (the election commercials) - love and respect each other - yeah that'll happen!

For me, it was more than that... it's like maintaining a view(like everyone does at sometime) and then saying my view has no rellevence.

The one thing that stood out was Kerry saying to stand together in Iraq.

And he meant it, in the context that we need to get the troups out as fast as posible without sacrificing the mission at hand... getting the Iraqi people on their feet and on their way.
That story (I wish I could remember the name!!) was supposed to be an example of what can go wrong with democracy. Fact is, people are NOT equally endowed. Any attempt to force that will only screw things up.

Wait a minute! "...all men are created equal. Are endowed by their creator certain inalienable rights... life, liberty, pursuit of happiness." What have I missed here? just kidding!

At the risk of being called a flip flopper, back peddling, or other sort... the only thing I have preached is equal treatment, equal oppurtunity... not to have someones thumb on my head like it was as a kid! I am also a big fan of the idea that everyone has their place in the picture and we can't all take up the whole frame but we can all be in the same picture, taking up the same relative space in the picture... if we have the desire and the means. The constitution is the means, and all we lack is the will. Really is a shame when the constitution has to be used in that fashion... shows something about us.

Well, we're talking about equality and the like, I thought it interesting that within a couple of decades, with current birth rates, whites will constitute less than 50% of the general population of the US. No one race will control over 50% of the vote. Thus, the first multiracial democracy in the world, curtesy of the US.

Hopefully, the current minorities will have more wisdom than we have shown. At least, the whities will finally have a dose of what it feels like to potentially not get their way. A little humility can go along way if properly administered...don't you think?

If you reread my writing on reading you will see I did not judge the nonreader. I simply stated a fact.

Oh I got you alright! I only dispute the fact you cite. That one should/would be more economically or otherwise valueable than the other. Still disagree that to be fact. Yes, tools will only take you so far... reading is a tool, just like a wrench. Think about it. It's more a case of which is more valueable... having tools or understanding how to use them. Comprehension along with responsibility should determine a persons value. You can put that blueprint in front of an illiterate and get the same result as putting a wrench in the hand of one who can read. Either one can be taught to do the others job in most cases and one can't live without the other... in most cases.

And now... to pt2(tomorrow)