These comments were forwarded to me from KC... Good words, if you ask me... JR

Since the attack, I have seen, heard, and read thoughts of such surpassing stupidity that they must be addressed. You've heard them too. Here they are:

1) "We're not good, they're not evil, everything is relative."

Listen carefully: We're good, they're evil, nothing is relative. Say it with me now and free yourselves. You see, folks, saying "We're good" doesn't mean
"We're perfect." Okay? The only perfect being is the bearded guy on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. The plain fact is that our country has,
with all our mistakes and blunders, always been and always will be, the greatest beacon of freedom, charity, opportunity, and affection in history. If you need proof, open all the borders on Earth and see what happens. In about half a day, the entire world would be a ghost town, and the United States would look like one giant line to see "The Producers."

2) "Violence only leads to more violence."

This one is so stupid you usually have to be the president of an Ivy League university to say it.
Here's the truth, which you know in your heads and hearts already: Ineffective, unfocused violence leads to more violence. Limp, panicky, half-measures lead to more violence. However, complete, fully-thought-through, professional, well-executed violence never leads to more violence because, you see, afterwards, the other guys are all dead. That's right, dead. Not "on trial," not "reeducated," not "nurtured back into the bosom of love." Dead. D-E-Well, you get the idea.

3) "The CIA and the rest of our intelligence community has failed us."

For 25 years we have chained our spies like dogs to a stake in the ground, and now that the house has been robbed, we yell at them for not protecting
us. Starting in the late seventies, under Carter appointee Stansfield Turner, the giant brains who get these giant ideas decided that the best
way to gather international intelligence was to use spy satellites. "After all," they reasoned, "you can see a license plate from 200 miles away."

(**NOTE - Sound like any of the LEGS in the weather career field, trying to justify why CWTs don't need any specialized training?!?)

This is very helpful if you've been attacked by a license plate. Unfortunately, we were attacked by humans. Finding humans is not possible with satellites. You have to use other humans. When we bought all our satellites, we fired all our humans, and here's the really stupid part. It takes years, decades to infiltrate new humans into the worst places of the world. You can't just have a guy who looks like Gary Busey in a Spring Break '93 sweatshirt plop himself down in a coffee shop in Kabul and say "Hiya, boys. Gee, I sure would like to meet that bin Laden fella." Well, you can, but all you'd be doing is giving the bad guys a story they'd be telling for years.

4) "These people are poor and helpless, and that's why they're angry at us."

Uh-huh, and Jeffrey Dahmer's frozen head collection was just a desperate cry for help. The terrorists and their backers are richer than Elton John and, ironically, a good deal less annoying. The poor helpless people, you see, are the villagers they tortured and murdered to stay in power. Mohamed Atta, one of the evil scumbags who steered those planes into the killing grounds (I'm sorry, one of the "alleged hijackers," according to CNN - they stopped using the word "terrorist," you know), is the son of a Cairo surgeon. But you knew this, too. In the sixties and seventies, all the pinheads marching against the war were
upper-middle-class college kids who grabbed any cause they could think of to get out of their final papers and spend more time drinking. At least,
that was my excuse. It's the same today. Take the Anti-Global-Warming (or is it World ! Trade? Oh who knows what the hell they want). They all
charged their black outfits and plane tickets on dad's credit card before driving to the airport in their SUV's.

5) "Any profiling is racial profiling." Who's killing us here, the Norwegians? Just days after the attack, the New York Times had an article saying dozens of extended members of the gazillionaire bin Laden family living in America were afraid of reprisals and left in a huff, never to return to studying at Harvard and using too much Drakkar. I'm crushed. I think we're all crushed. Please come back. With a cherry on top? Why don't they just change their names, anyway? It's happened in the past. Think about it. How many Adolfs do you run into these days? Shortly after that, I remember watching TV with my jaw on the floor as a government official actually said, "That little old grandmother from Sioux City could be carrying something." Okay, how about this: No, she couldn't. It would never be the grandmother from Sioux City. Is it even possible? What are the odds? Winning a hundred Powerball lotteries in a row? A thousand? A million? And now a Secret Service guy has been tossed off a plane and we're all supposed to cry about it because he's an Arab? Didn't it have the tiniest bit to do with the fact that he filled out his forms
incorrectly---three times? And then left an Arab history book on his seat as he strolled off the plane? And came back? Armed? Let's please all
stop singing "We Are the World" for a minute and think practically. I don't want to be sitting on the floor in the back of a plane four seconds away from hitting Mt. Rushmore and turn, grinning, to the guy next to me to say, "Well, at least we didn't offend them."

SO HERE'S what I resolve for the new year:
Never to forget our murdered brothers and sisters.
Never to let the relativists get away with their immoral thinking. After all, no matter what your daughter's political science professor says,
we didn't start this.

Have you seen that bumper sticker that says, "No More Hiroshimas"? I wish I had one that says,

"You First. No More Pearl Harbors."

Right the f*** on. There are indeed absolutes. All the liberal politcal correctness has gotten us far, we have the "opressed" killing innocent Americans, the "victims" drowning their five kids, and the "enlightened" protesting military action. I want to know how the so called educated people at the universities can study history and then protest against war. Don't get me wrong, war is not something to be entered into lightly, but it a necessary evil. For those already fighting and those about to go, my hat is off to you. Hopefully when i get through the pipeline and then AST I will be right there with you.

The next time some hippie says that reacting to violence with violence is wrong, punch him in the face and knock him back on his trendy ripped jeans. When he gets mad, just throw his argument back in his face. When he tries to get up, hit him again. Maybe eventually he will understand that sometimes the only way to stop from getting beat is to either 1)fight back or 2)have someone protect you. However, since both of these would involve violence, he will be in a quandary until he realizes how wrong he is. Then hit him again for good measure.

Right on....I'll drink to that!
HOOYAH
Jon

I'm with pvnisher! I get tired of listening to all of that cloud hopping, flower sniffing, liberal BS.

Those idiots never stop to think, they have had everything handed to them all of their lives, they dont know the meaning of honor, courage, discipline and sacrifice.

When I hear people talking like that I always ask them who their heroes are, who they really look up to, they usually give me a blank look or spew the name of some other liberal jackass that has never amounted to anything. Then I say "what about the thousands of men that gave their lives so you could have the freedom to say that, (again, another dumb look), those are my heroes, and when you talk like that you spit on their graves".

The truth is and and always has been:
All good will be attacked. All values must be defended. All evil must be crushed.

sorry for the vent.....

guns out.

I guess conservatives see things differently huh? Honor in oil right? Let the mighty dollar rule! Let us claim to be a christian based nation while simultaneously being the most materialistic and greedy people on the face of the earth. No wonder they hate us. We can't even band together to see our own mistakes. We consume and consume without a thought about the world and the greater good for all mankind. Gotta have that gas guzzing SUV at all cost huh?

So we hide behind the face of a sitting president who for all his life was spoon fed and and given everything he has ever had on a silver plate. We don't ask questions and we don't ask what their motivation is. We just accept what they tell us just like we do the bible. And that makes us an ignorant people.

I understand it on a corporate level since money buys opinion in the country (what a shame). However, I don't quite understand why many of our average people support it.

So sure, call me a dirty liberal if you'd like and use that as your weak counter arguments for what I say here. But the fact is that this is a corporate nation run by money and greed. This is the only country I know where acts of terror happen and our president tells us that we can help by going shopping...WHAT A JOKE! Am I American? DAMN RIGHT! And as an American, its my responsibility to point out our huge flaws in the hopes that one day they might be fixed. But by yapping about how this is such a great country, all you do is dig the problems even deeper. And corporate America loves that.

On a more pleasent note, that is why I support the military so much. Its one of the few organizations that is set up to band people together for the common good. I only wish I could say that our people are always worth fighting for <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="images/icons/frown.gif" />

I'll second that, Infoseeker. Nicely said.

InfoSeeker -

I support your right to free speech, and was prepared to fight for it for over 21 years. Having said that, it's very apparent there will be a vast range of opinions throughout the population of this country. I'm sure you will agree.

I would like to take a moment to respond to a few of your comments to the post I originated on this forum. Bear in mind I did not author the words in the post, but I agree with most, if not all, of them.

FYI - I'm not sending this to engage in a heated argument with you, merely to respond in what is an appropriate manner.

Your comments are in quotations, followed by my responses:

"I guess conservatives see things differently huh? Honor in oil right? Let the mighty dollar rule!"

Truthfully, I can't see how this can be interpreted as anything but hyperbole, so I'm going to just pass on responding.

"Let us claim to be a christian based nation while simultaneously being the most materialistic and greedy people on the face of the earth. No wonder they hate us."

We started out as a christian based nation, but cannot really be considered such anymore. We are a nation that espouses freedom of religion as one of our fundamental rights, however. Special interest groups have eroded our former standing as a christian based nation, and my personal opinion is that we have lost a great deal from that erosion.

"We can't even band together to see our own mistakes. We consume and consume without a thought about the world and the greater good for all mankind."

Perhaps you can point out our mistakes for all to see. While you're at it, please add your qualifications for passing judgment on our nation, beyond your status as an (apparently) idealistic student, that is... As for our consumption without a thought about the world, I would ask you to take a look at the statistics for aid to underprivileged countries, and see who is thinking about the world.

"So we hide behind the face of a sitting president who for all his life was spoon fed and and given everything he has ever had on a silver plate."

Are you suggesting that wealth or lack of it has a direct bearing on ability to do the job as president? To his credit, our current president has surrounded himself with extremely qualified advisors and cabinet members. And it doesn't appear he used a menu of special interest groups as a checklist for filling those positions. If you take a hard look at it, there are hardly ANY professional politicians who haven't come from wealthy backgrounds. This seems to be more hyperbole on your part, honestly.

"We don't ask questions and we don't ask what their motivation is. We just accept what they tell us just like we do the bible. And that makes us an ignorant people."

Maybe, and maybe not. Again, I find it hard to believe you can consider yourself so qualified to judge our nation and it's people that you can make such sweeping comments.

"I understand it on a corporate level since money buys opinion in the country (what a shame). However, I don't quite understand why many of our average people support it."

Seems like the people are outraged at the terrorist attack on this country, and are pleased something is being done about it. That could have something to do with the support you have a hard time understanding.

"So sure, call me a dirty liberal if you'd like and use that as your weak counter arguments for what I say here."

No way - You are entitled to your opinion, right or wrong... I disagree with you, but I'm not going to engage in sophomoric name-calling because of that disagreement.

"But the fact is that this is a corporate nation run by money and greed."

Maybe so, in the extreme... Do you have a better solution?

"This is the only country I know where acts of terror happen and our president tells us that we can help by going shopping...WHAT A JOKE!"

However, investing in the economy has done some good in the wake of the terrorist attacks. It's also a way for each individual to contribute, and makes them feel like part of the solution. What's so wrong with that?

"Am I American? DAMN RIGHT! And as an American, its my responsibility to point out our huge flaws in the hopes that one day they might be fixed."

Excellent - Good for you. Keep the dialogue constructive, and it can do a lot of good. Sinking into hyperbole does no real good, however, and actually dilutes the message you are trying to send. Perhaps you can agree, if you take the time to evaluate it.

"But by yapping about how this is such a great country, all you do is dig the problems even deeper. And corporate America loves that."

But it IS a great country - Even with all it's flaws. NOTHING is perfect... Realizing that is a good first step to maturity and recognizing the difference between university-based idealism and life-based reality. Not that idealism is bad, mind you... But mistaking it for reality does you no good.

"On a more pleasent note, that is why I support the military so much. Its one of the few organizations that is set up to band people together for the common good."

Well, thanks for your supportive comments. Those of us who are mature enough can recognize that you are trying to help. Keep it up! Those that are fighting in this war against the terrorists need the support.

"I only wish I could say that our people are always worth fighting for."

Again - Nothing is perfect. ALL humans are flawed, no matter how hard we try to be perfect. If we consider perfection as the STANDARD, we will constantly reinforce failure. If it's the GOAL, and we come close a lot of the time, we're doing good.

I'd like to add this - Those terrorists who attacked our country are extremists, and NOT representatives of the average moslem or arab person. I have spent a great deal of time in the middle east, studied the culture, and speak arabic, so I know a bit about it. Many, if not most, of the middle eastern people are appalled at the attack. True moslems also despise them. Interestingly enough, those terrorists who committed these barbaric acts were predominately "spoon-fed" intellectuals from wealthy families. They deserve to be hunted down and brought to justice for what they did. Our administration is trying to do just that, and do it well.

Those people who died as a result of the attacks didn't deserve to die - No matter what you think about our country, and it's many flaws.

Finally, I truly wonder if you would be as vocal with your critical comments if you were speaking to a gathering of families of the victims of those attacks...

Maybe you should ask yourself that question, and see what you come up with. Then ask yourself the same question 10 years from now, once you have had some time in the "real world."

Regards,

Give me a break! You think that the OBL's of the world hate us because we are a greedy nation? Economics is not a zero-sum game.

And how, Infoseeker, did killing 2500+ American citizens raise the living standard of any single person or group of people? How exactly would it help anyone on this Earth if the U.S. just ceased to exist. Would life become a happy paradise without this greedy, capitalistic nation using up all the resources? Would all those poor people that OBL supposedly represents become prosperous and healthy? Or would the world be worse off without us here?

"No wonder they hate us" you say. How, then, would you explain the fact that Muslim fundamentalists have hardly confined their attacks to the United States, or even to U.S. allies? Islamic terror organizations have recently launched bloody and deadly assaults in the Philippines, Indonesia, Algeria (where more than 100,000 have died), Sudan, Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa, India, Egypt, France, Turkey and scores of other states. Do U.S. leaders bear responsibility for provoking all such incidents?

As to your anti-business rants consider the dismal record of governmental folly(often perpetrated by the U.S. government) and monstrous cruelty (generally not perpetrated by the U.S. government) throughout the 20th century, consider the best developments of the last 100 years: the breathtaking improvement in food production, medical technology, communications, transportation, longevity and leisure time. Every schoolchild knows that big business led the way in this progress, despite all attempts to brainwash such children with the distortions of anti-market orthodoxy.

One can concede the occasionally destructive impact of major corporations - in polluting rivers, for instance - without undermining the basic point: Big business has been mankind's greatest benefactor the last 100 years while big government has been humanity's most ruthless persecutor and exploiter.

Even the greediest and nastiest corporate honcho must at some level honor the philosophy of "The customer is always right" to succeed, and cannot avoid coming to terms with the needs and desires of at least some segment of the populace. Holders of public office, on the other hand, convinced of their virtuous mandate to serve humanity, will feel justified in stubbornly following their own agendas, bravely disregarding the deluded desires of their less enlightened fellow citizens.

In the U.S. we close our eyes to this obvious pattern, due to the naive belief that government remains forever accountable to ordinary folks expressing themselves at the ballot box while large companies serve only their stockholders.

This notion simultaneously overstates the responsiveness of government in an age of permanent bureaucracy and arrogant judicial tyranny, and understates the vulnerability of business in a competitive market place. A consumer who feels horrified by recent problems with tires on the Ford Explorer enjoys more immediate options than a voter who's frustrated by, say, overregulation and pathetic public schools.

Government, meanwhile, remains vastly more powerful than any corporation in the land and enjoys an almost limitless ability to harass big business. Just ask the beleaguered bosses at Microsoft.

So, get out there and shop!

I love this stuff! Some good points made and discussed by many points of view. Such a country, where I can sit with a great cup of coffee and witness the freedom of speech in action right here on my monitor.

Well, I guess I should get back to work...damned T.O. account! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

Is it just me, or is this goin in the same direction of the "bush's speech" argument about a month or 2 ago? But hey i'm all for it, I love seeing really bright people get into it over subjects such as this.
HOOYAH
Jon

Make love, make war, repeat

I feel it fitting to point out that the idea that the Muslim extremists are a crazy bunch of radicals in Islam is actually false. It is the agenda of the relativists that has brought this idea about. The fact is that these "extremists" are actually the only Muslims who read the Koran for what it says, not interjecting their own interpritations into its meaning, and follow it. They are the equivelent of conservative evangelical Christians, who are a huge minority of all the people who claim the title "Christian," and completely follow what the Bible says. The truth is that the Koran teaches this stuff and all the Muslims that condemn the people who do these acts are really just watered-down liberal Muslims. Islam is a war-like religeon. The Koran teaches that eventually Muslims will take over the world to the glory of their God. It also teaches that once Islam advances into a land, it does not receed. This is why the Paletinians are so angry and will never be satisfied while Israel is around - because the existance of the Israeli State is a complete contradiction to their theology since its land used to be under Muslim control. The United States at one point fairly early in our existance adopted a doctrine (it has a name, but I can't recall it) that says that it is our duty, because of the tremendous blessings we've received from God, to use our power to positively affect the world - to liberate the oppressed. To not do so would be a great wrong. In a very large degree, most of our foreign policy stems from that old doctrine - not from greed (thought certainly in small measure).

It is true that of the major religions Islam is the only one founded by a warrior. I wouldn't compare the militant Islamic fundamentalist to the conservative Christian. If it had been fundamental Christians who flew those planes you would have had every other true Christian in the world expressing outrage at that act. They would not have been dancing in the street like we saw the people of many Muslim countries doing that day. Nor would the true Christians have apologists, like InfoSeeker, coming out of the woodwork to attempt to rationalize their actions.

Yes, free speech is a wonderful freedom. Lets also not forget that many many other countries have this freedom as well so it is no where near limited to the United States. Boy, I wish I had a lot of time to counter all these opinions but I don't. So I'll focus more on JR's comments since they were the first.

As for my comments on conservatives, its simple. Republicans are conservative in nature. Republicans fight for big business. The big business that helps them win elections most is big oil. So oil pays for these conservative republican candidates and in return, they support policies that better their business. Basically its a case of ... no one gives something for nothing. So, big oil is the cause for all the problems we face in the middle east. So what I was trying to say is that conservatives are no better than liberals and in fact, are much much worse.

You countered my comments about us being a Christian based nation. So I leave you with this. We do agree that Christianity is the foundation of our country's creation. However, what you fail to see is that it is still the leading religion in our region here for the same reason it is for Israel and for the same reason Islam is the dominated religion in the East. Take a poll of our leader's religious beliefs whether republican or democrat and find out how many are Christ believers? Still think that Christianity is not the dominating religion here?

<<<Special interest groups have eroded our former standing as a Christian based nation, and my personal opinion is that we have lost a great deal from that erosion. >>> So your saying that Christianity is "THE BEST" and that other religions are not? Its funny but if I remember correctly the Muslim extremist are saying the same thing about us and it is the very reason why Israel is not accepted in the East. So your just taking the Muslim stand but on the opposite side. Basically, the "my religion is better than yours" concept.

You questioned my qualifications for passing judgment. You have to remember, you and I don't know each other and therefore will never know each other's qualifications on ANY given subject. So in the case of argument, its important that we go by the points we put across and not by personal attack as to whether or not we are qualified to know anything for sure.

As far as aid to underprivileged counties...Yes, we give the most, your right. But let me put it to you in simplistic terms. If I make $50,000 a year and donate $10,000 to charity while another person makes 50,000,000 a year and donates $500,000 to charity, who is more generous? The rich guy? So yes, we do give more, but we produce MUCH MUCH more, and based on %, we give MUCH MUCH less than any other country. And if we were to factor in how much we give that inadvertently serves our interest first, the % makes us look even more greedier.

You assumed that I suggested that a wealthy person would not be qualified to be president. Being wealthy does not make you qualified or unqualified. What makes you unqualified is when your "countinuous" wealth is based on you supporting policies that focus on what's best for your supplier leaving the average American a distant second. That my friend makes you unqualified to be president. In simplistic terms, imagine a police officer getting paid by one specific group, yet, asked to serve the entire public. Will he or she serve everyone equally or will the group that finances them get better treatment?

You twisted my words again when I mentioned that I did not understand why average Americans (who are not part of the bought beliefs in the country) still support the same beliefs. The war on terror is a united war and in no way reflects the area I am talking about. I specifically meant that we vote and we support policies without clearly thinking them through to find out of they are indeed the best way to go. And even the war on terror helps our current president for reelection in 2004 so I can promise you, he will milk it for what its worth. So...we do not question our leaders and ask, hmmm, I wonder why they support this view. I have learned from years of involvement in Government that there are reasons for almost every belief a politician holds, reasons that are never pure. Belief usually has dollars or large votes attached. The American way I guess.

Do I have a better solution for an Alternative America instead of the corporate one we now hold? Absolutely! And its short and sweet too. GET THE MONEY OUT OF POLITICS AND SELF INTEREST POLICIES GO AWAY.

Also, this country is far from perfect but with statements like "nothing is perfect," u give justification for the flaws we have. Again, corporate America loves that!

Anyway, it was a pleasure debating with you. Look forward to doing it again of course in a constructive manner like always. TE, thanks again for giving us the opportunity to share our deepest thoughts and views on this site which was originally designed to recruit people in not only the finest military organization in the free world but in my eyes, the best special forces team as well. Good day to all.

I would recommend everyone read the book below...it will open your eyes to the true nature of the Jihad against the US and it's allies...then come back and debate...it will open your eyes as to how/why Al Quaida, Abu Sayyaf, HAMAS, al Gihad, Islamic Salvation Front, Armed Islamic Group, and numerous others were formed and eventually united...using (initially) millions of dollars worth of weapons, equipment, and training supplied by the CIA and Pakistani ISI (as well as others) during the Afghanistan Jihad when the Russians invaded, and later when OBL started uniteing and funding the 7 major terrorist/extremist groups.

As for the discussion below, I don't think the vast majority of Americans realize what it is going to take to end (if it can be ended...perhaps curtail to the max extend possible is a better description) the threat of terrorism...YEARS...I already see fewer and fewer flags...our local TV station has taken their patriotic flag off their broadcast...people seem to think that Afghanistan is the end when it is just the beginning. Maybe I'm a cynic, but many (not most) Americans don't really care unless it affects them directly...they're happy as long as they can get on with their lives, make their money, and not be bothered...there was a spert of enlistments right after the 9/11 attack, I wonder if that continues? We are again returning to the fascination of TV trials like the drowning of 5 kids, the man in the windshield, and the dog attack. This is good to an extent, but my fear is most Americans will simply forget about the war on terrorism until (and when) there is another attack, or a group of US military are killed, or we make a mistake. America is getting back to normal, and even a few "hippies" and others are daring to say that the violence is wrong. I disagree...we do need to wipe out these organizations...but it is going to be a long, long difficult road to do so.

I will agree (in part) with the Polysci teacher that thinks we started this...we did (we, and the military failure of the USSR in Afghanistan) back in 1979...not in a direct way of course, but we were naive enough to believe that the holy warriors who fought against the Russians in the name of Islam wouldn't turn on us when the Russians were defeated...we failed to realize that many Jihad veterans had to return to places like the Philippines, Sudan, Algeria, etc. and, having learned from the CIA, and initially organized by local extremists with their own cause, had the tools to "continue the fight"...we simply didn't think it would reach us in the USA...approximately 13 years later, it has. We didn't realize that the lack of a coordinated covert warfare and drug suppression policy would result in a massive influx of Asian drugs into the US, and many other countries (hardest hit is Russia)...killing thousands, costing the US billions, and funding OBL and Al Quaida. The US, it's allies, and the final Afghani government will have another huge problem dealing with the drug issues in Afghanistan.

OBL and others was indicted over 3 years ago for the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, that continuing investigation involved the largest deployment of FBI agents abroad in US history and included members of the Joint Terrorist Task Force and many others...the point is we've been hunting OBL and his cronies for a long time, yet he and his organization was still able to pull off the horrible attacks on 9/ll...he is not stupid...and if anyone thinks that if he is captured or killed that we are safe, they are sadly mistaken...there is a lot of work left to do...is America up for it?

Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism

I hate to say this but I think we are not. I pray that I am wrong but from the exact points you made about us not worrying unless it directly affects our own lives and our pockets, it looks like we will never be ready for the challenge because part of the solution is removing self interest from our lives and just focusing on the greater good. That is the only way we can try to make peace in this world. We definitely need to set the example for the world to follow.

Infoseeker

I was not intending to politicize my comment with my "liberal" crack, and I certainly do not discredit the mainstream liberal views. To me liberals and conservatives are just two sides of the same coin, we need that balance in our government, that is one of the things that make our country great, and it IS great! It may not be perfect, I agree, and we as humans have a long way to go, but the people of this country are great and are worth defending!!!
With all of its shortcomings America, its people, and its values are still worth fighting for!! It does not matter if its the muslims, germans, japanese or some other radical idiot, if you murder innocent American civilians you deserve to pay a price. By doing nothing you show weakness and it was our weaknesses that those cowards attacked. No matter what your view, conservative or liberal this is a just war, an American war and I support the effort, yes question what and how the government does business, that is how our government is set up, for the people and by the people. I may side with the conservatives most of the time and I do support your right to free speech but excuse me if I get warped when someone tells me that they absolutly will not support our troops because they feel that we are "just picking on some poor religious group" or we are in Afghanistan just so we can keep our thumb on those "poor middle east countries". I am proud to have served under the American flag in peace-time and war, and even though I came back I seen too many of my brothers who were great men and great Americans come back in flag draped boxes defending the very ground we live in to sit there and listen to some bleeding-heart crying about the civil liberties of some murdering bastard.

To those who gave all-That others may live.....

guns out

I understand what infoseeker is trying to say. I am in the military (EOD!!!) The enlisted men of the military have always been pawns of the rich. With the exception of WWII, american conflicts have been fought by the lower class to improve the wealth of the upper class. And even in WWII the lower class was exploited. The average corporations profits went up 600% during WWII, but the workers saleries only increased 36%

I was recently deployed to Kuwait for what the government tells me is "defending freedom" But if you look around Kuwait, slavery is pretty much going on there. So whose freedom am I defending...the freedom of the rich oil men to get richer.

I am not complaining about being in the military...I love it. And I will follow the orders of the president no matter how much i disagree with them. I just wish the people in the military would vote for a person who has the best interest on the nation in mind not for the one who will give us the biggest raise (and you all know that is how a majority of the people vote).

And here is a final thought for you to ponder. Who put up the money for ol W. first oil company?.....Yeah that's right, the Bin Laden family.

You hit the nail right on the head Rock Star.

I pray everyone else doesn't think that I'm against the war because I am SO for the war on terror. But lets get serious, if we want to save our nation, grow, make it better, and even have world peace, we need to get real and tackle these issues directly. We need to be smart and not be scared of the truth.

food for thought: Why is it that we focus the greatness of this country on freedom and not equal opportunity? Why is freedom the sales pitch to this country's greatness? It seems like just talking about being "FREE" allows groups to rise up and oppress other groups. And you know what, that's the funtimental idea in this country.

The rich control everything and make this country what it is. Then they buy politicians who put a twist on it to fool lots of people like us into supporting them. Because make no mistake, the rich make up 1% of the American people and they need average suckers to vote for their man in order for them to get their man in office.

I see a greater America coming out of all this when I see a check and balance between big business and politics. Only then will we be saying to ourselves that we are serious about real change. And at that point, I think we would be ready for any kind of fight. Because at that point, we'll be doing it right and we'll know it too.

Info- I have to agree with you, i dont think the american people will be able to support this war on terror for as long as it will take to win it. People are beginning to forget what our true goal is. People have been less concerned with who is fighting this war and what is happening. If it isnt about OBL being dead then few care. I pray that our troops can keep the support they have, but i fear that they wont. They are doing one hell of a job over there.
HOOYAH
Jon

Make love, make war, repeat

Info, most of your concerns are well thought out. But you have to remember that we don't live in a eutopia. People will always exploit others.

Two constants in history, war and slavery. Working together for the common good is great in theory but it failed. It was called communism.

War will be a reality for as long as man inhabits this planet. Study history if you think I am wrong. I sympathise with your delima but the fact is humans will always make human mistakes, we are far from perfect.

I will stand by a president that backs up what he says and surrounds himself with highly intelligent
and over qualified people, Republican or Democrat. It just so happens that the Democrats haven't given us the opportunity to vote for anyone with the right stuff since JFK.

Inofseeker,

What is your definition of "equal opportunity"? Is it the freedom for an individual to pursue their desired goals, or is it discriminating against others to provide the opportunity to pursue their desired goals?

InfoSeeker-I go through all the trouble of writing a long post (I usually try to be pithy) about big business vs. big government and you don't even have the courtesy to reply? Yet you keep railing about the wealthy and blah, blah, blah.

Rock--You complain about corporate profits going up during WWII. What do you think those corporations did with those profits? Did they stuff them in a mattress? No, they invested them back into their corporations (which makes more jobs).
Did you consider that when you were deployed to Kuwait you were helping to insure my freedom. My freedom to drive my car, heat my house, fly on a plane, get groceries at Safeway, and the list goes on and on... without paying some obscene amount of money to do so. You were there to protect the national interests of our country. Oil happens to be a very important national interest since it affects everything we do here in the US. You were not their to insure the freedom of the Kuwaitis.
As to the charge that the Bin Laden family gave to the Bush campaign I'd like to see you back that up with some reliable sources. Which I seriously doubt you can.

And one more thing about the "horrible" big oil companies-When you go and fill up your tank with gas who do you think reaps the biggest profit from that transaction? Exactly, your local, state and federal government! Same holds for tobacco and alcohol (and any number of other items that are taxed and retaxed) all of them huge atrocious corporations that you hold in such disdain.

Back to Info--As to the rich buying off politicians, let's take the best current example-Enron. Enron doles out lots of cash to both parties, the most goes to the President. What does this buy--it buys access. Enron then lobbies Bush to sign the Kyoto treaty because Enron stands to make a huge sum if it passes. What does Bush do? He refuses to sign. Next, Enron figures out it's in deep trouble due to it's illegal accounting practices. What does it do? The COO calls the White House, "hey help us out we gave you lots of cash" what does Bush do? He says "sorry, no can do"? So you tell me Info, what did all that cash they gave buy them? I know it's hard for many to accept that we no longer have a president whose sense of integrity is limited by his pecker. But it's true!

Much of the power in DC is in the lobbying groups. Who makes up most lobbying groups Info? Normal everyday Joe's and Jane's, who contribute money through dues paid to these groups, the NRA, the NAACP, AARP, UAW...all made up of individuals who contribute. Their contributions make up a large chunk of change which makes their groups much more powerful then any of them could be as individuals.

"The rich control everything and make this country what it is." That is such an ignorant statement I hate to even argue it. The GOVERNMENT controls nearly everything in this country and the GOVERNMENT makes it what it is-for a nice dissertation on business vs. government refer to my earlier post. But Marty, you say--the Government is owned by big business so it works either way. Well then why is that there is so much regulation of business in this country? Often times businesses are regulated right out of business. Remember when the Government decided to start putting huge luxury taxes on yachts? Guess what happened--many yacht makers went out of business. Do you think businesses like McDonalds are enthused when the minimum wage goes up? No, they're not. So again Info your logic is faulty.
Why do you see the rich as being so evil? Is this class envy inbred in liberals? Do you know who the average millionaire is? It's the couple next door to you who saved and invested most of their lives, and who continued to live below their means while their money was making money.

So according to Info-when I go the polls to vote I'm just being a mindless drone for the rich. Your logic is seriously flawed. If the rich are only concerned with money and the republicans are the party for the rich then how did Clinton get elected to two terms? I guess the rich just aren't powerful enough to get their man into office. Oh but you mean Congress as well, so why is it that the Democrats are the majority party there? And why do the Republicans only control the House by a slim margin?

But wait there are more ridiculous statements--"Why is freedom the sales pitch to this country's greatness? It seems like just talking about being "FREE" allows groups to rise up and oppress other groups. And you know what, that's the funtimental idea in this country."

What group is oppressing other groups here? I'd bet you'll tell me businesses oppress their workers...Guess what Info-workers have the FREEDOM to choose where they work! What a great country! If you don't like the company you work for you can go work for someone else! And that my friend is the FUNDIMENTAL idea in this country--personal freedom!

You know who really started the war in Afghanistan? The Hippies in the 60's thats who. Seems their travels there seeking cheap hashish back then, brought them in contact with the educated Afghans who learned their Leftist/ Marxist ways and this brought the Soviets into the picture.
From there it was just a short time until we had to start covert ops to try to slow the Soviet expansion into a region we needed to control. Thats why we teamed up with people like Ben Laden in the first place, to oppose the Soviets. Now we find ourselves allies with the Soviets and enemies of the same people we supported in the fight against them. Sort of reminds me of our involvment in Vietnem. We started out with Ho Chi Minh as our friend and, well, you know the rest.

William--I love it! I always knew those freakin hippies were up to no good!

Flame, freedom alone reminds me of a "super capitalism" so to speak. People will exploit other people in order to succeed and I doubt that's what we our society to be about. But equal "opportunity" for me means that everyone has a fair chance to get to the top. Its not like that now, and furthermore, its not even mentioned like the word freedom is. But these 2 words go hand and hand if you are to have a great nation. That is where the centrist theory (where I stand) comes in.

But I'll give you a few examples in simplistic terms. Should people be able to manipulate (or con) the elderly people out of their money? I bet you would say no like most people would. But in the eyes of freedom, if both parties agree, then its perfectly legitimate. But fairness kicks in and says "wait a minute, false advertising or presenting false information (like credit card companies are always accused of doing) is wrong because its based on deception (fairness argument) and people should not make their money based on it." So Would you disagree based on freedom?

Would you eliminate red lights because we're all free to drive anywhere we want and as fast as we want? Or do we take that freedom away to make it fair and safe for both sides?

Can we yell FIRE in a crowded theater? No. Why not? Its freedom of speech no?

Why do we have a minimum wage? In a free society, an employer can pay an employee whatever he wants so long as the employee agrees to it right? Wrong! In the interest of fairness, we have to give the poorest of people at least a fair shot to make a decent living in this world. If we don't, there are plenty of people willing to work for $2 an hour. But even now, the minimum wage is a joke! No one can live on $5 or $6 an hour. But the point is that that is what this law tried to accomplish, basic fairness that counters freedom.

As for Marty's comments: You think the corporations invested their profits back into their organization? Just like Enron did huh? Have you seen the way these CEOs live??? The more money you give them, the better they live. I wonder why. So, sure they'll invest a few bucks back only to make more profit for themselves but I can promise you that their own personal salaries will go sky high. Its like that trickle down theory that never worked. Give money to the rich, and it'll trickle to the poor. WRONG! The poor are the only group that get screwed in that deal. But you know why the republicans love it? Because the rich love it and the rich pay the republicans. You know why the rich love it? Because it gives them the money, and therefore, the power! See, you have to follow the motivation to understand where the answer lies. If trickle down economics was so great for the poor, then why does the poor hate it while the rich love it? That has a common sense answer.

As far as the rich buying politicians, if I remember correctly, I believe over a dozen state and federal politicians had to step away from the Enron case, including John Ashcroft, because they received money from them and could not investigate the case impartially! How embarrassing. But of course Bush can't help them the way they want. You have MILLIONS of Americans watching his actions with the media hovering close by. But I assure you that if it was behind closed doors, things would be different. That's why Dick Chaney doesn't want to release recorded conversations they had. It would reveal the true side of their actions.

Also, companies like Enron throw money to both sides because they need a back up to support them if their man doesn't win. Don't get me wrong, democrats are no saints either, but in comparison, well, lets just say... Their bought by a better group of people.

And as far as the Kyoto treaty, your wrong. Its in their interest (oil companies) for him not to sign it. If Bush did sign it, that would mean more regulation for these companies and they would lose profit.

I have to go back to work. Marty, I'll give you my thoughts on the last things you said later. Good day to all.

Info-Your arguments are weak so far. Your examples of freedom aren't freedom they are anarchy. Of course people must follow rules and respect the rights of others. We as a country voluntarily impose limits on our freedoms so that we can live in a structured environment. While we limit our freedoms we put emphasis on our rights.

"But even now, the minimum wage is a joke! No one can live on $5 or $6 an hour." The joke is that we have a minimum wage law at all. The minimum wage is for entry level workers who are generally younger who will in a short amount of time rise above that minimum wage. I suppose in your view the minimum wage should be $10-15 an hour. Why stop there-let's make it $25-50, oh that's too high? Why is it too high? I'd love to hear this answer.
Another fact you fail to consider in your business bashing is that 2/3 of all new jobs are created by small businesses. Have you ever tried to start your own business? It's tough! And more than likely you will never become outrageously wealthy once you do start it.

And sense you have so much compassion for the poor (and so much hate for the wealthy) allow me to enlighten you to some facts about the poor (Taken from The Myth of Widespread American Poverty--http://www.heritage.org/library/backgrounder/bg1221es.html):

The following facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau are taken from various government reports:

In 1995, 41 percent of "poor" households actually
owned their own homes. The average home owned by a
person classified as "poor" has three bedrooms,
one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

Over three-quarters of a million "poor" persons own homes worth over $150,000; and nearly
200,000 "poor" persons own homes worth over $300,000.

Only 7.5 percent of "poor" households are overcrowded. Nearly 60 percent have two or
more rooms per person.

Seventy percent of "poor" households own a car; 27 percent own two or more cars.

Ninety-seven percent of the "poor" have a color television. Nearly half own two or more
color televisions. Nearly three-quarters have a videocassette recorder, and more than one in
five has two VCRs. Sixty-four percent own microwave ovens, half have a stereo system, and
over a quarter have an automatic dishwasher.

Two-thirds of "poor" households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36
percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

As a group, the "poor" are far from being chronically hungry and malnourished. In fact, poor
persons are more likely to be overweight than are middle-class persons. Nearly half of poor
adult women are overweight.

Despite frequent charges of widespread hunger in the United States, 84 percent of the poor
report their families have "enough" food to eat; 13 percent state they "sometimes" do not have
enough to eat, and 3 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat.

The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and
middle-class children, and in most cases is well above recommended norms.

Most poor children today are in fact super-nourished, growing up to be, on average, one inch
taller and ten pounds heavier that GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II

Furthermore:The principal effect of the War on Poverty has been not to raise incomes,
but to displace self-sufficiency with dependence. A second consequence of welfare has been the
destruction of families. When the War on Poverty began, 7.7 percent of children were born out of
wedlock; today, the figure is 32 percent.

Yeah those trickle down economics really were a failure weren't they?

"As for Marty's comments: You think the corporations invested their profits back into their organization?" No, I'm sure that all those CEO's just pocketed the cash and left their company in shambles right? No, that's idiocy. Have the major companies from WWII grown or shrunk since the 1940's? Oh they've grown so now they employ more people and make more products and pay higher wages. Go figure. I don't think you have even a common sense grasp of economics!

Bush could have easily bailed out Enron and said he was doing it to help the little guy. He did the right thing by letting it take it's lumps. Just an FYI Enron is NOT an oil company.

"But I assure you that if it was behind closed doors, things would be different. That's why Dick Chaney doesn't want to release recorded conversations they had. It would reveal the true side of their actions." Oh but Ken Lay did meet with Cheney and it WAS behind closed doors and their conversation IS secret. Still they got no help. The reason Cheney is not willing to release those conversations is because those people have the RIGHT to meet with him and have those conversations in confidence--they are private citizens. Just like when Hillary Clinton (who, at that time, had never been elected to anything) met in SECRET with medical experts in her failed attempt to socialize 1/7th of our entire economy. Those meetings are still secret! And they should be. The reason for the secrecy is that these people need to be able to speak their minds without worrying about what they say affecting their companies and the stock market.

"Their bought by a better group of people." Oh so because democrats are bought by hugely wealthy special interest groups (like the teacher's union, the UAW, the Sierra Club, the NAACP, the AFL-CIO, the ACLU...) they're better people. Idiotic!

"And as far as the Kyoto treaty, your wrong. Its in their interest (oil companies) for him not to sign it. If Bush did sign it, that would mean more regulation for these companies and they would lose profit." Enron as I said is not an oil company (they do have partners that are oil companies) had the Kyoto treaty passed their clean energy technology companies would have cleaned up because they have a world-wide presence.

Sorry that these are so lenghty TE but I have to refute the inane statements of the misguided! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

My point about freedom is that our bought politicians use it without giving any precidence to the fact that without equal opportunity, freedom itself is extremely unfair.

I won't mention a #'s in regard to how much our minimum wage should be. I only point out that 5 or 6 $ an hour is not enough to make a living. And if you think only our youths are the only group getting paid that, you really need to get out into the world and open your eyes. Try living out in the inner cities and see for yourself.

What you mentioned about what is defined as poor in this nation is not what I'm talking about as poor. Because if it is, then where do the people fall in the category I'm talking about? If you own a home of any kind, have multiple TVs and VCRs then that is not the category I am refering to as "poor." Many many adults make anywhere from 6 to 10 $ an hour and struggle to make ends meet. Some actually work on commission or on tips and never have any kind of benefits or a union to back them up. That is a reality my friend. My proof is in my experiences. You think you'll be able to buy a 300,000 $ home with a waitress salary??? But yea, buy a 300,000 $ home and your considered poor, lol??? You know what, and I hate to reiterate this but, corporate america loves when you defend them like that. You think they want to be forced to pay salaries higher for their work force? They want to fight to keep it as low as possible. And while you are right that we are free to get up and walk out of our jobs if the pay isn't right, what do you do if the pay is the same across the board? Your forced to accept it. That is why the minimum wage is so important. It forces big business to lose a freedom in the name of fairness, which I have been trying to say goes hand and hand.

Then lets talk about benefit plans and unions that seen to be little by little phasing out in this country. More often, joining the police or fire departments are the only way to receive medical benefits. How many times did people like yourself say "hey, the military doesn't pay much but its got great benefits!" You know why they say that? Because here in the civilian world, you get no benefits at all!!! Imagine a waitress working off tips to pay rent in an apartment she shares with 2 other people (strangers) only because her salary alone isn't enough. Then imagine her not being able to pay for basic medical or dental care. Well you know what, this happens all the time. So what class do you think these people are in? Can you find another word that makes them lesser than poor? lol

And yes, the trickle down theory is a failure. And there are facts to back that up. The 80s was the biggest time of povery in this country (Reagan years). Clinton came in in '92 a changed that into an economy that was flurishing. He raised the upper class tax brackets and it helped pay off our nation dept, helped save social security, and created more jobs. Whether you see it as right or wrong, it worked! And I didn't see the rich suffering because of it. We were just overall, a better country. But conservatives choose to worry more about Clintons sex life instead of what he produced for this country in his domestic policy.

And that is the reason Bush will milk this war for what its worth. Because he knows that, just like his dad, his domestic agenda is spoiled with special interest.

But back to the topic at hand. So if companies invest in their organizations, then why is it that when the airline industry lost so much money post 9/11, the top CEO salaries were not cut? They rather have lost workers or cut pay then to cut their own. Clear proof as to how big business manages its assets for the benefit of its top 1%.

Ok, to be totally correct, Enron is an energy company! Happy now? lol Anyhow, Bush can't bail out Enron because the world is watching, plain and simple and very easy to understand. And if Chaney had nothing to hide, he would reveal his dealings he had with them. So yea, why does he have to? BECAUSE ITS A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION!!! HELLO!!!! Kinda changes your notion of corporate privacy don't you think???

So you say Enron's clean energy companies would have cleaned up because they have a world wide presence. lol, you just made my point! They will clean up and lose billions for doing so. OBVIOUS! And a clear sign that it wasn't in their interest to have the Kyoto treaty passed. But the even clearer sign is that 200 countries were for it and we were the ONLY ones not for it. Doesn't that in itself tell you something? Or are we just the masters of what's right and wrong in this world?

And you call me idiotic? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

The arguements are getting better... Let's keep it friendly, however...

This is definitely interesting to read!

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

Professional and civil...and where do you people get the time to type so much??

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" />

Actually Info I didn't call you idiotic-just some of your points. And they still are. Since I have a bit more than my opinion to back myself up let me give you further proof on Enron:

Marc Morano, CNSNews.com
Tuesday, March 19, 2002
Editor's Note: This is the second of a three part series detailing some of the Enron Corporation's ties to the Clinton Administration between 1992 and 2000.
(CNSNews.com)- Enron Corporation benefited from an eight-year relationship with the Clinton administration and used that clout to successfully lobby for tax credits, subsidies and other favorable legislation, according to documents obtained by CNSNews.com and authenticated by the company.

Kyoto Protocol is Good for Enron

The Kyoto Protocol on climate change represented an opportunity for Enron to make a profit, because the carbon dioxide requirements of the treaty dovetailed with numerous corporate projects that emitted less carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Vice President Al Gore championed the Kyoto Protocol, which would have required 40 industrialized nations to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2012.

In realizing that opportunity, Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay applauded Clinton's support for the Kyoto Protocol in an Oct. 22, 1997 corporate statement, calling it "a comprehensive, yet realistic, program that starts to move the United States and the world toward minimizing carbon dioxide emissions."

Lay liked the emission targets and incentives to develop new energy and environmental technology as well as the "carbon dioxide trading program."

Enron was invested in both natural gas energy alternatives and wind power technologies, both of which fit the profile of what the Kyoto Protocol demanded, and the company needed little prodding when it came time to support the global warming treaty.

John Palmisano, senior director for environmental policy and compliance at Enron, wrote in a Dec. 12, 1997 internal memo regarding Kyoto, that "if implemented, this agreement will do more to promote Enron's business than will almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring of the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States."

In the memo, Palmisano also promoted the carbon emissions trading provisions in the Kyoto treaty and said the "additional demand for renewable technology is enormous.

"Enron has immediate business opportunities which derive directly from this agreement," he wrote. Palmisano envisioned that the Clinton administration would be receptive to any of Enron's policy goals. "I do not think it is possible to overestimate the importance of this year in shaping every aspect of the agreement," Palmisano declared.

He then wrote that the Kyoto Protocol represented a victory for Enron's lobbying efforts. "The endorsement of joint implementation within [the Protocol] is exactly what I have been lobbying for and it seems like we won," Palmisano wrote. "The endorsement of emissions trading was another victory for us."

Palmisano praised the carbon trading with "transitional economies" because "this means that Enron projects in Russia, Bulgaria, Romania or other eastern countries can be monitized (sic) ..."

---"And yes, the trickle down theory is a failure. And there are facts to back that up. (So where are they?) The 80s was the biggest time of povery in this country (Reagan years). Clinton came in in '92 a changed that into an economy that was flurishing. "
Another huge fallacy! Clinton presided over an economy that was based on style over substance. Why do you think companies like Amazon.com(which just this year made its first profit), Lucent, Ebay, and dozens if not hundreds of other dot-coms were trading for over $100 a share. It was all speculation and when that fact came to bear the economy entered this slight recession. Which FYI started during March of 2000 while Clinton was still in office.
The 80's was not the biggest time of poverty in this country. Info-ever heard of the GREAT DEPRESSION? When Reagan took office the top tax rate was 79% and guess what he cut taxes and the economy grew like it always does when taxes are cut. Just like it worked for JFK.
Clinton didn't save social security either. Are you one of those people who actually believes that there's a social security trust fund? Hate to break it to you but social security funds go straight into the general fund where they are promptly paid out as IOU's to the elderly. There's no box in DC with InfoSeeker's name on it where they stash your social security money until you retire and retrieve your box.

"M proof is in my experiences."--Which is exactly zero proof. As anecdotal evidence is worthless.

"Because here in the civilian world, you get no benefits at all!!!" Well I'm sure the 60% (and many people choose not to get benefits) of the civilian workforce that has medical benefits will be amazed to hear that. Microsoft, Disney, Intel, Adobe...all of these companies offer health care. Guess you should upgrade your skills and get a better job.

"Then imagine her not being able to pay for basic medical or dental care." Guess what there is no RIGHT to health care in this country. I've gone without health care for long periods of time in my life. When I got injured or sick and had to go to the hospital I paid cash. Wow, what a concept. Rather than stealing from my fellow citizens I stepped up and paid my own way.

"But conservatives choose to worry more about Clintons sex life instead of what he produced for this country in his domestic policy." This statement is proof that you are just a mindless sychophant for the democratic party. What conservatives were concerned about was the fact that he lied to a Judge under oath while he was acting as the top law enforcement officer in the land.

"So if companies invest in their organizations, then why is it that when the airline industry lost so much money post 9/11, the top CEO salaries were not cut? They rather have lost workers or cut pay then to cut their own. Clear proof as to how big business manages its assets for the benefit of its top 1%." Again Info this shows you know nothing about economics. Executives taking a cut in pay does not make more work for the labor class. People get laid off when business slows. What's the point of paying 200 people to do a job that only takes 100. Thus you lay off the 100 people. After 9/11 air traffic slowed greatly, if all the CEO's decided to work for free that would not have made more people fly.

So what your attempting to say here is that by Bush rejecting the Kyoto treaty, he hurt the energy giants??? G W Bush actually went against the very corporations that fund him??? Wow, never heard that one before. Its funny, I thought Republican constituance were the rich while democratic constituance were the working class. But somehow the Kyoto treaty is supported by democrats and not by republicans. Yet, you sit here and talk about how the majority of the republican party went against the interest of the these companies??? So now since the democrats support the treaty, their helping out energy companies now? New to me! Doesn't that sound odd to you? Just use logic my friend.

On the issue about trickle down economics, where's the fallacy? I fail to see it. Was it not his policies that paid our national dept? Did he not raise the upper income brackets which gave us a surplus? Didn't unemployment fall at a dramatic rate? Didn't crime fall as well? Chain reaction by friend. Why can't you just give credit where credit is due? This country was really good for 8 years. The only people who tried to put a really bad twist on it were the conservatives. Worrying about whether he inhailed or not (SO WHAT!). Worrying about who he's sleeping with (WHO CARES!). Looking for any piece of dirt to try to tarish his great success. Everyone else loved our president. And you know what's really funny and hypocridical. When we question our president's actions, conservatives say "HOW DARE YOU QUESTION THE PRESIDENT IN A TIME OF WAR!" Yet, when we bombed Yogoslavia in 98, all I heard from them was critisizm. "We can't win a war by air alone!" Day in and day out, all they did was talk about how our president was trash! And you know what? Who turned out to be right?

Now, I said that the 80s was a time of high unemployment and deficits. You came back saying the great depression was the worst. Well Instien, isn't it implied that we are talking about the last 3 to 4 administrations? You know, OUR LIFETIME!!! Not the freakin 1920's!!!

As far as benefits...Hmmm, didn't you say that the majority of the work force is small business based? So its funny that you only point out the largest ones to make your point about benefits. So yea, Americans aren't entitled to healthcare in this country? I guess your children aren't entitled either huh? While we're at it, lets do away with education and security huh? Lets go back to the wild wild west! OH YEA!

About Clinton's penis...I'm sure your smart enough to know that there is a level to which we categorize crime. In a civil lawsuit case, does a lie about a party's sex life hold the same weight as a lie in a criminal case? No. Now lets look at that lie by itself. It was a question that should never have been asked in the first place. Also, it was a question that has no relivence as to the outcome of the trial. Why is this important? Because it shows how much weight it actually held in the case. Therefore, with it holding so little weight and it being of such a personal nature, its obvious to conclude that the crime itself was nothing of a high level offense in any sense of the word. In human terms, WHO CARES! Is it not worse to have a president that experimented with crack, smoked marujana, had a DUI at the age of 30, etc? No no wait a minute, we're not allowed to go there right??? But we can hassle Clinton about not inhailing to the point that it becomes a famous phrase in every household??? I sense a little inconsistancy there.

Lastly, as far as the airline industry... Let me just say this in simplistic terms because I'm tired and want to sleep. If your a company struggling to survive and ask for help from the government, I expect to see the people on top being affected equally before I agree with our government handing them a penny! Why should a large corporation get bailed out if their top people are living like kings? Don't you see that as an outrage???

Anyway good night and I look forward to future debates.

Clinton is an honorless draft dodger with zero integrity. He was unfit to lead because he believes in nothing.

He had sex with a 21 year old intern! Anyone in power in any organization that did the same would have been fired immediately.

I want to know what greedy, employee bashing, evil
business is paying you to rant about the wonders of socialism all day.

Info-First off I think you should change your name to InfoResister. Second, I notice a definent tendency here, I give you arguments supported by facts and you come back with opinions supported by nothing. Which makes this a very one sided debate. I'm going to go easy on you since I noticed you're just a student and I know how easy it is for students to get their minds filled with mush.

"So what your attempting to say here is that by Bush rejecting the Kyoto treaty, he hurt the energy giants???"---Yes, I'm not attempting to say it, it's a fact that I supported with a newspaper report. You can probably find it yourself in many reliable newspapers across the country.

"So now since the democrats support the treaty, their helping out energy companies now?"--- Son, read a newspaper! How is that Enron became such a huge company so quickly, it got a lot of political help from the Clinton administration. This has been written about for months. It's fact and not refutable.

"I thought Republican constituance were the rich while democratic constituance were the working class."---This is one of the stupidest lines that has actually been accepted as some political truth. If businesses employ people and people are helped by lower taxes and smaller government how can it be that one party is for the working class? The idea that democrats never help the rich is moronic. I'll post from proof of this later.

"Was it not his policies that paid our national dept? Did he not raise the upper income brackets which gave us a surplus? Didn't unemployment fall at a dramatic rate? Didn't crime fall as well?"----No, I would not say his policies paid our national debt. We had large surpluses due to this false economy, a great deal of people made a huge amount of money off of stocks that are now worthless. All this money was taxed, that's revenue for the government. Many of those people are now hurting because they did not get out when the stocks were high but they still had to pay taxes on it according to what their stock was worth that year. Two years ago Amazon.com traded at $200+, now it trades at $14. Those people were called paper millionaires and that's what the Clinton economy (or rather the economy that Clinton presided over) gave us, lots of paper millionaires. The unemployment rate was low as growth was high, the President has little or nothing to do with this. Jobs are made by businesses not the President. I really urge you to take a few economic courses so you have an understanding of these things. Crime was down as prison popuations swelled. Clinton was not the worst President we ever had he was simply the worst man to ever be President. The best thing he did was sign the welfare reform bill. There you have it credit where it's due.

"The 80s was the biggest time of povery in this country (Reagan years)." There's you exact quote on poverty. This would seem to include the great depression. Sorry to get you all bent out of shape there.

As to question Pres. Bush, go right ahead. I think he has proven to be a great wartime Pres. I question someof his policies myself, namely, the fact that he may sign this un-Constitutional camapign finance reform bill (better entitle the Incumbent Protection and Media Empowerment Act), and his raising tariffs on foreign steel.

"While we're at it, lets do away with education and security huh? Lets go back to the wild wild west! OH YEA!" No, how about we go back to legislators and judges and presidents doing what they all pledge to do--Uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.

"As far as benefits...Hmmm, didn't you say that the majority of the work force is small business based? So its funny that you only point out the largest ones to make your point about benefits."---This would be because it's much harder to name small businesses. Funny thing about big businesses is that almost all of them started as small businesses. I have worked for some small companies that did offer health care to workers. Employers can do this as a way to be competitive in the market. If you apply to two different employers and both want to hire and only one offers health care (all other factors being equal) which would you choose?

"So yea, Americans aren't entitled to healthcare in this country? I guess your children aren't entitled either huh? " No they're not entitled to it. They are entitled to go to the doctor and pay for services rendered just like everyone else. I know your big kick is universal health care but again you have no idea about how a free market economy works and free markets and socialism don't go together.
I'll explain that more in detail for you later.

"Is it not worse to have a president that experimented with crack, smoked marujana, had a DUI at the age of 30, etc? No no wait a minute, we're not allowed to go there right??? But we can hassle Clinton about not inhailing"---- I don't think I ever mentioned Clinton not inhaling so don't know how that popped up. I mentioned that it bothered me that the top law enforcement officer in the country lied to a judge while under oath and he did it to help his case in a lawsuit. If President Bush is caught bonking his interns I would call for him to have the decency to resign and if he wouldn't I would want him impeached as a disgrace to the office. I'm pretty consistent there. Although to say I tried pot but didn't inhale is one of the dumber lies you could tell, it just goes to show how tough it was for Clinton to tell the truth.

"If your a company struggling to survive and ask for help from the government, I expect to see the people on top being affected equally before I agree with our government handing them a penny! Why should a large corporation get bailed out if their top people are living like kings?"---I'm betting you don't know any people who are CEO's. You have no idea how they came to be CEO's and you have no idea what the lifestyle of the average CEO is. The airline industry bail out-which I didn't agree with-happened because airlines are extremely important to our economy. If they failed it would have had a huge domino effect. For all you know many of those top executives took pay cuts. The fact remains that when there is not enough work the laborers will be the first to be let go. That's just common sense. You're not going to pay 100 people to stand around watch 100 people work. Maybe you would but you'd be out of business pretty quickly.

"Why should a large corporation get bailed out if their top people are living like kings? Don't you see that as an outrage???"----What I would see as an outrage is the government coming in and limiting the amount of money a company can pay it's people. It's not the job of government to redistribute wealth (although I have a sneaking suspicion that you think it is).

"Is it not worse to have a president that experimented with crack"---Where did you get this bit of disinformation? The New York Times tried to prove this but failed to do so and reported such, do you personally know someone who can attest to this?

I notice that you tend to dodge all of my tough questions. Why is that? I re-ask a few here.
And how, Infoseeker, did killing 2500+ American citizens raise the living standard of any single person or group of people?
No wonder they hate us" you say. How, then, would you explain the fact that Muslim fundamentalists have hardly confined their attacks to the United States, or even to U.S. allies? Islamic terror organizations have recently launched bloody and deadly assaults in the Philippines, Indonesia, Algeria (where more than 100,000 have died), Sudan, Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa, India, Egypt, France, Turkey and scores of other states. Do U.S. leaders bear responsibility for provoking all such incidents?

Info-you use a lot of them's and they's well I'm not a them or a they I'm just me. I'm trying to educate you to how things really are, you can choose not to believe the facts that I show you but you should, at least , do a little research before forming your opinions.

So I guess Enron, the energy giant is tied to the democrats instead of the republicans huh? lol I guess Clinton is holding secret meetings with the top executives huh? But no, Bush is not an oil man, no on no! lol

Have a problem with Bush signing the campaign finance reform bill? I assure you, he would only doing it cause everyone is watching and everyone knows its the right thing to do. But I guess you like our government bought by the rich huh??? And by the way, since when is it not constitutional? How is money freedom of speech? Its convenient for some considering that since it allows the few with the most money to have the louder voices. Sound fair?

Also, when they asked G W B if he experimented with drugs, his answer was, "The past is the past and I won't go there because children do not need to know that it is ok to experiment with drugs." So I ask you, do you know how to read between the lines?

As far as terrorism, I gotta tell you. They may hit other places as well, but your fooling yourself if you think they don't hate us MOST!

And my opinions are based on logic and common knowledge. 2+2=4 so to speak. For example, it is common knowledge that republicans support the rich and its common knowledge that Bush and Chaney are oil men who support energy companies (their friends). So its again obvious that their against the Kyoto treaty, its obvious that they want to drill for oil in Alaska and California (profit for oil companies), and its obvious that they want to cut taxes for the rich claiming that it falls down to the poor. Think man! Use your own logic and follow the actions. Don't follow opinions from others. Their words are designed to fool you. What do you think all that money they get during campaigns is used for??? To fool you into siding with them!

Info-Do you read or listen? I'm also curious as to how old you are. I'm 35.
"So I guess Enron, the energy giant is tied to the democrats instead of the republicans huh?"---Enron is tied to both. Ken Lay spent the night in the Lincoln bedroom while Clinton was renting it out, they donated large sums of cash to him. It's all well documented, if you don't want to do any researrch on it just say so.

"Have a problem with Bush signing the campaign finance reform bill? I assure you, he would only doing it cause everyone is watching and everyone knows its the right thing to do. But I guess you like our government bought by the rich huh??? And by the way, since when is it not constitutional? How is money freedom of speech? "
There's a Supreme Court Case called "Buckley vs Valeo" in which the Court ruled that money is protected under the 1st Amendment as free speech and most particularly as free political speech. Here again is Info spouting without knowing anything. In an effort to continue your education I'll quote the court:
"So long as persons or groups eschew expenditures that in express terms advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, they are free to spend as much as they want to promote the candidate and his views."
Now if you think that only the media should be allowed to print opinions for 60 days before an election (and we all know the media isn't at all biased) then it's great for you.
During the debate, Rep. Henry Hyde introduced an amendment that read: "Notwithstanding any provision of the Act, and in recognition of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, nothing in this Act may be construed to abridge those freedoms found in that Amendment, specifically the freedom of speech or of the press. ..." The Hyde Amendment went down to crushing defeat.
Now why would that be? How can Congress pass a law that goes against the 1st Amendment? You do know what that Amendment says don't you?

"Also, when they asked G W B if he experimented with drugs, his answer was, "The past is the past and I won't go there because children do not need to know that it is ok to experiment with drugs." So I ask you, do you know how to read between the lines?" Oh wait, if a guy lies about inhaling it doesn't bother you but if someone doesn't wish to answer a question it does? Where did you get this quote from? Did you make it up?

"And my opinions are based on logic and common knowledge. 2+2=4 so to speak."---Really then why are you so inconsistent in these views and why can't you support them with anything but opinions? You have to admit your knowledge of economics is very sketchy at best.

"For example, it is common knowledge that republicans support the rich and its common knowledge that Bush and Chaney are oil men who support energy companies (their friends)."---They support corporations who employ people. Your a big union fan so how much do you think the heads of unions make as opposed to the people they supposedly represent? Oh wow they make huge salaries! Unions must all be corrupt--this is your logic. It's nonsensical. Unions have their place, corporations have theirs. However unions don't create jobs and businesses do. How much money people make should be no concern of yours. Do you understand what it means when I say economics is not a zero sum game?

"So its again obvious that their against the Kyoto treaty, its obvious that they want to drill for oil in Alaska and California (profit for oil companies), and its obvious that they want to cut taxes for the rich claiming that it falls down to the poor."---They were against Kyoto even though it would have helped Enron because it would have been very bad for the US economy on the whole. They want to drill for oil so we are not so dependent on foreign sources. They want to cut taxes because people deserve to keep more of their own money and tax cuts are ALWAYS good for the economy. Do a little research, you'll see it's true.

"Think man! Use your own logic and follow the actions. Don't follow opinions from others."----You say this to me while never supporting your own opinions. "

Their words are designed to fool you. What do you think all that money they get during campaigns is used for??? To fool you into siding with them!---Hate to tell you this but Democrats routinely outspend the Republicans and they get more money in campaigns as well. So are their words designed to fool you?

I'm not trying to tell you Reps are better than Dems but I am trying to tell you the truth is better then the lies you seem to believe in.

I suggest you read this book "Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy" by Dr. Thomas Sowell.

Here's a bit of info for you on tax cuts:

The economy is rebounding, and most economists credit the Bush tax cuts of early 2001, combined with the Federal Reserve's string of interest rate reductions -- which brought the short-term federal funds rate down from 6.5 percent in November 2000 to 1.75 by the end of 2001. That's the lowest rate in more than four decades.

So those Capitol Hill politicians who fought the tax cuts so vociferously last year have some explaining to do.

The lower interest rates stimulated consumer spending -- which kept the economy afloat -- through a variety of channels, most notably in the housing sector.
Although the personal savings rate has declined to less than 1 percent of disposable personal income, that is expected to rise gradually as current retirees die and younger employees reach their peak savings years.
Moderate increases in wages and the sharp 5.2 percent productivity growth caused unit labor costs to decline at a 2.7 percent annual rate -- providing a good case for future price stability.
The Congressional Budget Office projects that with the Bush tax cuts and spending proposals, the budget will once again be in surplus in 2005 -- with the annual surplus growing to about 1 percent of gross domestic product by 2010, driving the national debt down to only 21 percent of GDP.
A primary reason for the strength of consumer spending was the tax cut. Although designed for long-term effects, for most taxpayers the future rate reductions were a greater source of economic well being, and therefore a greater stimulus to spend.

Against this background, the nation can begin dealing with the long-term budget problems of Social Security and Medicare.

Source: Martin Feldstein (Harvard University), "Tax Cuts, Rate Cuts Put the Economy Back on Track," Wall Street Journal, March 13, 2002.

For text (WSJ subscribers)
http://online.wsj.com/article/
0,,SB1015983449189526200,00.htm

For more on Effects Of Tax Cuts
http://www.ncpa.org/iss/tax

And some info on the minimum wage:
Eight out of ten labor economists agree: Low-wage workers lose in "living wage" laws
New public policy institute living wage study concurs that increase will result in higher skilled workers replacing low-wage earners

Washington - U.S. labor economists, living wage proponents and opponents overwhelmingly agree that so-called "living wage" laws will result in low-wage workers being replaced by higher skilled, more educated workers.

The whole link:http://www.epionline.org/livingwage/lw_pressrelease_03-14-02.cfm

This is what you call documentation to support an opinion--Info, you should try it!

You do more reading than you do thinking. I guess its true when they say that some people are book smart and others are street smart. Anyhow, I'm tired of this because you are right, my opinions are just that, opinions like anyone elses including your own. Your facts don't speak of the motivation behind them. Your interpretation of the facts you seek are indeed your opinions. So lets just agree to disagree.

But the last thing I do want to say is the I am a centrist, not a socialist. I believe in an America that can be free and where the best man strives. However, all parties must start at the same spot in the race (fairness) in order for the people on top to have truly EARNED their place there. And as it is right now, the rich are rich at the expense of exploitation of the poor. Anyhow, good day and it was a pleasure debating.

By the way I'm 25

Info you are truly classic!
"You do more reading than you do thinking. Anyhow, I'm tired of this because you are right, my opinions are just that, opinions like anyone elses including your own."
In your world being knowledgeable about a subject is bad but just voicing opinions out of ignorance is good.
Our opinions are different, and you are certainly entitled to yours. I just tried to educate you a bit.
You can disagree but aren't you at all interested in knowing about what you speak of?
You're 25, have you ever started a business? Have you ever been in upper-level management? Or do you simply view this world from the bottom up?

Anyone score this debate??

TE-Thanks for the forum, brother!

I just sent an email to info. When I came back I see where he SIE'd. Oh well, I thought he was going to hang in there. I don't feel bad about posting my email to him, since I guess he quit altogether.

Infoseeker,
I just wanted to let you know that from the few debate classes that I took in college, you are losing. Although, some of your arguments are pretty good. You need to back more of your information with sources. Logic is good, but documented sources are better. Also, some of your posts read too emotionally. When you are right, you don't need to reply emotionally, nor do you need to call names, sling mud, etc.

I do find one thing funny. Both sides (for the most part) refuse to acknowledge when the other person is right, even if they know they are wrong. I think that Marty has tried to give you a couple. I cannot recall you backing off once. Not everyone can be right all the time! To me, this is a sign of weakness. It is the same weakness I see in the political system we have today (both of you are doing them proud). If you want an example of this weakness: Clinton's impeachment hearing. I don't want to mention my opinion on right vs. wrong, but when it came down to it there were 5 criteria that were voted on. These criteria were not to impeach or not to impeach, but were guilty vs. not guilty for specific charges (such as lying under oath). Do you remember the results? Almost 100% even party split. Could anyone set their personal agenda aside long enough to vote guilty or not guilty? Obviously not! If these people who represent us cannot see the facts, how then can we expect individuals, judges, police, etc, to set aside their personal agenda (or beliefs that they subscribe to) to decide fact vs. fiction, right vs. wrong, good vs. evil, or guilty vs. not guilty? I hope you have a better answer than, we are right...they are wrong.

I think many people believe it is a strength to call themselves Conservative, Liberal, Republican, and/or Democrat. I will always have a problem calling myself any of these because I think it prevents me from thinking as an individual especially on specific issues. I know that life would be much easier on me if I subscribed to a specific party, that way I wouldn't have to think. I could simply use the arguments advanced by others [with or without documentation]. Please tell me something. When a new issue comes along, do you first find out where you stand, or where your party stands? Or, is it that the media that you surround yourself with gives you their liberal perspective and you simply agree?

While you all are debating, can you tell me what is wrong with looking at the ballot and basing your decision on merit, ideas, honor, qualifications, and/or where you feel we need to be focused as a country?

Hey Brock, you're points in the email are well taken. I'll answer the same questions you asked of Info.
I gladly call myself conservative because I see issues from that point of view. Basic points being that I'm for a small effecient government that allows our free market system to take care of fairness issues.
I don't completely align myself with the republican party. When new issues come up I do two things. First if I don't know much about it I educate myself by reading and listening to various sources. Second, I make a decision based on my core set of values/beliefs, and is it good for our country or not.
A perfect issue is campaign finance. At first it sounds pretty good and then you see that it goes against the Constitution, and then when you read it it's a total joke. The fact that both parties vote down the Hyde amendment to it is really sad. Furthermore, the fact that they don't want to enact it until next year, after this election tells you that everyone who votes for it is a scam artist! Including President Bush if he signs it, it goes against every promise he made during the campaign.
I do try to back up my opinions as often as I can.

So that's one for me!!

Two things that Info wrote in the past make me wonder:

"We just accept what they tell us just like we do the bible. And that makes us an ignorant people."

"Ignorance is the route of all that is wrong with this country."

His statement that I read too much is really funny in light of those two quotes!

Brock, you had some good points. However, you should have read the last paragraph on my last post. I'm not liberal nor am I conservative. I stand in the center and believe in 100% freedom (conservative) only coupled with equal opportunity (liberal). And that my friend makes me a centrist. My only strong belief is that we should have a system where anyone can strive based on their own merit. But as we have it now, some have all the right "basic" tools to succeed while others do not. Like the right education, the right legal protection, and the right medical care leaving them free and clear to think about success. Others do not have that luxury.

So while I strongly feel that both parties are bought and sold, its common knowledge that democrats represent the working class people while republicans represent the upper class people.

It is also common knowledge that George W. Bush and Dick Chaney come from oil backgrounds. Its common knowledge that the largest part of their funding come from big oil. And its common "logic" to understand that big business and big oil are their top priority.

Marty spews out a lot of facts and sources but he forgets that its how you interpret those facts that make them opinion. For example, you can say that Enron gives money to both sides which is fact. However, you still have to use logic to uncover the motivation as to why this is. The group that represents Enron most is the republican party. However, they dish out a little dough to the other side as well as a backup so if their man doesn't win, they don't have a full fledge enemy on their hands.

Info-I take it you just failed to read the article I posted, and I'm sure you failed to do one iota of research on your own about it. I wasn't interpreting anything as far as Enron was concerned.

You know the old saying about those who stand in the middle of the road I'm sure.

Are there any great centrists in our (by that I mean American) history? Just curious.

I would be curious, also, as to how you would implement this idea of fairness. For example Michael Jordan's kids are going to have a lot more opportunity than mine. So, to make it fair for my kids should we take away his wealth and make it equal to my lack thereof? Or should the government pay me $30 million a year to NOT play basketball and NOT endorse products?

If you were in charge Info, how would you implement the changes. I'm not asking so that I can debate you further on the issues you'll bring up. I'm just curious as to how you would do it. I promise I won't even repond to your ideas should you post them.

I never spoke about having an "equal" system. I only said that we should all have the basic tools for success. Doesn't have to be the best, just the basic. That is why socialism never once came out of my mouth. I would never be for redistribution of anyone's wealth. Everyone should be free to make as much money and they want in a free market, including Michael Jordan. That is the only way people can strive and humanity can advance.

#1 I am saying is that government should better manage our public school system so that it can produce equally competitive citizens. And if its not up to the job, then abolish it all together on the state and federal levels and put the voucher system in place. That way if your kids choose to go to the same school Michael Jordan sends his kids to, based on financial need, they can. And may the best kid win.

#2 Healthcare is a human right, its not a privilege. We worry so much about how every child is special at birth, yet, we rather see them die as adults because they can't afford the proper medical procedures???

If Michael Jordan wants to send his kids to the best doctors in the country, he has the right to do so. I never said anything about equal healthcare. However, everyone should be able to have the basics covered; physicals, medicines, and necessary procedures to prolong healthy living. Many many people in this country live pay check to pay check as I'm sure most of us do. Procedures are becoming vastly more expensive as medical technology develops. And I can't imagine that we have become a society that worries first about finances over the healthcare of our most precious asset, our people. And many of you are pararescuemen and understand the importance of saving lives. Imagine you were only allowed to save the lives of people who paid you enough money? Would that be fair? Would it be right? I pray that most would say no.

Also, did you know that prisoners get government healthcare while in jail but the average law abiding citizen does not? Heard about that prisoner that was next in line for the transplant? Our taxes are paying for his procedure. So now we live in a society where prisoners get more care then many of our poor people?

#3 Law is another area where the rich exploit the poor because of a single idea that money is somehow freedom of speech. Marty, I realize that you recited the case to me from the US Supreme Court that allowed money to be interpreted as such. I never questioned whether that was true. But just because our court came up with this decision, does that mean that we, like drones, are supposed to except it as the ultimate right? Can we not question our government? Or do we just say yes and agree whenever they act? I pray that your a freer thinker then that.

Its simple, money SHOULD NOT be considered free speech because that would mean that some voices are louder then others. And again, this exploits the poor for the sole benefit of the rich. In the constitution it is obviously implied that we should have freedom of speech and freedom of expression so that we all can be equally heard. But I doubt very much that our forefathers wanted it to be interpreted the way it is today.

So what do we do? Defense should be produced the same way as prosecution is. Your assigned a lawyer (similar to the military way of justice), and the rest follows. That way the rich don't buy their justice, it becomes equal justice for all. Look at OJ. Fair?

#4 Our leaders should not be bought and sold by special interest. That has been the focus to my debating here since the beginning so I won't reiterate it again and assume you all know what I mean.

So, we take those 4 major areas, implement them, and we have a leveled playing field. Then the best man can succeed at life and enjoy his richly pleasures, FAIRLY!

Interesting points:

#1 I am saying is that government should better manage our public school system so that it can produce equally competitive citizens. And if its not up to the job, then abolish it all together on the state and federal levels and put the voucher system in place.

I agree that our schools need work. But isn't the NEA a union that fights against fixing this problem? Do they not support politicians with their contributions? That is their right, just like it is my right to oppose them.

#2 Healthcare is a human right, its not a privilege. We worry so much about how every child is special at birth, yet, we rather see them die as adults because they can't afford the proper medical procedures???

Healthcare is not a right! You pay for this service just like you pay for housing, food, utilities, etc. People choose what they buy once they are adults. Just about anyone can get healthcare policies if they are willing to choose. I will accept that there are some (very few) that do not have this ability and should be helped. And if you think the military healthcare is great then try it. They do serve the members well but the family is treated just like an HMO. I had to pay for my children to receive the "policy" and the co-pays, etc. At retirement you have to pay more if you want continued coverage.

On the issue of prisoners, well they have too much provided for them. They should receive basic healthcare, food, clothing, shelter. The rest should be treated as privileges not basic rights.

#3 Law is another area where the rich exploit the poor because of a single idea that money is somehow freedom of speech.

I disagree on this point. While the idea is interesting, it is impossible to provide. I don't see you quoting the Yates case. She had expensive lawyers and still was convicted. The problem isn't the rich paying for better lawyers, it is the lack of personnal responsibility and accountability for our actions. A good case in point was the lady that successfully sued McDonalds for being burned by "hot" coffee.

"So, we take those 4 major areas, implement them, and we have a leveled playing field. Then the best man can succeed at life and enjoy his richly pleasures, FAIRLY! "

I apologize in advance! You are unfair in your statement because you only included men not women. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> Seriously, it will never be a level playing field because people are different. Is it fair that one person lives on a farm while another lives in a city? Is it fair that one person lives in the cold north while another lives in the sunny south? FAIR is an abstract concept that can not and should not be legislated.

This all comes back to the freedom issue. We have a right to freedom not a right to equal or fair opportunity. We have freedom to choose and the responsibility for those choices.

I still have a hard time believing Info said:

"Well Instien, "

To Marty... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

GREAT debate! I was glad to have started this fire...

God Bless!

You would think he would be able to spell correctly too. Einstein was a great man.